Germany’s transition away from nuclear energy, culminating in the 2023 closure of its last reactors, is a landmark case in modern energy policy.

Nuclear plants once provided between 10% and 25% of the country’s electricity supply, peaking at around 30% in 2000.

By 2021, as the phaseout neared completion, nuclear’s share had already dropped to approximately 12%, and by the time of final shutdown in April 2023, it accounted for 6–12% depending on seasonal and reporting differences .

This phaseout was rooted in deep societal and political concerns.

Anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany was galvanized by Chernobyl (1986), Fukushima (2011), and chronic anxiety over nuclear accidents and unresolved radioactive waste storage.

Public opinion favored the move, despite nuclear energy’s role in providing low-carbon, stable baseload electricity .

Renewables were planned as the replacement backbone.

By 2022–2023, renewables (primarily wind and solar) contributed between 42% and 51% of the electricity mix, while coal provided about 28%, natural gas 15%, and nuclear fell to zero post-phaseout.

The grid remains highly reliable; according to 2022 data, Germans experienced just 12.2 minutes of unplanned power outage per consumer—a leading performance globally .

However, a persistent challenge has been the variable output of renewables.

During winter “Dunkelflaute” (prolonged periods of low sun and wind), Germany must compensate with fossil power or significant imports.

Periodically, as much as 20% of German electricity demand is met through imports, notably from France (whose generation is primarily nuclear) and the Czech Republic.

This cross-border trading is now essential for German and European grid stability .

The loss of nuclear energy has had observable effects on Germany’s emissions profile.

Immediately after the 2011 Fukushima incident and the acceleration of nuclear phaseout, CO2 emissions temporarily increased as coal plants ramped up to fill the supply gap—a National Bureau of Economic Research study attributes a $12 billion annual social cost to this, largely resulting from greater reliance on coal and associated air pollution .

More recently, as the last nuclear plants shut down and the Russian war in Ukraine upended gas markets, coal’s share spiked again.

Germany’s energy-related CO2 emissions in 2022 are estimated to have risen by about 10 million tons compared to 2021, illustrating the difficulties in achieving short-term decarbonization while ensuring energy security .

The geopolitical shock of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 amplified these challenges.

Germany previously depended on Russian gas for over half its supply.

The abrupt withdrawal of this source forced a scramble for liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, new import contracts, and emergency fossil fuel contingency plans.

The cost of power surged: average monthly wholesale market electricity prices hit €350–400 per MWh in 2022, a steep rise from €50 per MWh in 2019.

Household bills went up over 30% year-on-year, and, by late 2023, were still at least half again as high as pre-crisis averages.

These increases led to production cuts and competitiveness issues for energy-intensive industries, stoking fears of deindustrialization .

Public and political debate over nuclear energy has resurfaced due to these strains.

As of mid-2023, polling by Forsa showed that 54% of Germans opposed restarting nuclear plants, while 38% were in favor—a marked increase for the pro-nuclear camp, mainly among younger and more urban respondents, reflecting heightened worries over energy prices and security after the Ukraine invasion.

Nonetheless, anti-nuclear positions remain strong, especially among Greens voters and older demographics.

No major political party currently advocates for reversing the phaseout .

From a technical and environmental standpoint, decommissioning Germany’s nuclear facilities is a long-term, expensive undertaking.

All spent nuclear fuel now goes into interim onsite storage.

The selection of a permanent deep geological repository for high-level waste is ongoing, with a target for final site choice by 2031.

As yet, no deep repository is operational, and the costs and risks involved in decommissioning and long-term waste management remain key arguments against further nuclear development in current government policy .

Internationally, Germany’s opposition to nuclear complicates European Union energy and climate efforts.

Many EU countries—most notably France—see nuclear as vital for decarbonization and want it counted as “green” in EU investment and taxonomy regulations.

Germany’s outright rejection (citing unresolved risks and unsolved waste disposal) underpins persistent tensions and hinders unified EU policy on the energy transition .

Cross-border electricity trade increasingly shapes the European market, with Germany now more reliant on nuclear-powered imports from its neighbors in times of renewable shortfall .

In summary, the phaseout of nuclear in Germany produced clear trade-offs.

The advantages included a response to population safety concerns, a reduction in direct nuclear accident risks, and a commitment to phasing out radioactive waste production over the very long run.

