I think what is important to keep in mind: Merz is on the conservative, pro-economy side of the conservative party, whereas Merkel is not. She has a background in science. She never liked Merz.
Merkel dumped nuclear after Fukushima simply to improve her electoral calculus. As in everything she did, there were no long-term concerns. Yet to her defence it has to be stated that nuclear energy in Germany was just not economically feasible anymore at that time (when gas was still cheap, wind and sun cheaper, and burning coal was not yet frowned upon). Also, Germany had shut down their own uranium mining long ago…
That move reminds me of Cameron promising the Brexit referendum to placate Eurosceptics because he thought it would never happen.
When you go to the German Wikipedia page about the Fukushima incident you can learn about the misleading reporting in Germany, even in the public broadcasting like ARD or renowned newspapers like Süddeutsche Zeitung ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuklearkatastrophe_von_Fukushi... ). Many articles were published that claimed 18.000 casualties from the nuclear disaster while in reality it was the Tsunami.
The Greens and allies have been scaremongering on nuclear power since the 80s.
Merz will say anything if it somehow benefits him and doesn't concern himself with facts. > German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, admitted recently that Germany’s departure from nuclear energy was a serious strategic mistake, saying the policy has made the country’s energy transition “the most expensive in the entire world.” Even if that were the case, nuclear had no impact on the cost of the transition. > eliminating nu…
This take misses the real un-stated strategic mistake which is what I'm pretty sure Merz actually means but can't say aloud. Shutting down nuclear reactors means you lose a source of plutonium that can be diverted to weapons manufacturing. You also lose nuclear engineers and workers with skills and knowledge to fabricate with fissile materials which you need to manufacture those weapons. Similarly, the reason so many…
This is true, but I don't think the reason for his proclamation. It would be very unlike him.
For better or worse there is zero chance that Germany starts a nuclear weapons program. The public sentiment just won't allow that unless we are already at war, in which case it is too late. Besides that, nuclear weapons are stationed in Germany already. France and the UK are next door, so I am also not sure if it would actually benefit Germany at this point.
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.
Nope, the reason is, we can’t guarantee the power plants are safe, we don’t have a final storage for nuclear waste and it too expensive.
Fun fact, the ministers of the federal states that are most in favor of nuclear power do not want a final waste storage.
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.
But that fear is also largely manufactured by the government through publicly funded television/radio.
You still shouldn’t eat certain mushrooms in Bavaria thanks to Chernobyl
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.
The operator companies are also in favor of the exit because it’s too expensive
Fukushima sure, but a lot of women were traumatized by Chernobyl and the news of a cloud of radioactive dust that was going to give them all cancer. I think Fukushima just reingnited those fears.
Mushrooms and boars are still contaminated in Bavaria
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.
I’d call it stupidity rather than masochism. 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 f…
Where is the stupidity?
Do you think companies who couldn’t built a safe airport or train station can suddenly built something more complex like a nuclear power plant without massively going over budget, construction time and safety?
And I guess nobody fears Russian drone flying over WECs instead of nuclear power plants
I have given them as examples, both having support from voters. There’s unfortunately no real alternative to mainstream parties at the moment from political point of view. Nobody really cares about cost of living and housing crisis, overcoming healthcare special interest group lobbies etc.
So true, unfortunately. I wonder why that is the case. Maybe the majority of voters (pensionists, state employees, ...) is just not affected by these problems (yet)?
Most people have a vested interest in one party remaining in power, one that addresses their personal concerns over everything else. The ruling coalition just passed a pension reform that supports the older generation but is hostile to the young. Trade unions will support the SPD no matter what, because additional bureaucracy "benefits" workers. CDU is strongly influenced by business lobbies (and FDP too). Greens are feel-good choice for voters alarmed by climate change and as such are highly unstable (their pro-war stance could be probably a good idea, if Ukraine was winning, but now it looks detached from reality). The main problem is that German politics have professionalized, with careers starting straight from university, and became as opportunistic as product management in scale-ups. People understand that their political future isn’t tied to a decade-long housing program, so that is off the table.
People have completely memory holed how bizarrely pro everything Russia the EU was from 2000-2015.
Seems you have memory holed how pro Russia the US was too. You guys had joint military exercises. Why single out the EU as being bad? What you seem to also have memory holed was that up until Crimea, the prevailing idea for Russia was that the more we trade with them, the more wealthy and informed the populace becomes and the more entwined the economy becomes globally and thus losing that access would become too pain…
> Seems you have memory holed how pro Russia the US was too.
Interesting inference to draw.
> The exact same playbook was used for China up till 2016