Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrera | Hacker News Reader

From the article:

1. Legal hurdles. "The previous law was changed to close the nuclear power plants after Fukushima."

2. Safety. "To keep the reactors open in 2023, Germany would need to accept accelerating the risk assessment and maybe living without some retrofittings."

3. Fuel. "The reactors would then need new fuel, which would take 12-15 months to arrive, and would require a doubling of manufacturing capacity."

4. Spare parts. "They also fear that some spare parts would be lacking because there is no further market in Germany for them."

5. Personnel. "People have been retiring and no new ones have been trained, so it would be hard to get the people."

6. Economics. "With lack of clarity on spare parts and personnel, how can we commit to a reliable delivery or energy? We can’t be 100% confident."

7. Energy replacement. "Until the new nuclear fuel is in place, we would make up for the shortage with more electricity coming from coal and gas."

View on HN

lol completely wrong, the guy in charge of the energy policy in Germany is a major benefactor of GAZPROM so he made Germany entirely dependent on it.

Can you name him?

https://twitter.com/0ddette/status/1499486726259101702

Gerhard Schröder ("affectionately" called Gasherd) was the chancellor until 2005, not specifically in charge of energy policy. He also hasn't been politically in charge of anything for the last 15 years. The nuclear shutdown now in place (after a few reversals, exiting the exit started by Schröder) was triggered by Merkel, who isn't involved (at least yet) with russian gas money.

The current minister in charge (Robert Habeck) is part of the greens, who were one the most parties most opposed to russia and it's energy (staunchly against North Stream 2) and Habeck shares these views according to his public mentions.

You are referring to Gerhard Schröder, who was the German chancellor from 1998 to 2005. So he was in charge of running the country, not the energy politics specifically in that time, and not in the 17 years following up today.

To start with, yes, his later (up to today) involvement with Gazprom is a scandal, bordering on corruption. But had nothing to do with German politics after 2005.

He might have been too friendly towards Russian gas, but Germany used Russian gas for many decades before him and the largest mistakes, which we suffer from today, have been made made by the governments which followed his. And I say this as someone who always opposed him.

While deciding about exiting nuclear energy long-term during his government, the switch to renewables was started. If the following governments had fully stuck to that, the situation would already be significantly different. And of course, however much gas you use, tying Germany so much to one supplier was the greatest mistake of all, especially after 2008 and 2014. There would have been ample time of adjusting energy politics to the changed situation, but nothing has been done.

> But had nothing to do with German politics after 2005.

As we all know, each administration has absolutely 0 effect on any future or past administration.

> which we suffer from today, have been made made by the governments which followed his

But not his?

> While deciding about exiting nuclear energy long-term during his government, the switch to renewables was started. If the following governments had fully stuck to that, the situation would already be significantly different.

Weird how that worked out for him then. Must be entirely coincidental; couldn't be because the most powerful people in the world wanted it. Certainly no one from any of the current administration will be found to be beneficiaries of GAZPROM or other oil companies that benefit from keeping renewables and nuclear out of Germany.

Incredibly naive take on the situation tbh. The bourgeois class is literally wasting trillions all around the world on rockets to space, mega yachts, underground car tunnels and whatever pet project, and OP wants us to believe we simply don't have the resources to build nuclear plants that we could make in the 1960's? lmfao.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com