3 ms·

Announce a $1 trillion nuclear build-out plan for the EU, to build at least 50-60 new nuclear power plants. Go big, really big, and get started on it soon. Why

Announce a $1 trillion nuclear build-out plan for the EU, to build at least 50-60 new nuclear power plants. Go big, really big, and get started on it soon. Why can't Europe go Manhattan Project / Apollo big for such a critical matter? It's cowardice, a lack of daring, if they choose not to. They have the expertise, they have the financial capability, they are lacking the will (so far). To an extent you can scare markets into providing cheaper prices in a variety of ways. That goes for scaring Russia, which is still living in a fantasy bubble about the context. They do not believe the rest of Europe can or will become independent of their supply.

pydry 4y ago
>Announce a $1 trillion nuclear build-out plan Ready in 10-20 years.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Yep, too little too late. Nuclear is going to miss this party. By the time any of this would feasibly be ready this crisis will be ancient history. The smart move is to completely ignore nuclear and go straight to renewables. Proven technology that is being deployed orders of magnitude faster and at an orders of magnitude larger scale already.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Even pulling out all the stops that'll still take about 5-7 years. The crisis would still be history.
mk89 4y ago
> Announce a $1 trillion nuclear ... Do you know who is in charge in Germany? The greens, which don't even want to extend the usage of 3 of the 6 available nuclear plants (supposed to "slowly" shut down at the end of this year). And now you come and say "hey sorry but we need more nuclear reactors"? Sure. Much better to go to countries which are barely respecting human rights, bow and buy their fuel and gas, because finally who cares, we don't see what they do in their countries.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  > Do you know who is in charge in Germany? The greens ... No ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag
  - mk89 4y ago
    The greens are part of the current government, I wonder what's not clear about the previous message?
    - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
      The greens have approximately 14% of the vote and 16% of the seats of the legislative, and are a minority partner in the executive. It does seem quite a stretch to say "they are in charge of Germany".
      - mk89 4y ago
        They have 118/416 seats of the current government, which is more than 16%, and that's what actually matters. If SPD and FDP tomorrow want to bring nuclear energy back, good luck doing that on such a controversial topic (if nobody else in the parliament backs you up). One way or another, they are in charge and they can make things happen or not. Clearly, my "in charge" is absolutely not the same as in dictatorships or similar, but always in a democratic context.
        AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        > They have 118/416 seats of the current government That is exactly what makes them a minority partner. > and that's what actually matters No, it does not in a democracy. It's still 16% of the legislative body. > but always in a democratic context. I would really like to know which democratic context translates 14% of the vote into "in charge of the country". They _may_ have more influence in the executive than the opposition parties, depending on the details of the coalition, but it is still a long stretch to claim "in charge" of the government much less of the country. A coalition is in charge of the executive branch, of which the greens are not the majority by any metric. > If SPD and FDP tomorrow want to bring nuclear energy back If a majority of the voters (or at least 50%+1 of the seats in the legislative body) want to bring nuclear energy back tomorrow, let me know how the greens are going to stop them.

pydry 4y ago

>Announce a $1 trillion nuclear build-out plan Ready in 10-20 years.

jillesvangurp 4y ago
Yep, too little too late. Nuclear is going to miss this party. By the time any of this would feasibly be ready this crisis will be ancient history. The smart move is to completely ignore nuclear and go straight to renewables. Proven technology that is being deployed orders of magnitude faster and at an orders of magnitude larger scale already.
- pydry 4y ago
  Even pulling out all the stops that'll still take about 5-7 years. The crisis would still be history.

mk89 4y ago

> Announce a $1 trillion nuclear ... Do you know who is in charge in Germany? The greens, which don't even want to extend the usage of 3 of the 6 available nuclear plants (supposed to "slowly" shut down at the end of this year). And now you come and say "hey sorry but we need more nuclear reactors"? Sure. Much better to go to countries which are barely respecting human rights, bow and buy their fuel and gas, because finally who cares, we don't see what they do in their countries.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> Do you know who is in charge in Germany? The greens ... No ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag
- mk89 4y ago
  The greens are part of the current government, I wonder what's not clear about the previous message?
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    The greens have approximately 14% of the vote and 16% of the seats of the legislative, and are a minority partner in the executive. It does seem quite a stretch to say "they are in charge of Germany".
    - mk89 4y ago
      They have 118/416 seats of the current government, which is more than 16%, and that's what actually matters. If SPD and FDP tomorrow want to bring nuclear energy back, good luck doing that on such a controversial topic (if nobody else in the parliament backs you up). One way or another, they are in charge and they can make things happen or not. Clearly, my "in charge" is absolutely not the same as in dictatorships or similar, but always in a democratic context.
      - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        > They have 118/416 seats of the current government That is exactly what makes them a minority partner. > and that's what actually matters No, it does not in a democracy. It's still 16% of the legislative body. > but always in a democratic context. I would really like to know which democratic context translates 14% of the vote into "in charge of the country". They _may_ have more influence in the executive than the opposition parties, depending on the details of the coalition, but it is still a long stretch to claim "in charge" of the government much less of the country. A coalition is in charge of the executive branch, of which the greens are not the majority by any metric. > If SPD and FDP tomorrow want to bring nuclear energy back If a majority of the voters (or at least 50%+1 of the seats in the legislative body) want to bring nuclear energy back tomorrow, let me know how the greens are going to stop them.