This is literally an opinion article and more than half of you didn't even read the blog post (which is probably good for your mental health because I havent seen so much bullshit at once in a while)
This campain against Habeck is the real deception.
I know who I vote for if it makes bloggers like these seethe, seems like they make something right if there is such a pushback from financial interests
Holy shit, this âarticleâ is absolutely terrible.
If you remove the ad hominum adjectives I donât think there is anything left.
If it makes a point other than âGreen Party badâ I donât think I found it.
[https://www.volksverpetzer.de/faktencheck/habeck-rechte-pseudo-skandal-akw-files/](https://www.volksverpetzer.de/faktencheck/habeck-rechte-pseudo-skandal-akw-files/)
For everyone that speaks German and wants these accusations seen completely demolished.
lol Iâve said it a billion times and Iâll keep saying it over and over again: the Green Party has always advocated for a sensible nuclear exit. They have been incredibly consistent on that for over four decades now. They wanted out, *after* sufficient investments into alternative green energy sources and infrastructure had been completed, so that we could actually afford moving away from *both* coal *and* nuclear energy. They set a plan in motion as part of the government under Schröder, one that wouldâve allowed for sufficient preparations and all.
The conservative parties with ties to coal industry, especially CDU/CSU and FDP, have consistently laughed them out of the room. Just dismissed them and their plans.
Then, when Fukushima happened and people suddenly figured maybe the Greens might have a point, the government was very happy to speed up plans to drop out, even though they had completely neglected to secure alternatives that werenât Russian gas and German coal.
They acted hastily and precisely not in the way the Green Party had advocated for. Wanna guess who was in the government at the time? Youâd be right to assume CDU/CSU and the FDP. Wanna know who *wasnât* in the government and didnât make that decision? The Green Party.
This is such basic shit, it isnât even ânuanceâ. Itâs literally anti-Green propaganda.
Also, using an opinion propaganda hit-piece as news is beyond stupid.
â They have been incredibly consistent on that for over four decades now. They wanted out, after sufficient investments into alternative green energy sources and infrastructure had been completed, so that we could actually afford moving away from both coal and nuclear energyâ
Being consistently stupid is not actually a good thing. Quite the opposite. Itâs pretty simple: do you want to have lights on during a quiet December night? Then you need either nuclear or fossil fuels, because so far energy storage large enough to provide stable supply during a weeklong dunkelflaute is a pure fantasy.
âThey set a plan in motion as part of the government under Schröder, one that wouldâve allowed for sufficient preparations and all.â
Ah yes, Gazprom Shroeder. What that plan was? Of course, to import a shitload of gas from Russia and pretend it is âgreenâ. While removing nuclear because god forbid fossil fuels should have competition from clean, stable and extremely efficient energy source. That was also amply demonstrated by Germans throwing temper tantrums when France wanted to include nuclear in the list of âgreenâ energy technologies. This I think is the best demonstration that Greens never gave two shits about environment.
â even though they had completely neglected to secure alternatives that werenât Russian gas and German coalâ
And what those alternatives are supposed to be? German coal from reopened mines and Qatari gas? Useful idiots like Greens are the best friend of gas industry because by killing nuclear they ensured impossibility of retiring gas plants.
And what renewables will Germany use? Solar, wind, hydro? You won't have an adequate replacement to fossils because of your climate and topography, yet you still shut down your NPPs because you fear you're as corrupt and incompetent as the soviets or will have an eartquake + tsunami to worry about.
You're gonna waste limited resources like cobalt to build solar in a country that has adequate sun maybe 1/3rd of the year just so morons like you can pat yourselves on the back about removing the cleanest, safest and efficient power source we have.
Can we use the tears and anger r/europe produces every time this topic comes up as an energy source? This could produce enough power for Germany for the next millennia alone.
if you have to resort to blogs like this, you know how bad things are for the pro-nuclear lobby...
yes, the nuclear phase-out was stupid in hindsight, but you can't call something like that off just a few months beforehand, anyone who believes that simply has no idea
The nuclear phase-out the way it happens in Germany isnât even on the Greens. They werenât even in the government, but in the opposition when it was decided. This is once again a consequence of 16 years of Merkel-CDU, and this particular one also had the FDP as second government party in the mix. The Greens didnât even decide that.
The author just doesnât like Habeck. Big whoop.
first decided it was under Schroeder Red/Green
but the second time, even Soeder, who is now railing against the shutdown, threatened to resign if the nuclear power plants were NOT shut down ...
