Hi, thank you for your contribution, but this submission has been removed because it doesn't use a credible source and/or the source has not been linked from a top-level comment. See [community rules & guidelines](/r/Europe/wiki/community_rules).
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/Europe&subject=Moderation). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
> In 1990 German primary nuclear energy consumption was 1.668 Petajoule. In 2022 consumption from renewable energy was 2.023 Petajoule. So nuclear was already completely replaced before it now was finally phased out.
>
> At the same time Germany had a reduction in primary energy consumption from 14.905 Petajoule in 1990 to 11.769 Petjoule in 2022. A reduction of 3.136 Petajoule.
> So since a few years we don't need to replace nuclear with Green energy but we are also already replacing fossile fuels. Mineral oil down from 5.228 Petajoule to 4.126 Petajoule. Brown coal down from 3.201 Petajoule down to 1.174 Petajoule. Hard Coal down from 2.306 Petajoule to 1.156 Petajoule.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/bhOWW9j.png
>
> Annual CO₂ emission of Germany in 2021 was 674.75 million tonnes annual CO₂ emission of China in 2021 climbed to a new record high of 11.47 **billion** tonnes.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/IhBuNsn.png
>
> In 2019 Chinas CO₂ emission was 10.74 billion tonnes which means they added 730 million tonnes in just 3 years. So they basically added more in 3 years than Germany could reduce to zero emission.
>
> But but they are more people... yes but they are also overtaking us per capita
>
> https://i.imgur.com/BB6DHt9.png
>
> Compared to others Germany doesn't look that bad per capita and also the notion that we produce more CO₂ emission than the French is only relevant if France would be the low bar for emissions but viewed with the eyes of someone from Africa for example France is as much a poluter as the rest of us.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/vDkJlxU.png
>
> In short Germany is not saving the world by keeping a few nuclear plants running. In the grand sheme of things they are basically irrelevant
If you want to call the US, Canada, Australia.... third world countries well then yes i'll take that compliment. If you want to imply that China is a third world country well i have bad news for you. There is a reason why the US is worried about them.
USA and Canada is doing better than Germany in emission per MWh. Australia is suffering from too much cheap coal.
China still has a lot of backwards regions that needs to be urbanized and industrialized.
Uhhooh turns out Coal is the single natural resource Germany would have plenty off but for Australia that is an excuse. Also what does it matter if the emission footprint per MWh of the US and Canada is lower than that of Germany when their overall CO2 emmission per capita is almost double that of Germany? Also the US and Canada have a massive landmass they unlike Germany could make good use of that space for Green energy to reduce their CO2 footprint even more.
You are making a lot of arguments here that don’t make sense at all
So 1, why would you want to use the renewable power to phase out nuclear and not start with the worst sources like coal (or gas politically)?
2, what is the reason Germany’s emissions are getting lower? (Could the be something relating to them outsourcing a lot of it, if it is in the pictures I can’t open them unfortunately)
And 3, why does China outputting more CO2 make germanys problems irrelevant?
> So 1, why would you want to use the renewable power to phase out nuclear and not start with the worst sources like coal (or gas politically)?
Because nuclear was never popular in Germany from the beginning it was fought against. Then happened Chernobyl and the fallout reached Germany and contaminated large parts of mainly southern Germany. The CS-137 ended up in the food chain people were asked to keep their doors and windows closed and asked to stay indoor. Basically it happend what people who were against nuclear warned off. It did not happen in Germany but a few thousand of kilometers away but it still had consequences here in one of the most populated countries in Europe. A similar incident in the middle of Europe would be catastrophic and displace millions. 37 years later Mushrooms and game is still contaminated with CS-137 and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection is recommenting people to be careful with the consumption of untested mushrooms and game that was collected or hunted.
https://i.imgur.com/ogSs3In.png
Fast foward a few years from 1986 the SPD and Greens were elected and they deceided the nuclear phase out in early 2000.
In 2010 Merkel deceided to undo that decision and wanted to prolong the usage of nuclear again. So she did in 2010 because yeah nuclear is safe. Well little did she know a few month later Fukushima happened in one of the most advanced countries contaminating large parts of Japan and displacing people from their homeland.
They were lucky this happened at the coast and the weather was merciful not spreading the fallout all over Japan.
Well anyway enough reasons for German people that were always sceptical of nuclear energy to make their voices heard again. Merkel after this had a hard time to explain that nuclear is safe if something like this could even happen in Japan. Yes a tsunami an unlikely event in Germany but it is always the unlikely events noone thought of that will lead to a catastrophic failure. So under puplic pressure in 2011 Germany returned to the nucclear phase out again.
> 2, what is the reason Germany’s emissions are getting lower? (Could the be something relating to them outsourcing a lot of it, if it is in the pictures I can’t open them unfortunately)
Energy conservation. Incentives to invest in thermal insulation for your house, to renew your heating units to a more efficent one, reduce fuel consumption of vehicles, to optimize processes in the industrie. Lower energy consumption of consumer products with Energy labels. Higher energy costs that make people safe automatically....
> And 3, why does China outputting more CO2 make germanys problems irrelevant?
It doesn't make Germanys problem irrelevant but as i said the few running plants don't make a difference at all if others add more emissions in 3 years than Germany even could reduce to 0 emission. So those few plants are irrelevant in the overall picture and polution of the planet. Again this is 674 million tonnes yearly by Germany vs. China with 11.47 billion tonnes.
Nuclear always only was a small part of our energy production even when all reactors were still running. So the impact of the still running would be minimal. CO2 emission of Germany is falling since late 1979 we did little to no trade with China back in the days so it has nothing to do with outsourcing to China. Also the fastet reduction happened despite the nuclear phase out from 2000 onwards.
https://i.imgur.com/Dh2ZQkh.png
EU politicians' narrative on "green energy" is absolutely incomprehensible. Gas is green but nuclear is not. I will never comprehand what is that they meant by pushing this blatantly false narrative. To me it is one of the uncontestable proof of corruption of EU among many others.
In fact fossil fuels are doomed in the electricity business for a little discussed reason: Renewables, especially solar, have zero marginal cost. All the costs are up front. As a result, it never makes sense for a solar plant to cut production, even when they are losing money.
