German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by bjn » Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:24 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:44 pm
WFJ wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:21 pm
In general power generation is not seen as an issue when it comes to getting off Russian gas. It is heating in the winter and industry that are the problems, so nuclear is a red herring.
Germany. Still. Uses. A. Quarter. Of. It's. Gas. For. Power. Generation. And. Is. Planning. To. Shut. Down. Reactors. That. Currently. Generate. Power. And. Thus. Create. Further. Demand. For. Power.
Reading Woodchopper's link (the clearest I've seen on the subject so far), it doesn't look feasible to keep them open, as there is no fuel, no spare parts and no staff to do so.
Via google translate wrote:Our conclusion is therefore: We do not need nuclear power plants because they cannot replace the function of gas production. The extension of running times is technically impossible in the short term, a medium-term extension of electricity production takes about one and a half to two years lead time. This medium-term extension would be extremely expensive and associated with high security risks and high administrative costs, and there will probably be no one willing to take on the liability risks.
So the question is, not what you wish they'd done, but given where they are, what is the best thing to do.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:27 pm

WFJ wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:14 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:44 pm
WFJ wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:21 pm
In general power generation is not seen as an issue when it comes to getting off Russian gas. It is heating in the winter and industry that are the problems, so nuclear is a red herring.
Germany. Still. Uses. A. Quarter. Of. It's. Gas. For. Power. Generation. And. Is. Planning. To. Shut. Down. Reactors. That. Currently. Generate. Power. And. Thus. Create. Further. Demand. For. Power.
Today. But. This. Is. Not. The. Hard. Part. To. Reduce. So. Shutting. Down. Reactors. Will. Make. Little. Difference. To. Gas. Requirements. It. Will. Be. The. First. Thing. That. Is. Minimised.
How, exactly, is it going to be minimised? You keep saying it will, but how?

How will it be done in time to cover the needless shutdown of functional reactors?

How will it be done quicker than restoring reactors already needlessly shut down - ie by 2022?

And why would it be preferrable to use that approach as opposed to nuclear?

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:31 pm

bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:24 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:44 pm
WFJ wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:21 pm
In general power generation is not seen as an issue when it comes to getting off Russian gas. It is heating in the winter and industry that are the problems, so nuclear is a red herring.
Germany. Still. Uses. A. Quarter. Of. It's. Gas. For. Power. Generation. And. Is. Planning. To. Shut. Down. Reactors. That. Currently. Generate. Power. And. Thus. Create. Further. Demand. For. Power.
Reading Woodchopper's link (the clearest I've seen on the subject so far), it doesn't look feasible to keep them open, as there is no fuel, no spare parts and no staff to do so.
Staff can be rehired and new staff can be trained. Fuel can be imported. This is citing inconvenience as if it is impassible obstacle.
Via google translate wrote:Our conclusion is therefore: We do not need nuclear power plants because they cannot replace the function of gas production. The extension of running times is technically impossible in the short term, a medium-term extension of electricity production takes about one and a half to two years lead time. This medium-term extension would be extremely expensive and associated with high security risks and high administrative costs, and there will probably be no one willing to take on the liability risks.
So the question is, not what you wish they'd done, but given where they are, what is the best thing to do.
If Germany is too attached to its idiotic policy to consider making the effort to change course, then at the very least they can contribute to the defence of Ukraine at least as much as they contribute the fascist invasion of Ukraine - euro for euro, they should match what they send to Russia with defence aid to Ukraine, supplying Ukraine with what they want and need, without ringfencing to protect the German arms industry.

So far, they have offered Ukraine ringfenced aid equivalent to what they pay Russia in a week or two.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by WFJ » Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:40 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:27 pm
WFJ wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:14 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:44 pm


Germany. Still. Uses. A. Quarter. Of. It's. Gas. For. Power. Generation. And. Is. Planning. To. Shut. Down. Reactors. That. Currently. Generate. Power. And. Thus. Create. Further. Demand. For. Power.
Today. But. This. Is. Not. The. Hard. Part. To. Reduce. So. Shutting. Down. Reactors. Will. Make. Little. Difference. To. Gas. Requirements. It. Will. Be. The. First. Thing. That. Is. Minimised.
How, exactly, is it going to be minimised? You keep saying it will, but how?

