31–40 of 192 posts
batteries are becoming dirt cheap, decentral production wins amidst clusterfucking climate catastrophes. solar and wind already are cheaper than anything else. the markets will adjust, simple as that.
any push to prolong the transition simply benefits fossil stakeholders.
Was that not clear from the beginning? Nobody ever claimed it was for strategic purposes, the narrative was "we don't like nuclear anything, we will get rid of it we can bear the costs". So I don't think you could even call it a strategic mistake, but masochism maybe? Especially while keeping the exit date in the height of the fallout of a real strategic mistake, the dependence on cheap russian gas.
It wasn’t that hard to see that energy needs were only going to increase rather than diminish. And not because of ai datacenters, but (to make a simple example) for example because of the already ongoing at the time push for the electrification of the automotive industry.
It’s also crazy that the initiative was supposed at all by environmentalists.
Anyway, props to Mertz for admitting the mistake, we’ll see if they will fix it somehow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With your history surely the far right wouldn't get that amount of power ever again... right...? Oh... wait....
The far right in Germany now calls themselves pacifists :-D Nevertheless, I would feel much safer living in a EU that has serious nuclear deterrence capabilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a populist move because a big chunk of the electorate is German moms and German grandmas who are absolutely terrified of radiation post Chernobyl.
Also post Fukushima.
Was that not clear from the beginning? Nobody ever claimed it was for strategic purposes, the narrative was "we don't like nuclear anything, we will get rid of it we can bear the costs". So I don't think you could even call it a strategic mistake, but masochism maybe? Especially while keeping the exit date in the height of the fallout of a real strategic mistake, the dependence on cheap russian gas.
Was that not clear from the beginning? Nobody ever claimed it was for strategic purposes, the narrative was "we don't like nuclear anything, we will get rid of it we can bear the costs". So I don't think you could even call it a strategic mistake, but masochism maybe? Especially while keeping the exit date in the height of the fallout of a real strategic mistake, the dependence on cheap russian gas.
My money is on Russian meddling, to make Germany dependent or Russian gas. Which happened. Until the US blew up the pipeline, and now Germany is dependent on US gas.
The right was never anti-nuclear, but they were more pro-gas and pro-coal.
Was that not clear from the beginning? Nobody ever claimed it was for strategic purposes, the narrative was "we don't like nuclear anything, we will get rid of it we can bear the costs". So I don't think you could even call it a strategic mistake, but masochism maybe? Especially while keeping the exit date in the height of the fallout of a real strategic mistake, the dependence on cheap russian gas.
It was a populist move because a big chunk of the electorate is German moms and German grandmas who are absolutely terrified of radiation post Chernobyl.
So, basically his own party, CDU was part of the coalition when nuclear exit was decided. The chancellor from his own party, Merkel decided to accelerate exit after Fukushima, while increasing dependency on Russian gas and blocking construction of renewables in CDU/CSU governed states. And now it is the previous government that failed the energy transition. Funnily enough, both this and previous governments declared…