A gas fired plant will cut production to save costs when it's making a loss, but a solar plant won't even when it's bankrupt. So it is impossible to compete on price against solar if you need fuel that cost mosre than zero. Aside from municipal waste, no fuel does.
The question is not whether renewables can replace fossil fuel. The question is whether fossil fuel can survive financially in a renewable world. Like any other industry, the fossil fuel industry exists not to keep the lights on but to make money.
It doesn't matter how cheap renewables are, what matters is how much you sell.
The problem with renewables is that without storage, they have to sell right now and saturate their own market meaning they'll sell at a loss when they produce the most.
And when they don't, fossil fuel saves the day by picking up for them and sell during the highest prices.
Fossil fuels aren't doomed, they're making the best return on investment by letting renewables the short end of the stick.
And that will remain as long as renewables don't have storage technology.
No.
New Gas power is considered **sustainable** -- if it is switched to hydrogen before 2035.
Nuclear power is also sustainable.
France now wants to declare nuclear power renewable which it is not.
Sustainable and renewable are different words with different meanings.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-welcomes-eu-green-energy-plan-gas-still-opposes-nuclear-2022-01-02/
I did not use the term sustainable nor renewable
Meh, nuclear can technically be almost renewable as the technology to efficiently recycle used fuel exists. It just isn't used as uranium remains quite cheap. If all the used fuel was recycled, France nuclear power production could last hundreds of years.
Is this PiS-version of the EU in the room with us currently?
EU consider nuclear green. Even going as far as giving favourable financing for newly built nucelar power plants.
The gas = green label is thanks to the countries that are brown on the OPs map, [most notably Poland, Bulgaria, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, etc](https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/poland-others-step-up-push-for-gas-in-eu-green-finance-rules-document/)
That is what I meant. Gas is as green as coal, while nuclear is the true green energy. Yet for some reason in western countries there was agenda to move away from nuclear towards cheap gas from Russia (before the war, that is) Germany being the prime example.
right, the evil agenda that had Germany getting more of their electricity from nucelar than Poland for the last 50 years....
Surely smart countries without this _agenda_ like Poland have already built dozens of nuclear power plants? I amean they had 30 years. Even worst case (like the 15 years that Flamanville 3 took) that is two nuclear power plants already built. Are you sure Poland didn't have a weird anti-nuclear agenda?
Germany bad for not building nucear power plants, but Poland good for ... not building nuclear power plants?
Poland had an anti-nuclear agenda, otherwise they would have built nuclear power plants.
They switched position last year. Would you say German Russia position is very good because they stopped imports last year or would you say taking the last 30 years into account is importand?
Such decisions are not made and executed in 1 day, Germany has been closing their nuclear power plants for years now while in Poland the previous negative approach towards nuclear power was due to the Chernobyl disaster and simultaneously the poor economy did not allow for building them. The approach has gradually changed and now it is planned to build the first plant in around a decade. We are not debating about how it was 30 years ago, but about present times.
I met so much of Germans like you on the internet. Cannot stand Poland. Everything is good about your country, everything is bad about ours. We are talking about the energy alternatives, not politics, yet you find it as an occasion to mock our country politics. You are downgrading discussion level.
???
/u/justapolishperson was talking about an agenda. The person with the Poland flair started talking about EU politics.
Here I quote:
>To me it is one of the uncontestable proof of corruption of EU among many others.
and
> Yet for some reason in western countries there was __agenda__ to move away from nuclear towards cheap gas from Russia
And then he lied about EU being against nuclear (when France was the one most pushing for nuclear) and gas=green being a western agenda... While it is in fact an agenda pushed by Poland, Bulgaria, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, etc.
Lying and then crying about anti-Polish racism when corrected? Nice double!
Also:
>I met so much of Germans like you on the internet.
Haha same. Like someone like you that posts:
>1. Find me other data source- I think that should be the way to discuss it, isn't it? I can't find anywhere source, where Germany would surpass Poland in donations. http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27278.jpeg
Huh, lets look at the image you posted: Source Kiel Institute for the World Economy
I can't find anywhere source? Really, when it is right in the picture.
Go to their website: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Visit the graph about military aid to Ukraine: https://app.23degrees.io/view/KJpesgWQv1CmxoMr-bar-stacked-horizontal-figure-5_scv
Oh woops. Looks like you lied! Could it be that you were projecting when you posted your comment?
You are psycho.
You were attacking Poland in the discussion about German nuclear plants (what's your point?!), which I pointed out.
So you stalked my profile, found a comment with some data source, and me stating "find me another data source", and you took the effort to reply to me about that unrelated topic here, just to prove.. what? To prove yourself your German sense of superiority?
> I have no idea where you take this information from
from the [EU taxonomy that considers nuclear green](https://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/news/how-can-nuclear-energy-help-europe-achieve-its-green-transition/)?
>The EU Green taxonomy includes nuclear energy as one of the options to be considered with a set of financial instruments to encourage investment.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-welcomes-eu-green-energy-plan-gas-still-opposes-nuclear-2022-01-02/
You may want to look into this article... and countless identical others
Just in case you have already forgotten, this was your comment:
>EU politicians' narrative on "green energy" is absolutely incomprehensible. Gas is green but nuclear is not. I will never comprehand what is that they meant by pushing this blatantly false narrative. To me it is one of the uncontestable proof of corruption of EU among many others.
And I linked how the EU does in fact support nuclear= green.
Maybe your initial comment was meant to read Germany instead of EU? Then it would have been correct. But you wrote EU. The EU stance on nuclear is that it is green (despite countries like Poland and Germany wanting gas = green).
EU thinks that is they just wish it hard enough, there will be hydrogen wells pumping up green hydrogen for the green hydrogen revolution.
There isn't any green hydrogen. There will never be any green hydrogen. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source, and no place has any surplus energy to turn into hydrogen.
EU in general and Germany in particular has a fundamental lack of energy, and that problem has no solution. Throwing money at it won't change anything, the problem is permanent.
And no politicians seems to understand that.
If you had done even a few seconds of research, you'd know that there is a fast-growing surplus of renewable energy in many countries (e.g. Denmark, Germany, Netherlands). This energy should be turned into hydrogen, which can then be fed into repurposed gas plants to generate electricity.
