3 ms·

This news aside, I think the world still associates Germany with engineering excellence so, to see them abandon nuclear power for political reasons comes as a s

This news aside, I think the world still associates Germany with engineering excellence so, to see them abandon nuclear power for political reasons comes as a shock.

astrange 4y ago
They also have a cultural fondness for green party/hippiedom unfortunately.
- ulfw 4y ago
  Germany as a society tends to be prone to obsessions. The current one is climate. There is no other discussion in the media and politics. Nothing else important to focus on. Kids are glueing themselves onto streets because their obsessions aren't satisfied strongly enough. The brainwashing is real. Unfortunately obsessions lead to lack of wider thinking or logic.
  - cubefox 4y ago
    The irony is that our obsession with disabling nuclear power works contrary to any climate obsession. When the two are played out against each other, the anti-nuclear ambitions win. Disabling nuclear power is apparently more important than disabling coal power plants. And than dealing with soaring energy costs and a potential blackout.
  - kitkat_new 4y ago
    you really have a strange framing here, given climate change is a real threat. And fighting it isn't something that only Germany is tasked with. btw. it's not kids, but grown ups of all ages that are gluing themselves onto streets; in various countries
    - pxmpxm 4y ago
      > climate change is a real threat. I'm rather sure that not being able to afford energy - heat in the winer - is a the real existential threat to a kid in continental Europe. Worrying about sea level going up 10cm in his/her lifetime is a rich person hobby.
      - danielheath 4y ago
        > Worrying about sea level going up 10cm in his/her lifetime is a rich person hobby. Worrying about the future past next year is definitely a rich person hobby, if you define "rich" as "not imminently starving". Sea level rise is the least of the trouble. Look at fisheries decline (yield per inflation-adjusted-dollar spent has been recorded for a long time now - in spite of new tech it's been dropping for over a century), temperature-driven crop failures, increased frequency of severe storms damaging infrastructure.
      - scythe 4y ago
        Sea level is projected to rise 30 centimeters over the next 30 years. The rate is gradually accelerating, so the coming century will see more than a meter. But the primary near-term risks from climate change are heat damaging crops, (wet) heat killing humans, declining soil moisture in some regions, and increased risk of flooding along some rivers. Over two centuries, coastal cities may be inundated, but that is a long time.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Both are real risks, but humans are biased to be disproportionately sensitive to near term risks and tend to underestimate long term risks. In addition, poor people tend to be disproportionately affected.
      - rcxdude 4y ago
        It's those above the poverty line but only just that should be worrying most: the rich will likely be mostly fine, it's everyone else who is going to suffer much more from it.
      - mgfist 4y ago
        About 200 Germans died in the floods last year - far more than those who died from the cold. And climate change increased both the likeliness and the intensity of the rains. So no, this isn't something rich people will face in 50 years. It's something everyone faces today.
  - rjzzleep 4y ago
    I actually think you've put your finger on the actual problem. Sometimes these obsessions lead to success, because obsession and persistence can be the same. But let's take the last year, sanctions policies that lead them to trade direct resource imports from Russia to having the same imports but paying premium through brokers like Morocco, India and Chinese LNG(all coming from Russia). Let's remember what the BASF CEO said before it escalated.[1] A lot of people in Germany were begging the government to postpone the shutdown of the remaining power plants until they have replacements, but the ideological Greens just charged ahead replacing Nuclear with Coal to achieve their ideological goal of removing nuclear. They have also been at the forefront of pushing legislation at an EU level to block nuclear in various forms.[2][3] I've seen these obsessions in various other parts of society. I've had people stand behind me waiting telling me they could not pass anywhere but where I am even though they could just take a turn around me. I've personally experienced and heard from multiple people at the CCC that their Math teachers would punish them for achieving a result with a different technique than what the teacher taught them. [1] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/basf-chef-warnt-vor-gas-embargo-schaeden-fuer-deutsche-volkswirtschaft-17925528.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/basf-chef... [2] https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2022/01/04/germany-needs-to-stop-imposing-its-failed-energy-policies-on-the-rest-of-the-eu/ https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2022/01/04/germany-needs-to-st... [3] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-pushes-nuclear-energy-eu-sanctions-next-package-2023-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-pushes-nucle...
