Author Topic: This should settle some different opinions (Read 131609 times)

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #50 on:** April 10, 2023, 13:18 »

Quote from: Annie on April 08, 2023, 15:02

Anyway, I could go on and on about this, but I won't take up any more of people's time.

Transylvanian Saxons, not many will know that history but after they did much to build the country, they were in effect, more recently, chased out of their own homes, which were taken over. Their history was destroyed, records and documents. That's hate.

Enemy of the state has been applied by both sides in the US, to the others. God is on our side was used by the Germans in the world wars.

In the end, those in power and the winners of battles, or wars, write the history.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #51 on:** April 10, 2023, 13:49 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 10, 2023, 13:18

Quote from: Annie on April 08, 2023, 15:02

Anyway, I could go on and on about this, but I won't take up any more of people's time.

Transylvanian Saxons, not many will know that history but after they did much to build the country, they were in effect, more recently, chased out of their own homes, which were taken over. Their history was destroyed, records and documents. That's hate.

Enemy of the state has been applied by both sides in the US, to the others. God is on our side was used by the Germans in the world wars.

In the end, those in power and the winners of battles, or wars, write the history.

They were only "chased away" after WWII, when large numbers were deported to Siberia by the russian occupying army, beying suspected of nazi collaborationism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Germans_from_Romania_after_World_War_II

Later on, a large majority of those who remained, were actually sold by Ceausescu (the former communist dictator of Romania) for 20,000 deutsche marks (~$10,000) a piece, Pete.

Federal Germany paid this amount for all ethnic Germans who wanted to emigrate and escape from communist Romania. Ethnic Romanians didn't have this chance.

Their empty homes were occupied, after their departure, indeed.

Lesser known fact is that the sitting Romanian president is Klaus Werner Iohannis, a Transylvanian saxon, born in Sibiu (aka Hermannstadt), once predominantly German-speaking city. This confirms the high esteem regular romanians still hold for the german minority.

Electing a president from an ethnic minority, and at the same time from a religious minority is not somethig that happens in too many places.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #52 on:** April 10, 2023, 14:03 »

Quote from: Wilm on April 10, 2023, 10:01

However, she took a very negative view of Russia's development under Putin, openly criticizing Russia's de-democratization to Putin.

You should not just listen to what politicians say, you need to watch what they do. They say one thing and do another, that's how Russian agents work.
What can I say about Merkel, about her affairs, I won’t list everything, she ruled for many years.
1. Kept Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO in 2008.
2. Forced Kyiv to sign a surrender in 2014, the Minsk agreements.
3. She built Nord Stream 2 in order to help Russia occupy Ukraine, but at the same time not lose gas for Germany.
4. Made Germany very dependent on Russian energy.
5. Carried out an anti-American policy, carefully. I'm not talking about how long Russian agents and soft power in the form of various funds, TV channels were in Germany.
Rake and rake. And nothing, he sits on his pension, and is not responsible for anything.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #53 on:** April 10, 2023, 14:20 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 10, 2023, 14:03

Quote from: Wilm on April 10, 2023, 10:01
However, she took a very negative view of Russia's development under Putin, openly criticizing Russia's de-democratization to Putin.
You should not just listen to what politicians say, you need to watch what they do. They say one thing and do another, that's how Russian agents work.
What can I say about Merkel, about her affairs, I won’t list everything, she ruled for many years.
1. Kept Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO in 2008.
2. Forced Kyiv to sign a surrender in 2014, the Minsk agreements.
3. She built Nord Stream 2 in order to help Russia occupy Ukraine, but at the same time not lose gas for Germany.
4. Made Germany very dependent on Russian energy.
5. Carried out an anti-American policy, carefully. I'm not talking about how long Russian agents and soft power in the form of various funds, TV channels were in Germany.
Rake and rake. And nothing, he sits on his pension, and is not responsible for anything.

I am not saying that she is a russian agent, but she clearly lacked vision irt Putin.
Her predecessor Schröder, is not even hiding it, being directly employed by Putin, after he left office.

