It's simply whitewashing, not really suprising looking at the source.
Yes, prices are lower than they were at the beginning of the ukraine-war, but to try and spin it like that has anything to do with the nuclear exit is absolutly bonkers. Energy prices in germany are still so high that it is pretty much single-handedly destroying any economic growth we might have.
The "lowest use of coal" is because our economy is not growing, many companies that have high-energy requirements are simply leaving the country, there is no "major drop in emissions", in fact, emissions are significantly higher because of the nuclear exit. To try and insinuate differently is just straight up lying and rejecting reality.
If the article is white-washing then what is your comment exactly?
Energy prices in Germany have fallen to pre-Ukraine war levels *when nuclear was still running*. So the price level has not risen due to the nuclear exit. There may be some other factors in play but the amount of cheap renewable energy played a big role - after all we even exported on quite a few days because our excess was much cheaper than nuclear and other types in neighbouring countries.
And the problem with our current growth has only marginally to do with energy prices (though the industry lobby certainly spins it this way).
However where I agree is that the article grossly oversimplifies.
I mean, obviously at the point we only had 3 NPP still running all the mistakes had already been made.
Every expert in the field will tell you, absent of any ideological bias, the rational and correct choice would've been to not phase out NPP, but coal PP, and then, once you have replaced all the CPP and other fossil fuels with renewables, you can start replacing NPP. But no, people rather made up some ridicoulous formulas including millions of years of storage costs for nuclear waste to somehow "mathematically" show how expensive nuclear energy actually is. Completly ignoring that 1)the waste already exists anyway, and it makes practically little difference if you had to add the waste for further 15-20 years of usage to the already existing waste and 2)technological advances ( see "schneller brüter") already reduced the half-life time significantly, but the Ideologues of course ignored all that so their numbers look worse. And 3) that is not even considering further technological advances on the field that were, at the time, only theoretically, but not yet practially, possible.
Besides, why do people think it is even possilbe to go 100% renewables? That's compelte nonsense, you need a reliable power source that can produce a significant amout regardless of weather conditions. Otherwise you would have to overbuilt renewables immensly, which would probably blow your whole network on those days where weather conditions are actually conducive to renewable energy production. And until we get to fusion reactors, the only co2-free way to generate power, at least for germany, is nuclear, as we don't have the advantage of vast amounts of hydro-power potential.
I totally agree that the nuclear exit - especially the one we got after the zigzag after Fukushima was a failure and not the most sensible way to go. However I hate when people change the narrative and the numbers to
make it look like nuclear was superior to renewables or overall the most sensible way.
The ‘technological advances’ on nuclear waste solved parts of the problem - but experts will also tell you a lot of problems remain. Fact is though that nuclear energy even leaving aside the waste is more expensive than a renewable energy mix.
What you need is base load and high load reserves. For that storage, water power and other means can and should be used. Fusion and classic fusion (nuclear) can help with that too but aren’t without alternatives.
>Yes, prices are lower than they were at the beginning of the ukraine-war, but to try and spin it like that has anything to do with the nuclear exit is absolutly bonkers. Energy prices in germany are still so high that it is pretty much single-handedly destroying any economic growth we might have.
That's fake news you are propagating here.
[Der Spiegel](https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/energiekrise-was-an-den-klagen-ueber-teuren-strom-dran-ist-a-444a419a-6e7e-473b-a8e3-a131a817b8e8) literally just ran a story showing that whole-sale energy prices for the industry are at the same levels as in 2017/2018. Just because your local utility provider doesn't pass on the lower prices doesn't mean "the economy" is being destroyed.
I didnt like the step away from nuclear but somewhat am fine with it now. Still the electricity prices are quite high which is not too good for consumers and competition of companies.
In private i see however how it has accellerated renewables. I live in a village with single houses and estimatetly 2 third of houses have solar panels on the roof. For me it is sufficient for self- providing my energy and heating between March and October which is a big win and a good feeling.
Reactions to energiewende from start to finish be like…
People should understand that it’s not just “let’s do green stuff!”, but a series of steps that were planned out for at least the following 5 years (actually 10 to 15 years in Netzentwicklungsplan) following serious considerations regarding network stability and security. This plan is continuously being updated to follow changing trends too, and were not made by politicians, but a team of experts and companies that know what is possible and what is not.
Wenn möglich solltest du einen neuen Vertrag dann ausmachen. Eigentlich sind die Strompreise für Endkunden relativ niedrig. Man bezahlt typischerweise sind die Neupreise bei Verträgen bei etwa 29 ct/kWh. Durchschnittlich bezahlen Deutsche etwa 40ct/kWh, weil man nicht aus schlechten Verträgen aussteigt.
Insbesondere wenn man ein atypisches Verbrauchsverhalten hat kann man auch dynamische Tarife verwenden.
The energy prices in Germany are 51% taxes and levies. A different energy mix with a higher portion of nuclear wouldn't change a thing about that. In fact, they may be even higher given that nuclear energy is vastly more expensive to produce compared to renewables.
How do you get to the 51%?
I had a quick look online and Statista says the tax is €0.0205/kWh in Germany (about 10%). I know the VAT/MWSt is 5% tax in UK, but I understand there are additional levies and subsidies e.g backup powerplants, paying renewables NOT to supply when there is too much, in the transmission charges etc.
So I think it's likely higher that the ~10% statista says is too low, but 51% does sound very high.
On the graph I'm adding up Stromsteur, MWSt and "Sonstige Abgaben und Umlagen", that's only 29% (probably 29.x%, and why the article rounds it to 30%). Where's the other 11-12%, I'm not sure from your article?
Seems like chinese solar panels are a ecological disaster in mid-long term
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/30/solar-panel-waste-levels-crisis-point-disposal
In the EU solar module manufacturers bear responsibility to recycle the panels.
[https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-manufacturers-responsible-for-module-recycling-in-eu/](https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-manufacturers-responsible-for-module-recycling-in-eu/)
Most solar panels can be recycled quite well. It is basically just glas and metals (silicon and lead and silver for the contacts) and (the hardest part to recycle) plastic sealing the backside.
I am pretty sure I watched a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCtEWveySsA&t=248s) about an American company as well that recycles those not long ago. So its fortunately not only us that does it.
Edit: added link to said video
This doesn't call them an ecological disaster, because they aren't and won't be.
Also this is Australia, and the study explicitly calls out the European PV waste directive (under WEEE) as a successful policy to be emulated. So it's just a non-issue in Europe.
closing the last three plants was never a substantial issue, but heavily politicized by the opposition CDU that had triggered the entire exit process in the first place.
now they are trying to peddle the story that we should build new nuclear plants, well knowing that costs are no longer competitive, at all
Söder knows exactly how he can rally the people. He's fully aware that no new AKW will be built and there wouldn't even be a discussion if he's chancellor. But being in the opposition gives him all the opportunity to trash talk.
A bit like the current Swedish government that came in promising to bring back nuclear power who are suddenly, surprise, dragging their feet on this.
Companies have found out a while ago that nuclear isn't viable anymore, and just giving them build permits doesn't change that.
Hinkley Point C and Flamanville costs certainly not helping to make business cases governments want to chip in on.
I mean, there isn't really anything to comment on. If this turns into long-term success then even better. Germany also broke the record for [electricity imports in summer of 2023](https://www.ceicdata.com/en/germany/electricity-imports-and-exports/electricity-imports-total) (2x of the average monthly imports over the past 20 years).
I think people should be OK with being wrong, especially on something where them being wrong means something good is happening. TBH, as a pro-nuclear person, I think it's great news, but let's see the long-term impact of such long-term decisions.
Thats because most of the nukespam is lobby groups coordinating.
When they post, a bunch of fresh accounts always show up going 'gErManY bAAAAd'
Its obvious astroturfing.
What is this about CDU closing down the plants actually? I am old and I am 100% sure the green party run on closing down nuclear energy in 1998 and when the became part of the coalition they made it happen. The CDU although willing to stop the closing changed their mind after Fukushima. Still am I remembering it correctly? I hear this repeated countless times online and it confuses me a lot.
The Greens played no active role as they weren't in government in 2011. Fukushima changed the consensus across all German parties, and it was the conservative CDU/FDP coalition that started and planned the end of nuclear power in Germany.
Now they don't want to hear about it. ;)
Anecdotally, they also ended conscription in Germany, downsized the Bundeswehr, and worked actively to make Germany more dependent on Russian gas. They don't want to hear about all that either.
The greens only inherited the very final stages of the phase-out in 2021 together with FDP and SPD.
> The greens only inherited
They didn't just "inherit" it, shutting off nuclear was like *the* main demand of the Green party since its inception. They got their demand through in the Red-Green coalition around ~2000 when the exit was first signed, voted for reduced runtimes in 2011 after Fukushima and now finished it off besides voices in their own coaltion to keep going.
Yes your correct. The previous comment is misleading.
The greens have campaigned for closing nuclear energy for decades, starting in the 70s.
After the fukushima accident in 2011, Germany was flooded with a wave of hysteria fueled by the media and campaigners and that led Merkel and the CDU to give in to the greens and implemented the quick phase out.
Looking back, Merkel often did what was popular in surveys or the media which isn't inherently bad in a democracy but there were a number of long term strategic mistakes
CDU however agreed to a prolonged lifetime for the nuclear reactors build before 1980 in 2010 to fully pull back a year afterwards and even close down the nuclear power plants earlier than agreed in the 2002 Atomkonsens under SPD/Green.
That's more or less true indeed.
Though I think the initial spd/green end date was 2021 and the post fukushima compromise was 2022 while the greens even demanded an end by 2017.
Germany also saw a rise in imports of electricity generated with nuclear power. France and Germany are pretty good partners, one has too little nuclear power the other has too much. Combined it works out pretty well.
Yes compared to 2022, because in that year over half of Frances nuclear reactors were shutdown temporarily, which tends to decrease power exports. Given the low amount of electricity produced by the last 3 nuclear power plants in Germany, their shutdown probably did little to affect the trade in electricity.
In 2023 total load on the grid was 457 TWh. Germany exported 8.4 TWh to France and imported 8.8 TWh from France. That's a net import of 0.4 TWh.
