8 ms·

I'm not German nor do I live there, but I would have thought the legacy of Habeck would be more negative due to his opposition to nuclear.

MaKey 1y ago
Germany's nuclear power plants were shut down by the governments before him. What do you think he should have done differently?
- jansan 1y ago
  The plan to shut down nuclear power plants was done under the premise of a stable supply of Russian gas. This supply abruptly stopped, but instead of using the remaining nuclear power plants to mitigate the supply shock (at that time nuclear power was even classified as sustainable by the EU btw.), he even accelerated the shutdown and sold it as inevitable. In my opinion this was the worst political decision of German politics since WW2, unless he wanted to hurt German industry on purpose, which is not even unthinkable.
  - slightwinder 1y ago
    > This supply abruptly stopped, but instead of using the remaining nuclear power plants to mitigate the supply shock There was nothing to mitigate. The nuclear plants deliver electricity, which was never a problem in Germany. > he even accelerated the shutdown and sold it as inevitable. That's a lie. They even prolonged the usage for some months to appease the fearmongers. But without fuel, there was a limit on how they could run anyway. > unless he wanted to hurt German industry on purpose, which is not even unthinkable. Ah, you're from the conspiracy-bubble...
    - mk89 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - slightwinder 1y ago
        > The fearmongers are the Greens who believe that nuclear reactors will generate 3 headed fish. Nobody believes that, WTF? > In the meantime, we increased energy production through coal Partly true, but not really. Coal is also used for other energy-forms than just electricity. Nuclear Plants cannot cover those areas. In the grand scale, it might have been better to first reduce coal-usage and transition to purely electric usage, while phasing out of nuclear slowly and use the save money for building up on renewables. But that was never an option with all the sabotages from the fossil anyway. Nuclear in Germany was never a real option, it always has been fossil vs electric, with nuclear being a minor source for electricity, weaponized by the fossil lobby against the renewables.
        mk89 1y ago
        >Nobody believes that, WTF? Why do you think Germans voted against nuclear? It was because of fear of events like Chernobyl/Fukishima etc. Then 2022 was the final blow, with documents saying that nuclear reactors didn't produce much energy and needed maintenance anyways. Kind of like getting rid of working trains to ride bikes instead. Why not. It's healthier :) In the meantime, the world laughs at us. Literally the whole world. You keep on mentioning the lobby of fossils, which obviously had an impact. However, with Merkel the change was happening. At exactly the speed it was needed: 5% every couple of years, or so. Now the only lobby I see is the one of fear that there is no tomorrow. While the countries just next to us, without even bothering China all the time, don't give 2 cents about it. They keep on buying gas, uranium and fossils. We on the other hand can finally build 800W solar panels on the balconies without bureaucracy. Thank God. EDIT: with Merkel, we reached an increase of 5% per year for energy generated with renewables. Which is and was really good.
        bjourne 1y ago
        If you really think literally the whole world is laughing at Germany you are living in a fully isolated echo chamber.
        1y ago
  - V__ 1y ago
    > the worst political decision of German politics since WW2 Except the shutdown had no negative effect. There was no supply shock and prices keep trending down since (Though that of course doesn't mean because of). Let's keep it real. I can probably name worse German political decisions from this week.
    - amomww 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - V__ 1y ago
        Wait, so Germany's shutdown of three nuclear plants resulted in the EU wide energy crises and EU wide poverty? Seems almost untrue...
    - JamisonM 1y ago
      "Except the shutdown had no negative effect." Three things here: * Didn't the diversion of natural gas to electricity generation end some German industrial production completely? * Are there not large electricity subsidies in place via subsidies for US imported LNG? * Isn't the alternate reality where there is a surplus of electricity in German due to nuclear power a better world where Germany has more opportunity? (the AI datacentre boom is built on excess electricity, isn't it?)
      - V__ 1y ago
        * I would have dig deeper on that, but regarding the timeframe when the shutdown occurred, there wasn't a big effect on gas prices. That happened before due to the war with Ukraine and the reliance on Russian gas in general. [1] The idea once was to use cheap gas from Russia and at the same time build out renewables. The latter didn't happen, resulting in the mess Germany is right now. * There were multiple tax reductions and I think some are in the talks now. Those were independent (and before) the nuclear shutdown. * Probably. Nuclear should have been shutdown after gas, coal etc. I am with you on that. But the ship had already sailed long ago, before the last three plants were shut down. [1] https://www.iwh-halle.de/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/wirtschaft_im_wandel/wiwa_2024-03_Atomausstieg.pdf https://www.iwh-halle.de/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/...
