41–50 of 279 posts
Maybe if there is a war in Ukraine the pipelines will be destroyed, and they will be forced to turn them back on.
As I understood, they will directly begin to dismantel the plants. So there is no way back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should call this the "enable Putin" and "destroy the climate" plan. Honestly, I think we should declare a 50% tax on the gas going through the new Putin Nordstream 2 pipeline and direct the proceeds to NATO. Prices in externalities of gas usage and gets the EU closer to their NATO commitment.
Why waste money on military? Couldn't it be used much better ways like to decarbon various areas in infrastructure?
You're right, why waste money teaching the kid Aikido when we could instead spend that money on school tutors to try to get them into schools that don't have bullies.
I live in Germany and I wonder, what the consequences will be of shutting down both coal and nuclear in very short time. My guess is, we will pay for nuclear energy from France and coal energy from Poland when wind slows down. The new government tries to accelerate the construction of renewable energy but I think their plans will fail because of worker shortage and supply chain problems.
France will build more nuclear, and in the long run solidify its position as a huge exporter of electricity at high rates when wind is low. Weird arbitrage opportunity for them as the neighbors go all in on wind.
Trading the risk of energy supply shortage for the risk of radioactive accidents.
Yeah, this has been known for a long time now that Germany is planning to shut down their nuclear plants. I have no clue why. There is a country in Eastern Europe and >60% of their electricity is from their nuclear power plants, and they are extending it. Imagine this country exporting electricity to Germany. Anyways, I believe it was a pretty shitty idea to say no to nuclear.
I live in Germany and I wonder, what the consequences will be of shutting down both coal and nuclear in very short time. My guess is, we will pay for nuclear energy from France and coal energy from Poland when wind slows down. The new government tries to accelerate the construction of renewable energy but I think their plans will fail because of worker shortage and supply chain problems.
Yup, and we will end up paying 50% more for our energy usage, just because of political swings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One incident caused by a natural disaster that would never happen in a European country like Germany, the other caused by mismanagement and frankly jaw droppingly pigheaded incompetence which would also never happen in a country like Germany. Edit: in response to the large number of people bringing up BER and other infrastructure failures in Germany: yes, BER and others may have been bad, but a completely different k…
Yes, although never say never...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who, to be clear, pays for almost all of the defense in NATO. So yes, to appease the US. Also, it's terrible policy to depend on Putin, which seems obvious to everyone but Germany
How come trade is seen as a peace maker for inside the EU, but not seen as a peace maker when done with Russia? AFAIK Russia has been a trustworthy gas supplier and it would be economical suicide if they proved not to be trustworthy.
Free trade requires easy substitutes to remain "free" and opponents of this plan mostly think that energy markets don't work like that because of high switching costs. Germany can not just spin up new nuclear plants or easily buy electricity from neighbors past a certain amount of it's usage. I don't know enough to know if this angle is correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who, to be clear, pays for almost all of the defense in NATO. So yes, to appease the US. Also, it's terrible policy to depend on Putin, which seems obvious to everyone but Germany
How come trade is seen as a peace maker for inside the EU, but not seen as a peace maker when done with Russia? AFAIK Russia has been a trustworthy gas supplier and it would be economical suicide if they proved not to be trustworthy.
To be replaced by Russian gas. Great move!
Despite a lot of investigation it looks like Fukushima did not cause an increase in cancer deaths (and there were no direct deaths from it either). It's sad and strange that we treat it as if it had caused hundreds or thousands of deaths, and our response to it is to increase fossil fuel use, which definitely will lead to more death and pollution. Read for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disa…
My understanding was that root-cause was old design and not sufficiently secure back-up power and failure to get such on site. Which could have been done, but was not.