4 ms·

Such a simplification is very hypocritical in my eyes. Even Ukraine itself is not shutting down the Russian gas pipeline on its territory "to save Ukrainian liv

Such a simplification is very hypocritical in my eyes. Even Ukraine itself is not shutting down the Russian gas pipeline on its territory "to save Ukrainian lives". And the sanctions against Russia are not so complete that the West is blocking every cooperation. For example, no one wanted to immediately stop the cooperation regarding the International Space Station "to save Ukrainian lives", because the cost would have been too high as the station might have been lost. Reasonable politics is always about weighing effort against benefit. Of course, anyone can have her or his own opinion where to draw the line in a particular case. But it is usually not black and white. In my opinion, the German government has done an excellent job in the last months in reducing dependence on Russian primary energy imports. It rather failed in another area: military support for Ukraine. BTW: Does anybody know whether US's extensive uranium supplies from Russia and its sphere of influence (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan)[1] have now ceased? I could not find any recent information about it. [1] 46 % in total as of 2020: 16 % Russia, 22 % Kazakhstan, 8 % Uzbekistan -- see: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu...

postingawayonhn 4y ago
> Even Ukraine itself is not shutting down the Russian gas pipeline on its territory "to save Ukrainian lives". Because that would anger their western benefactors.
Gravityloss 4y ago
Germany is paying hundreds of millions of euros per day to Russia for the gas. In March EU total payment was 700 million per day. This completely dwarfs any even billion dollar level support given to Ukraine. This is one quick graph that I could find. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1281568/daily-russian-gas-import-costs-to-the-eu/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1281568/daily-russian-ga... On Friday, Russia stopped gas exports to Finland. Electricity export to (and import from) Finland was stopped earlier already. Was Finland in a crisis? No, most people didn't even notice, because Finland had prepared for this. It certainly would have been convenient to build our heating to depend more on cheap Russian gas, but it was restrained by law, because of the risks. Finland was willing to tolerate the inconvenience of higher energy prices, to keep its political independence and safety. But it seems Germany is not yet capable of this introspection. Germany has been too lazy and corrupt and has let itself become very dependent on cheap Russian gas. Now it's saying "we can't do anything, we are too dependent". It's not the world's fault, it's the fault of past German governments and German voters. Germany is an industrialized and rich nation. It can start building heat pumps if the people are ready to do it. The very recent nuclear shutdown decision can also be reversed. But it would first require admitting that you have made serious errors in the recent past and then make a turn around on those decisions.
- chess_buster 4y ago
  Well were switching to LNG. So we're not doing nothing.
- nebalee 4y ago
  Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Finland just now cancelled its contract to build the Hanhikivi plant, of which a third would have been owned by Russia. The contract was finalized in late 2013, more than eight years ago. The stated reason for the cancellation was not political independence/saftey but the expected inability of Rosatom to deliver the project and increased risks due to the attack on Ukraine (https://www.hanhikivi1.fi/en/press-releases/fennovoima-has-terminated-contract-delivery-hanhikivi-1-nuclear-power-plant-rosatom https://www.hanhikivi1.fi/en/press-releases/fennovoima-has-t...). Was Finland better prepared to ensure its energy independence? Absolutely. Nevertheless, they were about to forfeit some of the independence if Russia hadn't attacked Ukraine.
  - Gravityloss 4y ago
    The Hanhikivi plant was controversial even before Russia's latest full on attack into Ukraine. It also wasn't moving very fast because the builder was unable to supply precise enough plans to STUK to move on. STUK is the government watchdog and is considered very strict. The reactor dome by the way would have been forged in Ukraine. There is a two reactor plant in Loviisa that uses the Soviet VVER technology (but not Soviet automation). It has worked very well. Olkiluoto plant's reactors 1 and 2 are from Sweden, and have had extremely high uptime. Both plants were built in the seventies. Olkiluoto 3 is the infamous French EPR that is finally coming online now. Hanhikivi would have used an eastern-western mix of technology like Loviisa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
trashtester 4y ago
> But it is usually not black and white. I would agree in 99% of cases. But when it comes nuclear power vs coal and gas, the only data I can find seems to make this issue completely black and white (at least for developed countries). As far as I can tell, nuclear is not only safer, but even MUCH safer than coal and gas, regardless of what parameters you look at. All argument to the contrary, seem to follow one of the following patters: - Not understanding the science and math (claims about how long used fuel will be dangerous) - Not even tryting to understand the science and math (not willing to even listen to arguments) - Worst case interpretation of findings (ie assuming the LNT model for cancer risk) - Treat Nuclear as an alternative to renewables instead of as an alternative to coal and gas. - Demanding orders of magnitude more safety from Nuclear than from other energy sources. - Some argue that from a scientific point of view, nuclear is obviously better than coal and gas, but it is not realistic to move the public opinion Obviously a lot of this is generated from (irrational) fear of the unknown. But there is so much of this anti-nuclear propaganda being spread, that I wonder if there could be bad actors involved. It's almost like some climate activists and politicians don't want nuclear for some other reason. Maybe they are worried that the replacement of coal with nuclear would make people less worried about the climate, remove the support for environmentalist organizations, and that this could cost them their jobs? Or it could be that the particular people who support environmentalists happen to be especially irrational on this topic, so even if the leaders understand the science, their base would not accept nuclear energy?
- Archelaos 4y ago
  > But when it comes nuclear power vs coal and gas, the only data I can find seems to make this issue completely black and white (at least for developed countries). I think you are confusing a conclusion, which can be rendered as a Yes or No decision, with the reasons that lead to such a conclusion. Even if your own conclusion is very clear, the process of weighing pros and cons can still be quite complex and difficult. This is what I meant when I said that such issues are usually not black and white. In such debates as how best to support Ukraine or how best to care for our planet, I think one should first and foremost recognise that people, who come to a different conclusion from oneself, do so with the best ethical intentions and are perhaps no less intelligent or manipulated than oneself is. Of course, there might be a lot of people on either side which are not, but I am sure there are also a lot of people, who know there math and physics very well and nevertheless come to a different conclusion. Then the real intellectual work starts: listen, listen, listen and refine your arguments. I do not mean that you should not be allowed to completely disagree, but that showing respect to other smart people's opinions is an important individual virtue as well as an important public virtue in a democratic society, which benefits much more from a reflective style of debate than from a confrontation of We against the Others.

