|
|
|
|
|
|
by GuestFAUniverse
2 days ago
|
|
|
https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/de/blog/2024/kritische-stellun... It's in German. The main critic is that Jan Emblemsvåg counts the subsidies for renewables into his cash-flow-analysis but doesn't do that for nuclear. Nuclear was heavily subsidized in Germany. Read it for yourself. Come to your own conclusion. For me that's boring. I'm not surprised the pro nuclear agenda is pushed (again). |
|
|
https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2026.2668864
"The study ‘What if Germany had invested in nuclear power? A comparison between the German energy policy over the last 20 years and an alternative policy of investing in nuclear power’ published earlier in this journal, received sharp criticism from Fraunhofer ISI concerning the calculation of the expenditures of the Energiewende amongst others. Here, the author will provide evidence that the risk of double-counting was acknowledged, minimised to the extent possible, and that it is well within acceptable levels of accuracy for approximate studies. Most importantly, the conclusion that an alternative policy of investing in nuclear power for Germany would have provided a better overall result irrefutably stands. Indeed, to the extent the aforementioned study can be criticised, it should be for excessive conservatism."