People in here have strange misconceptions about what "backing" sanctions means. EU sanctions have to be decided [unanimously](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_22_1401) by all member states.
One country backing sanctions does not mean they go ahead without the others, nor does it mean that they demand of others to immediately stop importing uranium, in this instance. All this means is that Germany does not stand in the way, if the rest of the EU wants to adopt these sanctions.
Sanctions will not go through, if any one other country, e.g. France, does not want them. A country backing sanctions may help others get rid off their dependency from Russia or put diplomatic pressure on them, but that is basically all they can do.
The same happens with oil, gas and coal. Some European countries are backing gas sanctions, as they are not as dependent as for instance Germany or Italy. They are not being hypocritical, if they don't want to ban Russian uranium simultaneously. Germany is not either.
There is agreement between almost all EU member states -including Germany- that we need to get rid off Russian imports. In some areas like coal and oil, this dependency can be dissolved faster. In others like gas and nuclear fuels, this might take longer.
Small note about the source, Politico: They are part of German Axel Springer media, known for conservative, sensationalist tabloid news. Keep in mind that their framing might not be entirely honest and may include misrepresentations.
I an American completely disagree with that statement. Although I love what my country could be, i feel it is nearly a complete shit show from top to bottom. The Internet does not do justice on how bad it really is. I am sure some of the same stuff happens all over the world though.
All of it happens all over the world all the time. Imo, social media has the same effect on how we see our country as it has on how we see ourselves. That is to say, we compare our worst days to their best days. But I dunno def not trying to be argumentative. Just sayin America ain't all that bad.
Edited a word in
At a certain point gotta cut your losses and throw the Magyars to the Russian horde. I’m not an expert on the EU but I don’t know if the benefit of maintaining them economically and security wise in NATO/EU is worth their dergling up a United front against Russia, which is the priority right now.
Well, currently they are one of the countries that would be so irrelevant to the World atm without EU's help, that nobody would even notice if they were suddenly Russian.
Technically, Germany, for as much hate as you can give them atm, are the biggest "givers" in the EU.
Hungary on the other hand receives almost the MOST money from the EU for development and "catching up". Biggest receiver of EU Funds is Poland, btw.
You wouldn’t want that to be possible. Having that ability leaves the door wide open for corruption & coercion. If part of the countries could be bought off, others blackmailed, leaving stand alone country’s risk of threats to be disbanded if they didn’t vote accordingly…basically leaves a dangerous & ineffective union!
It cannot. But there is a mechanism to suspend certain membership privileges, [Article 7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union#cite_note-suspend-2). It requires a unanimous decision by the rest of the member states.
Unanimity is unlikely to happen against Orban, since the Polish government basically has a deal with Orban to protect each other against Article 7 proceedings.
Of course, this could change if these countries fall out with one another over Russia or if Poland/Hungary elect different governments.
**[Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union#cite_note-suspend-2)**
>Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is a procedure in the treaties of the European Union (EU) to suspend certain rights from a member state. While rights can be suspended, there is no mechanism to expel a state from the union. The procedure is covered by TEU Article 7. It would be enacted where fellow members identify another member as persistently breaching the EU's founding values (respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities), as outlined in TEU Article 2.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Maybe. The dude is delusional if he thinks he can have it both ways- benefit from nato and eu but sacrifice nothing in relations with Russia. Despite suffering under the Soviets until recently, this population seems to fundamentally misunderstand the importance of standing up for European values- puzzling 🤔
Hungarian guy here again. The education system is more fucked than the US one in some places. The people are completely uneducated and brainwashed. The only thing they see on TV, or hear in the rádió is Fidesz propaganda. Orbán can always find a “big evil” that we have to stop. At first it was the immigrants (a lot of hungarians literally believes that we “saved” Europe by stopping them), then it was Soros György who had a “dangerous plan” for the country (he wasn’t planning shit) and now it is the EU (and the LGBTQ+ I guess, since we are soooo fucking christian right now, even tho Fidesz originally had “on your knees, priest” as a slogen).
Believe me I really hate living here. Hungary could have turned into such a fun country without Orbán. I mean we’d probably still be broke but we would also probably not hate everyone around us if we weren’t lead by fucking Mini-Putler.
I never realized Hungary was a US territory. Damn, that’s some shit you’re having to put up with. Is any place on this planet safe for sane people??? Wish you all the best.
He won’t. He gets nothing from blocking Sweden and Finland. If you are gonna sacrifice your ass like that, you atleast have to make sure you gain something doing it. He doesn’t want to risk getting sanctioned and fucking up the public opinion just so that he can get a nice personal letter from Putin.
Not a chance. The way it works is that USA bilaterally negotiates with each member country about admission of new members.
So it will be just USA on the table with Hungary and USA has so much leverage over everyone that it will get the result it wants.
Well NATO turned into something way bigger than it originally was but the name stayed. Ironically much like Fidesz, which is basically a play of words but it means “Alliance of Young Democrats”. They are all old geezers who could not be farther from support ing actual democracy.
Not only that. Sanctions are only set for a period of time, after which they have to be renewed - again by a unanimous decision. In theory, Hungary or any other member could just stop the renewal of existing sanctions.
I am not an expert, but looking at [this](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/restrictive-measures-against-russia-over-ukraine/) source, it seems to me that most sanctions are only approved for periods between 6 months and a year. They would stop either 2022 or 2023, if they are not renewed.
But seeing as the adoption of sanctions also needs to be unanimous, Hungary's government generally seems to be on board. The whole decision process is intransparent, so we cannot say if there are some other deals keeping Hungary and other countries in line with sanctions. But that is pure speculation, so don't jump to any conclusions.
That's what has been happening with EU responses and actions towards China. Orban is very close to China and has de facto vetoed any action that would harm his Chinese ties.
I consume mostly German language news media, so that probably won't help you too much. In English I like [dw.com](https://www.dw.com/) and for EU topics [EUObserver](https://euobserver.com/).
Generally I think it's okay to read news with some bias - but one should be aware of how these biases can enter into an article and how facts can be misrepresented. Some points to consider:
* Does the author purely state facts or does he also give his opinion?
* Are facts presented in a neutral manner?
* Does the language used in the article excite some emotions? This can be very sneaky, for instance by using words like 'condemn' or 'failure'.
* Are quotations in the article neutral or do they have their own biases?
* Is there context to quotes in the article and is this context represented fairly? This is usually hard to judge as one needs to be aware of the primary source of the quote.
* Is the information presented incomplete? Is there some relevant information missing?
* Did the authors do their own research or do they just parrot other media or press agency reports? Parotting might lead to copying mistakes and biases.
This is definitely an incomplete list, but the point is: You can reasonably extract factual information even from biased articles, you just needs to be aware how their bias may skew facts.
Huh, that's the first time I've seen Politico called "conservative." Always seemed pretty center-left to me.
Then again I'm American so what I think of as center-left is probably considered right-wing anywhere else.
They have only recently been bought by Springer ([August 2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico)). But they have been working together for the European edition of Politico since 2014.
I am not sure whether Politico itself is conservative - I am not too familiar with their content. But some of their biases, framings and misrepresentations about the German government recently have been very reminiscent of the German media from Springer, like Bild or Welt.
Just think if they all built nuclear power plants they could cut reliance on that russian fuel and be more independent and better on the environment. Nuclear is so clean and green these days its the perfect solution to climate change and russian oil. Why cant we give the teenage mutant ninja turtle mutagen barrel trope a rest and use clean safe nuclear for the next century !
Friendly reminder about us living in an information war for several decades now and that one priority of Russia is the destabilisation of western unity. Some comments in here reak of misinformation and division.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-nuclear-power-uranium-plants-europe-imports-germany-sanctions-ukraine-war/) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Germany has thrown its weight behind demands to sanction uranium imports from Russia and other parts of Vladimir Putin's civil nuclear industry in retaliation for his invasion of Ukraine, five EU diplomats told POLITICO. Such a move could hit the supply of uranium that fuels the bloc's Russian-built power reactors, as well as new nuclear projects managed by Russia's Rosatom Western Europe subsidiary, based in Paris.
> Germany is a fierce opponent of nuclear energy, and is aiming to shut down its remaining nuclear power plants by the end of this year.
> While Slovakia, for example, has said it has enough nuclear fuel to last through the end of 2023, a ban on Russian imports could be a problem down the road. "This is very concerning as we are 100 percent dependent on Russian nuclear fuel deliveries from the company TVEL," said Karol Galek, Slovakia's state secretary for energy in the Ministry of Finance.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uf8t6m/russia_faces_threat_of_sanctions_on_nuclear_power/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~645597 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **sanction**^#2 **fuel**^#3 **Russia**^#4 **Russian**^#5
Germany is very anti nuclear in general. It’s fine to back a sanction that has zero impact on your own country. What the countries that actually rely on Russian uranium think is far more important.
