[uecker]

I see you edited your comment. But the CO2 emissions between a completed transition away from fossil fuels (France last century) and Germany (still ongoing) can obviously not be compared. With the roll-out of renewables there is a corresponding drop of emissions (and the electricity sector is the one saving Germany's climate targets by overachieving its goals while transport and building is behind). Once the transition is done, it will be essentially done. It would be same if Germany had decided to move to more nuclear, which would take even longer because building nuclear takes much.longer.

[UltraSane]

"But the CO2 emissions between a completed transition away from fossil fuels (France last century) and Germany (still ongoing) can obviously not be compared"

Isn't that convenient? The truth is that Germany could already have completed the "transition away from fossil fuels" that France did if it wasn't so irrationally afraid of nuclear electricity.

"Once the transition is done"

It will NEVER be done due to the intermittency of wind and solar.

[uecker]

The truth is that you need to set the decline of CO2 emissions to the progress of the transition. If you do this, you will see that emissions decrease accordingly to the rollout of renewables. If Germany had decided to build out nuclear, it would also not have low emissions the next day, but only decades later depending on how much coal is replaced by new nuclear. This not difficult to understand. In fact, it is very obvious.

[UltraSane]

"If Germany had decided to build out nuclear"

This is misrepresenting what Germany did. They shut down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors with 20 to 30 years of remaining life instead of their filthy coal plants, all because of a deeply irrational and anti-intellectual fear of nuclear energy.

By what criteria can Germany's energy transition be considered a success? It has made german electricity some of the most expensive in the world while also emitting 10 times as much CO2/kwh as France. You are getting the worst of both worlds.

[uecker]

You are not addressing my comment and again instead switch topics and resort to rhetoric ("deeply irrational", "most expensive", "worst"). You should also say which price you are referring to, there are many different ones.

[UltraSane]

Germany'a decision to shut down their perfectly safe and young nuclear reactors was a deeply irrational and very expensive decision. Shutting down functional low-carbon plants while operating coal plants during a declared climate emergency is difficult to defend.

Multiple studies estimate the climate and economic cost in the tens of billions of euros.

German culture, especially their "Greens" seems to have mentally fused nuclear power and nuclear weapons into one category unlike most other countries.

[uecker]

Please cite studies instead of making random claims. You again just repeat your rhetoric. But let's first agree that you CO2 emission comment was an invalid argument before we go on to discuss other issues.

As a start to discuss cost, here is Lazards' analysis about the cost of power generation: https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

"On an unsubsidized $/MWh basis, renewable energy remains the most cost-competitive form of generation."

Edit: In other news, and as usual for nuclear projects, EDF had to increase their cost estimate of new reactor again: https://sightlineu3o8.com/2025/12/edf-raises-budget-for-new-...