Germany’s move away from nuclear energy is a complex result of historical, political, and social forces, intertwined with the country’s ambitions for climate action and long-term energy security.

The policy, widely known as the Energiewende, or “energy transition,” emerged over decades and was shaped by deep public anxieties regarding nuclear safety and waste, historic advocacy by green movements, and global nuclear incidents.

The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 marked a turning point for anti-nuclear sentiment, but it was the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011 that decisively shifted German political consensus.

Chancellor Angela Merkel responded by accelerating Germany’s nuclear phase-out, ultimately culminating in the permanent closure of the country’s last nuclear reactors by April 2023, after more than forty years of pressure and debate .

The Energiewende’s goal was twofold: reducing both nuclear and fossil fuel dependence while rapidly expanding renewables to achieve carbon neutrality.

Nuclear energy had supplied between 5% and 10% of Germany’s electricity before the final phase-out.

The government envisaged an aggressive ramp-up in wind and solar power to replace lost nuclear capacity.

In effect, Germany succeeded in growing its renewable share from 6% to 46% of total electricity generation by 2020, a considerable stride among industrialized nations .

However, the loss of nuclear as a stable baseload source has presented major challenges, especially during periods when renewable output lags—such as in winter, when sunlight is weak and wind can be intermittent.

During such times, Germany compensates by turning to fossil fuels, mainly coal and natural gas, resulting in higher carbon emissions at odds with decarbonization objectives .

Grid constraints amplify these difficulties.

Much of Germany’s renewable energy, particularly wind, is generated in the north, but physical and regulatory bottlenecks slow the transmission of this electricity to major industrial regions in the south.

Political and local resistance, as well as planning delays, have hampered the timely development of new grid infrastructure and additional renewable capacity, leaving gaps that fossil fuels must fill .

A critical stress test of the German energy system arrived after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Prior to the war, Germany relied heavily on Russian natural gas as an affordable and flexible complement to wind and solar power.

When Russia drastically curtailed gas supplies, Germany was thrust into an energy crisis.

Record-high prices swept through European and global energy markets, directly impacting German households and industry .

Electricity prices rose to among the highest in Europe, driven in part by emergency surcharges to support the energy transition and by costs associated with abruptly finding new energy sources—such as constructing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and importing more costly LNG from international markets .

Shortages and volatility forced the government to bring decommissioned coal plants back online, further undermining emissions reduction targets .

The Russian-Ukrainian war exposed vulnerabilities in Germany’s energy model and raised fears of lasting industrial decline.

The cost to the German economy—directly attributable to the energy shock from the war—is estimated around €160 billion, with GDP declining by up to 4%.

Key manufacturing sectors, traditionally a driver of German economic strength, faced hard choices: curtail production or relocate to countries with cheaper and more predictable energy supplies .

Energy-intensive industries, such as chemicals and metals, experienced acute pain as high prices eroded competitiveness.

Public sentiment around energy policy changed significantly in response to these compounding crises.

While the anti-nuclear stance had long been a consensus, opinion polls in 2022 showed that roughly two-thirds of Germans favored keeping nuclear plants in operation at least temporarily, to bridge the energy gap and help control costs.

There was parallel support—even for expanded coal use—presumably as a pragmatic response to the gas shortage .

Industrial leaders and some political parties, mainly liberal and conservative blocs, publicly called for reconsidering the nuclear exit, citing energy security and climate concerns.

Several state-level politicians urged technical and regulatory flexibility to allow continued nuclear plant operation, while critics argued that the reactors could have been refueled and brought back online if the government had the will .

However, the federal government, led by a coalition including the Green Party, mostly resisted these calls, permitting only a limited extension during the winter of 2022–2023.

Ministers cited technical, legal, and fuel supply barriers to restarting reactors, though opponents disputed these arguments and accused the government of ideological rigidity.

Amid these debates, concerns about grid reliability and blackouts have persisted.

Even before the Russian invasion, energy experts and officials warned that abandoning both nuclear and coal in quick succession would leave the system exposed, particularly if weather-driven renewable output fell short.

Some studies suggest Germany could face supply shortages or blackouts by 2025 without significant new reliable energy investments; since nuclear was largely off the table, older coal power plants filled the gap, contradicting official climate goals .

Germany’s anti-nuclear policy stands in marked contrast to trends in other advanced economies.

Several countries—such as France, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Japan—are now reinvesting in nuclear as a reliable, low-carbon backbone for their future grids.

These governments cite the need for stable power to complement variable renewables and meet ambitious emissions targets.

In Europe, only a handful of nations—including Germany, Belgium, and Spain—are actively phasing out nuclear.

The German government’s approach is thus increasingly seen as an outlier, even as internal divisions in the ruling coalition and among the public remain .

In summary, Germany’s move away from nuclear energy was rooted in a long-standing popular and political rejection of atomic power, newly reinforced by disaster events and environmental politics.

While renewables have grown rapidly and now play a major role, grid and storage limitations, along with delayed infrastructure expansion, have left gaps filled mostly by fossil fuels, raising both costs and emissions.

The Russian-Ukrainian war magnified systemic risks by severing affordable gas supplies and sending prices higher, especially affecting industry and jobs.

Public and political calls to revisit the nuclear phase-out have grown, but the government remains committed to the original course.

The coming years will test whether Germany’s chosen path can deliver both energy security and climate goals, or if pressures—domestic and external—may eventually force a reconsideration.

Germany’s move away from nuclear energy is a complex result of historical, political, and social forces, intertwined with the country’s ambitions for climate action and long-term energy security.

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

The policy, widely known as the Energiewende, or “energy transition,” emerged over decades and was shaped by deep public anxieties regarding nuclear safety and waste, historic advocacy by green movements, and global nuclear incidents.

Title:

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

The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 marked a turning point for anti-nuclear sentiment, but it was the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011 that decisively shifted German political consensus.

Chancellor Angela Merkel responded by accelerating Germany’s nuclear phase-out, ultimately culminating in the permanent closure of the country’s last nuclear reactors by April 2023, after more than forty years of pressure and debate .

