Nuclear Decline and Renewable Growth in Germany

Jun 02 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

Energiewende Germany wrote this on Twitter:

Renewables have grown more than nuclear been shut down. Coal? In decline again.

Rod Adams, who tries to delay deployment of renewable energy since he rightly perceives it as dangerous competition to his preferred nuclear option, challenged that:

@EnergiewendeGER Do you have credible sources for that assertion?

This is a good occasion to have a new look at the figures. The renewable side of the statistics is best documented in this PDF published by Bernard Chabot at RenewablesInternational a couple of days ago, based on data released by the German Ministry of Economy in this report (in German language).

But first we need to get data for the nuclear decline, so as to find a suitable time frame for measuring the renewable growth.

The mid-term decline of nuclear in Germany is easily documented by looking at the figures released by Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen.

Nuclear peaked in 2001 at 171.3 TWh. It has been relatively stable for the five years until 2006, where it scored 167,4 TWh. From there on it’s a rapid decline. 148,8 TWh in 2008. 140,6 TWh in 2010. 108,0 TWh in 2011. 99,5 TWh in 2012. And 97,3 TWh in 2013.

That’s a decline of 74 TWh in the 12 years since 2001, and a decline of  42.9 TWh since 2010 (the last year before the Fukushima accident).

So has renewable grown more than that in those years?

Renewable scored around 36 TWh in 2001 and 152.6 TWh in 2013. That’s an increase of 116.6 TWh, which beats the nuclear decline since 2001 by a large margin.

The figure for renewable energy in 2010 was 104.8 TWh, which means an increase of 47.8 TWh, again beating the nuclear decline since 2010, though the margin is smaller in this case.

So, to answer Rod Adams’ question, there are reliable sources for the assertion that nuclear decline has not been able to keep up with renewable growth in Germany.

I am not sure if the opposite result would be worth much as a pro-nuclear argument, since it would mean that nuclear is declining even faster than it already is. That’s not a competition you really want to win if you are pro nuclear energy.

While I’m at it, there are some other interesting points found in the report by Bernard Chabot.

For one, Germany is well on track to reach the target of 35% renewable energy electricity generation in 2020. The figure for 2013 was already at 25.4%.

Solar capacity was at 35.9 GW at the end of last year, beating wind with 34.7 GW. That solar capacity figure is way ahead of the national renewable energy action plan Germany filed with the EU in 2010 (Table 10 at page 116), where the government expected only 27.3 GW in 2013. The number for wind is only slightly higher than expectations (33 GW).

Update:

Rod Adams kindly replied in a comment to this post and pointed out that his original question in the Twitter thread was how the growth of solar and wind between 2009 and 2014 compared to the decline of nuclear over that particular time frame, and about coal.

Since 2014 is still a work in progress, we will have to restrict the analysis to the development between 2009 and 2013. For this particular time frame we get a score of 134.9 TWh for nuclear in 2009, which means a decline of 37.6 TWh until 2013.

Table 4 of the original government report cited above shows solar growing from 6.6 TWh in 2009 to 30 TWh last year (increasing by a factor of almost five in four years). Wind was at 38.6  TWh in 2009 and 53.4 TWh in 2013.

So we get a  23.4 TWh growth from solar and another 14.8 from wind in those four years, for a grand total of (drum roll)…

38.2 TWh of growth for wind and solar from 2009 to 2013. So the nuclear decline lost again, failing to beat the growth of renewable even when ruling out biomass for some reason (another 17.1 TWh growth in those four years).

While it is true that the decline in low carbon electricity from nuclear has been more than cancelled out by the growth of solar and wind alone, it is obviously also true that without the decline of nuclear all that new renewable energy would have replaced fossil fuel instead.

If that is Adams’ point (see his comment below this post), it is clearly true, and there is no need to check all these numbers.

I can leave the answer to the question about latest coal developments to Craig Morris, who kindly commented below on this post and linked to the latest figures he published on his excellent blog about this point.

 

 

 

 

34 responses so far

  • Rod Adams says:

    Karl:

    Thank you for the attempted response and for providing a link to Chabot’s data-filled presentation.

    However, one of the major topics in my question was not addressed. Is there credible data showing and quantifying the claimed decline in coal-fired electricity production?

    “Coal? In decline again.”

    My original question was specifically focused on wind & solar, which Chabot’s data shows make up an impressive 55% of German “renewable” energy. (I use quotes because the definition of the word seems to change at the convenience of the writer or speaker, depending on their point of view and what they are trying to prove.)