But this is not uncommon among European politicians. Here is a list:

Gerhard Schröder (former German prime-minister),
Matteo Renzi (former Italian prime-minister),
Christian Kern (former Austrian chancelor),
François Fillon (former French prime-minister),
Esko Aho (former Finish prime-minister),
Pavoli Poonem (former Finish prime-minister)
Karin Kneissl (former Austrian minister of foreign affairs)
Hans Jörg Schelling (former Austrian minister of finance),
Dominique Strauss-Kahn (former IMF director)

All of them were employed by Putin.

See Karin Kneissl here

... bowing in front of Putin, special guest at her 2018 wedding.

All these useful idiots should have know better and should have listen to countries like Poland, Romania, the Baltic countries, etc who constantly warned them about the russian danger, after experiencing it first hand, for decades.

Wilm · « **Reply #54 on:** April 10, 2023, 15:13 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 10, 2023, 13:10

Quote from: Wilm on April 10, 2023, 10:01
Do you have access to any secret archives if you know about things that are "not official"?
She grew up in the GDR, which emerged from the Soviet occupation zone. Thus, she was probably closer to socialism at that time than the West Germans. However, she took a very negative view of Russia's development under Putin, openly criticizing Russia's de-democratization to Putin.
Information slowly penetrates into the press, but not much, tk. this will probably interfere with Scholz, who is required to have the right policy.
Any good career as a pioneer, a communist is not just like that. She knows Russian well. In those years, Putin also worked in the GDR as a scout. As a result, a former communist from the GDR sat at the head of Germany for many years. How beautiful.
They say there and there was a connection between them, but I won’t say, and so I wrote enough.

Why Angela Merkel's father chose the GDR and not the FRG can be read. It had to do with his theological profession.

The inhabitants of the GDR all learned Russian at school because the GDR was a Russian occupation zone and later part of the Warsaw Pact under the leadership of the Soviet Union/Russia, while the inhabitants of the FRG learned the language of the American, English and French occupation zones. I was one of them. Neither the students in the GDR nor those in the FRG chose the languages that were in the state curriculum. It was predetermined - for Merkel, as for me.

To establish a closeness to Putin because Angela Merkel knew Russian is therefore nonsense.

The statement "They say..." is - with respect - not helpful. Who says that? Where does any and trustworthy information come from. Who are "they"?

Wilm · « **Reply #55 on:** April 10, 2023, 15:52 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 10, 2023, 14:20

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 10, 2023, 14:03
Quote from: Wilm on April 10, 2023, 10:01
However, she took a very negative view of Russia's development under Putin, openly criticizing Russia's de-democratization to Putin.
You should not just listen to what politicians say, you need to watch what they do. They say one thing and do another, that's how Russian agents work.
What can I say about Merkel, about her affairs, I won’t list everything, she ruled for many years.
1. Kept Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO in 2008.
2. Forced Kyiv to sign a surrender in 2014, the Minsk agreements.
3. She built Nord Stream 2 in order to help Russia occupy Ukraine, but at the same time not lose gas for Germany.
4. Made Germany very dependent on Russian energy.
5. Carried out an anti-American policy, carefully. I'm not talking about how long Russian agents and soft power in the form of various funds, TV channels were in Germany.
Rake and rake. And nothing, he sits on his pension, and is not responsible for anything.

I am not saying that she is a russian agent, but she clearly lacked vision irt Putin.
Her predecessor Schröder, is not even hiding it, being directly employed by Putin, after he left office.

But this is not uncommon among European politicians. Here is a list:

Gerhard Schröder (former German prime-minister),
Matteo Renzi (former Italian prime-minister),
Christian Kern (former Austrian chancelor),
François Fillon (former French prime-minister),
Esko Aho (former Finish prime-minister),
Pavoli Poonem (former Finish prime-minister)
Karin Kneissl (former Austrian minister of foreign affairs)
Hans Jörg Schelling (former Austrian minister of finance),
Dominique Strauss-Kahn (former IMF director)

All of them were employed by Putin.

See Karin Kneissl here

... bowing in front of Putin, special guest at her 2018 wedding.