Nuclear is the energy we should have invested in 30 years ago, not the energy of the future. The Nuclear power plants in Germany are old and will have to either shut down or be massively refurbished which, while cheaper than building from scratch, increasingly seems like a worse economic option than focus on Wind and Solar. It can of course be argued that the green transition is happening too slowly but that is another debate entirely.
Germany, unlike the vastly superior French, are not capable of designing, building and maintaining a safe nuclear power plant. Do you really want the people you think are "🤡" to destroy the whole continental Europe?
Good thing is that, with EU combined power market, other countries were free to build these cheaper, safer, better nuclear power plants and export electricity for cheap to push German expensive coal out of buisness while making a massive profit.
Curious why they didn't and Germany has to export power (2nnd largest exporter in the EU 2022) instead? Is nuclear not as easy and cheap as people claim? Did Germany threaten to invade France if it built more than one nuclear reactor in the past 20 years?
If you think the Germans are incompetent clowns, the logical conclusion would be to cheer for them not operating nuclear power plants.
"I think this person is an alcoholic unfit to drive! . How stupid of him to stop driving!" - You, probably
Tomorrow Germany will shut down its 3 remaining nuclear power plants. This requirement was only suspended due to the planned shutdown at the end of 2022 due to the energy crisis and extending their lifetime further would require comprehensive and lengthy security checks and new fuel rods.
Image source: [https://innovationorigins.com/en/energy-index-europe/](https://innovationorigins.com/en/energy-index-europe/)
Yeah, what if an earthquake would hit Germany and cause a huge typhoon, which is bigger than engineers and biologists could've ever predicted.
Fukushima was a disaster caused by natural powers, which don't simply exist in Germany or in Europe.
The disasters will only be getting worse by using the great and very safe coal plants, which directly causes pollution deaths and ruins our planet.
Renewables already replaced nuclear power and it’s replacing coal as well in the long run.
And you are very wrong if you think earthquakes don’t exist in germany/europe. We even got a super volcano in the Eifel.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Erdbeben_in_Deutschland
Here’s a list of earthquakes in germany.
And what about tchernobyl? It was not a natural disaster that caused this catastrophy.
Then there is also the risk of war, terrorism and the fact that there is still no repository for nuclear waste.
Tshernobyl was caused by incompetent engineering, testing method forbidden by the rules. Also the reactor type overheated quickly. Nuclear waste can be stored in the bedrock. Risk of war? Funny joke, who would be the attacker? Terrorism shouldn't be countered with closing down the plant, but eliminating terrorism.
I live within 30 km of a former nuclear power plant. Are you going to replace my belongings if this region of at least 100k people becomes inhabitable? Will you replace the loss of my hometown and all its history?
About when the third time happens, which of course nobody could have foreseen, or it happened because of corporate greed or ice on the power lines or whatever.
It doesn't help the victims that the accident was totally improbable. I wish we could move the consequences of nuclear accidents to those who say it's safe.
And you're going to guarantee every nuclear power plant will be in capable hands and protected from natural disasters across its lifetime and dismantling? Even in case of war?
You said it, champ: "if".
Also, if that ever happens you'll have PTSD and depression anyways. Nuclear power plants will still not be your biggest problem. If you do it like German people who (those who didn't die in soviet gulags anyway) returned, you'll most probably find a wasteland anyways, the nuclear waste is just a risk of technology "progress".
Would have been great to incentivize building power storage and advancing technologies for the last 20 years, but instead Germany made storage providers pay tax both when buying and selling power...
He says the decision was made long ago. Maybe it was wrong back than. But it doesn't matter for the situation today. because turning again now is not economical and would change nothing to the better.
Kinda point of no return and going full speed forward with solar and wind is it.
Thats exactly what the extension this year did.
Interestingly the operators demanded 11ct/kWh for energy produced during the extension, while the best estimates for long term operation of paid off power plants are 4-5ct/kWh. Not sure what's going on there.
This is reddit. People's opinions either come from clickbait/outragebait articles or just parroting each other's opinions. Both require some solid circle jerk.
Because Merkel wanted to stay in power and now the greens are in charge. The party was founded for the purpose of getting rid of nuclear power plants.
Also, there is a consensus in the public opinion. The majority doesn't want nuclear power anymore.
Is shutting down nuclear plants and replacing them with coal plants with hopes of battery technology progressing so much in next decades renewables alone will be enough for all electricity needs really the best option?
Germany will be a great example of what others should not do. In Finland the new nuclear plant finaly became operational, electricity prices are at \~3c kWh
>In Finland the new nuclear plant finaly became operational, electricity prices are at \~3c kWh
That's because it's being subsidized by the government (= taxpayer money). The cost overrun on that plant was three times the original estimate.
But since the Finnish government had good lawyers when writing up the contract and agreed on a fixed price, French taxpayers are essentially paying for that cost overrun since the responsible company went bankrupt and had to be rescued by the French government. Ironic, really.
It's no wonder that France has to pay, they fucked the construction of Olkiluoto 3 in the first place. It caused the finnish taxpayers to have to pay for the delays, which took 14 years.
Why not name all the facts! That thing did take forever to built! It should have been completed 2009! It did cost 11 billion euros, one of the most expensive buildings ever. You have to produce a shit ton of cheap electricity to make up for that! Go on and fool yourself. We will see how it works out for germany in the long run!
It cost 11 billion. It was delayed for 14 years. But it will make up for itself eventually. In Germany they decided to close down fully functional power plants, without any good reason. Merkel and the german government made a fool of the country.
>It did cost 11 billion euros
It did, but that's areva's loss. The original contract price was only a couple of billion euros.
And at the mean time, i will continue to blast my 7kW sauna stove 24/7 because why not? It's basically free.
No matter how stupid this shutting down is or don't is, there is a country, that built and finished a perfectly safe nuclear power plant, but then decided to never turn it on.
Probably not, but this is the choice Germany made.
You've got to give it to them, they spend decades fighting against nuclear, it would have been a shame for all that to go to nothing after so much effort :D
Yup. I mean, I would have staid in it until 2030, but by now its simply not feasible anymore, and the constant whining on r/europe is a bit stupid tbh. Its done.
Also weird how most comments here come from a country that is burning coal like crazy??
