Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

diablosinmusica t1_j0v5vsd wrote

Reply to comment by Ikaros004 in Ukraine May Finally Get Greece’s Russian S-300 Missiles by srjain313

You said most countries would be embarrassed to conduct themselves in a similar manner. I used an example where they rationalized quite a bit.

Wouldn't your comment be "what about ism" then, since it's not the point of the article?

−46

ceratophaga t1_j0v9435 wrote

>to conduct themselves in a similar manner

Except it isn't even remotely similar. A major part of the train of thought behind becoming dependent on Russian resources was to have a guarantee for both sides that a conflict would be against their own interests. There was logic behind it - people just didn't account for Putin's willingness to nuke his own economy for decades to come.

It may have been naive, but it wasn't intentionally harmful to a defensive alliance in a manner that purchasing both S-400 and F-35s would've been.

18

diablosinmusica t1_j0vdh8w wrote

That's beyond naive. Europe increased their dependence on natural gas and oil while shutting down and canceling nuclear plants. I can't picture becoming more dependent willingly.

−26

ceratophaga t1_j0vld0i wrote

Gas and electricity are two very different things, even when you can use one to create the other.

But just for the sake of the argument: The plan was to phase out natural gas by the 2030s and replace it with renewables, and use excess renewable electricity to create hydrogen or methane. Most if not all recently built natural gas plants are able to be switch to those gases, and the pipeline networks are also compatible, same as the now being-build LNG terminals.

The decision to phase out nuclear was made because it was simply too expensive.

5

diablosinmusica t1_j0vnslk wrote

The switch from nuclear came after the Fukushima disaster. It wasn't about money. It was about lobbying. Nuclear power is cheaper than fossil files in the long run. Using the cost of plants as the overall cost is a lobbying tactic that only helps those who's interests lie in fossil fuels. By 2030 Putin will be almost 80. He'll have gotten what he wanted.

1

ceratophaga t1_j0vyaew wrote

This is just wrong. The decision to phase out eventually was made by chancellor Kohl in the '80s because of the epical financial failure of the THTR-300 and the corruption scandals around the NPP in Mülheim-Kärlich. When the Greens came into power as a junior partner in the late '90s they created a plan on when to exit nuclear and how to replace it (and fossil) with renewables. Then Merkel came into power and slashed the entire renewable stuff, investing into more coal first and then into gas.

All that Fukushima did was triggering the so called "Atom-Moratorium" which was a shutdown of all NPPs for general inspections, with the results being so devastating several plants weren't allowed to reboot.

2

Big_ifs t1_j0w01fv wrote

Nuclear Power Plants in Germany were all very old, an enormous investment would have been necessary to keep nuclear power in the game. The switch was decided ~10 years before Fukushima to invest in renewables instead, but then overturned by a new (conservative) government to kill renewables. After Fukushima, that same government decided to end nuclear power again, but without doing much for renewables this time.

Because of Putin's Russia, Germany (and Europe as a whole) will become independent from Russian energy in only a few years. Russia will be absolutely powerless by 2030 and without a working economy.

1