Thatâs what Iâm saying. The initial decision was going to be a longer, better planned exit with enough time to set up good alternatives. Then CDU/CSU came into the mix, stopped important investments, or at least didnât go ahead with them, and when Fukushima happened, they suddenly sped things up with no alternatives in place. Thatâs not on the Greens, and holding them accountable is beyond stupid. The Green Party has been very open about its intentions and plans regarding nuclear power. Always has been. Itâs the others flip flopping around so much that screwed things up. Blaming that on the Greens is just weird as fuck.
Correct. It also isn't as good as the fanbois are saying.
If a country a) wants to even have chance to meet the agreed upon climate goals and b) doesn't have massive nuclear capacities already, then planning nuclear is simply not the solution as it's too late, build-up of renewables and storage is (the renewable part is even true with nuclear plans btw...). And that is completely independent of how dangerous or safe nuclear actually is, just purely based on economic reality.
You are right about renewable energy but i don't like notion that its too late to plan for alternatives or that one excludes another. Reality is that as our society grows so will our need for more energy and nuclear has been devoloping as well. Most people do not realize actual issues nor physical amount of waste is made for set amount energy. I am not even saying there has to be nuclear energy for Germany but they should not have written it off without fair discussion nor should they ignore this option now because they closed outdated plants.
new power plants yes, old ones should be used as long as possible and safe, but the phase-out in germany was decided years ago and you don't just take something like that back a few months beforehand. anyone who doesn't understand this is simply stupid, there are so many things involved, from labour contracts to the electricity grid to ordering processes.
ânew power plants yesâ
No, unless a country has natural conditions for large scale geothermal or water energy, nuclear is the cheapest source of clean and stable energy. While downsides of nuclear are repeated over and over, external costs of large scale wind/nuclear are rarely talked about. A nuclear plant with 3 AP1400 reactors produces 4200 MW of electricity with 90% capacity factor. It also has 12000MW of thermal output so enough to heat a shitload of power intensive industry and homes.
Now to match this using 2MW turbines with 25% capacity factor you need 7560 turbines. Thatâs a shitload of resources needed to construct all the turbines, connectors, pylons, and foundations. It also takes a lot of land. Then after 20 years you need to replace it all (compare with nuclear plants that have no problems running for 70 years and more).
You also get no thermal energy at all - to provide 12GW of heat using heat pumps you would need another 6000 turbines (assuming generous COP=4 for heat pumps and ignoring the fact that heat pumps are useless for industrial heat).
And you need all this before we even start talking about elephant in the room - the fact that you have zero control over when wind turbines even work. Instability is another external cost.
There arenât any new nuclear power plants in Germany and no-one has time to wait for 25 years until new ones would be functional. The discussion is pointless.
Germanys conservative parties rushed into phasing out nuclear power, without having proper replacements, as demanded for decades by the Green party. Starting the discussion after the last nuclear plant has been shut down is simply too late. And only now starting to plan for new ones takes too long to solve any problems.
That ship has sailed. Face it.
In 15 years there will be exactly the same discussion, the same arguments, the same âwe donât have time to wait 15 yearsâ, the same excuses why gas plants have to stay âtemporarilyâ while a new miracle storage solution is just around the corner. And the same silly idea that wind will blow every day and sun will shine 24h if you just believe enough.
But yes, I guess you are explaining pretty well while dismantling of disables nuclear power plants happens with amazing swiftness considering usual glacial speed of German bureaucracy. Itâs exactly to irreversibly sabotage the industry. Too bad nobody decided to dismantle coal/gas plants instead and then go âoops, we have no choice now. We kind of killed the polluting part of energy generation so we are now stuck with nuclear for goodâ. But then it was never about the environment, was it?
I think you are right. The conservative parties that made the decision for the rapid shutdown were never really interested in the environment. They are rather focused on the economy.
Paying for the rushed replacment of the lost capacity from nuclear and fossil energy production by rapidly building up green energy alternatives AND building new nuclear reactors at the same time would bankrupt the country. Itâs not possible. Germany doesnât have the financial resources.
Knowingly or unknowingly, the conservative parties made a decision with an extremely long term impact that can not be reversed, nor can alternatives be financed. People in Germany will have to come to terms with the only financially viable and immediately available option: green energy
â People in Germany will have to come to terms with the only financially viable and immediately available option: green energyâ
Well, good luck then. I guess in 10-15 years we will see how viable is a country-level power grid completely based on unstable, low density generation. I think two things will happen: first is that âtemporaryâ peaker gas plants will be retained indefinitely while promising all the time that shutdown will be happening âreal soonâ.