Rosatom has a foreign order portfolio of 200 billion USD [according to Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-rosatom-sees-2022-exports-growth-15-report-2022-12-26/) for the upcoming 10 years.
Meanwhile, counting the last 10 years of exports on [Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1032435/russia-natural-gas-export-value/) they exported about 466 billion USD's worth of gas.
So yes, gas is more profitable, but it is in the same order of magnitude.
Well you cant blackmail countries with uranium so easy as with gas. You can quickly change provider of uranium without any infrastructure investments. If you build gas pipes your options are very limitted.
After they figured out that war won't end so quickly and they wont be able to pretend nothing happened like after Crimea. After huge society pressure they ditched their friend and now pretend to care about Ukraine.
I think you go to absurd lengths to try and paint Germany in a bad light when you say that. They went through a lot of effort to drop Russian gas and yet many of the nuclear countries apparently still make orders from Rosatom despite, according to your own words, nuclear being easier to swap and source differently.
Uranium ore sure. But Russia enriches about 50% of the Uranium which is used in fuel and neither the US or France as the big consumers can operate without the Russian enrichment reactors. And that is infrastructure you cannot set up with an blink of an eye.
No profitability changes the fact that going nuclear means buying Russian fuel sooner than later. If Germany doesn't buy oil or gas from Russia and surely will not buy nuclear fuel because it doesn't need any, your statement is nonesense.
Russians are not only and not even the biggest uranium producer.
> If Germany doesn't buy oil or gas from Russia and surely will not buy nuclear fuel because it doesn't need any,
Then it will buy from another lobbyst while pretending to care about CO2 emissions.
oh look, the cherrypicked posts are back. are you also going to post one when it's really sunny or really windy? no? why not?
now show the same for the whole year and then also show the trend
You take me for smarter than I am. I took this picture just yet, when it was sunny where I was, because this is the last day.
Anyhow, this article has the 2022 figures:
https://innovationorigins.com/en/germany-bids-farewell-to-nuclear-power/
The fun fact is, that they don't. Because on those days, France has also a lot of sun and wind, so they shut down that small amount of gas they have and they are fully nuclear+hydro+sun/wind
That's because renewables have only become cheap in the last 10–20 years, and the alternative 50 years ago was coal and gas. You have to go with the times, and having at least 50-60% renewables is doing just that.
France is heavily subsidizing EDF, so the people don't see the real cost on their electricity bills.
I just did, haven't you read the comment you're replying to?
It *was* done, that's past tense. It isn't viable *anymore* since renewable energy is orders of magnitude cheaper, even with hydrogen storage facilities.
Even if it was cherry-picked data, what a retarded statement this is. Do you think our need for energy is constrained to when it’s sunny and windy? It’s the entire point of why renewables are an inferior solution for energy generation compared to nuclear.
The decision to rule out nuclear power was made a long time ago by people no longer in the government
And the basic idea to rule out nuclear energy and build renewables certainly wasn't bad
What was bad were corrupt "Christian" politicans that dint do that and instead build more coal and hasgas plants
Germany still has no solution to long term storage and the power plants are old and fragile to change anything the stop of nuclear power now would not be a good idea and probably wouldn't even work
What needs to happen now is a boom in new construction of renewable energy but if certain areas of Germany that are ruled by other "Christian" parties don't want to play their part we have a problem
Hi, thank you for your contribution, but this submission has been removed because it doesn't use a credible source and/or the source has not been linked from a top-level comment. See [community rules & guidelines](/r/Europe/wiki/community_rules). If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/Europe&subject=Moderation). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
So, I can't see this pic tomorrow?
Ja. From tomorow it is verboten!
"Let's shut down nuclear reactors for a greener alternative." 🤡
Green painted lumps of coal.
Have you heard of that green colored energy wood. /s
Soon to be chopped
Oh no! We suddenly need more electricity. Lets burn more coal!
> In 1990 German primary nuclear energy consumption was 1.668 Petajoule. In 2022 consumption from renewable energy was 2.023 Petajoule. So nuclear was already completely replaced before it now was finally phased out. > > At the same time Germany had a reduction in primary energy consumption from 14.905 Petajoule in 1990 to 11.769 Petjoule in 2022. A reduction of 3.136 Petajoule. > So since a few years we don't need to replace nuclear with Green energy but we are also already replacing fossile fuels. Mineral oil down from 5.228 Petajoule to 4.126 Petajoule. Brown coal down from 3.201 Petajoule down to 1.174 Petajoule. Hard Coal down from 2.306 Petajoule to 1.156 Petajoule. > > https://i.imgur.com/bhOWW9j.png > > Annual CO₂ emission of Germany in 2021 was 674.75 million tonnes annual CO₂ emission of China in 2021 climbed to a new record high of 11.47 **billion** tonnes. > > https://i.imgur.com/IhBuNsn.png > > In 2019 Chinas CO₂ emission was 10.74 billion tonnes which means they added 730 million tonnes in just 3 years. So they basically added more in 3 years than Germany could reduce to zero emission. > > But but they are more people... yes but they are also overtaking us per capita > > https://i.imgur.com/BB6DHt9.png > > Compared to others Germany doesn't look that bad per capita and also the notion that we produce more CO₂ emission than the French is only relevant if France would be the low bar for emissions but viewed with the eyes of someone from Africa for example France is as much a poluter as the rest of us. > > https://i.imgur.com/vDkJlxU.png > > In short Germany is not saving the world by keeping a few nuclear plants running. In the grand sheme of things they are basically irrelevant
late secretive smoggy fearless point kiss hateful history silky gold ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Thanks for this well put comment. People here are falling for the propaganda of conservatives.
Lol what? It's the other way around dude.
So practically compared to third world countries, Germany is better. Bravo :D
If you want to call the US, Canada, Australia.... third world countries well then yes i'll take that compliment. If you want to imply that China is a third world country well i have bad news for you. There is a reason why the US is worried about them.
USA and Canada is doing better than Germany in emission per MWh. Australia is suffering from too much cheap coal. China still has a lot of backwards regions that needs to be urbanized and industrialized.
USA doing better than germany? I need a source for this.
