4 ms·
At this point, nobody wants to change the policy. Not the greens, not the conservative party, nor the companies that own these power plants. It is simply not po
by KarlKemp 4y ago
At this point, nobody wants to change the policy. Not the greens, not the conservative party, nor the companies that own these power plants. It is simply not possible to run a dozen nuclear reactors on a two-weeks'-notice timescale, at least not in a democracy that respects property rights and safety practices.
It's also economically unsound and technologically misguided, since nuclear power cannot replace the role gas has in the European grid.
- hedora 4y agoThe article argues for a 9 month timescale, not two weeks, and suggests replacing the role Russian gas has in the European grid. It then shows the decommissioned nuclear plants and the gas plants it proposes shutting down have enough capacity to do exactly that.
- DasIch 4y agoGas usage for electricity is insignificant and irrelevant for the discussion at large. What Germany is concerned about is usage of gas for heating and in industry. Turn of the gas and realistically, parts of German industry will be destroyed at a 0.5-6% loss to GDP.
- hedora 4y agoBut the "insignficant" gas usage for electricity is more than total Russian imports. So, ramping up alternative electricity production would avoid the GDP hit and the dependency on Russia.
- akimball 4y agoSeems a de minimis cost compared to megadeath and a vast refugee crisis
- DasIch 4y agoThat's only a reasonable comparison to make, if there are no other options. If there are other options, which is clearly the case, you have to compare to those. A refugee crisis isn't all that bad by the way. Politically it's a problem but economically a 2016 scale refugee crisis every year would be quite good for Germany. Germany needs huge amounts of people, especially people working in trades, to do the work necessary to switch heat pumps, install solar, build more housing etc. They have to come from somewhere and demographics means they have to come from a massive increase in immigration.
- akimball 4y agoGood for the host, but not good for the refugees.
- partiallypro 4y agoNuclear can't replace the role of gas in Europe, but getting rid of nuclear makes the problem much worse. Germany has been warned about this constantly and they seem to think they know better. We'll see, right now they look like stubborn fools that are now unable to do much of anything to help stop Russia.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoI have seen a lot of stubborn fools who keep claiming nuclear power is safe and the impossible accidents either don't happen or aren't really that bad. "Much of anything" is a malevolent exaggeration. Germany is basically changing its entire stance on military spending, sending tons of weapons and other supplies to Ukraine, taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees and risking its economy by enacting strong sanctions and getting off imports from Russia eventually. For some people that is "not much of anything", but I suspect there is an agenda...
- csisnett 4y agoIf you need foreign gas to keep people warm during the winter you're not doing ok