21 ms·

Can any Germans on HN explain why Germany finds it preferable to give up their energy independence in nuclear and instead buy it from their potential adversary

by cgb223 4y ago

Can any Germans on HN explain why Germany finds it preferable to give up their energy independence in nuclear and instead buy it from their potential adversary in Russia? What possible advantages are there to buying the resource that literally keeps the lights on from a country that you have conflicts with?

djohnston 4y ago
There are some good podcasts on this, you can find one on Guardian Long Reads: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-dependence-russian-energy-gas-oil-nord-stream https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-depend... The tldr; is it started with a stated goal of <10% dependence, thinking that by creating the first pipeline they would open up trade and normalize relations. This is a good goal especially since Germany was split in half at the time. Unfortunately through some combination of greed, complacency, and dumb nuclear strategy, dependency kept ratcheting up over the decades, slowly boiling the frog into the disaster soup we have today.
- DrBazza 4y ago
  CND in the Uk pretty much helped set the Uk on a similar path of “nuclear bad”.
ren_engineer 4y ago
because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. And there are still fools who think that economic integration somehow prevents wars, which was shown to be false after WWI. These people said if Europe just paid a bunch of money for Russian energy they'd obviously never attack them. See what's happening with China and the US as more proof that handing over your economy doesn't placate anybody
- Ygg2 4y ago
  You're going to need some citation on that Russia connection.
  - ren_engineer 4y ago
    >“Ninety-nine per cent of the text of the articles of association is about climate and environmental protection, but 99 per cent of the money comes directly from Nord Stream II AG, which belongs to Gazprom.” >“It’s quite a curious foundation. It is a puppet construction,” said Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of Environmental Action Germany, a green charity, which is challenging the legality of the organisation both in the German courts and with the European Commission. https://archive.ph/KXgC0 https://archive.ph/KXgC0 and German politicians from pretty much every single party have been taking bribes from Russia for years. Their energy policy of simultaneously shutting down coal but not spinning up any nuclear made them reliant on Russian natural gas, which they've been warned about by the US for years and are now paying the price for from 2019 - https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-party-may-hand-putin-a-major-victory/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-p... and a video from 2018 of Germany's UN delegation quite literally laughing at the suggestion they'd be reliant on Russia for energy if they proceeded with Nordstream 2. Some good schadenfreude here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
    - _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
      True that foundation exists, and is heavily criticized by other German environmental organizations in Germany as even this article points out. Also it was founded after the nuclear exit was decided. You are falling for the trap where you know a little bit about a subject but draw the wrong conclusions from it.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  Russia and the EU aren't at war, neither is the US and China. You haven't really proven that economic integration doesn't prevent wars.
  - hash07e 4y ago
    Really? No sanctions? No finland minister asking to ban russian tourists from schengen? Really? Ok.. turn the ac then!
    - rowanG077 4y ago
      Are you really equating sanctions with full on war?
      - hash07e 4y ago
        Yes Us providing guns and trainning is not war? Eu providing arms and guns is not war? Economic sanctions are not war? War is not a movie with bang. War is happening now. It started when they sunk the war ship russian..
        cinntaile 4y ago
        Ukraine sank the war ship as far as I know? I do not consider providing supplies war, the same goes for economic sanctions.
        formerly_proven 4y ago
        > War is happening now. > It started when they sunk the war ship russian.. I'm sensing this is a (((they))) kind of they.
        panick21_ 4y ago
        > Us providing guns and trainning is not war? No. > Eu providing arms and guns is not war? No. > Economic sanctions are not war? No. > War is not a movie with bang. No. > War is happening now. Yes between Ukraine and Russia.
- AnonCoward42 4y ago
  > because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. Every competing energy source lobby is probably trying to stack the chances against each other, but the activists were not by and large funded by Russia. > These people said if Europe just paid a bunch of money for Russian energy they'd obviously never attack them. You can't expect any party to hold still forever. If you provoke your partner long enough they might react at some point. In the long-term that is basically a guarantee.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  Not German, but I suspect memories of Fukushima and Chernobyl could be weighing on the minds of some. Perhaps this is an irrational concern but people are not necessarily rational - particularly when randomly polled on topics they know little about.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    Perhaps irrational? It's certainly irrational. Nuclear is among the absolute safest methods of energy production. Looking at Wikipedia one person died and sixteen were injured at Fukushima. That risk should dictate energy policy? "Irrational" is being kind.
    - osigurdson 4y ago
      When you think “power plant disaster”, what power plant instantly comes to mind? It’s a powerful “brand” that is quite difficult to displace in people’s minds. That is the problem to solve.
      - ALittleLight 4y ago
        I think of hydroelectric dams which can destroy whole towns. There is a single hydroelectric disaster that has killed many more people than all nuclear incidents put together.
        osigurdson 4y ago
        Ok!
  - Cwizard 4y ago
    What I don’t understand is how those two incidents are even relevant. Chernobyl happened because of a faulty design + mismanagement and Fukushima was located on a region prone to earthquakes/tsunami’s caused by earthquakes. The factors do not really apply to Germany. And even if it did, the deaths caused by those accidents were quite low. Meanwhile coal pollution is killing people by the thousands but this is somehow ok? I think the sole reason the west moved away from Nuclear is because it sounds scary and because the oil countries had a strong interest in maintaining the non-nuclear status quo.
- FourthProtocol 4y ago
  Indeed so. I've been following nuclear in Germany ever since those railroad protests when they tried to transport nuclear waste from somewhere to somewhere else which I thought was crazy (the protests). The part I felt had merit is that none of Europe's lofty solutions to safely storing/disposing of the waste output ever came to anything. I believe until this day that industry is still trying to work out how to dig 30km down to safely store the waste underground. That said I haven't kept up to date on any progress or better solutions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - RF_Savage 4y ago
