🔷 NordVPN: go.nordvpn.net/aff_c?offer_id=601&aff_id=55560 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT Remember to leave a comment & like to feed the mighty algorithms.
ruclips.net/video/klXj198vY4A/видео.html ruclips.net/video/VeXVsybEQPQ/видео.html ruclips.net/video/lIkzlq3XTcA/видео.html You have to ask, my big brother, Dr Steven Greer, about help? He will learn you how the free zero energy system of Nicola Tesla work? And how you can produce high voltage and power electricity for the whole Europe with low cost???? Also, to let your machinery and your industry run on the same level as before the actual disaster happens worldwide, and good luck. You don't need any wind turbines, also no nuclear power, or combustion oil or something else. If you don't know, you can also run combustion motors with H₂, water molecules. All dies systems are environment friendly!
Poland should build up nuclear power plants, or better yet hire Koreans to do it. Then sell the surplus electricity to Germany. Well that is a nice dream anyway, the only country in Europe that loves coal more than Germany is Poland.
@@polytechnika How much time do you want to comment this sillyness? Renewable energy is not plannable/stable/predictable on short-term, you need to build significant extra capacities from it. On the other hand basically in every single moment you need to produce exactly the same amount of electricity that you use or store it (which is loss and cost). Coming from these fact when the weather is not favorable you urgently need to import electricity that leads to extra cost. On the other hand during favorable weather (wind at North, sun at South) you produce extra which you need to sell obviously in very low (soemtimes negative!) price or store.
@@meinhd1483 We had talks with the USA, Japan and now with France. After the election of a new president in the United States, the matter was quiet. Germany and many other countries are researching nuclear synesia. I have no idea when it will be introduced. Koreans can keep the plasma in a stable field for 20 seconds. This is the best result so far.
@@bratbrata4974 "Germany and many other countries are researching nuclear synesia. I have no idea when it will be introduced. Koreans can keep the plasma in a stable field for 20 seconds. This is the best result so far." - Maybe you could explain a bit more.
America supplies gas to Poland. The terminal is located in Świnoujście, near the German border. In this way, Poland escaped from Russia's energy terror. Russia was able to turn off gas in Ukraine.
@@bratbrata4974 That's a choice that poland has made, Germany wants the choice to be able to balance it's gas suppliers any way that they want. America doesn't have the right to make that choice for them, being dependent on any one country is bad. It gives them too much influence, being dependent on the US would be just as bad. They need some kind of balance between russian, west african and american gas, the more the better.
When the Chancellor responsible for initiating the shutdown & Nordstream becomes Chairman of the Shareholders comittee, after signing the agreement just before he left office & subsequently becomes a member of the board of one Russian energy company & later Director of another, we know why Germany has turned to gas.
For the countries of Central Europe, this alliance between Germany and Russia is reminiscent of the interwar period. Russia supplied Fascist Germany with minerals and allowed armor to test on its territory. Now Germany is building a strong Russian army that is being built against NATO countries.
@@praisethesun.praisedeussol6051 ja, ja, German corporations basically own most of East European economies. German corporations take raw materials from East Europe at cheap prices. They own the retail chains: Kaufland, Lidl, Metro, Selgros, Rewe, Aldi, Spar. They sell back on East European markets the processed goods made in Germany by East European migrants. Germany is a parasite for Eastern Europe.
Not Nazi Germany but the Waimar republic...All trade and military ties where cut when hitler came to power. The good german soviet relations pre hitler was one of the reasons for the Molotov ribentrop pact.
Really nice video! I always did wonder why the "green" Germans always insisted on closing down nuclear powerplants everywhere in Europe even at the expense of firing up new coal powerplants. Big thumbs up :)
@godwin polytech You are right, that there is risk involved, but I wouldnt overestimate it too much. We have learned much about safety in nuclear powerplants in the decades since the Chernobyl disaster. Therefore a nuclear powerplant in a geologically stable area is a very safe option. Also if you are concerned about health and safety, then you would be surprised, that nuclear powerplants saved thousands of lives. How? Power not produced cleanly by them would have to be made in coal or gas powerplants, which are far far more deadlier and worse for the environment.
@godwin polytech The longer the half life the lower the radiation output for any fixed period of time. Waste can also be reprocessed and/or bred for more fuel. Nuclear shouldn't be as widespread as diesel but can be used as the ultimate energy source of a zero net emissions hydrocarbon fuel to avoid putting a reactor in your trunk.
@@Astuar yes, germans aren't technology friendly anymore. We abolished the Transrapid maglev, nuclear and we are about to miss glass fiber internet. I'm German myself and very pro nuclear but the people here think that you grow a third arm or your children get green skin when you live near a Npp
It would be nice if there were a great plan that is beneficial to Germany. But I strongly believe it has much more to do with public opinion and stupidity. The greens, the german party that basically started the idea of Energiewende are also strongly opposed against importing Russian gas.
A similar flavor of that exists in the US. In 2021 the United States is set to lose the 2nd half of Indian Point, Dresden and Byron which together generated more electricity in 2019 than all California wind and solar combined. More Gigawatts of capacity of nuclear set to close than coal in 2021! What a sick joke. Maximize the current generation of reactors
There are several so-called "green" organizations in Germany. Some are against nuclear, some are against power lines, some are against the Tesla factory. Quite a lot of them are actually funded by fossil fuel interests, but there is real grass-root NIMBY-ism. People want the benefits of modern technology, but don't want the inconveniences of producing or transporting the needed energy. They'd have us living in caves if they had their way. For as long as a single coal/oil power plant works, we need nuclear energy.
Fear of climate change and nuclear desasters does not mean stupidity. And the Energiewende wouldve been a lot more successful if Germany hadnt suddenly stopped building up renewable energies. But instead, they back down at the slicest sign of resistance.
@@pez4 Deutschland hat einen Überschuss von ca. 20TWh Strom im Jahr 2020 Frankreich kann nicht seine eigene Stromnachfrage nicht decken und Importiert im Jahr 2020 ca. 14TWh Strom. Quellenangabe: de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/202644/umfrage/deutsche-stromimporte-aus-europa-nach-laendern/ .
@@alessandromestri9004 Like France that regulary need to import in summer as the rivers are too hot, or in the Winter when nuclear can't cover the increase in demand due heating?
Nuclear power is the way to go untill batterys have been improved majorly in my opinion, it's just to bad people are scared of nuclear power becouse of a Communest mistake coused by courption and mismanagement and a minor disaster in Japan that really was not that bad.
Und wie günstig sind die Neuen AKWs unsere Nachbarn ? Die Franzosen bauen ein neues AKW. Der Baubeginn war am 3. Dezember 2007, EDF prognostizierte ursprünglich eine Fertigstellung 2012 und Baukosten in Höhe von 3,3 Milliarden Euro für das AKW-Flamanville-3. Nach Stand Juli 2020 haben sich die Kosten weiter erhöht, sodass die Anlage rund 19,1 Milliarden Euro (11.718 € pro installiertes Kilowatt, bei 1630 MW netto) kosten soll. Fakten auf der nuklearen Seite: de.nucleopedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Flamanville Billig bei 11.718 €/kW AKW Leistung ? Konstant bei bereits 12 Jahren Bauzeitüberschreitung ? Okay, bei PV kommt nur jeden Tag von ca. Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang Strom aber vom AKW kommt 12 Jahre lang null an Strom, was ist besser ? Und eine PV-Anlage ist ist in 1 bis 5 Tage errichtet und da kostet das kW Leistung 800 bis 1200€/kW. .
@@joaquimbarbosa896 yea it wasn't minor but not much people died and it was not the nuclear power plants fault and same with Chernobyl which was Communest courption not nuclear powers faults.
We (Poles) want to, but we don't have the good uranium bed. Those that remained excavated in former German territories that were once German, but after World War II, Stalin decided that these lands (Silesia) would be given to Poles, because it was in the Soviet interest to deport Poles from today's Belarus and Ukraine and relocate them to the former German lands to push the Germans to Western Europe as much as possible. Now in the 21st century, Germany is blocking the construction of a nuclear power plant in Poland, because they say they are afraid for their safety, hahaha, and they have these plants themselves. Moreover, they are blocking Poland from selling safe nuclear power plant technology. The Americans want to sell us their gas and do not really want to bet on nuclear power. The only chance for us may be France, which would probably have some interests in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Poland, but it is better than Russian electricity and gas, which can be cut off at any time, because the Russians so wish. However, as long as Macron and Putin get along, the chances are slim.
@@umbaroda8170 You don't need domestic uranium to get into nuclear power. France has no uranium mine in operation. No, France is not your only shot at getting nuclear built in Poland. And why would you want France to build your nuclear, after the failures to deliver on time and on budget at Flamanville 3 and Okliluoto 3? Your best bet right now is South Korea.
I read an article about using hydro power in Sweden for in combination with offshore wind to balance energy. There is also a big push to make hydrogen to store energy. I'm a little skeptical about the whole hydrogen economy thing but there is a lot of hype. Of course there is also batteries.
@@Parker307 Pumped hydro suits nuclear energy too. I've never understood the "flexibility" renewables argument when that's the case. To me it means gas. I'd rather attack a sensible grid mix like Ontario with a manageable amount of storage over filling the crater created by premature nuclear closures with the investment.
We need more public investment in advancing energy storage. There's a lot more than just lithium ion. Even installing more pumped hydro would be a good investment
@@ThomasBomb45 I remember reading about some quite simple solutions which simply involved stacking large concrete blocks, and then lowering them using a crane with a generator in it when electricity is needed. I can't remember any specifics as to efficiency and economics of it though
@@harryg9976 Yeah that stuff sure seems interesting. It's an open question whether it can be economical or efficient as none of them have posted those numbers yet. I think someone has set up a test site for it though
Yes it is! It is the only way to go. The concern is germany went far nearly alone. One exception is denmark. That had a high cost. But your view is a spotlight in the coming decades. The risk with russian dependence is worth it, because we are an economic powerhouse and here we play very well. The distortion on the european level is not only because of North Stream 1/2. It sits way deeper and its causes will not vanish with embargoing Putins Gas. As everytime Politics is more complicated than an single aspect. For example, Gas is consumed by 10-15% in Gaspowerplants. Near 3/4 is Industry Processes and Heating. The Energiewende won't outplay this.
Everybody thinks the same in France (which is one of the major nuclear energy producer in the world). But politics let the EU try to stop nuclear because people think that renewables are going to solve the climate crisis...
As a German i am may bias but at least it´s a ambitious and constructive future goal. What are the presented alternatives in the European Family for the next decades? Self Destruction like the UK, Nationalism like in some Eastern European countries, Imperialism and military like Russia or no changes and stagnation like in some Countries in south Europe.
All EU only works when things are going well, countries that have fought each other for most of their history can’t just be expected to toss aside their own geopolitical goals for the greater Europe, so what you’re seeing now with countries beginning to go their own ways is to be more expected.
@@moonbear2130 In my opinion "geopolitical goals" by every European country itself called "geopolitical dreams". Every European Country by its own is too small or not big enough to achieve any geopolitical goals despite pleasing China the US or Russia.
Important mistake in the presupposition for this video: Russia is not the only energy rich country in Europa. Norway and Scottland are also very energy rich. With Norway there are similar projects and pipelines in construction and Scottland is still subject to the UK. The EU may be energy poor, Europa is not.
Very interesting, as a French citizen and pro-nuclear person myself, this worries me. - First, we should invest and talk more about nuclear fusion, which could revolutionize energy needs, instead of focusing on things that are good steps but unreliable as a large percentage of energy: solar, wind and hydroelectric. - Second, strategic autonomy that the French and increasingly the EU, likes to talk about does not mean going from US vassal to Russian vassal, it means to choose our own geopolitical direction. I think a lot of hostility and mistrust between Brussels and Moscow is due to Cold War propaganda but that doesn't mean we should become overreliant on anyone. - Third, Berlin believes it can tell Paris, Rome, Warsaw and other capitals what to do with their energy policy - they're going to meet strong resistance. Berlin's strategy is unreliable, lacks forward thinking and essentially, wants to make other nations permanently subservient to Germany.
Und wie günstig sind die Neuen AKWs unsere Nachbarn ? Die Franzosen bauen ein neues AKW. Der Baubeginn war am 3. Dezember 2007, EDF prognostizierte ursprünglich eine Fertigstellung 2012 und Baukosten in Höhe von 3,3 Milliarden Euro für das AKW-Flamanville-3. Nach Stand Juli 2020 haben sich die Kosten weiter erhöht, sodass die Anlage rund 19,1 Milliarden Euro (11.718 € pro installiertes Kilowatt, bei 1630 MW netto) kosten soll. Fakten auf der nuklearen Seite: de.nucleopedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Flamanville Billig bei 11.718 €/kW AKW Leistung ? Konstant bei bereits 12 Jahren Bauzeitüberschreitung ? Okay, bei PV kommt nur jeden Tag von ca. Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang Strom aber vom AKW kommt 12 Jahre lang null an Strom, was ist besser ? Und eine PV-Anlage ist ist in 1 bis 5 Tage errichtet und da kostet das kW Leistung 800 bis 1200€/kW. .
Two ways you can corner Berlin's sillyness over this. 1. Pushing the carbon tax higher. German electricity is already expensive and will get moreso with higher carbon taxes and no plans to build dispatchable non-emitting generation. 2. Increasing transmission connectivity around Germany instead of through Germany. By limiting the amount of load balancing they get from their neighbors they'll be forced to deal with their own mess a bit.
@@AmurTiger schreibt: „1. Pushing the carbon tax higher. German electricity is already expensive and will get moreso with higher carbon taxes and no plans to build dispatchable non-emitting generation.“ Ein kWh von meiner über 25 Jahre alten PV-Anlage verursacht Kostet von unter 0 Cent/kWh (-4 Cent) und es kommen immer noch leicht über 1000 kWh von jeden kWp im Jahr. Wir haben so ca. von Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang, also an 3500 bis 4000 Stunden im Jahr habe ich PV-Strom. Das kann kein Kernfusionsreaktor kein Kernkraftwerk oder Kohlekraftwerk zu dem Preis an meine Steckdose liefern. *Solarstrom ist für den Bürger und auch Betrieb die günstigste Energiequelle, aber nicht die einzige.* .
@@wernermuller3522 That's great when the sun's out but pretty problematic after sunset. The grid operators have to solve those problems and in the process end up clinging to coal. The actual cost of solar including integration into the grid isn't cheap as evidenced by the fact that Germany's high proportion of wind/solar still leaves it with the most expensive electricity in Europe. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics Without meaningful storage capacity ( 48 hours of average load would be a good start ) the cheapness of solar is a mirage as it makes everything else more expensive by forcing them to work around their variance.
For the three nuclear disasters referenced: 1. Three mile island wasn’t as bad as nuclear opponents claim. 2. Chernobyl was poorly designed and incompetently managed by the Soviet Union. 3. Yes sadly nuclear reactors aren’t Tsunami proof. That doesn’t mean they aren’t safe.
Hello sir, I am Yahia Saoudi PhD in electrical engineering from Tunisia. I want to express my point of view in this topic. Your comments are correct and it is required to be oriented to onshore and offshore conversion systems. It is necessary to avoid the nuclear power systems.
The chapter on the gas distribution is a bit paranoid. However, the Energiewende as such is done in a very stupid way. Renewables as such can supplement conventional energy production but not replace it. It's way too unstable ... especially for an industrialized nation like Germany. Besides, it makes the EU way to dependent on the supply from Russia.
