Germany's nuclear phase-out, integral to its Energiewende ("energy transition") policy, was driven mainly by environmental, safety, and political considerations.

This process accelerated following the 2011 Fukushima disaster, reflecting deep public concern over nuclear safety.

Prior to the phase-out, nuclear energy contributed approximately 12% of Germany's electricity in 2021, generated by six operational plants.

The government committed to shutting all nuclear plants by 2022, completing this by early 2023, and marking its first 'nuclear-free winter.'

This move aligns with Energiewende’s goal to drastically increase renewables to 80% of electricity supply by 2030 and eliminate reliance on nuclear and fossil fuels .

Since Germany's exit from nuclear power, the energy market has adapted by increasing generation from renewables, coal, and natural gas.

However, the intermittent nature of renewables, especially solar, introduces seasonal variability and creates grid stability challenges, particularly in the winter months.

Regarding carbon emissions, the phase-out has led to a mixed outcome.

While renewable capacity has expanded, emissions initially increased due to higher coal and natural gas use replacing nuclear baseload generation.

This spike is partially attributed to the necessity to meet demand with fossil fuels when renewables are insufficient.

More recently, emissions trends reflect efforts to re-balance the mix toward cleaner sources, but progress remains slower than anticipated at the outset of the Energiewende .

Grid reliability in Germany post-nuclear has faced stress but has not resulted in widespread blackouts.

The intermittency of renewables and increased fossil fuel dependence have heightened concerns over grid stability, particularly during cold spells when solar and wind outputs drop.

Grid operators have managed to maintain supply through a combination of fossil backup plants and grid infrastructure reinforcement.

However, seasonal tightness and occasional strain on balancing markets have raised alarms about the resilience of the grid without nuclear baseload capacity .

The Russian-Ukrainian war has significantly compounded Germany’s energy security challenges.

Heavy dependence on Russian natural gas—historically a major fuel source—became problematic as supplies were cut or reduced following the conflict's escalation.

This prompted rapid government action: accelerating Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal construction, fast-tracking renewable deployment, and temporarily reactivating coal plants despite their emissions footprint.

The war induced sharp spikes in energy prices, especially gas and electricity, which have strained industrial sectors and households.

German leadership views the crisis as underscoring the vulnerabilities inherent in the energy supply framework, intensifying the urgency of a secure and diversified energy transition .

On public and political fronts, attitudes toward nuclear energy have shifted.

Polls indicate that about 64% of the German population now supports restarting nuclear plants to mitigate escalating energy costs and strengthen security.

This sentiment cuts across traditional party lines, including among voters of the Green Party, which historically stood firmly against nuclear power.

Arguments in favor of a nuclear return emphasize its significant low-carbon baseload capacity, which could complement renewables, improve grid stability, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and enhance energy independence.

Advocates, including some industrial groups and energy experts, stress that the early nuclear shutdown has exposed Germany to heightened energy security risks and increased emissions from coal and gas plants.

Conversely, opponents maintain strong reservations rooted in nuclear safety concerns and waste management challenges.

They argue that nuclear power poses unresolved risks related to catastrophic accidents and long-term radioactive waste disposal.

Environmental groups and many Green Party members stress the importance of investing solely in renewables and energy efficiency rather than reverting to an energy source they consider hazardous and politically contentious.

Social movements advocating against nuclear energy underscore public health and environmental protection as paramount.

Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Free Democratic Party (FDP) have expressed some openness to extending or reactivating nuclear plants, viewing it as a pragmatic interim solution amidst energy security concerns, while the Green Party remains staunchly opposed, emphasizing accelerated renewable deployment .

In summary, Germany’s nuclear phase-out has been a landmark policy motivated by safety and environmental concerns but has introduced considerable challenges in energy supply, carbon emissions, price stability, and grid reliability.

The Russian-Ukrainian war has exacerbated energy security vulnerabilities linked to the phase-out and heavy fossil fuel dependence.

Public opinion shows increasing support for reexamining nuclear power, reflecting growing anxiety over energy costs and reliability.

The debate pits nuclear’s benefits of low-carbon, stable generation against enduring safety and waste concerns.

This dynamic highlights complex trade-offs for legislators aiming to balance climate goals, energy security, economic costs, and societal acceptance within Germany’s ongoing green transition.

Germany's nuclear phase-out, integral to its Energiewende ("energy transition") policy, was driven mainly by environmental, safety, and political considerations.

Title:

Content: Alert
The secret identity of Hu Ge 's wife is revealed, "spend 3.5 million to learn makeup to attract him"
Yeh Wu-yang-kuang has a new girlfriend! A friend reveals that she is popular 2 key "Message will be back immediately"
Lin Yihua finally took office as vice mayor, and Lan Ying was willing to be scolded, and Chu Lilun had three big plans.
How did the German model achieve an unbearable energy transition war across the sea?
【 By Fu Guanqi 】
Environmental awareness, green energy production has always been regarded as the world's superior Germany, but because of a Ukrainian-Russian war, let the bright achievements behind the unfinished business, exposed to the world.
Is this general review of energy security, ignited by war, a crisis or a turning point for Germany, which rose from the ashes of World War II? Can Germany break through the status quo and turn into a new model for a sustainable economy in the future?
Or is it a death on the road to transformation? How can Taiwan find its future direction from this “energy transition war ”?
Just after Christmas, for many Dodd families, the most wanted Christmas gift may be a heat pump to make the whole family better through the winter.
Unlike the tens of millions of domestic heating systems in Germany that still use natural gas or oil as fuel, heat pumps are powered by electricity, which can be seen as "reverse air conditioning", which has a higher thermal conversion efficiency and symbolizes energy access at a lower price.
The energy crisis caused by the Russo-Ukrainian War has become a watershed in the price of energy in Germany.
The past dependence on Russia to import a large amount of cheap energy can not be returned, and the international carbon pricing mechanism is increasingly complete, which has led Germany to realize that only green energy is the way to reduce energy prices again.
The "Vision" team traveled to Germany, in-depth interviews and observed that the consensus that permeates German society today is: "There is not much time for the energy transition, and we must accelerate progress."
German Green Party MP Till Steffen, who visited Taiwan in 2022, told Visionary that "this' energy crisis' has accelerated the 'energy transition' and become a priority for the government."
German Economy Accelerates Greening, Renewable Energy Becomes National Security Foundation
This is not just a matter of paper. At the end of 2022, Germany inaugurated the country ’ s first liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal.
Germany decided last spring to build it, and it could be completed in a few months. “This is super fast for Germany, ” Steffen said.“ We need to scale up renewable energy at the same rate. ”
If you make decisions at the slow pace of your past habits, you won ’ t be able to achieve the goals you set. ”
In the past, far less ambitious than the Green Party ’ s liberal finance minister, Christian Lindner, has also designated renewable energy as “free energy ”, emphasizing its function to enhance Germany ’ s energy security and economic independence.
In this context, the two pillars of the energy transition, "switching to renewable energy" and "improving energy efficiency", have also become the top priorities of enterprises in the country.
Even the German machine tool manufacturer MAG, a pioneer of Industry 4.0, has re-examined energy conservation and is preparing to install solar panels on its plant.
“Many investment plans are being reevaluated because of higher energy prices, ” explains Sebastian Schoning, MAG ’ s head of Europe & Americas.“ Many investments that were previously unprofitable are now justified. ”
Solar panels that can be used for their own use and can be sold for electricity have been greatly shortened, and with tax incentives, large and small businesses and families have been selling out; installation technicians are so hot that waiting in line has become a new normal in the last few months.
Yen Chien-ho, general manager of the German branch of FSP, which has been operating solar energy storage business for more than six years from Taiwan, revealed that the green energy product line is already the main revenue of the company, and it is estimated that by 2023, solar related products can grow by 50%.
Quanhan also saw the business opportunities of green energy vehicles in Europe and decided to set up a new R & D center in Germany to attack customized charging devices.
Another Taiwanese company that has been working in Germany for ten years, Servo Press Co., Ltd. is also favored by European customers due to the fact that the product consumes about 50% less power than traditional presses, and is expected to double its business performance in 2023.
Germany has been driving the energy transition for decades. The driving force of this energy crisis is mainly reflected in the change of mentality and the re-calculation of business interests.
First, in terms of mentality, Germany used to import about 60% of its energy, and is more heavily dependent on cheap fossil fuels from Russia.
However, when energy is no longer so readily available, it has also greatly changed the German society's view of energy: in the past, everyone saw renewable energy as a threat to the stability of electricity supply, and now it is an important basis for protecting national security.
Second, in the eyes of enterprises, green energy has become the only energy source that can maintain long-term competitiveness.
"We all know that there is no future for fossil fuels," said Markus Rosenthal, director of government relations at the German Association for Energy Storage Systems. He cited the withdrawal of Allianz, Germany 's largest insurance company, and the active investment of major banks in decarbonization technology as examples. The effect of greening the German economy is greater than anyone else. "
Many may have heard of Germany ’ s Energiewende vision after the Fukushima disaster.
But such a concept has taken root in Germany ’ s anti-nuclear movement since the 1970s.
Since then, the Green Party movement has developed with the greatest political influence in the world.
GREEN ENERGY GREEN ENERGY CHALLENGE 1: Lack of work, insufficient capacity of Northern Power South
The Renewable Energy Act (EEG), which came into force in 2000, made Germany the first major economy to promote renewable energy.
Over the next 20 years, the proportion of renewable energy supply has grown significantly from 6% to 46%, and this remarkable achievement has become an international model case for promoting energy transformation.
However, the model of the period of peace seems to be unable to withstand the test of war, and Germany still fell into the dilemma of energy crisis in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine and the weaponization of energy are certainly uncontrollable factors.
But the German society's caution against nuclear energy has also made Germany more dependent on relatively clean natural gas during the period of phasing out coal.
“We are over-reliant on fossil fuels and the development of renewable energy over the past few years has been too slow, ” said Malte Kuper, energy and climate policy researcher at the German Institute for Economic Research (IW).“ We must accelerate the correction of the structural errors of energy policy over the past decade. ”
Wilhelm Kiewitt, Director of Energy Economics at 50Hertz, a German power grid company, said: “We are vigorously promoting the construction of renewable energy, but we have not updated the grid infrastructure and have not ensured that the design of the electricity market is compatible.
As a result, the energy transition is not doing well. ”
Wind power located on the northern coast of Germany has so far been difficult to reach the industrial heartland of the south because the government has spent too much time coordinating with the residents of the south to accept high-voltage cables cutting through their beautiful landscapes.
The lack of capacity of Northern Power South has become a key missing piece in the German energy puzzle.
In addition, the political lobbying power of fossil fuel companies and strict regulations on onshore wind power have also slowed down the pace of transformation in Germany.
A few months ago, there was a demolition of nearby windmills to expand coal mines in North Wales. Although the efficiency of these windmills was low and they were expected to be rebuilt and upgraded, environmentalists criticized this as a retrograde policy in the midst of the energy crisis.
But the lack of urgency may be the key factor in Germany ’ s gradual deviation from its goal.
According to the German government ’ s 2021 forecast, all sectors, from energy, industry and agriculture, will not be able to meet the 2030 climate goals on the basis of current carbon reduction actions.
In terms of new technology, even if Germany began hydrogen energy research more than 30 years ago, it has not been able to enter the expansion.
Thomas Hilig, founder of THEnergy in Germany and a hydrogen energy consultant, pointed out that “we have studied hydrogen energy thoroughly and want to know everything. ”
But it may be possible to start expanding sooner.
Indeed, now is the time to launch the app. ”
The impact of high energy prices and increasingly extreme weather have become a reality in Germany, forcing the country, accustomed to sound and prudent action, to admit its mistakes and shortcomings and accelerate the progress of the energy transition.
The question is, is it in time?
Opening a recent German newspaper will find that a crisis is not necessarily a turning point.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for 99% of the total number of German enterprises, are struggling, and many companies may not be able to survive.
A survey of companies released by the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) in the summer of 2022 shows that due to high energy prices, 1 / 4 of enterprises have completed the deployment of production reduction, 1 / 4 have reduced the scale of operations, and the remaining half have not yet begun to act, and are still thinking about the corresponding steps.
At present, the German government has finalized a nearly 100 billion euro energy bill subsidy plan, but Asha Maria Sharma, deputy director of digital services at the Foreign Trade and Investment Agency, believes that financial subsidies are only part of the solution, companies must think about how to use AI, data analysis and other technologies to save energy, in order to remain competitive in the future when energy prices are higher.
However, the resources and financial power of SMEs are not as good as those of multinational enterprises, and it is not easy to face inflation, interest rate hikes, the impact on the dollar exchange rate and energy prices, and to devote more efforts to long-term investment layout.
For example, when the Covid-19 pandemic spread, Alexander Krug, the public relations manager in charge of the Berlin Digital Center for SMEs, observed that about a third of SMEs were suspending or even cancelling strategic digital investments that would bear fruit in the medium to long term.
Moreover, in the global semiconductor shortage, many small and medium-sized enterprises are competing for similar chips with the government-supported renewable energy industry, as well as Germany ’ s powerful automotive industry.
In terms of money and resources, it is difficult to win.
Cooper said that in the long term, the energy crisis can be an accelerator of the energy transition.
But for an industrial powerhouse like Germany, which has a high proportion of energy-intensive industries, there is also a risk that “industry may decline before the green energy transition is complete. ”
Many homes waiting for solar panel technicians to install their doors also reveal another risk: lack of work.