    Onkalo in Finland is not 30km deep, which none have achieved anywhere. But Onkalo is one of the few actually built long term nuclear waste storage locations anywhere. It is for domestic nuclear waste only. There is no desire to become the international dumping ground for nuclear waste. Tbh I believe the waste should be reprosessed as fuel and burnt in reactors instead of burial. But non-proliferation things make that impossible.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      These geological repositories are such political bullshit theater. Its fucking sad. The are actually more expensive then simply developing the reactors to burn up that fuel. Its just crazy that we live in this world. The US collected money from nuclear plants for 50 years for disposal, and had plenty of money to develop waste burning reactors. And yet that money is totally unused. While politicians dead-lock on this idiotic Yucca Mountain project. Its beyond sad the state we are in.
  - vimy 4y ago
    After more than 50 years of nuclear power plants in use we can say that there is no nuclear waste problem. The ‘waste’ has been stored above ground for decades and nothing has happened. It’s clearly safe. We should just keep doing what we’re doing. No need to dig expensive holes.
- _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
  > because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. I am German and very pro nuclear, but this is conspiracy bs. And why make such a grand claim without a single source?
  - 323 4y ago
    > Nunes, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: Russia is secretly funding the environmental movement, particularly in Germany, to help pressure the closure of nuclear power plants. https://www.eenews.net/articles/devin-nunes-claims-russia-is-financing-environmentalism/ https://www.eenews.net/articles/devin-nunes-claims-russia-is... Dominique Reynié: "We found that Gazprom funded environmental NGOs that provided ministers to various governments, such as Belgium, which then advocated abandoning nuclear power". https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 > For instance, the Soviets used front organizations to influence the anti-nuclear movement, the initiative that most visibly put Western leadership on the defensive. West German Interior Ministry and FBI reports concluded that Soviet-linked organizations were successfully swaying local peace movement initiatives to conform to Moscow’s positions https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/russian-active-measures-in-germany-and-the-united-states-analog-lessons-from-the-cold-war/ https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/russian-active-measures-in...
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Its not a conspiracy. Its for certain that there was a real anti nuclear movement but its also true that fossil industry and Russia spent money to fund these efforts. So it happened but how effective it was is questionable.
grensley 4y ago
Not German, but the Greens (ruling party) in Germany basically built their platform on being anti-nuclear. They'd rather burn wet coal than walk that back.
- AnonCoward42 4y ago
  Just for completeness, the Greens are in a coalition with social democrats(SPD), liberals(FDP) (names are labels, not political directions). The chancellor is from social democrats(SPD).
cycomanic 4y ago
Well more of Europe's Uranium comes from Russia than Germanys gas. It is not like Germany has vast Uranium reserves. When the Green/Social Democrat coalition under Schröder decided on stopping nuclear the idea was to largely exchange that for renewables (and the German wind and solar industry was leading in the world at the time). This would have been a much bigger step toward energy independence. The coal, nuclear and gas lobby (note that they typically are the same lobbyists) strongly pushed to reverse that decision and the Conservative, free Liberal coalition under Merkel initially reversed the decision, but at the same time was generally pushing for the cheapest energy solutions, which was largely gas. The strong regulations put into place for wind and solar at the time largely destroyed Germanys wind and solar industry, because domestic demand Collapsed. It is important to remember that Germany has still very strong manufacturing industries who hold a lot of sway over the government. When Fukushima happened public sentiment went strongly towards quiting nuclear again. There was not really much opposition from industry either, because nuclear was more expensive than gas so we saw an even stronger push toward gas.
- DrBazza 4y ago
  Is that right? Almost 50% of the world’s uranium comes from Khazakstan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...
  - ed_balls 4y ago
    Ukraine has a large deposit of uranium as well.
  - x86x87 4y ago
    Does production == having the resource? Asking because I think it's possible that many places don't bother to mine it due to a combination of regulations and cost. LE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium... So, Australia is where most of the uranium is :| Also, Russia does seem to have significant reserves that could be mined.
  - 4y ago
Jensson 4y ago
Left wing in Europe often has lots of Soviet sympathisers among their ranks. Basically USA=Bad, Russia=Good still lives on somehow. I don't know anything about the situation in Germany in particular though, but I wouldn't be surprised if they saw integration with Russia as a good thing rather than a bad thing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > Left wing in Europe often has lots of Soviet sympathisers among their ranks. Citation needed.
cycomanic 4y ago
I should also say that in contrast to the common misperception (which is largely due to nuclear lobbying) the percentage of gas in electricity production has actually not increased over the last 20 years: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Energiemix_Deutschland.svg/1280px-Energiemix_Deutschland.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/En... What we are witnessing is largely strong push by the nuclear industry to take advantage of the current situation to change sentiments to again get decades worth of guaranteed profits, largely at the cost of renewables.
Brigand 4y ago
Aren’t renewables already more cost effective than nuclear? See for example here: https://energycentral.com/c/ec/comparing-costs-renewable-and-conventional-energy-sources https://energycentral.com/c/ec/comparing-costs-renewable-and... Storage issues might be solved before new nuclear plants go online at the current pace of progress. Perhaps a few years of gas until the renewable infrastructure is set up will suffice? At least the issue does not seem to be as clear cut as most people claim they are.
- slfnflctd 4y ago
  > Storage issues might be solved The problem as I see it as that any '100% renewable' solution which could be ramped up relatively quickly would necessitate technology that doesn't exist yet. Of course there will be some progress in tech, but we have no way to predict exactly what it will be. It will also be extremely expensive simply due to the massive scale required, and there are numerous powerful & well funded groups who will throw down roadblocks along the way. The reality is that we will continue to use fossil fuels for a long time. While nuclear energy is our best low-carbon option for baseline power, we probably aren't going to be able to build new generators quickly enough to displace natural gas usage for decades, and that's only if it's politically possible to do so. Which continues to appear to be a long shot. In short, we're holding our collective breath for a 'hail Mary' breakthrough that somehow cuts through all the intractable quandaries and gives us a viable path forward. In the mean time, the increase in severe climate events will destabilize nations and make it even harder to reach the kinds of major agreements needed to go down such a path. It's probably a good idea to either own land or have friends in an area near a large freshwater lake that isn't prone to flooding and has a history of handling both extreme heat and extreme cold. There's no way of knowing whether you'll end up embroiled in civil unrest or full blown war in such an area, but at least you can limit the number & types of risks you need to worry about.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    > that doesn't exist yet. Batteries exist, and estimates of how many would be needed are around 50TWh. We have over 500GWh of annual battery production, and the doubling period for that capacity is under 18 months.
