3 ms·

First, nuclear power has been discussed intensively in Germany since the 1970s. While political moods shifted somewhat over the decades, in practical terms ther

First, nuclear power has been discussed intensively in Germany since the 1970s. While political moods shifted somewhat over the decades, in practical terms there was less and less willingness to maintain or even expand nuclear power: maintenance issues, rising costs, lack of consensus on permanent waste storage, lack of political direction, … would have resulted in a transition away from nuclear power in any case. Yes, the decision by Merkel was sudden but it didn’t emerge from nowhere. Nuclear power was already doomed in Germany and it was just a question of when it would die. And despite all the discussions, I still cannot remember (or find) that dependence from Russia was even in the top-5 of arguments from either side

CrossVR 2y ago
> And despite all the discussions, I still cannot remember (or find) that dependence from Russia was even in the top-5 of arguments from either side The Nord Stream pipeline was completed in 2011, the same year Merkel decided to accelerate the phase out of nuclear. The US had repeatedly warned against constructing the pipeline because of energy dependence on Russia. Everyone knew that apart from coal Germany has no energy resources. Given that it wouldn't be possible to meet climate goals with coal the energy would need to come from either the newly constructed pipeline or renewables. That the newly created energy dependence would give power to dictatorships may not have been at the forefront of the public's mind. But treating it as something unknowable without hindsight lets the politicians who caused this travesty off too easy. If Merkel had been honest to the public about the potential consequences of her decision, perhaps it would've been a part of the debate.