https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/qa-why-germany-phasing-out-nuclear-power-and-why-now#four
tl/dr: renewables were to replace nukes leaving politically powerful
coal relatively untouched
"Another difference between coal and nuclear: Although keenly embraced
by the leading parties in the 1960s, nuclear power was a relatively new phenomenon which didn’t have a strong footing in society and soon got discredited by accidents and protests. Coal mining, on the other hand,
has been deeply rooted in several German states for 200 years. It used
to have a large – and often proud – workforce with considerable political influence and was often the main employer and economic
stronghold of a region. It is (or, in the case of hard coal, was) also a domestically available energy source."
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:11:19 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/qa-why-germany-phasing-out-nuclear-power-and-why-now#four
tl/dr: renewables were to replace nukes leaving politically powerful
coal relatively untouched
"Another difference between coal and nuclear: Although keenly embraced
by the leading parties in the 1960s, nuclear power was a relatively new
phenomenon which didn’t have a strong footing in society and soon got
discredited by accidents and protests. Coal mining, on the other hand,
has been deeply rooted in several German states for 200 years. It used
to have a large – and often proud – workforce with considerable
political influence and was often the main employer and economic
stronghold of a region. It is (or, in the case of hard coal, was) also a
domestically available energy source."
and your point is?
On 4/13/23 5:47 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:11:19 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/qa-why-germany-phasing-out-nuclear-power-and-why-now#four
tl/dr: renewables were to replace nukes leaving politically powerful
coal relatively untouched
"Another difference between coal and nuclear: Although keenly embraced
by the leading parties in the 1960s, nuclear power was a relatively new >> phenomenon which didn’t have a strong footing in society and soon got >> discredited by accidents and protests. Coal mining, on the other hand,
has been deeply rooted in several German states for 200 years. It used
to have a large – and often proud – workforce with considerable
political influence and was often the main employer and economic
stronghold of a region. It is (or, in the case of hard coal, was) also a >> domestically available energy source."
and your point is?Continuing the discussion. It is odd that Germany is shutting down nukes before coal. It appears renewables were a tough sell at the time of the decision and the trade for nukes was easier to make than taking. This article gives context:
https://www.tech-for-future.de/atomkraft-umfrage/
(Safari translation from German)
The acceptance of nuclear power in Germany has experienced 3 major
turning points:
1986: Reactor explosion in Chernobyl46
2011: Nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima47
2021: Energy crisis triggered by Putin484950
A reassessment of nuclear power is apparently only carried out by very
sad occasions.
In a survey in 1984, only 23% of Germans rejected nuclear power. Then
came Chernobyl. Between 1986 and 2001, the rejection of nuclear power
was usually above 40%. The approval remained at only around 30% in the decades after Chernobyl.
In 2007 and 2010, the opinion values had recovered somewhat. At that
time, there was a public debate about a possible term extension. There
was approximately a tie with around 35% approval and 35% rejection.
Only shortly after the decision to extend the term, the meltdowns in Fukushima happened. The rejection of nuclear power rose to an all-time
high of 73%. The approval ratings collapsed almost overnight and
remained below 20% until 2019.
However, thanks to the climate debate, the high rejection fell year
after year to 56% at the beginning of 2021. The energy crisis at the end
of 2021 even established a balance between supporters and opponents.
Putin's war in Ukraine finally ensured a majority of supporters.
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:20:51 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
https://www.tech-for-future.de/atomkraft-umfrage/
(Safari translation from German)
The acceptance of nuclear power in Germany has experienced 3 major
turning points:
1986: Reactor explosion in Chernobyl46
2011: Nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima47
2021: Energy crisis triggered by Putin484950
A reassessment of nuclear power is apparently only carried out by very
sad occasions.
In a survey in 1984, only 23% of Germans rejected nuclear power. Then
came Chernobyl. Between 1986 and 2001, the rejection of nuclear power
was usually above 40%. The approval remained at only around 30% in the
decades after Chernobyl.
I didn't know Germany was using shitty Russian reactors.
Or are they just stupid, uninformed and easily manipulated by the lying left? I think I'm going with that.
On 4/14/23 7:42 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:20:51 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
https://www.tech-for-future.de/atomkraft-umfrage/
(Safari translation from German)
The acceptance of nuclear power in Germany has experienced 3 major
turning points:
1986: Reactor explosion in Chernobyl46
2011: Nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima47
2021: Energy crisis triggered by Putin484950
A reassessment of nuclear power is apparently only carried out by very
sad occasions.