- Zardoz89 4y ago
  Nuclear dissolution is a CDU policy, but good job regurgitiating the rhetoric
  - prottog 4y ago
    The CDU was in power when they proposed the timelines that ended up in the closures we saw recently, but the electoral success of the Green Party in that election cycle was a key factor. Your summary is disingenuous.
  - est31 4y ago
    The original dissolution was passed as a plan during Schröder's first term, aka in the SPD/Green government, in 2002. Later, in 2010, the CDU/FDP government modified the plan and gave the power plant providers more budget. About half a year after this law has passed the Bundestag, the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident happened and a commission was established to study the security of nuclear power. Then, yes, CDU and FDP agreed upon a new plan to exit nuclear power earlier than their original extension planned, and some power plants were turned off right away. You can point your finger at the CDU, but saying that the CDU was the big driving force is disingenous. It seems that Germany's descisions on exiting nuclear power plants are always unhappily timed. First, Fukushima happens, making the extension a few months earlier look really weird. Then, the Ukraine war happens, rendering Germany's original plan moot to replace coal with natural gas from russia, and everyone is shaking their head again as Germany is keeping to the original plan.
  - zsz 4y ago
    It was the Greens who campaigned throughout the 80s and beyond to instill irrational fear in German kids in the 80s, so they would opt for an impulsive solution, instead of a rational one in subsequent decades. It was always the Greens whose very platform stood for ending nuclear power, by any means necessary. The reason why Germany today is so staunchly anti-nuclear is because that's how the Greens ("Die Gruenen") defined itself as a political party in the 80s. In fact, that was a (if not the) principal motivation for its inception. The party may seem more mainstream 30 years later, but around the 80s when they laid all the groundwork for the anti-nuclear stance of present day Germany, they were definitely a party still better known for, and even defined by their more radical members. That the current generation of voters who supported the shutdown of nuclear power production were substantially "encouraged" to adopt such views by said Greens' actions and politics when they were children and teenagers living in the 80s is incontrovertible fact. So, even if Merkel ended up as the one who executed the will of the people as head of the CDU, that will had nothing to do with CDU policy, and certainly not in the 80s and 90s. That was by definition the policy of the Greens, who also laid the groundwork for the irrational fear that Germans in their 40s and 50s have been cultivating for decades. Why can i say this with complete certainty? Because I was one of those kids.
bumby 4y ago
There’s also a history of civic distrust when it comes to nuclear. After Chernobyl there was conflicting information about safe thresholds and later revisions. There’s been some write-ups stating government transparency and trust are as big of an issue as safety.
- jones6ofMont 4y ago
  [dead]
nemo44x 4y ago
> I think the world still associates Germany with engineering excellence… Do people feel that way? Their automobiles are some of the worst from an engineering perspective and the only software company I can think of is the dinosaur SAP. When I think of Germany I do not think of good engineering but rather automobiles that lose so much value so quickly because the have expensive and frequent maintenance costs and outdated software companies. Germany makes things unnecessarily complex and therefore prone to failure. It’s a cultural thing I believe. In which ways us Germany considered excellent at engineering today?
- tbrake 4y ago
  Whoa whoa. The "association" OP speaks of is down to effective marketing - creating a common image of German product/industrial design as meticulous and high performing - not some objective engineering ranking.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    Good point. Germans are good at marketing I guess. But very poor engineers.
    - nikau 4y ago
      It's not the engineers, it's the consumer demand for things other than depreciation and longevity.
      - nemo44x 4y ago
        Other places make performant things that have far more longevity. Japan for instance. It’s a cultural thing in Germany. I’ve spent a good deal of time there and was surprised how good at marketing they are and how bad at building. German exports of many things are of very low quality but high prices.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  At the electricity generation, ironically, the two well regarded players are Siemens and GE, only Siemens for its quality (what may or may not reflect the reality of the last decades, no idea).