AnonCoward42 4y ago
I am not sure anymore if we can agree on this, but current fission implementations are an added threat - and not a small one - to any climate change that occurs. In addition: To this day, we do not have a single final depot for nuclear waste. Now, that is the anti-nuclear side of things, however CO2 is also a problem which we also don't want and this leads to the shutdown of the other potential sources of energy and we don't have a proper replacement for them either (wind and sun are not reliable sources). In summary, we Germans want to swim, but don't want to get wet.
- RF_Savage 4y ago
  Onkalo exists :)
dark-star 4y ago
Because the Green Party (which was founded as direct result of the Chernobyl desaster) has been pushing their irrational agenda against nuclear power. They deliberately ignored any scientific arguments that were even slightly in favor of nuclear. The Greens have brought some very necessary ecological improvements that would otherwise not have happened (probably), but their continuous crusade against anything nuclear, ignoring scientific findings and statistics, is just annoying at this point
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  The Greens predate Chernobyl by about a decade and came from the anti-nuke/war/nuclear environmentalists groups, but the dogmatic anti-war part was dropped by the end of the 90s (Kosovo). Since then the Greens have been somewhat "hawkish" (to borrow an US term) on illiberal states and such.
- dewclin 4y ago
  > the Green Party (which was founded as direct result of the Chernobyl disaster) Chernobyl was 1986 and the West German green party existed before that: > Alliance 90/The Greens ... is a green political party in Germany. It was formed in 1993 as the merger of The Greens (formed in West Germany in 1980) and Alliance 90 (formed in East Germany in 1990) [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens
lispm 4y ago
Germany buys natural gas (and Oil, Coal) from Russia. That's mostly used in heating and industry production. There are some gas power plants, often also producing heat. Nuclear power plants are mostly only used for electricity production. The "light" is less of a problem, the real problem is "heating". Homes often use natural gas for heating, warm water and cooking. Btw., there is a large dependence on Russia for Uranium: https://www.intellinews.com/radioactive-central-europe-remains-highly-exposed-to-russian-uranium-249827/ https://www.intellinews.com/radioactive-central-europe-remai... Even the US buys from Russia.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ed_balls 4y ago
Because of geopolitics, the rest is just hypocrisy. Germany and France wanted to build the Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok with help from Russia. That new Europe would became a 3rd power (after US and China) It's a good match. They can get cheap resources from Russia, manufacturing can be move from China to Siberia where pollution is not a big problem. Russia would balance China, so no need for massive military spending. USA could be pushed out of Europe. It would guarantee future for Russia. Right now 50% of Russian budged is from carbohydrates. Due to fracking and decarbonisation it won't be profitable to mine in Russia in 15 years[1]. Without that income, states like Chechnya, are gonna try to leave the federation. It's good for China as well, since USA sanctions would not be that effective. The Atlantic world doesn't want the 3rd power (hence USA and UK are helping a lot in Ukraine) as well as Central European countries (Poland, Ukraine, Baltic states etc.) The table that shows military aid by GDP is an eye opener. [1] Gas and oil from Ukrainian shores (Crimea) could speed it up.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Seems like a stretch to say Germany wants Russia to invade Ukraine...
  - ed_balls 4y ago
    I haven't said that. They want to go back to status quo ante, hence "French President Emmanuel Macron has sparked a new wave of criticism and incomprehension over his calls to avoid humiliating Russia in Ukraine" Also, that's the reason why Germany was relying on gas from Russia. They are not idiots. It was not a stupid single point of failure, but geopolitics.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > that's the reason why Germany was relying on gas from Russia. They are not idiots. Geopolitics pits Germany and Moscow as geopolitical rivals, as they’ve been for centuries. If the goal was building an alliance, letting one side unilaterally cripple your industrial base without similar unilateral counterstrike options is a strategic blunder. Berlin can’t do much, unilaterally, to Moscow. Even if we assume the Lisbon-to-Vladivostok theory, the gas reliance doesn’t make sense.
Gwypaas 4y ago
> Can any Germans on HN explain why Germany finds it preferable to give up their energy independence in nuclear and instead buy it from their potential adversary in Russia? Because the only method shown to prevent war in Europe is co-dependence. EU is founded on integrating the belligerents of WW2 close enough that it would be unthinkable to happen again. The same method, which at least has worked previously, was tried with Russia and now 30 years later, or more likely in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea we can conclude that Russia is different in some core way of thinking. Not too different though, looking at how the Baltic states have developed when given the choice and chance. The alternative scenario, with a Russia still riding on the tail ends of soviet military might in steep decline not even given a chance in the early 2000s seems like a recipe for an even worse outcome than we have today.
- jrsj 4y ago
  While that strategy in general makes sense, energy is much more critical for the buyer than the seller and that ultimately gives Russia leverage over Germany instead. You want codependency that harms both parties as equally as possible
- blibble 4y ago
  > Because the only method shown to prevent war in Europe is co-dependence. > The same method, which at least has worked previously it was a common theory prior to WW1 breaking out, then WW1 broke out and falsified it and now Russia has falsified this theory again (the threat of the Soviet Union plus nuclear deterrence prevented war in Europe, not the EU)
  - justin66 4y ago
    Gerhard Schröder certainly demonstrated that there is good money to be made in testing this theory.
  - nautilius 4y ago
    You may want to look into how many conflicts between how many parties there were in Europe prior to WWI, and since.
ThinkBeat 4y ago
The US imported gas from Saudi Arabia and other states that They were in conflicts with the US a lot. I mean 911 was pretty much all Saudi Arabian terrorists. With other nations like Iraq, Iran as well though depending on who ran it and who the president was. I believe the US is producing enough oil domestically. Yet I know the US was importing oil from Russia prior to the Ukraine war. States like the US or EU do it because it makes economic sense. The scope of oil is far too narrow. EU and the US rely on many commodoties to mkae the country, industry and ecnomomy work. A loss in some of the more serious ones can have a devastationg imapct. Thus, the question should be extended to: Why do states and unions make themself dependent upon commodities they must import. Should each state / unnion be self sufficent in all critical supplies? That is of course impossible, or nearly so. Each state/union will remain voulnralbe ans exposed if supply lines get cut off for any reaosn.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > I mean 911 was pretty much all Saudi Arabian terrorists. The leader had a German passport and his main motivation was Israel attack on Lebanon. US mostly didn't depend on middle-east oil, the US wanted middle-east oil to make sure that Europe and Asia didn't go communist.
