Germany’s phase-out of nuclear energy, known as “Atomausstieg,” is based on decades of public opposition to nuclear power, primarily due to concerns over radioactive waste and safety.

This sentiment intensified after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, prompting then-Chancellor Angela Merkel to accelerate the closure of nuclear plants, pledging a full exit by 2022.

Opponents of nuclear power in Germany, including the influential Green Party, view nuclear energy as incompatible with sustainability, preferring to pursue renewables for a carbon-neutral future .

Before the phase-out, nuclear power contributed between 12 and 15 percent of Germany’s total electricity supply.

By 2021, the last six reactors still accounted for about 12 percent of electricity generation, while renewables made up 41 percent, coal 28 percent, and gas 15 percent.

Thus, nuclear was a significant and stable source within a diverse energy mix, helping offset fossil fuel emissions prior to its removal .

The withdrawal from nuclear energy has had major implications for Germany’s energy market.

In the absence of nuclear generation, coal-fired power saw an increase, counteracting some emissions gains from renewables and resulting in higher short-term carbon emissions.

The shift exacerbated concerns over grid reliability, as the country now relies more heavily on variable renewable output and energy imports, including from nations with nuclear-based power systems.

Simultaneously, electricity prices for consumers and industry have risen to among the highest in Europe, driven by policy surcharges for renewables, structural changes in the grid, and volatility in energy markets.

The need for expanded transmission and balancing also increased costs and logistical complexity.

Occasionally, rare power outages and fears of industrial relocation due to uncompetitive electricity prices have emerged in public debate, highlighting the economic risks associated with the phase-out .

The geopolitical shock of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 presented further challenges.

Germany’s historical reliance on Russian natural gas was abruptly exposed, leading to a crisis as natural gas prices soared and electricity costs surged up to six times pre-crisis levels by mid-2022.

In response, Germany sought to diversify imports by constructing LNG terminals and was compelled to burn more coal in the short-term, despite climate goals.

Although the government temporarily allowed the last nuclear reactors to operate until April 2023 as an emergency measure, it reaffirmed commitment to the phase-out soon after, underlining the preference for renewables over nuclear as the path to energy security and carbon neutrality .

The transition has forced Germany to delay planned coal phase-outs and increase energy imports to ensure stable supply.

Some of these imports ironically come from neighboring countries’ nuclear plants.

While the government guarantees security of supply, the strategy relies on rapidly expanding renewable generation, targeting 80 percent renewables by 2030 as the solution for future price and supply stability.

Critics argue that persistent dependence on fossil fuels and imports in the meantime undermines emissions and security objectives .

Politically, the issue remains divisive.

The ruling coalition is split: the business-oriented Free Democratic Party (FDP) has supported keeping reactors online longer, but the Greens and Social Democratic Party (SPD) insist on a swift phase-out, rejecting nuclear as a viable or rapid solution.

Their arguments cite prohibitive costs, lengthy construction times, and a foundational belief in a renewable-led transition.

Despite economic pressures and public concern over affordability and supply, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government has maintained opposition to nuclear, emphasizing renewables as both strategic and essential .

Notably, public attitudes have shifted in response to recent energy crises.

Polling from August 2022 revealed that 67 percent of Germans supported extending the lifespan of existing nuclear plants by five years, and 41 percent favored building new reactors.

This demonstrates a significant change compared to historically anti-nuclear sentiment; nonetheless, the government remains firm in not pursuing nuclear’s return, arguing that new construction would not be timely enough to address present needs or reduce costs in the near term .

Germany’s nuclear exit stands largely alone among advanced economies; most other European nations are reconsidering their approach to nuclear or investing in new reactors to meet decarbonization and security goals.

German policymakers defend their path by stressing public safety, waste management challenges, and confidence in the scalability of renewables.

Nonetheless, robust debate persists about grid reliability, energy affordability, industrial competitiveness, and whether renewable expansion can keep up with demand and geopolitical risks.

Sceptics point to the environmental and economic trade-offs seen in the short-term, particularly the increased use of coal and rising costs, while proponents insist these are temporary growing pains on the way to a climate-neutral, secure energy future .

In conclusion, Germany’s move away from nuclear energy was motivated by strong public and political opposition to nuclear power, intensified by high-profile disasters and concerns over waste.

The policy has delivered both expected advantages—such as greater investment in renewables—and disadvantages, including increased coal use, costlier and less reliable electricity, and increased reliance on imports.

The Russian-Ukrainian war amplified these vulnerabilities, at least in the short term.

Public and industrial pressure to reconsider nuclear has grown, but the government remains committed to its phase-out and renewable energy goals, making Germany a singular case in the European energy debate .

Germany’s phase-out of nuclear energy, known as “Atomausstieg,” is based on decades of public opposition to nuclear power, primarily due to concerns over radioactive waste and safety.

Title:

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

This sentiment intensified after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, prompting then-Chancellor Angela Merkel to accelerate the closure of nuclear plants, pledging a full exit by 2022.

Title:

Content: Three nuclear-fired power plants will be taken off the grid in Germany on Friday as part of the country's plan to end atomic power.

"The nuclear phaseout makes our country safer and helps to avoid radioactive waste," said Federal Environment and Nuclear Safety Minister Steffi Lemke.

"It is now essential to ... advance the search for a final repository for high-level radioactive waste as well as permanent solutions for low- and medium-level radioactive waste," the environment ministry said.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel speeded up the phaseout following the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan.

Friday's shutdown affects power plants in Brokdorf in Schleswig-Holstein, Grohnde in Lower Saxony and Gundremmingen C in Bavaria.

Germany's remaining three nuclear plants — Emsland in Lower Saxony, Isar 2 in Bavaria and Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Württemberg — will be closed by the end of 2022 "at the latest," the environment ministry said.

"Since 2011, Germany has been drawing a line under a highly problematic technology in an orderly, reliable process," Lemke said.

Nuclear accounts for about 10 percent of Germany's electricity production. The shutdown has sparked criticism as Germany will have to dramatically ramp up renewable energy and has also increased its reliance on highly polluting coal-fired power.

"Security of supply in Germany continues to be guaranteed," said Robert Habeck, federal climate and economy minister. He added that reliable and "sustainably generated electricity" is a "central requirement for aligning our economy and industry toward climate neutrality."

That stance puts Berlin at loggerheads with France, where nuclear is the largest element of its energy mix (and also helps supply Germany).

EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton said in September that existing nuclear plants, which provide low-carbon electricity essential to the green transition, can be kept running "for two, five, 10 years," adding: "Why deprive ourselves of this production capacity?"

