6 ms·

> If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots They should take control. That's why it puzzle

> If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots They should take control. That's why it puzzled me why they are okay to get deindustrialized, are okay to destroy their nuclear plants, and are okay to rely on imports of natural gas from Russia

cco 2y ago
Look into the German Chancellor that shut down the nuclear power plants and brought in natural gas from Russia is up to these days. It wasn't "Europe" being ok with it, just classic grift.
- theyinwhy 2y ago
  What exactly is the classic grift Merkel did?
  - quakeguy 2y ago
    He is talking about Schroeder, who was in on Gazprom after his tenure.
    - Towaway69 2y ago
      But he didn’t shutdown nuclear power plants in Germany.
      - svara 2y ago
        He did. Merkel accelerated it and Scholz chose not to delay. They all wanted this.
        Towaway69 2y ago
        Merkel might have followed his idea but she made the final decision. It was Merkel (after Fukushima) who declared an end to nuclear power in Germany - pandering to Green voters. The idea might well have come from the Schroeder Government but he did not make the final decision. In fact, the idea of nuclear exit is an idea of the Greens, Schroeder was pandering to the Greens in his coalition government back in the day. (Schroeder being SPD ("socialist"), Merkel being CDU ("conservative") and the Greens being the king makers back in the day - 2002 elections). One has to remember that it was different times: the Greens were a serious alternative to SPD and CDU, one of their main ideals (since their foundation) has been an exit from nuclear (generally). So once they came into power with the SPD and Schroeder, they were naturally keen on asserting their influence. Schroeder needed an alternative power source so he started looking to Russia. Russia was a serious partner in Europe, not only for Germany but all of Europe. After the fall of the wall, the policy of Europe was Russian integration into Europe. Why? Because this policy of interdependence of nations within Europe brought peace to Europe. Interdependence is - within capitalism - best achieved via trade amongst nations. Hence Germanys (not only Schroeder but german industry too) decision to accept (more) cheap gas and oil from Russia. The Russians were keen to bypass Ukraine and deliver gas directly to Germany, hence the idea of building the Nordstream 2 pipeline - an idea supported by the Schroeder Government and most probably german industry. The Nordstream 2 pipeline was completed in Merkels times but it was never brought online. Olaf Scholz (SPD) made the final decision not to take the pipeline online because of Russias official recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as Russian. It was bombed - destroyed? - by unknown persons during the current war in 2022. The result of these events has been raising energy costs in Germany. Which has lead to disenchantment in the political system, which in turn has lead to a shift to the right in Germany and a raise in the AFD. Ironically, it has now come full circle with a CDU suggesting an easing (if not removal) of the "Schuldenbremse"[1] ("brake on debt") - meaning that Germany is not allowed to borrow money above a certain limit. A policy that has destroyed investment in the country and lead to an evasion to risk-taking. A policy introduced by the CDU back in 2009. In the end, it is all rather academic since we're now here and pointing fingers at the past is pointless. We're now facing a populist president in the USA, a populist Kanzler (prime minister) in German and chaos in Europe and the World. For me, it seems that good ideas are always the success of those that commit to those ideas, never those that actually had the ideas. Bad ideas, on the other hand, are always the fault of those that had the ideas, never those that committed to those ideas. Unfortunately hindsight decides between good and bad ideas. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_balanced_budget_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_balanced_budget_amendme...
  - LunaSea 2y ago
    He's not talking about Merkel but about Schröder I believe. The previous chancelor who later worked for Gazprom.
thesumofall 2y ago
Europe still produces more than 20% of its electric power from nuclear plants. In hindsight, it was premature by Germany to shut down theirs so early, but looking at the rise of renewables it’s just a matter of time until nuclear will just be irrelevant (1). In addition, this will allow true energy independence while for example the German nuclear plants relied partially on fuel rods produced in Russia … (1) Yes, there is the challenge of dark days with little wind, but there are many, many avenues to solve this one (better grid interconnections across Europe, green hydrogen backup plants, overbuilding cheap capacity, …)
- CrossVR 2y ago
  > In hindsight, it was premature by Germany to shut down theirs so early What hindsight? Everyone knew at the time that it was premature. It was a deliberate choice to bear the burden of increased pollution and to make the country more dependent on the whims of a foreign dictator, because nuclear bad.
  - cbg0 2y ago
    Actually, I'm pretty sure it was a lot of fearmongering due to the Fukushima incident which started that wave of anti-nuclear in Germany. A bad decision, for sure.
    - codethief 2y ago
      > which started that wave of anti-nuclear in Germany Started? The anti-nuclear movement has been around since the 70s.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        It was also funded by the KGB.
  - thesumofall 2y ago
    Yes, some of the consequences could have been seen at that time, but I cannot remember that they were really part of the wider discussion. It was mostly nuclear safety vs nuclear‘s low CO2 emissions and alleged low costs. My memory might fail me, but I cannot remember that energy dependence was a big topic. Rather the opposite, nuclear was seen as „bridge technology“ that would eventually pave the way towards full renewable energy. Even the utility companies did not argue for a permanent place for nuclear in the power mix, but a slower switchover to lower the costs of the transition. I think most were already picturing the future 20 years down the road when decentralized renewables would create a green, independent, … future

cco 2y ago

Look into the German Chancellor that shut down the nuclear power plants and brought in natural gas from Russia is up to these days. It wasn't "Europe" being ok with it, just classic grift.

