Umm, this alleged "proof" you offer is a simple regurgitation of a right-wing publications hit piece - which essentially misinterpreted a document from Habecks ministery that - when you actually read it - doesn't say what the right-wing "journalists" claim it says. All it documents is completely usual ministerial proceedings (like writing an executive summary so Habeck doesn't have to read the entire thing).
This sham article has been exposed by a NGO - which in turn got sued by Cicero for claiming their article was a steaming pile of dog poo. The case ended up in court - where the right-wing "journalists" lost summarily. Full details including a point-by-point takedown of the claims of the bullshit article you base your own article on (in German): https://www.volksverpetzer.de/aktuelles/akw-skandal-cicero-scheitert-volksverpetzer/
So you might want to publish a correction or a note on your article. And please be more careful in your research going forward when tackling topics where there is so much well-organized disinformation. After all, you wouldn't dismiss batteries just because Björn Lomborg publishes something about batteries being dead...
Very much agree to this, I spent a while reading into this at the time and this is closer to my conclusions than Auke's take. Although I really like the analogy to Brexit in UK and abortion in US (although a german friend from one side of the debate immediately disagreed: a large majority of germans agree with the Atomausstieg which can't be said of Brexit/abortion)
To keep the nuklear plants in Germany open for longer would have been extremely difficult. You have to change not only the law from 2011, You have to change the existing security rules and You have to check everything inside the 3 working plants - which did no serious checking since 2019 (in France, e.g., something like this would not have been possible). And You have to buy new fuel rods with uranium from russia. This is not a flashlight you can put on or off just as you like it. So much for ideology.
"I think it’s time the Greens went against their own dogma’s and against the passionate old guard within their own party. They should strive for nuclear to stay open until coal is phased out. They of all parties should be on the side of avoiding climate change."
I disagree that what German Greens do is so pivotal and I don't think they must be held to standards that no-one else has to. I think the enduring failures of the rest of German politics to take the climate problem seriously enough to have better, more compelling policies than Greens is a far worse failure than their unwavering opposition to nuclear.
"You care so much you fix it" was abrogation of responsibility on an issue of profound importance by people who knew and know better (or should) who were and are failing THEIR duties of care. Following that up with "NOT like THAT" and sheeting all blame onto Greens rather than offer better - only makes everyone else's failures of leadership look worse to my mind. Failures that include a willingness to let nuclear be sacrificed - and a part of that will be for the sake of saving fossil fuels. And that IS worse than being openly anti-nuclear
I would hardly call it prescience but the optimism and prefering for RE looks to have been the right call and if the rest of German politics can't bring themselves to support nuclear for the sake of better climate policies I don't think Greens should be single out for the blame.
Ultimately always on type generation like nuclear is not the solution to RE intermittency and will struggle to be commercially viable with ever more of each day, more days of each week, more weeks of each year unable to make energy at above cost. And face ever fiercer competition for the more lucrative leftovers. The yet to be determined missing elements for high RE aren't leaving a nuclear baseload shaped hole, more like a deep long storage shaped one. Even a few months ago I'd been saying that looks like a pumped hydro shaped gap but the way batteries keep getting better I'm not so sure.
Umm, this alleged "proof" you offer is a simple regurgitation of a right-wing publications hit piece - which essentially misinterpreted a document from Habecks ministery that - when you actually read it - doesn't say what the right-wing "journalists" claim it says. All it documents is completely usual ministerial proceedings (like writing an executive summary so Habeck doesn't have to read the entire thing).
This sham article has been exposed by a NGO - which in turn got sued by Cicero for claiming their article was a steaming pile of dog poo. The case ended up in court - where the right-wing "journalists" lost summarily. Full details including a point-by-point takedown of the claims of the bullshit article you base your own article on (in German): https://www.volksverpetzer.de/aktuelles/akw-skandal-cicero-scheitert-volksverpetzer/
So you might want to publish a correction or a note on your article. And please be more careful in your research going forward when tackling topics where there is so much well-organized disinformation. After all, you wouldn't dismiss batteries just because Björn Lomborg publishes something about batteries being dead...
Very much agree to this, I spent a while reading into this at the time and this is closer to my conclusions than Auke's take. Although I really like the analogy to Brexit in UK and abortion in US (although a german friend from one side of the debate immediately disagreed: a large majority of germans agree with the Atomausstieg which can't be said of Brexit/abortion)
1) The "Atomausstieg" was law since 2011. It passed the Bundestag with 513 votes. There we're 600 members of parliament at that time.
-> Nothing hasty here.
2) Habeck is the minister who succesfully reaccelerated the Rollout of renewable Energies after CDU/CSU sabotaged them while Merkel was chancellor.
To keep the nuklear plants in Germany open for longer would have been extremely difficult. You have to change not only the law from 2011, You have to change the existing security rules and You have to check everything inside the 3 working plants - which did no serious checking since 2019 (in France, e.g., something like this would not have been possible). And You have to buy new fuel rods with uranium from russia. This is not a flashlight you can put on or off just as you like it. So much for ideology.
"I think it’s time the Greens went against their own dogma’s and against the passionate old guard within their own party. They should strive for nuclear to stay open until coal is phased out. They of all parties should be on the side of avoiding climate change."
I disagree that what German Greens do is so pivotal and I don't think they must be held to standards that no-one else has to. I think the enduring failures of the rest of German politics to take the climate problem seriously enough to have better, more compelling policies than Greens is a far worse failure than their unwavering opposition to nuclear.
"You care so much you fix it" was abrogation of responsibility on an issue of profound importance by people who knew and know better (or should) who were and are failing THEIR duties of care. Following that up with "NOT like THAT" and sheeting all blame onto Greens rather than offer better - only makes everyone else's failures of leadership look worse to my mind. Failures that include a willingness to let nuclear be sacrificed - and a part of that will be for the sake of saving fossil fuels. And that IS worse than being openly anti-nuclear
I would hardly call it prescience but the optimism and prefering for RE looks to have been the right call and if the rest of German politics can't bring themselves to support nuclear for the sake of better climate policies I don't think Greens should be single out for the blame.
Ultimately always on type generation like nuclear is not the solution to RE intermittency and will struggle to be commercially viable with ever more of each day, more days of each week, more weeks of each year unable to make energy at above cost. And face ever fiercer competition for the more lucrative leftovers. The yet to be determined missing elements for high RE aren't leaving a nuclear baseload shaped hole, more like a deep long storage shaped one. Even a few months ago I'd been saying that looks like a pumped hydro shaped gap but the way batteries keep getting better I'm not so sure.