  - benjiro 1y ago
    Those 3 plants had been running on "deferred maintenance" as the plant shutdown was planned years ago. Keeping the plants open will have resulted in a ton of money to maintain the safety of the plants going forwards. This was one of the biggest factors in the shutdown. Even if the plants stayed open, multiple reactors needed maintenance (and thus shutdown of those rectors). Remember, they kept the open even longer then the planned shutdown (what was already extended before). And the issue with the prices was not nuclear. By the time those plants shutdown, market prices already stabilized to pre-war levels. I remember this clearly as my renewal of my electricity contract came up, and ironically, my electrical price was even 2 cent/kwh lower then my 2021 contract. The biggest issue for the German industry was not nuclear energie, it was the gas. And not because of power generation but because gas is used in several chemical reactions, with basf moving their production to the US. And thus more costs because supply chain changes. The LNG that we import is more expensive then the ultra cheap Russian gas we got. And THAT is a issue for the German industry. And even more so with the US pushing to be the sole EU supplier for LNG (aka to replace Russia and use their leverage on the EU). Anyway, a lot of your opinion is based upon the wrong conclusion.
    - amomww 1y ago
      Meanwhile, Dutch coal and gas plants are running overtime for electricity exports. Obviously to compensate for the German and Belgian nuclear exits. (see https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/NL/5y/monthly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/NL/5y/monthly) On top of that, NL govt is investing 10B EUR to prepare the construction of several new nuclear power plants, less than 300km from one of the abandoned German ones (Emsland). In conclusion the nuclear exits of BE and DE are some of the most stupid and hypocritical decisions in EU energy policy. Both countries will continue to depend on nuclear energy (from FR and NL). The only difference is that it is now produced <200km outside of their borders, in neighbouring countries.
      - Asmod4n 1y ago
        Nuclear is the answer to no problem we face currently. It’s expensive, slow to build new plants (decades). It’s also not flexible in the way it’s useable. Solar + battery storage on the other hand is super fast and easy to build, costs virtually nothing and leaves no toxic waste which can’t be recycled. Nuclear fuel is also mostly only available from Russia, which no one wants as a trade partner.
  - SJC_Hacker 1y ago
    Grid power and LNG use wasn't very fungible. e.g., if you have a gas furnace, electricity costs being low doesn't help you unless you replace the gas furnace with electric. In the short term, very expensive. Same goes for alot of industry, there also were industrial processes that BASF et al. were running that just required LNG as a reagant.
- blueblueue 1y ago
  Well most of them were, but not all. Notably the last three nuclear power plants in Germany were shutdown on 15. April 2023, while the last coalition was in power. At that time there was a big discussion whether the shutdown could be postponed due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a measure to curb rising electricity costs in Germany, but ultimately it was decided to go through with the shutdown. It was a largely symbolic move, but carried a lot of emotional weight since it put last nail in the coffin for nuclear energy in Germany. Hence people now blaming the Ampel government (and Habeck in particular) even though it wasn’t their decision to shut down power plants in the first place (with people of the party who made the decision openly criticizing them as well). Just to add a bit of context as German…
hovering_nox 1y ago
Most Germans would view that as a positive thing. Pushing for nuclear power at this point would be utterly stupid.
raffael_de 1y ago
[flagged]
- lavela 1y ago
  Mind sharing that documentation or spelling out what you mean by that or are you not going to consider different views on that anyways?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - raffael_de 1y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry5-cWq1Lr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry5-cWq1Lr4 https://youtu.be/-XItDbFSYBE https://youtu.be/-XItDbFSYBE But to be fair ... it's a general problem with Die Grünen. https://youtu.be/DbzRY9VF2zE?t=724 https://youtu.be/DbzRY9VF2zE?t=724 Reality is just a nuisance.
DasIch 1y ago
