Germany set a formal withdrawal date from nuclear power on April 15, 2023.

The phase-out has deep roots in a strong anti-nuclear movement driven by safety and waste concerns and by accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2011 policy reversal accelerated the shutdown timetable that culminated in the final closures in 2022–2023.

At the time of closure the remaining reactors supplied about 5% of Germany’s electricity and roughly 8.1 gigawatts of capacity.

The government aims to expand renewables and has set targets to rely on green electricity by 2035 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2045.

In the short term the loss of nuclear generation has been met by increased use of coal and natural gas, higher electricity prices, and higher emissions during low-renewable periods.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine exposed and worsened Europe’s and Germany’s dependence on Russian gas and prompted urgent energy-security concerns.

The war prompted political calls to reduce Russian energy reliance and also revived discussion about extending or restarting German reactors.

Some center-right and liberal politicians publicly supported extending reactor lifetimes, while the Green Party opposed such extensions.

Polls indicated about 60% of Germans opposed the shutdown, and regional leaders such as Bavaria’s Markus Söder called for exceptions or plans to reactivate plants.

Conclusion: Germany phased out nuclear largely for political and safety reasons; the grid is expanding renewables but has relied more on fossil fuels in the short term; the Russia‑Ukraine war exposed supply vulnerabilities and intensified debate, and some politicians and a majority of the public have pushed to reconsider extending or restarting reactors.

Germany set a formal withdrawal date from nuclear power on April 15, 2023.

Title:

Content: Read the history of the moment: why is Germany so entangled in nuclear power? | German News | DW | 14.04.2023
1.
Inhalt
2.
Navigation
3.
Weitere Inhalte
4.
Metanavigation
5.
Suche
6.
Choose from 30 Languages
Advertisement
German News
Read the history of the present: why is Germany so entangled in nuclear power?
Germany was proud of its nuclear power generation technology, but at the same time the technology has been so controversial that it has finally decided that April 15, 2023 is the date of withdrawal from nuclear power.
However, as the energy crisis caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war continues to intensify, the wisdom of the decision to say goodbye to nuclear energy has been widely discussed.
Germany ’ s nuclear policy is in dispute again
It all started with an "egg" - Germany's first nuclear reactor in Garching, near Munich, went into operation in October 1957.
Because the nuclear reactor, which belongs to the University of Munich, resembles an egg, it is nicknamed the "atomic egg".
It was a milestone in Germany's nuclear energy research and a symbol of Germany's resurgence after World War II.
The nuclear reactor, which was used for scientific purposes, remained in operation until 2000.
In 1957, Germany built its first nuclear reactor.
Three years later, in 1960, the first nuclear power plant for civilian use was built in the city of Kahl, on the banks of the Main River in Bavaria.
At that time, atomic energy was widely regarded as both safe and reliable. The 1973 oil crisis gave further impetus to the rapid development of nuclear energy in Germany.
The start of the anti-nuclear movement
Since it has been impossible to find a foolproof way to store nuclear waste, opponents have begun to question whether nuclear energy is really a clean energy source.
Thousands of protesters clashed with police during the construction of the Brockdorf nuclear power plant in the state of Shihe.
Since the 1970s, plans for the construction of the Brockdorf nuclear power plant have triggered numerous police and civil conflicts.
"Nuclear energy? No, thank you!" has become a rallying cry for environmentalists.
In the 1980s, a new political party, the Green Party, emerged in West Germany. Its members are mainly leftists, pacifists, environmentalists and anti-nuclear forces. In 1983, the Green Party entered the Bundestag.
In 1983, Green Party politicians Gert Bastian and Petra Kelly were elected to the Bundestag.
On March 28, 1979, a serious accident occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, United States. On April 26, 1986, a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, Soviet Union, exploded, causing the worst nuclear disaster in history.
Radiation clouds spread throughout Europe.
The accident also marked a turning point in discussions about nuclear technology in Germany.
At the time, Germany was still divided.
In East Germany under the Communist Party, the public received almost no information about the nuclear accident and its effects.
West Germany, on the other hand, was in a state of confusion and politicians were helpless.
People were unprepared for a nuclear leak, and the government was unable to provide guidelines and response strategies for the time being.
A hastily formed crisis management team was also disbanded shortly afterwards.
The Chernobyl nuclear accident has caused widespread concern in Germany.
People are buying iodine.
A large quantity of fruit, vegetables and milk in the supermarket was ordered to be removed from the shelves because of concerns about nuclear radiation.
Children were banned from playing in the sand pools and citizens were warned not to go out in the rain.
Although the health effects of radiation were not detected in Germany, the accident led to the introduction of nationwide radiation monitoring in Germany, which eventually led to the establishment of the Federal Ministry of the Environment.
Plans to build a nuclear waste treatment plant in the Bavarian town of Wackersdorf have sparked serious riots.
The clashes left several protesters and civil servants dead and hundreds injured.
The project was finally halted in 1989, the first major victory of the German environmental movement.
And...
In 2011, protesters handcuffed themselves to the tracks in an attempt to block trains carrying nuclear waste.
Meanwhile, in northern Germany, Gorleben in Lower Saxony became a symbol of the struggle against nuclear waste, and the town was designated to temporarily store nuclear waste until a permanent storage site was identified.
The first shipment of nuclear waste arrived in the town on 24 April 1995.
A long farewell to nuclear power - Germany's nuclear withdrawal process after many setbacks
In 2001, Schroeder's center-left coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party reached an agreement with major energy companies to phase out nuclear power.
All 19 nuclear power plants in Germany have been given operating timelines and the last one is required to be shut down by 2021.
In 2001, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder announced that Germany would phase out nuclear power generation.
In 2010, the center-right government led by Chancellor Angela Merkel withdrew the nuclear withdrawal agreement.
It also decided to extend the operating time of nuclear power plants.
However, the third major nuclear accident in the world has caused a change in Germany's nuclear energy policy. On March 11, 2011, the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan caused by the earthquake and tsunami.
The impact of the accident on Germany is even greater than that of Japan.
As a veteran physicist, German Chancellor Angela Merkel unexpectedly changed her usual stance on nuclear energy policy.
Merkel suddenly announced that the era of nuclear power in Germany will end by the end of 2022. On July 30, 2011, the German Bundestag voted to approve the resolution.
After years of fierce fighting, the Brockdorf nuclear power plant in the state of Ishih will finally become history in 2021 after 35 years of operation.
In 2017, Germany decided to start a nationwide search for a safe place to store highly radioactive nuclear waste, with the mission to be completed by 2031.
At the end of 2021, anti-nuclear activists celebrated the closure of a nuclear power plant in North Germany.
Rethinking the nuclear policy.
The war in Ukraine has made Germany anxious to get rid of its energy dependence on Russia, which has also reignited the already ironclad policy of denuclearization.
The coalition leader has spearheaded a proposal to extend the operating time of nuclear power plants to replace natural gas from Russia with nuclear power.
In August 2022, CDU Chairman Meltz and CSU Chairman Soder both put forward the idea of extending the time limit for nuclear power operations.
Christian Lindner, finance minister of the business-oriented Liberal Democratic Party (FDP), immediately backed a return to nuclear power.
His party is junior partner in a centre-left coalition with the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens.
The latter will find it difficult to agree to an extension because opposition to nuclear power is one of their core issues.
But in the summer of 2022, no one in Germany completely ruled out that possibility.
LDP finance minister Lindner, who is focused on business interests, was also quick to join the pro-nuclear camp.
But for the Green Party, which is also part of the ruling coalition, the possibility of agreeing to extend the operating time of nuclear power plants is slim, because opposition to nuclear power is their basic principle.
Anything is possible in Germany in 2022.
Can nuclear power be a climate savior?
Editor: This article was originally published in August 2022
© 2022 Deutsche Welle Copyright Notice: All content in this article is protected by copyright law and may not be used without special permission from Deutsche Welle.
Any misconduct will lead to recovery and criminal prosecution.
DW.COM

The phase-out has deep roots in a strong anti-nuclear movement driven by safety and waste concerns and by accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Title:

