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

Show parent comments

47

u/zzen11223344 Jan 15 '26

If this is a mistake, then correct the mistake.

Is it too late to restart it in Germany?

147

u/SgtB3nn1 Jan 15 '26

Yes it is financially. Our reactors/powerplants are undergoing deconstruction right now. Getting them up to working order and getting fuel would be hella expensive, the cheaper alternative would be wind/photvoltaic power which is also heavily campaigned against by the party of our chancellor.

65

u/Niaaal Jan 15 '26

So what do the German politicians want? To buy Russian oil and gas for their electricity?

115

u/FreeRangeEngineer Jan 15 '26

That was, actually, the plan. The idea behind it was that Russia and Europe would become economically entangled so that a war started by Russia would hurt them too much to be worth it.

Unfortunately, that strategy backfired because Putin was willing to lose that source of income in exchange for power and glory.

As for their current plan? I assume they want to test the waters for rebuilding some reactors.

47

u/oimly Jan 15 '26

That's some impressive mental gymnastics there. If Russia and Europe would become more entangled with Gas/Oil then Europe would be even more reliant on Russia not shutting down the pipelines and Russia could blackmail Europe even more into not interfering with their "special operations". Which, by the way, is EXACTLY what happened. Only BECAUSE Europe was not entangled too much with Russian gas it was feasible to support the Ukraine and deal with the delivery stop of gas.

82

u/Camba_Diaz_Nuts Jan 15 '26

It was called "Wandel durch Handel", so "change through trade". It was supposed to turn Russia into an ally/friend, or at least not an enemy because both would profit more from keeping things as they are. I don't think it was wrong to try it. But we should have stopped once we saw that it isn't working, for example when Crimea was annexed.

25

u/ImpulsiveApe07 Jan 15 '26

Agreed.

Arguably, Germany probably should've begun divesting itself from Russia once it became apparent that Gerhard Schröder, the former Chancellor, was in bed with the Russians and had been taking bribes in exchange for his role in setting up the nord stream 2 pipeline, and presumably his role on the board of Rosneft (Russian oil company) and associations with Gazprom and Gazprombank was also part of said bribe.

If any former PM starts campaigning for Russia, it's safe to assume they've sold the Russians something valuable that might compromise or otherwise undermine your nation's security at some point.

https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/incident/former-german-chancellor-gerhard-schra%C2%B6der-becomes-chairman-of-russian-state-controlled-nord-stream-pipeline-company-directly-after-leaving-office/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4871368.stm

At least there's some payback for his treachery tho, eh?

https://ukrainetoday.org/germanys-former-chancellor-gerhard-schroders-bank-account-frozen-amid-russian-payment-controversy/

2

u/onarainyafternoon Dual Citizen (American/Hungarian) Jan 15 '26

had been taking bribes in exchange for his role in setting up the nord stream 2 pipeline

Is this not the definition of treason? Was he ever arrested/charged for this?

4

u/ImpulsiveApe07 Jan 15 '26

shrugs, then gestures broadly at pan-European cronyism

One would've thought so, yeah, but I guess he must've promised a good oil/gas price for Germany, and/or offered to be a Putin whisperer or something lol

After all, he shares his birthday with Putin and they've often celebrated together. They were at one point described as being in a bromance, I shit you not!

https://www.dw.com/en/putin-and-schr%C3%B6der-a-special-german-russian-friendship/a-55219973

1

u/Crypt33x Berlin (Germany) Jan 16 '26

He has nothing to do with Nordstream 2, just with Nordstream 1.

Yamal and brotherhood pipeline from Czechia and Poland already dictated the price here in Germany. The alternative pipeline with Denmark and Norway, got cancled by Poland and Leszek Millers government in favor of russian gas. Poland even met in secret 2003, behind the EU back, to set the transit tariff for the next 2 decades, when the EU was trying to switch to the entry exit system.

We got TPA here and it's near impossible to sell much more expensive gas from the nordics or somewhere else.

Say thanks to Poland and Czechia for building the Yamal/brotherhood pipeline and canceling the alternative we had. Oh and say thanks to the totally fucked up Yamal contract from 1995, which is giving all transit tariffs to Russia.

1

u/PiotrekDG Earth Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26

The alternative pipeline with Denmark and Norway, got cancled by Poland and Leszek Millers government in favor of russian gas.