    I was also not interested in what happened starting in 2001, but asked specifically about the past 5 years with early nuclear shutdowns.

    My main concern is showing how the impressive and expensive effort to scale up emission free power sources like wind and solar has failed to make as big a dent in CO2 emissions as it should have made because the effort was self-sabotaged by shutting down as much emission free generation from nuclear.

    I still don’t get it. If the goal of advocating for “renewable” energy is to have an effect on slowing or reversing climate change, why not focus on eliminating the big sources – lignite, hard coal and natural gas, in that order? Why not advocate for both nuclear and wind & solar?

    My continuing suspicion is that reducing emissions is not all that important to many of the people who are most vocal about the need to continue subsidy programs for politically acceptable “renewable” sources.

    Rod Adams
    Publisher, Atomic Insights

    • Karl-Friedrich Lenz says:

      Thanks for your comment. I replied only to your last Twitter comment, which challenged what Energiewende Germany said, and they were talking about “renewables” and did not give a time frame.

      I’ll update the post to answer the original question.

      It is of course correct that the transition to low carbon in Germany is slowed down by replacing nuclear before fossil fuel. No one can dispute that. You don’t need to look at the details of the statistics, it’s only common sense.

      “Why not advocate for nuclear and wind & solar?”

      That used to be my position. Your and your allies’ attacks on renewable were the main reason I changed it (neutral on nuclear now):

      http://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=5538

      • Rod Adams says:

        Karl:

        I don’t attack renewables. I point out that they have limitations that are not mentioned by people who blindly advocate for them and who change the definition of the word “renewable” depending on the situation.

        For example, I remain confused when people want to include “biomass” as a low emission fuel source. I’ve sat next to too many campfires to understand how they can make that claim. (Yes, I’ve heard the convoluted arguments about how the trees took CO2 out of the atmosphere, but what about all of the other pollutants in biomass smoke? What about the forests that are razed for palm oil or the food price increases that result when edible corn is turned into alcohol so it qualifies for special subsidies?

        Emission free energy is good. Reliable, on demand, emission free energy that does not have a large land requirement is even better.

        • Karl-Friedrich Lenz says:

          “I don’t attack renewables.”

          This should be true. Attacking renewable energy is a messaging blunder for nuclear advocates. It fires back and increases opposition, which is already substantial.

          I perceive your position as clearly anti-renewable. I may be wrong. But that’s how it comes across as far as I am concerned.

          • Rod Adams says:

            Karl:

            I am not opposed to using the wind and the sun for energy when appropriate.

            I am opposed to the renewable energy industry marketers who care more about selling panels and turbines than they do about solving the worlds energy supply issues, income distortions caused by excessive dependence on fossil fuels, environmental destruction caused by the need to move massive quantities of hydrocarbons from place to place, and geopolitical instability caused by excessive dependence on petroleum extracted from geographically limited sources often controlled by despots.

            As just one of many examples of how I came to my conclusion about the renewable energy industry, here is a post I wrote several years back featuring Michael Eckhart of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE). He is explaining how his organization has invented the “brand” of “renewable” and how they – and they alone – determine who gets to use that brand to market their products.

            http://atomicinsights.com/is-nuclear-renewable-michael-eckhart-president-of-american-council-on-renewable-energy-says-no/

            By Eckhart’s logic, the word renewable should carry a registered trademark symbol.

            If I gain a few political enemies by fighting the renewable energy industry, so be it. Who needs “friends” like Eckhart?

            Rod Adams
            Publisher, Atomic Insights

        • ZachR says:

          > “I don’t attack renewables.”

          You refer to wind turbines as “windmills”. This reveals someone who is either very ignorant or a dishonest ideologue who wishes to imply wind power is archaic and feeble. You know they are not called windmills so that makes you the latter.

          > “I remain confused when people want to include “biomass” as a low emission fuel source.”

          Google ‘carbon cycle’ and alleviate your ignorance, which is puzzling for someone who spends an obsessive amount of time on this subject.

          • Rod Adams says:

            @ZachR

            As I have noted, I am not a fan of renewable industry marketers or brand managers.

            If I google the word turbine, here is the definition that results:

            “a machine for producing continuous power in which a wheel or rotor, typically fitted with vanes, is made to revolve by a fast-moving flow of water, steam, gas, air, or other fluid.”