Content: Chernobyl and the war: how the events in Ukraine prompted Germany to abandon nuclear energy
Greenpeace activist at a protest against nuclear power in Berlin, Germany.
Photo by REUTERS / Nadja Wohlleben
The end of the atomic age.
This weekend, Germany, as promised, shut down its last nuclear power plants.
On Sunday night, the Germans decommissioned three stations: Izar 2 in Bavaria, Necarwesteim-2 in Baden-Württemberg and Emsland in Lower Saxony.
Nuclear power plants, which have recently produced about 5% of the country ’ s electricity, have been shut down as part of the so-called “energy transition. ”
Its goal is to completely switch to green energy by 2035, that is, to produce electricity from renewable sources.
Read also:
The decision to finally abandon the peaceful atom was given to the German authorities not easy.
A week ago, in political Berlin, there were calls to postpone the closure of the reactors for at least a few months, so as not to jeopardize the security of energy supply in the country.
Moreover, the temporary continuation of the work of the nuclear power plant of Chancellor Olaf Scholz was requested by both the opposition Christian Democrats and the liberals included in the ruling coalition.
Most Germans did not support the closure of the nuclear power plant.
According to sociologists, about 60% of the country ’ s residents called the government ’ s decision to abandon the peaceful atom wrong.
The reason is obvious: people are afraid of further increases in electricity prices, which have literally exploded.
Farewell to the atom: the Ukrainian factor
In fact, the decision to close all German nuclear power plants was made in 2011 by the government of Angela Merkel after the accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant Fukushima.
But the discussion about the abandonment of nuclear power began much earlier — in 1986, after the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
The accident sparked widespread protests against the use of the peaceful atom, and after Chernobyl, the now ruling Social Democratic Party announced that it would support the closure of all German nuclear power plants and enshrined this position in its political program.
Events in Ukraine also affected the timing of the closure of the nuclear power plant.
Germany planned to shut down all its nuclear power plants by the end of 2022.
However, after a full-scale Russian attack on Ukraine, the operation of the reactors was decided to extend for several more months.
Germany, which took the course of abandoning all Russian energy resources, was afraid of problems with energy supply.
Bavarian exception: will one of the richest lands in Germany be allowed to restart nuclear power plants
In the final rejection of the peaceful atom, it seems, not all German politicians believe.
At least regional.
The prime minister of Bavaria - one of the richest German states - Markus Seder has already said that he will ask the federal government to reconsider its decision.
And this is a few hours after the closing of the last nuclear power plant!
Seder wants the Bavarians to make an exception – allowed them to continue to operate the nuclear power plant “Izar-2 ”, located on the territory of the earth.
Like, now, in times of energy crisis, to abandon nuclear energy is not only risky, but also stupid.
That can be done a little later.
"Bavaria demands that the federal government take responsibility for the continued operation of nuclear power.
Until the crisis is over and the country has switched to renewable energy, we must use all forms of energy before the end of the decade.
Anyone who, like the ruling coalition, hopes that the next winter will be as mild as the previous one, acts extremely naive and careless for an industrial country like Germany, ” said Seder.
And he promised that in the case of a positive decision from Berlin, Bavaria is ready to take responsibility for the operation of the nuclear power plant.
The Bavarian prime minister thought about other lands.
It requires the government to develop and submit a plan for the reactivation of disconnected nuclear power plants.
If necessary, nuclear power plants will be able to resume their work quickly.
Official Berlin has already responded to the calls of the Bavarian Prime Minister – the Minister for Environmental Protection advised Zeder not to engage in political populism.
Non-peaceful atom: Germany wants sanctions against Russian nuclear energy
On the day of the closure of their own nuclear power plants, the Germans also mentioned the nuclear energy of the aggressor country of Russia.
Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Economy of Germany Robert Gabeck proposed to impose sanctions against the nuclear industry of the Russian Federation.
At the EU level.
For example, to include penalties in the next, already eleventh, sanctions package, the development and coordination of which the Europeans will begin in the near future.
“We have seen that Russia purposefully uses dependence in the energy sector for pressure.
Therefore, the federal government called on the European Commission to impose sanctions on the civilian nuclear sector.
Nuclear technology is an extremely sensitive area, and Russia can no longer be perceived as a reliable partner here, ” Gabek said.
What sanctions are we talking about – the politician did not specify.
However, in early April, after a visit to Ukraine, he proposed to impose sanctions against states that buy uranium from Russia for their nuclear power plants.
Not immediately, but after the transition.
“It is important to start and not be afraid of decisive actions in this area, ” Gabek explained.
The EU ’ s dependence on Russia ’ s nuclear sector is really serious.
About 20% of the uranium for their nuclear power plants EU countries receive from Russia.
Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic are completely dependent on these supplies, that is, 100%.
On the sale of uranium in the European Union, Russia earns 450 million euros a year.
Topical on the topic
Children Hub is a safe way to adapt Ukrainian children and migrants in the EU
Over a thousand children from 3 to 15 years old are given free employment in Warsaw
Help develop CHILDREN HUB

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2011 policy reversal accelerated the shutdown timetable that culminated in the final closures in 2022–2023.

At the time of closure the remaining reactors supplied about 5% of Germany’s electricity and roughly 8.1 gigawatts of capacity.

Title:

Content: In early 2023, Germany shut down its last nuclear power plants, so this winter will be Germany ’ s first “nuclear-free winter ”. Despite the German government ’ s vow to modernize its energy system and develop renewable energy, Germany ’ s fossil fuel consumption is higher and its power system is dirtier.
Commenting on Germany ’ s electricity problem, Reuters columnist Gavin Maguire wrote that the country ’ s electricity problem began with a gradual decline in the share of nuclear power in Germany ’ s power generation structure. In 2014, the contribution of nuclear power to Germany ’ s total electricity supply fell by only 6% in 2022, and finally dropped to zero after the last eight reactor outages in 2023.
According to the think tank Ember, Germany's last eight nuclear reactors generated about 8.1 gigawatts (8,000 megawatts) of electricity, a gap that was filled by solar and wind capacity.
It seems to be okay.
However, as solar power (Germany ’ s second largest clean power after wind) suffers from reduced sunlight this year, power generation will fall sharply this winter, and the total amount of clean electricity in Germany will also decline, but winter has always been Europe ’ s peak electricity consumption (heating demand), so German power producers are forced to increase the amount of electricity generated from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. of emissions.
According to the data, in the first nine months of 2023, Germany ’ s total electricity generation fell compared to last year, including clean electricity and fossil energy power; clean electricity fell by 5.6% compared to the same period in 2022, and fossil fuel power generation fell by 21%.
In other words, this year has been the most electricity efficient year in Germany since 2017.
But don ’ t think that ’ s a good thing, because Germany ’ s industrial electricity demand has fallen this year, and the economy has certainly followed suit.
Why is that so?
Data from the London Stock Exchange shows that the high price of electricity in Germany is a key factor. Compared to 2019, the price of electricity in Germany is 160% higher this year, although it is much better than the highest price last year (electricity prices soared last year due to the Russian-Ukrainian war, this year has fallen), but the German industry is still unwilling to pay.
According to data from the London Stock Exchange (LSEG), German chemical and fertilizer production (previously produced using abundant and cheap natural gas) has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade in 2023 as producers cut production.
Production of cars, steel, batteries and turbines has also been cut, causing Germany, Europe ’ s largest economy, to experience a rare export slump this year.
In order to support the German industrial recovery, the German government asked the power companies to suppress the cost of electricity, and actively increase the production of cheap renewable energy, did get some results, but after entering the autumn, the sunshine time reduced, Germany September to December's total solar power, must be more than 80% lower than the peak.
Since solar power has accounted for more than 20% of Germany ’ s total electricity generation each month in the past five months, such a serious decline in clean power production will inevitably lead to a tight overall electricity supply; in order to make up for the shortage of solar power, Germany can only maximize the use of wind power, wind power production in Germany will increase in winter.
In order to supplement the intermittent problem of wind power and ensure that the total generation of electricity rises as demand grows, power companies have to increase the generation of coal and gas, which can be controlled by power plants to balance the needs of the national electricity market.
Speaking of which, it is clear that Germany will have to rely more on fossil fuels to generate electricity, and its carbon emissions will inevitably increase.
In order to determine its ideal of a non-nuclear homeland, Germany has caused more pollution, and the cost of electricity is still high, which has hit the German industry.
In August of this year, economists criticized "Germany's economic recession is already the sick man of Europe", which is all related to the abandonment of nuclear power.
German power mix may get dirtier for 1st non-nuclear winter
# Germany # Electricity # Dirty # Carbon # Solar

The government aims to expand renewables and has set targets to rely on green electricity by 2035 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2045.

Title:

Content: Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
EXPRESS: Germany ’ s exit from atomic energy sector affects Europe ’ s largest economy
Germany ’ s closure of the country ’ s last three nuclear reactors and its eventual exit from the atomic energy sector raises concerns about the impact of the decision on the European Union ’ s largest economy.
Germany ’ s action could deal a blow to the technology they see as a clean and reliable alternative to fossil fuels.
Berlin is implementing its plan to limit electricity generation to renewable sources by 2035.
Earlier this week, Germany shut down its last three nuclear power plants as part of Berlin's plan to limit power generation to renewables by 2035, ending a six-decade programme that has sparked one of Europe's most powerful protest movements.
Other industrialized countries, such as the United States, Japan, China, France and Britain, rely on nuclear power to replace the fossil fuels that are warming the planet, and Germany ’ s decision to stop using both has been met with some skepticism, as well as unsuccessful last-minute calls to halt the shutdown, the report said.
Nuclear energy advocates around the world have criticized the German shutdown, realizing that the action taken by Europe ’ s largest economy could deal a blow to technology they see as a clean and reliable alternative to fossil fuels.
The German government has acknowledged that in the short term, the country will have to rely more on polluting coal and natural gas to meet its energy needs, even as steps are taken to dramatically increase electricity production from solar and wind power, and Germany aims to be carbon neutral by 2045.
But officials like German Environment Minister Stevie Lemke say the idea of a nuclear renaissance is a myth, citing data showing that the share of atomic energy in global electricity production is shrinking.
The construction of new nuclear plants in Europe has faced significant delays and cost overruns.
Limki noted that the construction of new nuclear plants in Europe has faced significant delays and cost overruns, and said the money spent on maintaining old reactors or building new ones would be better spent on installing cheap renewables.
Experts such as Claudia Kemfert of the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin say the 5% share of German electricity currently coming from its three remaining reactors can be easily replaced without risking power outages.

In the short term the loss of nuclear generation has been met by increased use of coal and natural gas, higher electricity prices, and higher emissions during low-renewable periods.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine exposed and worsened Europe’s and Germany’s dependence on Russian gas and prompted urgent energy-security concerns.