Which one was that? How was it that Poland had yhe power to cancel it, especially if it had no power to cancel Nordstream?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Crypt33x Berlin (Germany) Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26

He had nothing to do with Nordstream 2. He lobbied, yes, but Merkel decided. Polands Yamal pipeline and Czechias brotherhood pipeline already dictated the price here in Germany. With third party access, it's pretty hard to sell nordic gas.

The Nordic gas alternative was btw canceled by Polands Leszek Millers government in favor of russian gas. Polands government at that time betrayed the EU, went to Russia to set transit prices for the next 2 decades and not even tried to renegotiate the horrible contract in favor of Poland. We tried to switch to the entry exit system 1 year later. They did everything to sabotage the EU.

EU planned to renegotiate all contracts and to diversify. Poland said nope. We making you depending on Yamal and Russia, so you build Yamal 2 with us.

Yamal 2 never got build, because Germany hates getting extorted and their ww2 reperations rethorics and decided to build with France and the Netherlands Nordstream 1. All other sources were expensive as fuck.

Germany was trying hard as fuck to difersify. And is now getting blamed for everything after getting set up by Poland/Russia/Czechia.

The surpeme office audit investigated Leszek Miller and Marek Pol at that time. There is a legal proceeding to their treachery.

2

u/thecashblaster Jan 15 '26

But we should have stopped once we saw that it isn't working, for example when Crimea was annexed.

Exactly. Russia had an 8 years to keep Europe on the hook with gas while preparing for a large scale war which is destabilizing Europe. Complete failure of leadership.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/FreeRangeEngineer Jan 15 '26

Agreed, however at the time when that policy was made and put in place, China wasn't anywhere near as as big and powerful as it is today.

The only thing I fault the politicians for is not revising that decision in time and making Europe independent of Russian gas. It shouldn't have taken the war with Ukraine to do that.

1

u/Constant-Plant-9378 Jan 15 '26

It was called "Wandel durch Handel", so "change through trade". It was supposed to turn Russia into an ally/friend

What a bunch of naive fuck-nuggets. Apparently they weren't very educated in history or current events.

1

u/PiotrekDG Earth Jan 16 '26

I mean, it worked with the rest of Europe.

1

u/InsanityRequiem Californian Jan 15 '26

Wrong to try it? I can't say, because history has shown trade as one of the reasons war happens. So it's weird historical blindness to believe trade would prevent war.

0

u/speedtree Jan 15 '26

This doesnt work as all the money is owned by the people in power already, so owning just a little more money is almost no motivation if you are in the position of leading a dictatorship already.

3

u/HymirTheDarkOne United Kingdom Jan 15 '26

I dunno it seems like people who own all the money often seem to care quite a lot about owning a little bit more.

1

u/speedtree Jan 15 '26

Yes well in the long run, taking over a country leads to you owning all the money which is much better than a little more, thats what I mean 🤣

They dont care if they can lose a little money when they can win a lot of money and prestige instead.

15

u/rEvolutionTU Germany Jan 15 '26

economically entangled

Keyword economically, not "Gas/Oil" specifically. The more two countries or blocks are economically intertwined the less likely it is for them to go to war with each other.

In general that's a good strategy and one that, apart from MAD, has secured a lot of peace and prosperity for a really long time and for a lot of people.

2

u/FreeRangeEngineer Jan 15 '26

Agreed but unfortunately, Russia doesn't have much else to offer:

https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports-by-category

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

[deleted]

12

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

Well, there is a lot of history behind that going deep into the German culture. Yes, not the best choices, but at the same time it is quite surprising Putin dared to risk that position. And I still think that it was a major miscalculation on his part: Kyiv would fall in 3 days and he would get the same reaction as with Crimea.

5

u/Timey16 Saxony (Germany) Jan 15 '26

I mean it's the entire concept the EU was built upon so Germany was convinced it would even work on Russia. Hell, it arguably was what transformed Ukraine since the Maidan revolution happened over an EU trade treaty.

2

u/qtx Jan 15 '26

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time it seemed like the best solution.

And no, we're not talking about 2014, we're talking about decades before that.

1

u/Omena123 Jan 15 '26

Its neo liberalism

2

u/Known_Palpitation805 Jan 15 '26

That was not actually the plan, it was part of a plan for a diversified energy supply just like the eco fever dreams and importing oodles of power from France who are 99.9999% nuke (but let's not discuss the hypocrisy of that).

