Germany to abandon Nuclear Power by 2022

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
.......... European governments aren't (all) in the back pocket of the oil companies.

Given that the solution to Germany's energy future will in no small part be sourced from Polish shale oil, it makes you wonder.......

Originally posted by kmax87
Given that the solution to Germany's energy future will in no small part be sourced from Polish shale oil, it makes you wonder.......

It's politics. Merkel is eyeing a possible future coalition with the Greens, who have been doing very well in polls especially since the Fukushima disaster.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's politics. Merkel is eyeing a possible future coalition with the Greens, who have been doing very well in polls especially since the Fukushima disaster.

I'm sure the Greens party as a worldwide concern are not to be confused as being one and the same in each nation state's example of them, but if Australia's Greens party are anything to go by, then they sail pretty close to the wind of being a front organization for big oil.

To whit: The Australian Labor Party was ready to push through legislation for an ETS scheme and the Greens who by their previous credentials as saviors of the planet, you would have thought, would have helped get the legislation through Parliament. But instead they took the moral highground and sniffed at the proposal saying that the scheme's targets at carbon reduction were way too modest and they pulled their support of the legislation. Now with a hung Parliament the Greens are giving support for an interim Carbon Tax that will get the country on the road towards, wait for it, an Emissions Trading Scheme. (ETS) Now call me silly, but why didn't they support the government 2 years ago when all the legislation needed was only the government plus their support? They could have always lobbied at increasing targets once the legislation was in place.

Which brings me to my point. The greens promote change and environmental responsibility, but when they were given the opportunity to exercise their conscience and vote in favour of something they purportedly stood for, they backed out because it didnt go far enough. Rather than have something, we now still have nothing, and are unlikely to for many a year. So who are they working for again? The environment??? hmph!!!

Originally posted by kmax87
I'm sure the Greens party as a worldwide concern are not to be confused as being one and the same in each nation state's example of them, but if Australia's Greens party are anything to go by, then they sail pretty close to the wind of being a front organization for big oil.

To whit: The Australian Labor Party was ready to push through legislation for an E ...[text shortened]... unlikely to for many a year. So who are they working for again? The environment??? hmph!!!

The German Greens are a mainstream political party who have been in both national and local governments on multiple occasions. There's wheeling and dealing and political games as with any political party.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
France has relatively few coal plants because it has many nuclear power plants.

The article is about coal mines, not coal plants (Holland for example shut down its coal mines decades ago but still has many coal plants). Aside from that, the article dates back to 2007 and it's likely the coal policy will come under review considering the shutdown of nuclear plants.

The same study that recommended closing down the nuclear plants also recommended a phase out of coal. So we'll see.

80% of German coal needs are provided by internal coal mining. I seriously doubt that they intend to shut down their own mining just so they can buy coal overseas.

Originally posted by kmax87
I'm sure the Greens party as a worldwide concern are not to be confused as being one and the same in each nation state's example of them, but if Australia's Greens party are anything to go by, then they sail pretty close to the wind of being a front organization for big oil.

To whit: The Australian Labor Party was ready to push through legislation for an E ...[text shortened]... unlikely to for many a year. So who are they working for again? The environment??? hmph!!!

I know of no Green Party anywhere in the world that supports nuclear energy.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The same study that recommended closing down the nuclear plants also recommended a phase out of coal. So we'll see.

80% of German coal needs are provided by internal coal mining. I seriously doubt that they intend to shut down their own mining just so they can buy coal overseas.

They did the same in Holland, it was cheaper to buy coal abroad than to continue mining it. I'm not sure where they buy it, China perhaps.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
They did the same in Holland, it was cheaper to buy coal abroad than to continue mining it. I'm not sure where they buy it, China perhaps.

Outsourcing is cheaper, so you take jobs and export them. It seems to be par for the course. Of course the question is whether or not it is cheaper to give your own people jobs rather than paying for the social welfare programs needed when you outsource jobs.

Originally posted by Eladar
Outsourcing is cheaper, so you take jobs and export them. It seems to be par for the course. Of course the question is whether or not it is cheaper to give your own people jobs rather than paying for the social welfare programs needed when you outsource jobs.

Yeah, but unemployment is very low partially because the government generally does not protect redundant jobs - the local aeroplane and car manufacturing collapsed too but the economy is doing fine. If you are throwing government money at jobs it's a better idea to have them doing something useful like teaching, patrolling the streets or whatever.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yeah, but unemployment is very low partially because the government generally does not protect redundant jobs - the local aeroplane and car manufacturing collapsed too but the economy is doing fine. If you are throwing government money at jobs it's a better idea to have them doing something useful like teaching, patrolling the streets or whatever.

That doesn't make any sense. If consumers are still buying the products, then how are the jobs in your country "redundant" or "not useful"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That doesn't make any sense. If consumers are still buying the products, then how are the jobs in your country "redundant" or "not useful"?

They are redundant because someone else can do the job better/cheaper. You know, capitalism.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yeah, but unemployment is very low partially because the government generally does not protect redundant jobs - the local aeroplane and car manufacturing collapsed too but the economy is doing fine. If you are throwing government money at jobs it's a better idea to have them doing something useful like teaching, patrolling the streets or whatever.

I think that's a very short term view. I'd think that if you can insulate yourself from foreign influence by being self sufficient in energy, then that can only be good for a country.

There are only so many service jobs that an economy can support. We'll have to see the long term results of this kind of thinking.

Originally posted by Eladar
I think that's a very short term view. I'd think that if you can insulate yourself from foreign influence by being self sufficient in energy, then that can only be good for a country.

There are only so many service jobs that an economy can support. We'll have to see the long term results of this kind of thinking.

I thought you were in favour of capitalism, not mercantilism?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I thought you were in favour of capitalism, not mercantilism?

That's depends on the form of capitalism. A country has got to look after its self interest first. Energy is something that a country needs and therefore is something that goes beyond simple economics. It is national security.

I believe in free trade, as long as it is free trade and not simply allowing one country to put up restrictions against you while you let them dump on your market. That isn't capitalism. That's suicide.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
They are redundant because someone else can do the job better/cheaper. You know, capitalism.

China can do the job cheaper because it is an authoritarian country with severe restrictions on its workers' rights. If that's "capitalism", its pernicious effects should not be supported by Western liberal democracies.