This was not decided by the greens only. From the article:

> Yet the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 caused German sentiments to shift strongly against atomic energy once more, and Ms. Merkel abruptly reversed course. Her government passed a law to phase out Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors by the end of 2022.

Similarly in the neighbouring Austria, nuclear power is prohibited in the constitution, not by a political party.

You can still visit the nuclear power plants that were built but never switched on

https://youtu.be/WUVZbBBHrI4

Good politicians deliver the end goal people want (e.g. cheap and clean electricity), in the best way scientifically possible, then convince their base their method was the right decision.

Bad politicians ask people how they should do a thing, then do that thing.

It's been awhile since Germany has had good politicians where energy is concerned.

I mean at least they are currently trying to make and implement long overdue policies to fix this mess and speed up required processes.

That same logic lead to gas pipelines with Russia and Russia blackmailing Germany

Fair. The whole point was that gas was supposed to be the "Plan B" bridge to ensure flex and resiliency during the cutover to renewables.

Then they did away with a big component of "Plan A" in nuclear after Fukushima, which promoted Russian gas to an essential component of their transition energy mix.

At the end of the day, if Germany hadn't stopped building nuclear or decommissioned reactors, Ukraine probably wouldn't have been invaded.

I think it's not that far fetched to assume Russia had big influence in shaping the anti nuclear narrative and "building relationships" with key politicians.

We'll never know, but it doesn't seem fair to chalk up a country's poor democratic choices to external forces.

Russia surely nudged, but if Germany hadn't already been trending in that direction then it wouldn't have stuck.

> Ukraine probably wouldn't have been invaded.

Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to, and Germany had nothing to do with that.

As one of the strongest European economies and militaries, Germany played a big part in Russia's calculations.

The belief that Germany would rather sacrifice Ukraine than lose Russian gas would have been less plausible if 30% nuclear energy had been retained.

That's pure speculation, isn't it?

Russia didn't make a rational decision: we know that Putin hid the plan from most of his subordinates, ignored concerns presented by the rest, and the system withheld important facts from him likewise. He made a huge gamble with his "3-day special operation".

Also, the nuclear plants would have provided only a partial backup for the Russian gas, as electricity from the plants couldn't replace the direct use of gas in German houses and industry anyway.

Russia absolutely made a rational decision.

A bad one, because their facts were wrong, but one based off calculations rather than rolling dice:

+ Russian Cold War-era (and refits of same) military materiel is reaching obsolescence and end of life. Russia can't afford to modernize its military at scale (hence the obsession with announcing prototype superweapons)

+ US and European ties are at a low point, as a consequence of the Trump presidency

+ US is focused on China as a peer threat

+ Germany is uniquely diplomatically vulnerable to gas energy pressure, but only until additional renewables come online, transmission infrastructure is upgraded, and efficiency measures implemented (see the Nord Stream bombing whodoneit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sa... )

+ Remaining ex-Warsaw Pact / non-NATO countries are likely accede to NATO in the next few years (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Current_... )

... ergo, there was no better time to make the attempt than now. Everyone just assumed Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to try.

But that calculation looks very different without the energy vulnerability, as Russia understands the economic difference between themselves and Germany.

> in the neighbouring Austria, nuclear power is prohibited

Which is funny, because we actually built a pretty much complete nuclear power plant, Zwentendorf. It‘s now a unique museum.

A vote of just 50.47 % ruined our radiant future...

Also we do have one research reactor left right in the city. I was blessed enough to visit it once.

> A vote of just 50.47 % ruined our radiant future...

There really should be a rule that important decisions can't pass with a tiny majority

> There really should be a rule that important decisions can’t pass with a tiny majority

There are at least two major problems with such a rule:

(1) On an important question, “yes” and “no” are both important decisions.

(2) Who decides what is “important”?

You can make a rule that is closer to “you can’t make specific kinds of deviations from the status quo without a supermajority vote”, but that’s…very different from “important decisions”.

Now you are buying nuclear power from Czechia.

The US also built at least one nuclear reactor and never used it.

Danish TV just had a documentary, regarding nuclear power. It's basically the "reporter" who is reconsidering his life long hostility towards nuclear power. In the documentary there's an interesting point: The opponents never wanted coal either, they firmly believe that a no to nuclear was a yes to solar and wind. That part of the message just got lost, and it was not particularly realistic either.

It's incredibly naive, but it's the same mentality in present day nuclear opponents. They still fail to see that a no to nuclear is often a yes to coal, oil and gas.

Surprised you are getting downvoted, you are correct. This is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

They are probably being downvoted because they are pinning the decisions lead by CDU on the Green party. If they didn't misrepresent the situation they most likely would not get downvoted. Funny how that works, no?

The CDU may have made the decision but the Greens were in favor of it, were they not?

The German Greens were literally founded out of the anti-nuclear power movement. Yes, they're against it.

because someone else supported the idea they are now responsible? weird take on how government should be held accountable.

The Greens fervent opposition to nuclear is a pretty big reason for why it was so unpopular in Germany.

Its the other way around; it was very unpopular, which is why the Green party formed in the first place.

