Germany shuts down its last nuclear power plants today (April 15). Lindner (FDP), Merz (CDU), and Söder (CSU) called for extensions instead. Was this just rhethorics or an actually topic they want to press further long-term?
Germany's next federal election is October 2025. The CDU and Merz are currently leading the polls.
Resolves NO, if the topic of nuclear power plants in Germany is forgotten and not relevant in the election campaign. Discussions about importing nuclear power are not relevant for this market.
Resolves YES, if it is a relevant discussion topic between parties during the election campaign to turn nuclear power plants on again or build new ones. For example, if it comes up as a question in a tv debate between candidates for chancellors, it surely is a YES.
I'm aware that "relevant" is ambiguous but I'm not sure how to clarify that. If only a single small party (e.g. FDP) mentions it in their manifesto it is not sufficient for a YES because that will surely be dropped when a actual government is formed. Feedback welcome!
Update: Important aspects are if a Wahl-O-Mat question will be about nuclear energy and if nuclear energy will be a relevant topic in a tv duell.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ490 | |
| 2 | Ṁ306 | |
| 3 | Ṁ169 | |
| 4 | Ṁ93 | |
| 5 | Ṁ82 |
People are also trading
Resolving this to YES.
It did come up in the first tv debate but not the recent ones.
It did get a question in Wahl-O-Mat.
It is mentioned in the manifestos of CDU, AfD, and FDP and makes it into the summary here. This is a majority according to current polls.
It certainly wasn't an easy decision. Personally, I think it is bonkers to bring this up as an election topic and I was hoping that people would not be that stupid. It eventually lost its relevancy probably to some degree because the Trump administration brought up new topics. Nevertheless, I don't feel that NO can be justified and the alternatives would be a cop out. So, I decided for YES.
@marktwse If it's a relevant topic in the sense of "Energy is too expensive / not clean enough, because we abandoned nuclear", but there is no discussion about restarting old plants or building new ones, how would you want to resolve?
@Primer One piece of evidence I'm waiting for is the Wahl-o-mat as it is a rather neutral selection of topics. Another one is the upcoming tv duells since they serve as focal points of the debate.
Merz is definitely talking about it and the CDU manifesto contains:
Wir halten an der Option Kernenergie fest. [...] Die Wiederaufnahme des Betriebs der zuletzt abgeschalteten Kernkraftwerke prüfen wir.
Rough translation: We keep nuclear energy as an option. [...] We will assess restarting the shut-down nuclear plants.
@marktwse I'm just wondering how strict you will adhere to
relevant discussion topic between parties during the election campaign to turn nuclear power plants on again or build new ones
Especially the "turn [...] on again" and "build new" part. Like which of the following sentences would suffice for the TV duel part?
It was a mistake to shut down the plants
We should do a new assessment of safety and economic potential
We will do a new assessment of safety and economic potential
We want to assess if we can build new plants
We want to build new plants
@Primer It isn't about specific sentences. It is about the relevancy of the topic.
If one candidate in a tv duell mentions nuclear plants, it isn't necessarily relevant yet. The question is if the other candidates respond to it and it becomes an actual debate. Will the media reporting mention that aspect of the duell or will it be other topics?
It seems likely that it will come up, so the 80% feels about right to me. On the other hand, maybe we forget about it and everybody just talks about Musk and Immigration.
@marktwse Seems like we're talking slightly past each other, sorry for that. Is it sufficient (case 1) if they argue about whether it was a mistake to shut doen nuclear, or whether nuclear is good or bad. Or (case 2) do they need to discuss about either turning plants back on or building new ones (as per the wording in the criteria)?
@Primer There needs to some relation to the election, i.e. the future. The past (case 1) is not relevant in itself. However, in an election context, like a debate, surely they will connect it. Probably some implied "you are incompetent".
So, yes both, case 1 and 2, should be sufficient.
@Primer Thanks for asking! Better to clarify things in advance. I hope this will be easy to resolve. 🤞
@marktwse I hope so! Good luck!
The AI turned your last comment into an addition to the description. It doesn't make much sense on its own, you might want to edit it.
@marktwse I don't envy you. This was basically: Merz: "Why did you shut down nuclear in such a situation?" Scholz: "I kept it running as long as possible. Also, Germany shut down nuclear twice, once under a CDU government".
Edit: I suppose you'll also consider the "Quadrell" which includes AfD and the Greens?
@Primer This one was rather weak. It wasn't the moderators who brought it up and it didn't get much attention during the discussion. It did get mentioned in the reporting though.
Articles, like his one, get written.
If the Wahl-o-mat website has it among its questions. (It surely will).
If the CDU has it in its manifesto. (It has.) https://www.merkur.de/wirtschaft/cdu-atomkraft-deutschland-kernkraft-kernenergie-akws-grundsatzprogramm-2023-zr-92722693.html
If CDU puts it on its placard. (it will not, most likely)
If the AfD puts it (less unlikely)