How will it be done in time to cover the needless shutdown of functional reactors?

How will it be done quicker than restoring reactors already needlessly shut down - ie by 2022?

And why would it be preferrable to use that approach as opposed to nuclear?
Prior to the invasion, there were plenty of news stories about Germany's lack of new gas generators that would be required after the nuclear phase-out. The concern being over Germany having to increase the use of coal-fired plants, with an obvious environmental burden. This is where most of the spare capacity will come from in the short-term, with further renewable investment hopefully reducing this in the longer term. I would not say this is preferable to nuclear, as I have said a few times already in this thread, but that is a completely different argument to the "evil Germans funding Putin's invasion" invective you keep frothing about.

If the plants could stay open, Russian gas-use could probably be reduced a little faster from shutdowns through to the early part of next year, but this would be a very small fraction of total demand for huge cost and effort, which could be better utilised elsewhere.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by Woodchopper » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:02 pm

As discussed earlier I think. As well as investing in renewals, Germany has signed contracts to build LNG terminals, and has a deal with Qatar to buy the LNG.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 ... qatar-deal

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-earmarks- ... a-61480593

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... -terminal/

It will take time to build the infrastructure though.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:09 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:02 pm
As discussed earlier I think. As well as investing in renewals, Germany has signed contracts to build LNG terminals, and has a deal with Qatar to buy the LNG.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 ... qatar-deal

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-earmarks- ... a-61480593

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... -terminal/

It will take time to build the infrastructure though.
So rather than investing a bit of effort and money and confronting the prejudices of paranoid Greens, we get more gas - and getting it from Iran or Saudi Arabia isn't exactly ethical either - and more coal, the burning of which already kills people in and outside Germany, and both have significant carbon emissions.

And before you say it's not ideological, Germany has objected to Belgium's decision to continue using nuclear. Germany kills more Belgians with coal-power's air pollution than Belgian nuclear has ever done to anyone anywhere.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by WFJ » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:30 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:09 pm

So rather than investing a bit of effort and money and confronting the prejudices of paranoid Greens, we get more gas - and getting it from Iran or Saudi Arabia isn't exactly ethical either - and more coal, the burning of which already kills people in and outside Germany, and both have significant carbon emissions.

And before you say it's not ideological, Germany has objected to Belgium's decision to continue using nuclear. Germany kills more Belgians with coal-power's air pollution than Belgian nuclear has ever done to anyone anywhere.
Many Germans have an ideological aversion to nuclear power. However the current arguments over whether to extend the current reactors have nothing to do with ideology.

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by bjn » Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:20 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:31 pm
bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:24 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:44 pm


Germany. Still. Uses. A. Quarter. Of. It's. Gas. For. Power. Generation. And. Is. Planning. To. Shut. Down. Reactors. That. Currently. Generate. Power. And. Thus. Create. Further. Demand. For. Power.
Reading Woodchopper's link (the clearest I've seen on the subject so far), it doesn't look feasible to keep them open, as there is no fuel, no spare parts and no staff to do so.
Staff can be rehired and new staff can be trained. Fuel can be imported. This is citing inconvenience as if it is impassible obstacle.
You are making the unevidenced assumption that 18-24 months + however many billions it will cost to get the things running again is the best use of resources to reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions as opposed to anything else you could do with that time and money.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:13 pm

bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:20 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:31 pm
bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:24 pm


Reading Woodchopper's link (the clearest I've seen on the subject so far), it doesn't look feasible to keep them open, as there is no fuel, no spare parts and no staff to do so.
Staff can be rehired and new staff can be trained. Fuel can be imported. This is citing inconvenience as if it is impassible obstacle.
You are making the unevidenced assumption that 18-24 months + however many billions it will cost to get the things running again is the best use of resources to reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions as opposed to anything else you could do with that time and money.
Cool, what major renewable projects can be delivered in less than eighteen months that delivery power as reliably as nuclear?

In fact, what renewable projects - aside from macro-hydro - can be delivered using actual existing technology that can deliver power at scale as reliably as nuclear?