Live grid emissions data shows that as I type this France's grid released 81 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, while Germany sits at 358 g/kWh. Ironically, 14% of available electricty in Germany comes from nuclear energy this instant. The 2022 final nuclear shutdowns look increasingly maddening! www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR
Thank you for a nice overview video of the Energiewende and the politics that lay behind it. It gets harder to sanction Russia for a violation when Germany and Europe buy more gas from them. Nuclear seems like a better choice than ever to reduce CO2 and get greater energy independence.
That is from a political viewpoint and not from a environmental one. Sure, the Emission of coal fired Power Stations are high but the problem of nuclear waste is still not solved
@@DaniiMan4 So your prefer deaths from air pollution from coal power plants and micro radiation from coal? And btw the waste from fossils fuels is not solved either... don't see you complaining about that. The waste from nuclear is very little compared any other energy source and can easily be stocked and stored, I agree that this needs to be solved at some point in the future. Still we need to attack the 70% of our energy that comes from fossils fuels.
@@DaniiMan4 The technology of the atom keeps getting better. You don't even have to make large power units, just a few small ones. Then, in the event of a serious incident, it is easier to control such a block, and even if it fails, the disaster is not that big. France somehow runs its nuclear energy safely for so many years.
@@umbaroda8170 I do believe that the technology of power plants and radioactivity is very advanced and that the risk can be reduced to a minimum. The main problem still remains, there is no solution for the nuclear waste and a safe repository is hard to find, there are some around the world but noone can tell if they are safe for next generations since radioactivity is active for over millions of years
Ein kWh von meiner über 25 Jahre alten PV-Anlage verursacht Kostet von unter 0 Cent/kWh (-4 Cent) und es kommen immer noch leicht über 1000 kWh von jeden kWp im Jahr. Wir haben so ca. von Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang, also an 3500 bis 4000 Stunden im Jahr habe ich PV-Strom. Das kann kein Kernfusionsreaktor kein Kernkraftwerk oder Kohlekraftwerk zu dem Preis an meine Steckdose liefern. *Solarstrom ist für den Bürger und auch Betrieb die günstigste Energiequelle, aber nicht die einzige.* .
You missed one very important puzzle piece, hydrogen. German government and the (automobile) industry are investing hugely in this sector. Gas is just an interim solution. Hydrogen on the other hand has the potential to make Europe energy independent.
@@Pietroszz Nuclear is a technology from the past, also very expensive since you have to deal with ongoing security inspections, security shutdowns and of course the question where to store all the produced radioactive waste save for the coming millennia. Nuclear =20th century tech versus Hydrogen =21st century tech. Choice is easy.
@@kibicz Very wrong, hydrogen's most useful feature is that it can serve as storage for renewable anergy that otherwise would be lost. What you are talking about is called grey hydrogen and has no future. Green hydrogen made by solar and wind energy will be the best addition to current battery tech which is limited to scarce recources.
@@brezelkaiser 1st of all nuclear isn't outdated. With time passing better and more secure reactors were created. Today nuclear technology is extremely secure, and the chance of failure extremely minimal to zero. And your argument about nuclear having a high maintance cost is a complete lie. The only expensive part about a nuclear power plant is the initial cost of building it. The fuel, operational, and maintenance cost are relatively cheap. Regarding the storage; It's really not a big deal. Since Europe lies on an extremely stable tectonical plate, there is no danger of underground storage units to leak out. With a bit of effort put into it, those storages will easily survive a millenia. And maybe there won't even be a need for them to remain secure for that long! With nuclear and fusion energy advancing we'll be able to reuse this still radioactive "waste".
@@maltemeyer3171 I guess he only understand Asian international politics. He is completly lost with european topics. He doesn't understand the euro, he doesn't understand the oil market and who is dependend and with renewables he just have no idea either. His only selling point is his daddy optics and voice. This video tries to compete with him without the voice and optics. Fearmongering conspiracy therories, getting attention from nationalists. Because many nuclear zealots are more or less nationalists. Arguing with nations and are just too proud of frances achievment in nuclear. I feel, i did spend too much time here watching several videos (...)
@@maltemeyer3171 sure, main consumer is heating and industry. Btw. How do you know there is enough power, when sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow? The industry states, that no new plants or connections are needed beside what's being build - as it was all the time and was recently reaffirmed. The hasty shut down was solely to the sentiment of germans, but it's past. I just don't like to read repeatedly the same old arguments and worries that are long gone and were never an existential issue, because industry can do it. And yes! Nuclearists are so keen on it, they can't measure the time and cost overruns it take to build new plants. That is so redicules, i can't stand it without rotating eyeballs. SMR's won't do it either if you look behind the media screen. Same issues like the big one's just hacked into pieces. One example, Safety is still a major issue, even it is passiv cooled, that doesn't change most safety problems, except, you don't need an active cooling. It is just disappointing to read in depth about SMR's.
German here: we failed at doing so. we have plenties of stories with e.g. fully functional offshore wind parks that for many years don't receive a connection to land. local towns easily opposing the needed electricity transfer south, etc. this project is only not a failure because it's due date is *open ended*. We knew about climate change for decades and we have only 20% of renewables to show for it??? I don't care if other nations are not doing as well, this remains *embarassing* and a good reason to never vote the CDU or SPD, same with their FDP sidekick that is nothing but a elected lobbying group. And the AfD is GOP light - don't even believe in climate change like the dunces they are. Stop glorifiying our country as a leader on climate change - it's just the one-eyed king among the blind pawns *at best*.
@@GoodTimesBadTimes sadly cynicism leads more often to the true answer than optimism :( But even after finding the answer and getting all to agree on it... There will be no consensus on the solution. Thanks and/or sorry for listening to my rant.
Geothermal may need to be an option -- it is extremely expensive; however... dig a deep enough borehole and you'll find a temperature gradient eventually. And after the initial setup cost; you have an energy source that is extremely reliable.
Pretty much, Gas has a big competitor and that is nuclear, if you are able to exaggerate a disaster, strike fear in the public, say that every nuclear power plant, even if they have seawalls like Onagawa which survived the 2011 tsunami and earthquake with near to no damage or are not even in a shoreline like some of germany´s, are a threat then you right there have a big opportunity for business. Renewables will do renewable things and be intermittent, meaning everyone now relies on gas to keep the grid stable, if you are the supplier you skyrocket profits. France is the main target to denuclearize since they are a shining example that nuclear can easily reduce carbon emissions and be safe. That is not what you want if you wanna spread fear and terror over the prey and make the hunter seem harmless.
Renewables are not as unstable as you suggest. The major growth of wind power is offshore which provides for more steady wind. More steady because it's flat at sea and they are bigger than the ones on land. All of the wind turbines in your video are small compared to the ones off shore now and even larger ones than that are on the way soon. Solar pairs well with wind as they are often not producing at the same time. There are ways to store energy with batteries, hydro in Sweden and especially hydrogen. Hydrogen could in theory use the same infrastructure as natural gas. The is also the possibility of dynamic load. Meaning that homes or industry electricity use could be used or not depending if there is extra or low power. There is a smelter in Portland Oregon that is doing this now to help balance things. Nuclears main issue now is that it is way more expensive to build out than renewables or gas. There is also the issue shown with the example of Iran that nuclear power was used as a way to cover nuclear weapons development. I don't know if that is a big factor but it is worth mentioning. There is another factor to energy that people often forget and that is efficiency. Making building use less power is a huge "source" of energy. I know that Germany has some good building products. I would love to install some windows from Germany that are more efficient than what I can get in the US. I heard about these watching a channel on youtube focusing on homebuilding.
A few challenges. Offshore wind does have better capacity factors but ultimately still requires the same capacity of dispatchable backup available, at best you use it less. For this you get more expensive power and obviously somewhat remote from loads. Not horrible but certainly no silver bullet. The solar pairing argument confronts the same limitations as offshore wind, at the end of the day you still have to have some sort of dispatchable backup, thusfar all Germany's plans for dispatchable power are CO2 emitting. Dynamic load or reducing total electric use aren't going to solve much if we move transportation and all heating onto the electric grid. There was a study by SNC Lavallin recently that predicted that Canada would have to triple generation capacity to meet growing electricity needs. Germany may have less then that but they certainly can't net reduce consumption no matter the efficiency of buildings as the addition of cars and heating loads will more then offset that. Nuclear is certainly more expensive then gas, but it's also providing a rather different product. It dispatches ( unlike wind/solar ) and doesn't emit CO2 ( unlike Gas ). If you value grid stability and low emissions you pay for this, if not then not. Nuclear Power involvement in nuclear weapons is vastly overblown, bombs tend to get their material either from research reactors or dedicated plutonium production reactors. The issue with Iran is with enrichment facilities ( centrifuges and the like ) not power reactors.
There is also the case of net inertia. Classical fossil fuel plants contain huge turbines, built from tons of steel. Those contain a large amount of kinetic energy, when they are spinning. This helps balance little short time surges in demand - basically, if suddenly a lot of people turn on their kettles, all those spinnig turbines will provide the energy instantly and naturally, but slowing down the frequency by the tiny fraction of the Hz. Wind turbines spin as well and have inertia, but they are way lighter in comparison, and if they are not spinning currently, they do not do this 'smoothing' at all. In the future this could be handled with batteries as well (in fact, currently in Australia large wind farms are supported by a huge tesla battery bank for this purpose). Nuclear power plants do not have this problem, as they are just yet another heat-based power plant, with similar heavy turbines. So, for high share of renewables we already need to incorporate batteries into the system, just to allow power grids operation - otherwise a surge in demand or generation can make too big change in frequency, and this in a few minutes will result in frequency safeties kicking in, and basically shutting down the entire grid. And when factoring nuclears cost, we have to consider, that their lifespan is certified for 60 or 80 years. Solar panels used to be certified for 20 (maybe they last longer nowadays), wind turbines show signs of wear pretty soon as well (their lifespan can be extended with proper maintenance, but it is not so cheap). And when speaking about cost, people often compate the installed power. But even nuclear gets only 95-90% of its installed power used. For wind this is lower, I think 70-50% based on if its onshore or offshore. And solar can be as low as 30%. So for some renewables you should multiply the cost fewfold to be able to make a cost comparison.
@@TheBlobik Not really. Currently surplus energy storage is mostly gravitic, something like over 85% achieved simply by pumping up water to the reservoirs and then using it it power hydroelectric turbines. Same goes with reducing energy usage from industry to such simple things as introducing lightbulbs and vacuum cleaners that use less power etc.
The whole thesis that Germany would be aiming to make Europe dependent on *Russian* gas completely breaks down from the get go when you realize that Russia would be equally as interested in to make European countries *directly* dependent on them and not have Germany as the middleman. To associate this outlandish hypothesis with the term Energiewende is borderline conspiracy bs.
Very interresting View on the topic! Thanks for the great video! Coming from Germany I agree to some of your explanation, but not all of it ;) The long term struggle of the environmental movement, forming the green party, made Schröder Chancellor (his SPD and green party formed a coalition). After 16 years of CDU/CSU (conservatives) government. So he had to implement a shift towards green energy. His governance pushed the development of solar and wind technology a lot and even an exit strategy for nuclear power was signed. But his reign lasted only 4 years until the old ruling conservative party take over again and turned most of the "Energiewende" back. By that the majority of solar companies went bankrupt and the technology was "sold to" or "copied" by china, making them the biggest and sophisticated solar cell manufacturer in the world by now. Meanwhile 150.000 jobs were lost in the solar industry in Germany. But the public opinion about nuclear power had shifted so much that Chancellor Merkel had no choice, but implementing the nuclear exit once again, after Fukushima. But on worst conditions for the German tax payer. The state now has to cover the the skyrocketing cost of depositing of nuclear waste and the demolition of the power plants. The conservative government is pretty much bought by the energy lobby. This year the 16 years of Merkel will come to an end and by actual polls the green party is stronger than ever. The so called unstable energies wind and solar are not that unstable tho, to be honest: with sufficient buffer capacity and some gas fueled power plants for shortages, even a heavy industrialized country like Germany could run smoothly. The focus on gas, is mainly because you can switch gas power on and off much quicker than coal or nuclear, so you can manage the exhausts much more efficient. Where the gas comes from, is of minor importance. Europe bought it's gas from Russia for decades even during the cold war.The main pipelines going through Ukraine from Russia and by Turkey from Baku in Aserbaidjan at the Caspian Sea. All of these not very stable areas, to say at least. So to have one or two backups in the Baltic sea seems not the worst idea. I'm not a Putin Fan at all, but in the long term, we have this strange neighbor in the east and have to find some kind of arrangement. Europe is quite divided between center, south and east, so hopefully a strong relation between France and Germany can put the continent together. The Brits, ruled by the City of London, were brainwashed and voted out for now. So nationalism, greed and short term thinking of politicians seems to makes it an almost impossible undertaking. Especially when all these crisis (climate, cyber warfare, corona, trade wars, migration) adding up. Let's see. cheers :)
"The main pipelines going through Ukraine from Russia and by Turkey from Baku in Aserbaidjan at the Caspian Sea. All of these not very stable areas, to say at least." Well... That's kinda the point most Germans don't understand. Until there's no other option then to transport gas trough the Ukraine and Poland, these areas will remain stable, as Russia can't risk loosing money from gas sales to Germany over a long period of time. Russian propaganda in Germany has been very good though in creating this image of old ukrainian/polish infrastructure, that is not reliable. This narrative is completely false. It has worked for decades, it would work for many more anyway... As soon as NS2 is ready, Russia won't risk it's gas sales to western europe in the event of an invasion. Further more, Russia will have a powerful tool to discourage Germany from any help to those countries. Maybe even military help to Poland or the Baltics in case of the triggering of article 5 of the NATO treaty. Because if Russia chooses to stop supplying gas to Germany for a week or two, German industry will loose much more then Russia. So Germany is walking on thin ice with this project geopolitically, risking the integrity of NATO and the EU. As NS 2 will be finished, I as a Polish person can only hope that Germany will somehow prepare for such event. But looking at the current track record of appeasing Russia, I don't think it will.
@@nomennominandum8425 I'm not so sure that NS2 would give Russia such leverage to destabilize the east-European situation, including Poland, Ukraine or the Baltics. As you said the gas trade between Russia and Europe was running smoothly for decades even during the cold war period. And a russian invasion is very unlikely. What would be the benefit for Russia to invade Poland for example? Better access to Kaliningrad? The fleet is still stuck in the baltic sea...From a strategic view invasion is pointless. An interference on that situation are the Americans who try their best to sell gas to Europe and were very successful by triggering fear of Russia in eastern Europe to divide Europe for influence and leverage. What the US fear even more than China, is a truly united Europe ;) For sure everyone is pushing it's narrative, but I guess politics are more complicated than that. What actually could lead to destabilization in eastern Europe: although some of the eastern countries, especially Poland are economically quite successful, while very determined into capitalism and conservatism, it reminds me of Germany in the 50's and 60's. So from a social view, still a long way to go, but the economic foundation is getting more solid. But the sacrifice of the people to achieve that, came at staggering social cost: divided families etc. it could turn into social unrest when markets will be more saturated. To counter that, we need at least a basic social safety in these countries. Beside a common currency, we need a better (more equal) European democratic-, finance-, tax- and social system. Without that, the idea of Europe is doomed. Right now countries rather compete against each other, instead of supporting each other. If we don't fix that, we will be overruled by any global player like US or China or maybe even the City of London with all it's tax heavens. All these powers wont back down for nice words or another trade agreement. They are determined to project power whereever they need it. That's a Powerplay Europe has to participate on a peer level, while still give providing proper jurisdiction, human rights and freedom in a social and economic system without authoritarianism. Sorry I'm talking to much... Germany has some Gas storage of about 28% of yearly consumption. Without selling gas to other countries, it would last maybe 2-3 month? Not an ideal situation for sure... but Russia will remain our neighbor so in the long term it should be in our interest to lower tensions and turn it into "nice" neighbor. Don't you think so?
@@heliospear The cold war era is not really comparable to the situation we are facing now, because then there was no independent Poland, and Ukraine and the Baltic states were in the soviet union. And that's the key issue with this pipeline. Those countries see it as a thread to their independence. Putin, and the Russian elites want Russia to be a global player, they want Russia to be on eye level with the US and China. This is obviously not achievable, as can't compete with the US militarily (nor economically), and their economy is about 8 times smaller then the Chinese one, and less innovative. Under the rule of Putin and his oligarchs, Russia has basically become a giant gas station, so that's their only tool to mark their presence on the international stage. Putin attacked the Ukraine and Georgia to gain influence over the internal affairs of those countries. When I mentioned my fear of an Russian invasion, I didn't mean an WWII style military campaign to wipe Poland/the Baltics of the map. I admit, for now, this scenario seams not realistic. But what IS very realistic is a small, donbas-like conflict that would slowly drain the attacked country of its resources, in the result of which Russia could influence their internal politics. Only strong and united NATO can protect these countries from this scenario. The Americans didn't trigger fear of Russia in eastern Europe. Russia triggered that fear in 2008 (attack on Georgia) to be precise. Poland buys American gas, because it doesn't want to buy gas from Gasprom any more. Russian gas is way more expensive in Poland, than in Germany, even though Poland is nearer to the source. Why is that? Because when Poland signed a deal with Gasprom years ago, nearly 100% of our gas was coming from Russia. On a side note, the gas pressure in the Russian pipelines going trough Poland, curiously drops every time there are NATO exercises or an American president visits. I wonder why that is, must be a strange coincident :) So buying American gas is cheaper for Poland. But I think that the Americans oppose NS2 because they also fear that Germany will become too depended on Russia, thus a less reliable partner in NATO. Selling gas to Europe wouldn't make a big difference in the US budget. Gasproms revenue, from gas sales to Europe and Asia, accounts for 5% of the Russian GDP. That's around 0,4% of the US GDP. And we're talking about all gas sales. So supplying gas to Germany wouldn't even make a dent in their budget, and I don't think hat America would risk worsening it's ties to your country over such relatively small sums of money. I agree by and large with your view on Europe, but that's not the topic of this discussion :). For now Russia is the most destabilising factor: misinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, hostile anti-Polish propaganda back home... Yes, Russia is the neighbour of Germany in the sense, that it neighbours the EU, but for Poland, and the Baltics, Russia is their actual neighbour. And this makes a huge difference. The west tried to lower tensions with Russia for 20 years now. Every time the west tries to approach Russia, Putin uses it to his advantage. Here are some highlights of these 20 years of "lowering tensions with Russia": 2006 Alexander Litvinenko is killed on NATO soil by Russian secret service with a dangerous substance 2008 attack and destabilisation of Georgia 2011 strong support for the Syrian dictatorship, that ultimately led to the refugee crisis in Europe 4 years later 2014 annexation of Crimea, attack on eastern Ukraine flight MH17 is shot down over Ukraine by Russian backed rebels 2016 meddling in the US elections 2021 locating large number of troops on the border to Ukraine As I said. These are only memorable highlights of Putins international activities. There are many more other, smaller ones between these big events like misinformation campaigns and cyberattacks on European governments. So after 20 years of trying to make Russia a "nice" neighbour, given the regular hostile manoeuvrers and no will to end the conflicts it started, maybe it's time to finally overthink our strategy on dealing with them. Like sharper sanctions. Or not buying their Gas. Don't you think so? :)
@@nomennominandum8425 Very interesting! I absolutely agree with you, I just try to consider that Russia is in a stage of siege or defeat since the collapse of the soviet union. It lost it's former European "allies" to NATO and is suffering a sort of "phantom pain" like other former empires like Britain, France or even Spain xD These countries as well are still in the mindset of being of some kind of global importance at least in their local narrative. Britain keeps sort of hold to it's "commonwealth" France tries to keep influence in Africa etc. Same with Russia. It tries to hold on it's grip to former allies like Cuba, Syria, Libya, Venezuela etc. and all of them get destabilized or completely destroyed by the only remaining empire, the US. I think all I try to say, it's not Russia only to blame. All of them are fighting their proxy wars. And for the most part Europe isn't able to keep up. It just tries to contain the worst outcomes. Meanwhile even a former negligible power like turkey is able to bullie Europe. Europe It mostly reactive and seems to be to divided to play an active role. I completely understand your concerns about NS2 and a larger dependency to Russian gas doesn't help. But I doubt that more sanctions would really help. A contained dictatorship with enough resources can survive forever and get quite irrational and unpredictable. Btw: After reunification of Germany we had a joke "And in 30 years we open our eastern border to China." Well, we are already building cars there...and that is a very proper dictatorship. Do we even have standards?
@@nomennominandum8425 The old pielines have been renewed after North Stream 1 because they were unreliable. But the main takeaway is, North Stream makes it way cheaper to transfer gas, because it is far closer to the gas fields in the arctic. Saving several 1000 kilometer of pumping gas.
I am from the neighbouring Netherlands and such a Germany - even in NATO- sounds more like a security risk than an ally. It all sounds like YET another good reason for us to NEXIT and join the EFTA while staying in NATO (we should take back full control over the First Army Corps AND spend our money on new tanks - in the form of new British Challenger 3's or American M1A2's rather than on German Leopards). It shows that Germany is nothing more than Russia's second man in Europe.
Und wie günstig sind die Neuen AKWs unsere Nachbarn ? Die Franzosen bauen ein neues AKW. Der Baubeginn war am 3. Dezember 2007, EDF prognostizierte ursprünglich eine Fertigstellung 2012 und Baukosten in Höhe von 3,3 Milliarden Euro für das AKW-Flamanville-3. Nach Stand Juli 2020 haben sich die Kosten weiter erhöht, sodass die Anlage rund 19,1 Milliarden Euro (11.718 € pro installiertes Kilowatt, bei 1630 MW netto) kosten soll. Fakten auf der nuklearen Seite: de.nucleopedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Flamanville Billig bei 11.718 €/kW AKW Leistung ? Konstant bei bereits 12 Jahren Bauzeitüberschreitung ? Okay, bei PV kommt nur jeden Tag von ca. Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang Strom aber vom AKW kommt 12 Jahre lang null an Strom, was ist besser ? Und eine PV-Anlage ist ist in 1 bis 5 Tage errichtet und da kostet das kW Leistung 800 bis 1200€/kW. .
@@WiiPetUwU schreibt: „@Werner Müller und was hat das ganze jetzt mit Kernfusion zu tun?“ Dass bei den Kernkraftprojekten auch bei der Kernfusion weder die Kosten noch die Zeit genannt werden kann bis da mal das erste kWh an Strom kommt. Bei einer PV-Anlage kommt bereits innerhalb von einem Tag das erste kWh Strom und die Kosten der PV-Anlag sind auch bekannt, *wer bracht oder wartet da noch die Kernkraft oder die Kernfusion?* .
Sorry, but that's bullshit. It's completely unfeasible to rely on batteries on such a large scale, not to mention the fact that with renewables, we will need a installed capacity several times higher than demand because these sistems almost never work at full capacity due to weather conditions and the fact that the sun doesn't shine at night.
@@MarcianusImperator I'm not sure how it's any more unfeasible for every house to have a fridge or a washing machine than a battery. The technology just isn't there yet.
@@tellingfoxtales Batteries are expensive, difficult to recycle, pose serious fire hazards, and improvements in technology haven't been very groundbreaking. Also, household consumers only represent around one third of total electricity demand. I will say it again: it is unfeasible to rely on batteries - both economically and technically. If we keep day dreaming, reality will come and bite our asses later on.
Not much. Due to decentralizing power production with wind and solar it even got cheaper. everybody knows the nuke plants kept running at 1 quarter maxium to keep the prices high in the past on the EEX.
love every opinion on this topic and yours is fine made. your are right on the piont importing gas, oil and uranium are binding to international partners, because we have none of it A few pionts added from Germany Closing down Nuclear is our own choice of the time At this time we have to mutch of renewable energy and lacking of regulation an the big coal and nucular plants Therefore we have sometimes pay to get rid off our power Gas has both it can match the missing power curve from the renewables and there are lesser emmisions than coal and final comes the money on lifetime bases none of the old systems matches renewables like photovoltaik
The video was not intended to attack Germany, just to point out the geopolitical leverages that occur behind the scenes. Thanks for the emotionless approach and your viewpoint :)
@@GoodTimesBadTimes You are right we have to be critical on every decition therefore germany is famous for 😆. In Germany it is common to criticize and ad a solution to the discussion. I would be pleased if you want to ad a possible solution.
Huh "once Germany's neighbors shut down their nuclear power plants, [...], the wind will stop blowing and clouds will appear in the sky[...]" while the rest of the video is making sens to me, I can't understand this sentence. What would be the reason / physics for this to happen? Do nuclear power plants create so much hot steam that once it's missing the weather in whole Europe will break / change?
I think he was basically saying that renewable energy sources aren't reliable. So once European countries close their nuclear power facilities, they will be completely dependent on the gas
I guess a bad visual explanation in accord with the depressing undertone of the video to show how Energiewende shall doom everyone. Not a symphatic move. Really bad quality video, bad argumentation. Lost cause feeding equally depressed peoples bubble.
nuclear power very expensive to built. but when you have one. its very cheap energy. so.. its very stupid to close down all 6 power plan before its technical time at one time. its should be shutdown gradually one power plan each time
The Energiewende was a great project, but there were severe mistakes made during its execution. For example, the german government of the last years was not able to this day to build the much needed North-South transmission lines to get green energy to the energy intensive south. The main problem is the horrible NIMBYism and incompetent rulers in Bavaria listening to them, shutting down the Energiewende completely in the progress.
Germany doesn't have that much natural resources in most cases. The largest coal reserves are located in North America, uranium in Africa and Australia, oil and natural gas in the middle east, Russia, North America and so on. So wind, water, solar plus energy storage technologies are what's necessary to be really independent.
That is a very bad take on the Energiewende. The roots of the Energiewende lie as you said in the 1970s and 1980s: after the second world war fuelled by cheap oil prices west germany (as well as other countries) experienced a period of rapid growth and consumerism. Nuclear power was seen as the future of energy. However that consumerism came at a cost to the environment. Germanys major rivers became very polluted. In the 1970s and 1980s counter movements formed, many environmental in nature (greenpeace comes from these times). In germany between more reasonable demands like quotas for fishing, and end to whaling, filters for waste sewage and coal power plants there were also more outlandish demands: and end to nuclear energy, reduction of energy consumption.
These were absolutely outlandish: At that time it was generally accepted that to grow richer a nation had to increase its energy consumption. Nuclear power was the future. Powering a country by renewables was like science fiction from asimov. These activist protested repeatedly and successfully the building of nuclear power installations. (plants, enrichment centers ... ). But the establishment was pro nuclear and pro coal. Until 1986 when chernobyl happened suddenly major parties were in favour of a nuclear exit. Some wanted it the same year, some in 10 years. This is when the Energiewende came into politics. Two things have to be said: The Energiewende was not a worked out plan but more a goal, going away from nuclear and coal power to sustainable power. How the end would look like, nobody could say. AND: THE ENERGIEWENDE WAS ANTI-NUCLEAR FROM ITS INCEPTION. Global warming wasn't even discussed then. In the 1990s many things happend: Germany reunited, the greens formed a party(its a bit more complicated), and climate change became politically relevant. This had two results: Germany guaranteed anyone who fed renewable electricity into the grid that their electricity would be bought at a reasonable price this lead to a small boom in wind energy. Also nuclear lobby groups tried again to argue again for nuclear power. Still the activist groups were still active and the companies feared they would block new power plants leading to bad investments. In two rounds of discussions stretching years no result was achieved. So the status quo stayed. Old nuclear power plants stayed, no new ones would be build. If you ever try to convince Germany that nuclear power is necessary, please do know, the nuclear lobby tried that for years: they failed. In the early 2000s under Schröder, a plan was made to phase out nuclear energy over the next 20 years. This nuclear deal brought largely peace into the nuclear debate. At that point we come to the government of Merkel: Merkel wanted to tackle climate change to to become known as the "Klimakanzlerin". While her party had announced to renege on the nuclear deal in favor of nuclear energy. But she had to form a coalition with Schröders SPD who blocked those efforts. Only in her second time in office she extended the remaining runtimes of nuclear power plants. In 2011... There were protests before Fukushima, there was nothing but political suicide after Fukushima. (Additionally it seems that Merkel had a genuine change of heart since she realized that even Japan couldn't completely safely operate a nuclear power plant). The current plan of phasing out nuclear power by 2022 was enacted. At this point natural gas was envisioned as a transition technology. If you ever try to convince Germany that nuclear power is necessary, please do know, Merkel tried to extend nuclear power: She failed. About coal: by 2018 Germany ended subsidies for hard coal mining. That killed almost all hard coal power plants. I am not entirely sure why the remaining ones are still running I suspect they support some district heating installation. Germany still has brown coal and does fire its brown coal plants. They are to be phased out until 2030 at this point(. About gas: gas is seen as an interim solution. And yes, Germany has positioned itself as a distributor of Russian gas. (Unfortunate as it is at the moment) . But do not for one second believe that German opposition to nuclear power is motivated by the desire to sell gas. About renewables: Germany had already two times success in creating a market for renewables and profiting from the export of the know-how. The national hydrogen strategy explicitly calls for the generation of hydrogen know-how with the intention to export that. Germany wants to save the planet, it is not above making a buck out of it. Also if you are ever around: welcome to Germany where getting the country to 40% renewables in the electricity mix means you have irresponsibly slowed down their adoption.
A very strong argument against nuclear energy is the problem of nuclear waste disposal. I appreciate the views from Poland on Germany an European problems. And I hope Poland will not squezed out of EU, like England with its Brexit. But I beleave, as german citician, that german EU politics are ugly for EU future. From my personal point of view Poland has much more reality feeling, what means to develope EU further. Expecially in East Europe. It is said, that Kaliningrad could have incooperated to EU / NATO around 1991. Germany etc. left it to Russia. Kaliningrad is now the most serious militarical threat to Poland, Baltikum and EU in its whole. But the EU is blind for realizing the Problems of East Europe and to find a sensable political vision to develop East Europa and manage relations to Russia. Russia waits for each weakness of EU and would like to incorparate Baltikum, Poland, Ungary etc. in a new Sowjet Union. And EU and Germany does its best to support Russia in this target. Not luky about it and stand currently on Polands side regarding EU struggle with Poland !
"A very strong argument against nuclear energy is the problem of nuclear waste disposal." Actually, it is a very weak argument against nuclear energy. Spent nuclear fuel waste is captured, contained, stored and monitored - unlike any other type of waste (especially fossil fuel waste which is put directly into the biosphere). Spent nuclear fuel waste is tiny. About 400,000 t in the world, which sounds like a lot until you start comparing: * 400,000 t - spent nuclear fuel waste - 65 years of 10% of global electricity * 250,000 t - solar panels - 15 years of 1-2% of global electricity * 400,000 t - coal emissions from Moorburg - 20 days of 2.5% of German electricity Spent nuclear fuel waste can be recycled into even tinier amounts: with fuel reprocessing, a decades old technology, currently in production in France, UK, RF, which separates out the fission products (for burial; returns to background levels in 300 years) and the actinides (for replacement in a burner reactor for more power). Technologies for reprocessing or for deep geological burial are well known and understood - politically they have issues - but technically complete. Spent nuclear fuel waste costs - mostly already paid for. Most jurisdictions require an assessment for waste to be escrowed as power is produced. The US fund is so big, they stopped making the assessment!
@@chapter4travels I tend to agree that spent nuclear fuel is a resource for power and nuclides, but my argument is that even if you don't agree with that viewpoint, you can hardly claim it is a massive problem, or a very strong argument against nuclear power - given its small volume, full containment, and reprocessing technologies.
@@factnotfiction5915 Along those lines, it's good to point out that it's solid pellets, not liquid or anything that can leak which most people don't know. Also that it's 40% heavier than lead, which helps people to understand how little of it there is.
@@adidoki With green energy mentioned in the video. The government hopes to overcome the blackout-problem by importing hydrogen from other countries like even Ukraine or African countries. First investments are already taking place.
@@adidoki In theory if you create hydrogen as a fuel out of for example solar energy in africa you can avoid any co2 emissions. You just need a gas tanker which also runs on hydrogen. But that is to be developed in the coming years.
Interesting take on the subject. I always thought Energiewende is just utter Hippie-Nonsense. Now there seems to be additional reasons that are no less disturbing.
When it comes to energy, I am still convinced that there are ways to create, distribute and store energy that are many many orders of magnitude better for the environment, the cash flow, energy independance and such then we have now. I wonder what Nichola Tesla would do. I wonder what advanced space faring civilizations would do. I wonder what humans deep in the future would do. I wonder if any of the conventional or alternative sources that are popular today will be necessary or even exist in 1000 years. I don't want to be too pie in the sky but I would liken it to an energy source that is as different from nuclear as nuclear is from a wood fire. Perhaps it is fusion (star power) or black hole power but perhaps it is something we can scarcely comprehend with our current ways of thinking.
Such a Video is a lot of work and time spent for research and production. You (and your team?) have read for sure a lots of stuff about Germany’s energy system . I acknowledge and support your hard work. However, from my point of view you are scratching the surface only. The video provides an extremely good representation of former Chancellor Gerhard Schoeders role in the north stream pipeline project and his relationship with Gazprom, Germanys’ economic interest to dominate the natural gas market, etc. are well set out. This alone does not mean that the Government of Germany is not supportive to big coal, and lignite coal is extremely BIG in Germany even after the decision to gradually phase it out. Here is my critics or, please take it as an supplement to your video. The coal phase out will, as per the time schedule presented by the Government, last extremely long, with almost no action at the beginning and almost all action will come in the last years of the phase out (slogan: should the politics in 10 years bear the consequences, but not us). The power plants to be decommissioned in the next years are very old and did appear years before on the lists of the operators for shutdown, without any planned replacements as coal losing its competitiveness on a broad scale. Means these power plants have reached (or will reach for the later cases) the end of their life anyway and the owners (RWE or LEAG) will shut down the lignite facilities anyway. The main difference to the situation before the decision to phase out coal is that now a few very large corporations will get compensation payments, over 4 Billion Euro. I would call Schroeders behavior as well as what is happening right now with the coal compensations corruption or at least a very strong lobbying. With regards to the nuclear phase out one can see a similar pattern. The decision to phase out was first made by the Schroeder administration (SPD and the Green party). The State agreed in contracts with the owners of the nuclear power plants to phase out, legally waterproof however contested among the CDU/CSU, the main opposition party. As soon as the CDU/CSU, under leadership of Chancellor Merkel took over government office they reversed the decision to phase out nuclear and terminated the contracts with the nuclear power sector. Only, to reverse again after Fukushima, this time in a rush with a legally questionable approach despite many warnings that the legal basis is extremely bad. At the end, the Government paid again over 2 billion Euro in compensation to Eon, RWE, Vattenfall for something that was already well organized before. The renewables can and would cover a much bigger share of Germanys energy sector if the Government would not create again and again unjustified market barriers and legal barriers and administrative barriers for wind and solar. So far, any effort was undertaken and no collateral damage which was not accepted by the Government in order to stop adding new renewable capacities by anyone else than RWE and EON. The profit interest of a few cooperation’s seem to be the main driver of energy legislation in Germany, whereas climate change and the financial interest of tax payers and consumers is no priority.
I believe the closure of the oldest of Germany's nuclear power plants was already overdue - we did have some old and very insecure power plants. Some still used river water to directly cool their reactors (discharging the used and now contaminated water into the river again) instead of using the now standard system of 1 closed loop that is in turn cooled by river water. Other plants had their reactors still encased in insufficiently secure rectangular buildings instead of the now common round building shape... It is indeed stupid to ban all nuclear power as the latest version of power plants (that currently exist as prototypes) could be a promising energy source - if they indeed can reuse existing nuclear waste and decrease its half-life as tremendously as promised. BUT nuclear power is normally a bad business case - it not only takes huge upfront costs but also takes at least 10 years to build. So investors need to wait at least 15 years to break even on their investment. With the current fast technological advancement and the political trends, long term operation of the newly built plant is also questionable. (In comparison, gas power plants need very little money to build and are ready in only ~2 years. So after 3 years (because of the low up front costs) the investors break even.) Renewable energy is currently the cheapest energy source on the market. Its even cheaper to build than gas power plants and f.e. a wind park is also ready in ~2 years. The operating costs are low and the energy source is free. (Fyi: Gas is the most expensive "fuel source" for energy production, Uranium etc are cheaper by ~90% or more and renewable energy is free) While the geopolitics of being a central nexus for gas distribution might be a very valid reason, THESE economics are another important side for the switch to renewables and gas
France builds nuclear power plants much faster, the break even for nuclear is also much closer than most other sources (you count build speed, but once built power generation is much bigger and they last longer), you don't have to build energy storage (that's cost and build time), mass miniature nuclear power plants are an option too, also France already did it and it's not a bad business model, it's lucrative and especially for the state
Even the most patient researchers gave up on the technology for now. There's just no way thorium reactors would be competitive until uranium becomes substantially more scarce and more expensive. Meanwhile renewables already become extremely competitive.
@@GoodTimesBadTimes You earned a dislike. Team behind this channel, your tackling of complicated problem through unsubstantiated remarks is... beyond me. Channels like Caspian report or Neo sometimes simplify things even more than you do, but they're quite self-aware about their own limitations. I've expected more
@@kosatochca Can you give some examples of said unsubstantiated remarks? P.S. No one is against renewables, rational people just realise that we cannot rely entirely on them, it's just physically/technically unfeasile. We will never get rid of fossile fuels without the help of nuclear.
@@MarcianusImperator I think one example is enough for now. When we talk about an energy sector there’re two types of balances: the whole energy balance, including motor fuels and heating, and electricity output balance. For clearance if you look at the electricity output of France the nuclear energy source will have 80-90 % share, but if you look at the whole energy breakdown it’ll go down to 35-40 %. Good times bad times presents a few charts about German energy production and at least twice have switched between the two types, perhaps (which is key, I cannot possibly know their motivation), to reach a better rhetoric stance or get a more impressive illustrative point
Are you German? Can you guys please build the energy storage so that you don't need to increase gas for the gaps? Would biogas maybe be enough for that? Anyway Germany needs still much higher renewable capacity to fully replace fossil fuels. I doubt for example the strategy of overbuilding renewables so that even lower production almost always meets the demand. I don't know if the physical area for that even exists. Even if you cover the whole North Sea and most of the land with wind turbines and cover all roofs and lower quality agricultural lands with solar panels, you won't have enough power *if the wind is low and it's dark* You got to have storage. Lots of it. To avoid the need for extra capacity. Something like pumped hydro in all the old coal mines is a good start. Better start building now.
The only viable energy storage is pumped hydro, and you can't do that everywhere. Having monster chemical batteries to store the massive energy required to stabilize wind and solar would do more harm than good regarding emissions.
Why there is no Kosova in the map?? Add Kosova don’t make it part of Serbia. Albanians in kosova are the oldest people in europe and you giving our land to a slav that came thousands of years later.
Nuclear is un-economical and won't help with the climate crisis. The world would need thousands(!) of new nuclear power plants, each of which costs billions and takes about a decade to plan and build. With the same amount of money (or less) we can build much more and much faster wind and solar power plants, which produce power from day one and have no cost of fuel (unlike nuclear, which needs fresh or refreshed uranium on a regular basis). Wind and solar are decentralized and put power production into OUR hands, on our roofs and in our communities' backyards, away from energy monopolists. And it strengthens the grid, which can cope with many local small producers better than with few centralized mega-power-plants. Yes, we have a lignite-problem in Germany, but it isn't power-related (we exported electric energy ever since 2002, no net-imports since then! In 2017 we exported 55 TWh!!!!)), it is rather a job-problem in these regions, where the lignite is mined. The miners would lose their jobs without any perspective in these regions. Regarding "Natural" Gas: Poland and the Ukraine make lots of money from gas-pipelines leading through their countries, which we west Europeans pay with our gas bills. Of course it is in our interest to have a direct pipeline from Russia without the middlemen! Ukraine even stole already paid gas for Germany out of the pipeline because they couldn't pay Russia for their own gas bills and got no more gas. So they stole it from us. And no, we don't want to get more dependent from Russia, but neither from USA and their liquified gas! We produce more and more biogas ourselves and distribute it through the gas grid. My own apartment here in Augsburg is heated (through district heating) and gets electric power from a gas plant in the city. This plant transitioned in the last years from 100% Russian gas to over 50% regional biogas from the farmers in our region. THAT is Energiewende, too! Regarding storage of renewable power: Austria is busy to convert their hydroelectric power plants into pumped storage power plants. some are already up and running. And as we have a European Continental Power Grid, they do it not for themselves, but for all of us. In fact, the grid got even more stabile in the last years instead of instabile. And by the way: France with its many nuclear power plants has massive problems every winter because they can't cook all the fish in their rivers alive with all the cooling water these nuclear power plants produce, so they have to throttle them down and buy - guess what? - German renewable power! Edit: Oh, and Germany has NOT built nor fired up ANY new coal power plant at all. This whole video is pure propaganda, nothing else …
hmm, unfortunately a video with too much opinion and few facts. Renewables are instable, nuclear is safe (if not located in a region with earthquakes and stuff). Really? There's still no storage facility for highly radioactive nuclear waste (e.g. fuel rod) and you have to store those safely for roughly a million years to come. So the cost for nuclear in the long run is... huge, to be polite. Which is also one of the main reasons to switch to renewables: They are much cheaper. Let's say you wanna build a new fission reactor with modern safety standards. The UK does so with Hinkley Point C (2x 1'600 MW), last cost estimates are 28.6 billion Euro. The UK government guaranteed 92.5 £/MWh in 2012 figures + inflation compensation for 35 years. So roughly 110 £/MWh in todays money. On the other hand, large scale solar power plants can be built for 30 €/MWh and less. Last years record were 11.14 €/MWh in Portugal (see IEEFA). Saudi Arabia even cracked the 10 €/MWh sonic wall this year. Numbers for hydro and wind are also usually in the 30-50 €/MWh range. So... You can spend 10 € for every 1 € you spend on a solar power plant - and invest it in energy storage or (smart) grid and it's just as expensive as a nuclear power plant (w/o demolition, long-term storage, fuel rods etc.). That's the basic economics behind why so many governments (Albania, Australia, Austria, China, Island, New Zealand, Norway...) investing heavily in renewables. It's rather smart to shift your economy into renewable energy technology now^^
@@Critizens Because you can't make Nukes with it. Thorium is 5x more abundant than Uranium, its not dangerous to extract and it has 100x the energy output per unit of weight.
@@Critizens And then you hit a dunkelflaute. In the Spring/Summer of 2021, wind and solar across the North Sea and Europe failed to provide sufficient energy (despite being at record capacity). So natural gas was burned. Driving up the price of gas (compared to last year) 3x-4x. Now Europe enters the winter with record low stocks of gas, and record high prices of gas. Let us hope for a mild winter in Europe. Yeah, wind and solar are sooo cheap!
Omfg quit the "Russia bad 😠" angle Russia is playing the same game Germany is playing and honestly as an American I'd rather work with the Russians than the Germans. Not that either is achievable but the point remains: Russia wants to be a Eurasian power, Germany? Can't trust them to remain regional.
But Russia is bad. And he also made it very clear that Germany is as bad as the Russians. It was mentioned that Germany is stopping the construction of nuclear plants in the EU so the only option for the member states to get power will be gas from Germany. He also talked about how Germany doesn't care about other countries, but instead just cares about it's own domestic market.
🔷 NordVPN: go.nordvpn.net/aff_c?offer_id=601&aff_id=55560
Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT
Remember to leave a comment & like to feed the mighty algorithms.
Your English is almost better than this narrator, he sounds like he has peanut butter in his mouth every S sound or saying transformations lol
ruclips.net/video/klXj198vY4A/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/VeXVsybEQPQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/lIkzlq3XTcA/видео.html
You have to ask, my big brother, Dr Steven Greer, about help? He will learn you how the free zero energy system of Nicola Tesla work? And how you can produce high voltage and power electricity for the whole Europe with low cost???? Also, to let your machinery and your industry run on the same level as before the actual disaster happens worldwide, and good luck. You don't need any wind turbines, also no nuclear power, or combustion oil or something else. If you don't know, you can also run combustion motors with H₂, water molecules. All dies systems are environment friendly!
Poland should build up nuclear power plants, or better yet hire Koreans to do it. Then sell the surplus electricity to Germany.
Well that is a nice dream anyway, the only country in Europe that loves coal more than Germany is Poland.
Sell to them what exactly? Germany is a net exporter of electricity, with a surplus of 20TWh.
Isn't Poland already thinking about that? Why was Morawiecki in France this week?
@@polytechnika How much time do you want to comment this sillyness? Renewable energy is not plannable/stable/predictable on short-term, you need to build significant extra capacities from it. On the other hand basically in every single moment you need to produce exactly the same amount of electricity that you use or store it (which is loss and cost). Coming from these fact when the weather is not favorable you urgently need to import electricity that leads to extra cost. On the other hand during favorable weather (wind at North, sun at South) you produce extra which you need to sell obviously in very low (soemtimes negative!) price or store.
@@meinhd1483 We had talks with the USA, Japan and now with France. After the election of a new president in the United States, the matter was quiet.
Germany and many other countries are researching nuclear synesia. I have no idea when it will be introduced. Koreans can keep the plasma in a stable field for 20 seconds. This is the best result so far.
@@bratbrata4974 "Germany and many other countries are researching nuclear synesia. I have no idea when it will be introduced. Koreans can keep the plasma in a stable field for 20 seconds. This is the best result so far." - Maybe you could explain a bit more.
You seem to forget that America also wants to export its LNG to Europe so the selling of natural gas is not just a dream for Russia
But we aren’t scared of the US
@@Nicminiezrobisz you havent seen their gas bill
It's not competetively priced
America supplies gas to Poland. The terminal is located in Świnoujście, near the German border. In this way, Poland escaped from Russia's energy terror. Russia was able to turn off gas in Ukraine.
@@bratbrata4974 That's a choice that poland has made, Germany wants the choice to be able to balance it's gas suppliers any way that they want. America doesn't have the right to make that choice for them, being dependent on any one country is bad. It gives them too much influence, being dependent on the US would be just as bad. They need some kind of balance between russian, west african and american gas, the more the better.
When the Chancellor responsible for initiating the shutdown & Nordstream becomes Chairman of the Shareholders comittee, after signing the agreement just before he left office & subsequently becomes a member of the board of one Russian energy company & later Director of another, we know why Germany has turned to gas.
For the countries of Central Europe, this alliance between Germany and Russia is reminiscent of the interwar period.
Russia supplied Fascist Germany with minerals and allowed armor to test on its territory.
Now Germany is building a strong Russian army that is being built against NATO countries.
@@bratbrata4974 Just BS
@@bratbrata4974 ignoring how much we spend to help ya all develoup
@@praisethesun.praisedeussol6051 ja, ja, German corporations basically own most of East European economies.
German corporations take raw materials from East Europe at cheap prices. They own the retail chains: Kaufland, Lidl, Metro, Selgros, Rewe, Aldi, Spar. They sell back on East European markets the processed goods made in Germany by East European migrants.
Germany is a parasite for Eastern Europe.
Not Nazi Germany but the Waimar republic...All trade and military ties where cut when hitler came to power.
The good german soviet relations pre hitler was one of the reasons for the Molotov ribentrop pact.
hey it would be cool if you could put sources in the video description. Good video anyway
seconded
@J F added
@@GoodTimesBadTimes thanks!
Really nice video! I always did wonder why the "green" Germans always insisted on closing down nuclear powerplants everywhere in Europe even at the expense of firing up new coal powerplants.
Big thumbs up :)
@godwin polytech You are right, that there is risk involved, but I wouldnt overestimate it too much. We have learned much about safety in nuclear powerplants in the decades since the Chernobyl disaster. Therefore a nuclear powerplant in a geologically stable area is a very safe option.
Also if you are concerned about health and safety, then you would be surprised, that nuclear powerplants saved thousands of lives. How? Power not produced cleanly by them would have to be made in coal or gas powerplants, which are far far more deadlier and worse for the environment.
@godwin polytech The longer the half life the lower the radiation output for any fixed period of time. Waste can also be reprocessed and/or bred for more fuel. Nuclear shouldn't be as widespread as diesel but can be used as the ultimate energy source of a zero net emissions hydrocarbon fuel to avoid putting a reactor in your trunk.
Thanks Ondrej :))
Mostly because of the view of their voters, probably. Most of germans are very anti-nuclear from my experience.
@@Astuar yes, germans aren't technology friendly anymore.
We abolished the Transrapid maglev, nuclear and we are about to miss glass fiber internet.
I'm German myself and very pro nuclear but the people here think that you grow a third arm or your children get green skin when you live near a Npp
It would be nice if there were a great plan that is beneficial to Germany. But I strongly believe it has much more to do with public opinion and stupidity. The greens, the german party that basically started the idea of Energiewende are also strongly opposed against importing Russian gas.
A similar flavor of that exists in the US. In 2021 the United States is set to lose the 2nd half of Indian Point, Dresden and Byron which together generated more electricity in 2019 than all California wind and solar combined. More Gigawatts of capacity of nuclear set to close than coal in 2021! What a sick joke. Maximize the current generation of reactors
There are several so-called "green" organizations in Germany. Some are against nuclear, some are against power lines, some are against the Tesla factory. Quite a lot of them are actually funded by fossil fuel interests, but there is real grass-root NIMBY-ism.
People want the benefits of modern technology, but don't want the inconveniences of producing or transporting the needed energy. They'd have us living in caves if they had their way.
For as long as a single coal/oil power plant works, we need nuclear energy.
Fear of climate change and nuclear desasters does not mean stupidity. And the Energiewende wouldve been a lot more successful if Germany hadnt suddenly stopped building up renewable energies. But instead, they back down at the slicest sign of resistance.
If it were not for France and the European electrical network, they would have great problems with electricity.
For those who don't know, France produces most of its energy in nuclear reactors.
Germany has a surplus of 20TWh every year.
@@pez4
Deutschland hat einen Überschuss von ca. 20TWh Strom im Jahr 2020
Frankreich kann nicht seine eigene Stromnachfrage nicht decken und Importiert im Jahr 2020 ca. 14TWh Strom.
Quellenangabe:
de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/202644/umfrage/deutsche-stromimporte-aus-europa-nach-laendern/
.
@@polytechnika the fact ain't having lot of energy, but having the energy you need when you need it
@@alessandromestri9004 Like France that regulary need to import in summer as the rivers are too hot, or in the Winter when nuclear can't cover the increase in demand due heating?
Nuclear power is the way to go untill batterys have been improved majorly in my opinion, it's just to bad people are scared of nuclear power becouse of a Communest mistake coused by courption and mismanagement and a minor disaster in Japan that really was not that bad.
Very true
Und wie günstig sind die Neuen AKWs unsere Nachbarn ?
Die Franzosen bauen ein neues AKW.
Der Baubeginn war am 3. Dezember 2007, EDF prognostizierte ursprünglich eine Fertigstellung 2012 und Baukosten in Höhe von 3,3 Milliarden Euro für das AKW-Flamanville-3.
Nach Stand Juli 2020 haben sich die Kosten weiter erhöht, sodass die Anlage rund 19,1 Milliarden Euro (11.718 € pro installiertes Kilowatt, bei 1630 MW netto) kosten soll.
Fakten auf der nuklearen Seite:
de.nucleopedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Flamanville
Billig bei 11.718 €/kW AKW Leistung ?
Konstant bei bereits 12 Jahren Bauzeitüberschreitung ?
Okay,
bei PV kommt nur jeden Tag von ca. Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang Strom aber vom AKW kommt 12 Jahre lang null an Strom, was ist besser ?
Und eine PV-Anlage ist ist in 1 bis 5 Tage errichtet und da kostet das kW Leistung 800 bis 1200€/kW.
.
Fukushima wasn't a minor disaster, but still you can't blame nuclear for melting down with a Earthquacke followed by a Tsunami
@@joaquimbarbosa896 yea it wasn't minor but not much people died and it was not the nuclear power plants fault and same with Chernobyl which was Communest courption not nuclear powers faults.
@@maddog5284 I specificly said the exact same. And in Chernobyl it was nuclear fault because of the old (and really bad) reactor
Nuclear is key.
@@millokaiser4524 Those technologies already exist.
We (Poles) want to, but we don't have the good uranium bed. Those that remained excavated in former German territories that were once German, but after World War II, Stalin decided that these lands (Silesia) would be given to Poles, because it was in the Soviet interest to deport Poles from today's Belarus and Ukraine and relocate them to the former German lands to push the Germans to Western Europe as much as possible. Now in the 21st century, Germany is blocking the construction of a nuclear power plant in Poland, because they say they are afraid for their safety, hahaha, and they have these plants themselves. Moreover, they are blocking Poland from selling safe nuclear power plant technology. The Americans want to sell us their gas and do not really want to bet on nuclear power. The only chance for us may be France, which would probably have some interests in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Poland, but it is better than Russian electricity and gas, which can be cut off at any time, because the Russians so wish. However, as long as Macron and Putin get along, the chances are slim.
@@umbaroda8170 You don't need domestic uranium to get into nuclear power. France has no uranium mine in operation.
No, France is not your only shot at getting nuclear built in Poland. And why would you want France to build your nuclear, after the failures to deliver on time and on budget at Flamanville 3 and Okliluoto 3? Your best bet right now is South Korea.
Well, energy storaging can solve the unstability of renewables entirely but we're just not there yet.
I read an article about using hydro power in Sweden for in combination with offshore wind to balance energy. There is also a big push to make hydrogen to store energy. I'm a little skeptical about the whole hydrogen economy thing but there is a lot of hype. Of course there is also batteries.
@@Parker307 Pumped hydro suits nuclear energy too. I've never understood the "flexibility" renewables argument when that's the case. To me it means gas. I'd rather attack a sensible grid mix like Ontario with a manageable amount of storage over filling the crater created by premature nuclear closures with the investment.
We need more public investment in advancing energy storage. There's a lot more than just lithium ion. Even installing more pumped hydro would be a good investment
@@ThomasBomb45 I remember reading about some quite simple solutions which simply involved stacking large concrete blocks, and then lowering them using a crane with a generator in it when electricity is needed. I can't remember any specifics as to efficiency and economics of it though
@@harryg9976 Yeah that stuff sure seems interesting. It's an open question whether it can be economical or efficient as none of them have posted those numbers yet. I think someone has set up a test site for it though
Yes it is! It is the only way to go. The concern is germany went far nearly alone. One exception is denmark. That had a high cost. But your view is a spotlight in the coming decades. The risk with russian dependence is worth it, because we are an economic powerhouse and here we play very well. The distortion on the european level is not only because of North Stream 1/2. It sits way deeper and its causes will not vanish with embargoing Putins Gas. As everytime Politics is more complicated than an single aspect. For example, Gas is consumed by 10-15% in Gaspowerplants. Near 3/4 is Industry Processes and Heating. The Energiewende won't outplay this.
Everybody thinks the same in France (which is one of the major nuclear energy producer in the world). But politics let the EU try to stop nuclear because people think that renewables are going to solve the climate crisis...
As a German i am may bias but at least it´s a ambitious and constructive future goal. What are the presented alternatives in the European Family for the next decades? Self Destruction like the UK, Nationalism like in some Eastern European countries, Imperialism and military like Russia or no changes and stagnation like in some Countries in south Europe.
All EU only works when things are going well, countries that have fought each other for most of their history can’t just be expected to toss aside their own geopolitical goals for the greater Europe, so what you’re seeing now with countries beginning to go their own ways is to be more expected.
@@moonbear2130 In my opinion "geopolitical goals" by every European country itself called "geopolitical dreams". Every European Country by its own is too small or not big enough to achieve any geopolitical goals despite pleasing China the US or Russia.
Important mistake in the presupposition for this video:
Russia is not the only energy rich country in Europa.
Norway and Scottland are also very energy rich.
With Norway there are similar projects and pipelines in construction and Scottland is still subject to the UK.
The EU may be energy poor, Europa is not.
I prefer your slavic voice
Yea it's very calming
Nobody wants to listen to broken english.
Very interesting, as a French citizen and pro-nuclear person myself, this worries me.
- First, we should invest and talk more about nuclear fusion, which could revolutionize energy needs, instead of focusing on things that are good steps but unreliable as a large percentage of energy: solar, wind and hydroelectric.
- Second, strategic autonomy that the French and increasingly the EU, likes to talk about does not mean going from US vassal to Russian vassal, it means to choose our own geopolitical direction. I think a lot of hostility and mistrust between Brussels and Moscow is due to Cold War propaganda but that doesn't mean we should become overreliant on anyone.
- Third, Berlin believes it can tell Paris, Rome, Warsaw and other capitals what to do with their energy policy - they're going to meet strong resistance. Berlin's strategy is unreliable, lacks forward thinking and essentially, wants to make other nations permanently subservient to Germany.
Maybe this is why Morawiecki was in France this week.
Und wie günstig sind die Neuen AKWs unsere Nachbarn ?
Die Franzosen bauen ein neues AKW.
Der Baubeginn war am 3. Dezember 2007, EDF prognostizierte ursprünglich eine Fertigstellung 2012 und Baukosten in Höhe von 3,3 Milliarden Euro für das AKW-Flamanville-3.
Nach Stand Juli 2020 haben sich die Kosten weiter erhöht, sodass die Anlage rund 19,1 Milliarden Euro (11.718 € pro installiertes Kilowatt, bei 1630 MW netto) kosten soll.
Fakten auf der nuklearen Seite:
de.nucleopedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Flamanville
Billig bei 11.718 €/kW AKW Leistung ?
Konstant bei bereits 12 Jahren Bauzeitüberschreitung ?
Okay,
bei PV kommt nur jeden Tag von ca. Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang Strom aber vom AKW kommt 12 Jahre lang null an Strom, was ist besser ?
Und eine PV-Anlage ist ist in 1 bis 5 Tage errichtet und da kostet das kW Leistung 800 bis 1200€/kW.
.
Two ways you can corner Berlin's sillyness over this.
1. Pushing the carbon tax higher. German electricity is already expensive and will get moreso with higher carbon taxes and no plans to build dispatchable non-emitting generation.
2. Increasing transmission connectivity around Germany instead of through Germany. By limiting the amount of load balancing they get from their neighbors they'll be forced to deal with their own mess a bit.
@@AmurTiger schreibt:
„1. Pushing the carbon tax higher. German electricity is already expensive and will get moreso with higher carbon taxes and no plans to build dispatchable non-emitting generation.“
Ein kWh von meiner über 25 Jahre alten PV-Anlage verursacht
Kostet von unter 0 Cent/kWh (-4 Cent) und es
kommen immer noch leicht über 1000 kWh von jeden kWp im Jahr.
Wir haben so ca. von Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang, also
an 3500 bis 4000 Stunden im Jahr habe ich PV-Strom.
Das kann kein Kernfusionsreaktor kein Kernkraftwerk oder
Kohlekraftwerk zu dem Preis an meine Steckdose liefern.
*Solarstrom ist für den Bürger und auch Betrieb die günstigste Energiequelle, aber nicht die einzige.*
.
@@wernermuller3522 That's great when the sun's out but pretty problematic after sunset. The grid operators have to solve those problems and in the process end up clinging to coal. The actual cost of solar including integration into the grid isn't cheap as evidenced by the fact that Germany's high proportion of wind/solar still leaves it with the most expensive electricity in Europe.
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics
Without meaningful storage capacity ( 48 hours of average load would be a good start ) the cheapness of solar is a mirage as it makes everything else more expensive by forcing them to work around their variance.
For the three nuclear disasters referenced:
1. Three mile island wasn’t as bad as nuclear opponents claim.
2. Chernobyl was poorly designed and incompetently managed by the Soviet Union.
3. Yes sadly nuclear reactors aren’t Tsunami proof. That doesn’t mean they aren’t safe.
Hello sir,
I am Yahia Saoudi PhD in electrical engineering from Tunisia. I want to express my point of view in this topic.
Your comments are correct and it is required to be oriented to onshore and offshore conversion systems. It is necessary to avoid the nuclear power systems.
The chapter on the gas distribution is a bit paranoid.
However, the Energiewende as such is done in a very stupid way. Renewables as such can supplement conventional energy production but not replace it. It's way too unstable ... especially for an industrialized nation like Germany. Besides, it makes the EU way to dependent on the supply from Russia.
"we can't trust the atom" = let's have a more pollutant & more expensive source of electricity than our nuclear neighbour, France.
Live grid emissions data shows that as I type this France's grid released 81 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, while Germany sits at 358 g/kWh. Ironically, 14% of available electricty in Germany comes from nuclear energy this instant. The 2022 final nuclear shutdowns look increasingly maddening!
www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR
Well, I'm sure I don't understand their motivations, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with the climate or the environment.
Thank you for a nice overview video of the Energiewende and the politics that lay behind it. It gets harder to sanction Russia for a violation when Germany and Europe buy more gas from them. Nuclear seems like a better choice than ever to reduce CO2 and get greater energy independence.
That is from a political viewpoint and not from a environmental one. Sure, the Emission of coal fired Power Stations are high but the problem of nuclear waste is still not solved
@@DaniiMan4 So your prefer deaths from air pollution from coal power plants and micro radiation from coal? And btw the waste from fossils fuels is not solved either... don't see you complaining about that. The waste from nuclear is very little compared any other energy source and can easily be stocked and stored, I agree that this needs to be solved at some point in the future. Still we need to attack the 70% of our energy that comes from fossils fuels.
@@DaniiMan4 The technology of the atom keeps getting better. You don't even have to make large power units, just a few small ones. Then, in the event of a serious incident, it is easier to control such a block, and even if it fails, the disaster is not that big. France somehow runs its nuclear energy safely for so many years.
@@umbaroda8170 I do believe that the technology of power plants and radioactivity is very advanced and that the risk can be reduced to a minimum. The main problem still remains, there is no solution for the nuclear waste and a safe repository is hard to find, there are some around the world but noone can tell if they are safe for next generations since radioactivity is active for over millions of years
Ein kWh von meiner über 25 Jahre alten PV-Anlage verursacht
Kostet von unter 0 Cent/kWh (-4 Cent) und es
kommen immer noch leicht über 1000 kWh von jeden kWp im Jahr.
Wir haben so ca. von Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang, also
an 3500 bis 4000 Stunden im Jahr habe ich PV-Strom.
Das kann kein Kernfusionsreaktor kein Kernkraftwerk oder
Kohlekraftwerk zu dem Preis an meine Steckdose liefern.
*Solarstrom ist für den Bürger und auch Betrieb die günstigste Energiequelle, aber nicht die einzige.*
.
English??
@@brambakker1939
Spricht die „Energiewende“
English??
oder
Deutsch??
.
@@wernermuller3522 english i guess?
@@brambakker1939
Die Energiewende spricht Deutsch, denke ich.
@@brambakker1939 solar energy is very cheap.
His solar array is 25 years old and still operates fine delivering power
Why do germans love gas :(
You missed one very important puzzle piece, hydrogen. German government and the (automobile) industry are investing hugely in this sector. Gas is just an interim solution. Hydrogen on the other hand has the potential to make Europe energy independent.
Europe doesn't need hydrogen to be energy independent. Nuclear would do the trick.
@@Pietroszz Nuclear is a technology from the past, also very expensive since you have to deal with ongoing security inspections, security shutdowns and of course the question where to store all the produced radioactive waste save for the coming millennia. Nuclear =20th century tech versus Hydrogen =21st century tech. Choice is easy.
You are makeing hydrogen from natural gas.. so no, its not a solution.
@@kibicz Very wrong, hydrogen's most useful feature is that it can serve as storage for renewable anergy that otherwise would be lost. What you are talking about is called grey hydrogen and has no future. Green hydrogen made by solar and wind energy will be the best addition to current battery tech which is limited to scarce recources.
@@brezelkaiser 1st of all nuclear isn't outdated. With time passing better and more secure reactors were created. Today nuclear technology is extremely secure, and the chance of failure extremely minimal to zero.
And your argument about nuclear having a high maintance cost is a complete lie.
The only expensive part about a nuclear power plant is the initial cost of building it. The fuel, operational, and maintenance cost are relatively cheap.
Regarding the storage;
It's really not a big deal. Since Europe lies on an extremely stable tectonical plate, there is no danger of underground storage units to leak out. With a bit of effort put into it, those storages will easily survive a millenia.
And maybe there won't even be a need for them to remain secure for that long! With nuclear and fusion energy advancing we'll be able to reuse this still radioactive "waste".
Peter Zeihan: T H E S U N D O E S N O T S H I N E I N G E R M A N Y !
Germany - the dark side of the earth
@@maltemeyer3171 ruclips.net/video/jT6HFCAFDgU/видео.html at 26:31
It doesn't, but twilight is still enough to power Solar cells.
that's why they are so great they work EVEN in Germany.
@@maltemeyer3171 I guess he only understand Asian international politics. He is completly lost with european topics. He doesn't understand the euro, he doesn't understand the oil market and who is dependend and with renewables he just have no idea either. His only selling point is his daddy optics and voice. This video tries to compete with him without the voice and optics. Fearmongering conspiracy therories, getting attention from nationalists. Because many nuclear zealots are more or less nationalists. Arguing with nations and are just too proud of frances achievment in nuclear. I feel, i did spend too much time here watching several videos (...)
@@maltemeyer3171 sure, main consumer is heating and industry. Btw. How do you know there is enough power, when sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow? The industry states, that no new plants or connections are needed beside what's being build - as it was all the time and was recently reaffirmed. The hasty shut down was solely to the sentiment of germans, but it's past. I just don't like to read repeatedly the same old arguments and worries that are long gone and were never an existential issue, because industry can do it. And yes! Nuclearists are so keen on it, they can't measure the time and cost overruns it take to build new plants. That is so redicules, i can't stand it without rotating eyeballs. SMR's won't do it either if you look behind the media screen. Same issues like the big one's just hacked into pieces.
One example, Safety is still a major issue, even it is passiv cooled, that doesn't change most safety problems, except, you don't need an active cooling. It is just disappointing to read in depth about SMR's.
German here: we failed at doing so. we have plenties of stories with e.g. fully functional offshore wind parks that for many years don't receive a connection to land. local towns easily opposing the needed electricity transfer south, etc. this project is only not a failure because it's due date is *open ended*. We knew about climate change for decades and we have only 20% of renewables to show for it???
I don't care if other nations are not doing as well, this remains *embarassing* and a good reason to never vote the CDU or SPD, same with their FDP sidekick that is nothing but a elected lobbying group. And the AfD is GOP light - don't even believe in climate change like the dunces they are.
Stop glorifiying our country as a leader on climate change - it's just the one-eyed king among the blind pawns *at best*.
Congrats on the realistic approach.
@@GoodTimesBadTimes sadly cynicism leads more often to the true answer than optimism :(
But even after finding the answer and getting all to agree on it... There will be no consensus on the solution.
Thanks and/or sorry for listening to my rant.
@@trillionbones89 another point the power grid. transporting the power to the south and the usually german "not in my neighbourhood" attitude.
Correction: It's 50% renewables for electricity in 2020 and will likely dip to 45+ percent this year. ;)
Geothermal may need to be an option -- it is extremely expensive; however... dig a deep enough borehole and you'll find a temperature gradient eventually. And after the initial setup cost; you have an energy source that is extremely reliable.
Pretty much, Gas has a big competitor and that is nuclear, if you are able to exaggerate a disaster, strike fear in the public, say that every nuclear power plant, even if they have seawalls like Onagawa which survived the 2011 tsunami and earthquake with near to no damage or are not even in a shoreline like some of germany´s, are a threat then you right there have a big opportunity for business. Renewables will do renewable things and be intermittent, meaning everyone now relies on gas to keep the grid stable, if you are the supplier you skyrocket profits. France is the main target to denuclearize since they are a shining example that nuclear can easily reduce carbon emissions and be safe. That is not what you want if you wanna spread fear and terror over the prey and make the hunter seem harmless.
Renewables are not as unstable as you suggest. The major growth of wind power is offshore which provides for more steady wind. More steady because it's flat at sea and they are bigger than the ones on land. All of the wind turbines in your video are small compared to the ones off shore now and even larger ones than that are on the way soon. Solar pairs well with wind as they are often not producing at the same time. There are ways to store energy with batteries, hydro in Sweden and especially hydrogen. Hydrogen could in theory use the same infrastructure as natural gas. The is also the possibility of dynamic load. Meaning that homes or industry electricity use could be used or not depending if there is extra or low power. There is a smelter in Portland Oregon that is doing this now to help balance things.
Nuclears main issue now is that it is way more expensive to build out than renewables or gas. There is also the issue shown with the example of Iran that nuclear power was used as a way to cover nuclear weapons development. I don't know if that is a big factor but it is worth mentioning.
There is another factor to energy that people often forget and that is efficiency. Making building use less power is a huge "source" of energy. I know that Germany has some good building products. I would love to install some windows from Germany that are more efficient than what I can get in the US. I heard about these watching a channel on youtube focusing on homebuilding.
A few challenges.
Offshore wind does have better capacity factors but ultimately still requires the same capacity of dispatchable backup available, at best you use it less. For this you get more expensive power and obviously somewhat remote from loads. Not horrible but certainly no silver bullet.
The solar pairing argument confronts the same limitations as offshore wind, at the end of the day you still have to have some sort of dispatchable backup, thusfar all Germany's plans for dispatchable power are CO2 emitting.
Dynamic load or reducing total electric use aren't going to solve much if we move transportation and all heating onto the electric grid. There was a study by SNC Lavallin recently that predicted that Canada would have to triple generation capacity to meet growing electricity needs. Germany may have less then that but they certainly can't net reduce consumption no matter the efficiency of buildings as the addition of cars and heating loads will more then offset that.
Nuclear is certainly more expensive then gas, but it's also providing a rather different product. It dispatches ( unlike wind/solar ) and doesn't emit CO2 ( unlike Gas ). If you value grid stability and low emissions you pay for this, if not then not. Nuclear Power involvement in nuclear weapons is vastly overblown, bombs tend to get their material either from research reactors or dedicated plutonium production reactors. The issue with Iran is with enrichment facilities ( centrifuges and the like ) not power reactors.
There is also the case of net inertia. Classical fossil fuel plants contain huge turbines, built from tons of steel. Those contain a large amount of kinetic energy, when they are spinning. This helps balance little short time surges in demand - basically, if suddenly a lot of people turn on their kettles, all those spinnig turbines will provide the energy instantly and naturally, but slowing down the frequency by the tiny fraction of the Hz. Wind turbines spin as well and have inertia, but they are way lighter in comparison, and if they are not spinning currently, they do not do this 'smoothing' at all.
In the future this could be handled with batteries as well (in fact, currently in Australia large wind farms are supported by a huge tesla battery bank for this purpose).
Nuclear power plants do not have this problem, as they are just yet another heat-based power plant, with similar heavy turbines.
So, for high share of renewables we already need to incorporate batteries into the system, just to allow power grids operation - otherwise a surge in demand or generation can make too big change in frequency, and this in a few minutes will result in frequency safeties kicking in, and basically shutting down the entire grid.
And when factoring nuclears cost, we have to consider, that their lifespan is certified for 60 or 80 years. Solar panels used to be certified for 20 (maybe they last longer nowadays), wind turbines show signs of wear pretty soon as well (their lifespan can be extended with proper maintenance, but it is not so cheap). And when speaking about cost, people often compate the installed power. But even nuclear gets only 95-90% of its installed power used. For wind this is lower, I think 70-50% based on if its onshore or offshore. And solar can be as low as 30%. So for some renewables you should multiply the cost fewfold to be able to make a cost comparison.
@@TheBlobik Not really. Currently surplus energy storage is mostly gravitic, something like over 85% achieved simply by pumping up water to the reservoirs and then using it it power hydroelectric turbines. Same goes with reducing energy usage from industry to such simple things as introducing lightbulbs and vacuum cleaners that use less power etc.
The whole thesis that Germany would be aiming to make Europe dependent on *Russian* gas completely breaks down from the get go when you realize that Russia would be equally as interested in to make European countries *directly* dependent on them and not have Germany as the middleman.
To associate this outlandish hypothesis with the term Energiewende is borderline conspiracy bs.
Great job, as always
Thanks Santi!
Very interresting View on the topic! Thanks for the great video! Coming from Germany I agree to some of your explanation, but not all of it ;) The long term struggle of the environmental movement, forming the green party, made Schröder Chancellor (his SPD and green party formed a coalition). After 16 years of CDU/CSU (conservatives) government. So he had to implement a shift towards green energy. His governance pushed the development of solar and wind technology a lot and even an exit strategy for nuclear power was signed. But his reign lasted only 4 years until the old ruling conservative party take over again and turned most of the "Energiewende" back. By that the majority of solar companies went bankrupt and the technology was "sold to" or "copied" by china, making them the biggest and sophisticated solar cell manufacturer in the world by now. Meanwhile 150.000 jobs were lost in the solar industry in Germany. But the public opinion about nuclear power had shifted so much that Chancellor Merkel had no choice, but implementing the nuclear exit once again, after Fukushima. But on worst conditions for the German tax payer. The state now has to cover the the skyrocketing cost of depositing of nuclear waste and the demolition of the power plants. The conservative government is pretty much bought by the energy lobby. This year the 16 years of Merkel will come to an end and by actual polls the green party is stronger than ever. The so called unstable energies wind and solar are not that unstable tho, to be honest: with sufficient buffer capacity and some gas fueled power plants for shortages, even a heavy industrialized country like Germany could run smoothly. The focus on gas, is mainly because you can switch gas power on and off much quicker than coal or nuclear, so you can manage the exhausts much more efficient. Where the gas comes from, is of minor importance. Europe bought it's gas from Russia for decades even during the cold war.The main pipelines going through Ukraine from Russia and by Turkey from Baku in Aserbaidjan at the Caspian Sea. All of these not very stable areas, to say at least. So to have one or two backups in the Baltic sea seems not the worst idea. I'm not a Putin Fan at all, but in the long term, we have this strange neighbor in the east and have to find some kind of arrangement. Europe is quite divided between center, south and east, so hopefully a strong relation between France and Germany can put the continent together. The Brits, ruled by the City of London, were brainwashed and voted out for now. So nationalism, greed and short term thinking of politicians seems to makes it an almost impossible undertaking. Especially when all these crisis (climate, cyber warfare, corona, trade wars, migration) adding up. Let's see.
cheers :)
"The main pipelines going through Ukraine from Russia and by Turkey from Baku in Aserbaidjan at the Caspian Sea. All of these not very stable areas, to say at least." Well... That's kinda the point most Germans don't understand. Until there's no other option then to transport gas trough the Ukraine and Poland, these areas will remain stable, as Russia can't risk loosing money from gas sales to Germany over a long period of time. Russian propaganda in Germany has been very good though in creating this image of old ukrainian/polish infrastructure, that is not reliable. This narrative is completely false. It has worked for decades, it would work for many more anyway... As soon as NS2 is ready, Russia won't risk it's gas sales to western europe in the event of an invasion. Further more, Russia will have a powerful tool to discourage Germany from any help to those countries. Maybe even military help to Poland or the Baltics in case of the triggering of article 5 of the NATO treaty. Because if Russia chooses to stop supplying gas to Germany for a week or two, German industry will loose much more then Russia. So Germany is walking on thin ice with this project geopolitically, risking the integrity of NATO and the EU. As NS 2 will be finished, I as a Polish person can only hope that Germany will somehow prepare for such event. But looking at the current track record of appeasing Russia, I don't think it will.
@@nomennominandum8425 I'm not so sure that NS2 would give Russia such leverage to destabilize the east-European situation, including Poland, Ukraine or the Baltics. As you said the gas trade between Russia and Europe was running smoothly for decades even during the cold war period. And a russian invasion is very unlikely. What would be the benefit for Russia to invade Poland for example? Better access to Kaliningrad? The fleet is still stuck in the baltic sea...From a strategic view invasion is pointless. An interference on that situation are the Americans who try their best to sell gas to Europe and were very successful by triggering fear of Russia in eastern Europe to divide Europe for influence and leverage. What the US fear even more than China, is a truly united Europe ;) For sure everyone is pushing it's narrative, but I guess politics are more complicated than that.
What actually could lead to destabilization in eastern Europe: although some of the eastern countries, especially Poland are economically quite successful, while very determined into capitalism and conservatism, it reminds me of Germany in the 50's and 60's. So from a social view, still a long way to go, but the economic foundation is getting more solid. But the sacrifice of the people to achieve that, came at staggering social cost: divided families etc. it could turn into social unrest when markets will be more saturated. To counter that, we need at least a basic social safety in these countries. Beside a common currency, we need a better (more equal) European democratic-, finance-, tax- and social system. Without that, the idea of Europe is doomed. Right now countries rather compete against each other, instead of supporting each other. If we don't fix that, we will be overruled by any global player like US or China or maybe even the City of London with all it's tax heavens. All these powers wont back down for nice words or another trade agreement. They are determined to project power whereever they need it. That's a Powerplay Europe has to participate on a peer level, while still give providing proper jurisdiction, human rights and freedom in a social and economic system without authoritarianism. Sorry I'm talking to much...
Germany has some Gas storage of about 28% of yearly consumption. Without selling gas to other countries, it would last maybe 2-3 month? Not an ideal situation for sure... but Russia will remain our neighbor so in the long term it should be in our interest to lower tensions and turn it into "nice" neighbor. Don't you think so?
@@heliospear The cold war era is not really comparable to the situation we are facing now, because then there was no independent Poland, and Ukraine and the Baltic states were in the soviet union. And that's the key issue with this pipeline. Those countries see it as a thread to their independence. Putin, and the Russian elites want Russia to be a global player, they want Russia to be on eye level with the US and China. This is obviously not achievable, as can't compete with the US militarily (nor economically), and their economy is about 8 times smaller then the Chinese one, and less innovative. Under the rule of Putin and his oligarchs, Russia has basically become a giant gas station, so that's their only tool to mark their presence on the international stage. Putin attacked the Ukraine and Georgia to gain influence over the internal affairs of those countries. When I mentioned my fear of an Russian invasion, I didn't mean an WWII style military campaign to wipe Poland/the Baltics of the map. I admit, for now, this scenario seams not realistic. But what IS very realistic is a small, donbas-like conflict that would slowly drain the attacked country of its resources, in the result of which Russia could influence their internal politics. Only strong and united NATO can protect these countries from this scenario. The Americans didn't trigger fear of Russia in eastern Europe. Russia triggered that fear in 2008 (attack on Georgia) to be precise. Poland buys American gas, because it doesn't want to buy gas from Gasprom any more. Russian gas is way more expensive in Poland, than in Germany, even though Poland is nearer to the source. Why is that? Because when Poland signed a deal with Gasprom years ago, nearly 100% of our gas was coming from Russia. On a side note, the gas pressure in the Russian pipelines going trough Poland, curiously drops every time there are NATO exercises or an American president visits. I wonder why that is, must be a strange coincident :) So buying American gas is cheaper for Poland. But I think that the Americans oppose NS2 because they also fear that Germany will become too depended on Russia, thus a less reliable partner in NATO. Selling gas to Europe wouldn't make a big difference in the US budget. Gasproms revenue, from gas sales to Europe and Asia, accounts for 5% of the Russian GDP. That's around 0,4% of the US GDP. And we're talking about all gas sales. So supplying gas to Germany wouldn't even make a dent in their budget, and I don't think hat America would risk worsening it's ties to your country over such relatively small sums of money. I agree by and large with your view on Europe, but that's not the topic of this discussion :). For now Russia is the most destabilising factor: misinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, hostile anti-Polish propaganda back home... Yes, Russia is the neighbour of Germany in the sense, that it neighbours the EU, but for Poland, and the Baltics, Russia is their actual neighbour. And this makes a huge difference. The west tried to lower tensions with Russia for 20 years now. Every time the west tries to approach Russia, Putin uses it to his advantage. Here are some highlights of these 20 years of "lowering tensions with Russia":
2006 Alexander Litvinenko is killed on NATO soil by Russian secret service with a dangerous substance
2008 attack and destabilisation of Georgia
2011 strong support for the Syrian dictatorship, that ultimately led to the refugee crisis in Europe 4 years later
2014 annexation of Crimea, attack on eastern Ukraine
flight MH17 is shot down over Ukraine by Russian backed rebels
2016 meddling in the US elections
2021 locating large number of troops on the border to Ukraine
As I said. These are only memorable highlights of Putins international activities. There are many more other, smaller ones between these big events like misinformation campaigns and cyberattacks on European governments.
So after 20 years of trying to make Russia a "nice" neighbour, given the regular hostile manoeuvrers and no will to end the conflicts it started, maybe it's time to finally overthink our strategy on dealing with them. Like sharper sanctions. Or not buying their Gas. Don't you think so? :)
@@nomennominandum8425 Very interesting! I absolutely agree with you, I just try to consider that Russia is in a stage of siege or defeat since the collapse of the soviet union. It lost it's former European "allies" to NATO and is suffering a sort of "phantom pain" like other former empires like Britain, France or even Spain xD These countries as well are still in the mindset of being of some kind of global importance at least in their local narrative. Britain keeps sort of hold to it's "commonwealth" France tries to keep influence in Africa etc. Same with Russia. It tries to hold on it's grip to former allies like Cuba, Syria, Libya, Venezuela etc. and all of them get destabilized or completely destroyed by the only remaining empire, the US. I think all I try to say, it's not Russia only to blame. All of them are fighting their proxy wars. And for the most part Europe isn't able to keep up. It just tries to contain the worst outcomes. Meanwhile even a former negligible power like turkey is able to bullie Europe. Europe It mostly reactive and seems to be to divided to play an active role. I completely understand your concerns about NS2 and a larger dependency to Russian gas doesn't help. But I doubt that more sanctions would really help. A contained dictatorship with enough resources can survive forever and get quite irrational and unpredictable. Btw: After reunification of Germany we had a joke "And in 30 years we open our eastern border to China." Well, we are already building cars there...and that is a very proper dictatorship. Do we even have standards?
@@nomennominandum8425 The old pielines have been renewed after North Stream 1 because they were unreliable. But the main takeaway is, North Stream makes it way cheaper to transfer gas, because it is far closer to the gas fields in the arctic. Saving several 1000 kilometer of pumping gas.
I am from the neighbouring Netherlands and such a Germany - even in NATO- sounds more like a security risk than an ally. It all sounds like YET another good reason for us to NEXIT and join the EFTA while staying in NATO (we should take back full control over the First Army Corps AND spend our money on new tanks - in the form of new British Challenger 3's or American M1A2's rather than on German Leopards). It shows that Germany is nothing more than Russia's second man in Europe.
Good.
Russia: check
Germany:😑😞🙁☹😟
And then ITER will solve all our problems. Surprised Pikachu face XD
Probably, yes
@@SuperLusername In a couple of decades, maybe. But we can't just sit and wait for that.
Und wie günstig sind die Neuen AKWs unsere Nachbarn ?
Die Franzosen bauen ein neues AKW.
Der Baubeginn war am 3. Dezember 2007, EDF prognostizierte ursprünglich eine Fertigstellung 2012 und Baukosten in Höhe von 3,3 Milliarden Euro für das AKW-Flamanville-3.
Nach Stand Juli 2020 haben sich die Kosten weiter erhöht, sodass die Anlage rund 19,1 Milliarden Euro (11.718 € pro installiertes Kilowatt, bei 1630 MW netto) kosten soll.
Fakten auf der nuklearen Seite:
de.nucleopedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Flamanville
Billig bei 11.718 €/kW AKW Leistung ?
Konstant bei bereits 12 Jahren Bauzeitüberschreitung ?
Okay,
bei PV kommt nur jeden Tag von ca. Sonnenaufgang bis Sonnenuntergang Strom aber vom AKW kommt 12 Jahre lang null an Strom, was ist besser ?
Und eine PV-Anlage ist ist in 1 bis 5 Tage errichtet und da kostet das kW Leistung 800 bis 1200€/kW.
.
@@wernermuller3522 und was hat das ganze jetzt mit Kernfusion zu tun?
Thema verfehlt 6 setzen.
@@WiiPetUwU schreibt:
„@Werner Müller und was hat das ganze jetzt mit Kernfusion zu tun?“
Dass bei den Kernkraftprojekten auch bei der Kernfusion weder die Kosten noch die Zeit genannt werden kann bis da mal das erste kWh an Strom kommt.
Bei einer PV-Anlage kommt bereits innerhalb von einem Tag das erste kWh Strom und die Kosten der PV-Anlag sind auch bekannt, *wer bracht oder wartet da noch die Kernkraft oder die Kernfusion?*
.
Slovenia is building a new nuclear power plant.
i needed this today. thank you.
"wage war on Europe"... leave it to the Poles to offer the least biased piece on German-Russian relations. :)
Well, Poles dont have the luxury of looking at that issue with rose tinted glasses
In 35 years renewables won't be unstable because battery technology is sufficient to store the excess for times of need.
In 35 years we will have fusion
@@SuperLusername Having they been saying that for the past 35??:-)
Sorry, but that's bullshit. It's completely unfeasible to rely on batteries on such a large scale, not to mention the fact that with renewables, we will need a installed capacity several times higher than demand because these sistems almost never work at full capacity due to weather conditions and the fact that the sun doesn't shine at night.
@@MarcianusImperator I'm not sure how it's any more unfeasible for every house to have a fridge or a washing machine than a battery. The technology just isn't there yet.
@@tellingfoxtales Batteries are expensive, difficult to recycle, pose serious fire hazards, and improvements in technology haven't been very groundbreaking. Also, household consumers only represent around one third of total electricity demand. I will say it again: it is unfeasible to rely on batteries - both economically and technically. If we keep day dreaming, reality will come and bite our asses later on.
VERY INSIGHTFUL! Look forward to the next one
Coming soon
Hubert please come back, the videos are well done but I can't concentrate in the video if it's this voice
I wonder what shutting down all the power plants has done to energy prices in Germany?
Not much. Due to decentralizing power production with wind and solar it even got cheaper. everybody knows the nuke plants kept running at 1 quarter maxium to keep the prices high in the past on the EEX.
Putin:"Sometimes my genius is just frigthining..."
love every opinion on this topic and yours is fine made.
your are right on the piont importing gas, oil and uranium are binding to international partners, because we have none of it
A few pionts added from Germany
Closing down Nuclear is our own choice of the time
At this time we have to mutch of renewable energy and lacking of regulation an the big coal and nucular plants
Therefore we have sometimes pay to get rid off our power
Gas has both it can match the missing power curve from the renewables and there are lesser emmisions than coal
and final comes the money on lifetime bases none of the old systems matches renewables like photovoltaik
The video was not intended to attack Germany, just to point out the geopolitical leverages that occur behind the scenes. Thanks for the emotionless approach and your viewpoint :)
@@GoodTimesBadTimes
You are right we have to be critical on every decition therefore germany is famous for 😆.
In Germany it is common to criticize and ad a solution to the discussion.
I would be pleased if you want to ad a possible solution.
Interesting
Video almost a year old. Hearing 11:13 at today sounds like u living in future.
Huh "once Germany's neighbors shut down their nuclear power plants, [...], the wind will stop blowing and clouds will appear in the sky[...]" while the rest of the video is making sens to me, I can't understand this sentence.
What would be the reason / physics for this to happen? Do nuclear power plants create so much hot steam that once it's missing the weather in whole Europe will break / change?
I think he was basically saying that renewable energy sources aren't reliable. So once European countries close their nuclear power facilities, they will be completely dependent on the gas
Could someone please explain, how shutting down nuclear power plants make "the winds stop blowing"? 9:13
no nuclear means burning fuel, then smoke emition, and no wind, and cloud?
I guess a bad visual explanation in accord with the depressing undertone of the video to show how Energiewende shall doom everyone. Not a symphatic move. Really bad quality video, bad argumentation. Lost cause feeding equally depressed peoples bubble.
nuclear power very expensive to built. but when you have one. its very cheap energy. so.. its very stupid to close down all 6 power plan before its technical time at one time. its should be shutdown gradually one power plan each time
Quality video
appreciated
The Energiewende was a great project, but there were severe mistakes made during its execution. For example, the german government of the last years was not able to this day to build the much needed North-South transmission lines to get green energy to the energy intensive south. The main problem is the horrible NIMBYism and incompetent rulers in Bavaria listening to them, shutting down the Energiewende completely in the progress.
Doesn't Germany worry about its eventual total dependence on Russia? It seems they're always focused on increasing their exports at all costs.
Germany doesn't have that much natural resources in most cases. The largest coal reserves are located in North America, uranium in Africa and Australia, oil and natural gas in the middle east, Russia, North America and so on.
So wind, water, solar plus energy storage technologies are what's necessary to be really independent.
That is a very bad take on the Energiewende.
The roots of the Energiewende lie as you said in the 1970s and 1980s: after the second world war fuelled by cheap oil prices west germany (as well as other countries) experienced a period of rapid growth and consumerism. Nuclear power was seen as the future of energy. However that consumerism came at a cost to the environment. Germanys major rivers became very polluted. In the 1970s and 1980s counter movements formed, many environmental in nature (greenpeace comes from these times). In germany between more reasonable demands like quotas for fishing, and end to whaling, filters for waste sewage and coal power plants there were also more outlandish demands: and end to nuclear energy, reduction of energy consumption.
These were absolutely outlandish: At that time it was generally accepted that to grow richer a nation had to increase its energy consumption. Nuclear power was the future. Powering a country by renewables was like science fiction from asimov. These activist protested repeatedly and successfully the building of nuclear power installations. (plants, enrichment centers ... ). But the establishment was pro nuclear and pro coal.
Until 1986 when chernobyl happened suddenly major parties were in favour of a nuclear exit. Some wanted it the same year, some in 10 years. This is when the Energiewende came into politics.
Two things have to be said: The Energiewende was not a worked out plan but more a goal, going away from nuclear and coal power to sustainable power. How the end would look like, nobody could say. AND: THE ENERGIEWENDE WAS ANTI-NUCLEAR FROM ITS INCEPTION. Global warming wasn't even discussed then.
In the 1990s many things happend: Germany reunited, the greens formed a party(its a bit more complicated), and climate change became politically relevant. This had two results: Germany guaranteed anyone who fed renewable electricity into the grid that their electricity would be bought at a reasonable price this lead to a small boom in wind energy. Also nuclear lobby groups tried again to argue again for nuclear power. Still the activist groups were still active and the companies feared they would block new power plants leading to bad investments. In two rounds of discussions stretching years no result was achieved. So the status quo stayed. Old nuclear power plants stayed, no new ones would be build.
If you ever try to convince Germany that nuclear power is necessary, please do know, the nuclear lobby tried that
for years: they failed.
In the early 2000s under Schröder, a plan was made to phase out nuclear energy over the next 20 years. This nuclear deal brought largely peace into the nuclear debate.
At that point we come to the government of Merkel: Merkel wanted to tackle climate change to to become known as the "Klimakanzlerin". While her party had announced to renege on the nuclear deal in favor of nuclear energy. But she had to form a coalition with Schröders SPD who blocked those efforts. Only in her second time in office she extended the remaining runtimes of nuclear power plants. In 2011...
There were protests before Fukushima, there was nothing but political suicide after Fukushima. (Additionally it seems that Merkel had a genuine change of heart since she realized that even Japan couldn't completely safely operate a nuclear power plant). The current plan of phasing out nuclear power by 2022 was enacted. At this point natural gas was envisioned as a transition technology.
If you ever try to convince Germany that nuclear power is necessary, please do know, Merkel tried to extend nuclear power: She failed.
About coal: by 2018 Germany ended subsidies for hard coal mining. That killed almost all hard coal power plants.
I am not entirely sure why the remaining ones are still running I suspect they support some district heating installation.
Germany still has brown coal and does fire its brown coal plants. They are to be phased out until 2030 at this point(.
About gas: gas is seen as an interim solution. And yes, Germany has positioned itself as a distributor of Russian gas. (Unfortunate as it is at the moment) . But do not for one second believe that German opposition to nuclear power is motivated by the desire to sell gas.
About renewables: Germany had already two times success in creating a market for renewables and profiting from the export of the know-how. The national hydrogen strategy explicitly calls for the generation of hydrogen know-how with the intention to export that. Germany wants to save the planet, it is not above making a buck out of it.
Also if you are ever around: welcome to Germany where getting the country to 40% renewables in the electricity mix means you have irresponsibly slowed down their adoption.
Interesting. So we're not heading towards autark at all...
Steffen Widmaier, richtig?
Autarky is a failed myth.
A very strong argument against nuclear energy is the problem of nuclear waste disposal. I appreciate the views from Poland on Germany an European problems. And I hope Poland will not squezed out of EU, like England with its Brexit. But I beleave, as german citician, that german EU politics are ugly for EU future. From my personal point of view Poland has much more reality feeling, what means to develope EU further. Expecially in East Europe. It is said, that Kaliningrad could have incooperated to EU / NATO around 1991. Germany etc. left it to Russia. Kaliningrad is now the most serious militarical threat to Poland, Baltikum and EU in its whole. But the EU is blind for realizing the Problems of East Europe and to find a sensable political vision to develop East Europa and manage relations to Russia. Russia waits for each weakness of EU and would like to incorparate Baltikum, Poland, Ungary etc. in a new Sowjet Union. And EU and Germany does its best to support Russia in this target. Not luky about it and stand currently on Polands side regarding EU struggle with Poland !