In a survey in 1984, only 23% of Germans rejected nuclear power. Then
came Chernobyl. Between 1986 and 2001, the rejection of nuclear power
was usually above 40%. The approval remained at only around 30% in the
decades after Chernobyl.
I didn't know Germany was using shitty Russian reactors.No, Germany didn't use Russian-designed reactors.
Or are they just stupid, uninformed and easily manipulated by the lying left?That's quite a jump. Why not pick on the Japanese reactor? And no one
I think I'm going with that.
needed to lie about Chernobyl and Fukushima to make nukes seem bad.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:25:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/14/23 7:42 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:20:51 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:No, Germany didn't use Russian-designed reactors.
https://www.tech-for-future.de/atomkraft-umfrage/
(Safari translation from German)
The acceptance of nuclear power in Germany has experienced 3 major
turning points:
1986: Reactor explosion in Chernobyl46
2011: Nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima47
2021: Energy crisis triggered by Putin484950
A reassessment of nuclear power is apparently only carried out by very >>>> sad occasions.
In a survey in 1984, only 23% of Germans rejected nuclear power. Then
came Chernobyl. Between 1986 and 2001, the rejection of nuclear power
was usually above 40%. The approval remained at only around 30% in the >>>> decades after Chernobyl.
I didn't know Germany was using shitty Russian reactors.
Or are they just stupid, uninformed and easily manipulated by the lying left?That's quite a jump. Why not pick on the Japanese reactor? And no one
I think I'm going with that.
needed to lie about Chernobyl and Fukushima to make nukes seem bad.
Fukushima is a completely different issue. Bad design for the location.
Look at San Onofre's massive concrete tits if want Tsunami proof.
But thanks for admitting you simply seek to make all nukes seem bad while
the transition to renewables is going to put us all in the poor house.
On 4/15/23 11:42 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:25:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/14/23 7:42 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:20:51 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:No, Germany didn't use Russian-designed reactors.
https://www.tech-for-future.de/atomkraft-umfrage/
(Safari translation from German)
The acceptance of nuclear power in Germany has experienced 3 major
turning points:
1986: Reactor explosion in Chernobyl46
2011: Nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima47
2021: Energy crisis triggered by Putin484950
A reassessment of nuclear power is apparently only carried out by very >>>> sad occasions.
In a survey in 1984, only 23% of Germans rejected nuclear power. Then >>>> came Chernobyl. Between 1986 and 2001, the rejection of nuclear power >>>> was usually above 40%. The approval remained at only around 30% in the >>>> decades after Chernobyl.
I didn't know Germany was using shitty Russian reactors.
Or are they just stupid, uninformed and easily manipulated by the lying left?That's quite a jump. Why not pick on the Japanese reactor? And no one
I think I'm going with that.
needed to lie about Chernobyl and Fukushima to make nukes seem bad.
Fukushima is a completely different issue. Bad design for the location. Look at San Onofre's massive concrete tits if want Tsunami proof.Yes, completely different designs. Different problems, too.
But thanks for admitting you simply seek to make all nukes seem bad while the transition to renewables is going to put us all in the poor house.I've admitted no such thing and if you think I have influence on Germans going back to Chernobyl, you might be mistaken.
On the contrary, I brought this up to continue the discussion because Germans changed their minds about nuclear power when the loss of Russian natural gas made the choice of coal or nukes more acute. If you want to devolve into insults on a subject where I'm showing evidence that
supports your views, that's you putting contrarianism over facts.
You even clipped the bit showing German majority approval! Can't take
the win, can you?
Meanwhile today is the final day of nuclear power in Germany. Hard
to see how this will help their spiraling energy prices and their Co2 emissions. But I can't help stupid.
On 4/15/23 4:52 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile today is the final day of nuclear power in Germany. HardSince the decision was made before the likelihood of spiraling costs and
to see how this will help their spiraling energy prices and their Co2 emissions. But I can't help stupid.
the acceptance of the need to reduce carbon, it's hard to see any
validity to your comment.
Germany had a politically powerful coal sector. Think of how Manchin and various Republicans have been able to keep coal going here.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 11:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/15/23 4:52 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile today is the final day of nuclear power in Germany. HardSince the decision was made before the likelihood of spiraling costs and
to see how this will help their spiraling energy prices and their Co2
emissions. But I can't help stupid.
the acceptance of the need to reduce carbon, it's hard to see any
validity to your comment.
It's even stupider to remain committed to a stupid decision when it's become ever more apparent how stupid it was.
