[HN Gopher] Germany falls into recession as inflation hits economy
___________________________________________________________________
Germany falls into recession as inflation hits economy
Author : paulpauper
Score : 87 points
Date : 2023-05-27 17:21 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| throwaway220033 wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| malikNF wrote:
| Lol hilarious how you had to use a throwaway account to say
| what you said. Shows somewhere in that skull of yours theres a
| part of you that knows what you said was not right.
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| Right or not it's sad that you can't say what you think
| nowadays due to the cancel culture. What a dystopia.
| ok_dad wrote:
| [flagged]
| throwaway220033 wrote:
| [flagged]
| asmor wrote:
| [flagged]
| throwaway220033 wrote:
| What's actually hilarious is the maturity of your comment and
| the logic behind it.
| ok_dad wrote:
| [flagged]
| lapama wrote:
| I felt it coming... as a migrant, a couple of weeks ago I felt
| people started to look at me differently.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| People take it out on their peers rather than their masters
| RedCondor wrote:
| Only if they lack political education.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| especially if they have political education most of the
| time lol
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| The education system, controlled by their masters, has no
| interest in education the people to blame their masters, so
| of course most are uneducated in this regard.
| RedCondor wrote:
| This isn't new. Historically, many great teachers of the
| workers have got around this with a little cleverness.
|
| It'll happen again.
| x3874 wrote:
| No, the fact is that somehow for decades German authorities
| think they have a right / a budget (that is build up by
| taxes paid for by natural Germans and also documented,
| naturalized, legally working people now living in Germany)
| to spend on things here and there over half of the world,
| be it illegal migrants, approved migrants, EU-internal
| subsidies or subsidies and projects for other nations
| across the globe. Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria come
| lately to mind.
|
| That this insane behavior doesn't bode well regardless of
| 'polictical education' should come to no ones' surprise.
| Especially if you, as a so-so earner, pay almost 40% in
| taxes and social security / healthcare. And if you happen
| to already have experienced socialism before, you have an
| even less chilled opinion. Thank you.
| RedCondor wrote:
| Socialists will once again get to explain how the
| capitalist welfare state was an unsustainable scam paid
| for by neocolonialism. Demonized socialist projects will
| come to be seen in a more authentic, positive light, and
| the fight for worker and human emancipation from
| capitalism will resume.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Both socialist and capitalist liberal states are bad,
| liberation requires overcoming the power structures of
| both state and capital. We all stand to gain from it,
| it's not like a new tax system.
|
| Socialist states are just elitist authoritarian
| capitalism. Both kinds of states trap their populaces in
| endless all consuming work. Please, let's move on, we
| have automation and industrialized processes now to not
| need constant work at the behest of rulers commanding us
| or gatekeeping and bean countnig access to reproducible
| technology and information
|
| (It's incidentally also the same fight as the ecological
| problem.)
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I'm certainly not discounting your experience but do you really
| think this is something that took shape only over a couple of
| weeks? Or did you mean that you woke to the realization?
| s9w wrote:
| [dead]
| Simulacra wrote:
| I think their failed energy policy has a lot to do with this
| lornemalvo wrote:
| In which way has it failed?
| MichaelRazum wrote:
| simple, the price is to high. Germany might be "Weltmeister"
| with one of the highest energy prices...
| lnsru wrote:
| Burning coal in winter and turning off safe(!) and paid
| off(!) nuclear plants sounds like a failure to me.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| The right wing parties at this very moment campaigning
| against heat pumps is a better example.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36089912
| aeyes wrote:
| You are in a thread saying that shutting down nuclear was
| a mistake because they'd have to burn coal to make up for
| it. At the same time you are saying that forcing new
| installations (and repairs to a certain extent) to use
| heat pumps instead of gas starting next year putting even
| more stress on the grid is a good move?