postingawayonhn 4y ago

> Even Ukraine itself is not shutting down the Russian gas pipeline on its territory "to save Ukrainian lives". Because that would anger their western benefactors.

Gravityloss 4y ago

Germany is paying hundreds of millions of euros per day to Russia for the gas. In March EU total payment was 700 million per day. This completely dwarfs any even billion dollar level support given to Ukraine. This is one quick graph that I could find. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1281568/daily-russian-gas-import-costs-to-the-eu/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1281568/daily-russian-ga... On Friday, Russia stopped gas exports to Finland. Electricity export to (and import from) Finland was stopped earlier already. Was Finland in a crisis? No, most people didn't even notice, because Finland had prepared for this. It certainly would have been convenient to build our heating to depend more on cheap Russian gas, but it was restrained by law, because of the risks. Finland was willing to tolerate the inconvenience of higher energy prices, to keep its political independence and safety. But it seems Germany is not yet capable of this introspection. Germany has been too lazy and corrupt and has let itself become very dependent on cheap Russian gas. Now it's saying "we can't do anything, we are too dependent". It's not the world's fault, it's the fault of past German governments and German voters. Germany is an industrialized and rich nation. It can start building heat pumps if the people are ready to do it. The very recent nuclear shutdown decision can also be reversed. But it would first require admitting that you have made serious errors in the recent past and then make a turn around on those decisions.

