8 ms·

Kind of insane that they started shutting down nuclear power plants earlier this year and are now more reliant on Russian gas because of it. How is that more gr

Kind of insane that they started shutting down nuclear power plants earlier this year and are now more reliant on Russian gas because of it. How is that more green? https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/correction-germany-nuclear-shutdown-story-82051054 https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/correction-ge...

leeoniya 5y ago
the whole nuclear paralysis because of fukushima is rather insane. location & reactor design make a giant difference in risk profile and outcomes. IMO nuclear is the only real way out of the current mess. any idea why we dont have several operational MSRs at this point? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor EDIT: i guess MSRs' structural components are subject to extreme corrosion from heat, salt, and radiation that makes them impossible to build for long-term continous operation.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  It's not that straightforward unfortunately. Let's leave the whole waste deposal issue aside for now, it seems to be still the case that the free market considers nuclear power plants too risky. What I mean by that is that no operator can currently afford to get private insurance for their plants, which is why plants are insured publically. Markets are not omniscient of course, and they might be ineffective, but it's something to think about when discussing nuclear energy.
  - leeoniya 5y ago
    > the free market considers nuclear power plants too risky the free market is made up of people who primarily watch sensational evening news and follow clickbait social media. the actual statistics are still well on the side of nuclear in terms of safety and externalities (as far as i understand)
    - ahelwer 5y ago
      Nonsense. The "actual statistics" from the perspective of insurance companies are that if anything bad happens, your insurance company is going bankrupt. It doesn't matter how unlikely that's been calculated to be in some spreadsheet model, no smart insurance company will take that bet.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        CO2 tax is still not included into the energy price. If it's done, nuclear will suddenly become much more viable.
        ahelwer 5y ago
        My point had nothing to do with energy prices and CO2 tax would not change the fundamental calculus faced by insurance companies.
  - treeman79 5y ago
    The free market could easily build nuclear power plants. The government regulatory hurdles are what keep it from being profitable.
    - isomel 5y ago
      Even with less regulation, the problem is that it takes a huge amount of capital, and you need a decade or more to get return on your investment. So it is really not that interesting for a private investor.
- chillingeffect 5y ago
  Paralysis goes way back before fFukushima. While distance can make them safer, it also makes them less efficient. There are no standard designs for nuclear reactors yet, although this is slowly changing. Nuclear reactors have always been run at great subsidy. Only two MSRs have ever been built, over half a century ago and have a huge list of disadvantages. Not saying that can't be overcome, but it takes time, money, and will. There is some movement in this area. With solar and wind making such great strides, advantages of nuclear are decreasing.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  For real. If the airline industry had behaved like the nuclear industry we wouldn't be flying planes today Also, in typical governmental fashion (see: rocket building before SpaceX) power plants were optimized for (size???) instead of safety, cost and time to build. Things you don't have to optimize for: efficiency Make it fast to build and in self-contained modules (economies of scale). Make it failsafe (even if it costs efficiency)
  - VaxWithSex 5y ago
    There is not a single one of these "small modular self contained" reactors commerically available or producing power for the grid. These are called "blueprint reactors", because designing a nuclear reactor is easy, but building one is hard.
    - raverbashing 5y ago
      > There is not a single one of these "small modular self contained" reactors commerically available They exist in nuclear subs. There needs to be investment and research to make them commercially viable.
      - layer8 5y ago
        > There needs to be investment and research to make them commercially viable. That means that it’s not a near-term solution, and also may turn out to not be viable at all.
- xeus2001 5y ago
  The risk increases non linear with the amount of plants and with the amount of nuclear waste you have. For the waste we have no solution that works, except for storage, which has tons of risk. For the plants itself it is just a matter of possibility when an terrible accident happens. So simply put, there are around 17 meteors every year that hit ground and can cause a disaster, when they hit a nuclear plant of just some storage for waste, not taking tons of other risks like humans, earthquake, war and alike into account. Eventually, a nuclear plant is no more than gambling for your future, because it is guaranteed that an accident will happen, just not when. This does not even take all the other problems into account like the cost. Nuclear powers is unbelievable expensive, compared to solar or wind. They just is cheap on the paper, because you do not care about all the hidden cost.