This news aside, I think the world still associates Germany with engineering excellence so, to see them abandon nuclear power for political reasons comes as a shock.

astrange 4y ago

They also have a cultural fondness for green party/hippiedom unfortunately.

ulfw 4y ago
Germany as a society tends to be prone to obsessions. The current one is climate. There is no other discussion in the media and politics. Nothing else important to focus on. Kids are glueing themselves onto streets because their obsessions aren't satisfied strongly enough. The brainwashing is real. Unfortunately obsessions lead to lack of wider thinking or logic.
- cubefox 4y ago
  The irony is that our obsession with disabling nuclear power works contrary to any climate obsession. When the two are played out against each other, the anti-nuclear ambitions win. Disabling nuclear power is apparently more important than disabling coal power plants. And than dealing with soaring energy costs and a potential blackout.
- kitkat_new 4y ago
  you really have a strange framing here, given climate change is a real threat. And fighting it isn't something that only Germany is tasked with. btw. it's not kids, but grown ups of all ages that are gluing themselves onto streets; in various countries
  - pxmpxm 4y ago
    > climate change is a real threat. I'm rather sure that not being able to afford energy - heat in the winer - is a the real existential threat to a kid in continental Europe. Worrying about sea level going up 10cm in his/her lifetime is a rich person hobby.
    - danielheath 4y ago
      > Worrying about sea level going up 10cm in his/her lifetime is a rich person hobby. Worrying about the future past next year is definitely a rich person hobby, if you define "rich" as "not imminently starving". Sea level rise is the least of the trouble. Look at fisheries decline (yield per inflation-adjusted-dollar spent has been recorded for a long time now - in spite of new tech it's been dropping for over a century), temperature-driven crop failures, increased frequency of severe storms damaging infrastructure.
    - scythe 4y ago
      Sea level is projected to rise 30 centimeters over the next 30 years. The rate is gradually accelerating, so the coming century will see more than a meter. But the primary near-term risks from climate change are heat damaging crops, (wet) heat killing humans, declining soil moisture in some regions, and increased risk of flooding along some rivers. Over two centuries, coastal cities may be inundated, but that is a long time.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Both are real risks, but humans are biased to be disproportionately sensitive to near term risks and tend to underestimate long term risks. In addition, poor people tend to be disproportionately affected.
    - rcxdude 4y ago
      It's those above the poverty line but only just that should be worrying most: the rich will likely be mostly fine, it's everyone else who is going to suffer much more from it.
    - mgfist 4y ago
      About 200 Germans died in the floods last year - far more than those who died from the cold. And climate change increased both the likeliness and the intensity of the rains. So no, this isn't something rich people will face in 50 years. It's something everyone faces today.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  I actually think you've put your finger on the actual problem. Sometimes these obsessions lead to success, because obsession and persistence can be the same. But let's take the last year, sanctions policies that lead them to trade direct resource imports from Russia to having the same imports but paying premium through brokers like Morocco, India and Chinese LNG(all coming from Russia). Let's remember what the BASF CEO said before it escalated.[1] A lot of people in Germany were begging the government to postpone the shutdown of the remaining power plants until they have replacements, but the ideological Greens just charged ahead replacing Nuclear with Coal to achieve their ideological goal of removing nuclear. They have also been at the forefront of pushing legislation at an EU level to block nuclear in various forms.[2][3] I've seen these obsessions in various other parts of society. I've had people stand behind me waiting telling me they could not pass anywhere but where I am even though they could just take a turn around me. I've personally experienced and heard from multiple people at the CCC that their Math teachers would punish them for achieving a result with a different technique than what the teacher taught them. [1] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/basf-chef-warnt-vor-gas-embargo-schaeden-fuer-deutsche-volkswirtschaft-17925528.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/basf-chef... [2] https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2022/01/04/germany-needs-to-stop-imposing-its-failed-energy-policies-on-the-rest-of-the-eu/ https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2022/01/04/germany-needs-to-st... [3] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-pushes-nuclear-energy-eu-sanctions-next-package-2023-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-pushes-nucle...
Zardoz89 4y ago
Nuclear dissolution is a CDU policy, but good job regurgitiating the rhetoric
- prottog 4y ago
  The CDU was in power when they proposed the timelines that ended up in the closures we saw recently, but the electoral success of the Green Party in that election cycle was a key factor. Your summary is disingenuous.
- est31 4y ago
  The original dissolution was passed as a plan during Schröder's first term, aka in the SPD/Green government, in 2002. Later, in 2010, the CDU/FDP government modified the plan and gave the power plant providers more budget. About half a year after this law has passed the Bundestag, the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident happened and a commission was established to study the security of nuclear power. Then, yes, CDU and FDP agreed upon a new plan to exit nuclear power earlier than their original extension planned, and some power plants were turned off right away. You can point your finger at the CDU, but saying that the CDU was the big driving force is disingenous. It seems that Germany's descisions on exiting nuclear power plants are always unhappily timed. First, Fukushima happens, making the extension a few months earlier look really weird. Then, the Ukraine war happens, rendering Germany's original plan moot to replace coal with natural gas from russia, and everyone is shaking their head again as Germany is keeping to the original plan.
- zsz 4y ago
  It was the Greens who campaigned throughout the 80s and beyond to instill irrational fear in German kids in the 80s, so they would opt for an impulsive solution, instead of a rational one in subsequent decades. It was always the Greens whose very platform stood for ending nuclear power, by any means necessary. The reason why Germany today is so staunchly anti-nuclear is because that's how the Greens ("Die Gruenen") defined itself as a political party in the 80s. In fact, that was a (if not the) principal motivation for its inception. The party may seem more mainstream 30 years later, but around the 80s when they laid all the groundwork for the anti-nuclear stance of present day Germany, they were definitely a party still better known for, and even defined by their more radical members. That the current generation of voters who supported the shutdown of nuclear power production were substantially "encouraged" to adopt such views by said Greens' actions and politics when they were children and teenagers living in the 80s is incontrovertible fact. So, even if Merkel ended up as the one who executed the will of the people as head of the CDU, that will had nothing to do with CDU policy, and certainly not in the 80s and 90s. That was by definition the policy of the Greens, who also laid the groundwork for the irrational fear that Germans in their 40s and 50s have been cultivating for decades. Why can i say this with complete certainty? Because I was one of those kids.

