3 ms·

Well, if you are serious, lets start with reasonable discussions, not with propaganda. It isn't the politics of the current government which is a disaster, it w

by _ph_ 3y ago

Well, if you are serious, lets start with reasonable discussions, not with propaganda. It isn't the politics of the current government which is a disaster, it was that of the previous ones. They killed nuclear, they curbed the switch to renewables and indeed, NS1 and NS2 were clearly built by Russia to allow the war in Ukraine. It was bizarre that German politics of that time agreed to that. By the way, the farmers don't have to pay billions, it is several hundreds of millions. And this came also only because of the stupid "Schuldenbremse", which is a great way to ruin a country. Guess who is responsible of that. And what you say about the French reactors doesn't invalidate what I wrote. They had to be taken down longer than planned, creating shortages. On top of that the fact, that in hot years, they just cannot run them fully through the summer due to lack of cooling. As summers will get hotter, France will have to quickly come up with some solutions. I don't want the AfD to gain any power too, but the solution against that isn't telling more lies. It is telling less lies. But too many parties think it is a recipe for success to finger-point at the greens and tell propaganda which helps the AfD. And towards those 75% you claim which don't want to vote for Nazis, well, the bad news is, they do. The thing is, all democratic parties have to perform better. But as long they prefer petty fights instead of working on solving the problems we have, the non-democratic parties are on a rise.

mpweiher 3y ago
> not with propaganda. If you are serious, how about not labeling facts you don't like as "propaganda"? Just sayin'. "Es stehe eine "Steuererhöhung in Höhe von einer Milliarde Euro" für die Landwirtschaft im Raum." https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/landwirtschaft-subventionen-agrardiesel-100.html https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/landwirts... The French chose to take their reactors offline for maintenance. chose. And of course they are in a worse state than they should be because of decades-long underinvestment, including not building new ones. They need to build new ones to avoid these problems. Fortunately, that's what they are doing now. Macron calls for nuclear 'renaissance' to end the France's reliance on fossil fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-nuclear-renaissance-to-end-the-france-s-reliance-on-fossil-fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-n... > but the solution against that isn't telling more lies. Absolutely. Lies like claiming the Energiewende is a roaring success when the fact that it is not is clear to the entire world, including 59% of the German population. 2nd most expensive electricity, 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. After 20 years, not even halfway done, with no real idea how to accomplish the other half apart from <a miracle occurs>. When the French accomplished their CO2 free electrification in 20 years. And then dropped the ball by underinvesting. And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers, which most thermal plants need and virtually all thermal plants in Germany, for example, have. This is just not a problem, we know how to build plants with cooling towers. Again, the German anti-nuclear-bubble likes to make a big deal about some French problems as somehow being a problem with nuclear-in-principle and thus nobody should invest in nuclear. When they are exactly the opposite: problems with underinvestment in nuclear, particularly over the last 20 years or so, where virtually no new plants were built. The solution is to, once again, invest more in nuclear. > And towards those 75% you claim which don't want to vote for Nazis, well, the bad news is, they do. You misconstrue what I wrote: large parts of the left denounce AfD voters as Nazis, and thus as people whose concerns do not matter. Just like you do. But that's not correct, 75% of AfD voters are not close to being Nazis and do not support the party's ideology. They are people who are not being listened to. And your solution is not to listen to them, because they are Nazis. Good luck with that, I am sure that will win them over to our side. > The thing is, all democratic parties have to perform better. Yes. For example drop policies that are clearly, obviously and painfully not working. As for example a "populist but irrational energy policy." (quote from the Forbes article below) And not denounce those who