9 ms·

It’s worse than you think. Germany blocked or was against a large number of alternative pipelines and was preparing to actively block nuclear at an eu level.

stingraycharles 4y ago
Why would they do that, what’s their motivation?
- glogla 4y ago
  Being "green".
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    Not just that. Keeping east europe under developed and thus reliant on “eu funding” coupled with corruption and sheer incompetence.
    - glogla 4y ago
      Yeah, probably. The moment Germans started on EU level to push natural gas (which burns into co2) as green and push zero emission nuclear as not green, I stopped believing they are more than Russian puppets or useful idiots.
- adambyrtek 4y ago
  So that Gerhard Schröder could get a job at Gazprom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Relationship_with_Russian_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Relation...
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    > In 2022, it was reported that Schroeder was paid nearly $1 million per year by Russian energy companies. Who knew sabotaging a continent’s energy policy was so affordable.
    - munificent 4y ago
      Fossil fuel executives sure as hell do.
- barbariangrunge 4y ago
  Question: could Russian disinformation have played a role in germanys policy here? Perhaps they were pushing anti nuclear viewpoints for a decade leading up to this? To be clear, I have zero evidence either way, I’m just curious how large an effect these campaigns have had on public policy across the world
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I wouldn’t use that word. Germany made choices, and believed in a way that Russia could be pulled westward. Russia intended to use this belief to its own advantage at Western Europe’s expense. People pointed this out, but German politicians shouted that down as cold war thinking.
  - jmarbach 4y ago
    Of course, everyone is a booster for their own cause. The angles of attack range from the top-down to the grass roots. There are tactics for each (e.g. corrupting state leaders vs controlling mass media narratives).
  - nosianu 4y ago
    > Question: could Russian disinformation have played a role in germanys policy here? As a German, no, that was quite voluntary. People like me completely agreed. I only woke up on 24 February. I'm from East Germany, speak some Russian, and have been to Russia a few times, and to Ukraine too, for months actually. I did not care about the Krim annexation either. I think because it was peaceful, and because I did not see Ukraine and its government in any better light than the Russian one. The corruption problem was (is? no idea now) real, and some really bad and shady stuff happened in Ukraine. The reason I turned is all because of the behavior and the atrocities of Russia. My opinion does not require a "good" Ukraine, so arguments like "but... corruption" (for Ukraine) don't matter any more. To me, having seen the incredible modernization of Russia - supported almost completely by the West and a little bit from Asia, not self-made, and then Putin's declarations about "war with the West" was one of the things that turned me. You owe the "evil West" BIG TIME! I actually have friends who have done business in Russia since the 1990s, so I've followed along the stories passively and still do. No, you cannot blame Russia for what we Germans thought and did before this war. I was for Nord Stream 2, I was outraged about US interference when they pressured us to stop the project, I was outraged when Trump made his comments. This was not because of any "propaganda", that was my own 100% self-made opinion. I only read some mainstream news portal headlines to begin with, so I'm not exposed to anything like those people in some Telegram channels, or Stammtisch discussions in some places in East Germany (I moved out of East Germany - and in the end to the US for a long time - not long after reunification). You need to understand a lot of Germans, especially East Germans of course, did not fear Russia but saw them as a true partner. Putin spoke in the Bundestag in a "historic speech"! They were mostly interesting to do business with. They needed so much from us (and got it), and we had good use for their oil and gas and metals and other things. Business was really good, for both sides! We ignored Russian aggressive moves with mostly just some eye-rolling - "that's just how they are" but did not think much of it. Now, I see that Russian society as a whole has a big problem. It's very far from only Putin being responsible. If they don't lose very hard they may