France is planning to scale down the share of nuclear in its electricity mix from 75 percent to 50 percent by 2035, but President Emmanuel Macron said in November that France "will restart the construction of nuclear reactors" while "continuing to develop renewable energies."

Macron also said France will invest €1 billion into research and development, notably into small modular reactors.

Belgium recently decided to shut down all its nuclear power plants by 2025, but plans to invest €100 million in new generation nuclear reactors and research.

More from ... Louise Guillot

Opponents of nuclear power in Germany, including the influential Green Party, view nuclear energy as incompatible with sustainability, preferring to pursue renewables for a carbon-neutral future .

Title:

Content: Nuclear research and development: sustainable investment or a “green drift ” scam?
Photo Credit: AP / Tachih Images
What we want you to know is
In the past few decades, nuclear power has already declined, but the sunset industry is now repackaging itself with “green energy ” and trying to return to the market with the image of“ climate savior. ”
Text: Ho Wai Hoon (Project Director, Centre for Greater China Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong), Lo Chin-yi (Co-Director, Centre for Greater China Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong)
At the beginning of the year 2022, nuclear energy has become the focus of international debate on energy strategy.
A few hours before the start of the New Year, the European Commission proposed a draft to classify natural gas and nuclear energy investment projects as “green investments ”, arguing that they are a means to help the transition to a future based on renewable energy and help Europe reduce carbon emissions, so they can be included in the“ Sustainable Finance Classification ” – a “Classification ” that will be introduced in 2020 to integrate environmental, social and governance factors into the investment decision-making system. Relevant economic investment and financing activities provide a set of standards, on the one hand, to promote the sustainable financial development of the market, and at the same time to eliminate the company's" green drift "behavior, is the first case of a global international organization.
Differences within the European Union
However, whether nuclear energy is “green investment ” has been divided in the EU.
In the context of the international community ’ s emphasis on sustainable development and climate change, green finance has become an important strategic tool, and proponents of nuclear energy believe that it is the most effective, stable and cheapest option to generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases.
Under the pressure of carbon reduction, many countries need to reduce the proportion of coal and fossil fuel power generation, and nuclear power is the best alternative energy source.
As a result, France, which generates more than 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, announced last November that it would restart the construction of new nuclear reactors.
President Emmanuel Macron has stressed that nuclear energy will help France achieve its energy independence and its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.
Some developing countries in Eastern Europe that are still highly dependent on coal and fossil fuels for power generation, such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, are hoping to develop nuclear power in order to meet the requirements of rising electricity demand and carbon reduction, and it is clear that carbon neutrality cannot be achieved without nuclear energy.
The anti-nuclear faction, led by Germany, plus Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal, strongly opposed the EU's proposal to include nuclear energy in the "classification law", arguing that it does not comply with the principle of "no major harm" and is only "greenwashing".
Since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, many countries have witnessed the huge and far-reaching consequences of nuclear accidents for people and the environment, and have proposed energy policies to completely abolish nuclear energy.
In Germany, for example, after the Fukushima nuclear accident, it decided to close all nuclear power plants by 2022 and vigorously develop renewable energy.
Germany ’ s last nuclear power plants are set to close by the end of this year.
In fact, the global share of total nuclear power generation has steadily declined from nearly 20% in 1996 to 10% in 2020.
In the past few decades, nuclear power has already declined, but the sunset industry is now repackaging with “green energy ” and trying to return to the market with the image of“ climate savior ”.
The focus of the debate on nuclear energy has shifted from the most basic safety issues and how to properly dispose of nuclear waste to the agenda on climate change, energy supply security and economic impact.
Is nuclear energy worth investing in?
When we talk about nuclear energy, how can safety not be at the root of our concern?
Even if security issues are put aside first, will it solve climate change in time?
Is it really worth investing in?
One of the main reasons for the decline of the global nuclear energy industry is that it takes too long to build.
Of the 53 aircraft currently under construction around the world, the average construction time is 7 years, and 31 of them have project delays, the longest is even more than 36 years.
EDF announced this month that the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plant, which was expected to be completed by the end of this year, is being postponed to the second quarter of next year due to “yet another delay ” due to the epidemic.
Say “again ” because it has been postponed many times; the nuclear power plant started as early as 2007, when it was claimed that it could be completed in five years, and the result has been delayed for more than a decade, and it has not been finished.
The second reason why nuclear power is deterring investors is the rising cost of construction.
The estimated cost of a nuclear power plant in France was €3.3 billion, but it has since risen to almost four times, and now stands at €12.7 billion.
Thierry Breton, executive director of internal market affairs of the European Union, pointed out that from now to 2030, the existing nuclear power plants alone need 50 billion euros of investment; the new generation of nuclear power plants need 500 billion euros.
When we thought that technological progress could reduce costs, the truth turned out to be the opposite.
Investing in nuclear energy to save the planet?
As we all know, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has been obsessed with climate investment in recent years, and Breakthrough Energy Ventures, one of the founders, hopes to bring “breakthrough ” green energy technology.
He believes nuclear power is the ultimate solution to the climate problem. He has invested in Terra Power ’ s “new generation of nuclear energy ” for many years, and called on the U.S. government to invest in the“ advanced ” nuclear energy industry, “provide new funding, update relevant regulations, and show investors that it is serious. ”
Bill Gates has repeatedly applied to Congress for research funding, and has received more than $250 million in research grants from the Department of Energy.
Of course, the cost of construction of TerraPower ’ s new generation nuclear reactor is estimated to be as high as $1 billion, and congressional sponsorship is a big deal.
However, this nuclear power technology has not been successfully developed, whether it is "breakthrough" or just heard the sound of the staircase; close to the fire, looking at distant water to save, the earth can wait how many more decades?
“All investments involve risk, and the price of investment products can go up or down, or even become worthless.
Bill Gates, the business wizard, has certainly not forgotten to provide you with investment risk tips and disclaimers. He recently claimed at the SOSV “Climate Technology Summit ” that he does not need climate technology to make money, emphasizing that new technology requires a lot of investment but is not sure of a return.
So, is investing in nuclear energy really saving the planet, or is it just another “WeChat woman ” investment scam?
Editorial responsibility: Alvin
Edited by: Alex
(Join the critical review network member) Daily wonderful articles sent directly to your mailbox, each week exclusive editorial selection, current affairs selection, art weekly newspaper and other special electronic newspapers.
You can also leave comments with authors, journalists, and editors to discuss the content of the article.
Join now for free!
Guess you like it.
Tags:

Before the phase-out, nuclear power contributed between 12 and 15 percent of Germany’s total electricity supply.