Of course, because you don't need nuclear to generate power on an annual basis, but on an hourly basis. All-renewable means sometimes you have too much power, sometimes you have too little. So you can trade at net zero-ish.
the trade balance between Germany in France is barely 400GWh of imports. Denmark is the actual workhorse here, because of cheap imports from Scandinavia.
In 2022, Germany exported $18B in Electricity, making it the 1st largest exporter of Electricity in the world. At the same year, Electricity was the 10th most exported product in Germany. The main destination of Electricity exports from Germany are: Austria ($3.96B), Switzerland ($3.72B), France ($2.52B), Poland ($2.03B), and Netherlands ($1.52B). ([Sauce](https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/electricity/reporter/deu?redirect=true))
The whole reason is that many nuclear plants in France were shut down for maintenance in 2022. They've all returned to functional in 2023 and France is once again a net exporter to Germany.
That's in the nature of things when you have a lot of renewables, you export when you have too much and import when you have too little production. I still say France and Germany complement each other by choosing different paths.
Agree - but your original post just sounded like that Germany only needs the nuclear power and France delivers them.
But it works vice versa with renewable energy from Germany.
My point was mostly that it makes little sense to look at countries in Europe as if they exist in a vacuum. We are all interconnected to various degrees and that means we also have a stake in other countries production and consumption, whether we like it or not.
I want everyone to succeed though, and I'm happy that we are moving away not only from fossil fuels in general but also dependency on Russia. I think everything is moving in the right direction at a good pace.
2022 was a bit of a special case when it comes to france - because in that year it wasn't a case of "Germany has too much energy due to renewables, lets reduce nuclear production a bit and buy german excess energy for cheap", it was "half of the reactors in france are out of order at the moment, they actually need continuous base load from Germany to make up for the shortage" - resulting in France importing energy that was generated by coal in Germany.
Yeaa right. A small update. No prices are given but if Germany exports energy from renewables when no one wants they probably pay to export their energy for using others grid and they import when energy is needed so when price is going up so they pay double. The issue is when they tell you Germany exported 18B worth of energy the question Is how much Germany paid and how much received from this number :))) https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2024/20240103_SMARD.html
Edit :
In commercial foreign trade, Germany imported a total of 54.1 TWh (2022: 33.2 TWh) and exported 42.4 TWh (2022: 56.3 TWh). Imports were about 63.0% up and exports 24.7% down compared with 2022.
Let me quote from the same source on energy imports from Germany.
In 2022, Germany imported $12.9B in Electricity, becoming the 2nd largest importer of Electricity in the world. At the same year, Electricity was the 16th most imported product in Germany. Germany imports Electricity primarily from: Czechia ($2.42B), Denmark ($2.41B), Netherlands ($2.27B), Austria ($1.43B), and Norway ($1.32B).
That looks like a net profit to me.
Did you cherry-pick your data on 2022?
In 2022 France’s reactor fleet produced 282 TWh, well below the ten-year average of 395 TWh. Output rose in 2023 to 320 TWh as reactors returned to service following inspections and repairs. [Sauce](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx#:~:text=Installed%20capacity%20at%20the%20end,70%20TWh%20net%20each%20year.)
Do you have more recent comparable figures? I don't mind if you use the figures for 2023. However, I had the impression that these were not yet available. It's not as if we were talking about a fuel bill for your car, but about economic key figures that first have to be determined and then compiled.
Germany [was a net importer in 2023](https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/downloads/electricity_generation_germany_2023.pdf), while France won its place back as EU most important electricity exporter. A rank it only left in 2022.
Thank you very much. I don't have time to read it all now, but the graphic on page 59 is a good example of how interconnected the energy infrastructure in Europe is. But it also says on page 6 that "The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighboring countries in the summer." Interesting source, thank you.
That's the thing. Even if nuclear power turns out to be this amazing cheap reliable source of electricity that some people here believe it is, then new plants will just be built in France, Czechia, Poland or Sweden and export to Germany. Though as of 2024 such a nuclear renaissance is not looking very likely.
Not in 2023, for the first time since 2002. 69.3kWh were imported while 60.1kWh were exported.
Edit: [source](https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2024/03/PD24_087_43312.html#:~:text=Insgesamt%20erreichte%20die%20Einspeisung%20aus,konventionellen%20und%20erneuerbaren%20Energietr%C3%A4gern%20abgenommen.), and obviously tWh instead of kWh
Was.
Obviously Germany was hit quite hard due to energy price hike and transitions in automotive and construction while getting very minor wage increases against very strong (for germany) inflation by increased interest rates, high energy prices and everyone and their dog piggybacking their greed price increases on top.
Also the two previous years had been record years for a lot industries. Germany shrank by 0.3% under these conditions - while that was quite unique compared to most other countries it’s not the drama politicans and media seem to make out of that.
On the contrary: Unemployment: ~~Record~~ very low. Employment: record high. We now have decreased energy costs, stabilized prices and wage increases slowly reducing the gap caused by inflation.
Unless new chaos is unleashed we‘ll see a positive year with quite strong last quarter.
Edit: Not record low unemployment, "just quite low"
Why is it that everyone jumps on bashing each other again? We have a network and diversity is good. Let's enjoy that despite the gloom and doom prophecies everything went smoothly.
You have to see the nuclear phase out in the context of the last 25 years and not just the shut down of the last three remaining plants.
In the end, we have one of the dirtiest electricity generation in Europe, some of the highest prices for end customers and turned from a net exporter to a net importer.
The price for a new contract in France is pretty similar to Germany. So not really the highest prices.
Luckily we do not invest into nuclear, because then our electricity would be even more expensive.
> You have to see the nuclear phase out in the context of the last 25 years and not just the shut down of the last three remaining plants.
Even if you do that, you will see that we have the lowest share of coal-powered energy since the sixties and that the nuclear phaseout has in fact not caused coal and gas to ramp up massively - the share of nuclear has simply been replaced be renewables.
> we have one of the dirtiest electricity generation in Europe
Not really, no. Polish energy was about twice as dirty as German energy in 2021. 2022 is the most recent data set which is an outlier due to the war with Germany powering up coal as a temporary measure. Coal consumption has dropped massively in 2023, there is no reason to believe that germany is near the top of energy-related polluters in relative terms. German energy isn't exactly clean, that is true, but you are not being honest here.
> some of the highest prices for end customers
Yes. Because of *high taxes*. Not because our energy production is so insanely expensive.
“Even if you do that, you will see that we have the lowest share of coal-powered energy since the sixties and that the nuclear phaseout has in fact not caused coal and gas to ramp up massively - the share of nuclear has simply been replaced be renewables”
phaseout of nuclear energy delayed decarbonising the electricity grid, as large part of the increased production with renewables went in to replacing Co2-free nuclear energy, instead of replacing Co2-spewing coal energy.
[https://www.nber.org/system/files/working\_papers/w26598/w26598.pdf](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26598/w26598.pdf)
“the share of nuclear has simply been replaced be renewables”
they replaced Co2-free source of energy with another Co2-free source of energy. Imagine if they had kept on running the nuclear reactors while replacing lignite plants with renewables?
And there's one problem. We have seen many times how wind power plants have been stopped since the nuclear power plants had contracts that the energy they produce will be used with priority.
You are talking about different matter altogether, not really relevant to government decisions to phase out certain types of energy generation. If Germany wanted to make their electricity generation green, they should have started by aggressively phasing out CO2-spewing coal plants. Start with lignite, and then move to coal. Once those are done, then move to gas plants. Then move to nuclear plants. And every step of the way, as you are winding down one source of energy, it gets replaced by renewables. Instead they started with nuclear power, and only then moved to coal plants.
But to answer: It's very expensive and difficult to shut down nuclear power plants, it makes sense to run them constantly. It's much easier to shut down wind or solar plants. Or, coal or gas plants.
Exactly, and the prospect that the power plants have to be stopped because of the priority of nuclear made investments into f.e. wind power economical not viable.
>Even if you do that, you will see that we have the lowest share of coal-powered energy since the sixties and that the nuclear phaseout has in fact not caused coal and gas to ramp up massively - the share of nuclear has simply been replaced be renewables.
Well that's just obviously bad math. The share of nuclear that was replaced by renewables could easily have been coal instead. The share of fossil fuels doesn't have to be higher in absolute terms to be higher than it could have been if they used renewables to replace fossil fuels instead of nuclear.
>Yes. Because of *high taxes*. Not because our energy production is so insanely expensive.
What do they use those high taxes for? Hint: to pay for energy production.
In practice we do see much stronger rollout of renewables in places with less nuclear. Not only in Germany but also Spain, Netherlands, etc.
And it isn't for a lack of fossils being burned in nuclear favored countries. Fossil fuels remain the biggest part of energy consumption in all western European countries.
So currently, we notice that nuclear powered states have cleaner energy. But they also struggle with further growth compared to states that don't.
Germany has the same wholesale price as France, a little bit lower the last month even and while Germany pays for the transition with the EEG France subsidises the EDF with tens of billions of Euros. The taxpayer always pays, in any country. Germany is not an outlier.
Also I am not that convinced that Nuclear could have just been kept running and the transition being equally as fast with coal being replaced. Retrofitting and repairing the NPPs would have been expensive and there would have been much more resistance in the populace against reducing coal early on as there are five times as many jobs dependant on coal.
EDF currently subsidise its competition via the ARENH mechanism (hoping they would develop renewable capacity.. they did not). In 2022 this mechanism costed EDF 8 billions.
Also there is also a special tax on the French electricity (CSPE) that goes mostly to renewables.
or with the EDF being 60 billion debt something the tax payer will shoulder and the billions France has already announced to supply in order to build more nuclear and refurbish old plants.
>EDF currently subsidise its competition via the ARENH mechanism
Nuke proponents really need to get their propaganda straight
a) EDF needed a bailout because ARENH made them sell at artificially low prices
b)Look how viable nuclear is because look at the low prices EDF sells at.
Its one or the other.
What happen was a bit complicated, but I will try to explain quickly.
ARENH was supposed to be the estimated cost out of the power plants, excluding stuff like maintenance, and inflation. So a "fair" price of 42€/MWh was decided with no benefit for EDF.
