6 ms·

Yeah, they got top minds on this. Top. Minds. Nuclear canceled by the Green Party and pre-March went all in on Russian oil and gas.

DasIch 5y ago
Gas is used primarily by heating or industrial processes that require it. It can't be meaningfully substituted with anything else in the short term. To some extent you can't even substitute with gas from other sources because of lack of (connections to) LNG terminals.
- makomk 5y ago
  The lack of both LNG terminals and adequate connections to ones in other countries is a big part of what people mean when they say Germany went all in on Russian gas. They physically cannot import enough gas from other sources, as I understand it, and this was an intentional and knowing decision despite warnings from other counties.
  - recuter 5y ago
    I am not a Trump fan, but I do enjoy me some, how you guys say, schadenfreude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k
baq 5y ago
makes you think if Green Party is also financed by Russia...
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  I would suppose so, if you see a relatively big organization promoting things that you want to happen why wouldn't you finance them? That Russia would finance the Greens doesn't automatically what the Greens advocate for wrong, or that the Greens are actually traitors, what it does is twofold - start a process whereby the Greens can over time be corrupted (via the money spout), and indicate that whatever the Greens are doing there may be unintended side effects which would be of benefit to Russia.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  Greens are not financed by Russia, this is publicly available information. Neither they did anything that could look like a support of Russian agenda.
  - baq 5y ago
    anti-nuclear is pro-fossil. I'm saying that russian psy-ops organize both sides of protesting factions in e.g. Qanon, yellow vests in France, etc. - why wouldn't they covertly finance anti-nuclear if they overtly finance pro-fossil? Greens are pro-environment, but don't offer substitute energy sources (because it isn't possible to offer them, a different discussion) - exactly the kind of turmoil Russia thrives in. but then, maybe the FSB's just lucky here.
    - ivan_gammel 5y ago
      > anti-nuclear is pro-fossil Wrong and baseless. It is possible to simultaneously reduce nuclear and fossil components in the energy balance and this is exactly what is happening. > why wouldn't they covertly finance anti-nuclear if they overtly finance pro-fossil? Greens in Germany are established political party with clear anti-Putin positioning. Financing of political parties in Germany is transparent and has sufficient oversight, so there’s neither possibility nor any sense to covertly finance them. > Greens are pro-environment, but don't offer substitute energy sources Where did you get that from?
archerx 5y ago
Sometimes I wonder if the Greens are actually funded by petrol companies because everything they do seems to benefit them in the end. In Switzerland the Greens are trying to be as dumb as the German ones.
- recuter 5y ago
  Old people vote more. Old hippies vote harder. Hippies are impressionable and watched a lot of Hollywood movies like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome And more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries) Jane Fonda is a sexy grandma who still got it, she stopped the war in Vietnam and got us in shape. With our powers combined, we are Captain Planet? We were elected to lead not to read! Here is an additional thought: if you dedicate an entire party completely and totally to solving one problem, what happens to them if the problem actually gets solved? Seems like a single issue politician is exclusively incentivized to shift blame in order to get re-elected rather than, you know, do anything constructive. France is something like 70%+ nuclear powered, they got it all sorted for the rest of the century. Not much for the greenie weenies to do.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    I'm old enough to remember when Chernobyl was on the news, not a fictionalised version. The initial "discard all milk production across Europe" phase lasted a few weeks, but the last restrictions in the UK took 26 years to lift: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 (it's also been in the news recently as it was right in the middle of the Russian assault on Kyiv!) The French nuclear mix is currently 58% : https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energ... because a large number of reactors are offline: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1549986/macron-france-nuclear-power-edf-civaux-flamanville https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1549986/macron-france... There are two problems with nuclear power: - a "black swan" low probability risk of something really bad happening, despite everyone saying it can't happen, and poisoning the surrounding area - it's expensive, takes a long time to build, and can develop expensive problems. Many of the French reactors are approaching the end of their 50 year design life. That said, it was definitely a mistake for Germany to close plants without a specific safety risk.
pjc50 5y ago
> Nuclear canceled by the Green Party .. after Fukushima. Trading one tail risk for another. (Germany has oddly lagged in deploying renewables, though. Possibly due to lack of offshore sites, meaning that wind farms have to be deployed against the efforts of NIMBYs)
- majewsky 5y ago
  After Fukushima, nuclear was canceled by the conservatives (the Merkel II government), when the Green Party was not part of the government. The Green Party did cancel nuclear, but in the year 2000. Their timeline called for the shutdown of the last nuclear power plants in the 2020s, which would have been ample time to build up enough replacement capacity from renewables. But that plan was neutered by the Merkel governments crippling the buildup of renewables for 16 years. Which is not to say there's not also NIMBYism. There is in fact a ton of opposition to buildup of renewables from both conservative-leaning citizens and left/green-leaning advocacy groups.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >.. after Fukushima. Trading one tail risk for another. The statistical risks from nuclear actually causing a disaster are absolutely tiny in comparison, especially considering the upsides, but the Germans and Austrians want to be EU's nuclear doomers for shits and giggles just because Chernobyl and Fukushima happened, even though so many nuclear plants worldwide have run for decades without issue. But sucking on the sweeet teat of Putin's gas for decades and burning it was the "greener" alternative for them instead.
- piokoch 5y ago
  "After Fukushima" is the funniest part of this. Baltic and North seas are well known from their gigantic tsunami waves.
  - kuschku 5y ago
    German Nuclear plants are usually on rivers, and as we’ve seen in the past year, those can have huge floods destroying everything around. You don’t want your nuclear plant’s backup generators to look like Ahrweiler.
throw0101a 5y ago
> Yeah, they got top minds on this. Top. Minds. Top men: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRP0MBNoieY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRP0MBNoieY
Tade0 5y ago
Uranium is also imported. Overall the EU gets 20% of its uranium from Russia and another 20% from Kazakhstan, which is economically deeply tied with Russia.
- gruturo 5y ago
  This is irrelevant. Uranium, being unbelievably energy dense, is truly trivial to ship in meaningful quantities from anywhere in the world. Australia has the world's biggest reserves for example. Plenty of ways to acquire uranium without relying (and financially benefiting) from putler or order nondemocratic regimes.
plantain 5y ago
It looks like the Green Party didn't have a single minister in 2016 when they turned off all the nuclear post-Fukushima - so why would the Green party be responsible? Who has been in power for the last 20 years exactly that could have built renewable power instead of quadrupling down on Russian gas? It wasn't the Green party.
gumby 5y ago
Nuclear wasn’t cancelled by the greens. And anyway germany imports electricity from France and Czech which was generated by nukes.

