Why has Germany shut down its nuclear plants? | Inside Story
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2024
- After years of contentious debates, Germany has shut down its last three remaining nuclear power plants.
Critics have long described the energy source, as dangerous and unsustainable.
But some have pushed back against the plan - citing Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis.
Supporters insist it's the right move and they hope other nations will follow.
But are the alternatives, safer?
Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom
Guests:
Mark Nelson - Founder and Managing Director of Radiant Energy Group - a consultancy which advises governments and industry on nuclear energy.
Hubertus Bardt - Managing Director and Head of Research at the German Economic Institute.
Paul Dorfman - Founder and Chair at Nuclear Consulting Group and a member of the Irish Government's Radiation Protection Committee.
Subscribe to our channel bit.ly/AJSubscribe
Follow us on Twitter / ajenglish
Find us on Facebook / aljazeera
Check our website: www.aljazeera.com/
Check out our Instagram page: / aljazeeraenglish
@AljazeeraEnglish
#Aljazeeraenglish
#News #Germany #Nuclear #NuclearPlant #NuclearEnergy #Energy #RussiaUkraineWar
Closing nuclear plants and keep the coal running?????? Ja vol...!!!
Neiiiiiiin!!
Paul Dorfman is deliberately obfuscating the issue by talking about the "future planning for renewables". The issue at hand is what we do about nuclear plants that have already been built and are operating today. Nothing what Paul said implies that we should take down existing nuclear plants. In fact, it's the very opposite. If renewables are so important in fighting against climate change (which I agree they are) that's just another good reason for why we should NOT shut down existing nuclear plants. Keeping nuclear plants online means that more of the future renewables will replace fossil fuels. Why waste some of your future renewables in replacing already existing cheap and low-carbon nuclear capacity, while they could replace more fossil fuels instead? Paul avoids this issue.
I also find it hilarious that Paul has to believe in a fantasy of a "powerful nuclear lobby", because he cannot accept that the recent surge of pro-nuclear attitudes across the world comes from genuine concerns among the public and academics. After Nelson pushed back on this by explaining that the nuclear lobby has been silent and consistently avoids communication with the public, Paul just didn't know how to respond. He just doesn't understand why there is so much discussion about nuclear power at the moment outside of his imagined narrative of a powerful nuclear lobby. So instead, Paul went full FUD-mode (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) implying that nuclear energy is dangerous (it absolutely is not) and mentioning the mantra of no solution to nuclear waste; even though the waste from nuclear power plants has some of the most excellent safety records of any industry. Not a single person has ever died from the disposal or storage of spent nuclear fuel. That's why Paul only appeals to emotions (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) such as the line "in an increasingly unstable world to produce more targets", instead of providing the actual figures. People like Paul appeal to emotion and fear whenever the facts don't stand on their side.
Over 10.000 people die every day from fossil fuel air pollution. That's not even considering the health impact of climate change. This number is greater than the number of deaths from nuclear power... not per day, but the total historical death toll, including Chernobyl. Yet Germany is shutting down nuclear, even though this means that coal plants will continue to operate for a longer time. More people are going to die from this. In fact, more people will die from the operating coal plants that could've been shut down earlier if the nuclear plants were kept online than the number of people who have died from Chernobyl. Shutting down already existing and operating nuclear plants, right in the middle of an energy and climate crisis, is nothing but absolute madness and it's time we stop pretending it's anything else.
Can nuclear facilities be operated without connection to the internet or telecom platforms that can be hacked, how many actually are? I'm generally pro nuclear, but the security concerns can't be ignored, with AI advances we don't know whether the nefarious cyber hacker or facilities network security defender will have the initial upper hand... Maybe some countries will feel that having large imperfectly protected nuclear power plants, will increase desire for nuclear weapons at their disposal to retaliate against aggression against the plants, assuming they can determine culprit... Ai hacking concern could apply to nuclear weapons also...
@@assertivekarma1909 a great many of those plants were constructed before the internet even existed they are easily able to operate without internet.
True but if they get hit in ww3 they will cost far more lives.
