The catastrophe of Germany's "Energiewende" has made a lot of countries re-evaluate their nuclear strategy, culminating in the COP28 nuclear pledge.
Note that "buying up all the gas on the open market" is not a strategy that too many countries can follow at once, hence other countries started to look elsewhere. For example, Japan, who were going to exit nuclear, and are now turning more and more of their old plants back on and have announced they will be building more (!), very specifically to replace reliance on LNG shipments.
And yeah, we got really, really lucky with the mild winter of 2022. Apparently not too many other countries think that "luck" is sound energy policy, but YMMV. Also slightly unpopular in the world is our tried and true method of "we'll lower emissions by pushing our economy into recession due to high energy costs". And the constitutional court also took a dim view of trying to hide all the extra costs off the main budget, so the real costs are only now starting to emerge. The farmer demos were probably just the start of the unrest when the pain gets passed onto the population. A population that already now thinks the getting out of nuclear was a mistake:
"Sechs von zehn Befragten (59 Prozent) im aktuellen DeutschlandTrend für das ARD-Morgenmagazin halten die Entscheidung der Politik für falsch,"
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan...
Meanwhile, the coalition that is pushing this through against the voters is now down to 32% in the polls.
But you're right, I really should have followed the news more!
The Tragedy of Germany’s Energy Experiment
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-ger...
Germany’s Energiewende: A Disaster In The Making
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/germanys-energiewende-a...
Germany’s Energy Disaster 20 Years Later
https://www.americanexperiment.org/germanys-energy-disaster-...
Germany’s Energy Crisis Dispels Several Myths
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany...
"Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy."
You are right, I really should follow the news more!
Oh, and the grid in France managed to keep up only because Germany was propping it up as too many old nuclear reactors had to be taken off grid. Which caused a small uptake in German coal production. But in 23 the downward trend continued.
The fact that the left (my side, I have never voted for an even moderate right party in my life) won't let go of this purely ideologically driven energy policy that is proving disastrous and that 59% of the population (and rising) oppose maybe one of the reasons the current ruling coalition has fallen to 32% in the polls (those numbers match surprisingly well), and there is starting to be unrest in the streets.
For example the most recent demonstrations by farmers. They are supposed to pay billions of Euros extra for the Diesel fuel for their tractors because the constitutional court declared all the off-books vehicles the government tried to use to hide the subsidies for the energy crisis illegal. And so the government now has to actually account for all that money, and is scrambling to find places to cut in the budget. All the <a miracle occurs> little white lies are coming out. It's not pretty.
And the failed energy policy is also one of the primary reasons the really, really awful far right parties like the AfD have doubled from ~10% last election to 20% in current polls. That was one of the catastrophic results of this catastrophic energy policy that I didn't mention before, because I am not that interested in party politics.
"Die in weiten Teilen rechtsextreme AfD erzielt vor allem in Regionen gute Wahlergebnisse, in denen die Industrie wegen der Klimapolitik vor Umbrüchen steht."
https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/klimaziele-...
The vast majority of AfD voters (75% according to stats I have seen) do not vote for the AfD because they are Nazis. They hold their noses at the awful ideology, but don't see an alternative to some of the awful policies being enacted.
And I am 100% in agreement with you that the moderate right like the CDU are just as much to blame as the current government. They had the chance to stop the madness, but instead they made a populistic calculation that keeping this irrational energy policy would keep them in power a little longer. Pathetic. Particularly pathetic because they knew it was wrong, whereas the Greens apparently believe their BS.
Now the CDU/CSU seems to be turning around (also pathetically) to be more pro-nuclear, conveniently "forgetting" that it was them that passed the current laws mandating getting out of nuclear, but at least they are providing an alternative to the current failed policies that isn't the AfD. Lesser of three evils, I guess.
Our catastrophic energy policy also contributed to the war in Ukraine, because Putin (incorrectly, it turned out, partly because Habeck did am amazing job of crisis management) assumed he could blackmail us into not supporting Ukraine.