“If you ask a business, what ’ s the biggest question about operations? Almost every time the answer is, ‘ We need people. ’ ”
Especially in the areas of green energy and digital technology, which are crucial to driving transformation, there is a particular lack of technical talent.
Many countries in Europe have a shortage of jobs.
However, in the manufacturing sector, more than 40% of enterprises in Germany are understaffed.
In comparison, France is less than 25%, and Italy and Spain are less than 10%.
Even the director of the German public broadcaster said recently: "We have to recruit people from all over the world... even the German level of the candidates is not so important."
As long as I work hard, I don ’ t worry too much that they can only speak a few words of German. ”
GREEN ENERGY GREEN ENERGY CHALLENGE 2: Higher energy costs, the United States proposed a bill to reduce inflation and siphon off international investment
The evolution of the international situation has also made the adverse situation worse.
The European war is still raging, the epidemic is still hazy, and the tensions between the United States and China have caused Germany, formerly the beneficiary of free trade and international supply chains, to reverse the situation and increase the pressure.
In particular, in August 2022, the United States passed the $369 billion Inflation Reduction Act, proposing a simpler and more attractive subsidy specification than the European Union, which is likely to siphon off more international investment at a time when Germany urgently needs to accelerate the expansion of renewable energy.
Some scholars wonder whether Germany will be able to complete the energy transition that it failed to achieve during a period of relative stability in the face of many challenges.
Only recently did Germany significantly expand public spending to help society weather the epidemic. To date, it has allocated more than 260 billion euros in response to the energy crisis.
This is almost 7% of national GDP, well above the EU average of 83 billion euros.
Meanwhile, Germany is still trying to boost its defense budget to 2% of GDP.
Even if the money is relatively abundant, it is also pressure.
Reinhard Biedermann, a professor in the Department of Global Political Economy at Tamkang University, pointed out that to develop enough renewable energy to replace traditional energy sources requires a lot of investment, manpower and even land, which Germany cannot do at the same time.
“The energy crisis is really an opportunity to expand renewable energy.
But turning the crisis into a turning point is not so simple.
Germany depends not only on imports of fossil fuels, but also on imports of renewable energy.
After the decline of the German solar industry, about 95% of the domestic solar cells are manufactured in China.
Nordex shut down Germany ’ s last wind turbine turnstile plant in June 2022, taking into account costs, causing observers to worry that the wind energy industry may be heading toward a fate similar to that of the solar industry.
Steffen said that due to competition from China, the German solar industry has lost a lot of intellectual and political power, and now is the time to reinvigorate the domestic solar value chain.
“We still have capacity in wind energy, but we can ’ t find a market in our country because Chinese products are cheaper, ” Steffen said.
In some ways, the energy crisis is just beginning.
As the Visionary team rode a high-speed rail at a speed of nearly 300 kilometers across the edge of Germany ’ s beloved forest, they were greeted by rotating fans, solar panels laid on the roof of the building, and high-voltage power towers that transmit electricity over a long distance.
This has gradually become a familiar daily scene in German society.
At this point, it may be seen as an important milestone in the final completion of Germany ’ s energy transition, but it may also be the starting point for the decline of German industry.
Looking back at the challenges of the pandemic, companies in Dodd all agree that agility, flexibility and flexibility are essential skills to survive in the current changing environment.
In particular, German industry contributes more than a quarter of the country ’ s GDP, which is higher than developed countries such as France, the United Kingdom and the United States.
But strengthening the high-priced “Made in Germany ” brand with performance, quality and stability is threatened by higher energy costs.
Steffen acknowledged that many Dodd companies use cheap Russian energy to produce and then sell their products at high prices to the U.S. and mid-market.
This is similar to the common pattern in Taiwan.
Taiwan 's green energy students > risk assessment first, transformation needs to think about the overall order
Sucheta Govil, chief commercial officer of Covestro, observed that energy is already a global issue and resource constraints are becoming the foreseeable future. “Even if you are in Asia, energy prices are still cheap, but price increases are reflected in the supply chain. ”
This advantage is diluted by rising raw material costs, even if Germany considers itself to be of excellent mechanical engineering quality. ”
Even if Germany has only recently begun to cope with the energy crisis, the effectiveness of the policy measures will have to wait for time to prove, and there are still lessons for Taiwan.
First, understand your energy security and independence and conduct a risk assessment.
Leonard believes that encouraging energy conservation by raising energy prices and using this income to invest more in renewable energy is worth considering.
“Explaining to people the higher energy costs they pay will help develop renewable energy and improve energy security. ”
Second, think about the sequence of measures for the energy transition as a whole, and put limited resources in the right place at the right time.
Hans-Joachim Ziesing, a former energy transition consultant for Germany ’ s Future Energy Plan, shared that one of Germany ’ s mistakes was to set a good goal and vision before developing policies to be achieved.
A better approach might be to take a practical approach, clarify the quantitative benefits that each policy can bring, and determine that cross-party consensus can be reached to move forward together.
It is also important to continuously monitor the performance of data and to be accountable to all departments.
Hiliger observed that Germany ’ s national hydrogen energy strategy in 2020 shows that officials have learned from the siting of renewable energy and energy transportation.
“Many projects take production and consumption into account as a whole, for example, by making good use of existing construction, refurbishing natural gas pipelines to become hydrogen pipelines, rather than placing electrolytic tanks next to wind power plants. ”
Preparing businesses and citizens to move away from fossil fuels
Finally, it is the continuation of the momentum of social change.
In the past, Germany saw natural gas as a “bridging energy ” to connect fossil fuels with renewable energy; now, losing its main source of natural gas imports, it has had to restart coal plants and lease liquid-gas receiving stations.
After doing so, it may be harder to get rid of them in the future.
Ideally, when the hydrogen energy market matures, Germany can renovate this batch of liquid natural gas receiving stations into hydrogen energy receiving stations.
But the two are different energy sources after all, and the renovation will be another expense.
Whether it can be developed according to the plan is still uncertain.
After the government finalizes the energy subsidy policy, from the beginning of 2023 to April 2024, 80% of the bill will be protected by the price cap, and users will only pay 20% of the current price.
This will change people ’ s interest.
How to make good use of the incentive mechanism to encourage society to continue to promote energy conservation and transformation at the household, business and infrastructure levels is also a big test.
Although Taiwan, which has a higher industrial share than Germany, has yet to personally feel the waves of the European energy crisis, it will be crucial to be as prepared and adapted as possible to the future of higher fossil fuel prices before the price protection umbrella for long-term contracts ends.
Read more articles from Visionary Magazine:
Green energy forward 1 〉 towards the "hydrogen republic" Germany still has to pass three points
CES Taiwan Factory Attack 〉 Honghai, Hongda Power Login, Meta Universe Welcomes God 's Teammates
Thunder Tiger shares rise 1.9 times a year! Dong Za reveals the 8-year transformation plan from toys to drones
Extended reading
2023 Taipei International Book Fair / German author Katrina shares with her children that "the one who is not afraid to lose is the winner"
Snooker / Lin Yun-ju confirmed to join the official website of the Japanese T League: Assassins from Taiwan
Q: You can also comment on the Chinese government?
Dictatorship is well known: Could Germany have prevented Hitler from coming to power?
Related News
Green energy forward 1 〉 towards the "hydrogen republic" Germany still has to pass three points
For a long time, hydrogen energy, which can achieve zero carbon emissions, has been called the “fuel of the future. ” With the increasing global climate change and the rising price of fossil fuels, hydrogen has become an urgent national agenda.
Is the future really coming?
Can Cryptocurrencies Become International Clearing Currencies After Gold and US Dollars?
Is Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies likely to become the currency of international settlement? After the many crashes in the currency circle in 2022, and the currency price has dropped sharply, many people will immediately shake their hands and say, absolutely not!
Perhaps you will be more aware of the significance of international clearing currencies, digital innovation, and cryptocurrencies in the new era.
CES Taiwan factory attack 〉 Honghai, Hongda Power Login to the Yuan universe to welcome God 's teammates
Taiwan 's mature and sophisticated electronic supply chain is not absent in the formation of the internal meta-universe. How can the two major companies advance the future of the car and the meta-universe of Honghai Group MIH?
Thunder Tiger shares rise 1.9 times a year! Dong Za reveals the 8-year transformation plan from toys to drones
Thunder Tiger Technology, which started out as a remote control model, actually jumped to become a popular military stock in recent days, and the stock price in 2022 increased by 1.9 times a year! Behind this, there is the transformation plan of Chairman Chen Guanru in the past 8 years.
Thunder Tiger accepted the "vision" interview, how on earth did they make toy models, gorgeous into the military defense industry?
Small children, a year of soldiers double hit the enterprise shortage worse
With the severe shortage of children in Taiwan, and the extension of military service, it can be predicted that the workforce will be greatly reduced in the future, and various industries will face the impact of job shortages.
How did the German model achieve an unbearable energy transition war across the sea?
Environmental awareness, green energy production has always been regarded as the world's superior Germany, but because of a Ukrainian-Russian war, let the bright achievements behind the unfinished business, exposed to the world.
Is this general review of energy security, ignited by war, a crisis or a turning point for Germany, which rose from the ashes of World War II? Can Germany break through the status quo and turn into a new model for a sustainable economy in the future?
Or is it a death on the road to transformation? How can Taiwan find its future direction from this “energy transition war ”?
Product recommendation
udn Forum

