3 ms·

"best interest" doesn't inherently mean "decision with no difficulties whatsoever". Moving away from Russian energy, even if it's painful in the interim, is in

"best interest" doesn't inherently mean "decision with no difficulties whatsoever". Moving away from Russian energy, even if it's painful in the interim, is in Germany's best interests.

constantcrying 4y ago
>Moving away from Russian energy Whatever. Russian energy is just one part of the energy supply. If it is not Russian gas, what is the alternative? Coal? No. Nuclear? No. Solar? Mediocre at best and very hard to make viable at large scales, especially in Germany. Hydro? Geographically very hard. Wind? Hard to place, lots of space required, invasive to nature. Even if you believe that Germany should stop all trade relations to Russia, the consequence has to be that you need to choose another option.
- kulahan 4y ago
  Well Nuclear is obviously the solution, assuming we can get politicians to stop perplexingly fearmongering around it.
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    A reentry into nuclear under the a partly green government would be some of the greatest loss of face a political party has ever experienced. Of course a massive reentry into nuclear is needed if you want a long term solution that is neither coal nor gas. But how can a party, which formed itself around anti-nuclear protest, be the one which causes a 180 degree back to nuclear energy?
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Among the many other deal breakers to mass expansion of nuclear is the exact opposite of your point. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/05/how-does-russia-keep-signing-nuclear-power-contracts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/05/how-does-russia-keep-si...
    - kulahan 4y ago
      I've never heard of a single deal breaker to mass expansion of nuclear, and this doesn't seem to be on the topic of refuting my point. Can you explain a bit more clearly?
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The solution is what they chose before Schroeder sold out to gazprom and cancelled most of it: maintaining the existing nuclear fleet while building out renewables as fast as possible.

"best interest" doesn't inherently mean "decision with no difficulties whatsoever". Moving away from Russian energy, even if it's painful in the interim, is in Germany's best interests.

constantcrying 4y ago

>Moving away from Russian energy Whatever. Russian energy is just one part of the energy supply. If it is not Russian gas, what is the alternative? Coal? No. Nuclear? No. Solar? Mediocre at best and very hard to make viable at large scales, especially in Germany. Hydro? Geographically very hard. Wind? Hard to place, lots of space required, invasive to nature. Even if you believe that Germany should stop all trade relations to Russia, the consequence has to be that you need to choose another option.

kulahan 4y ago
Well Nuclear is obviously the solution, assuming we can get politicians to stop perplexingly fearmongering around it.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  A reentry into nuclear under the a partly green government would be some of the greatest loss of face a political party has ever experienced. Of course a massive reentry into nuclear is needed if you want a long term solution that is neither coal nor gas. But how can a party, which formed itself around anti-nuclear protest, be the one which causes a 180 degree back to nuclear energy?
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Among the many other deal breakers to mass expansion of nuclear is the exact opposite of your point. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/05/how-does-russia-keep-signing-nuclear-power-contracts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/05/how-does-russia-keep-si...
  - kulahan 4y ago
    I've never heard of a single deal breaker to mass expansion of nuclear, and this doesn't seem to be on the topic of refuting my point. Can you explain a bit more clearly?
Schroedingersat 4y ago
The solution is what they chose before Schroeder sold out to gazprom and cancelled most of it: maintaining the existing nuclear fleet while building out renewables as fast as possible.