| ▲ | purerandomness 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. The Greens actually prolonged their life time during Covid, after RWE, EON and EnBW argued that it does not make sense economically to let them run longer. No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | throw0101d 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. Schröder was talking about it in 2000: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_poli... Oh, and he was appointed to Gazprom (and other Russian energy companies) after leaving politics: * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at... (He did encourage renewables as well.) > No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. The German government(s) helped kickstart the global solar price drop by their subsidy programs in the early 2000s that allowed for economies of scale, so I'm surprised that—if they're really worried about climate change—they would not subsidize the alleged expenses of running the low-carbon generation of nuclear. > Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first. It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found). See perhaps: > […] 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. * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | belorn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can coal plants buy insurance against global warming? Can a hydroelectric dam buy insurance against downstream flooding? Very few things in the power grid has insurance against major accidents. It is even doubtful for example if a forest fires caused by transmission lines will be repaid in full by the insurance of the power company, and to the degree that will pay all costs to property and land owners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | looperhacks 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I agree with everything you say, but the initial "Atomausstieg" was decided in 2000/put into law in 2002, when the Greens were in office. The exit was delayed in 2010 (and then accelerated again in 2011) by the CDU/CSU/FDP, but the initial decision for the exit was very with involvement of the Green party | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||