3 ms·

I really wouldn't call it sleepwalking when it's the result of a lot of lobbying and deeply ingrained mis-views of politics ("conservatives are good with the ec

by eqvinox 7mo ago

I really wouldn't call it sleepwalking when it's the result of a lot of lobbying and deeply ingrained mis-views of politics ("conservatives are good with the economy").

9864247888754 7mo ago
[flagged]
- eqvinox 7mo ago
  ? The exit from nuclear power, in Germany at least, was done by conservatives.
  - casey2 7mo ago
    I don't know how you could believe that in good faith. That doesn't even make sense. Why would a "conservative" want to progress to a Energiewende energy model while getting rid of the infrastructure they are supposed to "conserve" Gemany took massive losses to research green energy for decades, was that also done by conservatives? I guess everything is done by conservatives? The plan drafted by SPD and Greens was executed by a conservative government, due to shift in public sentiment after massive green-backed horror campaigns after Fukushima. This sentiment shift was only possible due to decades of disinformation pushed by oil-funded greens. People joke about Trump being a Russian asset, the SPD & green party are staffed by kremlin loyalists and funded by Gazprom.
    - eqvinox 7mo ago
      I mean… I certainly didn't take a lot of care in wording that, but you need to read it in context of the parent post. Rather than "done", saying "committed and sealed" would've been precise. But it's a response to the parent, which squarely attempted to blame the greens, when it is certainly not solely their achievement. > People joke about Trump being a Russian asset, the SPD & green party are staffed by kremlin loyalists and funded by Gazprom. Now it's my turn to go I don't know how you could believe that in good faith. (Specifically about the green party. SPD I won't argue about with Gazprom Gerd.) I don't know about you but I judge these things by the effect and whom it seems to benefit most. And I don't see the policies of the greens benefitting the kremlin and Gazprom. If they're assets, they're providing pretty shit value ;)
      - leonidasrup 7mo ago
        Gazprom has financially supported both SPD and CDU in Germany, indirectly through lobby organizations such as VNG (Verbundnetz Gas), Deutsch-Russische Rohstoff-Forum. https://correctiv.org/en/latest-stories/2022/10/07/gazprom-lobby-germany/ https://correctiv.org/en/latest-stories/2022/10/07/gazprom-l...
        eqvinox 7mo ago
        I did say I won't argue about SPD ;)
  - leonidasrup 7mo ago
    "After the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party won the elections in 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities (in 2000). They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years. The plan allocated each plant an amount of electricity that it could produce before it had to be shut down. Because nuclear power generation can vary, the plan did not set an exact date for the complete phase-out. But in theory, the last one would have had to close in 2022. New nuclear power plants were banned altogether. " "The opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its chairwoman, Angela Merkel, objected to the agreement, calling it a “destruction of national property” that would be revoked if the CDU came to power." "When the CDU/CSU won the elections in 2009 and formed a coalition with the Free Democrats (FDP), they extended the operating time by eight years for seven nuclear plants and 14 years for the remaining ten." "In the wake of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, Japan, on 11 March 2011, the same Merkel government decided on 14/15 March to suspend the 2010 lifetime-extension for a three-month period, and then to mothball Germany's seven oldest reactors for the same period (known as the nuclear moratorium)." https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
