4 ms·

> Green is good, but it’s also more focused on the environment than on geopolitics. Shows how little the author understands about German politics. Greens are a

> Green is good, but it’s also more focused on the environment than on geopolitics. Shows how little the author understands about German politics. Greens are also ideologically against delivering weapons into crisis areas, however they were the ones pushing for weapons delivery the strongest. Also they gave up on getting out of coal earlier which was their main goal in this government. Why? Because they are doing Realpolitik. They do what’s best possible in those circumstances. It’s not just the politics that say no to a prolongation of nuclear power, but the companies running nuclear as well. Just like shutting down nuclear power plants needs years of planning ahead running them needs as well. In the end it’s now not just cheaper and more practical to build up renewables than building new nuclear, but even more than keeping the old crumbling ones running.

spupe 5y ago
And if there is no wind or sun for an extended period of time, I guess we just shut down our factories then? The fact that the Greens have been flexible in some elements of their politics doesn't mean they are committed to a realpolitik approach when it comes to energy generation. They absolutely are not. In fact their record when it comes to science is really spotty, as they also oppose transgenics and even animal experimentation to a certain degree. They are clouded by preconceptions that are dangerous to us all.
- legulere 5y ago
  That’s what you have a grid for. It’s not cloudy and windstill at the same time all over Europe. Also you can have similar problems with nuclear too. In the last 4 months Germany has been exporting a lot of electricity to France because several nuclear reactors of the same type had to be shut down because they may have a common flaw.
  - spupe 5y ago
    Wind energy is currently responsible for about 15% of the energy produced in Europe. So relying on wind is absolutely impractical even if we invest 10x more than we do, and you would have to prepare for days with low wind availability in the whole continent as well, because they do occur. The problem you describe is serious, but I would guess over 90% of nuclear power generation in the continent remains unaffected, if not more. So a grid here makes a lot of sense, and works as a reliable alternative. It is also pretty easy to design a grid that does not rely on the same types of reactors.

spupe 5y ago

And if there is no wind or sun for an extended period of time, I guess we just shut down our factories then? The fact that the Greens have been flexible in some elements of their politics doesn't mean they are committed to a realpolitik approach when it comes to energy generation. They absolutely are not. In fact their record when it comes to science is really spotty, as they also oppose transgenics and even animal experimentation to a certain degree. They are clouded by preconceptions that are dangerous to us all.

legulere 5y ago
That’s what you have a grid for. It’s not cloudy and windstill at the same time all over Europe. Also you can have similar problems with nuclear too. In the last 4 months Germany has been exporting a lot of electricity to France because several nuclear reactors of the same type had to be shut down because they may have a common flaw.
- spupe 5y ago
  Wind energy is currently responsible for about 15% of the energy produced in Europe. So relying on wind is absolutely impractical even if we invest 10x more than we do, and you would have to prepare for days with low wind availability in the whole continent as well, because they do occur. The problem you describe is serious, but I would guess over 90% of nuclear power generation in the continent remains unaffected, if not more. So a grid here makes a lot of sense, and works as a reliable alternative. It is also pretty easy to design a grid that does not rely on the same types of reactors.