Germany hammers Trump over debate barbs about Berlin’s energy transition
“P.S. We also don’t eat cats and dogs,” Berlin’s foreign ministry taunts Republican presidential candidate.
Germany’s foreign ministry hit back Wednesday at former U.S. President Donald Trump after he criticized the country’s energy policy at the presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.
Trump slammed Germany in his closing remarks, claiming Berlin regretted its decision to transition to renewable energy.
…
But the German foreign ministry took umbrage at that, blasting Trump in an unusually blunt statement on social media.
“Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50 percent renewables,” the ministry wrote. “And we are shutting down — not building — coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest.”
Thats hilarious they're throwing his own bullshit back at him. Fuck du, Drompf
*Fick dich, Trumpf
*Fick deine Mutter du elender Hurensohn, Trumpf
relevant
Scheiße, I knew it was dich plus it looks like dick. But I think his surname was definitely with a "d". It looked very much like it rhymed with frump-y
You mean most likely Drumpf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumpf
deleted by creator
Hammering > Slamming ??
Where does 'clapping back' fit in?
This was a waste of electrons.
Their God-Emperor gave them the holy gospel that Germany is the promised land, of rolling coal F-450s asnd diesel-powered cell phones, you filthy heretics dare question the word of the Emperor?!
Please don’t refer to trump as the god-emperor. The 40k community has a hard enough rejecting idiots with no media literacy without people helping them associate the 40k world with their conservative delusions
God dammit, this is just depressing.
Too late for that. There are some spectacular images of Trump as the king fascist emperor of man out there with no hint of irony. It's quite something to see how much people don't get it.
Pardon, you meant holy and all knowing God-Emperor, Sun Overlord and Reincarnated Jesus, Messias and *checks notes* greatest leader of all time.¹ Please adress him with his proper title you mortal filth!
¹ I wonder where I have heard that one before...
I've always grouped gamers into two factions.
Form over function and function over form.
Personally, I prefer low mechanics to great graphics. My friend on the other hand could care less what the graphics look like as long as the mechanics are sound.
I would assume for most gamers since most people aren't really into dissecting the mechanics of video games like really strong graphics.
Which is why most AAA titles have really good graphics with very simple mechanics. There are of course exceptions to the rule.
Wrong thread, I think.
Wrong thread, but I want to push back anyway. AAA games prioritize graphics because it's easier to market. Discussing mechanics is complex and opinionated. Saying "we have the most realistic graphics" is easy to showcase and objective. The average gamer isn't educated on the concepts enough to have a discussion about mechanics, but they would understand good mechanics when they experience it.
However, they often aren't even presented with the choice. The games with the largest marketing budgets are the bland "realistic" (and uninspired) looking games that don't do anything new because it's a risk. The games with a focus on good mechanics generally take more risks and have smaller budgets. Its similar to the problem with Windows VS Linux. The average user thinks they prefer Windows, but they've never been presented with the choice. When you buy a computer it comes with Windows, and they never venture further than that. They assume the thing they know must be the best option because they are familiar with it, and the one without marketing isn't given a chance by those people.
Wrong thread. Was this in response to the report that 75% of PS5 owners prefer performance mode, maybe?
I thought this was some big brain 4D metaphor. XD
I was totally ready for "green energy is good graphics and oil is good mechanics". But then the comment ended. I'm so lost
'and nuclear plants'
The only thing I dislike about the German energy plan
Nuclear power only has to go wrong once so why risk it?
Because it's still the second safest energy source, very close behind solar. And about 10 years ago, before heavy investment in renewables, it was the safest.
This is like being afraid of airplanes because things only have to go wrong once for hundreds to die.
Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.
In what ways are hydro and wind unsafe?
Regarding hydro, the ecological effects upon the area flooded, the impact on migration of species, and risk of poorly designed and maintained dams needs to be considered. Wind? I'm guessing the impact on airborne wildlife - only thing I can think of.
Don't know, you'd have to ask the experts; what I do know is that the data shows nuclear is safer than wind and much safer than hydro.
I'm on mobile right now so it's convenient to find and post it, but if you want you can scroll my profile and you should some older comments with the data and sources.
There are reasonable and cost-effective alternatives to nuclear, to planes in many cases not so much. Also a plane crash doesn't leave whole towns uninhabitable for centuries or needs special places to store burned fuel
Again, this is baseless, unscientific, fear mongering. Nuclear is the second safest energy source, not far from solar. And still far safer than for ex. hydro, which destroys environments, and in that case it's not an "if".
Honestly,I feel like I'm back in like 2005 arguing against pro-oil people; in this case it's about renewables, but the arguments are still unscientific and usually based around "But tHe ecOnOMy".
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.
"Safest", that's why we need to think generations ahead to make signs that make clear forever that whatever is behind it shouldn't be touched.
I feel the same, first pro-oil and now pro-nuclear.
We have safer and cheaper regenerative options and it's about damn time we utilise them.
No, you have one safer option (solar), and just barely. And again, that is after a decade of heavy investment and development. The data doesn't lie. You can't just just throw out science and data when it doesn't serve you. Stop spreading BS. You are quite literally spreading misinformation.