            Note that a windmill does not qualify as a machine that is for producing CONTINUOUS power by a “fast-moving” flow.

            I am well aware of the carbon cycle. I am also well aware of the environmental impact of burning biomass. It is only “renewable” because the brand managers have defined it as such. It is certainly not emission free, though it might be relatively close to low carbon if gathered by poorly paid manual laborers in Brazil.

            If the biomass is harvested using chain saws and trucks, processed in a factory and then shipped from North Carolina to Europe, it is not even close to low-carbon and is certainly not sustainable.

            Rod Adams
            Publisher, Atomic Insights

          • ZachR says:

            Cambridge dictionary:

            turbine – ‘a type of machine through which liquid or gas flows and turns a special wheel with blades in order to produce power’

            But, in your mind, a turbine is no longer a turbine when it has no ‘fuel’.

            windmill – ‘a building or structure with large blades on the outside that, when turned by the force of the wind, provide the power for getting water out of the ground or crushing grain’

            Your dishonest game of semantics is plain for all to see and just another reason that anyone who wants honest, reliable information on energy should ignore you.

        • ZachR says:

          “I don’t attack renewables” then you admit that you are “fighting the renewable energy industry”.

          It’s difficult to keep your story straight when you’re not being honest or are blinded by ideology.

          • Rod Adams says:

            There is a big difference between a technology and the marketing organizations for specific instances of the technology.

            Though I am hugely in favor of the use of nuclear fission energy, I am often quite critical of the “nuclear industry.”

            First of all, there are only a handful of companies that are truly focused on nuclear energy technology. (Cameco, Bruce Power, Areva, a bunch of tiny uranium mining companies, and a growing group of atomic energy startups like NuScale and TerraPower are the only ones I can think of.)

            The rest of the establishment nuclear industry includes a large number of companies for whom nuclear is only a part of a portfolio of energy related enterprises. In many cases, like GE, Bechtel, or Mitsubishi, nuclear is a rather small portion of a very large enterprise that is much more interested in natural gas, wind turbines, or infrastructure associated with coal, oil and natural gas.

            Because of their inherent conflicts of interest, those domineering members of the “nuclear industry” suppress all efforts to honestly and loudly compare and contrast the technical characteristics of nuclear energy against its competitors.

            Companies like GE and Siemens are long time experts in obtaining subsidies from the government. They both love to hire former government officials to lobby for additional gifts. They both are huge players in the “renewable energy industry.”

            The only reaction I know of that can be completely contained and made clean enough to operate inside a sealed building or submarine is atomic fission.

            I’m trying to be as honest and forthright as I can be. On demand, abundant, low cost, clean energy is important. It is the foundation on which to build a prosperous economy.

            Rod Adams
            Publisher, Atomic Insights

          • ZachR says:

            Calling Vestas, Enercon, Suntech, Sharp, etc. “marketing organizations” simply reveals that you are not rational on this subject. They are manufacturers.

            But you got something right. The nuke industry is clearly in serious trouble – which has been obvious for many years. Nukes couldn’t compete against fossil fuels in the late 20th century. Now they can’t compete against renewables – which are going to bring abundant, clean, never-ending energy.

            You would be happier if you found another techno fantasy to promote which had a chance of becoming reality rather than beating the dying nuke horse.

    • ZachR says:

      > “Thank you for the attempted response”

      It’s not “attempted”. It is a response. But that’s the typically snide way that Adams addresses people who threaten his desperate, flailing nuke crusade.

      > “why not focus on eliminating the big sources – lignite, hard coal and natural gas”

      How? You do realise that Germany is a democracy and the government cannot just order corporations how to run their business?

      Again, this is typical of Adams’ fluffy thinking – if he just suggests something then it must somehow magically happen.

      Still, the data clearly shows that the Energiewende is working – displacing toxic fossil and deadly nuke energy. The deniers of this success look more ridiculous with each passing day as more clean energy is added to Germany’s grid.

      • Rod Adams says:

        @ZarchR

        “How? You do realise that Germany is a democracy and the government cannot just order corporations how to run their business?”

        That sure didn’t stop the government from summarily ordering the closure of nuclear plants, even though courts have determined that it was an illegal order.

        http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/176ba288-7d2c-11e3-a579-00144feabdc0.html#axzz33dBJrOya

        Nuclear is not losing in Germany because of any problems with nuclear. It is losing the public relations campaign because nuclear marketers are not as skilled or experienced as coal, lignite, natural gas or windmill marketers.