  - isomel 5y ago
    > For the waste we have no solution that works, except for storage, which has tons of risk And instead, you burn coal and Gaz which creates even more waste which we can't even store. The difference is that the nuclear waste are localised near you, while the CO2 is spread globally and mostly affect warmer country we don't care about. > So simply put, there are around 17 meteors every year that hit ground and can cause a disaster The disaster is made worse because of nuclear infrastructure. But I don't see the point. It is already a disaster to begin with. Look at Fukushima, the real disaster was the earthquake and tsunami that killed and destroyed lots of homes. The incident in the nuclear plant in the area did make it slightly worse, but not by much. Even though the media seem to blame the whole thing on the power plant.
    - xeus2001 5y ago
      Building new nuclear plants is no solution, because it takes much more time than building Wind or Solar power plants. Apart of that "I" do nothing, my government does, my only choice is to elect the correct party, which I did and plenty of Germans did as well, which is why the Green party is now the second strongest. When you give a shit about your children, then you are right, in any other case you are totally wrong. The problem is the same with smoking, you do not see anybody dying directly of smoking, therefore this is no problem? However, for things where it helps you argumentation you let this kind of deaths count, like for global warming or* coal pollution. Nuclear waste will be there for the next 100,000 years and our children need to care about it, that should be better than having wind or solar plants?
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Humans can be irrational and poorly quantify/action risk.
lampe3 5y ago
I live in Hamburg, Germany. the reactor near Hamburg was either broken or not running for some other reasons. Also after 40 years of nuclear plants we still have not a good answer to the waste it produces.
- Iridescent_ 5y ago
  We still don't have a good answer only if you refuse all the already existing answers. Geological storage has already been studied extensively and sites are already being constructed.
  - VaxWithSex 5y ago
    after decades of studying the German site was discarded, because water was coming in. So where are these places in Germany, that you want to store the waste?
  - greenicon 5y ago
    This is not true for Germany. All existing places are temporary or have failed. Exactly now a search for a geological storage is going on: (German only, sorry!) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland
- netcan 5y ago
  The trade off was fossil fuels though. There aren't good answers to the problems these pose either. I always thought the security/proliferation arguments against nuclear power were the most convincing, but in germany's case I think the alternative has been worse on this front too.
  - lampe3 5y ago
    No Germany back in the 90s was world leading in renewable energies. World best solar panels but yeah for some reason they solid it to other countries or companies. So no fossil was not the only way of going forward and it still isn't
pydry 5y ago
Kind of insane that they get 100x more flak for having 25% coal and declining than Poland next door gets for having 75%. Germany is doing better at decarbonization than most countries, in fact, but still attracts a disproportionate amount of flak for "not doing enough". My cynical side says that this is precisely because they're slowly proving that nuclear isnt a necessary component of decarbonization. They are setting an example that threatens the industry's survival.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  > " they're proving nuclear isn't a necessary component of decarbonization" That remains to be seen. We would need to see what their progress is 5, 10, and then 15 years from now. I think the 2035 target would take a miracle to actually accomplish without Nuclear Power.
  - VaxWithSex 5y ago
    The miracle is cheap renewables.
  - Tade0 5y ago
    Here's one such miracle: https://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/li-ion-manufacturing-in-2024-capacities-and-key-players https://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/li-ion-manufacturing-in-... > Lux expects the global annual Li-ion manufacturing capacity to more than triple by 2024. That 2TWh or 45 minutes of storage for the whole world added annually. With this manufacturing capacity it will be possible to have 2h of storage before 2030, which greatly increases the amount of renewable energy which could be utilized. I'd say if not 100%, then 80% is realistic. Wind and solar combined make up around 30% already, so it's a question of doubling that number and adding appropriate storage.
    - VaxWithSex 5y ago
      You don't store long term in lithium but in hydrogen.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
I'm a supporter of nuclear, but this trope is overplayed. This winter Germany derived 5-10% of their electricity from natural gas - and even that is mostly due to cogeneration of heating, not for electricity needs. This cogeneration runs even if renewables provide a surplus. Calling Germany's electricity grid is "reliant on Russian gas" doesn't reflect reality