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Yes. Because it is.
|
| The "grid" wasn't "strained". The main source of cheap
| gas got strangled due to a war. Most of it was used in
| home heating and industry, neither of which nuclear would
| help with without more electrification.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Yes, because regardless of the niose the CDU/CSU and FDP
| make, thebgrid im Germany never had any issues.
| eisa01 wrote:
| Yes, you get more heat out of a CCGT->Heat pump, than
| directly with a gas boiler
|
| This has been known for decades, see Without Hot Air:
| http://www.withouthotair.com/c21/page_150.shtml
| hef19898 wrote:
| Nuclear power plants need maintenance ("failing" France is
| used an example for this all the time on HN) and fuel rods.
| With the nuclear exit, reaffirmed by a conservative
| government, was decided ages ago, German nuclear plants
| were in no position to rwtain their certification. Nor was
| fuel ordered or available.
|
| And yes, still having coal is a failure from a climate
| perspective. Energy was plenty so, if we exclude price
| hikes caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And those
| price hike were global.
| the_third_wave wrote:
| They closed their nuclear power stations which made them even
| more dependent on natural gas which was in short supply,
| leading to an increase in the use of coal (which is supposed
| to be "bad for the climate" due to the higher CO2/TWh
| coefficient) and an increase in electricity import dependency
| which in turn drove up prices in the rest of Europe. German
| industry is both dependent on electricity as well as natural
| gas, the decision to close those - perfectly functional -
| nuclear power plants reduced the amount of natural gas
| available to industry even more since it was now also needed
| more for electricity production. I already mentioned the
| higher electricity prices.
|
| In short the "traffic light coalition" chose ideology over
| logic as well as ideology over the will of the German people
| [1] to the detriment of all - even the ideologues even though
| they will be hit less hard since they have well-remunerated
| positions and state pensions.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35665122
| fatneckbeard wrote:
| why does it feel like every tech website turns into an amateur
| humanities and economics discussion group?
| twelve40 wrote:
| because this stuff affects everyone including startups
| the_third_wave wrote:
| Because everything is subject to politics so discussing tech
| automatically leads to discussing politics. Where politics is
| discussed people tend to have different opinions which leads to
| longer discussions [1] which makes this all the more visible.
|
| [1] ...and lots of greyed-out posts, unfortunately
| fullshark wrote:
| It's a topic everyone has an opinion on I guess and engagement
| drives what gets surfaced.
| seydor wrote:
| they are easy subjects
| tomohelix wrote:
| The first of many to officially enter a recession. We all know it
| is coming, there is no avoiding it. Lots of places are already in
| a recession but just doesn't officially announce it yet.
|
| Things are going to get tough and I am tired...
| bojan wrote:
| Considering that the energy prices fell down to their usual
| levels, I'd not be surprised if this recession turns out to be
| short-lived.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The recession is caused by monetary factors. The energy
| prices just add a little more pop into it.
| [deleted]
| SantalBlush wrote:
| >We all know it is coming, there is no avoiding it.
|
| "We all know a recession will happen in the future." Yes, that
| is how recessions work. The economy is cyclical, so if you
| predict a recession long enough, you will eventually be right.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| Surprisingly it looks like the UK might avoid it
| monero-xmr wrote:
| Is that a joke? The UK is in dire straits. The NHS is
| flailing and the standard of living is dropping like a rock.
| I am looking forwards to when I can hire devs there remotely
| however. Better time zone than Eastern Europe.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| The state of the NHS, while embarassing, has little bearing
| on whether we enter a recession. Most of their effort goes
| into helping people who do not productively contribute to
| the economy.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| I see it as a major symptom of larger structural issues
| that are going to make the UK poorer for 10 to 20 more
| years. You haven't even begun to steal in earnest from
| the wealthy and successful corporations, which will cause
| capital flight and further erode your standard of living.
| First you need many more union strikes, then you need to
| elect the hard left (which is coming), then you need to
| finally accept the inevitable and cut taxes, regulations,
| red tape, open up immigration, etc.
|
| But this will take 10 to 20 years.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| There is absolutely no appetite to elect the hard left.
| The left of the Labour party is dead and it is unclear if
| its leader will even be a member of the party in the next
| election.
|
| We did get a significant tax cut a few months ago (?), it
| wasn't a rate change but they removed the cap of how much
| of your pension is tax free.
|
| Immigration is at record levels, I'm not sure what it
| would mean to open it up further.