- _Microft 7mo ago
  We should have kept using nuclear? That nuclear of which refinement capacities are over 40% in Russians hands? For conversion it’s even a combined 63% for Russia+China. “Russia's Stranglehold On The World's Nuclear Power Cycle”, https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphics/32014247.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphi...
  - menaerus 7mo ago
    Interesting article. According to it, the missing piece is scaling the conversion facilities from 8% to x%, and then scaling uranium enrichment process from 30% to x%. With that in place heavy dependency to Russia+China would have been solved, no?
  - citrin_ru 7mo ago
    Reliance on Russian gas (which did increase after shutting down nuclear) is a bigger problem than relying on nuclear fuel: in nuclear energy fuel cost has much smaller impact on electricity cost than gas price for gas fired power stations.
    - leonidasrup 7mo ago
      In 2024, the EU imported a little over €700 million in Russian uranium products out of a total of €22 billion Russian energy imports. https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/ending-european-union-imports-russian-uranium https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/ending-european-union-impor...
  - leonidasrup 7mo ago
    The reliance on Russian nuclear fuel services is a consequence of decisions made decades earlier in U.S. made during Bush era and later Obama era. "Following proposals from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Russia, and in connection with the US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), there have been moves to establish international uranium enrichment centres." "The first of these international centres is the International Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC) established in 2007 by Rosatom at Angarsk in Siberia" https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
bluegatty 7mo ago
The Green Party of Germany is the most damaging institution of them all. They are responsible for the situation by spreading ideological disinformation and fear mongering. Otherwise Germany and others would be in the same position as France.
- notTooFarGone 7mo ago
  Wow - a nuclear-head in the wild. Tell me please how building nuclear plants today will solve our problems in the 15-20 years it takes to build them. Or how the conservative party did phase out nuclear? They were 16 years at the helm, why couldn't they stop it? But no the fringe party is at fault for everything. That rhetoric is both completely unfounded and basically far-right propaganda. Congratulations - you got targeted and manipulated into a single issue voter.
  - RealityVoid 7mo ago
    They could have... You know... Not closed the existing running nuclear power plants at all? The greens pushed a lot for that. I admit, the future looks good for solar. But to hell and back if I don't prefer a nuclear power plant to a fossil fuel one.
    - blitzar 7mo ago
      > Not closed the existing running nuclear power plants at all? How many more years would you run a plant commissioned in the 1980's for?
      - bluegatty 7mo ago
        A very long time with maintenance, upkeep many are going to have 60 year lifespans and theoretically 80-100 years. Some are planned for 80 years. In the meantime, every day that goes by without building more, is the a day without the ability to walk away from Russian or Gulf oil.
    - notTooFarGone 7mo ago

