[mpweiher]

No shutting down cheap, reliable, CO₂ free and already paid for energy infrastructure was.

That's about as idiotic as you can get.

And simply by not destroying this already existing infrastructure you wouldn't even have needed north-south links.

[natmaka]

Germany could have decarbonized faster by maintaining its nuclear power, but only to a limited extent because the bulk of the coal (especially lignite, a high CO2 emitter) is burned to generate electricity in the former East German regions, which have been devoid of nuclear power since 1995 (Soviet reactors were shut down due to their unsafety). Therefore, all active reactors were located in West Germany, and there is no adequate high-voltage line capable of transporting their output to the East.

At its peak (in 1999), nuclear power produced only 31% of Germany's electricity, itself less than 25% of the energy consumed (even considering primary energy, it only provided 12.7%), and by 2011 (Fukushima...), it was producing less than 18% of the electricity.

Moreover, in the East, coal-fired power plants have long produced high-pressure steam for district heating (industry and heating many premises), which a remote reactor cannot provide.

To claim that Germany shut down its reactors for no reason (after Fukushima...) or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as, in Germany, all political parties close reactors, and most reactors were not closed by "Greens".

Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency since it would have replaced part of the huge coal industry, which is very difficult to get rid of.

[mpweiher]

> Germany could have decarbonized faster by maintaining its nuclear power

Precisely.

> but only to a limited extent because the bulk of the coal (especially lignite, a high CO2 emitter) is burned to generate electricity in the former East German regions,

Huh? Not shutting down the existing nuclear plants is a pure positive and does not prevent you from doing other things. Such as building out renewables and/or nuclear plants in the east.

For the money we wasted on intermittent renewables so far, we could have built at least 50 reactors even at the inflated cost of the EPR prototype at Olkiluoto 3. Or 100 inflation-adjusted Konvois. So way more than enough.

Nuclear power is well-suited for district heating and industrial heat applications, unlike solar and wind.

> To claim that Germany shut down its reactors for no reason

Nobody claimed that. Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia

All West German reactors would have survived the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami perfectly fine had they been at the site of Fukushima. And we don't have Tsunamis in Germany. How does shutting down those plants make sense again? When answering, consider that Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants.

It's time for Germany to admit its mistake on nuclear energy

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/12/26/world/ger...

> or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as,

Again, such a good thing that that claim wasn't made in this thread. Or are you misleadingly claiming that it was?

> misleading as, in Germany, all political parties close reactors, and most reactors were not closed by "Greens".

Who "closed" reactors, now that actually is misleading for a change. The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002. Germany happens to be a country with the rule of law, so successor governments can't just act on whim, they are bound by the law of the land. Oh, and it was the Greens who made the Atomausstieg the primary condition for their coalition with the SPD.

So while it is correct that all parties are somewhat to blame, to claim that they are equally to blame is ahistorical nonsense and quite misleading.

> Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency

That is also not true.

[uecker]

The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, triggering massive investments, which was the plan. My prediction is that even France will scale down nuclear power for fiscal reasons alone - they would need to build new reactors now as a long-term replacement - but it does not look too good.

[ViewTrick1002]

France keeps talking about the EPR2 program but the government just collapsed because they are underwater in debt and can't agree on any cuts or increases in taxation.

At this moment to go on a massive spending spree for a dead-end nuclear project is not a very sane policy.

[seec]

Investing in the futur when you have a hard time creating more value than you consume is exactly what you need to do. Reducing investment is precisely the way to reinforce the downward feedback loop. If they want to keep taxing the common man, they need them to create more value otherwise to are just taking larger and larger share of vanishing small value.

France does have money; it's just all concentrated in the boomer generation who is fighting hard to keep control. A large share of the debt is generated to keep this gerontocracy confortable at the expense of the youth and future.

[ViewTrick1002]

Which means you need a return on the investment for it to work. Creating self sustaining industries that don’t need subsidies.

Tossing an absolutely mindbogglingly large subsidy to the 70 year old nuclear industry which never has delivered competitive products is not a good use of money. It is like saying we create value by going around breaking windows and paying people to fix it.

