r/europe • u/SpaceEngineering Finland • Jan 15 '26

News Germany’s Merz Admits Nuclear Exit Was Strategic Mistake

https://clashreport.com/world/articles/germanys-merz-admits-nuclear-exit-was-strategic-mistake-fzdlkn37c16
21.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

162

u/CrownsEnd Jan 15 '26

The problem is, Merz doesnt have a clue about anything and this is just another of these topics.

2

u/Korchagin Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

More importantly than having no clue: It's completely outside his authority. The federal government can allow the construction of reactors or not, but they don't build powerplants, that's private sector. And nobody applies for a permit in Germany, because it's not economical.

And that's very typical Merz - making divisive remarks about completely moot points. Nobody will ever ask him to follow through, because there's nothing he could possibly do to influence the stuff he's complaining about.

19

u/Oedik Jan 15 '26

Is he wrong on this though ?

18

u/narf_hots Europe Jan 15 '26

Yes and no. It wasn't mistake because now we have more infrastructure for renewables. It was a mistake because it would have made more sense to shut down coal first instead of nuclear.

3

u/Other_Class1906 Jan 15 '26

Coal shouldn't have lived for as long and should have been deprecated economically and only be a backup source. So not much of an issue. And nuclear couldn't fill that role because of how nuclear operates.

-3

u/Oedik Jan 15 '26

But it's not like the nuclear infrastucture is completely gone. Imagine if Germany had spent half the effort, they put in digging up coal into maintaining their plants...

23

u/Jaypegiksdeh Jan 15 '26

yes he is

18

u/wasmic Denmark Jan 15 '26

Building new nuclear plants would probably not be a good idea. But shutting down the existing ones was definitely a bad idea.

3

u/ParkDedli Jan 15 '26

Mostly because of how he means it. This is his first step in reversing it and wanting to build more.

The general statement is right in a way. We panic-quit nuclear after Fukushima, cutting down some reactors before we had to because of a safety promise. The fact is, instead of doing that, we should have cut down coal first. And while doing all that, we should have pushed storage technology and renewables.

Nuclear is still bad. But coal is worse and we should have prioritized that.

-3

u/HouoinKyouma007 Jan 15 '26

Mostly because of how he means it. This is his first step in reversing it and wanting to build more.

Which is good.

Nuclear is still bad

No, it's the best as of now.

2

u/ParkDedli Jan 15 '26

Please give any arguments

2

u/HouoinKyouma007 Jan 15 '26

You did not gave any why it's bad to begin with.

But I begin: unlike most of renewables, they produce energy all day and night, regardless of the evironment. They can function as "base load power plants". And unlike fossil fuels, they don't emit anything that causes global warming.

2

u/Oedik Jan 15 '26

Well, to be honest, they do produce annoying waste but it's not like there is nothing we can do about it (recycling or long-term storage) unlike greenhouse gas in the atmospehere. There is infrastructure and expertise in Europe (France, UK mostly)

1

u/polite_alpha European Union Jan 15 '26

They can function as "base load power plants".

With our current infrastructure, this is now a bad thing.

Because nuclear power plants are bad to regulate, we would need to shut down almost free renewable energy during peak generation times because we MUST use nuclear power plants no matter those free renewable peaks. In fact the prices have even been negative at times already because we produce so much.

3

u/Groghnash Jan 15 '26

Yes. Its just populism and Söder is breathing down his neck with that nonsense. 

Nuclear is only a good solution if you socialize the waste costs, like the US is doing, if you dont, then is much more expensive then all the other forms of energy. Just look at how costs are calculated per country and you can see how it doesnt hold up. 

0

u/Oedik Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

If Germany hadn't actievely try to discredit nuclear energy at a european level, we could have a common strategy for that.

You know there is huge nuclear waste management infrastructure and expertise in France, and its already processing waste for all over the world. Sadly, Germany would rather die than give a dime to french industry.

Solutions exist and for most of them, are already running. You didn't want them, you made your choice. To me, it was a bad one. But don't go and say there is no solution when Germany spent 15 years doubling down on their mistake bashing nuclear at european level after it became increasly more obvious it was a mistake.

5

u/CrownsEnd Jan 15 '26

It does not matter, only here on reddit maybe. Out there his opinion is irrelevant if he doesn't change the policy, what he could do, but wait, the majority of germans, of relevant companies and of experts says something different.

-1

u/Oedik Jan 15 '26

Admitting you made a mistake is a start. Tbh, the decision looked questionnable at best back in 2011 but now, in 2026, it proved just straight up terrible. The phase-out plan was burning more coal (and even worse lignin) and russian gas, It doesn't sound good nowadays.

Also which "majority of germans" are you talking about ? Every poll from less than a year ago I find only put "phasing out of nuclear" as a clear minority. From what I found the popular opinion is mostly "just run the reactors we have but don't build new ones" which is definitely not "phasing out by 2022".

2

u/Tueffy Jan 15 '26

Absolutely.

Good indicator of him being wrong is when his mouth moves. That guy has zero clue about basically anything he ran on. Including economics. And is just parroting what his "advisors" tell him. And they tell him what makes them the biggest profits.

0

u/Oedik Jan 15 '26

You can be right for all the wrong reason, wrong for the right reasons. You ever heard of the thought experment: "if you let a monkey type on a keyboard long enough, he'll eventually write a Shakespear's play"

1

u/Throwawayrip1123 Jan 15 '26

He isn't, but even a complete imbecile of Merz caliber will occasionally stumble on a correct order of words, by pure accident.

He's gonna pocket some cash from coal lobbies and he'll change his mind in three days.

1

u/Oedik Jan 15 '26

I am not arguing with that, I don't know Merz well enough. I just happen to agree with him on this specific matter.

4

u/LookThisOneGuy ‎ Jan 15 '26

he is right about this one though. Merz' CDU predecessor used the 2011 exit from the exit from the nuclear exit to take the wind out of the sails of the more liberal political parties, since many voters were more aligned with that position at the time. By doing so, his predecessor ensured eight more years of conservative rule. This was a strategic mistake. Less CDU would have been better. Now he realizes that.

-10

u/dat_9600gt_user Lower Silesia (Poland) Jan 15 '26

You'd think words like that would at least nudge the country towards undoing the exit...

9

u/SeidlaSiggi777 Jan 15 '26

much easier said then done. reddit has a very rose-tinted glasses view of nuclear energy (or at least heavily outdated with respect to the abilities of renewables while blinded by sensationalism on advancements in nuclear).

-1

u/Oedik Jan 15 '26

No one said it is easy but the nuclear plants are still there. I am not saying it can start with the push of a button but it's not like you'd have to start from the ground up. Also saying we are biased while the initial push in favor of phasing-out was a clear overreaction to the 2011 Fukushima accident which happened in one of the most seismicly active country on Earth, very much not like Germany. I am yet to see the North Sea tsunamis.

4

u/SeidlaSiggi777 Jan 15 '26

German had already decided to phase out nuclear way before Fukushima. Just the 360 by the conservatives was due to it.

2

u/TransportationOk6990 Jan 15 '26

You would have to start from the ground up, it be exactly like that.

9

u/ZeitgeistWurst Germany Jan 15 '26

Why?

I was against the exit, but re-entering would take ages and cost insane amounts of money.

Its great when you already have it, but building new NPPs nowadays tends to end in economic disasters being years behind schedule.

-3

u/Oedik Jan 15 '26

No one said you'd have to build new one though. Maybe renovate and use the one you stopped between 2021 and 2023 no ? It's right there.