gsatic 4y ago
Also if Russia stops the war tomorrow, is Germany not going to return to their old arrangements?
- _ph_ 4y ago
  Both are very unlikely. It has been widely acknowledged that the energy dependency from Russia was a big mistake. And of course, Germany should be on the trajectory to get rid of all fossil fuel usage. So unless the war ends tomorrow (which unfortuantely it won't), there is really no way back. We will also have to see whether this war ends in another nuclear disaster, I have serious concerns it could considering the Russian military actions around the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. This would of course kill nuclear entirely. The region in Bavaria, where I live, is still quite contaminated from Chernobyl, we really don't need more of that stuff.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  Even if the most rational Russian in the world assassinates Putin and all his cronies tomorrow and every Russian soldier is out of Ukraine and Crimea by next Friday, the damage is already done. No-one will trust Russia (the country, not the people) for a good half century unless they make some really sweeping changes to... well, everything.
rullelito 4y ago
Also curious if the sentiment changed at all after 2014 (Crimea).
bildung 4y ago
Germany never had energy independence in nuclear. Yes, Germany has/had plants, but nothing like enrichment etc. The reason is geopolitics: Germany started two world wars, and noone wanted to have a postwar Germany capable of building nukes. That link between nuclear proliferation and nuclear energy production is sadly often missing from the discussion here. No country builds nuclear reactors only for the energy. It's always for the nukes. Nuclear energy has always been expensive and has been massively subsidized since inception.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  > but nothing like enrichment etc Sure about that? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urananreicherungsanlage_Gronau https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urananreicherungsanlage_Gronau
  - bildung 4y ago
    Yes, Gronau is the notable exception. Though note the involvement of WW2 winners France and UK (the owner is still a UK company) and the capacity that was wildy below demand for Western German plants. It also isn't like Germany didn't want nuclear proliferation. Public demand to be allowed to produce nukes already started with Konrad Adenauer in the 1950's, and parts of the conservatives still bring up the topic from time to time (e.g. Rupert Scholz in 2007).
- panick21_ 4y ago
  This is completely wrong. Literally almost the opposite is true. There are lots and lots of countries who use nuclear civilian energy and don't have nuclear weapons. While at the same time there are lots of countries who have nuclear weapons but no civilian nuclear power. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that countries who have civilian nuclear power are less likely to have nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio... The NPT allows countries to have civilian nuclear power but not nuclear weapons, and many do. My country, Switzerland being an example. Japan is a large country where this applies as well. The connection between civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons is almost non existent. Countries that want nuclear weapons, just get them directly, they don't develop civilian nuclear power first. So please stop spreading this harmful misinformation.
amadeuspagel 4y ago
The way I remember this, after the Fukushima disaster there were some state level elections, the center-right parties that had until then supported nuclear lost one or two of these elections due to voter panic about Fukushima and then abandoned their support for nuclear. I really think that if the state level election calender had been different, germany would still use nuclear power today.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  Not sure, Fukushima was pretty scary considering the high esteem Japanese engineering has in Germany. Not sure what the deciding factor was, but indeed their remaining run time was shortened, the 2001 decision was targetting for a shutdown between 2025 and 2027.
mrm2m 4y ago
I'm German. I'm an electrical engineer. I'm not an expert. If you would ask me if I'm qualified to give advice if we should continue with nuclear power, I'd say no. But if you ask 1000 people on the street, than my opinion is as good as any other. So why do I think that it's a good idea to quit with nuklear power? It's quite easy: We German like it to be on the safe side. If I get ill I've got an assurance for that. If my car burns down, I've got an assurance for that. If a railway train hits my house (there are no railway tracks even close to my house) but guess what: I've got an assurance for that. If a nuclear power plant blows up and makes the whole country within 20 miles radius a radioactive no-go area I've got... wait - there's no assurance for that. Tepco in Japan was not able to compensate the people who had to move. Not even close. But there's good news: There is no nuclear power plant active anywhere in the radius of 20 miles around my home any more. Now let's talk a completely different unrelated topic: Russian gas. Why unrelated? Because nearly nobody in Germany uses electricity to heat their homes (yet). We have gas lines in most cellars of our houses. Those who don't use oil. There's even hardly electric air conditioning anywhere in the private housing sector. The people fear that the heating will fail in winter due to the gas shortage. They now buy electric heating and we expect outages of the electrical power supply if they happen to use them, not because of missing power plant capacity, but because the grid is not strong enough to allow replacement of gas heating for the next winter. But there are gas powere plants which are used to generate electricity from Russian gas. So it's all related, right? Yes and no. Yes we have gas power plants. We built them to help in situations of high demand because the Nuclear power plants are too slow to adopt on changing loads. Then over the last 20 years when wind power took over a major share of the power supply luckily we had those gas power plants to step in when a storm forces all wind mills to disconnect at the same time. But no. Gas power plants are not the solution as I stated. Even if we had enough power plant capacity to heat the houses we would never be able to distribute it. And more nuclear power does not help there either. So nuclear power is not the solution if Russian gas is your problem. But why do we use Russian gas at all? Why did we get into a situation like that at all? Well, that's not by accident. We fought and lost two world wars. Most people consider it a good idea for the German not to start another one. In the 1970s and 80s when the military presence of foreign forces in Germany declined it seemed a good idea to make Germany dependent on the mercy of the victorious countries. It worked quite well for nearly half a century. It's a good strategy as long as the German is the bad boy in town. It fails of course if the other bullys are even worse. We could have emancipated from gas long time ago. Unfortunately our politicians especially from the CSU actively blocked regenerative energy. So now the Germans have finally come to their minds and now want nuclear power back? No. The ARD (biggest German TV station) asked similar questions: Q: Do you think we should do Fracking in Germany? A: Only 27% say yes. Q: Do you think we should stick to nuclear power? A: 61% yes Q: Should we extend wind energy and introduce a maximum speed limit? A: 81% yes. That's my country and I'm OK with it.
panick21_ 4y ago
Germany didn't think rationally. Nuclear was strongly associated with cold war and nuclear bombs. Berlin is incredibly anti-nuclear. When I lived there, even when there was little going on, you would see constant anti-nuclear propaganda. Lots of anti-nuclear footmats and stickers.