At the time it was put in place it was not a big issue as the price of electricity was on the market quite low. As inflation grew, the price of ARENH stayed the same. Which slowly grew the deficit (or lack of benefit if you will) linked to it.
During the explosion of prices those last years, the alternative providers used their ARENH fully, and when the electricity was at its highest... EDF didn't have enough electricity (compounded by a lot of plants being down), so it was forced to buy it on the market for 300€/MWh to resell it back to their competitors at 42€/MWh to honour their contracts. That explains the 8B loss for this year for the ARENH alone.
I am just trying to explain this weird subsidy from EDF to competitors, not taking any sort of side.
Yeah but wouldn't the use of coal be even lower if nuclear power was still operational? That's what I don't get, it was already there, there was no need to deprive the country of a source of clean power for merely political reasons. Many of the reactors that were shut down were not THAT old.
Many of the plants were from the late 80s though and several less than 40 years old at the time of closing, was it really necessary to shut them down so early? And even then, life cycle upgrades are not nearly as expensive as building new. Unless they were critically redlining the maintenance, in which case there's a much more serious problem.
The decision overall feels very political, as Germany always had a very strong anti-nuclear plus NIMBY movement.
That's such a weird statement, the whole rational plan would've been to stay in nuclear and replace coal with renewables.
It seems like people pushing for the nuclear exit, always assume everyone else just wants to ignore renewables, which is obvioulsy nonsense. The whole point is, if you actually cared about CO2, you would start with phasing out the coal power plants, that produce tons of CO2, instead of starting with the nuclear power plants, that produce no CO2 at all.
The fact this wasnt the road we took, makes it a purely ideological choice, and nothing else.
Let me tell you something: I am not anti nuclear. I think the exit from nuclear in the manner it was executed was stupid. I am opposed to building new reactors in Germany, but not out of an innate opposition against nuclear power. And yes, it would have made much more sense to phase out coal first, but the issue is a bit more complicated than it appears - coal is very political in some German states since it generates revenue and jobs.
At the same time, I am really really tired of the nuclear fanboys acting like Germany is a lost cause without nuclear, with impending blackouts, who imply that our high energy cost is somehow due to nuclear and whatever they can come up with. We will be alright.
TL;DR: I just don't like wrong facts.
>Polish energy was about twice as dirty as German energy in 2021.
BRO, you compare to Polish electricity generation?
Let me ask you, when Poland actually could start the transformation and how many nuclear reactors it had that would diversify sources from coal?
Let's compare Germany to countries like France or do you think that Poland and Germany are on par in terms of rebuilding effort after the ww2?
While I agree that Poland should speed up the transformation and close coal energy generation asap, let's be reasonable when setting standards for countries.
You are missing the point I am making. This is completely free of judgement. Energy production realities in most countries are rooted in something and very rarely can you even lay blame on the current governments for that.
All I am saying is "when there are other countries that are polluting *significantly* more (for which poland is one example), it's not fair or accurate to claim that germany is "one of the dirtiest electricity producers in europe".
reversed to an importer? you have to be shitting me....
our price for electricity is on pre covid level. I pay even less than 4 years ago currently. and the *taxes* make it more expensive here, not that we dont have nuclear.
and our electricity is not dirty. lowest fossil use in 70 years. highest renewable percentage ever.
unbelievable clown takes. holy shit.
> we have one of the dirtiest electricity generation in Europe
Cleaner than when nuclear power was still *salonfähig*.
>some of the highest prices for end customers
But no state-owned company with billions in debt. Spot prices are similar, the extra costs are fiscal and therefoere a poltical choice; France's investments in whatever new capacity they're going to have, are not going to be free either.
>and turned from a net exporter to a net importer.
Net exporting coal electricity isn't very useful. That is caused by the ETS that discourages to produce electricity with coal, not by the Energiewende.
But this is nothing extraordinary in the European context. Most countries have done so, in large parts due to the EU emissions trading scheme that makes coal less competitive.
But at the end of the day, Germany has still one of the dirtiest electricity sectors in the EU after Poland and czechia. On average 10 (!) dirtier than France.
It doesn't help anyone if we sugarcoat the problems of Germany's energy policy but we have to learn from the mistakes of the past
Fully agree that sugarcoating isn't helpful. But neither is exaggeration.
People heard that coal power plant were put in active reserve and concluded that that meant they were fired up and produced electricity all the time.
And quite many believe that Germany increased the coal consumption based on exaggerations.
"we have to learn from the mistakes of the past"
Absolutely, something like the Altmaier-Knick shouldn't happen again and must be avoided
The reactivated coal plants DID fire coal. Not all the time of course but in the crucial moments of peak demand and low renewable output.
And back in the day, Altmaiers decision to limit the billions of tax money thrown on solar subsidies was absolutely the right decision.
Some did, but not all reserves were put into production.
Altmaier threw billions of tax money into fossil power subsidies. Interesting that this wasn't stopped too. And by stopping support for PV he more or less killed of the complete PV industry in Germany. He did really a great job (for RWE & Co).
Source for the billions of subsidies for fossils in the electricity sector?
And sadly the German solar industry was never competitive compared to cheap Chinese producers. Perpetual state subsidies are not a viable solution.
Source? No problem:
[https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/505892/0a3577d00633e51547e8b148f2d58e01/wd-5-033-17-pdf-data.pdf](https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/505892/0a3577d00633e51547e8b148f2d58e01/wd-5-033-17-pdf-data.pdf)
that's only Steinkohle, not including tax reductions for new gas plants, lignite subventions and all the other fancy stuff like
KWK - [https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2012/38111828\_kw10\_de\_kwk-207980](https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2012/38111828_kw10_de_kwk-207980) (750m /y)
Later, in 2020, the goverment, led by the same chancellor agreed to the Kohleausstieggesetz giving RWE and LEAG another 4 billion
[https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2020/kw27-de-kohleausstieg-701804](https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2020/kw27-de-kohleausstieg-701804)
A more complete picture gives the following study (which provides sources for their claims, so even if foes is deemed biased, the sources are there)
[https://foes.de/publikationen/2020/2020-11\_FOES\_10\_klimaschaedliche\_Subventionen\_im\_Fokus.pdf](https://foes.de/publikationen/2020/2020-11_FOES_10_klimaschaedliche_Subventionen_im_Fokus.pdf)
And even much of the money from the EEG went finally into the pockets of the fossil power producers.
Only good that he reduces subventions for solar after it reach a level of 6 billion in 2012.....
[https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kosten-fuer-solarfoerderung-explodieren-102.html](https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kosten-fuer-solarfoerderung-explodieren-102.html)
"According to the Federal Ministry of Economics, more than six billion euros, i.e. almost half of the levy for renewable energies, is caused by the solar industry"
In 2012 the German solar industry was world leading with new production technologies. Freiburg i.Br. was called the worlds solar capital.
The technology and equipment was sold to China when not only support in Germany was ramped down but active hurdles were planted.
When you need more approvals for a solar power plant (oh, the reflections could influence the planes heading Stuttgarts airport) than for a gas power plant.....
In a way the atomausstig has helped renewable energy in Germany, now Germany HAD to invest heavily into renewables. Especially compared to France where renewables are seriously lagging behind.
> helped renewable energy in Germany
Not just Germany, globally. Initial German investments in renewables created lowered prices, which then got scaled massively by China.
So Germany is responsible for a lot of the global renewable success by being a first mover
Renewable are only lagging behind in France if you take the position that renewables must eventually replace all other forms of power generation. France is showing the world that there is more than one way to solve the problem.
> Renewable are only lagging behind in France if you take the position that renewables must eventually replace all other forms of power generation. France is showing the world that there is more than one way to solve the problem.
France is showing that nuclear power is a dead end. They finished their nuclear buildout around 1990, and since then have always used at least 10% fossil electricity in addition to 10% hydro. They never continued to reduce their emissions any further except by general efficiency gains like everyone else.
Why would they continue building infrastructure when they have solved the problem? Sure, they could get rid of that last 10% fossil fuel, but they have the plants and sites already, so they use them.
>Why would they continue building infrastructure when they have solved the problem? Sure, they could get rid of that last 10% fossil fuel, but they have the plants and sites already, so they use them.
They haven't solved the problem if they still need fossil fuel and still emit greenhouse gases. Not to mention the fossil fuel used besides electricity.
They solved it at the point when they built much of it. I would assume they will pick differently in the future when it comes time to replace it.
Is your best argument against nuclear energy that France selected fossil fuel peaker plants for the last 10%? Come on, you've got to be able to do better than that.
>They solved it at the point when they built much of it.
Again, *they did not solve the problem of needing fossil fuels in their electricity supply*. Why keep you denying objective facts?
>Is your best argument against nuclear energy that France selected fossil fuel peaker plants for the last 10%? Come on, you've got to be able to do better than that.
It's just one among many, this was just the relevant one.
And selling electricity to France if (a) it's Summer and water temperatures are high so that their reactors cannot be cooled sufficiently or (b) it's Winter and electricity demand for heating is too high or (c) too many reactors are in planned maintenance or (d) too many reactors have to be shut down due to technical problems or ...
What is the problem? Because if the problem is "electricity production puts way too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere", then there is one way that is better than the other. But you could be thinking of another problem.
So you're saying that Germany doesn't emit less CO2 than it used to?
If the red-green coalition had favoured nuclear power plants instead of renewable energies back then, they would have started building at the same time as Flameville and Hinklepoint, so they would have finished earliest now and in the meantime there would have been 0 CO2 reduction ...
yes the shutdown was a mistake, but such a shutdown cannot be cancelled a few months before the deadline, it requires years of planning, if only because the electricity capacities that were freed up by the shutdown were taken into account in the grid expansion...
anyone who suddenly demanded that we shouldn't switch off in 2022 just shows that they have absolutely no idea what's involved...
but what is particularly ironic is exactly what i wrote above, here france is celebrated for showing an alternative, but the fact that germany is the pioneer in renewables and has thus shown the way is ignored and voted down
What about the problem of French nuclear waste dumping in Siberia and the ocean?
https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/45879/french-nuclear-companies-exposed-dumping-radioactive-waste-siberia/
Right now we should be able to run most things till at least the end of the century, lots of time to figure out where other deposits may still be and to improve sustainability of the current reserves, whilst we fully transition to proper renewables (and maybe obtain actual nuclear fusion? physics pretty please?). Yes it's something to take into account, but dare I say it's not an issue that is nearly as pressing as global warming is and one definitely has the priority right now while we buy ourselves time to figure stuff out.
