8 ms·

If Germany's Green Party takes the same line, I think it will be a huge blow to Russia. Also, it's about time.

by csours 4y ago

bryanlarsen 4y ago
If they did, Putin would cheer. It takes 20 years to build a nuclear plant, so the likely result world be that Germany would be "temporarily" dependent on Russian gas for another 20 years.
jansan 4y ago
The German green party demanded a ban on sending weapons to conflict zones just at the end of last year, now they would love to send all our army's equipment to Ukraine immediately. They fought tooth and nail for the ban of genertical modified food, but now are in favor of a mandatory mRNA vaccination even for young people. So why shouldn't they make another 180 on their fight against nuclear power, for which they could finally claim victory after the last three nuclear power plants will be switched off by the end of this year.
- projektfu 4y ago
  > They fought tooth and nail for the ban of genertical modified food, but now are in favor of a mandatory mRNA vaccination even for young people. This is a consistent position. mRNA vaccination is not genetic modification. On the other hand, adenoviral-vector vaccines are genetically modified organisms.
  - jansan 4y ago
    Eating genetically modified food isn't genetic modification, either.
    - Aachen 4y ago
      I don't think any credible person or German party ever claimed that. It's the food you're eating that's modified, not that you get genetically modified from eating it (Of course gmo is a thousand times better than previous practices with random mutation)
      - jansan 4y ago
        You are correct, nobody claimed that. But environmentalists often warned of "unknown risks" [1] when consuming genetically modified food. Why at the same time there should be no unkown risks when injecting mRNA vaccines into children is beyond me. [1] htts://www.bund.net/themen/landwirtschaft/gentechnik/risiken/gesundheit/?wc=23315
        7952 4y ago
        Or rather people felt hat the benefit outweighed the risk. That was just not the case for some people with GMO.
- 7952 4y ago
  Being able to change your mind is a feature of democracy.
jamil7 4y ago
> I think it will be a huge blow to Russia. Nuclear or not, they'd still need to have electrified heating and industrial processes dependent on Russian gas.
- baybal2 4y ago
  The amount of natural gas consumed by the industry is already very low. Germany needs to stop exporting electricity. Most of export electricity comes from gas turbine topping plant which work during high EU electricity price times.
cpursley 4y ago
Where do you think the fuel for the reactors will come from?
- jason0597 4y ago
  There are lots of uranium reserves around the world that are in classically Western countries
- weberer 4y ago
  Well not Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...
  - cpursley 4y ago
    And who do you think has a huge influence over Kazakhstan (and recently helped them prevent a coup).
    - Const-me 4y ago
      If one's goal is influence, fighting wars is counter-productive. The top five countries investing the most into the economy of Kazakhstan remained unchanged in 2019. Being the largest investor, the Netherlands invested $7.3 billion in Kazakhstan (30.2%), followed by the USA — $5.5 billion (23.0%) and Switzerland — $ 2.2 billion. China outran the Russian Federation in terms of investments and took 4th place with $1.7 billion (7.0%), while the Russian Federation closed the top five with $1.4 billion (5.8%) invested in Kazakhstan. Source: https://www.timesca.com/index.php/news/22338-kazakhstan-attracts-24-1-billion-of-fdi-in-2019-350-billion-since-independence https://www.timesca.com/index.php/news/22338-kazakhstan-attr...
- arbitrage 4y ago
  Russia can't get their act together to keep their trucks running. Due to chronic economic malaise and instability, they're not going to be a reliable producer of that fuel for a while.
- 4y ago
bayesian_horse 4y ago
Germany is a lot bigger, and for Germany nuclear power certainly isn't sustainable. The population isn't on board for one thing. For another, the supply chain and the complicated life cycle has a tendency to bind huge amounts of resources and manpower that can't be easily used elsewhere in the economy, if you can find it in the first place (France has a shortage of nuclear engineers for example). Add to that the impossible and horrendously complicated nature of the risk management calculations. If we started now, we might replace Russian gas in 20 years. We can do that in a year or two with renewable energy and other means while avoiding a lot of the other problems.
- simion314 4y ago
  >We can do that in a year or two with renewable energy and other means while avoiding a lot of the other problems. How can you do that? Can you create build storage in 1 year for entire Germany needs? How?, please explain!
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    Germany is right in the middle of the biggest and most stable grid on this planet. They don't have to build storage within a year because they don't have to store all that stuff. They can take their time and continue to expand their national grid. Something they've been doing even during the last 16 years where the conservative government has been crippling the expansion of renewable energy.
    - DANK_YACHT 4y ago
      Germany derives 25% of its energy consumption from natural gas. In order to remove this, they'll need to replace it with something. If they want to replace it with renewable energy, then they'll need storage. In no universe can they simply swap 25% of their energy consumption within a year without additional infrastructure.
      - Krasnol 4y ago
        > Germany derives 25% of its power consumption from natural gas. It's been barely over 10% in 2021. -10% from the previous year. Please stop spreading lies anybody can google up in seconds: https://strom-report.de/download/strommix-2021-deutschland/ https://strom-report.de/download/strommix-2021-deutschland/ > If they want to replace it with renewable energy, then they'll need storage. They obviously don't because it took them one year to get rid of 10% of it already. Without any significant expansion of storage capacity or expansion of renewables btw because the previous Goverment was not in for that. This one is. I don't know where you get those arguments from but you should seriously reconsider those sources.
Krasnol 4y ago
They won't and why should they? Nuclear is done in Germany. They won. Instead Germany has been the biggest motor for renewable development in the world and now needs to jump back on their own ship after 16 years of conservative stagnation. Something which is happening right now.

