What the US does with oil makes even less sense.
What the US does with the transportation of oil makes even lesser sense. If climate crisis is existential it seems like it would be worth having a few oil spills along a pipeline to save some carbon.
Not at the distances this short. If anything happens to any of the nuclear plants in France the pollution will reach Germany within 24 hours.
I've actually seen this used as an argument FOR building nuclear power plants in Poland: we already have like 10 such plants within 200 miles from our borders, so we already have all of the risks, but none of the benefits.
And even in the worst case scenario the farther you are away the better.
I'm not sure if I understand that line of thinking. While the nuclear exit of Germany may have been short-sighted, it is what it is now. And when shit hits the fan in France because their power plants are down for maintenance or a lack of suitable coolant water, Germany exports electricity to France. That's what a supra-national electricity grid is for and that's not a topic that ever was open for debate.
Also, regarding the decision Germany made regarding nuclear power, I am not sure if it actually was the wrong one. Looking at the cost overruns and extended timelines of essentially any new nuclear reactor construction, the people complaining about nuclear power not being economically viable may have a point. Whether the much proposed alternative of small scale nuclear reactors can live up to it's promise on any kind of meaningful scale remains to be seen.
What I think is the biggest failure of German energy policy is the fact that Germany went from a leader in renewable technology to desperately lacking behind. While this demise was partially driven by the companies themselves, some extremely short sighted policy failures also are to blame.
As for the alleged cooling water shortages, they are not shortages but regulatory limits on downstream water temperature - which only concerns some riverine plants. With three litres evaporated per kW/h produced, plants with evaporative cooling are very far from enduring a water supply constraint.
The other side argue France can do it using their own funds if they deem it necessary.
https://www.ft.com/content/b1dbd7b4-d8b9-45eb-bd18-4976f7c9a...
If taking into account the System LCOE (sum of generation, integration and storage costs to reach equivalent stable supply), then nuclear wins - and that doesn't even account for the VRE's huge land use.
Nuclear is a technological dead-end economically. Perfect for niche applications like submarines, but not for the grid.
[1]: https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost...
[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
I'd rather not get flagged.
It's funny that until 10-15 years ago there was no need for signs in public German swimming pools telling you you shouldn't grope females. I wonder what changed? /s
I agree, armed border police having, if it was up to conservative politians, a mandatebto use force for illegal push bavks are propably not a net benefit for society.
By the way, you should be less on social media.
Since when is it illegal to stop people who don't have the right to enter a country? That's exactly the job of the border security and why you pay taxes for and why borders exist and why countries that defend their borders the best and are most selective with who they let in tend to be the safest and most desirable to live in.
When you board off the plane in Germany try to make a run for it and bypass the the passport control/customs area and see what happens. I assure you, in case you don't get shot, you'll be swiftly put down by force and arrested with guns pointed at your face. Why shouldn't the same strict rules apply to everyone else?
Do you have locks at your house, or do you let everyone in off the street because stopping them would be illegal according to your logic?
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/10/14/eu-border-agen...
https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-opens-investigation-on-...
Cracking down on it would make people smuggling disappear over night and save many lives in the process.
Only if you can prove your life is in danger, then you're entitled to asylum in the first safe country you can reach, not 10 safe countries over in Sweden, Germany, UK, or whichever wealthy country you desire to live in once you throw away your passport because you're not from a county at war and you intentionally sink your boat so that the coast guard will be forced to pick you up.
That's how human rights work, everything else is just abusing the asylum systems for personal economic benefit.
Military wages war, and defends against other militaries. Border police doesn't do push backs.
It's not. It's only to those who qualify for asylum, but this system is so lax and poorly enforced that is abused by economic chancers, and not people ruining away from wars.
Look at the nationalities of those arriving form boats, 90% are not from war torn countries, they don't qualify for asylum.
Also, asylum means the first safe country you can reach, not your proffered EU country. To reach Germany you need to go through 4-8 safe countries which is where the asylum scam lies and why the system needs reformed.
I repeat one last time then I'm out for good: asylum, by law, is only for those people fleeing war and persecution, not for everyone who wants to come to a nice EU country with a great welfare system, and the asylum applies to the first safe country you reach.
If you come to Germany while having crossed 4-10 safe countries you're basically breaking the asylum laws. Asylum means living in a safe country where your life is no longer in danger from war, not entitling you to living only in Germany/Sweden/UK...wherever YOU choose.
The current German system of "open borders for everyone, come to Germoney please" is not an asylum policy, it's just leftist political madness that's harming the welfare state and the housing market (Denmark is already hard on this), it's harming the EU stability (Brexit was driven by this and other countries are against it as well by voting right wing), it's harming the Schengen system (Austria refuses to let Romania and Bulgaria in due to these migration issues, plus border checks are being introduced all the time harming commuters) and it's harming the migrant entry point countries in EU like Italy and Greece.
Not only that, denial of it appears to have been one of the instigating factors in launching far right parties to prominence.
And wow, it was in 2015? Forgot that it was almost a decade ago... People really, really should be able to move on... Well, they tried, but the endangered, lawless swimming pool narrative didn't really catch on, did it?