Nobody in the committee investigating nuclear power could expect anything other than his old line from Robert Habeck. Accordingly, the continued use after the start of the Ukrainian war and shortly after the formation of the traffic light coalition was examined “with an open mind” and not according to the motto because what should not be cannot be. At best, it will be controversial between Habeck and Scholz as to who pushed for it more strongly at the time that the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Economics did not make decisions based on pure green doctrine, but rather in such a way that they best served Germany. Either way, neither did more than necessary. The episode, which dragged on for weeks, was rather a confirmation of how tensely energy policy decisions are made in Germany, even in times of great national need. Nothing will change so quickly. It doesn’t exactly speak for the quality of this election campaign that nothing will change so quickly . The CDU/CSU did not dare to include extending the life of the nuclear power plants in their program. The Union wants to leave the matter “investigated”. Probably as open-ended as Habeck was back then. The rest should no longer concern this generation of politicians, but rather future generations: nuclear fusion and small reactors. The policy of all parties that once supported the civilian use of nuclear energy therefore amounts to relying on imports. More on the subject This dependence will increase, even if people constantly claim otherwise. Germany has already made a serious miscalculation when it comes to electricity needs in the wake of the energy transition. There is a risk of miscalculation again in the face of new, power-driven challenges. To be on the safe side, many countries are drawing the conclusion that, for the International Energy Agency (IEA), this amounts to a renaissance of nuclear power. Germany wants to master the hydrogen issue. This is not the tried and tested method, but to a frightening extent: open-ended.
Go to Source