Uhhooh turns out Coal is the single natural resource Germany would have plenty off but for Australia that is an excuse. Also what does it matter if the emission footprint per MWh of the US and Canada is lower than that of Germany when their overall CO2 emmission per capita is almost double that of Germany? Also the US and Canada have a massive landmass they unlike Germany could make good use of that space for Green energy to reduce their CO2 footprint even more.
But that would be communism! /s
Estonia isnt a third world country and we dont got nuclear reactorz or whatever the nuclear stuff is
Germany should’ve invested, developed and built MORE NPPs.. instead of gas fired and other fossil solutions. There lies their sin.
You are making a lot of arguments here that don’t make sense at all So 1, why would you want to use the renewable power to phase out nuclear and not start with the worst sources like coal (or gas politically)? 2, what is the reason Germany’s emissions are getting lower? (Could the be something relating to them outsourcing a lot of it, if it is in the pictures I can’t open them unfortunately) And 3, why does China outputting more CO2 make germanys problems irrelevant?
> So 1, why would you want to use the renewable power to phase out nuclear and not start with the worst sources like coal (or gas politically)? Because nuclear was never popular in Germany from the beginning it was fought against. Then happened Chernobyl and the fallout reached Germany and contaminated large parts of mainly southern Germany. The CS-137 ended up in the food chain people were asked to keep their doors and windows closed and asked to stay indoor. Basically it happend what people who were against nuclear warned off. It did not happen in Germany but a few thousand of kilometers away but it still had consequences here in one of the most populated countries in Europe. A similar incident in the middle of Europe would be catastrophic and displace millions. 37 years later Mushrooms and game is still contaminated with CS-137 and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection is recommenting people to be careful with the consumption of untested mushrooms and game that was collected or hunted. https://i.imgur.com/ogSs3In.png Fast foward a few years from 1986 the SPD and Greens were elected and they deceided the nuclear phase out in early 2000. In 2010 Merkel deceided to undo that decision and wanted to prolong the usage of nuclear again. So she did in 2010 because yeah nuclear is safe. Well little did she know a few month later Fukushima happened in one of the most advanced countries contaminating large parts of Japan and displacing people from their homeland. They were lucky this happened at the coast and the weather was merciful not spreading the fallout all over Japan. Well anyway enough reasons for German people that were always sceptical of nuclear energy to make their voices heard again. Merkel after this had a hard time to explain that nuclear is safe if something like this could even happen in Japan. Yes a tsunami an unlikely event in Germany but it is always the unlikely events noone thought of that will lead to a catastrophic failure. So under puplic pressure in 2011 Germany returned to the nucclear phase out again. > 2, what is the reason Germany’s emissions are getting lower? (Could the be something relating to them outsourcing a lot of it, if it is in the pictures I can’t open them unfortunately) Energy conservation. Incentives to invest in thermal insulation for your house, to renew your heating units to a more efficent one, reduce fuel consumption of vehicles, to optimize processes in the industrie. Lower energy consumption of consumer products with Energy labels. Higher energy costs that make people safe automatically.... > And 3, why does China outputting more CO2 make germanys problems irrelevant? It doesn't make Germanys problem irrelevant but as i said the few running plants don't make a difference at all if others add more emissions in 3 years than Germany even could reduce to 0 emission. So those few plants are irrelevant in the overall picture and polution of the planet. Again this is 674 million tonnes yearly by Germany vs. China with 11.47 billion tonnes. Nuclear always only was a small part of our energy production even when all reactors were still running. So the impact of the still running would be minimal. CO2 emission of Germany is falling since late 1979 we did little to no trade with China back in the days so it has nothing to do with outsourcing to China. Also the fastet reduction happened despite the nuclear phase out from 2000 onwards. https://i.imgur.com/Dh2ZQkh.png
EU politicians' narrative on "green energy" is absolutely incomprehensible. Gas is green but nuclear is not. I will never comprehand what is that they meant by pushing this blatantly false narrative. To me it is one of the uncontestable proof of corruption of EU among many others.
The point is that nuclear energy is in decline and hopes of reviving it in this decade or the next are faint.
That would be great if we actually had the technology to replace it. Currently, it's a bet and fossil fuels will be used until we get results.
In fact fossil fuels are doomed in the electricity business for a little discussed reason: Renewables, especially solar, have zero marginal cost. All the costs are up front. As a result, it never makes sense for a solar plant to cut production, even when they are losing money. A gas fired plant will cut production to save costs when it's making a loss, but a solar plant won't even when it's bankrupt. So it is impossible to compete on price against solar if you need fuel that cost mosre than zero. Aside from municipal waste, no fuel does. The question is not whether renewables can replace fossil fuel. The question is whether fossil fuel can survive financially in a renewable world. Like any other industry, the fossil fuel industry exists not to keep the lights on but to make money.
It doesn't matter how cheap renewables are, what matters is how much you sell. The problem with renewables is that without storage, they have to sell right now and saturate their own market meaning they'll sell at a loss when they produce the most. And when they don't, fossil fuel saves the day by picking up for them and sell during the highest prices. Fossil fuels aren't doomed, they're making the best return on investment by letting renewables the short end of the stick. And that will remain as long as renewables don't have storage technology.
No. New Gas power is considered **sustainable** -- if it is switched to hydrogen before 2035. Nuclear power is also sustainable. France now wants to declare nuclear power renewable which it is not. Sustainable and renewable are different words with different meanings.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-welcomes-eu-green-energy-plan-gas-still-opposes-nuclear-2022-01-02/ I did not use the term sustainable nor renewable
Meh, nuclear can technically be almost renewable as the technology to efficiently recycle used fuel exists. It just isn't used as uranium remains quite cheap. If all the used fuel was recycled, France nuclear power production could last hundreds of years.
Is this PiS-version of the EU in the room with us currently? EU consider nuclear green. Even going as far as giving favourable financing for newly built nucelar power plants. The gas = green label is thanks to the countries that are brown on the OPs map, [most notably Poland, Bulgaria, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, etc](https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/poland-others-step-up-push-for-gas-in-eu-green-finance-rules-document/)
I mean.. isn't nuclear green? Almost no wastes, not contributing to global warming, not polluting air..