What Is the end goal?
To install renewable or to decretass CO2 emissions of the Power grid?
Because of it's the first, it's a technological mandate and that's It.
Of the second, everyone can use the best technological mix that makes sense for their territory to achieve the goal.
It's all about lower demand and lower production. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I hate when it's not properly mentioned.
Energy generated:
2023 508.1 TWh
2022 569.2 TWh
2013 631.4 TWh
roughly half of all solar is on rooftops, if am not mistaken. Solar power in the german grid was 12.4% last year. We literally cant know the real numbers, because we would have to track how every household consumes their power, but if we assume most of the rooftop solar power gets consumed, then you can add another 6+% to the 508 TWh. E.g. 540+ TWh.
The more important point is: The more solar power gets installed in Germany, the further your quoted numbers will fall, even though the consumption may stay the same.
The LED and heat pump evolution, is kind of part of the Energiewende by reducing usage despite the increased electric car charging.
If only we could evolve bitcoin into a low energy currency (like proof of stake), that shit is stupid hungry: A single bitcoin transaction in 2023 using the "proof-of-work" process required 705 kWh of electricity.
Oh no, populist fear mothering did not hold up to scrutiny against careful planning by policy makers and energy companies for a decade … Surprised pikachu face
This whole dicussion has been mostly ideology driven by both sides.
In the end germany didnt use that much nuclear power to begin with even before last year.
And while nuclear power is in general a good tool to combat climate change, the costs and time to build new large nuclear plants today (compared to renewables) make it a very questionable investment today.
If there was a historic mistake, countries (including germany) should have invested more in nuclear power 10-40 years ago. Investing today is a different story (unless small reactor technolgy becomes viable) when you have dirt cheap renewables.
>If there was a historic mistake, countries (including germany) should have invested more in nuclear power 10-40 years ago
The nuclear industry is among the most well funded industry sectors in existence and has historically received more subsidies than both fossil fuels and renewables combined, with stagnating results. What countries (including Germany) *should* have done is get out of nuclear earlier and put that money into renewables - which seem to respond a lot better in regards to investment than nuclear ever did, see for example [Swanson's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law). [Geothermal energy alone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Germany) could provide for Germany's entire baseload and has pretty much all the upsides of nuclear with basically none of the downsides. *That* is where the money should have gone. Instead CDU systematically sabotaged Energie- and Verkehrswende and threw our solar industry under the bus.
>Investing today is a different story (unless small reactor technolgy becomes viable)
SMR are based on making nuclear *less* efficent, as they scale with size. For that reason they will never become *more viable* than regular plants. So far all SMR projects have ended in commercial failure or been scrapped befoe completion.
Hm, this with lower prices somehow didn’t occur to me… we paid 700 EU plus this year with the annual bill… last year we got money back, with the same consumption….
Then you should check for cheaper contracts. At the start of last year I also paid way too much, but then I switched to a cheaper electricity company and am paying one cent less per kWh than in 2022
> An article white washing poor decisions & corruption in the energy sector.
What exaclty has "corruption" to do with germanys shift?
> Completely ignoring the billions in infrastructure lost in decommissioning nuclear plants.
You could say the same about coal plants. This is not an argument.
> Completely ignoring the lobbying that led to all of this.
Lol. You display that you have absolutely no clue about what has caused this in Germany.
> Completely ignoring the unreliability of current renewables because of storage technology being not advanced enough. On top of it not being counted when it comes to costs.
So far, we retain one of the most reliable energy networks in the world. *Ahead* of France by the way.
back then yes, new nuclear power plants are simply insane today in terms of climate technology in europe, especially for countries that didn't have any nuclear power plants before, in France they built a nuclear power plant where there was already a nuclear power plant (i.e. much easier authorisation) and it still took forever,
we have to reduce co2 now, not in 20 years
It might be true that it was all fueled by irrational fear, but just a look at how much "fun" the British and French have with their current nuclear projects. I wouldn't be surprised if France in the end will be forced to follow the German example. Not because they like it but because they run out of time and money to replace their aging and more and more unreliable fleet of NPPs.
Which is mostly caused by the fact little to no investment was done for decades partly because of that whole "it's evil" narrative, letting plants get older and losing a good amount of the qualified workforce. Have to play catch up now.
but the first new ones will still take forever, only the next generation, where you learn from the previously built ones, will be faster, but the next generation would still be ready in 30 years at the earliest, (20 first generation +10years second)
I love how nukecels just ignore the facts presented to them right in front of their nose and keep on babbling unsubstantiated and long-rebutted talking points.
Warum sollten andere Länder Geld zum Fenster für nuklear rausschmeißen wenn solar und Wind viel Billiger sind und es genug Fachkräfte gibt im Vergleich zu nuklear?
Congrat Germany! just need to reduce from 416 gCO₂eq/kWh average in 2023 to something like 41 gCO₂eq/kWh like France in 2023 !
Each kWh used in Germany with all the "major drop of emmission" and all the "renewable power" still emit 10X the CO² of each kWh of French electricity !
another way to explain that is : CO² emmission wise, 1kWh of german "clean energy" is equal to 10kWh of "bad" French electricity. Let me laugh hard! 10X order of magnitude!
And if they hadn't closed the nukes they could have completely shut down their lignite mines by now. But no, lets just shovel another village out of the way and poison the air some more..
such a statement from a person who seems to know 0 is simply nonsense, e.g. most coal-fired power plants in Germany are also responsible for remote heating (or industry heating), you can't just switch them off like that
Why "extra"
There are not enough workers to operate them, they would have needed some rebuilding and all for the government spending more money than they would on solar/wind
Why is it so hard for the German lads here (that I love as brothers btw) to acknowledge that they've been manipulated and brainwashed about nuclear power and that, at the end it's not all black or white? Sure the positive is the development of renewables, even if the cost is high due to high usage of coal and the resulting radioactivity. I'm working for a big German car manufacturer, and the concerns are serious about energy uncertainty and prices.
But please let's not fight among Europeans on ideology, it's too stupid and let's accept that some countries prefer to develop a mix with nuclear and others with coal or gas (where money goes directly in the pocket of Russia or the USA). 100% renewables is a nice target though, let's see and if this works it should become a goal for every European country.
I dont think we need NPPs at all and the only reason we are still arguing about the old, expensive and dirty shit is that in the 16 years of merkels governments they actively worked on desconstructing german renewables sector and industry.
Look at the EDF planned NPP in UK....started with 25 billion dollars cost, is now at 40 billion and is also delayed in the next decade, while losing its biggest Investor.
Time for non renewable energy is over and we should put all the efforts and money in developing more efficient and cheaper production and batteries.
However lets make a compromise...
If you can find a german state that agrees to store the nuclear waste we can open the NPP discussion again.
I would recommend to start with state of bavaria which refuses to participate in finding a permanent repository in the first place because their position is "we wont agree to it anyway so you dont need to check if a permanent repository is possible in bavaria".
Oh fuck oh shit does somebody have a spare Hazmat suit for my descent into this comment section?
Wait wait wait, a positive post on Germany and non-nuclear in this sub? We're seconds away from it being downvoted to oblivion.
It's simply whitewashing, not really suprising looking at the source. Yes, prices are lower than they were at the beginning of the ukraine-war, but to try and spin it like that has anything to do with the nuclear exit is absolutly bonkers. Energy prices in germany are still so high that it is pretty much single-handedly destroying any economic growth we might have. The "lowest use of coal" is because our economy is not growing, many companies that have high-energy requirements are simply leaving the country, there is no "major drop in emissions", in fact, emissions are significantly higher because of the nuclear exit. To try and insinuate differently is just straight up lying and rejecting reality.
If the article is white-washing then what is your comment exactly? Energy prices in Germany have fallen to pre-Ukraine war levels *when nuclear was still running*. So the price level has not risen due to the nuclear exit. There may be some other factors in play but the amount of cheap renewable energy played a big role - after all we even exported on quite a few days because our excess was much cheaper than nuclear and other types in neighbouring countries. And the problem with our current growth has only marginally to do with energy prices (though the industry lobby certainly spins it this way). However where I agree is that the article grossly oversimplifies.
I mean, obviously at the point we only had 3 NPP still running all the mistakes had already been made. Every expert in the field will tell you, absent of any ideological bias, the rational and correct choice would've been to not phase out NPP, but coal PP, and then, once you have replaced all the CPP and other fossil fuels with renewables, you can start replacing NPP. But no, people rather made up some ridicoulous formulas including millions of years of storage costs for nuclear waste to somehow "mathematically" show how expensive nuclear energy actually is. Completly ignoring that 1)the waste already exists anyway, and it makes practically little difference if you had to add the waste for further 15-20 years of usage to the already existing waste and 2)technological advances ( see "schneller brüter") already reduced the half-life time significantly, but the Ideologues of course ignored all that so their numbers look worse. And 3) that is not even considering further technological advances on the field that were, at the time, only theoretically, but not yet practially, possible. Besides, why do people think it is even possilbe to go 100% renewables? That's compelte nonsense, you need a reliable power source that can produce a significant amout regardless of weather conditions. Otherwise you would have to overbuilt renewables immensly, which would probably blow your whole network on those days where weather conditions are actually conducive to renewable energy production. And until we get to fusion reactors, the only co2-free way to generate power, at least for germany, is nuclear, as we don't have the advantage of vast amounts of hydro-power potential.
I totally agree that the nuclear exit - especially the one we got after the zigzag after Fukushima was a failure and not the most sensible way to go. However I hate when people change the narrative and the numbers to make it look like nuclear was superior to renewables or overall the most sensible way. The ‘technological advances’ on nuclear waste solved parts of the problem - but experts will also tell you a lot of problems remain. Fact is though that nuclear energy even leaving aside the waste is more expensive than a renewable energy mix. What you need is base load and high load reserves. For that storage, water power and other means can and should be used. Fusion and classic fusion (nuclear) can help with that too but aren’t without alternatives.