- jamil7 5y ago
  Agree, I'm also tired of this. Some variation of this comment has appeared on every story here related to Germany's energy situation for the last few years.
  - goombacloud 5y ago
    People should get out of the HN/SV bubble where the world view is narrowed to technology, yielding a strong hype for self driving cars and nuclear ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- atlantas 5y ago
  Germany is Russia’s biggest gas customer. CNN has previously reported that Europe relies on Russia for around 35% of its natural gas, Germany over 50%. But with the threat of supply disruption following Russia’s attack on Ukraine, Germany along with other European countries has been looking to ramp up LNG imports. https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-27-22/h_23cbd7c0592d868b22cb6310069d911c https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-...
  - rr808 5y ago
    These things can all be true at the same time:
  - VaxWithSex 5y ago
    We use it for HEATING. It cannot be replaced without "Sektorenkopplung" / switching to heatpumps first.
tannhaeuser 5y ago
That was just a coup of Merkel to take the wind out of the Green party's traditional topic in the wake of the Fukushima accident. She applied that tactic to other topics as well - assuming the PoV of your political opponent to weaken their case. To the point that it was unclear if there are any political ambitions left in her CDU party, other than to stay at power under all circumstances. Now yesterday Robert Habeck, Germany's minister for economic affairs and climate, and vice chancellor, claimed that a return to nuclear and/or coal is economically not viable, even if it were politically feasible (which it is not, since it would be political suicide given he's from the Green party). He's not stupid, so he knows he'll have to answer how in hell people will even heat their homes come next winter. Not only are energy prices up, but so are materials for home insulation (if you can get them at all) and prices for construction. Right now, the government has plans to penalize landlords renting out homes with low energy efficiency, a plan typical of the SPD party, the Green party's coalition partner. Which won't work, though, because there simply is no way to reach those levels of energy efficiency given the demand in the construction industry, and in a way that decouples the consumer from their consumption, not to speak of constitutional (existing case law) concerns. Meanwhile, the housing market is as insane as everywhere due to rampant public spending and the decrease in interest that goes with it. Adding ever more energy efficiency requirements means that it's objectively impossible for any average person to own a home.
- littlecranky67 5y ago
  > He's not stupid, so he knows he'll have to answer how in hell people will even heat their homes come next winter As a German, I always wonder why the obvious flaw in these kind of discussions is never addressed: The current heating habbits of our German population is luxury heating - that is we heat every room to be comfy and luxurious standards. And people just claim "Germany needs X percent of gas for heating". But the truth is, if we would not have that gas, or prices would be insanely high, people will change their habits regarding heating and we would need less. I myself had multiple discussion with my better half in winter when she was cranking up the heater in all rooms, to a level she could just walk around in light underwear and comfy dresses. I always rather heat a single room, close the door, and snug into my skiing thermos, sweatpants and sweater - and keep the time on the can short (not taking the smartphone helps) because its cold in there. This is actually sufficient for most time of the year (minus Mountain regions, but which are only sparsely populated). We do not have siberian winters. And I remember as a child at grandmas, there was a single wooden oven in the living room ("Stube"), everybody was in there together. The bedrooms where not heated at all, instead you take a thermos bottle (or even just hot potatoes in a tin) with you into the bed for the night - of course wearing long-sleeved tights and underwear. I think a winter without heating would make people in our society aware what luxuries we've gotten accustomed to, and also show people how little one needs when things get serious.
_ph_ 5y ago
Germany hasn't started shutting down nuclear power plants earlier this year. This was a process going on for some years already and was decided ultimately in 2011. Admittedly, currently the timing sucks, but that couldn't be predicted in 2011. Though somehow your comment makes me think, that Putin thought now Germany might be in his hands. The exit from nuclear power has been planned long ago, but the crucial point is, that in those years the renewables were not expanded enough. Solar buid-up peaked in 2012, Wind in 2017, with steep declines after that because of government decisions. But the government changed last autumn and the new one is all in on renewables. Partially because of the Greens being part of the government and now partially because even industry pushes for this to get cheaper electricity. And everyone wants stable supply and the current situation makes for a huge push towards renewables.

