Naja, um eine solche Aussage treffen zu können, müsste man die Werte erstmal noch um andere Faktoren wie z.B. das Alter bereinigen. Alte Menschen wählen tendenziell konservativer und die Hochschulquote war früher schlicht viel niedriger.

Viele ältere Menschen haben nur einen Volks-/Hauptschulabschluss und dürften damit als “einfach gebildet” gelten.

Nein, man kann Straßen auch einfach der Stadt - sprich ihren Bewohnern - zurückgeben, statt sie für abzusperren, damit Autos freie Fahrt haben.

Du ignorierst an der Stelle halt, warum sich Autos überhaupt durchgesetzt haben. Wir hatten den Zustand mit gutem ÖPNV und besser für Fußgänger geplanten Städten ja bereits - bevor es Autos als Massenware gab. Die fanden die Menschen so viel besser als den Zustand davor, dass sie Straßenbahnen rausgerissen und komplette Städte dafür umgebaut haben. Ich denke, wir können es mit guter Planung schaffen, Autos wieder zurückzudrängen, aber sie als Option ganz vom Tisch zu nehmen wird eher nicht passieren. Und Robotaxis sind jedenfalls mir dann lieber als private Karren, die 90% der Zeit in der Gegend rumstehen.

Was können Robotaxis denn, was Leihfahrräder nicht können?

Davon abgesehen, dass sie schneller sind, mehr transportieren können, wetterfest sind … frag das mal bitte einen Rollstuhlfahrer.

Ziele richtet man danach aus, was man will, nicht danach, was man jetzt sofort haben kann.

Wollen kann man vieles, die Realität muss man dabei aber leider auch beachten. Ich denke, wir haben ähnliche Ansichten, ich bin nur nicht so optimistisch wie du, dass Menschen auf Autos verzichten wollen. Und ich kann auch nachvollziehen, warum das so ist.

Ich sprach jetzt eher von dünn besiedelten Gegenden.

Ich habe auch nicht dafür argumentiert, ganz auf ÖPNV zu verzichten. Der hat definitiv seine Daseinsberechtigung, insbesondere wenn sehr viele Menschen zur selben Zeit so grob in dieselbe Richtung müssen. Er ist aber eben nicht die beste Lösung, wenn man es z.B. eilig hat, zu ungewöhnlichen Zeiten unterwegs ist oder an einen Ort (oder davon weg) will, an den nicht viele Menschen zur selben Zeit wollen und ergo die ÖPNV-Abdeckung eher gering ist. Und daher wird es eben auch in Städten Nachfrage für Robotaxis geben. Und zumindest mir ist an der Stelle lieber, die Leute, die das brauchen/wollen, nutzen ein Robotaxi statt ein eigenes Auto zu unterhalten.

tl;dr: Städte sind keine Lösung, die Robotaxis überflüssig macht, was die Behauptung war, auf die ich geantwortet habe.

Eine autogerechte Stadt, die nicht auf ÖPNV optimiert ist, ist mit dem Auto schneller durchfahrbar. Überraschend. Noch schneller würde es übrigens gehen, wenn du einfach als einziger in Berlin Auto fahren dürfest und es keine Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungen gäbe. Vielleicht wäre das also eine sinnvolle Art, eine Stadt zu gestalten?

Wird halt immer der Fall sein, außer du schaffst Straßen ganz ab. Ich hab hier jetzt auch nicht gegen ÖPNV oder bessere Stadtplanung generell argumentiert, sondern wollte erläutern, warum Robotaxis auch in Städten durchaus eine Rolle spielen können und werden (wenn sie denn technisch möglich und billig genug werden).

Das ist keine Theorie, sondern ein Design, das absolut möglich ist, wenn man es denn stadtplanerisch zulässt.

Hab ich auch absolut kein Problem mit, aber die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass das in meiner Lebenszeit in (ganz) Berlin umgesetzt wird, sehe ich als äußerst gering an. Ob’s in anderen deutschen Städten mit besserer Verwaltung was wird, werden wir sehen. :)

Wo hab ich behauptet, dass es keine Wartezeiten gibt? :p In der Tendenz weniger als beim ÖPNV halt. Und da, wo man lang auf ein (Robo)Taxi wartet, wird die Versorgung mit ÖPNV auch nicht besser sein.

Als Berliner kann ich dir sagen, dass guter ÖPNV nett ist, aber mit Robotaxis nicht konkurrieren kann. Mit ÖPNV musst du oft Umwege fahren, mit Wartezeiten umsteigen und eben alle 1-2 Minuten anhalten und warten. Und 100% Abdeckung hast du selbst in Berlin mit ÖPNV nicht. Schon außerhalb der Innenstadt wird’s schnell mäßig.

Fahrrad fahren kannst du natürlich, aber das ist je nach Wetter, Distanz, gesundheitlichem Zustand und Betrunkenheitsgrad auch nicht so optimal.

