191–200 of 240 posts
I don't know what the contract looks like; doesn't Germany have a legal obligation to pay Russia even if it were to stop LNG imports?
> We propose that the Europeans continue to pay for pipeline-delivered gas and oil, but that the euro-denominated accounts of those Russian pipeline operators be frozen in terms of withdrawals. If properly implemented and enforced, this would mean that all gas customers continue to meet their contractual obligations, while through force majeure the EU creates what would be effectively escrow accounts for the duration of the war.
[1] https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/03/vo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany does not need nuclear power. This is far too expensive and dangerous. The future is renewable.
They shut down two reactors, and are currently reliant on other countries nuclear generated power. As long as they get to say _they're_ not the ones producing it, it's okay? I'm all for renewable energy, but this is hypocritic nonsense fuelled by emotional decision making, and not helpful towards that goal.
Please, stay calm. Germany is in a transition process. Nuclear is phasing out, renewable is coming. In the EU Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Norway, and Portugal have no nuclear power plants (Estonia has none, but is planning one; Croatia has none, but operates one together with Slovenia; Poland is planning one for 2040). Germany is just joining this club of "hypocrites" this year.
In the next years, Germany is going to export more electric energy than importing. Yes, there are days when Germany needs to import electricity, but that this includes electricity produced by nuclear power is only due to the fact that other countries are slower in their transition process or have decided against it. You should not blame Germany for being fast, when others are just slow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, a mass oversimplification of current issue. Gas reserves wont last that much because human hoards if they know government are starting to use reserves. And, when politician act, they should think about future too. And, can they purchase gas at 50%? Are those written in deals?
How do you hoard gas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Storage, transmission lines, and over provisioning are also alternatives. Still blows my mind that Germany and other countries are closing nuclear facilities though.
Angela Merkal called this a destruction of national property, and they (CDU) extended life of plants 8-14 years. There were 17 plants at the time. Total production that has been shutdown (baseload power) is around 19,689MW now post fukushima. They've been able to replace maybe 4MW's with solar at this point? It's kind of mind boggling how much was shut down - the problem this has caused for electrification in germany…
Germany has 5.3 GW of installed solar, how can you be off by a factor of 1200?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-were-un-diplomats-laughing-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They shut down two reactors, and are currently reliant on other countries nuclear generated power. As long as they get to say _they're_ not the ones producing it, it's okay? I'm all for renewable energy, but this is hypocritic nonsense fuelled by emotional decision making, and not helpful towards that goal.
> hypocritic nonsense Please, stay calm. Germany is in a transition process. Nuclear is phasing out, renewable is coming. In the EU Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Norway, and Portugal have no nuclear power plants (Estonia has none, but is planning one; Croatia has none, but operates one together with Slovenia; Poland is planning one for 2040). Germany is just joining this club…
Shouldn’t one have the replacement first and only then close the existing producers?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lowering the price of something increases the demand.
demand for gasoline is fairly inelastic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They shut down two reactors, and are currently reliant on other countries nuclear generated power. As long as they get to say _they're_ not the ones producing it, it's okay? I'm all for renewable energy, but this is hypocritic nonsense fuelled by emotional decision making, and not helpful towards that goal.
> hypocritic nonsense Please, stay calm. Germany is in a transition process. Nuclear is phasing out, renewable is coming. In the EU Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Norway, and Portugal have no nuclear power plants (Estonia has none, but is planning one; Croatia has none, but operates one together with Slovenia; Poland is planning one for 2040). Germany is just joining this club…
Now they had to roll back their decision because it's totally bonkers, and open back some less polluting nuclear plants.
I always find it a bit funny that the green parties are so retarded that they take decisions that cause more pollution. They really live in this idealistic world that is completely separate from the real one. Hippies...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They shut down two reactors, and are currently reliant on other countries nuclear generated power. As long as they get to say _they're_ not the ones producing it, it's okay? I'm all for renewable energy, but this is hypocritic nonsense fuelled by emotional decision making, and not helpful towards that goal.
> hypocritic nonsense Please, stay calm. Germany is in a transition process. Nuclear is phasing out, renewable is coming. In the EU Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Norway, and Portugal have no nuclear power plants (Estonia has none, but is planning one; Croatia has none, but operates one together with Slovenia; Poland is planning one for 2040). Germany is just joining this club…
https://www.wired.com/story/germany-rejected-nuclear-power-a...
> Following Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant meltdown, Germany’s antinuclear lobby kicked into high gear, and tens of thousands of people took to the streets in protest. The German government quickly passed legislation to decommission all of the country’s nuclear reactors
> ...
> found that nuclear power was mostly replaced with power from coal plants, which led to the release of an additional 36 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, or about a 5 percent increase in emissions
So yes, they're fast. So much so that they've outpaced any plans that should have existed to go alongside phasing out nuclear power.
I hope you're right and they're at least going to be in good shape in a few years, but I both doubt that, and it doesn't change the damage they're doing right now.