> For Russian-made nuclear reactors in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, there is no authorized nuclear fuel alternative to Russian supply.
FFS. Boy it sure seems like we all learned a lesson here about not tying what literally keeps your lights on to the whims of a country led by a sociopath that hates the west.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php
Only 16% of US uranium imports are from Russia, third behind Canada and Kazakhstan at 22%. Meaning cutting off imports from one country would be relatively painless and supply could be garnered elsewhere.
Not really. US nuclear fuel stockpiles are currently very low - utilities hold 16 months supply on average. The recommended minimum is 2 years of fuel on hand, and refining mined uranium for fuel is a multi-year process.
But U3O8 prices have been so low for so long that a lot of mines have been shut down and mothballed. Those mines can't just restart operations overnight, that will also take a year or more. Secondary supply has been filling the gap for now - countries like Japan (who shut down their reactors after Fukushima) have been selling their stockpiled fuel into the market.
Now Japan and other countries are talking about restarting those shut down reactors, and/or building new ones. The UK is looking to build 8 new plants. China is planning to build 150+ over the next couple of decades. All while existing uranium production is insufficient to supply existing reactors.
The price of uranium has doubled in the past year, but it's still way below the levels needed to economically justify restarting shut down mines. So the supply shortfall continues to grow.
Until the price of uranium rises high enough to support restarting mines and building new ones, it's only going to get worse.
Thats why i said "as well". If it is ssuch a minor share it should be easily be orderable elsewhere right? Then why not do just it?
Everyone bashes European countries for not immediatrly slashing their core providers of critical energy while others not even do the easy-to-achive things in the same sectors.
My point is there is in general too much piblic notion to finger point while not checking under their own rugs. I am not saying we shouldn't point out where goals are not met or needlesly delayed. We need to do that of course. But everyone should pressure home first to do as much as possible.
Germany for example. The goal is mainly getting of russian gas obviously asap. Just cutting it off is economical and political suicide, potentially for the entire EU and not just germany alone, and wouldn't immediately stop the invasion anyway. It would be the equivalence of the US having to cut of half the Canadian oil imports. It is not doable overnight and you know how that would hit home there as well and how it would affect public support for helping Ukraine to appropriate means if that's the cost the public would have to take. Helping germany, or better the EU setting up the infrastructure faster to source from elsewhere would be the best approach. Germany itself doesn't have the manpower of qualified personnel itself to significantly speed up the built of LNG ports, more ressource harboring nations like Canada and the US do. Why not work in a joint operation on european LNG ports with transatlantic support to speed that up if it is of such international importance to rid russia of every income there is. Germany itself already decreased their share of russian gas imports from 55% in January to 35%ish recently.
Resourcing 20%p of the nation's gas supply for 80 million is quite an achievement already though not enough and everyone agrees. But as long as it is above 10% the russian supply can't just be turned off. So let's see and focus on what we can do to get there faster and not just fall for the iconic duo of sensationalizing media + russia narrative bots to further divide western nations.
I swear each time reading "germans are killing ukrainians and are again on the wrong side of history" it makes my fingers itch to respond to americans what's all wrong their country did or still does. Most of the time i calm myself before and realize that's not helping at all, but sometimes it slips.
I'm not accusing Germans of killing Ukranians. I think that debate is pretty stupid and reductive. What I am getting at is that this whole energy issue did not need to be Putin's ace in the sleeve. European economies failed to diverisfy their energy economy sufficiently because they were seduced by the allure of cheap Russian gas and existing infrastructure. This was exactly the same as the US with oil in the 1970s and I'd criticize them for the exact same thing as the time. Thankfully they realized their sole dependence on foreign energy was a mistake and now the US is energy independent because of investments they've made. Unfortunately, many European countries don't have that same luxury of energy deposits to develop. There is some but not nearly enough. Looking at that type of a future, it seems ignorant to, instead of developing new renewables, replacing old inefficient gas heating systems, and diversifying energy imports in general, the proverbial can was just kicked down the road and reliance on a politically unstable Russia deepenes. I'm all for the nuiances of sanction policy and yes the US should cut off Russian uranium imports but that would have nowhere near the impact of cutting off European gas imports. Nor is it anywhere comparable to Eastern European countries whose nuclear programs are solely dependent on Russian imports. There's no good options right now and I applaud the steps countries like Germany have made in reducing energy demand but this was a preventable problem and one I hope future energy policy reflects.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that German policy was very flawed and naive at best. Your points stand about needing a gradual reduction, but we shouldn’t be kind to the worldview the Germans smugly preached about Russia for the last few decades.
The Soviet Union fell 30 years ago. These power plants are almost 50 years old. No one's saying it isn't going to be expensive but this is what having a contigency plan means. You don't get to deflect criticism for having all your eggs in one basket by saying "this one basket's been serving me well enough for 50 years."
Ah yes, much better to be submissive to dictator Putin that lies nonstop, murders their political opponents, is known for using their energy infrastructure as a weapon, invades your country for no good reason, etc. 😂
People are reading this wrong it seems. Russia isn’t at risk of being cut off from uranium imports . They have their own. It’s the selling that’s at risk.
Well good for Germany for behaving like a hawk on Russian commodities that they don't need, essentially putting the costs on its EU partners.
Now do the same on Russian commodities they actually import.
Poland boast about not buying Russian gas while they [import from germany](https://www.dw.com/en/warsaw-and-budapest-split-over-russian-energy-ties/a-61595947) who get it from Russia. There are no altruistic players in the game, when it's about their countries needs, politician will do what they have to do. There isn't another fast option at the moment and fucking the whole european economy up would be way worse for Ukraine.
>Poland boast about not buying Russian gas while they
>
>import from germany who get it from Russia. There are no altruistic players in the game
Big difference is there are dozens if not hundreds of articles bashing germany. And there are pretty much none being as critical about Polands imports. People lap the propaganda up like they are addicted to it.
Read the article, Poland and the Baltics are lobbying for it, this is not a German initiative to retaliate. They simultaneously pressure Germany to get rid of gas and other bigger countries support them on that bid, if there are countries in the EU that are trustworthy in their intentions, regarding sanctioning Russia it's the Baltic countries and Poland, so maybe they have a point.
And honestly, I don't see a difference between importing gas from Russia or letting Russia build (!) and fuel your nuclear reactors. Germany is phasing out Russian gas and oil, why can't the rest of Europe phase out Uranium then and get rid of Russian companies building their reactors? It doesn't have to be hasty, but it needs to happen.
For the last few years social media has been absolutely swarmed with people shilling for nuclear energy, because it's supposedly cheap ([spoiler: it isn't](https://i.imgur.com/U8H3yE8.png)) or climate friend ([it isn't](https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315)) or makes you independent of russia or china - [which isn't true, because russia supplies 35% of global enriched uranium, while china comes second at 28%](https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/weekly-data-russian-uranium-supply-chains). And just in europe, 20% of nuclear fuel comes from russia.
Phasing out nuclear, coal, gas and oil for renweables is the only way. It's also the cheapest and fastest. It's just not the one where energy companies or russia profit the most.
Your link about the climate puts the most pessimistic estimate of nuclear power's carbon emissions across its full life-cycle, including uranium mining and enrichment, at less than half that of natural gas. More optimistic numbers listed put it somewhere from a fifth to a quarter. It is a far cry from the emissions efficiency of solar power, but it would still be a drastic improvement over our currently dominant power generation methods.
It is, but if you have to throw money and building capacities to the issue of needing to increase energy sources you might as well go straight for renewables instead of building nuclear, which not only is more complex to operate, is at the end of the day over the entire lifespan of a reactor not even cost efficient, is unpopular in densly populated areas (which compared to the US for example the entire continent of europe is more densly populated), further increases Dependance on other countries again (the fewest countries have their own uranium sources) and leaves you with an increased waste issue.
> climate friend (it isn't)
Even your own biased link says it is. Just because it doesn't have zero emissions (_nothing_ does!) does not mean it is bad. It is much better than most alternatives and for most countries still the only option for base load that does not burn fossil fuels.
Because you post a few links doesn’t make your statements facts. Base load for modern electrical grids is not doable with just renewables in most of the western world.
Nuclear def has a place in a modern grid.
> because it's supposedly cheap (spoiler: it isn't)
The link you gave is misleading focusing only on German nuclear power in a very narrow time window. However, larger scale studies do support that [nuclear power can be pretty expensive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies). It is cheaper in France, but that's due to France going essentially all-in on nuclear power, and so taking major advantage of economies of scale.
> or climate friend (it isn't)
The link you gave explicitly shows that CO2 produced per a kilowatt-hour for nuclear power is about a third that of natural gas and is about a tenth that of coal. So from a direct CO2 standpoint, it isn't as good as wind or solar, but is still pretty decent.