theyinwhy 2y ago
What exactly is the classic grift Merkel did?
- quakeguy 2y ago
  He is talking about Schroeder, who was in on Gazprom after his tenure.
  - Towaway69 2y ago
    But he didn’t shutdown nuclear power plants in Germany.
    - svara 2y ago
      He did. Merkel accelerated it and Scholz chose not to delay. They all wanted this.
      - Towaway69 2y ago
        Merkel might have followed his idea but she made the final decision. It was Merkel (after Fukushima) who declared an end to nuclear power in Germany - pandering to Green voters. The idea might well have come from the Schroeder Government but he did not make the final decision. In fact, the idea of nuclear exit is an idea of the Greens, Schroeder was pandering to the Greens in his coalition government back in the day. (Schroeder being SPD ("socialist"), Merkel being CDU ("conservative") and the Greens being the king makers back in the day - 2002 elections). One has to remember that it was different times: the Greens were a serious alternative to SPD and CDU, one of their main ideals (since their foundation) has been an exit from nuclear (generally). So once they came into power with the SPD and Schroeder, they were naturally keen on asserting their influence. Schroeder needed an alternative power source so he started looking to Russia. Russia was a serious partner in Europe, not only for Germany but all of Europe. After the fall of the wall, the policy of Europe was Russian integration into Europe. Why? Because this policy of interdependence of nations within Europe brought peace to Europe. Interdependence is - within capitalism - best achieved via trade amongst nations. Hence Germanys (not only Schroeder but german industry too) decision to accept (more) cheap gas and oil from Russia. The Russians were keen to bypass Ukraine and deliver gas directly to Germany, hence the idea of building the Nordstream 2 pipeline - an idea supported by the Schroeder Government and most probably german industry. The Nordstream 2 pipeline was completed in Merkels times but it was never brought online. Olaf Scholz (SPD) made the final decision not to take the pipeline online because of Russias official recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as Russian. It was bombed - destroyed? - by unknown persons during the current war in 2022. The result of these events has been raising energy costs in Germany. Which has lead to disenchantment in the political system, which in turn has lead to a shift to the right in Germany and a raise in the AFD. Ironically, it has now come full circle with a CDU suggesting an easing (if not removal) of the "Schuldenbremse"[1] ("brake on debt") - meaning that Germany is not allowed to borrow money above a certain limit. A policy that has destroyed investment in the country and lead to an evasion to risk-taking. A policy introduced by the CDU back in 2009. In the end, it is all rather academic since we're now here and pointing fingers at the past is pointless. We're now facing a populist president in the USA, a populist Kanzler (prime minister) in German and chaos in Europe and the World. For me, it seems that good ideas are always the success of those that commit to those ideas, never those that actually had the ideas. Bad ideas, on the other hand, are always the fault of those that had the ideas, never those that committed to those ideas. Unfortunately hindsight decides between good and bad ideas. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_balanced_budget_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_balanced_budget_amendme...
- LunaSea 2y ago
  He's not talking about Merkel but about Schröder I believe. The previous chancelor who later worked for Gazprom.

thesumofall 2y ago

Europe still produces more than 20% of its electric power from nuclear plants. In hindsight, it was premature by Germany to shut down theirs so early, but looking at the rise of renewables it’s just a matter of time until nuclear will just be irrelevant (1). In addition, this will allow true energy independence while for example the German nuclear plants relied partially on fuel rods produced in Russia … (1) Yes, there is the challenge of dark days with little wind, but there are many, many avenues to solve this one (better grid interconnections across Europe, green hydrogen backup plants, overbuilding cheap capacity, …)

CrossVR 2y ago
> In hindsight, it was premature by Germany to shut down theirs so early What hindsight? Everyone knew at the time that it was premature. It was a deliberate choice to bear the burden of increased pollution and to make the country more dependent on the whims of a foreign dictator, because nuclear bad.
- cbg0 2y ago
  Actually, I'm pretty sure it was a lot of fearmongering due to the Fukushima incident which started that wave of anti-nuclear in Germany. A bad decision, for sure.
  - codethief 2y ago
    > which started that wave of anti-nuclear in Germany Started? The anti-nuclear movement has been around since the 70s.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      It was also funded by the KGB.
- thesumofall 2y ago
  Yes, some of the consequences could have been seen at that time, but I cannot remember that they were really part of the wider discussion. It was mostly nuclear safety vs nuclear‘s low CO2 emissions and alleged low costs. My memory might fail me, but I cannot remember that energy dependence was a big topic. Rather the opposite, nuclear was seen as „bridge technology“ that would eventually pave the way towards full renewable energy. Even the utility companies did not argue for a permanent place for nuclear in the power mix, but a slower switchover to lower the costs of the transition. I think most were already picturing the future 20 years down the road when decentralized renewables would create a green, independent, … future