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

By 2021, the last six reactors still accounted for about 12 percent of electricity generation, while renewables made up 41 percent, coal 28 percent, and gas 15 percent.

Title:

Content: Germany will close three of its remaining six nuclear plants on the last day of 2021, and the remaining three will close by the end of this year.
The six nuclear plants accounted for about 12 percent of the country ’ s electricity generation in 2021, nearly 41 percent of renewables, less than 28 percent of coal, and about 15 percent of natural gas.
It is believed that without low-cost nuclear energy, German electricity prices will continue to rise.
# Germany # Closing # Nuclear Power Plant # Last Day # Remaining

Thus, nuclear was a significant and stable source within a diverse energy mix, helping offset fossil fuel emissions prior to its removal .

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

The withdrawal from nuclear energy has had major implications for Germany’s energy market.

In the absence of nuclear generation, coal-fired power saw an increase, counteracting some emissions gains from renewables and resulting in higher short-term carbon emissions.

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

The shift exacerbated concerns over grid reliability, as the country now relies more heavily on variable renewable output and energy imports, including from nations with nuclear-based power systems.

Title:

Content: Energy crisis, nuclear power is back in favor of all countries
PARIS (AFP) - As global energy import costs soar and the climate crisis rages, countries around the world are struggling to find alternative energy sources, 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 get rid of its dependence on Russian oil and gas.
Some experts argue that nuclear power should not be an option under consideration, but others argue that the world ’ s energy mix must remain nuclear in the face of so many crises.
One of the countries that is reconsidering nuclear power is Japan, which shut down many of its nuclear reactors amid safety concerns following the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
But Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida this week called for efforts to revive nuclear power and build new nuclear plants.
Other countries that wanted to get rid of nuclear power have also abandoned their plans, at least in the short term.
For example, within a month of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Belgium delayed the implementation of its 2025 nuclear abolition plan by 10 years.
Although nuclear power currently accounts for only 10% of the world ’ s electricity generation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last September revised its estimates of nuclear power production, the first 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 nuclear plants by the end of 2022.
As nuclear power can replace coal-fired power, and as demand for electricity has soared, countries such as China, the Czech Republic, India and Poland have all expressed interest in developing nuclear infrastructure, and China now has the largest number of reactors.
The United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands have similar ideas; even President Joe Biden ’ s proposed investment plan encourages nuclear power.
Experts from the UN ’ s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledge that the use of nuclear energy “may be limited by social preferences ” as the risk of a nuclear disaster and the issue of how to safely dispose of nuclear waste remain divided.
But some countries still oppose the use of nuclear power, such as New Zealand, and the European Union has hotly debated the question of whether nuclear power can be considered green energy.

Simultaneously, electricity prices for consumers and industry have risen to among the highest in Europe, driven by policy surcharges for renewables, structural changes in the grid, and volatility in energy markets.

Title:

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

The need for expanded transmission and balancing also increased costs and logistical complexity.

Occasionally, rare power outages and fears of industrial relocation due to uncompetitive electricity prices have emerged in public debate, highlighting the economic risks associated with the phase-out .

Title:

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

The geopolitical shock of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 presented further challenges.

Title:

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

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

Nuclear power has long been contentious in Germany.

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

Closure of three nuclear plant's history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided another plot twist.

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

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

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

Germany’s historical reliance on Russian natural gas was abruptly exposed, leading to a crisis as natural gas prices soared and electricity costs surged up to six times pre-crisis levels by mid-2022.

In response, Germany sought to diversify imports by constructing LNG terminals and was compelled to burn more coal in the short-term, despite climate goals.

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

Although the government temporarily allowed the last nuclear reactors to operate until April 2023 as an emergency measure, it reaffirmed commitment to the phase-out soon after, underlining the preference for renewables over nuclear as the path to energy security and carbon neutrality .

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.

The transition has forced Germany to delay planned coal phase-outs and increase energy imports to ensure stable supply.

Some of these imports ironically come from neighboring countries’ nuclear plants.

While the government guarantees security of supply, the strategy relies on rapidly expanding renewable generation, targeting 80 percent renewables by 2030 as the solution for future price and supply stability.

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

Critics argue that persistent dependence on fossil fuels and imports in the meantime undermines emissions and security objectives .

Politically, the issue remains divisive.

Title:

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

The ruling coalition is split: the business-oriented Free Democratic Party (FDP) has supported keeping reactors online longer, but the Greens and Social Democratic Party (SPD) insist on a swift phase-out, rejecting nuclear as a viable or rapid solution.

Their arguments cite prohibitive costs, lengthy construction times, and a foundational belief in a renewable-led transition.

Title:

