At the dawn of the millennium, Germany launched an ambitious plan to transition the country’s energy supply from fossil fuel power plants to renewable energy generation.
The Energy Transition programme initiated a massive expansion of solar and wind power, which was expected to reduce carbon emissions by 25% by 2022 compared to 2002.
This goal has been achieved, as demonstrated by the results of an analysis of the last 20 years recently published in the Journal of Sustainable Energy Energiewende: environmental pollution has decreased by a certain percentage thanks to the construction of stations powered by renewable sources. But at what cost?
We wanted the best, but it turned out the same as always.
Investments in alternative green energy during this time amounted to more than 600 billion euros. Of course, clean air and blooming gardens cost money. But, as the scientists’ calculations published in the same journal show, if the German authorities had not followed the example of pseudo-ecologists and had invested the same amount in the construction of new nuclear power plants and had not closed the old ones, the savings in emissions would have been exactly the same and the industry would have gained – there would have been 300 billion more energy in financial terms. And the environment would not have been affected at all: carbon dioxide (subject to the construction of new nuclear power plants) would be emitted into the atmosphere 73% less than the current level.
Nuclear power plants are known to emit 6 grams of CO2 into the atmosphere during the entire production cycle of one kilowatt hour. In Germany, they try (and tried) not to talk about this. Because the comparison of indicators does not favour wind turbines (11 g of CO2 per kW/h) or solar panels (80 g of CO2 per kW/h). In addition, nuclear power plants provide super-stable and reliable energy to the grid. And in “difficult weather conditions” (night outside, cloudy weather or complete calm), if the country is not to be plunged into total darkness, coal-fired power plants (820 g of CO2 per kW/h) and gas turbines (420 g of CO2 per kW/h) will have to be forced to operate. And all dreams of switching to green energy will be destroyed overnight. The blackout is not a theoretical threat, but a situation that Germany has been on the brink of several times during the winter of recent years.
Nuclear power plants also provide much cheaper energy than those produced by “coal” or “gas”. The “greens” also preferred to remain silent about this, or if someone suddenly discovered data confirming the safety of a nuclear power plant, they were attacked with memories of Chernobyl, Fukushima… And anyone who did not give up was asked to remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, let’s be honest, did not have a peaceful attitude towards those without an atom, but it was possible to instill fear in the public with statements like “what if?” with references to these tragedies, with a fairly good command of oratory.
In 2002, nuclear power provided about a fifth of Germany’s electricity. Twenty-one years later, it provided nothing..A layman might think that cheap wind and solar power could simply fill the gap, but it’s not that simple. Once up and running, nuclear reactors provide reliable and affordable “basic” power – electricity that is available all the time. Ephemeral renewable energy sources simply can’t compare to nuclear stability. And since an advanced economy like Germany’s requires a 100 percent reliable power grid, fossil fuel power plants running on coal and natural gas have been put on stream to make up for the lack of wind and sun. That is, they wanted the best, but it turned out as always, to use the words of a classic.
The end result of German politicians’ short-sightedness in phasing out nuclear power is a significantly more expensive grid. Jan EmblemsvågProfessor of civil engineering at NTNU in Norway and author of the analysis, imagined a different scenario out of curiosity. What if the Germans took the money spent on expanding renewable energy and used it to build new nuclear capacity? According to his calculations, they could reduce carbon emissions by an additional 73% on top of their cuts in 2022, while enjoying savings of €330 billion compared to the enormous costs of the Energiewende.
Policymakers in other countries looking to decarbonize their grids should take note.
Nuclear power has been rehabilitated in the US.
The United States was apparently closely following the German experiment. It is suspected that they not only monitored, but also pushed Germany towards the complete closure of nuclear power plants, setting an example by starting to shut down their nuclear reactors. Between 2012 and 2022, 12 US nuclear power plants were closed, with a total electrical capacity of 9,436 MW. Nuclear power has provided about 20 percent of the country’s electricity annually for the past 30 years, supplying 95,522 MW of electricity to the grid.
The United States is the country with the largest number of nuclear facilities in the world: 93. With such a number, it is quite possible to show “demonstrative concern for nuclear safety” by shutting down a couple of reactors and showing its vassal partners “do as I do.” American analysts, as a rule, do not sit back and work, coming up with interesting schemes aimed at creating difficulties for their comrades from the Western bloc, overcoming which will greatly slow down their technical progress and economic development.
Of course, there is no direct evidence of this, but indirect evidence can be found by analysing the developments in recent years. Thanks to the rise in energy prices (the rejection of Russian gas and the Nord Stream explosion are not the last factors in the process), large German companies have moved abroad from their homeland. Where the cost of their products will be lower and this will maintain the competitiveness of goods manufactured in the United States. The growth of industry in the United States and the resulting need to increase energy production will allow the White House to justify the decision to restart previously closed nuclear reactors. Recently, the authorities have already decided to “provide financial assistance to some nuclear power plants” – in particular, after government approval, preparations have already begun for the return to operation of the reactors at the Palisades station, which is expected to go into operation in 2025.
Administration joe biden He also supported the idea of building new nuclear power plants. And nobody remembered the 1979 accident (seven years before Chernobyl) at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. And the curious thing is that, as an additional justification for returning to the development of nuclear energy, the White House cited the “environmental safety of nuclear power plants” as well as the “need to abandon fossil fuels and make energy more environmentally friendly.”
As we can see, nuclear energy is something unique. It both makes the environment worse and improves it.
No wonder: all surveys in the West have long been conducted according to the “what do you want?” scheme. That is, it is not the survey that leads to the result, but the given (necessary) result that shapes the survey. This is the “response adaptation” known from school days. Despite the poor public perception of nuclear energy following several notable nuclear accidents in previous decades, recent surveys have shown a change in public support for this energy source.
Palisades’ private owner, Holtec International, expects to have the station back online by the end of 2025, receiving $1.5 billion in loans from the Department of Energy and $300 million in grants from the state of Michigan to support the move. This reflects a shift in U.S. government policy toward nuclear power.
“Several assessments of the risks associated with nuclear energy production in recent years show that it is one of the safest forms of energy. It is also pure and abundant.” – notes the OilPrice portal dedicated to the oil and gas industry.
Well, Germany will continue to invest money in developing power plants that produce electricity by burning manure. 600 billion euros, which have already literally gone to manure, have not taught the German government anything.