develop like Germany after WWI, thinking they only lost because of "Dolchstoßlegende" (stab in the back myth - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth). I want us to ignore the nuclear threats and to sent Leopard tanks and Marders. Biden too seems a bit afraid, e.g. limiting rockets for HIMARs to the shortest range "to not provoke Putin". I find this strange, if the West wants Ukraine to win Putin will be very "provoked". What kind of conflict is this when the enemy gets to decide which weapons out side is allowed to use? Essentially, Putin now has veto power over what weapons the West sends. I hope there is more going on underneath the surface, because this does not make sense. Maybe they want Putin to invest more and more and grind Russia down slowly? Losing too quickly would leave Russia with too much left? Of course, the cost of such a strategy would be borne by the Ukrainians, who pay in blood. They may agree though, I don't know, because only a big loos for Russia would give them real peace instead of just a pause. Just my speculations about why we hear (tome) flimsy excuses instead of seeing more done to let Ukraine win more quickly.
- f1shy 4y ago
  I think ideology. "Green movement"
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Torpedoing wind projects and investing more in gas pipelines and generators is exactly what the green movement was about.
    - LunaSea 4y ago
      Well Greenpeace is selling gas so it seems to be yes.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        What an utterly intellectually bankrupt way of framing the sale of an 85% renewable energy mix.
        LunaSea 4y ago
        > Since 2011 Green Planet Energy has been selling the proWindgas product which was initially 100% imported fossil gas, and the company promised a gradual increase in the proportion of hydrogen generated from excess renewable energy.[5] As of 2020 the share of hydrogen mostly oscillated below 1%.[6] > Sales of 99% fossil gas presented as “eco-gas” have been criticized as contradictory[7][8] as well as "greenwashing" of Russian gas. cf: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy What an utterly bankrupt way of framing the sale of 99% gas as a renewable energy mix. Closer to the politician than the cat.
- tick_tock_tick 4y ago
  Merkel fucked loved Russia and China for some reason we'll probably never know and that's pretty much the whole story.
bpfrh 4y ago
Which pipelines are you talking about? "actively block at an eu level" Do you mean not labeling investment in nuclear as green? Because that is very fair, if I invest my money in "green energy" I don't expect to fund nuclear.
- tomp 4y ago
  So nuclear (zero CO2 emissions) isn’t “green” but gas (CO2 + methane emissions) is?! This is the reality of institutional stupidity at the highest EU political levels.
  - f1shy 4y ago
    Believe it or not, the green party is one of the most hard opponents to nuclear. Of course, they suggest the alternative Wind+Solar, not gas.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > they suggest the alternative Wind+Solar, not gas. Storage technology to support an industrialized nation with pure Wind+Solar does not exist, necessitating gas. Advocating for Wind+Solar but not gas is like advocating for building with lumber but not cutting down trees. One inescapably implies the other.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        You don't need to build new gas or increase production to beat nuclear in cost whilst reducing total emissions to netnzero levels, so you are still lying. Additionally nuclear necessarily demands gas in exactly the same way because it is cost/capacity limited so a 100% nuclear grid would cost 300-500€/MWh. Just using existing heavily deployed technologies https://model.energy/?results=8181a21c563945780e7f86ca888fd466#solve https://model.energy/?results=8181a21c563945780e7f86ca888fd4... https://model.energy/?results=c68fba298e21e52a0fb45b52da6ef1bd#solve https://model.energy/?results=c68fba298e21e52a0fb45b52da6ef1... Adding hydrogen (note that you don't even have to build a h2 turbine if you retrofit): https://model.energy/?results=f3494dc5d4d8f4f67a81451d8fbc1a1e#solve https://model.energy/?results=f3494dc5d4d8f4f67a81451d8fbc1a... Prices that will be available well before a nuclear reactor is finished: https://model.energy/?results=295f72370fce3a21d9b3a7077905f0ce#solve https://model.energy/?results=295f72370fce3a21d9b3a7077905f0... Or without turbines: https://model.energy/?results=51dd5248c3f176a297cf3ad38fd87d39#solve https://model.energy/?results=51dd5248c3f176a297cf3ad38fd87d...