by cgb223 4y ago

djohnston 4y ago

There are some good podcasts on this, you can find one on Guardian Long Reads: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-dependence-russian-energy-gas-oil-nord-stream https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-depend... The tldr; is it started with a stated goal of <10% dependence, thinking that by creating the first pipeline they would open up trade and normalize relations. This is a good goal especially since Germany was split in half at the time. Unfortunately through some combination of greed, complacency, and dumb nuclear strategy, dependency kept ratcheting up over the decades, slowly boiling the frog into the disaster soup we have today.

DrBazza 4y ago
CND in the Uk pretty much helped set the Uk on a similar path of “nuclear bad”.

ren_engineer 4y ago

because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. And there are still fools who think that economic integration somehow prevents wars, which was shown to be false after WWI. These people said if Europe just paid a bunch of money for Russian energy they'd obviously never attack them. See what's happening with China and the US as more proof that handing over your economy doesn't placate anybody

Ygg2 4y ago
You're going to need some citation on that Russia connection.
- ren_engineer 4y ago
  >“Ninety-nine per cent of the text of the articles of association is about climate and environmental protection, but 99 per cent of the money comes directly from Nord Stream II AG, which belongs to Gazprom.” >“It’s quite a curious foundation. It is a puppet construction,” said Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of Environmental Action Germany, a green charity, which is challenging the legality of the organisation both in the German courts and with the European Commission. https://archive.ph/KXgC0 https://archive.ph/KXgC0 and German politicians from pretty much every single party have been taking bribes from Russia for years. Their energy policy of simultaneously shutting down coal but not spinning up any nuclear made them reliant on Russian natural gas, which they've been warned about by the US for years and are now paying the price for from 2019 - https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-party-may-hand-putin-a-major-victory/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-p... and a video from 2018 of Germany's UN delegation quite literally laughing at the suggestion they'd be reliant on Russia for energy if they proceeded with Nordstream 2. Some good schadenfreude here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
  - _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
    True that foundation exists, and is heavily criticized by other German environmental organizations in Germany as even this article points out. Also it was founded after the nuclear exit was decided. You are falling for the trap where you know a little bit about a subject but draw the wrong conclusions from it.
cinntaile 4y ago
Russia and the EU aren't at war, neither is the US and China. You haven't really proven that economic integration doesn't prevent wars.
- hash07e 4y ago
  Really? No sanctions? No finland minister asking to ban russian tourists from schengen? Really? Ok.. turn the ac then!
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    Are you really equating sanctions with full on war?
    - hash07e 4y ago
      Yes Us providing guns and trainning is not war? Eu providing arms and guns is not war? Economic sanctions are not war? War is not a movie with bang. War is happening now. It started when they sunk the war ship russian..
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        Ukraine sank the war ship as far as I know? I do not consider providing supplies war, the same goes for economic sanctions.
      - formerly_proven 4y ago
        > War is happening now. > It started when they sunk the war ship russian.. I'm sensing this is a (((they))) kind of they.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        > Us providing guns and trainning is not war? No. > Eu providing arms and guns is not war? No. > Economic sanctions are not war? No. > War is not a movie with bang. No. > War is happening now. Yes between Ukraine and Russia.
AnonCoward42 4y ago
> because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. Every competing energy source lobby is probably trying to stack the chances against each other, but the activists were not by and large funded by Russia. > These people said if Europe just paid a bunch of money for Russian energy they'd obviously never attack them. You can't expect any party to hold still forever. If you provoke your partner long enough they might react at some point. In the long-term that is basically a guarantee.
osigurdson 4y ago
Not German, but I suspect memories of Fukushima and Chernobyl could be weighing on the minds of some. Perhaps this is an irrational concern but people are not necessarily rational - particularly when randomly polled on topics they know little about.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Perhaps irrational? It's certainly irrational. Nuclear is among the absolute safest methods of energy production. Looking at Wikipedia one person died and sixteen were injured at Fukushima. That risk should dictate energy policy? "Irrational" is being kind.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    When you think “power plant disaster”, what power plant instantly comes to mind? It’s a powerful “brand” that is quite difficult to displace in people’s minds. That is the problem to solve.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      I think of hydroelectric dams which can destroy whole towns. There is a single hydroelectric disaster that has killed many more people than all nuclear incidents put together.
      - osigurdson 4y ago
        Ok!
- Cwizard 4y ago
  What I don’t understand is how those two incidents are even relevant. Chernobyl happened because of a faulty design + mismanagement and Fukushima was located on a region prone to earthquakes/tsunami’s caused by earthquakes. The factors do not really apply to Germany. And even if it did, the deaths caused by those accidents were quite low. Meanwhile coal pollution is killing people by the thousands but this is somehow ok? I think the sole reason the west moved away from Nuclear is because it sounds scary and because the oil countries had a strong interest in maintaining the non-nuclear status quo.
FourthProtocol 4y ago
Indeed so. I've been following nuclear in Germany ever since those railroad protests when they tried to transport nuclear waste from somewhere to somewhere else which I thought was crazy (the protests). The part I felt had merit is that none of Europe's lofty solutions to safely storing/disposing of the waste output ever came to anything. I believe until this day that industry is still trying to work out how to dig 30km down to safely store the waste underground. That said I haven't kept up to date on any progress or better solutions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- RF_Savage 4y ago
  Onkalo in Finland is not 30km deep, which none have achieved anywhere. But Onkalo is one of the few actually built long term nuclear waste storage locations anywhere. It is for domestic nuclear waste only. There is no desire to become the international dumping ground for nuclear waste. Tbh I believe the waste should be reprosessed as fuel and burnt in reactors instead of burial. But non-proliferation things make that impossible.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    These geological repositories are such political bullshit theater. Its fucking sad. The are actually more expensive then simply developing the reactors to burn up that fuel. Its just crazy that we live in this world. The US collected money from nuclear plants for 50 years for disposal, and had plenty of money to develop waste burning reactors. And yet that money is totally unused. While politicians dead-lock on this idiotic Yucca Mountain project. Its beyond sad the state we are in.
- vimy 4y ago
  After more than 50 years of nuclear power plants in use we can say that there is no nuclear waste problem. The ‘waste’ has been stored above ground for decades and nothing has happened. It’s clearly safe. We should just keep doing what we’re doing. No need to dig expensive holes.
_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
> because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. I am German and very pro nuclear, but this is conspiracy bs. And why make such a grand claim without a single source?
- 323 4y ago
  > Nunes, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: Russia is secretly funding the environmental movement, particularly in Germany, to help pressure the closure of nuclear power plants. https://www.eenews.net/articles/devin-nunes-claims-russia-is-financing-environmentalism/ https://www.eenews.net/articles/devin-nunes-claims-russia-is... Dominique Reynié: "We found that Gazprom funded environmental NGOs that provided ministers to various governments, such as Belgium, which then advocated abandoning nuclear power". https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 > For instance, the Soviets used front organizations to influence the anti-nuclear movement, the initiative that most visibly put Western leadership on the defensive. West German Interior Ministry and FBI reports concluded that Soviet-linked organizations were successfully swaying local peace movement initiatives to conform to Moscow’s positions https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/russian-active-measures-in-germany-and-the-united-states-analog-lessons-from-the-cold-war/ https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/russian-active-measures-in...
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Its not a conspiracy. Its for certain that there was a real anti nuclear movement but its also true that fossil industry and Russia spent money to fund these efforts. So it happened but how effective it was is questionable.