Those running nuclear plants can break now .. they are finished . It's that simple you need replacement.... We are 100% hydropowered in Quebec 🇨🇦 Canada , where I live. We have no nuclear waste no pollution & decades of technology available & storage batteries ( raw material+ tech) COME & BORROW TECH FROM CANADA , build green instead for human health & environment too in the meantime. No carbon involved no costly radiation poisoning for millenials
@@sarahsokal They were among the most best operated nuclear power plants in the world. They could've continued operating for decades. They were simply shut down due to politics.
Hydro is good, but not possible in all places. For example, Ontario Canada uses a lot of nuclear, the expansion of which during the early 21st century managed to shut down all coal. It was the greatest carbon emission reduction initiative in North America (Canada and USA) to this date.
Nuclear waste ≠ Pollution. Nuclear power doesn't produce Pollution. It produces very little waste. If you get all your energy from nuclear power, the nuclear waste could fit inside a bottle of water. Furthermore, the waste is in the form of a stable solid that doesn't easily spread in the environment, and it is stored with an impressive safety record. The storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel waste from nuclear power plants has killed 0 people. ZERO... NONE.... NOBODY... dies from it. In comparison, over 10.000 people die every day from the enormous amounts of pollution emitted by fossil fuels.
Stop the fear nonsense, support nuclear alongside hydro, solar and wind!
I can’t wait for German’s next generation tech that would consists of rubbing two sticks together.
Paul makes repeated assertions that "future is renewable" without bothering to explaine why other than merely citing the IPCC and IEA's claim. Is he just back from the future? How would he know for sure?
Paul conveniently forgets to mention that both the IPCC and the IEA calls for an *increase* of nuclear energy along with an increase of renewables.
He said why ,
because by science and by experience it is much cheaper,
much less risks
and the only solution to climate change, that nuclears would be climate friendly is not scientific
because it is by science NOT ,the Atom Lobby and politic told the Lie against science that nuclear would be climate friendly which they are NOT,
because Nuclear do emmit a lot of CO2 to get the resources, emissions for security , high emissions for storage, high emissions for recycling , emissions by maintainment, nuclear energy got a lot of emissions they are not climate friendly, they are lying to get rich and fat and they claim that just the prodction of energy would be climate friendly but who cares when it does cause a lot of emissions in total, without you will never have nuclear energy at all.
When you do not know why renewable are the only solution and thts why they are the future then you are very bad in science of nature which does explain this directly and yes this is for sure, you will not survive without solving the climate problem and the only technology solving this is renewable, if you think otherwise this is not by education this would be by misunderstanding and because you can not grasp simple facts of science of nature.
Wouldn't be awesome to hear such a balanced debate in a US media outlet? It would be awesome but it is 'not' going to happen.
Never happen in america
Would AJ discuss problems of Quatar?
Good. The Green closes nuclear power plants and replaces them with coal power plants. Very green.
That was an excellent panel discussion. A big thank you to Inside Story.
“They state it’s better; it’s 10x better. The solution is quite clear that renewables are our best bet.” Says the guy that believes all politicians and has never followed the money
Amazing what a government will do to its people ,punish them for not agreeing
Germans have debated nuclear energy for decades and after a long time in 2002 the end of nuclear power was decided by the government, in 2011 after Fukushima also the conservatives agreed. The debate is dead. Only in the light of the current crisis people talk differently. But actually that is well thought through for ages.
Renewable energy's waste is more complex than that of nuclear energy waste. The Fukushima tragedy victims are the result of the natural phenomenon, and minimum damage on the community is done by the nuclear accident.
it was the result of a freak natural phenomina as well as poor regulation standards which have now been improved worldwide. In the end it caused the death of only one person. german politicians are just corrupt and bribed by coal and oil corporations. The whole fukushima incident is overblown propoganda of such coal and oil corporations
Nuclear waste has to be stored for 100000 years , under high cost, do simple mathe 4 security workers working 24/7 to secure the waste 100000 years long by a wage of 4000 euro the month what you got and we not only taliking about 4 workers you need by far much more but you can no one in the world can even pay these 3 working place 100000 years
nuclear waste is very bad you will not get rid of at all and you need experts with high techology and high cost alot of security and back up to get rid of this waste ...
and you living LaLaLand tell people something against reality like ..."Renewable energy's waste is more complex than that of nuclear energy waste."
you are a clown
and the non sense of minimum damage to what ? Japan economy will suffer a long long time just because of the catarophe and the people will just start to suffer cancer by the catastrophe will just start rising in decades and Millions will get sick and die bacause of fukushima, there are even Millions dying even today because of chernobyl. Not even to mento the devastaing harm to marine life caused by fukushima, better read some papers about it and stop talking fairytales.