All these useful idiots should have know better and should have listen to countries like Poland, Romania, the Baltic countries, etc who constantly warned them about the russian danger, after experiencing it first hand, for decades.

That is correct about Gerhard Schröder. And it is also viewed extremely critically here. Like Medvedev, for example, he has obviously allowed himself to be made docile with money. And he has called his friend Putin a "full-blooded democrat".

Putting Schröder on the same level as Merkel is like putting Trump and Biden on the same level. Since they come from sometimes very opposite political persuasions, I think naming these two politicians in this context is absolutely wrong.

Germany for a long time has been much more diplomatic in trying to keep the peace with Russia than the U.S. has been. Under Gorbachev, the signs for long-term peace seemed good. But, if I understand it correctly, Gorbachev offended the national pride of many Russians. Putin has now taken the opposite approach. Which was obviously very welcomed in nationalist circles in Russia.

As far as Nordstream is concerned, it must be noted that the then Chancellor Schröder obviously knew how to prevent alternatives (such as "Nabucco" or fracking gas from the USA). He became a member of Gazprom's supervisory board shortly after he was voted out of office as chancellor and had obviously initiated this beforehand. You can think your own part about this.

What this has to do with Angela Merkel, however, I do not know.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #56 on:** April 10, 2023, 16:08 »

Quote from: Wilm on April 10, 2023, 15:52

What this has to do with Angela Merkel, however, I do not know.

As I said, I am not claiming she was putin's puppet or something.

I am only saying, post-factum, that she misread putin and lacked long term vision.
She thought Germany can continue its economical growth and prosperity by relying on artificially cheap gas, from the preferential deals she and her predecessor made with putin, when putin's main goal was to corner the market.

He succesfully made sure that German politicians banned fracking, banned nuclear energy, banned coal, etc making Germany heavily depended on russian gas, all this (also) under Merkel's watch.

PS. And, please don't make me start on Austrian politicians (not only the happy bride above)... who even today continue to play putin's game.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #57 on:** April 11, 2023, 02:53 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 10, 2023, 14:20

But this is not uncommon among European politicians. Here is a list:
Gerhard Schröder (former German prime-minister),
Matteo Renzi (former Italian prime-minister),
Christian Kern (former Austrian chancelor),
François Fillon (former French prime-minister),
Esko Aho (former Finish prime-minister),
Pavoli Poonem (former Finish prime-minister)
Karin Kneissl (former Austrian minister of foreign affairs)
Hans Jörg Schelling (former Austrian minister of finance),
Dominique Strauss-Kahn (former IMF director)

All these useful idiots

These are not idiots, these are agents recruited by the KGB. Working for the interests of the Russian Federation.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #58 on:** April 11, 2023, 02:57 »

Quote from: Wilm on April 10, 2023, 15:13

Why Angela Merkel's father chose the GDR and not the FRG can be read. It had to do with his theological profession.

Good legend, I see it working so far.
You better tell me how it was possible for a person with such a biography, a pioneer, a communist, to be elected to the post of chancellor in a united Germany.

Quote from: Wilm on April 10, 2023, 15:13

The statement "They say..." is - with respect - not helpful. Who says that? Where does any and trustworthy information come from. Who are "they"?

Yes, her whole policy suggests that she was recruited by the KGB back in the years of the USSR.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #59 on:** April 11, 2023, 03:02 »

Quote from: Wilm on April 10, 2023, 15:52

What this has to do with Angela Merkel, however, I do not know.

Direct is relevant. Merkel complied with the Kremlin's order, lobbied for the construction of a gas pipeline in the EU and, accordingly, did everything to ensure that the Russian Federation attacked Ukraine. If the Russian Federation occupies Ukraine, then the Russian Federation will go to the Baltic states, Poland and reach Berlin. The entire former social camp will be occupied again.
Instead of making the EU and Germany as independent as possible from energy supplies from one country, she made the entire EU dependent on Russia. Only KGB agents do such work.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 11, 2023, 03:04 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 10, 2023, 16:08

He succesfully made sure that German politicians banned fracking, banned nuclear energy, banned coal, etc making Germany heavily depended on russian gas, all this (also) under Merkel's watch.