Germany had a politically powerful coal sector. Think of how Manchin and
various Republicans have been able to keep coal going here.
You really believe coal got nuclear shut down to extend their market?
If true, Germans are really really stupid.
Is that why you're anti-nuke? You want to extend nat gas and fuel oil like a good 'ol texas boy?
On 4/16/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 11:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/15/23 4:52 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile today is the final day of nuclear power in Germany. HardSince the decision was made before the likelihood of spiraling costs and >> the acceptance of the need to reduce carbon, it's hard to see any
to see how this will help their spiraling energy prices and their Co2 >>> emissions. But I can't help stupid.
validity to your comment.
It's even stupider to remain committed to a stupid decision when it's becomeYou favor your hindsight over understanding the historical context.
ever more apparent how stupid it was.
What
about: lead pipes, patent medicine, asbestos, etc? They were all
considered good ideas at some time.
Germany had a politically powerful coal sector. Think of how Manchin and >> various Republicans have been able to keep coal going here.
You really believe coal got nuclear shut down to extend their market?Is it stupid for a government to avoid provoking a vocal minority?
If true, Germans are really really stupid.
What
was your take on coding for miners when it was suggested?
How'd that go
over on the right?
Is that why you're anti-nuke? You want to extend nat gas and fuel oil like a good 'ol texas boy?When did I say I was anti-nuke? I'm for considering carbon alternatives.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:05:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/16/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 11:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:You favor your hindsight over understanding the historical
On 4/15/23 4:52 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile today is the final day of nuclear power in Germany.Since the decision was made before the likelihood of spiraling
Hard to see how this will help their spiraling energy prices
and their Co2 emissions. But I can't help stupid.
costs and the acceptance of the need to reduce carbon, it's
hard to see any validity to your comment.
It's even stupider to remain committed to a stupid decision when
it's become ever more apparent how stupid it was.
context.
Blah blah blah.
They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wing
ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano teacher.
What about: lead pipes, patent medicine, asbestos, etc? They were
all considered good ideas at some time.
So was human sacrifice.
Maybe you should try it.
The rest of us need to dump the backward thinkers and look forward.
Is it stupid for a government to avoid provoking a vocal minority?Germany had a politically powerful coal sector. Think of how
Manchin and various Republicans have been able to keep coal
going here.
You really believe coal got nuclear shut down to extend their
market? If true, Germans are really really stupid.
When it threatens the life blood of your economy and the well-being
of your citizens... Yes....it's very stupid.
In fact, it's what you're elected to do. Leadership is bringing the
truth to the people and guiding them with solutions. Not pandering to
the loudmouthed morons.
What was your take on coding for miners when it was suggested?
It was stupid and couldn't be taken seriously.
How'd that go over on the right?
It was stupid and couldn't be taken seriously.
Is that why you're anti-nuke? You want to extend nat gas and fuelWhen did I say I was anti-nuke? I'm for considering carbon
oil like a good 'ol texas boy?
alternatives.
We're past time for considerations.
We need a workable plan and what Joe is doing is going to be an epic disaster for the country and the
whole climate change agenda as well.
One day soon, if you're honest, you'll admit you were warned and didn't listen.
On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:05:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/16/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 11:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:You favor your hindsight over understanding the historical
On 4/15/23 4:52 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile today is the final day of nuclear power in Germany.Since the decision was made before the likelihood of spiraling
Hard to see how this will help their spiraling energy prices
and their Co2 emissions. But I can't help stupid.
costs and the acceptance of the need to reduce carbon, it's
hard to see any validity to your comment.
It's even stupider to remain committed to a stupid decision when
it's become ever more apparent how stupid it was.
context.
Blah blah blah.
They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wingRetroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is the poll-watcher?
ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano teacher.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:58:05 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:05:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Retroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is the
On 4/16/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 11:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:You favor your hindsight over understanding the historical
On 4/15/23 4:52 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile today is the final day of nuclear power in Germany.Since the decision was made before the likelihood of spiraling
Hard to see how this will help their spiraling energy prices
and their Co2 emissions. But I can't help stupid.
costs and the acceptance of the need to reduce carbon, it's
hard to see any validity to your comment.
It's even stupider to remain committed to a stupid decision when
it's become ever more apparent how stupid it was.
context.
Blah blah blah.
They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wing
ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano teacher.
poll-watcher?
Don't be a moron.
Public opinion (polls) cannot be ignored.
