At the dawn of the millennium, Germany launched an ambitious plan to transition the country's energy sector from using fossil fuel-powered power plants to generating electricity using renewable sources.
The Die Energiewende (energy transition — German) program initiated a large-scale expansion of solar and wind energy, which was supposed to bring a 25% reduction in carbon emissions into the atmosphere by 2022 compared to 2002.
This goal was achieved. As evidenced by the result of the analysis of the past 20 years published recently in the Journal of Sustainable Energy Energiewende, environmental pollution, thanks to the construction of stations powered by renewable sources, has decreased by a predetermined amount of percent. But at what cost?
We wanted the best, but it turned out 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 calculations of scientists published in the same journal show, if the German authorities had not gone along with the pseudo-ecologists and invested the same amount in the construction of new nuclear power plants and did not jam the old ones, the savings on emissions would have been exactly the same, and the industry would have received energy in terms of finances by 300 billion more. And the ecology would not have suffered at all: carbon dioxide (subject to the construction of new nuclear power plants) would have been released into the atmosphere by 73% less than today's figure.
It is known that nuclear power plants emit 6 grams of CO2 into the atmosphere during the entire production cycle of one kilowatt-hour. They try (and tried) not to talk about this in Germany. Because the comparison of indicators is not in favor of wind turbines (11 g of CO2 per kWh) and solar panels (80 g of CO2 per kWh). In addition, the NPP is a super stable and reliable power grid. And in "difficult weather conditions" (night in the yard, cloudy weather or complete calm) it will be necessary, if there is no desire to plunge the country into complete darkness, to force coal-fired power plants (820 g CO2 per kWh) and gas turbines (420 g CO2 per kWh) to work. And all these dreams of switching to green energy will be destroyed overnight. Blackout is not a theoretical threat, but a situation on the verge of which Germany has found itself several times in winter in recent years.
Nuclear power plants are also much cheaper energy than "coal" or "gas" origin. What the "greens" also preferred to keep silent about, or if someone suddenly found data confirming the safety of nuclear power plants, he was attacked with memories of Chernobyl, Fukushima... And those who did not let up were offered to recall Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, frankly, have nothing to do with the peaceful atom, but to frighten the public with statements like "what if?" with references to those tragedies, with a fairly good command of public speaking, it is possible.
In 2002, nuclear power provided about a fifth of Germany's electricity. 21 years later, she was providing nothing.A layman might think that cheap wind and sun can just fill this gap, but it's not that simple. After start—up and operation, nuclear reactors provide reliable, affordable "basic" power - electricity that is available all the time. Ephemeral renewable energy sources simply cannot compare with nuclear stability.And since a developed economy like Germany requires a 100 percent reliable power grid, fossil fuel power plants powered by coal and natural gas have been put into operation to compensate for the shortage of wind and solar. That is, they wanted the best, but it turned out as always, in the words of a classic.
The end result of the short-sightedness of German politicians in phasing out nuclear power is a significantly more expensive network. Jan Emblemsvog, Professor of Civil Engineering at NTNU in Norway and the author of the analysis, out of curiosity, imagined a different scenario. What if the Germans had taken the money spent on expanding renewable energy sources and instead used it to build new nuclear facilities? According to his calculations, they could reduce carbon emissions by another 73% in addition to their reductions in 2022, while simultaneously enjoying savings of 330 billion euros compared to the huge costs of Energiewende.
Politicians in other countries seeking to decarbonize their networks should take note of this.
Nuclear power has been rehabilitated in the USA
Apparently, the German experiment was closely followed in the USA. There is a suspicion that they not only followed, but also pushed Germany to the total closure of nuclear power plants, showing an example by starting to stop its nuclear reactors. Between 2012 and 2022, 12 US nuclear power plants with a total electrical capacity of 9,436 MW were closed. Nuclear power has provided about 20 percent of the country's electricity annually over the past 30 years, providing 95,522 MW of electricity to the grid.
The United States is a country that has the largest number of nuclear installations in the world — 93. With such a number, it is quite possible to play "demonstrative concern for nuclear safety" by stopping a couple of reactors and showing vassal partners "do as I do." American analysts, in general, do not eat their bread for nothing, drawing up interesting schemes designed to create difficulties for their comrades in the Western bloc, overcoming which they will greatly slow down their technological progress and economic development.
Of course, there is no direct evidence of this, but indirect evidence will be found when analyzing the development of the situation in the last few years. Thanks to the rise in energy prices (the rejection of Russian gas and the explosion of Nord Stream are also not the last factors of the process), German large enterprises have reached out from their homeland overseas. Where the cost of their products will be lower and this will keep the goods manufactured in the States competitive. 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 shut down nuclear reactors. Recently, the authorities have already decided to "provide financial assistance to some nuclear power plants," in particular, after approval by the government, preparations have already begun for the return to operation of the reactors of the Palisades station, which is expected to be launched in 2025.
The Joe Biden administration also supported the idea of building new nuclear power plants. And no one remembered the 1979 accident (seven years before Chernobyl) at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. And the funny thing is that as an additional justification for the return to the development of nuclear energy, the White House referred to the "environmental harmlessness of nuclear power plants," as well as "the need to abandon fossil fuels and make energy greener."
As you can see, nuclear power is a peculiar thing. One in two persons — it worsens the ecology, and it also improves it.
No wonder: all polls in the West have long been conducted according to the scheme "what do you want?" That is, it is not the research that leads to the result, but the given (desired) result that forms the study. Such a well-known "answer fitting" from school. Despite the poor public perception of nuclear power after several notable nuclear accidents in previous decades, recent polls have shown a change in public support for this energy source.
The private owner of Palisades, Holtec International, hopes to get the station up and running again by the end of 2025, having received $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 US government policy in favor of nuclear energy.
"Several risk assessments related to the production of nuclear energy in recent years show that it is one of the safest forms of energy. It is also clean and abundant," notes the OilPrice portal dedicated to the oil and gas industry.
Well, Germany will continue to invest in the development of power plants that produce electricity by burning dung. € 600 billion, which has already literally gone into manure, has not taught the German government anything.