|
| I think the stuff you are hoping for will happen quite
| soon, especially with loosening of regulations around
| food (so we can e.g. import US meat)
| paulpauper wrote:
| Yet again, this seems to confirm that whatever problems the US
| has, as bad as those seem, are worse overseas even in Western
| countries. Higher inflation, more unrest, higher unemployment,
| weaker growth, worse stock market returns, etc.
| Levitz wrote:
| Well, yes and no.
|
| Even if inflation or unemployment get worse, it's a whole
| different deal for the average citizen to deal with those when
| you have socialized healthcare or unemployment benefits.
| joemazerino wrote:
| Seems more West specific. Related to money printing and
| lockdowns during COVID.
| arez wrote:
| S&P is up 3% from one year ago, Dax is up 12% so stockmarket
| wise it's not true
| hef19898 wrote:
| And so far nobody tried to overturn election results in an
| European country, for now.
| rvz wrote:
| It is down almost 12% since the November 2021 all time high
| [0] and since the market crash happened [1] as I said before.
|
| [0]
| https://www.google.com/finance/quote/.INX:INDEXSP?window=5Y
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508238
| super256 wrote:
| The DAX40 is a piece of German financial engineering, aka not
| fair to compare to the S&P500: the DAX40 excludes a large
| part of public German corporations + as a price index it
| includes distributed dividends, which causes an unfair
| advantage when compared to a price return index like S&P500.
| curiousgal wrote:
| Unless those problems are, you know, things that matter, like
| life expectancy for one.
| it_citizen wrote:
| Education quality, political polarisation, inequality,
| poverty index, happiness.
| pphysch wrote:
| It helps that Washington has thousands of troops in those
| countries, and not the other way around.
| SllX wrote:
| This is true, misleading and repeated to the point of
| worthlessness.
|
| There was a big to do among our NATO allies about ramping up
| their own spending in response to the previous President
| threatening to pull out of NATO. They want those troops
| there, under NATO command and especially lately.
| pphysch wrote:
| It does matter, because it means Washington has tangible
| leverage over these supposedly-sovereign states and can
| enforce hard limits on their behavior. As an extreme
| example, a nationalist coup against a weak & corrupt Berlin
| simply can't happen with such an enormous foreign military
| presence. We learned from Versailles.
|
| The IRA and NS2 sabotage were really bad for Germany. But
| what are they gonna do about it?
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/france-and-germany-find-
| grou...
| matkoniecz wrote:
| > It does matter, because it means Washington has
| tangible leverage over these supposedly-sovereign states
|
| In case that someone is genuinely confused: Poland put
| quite significant effort into using far-away and much
| more reasonable and friendly USA to decrease risk of
| invasion of nearby, brutal and evil Russia.
|
| Main leverage that USA has in Poland is risk of
| *withdrawing* military support.
|
| Because getting invaded by Russia is extremely bad, war
| worse than average invasion results.
| fabian2k wrote:
| You're saying Germany isn't actually sovereign?
|
| And what's that about US troops preventing a nationalist
| coup? That sounds like an insane conspiracy theory.
|
| We're not an occupied nation. There are 35,000 US troops
| in Germany. Compare that with 180,000-250,000 German
| troops (depending on how you count them).
|
| And the NS2 sabotage is pretty much irrelevant. No gas
| has ever flown through that pipe, and it was exceedingly
| unlikely to ever happen after the Russian invasion of
| Ukraine.
| vasac wrote:
| Oh, NS2 sabotage is quite relevant as it shows that
| "someone" can blow up (partially) German infrastructure
| while Germany have no guts to even wink in the direction
| of the perpetrator. Not exactly a definition of a
| sovereign country.
| fabian2k wrote:
| NS2 was not quite German infrastructure, it's really
| Russian infrastructure. It was also entirely irrelevant
| for Germany at that point, no gas ever has flown through
| it and none would have almost certainly even if it were
| still fully intact (one strand is undamaged).
|
| We don't know if the German government knows who did
| this. So I don't think we can draw any conclusions from
| the lack of action here, we simply do not have enough
| information.
| fuoqi wrote:
| >NS2 was not quite German infrastructure, it's really
| Russian infrastructure
|
| What are you talking about? Western companies literally
| own half of NS2.