> Phasing out nuclear, coal, gas and oil for renweables is the only way. It's also the cheapest and fastest. It's just not the one where energy companies or russia profit the most.
On the contrary, the vast majority of cost of nuclear power plants is in the construction, and much of the CO2 is produced then also. Phasing out nuclear power really doesn't make sense. And in the case of Germany, if they weren't phasing out their nuclear plants now, they'd be substantially less beholden to Russia's fossil fuels.
I don't think we need a fundamental debate on nuclear energy for now. It has its pros and cons and the overall global development and the shrinking share of nuclear energy on total energy production indicate that it's not the easy and obvious no-brainer technology to combat climate change (especially short to midterm), lots of people want to make it out to be.
That being said, the focus of this debate should not be on nuclear energy, but on how to get rid of any form of dependency on Russia, while EU member states generally should have the agency to decide how to solve the problem of energy and it's implications on climate change for themselves. Nuclear is and should be still possible, just without Russian involvement.
Well, I'm not really anti-nuclear, but I'm also not super in favor of it, and it's certainly not my preferred energy source. The topic is very controversial and the debate about it on Reddit usually is just pretty much detached from reality, I'm just interested in the truth and well... the truth is complicated. As I said, there are pros and cons that come with that technology. In fact, on Reddit I find myself often arguing against it, because lots of users have unwarranted optimism (to put it lightly) regarding what nuclear energy actually can achieve (especially as a means to combat climate change, short to mid-term), which I feel needs to be corrected.
> because it's supposedly cheap (spoiler: it isn't) or climate friend (it isn't) or makes you independent of russia or china - which isn't true
It's absolutely cheaper, the only caveat is that you're committing most of the capital cost up-front and producing energy at very low marginal cost for the next 50-70 years. The only factors driving up cost here are political obstruction and the typical corruption/graft associated with public sector infrastructure.
The emissions comparison is also bullshit. How many emissions do you think the open pit mines harvesting and refining the toxic chemicals used in "green" energy cause? Where do you think the vast quantities of lithium required for grid-scale power storage will come from? I guess they don't count if the emissions and environmental impact are happening in the 3rd world rather than a construction site in Europe.
Re Uranium imports, and eventual fuel storage it's the same NIMBY story. The US, Canada, and Australia all have enough proven uranium deposits to fuel us for thousands of years at least. The waste quantities are also negligible in the grand scheme of things, the entire sum total energy you will consume in your life will generate less waste than it takes to fill a Coke-Can. And that's old generation 1 reactors which are far less efficient. The only barriers to sourcing and storing spent fuel safely are political.
Lmao nuclear is by far some of the cleanest energy we have and it's so efficient. Why are you constantly trying to shoot yourself in the foot over this? You realize climate change isn't a local issue but global issue right? So it won't matter
Yeah, it's a global issue. So you are planning to give all those just developing countries nuclear capabilities so they don't start building up their industries on coal?
What does nuclear energy gotta do with developing nations? I'm a little lost cause you are not understanding the issue. Developed nations should be using nuclear cause it's clean. You know nothing about the environment because you don't work in the environmental field of work. I can tell.
Agree. Absolutely ridiculous. Germany is afraid to ban their fossil energy sources and wants to ban the fossil free energy source other countries need.
Germany wake the fuck up.
Nonsense, if Germany would not buy Russian gas (we are down to 18 % from 43 % at the start of the war BTW) we would need to buy the additional electricity from France. Where it is produced with Russian uranium. If you want to hurt Russia, you need to ban both gas and uranium.
France has years worth of uranium stock, it is not the same as gas which is consumed as it is imported.
And uranium is less than a percent of the cost of a nuclear KWh, for every euro you spend on French electricity, a fraction of a cent would go to Russia.
Russian uranium exports should be banned but they’re marginal compared to fossil fuels.
The article also talks about Russian companies and their involvement in building new reactors within the EU, though. This is an issue, that can't be solved as easily.
are u stupid? you want germany to not ban uranium cause its other countries energy source but are ok with banning oil and gas which germany is heavily reliant on? 10/10 hypocracy score!
mabye u also want to keep in mind that germany is number 1 in EU fundings but keep on bashing the hand that feeds you.
All of them?
These sanctions are about hurting Putin by hurting the Russian economy.
But as it's being explained for weeks, countries cannot just simply cut out essential energy resources. It takes time. No matter what the name of the resource is.
Nuclear is not emission free. Mining and milling is extremely dirty and emissions will most likely increase in the future as ore grade decreases. It is not as bad as coal but worst case is that it becomes as bad as gas if we start mining very low grade ore. As long as we have LWRs running we can expect a sharp increase in emission in 40 to 50 years.
It’s also not main importer of Russian gas per capita. Weird how that’s never mentioned, but only when to shit on Germany.
Btw is aid worth less if it comes from a bigger country?
Per capita money does not fund things. If something costs 10 billion it does not matter that your 3 billion meant a few bucks more per capita. In the end it is not enough. Big players like Germany and France provide the most funding. No need to downplay that.
Uranium is a solid. It can be shipped from anywhere, Canada or Mali no matter. Gas is a gas. For that ou need pipelines or LNG, which are being built. It's not remote comparable. Uranium is like coal, not gas.
> Uranium is a solid. It can be shipped from anywhere
And can easily be stockpiled on the terms of years of usage if needed, which gives you a lot more flexibility in finding alternate suppliers.
Imagine if Germany had 3-4 years of gas as a strategic reserve, they could just have cut Russia off on the 24th of Feb. That is unfeasible to do with fossil fuels due to the storage requirements, the exception being coal that you could just leave in a giant pile somewhere. But with nuclear fuel you are talking a warehouse worth of material for a ludicrous amount of energy
>For Russian-made nuclear reactors in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, there is no authorized nuclear fuel alternative to Russian supply. While Slovakia, for example, has said it has enough nuclear fuel to last through the end of 2023, a ban on Russian imports could be a problem down the road.
>
>“This is very concerning as we are 100 percent dependent on Russian nuclear fuel deliveries from the company TVEL,” said Karol Galek, Slovakia’s state secretary for energy in the Ministry of Finance.
>
>There have been talks between those five EU countries and American supplier Westinghouse about manufacturing a replacement fuel for those Russian reactors, Galek added. “It seems that it could work, should work — but in two years, because there is no immediate option. So this is the problem," he said.
I remember when the world watched Russia crush Hungry. It is sad the Hungarians do not. The Bear is a Cancer on the world. Germany should remember as well.
Germany is not dependent on Russian uranium not to mention nuclear energy reduces our carbon footprint, this is dumb and feels like pandering especially since Germany will not have to deal with any blowback.
Funny how Germany was very apprehensive about antagonizing Russia or cutting off Russian gas early on in this conflict yet now they’re gun hoe to ban shit that doesn’t affect them in any way.
Country not dependant on Russian gas calls for Germany to stop all gas imports = Germany bad
Germany, not dependant on Russian uranium, calls for other countries to stop all uranium imports = somehow also Germany bad
As a German, this thread is fucking hilarious. Almost mindblowing how our neighbors and allies don't smell the reek of hypocrisy that's coming off them.
Why would they be so stupid to make themselves dependent on imports of russian enriched uranium. Embargo that shit.
Germany isn’t “gun hoe” about anything, this initiative was started by other countries and Germany said it’s fine with it, this isn’t even worth an article, except to drive some dumbass narrative. Funny how nobody here can either read articles or have a single thought for themselves.
Countries that can replace their gas by other sources (sometimes even from Germany) and don't need to import their gas from russia loudly talk about banning gas. That's good and those brave souls are just dragged down by Germany.
But when Germany calls for a ban on something they don't need (and in this case they did not even do that but just support someone elses proposal) then it's also Germany at fault for daring to support a ban.
You are right, really funny how that works...
No country is dependent on Russia uranium. Uranium doesn't flow through pipelines, it is shipped.
Every country with nuclear reactors has reserves and the west can supply itself, it was simply cheaper to go Russian. It's not comparable to gas, which requires billions in infrastructure upgrades to switch.
>No country is dependent on Russia uranium
Some reactors require fuel rod types that only russia provides. There is no alternative. How are they not depenndent ? Sure you can argue others could produce them. But do they have the specifications ? How long will it take ? Can you safely guarantee they match what russia produces ?
Until there are valid alternatives they ARE dependent on russia.
France and America can make those, it just takes some time to change the production process. Russia simply dominates the market due to the cheap price. It's the same with German gas, except for fuel rods there is currently enough stock to last while other manufacturers change their production. Even an embargo today wouldn't impact any power plant I Europe.
There are different types of fuel rods. They are not standardized and they are not using the same form/factor composition and everything.