If Germany's Green Party takes the same line, I think it will be a huge blow to Russia. Also, it's about time.

by csours 4y ago

If Germany's Green Party takes the same line, I think it will be a huge blow to Russia. Also, it's about time.

If they did, Putin would cheer. It takes 20 years to build a nuclear plant, so the likely result world be that Germany would be "temporarily" dependent on Russian gas for another 20 years.

jansan 4y ago

The German green party demanded a ban on sending weapons to conflict zones just at the end of last year, now they would love to send all our army's equipment to Ukraine immediately. They fought tooth and nail for the ban of genertical modified food, but now are in favor of a mandatory mRNA vaccination even for young people. So why shouldn't they make another 180 on their fight against nuclear power, for which they could finally claim victory after the last three nuclear power plants will be switched off by the end of this year.

projektfu 4y ago
> They fought tooth and nail for the ban of genertical modified food, but now are in favor of a mandatory mRNA vaccination even for young people. This is a consistent position. mRNA vaccination is not genetic modification. On the other hand, adenoviral-vector vaccines are genetically modified organisms.
- jansan 4y ago
  Eating genetically modified food isn't genetic modification, either.
  - Aachen 4y ago
    I don't think any credible person or German party ever claimed that. It's the food you're eating that's modified, not that you get genetically modified from eating it (Of course gmo is a thousand times better than previous practices with random mutation)
    - jansan 4y ago
      You are correct, nobody claimed that. But environmentalists often warned of "unknown risks" [1] when consuming genetically modified food. Why at the same time there should be no unkown risks when injecting mRNA vaccines into children is beyond me. [1] htts://www.bund.net/themen/landwirtschaft/gentechnik/risiken/gesundheit/?wc=23315
      - 7952 4y ago
        Or rather people felt hat the benefit outweighed the risk. That was just not the case for some people with GMO.
7952 4y ago
Being able to change your mind is a feature of democracy.

jamil7 4y ago

> I think it will be a huge blow to Russia. Nuclear or not, they'd still need to have electrified heating and industrial processes dependent on Russian gas.

baybal2 4y ago
The amount of natural gas consumed by the industry is already very low. Germany needs to stop exporting electricity. Most of export electricity comes from gas turbine topping plant which work during high EU electricity price times.

cpursley 4y ago

Where do you think the fuel for the reactors will come from?

jason0597 4y ago
There are lots of uranium reserves around the world that are in classically Western countries
weberer 4y ago
Well not Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...
- cpursley 4y ago
  And who do you think has a huge influence over Kazakhstan (and recently helped them prevent a coup).
  - Const-me 4y ago
    If one's goal is influence, fighting wars is counter-productive. The top five countries investing the most into the economy of Kazakhstan remained unchanged in 2019. Being the largest investor, the Netherlands invested $7.3 billion in Kazakhstan (30.2%), followed by the USA — $5.5 billion (23.0%) and Switzerland — $ 2.2 billion. China outran the Russian Federation in terms of investments and took 4th place with $1.7 billion (7.0%), while the Russian Federation closed the top five with $1.4 billion (5.8%) invested in Kazakhstan. Source: https://www.timesca.com/index.php/news/22338-kazakhstan-attracts-24-1-billion-of-fdi-in-2019-350-billion-since-independence https://www.timesca.com/index.php/news/22338-kazakhstan-attr...
arbitrage 4y ago
Russia can't get their act together to keep their trucks running. Due to chronic economic malaise and instability, they're not going to be a reliable producer of that fuel for a while.
4y ago

bayesian_horse 4y ago

Germany is a lot bigger, and for Germany nuclear power certainly isn't sustainable. The population isn't on board for one thing. For another, the supply chain and the complicated life cycle has a tendency to bind huge amounts of resources and manpower that can't be easily used elsewhere in the economy, if you can find it in the first place (France has a shortage of nuclear engineers for example). Add to that the impossible and horrendously complicated nature of the risk management calculations. If we started now, we might replace Russian gas in 20 years. We can do that in a year or two with renewable energy and other means while avoiding a lot of the other problems.

simion314 4y ago
>We can do that in a year or two with renewable energy and other means while avoiding a lot of the other problems. How can you do that? Can you create build storage in 1 year for entire Germany needs? How?, please explain!
- Krasnol 4y ago
  Germany is right in the middle of the biggest and most stable grid on this planet. They don't have to build storage within a year because they don't have to store all that stuff. They can take their time and continue to expand their national grid. Something they've been doing even during the last 16 years where the conservative government has been crippling the expansion of renewable energy.
  - DANK_YACHT 4y ago
    Germany derives 25% of its energy consumption from natural gas. In order to remove this, they'll need to replace it with something. If they want to replace it with renewable energy, then they'll need storage. In no universe can they simply swap 25% of their energy consumption within a year without additional infrastructure.
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      > Germany derives 25% of its power consumption from natural gas. It's been barely over 10% in 2021. -10% from the previous year. Please stop spreading lies anybody can google up in seconds: https://strom-report.de/download/strommix-2021-deutschland/ https://strom-report.de/download/strommix-2021-deutschland/ > If they want to replace it with renewable energy, then they'll need storage. They obviously don't because it took them one year to get rid of 10% of it already. Without any significant expansion of storage capacity or expansion of renewables btw because the previous Goverment was not in for that. This one is. I don't know where you get those arguments from but you should seriously reconsider those sources.

Krasnol 4y ago

They won't and why should they? Nuclear is done in Germany. They won. Instead Germany has been the biggest motor for renewable development in the world and now needs to jump back on their own ship after 16 years of conservative stagnation. Something which is happening right now.