4 ms·
> The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. Schröder was talking about it in 2000: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15
by throw0101d 2mo ago
> The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011.
Schröder was talking about it in 2000:
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_poli...
Oh, and he was appointed to Gazprom (and other Russian energy companies) after leaving politics:
* https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at...
(He did encourage renewables as well.)
> No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear.
The German government(s) helped kickstart the global solar price drop by their subsidy programs in the early 2000s that allowed for economies of scale, so I'm surprised that—if they're really worried about climate change—they would not subsidize the alleged expenses of running the low-carbon generation of nuclear.
> Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first.
It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found).
See perhaps:
> […] Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power.
* https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2...
- RandomLensman 2mo agoPolitically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.
- throw0101d 2mo ago> Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either. The only people causing conflict is Russia, and Germany had to be dragged kicking and screaming in shutting down Russian supply pipelines, so don't go talking about "security" when the actions from Berlin showed there was zero consideration for it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream When the architect of the retirement ends up on the board of Gazprom: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at-russias-gazprom/a-1949349 https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at...
- RandomLensman 2mo agoAn adversary could not strike a nuclear powerplant? I said in retrospect in my view, didn't I, not that it was a consideration then (or now). Gazprom suspended supply via NS1 indefinitely before it was destroyed.
- anon48293 2mo agoActually no, or unlikely, since it’s a massive escalation. Even in Ukraine Russia does not strike the nuclear plants. They strike all the other power plants though. So it’d actually be the safer option.
- frm88 2mo agoThe chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday expressed "serious concern" after Moscow accused Ukrainian forces of launching a drone attack on the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southern Ukraine May 31st,2026 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclear-plant-warning-after-russia/story?id=133461599 https://abcnews.com/International/iaea-issues-ukraine-nuclea...
- Krasnol 2mo ago> It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found). Maybe you should take a closer look how those prices come to be. Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades. Last time they wanted to play the free market game, they had to bring the company back into the forgiving hands of the French taxpayer. I have rather Germany invest into future tech then waste it on rotting reactors which are obviously unfit for the current state of global warming already. Nuclear was clogging up the grid with it's expensive energy. It is gone now and the grid is diversifying while it follows the path of complete decarbonisation. There is absolutely no reason to look back for Germany and only those whose ideology is "looking back" seriously do that currently.
- cyberax 2mo ago> Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades. So is everything else.
- realusername 2mo ago> Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades. You won't find any grid which isn't subsidized, remember Germany already spent ~2x the French grid and that didn't spend by itself.
- Krasnol 2mo agoGermany isn't setting a fixed end consumer price and hides all that happens behind the tax-cushioned curtains.
- realusername 2mo agoThey absolutely do, they are debating to remove it or not at the moment. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/government-agrees-phase-out-germanys-landmark-fixed-feed-tariffs-new-small-solar-pv https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/government-agrees-phase...