German leader rules out nuclear option to fill energy gaps

[mahatmakanejeeves]

AP WIRE

German leader rules out nuclear option to fill energy gaps

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz says his government remains committed to phasing out nuclear power despite concerns about rising energy prices and possible future shortages due to Russia’s war in Ukraine

AP 35 min ago

BERLIN (AP) — German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Wednesday that his government remains committed to phasing out nuclear power despite concerns about rising energy prices and possible future shortages due to Russia's war in Ukraine.

Germany shut down half of its six nuclear plants in December and the remaining three are due to cease production at the end of this year as part of the country's long-running plan to phase out conventional power plants in favor of renewable energy.

But the war in Ukraine has renewed fears that Germany's power-hungry economy might be badly battered if Russia decides to suddenly cut natural gas supplies.

Opposition parties have called for the lifetimes of Germany's nuclear plants to be extended, a proposal that Finance Minister Christian Lindner from the pro-businesses Free Democrats has said should be discussed in a “non-ideological” way. ... Scholz, who leads a three-party coalition, dismissed the idea, saying a decision had been made to end the use of nuclear power.

{snip}

[PoliticAverse]

1. "keep additional coal-fired power plants on stand-by for almost two years." n/t

[NNadir]

2. They phased out nuclear energy to burn coal.

The other part of their program was to keep cash flowing to Putin, which they've done come hell or high water.

In this case the phrase "hell or high water" can and should be taken literally. The Ukraine war that they funded is hellacious to be sure.

They have no honor, no decency.

[Finishline42]

3. Question?

If they shut down 6 nuclear plants in December, wouldn't that indicate that they are in the process of de-commissioning and that could be easily reversed?

I agree with you, continuing to close those plants when you are dependent on Russian oil and gas doesn't make sense.

[NNadir]

4. It depends on how much damage they've done to service their coal based "renewables will save us..."

...fantasy. I'm sure that the Germans are very efficient at destroying valuable infrastructure.

They've already destroyed 17 reactors, and their is no indication whatsoever that they will give enough of a shit about humanity to reverse their fondness for funding Putin.

The media keeps towing the propaganda line that they committed this crime against future generations to "replace" it with solar and wind.

This lie gets repeated continuously, here, in the newspapers, everywhere.

Nuclear plants, including the last three plants operating in that "nuclear is too dangerous" but "climate change isn't too dangerous" hell hole almost always operate continuously at near full power, except for maintenance and refueling. The breed and burn reactors I'm hoping my son will participate in building will spend decades before requiring refueling.

Therefore a wind and solar scheme cannot replace nuclear energy, nor can it replace coal energy. It's unreliable and unpredictable over the long term. Speaking of predictability, predictably the lie attached to what wind and solar were replacing attached to nuclear and not to coal. Anti-nukes don't give a shit about coal. They never have. They never will.

Solar and wind don't operate reliably, and in those rare 20 minute episodes that they approach 100% of rated capacity, it's international news. All the assholes line up to cheer. As of this writing, the capacity utilization of all of the wind turbines in Germany is 10.68%, 6.7 MW, solar zero percent, zero MW. Coal is producing 17.6 MW of German electricity. All the tiresome bullshit about batteries and, even worse, hydrogen that's been going on for half a century or more will mean nothing. If it was going to happen, it would have done so decades ago.

Right now the carbon intensity of that wind and solar fantasy hellhole is 428 g CO2/kwh, compared to France's 77 g CO2/kwh. In "percent talk" the carbon intensity of Germany is 555.8% that of France.

Germany replaced one reliable and clean form of energy, nuclear energy, with one reliable and extremely dirty form of energy, coal, and all the bullshit about wind and solar driving coal out of business is coming home to roost, measured in extreme temperatures, air pollution deaths, the distribution of heavy metals all over Europe, and a huge theft from all future generations.

Like most anti-nukes, including "I'm not an anti-nuke" anti-nukes, they are indifferent to how much death and destruction their dogma causes.

Don't worry. Be happy. I'm sure we'll hear some bullshit in the future about how Germany is producing 100% of its energy from renewable energy over a period of five minutes. It will be front page news. It will get thousands of recs on websites all over the world. It's been happening for years.

Meanwhile, this morning's readings:


June 07: 421.42 ppm
June 06: 421.54 ppm
June 05: Unavailable
June 04: 421.13 ppm
June 03: 421.57 ppm
Last Updated: June 8, 2022

Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2

Can I hear a cheer from the kind of people who whined about the shelling of a nuclear plant in Ukraine, which did nothing remarkable, while ignoring all the people in that country actually being blown to pieces by dangerous fossil fuel weapons of mass destruction financed in large part for the Energiewende fossil fuel shell game? If I recall correctly, I saw that sort of thing right here, at DU, recently.

Really? No cheering?

I'm not really surprised. Should I be?