What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

[pdubouilh]

ABSTRACT: Germany has one of the most ambitious energy transition policies dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ to replace nuclear- and fossil power with renewables such as wind-, solar- and biopower. The climate gas emissions are reduced by 25% in the study period of 2002 through 2022. By triangulating available information sources, the total nominal expenditures are estimated at EUR 387 bn, and the associated subsidies are some EUR 310 bn giving a total nominal expenditures of EUR 696 bn. Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power.

[KingOfCoders]

We won't settle this debate (and I'm not against nuclear), but it's a discussion around "Do I need fire insurance when my house has a low chance to burn down" and should I use the money for something else.

If it doesn't burn down, you look great. If it burns down, you look like an idiot.

I think people will not understand (some|most) Germans if you haven't lived through Chernobyl and Pershing-II days, dying forrests (from East European coal plants) and also red terrorism (mid 70s, early 80s were a crazy time). The discussion is not a rational one but one out of trauma of that time.

[rapnie]

> Germany could have [..] [which] shows Germany could have [..] Thus, Germany should have [..]

Germany could have skipped the industrial revolution, so they should have reached their targets already.

[defensive7132]

I always supported nuclear power. It's just the best we have right now. Renewable power is all good and all, but technology is not there yet. Plus, many people in support of green energy never think about all the mining done for this and how it impacts and often destroys environments. It's OK when it's not your environment being hurt. :-)

Anyways, nuclear power is safer than people think. And most, if not all, nuclear power disasters were due to human error.

[SiempreViernes]

No analysis of costs if Germany had adopted a strategy of transitioning to renewables in 2002 is offered, you are just meant to look at figure 2 and say take it on fait it is the result of a coherent green transition strategy rather than Germany dallying and going back to its traditional coal power.

[oezi]

If 350bn is all we need to cut our emissions in Germany (we have a 4000bn annual GDP) by 75%, then I don't get what the big fuss about climate change is. Every industrial country could cough up such small an amount (loan, Fed printing money, etc).

[ardaoweo]

I've always wondered how big of a part Soviet Union / Russia psych ops played in stirring this completely irrational anti-nuclear mentality. The side-effect of getting Germany hooked on Russian gas was extremely convenient to them.

Of course the Chernobyl disaster played some part, but it didn't result in such irrationality in most other surrounding countries. Perhaps the anti-war mentality and guilt from the horrors of WW2 also plays a part?

In any case, what a disaster German energy policies have been for whole Europe.

[baumgarn]

The argument agains nuclear is not irrational. The true cost of nuclear is not sufficiently priced in. Example from recent history here in Germany the nuclear interim storage mine Asse is leaking and the garbage has to be recovered. Cost estimated to be 3.7 billion tax payer money. There is no solution for safe nuclear garbage storage in sight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

[cjblomqvist]

EU, one of the most successful peace projects of human history, is based on the idea that tight economic integration leads to peace.

Obviously not working out in full with Russia, and I think Germany could've put themselves in a far better situation energy wise. But, it still stands that the core purpose of EU has been fulfilled. And very easy to judge in hindsight.

[KingOfCoders]

The anti-nuclear mentality is driven by mid-70s/early-80s Pershing-II, Chernobyl, Wackersdorf, Waldsterben and red terrorism, which created identity for large groups of Germans alongside trauma.

"most other surrounding countries."

Except Austria no other country had as much fallout after Chernobyl (in the West, and it was silenced in Eastern Europe, see GDR) - especially Southern Germany (Chernobyl happened around Wackersdorf riots in Bavaria).

Is US gun policy idiotic? Yes, but large groups of Americans have tied their identity to it, and can't give it up. Look at anti-nuclear opinion in Germany the same way.

[wrKaxnc]

Russia did nothing in that respect. The original anti nuclear protests were authentic.

[obscurette]

Both were certainly there – a guilt made psyops far more easier for Russians. But this energy related psyops have been everywhere. I've experienced it almost first hand. After decision to decommission Ignalina Nuclear Power Station in Lithuania there have been joint attempts to build a new one with Estonia, Latvia and Poland. Russian "No need! Dangerous! Russian gas is cheap!" influence during these talks was very prominent. This was also very much there during 2012 Lithuanian nuclear power referendum.

[kafgh]

The leading anti-nuclear force in the 1980s and 1990s was the Green Party, which wasn't pro natural gas at all.

Furthermore, it is now one of the most anti-Russian parties, so any conjectured FSB operation could be considered to have failed spectacularly.

The former East Germany supported left wing terrorism and some hard left student revolts, but the anti-nuclear sentiment goes through many parties and simply does not need any external stimulus.

[dudeinjapan]

On one hand, Russia can do "green-washing" psyops to create German anti-nuclear sentiment. On the other, Russia creates the implied threat that in some future war a Russian missile will hit a German nuclear powerplant. Well played, Mr. Putin.

[jojobas]

If Chernobyl didn't blow up due to stupidity the KGB would have to sabotage it.

[cheschire]

It doesn’t matter what the logic and the math says if fear is your primary motivator.

I used to think the Germans were especially sensitive to these types of fear, but then brexit and worldwide trends towards populism as a whole reminded me this is just baseline human behavior.

It didn’t help that someone figured out pretty good branding[0] against nuclear power that makes people feel happy to resist. I would see these silly “Atomkraft? Nein, danke!” stickers everywhere. You almost felt obligated to go along with the sentiment.

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Sun

[flgb]

The framing in the article is that Germany made a purely technical decarbonization policy choice between renewable energy and nuclear power and chose incorrectly, but this is too reductive.

Germany has a long history of public opposition to nuclear power, going back over 50 years, and this is related to environmental concerns, safety concerns, and the association with nuclear weapons.

Both the USA and the Soviets had nuclear weapons deployed on German soil with the potential to be directed at the German people and this cultural and historical context is important to understand the current policy landscape.

The origin of the popular Green party in Germany is deeply connected to the peace movement and anti-nuclear activism that pre-dates concerns about climate change.

It’s fine to disagree with the policy decisions the German people made, but it’s good to understand the reasons why they made them.

[wrKaxnc]

China has an operational pebble bed reactor while Germany is falling behind:

https://www.ans.org/news/article-6241/china-pebblebed-reacto...

If there isn't another "Energiewende" (two 180° turns would finally amount to Baerbock's 360° turn gaffe), or alternatively friendlier relations with various resource rich countries, Germany's future is bleak.

[DarkNova6]

And let's not forget that Germany then decided to create the economically viable solar power industry from scratch. Only to then remove the subsidies, destroy the domestic industry they just created and hand over the technology advantage they had to China.

Genious decisions all around.

[thyristan]

An industry isn't viable if it can only exist with subsidies.

[croes]

Less emissions but more waste.

Germany still hasn't a Nuclear waste repository. The time plan shifted now to somewhere after 2070.

And all this doesn't possible terror attacks and sabotage into account.

Can't remember any fears about rockets hitting Ukrainian wind turbines.

[p51-remorse]

> somewhere after 2070.

This is clearly willful incompetence.

[amai]

This would have been interesting if it would have been published in 2011. But what is the point of publishing this nowadays after all nuclear reactors have been shutdown? They cannot be restarted and are already been dismantled. Also why don’t we see publications like: „What if Germany had invested in solar energy?“ (instead of subsidizing coal and diesel engines)

[polotics]

this is 2013, but so little has changed... https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/societal-choices/...

[lovegrenoble]

RIP German industrial production without North Stream and Russian cheap energy...

[croes]

Gas and energy prices are back to normal

[Aldipower]

And who destroyed it? Either USA or Ukraine or both together. Best friends ever..