You denounce what I write as "right wing propaganda", without being able to list a single thing about it that is wrong. Because it is not wrong. What I write is correct. When the only political parties telling the truth about an important subject are the far right, we are in serious trouble as a democracy. Serious, serious trouble.
I don't want the AfD. Please stop the madness that is bringing them to power.
I have already debunked the narrative about French reactors in '22 in detail elsewhere, here's the summary:
"The shutdowns for the inspections and maintenance were planned. Not for a single plant, for a lot of plants. The inspections found a problem. The shutdowns were extended so they could be fixed, in the original plants and in other plants that might also be affected.
The shutdowns, the inspections and the maintenance were planned.
What they found was obviously not planned. If you could plan for what you find during an inspection, you wouldn't need an inspection. That's why you inspect."
France was able to plan their inspections and routine maintenance for the summer, because nuclear can be planned, the capacity factor is generally >90%. Have you tried planning a storm? The capacity factor for wind/solar is <15%.
By the way, the farmers don't have to pay billions, it is several hundreds of millions. And this came also only because of the stupid "Schuldenbremse", which is a great way to ruin a country. Guess who is responsible of that.
And what you say about the French reactors doesn't invalidate what I wrote. They had to be taken down longer than planned, creating shortages. On top of that the fact, that in hot years, they just cannot run them fully through the summer due to lack of cooling. As summers will get hotter, France will have to quickly come up with some solutions.
I don't want the AfD to gain any power too, but the solution against that isn't telling more lies. It is telling less lies. But too many parties think it is a recipe for success to finger-point at the greens and tell propaganda which helps the AfD. And towards those 75% you claim which don't want to vote for Nazis, well, the bad news is, they do.
The thing is, all democratic parties have to perform better. But as long they prefer petty fights instead of working on solving the problems we have, the non-democratic parties are on a rise.
If you are serious, how about not labeling facts you don't like as "propaganda"? Just sayin'.
"Es stehe eine "Steuererhöhung in Höhe von einer Milliarde Euro" für die Landwirtschaft im Raum."
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/landwirts...
The French chose to take their reactors offline for maintenance. chose. And of course they are in a worse state than they should be because of decades-long underinvestment, including not building new ones. They need to build new ones to avoid these problems. Fortunately, that's what they are doing now.
Macron calls for nuclear 'renaissance' to end the France's reliance on fossil fuels
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-n...
> but the solution against that isn't telling more lies.
Absolutely. Lies like claiming the Energiewende is a roaring success when the fact that it is not is clear to the entire world, including 59% of the German population. 2nd most expensive electricity, 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. After 20 years, not even halfway done, with no real idea how to accomplish the other half apart from <a miracle occurs>. When the French accomplished their CO2 free electrification in 20 years. And then dropped the ball by underinvesting.
And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers, which most thermal plants need and virtually all thermal plants in Germany, for example, have. This is just not a problem, we know how to build plants with cooling towers.
Again, the German anti-nuclear-bubble likes to make a big deal about some French problems as somehow being a problem with nuclear-in-principle and thus nobody should invest in nuclear. When they are exactly the opposite: problems with underinvestment in nuclear, particularly over the last 20 years or so, where virtually no new plants were built. The solution is to, once again, invest more in nuclear.
> And towards those 75% you claim which don't want to vote for Nazis, well, the bad news is, they do.
You misconstrue what I wrote: large parts of the left denounce AfD voters as Nazis, and thus as people whose concerns do not matter. Just like you do. But that's not correct, 75% of AfD voters are not close to being Nazis and do not support the party's ideology. They are people who are not being listened to. And your solution is not to listen to them, because they are Nazis. Good luck with that, I am sure that will win them over to our side.
> The thing is, all democratic parties have to perform better.
Yes. For example drop policies that are clearly, obviously and painfully not working. As for example a "populist but irrational energy policy." (quote from the Forbes article below) And not denounce those who spell out the facts of this as nazis and the facts they present as right wing propaganda. Just a suggestion.