France’s problem is that if they don’t fix the spending issue on their own the bond market will do it for them. Maintaining the debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget until the only option is solving the issue.

Cutting spending will lower GDP and push up debt as a percent of GDP. But it wasn’t real income when the debt you took on did not lead to productive outcomes. Just polishing a pig.

[mpweiher]

> The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot,

It massively increased the price of electricity in Germany. And the same holds true of pretty much every other location that tried it.

And it did remarkably little for CO₂ emissions, massively increased our dependence on cheap Russian Gas thus emboldening Putin, cemented our fossil fuel dependence for reliable base load, entrenched our dependence on China.

On the whole, "wasted" is putting it kindly.

Yes, the prices of the generating equipment have come down from truly astronomical to only "not competitive without massive subsidies".

Had we spend the same money on nuclear power plants, we would have long been done with the decarbonization of our electricity sector, and probably well into the electrification and ensuing decarbonization of the other sectors as well.

Except we would have found it difficult to spend that much on nuclear power plants, because even at the price of the messed up EPR prototypes, the same money would have bought us over 50 reactors. At the price of the first three Konvois, around 100, adjusted for inflation and some increases. But when you build 50-100 reactors of the same kind (that's important: don't make every new one different like we used to do), the cost does go down.

France is increasing its fission fleet again, after repealing a law that made such expansion illegal beyond the then existing generating capacity 63.2 GW.

The goal of a reduction of the nuclear share to below 50% was also repealed. I do believe that the share of nuclear in France will decrease somewhat, because intermittent renewables can let the nuclear plants run at higher efficiencies by taking up some of the variability that is currently handled by the nuclear plants.

[uecker]

Come, please do not repeat all this nonsense from the tabloids. First, you need to specify what prices you talk about. If you talk about household prices, then yes those increased. This, btw, was also intentional. The system was designed in this way to encourage energy conservation. It certainly got too far, but this is largely a political issue. In France prices were kept low artificially (which did not help the nuclear industry!). So these prices do tell you exactly nothing about the merits of the technology, and more about politics.

That reliance on Russian gas was increased is complete BS. Only a very small amount of gas which is imported is used for electricity production (10% or so) and it is certainly not true that this (relatively small) amount increased. In 2024, 80 TWh of electricity were produced from gas. In 2010 it was 90 TWh. In that time frame, renewables increased from 105 TWh to 285 TWh. 1.

CO2 emissions went down with roll-out of renewables exactly as expected2) Coal use for electricity production went down from 263 TWh in 2010 to 107 TWh in 2024. In fact, CO2 emission went down faster than planned which is the reason Germany still managed to meet climate targets despite other sectors (heating and transportation) not meeting their targets. That Co2 emissions for electricity production are still higher compared to some others is that there is still a lot of coal in the system (and electricity from that was already exported a lot until recently). But once coal is pushed out completely then this will be gone. The only real conclusion here is that the energy transition was started to late and is not fast enough. The past, nobody can change, but it would certainly be much slower when building nuclear plants now.

France wants to double down on nuclear for political reasons and my prediction is that they will fail because they can not afford it. They have huge fiscal problems and they did not invest enough to renew their nuclear fleet in the past, sold electricity too cheap (so could not build up reserves), and would now have to invest a lot, but their nuclear industry is in a horrible state and their state dept is out of control already.

1.https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/STR... 2.https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/co2-emissionen-pro-kil...

[uecker]

The "Russian gas" argument is so grotesque also because Germany quickly stopped important gas from Russia after the start of the attack on Ukraine, but neither Europe nor the US has stopped importing nuclear fuel from Russia.

[mpweiher]

The "nonsense" from the "tabloids" with no direct involvement or experience with the subject...like former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who initiated/approved the Nordstream 1 pipeline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k0xx8LA8-o&t=817s

"We got out of nuclear, during my time, and we also will get out of coal and we should count on renewables. But it won't be enough".

As a justification for Nordstream 1, which was kicked off shortly after the nuclear exit was made law in 2002, and for Nordstream 2, wich was initiated later.