Were all other political parties against it? If not, why specifically pin it on the Green party?

* * *

> The CDU adopted their environmental policies precisely to out-green the Greens and undercut their support. If the Greens hadn't been so vehemently anti-nuclear, the CDU wouldn't have gone in that direction.

I agree with this, but this in no way absolves the CDU. If they try to undercut another parties support and pass legislation with negative effects, it's their fault, not the fault of the party they undercut.

> But ultimately this is on the German voting public, a large portion of whom have had an irrational aversion to nuclear for a long time.

Aside from whether I agree with the aversion being irrational, this is definitely true. The CDU was following public sentiment.

To be fair: Merkel (so conservatives and liberals) made the decision in 2011 after Fukushima in a move to align with popular sentiment.

> after Fukushima in a move to align with popular sentiment.

So they were populists?

Unfortunately popular sentiment doesn't equate to scientific fact. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer and less environmentally damaging than fossil fuels in every way. Still, since when have politicians ever let facts get in the way of campaigning for power?

"Nuclear power is cleaner [..] than fossil fuels in every way."

Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere.

> nuclear waste has to go somewhere.

yes, and it's so dense that it fits in a ridiculous amount of space, unlike coal that will put cancer-causing dusts everywhere in the air for decades to come. Enjoy.

Fossil fuel waste goes straight into the atmosphere is and is killing millions of people through climate change and respiratory diseases. And not forgetting slag piles and other fossil fuel waste (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster).

Nuclear waste has killed possibly a few hundred people at best.

You should also take in consideration, that nuclear waste is dangerous over a very long period of time. So a couple hundred now might turn into millions until the waste is no longer dangerous.

> So a couple hundred now might turn into millions until the waste is no longer dangerous.

Not if we store it properly, like we already do.

>You should also take in consideration, that nuclear waste is dangerous over a very long period of time. So a couple hundred now might turn into millions until the waste is no longer dangerous.

Take into consideration the burning of fossil fuels over a very long period of time. Billions.

What you do is finally close the cycle with a fast breeder... This was so clear, then Astrid got shot for no good reason.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor)

Nuclear waste doesn’t cause climate change and it doesn’t go anywhere - this is not an urgent problem.

>Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere.

I don't understand your argument; of course waste must go somewhere. Nuclear power, with its waste, is still cleaner than fossil fuels in every way.

I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way".

>I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life.

No, we've got a pretty good idea.

>So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way".

It is, objectively.

> nuclear waste has to go somewhere.

My stock comment for that is: bury it deep and with signs; if we've lost the ability to read the signs, we've lost the ability to dig deep and endanger ourselves.

Indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...

We are not choosing between nuclear and fossils - we have chosen renewables.

Clarification: I'm talking globally and long term. What's happening right now in Germany is just a blip. The big picture:

> Clean power growth is likely to exceed electricity demand growth in 2023; this would be the first year for this to happen outside of a recession. With average growth in electricity demand and clean power, we forecast that 2023 will see a small fall in fossil generation (-47 TWh, -0.3%), with bigger falls in subsequent years as wind and solar grow further. That would mean 2022 hit “peak” emissions. A new era of falling power sector emissions is close.

https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electrici...

We have not chosen renewables: if you compute how much oil for transport, coal for Chinese electricity, etc. you need to produce solar panels, as well as massive mining impacts, you realise that the new renewables (solar and wind, not hydro) are a complete dead end with current technology. A renewables world made only with renewable end-to-end production looks more like the year 1800 than any Green knows or would be prepared to admit.

You chose to shut down perfectly working nuclear reactors and keep burning coal. You COULD and SHOULD have replaced coal with nuclear.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/10/28/the-iron...

You thought you chose renewables. You actually chose coal, LNG, and buying power from France.

Germany exports more power than it imports. And France is only a part of the imports, with 2022 being much lower due to their issues with the nuclear power plants.

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/03...

Large power exports come necessarily from using non-dispatchable forms of power generation like solar and wind. Other people who can turn off their power plants will buy yours rather than burning their own resources. In other words, the amount of power a nation exports means very little about how you keep the lights on.

So you can import it at winter for much more $$$ than you sold it at summer.

Still coal fired plants are supposed to run until 2038

...made the decision in 2011...

That does not mean the plan has to be followed through without amendment today - in fact, it cannot be, unless restarting lignite-burning generators was part of the original plan. Responsibility for this development lies squarely on all those who chose this path today (and regardless of party affiliation.)

Too bad the populous are idiots.

Actually CDU, the christian democrats, were in charge when this was decided and for most of the period while they were planning and executing that decision. Angela Merkel was in charge for 16 years until handing over to the new coalition months before the Ukrainian invasion. The CDU is a conservative party. And seriously, trying to pass off Angela Merkel as a tree hugging hippy would be quite a feat.

The thing is, this was a widely supported decision that has by and large gone through without a lot of opposition in a country that reliably votes for conservatives and moderates to lead them. Also, none of the bad stuff that people predicted would happen has actually happened. No blackouts. No massive increase in coal/gas usage. None of that seems to be happening.