4 ms·
Yep, they had working nuclear reactors.. She gave into the greens who wanted them gone. So to get her government back into power again, she made the deal. Then
by intothemild 4y ago
Yep, they had working nuclear reactors.. She gave into the greens who wanted them gone. So to get her government back into power again, she made the deal.
Then chose Russian Gas to try and do a "2 birds 1 stone" kind of thing where if they had to get more energy, might as well try and do some geopolitics out of it...
Just two problems there;
1. Typical Greens, trading green firm power (nuclear) for another firm power.. just of course its not a green one, because the only green firm power IS nuclear! So now you've got fossil fuels .. congrats!
2. You're putting the country's energy in the hands of Putin... gee wonder how that will play out.
- cinntaile 4y agoIf she hadn't stayed in power, the greens would have been in power. What would the difference be exactly?
- intothemild 4y agoYou're missing the point.. Its not that she caved into the greens to stay in power, closing the nuclear power plants and converting to gas. Its that she did all that, AND chose Russian gas.
- cinntaile 4y agoIt is cheaper than the other alternatives and Germany didn't have any LNG terminals, so it makes sense to choose this. Hindsight bias is easy.
- intothemild 4y agoThe issue is the way you talk about this, you make it sound like they had a week to get a solution in place. They had to build the pipelines, those take time... So doesn't building gas terminals also take time? You're still failing to see the point... Buying like 30% of your energy from someone like Putin, it's a deal you know could end badly.
- cinntaile 4y agoI'm saying you're talking from hindsight bias, but that's ok it's impossible not to.