This process accelerated following the 2011 Fukushima disaster, reflecting deep public concern over nuclear safety.

Title:

Content: Alert
The hot and cold reaction of the competition was obvious when Su Zhenchang and Lai Qingde helped the platform Chen
Why do many countries decide to reinvest in nuclear power?
【 Li Shulian / Editorial Department of North American Intellectual Property News 】
Recently, a number of countries that originally supported the decommissioning of nuclear plants have turned around and announced that they will extend the operation of their domestic nuclear plants. Not only that, but they will also invest tens of billions of dollars to create more large and small nuclear reactors.
That ’ s all because nuclear energy can effectively solve two of the world ’ s biggest crises: energy and climate change.
The energy crisis and climate change can be said to bring a breakthrough development opportunity for nuclear energy, the former to pursue energy diversity, the latter to pursue net zero emissions, and known as the best efficiency of green energy of nuclear energy of course become one of the mandatory items when formulating energy policies in many countries.
However, these major powers, including the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom and South Korea, have frozen their investment in nuclear power plants due to public doubts about nuclear safety caused by the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant earthquake, so that the relevant technology to build nuclear power plants has been surpassed by Russia and China.
However, this has not hindered the determination of many countries to restart nuclear power, on the road to a nuclear-free homeland, should the Chinese government also stop, look, listen?
Energy security concerns and recent spikes in energy prices, especially after Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine, highlight the importance of a diverse mix of non-petrochemical and domestic energy sources.
Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated an already tense global fuel market and continues to push up electricity prices.
According to the European Union ’ s Energy Regulatory Cooperation Agency (ACER), retail electricity prices have increased by an average of 30% year-on-year in February 2022, with the biggest price increases in regions where electricity generation is heavily dependent on natural gas, such as Madrid by 55% and Rome by 80%.
On the other hand, over the past few years, the number of countries pursuing Net Zero Emissions (NZE) has increased, with more than 70 countries covering 76% of the world ’ s energy-related CO2 emissions committing to net zero by 2022; more than 10 times more in four years, compared with only six countries committing to net zero at the end of 2018.
As countries move towards a net-zero future, renewable energy, especially wind and solar photovoltaics, is often seen as the largest source of electricity.
At the same time, however, a growing number of countries have announced their support for new nuclear power plant investment plans.
In February 2022, France announced plans to build six new large reactors starting in 2028 at a cost of around €50 billion, with an additional eight to be built by 2050, while committing €1 billion to develop innovative reactors, including small modular reactors by 2030.
China plans to continue its current pace of nuclear reactor construction in order to reach its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2060.
South Korea ’ s new president, Yoon Seok Hyuk, has also made an election pledge to reverse South Korea ’ s nuclear phase-out policy by supporting the extension and reactivation of existing nuclear facilities at two sites, while seeking to build 10 nuclear plants overseas using South Korean technology by 2030.
Table 1.
Major Nuclear Energy Developments by Country in 2020-2022
Without nuclear energy, it would be difficult for the world to achieve net-zero emissions.
The deployment of nuclear energy has increased the diversity of the energy mix, which in addition to promoting the rise of variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, can greatly reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
In the 10 years since the first oil crisis, nearly 170 GW of nuclear power plants began construction; these plants still account for 40% of the nuclear capacity in operation today.
Many of the reasons why governments are restarting nuclear power today are also affected by the energy crisis.
On the other hand, as a mature large-scale low-emission energy source, nuclear energy can effectively help decarbonize the electricity supply.
In the International Energy Agency ’ s (IEA) net-zero 2050 setting, emissions from the energy sector are expected to fall by about 40% from 2020 to 2030, before falling back to net-zero in 2050.
This narrow but achievable path requires immediate and rigorous policy action by governments around the world to reshape energy systems in many ways.
In reality, extending the service life of a nuclear power plant is the most cost-effective and integral part of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
Despite the fact that renewable energy already dominates nearly 90% of the net zero-emission energy supply, nuclear energy still plays an important role.
Today, around 260 GW (63%) of nuclear power plants worldwide have been in use for more than 30 years and are nearing the end of their initial operating license.
Nuclear power plants that have extended their service in the past three years account for about 10% of the world ’ s nuclear power plants. By 2030, the number of nuclear power plants operating in developed economies could shrink by a third.
More than half of the nuclear power plants are now able to extend their service lives for net-zero emissions, reducing the need for other low-emission options by nearly 200 GW.
By 2030, the capital cost of most extended nuclear power plants will be around $500 to $1,100 per kilowatt (kW), which is extremely competitive compared to solar and wind in most regions.
Nuclear power plays an important role in the path to net-zero emissions.
Nuclear power will double from 413 GW at the beginning of 2022 to 812 GW by 2050 in the net-zero emissions journey; and 27 GW per year between now and 2030.
If countries do not consider the extension of nuclear power plants or the construction of new nuclear power plants, the share of nuclear power in total generation will fall from 10% in 2020 to 3% in 2050, so that solar and wind energy need to fill this gap, not only need higher capital investment, but also increase the uncertainty of energy supply.
If a country like Taiwan has congenital restrictions on developing renewable energy, it needs to be filled with low-carbon energy sources such as natural gas, and the cost is even more substantial.
The contribution of nuclear energy to safe and low-emission power systems is not valued
IEA data show that nuclear power currently operates in 32 countries with a capacity of 413 GW, which could reduce global CO2 emissions by 1.5 gigatons (gigatons) and 180 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas demand annually.
While wind and solar are leaders in alternative fossil fuels, they also need to be complemented by scalable resources; as the second largest source of low-emission power after hydropower, nuclear power with scalable and growth potential has become an option for many countries.
However, the current power market design fails to fully reflect the two major benefits of nuclear power.
First, nuclear power is a scalable resource that avoids costly economic and social harm from power outages when the average power supply system load approaches the level of available supply capacity.
In addition, nuclear power is low-emission green energy, but most electricity markets do not reward the low-carbon nature of nuclear power. While many countries support clean energy production, such as production and investment tax credits and subsidized electricity prices, nuclear power is excluded from subsidies or other subsidy mechanisms available for wind and solar.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster can be avoided, and it is not advisable to waste food because of choking.
Some countries have ruled out nuclear energy in the green energy option, mainly due to concerns about safety and nuclear waste management, and these countries have decided to phase out nuclear power mainly due to public safety concerns.
In the wake of the Three Mile Island nuclear leak, the failure of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, and three major accidents at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, public support for nuclear power in many countries has weakened significantly.
Countries that retain and continue to develop nuclear energy also strongly demand higher safety standards at their nuclear plants.
The 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant prompted countries to reassess and strengthen nuclear safety and emergency preparedness. Many countries have conducted safety inspections or pressure tests on existing reactors, and have required some types of reactors to undergo safety modifications.
These considerations have also led some countries to adjust their nuclear power use plans.
Germany, for example, has built 36 nuclear reactors with a total capacity of 30 GW, which accelerated the phase-out of all of them in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. Most of the reactors have now been shut down, and the three reactors still in operation will be closed by the end of 2022.
Other European countries, such as Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, have also announced phasing out or not renewing their nuclear plants.
In Japan, many of the nuclear plants that were shut down after the Fukushima accident have not yet been restarted, and the share of nuclear power generation has fallen from a high of 35% in 2002 to about 5% today.
The Fukushima accident raised global concerns about the risks and potential costs of a nuclear disaster, leading to the decision to idle or shut down other reactors and increase thermal power generation, resulting in higher import costs for fossil fuels.
However, in response to the Fukushima disaster, the official investigation concluded that the accident should have been foreseen and prevented. [1]
The Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Nuclear Disaster has confirmed that the structure of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant cannot withstand the impact of the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
On the other hand, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was not prepared for a serious accident; in fact, both Tepco and the regulatory authorities were aware of the risks posed by such natural disasters, but neither took any precautions.
The Commission noted that the structure of Unit 1 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant could not withstand the strong earthquakes and tsunamis caused by 311, and that the specifications of the plant lacked sufficient seismic and tsunami strength because (1) the guidelines for the construction of Units 1 to 3 of the plant were from the late 1960s, so the guidelines for the construction were inadequate, and (2) the area around the plant was considered to be seismic activity. The smallest, never even experienced earthquake damage.
Based on this assessment, the safe tolerance level for the maximum seismic acceleration in the seismic design is set at 265 Gal, [2] with very low seismic resistance.
In addition, the lack of countermeasures to cope with the tsunami is also one of the causes of the nuclear disaster.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was built in 1967, based on seismological knowledge at the time and the possibility of core damage in such a tsunami situation. However, the early seismological knowledge was far from adequate for the emergency that occurred on 311 in 2011.
Stop, Look and Listen on the Road to a Non-Nuclear Home
As the development of renewable energy failed to meet the target, China's original 2025 renewable energy accounted for 20% of the target has been determined to be postponed to October 2026, proof that the policy should be adjusted according to the actual situation; the same, on the road to non-nuclear homes, the government should stop, look, listen, and not ignore the actual situation has been moving forward.
The general public, too, should learn more about nuclear and renewable energy to make informed decisions.
Stop: Since the Russo-Ukrainian War, the world situation has changed rapidly, seriously affecting the supply of raw materials and prices, and policymakers should stop and rethink.
Look: Reviewing established energy policies, especially the bottleneck in the development of renewable energy, is a major obstacle to the pursuit of net zero emissions, and seeing the goal of 60 to 70% of total electricity generation by 2050 is almost impossible, should we see how other countries respond and make early adjustments?
Listen: Please listen to the suggestions and advice of the business community, the business community representatives unanimously believe that the government's national energy policy must be reviewed, in the energy structure should not exclude nuclear energy, even if the four nuclear power, at least to consider a new generation of nuclear energy, will be listed as an option.
[3] Has the government listened?
[This article is not finished, please see the full content of "North American intellectual rights" 317: "energy series report" why many countries decided to re-nuclear arms?
* If you would like to reprint this article, please contact the North American Intellectual Property Journal
[For details, please refer to North American Intellectual Property Journal No. 317; welcome to subscribe to North American Intellectual Property Journal e-newsletter.]
Reference Materials:
Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions, International Energy Agency, IEA Publications, June 2022
The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, 2012.
Remarks:
1.
The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, 2012.
2.
Gal is a unit of acceleration.
3.
Taiwan ’ s energy structure business sector: options for a new generation of nuclear energy, Business Times Tam Shu-chen 2022.06.26
Extended reading
Russian missile strikes nuclear power plant again! Ukraine: Less than 300 meters from reactor
75% of French support nuclear energy
Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant is safe for the time being
IAEA urges Russia to withdraw from Zaporozhye nuclear power plant
Related News
Why do many countries decide to reinvest in nuclear power?
Recently, a number of countries that originally supported the decommissioning of nuclear plants have turned around and announced that they will extend the operation of their domestic nuclear plants. Not only that, but they will also invest tens of billions of dollars to create more large and small nuclear reactors.
That ’ s all because nuclear energy can effectively solve two of the world ’ s biggest crises: energy and climate change.
The energy crisis and climate change can be said to bring a breakthrough development opportunity for nuclear energy, the former to pursue energy diversity, the latter to pursue net zero emissions, and known as the best efficiency of green energy of nuclear energy of course become one of the mandatory items when formulating energy policies in many countries.
However, these major powers, including the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom and South Korea, have frozen their investment in nuclear power plants due to public doubts about nuclear safety caused by the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant earthquake, so that the relevant technology to build nuclear power plants has been surpassed by Russia and China.
However, this has not hindered the determination of many countries to restart nuclear power, on the road to a nuclear-free homeland, should the Chinese government also stop, look, listen?
IP Dictionary Patent Application Withdrawn
Withdrawal of a patent application, subject to exceptions, is in principle the freedom of the applicant, the applicant may withdraw his application at any time before the trial or punishment of the patent application.
In order to withdraw a patent application, the applicant should submit an application in writing. If there are more than two applicants, the application should be withdrawn by all the applicants.
China ’ s digital collection industry should set a red line as soon as possible
Avoidance.
This has been the consensus when China's blockchain technology is popularized in various fields, but it will inevitably be abused by some lawless or speculative individuals or units.
Analyses of drug precursors
Drugs are extremely important in our daily lives, and the reason why various drugs have different therapeutic effects is mainly due to their unique chemical structure.
Drugs for mood disorders, epilepsy drugs and cancer drugs, for example, all have different specific chemical structures, making them very different from the diseases they can treat.
U.S. Senators Propose Amendments to 35 U.S.C. 101 Patent Eligibility Requirements
U.S. Senator Thom Tillis has proposed a new amendment to the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, S.4734, to amend 35 U.S.C. 100 (b), add 35 U.S.C. 100 (k), and rewrite 35 U.S.C. 101. A new round of policy tug of war has officially begun.
The Rise of Green Consumption: Sustainable Trends in the Food Industry
Global consumers are becoming more concerned about the climate, and the food industry is beginning to see the emergence of “Climavores ”, which is to choose food from food ingredients or processes that take into account the climate impact. Google search has also found that searches for different food ingredients and climate have doubled and continued to increase. New ‘ sustainable ’ dietary needs are taking shape …
Product recommendation
udn Forum