spell out the facts of this as nazis and the facts they present as right wing propaganda. Just a suggestion. Once again, "populist and irrational energy policy". https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germanys-energy-crisis-dispels-several-myths/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany... Written by Michael Lynch. Are you going to denounce him as a Nazi, too? And the serious analysis he did as "right wing propaganda"? https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/ "Distinguished Fellow at the Energy Policy Research Foundation and President of Strategic Energy and Economic Research. I spent nearly 30 years at MIT as a student and then researcher at the Energy Laboratory and Center for International Studies. I then spent several years at what is now IHS Global Insight and was chief energy economist." And of course, all the countries that are turning back to nuclear: Japan, Poland, France, Sweden, Finland, etc. All Nazis?
- _ph_ 3y ago
  You wrote "billions". The one billion comes from the representative of the farmer. So my hundreds of millions is probably closest to the truth. But that has nothing to do with nuclear. And the French took the reactors down because of required maintenance, part of it was unexpected after the found problems. But the main point is: they were down and France required imports to keep the grid up. You don't even comment on the cooling problems. They "are" not building new ones. They fail to finish Flammaville so far. The president talks about plans, but until they become at least a construction project, don't talk about "are building". And even then, it would take like 20 years to finish those. And once again, you are not even responding to my arguments about the Energiewende. You treat it as a failure while it is ongoing. Why it was delayed, I explained, but you ignore that. Are you really trying to tell me, that you are not an AfD supporter with your style and trail of argumentation. And I simply stated, those people who vote for Nazis are voting for Nazis and there is no way around stating that. I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi, that was only said on those who vote for Nazis. I don't know who Michel Lynch votes for. His writing though has quite a few inaccuracies and I dispute some of his conclusions. But that is a factual difference. And of course, your final sentence is absolutely polemic. I have not said anything in the direction. Why are you suggesting that? By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too. But the discussion so far hasn't been a very constructive one, so little reason to elaborate on that further that Finland did finish one reactor recently and at the same time cancelled the project tho bild another one...
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    > You don't even comment on the cooling problems Hmm... "And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers, which most thermal plants need and virtually all thermal plants in Germany, for example, have. This is just not a problem, we know how to build plants with cooling towers." From the post you replied to. Cooling is a non-issue. Under-investment in nuclear is an issue. > I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi I can tell you why: because you denounced my factual post as "right wing propaganda", and me, by extension, a right wing propagandist. And that was essentially your entire reaction. "Facts? Who cares, you are a nazi." And of course the French aren't building the new reactors, yet. Their turnaround away from their mistaken anti-nuclear policy only happened in March this year. > The president talks about plans No, the president talks about government policy. And that government policy has been voted into law. March 2023. > By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too How so? > Finland "In June 2019, the government announced a new energy policy with the objective of achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. The policy would see a complete phase-out of coal power by May 2029. In addition to the commissioning of two nuclear power reactors, the policy is supportive of operating lifetime extensions for existing reactors." Hmm... > cancelled the project tho bild another one... You mean they cancelled their plans to build a reactor with Russia's Rossatom? Now what might the reason for this be? Can't possibly have anything to do with, dunno, Russia? Always the disingenuous arguments. And of course the new nuclear reactor they just turned on is already providing 40% of Finland's electricity. How many more of those do you reckon' they need?