Und ja, die Theorie, dass man alles durch Gehen in 10 Minuten erreichen kann, ist nett, trifft aber eigentlich (mit Abstrichen) nur auf die Innenstadt zu, die sich inzwischen eh kein Normalverdiener mehr leisten kann.

Yeah, Germany is mostly a lost cause for this topic, but some other countries in the EU still have considerable nuclear capacity (and also plans for new plants) and the German government is actively trying to derail that wherever it can, so I still think it’s important to discuss this. Climate change mitigation does not stop in Germany and we are in the Europe community…

France has to 48 npps hitting 40 years this decade or well they already have and has a single plant under construction with massive cost overruns and delays.

I am aware. There are no plans to shut all of them down anytime soon, though.

Also 40% fossil fuels and not 50% for Germany.

2022 was at 48.5% even with nuclear still running. https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&source=total&interval=year&year=2022

2023 is at 46.2% so far, and I doubt it will get better during autumn and winter. https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&source=total&interval=year&year=2023

Edit: Well, Lemmy is botching the links, so here are the graphs directly, I guess:

2022:

2023:

As for renewables on EU level that is France really needing a lot of low carbon electricity today, due to its aging fleet.

Do you really think France is in a worse position than Germany? Their electricity sector is almost carbon free, their CO2 emissions/capita are a lot lower than Germany’s and they did not build a lot of renewables so far. So, even in the worst case of having to replace all nuclear plants, they have to replace almost carbon-free electricity, using the most suitable locations for renewables in their country, since those are all still available, using current pretty low prices for renewables.

Meanwhile Germany did not even get rid of coal yet, about 50% of its electricity is still provided by fossil fuels (and a significant share of fucking coal, still), put inefficient old renewable technology in the best available spots for outlandish prices in the 2000s/2010s and now has to wait until the end of the lifespan of those old installations to put modern, cheap, efficient renewables there. If even possible, repowering old wind installations is faced with a backlash often enough.

You can look at this any way you want, the way the German Energiewende was implemented was terrible. You could argue that it helped to kickstart solar and wind, which it definitely did, but I do not think it was necessary to the extent it happened. Prices for wind and solar were already on a downward trend even way before 2000.

I don’t even put the blame fully on the Greens, who loved the goal of 100% renewables as quickly as possible and getting rid of nuclear so much they never stopped to ask about the price tag. Coal-loving SPD and conservative CDU messing up from 2005 to 2021 played a huge role as well. Really the only good thing the CDU ever did about climate policies in that timeframe was trying to extend nuclear, if you ask me. Unfortunately they botched even that.

But for the most part the issue with pricing is about making the grid viable for renewables and running natural gas plants as to stabilize the grid. That would have been necessary either way.

Nuclear could actually help to alleviate the integration costs of renewables, though. For starters, you need less gas backup if your baseload (or at least some part of it) is covered by nuclear, and also less adaptations to the existing grid, because hey, it was designed, among others, for nuclear power plants.

It would be especially helpful in winter, because to get to a high share of renewables in winter (assuming we also use a high share of heat pumps) we will need long term storage from other seasons (or import hydrogen/ammonia), and I really doubt those options will become cheaper than nuclear, existing or even new, anytime soon. Green hydrogen is very expensive, and likely always will be in Central Europe, because transporting that stuff here from better suited locations is also expensive. So the less we need, the better.

Funnily enough, nuclear power plants could also provide district heating in addition to electricity, which I reckon would be massively helpful for the heating sector and getting through winter (and make the plants even more economical). The German Konvoi reactor (the design of the newest three plants we just shut down) is even designed to do that, but it was never put to use here (except in Greifswald, but that was an evil Soviet design Germany shut down in 1990).

There were several studies done after the shutdown of the nuclear power plants, that showed, that the electricity prices did not increase.

Eh, it depends a lot on what exactly they analyzed. Throwing away electricity you basically already paid for is gonna cost you, there is no way that can be circumvented. It is not like we have so much wind and solar energy in the mix that nuclear could not have replaced more expensive gas, coal, oil, biomass, whatever.

Finnland has a comparable electricity price, but a much higher proportion of installed heat pumps.

Household electricity prices in Finland were a lot cheaper than in Germany up until the gas crisis, which is unrelated to my point about nuclear. Here is an example from 2020:

France is a bit weird, I think they actually heat directly with electricity a lot. I guess that’s a case where electricity is TOO cheap so people use it in stupid ways. :) Too much of a good thing can turn bad as well, I guess. Would not have happened in Germany even with extending nuclear, though. The thing is, heat pumps in France would not change much about their emissions. Heating (mostly) with nuclear electricity does not emit more than heating with heat pumps.

The whole uproar about this was synthetic, newly constructed houses install to over 50% heat pumps and only 10% gas. Electric cars would be adapted more, if companies would sell small, cheap EVs as well.