Same story with that other tabloid reporter with no idea of what she's talking about, Angela Merkel:

"Sie verwies auf die damals schon hohen Energiepreise durch Förderung der erneuerbaren Energien, den Atomausstieg und den Beginn des Kohleausstiegs. "

She pointed to the already high energy prices at that time due to the promotion of renewable energies, the phase-out of nuclear power and the beginning of the phase-out of coal.

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Merkel-erklaert-wie-es-zu-Nord-S...

Nothing to do with the nuclear exit, no sireee.

Oh and more "tabloids", such as the Council for Foreign Relations:

"In the decade leading up to the February 2022 invasion, Russia became emboldened by the presumption that Germany valued its economic interests above all else. These interests were heavily tied to Germany’s significant reliance on importing cheap Russian natural gas."

"Russia rushed to finalize the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the months before the invasion and deliberately emptied German gas storages owned by Russian state energy company Gazprom to increase pressure on Germany."

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/one-year-after-how-putin-got-ge...

Or the Brookings institute:

"The argument centered on whether it was a commercial project, intended to meet Europe’s growing demand for natural gas, or a geopolitical project intended to deepen Russia’s dominance of European gas markets and to starve the Ukrainian economy of revenues from natural gas transit."

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/europes-messy-russian-gas...

Or another German Chancellor:

"Putin’s plan to blackmail Germany with energy supplies has failed, Scholz says after one year of war

Russia’s attempt to blackmail Germany and the rest of Europe into giving up its support of Ukraine by cutting energy supplies has failed, chancellor Olaf Scholz has said on the anniversary of Russia’s invasion attempt of its western neighbour. "

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/ukraine-war-tracking-im...

CO₂ emissions went down minutely, and by less than the switch to fracking gas in he US in he same timespan. Yes, even fossil fuels are better than the failed German Energiewende. And of course CO₂ emissions are still 10x worse per kWh than France's. For way, way more money.

This is such a failed policy, it isn't even funny. Or maybe it's funny again, I can't tell.

[natmaka]

>> The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot,

> It massively increased the price of electricity in Germany.

We all have to consider the total cost on the long term. I analyzed it for France. I wrote it in French, sorry, but AFAIK software does not distort it: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h....

> And it did remarkably little for CO₂ emissions

Nope: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...

> massively increased our dependence on cheap Russian Gas thus emboldening Putin

True, sadly, however consider that nuclear didn't save France which is even more dependent (while less industrialized). French ahead: https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/transition-...

> Had we spend the same money on nuclear power plants

France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed.

> Except we would have found it difficult to spend that much on nuclear power plants, because even at the price of the messed up EPR prototypes, the same money would have bought us over 50 reactors.

Once more: source? The most serious allegations published state about official investments previsions until 2050, and not only for renewables (grid maintenance is a)

> don't make every new one different like we used to do

... therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all. No more juice, yay! It nearly happened in France recently, and the shock was alleviated by the fact that the fleet is NOT made of identical reactors, and therefore a fair part could produce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis...

> France is increasing its fission fleet again

Not really. The last project (Flamanville-3) started in 2004, work on the field started in 2007, the reactor was to be delivered in 2012 for 3.3 billion € and only started a few months ago (it did not yet reach full power) for at least 23.7 billion €. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl...

Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure.

There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else.

[mpweiher]

> [renewables massively increased electricity prices, not decreased them as claimed]

> We all have to consider the total cost on the long term.

Yes, we do. When you consider long term, it gets even worse for intermittent renewables. Nuclear, on the other hand is a license to print money when you consider the long term.

> I analyzed it for France.

With all due respects to your "analysis", the French auditors came to a different conclusion.

> Nope [to having little effect on CO₂ emissions]

The graph you linked to proves my point: the reduction is laughable. France's specific CO₂ emissions are less than 1/10th of Germany's per kWh. Have been for decades, at a fraction of the cost.

> France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed.

Again, the opposite is true. Those projects did not "fail". They all produce reliable power, which intermittent renewables cannot do, at better prices than intermittent renewables.

