3 ms·
"The most destructive non war related choice by any government"(in the history of human civilization, presumably). I am genuinely baffled when I read such hist
by jonp888 4y ago
"The most destructive non war related choice by any government"(in the history of human civilization, presumably).
I am genuinely baffled when I read such histrionic statements.
Can you explain what has been destroyed?
Nuclear was never a big part of power generation and the shutdown has been compensated by renewable. LNG is compensating for the shutdown of Russian pipelines.
Prices for energy have gone up in Germany, but they are going up everywhere. There have been no power blackouts or bankruptcy of major industries. And I don't believe for minute that Russia somehow would not have invaded if Germany had more nuclear.
- thomascarney 4y agoNuclear was 30% of the electricity generation back in 2000. The Nordstream projects were conceived to allow Russia to exert force on Eastern European countries without endangering supply of gas to Germany. Our energy policy has been incredibly short-sighted, focused on maximizing certain sector's economic interests at the expense of national security and EU security.
- panick21_ 4y agoI mean more in the context of modern European infrastructure policy. Literally Germany made the choice to replace nuclear rather then coal. That was literally their choice. Do you know about all the bad effects of burning coal at large scale? > And I don't believe for minute that Russia somehow would not have invaded if Germany had more nuclear. That is not an argument I made.