[bob29]

No. Literally Germany's coal is specifically because its their own coal, a natural resource within their own borders they control. For national security, they maintain a coal capacity. Germany's coal burning is national security, nothing to do with environmentalists.

[bpodgursky]

Arguments about Germany's energy independence would be far more compelling if they were not, for example, currently building giant pipelines to import Russian natural gas.

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

[foepys]

That's mostly for heating, though. Heat pumps are being increasingly used in new homes but nearly all homes older than 10 years are using gas or oil furnaces. Electricity prices are also very high, amongst the highest in the world, so heat pumps aren't as cheap to run as in other countries. It's definitely a problem that needs to be fixed, potentially within the next 30 years because that's the timeframe where the law requires old furnaces to be replaced.

[bpodgursky]

But electricity would be cheaper... offsetting imported natural gas... if they left the nuclear power plants on.

[herbst]

They literally break down cute little towns and pay them pennies to relocate to increase the coal mining holes. Germany really is somewhat strange in this

[saddlerustle]

About a third of the coal burned in germany is imported

[ulfw]

National Security. Really?! So you use up a limited resource during peace times to have less of it during war times? Is that your logic?

[AYBABTME]

What kind of sovereignty do you have if a powerful neighbour can put your people to freeze in the winter by cutting your energy supplies, forcing you to accept their conditions? National security is more than weapons.

[kaba0]

How about a reliable power source that is many many times more efficient per mass than coal, so you don’t have to import it that often?

[thatguy0900]

Well, you probably already want working staffed coal plants when the war starts.

[bpodgursky]

It seems far easier and cheaper to keep the nukes running and just stockpile, like, a suitcase worth of uranium.

[foepys]

And in the event of an attack you just hope they won't target nuclear power plants to recreate Chernobyl and Fukushima?

[arcticbull]

Nuclear reactors are very much hardened against such attacks, and of course, those were both very different situations. No need to spread FUD about the safest form of electricity in the entire world in terms of deaths per TWh. [1] It's also roughly zero carbon.

You know the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, killed 4000 people in the full course of time - and we've learned a ton since then. Fukushima killed 1 person.

On the other hand the worst hydro accident, Banqiao Dam, killed 200,000 people instantly. [2] Such an outlier it's frequently excluded from all analyses on hydro safety. No such luck for the Soviets though.

I know what I'd target for maximum effect.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

[vidarh]

Chernobyl shortened the life of a few thousand people, maybe - the estimate keeps dropping - over a 35 year time period. A few dozen were killed quickly. The rest are estimates of deaths based on increased cancer occurrences.

The reason for making the distinction here, is that while some certainly can be reasonably said to have been killed by Chernobyl, and the 4k number may well be reasonable, that number is an estimate based on possible effects on cancer rates over 35 years that have kept being adjusted down as the early high predicted cancer deaths didn't happen. E.g. there was a spike in childhood leukemia, but the death rate was extremely low. Not all of those projected deaths have even happened yet, and then represent often tiny reduction in the total life expectancy for people exposed 35 years ago and counting.

Notably, given the discussion here, coal does exactly the same thing - it keeps persistently, slowly affecting the life expectancy of everyone, only new particulates released keep being released year after year. And incidentally also includes uranium dust. Yet it's a lot easier to ignore those deaths because there's no single specific event for people to link them to.

[foepys]

Bunker piercing weapons exist and are specifically made to penetrate thick concrete and metal structures.

[kaba0]

Modern reactors simply can’t fail catastrophically. The concrete hull can easily withstand two airplanes falling on them, and if one were to cut totally throw the inner loop circulating water, the reaction would just stop instantly (because the highly pressurized water would escape, and it is the moderator)