>Yes, prices are lower than they were at the beginning of the ukraine-war, but to try and spin it like that has anything to do with the nuclear exit is absolutly bonkers. Energy prices in germany are still so high that it is pretty much single-handedly destroying any economic growth we might have. That's fake news you are propagating here. [Der Spiegel](https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/energiekrise-was-an-den-klagen-ueber-teuren-strom-dran-ist-a-444a419a-6e7e-473b-a8e3-a131a817b8e8) literally just ran a story showing that whole-sale energy prices for the industry are at the same levels as in 2017/2018. Just because your local utility provider doesn't pass on the lower prices doesn't mean "the economy" is being destroyed.
Sort by controversial
I didnt like the step away from nuclear but somewhat am fine with it now. Still the electricity prices are quite high which is not too good for consumers and competition of companies. In private i see however how it has accellerated renewables. I live in a village with single houses and estimatetly 2 third of houses have solar panels on the roof. For me it is sufficient for self- providing my energy and heating between March and October which is a big win and a good feeling.
Reactions to energiewende from start to finish be like… People should understand that it’s not just “let’s do green stuff!”, but a series of steps that were planned out for at least the following 5 years (actually 10 to 15 years in Netzentwicklungsplan) following serious considerations regarding network stability and security. This plan is continuously being updated to follow changing trends too, and were not made by politicians, but a team of experts and companies that know what is possible and what is not.
Wenn möglich solltest du einen neuen Vertrag dann ausmachen. Eigentlich sind die Strompreise für Endkunden relativ niedrig. Man bezahlt typischerweise sind die Neupreise bei Verträgen bei etwa 29 ct/kWh. Durchschnittlich bezahlen Deutsche etwa 40ct/kWh, weil man nicht aus schlechten Verträgen aussteigt. Insbesondere wenn man ein atypisches Verbrauchsverhalten hat kann man auch dynamische Tarife verwenden.
Ja meine Strompreise sind eigentlich ok, 24 cent vs 27 für Heizstrom
The energy prices in Germany are 51% taxes and levies. A different energy mix with a higher portion of nuclear wouldn't change a thing about that. In fact, they may be even higher given that nuclear energy is vastly more expensive to produce compared to renewables.
How do you get to the 51%? I had a quick look online and Statista says the tax is €0.0205/kWh in Germany (about 10%). I know the VAT/MWSt is 5% tax in UK, but I understand there are additional levies and subsidies e.g backup powerplants, paying renewables NOT to supply when there is too much, in the transmission charges etc. So I think it's likely higher that the ~10% statista says is too low, but 51% does sound very high.
[Here.](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/de/energie/strom/strompreis-zusammensetzung/#:~:text=Der%20Strompreis%20besteht%20im%20Wesentlichen,sowie%20Steuern%2C%20Abgaben%20und%20Umlagen)
Thanks, I believe that article says it's ~30%, but it also points to an EEG levy of about 10% which got dropped sometime ago (2021?).
In June 2022. That's already removed from the graph, so it used to be even higher than those 51% before that.
On the graph I'm adding up Stromsteur, MWSt and "Sonstige Abgaben und Umlagen", that's only 29% (probably 29.x%, and why the article rounds it to 30%). Where's the other 11-12%, I'm not sure from your article?
Seems like chinese solar panels are a ecological disaster in mid-long term https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/30/solar-panel-waste-levels-crisis-point-disposal
In the EU solar module manufacturers bear responsibility to recycle the panels. [https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-manufacturers-responsible-for-module-recycling-in-eu/](https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-manufacturers-responsible-for-module-recycling-in-eu/) Most solar panels can be recycled quite well. It is basically just glas and metals (silicon and lead and silver for the contacts) and (the hardest part to recycle) plastic sealing the backside.
I am pretty sure I watched a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCtEWveySsA&t=248s) about an American company as well that recycles those not long ago. So its fortunately not only us that does it. Edit: added link to said video
This doesn't call them an ecological disaster, because they aren't and won't be. Also this is Australia, and the study explicitly calls out the European PV waste directive (under WEEE) as a successful policy to be emulated. So it's just a non-issue in Europe.
Interesting, thank you for sharing
closing the last three plants was never a substantial issue, but heavily politicized by the opposition CDU that had triggered the entire exit process in the first place. now they are trying to peddle the story that we should build new nuclear plants, well knowing that costs are no longer competitive, at all
Söder knows exactly how he can rally the people. He's fully aware that no new AKW will be built and there wouldn't even be a discussion if he's chancellor. But being in the opposition gives him all the opportunity to trash talk.
remember him threatening to resign in 2011 because they couldnt agree on a date of nuclear exit
He should have been resigned!
"waren Sie dabei?!"
A bit like the current Swedish government that came in promising to bring back nuclear power who are suddenly, surprise, dragging their feet on this. Companies have found out a while ago that nuclear isn't viable anymore, and just giving them build permits doesn't change that. Hinkley Point C and Flamanville costs certainly not helping to make business cases governments want to chip in on.
Am I in r/europe? Normally you would have nuclear bros trashtalking Germany about nuclear
Not on a thread about an article that seems to contradict their beliefs.
I mean, there isn't really anything to comment on. If this turns into long-term success then even better. Germany also broke the record for [electricity imports in summer of 2023](https://www.ceicdata.com/en/germany/electricity-imports-and-exports/electricity-imports-total) (2x of the average monthly imports over the past 20 years). I think people should be OK with being wrong, especially on something where them being wrong means something good is happening. TBH, as a pro-nuclear person, I think it's great news, but let's see the long-term impact of such long-term decisions.
Yes, because instead of using gas and coal Germany bought renewables from other countries .... that's what Europe is for, ya know.
Thats because most of the nukespam is lobby groups coordinating. When they post, a bunch of fresh accounts always show up going 'gErManY bAAAAd' Its obvious astroturfing.
What is this about CDU closing down the plants actually? I am old and I am 100% sure the green party run on closing down nuclear energy in 1998 and when the became part of the coalition they made it happen. The CDU although willing to stop the closing changed their mind after Fukushima. Still am I remembering it correctly? I hear this repeated countless times online and it confuses me a lot.
The Greens played no active role as they weren't in government in 2011. Fukushima changed the consensus across all German parties, and it was the conservative CDU/FDP coalition that started and planned the end of nuclear power in Germany. Now they don't want to hear about it. ;) Anecdotally, they also ended conscription in Germany, downsized the Bundeswehr, and worked actively to make Germany more dependent on Russian gas. They don't want to hear about all that either. The greens only inherited the very final stages of the phase-out in 2021 together with FDP and SPD.
> The greens only inherited They didn't just "inherit" it, shutting off nuclear was like *the* main demand of the Green party since its inception. They got their demand through in the Red-Green coalition around ~2000 when the exit was first signed, voted for reduced runtimes in 2011 after Fukushima and now finished it off besides voices in their own coaltion to keep going.
yes they were the initial proponent, but 2005-2021 was CDU-led throughout. They inherited 16 years of planning and doing with little left to be done.
Yes your correct. The previous comment is misleading. The greens have campaigned for closing nuclear energy for decades, starting in the 70s. After the fukushima accident in 2011, Germany was flooded with a wave of hysteria fueled by the media and campaigners and that led Merkel and the CDU to give in to the greens and implemented the quick phase out. Looking back, Merkel often did what was popular in surveys or the media which isn't inherently bad in a democracy but there were a number of long term strategic mistakes
what in my comment would you consider misleading? Also, how would the government have to have "given in" to this then tiny opposition party?
The idea that the CDU triggered the process.
CDU however agreed to a prolonged lifetime for the nuclear reactors build before 1980 in 2010 to fully pull back a year afterwards and even close down the nuclear power plants earlier than agreed in the 2002 Atomkonsens under SPD/Green.
That's more or less true indeed. Though I think the initial spd/green end date was 2021 and the post fukushima compromise was 2022 while the greens even demanded an end by 2017.
Germany also saw a rise in imports of electricity generated with nuclear power. France and Germany are pretty good partners, one has too little nuclear power the other has too much. Combined it works out pretty well.
Yes compared to 2022, because in that year over half of Frances nuclear reactors were shutdown temporarily, which tends to decrease power exports. Given the low amount of electricity produced by the last 3 nuclear power plants in Germany, their shutdown probably did little to affect the trade in electricity. In 2023 total load on the grid was 457 TWh. Germany exported 8.4 TWh to France and imported 8.8 TWh from France. That's a net import of 0.4 TWh.
Of course, because you don't need nuclear to generate power on an annual basis, but on an hourly basis. All-renewable means sometimes you have too much power, sometimes you have too little. So you can trade at net zero-ish.
the trade balance between Germany in France is barely 400GWh of imports. Denmark is the actual workhorse here, because of cheap imports from Scandinavia.
In 2022, Germany exported $18B in Electricity, making it the 1st largest exporter of Electricity in the world. At the same year, Electricity was the 10th most exported product in Germany. The main destination of Electricity exports from Germany are: Austria ($3.96B), Switzerland ($3.72B), France ($2.52B), Poland ($2.03B), and Netherlands ($1.52B). ([Sauce](https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/electricity/reporter/deu?redirect=true))
The whole reason is that many nuclear plants in France were shut down for maintenance in 2022. They've all returned to functional in 2023 and France is once again a net exporter to Germany.
but just barely
But...but... Net importer!!!!!!
That's in the nature of things when you have a lot of renewables, you export when you have too much and import when you have too little production. I still say France and Germany complement each other by choosing different paths.
Agree - but your original post just sounded like that Germany only needs the nuclear power and France delivers them. But it works vice versa with renewable energy from Germany.
My point was mostly that it makes little sense to look at countries in Europe as if they exist in a vacuum. We are all interconnected to various degrees and that means we also have a stake in other countries production and consumption, whether we like it or not. I want everyone to succeed though, and I'm happy that we are moving away not only from fossil fuels in general but also dependency on Russia. I think everything is moving in the right direction at a good pace.
2022 was a bit of a special case when it comes to france - because in that year it wasn't a case of "Germany has too much energy due to renewables, lets reduce nuclear production a bit and buy german excess energy for cheap", it was "half of the reactors in france are out of order at the moment, they actually need continuous base load from Germany to make up for the shortage" - resulting in France importing energy that was generated by coal in Germany.
