„A specific technique on how to achieve it“, it usually a process patent. This can be circumvented and erases the protection. If the defined process is A>B>C>D and your process is A>E>C>D, then this does not touch the patent as it’s a different process.

Also I second your comments that patents often block innovation if not used or licensed too expensive, imI would like to share a different perspective on this.

In pharmacy, the research, development and testing of new medication takes years and costs tons of money. If a drug is out of patent, generic drugs made in India for a fraction of the costs in developed countries. Typically the original producer stops the production as they can’t succeed the race down.

If there won’t be patents that protect inventions, there won’t be medical research in developed countries. Antibiotics is one example where the broken incentive for medical industry to invent already became obvious. There are no new antibiotics anymore. Since years.

Imho, it’s not this good/bad thing with patents. It’s rather a „how you use it“

Still, we have to manage the waste of former years. Needs money for ages.

Just stumpled upon this BBC article https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/23/sellafield-cleanup-cost-136bn-national-audit-office Cleaning up Sellafield, Europes biggest nuclear dump costs now up to 136.000.000.000 £ That’s the cost of nuclear. The dangerous rests of the power creation.

Try to dismantle a nuclear plant. It costs tons of money and time. Ask the people at Nagasaki or Tschernobyl.

Dismantle a coal power plant takes time, but one can reuse the iron and such. All the open mining fields and mining tunnels are the problem. In Western Germany, there are areas where house crack or cars fall down sudden openings caused by old mining tunnels.

Try to dismantle at wind mill or solar fields. It’s a quest of days and some bucks.

I prefer the easy way of living. So, my favorite are renewables.

but if we have some up and running, that’s cheap energy that generates little carbon.

That is the great misunderstanding of nuclear. It isn’t cheap. It’s supported massively by tax money. In France with all its big nuclear plants for example, the power company went bankrupt. Nuclear is too expensive to run. The government took over the operations.

In Germany, the power companies refused to prolong the operations of nuclear at the beginning of Russian invasion. It was too expensive for them.

The only advantage that nuclear has, is that it’s independent of weather and doesn’t emit carbon. The drawback is the costs, inflexibility (always on), and reliance on cool water (which was an issue in France). That’s why MS, Amazon and all put there eggs into this basket for AI power - they shit money.

Germany: We moved our power creation from 60% coal and atom-driven to 60% wind and solar-driven in the last 6 years. This change is fundamental and can’t be reversed. We stopped our atom plants and have a plan out of coal. Even though our geography isn’t in favor for renewables, our country is dedicated in becoming carbon neutral. This is supported by most of the population and industry. (Yes renewables are cheaper than coal, gas, and atom)

Still open is the transition of heat and cars to electricity. Rather an emotional debate - Germans are car-crazy. The car discussion is similar to the gun debate in the US.

No shit sherlock