by _ph_ 3y ago

mpweiher 3y ago

> not with propaganda. If you are serious, how about not labeling facts you don't like as "propaganda"? Just sayin'. "Es stehe eine "Steuererhöhung in Höhe von einer Milliarde Euro" für die Landwirtschaft im Raum." https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/landwirtschaft-subventionen-agrardiesel-100.html https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/landwirts... The French chose to take their reactors offline for maintenance. chose. And of course they are in a worse state than they should be because of decades-long underinvestment, including not building new ones. They need to build new ones to avoid these problems. Fortunately, that's what they are doing now. Macron calls for nuclear 'renaissance' to end the France's reliance on fossil fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-nuclear-renaissance-to-end-the-france-s-reliance-on-fossil-fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-n... > but the solution against that isn't telling more lies. Absolutely. Lies like claiming the Energiewende is a roaring success when the fact that it is not is clear to the entire world, including 59% of the German population. 2nd most expensive electricity, 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. After 20 years, not even halfway done, with no real idea how to accomplish the other half apart from <a miracle occurs>. When the French accomplished their CO2 free electrification in 20 years. And then dropped the ball by underinvesting. And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers, which most thermal plants need and virtually all thermal plants in Germany, for example, have. This is just not a problem, we know how to build plants with cooling towers. Again, the German anti-nuclear-bubble likes to make a big deal about some French problems as somehow being a problem with nuclear-in-principle and thus nobody should invest in nuclear. When they are exactly the opposite: problems with underinvestment in nuclear, particularly over the last 20 years or so, where virtually no new plants were built. The solution is to, once again, invest more in nuclear. > And towards those 75% you claim which don't want to vote for Nazis, well, the bad news is, they do. You misconstrue what I wrote: large parts of the left denounce AfD voters as Nazis, and thus as people whose concerns do not matter. Just like you do. But that's not correct, 75% of AfD voters are not close to being Nazis and do not support the party's ideology. They are people who are not being listened to. And your solution is not to listen to them, because they are Nazis. Good luck with that, I am sure that will win them over to our side. > The thing is, all democratic parties have to perform better. Yes. For example drop policies that are clearly, obviously and painfully not working. As for example a "populist but irrational energy policy." (quote from the Forbes article below) And not denounce those who spell out the facts of this as nazis and the facts they present as right wing propaganda. Just a suggestion. Once again, "populist and irrational energy policy". https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germanys-energy-crisis-dispels-several-myths/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany... Written by Michael Lynch. Are you going to denounce him as a Nazi, too? And the serious analysis he did as "right wing propaganda"? https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/ "Distinguished Fellow at the Energy Policy Research Foundation and President of Strategic Energy and Economic Research. I spent nearly 30 years at MIT as a student and then researcher at the Energy Laboratory and Center for International Studies. I then spent several years at what is now IHS Global Insight and was chief energy economist." And of course, all the countries that are turning back to nuclear: Japan, Poland, France, Sweden, Finland, etc. All Nazis?

_ph_ 3y ago
You wrote "billions". The one billion comes from the representative of the farmer. So my hundreds of millions is probably closest to the truth. But that has nothing to do with nuclear. And the French took the reactors down because of required maintenance, part of it was unexpected after the found problems. But the main point is: they were down and France required imports to keep the grid up. You don't even comment on the cooling problems. They "are" not building new ones. They fail to finish Flammaville so far. The president talks about plans, but until they become at least a construction project, don't talk about "are building". And even then, it would take like 20 years to finish those. And once again, you are not even responding to my arguments about the Energiewende. You treat it as a failure while it is ongoing. Why it was delayed, I explained, but you ignore that. Are you really trying to tell me, that you are not an AfD supporter with your style and trail of argumentation. And I simply stated, those people who vote for Nazis are voting for Nazis and there is no way around stating that. I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi, that was only said on those who vote for Nazis. I don't know who Michel Lynch votes for. His writing though has quite a few inaccuracies and I dispute some of his conclusions. But that is a factual difference. And of course, your final sentence is absolutely polemic. I have not said anything in the direction. Why are you suggesting that? By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too. But the discussion so far hasn't been a very constructive one, so little reason to elaborate on that further that Finland did finish one reactor recently and at the same time cancelled the project tho bild another one...
- mpweiher 3y ago
  > You don't even comment on the cooling problems Hmm... "And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers, which most thermal plants need and virtually all thermal plants in Germany, for example, have. This is just not a problem, we know how to build plants with cooling towers." From the post you replied to. Cooling is a non-issue. Under-investment in nuclear is an issue. > I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi I can tell you why: because you denounced my factual post as "right wing propaganda", and me, by extension, a right wing propagandist. And that was essentially your entire reaction. "Facts? Who cares, you are a nazi." And of course the French aren't building the new reactors, yet. Their turnaround away from their mistaken anti-nuclear policy only happened in March this year. > The president talks about plans No, the president talks about government policy. And that government policy has been voted into law. March 2023. > By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too How so? > Finland "In June 2019, the government announced a new energy policy with the objective of achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. The policy would see a complete phase-out of coal power by May 2029. In addition to the commissioning of two nuclear power reactors, the policy is supportive of operating lifetime extensions for existing reactors." Hmm... > cancelled the project tho bild another one... You mean they cancelled their plans to build a reactor with Russia's Rossatom? Now what might the reason for this be? Can't possibly have anything to do with, dunno, Russia? Always the disingenuous arguments. And of course the new nuclear reactor they just turned on is already providing 40% of Finland's electricity. How many more of those do you reckon' they need?