Prior to the phase-out, nuclear energy contributed approximately 12% of Germany's electricity in 2021, generated by six operational plants.

Title:

Content: World

Berlin against, Rome is silent, Paris in favor. Nuclear power explodes in the EU

Germany closed three reactors in 2021 and plans to do the same with the other three in 2022. Belgium shares the same idea, “shut down” its seven plants by 2025. Spain, which has some reactors in operation as well, does not consider them “green” at all. Luxembourg dismisses the proposal to include the atom in the green taxonomy as a “provocation”. Austria of the atom does not want to know, with 82% of its primary energy production made from renewables (data 2019), and is studying a legal action against the Commission. France is delighted to see nuclear power (77% of its domestic production) taken into account by Brussels. Italy, which is fond of Minister Cingolani’s idea of increasing its gas extractions, is currently silent and at least hopes for a golden rule to exclude “green” investments from the calculation of the deficit. A few days after the publication of the draft of the European Commission on the green taxonomy, the distances between the 27 instead of narrowing, are widening and if yesterday they seemed divided, today they show themselves to be shattered.

The definition of the green taxonomy is fundamental in orienting investments: with the “green” stamp, industrial and infrastructure projects can be much more attractive for private capital. However, the decision to include nuclear and gas in the EU’s green taxonomy has met with harsh criticism already in recent weeks, when rumors had not yet taken the form of a draft Commission. The technicians from Brussels and the team of experts who collaborated in the drafting of the central document for the definition of the EU energy planning in the context of the Green New Deal tried to circumvent the foreseeable resistance by introducing some conditions for the two sources that are not neutral with respect to the climate and the environment. Nuclear and gas, first of all, will be considered compatible with the green taxonomy only for a defined period of time and “to the extent that they contribute to the transition towards climate neutrality and do not significantly damage the environment”, according to an official of Brussels. “The Commission sees the future energy mix as a predominantly renewable or low-carbon energy system. We really hope that this proposal will help bring about the change we need and channel private funding towards low-emission energy sources ”.

In fact, it means that investments in nuclear power will be “green” only if the projects presented have a well defined plan, funds and site for the disposal of radioactive waste in total safety. Building permits will only be allowed until 2045. It is worth remembering that at the moment there is still talk of third generation or third plus nuclear power. Not the fourth, the (slag-free) fusion that experts believe may have a role on an industrial scale no earlier than the middle of the century. As for gas, investments in power plants will be green only if they contribute to emissions of less than 270 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh and replace more polluting fossil fuel plants. They will need to obtain a building permit before 2030.