Disadvantages have been manifest in the rise in CO2 emissions (at least in the short and medium term), higher and volatile electricity prices for consumers and businesses, increased reliance on fossil fuels and imports, and heightened vulnerability to global energy shocks—particularly evident post-Ukraine.

While grid reliability has thus far been preserved, the shift placed financial and industrial strain on segments of the German economy and reduced flexibility in meeting rapid decarbonization goals.

The nuclear debate is not settled: recent polling shows rising (but still minority) support for reconsideration, driven by energy security anxieties.

Decommissioning and waste remain technical and political hurdles, and Germany’s choice continues to reverberate across Europe, both in energy trade and in debates over what defines “green” or sustainable power.

Germany’s transition away from nuclear energy, culminating in the 2023 closure of its last reactors, is a landmark case in modern energy policy.

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

Nuclear plants once provided between 10% and 25% of the country’s electricity supply, peaking at around 30% in 2000.

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

By 2021, as the phaseout neared completion, nuclear’s share had already dropped to approximately 12%, and by the time of final shutdown in April 2023, it accounted for 6–12% depending on seasonal and reporting differences .

Title:

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

This phaseout was rooted in deep societal and political concerns.

Title:

Content: This is an audio transcript of the FT News Briefing podcast episode: Russia’s move on Ukraine triggers western sanctions

Marc Filippino
Good morning from the Financial Times. Today is Wednesday, February 23rd, and this is your FT News Briefing.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Russia is edging closer to war. President Vladimir Putin is endorsing Russian-backed separatists who claim the entire Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, western powers are pushing back both with sanctions and by suspending the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project. But can Germany kick its Russian gas habit?

Guy Chazan
Its industry has really become addicted to relatively cheap Russian gas so it’s in a bit of a bind, really.

Marc Filippino
Plus, how are Russian markets holding up through all this? Unsurprisingly, not so great. We’ll tell you more. I’m Marc Filippino, and here’s the news you need to start your day.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Very late on Monday night, Russian president Vladimir Putin decided to send what he called peacekeeping troops into eastern Ukraine. They’ll support two Russian-backed separatist states that he’s recognised as independent. This crossed a line for western powers, and they retaliated with a salvo of sanctions against Moscow on Tuesday. The US is targeting two of Russia’s largest financial institutions, as well as Russian elites and their family members. The FT’s Henry Foy has more on Europe’s sanctions towards Russia.

Henry Foy
So the European Union has decided to sanction a lot of individuals and entities. They’ve gone after 351 members of the Russian parliament. These are elected MPs, elected representatives who voted for the independence of these statelets, these separatists to be recognised for troops to be sent in, and also 27 individuals and entities who are linked to actions that have undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty. The key thing here, though, is the EU, just like the US and the UK who also announced their own sanction packages, are saying this is not it. This is just the first wave. And if you continue aggression against Ukraine and if there is a full invasion of the rest of Ukraine not held by these pro-Russian separatists, then there will be more — much, much more. This first wave is targeted. It’s not particularly economically damaging, but it’s a sign that there is unity across the west in standing up to this.

Marc Filippino
Henry, is all this enough to push Russia from further escalation?

Henry Foy
Well Marc, officials I speak to here in Brussels, in the EU, inside of Nato, tell me basically, no. That effectively, Putin has made a decision that he is going to go the whole way and invade Ukraine. That’s a decision that he’s built up over years. It’s an emotional decision. It’s an irrational one. And there’s really little that the west can do about it, given that Putin has thrown away and torn up all the diplomatic efforts. And he will take these sanctions and the sanctions will slow him down. They will affect the Russian economy. They will make an invasion more painful than perhaps it would have been before. However, they’re not going to stop him if that is what he intends to do, and most people, the Nato intelligence community, the defence community, believes that that is his decision.

Marc Filippino
Now, how is Nato’s approaching all this? You know, a crucial issue for Russia is that it wants to keep Ukraine and other former Soviet countries out of Nato. What’s its role right now?

Henry Foy
So Nato’s role, they’ve been very clear about this, is to protect itself, to protect alliance members, to protect Nato members in Europe. So what they’ve done in recent months and weeks is to deploy more troops in eastern European countries that border Ukraine and Russia effectively as deterrents to Russia to say, look, if you are going to invade Ukraine, you’re not going to come anywhere near us because we are going to defend our own, our own members, but also to help with any cross-border fallout from an invasion of Ukraine, which is likely to be in the form of refugees, potentially spillover events such as terrorism.

