5 ms·
No. Literally Germany's coal is specifically because its their own coal, a natural resource within their own borders they control. For national security, they m
by bob29 5y ago
No. Literally Germany's coal is specifically because its their own coal, a natural resource within their own borders they control. For national security, they maintain a coal capacity. Germany's coal burning is national security, nothing to do with environmentalists.
- bpodgursky 5y agoArguments about Germany's energy independence would be far more compelling if they were not, for example, currently building giant pipelines to import Russian natural gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream
- foepys 5y agoThat's mostly for heating, though. Heat pumps are being increasingly used in new homes but nearly all homes older than 10 years are using gas or oil furnaces. Electricity prices are also very high, amongst the highest in the world, so heat pumps aren't as cheap to run as in other countries. It's definitely a problem that needs to be fixed, potentially within the next 30 years because that's the timeframe where the law requires old furnaces to be replaced.
- bpodgursky 5y agoBut electricity would be cheaper... offsetting imported natural gas... if they left the nuclear power plants on.
- saddlerustle 5y agoAbout a third of the coal burned in germany is imported
- ulfw 5y agoNational Security. Really?! So you use up a limited resource during peace times to have less of it during war times? Is that your logic?
- thatguy0900 5y agoWell, you probably already want working staffed coal plants when the war starts.
- bpodgursky 5y agoIt seems far easier and cheaper to keep the nukes running and just stockpile, like, a suitcase worth of uranium.
- foepys 5y agoAnd in the event of an attack you just hope they won't target nuclear power plants to recreate Chernobyl and Fukushima?
- arcticbull 5y agoNuclear reactors are very much hardened against such attacks, and of course, those were both very different situations. No need to spread FUD about the safest form of electricity in the entire world in terms of deaths per TWh. [1] It's also roughly zero carbon. You know the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, killed 4000 people in the full course of time - and we've learned a ton since then. Fukushima killed 1 person. On the other hand the worst hydro accident, Banqiao Dam, killed 200,000 people instantly. [2] Such an outlier it's frequently excluded from all analyses on hydro safety. No such luck for the Soviets though. I know what I'd target for maximum effect. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
- foepys 5y agoBunker piercing weapons exist and are specifically made to penetrate thick concrete and metal structures.
- herbst 5y agoThey literally break down cute little towns and pay them pennies to relocate to increase the coal mining holes. Germany really is somewhat strange in this