Okay, agree with you, I just asked because you said you didn't want it built at all.
But you can always diversify while having the big source of Russian nordstream pipeline as a simple strategic move.
Discussion
There has to be big reliable sources to do that. How could this be done? By using much more expensive LNG and depend on Greek shipowners who transfer the LNG? Are you sure you want to do that?
Don't need to use it when you don't have with nordstream but good to have alternative plans. Well, that's what is happening right now, isn't it?
But yeah the Germans should be angrier about the US blowing up their primary energy source.
No, it is not possible to diversify, while there is a cheaper option. The market will punish you and you will be crushed by your competition.
Same way it took Corona completely destroying logistics chains, to get manufacturing to diversify out of China.
Yes of course. The market will punish you for buying expensive alternative for no other reason but not having the nordstream pipeline built is also bad isn't it? German products woud've been more expensive than other country products.
I was suggesting to alternative plans if Russia was to increase price for their gas.
And I agree with you that nuclear is one of the best alternatives to have. Nami disagrees because of the "danger". Note that there are many countries using and still building new Nuclear plants. We need to mitigate the danger rather than giving up.
Yes. You are right but hear this. A friend used to work on windmill parks. He said to me that there is a law which says that you have to bild such windmill parks as an environmental counterweight if you want to make nuclear plants. I think that's why some things happen the way they do...
Diversifying suppliers is an investment in future resilience.
We wouldn't even need all that natural gas, if we turned the nuclear back on. We use a lot of the gas to produce electricity.
They created a problem on purpose, and then they told us Russia would solve it. 😕
Yes having alternatives is always good. Having the alternatves as the main choice is not good.
So, you say they created this problem why exactly?
That is the question, isn't it?
It's interesting, i never heard this narrative. I am really interested
I think they might have created this problem because it is probably hard for politicians and corporations bribing them to extract value by building new nuclear power plants.
First of all, it requires competence. You can't really accept bribes by allowing low quality equipments in the nuclear power plants because if they fail, you'll never get elected again. Why take such a risk when you buy Russian oil which requires a lot more moving parts where you can extract value?
And of course the incumbents that are already rich because of oil based products also bribe govts to lean towards oil.
Nuclear energy is pure. Energy is generated and goes into the grid. The govts lose some leverage if they go full nuclear.
That's a fair argument.
Still everything nuclear frightens me. After Fukushima i wouldn't approve anything like this though.
Also , russians make nuclear plants also. I think that they would have more profit doing so... So why promoting gas?
Because there is demand for gas. Why wouldn't they promote something they have?
Gas is good but you can cut it without having such big consequences as with nuclear power. When they depend on you about maintenance, fuel etc on nuclear is a different story. For example look at this
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/climate/enriched-uranium-nuclear-russia-ohio.html
Even USA is dependent on Russians. In fact Russians can kneel the West instantly for sure if they want. So why they don't do it? I can think of only two reasons. One, they don't want to play with the possibility that the West in its despair will do something to lead to a nuclear war, especially when it seems that they will win in the long run anyway. Two, there is a possibility, and that's my biggest fear, that Putin wants to be friends again with the West, or his partners as he used to say. In that case, the elite's grip on common people will be very tight...
What do you think guys?
Another problem with countries is that they are not run as companies. They don't care about diversifying, they do not own shares of the country rather get paid peanuts to run the country for a short period of time. They just want to be corrupt, accept bribes in their tenure and live happily ever after.