There are three nuclear power plants still operational in Germany, accounting for about 6% of the country's electricity generation.

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

The Fukushima nuclear accident led to Germany's initial decision to phase out its nuclear energy program, but the current situation is complex and influenced by multiple factors, including the Russian-Ukrainian war.

"Germany's move away from nuclear energy has led to a reliance on coal-fired power plants and increased fossil fuel consumption, complicating their goal of achieving 100% green power by 2035, and the Russian-Ukrainian war has further impacted their energy supply."

"Germany's Energiewende plan aims to transition to green energy and reduce carbon emissions, but the country's decision to eliminate nuclear power and the impact of the Russian-Ukrainian war have created complications in achieving this goal."

Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg oppose the inclusion of nuclear power in the EU's green taxonomy, with Germany's government explicitly stating its opposition to nuclear energy.

The German Green Party has historically been against nuclear power, and their influence has contributed to Germany's shift away from nuclear energy. Germany aims to achieve 100% green power by 2035, but the loss of nuclear power has created a complicated situation, with the country being forced to re-evaluate policy options, including the use of coal burning.

"Germany's energy transition plan involves gradually eliminating nuclear power and expanding renewable energy to achieve 100% green power by 2035, but the Russian-Ukrainian war has introduced complications and forced the country to reconsider its energy options."

Germany is considering keeping some nuclear power plants online due to the energy crisis caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war, with the reactors being safe until at least December 31.

There are three nuclear power plants still operational in Germany, accounting for about 6% of the country's electricity generation.

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

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 accident led to Germany's initial decision to phase out its nuclear energy program, but the current situation is complex and influenced by multiple factors, including the Russian-Ukrainian war.

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 led to a reliance on coal-fired power plants and increased fossil fuel consumption, complicating their goal of achieving 100% green power by 2035, and the Russian-Ukrainian war has further impacted their energy supply."

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

"Germany's Energiewende plan aims to transition to green energy and reduce carbon emissions, but the country's decision to eliminate nuclear power and the impact of the Russian-Ukrainian war have created complications in achieving this goal."

Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg oppose the inclusion of nuclear power in the EU's green taxonomy, with Germany's government explicitly stating its opposition to nuclear energy.

The German Green Party has historically been against nuclear power, and their influence has contributed to Germany's shift away from nuclear energy. Germany aims to achieve 100% green power by 2035, but the loss of nuclear power has created a complicated situation, with the country being forced to re-evaluate policy options, including the use of coal burning.

"Germany's energy transition plan involves gradually eliminating nuclear power and expanding renewable energy to achieve 100% green power by 2035, but the Russian-Ukrainian war has introduced complications and forced the country to reconsider its energy options."

Germany is considering keeping some nuclear power plants online due to the energy crisis caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war, with the reactors being safe until at least December 31.