 Energy of the future 2
Sometimes it's worth listening to critics of the energy transition. We deliberately call them that because we're not referring to climate change deniers. How do they actually come to their striking
conclusions?
Some say: Back to nuclear power. Some people are at least clever enough not to demand new nuclear power plants, because then their calculations are completely out of kilter. The
supposedly more sophisticated simply demand that they be restarted and, at the same time, the abolition of green subsidies.
This, of course, promotes the advantages of existing nuclear power, assuming it could even be restarted at a reasonable cost, and above all, hits wind turbines at their Achilles heel. Their
construction is more heavily subsidized than would be the case for the continued operation of nuclear power plants.
However, if enough wind turbines are available one day, their operation should be virtually subsidy-free, which cannot be said of nuclear power plants, especially given the unresolved issue of
final storage. Thus, the advantages of one are compared with the disadvantages of the other.
Opponents of the energy transition are by no means solely ideological in the foreground of the debate, but rather act with costs, which of course always represents a promising strategy, not
only for the uninformed citizen.
The phase-out of coal-fired power is also rejected. It is pointed out that, unlike renewable energy and even nuclear power, coal-fired power is controllable and ideally suited to providing a
stable base load for what is arguably the most secure power supply in the world to date.
Nuclear power plants has to rely on sufficient water for cooling, i.e. to build preferably next to rivers, while coal-fired power plants, although dependent on underground resources, were at least
more closely connected to major consumers.
This brings us to the major issue of grid expansion. Yes, enormous sums of money are currently being invested, some of which are even 'buried', to transport electricity from the north, for
example, where there's obviously more wind, to the more consumption-intensive industries in the south.
The resulting significantly higher grid fees naturally reduce the profitability of renewable energy compared to conventionally generated electricity. There are already initial criticisms that too much thought has
been given to the power lines and too little consideration for the energy generated across whole Germany.
Critics could therefore also accuse renewable energy producers of having, for example, thrown away more than 10 TWh, or approximately 4 percent, in 2023, meaning they weren't used properly. So, if a wind
turbine is still standing today despite the wind, it doesn't necessarily have to be defective.
Of course, this would be a real godsend for critics that one sometimes have to 'get rid' of electricity and pay for it. Unfortunately, this doesn't even take into account the enormous possibilities that would be
available with power storage in cars or at home.
Nevertheless, the damage caused by coal-fired power generation, all the villages that have been excavated and rebuilt, is enough. It will probably take decades to fill the holes, and then it will be over, not to
mention the benefits for climate protection.
| There are politicians who are in favor of nuclear power but do not want to tolerate a final
storage facility in their federal state. |
| 
