3 ms·

Maybe we are a bit harsh with Germany? By pulling out of nuclear, they poured billions in renewables much earlier that other countries. They had to deal with im

Maybe we are a bit harsh with Germany? By pulling out of nuclear, they poured billions in renewables much earlier that other countries. They had to deal with immature technologies and greatly participated in making them more reliable and cheaper. > The renewable-energy field employs nearly 340,000 people in Germany, and according to the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), there are now more than 180 universities and 120 research institutes involved in the country’s energy-transition programme, Energiewende. Pulling out of nuclear might have been a net negative for Germany but a net positive for the rest of world.

upupandup 4y ago
I don't think so, a strong German economy ultimately benefits the region and results in more resources available for distribution elsewhere. But we've decided we don't want that model anymore. It's ironic that people who have been participating in protests about global warming are the very ones that will pay the brunt of the cost through inflation and scarcity of heat/energy
jsiepkes 4y ago
> By pulling out of nuclear, they poured billions in ENRs much earlier that other countries. That's a bit dual sided. Germany basically let France be their "battery" with it's nuclear reactors. Germany also ensured that on the EU energy market energy out of renewables had to be bought first. Meaning that nuclear reactors became less profitable while Germany conveniently relied on them when there was low wind or low sun. That was quite a scummy move.
- it_citizen 4y ago
  Not arguing with that. But it might still be a net positive. But renewables is the real key for energy transition. The reality is that very few countries plan to move most of their energy production to nuclear. Even RTE (the French electricity company) said they will need to crank renewables to 50% of their energy mix to meet carbon neutrality by 2050 with their most pro-nuclear scenario (N03). Making renewables more competitive globally might have largely compensated the gas/goal emitted by Germany if it contributed to help developing countries to skip the fossil stage.
digdugdirk 4y ago
Interesting thought - but what about an alternative scenario where they invested the same amount in renewables, but with a 20 year phase out for nuclear? They could have reduced reliance on coal and natural gas instead, thereby reducing the political reliance on Russia as well.
thinkcontext 4y ago
> Maybe we are a bit harsh with Germany? By pulling out of nuclear, they poured billions in renewables much earlier that other countries. According to Wikipedia the initial Energiewende legislation included nuclear as a bridging fuel. Its phaseout was brought forward after Fukushima. Germany could have made the same investments in renewables and kept nuclear, then it would have been further along in phasing out fossil fuels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende
- it_citizen 4y ago
  Interesting! I didn’t know about that.

upupandup 4y ago

I don't think so, a strong German economy ultimately benefits the region and results in more resources available for distribution elsewhere. But we've decided we don't want that model anymore. It's ironic that people who have been participating in protests about global warming are the very ones that will pay the brunt of the cost through inflation and scarcity of heat/energy

jsiepkes 4y ago

> By pulling out of nuclear, they poured billions in ENRs much earlier that other countries. That's a bit dual sided. Germany basically let France be their "battery" with it's nuclear reactors. Germany also ensured that on the EU energy market energy out of renewables had to be bought first. Meaning that nuclear reactors became less profitable while Germany conveniently relied on them when there was low wind or low sun. That was quite a scummy move.

it_citizen 4y ago
Not arguing with that. But it might still be a net positive. But renewables is the real key for energy transition. The reality is that very few countries plan to move most of their energy production to nuclear. Even RTE (the French electricity company) said they will need to crank renewables to 50% of their energy mix to meet carbon neutrality by 2050 with their most pro-nuclear scenario (N03). Making renewables more competitive globally might have largely compensated the gas/goal emitted by Germany if it contributed to help developing countries to skip the fossil stage.

digdugdirk 4y ago

Interesting thought - but what about an alternative scenario where they invested the same amount in renewables, but with a 20 year phase out for nuclear? They could have reduced reliance on coal and natural gas instead, thereby reducing the political reliance on Russia as well.

thinkcontext 4y ago

> Maybe we are a bit harsh with Germany? By pulling out of nuclear, they poured billions in renewables much earlier that other countries. According to Wikipedia the initial Energiewende legislation included nuclear as a bridging fuel. Its phaseout was brought forward after Fukushima. Germany could have made the same investments in renewables and kept nuclear, then it would have been further along in phasing out fossil fuels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende

it_citizen 4y ago
Interesting! I didn’t know about that.