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by bjn » Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:46 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:13 pm
bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:20 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:31 pm


Staff can be rehired and new staff can be trained. Fuel can be imported. This is citing inconvenience as if it is impassible obstacle.
You are making the unevidenced assumption that 18-24 months + however many billions it will cost to get the things running again is the best use of resources to reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions as opposed to anything else you could do with that time and money.
Cool, what major renewable projects can be delivered in less than eighteen months that delivery power as reliably as nuclear?
You're making the assertion that this is the best use of resources, not me.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 17, 2022 9:04 pm

bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:46 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:13 pm
bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:20 pm


You are making the unevidenced assumption that 18-24 months + however many billions it will cost to get the things running again is the best use of resources to reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions as opposed to anything else you could do with that time and money.
Cool, what major renewable projects can be delivered in less than eighteen months that delivery power as reliably as nuclear?
You're making the assertion that this is the best use of resources, not me.
The reactors are either literally running and Germany intends to switch them off, or fundamentally intact. That eliminates much of the cost of nuclear, which is ery heavily front-loaded onto its first cost - one reason why in a capitalist society and with paranoid idiot greens (some apparently even funded by gazprom - it has proven difficult to finance, but once its there, its there.

In addition, your insistence I prove it is the best option indicates you think there are others, which is the question I asked - what others can match an eighteen month timescale and generate as much reliable power, or power at all, as the reactors in question?

Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: German energy policy

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:20 am

Lew Dolby wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 10:38 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 12:04 am
Lew Dolby wrote:
Sat Apr 16, 2022 5:40 pm
I assume all those claiming nuclear is safe weren't in what's now Cumbria in the 50s and 60s when sheep were destroyed rather than sent to market and the truth about the leaks weren't admitted for 30 years.
I assume all those claiming that nuclear is not safe have never heard of Aberfan and do not realise that coal is far more dangerous. Nothing is safe - things are only more or less dangerous and the safety record of nuclear power is really quite good (especially when considering that many countries use civil nuclear power as a cover for military purposes so may take risks that are not strictly necessary for mere power generation).
I think you're ignoring half my original post which was about the secrecy. People can see mine waste heaps they can't see radiation.
Well, in that case I'm not sure which incidents you are referring to nor their relation to safety. Secrecy is the best way to make people paranoid about small risks and seem to have done that about nuclear power.
Last edited by Stephanie on Sun Jul 17, 2022 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: changed thread title

Lew Dolby
Catbabel
Posts: 652
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by Lew Dolby » Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:07 am

It took thirty years for the truth about the Winscale leaks in the 1950s to come out when documents were released under 30 year rules.. There seems to have been a culture of secrecy around nuclear then. How do we know if/how that's changed.
WOULD CUSTOMERS PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SITTING ON THE COUNTER BY THE BACON SLICER - AS WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BEHIND IN OUR ORDERS.

User avatar
basementer
Dorkwood
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Location: 8024, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by basementer » Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:29 am

For our younger readers: the post above refers to an incident at an English nuclear facility formerly called Windscale. Since 1981 it's been Sellafield.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by dyqik » Mon Apr 18, 2022 11:05 am

Lew Dolby wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:07 am
It took thirty years for the truth about the Winscale leaks in the 1950s to come out when documents were released under 30 year rules.. There seems to have been a culture of secrecy around nuclear then. How do we know if/how that's changed.
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.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Apr 18, 2022 11:44 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:13 pm
bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:20 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:31 pm


Staff can be rehired and new staff can be trained. Fuel can be imported. This is citing inconvenience as if it is impassible obstacle.
You are making the unevidenced assumption that 18-24 months + however many billions it will cost to get the things running again is the best use of resources to reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions as opposed to anything else you could do with that time and money.
Cool, what major renewable projects can be delivered in less than eighteen months that delivery power as reliably as nuclear?

In fact, what renewable projects - aside from macro-hydro - can be delivered using actual existing technology that can deliver power at scale as reliably as nuclear?
Decent insulation is probably the easiest low-hanging fruit to drastically reduce energy requirements - in particular the winter peak that is currently met with extra fossil fuels.

