101–110 of 676 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best time to build a nuclear power plant in 20 years ago. The second best is today.
That is only true if nothing has changed in the last twenty years. But in that timeframe alternatives to nuclear have dropped in price quite a bit and know how about nuclear has retired.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, framing it as if Germany policy had not been also ... "influenced" by Russia's long-term strategy would be quite naive.
Why does everyone attribute to deception what could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany (and a lot of other EU countries which are conveniently omitted from this discussion)? Energy is at the core of economic development and Germany and a bunch of other countries were able to get gas for decades.
It's the same here, but with selling energy to "capitalists".
What Europeans might have seen as purely economic affair for the USSR / Russia was just means of getting money to grow and support its army, to buy Western politicians and media influence, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dependence on the Soviet Union and later Russia worked for 50 years. This partnership, which was being undermined by the US from the beginning, is attributed to establishing a basis for cooperation between the Soviet Union and Western Europe. Considering that the Soviets pulled out peacefully of Eastern Germany, that worked pretty great.
This is incredibly short-sighted. Soviets pulling out of Eastern Germany, the collapse of the GDR, the Warsaw Pact, the USSR has very little to do with the energy imports. One might even argue that the USSR would collapse economically even earlier if not for all the currency it got from oil and gas sales.
Given how peacefully it collapsed and the huge potential for mayhem, I’d stay away from altering the timeline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is only true if nothing has changed in the last twenty years. But in that timeframe alternatives to nuclear have dropped in price quite a bit and know how about nuclear has retired.
If that were the case there wouldn't be an energy crisis in every country without nuclear power. Yet the less nuclear power a country has the more electricity prices have risen since 2010.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does everyone attribute to deception what could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany (and a lot of other EU countries which are conveniently omitted from this discussion)? Energy is at the core of economic development and Germany and a bunch of other countries were able to get gas for decades.
Do you the famous (and maybe fake) quote 'The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them' ? It's the same here, but with selling energy to "capitalists". What Europeans might have seen as purely economic affair for the USSR / Russia was just means of getting money to grow and support its army, to buy Western politicians and media influence, etc.
Practically you’re not though, because as history attests, the USSR dissolved peacefully and thorough all the ups and downs the economic relationship survived.
This is perhaps why the warnings from the US were ignored for so long: they were based on self-interest and they had a track record of being wrong for decades.
De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…
They are basically a spiritual successor of the middle-age Catholic Church. All they talk is about sacrifice, suffering in our earthly life for better afterlife, bans, and restrictions. The only difference is that instead of God, they swear by "Klimawandel".
And of course, it's not relatively rich Green party members and supporters that suffer from their policies. They keep their SUVs, flight regularly, and the poorer half of the population will need to save the planet.
Atom energy is bad, but fracking is obviously fine for them. What a bunch of hypocrites.
I hope the Green get off their moral high horse or get replaced before they do even more harm to the German economy, wealth and even environment. They are just the most destructive force leading Germany to collapse.
Also we seem to be focusing on space exploration again. To take off we're always using fossil fuel. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you cannot take a ship into space with wind and solar. Also a wild guess but if we develop nuclear enough we might get smaller generators that are able to help a ship take off and then continue to have energy while in space. I know too little to make these claims but I'm sure the smart people here can help me understand if I am wrong or correct :)
Isn't it smart to invest in Nuclear? Sure, there might be drawbacks right now but if we invest in research and improve it we might find a way to make it "greener"? Also we seem to be focusing on space exploration again. To take off we're always using fossil fuel. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you cannot take a ship into space with wind and solar. Also a wild guess but if we develop nuclear enough we…
While yes, this is currently true even for SpaceX whose Falcon family uses RP-1, for the future the situation looks different - Starship uses liquid oxygen (which can be obtained by air liquefaction) and methane, which can be synthesized at high efficiencies [1] in a laboratory scale or captured from landfills.
[1] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/se/d0se0...
[2] https://news.mit.edu/2022/loci-methane-emissions-landfills-0...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people that usually are puzzled about this approach, also avoid any of the arguments on why people don't want nuclear facilities as the basis of their energy infrastructure. Framing it as some closed minded ideological stance, and that Germany wouldn't be in a position to understand the pros and cons to nuclear technology, just looks to dismiss those that might have actual rationales for running their countries d…
I'm puzzled about why nuclear is deemed less satisfactory than dependence on Putin's Russia for the energy requirements of the world's 4th biggest economy.
First, it's Russia, not Putin's Russia. It's derogatory to frame discussion like that. Should we also start putting "Biden's USA" and "Macron's France"? Just writing this way, and suddenly both USA and France appear like some fourth world banana republics.
Second, both Russia and Soviet Union before were the most reliable energy partner. They didn't fail their obligations a single time.
Reduction in Russian gas should be blamed on NATO sanctions that prevented a timely maintenance of North Stream 1 by confiscation of the gas turbine, and the refusal to start using North Stream 2 although it is ready to deliver gas tomorrow, if Germany decides so.
So stupid to hate nuclear energy. you dont need to be a rocket scientist to realize how good deal its. Where i am from a lot of activists hit the road and blocked many nuclear plant from bein built. Brainless activism is destroying democracies around the world
So, some are brainless, other are genius able to predict the future and take the correct decision. Your mileage can vary.