11 ms·
What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?
- pdubouilh 2y agoABSTRACT: Germany has one of the most ambitious energy transition policies dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ to replace nuclear- and fossil power with renewables such as wind-, solar- and biopower. The climate gas emissions are reduced by 25% in the study period of 2002 through 2022. By triangulating available information sources, the total nominal expenditures are estimated at EUR 387 bn, and the associated subsidies are some EUR 310 bn giving a total nominal expenditures of EUR 696 bn. Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power.
- rapnie 2y ago> Germany could have [..] [which] shows Germany could have [..] Thus, Germany should have [..] Germany could have skipped the industrial revolution, so they should have reached their targets already.
- KingOfCoders 2y agoWe won't settle this debate (and I'm not against nuclear), but it's a discussion around "Do I need fire insurance when my house has a low chance to burn down" and should I use the money for something else. If it doesn't burn down, you look great. If it burns down, you look like an idiot. I think people will not understand (some|most) Germans if you haven't lived through Chernobyl and Pershing-II days, dying forrests (from East European coal plants) and also red terrorism (mid 70s, early 80s were a crazy time). The discussion is not a rational one but one out of trauma of that time.
- wrKaxnc 2y agoGermany is stationing nuclear capable missiles again, with the approval of the Green Party, which had been at the forefront of the anti Pershing-II protests but is now a war party: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-shrugs-off-putin-comments-on-us-missiles/a-69801608 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-shrugs-off-putin-comments-on-u... If that is possible, why not pebble bed reactors?
- fabian2k 2y agoThey're conventional missiles, not nuclear. And nuclear capable is a bit misleading here as that capability was dismantled for the Tomahawk cruise missiles. Of course the US could add it back with some effort, but that goes for essentially every missile that is large enough.
- polotics 2y agoA war party? Si vis Pacem para Bellum!
- oezi 2y agoThe age of Nuclear is over and won't be coming back. The technology trajectories are now just in favor of solar and batteries. Everything else has no chance.
- acchow 2y agoChina this week just approved 11 new nuclear power plants, including a 4th Gen. Last year they approved 10. They currently have 56 in operation. I would hardly say the age of nuclear is over.
- oezi 2y agoGiven that there are roughly 500 reactors in operation and they last up to 40-50 years, this is just keeping the status quo. The share of nuclear electricity has been slipping.
- 2y ago
- defensive7132 2y agoI always supported nuclear power. It's just the best we have right now. Renewable power is all good and all, but technology is not there yet. Plus, many people in support of green energy never think about all the mining done for this and how it impacts and often destroys environments. It's OK when it's not your environment being hurt. :-) Anyways, nuclear power is safer than people think. And most, if not all, nuclear power disasters were due to human error.
- jahnu 2y ago> Renewable power is all good and all, but technology is not there yet. Actually it is and here is the best summary explaining why I know of: https://www.volts.wtf/p/what-the-sun-isnt-always-shining https://www.volts.wtf/p/what-the-sun-isnt-always-shining
- aniviacat 2y ago> most, if not all, nuclear power disasters were due to human error How is this less of an issue? Are modern reactors not built and operated by humans? We have better sensors and more digital components now, which reduce the risk. But the risk for a wind turbine is, and always was, zero.
- defensive7132 2y ago"risk of a wind turbine is, and always was, zero" seems like you need to check on how many people die a year while maintaining wind turbines. Fukushima accident: corruption Chernobyl: incompetence Three mile island accident: that's a bit more nuanced than just human error, but nothing we haven't fixed already SL-1: suicide-murder/human error Those are the serious accidents. As you may see, all are perfectly fixable. Plus, current nuclear plants are more advanced. Now while you have on your mind these 4 accidents, consider that currently there are 403 in use plants and oldest one is over 60 years. All working with no issue.
- aniviacat 2y agoHow is human error fixable?
- SiempreViernes 2y agoNo analysis of costs if Germany had adopted a strategy of transitioning to renewables in 2002 is offered, you are just meant to look at figure 2 and say take it on fait it is the result of a coherent green transition strategy rather than Germany dallying and going back to its traditional coal power.
- oezi 2y agoIf 350bn is all we need to cut our emissions in Germany (we have a 4000bn annual GDP) by 75%, then I don't get what the big fuss about climate change is. Every industrial country could cough up such small an amount (loan, Fed printing money, etc).
- lovegrenoble 2y agoRIP German industrial production without North Stream and Russian cheap energy...
- croes 2y agoGas and energy prices are back to normal
- Aldipower 2y agoAnd who destroyed it? Either USA or Ukraine or both together. Best friends ever..
- jojobas 2y agoThis is an idiotic take. By choosing better economy over freedom they'd lose both economy and freedom.
- wrKaxnc 2y agoHow so? Germany and everyone else trades with Saudi Arabia. Do you lose freedom because of that? It is a business decision, same as Ukraine's decision to still collect transit fees for Russian pipelines.