This does not mean extending nuclear could not have helped (assuming it would have helped to lower prices, which I still assume here). Maybe people would be more eager to replace their gas heaters with heat pumps if electricity prices had not been going up all the time (a lot more than in basically all other EU countries) in the past 20 years, what do you think? New houses are a special case anyway, since you basically already have to design them in a way that makes heat pumps the better option.

Nuclear is mostly baseload. I know that is can be throtteled, but that does not decrease the cost of the plant at all and is only necessary for grid stability.

There is no need to throttle nuclear, it is already low carbon and does not need to be replaced by renewable energy quickly, unlike ALL fossil fuel energy sources. That is the main problem I have with German Greens and climate activists, they act like nuclear and renewables cannot work together in a grid for no reason. In a scenario where there actually is too much electricity in the grid, throttling coal, gas, oil, hell, even biomass would be preferable before throttling nuclear. If that cannot happen, you can still try to export the excess electricity, which usually should not pose a problem, because both existing nuclear and subsidized renewables have a margin cost of basically zero. And if that does not work, finding ways to use excess renewable electricity (power to heat, power to gas, batteries, whatever else you can think of) is STILL preferable to throttling nuclear.

The big issue in this is Rosatom. Right now they enrich a lot of uranium especially for the US. If that stops for some reason, the Western price for nuclear fuel would skyrocket.

TBH I do not have enough insight into the uranium market to comment much on that, but even if true: The same situation already happened to renewables and their inherent (no, we do not have storage or H2 plants yet) gas backup plants. The need to diversify your energy sources unfortunately seems to be a lesson that the EU needs to learn the hard way. And fuel costs are such a small part of nuclear costs that even skyrocketing uranium prices would not change a lot.

It could be dead today if nuclear would be allowed to operate however.

You’re basically seeing my point here.

In any case, thank you for your constructive comments! We might not totally agree, but I enjoy debating and you made some good points. Since not much can be changed about the German nuclear exit anymore (maybe we can still save 6 plants, but highly unlikely), this is all the effort I will expend on this topic. I just hope German climate activists (and our government ffs) will stop to block nuclear on the EU level, because I really am of the opinion that it can contribute to climate change mitigation. In ADDITION to renewables, not instead of. We need all the low carbon energy sources we can get, we have to replace the energy system of the whole fucking globe!

Yes, all of that is also true, but it does not negate the points I made. Yes, gas was (and ironically still is) too cheap compared to electricity, but that does not change that at least using all of our nuclear power plants until their 40 year end of life (and it can be argued that they could have been used beyond that, but that is open to debate, of course) would also have helped to lower electricity prices and therefore benefit adoption. Ideally, both should have been done. More expensive gas AND cheaper electricity.

The sectors were Germany fails their climate goals horribly are the transportation and the building sector. This would have happened with or without nuclear power plants.

So, basically, the rollout of heat pumps and electric cars (I know it’s more complicated than that, but those are the main factors that are missing). There is one thing that countries with a higher market penetration of those have: Cheap electricity. And I can tell you one thing: Germany did not have exceptionally high consumer electricity prices in the past decades due to nuclear power plants. It was because we heavily subsidized renewable energies that were still expensive as hell and put the price tag almost exclusively on consumer electricity prices (this was Merkel, of course), also we tax electricity in an effort to improve efficiency.

Technologies that rely on electricity, such as heat pumps and electric cars, would have a much easier time to gain market share if electricity was actually cheap. That is the main problem I have with the debate about this in Germany. All of our legislation still treats electricity as if it was produced exclusively with fossil fuels, which actually hampers all efforts to replace fossil fuels with electric solutions. Forcing people to buy those instead of creating circumstances that makes them want to buy them is not a good idea. It creates exactly the kind of opposition we are seeing now.

To get back to the original point: Having nuclear plants with negligible marginal costs run for longer could definitely have helped those sectors, because it would have lowered the price of electricity. Especially so if the CO2 budget saved by that had been used to stretch the early rollout of renewables that was extremely expensive. 50 cents/kWh and more for solar in the 2000s, still 20-30 cents/kWh in 2011 when solar peaked. Thankfully wind was a lot cheaper, but still way above the marginal costs of nuclear.

Unfortunately we cannot go back to the past, so this whole debate is kind of useless, but the German nuclear exit was definitely a mistake with regards to climate protection, and the rollout of renewables was done in a horribly inefficient and unnecessarily expensive way that still hurts us today (although it is hidden in taxes now thanks to Habeck’s decision to move the EEG costs to the federal budget). And it was done this way mostly because of the nuclear exit. Which, apart from less anxiety about nuclear power plants, does not provide a lot of benefits. We still have to deal with our nuclear waste, we still had to pay fully for the construction of the reactors, all the necessary research and deconstructing them.

In essence, we wasted years of a significant amount of low-carbon electricity that was already >90% paid for and replaced it with extremely expensive not yet ready for market (in the 2000s and early 2010s, which we are still paying for now) renewables.