leeoniya 5y ago

the whole nuclear paralysis because of fukushima is rather insane. location & reactor design make a giant difference in risk profile and outcomes. IMO nuclear is the only real way out of the current mess. any idea why we dont have several operational MSRs at this point? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor EDIT: i guess MSRs' structural components are subject to extreme corrosion from heat, salt, and radiation that makes them impossible to build for long-term continous operation.

Pyramus 5y ago
It's not that straightforward unfortunately. Let's leave the whole waste deposal issue aside for now, it seems to be still the case that the free market considers nuclear power plants too risky. What I mean by that is that no operator can currently afford to get private insurance for their plants, which is why plants are insured publically. Markets are not omniscient of course, and they might be ineffective, but it's something to think about when discussing nuclear energy.
- leeoniya 5y ago
  > the free market considers nuclear power plants too risky the free market is made up of people who primarily watch sensational evening news and follow clickbait social media. the actual statistics are still well on the side of nuclear in terms of safety and externalities (as far as i understand)
  - ahelwer 5y ago
    Nonsense. The "actual statistics" from the perspective of insurance companies are that if anything bad happens, your insurance company is going bankrupt. It doesn't matter how unlikely that's been calculated to be in some spreadsheet model, no smart insurance company will take that bet.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      CO2 tax is still not included into the energy price. If it's done, nuclear will suddenly become much more viable.
      - ahelwer 5y ago
        My point had nothing to do with energy prices and CO2 tax would not change the fundamental calculus faced by insurance companies.
- treeman79 5y ago
  The free market could easily build nuclear power plants. The government regulatory hurdles are what keep it from being profitable.
  - isomel 5y ago
    Even with less regulation, the problem is that it takes a huge amount of capital, and you need a decade or more to get return on your investment. So it is really not that interesting for a private investor.
chillingeffect 5y ago
Paralysis goes way back before fFukushima. While distance can make them safer, it also makes them less efficient. There are no standard designs for nuclear reactors yet, although this is slowly changing. Nuclear reactors have always been run at great subsidy. Only two MSRs have ever been built, over half a century ago and have a huge list of disadvantages. Not saying that can't be overcome, but it takes time, money, and will. There is some movement in this area. With solar and wind making such great strides, advantages of nuclear are decreasing.
raverbashing 5y ago
For real. If the airline industry had behaved like the nuclear industry we wouldn't be flying planes today Also, in typical governmental fashion (see: rocket building before SpaceX) power plants were optimized for (size???) instead of safety, cost and time to build. Things you don't have to optimize for: efficiency Make it fast to build and in self-contained modules (economies of scale). Make it failsafe (even if it costs efficiency)
- VaxWithSex 5y ago
  There is not a single one of these "small modular self contained" reactors commerically available or producing power for the grid. These are called "blueprint reactors", because designing a nuclear reactor is easy, but building one is hard.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    > There is not a single one of these "small modular self contained" reactors commerically available They exist in nuclear subs. There needs to be investment and research to make them commercially viable.
    - layer8 5y ago
      > There needs to be investment and research to make them commercially viable. That means that it’s not a near-term solution, and also may turn out to not be viable at all.
xeus2001 5y ago
The risk increases non linear with the amount of plants and with the amount of nuclear waste you have. For the waste we have no solution that works, except for storage, which has tons of risk. For the plants itself it is just a matter of possibility when an terrible accident happens. So simply put, there are around 17 meteors every year that hit ground and can cause a disaster, when they hit a nuclear plant of just some storage for waste, not taking tons of other risks like humans, earthquake, war and alike into account. Eventually, a nuclear plant is no more than gambling for your future, because it is guaranteed that an accident will happen, just not when. This does not even take all the other problems into account like the cost. Nuclear powers is unbelievable expensive, compared to solar or wind. They just is cheap on the paper, because you do not care about all the hidden cost.
- isomel 5y ago
  > For the waste we have no solution that works, except for storage, which has tons of risk And instead, you burn coal and Gaz which creates even more waste which we can't even store. The difference is that the nuclear waste are localised near you, while the CO2 is spread globally and mostly affect warmer country we don't care about. > So simply put, there are around 17 meteors every year that hit ground and can cause a disaster The disaster is made worse because of nuclear infrastructure. But I don't see the point. It is already a disaster to begin with. Look at Fukushima, the real disaster was the earthquake and tsunami that killed and destroyed lots of homes. The incident in the nuclear plant in the area did make it slightly worse, but not by much. Even though the media seem to blame the whole thing on the power plant.
  - xeus2001 5y ago
    Building new nuclear plants is no solution, because it takes much more time than building Wind or Solar power plants. Apart of that "I" do nothing, my government does, my only choice is to elect the correct party, which I did and plenty of Germans did as well, which is why the Green party is now the second strongest. When you give a shit about your children, then you are right, in any other case you are totally wrong. The problem is the same with smoking, you do not see anybody dying directly of smoking, therefore this is no problem? However, for things where it helps you argumentation you let this kind of deaths count, like for global warming or* coal pollution. Nuclear waste will be there for the next 100,000 years and our children need to care about it, that should be better than having wind or solar plants?