The current state wrt to nuclear in Germany reflects a decades long consensus in Germany that spans the majority of the population, scientists, intellectuals, politicians and even energy companies. Any opposition you do hear on this from within Germany is usually opportunistic. People are against the Greens so they just take the opposite position on their policy. A good example of this is Markus Söder (CSU) who flip flopped on this multiple times. Realistically speaking there is no serious politician or party with a pro-nuclear position in Germany that has a plausible plan for leveraging nuclear power at meaningful scale in an economical way. Any such plan would realistically invite massive opposition because nobody wants nuclear facilities in their vicinity.
- rasz 1y ago
  russians paid good money for this consensus! Best Chancellor money could buy. It was so successful Germany became a proxy paying French NGOs to torpedo French Nuclear program! Anti-nuclear lobbying by German foundations in France and Poland https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002175_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-00217... Edit: Actually should be plural - Chancellors. Merkel, big cog in NordStreams, went on some podcast last week to blame Poland for the war in Ukraine. See if only Poles didnt object so much she would placate putin with even more money.
  - DasIch 1y ago
    The anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 70s. The last nuclear power plant was built decades ago. In my opinion the decision to not invest into nuclear and scale it up further made the end of nuclear power inevitable. Recent governments merely organized a shutdown that was effectively decided in the last century at the end of the cold war. The importance of Merkel, Fukushima etc. in these discussions are completely overrated imo. As an aside Germany got fuel for nuclear reactors from Russia.
jansan 1y ago
It is very negative amongst large parts of the population, but he also has a very vocal fanbase.
slightwinder 1y ago
Nuclear has no relevance in Germany, never really had. The plants barely added any value to the market. When Habeck became Minister, most Nuclear plants were already gone, and the last remaining were phasing out, lacking nuclear fuel and permits. Habeck even gave a permit for the last plants to run some more months, squeezing out even the last parts of fuel as much as they could, just so they could serve as an additional supply in a problematic winter, which turned out to be unnecessary in the end.
- Scea91 1y ago
  Right at this moment Germany's electricity mix has 364gCO2eq/kWh carbon intensity, France is at 21. That is because 37% of Germany's production comes from gas and coal. Even from an environmental standpoint, France is doing much better than Germany and that is thanks to nuclear. Also, by closing operating power plants, Germany weakened European energy production at the time when we geopolitically need it the most. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_minutes https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...
  - Pfeil 1y ago
    Still not Habecks legacy. This was decided under Merkel. Besides, CO2eq are often wrongly measured with nuclear energy, ignoring building emissions and effect on the water temperature in rivers (every summer more and more plants need to shut down because of this), etc. Even if this would be done right, there are again and again longer periods where Germany exports energy to France because their reactors are often in maintenance. In the end I would say it is always a bad idea to rely on only one technology to a large degree. Only a well done mix makes you resiliant.
    - Scea91 1y ago
      > Only a well done mix makes you resiliant. I agree on this point, me not being anti-Nuclear doesn't mean I am anti-wind or solar. Every country has different circumstances, I live in a landlocked country with mild mountains, temperate climate and modest rivers. In our case nuclear energy seems like the most reliable and scalable option. For countries with huge coastline off-shore wind absolutely makes sense, simialrly with solar. > Besides, CO2eq are often wrongly measured with nuclear energy, ignoring building emissions. I think this point is overestimated. Based on a brief search, studies show nuclear carbon intensity around 6-12g, and the building emissions just around 13% of total lifetime emissions [1]. > there are again and again longer periods where Germany exports energy to France because their reactors are often in maintenance. Valid point but the 2022 French nuclear "disaster" hasn't repeated at that scale so far. In recent years France is a net exporter to Germany. I can imagine that as with many problems in renewables having technical solutions the water temperature problem is also solvable technically. [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1147016/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/article...
Archelaos 1y ago
Nuclear technology is a dead end. Renewables and saving energy is the future. Nuclear and fossil are in the same boat. They are both more risky and have huge hidden costs that the general public and future generations will have to bear. The only good reason to go nuclear these days is if you want the bomb, like Iran. Interestingly, it is the same people who supported fossil in the past who are still promoting nuclear today. Those who have always warned against fossil fuels are usually the ones who recommend a complete switch to renewable energies. That should give one pause for thought.
- FredPret 1y ago
  Renewables have huge hidden costs as well. Solar panels and windmills are low density sources - we need a LOT of them to get the job done, and even then you still need base load somehow. That means a huge amount of extra powerlines and future landfill of defunct panels. Not to mention the very sturdy windmill foundations scattered around the landscape. Say what you will about nuclear, but all of its negatives are concentrated in a small mass and volume. The optimal, nom-ideological solution is probably a mix of nuclear, gas, and solar panels.
  - adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
    solar panels actually decrease load on power lines. every house with solar panels on it reduces the amount of power the grid needs to bring to that house
    - eldaisfish 1y ago
      this is false. Power line capacity is designed around the maximum power that must be delivered. Solar power by itself reduces the mean, and possibly the minimum as well, but never the maximum.
      - Scoundreller 1y ago
        Are we expecting peak a/c loads on cloudy days or something?
avhception 1y ago
I guess that depends on who you ask. There definitely is a lot of opposition to the Green Party, but that's hardly directed at Robert Habeck specifically.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
p2detar 1y ago
Well, I like the guy but compare the electricity prices in Germany to other European states, and also to China and the US. It’s about $0.15 kWh in the US vs $0.40 kWh in Germany. I personally think this is absolutely insane, but I don’t blame Habeck but the poor renewables transition execution in Germany. It is currently a failure in terms of electricity consumer prices. Edit: I just rechecked China and wow! $0.08 per kWh. Can anyone confirm? https://www.china-briefing.com/news/chinas-industrial-power-rates-category-electricity-usage-region-classification https://www.china-briefing.com/news/chinas-industrial-power-...
- MarvinYork 1y ago
  Interesting watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWR_7K6UIkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWR_7K6UIkE
- wongarsu 1y ago
  Even if power plants magically worked for free and all schemes for cross-financing renewables were cancelled, German electricity prices would still be $0.19/kWh (€0.16), using the numbers from [1]. The German electricity network is great and very reliable, but also very expensive 1: https://strom-report.com/strompreis-zusammensetzung/ https://strom-report.com/strompreis-zusammensetzung/
- infinet 1y ago
  > Edit: I just rechecked China and wow! $0.08 per kWh. Can anyone confirm? Yes, it is in the ballpark of $0.08/kWh. It varies a little bit across regions. Also in some places the price is only half during the night. But as you consume more power, you may see the price rise to $0.12/kWh. In 2024, cost of renewable + storage was 0.52-0.88 CNY/kWh($0.08-$0.12). Advancement in storage is expected to drive that cost down by more than 50%.
- Asmod4n 1y ago
  I got a “expensive” renewable only energy plan and it’s 31,4 cents per kilowatt hour in Germany. Conventional ones should be cheaper. So no idea where you got 40 cents from.
- 1y ago
blablabla123 1y ago
I would say the main political crisis of the moment isn't one about being right but about consistent plans. The plan for a Green economy is pretty clear since more than a decade and revolves around Smart Grids. Without these no decentralized energy, no storage etc. Indeed that's something that was done right and proofs actual long-term plans are worth it. The irony is, at this point even many environmentalists don't oppose Nuclear anymore. But there's still the lack of a coherent plan. Where should the fuel come from? How is EOL of a power plant handled? How is it paid? The answers changed a lot in the last decades. Apart from this the last 5 years were a PR disaster for the Greens. Protesters (Last Generation) have been connected to them although the LG is even protesting against the Greens. When there were these massive floods the Greens actually lost votes instead of gaining those.
ajross 1y ago
It's just absolutely mind-boggling how the "But Nuclear!" refrain persists as a mind worm in this community. Every story on renewables, every single one, has a giant sub thread up near the top of the discussion screaming, again, about the clearly-must-be-important-because-everyone-says-so hypocrisy behind opposition to nuclear power. It really just doesn't seem in good faith. It's been going on for a decade at least. Every win, every positive story, every bit of evidence that just maybe this part of the climate puzzle is actually being solved[1] gets met not with celebration, but with indignant tut-tutting that it was done with boring stuff and not Nerd Friendly power. When does it stop? [1] Doesn't take too much Googling to find coverage claiming that ~90% of new electricity generation capacity globally is renewable. This problem is solved folks. It's time to start looking at the higher hanging fruit.