chess_buster 4y ago
Well were switching to LNG. So we're not doing nothing.
nebalee 4y ago
Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Finland just now cancelled its contract to build the Hanhikivi plant, of which a third would have been owned by Russia. The contract was finalized in late 2013, more than eight years ago. The stated reason for the cancellation was not political independence/saftey but the expected inability of Rosatom to deliver the project and increased risks due to the attack on Ukraine (https://www.hanhikivi1.fi/en/press-releases/fennovoima-has-terminated-contract-delivery-hanhikivi-1-nuclear-power-plant-rosatom https://www.hanhikivi1.fi/en/press-releases/fennovoima-has-t...). Was Finland better prepared to ensure its energy independence? Absolutely. Nevertheless, they were about to forfeit some of the independence if Russia hadn't attacked Ukraine.
- Gravityloss 4y ago
  The Hanhikivi plant was controversial even before Russia's latest full on attack into Ukraine. It also wasn't moving very fast because the builder was unable to supply precise enough plans to STUK to move on. STUK is the government watchdog and is considered very strict. The reactor dome by the way would have been forged in Ukraine. There is a two reactor plant in Loviisa that uses the Soviet VVER technology (but not Soviet automation). It has worked very well. Olkiluoto plant's reactors 1 and 2 are from Sweden, and have had extremely high uptime. Both plants were built in the seventies. Olkiluoto 3 is the infamous French EPR that is finally coming online now. Hanhikivi would have used an eastern-western mix of technology like Loviisa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

trashtester 4y ago

> But it is usually not black and white. I would agree in 99% of cases. But when it comes nuclear power vs coal and gas, the only data I can find seems to make this issue completely black and white (at least for developed countries). As far as I can tell, nuclear is not only safer, but even MUCH safer than coal and gas, regardless of what parameters you look at. All argument to the contrary, seem to follow one of the following patters: - Not understanding the science and math (claims about how long used fuel will be dangerous) - Not even tryting to understand the science and math (not willing to even listen to arguments) - Worst case interpretation of findings (ie assuming the LNT model for cancer risk) - Treat Nuclear as an alternative to renewables instead of as an alternative to coal and gas. - Demanding orders of magnitude more safety from Nuclear than from other energy sources. - Some argue that from a scientific point of view, nuclear is obviously better than coal and gas, but it is not realistic to move the public opinion Obviously a lot of this is generated from (irrational) fear of the unknown. But there is so much of this anti-nuclear propaganda being spread, that I wonder if there could be bad actors involved. It's almost like some climate activists and politicians don't want nuclear for some other reason. Maybe they are worried that the replacement of coal with nuclear would make people less worried about the climate, remove the support for environmentalist organizations, and that this could cost them their jobs? Or it could be that the particular people who support environmentalists happen to be especially irrational on this topic, so even if the leaders understand the science, their base would not accept nuclear energy?

Archelaos 4y ago
> But when it comes nuclear power vs coal and gas, the only data I can find seems to make this issue completely black and white (at least for developed countries). I think you are confusing a conclusion, which can be rendered as a Yes or No decision, with the reasons that lead to such a conclusion. Even if your own conclusion is very clear, the process of weighing pros and cons can still be quite complex and difficult. This is what I meant when I said that such issues are usually not black and white. In such debates as how best to support Ukraine or how best to care for our planet, I think one should first and foremost recognise that people, who come to a different conclusion from oneself, do so with the best ethical intentions and are perhaps no less intelligent or manipulated than oneself is. Of course, there might be a lot of people on either side which are not, but I am sure there are also a lot of people, who know there math and physics very well and nevertheless come to a different conclusion. Then the real intellectual work starts: listen, listen, listen and refine your arguments. I do not mean that you should not be allowed to completely disagree, but that showing respect to other smart people's opinions is an important individual virtue as well as an important public virtue in a democratic society, which benefits much more from a reflective style of debate than from a confrontation of We against the Others.