German chancellor Merkel closed half of Germany's nuclear powerplants last December. How's that working out?

Connections.

Before the end of last year, Germany had six nuclear powerplants.  But on the last day of last year, the government ordered half of those plants closed.

The three reactors just closed were built in the mid-1980s and have worked flawlessly ever since, providing non-carbon-based electricity to millions of German households for almost four decades.

So wait...if they're German-built (yes) and have flawless safety records, and the warmies are screaming that no one be allowed to use coal or gas to produce crucial electricity, why would a rational government order the three plants shut down?

Glad you asked.  The decision to phase out nuclear power was made 20 years ago in 2002, by the center-left government of Gerhard  Schroeder.  Remember that name, cuz it'll turn up again.

You need to know that in Europe, "center-left" is a euphemism for communist-supporting.

Shroeder's successor, Angela Merkel, came to power promising to *reverse* Shroeder's decision to close the plants, because safe, non-CO2-emitting, eh?  But after the huge earthquake off the coast of Japan caused a once-in-a-century tsunami that caused the Fukushima disaster, Merkel reversed course, scrapping her promise to keep the plants.  She ordered three of them closed at the end of 2021, with the last three ordered to close at the end of this year.

It's important to note that before the reunification of communist East Germany with the free, amazingly successful West Germany, Angela Merkel was widely viewed as a rising star of the Young Communist party in East Germany.  But somehow the former communist star became the chancellor of the entire nation.  So was she just posing as a dedicated communist, or...  Hmmm....

The significance of this will soon become clear.

Now here's where things takeoff:  As every adult with an IQ over 80 should know, nuclear plants don't emit CO2, which the warmies scream is fatally warming our planet.  Yet both Shroeder and Merkel claimed their decision to shut the nuclear powerplants was made to "end the use of fossil fuels and shift to renewable energy sources."

Rational adults will instantly recognize this as horseshit.  In fact, closing the nuclear plants will put a big dent in Germany's electrical supply.  And how will that hole be filled?
Moronic liberals bleat "Wind power!"  "Solar energy!"  But Germany, like the rest of northern Europe, is notoriously cloudy.  And wind is intermittent.  So even if the government could somehow replace the total output of the six closed nuclear plants with windmills and solar, what do you do when it's cloudy and the wind isn't blowing as hard as you need?

Unless you're prepared to cut power to thousands of homes, what you must have is a thing called "spinning reserve."  That means boilers already fired up all the time, turbine generators spinning, ready to go on-line at the flick of a switch.

And how are those boilers fired, you ask?

Ooohhh, don't ask.  Coal or natural gas, i.e. the carbon fuel that the lying sacks of shit Merkel and Shroeder claimed they were closing the plants to eliminate.

Whoa!  They really didn't say that, did they?

Yeah, we've got both on video.  Just like porridgebrain looking sternly into the cameras and yelling "If you get vaccinated you can't get covid!!!"  

Ah, another great Democrat lie joins the pantheon.  Just like "Under my plan every family will save an average of $2,500 per year on medical care!"  (Obozo, 2009)  Say, how'd that promise work out, eh Democrats?

"Shut up," they replied.

But closing nukes to cut CO2 emissions *sounded* SO convincing!  Especially when they added that luscious phrase, "...and shift to renewables."  It's a green dream, citizen!  We leftists will SAVE the planet!  Yep yep yep!!

So the German government said this week that after shutting down three plants yesterday, they'll close the remaining three by the end of this year--and *then* "phase out the use of coal by 2030."

Wait...what was that again?  You shut down the nukes FIRST, and THEN shut down the coal plants eight years later?  If your stated goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, isn't that ass-backwards?

Okay, I get that you're a "global warmie" and want to get rid of doze nasty ol' fossil fuels dat bees killin' duh planet.  But if your claimed goal is to cut carbon emissions, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to *keep the nuclear plants running and shut down the coal plants first?*

To put it another way:  If Merkel were honest [?], what conceivable logic would shut down the non-carbon generating plants eight years before phasing out coal, eh?

If you're starting to think something else is actually going on here, keep reading.

Here's another clue:  Germany has a "minister of Economy and Climate," Robert Habeck, who claimed closing all six nuclear plants would have *no effect on Germany´s energy security.*

Say what?

This sounds a lot like "We just need two weeks to flatten the curve."

Remember Gerhardt Shroeder, the leftist chancellor who set the shutdown in motion?  Turns out he also did something else that plays into this: He approved Russia's Nordstream2 gas pipeline to bring more Russian gas to Germany.

So let's review: Shroeder orders all six non-carbon-burning nuclear powerplants closed, then approves a pipeline that will make Germany totally dependent on Russian gas.  Then after the former communist rising star Merkel pledges to keep the plants open, she reverses course and finalizes closing the nuclear plants.

So can you predict the result?  Sure you can.

Russia is the largest supplier of energy to Europe, and had said it would be able to supply more gas to the continent. However, last month a crucial existing Russian gas pipeline was unable to increase volumes--with the result that the price of natural gas has already jumped by about 30% all over Europe.

During his time in office, President Trump consistently warned that if European countries were totally dependent on Russian gas, they'd be effectively unable oppose Russian policies.  This has already been shown in 2014, when Putin threatened to cut off gas to Europe during the Crimean crisis.  The EU laid low, and Putin was unopposed.

And remember that German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, who initially approved the pipeline?  You will never guess where he's working now: he's a very highly-paid executive of the company responsible for constructing the Nordstream 2 pipeline.

But there is absolutely no connection.  It's just another coincidence.

Trump’s successor, porridgebrain Biden, announced in May that he would not block the pipeline as it would be “counterproductive” to American relations in Europe. So he didn't try to block the Russian pipeline from being completed--which is fine, cuz pipelines deliver clean natural gas.  But by huge contrast, on Biden's first day in office he ordered a Canada-to-U.S. oil pipeline--already being constructed--to be stopped.

That would be the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, anada, that would have carried 700,000 barrels of Canadian oil to the U.S. every day.  

Consistent?  Hardly.  biden is working for some power, and it's not us.

The European Union imports nearly 90 per cent of the natural gas it needs, with a third of that coming from Russia.  And that's before the new pipeline begins to flow.  Can you predict the future?

Sure you can.