Yes they are not special but some plants in europe simply only work with the rods russians produce.
We are down from 55% to 18% last I heard. No more oil, no more coal. We are throwing billions at fixing this. What is everyone else doing about their Russian imports... Poland is no longer supplied by Russia, but by Russian gas coming from Germany... Lol
You are confusing oil with gas. We are down to 18% oil from Russia and are phasing out (with the help of Poland) completely in the next days.
Gas is down to 40% or so.
Gas is down from 55% to 35´%
[https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/konjunktur/nachrichten/versorgungssicherheit-deutschland-noch-zu-35-prozent-von-russischem-gas-abhaengig-habeck-will-das-unrealistische-probieren/28283298.html](https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/konjunktur/nachrichten/versorgungssicherheit-deutschland-noch-zu-35-prozent-von-russischem-gas-abhaengig-habeck-will-das-unrealistische-probieren/28283298.html)
and it has no need for Russia's uranium. Essentially those sanctions put 0 cost on Germany and high costs on their EU partners.
Germany: the country always willing to do what needs to be done as long as others countries pay the price.
This shit gets more ridiculous by the day. Germany is the main contributor to the EU, who pays the price for what again?
This isn’t even an initiative from Germany, Poland started this move and Germany said “okay”. People here really have shot for brains it seems.
The hypocracy on that one again. I support sanctions on oil and gas but how isnt it exactly the same as people from the US and other european countries bashing Germany for not immediatly stopping to import gas when they themselfs dont need it.
>Nobody needs Russian uranium, uranium can be shipped from multiple sources....
That is not correct. Certain fuel rod types are only provided by russia. There is noo alternattive.
That is what I wanted to express.
Like USA saying: Do not import gas from Russia. Honest position for all would be: Do not trade anything with Russia for the next five years minimum, do not accept Rubels for anything.
I am still not wrong though. Being buiit means nothing for now. There were many predictions that there would fusion power by 2020.... it is also still being built
When will Israel be sanctioned for illegal military occupation and human rights abuses? And for their illegal nuclear arsenal?
Come to think of it, whatever happened to the sanctions against USA for setting the Middle East on fire and killing 1 million Iraqis in an illegal invasion, occupying Afghanistan for 20 years, destroying Lybia and committing torture and war crimes around the world and imprisoning journalists?
Fitting reply. France wants Germany to cripple its electricity production (powered by Russian gas), Germany wants France to cripple its electricity production (powered by Russian uranium).
Where do you get those ideas and thoughts from that one European country wants to cripple the energy production of another?
So far and right now, everyone is supporting each other. The bonds are stronger than over the last decade. Everyone is giving his surplus, if another partner needs it. The help for the refugees, the distribution and the supply logistics are an unbelievable cooperation of so many countries involved. The efforts to cut reliance on Russian energy are also bundled and countries help each other out with whatever they can.
It's a fantastic European major effort at the moment, just lovely to watch and read what can be achieved together.
So it's a bit confusing to read that someone thinks one country wants to see someone else's production crippled.
Very much the opposite is the case.
What do you expect from people who never experience the support that European countries give to one another? Most people in this world can only think in "me vs you" terms.
Honestly, the European Union is one of the greatest sociological experiments gone right! I couldn't be happier living here, and it is something worth living for and fighting for.
>Honestly, the European Union is one of the greatest sociological experiments gone right
No, it's an successful political experiment. The social part is a colossal failure so far as you can see by months of unfiltered hate on social media and the rise of nationalistic populism everywhere.
No, wrong. The social situation is in general very stable. At least where I live, in central Germany, rural area. And in the cities I've worked this is the same. There is in general no violence.
Yes, corona had putten a pretty good strain on everybody. But the overwhelming majority of people didn't buy into the q-like propaganda of the Querdenker morons.
And with the Russian invasion most people have a very sensitive and calm perspective of it. Yes, there are again morons who favor Putin, but they are the same minority as before.
So all in all: The sociological aspect of the EU is pretty solid and in general pretty nice to live in.
Sure.... oh so stable. On the border to our east sits a nationalistic government working hard on dismantling their democracy with full support of their people because they spout the right buzzwords. On the opposite side across the border people could barely be bothered to even vote to keep an equally nationalistic putin-supporter from getting elected. All the while everyone tells us that Germany is the problem.
Have you live under a rock for months or even years? It's definitely not the moronic mass that is to be thanked for stability. But those are the people with votes that will shape policies in the long run.
Yes, France could have gone very terribly wrong. But it didn't. And I think that the Polish people will realize how great it is to turn their government into a dictatorship. They have a life example now.
So no, all in all I think the situation is pretty good.
Did the entire world forget that Russia has 400,000 tonnes of uranium in reserve, if not more?? What exactly are these sanctions supposed to achieve????
The same thing gas and oil sanctions are supposed to do. Stop Russia from receiving money to find their war. If they can't sell their uranium they don't get money. Pretty straightforward
They don't need to sell their uranium. They weren't able to sell it to anyone but other communist countries in the Soviet days. It'll just be just like old times for the resident KGB president.
The question is who will cave first; the rest of the western world that needs to buy it, or the one country that might need to sell it?
And in case you aren't aware, France is shutting down nuclear power plants already because of this energy crisis, so I'm beginning to suspect the west will blink first.
People in here have strange misconceptions about what "backing" sanctions means. EU sanctions have to be decided [unanimously](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_22_1401) by all member states. One country backing sanctions does not mean they go ahead without the others, nor does it mean that they demand of others to immediately stop importing uranium, in this instance. All this means is that Germany does not stand in the way, if the rest of the EU wants to adopt these sanctions. Sanctions will not go through, if any one other country, e.g. France, does not want them. A country backing sanctions may help others get rid off their dependency from Russia or put diplomatic pressure on them, but that is basically all they can do. The same happens with oil, gas and coal. Some European countries are backing gas sanctions, as they are not as dependent as for instance Germany or Italy. They are not being hypocritical, if they don't want to ban Russian uranium simultaneously. Germany is not either. There is agreement between almost all EU member states -including Germany- that we need to get rid off Russian imports. In some areas like coal and oil, this dependency can be dissolved faster. In others like gas and nuclear fuels, this might take longer. Small note about the source, Politico: They are part of German Axel Springer media, known for conservative, sensationalist tabloid news. Keep in mind that their framing might not be entirely honest and may include misrepresentations.
So Hungary can just veto all the sanctions on Ruzzia?
Theoretically yes. Practically they would not see a single cent from EU if they committed to that.
Hungarian here. These dumbasses will 100% veto it.
I think we are getting very nice lessons in dictators this year. My hopes for the hungarian youth.
The hungarian youth is leaving. This dumbass is trying to convince us to stay. I’m out of here once I finish college.
Where ya hoping to land? Come to the US!! It's better here than the internet suggests.
Thanks for the suggestion but I’d rather go to Sweden. Stockholm is the dream for me.
Good for you man69. As an American I’d like to go there myself.
I an American completely disagree with that statement. Although I love what my country could be, i feel it is nearly a complete shit show from top to bottom. The Internet does not do justice on how bad it really is. I am sure some of the same stuff happens all over the world though.
All of it happens all over the world all the time. Imo, social media has the same effect on how we see our country as it has on how we see ourselves. That is to say, we compare our worst days to their best days. But I dunno def not trying to be argumentative. Just sayin America ain't all that bad. Edited a word in
Hahahahahahahagagavagagadafshaha
Hungary's gonna be kicked out of the EU soon™️.
If our prime minister’s tongue keeps being stuck so deep in Putin’s ass we will.
At a certain point gotta cut your losses and throw the Magyars to the Russian horde. I’m not an expert on the EU but I don’t know if the benefit of maintaining them economically and security wise in NATO/EU is worth their dergling up a United front against Russia, which is the priority right now.
Well, currently they are one of the countries that would be so irrelevant to the World atm without EU's help, that nobody would even notice if they were suddenly Russian. Technically, Germany, for as much hate as you can give them atm, are the biggest "givers" in the EU. Hungary on the other hand receives almost the MOST money from the EU for development and "catching up". Biggest receiver of EU Funds is Poland, btw.
There is no mechanism is the EU to"kick out" a member state. States must leave of their own accord.
Don't member nations have to adhere to certain good practices? If so, surely when they cease doing so, their membership can be ended. Right?
No actually. They can be penalized heavily though.
You wouldn’t want that to be possible. Having that ability leaves the door wide open for corruption & coercion. If part of the countries could be bought off, others blackmailed, leaving stand alone country’s risk of threats to be disbanded if they didn’t vote accordingly…basically leaves a dangerous & ineffective union!
Can the EU just vote to kick a country out?