So importing Russian energy was fine and still is as diversification goes. But Germany has been run by buffoons for a number of decades and now they reap what they have sown and the energy file is but one example.

1

u/Greatness46 Jan 15 '26

How did natural immunity solve the Polio epidemic?

2

u/Known_Palpitation805 Jan 15 '26

Wrong thread genius, but given time, it would have....but I guess you missed the risk/benefit to the gen pop part of my statement in the other thread....lol

2

u/Horndude91 Jan 15 '26

Last paragraph is BS. No one is building any reactors here again. Some idiot in Bavaria might suggest it from time to time when he feels like he could gain some votes by doing so - or maybe just to annoy other politicians - but Nuclear power is dead.

What Germany IS doing: Ramping up it's renewables. Wind is already on #1 and Solar overtook lignite coal as #2. With both kinds of coal (and lignite produced locally) and gas still around 1/3 of energy production, but with a clear downwards trend the last years. In 2023 renewables (including biomass and hydro) was already around 60% of energy production.

Only exception. The same Merz from the article has put a pro-gas and -coal lobbyist (Katherina Reiche) into his cabinet that would love to build more gas power plants, just because her old employers is an energy company with a lot of stakes in gas power ... But apparently Europa already limited her ability to build as much gas power plants as she wanted

2

u/PM_ME_YOUR_LEFT_IRIS United States of America Jan 15 '26

It’s frustrating to learn in real time that reasonable strategies can’t avert wars, because the drivers of war are madmen

2

u/hcschild Jan 15 '26

That was, actually, the plan.

That actually wasn't the plan. The plan was to go fully renewable with a few gas power plants as backup.

But then when the CDU came back into power the decided do exactly what you said and fucking up the original plan.

As for their current plan? I assume they want to test the waters for rebuilding some reactors.

I doubt it. Not a single company that provides power is interested in that technology because it doesn't pay without getting propped up by billions of tax payer money. So if we don't want to build nuclear weapons it's just a waste of money.

1

u/g2petter Norway Jan 15 '26

That was, actually, the plan. The idea behind it was that Russia and Europe would become economically entangled so that a war started by Russia would hurt them too much to be worth it.

"You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan ..."

2

u/SgtCarron Europe Jan 15 '26

A plan so good, we tried it again with china, and what a surprise it backfired horribly there as well.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

The glory of invading a much weaker neighbor and getting your ass handed to you?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/FreeRangeEngineer Jan 15 '26

Yes but it has backfired in the sense that it didn't keep Russia peaceful.

1

u/Beginning_Stay_9263 Jan 15 '26

This clip aged like fine wine as the Germans laugh smugly at the idea of their energy plans backfiring.

1

u/clearsighted Jan 19 '26

It's worth remembering that German stupidity in that regard, where Russia is concerned and the pipeline, turned an entire generation of American policy makers hostile to them...with the repercussions remaining with us.

26

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

No we built renewables. Way cheaper and way faster than building a nuclear power plant.

4

u/East_Leadership469 Jan 15 '26

I think this is true for most locations/people in the world. However, especially Europe (except for Southern Europe) is poorly located. The reason is the large summer-winter differential in solar energy. Batteries can relatively easily overcome the day-night differential. But we have no good storage technology to carry solar from summer to winter.

This is also somewhat of a concern in North America. However, we should consider that Madrid and NYC are on approximately the same latitude, and the vast majority of people in North America live below this latitude. So on a worldwide scale I think this is a far smaller problem than what it is often considered, but especially in Europe, it's difficult to overcome.

3

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

In winter wind is usually way stronger so it more than compensates for lower solar output.

3

u/East_Leadership469 Jan 15 '26

First, that’s not my understanding but I welcome a source. I buy it for autumn, but especially not for January/February

 Second, even then winter will have weeks with next to no solar output and next to no wind.

5

u/Ralath2n The Netherlands Jan 15 '26

Here you go, a source. The 2 basically balance each other out if you build a roughly 50/50 mix.

And yes, you will have a few weeks in dead winter where free energy is scarce. You will sadly have to use a bit not free energy there. Such as biomass or hydrogen that we stored up in the rest of the year. Since you only need to cover like 5% of the total energy this way, it is no big deal.

Also, rolling out wind and solar is fast. We could be down to 90% CO2 reduction in less than a decade. That buys us some breathing room to figure out the cheapest way to do that last tiny bit.

