[Herz]

> Nuclear is a legacy technology which is on the way out.

What do you mean by "legacy technology"?

> German society didn't want to be stuck with it and footing a tremendous bill for subsidizing and later dismantling the technology in the end.

Renewables have received 120 billion in subsidies last year.

Germany probably paid much more dearly for the closure of plants that could have operated for another decades.

> Pretty much all industrialized countries with the exception of China is going in the same direction.

Or they do wishful thinking on renewables. It depends on the point of view in the end.

[oezi]

120bn EUR would be more than Germany spends on electricity generation in total (considering that Germany generates a bit less than 600bn kwh p.a. in electricity and wholesale electricity prices were €95.18/MWh in 2023)

[Herz]

Yes, forgive me, I'm talking worldwide.

"A 2020 report by IRENA9 tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% went to fossil fuels. Only 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear. “This overwhelming imbalance of subsidies between fossil fuels and clean energy is a drag on us achieving the Paris climate goals,” says Taylor, who wrote the report. The balance of these numbers varies from year to year, because fossil-fuel subsidies swing around depending largely on the price of oil, he adds."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A...

Among other things, it is important to note that more than half of that money comes from the EU.

[oezi]

Thank you! Sounds plausible.

China also spends a lot on subsidies for their solar industry (at least this is often mentioned).