Content: My channel
* Drag categories can be customized sorting
Recover Default OK
Setup
Alert
Chinese go online for 3 months to earn only 20 yuan a day in the United States "no regrets"
Korean Star buys first class "reduced economy class" Delta Airlines to apologize after refusing to refund the difference
Germany becomes ‘ sick man of Europe ’ again
Germany, which was labeled the “sick man of Europe ” in the late 1990s and early 2000s due to insufficient economic growth and high unemployment, has recently been labeled again, citing high inflation and a sluggish economy, after nearly two decades of efforts to reform the labor market.
Germany faces “sticky inflation, ” which is far worse than the rest of Europe, and three quarters of stagnation or recession.
That ’ s why the International Monetary Fund estimates that Germany will be the only economy in recession this year, with a 0.3% recession, while the 20 euro-currency countries, including Germany, will grow by an average of 0.9%.
For Germany, a prolonged recession would be disappointing; the economy grew by an average of 2% a year in the decade following the 2008 and 2009 financial crises, mostly with budget surpluses and booming exports.
According to Stefan Kooths, head of research at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Germany has a series of individual problems rather than an overall illness, some of which are short-lived, such as China ’ s reduced exports from Germany due to a sluggish economy, but others, such as rapid aging and high corporate tax rates, are structural.
Some observers have labeled Germany the “sick man of Europe. ”
Koos said the label wasn ’ t all wrong at this time, but the cause was different.
What is the problem?
The “pessimism ” at home and abroad.
Germany ’ s inflation rate is higher than most of its European neighbors, with consumer prices up 6.2% in July from the same period in 2022, well above the euro zone average of 5.3%; Thomas Obst, a senior economist at the Cologne Institute for Economic Research, said lingering sticky inflation is eroding Germans ’ purchasing power and helping households with pessimism; Low private and public spending led to a recession.
To curb inflation, the European Central Bank has raised its main interest rate to a record high of 3.75%, driving up borrowing costs and hitting the residential construction sector, with the ifo Institute survey finding that more than 40% of construction companies surveyed said they were short of orders, up from 10.8% last year, said Klaus Wohlrabe, the institute ’ s head of research. The rapid increase in interest and construction costs has hindered the development of new businesses.
German powerhouses Volkswagen and Siemens also suffered; industrial production fell 1.7 percent in June from a year earlier.
According to S & P Global, just as Germany gradually loosened restrictions on the outbreak, in August German business activity, including services and manufacturing, fell to a record level since May 2020.
Carsten Brzeski, global head of macro economic research at ING, said that in the past 12 months, German industrial orders were empty, and exports to China were much smaller than before the outbreak.
China is Germany ’ s fourth largest export market, but it faces many economic problems, including slowing growth and record youth unemployment, which have reduced demand for German goods, Buzensky said, adding that China has become Germany ’ s competitor and demand for German goods has fallen sharply.
Ten Years of Unchanged Competitiveness
Brzezki believes that Germany ’ s current situation is closely related to the supply chain problems caused by the epidemic and the Russia-Ukraine war, but many other problems are more serious and self-caused.
Brzezki said Germany has not made any economic reforms in the last decade, and is now aware of the problem, lagging behind other countries in terms of digitalization, infrastructure, or international competitiveness.
Energy costs are particularly problematic for energy-consuming manufacturing.
Natural gas prices in Europe surged to record highs last summer and have fallen sharply in recent months, but a possible strike at an Australian liquefied natural gas plant has raised global supply concerns and prices have rebounded; in addition, Obuster said, rising energy prices caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war have hit a highly industrialized country such as Germany particularly hard.
Economists said that although Germany emerged from last year ’ s energy crisis better than expected, it is still vulnerable to natural gas supply shocks, in part because Germany has shut down nuclear power production altogether and has less alternative energy than its neighbors such as France.
Schmittin: The tide of pessimism is over
The man who labels Germany the “sick man of Europe ” is the economist Holger Schmieding, who first proposed the title in 1998 and now believes that the current wave of pessimism in Germany is a bit overdone.
Schmidin, now chief economist at Berenberg, wrote in a research note that Germany is now much stronger than when it was first called Europe ’ s Sick Man, has record employment, strong public finances, is more resilient to shocks, and the government is taking the necessary steps to reform immigration laws to address labor shortages and speed up infrastructure planning and approval processes.
Germany has shown its ability to react quickly.
A liquefied natural gas receiving station was approved and built within a few months last year to get rid of Russia ’ s energy dependence.
Schmittin believes that Germany has a strong ability to adapt, thanks to a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises flexible to the changing competitive situation.
Schmittin, who labeled Germany a sick man more than 20 years ago, now sees Germany as the world champion in the Invisible Championship.
German natural gas inflation
The last one.
China 's car market "gold nine silver ten" price war Tesla the highest price reduction of $30,000
Extended reading
Super-popular
More >

Despite economic pressures and public concern over affordability and supply, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government has maintained opposition to nuclear, emphasizing renewables as both strategic and essential .

Title:

Content: How decades of complacency have left Germany facing a cold, dark winter

Betrayed by its own elite, the country is at risk of social unrest

Germany is facing its worst winter for 75 years. The impending catastrophe risks crippling its economy, sweeping away its government and bringing chaos to the heart of Europe.

In 1946-47, perhaps half a million Germans starved or froze to death in their ruined cities. Older Germans still shudder at the memory of the “Hunger Winter”. Some blamed the Nazis, others the Allied occupation. In fact, the British sent food, fuel and clothing they could ill afford to spare themselves.

Now Europe’s largest economy is heading for a winter of recession, rationing and possible blackouts. This time, though, there is nobody to blame except Germany’s complacent – and in some cases corrupt – political establishment.

As Vladimir Putin chokes off Russian gas supplies – already down to a fifth of their pre-war level – by closing the Nord Stream 1 pipeline for “maintenance” yet again next week, the lamps are going out for Olaf Scholz and his “traffic light” coalition of Social Democrats, Liberal and Greens.

'Autumn of rage'

The Bundesbank has been predicting a recession and the latest figures show that business activity is already contracting. Inflation, which hit 8.5 per cent last month, is expected to keep rising along with the rest of the eurozone, probably into double figures.

Yet for historical reasons Germans won’t just accept high inflation as a consequence of the war in Ukraine. The world remembers the hyperinflation that undermined the Weimar Republic a century ago; only older Germans recall the hyperinflation after the Second World War, which lasted longer. For three years Germany’s only stable currency was American cigarettes. No wonder Germans have been allergic to inflation ever since.

It is true that Germans are not yet demanding big pay rises or going on strike. But energy prices are already rising exponentially. The country's one-year ahead power price has skyrocketed to almost €1,000 per megawatt-hour, a jump of more than 720pc since the start of 2022. If Putin turns off the tap, bringing the mighty German economy to a juddering halt this winter, there is a real danger of civil unrest.

Intelligence officials are warning that extremist organisations, such as the neo-Nazis of Combat 18, are planning an “autumn of rage”. As a foretaste, in the old Prussian town of Neuruppin near Berlin, there were ugly scenes this month as Scholz was shouted down by far-Left and far-Right protesters.

But the panic and indignation now brewing go far beyond the ranks of the “unteachable” extremists.

Germans sense that unaccountable elites have ceded control of their country’s destiny to Putin. The more they are must pay him for Russian gas, the bigger his war chest with which to perpetrate genocide in Ukraine.

Forcing Germany to be complicit in a colossal crime against humanity is a diabolical twist in the vengeance that Putin is now exacting upon Europe for backing Ukraine. According to The Economist’s Christian Odendahl, at present prices Germany will need to spend 8.4 per cent of its GDP on gas. Hitherto it was just 1 per cent.

Already preparations are underway for central heating to be rationed or even switched off, forcing residents to seek shelter in schools or town halls.

The country is scrambling to reduce its reliance on gas with a campaign to make households cut back, and a massive national effort has brought gas storage levels up to 81 per cent full.

Food prices, meanwhile, rose at a rate of nearly 15 per cent in July. Those who fear being unable to afford to heat their homes or feed their families are prey to angst and anger.

Actions have consequences... or do they?

Few foresaw the Russian invasion of Ukraine, let alone its devastating consequences for Europe. But it is dawning on the German people that the seeds of the present crisis were sown over the quarter of a century from 1998 to 2022, under Angela Merkel and her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder.

These were the years of plenty for Germany, when Berlin dominated the European Union, ensuring that its export-led economy benefited from the single currency while loading the social costs on to its poorer neighbours. But Germany’s dirty secret was cheap Russian energy.

Under Schröder – who went on to become one of Putin’s “useful idiots” – German industry began to abandon its postwar reliance on coal and nuclear energy in favour of Russian gas and renewables.

In 2011, after the Fukushima accident, Mrs Merkel announced that all German nuclear power plants would be closed down. It was a pyrrhic victory for the Greens but backed by all the major parties. Public opinion had been turned against nuclear energy in the 1980s by the Soviet-funded “peace movement”. Now the Greens are the keystone of the Scholz coalition.

Even in the country’s present predicament, Robert Habeck, the Green Vice-Chancellor and Environment Minister, is refusing to reverse the exit from nuclear to alleviate the energy crisis, though it is still possible over time to reactivate a number of nuclear power stations.

Yet Berlin is demanding that 26 other EU member states make huge cuts in energy use this winter to help Germany – to the irritation of the Spanish and others, who don’t depend on Russian gas and recall lectures from Berlin during the eurozone crisis about actions having consequences.

For decades, the Kremlin acted as Germany’s geopolitical drug-dealer, tempting Berlin to become ever more addicted to the energy that fuelled its manufacturing, pharmaceutical and chemical factories. Now that the Germans are about to go cold turkey, they are discovering how cynically the national interest was betrayed by their politicians and captains of industry.

With Schröder as its salesman, a new Nord Stream 2 pipeline was built under the Baltic Sea — with the blessing of Mrs Merkel, who fended off Anglo-American pressure to cancel what was regarded as a threat to European energy security.

Last year, as Russian tanks massed on the Ukrainian border and Nato warned of imminent invasion, Gazprom redoubled its efforts to keep the flagship project on track.

The Russian energy giant poured €192 million (£163m) into an environmental foundation set up by Manuela Schwesig, the Social Democratic premier of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — the state that hosted Nord Stream 2 and stood to gain most. She proceeded to denounce the US for opposing the pipeline, claiming that American sanctions were purely self-interested.

Putin’s stooges almost succeeded in persuading Scholz to defy his Nato allies. He dithered until the eve of February’s invasion before shelving Nord Stream 2.

Now, after six months of Europe’s worst war since 1945, some German politicians are once again calling for the pipeline to be opened “so that people do not have to freeze in winter and our industry does not suffer serious damage”, as Wolfgang Kubicki, Vice-President of the German Parliament, puts it.

Meanwhile Ms Schwesig has just been re-elected as leader of the Social Democrats in her state by a large majority. Schröder has yet to be expelled from the party, let alone sanctioned.

Germany’s Achilles’ heel

This is the measure of Germany’s abject reliance, not only on Russian energy, but on the Russian state. For Putin, gas and oil were only ever a means to an end. He has always wanted to reduce the Germans — towards whom Russians have traditionally had an inferiority complex — to a status of servility.

Stalin only succeeded in dividing Germany. Putin seeks to turn the entire Federal Republic into his client state — and thereby impose his will upon Europe.

With the unerring eye of the predator, Putin grasped that energy was Germany’s Achilles’ heel. A single plant of a single corporation, the headquarters of the chemical and pharmaceutical giant BASF at Ludwigshafen, uses as much energy as Denmark.

Over the last 25 years, Germany’s craving for cheap energy led it into an unequal relationship with Russia — what the philosopher Hegel called “the dialectic of master and slave”.

Putin saw that some German politicians could be bought (Schröder), others bamboozled (Merkel), and still others bullied (Scholz). Other EU countries followed the German example by relying heavily on Moscow for energy, influenced by the evasion and ambivalence that has characterised Berlin’s policy for decades.

Germany, whose economy is substantially larger than Britain’s, has given just £1 billion in military aid to Ukraine compared to the UK’s £3.5 billion. The United States has given ten times as much as the EU. Yet Ukraine is a European country under genocidal attack.

The reluctance to provoke Putin that still prevails in wide circles of the Federal Republic is rooted in exaggerated notions of Russian military power, economic importance and cultural pre-eminence.

German fatalism about Russia’s ability to absorb casualties and yet win ultimate victory reflects folk memories of the Eastern Front. But Putin, unlike Stalin, does not have a vast conscript army at his disposal, he does not enjoy technical superiority and he cannot afford the war of attrition that he has unleashed. Nor are the Russian people united against an invading force in defence of their homeland. Only in Berlin do they think this is another Stalingrad.

This historical myopia has much to do with the long-standing German habit of subsuming the other nations that made up the Soviet Union into Russia. To this day most Germans have no awareness of the fact that the Nazis killed millions of Ukrainian civilians and devastated their country.

Ironically, many artists, writers and musicians who have fled Ukraine have found refuge in Germany. One example is the composer Valentin Silvestrov, who fled to Berlin aged 84 with one suitcase, full of his manuscripts. Once there, he discovered that Ukrainian music was unknown in Germany. Now that Silvestrov’s works are being performed, including at the Proms in London, the Germans are slowly waking up to the presence of a greater living composer than any of their own.

Many ordinary Germans, like the British, instinctively warm to the Ukrainian cause. The difference is in leadership – or lack of it. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, unlike Boris Johnson or Liz Truss, has shown only lukewarm support for Kyiv and has been implicitly rebuked by President Zelensky.

Hamburger grilled

Although there is no suggestion that Scholz has been bribed to go easy on Russia, he himself has become embroiled in a corruption scandal. He is accused of helping M.M. Warburg & Co, Germany’s oldest and largest private bank, to avoid a €47 million fine in 2016, during his time as Finance Minister in the Merkel coalition.

The Hamburg-based bank is alleged to have made up to €300 million in a capital gains tax scam which came to light while Scholz was also mayor of the city state. Just as he finds himself facing an unexpectedly grim present and a positively terrifying future, his provincial past has returned to haunt him.

Last week the Chancellor was grilled by a committee of inquiry in Hamburg. The normally meticulous Scholz claimed not to remember any details about his meetings with Warburg’s former chief, Christian Olearius, who has now been charged with tax evasion. Germany’s safe pair of hands, whom millions had entrusted with the nation’s finances, is now accused of being cosy with tax-dodging bankers and being an unimpressive, even unreliable, witness.

In other ways, too, Scholz is failing to live up to the moral example set by the two great Social Democratic Chancellors of post-war Germany, Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt. At a joint press conference with Mahmoud Abbas in Berlin earlier this month, Scholz remained tight-lipped while the Palestinian leader delivered an anti-Semitic tirade, accusing Israel of committing “many Holocausts” against his people.

Schmidt, who concealed the fact he had a Jewish grandfather from the Nazis but as Chancellor was an outspoken philosemite, would not have been impressed by his fellow Hamburger Scholz. Nor would Brandt, who famously fell to his knees at the memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Not for decades has anti-Semitism been such a threat in Germany: in July, Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial was desecrated with swastikas. Now, as Putin’s myrmidons massacre and deport Ukrainians near the site of Nazi genocide, while a quarter of the Russian Jewish population has emigrated in anticipation of pogroms, Germany needs a leader who is not afraid to denounce anti-Semitism even at the cost of diplomatic niceties.

After less than a year in office, Scholz’s personal ratings are plumbing depths never seen during Mrs Merkel’s 16 years at the helm. As Germans brace themselves for unprecedented hardships in peacetime, they are led by a weak and indecisive Chancellor at the head of a fragile three-party coalition.

Post-heroic, post-patriotic

Wednesday’s visit to Kyiv by Boris Johnson – his third – to mark Ukraine’s Independence Day was hugely appreciated not only by Volodymyr Zelensky but by all Ukrainians. Yet it was a gesture of solidarity that did not occur – could not have occurred – to Olaf Scholz.

The German Chancellor’s only visit to the Ukrainian capital last June, accompanied by Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi, was an awkward, chilly affair that yielded little more than promises. This week, Scholz posted a short video message, concluding: “Our hearts are with you.” Ulrich Speck, a German foreign policy analyst, commented: “Hearts, yes. But not weapons.”

Johnson, by contrast, knows he is among friends in Kyiv – a friendship symbolised by Zelensky awarding him Ukraine’s highest honour, the Order of Liberty. It is impossible to imagine the lugubrious German Chancellor finding the Prime Minister’s pithy words: “While people [in the West] are paying energy bills, people in Ukraine are paying with blood.” Nor would Scholz echo him in declaring: “I believe Ukraine can and will win this war.”

For his part, Zelensky told his people that they had been “reborn” in the heat of war. “We used to say: ‘Peace’. Now we say: ‘Victory’,” he declared.

Highly educated Germans find it hard to empathise with such Churchillian sentiments. Jürgen Habermas, the eminence grise of German intellectuals, makes condescending comments about Ukraine as a primitive place, still captive to the nationalist illusions of the last century, unlike more sophisticated, “post-heroic” Germany. It doesn’t occur to the 93-year-old philosopher that without the heroism of its soldiers and civilians, Ukraine would by now have ceased to exist.

Prussian military prowess has long since given way to post-patriotic pusillanimity. Where Merkel and Scholz feared to tread and even Biden was hesitant, Johnson was the first to commit himself wholeheartedly to the cause and to visit war-torn Kyiv.

Many other nations – the Poles, the Baltic states, the Scandinavians and the Canadians among them – have been more supportive than the Germans, who owe Ukrainians the greatest moral debt.

Berlin boasts of handing out a handful of howitzers while dithering over clapped-out armoured vehicles. Meanwhile British arms and training, Turkish drones and American rocket artillery systems have proved decisive on the battlefield.

Sold down the Dnieper

Although the Scholz coalition officially sides with Ukraine, the unpalatable fact remains that Germany and its EU partners are financing Russian aggression by paying vast sums for Russian gas.

Will they stand up to Putin in Germany when the enormity of the ordeal ahead becomes clear to everybody? Will public opinion continue to back even the present feeble commitment, or will the voices calling for peace at the expense of Ukrainians prevail? It is all too believable that at some point, probably early next year when gas storage facilities are empty, Berlin – and Brussels – will open negotiations with the Kremlin, regardless of Kyiv’s wishes.

Yet it is then that the ghosts of the past may rise up to intervene in the present. The thought of Germans and Russians redrawing the map of Eastern Europe at the conference table sends shivers down the spines of every Pole, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and, of course, Ukrainian. On August 23, 1940, exactly 82 years ago this week, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, carving up Poland (which then included Lviv and other parts of present-day Ukraine) and the Baltic states between Russia and Germany. No German Chancellor wishes to be reminded of that precedent.

However, nor can Scholz risk presiding over an even deeper and more lasting recession than that caused by the Covid pandemic. Somehow he must steer a course between the Scylla of appeasing Putin and the Charybdis of economic ruin.

The tension between these positions is reflected in the tripartite coalition. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and the Greens are the hawks, Finance Minister Christian Lindner and his pro-business Free Democrats are the doves, while the Social Democrats are deeply divided. The party leadership leans towards Moscow, the rank and file towards Kyiv. This explains why Scholz never says that he wants Ukraine to win the war, merely that they must not lose it.

The opposition Christian Democrats are only slightly more united. They too have a large wing that privately favours a negotiated peace, represented by their pro-business leader Friedrich Merz, and a smaller but not insignificant group led by the foreign affairs expert Norbert Röntgen, who hope for a Ukrainian victory. Merz has papered over the cracks by focusing on a campaign to reverse his predecessor Mrs Merkel’s exit from nuclear energy.

Meanwhile, the “understanding Putin” lobby has the support of both the hard Left Die Linke and anti-immigration AfD parties. German public opinion has slowly tiptoed away from its initial admiration for Ukrainian resistance and towards a compromise peace.

That subtle shift could soon become an overwhelming tide, once Germans are required to make real sacrifices. Vladimir Putin, we may be sure, is counting on it.

From October, Scholz will impose a gas levy on consumers to compensate energy companies for the cost of replacing Russian gas supplies. Germany’s biggest energy company, Uniper, was bailed out in July to the tune of £12.5 billion; it is now claiming another £18.5 billion of levies.

This policy is bound to be unpopular, since it redistributes tens of billions from the poor to the rich — curious thinking for a government of the Left. But this is nothing compared to the prospect of protests sparked by a national shutdown caused, not by a deadly virus, but by Putin’s energy politics.

A change in the air?

Modern Germany has a volatile history of popular protest. It began with the revolution that toppled the Kaiser in 1918. The Nazis mobilised the masses to carry out their “national revolution” in 1933. A workers’ uprising in East Germany was crushed by Soviet tanks in 1953. Student protests brought about a cultural revolution in 1968. Uniquely bloodless and benign was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This was Germany’s finest hour.

The defiance that breached the Wall and sent the Soviet army home was a blessing, but the despair that Putin’s revenge may induce this winter will surely be a curse. Gas has given the Russian dictator coercive control over the German political class, which willingly acquiesced in its fate.

In Kyiv, Boris Johnson said: “I can tell you that we in the UK will not for one second give in to Putin’s blackmail.” Olaf Scholz is incapable of speaking like this — because he does not believe it. He has failed to frame the coming ordeal as a battle in which Germans must make sacrifices for their own liberty, not just Ukraine’s. People don’t mind his lack of charisma; they do mind facing a nightmarish winter with spineless hypocrisy at the helm.

Will it become so obvious by next spring that Scholz is unequal to the task that either he or his coalition are replaced? Can the centre of German politics hold — or are we about to see a terrible revolt of the masses against a discredited political establishment? It has happened before. It can happen again.

Daniel Johnson was the Telegraph’s correspondent in Germany and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. He is now the editor of TheArticle.

Notably, public attitudes have shifted in response to recent energy crises.

Polling from August 2022 revealed that 67 percent of Germans supported extending the lifespan of existing nuclear plants by five years, and 41 percent favored building new reactors.

This demonstrates a significant change compared to historically anti-nuclear sentiment; nonetheless, the government remains firm in not pursuing nuclear’s return, arguing that new construction would not be timely enough to address present needs or reduce costs in the near term .

Title:

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

Germany’s nuclear exit stands largely alone among advanced economies; most other European nations are reconsidering their approach to nuclear or investing in new reactors to meet decarbonization and security goals.

Title:

Content: The EU ’ s dilemma: is nuclear power a green energy?
| Deutsche Welle from Germany Introducing Germany | DW | 07.11.2021
1.
Inhalt
2.
Navigation
3.
Weitere Inhalte
4.
Metanavigation
5.
Suche
6.
Choose from 30 Languages
Advertisement
The political climate of the times
The EU ’ s dilemma: is nuclear power a green energy?
At the same time as the Glasgow Climate Summit, several European countries urged the European Commission to recognize nuclear power as a “sustainable ” energy source.
The issue has divided the EU.
10 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, will the European Union consider nuclear power a "green" energy source? As global representatives gather in Glasgow for a climate summit, the question leaves Europe in a dilemma.
Eight countries, including France and Poland, have called on the European Commission to recognize nuclear energy as a source of "sustainable development".
“Nuclear power is a green energy source, ” said Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which produces almost no carbon dioxide.
French President Emmanuel Macron shares this view.
Macron appears to have rediscovered nuclear power ahead of next April ’ s presidential election, when he recently announced that he would invest 1 billion euros in nuclear expansion.
At present, 70 percent of France's electricity consumption comes from nuclear power, the highest proportion in the world.
Carbon Reduction vs. Denuclearization
The French government said that without nuclear power, the EU would not be able to achieve its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 as planned.
According to EU diplomats, through intensive behind-the-scenes negotiations, France has persuaded most EU countries to accept nuclear energy as part of the EU ’ s “Sustainable Energy Classification Standard ”.
The standard, which will be published by the EU authorities in a few weeks, has attracted the attention of investors around the world.
If nuclear energy is indeed classified as “sustainable ”, it would be tantamount to recommending financial markets to invest in nuclear power projects.
Microsoft founder and investor Bill Gates also supports the development of nuclear energy.
Gates owns an investment firm called Breakthrough Energy, which funds so-called green technology ventures, including nuclear power.
EU renewable energy and fossil energy share the same
Eight countries, including France, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, have called on the European Commission to include not only nuclear power plants and nuclear waste storage facilities, but also natural gas power plants.
However, the French environment ministry stressed that the latter should only be limited to the “transitional phase ” until 2030, and that only the“ most efficient ” gas-fired power plants would be entitled to this treatment.
In order to reduce dependence on coal as soon as possible, Eastern European countries need natural gas as a transitional technology.
The situation is similar for Germany, which still imports natural gas from Russia.
There are already signs that Brussels may concede.
European Commission President von der Leyen recently said that until Europe relies on solar, wind and hydropower to meet all its energy needs, nuclear energy and natural gas will remain "stable", that is, reliable sources of energy.
In fact, the EU is far from completely replacing fossil energy with renewable energy.
According to the European Commission, although renewable energy in the EU will be the largest energy category for the first time in 2020, it will still account for only 38%, while fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas will still account for 37% and nuclear energy for 25%.
Merkel accused of 'greenwashing'
For Germany's "traffic light" coalition government in the formation of the government negotiations, the practice of nuclear energy into green energy is undoubtedly of great destructive power.
So the EU ’ s decision to launch the document in November – after the UN climate summit, but before the German government formally forms a government – should not be a coincidence.
The outgoing Merkel has also been criticized.
Sources, including Luxembourg ’ s Energy Minister Claude Turmes and German Green Party member Sven Giegold, believe that Merkel agreed to “green ” nuclear power and gas at her last EU summit in October.
After the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, the German government decided to completely withdraw from nuclear power by 2022.
Merkel said after the EU summit that at least 20 member states would be required to vote against the European Commission ’ s proposed energy component standards.
Germany, along with Austria and Luxembourg, which are critical of nuclear power, seems unable to mobilize so many EU countries to block nuclear power from being classified as “green energy ”.
Watch the video 01: 33
Has China just ushered in a new nuclear energy future?
(AFP)
© 2021 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.

German policymakers defend their path by stressing public safety, waste management challenges, and confidence in the scalability of renewables.

Title:

Content: In addition to economic and climate damage
Russia ’ s ‘ gas war ’ threatens EU political stability
Russian President Vladimir Putin is ratcheting up pressure on the European Union by cutting off gas shipments to some of Russia ’ s best customers, with anger at sanctions imposed on his country after the invasion of Ukraine.
Moscow is exerting enormous political pressure on governments, threatening to leave Europeans frozen if the coming winter is cold, and potentially undermining the bloc ’ s climate goals as countries replace gas-fired energy with coal.
It could even push the continent into recession.
Simon Tagliapitra, an analyst at the Bruegel Research Foundation, describes Russia ’ s policies as “energy blackmail. ”
40% of the gas flows along the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia to Germany under the sea, affecting deliveries to France, Italy and Austria, as well as Germany.
Russia ’ s Gazprom, which has a monopoly on gas exports, halted all deliveries to Poland, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark after energy companies in those countries refused to comply with Kremlin demands to pay for deliveries in rubles.
In response, some countries are planning to launch coal-fired power plants.
German Economy and Climate Minister Robert Habeck said in a television interview last week: "It must be acknowledged that Putin is gradually reducing gas supplies to Europe, and also raising prices, and we must respond to that with actions."
burning coal
Meanwhile, Austria plans to restart the coal-burning power plant again.
Poland plans to subsidize coal used to heat homes.
Last week, the Netherlands scrapped previous plans to limit production at four coal-fired power plants.
Climate Minister Rob Gitain said: “If these were not extraordinary times, we would never have done that. ”
The Italian government held a crisis meeting, and Prime Minister Mario Draghi ordered the operation of two units to reconvert liquefied natural gas (LNG) into natural gas, and talked with countries including Qatar, Angola and Algeria to sign gas supply deals in a desperate attempt to secure supplies in the event of a disruption from the Russian side.
Show confidence
Brussels is keen to show confidence, but the concern is clear.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a meeting with reporters last week: “We view the situation we are in now as very dangerous; we are ready. ”
The rush to burn coal to secure energy supplies is embarrassing for climate-conscious Europeans.
But few expect it to drive the EU or its member states off track in their efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
In Germany, officials insist that a return to coal will be short-lived and will not jeopardize the country ’ s path to zero coal power by 2030.
Coal will serve as a backup for the energy sector, allowing the country to meet its needs before winter.
In the meantime, the government plans to rapidly increase clean energy.
Simon Müller, director of the research centre Aguda Energivendi, said the Russian invasion had boosted political support for renewables in Germany: “This additional layer of urgency that we now have in the face of this situation is helping to provide the political momentum we need for some very important renewable energy construction efforts. ”
The German parliament is considering 10 measures for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and Mueller said the three-party coalition was broadly coherent on the importance of removing barriers to green energy.
Green groups were also optimistic.
Christoph Ballz, director of policy at German Watch, said: “There is absolutely no plan in Germany right now to set the end date for coal use. ”
But the need for a rapid change in the course of coal phase-out is exacerbating political tensions.
In Berlin, the conservative opposition criticized Habeck and Chancellor Olaf Schulz for allowing increased coal use, while ruling out keeping Germany ’ s three remaining nuclear power plants running after the end of this year.
Jens Spahn, deputy chairman of the Christian Democrats in parliament, told German television last week: “I don ’ t understand how the government allows more coal plants to run longer than carbon-neutral nuclear power plants. ”
The policy of “renouncing nuclear energy ” was one of the policies adopted by the former leader of his party, Angela Merkel.
This policy is also causing pressure within the ruling coalition.
Rationalization of consumption
The Liberal Democrat secretary-general, Bijan Geir Saray, said: “What is necessary now is to keep the remaining three nuclear power plants running longer.
Acknowledging the move was “breaking the taboo, ” Habik said, adding that coal was still better than reviving nuclear power and that a change in nuclear policy would only have an impact at the end of next year, too late to help this winter.
He was backed by Chancellor Olav Schulz, who said in a recently published interview that "nuclear energy will not help us, now, not in the next two years, which is what matters."
Gas rationing
Political leaders are calling on their people to rationalize energy consumption and reduce gas use, while governments are working to increase storage levels to allow the continent to overcome Russia ’ s winter gas outage.
As a last resort, they are considering rationing gas.
Stopping gas supplies would almost certainly push the European bloc into recession.
The European Central Bank has warned that the eurozone will shrink by 1.7% next year if Russia closes the tap completely.
“Energy supply disruptions and low prospects for an immediate replacement of gas supplies from Russia are likely to require some rationing and reallocation of resources, leading to lower output in the eurozone, especially in sectors with high energy consumption, ” the bank said.
The bank predicted that if this happens, the bloc ’ s economy will recover next year.
But the ECB also warned Russian President Vladimir Putin: “With regard to the Russian economy, the scenario is characterized by a severe recession with a contraction in production, similar to the one that occurred when the Soviet Union collapsed. ”
The rush to burn coal to secure energy supplies is embarrassing for climate-conscious Europeans.
1.7%
The rate of contraction of the eurozone, next year, if Russia completely stops supply.
Print

Nonetheless, robust debate persists about grid reliability, energy affordability, industrial competitiveness, and whether renewable expansion can keep up with demand and geopolitical risks.

Sceptics point to the environmental and economic trade-offs seen in the short-term, particularly the increased use of coal and rising costs, while proponents insist these are temporary growing pains on the way to a climate-neutral, secure energy future .

Title:

Content: • En
Germany to close three more nuclear plants by the end of 2021
There is no turning back, so only three nuclear plants remain in Germany and will be fully decommissioned by the end of 2022.
Germany ’ s Issa 2 nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by the end of 2022 (Photo / Twitter PreussenElektra)
Germany, which is committed to eliminating nuclear waste, closed three of its remaining six nuclear plants on the last day of 2021, Europe ’ s largest economy, demonstrating its determination to phase out nuclear energy and move toward renewable energy.
The plants in Gundremmingen, Grohnde and Brokdorf, which have been in operation for 35 years, were removed from service, Reuters reported.
This leaves Germany with only three remaining nuclear plants, which are expected to close by the end of 2022.
Since the 2011 earthquake in Japan and the meltdown of the reactor core in Fukushima, the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986, Germany has decided to accelerate the phase-out of nuclear energy.
However, it will not be easy for Europe ’ s economic powerhouse to abandon what some see as “cheap and clean ” nuclear power, which means more money will have to be invested in renewable energy to meet its climate goals, and higher electricity prices are inevitable.
According to 2021 data, the remaining six nuclear power plants account for about 12% of Germany ’ s total electricity supply.
Renewable energy accounts for 41%, while coal-fired and gas-fired power accounts for 28% and 15% respectively.
Germany aims to increase its renewable energy supply to 80% by 2030, mainly wind and solar power.
Extended reading:
The crossroads of nuclear power, climate change has given nuclear power a chance to rise again.
【 311 Fukushima nuclear disaster ten years 】 The reconstruction is not complete, the forbidden land is still a shocking number to look back on the disaster

In conclusion, Germany’s move away from nuclear energy was motivated by strong public and political opposition to nuclear power, intensified by high-profile disasters and concerns over waste.

The policy has delivered both expected advantages—such as greater investment in renewables—and disadvantages, including increased coal use, costlier and less reliable electricity, and increased reliance on imports.

The Russian-Ukrainian war amplified these vulnerabilities, at least in the short term.

Public and industrial pressure to reconsider nuclear has grown, but the government remains committed to its phase-out and renewable energy goals, making Germany a singular case in the European energy debate .