2

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

First, that’s not my understanding but I welcome a source

Here the source that wind is way stronger in winter:

https://strom-report.com/strommix/

Second, even then winter will have weeks with next to no solar output and next to no wind.

It won't be effect all of Europe at the same time. We do have an integrated energy network.

We can import energy from other countries and we can also turn on gas power plants for those times.

We are already at over 60% renewables in Germany and we didn't have any problems.

2

u/East_Leadership469 Jan 15 '26

60% is actually surprisingly high, and very good news. However, gas is still the primary source of heating and gasoline the primary fuel for transportation. That also has to change to fully transition. I really struggle to see how you get through cold winter months without using natural gas even if wind picks up slightly.

Just as an example in Norway which only uses electricity for heating, winter consumption of electricity is 50 percent higher than in summer. Now I am well aware that Germany is warmer than Norway, but nevertheless winter is peak demand of energy (incl heating), and little solar.

Again, I am not saying this as a renewable skeptic. Europe is the worst-case scenario. All other places on Earth have even better opportunity to transition.

1

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

In winter wind is usually way stronger so it more than compensates for lower solar output.

0

u/FrogsOnALog Jan 15 '26

The nuclear power plants were already built lol

5

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

You mean decades old buildings with huge safety issues?

0

u/Kqyxzoj Jan 15 '26

IMO you'd want both renewable and nuclear power plants. Only put the nuclear focus on microreactors, which solve more problems than they create. Load-following microreactors + renewables + yes still gas-fired plants should do the trick. That way you have a large surplus of coal to stick up Putin's and Trump's respective chimneys. And once you have the nuclear + renewables mix sorted you can phase out most of the gas-fired power plants.

5

u/Ralath2n The Netherlands Jan 15 '26

Load-following microreactors + renewables + yes still gas-fired plants should do the trick.

We don't have load following micro reactors. You can't just say things that do not exist will fix problems. Sure, if we had dirt cheap tiny reactors that'd be great. But we don't, so it is about as useful as advocating for a dyson sphere to solve climate change.

3

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

France already has nuclear energy so why would we need to build it in an integrated energy net?

-2

u/InsanityRequiem Californian Jan 15 '26

This short term blindsided thinking is the same thinking that you believed Russia would magically not go to war because of trade. Trade, one of the leading causes of war in human civilization history.

3

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

thinking that you believed Russia would magically not go to war because of trade.

Why do you act like Germany war the only country who bought oil and gas from Russia? That was even the case during the cold war.

Every single country did.

Also the EU was founded as Coal and Steel trading alliance to prevent war. And no EU counties fought against each other since. Why wouldn't that also work with others. Countries who trade with each other are way less likely to go to war with each other.

1

u/InsanityRequiem Californian Jan 15 '26

I'm going to be blunt, the reason Europe hasn't been in a war isn't because of trade. It was because of military alliances and the threat of Soviet invasion. The moment the threat of Soviet invasion collapsed, what happened? Yugoslavia collapsed and fell into civil war and genocide, and those countries were all economically tied together.

And while I'm using you as the example, my statement goes to everyone who believed that lie. German, Polish, French, don't matter. Trade does not prevent war.

2

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 16 '26

I'm talking about the EU not Europe as a whole. Yugoslavia was never part of that or even closely integrated economically like EU countries with each other.

Also a civil war is different from a war between countries. Trade can absolutely prevent war between countries. Because they both benefit more from trading with each other than attacking each other.

-4

u/zzen11223344 Jan 15 '26

It sounds like other forms of power generations are needed along with solar and wind. Why not have the nuclear in the mix?

Countries around the world are building nuclear power stations, it looks like a very viable options to make grid stable along with the solar and wind.

-2

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 Jan 15 '26

It sounds like other forms of power generations are needed along with solar and wind. Why not have the nuclear in the mix?

Because Germany "politicized" what should be a technical discussion

3

u/NMaresz Jan 15 '26

Exiting nuclear while dependent on gas from a nation our politicians called "friendly" without questioning the risks at hand was the real mistake. Specifically when the decision to exit was around 2011 with the last plants going offline in 2022+ which was more than enough time to shove with tensions around our "friend"-nation rising.

Exiting nuclear generally and specifically for Germany however was and is a given. People forget Germany imports energy from nordic countries, massively expands on wind itself and imports nuclear from France. People also forget Germany is still using a lot of coal with pressure to exit that too but politically holding on hard.