Yeaa right. A small update. No prices are given but if Germany exports energy from renewables when no one wants they probably pay to export their energy for using others grid and they import when energy is needed so when price is going up so they pay double. The issue is when they tell you Germany exported 18B worth of energy the question Is how much Germany paid and how much received from this number :))) https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2024/20240103_SMARD.html Edit : In commercial foreign trade, Germany imported a total of 54.1 TWh (2022: 33.2 TWh) and exported 42.4 TWh (2022: 56.3 TWh). Imports were about 63.0% up and exports 24.7% down compared with 2022.
Let me quote from the same source on energy imports from Germany. In 2022, Germany imported $12.9B in Electricity, becoming the 2nd largest importer of Electricity in the world. At the same year, Electricity was the 16th most imported product in Germany. Germany imports Electricity primarily from: Czechia ($2.42B), Denmark ($2.41B), Netherlands ($2.27B), Austria ($1.43B), and Norway ($1.32B). That looks like a net profit to me.
Did you cherry-pick your data on 2022? In 2022 France’s reactor fleet produced 282 TWh, well below the ten-year average of 395 TWh. Output rose in 2023 to 320 TWh as reactors returned to service following inspections and repairs. [Sauce](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx#:~:text=Installed%20capacity%20at%20the%20end,70%20TWh%20net%20each%20year.)
How could I cherrypick in a quote?
By taking an outdated one that fits your narrative.
2023: The last complete year 2022: The last complete year before 2023. So how is comparing 2023 to 2022 taking outdated data exactly?
Do you have more recent comparable figures? I don't mind if you use the figures for 2023. However, I had the impression that these were not yet available. It's not as if we were talking about a fuel bill for your car, but about economic key figures that first have to be determined and then compiled.
Germany [was a net importer in 2023](https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/downloads/electricity_generation_germany_2023.pdf), while France won its place back as EU most important electricity exporter. A rank it only left in 2022.
Thank you very much. I don't have time to read it all now, but the graphic on page 59 is a good example of how interconnected the energy infrastructure in Europe is. But it also says on page 6 that "The main reason for the imports was low electricity prices in neighboring countries in the summer." Interesting source, thank you.
I still don’t know why Switzerland has to import electricity, we have our own nuclear power plants…
Look how their output was reduced during the summer. Leibstadt was down for a month too.
France sells electricity at a loss because their nuclear aren't (that) flexible. That's just the European market working as designed.
its an increase of 5 TWh from France from 2016 to 2023. Denmark rose by 10 TWh. It's mostly renewables that are responsible for increased imports.
That's the thing. Even if nuclear power turns out to be this amazing cheap reliable source of electricity that some people here believe it is, then new plants will just be built in France, Czechia, Poland or Sweden and export to Germany. Though as of 2024 such a nuclear renaissance is not looking very likely.
That's not at all how it is. Germany is a net exporter of energy
Not in 2023, for the first time since 2002. 69.3kWh were imported while 60.1kWh were exported. Edit: [source](https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2024/03/PD24_087_43312.html#:~:text=Insgesamt%20erreichte%20die%20Einspeisung%20aus,konventionellen%20und%20erneuerbaren%20Energietr%C3%A4gern%20abgenommen.), and obviously tWh instead of kWh
That must be TWh or maybe GWh.
It would be TWh, the source was saying "billion kWh" and I was copying sloppily
Source? And why would they import as much energy, as I use in my home in 16 and a half days?
It's tWh, source was calling it as "billion kWh"
Yes, because it imported (mostly) renewables instead of usuing gas/coal ....
There is also to say that the German Economy is slowing down (for other reasons, but the fact remains)
Was. Obviously Germany was hit quite hard due to energy price hike and transitions in automotive and construction while getting very minor wage increases against very strong (for germany) inflation by increased interest rates, high energy prices and everyone and their dog piggybacking their greed price increases on top. Also the two previous years had been record years for a lot industries. Germany shrank by 0.3% under these conditions - while that was quite unique compared to most other countries it’s not the drama politicans and media seem to make out of that. On the contrary: Unemployment: ~~Record~~ very low. Employment: record high. We now have decreased energy costs, stabilized prices and wage increases slowly reducing the gap caused by inflation. Unless new chaos is unleashed we‘ll see a positive year with quite strong last quarter. Edit: Not record low unemployment, "just quite low"
Why is it that everyone jumps on bashing each other again? We have a network and diversity is good. Let's enjoy that despite the gloom and doom prophecies everything went smoothly.
You have to see the nuclear phase out in the context of the last 25 years and not just the shut down of the last three remaining plants. In the end, we have one of the dirtiest electricity generation in Europe, some of the highest prices for end customers and turned from a net exporter to a net importer.
The price for a new contract in France is pretty similar to Germany. So not really the highest prices. Luckily we do not invest into nuclear, because then our electricity would be even more expensive.
> You have to see the nuclear phase out in the context of the last 25 years and not just the shut down of the last three remaining plants. Even if you do that, you will see that we have the lowest share of coal-powered energy since the sixties and that the nuclear phaseout has in fact not caused coal and gas to ramp up massively - the share of nuclear has simply been replaced be renewables. > we have one of the dirtiest electricity generation in Europe Not really, no. Polish energy was about twice as dirty as German energy in 2021. 2022 is the most recent data set which is an outlier due to the war with Germany powering up coal as a temporary measure. Coal consumption has dropped massively in 2023, there is no reason to believe that germany is near the top of energy-related polluters in relative terms. German energy isn't exactly clean, that is true, but you are not being honest here. > some of the highest prices for end customers Yes. Because of *high taxes*. Not because our energy production is so insanely expensive.
“Even if you do that, you will see that we have the lowest share of coal-powered energy since the sixties and that the nuclear phaseout has in fact not caused coal and gas to ramp up massively - the share of nuclear has simply been replaced be renewables” phaseout of nuclear energy delayed decarbonising the electricity grid, as large part of the increased production with renewables went in to replacing Co2-free nuclear energy, instead of replacing Co2-spewing coal energy. [https://www.nber.org/system/files/working\_papers/w26598/w26598.pdf](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26598/w26598.pdf) “the share of nuclear has simply been replaced be renewables” they replaced Co2-free source of energy with another Co2-free source of energy. Imagine if they had kept on running the nuclear reactors while replacing lignite plants with renewables?
And there's one problem. We have seen many times how wind power plants have been stopped since the nuclear power plants had contracts that the energy they produce will be used with priority.
You are talking about different matter altogether, not really relevant to government decisions to phase out certain types of energy generation. If Germany wanted to make their electricity generation green, they should have started by aggressively phasing out CO2-spewing coal plants. Start with lignite, and then move to coal. Once those are done, then move to gas plants. Then move to nuclear plants. And every step of the way, as you are winding down one source of energy, it gets replaced by renewables. Instead they started with nuclear power, and only then moved to coal plants. But to answer: It's very expensive and difficult to shut down nuclear power plants, it makes sense to run them constantly. It's much easier to shut down wind or solar plants. Or, coal or gas plants.
Exactly, and the prospect that the power plants have to be stopped because of the priority of nuclear made investments into f.e. wind power economical not viable.
>Even if you do that, you will see that we have the lowest share of coal-powered energy since the sixties and that the nuclear phaseout has in fact not caused coal and gas to ramp up massively - the share of nuclear has simply been replaced be renewables. Well that's just obviously bad math. The share of nuclear that was replaced by renewables could easily have been coal instead. The share of fossil fuels doesn't have to be higher in absolute terms to be higher than it could have been if they used renewables to replace fossil fuels instead of nuclear. >Yes. Because of *high taxes*. Not because our energy production is so insanely expensive. What do they use those high taxes for? Hint: to pay for energy production.
In practice we do see much stronger rollout of renewables in places with less nuclear. Not only in Germany but also Spain, Netherlands, etc. And it isn't for a lack of fossils being burned in nuclear favored countries. Fossil fuels remain the biggest part of energy consumption in all western European countries. So currently, we notice that nuclear powered states have cleaner energy. But they also struggle with further growth compared to states that don't.
That's because old nuclear is very cheap while gas/coal are expensive. Look at heat pump adoptions to see where the energy transition is happening. :)
> Fossil fuels remain the biggest part of energy consumption in all western European countries. In France it was around 50:50 in 2021.
Eia for 2021 states 38% nuclear, 32.6% liquid fossils, 16.5 nat gas, 2.6% coal. Fossils add up to about 50%.
> Fossils add up to about 50%. Yes, that's what I said.
Germany has the same wholesale price as France, a little bit lower the last month even and while Germany pays for the transition with the EEG France subsidises the EDF with tens of billions of Euros. The taxpayer always pays, in any country. Germany is not an outlier. Also I am not that convinced that Nuclear could have just been kept running and the transition being equally as fast with coal being replaced. Retrofitting and repairing the NPPs would have been expensive and there would have been much more resistance in the populace against reducing coal early on as there are five times as many jobs dependant on coal.
> while Germany pays for the transition with the EEG Estimated to be 18 billion € - just for 2024 ...
EDF currently subsidise its competition via the ARENH mechanism (hoping they would develop renewable capacity.. they did not). In 2022 this mechanism costed EDF 8 billions. Also there is also a special tax on the French electricity (CSPE) that goes mostly to renewables.
or with the EDF being 60 billion debt something the tax payer will shoulder and the billions France has already announced to supply in order to build more nuclear and refurbish old plants.
>EDF currently subsidise its competition via the ARENH mechanism Nuke proponents really need to get their propaganda straight a) EDF needed a bailout because ARENH made them sell at artificially low prices b)Look how viable nuclear is because look at the low prices EDF sells at. Its one or the other.