@Leo A I am German and we know all about our Nuclear lobby lies and whats up with nuclear energy
That is NOT true,. Nuclear waste management is far, far more complicated. It's not on news, but even now hundred of thousand of people working on the Fukushima plant site which is seriously contaminated. Treatment work will continue the next few decades.
@@MSMS-ug3zu This is true. The reason Germans are so wary of nuclear reactors are due to the component of greed. The truth is all the so called green energy had hurt people. Wind and solar energy companies don't want to recycle their used materials. They don't want to practice the safest way to mine copper and resort to polluting the air and water in the communities who don't have the voice living in poor countries. Meanwhile, the average global temperature is rising. The root of the problem is human greed and overconsumption. It is the human behavior that has to change first. Then, maybe people will feel comfortable diversifying the solution with the all of the above approach.
Renewable with Nuclear backup id required. I can not see th sense in closing down operating nuclear plants that are already providing energy unless they are at the end of their life.
The fuel elements of these last 3 nuclear power plants are exhausted. If you wanted to continue using them, you would have to reload them. Electricity from nuclear power plants are completely uneconomical. To recharge these 3 nuclear power plants would cost additional billions that would rather be spent on alternative storage technologies. Nuclear power in Europe benefits above all from massive tax breaks, subsidies and other financial aid for construction, maintenance and disposal (in Germany a total of around 187 billion euros over the last forty years). These costs are passed on to all citizens via the state budget in the form of taxes. Considering these costs, nuclear power is one of the most expensive types of energy production.
@@callsigndd9ls897 Electricity from nuclear power plants is completely uneconomical. To recharge these 3 nuclear power plants would cost additional billions ??? The Fuel cost for Nuclear Plants is Negible to state otherwise is either ignorance or willful disinformation
@@doniehurley9396 No, I am not ignorant or intentionally misinforming anyone. It is well documented what the nuclear energy adventure has cost us so far in Germany in terms of tax money and what it will still cost if the contaminated reactor components of old nuclear power plants have to be finally stored. Also, the last 3 remaining nuclear power plants supplied only 5% of the demand. That's a fart in the wind. Alternative energies from wind, biomass and sun now cover more than 65% of Germany's needs. If the old Merkel government hadn't slept for 16 years and opted for natural gas, we would probably already be at over 80% today. I'm not against nuclear power, but not in the current form of light water reactors, heavy water reactors or graphite reactors. This is atomic stone age technology. I don't know if you're British or Finnish. If yes, then find out more about the costs and construction times of the reactors currently under construction. You should also find out about the problems the French had with their nuclear power plants last summer when the rivers ran out of cooling water and almost 50% of the nuclear power plants had to be shut down and Germany a large part of electricity delivered to France .
I like how in German, nuclear roughly translates as “atom-craft” that’s even better than what French call potatoes
Great points at Mark Nelson, the cist of carbon permits and the limits to their amounts, are very insightful.
It's a shame Paul Dorfman focused on dodging questions and throwing out rudimentary German to counter.
Fantastic to see a direct debate with Mark Nelson & Paul Dorfman.
I genuinely don't understand why Paul is given airtime anywhere, Mark provides genuine well researched insight backed by fact whereas Paul will just say anything to avoid facts & relies upon his tired old mantra of France's nuclear maintenance debt, how Germany had to supply power to France, previous accidents, potential disasters, the 'waste issue' etc, his babbling's are testament to how nonsensical his stance on nuclear is, I know he tweets a lot of FUD rubbish on Twitter but didn't realise how much of it he can actually speak too!
"All of the G7 except Germany are committed to nuclear energy" 23:36 - As of 2018, Italy (a G7 country) is one of only two countries, along with Lithuania, that completely phased out nuclear power for electricity generation after having operational reactors.
Interestingly, Italy took part of the pro-nuclear group of countries in EU that wanted to classify nuclear as clean and hydrogen produced from it as green.
Yeah, we remember another historic time about 90 years ago in which Germany followed Italian bad decision, and didn't go well at all.