        By the way, you do know that most windmills are manufactured by some of the largest conglomerates in the world, right? (Siemens, GE, Vestas, Iberdrola, etc.)

        • ZachR says:

          Germany’s nuke exit is overwhelmingly supported by the German people and it’s going to happen. Sorry that you don’t like democracy.

          http://www.renewablesinternational.net/upticks-and-trends/150/537/75926/

          It’s over. You lost. Move on.

          And get used to losing – nukes continue their long-term global decline as renewables continue massive global growth.

          P.S The more you call wind turbines “windmills”, the more ignorant and dishonest you make yourself look. Carry on.

          • Rod Adams says:

            @ZachR

            Germany has a history of irrational mass movements becoming popular and winning elections.

            Democracy is not a system where the results of any particular decision are forever enforced. It is a system in which people are free to continue voicing their opinions and working to change the minds of others to the point of overturning previous decisions.

            In other words, democracy is a system in which the people agree to reserve the right to collectively change their mind.

            As the reality of unreliable power sources becomes more apparent and the rosy promises of the renewable energy brand lose their petals, I fully suspect that Germans will wake up and change their selected course. In fact, that awakening is already in progress.

            See, for example:

            http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-money-problem-with-the-german-energiewende-in-3-charts

          • ZachR says:

            So now you’re suggesting that Hitler II is going to stop the nukes from being shut down. You nukers produce that kind of nonsense because your have to contort your imagination to try and make sense of why reality does not conform to your beliefs.

            The very obvious flaw in your ‘thinking’ is that renewables are all cost and no benefit. It’s a common affliction amongst anti-clean energy ideologues.

            One Trillion Savings From Renewable “…Germany is saving EUR 8 billion a year in fossil fuel import costs right now (about 10 percent of the whole bill) and expects that the cumulative savings up to 2040 will reach more than EUR one trillion.” http://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=9060

            That’s without trying to calculate the huge cost of pollution from fossils and the unimaginable cost of unmitigated climate change.

            Nukes have zero political support in Germany. The people are informed and do not want them. And that will not change – no matter how many ludicrous fantasies you produce or how often you repeat fossil-nuke propaganda. See:

            Germans driven by facts, not fear – deal with it. “Why the moral indignation at Germany’s attempt to switch to renewables? When checking into Germany, Craig Morris advises Americans to leave their vituperation at the door. Germans of different political camps speak respectfully with each other and are guided by facts, not ideology – with, he regrets, the exception of Der Spiegel.” http://energytransition.de/2013/03/germans-driven-by-facts-not-fear-deal-with-it/

  • Ulenspiegel says:

    Rod Adams wrote: “My continuing suspicion is that reducing emissions is not all that important to many of the people who are most vocal about the need to continue subsidy programs for politically acceptable “renewable” sources.”

    I assume you do not know what happened in respect to nuclaer energy in Germany in 2002-2010. Otherwise, you would know the explanation: The industry worked very hard to reverse the nuclear exit 0f 2002 after the federal election in 2009. However, with Fukushima A. Merkel became a sitting duck and had to re-implement the 2002 stuff.

    A more honest approch by the 4 big German utilities, which owned both, nuclear and lignite capacity, and Federal government could of course have produced a better result in the years after 2002, a result that would not have been under fire after Fukujima. Some of the results are self inflited pain by the utilities.

    But that is history and nuclaer energy in Germany will very likely be history in 2021.
    BTW some of the shut down nuclear capacity was at the end of its life span, so the difference is not that big as sold by pro-nuclar guys.

    And one could add that the switch from NG to hard coal in 2011-13, which slowed down the CO2 emissins, is not a result of the energy transition but would have happened in another scenario, too.

    Your subsidy “argument” in in the German context (no weapons programs to hide payments) is pure crap, sorry, unintelligent propaganda. Nuclear go much more for delivering less. :-)

  • Ulenspiegel says:

    should have been: …, which slowed down the the reduction of CO2 emissions, …

  • Craig Morris (@PPchef) says:

    Rod, the goal of the Energiewende is not to combat climate change. The grassroots movement for energy democracy predates the entire climate discussion:

    http://energytransition.de/2013/04/an-interview-with-florentin-krause/

    I object to the question about “credible” data. I am the person who publishes Bernard Chabot’s material, and both his writings and mine are based on official data. Anything I write is based on facts, and I always provide links to them.