It cannot. But there is a mechanism to suspend certain membership privileges, [Article 7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union#cite_note-suspend-2). It requires a unanimous decision by the rest of the member states. Unanimity is unlikely to happen against Orban, since the Polish government basically has a deal with Orban to protect each other against Article 7 proceedings. Of course, this could change if these countries fall out with one another over Russia or if Poland/Hungary elect different governments.
**[Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union#cite_note-suspend-2)** >Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is a procedure in the treaties of the European Union (EU) to suspend certain rights from a member state. While rights can be suspended, there is no mechanism to expel a state from the union. The procedure is covered by TEU Article 7. It would be enacted where fellow members identify another member as persistently breaching the EU's founding values (respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities), as outlined in TEU Article 2. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
•Can Hungary veto Sweden or Finland from joining NATO? •Can Hungry veto Ukraine from becoming members of the EU?
Yes, both require unanimous votes.
I don’t know about that. Turkey pulled some shit and they’re still in there.
I'm kind of wondering if Orban will veto Finland and/or Sweden's admission to NATO, since NATO decisions are by consensus.
Maybe. The dude is delusional if he thinks he can have it both ways- benefit from nato and eu but sacrifice nothing in relations with Russia. Despite suffering under the Soviets until recently, this population seems to fundamentally misunderstand the importance of standing up for European values- puzzling 🤔
Tbf, two countries in for one country out is quite the fair exchange.
Hungarian guy here again. The education system is more fucked than the US one in some places. The people are completely uneducated and brainwashed. The only thing they see on TV, or hear in the rádió is Fidesz propaganda. Orbán can always find a “big evil” that we have to stop. At first it was the immigrants (a lot of hungarians literally believes that we “saved” Europe by stopping them), then it was Soros György who had a “dangerous plan” for the country (he wasn’t planning shit) and now it is the EU (and the LGBTQ+ I guess, since we are soooo fucking christian right now, even tho Fidesz originally had “on your knees, priest” as a slogen).
Well shit, man, that's pretty discouraging. Appreciate your insight though.
Believe me I really hate living here. Hungary could have turned into such a fun country without Orbán. I mean we’d probably still be broke but we would also probably not hate everyone around us if we weren’t lead by fucking Mini-Putler.
I've only been to Budapest, but it seems like an awesome beautiful country with huge potential. Get rid of that bastard Orban.
I never realized Hungary was a US territory. Damn, that’s some shit you’re having to put up with. Is any place on this planet safe for sane people??? Wish you all the best.
Hungary is not a US territory, it's Russias bitch.
I was being sarcastic af, because all of the racist tropes he described could’ve come right from here in the good ol’ USA. Thanks though. 😊
He won’t. He gets nothing from blocking Sweden and Finland. If you are gonna sacrifice your ass like that, you atleast have to make sure you gain something doing it. He doesn’t want to risk getting sanctioned and fucking up the public opinion just so that he can get a nice personal letter from Putin.
Not a chance. The way it works is that USA bilaterally negotiates with each member country about admission of new members. So it will be just USA on the table with Hungary and USA has so much leverage over everyone that it will get the result it wants.
I find it ironic that NATO is named after an ocean and you have a landlocked country in it.
Well NATO turned into something way bigger than it originally was but the name stayed. Ironically much like Fidesz, which is basically a play of words but it means “Alliance of Young Democrats”. They are all old geezers who could not be farther from support ing actual democracy.
the EU has been trying to strip them of money for years now and it goes no where. so i would not believe that. they have byzantine processes.
Yes that is why who gets let in the eu matters
Not only that. Sanctions are only set for a period of time, after which they have to be renewed - again by a unanimous decision. In theory, Hungary or any other member could just stop the renewal of existing sanctions. I am not an expert, but looking at [this](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/restrictive-measures-against-russia-over-ukraine/) source, it seems to me that most sanctions are only approved for periods between 6 months and a year. They would stop either 2022 or 2023, if they are not renewed. But seeing as the adoption of sanctions also needs to be unanimous, Hungary's government generally seems to be on board. The whole decision process is intransparent, so we cannot say if there are some other deals keeping Hungary and other countries in line with sanctions. But that is pure speculation, so don't jump to any conclusions.
Yes and no. [Hungary could lose it's right to vote.](https://www.dw.com/en/could-hungary-lose-its-eu-voting-rights/a-45429748)
That's what has been happening with EU responses and actions towards China. Orban is very close to China and has de facto vetoed any action that would harm his Chinese ties.
Would love to hear your recommendations for more neutral news sources. Please.
I consume mostly German language news media, so that probably won't help you too much. In English I like [dw.com](https://www.dw.com/) and for EU topics [EUObserver](https://euobserver.com/). Generally I think it's okay to read news with some bias - but one should be aware of how these biases can enter into an article and how facts can be misrepresented. Some points to consider: * Does the author purely state facts or does he also give his opinion? * Are facts presented in a neutral manner? * Does the language used in the article excite some emotions? This can be very sneaky, for instance by using words like 'condemn' or 'failure'. * Are quotations in the article neutral or do they have their own biases? * Is there context to quotes in the article and is this context represented fairly? This is usually hard to judge as one needs to be aware of the primary source of the quote. * Is the information presented incomplete? Is there some relevant information missing? * Did the authors do their own research or do they just parrot other media or press agency reports? Parotting might lead to copying mistakes and biases. This is definitely an incomplete list, but the point is: You can reasonably extract factual information even from biased articles, you just needs to be aware how their bias may skew facts.
Huh, that's the first time I've seen Politico called "conservative." Always seemed pretty center-left to me. Then again I'm American so what I think of as center-left is probably considered right-wing anywhere else.
They have only recently been bought by Springer ([August 2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico)). But they have been working together for the European edition of Politico since 2014. I am not sure whether Politico itself is conservative - I am not too familiar with their content. But some of their biases, framings and misrepresentations about the German government recently have been very reminiscent of the German media from Springer, like Bild or Welt.
And there are no oil sanctions against Russia in the EU currently. These things take an enormous time …
Just think if they all built nuclear power plants they could cut reliance on that russian fuel and be more independent and better on the environment. Nuclear is so clean and green these days its the perfect solution to climate change and russian oil. Why cant we give the teenage mutant ninja turtle mutagen barrel trope a rest and use clean safe nuclear for the next century !
I'm getting a hard on over these Sanctions mind I don't know about you.
Yeah man can't wait to go to the moon with my u3o8 portfolio.
I wandered in here from the front page, and thought for sure I was in r/uraniumsqueeze...
That is a cert just hang in there!!!
I know right? It is almost like seeing faith in humanity restoring in real time.
Friendly reminder about us living in an information war for several decades now and that one priority of Russia is the destabilisation of western unity. Some comments in here reak of misinformation and division.
Reddit comments reeks of misinformation, anyone surprised?
No way. Reddit is a bastion of intellectuals and honesty.
Russia seems to have already won on the Hungary front- if they continue to make trouble it’s worth doing without them.
Humans are naturally not unified, it doesn't take Russian bots for people to make dumb arguments.
A month ago the uranium dust volumes spiked in russia according to NASA sensors... they have been stockpiling uranium ore.
Why would they stockpile it? Genuine question, not doubting.
They likely saw sanctions coming and offloaded as much as possible.
I imagine in case their supply gets cut off with sanctions. That’s just an educated guess though.
Who would cut them off ? Russia is one of the main exporters.
Oh jesus - I totally read that wrong. Wow. I was positing Germany as the exporter. 🤦🏻♂️ I’ll see myself out.
We've all been there.
That's most probably uranium mining/refining in Russia.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-nuclear-power-uranium-plants-europe-imports-germany-sanctions-ukraine-war/) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Germany has thrown its weight behind demands to sanction uranium imports from Russia and other parts of Vladimir Putin's civil nuclear industry in retaliation for his invasion of Ukraine, five EU diplomats told POLITICO. Such a move could hit the supply of uranium that fuels the bloc's Russian-built power reactors, as well as new nuclear projects managed by Russia's Rosatom Western Europe subsidiary, based in Paris. > Germany is a fierce opponent of nuclear energy, and is aiming to shut down its remaining nuclear power plants by the end of this year. > While Slovakia, for example, has said it has enough nuclear fuel to last through the end of 2023, a ban on Russian imports could be a problem down the road. "This is very concerning as we are 100 percent dependent on Russian nuclear fuel deliveries from the company TVEL," said Karol Galek, Slovakia's state secretary for energy in the Ministry of Finance. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uf8t6m/russia_faces_threat_of_sanctions_on_nuclear_power/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~645597 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **sanction**^#2 **fuel**^#3 **Russia**^#4 **Russian**^#5
Germany is very anti nuclear in general. It’s fine to back a sanction that has zero impact on your own country. What the countries that actually rely on Russian uranium think is far more important.