Italy 🇮🇹 butcati Car in Italy Moter same Pilot
My German friends, please go on with your green plans. The US will help you with that. If you have some industry, which needs electricity, the US will gladly accept it on the American soil. 😂
Wind and solar are so much fun, good luck with that.
Paul Dorfman constantly looking down at his sheet of talking points lmaoo
Airbus already setup two production line in China.
Same as Germany BASF, just to follow cheap Russia energy into China.
U$A has been very successful in deindustrialize EU .
Mark Nelson killed it here
During my time in public office, I often asked those who are proposing something such as this kind of measure whether if they are willing to put their money if the effect is not what they are expecting.
Carefully calculated you can produce 5% of the germany energy with renewable.
Renewable Energy is not working in Germany. We haven't have the sun. And the windmills slow down the wind, stop the mixing from cold and warm air, and prevent through this rain.
You can't do such things in such a tiny country with so many people and industry. That is mad.
Um, right now Germany produces more than 50% of it's energy from wind, solar and other renewables. Nuclear power only provided 5% of Germanys energy supply.
Your "careful calculation" is busted by reality.
That's ok, the greens will manage somehow. Or not, but this will be later. 😂 in this case they will change their opinion very quickly, "360 degrees" 😂 they have excellent knowledge of geometry, and physics is approximately on the same level.
@@TheJcrist The nuclear exit was signed by all political parties in germany. It was decided by a center left coalition in 2002. No greens involved.
@@peter_meyer This makes it even more dangerous. Means that idiots are vocal and smart people are either not listened or not allowed to speak. Idiocracy now.
@@TheJcrist As even the energy companies agreed to it, Germany must be full of idiots, even the businesses - unless the opposite is true.
Debate is moot they shut the reactors down so the results will be seen. My bet, they will see a huge increase in cost to consumers and then the government will start to subsidize them again.
Not moot at all. Germany's phase out of nuclear has inspired the rest of the G7 to back nuclear power. Germany will need to reassess their nuclear stance or risk being sidelined politically in the coming decades.
Subsidize them forever? Germany will go broke bro. If Germany falls the EU falls. Every EU country will feel the pain of German lunacy.
@@gregbarton1970 Germany is already side-lined. It's over.
@@yurichtube1162 More than 50% of germanys energy already is produced by renewables. And nuclear has been subsidized for decades, too.
@@peter_meyer You can't support your industries on renewables. It's a pipedream. You will no longer be competitive. The USA and China will simply out-compete you now. And 50%? Really? Need some proof and a source for that. Would like to see the numbers and details.
good discussion.
Many leaders said that they have goodwill of loving others life... but not every leaders has courage to do so by disarm their nuclear weapons... some of them always showed their hypocracy
What does this have to do with the video?
Mark Nelson won all arguments without even opening his mouth, with that mustache
No gas and energy shortages, if this decision results in winter blackouts and death's from cold, there will need to be some very long prison sentences, for those responsible.
2:42 And who is going to build these fabulous nuclear power plants in "developing countries"? Germany, perhaps?
I am german citizen. The people of Germany do NOT want the shut down of nuclear power!!! But as our foreign minister Annalena Baerbock says : " I don't care what my voters want"
The decision makers are not making decisions for the people. That's how we end up paying for their bad decisions.
The nuclear phase-out was decided in 2002 and there was a certain Ms. Merkel who enforced it. Ms. Baerbock had nothing to do with it. And it's not true that "all" Germans don't want it. You must not project your opinion onto all Germans. Almost 41% of (most younger) Germans agree that the nuclear phase-out is the right thing to do.
I am a German citizen as well and you are wrong. Don't just look at recent polls as a matter of the moment. Look at the debate of the past 40 years. Germany decided to end this in 2002 - to end it 2022. It was reversed 2010 to be revived 2011 only after Fukushima. Also conservatives, those crying the loudest now, definitely decided it in 2011 to end nuclear power. It was the Christian Democrats of CDU and the Free Democrats of FDP. The long debates were ended by this decision and Germany long enough had time to prepare for this. The only problem is: the bridge to a fully renewable economy was meant to be built by GAS. That is difficult now due to Russia's war of aggression. That is why coal energy went up again. BUT diversification sped up, Germany is nearly independent from Russian Energy now, within a year. That is a huge achievement. And therefore - with the help of Gas from other sources, - Germany will replace coal by 2038 and nuclear energy now - which only made up 6 per cent of electricity production in the end.