|
| >no gas ever has flown through it and none would have
| almost certainly even if it were still fully intact (one
| strand is undamaged)
|
| I wonder if intentionally delayed certification of the
| pipeline by Germany has anything to do with "no gas ever
| has flown". The point is: NS1 + NS2 was a constant
| temptation for Germany and blowing it has removed the
| "wrong" incentive.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Basocally everyone wanted NS2 to be gone, including the
| Russians. So in all honesty, I'd expect saboteurs frok
| NATO country A helping out saboteurs from non-NATO
| country B with explosives and detonators if needed.
|
| By the way, nobody wanted NS2 by the time it was
| technologocally ready. Funny enough, if Trump wouldn't
| have been president a deal for CNG anf LNG would have
| been had a lot easier and earlier.
| fuoqi wrote:
| >Basocally everyone wanted NS2 to be gone, including the
| Russians
|
| I call BS. Not only have they invested a significant
| amount of money into it, they also sell gas to Europe
| through Ukraine even today. I think they would like to
| have working pipelines which do not cross any
| intermediate states, even in offline state.
| pphysch wrote:
| Can you provide some recent (say, post-Merkel) examples
| where Berlin has acted in its own interest _at the
| expense_ of Washington 's interests? And how did
| Washington respond?
|
| I'm genuinely curious since you seem to know a lot about
| German national governance.
| fabian2k wrote:
| That is entirely irrelevant, you're the one making absurd
| claims about Germany not being sovereign. You're also
| leaving a very short timespan here, one dominated by the
| war against Ukraine where US and German interests align
| very well.
|
| There is one event, if you believe the reports. And that
| was Germany allegedly making US deliveries of main battle
| tanks a requirements to agree to Leopard 2 deliveries to
| Ukraine. That was not something the US wanted to do at
| that point, though obviously it also wasn't something
| they disagreed with entirely.
| pphysch wrote:
| As other commenters have remarked, the bombing of
| Germany's energy infrastructure by a _literal ally_ is an
| extraordinary violation of sovereignty. You can do mental
| gymnastics to pretend that is irrelevant. It 's called
| "being in denial". And yet Germany is now in an energy-
| cost-induced recession. Is that also "irrelevant"?
|
| And we haven't even brought up FM Baerbock and where her
| allegiance lies (the Washington-based Atlantic Council
| said she was "in lockstep" with them).
|
| Regarding the German tanks, it says everything that even
| the Scholz-Baerbock regime was reluctant to send them. If
| it was truly in Germany's national security interest, it
| would be a no-brainer. But it's not about national
| security, it's about politics and Washington's interests
| in the region.
|
| So there's clearly a strong case for Germany not really
| being sovereign. When I ask you to make the opposing
| argument, you evade.
| fabian2k wrote:
| There is no evidence the US destroyed the pipeline.
| Hersh's story is a fairytale with lots of alleged facts
| that have been specifically debunked. There is no robust
| public evidence on who actually destroyed the pipeline.
| Everything that is public is circumstancial and
| contradictory.
|
| You are making a very extreme and frankly just plain
| insulting statement here by disputing our sovereignty.
| hef19898 wrote:
| So, ypu know who blew up NS2, owned by Gazprom? Care to
| tell me who it was?
| hef19898 wrote:
| >> The Scholz-Baerbock regime
|
| I thoight you people moved on from blaming _her_ to blame
| Habeck for everything by now...
|
| Also nice, that everyone ignores the fact NATO is an
| alliance, and having one country moving alone woupd be
| really bad in a time showing strength and unity is
| paramount.
| [deleted]
| SllX wrote:
| Yet our troops are still welcomed and NATO is more
| popular than ever.
|
| I'm not saying it doesn't put us in an advantageous
| position if it came down to war with Germany or France,
| but it does matter that we handle trade disputes and NATO
| as separate matters, and it isn't as if EU has exactly
| been kind to American tech companies lately given with
| each passing year they pass new onerous legislation that
| mostly affects foreign tech companies more than it
| affects their own domestic industry because their own
| home grown tech industry wasn't worth much before we took
| any protectionist measures.