Marc Filippino
Henry Foy is the FT’s European diplomatic correspondent.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

The news of Russia sending troops to Ukraine sent the price of oil up to nearly 100 bucks a barrel yesterday, and there was other energy news too. Germany has frozen the approval process on the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Chancellor Olaf Scholz says Berlin would not approve the Kremlin-backed project. The pipeline is owned by the Russian-backed company Gazprom and would have increased a Russian gas supplies to Germany and the rest of Europe. The pipeline project has been in the works for years, and there has been a lot of pressure on Germany to stop it. But now that it’s been stopped, what’s next for Germany’s energy sector? Our Berlin bureau chief Guy Chazan joins me now to talk about this. Welcome to the show, Guy.

Guy Chazan
Hi.

Marc Filippino
So Guy, one of our Lex columnists wrote that Germany has been like a junkie in its addiction to Russian gas. How dependent is Germany on Russian energy?

Guy Chazan
Well, it relies on Russia for 55 per cent of its gas imports, and that’s more than many other countries in Europe. It’s a sort of, it’s an indictment in a way of the country’s kind of energy policies over the past few years because in 2011 it took this rather controversial decision to phase out all its nuclear power stations by 2022, and it’s now also phasing out its coal-fired power stations by 2030. So it has all these very ambitious goals to change its energy mix, but that has made it relatively more reliant on gas. And when you’re more reliant on gas, you’re more reliant on Gazprom because that’s Europe’s major supplier.

Marc Filippino
Yeah, and Russia, in response to Germany’s move, said, OK, well, you know, this is going to have an impact on already high energy prices. How hard will higher prices hit Germany’s economy?

Guy Chazan
Well, we’ve already been getting a taste of it because over the past few months, energy experts have said that Gazprom seems to be deliberately withholding supplies to the spot market in Europe, and that has driven up prices. But it’s basically destroyed the reputation of Gazprom as a reliable supplier in Germany. The green minister of the economy yesterday said that explicitly, and that’s really a big change because in the past, whenever you sort of ask German officials, you know, what about this relationship with Russia? They always say, well, you know, even in the worst times during the cold war, Russia was a reliable supplier. Those flows of gas were never affected. But that seems to have changed in recent months, and the perception of Gazprom has accordingly changed as well in Germany.

Marc Filippino
So given that this perception of Gazprom has changed, what alternatives does Germany have when it comes to energy sources?

Guy Chazan
Well, none at the moment. That’s the problem. It basically is building a terminal for the import of LNG, liquefied natural gas. But that is very expensive, much more expensive than Gazprom’s gas. So it’s in a bit of a bind, really. But the big difference, I suppose, really from the Merkel era, the governments of Angela Merkel, is that we now have this government with the Greens, and they are determined for Germany to go carbon neutral in the next 25 years. And if that ambition is achieved, then there will be much, much more renewables, much more wind and solar, and much less reliance on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas.

Marc Filippino
Less of a question on the economics of this whole thing and more about the safety of German people. I mean, it’s the middle of February. If people aren’t able to heat their homes, is there a potential issue with people being safe and warm in Germany?

Guy Chazan
Well, I don’t think so, because the consensus is that Gazprom and Russia would not do anything as suicidal as withhold gas supplies to Germany. I mean that literally would be destroying an energy relationship, which is mutually, very, very beneficial. It’s not just Germany that benefits from this. It’s Russia, too, which relies very, very heavily on the flow of foreign currency into its exchequer. I think actually, if it were to come to that, Germany is actually quite well placed at the moment because the winter is drawing to an end and it’s getting sort of LNG shipments via Rotterdam. So it has been able to diversify. And apparently ministers have been saying the energy security situation is OK at the moment.

Marc Filippino
Guy Chazan is the FT’s Berlin bureau chief. Thank you, Guy.

Guy Chazan
Thanks.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Marc Filippino
Moscow’s main stock benchmark has collapsed by a third since October. Markets have been responding to the escalating crisis in Ukraine. Investors are mostly worried about two things — one, a full-blown invasion by Russia into Ukraine, and two, how sanctions, which you know, we talked about earlier, will affect assets. Our capital markets correspondent Tommy Stubbington has been following this and says there’s one area in particular investors are watching.

