4 ms·
The decision was made [0] by the CDU (government Merkel II) in 2011 right after Fukushima, not by the Green Party. Reversing it would come at a great cost [1].
by quonn 4y ago
The decision was made [0] by the CDU (government Merkel II) in 2011 right after Fukushima, not by the Green Party. Reversing it would come at a great cost [1]. Of course the Green Party also doesn‘t want to, but that boat sailed long ago.
And rational, for Germany which does:
- not have nuclear weapons
- has far cheaper renewables in cost per kwh
- is densely populated with no viable far away place to store the stuff
means to quit nuclear.
In the end the debate depends on whether externalities are internalized or not. If they are internalized, renewable energy wins hands down [2].
—-
[0] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom-Moratorium https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom-Moratorium
[1] Germany got sued previously for undoing an exit. It‘s predictable this would happen again.
[2] As shown in the report by the scientific service of the German parliament: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edcc0e32cb093ab073767/WD-5-005-22-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edc...
- qwytw 4y ago> has far cheaper renewables in cost per kwh Currently yes. In the 80s and 90s not so much. It's huge a tragedy nuclear expansion stopped back then because nuclear was very cheap if we factor the indirect costs from burning fossil fuels (specifically premature deaths and other healthcare issues due to pollution. We basically get 2 to 8 free Chernobyls every year just by burning coal in the EU alone. Stopping climate change would just have been a free bonus).
- epups 4y agoRenewables are cheap, until you hit a day without a lot of Sun or wind and you start running your death-inducing coal reactors.