Title:

Content: “There is no excuse for the rich West to be oblivious to the global debt crisis. ” – The Guardian
We start with an opinion piece by Larry Elliott, the Guardian ’ s economic editor, entitled “The wealthy West has little excuse for finally waking up to the global debt crisis. ”
“After a decade or more of their obsession with their own problems, countries in the wealthy West have begun to pay attention to the threat of a looming debt crisis in the poorer parts of the world, ” he says at a meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington this week.
The good news is that debt has risen to the highest level on the policy agenda and is seen as a problem that needs to be regulated, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said about the need for distressed countries to help: “Help them deal with the debt burden, which has made the shocks of past years more difficult; and help ensure that the IMF can continue to support them in the years to come. ”
The bad news, according to Elliott, is that Georgieva ’ s appeal has not yet been heeded, as rich countries are still primarily interested in their own problems.
The geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China is also not helping.
Creditor countries may wake up to the idea that there is a debt problem but it is far from a solution.
Talk is not like work. ”
Achim Steiner, director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said: “There are more than 50 countries on his radar that can default very quickly. ”
Steiner believes that the UN has no chance of meeting its ambitious 2030 development goals, unless there is urgent action.
The volume of lending by the private sector has made attempts to restructure or write off debt more complex than in the past.
At the time of the HIPC initiative, creditors tended to be either individual governments or multilateral organizations such as the World Bank.
Skip the podcast and keep reading.
Podcast
BBC Extra
A weekly podcast that presents humanitarian stories about the Arab world and its youth.
Loops
Podcast End
“But since the global financial crisis, many countries, especially middle-income countries, have borrowed heavily in financial markets, taking advantage of very low interest rates to finance domestic projects. ”
After the setback of the COVID-19 epidemic, low- and middle-income countries have since been hit by two other undesirable shocks: the war in Ukraine, which led to higher food and fuel prices, and the sharp increase in central bank interest rates in large Western economies.
The result is that debt servicing has become much more expensive, with many countries now frozen out of financial markets altogether.
Steiner said: "The issue is not financial but political.
The United States has mobilized $400 billion to secure Silicon Valley Bank deposits.
This is more than the developing world has received in three years.
It took the Swiss government less than 48 hours to find 100 billion Swiss francs to secure the rescue of one of its banks.
“The lesson of the recent banking crises is clear.
Rich countries can act fast enough when they want to, ” the writer concludes.
Fears of Macron ’ s politics
We turn to another Financial Times opinion piece by Alain Beatty, a trade writer, entitled “The Risks of Emmanuel Macron ’ s Strategic Insistence. ”
Macron ’ s focus on keeping a distance from both Washington and Beijing in pursuit of the EU ’ s vague “strategic autonomy ” is not an innovation among European policymakers, but geopolitical Europe enthusiasts need to recognize that the lack of unity and trust within the EU, rather than the sinister manipulation by Washington and Beijing, is the main obstacle.
“We ’ ve already seen this happen in trade policy, which is one area where the EU has long had the ability to act collectively.
In the same way that there is nothing stopping European governments from increasing military spending and playing a greater geopolitical role, the bloc can certainly increase its ability to use trade to project its strategic influence.
But while France has been keen to create new tools for intervening in trade and investment, other member states recognize that the views and interests of Paris are not necessarily those of the bloc as a whole.
“In recent years, the European Commission has carefully designed a range of trade instruments to confirm the bloc ’ s geo-economic weight.
The most politically salient is the anti-coercion tool ECI, which will allow the EU to use a wide range of trade and investment measures to retaliate against the bullying of trading partners.
France has strongly supported all this activity, and has also called for the creation of new EU central funds to pursue industrial policy.
“But the Commission will struggle to use this set of tools if there is opposition from other member states that are mindful of their export interests or distrust in using trade tools to manage a centralized strategic policy.
A few days before Macron ’ s trip, the Commission succumbed to pressure from some EU governments, including Germany, and gave member states a major role in determining the use of ECI.
Berlin instinctively avoids confrontation that could damage German exports and investments abroad.
There have also been more principled objections from liberal member states including Sweden and the Czech Republic, sceptical of attempts to politicize trade policy and the likelihood that it will be overly influenced by certain governments.
Macron inadvertently contributed to these concerns, especially as he unnerved some other EU governments two years ago with a clear orientation toward a major investment deal with China, “leaving a legacy of caution. ”
“Attempting to push a union with divergent views to adopt a single approach to a specific global issue is unlikely to produce long-term results. ”
German split on energy policy
We remain with an article by Laura Bettel, the Financial Times correspondent in Berlin, entitled “Germany is being torn apart by energy policy with the closure of nuclear plants. ”
Bethel said Germany ’ s last remaining nuclear power plants were shut down on Saturday, “marking a watershed moment in a country that has long had deep doubts about atomic energy. ”
Anti-nuclear activists hailed the shutdown of three reactors as a victory after a temporary delay following the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war that forced Berlin to look for alternatives to Russian gas.
Critics see the shutdown as an act of madness at a time when Europe ’ s energy supply remains precarious and the world is struggling to stop using fossil fuels.
After decades of anti-nuclear protests, the decisive moment came in 2011 when Chancellor Angela Merkel reversed an earlier decision to extend the life of the country ’ s nuclear plants until 2036, bringing the phase-out date to 2022.
The anti-nuclear movement in former West Germany dates back to the 1970s, when a popular campaign succeeded in stopping the construction of a nuclear power plant in the southwestern village of Weil.
The nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979 and at Chernobyl in 1986 fuelled that movement.
But German public opinion shifted after the Russo-Ukrainian War: an August 2022 poll from Der Spiegel found that 67 percent of Germans supported a five-year extension of the country ’ s nuclear plants.
41% supported the construction of new plants.
In a similar poll three decades ago, only 3% said yes.
But the German Green Party, now part of the three-way coalition government led by Olaf Schulz, only agreed to postpone the shutdown for a few months to fill any gap caused by the winter energy crisis.
“The way in which Germany has chosen to phase out nuclear power, and step back from fossil fuels as a bridging gap even as renewables increase dramatically, has been highly controversial. ”

The Energiewende’s goal was twofold: reducing both nuclear and fossil fuel dependence while rapidly expanding renewables to achieve carbon neutrality.

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

Nuclear energy had supplied between 5% and 10% of Germany’s electricity before the final phase-out.

Title:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friedman is an Opinion Columnist with NYT©2022

The New York Times

Related Stories

No stories found.

The government envisaged an aggressive ramp-up in wind and solar power to replace lost nuclear capacity.

Title:

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

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

Nuclear power has long been contentious in Germany.

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

Closure of three nuclear plant's history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided another plot twist.

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

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

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

In effect, Germany succeeded in growing its renewable share from 6% to 46% of total electricity generation by 2020, a considerable stride among industrialized nations .

However, the loss of nuclear as a stable baseload source has presented major challenges, especially during periods when renewable output lags—such as in winter, when sunlight is weak and wind can be intermittent.

During such times, Germany compensates by turning to fossil fuels, mainly coal and natural gas, resulting in higher carbon emissions at odds with decarbonization objectives .

Grid constraints amplify these difficulties.

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

Much of Germany’s renewable energy, particularly wind, is generated in the north, but physical and regulatory bottlenecks slow the transmission of this electricity to major industrial regions in the south.

Political and local resistance, as well as planning delays, have hampered the timely development of new grid infrastructure and additional renewable capacity, leaving gaps that fossil fuels must fill .

A critical stress test of the German energy system arrived after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Title:

Content: Schörz visits China _ Germany to protect the world 's largest auto market and get rid of the "sick man of Europe"?
Author: Law Baoxi
Published: Updated:
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz arrived in Shanghai on the 15th to continue his three-day visit to China, pointing out that Shanghai is the center of German manufacturing layout in China, and this trip highlights the potential of green technology cooperation between the two countries.
On the occasion of the German Chancellor ’ s visit to China, the financial director of the Siemens Group said that it will be difficult for German companies to get rid of their dependence on China, and it may take decades for local manufacturers to reduce their dependence on China.
These words not only reflect some of the recent challenges facing German enterprises, but also reveal some of the economic difficulties of the European power in recent years, and reveal some of the importance of this visit to China.
According to a survey released by the German Economic Institute (IW) earlier this month, one in three German companies is sceptical about the domestic economy this year.
Given geopolitical issues, a weak global economy, and interest rate factors weighing on demand for corporate goods and services across the country, their view of the outlook is negative and production is expected to decline this year.
Last month, major German economic institutions warned that Europe ’ s largest economy would grow by 0.1 percent this year and 1.4 percent next year.
Germany ’ s export-led economy, which relies heavily on global growth, is expected to slow to 2.4% this year, according to the World Bank.
However, there are regional differences in production expectations, with the proportion of companies expecting production increases and decreases in the south-east of Germany roughly the same in Sachsen and Freistaat Thüringen, while in the east in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt Sachsen-Anhalt and the Berlin region are the most pessimistic.
About 48% of companies in these regions expect production to decline this year, while 17% expect production to increase.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz attends an event with students at Tongji University in Shanghai, China, on April 15.
(Reuters)
The above survey also shows that the German service sector is the only optimistic sector, with about 34% of service companies expecting to create jobs and increase investment.
The outlook for the industrial and construction sectors is particularly bleak, with 39% of companies saying their current performance is worse than a year ago, and only 18% saying their performance has improved.
This is another slight decline in expectations for 2024 since last fall ’ s survey.
It is worth noting that nearly 40% of industrial enterprises believe they will lay off workers and reduce investment.
“This means that Germany ’ s industrial base is increasingly crumbling, we ’ ve been in an investment crisis for too long, and politicians need to address it, ” said Michael Grömling, an economics expert at the German Economic Research Institute.
The Russian – Ukrainian War to Rebuild German Industry
In recent years, the German economy has fallen into a difficult time, mainly related to the Russian-Ukrainian war.
This severely cut off Germany ’ s cheap and vital gas supply after the war began, and allowed Europe ’ s largest economy to find itself a major laggard in the region ’ s economic engine.
Among them, energy-intensive industries, which were the driving force of the former economic powerhouse, have been languishing and have become a major test for the country.
The Russian-Ukrainian war had a serious impact on the German economy. On March 15, near the Ukrainian town of Bakmut, Ukrainian soldiers fired 120 mm mortar shells at Russian troops on the front line. (Reuters)
Some German renewable energy business owners believe that relying too much on Russia in the past may be a mistake that the country will regret forever, because the consequences of the energy crisis will permanently damage local industries.
Markus Krebber, CEO of RWE AG, one of Germany ’ s largest public utilities companies, explains: “As Germany relies on LNG imports, gas prices are structurally higher than in other European countries. ”
Before Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, 55% of Germany ’ s gas supply came from Russia.
Russia is also a major source of oil and coal imports.
Although Germany has managed to break away from most of its dependence on Russian gas, the country ’ s natural gas imports are expected to decline by 32.6% last year, mainly due to the cut-off of Russian supplies, according to the German energy regulator.
However, Germany ’ s energy supply remains highly dependent on other countries, which creates cost pricing issues for the struggling German economy, especially for local industries, where the impact is most pronounced and likely long-term.
After a 0.3% contraction last year, Germany is on the brink of a technical recession.
The German government lowered its target for this year ’ s GDP growth forecast from 1.3% to 0.2%, reflecting a gloomy outlook.
In addition, the German construction purchasing managers index (PMI) has been declining since the beginning of 2022, and the manufacturing sector has been declining since mid-2023.
“To make matters worse, the scope of the downturn is very broad, covering both capital goods and intermediate and consumer goods, ” said Cyrus de la Rubia, chief economist at Commerzbank Hamburg.
Germany, which used to be highly dependent on Russian natural gas, may now look like a big mistake, pictured, on September 30, 2022, the unused Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in the German port of Mulkland.
(Reuters)
The situation has sparked debate about whether Germany can once again be considered the “sick man of Europe, ” a label that was often labeled as a result of domestic economic problems in the 1990s and early 2000s.
According to the latest ranking of the IMD World Competitiveness of the Lausanne School of Management in Switzerland, Germany ’ s position among the developed economies has been declining.
From 15th place in 2022 to 22nd place last year, all dimensions considered in the ranking deteriorated, including economic performance, business efficiency, government efficiency and infrastructure.
Is it true that the international status of Germany is also the basis for the general election?
In fact, with just over a year to go before the next national election, Schörtz has no time to create a miracle to reverse his government ’ s disastrous position in the eyes of the German public.
Some analysts believe that this three-day visit to China is his longest and most important visit since he took office at the end of 2021.
For the chancellor, whose approval ratings have been at record lows and who has been at loggerheads within the coalition, this visit is not only an opportunity to prove his international standing, but also an opportunity to show voters that he will protect the national interest and German business at all costs.
While Germany faces a wide range of growth challenges, from chronic shortages of skilled workers to overregulation, for some economists, the most serious problem is corporate and consumer pessimism.
“The German economy seems to be paralyzed, with low sentiment and high insecurity, ” said Timo Wollmerhäuser, an economist at the Ifo Institute, a leading German economic think tank.
Nearly 40% of Germany ’ s industrial companies believe they will lay off workers and cut investment, and Schorz hopes the visit will at least ensure German companies ’ prospects in the Chinese auto market.
(Reuters)
While there have been recent voices in Germany that Germany should take action to withdraw from China, a recent local study suggests that while a “decoupling ” from China would shrink the German economy by about 5%, it would be less different from the recession experienced after the 2008 financial crisis or the Covid-19 pandemic, and its impact“ would be brutal, not fatal. ”
This trend is particularly evident in the Green Party, which is critical of China.
Moritz Schularick, president of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), said, “Our country has enough resilience to deal with this extreme situation. ”
However, it is easy to know.
Some analysts believe that in the context of increasing geopolitical friction, industrial policies adopted by many countries in the world to distort and restrict trade to protect local industries, Germany's most important strategy is to focus on diversification, borrowing money to invest, and attract overseas investment, betting on European innovation.
It seems to run counter to this country ’ s strategy.
What ’ s more, at a time when the German economy was already in trouble, Schörtz simply couldn ’ t afford a further erosion of the country ’ s business ties with China.
From the current situation, Schorz hopes to use this visit to China to consolidate relations between the two countries at a delicate time when the United States and the European Union threaten to crack down on Chinese batteries, electric vehicles and other goods in the subsidy dispute, and ensure the prospects of German companies in the world's largest auto market.
After all, with the German economy in the doldrums, German companies urgently need more equitable access to the Chinese market.

Prior to the war, Germany relied heavily on Russian natural gas as an affordable and flexible complement to wind and solar power.

Title:

Content: Russia, Ukraine, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia
Comments ‧ World Situation 2022 / 07 / 11
Share:
Share:
On the level of the art of war, the soldiers of the non-war army are of course the highest state.
If you really want to fight, the military is expensive and fast, the first choice of lightning.
If the lightning war is not successful, it will fall into a consumption war, long-term and cruel, at this time has not been able to talk about any winners, can only lose less when winning, and expect the enemy to collapse before themselves.
The same is true of physical warfare with guns and ammunition, and the same is true of economic warfare with energy currencies.
Russia ’ s comprehensive war with the West over Ukraine has long turned into a war of attrition, and Russia seems to be slowly gaining momentum, and cracks are appearing in the Western camp.
In the second half of the year, everyone is in the northern hemisphere, the night is getting longer, the temperature is dropping, and Ukraine may be about to become an outcast.
1 billion euro deficit, Germany's first trade deficit
When the Russian army won the victory last week and took all of Luhansk, Europe ’ s largest economy raised an alarming alarm.
Germany reported May trade data, unexpectedly recorded a 1 billion euro deficit.
For the first time since 1991, the world ’ s largest exporter has lost money.
Why? Consumption is showing.
Germany ’ s exports fell and imports rose, as natural gas prices soared, stimulating electricity prices more than doubled from the beginning of the year, and the cost of factory production and export transportation soared, which also overlapped with the impact of the epidemic and geopolitical tensions on various raw material supply chains.
After the Russo-Ukrainian War, Europe fought with Russia and boycotted Russian oil and gas, but European countries did not share weal and woe.
Germany is not like a small country in Eastern Europe with little electricity, nor is it like France that relies on nuclear energy and Champagne red wine.
More than half of Germany ’ s natural gas comes from Russia. Without these energy sources, Volkswagen, Siemens appliances and Bayer pharmaceuticals cannot be produced, and industry accounts for more than a quarter of Germany ’ s GDP, significantly more than about 20% in Italy and about 15% in France.
Of course, Russia is not a good person, beating snakes and hitting seven inches, looking at Germany's weak points and laying heavy hands.
At the beginning of the year, Germany stopped the newly completed Nord Stream 2 gas pipe project, and Russia took a stance, and in June, Russia attacked it, reducing Nord Stream 1 gas transmission by 60%.
This is not finished, Nord Stream 1 is scheduled to be routine maintenance from today, suspended gas supply for 10 days, which is enough for Germans to sit on needle blankets, and everyone is waiting for Russian President Putin to take the opportunity to stop supplying.
Once the gas outage is real, the German government is bound to launch the final plan - the implementation of natural gas rationing.
According to the plan of the authorities, the factory will be restricted first.
The German trade union federation has warned that industries such as aluminum, glass and chemicals are feared to collapse at the earliest.
Chemical industry alone has dominated the rice bowls of 346,000 people, which is the third largest industry in Germany.
It is also difficult for residents to have a good day.
Hamburg, the largest non-capital city in the European Union, has warned of a shortage of natural gas or a threat to the city's hot water supply.
Officials urged the public to take a shower, not to take a bath, but to hurry up.
“The more you save now, the easier it will be in winter. ”
Germany ’ s central bank estimates that the country ’ s economy will be in recession until mid-2024 when rationing takes effect, and will contract by 8.5% in the first quarter of next year.
Don ’ t forget that Germany is the fourth largest economy in the world, and this contraction is equivalent to the total evaporation of Hong Kong ’ s GDP.
There's no one to save Germany. The euro zone can't escape.
When there was an accident in Greece, Germany came to the rescue, but if there was an accident in Germany, no one could save it, and the entire euro area could not escape.
In the event of a recession in Germany, Italy, which is particularly sensitive to any wind and grass, and Austria, Poland and other countries with close industrial relations with Germany, are believed to be the first to bear the brunt.
Other countries can ’ t stand on their own in this industrial tsunami, just like the tourism and service industries of France and Spain, what to do without customers?
Speaking of Russia, the cost of fighting the West is indeed enough.
Russia ’ s “fortress economy ” has withstood the shock of the West; its current-account surplus has benefited from the surge in oil and gas prices, which rose to the highest level since 1994 in the first four months of this year; and the ruble has pumped 18% against the US dollar this year under capital controls and measures such as the ruble to buy gas.
But this is only a tactical victory for the overdraft coffin.
The governor of Russia ’ s central bank, Elvira Nabiullina, warned in April that the economy was not a horse and that the days of surviving by draining reserves were coming to an end, and the country would have to be structurally transformed by the third or fourth quarter of this year.
She said that the real impact of Western sanctions is not on the financial side, but on the difficulties of Russian factories and enterprises in importing the materials they need, which is bound to drag down the country's exports in the future, and the people will lose their purchasing power under inflation.
However, just as Europe knows that it wants to cut its seat with Russia, so for the Kremlin, Russia ’ s current economic problems are also political and cannot be solved by economic means alone, and political leverage can only be found on the battlefield.
Putin did not pay much attention to Nabiulina, and began the second phase of military action: the Battle of Donbas. Three months later, Putin is expected to bet on the right, even if the bet is won, it is only a crushing victory, less than the opponent.
In the war of attrition, it is not one or two new weapons that will determine the victory, but who can more sustainably and economically, send more weapons to the front line faster, dump more firepower, and kill more enemies.
The loss of thousands of tanks, placed in the Western countries means that the armoured regiment is destroyed, the tiger has no teeth, but for Russia, to destroy 1,000 of the most advanced, there are 10,000 in the back, even if the old is still a tank, can also crush the enemy.
Western military aid to Ukraine is not bad, but the amount is too small, and may not be in the right place at the right time, and it is difficult to play a role in the overall situation.
That was the reason why the German Tiger tank unhindered the Soviet T-34 all the way to Berlin.
Today, the Russian artillery is said to be 20 to 1, and some people laugh at the old artillery shells that only explode on the ground, rather than the more lethal air bombs, but it is this constant flow of water that allows the Russian army to continue to weaken the vitality of the Ukrainian army and slow down to gain the upper hand.
Of course, the Russian army has so far only fought with a low level of consumption, and to truly win the ticket to force the opponent to negotiate, it seems that it will still have to fight an annihilation battle of at least the scale of the battle.
Next, whether the Russian army can encircle the Donetsk Soviet heavy army group, I believe it is crucial to when the war will end; it is good to go west to Odessa to take the last Ukrainian coastline, but to be honest, the Russian army may not have this ability now.
Putin ’ s “Untouched Genuine ” Europe is on the verge of internal strife
Time is running out, Russia ’ s national reserves are running out, and the German and European economies and even the humanitarian crisis are heating up.
At this time, Putin is undoubtedly ironclad to continue to insist, and last week he proudly said that "we have not begun to move the truth."
On the other hand, Europe is on the brink of war.
Anti-Russian vanguard Lithuania blocked the storm in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, while the European Union said it was in line with sanctions and secretly feared setting itself on fire (think what the United States did to the Soviet Union ’ s blockade of West Berlin).
Reported that the European Union is considering to be exempted in recent weeks, anyway, the Russian mainland to and from Kaliningrad does not involve entrance and exit, Germany and France are the promoters of the cooling plan, Lithuania is very dissatisfied.
In addition, Italy's former largest party, the Five Star Movement, also announced a split at the end of June over whether to provide military aid to Ukraine.
The world has become a ghost today, losing less has been a win, the stock market is like this, the economy is like this, and so is war.
Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater, the world ’ s largest hedge fund, commented on the United States Independence Day that Russia has occupied Ukraine, the economic downturn is bearable (recently expected to shrink by about 8% for the whole year, Dalio believes that less than 15% is bearable, more than 30% is unbearable), Putin continues to hold power and still enjoys the international stage, Russia seems to be a “small loser. ”
Who will be the loser, it is self-evident.
Nord Stream 1 is scheduled for routine maintenance starting today, with the gas supply suspended for 10 days, and there is concern about whether Russia will stop supplying gas to Germany. (Reuters data picture)
Author: Lien Siu-feng
Column: Chugai Wide Angle Mirror
Follow the latest financial news analysis, like hket Facebook

When Russia drastically curtailed gas supplies, Germany was thrust into an energy crisis.

Record-high prices swept through European and global energy markets, directly impacting German households and industry .

Title:

Content: Global Economic News
160 billion euros in expected losses to the German economy due to the war
4% of output
According to economic forecasts, the war in Ukraine will cost the German economy about 160 billion euros ($171 billion), equivalent to 4 percent of GDP by the end of this year.
Peter Adrian, head of the Federation of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce, said in comments on Monday that the gross domestic product per capita of Europe's largest economy would be 2,000 euros less than it would have been without the war.
Industry accounts for a larger share of the German economy than many other countries, and the sector is mostly energy-intensive, meaning German companies have been hit hard by soaring energy prices, which last year hit the highest levels in Europe.
According to a study by Allianz Trade last month, industry is set to pay about 40 percent more for energy in 2023 than it did in 2021 before the crisis caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war on Feb. 24 last year.
"Therefore, the outlook for future growth in 2023 and 2024 is lower than in many other countries," Adrian said, adding that this was also the case last year, according to Reuters.
Energy prices in Germany, which for decades relied on relatively cheap Russian pipeline gas, are higher than in the United States, which has its own reserves of natural gas, while France has abundant nuclear power.
"The price of gas is three to five times higher than in the United States," he said, adding that electricity was four times more expensive than in France.
"The Russian-Ukrainian war has caused, along with irreparable human suffering, losses related to economic prosperity," Adrian said.
Many companies in sectors of the economy have recorded a strong increase in their costs for gas and electricity, he said, noting that this still affects some companies severely.
It is noteworthy that the Chamber expects a recession in economic output this year.
The chamber ’ s chief executive, Martin Vansleben, said a week ago that while some things had been calmed down, nothing had yet been stimulated.
A year after the Russo-Ukrainian war, Germany ’ s Federal Employment Agency predicted a clear breakthrough in the German labor market thanks to Ukrainian refugees.
Daniel Tarzenbach, a board member of the Federal Employment Agency, said the number of Ukrainian women and Ukrainians employed in social security jobs in Germany was 65,000 higher than before the war began.
There are also about 21,000 Ukrainians and Ukrainians working in small jobs, he said, adding that they all contribute to the fight against underemployment in the German economy.
"The German labour market is capable of assimilation," he said.
The number of Ukrainian workers in Germany is expected to increase significantly in the coming weeks and months, when both women and men have completed integration and vocational language courses at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.
In particular, starting in the second quarter of this year, there will be more graduates of these courses with good language skills.
“We consciously tried to make people ’ s qualifications visible and usable, ” he said, explaining that the goal was for refugees not to be immediately employed as assistants, but to be hired according to their potential.
Terzenbach noted that during the refugee wave between 2014 and 2016, the goal was to have 50 per cent of people employed five to six years after they came, noting that this was achieved despite the difficulties and hardship faced by the coronavirus epidemic.
It turned out that a large part of the refugees were willing to stay in Germany for a long time to learn German and to work.
Hans-Eckhard Zomer, president of the Federal Authority for Migration and Refugees, announced that integration and language courses have been attended better than ever, and explained that more than 500,000 migrants have enrolled in such courses over the past year, pointing out that the number has almost doubled compared to 2021.
Within days, Olaf Schulz announced a strategic shift in post-war Germany a year ago, at a juncture that remains difficult to implement.
Remarks by the German chancellor at this weekend ’ s Munich Security Conference reveal the extent of the change.
Publish it.
More Economic News - Global

Electricity prices rose to among the highest in Europe, driven in part by emergency surcharges to support the energy transition and by costs associated with abruptly finding new energy sources—such as constructing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and importing more costly LNG from international markets .

Title:

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

Shortages and volatility forced the government to bring decommissioned coal plants back online, further undermining emissions reduction targets .

Title:

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

The Russian-Ukrainian war exposed vulnerabilities in Germany’s energy model and raised fears of lasting industrial decline.

The cost to the German economy—directly attributable to the energy shock from the war—is estimated around €160 billion, with GDP declining by up to 4%.

Key manufacturing sectors, traditionally a driver of German economic strength, faced hard choices: curtail production or relocate to countries with cheaper and more predictable energy supplies .

Energy-intensive industries, such as chemicals and metals, experienced acute pain as high prices eroded competitiveness.

Title:

Content: The invasion of Ukraine changed the world of energy.
The invasion of Ukraine changed the world of energy.
“How the war in Ukraine changed the world of energy, ” the French investigative website Mediapart said that the conflict provoked by Russia in one year has completely redrawn energy routes and markets.
The United States has replaced Russia as Europe ’ s main gas supplier, and Russian oil is now flowing to Asia.
If the question of control over oil, gas or coal has always been the subject of fierce political and geostrategic battles and wars of influence, then, after all, different products have continued to spread throughout the world in order to meet global demand.
With the war in Ukraine, all the chessboard pieces moved, setting up new circles, causing overnight overruns of heavy infrastructure and setting limits in global circulation.
Energy has become the scene of clashes between the United States and Russia, the world ’ s largest and third-largest oil producers, and their allies.
Russia, a major supplier to Europe that built all of its power and economy on gas and oil revenues, was the first to use the energy weapon as a means of blackmail and retaliation, especially in a confrontation with Europe.
The latter very quickly measured its adoption status: throughout the spring and summer of 2022, Moscow and its armed wing Gazprom continued to play on the nerves of European countries, threatening to suspend the arrival of gas.
The United States and its European allies have resisted, with nine sanctions packages adopted by EU and G7 member states since February 24, 2022.
From freezing Russian Central Bank assets abroad to capping gas and oil prices and through Russia ’ s ban on all international interbank exchanges and a ban on all biotechnologies and equipment, unprecedented measures have been taken in an attempt to deprive Vladimir Putin ’ s regime of the resources needed to finance its invasion of Ukraine.
Russia ’ s economic collapse did not occur in the “three weeks ” promised by the French economy minister, at the end of February 2022.
Even if the Russian economy weakens significantly, it is resisting after all.
But to no avail, so far. The economic collapse of Russia did not occur in “three weeks ” as promised by the French Minister of Economy, Bruno Le Maire, at the end of February 2022.
Even if the Russian economy weakens significantly, it is resisting after all.
Russia ’ s trade balance reached a record surplus of $282.3 billion (compared to 170 in 2021).
These figures contribute to an ongoing debate about the importance of Western sanctions against Moscow, especially since they have returned in part in the form of backsliding and Europe is paying a heavy price, explains Mediapart.
In an extremely tense market, barely recovering from the chaos caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic, this energy war has led to unprecedented price hikes.
In one year, hydrocarbon prices jumped by more than 75 percent, and more than 200 percent for gas on average.
The energy crisis has already cost the continent nearly 800 billion euros, according to the latest calculations by the Bruegel Institute.
A large part of these additional costs came to fuel the super-profits of the oil and energy groups.
This explosion of costs is a reminder of a fact many have forgotten: more than any other factor, energy makes up the entire economy.
Within a few weeks, the entire European economy felt this energy shock.
Inflation, which had almost disappeared for three decades, jumped and resurfaced at the end of the COVID-19 epidemic due to bottlenecks.
On average, it rose to more than 10 percent, in the eurozone but with a peak of 23 percent in Lithuania and 15 percent in the Netherlands.
All sectors are affected, and Western central banks have been forced to raise interest rates, due to the lack of other tools at their disposal, in an attempt to stop price rises.
Europe has so far managed to avoid a frightening recession, but the economic damage is significant.
For the first time in its history, the eurozone posted a trade deficit of €2.87.3 billion for the first 11 months of the year, according to Eurostat data.
Germany, the economic engine of Europe, is witnessing the shaking of its economic and geopolitical model: the foundations of the German industrial machine, built on cheap energy from Russia and exported from all over the world, have been shaken.
But this energy disruption is also geopolitical – Mediapart adds, explaining that the new oil and gas routes Russia has set up to circumvent sanctions are much faster than the West expected. They follow a fragmented world that is reorganizing along other axes.
OPEC ’ s refusal, like many countries, to back or join the G7 sanctions says more than the first UN vote to condemn the Russian invasion: the world ’ s tears are pouring down, revealing certain Western isolation.
The world is torn apart and the energy sector is the first to realize it.
A few months of war in Ukraine were enough to achieve a goal that U.S. diplomacy has failed to achieve in a decade: halting the steady flow of Russian gas to Europe.
A few months of war in Ukraine were enough to achieve a goal that U.S. diplomacy has failed to achieve in a decade: halting the steady flow of Russian gas to Europe.
EU member states, which had until then been convinced that the market was made up of everything, discovered their weakness and understood their neglect.
In the name of competitive advantages, 90 percent of Europe ’ s storage capacity is now in private hands (including Gazprom).
The Europeans also realized that they depended on the Russian gas pipeline network that had been developed and completed in recent decades for their gas supply.
Besides, they had almost no gas infrastructure: very few LNG ports, mainly in southern Europe (Spain, France, Italy and Germany do not have any), no more gas reconversion plants, and a very limited number of LNG carriers.
Purchases of liquefied natural gas (LNG) now make up the bulk of Europe ’ s gas supply; the United States is the beneficiary of this reversal, with U.S. producers abandoning Asia on a large scale after being lured by prices in Europe, increasing shale gas exports to Europe by more than 171 percent, according to a recent Friends of the Earth report.
They are now Europe ’ s main supplier, while France, which forgot its previous commitments not to buy shale gas, became the main importer of LNG, then resold it to other European countries.
Thanks to a mild winter and particularly energy saving, Europe has been able to go through a period that is very terrifying by many without much difficulty.
Gas inventories are still very high and the price of gas has fallen to 51 euros per megawatt hour.
An improvement that many hope will continue.
However, it will take more time in the winter before Europe can stabilize and completely reorganize the energy market, some traders warn.
The sabotage of Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 – which American journalist Seymour Hirsch attributed to US authorities with the support of Norway without these discoveries eliciting the slightest reaction from the Western consulates – has long destroyed the gas pipeline from Moscow.
Even if Russia repairs these infrastructures, it says, it ’ s hard to imagine that these exchanges can be easily revived.
Gazprom has begun to change the direction of its gas exports anyway: it supplies the entire gas pipeline that now connects Russia to China for more than 3,000 kilometers.
Major work has been done to develop port infrastructure on the East Coast, in order to be able to export gas to Asia.
Mediapart went on to explain that somehow this fits all: there is no shortage making it possible to contain prices.
Even if there are many oil-producing countries — unlike gas — the place of Russia, the world ’ s third-largest producer after the United States and Saudi Arabia, gives it a key role in the oil market: with its production of 10 million barrels per day.
On average, it provides a basic supply in a tight market where global demand does not weaken.
This concern about not destabilizing the oil market has been consistent among political leaders, starting with Europe.
Although member states were less dependent on oil than Russia, some countries, especially in Central Europe, are also fully tied to Russian supplies.
As with gas, at the time of the invasion of Ukraine they opposed an immediate ban on Russian oil.
Many countries, notably Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania and Japan, remain exempt from applying the dam measures imposed by the G7 and the EU.
Bulgaria, which is also excluded, has become the third largest buyer of Russian oil in the world.
The US government has the same concerns.
With the price of a gallon (3.78 liters) approaching $5, she strongly opposed European plans to declare a complete ban on Russian oil.
To curb the surge in gasoline, it relied on the country ’ s strategic reserves to bring it back to market: two-thirds of its reserves were distributed between July and November, raising the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the benchmark crude oil in the U.S. market, at $70 per barrel (up from more than $120 in July).
In the United States, Joe Biden, who began his presidency by seeking to limit oil production and exploration, has changed his mind, Mediapart says, urging producers and major oil groups to increase exploration for gas and shale to push production to the limit.
Promises to reduce fossil fuel consumption as quickly as possible, or even abandon it, have faded.
The horizon of change set in 2030 has been postponed to 2050, at best.
Big oil companies have understood this well, as they have all reduced their investments in environmental transformation to return to their traditional activities.
They know that they have carte blanche to mine and exploit wherever possible, until the last drop of oil, concludes Mediapart.
Arab Jerusalem

Public sentiment around energy policy changed significantly in response to these compounding crises.

While the anti-nuclear stance had long been a consensus, opinion polls in 2022 showed that roughly two-thirds of Germans favored keeping nuclear plants in operation at least temporarily, to bridge the energy gap and help control costs.

Title:

Content: MOSCOW, June 24 — PRIME.
According to a survey by ARD-Deutschlandtrend, almost two-thirds of Germans are in favor of extending the life of nuclear power plants, and the majority support more large-scale use of coal power.
The poll was conducted for ARD on June 21-22 among 1,248 German voters, with a statistical error of 2 to 3%.
56% of respondents support an increase in the load on coal-fired power plants, 36% disapprove of this measure proposed by the German Energy Ministry as part of an emergency plan for gas conservation.
Of the respondents, 61% supported the initiative of a number of politicians from the former ruling faction of the CDU / CSU and the liberal democratic FDP to continue operating nuclear power plants after the end of the year, when it was planned to completely abandon nuclear energy, 32% of respondents opposed.

There was parallel support—even for expanded coal use—presumably as a pragmatic response to the gas shortage .

Title:

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

Industrial leaders and some political parties, mainly liberal and conservative blocs, publicly called for reconsidering the nuclear exit, citing energy security and climate concerns.

Title:

Content: News of Hong Kong
Giving up nuclear energy is easy.
At the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai, more than 20 countries advocated tripling nuclear power to current levels in order to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Interestingly, some of these countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, Japan and South Korea, which previously supported reducing their reliance on nuclear energy, have now changed their positions.
Remembering the 2011 earthquake in Japan, which caused a serious accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, the people of all countries to reflect on the drawbacks of nuclear power development, and there was an unprecedented anti-nuclear wave everywhere.
Many environmental groups and idealists have called on governments to abandon nuclear weapons, so that the earth will have a living environment free of nuclear pollution.
However, the development of the past decade or so has proved that this demand is impossible. After all, nuclear energy accounts for a large proportion of national electricity, and the suspension of operation will cause major losses to the economies of countries that cannot produce their own energy.
Denuclearization also raises another problem, which is to increase the pollution of the earth.
As we all know, the main driving force of economic development is electricity, and power generation methods are firepower, hydropower and nuclear energy.
Fuels such as oil and coal emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, damaging the environment.
By contrast, nuclear power generates very little carbon dioxide and costs less.
Once countries get rid of nuclear weapons and become more dependent on oil or coal, it is even less environmentally friendly.
Science and reality show that because there is currently no optimal alternative to nuclear power, it is difficult to give up nuclear power.
As a responsible government, we can only continue to develop nuclear energy to meet the country ’ s growing energy needs.
Therefore, the mainstream practice of all countries in the world is to actively accept nuclear power, for example, Japan has abolished the life limit of nuclear power plants, and decided to maximize the use of nuclear power plants to more than 60 years.
The German government, which has insisted on denuclearization, earlier admitted that its energy policy was a failure.
Idealists are often lauded for their pursuit of truth, but some of the ideas they promote are also unrealistic.
In recent years, governments have stopped advocating a ban on the development of nuclear power, which just reveals the drawbacks of idealism.
Please download on.cc for iPhone / iPad / Android /
Everyone is a reporter.
Explosive method:
Explosive Hotline:
(852) 3600 3600
Faxed:
(852) 3600 8800
SMS:
(852) 6500 6500

Several state-level politicians urged technical and regulatory flexibility to allow continued nuclear plant operation, while critics argued that the reactors could have been refueled and brought back online if the government had the will .

However, the federal government, led by a coalition including the Green Party, mostly resisted these calls, permitting only a limited extension during the winter of 2022–2023.

Ministers cited technical, legal, and fuel supply barriers to restarting reactors, though opponents disputed these arguments and accused the government of ideological rigidity.

Amid these debates, concerns about grid reliability and blackouts have persisted.

Even before the Russian invasion, energy experts and officials warned that abandoning both nuclear and coal in quick succession would leave the system exposed, particularly if weather-driven renewable output fell short.

Some studies suggest Germany could face supply shortages or blackouts by 2025 without significant new reliable energy investments; since nuclear was largely off the table, older coal power plants filled the gap, contradicting official climate goals .

Title:

Content: Consulting firm: Germany could face energy shortage by 2025
World News
Copy Link https: / / en.rt.com / uv8u
A study by consulting firm McKinsey in Germany has revealed that the country could face an electricity shortage by 2025, estimated at around 4 gigawatts.
The Welt am Sonntag, citing the study, noted that “electricity consumption is increasing, but reliable power plants are being phased out.
Therefore, Germany will soon not be able to cover peak loads on its own. ”
According to consultancy McKinsey, Germany will soon be unable to meet its electricity demand from its own resources during peak periods, and a supply outage in 2030 will occur nearly 100 times in total, the longest phase can last about 21 hours.
"According to these calculations, already in 2025 there is a risk of a power supply deficit of 4 GW, which will rise to 30 GW by 2030," the report says, explaining that the capacity of 30 GW corresponds to about 30 large thermal power plants.
Earlier, the German Federal Grid Agency released on the security of the country ’ s electricity supply, which was approved by the cabinet at the end of January, and the report says that the electricity supply will remain reliable despite the phase-out of nuclear power and coal.
Germany was originally planned to give up nuclear power at the beginning of last year 2022, and three of the country ’ s last six nuclear power plants have already been shut down.
In November, the Bundestag agreed to continue operating Germany ’ s three nuclear power plants Isar-2, Neckarwestheim-2 and Emsland until April 15, 2023.
On 9 February, the head of the administration of the Hungarian Prime Minister, Grigi Goyash, declared that Europe was the biggest loser of the Ukrainian crisis, with European countries paying ten times more for energy resources than the United States.
Source: Novosti
Agree.
This website uses cookies. You can read the terms of use to activate this feature by clicking here

Germany’s anti-nuclear policy stands in marked contrast to trends in other advanced economies.

Several countries—such as France, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Japan—are now reinvesting in nuclear as a reliable, low-carbon backbone for their future grids.

These governments cite the need for stable power to complement variable renewables and meet ambitious emissions targets.

In Europe, only a handful of nations—including Germany, Belgium, and Spain—are actively phasing out nuclear.

The German government’s approach is thus increasingly seen as an outlier, even as internal divisions in the ruling coalition and among the public remain .

In summary, Germany’s move away from nuclear energy was rooted in a long-standing popular and political rejection of atomic power, newly reinforced by disaster events and environmental politics.

While renewables have grown rapidly and now play a major role, grid and storage limitations, along with delayed infrastructure expansion, have left gaps filled mostly by fossil fuels, raising both costs and emissions.

The Russian-Ukrainian war magnified systemic risks by severing affordable gas supplies and sending prices higher, especially affecting industry and jobs.

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

Public and political calls to revisit the nuclear phase-out have grown, but the government remains committed to the original course.

The coming years will test whether Germany’s chosen path can deliver both energy security and climate goals, or if pressures—domestic and external—may eventually force a reconsideration.