But that's excactly not was it happening. Keeping the remaining reactors alive (they provided 2,6% of the generated electricity btw...) just for the sake of keeping them would have slowed down renewables (as those old reactors are definitely not fit to adapt to fluctuations well) and would also have bound a lot of money then missing for renewables and infra-structure (why upgrade the grid to better renewable fluctuations when the reactors can't anyway).
So they actually start right now and massively so to build up renewables and the matching infra-structure. Unlike countries with alleged nuclear plans, that all still plan to start building soon™ and in most cases not even close to the actual required numbers for the projected demand in two decades+. Because completely decarbonising transport, industry and heating means a massive increase in electricity demand as we basically shift all primary energy demand over to electricity. Yes, in some cases electrity will be more efficient and will save some energy. But we are still talking about all primary energy, with electricity today often only making up 20-25% of the primary energy demand in most countries today.
PS: But yes, if you want to build nuclear. Start today. But do it on a scale that you will be actually able to cover the minimal required base load of your projected electricity demand in 2050+... Fun fact: No country actually does. They all just pretend and actually sit the problem out for someone else by loudly planning nuclear but not in amounts that make sense mathematically. France is basically the only country with a somewhat reasonable plan. When they scrap the "8 optional reactors" bullshit and build the bull set of 14. That's their required baseload. And they will need to keep their aging fleet functional until the majority of them are build. They will also not be trivial.
It's actually the opposite. Just look at France. They are massively overproducing most of the time, even when they run checkups and maintenance on a lot of their plants in summer, they have huge amounts to export. And yet they still need imports in the coldest weeks of winter (while even winter on average sees overproduction).
So no, nuclear countries will not sell any power in times of shortage. They will be the ones needing imports from countries with storage. Or they need to start up storage themselves, too. Because enough nuclear base load to survive the few weeks with high demand without imports or storage when your renewable half of production is underperforming is insanely expensive. As it means having a lot of overproduction the rest of the time... but with no market to export anymore like they have today, because all countries will have high demand and low supply in the same time frames.
(Speaking about France: Their grid provider ran a big study about future electricity production. And the only reason nuclear (even more than the minimal required base load) was economically viable was because they plan with hydrogen production all year. For industry, for export (because -as I said- they need a way to export when not everyone has high production but low demand) and as storage...)
PS: Yes, the conclusion is that nuclear needs storage to be economicaslly viable. Just like they need a lot of complementing renewables. But don't tell that to the nuclear cult pretending storage is impossible and renewables don't work, because their heads might explode. Wait... Do tell it to them, as these exploding heads would be an improvement.
The usual fantasizing about nuclear and failing any actual plan, very popular right now. Because nuclear lobbyists pay well.
Or more precise: They want to build more nuclear power. But of course all their planned and their existing nuclear combined will not even be remotely enough to cover just the minimal required base load in a few decades. Because changing most of our primary energy demand (industry, heating, transport in varying shares) to electricity (that is often only making up 20%+ in a lot of countries) will massively increase the demand.
If you are not building (or planning to start the build-up very, very soon) enough nuclear capacity to cover 80% or more of today's electricity demand then you will not have the minimal base load required in 2-3 decades, because there will be an increase by at least a factor of 2,5 in demand.
But that's not something you tell people as nobody has a clue how to pay for building even more nuclear (where "even more" means the actual needed amount)...
(A few exceptions with massive hydro potential aside -as they have access to that cheaper base load- there is exactly one country with a plan that works mathematically: France. And even their government is lying to their people when they talk about 6 new reactors with another 8 optional. Because the full set of 14 is the required minimum they will need in 2050 and onward (their old ones are not in a state to run mcuh longer than that).
But hey. Even the most pro-nuclear country and the one with a domestic indutry actually doing a lot of the nuclear build up for other countries can't tell their population the trutz about costs and minimla requirements. If you want to know just onme thing about the state of nuclear, that this should be it.
Yes, it looks egoistic if you are this deluded as you are.
But we have real problems to solve and can't save every propaganda victim that refuses to accept reality because you run on the usual hateful narrative about Germany. Hey, I don't even blame you. Telling a lie about Germany any time you need to divert from some own issue is a well honored tradition in Europe (and thus wide-spread in media) and so I understand that you were trained to follow that pattern. It's sad (or funny... I still haven't decided...) none-the-less.
So you can cry about those imaginary egoistic Germans of yours all you want. The actual ones are massively building up renewables, are -contrary to your beloved lies- on a historic low in coal use. And this report is actually about the transport and construction sectors not matching their emission reduction goals (while sectors liker energy or industry -the actual sources of coal use- are easily fullfilling theirs... but that's not mentioned because -as I said before- energy and industry are not even remotely the topic of this report.)
Sure... they turn up coal power to result in the lowest coal use ever.
Just like they shut down reactors that produced laughable 2,6% of all electricity that year, yet those reactors (ones that were replaced by renewables even) could have single-handedly reduced their emissions by massive amounts.
Just like they never actually used more than a few percent of gas in electricity production (because they only use gas as short-time peak burners to compensate supply/demand spikes and that's really expensive even when gas was cheap) but somehow were so completely dependent on gas to not sit in the dark that they started to burn even more coal... again while actually massively reducing coal.
I don't know if it's magic or advanced quantum mechanics allowing them to do the polar opposite of the popular narratives every single time...
...or you are just brain-washed to believe every lie about Germany again and again. Hmm... No, that sounds unrealistic. It's probalby the magic thing.
Wow... Where have I read that lie before? Oh, yeah. 20 times in this thread already, because you all get your alternative reality sppon-fed by the same lobbyists.