MaKey 1y ago

Germany's nuclear power plants were shut down by the governments before him. What do you think he should have done differently?

jansan 1y ago
The plan to shut down nuclear power plants was done under the premise of a stable supply of Russian gas. This supply abruptly stopped, but instead of using the remaining nuclear power plants to mitigate the supply shock (at that time nuclear power was even classified as sustainable by the EU btw.), he even accelerated the shutdown and sold it as inevitable. In my opinion this was the worst political decision of German politics since WW2, unless he wanted to hurt German industry on purpose, which is not even unthinkable.
- slightwinder 1y ago
  > This supply abruptly stopped, but instead of using the remaining nuclear power plants to mitigate the supply shock There was nothing to mitigate. The nuclear plants deliver electricity, which was never a problem in Germany. > he even accelerated the shutdown and sold it as inevitable. That's a lie. They even prolonged the usage for some months to appease the fearmongers. But without fuel, there was a limit on how they could run anyway. > unless he wanted to hurt German industry on purpose, which is not even unthinkable. Ah, you're from the conspiracy-bubble...
  - mk89 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - slightwinder 1y ago
      > The fearmongers are the Greens who believe that nuclear reactors will generate 3 headed fish. Nobody believes that, WTF? > In the meantime, we increased energy production through coal Partly true, but not really. Coal is also used for other energy-forms than just electricity. Nuclear Plants cannot cover those areas. In the grand scale, it might have been better to first reduce coal-usage and transition to purely electric usage, while phasing out of nuclear slowly and use the save money for building up on renewables. But that was never an option with all the sabotages from the fossil anyway. Nuclear in Germany was never a real option, it always has been fossil vs electric, with nuclear being a minor source for electricity, weaponized by the fossil lobby against the renewables.
      - mk89 1y ago
        >Nobody believes that, WTF? Why do you think Germans voted against nuclear? It was because of fear of events like Chernobyl/Fukishima etc. Then 2022 was the final blow, with documents saying that nuclear reactors didn't produce much energy and needed maintenance anyways. Kind of like getting rid of working trains to ride bikes instead. Why not. It's healthier :) In the meantime, the world laughs at us. Literally the whole world. You keep on mentioning the lobby of fossils, which obviously had an impact. However, with Merkel the change was happening. At exactly the speed it was needed: 5% every couple of years, or so. Now the only lobby I see is the one of fear that there is no tomorrow. While the countries just next to us, without even bothering China all the time, don't give 2 cents about it. They keep on buying gas, uranium and fossils. We on the other hand can finally build 800W solar panels on the balconies without bureaucracy. Thank God. EDIT: with Merkel, we reached an increase of 5% per year for energy generated with renewables. Which is and was really good.
        bjourne 1y ago
        If you really think literally the whole world is laughing at Germany you are living in a fully isolated echo chamber.
        1y ago
- V__ 1y ago
  > the worst political decision of German politics since WW2 Except the shutdown had no negative effect. There was no supply shock and prices keep trending down since (Though that of course doesn't mean because of). Let's keep it real. I can probably name worse German political decisions from this week.
  - amomww 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - V__ 1y ago
      Wait, so Germany's shutdown of three nuclear plants resulted in the EU wide energy crises and EU wide poverty? Seems almost untrue...
  - JamisonM 1y ago
    "Except the shutdown had no negative effect." Three things here: * Didn't the diversion of natural gas to electricity generation end some German industrial production completely? * Are there not large electricity subsidies in place via subsidies for US imported LNG? * Isn't the alternate reality where there is a surplus of electricity in German due to nuclear power a better world where Germany has more opportunity? (the AI datacentre boom is built on excess electricity, isn't it?)
    - V__ 1y ago
      * I would have dig deeper on that, but regarding the timeframe when the shutdown occurred, there wasn't a big effect on gas prices. That happened before due to the war with Ukraine and the reliance on Russian gas in general. [1] The idea once was to use cheap gas from Russia and at the same time build out renewables. The latter didn't happen, resulting in the mess Germany is right now. * There were multiple tax reductions and I think some are in the talks now. Those were independent (and before) the nuclear shutdown. * Probably. Nuclear should have been shutdown after gas, coal etc. I am with you on that. But the ship had already sailed long ago, before the last three plants were shut down. [1] https://www.iwh-halle.de/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/wirtschaft_im_wandel/wiwa_2024-03_Atomausstieg.pdf https://www.iwh-halle.de/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/...
- benjiro 1y ago
  Those 3 plants had been running on "deferred maintenance" as the plant shutdown was planned years ago. Keeping the plants open will have resulted in a ton of money to maintain the safety of the plants going forwards. This was one of the biggest factors in the shutdown. Even if the plants stayed open, multiple reactors needed maintenance (and thus shutdown of those rectors). Remember, they kept the open even longer then the planned shutdown (what was already extended before). And the issue with the prices was not nuclear. By the time those plants shutdown, market prices already stabilized to pre-war levels. I remember this clearly as my renewal of my electricity contract came up, and ironically, my electrical price was even 2 cent/kwh lower then my 2021 contract. The biggest issue for the German industry was not nuclear energie, it was the gas. And not because of power generation but because gas is used in several chemical reactions, with basf moving their production to the US. And thus more costs because supply chain changes. The LNG that we import is more expensive then the ultra cheap Russian gas we got. And THAT is a issue for the German industry. And even more so with the US pushing to be the sole EU supplier for LNG (aka to replace Russia and use their leverage on the EU). Anyway, a lot of your opinion is based upon the wrong conclusion.
  - amomww 1y ago
    Meanwhile, Dutch coal and gas plants are running overtime for electricity exports. Obviously to compensate for the German and Belgian nuclear exits. (see https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/NL/5y/monthly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/NL/5y/monthly) On top of that, NL govt is investing 10B EUR to prepare the construction of several new nuclear power plants, less than 300km from one of the abandoned German ones (Emsland). In conclusion the nuclear exits of BE and DE are some of the most stupid and hypocritical decisions in EU energy policy. Both countries will continue to depend on nuclear energy (from FR and NL). The only difference is that it is now produced <200km outside of their borders, in neighbouring countries.
    - Asmod4n 1y ago
      Nuclear is the answer to no problem we face currently. It’s expensive, slow to build new plants (decades). It’s also not flexible in the way it’s useable. Solar + battery storage on the other hand is super fast and easy to build, costs virtually nothing and leaves no toxic waste which can’t be recycled. Nuclear fuel is also mostly only available from Russia, which no one wants as a trade partner.
- SJC_Hacker 1y ago
  Grid power and LNG use wasn't very fungible. e.g., if you have a gas furnace, electricity costs being low doesn't help you unless you replace the gas furnace with electric. In the short term, very expensive. Same goes for alot of industry, there also were industrial processes that BASF et al. were running that just required LNG as a reagant.
blueblueue 1y ago
Well most of them were, but not all. Notably the last three nuclear power plants in Germany were shutdown on 15. April 2023, while the last coalition was in power. At that time there was a big discussion whether the shutdown could be postponed due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a measure to curb rising electricity costs in Germany, but ultimately it was decided to go through with the shutdown. It was a largely symbolic move, but carried a lot of emotional weight since it put last nail in the coffin for nuclear energy in Germany. Hence people now blaming the Ampel government (and Habeck in particular) even though it wasn’t their decision to shut down power plants in the first place (with people of the party who made the decision openly criticizing them as well). Just to add a bit of context as German…

hovering_nox 1y ago

Most Germans would view that as a positive thing. Pushing for nuclear power at this point would be utterly stupid.

raffael_de 1y ago

[flagged]

lavela 1y ago
Mind sharing that documentation or spelling out what you mean by that or are you not going to consider different views on that anyways?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- raffael_de 1y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry5-cWq1Lr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry5-cWq1Lr4 https://youtu.be/-XItDbFSYBE https://youtu.be/-XItDbFSYBE But to be fair ... it's a general problem with Die Grünen. https://youtu.be/DbzRY9VF2zE?t=724 https://youtu.be/DbzRY9VF2zE?t=724 Reality is just a nuisance.

DasIch 1y ago

The current state wrt to nuclear in Germany reflects a decades long consensus in Germany that spans the majority of the population, scientists, intellectuals, politicians and even energy companies. Any opposition you do hear on this from within Germany is usually opportunistic. People are against the Greens so they just take the opposite position on their policy. A good example of this is Markus Söder (CSU) who flip flopped on this multiple times. Realistically speaking there is no serious politician or party with a pro-nuclear position in Germany that has a plausible plan for leveraging nuclear power at meaningful scale in an economical way. Any such plan would realistically invite massive opposition because nobody wants nuclear facilities in their vicinity.

rasz 1y ago
russians paid good money for this consensus! Best Chancellor money could buy. It was so successful Germany became a proxy paying French NGOs to torpedo French Nuclear program! Anti-nuclear lobbying by German foundations in France and Poland https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002175_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-00217... Edit: Actually should be plural - Chancellors. Merkel, big cog in NordStreams, went on some podcast last week to blame Poland for the war in Ukraine. See if only Poles didnt object so much she would placate putin with even more money.
- DasIch 1y ago
  The anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 70s. The last nuclear power plant was built decades ago. In my opinion the decision to not invest into nuclear and scale it up further made the end of nuclear power inevitable. Recent governments merely organized a shutdown that was effectively decided in the last century at the end of the cold war. The importance of Merkel, Fukushima etc. in these discussions are completely overrated imo. As an aside Germany got fuel for nuclear reactors from Russia.

jansan 1y ago

It is very negative amongst large parts of the population, but he also has a very vocal fanbase.

slightwinder 1y ago

Nuclear has no relevance in Germany, never really had. The plants barely added any value to the market. When Habeck became Minister, most Nuclear plants were already gone, and the last remaining were phasing out, lacking nuclear fuel and permits. Habeck even gave a permit for the last plants to run some more months, squeezing out even the last parts of fuel as much as they could, just so they could serve as an additional supply in a problematic winter, which turned out to be unnecessary in the end.

Scea91 1y ago
Right at this moment Germany's electricity mix has 364gCO2eq/kWh carbon intensity, France is at 21. That is because 37% of Germany's production comes from gas and coal. Even from an environmental standpoint, France is doing much better than Germany and that is thanks to nuclear. Also, by closing operating power plants, Germany weakened European energy production at the time when we geopolitically need it the most. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_minutes https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...
- Pfeil 1y ago
  Still not Habecks legacy. This was decided under Merkel. Besides, CO2eq are often wrongly measured with nuclear energy, ignoring building emissions and effect on the water temperature in rivers (every summer more and more plants need to shut down because of this), etc. Even if this would be done right, there are again and again longer periods where Germany exports energy to France because their reactors are often in maintenance. In the end I would say it is always a bad idea to rely on only one technology to a large degree. Only a well done mix makes you resiliant.
  - Scea91 1y ago
    > Only a well done mix makes you resiliant. I agree on this point, me not being anti-Nuclear doesn't mean I am anti-wind or solar. Every country has different circumstances, I live in a landlocked country with mild mountains, temperate climate and modest rivers. In our case nuclear energy seems like the most reliable and scalable option. For countries with huge coastline off-shore wind absolutely makes sense, simialrly with solar. > Besides, CO2eq are often wrongly measured with nuclear energy, ignoring building emissions. I think this point is overestimated. Based on a brief search, studies show nuclear carbon intensity around 6-12g, and the building emissions just around 13% of total lifetime emissions [1]. > there are again and again longer periods where Germany exports energy to France because their reactors are often in maintenance. Valid point but the 2022 French nuclear "disaster" hasn't repeated at that scale so far. In recent years France is a net exporter to Germany. I can imagine that as with many problems in renewables having technical solutions the water temperature problem is also solvable technically. [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1147016/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/article...

Archelaos 1y ago

Nuclear technology is a dead end. Renewables and saving energy is the future. Nuclear and fossil are in the same boat. They are both more risky and have huge hidden costs that the general public and future generations will have to bear. The only good reason to go nuclear these days is if you want the bomb, like Iran. Interestingly, it is the same people who supported fossil in the past who are still promoting nuclear today. Those who have always warned against fossil fuels are usually the ones who recommend a complete switch to renewable energies. That should give one pause for thought.