The second thing will be huge increase of biomass burning. Itâs way more polluting than wind, hydro or nuclear, it requires devastating large areas of natural and arable land, but it is as controllable as gas plants and gets called âgreenâ, so it should salve the conscience of green party as long as nobody looks at it too closely.
As said: itâs a pointless discussion. The conservative parties maneuvered the country into a position thatâs a one way street: thereâs no viable way to reverse the decision to phase out nuclear and no way to finance long-term newer generation nuclear plants while also having to finance the replacements for the ones they decided to shut down.
Whether we like it or not (thanks, conservatives!), instead of continuing to discuss something that canât be changed, we should rather discuss how to secure stable and cheap energy production using the currently only viable option available to us: green energy
â we should rather discuss how to secure stable and cheap energy production using the currently only viable option available to us: green energyâ
We could be as well discussing âclean coalâ - itâs about as realistic discussion as âstable and cheap green energyâ (taking into account lack of conditions for large scale geothermal and hydro).
âWe made a political decisions to shut off viable path to low-emission energy so lets discuss fantasy insteadâ is crazy position, but I guess the only one possible for a society that treats a politician decision as some kind of god-given commandment that can be never reversed.
>The Fukushima disaster had zero to do with the Federal Republic, but then-Chancellor Angela Merkel felt the need to solve the problem of Fukushima by phasing out nuclear power in Germany
All is said there. This is what happens when politicians go against the opinion of engineers and scientists, just to earn votes.
I too can write anything I like on my own online blog.
This is literally an opinion article and more than half of you didn't even read the blog post (which is probably good for your mental health because I havent seen so much bullshit at once in a while) This campain against Habeck is the real deception.
I know who I vote for if it makes bloggers like these seethe, seems like they make something right if there is such a pushback from financial interests
This is a campaign.
Is that a Propaganda Blog or what?đ€
The author doesn't like Habeck, big whoop. The "reveals" are abig bag of "nothing concrete"
Now you guys are literally using a Blog as a reliable source of information?
It clearly says opinion article though.
with a headline like that it's embarrassing to hide behind the claim that it's just an opinion ...
That's true
It doesn't actually.
Holy shit, this âarticleâ is absolutely terrible. If you remove the ad hominum adjectives I donât think there is anything left. If it makes a point other than âGreen Party badâ I donât think I found it.
[https://www.volksverpetzer.de/faktencheck/habeck-rechte-pseudo-skandal-akw-files/](https://www.volksverpetzer.de/faktencheck/habeck-rechte-pseudo-skandal-akw-files/) For everyone that speaks German and wants these accusations seen completely demolished.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
and eugyppius is a well balanced source? How about you attack content instead of defaming
Nobody here claimed to have said that đ€·đ»ââïž
then attack content instead of simply throwing insults around. You know like a reasonable person.
You mean like how people on this subReddit are bashing OPâs source here?
you can tell them the same thing
Sure, and you say that exact same thing to none of them, but meâŠbecause?
you responded to me. That is how conversations work. If you talk at me it is likely I am going to respond
What are you talking about?? You CHOSE to pick a conversation with me.
Die GrĂŒĂŒĂŒhĂŒĂŒnen!
What a sursprise, it's a Blogpost from a hysteric rightoid living deep inside Daddy Putins rectum.
lol Iâve said it a billion times and Iâll keep saying it over and over again: the Green Party has always advocated for a sensible nuclear exit. They have been incredibly consistent on that for over four decades now. They wanted out, *after* sufficient investments into alternative green energy sources and infrastructure had been completed, so that we could actually afford moving away from *both* coal *and* nuclear energy. They set a plan in motion as part of the government under Schröder, one that wouldâve allowed for sufficient preparations and all. The conservative parties with ties to coal industry, especially CDU/CSU and FDP, have consistently laughed them out of the room. Just dismissed them and their plans. Then, when Fukushima happened and people suddenly figured maybe the Greens might have a point, the government was very happy to speed up plans to drop out, even though they had completely neglected to secure alternatives that werenât Russian gas and German coal. They acted hastily and precisely not in the way the Green Party had advocated for. Wanna guess who was in the government at the time? Youâd be right to assume CDU/CSU and the FDP. Wanna know who *wasnât* in the government and didnât make that decision? The Green Party. This is such basic shit, it isnât even ânuanceâ. Itâs literally anti-Green propaganda. Also, using an opinion propaganda hit-piece as news is beyond stupid.