But "citing inconvenience as if it is impassible obstacle" is what everyone does with energy policy all the time, which is why progress is so slow.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Apr 18, 2022 11:52 am

In climate terms, Germany would've been better closing coal before nuclear. They're currently failing to meet the Paris agreement because of extended reliance on coal (and they're pissing money up the wall in the process):
Germany’s electricity mix is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. While coal generation has halved since 2015, natural gas has more than doubled its share, and total fossil generation has fallen by only 31%. German power plants emitted about 10 MtCO2e more in the first quarter of 2021 than in the same period in the previous year, which could potentially foreshadow rising emissions in 2021. Around two thirds of electricity generation emissions in 2020 came from lignite and hard coal-fired power plants, and 16% of the country’s total emissions still came from power and heat generation from coal-fired power plants.

Germany’s scheduled 2038 coal phase-out is not 1.5˚C compatible, and the country’s coal generation has declined much slower than other countries such as the UK and Italy. An earlier coal phase-out could be driven by the diminishing economic viability of the power source: the German fleet has collectively lost more than EUR 1bn since the end of 2018.
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/germany/

Their current target is to reduce GHG emissions to 65% of 1990 levels by 2030 (this would have to be 69% to be on track). Nuclear doesn't have to be a part of that, but would've made things easier.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
FairySmall
Sindis Poop
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:47 pm

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by FairySmall » Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:22 pm

dyqik wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 11:05 am
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".

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by shpalman » Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:43 pm

FairySmall wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:22 pm
dyqik wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 11:05 am
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?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by WFJ » Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:57 pm

shpalman wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:43 pm

What's the risk that one of the German ones would catastrophically explode because of being hit by a tsunami?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Germany's phase-out of nuclear power are, the decision was made long before Fukushima, so tsunami probability is not really relevant.

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by Sciolus » Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:25 pm

WFJ wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:57 pm
shpalman wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:43 pm

What's the risk that one of the German ones would catastrophically explode because of being hit by a tsunami?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Germany's phase-out of nuclear power are, the decision was made long before Fukushima, so tsunami probability is not really relevant.
Care to expand on that? Looks to me like several decisions were made back and forth over the years, and it was definitely Fukushima that led to the latest decision.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by WFJ » Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:30 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:25 pm
WFJ wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:57 pm
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Germany's phase-out of nuclear power are, the decision was made long before Fukushima, so tsunami probability is not really relevant.
Care to expand on that? Looks to me like several decisions were made back and forth over the years, and it was definitely Fukushima that led to the latest decision.
The phase-out began under Schröder's Government in the early 2000s. Merkel was considering cancelling the phase-out, largely against public opinion, but ruled this out after Fukushima.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by EACLucifer » Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:47 pm

WFJ wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:30 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:25 pm
WFJ wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:57 pm
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Germany's phase-out of nuclear power are, the decision was made long before Fukushima, so tsunami probability is not really relevant.
Care to expand on that? Looks to me like several decisions were made back and forth over the years, and it was definitely Fukushima that led to the latest decision.
The phase-out began under Schröder's Government in the early 2000s. Merkel was considering cancelling the phase-out, largely against public opinion, but ruled this out after Fukushima.
So Fukushima was a big factor, then.

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.

Now consider who Schroder works for now.

And he wasn't the only one.


And again, this isn't just Germany. I saw a French report a while back suggesting Gazprom has sponsored Greens in France, but sadly by French is extraordinarily limited, and not up to searching for articles I read weeks ago. Likewise the role of Oligarch's in the City reflects terribly on Britain.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by WFJ » Mon Apr 18, 2022 4:00 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:47 pm
WFJ wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:30 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:25 pm

Care to expand on that? Looks to me like several decisions were made back and forth over the years, and it was definitely Fukushima that led to the latest decision.
The phase-out began under Schröder's Government in the early 2000s. Merkel was considering cancelling the phase-out, largely against public opinion, but ruled this out after Fukushima.
So Fukushima was a big factor, then.
A big factor? No. No Government policies changed as a result of Fukushima. Fear of tsunamis or a Fukushima-like event had nothing to do with any decisions.

Merkel had mooted doing something unpopular, although not committed to it, but ruled it out after Fukushima as it made it even more politically difficult. She also has a reputation among many people in Germany of being a crowd-pleaser who avoided difficult unpopular decisions—I guess that's how a leader stays in power for 16 years—so I don't think there's any reason to assume she would have cancelled the phase-out even without Fukushima.

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: German energy policy (split from The Invasion of Ukraine)

Post by Sciolus » Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:03 pm

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"?

Post Reply