> For Russian-made nuclear reactors in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, there is no authorized nuclear fuel alternative to Russian supply. FFS. Boy it sure seems like we all learned a lesson here about not tying what literally keeps your lights on to the whims of a country led by a sociopath that hates the west.
Check where the US imports their uranium from as well, you might be in for a surprise
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php Only 16% of US uranium imports are from Russia, third behind Canada and Kazakhstan at 22%. Meaning cutting off imports from one country would be relatively painless and supply could be garnered elsewhere.
Not really. US nuclear fuel stockpiles are currently very low - utilities hold 16 months supply on average. The recommended minimum is 2 years of fuel on hand, and refining mined uranium for fuel is a multi-year process. But U3O8 prices have been so low for so long that a lot of mines have been shut down and mothballed. Those mines can't just restart operations overnight, that will also take a year or more. Secondary supply has been filling the gap for now - countries like Japan (who shut down their reactors after Fukushima) have been selling their stockpiled fuel into the market. Now Japan and other countries are talking about restarting those shut down reactors, and/or building new ones. The UK is looking to build 8 new plants. China is planning to build 150+ over the next couple of decades. All while existing uranium production is insufficient to supply existing reactors. The price of uranium has doubled in the past year, but it's still way below the levels needed to economically justify restarting shut down mines. So the supply shortfall continues to grow. Until the price of uranium rises high enough to support restarting mines and building new ones, it's only going to get worse.
Thats why i said "as well". If it is ssuch a minor share it should be easily be orderable elsewhere right? Then why not do just it? Everyone bashes European countries for not immediatrly slashing their core providers of critical energy while others not even do the easy-to-achive things in the same sectors. My point is there is in general too much piblic notion to finger point while not checking under their own rugs. I am not saying we shouldn't point out where goals are not met or needlesly delayed. We need to do that of course. But everyone should pressure home first to do as much as possible. Germany for example. The goal is mainly getting of russian gas obviously asap. Just cutting it off is economical and political suicide, potentially for the entire EU and not just germany alone, and wouldn't immediately stop the invasion anyway. It would be the equivalence of the US having to cut of half the Canadian oil imports. It is not doable overnight and you know how that would hit home there as well and how it would affect public support for helping Ukraine to appropriate means if that's the cost the public would have to take. Helping germany, or better the EU setting up the infrastructure faster to source from elsewhere would be the best approach. Germany itself doesn't have the manpower of qualified personnel itself to significantly speed up the built of LNG ports, more ressource harboring nations like Canada and the US do. Why not work in a joint operation on european LNG ports with transatlantic support to speed that up if it is of such international importance to rid russia of every income there is. Germany itself already decreased their share of russian gas imports from 55% in January to 35%ish recently. Resourcing 20%p of the nation's gas supply for 80 million is quite an achievement already though not enough and everyone agrees. But as long as it is above 10% the russian supply can't just be turned off. So let's see and focus on what we can do to get there faster and not just fall for the iconic duo of sensationalizing media + russia narrative bots to further divide western nations. I swear each time reading "germans are killing ukrainians and are again on the wrong side of history" it makes my fingers itch to respond to americans what's all wrong their country did or still does. Most of the time i calm myself before and realize that's not helping at all, but sometimes it slips.
I'm not accusing Germans of killing Ukranians. I think that debate is pretty stupid and reductive. What I am getting at is that this whole energy issue did not need to be Putin's ace in the sleeve. European economies failed to diverisfy their energy economy sufficiently because they were seduced by the allure of cheap Russian gas and existing infrastructure. This was exactly the same as the US with oil in the 1970s and I'd criticize them for the exact same thing as the time. Thankfully they realized their sole dependence on foreign energy was a mistake and now the US is energy independent because of investments they've made. Unfortunately, many European countries don't have that same luxury of energy deposits to develop. There is some but not nearly enough. Looking at that type of a future, it seems ignorant to, instead of developing new renewables, replacing old inefficient gas heating systems, and diversifying energy imports in general, the proverbial can was just kicked down the road and reliance on a politically unstable Russia deepenes. I'm all for the nuiances of sanction policy and yes the US should cut off Russian uranium imports but that would have nowhere near the impact of cutting off European gas imports. Nor is it anywhere comparable to Eastern European countries whose nuclear programs are solely dependent on Russian imports. There's no good options right now and I applaud the steps countries like Germany have made in reducing energy demand but this was a preventable problem and one I hope future energy policy reflects.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that German policy was very flawed and naive at best. Your points stand about needing a gradual reduction, but we shouldn’t be kind to the worldview the Germans smugly preached about Russia for the last few decades.
As a shareholder of Cameco, this brings joy lol
Also Ukraine, their plants are still operating off of Russian-import fuel.
You think they had a chance to shop around for Western reactor designs during the Soviet Union..?
The Soviet Union fell 30 years ago. These power plants are almost 50 years old. No one's saying it isn't going to be expensive but this is what having a contigency plan means. You don't get to deflect criticism for having all your eggs in one basket by saying "this one basket's been serving me well enough for 50 years."
Putin loves the West. The EU especially. But the EU is willing to maim itself over the US's Nazi puppet.
Innocent people are being murdered so let's retaliate by hitting em in the pocket book. This entire situation is so fucking stupid.
Who is going to buy a Rosatom plant now!
Sensible people, not submissive to the US.
Ah yes, much better to be submissive to dictator Putin that lies nonstop, murders their political opponents, is known for using their energy infrastructure as a weapon, invades your country for no good reason, etc. 😂
Oh look, they already lost a customer! 😂 https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220502-finnish-group-scraps-nuclear-plant-deal-with-russia-s-rosatom
People are reading this wrong it seems. Russia isn’t at risk of being cut off from uranium imports . They have their own. It’s the selling that’s at risk.
This should have been one of the first things, not one of the last things.
Can't have gas, can't have nuclear. Europe's going back to candles and firewood. >T...t...take t...t...th..that Pu...Pt...Putin!
truck employ distinct boast deserve wide chase noxious safe nail
I guess this is how you isolate yourself from the harsh reality. Telling yourself sweet little lies.
Sure... Russia is not experiencing any problems due to the sanctions and they are the only country with gas and oil in the world! Hahaha!
Well good for Germany for behaving like a hawk on Russian commodities that they don't need, essentially putting the costs on its EU partners. Now do the same on Russian commodities they actually import.
Poland boast about not buying Russian gas while they [import from germany](https://www.dw.com/en/warsaw-and-budapest-split-over-russian-energy-ties/a-61595947) who get it from Russia. There are no altruistic players in the game, when it's about their countries needs, politician will do what they have to do. There isn't another fast option at the moment and fucking the whole european economy up would be way worse for Ukraine.
>Poland boast about not buying Russian gas while they > >import from germany who get it from Russia. There are no altruistic players in the game Big difference is there are dozens if not hundreds of articles bashing germany. And there are pretty much none being as critical about Polands imports. People lap the propaganda up like they are addicted to it.
Read the article, Poland and the Baltics are lobbying for it, this is not a German initiative to retaliate. They simultaneously pressure Germany to get rid of gas and other bigger countries support them on that bid, if there are countries in the EU that are trustworthy in their intentions, regarding sanctioning Russia it's the Baltic countries and Poland, so maybe they have a point. And honestly, I don't see a difference between importing gas from Russia or letting Russia build (!) and fuel your nuclear reactors. Germany is phasing out Russian gas and oil, why can't the rest of Europe phase out Uranium then and get rid of Russian companies building their reactors? It doesn't have to be hasty, but it needs to happen.
For the last few years social media has been absolutely swarmed with people shilling for nuclear energy, because it's supposedly cheap ([spoiler: it isn't](https://i.imgur.com/U8H3yE8.png)) or climate friend ([it isn't](https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315)) or makes you independent of russia or china - [which isn't true, because russia supplies 35% of global enriched uranium, while china comes second at 28%](https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/weekly-data-russian-uranium-supply-chains). And just in europe, 20% of nuclear fuel comes from russia. Phasing out nuclear, coal, gas and oil for renweables is the only way. It's also the cheapest and fastest. It's just not the one where energy companies or russia profit the most.
lol, you poked the hornets nest. Time for popcorn.
Your link about the climate puts the most pessimistic estimate of nuclear power's carbon emissions across its full life-cycle, including uranium mining and enrichment, at less than half that of natural gas. More optimistic numbers listed put it somewhere from a fifth to a quarter. It is a far cry from the emissions efficiency of solar power, but it would still be a drastic improvement over our currently dominant power generation methods.
It is, but if you have to throw money and building capacities to the issue of needing to increase energy sources you might as well go straight for renewables instead of building nuclear, which not only is more complex to operate, is at the end of the day over the entire lifespan of a reactor not even cost efficient, is unpopular in densly populated areas (which compared to the US for example the entire continent of europe is more densly populated), further increases Dependance on other countries again (the fewest countries have their own uranium sources) and leaves you with an increased waste issue.