It has to be overcome with leadership....not trampled by dictatorship.
Polls are a sign of failure. Joe is failing.
(snip the rest of what was really just babbling stupidity)Yes, you have trouble staying on topic.
On 4/18/23 5:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:58:05 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:05:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Retroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is the
On 4/16/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 11:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 4/15/23 4:52 PM, ScottW wrote:You favor your hindsight over understanding the historical
Meanwhile today is the final day of nuclear power in Germany. >>>>>>> Hard to see how this will help their spiraling energy pricesSince the decision was made before the likelihood of spiraling
and their Co2 emissions. But I can't help stupid.
costs and the acceptance of the need to reduce carbon, it's
hard to see any validity to your comment.
It's even stupider to remain committed to a stupid decision when
it's become ever more apparent how stupid it was.
context.
Blah blah blah.
They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wing
ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano teacher.
poll-watcher?
Don't be a moron.That's right: it's you.
Public opinion (polls) cannot be ignored.Even the biased ones?
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:26:17 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/18/23 5:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:58:05 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's right: it's you.They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wingRetroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is
ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano
teacher.
the poll-watcher?
Don't be a moron.
Public opinion (polls) cannot be ignored.Even the biased ones?
Only the insignificant ones.
Back to reality.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/germany-has-shut-down-its-last-three-nuclear-power-plants-and-some-climate-scientists-are-aghast/ar-AA1a1wEu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=18d8098f55894ffdbb75c0d9b9d5290f&ei=57
On 4/19/23 12:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:26:17 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/18/23 5:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:58:05 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's right: it's you.They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wingRetroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is
ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano
teacher.
the poll-watcher?
Don't be a moron.
Public opinion (polls) cannot be ignored.Even the biased ones?
Only the insignificant ones.Circular argument.
Back to reality.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/germany-has-shut-down-its-last-three-nuclear-power-plants-and-some-climate-scientists-are-aghast/ar-AA1a1wEu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=18d8098f55894ffdbb75c0d9b9d5290f&ei=57You'd think climate scientists would have seen that coming what with the years of planning that went into it.
Sure, now that they know they can't get enough cheap natural gas, they
wish they'd planned to keep the nukes, but that wasn't the case when the decisions were made.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/19/23 12:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:26:17 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Circular argument.
On 4/18/23 5:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:58:05 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's right: it's you.They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wingRetroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is
ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano
teacher.
the poll-watcher?
Don't be a moron.
Public opinion (polls) cannot be ignored.Even the biased ones?
Only the insignificant ones.
It's SPP time again I see.
Back to reality.You'd think climate scientists would have seen that coming what with the
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/germany-has-shut-down-its-last-three-nuclear-power-plants-and-some-climate-scientists-are-aghast/ar-AA1a1wEu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=18d8098f55894ffdbb75c0d9b9d5290f&ei=57
years of planning that went into it.
Sure, now that they know they can't get enough cheap natural gas, they
wish they'd planned to keep the nukes, but that wasn't the case when the
decisions were made.
and they still shut 'em down. Can't waste all those "years of planning". Best laid plans and all....
It's really unbelievable the level of stupidity you become invested in and just won't let go.
On 4/19/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/19/23 12:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:26:17 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Circular argument.
On 4/18/23 5:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:58:05 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's right: it's you.They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wingRetroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is
ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano
teacher.
the poll-watcher?
Don't be a moron.
Public opinion (polls) cannot be ignored.Even the biased ones?
Only the insignificant ones.
It's SPP time again I see.That's you trying not to admit to your history of poll watching.
Back to reality.You'd think climate scientists would have seen that coming what with the >> years of planning that went into it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/germany-has-shut-down-its-last-three-nuclear-power-plants-and-some-climate-scientists-are-aghast/ar-AA1a1wEu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=18d8098f55894ffdbb75c0d9b9d5290f&ei=57
Sure, now that they know they can't get enough cheap natural gas, they
wish they'd planned to keep the nukes, but that wasn't the case when the >> decisions were made.
and they still shut 'em down. Can't waste all those "years of planning". Best laid plans and all....Ah, you assume they could have reversed course easily.
I see they did
extend the deadline thru this winter.
It's really unbelievable the level of stupidity you become invested in and just won't let go.Obligatory insult noted.
It could be that with the cost of renewables
going down and other technologies such as hydrogen generation being explored, the cost of maintaining nuclear plants is unfavorable.
And the waste disposal problem remains.
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:01:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/19/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:That's you trying not to admit to your history of poll watching.
