Germany to eliminate nuclear power

Rick wrote: Funny how the left learners on this site avoid these truths like the plague.

ScienceChic wrote: I'm one of those that's still for nuclear power plants, despite the risks. They are much safer than a generation ago, and are an essential piece of the non-fossil fuel energy package required to produce the amount of energy we will need in the future. Rockdoc stated it well in another thread that all forms of energy generation come with their own specific negative and positive consequences, and that's just life. What I am relieved to read is that Japan's energy crunch is held in check in part by the big investment that they've made in wind power - energy production must be diversified in order to best meet our needs, and not impact the earth as thoughtlessly as we have been doing. These synthetic microbes hold great promise, but always must be handled with care (a good way to live life, as well).

ScienceChic wrote: I vaguely recall a news story about Japan planning to replace the nuclear plants that were wiped out by the tsunami with ocean wind farms. I'm not as thrilled about plans for nuclear power generation until we figure out a safe solution of what to do with the radioactive waste, but recognize that it has to be a part of the solution of getting us off of fossil fuels for now. Good for China for working on this, they are consuming way too much coal as it is.

ScienceChic wrote: <snip>
* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power. More nuclear is already in the works, it could stand a boost though. :thumbsup: More coal plants better mean CCS fast-tracked.
<snip>

It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy. Energy has not been and will not be free market anytime in the foreseeable future - low energy costs are what drive economies and growth, governments can't afford high costs. Let's stop with the pretty-sounding talk, and get realistic with our goals and policies. Yes, it would be nice if the energy produced were "environmentally sound", but that's not even possible with any alternative source - there's always a downside. It must be implemented in the right areas where it will be most effective and least damaging, is what should be said. Reliable would mean fossil fuels for now, but that reliability will end in mere decades if we continue status-quo consumption. Innovative spirit means ramping up funding for alternative energy research and subsidizing implementation of production right now, not 20 years from now.

The problem is, his obnoxious bluster aside, Trump was substantially correct in his scathing comments about Germany. Berlin’s political elite, across party lines, really is deeply enmeshed with the Kremlin financially, while the Bundeswehr has become a joke inside NATO after a quarter-century of underfunding, something which Merkel has done nothing serious to turn around, despite a decade of promises to do exactly that. NATO’s eastern members doubt that Germany would race to their aid in the event of Russian aggression, and such doubts are well founded.

Then there’s the problem of Nord Stream 2 itself, whose company is majority-owned by Gazprom, the Russian state energy giant. Functionally, Nord Stream 2 equals the Kremlin, and everybody knows this.

Not to mention that the timing of this decision is suspect. Germany has federal elections coming in just four months, and polls show that the Greens are expected to do unprecedentedly well, indeed, they appear likely to be kingmakers after the votes are counted. This is important because the Greens are the only major German party that takes issue with Putin’s regime and its bad human rights record. Indeed, the Greens have promised to kill Nord Stream 2 after the September elections. Biden’s decision to go easy on the Kremlin here, before German elections, constitutes a needless gift to Putin.

The Biden administration is comprised heavily of Obama retreads, the people who got Russia wrong through two terms, appeasing Putin repeatedly, culminating in the 2016 debacle that gave us President Trump. It was to be hoped that they had learned their painful lesson, that the Kremlin plays hardball and only responds to strength, but perhaps that’s not the case.