Once again, "populist and irrational energy policy".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany...
Written by Michael Lynch. Are you going to denounce him as a Nazi, too? And the serious analysis he did as "right wing propaganda"?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/
"Distinguished Fellow at the Energy Policy Research Foundation and President of Strategic Energy and Economic Research. I spent nearly 30 years at MIT as a student and then researcher at the Energy Laboratory and Center for International Studies. I then spent several years at what is now IHS Global Insight and was chief energy economist."
And of course, all the countries that are turning back to nuclear: Japan, Poland, France, Sweden, Finland, etc. All Nazis?
If you vote for the AfD, you know full well what ideology they stand for. Very best case, you are tacitely supportive, but more likely to be firmly in the AfD camp. Or just manipulated, and that's why propaganda is the right word to use.
And yes, a ton of the anti-renewables / pro-nuclear talking points in Germany are actually just that: right wing propaganda.
And the French took the reactors down because of required maintenance, part of it was unexpected after the found problems. But the main point is: they were down and France required imports to keep the grid up. You don't even comment on the cooling problems.
They "are" not building new ones. They fail to finish Flammaville so far. The president talks about plans, but until they become at least a construction project, don't talk about "are building". And even then, it would take like 20 years to finish those.
And once again, you are not even responding to my arguments about the Energiewende. You treat it as a failure while it is ongoing. Why it was delayed, I explained, but you ignore that. Are you really trying to tell me, that you are not an AfD supporter with your style and trail of argumentation.
And I simply stated, those people who vote for Nazis are voting for Nazis and there is no way around stating that.
I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi, that was only said on those who vote for Nazis. I don't know who Michel Lynch votes for. His writing though has quite a few inaccuracies and I dispute some of his conclusions. But that is a factual difference.
And of course, your final sentence is absolutely polemic. I have not said anything in the direction. Why are you suggesting that?
By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too. But the discussion so far hasn't been a very constructive one, so little reason to elaborate on that further that Finland did finish one reactor recently and at the same time cancelled the project tho bild another one...
Hmm...
"And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers, which most thermal plants need and virtually all thermal plants in Germany, for example, have. This is just not a problem, we know how to build plants with cooling towers."
From the post you replied to. Cooling is a non-issue. Under-investment in nuclear is an issue.
> I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi
I can tell you why: because you denounced my factual post as "right wing propaganda", and me, by extension, a right wing propagandist. And that was essentially your entire reaction.
"Facts? Who cares, you are a nazi."
And of course the French aren't building the new reactors, yet. Their turnaround away from their mistaken anti-nuclear policy only happened in March this year.
> The president talks about plans
No, the president talks about government policy. And that government policy has been voted into law. March 2023.
> By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too
How so?
> Finland
"In June 2019, the government announced a new energy policy with the objective of achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. The policy would see a complete phase-out of coal power by May 2029. In addition to the commissioning of two nuclear power reactors, the policy is supportive of operating lifetime extensions for existing reactors."
Hmm...
> cancelled the project tho bild another one...
You mean they cancelled their plans to build a reactor with Russia's Rossatom?
Now what might the reason for this be? Can't possibly have anything to do with, dunno, Russia? Always the disingenuous arguments.
And of course the new nuclear reactor they just turned on is already providing 40% of Finland's electricity.
How many more of those do you reckon' they need?
I never called you a Nazi. Why misrepresent the facts? I only stated that your text reads like some right wing propaganda. Which it does. And not every right-wing person is a Nazi.
And wrt. to Finland I was talking about Block 4 of Olkiluoto. Block 3 went online this year. And yes, it delivers a significant part of the grid in Finland, which already has caused issues. Because Block 3 had to be pulled of the net several times - which immediately removes a large fraction of the grid power in an instant. That is why they currently keep a nearby coal power plant in hot standby to ensure grid stability.
No I am not. And please stop it with the personal attacks.
It is non-issue for nuclear. Because. We. Know. How. To. Build. Cooling. Towers.