grensley 4y ago

Not German, but the Greens (ruling party) in Germany basically built their platform on being anti-nuclear. They'd rather burn wet coal than walk that back.

AnonCoward42 4y ago
Just for completeness, the Greens are in a coalition with social democrats(SPD), liberals(FDP) (names are labels, not political directions). The chancellor is from social democrats(SPD).

cycomanic 4y ago

Well more of Europe's Uranium comes from Russia than Germanys gas. It is not like Germany has vast Uranium reserves. When the Green/Social Democrat coalition under Schröder decided on stopping nuclear the idea was to largely exchange that for renewables (and the German wind and solar industry was leading in the world at the time). This would have been a much bigger step toward energy independence. The coal, nuclear and gas lobby (note that they typically are the same lobbyists) strongly pushed to reverse that decision and the Conservative, free Liberal coalition under Merkel initially reversed the decision, but at the same time was generally pushing for the cheapest energy solutions, which was largely gas. The strong regulations put into place for wind and solar at the time largely destroyed Germanys wind and solar industry, because domestic demand Collapsed. It is important to remember that Germany has still very strong manufacturing industries who hold a lot of sway over the government. When Fukushima happened public sentiment went strongly towards quiting nuclear again. There was not really much opposition from industry either, because nuclear was more expensive than gas so we saw an even stronger push toward gas.

DrBazza 4y ago
Is that right? Almost 50% of the world’s uranium comes from Khazakstan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...
- ed_balls 4y ago
  Ukraine has a large deposit of uranium as well.
- x86x87 4y ago
  Does production == having the resource? Asking because I think it's possible that many places don't bother to mine it due to a combination of regulations and cost. LE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium... So, Australia is where most of the uranium is :| Also, Russia does seem to have significant reserves that could be mined.
- 4y ago

Jensson 4y ago

Left wing in Europe often has lots of Soviet sympathisers among their ranks. Basically USA=Bad, Russia=Good still lives on somehow. I don't know anything about the situation in Germany in particular though, but I wouldn't be surprised if they saw integration with Russia as a good thing rather than a bad thing.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
goodpoint 4y ago
> Left wing in Europe often has lots of Soviet sympathisers among their ranks. Citation needed.

cycomanic 4y ago

I should also say that in contrast to the common misperception (which is largely due to nuclear lobbying) the percentage of gas in electricity production has actually not increased over the last 20 years: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Energiemix_Deutschland.svg/1280px-Energiemix_Deutschland.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/En... What we are witnessing is largely strong push by the nuclear industry to take advantage of the current situation to change sentiments to again get decades worth of guaranteed profits, largely at the cost of renewables.

Brigand 4y ago

Aren’t renewables already more cost effective than nuclear? See for example here: https://energycentral.com/c/ec/comparing-costs-renewable-and-conventional-energy-sources https://energycentral.com/c/ec/comparing-costs-renewable-and... Storage issues might be solved before new nuclear plants go online at the current pace of progress. Perhaps a few years of gas until the renewable infrastructure is set up will suffice? At least the issue does not seem to be as clear cut as most people claim they are.

slfnflctd 4y ago
> Storage issues might be solved The problem as I see it as that any '100% renewable' solution which could be ramped up relatively quickly would necessitate technology that doesn't exist yet. Of course there will be some progress in tech, but we have no way to predict exactly what it will be. It will also be extremely expensive simply due to the massive scale required, and there are numerous powerful & well funded groups who will throw down roadblocks along the way. The reality is that we will continue to use fossil fuels for a long time. While nuclear energy is our best low-carbon option for baseline power, we probably aren't going to be able to build new generators quickly enough to displace natural gas usage for decades, and that's only if it's politically possible to do so. Which continues to appear to be a long shot. In short, we're holding our collective breath for a 'hail Mary' breakthrough that somehow cuts through all the intractable quandaries and gives us a viable path forward. In the mean time, the increase in severe climate events will destabilize nations and make it even harder to reach the kinds of major agreements needed to go down such a path. It's probably a good idea to either own land or have friends in an area near a large freshwater lake that isn't prone to flooding and has a history of handling both extreme heat and extreme cold. There's no way of knowing whether you'll end up embroiled in civil unrest or full blown war in such an area, but at least you can limit the number & types of risks you need to worry about.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  > that doesn't exist yet. Batteries exist, and estimates of how many would be needed are around 50TWh. We have over 500GWh of annual battery production, and the doubling period for that capacity is under 18 months.

AnonCoward42 4y ago

I am not sure anymore if we can agree on this, but current fission implementations are an added threat - and not a small one - to any climate change that occurs. In addition: To this day, we do not have a single final depot for nuclear waste. Now, that is the anti-nuclear side of things, however CO2 is also a problem which we also don't want and this leads to the shutdown of the other potential sources of energy and we don't have a proper replacement for them either (wind and sun are not reliable sources). In summary, we Germans want to swim, but don't want to get wet.