The targets got missed by construction (some small part) and transport (mainly)... and again like clockwork the brain-washed nuclear brigade storms in lying about electricity production.
You don't realize how incredible funny (or sad.. depending on perpective) it is to see people like you parrot the same lie spoon-fed to you by lobbyists again and again while talking about other being too stupid to think.
This incredible post-factual world where popular narrative trumps reality is truely lost...
Nothing in general. Well the build times are rediculous in Europe and planning right not to build nuclear soon is too late already for any agreed upon climate goal. But that's another matter...
The problem is the brain-washed nuclear cult on social media briganding everything. In the last year on Reddit you couldn't even post any report about any new opening of wind or solar power without it degenerating into always the same story: "bUt ReNeWaBlEs DoN't WoRk! StOrAgE DoEs'Nt ExIsT! tHeY aRe A sCaM tO bUrN mOrE FoSsIl FuElS! gErMaNy KiLlEd ThEir NuClEaR To BuRn MoRe CoAl BeCaUsE ThEy ArE InSanE!!"
Mentioning the fact that Germany in reality shut down reactors not even contributing 5% of their electricity production that were scheduled for shutdown for 30 years and in a state you would expect with that plan and already more than replaced by renewables got you donwvoted into oblivion every single time.
Fucking right-wing media making up the narratives that help bring votes for right-wing extremists, so they can report about the totally surprising rise in polls.
"That said, the primary driver of the AfD’s success is the same issue that has defined far-right parties across Europe for a generation: migration.
A dramatic surge in illegal immigration has accompanied the AfD’s rise, fueling concerns among many in the country that the governing class has completely lost control of Germany’s borders. [...] The rise, first reported by German daily Bild [...]"
So Politico, one publication by German Axel Springer SE known for lying and pushing a right-wing agenda constantly (if they aren't occupied with a smear campaign against the German Greens that is now ongoing 24/7 since summer 2021 when they started fearing their beloved conservatives will lose the government with too many votes going to other parties thus allowing other viable coalitions), is reporting about yet another imaginary immigration problem and their source is another Axel Springer SE publication BILD (and the worst of them on the same trash level of journalism as the british Sun).
PS: And for completion's sake and to show how it's a concerted effort to manipulate people. The same people triggered a week long report chain across all media about the Green crisis in German politics a few weeks ago and how that part of the government coalition is on an all time low (No wonder, with their rediculous politics trying to destroy Germany for some idiological goal wink wink ) with their voters running away in droves while the AfD in opposition is constantly rising. In reality out of the parties in the government coalition the SPD has lost 8% (from 25,7%, so about ⅓ of their voters), the FDP has lost 4,5% (from 11,5%, so 40% of their voters) and the Greens sit at -0,1% compared to the last election (that's far below the precision of the polling methods btw...).
Pro-Ukraine? Sure, that's probably includes one agenda or another. But that's not what you said there.
As for the insult: Sorry, for that. You instantly understood that you framed self-defense as being pro-war, so I think I need to retract that suggestion of brain damage.
Instead you seem to know perfectly well what you're saying so: Crawl back to you Russian (or Russian-paid) cave, troll. (Also: Not sorry for that, as it isn't even an insult but just stating a fact...)
Trying to frame supporting the right of Ukraine to defend themselves against an illiegal invasion, genocide, torture, rape and all manner of other war crimes as "being pro-war" needs a very special kind of brain damage...
No, just insulting a shitty publication for being a shitty publication. But their paying bubble probably loves them for being relentlessly pushing the same same bullshit they love to hear...
But the people understanding desinformation are spending significant amounts of free time on it, while the propagandists are getting paid and the morons just soak up the headlines and go on... so both ignore any actual argument or link to facts someone spend time one anyway.
So, no. There is easy way to deal with this that doesn't involve heavy moderation...
Yes... when you excuse xenophobia your validate it. So implicitly you said: That's okay, they deserve it.
He did only conclude that they should be held accountable for their government's decisions, because that's the least insane justification for that bullshit.
Why would he? Every single thing said is still true.
If you decide to post a shitty and known to be very biased source, that's your problem and you have to simply live with the fact the you are questioned until providing additional sources.
No, his proposal is requiring approval to be able to vote. Next step is to be the one controlling the approving instance. After that they don't need a long-term plan for voting anymore, as it's either them being in control or a revolt.
But that's excactly not was it happening. Keeping the remaining reactors alive (they provided 2,6% of the generated electricity btw...) just for the sake of keeping them would have slowed down renewables (as those old reactors are definitely not fit to adapt to fluctuations well) and would also have bound a lot of money then missing for renewables and infra-structure (why upgrade the grid to better renewable fluctuations when the reactors can't anyway).
So they actually start right now and massively so to build up renewables and the matching infra-structure. Unlike countries with alleged nuclear plans, that all still plan to start building soon™ and in most cases not even close to the actual required numbers for the projected demand in two decades+. Because completely decarbonising transport, industry and heating means a massive increase in electricity demand as we basically shift all primary energy demand over to electricity. Yes, in some cases electrity will be more efficient and will save some energy. But we are still talking about all primary energy, with electricity today often only making up 20-25% of the primary energy demand in most countries today.
PS: But yes, if you want to build nuclear. Start today. But do it on a scale that you will be actually able to cover the minimal required base load of your projected electricity demand in 2050+... Fun fact: No country actually does. They all just pretend and actually sit the problem out for someone else by loudly planning nuclear but not in amounts that make sense mathematically. France is basically the only country with a somewhat reasonable plan. When they scrap the "8 optional reactors" bullshit and build the bull set of 14. That's their required baseload. And they will need to keep their aging fleet functional until the majority of them are build. They will also not be trivial.