German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

[dyqik]

I wasn't there, but your account is inconsistent with how Wikipedia and this article tell it:

When the CDU/CSU won the elections in 2009 and formed a coalition with the Free Democrats (FDP), they extended the operating time by eight years for seven nuclear plants and 14 years for the remaining ten. This became known as the “phase-out of the (nuclear) phase-out” (Ausstieg aus dem Ausstieg). Some 40,000 people went to the streets in Berlin, to protest against this decision in autumn 2010.
Fukushima and the last exit decision

In the wake of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, Japan, on 11 March 2011, the same Merkel government decided on 14/15 March to suspend the 2010 lifetime-extension for a three-month period, and then to mothball Germany's seven oldest reactors for the same period (known as the nuclear moratorium). The accident in Fukushima and the reaction by Germany's federal government coincided with the hot phase of campaigning for the important election in the rich and influential state of Baden-Württemberg on 27 March 2011, where after 58 years in power the conservative CDU was under threat by the Green Party (the Green Party won and provided the state premier for the first time in Germany).

So Merkel may have changed her mind anyway, but policy before Fukushima was to keep them running for longer, and the tsunami was directly responsible for her handbrake turn.

And if "Fear of tsunamis or a Fukushima-like event had nothing to do with any decisions", why did "Fukushima [make] it even more politically difficult"?

Yes, WFJ, you have directly proven yourself wrong with your arguments.

[Sciolus]

Although to be fair, fear of a major accident is the least irrational argument for closing an existing nuclear power station.

Anyway, although I mostly agree with EAC on this thread,

And consider what prompted this discussion - Germany's shameful pattern of increasing reliance on Russia, and failure to take Ukraine's calls for help as seriously as they should.

I think "shameful" is a bit strong. Engaging with unpleasant countries through trade relationships to make them less unpleasant is a great idea, if you can make it work. It's very clear it didn't work with Putin, and it was (I'm sure you'll say) clear before this year. But I'm not unhappy that Germany made the effort. Sadly, the McDonalds theory of international relationships is stone dead.

[Woodchopper]

Sadly, the McDonalds theory of international relationships is stone dead.

Yes, it was often assumed in the 90s and early 2000s that increasing trade and liberalisation of economies would lead to democracy and peace. That obviously hasn’t happened in many places (China, Russia etc).

But back in the 90s it wasn’t unreasonable to assume that trade and interdependence would help the Russian transformation to being a democracy.

Where I take issue with German energy policy was in building the infrastructure to increase imports of Russian gas supplies after 2014. Nordstream 2 should have been cancelled and alternatives found back then.

[jimbob]

The lack of leaks and related activity that have been covered up, for a start, with a lot more people looking for that since Windscale, and Chernobyl, including with Geiger counters, etc.. The easy availability of remote monitoring makes cover-ups almost impossible now.

And the lack of unexplained clusters of cancers and other radiation linked disease. Tools for epidemiology and public records of disease by locality have become much much more powerful since the arrival of electronic records, such that you could not cover up serious leaks like you once could.

Not so much about cover ups, but I know someone who does research on the risk analysis of nuclear power. His latest paper is here. I've committed the cardinal sin of posting a paper without reading the whole of it (so feel free to correct my mistakes) but the gist of it and other stuff he writes is "nuclear risk calculations are problematic and sometimes a crock of sh*t".

What's the risk that one of the German ones would catastrophically explode because of being hit by a tsunami?

A Ukrainian was apparently criticising the Germans, saying that Merkel got rid of nuclear power to avoid another Fukushima, but instead raised the risk of another Hiroshima

[Herainestold]

It just shows that countries should be energy independent. Green energy will make that possible.

[Gfamily]

It just shows that countries should be energy independent. Green energy will make that possible.

With respect, that's a very naive response. Exactly how do you think a country like Luxembourg can become 'energy independent' exclusively through green energy? I assume from your general attitude that you reckon that nuclear is 'too scary' to be considered safe.