Title:

Content: The Ukraine War Awakens Europe ’ s Energy Dream
The war in Ukraine has had a profound impact on the world economy.
It will, at least in terms of energy, food, strategic supply chains, finance and the world ’ s currency, international investment, and international big business, subvert the global imagination of the post-Cold War era for three decades.
The pendulum of the global historical process will inevitably swing back in the direction of “decoupling. ”
Limited to space, this is mainly about energy issues.
As the “post-Cold War era ” officially ends and traditional conflicts return to the center of the international stage, energy security is back in the spotlight.
In the Ukraine war, the warring side Russia is one of the most important energy supplies in the world, and the severity of the war of aggression has made it impossible for Russia and the European and American countries to maintain the post-Cold War era of “politics and economics ”.
The “weapon of mass destruction ” in Russia ’ s hands is energy.
Europe and the United States know that energy is Russia's most important export products, blocking energy exports can vigorously hit the Russian economy; but at the same time, it is obvious that reducing Russian energy imports will lead to a shortage of energy supply in Europe and the United States.
The United States, Canada and the United Kingdom can withstand this pain, the United States and Canada have announced that they will stop importing Russian energy, and the United Kingdom has announced that it will stop importing by the end of this year.
But Europe has become a soft spot for the Euro-American Asia-Pacific anti-Russian community, because Europe is too dependent on Russian energy.
Russia is the third largest oil exporter in the world and the second largest natural gas exporter, and Russia is far the first European energy supplier. In 2020, Europe imported a total of 185 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Russia, of which 168 billion were imported by pipeline and 1.7 billion by liquefied natural gas.
This accounts for 36% of total natural gas consumption in Europe.
In the European Union alone, natural gas imports from Russia account for 40% of its total consumption.
Such a massive dependence makes Europe ’ s energy sanctions against Russia seriously inadequate.
At the European Union meeting in Versailles on March 10, the EU announced that it would end its energy dependence on Russia by 2027 (five years later). On June 2, the EU announced the sixth round of sanctions, banning the import of Russian marine oil and reducing its oil imports by 92% by the end of the year.
But it is one thing to say, and whether it can be done is another.
Energy transition and energy crisis
In any case, the war in Ukraine has made the West suddenly aware of the importance of energy security.
Energy is the driving force behind the operation of society.
Energy security is a very important concept in the Cold War era when people were growing up. The oil crisis of the 1970s not only caused oil prices to rise, but even prices were not available, and the “spectacular ” scenarios of refueling such as long queues in front of gas stations can be found in pictures and videos.
Energy issues are so central to social issues, and even the anxiety about the “energy crisis ” in the literature and television works of the time is everywhere.
Remember the famous 1980s cartoon “Transformers ”, the core material of the battle between the Decepticons and the Boxers is the“ energy cube ”, and the two factions contended that “the one who gets the energy brick wins the world ”.
At that time, in order to stabilize the supply of energy, the United States changed its foreign policy and reached a so-called “petrodollar ” agreement with Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Arab world and one of the world ’ s largest oil reserves, to provide security and Saudi Arabia agreed to use the dollar as the only currency for oil.
The United States, with its strong naval power, provides escort for oil exports (shipping).
This system stabilizes the supply of oil from the Middle East and also provides “convenience ” for other countries.
After the end of the Cold War, under the globalization of free trade and global investment, energy production was internationalized, and many international energy companies held shares in each other.
The world rarely has a war that seriously affects the supply of energy, and even if there is a war, it is not to the point of death. The vast majority of energy-producing countries are focused on the economic and trade interests of global energy production, and they can usually guarantee the basic normal supply of energy in times of conflict.
Energy security issues have long been ignored.
In the post-Cold War era, energy issues were still very important on the international agenda, but “energy security ” fell back to the second line, and the focus quickly shifted to“ carbon reduction. ”
The rise of climatism in the face of the "crisis" brought about by global climate change.
Climatologists believe that: First, global climate change is the most important crisis of the earth, which will lead to the whole ecological deterioration, sea level rise, humanitarian disasters, and even human destruction and other tragedies; Second, the cause is mainly human carbon dioxide released when a large amount of fossil energy is used to cause global warming; Third, positive emission reduction can prevent the crisis.
Under this “three-paragraph theory ”, climatologists actively promote“ carbon reduction ” and dominate the post-Cold War energy agenda.
There are two ways to reduce emissions.
The first is to reduce energy consumption, which does not contradict the concept of energy security: less energy is used, and energy security is naturally easier to guarantee.
The second is the energy transition from “dirty ” traditional energy to“ clean ” energy.
It is this energy transition that has transformed the landscape of energy production and trade.
Countries that previously had abundant coal mines, such as Germany, had to import a large amount of natural gas because of the rush to phase out coal-fired power generation, renewable energy sources could not keep up, and there was a huge gap in energy supply; after the start of the electric vehicle revolution, the demand for electricity rose further, so the demand for natural gas was higher.
In this two-pronged way, the whole society is over-reliant on natural gas.
From the perspective of energy security, it is self-defeating.
Of course, Germany is even more amazing, even if it has not completely eliminated coal, but it has not dug up coal, and instead imported from Russia.
Another factor in Europe ’ s increased reliance on natural gas is the decline in the use of nuclear energy.
As mentioned earlier, nuclear energy is a clean energy source in the sense of carbon emissions.
After the Cold War, the share of nuclear power in Europe increased.
However, nuclear waste disposal and the safety of nuclear facilities have always been a concern.
But since 2005, nuclear power has been in decline: Europe ’ s old nuclear plant life cycle has gradually expired, and Europe (except the United Kingdom and France) has stopped building new plants.
On this issue, Germany is leading the European trend, because Germany ’ s anti-nuclear movement is the most powerful.
In particular, after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011, there were massive anti-nuclear demonstrations in Germany, and Merkel announced that all 17 nuclear power plants in the country would be shut down by 2022.
It is with Germany that other countries in Europe have accelerated the nuclear abolition project.
Nord Stream 2 highlights Germany's lack of big power
Germany, as a bad example, relies too much on “hostile states ” (Russia) in addition to abandoning coal mines and nuclear weapons.
The dispute over the North Stream 2 pipeline is best known.
Nord Stream II was a natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea (alongside the original Nord Stream I).
Germany built this pipeline for two purposes.
The first is the energy gap, and the second can double the supply of natural gas from Russia to Germany.
Second, other natural gas pipelines from Russia to Germany have to pass through Poland and Ukraine, and every time Russia uses the "energy card" to threaten to "cut off" Ukraine, it will also cause Germany to "suffer", which affects Germany's natural gas supply, but also makes Russia's "energy card" scruples.
"North Stream 2" can greatly alleviate this problem.
International large-scale natural gas transmission generally has two methods.
The traditional way is through the pipeline of the gas pipeline, natural gas is continuously transported from the source of production to the destination.
The emerging method is liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is liquefied at the production site and then transported to the destination by giant specialized vessels to re-gasify the LNG at the receiving station.
The two are better than each other.
The early investment in the pipeline method is huge (construction of pipelines), but the operating costs are relatively cheap after construction.
LNG transportation costs are generally higher than gas pipelines, plus the conversion costs from gas to liquid to gas.
In terms of transportation costs alone, the shorter the distance, the greater the cost advantage of the gas pipe; the longer the distance, the closer the transportation cost of LNG will be to the gas pipe or even lower than the gas pipe.
It is estimated that at about 700 miles, LNG transportation costs will be lower than subsea pipelines, and at about 2,200 miles, LNG will be lower than terrestrial pipelines.
From the price point of view, Europe, especially Germany, is the most economical way to import from Russia.
However, this is only based on price considerations, and if you add the national security perspective of energy security, the consideration is completely different.
The gas pipeline model is a "binding mode", after the huge construction of the gas pipeline linking the two countries, it is difficult to abandon the gas pipeline, and can not use the pipeline to transport natural gas from other countries, so the energy will depend on the exporting country for a long time.
LPG is a "non-binding mode", as long as there is a receiving station, the purchase from any country is transported by ship.
For Germany and Europe, plus Russia, which supplies pipeline gas, is an enemy, and the United States, which supplies liquefied petroleum gas, is an ally.
During the Trump administration, Nord Stream II became the focus of the contradiction of virtue.
The United States believes that Russia is a hostile country, Germany should not further increase its dependence on Russia on the important issue of energy, Nord Stream 2 should be stopped, and the United States announced sanctions.
The United States also took the opportunity to sell liquefied natural gas to the United States.
The position of the Trump administration is completely correct. Unfortunately, the relationship between the United States and Europe is very poor during the Trump period, and the sanctions are too harsh.
In Germany under Merkel, there is also the argument that the United States is less reliable than Russia.
This enabled Germany to press ahead with the construction of Nord Stream II, knowing that Russia had annexed Crimea and threatened European security.
Under this trend of thinking, Europe has further increased its dependence on Russian energy.
In fact, since 2009, Europe has been aware of its deep and growing dependence on Russian energy.
Even after the Crimea incident in 2014, Europe continued to increase its natural gas imports from Russia, and began importing Russian liquefied natural gas in 2017.
The reason for this, in addition to economic costs, is also due to the continuous decline in natural gas production in Europe itself (the North Sea gas fields are beginning to dry up).
In fact, Europe has been anaesthetizing itself, dreaming that Russia, no matter how bad, can not prevent the normal supply of energy to Europe.
However, the Russian invasion has awakened Europe ’ s “energy dream. ”
(This article is excerpted from Li ’ s book “The Disintegration of Empire and the Fortress of Freedom: Historical Origins, Geopolitics, and Justice in Ukraine ’ s War Against Russia ”, provided by Eight Banners Culture)
Extended reading
Thematic book exhibition on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict
What do Chinese forces want to enter the United States in Beijing?
Cold and sad?
The link between climate and happiness
Bureaucratic zombie policies.

Title:

Content: Germany seeks to end energy dependence on Russia
March 23, 2022 20: 47
Eastern Network Television
More News Clips
(Photo by Getty Images)
Germany is pushing to find alternative sources of Russian oil, gas and coal, and is ready to offer more assistance to consumers and businesses struggling to cope with high energy prices.
Russia ’ s war on Ukraine has exposed Germany ’ s heavy dependence on Russian energy sources, including about half of its natural gas and coal, and about a third of its oil, which comes from Russia.
As Germany is moving away from nuclear and coal power, while trying to accelerate the development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, the country ’ s energy dependence is even more exposed.
Germany ’ s prime minister said the country ’ s dependence on Russia for oil, coal and natural gas has been increasing over the past few decades and will end it as soon as possible.

