|
|
|
|
|
|
by arw0n
17 days ago
|
|
|
There's another factual error in your above comment the previous poster didn't correct: Nuclear energy was replaced with renewables, not coal. It would have been preferable to first replace coal with renewables, then move on to expensive nuclear, but that's a different argument. Doubling down on your second wrong argument is not giving your observations credence. It was the conservative party in a coalition with the free-market Liberals, who passed the law giving a binding timeline for the nuclear shutdown. |
|
|
> With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.
> Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.
[...]
> Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy.
I acknowledge that the politics and history of the nuclear decommission is more complicated than I understood - [2] seems to be a useful walkthrough. But it all happened with Green support and is the fruits of decades of Green ideological advocacy.
[1] https://archive.ph/v3iLS
[2] https://www.cjfp.org/for-germanys-green-party-the-50-year-dr...