Of course, compared to other nuclear projects, they were massive failures, but not when compared to intermittent renewables. The standards are just so different.

And your reasoning is also wrong: those projects "failed" (relative to other nuclear projects) precisely because far too little was being built. They are all First of a Kind (FOAK) builds, and built in countries that built little to no new nuclear in the last 20-40 years.

FOAK builds are slow and expensive (and slow is extra expensive, as most of the cost is financing, i.e. interest payments). NOAK builds tend to go much quicker and be a lot cheaper. As an example, China builds much faster and cheaper. People incorrectly claim this is because they skimp on safety, labor, tech etc.

Not true. Their first AP-1000 took 9 years, almost as long as Vogtles, especially when you take into account the COVID years. They are now building their version in 5 years. Essentially the same reactor, certainly the same country. Half the time.

FOAK vs. NOAK is the ticket.

> .. therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all.

France's primary problem was lack of maintenance due to the de-emphasis of nuclear during the Mitterand years and deferred maintenance during COVID.

And you don't build just one kind. Build 2-3 kinds and 10-20 of each.

Oh, and don't build them too quick. These things last for 100 years, so to achieve steady state you can't build out your entire fleet in 10-20 years, because then you industry has nothing to build for the next 80-90 years and withers.

> Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure.

No it didn't. Relative to the standards of nuclear power plants it was horrific. But even under fairly negative assumptions for the price of electricity it will have "modest" profitability. Which, once again, is better than the best intermittent renewables projects.

And FV3 is not "the nuclear industry". It is that particular project.

> There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else.

That is false. The current plan is to build 6 EPR2 and later on to build 8 more. Sites have been selected for the first 6, and engineering contracts for the first 2 have been awarded to the tune of several billion €.

If that's "nothing", then can I have just a bit of that "nothing" from you? Can send you my bank details.

[natmaka]

> Not shutting down the existing nuclear plants is a pure positive

Ask Japan, and especially Fukushima's residents, about this.

> building out renewables and/or nuclear plants in the east.

Germany chose renewables and cannot quickly phase out its huge coal industry.

> For the money we wasted on intermittent renewables so far

Source (with investments' perimeters and maturities)?

> Nuclear power is well-suited for district heating and industrial heat applications

If, and only if, it is designed for it, and with the appropriate networks. France nuclear does nearly 0 district heating and 0 industrial heat.

> Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons:

Reason: "Fukushima"

> All West German reactors would have survived the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake

In Japan until 2011, officially "all reactors will survive..."

> we don't have Tsunamis in Germany

Tsunamis are not the sole cause potentially triggering a nuclear accident.

> How does shutting down those plants make sense again?

Refusing nuclear-induced challenges (risk of major accident, waste, dependency towards uranium, difficult decommissioning, risk of weapon proliferation...) while another approach (renewables) is now technically adequate makes sense.

> Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants.

Some sing this song since 2015. In the real world Japan, just like China, massively invests on... renewables! Surprise! And very few reactors were reactivated: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

>> or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as,

> Again, such a good thing that that claim wasn't made in this thread

It is nearly always made, in a form or another, in each and every thread about nuclear energy. In this very post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45230099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228712

> Who "closed" reactors

Read on: https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561

> The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002.

Don't omit anything: "The phase-out plan was initially delayed in late 2010, when during the chancellorship of centre-right Angela Merkel, the coalition conservative-liberal government decreed a 12-year delay of the schedule."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Chang...

Then the Fukushima accident changed it all. Exactly what I described.

>> Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency

> That is also not true.

Germany burns its own coal, and by doing so maintains a huge sector. By letting reactors run it would have had to phase coal our more quickly, leading to massive unemployment and dependency towards uranium. This is sad but true.

[mpweiher]

> Ask Japan, and especially Fukushima's residents, about this.

Yes, let's ask Japan!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-16/japan-see...

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/12/26/world/ger...

>> Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons:

> Reason: "Fukushima"

QED.

> > Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants.

>Some sing this song since 2015

And it still happens to be true. And only in the weird minds of anti-nuclear activists are renewables and nuclear power incompatible. Almost the entire industrialized world is investing massively in both nuclear and renewables.