The war prompted political calls to reduce Russian energy reliance and also revived discussion about extending or restarting German reactors.

Some center-right and liberal politicians publicly supported extending reactor lifetimes, while the Green Party opposed such extensions.

Polls indicated about 60% of Germans opposed the shutdown, and regional leaders such as Bavaria’s Markus Söder called for exceptions or plans to reactivate plants.

Conclusion: Germany phased out nuclear largely for political and safety reasons; the grid is expanding renewables but has relied more on fossil fuels in the short term; the Russia‑Ukraine war exposed supply vulnerabilities and intensified debate, and some politicians and a majority of the public have pushed to reconsider extending or restarting reactors.


Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power grew from a decades-long anti-nuclear movement and was reinforced by high-profile accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The policy timeline included a 2001 government agreement to phase out nuclear power, a 2010 extension of reactor lifetimes, and a 2011 reversal after Fukushima that set accelerated shutdown deadlines (originally aiming to end nuclear generation by the end of 2022).

Germany shut down its last commercial nuclear reactors in early 2023, creating what commentators called the country's first 'nuclear-free winter'.

At final shutdown the remaining reactors accounted for about 5% of Germany's electricity and roughly 8.1 gigawatts of capacity from the last eight reactors was retired.

Germany has set targets to rely predominantly on renewable electricity by 2035 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2045.

The loss of nuclear capacity tightened supplies and contributed to higher electricity prices, prompting increased short-term use of coal and natural gas and a temporarily 'dirtier' power mix.

Low solar output in darker months and the inherent intermittency of wind and solar increased the need to use controllable fossil-fuel plants to balance demand.

High energy prices and supply pressures in 2023 led to cuts in energy‑intensive industrial production, including chemicals, fertilizers, automobiles, steel and related sectors.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine exposed and intensified Europe's energy dependence on Russian oil and gas, and revived concerns about energy security across the continent.

Germany relied substantially on Russian energy supplies and moved to find alternative sources while announcing plans to end dependence on Russian oil, coal and gas.

The war prompted debate in Germany about temporarily extending reactor operations; some CDU/CSU and FDP politicians supported extensions while the Green Party opposed them as a core principle.

Regional leaders, notably Bavaria's prime minister, requested exceptions or reactivation plans for specific reactors, but federal authorities largely maintained the planned closures and cautioned against politicizing the issue.

Germany and EU officials discussed limiting reliance on Russian nuclear supply chains and possible sanctions, noting that around 20% of EU uranium imports came from Russia and some countries are fully dependent on Russian supplies.

Many German ministers and analysts argue that new nuclear construction in Europe faces delays and cost overruns, and that investment would be more effective if directed to rapidly deployable renewables.

Taken together, the phase-out has pushed Germany to accelerate renewables while causing short-term increases in fossil‑fuel use, higher prices and exposure to supply risks amplified by the war in Ukraine.

In summary, Germany's nuclear exit has accelerated renewables but has temporarily increased reliance on coal and gas, raised energy prices and industrial strains, and been complicated by the Russian‑Ukrainian war and renewed political debate about possible extensions.

Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power grew from a decades-long anti-nuclear movement and was reinforced by high-profile accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Title:

Content: Chernobyl and the war: how the events in Ukraine prompted Germany to abandon nuclear energy
Greenpeace activist at a protest against nuclear power in Berlin, Germany.
Photo by REUTERS / Nadja Wohlleben
The end of the atomic age.
This weekend, Germany, as promised, shut down its last nuclear power plants.
On Sunday night, the Germans decommissioned three stations: Izar 2 in Bavaria, Necarwesteim-2 in Baden-Württemberg and Emsland in Lower Saxony.
Nuclear power plants, which have recently produced about 5% of the country ’ s electricity, have been shut down as part of the so-called “energy transition. ”
Its goal is to completely switch to green energy by 2035, that is, to produce electricity from renewable sources.
Read also:
The decision to finally abandon the peaceful atom was given to the German authorities not easy.
A week ago, in political Berlin, there were calls to postpone the closure of the reactors for at least a few months, so as not to jeopardize the security of energy supply in the country.
Moreover, the temporary continuation of the work of the nuclear power plant of Chancellor Olaf Scholz was requested by both the opposition Christian Democrats and the liberals included in the ruling coalition.
Most Germans did not support the closure of the nuclear power plant.
According to sociologists, about 60% of the country ’ s residents called the government ’ s decision to abandon the peaceful atom wrong.
The reason is obvious: people are afraid of further increases in electricity prices, which have literally exploded.
Farewell to the atom: the Ukrainian factor
In fact, the decision to close all German nuclear power plants was made in 2011 by the government of Angela Merkel after the accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant Fukushima.
But the discussion about the abandonment of nuclear power began much earlier — in 1986, after the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
The accident sparked widespread protests against the use of the peaceful atom, and after Chernobyl, the now ruling Social Democratic Party announced that it would support the closure of all German nuclear power plants and enshrined this position in its political program.
Events in Ukraine also affected the timing of the closure of the nuclear power plant.
Germany planned to shut down all its nuclear power plants by the end of 2022.
However, after a full-scale Russian attack on Ukraine, the operation of the reactors was decided to extend for several more months.
Germany, which took the course of abandoning all Russian energy resources, was afraid of problems with energy supply.
Bavarian exception: will one of the richest lands in Germany be allowed to restart nuclear power plants
In the final rejection of the peaceful atom, it seems, not all German politicians believe.
At least regional.
The prime minister of Bavaria - one of the richest German states - Markus Seder has already said that he will ask the federal government to reconsider its decision.
And this is a few hours after the closing of the last nuclear power plant!
Seder wants the Bavarians to make an exception – allowed them to continue to operate the nuclear power plant “Izar-2 ”, located on the territory of the earth.
Like, now, in times of energy crisis, to abandon nuclear energy is not only risky, but also stupid.
That can be done a little later.
"Bavaria demands that the federal government take responsibility for the continued operation of nuclear power.
Until the crisis is over and the country has switched to renewable energy, we must use all forms of energy before the end of the decade.
Anyone who, like the ruling coalition, hopes that the next winter will be as mild as the previous one, acts extremely naive and careless for an industrial country like Germany, ” said Seder.
And he promised that in the case of a positive decision from Berlin, Bavaria is ready to take responsibility for the operation of the nuclear power plant.
The Bavarian prime minister thought about other lands.
It requires the government to develop and submit a plan for the reactivation of disconnected nuclear power plants.
If necessary, nuclear power plants will be able to resume their work quickly.
Official Berlin has already responded to the calls of the Bavarian Prime Minister – the Minister for Environmental Protection advised Zeder not to engage in political populism.
Non-peaceful atom: Germany wants sanctions against Russian nuclear energy
On the day of the closure of their own nuclear power plants, the Germans also mentioned the nuclear energy of the aggressor country of Russia.
Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Economy of Germany Robert Gabeck proposed to impose sanctions against the nuclear industry of the Russian Federation.
At the EU level.
For example, to include penalties in the next, already eleventh, sanctions package, the development and coordination of which the Europeans will begin in the near future.
“We have seen that Russia purposefully uses dependence in the energy sector for pressure.
Therefore, the federal government called on the European Commission to impose sanctions on the civilian nuclear sector.
Nuclear technology is an extremely sensitive area, and Russia can no longer be perceived as a reliable partner here, ” Gabek said.
What sanctions are we talking about – the politician did not specify.
However, in early April, after a visit to Ukraine, he proposed to impose sanctions against states that buy uranium from Russia for their nuclear power plants.
Not immediately, but after the transition.
“It is important to start and not be afraid of decisive actions in this area, ” Gabek explained.
The EU ’ s dependence on Russia ’ s nuclear sector is really serious.
About 20% of the uranium for their nuclear power plants EU countries receive from Russia.
Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic are completely dependent on these supplies, that is, 100%.
On the sale of uranium in the European Union, Russia earns 450 million euros a year.
Topical on the topic
Children Hub is a safe way to adapt Ukrainian children and migrants in the EU
Over a thousand children from 3 to 15 years old are given free employment in Warsaw
Help develop CHILDREN HUB

Title:

Content: Read the history of the moment: why is Germany so entangled in nuclear power? | German News | DW | 14.04.2023
1.
Inhalt
2.
Navigation
3.
Weitere Inhalte
4.
Metanavigation
5.
Suche
6.
Choose from 30 Languages
Advertisement
German News
Read the history of the present: why is Germany so entangled in nuclear power?
Germany was proud of its nuclear power generation technology, but at the same time the technology has been so controversial that it has finally decided that April 15, 2023 is the date of withdrawal from nuclear power.
However, as the energy crisis caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war continues to intensify, the wisdom of the decision to say goodbye to nuclear energy has been widely discussed.
Germany ’ s nuclear policy is in dispute again
It all started with an "egg" - Germany's first nuclear reactor in Garching, near Munich, went into operation in October 1957.
Because the nuclear reactor, which belongs to the University of Munich, resembles an egg, it is nicknamed the "atomic egg".
It was a milestone in Germany's nuclear energy research and a symbol of Germany's resurgence after World War II.
The nuclear reactor, which was used for scientific purposes, remained in operation until 2000.
In 1957, Germany built its first nuclear reactor.
Three years later, in 1960, the first nuclear power plant for civilian use was built in the city of Kahl, on the banks of the Main River in Bavaria.
At that time, atomic energy was widely regarded as both safe and reliable. The 1973 oil crisis gave further impetus to the rapid development of nuclear energy in Germany.
The start of the anti-nuclear movement
Since it has been impossible to find a foolproof way to store nuclear waste, opponents have begun to question whether nuclear energy is really a clean energy source.
Thousands of protesters clashed with police during the construction of the Brockdorf nuclear power plant in the state of Shihe.
Since the 1970s, plans for the construction of the Brockdorf nuclear power plant have triggered numerous police and civil conflicts.
"Nuclear energy? No, thank you!" has become a rallying cry for environmentalists.
In the 1980s, a new political party, the Green Party, emerged in West Germany. Its members are mainly leftists, pacifists, environmentalists and anti-nuclear forces. In 1983, the Green Party entered the Bundestag.
In 1983, Green Party politicians Gert Bastian and Petra Kelly were elected to the Bundestag.
On March 28, 1979, a serious accident occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, United States. On April 26, 1986, a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, Soviet Union, exploded, causing the worst nuclear disaster in history.
Radiation clouds spread throughout Europe.
The accident also marked a turning point in discussions about nuclear technology in Germany.
At the time, Germany was still divided.
In East Germany under the Communist Party, the public received almost no information about the nuclear accident and its effects.
West Germany, on the other hand, was in a state of confusion and politicians were helpless.
People were unprepared for a nuclear leak, and the government was unable to provide guidelines and response strategies for the time being.
A hastily formed crisis management team was also disbanded shortly afterwards.
The Chernobyl nuclear accident has caused widespread concern in Germany.
People are buying iodine.
A large quantity of fruit, vegetables and milk in the supermarket was ordered to be removed from the shelves because of concerns about nuclear radiation.
Children were banned from playing in the sand pools and citizens were warned not to go out in the rain.
Although the health effects of radiation were not detected in Germany, the accident led to the introduction of nationwide radiation monitoring in Germany, which eventually led to the establishment of the Federal Ministry of the Environment.
Plans to build a nuclear waste treatment plant in the Bavarian town of Wackersdorf have sparked serious riots.
The clashes left several protesters and civil servants dead and hundreds injured.
The project was finally halted in 1989, the first major victory of the German environmental movement.
And...
In 2011, protesters handcuffed themselves to the tracks in an attempt to block trains carrying nuclear waste.
Meanwhile, in northern Germany, Gorleben in Lower Saxony became a symbol of the struggle against nuclear waste, and the town was designated to temporarily store nuclear waste until a permanent storage site was identified.
The first shipment of nuclear waste arrived in the town on 24 April 1995.
A long farewell to nuclear power - Germany's nuclear withdrawal process after many setbacks
In 2001, Schroeder's center-left coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party reached an agreement with major energy companies to phase out nuclear power.
All 19 nuclear power plants in Germany have been given operating timelines and the last one is required to be shut down by 2021.
In 2001, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder announced that Germany would phase out nuclear power generation.
In 2010, the center-right government led by Chancellor Angela Merkel withdrew the nuclear withdrawal agreement.
It also decided to extend the operating time of nuclear power plants.
However, the third major nuclear accident in the world has caused a change in Germany's nuclear energy policy. On March 11, 2011, the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan caused by the earthquake and tsunami.
The impact of the accident on Germany is even greater than that of Japan.
As a veteran physicist, German Chancellor Angela Merkel unexpectedly changed her usual stance on nuclear energy policy.
Merkel suddenly announced that the era of nuclear power in Germany will end by the end of 2022. On July 30, 2011, the German Bundestag voted to approve the resolution.
After years of fierce fighting, the Brockdorf nuclear power plant in the state of Ishih will finally become history in 2021 after 35 years of operation.
In 2017, Germany decided to start a nationwide search for a safe place to store highly radioactive nuclear waste, with the mission to be completed by 2031.
At the end of 2021, anti-nuclear activists celebrated the closure of a nuclear power plant in North Germany.
Rethinking the nuclear policy.
The war in Ukraine has made Germany anxious to get rid of its energy dependence on Russia, which has also reignited the already ironclad policy of denuclearization.
The coalition leader has spearheaded a proposal to extend the operating time of nuclear power plants to replace natural gas from Russia with nuclear power.
In August 2022, CDU Chairman Meltz and CSU Chairman Soder both put forward the idea of extending the time limit for nuclear power operations.
Christian Lindner, finance minister of the business-oriented Liberal Democratic Party (FDP), immediately backed a return to nuclear power.
His party is junior partner in a centre-left coalition with the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens.
The latter will find it difficult to agree to an extension because opposition to nuclear power is one of their core issues.
But in the summer of 2022, no one in Germany completely ruled out that possibility.
LDP finance minister Lindner, who is focused on business interests, was also quick to join the pro-nuclear camp.
But for the Green Party, which is also part of the ruling coalition, the possibility of agreeing to extend the operating time of nuclear power plants is slim, because opposition to nuclear power is their basic principle.
Anything is possible in Germany in 2022.
Can nuclear power be a climate savior?
Editor: This article was originally published in August 2022
© 2022 Deutsche Welle Copyright Notice: All content in this article is protected by copyright law and may not be used without special permission from Deutsche Welle.
Any misconduct will lead to recovery and criminal prosecution.
DW.COM

The policy timeline included a 2001 government agreement to phase out nuclear power, a 2010 extension of reactor lifetimes, and a 2011 reversal after Fukushima that set accelerated shutdown deadlines (originally aiming to end nuclear generation by the end of 2022).

Germany shut down its last commercial nuclear reactors in early 2023, creating what commentators called the country's first 'nuclear-free winter'.

Title:

Content: In early 2023, Germany shut down its last nuclear power plants, so this winter will be Germany ’ s first “nuclear-free winter ”. Despite the German government ’ s vow to modernize its energy system and develop renewable energy, Germany ’ s fossil fuel consumption is higher and its power system is dirtier.
Commenting on Germany ’ s electricity problem, Reuters columnist Gavin Maguire wrote that the country ’ s electricity problem began with a gradual decline in the share of nuclear power in Germany ’ s power generation structure. In 2014, the contribution of nuclear power to Germany ’ s total electricity supply fell by only 6% in 2022, and finally dropped to zero after the last eight reactor outages in 2023.
According to the think tank Ember, Germany's last eight nuclear reactors generated about 8.1 gigawatts (8,000 megawatts) of electricity, a gap that was filled by solar and wind capacity.
It seems to be okay.
However, as solar power (Germany ’ s second largest clean power after wind) suffers from reduced sunlight this year, power generation will fall sharply this winter, and the total amount of clean electricity in Germany will also decline, but winter has always been Europe ’ s peak electricity consumption (heating demand), so German power producers are forced to increase the amount of electricity generated from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. of emissions.
According to the data, in the first nine months of 2023, Germany ’ s total electricity generation fell compared to last year, including clean electricity and fossil energy power; clean electricity fell by 5.6% compared to the same period in 2022, and fossil fuel power generation fell by 21%.
In other words, this year has been the most electricity efficient year in Germany since 2017.
But don ’ t think that ’ s a good thing, because Germany ’ s industrial electricity demand has fallen this year, and the economy has certainly followed suit.
Why is that so?
Data from the London Stock Exchange shows that the high price of electricity in Germany is a key factor. Compared to 2019, the price of electricity in Germany is 160% higher this year, although it is much better than the highest price last year (electricity prices soared last year due to the Russian-Ukrainian war, this year has fallen), but the German industry is still unwilling to pay.
According to data from the London Stock Exchange (LSEG), German chemical and fertilizer production (previously produced using abundant and cheap natural gas) has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade in 2023 as producers cut production.
Production of cars, steel, batteries and turbines has also been cut, causing Germany, Europe ’ s largest economy, to experience a rare export slump this year.
In order to support the German industrial recovery, the German government asked the power companies to suppress the cost of electricity, and actively increase the production of cheap renewable energy, did get some results, but after entering the autumn, the sunshine time reduced, Germany September to December's total solar power, must be more than 80% lower than the peak.
Since solar power has accounted for more than 20% of Germany ’ s total electricity generation each month in the past five months, such a serious decline in clean power production will inevitably lead to a tight overall electricity supply; in order to make up for the shortage of solar power, Germany can only maximize the use of wind power, wind power production in Germany will increase in winter.
In order to supplement the intermittent problem of wind power and ensure that the total generation of electricity rises as demand grows, power companies have to increase the generation of coal and gas, which can be controlled by power plants to balance the needs of the national electricity market.
Speaking of which, it is clear that Germany will have to rely more on fossil fuels to generate electricity, and its carbon emissions will inevitably increase.
In order to determine its ideal of a non-nuclear homeland, Germany has caused more pollution, and the cost of electricity is still high, which has hit the German industry.
In August of this year, economists criticized "Germany's economic recession is already the sick man of Europe", which is all related to the abandonment of nuclear power.
German power mix may get dirtier for 1st non-nuclear winter
# Germany # Electricity # Dirty # Carbon # Solar

At final shutdown the remaining reactors accounted for about 5% of Germany's electricity and roughly 8.1 gigawatts of capacity from the last eight reactors was retired.

Germany has set targets to rely predominantly on renewable electricity by 2035 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2045.

