[flakeoil]

The fact that Angela Merkel closed down all nuclear power plants was probably a big part of the lower interest in EVs in recent year. Although they invested a lot in solar and wind, the solid base of electricity generation disappeared and thus the trust in electricity for transport disappeared amongst automotive management and the population at large.

[jhbruhn]

Good luck modulating nuclear power plants when there is a lot of cheap renewable energy available.

[nkmnz]

There's no technical need to do that, because someone who can always deliver electricity would be able to struck contracts with those that always need it, i.e. heavy industry, esp. aluminum and chemistry. The reason why downregulation was necessary in the 2000s and 2010s was regulation ("Einspeisevorrang"), not technology.

[jhbruhn]

If someone takes it near the power plant, and all the infrastructure is there for it. You don't build a (large) nuclear power plant just for these customers though. Generally, with a high amount of renewable but fluctuating supply, we have to get away from the base load model, towards a residual load model.

[nkmnz]

The burden of buffering the fluctuation is on those creating the fluctuation, not on those not doing so.

[jhbruhn]

Says who? We can design the markets like that if we want to, but that won't help us reach our climate targets.

[nkmnz]

Checks notes on carbondioxide emissions of Germany and France

I think you’re wrong.

[adrianN]

Power is essentially free when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, why would people buy more expensive nuclear power during that time?

[nkmnz]

>Power is essentially free when…

This is not true, since you still need to pay for capex and depreciation. The reason it appears to be free is not because its production doesn’t cost anything, but because at times of a glut there‘s just no one willing to pay much for it. Please make some good will effort to acknowledge the difference between cost and price.

Now, about your question, why people should buy „expensive“ nuclear power: for the same reason that people buy health insurance for: volatility increases risk, and you’re willing to pay an ongoing premium to reduce systemic risks. Over- and undersupply of electricity are risks for a lot of businesses and lots of them spend a lot of money on capex to avoid them, e.g. hospitals that have diesel generators. Generators are for a different failure mode (rare, longer duration outages), but for the high frequency, short time interruptions and/or price spikes caused by unbalanced generation volatility, contracts with a nuclear power company are similar; the capex is just shifted to the power company, and the customer might pay a premium during those times that other sources would deliver energy „for free“.

That said, this is not a black-and-white scenario. Of course we can benefit a lot from solar and wind. I’m not very positive about large scale batteries and lean more towards having flexible consumers, e.g. H2 production for the chemical industry. But right now, we don’t have the choice of nuclear vs. renewables, it’s (renewables + nuclear) vs. (renewables + turbines run with Russian gas or LNG from the US and Qatar). My choice here is clear, and it should not be muddied by the Russian propaganda of nuclear power clogging our electricity grids.

[sazz]

...because you don't have to modulate renewable energy?

[patall]

Ideally, you have 300% renewable energy available and then modulate actual production based on demand.

[brnt]

Renewable is cheap, but not that cheap.

Also, solar production and heating needs are anticyclical.

Also, the European grid is big (the biggest!), but not so big it can deal with seasons and weather patterns. Yet. Or ever.

The idea was that gas would fill in the gaps, until energy storage at scale becomes a thing (no, it is still nowhere near scale, only gas reserves can fill that role right now). Germany is investing heavily in hydrogen to fill this gap, but barring fundamental breakthroughs, I think it's a pipe dream. A 90% (roughly) total efficiency loss means 1000% oveprovisioning of generation capacity. That's expensive, even when cheap.

[jonp888]

"the solid base of electricity generation disappeared and thus the trust in electricity for transport disappeared"

I'm sorry, but WTF?

This is the most unhinged drivel about German nuclear I have ever read on HN, and that's saying something.

There no problem with "trust in electricity", whatsoever, nor is there any lack of a "solid base". There has been no electricity grid collapse in Germany for decades(in stark contrast to the US, or f.e. Spain). Any problems with electrcity have been due to terrorism or building errors.