On 4/19/23 12:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:26:17 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Circular argument.
On 4/18/23 5:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:58:05 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's right: it's you.They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wing >>>>>>>>> ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg pianoRetroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is
teacher.
the poll-watcher?
Don't be a moron.
Public opinion (polls) cannot be ignored.Even the biased ones?
Only the insignificant ones.
It's SPP time again I see.
I just said polls cannot be ignored you dumbfuck.
WTH is wrong with you? You're getting senile or worse.
Ah, you assume they could have reversed course easily.Back to reality.You'd think climate scientists would have seen that coming what with the >>>> years of planning that went into it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/germany-has-shut-down-its-last-three-nuclear-power-plants-and-some-climate-scientists-are-aghast/ar-AA1a1wEu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=18d8098f55894ffdbb75c0d9b9d5290f&ei=57
Sure, now that they know they can't get enough cheap natural gas, they >>>> wish they'd planned to keep the nukes, but that wasn't the case when the >>>> decisions were made.
and they still shut 'em down. Can't waste all those "years of planning". >>> Best laid plans and all....
And you assume they couldn't. So why couldn't they?
I see they did extend the deadline thru this winter.
So they could change plans....wow...it's possible.
It could be that with the cost of renewables
going down and other technologies such as hydrogen generation being
explored, the cost of maintaining nuclear plants is unfavorable.
You know what's unfavorable? Blackouts.
And the waste disposal problem remains.
I know....bury it in Chernobyl. Problem solved.
On 4/20/23 5:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:01:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/19/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:That's you trying not to admit to your history of poll watching.
On 4/19/23 12:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:26:17 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 4/18/23 5:26 PM, ScottW wrote:Circular argument.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:58:05 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's right: it's you.They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wing >>>>>>>>> ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano >>>>>>>>> teacher.Retroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is >>>>>>>> the poll-watcher?
Don't be a moron.
Public opinion (polls) cannot be ignored.Even the biased ones?
Only the insignificant ones.
It's SPP time again I see.
I just said polls cannot be ignored you dumbfuck.Polls can be ignored. Here are some reasons they should be:
WTH is wrong with you? You're getting senile or worse.
https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/horse-race-reporting-election/
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/horserace-coverage-many-election-polls-negative-effect-journalism-voters/
Ah, you assume they could have reversed course easily.Back to reality.You'd think climate scientists would have seen that coming what with the
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/germany-has-shut-down-its-last-three-nuclear-power-plants-and-some-climate-scientists-are-aghast/ar-AA1a1wEu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=18d8098f55894ffdbb75c0d9b9d5290f&ei=57
years of planning that went into it.
Sure, now that they know they can't get enough cheap natural gas, they >>>> wish they'd planned to keep the nukes, but that wasn't the case when the
decisions were made.
and they still shut 'em down. Can't waste all those "years of planning". >>> Best laid plans and all....
And you assume they couldn't. So why couldn't they?From 2022:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-09-02/
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:52:54 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/20/23 5:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:01:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Polls can be ignored. Here are some reasons they should be:
On 4/19/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:That's you trying not to admit to your history of poll watching.
On 4/19/23 12:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:26:17 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/18/23 5:26 PM, ScottW wrote:Circular argument.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:58:05 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/23 9:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's right: it's you.They need leadership...not poll watching driven by left wing >>>>>>>>>>> ideologues who don't know any more than the below avg piano >>>>>>>>>>> teacher.Retroactive leadership, according to you. And which of us is >>>>>>>>>> the poll-watcher?
Don't be a moron.
Public opinion (polls) cannot be ignored.Even the biased ones?
Only the insignificant ones.
It's SPP time again I see.
I just said polls cannot be ignored you dumbfuck.
WTH is wrong with you? You're getting senile or worse.
Who said ignore policy? I can't help it if dem voters are dumb and lazy
and prone to moving the goal posts.
https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/horse-race-reporting-election/
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/horserace-coverage-many-election-polls-negative-effect-journalism-voters/
From 2022:Ah, you assume they could have reversed course easily.Back to reality.You'd think climate scientists would have seen that coming what with the >>>>>> years of planning that went into it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/germany-has-shut-down-its-last-three-nuclear-power-plants-and-some-climate-scientists-are-aghast/ar-AA1a1wEu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=18d8098f55894ffdbb75c0d9b9d5290f&ei=57
Sure, now that they know they can't get enough cheap natural gas, they >>>>>> wish they'd planned to keep the nukes, but that wasn't the case when the >>>>>> decisions were made.
and they still shut 'em down. Can't waste all those "years of planning". >>>>> Best laid plans and all....