"A very strong argument against nuclear energy is the problem of nuclear waste disposal."
Actually, it is a very weak argument against nuclear energy.
Spent nuclear fuel waste is captured, contained, stored and monitored - unlike any other type of waste (especially fossil fuel waste which is put directly into the biosphere).
Spent nuclear fuel waste is tiny. About 400,000 t in the world, which sounds like a lot until you start comparing:
* 400,000 t - spent nuclear fuel waste - 65 years of 10% of global electricity
* 250,000 t - solar panels - 15 years of 1-2% of global electricity
* 400,000 t - coal emissions from Moorburg - 20 days of 2.5% of German electricity
Spent nuclear fuel waste can be recycled into even tinier amounts: with fuel reprocessing, a decades old technology, currently in production in France, UK, RF, which separates out the fission products (for burial; returns to background levels in 300 years) and the actinides (for replacement in a burner reactor for more power).
Technologies for reprocessing or for deep geological burial are well known and understood - politically they have issues - but technically complete.
Spent nuclear fuel waste costs - mostly already paid for. Most jurisdictions require an assessment for waste to be escrowed as power is produced. The US fund is so big, they stopped making the assessment!
@@factnotfiction5915 Nuclear waste is an asset, and selling point, not a liability.
@@chapter4travels I tend to agree that spent nuclear fuel is a resource for power and nuclides, but my argument is that even if you don't agree with that viewpoint, you can hardly claim it is a massive problem, or a very strong argument against nuclear power - given its small volume, full containment, and reprocessing technologies.
@@factnotfiction5915 Along those lines, it's good to point out that it's solid pellets, not liquid or anything that can leak which most people don't know. Also that it's 40% heavier than lead, which helps people to understand how little of it there is.
Russian gas is not a problem in the long term, as fossil fuels are to be phases out till 2040
To be replaced with what energy source?
@@adidoki With green energy mentioned in the video. The government hopes to overcome the blackout-problem by importing hydrogen from other countries like even Ukraine or African countries. First investments are already taking place.
@@fizban5959 Importing will release a lot of CO2 could very well continue using nuclear energy where there is no such problem
@@adidoki In theory if you create hydrogen as a fuel out of for example solar energy in africa you can avoid any co2 emissions. You just need a gas tanker which also runs on hydrogen. But that is to be developed in the coming years.
@@fizban5959 Nah, that’s just a faint hope. Creating hydrogen ships is not really doable yet
Interesting take on the subject. I always thought Energiewende is just utter Hippie-Nonsense. Now there seems to be additional reasons that are no less disturbing.
When it comes to energy, I am still convinced that there are ways to create, distribute and store energy that are many many orders of magnitude better for the environment, the cash flow, energy independance and such then we have now. I wonder what Nichola Tesla would do. I wonder what advanced space faring civilizations would do. I wonder what humans deep in the future would do. I wonder if any of the conventional or alternative sources that are popular today will be necessary or even exist in 1000 years.
I don't want to be too pie in the sky but I would liken it to an energy source that is as different from nuclear as nuclear is from a wood fire. Perhaps it is fusion (star power) or black hole power but perhaps it is something we can scarcely comprehend with our current ways of thinking.
I leci taktyczny kom wspierajacy
Such a Video is a lot of work and time spent for research and production. You (and your team?) have read for sure a lots of stuff about Germany’s energy system . I acknowledge and support your hard work. However, from my point of view you are scratching the surface only.
The video provides an extremely good representation of former Chancellor Gerhard Schoeders role in the north stream pipeline project and his relationship with Gazprom, Germanys’ economic interest to dominate the natural gas market, etc. are well set out. This alone does not mean that the Government of Germany is not supportive to big coal, and lignite coal is extremely BIG in Germany even after the decision to gradually phase it out.
Here is my critics or, please take it as an supplement to your video. The coal phase out will, as per the time schedule presented by the Government, last extremely long, with almost no action at the beginning and almost all action will come in the last years of the phase out (slogan: should the politics in 10 years bear the consequences, but not us). The power plants to be decommissioned in the next years are very old and did appear years before on the lists of the operators for shutdown, without any planned replacements as coal losing its competitiveness on a broad scale. Means these power plants have reached (or will reach for the later cases) the end of their life anyway and the owners (RWE or LEAG) will shut down the lignite facilities anyway. The main difference to the situation before the decision to phase out coal is that now a few very large corporations will get compensation payments, over 4 Billion Euro. I would call Schroeders behavior as well as what is happening right now with the coal compensations corruption or at least a very strong lobbying.
With regards to the nuclear phase out one can see a similar pattern. The decision to phase out was first made by the Schroeder administration (SPD and the Green party). The State agreed in contracts with the owners of the nuclear power plants to phase out, legally waterproof however contested among the CDU/CSU, the main opposition party. As soon as the CDU/CSU, under leadership of Chancellor Merkel took over government office they reversed the decision to phase out nuclear and terminated the contracts with the nuclear power sector. Only, to reverse again after Fukushima, this time in a rush with a legally questionable approach despite many warnings that the legal basis is extremely bad. At the end, the Government paid again over 2 billion Euro in compensation to Eon, RWE, Vattenfall for something that was already well organized before.
The renewables can and would cover a much bigger share of Germanys energy sector if the Government would not create again and again unjustified market barriers and legal barriers and administrative barriers for wind and solar. So far, any effort was undertaken and no collateral damage which was not accepted by the Government in order to stop adding new renewable capacities by anyone else than RWE and EON. The profit interest of a few cooperation’s seem to be the main driver of energy legislation in Germany, whereas climate change and the financial interest of tax payers and consumers is no priority.
I believe the closure of the oldest of Germany's nuclear power plants was already overdue - we did have some old and very insecure power plants. Some still used river water to directly cool their reactors (discharging the used and now contaminated water into the river again) instead of using the now standard system of 1 closed loop that is in turn cooled by river water. Other plants had their reactors still encased in insufficiently secure rectangular buildings instead of the now common round building shape...
It is indeed stupid to ban all nuclear power as the latest version of power plants (that currently exist as prototypes) could be a promising energy source - if they indeed can reuse existing nuclear waste and decrease its half-life as tremendously as promised.
BUT nuclear power is normally a bad business case - it not only takes huge upfront costs but also takes at least 10 years to build. So investors need to wait at least 15 years to break even on their investment. With the current fast technological advancement and the political trends, long term operation of the newly built plant is also questionable.
(In comparison, gas power plants need very little money to build and are ready in only ~2 years. So after 3 years (because of the low up front costs) the investors break even.)
Renewable energy is currently the cheapest energy source on the market. Its even cheaper to build than gas power plants and f.e. a wind park is also ready in ~2 years. The operating costs are low and the energy source is free. (Fyi: Gas is the most expensive "fuel source" for energy production, Uranium etc are cheaper by ~90% or more and renewable energy is free)
While the geopolitics of being a central nexus for gas distribution might be a very valid reason, THESE economics are another important side for the switch to renewables and gas
France builds nuclear power plants much faster, the break even for nuclear is also much closer than most other sources (you count build speed, but once built power generation is much bigger and they last longer), you don't have to build energy storage (that's cost and build time), mass miniature nuclear power plants are an option too, also France already did it and it's not a bad business model, it's lucrative and especially for the state
How about we just make thorium reactors? Many of the benefits of uranium with out many of the dangers
Even the most patient researchers gave up on the technology for now.
There's just no way thorium reactors would be competitive until uranium becomes substantially more scarce and more expensive.
Meanwhile renewables already become extremely competitive.
9:18 Wait what? LOL
it is a metaphor
@@GoodTimesBadTimes Whut? I'm sensing very huge anti renewable vibes from this channel
@@GoodTimesBadTimes You earned a dislike. Team behind this channel, your tackling of complicated problem through unsubstantiated remarks is... beyond me. Channels like Caspian report or Neo sometimes simplify things even more than you do, but they're quite self-aware about their own limitations. I've expected more
@@kosatochca Can you give some examples of said unsubstantiated remarks?
P.S. No one is against renewables, rational people just realise that we cannot rely entirely on them, it's just physically/technically unfeasile. We will never get rid of fossile fuels without the help of nuclear.
@@MarcianusImperator I think one example is enough for now. When we talk about an energy sector there’re two types of balances: the whole energy balance, including motor fuels and heating, and electricity output balance. For clearance if you look at the electricity output of France the nuclear energy source will have 80-90 % share, but if you look at the whole energy breakdown it’ll go down to 35-40 %. Good times bad times presents a few charts about German energy production and at least twice have switched between the two types, perhaps (which is key, I cannot possibly know their motivation), to reach a better rhetoric stance or get a more impressive illustrative point
You seems really have not much clue about German politics. There is a strong demand for renewable energy generation in the public eye.
Are you German? Can you guys please build the energy storage so that you don't need to increase gas for the gaps? Would biogas maybe be enough for that? Anyway Germany needs still much higher renewable capacity to fully replace fossil fuels. I doubt for example the strategy of overbuilding renewables so that even lower production almost always meets the demand. I don't know if the physical area for that even exists.
Even if you cover the whole North Sea and most of the land with wind turbines and cover all roofs and lower quality agricultural lands with solar panels, you won't have enough power *if the wind is low and it's dark*
You got to have storage. Lots of it. To avoid the need for extra capacity. Something like pumped hydro in all the old coal mines is a good start.
Better start building now.
A total omission of energy storage technologies into the equation. You didn't complete your homework.
The only viable energy storage is pumped hydro, and you can't do that everywhere. Having monster chemical batteries to store the massive energy required to stabilize wind and solar would do more harm than good regarding emissions.
@@vladconstantinminea That myth has been debunked over and over again.
Wait….how does Germany stop the wind? (@9:10)
Wibdpower
It would be fascinating to see what would happen if the world clouds over ☁️🌏☁️🌎☁️🌍
Global clouding?
US second bigest exporter of natural gass is Russia, greetings from EU 🇪🇺
Why there is no Kosova in the map??
Add Kosova don’t make it part of Serbia.
Albanians in kosova are the oldest people in europe and you giving our land to a slav that came thousands of years later.
5:50 you highlighted northern ireland as being apart of the EU which is blatantly incorrect.
excellent..wonderful how germany fights nationalism whiile being ultra nationalist
Nuclear is un-economical and won't help with the climate crisis. The world would need thousands(!) of new nuclear power plants, each of which costs billions and takes about a decade to plan and build. With the same amount of money (or less) we can build much more and much faster wind and solar power plants, which produce power from day one and have no cost of fuel (unlike nuclear, which needs fresh or refreshed uranium on a regular basis). Wind and solar are decentralized and put power production into OUR hands, on our roofs and in our communities' backyards, away from energy monopolists. And it strengthens the grid, which can cope with many local small producers better than with few centralized mega-power-plants. Yes, we have a lignite-problem in Germany, but it isn't power-related (we exported electric energy ever since 2002, no net-imports since then! In 2017 we exported 55 TWh!!!!)), it is rather a job-problem in these regions, where the lignite is mined. The miners would lose their jobs without any perspective in these regions.
Regarding "Natural" Gas: Poland and the Ukraine make lots of money from gas-pipelines leading through their countries, which we west Europeans pay with our gas bills. Of course it is in our interest to have a direct pipeline from Russia without the middlemen! Ukraine even stole already paid gas for Germany out of the pipeline because they couldn't pay Russia for their own gas bills and got no more gas. So they stole it from us. And no, we don't want to get more dependent from Russia, but neither from USA and their liquified gas! We produce more and more biogas ourselves and distribute it through the gas grid. My own apartment here in Augsburg is heated (through district heating) and gets electric power from a gas plant in the city. This plant transitioned in the last years from 100% Russian gas to over 50% regional biogas from the farmers in our region. THAT is Energiewende, too!
Regarding storage of renewable power: Austria is busy to convert their hydroelectric power plants into pumped storage power plants. some are already up and running. And as we have a European Continental Power Grid, they do it not for themselves, but for all of us. In fact, the grid got even more stabile in the last years instead of instabile. And by the way: France with its many nuclear power plants has massive problems every winter because they can't cook all the fish in their rivers alive with all the cooling water these nuclear power plants produce, so they have to throttle them down and buy - guess what? - German renewable power!
Edit: Oh, and Germany has NOT built nor fired up ANY new coal power plant at all.
This whole video is pure propaganda, nothing else …
was interesting to read
Oh, we all know what Germany wants: unlimited power! she very naughty
Ren ewbablinoning
God Damn it Germany
hmm, unfortunately a video with too much opinion and few facts.
Renewables are instable, nuclear is safe (if not located in a region with earthquakes and stuff). Really? There's still no storage facility for highly radioactive nuclear waste (e.g. fuel rod) and you have to store those safely for roughly a million years to come. So the cost for nuclear in the long run is... huge, to be polite.
Which is also one of the main reasons to switch to renewables: They are much cheaper. Let's say you wanna build a new fission reactor with modern safety standards. The UK does so with Hinkley Point C (2x 1'600 MW), last cost estimates are 28.6 billion Euro. The UK government guaranteed 92.5 £/MWh in 2012 figures + inflation compensation for 35 years. So roughly 110 £/MWh in todays money.
On the other hand, large scale solar power plants can be built for 30 €/MWh and less. Last years record were 11.14 €/MWh in Portugal (see IEEFA). Saudi Arabia even cracked the 10 €/MWh sonic wall this year. Numbers for hydro and wind are also usually in the 30-50 €/MWh range.
So... You can spend 10 € for every 1 € you spend on a solar power plant - and invest it in energy storage or (smart) grid and it's just as expensive as a nuclear power plant (w/o demolition, long-term storage, fuel rods etc.). That's the basic economics behind why so many governments (Albania, Australia, Austria, China, Island, New Zealand, Norway...) investing heavily in renewables. It's rather smart to shift your economy into renewable energy technology now^^
Source: ieefa.org/record-low-solar-price-of-13-16-mwh-set-in-latest-portuguese-capacity-auction/
The solution is Thorium-based Nuclear power.
@@jascrandom9855 Because it's probably even more expensive?
@@Critizens Because you can't make Nukes with it.
Thorium is 5x more abundant than Uranium, its not dangerous to extract and it has 100x the energy output per unit of weight.
@@Critizens And then you hit a dunkelflaute.
In the Spring/Summer of 2021, wind and solar across the North Sea and Europe failed to provide sufficient energy (despite being at record capacity). So natural gas was burned. Driving up the price of gas (compared to last year) 3x-4x.
Now Europe enters the winter with record low stocks of gas, and record high prices of gas. Let us hope for a mild winter in Europe.
Yeah, wind and solar are sooo cheap!
Omfg quit the "Russia bad 😠" angle
Russia is playing the same game Germany is playing and honestly as an American I'd rather work with the Russians than the Germans. Not that either is achievable but the point remains: Russia wants to be a Eurasian power, Germany? Can't trust them to remain regional.
But it’s polish perspective
Russia dosnt share western values
But Russia is bad.
And he also made it very clear that Germany is as bad as the Russians.
It was mentioned that Germany is stopping the construction of nuclear plants in the EU so the only option for the member states to get power will be gas from Germany.
He also talked about how Germany doesn't care about other countries, but instead just cares about it's own domestic market.
They always have that "angle" on this channel.
@@erikkrauss8481 so do the Turks and Arabs but you still want to work with them
nobody complains about windfarms lmao are you high?
what are these random claims - sad dude