[Herainestold]

It just shows that countries should be energy independent. Green energy will make that possible.

With respect, that's a very naive response. Exactly how do you think a country like Luxembourg can become 'energy independent' exclusively through green energy? I assume from your general attitude that you reckon that nuclear is 'too scary' to be considered safe.

It is impressive how very much Germany has increased renewable energy on that graph.They just need to keep ramping it up at that rate and nobody will think of nuclear. Unfortunately the timing with respect to Ukraine is bad, but better to invest in more renewables than nukes.

Luxembourg needs more geothermal and solar to reduce its proportion of fossil fueled energy.

[WFJ]

I wasn't there, but your account is inconsistent with how Wikipedia and this article tell it:

When the CDU/CSU won the elections in 2009 and formed a coalition with the Free Democrats (FDP), they extended the operating time by eight years for seven nuclear plants and 14 years for the remaining ten. This became known as the “phase-out of the (nuclear) phase-out” (Ausstieg aus dem Ausstieg). Some 40,000 people went to the streets in Berlin, to protest against this decision in autumn 2010.
Fukushima and the last exit decision

In the wake of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, Japan, on 11 March 2011, the same Merkel government decided on 14/15 March to suspend the 2010 lifetime-extension for a three-month period, and then to mothball Germany's seven oldest reactors for the same period (known as the nuclear moratorium). The accident in Fukushima and the reaction by Germany's federal government coincided with the hot phase of campaigning for the important election in the rich and influential state of Baden-Württemberg on 27 March 2011, where after 58 years in power the conservative CDU was under threat by the Green Party (the Green Party won and provided the state premier for the first time in Germany).

So Merkel may have changed her mind anyway, but policy before Fukushima was to keep them running for longer, and the tsunami was directly responsible for her handbrake turn.

And if "Fear of tsunamis or a Fukushima-like event had nothing to do with any decisions", why did "Fukushima [make] it even more politically difficult"?

OK sorry, I misremembered. I should have checked properly before writing so confidently.

[Bird on a Fire]

Although to be fair, fear of a major accident is the least irrational argument for closing an existing nuclear power station.

Anyway, although I mostly agree with EAC on this thread,

And consider what prompted this discussion - Germany's shameful pattern of increasing reliance on Russia, and failure to take Ukraine's calls for help as seriously as they should.

I think "shameful" is a bit strong. Engaging with unpleasant countries through trade relationships to make them less unpleasant is a great idea, if you can make it work. It's very clear it didn't work with Putin, and it was (I'm sure you'll say) clear before this year. But I'm not unhappy that Germany made the effort. Sadly, the McDonalds theory of international relationships is stone dead.

Plus, you know, if Saudi Arabia had invaded a European country it'd be the UK looking like a..eholes right now.

Pretty much all fossil-fuel producing states are horrible. Is Russia clearly the worst, in terms of repression and deaths (let's make the simplifying assumption that Muslims count as people too)?

Germany's got egg on their face because they chose a particular strategic partner who's now beyond the pale. Could've happened to anybody. Most developed countries need to be decarbonising faster than they currently are just to meet previous commitments in international law, which as we all know is super-duper important.

[EACLucifer]

Although to be fair, fear of a major accident is the least irrational argument for closing an existing nuclear power station.

Anyway, although I mostly agree with EAC on this thread,

And consider what prompted this discussion - Germany's shameful pattern of increasing reliance on Russia, and failure to take Ukraine's calls for help as seriously as they should.

I think "shameful" is a bit strong. Engaging with unpleasant countries through trade relationships to make them less unpleasant is a great idea, if you can make it work. It's very clear it didn't work with Putin, and it was (I'm sure you'll say) clear before this year. But I'm not unhappy that Germany made the effort. Sadly, the McDonalds theory of international relationships is stone dead.

Plus, you know, if Saudi Arabia had invaded a European country it'd be the UK looking like a..eholes right now.

Pretty much all fossil-fuel producing states are horrible. Is Russia clearly the worst, in terms of repression and deaths (let's make the simplifying assumption that Muslims count as people too)?