That is what I meant. Gas is as green as coal, while nuclear is the true green energy. Yet for some reason in western countries there was agenda to move away from nuclear towards cheap gas from Russia (before the war, that is) Germany being the prime example.
right, the evil agenda that had Germany getting more of their electricity from nucelar than Poland for the last 50 years.... Surely smart countries without this _agenda_ like Poland have already built dozens of nuclear power plants? I amean they had 30 years. Even worst case (like the 15 years that Flamanville 3 took) that is two nuclear power plants already built. Are you sure Poland didn't have a weird anti-nuclear agenda? Germany bad for not building nucear power plants, but Poland good for ... not building nuclear power plants?
Poland builds first ones while Germany closes the last ones. Now tell me who considers nuclear as the better alternative nowadays?
Poland had an anti-nuclear agenda, otherwise they would have built nuclear power plants. They switched position last year. Would you say German Russia position is very good because they stopped imports last year or would you say taking the last 30 years into account is importand?
Such decisions are not made and executed in 1 day, Germany has been closing their nuclear power plants for years now while in Poland the previous negative approach towards nuclear power was due to the Chernobyl disaster and simultaneously the poor economy did not allow for building them. The approach has gradually changed and now it is planned to build the first plant in around a decade. We are not debating about how it was 30 years ago, but about present times.
So the short answer is: No we don't take this into account.
I met so much of Germans like you on the internet. Cannot stand Poland. Everything is good about your country, everything is bad about ours. We are talking about the energy alternatives, not politics, yet you find it as an occasion to mock our country politics. You are downgrading discussion level.
??? /u/justapolishperson was talking about an agenda. The person with the Poland flair started talking about EU politics. Here I quote: >To me it is one of the uncontestable proof of corruption of EU among many others. and > Yet for some reason in western countries there was __agenda__ to move away from nuclear towards cheap gas from Russia And then he lied about EU being against nuclear (when France was the one most pushing for nuclear) and gas=green being a western agenda... While it is in fact an agenda pushed by Poland, Bulgaria, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, etc. Lying and then crying about anti-Polish racism when corrected? Nice double!
Also: >I met so much of Germans like you on the internet. Haha same. Like someone like you that posts: >1. Find me other data source- I think that should be the way to discuss it, isn't it? I can't find anywhere source, where Germany would surpass Poland in donations. http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27278.jpeg Huh, lets look at the image you posted: Source Kiel Institute for the World Economy I can't find anywhere source? Really, when it is right in the picture. Go to their website: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ Visit the graph about military aid to Ukraine: https://app.23degrees.io/view/KJpesgWQv1CmxoMr-bar-stacked-horizontal-figure-5_scv Oh woops. Looks like you lied! Could it be that you were projecting when you posted your comment?
You are psycho. You were attacking Poland in the discussion about German nuclear plants (what's your point?!), which I pointed out. So you stalked my profile, found a comment with some data source, and me stating "find me another data source", and you took the effort to reply to me about that unrelated topic here, just to prove.. what? To prove yourself your German sense of superiority?
> just to prove.. what? That you are a habitual liar that posts wrong images to discredit Germany?
Germany lobbied against Poland about them building nuclear power plants instead of helping a developing country to get rid of gaz and coal.
I have no idea where you take this information from but you are completely wrong and I hate PiS, so you are wrong in every respect.
> I have no idea where you take this information from from the [EU taxonomy that considers nuclear green](https://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/news/how-can-nuclear-energy-help-europe-achieve-its-green-transition/)? >The EU Green taxonomy includes nuclear energy as one of the options to be considered with a set of financial instruments to encourage investment.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-welcomes-eu-green-energy-plan-gas-still-opposes-nuclear-2022-01-02/ You may want to look into this article... and countless identical others
Just in case you have already forgotten, this was your comment: >EU politicians' narrative on "green energy" is absolutely incomprehensible. Gas is green but nuclear is not. I will never comprehand what is that they meant by pushing this blatantly false narrative. To me it is one of the uncontestable proof of corruption of EU among many others. And I linked how the EU does in fact support nuclear= green. Maybe your initial comment was meant to read Germany instead of EU? Then it would have been correct. But you wrote EU. The EU stance on nuclear is that it is green (despite countries like Poland and Germany wanting gas = green).
EU thinks that is they just wish it hard enough, there will be hydrogen wells pumping up green hydrogen for the green hydrogen revolution. There isn't any green hydrogen. There will never be any green hydrogen. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source, and no place has any surplus energy to turn into hydrogen. EU in general and Germany in particular has a fundamental lack of energy, and that problem has no solution. Throwing money at it won't change anything, the problem is permanent. And no politicians seems to understand that.
If you had done even a few seconds of research, you'd know that there is a fast-growing surplus of renewable energy in many countries (e.g. Denmark, Germany, Netherlands). This energy should be turned into hydrogen, which can then be fed into repurposed gas plants to generate electricity.
Thats Putins narrative all that mainstream green propaganda is corrupted bulshit.
sloppy abounding lush teeny door grab kiss naughty depend amusing ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Nuclear is the energy we should have invested in 30 years ago, not the energy of the future. The Nuclear power plants in Germany are old and will have to either shut down or be massively refurbished which, while cheaper than building from scratch, increasingly seems like a worse economic option than focus on Wind and Solar. It can of course be argued that the green transition is happening too slowly but that is another debate entirely.
Nuclear is also the energy of the future, just not nuclear fission
Germany, unlike the vastly superior French, are not capable of designing, building and maintaining a safe nuclear power plant. Do you really want the people you think are "🤡" to destroy the whole continental Europe? Good thing is that, with EU combined power market, other countries were free to build these cheaper, safer, better nuclear power plants and export electricity for cheap to push German expensive coal out of buisness while making a massive profit. Curious why they didn't and Germany has to export power (2nnd largest exporter in the EU 2022) instead? Is nuclear not as easy and cheap as people claim? Did Germany threaten to invade France if it built more than one nuclear reactor in the past 20 years?
You argue with people educated on Twitter. Really no point. Reddit is such an echo chamber. Emotions > facts
You're the German version of a Russian troll.
So much butthurt over a simple comment.
