Not a response

Technically so, as I pressed the "reply" button, it is! As is yours.

The energy policy is catastrophic, there is nothing right wing there. The wind power revolution will not happen, at least not nearly as fast or cheap as the government is planning.

So, nuclear? Isn't faster nor cheaper. Coal? A no-go due to polution. Gas? To expensive for electricity in the current, read since at least for the last ten years, market. Leaves hydro, oil, wind and solar.

But yeah, Germany financed and caused Russias war with Ukraine by impoeting gas from Putin, I know.

Shutting down the three last nuclear reactors in the middle of an energy crisis was probably one of the most moronic things in world politics during the last 5000 years.

The decision to shut the down was met years before said crisis. Run times were extended as much as possible (safety, maintennace, fuel). Edit: I didn't know that we have reliable information geo politics dating back to almost 3000 BC. Regardless, the last decade has plenty examples of worse decisions than Germany buying gas from Russia.

No, it was done for ideological reasons. And it was stupid as hell.

agree on the stupid decision. but more important: the way forward.

- building up new nuclear reactors takes _many_ years and is still quite expensive, so its not a short-term solution. long term due to climate change the cooling might be a problem (like france already has issues in the summer when rivers run dry and they had to throttle nuclear reactors) - fossils must be phased out, not an option - hydrogen is at best a storage option for surplus energy (like solar), but highly inefficient to begin with - renewables are already cheaper than everything else and prices are dropping still [1]

so either people want to believe climate crisis doesn't exist and want to double down on fossils, or believe nuclear will solve it but it can't right now, or hope that some miracle happens somehow and energy/climate will be a solved problem somehow.

I'd prefer to focus on the here and now, which means renewables, plus some storage in any form, instead of beating dead horses over and over again.

---

[1] https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/11/radical-energy...

Sorry, but what the actual f**?

It's the single worst decision ever made in the history of mankind? Replacing some power stations of one type with some renewables of another type, without any disruption to the functioning power grid?

World War 1. World War 2. China's Great Leap Forward. Stalin's Five Year Plan. The Vietnam war. All worse than changing the mix of the European energy grid by a few %?

I just don't get it. Please, please, someone explain this to me, why people say things like this. Is there some right wing website going endlessly on about how Germany is a doomed failed state, as some kind of way to relive glory days of the Allied victory?

I am continually astounded by the absolute obsession of YCN with German nuclear power stations, or the lack of them. Not a single thread about Germany fails to attract some comment about energy policy, no matter how tenuous the connection.

If this was replicated then every German citizen would spend several hours every day discussing it. In reality I can't recall ever having a face to face conversation about it.

Any wing will agree that Germany's energy policy has been bad. They shut down their nuclear production and replaced it with lignite.

> Any wing will agree that Germany's energy policy has been bad.

Very true.

> They shut down their nuclear production and replaced it with lignite.

Not really true and often a bad faith argument. While it is true that some of the output has been replaced with coal, it's a) not everything; having the coal power on unscheduled has been deemed unnecessary (with the benefit of hindsight). b) ignoring the fact that the scheduled shutdown of coal has been rescheduled to be earlier, resulting in net-savings over the original plan (which was admittedly still a massive policy failure).

This is simply false. It's trivial to see from the statistics(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...) that the phaseout of nuclear energy was matched by an increase in renewables, whilst lignite and coal production has remained static.

Come on, think. The addition of solar allowed Germany to phase out something. They chose to phase out nuclear rather than the dirtiest form of coal. Do you think that was the wise choice?

No, but times were different back then, weren't they? Chernobyl, Fukushima and all of that?