Media Partner Save the Date www.amnt2020.com #51AMNT 5 – 6 May 2020 Berlin, Germany
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July Crux of the Matter – Innovation Dear reader, The current debate on the topic of energy in many European countries is a lot of things: colourful, shrill, on Fridays, but certainly not one thing: fact-based. Not that every decision in our lives has to follow a quasi technocratic decision-making process. But it is enough if such an important topic <strong>for</strong> our society, indeed <strong>for</strong> the world as a whole, how the future energy supply is to be decided is to appear with colourful hair on web-television or to demonstratively go out onto the streets on Fridays? Where is the debate on the content of the question of what the future of our energy supply could look like? Where are the theses and antitheses to the individual energy sources? Where is the “discourse” that has been repeatedly demanded <strong>for</strong> decades by today's demonstrations – at least the discourse on “conventional” energy supply, which has been pushed into an ongoing justification loop by clever public influence, in which facts can hardly be placed? 315 EDITORIAL In short, there is no discernible will today, neither in the discussion nor in the public debate, to shape the future of energy supply with laws largely given by nature. It may sound almost absurd, but the trans<strong>for</strong>mation of energy systems, which has been praised as ecologically unobtainable in Germany, is currently failing because of nature itself. Politicians may think about changing Kirchhoff's laws of electrical engineering by decree or even repealing them in order to solve electricity transport problems, but it is becoming ever clearer that nature's originally restrictive requirements <strong>for</strong> industrial development, laid down in the well-known work “The Limits to Growth”, will limit the technologies of energy system trans<strong>for</strong>mation. Donella and Dennis Meadows and their colleagues at the Jay Wright Forresters Institute of Systems Dynamics had presented the results of their studies in 1972. The basis was a system analysis and computer simulations of various scenarios of a “world model”. The five sub-areas examined were industrialisation, population growth, malnutrition, exploitation of raw material reserves and destruction of habitats. Essentially, the exponential <strong>for</strong>m of the progressions <strong>for</strong> these central factors of our present time were and are the basis of predicted collapse scenarios that cast doubt on the industrial societies and even on the survival of mankind. However, although it was computer models that certainly calculated correctly, their functional relationships and boundary conditions were ultimately determined by humans. It is almost paradoxical that <strong>for</strong> decades the environmental movement based its argumentation on the results of what was actually high-tech electronics, which it vehemently rejected elsewhere or even questioned in principle. Looking back, it is of course always easy to refer to errors in studies with predictions. These appear in science. Even in today's world of high-per<strong>for</strong>mance computers, science is not free of errors and science must not end with irreversible statements even today, especially when doubts are justified and central questions of our lives are concerned. Nor can science be done by voting. Galileo Galilei certainly had more than 97% of the science of that time statistically against himself during his lifetime, but he was right; the sun is in the centre and the earth moves around it. The main mistake <strong>for</strong> the “world models” of the limits of growth was that the authors had <strong>for</strong>gotten one thing: man and his ability to adapt and, above all, to be innovative, especially when faced with important challenges. And if the protagonists here see nuclear energy at the end of its development, it must be said that nuclear energy is actually only at the beginning of its development. <strong>Nuclear</strong> energy today, with its 450 nuclear power plants and a share of around 11 % of electricity generation worldwide, is dominated by light water reactor technology. These techniques are mature, both in terms of reliable operation and economic viability. The latter may seem doubtful in view of the some considerable delays in the construction of several current new plants, but will cerntainly not apply to future projects. In this respect, one can consider the “old” countries that used nuclear energy, <strong>for</strong> example the last nuclear power plants of the “convoy line” to go into operation in Germany. This proven technology will certainly continue to dominate in the coming decades with its so-called Generation III+ systems. In view of current studies on the technical service life and safety assessment of plants of the II. and III. generation in operation over 60 years, these plants will certainly contribute to providing energy well into this century. The future potential of nuclear energy then lies in its ability to innovate. This is due to their energy density. In view of the essential factor of the world's borders, the consumption of resources as a whole, nuclear energy is the first choice, especially in view of the concept of sustainability, which is overused in some places. And nuclear energy can do much more than just contribute to the supply of electricity. If sector coupling is to succeed in the context of an “energy turnaround”, the plant engineering expenditure <strong>for</strong> primary energies must not grow immeasurably. <strong>Power</strong>-2-X, hydrogen or methanol supply, low-emission steel or basic material production require a reliable basic supply – e.g. by nuclear energy in plants with high capacities such as today predominantly or perhaps rather plants of smaller capacity at many locations. Whoever wants to advance our future energy supply will fail with bold and simple demands – the world is simply too big and too different, innovations will prevail, not irreversible bans. Christopher Weßelmann – Editor in Chief – Editorial Crux of the Matter – Innovation