stingraycharles 4y ago

Why would they do that, what’s their motivation?

glogla 4y ago
Being "green".
- yrgulation 4y ago
  Not just that. Keeping east europe under developed and thus reliant on “eu funding” coupled with corruption and sheer incompetence.
  - glogla 4y ago
    Yeah, probably. The moment Germans started on EU level to push natural gas (which burns into co2) as green and push zero emission nuclear as not green, I stopped believing they are more than Russian puppets or useful idiots.
adambyrtek 4y ago
So that Gerhard Schröder could get a job at Gazprom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Relationship_with_Russian_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Relation...
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  > In 2022, it was reported that Schroeder was paid nearly $1 million per year by Russian energy companies. Who knew sabotaging a continent’s energy policy was so affordable.
  - munificent 4y ago
    Fossil fuel executives sure as hell do.
barbariangrunge 4y ago
Question: could Russian disinformation have played a role in germanys policy here? Perhaps they were pushing anti nuclear viewpoints for a decade leading up to this? To be clear, I have zero evidence either way, I’m just curious how large an effect these campaigns have had on public policy across the world
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I wouldn’t use that word. Germany made choices, and believed in a way that Russia could be pulled westward. Russia intended to use this belief to its own advantage at Western Europe’s expense. People pointed this out, but German politicians shouted that down as cold war thinking.
- jmarbach 4y ago
  Of course, everyone is a booster for their own cause. The angles of attack range from the top-down to the grass roots. There are tactics for each (e.g. corrupting state leaders vs controlling mass media narratives).
- nosianu 4y ago
  > Question: could Russian disinformation have played a role in germanys policy here? As a German, no, that was quite voluntary. People like me completely agreed. I only woke up on 24 February. I'm from East Germany, speak some Russian, and have been to Russia a few times, and to Ukraine too, for months actually. I did not care about the Krim annexation either. I think because it was peaceful, and because I did not see Ukraine and its government in any better light than the Russian one. The corruption problem was (is? no idea now) real, and some really bad and shady stuff happened in Ukraine. The reason I turned is all because of the behavior and the atrocities of Russia. My opinion does not require a "good" Ukraine, so arguments like "but... corruption" (for Ukraine) don't matter any more. To me, having seen the incredible modernization of Russia - supported almost completely by the West and a little bit from Asia, not self-made, and then Putin's declarations about "war with the West" was one of the things that turned me. You owe the "evil West" BIG TIME! I actually have friends who have done business in Russia since the 1990s, so I've followed along the stories passively and still do. No, you cannot blame Russia for what we Germans thought and did before this war. I was for Nord Stream 2, I was outraged about US interference when they pressured us to stop the project, I was outraged when Trump made his comments. This was not because of any "propaganda", that was my own 100% self-made opinion. I only read some mainstream news portal headlines to begin with, so I'm not exposed to anything like those people in some Telegram channels, or Stammtisch discussions in some places in East Germany (I moved out of East Germany - and in the end to the US for a long time - not long after reunification). You need to understand a lot of Germans, especially East Germans of course, did not fear Russia but saw them as a true partner. Putin spoke in the Bundestag in a "historic speech"! They were mostly interesting to do business with. They needed so much from us (and got it), and we had good use for their oil and gas and metals and other things. Business was really good, for both sides! We ignored Russian aggressive moves with mostly just some eye-rolling - "that's just how they are" but did not think much of it. Now, I see that Russian society as a whole has a big problem. It's very far from only Putin being responsible. If they don't lose very hard they may develop like Germany after WWI, thinking they only lost because of "Dolchstoßlegende" (stab in the back myth - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth). I want us to ignore the nuclear threats and to sent Leopard tanks and Marders. Biden too seems a bit afraid, e.g. limiting rockets for HIMARs to the shortest range "to not provoke Putin". I find this strange, if the West wants Ukraine to win Putin will be very "provoked". What kind of conflict is this when the enemy gets to decide which weapons out side is allowed to use? Essentially, Putin now has veto power over what weapons the West sends. I hope there is more going on underneath the surface, because this does not make sense. Maybe they want Putin to invest more and more and grind Russia down slowly? Losing too quickly would leave Russia with too much left? Of course, the cost of such a strategy would be borne by the Ukrainians, who pay in blood. They may agree though, I don't know, because only a big loos for Russia would give them real peace instead of just a pause. Just my speculations about why we hear (tome) flimsy excuses instead of seeing more done to let Ukraine win more quickly.
f1shy 4y ago
I think ideology. "Green movement"
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Torpedoing wind projects and investing more in gas pipelines and generators is exactly what the green movement was about.
  - LunaSea 4y ago
    Well Greenpeace is selling gas so it seems to be yes.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      What an utterly intellectually bankrupt way of framing the sale of an 85% renewable energy mix.
      - LunaSea 4y ago
        > Since 2011 Green Planet Energy has been selling the proWindgas product which was initially 100% imported fossil gas, and the company promised a gradual increase in the proportion of hydrogen generated from excess renewable energy.[5] As of 2020 the share of hydrogen mostly oscillated below 1%.[6] > Sales of 99% fossil gas presented as “eco-gas” have been criticized as contradictory[7][8] as well as "greenwashing" of Russian gas. cf: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy What an utterly bankrupt way of framing the sale of 99% gas as a renewable energy mix. Closer to the politician than the cat.
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
Merkel fucked loved Russia and China for some reason we'll probably never know and that's pretty much the whole story.

bpfrh 4y ago

Which pipelines are you talking about? "actively block at an eu level" Do you mean not labeling investment in nuclear as green? Because that is very fair, if I invest my money in "green energy" I don't expect to fund nuclear.

tomp 4y ago
So nuclear (zero CO2 emissions) isn’t “green” but gas (CO2 + methane emissions) is?! This is the reality of institutional stupidity at the highest EU political levels.
- f1shy 4y ago
  Believe it or not, the green party is one of the most hard opponents to nuclear. Of course, they suggest the alternative Wind+Solar, not gas.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > they suggest the alternative Wind+Solar, not gas. Storage technology to support an industrialized nation with pure Wind+Solar does not exist, necessitating gas. Advocating for Wind+Solar but not gas is like advocating for building with lumber but not cutting down trees. One inescapably implies the other.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You don't need to build new gas or increase production to beat nuclear in cost whilst reducing total emissions to netnzero levels, so you are still lying. Additionally nuclear necessarily demands gas in exactly the same way because it is cost/capacity limited so a 100% nuclear grid would cost 300-500€/MWh. Just using existing heavily deployed technologies https://model.energy/?results=8181a21c563945780e7f86ca888fd466#solve https://model.energy/?results=8181a21c563945780e7f86ca888fd4... https://model.energy/?results=c68fba298e21e52a0fb45b52da6ef1bd#solve https://model.energy/?results=c68fba298e21e52a0fb45b52da6ef1... Adding hydrogen (note that you don't even have to build a h2 turbine if you retrofit): https://model.energy/?results=f3494dc5d4d8f4f67a81451d8fbc1a1e#solve https://model.energy/?results=f3494dc5d4d8f4f67a81451d8fbc1a... Prices that will be available well before a nuclear reactor is finished: https://model.energy/?results=295f72370fce3a21d9b3a7077905f0ce#solve https://model.energy/?results=295f72370fce3a21d9b3a7077905f0... Or without turbines: https://model.energy/?results=51dd5248c3f176a297cf3ad38fd87d39#solve https://model.energy/?results=51dd5248c3f176a297cf3ad38fd87d...