    You are essentially saying you don’t believe it if we say it, and you want to see the real data – which we already provide and which says exactly the same thing.

    Here is the latest coal data you are looking for:
    http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-coal-downturn-in-q1-2014/150/537/78523/

    To eliminate the effect of the financial crisis, we went back to 2007 to produce a comparison up to 2013:
    http://www.renewablesinternational.net/upticks-and-trends/150/537/75926/

    Best regards

    • Karl-Friedrich Lenz says:

      Thanks for your comment. It means I don’t need to answer the question about coal, since there is nothing I could add to your excellent analysis. :)

    • Rod Adams says:

      Please understand the context of my request for credible data. It was part of a Twitter discussion in which assertions were made with no links to sources at all. I specified “credible” because many of those conversations end up resting on data whose only source is a marketing presentation.

      The link you provided to the history of the Energiewendie discussed lowering carbon emissions and energy sustainability as one of the original goals. Yes, it also points to a desire to reduce nuclear, but I continue to find that rather irrational, especially considering that the ideas also predate Chernobyl by half a dozen years. My perspective is not a “nuclear industry” perspective; it is driven by my personal, hands on experience in operating a couple of submarine nuclear power plants.

      You may think that I’m odd, but those 1960s vintage machines seemed like near miracles to me. No smokestacks, easy to operate, little maintenance, and 14 years worth of fuel in a volume small enough to fit under my office desk. I realize that utilities have not taken full advantage of the potential of the technology, but that does not change the fact that the potential is very real and would make the world a more energetic, prosperous, cleaner place.

      Since leaving submarines I’ve learned a great deal more than the Navy ever taught me about fuel availability, other technological ways to use fission, and the potential of thorium as an additional fuel to uranium. I’m driven to keep working to share as much of what I know as possible.

      I do not work for anyone but my children and grandchildren (and those of other people.)

      Rod Adams
      Publisher, Atomic Insights
      Host and producer, the Atomic Show podcast

    • ZachR says:

      Rod Adams displays many characteristics and tactics of a typical denier.

      Any data that proves him wrong he ignores and then demands that you provide more data – and he’ll continue with that tactic until you refuse to pander to him, then he will claim victory.

      Sadly for Rod, his tireless, heroic campaign to spread the good word about nukes doesn’t change reality in any way. Nukes continue their global death spiral as renewables continue their exponential growth as costs continue to fall.

    • jmdesp says:

      I unfortunately can not load your site at the moment, but I wish to reply that the way you present the Q1 2014 coal data in Germany allows people to understand that the improvement over 2013 would be mostly the result of renewable deployment.

      Of course, while there’s more renewable capacity now than in 2013, much of the difference comes actually from a much more favorable climatic situation.
      One can defend that 2013 was very unfavorable, and that 2014 is more representative, but it’s hard to be sure this is a really impartial presentation.

      Let me suggest another solution, let’s compare to a neighbor of Germany that has made very different choices in it’s energy generation and let’s see how different 2014 is from 2013 there.

      So in France, the coal based production of electricity for the first quarter of 2013 was 8 TWh. And 2014 ? It’s 2.6 TWh, so the production is down 73% in one year.

      As we see, the strong reduction in coal use in 2014 with regard to 2013 is very far from being as closely linked to the renewable deployment choice of Germany as would needed for it to be the proof this deployment was the best solution. Either the reduction doesn’t have actually so much to see with the renewable choice, or renewable *plus* nuclear would have been a much more efficient solution.

  • geronimo says:

    Are the Whs deployed usable, or simply the total potential capacity? If it is the latter then the nuclear energy hasn’t been replaced by renewable energy, and Germany is going to be in trouble.

    I am @GerryMorrow on twitter if you want to leave a response there.

    • Karl-Friedrich Lenz says:

      If you are talking about “capacity”, that would not be “Whs”. These figures are about generation, not capacity. Everything generated by renewable sources is by law consumed with priority to all other sources (fossil fuel, nuclear).

  • […] Adams kindly replied in a comment to this post and pointed out that his original question in the Twitter thread was how the growth of solar and […]

  • Craig Morris (@PPchef) says:

    Rod,

    “Germany has a history of irrational mass movements becoming popular and winning elections.”

    That is an unusually uninformed depiction of German history. Would you mind naming some examples?