Title:

Content: Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
EXPRESS: Germany ’ s exit from atomic energy sector affects Europe ’ s largest economy
Germany ’ s closure of the country ’ s last three nuclear reactors and its eventual exit from the atomic energy sector raises concerns about the impact of the decision on the European Union ’ s largest economy.
Germany ’ s action could deal a blow to the technology they see as a clean and reliable alternative to fossil fuels.
Berlin is implementing its plan to limit electricity generation to renewable sources by 2035.
Earlier this week, Germany shut down its last three nuclear power plants as part of Berlin's plan to limit power generation to renewables by 2035, ending a six-decade programme that has sparked one of Europe's most powerful protest movements.
Other industrialized countries, such as the United States, Japan, China, France and Britain, rely on nuclear power to replace the fossil fuels that are warming the planet, and Germany ’ s decision to stop using both has been met with some skepticism, as well as unsuccessful last-minute calls to halt the shutdown, the report said.
Nuclear energy advocates around the world have criticized the German shutdown, realizing that the action taken by Europe ’ s largest economy could deal a blow to technology they see as a clean and reliable alternative to fossil fuels.
The German government has acknowledged that in the short term, the country will have to rely more on polluting coal and natural gas to meet its energy needs, even as steps are taken to dramatically increase electricity production from solar and wind power, and Germany aims to be carbon neutral by 2045.
But officials like German Environment Minister Stevie Lemke say the idea of a nuclear renaissance is a myth, citing data showing that the share of atomic energy in global electricity production is shrinking.
The construction of new nuclear plants in Europe has faced significant delays and cost overruns.
Limki noted that the construction of new nuclear plants in Europe has faced significant delays and cost overruns, and said the money spent on maintaining old reactors or building new ones would be better spent on installing cheap renewables.
Experts such as Claudia Kemfert of the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin say the 5% share of German electricity currently coming from its three remaining reactors can be easily replaced without risking power outages.

The loss of nuclear capacity tightened supplies and contributed to higher electricity prices, prompting increased short-term use of coal and natural gas and a temporarily 'dirtier' power mix.

Low solar output in darker months and the inherent intermittency of wind and solar increased the need to use controllable fossil-fuel plants to balance demand.

High energy prices and supply pressures in 2023 led to cuts in energy‑intensive industrial production, including chemicals, fertilizers, automobiles, steel and related sectors.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine exposed and intensified Europe's energy dependence on Russian oil and gas, and revived concerns about energy security across the continent.

Title:

Content: The Ukraine War Awakens Europe ’ s Energy Dream
The war in Ukraine has had a profound impact on the world economy.
It will, at least in terms of energy, food, strategic supply chains, finance and the world ’ s currency, international investment, and international big business, subvert the global imagination of the post-Cold War era for three decades.
The pendulum of the global historical process will inevitably swing back in the direction of “decoupling. ”
Limited to space, this is mainly about energy issues.
As the “post-Cold War era ” officially ends and traditional conflicts return to the center of the international stage, energy security is back in the spotlight.
In the Ukraine war, the warring side Russia is one of the most important energy supplies in the world, and the severity of the war of aggression has made it impossible for Russia and the European and American countries to maintain the post-Cold War era of “politics and economics ”.
The “weapon of mass destruction ” in Russia ’ s hands is energy.
Europe and the United States know that energy is Russia's most important export products, blocking energy exports can vigorously hit the Russian economy; but at the same time, it is obvious that reducing Russian energy imports will lead to a shortage of energy supply in Europe and the United States.
The United States, Canada and the United Kingdom can withstand this pain, the United States and Canada have announced that they will stop importing Russian energy, and the United Kingdom has announced that it will stop importing by the end of this year.
But Europe has become a soft spot for the Euro-American Asia-Pacific anti-Russian community, because Europe is too dependent on Russian energy.
Russia is the third largest oil exporter in the world and the second largest natural gas exporter, and Russia is far the first European energy supplier. In 2020, Europe imported a total of 185 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Russia, of which 168 billion were imported by pipeline and 1.7 billion by liquefied natural gas.
This accounts for 36% of total natural gas consumption in Europe.
In the European Union alone, natural gas imports from Russia account for 40% of its total consumption.
Such a massive dependence makes Europe ’ s energy sanctions against Russia seriously inadequate.
At the European Union meeting in Versailles on March 10, the EU announced that it would end its energy dependence on Russia by 2027 (five years later). On June 2, the EU announced the sixth round of sanctions, banning the import of Russian marine oil and reducing its oil imports by 92% by the end of the year.
But it is one thing to say, and whether it can be done is another.
Energy transition and energy crisis
In any case, the war in Ukraine has made the West suddenly aware of the importance of energy security.
Energy is the driving force behind the operation of society.
Energy security is a very important concept in the Cold War era when people were growing up. The oil crisis of the 1970s not only caused oil prices to rise, but even prices were not available, and the “spectacular ” scenarios of refueling such as long queues in front of gas stations can be found in pictures and videos.
Energy issues are so central to social issues, and even the anxiety about the “energy crisis ” in the literature and television works of the time is everywhere.
Remember the famous 1980s cartoon “Transformers ”, the core material of the battle between the Decepticons and the Boxers is the“ energy cube ”, and the two factions contended that “the one who gets the energy brick wins the world ”.
At that time, in order to stabilize the supply of energy, the United States changed its foreign policy and reached a so-called “petrodollar ” agreement with Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Arab world and one of the world ’ s largest oil reserves, to provide security and Saudi Arabia agreed to use the dollar as the only currency for oil.
The United States, with its strong naval power, provides escort for oil exports (shipping).
This system stabilizes the supply of oil from the Middle East and also provides “convenience ” for other countries.
After the end of the Cold War, under the globalization of free trade and global investment, energy production was internationalized, and many international energy companies held shares in each other.
The world rarely has a war that seriously affects the supply of energy, and even if there is a war, it is not to the point of death. The vast majority of energy-producing countries are focused on the economic and trade interests of global energy production, and they can usually guarantee the basic normal supply of energy in times of conflict.
Energy security issues have long been ignored.
In the post-Cold War era, energy issues were still very important on the international agenda, but “energy security ” fell back to the second line, and the focus quickly shifted to“ carbon reduction. ”
The rise of climatism in the face of the "crisis" brought about by global climate change.
Climatologists believe that: First, global climate change is the most important crisis of the earth, which will lead to the whole ecological deterioration, sea level rise, humanitarian disasters, and even human destruction and other tragedies; Second, the cause is mainly human carbon dioxide released when a large amount of fossil energy is used to cause global warming; Third, positive emission reduction can prevent the crisis.
Under this “three-paragraph theory ”, climatologists actively promote“ carbon reduction ” and dominate the post-Cold War energy agenda.
There are two ways to reduce emissions.
The first is to reduce energy consumption, which does not contradict the concept of energy security: less energy is used, and energy security is naturally easier to guarantee.
The second is the energy transition from “dirty ” traditional energy to“ clean ” energy.
It is this energy transition that has transformed the landscape of energy production and trade.
Countries that previously had abundant coal mines, such as Germany, had to import a large amount of natural gas because of the rush to phase out coal-fired power generation, renewable energy sources could not keep up, and there was a huge gap in energy supply; after the start of the electric vehicle revolution, the demand for electricity rose further, so the demand for natural gas was higher.
In this two-pronged way, the whole society is over-reliant on natural gas.
From the perspective of energy security, it is self-defeating.
Of course, Germany is even more amazing, even if it has not completely eliminated coal, but it has not dug up coal, and instead imported from Russia.
Another factor in Europe ’ s increased reliance on natural gas is the decline in the use of nuclear energy.
As mentioned earlier, nuclear energy is a clean energy source in the sense of carbon emissions.
After the Cold War, the share of nuclear power in Europe increased.
However, nuclear waste disposal and the safety of nuclear facilities have always been a concern.
But since 2005, nuclear power has been in decline: Europe ’ s old nuclear plant life cycle has gradually expired, and Europe (except the United Kingdom and France) has stopped building new plants.
On this issue, Germany is leading the European trend, because Germany ’ s anti-nuclear movement is the most powerful.
In particular, after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011, there were massive anti-nuclear demonstrations in Germany, and Merkel announced that all 17 nuclear power plants in the country would be shut down by 2022.
It is with Germany that other countries in Europe have accelerated the nuclear abolition project.
Nord Stream 2 highlights Germany's lack of big power
Germany, as a bad example, relies too much on “hostile states ” (Russia) in addition to abandoning coal mines and nuclear weapons.
The dispute over the North Stream 2 pipeline is best known.
Nord Stream II was a natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea (alongside the original Nord Stream I).
Germany built this pipeline for two purposes.
The first is the energy gap, and the second can double the supply of natural gas from Russia to Germany.
Second, other natural gas pipelines from Russia to Germany have to pass through Poland and Ukraine, and every time Russia uses the "energy card" to threaten to "cut off" Ukraine, it will also cause Germany to "suffer", which affects Germany's natural gas supply, but also makes Russia's "energy card" scruples.
"North Stream 2" can greatly alleviate this problem.
International large-scale natural gas transmission generally has two methods.
The traditional way is through the pipeline of the gas pipeline, natural gas is continuously transported from the source of production to the destination.
The emerging method is liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is liquefied at the production site and then transported to the destination by giant specialized vessels to re-gasify the LNG at the receiving station.
The two are better than each other.
The early investment in the pipeline method is huge (construction of pipelines), but the operating costs are relatively cheap after construction.
LNG transportation costs are generally higher than gas pipelines, plus the conversion costs from gas to liquid to gas.
In terms of transportation costs alone, the shorter the distance, the greater the cost advantage of the gas pipe; the longer the distance, the closer the transportation cost of LNG will be to the gas pipe or even lower than the gas pipe.
It is estimated that at about 700 miles, LNG transportation costs will be lower than subsea pipelines, and at about 2,200 miles, LNG will be lower than terrestrial pipelines.
From the price point of view, Europe, especially Germany, is the most economical way to import from Russia.
However, this is only based on price considerations, and if you add the national security perspective of energy security, the consideration is completely different.
The gas pipeline model is a "binding mode", after the huge construction of the gas pipeline linking the two countries, it is difficult to abandon the gas pipeline, and can not use the pipeline to transport natural gas from other countries, so the energy will depend on the exporting country for a long time.
LPG is a "non-binding mode", as long as there is a receiving station, the purchase from any country is transported by ship.
For Germany and Europe, plus Russia, which supplies pipeline gas, is an enemy, and the United States, which supplies liquefied petroleum gas, is an ally.
During the Trump administration, Nord Stream II became the focus of the contradiction of virtue.
The United States believes that Russia is a hostile country, Germany should not further increase its dependence on Russia on the important issue of energy, Nord Stream 2 should be stopped, and the United States announced sanctions.
The United States also took the opportunity to sell liquefied natural gas to the United States.
The position of the Trump administration is completely correct. Unfortunately, the relationship between the United States and Europe is very poor during the Trump period, and the sanctions are too harsh.
In Germany under Merkel, there is also the argument that the United States is less reliable than Russia.
This enabled Germany to press ahead with the construction of Nord Stream II, knowing that Russia had annexed Crimea and threatened European security.
Under this trend of thinking, Europe has further increased its dependence on Russian energy.
In fact, since 2009, Europe has been aware of its deep and growing dependence on Russian energy.
Even after the Crimea incident in 2014, Europe continued to increase its natural gas imports from Russia, and began importing Russian liquefied natural gas in 2017.
The reason for this, in addition to economic costs, is also due to the continuous decline in natural gas production in Europe itself (the North Sea gas fields are beginning to dry up).
In fact, Europe has been anaesthetizing itself, dreaming that Russia, no matter how bad, can not prevent the normal supply of energy to Europe.
However, the Russian invasion has awakened Europe ’ s “energy dream. ”
(This article is excerpted from Li ’ s book “The Disintegration of Empire and the Fortress of Freedom: Historical Origins, Geopolitics, and Justice in Ukraine ’ s War Against Russia ”, provided by Eight Banners Culture)
Extended reading
Thematic book exhibition on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict
What do Chinese forces want to enter the United States in Beijing?
Cold and sad?
The link between climate and happiness
Bureaucratic zombie policies.

Germany relied substantially on Russian energy supplies and moved to find alternative sources while announcing plans to end dependence on Russian oil, coal and gas.

Title:

Content: 00: 00
Expo 2020 Dubai Today
The European dilemma.
Energy independence.
Alternatives and challenges
T + T - normal size
The current crisis in Ukraine and the geopolitical threats associated with it have reinforced the concerns of European countries about the energy file, in light of what it revealed about the wide challenges surrounding that file; in terms of relying heavily on gas supplies from Russia, and places the countries of the old continent hostage to these political developments in a volatile region where the pace of tensions is accelerating.
In light of the Ukrainian crisis and European concerns about the energy and gas supply file, especially with the old continent's dependence on Russian gas.
The issue of “energy independence ” is a top priority for the European side in the face of these repeated threats, and in light of the proposed alternatives, some of which are seen as“ temporary ” alternatives, limited by a number of obstacles such as high costs.
Alternatives include European gas reserves, alternative foreign supplies from Arab countries such as Qatar and Algeria, as well as the use of coal.
The United States has pledged to support Europe to secure gas supplies instead of Russia if supplies are halted, at a time of renewed debate over the reliability of liquefied gas carried by tankers to replace Russian gas, with doubts about the suitability of infrastructure and readiness to receive liquefied gas.
Europe ’ s gas reserves are at their lowest level, according to Commerzbank, which noted that inventories are well below the long-term average, making reliance on inventories only temporary.
American support
The United States recognizes that there are real concerns regarding energy independence for many European countries, and therefore discusses this file with its partners, which is confirmed by a US diplomatic source, who said that his country “attaches great importance to this file, and we will do everything we can to ensure energy supplies to European countries, ” stressing at the same time that“ the various possibilities are discussed with European countries. ”
“What we would like to emphasize is the importance of Europe ’ s energy independence, so we are continuing our discussions with European countries and other allies on how to strengthen European countries ’ energy sources so that they can avoid or overcome any Russian pressure, ” he said.
On the extent to which the effects of any US decisions on the Ukraine crisis on the interests of the European side are taken into account, he said: "Washington is working side by side with its partners in Europe and will not take any steps without its partners."
Over the past weeks and months, the United States has remained in close contact with its partners, mobilizing our allies in Europe and elsewhere.
“This is a very important issue for the international community as a whole, because beyond Ukraine ’ s borders with Russia, it is about respecting international principles. ”
Liquefied Gas
The United States is currently the largest exporter of liquefied gas in the world.
Analysts disagree on how well U.S. supplies can replace Russian gas.
Bernd Weidensteiner, chief economist at Commerzbank, said: “LNG will not be able to fully fill the Russian gas gap in the short term due to the lack of capacity to provide a gas surplus in the short term by exporters. ”
Prioritize
Energy security is one of the top priorities of European countries, especially in terms of the dependence of European countries on 40% of their gas needs.
Massimiliano Bocolini, an Italian analyst at Dicode 39, told Al-Bayan that "energy supply for the Italian government has become a very sensitive subject and a priority in foreign policy, especially now after the crisis in Ukraine, especially since 30% of the energy, especially from gas, used in Italy comes from Russia."
The Italian political analyst pointed out that his government is now moving in two parallel tracks; the first track is linked to pushing for diplomatic solutions to the crisis in Ukraine (to ensure that energy supplies to Europe from Russia are not affected).
He explained that the United States promised to support Europe with gas supplies via ships if supplies from Russia stopped, as well as looking for sources from other countries, explaining that "there is a strategic vision for Italy so that it does not suffer in the energy file if the war in Ukraine begins in practice."
Permanent sources
Tarek Rifai, chief executive of the Corum Center for Strategic Studies in London, told Al-Bayan that the United States has said it is ready to help Europe with energy supplies - in light of the current crisis (the Ukraine crisis) and its consequences associated with the supply of Russian gas, in addition to the talk of alternatives from other countries, including Arab countries to supply Europe with gas such as Qatar and Algeria.
At the same time, he points out that these alternatives are considered temporary rather than permanent solutions, especially in light of several factors, including the high cost compared to the natural gas that reaches Europe via pipelines.
Germany, which relies mainly on natural gas from Russia, had shut down nuclear power reactors there at the end of 2021, despite tensions and threats to the energy file at the moment, although nuclear energy is highly efficient, clean, non-polluting and reliable.
Nuclear energy
Nuclear power generation accounted for a quarter of all electricity generation in Europe (notably France, Germany, Spain and Sweden) in 2020, according to statistics from the European Union ’ s statistics agency Eurostat.
Despite this, Europe is divided over nuclear energy and radioactive waste, after a proposal by the European Commissioner to classify gas and nuclear energy investments as climate-friendly because they do not cause any greenhouse gases, a trend strongly opposed by Germany and rejected by Italy, while Austria threatened to resort to prosecution.
But the chief executive of the Corum Centre for Strategic Studies in London believes that “a sustainable solution lies in the direction of producing energy locally.
European countries, especially Germany, should move towards clean nuclear energy because of its high efficiency, relatively affordable cost, and other reasons.
“The Ukrainian crisis and geopolitical problems are driving Europe ’ s reliance on alternative sources and the trend towards relying on energy domestically by expanding the construction of reactors. ”
Print Email

Title:

Content: Germany seeks to end energy dependence on Russia
March 23, 2022 20: 47
Eastern Network Television
More News Clips
(Photo by Getty Images)
Germany is pushing to find alternative sources of Russian oil, gas and coal, and is ready to offer more assistance to consumers and businesses struggling to cope with high energy prices.
Russia ’ s war on Ukraine has exposed Germany ’ s heavy dependence on Russian energy sources, including about half of its natural gas and coal, and about a third of its oil, which comes from Russia.
As Germany is moving away from nuclear and coal power, while trying to accelerate the development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, the country ’ s energy dependence is even more exposed.
Germany ’ s prime minister said the country ’ s dependence on Russia for oil, coal and natural gas has been increasing over the past few decades and will end it as soon as possible.

The war prompted debate in Germany about temporarily extending reactor operations; some CDU/CSU and FDP politicians supported extensions while the Green Party opposed them as a core principle.

Regional leaders, notably Bavaria's prime minister, requested exceptions or reactivation plans for specific reactors, but federal authorities largely maintained the planned closures and cautioned against politicizing the issue.

Germany and EU officials discussed limiting reliance on Russian nuclear supply chains and possible sanctions, noting that around 20% of EU uranium imports came from Russia and some countries are fully dependent on Russian supplies.

Many German ministers and analysts argue that new nuclear construction in Europe faces delays and cost overruns, and that investment would be more effective if directed to rapidly deployable renewables.

Taken together, the phase-out has pushed Germany to accelerate renewables while causing short-term increases in fossil‑fuel use, higher prices and exposure to supply risks amplified by the war in Ukraine.

In summary, Germany's nuclear exit has accelerated renewables but has temporarily increased reliance on coal and gas, raised energy prices and industrial strains, and been complicated by the Russian‑Ukrainian war and renewed political debate about possible extensions.


A pressure drop indicating an air leak aboard the International Space Station was recorded in August 2020.

Crew members temporarily isolated themselves in the Russian Zvezda module while searching for the source of the leak.

Cosmonaut Anatoly Ivanishin used a tea bag to reveal moving tea leaves and thereby locate a small crack in the Zvezda module.

The crew initially taped the crack and later received permission to use a drill and sealant to repair it.

Reports state the crew found and temporarily repaired the crack in October before continued monitoring.

Cosmonaut Pyotr Dubrov reported photographing a suspicious spot in Zvezda under magnification.

Roscosmos said cosmonauts Peter Dobrov and Anton Shkaplerov discovered a possible leak location in Zvezda in December and that repair materials would be sent on the next Progress cargo vehicle.

Roscosmos reported that NASA considered isolating the Zvezda module completely if necessary.

Some Russian sources attributed a related leak to a manufacturing defect in the Soyuz MS-09 living module.

Those sources said cosmonauts used special glue or sealant and that the hole was filled the next night after discovery.

In summary, the August 2020 ISS air leak was detected by a pressure drop, traced to a crack in the Zvezda module by a tea-bag test, temporarily patched and later monitored while repair materials and further containment were planned.

A pressure drop indicating an air leak aboard the International Space Station was recorded in August 2020.

Title:

Content: How did a bag of tea help astronauts save $150 billion?
How did a bag of tea help astronauts save $150 billion?
A few years ago, a torn bag helped save the ISS
The International Space Station was built in 1998 for $150 billion.
Every year, another 3-4 billion dollars are spent to maintain its operability, but the design is already very old and needs repair more and more often.
For example, in August 2020, a pressure drop was recorded aboard the space station, which is a sign of an air leak.
All astronauts and cosmonauts on board were isolated in the Russian Zvezda module.
After some time, it was found out that the air-permeable crack was in the module in which the entire crew temporarily settled.
One of the Russian cosmonauts was able to quickly find the place of leakage with the help of a usual tea bag.
Oxygen on the ISS
According to the India Times, the space station loses about 250 grams of oxygen every day and this is normal - it is difficult to achieve complete tightness.
In the event of an acute shortage of oxygen, it is delivered by cargo ships, but is most often produced directly at the station.
In the second case, members of the ISS use electrolysis - an electric current is passed through the water, as a result of which oxygen appears.
To do this, on board there is a life support system ECLSS, which not only monitors the operation of the station, but also provides people with access to water, protects against fires and so on.
ECLSS technical director Robyn Carrasquillo once praised Russia for using a way to extract moisture from the air, even in the old Salyut and Mir spacecraft.
ECLSS system
Oxygen leakage to the ISS
In August 2020, the space station began to lose about a kilogram of air per day.
The situation was serious, but the lives of the ISS crew were not threatened.
Astronauts from different countries temporarily began to live in the Russian module “Zvezda ” and for four days searched for a leak in other parts of the station.
The search did not give any results, so it became clear that the gap is in the Zvezda module launched more than 20 years ago.
The leak could have occurred for various reasons, for example, due to the collision of the ISS with space debris, which is a lot in near-Earth space.
Also, it was not excluded that seals simply peeled off from the walls of the station, which just do not allow oxygen to leak.
ISS module "Zvezda"
Search for the place of oxygen leakage
An unusual way to find the leak was found by cosmonaut Anatoly Ivanishin.
He installed several cameras in the module and opened the tea bag.
After some time, the ISS members noticed that the tea leaves began to move slowly towards one of the metal walls of the module.
After studying the trajectory of the leaves, the space crew quickly found the crack formed on the ISS.
First, they taped this place with tape, and then got permission to use a drill and sealant.
It is known that thanks to the trick with a package of tea, the astronauts managed to save about 150 billion dollars.
Russian cosmonaut Anatoly Ivanishin
The International Space Station is aging and will one day become completely unusable – that ’ s a fact.
New cracks were discovered even in 2021.
Especially there are many of them in the Russian module “Zarya ”, which was launched into space in 1998 and today is the oldest part of the station.
More recently, Vladimir Solovyov, General Designer of the Energia Rocket and Space Corporation, announced his concerns about the safety of the station.
It is especially frightening that the station is planned to be used even after 2025.
In theory, the use of the old station could cause a terrible disaster.
ISS module "Zarya"
Finally, I note that to replace the old module "Dawn" it was planned to send the module "Science".
But it became an independent module and docked to the ISS in July 2021.
The docking was far from perfect - the module deployed the station at 45 degrees.
19 october 2021 /
• 0
Similar news
Why not bring alcohol to the ISS?
Alcohol is officially banned on the ISS, but space researchers have found many ways to carry it with them.
Cognac is very popular with them, but it makes no sense to take beer with you.
And all
China has launched an apparatus to collect lunar soil.
When will he return to Earth?
China has successfully launched to the moon the apparatus “Chang ’ e-5 ” to collect soil samples.
This is the first such mission in 44 years, and if all goes well, China will become the third country to do so.
Russia is developing its own space station.
What will it look like?
The International Space Station was launched into orbit around our planet in 1998.
Initially, it was planned that it will work for 20 years, but subsequently the period of its use was extended.
According to the opinion
On the ISS found a place of air leakage.
What's next?
Inside the International Space Station live astronauts from different countries and they all need oxygen.
The air necessary for the life of the crew is produced by special equipment, but
Space debris nearly damaged the ISS.
How did it all work out?
Humanity began to actively explore space with the help of complex technology around the middle of the 20th century.
First, hundreds were launched into Earth orbit every year, and then thousands began to be launched.
How does space affect human vision and movement?
the brain, like the heart, is one of the main organs of the human body.
It consists of many areas, each of which has certain tasks.
Take the brain for example, this
Comments
Popular news
Immersive exhibition of Claude Monet - a complete immersion in the world of the great impressionist In 2023, NASA will launch a new lunar rover VIPER into space.
What's he gonna do?
The Vasimr nuclear rocket will take humans to Mars in one month.
Frank Woolworth, creator of price tags and supermarkets Developed the smallest aircraft.
What is it for? A Japanese cafe became famous all over the world with a toilet in the aquarium "Rain Drops" by Samuel Salcedo in the park of the city of EtretaThis picture of Renoir made a lot of noise... and three times!

Crew members temporarily isolated themselves in the Russian Zvezda module while searching for the source of the leak.

Cosmonaut Anatoly Ivanishin used a tea bag to reveal moving tea leaves and thereby locate a small crack in the Zvezda module.

The crew initially taped the crack and later received permission to use a drill and sealant to repair it.

Reports state the crew found and temporarily repaired the crack in October before continued monitoring.

Title:

Content: On the ISS found a place of possible air leakage in the module “Star ”
On the International Space Station, a place of possible air leakage in the Zvezda module was discovered.
The discovery of a "suspicious" place in the module compartment was reported by cosmonaut Pyotr Dubrov during negotiations with the Flight Control Center.
“There was a suspicious place.
I was engaged in photographing it under a microscope with magnifying glasses, ” the cosmonaut quoted Interfax as saying.
Recall that in August 2020, air leakage to the ISS was detected in the transition chamber of the Zvezda module.
In October last year, cosmonauts managed to find the crack and repair it with temporary means.
In August 2021, the media reported the detection of non-through cracks in the Russian module of the ISS "Zarya".
Executive Director of Roscosmos for manned programs Sergei Krikalev said then that he had no information about new cracks at the station.
At the same time, the representative of the state corporation noted that even in the presence of non-through cracks, the ISS can be operated for another 20 years.
Add "Pravda.Ru" to your sources in Yandex.News or News.Google, or Yandex.Zen
Fast news in the Telegram-channel Pravda.Ru.
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to keep up to date.
Is the ISS going to be a space hotel?

Cosmonaut Pyotr Dubrov reported photographing a suspicious spot in Zvezda under magnification.

Roscosmos said cosmonauts Peter Dobrov and Anton Shkaplerov discovered a possible leak location in Zvezda in December and that repair materials would be sent on the next Progress cargo vehicle.

Title:

Content: Possible location of air leak from the International Space Station
Space
International Space Station
Copy Link https: / / www.rt.com / s7a8
The media office of the Roscosmos Foundation announced that the Russian cosmonauts discovered in the unit "Zvezda", the possible place of air leakage from the International Space Station.
According to the information office, the materials and equipment needed to repair this place will be sent aboard the Progress cargo vehicle.
"The equipment and materials necessary to stop air leakage will be sent with the first Progress cargo vehicle launched to the International Space Station, to solve this problem once and for all," the statement said.
Astronauts Peter Dobrov and Anton Shkaplerov discovered the possible location of the air leak in December in the middle chamber of the Zvezda unit.
NASA has said it is considering isolating the Zvezda module completely if necessary.
The Roscosmos media office commented: “The concerns of our partners are unfounded and surprising. ”
Source: Novosti
Agree.
This website uses cookies. You can read the terms of use to activate this feature by clicking here

Roscosmos reported that NASA considered isolating the Zvezda module completely if necessary.

Some Russian sources attributed a related leak to a manufacturing defect in the Soyuz MS-09 living module.

Title:

Content: Soyuz manufacturing defect causes air leak at International Space Station
Kazakhstan News Agency / Astana / September 3 - According to the Russian satellite network reported on the 3rd, Russian rocket space sources said that the manufacturing defect is the cause of the "Soyuz MS-09" spacecraft leak.
There was an air leak on the International Space Station on August 30.
The astronauts examined all the compartments and found tiny cracks in the Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft.
It is located in the living module, not in the return module, so it will not affect the return of the spacecraft to Earth.
It was previously thought that the fissure was the result of a miniature meteorite hitting the spacecraft.
The next night, Russian cosmonauts used special sealant to fill the hole.
The source said: "The cause of the crack in the inner shell of the living module has been identified and it has appeared on Earth.
The person responsible for the fault was identified. "
According to another source, the crew likely sealed the leak with special glue after realizing the mistake, so it was not detected during the pre-launch check and the spacecraft ’ s first two months of orbital flight.
"However, the glue later dried out and was squeezed out, revealing cracks," he said.
The Russian space agency said a special committee would investigate and determine the cause of the accident.
Сейчасчитают

Those sources said cosmonauts used special glue or sealant and that the hole was filled the next night after discovery.

In summary, the August 2020 ISS air leak was detected by a pressure drop, traced to a crack in the Zvezda module by a tea-bag test, temporarily patched and later monitored while repair materials and further containment were planned.