Hacker News Reader

Comment by thesumofall | Hacker News Reader

Yes, some of the consequences could have been seen at that time, but I cannot remember that they were really part of the wider discussion. It was mostly nuclear safety vs nuclear‘s low CO2 emissions and alleged low costs. My memory might fail me, but I cannot remember that energy dependence was a big topic. Rather the opposite, nuclear was seen as „bridge technology“ that would eventually pave the way towards full renewable energy. Even the utility companies did not argue for a permanent place for nuclear in the power mix, but a slower switchover to lower the costs of the transition. I think most were already picturing the future 20 years down the road when decentralized renewables would create a green, independent, … future

View on HN

There was no discussion. It was a knee-jerk decision by then-chancellor Merkel in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear incident, and constituted pretty much a 180 (relative to the maybe-phase-out-not-clear-when-definitely-not-now that was pretty much the bipartisan consensus at the time). It was clear to observers at the time that it would make Germany more reliant on coal and gas and, by extension, Putin, that it would threaten the energy-intensive German industry and it was criticized for that at the time. Calling this a hindsight debate is just silly.

This is an incorrect take.

The phase out of nuclear had already started. Merkel reversed that, than in the wake of Fukushima reversed that once again, paying the nuclear companies hundreds of millions of damages in the process.

First, nuclear power has been discussed intensively in Germany since the 1970s. While political moods shifted somewhat over the decades, in practical terms there was less and less willingness to maintain or even expand nuclear power: maintenance issues, rising costs, lack of consensus on permanent waste storage, lack of political direction, … would have resulted in a transition away from nuclear power in any case. Yes, the decision by Merkel was sudden but it didn’t emerge from nowhere. Nuclear power was already doomed in Germany and it was just a question of when it would die. And despite all the discussions, I still cannot remember (or find) that dependence from Russia was even in the top-5 of arguments from either side

> And despite all the discussions, I still cannot remember (or find) that dependence from Russia was even in the top-5 of arguments from either side

The Nord Stream pipeline was completed in 2011, the same year Merkel decided to accelerate the phase out of nuclear. The US had repeatedly warned against constructing the pipeline because of energy dependence on Russia.

Everyone knew that apart from coal Germany has no energy resources. Given that it wouldn't be possible to meet climate goals with coal the energy would need to come from either the newly constructed pipeline or renewables.

That the newly created energy dependence would give power to dictatorships may not have been at the forefront of the public's mind. But treating it as something unknowable without hindsight lets the politicians who caused this travesty off too easy. If Merkel had been honest to the public about the potential consequences of her decision, perhaps it would've been a part of the debate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com