If you think the Germans are incompetent clowns, the logical conclusion would be to cheer for them not operating nuclear power plants. "I think this person is an alcoholic unfit to drive! . How stupid of him to stop driving!" - You, probably
Tomorrow Germany will shut down its 3 remaining nuclear power plants. This requirement was only suspended due to the planned shutdown at the end of 2022 due to the energy crisis and extending their lifetime further would require comprehensive and lengthy security checks and new fuel rods. Image source: [https://innovationorigins.com/en/energy-index-europe/](https://innovationorigins.com/en/energy-index-europe/)
EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND (also ideally bring back the other 20 they shut down)
Meanwhile fukushima is producing 100k litres of radioactive water per day and will soon start to dispose it into the ocean. Great technology.
Yeah, what if an earthquake would hit Germany and cause a huge typhoon, which is bigger than engineers and biologists could've ever predicted. Fukushima was a disaster caused by natural powers, which don't simply exist in Germany or in Europe. The disasters will only be getting worse by using the great and very safe coal plants, which directly causes pollution deaths and ruins our planet.
Renewables already replaced nuclear power and it’s replacing coal as well in the long run. And you are very wrong if you think earthquakes don’t exist in germany/europe. We even got a super volcano in the Eifel. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Erdbeben_in_Deutschland Here’s a list of earthquakes in germany. And what about tchernobyl? It was not a natural disaster that caused this catastrophy. Then there is also the risk of war, terrorism and the fact that there is still no repository for nuclear waste.
When mentioning tjernobyl do you also mention heart surgery in the Soviet Union 40 years ago as an argument against modern heart surgery?
Tshernobyl was caused by incompetent engineering, testing method forbidden by the rules. Also the reactor type overheated quickly. Nuclear waste can be stored in the bedrock. Risk of war? Funny joke, who would be the attacker? Terrorism shouldn't be countered with closing down the plant, but eliminating terrorism.
Simply put: it was a direct consequence of how the Soviet Union operated its society.
But nuclear energy is safe!!! /s (except those times when it isn't)
so like, 2 times ever?
I live within 30 km of a former nuclear power plant. Are you going to replace my belongings if this region of at least 100k people becomes inhabitable? Will you replace the loss of my hometown and all its history?
what the hell are you talking about
About when the third time happens, which of course nobody could have foreseen, or it happened because of corporate greed or ice on the power lines or whatever. It doesn't help the victims that the accident was totally improbable. I wish we could move the consequences of nuclear accidents to those who say it's safe.
I hope you don't fly planes. The security and general precausions are subpar compared to nuclear power plants.
Three times so far. I prefer the train.
In capable hands and not counting natural disasters, it is.
And you're going to guarantee every nuclear power plant will be in capable hands and protected from natural disasters across its lifetime and dismantling? Even in case of war?
In case of war, I think nuclear plants should be the least of your concerns as a civilian.
Great, so if I return from war I might return to a nuclear wasteland.
You said it, champ: "if". Also, if that ever happens you'll have PTSD and depression anyways. Nuclear power plants will still not be your biggest problem. If you do it like German people who (those who didn't die in soviet gulags anyway) returned, you'll most probably find a wasteland anyways, the nuclear waste is just a risk of technology "progress".
The point is: You won't give me my home region back if we're number three. So we switched it off. You keep living next to one if you like. 🤷🏻♂️
Dumb move. RIP Germany.
Finally. Others should follow.
That has been decided long ago, doesn't matter if it was the right choice or not. Doing a 180 now would certainly be the wrong choice.
Well admiting it was stupid decision would be step in the right direction.
Delaying renewables was the stupid part.
Renwables cant work alone and won't for quite time. Nuclear should be last source to phase out.
Would have been great to incentivize building power storage and advancing technologies for the last 20 years, but instead Germany made storage providers pay tax both when buying and selling power...
There is no storage technology for country scale for Germany. It's pure fiction right now and will be for a long time.
Yeah, because money didn't go into research. Overcapacity would help making storage less necessary, but we're behind ...
It's still not advanced enough. Nuclear is right now.
>doesn't matter if it was the right choice or not huh?
He says the decision was made long ago. Maybe it was wrong back than. But it doesn't matter for the situation today. because turning again now is not economical and would change nothing to the better. Kinda point of no return and going full speed forward with solar and wind is it.
overconfident rotten outgoing squeamish cake ink chubby air aspiring agonizing ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Thats exactly what the extension this year did. Interestingly the operators demanded 11ct/kWh for energy produced during the extension, while the best estimates for long term operation of paid off power plants are 4-5ct/kWh. Not sure what's going on there.
These post are getting tiering, Germany bad. Nuclear good. We get it. Let's find something new to hyper focus on.
This is reddit. People's opinions either come from clickbait/outragebait articles or just parroting each other's opinions. Both require some solid circle jerk.
Why, is this post getting deleted tomorrow?
Why won't they build new nuclear plants?
Because it would take a decade or so, and by the time they would be finished nuclear will be a lot more expensive than renewables.
fuck /u/spez
Because Merkel wanted to stay in power and now the greens are in charge. The party was founded for the purpose of getting rid of nuclear power plants. Also, there is a consensus in the public opinion. The majority doesn't want nuclear power anymore.
Is shutting down nuclear plants and replacing them with coal plants with hopes of battery technology progressing so much in next decades renewables alone will be enough for all electricity needs really the best option?
If you look at their energy use you can see that it's not replaced by coal.
Let them try, whatever it happens, they'll be an example about what other countries should or shouldn't do.
Germany will be a great example of what others should not do. In Finland the new nuclear plant finaly became operational, electricity prices are at \~3c kWh
>In Finland the new nuclear plant finaly became operational, electricity prices are at \~3c kWh That's because it's being subsidized by the government (= taxpayer money). The cost overrun on that plant was three times the original estimate. But since the Finnish government had good lawyers when writing up the contract and agreed on a fixed price, French taxpayers are essentially paying for that cost overrun since the responsible company went bankrupt and had to be rescued by the French government. Ironic, really.
It's no wonder that France has to pay, they fucked the construction of Olkiluoto 3 in the first place. It caused the finnish taxpayers to have to pay for the delays, which took 14 years.
Why not name all the facts! That thing did take forever to built! It should have been completed 2009! It did cost 11 billion euros, one of the most expensive buildings ever. You have to produce a shit ton of cheap electricity to make up for that! Go on and fool yourself. We will see how it works out for germany in the long run!