DasIch 5y ago

Gas is used primarily by heating or industrial processes that require it. It can't be meaningfully substituted with anything else in the short term. To some extent you can't even substitute with gas from other sources because of lack of (connections to) LNG terminals.

makomk 5y ago
The lack of both LNG terminals and adequate connections to ones in other countries is a big part of what people mean when they say Germany went all in on Russian gas. They physically cannot import enough gas from other sources, as I understand it, and this was an intentional and knowing decision despite warnings from other counties.
- recuter 5y ago
  I am not a Trump fan, but I do enjoy me some, how you guys say, schadenfreude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k

baq 5y ago

makes you think if Green Party is also financed by Russia...

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
I would suppose so, if you see a relatively big organization promoting things that you want to happen why wouldn't you finance them? That Russia would finance the Greens doesn't automatically what the Greens advocate for wrong, or that the Greens are actually traitors, what it does is twofold - start a process whereby the Greens can over time be corrupted (via the money spout), and indicate that whatever the Greens are doing there may be unintended side effects which would be of benefit to Russia.
ivan_gammel 5y ago
Greens are not financed by Russia, this is publicly available information. Neither they did anything that could look like a support of Russian agenda.
- baq 5y ago
  anti-nuclear is pro-fossil. I'm saying that russian psy-ops organize both sides of protesting factions in e.g. Qanon, yellow vests in France, etc. - why wouldn't they covertly finance anti-nuclear if they overtly finance pro-fossil? Greens are pro-environment, but don't offer substitute energy sources (because it isn't possible to offer them, a different discussion) - exactly the kind of turmoil Russia thrives in. but then, maybe the FSB's just lucky here.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    > anti-nuclear is pro-fossil Wrong and baseless. It is possible to simultaneously reduce nuclear and fossil components in the energy balance and this is exactly what is happening. > why wouldn't they covertly finance anti-nuclear if they overtly finance pro-fossil? Greens in Germany are established political party with clear anti-Putin positioning. Financing of political parties in Germany is transparent and has sufficient oversight, so there’s neither possibility nor any sense to covertly finance them. > Greens are pro-environment, but don't offer substitute energy sources Where did you get that from?