Tommy Stubbington
Possibly the most extreme form of sanctions in terms of their impact on the Russian stock market would be an outright ban on trading Russian stocks or Russian bonds on the secondary market, which would make it effectively impossible for western investors to hold those assets. Now we’re not there yet, but I mean, obviously any outside risks that investors see will lead to investors effectively dumping the Russian assets that they hold, and they do hold those assets largely because they are included in the indices, the investment benchmarks, the billions and billions of dollars of investments follow.

Marc Filippino
Now how insulated is the market overall? And is it likely that the Kremlin would react?

Tommy Stubbington
Share price declines, on their own, are probably something that I imagine the Kremlin wouldn’t be too worried about. They’d be more worried about the sanctions hurting at the level of the whole economy. And on that basis, the Russian economy is fairly well insulated from sanctions by the high level of dollar reserves that their central bank holds, which, you know, should be able to protect the rouble from any kind of run from overseas investors. And so the answer is the, you know, the Russian economy is certainly more sanctions-proof than possibly it was in the past.

Marc Filippino
Tommy Stubbington is the FT’s capital markets correspondent.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

You can read more on all of these stories at FT.com. This has been your daily FT News Briefing. Make sure you check back tomorrow for the latest business news.

This transcript has been automatically generated. If by any chance there is an error please send the details for a correction to: typo@ft.com. We will do our best to make the amendment as soon as possible.

Get alerts on Transcript when a new story is published

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2022. All rights reserved.
Reuse this content (opens in new window) CommentsJump to comments section

Anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany was galvanized by Chernobyl (1986), Fukushima (2011), and chronic anxiety over nuclear accidents and unresolved radioactive waste storage.

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

Public opinion favored the move, despite nuclear energy’s role in providing low-carbon, stable baseload electricity .

Renewables were planned as the replacement backbone.

Title:

Content: World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

James Reno

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

Related Articles

Back to top button

By 2022–2023, renewables (primarily wind and solar) contributed between 42% and 51% of the electricity mix, while coal provided about 28%, natural gas 15%, and nuclear fell to zero post-phaseout.

The grid remains highly reliable; according to 2022 data, Germans experienced just 12.2 minutes of unplanned power outage per consumer—a leading performance globally .

However, a persistent challenge has been the variable output of renewables.

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

During winter “Dunkelflaute” (prolonged periods of low sun and wind), Germany must compensate with fossil power or significant imports.

Periodically, as much as 20% of German electricity demand is met through imports, notably from France (whose generation is primarily nuclear) and the Czech Republic.

This cross-border trading is now essential for German and European grid stability .

The loss of nuclear energy has had observable effects on Germany’s emissions profile.

Immediately after the 2011 Fukushima incident and the acceleration of nuclear phaseout, CO2 emissions temporarily increased as coal plants ramped up to fill the supply gap—a National Bureau of Economic Research study attributes a $12 billion annual social cost to this, largely resulting from greater reliance on coal and associated air pollution .

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.

More recently, as the last nuclear plants shut down and the Russian war in Ukraine upended gas markets, coal’s share spiked again.

Title:

Content: The current energy crisis, nuclear power generation is back in favor of countries
PARIS (AFP) - As global energy import bills skyrocket and the climate crisis rages, countries around the world are struggling to find alternative sources of energy, and their preference for nuclear power is rising.
Advertisement
After Japan ’ s Fukushima disaster in 2011, countries scaled back investment in nuclear power amid concerns about nuclear safety, but after Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine in February, there was a renewed trend toward nuclear power as energy supplies tightened and Europe struggled to move away from its dependence on Russian oil and gas.
Some experts argued that nuclear power should not be included in the options under consideration; others argued that in the face of so many crises, the world's energy mix must retain nuclear power.
One of the countries that is reconsidering the use of nuclear power is Japan, which shut down many nuclear reactors due to safety concerns following the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
But Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida this week called for efforts to revive nuclear power generation and build new nuclear power plants.
Other countries that had intended to move away from nuclear power have also abandoned such plans, at least in the short term.
For example, within a month of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Belgium postponed the implementation of its 2025 plan to abolish nuclear energy for 10 years.
Although nuclear power currently accounts for only 10% of the world ’ s electricity generation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) raised its forecast for nuclear power production in September, the first time since the Fukushima disaster.
The International Atomic Energy Agency now expects global nuclear power generation to double by 2050, in the best case scenario.
Even in Germany, Europe ’ s largest economy, nuclear power is no longer a taboo topic, as the current energy crisis has reignited debate over plans to close its last three plants by 2022.
As nuclear power can replace coal-fired power generation, China, the Czech Republic, India and Poland have all expressed interest in developing nuclear infrastructure, with China now having the largest number of reactors.
Britain, France and the Netherlands have similar ideas; even US President Joe Biden ’ s proposed investment plan encourages the development of nuclear power.
Experts at the UN ’ s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledge that the use of nuclear energy “may be limited by social preferences ” because the risks of a nuclear disaster and the issue of how to safely dispose of nuclear waste remain unresolved.
But some countries still oppose the use of nuclear power, such as New Zealand, and the European Union has hotly debated whether nuclear power can be considered a green energy source.

Germany’s energy-related CO2 emissions in 2022 are estimated to have risen by about 10 million tons compared to 2021, illustrating the difficulties in achieving short-term decarbonization while ensuring energy security .

The geopolitical shock of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 amplified these challenges.

Title:

Content: Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
Editor-in-Chief
Wael Lotfy
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
Editor-in-Chief
Wael Lotfy
How the Russo-Ukrainian War Changed Global Geopolitical Alliances, Security, and Supply Chains
Economists at Chatham House, also known as the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, answered the key question: How has the Russian-Ukrainian war changed geopolitical alliances, security, energy and supply chains in the world?
Chatham House experts examine shifts in geopolitical alliances, security, energy and supply chains, and whether these changes are likely to last long.
President Vladimir Putin ’ s decision to launch an all-out re-invasion of Ukraine a year ago was a global shock that “marked a sudden end to 30 years of globalization and all the international cooperation that made it possible ” with serious repercussions for countries around the world, explained Bronwyn Maddox, director of Chatham House, in her opening lecture.
The war not only threatened Europe ’ s stability but also affected food and energy security globally, including in the Middle East and Africa, creating shock waves in a world barely recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic.
7 Ways the Russian War on Ukraine Changed the World
1.
Realignment - Changing Alliances
The outbreak of a major war in Europe after nearly eight years of intense conflict has created a political constellation of three different groups of nations: those that sided with Putin ’ s Russia, those that pledged to support Ukraine, and a group of non-aligned countries that resist entanglement and cover up their bets.
Despite some fragmentation, for example, over the ceiling on oil prices, and Germany ’ s reluctance to send tanks and other weapons, the bloc has basically remained cohesive, against Russia ’ s expectations and hopes.
Bibigen Bergesen, a research fellow at Chatham House in Europe, said: “The EU has shown determination and, at times, astonishing unity in its response to war.
2. Security -- redrawing lines
Alice Pilon Galand, a research fellow at the Europe Program, said: “For many of Russia ’ s neighbors, the Russian invasion of Ukraine confirmed that they were right in their analysis of the threat posed by Moscow ’ s regional ambitions. ”
Before the Russian invasion, European countries, such as France and Germany, failed to adapt to the new geopolitical realities in the region, and Russian actions will lead to a radical reassessment of the European security situation.
Indeed, European countries have responded with significant increases in their defense budgets, most notably Germany ’ s commitment to 2% of its GDP in Chancellor Olaf Schulz ’ s recalibrated “Zeitenund ” speech.
3. Nuclear weapons -- risks return
Since the end of the Cold War and the advent of arms control between the United States and Russia, the threat of nuclear weapons has become less prominent.
However, the past year has seen regular threats of nuclear weapons from Russia, some obscured, some about “escalation, ” and some directed directly at NATO countries such as the UK.
Warnings have also surfaced from the West, with US President Joe Biden declaring the risk of a nuclear disaster at its highest level in 60 years, bringing the nuclear issue firmly back to the forefront of the debate.
4. Energy and food -- fuelling the crisis
Russia ’ s conflict with Ukraine, as major suppliers of energy goods, food and fertilizers alike, has caused supply disruptions to both developing and developed countries.
“Europe will never be effectively reliant on Russian fossil fuels, ” says Anthony Froggatt, deputy director of the Environment and Society Program at Chatham House,“ even if the war ends tomorrow, trust between European consumers and their primary supplier has broken. ”
Russia is a pariah state
Putin ’ s decision to completely and illegally re-invade Ukraine was a big gamble that many Russian analysts say he has already lost by pushing the country into a cold and putting the regime under threat.
6. New Ukraine -- new hopes
Russia ’ s brutal attack on Ukraine has taken a heavy toll on its citizens, but it has also united the country in a way never seen before.
Observers were surprised by the strength of resistance, steadfastness and national cohesion in Ukraine.
Although an estimated 14 million people have been displaced, and with infrastructure, energy and transportation networks there under constant attack, Ukraine has remained remarkably functional.
7. International law -- tearing up the Guide to Rules
The director of the International Law Program at Chatham House, Rachmin Sago, says that Russia ’ s re-invasion of Ukraine is a violation of the UN Charter and basic international law, and as a member of the UN Security Council, entrusted with maintaining international peace and security, there was a sense that it had gone through before the US-led invasion of Iraq and Russia ’ s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
But as observers have pointed out, the rule of law has quickly turned into action, and the astonishing speed of coordinated global sanctions on an unprecedented scale has spurred the domino effect of the exodus of large corporations from Russia.