FredPret 1y ago
Renewables have huge hidden costs as well. Solar panels and windmills are low density sources - we need a LOT of them to get the job done, and even then you still need base load somehow. That means a huge amount of extra powerlines and future landfill of defunct panels. Not to mention the very sturdy windmill foundations scattered around the landscape. Say what you will about nuclear, but all of its negatives are concentrated in a small mass and volume. The optimal, nom-ideological solution is probably a mix of nuclear, gas, and solar panels.
- adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
  solar panels actually decrease load on power lines. every house with solar panels on it reduces the amount of power the grid needs to bring to that house
  - eldaisfish 1y ago
    this is false. Power line capacity is designed around the maximum power that must be delivered. Solar power by itself reduces the mean, and possibly the minimum as well, but never the maximum.
    - Scoundreller 1y ago
      Are we expecting peak a/c loads on cloudy days or something?

avhception 1y ago

I guess that depends on who you ask. There definitely is a lot of opposition to the Green Party, but that's hardly directed at Robert Habeck specifically.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

p2detar 1y ago

Well, I like the guy but compare the electricity prices in Germany to other European states, and also to China and the US. It’s about $0.15 kWh in the US vs $0.40 kWh in Germany. I personally think this is absolutely insane, but I don’t blame Habeck but the poor renewables transition execution in Germany. It is currently a failure in terms of electricity consumer prices. Edit: I just rechecked China and wow! $0.08 per kWh. Can anyone confirm? https://www.china-briefing.com/news/chinas-industrial-power-rates-category-electricity-usage-region-classification https://www.china-briefing.com/news/chinas-industrial-power-...

MarvinYork 1y ago
Interesting watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWR_7K6UIkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWR_7K6UIkE
wongarsu 1y ago
Even if power plants magically worked for free and all schemes for cross-financing renewables were cancelled, German electricity prices would still be $0.19/kWh (€0.16), using the numbers from [1]. The German electricity network is great and very reliable, but also very expensive 1: https://strom-report.com/strompreis-zusammensetzung/ https://strom-report.com/strompreis-zusammensetzung/
infinet 1y ago
> Edit: I just rechecked China and wow! $0.08 per kWh. Can anyone confirm? Yes, it is in the ballpark of $0.08/kWh. It varies a little bit across regions. Also in some places the price is only half during the night. But as you consume more power, you may see the price rise to $0.12/kWh. In 2024, cost of renewable + storage was 0.52-0.88 CNY/kWh($0.08-$0.12). Advancement in storage is expected to drive that cost down by more than 50%.
Asmod4n 1y ago
I got a “expensive” renewable only energy plan and it’s 31,4 cents per kilowatt hour in Germany. Conventional ones should be cheaper. So no idea where you got 40 cents from.
1y ago

blablabla123 1y ago

I would say the main political crisis of the moment isn't one about being right but about consistent plans. The plan for a Green economy is pretty clear since more than a decade and revolves around Smart Grids. Without these no decentralized energy, no storage etc. Indeed that's something that was done right and proofs actual long-term plans are worth it. The irony is, at this point even many environmentalists don't oppose Nuclear anymore. But there's still the lack of a coherent plan. Where should the fuel come from? How is EOL of a power plant handled? How is it paid? The answers changed a lot in the last decades. Apart from this the last 5 years were a PR disaster for the Greens. Protesters (Last Generation) have been connected to them although the LG is even protesting against the Greens. When there were these massive floods the Greens actually lost votes instead of gaining those.

ajross 1y ago

It's just absolutely mind-boggling how the "But Nuclear!" refrain persists as a mind worm in this community. Every story on renewables, every single one, has a giant sub thread up near the top of the discussion screaming, again, about the clearly-must-be-important-because-everyone-says-so hypocrisy behind opposition to nuclear power. It really just doesn't seem in good faith. It's been going on for a decade at least. Every win, every positive story, every bit of evidence that just maybe this part of the climate puzzle is actually being solved[1] gets met not with celebration, but with indignant tut-tutting that it was done with boring stuff and not Nerd Friendly power. When does it stop? [1] Doesn't take too much Googling to find coverage claiming that ~90% of new electricity generation capacity globally is renewable. This problem is solved folks. It's time to start looking at the higher hanging fruit.