[maxhille]

Note that I won't even write answers to all the other commenters telling me that nuclear power plants are great (they are not). I will answer you because my reply was about your comment on Russian propaganda:

1. Angela Merkel and her conservative/center coalition shut down the NPPs as a direct response to the Fukushima disaster. The NPPs in Germany were never really important (something like 10% of electricity IIRC).

2. No one in Germany even knew about fracking until we learned that communities in the US now had poisoned ground water because of it. The whole thing was instantly dead forever in Germany. Yes of course the same idiots who want NPPs back also say we should do fracking, but I don't think any of that will ever happen.

So I did not want to discuss whether these decisions were wrong or not, just wanted to point out that making Russian propaganda the reason for this is a far stretch.

Regarding your point about German/European money paying for Russian bombs: You are absolutely right and it is shameful. We should have pulled the plug on Russia 2014. Do note though that Germany had Russian fossils since like the 70`s as part of ensuring peace and transformation through trade, which yes - did not work out so well in the end.

[nkmnz]

So at least we can agree that Germany’s reliance on Russian gas has been far deadlier than all nuclear and fracking accidents combined.

Regarding your arguments:

ad 1: This happened only because public opinion had been shaped by the movements mentioned in my previous comment for the last 40 to 50 years. Otherwise, how would you explain the fact that Fukushima did not have the same effect on policy or public opinion in any of the roughly 30 other countries using nuclear power — not even in Japan? Are Germans that much more intelligent than the French, Japanese, or Finns?

ad 2: That is somewhat ironic, considering that fracking has been taking place in Germany since the 1960s.

You should stop relying on such low-resolution thinking when discussing a complex issue like German energy policy.

[maxhille]

> You should stop relying on such low-resolution thinking when discussing a complex issue like German energy policy.

It is funny that you are criticizing my ability to reason when you are not even able to (in two comments now) even address the (as explicitly stated in my personal reply to you) single point I was making.

> This happened only because public opinion had been shaped by the movements mentioned in my previous comment for the last 40 to 50 years.

Are you implying that 1986 was a Russian propaganda plot? What/who do you mean with "movements"?

[nkmnz]

> What/who do you mean with "movements"?

Peace movement, environmental movement, anti-nuclear movement.

> Are you implying that 1986 was a Russian propaganda plot?

Two things can be true at the same time. Something can be objectively bad, but the magnitude of consequences can still depend on how bad actors exploit their opportunity. Ignoring that is what I refer to as "low-resolution thinking". You see Chernobyl or Fukushima and you have emotions about them and think that those emotions are shared by everyone around you, including policy makers, which must have ultimately caused the policies, because they align well with your emotions. But you completely ignore the Zeitgeist and who's been invested heavily into shaping it in their interest. (I think this is much more relevant with regard to Fukushima than Chernobyl - with the latter, Russian interests were much more focussed on deception and deflection, especially towards their satellites. Also, the ability to manipulate the West was strongly diminished by that time, especially compared with their influence on Schröder and Merkel in the 2000s/10s.)

> you are not even able to (...) even address the (...) single point I was making.

Your "single point" was actually two points, that's why you've used a numbered list... but jokes aside, I've addressed them very well:

1. the "the Fukushima disaster" was a huge wave killing >20.000, but contrary to the rest of the world, we've cared much more about the hand full of people killed by radiation (and ~2000 killed by the combination of tsunami and the incident at the NPP) - the greens even declared the 20.000 killed purely by the wave as killed by the NPP, and they do so every year on social media since. You cannot reasonably explain why Germany reacted so distinctively different than other nations without pointing to the history of the movements since the 1960s/70s, and to the interest that Russia traditionally holds in German energy policy.

2. I've also addressed your lie about fracking. Fracking is being used in Germany today and it has been in use since the 1960s. There are new regulations about which types of fracking can be performed where, using which kind of fracking agents, which are generally good regulations. Everything else is fear mongering by interested parties, such as the lobbyists for solar and wind (which I am a HUGE fan of - the technologies, not the lobbyists), and Russian assets.

[maxhille]

Where is fracking being done in Germany today?

[nkmnz]

I stand partly corrected, the last fracking was done 2011, and I cannot find any information if the site is still active today. There have been more than 300 active sites. New ones have not been opened, but NOT due to laws, or lack of economical or technical feasibility, but due to local NIMBYism, which furthers the point I made: fearmongering, supported in relevant parts by foreign assets, is the strongest force. I'm still positive that Ukrainian blood spills our drinking water a hundred times more than conventional fracking ever has and ever would.