Germany previously depended on Russian gas for over half its supply.

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

The abrupt withdrawal of this source forced a scramble for liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, new import contracts, and emergency fossil fuel contingency plans.

The cost of power surged: average monthly wholesale market electricity prices hit €350–400 per MWh in 2022, a steep rise from €50 per MWh in 2019.

Household bills went up over 30% year-on-year, and, by late 2023, were still at least half again as high as pre-crisis averages.

These increases led to production cuts and competitiveness issues for energy-intensive industries, stoking fears of deindustrialization .

Title:

Content: In a stark revelation, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) has outlined the severe challenges faced by the global nuclear power sector in recent years. The report, covering developments up to mid-2023, highlights a significant decline in nuclear production, with its share dropping to the lowest point in four decades. This decline is attributed to a combination of factors including national policy shifts, economic pressures and the rapid growth of renewable energy alternatives.

Global nuclear production and generation reaches new low

The WNISR points out that global nuclear power generation experienced a notable 4% decline, reaching a level not seen since the mid-1990s. Outside of China, the decrease was even more pronounced, at 5%, taking the global nuclear energy share of commercial gross electricity generation in 2022 down to 9.2%. This marks the most substantial drop since the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in 2012 and a record low in the past four decades. It is noteworthy that this share is now little more than half of its peak of 17.5% in 1996.

Several major nuclear-producing nations faced significant challenges in 2022 and mid-2023, contributing to the overall hit on the global nuclear landscape.

The US saw its nuclear share of commercial electricity generation drop to 18.2%, the lowest level in 25 years. France experienced a drop in nuclear generation below its 1990 level, turning into a net importer of electricity for the first time since 1980. However, the country seems motivated to rectify the situation, recently leading a group of 20 countries in declaring to “triple nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050” at COP28 in Dubai.

Belgium witnessed the closure of two reactors, in September 2022 and January 2023, with three more slated for closure by 2025. Germany saw the closure of its last three operating reactors on 15 April 2023, completing the phase-out policy initiated in 2011.

The report notes that the number of closed power reactors reached 212 units as of mid-2023, with 22 fully decommissioned and 11 released from regulatory control. With this, the report indicates that 407 reactors with a total capacity of 365GW were operational worldwide – a decrease of four reactors compared with the previous year and 31 units below the peak observed in 2002.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Company Profile – free sample

Thank you!

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

By GlobalData

Economic challenges and renewable competition

Nuclear power faces increasing economic challenges, with Lazard modelling indicating that, at discount rates over 5.4%, it becomes the most expensive generator in terms of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE).

National developments of major nuclear-producing countries reflect this reality. The report highlights massive subsidies in the US, with state-level taxpayer-funded subsidies estimated to exceed $15bn by 2030. The UK, now operating only nine nuclear units, has seen cost estimates for the two Hinkley Point C reactors soar to $44bn (£34.98bn) and grid connection delayed until June 2027. South Korea’s state-owned utility, KEPCO, recently faced a record loss of $25bn (33.01trn won), with a 32% rise in net debt to an unprecedented $149bn.