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Humans can be irrational and poorly quantify/action risk.

lampe3 5y ago

I live in Hamburg, Germany. the reactor near Hamburg was either broken or not running for some other reasons. Also after 40 years of nuclear plants we still have not a good answer to the waste it produces.

Iridescent_ 5y ago
We still don't have a good answer only if you refuse all the already existing answers. Geological storage has already been studied extensively and sites are already being constructed.
- VaxWithSex 5y ago
  after decades of studying the German site was discarded, because water was coming in. So where are these places in Germany, that you want to store the waste?
- greenicon 5y ago
  This is not true for Germany. All existing places are temporary or have failed. Exactly now a search for a geological storage is going on: (German only, sorry!) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland
netcan 5y ago
The trade off was fossil fuels though. There aren't good answers to the problems these pose either. I always thought the security/proliferation arguments against nuclear power were the most convincing, but in germany's case I think the alternative has been worse on this front too.
- lampe3 5y ago
  No Germany back in the 90s was world leading in renewable energies. World best solar panels but yeah for some reason they solid it to other countries or companies. So no fossil was not the only way of going forward and it still isn't

pydry 5y ago

Kind of insane that they get 100x more flak for having 25% coal and declining than Poland next door gets for having 75%. Germany is doing better at decarbonization than most countries, in fact, but still attracts a disproportionate amount of flak for "not doing enough". My cynical side says that this is precisely because they're slowly proving that nuclear isnt a necessary component of decarbonization. They are setting an example that threatens the industry's survival.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
> " they're proving nuclear isn't a necessary component of decarbonization" That remains to be seen. We would need to see what their progress is 5, 10, and then 15 years from now. I think the 2035 target would take a miracle to actually accomplish without Nuclear Power.
- VaxWithSex 5y ago
  The miracle is cheap renewables.
- Tade0 5y ago
  Here's one such miracle: https://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/li-ion-manufacturing-in-2024-capacities-and-key-players https://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/li-ion-manufacturing-in-... > Lux expects the global annual Li-ion manufacturing capacity to more than triple by 2024. That 2TWh or 45 minutes of storage for the whole world added annually. With this manufacturing capacity it will be possible to have 2h of storage before 2030, which greatly increases the amount of renewable energy which could be utilized. I'd say if not 100%, then 80% is realistic. Wind and solar combined make up around 30% already, so it's a question of doubling that number and adding appropriate storage.
  - VaxWithSex 5y ago
    You don't store long term in lithium but in hydrogen.
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

thow-58d4e8b 5y ago

I'm a supporter of nuclear, but this trope is overplayed. This winter Germany derived 5-10% of their electricity from natural gas - and even that is mostly due to cogeneration of heating, not for electricity needs. This cogeneration runs even if renewables provide a surplus. Calling Germany's electricity grid is "reliant on Russian gas" doesn't reflect reality

jamil7 5y ago
Agree, I'm also tired of this. Some variation of this comment has appeared on every story here related to Germany's energy situation for the last few years.
- goombacloud 5y ago
  People should get out of the HN/SV bubble where the world view is narrowed to technology, yielding a strong hype for self driving cars and nuclear ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
atlantas 5y ago
Germany is Russia’s biggest gas customer. CNN has previously reported that Europe relies on Russia for around 35% of its natural gas, Germany over 50%. But with the threat of supply disruption following Russia’s attack on Ukraine, Germany along with other European countries has been looking to ramp up LNG imports. https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-27-22/h_23cbd7c0592d868b22cb6310069d911c https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-...
- rr808 5y ago
  These things can all be true at the same time:
- VaxWithSex 5y ago
  We use it for HEATING. It cannot be replaced without "Sektorenkopplung" / switching to heatpumps first.

tannhaeuser 5y ago

That was just a coup of Merkel to take the wind out of the Green party's traditional topic in the wake of the Fukushima accident. She applied that tactic to other topics as well - assuming the PoV of your political opponent to weaken their case. To the point that it was unclear if there are any political ambitions left in her CDU party, other than to stay at power under all circumstances. Now yesterday Robert Habeck, Germany's minister for economic affairs and climate, and vice chancellor, claimed that a return to nuclear and/or coal is economically not viable, even if it were politically feasible (which it is not, since it would be political suicide given he's from the Green party). He's not stupid, so he knows he'll have to answer how in hell people will even heat their homes come next winter. Not only are energy prices up, but so are materials for home insulation (if you can get them at all) and prices for construction. Right now, the government has plans to penalize landlords renting out homes with low energy efficiency, a plan typical of the SPD party, the Green party's coalition partner. Which won't work, though, because there simply is no way to reach those levels of energy efficiency given the demand in the construction industry, and in a way that decouples the consumer from their consumption, not to speak of constitutional (existing case law) concerns. Meanwhile, the housing market is as insane as everywhere due to rampant public spending and the decrease in interest that goes with it. Adding ever more energy efficiency requirements means that it's objectively impossible for any average person to own a home.

littlecranky67 5y ago
> He's not stupid, so he knows he'll have to answer how in hell people will even heat their homes come next winter As a German, I always wonder why the obvious flaw in these kind of discussions is never addressed: The current heating habbits of our German population is luxury heating - that is we heat every room to be comfy and luxurious standards. And people just claim "Germany needs X percent of gas for heating". But the truth is, if we would not have that gas, or prices would be insanely high, people will change their habits regarding heating and we would need less. I myself had multiple discussion with my better half in winter when she was cranking up the heater in all rooms, to a level she could just walk around in light underwear and comfy dresses. I always rather heat a single room, close the door, and snug into my skiing thermos, sweatpants and sweater - and keep the time on the can short (not taking the smartphone helps) because its cold in there. This is actually sufficient for most time of the year (minus Mountain regions, but which are only sparsely populated). We do not have siberian winters. And I remember as a child at grandmas, there was a single wooden oven in the living room ("Stube"), everybody was in there together. The bedrooms where not heated at all, instead you take a thermos bottle (or even just hot potatoes in a tin) with you into the bed for the night - of course wearing long-sleeved tights and underwear. I think a winter without heating would make people in our society aware what luxuries we've gotten accustomed to, and also show people how little one needs when things get serious.

_ph_ 5y ago

Germany hasn't started shutting down nuclear power plants earlier this year. This was a process going on for some years already and was decided ultimately in 2011. Admittedly, currently the timing sucks, but that couldn't be predicted in 2011. Though somehow your comment makes me think, that Putin thought now Germany might be in his hands. The exit from nuclear power has been planned long ago, but the crucial point is, that in those years the renewables were not expanded enough. Solar buid-up peaked in 2012, Wind in 2017, with steep declines after that because of government decisions. But the government changed last autumn and the new one is all in on renewables. Partially because of the Greens being part of the government and now partially because even industry pushes for this to get cheaper electricity. And everyone wants stable supply and the current situation makes for a huge push towards renewables.