Where will you put the nuclear waste? Germany doesn't even have the concept of a plan where to put theirs, they are currently keeping it
a) in a corroding salt mine, that is currently leaking water and will poison the entire area's ground water within 20 years, so it'll have to be dug up again, which will cost many billions b) in above ground 'temporary' holding facilities c) shipping it off to other countries
None of this is sustainable. Until the waste problem is solved, we shouldn't even think about building out nuclear.
It has already been solved, and a search should tell you all about it.
I'm still on mobile, so sharing links is still a pain, but a few key things:
Nuclear waste is produced quite slowly, so whatever cost you associate with storage is over a large period of time; we have the technology to build centrals that can use that waste to produce more energy, reducing waste even further.
No, it's not. There are ways to recycle parts of the fuel rods, true, but not the thousands of tons of contaminated material that inevitably gather during operations and end-of-life of a reactor. You don't honestly think that the only dangerous waste are spend fuel rods?
And yes, the very problem is that storage needs to take place over geologic timescales. I can't guarantee that our government will exist 20 years from now, much less 2000. Waste storage so far was managed so corruptly and incompetently that it is already failing after 50 years. Forgive me if I have little faith whenever someone claims that they'll just dig a hole and forget about it for a few millennia. The waste sites need maintenance, and if that ever ends might poison a region's ground water in perpetuity.
The materials you mention are classified as "low level waste", and they are "materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity", and they actually make up 94% of waste in the Uk, but according to this article, it's 95%.
96% of spent nuclear fuel is Uranium, which can be reused.
Purely anecdotal; here's a different anecdote.
Here's is also a National Geographic article about this topic, and here is another.
Here is also the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022. You'll notice that after heavy R&D in renewables, nuclear is still the second safest; with all top three being really close, but hydro being a far 4th.
Please stop with the fear based, anti-scientific, rhetoric. I shouldn't feel like I'm arguing with climate deniers or pro oilers when talking with supposed environmentalists. Which reminds of the reason why this is so important: renewables alone still can't meet the energy demand without the assistance of fossil fuels, and the energy requirements keep rising:
"Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world’s additional electricity demand over the next three years" - they are accounting for nuclear, but nevertheless: "Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026".
Almost half, by 2026, accounting for nuclear. And we are still getting warmer.
There are both much safer (than Chernobyl or Fukushima or whatever) reactor models and fast-neutron reactors that can reduce the amount of spent fuel to be stored.
About reasonable and cost-effective alternatives - with bigger storage expenses and grid losses.
IMHO a good grid has at the same time a few nuclear stations (no, not those which will be inevitably shut down, but those which are being prolonged or replaced as the time passes), a huge amount of renewable sources, storage to alleviate spikes\falls of said renewable sources and backup coal stations.
And German grid is connected to a few others, so that they themselves have gotten rid of nuclear energy doesn't matter much, with unified grids.
Yeah no, you cannot compare nuclear Fallout to airplanes flying down. At least Not from a risk Assessment and Management Level. From the nuclear Fallout you cannot prepare against it, when it Happens you are fucked (AS a country). From a airplane crashing you can prepare against that, as the severity aint that Bad regardless who sits inside (be it President, chancellor, CEO, other important person), for a functioning society its not that important as there are other people taking over that Helm. But when nuclear Fallout Happens, your whole people will fall ill to it, ceasing your society to exist. So it is only proper risk mitigation to end the use of all nuclear plants.
How would using nuclear as a source of energy (not weapons) result in a nuclear fallout, exactly? A nuclear fallout would result of nuclear superpowers (countries that possess nuclear warheads) initiating a nuclear war; meaning there would be nuclear warheads flying and detonating all over the world. There's no reason a nuclear fallout would result from using fission as an energy source.
Great Job dissecting my comment.
Sure, you are right about the nuclear Fallout part, but a nuclear Catastrophe (or incident) like Fukushima, Chernobyl Happens, has the Same issue. You dont have any risk mitigation strategy available at large against it.
Because in many cases the risks are much more manageable than the risks associated with any meaningful alternatives.
Nuclear power isn't good nor bad, it's one of many options, each of which may be suitable in a given circumstance.
The costs of safely decommissioning and dismantling nuclear power plants are immense and are borne by taxpayers. In addition, there are high insurance premiums for operators. Renewable energies, on the other hand, are becoming increasingly affordable and make us less dependent on fossil fuels and their price fluctuations.
The future belongs to renewable energies. With them, we can ensure a safe, clean, and sustainable energy supply for generations to come. Nuclear power is a thing of the past.
Would you like me to combine these options into a single statement, or perhaps focus on a specific aspect of the arguments? For example, we could emphasize the economic benefits of renewable energy, or the environmental impact of nuclear power.
Most of the benefits and drawbacks you mention only became a reality after a decade of heavy focus and investment on renewables, with no similar focus on nuclear. It could be argued that if the same investment and focused had been applied to it, then none of those arguments would be true. In fact, back then those were the same arguments used against renewables.