The report also underscores the underestimated hidden costs associated with nuclear power, including decommissioning expenses and liabilities for accidents. Decommissioning costs in Germany, Italy and Lithuania, all nuclear phase-out countries, were estimated to be orders of magnitude higher than international estimates. Meanwhile, the Japanese Government estimated the cost of the 2011 Fukushima accidents at an astonishing $223bn (Y32.62trn) – the largest in the world.

Nuclear finances are even more alarming when compared with renewable alternatives. Renewable energy continues to outpace nuclear power, with total investment in non-hydro renewable electricity capacity reaching a record $495bn in 2022, 14-times the investment in nuclear power plant construction. Wind and solar facilities alone generated 28% more electricity than their nuclear counterparts, accounting for 11.7% of global electricity generation, compared with nuclear’s 9.2%.

In terms of LCOE, the report highlights that nuclear power can be nearly four-times the LCOE of onshore wind at a discount rate of 10%. In the US, unsubsidised solar and wind, with rapidly declining firming costs, have a combined cost of $45–140 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in comparison with new nuclear at a mean $180/MWh.

Uncertain future for global nuclear industry

The global nuclear industry confronts an uncertain future, paired with concerning new developments in the sector.

In the report, one country stood out for going against the current as it continues to dominate the global nuclear market – Russia.

While China leads in the domestic number of reactors under construction with 23 ongoing, Russia dominates the international market with 24 units under construction, including 19 in seven other countries. Russia has also brought on new technology, notably developing the first and only floating nuclear power plant in the world.

However, according to the report, construction delays plague many Russian projects, with 93% of ongoing constructions taking place in Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) or by NWS-controlled companies abroad.

In addition, both China and Russia have been tied to recent revelations about cyberattacks on Sellafield, a nuclear site located on the Cumbrian coast in the UK, by groups with close ties to the two countries. The investigation raised eyebrows about the state of cybersecurity for nuclear sites.

The report also notes that Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have not seen significant progress in the past year, with no units under construction in the western world. The most advanced project, based in the US and involving NuScale, terminated in November 2023 due to a 75% increase in the cost estimate. Canada, nevertheless, plans to build four SMRs in Ontario, arguing that they will contribute C$15.3bn ($11.25bn) to Canada’s gross domestic product.

In conclusion, the WNISR paints a sobering picture for the global nuclear power industry as it grapples with economic challenges, national policy shifts and the dominance of renewable energy alternatives. As the world transitions towards cleaner and more economically viable energy sources, nuclear power finds itself at a crossroads.

Despite all this, recent announcements at the COP28 summit demonstrate the industry’s efforts to turn things around. While the US, Canada, France, Japan and UK backed the global nuclear supply chain, planning investments to improve uranium enrichment and conversion capacity, US Special Climate Envoy John Kerry launched an international engagement plan to advance nuclear fusion, saying the technology will become vital in the energy transition.

There have also been new developments in international cooperation with the UK and US signing a partnership to develop nuclear fusion technology and the UK and South Korea agreeing to strengthen their cooperation on civil nuclear power including large-scale, small-scale and advanced reactors, decommissioning and waste management, and supply chains.

Public and political debate over nuclear energy has resurfaced due to these strains.

As of mid-2023, polling by Forsa showed that 54% of Germans opposed restarting nuclear plants, while 38% were in favor—a marked increase for the pro-nuclear camp, mainly among younger and more urban respondents, reflecting heightened worries over energy prices and security after the Ukraine invasion.

Nonetheless, anti-nuclear positions remain strong, especially among Greens voters and older demographics.

No major political party currently advocates for reversing the phaseout .

Title:

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

From a technical and environmental standpoint, decommissioning Germany’s nuclear facilities is a long-term, expensive undertaking.

All spent nuclear fuel now goes into interim onsite storage.

The selection of a permanent deep geological repository for high-level waste is ongoing, with a target for final site choice by 2031.

As yet, no deep repository is operational, and the costs and risks involved in decommissioning and long-term waste management remain key arguments against further nuclear development in current government policy .

Internationally, Germany’s opposition to nuclear complicates European Union energy and climate efforts.

Many EU countries—most notably France—see nuclear as vital for decarbonization and want it counted as “green” in EU investment and taxonomy regulations.

Title:

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

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

Link copied

Macron wields 'tools to set EU agenda'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it is not Berlin who disapproves of the proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Germany’s outright rejection (citing unresolved risks and unsolved waste disposal) underpins persistent tensions and hinders unified EU policy on the energy transition .

Cross-border electricity trade increasingly shapes the European market, with Germany now more reliant on nuclear-powered imports from its neighbors in times of renewable shortfall .

In summary, the phaseout of nuclear in Germany produced clear trade-offs.

The advantages included a response to population safety concerns, a reduction in direct nuclear accident risks, and a commitment to phasing out radioactive waste production over the very long run.

Disadvantages have been manifest in the rise in CO2 emissions (at least in the short and medium term), higher and volatile electricity prices for consumers and businesses, increased reliance on fossil fuels and imports, and heightened vulnerability to global energy shocks—particularly evident post-Ukraine.

Title:

Content: World Vision: Europe 's lack of energy, no operation, aid to Ukraine may become empty talk
July 15, 2022 00: 04
Eastern Network Television
More News Clips
After the Russian army claimed to occupy the Luhansk Oblast in Ukraine, the attack slowed down, and the Kiev government began a public debate.
Ukrainian Defense Minister Leonid Leznikov said that President Zelensky has ordered the assembly of millions of troops equipped with Western weapons, which will soon recover the southern territory from Russia, and called on the West to continue to "water" aid.
On the other hand, Europe continues to emerge as the negative impact of the full range of sanctions imposed by the United States on Russia continues to emerge, and many are mired in the energy crisis, and inflation has caused everything to become expensive, causing the resentment of the European people to rise to a boiling point.
As energy prices continue to be high, Russia will temporarily suspend the supply of natural gas to Germany for 10 days on the Nord Stream 1 pipeline.
Previously, Canada refused to return the Nord Stream 1 gas turbine sent by the Siemens subsidiary to Russia on the grounds of sanctions, which caused the latter to sharply reduce natural gas supply.
Germany is worried that if Nord Stream 1 continues to close after the annual review, it will paralyze domestic heavy industry and insufficient natural gas reserves to meet winter demand.
Despite Zelensky's objections, the Germans continued to head hard to retrieve parts of the Nord Stream pipeline from Canada.
European countries obviously did not expect that the Russian-Ukrainian war would cause such a big problem for energy supply.
Under the severe shortage of natural gas supply, Germany relies on natural gas production industry can only struggle to survive, and some are even more lifeless.
The Netherlands, which plans to stop importing Russian natural gas this year, in addition to the road blockage demonstrations caused by domestic farmers due to the emission reduction plan, and recently fell into an unprecedented energy crisis due to Germany's intention to completely shut down the nuclear power plant, can only beg Berlin to extend the operation of the nuclear power unit.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, most of the European people supported the government's punitive measures against Russia.
But the theory is very full, the reality is very bones, with the protracted war, coupled with soaring prices and soaring inflation, Europeans are gradually disgusted with the Russian-Ukrainian war, and some people are dissatisfied with the government's sacrifice of their own interests and blindly follow US policy.
According to a survey by financial bloggers, 59% of Europeans say they are unwilling to pay the price for defending democracy in Ukraine.
In Hamburg, Germany, the local government housed Ukrainian refugees in luxury apartments in the city center, at a cost of €3,600 per month per apartment, paid by the government.
Some reporters teased that this building, more than 100 meters high, is becoming the grave of the German taxpayer.
The Scottish government has suspended the intake of Ugandan refugees for three months due to a lack of suitable housing.
From the country and even the people, Europe is gradually tired of the Russian-Ukrainian war, and the Kiev government may only hope that the United States will do more and better in the future.

While grid reliability has thus far been preserved, the shift placed financial and industrial strain on segments of the German economy and reduced flexibility in meeting rapid decarbonization goals.

The nuclear debate is not settled: recent polling shows rising (but still minority) support for reconsideration, driven by energy security anxieties.

Decommissioning and waste remain technical and political hurdles, and Germany’s choice continues to reverberate across Europe, both in energy trade and in debates over what defines “green” or sustainable power.