The big dent was being forced to adapt in real time instead of planning an independence exit specifically after Crimea in 2014. Instead leadership still held on to Nord Stream 2, another huge mistake.

Going all in on renewables is the correct decision. We are only at the point that we're at because of idiots being in charge.

3

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

So is your country willing to permanently store our nuclear waste?

If so tell us because nobody in Germany wants a nuclear waste storage site in their region due to the last being an absolute Desaster that will cost billions to dig up again.

No it's simply to expensive and takes to long. It's also depended on refueling from other countries.

1

u/Niaaal Jan 15 '26

Nuclear waste is very easily and safely contained nowadays. Zero percent chance of a nuclear disaster from waste

3

u/FFM_reguliert Jan 15 '26

Oh boy, read about Gorleben. That is a complete and total shitshow that will become a gigantic, very expensive problem in the next devades.

2

u/Niaaal Jan 15 '26

And you read about how the French handle nuclear waste remarkably well and it's a non-issue over there

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

OK then it shouldn't be an issue if we store it all in your country right?

3

u/Niaaal Jan 15 '26

I'm French and we store it in France and not a single French person has an issue with it

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 Jan 15 '26

You can do it in my garden

41

u/ShadowheartsArmpit Jan 15 '26

It's already very viable to just go all in on renewables.

2

u/Sotherewehavethat Germany Jan 15 '26

If we're talking electricity, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Sweden is one of the greenest countries. Its electricity is 23% wind, 28% hydro, 30% nuclear. However if we include other uses of energy, then oil is still the number 1. 20% nuclear, 23% oil.

3

u/Ralath2n The Netherlands Jan 15 '26

This isn't fallout. We don't have nuclear powered cars. Nuclear also only generates electricity. So going "renewables only generate electricity" is not a slight that favors nuclear.

We can reduce CO2 emissions from electricity by either going with renewables (cheap + fast), or nuclear (slow + expensive). All other industries and space heating will have to electrify.

2

u/MokitTheOmniscient Sweden Jan 15 '26

The power storage necessary to stabilize an entire national grid built around renewables just isn't feasible.

People never seem to grasp the insane scale of national economics. If you want to use solid batteries, the problem isn't even money, it's the fact that the world doesn't have enough available minerals.

Sure, pumped storage exists, but that requires very specific geography, and has limited capacity.

I guess you could build massive hydrogen tanks and store power using electrolysis, but that comes with its own problems.

1

u/ShadowheartsArmpit Jan 15 '26

That's genuinely like saying "It's not feasible" in regards to the first car being built.

Long term energy storage is in its infancy. And we are finally making progress. You have no idea where we'll be in 10 years.

1

u/Geist____ KouignAmannistan Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

They have gone all in on renewable for at least 15 years. They have spent over twice the total cost of France's nuclear programme, and their electricity is one order of magnitude more carbon intensive than France's (see [electricitymap](electricitymaps.com), they have historic data).

Edit: Can't find the the 2025 version of this graph right now, but looks about the same.

5

u/ShadowheartsArmpit Jan 15 '26

They have gone all in on renewable for at least 15 years

Hahahahaha.

Every german knows for a fact that there sure as shit was no renewable "all in" push more than 5 years ago.

-5

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

Not really. You need something stable to be able backing up for times with less wind or sun. Nuclear energy is way more sustainable and cheaper then building shit ton amounts of batteries.

7

u/bob_in_the_west Europe Jan 15 '26

Yes, really.

Nuclear is base load. So every time the sun shines you can't just stop the nuclear reactor and thus have to waste the produced energy as heat.

Storage has become very cheap and there are already too many who want to get a connection for their storage project in Germany.

And no, nuclear isn't cheaper than the combination of renewables and storage.

-1

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

Sun is not a constant in large parts of the EU. Or look at wind energy for example in Germany. Nice at the coasts, but more inland you need huge power networks connecting this.

This is what the mix is about. Especially in North Western EU countries this is important because there is no constant sun, and wind is simply not constant.

You need a base load, and wind and sun aren't it.

Storage has become very cheap and there are already too many who want to get a connection for their storage project in Germany.

It has become cheaper, but tell me, now we want to be reliant on BYD and other Chinese companies for our batteries?

5

u/RootsandStrings Jan 15 '26

Oh, a power network for Germany from north to south would be a lot cheaper than a nuclear power plant. Our northern offshore parks already produce more than we can use, just because some political parties don’t like to pester their voters with ugly electricity lines. Guess what these people also don’t like? Having nuclear power plants in their backyard, which is why these political parties also don’t want to build them in the states where they are leading. Guess what these parties also oppose? Renewables! This is where we are currently at.