In other words, the arguments of "but money, and look at the economy" are absolute shit, and they are the reason we spent so long on oil. The facts it's now used in favor of renewables and to shut down discussion of other alternatives is quite ironic.
Edit: To add, as I've mentioned somewhere else:
"Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026."
That's half, by 2026, and they are accounting for nuclear. That means the other 50% will still be fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the planet is getting warmer, some places are going underwater, and we are getting extreme weather events more and more frequently. "But-but, the economy!"
::: spoiler C-Span - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for C-Span:
::: spoiler Politico Europe - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Politico Europe:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-slams-donald-trump-over-debate-comments-about-energy-transition-fossil-fuels/
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5131777/trump-closing-statement ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Morons. Managed to almost descend to his level. No, that's not sportsmanship.
Pftt. Germany shout stfu about being green when they're closing nuclear plants, still taking Russian oil and bringing back retired coal plants.
Please read the article before posting!
From the article:
“And we are shutting down — not building — coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest.”
This isn't even true. In fact they're taking taking down wind farms to get more coal. This is just someone trying to get a dunk on Trump, like there aren't a million other actually true things they could say. Not to mention them resurrecting other coal plants when they're supposed to be phasing it out.
Read your own sources: they took down one 20 year old wind farm with eight turbines two years ago.
In 2022 there were about 30.000 turbines in germany.
It's still a bit strange to keep digging for coal and it should stop asap. But your argument isn't nearly as strong as you make it seem.
https://www.windindustrie-in-deutschland.de/publikationen/branchenreport-wid/windenergieanlagen-in-deutschland-2022-uebersichtskarte
Thanks for clarifying that. Here, too much fuss has been made about what was actually a side note. There were apparently already plans to modernize the facility anyway.
That's a lie
Also: Germany's coal power production drops to lowest level in 60 years in 2023
Stop with that bullshit
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/germany-snapping-up-indian-fuels-made-of-russian-oil/
Uh-uh. Yep. Germany isn't getting any Russian oil at all. No siree.
... importing all the green energy from southern Sweden causing our electricity prices to skyrocket compared to the other three energy regions in Sweden.
We're not amused.
I'm not sure I follow? According to this chart the import from Sweden to Germany is almost negligible.
Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and Poland all seem to be bigger net importers.
It's the difference between Germany exporting when prices are low vs importing from us when prices are high. This is a huge problem in Sweden where one of our four electricity regions have almost 10x the price of the others.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/swedish-government-says-no-new-power-cable-germany-2024-06-14/
Based on the article, it seems more like that's more of a problem of south Sweden just having a big energy deficit in general, not as a result of imports/exports or the actions of Germany particular.
The way I understand it, it's more that a new connection just wouldn't make sense because Germany already has a problem from moving energy from its own offshore wind parks in the north to the south.
I couldn't find a good article explaining the current energy situation in south Sweden, but looking at ElectrityMaps, I'd guess that part of the problem is that there's a huge amount of nuclear energy being produced in South Central Sweden, saturating the grid and making the transfer of cheap hydro and wind energy from the northern Zones difficult.
I live here and don't need to guess :) We would be perfectly fine if Germany (mainly) wasn't buying energy from us when prices are high on the continent. Due to how the energy market works we then have to pay those prices as well in the region bordering Germany.
Splitting Germany up into energy regions (like Sweden is split up into four) would help - but Germany doesn't want to.
If you want to keep guessing instead of appreciating my first hand knowledge that's fine - it's just a bit tiresome.
https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2024-05-28/darfor-ar-elpriset-mer-an-tio-ganger-hogre-i-lund-an-i-lulea/
I can't find a way to dodge the paywall to that article, but the short blurb I was able to translate, makes it sound like my guess is at least part of the problem:
That said, I do agree that Germany should've long been split into two zones, at least until transmission capacity catches up. But alas, most people in Germany don't even recognize that the lack of transmission capacities as the source of the problem and rather blame it on us importing expensive electricity from France.
It's actually those parallels why I'm so distrustful: I'm far from an expert on the topic, quite the opposite if anything, but given how many people, even politicians, put out even dumber claims much more confidently, I'm always wary about such statements.
Our transmission capacity is enough for our own needs (since the danes forced us to close the perfectly working nuclear plant Barsebäck) - but it's not enough for our needs and Germany's.
I'm very much pro EU but I do have issues with a huge part of Sweden having 10x the electricity prices of the rest of the country. It hits our manufacturing, farmers etc. I would be in favor of limiting our export to just our surplus. Germany could've skipped closing down their own fully working nuclear plants ...
(Sweden and Norway are also the ones to thank for Denmark being able to live mostly off wind power since it's our hydro and nuclear power that they use to balance their network)
I own a rather large property so I've had to become "an expert" on our electricity issues.
From the paywalled article:
Ok, I think I'm starting to see the issue now. One thing I've missed is that the "tiny" amount Germany is importing yearly is actually half of the consumption South Sweden. That sure puts a bit of stress on the system.
I'll say that I'm still not fully convinced due to the lack of concrete numbers, but it's something I'll keep in mind in the future.