She should be put in jail for this. Arrest her, she will give you a bunch of KGB agents all over the EU.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #61 on:** April 11, 2023, 04:05 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 10, 2023, 16:08

He succesfully made sure that German politicians banned fracking, banned nuclear energy, banned coal, etc making Germany heavily depended on russian gas, all this (also) under Merkel's watch.

Strange, we still have nuclear power plants and coal mining (and will have till 2038!) in Germany. Didn't help much with the dependency on russian gas, did it?

Zero Talent · « **Reply #62 on:** April 11, 2023, 06:19 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on April 11, 2023, 04:05

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 10, 2023, 16:08
He succesfully made sure that German politicians banned fracking, banned nuclear energy, banned coal, etc making Germany heavily depended on russian gas, all this (also) under Merkel's watch.

Strange, we still have nuclear power plants and coal mining (and will have till 2038!) in Germany. Didn't help much with the dependency on russian gas, did it?

It's not strange. It's the consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when Germany was caught with its pants down.
The realities of the war triggered the reversal of those naive policies adopted during Merkel's time in office.
The plans to completely shut down all nuclear power plants were canceled, and coal power plants were re-opened.
And fracking on German soil is still banned isn't it?

stoker2014 · « **Reply #63 on:** April 11, 2023, 07:17 »

Quote from: Her Ugliness on April 11, 2023, 04:05

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 10, 2023, 16:08
He succesfully made sure that German politicians banned fracking, banned nuclear energy, banned coal, etc making Germany heavily depended on russian gas, all this (also) under Merkel's watch.
Strange, we still have nuclear power plants and coal mining (and will have till 2038!) in Germany. Didn't help much with the dependency on russian gas, did it?

The dependence of Germany and the EU on Russia was huge. That's why gas prices went up. There is nothing good in continuing to burn coal or develop nuclear power. A green policy is a good idea, but when it is implemented by normal politicians, and not agents of the KGB.
Merkel's goal was to keep the entire EU dependent on Russian gas, and according to her plans, Germany was to become a hub for the distribution of Russian gas to other EU countries. The purpose of Nord Stream 2 was to receive gas during the war and the occupation of Ukraine, because. 70% of Russian gas was exported through Ukraine.
Yes, the United States managed to make sure that the Nord Stream 2 did not work, the EU countries, at the cost of inflation and high prices and losses, were able to reorient themselves to other markets. I don’t know how it is now, but back in 2022, the EU paid Russia several billion euros every day for gas that was exported through Ukraine. Good financing of the criminal terrorist regime in Russia.
Merkel completed her tasks, but the Kremlin's plans were only half completed. The impact on the EU countries was an economic one. Although, of course, ideally, Putin planned to supply gas via the Nord Stream 2. Russia blackmailed the EU, cut off gas this winter, put forward political demands, all this also affects support for Ukraine, I don’t know in which direction.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #64 on:** April 11, 2023, 07:22 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 06:19

The realities of the war triggered the reversal of those naive policies adopted during Merkel's time in office.

You can speak softly and call Merkel's policy naive, or you can speak straight and tell the truth. KGB agents are not naive people.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #65 on:** April 11, 2023, 09:11 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 11, 2023, 07:22

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 06:19
The realities of the war triggered the reversal of those naive policies adopted during Merkel's time in office.
You can speak softly and call Merkel's policy naive, or you can speak straight and tell the truth. KGB agents are not naive people.

I will refrain from such speculations.
In my opinion, Merkel's erroneous decisions are defined by the law of unintended consequences

Wilm · « **Reply #66 on:** April 11, 2023, 10:11 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 06:19

Quote from: Her Ugliness on April 11, 2023, 04:05

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 10, 2023, 16:08
He succesfully made sure that German politicians banned fracking, banned nuclear energy, banned coal, etc making Germany heavily depended on russian gas, all this (also) under Merkel's watch.