When it comes to killing Muslims, Russia's still one of the worst for their support of Assad and bombing of Syrian civilians, including deliberately targetting food and water infrastructure. Of course conflicts can have multiple petrotyrannies can be responsible - in Syria, it's Russia and Iran working together, in Yemen it's Iran supporting the Houthis and Saudi bombing quite a lot of things in addition to the Houthis.

[Bird on a Fire]

Indeed. I don't think other Western states deserve much implicit support for cozying up to Iran or Saudi Arabia either.

Western energy policy has always been about benefiting domestic vested interests. Poor people far away dying, from wars or climate change, have never been part of the equation.

And so far I don't really see that that's changed much. Western governments are happy to provide big words, limited economic sanctions and killy bang-bang stuff, but won't do anything that might inconvenience their own donors and citizens even a little. I'd really like to see that change. But I think it's important to realise that the problem is much bigger than Germany.

[Bird on a Fire]

Lots of EU countries are still importing Russian crude oil, for instance https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-03-21/

A bloc-wide deal isn't going to happen because of Orbán, which means the other 26 countries need to find another mechanism.

But shout out to these guys for switching support to other mass-murdering tyrants I guess:

Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States have imposed outright bans on Russian oil purchases following Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, but the European Union remains divided.

The bloc's 27 members have been unable to agree on an embargo, with Germany warning against hasty steps that could push the economy into recession, and some countries, such as Hungary, opposing any bans. read more

Germany, however, aims to phase out Russian oil imports by the end of this year, officials said, as does Poland. read more

[EACLucifer]

As for why Germany gets more attention than some - aside from being a significant arms exporter who continued to expand commercial ties with Russia post-2014 and who were lobbying against heavier sanctions right up until the shooting (outside Crimea/Donbas, that is) started - is things like this.

Das ist bedauerlich und wird den engen + gewachsenen Beziehungen zwischen unseren Ländern nicht gerecht. Gleichwohl werden wir darauf achten, dass dieser Vorgang unsere Zusammenarbeit nicht gefährden wird Bei allem Verständnis für die existentielle Bedrohung der durch den russischen Einmarsch erwarte ich, dass sich ukrainische Repräsentanten an ein Mindestmaß diplomatischer Gepflogenheiten halten und sich nicht ungebührlich in die Innenpolitik unseres Landes einmischen

Steinmeier was one of those that pushed dependance on Russia - Zelenskyy is under no obligation to host him. I'm sure the SPD want to tell the German that they are doing everything they can to help, but they aren't, and Zelenskyy does not have to help them create that impression by doing a photo-op with a ceremonial president.

[Sciolus]

OK sorry, I misremembered. I should have checked properly before writing so confidently.

It's very important to have the facts on your side when making a cheap jibe. (Me and shpalman making the cheap jibe, not you.)

[Woodchopper]

But Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2014, and then his annexation of Crimea the following month, raised questions about the viability of Nord Stream 2, as the West put the first sanctions against Russia into place.

As opposition to Nord Stream 2 intensified, so did Mr. Schröder’s lobbying.

His main allies on Nord Stream 2 in the Merkel government, said Christoph Heusgen, Ms. Merkel’s chief foreign policy adviser until 2017, were the economics minister and vice chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, and the foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, both Social Democrats like the former chancellor and both from his home state, Lower Saxony.

Mr. Steinmeier, now Germany’s federal president, had worked for Mr. Schröder when he was governor of Lower Saxony in the 1990s and later moved with him to the chancellery. Mr. Gabriel was Mr. Schröder’s successor as governor in Lower Saxony.

The revolving door of contacts worried some lawmakers enough to ask the government to disclose a list of meetings between politicians and representatives of Nord Stream 2.

According to the resulting report, from January 2015 to October 2017, there were 62 such meetings, including 20 with Mr. Gabriel and 10 with Mr. Steinmeier or his ambassadors in Brussels and Moscow.