If you cheap out and don't build a cooling tower, heat can become an issue.
If you build a car with an insufficient radiator, heat can also become an issue.
This is not an issue with cars in general, this is an issue with having a radiator that is too small. Because we know how to build cars that have large enough radiators.
And no, you did not write that what I wrote "reads like" right wing propaganda. You wrote that I was "repeating right wing propaganda". Ergo a right wing propagandist, ergo a nazi. Or someone who reads and listens to right wing propaganda and repeats it. Which is probably worse, because stupid and still a nazi.
Wrt. Finland: they hadn't even decided what type of reactor to build for Block 4, and due to the "special operation" those plans are now being given new priority, but not urgency (not needed yet).
And, if I read you correctly, you consider a power plant delivering lots of power a problem. Whatever. For a country that size, I personally also would have chosen a larger number of smaller reactors rather than one huge one. But that's their choice.
Nope. I denied that this is in any way a problem of nuclear power, which is what you implied. It is not. Cooling is a problem of all thermal plants, and solved for all thermal plants by cooling towers.
This isn't that hard.
And where did I "praise them" for building power plants without cooling towers? You gotta stop making stuff up, really.
> At least not without raising river temperatures to a point where the fish get killed.
Reference for "killing fish". Or are you making things up again?
> And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers
I consider this a positive vote. But fine. If you didn't agree with the decision, it doesn't make a difference to the discussion. And when I was speaking about cooling problems, it was specifically about the French reactors. No where I implied that this is a fundamental problem to nuclear power. It is, however a problem of many current nuclear reactors. Never mention that of course cooling towers also require a lot of water that needs to be provide. Which might face the same problems as the river-based cooling.
With respect to the fish: basic biology. The normal limit for water temperature is like 25 degrees which is quite a lot for european rivers. Fish are very sensitive to the water temperature as high temperature reduces the oxygene content of water. Which is why there are often mass death of fishes in the summer in some places quite naturally. You cannot raise the water temperature much or you will do huge harm to those ecological systems. That is, why those limits exist. Note: the plants probably are not happy about too high temperatures either, but they won't quickly die from lack of oxygene.
So you massively interpret (and misinterpret) what I write and then, purely on the basis of your interpretation, accuse my of lying. Precious.
You might want to look up what a "lie" is.
> And when I was speaking about cooling problems, it was specifically about the French reactors.
And when I responded, I was specific about this not being a problem with nuclear reactors in general because we know how to build cooling towers.
And yet you accuse me of lying.
> With respect to the fish: basic biology. [...]
OK, so you have nothing but generalities and platitudes, thanks for confirming.
Yes, when water gets too hot, fish die. You need to be bit more specific than that. For example when the water we use to boil a fish (I prefer fried) is at a good 100ºC, that kills fish.
I have some doubts that the nuclear power plants raised the temperatures of the rivers to 100ºC.
To be relevant, you would have to have some precise figure as to what the official limits are, what the temperatures when fish (which types of fish?) actually start getting affected and how much, what temperatures the plants emit and how much those temperatures raise the temperature of the river.
And of course, all you actually have is more slander and denouncements. As usual.
"The country is part of the deregulated Nordic electricity system which faces shortages, especially in any dry years, when hydroelectric generation is curtailed. Finland is very short of power until Olkiluoto 3 is commissioned. Over 2009-2011 some two-thirds of imported electricity came from Russia, but this has decreased considerably since the completion of the Fenno-Skan 2800 MW HVDC link with Sweden."
I didn't.
AfD voters are not literal Nazi party members, obviously, but it's definitely not the case that they're "holding their noses" at the ideology -- the (racist) ideology of AfD is fundamental to the entire platform of the party. In fact this kind of comment is just apologia: the only effect is that you end up validating and lending credence to that ideology.
--
FWIW, I'm very pro-nuclear, and I find Germany's general opposition to nuclear energy (Atomkraft? Nein Danke!) to be incoherent, basically stupid.