    In my experience, but Germany has a history of people voting in their own interest. The situation is a bit different in the US, so maybe you think other countries are like the one you know.

    Regarding your comment that the Germans might still change their mind, are you certain that is an informed assessment of Germany and not your wishful thinking?

  • Rod Adams says:

    @Craig Morris

    You questioned me for an example backing up the following statement:

    “Germany has a history of irrational mass movements becoming popular and winning elections.”

    In order to avoid Godwin’s law, I will simply mention an example year – 1933.

    Germans are a rational people who can count. As the costs of the EnergieWende become real and the projections and promises fail, the Germans will change their course and speed.

    • ZachR says:

      What “projections and promises” and when are they going to fail, Rod?

      German electricity supply 2007 – 2013: coal down 11 TWh; gas down 12 TWh; nukes down 44 TWh; renewables up 59 TWh. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bdydb4UCMAAiT1A.jpg:large

      And when do you predict Hitler II is going to arrive and save your nuke dreams?

      • jmdesp says:

        Why specifically 2007 ? Except for the fact of course that with 297 TWh of combined lignite and hard coal production, the coal based power production was significantly higher than the surrounding years and actually as high as in 1992 ?

        Let’s see more completely what 1992 – 2013 gives, coal is down barely 11 TWh as said, gas up 34 TWh, nuke down 61 TWh, renewable up 132 TWh.
        So what meaningfull projection can we do based on only 6 years, when 21 don’t give the same one at all ?

        On that longer period, renewable have compensated the increase in consumption rather than removed fossil fuel, because Germany has decided to get rid of nuclear.

  • Craig Morris (@PPchef) says:

    Rod,

    1) One year does not a history make.

    2) 1933 is not even an example of what you’re talking about. The Germans did not irrationally vote anyone into office that year.

    In 1932, public support for the Nazis party dropped from the all-time high of 37 percent down to 33 percent in the November elections.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_to_power

    Historians generally agree that the Nazis were on their way to becoming irrelevant politically, and Hitler managed to grab political control by force just in time. One newspaper even wrote in December 1932, when top ranking party members began stepping down and the Nazis lost large blocs of voters in local elections, that “the tremendous Nazi assault on the Democratic state has been repelled” (see http://www.zeit.de/2013/04/Hitler-Machtuebernahme-Reichskanzler-1933/komplettansicht in German).

    He did so largely with his SA, which basically consisted of disgruntled young men who bullied Hitler’s political opponents on the street. Later, he set fire to the parliament and declared a state of emergency in order to take total political control and prevent further elections.

    So you have provided zero examples of what you claim for Germany.

    Now let’s look at the US. Politicians like David Duke regularly receive a larger share of the votes cast then Hitler ever did:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#1990_campaign_for_U.S._Senate

    The US senator with, I believe, the longest term (48 years) was also probably the closest to Hitler’s racial ideology:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

    Americans take their most repulsive fellow citizens and put them in office – and if they have called developing countries “rat holes,” we put them in charge of foreign development aid:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms

    America takes bigots and gives them microphones with national platforms. German, in contrast, doesn’t even have the word “pundit.”

    You disappoint me, Rod. You seem to be someone who talks about things you don’t know much about. Perhaps you are surrounded by too many people in the US jabbering away ignorantly so that you don’t realize how unique the US is in that respect.

  • Rod Adams says:

    There is a big difference between a single representative in a body like the US Senate and a party that is allowed to seize control of an entire country that then wages war on its neighbors and its citizens for a dozen years.

    The SA, SS, and established armed forces were not formed by minor numbers of people.

    Every military officer swore a personal oath to a single individual.

    There are many details that Wikipedia leaves out. Here is a better source,

    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm

    Note: the link is in the middle of a whole series of articles about Hitler’s rise to power.

    • ZachR says:

      > “allowed to seize control”

      You really need to learn the basics of something before trying to talk about it. You reveal that you are hugely and offensively ignorant of German history with that statement.

      I assume you want to talk about this because the reality of the dying nuke industry and growing clean energy revolution makes you uncomfortable.

  • Adrian Turcu says:

    “You really need to learn the basics of something before trying to talk about it. You reveal that you are hugely and offensively ignorant of German history with that statement.”

    It seems to me YOU are the one ignorant and ideological (an accusation you formed earlier).

    I just wanted you to know that.

Leave a Reply


*