Yes, they replaced their domestic production with Russian gas because that was more politically expedient than supporting their domestic hydrocarbon production. They are being forced to do without sufficient energy, shutting down factories. In other words, going green is great, but losing one source of energy before an alternative source is ready means people freeze and lose jobs.
Yes, they replaced their domestic production with Russian gas because that was more politically expedient than supporting their domestic hydrocarbon production. They are being forced to do without sufficient energy, shutting down factories. In other words, going green is great, but losing one source of energy before an alternative source is ready means people freeze and lose jobs.
тАЬSupporting their domestic hydrocarbon productionтАЭ in Germany means continued reliance on coal. That is clearly suicidal. As a result of Chernobyl contaminating German agricultural lands they chose to reduce reliance on nuclear power production and pursued a two pronged strategyтАФbet that Russian natural gas would be a stable and less CO2 intensive power source while building out green energy sources. Hindsight being 20/20 itтАЩs become clear that betting on Russia was a mistakeтАФas many thought it could be.
Their reaction to Chernobyl was irrational. So was their decision to shut down the Groningen gas extraction operations (In in the minority on that 2nd issue, I lnow)
Groningen is in the Netherlands and expected to stay in production for another 3-6 years. Not sure how that directly involves GermanyтАЩs choices. Given the present realities I wouldnтАЩt be surprised if that decision is revisited.
I was living in Germany at the time of the Chernobyl disaster. The main warnings I remember concerned wild mushrooms and milk from cows grazing on contaminated pastures.
Chernobyl was poorly designed and likely not well run and I agree that deciding to avoid nuclear power on that basis was irrational. It may have been a crisis too good to waste for the Green Party at the time and zeitgeist.
Yes, they replaced their domestic production with Russian gas because that was more politically expedient than supporting their domestic hydrocarbon production. They are being forced to do without sufficient energy, shutting down factories. In other words, going green is great, but losing one source of energy before an alternative source is ready means people freeze and lose jobs.
Drum beat, drum beat
тАЬSupporting their domestic hydrocarbon productionтАЭ in Germany means continued reliance on coal. That is clearly suicidal. As a result of Chernobyl contaminating German agricultural lands they chose to reduce reliance on nuclear power production and pursued a two pronged strategyтАФbet that Russian natural gas would be a stable and less CO2 intensive power source while building out green energy sources. Hindsight being 20/20 itтАЩs become clear that betting on Russia was a mistakeтАФas many thought it could be.
Their reaction to Chernobyl was irrational. So was their decision to shut down the Groningen gas extraction operations (In in the minority on that 2nd issue, I lnow)
Groningen is in the Netherlands and expected to stay in production for another 3-6 years. Not sure how that directly involves GermanyтАЩs choices. Given the present realities I wouldnтАЩt be surprised if that decision is revisited.
I was living in Germany at the time of the Chernobyl disaster. The main warnings I remember concerned wild mushrooms and milk from cows grazing on contaminated pastures.
Chernobyl was poorly designed and likely not well run and I agree that deciding to avoid nuclear power on that basis was irrational. It may have been a crisis too good to waste for the Green Party at the time and zeitgeist.