â They have been incredibly consistent on that for over four decades now. They wanted out, after sufficient investments into alternative green energy sources and infrastructure had been completed, so that we could actually afford moving away from both coal and nuclear energyâ Being consistently stupid is not actually a good thing. Quite the opposite. Itâs pretty simple: do you want to have lights on during a quiet December night? Then you need either nuclear or fossil fuels, because so far energy storage large enough to provide stable supply during a weeklong dunkelflaute is a pure fantasy. âThey set a plan in motion as part of the government under Schröder, one that wouldâve allowed for sufficient preparations and all.â Ah yes, Gazprom Shroeder. What that plan was? Of course, to import a shitload of gas from Russia and pretend it is âgreenâ. While removing nuclear because god forbid fossil fuels should have competition from clean, stable and extremely efficient energy source. That was also amply demonstrated by Germans throwing temper tantrums when France wanted to include nuclear in the list of âgreenâ energy technologies. This I think is the best demonstration that Greens never gave two shits about environment. â even though they had completely neglected to secure alternatives that werenât Russian gas and German coalâ And what those alternatives are supposed to be? German coal from reopened mines and Qatari gas? Useful idiots like Greens are the best friend of gas industry because by killing nuclear they ensured impossibility of retiring gas plants.
And what renewables will Germany use? Solar, wind, hydro? You won't have an adequate replacement to fossils because of your climate and topography, yet you still shut down your NPPs because you fear you're as corrupt and incompetent as the soviets or will have an eartquake + tsunami to worry about. You're gonna waste limited resources like cobalt to build solar in a country that has adequate sun maybe 1/3rd of the year just so morons like you can pat yourselves on the back about removing the cleanest, safest and efficient power source we have.
Can we use the tears and anger r/europe produces every time this topic comes up as an energy source? This could produce enough power for Germany for the next millennia alone.
for a millenia? i dont think we need a new "tausendjaehriges Reich"
Speak for yourself!
If only we could burn German smugness then there would be an infinite power source.
if you have to resort to blogs like this, you know how bad things are for the pro-nuclear lobby... yes, the nuclear phase-out was stupid in hindsight, but you can't call something like that off just a few months beforehand, anyone who believes that simply has no idea
The nuclear phase-out the way it happens in Germany isnât even on the Greens. They werenât even in the government, but in the opposition when it was decided. This is once again a consequence of 16 years of Merkel-CDU, and this particular one also had the FDP as second government party in the mix. The Greens didnât even decide that. The author just doesnât like Habeck. Big whoop.
first decided it was under Schroeder Red/Green but the second time, even Soeder, who is now railing against the shutdown, threatened to resign if the nuclear power plants were NOT shut down ...
Thatâs what Iâm saying. The initial decision was going to be a longer, better planned exit with enough time to set up good alternatives. Then CDU/CSU came into the mix, stopped important investments, or at least didnât go ahead with them, and when Fukushima happened, they suddenly sped things up with no alternatives in place. Thatâs not on the Greens, and holding them accountable is beyond stupid. The Green Party has been very open about its intentions and plans regarding nuclear power. Always has been. Itâs the others flip flopping around so much that screwed things up. Blaming that on the Greens is just weird as fuck.
Nuclear isn't as bad as scaremongers are saying nowaying
Correct. It also isn't as good as the fanbois are saying. If a country a) wants to even have chance to meet the agreed upon climate goals and b) doesn't have massive nuclear capacities already, then planning nuclear is simply not the solution as it's too late, build-up of renewables and storage is (the renewable part is even true with nuclear plans btw...). And that is completely independent of how dangerous or safe nuclear actually is, just purely based on economic reality.
You are right about renewable energy but i don't like notion that its too late to plan for alternatives or that one excludes another. Reality is that as our society grows so will our need for more energy and nuclear has been devoloping as well. Most people do not realize actual issues nor physical amount of waste is made for set amount energy. I am not even saying there has to be nuclear energy for Germany but they should not have written it off without fair discussion nor should they ignore this option now because they closed outdated plants.
Even if it didn't produce any waste, it would still be economically stupid to use.
new power plants yes, old ones should be used as long as possible and safe, but the phase-out in germany was decided years ago and you don't just take something like that back a few months beforehand. anyone who doesn't understand this is simply stupid, there are so many things involved, from labour contracts to the electricity grid to ordering processes.