Strange, we still have nuclear power plants and coal mining (and will have till 2038!) in Germany. Didn't help much with the dependency on russian gas, did it?
It's not strange. It's the consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when Germany was caught with its pants down.
The realities of the war triggered the reversal of those naive policies adopted during Merkel's time in office.
The plans to completely shut down all nuclear power plants were canceled, and coal power plants were re-opened.
And fracking on German soil is still banned isn't it?

Fracking is not generally prohibited in Germany. Fracking is indeed carried out - for example by Exxon Mobil - but without contributing significantly to the energy supply.

The German population is very cautious about it because of the chemicals used and the potential danger of poisoning groundwater and drinking water. Since the population density in Germany is about 8 times that in the U.S., these concerns are understandable. The companies that use fracking have no duty to disclose the chemicals they use. The CO2 balance of fracked shale gas is worse than that of coal. Incidentally, there are only about a fifth of the shale gas deposits in the whole of Europe, compared to the USA. It is estimated that even if the reserves were exhausted, Germany would still be dependent on 80% gas imports.

Now, fracked gas is also being delivered from the USA. How high the share of the required gas demand is, is not known to me. I would have to research it.

Overall, Germany is a resource-poor country that has to cover 70% of its energy needs from imports. Lignite is actually the only raw material that can be extracted here, but its environmental record is disastrous. Therefore, attempts are being made to cut back on this, but the attack on Ukraine has led to a step backwards. Hard coal and uranium are 100% imported, oil 98% and natural gas 94%.
Therefore, there is a strong focus on renewable energies. Wind and solar energy are to be mentioned here. Photovoltaic systems, however, are imported 100% from China. So there is a very high dependency in this segment as well. And the population is not uncritical of renewable energies, which would give Germany more independence. Due to the high population density, wind turbines are located increasingly closer to settlements.

As far as nuclear energy is concerned, the population is also divided. Fukushima initially led to a significant increase in skepticism - even though there are currently, of course, more voices in favor of nuclear energy again. In addition, the problem of final storage is much greater here than in countries with large, extremely sparsely populated areas. In France, the situation is different - there, the focus is more on nuclear energy. Last year, by the way, with problems that the rivers became too warm for cooling.

The EU - including Germany - definitely wanted supply diversification for natural gas. One wanted to achieve access to the Caspian natural gas deposits with the project "Nabucco", in order to reduce the dependence on Gazprom. In addition to the fact that the EU would have been dependent on Turkey's reliability in the transit of the gas, the project failed because the gas-producing consortium decided in 2013 not to supply gas through the Nabucco pipeline. Nabucco, by the way, would not have gone through either Russia or Ukraine.

You also have to imagine things a bit more complicated here than in the U.S., for example. There, a pipeline runs through one country, whereas here in Europe it runs through countless countries, which of course entails a much higher potential for problems, especially if there are different political views.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #67 on:** April 11, 2023, 10:38 »

Quote from: Wilm on April 11, 2023, 10:11

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 06:19
Quote from: Her Ugliness on April 11, 2023, 04:05

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 10, 2023, 16:08
He succesfully made sure that German politicians banned fracking, banned nuclear energy, banned coal, etc making Germany heavily depended on russian gas, all this (also) under Merkel's watch.

Strange, we still have nuclear power plants and coal mining (and will have till 2038!) in Germany. Didn't help much with the dependency on russian gas, did it?
It's not strange. It's the consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when Germany was caught with its pants down.
The realities of the war triggered the reversal of those naive policies adopted during Merkel's time in office.
The plans to completely shut down all nuclear power plants were canceled, and coal power plants were re-opened.
And fracking on German soil is still banned isn't it?

Fracking is not generally prohibited in Germany. Fracking is indeed carried out - for example by Exxon Mobil - but without contributing significantly to the energy supply.

The German population is very cautious about it because of the chemicals used and the potential danger of poisoning groundwater and drinking water. Since the population density in Germany is about 8 times that in the U.S., these concerns are understandable. The companies that use fracking have no duty to disclose the chemicals they use. The CO2 balance of fracked shale gas is worse than that of coal. Incidentally, there are only about a fifth of the shale gas deposits in the whole of Europe, compared to the USA. It is estimated that even if the reserves were exhausted, Germany would still be dependent on 80% gas imports.