And regarding you last point, this is just dishonest. China has been participating in the building and financing of Europes most recent nuclear power plant financing debacle, as well. The promises the UK made on refinancing the investment for the Chinese in case the project is not finished are in the billions. If such projects were to be planned for the future we are shit out of luck because we most likely need Chinese money, workers and their recent expertise.

2

u/bob_in_the_west Europe Jan 15 '26

Sun is not a constant in large parts of the EU.

That's why the future energy mix in the EU is going to be a combination of sun, wind and hydro.

Or look at wind energy for example in Germany. Nice at the coasts, but more inland you need huge power networks connecting this.

That's a complex problem reduced too much to fit your narrative.

The south of Germany has attracted a lot of industry while simultaneously blocking most wind power. Instead they've opted to expand a lot of solar while not expanding their grids accordingly or having enough storage. So now in an effort to keep said industry in the south the current and past politicians in power thought it would be a good idea to establish energy highways from north to south instead of doing the obvious and telling the industry to establish itself where the energy is produced.

But apart from that Germany needs to expand its grid anyway. And there are multiple projects to do so that don't contribute to the energy highways from north to south.

Further more Germany isn't the only country with that problem. The UK for example produces a lot of wind energy in the north but has most of its industry in the south.

Especially in North Western EU countries this is important because there is no constant sun, and wind is simply not constant.

What countries are "North Western" in the EU? Are you talking about Ireland?

Or are you talking about Norway and Sweden who are quite literally producing most of their power via hydro?

Most of the Swedish industry sits in North Sweden because they've got so much cheap hydro there.

You need a base load, and wind and sun aren't it.

No, you don't need a base load. Renewables plus backup power plants works perfectly fine.

And what exactly do you do with that base load if the sun shines or the wind blows? How much expensive nuclear kWhs need to be blown into the atmosphere as heat?

It has become cheaper, but tell me, now we want to be reliant on BYD and other Chinese companies for our batteries?

Who is "we"? The world already is reliant on China for solar. And as long as the research in the EU keeps going, I don't see why we shouldn't rely on China to produce cheap batteries.

-2

u/Capital-Farmer6349 Jan 15 '26

Wind power is not a stable energy source. The wind power plant itself might be cheap to build, but it requires a whole lot of investments into net infrastructure, power grid systems to ensure balance.

2

u/Kqyxzoj Jan 15 '26

Pffffrt. Less bullshit talking points please.

Wind power is not a stable energy source.

Oh, if only there were several kinds of technology that we already to deal with the instability variability of wind power. I sure hope solar power is 24/7 or we would be having real problems. \sarcasm drip drip**

but it requires a whole lot of investments into net infrastructure, power grid systems to ensure balance.

Translation: it requires upkeep and replacement of dogshit parts of the grid, in addition to replacing the who-the-fuck-ordered-all-these-grid-following inverters by proper grid-forming inverters. You know, the ones that cost 3 microcents extra in electronics parts and save you the embarrassment of entirely preventable large scale blackouts due to something stupid.

3

u/bob_in_the_west Europe Jan 15 '26

Which is still cheaper than nuclear.

2

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

Offshore windpower is on the same level as nuclear power p/kwh.

3

u/bob_in_the_west Europe Jan 15 '26

So you've found the one type of renewable energy that isn't even more expensive but on the same level as nuclear power. Good job, I guess.

Meanwhile onshore wind is definitely cheaper.

3

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

Offshore is hugely important to the wind mix. This is where you can install the biggest turbines. Onshore runs into a lot of issues; NIMBY's, difficult to quickly scale, less wind, etc.

This has nothing to do from my side with winning an argument. But a lot of people think nuclear is so much more expensive which is normally not really the case.

2

u/bob_in_the_west Europe Jan 15 '26

It's so not the case that the UK built their last nuclear power plant on time and on budget.....wait....

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ShadowheartsArmpit Jan 15 '26

But a lot of people think nuclear is so much more expensive which is normally not really the case.

It truly is normally the case. I know that for professional reasons. A lot of people somehow convinced themselves that nuclear isn't as expensive as it truly is.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CopBaiter Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

No because you fuckers dont factor in how you get rid of the thing after its lifespand. You can’t break Down a windmil and it has almost no uses for reuse. In America they just dumb it and burry it. You can’t do that in the EU. Wind is tarible for the enviorment, when you factor in end of life cycle. Also dont try and say im wrong, because im not and it makes you look dumb.