Matthias Warnig, the chief executive of Nord Stream 2, who took part in 19 of the meetings in the report, has acknowledged having been a former spy of the Stasi, the former secret police of Communist East Germany. Stasi records show that, in February 1988, both he and Mr. Putin, when he was stationed in Dresden as a K.G.B. officer, were awarded medals for their service. But Mr. Warnig has denied reports that he had recruited spies for Mr. Putin in their old days.

In February 2015, Mr. Schröder took Mr. Warnig to see Mr. Gabriel to discuss cooperation with Russia, according to the list of meetings provided in the report. He also accompanied Nord Stream 2 executives to see Mr. Steinmeier’s ambassadors to Moscow and Brussels at the time.

Mr. Steinmeier declined to be interviewed for this article. Mr. Gabriel texted to say he only met “representatives of Russia and Gazprom between 2014 and 2016” to “avert a looming supply stop of Russia to Ukraine.”

He added: “Should you put my visits and meetings in Russia in a different context, I want to inform you now that I will initiate legal steps.”

One big event included a 70th birthday party for Mr. Schröder hosted by Nord Stream at the majestic Yusupov Palace in St. Petersburg, Russia. Mr. Putin attended, as did Gazprom’s chief executive, Alexey B. Miller, and Mr. Warnig.

Nord Stream 2 was approved in June 2015, the same year that Gazprom was also allowed under the Merkel government to buy Germany’s biggest strategic gas-storage facility, where it has kept levels of gas conspicuously low for the past year in what may have been preparation for providing leverage for Mr. Putin in his war.

But Mr. Schröder said he was unbothered by the growing dependency, or by American and Eastern European warnings about Mr. Putin weaponizing energy supplies.

The Russians, he argued, had always been reliable when it came to delivering oil and gas.

“Why should we have been distrustful? It always worked,” Mr. Schröder said. “For us, dependency meant double dependency. The so-called energy weapon is ambiguous. They need oil and gas to pay for their budget. And we need oil and gas to heat and to keep the economy going.”

The reasoning explains why Mr. Schröder says he promoted the deal last year — even in the middle of Russia’s troop buildup — for the Russian oil company Rosneft to buy up the majority share of the critical oil refinery in Schwedt, in northeastern Germany.

Although the strategic refinery went to a Russian company, Mr. Schröder argued that the deal was ultimately in Germany’s interest.

“We made sure that Shell couldn’t sell to some unknown private equity,” he said. “They would have sold it off immediately.”

“If the oil doesn’t flow anymore, Schwedt is finished,” he said, ‘‘with all the consequences that this has for northeast Germany, including Berlin.”

[…]

With the criticism of him mounting this year, it has gotten lonely for Mr. Schröder at home. He recently took up playing the piano. Outside his house, a police car is keeping watch day and night. Many of his old Social Democratic party friends have disavowed him.

But if there is one place where Mr. Schröder still seems to be appreciated, it is Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/worl ... nergy.html

[nekomatic]

Germany could be fully independent of Russian oil within days

[Woodchopper]

German Polish deal to facilitate Germany joining the oil embargo against Russia: https://twitter.com/noclador/status/151 ... 3LPsjJovbQ

[EACLucifer]

Germany has decided to burn more coal so as to switch off the clean, safe nuclear due to their intensely f.cking stupid superstitions. This act of ecological vandalism was pushed through by a coalition containing a party claiming to be green.

People will die due to the air pollution in and out of Germany, and it's already being reported that emissions targets may have to be abandoned, so it's a f.cking given that this policy is worse for the environment.

[EACLucifer]

So now it's being reported that the actual staff at nuclear plants in Germany say all they need to keep running is permission to do so, contrary to Scholz's claims. Given his previous downrights lies about aid to Ukraine, I'm certainly not inclined to take Scholz at his word.

This one of the biggest acts of needless environmental vandalism in a long time. The deliberate decision to burn coal rather than retain existing nuclear plants will emit massive amounts of carbon, and lethal air pollution too. And it's partly being done by self-described "Greens".