Now, fracked gas is also being delivered from the USA. How high the share of the required gas demand is, is not known to me. I would have to research it.

Overall, Germany is a resource-poor country that has to cover 70% of its energy needs from imports. Lignite is actually the only raw material that can be extracted here, but its environmental record is disastrous. Therefore, attempts are being made to cut back on this, but the attack on Ukraine has led to a step backwards. Hard coal and uranium are 100% imported, oil 98% and natural gas 94%.
Therefore, there is a strong focus on renewable energies. Wind and solar energy are to be mentioned here. Photovoltaic systems, however, are imported 100% from China. So there is a very high dependency in this segment as well. And the population is not uncritical of renewable energies, which would give Germany more independence. Due to the high population density, wind turbines are located increasingly closer to settlements.

As far as nuclear energy is concerned, the population is also divided. Fukushima initially led to a significant increase in skepticism - even though there are currently, of course, more voices in favor of nuclear energy again. In addition, the problem of final storage is much greater here than in countries with large, extremely sparsely populated areas. In France, the situation is different - there, the focus is more on nuclear energy. Last year, by the way, with problems that the rivers became too warm for cooling.

The EU - including Germany - definitely wanted supply diversification for natural gas. One wanted to achieve access to the Caspian natural gas deposits with the project "Nabucco", in order to reduce the dependence on Gazprom. In addition to the fact that the EU would have been dependent on Turkey's reliability in the transit of the gas, the project failed because the gas-producing consortium decided in 2013 not to supply gas through the Nabucco pipeline. Nabucco, by the way, would not have gone through either Russia or Ukraine.

You also have to imagine things a bit more complicated here than in the U.S., for example. There, a pipeline runs through one country, whereas here in Europe it runs through countless countries, which of course entails a much higher potential for problems, especially if there are different political views.

I'm aware of all these concerns, Wilm.

What must be acknowledged is that such concerns (against nuclear, fracking, coal, and climate change in general) are sponsored and influenced by Russia (+ their troll farm from Sankt Petersburg doing a great job, fanning the flames with the general public).

Russia wants to eliminate its competitors, to corner the market to remain the main energy supplier for Europe. One must be really naive to deny that.

Importing nuclear energy from France, while phasing it out in Germany (+ asking France to shutdown some nuclear reactors near the German border) or importing fracked oil and gas from the USA (while banning it from Germany since 2017) is a bit hypochritical, don't you think?

However, these days, more down to earth politicians, awaken by Russia's aggression, are reconsidering Merkel's ban on fracking and are revisiting her plans to phase out nuclear and coal.

This U-turn is also seen in other EU countries, btw.

Wilm · « **Reply #68 on:** April 11, 2023, 11:30 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 10:38

Quote from: Wilm on April 11, 2023, 10:11
Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 06:19
Quote from: Her Ugliness on April 11, 2023, 04:05

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 10, 2023, 16:08
He succesfully made sure that German politicians banned fracking, banned nuclear energy, banned coal, etc making Germany heavily depended on russian gas, all this (also) under Merkel's watch.

Strange, we still have nuclear power plants and coal mining (and will have till 2038!) in Germany. Didn't help much with the dependency on russian gas, did it?
It's not strange. It's the consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when Germany was caught with its pants down.
The realities of the war triggered the reversal of those naive policies adopted during Merkel's time in office.
The plans to completely shut down all nuclear power plants were canceled, and coal power plants were re-opened.
And fracking on German soil is still banned isn't it?

Fracking is not generally prohibited in Germany. Fracking is indeed carried out - for example by Exxon Mobil - but without contributing significantly to the energy supply.

The German population is very cautious about it because of the chemicals used and the potential danger of poisoning groundwater and drinking water. Since the population density in Germany is about 8 times that in the U.S., these concerns are understandable. The companies that use fracking have no duty to disclose the chemicals they use. The CO2 balance of fracked shale gas is worse than that of coal. Incidentally, there are only about a fifth of the shale gas deposits in the whole of Europe, compared to the USA. It is estimated that even if the reserves were exhausted, Germany would still be dependent on 80% gas imports.

