The obvious downside of this decision is that nuclear generation that has been shut down is replaced by coal and gas.
Also it's not a given that the renewable strategy will succeed. The bulk electricity prices are already going down to zero across Germany at random times when the weather is good. Which means the renewable energy business don't get revenue when they generate the most electricity. As a consequence even more subsidies are required to further increase the share of renewables.
> The obvious downside of this decision is that nuclear generation that has been shut down is replaced by coal and gas.
This is patently false.
Isar plants were built in the 70s. Back then Germany's share of renewable energy sources was residual. Since then, Germany started shutting off nuclear and currently over 40% of it's energy needs are met with renewable energy sources.
The only way to claim that Germany is replacing nuclear with coal and gas is if you opt to go the disingenuous route and claim that some coal and gas power plants went online while nuclear plants were being shut down.
> Also it's not a given that the renewable strategy will succeed.
What? Supplying nearly half of a country's energy needs is now a sign of failure?
It's not false, it's just probably not easy to understand.
It's easy to understand if we consider a hypothetical situation where the nuclear power plant is running AND Germany still keeps all other renewable plans. Since the demand does not change, what other generation would not be running in this case? It is coal and gas.
Thus, by shutting down nuclear, several coal or gas power plants are running instead of idling somewhere.
> What? Supplying nearly half of a country's energy needs is now a sign of failure?
Success in this case is replacement of dirty electricity generation and not using the rest of Europe as a giant battery to solve the unpredictability of renewable generation. The limits of easy renewable deployments are becoming exhausted and it will become much harder to increase the share of renewables even more.
I think we agree that it's great that Germany runs so many renewables already. But long-term objective is much more and it's not clear that it will be achieved.
> It's not false, it's just probably not easy to understand.
In other words, the thesis has no basis and you have a hard time coming across people who swallow nonsense.
> It's easy to understand if we consider a hypothetical situation where the nuclear power plant is running AND Germany still keeps all other renewable plans.
Is your personal belief held by artificial scenarios that are both absurd and unrealistic?
No wonder people find this blend of bullshit claim hard to understand.
Nuclear is for base load. If Germany kept their reactors or increased them, then coal and gas would not be necessary for the times when renewable energy is not available, which is constantly. So yes, nuclear did get replaced by gas and coal, even though renewables are a much bigger source today.
There are many different consensuses. In this case the most important consensus is what is the opinion shared by the operators of electricity grids and the like, because ultimately they will need to match energy supply and demand.
Their consensus is that specifically batteries are completely nonviable for long-term balancing of intermittent energy sources. Physics simply do not add up.
Have you heard of "lamp gas"? It used to be delivered via cast-iron pipes to every house, factory, and street light. It was a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. There was no problem with embrittlement, because the pressure was low. Natural gas is today carried (in the same pipes, some places) at quite low pressure. Germany could start admixing H2 anytime, although feeding it to NG turbines would be a better immediate use.
Anyway aluminum is quite resistant to hydrogen embrittlement.
The Hinkley Point story is very complicated, indeed. But I believe you will find that initial work to clear space and create parking for the future construction site started in 2008, then the EDF acquisition shenanigans and British government shenanigans came along and massively delayed the project.
I think you should also consider tens of millions of people who lived under Russian boot in USSR itself and Warsaw pact countries. It appeared that wealth inequality is lower because there was no free press and thus no way to see it. People who waited years to be able to get a permission to buy a car or an apartment had no way to make their situation known.
A significant part of populations lived relatively well just because of their place in the society. The lack of free press caused them to think that everyone lives like them. However this was the exact consequence of the oppression of the rest of society.
This spanned countries: USSR extracted production from one set of countries and subsidized others. The populations of the latter group naturally saw the collapse of USSR as a bad thing since their standard of living became lower.
The fact that there were certain parts of the world that lived better under USSR does not make suffering of other people a good thing.
Also it's not a given that the renewable strategy will succeed. The bulk electricity prices are already going down to zero across Germany at random times when the weather is good. Which means the renewable energy business don't get revenue when they generate the most electricity. As a consequence even more subsidies are required to further increase the share of renewables.