RF_Savage 4y ago
Onkalo exists :)

dark-star 4y ago

Because the Green Party (which was founded as direct result of the Chernobyl desaster) has been pushing their irrational agenda against nuclear power. They deliberately ignored any scientific arguments that were even slightly in favor of nuclear. The Greens have brought some very necessary ecological improvements that would otherwise not have happened (probably), but their continuous crusade against anything nuclear, ignoring scientific findings and statistics, is just annoying at this point

formerly_proven 4y ago
The Greens predate Chernobyl by about a decade and came from the anti-nuke/war/nuclear environmentalists groups, but the dogmatic anti-war part was dropped by the end of the 90s (Kosovo). Since then the Greens have been somewhat "hawkish" (to borrow an US term) on illiberal states and such.
dewclin 4y ago
> the Green Party (which was founded as direct result of the Chernobyl disaster) Chernobyl was 1986 and the West German green party existed before that: > Alliance 90/The Greens ... is a green political party in Germany. It was formed in 1993 as the merger of The Greens (formed in West Germany in 1980) and Alliance 90 (formed in East Germany in 1990) [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens

lispm 4y ago

Germany buys natural gas (and Oil, Coal) from Russia. That's mostly used in heating and industry production. There are some gas power plants, often also producing heat. Nuclear power plants are mostly only used for electricity production. The "light" is less of a problem, the real problem is "heating". Homes often use natural gas for heating, warm water and cooking. Btw., there is a large dependence on Russia for Uranium: https://www.intellinews.com/radioactive-central-europe-remains-highly-exposed-to-russian-uranium-249827/ https://www.intellinews.com/radioactive-central-europe-remai... Even the US buys from Russia.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ed_balls 4y ago

Because of geopolitics, the rest is just hypocrisy. Germany and France wanted to build the Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok with help from Russia. That new Europe would became a 3rd power (after US and China) It's a good match. They can get cheap resources from Russia, manufacturing can be move from China to Siberia where pollution is not a big problem. Russia would balance China, so no need for massive military spending. USA could be pushed out of Europe. It would guarantee future for Russia. Right now 50% of Russian budged is from carbohydrates. Due to fracking and decarbonisation it won't be profitable to mine in Russia in 15 years[1]. Without that income, states like Chechnya, are gonna try to leave the federation. It's good for China as well, since USA sanctions would not be that effective. The Atlantic world doesn't want the 3rd power (hence USA and UK are helping a lot in Ukraine) as well as Central European countries (Poland, Ukraine, Baltic states etc.) The table that shows military aid by GDP is an eye opener. [1] Gas and oil from Ukrainian shores (Crimea) could speed it up.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Seems like a stretch to say Germany wants Russia to invade Ukraine...
- ed_balls 4y ago
  I haven't said that. They want to go back to status quo ante, hence "French President Emmanuel Macron has sparked a new wave of criticism and incomprehension over his calls to avoid humiliating Russia in Ukraine" Also, that's the reason why Germany was relying on gas from Russia. They are not idiots. It was not a stupid single point of failure, but geopolitics.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > that's the reason why Germany was relying on gas from Russia. They are not idiots. Geopolitics pits Germany and Moscow as geopolitical rivals, as they’ve been for centuries. If the goal was building an alliance, letting one side unilaterally cripple your industrial base without similar unilateral counterstrike options is a strategic blunder. Berlin can’t do much, unilaterally, to Moscow. Even if we assume the Lisbon-to-Vladivostok theory, the gas reliance doesn’t make sense.

Gwypaas 4y ago

> Can any Germans on HN explain why Germany finds it preferable to give up their energy independence in nuclear and instead buy it from their potential adversary in Russia? Because the only method shown to prevent war in Europe is co-dependence. EU is founded on integrating the belligerents of WW2 close enough that it would be unthinkable to happen again. The same method, which at least has worked previously, was tried with Russia and now 30 years later, or more likely in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea we can conclude that Russia is different in some core way of thinking. Not too different though, looking at how the Baltic states have developed when given the choice and chance. The alternative scenario, with a Russia still riding on the tail ends of soviet military might in steep decline not even given a chance in the early 2000s seems like a recipe for an even worse outcome than we have today.

jrsj 4y ago
While that strategy in general makes sense, energy is much more critical for the buyer than the seller and that ultimately gives Russia leverage over Germany instead. You want codependency that harms both parties as equally as possible
blibble 4y ago
> Because the only method shown to prevent war in Europe is co-dependence. > The same method, which at least has worked previously it was a common theory prior to WW1 breaking out, then WW1 broke out and falsified it and now Russia has falsified this theory again (the threat of the Soviet Union plus nuclear deterrence prevented war in Europe, not the EU)
- justin66 4y ago
  Gerhard Schröder certainly demonstrated that there is good money to be made in testing this theory.
- nautilius 4y ago
  You may want to look into how many conflicts between how many parties there were in Europe prior to WWI, and since.

ThinkBeat 4y ago

The US imported gas from Saudi Arabia and other states that They were in conflicts with the US a lot. I mean 911 was pretty much all Saudi Arabian terrorists. With other nations like Iraq, Iran as well though depending on who ran it and who the president was. I believe the US is producing enough oil domestically. Yet I know the US was importing oil from Russia prior to the Ukraine war. States like the US or EU do it because it makes economic sense. The scope of oil is far too narrow. EU and the US rely on many commodoties to mkae the country, industry and ecnomomy work. A loss in some of the more serious ones can have a devastationg imapct. Thus, the question should be extended to: Why do states and unions make themself dependent upon commodities they must import. Should each state / unnion be self sufficent in all critical supplies? That is of course impossible, or nearly so. Each state/union will remain voulnralbe ans exposed if supply lines get cut off for any reaosn.

panick21_ 4y ago
> I mean 911 was pretty much all Saudi Arabian terrorists. The leader had a German passport and his main motivation was Israel attack on Lebanon. US mostly didn't depend on middle-east oil, the US wanted middle-east oil to make sure that Europe and Asia didn't go communist.

gsatic 4y ago

Also if Russia stops the war tomorrow, is Germany not going to return to their old arrangements?