Now, fracked gas is also being delivered from the USA. How high the share of the required gas demand is, is not known to me. I would have to research it.

Overall, Germany is a resource-poor country that has to cover 70% of its energy needs from imports. Lignite is actually the only raw material that can be extracted here, but its environmental record is disastrous. Therefore, attempts are being made to cut back on this, but the attack on Ukraine has led to a step backwards. Hard coal and uranium are 100% imported, oil 98% and natural gas 94%.
Therefore, there is a strong focus on renewable energies. Wind and solar energy are to be mentioned here. Photovoltaic systems, however, are imported 100% from China. So there is a very high dependency in this segment as well. And the population is not uncritical of renewable energies, which would give Germany more independence. Due to the high population density, wind turbines are located increasingly closer to settlements.

As far as nuclear energy is concerned, the population is also divided. Fukushima initially led to a significant increase in skepticism - even though there are currently, of course, more voices in favor of nuclear energy again. In addition, the problem of final storage is much greater here than in countries with large, extremely sparsely populated areas. In France, the situation is different - there, the focus is more on nuclear energy. Last year, by the way, with problems that the rivers became too warm for cooling.

The EU - including Germany - definitely wanted supply diversification for natural gas. One wanted to achieve access to the Caspian natural gas deposits with the project "Nabucco", in order to reduce the dependence on Gazprom. In addition to the fact that the EU would have been dependent on Turkey's reliability in the transit of the gas, the project failed because the gas-producing consortium decided in 2013 not to supply gas through the Nabucco pipeline. Nabucco, by the way, would not have gone through either Russia or Ukraine.

You also have to imagine things a bit more complicated here than in the U.S., for example. There, a pipeline runs through one country, whereas here in Europe it runs through countless countries, which of course entails a much higher potential for problems, especially if there are different political views.

Importing nuclear energy from France, while phasing it out in Germany (+ asking France to shutdown some nuclear reactors near the German border) or importing fracked oil and gas from the USA (while banning it from Germany since 2017) is a bit hypochritical, don't you think?

Yes. I am aware of that.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #69 on:** April 11, 2023, 11:53 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 10:38

t.

Importing nuclear energy from France, while phasing it out in Germany (+ asking France to shutdown some nuclear reactors near the German border)

And yet....

Energy imported from Germany to France betwen 2002 and 2022 ....

Zero Talent · « **Reply #70 on:** April 11, 2023, 11:59 »

There is nothing wrong in what I said. The devil is in the details.

Germany is importing nuclear energy from France, while phasing out the german nuclear reactors (also asking France to shutdown some of their rectors near the border):

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #71 on:** April 11, 2023, 12:19 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 10:38

What must be acknowledged is that such concerns (against nuclear, fracking, coal, and climate change in general) are sponsored and influenced by Russia (+ their troll farm from Sankt Petersburg doing a great job, fanning the flames with the general public).

Russia wants to eliminate its competitors, to corner the market to remain the main energy supplier for Europe. One must be really naive to deny that.

Importing nuclear energy from France, while phasing it out in Germany (+ asking France to shutdown some nuclear reactors near the German border) or importing fracked oil and gas from the USA (while banning it from Germany since 2017) is a bit hypochritical, don't you think?

However, these days, more down to earth politicians, awaken by Russia's aggression, are reconsidering Merkel's ban on fracking and are revisiting her plans to phase out nuclear and coal.

This U-turn is also seen in other EU countries, btw.

As far as the hypocrisy of German energy policy is concerned, I agree with the reasons you gave.
But why the influence of Russian propaganda is constantly proclaimed here for all German political decisions is not comprehensible to me in all points.

Take nuclear energy, for example.