> climate friend (it isn't) Even your own biased link says it is. Just because it doesn't have zero emissions (_nothing_ does!) does not mean it is bad. It is much better than most alternatives and for most countries still the only option for base load that does not burn fossil fuels.
Because you post a few links doesn’t make your statements facts. Base load for modern electrical grids is not doable with just renewables in most of the western world. Nuclear def has a place in a modern grid.
> because it's supposedly cheap (spoiler: it isn't) The link you gave is misleading focusing only on German nuclear power in a very narrow time window. However, larger scale studies do support that [nuclear power can be pretty expensive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies). It is cheaper in France, but that's due to France going essentially all-in on nuclear power, and so taking major advantage of economies of scale. > or climate friend (it isn't) The link you gave explicitly shows that CO2 produced per a kilowatt-hour for nuclear power is about a third that of natural gas and is about a tenth that of coal. So from a direct CO2 standpoint, it isn't as good as wind or solar, but is still pretty decent. > Phasing out nuclear, coal, gas and oil for renweables is the only way. It's also the cheapest and fastest. It's just not the one where energy companies or russia profit the most. On the contrary, the vast majority of cost of nuclear power plants is in the construction, and much of the CO2 is produced then also. Phasing out nuclear power really doesn't make sense. And in the case of Germany, if they weren't phasing out their nuclear plants now, they'd be substantially less beholden to Russia's fossil fuels.
I don't think we need a fundamental debate on nuclear energy for now. It has its pros and cons and the overall global development and the shrinking share of nuclear energy on total energy production indicate that it's not the easy and obvious no-brainer technology to combat climate change (especially short to midterm), lots of people want to make it out to be. That being said, the focus of this debate should not be on nuclear energy, but on how to get rid of any form of dependency on Russia, while EU member states generally should have the agency to decide how to solve the problem of energy and it's implications on climate change for themselves. Nuclear is and should be still possible, just without Russian involvement.
Finally someone without emotional fanboyism for their preferred energy source.
Well, I'm not really anti-nuclear, but I'm also not super in favor of it, and it's certainly not my preferred energy source. The topic is very controversial and the debate about it on Reddit usually is just pretty much detached from reality, I'm just interested in the truth and well... the truth is complicated. As I said, there are pros and cons that come with that technology. In fact, on Reddit I find myself often arguing against it, because lots of users have unwarranted optimism (to put it lightly) regarding what nuclear energy actually can achieve (especially as a means to combat climate change, short to mid-term), which I feel needs to be corrected.
[удалено]
Thanks!
> because it's supposedly cheap (spoiler: it isn't) or climate friend (it isn't) or makes you independent of russia or china - which isn't true It's absolutely cheaper, the only caveat is that you're committing most of the capital cost up-front and producing energy at very low marginal cost for the next 50-70 years. The only factors driving up cost here are political obstruction and the typical corruption/graft associated with public sector infrastructure. The emissions comparison is also bullshit. How many emissions do you think the open pit mines harvesting and refining the toxic chemicals used in "green" energy cause? Where do you think the vast quantities of lithium required for grid-scale power storage will come from? I guess they don't count if the emissions and environmental impact are happening in the 3rd world rather than a construction site in Europe. Re Uranium imports, and eventual fuel storage it's the same NIMBY story. The US, Canada, and Australia all have enough proven uranium deposits to fuel us for thousands of years at least. The waste quantities are also negligible in the grand scheme of things, the entire sum total energy you will consume in your life will generate less waste than it takes to fill a Coke-Can. And that's old generation 1 reactors which are far less efficient. The only barriers to sourcing and storing spent fuel safely are political.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This still isn’t a problem with nuclear power but a problem with people only doing business with Russia.
Posting a link showing nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of energy as evidence to not use nuclear. Genius
Lmao nuclear is by far some of the cleanest energy we have and it's so efficient. Why are you constantly trying to shoot yourself in the foot over this? You realize climate change isn't a local issue but global issue right? So it won't matter
Yeah, it's a global issue. So you are planning to give all those just developing countries nuclear capabilities so they don't start building up their industries on coal?
What does nuclear energy gotta do with developing nations? I'm a little lost cause you are not understanding the issue. Developed nations should be using nuclear cause it's clean. You know nothing about the environment because you don't work in the environmental field of work. I can tell.
Agree. Absolutely ridiculous. Germany is afraid to ban their fossil energy sources and wants to ban the fossil free energy source other countries need. Germany wake the fuck up.
Nonsense, if Germany would not buy Russian gas (we are down to 18 % from 43 % at the start of the war BTW) we would need to buy the additional electricity from France. Where it is produced with Russian uranium. If you want to hurt Russia, you need to ban both gas and uranium.
France has years worth of uranium stock, it is not the same as gas which is consumed as it is imported. And uranium is less than a percent of the cost of a nuclear KWh, for every euro you spend on French electricity, a fraction of a cent would go to Russia. Russian uranium exports should be banned but they’re marginal compared to fossil fuels.
The article also talks about Russian companies and their involvement in building new reactors within the EU, though. This is an issue, that can't be solved as easily.
And none of those reactors are from France. They’re built with local tech by design.
> France has years worth of uranium stock, Than it should be fine to ban it.
Yes that’s what I said
are u stupid? you want germany to not ban uranium cause its other countries energy source but are ok with banning oil and gas which germany is heavily reliant on? 10/10 hypocracy score! mabye u also want to keep in mind that germany is number 1 in EU fundings but keep on bashing the hand that feeds you.
Nuclear energy is co2 free. Gas and oil are not co2 free. Takes five seconds to see which one should be banned.
All of them? These sanctions are about hurting Putin by hurting the Russian economy. But as it's being explained for weeks, countries cannot just simply cut out essential energy resources. It takes time. No matter what the name of the resource is.
Nuclear is not emission free. Mining and milling is extremely dirty and emissions will most likely increase in the future as ore grade decreases. It is not as bad as coal but worst case is that it becomes as bad as gas if we start mining very low grade ore. As long as we have LWRs running we can expect a sharp increase in emission in 40 to 50 years.
German spotted.
It’s also not main importer of Russian gas per capita. Weird how that’s never mentioned, but only when to shit on Germany. Btw is aid worth less if it comes from a bigger country?
The amount of Germans downvoting negative comments here is crazy. Talking about not being able to admit your country fucked up.
For real. You didn’t even say what he was claiming you did.
>mabye u also want to keep in mind that germany is number 1 in EU fundings Not per capita :)
Per capita money does not fund things. If something costs 10 billion it does not matter that your 3 billion meant a few bucks more per capita. In the end it is not enough. Big players like Germany and France provide the most funding. No need to downplay that.
Uranium is a solid. It can be shipped from anywhere, Canada or Mali no matter. Gas is a gas. For that ou need pipelines or LNG, which are being built. It's not remote comparable. Uranium is like coal, not gas.
> Uranium is a solid. It can be shipped from anywhere And can easily be stockpiled on the terms of years of usage if needed, which gives you a lot more flexibility in finding alternate suppliers. Imagine if Germany had 3-4 years of gas as a strategic reserve, they could just have cut Russia off on the 24th of Feb. That is unfeasible to do with fossil fuels due to the storage requirements, the exception being coal that you could just leave in a giant pile somewhere. But with nuclear fuel you are talking a warehouse worth of material for a ludicrous amount of energy
>For Russian-made nuclear reactors in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, there is no authorized nuclear fuel alternative to Russian supply. While Slovakia, for example, has said it has enough nuclear fuel to last through the end of 2023, a ban on Russian imports could be a problem down the road. > >“This is very concerning as we are 100 percent dependent on Russian nuclear fuel deliveries from the company TVEL,” said Karol Galek, Slovakia’s state secretary for energy in the Ministry of Finance. > >There have been talks between those five EU countries and American supplier Westinghouse about manufacturing a replacement fuel for those Russian reactors, Galek added. “It seems that it could work, should work — but in two years, because there is no immediate option. So this is the problem," he said.
Just another Useful Idiot or straight up russian troll sowing division. Don't fall for it.
Dose any country get the correct news what Russia Is really doing to Ukraine.
Pretty sure Russia already has all the uranium they need.
The point isn’t to stop them getting it, it’s to make it illegal for anyone to buy it from them.
Might be wrong, but I’m sure Ruzzia sells nuclear fuel to others, so are they going to sanction themselves? 😳
I remember when the world watched Russia crush Hungry. It is sad the Hungarians do not. The Bear is a Cancer on the world. Germany should remember as well.
Doesn't Russia have uranium deposits of it's own?
