7 ms·

ABSTRACT: Germany has one of the most ambitious energy transition policies dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ to replace nuclear- and fossil power with renewables such a

ABSTRACT: 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 ago
We 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 ago
  Germany 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 ago
    They'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 ago
    A war party? Si vis Pacem para Bellum!
  - oezi 2y ago
    The 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 ago
      China 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 ago
        Given 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.
      - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
        Authoritarian state still keeping a toe in for military and pragmatic reasons. With communistic 5 year plan system you can through sheer force build a few reactors to keep the option open. For every passing year they’ve been pulling back their nuclear ambitions in favor of renewables. https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-t...
defensive7132 2y ago
I 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 ago
      How is human error fixable?
SiempreViernes 2y ago
No 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 ago
If 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).

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 ago

We 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 ago
Germany 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 ago
  They'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 ago
  A war party? Si vis Pacem para Bellum!
- oezi 2y ago
  The 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 ago
    China 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 ago
      Given 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.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Authoritarian state still keeping a toe in for military and pragmatic reasons. With communistic 5 year plan system you can through sheer force build a few reactors to keep the option open. For every passing year they’ve been pulling back their nuclear ambitions in favor of renewables. https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-t...

defensive7132 2y ago

I 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 ago
    How is human error fixable?

SiempreViernes 2y ago

No 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 ago

If 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).