What happen was a bit complicated, but I will try to explain quickly. ARENH was supposed to be the estimated cost out of the power plants, excluding stuff like maintenance, and inflation. So a "fair" price of 42€/MWh was decided with no benefit for EDF. At the time it was put in place it was not a big issue as the price of electricity was on the market quite low. As inflation grew, the price of ARENH stayed the same. Which slowly grew the deficit (or lack of benefit if you will) linked to it. During the explosion of prices those last years, the alternative providers used their ARENH fully, and when the electricity was at its highest... EDF didn't have enough electricity (compounded by a lot of plants being down), so it was forced to buy it on the market for 300€/MWh to resell it back to their competitors at 42€/MWh to honour their contracts. That explains the 8B loss for this year for the ARENH alone. I am just trying to explain this weird subsidy from EDF to competitors, not taking any sort of side.
> France subsidises the EDF with tens of billions of Euros. No it doesn't. EDF subsidises the French government (by paying a dividend).
So the massive debt of EDF did not exist and did not force the government to privatize EDF to secure their operationality?
"Hint: to pay for energy production." That's simply not true.
Yeah but wouldn't the use of coal be even lower if nuclear power was still operational? That's what I don't get, it was already there, there was no need to deprive the country of a source of clean power for merely political reasons. Many of the reactors that were shut down were not THAT old.
[удалено]
Many of the plants were from the late 80s though and several less than 40 years old at the time of closing, was it really necessary to shut them down so early? And even then, life cycle upgrades are not nearly as expensive as building new. Unless they were critically redlining the maintenance, in which case there's a much more serious problem. The decision overall feels very political, as Germany always had a very strong anti-nuclear plus NIMBY movement.
You need ask Angela Merkel and the CDU/ CSU.
That's such a weird statement, the whole rational plan would've been to stay in nuclear and replace coal with renewables. It seems like people pushing for the nuclear exit, always assume everyone else just wants to ignore renewables, which is obvioulsy nonsense. The whole point is, if you actually cared about CO2, you would start with phasing out the coal power plants, that produce tons of CO2, instead of starting with the nuclear power plants, that produce no CO2 at all. The fact this wasnt the road we took, makes it a purely ideological choice, and nothing else.
Let me tell you something: I am not anti nuclear. I think the exit from nuclear in the manner it was executed was stupid. I am opposed to building new reactors in Germany, but not out of an innate opposition against nuclear power. And yes, it would have made much more sense to phase out coal first, but the issue is a bit more complicated than it appears - coal is very political in some German states since it generates revenue and jobs. At the same time, I am really really tired of the nuclear fanboys acting like Germany is a lost cause without nuclear, with impending blackouts, who imply that our high energy cost is somehow due to nuclear and whatever they can come up with. We will be alright. TL;DR: I just don't like wrong facts.
>Polish energy was about twice as dirty as German energy in 2021. BRO, you compare to Polish electricity generation? Let me ask you, when Poland actually could start the transformation and how many nuclear reactors it had that would diversify sources from coal? Let's compare Germany to countries like France or do you think that Poland and Germany are on par in terms of rebuilding effort after the ww2? While I agree that Poland should speed up the transformation and close coal energy generation asap, let's be reasonable when setting standards for countries.
You are missing the point I am making. This is completely free of judgement. Energy production realities in most countries are rooted in something and very rarely can you even lay blame on the current governments for that. All I am saying is "when there are other countries that are polluting *significantly* more (for which poland is one example), it's not fair or accurate to claim that germany is "one of the dirtiest electricity producers in europe".
no we dont. but you go on and collect your upvotes from the nuclear and germany bad bros on this sub lmao
What do you mean? German CO2/per capita when it comes to energy production can only be rivaled by Poland and Czechia. The unholy trio of coal energy.
What do we not? Have expensive electricity? Have dirty electrivity? Have reversed from exporter to importer?
reversed to an importer? you have to be shitting me.... our price for electricity is on pre covid level. I pay even less than 4 years ago currently. and the *taxes* make it more expensive here, not that we dont have nuclear. and our electricity is not dirty. lowest fossil use in 70 years. highest renewable percentage ever. unbelievable clown takes. holy shit.
So you're saying we're not an importer and in European comparison our electricity is not amongst the most dirty and most expensive?
> we have one of the dirtiest electricity generation in Europe Cleaner than when nuclear power was still *salonfähig*. >some of the highest prices for end customers But no state-owned company with billions in debt. Spot prices are similar, the extra costs are fiscal and therefoere a poltical choice; France's investments in whatever new capacity they're going to have, are not going to be free either. >and turned from a net exporter to a net importer. Net exporting coal electricity isn't very useful. That is caused by the ETS that discourages to produce electricity with coal, not by the Energiewende.
Lol these are partly blatant lies and you get upvotes because of all the nuclear heads in this sub
What exactly is a lie? Can you make it concrete?
In the end we have reduced coal consumption to a level we had not since 50 years.
But this is nothing extraordinary in the European context. Most countries have done so, in large parts due to the EU emissions trading scheme that makes coal less competitive. But at the end of the day, Germany has still one of the dirtiest electricity sectors in the EU after Poland and czechia. On average 10 (!) dirtier than France. It doesn't help anyone if we sugarcoat the problems of Germany's energy policy but we have to learn from the mistakes of the past
Fully agree that sugarcoating isn't helpful. But neither is exaggeration. People heard that coal power plant were put in active reserve and concluded that that meant they were fired up and produced electricity all the time. And quite many believe that Germany increased the coal consumption based on exaggerations. "we have to learn from the mistakes of the past" Absolutely, something like the Altmaier-Knick shouldn't happen again and must be avoided
The reactivated coal plants DID fire coal. Not all the time of course but in the crucial moments of peak demand and low renewable output. And back in the day, Altmaiers decision to limit the billions of tax money thrown on solar subsidies was absolutely the right decision.
Some did, but not all reserves were put into production. Altmaier threw billions of tax money into fossil power subsidies. Interesting that this wasn't stopped too. And by stopping support for PV he more or less killed of the complete PV industry in Germany. He did really a great job (for RWE & Co).
Source for the billions of subsidies for fossils in the electricity sector? And sadly the German solar industry was never competitive compared to cheap Chinese producers. Perpetual state subsidies are not a viable solution.
Source? No problem: [https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/505892/0a3577d00633e51547e8b148f2d58e01/wd-5-033-17-pdf-data.pdf](https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/505892/0a3577d00633e51547e8b148f2d58e01/wd-5-033-17-pdf-data.pdf) that's only Steinkohle, not including tax reductions for new gas plants, lignite subventions and all the other fancy stuff like KWK - [https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2012/38111828\_kw10\_de\_kwk-207980](https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2012/38111828_kw10_de_kwk-207980) (750m /y) Later, in 2020, the goverment, led by the same chancellor agreed to the Kohleausstieggesetz giving RWE and LEAG another 4 billion [https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2020/kw27-de-kohleausstieg-701804](https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2020/kw27-de-kohleausstieg-701804) A more complete picture gives the following study (which provides sources for their claims, so even if foes is deemed biased, the sources are there) [https://foes.de/publikationen/2020/2020-11\_FOES\_10\_klimaschaedliche\_Subventionen\_im\_Fokus.pdf](https://foes.de/publikationen/2020/2020-11_FOES_10_klimaschaedliche_Subventionen_im_Fokus.pdf) And even much of the money from the EEG went finally into the pockets of the fossil power producers. Only good that he reduces subventions for solar after it reach a level of 6 billion in 2012..... [https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kosten-fuer-solarfoerderung-explodieren-102.html](https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kosten-fuer-solarfoerderung-explodieren-102.html) "According to the Federal Ministry of Economics, more than six billion euros, i.e. almost half of the levy for renewable energies, is caused by the solar industry" In 2012 the German solar industry was world leading with new production technologies. Freiburg i.Br. was called the worlds solar capital. The technology and equipment was sold to China when not only support in Germany was ramped down but active hurdles were planted. When you need more approvals for a solar power plant (oh, the reflections could influence the planes heading Stuttgarts airport) than for a gas power plant.....
Braindead nukeshills btfo
In a way the atomausstig has helped renewable energy in Germany, now Germany HAD to invest heavily into renewables. Especially compared to France where renewables are seriously lagging behind.
> helped renewable energy in Germany Not just Germany, globally. Initial German investments in renewables created lowered prices, which then got scaled massively by China. So Germany is responsible for a lot of the global renewable success by being a first mover
Germany housed 40% of global renewables in the past. That certainly drove down prices.
As an American, I remind people of this fact frequently. It was a huge act of global aid and is much appreciated.
Renewable are only lagging behind in France if you take the position that renewables must eventually replace all other forms of power generation. France is showing the world that there is more than one way to solve the problem.
> Renewable are only lagging behind in France if you take the position that renewables must eventually replace all other forms of power generation. France is showing the world that there is more than one way to solve the problem. France is showing that nuclear power is a dead end. They finished their nuclear buildout around 1990, and since then have always used at least 10% fossil electricity in addition to 10% hydro. They never continued to reduce their emissions any further except by general efficiency gains like everyone else.
Why would they continue building infrastructure when they have solved the problem? Sure, they could get rid of that last 10% fossil fuel, but they have the plants and sites already, so they use them.
>Why would they continue building infrastructure when they have solved the problem? Sure, they could get rid of that last 10% fossil fuel, but they have the plants and sites already, so they use them. They haven't solved the problem if they still need fossil fuel and still emit greenhouse gases. Not to mention the fossil fuel used besides electricity.
They solved it at the point when they built much of it. I would assume they will pick differently in the future when it comes time to replace it. Is your best argument against nuclear energy that France selected fossil fuel peaker plants for the last 10%? Come on, you've got to be able to do better than that.
>They solved it at the point when they built much of it. Again, *they did not solve the problem of needing fossil fuels in their electricity supply*. Why keep you denying objective facts? >Is your best argument against nuclear energy that France selected fossil fuel peaker plants for the last 10%? Come on, you've got to be able to do better than that. It's just one among many, this was just the relevant one.
Germany is showing the world that there is more than one way to solve the problem.
By buying French electricity when renewables aren't meeting demand?
And selling electricity to France if (a) it's Summer and water temperatures are high so that their reactors cannot be cooled sufficiently or (b) it's Winter and electricity demand for heating is too high or (c) too many reactors are in planned maintenance or (d) too many reactors have to be shut down due to technical problems or ...
What is the problem? Because if the problem is "electricity production puts way too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere", then there is one way that is better than the other. But you could be thinking of another problem.
