What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642

by pdubouilh • 2 years ago

59 60 2 years ago

pdubouilh• 2 years ago

ABSTRACT: Germany has one of the most ambitious energy transition policies dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ to replace nuclear- and fossil power with renewables such as wind-, solar- and biopower. The climate gas emissions are reduced by 25% in the study period of 2002 through 2022. By triangulating available information sources, the total nominal expenditures are estimated at EUR 387 bn, and the associated subsidies are some EUR 310 bn giving a total nominal expenditures of EUR 696 bn. Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power.

rapnie• 2 years ago

Germany could have [..] [which] shows Germany could have [..] Thus, Germany should have [..]

Germany could have skipped the industrial revolution, so they should have reached their targets already.

KingOfCoders2• 2 years ago

We won't settle this debate (and I'm not against nuclear), but it's a discussion around "Do I need fire insurance when my house has a low chance to burn down" and should I use the money for something else.

If it doesn't burn down, you look great. If it burns down, you look like an idiot.

I think people will not understand (some|most) Germans if you haven't lived through Chernobyl and Pershing-II days, dying forrests (from East European coal plants) and also red terrorism (mid 70s, early 80s were a crazy time). The discussion is not a rational one but one out of trauma of that time.

wrKaxnc5• 2 years ago

Germany is stationing nuclear capable missiles again, with the approval of the Green Party, which had been at the forefront of the anti Pershing-II protests but is now a war party:

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-shrugs-off-putin-comments-on-u...

If that is possible, why not pebble bed reactors?

defensive71324• 2 years ago

I always supported nuclear power. It's just the best we have right now. Renewable power is all good and all, but technology is not there yet. Plus, many people in support of green energy never think about all the mining done for this and how it impacts and often destroys environments. It's OK when it's not your environment being hurt. :-)

Anyways, nuclear power is safer than people think. And most, if not all, nuclear power disasters were due to human error.

jahnu• 2 years ago

Renewable power is all good and all, but technology is not there yet.

Actually it is and here is the best summary explaining why I know of:

https://www.volts.wtf/p/what-the-sun-isnt-always-shining

aniviacat2• 2 years ago

most, if not all, nuclear power disasters were due to human error

How is this less of an issue? Are modern reactors not built and operated by humans? We have better sensors and more digital components now, which reduce the risk. But the risk for a wind turbine is, and always was, zero.

fabian2k2• 2 years ago

Human error makes it worse. We can fix technical issues, it is much harder to fix human nature and all the potential human causes for safety violations.

ponorin• 2 years ago

In the winter of 2022, France had to restart permanently shut down coal plants[0] and pump gas to Germany[1] for electricity because of a pipe crack that made half of their nuclear plants go into maintenance. Note that this was on top of curtailing energy use (funny enough, because of gas, not nuclear[2]).

You could say "that was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of event!" (I'd love to have machine without flaws but nuclear fusion would be faster) but, if it wasn't for the European grid, this could have resulted in prolonged emergency saving measures or possibly a (partial) blackout. Nuclear power is often touted as the stable one, but ironically, solar and wind would not suffer from this kind of problem because they are inherently variable in output. If energy storage for renewables was already a headache, imagine an energy storage system for nuclear.

[0] https://apnews.com/article/europe-business-france-climate-an...

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230114183054/https://www.nytim...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20240709121249/https://www.nytim...

AlphaGeekZulu• 2 years ago

"[...]And most, if not all, nuclear power disasters were due to human error.[...]"

And the remaining nuclear power disasters were due to unpredictable natural disasters.

So at what time exactly did we eliminate human error and unpredictable natural disasters, so that we don't have to worry about the dangers of nuclear power anymore? It seems, I somehow missed this two super important historic events...

SiempreViernes• 2 years ago

No analysis of costs if Germany had adopted a strategy of transitioning to renewables in 2002 is offered, you are just meant to look at figure 2 and say take it on fait it is the result of a coherent green transition strategy rather than Germany dallying and going back to its traditional coal power.

oezi3• 2 years ago

If 350bn is all we need to cut our emissions in Germany (we have a 4000bn annual GDP) by 75%, then I don't get what the big fuss about climate change is. Every industrial country could cough up such small an amount (loan, Fed printing money, etc).

lovegrenoble• 2 years ago

RIP German industrial production without North Stream and Russian cheap energy...

croes2• 2 years ago

Gas and energy prices are back to normal

Aldipower• 2 years ago

And who destroyed it? Either USA or Ukraine or both together. Best friends ever..

jojobas4• 2 years ago

This is an idiotic take. By choosing better economy over freedom they'd lose both economy and freedom.