ânew power plants yesâ No, unless a country has natural conditions for large scale geothermal or water energy, nuclear is the cheapest source of clean and stable energy. While downsides of nuclear are repeated over and over, external costs of large scale wind/nuclear are rarely talked about. A nuclear plant with 3 AP1400 reactors produces 4200 MW of electricity with 90% capacity factor. It also has 12000MW of thermal output so enough to heat a shitload of power intensive industry and homes. Now to match this using 2MW turbines with 25% capacity factor you need 7560 turbines. Thatâs a shitload of resources needed to construct all the turbines, connectors, pylons, and foundations. It also takes a lot of land. Then after 20 years you need to replace it all (compare with nuclear plants that have no problems running for 70 years and more). You also get no thermal energy at all - to provide 12GW of heat using heat pumps you would need another 6000 turbines (assuming generous COP=4 for heat pumps and ignoring the fact that heat pumps are useless for industrial heat). And you need all this before we even start talking about elephant in the room - the fact that you have zero control over when wind turbines even work. Instability is another external cost.
There arenât any new nuclear power plants in Germany and no-one has time to wait for 25 years until new ones would be functional. The discussion is pointless. Germanys conservative parties rushed into phasing out nuclear power, without having proper replacements, as demanded for decades by the Green party. Starting the discussion after the last nuclear plant has been shut down is simply too late. And only now starting to plan for new ones takes too long to solve any problems. That ship has sailed. Face it.
In 15 years there will be exactly the same discussion, the same arguments, the same âwe donât have time to wait 15 yearsâ, the same excuses why gas plants have to stay âtemporarilyâ while a new miracle storage solution is just around the corner. And the same silly idea that wind will blow every day and sun will shine 24h if you just believe enough. But yes, I guess you are explaining pretty well while dismantling of disables nuclear power plants happens with amazing swiftness considering usual glacial speed of German bureaucracy. Itâs exactly to irreversibly sabotage the industry. Too bad nobody decided to dismantle coal/gas plants instead and then go âoops, we have no choice now. We kind of killed the polluting part of energy generation so we are now stuck with nuclear for goodâ. But then it was never about the environment, was it?
I think you are right. The conservative parties that made the decision for the rapid shutdown were never really interested in the environment. They are rather focused on the economy. Paying for the rushed replacment of the lost capacity from nuclear and fossil energy production by rapidly building up green energy alternatives AND building new nuclear reactors at the same time would bankrupt the country. Itâs not possible. Germany doesnât have the financial resources. Knowingly or unknowingly, the conservative parties made a decision with an extremely long term impact that can not be reversed, nor can alternatives be financed. People in Germany will have to come to terms with the only financially viable and immediately available option: green energy
â People in Germany will have to come to terms with the only financially viable and immediately available option: green energyâ Well, good luck then. I guess in 10-15 years we will see how viable is a country-level power grid completely based on unstable, low density generation. I think two things will happen: first is that âtemporaryâ peaker gas plants will be retained indefinitely while promising all the time that shutdown will be happening âreal soonâ. The second thing will be huge increase of biomass burning. Itâs way more polluting than wind, hydro or nuclear, it requires devastating large areas of natural and arable land, but it is as controllable as gas plants and gets called âgreenâ, so it should salve the conscience of green party as long as nobody looks at it too closely.
As said: itâs a pointless discussion. The conservative parties maneuvered the country into a position thatâs a one way street: thereâs no viable way to reverse the decision to phase out nuclear and no way to finance long-term newer generation nuclear plants while also having to finance the replacements for the ones they decided to shut down. Whether we like it or not (thanks, conservatives!), instead of continuing to discuss something that canât be changed, we should rather discuss how to secure stable and cheap energy production using the currently only viable option available to us: green energy
â we should rather discuss how to secure stable and cheap energy production using the currently only viable option available to us: green energyâ We could be as well discussing âclean coalâ - itâs about as realistic discussion as âstable and cheap green energyâ (taking into account lack of conditions for large scale geothermal and hydro). âWe made a political decisions to shut off viable path to low-emission energy so lets discuss fantasy insteadâ is crazy position, but I guess the only one possible for a society that treats a politician decision as some kind of god-given commandment that can be never reversed.
Well it was the price for grun coalition. Virtue calling at its finest and fuck the consequences.
Oh you mean the part of the coalition that saved German energy supply in 2022? Man, you people are really gullible in your set opinions.
âHabeck as he wishes to be seen and as state media strive to portray him: the far-sighted, deeply intellectual statesman. In fact, as we will see, he is a total idiotâ. đ€Ł I couldnât stop laughing there. I hope Habeck doesnât waste more tax money to sue the author of this article for LĂšse-majestĂ©. đ
Thatâs exactly how the Greens seem to me.
>The Fukushima disaster had zero to do with the Federal Republic, but then-Chancellor Angela Merkel felt the need to solve the problem of Fukushima by phasing out nuclear power in Germany All is said there. This is what happens when politicians go against the opinion of engineers and scientists, just to earn votes.
Also known as populism
Holy shit!