[shpalman]

So now it's being reported that the actual staff at nuclear plants in Germany say all they need to keep running is permission to do so, contrary to Scholz's claims. Given his previous downrights lies about aid to Ukraine, I'm certainly not inclined to take Scholz at his word.

This one of the biggest acts of needless environmental vandalism in a long time. The deliberate decision to burn coal rather than retain existing nuclear plants will emit massive amounts of carbon, and lethal air pollution too. And it's partly being done by self-described "Greens".

The European Commission has classed nuclear power* as "green" despite
Germany wanting to vote against that.

I have a friend who works with the neutrons from the research reactor near Munich, or at least she would if the reactor were running, and maybe the local morons will lead to it getting shut down for good.

* - and gas, which I suppose is about as green as a fossil fuel can get.

[Martin Y]

I had thought it was in this thread, but I guess it was elsewhere I read that Germany has a legacy issue similar to "district heating" in some council block developments in the UK, with combined heat and power, originally coal fired, providing domestic heating as well as electricity generation. That was efficient in its day but is a real don't-start-from-here now. Since I can't even remember where I read it, I don't know the scale of that problem.

[Woodchopper]

So now it's being reported that the actual staff at nuclear plants in Germany say all they need to keep running is permission to do so, contrary to Scholz's claims. Given his previous downrights lies about aid to Ukraine, I'm certainly not inclined to take Scholz at his word.

This one of the biggest acts of needless environmental vandalism in a long time. The deliberate decision to burn coal rather than retain existing nuclear plants will emit massive amounts of carbon, and lethal air pollution too. And it's partly being done by self-described "Greens".

Thread here with sources: https://twitter.com/simonwakter/status/ ... ZnLMF8fQFw

Looks very bad. I had perhaps naïvely assumed that they wouldn’t have blatantly lied.

[Bird on a Fire]

Yes, very disappointing. And something of a short-term own goal carbon-wise.

The EU taxonomy is pretty silly, though.

[Bird on a Fire]

Environmental NGOs plan to challenge the taxonomy's inclusion of gas as a "green" investment, because once again they're the only grownups in the room.

Projects designated as green under the taxonomy could be eligible for a wider variety of public and private loans and grants, depending on the investor’s environmental criteria. The Taxonomy Regulation entered into force in 2020, but lawmakers have been working to refine it since then.

The proposal to include both nuclear power and natural gas in the taxonomy was designed to maximize political support. Because the two energy sources were paired in a single piece of legislation, nuclear supporters like France — which gets roughly 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors — teamed up with natural gas proponents to garner the votes necessary to pass the legislation. Those who backed nuclear claimed it was a reliable form of low-carbon energy. Lawmakers who supported the inclusion of natural gas justified it as a “transition” fuel, since it’s less carbon-intensive than some fossil fuel alternatives like coal. They also said that, in light of Russia’s unprovoked war in Ukraine, including natural gas could provide greater flexibility for EU countries seeking to wean themselves off of Russian fossil fuels.

But Godinot and other environmental advocates rejected that argument as “greenwashing.” “This EU taxonomy is only going to incentivize more gas demand in Europe,” Godinot said, and will do little to diversify the continent’s energy supply. On the contrary, he added, opening the door to billions of euros in EU loans for more gas plants will only keep the bloc hooked on fossil fuels, exacerbate global warming, and undermine the EU’s credibility on climate change. Even before Parliament voted on the taxonomy proposal, which was meant to facilitate the work of investors and financial institutions, investors who manage tens of trillions of dollars were already denouncing it.

https://grist.org/politics/europe-natur ... -lawsuits/

[Bird on a Fire]

Temporary stay of execution for German nukes https://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-to ... 4z0xgaubk3

So far just till the end of the year, but I note that one coalition partner is in favour of keeping them going till 2024, and public opinion has now swung to strongly in favour.

And surely they're not daft enough to turn them off during the inevitable winter gas shortage?