Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week! | How To Invest
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week! | How To Invest
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21) |
Author: onepoorguy   😊 😞
Number: of 75974 
Subject: Re: How Europe wrecked itself
Date: 12/03/25 12:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
...your statement of "unreliable" in this context isn't related to the energy type under discussion.

Fair enough. My point was that it isn't reliable if you're not sourcing it. If you have to import it, then you are dependent on external factors for it. Factors that often are beyond your control. If they had solar and wind farms, it wouldn't matter what Russia was doing. With the caveat that I have no idea if Hungary would be a good location for solar or wind.

You dislike the conclusions of the article so you dismiss it by invoking the Boogeyman. *And* you didn't cite any additional sources.

Not really. I found more reliable sources, and I linked them in a previous post. I'm a scientist (or I was). I'm not married to any conclusion. If the data support a different position, I change my mind. Whether I like the conclusion or not. I don't like the Hubble Tension, but there it is. So I have to accept it.

Chernobyl was a water cooled reactor that relied on pressurized water.

Yes. But it was a graphite moderated reactor. And that's where the problem arose. That, and them conducting a dangerous experiment to see if power could be provided to cooling pumps in the process of a shutdown (as I recall). The problem was that their moderator could catch fire, which it did. But I won't go too much more into nuclear power design. Every other reactor on the planet (except Hanford) is water-moderated. Can't catch fire. Though they can melt-down, but that's a different process.

That's not how parliamentary systems function. The Greens have been a part of governing coalition twice. And their energy policies are very similar to the Greens: all the way back in the 1980s the SD's wanted nukes gone.

Wow. Twice. In how many coalitions? And a minority voice in any coalition they were part of. Yes, I know how parliamentary systems work. Unlike other parties that consistently are part of ruling coalitions, the Greens have had very little power or influence. You have to achieve participation reasonably regularly to get your ideas put forth and maintained. Otherwise, the next coalition will just reverse you. Like the Felon and automobile mileage standards.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds