# Germany's Nuclear Energy Phase-Out: Motivations, Consequences, and Current Debates

## Introduction

Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power represents one of the most significant energy policy shifts in recent European history.

This report examines the rationale behind Germany's nuclear exit, its impact on the nation's energy grid, the influence of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and the growing debate about potentially reversing this decision.

## Historical Context and Reasons for Nuclear Phase-Out

Germany's anti-nuclear movement has long been the most powerful in Europe, creating substantial political pressure to abandon atomic energy.

The turning point came in 2011 following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, which triggered massive anti-nuclear demonstrations across Germany.

In response, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the accelerated closure of all 17 nuclear power plants in the country by 2022.

This decision was driven by several factors:
- Strong public opposition to nuclear energy
- Safety concerns following the Fukushima accident
- Long-standing issues with nuclear waste disposal
- A strategic vision for an "energy transition" (Energiewende) aimed at completely switching to renewable energy sources by 2035

Under Germany's leadership, several other European countries also accelerated their nuclear phase-out plans, making Germany a trendsetter in the move away from atomic energy on the continent.

## Impact on the German Energy Grid

The nuclear phase-out has significantly altered Germany's energy mix.

At the time of their final shutdown in April 2023, the last three remaining nuclear power plants (Isar-2 in Bavaria, Neckarwestheim-2 in Baden-Württemberg, and Emsland in Lower Saxony) accounted for approximately 6% of Germany's total electricity generation.

To compensate for this loss, Germany has increased its reliance on other energy sources:
- Natural gas now generates about 10% of Germany's electricity
- Coal-fired power plants have been maintai

# Germany's Nuclear Energy Phase-Out: Motivations, Consequences, and Current Debates

## Introduction

Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power represents one of the most significant energy policy shifts in recent European history.

Title:

Content: Global News
Germany says restarting nuclear plants is not a solution to gas shortages
Speaking at the "Right Questions" event organized by the German newspaper Bild on Friday evening, Birbuck said she believed a final exit from nuclear power by the end of this year was right based on "the facts I know now and given what the challenge is."
She said the challenge was not electricity supply but gas, saying “I don ’ t see nuclear power as a solution ” in light of the Russo-Ukrainian war and the looming energy crisis.
According to the current law, the remaining three nuclear power plants in Germany must be closed by the end of this year at the latest, as the three plants account for 6% of the total electricity generated in Germany, and so far about 10% of the electricity in Germany is generated by natural gas.
In repeated remarks, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck stressed that the main shortage is not electricity, but gas and heating for the industrial sector, and nuclear power plants cannot address this.
We presented to you our visitors the most important details about the news of Germany: Restarting nuclear plants is not a solution to meet the gas shortage on the Gulf in this article and we hope that we have provided you with all the details clearly and more credibility and transparency and if you want to follow more news you can subscribe with us for free through our alerts system on your browser or by joining the mailing list and we are looking forward to provide you with all what is new.
We also have to remind you that this content is already published on the site and may have been the editorial team in Dot AlKhaleej confirmed or modified or quoted or may have been transferred in full and you can read and follow the updates of this news from its main source.
You may also read.

Title:

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

Title:

Content: Hill Original
Hill: because of the “green ” recklessness, Europeans are at risk of dying from the cold, and the United States may be next
Europe ’ s commitment to a green energy policy combined with reckless idealism this winter could lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
According to the author of The Hill, this situation should serve as a wake-up call for America if the “new green course ” prevails in it.
The deadly winter is the result of Europe ’ s own energy experiment.
Utopian climate initiatives combined with inflation, declining fossil fuel production in America and reluctance to buy Russian oil or natural gas could kill hundreds of thousands of people on the continent this winter.
Although the continent ’ s purchases of Russian fuel stopped mostly this year, the seeds of the current EU energy crisis were sown many years ago.
Attempts to replace traditional energy sources with environmentally friendly sources have led to disastrous consequences.
For example, Germany spent $150 billion on renewables as part of its own version of the Green New Deal, but as a result, the country ’ s energy prices were among the highest in the world, and wind power production fell by a quarter in early 2021.
By rushing away from nuclear power and fossil fuels, former Chancellor Angela Merkel and her successor, Olaf Scholz, have made the country virtually dependent on “hostile Russia ” for years to come.
At the same time, Berlin ’ s decision to dismantle its nuclear power plants after the disaster at Japan ’ s Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011 led not only to dependence on Russian fossil fuels, but also to large-scale coal burning and increased CO2 emissions.
Now the country is trying to abandon its previous decision and extend the work of its nuclear power plants, while resuming the work of coal power plants.
France and Britain have banned fracking and fracking over the past five years.
The United States has been filling Europe ’ s critical natural gas shortage for nearly a decade, but America ’ s declining production means that there is more than limited scope to salvage the situation.
The head of the International Energy Agency predicts a shortage of energy in Europe this winter.
Such a commitment to green politics, combined with reckless idealism, will cost many lives.
In the UK alone, the annual excess mortality rate in winter is more than 28,000.
Every year in all of Europe, about 200 thousand such deaths are recorded, and with each decrease in temperature by 1 ° C, their number increases by 1.5%.
A very cold winter and a sharp decline in the possibility of using constant heating could potentially trigger a six-figure increase in excess mortality across the continent.
In particular, regions with large urban populations, less able to provide themselves with firewood as a backup source or particularly heavy reliance on Russian fuel oil, such as France, the UK or Germany, will be at much greater risk.
The author of the article notes that if in the United States the struggle for an accelerated transition to unreliable and costly clean energy sources or a ban on fracking is successful, the country may face consequences comparable to what the Europeans received as a result.
Had it not been for fracking, the United States would have faced a similar deficit after the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, and the price of gasoline would probably have more than doubled compared to today.
“The coming winter, which could lead to deaths in Europe, should serve as a wake-up call for the United States.
Europe ’ s optimistic but ultimately ineffectual energy policy is brewing what could become the biggest energy crisis of our time.
For the sake of demonstrating “virtue ”, a threat is created for people throughout the continent: in conditions of low temperatures, they face food shortages and, possibly, high mortality, ” concludes the author of the material.
The materials of InoTV contain estimates of exclusively foreign media and do not reflect the position of RT
We publish on Twitter relevant foreign articles selected by the editorial office of InoTV
source
Hill USA North America
tags
gas Europe USA ecology energy
Today in the media
INFOX.SG
RT News Feed
Partners news

Title:

Content: News iz
6,269 followers
The political scientist called a mistake the refusal of Germany from nuclear energy
Adherence to the ideas of the green revolution and the rejection of nuclear energy can play a fatal role for the German economy, says political scientist Alexander Rahr.
Back to article
Picture of the day
top

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

This report examines the rationale behind Germany's nuclear exit, its impact on the nation's energy grid, the influence of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and the growing debate about potentially reversing this decision.

Title:

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

Title:

Content: “Green washing. ”
Europe forced to drop its green ratings | Politics and economics | In-depth analysis with a broader perspective than DW | DW | 09.07.2022
1.
Inhalt
2.
Navigation
3.
Weitere Inhalte
4.
Metanavigation
5.
Suche
6.
Choose from 30 Languages
Announcement
Politics and Economics
"Green laundry."
Europe is forced to fall back on its environmentally-friendly ratings
In a remarkable development, the European Parliament approved the green marks for energy investments including gas and nuclear amid an unprecedented energy crisis following the Russian aggression on Ukraine, a decision with significant repercussions, according to German and European experts.
The Dukovani Nuclear Power Plant is a nuclear power plant near the village of Dukovani in the Czech Republic.
The European Parliament (6 July 2022) approved a resolution classifying investments in the gas and nuclear sectors as sustainable green energy, under the EU ’ s classification of public funding for green projects.
The decision comes in the context of directing the investments of the continental bloc to achieve its climate goals by 2050, namely the elimination of greenhouse gas emissions.
A major attempt to block the proposal failed to garner the 353 votes needed to oppose the bill, with only 328 lawmakers voting against.
The bill has been sharply criticized by environmental protection organizations and some EU lawmakers for what they called a “green wash ” of fossil and nuclear energy investments since it was proposed by the European Commission late last year, saying it misled European consumers about corporate environmental practices or the environmental benefits of a product or service.
Some opponents of this shift in European policy fear the bloc ’ s increased reliance on Russian energy imports.
The German newspaper Rheinische Zeitung, published in Koblenz (6 July 2022), wrote that the European decision does not necessarily mean “a political commitment to relying more on nuclear or gas power in the climate crisis nor redirecting public investment to the era of nuclear or fossil energy. ”
The resolution ’ s obtaining a clear majority in the European Parliament, which was almost unanimously calling for an immediate exit from Russian gas, also has to do with the nervousness of MPs.
"They have just been under tremendous pressure from environmental groups against the label, but at the same time they expect greater social pressure from the general public in the fall."
The new measures are expected to take effect from 2023 unless EU member states object to them in the coming weeks.
Germany has already declared its opposition to the proposal, while Austria and Luxembourg have said they will file a case against the new law with the European Court of Justice.
watch video 37: 37
Europe is looking for alternatives to Russian gas.
Where did you get to?
Arguments of supporters and opponents of the new classification
Supporters of the new resolution argue that refusing to classify gas and nuclear power as "sustainable" would necessarily lead to higher energy prices, thereby hampering efforts to ditch more environmentally damaging coal.
A group of conservative European MPs stated in a statement that “nuclear power, for example, can provide stable and affordable energy supplies and reduce emissions quickly if given adequate access to the necessary capital. ”
The German news agency dpa reported that environmental activist Greta Thunberg criticized the European move in a tweet, saying it “will delay the truly sustainable transition that is so desperately needed. ”
The hypocrisy is blatant, but unfortunately it is not surprising. ”
The Commission of the European Union believes that this decision will be temporary because it is necessary to pass a transition phase, considering that gas is a fossil energy that many EU countries need to lead and manage their energy transition projects.
The Stuttgart-Zeitung newspaper (July 6) wrote that as long as the electricity produced by nuclear power plants cannot be replaced in a climate-friendly manner, shutting them down will have a negative impact on the climate.
In Germany, where a greater proportion of electricity is produced from coal, this substitution is damaging to the climate.
But that doesn ’ t stop Germany from moving forward with its projects to phase out nuclear power. ”
Despite all attempts, opponents of the project in the European Parliament failed to stop the legal action on the new classification.
Berlin has rejected the new European classification.
The German government has been quick to criticize the European Parliament ’ s decision, rejecting the classification of nuclear energy investments as climate-friendly.
In this regard, government spokesman Steffen Hipschtwright (July 6) stressed that "Berlin, regardless of the outcome of the vote, will remain in its position and will consider nuclear energy unsustainable."
However, it is still theoretically possible to prevent the implementation of these plans if at least 20 member states agree to represent at least 65% of the EU population by July 11, which is unlikely.
The German government has ruled out any legal action, with Hipschtwright saying: "We do not consider filing a lawsuit to be the appropriate course of action."
watch video 26: 06
Made in Germany - Global Challenges: War and Environmental Protection
Neue Tsurikhe Zeitung (June 6) went in another direction and showed flexibility in understanding the European decision; “There is a great risk that German industry will also fall back (on climate targets) if the EU changes sustainability standards, but the existence of different labels is not a market failure, but reflects that sustainability can be understood in different ways.
Anyone who manipulates information about sustainable investments should also take into account the discontent of consumer protection groups and the media as well as unfair competition. ”
Europe's inability to guarantee its energy security
In the context of the repercussions of the Russian aggression on Ukraine, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (July 6) stressed that the continental bloc must "prepare for further disruptions in gas supplies, and even a complete interruption by Russia."
The Commission is expected to unveil an emergency plan for energy supply security on July 20.
Von der Leyen added: "We must support European solidarity.
"We need to protect the single market (in the EU) as well as the supply chains of the industry."
The Czech Presidency of the European Union announced in a tweet that it had called for an extraordinary meeting of EU energy ministers on July 26, following the Commission ’ s plan, and that the aim was “primarily to work on joint European projects that will free us from our dependence on Russia. ”
The continental bloc has launched a €300 billion plan to ease its dependence on Russian fossil fuel supplies while investing heavily to shift the market towards renewables.
The Berlin newspaper Tagesspiegel (July 6) presented the predicament of the German model in the European context, writing: "Germany on average has a large industrial sector and for this reason lives in a high level of luxury.
Short-term gas replacement is almost impossible, but more effective and efficient use can be achieved.
This is evidenced by the consumption of gas in the first five months of this year, after adjusting consumer behavior by lowering temperatures, consumption decreased by about ten percent compared to last year, "so the high price motivates consumers to save and innovate among those involved in the sector.
The Paris-based International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers is pessimistic about when to get out of Europe ’ s worst energy crisis.
Vincent Demory, secretary-general of the group, said: "We may cross the coming winter without much damage.
But the winter that follows is likely to be more difficult, and the winter that follows. ”
Good weather last winter enabled Europe to have larger than expected gas reserves for heating in the coming winter season, but gas prices continue to rise in winter markets.
Austria and Luxembourg file suit against new classification
If Germany has announced that it will not go to court, Austria and Luxembourg have confirmed their intention to proceed with legal proceedings against the new European classification.
The German news agency dpa reported that Luxembourg ’ s energy minister Claude Torms confirmed in a tweet that the two countries would go ahead with legal proceedings, while his Austrian counterpart Leonor Gossler tweeted that Austria would file a lawsuit to overturn the decision with the European Court of Justice once the so-called “green washing program ” went into effect.
She added that she would work to mobilize more allies to participate in the lawsuit.
Gossler said the decision "puts our future at risk, and it is more than a reckless decision."
Germany has ruled out judicial recourse, with government spokesman Steffen Hipschtwright saying: "We do not consider filing a lawsuit to be the appropriate course of action."
Germany is under pressure from partners such as the Netherlands, which has asked it to continue operating nuclear power plants to cope with the current crisis, but Berlin is unlikely to respond.
According to Bloomberg (July 7), Dutch Minister of Climate and Energy Policy Rob Gettin has made the request to German Economy Minister Robert Habeck.
Electricity prices have skyrocketed after Russia cut natural gas supplies to several countries in response to sanctions imposed after its invasion of Ukraine.
German channel 1 ’ s Tageschau website wrote a warning (July 6): “Those who now want to invest their money in nuclear power plants should allow the question of whether they have already understood the essence of the problem at all about Europe ’ s 2050 climate neutrality targets?
It is not about replacing the evil of carbon dioxide that poisons the climate, another human being. The radiation of nuclear waste persists over thousands of years, not indirectly destroying life through warming, but directly through radioactivity. ”
Hassan Zinind

Title:

Content: Germany To Postpone Closure Of Last Three Nuclear Power Plants - WSJ

(@ChaudhryMAli88)

MOSCOW (UrduPoint News / Sputnik - 17th August, 2022) Germany, faced with possible energy shortages in the winter as gas supplies from Russia have dropped, intends to postpone the closure of its last three nuclear power plants (NPPs) in a move marking a departure from a two-decade policy to abandon nuclear energy, The Wall Street Journal reported citing German government officials.

The decision, which has to be formally adopted by the cabinet of Chancellor Olaf Scholz and would possibly require a vote in Parliament, could be weeks off, but already now the German government says two key conditions have been met that allow a temporary extension of the life of the three remaining NPPs, currently expected to close December 31: the possibility of a gas shortage and the confidence that a longer operation of reactors would pose no safety concern, according to the officials.

"The reactors are safe until Dec. 31, and obviously they will remain safe also after Dec. 31," the WSJ quoted a senior official as saying.

Scholz last week said for the first time that it could make sense to keep Germany's last three nuclear reactors online.

However, even if the life of the three German NPPs is extended, this will not be a panacea for Germany's looming energy crisis this winter as the country is mainly missing natural gas, primarily used for heating and manufacturing.

The European Union has been seeking to diversify energy imports and reduce dependence on Russia after Moscow started its special military operation in Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has repeatedly said that Russia has never used gas supplies to punish anyone, but sells energy solely in its own interests, to increase the welfare of Russians and on a commercial basis.

The German government has also outlined measures to reduce gas and power consumption in the country over the next two years. The measures in particular include lowering the temperature in public buildings. According to Germany's energy regulator, gas consumption will have to be cut by 20 percent if Germany wants to avoid a gas shortfall during this coming winter and next winter.

The three officials who spoke to the WSJ said the extension of the NPPs' life would only be made for several months.

The power plants in question are Isar 2 in the southern state of Bavaria, Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Wurttemberg and Emsland in Lower Saxony. They are operated, respectively, by E.On SE, EnBW AG, and RWE AG.

After the start of Russia's special military operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, the West has stepped up sanctions pressure on Russia, which has led to an increase in prices for energy and food in Europe and the United States.

Title:

Content: Germany starts tough energy conservation measures
Germany starts tough energy conservation measures
Follow us via
In this episode, we discuss: the IAEA mission leaves Kiev and heads to Zaporozhye; Germany is switching to energy saving status from tomorrow; a leader in the coordination framework speaks to Sputnik about the situation in Iraq; the Association of Lebanese Depositors and the Free Trade Unions demonstrate in front of the parliament.
Germany has decided to introduce an energy-saving system, such as setting the temperature of heating devices, turning them off completely in public places, and stopping the use of hot water for hand washing.
In an interview with Unfettered, European affairs expert Aktham Suleiman said:
"These measures of course will not suffice, and this reduction of energy consumption will not save much, the non-operation of any small plant will save more, and therefore are absurd measures, and this is evidence of the failed management of the crisis, and the wrong decision to stop" Nord Stream 2 ", and now the German citizen will not be silent on these measures, not because he does not want to pay a higher bill, but because he is treated lightly. And don ’ t sacrifice Germany for Ukraine, and today the headline of the most important German newspapers,“ Germany is still an occupied country, ” will lead to protests that have already started here and there.
Zakharova: Do Europeans understand that nuclear security is at stake?
The correspondent of "Sputnik" reported that the Russian army shot down a Ukrainian drone near the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, while Russian security forces who arrived at the scene said that this drone was Polish-made.
This comes in conjunction with the imminent arrival of the mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency to Zaporozhye, as the official spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, commented on this visit by saying to "Sputnik":
“They are discussing what can be done to make our lives more difficult, there is a nuclear facility near them that is being bombed every day, and I think this is what EU leaders should be discussing, to keep the safety and health of their citizens, do these people really not understand that what is at stake now is the issue of nuclear safety?
Because the regime in Kiev has reached the point where the station is being used as a tool of blackmail, perhaps, because there is an understanding in the ranks of the European Union that they cannot do anything, and that the Kiev regime is simply uncontrollable in Brussels and it just obeys Washington, where are the people in the European Union pretending to be environmentalists, feeling soft on deer, hedgehogs and hares?
Where are all these people?
Do they understand what's going on?
"They are supplying the Kiev regime with money and weapons that are firing at a nuclear facility in central Europe."
Details in the audio file...
News Ticker
0.
To participate in the discussion
Sign in or Register
loader
Conversations
Заголовок открываемого материала

Title:

Content: Southern Federal
247 followers
In Germany, were afraid of the termination of Russian energy supplies
German authorities believe that in response to the sanctions imposed by the EU against Russia due to the recent events in Ukraine, Moscow may stop supplying energy to Europe.
Back to article
Picture of the day
top

## Historical Context and Reasons for Nuclear Phase-Out

Germany's anti-nuclear movement has long been the most powerful in Europe, creating substantial political pressure to abandon atomic energy.

The turning point came in 2011 following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, which triggered massive anti-nuclear demonstrations across Germany.

In response, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the accelerated closure of all 17 nuclear power plants in the country by 2022.

This decision was driven by several factors:
- Strong public opposition to nuclear energy
- Safety concerns following the Fukushima accident
- Long-standing issues with nuclear waste disposal
- A strategic vision for an "energy transition" (Energiewende) aimed at completely switching to renewable energy sources by 2035

Under Germany's leadership, several other European countries also accelerated their nuclear phase-out plans, making Germany a trendsetter in the move away from atomic energy on the continent.

## Impact on the German Energy Grid

The nuclear phase-out has significantly altered Germany's energy mix.

Title:

Content: World News
German Environment Ministry: Leak at Esar 2 Nuclear Power Plant
The German Environment Ministry said on Monday that the operator of the Esar 2 nuclear power plant in Germany had informed it of a leak at the site.
The leak did not affect security but could complicate the government ’ s winter energy plan, the ministry said, adding that a week-long repair period would be needed during which operations would be halted.
Essar 2, located in the southern state of Bavaria, was due to stop at the end of the year under Germany ’ s plan to phase out nuclear power.
Earlier, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner called on Monday for the country ’ s nuclear power plants to be restarted amid an ongoing energy crisis, a proposal that runs counter to the coalition government ’ s stance that defends the “reserve ” status of facilities.
Lindner, a representative of the ruling Free Democratic Party (FDP), told a news conference: “We cannot shut down reliable and environmentally friendly production facilities (nuclear plants) during the electricity and energy crisis. ”
He added that the German government should “do everything to provide the country with electricity, ” noting that coal plants capable of producing additional electricity are not operating in the country.
Proceeding from these facts, the finance minister urged the German authorities to increase the production capacity of the electricity market to curb price rises.
You can also read the news at the source of the Russian website Sputnik.
About News Source
Russian Sputnik website

At the time of their final shutdown in April 2023, the last three remaining nuclear power plants (Isar-2 in Bavaria, Neckarwestheim-2 in Baden-Württemberg, and Emsland in Lower Saxony) accounted for approximately 6% of Germany's total electricity generation.

To compensate for this loss, Germany has increased its reliance on other energy sources:
- Natural gas now generates about 10% of Germany's electricity
- Coal-fired power plants have been maintai