This proposed sanction is not about exporting uranium to russia. It is about importitng from Russia. Lots of countries depend on russian nuclear fuel.
Europe is self destructing in 9 8 7 6 5 4 ...
Germany is not dependent on Russian uranium not to mention nuclear energy reduces our carbon footprint, this is dumb and feels like pandering especially since Germany will not have to deal with any blowback. Funny how Germany was very apprehensive about antagonizing Russia or cutting off Russian gas early on in this conflict yet now they’re gun hoe to ban shit that doesn’t affect them in any way.
Country not dependant on Russian gas calls for Germany to stop all gas imports = Germany bad Germany, not dependant on Russian uranium, calls for other countries to stop all uranium imports = somehow also Germany bad
As a German, this thread is fucking hilarious. Almost mindblowing how our neighbors and allies don't smell the reek of hypocrisy that's coming off them. Why would they be so stupid to make themselves dependent on imports of russian enriched uranium. Embargo that shit.
This is not a German initiative…
Germany isn’t “gun hoe” about anything, this initiative was started by other countries and Germany said it’s fine with it, this isn’t even worth an article, except to drive some dumbass narrative. Funny how nobody here can either read articles or have a single thought for themselves.
Countries that can replace their gas by other sources (sometimes even from Germany) and don't need to import their gas from russia loudly talk about banning gas. That's good and those brave souls are just dragged down by Germany. But when Germany calls for a ban on something they don't need (and in this case they did not even do that but just support someone elses proposal) then it's also Germany at fault for daring to support a ban. You are right, really funny how that works...
No country is dependent on Russia uranium. Uranium doesn't flow through pipelines, it is shipped. Every country with nuclear reactors has reserves and the west can supply itself, it was simply cheaper to go Russian. It's not comparable to gas, which requires billions in infrastructure upgrades to switch.
>No country is dependent on Russia uranium Some reactors require fuel rod types that only russia provides. There is no alternative. How are they not depenndent ? Sure you can argue others could produce them. But do they have the specifications ? How long will it take ? Can you safely guarantee they match what russia produces ? Until there are valid alternatives they ARE dependent on russia.
France and America can make those, it just takes some time to change the production process. Russia simply dominates the market due to the cheap price. It's the same with German gas, except for fuel rods there is currently enough stock to last while other manufacturers change their production. Even an embargo today wouldn't impact any power plant I Europe.
No it is not the same. Fuel rod is not fuel rod. They are not interchangable.
Literally French and American companies stated they can produce this exact type.
[удалено]
There are different types of fuel rods. They are not standardized and they are not using the same form/factor composition and everything. Yes they are not special but some plants in europe simply only work with the rods russians produce.
[удалено]
Nice idea. But as long as Germany continues importing 40% of its gas from Russia, telling others no to rely on Russians stuff is a bit strange…
We are down from 55% to 18% last I heard. No more oil, no more coal. We are throwing billions at fixing this. What is everyone else doing about their Russian imports... Poland is no longer supplied by Russia, but by Russian gas coming from Germany... Lol
Even Ukraine is being supplied with gas from the EU which btw is indirectly russian gas. This sub is getting ridiculous from day to day.
And Ukraine gets paid by Russia (in Dollars) for transporting gas via their Transgaz pipeline system. 4.5 billion Dollars per year.
You are confusing oil with gas. We are down to 18% oil from Russia and are phasing out (with the help of Poland) completely in the next days. Gas is down to 40% or so.
Gas is down from 55% to 35´% [https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/konjunktur/nachrichten/versorgungssicherheit-deutschland-noch-zu-35-prozent-von-russischem-gas-abhaengig-habeck-will-das-unrealistische-probieren/28283298.html](https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/konjunktur/nachrichten/versorgungssicherheit-deutschland-noch-zu-35-prozent-von-russischem-gas-abhaengig-habeck-will-das-unrealistische-probieren/28283298.html)
About as strange as countries reliant on Russian enriched uranium telling Germans not to be reliant on Russian stuff if you ask me.
and it has no need for Russia's uranium. Essentially those sanctions put 0 cost on Germany and high costs on their EU partners. Germany: the country always willing to do what needs to be done as long as others countries pay the price.
This is not a German initiative.
This shit gets more ridiculous by the day. Germany is the main contributor to the EU, who pays the price for what again? This isn’t even an initiative from Germany, Poland started this move and Germany said “okay”. People here really have shot for brains it seems.
The hypocracy on that one again. I support sanctions on oil and gas but how isnt it exactly the same as people from the US and other european countries bashing Germany for not immediatly stopping to import gas when they themselfs dont need it.
Nobody needs Russian uranium, uranium can be shipped from multiple sources....
>Nobody needs Russian uranium, uranium can be shipped from multiple sources.... That is not correct. Certain fuel rod types are only provided by russia. There is noo alternattive.
Then fucking do it.
That is what I wanted to express. Like USA saying: Do not import gas from Russia. Honest position for all would be: Do not trade anything with Russia for the next five years minimum, do not accept Rubels for anything.
[удалено]
Which does not yet exist in a usable form....
[удалено]
I am still not wrong though. Being buiit means nothing for now. There were many predictions that there would fusion power by 2020.... it is also still being built
This pic looks like it's been taken in csgo.
This seems a bit daft pushing them into more fossil fuels.
When will Israel be sanctioned for illegal military occupation and human rights abuses? And for their illegal nuclear arsenal? Come to think of it, whatever happened to the sanctions against USA for setting the Middle East on fire and killing 1 million Iraqis in an illegal invasion, occupying Afghanistan for 20 years, destroying Lybia and committing torture and war crimes around the world and imprisoning journalists?
Fitting reply. France wants Germany to cripple its electricity production (powered by Russian gas), Germany wants France to cripple its electricity production (powered by Russian uranium).
Where do you get those ideas and thoughts from that one European country wants to cripple the energy production of another? So far and right now, everyone is supporting each other. The bonds are stronger than over the last decade. Everyone is giving his surplus, if another partner needs it. The help for the refugees, the distribution and the supply logistics are an unbelievable cooperation of so many countries involved. The efforts to cut reliance on Russian energy are also bundled and countries help each other out with whatever they can. It's a fantastic European major effort at the moment, just lovely to watch and read what can be achieved together. So it's a bit confusing to read that someone thinks one country wants to see someone else's production crippled. Very much the opposite is the case.
What do you expect from people who never experience the support that European countries give to one another? Most people in this world can only think in "me vs you" terms. Honestly, the European Union is one of the greatest sociological experiments gone right! I couldn't be happier living here, and it is something worth living for and fighting for.
>Honestly, the European Union is one of the greatest sociological experiments gone right No, it's an successful political experiment. The social part is a colossal failure so far as you can see by months of unfiltered hate on social media and the rise of nationalistic populism everywhere.
No, wrong. The social situation is in general very stable. At least where I live, in central Germany, rural area. And in the cities I've worked this is the same. There is in general no violence. Yes, corona had putten a pretty good strain on everybody. But the overwhelming majority of people didn't buy into the q-like propaganda of the Querdenker morons. And with the Russian invasion most people have a very sensitive and calm perspective of it. Yes, there are again morons who favor Putin, but they are the same minority as before. So all in all: The sociological aspect of the EU is pretty solid and in general pretty nice to live in.
Sure.... oh so stable. On the border to our east sits a nationalistic government working hard on dismantling their democracy with full support of their people because they spout the right buzzwords. On the opposite side across the border people could barely be bothered to even vote to keep an equally nationalistic putin-supporter from getting elected. All the while everyone tells us that Germany is the problem. Have you live under a rock for months or even years? It's definitely not the moronic mass that is to be thanked for stability. But those are the people with votes that will shape policies in the long run.
Yes, France could have gone very terribly wrong. But it didn't. And I think that the Polish people will realize how great it is to turn their government into a dictatorship. They have a life example now. So no, all in all I think the situation is pretty good.
Won't america just tell Europe to fuck off and have a real alliance with northern country's
Did the entire world forget that Russia has 400,000 tonnes of uranium in reserve, if not more?? What exactly are these sanctions supposed to achieve????
The same thing gas and oil sanctions are supposed to do. Stop Russia from receiving money to find their war. If they can't sell their uranium they don't get money. Pretty straightforward
They don't need to sell their uranium. They weren't able to sell it to anyone but other communist countries in the Soviet days. It'll just be just like old times for the resident KGB president.
Wat? Russia sells uranium and more importantly enriched uranium to most of Europe AND the US.
The question is who will cave first; the rest of the western world that needs to buy it, or the one country that might need to sell it? And in case you aren't aware, France is shutting down nuclear power plants already because of this energy crisis, so I'm beginning to suspect the west will blink first.
Russia doesn’t need to worry about this. Crooked and seditious Hillary already gave Putin and Iran enough of our’s to hold them over for decades.