|
| Right now we are guests in the country with our shields
| and spears pointed in the direction of the East because
| we have overlapping interests in defending _their_
| nations with their present governments as they are
| against the threat of Russia. The reality on the ground
| now outweighs an incidental hypothetical that would be a
| repeat of a hundred years ago. If our presence dissuades
| a second rise of Nazism, that's probably as much to
| Germany's benefit as it is ours, but the market disputes
| are between the EU and USA, not European NATO and North
| American NATO and while we're there as guests and not
| belligerents, we're there to defend Germany, not impugn
| its sovereignty.
| c00lio wrote:
| Where Europe is protectionist about tech, the US did the
| same about steel, aluminium, aircraft and certain foods.
| I guess the tech sector is just more present in the minds
| of HN readers.
| SllX wrote:
| I didn't forget about that, but I felt no need to double-
| down on the both-sides bit when the one I replied to
| already mentioned the IRA, and it's irrelevant to the
| point that trade including disputes and NATO are separate
| threads to the Trans-Atlantic relationships between
| America and our European allies. We can go tick for tack
| for all I care on trade--I mean I do care to the extent
| that I think it's dumb and we shouldn't but it also isn't
| a political priority for me--whereas NATO is severely
| more important independent of where we stand on the
| balance of our trade relationships at the end of the day
| because keeping Europe free and independent of Russia
| matters a great deal more.
|
| That even includes ensuring they have the freedom to pass
| screwball legislation that screws with our tech companies
| and moves the needle closer to re-evaluating their
| European operations as a priority.
|
| I'm not hearing any Europeans outside of Russia chime in
| to say they would in fact prefer the opposite outcome or
| an inverse set of priorities where we give them better
| access to American steel, aluminum, aircraft and food
| markets but dissolve NATO and pull out of their
| respective countries. It's a complicated series of
| military, trade, diplomatic and personal relationships
| with both profits and losses on both sides of the
| Atlantic, but on balance is still beneficial for
| Americans and Europeans.
| qwytw wrote:
| How?
|
| Also do you think US would not remove their troops if the
| host countries actually wanted to?
| WalterBright wrote:
| The US removed its presence from France at their request.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| The economic benefits of NATO for the USA wouldn't change
| much _today_ if Germany had its own troops instead of the US
| troops stationed there. Of course, if the troops _were never
| there in the first place_ , that's a different matter.
|
| The biggest actual difference isn't US troops stationed in
| NATO countries but rather the extent of the US as a global
| reserve currency and the power of the petrodollar. The
| concerns over these are well-founded as the powers that be
| have willingly traded the latter in exchange for upping the
| US' position in the current brinksmanship with Russia, when
| Russia was never the economic juggernaut to be reckoned with
| and certainly not worth giving up those cards for.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Wait, doesn't it actually help those countries?
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| Germans are invited to invade the United States of America. I
| hope to see your 5,000 helmets faring well.
| kurthr wrote:
| Losing half their gas supply and a huge amount of electrical as
| well, didn't help... but England and Italy will quickly follow,
| France and Spain with longer delay. The failure of China
| reopening was also a big hit.
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| Yeah, one has to admit that the US quite cleverly pulled at
| least some strings and got its win-win-situation while Europe
| is in no other position as to pay and still loose.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Peter Zeihan was right about one thing - even as the world
| declines America can thrive due to its position and massive
| access to local resources.
| hef19898 wrote:
| If you throw enough stuff on the wall, something will
| utimately stick. Even if it is just for a moment.
| baridbelmedar wrote:
| It's sadly not that surprising. Germany has a lot of heavy
| industries that require access to relatively low and stable
| energy prices. Furthermore, given the changed world situation
| regarding energy and the lack of developed nuclear power, they
| will need to rely on wind and solar power to a greater extent.
|
| Regrettably, energy poverty is a new concept we will have to
| learn in Europe, I'm afraid...
| qwytw wrote:
| But gas and power are now cheaper than they were before the
| war?
| pnpnp wrote:
| Financial markets are complex, and often have a long lag
| time. There are many compounding factors at play here.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Curious, won't a recession do that?
