Solar and wind cannot replace base load power. Especially not in Germany. They have to rely on peaker plants even more, and those are burning gas, emitting CO2. And they built more coal power plant units, like Datteln 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datteln_Power_Station
This is incorrect, and also completely misunderstanding how electricity pricing dynamics work.
Power grids don't need base load providers at all. They need enough dispatchable sources (and/or imports) to cover demand at all times (at least if they want to avoid rolling blackouts like in SA).
Providing base load is a privilege you get to enjoy if you have the lowest marginal price at all times (or are technically unable to regulate your output down, and would rather pay not to)-- cheap intermittent sources (solar/wind) make it very difficult for conventional plants to act as "base load provider" profitably.
It's a fair point to distinguish that baseload is just one mechanism to reduce the amount of surplus renewable capacity required to cover demand. However, what is the alternative in the face of a grid that's designed for centralised large power producers, and an environmental policy that disincentivises us from using gas?
Yes, in a hypothetical world we can just scale up storage and decentralise production, but what are the timelines and costs on that? Because my understanding is that realistically something like nuclear is the best way of making that problem tractable over the timelines that e.g. a nuclear plant can operate.
> Yes, in a hypothetical world we can just scale up storage and decentralise production, but what are the timelines and costs on that?
Why a hypothetical world? I think that current timelines, while not particularly awe-inspiring, are quite realistic (Germany: no more coal for electricity within 2038).
I also see no problem in using gas peaker plants provisionally for the next decade, and gradually phasing them out in favor of storage as batteries get even cheaper.
Newly built nuclear power is basically useless by comparison-- construction alone currently easily takes a decade (see: Olkiluoto 3 >15y, Flamanville 3 >15y, Vogtle 3/4 >10y, Shin-Hanul 1/2 >10y), local resistance is very large, costs are astronomical.
ROI for those plants is completely abysmal already and continuously getting worse, because they are completely unable to compete with solar/wind energy prices whenever those are available.
So going "full nuclear" now would mean that all the extremely expensive effort is completely useless (climate-wise) for at least a decade (until first plants finish), while spending the same on solar/wind improves the situation right now (by allowing us to rely on fossils less often), and those projects also tend to finish within years instead of decades, and they don't need astronomical sums (and guarantees) from taxpayers to get financed.
> I think that current timelines, while not particularly awe-inspiring, are quite realistic (Germany: no more coal for electricity within 2038).
I am not an expert on this, at all... but I'm not sure that's the case. c.f. Wikipedia:
> In March 2024, Federal Audit Office published a report in which it assessed the policy as not meeting goals on a number of points: the planned 80% share of renewable energy requires dispatchable sources but the assumed 10 GW in fossil gas generation is neither sufficient nor on schedule; extension of electric grid is behind the schedule by 6,000 km (3,700 mi) and 7 years; security of the supply chain is not sufficiently assessed; system costs to ensure 24/7 generation are underestimated and based on "best-case" scenarios; capacity installed in renewables is behind the schedule by 30%, whereas demand is expected to grow by 30% as result of electrification of heating and transport
As for
> ROI for those plants is completely abysmal already and continuously getting worse, because they are completely unable to compete with solar/wind energy prices whenever those are available.
That's because the pricing model is arbitrary. If we need nuclear, we can make it economically viable through reforming the way we purchase electricity. But,
> construction alone currently easily takes a decade
is the real problem. Unless SMRs actually materialise _and_ have fast build times, it's just not happening (and realistically, I think _that_ ship has already sailed).
I'm not really making a point here much beyond "it's one thing to say nuclear is no longer viable given our lack of investment" and another to say "it was a good thing to drop nuclear N years ago". You're not saying that for the record. By dropping nuclear, we have to deal with a bigger shortfall and that means gas peakers, etc.
> That's because the pricing model is arbitrary. If we need nuclear, we can make it economically viable through reforming the way we purchase electricity
I don't really agree on this. The problem is that intermittent sources (wind/solar) have become really cheap per MW. Whenever those sources are available, nuclear power just cannot compete, so you basically build nuclear plants as glorified peaker plants (even if you run them full throttle all the time, when wind/sun is available the power they provide is effectively worthless).
You can see this very effect in China, where the capacity factor of coal power plants is going down every year (and coal power is not very suitable for that).
> By dropping nuclear, we have to deal with a bigger shortfall and that means gas peakers, etc.
I completely agree on this. Having built like 30 nuclear power plants 40 years ago would be a godsend now for almost every country (=> see e.g. France, which is still reaping the benefits).
But its important to consider: The whole concept shares similar weakness with renewables (=> need additional dispatchable sources), and it also works pretty well for France because not every nation around them is doing the same thing (=> somewhat cost effective power imports, because not every neighbor needs to smooth out the exact nuclear-caused daily load profile).
Another point is that back then, there was
1) Much less local resistance (pre-Chernobyl)
2) Much cheaper labor and more economy of scale in building reactors
And it still took a lot of additional national commitment (from France) to fully nuclearize (mainly for strategic defense reasons, i.e. oil independence).
Seeing people advocate for nuclear power now is really frustrating to me, because we had that opportunity half a century ago, but now it's become unrealistic, unhelpful against climate change and insanely expensive, compared to much better alternatives (which are straightforward and just need to be executed). Arguing in favor of nuclear power now instead of wind/solar/batteries just feels stupid.
Germany relies mostly on oil, coal and gas for energy production [1]. Shutting down reactors that produces energy at a very low carbon cost (especially since a huge part of that was building the reactors) means you keep using fossil fuels. At the time of writing, Germany produces power at 432gCO2eq/kWh [2] (compared to 169 for UK, 13 to 37 in Sweden, 42 in France, 309 to 600 in Italy and 759 in Poland).
In practice, Nuclear was replaced with renewable but fossil fuel usage didn't go down.