_ph_ 4y ago
Both are very unlikely. It has been widely acknowledged that the energy dependency from Russia was a big mistake. And of course, Germany should be on the trajectory to get rid of all fossil fuel usage. So unless the war ends tomorrow (which unfortuantely it won't), there is really no way back. We will also have to see whether this war ends in another nuclear disaster, I have serious concerns it could considering the Russian military actions around the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. This would of course kill nuclear entirely. The region in Bavaria, where I live, is still quite contaminated from Chernobyl, we really don't need more of that stuff.
theshrike79 4y ago
Even if the most rational Russian in the world assassinates Putin and all his cronies tomorrow and every Russian soldier is out of Ukraine and Crimea by next Friday, the damage is already done. No-one will trust Russia (the country, not the people) for a good half century unless they make some really sweeping changes to... well, everything.

rullelito 4y ago

Also curious if the sentiment changed at all after 2014 (Crimea).

bildung 4y ago

Germany never had energy independence in nuclear. Yes, Germany has/had plants, but nothing like enrichment etc. The reason is geopolitics: Germany started two world wars, and noone wanted to have a postwar Germany capable of building nukes. That link between nuclear proliferation and nuclear energy production is sadly often missing from the discussion here. No country builds nuclear reactors only for the energy. It's always for the nukes. Nuclear energy has always been expensive and has been massively subsidized since inception.

mpweiher 4y ago
> but nothing like enrichment etc Sure about that? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urananreicherungsanlage_Gronau https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urananreicherungsanlage_Gronau
- bildung 4y ago
  Yes, Gronau is the notable exception. Though note the involvement of WW2 winners France and UK (the owner is still a UK company) and the capacity that was wildy below demand for Western German plants. It also isn't like Germany didn't want nuclear proliferation. Public demand to be allowed to produce nukes already started with Konrad Adenauer in the 1950's, and parts of the conservatives still bring up the topic from time to time (e.g. Rupert Scholz in 2007).
panick21_ 4y ago
This is completely wrong. Literally almost the opposite is true. There are lots and lots of countries who use nuclear civilian energy and don't have nuclear weapons. While at the same time there are lots of countries who have nuclear weapons but no civilian nuclear power. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that countries who have civilian nuclear power are less likely to have nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio... The NPT allows countries to have civilian nuclear power but not nuclear weapons, and many do. My country, Switzerland being an example. Japan is a large country where this applies as well. The connection between civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons is almost non existent. Countries that want nuclear weapons, just get them directly, they don't develop civilian nuclear power first. So please stop spreading this harmful misinformation.

amadeuspagel 4y ago

The way I remember this, after the Fukushima disaster there were some state level elections, the center-right parties that had until then supported nuclear lost one or two of these elections due to voter panic about Fukushima and then abandoned their support for nuclear. I really think that if the state level election calender had been different, germany would still use nuclear power today.

_ph_ 4y ago
Not sure, Fukushima was pretty scary considering the high esteem Japanese engineering has in Germany. Not sure what the deciding factor was, but indeed their remaining run time was shortened, the 2001 decision was targetting for a shutdown between 2025 and 2027.

mrm2m 4y ago

I'm German. I'm an electrical engineer. I'm not an expert. If you would ask me if I'm qualified to give advice if we should continue with nuclear power, I'd say no. But if you ask 1000 people on the street, than my opinion is as good as any other. So why do I think that it's a good idea to quit with nuklear power? It's quite easy: We German like it to be on the safe side. If I get ill I've got an assurance for that. If my car burns down, I've got an assurance for that. If a railway train hits my house (there are no railway tracks even close to my house) but guess what: I've got an assurance for that. If a nuclear power plant blows up and makes the whole country within 20 miles radius a radioactive no-go area I've got... wait - there's no assurance for that. Tepco in Japan was not able to compensate the people who had to move. Not even close. But there's good news: There is no nuclear power plant active anywhere in the radius of 20 miles around my home any more. Now let's talk a completely different unrelated topic: Russian gas. Why unrelated? Because nearly nobody in Germany uses electricity to heat their homes (yet). We have gas lines in most cellars of our houses. Those who don't use oil. There's even hardly electric air conditioning anywhere in the private housing sector. The people fear that the heating will fail in winter due to the gas shortage. They now buy electric heating and we expect outages of the electrical power supply if they happen to use them, not because of missing power plant capacity, but because the grid is not strong enough to allow replacement of gas heating for the next winter. But there are gas powere plants which are used to generate electricity from Russian gas. So it's all related, right? Yes and no. Yes we have gas power plants. We built them to help in situations of high demand because the Nuclear power plants are too slow to adopt on changing loads. Then over the last 20 years when wind power took over a major share of the power supply luckily we had those gas power plants to step in when a storm forces all wind mills to disconnect at the same time. But no. Gas power plants are not the solution as I stated. Even if we had enough power plant capacity to heat the houses we would never be able to distribute it. And more nuclear power does not help there either. So nuclear power is not the solution if Russian gas is your problem. But why do we use Russian gas at all? Why did we get into a situation like that at all? Well, that's not by accident. We fought and lost two world wars. Most people consider it a good idea for the German not to start another one. In the 1970s and 80s when the military presence of foreign forces in Germany declined it seemed a good idea to make Germany dependent on the mercy of the victorious countries. It worked quite well for nearly half a century. It's a good strategy as long as the German is the bad boy in town. It fails of course if the other bullys are even worse. We could have emancipated from gas long time ago. Unfortunately our politicians especially from the CSU actively blocked regenerative energy. So now the Germans have finally come to their minds and now want nuclear power back? No. The ARD (biggest German TV station) asked similar questions: Q: Do you think we should do Fracking in Germany? A: Only 27% say yes. Q: Do you think we should stick to nuclear power? A: 61% yes Q: Should we extend wind energy and introduce a maximum speed limit? A: 81% yes. That's my country and I'm OK with it.

panick21_ 4y ago

Germany didn't think rationally. Nuclear was strongly associated with cold war and nuclear bombs. Berlin is incredibly anti-nuclear. When I lived there, even when there was little going on, you would see constant anti-nuclear propaganda. Lots of anti-nuclear footmats and stickers.