GaggiX• 2 years ago

Gazprom halted delivery indefinitely, officially because of maintenance in 31 August 2022.

Remember all the Russian propaganda about freezing Europe? Yeah, it didn't work, but at least Gazprom took a big hit, nature is healing.

When they were sabotaged, they were not in operation.

wrKaxnc5• 2 years ago

These are the only published theories. The Ukrainian sailboat theory has been published in the WSJ just recently. If the downvoters know more, please introduce us to the third theory.

wrKaxnc5• 2 years ago

China has an operational pebble bed reactor while Germany is falling behind:

https://www.ans.org/news/article-6241/china-pebblebed-reacto...

If there isn't another "Energiewende" (two 180° turns would finally amount to Baerbock's 360° turn gaffe), or alternatively friendlier relations with various resource rich countries, Germany's future is bleak.

ardaoweo• 2 years ago

I've always wondered how big of a part Soviet Union / Russia psych ops played in stirring this completely irrational anti-nuclear mentality. The side-effect of getting Germany hooked on Russian gas was extremely convenient to them.

Of course the Chernobyl disaster played some part, but it didn't result in such irrationality in most other surrounding countries. Perhaps the anti-war mentality and guilt from the horrors of WW2 also plays a part?

In any case, what a disaster German energy policies have been for whole Europe.

jojobas4• 2 years ago

If Chernobyl didn't blow up due to stupidity the KGB would have to sabotage it.

wrKaxnc5• 2 years ago

Russia did nothing in that respect. The original anti nuclear protests were authentic.

dudeinjapan2• 2 years ago

It's called "useful idiots".

DarkNova63• 2 years ago

I'm doubtful it can be ruled out with a handwavy gesture. Given just how much Russia has invested into Elite capture you know they will set everything in their power to make the west suck up their Gas deliveries.

No dependency on Russian gas, no money.

cjblomqvist2• 2 years ago

EU, one of the most successful peace projects of human history, is based on the idea that tight economic integration leads to peace.

Obviously not working out in full with Russia, and I think Germany could've put themselves in a far better situation energy wise. But, it still stands that the core purpose of EU has been fulfilled. And very easy to judge in hindsight.

thyristan2• 2 years ago

Looking at the behaviour of e.g. Hungary as an EU member state and Russian puppet at the same time, I'd like to disagree here.

KingOfCoders2• 2 years ago

The anti-nuclear mentality is driven by mid-70s/early-80s Pershing-II, Chernobyl, Wackersdorf, Waldsterben and red terrorism, which created identity for large groups of Germans alongside trauma.

"most other surrounding countries."

Except Austria no other country had as much fallout after Chernobyl (in the West, and it was silenced in Eastern Europe, see GDR) - especially Southern Germany (Chernobyl happened around Wackersdorf riots in Bavaria).

Is US gun policy idiotic? Yes, but large groups of Americans have tied their identity to it, and can't give it up. Look at anti-nuclear opinion in Germany the same way.

baumgarn• 2 years ago

The argument agains nuclear is not irrational. The true cost of nuclear is not sufficiently priced in. Example from recent history here in Germany the nuclear interim storage mine Asse is leaking and the garbage has to be recovered. Cost estimated to be 3.7 billion tax payer money. There is no solution for safe nuclear garbage storage in sight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

simonsarris• 2 years ago

I mean, this sounds like the true cost of being insanely bone-headed. And in some sense nuclear lets you be bone-headed in novel ways, which is a risk, but being this irresponsible is not a necessary condition.

The mine near Wolfenbüttel in Lower Saxony is the perfect example of how a final storage facility for nuclear waste should not be built.
Between 1967 and 1978, around 126,000 metal barrels containing low and medium-level radioactive waste were stored in the former salt mine. They contained contaminated laboratory waste, construction rubble and scrap metal, mainly from nuclear power plant use. Officially, it was an "experimental mine" in which the long-term storage of radioactive material was only to be tested. In fact, many of the barrels were simply dumped into the emptied salt chambers.
The Asse became a problem in 1988. At that time, the operator at the time discovered that water was penetrating the mine. To date, 350 active and now dry areas have been found. The water is collected and brought to the surface - an average of 12.5 cubic meters per day. Without this work, the mine would flood. Recovering the waste, as decided by the Bundestag in 2013, would be impossible.

from: https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/asse-milliardengrab-12926812.ht...

spacebanana7• 2 years ago

Both positions can be correct.