archerx 5y ago

Sometimes I wonder if the Greens are actually funded by petrol companies because everything they do seems to benefit them in the end. In Switzerland the Greens are trying to be as dumb as the German ones.

recuter 5y ago
Old people vote more. Old hippies vote harder. Hippies are impressionable and watched a lot of Hollywood movies like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome And more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries) Jane Fonda is a sexy grandma who still got it, she stopped the war in Vietnam and got us in shape. With our powers combined, we are Captain Planet? We were elected to lead not to read! Here is an additional thought: if you dedicate an entire party completely and totally to solving one problem, what happens to them if the problem actually gets solved? Seems like a single issue politician is exclusively incentivized to shift blame in order to get re-elected rather than, you know, do anything constructive. France is something like 70%+ nuclear powered, they got it all sorted for the rest of the century. Not much for the greenie weenies to do.
- pjc50 5y ago
  I'm old enough to remember when Chernobyl was on the news, not a fictionalised version. The initial "discard all milk production across Europe" phase lasted a few weeks, but the last restrictions in the UK took 26 years to lift: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 (it's also been in the news recently as it was right in the middle of the Russian assault on Kyiv!) The French nuclear mix is currently 58% : https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energ... because a large number of reactors are offline: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1549986/macron-france-nuclear-power-edf-civaux-flamanville https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1549986/macron-france... There are two problems with nuclear power: - a "black swan" low probability risk of something really bad happening, despite everyone saying it can't happen, and poisoning the surrounding area - it's expensive, takes a long time to build, and can develop expensive problems. Many of the French reactors are approaching the end of their 50 year design life. That said, it was definitely a mistake for Germany to close plants without a specific safety risk.

pjc50 5y ago

> Nuclear canceled by the Green Party .. after Fukushima. Trading one tail risk for another. (Germany has oddly lagged in deploying renewables, though. Possibly due to lack of offshore sites, meaning that wind farms have to be deployed against the efforts of NIMBYs)

majewsky 5y ago
After Fukushima, nuclear was canceled by the conservatives (the Merkel II government), when the Green Party was not part of the government. The Green Party did cancel nuclear, but in the year 2000. Their timeline called for the shutdown of the last nuclear power plants in the 2020s, which would have been ample time to build up enough replacement capacity from renewables. But that plan was neutered by the Merkel governments crippling the buildup of renewables for 16 years. Which is not to say there's not also NIMBYism. There is in fact a ton of opposition to buildup of renewables from both conservative-leaning citizens and left/green-leaning advocacy groups.
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>.. after Fukushima. Trading one tail risk for another. The statistical risks from nuclear actually causing a disaster are absolutely tiny in comparison, especially considering the upsides, but the Germans and Austrians want to be EU's nuclear doomers for shits and giggles just because Chernobyl and Fukushima happened, even though so many nuclear plants worldwide have run for decades without issue. But sucking on the sweeet teat of Putin's gas for decades and burning it was the "greener" alternative for them instead.
piokoch 5y ago
"After Fukushima" is the funniest part of this. Baltic and North seas are well known from their gigantic tsunami waves.
- kuschku 5y ago
  German Nuclear plants are usually on rivers, and as we’ve seen in the past year, those can have huge floods destroying everything around. You don’t want your nuclear plant’s backup generators to look like Ahrweiler.

throw0101a 5y ago

> Yeah, they got top minds on this. Top. Minds. Top men: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRP0MBNoieY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRP0MBNoieY

Tade0 5y ago

Uranium is also imported. Overall the EU gets 20% of its uranium from Russia and another 20% from Kazakhstan, which is economically deeply tied with Russia.

gruturo 5y ago
This is irrelevant. Uranium, being unbelievably energy dense, is truly trivial to ship in meaningful quantities from anywhere in the world. Australia has the world's biggest reserves for example. Plenty of ways to acquire uranium without relying (and financially benefiting) from putler or order nondemocratic regimes.

plantain 5y ago

It looks like the Green Party didn't have a single minister in 2016 when they turned off all the nuclear post-Fukushima - so why would the Green party be responsible? Who has been in power for the last 20 years exactly that could have built renewable power instead of quadrupling down on Russian gas? It wasn't the Green party.

gumby 5y ago

Nuclear wasn’t cancelled by the greens. And anyway germany imports electricity from France and Czech which was generated by nukes.