from Hacker News

What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?

by pdubouilh on 8/24/24, 9:54 AM with 60 comments

• by pdubouilh on 8/24/24, 9:54 AM

  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.

• by ardaoweo on 8/24/24, 11:16 AM

  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.

• by cheschire on 8/24/24, 11:19 AM

  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

• by flgb on 8/24/24, 11:29 AM

  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.

• by wrKaxnc on 8/24/24, 11:14 AM

  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.

• by DarkNova6 on 8/24/24, 11:32 AM

  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.

• by croes on 8/24/24, 11:20 AM

  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.

• by amai on 8/24/24, 9:02 PM

  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)

• by polotics on 8/24/24, 12:08 PM

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

• by lovegrenoble on 8/24/24, 11:10 AM

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