5 ms·

The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. The Greens actually prolonged their life time during Covid, after RWE, EON and EnBW argue

The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. The Greens actually prolonged their life time during Covid, after RWE, EON and EnBW argued that it does not make sense economically to let them run longer. No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first.

throw0101d 2mo ago
> The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. Schröder was talking about it in 2000: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_poli... Oh, and he was appointed to Gazprom (and other Russian energy companies) after leaving politics: * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at... (He did encourage renewables as well.) > No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. The German government(s) helped kickstart the global solar price drop by their subsidy programs in the early 2000s that allowed for economies of scale, so I'm surprised that—if they're really worried about climate change—they would not subsidize the alleged expenses of running the low-carbon generation of nuclear. > Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first. It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found). See perhaps: > […] 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. * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2...
- RandomLensman 2mo ago
  Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.
  - throw0101d 2mo ago
    > Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either. The only people causing conflict is Russia, and Germany had to be dragged kicking and screaming in shutting down Russian supply pipelines, so don't go talking about "security" when the actions from Berlin showed there was zero consideration for it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream When the architect of the retirement ends up on the board of Gazprom: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at...
    - RandomLensman 2mo ago
      An adversary could not strike a nuclear powerplant? I said in retrospect in my view, didn't I, not that it was a consideration then (or now). Gazprom suspended supply via NS1 indefinitely before it was destroyed.
      - anon48293 2mo ago
        Actually no, or unlikely, since it’s a massive escalation. Even in Ukraine Russia does not strike the nuclear plants. They strike all the other power plants though. So it’d actually be the safer option.
        frm88 1mo ago
        The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday expressed "serious concern" after Moscow accused Ukrainian forces of launching a drone attack on the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southern Ukraine May 31st,2026 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclear-plant-warning-after-russia/story?id=133461599 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclea...
looperhacks 2mo ago
I agree with everything you say, but the initial "Atomausstieg" was decided in 2000/put into law in 2002, when the Greens were in office. The exit was delayed in 2010 (and then accelerated again in 2011) by the CDU/CSU/FDP, but the initial decision for the exit was very with involvement of the Green party
belorn 2mo ago
Can coal plants buy insurance against global warming? Can a hydroelectric dam buy insurance against downstream flooding? Very few things in the power grid has insurance against major accidents. It is even doubtful for example if a forest fires caused by transmission lines will be repaid in full by the insurance of the power company, and to the degree that will pay all costs to property and land owners

throw0101d 2mo ago

> The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. Schröder was talking about it in 2000: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_poli... Oh, and he was appointed to Gazprom (and other Russian energy companies) after leaving politics: * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at... (He did encourage renewables as well.) > No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. The German government(s) helped kickstart the global solar price drop by their subsidy programs in the early 2000s that allowed for economies of scale, so I'm surprised that—if they're really worried about climate change—they would not subsidize the alleged expenses of running the low-carbon generation of nuclear. > Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first. It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found). See perhaps: > […] 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. * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2...

RandomLensman 2mo ago
Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.
- throw0101d 2mo ago
  > Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either. The only people causing conflict is Russia, and Germany had to be dragged kicking and screaming in shutting down Russian supply pipelines, so don't go talking about "security" when the actions from Berlin showed there was zero consideration for it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream When the architect of the retirement ends up on the board of Gazprom: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at...
  - RandomLensman 2mo ago
    An adversary could not strike a nuclear powerplant? I said in retrospect in my view, didn't I, not that it was a consideration then (or now). Gazprom suspended supply via NS1 indefinitely before it was destroyed.
    - anon48293 2mo ago
      Actually no, or unlikely, since it’s a massive escalation. Even in Ukraine Russia does not strike the nuclear plants. They strike all the other power plants though. So it’d actually be the safer option.
      - frm88 1mo ago
        The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday expressed "serious concern" after Moscow accused Ukrainian forces of launching a drone attack on the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southern Ukraine May 31st,2026 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclear-plant-warning-after-russia/story?id=133461599 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclea...

looperhacks 2mo ago

I agree with everything you say, but the initial "Atomausstieg" was decided in 2000/put into law in 2002, when the Greens were in office. The exit was delayed in 2010 (and then accelerated again in 2011) by the CDU/CSU/FDP, but the initial decision for the exit was very with involvement of the Green party

belorn 2mo ago

Can coal plants buy insurance against global warming? Can a hydroelectric dam buy insurance against downstream flooding? Very few things in the power grid has insurance against major accidents. It is even doubtful for example if a forest fires caused by transmission lines will be repaid in full by the insurance of the power company, and to the degree that will pay all costs to property and land owners