I thougt nuclear phase out were supported by majority of german people. How I came up with that conclusion? I watched and listened some of german politician, climate activist, and protest
That's why I prefer france energy policy albeit it is not perfect
@@fatah496 In Germany there is a very loud minority. Also the media is manipulated. That is the reason why I watch foreign media. The majority in Germany do not want the war in Ukraine, also no Insects in our food, and we do not want the shut down of our last nuclear power plants.
There is no argument from me about renewable energy being the most efficient answer to the world's emissions capping goals, but what Germany did was make a step forward and a step backward at the same time. The decision to go with coal in the place of nuclear energy is definitely not a more eco friendly decision. Extending the life of the nuclear plant would have been the lesser evil of those two options. Germany can afford nuclear power plants, notwithstanding their expensive and high maintenance nature. Having said that, in the unlikely scenario that more countries around the world hopped onto nuclear energy power generation, what would become of the _finite_ availability of uranium or other thermal fuel sources? Would that not make the already expensive nuclear power plant operation even more costly, given that prices for the fuel sources will have jumped, courtesy of supply and demand?
PS: I don't buy the notion that renewable energy cannot be fine-tuned, if the will exists, to make them available outside of the peak activities of their fuel sources. Provided the thermal fuel sources are available, if the risky aspects of nuclear power plant operations have been mitigated enough to ensure sustainable power generation and safe operation, then why can't that same passion be afforded to renewable energy solutions?
Instead of spending billions on new nuclear power plants that will only be ready in 15 to 20 years, I think it would be wiser to spend the money on renewable energy and in particular on electricity storage. Electricity storage in the form of hydrogen, batteries or reservoirs. We have to be able to store the alternatively generated electricity in order to guarantee the base load. But to say from the outset that that's not possible, we'd rather stick to generating steam with nuclear power, coal, gas or oil, I find that quite conservative. If you thought like that over a hundred years ago, we would still be driving horse-drawn carriages today and sailing across the ocean to reach America in 4 weeks. Why shouldn't Germany come first? In many ways we were always the first to invent something new, why not now. By the way, there is a German proverb: Necessity makes inventors. We now have an emergency situation. On the one hand the climate and on the other hand the energy crisis. So we should do it, right? If other countries don't want to take part, then they should continue to use "fire" to boil water to generate energy (lol).
@@callsigndd9ls897
I concur with the spirit of your reply and do not see it as criticism of my comment, but just for clarity, you do know that I was not referring to the building of any *new* nuclear power plant, right? I only noted that Germany's decision to keep coal power generation going over the relatively cleaner _preexisting_ nuclear option -- *as a stopgap measure* of course, seemed rather peculiar. I guess it goes to show that "eco-friendliness" was not the motivating factor behind Germany's decision, but rather, which operation of the two "controversial" options would _cost_ Germany less in the interim.
@@Lamin_G Yes, I understood your reasoning, but the problem was that the exit had already been decided in 2002 by the Merkel government. Another problem was that all nuclear power plants ran out of fuel and had to be replaced. I would also have been in favor of letting them run longer than the coal plants until we reach the renewable energy and storage technology targets. It would have been better for the climate... but...
Stupid to shut clean reliable energy production
Someone should tell the Germans that the sun is a nuclear reactor. You cant get rid of nuclear energy.
American oil seller will be 😊
Dont get the point. Just because a disaster happened in Japan and Russia, doesn't mean it would definately happen again in Germany.
Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that there could be another accident, but that is not the sole reason. The main reason is that nuclear energy is pretty much the most expensive way to generate electricity. Even the German energy companies have little interest in continuing to operate these things.
In addition to huge costs of money and time to build a single nuclear power plant, consider the potential for outbreaks of war and armed conflict becoming more common in today's highly polarized world. Nuclear power plants and its waste distribution nodes are huge juicy targets.
We're unfortunately getting a reminder of this with Putin's invasion of Ukraine. We witnessed his force's inaccuracies with heavy weapons like missiles. Some might not be their fault but just weapons malfunction.