| fuoqi wrote:
| It's spot prices, which:
|
| 1) Can change very fast, e.g. on potential strong China
| reopening or colder than usual winter.
|
| 2) Do not fully represent cost of long-term contracts.
|
| Also, with reduced industrial output (especially in energy
| intensive production) you need less gas. If you try to return
| to the previous levels, the price will react sharply, thus
| making growth in those sectors difficult. Finally, a
| significant amount of electricity generation has migrated
| from gas to coal, which is not free of consequences...
| fpoling wrote:
| Also spot prices reflect the storage availability. The
| storage will be filled by October according to the existing
| contracts. I.e. there is no much room to receive more gas
| if it will have to be brought to Europe in the next few
| months.
|
| A really cold winter without Russian gas may bring the spot
| prices back to record levels as then the supply lines will
| be the bottleneck.
|
| Long term Europe needs bigger storage to smooth price
| volatility.
| c00lio wrote:
| Cheaper than immediately before the war. Far more expensive
| than the long-term average of the 2000s and 2010s.
|
| Edit: also, immediately before the war, Russia already seems
| to have started restricting supply, driving up prices.
| draw_down wrote:
| [dead]
| kranke155 wrote:
| Why? How expensive is nuclear vs wind and solar at this point?
| missedthecue wrote:
| The problem for Germany is that nuclear power plants, wind,
| and solar don't product natural gas.
|
| Natural gas can be turned into electricity, but electricity
| cannot practically be turned into natural gas and German
| industry needs a lot of natural gas.
| c00lio wrote:
| But with sufficient baseload nuclear, one could free up gas
| capacity because of the lower demand for gas peaker plants.
| Similarly, if electricity were as cheap as gas per kWh,
| many industrial applications could actually switch to
| electrical heating.
| swarnie wrote:
| The cost of nuclear isn't important to this short term
| debate, simply having it is.
| baridbelmedar wrote:
| Right, solar and wind, although relatively cheap to
| produce, unfortunately, face challenges when it comes to
| energy storage. These types of industries require
| stability.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Electricity cannot be stored, regardless of source. Base
| load is a thing, sure. But there are ways ro cope with
| that, all energy hungry industries in Europe, and
| Germany, found ways to do so. That includes everything,
| from steel over chemicals to paper.
|
| The lack, and price, of gas for things other than
| electricity was a problem for a while. But one that had
| nothing to do with nuclear power.
| c00lio wrote:
| Electricity can be stored, mostly in pumped hydro
| storage, but also in e.g. battery storage, pressurized
| air or heated rock. But storage is scarce, expensive and
| doesn't look like it is going to be built anytime soon
| (for the usual reasons, NIMBY, environmentalism, YAGNI
| (correct or imagined), "energy abstinence is more
| virtuous", "we can manage by regulating demand", etc.)
| hef19898 wrote:
| Pumped hydro capacities are all but fully occupied, and
| few and far between to begin with. Battery tech os
| nowhere close, nor is battery capacity, to make as much
| as a dent overall.
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| Nuclear is very cheap when you have an available power plant
| like Germany has... but instead decides to shut it down
| because that's not politically acceptable to use them
| schnuri wrote:
| The plants in Germany would have been due for expensive
| maintenance and they are old. (Maybe not EOL old but old)
| andromeduck wrote:
| I think public opinion has shifted actually, but greens are
| still very ideologically opposed and a member of the
| coalition government.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Depends; a lot more expensive typically. But the real
| challenge is the process of getting any nuclear built in a
| hurry. This seems to be a process that is measured in
| decades; not months or years.
|
| And given the cost, is not something that seems to be very
| popular in any case right now. Wind and solar are much more
| popular. The cost is much lower, plans are easy to get
| approved because there is very little controversy (other than
| some level of NIMBYism) and you can be up and running pretty
| soon after.
|
| And a useful side-effect of investing in renewable technology
| is that it can be exported. German companies like Siemens and
| others are making quite a bit of money with this. That's a
| good thing in times of recessions. Germany's heavy industry
| will end up going cold turkey on fossil fuels because of cost
| and climate. This is short term very disruptive of course but
| that also means a lot of money is being invested in
| alternatives. Which of course is something Germany can export
| as well. Germany might come out fine.
