It really doesn't make much sense of speaking is superlatives, sure Germany did a mistake here with relying on russian gas and so did most of europe. Problem is, you have to rely on someone, is russia better than saudi-arabia? Irak? You have to rely on something and europe sees now the consequences
France had clean energy for 40 years so how are they doing, fantastic compared to all the coal the Germans have been breathing.
They had a few maintenance issue because in the last 10 years anti-nuclear energy ministers deferred maintenance. Most of these issues however should be fixed before winter.
We are seriously comparing one year of a few maintenance issue with 50 years of clean energy production. How can anybody be critical of that?
> It really doesn't make much sense of speaking is superlatives
I think 40 years of breathing incredibly dirty coal smoke is kind of big deal.
> Problem is, you have to rely on someone
You can source uranium from Australia or a number of other countries. Or mine it in Europe if you want to. You can actually have a number of suppliers, so there really isn't a problem.
In fact, a really clever policy for Europe would have been to invest in nuclear for electricity. Then go a step further and invest in high-temperature reactors for the next generation and also use them to produce methanol and mix that into fuel supply and eventually mostly replacing it.
This is likely no longer necessary because we are switching to electric cars now, but still, would have been a good policy back then.
That was the logical next step for the DeGaul policy in France but they gave up on it and sadly by the time the EU happened France had largely turned its back on nuclear.
If this is really a long term issue more air cooling could be installed.
> We didn't even start talking about nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste is basically a non issue anti-nuclear people bring up when they don't have any serious arguments.
Anybody that seriously looks into it understand that this isn't really that big of a problem.
> Germany tried to find a good place for that for decades without luck and most containers start to leak after a couple of years already.
This is another one of these basically fake issue that anti-nuclear people use to spread panic. But of course the reality is zero people have died or been hurt because of this. Even under worst case condition, like delusional fantasy of anti-nuclear people the idea that in the next 1000 years anybody gets hurt because of this is very low.
Germany were idiots in the 70s and instead of just storing low-level waste in a easy to manage placed they threw it in a unstable mine. Not very smart but also not really that big a deal or that dangerous.
So yeah if that the worst thing you can bring up against nuclear I'm not impressed. And again this is an issue because people did dumb shit in the 70s with all kinds of waste from the 50/60s. It has nothing to do with modern nuclear power.
> nuclear waste is basically a non issue anti-nuclear people bring up when they don't have any serious arguments.
so what about the Hanford Nuclear Reservation leakage, Chernobyl, Fukushima. In fukushima they just put their waste water back into the ocean, it will just diluted right?
> This is another one of these basically fake issue that anti-nuclear people use to spread panic. how is it spreading panic when there're actual concerns and evidence about the problems caused by nuclear. We can use nuclear power plants but everyone should be aware of the issues that come with it and not argue based on ideaology. Calling it a none-issue and delusional fantasies of anti-nuclear people without giving arguments doesn't give much confidence in the claims you make.