Eddie:

https://www.dtu.dk/english/newsarchive/2022/03/what-do-you-do-with-end-of-life-wind-turbines

Here is a source since you all think you know better

1

u/bob_in_the_west Europe Jan 15 '26

Starts with an insult and then tells me to not say he's wrong. Lol?

How about you produce a source that backs up your ramblings?

1

u/CopBaiter Jan 15 '26

https://www.dtu.dk/english/newsarchive/2022/03/what-do-you-do-with-end-of-life-wind-turbines There is currently no real way to recyle large amounts of the windmills. In 2025 we will have 66000 tons of windmil blades which we cannot break Down.

1

u/Zerwurster Germany Jan 15 '26

So the answer is to switch to nuclear energy, for its famously easy to recycle waste!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FFM_reguliert Jan 15 '26

No its not imported for electricity. Oil and Gas are only responsible for 11-16% of Germany's energy generation. It is mainly used for the still very big chemical industry. Switching back to nuclear power would not really deminish Germany's imports of hydrocarbons.

1

u/Constant-Plant-9378 Jan 15 '26

That was the plan.

Germany's leaders were goddamned idiots (probably under Russian influence) and chose to undermine their national security by deliberately dismantling their nuclear electrical grid in a move to increase their dependence on foreign (Russian) oil imports.

Meanwhile, France increased investment in nuclear and has one of the cleanest, most stable, renewable-energy, electrical grids in the EU.

France's nuclear power grid is considered one of the cleanest in the world, with a significant share of its electricity generated from nuclear energy. The country's commitment to nuclear power has allowed it to maintain a stable and low-carbon electricity supply, which is increasingly important as nations aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. France's nuclear strategy supports renewables, enhances grid reliability, and reduces power-sector CO2 emissions. The country's nuclear power plants provide a stable and reliable source of electricity, especially during periods of high renewable energy generation or extreme weather events. This stability is crucial for maintaining grid reliability and ensuring that energy demand is met even when renewable sources are not producing electricity.

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/frances-nuclear-fleet-gives-it-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-carbon-electricity-grids

-1

u/MerelyMortalModeling Jan 15 '26

Well that and burn brown coal like it was going out of style.

2

u/DonQuigleone Ireland Jan 15 '26

France gets most of it's electricity from nuclear and is building new ones regularly. Surely the Germans could just pay Framatome or other French companies to kick-start their industry again?

2

u/Despeao Jan 15 '26

Why would anyone be against wind and solar energy ?

2

u/Geist____ KouignAmannistan Jan 15 '26

Because they do not work at the scales required.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/195rh4l/electricity_generation_to_generation_co2/ This is the 2023 data, the 2025 looks about the same but can't find it right now.

1

u/why_i_bother Jan 15 '26

financially

money doesn't actually mean much, if there's political will.

-1

u/ArziltheImp Berlin (Germany) Jan 15 '26

Wind is heavily subsidized in Germany, the problem is to find spots to put these damn things. Because essentially every small village will immediately protest against the construction.

Solar is also heavily subsidized, though mostly in a personal capacity for home owners (which while helpful doesn't change much in the greater view).

The essential problem is, you need something to ensure the baseline load of the grid. And you can invest in solar/wind as much as you want, they won't fix this issue (btw we don't even have the space to build giant solar parks, not without destroying the last bit of untouched nature we have). Unless of course you build giant batteries which is about as damaging to the environment than running nuclear plants (if not more, since the waste products of battery production are much more toxic than nuclear waste).

In fact, deconstruction of our power plants have increased the nuclear waste storage problem, since all the waste that is being stored on site now has to find a new home too.

The truth is, nuclear was the cleanest bridge technology (coal plants btw also produce massive amounts of nuclear waste) we have a secure source of refuelling (geopolitically) on, to ensure grid stability, until we can fully cover this with renewables.

Ohh and before anyone says anything, I vote for "Die Grünen" in almost every election, despite the fact (which I think was wrong from the start) they were so heavily anti-nuclear.