On gas, the Commission’s conditions appear much more stringent. It is a non-solid fossil source, certainly less polluting than coal and to which Italy looks with interest, having unused methane deposits. Moreover, in a European context of high prices and constant reduction of supplies from the main supplier, Russia, for reasons of a geopolitical nature. But it is on nuclear power that the clash risks worsening at the community level.

“We believe nuclear technology is dangerous,” government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit told reporters in Berlin, noting that the question of what to do with the radioactive waste remains unresolved. Hebestreit added that Germany “expressly rejects” the EU assessment on atomic energy and has repeatedly affirmed this position towards the Commission. Germany is now considering the next steps to take. Germany is set to shut down the remaining three nuclear power plants later this year and phase out coal by 2030, while its neighbor France aims to modernize existing reactors and build new ones to meet energy needs. Berlin plans to rely on natural gas until it can be replaced by non-polluting energy sources. The opposite paths taken by two of the EU’s largest economies have led to an embarrassing situation for the Commission. The draft EU executive branch concludes that both nuclear power and natural gas can be considered sustainable under certain conditions for investment purposes.

Hebestreit said the German government’s goal is to use natural gas only as a “bridge technology” and replace it with non-polluting alternatives such as hydrogen produced from renewable energy by 2045, the deadline the country has set for becoming climate neutral. . The spokesman did not say whether Chancellor Olaf Scholz supports the opinion of the Minister of Economy and Climate Robert Habeck that the European Commission’s proposals are a form of “greenwashing”.

Germany has pulled the plug on three of its last six nuclear power plants. The Brokdorf, Grohnde and Gundremmingen C reactors, operated by the E.On and Rwe utilities, were closed on December 31st after 35 years of operation. The last three nuclear power plants – Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim II – will be shut down by the end of 2022. However, closure does not mean decommissioning, which will take much longer and is expected to take place by 2040 in the case of Brokdorf, for example. .

In 2021, the six nuclear power plants contributed about 12% of electricity generation in Germany. The German energy mix consists of 41% renewables, 28% coal and 15% gas. By 2030, Germany aims to meet 80% of energy demand with renewables. This is not the case in France where – given Eurostat 2019 – 77.6% of its energy produced comes from the atom and only 20% from renewable.

Germany is not alone in the firm opposition to the proposal put forward by Brussels: the draft “is a provocation from a procedural point of view” and “in terms of content it hides the risk of greenwashing”, wrote on Twitter the Minister of Energy of the Luxembourg, Claude Turmes, saying he is ready to “examine the proposal in detail and discuss further steps” together with Germany and Austria, equally opposed to including nuclear power among sustainable investments. The proposal was sent to governments on Friday, “in a nocturnal and nebulous action. This says a lot about transparency ”, attacked Turmes.

The same tones used by Vienna: if these are the plans “we will sue”, wrote on Twitter the Austrian Federal Minister for Climate, Environment and Energy, Leonore Gewessler, highlighting that nuclear energy is “dangerous and not it represents a solution in the fight against the climate crisis ”. Austria has no reactors and produces almost all of its energy from renewable sources.

The Spanish government also rejected the European Commission’s proposal to include nuclear and natural gas energy in the EU’s “green” taxonomy. According to Madrid, this is “a step backwards” and “a wrong signal” for the financial markets. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge, Teresa Ribera, stressed that “regardless of whether we can continue to invest in one or the other, we believe they are not green or sustainable energies”. Spain – he added – “is a firm supporter of green taxonomy as a key tool to have common references that can be used by investors to achieve the decarbonisation of the economy and climate neutrality by 2050”, but include nuclear and gas “It would be a step backwards,” according to the government official Sanchez. “It makes no sense and sends the wrong signals for the European energy transition as a whole,” he stressed. While admitting that both nuclear power and natural gas have a role to play in the transition, this is “limited in time”. Member States have until 12 January to provide their response to the Commission. Then, once published, it will have to pass the scrutiny of the EU Council and Parliament, where the environmentalist parties are also announcing a battle.

In 2019, France was the country that produced the largest share of energy in the EU (20% of the total), followed by Germany (17%), Poland (9.6%), Italy and Sweden (6%). ). However, the debate on green taxonomy is intertwined with energy security (or sovereignty) in a particular historical phase, marked by risks to the security of supply due to geopolitical and military reasons, as shown by the tensions on the Ukrainian border. Primary energy production in the EU in 2019 was distributed among various energy sources, the most important of which in terms of the size of its contribution were renewables, with over a third (36.5%) of the total. Second place for nuclear power, with 32.0% of total primary energy production, with France in the lead, followed by Belgium (77% of domestic production in 2019) which, however, is about to abound in nuclear power like Germany. However, all European energy production is not enough to meet its needs: more than half of Europe’s energy is imported. The EU energy dependency rate exceeds 50%.

Source link

James Reno

Editor-in-Chief, James loves playing games and loves to write about them more. He knows a lot about entertainment because he has done a drama course. James loves writing, so he is our writer. email: james@d1softballnews.com

Related Articles

Back to top button

The government committed to shutting all nuclear plants by 2022, completing this by early 2023, and marking its first 'nuclear-free winter.'

Title:

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

This move aligns with Energiewende’s goal to drastically increase renewables to 80% of electricity supply by 2030 and eliminate reliance on nuclear and fossil fuels .

Since Germany's exit from nuclear power, the energy market has adapted by increasing generation from renewables, coal, and natural gas.

However, the intermittent nature of renewables, especially solar, introduces seasonal variability and creates grid stability challenges, particularly in the winter months.

Regarding carbon emissions, the phase-out has led to a mixed outcome.

While renewable capacity has expanded, emissions initially increased due to higher coal and natural gas use replacing nuclear baseload generation.

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

This spike is partially attributed to the necessity to meet demand with fossil fuels when renewables are insufficient.

More recently, emissions trends reflect efforts to re-balance the mix toward cleaner sources, but progress remains slower than anticipated at the outset of the Energiewende .

Grid reliability in Germany post-nuclear has faced stress but has not resulted in widespread blackouts.

The intermittency of renewables and increased fossil fuel dependence have heightened concerns over grid stability, particularly during cold spells when solar and wind outputs drop.

Grid operators have managed to maintain supply through a combination of fossil backup plants and grid infrastructure reinforcement.

However, seasonal tightness and occasional strain on balancing markets have raised alarms about the resilience of the grid without nuclear baseload capacity .

The Russian-Ukrainian war has significantly compounded Germany’s energy security challenges.

Title:

Content: Germany in the Russo-Ukrainian War: the government should fight for democratic values, but energy can not be without Russia
Photo Credit: Reuters
What we want you to know is
Looking at the Ukrainian resistance to Russia for several weeks undefeated, the German government stated that it wants to fight for democratic values, and the price of aid to Ukraine is to counter Russia at all costs, but Germany's energy can not be without Russia, so far, although the German people have not fought war, it is a wound in the economy.
Written by Liu Wei-liang
German train station welcomes refugees and new Ukrainian students at school
The most visible yellow and blue signs of the Ukrainian flag in Germany are the various train stations, large and small, marked with the direction of registration.
Ukrainian residents could have come to Germany without a visa for 90 days, now the emergency of the war allows them to come to Germany to work immediately, without the need for refugees from other places to go through strict vetting.
Other refugees, such as those from Afghanistan or the Middle East who have come to Germany before they are recognized, will be deported the next day, even if they have vocational training, school or work.
Refugees from Ukraine also experience war in the same way as in the Middle East, where they can stay unconditionally for up to 90 days and guarantee visa extensions ranging from one to three years, with strong discrimination.
But even with Germany ’ s favorable conditions for accepting Ukrainian refugees, there are at least 370,000 Ukrainian refugees in Germany, most of whom are women and minors. More than a third believe that the war is short-lived and that they will return to Ukraine soon.
The Russian-Ukrainian war is a thousand miles away, and Germany has the past experience of receiving refugees. In the face of this wave of Ukrainian refugees, organizations and related institutions that have been engaged in volunteering for a long time have gradually been on the track, which seems to be in order.
Arriving at school early in the morning, I saw him sitting quietly in the class, dressed in a formal white shirt, as if deliberately to give him the feeling that the upper class family came to the class, compared to the original class of male classmates are dressed casually and simply, his appearance is dressed up by the adults.
All of a sudden, I thought that the teacher received a notice from the principal last weekend, asking the teacher to prepare three school bags and stationery supplies on the weekend, because gradually Ukrainian children will come to school, and these stationery will first let the teacher go to Zhang Luo.
I suddenly want to suggest to the teacher, why not ask the class, let the students home surplus stationery donated to help?
The teacher ’ s answer made me a little shocked, she said that the students in the class should not know that children from Ukraine are poor.
This student ’ s small body, obviously carrying heavy pressure, came to the second grade class, he did not smile, only obeyed the arrangements of the adults.
Two adult women brought him to the school class, one to translate and one to talk to the teacher.
He rubbed his hands, seemingly unaware of what was going to happen, and looked a little nervous.
After the teacher arranged for his classmates, he specially asked the German-Russian family student who had emigrated to Germany a few years ago to sit next to him as a translator.
Russian is the mother tongue of the classmates. The arrangement of translating Russian to Ukrainian students is definitely good, but it has also been heard that Ukrainian children are being bullied by Russian-speaking children.
It may be that the values formed by Putin ’ s inner declaration, received by families receiving Russian-language messages, differ greatly from those of Western countries.
The view of the German youth
Many of the millions of refugees from different religious backgrounds who have been accepted by young Germans over the past few years are no strangers to refugees from different countries, but these decisions are not in their hands.
This Russian-Ukrainian war came too suddenly, and it was impossible to think that a real war would break out in a place where they lived nearly 1,000 kilometers away. After all, such a war has been a long time ago.
The war has been very emotional for most young people, who are difficult to digest or face.
Because they could hardly believe that the outbreak of war was so close and real, many chose not to talk about it.
Some people think they have no ability to talk about how to talk, and ask them about the possibility of receiving Ukrainian people to live in their homes, and they shake their heads more.
Some people think that Putin is not trustworthy at all, and they are full of fear of war, but because of the busy routine of daily affairs, they also shift their fear and naturally fade away.
There are also a few who believe that the United States is most at fault, singling out Germany or the European Union for splitting up with Russia because of the geographical relationship between Europe and Russia, which is one and whose interests are closely related to each other.
It is necessary and natural that European countries should not be hostile to each other but complement each other ’ s needs because of their geographical relations and friendship with Russia.
And in recent years, the United States behind the promotion of Ukraine pro-NATO actions, is basically provoking Russia.
Anti-American young people believe that Ukraine should be completely neutral or preferably pro-Russian, which is the king of Europe ’ s common interests, because it can minimize Russia ’ s sense of crisis, which is the greatest security guarantee for Europe and Russia.
For young Germans who oppose Ukraine ’ s accession to NATO, it doesn ’ t matter that Ukraine is democratic or undemocratic. Germany and other European countries have good relations with Russia because of their interests.
In the eyes of these people, Germany is only a small brother of the United States, so it cannot fight for its own best interests and must sacrifice its own interests between the two great powers of the United States and Russia.
Of course, some of the more cosmopolitan and humane young people will think that although Germany has a crisis of livelihood, but because of the money, these floating problems can be solved, more seriously affected are those African countries that need to export Ukrainian agricultural products, because of the war their food may be severely reduced and the famine.
In addition, some people think that although the people around her began to tire of Ukraine for so long and let the people lose peace, but she is a citizen of the West, should not only pursue their own comfort and interests, but also should respect the determination of others to fight for freedom, and hope that more people will hear the voice of Ukraine and spend a little effort to understand what life under the dictatorship. She supported full support for Ukraine ’ s struggle, and even hoped that German troops would help Ukraine more.
The first two chancellors were pro-Russian and locked the German throat.
Germany in this Russian-Ukrainian war, of course, the biggest impact is natural gas and raw materials of oil, followed by electricity prices.
Since the start of the war, the price of natural gas has risen by a third the next day.
In addition to rising prices, the biggest worry is that there will not be enough gas since April without payment in rubles.
Now it is not the EU ’ s problem to hit Russia, but Russia can completely counter it.
If Russia does not continue to do so, there is no need to shoot any nuclear bombs, as long as the pipeline of natural gas is tightened, and never sent natural gas to Europe, then the serious loss of industrial shutdown, starvation and freezing of the European people.
The German people who wanted to oppose Putin had spontaneously initiated the power outage, which was simply made by some Westerners to look at themselves, and it felt as if they were standing with Ukraine, and in fact any anti-Russia was self-defeating, as ridiculous as a baby weaning itself off its mother ’ s milk.
Guess you like it.
Tags:

Heavy dependence on Russian natural gas—historically a major fuel source—became problematic as supplies were cut or reduced following the conflict's escalation.

Title:

Content: One year on from the invasion of Ukraine: market analysis from Janet Mui, RBC Brewin Dolphin

by | Feb 24, 2023

Share this article

One year ago today, the world awoke to news that Russia had actually begun the invasion of Ukraine. The terrible consequences of war for the brave people of Ukraine has not been far from our news headlines and thoughts ever since. The war has also had severe implications for the rest of the world. In this blog, Janet Mui, head of market analysis at wealth manager RBC Brewin Dolphin, reflects on the economic impacts of the war one year on, commenting:

Few would have expected such resilience in markets and the European economy, one year on from the start of the war in Ukraine. The most direct impact of the war was the disruption in supply in commodities, ranging from oil and natural gas to wheat and aluminium. Many European states were in ‘crisis mode’ not only because of the unprecedented gyrations in gas prices, but also the existential threat of a cut-off in gas supply from Russia.

The crisis prompted a speedy diversification of energy supplies and most notably LNG (liquefied natural gas) imports from the US. A mild winter and a reduction in energy demand helped gas storage remain ample, so the worst-case scenario was averted. The energy support to households put in place by many European states, pandemic savings and a resilient labour market kept the economy going in 2022.

“Markets panicked initially because of the geopolitical and energy supply uncertainty, but gas prices, oil prices, European equities and the euro have made a round trip from the abyss and back. Both the European benchmark natural gas prices and oil prices are now lower than the levels at the start of the war. The Eurostoxx 50 index entered a bear market in 2022, however, it staged a remarkable rebound to surpass its level from a year ago. Sentiment on the Euro area was so poor that at one point, the euro traded below parity versus the US dollar but has since bounced over 10% from its trough in September 2022. The lesson here for investors is that there is merit in not over-reacting and panicking from market volatility induced by geopolitical events.

“That said, there will be more lasting impacts on the markets. Global bond yields have risen sharply from a year ago, as central banks embarked on aggressive rate increases to curb inflation, which remains stubbornly high. While economic activity is better than expected, the lagged impact of rate increases and the squeeze on consumers from high inflation means a recession remains likely toward the end of 2023.  As the war goes on, development remains highly uncertain and may still periodically disrupt markets. Whichever the direction of the war, the west will not go back to Russian fossil fuel. The longer-term implication is a revamp of global energy supply chains and an accelerated transition to renewable energy.”

