Net-exporter means very little when exporting renewables during optimal weather conditions and importing fossil fuels when the weather turns. Simply finding someone willing to buy excess power is very different from buying a finite (and very polluting) resource when demand exceeds supply.
Net-exporter is just a political tool to hide the aspect of dependency.
If France is dumping energy when there is an overall excess of energy in Europe, while buying fossil fuel energy during periods of high demand, then yes, it mean nothing even when France do it.
The reason why net-exporter does not mean anything is that the product people buy is not just the joules, it the service of getting the energy at the right time in the right place. Buying energy when the excess is so large that the price is close to zero is not the same as buying energy when supply is so low that people will do anything just to prevent a blackout. Net-exporter only has meaning if one buy and sell at the same time, and then only if the energy produced comes from the same type of energy, ie trading non-fossil fuel energy for other non-fossil fuel energy.
But compared to France, Germany's energy sector is much more diversified with the EEX as bonus. The pro-nuclear argument falls flat here by example as building new reactors takes too long to fight global warming and is much more expensive than investing into renewables. Which is what Germany does and will do even more with the new government. They'll also phase out coal completely. There is a law for that and it will probably even happen earlier with the new Government.
It won't happen earlier with nuclear kept alive and it wouldn't ever have happened as the reason for keeping coal alive is primary those jobs which get lost in already troubled regions.
Bringing up Germany in the nuclear debate is ridiculous. There is no useful argument for nuclear there but it still comes up over and over again. The main reason for that is Michael Shellenbergers Astro-Turf campaign which got loose on social media and which lead to hordes of knowing and not knowing participants who parrot those false and easy to disprove phrases which got prepared by Shellenberger and his "Institute". Not even HN is safe.
They actually were early adopters. As they often are.
Germany is part of the problem as long they are dependent on gas from Russia and a major contributor to global warming in Europe. Being diversified in how much fossil fuel they burn is not a good thing, no matter how much positive association one want to channel with the word "diversity". They either burn fossil fuel or they don't.
Fossil fuels need to stay in the ground and coal is the worst offender. Germany has caused more cancer deaths by using coal than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined, deaths that the German government should officially recognize. The government should issue an planned decommission of all existing fossil fueled power plants, with laws that prevent new ones to be built. Coal, oil, and natural gas.
Once they done that they can continue to be anti-nuclear if they want. How nations want to go forward in a world free of fossil fuels is their choice. They can invest in the yet-to-be-economic-viable green hydrogen plans, rust-batteries, lithium batteries or what have you. What they can't do is simply dumping massive amount of excess wind power to nearby countries in order to obscure the fact that they got a large fleet of fossil fueled power plants. The world doesn't work that way. They either burn fossil fuel or they don't.
> Germany is part of the problem as long they are dependent on gas from Russia
They (and the rest of Europe) will always depend on gas from Russia as there are many uses for Gas. Things which can't be replaced by nuclear. This is again something which is just another derailment within this topic.
FYI: France, THE nuclear nation now needs that gas because their rotting nuclear fleet is failing it's citizens...which is a winter tradition in nuclear France.
> Germany has caused more cancer deaths by using coal than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined,
Please spare me the theatre. Nobody needs that. Nobody who's against nuclear is pro coal and as I mentioned above: there is a law to phase out coal COMPLETELY! Imagine that. No coal at all. The current Government wants it by 2030. This is faster than you could build a single nuclear reactor.
> deaths that the German government should officially recognize.
What are you talking about? German government does recognize that. This is why the law is there.
This coal derailment is the most funny thing about this Astro-Turf campaign because it originated in the USA. A country which just last year had a president who talked about "clean coal" and does not have a law to phase out coal completely. So think again: why are you always talking about Germany?
> Once they done that they can continue to be anti-nuclear if they want.
Why should they? You can do both and this is what Germany is doing right now. Nuclear today has a negligible impact. We'd be able to turn it off tomorrow.
It has nothing to do with coal. The only reason coal is still there has been outlined in my previous comment. You chose to ignore that. What I got instead is more from the uninformed Astro-Turf. Are you even aware how embarrassing that is for you?
Please don't make light of people who died to an preventable disaster. Germany is releasing toxic air into the environment that causes cancers today. If nuclear plants was releasing their waste into the air, causing deaths around them, would you call that theater? I know people here would call it murder. A law to phase out existing practice of killing people in the name of energy is a very low bar in modern society, especially since the only reason is cost savings.
Whatabout USA. Whatabout china. Whatabout France. whatabout India. So much whataboutery. We have global warming! I really do not care about any whatabout. If a country is using fossil fuels, if they are continuing today with releasing toxic waste into the air, then they should be called out on it. Coal, oil and gas should not exist in the energy grid. If you have surrendered to the idea that gas must be burned for energy then you are not part of a future without fossil fuels, and long term that means mass extinctions, deaths, famine and ruin.
Its clear that you are turning to ad-hock attacks simply because you feel bad for supporting an industry built on death and destruction. Its typical when people feel shame. Maybe in the future you can join the movement that want to remove fossil fuels from the world. Until then all I can hope is that you will start to see the harm fossil fuels does to the world.
> Please don't make light of people who died to an preventable disaster.
As I have explained several times already, not a single death there has anything to do with nuclear. Germany would have exactly the same amount of coal plants with all nuclear plants still there.
> So much whataboutery
Funny since this post is about Finland and you prefer to talk about Germany while refusing to talk about X.
> Maybe in the future you can join the movement that want to remove fossil fuels from the world.
Oh so now you are part of a movement to remove fossil fuels? Why don't you applaud Germany for the law to phase out coal COMPLETELY?
My guess is: because you don't care at all. You just hopped on the Astro-Turf-train and faced with the facts, you chose to ignore those and scream even louder.
It is a desperate move by the fossil fuel industry to try convince the world that burning gas is the only way to save the planet, under the false pretense that other methods would take too much time.
The only people who advocate for natural gas is those that either is ignorant or has economical motives. Climate researchers know it, most people are aware of it, the facts has been know for several decades. Replacing coal with natural gas is not a solution.
Slowly phasing out coal will result in many more people that will die, blood that will be on the hands of the German government. I don't applaud when people simply plan to, at some time in the future, stop murdering people. Being slightly less of a murderer this year isn't something you get a medal for, stopping being a murder is.