I think there is no question that this kind of energy production can be seen controversially.
At the end of the 70's an anti-nuclear movement arose here in Germany, from which the Green Party developed. We may assume that the influence of Russian troll factories at that time may not have played a role.
When the Greens were in government at some point, the decision was made to phase out nuclear energy.
In 2010, the government under Angela Merkel reversed this decision and decided to extend the operating lives of nuclear power plants
.
It wasn't until the Fukushima nuclear disaster on March 11, 2011, that the government changed course and decided to phase out nuclear power.

At least as far as the attitude toward nuclear energy is concerned, I see no evidence of Russian influence here at any point. I do not want to judge the decision. However, the development has arisen from obvious historical events.

As far as fracking is concerned, Wilm has already pointed out the German peculiarities.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #72 on:** April 11, 2023, 12:30 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 10:38

Russia wants to eliminate its competitors, to corner the market to remain the main energy supplier for Europe. One must be really naive to deny that.

Putin's goals are not only economic, I would say the main political goals. The main goal of Russia is the restoration of the USSR and the socialist camp, including Germany, as well as the collapse of the EU.
Also now Russia is acting in tandem with China and Iran, they have such a coalition. I also admit that Russia does a lot of what China tells it to do unofficially.
Energy is just a tool for blackmail and achieving political goals.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #73 on:** April 11, 2023, 12:33 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 09:11

In my opinion, Merkel's erroneous decisions are defined by the law of unintended consequences

With this approach, we will not win the war. Enemies must be eliminated.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #74 on:** April 11, 2023, 12:48 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on April 11, 2023, 12:19

Quote from: Zero Talent on April 11, 2023, 10:38

What must be acknowledged is that such concerns (against nuclear, fracking, coal, and climate change in general) are sponsored and influenced by Russia (+ their troll farm from Sankt Petersburg doing a great job, fanning the flames with the general public).

Russia wants to eliminate its competitors, to corner the market to remain the main energy supplier for Europe. One must be really naive to deny that.

Importing nuclear energy from France, while phasing it out in Germany (+ asking France to shutdown some nuclear reactors near the German border) or importing fracked oil and gas from the USA (while banning it from Germany since 2017) is a bit hypochritical, don't you think?

However, these days, more down to earth politicians, awaken by Russia's aggression, are reconsidering Merkel's ban on fracking and are revisiting her plans to phase out nuclear and coal.

This U-turn is also seen in other EU countries, btw.

As far as the hypocrisy of German energy policy is concerned, I agree with the reasons you gave.
But why the influence of Russian propaganda is constantly proclaimed here for all German political decisions is not comprehensible to me in all points.

Take nuclear energy, for example.

I think there is no question that this kind of energy production can be seen controversially.
At the end of the 70's an anti-nuclear movement arose here in Germany, from which the Green Party developed. We may assume that the influence of Russian troll factories at that time may not have played a role.
When the Greens were in government at some point, the decision was made to phase out nuclear energy.
In 2010, the government under Angela Merkel reversed this decision and decided to extend the operating lives of nuclear power plants
.
It wasn't until the Fukushima nuclear disaster on March 11, 2011, that the government changed course and decided to phase out nuclear power.

At least as far as the attitude toward nuclear energy is concerned, I see no evidence of Russian influence here at any point. I do not want to judge the decision. However, the development has arisen from obvious historical events.

As far as fracking is concerned, Wilm has already pointed out the German peculiarities.

I agree that the russian troll farm didn't exist back in the day and some of the decisions may have come out of good intentions (exemplifying the law of unintended consequences, as I said above).

However, these days, the russian troll farm is pushing hard the climate change topic, to make sure Russia remains dominant on the energy market (speaking about the ultimate hypochrisy

)

Here are some examples of memes, targeting the public opinion, as a way to influence politicians (from US, but I'm sure you have your fair share in EU)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: This should settle some different opinions (Read 131609 times)

Uncle Pete

Zero Talent

stoker2014

Zero Talent

Wilm

Wilm

Zero Talent

stoker2014

stoker2014

stoker2014

stoker2014

Her Ugliness

Zero Talent

stoker2014

stoker2014

Zero Talent

Wilm

Zero Talent

Wilm

Her Ugliness

Zero Talent

RalfLiebhold

stoker2014

stoker2014

Zero Talent

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors