Germany plans to close its remaining nuclear power plants by the end of 2022 as part of its nuclear phaseout plan, which aims to make the country safer and reduce radioactive waste.

The Fukushima nuclear accident occurred in 2011, leading to Germany's decision to phase out its nuclear reactors.

"Germany's move away from nuclear energy has resulted in increased dependence on coal and natural gas, complicating its goal of achieving 100% green power by 2035."

"There are three nuclear power plants still operational in Germany, namely Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2, and Emsland, which are expected to have their operational life extended for several months."

The Fukushima nuclear disaster led to Germany's decision to close its nuclear power plants, as announced by Mrs Merkel in 2011.

The last nuclear power plant in Germany was closed on April 15, 2023, as part of the country's energy policy.

"Germany will keep two nuclear power plants on standby until mid-April 2023, revising its initial plan to abandon nuclear power by the end of 2022, in response to energy security concerns."

The last three nuclear power plants shut down in Germany are Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2, and Emsland.

Germany primarily uses wind and solar energy as its renewable energy sources, with these sources covering a significant portion of the country's power consumption.

Germany's energy transition aims to achieve a sustainable economy by pursuing 100% renewable energy, with a target of 2035, despite short-term challenges and external pressures.

The remaining three nuclear power plants in Germany generate about 6% of the country's electricity.

The Russian-Ukrainian war caused a temporary delay in Germany's plan to close its nuclear power plants, as the country faced energy security concerns and the challenge of achieving its renewable energy goals without relying on Russian oil and gas.

Germany plans to close its remaining nuclear power plants by the end of 2022 as part of its nuclear phaseout plan, which aims to make the country safer and reduce radioactive waste.

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 Fukushima nuclear accident occurred in 2011, leading to Germany's decision to phase out its nuclear reactors.

Title:

Content: 'Sustainability challenges' What Big Oil, green movement conceal from us

The US funds its military aid to Ukraine with tax dollars and some of America’s allies fund Putin’s military with purchases of his oil and gas exports. And that’s the absurdity that has come to define the Russian invasion
Representative image

NEW YORK: It has long been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By that definition, we’re the ones detached from reality if we keep accepting what the oil industry and the green movement keep telling us over and over again and expecting a different result. The greens keep saying that because the price of wind and solar is now as cheap as, or cheaper than, fossil fuels, they’ve won the energy war. Game, set, match — welcome to the green planet.

The oil companies say — as they have in each previous energy crisis since 1973 — that the only answer to this energy crisis is the one they’ve offered for the past 49 years: drill, baby, drill. Welcome to reality. Well, they’re both wrong, and accepting the repetition of either of these tired shibboleths is hurting us economically, environmentally and geopolitically — especially, of late, geopolitically.

Because our continued addiction to fossil fuels is bolstering Vladimir Putin’s petrodictatorship and creating a situation where we in the West are — yes, say it with me now — funding both sides of the war. We fund our military aid to Ukraine with our tax dollars and some of America’s allies fund Putin’s military with purchases of his oil and gas exports.

And if that’s not the definition of insanity, then I don’t know what is. Have no illusion — these sins of the green movement and the oil industry are not equal. The greens are trying to fix a real, planet-threatening problem, even if their ambition exceeds their grasp. The oil and coal companies know that what they are doing is incompatible with a stable, healthy environment. Yes, they are right that without them there would be no global economy today. But unless they use their immense engineering talents to become energy companies, not just fossil fuel companies, there will be no livable economy tomorrow.

Let’s look at both. For too long, too many in the green movement have treated the necessary and urgent shift we need to make from fossil fuels to renewable energy as though it were like flipping a switch — just get off oil, get off gasoline, get off coal and get off nuclear — and do it NOW, without having put in place the kind of transition mechanisms, clean energy sources and market incentives required to make such a massive shift in our energy system.

It’s Germany in 2011, suddenly deciding after the Fukushima accident to phase out its 17 relatively clean and reliable nuclear reactors, which provided some 25 percent of the country’s electricity. This, even though Germany had nowhere near enough solar, wind, geothermal or hydro to replace that nuclear power. So now it’s burning more coal and gas.

A 2019 working paper for the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research found that in Germany “the lost nuclear electricity production due to the phaseout was replaced primarily by coal-fired production and net electricity imports. The social cost of this shift from nuclear to coal is approximately $12 billion per year. Over 70 percent of this cost comes from the increased mortality risk associated with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels.”

Today, the European Union is drawing up a plan to break its addiction to Russian oil and gas by 2027, but, in the meantime, Putin is laughing all the way to the bank. As CNN reported in April, citing a report by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air: “Russian revenues from fossil fuel exports to the European Union soared during the first two months of the Ukraine invasion” — to $46.3 billion. That was more than double the value of Russian energy imported by the E.U. during the same two-month period a year earlier.

That was not because the E.U.’s volume of imports doubled. Higher oil and gas prices accounted for most of that increase. In other words, Putin starts a war that creates instability, which drives up oil prices, so he makes twice as much money exporting roughly the same amount of oil.

While Germany jumped off nuclear before it had a safety net of sufficient clean alternatives, at least it has been on a serious, path-defining quest to get them. Indeed, the whole world owes Germany a huge debt for driving down the price of solar panels and wind turbines through the subsidies and tax incentives it created. In Germany, wind turbines, solar panels and other renewables covered 54 percent of power consumption this past January and February — which is AMAZING. In 2021, renewable energy sources accounted for only about 12 percent of total U.S. energy that was consumed.

Still, the most important delusion of the green movement today — of which I am a proud, if grouchy, member — is telling itself that because the price of wind and solar technology has fallen so low now that it can beat coal and natural gas in most markets, often even without subsidies, it’s “game over” for fossil fuels. I wish. Price is only half the story.

If you can’t install the transmission lines — to get that sun and wind power from the vast open spaces where it is generated to the big urban areas where it is needed — and if you cannot set aside more land to install the scale of solar and wind farms you need to replace coal, gas or nuclear, it doesn’t matter that your renewables are cheaper on a per-kilowatt-hour basis.

And today transmission is a huge problem in the U.S. and Europe, where many people don’t want wind farms, solar fields, electricity lines — or natural gas pipelines — in their backyard. I wish this were not the case, but there is no immaculate pathway from brown energy to green energy. The road is paved with cruel trade-offs. Pick your poison — but grow up. Meanwhile, ever since the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the big oil companies have basically said in each successive crisis: Sure, we need more clean energy, but you have to understand — it doesn’t scale. Right now, we’re in an emergency, so we just need to drill more. You hear the same refrain today, which is why we’re in danger of wasting yet another oil crisis and never breaking our fossil fuel addiction.

For those oil companies sitting on large natural gas deposits — which are needed in this transition because gas is cleaner than coal — it means tapping those deposits but doing so with zero methane leakage; otherwise gas becomes as bad as coal. But it also means thinking much more seriously about how fossil fuel companies truly make the transition to become “energy companies,” not just oil companies, so they can leverage their amazing pools of engineering talent to provide more energy solutions that save the planet, not warm it.

Friedman is an Opinion Columnist with NYT©2022

The New York Times

Related Stories

No stories found.

"Germany's move away from nuclear energy has resulted in increased dependence on coal and natural gas, complicating its goal of achieving 100% green power by 2035."

Title:

Content: Since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war on February 24, the US sanctions on Russia have become wider and stronger.
European countries have responded differently to near-“ unlimited ” economic and financial sanctions.
However, there are dissenting expressions of resistance to Russian oil and gas, Germany and the former Soviet Union ’ s Middle Eastern and European countries.
In August 2021, the United Nations Committee on Climate Change released a report by 234 scientists, revealing that the inescapable and increasingly serious climate crisis is a common historical undertaking that humanity must face together.
This is an important warning to EU authorities who proposed the “European Green Agreement ” in 2019, which aims to reduce carbon emissions by 55% by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, based on 1990 carbon emissions.
As a result, the European Commission proposed on December 31 last year and hoped to list nuclear power as a so-called "green energy".
However, EU member states are clearly aligned on the ultimate goal of carbon neutrality based on their respective energy mix and sources of supply, but they are quite divided on how to achieve it within the EU ’ s planned timeline.
As this proposal creates a conflict between nuclear France and anti-nuclear Germany, the European Union ’ s rotating presidency (January to June this year), French President Emmanuel Macron ’ s assertion that “nuclear energy = green energy ” has exacerbated the differences between the two countries.
For the German government, "nuclear energy is not a clean green energy, let alone renewable energy", this view directly collides with President Macron's "to reduce carbon emissions, but also reduce natural gas imports, we must take the road to nuclear energy".
"Carbon emission reduction" and "carbon neutrality", two different paths of thinking, originally just the EU "storm in the teapot", after the outbreak of the war between Russia and Ukraine, US President Joe Biden publicly asked European allies to boycott Russian imports of oil and gas, the EU's energy policy has become an important issue for economic development after the epidemic.
After the Russian-Ukrainian war, the United States hopes that the world will jointly sanction Russia's oil and gas exports. This call, in addition to the United Kingdom's decision to no longer import Russian oil and gas by the end of this year, the European Union and NATO's European countries "excluding energy sanctions" show three meanings: First, the war may affect the safety of nuclear power plants.
Second, the different energy supplies and ratios of various countries directly affect the ability to cooperate with the United States to sanction Russia.
Third, the nuclear abolition of Germany and nuclear France, after the Russian-Ukrainian war, will make the European Union's energy policy, into a new stage.
First of all, there are many nuclear power plants in Europe; before the war, no one thought that the incident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 could happen again.
4 nuclear power plants with 15 nuclear reactors supplying half of all electricity in Ukraine.
Whether the escalation of war affects the safety of nuclear power plants is of great concern to European countries.
The situation is different in Switzerland and Belgium; five nuclear power plants have been decommissioned in Switzerland after the 2017 nuclear referendum, and one has been decommissioned in 2019.
However, in Belgium, where half of its electricity comes from nuclear power, the government of Belgium decided on March 18 to retain some of its power generation units and extend them until 2035 after the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Second, 30% of Europe ’ s crude oil and 40% of its natural gas come from Russia, and it will be difficult for renewable energy to replace it in a short period of one year, or even three or five years.
In Germany, for example, 35% of oil and 40% of natural gas come from Russia. Even if it comes from the United States (Texas) on the other side of the Atlantic, it also involves the construction of LNG (liquefied natural gas) receiving stations and the arrival of ships, and even a large number of super tankers above 320,000 tons, it is bound to not be the current Rotterdam (Netherlands), Hamburg (Germany), Anteppt (Belgium, etc. All major ports in Europe can handle the load.
And thousands of miles away from the oil tankers and LNG fleet, itself requires a large amount of fuel costs, the arrival of the transmission line of the laying, also can not be completed overnight.
After the completion of the price of oil and gas, the cost of fuel transportation must be added, and for Germany, which is the first high electricity price in Europe, the burden of the people and the operation of enterprises will be seriously affected.
Finally, Germany, which insists on eliminating nuclear weapons this year and hopes to achieve 100% green power by 2035, is a complicated situation.
After the Russo-Ukrainian War, Germany stopped reviewing Nord Stream II, which had already been built.
However, there is no political feasibility without Russia ’ s “Eastern Gas Delivery ”, as the Green Party has a joint government with the deputy prime minister and foreign minister, forced to re-use the policy option of coal burning.
Compared with the energy policy of France with nuclear energy as the main body, for Germany with a GDP of 3.8 trillion US dollars, even natural gas is only a part of the energy transformation, the pursuit of 100% renewable energy policy goals, in the year of total nuclear abolition, if it also boycotts Russian oil and gas, it will be unbearable for the economy.
The delay of the Russian-Ukrainian war, on the one hand, some countries began to think about the safety of nuclear power plants at the same time, on the other hand, due to the boycott of Russian oil and gas, will hinder the achievement of the EU's energy transformation policy goals.
And for Germany, which pursues "100% renewable energy (green power)" in 2035 and is Europe's largest economy, it is a short-term solution and may not be able to do so in the medium term, and the achievement of long-term goals still has a long way to go.
# Nuclear # Energy # Natural Gas # Russo-Ukrainian War # EU

"There are three nuclear power plants still operational in Germany, namely Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2, and Emsland, which are expected to have their operational life extended for several months."

Title:

Content: Germany To Postpone Closure Of Last Three Nuclear Power Plants - WSJ

(@ChaudhryMAli88)

MOSCOW (UrduPoint News / Sputnik - 17th August, 2022) Germany, faced with possible energy shortages in the winter as gas supplies from Russia have dropped, intends to postpone the closure of its last three nuclear power plants (NPPs) in a move marking a departure from a two-decade policy to abandon nuclear energy, The Wall Street Journal reported citing German government officials.

The decision, which has to be formally adopted by the cabinet of Chancellor Olaf Scholz and would possibly require a vote in Parliament, could be weeks off, but already now the German government says two key conditions have been met that allow a temporary extension of the life of the three remaining NPPs, currently expected to close December 31: the possibility of a gas shortage and the confidence that a longer operation of reactors would pose no safety concern, according to the officials.

"The reactors are safe until Dec. 31, and obviously they will remain safe also after Dec. 31," the WSJ quoted a senior official as saying.

Scholz last week said for the first time that it could make sense to keep Germany's last three nuclear reactors online.

However, even if the life of the three German NPPs is extended, this will not be a panacea for Germany's looming energy crisis this winter as the country is mainly missing natural gas, primarily used for heating and manufacturing.

The European Union has been seeking to diversify energy imports and reduce dependence on Russia after Moscow started its special military operation in Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has repeatedly said that Russia has never used gas supplies to punish anyone, but sells energy solely in its own interests, to increase the welfare of Russians and on a commercial basis.

The German government has also outlined measures to reduce gas and power consumption in the country over the next two years. The measures in particular include lowering the temperature in public buildings. According to Germany's energy regulator, gas consumption will have to be cut by 20 percent if Germany wants to avoid a gas shortfall during this coming winter and next winter.

The three officials who spoke to the WSJ said the extension of the NPPs' life would only be made for several months.

The power plants in question are Isar 2 in the southern state of Bavaria, Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Wurttemberg and Emsland in Lower Saxony. They are operated, respectively, by E.On SE, EnBW AG, and RWE AG.

After the start of Russia's special military operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, the West has stepped up sanctions pressure on Russia, which has led to an increase in prices for energy and food in Europe and the United States.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster led to Germany's decision to close its nuclear power plants, as announced by Mrs Merkel in 2011.

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.

The last nuclear power plant in Germany was closed on April 15, 2023, as part of the country's energy policy.

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

"Germany will keep two nuclear power plants on standby until mid-April 2023, revising its initial plan to abandon nuclear power by the end of 2022, in response to energy security concerns."

Title:

Content: To support the power supply in winter.
Germany to restart three coal plants next month
The German power company said on Monday it was preparing to restart three brown coal production units in early October to generate power under a law linked to subsidising winter electricity supplies, a government spokesman said.
The spokesman explained that the German power generation company (RWE) has completed the processing of the plants (Neurath C) and (Nedrasem E and F), and is finalizing the re-operation.
Germany is facing a major energy crisis due to record-high prices following Russia ’ s war on Ukraine on February 24 and Western sanctions on Moscow, which supplied more than 50 percent of its gas needs.
The three coal plants, which Germany plans to restart early next month, have a capacity of 292 MW, 295 MW and 299 MW, bringing the total electricity generated to about 900 MW (0.9 GW).
Berlin needs a maximum of 80GW in the middle of next winter to meet demand.
In July, German Chancellor Olaf Schulz said his country had to restart 16 fossil-fuel power plants, including coal plants, temporarily for a short period of time.
Although the German chancellor agreed to extend the work of 11 more stations, he stressed that his country remains committed to achieving carbon neutrality and fighting climate change.
Since the beginning of this month, Germany has announced that it will abandon its plan to completely abandon nuclear power plants by the end of this year (2022), as it plans to extend the operation of two reactors until April 2023.
Germany, Europe ’ s largest economy, began implementing a plan to phase out nuclear plants in 2011, when, after Japan ’ s Fukushima disaster, former Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to dismantle all plants by the end of 2022.
Source: Al Jazeera Mubasher + Reuters

The last three nuclear power plants shut down in Germany are Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2, and Emsland.

Germany primarily uses wind and solar energy as its renewable energy sources, with these sources covering a significant portion of the country's power consumption.

Germany's energy transition aims to achieve a sustainable economy by pursuing 100% renewable energy, with a target of 2035, despite short-term challenges and external pressures.

The remaining three nuclear power plants in Germany generate about 6% of the country's electricity.

Title:

Content: Germany ’ s last three nuclear power plants may be delayed
In light of the potential energy crisis in Europe in the winter, officials revealed that Germany intends to delay the decommissioning of the last three nuclear plants in the country, although it will only temporarily prolong the life of the plants, but it marks the first time that Germany has deviated from the energy policy introduced in the millennium and has so far been enshrined by almost all parties.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted senior officials as saying that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has not yet formally adopted the proposal to delay the discharge, and if it is decided to do so, there are technical and legal issues, including passing through parliament.
The cabinet is currently discussing some details, and while it will have to wait for the results of the energy demand assessment in the coming weeks to come to a conclusion, officials have revealed that everything is almost a foregone conclusion.
The last three nuclear plants in Germany were due to be decommissioned on December 31, and the government reportedly believes that a temporary delay would require two conditions: Germany is likely to suffer from a natural gas shortage and there are no safety concerns about keeping nuclear reactors in operation.
The shift in German policy underscores the shock of Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine to European political circles, especially Germany, which has been closely tied to Russia ’ s economy and has long relied on Russian gas supplies.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he began to increase military spending, send weapons to Ukraine, break years of pacifism, supply arms to conflict zones, the latest energy policy shift, and involve the almost sacred issue of “nuclear abolition ” in German politics.
The German economy ministry, which dominates energy policy, declined to comment on the report, saying only that it all depends on the outcome of an assessment of Germany ’ s energy needs.
The remaining three nuclear power plants account for about 6% of Germany's electricity generation, and if they continue to supply power, they will not have to use natural gas or coal-fired power to fill the gap, allowing some areas to continue to have natural gas.
In some parts of Germany, huge coal-fired power plants have resumed operations in response to a potential power outage from a Russian supply cut in June, disrupting Germany ’ s progress so far in reducing carbon and fighting air pollution.
The German government has drawn up two executive orders on how to reduce natural gas and energy consumption over the next two years.
Energy authorities estimate that Germany will need to reduce its use of natural gas by 20% in order to avoid a shortage of natural gas this winter and next.
It is unclear when the German authorities may extend the discharge period, with some officials offering a few months, but the ruling Liberal Democrats believe it should be extended to 2024.
Extended reading
Related Posts

The Russian-Ukrainian war caused a temporary delay in Germany's plan to close its nuclear power plants, as the country faced energy security concerns and the challenge of achieving its renewable energy goals without relying on Russian oil and gas.