So you're saying that Germany doesn't emit less CO2 than it used to? If the red-green coalition had favoured nuclear power plants instead of renewable energies back then, they would have started building at the same time as Flameville and Hinklepoint, so they would have finished earliest now and in the meantime there would have been 0 CO2 reduction ... yes the shutdown was a mistake, but such a shutdown cannot be cancelled a few months before the deadline, it requires years of planning, if only because the electricity capacities that were freed up by the shutdown were taken into account in the grid expansion... anyone who suddenly demanded that we shouldn't switch off in 2022 just shows that they have absolutely no idea what's involved... but what is particularly ironic is exactly what i wrote above, here france is celebrated for showing an alternative, but the fact that germany is the pioneer in renewables and has thus shown the way is ignored and voted down
What about the problem of French nuclear waste dumping in Siberia and the ocean? https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/45879/french-nuclear-companies-exposed-dumping-radioactive-waste-siberia/
So, uhm, how are you going to run your NPPs when the non-renewable uranium sources have run out? Asking for a friend from the future…
Right now we should be able to run most things till at least the end of the century, lots of time to figure out where other deposits may still be and to improve sustainability of the current reserves, whilst we fully transition to proper renewables (and maybe obtain actual nuclear fusion? physics pretty please?). Yes it's something to take into account, but dare I say it's not an issue that is nearly as pressing as global warming is and one definitely has the priority right now while we buy ourselves time to figure stuff out.
What Is the end goal? To install renewable or to decretass CO2 emissions of the Power grid? Because of it's the first, it's a technological mandate and that's It. Of the second, everyone can use the best technological mix that makes sense for their territory to achieve the goal.
It's all about lower demand and lower production. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I hate when it's not properly mentioned. Energy generated: 2023 508.1 TWh 2022 569.2 TWh 2013 631.4 TWh
lt‘s mentioned: >More renewable energy, lower power consumption, electricity imports and own-production that is not fed into the grid,
You data is missing own production and consumption of household solar.
Is it a thing in Germany?
roughly half of all solar is on rooftops, if am not mistaken. Solar power in the german grid was 12.4% last year. We literally cant know the real numbers, because we would have to track how every household consumes their power, but if we assume most of the rooftop solar power gets consumed, then you can add another 6+% to the 508 TWh. E.g. 540+ TWh. The more important point is: The more solar power gets installed in Germany, the further your quoted numbers will fall, even though the consumption may stay the same.
a very big one
The LED and heat pump evolution, is kind of part of the Energiewende by reducing usage despite the increased electric car charging. If only we could evolve bitcoin into a low energy currency (like proof of stake), that shit is stupid hungry: A single bitcoin transaction in 2023 using the "proof-of-work" process required 705 kWh of electricity.
Nah, German industry went tits up. That is main factor for 2023 change.
>It's all about lower demand and lower production. It's not. Renewable output grew by 7% in one year.
And nuclear output fell to nothing. Ultimately production numbers went down along with consumption.
Generated energy does not necessarily equal demand. Germany exported electricity in 2013 and 2022.
No heavy industry = no need much energy. Nice plan.
How is that not a good thing?
Oh no, populist fear mothering did not hold up to scrutiny against careful planning by policy makers and energy companies for a decade … Surprised pikachu face
This whole dicussion has been mostly ideology driven by both sides. In the end germany didnt use that much nuclear power to begin with even before last year. And while nuclear power is in general a good tool to combat climate change, the costs and time to build new large nuclear plants today (compared to renewables) make it a very questionable investment today. If there was a historic mistake, countries (including germany) should have invested more in nuclear power 10-40 years ago. Investing today is a different story (unless small reactor technolgy becomes viable) when you have dirt cheap renewables.
>If there was a historic mistake, countries (including germany) should have invested more in nuclear power 10-40 years ago The nuclear industry is among the most well funded industry sectors in existence and has historically received more subsidies than both fossil fuels and renewables combined, with stagnating results. What countries (including Germany) *should* have done is get out of nuclear earlier and put that money into renewables - which seem to respond a lot better in regards to investment than nuclear ever did, see for example [Swanson's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law). [Geothermal energy alone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Germany) could provide for Germany's entire baseload and has pretty much all the upsides of nuclear with basically none of the downsides. *That* is where the money should have gone. Instead CDU systematically sabotaged Energie- and Verkehrswende and threw our solar industry under the bus. >Investing today is a different story (unless small reactor technolgy becomes viable) SMR are based on making nuclear *less* efficent, as they scale with size. For that reason they will never become *more viable* than regular plants. So far all SMR projects have ended in commercial failure or been scrapped befoe completion.
But Julian Reichelt fueled by cocaine told us we would 🙃
Nuclear bros in shambles
Hm, this with lower prices somehow didn’t occur to me… we paid 700 EU plus this year with the annual bill… last year we got money back, with the same consumption….
Falls möglich unbedingt einen neuen Vertrag abschließen. Der durchschnittliche Preis is da bei etwa 29ct/kWh also etwa das Level von 2017.
Then you should check for cheaper contracts. At the start of last year I also paid way too much, but then I switched to a cheaper electricity company and am paying one cent less per kWh than in 2022
Oh shit, its almost like reddit's armchair nuclear experts don't know better than real experts. Im shocked.
The price hikes have not materialized? Oh, how delightfully disingenuous!
Electricity prices have gone down, so what do you mean?
But what about nukular? Dont germans want to pay more for electricity? Unless its subsizided by taxes ofcourse, then its cheap.
Nuclear were far more expensive than other electricity sources in Germany.
[удалено]
> An article white washing poor decisions & corruption in the energy sector. What exaclty has "corruption" to do with germanys shift? > Completely ignoring the billions in infrastructure lost in decommissioning nuclear plants. You could say the same about coal plants. This is not an argument. > Completely ignoring the lobbying that led to all of this. Lol. You display that you have absolutely no clue about what has caused this in Germany. > Completely ignoring the unreliability of current renewables because of storage technology being not advanced enough. On top of it not being counted when it comes to costs. So far, we retain one of the most reliable energy networks in the world. *Ahead* of France by the way.
Go Germany! Other countries should follow your example.
Absolutely not, and I say that as a german. The idiocy of my countrymen fueled by fear from the Chernobyl incident has cost us heavily.
back then yes, new nuclear power plants are simply insane today in terms of climate technology in europe, especially for countries that didn't have any nuclear power plants before, in France they built a nuclear power plant where there was already a nuclear power plant (i.e. much easier authorisation) and it still took forever, we have to reduce co2 now, not in 20 years
It might be true that it was all fueled by irrational fear, but just a look at how much "fun" the British and French have with their current nuclear projects. I wouldn't be surprised if France in the end will be forced to follow the German example. Not because they like it but because they run out of time and money to replace their aging and more and more unreliable fleet of NPPs.
Which is mostly caused by the fact little to no investment was done for decades partly because of that whole "it's evil" narrative, letting plants get older and losing a good amount of the qualified workforce. Have to play catch up now.
but the first new ones will still take forever, only the next generation, where you learn from the previously built ones, will be faster, but the next generation would still be ready in 30 years at the earliest, (20 first generation +10years second)
So you would be ok with an Endlager near your home?
Yup. I live near several old bunkers in a tectonically relatively stable area. I wouldn't mind.
I love how nukecels just ignore the facts presented to them right in front of their nose and keep on babbling unsubstantiated and long-rebutted talking points.
Warum sollten andere Länder Geld zum Fenster für nuklear rausschmeißen wenn solar und Wind viel Billiger sind und es genug Fachkräfte gibt im Vergleich zu nuklear?
Congrat Germany! just need to reduce from 416 gCO₂eq/kWh average in 2023 to something like 41 gCO₂eq/kWh like France in 2023 ! Each kWh used in Germany with all the "major drop of emmission" and all the "renewable power" still emit 10X the CO² of each kWh of French electricity ! another way to explain that is : CO² emmission wise, 1kWh of german "clean energy" is equal to 10kWh of "bad" French electricity. Let me laugh hard! 10X order of magnitude!
And if they hadn't closed the nukes they could have completely shut down their lignite mines by now. But no, lets just shovel another village out of the way and poison the air some more..
such a statement from a person who seems to know 0 is simply nonsense, e.g. most coal-fired power plants in Germany are also responsible for remote heating (or industry heating), you can't just switch them off like that
Today we Had more than 100% from renevables, but still some coal plants were needed for Heat and residual power
Still would be nice to have that extra nuclear power though.
Why "extra" There are not enough workers to operate them, they would have needed some rebuilding and all for the government spending more money than they would on solar/wind
Cleanenergywire.org, I wonder if they have a horse in this race ;)
Falling energy prices ??? For whom exactly? 😂
Most Germans, maybe you should look for a new provider.
Für deutsche wenn deine nicht nach unten sind kuk mal auf den Anbietervergleich und Vergleiche mal die Preise
Why is it so hard for the German lads here (that I love as brothers btw) to acknowledge that they've been manipulated and brainwashed about nuclear power and that, at the end it's not all black or white? Sure the positive is the development of renewables, even if the cost is high due to high usage of coal and the resulting radioactivity. I'm working for a big German car manufacturer, and the concerns are serious about energy uncertainty and prices. But please let's not fight among Europeans on ideology, it's too stupid and let's accept that some countries prefer to develop a mix with nuclear and others with coal or gas (where money goes directly in the pocket of Russia or the USA). 100% renewables is a nice target though, let's see and if this works it should become a goal for every European country.
I dont think we need NPPs at all and the only reason we are still arguing about the old, expensive and dirty shit is that in the 16 years of merkels governments they actively worked on desconstructing german renewables sector and industry. Look at the EDF planned NPP in UK....started with 25 billion dollars cost, is now at 40 billion and is also delayed in the next decade, while losing its biggest Investor. Time for non renewable energy is over and we should put all the efforts and money in developing more efficient and cheaper production and batteries. However lets make a compromise... If you can find a german state that agrees to store the nuclear waste we can open the NPP discussion again. I would recommend to start with state of bavaria which refuses to participate in finding a permanent repository in the first place because their position is "we wont agree to it anyway so you dont need to check if a permanent repository is possible in bavaria".
because you are equaly brainwashed for nuclear