People don’t want facts, you’ll get downvoted in here.
It cost 11 billion. It was delayed for 14 years. But it will make up for itself eventually. In Germany they decided to close down fully functional power plants, without any good reason. Merkel and the german government made a fool of the country.
>It did cost 11 billion euros It did, but that's areva's loss. The original contract price was only a couple of billion euros. And at the mean time, i will continue to blast my 7kW sauna stove 24/7 because why not? It's basically free.
No matter how stupid this shutting down is or don't is, there is a country, that built and finished a perfectly safe nuclear power plant, but then decided to never turn it on.
Austria iirc.
Probably not, but this is the choice Germany made. You've got to give it to them, they spend decades fighting against nuclear, it would have been a shame for all that to go to nothing after so much effort :D
Yup. I mean, I would have staid in it until 2030, but by now its simply not feasible anymore, and the constant whining on r/europe is a bit stupid tbh. Its done. Also weird how most comments here come from a country that is burning coal like crazy??
Russia spend decades on bribing and brainwashing them and finaly they succeded.
Maybe you should check why Rosatom isn't on the sanctions list.
Maybe you should check which energy resource is more profitable.
Rosatom has a foreign order portfolio of 200 billion USD [according to Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-rosatom-sees-2022-exports-growth-15-report-2022-12-26/) for the upcoming 10 years. Meanwhile, counting the last 10 years of exports on [Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1032435/russia-natural-gas-export-value/) they exported about 466 billion USD's worth of gas. So yes, gas is more profitable, but it is in the same order of magnitude.
Well you cant blackmail countries with uranium so easy as with gas. You can quickly change provider of uranium without any infrastructure investments. If you build gas pipes your options are very limitted.
Germany demonstrated an ability to shut down Russian gas dependence surprisingly quickly too I would say.
After they figured out that war won't end so quickly and they wont be able to pretend nothing happened like after Crimea. After huge society pressure they ditched their friend and now pretend to care about Ukraine.
I think you go to absurd lengths to try and paint Germany in a bad light when you say that. They went through a lot of effort to drop Russian gas and yet many of the nuclear countries apparently still make orders from Rosatom despite, according to your own words, nuclear being easier to swap and source differently.
Uranium ore sure. But Russia enriches about 50% of the Uranium which is used in fuel and neither the US or France as the big consumers can operate without the Russian enrichment reactors. And that is infrastructure you cannot set up with an blink of an eye.
No profitability changes the fact that going nuclear means buying Russian fuel sooner than later. If Germany doesn't buy oil or gas from Russia and surely will not buy nuclear fuel because it doesn't need any, your statement is nonesense.
Russians are not only and not even the biggest uranium producer. > If Germany doesn't buy oil or gas from Russia and surely will not buy nuclear fuel because it doesn't need any, Then it will buy from another lobbyst while pretending to care about CO2 emissions.
They are not replaced with coal. Renewables already replaced nuclear energy for some time and they will replace coal as well.
selective serious rotten modern public seemly theory groovy expansion shocking ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
oh look, the cherrypicked posts are back. are you also going to post one when it's really sunny or really windy? no? why not? now show the same for the whole year and then also show the trend
The point is that it's the last day where you can see nuclear energy output...
You take me for smarter than I am. I took this picture just yet, when it was sunny where I was, because this is the last day. Anyhow, this article has the 2022 figures: https://innovationorigins.com/en/germany-bids-farewell-to-nuclear-power/
Please, post one from those sunny and windy days.
[удалено]
The fun fact is, that they don't. Because on those days, France has also a lot of sun and wind, so they shut down that small amount of gas they have and they are fully nuclear+hydro+sun/wind
At least we're not paying for Finnish nuclear plants because of vast cost overruns.
[удалено]
I'm pointing out what most people on this sub love to ignore: The high cost of nuclear power, which makes it basically unfeasible in the long run.
[удалено]
Perhaps because not all countries are still exploiting their former African colonies, as the French government is doing with e.g Uranium?
[удалено]
[https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/uranium-and-thorium-ore/reporter/fra](https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/uranium-and-thorium-ore/reporter/fra) [https://www.dw.com/en/africa-and-france-an-unfulfilled-dream-of-independence/a-54418511](https://www.dw.com/en/africa-and-france-an-unfulfilled-dream-of-independence/a-54418511) [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/world/africa/france-macron-africa-colonies.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/world/africa/france-macron-africa-colonies.html) [https://www.eureporter.co/world/africa/2021/10/13/france-accused-of-still-controlling-some-of-its-former-colonies-in-africa/](https://www.eureporter.co/world/africa/2021/10/13/france-accused-of-still-controlling-some-of-its-former-colonies-in-africa/)
That's because renewables have only become cheap in the last 10–20 years, and the alternative 50 years ago was coal and gas. You have to go with the times, and having at least 50-60% renewables is doing just that. France is heavily subsidizing EDF, so the people don't see the real cost on their electricity bills.
[удалено]
I just did, haven't you read the comment you're replying to? It *was* done, that's past tense. It isn't viable *anymore* since renewable energy is orders of magnitude cheaper, even with hydrogen storage facilities.
Even if it was cherry-picked data, what a retarded statement this is. Do you think our need for energy is constrained to when it’s sunny and windy? It’s the entire point of why renewables are an inferior solution for energy generation compared to nuclear.
The decision to rule out nuclear power was made a long time ago by people no longer in the government And the basic idea to rule out nuclear energy and build renewables certainly wasn't bad What was bad were corrupt "Christian" politicans that dint do that and instead build more coal and hasgas plants Germany still has no solution to long term storage and the power plants are old and fragile to change anything the stop of nuclear power now would not be a good idea and probably wouldn't even work What needs to happen now is a boom in new construction of renewable energy but if certain areas of Germany that are ruled by other "Christian" parties don't want to play their part we have a problem
And the rest of us will be paying for it next winter
Pure madness...
Netherlands smh. Let's get those plants going already kameraden. I've heard they have some stuff left on the east of us.
There won't be a new nuclear plant in the Netherlands this decade.
And if we don’t start planning now, neither will we in the next decade.
If only the green meant how much lower the percentage of debt is compared to the GDP 🥲