bumby 4y ago

There’s also a history of civic distrust when it comes to nuclear. After Chernobyl there was conflicting information about safe thresholds and later revisions. There’s been some write-ups stating government transparency and trust are as big of an issue as safety.

jones6ofMont 4y ago
[dead]

nemo44x 4y ago

> I think the world still associates Germany with engineering excellence… Do people feel that way? Their automobiles are some of the worst from an engineering perspective and the only software company I can think of is the dinosaur SAP. When I think of Germany I do not think of good engineering but rather automobiles that lose so much value so quickly because the have expensive and frequent maintenance costs and outdated software companies. Germany makes things unnecessarily complex and therefore prone to failure. It’s a cultural thing I believe. In which ways us Germany considered excellent at engineering today?

tbrake 4y ago
Whoa whoa. The "association" OP speaks of is down to effective marketing - creating a common image of German product/industrial design as meticulous and high performing - not some objective engineering ranking.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Good point. Germans are good at marketing I guess. But very poor engineers.
  - nikau 4y ago
    It's not the engineers, it's the consumer demand for things other than depreciation and longevity.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      Other places make performant things that have far more longevity. Japan for instance. It’s a cultural thing in Germany. I’ve spent a good deal of time there and was surprised how good at marketing they are and how bad at building. German exports of many things are of very low quality but high prices.
marcosdumay 4y ago
At the electricity generation, ironically, the two well regarded players are Siemens and GE, only Siemens for its quality (what may or may not reflect the reality of the last decades, no idea).