And once again: The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002. Governments are bound by the law of the land.

Now other governments should have scrapped those laws, but they didn't. So they bear some responsibility for this disaster, but the main responsibility is still with Red/Green (2002) in general and the Greens in particular, because they were the ones pushing it.

It is also really telling that for some reason everyone wants to ascribe this huge "success" to their political enemies...

[natmaka]

Japan: no comment nor "someone sees something" changes anything to the (already stated) facts: since Fukushima (2011) Japan did not restart its nuclear reactors and is quickly building renewables: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

> the entire industrialized world is investing massively in both nuclear and renewables

Nope: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

[mpweiher]

Why do you lie so blatantly on something that is so easily checked and disproven?

Japan has restarted at least 14 reactors.

https://www.modernpowersystems.com/analysis/re-establishing-...

https://pris.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....

Or even just Wikipedia:

"As of January 2022 there are 33 operable reactors in Japan, of which 12 reactors are currently operating.[87] Additionally, 5 reactors have been approved for restart and further 8 have restart applications under review."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Nuclear...

Your ourworldindata links says nothing about current investments. It is therefore not a repudiation of what I wrote about investments in nuclear and renewables.

Here's what ChatGPT says:

Is the industrialized world massively investing in both nuclear energy and renewables?

ChatGPT said:

Yes — there is strong evidence that in many (though not all) of the industrialized world, there is a massive investment push in both renewables (especially solar and wind) and nuclear, though the balance, pace, and scale differ a lot by region. Below are key takeaways, some of the caveats, and what seems likely going forward.

Nuclear energy

Interest in building new nuclear capacity has increased. Many countries are extending the life of existing reactors, and new reactors are under construction. For example: 63 nuclear reactors globally are under construction as of 2025, representing over 70 GW of capacity.

Annual investment in nuclear (both in building new reactors and extending existing ones) has risen by almost 50% since 2020, now exceeding USD 60 billion per year. (IEA)

Some countries are making major new commitments: UK’s investment in the Sizewell C plant, public & private funds for modular reactors, Canadian incentives for SMRs, etc.

Research indicates that global nuclear capacity might more than double by 2050 (from ~398 GW now to ~860 GW).

[RandomLensman]

End of live would have come sooner or later anyway.

But why take the risk of fission reactors becoming targets in a war?

[mpweiher]

Later.

Reactors in the US, on which the German designs are based, have already received their extensions to 80 years.

Experts see no particular problems in extending that to 100 years or even further.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-pla...

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-long-can-a-nuclear-plan...

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re...

Fission reactors are not very useful targets in war. In Ukraine, their fleet of nuclear reactors are what's keeping the electricity grid running. And they are building new ones. In war time.

[pqtyw]

Because presumably France for instance would likely view someone blowing up one of their plants the same way as a nuclear attack. Given their nuclear deterrence policies that would end up badly for both sides

[RandomLensman]

Germany doesn't have a nuclear deterrence and in the event of a nuclear war still might want to avoid having particular bad targets. I'd rather put any new money for nuclear into fusion instead of building large fission reactors.

[natmaka]

A nuclear plant may be hit by despair, even if it isn't the target, and in any case finding who hit it may be difficult. Right now in Ukraine...

[mpweiher]

Right now in Ukraine, the nuclear plants are what's keeping the grid alive.

They are extremely tough targets, and fairly easy to defend.

[natmaka]

It is not about blackouts but about the risk induced by a nuclear plant in a warzone.

That's what International Atomic Energy Agency's (UN agency in charge of civilian nuclear) boss said about it: "Director General Grossi reiterated his deep concern about the apparent increased use of drones near nuclear power plants since early this year, saying such weaponry posed a clear risk to nuclear safety and security"

"any military attack on a nuclear site – with or without drones – jeopardizes nuclear safety and must stop immediately"

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-303-iae...

[mpweiher]

> It is not about blackouts but about the risk induced by a nuclear plant in a warzone.

What concrete risks are those?

And of course the IEAE is concerned about nuclear safety. That's their job.