There can be legitimate objections to nuclear power, and it can be in the Russian interest for those objections to be heard as loudly as possible.

user_7832• 2 years ago

Perhaps a minor nit (or maybe not), but when you say

The true cost of nuclear is not sufficiently priced in.

That's also the case in general for fossil fuels too. Pollution from burning fossils kills. (And this extends of course - be it lithium mining or recycling PV panels or composites in wind turbines.) There are very few, if any, truly priced-in mass-market commodities I can think of.

(Another not so minor nit is fortunately the EU-ETS exists, but it has its own issues/criticisms which might get too long for this comment.)

dudeinjapan2• 2 years ago

On one hand, Russia can do "green-washing" psyops to create German anti-nuclear sentiment. On the other, Russia creates the implied threat that in some future war a Russian missile will hit a German nuclear powerplant. Well played, Mr. Putin.

obscurette• 2 years ago

Both were certainly there – a guilt made psyops far more easier for Russians. But this energy related psyops have been everywhere. I've experienced it almost first hand. After decision to decommission Ignalina Nuclear Power Station in Lithuania there have been joint attempts to build a new one with Estonia, Latvia and Poland. Russian "No need! Dangerous! Russian gas is cheap!" influence during these talks was very prominent. This was also very much there during 2012 Lithuanian nuclear power referendum.

kafgh• 2 years ago

The leading anti-nuclear force in the 1980s and 1990s was the Green Party, which wasn't pro natural gas at all.

Furthermore, it is now one of the most anti-Russian parties, so any conjectured FSB operation could be considered to have failed spectacularly.

The former East Germany supported left wing terrorism and some hard left student revolts, but the anti-nuclear sentiment goes through many parties and simply does not need any external stimulus.

cheschire• 2 years ago

It doesn’t matter what the logic and the math says if fear is your primary motivator.

I used to think the Germans were especially sensitive to these types of fear, but then brexit and worldwide trends towards populism as a whole reminded me this is just baseline human behavior.

It didn’t help that someone figured out pretty good branding[0] against nuclear power that makes people feel happy to resist. I would see these silly “Atomkraft? Nein, danke!” stickers everywhere. You almost felt obligated to go along with the sentiment.

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Sun

croes2• 2 years ago

Less emissions but more waste.

Germany still hasn't a Nuclear waste repository. The time plan shifted now to somewhere after 2070.

And all this doesn't possible terror attacks and sabotage into account.

Can't remember any fears about rockets hitting Ukrainian wind turbines.

p51-remorse• 2 years ago

somewhere after 2070.

This is clearly willful incompetence.

flgb• 2 years ago

The framing in the article is that Germany made a purely technical decarbonization policy choice between renewable energy and nuclear power and chose incorrectly, but this is too reductive.

Germany has a long history of public opposition to nuclear power, going back over 50 years, and this is related to environmental concerns, safety concerns, and the association with nuclear weapons.

Both the USA and the Soviets had nuclear weapons deployed on German soil with the potential to be directed at the German people and this cultural and historical context is important to understand the current policy landscape.

The origin of the popular Green party in Germany is deeply connected to the peace movement and anti-nuclear activism that pre-dates concerns about climate change.

It’s fine to disagree with the policy decisions the German people made, but it’s good to understand the reasons why they made them.

DarkNova63• 2 years ago

And let's not forget that Germany then decided to create the economically viable solar power industry from scratch. Only to then remove the subsidies, destroy the domestic industry they just created and hand over the technology advantage they had to China.

Genious decisions all around.

thyristan2• 2 years ago

An industry isn't viable if it can only exist with subsidies.

DarkNova63• 2 years ago

At the very least it can be brought into existence. Ot shows of strategic foresight and is also what China did to build up their own industrial basis.

In other words, it’s an investment.

polotics2• 2 years ago

this is 2013, but so little has changed... https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/societal-choices/...

amai• 2 years ago

This would have been interesting if it would have been published in 2011. But what is the point of publishing this nowadays after all nuclear reactors have been shutdown? They cannot be restarted and are already been dismantled. Also why don’t we see publications like: „What if Germany had invested in solar energy?“ (instead of subsidizing coal and diesel engines)

What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

Related Stories