His forces actually used Ukraine's Zaphorizhia nuclear power plant (nearly 6GW) as cover when they ran out of tactical options. They damaged both the plant and its cooling infrastructure. Meltdown was *not* out of the question but thanks to heroic efforts by plant workers it was saved. Even now Putin's repeated strikes on Ukraine's power grid is putting Zaphorizhia at risk of disaster!
Be it intentional and non-intentional, a direct hit with a heavy weapon (like a missile) would likely represent a devastating economic and ecological toll on a widespread area -- not even counting the human death toll at the time and decades to follow after the event.
As a country builds out its nuclear portfolio, all risks mentioned above just increase.
Again the increasing polarization of the world just increases the chances of armed conflict more so than ever since the end of the Cold War. Not worth the risk especially with so many other disadvantages of nuclear fission power.
please if posibal aljazeera urdu news
I don't trust Paul. I think he might suffer from an addiction to lies...
Do your own research. Read my comments below. Do your own research.
You’re recognizing a ignorant person with a title who is easily duped. There’s no risk to him to parroting officials and he’ll never suffer the consequences of his actions
😂 this is hilarious. So now they will be more dependent on coal 😂
Itis totaly crasy to stop nuklear. I think the greens is criminels.
ultra cheap nuclear... pull the other one brother
All my life I thought Germans are intelligent and good at engineering. I thought wrong
They used to be.
Let's shut down all the nuclear power plants. Let's do it! And where will we get the electricity? Let's buy it from France, which generates this electricity in nuclear power plants! The plan is as reliable as a Swiss watch!!!🤣
This will only lead to a sharp rise in the cost of electricity, the transfer of energy-intensive industries from Germany to other countries and the displacement of German goods on world markets by manufacturers from the USA, Asia and other countries where nuclear power plants are being developed, absolute stupidity.
Modern nuclear power plants are absolutely safe and are designed even taking into account tsunamis and earthquakes and the fall of an airplane on them, nuclear power plant waste is minimal and compactly stored without the slightest harm to nature.
The decommissioning of old nuclear power plants from the atomic stone age will not affect the development of new nuclear technology. Despite the exit, the Germans are world leaders in research into fusion technology, and that's not about to change. You don't need old nuclear power plants to develop new nuclear technologies. Germany's Wendelstein-7X fusion reactor has reached a milestone in fusion plasma energy turnover. Wendelstein-7X ran at 1.3 gigajoules for eight minutes. This is a new record for discharge duration and heating capacity. It is expected that in 10 years at the latest the breakthrough will be achieved that the first fusion reactors can be built.
Big mistake.
Talk Sense Not Dictate
You see here only pro nuclear, there are a lot of against these nuclear also.
59% of Germans are against shutting down nuclear power and only 34% of people are for it… completely unfair for the people
Paul is misleading and dishonest.
Talking about facts and not providing 1....that renewable fan boy talk alot of BS
Because Derppppp
The nuclear power stations that Germany is closing down are generally quite old, with some of them having been in operation for more than 30 years. The oldest operating nuclear power plant in Germany was the Biblis A reactor, which started operation in 1975 and was shut down permanently in 2011 after the Fukushima disaster.
Most of the remaining nuclear power plants in Germany were built in the 1980s and early 1990s, with the newest one, the Grohnde Nuclear Power Plant, having started operation in 1984. As of the end of 2022, all but one of Germany's nuclear power plants have been shut down permanently, with the final one, the Grafenrheinfeld Nuclear Power Plant, having been shut down in 2015.
30 years isnt old at all, 80 years should be possible without any problems, especially the ones in germany made by siemens.
It is sad how once a leader in technology and innovations, is now closing it's biggest and most important source of clean power in order to make the green activists happy. Instead to use the high technologies in providing the population and the economy with cheap energy and thus raise the standard of living and empower further innovation, Germany is returning to basically the use of dynamo but with newer materials.
It is clear that the plan is deindustrialisation of a country and Europe in a broader view. You can not have a heavy industry with solar and wind powered plants. How a steel producing factory will be able to effectively make it's products using renewable energy sources? If the nuclear energy is so dangerous the USA do not close it's power plants? Why if it is dangerous and polluting they do not invest in research of newer and safer nuclear technology and instead they invest in development of the dynamo? It is like taking down the whole aircraft industry and replacing it with dirigibles and balloons with modern materials!
It is stupidity that is out of comprehension! But hey, they blew up the North Stream pipes - a clear internationally recognized act of state terrorism and no one asked any further questions, so...
Some important perspective can come from looking at actual electricity generation, specifically in Germany. Looking at data from the SP Statistical Review, I see that in 2021, Germany got about 170 TWh of electrical generation from wind and solar. Nuclear generated 69 TWh, but at it peak, about 2010, it was 170 TWh. Although 2021 wasn't an especially fast growth year for wind and solar, at times it has been. Solar has sometimes grown at near 50% per year, in certain countries and at certain times. So to replace nuclear completely with wind and solar is not a big stretch, even if you're looking at past nuclear capacity. Of course, now it's zero, and getting it back above zero is not a near-term option, however you look at it. But looking at when the decision was taken, even if you think the phaseout was a mistake, it's one that is already close to being rectified. We're now down to debating what is to be done over the next couple of years.
with renewables there is one big cost problem and that is redundancy. For renewables country has to have huge amount of storing capacity which is idle when there is enough production and at the same time overcapcity in production to compensate for changes over weather, season...(and at the same time keep alternative sources also idle, lets name gas and coal) that doesnt mean that germany went wrong way, but France got it better. Long-term? I guess once storage capcity is built its investment start to pay back. But the cost to build reliable infrastructure are too high. Now whole Europe is paying for this Germaan endaavour, which makes people nervous at least from what i heard in Czech rep. - on open market it doesnt much matter what one country does, as neighbouring has to compensate, even with dirtier sources and higher prices at their disadvantage. What can go well for germany and why i see this obsession is that germany wants to be independant, once and for ever...but will they?
@@simonmeszaros2770 Every energy source has to deal with matching supply and demand. They're just different with each source. Still, renewables can be very intermittent in certain situations-in fact, totally absent. But that's on a small scale. On larger scales, intermittency trends toward zero. On the widest, global scale, there is sunshine and wind all the time somewhere at any time. Having a good enough grid is the first solution to go to. At the same time, you need storage, and better distributed storage makes the grid work better. A smarter grid also helps with demand management. None of these things amounts to a prohibitive problem.
I think I understand the (broadly construed) German attitude on this. As long as nuclear is kept as an option, there is a desire to cling to it, because of immediate benefits. But the more you cling to what you're eventually going to let go of, the more you delay the transition. They have simply decided that the costs of clinging exceed the costs of letting go.
@@ronaldgarrison8478 yep... agree, makes sense as you mentioned, not letting go nuclear makes it appealing and that is not renewable solution. Big economies should be leaders of transition, but Germany have much more expensive energy then neighbours, which is prohibitive for industrialised country and this effect spills over whole continent. Its what i read aroun on internet, obviously not my experience and i hope that it will go well, but its right to ask what if not so well, so quick, and who pays the check. I still didnt get why electric automakers selliing cars on common market dont have mandatory a feature to reversely feed the grid, lets say car is 100 percent charged, in house, but anytime owner decide, he wants to have 70 percent available any time. Rest 30 percent can be discharged during a peak and pays back some of the bill. Such a solution which is basically mostly software would make electric cars reasonable. so far its no reward for most people, batteries ar emade in china and europe should be at least leader in inovation...
@@simonmeszaros2770 It's probably a bit early to tell how V2G is going to fit into the picture. For example, Elon Musk is not big on V2G-he's pointed out that "If you unplug your car, your house goes dark." (However, I think he's been getting a bit less categorical about it.) Well, then, is it better to have an EV as your energy storage, or a PowerWall mounted on the wall of your garage? Or is it better to have a storage station a couple of blocks away? I'd say the short answer is: YES. Yes, ALL of those. The question is what mix to use, and how to manage it all. One thing I can say confidently: In general, software should generally decide these things. Working out the optimum, especially in real time, is too big a mental burden, EVEN for an expert, even more for the average person. But V2G would be nice as a fallback option, in case the others are not available. The car battery is there, might as well be able to use it.
@@ronaldgarrison8478 yep that was my idea. As for a car manufcturers i see a mistake that EVs are supported by taxpayers and all the taxpayer gets is some ideology and jobs in china....that was one of proposals i see as an option, a cheap one, ofc. software wise its not a cheap option, but batteries are burden after their lifespan too. And Evs are/were massively subsidised, so i think governments should have a say they didnt make use of...Musk says what is good for Musk...
HOW MUCH THE GREENS PAID FOR PUL TO LIE ?
It was 10,000 pound sterling from Greenpeace in 2020 and another 10,000 in 2021. That's just from Greenpeace UK.
Willdoffe bipolar 😮OMG OKN understand all same Bipolar know
Mark Nelson is a desperate lobbyist. I respect that.
💛😻🐾
Moustache on point
Why doesn't the government refund tax to the payers who try to live off the grid or minimise the utility use? Promoting the conservation is an alternative, too.
Because industry and transport uses way more power than households. The only way to decarbonize those is electrifying them.
😮Whole want to be 😂😂can have but I don't telk and help about Strom AC Nuclear power system Privat Parten OKN
Because I see one Vedio from UKRAINE and Wildoffe bipolar very well known Strom AC Nuclear power system
Now Only OKN of Strom AC Nuclear power system because Privat 😮willdoffe bipolar have only T-shirt and
CC.5.00 paper Industry from Bipolar NaSa area much givb OKN,,about Strom AC Nuclear power system original Privat parten Solll OKN need more to lernning and more paper Industry
Every nuclear power plant have their expiration date. German nuclear plants expired and new one cost 5 times more than renewable.
The plants were shut down long before their licensed lifespan. And across the world plants are being refurnished and having their lifespans extended.
@@gregbarton1970 Renewable electricity replace every year more than 3% capacity in Germany, now is 44% so in 10 years it will be almost 80%.
Coal will be gone and only some gas turbines will remain in 10 years.
@@markhivin8670 It is impossible to got to "net zero" with gas. The strategy to attain this goal is total nonsense from Germany.
If you do not mind emitting more CO2 then maybe it makes economic sense.
@@BatisteBieler Do not worry, gas will be gone too.
@@gregbarton1970 Isar 2 was built in 1988, so it is 35 years old. The typical lifespan of a NPP is about 40 years.
Germany has right, the nuclear waste and the accident risk are not manageable. They are preparing future energy without Co2 emmision and without nuclear risk.
Coal energy is the most dangerous energy. Nuclear energy is the second safest and is hundreds times safer then coal and even safer then wind and hydropower. The nuclear wast issue has already been solved. Air pollution from coal is a much bigger issue
@@jen_sen8508dont forget about the radiation from the coal power plants.
"To generate the same amount of electricity, a coal power plant gives off at least ten times more radiation than a nuclear power plant."
Dr. Paul Dorftrottel
Invest in coal and let’s shut em all down
Well done Germany. Nuclear energy has all the positives, but once a disaster strikes, all the positives turn into a mass disaster and catastrophic for all kind of lives for decades.
It's the right desicion. Nuclear Energy is expensive, the waste is a problem for thousands of generations to come, it slows down the implementation of renewable sources of energy and we just don't need it anymore. Statistics have shown we would have had more than enough energy throuout the winter without the nuclear power plants
That is entirely false.
I read all the comments in the above, and your comment is the most sensible one. Nuclear power generation does not economic sense, period.
Building NEW nuclear plants doesn't currently make economic sense. Expensive and time consuming to build.
That's an entirely different question to shutting down three EXISTING nuclear plants that were in perfect working order. Given both the expense and CO2 footprint of nuclear is in its construction, if they are already built it makes best economic sense to keep them running until they reach end of life.
From climate, environmental, and economic perspectives, replacing existing nuclear plants with Brown Coal makes no sense at all. It's foolishness, and Dr Paul Dorfman on the panel was either misinformed or lying.
@@unruffledaria9643 Those three power plants just produced 5% of germany's electricity. More than 50% is already produced by renewables.
Literally, everything you people say is a lie... I am shocked and amazed at the ignorance displayed here. wow smh
Why did they shut them down?
Ideology and the idiocy of the Greens.
Old (~70s), insecure and the owner companies wanted to shut them down, because of high maintenance costs.
@@BatisteBieler The shutdown was decided 20 years ago by a conservative left leaning government. No greens involved back then.
Get your facts right.
Germans were afraid of Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Indian Muslim under attack