by eqvinox 7mo ago

I really wouldn't call it sleepwalking when it's the result of a lot of lobbying and deeply ingrained mis-views of politics ("conservatives are good with the economy").

9864247888754 7mo ago

[flagged]

eqvinox 7mo ago
? The exit from nuclear power, in Germany at least, was done by conservatives.
- casey2 7mo ago
  I don't know how you could believe that in good faith. That doesn't even make sense. Why would a "conservative" want to progress to a Energiewende energy model while getting rid of the infrastructure they are supposed to "conserve" Gemany took massive losses to research green energy for decades, was that also done by conservatives? I guess everything is done by conservatives? The plan drafted by SPD and Greens was executed by a conservative government, due to shift in public sentiment after massive green-backed horror campaigns after Fukushima. This sentiment shift was only possible due to decades of disinformation pushed by oil-funded greens. People joke about Trump being a Russian asset, the SPD & green party are staffed by kremlin loyalists and funded by Gazprom.
  - eqvinox 7mo ago
    I mean… I certainly didn't take a lot of care in wording that, but you need to read it in context of the parent post. Rather than "done", saying "committed and sealed" would've been precise. But it's a response to the parent, which squarely attempted to blame the greens, when it is certainly not solely their achievement. > People joke about Trump being a Russian asset, the SPD & green party are staffed by kremlin loyalists and funded by Gazprom. Now it's my turn to go I don't know how you could believe that in good faith. (Specifically about the green party. SPD I won't argue about with Gazprom Gerd.) I don't know about you but I judge these things by the effect and whom it seems to benefit most. And I don't see the policies of the greens benefitting the kremlin and Gazprom. If they're assets, they're providing pretty shit value ;)
    - leonidasrup 7mo ago
      Gazprom has financially supported both SPD and CDU in Germany, indirectly through lobby organizations such as VNG (Verbundnetz Gas), Deutsch-Russische Rohstoff-Forum. https://correctiv.org/en/latest-stories/2022/10/07/gazprom-lobby-germany/ https://correctiv.org/en/latest-stories/2022/10/07/gazprom-l...
      - eqvinox 7mo ago
        I did say I won't argue about SPD ;)
- leonidasrup 7mo ago
  "After the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party won the elections in 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities (in 2000). They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years. The plan allocated each plant an amount of electricity that it could produce before it had to be shut down. Because nuclear power generation can vary, the plan did not set an exact date for the complete phase-out. But in theory, the last one would have had to close in 2022. New nuclear power plants were banned altogether. " "The opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its chairwoman, Angela Merkel, objected to the agreement, calling it a “destruction of national property” that would be revoked if the CDU came to power." "When the CDU/CSU won the elections in 2009 and formed a coalition with the Free Democrats (FDP), they extended the operating time by eight years for seven nuclear plants and 14 years for the remaining ten." "In the wake of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, Japan, on 11 March 2011, the same Merkel government decided on 14/15 March to suspend the 2010 lifetime-extension for a three-month period, and then to mothball Germany's seven oldest reactors for the same period (known as the nuclear moratorium)." https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
_Microft 7mo ago
We should have kept using nuclear? That nuclear of which refinement capacities are over 40% in Russians hands? For conversion it’s even a combined 63% for Russia+China. “Russia's Stranglehold On The World's Nuclear Power Cycle”, https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphics/32014247.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphi...
- menaerus 7mo ago
  Interesting article. According to it, the missing piece is scaling the conversion facilities from 8% to x%, and then scaling uranium enrichment process from 30% to x%. With that in place heavy dependency to Russia+China would have been solved, no?
- citrin_ru 7mo ago
  Reliance on Russian gas (which did increase after shutting down nuclear) is a bigger problem than relying on nuclear fuel: in nuclear energy fuel cost has much smaller impact on electricity cost than gas price for gas fired power stations.
  - leonidasrup 7mo ago
    In 2024, the EU imported a little over €700 million in Russian uranium products out of a total of €22 billion Russian energy imports. https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/ending-european-union-imports-russian-uranium https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/ending-european-union-impor...
- leonidasrup 7mo ago
  The reliance on Russian nuclear fuel services is a consequence of decisions made decades earlier in U.S. made during Bush era and later Obama era. "Following proposals from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Russia, and in connection with the US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), there have been moves to establish international uranium enrichment centres." "The first of these international centres is the International Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC) established in 2007 by Rosatom at Angarsk in Siberia" https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

bluegatty 7mo ago

The Green Party of Germany is the most damaging institution of them all. They are responsible for the situation by spreading ideological disinformation and fear mongering. Otherwise Germany and others would be in the same position as France.

notTooFarGone 7mo ago
Wow - a nuclear-head in the wild. Tell me please how building nuclear plants today will solve our problems in the 15-20 years it takes to build them. Or how the conservative party did phase out nuclear? They were 16 years at the helm, why couldn't they stop it? But no the fringe party is at fault for everything. That rhetoric is both completely unfounded and basically far-right propaganda. Congratulations - you got targeted and manipulated into a single issue voter.
- RealityVoid 7mo ago
  They could have... You know... Not closed the existing running nuclear power plants at all? The greens pushed a lot for that. I admit, the future looks good for solar. But to hell and back if I don't prefer a nuclear power plant to a fossil fuel one.
  - blitzar 7mo ago
    > Not closed the existing running nuclear power plants at all? How many more years would you run a plant commissioned in the 1980's for?
    - bluegatty 7mo ago
      A very long time with maintenance, upkeep many are going to have 60 year lifespans and theoretically 80-100 years. Some are planned for 80 years. In the meantime, every day that goes by without building more, is the a day without the ability to walk away from Russian or Gulf oil.
  - notTooFarGone 7mo ago