And you assume they couldn't. So why couldn't they?
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-09-02/
"Nuclear utilities have said they could"
and that's all your lazy excuse making ass needs to know.
Here's the main point: Germans didn't want to have nuclear power and
decided to get rid of it. Coulda, woulda, shoulda is secondary.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:14:06 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Here's the main point: Germans didn't want to have nuclear power
and decided to get rid of it. Coulda, woulda, shoulda is
secondary.
And they will pay a heavy price.
I see a big part of their plan is too leech power from neighboring
countries while they boast of their own production being x% renewable
while their consumption is a whole different story. So much BS flying
around.
On 4/21/23 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:14:06 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Here's the main point: Germans didn't want to have nuclear power
and decided to get rid of it. Coulda, woulda, shoulda is
secondary.
And they will pay a heavy price.Yes, they're in a jam. No nukes, no cheap Russian gas.
I see a big part of their plan is too leech power from neighboring countries while they boast of their own production being x% renewable while their consumption is a whole different story. So much BS flying around.They might surprise you:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/germany-improving-efforts-to-meet-2030-hydrogen-goals-says-e-on/ar-AA1a8Wzo
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 4:56:41 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/21/23 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:14:06 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Yes, they're in a jam. No nukes, no cheap Russian gas.
Here's the main point: Germans didn't want to have nuclear
power and decided to get rid of it. Coulda, woulda, shoulda is
secondary.
And they will pay a heavy price.
I see a big part of their plan is too leech power fromThey might surprise you:
neighboring countries while they boast of their own production
being x% renewable while their consumption is a whole different
story. So much BS flying around.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/germany-improving-efforts-to-meet-2030-hydrogen-goals-says-e-on/ar-AA1a8Wzo
Yes...I'm surprised they need an improved effort to meet their 2030
goals. But they still seem lacking in confidence.
"This makes the government's goal of achieving an installed capacity
of 10 GW by 2030 seem more achievable."
Hurray for seeming....
On 4/21/23 10:15 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 4:56:41 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/21/23 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:14:06 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Yes, they're in a jam. No nukes, no cheap Russian gas.
Here's the main point: Germans didn't want to have nuclear
power and decided to get rid of it. Coulda, woulda, shoulda is
secondary.
And they will pay a heavy price.
I see a big part of their plan is too leech power fromThey might surprise you:
neighboring countries while they boast of their own production
being x% renewable while their consumption is a whole different
story. So much BS flying around.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/germany-improving-efforts-to-meet-2030-hydrogen-goals-says-e-on/ar-AA1a8Wzo
Yes...I'm surprised they need an improved effort to meet their 2030Effort can be improved regardless of need.
goals. But they still seem lacking in confidence.
"This makes the government's goal of achieving an installed capacity
of 10 GW by 2030 seem more achievable."
Hurray for seeming....Yes, you seem to have a problem with the understatement found in
academic and diplomatic writing.
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 4:43:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/21/23 10:15 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 4:56:41 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/21/23 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:14:06 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
They might surprise you:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/germany-improving-efforts-to-meet-2030-hydrogen-goals-says-e-on/ar-AA1a8Wzo
Yes...I'm surprised they need an improved effort to meet theirEffort can be improved regardless of need.
2030 goals. But they still seem lacking in confidence.
You never learn....in the end, rewards for effort go to losers.
"This makes the government's goal of achieving an installedYes, you seem to have a problem with the understatement found in
capacity of 10 GW by 2030 seem more achievable."
Hurray for seeming....
academic and diplomatic writing.
I have a problem with BS writers obviously avoiding what they know
to be true. The goal will not be met. It wasn't going to be met
when they set it. It only now just "seems more achievable".
On 4/22/23 10:55 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 4:43:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/21/23 10:15 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 4:56:41 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/21/23 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:14:06 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
They might surprise you:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/germany-improving-efforts-to-meet-2030-hydrogen-goals-says-e-on/ar-AA1a8Wzo
Yes...I'm surprised they need an improved effort to meet theirEffort can be improved regardless of need.
2030 goals. But they still seem lacking in confidence.
You never learn....in the end, rewards for effort go to losers.They're not after a "reward," they're getting closer to their hydrogen goal.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 430 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 124:03:53 |
| Calls: | 9,059 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,398 |
| Messages: | 6,017,306 |
| Posted today: | 1 |