Earlier quoted context omitted.
> partly because traffic is really bad in major cities. This is particularly relevant in the European context, where most cities were not built for cars and now cannot be significantly altered.
> now cannot be significantly altered And why should we? (as in: I consider car-friendly cities a bug, not a feature)
Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
131–140 of 150 posts
Re: Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't make policy. Policy, however, involves risk management. If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it.
If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it. A lack of air bags is not noticable until your car crashes.
Re: Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it. A lack of air bags is not noticable until your car crashes.
Sure, but what you're claiming is that air bags are missing based on never having seen them operate.
The question is if we nevertheless deem them 'safe enough'.
Re: Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Closing all of the Nuclear power plants after Fukushima was a bit of a dumb reactionary move. It's shifted power generation from emission free Nuclear to dirty emission heavy coal There was a plan in place since 2002 to shut down all nuclear plants by about 2020 (plus/minus some, since the criteria was amount of power emitted per plant). That plan was cancelled in 2010 by Merkel, replaced by a more generous plan (d…
Why was that the plan initially? I'm not up on the history of this one.
Therefore quitting nuclear power was part of that government's DNA.
2002:
In 2000 they managed to create an accord on ending the use of nuclear power plants, signed by the various affected parties in 2001 and turned into law in 2002.
The law forbade the creation of new nuclear power plants (not that it mattered much: the last one went online in 1989), set a limit of "an average of 32 years of operation" for existing sites, and that there may be a total energy production of 2.62 million GWh through nuclear power in Germany, counting from January 1, 2000.
By December 31, 2008 a good half of that amount was generated.
There were some other new requirements as part of the 2002 law: regular safety controls, no nuclear reprocessing, a requirement to setup sites for temporary storage of nuclear waste, tenfold increase to 2.5bn EUR for the mandatory insurance operators had to take against incidents (with no limit in personal liability if they were at fault).
2010:
In 2009, Germany got a new management (CDU/FDP: Merkel's CDU, that we consider conservative, with the FDP as a highly fiscal conservative / corporation friendly side-kick).
They quickly drafted a new deal which went into effect in 2010: The 7 oldest plants were granted 8 more years of operation each. The other 10 plants got 14 more years. But still no permits for new plants. (so enthusiasm was... low)
Everybody else was checking various legal venues to stop the law from going into force.
2011:
Fukushima happens. In Germany, the highly contentious decision from yesteryear (still hotly debated) meets the fears of a nuclear wasteland.
Within days the 7 oldest plants that were just granted 8 more years (plus a newer one that was notoriously problematic) were ordered to shut down for a few months until things are sorted out.
Within 5 months, there was another revision of the law on nuclear power, which required those 8 plants to remain shut down. It also defined various lifetimes for the other plants, none staying in operation into 2023.
The first of the remaining sites went offline recently, for the others there's a map with their schedule at http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/atomenergie-strahlenschutz/nu...
End result: The latest plants went online in 1989, so for them the "average 32 years life time" would have been in 2021. Since various older plants were running longer than their 32 years, 2021 would be a good guess, if a bit on the high end.
However assuming that power generation in nuclear power plants is somewhat constant over the years, with some reduction over time due to plants shutting down, these 2.62 million GWh might have lasted until 2018 or so.
Merkel is now held responsible for "shutting down nuclear power in Germany" by the end of 2022. Which, to me, looks like an extensions, not a restriction of nuclear power in Germany.
(Details taken from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomkonsens and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomgesetz_(Deutschland) )
Re: Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This largely coincides with the Green Party's rise in popularity. The green party could probably profit much more from those topics if one had the feeling they'd be more trustworthy in those issues. Particularly in the diesel emissions scandal the greens are a big failure - the reason being that the greens form the government in southwest Germany (Baden Württemberg), which has a strong car industry.
I'm from Baden Württemberg, and I'm not sure how strong the car industry is any more. For example, every year a bit more autobahn has a speed restriction applied to it. I think you're spot on though. The diesel emissions scandal is made worse by the fact that diesel was promoted in the EU because the CO2 emissions tend to be lower than petrol. This is reflected by diesel vs petrol prices in France or Germany (diesel…
Here, Diesel is taxed less than petrol, originally as a measure to support agriculture (who traditionally use Diesel engines on the field). There's a slightly higher tax on the car itself with a Diesel engine.
Together this makes Diesel cheaper if you're using your car _a lot_, and so vehicle fleets (corporate, car rental, ...) are all Diesel based.
That's hard to roll back politically (since it's cutting into expensive investments of huge organisations).
Re: Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
#136Re: Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
#137Germany's generous subsidy and build out of solar, while solar was still really expensive, was key in driving the cost down which now the whole world benefits from. Huge credit there. But bio fuels are an unmitigated disaster. Electric ground transportation is the future.
> Electric ground transportation is the future. It's a relatively less evil, for now. We still haven't found a good way of dealing with old batteries and it's a huge environmental problem.
Re: Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
#138As a person, she's extremely obstinate. For a leader, this trait can be advantageous - after all, who wants a leader who changes their minds all the time - but for the rest of Europe it's a curse. Somehow she is unable to admit she made some serious mistakes, and we're all suffering because of it.
Re: Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> she was seen as following moral principles having not made any concessions to right wing politics Well, Bavarians might disagree with both "moral principles" and "right wing". Especially CDU is hardly "right wing".
The CDU is extremely fiscally conservative (see Schaeuble's black zero project) and very socially conservative (anti-gay-marriage, anti-drug-legalisation, pro-surveillance compared to the average view of the population). It is rather right wing in a global context. If you don't think they are right wing, you might want to recalibrate your views of what you think of "centrist".
Re: Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster
#140Germany's generous subsidy and build out of solar, while solar was still really expensive, was key in driving the cost down which now the whole world benefits from. Huge credit there. But bio fuels are an unmitigated disaster. Electric ground transportation is the future.
> Germany's generous subsidy and build out of solar, while solar was still really expensive, was key in driving the cost down You wanted to say China, didn't you.