Germany aims to get 100% of energy from renewable sources by 2035

Honestly, as a German myself I'm rather doubtful of that unfortunately. Some? Maybe. Many? Probably not. I cannot even convince my parents (who grew up in Germany during the time when the anti nuclear sentiment really started) to rethink their anti nuclear stance (despite having a great relationship with them). I say that as a physicist that absolutely sees there are flaws with aging nuclear plants.

But people who are not able to a) appreciate the energy density of nuclear and b) see that climate change is an urgent problem we face, whereas any issues from nuclear waste are long term problems (not even talking about future reactor technologies etc. etc.) is just... I don't know? It sounds insane, but indoctrinated? I just utterly fail to understand.

I mean, what's the point of a "nuclear waste free Earth" if our civilization collapses due to climate change?

- Germany is a densely populated country and Germans have always been sensitive towards environmental pollution. - Nuclear fallout is a reality as every consumer of mushrooms from Bavarian forests knows that are still today contaminated with caesium-137. - Finding a secure final storage for nuclear waste has failed. The front-runner in Gorleben proved to be unreliable after decades of serving as a temporary storage. - Most Germans believe that their country would have been obliterated if a nuclear war between East and West had turned hot. - Most Germans find that nuclear power generation comes with the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

From this vantage point, nuclear is not all that attractive.

The history of the German anti-nuclear movement is quite long, Chernobyl has essentially put a stop on new investments and killed any ongoing research for good (see THTR-300). This is also due to the ecological impact it had on Germany.

And now, because of this stop in new investments, Germany ended up with reactors stuck somewhere in between 1960 and 1980. Critical issues went unaddressed, the control rooms are cold war era time machines, incidents were swept under the rug for fear of it finally dropping the sword of damocles on the industry. Operators showed gross negligence all around (especially Vattenfall, who are now suing the German government over the phase out) and it's a small wonder we've not had a more serious incident (though significantly larger incidence of leukemia around Krümmel should probably be considered serious).

Nuclear is not happening here. The best we can hope for is keeping our fossil fuels mostly off and buying nuclear power from France until renewables are viable on their own (if ever).

So now tell me how this answers going climate neutral.

The mistake the Germans made, which they are now correcting, is over reliance on Russian gas to bridge the brief gap to energy neutrality. Though, in fairness, until Putin's melt-down last week, he could have saved that deal and kept on milking the Germans for billions for quite some time. Such melt-downs have not been seen in international politics since Trump reluctantly disappeared from it last year. You might say that Putin (whom Trump referred to as a 'genius' just last week) has trumped Trump in that respect.

Basically, the fix for Germany is importing expensive natural gas from the US and elsewhere as a stop gap solution while accelerating the move away from burning that to clean up the energy sector and lower cost.

That's what they just announced. 80% renewables eight years from now and 100% five years later. They are over 50% right now. Also, a recession is a great time to inject some capital into your economy. And of course the Germans have a healthy economy and low debt; unlike certain other countries. And of course they export a lot of their renewable tech to others; like the US.

Also, France and Germany have connected grids. So, with Germany producing lots of wind powrr and France providing nuclear base-load, both will be fine. No need for Germany to build nuclear plants. And no need for France to build a lot more plants either when they can import cheap German renewables to complement their expensive nuclear supply. The math to get rid of coal and natural gas in fifteen years actually adds up.

Maybe she is being granted German citizenship to become Secretary of State.

The dependency on gazprom kind of put us in "Schach", so we as a country can't do anything (as the chancellor kind of admitted in his speech).

Historically, Schroeder has always been the direct bridge to Putin. And he knows how to hold the mutual respect that Putin expects from others.

It seems as the current ruling parties don't realize that this is a game of strategy, not a game of moral or emotions. You can't win against Putin with moral code, so I kind of fear that they make it worse and he'll hold a grudge against Germany.

Right now, autocratic Russia and Saudi Arabia are actively colluding to drive up oil prices during the invasion of Ukraine.

https://theintercept.com/2022/02/23/ukraine-russia-gas-price...

EDIT: I misread the tone of the original comment, and have updated my comment to reflect it.

Energy security is likely one of the most paramount issues in europe now, I expect there will be big changes.

Germany is doing better at decarbonization than most countries, in fact, but still attracts a disproportionate amount of flak for "not doing enough".

My cynical side says that this is precisely because they're slowly proving that nuclear isnt a necessary component of decarbonization. They are setting an example that threatens the industry's survival.

the reactor near Hamburg was either broken or not running for some other reasons.

Also after 40 years of nuclear plants we still have not a good answer to the waste it produces.

IMO nuclear is the only real way out of the current mess.

any idea why we dont have several operational MSRs at this point?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

EDIT: i guess MSRs' structural components are subject to extreme corrosion from heat, salt, and radiation that makes them impossible to build for long-term continous operation.

Now yesterday Robert Habeck, Germany's minister for economic affairs and climate, and vice chancellor, claimed that a return to nuclear and/or coal is economically not viable, even if it were politically feasible (which it is not, since it would be political suicide given he's from the Green party). He's not stupid, so he knows he'll have to answer how in hell people will even heat their homes come next winter. Not only are energy prices up, but so are materials for home insulation (if you can get them at all) and prices for construction.

Right now, the government has plans to penalize landlords renting out homes with low energy efficiency, a plan typical of the SPD party, the Green party's coalition partner. Which won't work, though, because there simply is no way to reach those levels of energy efficiency given the demand in the construction industry, and in a way that decouples the consumer from their consumption, not to speak of constitutional (existing case law) concerns.

Meanwhile, the housing market is as insane as everywhere due to rampant public spending and the decrease in interest that goes with it. Adding ever more energy efficiency requirements means that it's objectively impossible for any average person to own a home.

The exit from nuclear power has been planned long ago, but the crucial point is, that in those years the renewables were not expanded enough. Solar buid-up peaked in 2012, Wind in 2017, with steep declines after that because of government decisions. But the government changed last autumn and the new one is all in on renewables. Partially because of the Greens being part of the government and now partially because even industry pushes for this to get cheaper electricity. And everyone wants stable supply and the current situation makes for a huge push towards renewables.

Why?

A watt is a watt, and renewables are cost-competitive with carbon even before taking into consideration geopolitics.

But, more importantly, renewables don't even have to be cost competitive to keep manufacturing in Germany while transitioning to renewables.

Ukraine has opened up political space for subsidy that may not have existed a year ago. Germany just doubled their defense spending. To say that this was unimaginable even three weeks ago, if anything, under-states the case.

I highly doubt there is political will in Germany to offshore manufacturing, and I'm pretty sure there is newly found political will to transition off of natgas. In particular, subsidizing energy prices to keep German manufacturing competitive while weaning off of RU natgas is likely an easy sell.

I think it's much more likely that Germany shifts off of natgas and in the meantime subsidizes energy for manufacturing, than that Germany allows manufacturing to offshore as a result of energy price spikes due to renewable transition.

> One thing european countries excel at is producing great PR.

Not at all surprising when you realize that the entire political economy of the west -- democracy and consumer/financial capitalism -- is almost by design dominated by people and institutions who are good at PR.

A major geopolitical theme in the 2010s was the fact that open societies have major weaknesses in open information warfare.

The next decade of the global info war will be interesting. I think we'll learn that, although you can easily cause petty chaos and divisiveness in the west, the institutions and core values are very robust. After all, those institutions and values are subject to -- and always have been subject to -- constant and open assault.

I think we'll also learn that authoritarian states have almost a mirror opposite dynamics of the west -- fueling petty divisions in much harder, but once you gain a foothold the whole system is much less robust to total collapse.

The previous chancellor was in power for more than 16 years.

But indeed, a lot of things have to be changed quickly to achieve the desired results, but recent events have given a lot of motivation to do so even with those, who are not so much concerned about the environment. Now even the industry is driving this, as they are impacted with high electricity prices and possible shortages.

I hope they make sure, municipalities can't wiggle their way out of building windparks anymore.

Let's hope at least a part of that amount would be used for achieving an energy independence, as the military goal number one.

Ha, joke's on you. Home ownership in Germany (and most of the developed EU) is far more expensive than in the US when you factor median wages to median real estate prices ratio.

Americans complain a lot but real estate there is far more in reach for the average skilled worker than it is in Germany for example. The price per square foot/meter in Munich or Paris is nearly the same as in the Bay Area yet wages here are half to a quarter of that of the US workers. It's insane.

Rentals in Germany are more affordable, but that's only if you get a place in the 80 person queue who signed up for the apartment viewing within the first hour since the listing went up online. Apartment hunting in places like Germany or Sweden is a meme on its own.

By 2007 this had increased to 7.1, then the crash happened. It had bounced back to 7.7 by 2020 and it's well over 8, maybe 8.5 today.

A US house is of course far larger. An average European house is about 1000 square foot. An average American bathroom is about that size*

* slight hyperbole

For storage, there's overbuilding capacity and using excess to generate hygrogen (and thus convert it back), storage from cars, potential for hydro storage in the alps and pyrinees, and in the short term gas provision from UK/Norway for top up, should be more than enough to maintain independence and resilience.

But there's more money in burning fossils.

All fossil power was once energy given by the sun.

Gas is only considered green when the generators can be used for hydrogen later.

The hydrogen will be produced by electrolyzers using overproduction of renewable energy.

Gerhard Schröder is an idiot, we agree.