Even with that, in case you haven't noticed, EV cars run on batteries and don't need constant power. Perhaps for "preppers" or people living in remote areas it would be a factor, but I have never in my life heard anyone connect the use of EV power with the power station the charging comes from or how reliable the grid is.

[sazz]

WTF about your understanding of the German power grid, I would say.

Germany is not in a position to continuously meet its own electricity needs, but is dependent on daily aid deliveries of electricity from abroad. The electricity needs of industry cannot be met in a market-oriented manner, but taxpayers have to spend additional money so that industry can continue to produce at all.

The absurdly high prices for electricity in Germany prevent any competitiveness. Ignoring all of this can only be described as WTF – what country do you actually live in?

[jhbruhn]

Energy scientist in Germany here. Germany could fully supply it's national grid with German energy production. We just don't do it because it's cheaper to buy i.e. heavily subsidized nuclear power from France, or other sources. In the end, it's all markets across the whole EU - by design. Why should it not be, the European energy grid is interconnected for a reason.

[watt]

In 2010 I was paying 10 cents per kWh. In 2025 I am paying 36 cents per kWh. What ever happened in these 15 years, it is an absolute death spiral.

[UltraSane]

As a Germany energy scientist you should be very angry that right now according to ElectricityMaps.com Germany is emitting about 17 times as much CO2 per watt as France is.

[jhbruhn]

waves fist

[UltraSane]

Germany also has some of the most expensive electricity in the world. It is so expensive it is making some industries unprofitable. BASF, a major German chemical company, has implemented plant closures due to high production costs.

Most countries choose either cheap and dirty or expensive and clean for electricity but Germany chose expensive AND dirty.

[flakeoil]

> Germany could fully supply it's national grid with German energy production.

With coal. And gas imported from Russia and by boat from the USA.

[rob74]

What you call "aid from abroad" is generally called a functioning wide area synchronous grid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_area_synchronous_grid) which covers most of the EU plus some Balkan states, Moldova, Ukraine, Turkey and the northwestern corner of Africa. So Germany can sell power to others when renewables are generating more than it needs (which is often), and import power, not necessarily because it couldn't produce it, but because importing it can be cheaper than e.g. starting up an additional backup plant. This is nothing special and has been working reliably for decades.

[sazz]

That's right, Germany sells electricity to other countries during the day and buys electricity in the evening because there is no sun then.

The problem is that other countries also have solar and wind power during the day and don't need this electricity at all. That's why Germany has to “sell” this surplus electricity, even though no one needs it. To ensure that the electricity is still "purchased", Germany has to pay money for it. In the evening, Germany has to pay money to buy back the missing electricity.

Paying money to have something purchased is generally referred to as garbage fees.

[patall]

That does not seem to be a long term problem. Wind and solar can be down regulated with ease (and within fractions of a second), a negative prices only happen because producers got a flat-fee per kWh which is pretty much phase-out now. The problem is rather that Germany (plus Luxembourg) is still a single price zone, i.e when wind is blowing in Hamburg, the per-kWh price in Passau is also nill. While this is nice for Bavaria (the main culprit, as usual), there is an enormous cost for this in the form of re-dispatch fees as long as the grid is not strengthened a lot.

[FrojoS]

The main culprit as usual? They have been financing the whole gaga show for years.

[UltraSane]

I call buying French nuclear electricity after shutting down your own reactors hypocrisy.

[brnt]

I call it an opportunity. Let France built reactors on their borders (looking at you, Chooz) and earn money. What's the problem here? Everybody gets what they want.

[UltraSane]

The problem is it makes Germany's decision to shut down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors completely pointless.

[lejalv]

> The electricity needs of industry cannot be met in a market-oriented manner

Do you care to elaborate? AFAIK, the EU electricity market is... a market?

The design is debatable, as always with these things. Perhaps you wanted to say something precise about subsidies?

One important consideration is that Germany profited from cheap Russian gas, and continued building Nord Stream 2 post Russian operations in Ukraine in 2014. This is a bet that a huge geopolitical risk would not actualize, which it did in 2022.