[barbazoo]

There's no way that's gonna happen unfortunately. The greens have absolutely dropped the ball in terms of big picture goals. We've been brainwashed into thinking nuclear power is dangerous and the problem of waste is bigger than the problem of having non renewable, oil based, energy. In hindsight I wouldn't be surprised if the oil lobby had a hand in that.

[mschild]

The greens haven't been part of the national government for decades until 2021. I disagree with their decision to not keep the nuclear reactors running, but if you want to point fingers at people it's not them that unilaterally decided to stop building new reactors.

[foxtacles]

That's technically correct, however much of the Greens' ideology has been gradually adopted by essentially all other political parties over the past 10-15 years, most likely since it's rather popular with the voters here.

There's no political party left you could vote for if you are in favor of nuclear.

[mschild]

Right and their ideology is to build more solar and wind. Which, even when factoring in the cost of batteries, is cheaper than nuclear or almost any other form of energy.

https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

[barbazoo]

All true. In hindsight though I wish the political debate had considered climate change more seriously in plans how to phase out coal and nuclear.

[nforgerit]

Well the plan was created >20 years ago but depended on the lifeline to actually develop enough renewables which got almost completely blocked by conservative governments in the last decade who still phased out nuclear. Don’t blame the Greens for that.

[mrguyorama]

Solar and Wind power was completely blocked up by conservative governments all over the globe for the past 50 years. Consider Reagan, who removed solar panels from the roof of the white house just a few years after they were installed and not long after multiple oil supply crises in the 70s. Even if the solar panels being installed in the first place was only symbolic, removing them was also purposefully symbolic.

America at least had a great chance to invest in nuclear energy and completely end dependence on the middle east for it's energy, but it chose Reagan instead.

[slightwinder]

> I disagree with their decision to not keep the nuclear reactors running

It wasn't their decision, the reactors had to shut down anyway for at least some years, as they are lacking fuel and an up-to-date operating permit. The remaining reactors were already running on their last ounce, and it would take some years to produce new rods at Russia, even if we ignore the political problems.

And that's even ignoring the billions(?) of euro for penalties that Germany likely had to pay in that case, because the whole shutdown was executed somewhat shaky from the old government.