Share this article

Related articles

Trending articles

IFA Talk is our flagship podcast, designed to fit perfectly into your busy life, bringing the latest insight, analysis, news and interviews to you, wherever you are.

IFA Talk Podcast - listen to the latest episode

This prompted rapid government action: accelerating Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal construction, fast-tracking renewable deployment, and temporarily reactivating coal plants despite their emissions footprint.

The war induced sharp spikes in energy prices, especially gas and electricity, which have strained industrial sectors and households.

German leadership views the crisis as underscoring the vulnerabilities inherent in the energy supply framework, intensifying the urgency of a secure and diversified energy transition .

On public and political fronts, attitudes toward nuclear energy have shifted.

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.

Polls indicate that about 64% of the German population now supports restarting nuclear plants to mitigate escalating energy costs and strengthen security.

Title:

Content: World Vision: Restarting nuclear power, dragging the German government into crisis
November 06, 2022 00: 03
Eastern Network Television
More News Clips
With Germany following the NATO sanctions against Russia, the German energy crisis is deepening and leading to serious political instability.
The gold-painted sign “Made in Germany ” has been peeled off. First, the business community complained about the high price of electricity in Germany, averaging 0.37 euros per kilowatt-hour (kWh), compared with 0.18 euros in France, 0.24 euros in the United Kingdom and 0.10 euros in Hungary.
Even if the German government proposed energy subsidies, but other European governments such as Britain and France will do so, German companies still can not compete. The result is that more and more industrial products that Germany was proud of in the past, either set up factories in foreign countries or import some foreign parts to complete in Germany.
In addition, some townships began to have problems with the opening up and strengthening of thermal power generation and transmission, and now there are rare power outages, which have caused great dissatisfaction among the public.
The Minister of Economy and Deputy Prime Minister Hajbek have become the target of attacks by the industrial sector, the German opposition, and the Liberal and Social Democrats in the government, focusing on Habek, who has no economic expertise but is responsible for the environmental ideology, and the government ’ s lack of understanding and compassion for industry, and has been deceiving the three nuclear power plants.
Halbek has always stressed that the German people have long been the majority of anti-nuclear power, but the latest poll shows that 64% of the people support restarting nuclear power to increase supply and reduce electricity prices due to the energy crisis, with 40% of the Green Party voters.
In addition, the Green Party has spoken out in favor of improving climate change, but has been hiding experts ’ suggestions that turning on nuclear power could cut Germany ’ s carbon emissions by 25 million to 30 million tons a year.
In addition, Halbek stressed that the nuclear fuel rods needed for the nuclear power plant may not be available by early next year, but the expert opinion is that the old nuclear fuel rods can also be used and the nuclear power plant can be gradually opened.
Halbek stressed that it would take a long time to open the safety inspection of nuclear power, but the world-famous German Technical Supervision Association immediately hit the face, claiming that they did a comprehensive inspection in March, all three nuclear power plants are normal, as long as limited further testing and monitoring, restart is not a problem at all.
The opposition party also criticized the three-party coalition government for delaying the setting of a gas price cap until March next year. At that time, the weather in Germany has begun to warm up. As a result, the opposition party and the public demand that Habaker resign, which can be regarded as the ruling coalition's biggest crisis to date.
Ph.D., Freie Universität Berlin

This sentiment cuts across traditional party lines, including among voters of the Green Party, which historically stood firmly against nuclear power.

Arguments in favor of a nuclear return emphasize its significant low-carbon baseload capacity, which could complement renewables, improve grid stability, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and enhance energy independence.

Advocates, including some industrial groups and energy experts, stress that the early nuclear shutdown has exposed Germany to heightened energy security risks and increased emissions from coal and gas plants.

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

Conversely, opponents maintain strong reservations rooted in nuclear safety concerns and waste management challenges.

They argue that nuclear power poses unresolved risks related to catastrophic accidents and long-term radioactive waste disposal.

Environmental groups and many Green Party members stress the importance of investing solely in renewables and energy efficiency rather than reverting to an energy source they consider hazardous and politically contentious.

Social movements advocating against nuclear energy underscore public health and environmental protection as paramount.

Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Free Democratic Party (FDP) have expressed some openness to extending or reactivating nuclear plants, viewing it as a pragmatic interim solution amidst energy security concerns, while the Green Party remains staunchly opposed, emphasizing accelerated renewable deployment .

In summary, Germany’s nuclear phase-out has been a landmark policy motivated by safety and environmental concerns but has introduced considerable challenges in energy supply, carbon emissions, price stability, and grid reliability.

The Russian-Ukrainian war has exacerbated energy security vulnerabilities linked to the phase-out and heavy fossil fuel dependence.

Title:

Content: Politics

How has the Russian and Ukrainian war impacted global oil trade

There has been significant human, economic, and commercial fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Supply networks, industries, and economies have all been impacted, along with people’s lives.

Like other sectors, the energy industry is currently functioning in an atmosphere of heightened uncertainty.

Prior to the full escalation of the war, oil prices were already on the rise around the world. Here, we take a closer look at how the Russian and Ukrainian war impacted the global oil trade, and how traders should respond.

Oil price volatility

Crude oil prices on the international market jumped from roughly $76 per barrel at the beginning of January 2022 to over $110 per barrel on 4 March 2022 after Russia’s invasion on Ukraine.

Even before the conflict, the price of crude oil was inflated due to rising demand as economies throughout the world began to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and as a result of a lack of investment in the oil and gas sector.

The gap between supply and demand was predicted to widen to 2% in 2022 when demand recovered following the loosening of pandemic restrictions.

European energy markets were hit particularly hard by the invasion of Ukraine because the continent continues to be Russia’s primary market for oil and gas.

Therefore, Europe is also Russia’s primary market, and the European Union recognises its reliance on Russia’s hydrocarbon industry.

The comm trading landscape for 2023

Oil is one of the world’s most valuable commodities due to its wide range of applications, but it is also one of the assets most susceptible to the influence of outside groups with vested interests.

See also  Former Sudan president jailed for two years in prison

Oil prices tend to react quickly and significantly to shifts in supply because of the small number of countries that control production. You shouldn’t worry about the impact, but rather use it to your financial advantage.

Consider the current crisis in Ukraine as an illustration. As a result of international sanctions imposed on Russia, one of the world’s main exporters of black gold, prices have risen to levels not seen in nearly ten years.

As most CFD traders using Khwezi Trade are aware, such price fluctuations present a significant opportunity. Oil prices are likely to remain high so long as tensions and sanctions are rising, but they are likely to fall in response to any significant and sustained rupture or reduction of sanctions.

Oil demand growth is forecast to outpace total supply growth in 2023 by a small margin. This indicates that prices will rise slightly from their current levels (by the end of 2022).

 Escalating geopolitical tensions (which are still threatening) and the likelihood of a faster-than-expected economic recovery in China (should covid policy see increased and more permanent easing) are the key upside ‘risks’ to oil prices.

Oil demand is likely to fall as a result of the slowing economy in the United States as well as in Europe and the United Kingdom. According to OPEC, the most demand growth would come from developing countries like China and India.

In 2023, the growth of these economies is predicted to be between 5% and 6%. There is an opportunity (upside risk) for demand to grow if China’s crackdown on crime is relaxed even more by relaxing its zero-tolerance policy.

See also  Mugabe, the Oldest President in the World

Also read: Why you should not ignore commodities in your trading

Public opinion shows increasing support for reexamining nuclear power, reflecting growing anxiety over energy costs and reliability.

The debate pits nuclear’s benefits of low-carbon, stable generation against enduring safety and waste concerns.

This dynamic highlights complex trade-offs for legislators aiming to balance climate goals, energy security, economic costs, and societal acceptance within Germany’s ongoing green transition.