Germany has completed its plan to end atomic power by shutting down its three remaining nuclear-fired power plants, despite nuclear energy’s previous significance in the national grid.

The German government justified the phase-out by citing safety concerns and a lack of adequate safety requirements in the nuclear field, but some experts and commentators have called Berlin’s key arguments misleading.

The move to exclude nuclear power is part of Germany’s goal to become carbon neutral, but the government has shown less opposition to including natural gas in the energy mix.

While other EU nations such as France advocate for gas and nuclear as “transitional” sources and plan to invest in new reactors, Germany is firmly against the EU’s designation of nuclear as sustainable energy, and poured cold water on EU proposals to label nuclear “green.”
Austria, which has no reactors and relies on renewables, and Spain also oppose nuclear’s inclusion in the EU’s “green” taxonomy.

Germany’s phase-out was initially reconsidered in 2009 as a possible bridge to renewables, but the commitment to the nuclear ban ultimately held firm, and the decision was a pyrrhic victory for the Greens, supported by all major German parties.

With the war in Ukraine and the collapse of Russian gas supplies, Germany has scrambled to reduce its reliance on Russian energy, launching campaigns to curb household energy use and rapidly increasing gas storage to 81% capacity.

This energy crisis has exposed Germany’s deep dependence not just on Russian gas but also on the Russian state, leaving the country vulnerable amid soaring energy costs.

The increase in energy prices has fueled anxiety and frustration among some Germans, but widespread protests or labor strikes have not materialized, and the government has introduced relief measures for citizens faced with high power bills and cost of living.

Some sectors of German society express concerns about the sustainability and affordability of the energy transition but there is no large, organized push to restart nuclear reactors.

Opponents argue nuclear power is still risky and expensive, while supporters note France’s and Japan’s renewed nuclear investments, but Germany remains committed to phasing out nuclear entirely.

The broader debate in Germany and the EU continues over balancing energy security, environmental sustainability, and affordability amid geopolitical shocks and the green transition.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has cut off gas supplies to some European Union countries in retaliation for sanctions following the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which could push the continent into recession.

In Germany, the government insists that coal’s return as an energy source will be temporary and does not threaten the target of phasing out coal by 2030.

Coal will serve as a backup to help Germany stockpile gas for winter.

This policy has created tension within the ruling coalition.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz stated on June 20 that nuclear energy will not help Germany in the short term and thus is not a priority.

The European Central Bank has warned Russia about the potential consequences of its actions.

Some believe Germany should delay closing its last nuclear power plants and further develop nuclear energy.

Meanwhile, the Nord Stream 2 project with Russia remains stalled, heightening worries about energy sufficiency.

Some experts argue there is no economic rationale for rejecting nuclear and gas from Russia, and antagonizing Russia could be rash.

Germany’s abandonment of nuclear energy was accelerated by security worries after Russia’s attacks on Ukraine and memories of the Chernobyl disaster.

Deciding to end nuclear energy was difficult for German authorities.

After the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany delayed closing reactors for several months.

Germany, aiming to end reliance on Russian energy, was concerned about potential energy supply issues.

Bavaria’s Prime Minister Markus Söder announced plans to ask the federal government to reconsider shutting down nuclear plants, soon after the last closure.

At the EU level, there has been talk of sanctions against countries buying Russian uranium for nuclear plants, though specifics remain unclear.

The EU is highly dependent on Russia’s nuclear sector.

Chancellor Scholz supported a temporary extension for Germany’s last nuclear plants due to reduced gas imports from Russia and the threat of an energy crisis.

Spiegel reported that the three remaining nuclear stations contributed only a small fraction of Germany’s total electricity output.

The Free Democrats favor extended nuclear plant operation, but Scholz’s Social Democrats and the Greens oppose it.

Last year, Germany shut down half of its nuclear power plants, with the rest scheduled for closure by year’s end—a decision stemming from Angela Merkel’s response to the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

The German government maintains that nuclear energy is a finished issue and will not be revived.

Germany is planning an increasing transition to renewables for future power needs.

Some experts argue that renewables cannot yet fully replace the lost capacity.

German Economy Minister Robert Habeck has emphasized the need to reduce gas use and reach high levels of gas storage before winter; as of June, it was at 56% capacity.

Expensive coal mining in the Ruhr limits coal’s economic efficiency.

Public support for the energy transition away from nuclear is mixed, and some remain unhappy with the government’s decision.

Germany now faces the challenge of nuclear waste disposal while temporarily relying more on coal and gas, which have greater environmental consequences.

Europe faces a severe energy crisis, compounded by its worst drought in five centuries and significant environmental losses.

Poland has decided to build its first nuclear plant, showing new interest in nuclear energy across Europe.

The construction of new nuclear plants in Europe has experienced delays and cost overruns.

Germany, once Europe’s largest economy and a major consumer of Russian gas, has committed to phasing out nuclear energy, with its last three nuclear reactors scheduled to be taken off the grid by the end of 2022.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz indicated the government would soon decide whether to extend nuclear energy use due to the current energy crisis caused in part by the war in Ukraine.

This proposal is controversial within the ruling coalition: Economy Minister Robert Habeck of the Green Party supports keeping only two reactors operational temporarily, while others support a full extension.

Chancellor Scholz clarified that any decision on nuclear energy would specify the precise conditions and timeline for implementation.

Germany’s strategy to cope with energy shortages includes rapidly filling gas storage (targeting 85% capacity by September), importing LNG from the United States, and relying on increased storage for winter use.

In 2021, Russian gas comprised roughly 55% of Germany’s total consumption; disruption due to the Russian-Ukrainian war exposed risks in Germany's energy security and led to plans for legal changes to better manage future crises.

There is no legal requirement for gas and coal reserves as there is for oil, a gap now seen as a policy failure.

Germany also maintains its commitment to phasing out coal by 2038 at the latest, increasing pressure to expand renewable energy quickly.

Technical barriers to reactivating nuclear plants include difficulty sourcing suitable fuel rods and a shortage of skilled personnel.

Some German states, such as Bavaria, have called for reconsideration of the nuclear exit to maintain local power supplies, notably the 1,400MW Isar II reactor.

Environmental activists like Greta Thunberg have criticized Germany’s return to coal over extending nuclear, calling it a “bad idea.”
Despite debate, Germany shut down its last nuclear plants in April 2023 as per the government’s decision to transition to renewable energy by 2035.

Chancellor Scholz has expressed optimism about getting through the upcoming winter, while legislative actions are underway to improve energy crisis responses.

Once published, the draft could still be rejected by a majority of EU member states or the European Parliament.

Germany’s transport minister has called for the creation of an expert committee to examine whether the country’s nuclear power plants should be extended.

Germany’s last nuclear power plants are set to close by the end of this year.

In the past few decades, nuclear power has already declined, but the sunset industry is now repackaging with “green energy” and trying to return to the market as a “climate savior”.

Safety concerns remain central in discussions about nuclear energy.

Investing in nuclear energy to save the planet is under debate, but costs are very high—for example, TerraPower’s new reactor is estimated at $1 billion and requires significant congressional sponsorship.

During earlier decades, Germany and France developed nuclear energy in tandem, with a 1.22 million megawatt unit built in Germany in 1986 on the Rhine.

There are ongoing costs for waste management, including funding recovery plans for nuclear waste disposal sites.

Questions remain about the economic viability of shutting down the remaining three nuclear plants in 2022.

Some decisions regarding nuclear policy may require parliamentary approval and have not yet been formally adopted.

Renewable energy sources cannot generate electricity consistently, and as installed capacity increases, their average capacity factor is low.

The German energy system must rely on other sources to fill the gap when renewables are insufficient.

In other countries, fossil fuel generation remains dominant (e.g., 82.0% in Taiwan in 2019 and 83.3% in 2021).

The German government is hesitant to take risks and focuses on safety in contrast to other energy policies abroad.

Since 2009, Europe has been acutely aware of growing Russian energy dependence.

Germany has completed its plan to end atomic power by shutting down its three remaining nuclear-fired power plants, despite nuclear energy’s previous significance in the national grid.

Title:

Content: Three nuclear-fired power plants will be taken off the grid in Germany on Friday as part of the country's plan to end atomic power.

"The nuclear phaseout makes our country safer and helps to avoid radioactive waste," said Federal Environment and Nuclear Safety Minister Steffi Lemke.

"It is now essential to ... advance the search for a final repository for high-level radioactive waste as well as permanent solutions for low- and medium-level radioactive waste," the environment ministry said.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel speeded up the phaseout following the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan.

Friday's shutdown affects power plants in Brokdorf in Schleswig-Holstein, Grohnde in Lower Saxony and Gundremmingen C in Bavaria.

Germany's remaining three nuclear plants — Emsland in Lower Saxony, Isar 2 in Bavaria and Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Württemberg — will be closed by the end of 2022 "at the latest," the environment ministry said.

"Since 2011, Germany has been drawing a line under a highly problematic technology in an orderly, reliable process," Lemke said.

Nuclear accounts for about 10 percent of Germany's electricity production. The shutdown has sparked criticism as Germany will have to dramatically ramp up renewable energy and has also increased its reliance on highly polluting coal-fired power.

"Security of supply in Germany continues to be guaranteed," said Robert Habeck, federal climate and economy minister. He added that reliable and "sustainably generated electricity" is a "central requirement for aligning our economy and industry toward climate neutrality."

That stance puts Berlin at loggerheads with France, where nuclear is the largest element of its energy mix (and also helps supply Germany).

EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton said in September that existing nuclear plants, which provide low-carbon electricity essential to the green transition, can be kept running "for two, five, 10 years," adding: "Why deprive ourselves of this production capacity?"

France is planning to scale down the share of nuclear in its electricity mix from 75 percent to 50 percent by 2035, but President Emmanuel Macron said in November that France "will restart the construction of nuclear reactors" while "continuing to develop renewable energies."

Macron also said France will invest €1 billion into research and development, notably into small modular reactors.

Belgium recently decided to shut down all its nuclear power plants by 2025, but plans to invest €100 million in new generation nuclear reactors and research.

More from ... Louise Guillot

The German government justified the phase-out by citing safety concerns and a lack of adequate safety requirements in the nuclear field, but some experts and commentators have called Berlin’s key arguments misleading.

Title:

Content: EU chaos! Macron and Scholz in furious bust-up over EU energy plans: ‘Risky and expensive'

FRENCH President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are locked in a furious bust-up over EU energy policy plans as disagreements have sparked division in the bloc.

Link copied

Macron wields 'tools to set EU agenda'

While France has been pushing for nuclear to be included in the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy, Germany is in the process of completely phasing out the energy source in the country. The EU’s taxonomy is intended to hand a green badge to companies and activities — or to withhold it — to “help shift investments where they are most needed". This is part of the bloc’s aim to direct funding towards energy sources with a low or zero carbon footprint.

But this has sparked fury as Germany does not view nuclear power as a form of clean energy.

Mr Macron wants gas and nuclear to be labelled as a “transitional” source under the taxonomy as he claims they are needed for the clean energy transition.

He says that this is because renewables are “intermittent, and thus not totally substitutable, even with our interconnections [in Europe], for non-intermittent sources of electricity production” like gas or nuclear power.

And these calls do not come as much of a surprise, given that 70 percent of French electricity is generated by nuclear power.

Mr Macron has pointed to the verdict from experts on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to back up his calls.

Macron and Scholz are in a furious energy bust-up (Image: Getty )

Emmanuel Macron is pushing for nuclear power to be included in the EU taxonomy (Image: Getty )

They claim that “nuclear power is one of the solutions to decarbonise our economies”.

And this seems to have convinced Brussels, as the EU Commission drew up a draft proposal, circulated on 31 December, for this to come into effect.

Subject to a consultation period until Friday (21 January), It gave EU members and others just three weeks to analyse the proposal and provide their own comments.

Germany is strongly opposed to the nuclear plans and has been phasing out nuclear power for over two decades.

It also plans to shut down its three remaining plants at the end of the year.

READ MORE: World holds breath as Ukraine to fire rocket amid Russia tension

Olaf Scholz's Government is opposed to the EU's proposal (Image: Getty )

But it is not Berlin who disapproves of the proposal.

The EU Platform on Sustainable Finance, a European Commission advisory body, has torn the proposal apart.

In an opinion piece, it argued that nuclear power is not an entirely clean energy source, and that fossil gas is “far from green”.

Under the EU’s draft proposal, gas-fired power plants would get a “transitional” investment label if they meet a certain criteria.

That is if they use “at least 30 percent of renewable or low-carbon gases as of 1 January 2026, and at least 55 percent of renewable or low-carbon gases as of 1 January 2030”.

DON'T MISS
Boris on brink: Red Wall poll signal end of the road for PM [REPORT]
EU Galileo blow as UK’s OneWeb network signs major deals [REVEAL]
EU helpless over Russia thanks to Merkel as Biden poised to step in [INSIGHT]

Germany argued nuclear is not a clean energy source (Image: Getty )

And as of January 1, 2036, the Commission said all gas-fired power plants would have to “switch to renewable or low-carbon gases” to qualify for the EU’s green investment label.

But under EU rules, no technology can be considered green if it causes “significant harm” to any of the taxonomy’s six environmental objectives.

Those are climate change mitigation and adaptation, water protection, the transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention, and biodiversity protection.

Germany has been kicking up a fuss over the proposals, calling them “risky and expensive” in a letter sent to Brussels.

Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said in a joint statement with Environment Minister Steffi Lemke: “As the federal government, we have once again clearly expressed our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy. It is risky and expensive."

Germany has also claimed that there is a lack of safety requirements in the nuclear field.

Robert Habeck sent a letter to Brussels slamming the proposal (Image: Getty )

And it argued that the lengthy construction of new reactors "does not offer a short-term opportunity" to phase out carbon-intensive energy sources such as coal.

But while it has poured cold water over nuclear plans, Germany does not seem so opposed to the inclusion of gas.

In the letter sent to Brussels, it reads that gas used in "ultra-modern and efficient gas-fired power plants forms a bridge for a limited transitional period".

But the German Government did mention that the proposed fuel switch targets to low-carbon and renewable gases laid out by the taxonomy proposal are not realistic.

And Mr Macron is travelling to Berlin today to meet with Mr Scholz.

While the leaders’ meeting will focus on the Russia’s mounting pressure on Ukraine, the energy plans will no doubt be a topic of conversation too.

The move to exclude nuclear power is part of Germany’s goal to become carbon neutral, but the government has shown less opposition to including natural gas in the energy mix.

While other EU nations such as France advocate for gas and nuclear as “transitional” sources and plan to invest in new reactors, Germany is firmly against the EU’s designation of nuclear as sustainable energy, and poured cold water on EU proposals to label nuclear “green.”
Austria, which has no reactors and relies on renewables, and Spain also oppose nuclear’s inclusion in the EU’s “green” taxonomy.

Title:

Content: Germany opposes the EU’s designation of nuclear energy as sustainable energy

Osório Wind Farm, in Rio Grande do Sul

In the letter to Brussels, the German government also cited the lack of safety requirements in relation to nuclear power plants.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party coalition government expressed objection to the European Union’s draft plan to classify nuclear plants as sustainable energy sources in a formal letter sent to Brussels, ministers said on Saturday.

The EU taxonomy seeks to set standards for green investments, helping climate-friendly projects raise capital and eliminating “green laundering” whereby investors and companies exaggerate their green credentials.

“As a federal government, we must once again clearly express our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy. It’s risky and expensive,” Deputy Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck said in a joint statement with Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, both senior members of the Green Party.

In the letter to Brussels, published by the Ministry of Economy on its website, the German government also cited the lack of safety requirements in relation to nuclear power plants.

“Serious, high risk, cross-border, long-term accidents to humans and the environment cannot be excluded,” Berlin said in its letter, adding that the question of where to store radioactive waste in the long term remains unanswered. .

Habeck and Leme said that if the European Commission does not consider Germany’s objections and does not modify the draft, Berlin, in their view, should reject the plan.

However, German government sources told Reuters earlier this month that coalition parties wanted to avoid an escalation in the dispute with the EU and had agreed to closed-door talks between the coalition to abstain from any future votes.

EU rules have long been delayed, with countries divided over whether nuclear power and natural gas deserve the green badge. Austria has already said it will take legal action if the European Union proceeds with the draft it calls both sustainable investments.

About Abhishek Pratap

Food maven. Unapologetic travel fanatic. MCU's fan. Infuriatingly humble creator. Award-winning pop culture ninja.

Check Also

Energy and climate: Austria, Denmark, Spain and Luxembourg challenge European Commission taxonomy

Austria, Denmark, Spain and Luxembourg on Thursday sent a letter to the European Commission, questioning …

Germany’s phase-out was initially reconsidered in 2009 as a possible bridge to renewables, but the commitment to the nuclear ban ultimately held firm, and the decision was a pyrrhic victory for the Greens, supported by all major German parties.

Title:

Content: How decades of complacency have left Germany facing a cold, dark winter

Betrayed by its own elite, the country is at risk of social unrest

Germany is facing its worst winter for 75 years. The impending catastrophe risks crippling its economy, sweeping away its government and bringing chaos to the heart of Europe.

In 1946-47, perhaps half a million Germans starved or froze to death in their ruined cities. Older Germans still shudder at the memory of the “Hunger Winter”. Some blamed the Nazis, others the Allied occupation. In fact, the British sent food, fuel and clothing they could ill afford to spare themselves.

Now Europe’s largest economy is heading for a winter of recession, rationing and possible blackouts. This time, though, there is nobody to blame except Germany’s complacent – and in some cases corrupt – political establishment.

As Vladimir Putin chokes off Russian gas supplies – already down to a fifth of their pre-war level – by closing the Nord Stream 1 pipeline for “maintenance” yet again next week, the lamps are going out for Olaf Scholz and his “traffic light” coalition of Social Democrats, Liberal and Greens.

'Autumn of rage'

The Bundesbank has been predicting a recession and the latest figures show that business activity is already contracting. Inflation, which hit 8.5 per cent last month, is expected to keep rising along with the rest of the eurozone, probably into double figures.

Yet for historical reasons Germans won’t just accept high inflation as a consequence of the war in Ukraine. The world remembers the hyperinflation that undermined the Weimar Republic a century ago; only older Germans recall the hyperinflation after the Second World War, which lasted longer. For three years Germany’s only stable currency was American cigarettes. No wonder Germans have been allergic to inflation ever since.

It is true that Germans are not yet demanding big pay rises or going on strike. But energy prices are already rising exponentially. The country's one-year ahead power price has skyrocketed to almost €1,000 per megawatt-hour, a jump of more than 720pc since the start of 2022. If Putin turns off the tap, bringing the mighty German economy to a juddering halt this winter, there is a real danger of civil unrest.

Intelligence officials are warning that extremist organisations, such as the neo-Nazis of Combat 18, are planning an “autumn of rage”. As a foretaste, in the old Prussian town of Neuruppin near Berlin, there were ugly scenes this month as Scholz was shouted down by far-Left and far-Right protesters.

But the panic and indignation now brewing go far beyond the ranks of the “unteachable” extremists.

Germans sense that unaccountable elites have ceded control of their country’s destiny to Putin. The more they are must pay him for Russian gas, the bigger his war chest with which to perpetrate genocide in Ukraine.

Forcing Germany to be complicit in a colossal crime against humanity is a diabolical twist in the vengeance that Putin is now exacting upon Europe for backing Ukraine. According to The Economist’s Christian Odendahl, at present prices Germany will need to spend 8.4 per cent of its GDP on gas. Hitherto it was just 1 per cent.

Already preparations are underway for central heating to be rationed or even switched off, forcing residents to seek shelter in schools or town halls.

The country is scrambling to reduce its reliance on gas with a campaign to make households cut back, and a massive national effort has brought gas storage levels up to 81 per cent full.

Food prices, meanwhile, rose at a rate of nearly 15 per cent in July. Those who fear being unable to afford to heat their homes or feed their families are prey to angst and anger.

Actions have consequences... or do they?

Few foresaw the Russian invasion of Ukraine, let alone its devastating consequences for Europe. But it is dawning on the German people that the seeds of the present crisis were sown over the quarter of a century from 1998 to 2022, under Angela Merkel and her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder.

These were the years of plenty for Germany, when Berlin dominated the European Union, ensuring that its export-led economy benefited from the single currency while loading the social costs on to its poorer neighbours. But Germany’s dirty secret was cheap Russian energy.

Under Schröder – who went on to become one of Putin’s “useful idiots” – German industry began to abandon its postwar reliance on coal and nuclear energy in favour of Russian gas and renewables.

In 2011, after the Fukushima accident, Mrs Merkel announced that all German nuclear power plants would be closed down. It was a pyrrhic victory for the Greens but backed by all the major parties. Public opinion had been turned against nuclear energy in the 1980s by the Soviet-funded “peace movement”. Now the Greens are the keystone of the Scholz coalition.

Even in the country’s present predicament, Robert Habeck, the Green Vice-Chancellor and Environment Minister, is refusing to reverse the exit from nuclear to alleviate the energy crisis, though it is still possible over time to reactivate a number of nuclear power stations.

Yet Berlin is demanding that 26 other EU member states make huge cuts in energy use this winter to help Germany – to the irritation of the Spanish and others, who don’t depend on Russian gas and recall lectures from Berlin during the eurozone crisis about actions having consequences.

For decades, the Kremlin acted as Germany’s geopolitical drug-dealer, tempting Berlin to become ever more addicted to the energy that fuelled its manufacturing, pharmaceutical and chemical factories. Now that the Germans are about to go cold turkey, they are discovering how cynically the national interest was betrayed by their politicians and captains of industry.

With Schröder as its salesman, a new Nord Stream 2 pipeline was built under the Baltic Sea — with the blessing of Mrs Merkel, who fended off Anglo-American pressure to cancel what was regarded as a threat to European energy security.

Last year, as Russian tanks massed on the Ukrainian border and Nato warned of imminent invasion, Gazprom redoubled its efforts to keep the flagship project on track.

The Russian energy giant poured €192 million (£163m) into an environmental foundation set up by Manuela Schwesig, the Social Democratic premier of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — the state that hosted Nord Stream 2 and stood to gain most. She proceeded to denounce the US for opposing the pipeline, claiming that American sanctions were purely self-interested.

Putin’s stooges almost succeeded in persuading Scholz to defy his Nato allies. He dithered until the eve of February’s invasion before shelving Nord Stream 2.

Now, after six months of Europe’s worst war since 1945, some German politicians are once again calling for the pipeline to be opened “so that people do not have to freeze in winter and our industry does not suffer serious damage”, as Wolfgang Kubicki, Vice-President of the German Parliament, puts it.

Meanwhile Ms Schwesig has just been re-elected as leader of the Social Democrats in her state by a large majority. Schröder has yet to be expelled from the party, let alone sanctioned.

Germany’s Achilles’ heel

This is the measure of Germany’s abject reliance, not only on Russian energy, but on the Russian state. For Putin, gas and oil were only ever a means to an end. He has always wanted to reduce the Germans — towards whom Russians have traditionally had an inferiority complex — to a status of servility.

Stalin only succeeded in dividing Germany. Putin seeks to turn the entire Federal Republic into his client state — and thereby impose his will upon Europe.

With the unerring eye of the predator, Putin grasped that energy was Germany’s Achilles’ heel. A single plant of a single corporation, the headquarters of the chemical and pharmaceutical giant BASF at Ludwigshafen, uses as much energy as Denmark.

Over the last 25 years, Germany’s craving for cheap energy led it into an unequal relationship with Russia — what the philosopher Hegel called “the dialectic of master and slave”.

Putin saw that some German politicians could be bought (Schröder), others bamboozled (Merkel), and still others bullied (Scholz). Other EU countries followed the German example by relying heavily on Moscow for energy, influenced by the evasion and ambivalence that has characterised Berlin’s policy for decades.

Germany, whose economy is substantially larger than Britain’s, has given just £1 billion in military aid to Ukraine compared to the UK’s £3.5 billion. The United States has given ten times as much as the EU. Yet Ukraine is a European country under genocidal attack.

The reluctance to provoke Putin that still prevails in wide circles of the Federal Republic is rooted in exaggerated notions of Russian military power, economic importance and cultural pre-eminence.

German fatalism about Russia’s ability to absorb casualties and yet win ultimate victory reflects folk memories of the Eastern Front. But Putin, unlike Stalin, does not have a vast conscript army at his disposal, he does not enjoy technical superiority and he cannot afford the war of attrition that he has unleashed. Nor are the Russian people united against an invading force in defence of their homeland. Only in Berlin do they think this is another Stalingrad.

This historical myopia has much to do with the long-standing German habit of subsuming the other nations that made up the Soviet Union into Russia. To this day most Germans have no awareness of the fact that the Nazis killed millions of Ukrainian civilians and devastated their country.

Ironically, many artists, writers and musicians who have fled Ukraine have found refuge in Germany. One example is the composer Valentin Silvestrov, who fled to Berlin aged 84 with one suitcase, full of his manuscripts. Once there, he discovered that Ukrainian music was unknown in Germany. Now that Silvestrov’s works are being performed, including at the Proms in London, the Germans are slowly waking up to the presence of a greater living composer than any of their own.

Many ordinary Germans, like the British, instinctively warm to the Ukrainian cause. The difference is in leadership – or lack of it. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, unlike Boris Johnson or Liz Truss, has shown only lukewarm support for Kyiv and has been implicitly rebuked by President Zelensky.

Hamburger grilled

Although there is no suggestion that Scholz has been bribed to go easy on Russia, he himself has become embroiled in a corruption scandal. He is accused of helping M.M. Warburg & Co, Germany’s oldest and largest private bank, to avoid a €47 million fine in 2016, during his time as Finance Minister in the Merkel coalition.

The Hamburg-based bank is alleged to have made up to €300 million in a capital gains tax scam which came to light while Scholz was also mayor of the city state. Just as he finds himself facing an unexpectedly grim present and a positively terrifying future, his provincial past has returned to haunt him.

Last week the Chancellor was grilled by a committee of inquiry in Hamburg. The normally meticulous Scholz claimed not to remember any details about his meetings with Warburg’s former chief, Christian Olearius, who has now been charged with tax evasion. Germany’s safe pair of hands, whom millions had entrusted with the nation’s finances, is now accused of being cosy with tax-dodging bankers and being an unimpressive, even unreliable, witness.

In other ways, too, Scholz is failing to live up to the moral example set by the two great Social Democratic Chancellors of post-war Germany, Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt. At a joint press conference with Mahmoud Abbas in Berlin earlier this month, Scholz remained tight-lipped while the Palestinian leader delivered an anti-Semitic tirade, accusing Israel of committing “many Holocausts” against his people.

Schmidt, who concealed the fact he had a Jewish grandfather from the Nazis but as Chancellor was an outspoken philosemite, would not have been impressed by his fellow Hamburger Scholz. Nor would Brandt, who famously fell to his knees at the memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Not for decades has anti-Semitism been such a threat in Germany: in July, Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial was desecrated with swastikas. Now, as Putin’s myrmidons massacre and deport Ukrainians near the site of Nazi genocide, while a quarter of the Russian Jewish population has emigrated in anticipation of pogroms, Germany needs a leader who is not afraid to denounce anti-Semitism even at the cost of diplomatic niceties.

After less than a year in office, Scholz’s personal ratings are plumbing depths never seen during Mrs Merkel’s 16 years at the helm. As Germans brace themselves for unprecedented hardships in peacetime, they are led by a weak and indecisive Chancellor at the head of a fragile three-party coalition.

Post-heroic, post-patriotic

Wednesday’s visit to Kyiv by Boris Johnson – his third – to mark Ukraine’s Independence Day was hugely appreciated not only by Volodymyr Zelensky but by all Ukrainians. Yet it was a gesture of solidarity that did not occur – could not have occurred – to Olaf Scholz.

The German Chancellor’s only visit to the Ukrainian capital last June, accompanied by Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi, was an awkward, chilly affair that yielded little more than promises. This week, Scholz posted a short video message, concluding: “Our hearts are with you.” Ulrich Speck, a German foreign policy analyst, commented: “Hearts, yes. But not weapons.”

Johnson, by contrast, knows he is among friends in Kyiv – a friendship symbolised by Zelensky awarding him Ukraine’s highest honour, the Order of Liberty. It is impossible to imagine the lugubrious German Chancellor finding the Prime Minister’s pithy words: “While people [in the West] are paying energy bills, people in Ukraine are paying with blood.” Nor would Scholz echo him in declaring: “I believe Ukraine can and will win this war.”

For his part, Zelensky told his people that they had been “reborn” in the heat of war. “We used to say: ‘Peace’. Now we say: ‘Victory’,” he declared.

Highly educated Germans find it hard to empathise with such Churchillian sentiments. Jürgen Habermas, the eminence grise of German intellectuals, makes condescending comments about Ukraine as a primitive place, still captive to the nationalist illusions of the last century, unlike more sophisticated, “post-heroic” Germany. It doesn’t occur to the 93-year-old philosopher that without the heroism of its soldiers and civilians, Ukraine would by now have ceased to exist.

Prussian military prowess has long since given way to post-patriotic pusillanimity. Where Merkel and Scholz feared to tread and even Biden was hesitant, Johnson was the first to commit himself wholeheartedly to the cause and to visit war-torn Kyiv.

Many other nations – the Poles, the Baltic states, the Scandinavians and the Canadians among them – have been more supportive than the Germans, who owe Ukrainians the greatest moral debt.

Berlin boasts of handing out a handful of howitzers while dithering over clapped-out armoured vehicles. Meanwhile British arms and training, Turkish drones and American rocket artillery systems have proved decisive on the battlefield.

Sold down the Dnieper

Although the Scholz coalition officially sides with Ukraine, the unpalatable fact remains that Germany and its EU partners are financing Russian aggression by paying vast sums for Russian gas.

Will they stand up to Putin in Germany when the enormity of the ordeal ahead becomes clear to everybody? Will public opinion continue to back even the present feeble commitment, or will the voices calling for peace at the expense of Ukrainians prevail? It is all too believable that at some point, probably early next year when gas storage facilities are empty, Berlin – and Brussels – will open negotiations with the Kremlin, regardless of Kyiv’s wishes.

Yet it is then that the ghosts of the past may rise up to intervene in the present. The thought of Germans and Russians redrawing the map of Eastern Europe at the conference table sends shivers down the spines of every Pole, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and, of course, Ukrainian. On August 23, 1940, exactly 82 years ago this week, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, carving up Poland (which then included Lviv and other parts of present-day Ukraine) and the Baltic states between Russia and Germany. No German Chancellor wishes to be reminded of that precedent.

However, nor can Scholz risk presiding over an even deeper and more lasting recession than that caused by the Covid pandemic. Somehow he must steer a course between the Scylla of appeasing Putin and the Charybdis of economic ruin.

The tension between these positions is reflected in the tripartite coalition. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and the Greens are the hawks, Finance Minister Christian Lindner and his pro-business Free Democrats are the doves, while the Social Democrats are deeply divided. The party leadership leans towards Moscow, the rank and file towards Kyiv. This explains why Scholz never says that he wants Ukraine to win the war, merely that they must not lose it.

The opposition Christian Democrats are only slightly more united. They too have a large wing that privately favours a negotiated peace, represented by their pro-business leader Friedrich Merz, and a smaller but not insignificant group led by the foreign affairs expert Norbert Röntgen, who hope for a Ukrainian victory. Merz has papered over the cracks by focusing on a campaign to reverse his predecessor Mrs Merkel’s exit from nuclear energy.

Meanwhile, the “understanding Putin” lobby has the support of both the hard Left Die Linke and anti-immigration AfD parties. German public opinion has slowly tiptoed away from its initial admiration for Ukrainian resistance and towards a compromise peace.

That subtle shift could soon become an overwhelming tide, once Germans are required to make real sacrifices. Vladimir Putin, we may be sure, is counting on it.

From October, Scholz will impose a gas levy on consumers to compensate energy companies for the cost of replacing Russian gas supplies. Germany’s biggest energy company, Uniper, was bailed out in July to the tune of £12.5 billion; it is now claiming another £18.5 billion of levies.

This policy is bound to be unpopular, since it redistributes tens of billions from the poor to the rich — curious thinking for a government of the Left. But this is nothing compared to the prospect of protests sparked by a national shutdown caused, not by a deadly virus, but by Putin’s energy politics.

A change in the air?

Modern Germany has a volatile history of popular protest. It began with the revolution that toppled the Kaiser in 1918. The Nazis mobilised the masses to carry out their “national revolution” in 1933. A workers’ uprising in East Germany was crushed by Soviet tanks in 1953. Student protests brought about a cultural revolution in 1968. Uniquely bloodless and benign was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This was Germany’s finest hour.

The defiance that breached the Wall and sent the Soviet army home was a blessing, but the despair that Putin’s revenge may induce this winter will surely be a curse. Gas has given the Russian dictator coercive control over the German political class, which willingly acquiesced in its fate.

In Kyiv, Boris Johnson said: “I can tell you that we in the UK will not for one second give in to Putin’s blackmail.” Olaf Scholz is incapable of speaking like this — because he does not believe it. He has failed to frame the coming ordeal as a battle in which Germans must make sacrifices for their own liberty, not just Ukraine’s. People don’t mind his lack of charisma; they do mind facing a nightmarish winter with spineless hypocrisy at the helm.

Will it become so obvious by next spring that Scholz is unequal to the task that either he or his coalition are replaced? Can the centre of German politics hold — or are we about to see a terrible revolt of the masses against a discredited political establishment? It has happened before. It can happen again.

Daniel Johnson was the Telegraph’s correspondent in Germany and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. He is now the editor of TheArticle.

With the war in Ukraine and the collapse of Russian gas supplies, Germany has scrambled to reduce its reliance on Russian energy, launching campaigns to curb household energy use and rapidly increasing gas storage to 81% capacity.

This energy crisis has exposed Germany’s deep dependence not just on Russian gas but also on the Russian state, leaving the country vulnerable amid soaring energy costs.

The increase in energy prices has fueled anxiety and frustration among some Germans, but widespread protests or labor strikes have not materialized, and the government has introduced relief measures for citizens faced with high power bills and cost of living.

Title:

Content:   1. Skip to content
  2. Skip to main menu
  3. Skip to more DW sites
The upper house of Germany's parliament signed off on a number of major legislative packages on Friday aimed at helping address inflation and soaring energy costsImage: Wolfgang Kumm/dpa/picture alliance
PoliticsGermany

Germany approves welfare reform, extends nuclear power

2 hours ago

Germany's upper house of parliament approved measures aimed at helping people hit hard by high energy prices and the high cost of living. The country's nuclear power extension will also take effect immediately.

https://p.dw.com/p/4K5HV

The upper house of Germany's parliament, the Bundesrat, approved extending the use of three nuclear power plants, overhauling unemployment benefits and other major legislation on Friday after heated debate among lawmakers.

After receiving approval from the Bundesrat, the measures will soon enter into law. DW breaks down what's set to change in 2023.

Nuclear power extension

The Bundesrat signed off on the extension of three nuclear power plants after the lower house, the Bundestag, approved the move earlier this month.

The nuclear plants — Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2 and Emsland — will remain operational until April 2023 to provide enough power through the winter. The facilities had been slated to close at the end of this year under Germany's nuclear phaseout plans.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz decided to extend the life of the nuclear plants after Germany found itself facing a severe energy shortage. Russia turned off supplies of gas in response to the backlash over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.

The extension was bitterly debated among Scholz's center-left Social Democrats (SPD), the environmentalist Greens and the pro-free market Free Democrats (FDP).

With Friday's approval from the upper house, the nuclear power plant extension will take effect immediately.

Germany set to keep nuclear plants running

Unemployment reform

Germany is set for a major welfare overhaul after the Bundesrat signed off on a compromise to reform unemployment benefits.

The changes will go into effect as of January 1, 2023, replacing the current and frequently criticized "Harz IV" unemployment benefits system that has been in place since 2005.

Under the new "Bürgergeld" system (which means "citizen's money"), those who are unemployed will get higher benefits and better vocational skills training.

The initial proposal by Scholz's government was rejected by conservative lawmakers in the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) bloc. Under the compromise, benefits could be cut during a six-month "trust period" if an unemployed person is deemed to not be looking hard enough for work.

According to the plans, those receiving benefits will also get more support in job training programs to prepare for permanent employment. The change also is an attempt to mitigate the shortage of skilled workers Germany is currently experiencing.

"This reform is a milestone of social policy in Germany," Scholz told the magazine Focus on Friday after the votes. "This reform put assistance for untrained people who belong to the long-term jobless front and center."

The measure must still be signed by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, although nearly all measures approved by the Bundesrat are signed-off by the president.

More money for Germany's unemployed?

Tax relief, higher child benefits

With inflation hitting consumers hard, lawmakers approved measures aimed at softening the blow.

The upper house approved legislation that would help people who receive pay raises that adjust for inflation. The new measures would prevent people having to pay more taxes due to pay raises.

Starting in January 2023, child benefit payments will also be raised. Families will now receive €250 ($260) per month for each child in the household.

The change is a big jump from the current system, which saw parents receive €219 per month for their first and second child, €225 per month for a third child, and €250 for each additional child.

More support for renters

The upper house of parliament also greenlit a law that seeks to help renters deal with skyrocketing heating costs.

Starting from January 1, renters will no longer have to shoulder the costs of heating with oil and natural gas — landlords and property owners will have to chip-in as well.

For buildings that are not energy efficient and produce a high proportion of CO2 emissions, landlords will need to pay more — and not the renters.

In addition, more people in low-income households will receive a housing allowance from the government. The expansion to the law means 1.4 million households are eligible for the payments, as opposed to the current 600,000 households that qualify.

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

rs/ar (dpa, KNA, epd)

Climate, energy woes dim views of holiday lighting

Skip next section Related topics
Skip next section DW's Top Story

DW's Top Story

Ukraine updates: Power returns to nuclear plants

Skip next section More stories from DW
Go to homepage

Some sectors of German society express concerns about the sustainability and affordability of the energy transition but there is no large, organized push to restart nuclear reactors.

Opponents argue nuclear power is still risky and expensive, while supporters note France’s and Japan’s renewed nuclear investments, but Germany remains committed to phasing out nuclear entirely.

The broader debate in Germany and the EU continues over balancing energy security, environmental sustainability, and affordability amid geopolitical shocks and the green transition.

Title:

Content: Home / News / World /  Germany quits nuclear power; shuts final 3 plants
Back

Germany has shut its final three nuclear plants, marking the end of the country's end of nuclear era that has spanned more than 60 years.

Nuclear power has long been contentious in Germany.

The move has come as Germany's eyes achieve its green goal. Steffi Lemke, Germany’s Federal Minister for the Environment and Consumer Protection and a Green Party member, "The position of the German government is clear: nuclear power is not green. Nor is it sustainable".

Closure of three nuclear plant's history:

Germany shut three plants-- Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim, representing the culmination of a plan set in motion more than 20 years ago.

During the 1970s, a strong anti-nuclear movement emerged in Germany. The movement gave birth to the green party, which is now part of governing coalition.

However, it was in the 2000s the German government pledged to phase out nuclear power and start shutting down plants.

But in 2009, a new government came to power and it seemed brief as if nuclear would get a reprieve as a bridging technology to help the country move to renewable energy.

Then Fukushima happened. In 2011, an earthquake and tsunami caused three reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant to melt down.

Three days later then-Chancellor Angela Merkel who was previously pro-nuclear, announced Germany would accelerate a nuclear phase-out, with older plants shuttered immediately.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided another plot twist.

Germany isn’t the only country committed to walking away from nuclear — Italy gave up the technology in 1990, and Lithuania recently struck a deal to dismantle its Soviet-era reactors, which have sat idle for over a decade. But in many advanced economies, nuclear is experiencing a resurgence.

On Sunday, Finland will start regular power production at Europe’s newest and biggest reactor. The 1,600-megawatt Olkiluoto-3 unit that faced years of delays had been planned to enter commercial production on Monday. France is planning to build at least six new reactors by 2050 as well as experiment with smaller, modular ones. The UK has similar ambitions. And even in Japan, after a decade of paralysis following the nuclear accident in Fukushima, the public is warming up to the use of nuclear power. The Japanese government wants to restart reactors that have sat idle since the disaster and to extend the lifespan of existing units.

Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
More Less
Recommended For You
×
Get alerts on WhatsApp
Set Preferences My Reads Watchlist Feedback Redeem a Gift Card Logout

Russian President Vladimir Putin has cut off gas supplies to some European Union countries in retaliation for sanctions following the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which could push the continent into recession.

Title:

Content: Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing hard with the European Union, cutting off gas supplies to some of his best buyers in a fit of rage over sanctions imposed after the start of the special operation in Ukraine, write Lorenz Gerke, Karl Matisen and Paola Tamma on June 20 in the European version of Politico.
Pierre Edouard Frere.
Furnace Melting (Fragment)
As a result, the authorities of these countries are under enormous political pressure, there is a risk that in the case of a cold winter, the inhabitants of European countries will simply freeze, and there is a danger of disrupting the climate goals of the bloc, whose states have to switch their energy from gas to coal.
Such a development could even lead to a recession on the continent.
Simone Tagliapietra, a specialist at the Bruegel think tank, calls Russia ’ s policy “energy blackmail. ”
Only 40% of the normal volume of gas passes through the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia to Germany, which affects supplies to France, Italy and Austria, as well as to Germany.
Russia ’ s gas monopoly, Gazprom, has already cut off all supplies to Poland, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark after energy companies in those countries refused to comply with the Kremlin ’ s demands to pay for supplies in rubles.
In response, some countries are planning to launch coal-fired power plants.
“It is necessary to recognize that Putin is gradually reducing gas supplies to Europe, including to increase gas prices, and we must take retaliatory measures, ” German Economy and Climate Minister Robert Habeck said in a television interview on June 19, adding that“ this is a tense, serious situation. ”
Austria plans to restart one of its coal-fired power plants, Poland seeks to subsidize coal mining for heating their homes, and the Netherlands on June 20 decided to abandon previously adopted plans to limit electricity generation at its four coal-fired power plants.
“If it weren ’ t for these special times, we would never have done it, ” Dutch climate and energy minister Rob Jetten said.
Compressor station "Portovaya"
Official website of PJSC Gazprom
Nord Stream gas pipeline
Official website of PJSC Gazprom
The Italian government is scheduled to hold a crisis meeting on June 21, while Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi has ordered two LNG regasification plants and is negotiating with countries including Qatar, Angola and Algeria to sign gas supply agreements from them in a desperate attempt to secure supplies in the event of a halt to imports from Russia.
Brussels, for its part, seeks to radiate confidence, but its anxiety is obvious.
“We take the current situation very seriously.
But we are ready, ” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said at a meeting with journalists on June 20.
Times are not getting easier. ”
Dirty Deals
Such a desire to start using coal again to provide energy is, in symbolic terms, inconvenient for the inhabitants of European countries, which are very concerned about the climate.
However, few believe that the EU or its member states will move far from their previous policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In Germany, officials are adamant that the return of coal will be short-lived and will not jeopardize the country ’ s ambition to phase out its use by 2030.
Coal will act as a reserve for the energy sector, allowing the country to build up gas reserves before winter.
Meanwhile, the government plans to rapidly increase the production of clean energy.
Coal thermal power plant in Förde, Germany
Daniel Ullrich Threedots
According to Simon Muller, director of Agora Energiewende analytical center, political support for renewable energy sources has increased in Germany due to Russia ’ s special operation in Ukraine.
“This additional urgency factor that we now have in the face of this situation helps provide the political momentum that we need for some very important accelerations in the development of renewable energy, ” Mueller said.
The German parliament is considering 10 measures on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and as Müller noted, the three-party coalition as a whole adheres to the importance of removing barriers to green energy.
Green organizations are also optimistic.
“There is currently no plan in Germany that could call into question the timing of a coal phase-out, ” said Christoph Bals, political director of Germanwatch.
But the need to quickly change the approach to coal recycling is exacerbating political tensions.
In Berlin, the conservative opposition criticized Habeck for allowing more coal to be used, while excluding the further operation of Germany ’ s three remaining nuclear power plants after the end of this year.
“I do not understand why the climate minister of the Greens prefers to extend the operation of coal-fired power plants, rather than carbon-neutral nuclear power plants, ” Jens Spahn, deputy head of the Christian Democratic Party in parliament, told German television on June 20.
The policy of abandoning nuclear energy was adopted by the former leader of his party, Angela Merkel.
And this course is a source of tension within the ruling coalition.
“It is necessary that the three remaining nuclear power plants last longer, ” said Bijan Jir-Sarai, secretary general of the Liberal Free Democrats.
While acknowledging that the move was a “violation of the taboo, ” Habek said coal is still better than a revival of nuclear power, arguing that a change in nuclear policy would only have an impact at the end of next year — too late to prepare for this winter.
He was supported by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who said in an interview published on June 20 that “nuclear energy will not help us now or in the next two years, and that is the main thing. ”
Political leaders are calling on their people to save energy and cut gas consumption, while governments are working to increase storage capacity to allow the continent to survive the winter shutdown of gas supplies to Russia.
At the very least, they are thinking about rationing the gas.
Cutting off gas supplies will almost certainly lead the bloc into recession.
The European Central Bank has warned that next year the eurozone economy will shrink by 1.7% if Russia completely closes the faucet.
“Power outages and small opportunities for immediate replacement of gas supplies from Russia are likely to require some rationing and redistribution of resources, which will lead to a reduction in production in the eurozone, in particular in energy-intensive sectors, ” the bank said in a statement, according to which, if this happens, the bloc ’ s economy will recover next year.
But the ECB also issued a warning to Russia.
“As for the Russian economy, the scenario assumes a serious recession with a contraction in production similar to the contraction that occurred during the collapse of the Soviet Union, ” the organization said.

In Germany, the government insists that coal’s return as an energy source will be temporary and does not threaten the target of phasing out coal by 2030.

Coal will serve as a backup to help Germany stockpile gas for winter.

This policy has created tension within the ruling coalition.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz stated on June 20 that nuclear energy will not help Germany in the short term and thus is not a priority.

The European Central Bank has warned Russia about the potential consequences of its actions.

Some believe Germany should delay closing its last nuclear power plants and further develop nuclear energy.

Title:

Content: From the point of view of common sense, Germany needs to postpone the closure of the last nuclear power plants and, moreover, develop this type of energy.
This was announced to the correspondent of IA REGNUM on September 29 by the engineer-physicist of heat and power engineering, entrepreneur, chairman of the Murmansk regional branch of the “Party of Growth ” Nikolai Palchenko.
So he commented on the words of the Minister of economy of Germany Robert Habeck that Germany after 2022 will use two of its last three nuclear power plants.
AES
“European nuclear energy, especially German, at one time fell victim to the domestic political agenda – contrary to common sense, – he said. – Currently, no other type of energy, except nuclear and hydrocarbon, is suitable for providing electricity neither in the base nor in peak hours of loads.
Any kind of “green ” energy today can only be in the form of an“ application ” to the above traditional types of energy, but not completely replace them.
Fully atomic energy can only be replaced by hydrocarbon energy.
Nuclear is much more environmentally friendly.
Plus, Europe has problems with hydrocarbons today, so from the point of view of common sense, Germany needs to postpone the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, and it would be desirable to develop this type of energy. ”
According to him, the cost of nuclear energy does not depend on the stock market, and if Europeans need a stable source of energy at predictable prices, they can not find anything in nature better than nuclear power plants.
“The problem is that it is not easy and is not always possible to remove non-working nuclear power plants from conservation, and it is not a quick matter to build new ones.
So the current energy crisis nuclear energy will not solve, ” concluded the expert.
Recall, as reported by IA REGNUM, there is a forecast that Germany will have to postpone the date of abandonment of nuclear energy.
Read earlier in this story: Germany will not have to hurry with the rejection of the latest nuclear power plants – expert

Meanwhile, the Nord Stream 2 project with Russia remains stalled, heightening worries about energy sufficiency.

Title:

Content: Arguments of the Week Society → Nature 13 +
In 2022, Germany will get rid of all remaining nuclear power plants
, 15: 26
For Germany, which has abandoned nuclear power plants, only gas can provide minimal emissions, reasonable prices and growing energy consumption.
But at the same time, the Nord Stream 2 project is seriously stalled.
Despite the fact that EU policy does not exclude the use of nuclear power plants, Germany considers nuclear energy dangerous and opposes the EU ’ s plan to leave nuclear power plants in the region.
By the end of this year, Germany will shut down all its nuclear power plants, and by 2030 it will abandon coal.
This was stated by the representative of the German government S. Hebstrait.
This is reported by TK "High Voltage".
The government believes that it is necessary to develop alternative energy sources, including hydrogen, so that they replace gas as soon as possible.
The enthusiasm and perseverance with which the Greens in Germany are pushing their climate program would probably be enough to turn the Siberian rivers.
But many note that there is no economic justification for this, and it will be pure voluntarism in general, if you quarrel with Russia.
However, there are those who consider the course chosen by Germany to be a dead end in any case.
Once - after the accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant Fukushima - Angela Merkel emotionally shut down six nuclear power plants in the country.
The closure of three of the six German nuclear power plants that operated until the beginning of 2022 is a pure winning ideology.
The new government of Germany makes it clear that it will spend the next four years to make the green revolution (some say “adventure ”) irreversible, Izvestia writes.
Add AN to your sources so as not to miss important events - Yandex News
SHA
Politics
Arguments of the Week
Arguments of the Week
Politics
Politics
In the world
Society
In the world
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
In the world
Politics
Politics
Politics
Science
In the world
Accidents
Accidents
Society
Politics
Politics
Economy
Politics
Society

Some experts argue there is no economic rationale for rejecting nuclear and gas from Russia, and antagonizing Russia could be rash.

Germany’s abandonment of nuclear energy was accelerated by security worries after Russia’s attacks on Ukraine and memories of the Chernobyl disaster.

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

Deciding to end nuclear energy was difficult for German authorities.

After the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany delayed closing reactors for several months.

Germany, aiming to end reliance on Russian energy, was concerned about potential energy supply issues.

Bavaria’s Prime Minister Markus Söder announced plans to ask the federal government to reconsider shutting down nuclear plants, soon after the last closure.

At the EU level, there has been talk of sanctions against countries buying Russian uranium for nuclear plants, though specifics remain unclear.

The EU is highly dependent on Russia’s nuclear sector.

Chancellor Scholz supported a temporary extension for Germany’s last nuclear plants due to reduced gas imports from Russia and the threat of an energy crisis.

Title:

Content: Scholz approved the extension of the life of nuclear power plants in Germany
Photo: Depositphotos
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has spoken out in support of extending the life of the country ’ s last nuclear power plants.
He said that this “makes sense ” because of the reduction of gas supplies from Russia, which increases the prospect of an energy crisis this winter.
According to Spiegel, the three stations, which are scheduled to close later this year, make up only a small part of Germany ’ s total electricity capacity.
They are watching now
“But it might still make sense to let them work longer, ” he said.
Scholz notes that the authorities will draw conclusions based on the stress test of the German electric power system, which is now underway, after which a decision will be made on further actions.
The Chancellor added that the German gas storage facilities are filled better than in previous years, and also said that the planned new liquefied gas terminals should be operational from the end of the year, which will significantly improve Germany ’ s ability to import gas regardless of Russia ’ s actions.
The issue of Germany ’ s continued operation of nuclear power plants became a bone of contention among the three parties of the ruling coalition.
So, the Free Democrats want nuclear power plants to work longer.
The Social Democrats of Scholz and the Greens opposed it.
However, the chancellor believes that the government has rethought what is happening.
According to him, some German states, for example, Bavaria, will probably have to allow their nuclear plants to work longer, because they are behind in the construction of wind farms and new electricity grids.
Germany is also reportedly exporting electricity to France, which has had to shut down several of its nuclear power plants for technical reasons.
In Germany, this is an important contribution to European solidarity.
Last year, Germany shut down three of its six nuclear power plants.
They were going to stop the work of the remaining stations by the end of this year - this decision was made under Angela Merkel, after the Japanese Fukushima accident in a powerful earthquake in 2011.
Source: Spiegel
If you find an error, please select a text fragment and press Ctrl + Enter
Did you find the word in the text?
Pomilka

Spiegel reported that the three remaining nuclear stations contributed only a small fraction of Germany’s total electricity output.

The Free Democrats favor extended nuclear plant operation, but Scholz’s Social Democrats and the Greens oppose it.

Last year, Germany shut down half of its nuclear power plants, with the rest scheduled for closure by year’s end—a decision stemming from Angela Merkel’s response to the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

The German government maintains that nuclear energy is a finished issue and will not be revived.

Title:

Content: Germany will not resume the use of nuclear energy
Nuclear energy died in, turning into a “dead horse ” for the country ’ s economy.
will not build a nuclear power plant and relies only on solar and wind energy.
This was stated on Saturday by the Chancellor of Germany, reports AP.
In a Saturday radio interview with Deutschlandfunk, Scholz stated that nuclear power is "a dead horse" in Germany.
(This expression literally translates as “dead horse ”, and means something that has exhausted itself, a question that has lost its relevance; a question that is better to forget).
“Nuclear power is over.
The problem of nuclear energy in Germany has exhausted itself, it is a dead horse.
Anyone who wants to build a new nuclear power plant will need 15 years and will have to spend 15 – 20 billion euros (16.2 – 21.6 billion dollars) each, ” said Scholz.
According to him, any talk about the resumption of the use of nuclear energy will imply the construction of new nuclear power plants.
But this is not in the plans of the FRG.
Scholz stressed that Berlin intends to “expand the use of renewable sources, such as wind and solar energy ”
Earlier, the German Chancellor rejected the proposal of the junior partner in the power coalition that the country should leave open the possibility of using its closed nuclear power plants.
Rambler: top news

Germany is planning an increasing transition to renewables for future power needs.

Title:

Content: This content is not available in your region
Germany closes three nuclear power plants
Comments
Lev Udolsky
Copyright AP Photo / Heribert Proepper
With the end of the year, the phase-out of nuclear energy in Germany is entering a new phase.
On December 31, three nuclear power plants will be disconnected from the grid, including the Brockdorf nuclear power plant, located in the north of the country.
Its construction, begun in the 1980s, already caused a lot of protests.
The management of the company regrets its closure.
“In recent days, the mood has been very sad, ” says Guido Nott, chairman of PreussenElektra.
We have been running this station for 35 years.
We monitored her condition, maintained at the highest technical level and always ensured the safety of her work.
Meanwhile, among opponents of the use of nuclear energy, the closure of the nuclear power plant does not cause any sadness:
“I feel a calm but constant joy that this facility is now closed, ” says Karsten Hinrichsen, an activist.
Some have asked if victory has been won.
I say no, because it took too much time.
The ban on the operation of nuclear power plants in Germany was adopted after the accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant Fukushima in 2011.
During the vote in the Bundestag, this initiative was supported by 513 out of 600 deputies.
The oldest reactors were shut down immediately, and the shutdown of the remaining nine was decided to proceed in stages.
Following three nuclear power plants located in Bavaria, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein, which will stop generating electricity this year, the remaining three will be shut down by the end of next year.
At the same time, the work related to the NPP shutdown will continue for several more years, since the dismantling of the stations is a very complex and lengthy procedure.
Meanwhile, the country plans to increasingly switch to renewable energy sources.
It is estimated that by 2030, 80% of electricity will be generated by wind turbines, solar panels or biogas plants.

Some experts argue that renewables cannot yet fully replace the lost capacity.

Title:

Content: Pseudo-green policy of Germany isolates the country, says the expert - RIA Novosti, 15.04.2023
Registration was successful!
Please follow the link from the letter sent to
Germany ’ s pseudo-green policy isolates the country, says expert
Expert Damien Ernst: pseudo-green policy deprives Germany of leadership in the EU
© RIA Novosti / Igor Zarembo | Go to the media bankView of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin
View of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.
Archive photo
Read ria.ru in
BRUSSELS, April 15 – RIA Novosti.
The radical energy policy of Germany and its attempt to impose its vision on partners will only lead to the isolation of Germany from other countries of the European Union, Damien Ernst, a European expert, a lecturer at the University of Liege in Belgium and the Polytechnic Institute in Paris, told RIA Novosti.
Germany will stop on April 15, 2023, the operation of the last three operating German nuclear power plants “Isar-2 ”,“ Neckarwesteim-2 ” and “Emsland ”.
It was originally planned that Germany would abandon nuclear power in 2022, but later plans were changed.
Three of the country ’ s last six nuclear power plants have already been shut down.
Earlier it was reported that the majority of the population did not agree with this decision, while other countries announced their intention to continue or expand the use of nuclear energy.
No guarantees.
The Americans decided to leave Europe without gas
“Today ’ s coalition in Berlin is clearly at the mercy of the Greens, and Germany is making its energy stance more radical, isolating itself from most other EU countries.
Germany is making the wrong decisions and losing leadership in Europe.
Germany will press its partners to impose its costly energy vision.
Many will not support it, ” the expert said.
In his opinion, the energy issue has already become a stumbling block in relations between Germany and France.
“
The "special relationship" between Germany and France is dead.
Chancellor Scholz is going to Beijing without inviting Macron to join him, but the main disagreement is about nuclear energy, "Ernst said.
Against the background of the energy crisis in Europe, Germany ’ s decision will only aggravate the situation.
“Pressure on gas prices will rise again next winter, if you add to this the decision of Germany to end nuclear energy, it will lead to higher prices for all European citizens, ” the expert said.
Russians, out!
Germany wants a nuclear rematch
In addition, according to him, the supposedly green policy of the country will only lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, as Germany will have to open new coal and gas power plants instead of closed nuclear power plants.
“
“Renewable sources cannot (produce so much energy – ed.), they are terribly expensive for the sake of very small and unreliable production (energy – ed.) ”, – concludes the expert.
The energy crisis in the European Union worsened in early July 2022, when there were the first interruptions in the supply of gas from Russia to a number of EU countries, including problems with the maintenance of turbines for Nord Stream due to sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation.
The West has increased sanctions pressure on Russia over Ukraine, which has led to higher prices for electricity, fuel and food in Europe and the United States.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously said that the policy of containing and weakening Russia is a long-term strategy of the West, and sanctions have dealt a serious blow to the entire world economy.
According to him, the main goal of the West is to worsen the lives of millions of people.
Russia has repeatedly stated that Russia will solve all the problems that the West creates for it.
Repeat the fate of the USSR.
Destroying the European Union from the inside
News feed
0
New firstOld firstFirst
loader
On-line
Title of the material to be opened
To participate in the discussion,
log in or register
loader
Chats
Title of the material to be opened

German Economy Minister Robert Habeck has emphasized the need to reduce gas use and reach high levels of gas storage before winter; as of June, it was at 56% capacity.

Title:

Content: Germany will reopen coal-fired power plants and offer incentives to companies to limit natural gas consumption, which should help reduce the country ’ s dependence on Russian energy resources.
This was stated by the Minister of economy of Germany Robert Habeck, writes The Wall Street Journal.
“Obviously, this is Putin ’ s strategy to outrage us, raise prices and divide us.
We're not gonna let that happen.
We will defend ourselves decisively, accurately and thoughtfully, ” Habek said, commenting on Russia ’ s restriction of gas supplies via Nord Stream 1.
The German government estimates that the country imports about 35% of its natural gas from Russia, up from 55% before Russia ’ s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and uses most of it for heating and industry.
Last year, electricity production using natural gas accounted for about 15% of total electricity production in Germany, Habek said, adding that the share of gas in electricity production this year has likely fallen.
Habek outlined a number of steps that should accelerate the reduction of the share of gas in the energy complex and create reserves for next winter.
In particular, he noted that the government will give companies the opportunity to expand the use of coal-fired power plants.
This will ensure that Germany will have an alternative energy source, although the move will lead to delays in meeting environmental targets to reduce carbon emissions.
"It's bitter.
But in this situation, it is necessary to reduce gas consumption.
By winter, the gas depots must be full.
This has the highest priority, ” Habek said, commenting on the need to use coal.
The Minister expects that the law on the use of coal will be adopted on July 8 in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament.
It will operate until March 31, 2024, by which time the government hopes to create a sustainable alternative to Russian gas.
Habek also added that the government will introduce an auction system that will encourage the industry to reduce gas consumption.
The government did not provide details on how the auction will work, but Habek said it will start this summer.
Germany aims to fill its gas storage facilities by 90% by December.
Now its gas storage is about 56% full, Habek said.
As UNIAN reported, in 2007, the Bundestag decided to phase out by 2018 the coal mining industry in Germany, which annually absorbed many billions of subsidized funds.
The reason for this decision was the lack of competitiveness of German coal, compared to much cheaper imported coal.
High safety standards and extremely deep levels of hard coal deposits in the Ruhr region have made it much more expensive to develop and mine than in other parts of the world.
In December 2018, the last coal mine in Germany closed.
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier noted that this stage marked the "end of the era."
"Without coal, the history of Germany would have developed differently," the German president said.
In 2019, the German government decided to abandon the use of coal for electricity generation by the end of 2038.
Coal-fired power plants in Germany have a total capacity of 45 gigawatts and produced about a third of the country ’ s electricity.
By 2022, it was planned to disconnect 12.5 gigawatts from the grid.
Germany has already decided to abandon nuclear power by 2022.
But in order for the country to meet national and international climate protection goals, Germany must accelerate the transition to clean electricity.
By 2050, the country's carbon dioxide emissions should be between 80 and 95 per cent of 1990 levels.
You may also be interested in news:

Expensive coal mining in the Ruhr limits coal’s economic efficiency.

Public support for the energy transition away from nuclear is mixed, and some remain unhappy with the government’s decision.

Title:

Content: The people are not particularly happy with the government ’ s choice.
recommendations
Germany has completely abandoned nuclear power, turning off the last three power units located at the Emsland nuclear power plant (Lower Saxony), Necarwesteim-2 (Baden-Württemberg), Isar-2 (Bavaria).
Now the country has only to get rid of nuclear waste.
advertising
The decision to phase out nuclear power came from then-Chancellor Angela Merkel after the disaster of 2011, when the accident at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in Japan, which killed at least 15.9 thousand people.
Initially, it was planned to stop nuclear reactors on December 31, 2022, but due to rising energy prices, the German government delayed this until mid-April 2023.
The nuance is that in the near future, Germany will have to rely on coal and gas, which have a negative impact on the environment.
Of the advantages, only that you need to compensate a little - 6% of electricity generation, which was just those nuclear reactors.
recommendations
According to YouGov, two-thirds of Germans do not support the government ’ s decision to replace the cheap “peaceful atom ”.
For the post accrued remuneration
This material is written by a visitor to the site, and a reward is accrued for it.
2
Popular news

Germany now faces the challenge of nuclear waste disposal while temporarily relying more on coal and gas, which have greater environmental consequences.

Title:

Content: The people are not particularly happy with the government ’ s choice.
recommendations
Germany has completely abandoned nuclear power, turning off the last three power units located at the Emsland nuclear power plant (Lower Saxony), Necarwesteim-2 (Baden-Württemberg), Isar-2 (Bavaria).
Now the country has only to get rid of nuclear waste.
advertising
The decision to phase out nuclear power came from then-Chancellor Angela Merkel after the disaster of 2011, when the accident at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in Japan, which killed at least 15.9 thousand people.
Initially, it was planned to stop nuclear reactors on December 31, 2022, but due to rising energy prices, the German government delayed this until mid-April 2023.
The nuance is that in the near future, Germany will have to rely on coal and gas, which have a negative impact on the environment.
Of the advantages, only that you need to compensate a little - 6% of electricity generation, which was just those nuclear reactors.
recommendations
According to YouGov, two-thirds of Germans do not support the government ’ s decision to replace the cheap “peaceful atom ”.
For the post accrued remuneration
This material is written by a visitor to the site, and a reward is accrued for it.
2
Popular news

Europe faces a severe energy crisis, compounded by its worst drought in five centuries and significant environmental losses.

Title:

Content: Despite his opponents...
Europe 'chooses' nuclear power to pass harsh winter
Europeans suffering from a severe energy crisis will set a date with a historic test this winter, with the first attack of the cold, in a way that cannot be trusted.
The old continent has experienced an unusual warmth in recent weeks, which slightly eased the pressure on its decision-makers, but it soon found itself faced with the consequences of a drought crisis like no other in Europe in 500 years.
The European Commission said in its latest report that it was the worst drought in five centuries, warning of the risks and major environmental losses caused by it.
The most prominent of these losses affected the production of nuclear energy, the strength of electricity in Europe today, and the alternative solution sought by some countries in light of the energy crisis with Russia.
Although European nuclear power has been the biggest sponsor of the rupture in German-French relations, it is now seen as a solution to the electricity crisis.
New countries are also seeking accreditation, such as Poland, which two days ago opted for a US offer to build its first nuclear power plant.
At the same time, the countries that possess this energy are seeking to increase and strengthen their reactors, undeterred by the opposition of peoples and voices calling for renewable energy.
Germany and the return to nuclear
In Germany, work has begun on two nuclear reactors that were due to be shut down by the end of this year, in line with the country ’ s plan to graduate from nuclear power.
The project will cost around 100 million euros and will be operational after December.
This comes at a time when the nuclear power plant "Isar 2" plans to carry out maintenance at a cost of about 50 million euros, and the preparatory work at the nuclear plant "Neckaroisthaim-2" will cost a similar amount.
The shutdown of nuclear power plants was one of the most prominent demands of the German people in recent demonstrations in Berlin, Düsseldorf, Hannover, Stuttgart, Dresden and Frankfurt, especially supporters of the Green Party and supporters of the transition to green energy.
Kenzbendit, 29, said: “We Greens have been fighting nuclear power in Germany for decades, in the streets and now in the government.
Kensbendit told Erm News: "We do not know how the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Environment was deceived and delayed for months in order to prevent the extension of German nuclear power plants."
The young man who participated in the recent demonstrations added that "energy policy is not really for politicians, because they think and work to implement their political agendas, but energy policy is always long-term, and granting the tasks of the Environmental Self-Awareness Squad to the Ministry of Economy is illogical.
"The extension of the work at the nuclear power plant is incredible, disregarding and insulting the demands of the people, and will make Germany" ridiculous "all over the world," he said.
Paris turns its back on the environment
France is the world ’ s largest producer of nuclear energy, generating 70 percent of its electricity from 56 nuclear reactors and exporting to neighboring countries.
Nuclear reactors in France have suffered and half of them have been shut down due to malfunctions or drought, causing electrical output to fall to its lowest level in 30 years, and exports to fall by almost half, according to the latest government reports.
This led the French administration to increase the power of nuclear reactors and change the plan to gradually abandon nuclear reactors in favor of renewable sources such as the sun and wind.
The French move, analysts predict, will meet public anger and opposition from countries around the world seeking to combat climate change and calling for nuclear power to be replaced by other sources, in addition to the heavy financial burden on the French government.
It is well known that nuclear power is not practical in the economic sense, otherwise France would not need to nationalize EDF to be able to operate the reactors with government support.
Drought disrupts nuclear power
The drought crisis will significantly limit this planned expansion, according to data from nuclear reactor operators, because nuclear plants use large amounts of fresh water from rivers and lakes for cooling, and reduced river flows as a result of drought will reduce electricity generation at nuclear power plants.
According to French energy advisor Bernard Labonch, nuclear power is not only about the best way to generate electricity, but it is a historical legacy in France that is inextricably linked to nationalism, and it is taboo for any French citizen to advocate against nuclear power.
"If you want to get a job as an engineer or researcher in France you have to be a proponent of nuclear energy, so there are very few who openly criticize it," he said.
Thus, all indications are that nuclear energy will remain in France for decades to come, despite widespread public opposition and environmental warnings about the dangers posed by the water that nuclear power plants dump into rivers after they have used it for cooling, and the dangers it poses to ecosystems, fish and aquatic plants.
Most Read
No stories found.
Erm News
www.eremnews.com

Poland has decided to build its first nuclear plant, showing new interest in nuclear energy across Europe.

The construction of new nuclear plants in Europe has experienced delays and cost overruns.

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.

Germany, once Europe’s largest economy and a major consumer of Russian gas, has committed to phasing out nuclear energy, with its last three nuclear reactors scheduled to be taken off the grid by the end of 2022.

Title:

Content: Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
Editor-in-Chief
Wael Lotfy
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
Editor-in-Chief
Wael Lotfy
Schulz expects swift decision on continued use of nuclear power in Germany
German Chancellor Olaf Schulz believes that a quick decision by the German government on the continued use of nuclear energy can be made due to the current energy crisis.
Speaking at a press conference in Berlin on Wednesday, the Social Democrat politician said: “Be assured that we will finish this soon. ”
Schulz stressed that it is not about working in any way so as not to resort to the extension of the use of nuclear energy, but rather about determining what conditions are necessary for this step and determining what exactly will be done and how quickly to do it.
The move is controversial within the ruling coalition between the Green Party and the Free Democratic Party, where Economy Minister Robert Habeck (from the Greens) is seeking to keep only two of the remaining three reactors operational until spring next year in anticipation of electricity supply bottlenecks.
The FDP is urging all three nuclear reactors to remain operational until 2024, and Finance Minister and party chairman Christian Lindner reiterated the demand on Monday.
As part of Germany ’ s renunciation of nuclear power, the last three German nuclear reactors were to be taken off the grid by the end of 2022.
Earlier, German Chancellor Olaf Schulz said he believed it was possible to achieve the ruling coalition ’ s goal of providing 400,000 new affordable housing units a year, despite the serious doubts raised by the housing sector about the possibility of achieving this goal.
Following consultations by the Affordable Housing Alliance, the Social Democrat politician said in Berlin on Wednesday: "We have to achieve this and we have to continue building this much for a long time and continuously, I think this will work."

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz indicated the government would soon decide whether to extend nuclear energy use due to the current energy crisis caused in part by the war in Ukraine.

This proposal is controversial within the ruling coalition: Economy Minister Robert Habeck of the Green Party supports keeping only two reactors operational temporarily, while others support a full extension.

Chancellor Scholz clarified that any decision on nuclear energy would specify the precise conditions and timeline for implementation.

Germany’s strategy to cope with energy shortages includes rapidly filling gas storage (targeting 85% capacity by September), importing LNG from the United States, and relying on increased storage for winter use.

Title:

Content: General Supervision
Elham Aboul Fath
Editor-in-Chief
Thank you for your patience.
General Supervision
Elham Aboul Fath
Editor-in-Chief
Thank you for your patience.
Europe ’ s largest economy: What has Germany done to cope with the energy crisis?
Germany ’ s gas storage facilities are filling faster than planned, Economy Minister Robert Habeck said, giving hope that Europe ’ s largest economy will be able to avoid a severe gas shortage this winter.
“Reservoirs are filling faster than set, ” Habeck was quoted by Der Spiegel as saying, adding that the government ’ s goal of achieving 85% of storage capacity by October could be reached at the beginning of September.
Germany is in the second phase of a three-phase contingency plan drafted after cutting gas flows from its main supplier, Russia.
Quoting data from the energy industry association BDEW, Spiegel reported that only 9.5% of Germany ’ s gas consumption in August came from Russia.
Last year, Russian gas accounted for about 55% of the country ’ s total consumption.
Industry data from European operators group GIE on Sunday showed that the government had targeted gas storage levels by 75% by September 1, but storage levels had already reached 82.2%.
“Companies will then be able to draw gas from storage facilities as planned during the winter to supply industry and homes as well, ” Habik said.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also expected to flow to Germany via France after the two countries resolved regulatory and technical issues to facilitate supplies, Spiegel said, citing a document from the Ministry of Economy.
Largest gas storage facility in Western Europe
The largest gas storage facility in Western Europe is located 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) underground in the city of Reiden, in the northern state of Lower Saxony, the size of 910 football fields.
The facility plays a key role in securing supplies for Germany and Europe.
Astora is a subsidiary of Russian energy giant Gazprom, and owns more than a third of all German gas storage facilities.
Economic Affairs and Climate Action Minister Robert Habeck, of Germany ’ s Green Party, assumes that storage facilities were “systematically emptied ” on purpose in order to raise gas prices, but also to generate political pressure.
New law to guarantee gas reserves
About 55% of Germany ’ s gas imports come from Russia, plus about 50% from solid coal and 30% from oil.
Although the strategic oil reserve must last for 90 days in Germany, there is no such requirement for gas and coal.
It is now clear that this was a mistake, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action intends to move forward with the legal changes as soon as possible.
The German parliament is preparing to introduce a law in time for it to come into force before crises.
At the same time, a decision has been made to phase out coal-fired power in Europe by 2038 at the latest.
But concerns about German energy security now call everything into question.
Economy ministers in 16 German states have already called for longer operating periods for both coal-fired and nuclear power plants to be examined.
Economic Affairs and Energy Minister Andreas Pinkwart of Germany ’ s most populous state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) said: “All options should be on the table. ”
Pinkwart is a member of the Liberal Democrats (FDP).
The phasing out of nuclear weapons has long been a thorn on the side of the FDP.
Happik said, “Everything is on the table. ”
As the Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Action, he is in a very difficult position, his job as a government minister is to make securing energy supplies his top priority.
On the other hand, phasing out coal in the face of climate change is a core issue for his Green Ecological Party, and phasing out nuclear power has been part of the political identity of the party since its founding.
Habik said he would not resist any extension of nuclear power "for ideological reasons".
However, he said, preparations for the shutdown of nuclear power plants have already progressed so far, and continued operation is not possible for safety reasons.
According to the operators Eon, RWE and EnBW, it will be technically difficult to quickly buy suitable fuel rods, and there is a shortage of specialized personnel.
Even if nuclear power plants were to continue operating, it would take a year and a half before the reactors could generate electricity again, Pinkwart said.
For technical reasons, it still has to be closed at the end of the year and then restarted to operate again in the winter of 2023 / 2024 at the earliest.
Purchase of liquefied natural gas
To replace Russia ’ s energy supply in the short term, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action is considering buying more gas from other countries, including the Middle East.
In addition, liquefied natural gas (LNG) will be imported from the United States.
This is to be delivered by sea.
Germany wants to build two terminals on the North Sea coast, in Brunsbüttel and Wilhelmshaven, as soon as possible.
Habeck is in talks about buying liquefied natural gas in the United States, as well as about energy, security policy and the consequences of sanctions, but the current crisis is also an opportunity for environmentalists to push the expansion of green electricity dramatically.
"The most important key to our energy sovereignty is the global shift towards more renewable energies and greater energy efficiency," Habik said before leaving for the United States, adding, "Of course, we are discussing the issue of energy security in the transatlantic alliance."
But in Germany ’ s coalition government, even Finance Minister Christian Lindner of the FDP changed his tune, now calling renewable energies “freedom energies, ” and Chancellor Olaf Schulz called them“ crucial to the country ’ s security. ”
“The faster we push for the expansion of renewable energies, the better. ”

In 2021, Russian gas comprised roughly 55% of Germany’s total consumption; disruption due to the Russian-Ukrainian war exposed risks in Germany's energy security and led to plans for legal changes to better manage future crises.

There is no legal requirement for gas and coal reserves as there is for oil, a gap now seen as a policy failure.

Germany also maintains its commitment to phasing out coal by 2038 at the latest, increasing pressure to expand renewable energy quickly.

Technical barriers to reactivating nuclear plants include difficulty sourcing suitable fuel rods and a shortage of skilled personnel.

Some German states, such as Bavaria, have called for reconsideration of the nuclear exit to maintain local power supplies, notably the 1,400MW Isar II reactor.

Environmental activists like Greta Thunberg have criticized Germany’s return to coal over extending nuclear, calling it a “bad idea.”
Despite debate, Germany shut down its last nuclear plants in April 2023 as per the government’s decision to transition to renewable energy by 2035.

Title:

Content: Environmental activist Greta Thunberg calls Germany's use of coal instead of nuclear power a "bad idea"
© AFP 2022 / CRISTINA QUICLERSwedish schoolgirl and environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, December 11, 2019
Follow us via
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has criticised Germany ’ s plan to shut down its remaining nuclear plants while increasing its coal-fired power.
Thunberg, 19, said in a television interview that turning off nuclear power plants was a “bad idea ” if it meant switching to coal, according to Politico.
Asked if nuclear power is the best for the climate, Greta Thunberg, 2019 Time magazine ’ s Person of the Year, replied: “It depends, if the nuclear already works for them I think it would be a mistake to shut it down and switch to coal. ”
Germany plans to close its remaining three nuclear plants by the end of 2022, under pressure from gas shortages and prolonged outages of French nuclear plants, which have caused supply shortages and soaring prices.
Germany is likely to extend the life of two of its nuclear reactors until April 2023.
Germany restarts first coal-fired power plant amid gas crisis
Berlin has revived its idle coal plants in order to cope with the current energy crisis and is paying operators of closed brown coal plants up to 450 million euros to equip them for emergency operation during the winter, but the German government still insists it will end coal use by 2030.
In August, Germany ’ s Uniper restarted a backup coal-fired power plant to secure power supplies, due to power shortages caused by sanctions on Russia.
News Ticker
0.
To participate in the discussion
Sign in or Register
loader
Conversations
Заголовок открываемого материала

Chancellor Scholz has expressed optimism about getting through the upcoming winter, while legislative actions are underway to improve energy crisis responses.

Title:

Content: German Chancellor Says Nuclear Power Will End on April 15
T + T - normal size
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced on Tuesday that the country's remaining three nuclear reactors will continue operating until mid-April 2023.
Schulz stressed, however, that there would be no further verification after that date as to whether the extension of the reactors was still necessary.
Following a meeting of the Coalition for Transformation with representatives of economic associations and trade unions, the socialist politician said reactor operators could prepare for this, noting that the end of nuclear power would be on April 15.
Schulz said he was optimistic that Germany would get through the coming winter well.
On Monday evening, Schulz announced the end of a dispute that lasted for days within the ruling coalition, especially between the Green Party and the Free Democratic Party on this issue, where Schulz ordered the ministers concerned to prepare legal proposals to extend the operation of the three reactors Isar2, Neckarfstheim 2 and Imsland until after the end of the year and until April 15 at the latest.
In doing so, Schulz used the powers of his office to instruct the relevant ministries.
In a letter to Economy Minister Robert Habeck, Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (both from the Green Party) and Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP chairman), Schulz said: "The legal basis will be laid to allow the operation of the Isar2, Neckarsfstheim 2 and Amsland reactors beyond December 31 until April 15 at the latest."
It remains to be seen whether it has been decided in practice that nuclear reactors will continue to operate or whether the move will be reviewed again in accordance with Habik's plans to keep the reactors as an "operating reserve".
Print Email

Once published, the draft could still be rejected by a majority of EU member states or the European Parliament.

Title:

Content: Germany / EU / Energy
Germany opposes EU's inclusion of nuclear, natural gas in "green" energy plan
Germany on Sunday announced its opposition to the inclusion of energy from nuclear and natural gas in the EU ’ s “green ” investment program, which the European Commission is expected to introduce this month to decide whether to include natural and nuclear energy in the EU ’ s“ sustainable investment program. ”
Advertisement
Reuters reports that Germany is withdrawing from nuclear power. On December 31, 2021, the German government closed three of the remaining six nuclear power plants, but the entire withdrawal process will take 20 years, and the cost of exiting each nuclear power station is about 1.1 billion euros.
"For the German government, natural gas is an important alternative energy source in the process of phasing out coal burning," a German government spokesman said. "The German government's position on nuclear energy remains unchanged, that nuclear energy cannot be considered a sustainable energy source."
While EU member states are still divided on whether nuclear and natural gas are “green energy ”, Reuters reported that the EU has plans to include some nuclear and natural gas in its“ green investment projects ” program.
The European Commission is expected to propose rules this month to decide whether to include natural gas and nuclear energy programmes in the EU ’ s Sustainable Investment Programme.
According to the draft proposal seen by Reuters, investments in nuclear power plants can be marked as “green ” if they have plans, funds and sites for the safe disposal of radioactive waste and have a construction permit by 2045.
Investments in natural gas power plants must meet the conditions of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions below 270 grams per kilowatt-hour (kWh), replace more polluting fossil fuel power plants, obtain construction permits by December 31, 2030, and plan to switch to low-carbon gases by the end of 2035.
EU countries and a panel of experts will carefully review the draft, which is due to be officially released later in January, after which changes may also be made.
Once published, the draft could still be rejected by a majority of EU member states or the European Parliament.
For more than a year, European countries have been divided over which fuels actually meet sustainability standards.
Austria, Germany, Luxembourg and other countries have expressed opposition to nuclear energy, while the Czech Republic, Finland, and France, which generates 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, argue that nuclear energy is an indispensable alternative in the process of phasing out coal.

Germany’s transport minister has called for the creation of an expert committee to examine whether the country’s nuclear power plants should be extended.

Title:

Content: Germany ’ s transport minister has called for the creation of an expert committee to examine whether the country ’ s nuclear power plants should be extended.
The move also sparked disagreements within the ruling coalition over nuclear power.
Since Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine, Germany has tried to break away from its energy dependence and sparked discussions about the use of the country ’ s only three remaining nuclear power plants.
After the 311 earthquake in Japan, the Merkel government appealed for non-nuclear homes, which were scheduled to be completely decommissioned by the end of 2022.
Prime Minister Olaf Scholz of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) has tried to pressure the dispute between the ruling Green Party and the Liberal Democratic Party (FDP).
The Greens have been pressing for a withdrawal from nuclear power, but the transport minister of the Liberal Democratic Party (FDP) has called for an extension of the plant ’ s life until at least April.
Transport Minister Volker Wissing said electric vehicles are not environmentally friendly unless they use zero-carbon nuclear power.
“We need an expert answer on how to ensure that we achieve our climate protection goals while having a stable and affordable energy supply, ” the minister said.
Critics of Germany ’ s withdrawal from nuclear power say it could force Germany to rely more on coal than expected during its transition to renewable energy.
Coal is more carbon polluting than natural gas.
The Green Party is strongly opposed to the resumption of Germany's nuclear power program, arguing that extending the use of nuclear power would be costly and that more could be achieved by developing renewable energy.
# Nuclear Power # Germany # Minister of Transport # Extension # Nuclear Power Plant

Germany’s last nuclear power plants are set to close by the end of this year.

Title:

Content: Nuclear research and development: sustainable investment or a “green drift ” scam?
Photo Credit: AP / Tachih Images
What we want you to know is
In the past few decades, nuclear power has already declined, but the sunset industry is now repackaging itself with “green energy ” and trying to return to the market with the image of“ climate savior. ”
Text: Ho Wai Hoon (Project Director, Centre for Greater China Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong), Lo Chin-yi (Co-Director, Centre for Greater China Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong)
At the beginning of the year 2022, nuclear energy has become the focus of international debate on energy strategy.
A few hours before the start of the New Year, the European Commission proposed a draft to classify natural gas and nuclear energy investment projects as “green investments ”, arguing that they are a means to help the transition to a future based on renewable energy and help Europe reduce carbon emissions, so they can be included in the“ Sustainable Finance Classification ” – a “Classification ” that will be introduced in 2020 to integrate environmental, social and governance factors into the investment decision-making system. Relevant economic investment and financing activities provide a set of standards, on the one hand, to promote the sustainable financial development of the market, and at the same time to eliminate the company's" green drift "behavior, is the first case of a global international organization.
Differences within the European Union
However, whether nuclear energy is “green investment ” has been divided in the EU.
In the context of the international community ’ s emphasis on sustainable development and climate change, green finance has become an important strategic tool, and proponents of nuclear energy believe that it is the most effective, stable and cheapest option to generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases.
Under the pressure of carbon reduction, many countries need to reduce the proportion of coal and fossil fuel power generation, and nuclear power is the best alternative energy source.
As a result, France, which generates more than 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, announced last November that it would restart the construction of new nuclear reactors.
President Emmanuel Macron has stressed that nuclear energy will help France achieve its energy independence and its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.
Some developing countries in Eastern Europe that are still highly dependent on coal and fossil fuels for power generation, such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, are hoping to develop nuclear power in order to meet the requirements of rising electricity demand and carbon reduction, and it is clear that carbon neutrality cannot be achieved without nuclear energy.
The anti-nuclear faction, led by Germany, plus Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal, strongly opposed the EU's proposal to include nuclear energy in the "classification law", arguing that it does not comply with the principle of "no major harm" and is only "greenwashing".
Since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, many countries have witnessed the huge and far-reaching consequences of nuclear accidents for people and the environment, and have proposed energy policies to completely abolish nuclear energy.
In Germany, for example, after the Fukushima nuclear accident, it decided to close all nuclear power plants by 2022 and vigorously develop renewable energy.
Germany ’ s last nuclear power plants are set to close by the end of this year.
In fact, the global share of total nuclear power generation has steadily declined from nearly 20% in 1996 to 10% in 2020.
In the past few decades, nuclear power has already declined, but the sunset industry is now repackaging with “green energy ” and trying to return to the market with the image of“ climate savior ”.
The focus of the debate on nuclear energy has shifted from the most basic safety issues and how to properly dispose of nuclear waste to the agenda on climate change, energy supply security and economic impact.
Is nuclear energy worth investing in?
When we talk about nuclear energy, how can safety not be at the root of our concern?
Even if security issues are put aside first, will it solve climate change in time?
Is it really worth investing in?
One of the main reasons for the decline of the global nuclear energy industry is that it takes too long to build.
Of the 53 aircraft currently under construction around the world, the average construction time is 7 years, and 31 of them have project delays, the longest is even more than 36 years.
EDF announced this month that the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plant, which was expected to be completed by the end of this year, is being postponed to the second quarter of next year due to “yet another delay ” due to the epidemic.
Say “again ” because it has been postponed many times; the nuclear power plant started as early as 2007, when it was claimed that it could be completed in five years, and the result has been delayed for more than a decade, and it has not been finished.
The second reason why nuclear power is deterring investors is the rising cost of construction.
The estimated cost of a nuclear power plant in France was €3.3 billion, but it has since risen to almost four times, and now stands at €12.7 billion.
Thierry Breton, executive director of internal market affairs of the European Union, pointed out that from now to 2030, the existing nuclear power plants alone need 50 billion euros of investment; the new generation of nuclear power plants need 500 billion euros.
When we thought that technological progress could reduce costs, the truth turned out to be the opposite.
Investing in nuclear energy to save the planet?
As we all know, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has been obsessed with climate investment in recent years, and Breakthrough Energy Ventures, one of the founders, hopes to bring “breakthrough ” green energy technology.
He believes nuclear power is the ultimate solution to the climate problem. He has invested in Terra Power ’ s “new generation of nuclear energy ” for many years, and called on the U.S. government to invest in the“ advanced ” nuclear energy industry, “provide new funding, update relevant regulations, and show investors that it is serious. ”
Bill Gates has repeatedly applied to Congress for research funding, and has received more than $250 million in research grants from the Department of Energy.
Of course, the cost of construction of TerraPower ’ s new generation nuclear reactor is estimated to be as high as $1 billion, and congressional sponsorship is a big deal.
However, this nuclear power technology has not been successfully developed, whether it is "breakthrough" or just heard the sound of the staircase; close to the fire, looking at distant water to save, the earth can wait how many more decades?
“All investments involve risk, and the price of investment products can go up or down, or even become worthless.
Bill Gates, the business wizard, has certainly not forgotten to provide you with investment risk tips and disclaimers. He recently claimed at the SOSV “Climate Technology Summit ” that he does not need climate technology to make money, emphasizing that new technology requires a lot of investment but is not sure of a return.
So, is investing in nuclear energy really saving the planet, or is it just another “WeChat woman ” investment scam?
Editorial responsibility: Alvin
Edited by: Alex
(Join the critical review network member) Daily wonderful articles sent directly to your mailbox, each week exclusive editorial selection, current affairs selection, art weekly newspaper and other special electronic newspapers.
You can also leave comments with authors, journalists, and editors to discuss the content of the article.
Join now for free!
Guess you like it.
Tags:

In the past few decades, nuclear power has already declined, but the sunset industry is now repackaging with “green energy” and trying to return to the market as a “climate savior”.

Safety concerns remain central in discussions about nuclear energy.

Investing in nuclear energy to save the planet is under debate, but costs are very high—for example, TerraPower’s new reactor is estimated at $1 billion and requires significant congressional sponsorship.

During earlier decades, Germany and France developed nuclear energy in tandem, with a 1.22 million megawatt unit built in Germany in 1986 on the Rhine.

Title:

Content: ● Talk from the beginning
In October 1973, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, imposed a embargo on countries supporting Israel with oil as a weapon. The embargo lasted until March 1974, when the global price of oil rose by nearly 300%, from $3 per barrel to nearly $12.
Recognizing the importance of stable energy supply and price, many countries have begun to develop nuclear power.
In that era, the development of nuclear energy in Germany and France went hand in hand. Both countries imported nuclear power technology from the United States, and both established independent nuclear power industries.
In 1979, the Three Mile Island accident in the United States did not change the Social Democratic Party's support for nuclear energy in Germany at the time, and then the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Russia caused a major impact on Germany's nuclear energy policy. In August 1986, the Social Democratic Party passed a bill to abandon nuclear power within 10 years, Germany terminated the development plan for new reactors, and power companies dared not plan to build a nuclear power plant. Merchants.
Overall, the passage of the Act did not affect the operation of the nuclear power plants in transit in Germany, with a capacity of 20,339 and 20,583,000 megawatts in 23 years from 1986 to 2009, and a further 22.9 million megawatts in 1989.
In other words, the ruling party in Germany recognized the importance of nuclear power to the country ’ s economic development and did not implement the nuclear abolition bill hastily passed in August 1986 under the anti-nuclear passion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in Russia.
Obviously, the non-nuclear file, can only say, can not be done.
Non-nuclear weapons are a bargaining chip for political power
In October 1998, the Social Democratic Party and the Green Party organized a joint government and began to discuss a non-nuclear timetable with power companies. The Green Party, a small party with ideological leadership and national recognition of only 6.7%, changed the national energy policy through the power to gain the leadership of energy policies that are closely related to national security.
The assumption of power by political parties recognized by more people is the basic tenet of the operation of democratic politics.
When, in order to gain political power, different political parties used coalitions to lead to the opinions of the minority and hostage the understanding of the majority, is this the normal state of democratic politics?
Ridiculous, even more pathetic!
After numerous and varied threats, the coalition government and the power companies reached an agreement in late 2000.
The key point of the agreement is that the government will allow the units in operation at the time to continue operating until the cumulative generation of 2,623 billion kWh, equivalent to an average useful life of the units of 32 years (the power company originally expected 36 years), and that Germany will be non-nuclear by 2022.
The government is committed to ensuring the smooth operation of the nuclear power plant and the disposal of nuclear waste without political interference. In June 2001, the “Red Green ” coalition government signed an agreement with four power companies.
The agreement clearly stipulates that Germany will no longer build nuclear power plants and allow the temporary storage of used nuclear fuel at the site.
Based on the cap on nuclear power generation, a less cost-effective unit was stopped in 2003 and 2005, with a installed capacity of 640,000 MW and 340,000 MW, respectively, and it operated for 31 and 36 years.
In addition, a unit with a capacity of 1.22 million megawatts was built in 1986 on the banks of the Rhine. The unit was discontinued in 1988 due to anti-nuclear protests, and its power company abandoned the unit in 2003 to begin decommissioning work. Two units with a capacity of 771,000 megawatts and 1.26 million megawatts were suspended in 2007 and 2009, respectively, for 30 years and 25 years.
These two units are boiling water reactors, which are different from the mainstream pressurized water reactors in Germany.
Germany ’ s non-nuclear decision in 2000 was a pragmatic compromise that quelled the protests of anti-nuclear groups, kept the plant running smoothly, and provided the government with enough time to think about national energy policy.
An industrial leader reminded the government that reliable and affordable energy is an important part of Germany ’ s economic policy.
Opposition leaders in Congress said there was a chance they would change the decision.
The expectation of power companies is to increase the average operating year of all nuclear power units from 32 to 40 years, and then to 60 years depending on the situation of individual units.
● New opportunities brought about by the change
In September 2009, the new coalition government of the Christian Democrats and the Liberal Party announced plans to withdraw the "non-nuclear policy".
At this time, Germany still has 17 operational nuclear power units, but one is in a long-term state of decommissioning.
If all the units can be extended from the original agreed 32 years of operation to 60 years, it is estimated that the additional profit of the power company will be 100 billion euros, and the government must take a share, let alone 50 billion euros.
Financial negotiations took a year to complete.
The new nuclear policy allows for 40 years of operation (an additional 8 years) for units that were negotiated before 1980, and 14 years for units that were negotiated after 1980.
The government pays dividends on the extension of nuclear power plants to the national treasury under various taxes, donations and surcharges.
For example, the tax on nuclear fuel based on the weight of nuclear fuel used is increased to 2.3 billion euros per year, equivalent to 0.016 euros per kilowatt-hour.
In order to supplement the development of renewable energy, we will provide 300 million euros each in 2011 and 2012, 200 million euros each from 2013 to 2016, and 0.009 euros per nuclear power generation after 2016. The funds will also fund a recovery plan for a waste salt mine that is disposed of from nuclear waste.
Germany ’ s policy of abandoning nuclear energy has officially turned a corner.
• Planning does not change
On March 15, 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that the new nuclear energy policy adopted only four months ago was suspended for three months. At the same time, seven units that had been negotiated before 1980 were immediately shut down. This represents a decrease of 8,336 MW, or 6.4% of the total installed capacity.
In May 2011, the German regulatory authority issued a statement saying that after various assessments, all German nuclear power units are in good condition and there are no concerns about their safety.
Despite this, the German government announced on May 30 that under pressure from anti-nuclear local governments, it will return to its original non-nuclear policy and close all nuclear power plants by 2022. At the end of June and July 8, the German House of Representatives and the Senate respectively passed decrees to expand wind power generation in response to the shutdown of nuclear power plants, while agreeing to build coal-fired power plants and gas plants without changing carbon reduction targets.
In order to solve the problem of insufficient baseload power after the nuclear power plant is stopped, electricity will be imported from France, Russia and Poland.
It ’ s all about non-nuclear policy.
Some nuclear power plants have been forced to shut down, but the nuclear power plants that continue to operate still have to pay various heavy taxes according to the 2011 revision of the Atomic Energy Law. Tax rebates of €6.3 billion between 2011 and 2016 and the suspension of tax on nuclear fuel.
The nuclear fuel tax was abolished at the end of 2016. In order to avoid the nuclear fuel tax, the fuel exchange time of five German units was postponed to January 2017, and a total of 8 billion kWh of power generation was lost from mid-December to the end of February 2016.
After 10 years of litigation, the government reached a settlement with four power companies for a total amount of 4.8 billion euros.
This amount of money is the most direct price of policy repetition.
In response to nuclear waste, in order to maintain a stable power supply, the huge investment in power generation and transmission systems is a heavier burden on society.
In May 2011, the German power grid department warned that the closure of nuclear power plants will lead to insufficient baseload power generation capacity, and renewable energy generation facilities are scattered, and renewable energy rich areas and power consumption areas are at a distance, requiring transmission networks.
The lack of power transmission capacity will make the grid fragile and unreliable, and the stability of the grid is facing great challenges. In May 2012, Germany announced a 10-year plan to expand and strengthen the grid, with a total of 26 transmission projects, with a total investment of 10 billion euros.
Germany calls the policy of increasing the proportion of renewable energy generation and phasing out nuclear energy as Energiewende (energytransition), an appropriate translation is also our slogan, "energy transition"!
For the public, the direct cost of the energy transition is that household electricity prices are the second highest in Europe and the highest in Denmark.
According to statistics, in December 2021, the price of domestic electricity in Germany was 80% higher than that of France.
Electricity prices in Germany
The electricity market in Germany is completely liberalized, and power companies sell electricity generated by various forms of electricity generation in the wholesale market. The price of electricity in the wholesale market is open information, which allows power companies to obtain electricity from the wholesale market and transmit it to consumers through the electricity network.
Taxes paid by different types of consumers are also different.
Due to various measures to reward renewable energy, distorting the market mechanism, the German wholesale electricity price is lower than other countries, and sometimes even negative, 298 hours of wholesale electricity price is negative in 2019 and 139 hours in 2021.
The average wholesale price of electricity in the German electricity market is 0.03767 euros / kWh in 2019, 0.03047 euros / kWh in 2020, and 0.09685 euros / kWh in 2021. The average price in the first half of the year is 0.054 euros / kWh, rising to 0.1380 euros / kWh in the second half of the year.
As shown in the attached figure, the Russian-Ukrainian war caused a surge in gas prices, which had a huge impact on electricity prices in Germany; in July 2022, the high price of 0.3153 euros per degree was 6.4 times that of January 2019!
The price of electricity for domestic or small commercial use in Germany is very high.
Look at the price structure of electricity for German households.
Germany ’ s household electricity price in 2006 was 0.1946 euros per kWh. It rose to 0.3216 euros per kWh in 2021, and has reached 0.3714 euros in 2022. In 2021, more than half of Germany ’ s household and small business electricity price burden came from additional taxes or fees due to energy policies. 16% is a sales tax, 20% of the renewable energy surcharge is paid to the renewable energy industry, 6% of the electricity tax (also known as the ecological tax), and there are three smaller surcharges.
If so, why not in the first place?
In 2010, Germany had 17 nuclear power units with a total installed capacity of more than 20 million megawatts, accounting for about 15% of the total installed capacity. In 2010, the total generation capacity was 133 billion kWh, accounting for about 25% of the total generation capacity. At the end of 2011, there were 9 nuclear power units with a total installed capacity of 12 million megawatts.
Compared to 1990, the total installed capacity was 1.3 times, but the power generation increased by only 11%.
Wind and photovoltaics account for nearly half of the installed capacity, but only 28% of the generation.
Nuclear power plant capacity accounted for only 4.1%, but power generation accounted for 12.4%. In 2021, three nuclear power units were shut down, and there are only three units in operation, with a total installed capacity of 4.055 million megawatts, accounting for less than 2%, and the total power generation may be about 6%. Can the economy afford to shut down the remaining three nuclear plants in 2022?
According to a news report on August 18, "Germany is facing an energy shortage crisis this winter and has planned to delay the closure of the country's last three nuclear power plants."
The decision has not yet been formally adopted by Prime Minister Bernard Shaw and may need to be passed by parliament. Details are still being discussed and a cabinet resolution will have to wait weeks for an energy demand assessment to come out, but officials believe the results are already known, according to three officials.
According to online data, Germany has eight decommissioned units that have not been in service for 40 years, and if the international consensus is that nuclear power units can be used for at least 60 years, the extension of these units can significantly reduce the dependence on imported natural gas.
It remains to be seen whether the shift in German nuclear policy will extend to these eight units.
● Other Mountain Stone
Looking at Taiwan ’ s electricity situation, the schedule summarizes Taiwan ’ s electricity data for 2019 and 2021, which can be compared with Germany ’ s data for 2019. Germany ’ s total installed capacity and total power generation in 2019 are 4.1 times and 2.2 times that of Taiwan, respectively.
The average capacity factor for electrical equipment in Germany is 30% and in Taiwan it is 56%.
Renewable energy cannot generate electricity all the time, and when the installed capacity is large, the average capacity factor will be low.
But there are other factors, in 2019, Germany ’ s natural gas installation capacity of 46 million megawatts, generating 90.8 billion kWh; Taiwan is 17.57 million megawatts and 91.2 billion kWh; the installed capacity is only 38% of Germany ’ s, but the power generation is equivalent.
Germany ’ s electricity grid is part of the European continent ’ s electricity grid, and data can be found on the network. In 2020, Germany exported 66.39 billion kWh of electricity and imported 48.05 billion kWh. About 20% of Germany ’ s domestic electricity production is exchanged with other countries.
If the exchange is not possible, it is necessary to abandon electricity when the amount of renewable energy generation exceeds the amount of electricity used or the capacity of the grid; when the renewable energy generation is insufficient, more dispatchable units are needed.
Renewable energy generation must be coupled with a power generation facility that can be scheduled, so that the power grid can be stable.
When the capacity of renewable energy installations is large, the capacity of the installations with the power generation facilities that can be adjusted will also increase.
The average capacity factor of German natural gas units is only 15%.
In other words, Germany ’ s natural gas unit is idle 85% of the time, isn ’ t that the cost of renewable energy?
When renewable energy must have a total installed capacity of 12.7 million megawatts (54.8%) of renewable energy (wind, light, water, and waste) with a capacity of 255.1 billion kWh (41.9%); the installed capacity is 16.3 times that of Taiwan ’ s 7.8 million megawatts in 2019, and the power generation capacity is 16.8 times that of Taiwan ’ s share is only 5.6%. Degrees.
From the number of renewable energy generation, Taiwan really can not be compared with Germany, but can we really develop to the realm of Germany?
Germany ’ s territory covers an area of 357,622 square kilometers, 9.9 times Taiwan ’ s 35,980 square kilometers.
Simply estimate the amount of renewable energy generated per square kilometer of land in Germany is only 1.7 times that of Taiwan.
In other words, if Taiwan ’ s renewable energy development can be as good as Germany ’ s, our renewable energy generation capacity can be doubled again! Is that enough? What does the rest rely on? Petrified fuels? Taiwan ’ s use of fossil fuels for power generation is 82.0% in 2019 and 83.3% in 2021. What should we do about the reduction of greenhouse gases? Energy can be developed, hydrogen is an energy carrier, not energy, that is, hydrogen production still depends on other sources of energy.
The Germans can ’ t take the risk, we don ’ t see it.
Germany's nuclear energy policy is all caused by natural gas, on the one hand, the source is cut off, on the other hand, the natural gas shortage caused by the soaring price of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels account for 46.3% of Germany ’ s electricity generation, and the rise in wholesale electricity prices has been alarming. The German government has revised its nuclear energy policy once again in order to spread the risk of excessive reliance on natural gas.
In Taiwan, fossil fuel power generation accounted for 83.3% in 2021, can the impact on electricity prices be lighter than in Germany?
You can't see that Taiwan Power Company is expected to have a loss of 200 billion yuan this year, and CNOOC is also in the tens of billions!
The government is afraid to adjust the price of electricity and natural gas for fear of affecting the election.
A few days ago, the media reported that the government has compiled a budget to directly eliminate the deficit.
Do they still have the law in their eyes?
If the government respects the results of the 2018 referendum on nuclear and green energy, and four years ago it began to promote the renewal of the licenses of the four nuclear companies to transfer and operate China's power plants, Taiwan will pay a lot less in this wave of soaring fossil fuel prices.
A while ago, the military exercise across the strait, it can be seen that it is rehearsing to block Taiwan, if it is really blocked in the future, our natural gas stocks can stand for a few days! Our government seems to be old in the ground is not proper, still clinging to the god of the non-nuclear homeland, refusing to open their eyes to see the latest international energy trends.
After Germany abandoned its non-nuclear policy, the only countries in the world that have used nuclear energy, only Taiwan has a non-nuclear timetable, China, the United States, France, Japan, South Korea and India, etc., are building or planning new nuclear power plants.
The Taiwanese government should wake up.
Those who pretend to sleep cannot wake up, so let us spit on those who stand in line with those who pretend to sleep!
With the election looming, let ’ s ask the candidates whether they support nuclear power?
If not, ask him to tell you where Taiwan's energy policy should go, how Taiwan meets the requirements of international carbon reduction, what to do when Taiwan is short of power, and who pays when electricity prices surge? (The author is a Distinguished Professor of Engineering and Systems Science, National Tsing Hua University)
※ The above statements do not represent the position of Wangzhong Media Group ※
# Germany # Unit # Electricity # Euro # Nuclear

There are ongoing costs for waste management, including funding recovery plans for nuclear waste disposal sites.

Questions remain about the economic viability of shutting down the remaining three nuclear plants in 2022.

Some decisions regarding nuclear policy may require parliamentary approval and have not yet been formally adopted.

Renewable energy sources cannot generate electricity consistently, and as installed capacity increases, their average capacity factor is low.

The German energy system must rely on other sources to fill the gap when renewables are insufficient.

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.

In other countries, fossil fuel generation remains dominant (e.g., 82.0% in Taiwan in 2019 and 83.3% in 2021).

The German government is hesitant to take risks and focuses on safety in contrast to other energy policies abroad.

Since 2009, Europe has been acutely aware of growing Russian energy dependence.