Well, somebody has to help Germany accomplish its "Energiewende"
1. Coal,
2. Renewables (Solar, wind, perhaps ocean currents),
3. imported oil.
Coal should be deprecated already. Renewables are dependent on environmental effects, in particular solar doesn't work in emergency situations such as volcano eruptions rendering the sky dark. For oil, we depend on third parties, of which we know that they do not have our best interests at heart.
It is depressing to see the political situations on these metrics, especially the idea which gets pushed now, which claims that everything will be alright if we just optimize our energy consumption. It ain't gonna happen. People won't meaningfully reduce their energy-consumption, at least not in a way that would justify the use of fossil fuels.
So what are we left with? Nuclear is the only good bet you could make right now, while waiting out on fusion.
edit: I often think of this meme which goes around, talking about the fact that people are much more willing to donate to a single child in need, rather than a group of children who equally need help. People are prone to take action when they feel like their individual action makes an impact.
I feel like this is similar to the fossil fuels - vs - nuclear debate. We know, that about 20mil ppl die every single year due to air pollution. We also know, that a very small, countable number of people died of nuclear accidents, in the complete history of humanity, ever, in total.
Yet we seem to think that the few nuclear accident's fatalities are worse than the ones caused by air pollution. Why? Because we are in some way biased to give more meaning to individual events, rather than rates of change that are around us. And it'll break our backs if we don't carefully examine the problem at hand.
I'm not familiar with this. Is this a common problem in Germany? Are southern states like Baden-Württemberg more afflicted or less compared to more northern ones like Schleswig-Holstein?
https://electrek.co/2021/09/27/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cab...
The problem for doing this large scale if the right of way for the HVDC lines. I'm watching this on a smaller scale in Massachusetts, where Maine voters are blocking a HVDC link to Hydro Quebec. But I think this is a game between established interests.. in this case NextEra funded the ballot question and advertising, I think because they lost out on their SeaLink project (HVDC to Seabrook nuclear power plant).
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/09/f79/EXHIBIT%...
https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/refere...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
A single "year without summer" may be the fatal blow to a society basing their energy on solar energy, so I hypothesize.
1. Renewables: 41%
2. Coal: 26%
3. Natural gas: 17%
4. Nuclear: 12%
New solar and wind have fallen drastically in price over the past decade and look like a very good bet right now.
1. Fossil fuels: 42.9%
2. Renewables: 41%
3. Nuclear: 11.7%
-
Actually split:
1. Lignite: 17.8%
2. Natural gas: 16.7%
3. Wind onshore: 16.4%
4. Nuclear: 11.7%
5. Solar: 9.5%
6. Hard coal: 8.4%
7. Biomass: 7.6%
8. Wind offshore: 4.0%
9. Others: 3.2%
8. Hydropower: 3.1%
-
Actually not as bad as I thought it would be!
Germanys relationship with Nuclear power had been one with Tons of absurdity from the get to go. To name a few examples (in no specific order):
- When West Germany decided where they should (temporary) store nuclear waste they had a list of potential abandon mines. While this list wasn't quite up to modern standards it was well thought out. But in the end they choose a mine which not only wasn't on the list, but was known to not be well suited. Reason: Pettiness, east Germany had just done so too, so they choose a mine at the border to east Germany.
- The Anti-Nuclear Power movement in West Germany was partially sponsored and instigated by East Germany (through so where most non-small movements).
- after Fukushima plans to stop using Nuclear Power where moved up costing the State millions due to existing contracts and being questionable. I mean the danger of Atom power had been well understood at that point in question, Fukushima didn't change this, nor did it unearth any (not already well known) huge flaws. So this asks the question if it is so important why wasn't it started years earlier, if it isn't why move so abrupt?
- Germany loves importing nuclear power, not only from France but also from other countries with lower safety standards of which the reactors aren't that far of Germany (geologically seen).
The phase-out was announced in 2000 and started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German... and was effective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#/media...
> Germany loves importing nuclear power
Each and every nation connected to the European supergrid imports when needed and exports when possible, because it is much more efficient than trying hard to maintain autonomy. The is eases balancing production (which may originate from anywhere) with consumption.
Here Germany often acts as a provider for Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Switzerland (which also may provide it to other needing nations).
Germany export surplus (physical flows) is positive for years, albeit it decreased (from 34 to 18 TWh in 2020). Source: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2020/publi...
> 1. Coal
Yes, from Poland
> 2. Renewables
Yes, definetly
> Solar
Already plans underway to force every new home to have solar panels on its roof, regardless of the direction of the gabel and regardless how non-significant solar energy is in Germany anyways. Existing home-owners love the idea of increasing construction costs for future home-owners...
> Wind
Already plans underway to massively increase density of windmills per km, regardless that the existing mills already are turned off for most of the year (because it would melt the grid to keep them running), regardless that we're chopping down huge amounts of trees to make room for them, regardless of the environmental impact of planting unremovable kilo-tons of concrete footing into the ground
> Ocean Currents
No, for two reasons. One: Maintenance costs make this technology inefficient (rust). Two: Since we're world champions in moral soundness our whole tidal-range-gifted coastline is deemed a national park and as such is forever excluded from any such infrastructure work
> 3. imported oil
Already doing that.
I fear, unless there is some crucial pain of whatever sorts on behalf of the average German, our nomenclatura will continue to proceed with the current polciy of "nearshoring responsibility". Because:
> It ain't gonna happen. People won't meaningfully reduce their energy-consumption
German consumers still don't do that, despite paying the highest electricity bills in the developed world (almost twice of what the French pay). Apparently we can still afford to kick down the can (or rather to kick it across the border).
No (France .32, Germany .19), and this comparison isn't sound because the financial models differ: Germany finances its transition by taxes on energy, and France mainly finances it thanks to other taxes (the consolidated tax burden is way higher in France).
Prices: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
Moreover higher prices are a way to moderate consumption and entice energy-saving approaches.
.32 is in my book far from "almost 2 times" .19
> Germans already are having the highest income-tax and social-security costs of the developed world
Nope, the tax burden is way higher in France: 46.2% of GDP in 2020, while Germany is at 37.5%
Secondary source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven...
I mean you've written it yourself: "almost"
> Nope, the tax burden is way higher in France: 46.2% of GDP in 2020, while Germany is at 37.5%
And then you're leaving out secial-security costs, way to go!
https://img.welt.de/img/wirtschaft/mobile207627583/329793785...
Nope. I was quoting you (with the '>' sign, just as you do). Please re-read.
> And then you're leaving out secial-security costs
False, once more. France is clearly way ahead of Germany, and for quite a long time (and until now I thought it is well-known): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_we...
Having lived in a couple of Nordic countries for most[1] of my life, allow me to be sceptical about that.
___
[1]: Unter fünf Johr im Ländle wo jeadas Haus a Häusle isch.
That’s usually not true fwiw, germany tends to export when nobody needs the electricity e.g. fair weather with high winds, especially week-ends.
And it’s not so much exporting as dumping, german electricity prices regularly go negative because winds crush the grid and they need to shift it so they don’t melt.
The “collaborative” aspect is that france has a large and resilient grid well connected to less provisioned southern neighbors (wholesale prices in spain and italy tend to be quite high), so they can arbitrate and profit some.
But they also must, because continental europe is a synchronous grid so if germany melts down it fucks up the entire continent.
Russia will provide them all the energy they need, and the US will provide them defense against Russia. Perfect!
- edit -
Is it still morally sound if you outsource the immorality elsewhere?
But now, with the carbon tax and gas prices in EU, I wonder if Russian mfg capacity will suddently become competitive.
The funniest thing would be Europe pricing itself out of Russian oil due to carbon tax, and then buying now-cheap goods from Russia made based on affordable oil.
If that's what it takes to be morally sound - then bring it on destiny, I say, bring it on!
Edit: This a German's attempt at sarcasm, please indugle me!
I get German Greens have a very specific agenda for historical reasons, but sheesh.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_one%27s_nose_to_...
Germany has been ruled by the CDU for the last 16 years so I'm not sure what exactly the Greens have to do with the current energy policies of Germany?
And I'd assume that as the center, courting interests important to their voters is of outsized importance to the larger parties, in an attempt to peel off votes?
But maybe I'm poorly informed?
You're right though that before the final Merkel administration the Greens, the CDU/CSU and the FDP had talks, which ultimately failed because the FDP passed the CSU (the right-wing regional appendix to the CDU) on the right, which was a bit too much for the Greens, which at the time largely occupied the same center-ish position they hold today, having shifted right considerably in the time between 2005 and 2017.
Overall the impact of the Greens party has been very small on the Merkel administrations, however, some parts of the green movement (which is not closely tied to the Greens party) in Germany are the majority opinion in Germany (especially when it comes to a heavy anti nuclear stance) and that's sufficient to drive Merkel policy making. It's also important to note here that Germany has a very strong NIMBY attitude, so while the majority "wants" green energy, they don't want any of the infrastructure in sight.
I'd also like to point out a fundamental difference between Bundestag culture and US Capitol culture. There are bi-partisan bills in the Capitol, but in the Bundestag it is customary for the ruling parties to unconditionally veto drafts introduced by other parties - exceptions are rare. Almost all votes in the Bundestag are under Fraktionszwang i.e. MPs deviating from the party line won't get on the election list next time around, so don't have a safe seat any more (because parties in Germany can't literally force their MPs to vote their way, they can only "incentivize" it).
I'm in the middle of Dark on Netflix, and even as a single perspective it's felt enlightening in how it poses the German everyman in relation to the nuclear energy industry. In a way that feels very different to even US perspectives (my country).
In your opinion, would it be fair to say that Chernobyl and then the Cold War drumbeat of nuclear weapons use were the main historical anti-nuclear motivators? And then Fukushima stirred up that present-but-latent thinking in the modern zeitgeist?
I guess the nuance I'm most interested but confused about is how Fukushima triggered such an apparent breakdown in nuclear support in the center-right, and so quickly? Was there pre-existing anti-nuclear sentiment there too? Or was it more about pro-coal sentiment? Or something else entirely?
Politically, things have become far more convoluted in recent years with large parts of the green spectrum becoming more and more critical of "radiation" in particular (cellular networks, wifi, microwaves, anything nuclear) and entire branches of science in general (nuclear research, obviously, but also pharmaceutics, medicine, biology and others).
As far as the Green party is concerned, historically it had two wings ("fundis" and "realos", the former being the fundamentalists, the latter being realpolitikers), which in principle would both count as sort of left, but in practice the fundis stayed more or less left-ish, while the realos migrated to the right. The SPD-Greens coalition was enabled by the realos wing. Similarly, the realos are now the de-facto ruling wing inside the party since 2018, which is why a SPD-Greens-FDP coalition is possible in the first place.
Coal is quite a difficult topic. Most coal is strip-mined in Germany, which causes the expropriation of entire villages and small cities. That's not a talking point in politics. A state PM illegally dissolving protests against strip mining isn't even a scandal. However, if for example The Left publicly ponders whether expropriation of apartment houses and conversion to social housing in cities could be one way to solve the housing crisis, that's a major scandal and causes them to not pass the 5 % threshold. That might give you a feel for the standing of coal. Despite only employing around 20-25k people in Germany, maintaining coal jobs has become basically an iron curtain protecting coal.
To circle back to the Green party, it's noteworthy that their party program is not even close to a program in line with the 1.5 °C target.
As the quip goes in the US, 'The left is a big tent party (accepts all sorts) and so is constantly debating itself. Whereas the right expects everyone to fall in line with the party platform.' But recent presidencies challenged the truth of that.
Coal serves similarly here, for a single reason: votes in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Were those not necessary states to forge a path the presidency, no one would care about the topic. But since they are, even negative statements about coal are couched in very careful language.
IMHO, it's actually more about the ideal of a "coal miner" than it is about actual coal mining. Most of the people supporting it will never work a day in a mine: and nor will many others, with the amount of automation these days. But why let facts get in the way of a good political story? :)
I was happy to see the UK's push at COP26 for annual subsequent meetings to examine and refine nationally determined contributions [0]. Hopefully that will put some "Words are cheap, but we don't actually intend to follow through" countries under more scrutiny.
You mean they aren't any more?!?
No, not being sarcastic: international news media hasn't reported on that, or if they did, I missed it. So where are they now -- center-left, center-center, center-right...? And by how much? (I doubt they've gone far-right, right?)