| twelve40 wrote:
| > a lot more expensive typically
|
| more expensive to operate existing plants that were already
| paid for a long time ago? i could never understand the
| shutting down part.
| c00lio wrote:
| Nuclear is dirt cheap when you have your power plants already
| built. Most of the cost of nuclear is building cost and
| related capital cost for the loans you take to build one and
| teardown/disposal. All German reactors had already paid off,
| teardown and disposal are deposited up front. So just running
| cost for them, mostly people and fuel, which is in the
| 5ct/kWh range (for sources e.g. look at the last IPCC report,
| but good numbers are hard to come by for the usual trade
| secret reasons).
|
| Wind is also in the 5ct/kWh range, solar at 10ct/kWh.
| However, to get both to a load factor of over 90% (which is
| typical for nuclear power plants) you would need a sufficient
| amount of storage and overbuild your capacity, which will
| cost an additional >10ct/kWh.
| hef19898 wrote:
| On the energy markets in Europe, at least the one Germany
| is connected to, the prices per kWh are calculated basedbon
| generation costs. Meaning investments and fox costs are not
| considered. CO2 certificates are so. With those being way
| too cheap the three cheapest electricity sources are: Wind,
| PV and coal. If memory serves well you have then hydro and
| nuclear, with has gas power plants usually being priced out
| more often than not.
|
| That structure doesn't really make sense from a climate
| perspective. It does show so, that nuclear is far, far from
| being cheap.
| c00lio wrote:
| > On the energy markets in Europe, at least the one
| Germany is connected to, the prices per kWh are
| calculated basedbon generation costs. Meaning investments
| and fox costs are not considered.
|
| Nope. Definitely not.
|
| Prices are based on a) fixed-price contracts that are
| negotiated with energy-producers and b) an spot-price
| auctioning model that is based on supply/demand. As an
| energy reseller, what you cannot get with your long-term
| contracts you have to make up with spot priced. With some
| additional provisions: Renewables get fixed prices
| (determined by bid) by lay by their regional reseller.
| And the highest spot price is always paid out to all
| lower-priced energy producers.
|
| But in all that, no energy producer will leave out the
| building and financing cost from their price calculation.
| Otherwise e.g. renewables would be free, because their
| generation cost is practically zero, no people or fuel to
| pay for, just building and financing.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Fixed prices =|= fixed costs. And yes, spot prices
| actually do exclude those. Sure, companies do include
| those in their internal calculations. The energy markets
| don't care. And yes, the results of this are funny. E.g.
| closing down gas plants without a single opertional hour
| because they are just not able to operate economically.
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| > lack of developed nuclear power
|
| Well, Germany had a few (remaining) nuclear power plants, and
| the lasts were shut down this year for political reasons.
| Apparently, it's better to import gas from Qatar and burn coal
| in the meantime while enjoying a (partially) self inflicted
| recession.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Besides some random commenters on the internet, nobody
| swriously links the complex nuclear exit in Germany to the
| current recession.
| [deleted]
| asah wrote:
| ? Sorry why?
| oezi wrote:
| The remaining nuclear power plants just had 4GW of
| output. Just this year alone 12 GW of renewables will
| come online.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| The nuclear power plants that were shut down would've
| needed extremely expensive maintenance to keep them
| running.
|
| It's a really complicated issue, with lots of
| misinformation floating around on both sides of the
| discussion. After all, nuclear power plants aren't
| actually economically viable either without heavy
| subsidisation and socialising the trash management (at
| least the ones we've had in Germany).
|
| While I can't say wherever Germany should've built more
| nuclear power plants... I'm however certain that most
| online discussions about the topic are extremely
| misinformed. The biggest reason for this situation is
| probably corruption, some of which has been proven and
| reported on going back decades with Schroeder for
| example.
| hef19898 wrote:
| That kind of corruption goes bavk to the likes of
| Strauss. Otherwise, fully agree.
| jsnell wrote:
| Discussed recently:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36070611
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36082406
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-27 23:02 UTC)