4 ms·
I'll explain my reasoning, after you show that the decision to decommission nuclear plants (which was made about 10 years ago, by the conservative CDU) led to a
by OKRainbowKid 10mo ago
I'll explain my reasoning, after you show that the decision to decommission nuclear plants (which was made about 10 years ago, by the conservative CDU) led to a significant increase in fossil imports from Russia, and that nuclear power would reduce dependency on Russia. As far as I'm aware, Russia is also an important source for nuclear fuel.
Additionally, just from a purely economic perspective, nuclear energy is not very competitive (if not just very expensive).
Also, just going by actual geostrategic standpoints, you would be hard pressed to find sympathy for Putins Russia in the green party, probably the least amongst all significant parties in Germany.
That's why I have a hard time understanding your original comment.
- like_any_other 10mo ago> As far as I'm aware, Russia is also an important source for nuclear fuel. I couldn't find a source on where Germany got its fuel, but did find that Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia are also nuclear fuel producers, so at the least they had options. But supposing they did get their fuel from Russia - nuclear fuel [1] costs $1.5 per MWh [2], while natural gas (the cheapest fossil fuel) costs $13.2 per MWh. So Russia gets ~TEN TIMES more money per MWh if selling gas vs. nuclear fuel. > find sympathy Let me know how much effect sympathy has compared to diverting capital into Russia. [1] Only the fuel, so this does not include the full cost of operating a nuclear plant, and the electricity produced is thus more expensive, but this is what Russia would get paid. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#Fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_prices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_prices