Germany maybe found a new source of renewable energy
Germany’s identification of new geothermal resources near former mining areas is seen as a useful addition to its renewable heat supply, but not a fundamentally new energy technology. Commenters use the news to examine Germany’s broader energy strategy, contrasting geothermal, wind and solar with nuclear and gas in terms of cost, grid stability, safety, and dependence on Russian fuels. Much of the debate centers on whether Germany’s anti‑nuclear stance—rooted in historical accidents, waste storage failures, and political movements—has led to higher emissions and prices, or whether a renewables‑plus‑storage and hydrogen pathway is still the better long‑term bet.
Geothermal finding and headline skepticism
- Commenters note the article is about identifying geothermal potential near former mining sites, not a “new” energy source or method.
- Some see it as another instance of expanding conventional geothermal use (like in Munich), not a breakthrough.
Geothermal potential and constraints
- Munich and the Molasse Basin cited as strong examples of successful district heating from geothermal aquifers.
- Tapping hot water aquifers is seen as far easier than extracting heat from “hot dry rock,” which has low thermal conductivity and is not yet commercially viable.
- A question about local cooling effects is answered: wells would become uneconomic long before they affected wider crustal heat.
Germany’s energy mix and transition
- Long argument over how well Germany’s renewable-focused “Energiewende” is working:
- One side highlights large renewable growth and reduced coal share.
- Others stress remaining >20% coal/lignite, high electricity prices, and reliance on imports and gas.
- Debate over whether the costs of the transition are justified and whether it leads to de‑industrialization.
Nuclear, fracking, and safety
- Strong disagreement on equating nuclear with fracking: some say both have serious risks; others argue nuclear is far safer and more contained.
- Fukushima and Chernobyl loom large in perceptions; some say German fears are “manufactured,” others emphasize lived experience of contamination scares.
- Disputes over whether Germany’s nuclear phaseout increased coal use and indirectly funded Russian aggression.
Grid stability, storage, and alternatives
- Solar is seen as quick to deploy but insufficient alone; need solutions for “Dunkelflaute” (dark, windless periods).
- Suggestions include gas/hydrogen plants, batteries, pumped storage, and grid interconnects.
- Hydrogen is promoted by some as long‑term storage; others note safety, leakage, and materials issues.
- A speculative idea about high‑altitude thermal chimneys as baseload is discussed but viewed as a major engineering challenge.
Origins of German anti‑nuclear sentiment
- Attributed variously to: Cold War fears, Chernobyl, early Green/anti‑nuke movements in the 1970s–80s, scandals and failures in nuclear waste handling, and possible fossil or foreign influence.
- Some argue current opposition is driven primarily by waste-storage failures and high modern nuclear costs.
Russia, gas, and geopolitics
- Contentious back‑and‑forth on whether Russian or Western policies “caused” the Ukraine war and Europe’s gas dependence.
- No consensus; positions range from blaming Russian imperialism to blaming NATO expansion and Western meddling.