- jojobas 2y agoLast I checked Saudi Arabia minded their own business and didn't issue ultimatums to NATO to expel members or else.
- lhndan 2y agoThat is debatable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-led_intervention_in_the_Yemeni_civil_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-led_intervention_in_the_... The Yemen war is/was pretty brutal, and SA happened to back the ousted president. The even called the war an "operation" (sound familiar?). We could also go back further to Saudi Bin Laden support, which was conveniently ignored in all business deals.
- wrKaxnc 2y agoChina has an operational pebble bed reactor while Germany is falling behind: https://www.ans.org/news/article-6241/china-pebblebed-reactor-passes-meltdown-test/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-6241/china-pebblebed-reacto... If there isn't another "Energiewende" (two 180° turns would finally amount to Baerbock's 360° turn gaffe), or alternatively friendlier relations with various resource rich countries, Germany's future is bleak.
- croes 2y agoLess emissions but more waste. Germany still hasn't a Nuclear waste repository. The time plan shifted now to somewhere after 2070. And all this doesn't possible terror attacks and sabotage into account. Can't remember any fears about rockets hitting Ukrainian wind turbines.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- p51-remorse 2y ago> somewhere after 2070. This is clearly willful incompetence.
- ardaoweo 2y agoI've always wondered how big of a part Soviet Union / Russia psych ops played in stirring this completely irrational anti-nuclear mentality. The side-effect of getting Germany hooked on Russian gas was extremely convenient to them. Of course the Chernobyl disaster played some part, but it didn't result in such irrationality in most other surrounding countries. Perhaps the anti-war mentality and guilt from the horrors of WW2 also plays a part? In any case, what a disaster German energy policies have been for whole Europe.
- jojobas 2y agoIf Chernobyl didn't blow up due to stupidity the KGB would have to sabotage it.
- wrKaxnc 2y agoRussia did nothing in that respect. The original anti nuclear protests were authentic.
- dudeinjapan 2y agoIt's called "useful idiots".
- DarkNova6 2y agoI'm doubtful it can be ruled out with a handwavy gesture. Given just how much Russia has invested into Elite capture you know they will set everything in their power to make the west suck up their Gas deliveries. No dependency on Russian gas, no money.
- aguaviva 2y agoI'm doubtful it can be ruled out with a handwavy gesture. That's not how things work. You need to have some actual evidence for your pet theory of what happened. You don't just get to believe it (or assign it high likelihood of being true) because it sounds like a nifty narrative, and seems to connect some dots for you. Meanwhile while the commenter above you is saying, being far from "handwavy", is entirely obvious to anyone with knowledge with knowledge of that country at the time. Anti-nuclear sentiment was everywhere, and it wasn't irrational, just misinformed against the backdrop of what we know today. Soviet influence operations were ridiculously ineffective at the time (the movement goes back to the 70s-80s) and there's scant evidence of them having been able to influence much of anything in the West (even on issues they were greatly interested in and put out tons of propaganda about, the set of which never included nuclear power as a topic).
- cheschire 2y agoIt doesn’t matter what the logic and the math says if fear is your primary motivator. I used to think the Germans were especially sensitive to these types of fear, but then brexit and worldwide trends towards populism as a whole reminded me this is just baseline human behavior. It didn’t help that someone figured out pretty good branding[0] against nuclear power that makes people feel happy to resist. I would see these silly “Atomkraft? Nein, danke!” stickers everywhere. You almost felt obligated to go along with the sentiment. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Sun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Sun
- flgb 2y agoThe framing in the article is that Germany made a purely technical decarbonization policy choice between renewable energy and nuclear power and chose incorrectly, but this is too reductive. Germany has a long history of public opposition to nuclear power, going back over 50 years, and this is related to environmental concerns, safety concerns, and the association with nuclear weapons. Both the USA and the Soviets had nuclear weapons deployed on German soil with the potential to be directed at the German people and this cultural and historical context is important to understand the current policy landscape. The origin of the popular Green party in Germany is deeply connected to the peace movement and anti-nuclear activism that pre-dates concerns about climate change. It’s fine to disagree with the policy decisions the German people made, but it’s good to understand the reasons why they made them.
- DarkNova6 2y agoAnd let's not forget that Germany then decided to create the economically viable solar power industry from scratch. Only to then remove the subsidies, destroy the domestic industry they just created and hand over the technology advantage they had to China. Genious decisions all around.
- polotics 2y agothis is 2013, but so little has changed... https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/societal-choices/what-transition-are-the-germans-up-to-exactly/ https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/societal-choices/...
- amai 2y agoThis would have been interesting if it would have been published in 2011. But what is the point of publishing this nowadays after all nuclear reactors have been shutdown? They cannot be restarted and are already been dismantled. Also why don’t we see publications like: „What if Germany had invested in solar energy?“ (instead of subsidizing coal and diesel engines)