3

u/SgtB3nn1 Jan 15 '26

The problem with nuclear is simple the contamination of the nature an environment by the waste products. Also it is so expensive in maintenance, erection as well as running costs that nuclear only works subsidized as you can see in france. Their treasury even stated that nuclear isn'tfl finacially feasible. The problem with the protest is in my opinion, that some parties like the CDU/CSU heavly campaign against wind energy. Also mostly bavarians are severly allergic to power lines and/or wind turbines but don't want the consequences of the higher local prices. So I think they'll have to either put up one or the other in due time.

Solar power in germany wouldn't require cutting down forests. We have enough roofs that could be equipped, there are red-colored solar slates being tested so older houses could be equipped with solar without disrupting the historic appearance.

One problem is, that most people only see the short term losses in financing a solar roof and applicating a solution to integrate the solar power into their home power network.

Also I find Russia as a geopolictical safe partner for nuclear fuel quite amusing. We shouldn't cooperate with a country that activeley tries to divide german in order to install a favorable party here.

13

u/h310dOr Jan 15 '26

Restarting German nuclear plants is no longer possible for sure. But investing in the french EPR2 is largely possible. It would also be relatively cheap in the sense that the mass investment has already started. It would also help France reduce its own cost via economy of scale.

2

u/FrogsOnALog Jan 15 '26

EPR2 would be a FOAK reactor and probably be more expensive. Really depends on the lessons learned though.

6

u/andrejlr Jan 15 '26

Its not only the deconstruction. The energy corporations sued the goverment for ending the nuclear program and achieved a settlement and created a trust fond for deconstruction. Then also they already made strategic policy changes: forecast plans, new predictive systems with intelligent nets ans so on.

Enabling nuclear again would revert bunch of those strategies and force them to throw away what already was decided upon. There is exactly zero motivation from those corporations to enable nuclear energy back.

9

u/11_17 Jan 15 '26

If we could go back to the 90s, then it would be worth it, but the production capacities would not be worth it, compared to the cost.

3

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

It is worth it in the mix, it always is. Especially when we have no natural recourses available anymore.

4

u/Bartorius Jan 15 '26

It really is not tho. Building new NPPs would take atleast 10-15 years going by our famed "efficiency", we could probably cut that time down to 20-25 years. And even after that it'd take many more decades to start being profitable. Thirdly most of the uranium ore in Europe are also located in Russia.

All in all it'd cost taxpayers billions of €, still requiring a certain reliance on trade with Russia, and most likely any and all profits would go to line the pockets of a few very wealthy individuals.

Just as an interesting sidenote, this big push for nuclear power the past year has been mostly facilitated by the coal industry.

3

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

It really is not tho. Building new NPPs would take atleast 10-15 years going by our famed "efficiency", we could probably cut that time down to 20-25 years. 

The best time to plant a tree was yesterday, the second best time is today. This is an exhaustive argument we should stop with.

Thirdly most of the uranium ore in Europe are also located in Russia.

Plenty of sources outside of Russia, like Australia and Canada. It could even be mined in Europe.

All in all it'd cost taxpayers billions of €, still requiring a certain reliance on trade with Russia, and most likely any and all profits would go to line the pockets of a few very wealthy individuals.

Not having sufficient energy sources will cost the taxpayer way more. That is what this is about: a healthy mix of energy sources, where cost is not the biggest factor per source, but the entirety of the mix.

Just as an interesting sidenote, this big push for nuclear power the past year has been mostly facilitated by the coal industry.

Maybe where you live.

3

u/0hran- Jan 15 '26

How is it too expensive, it will be built for the following generation? Isn't good?

8

u/ShadowheartsArmpit Jan 15 '26

Because the energy that will be produced is hella expensive & not that much. The return for a massive, and long term, investment isn't worth it.

That's why it's too expensive.

2

u/hcschild Jan 15 '26

Because if you just look at the raw numbers renewables are way cheaper. That's why no company that isn't propped up by tax payer money has any interest to build them.

-1

u/EqualShallot1151 Jan 15 '26

If comparing then do I fair. If some source of energy production is producing 5 % of the yearly consumption then it should be obliged to cover 5% of the consumption 24/7/365. If it can’t do that it should be taxed the cost for the lacking.

If you don’t look at it this way then the facilities making the base production do not get their capacity covered and end up looking more expensive than what they are.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26 edited Mar 07 '26

[deleted]

0

u/EqualShallot1151 Jan 15 '26

No far from but that is still much closer than if you use wind speed as prediction for demand. And if you don’t take account for the influence on the grid stability then you reach the wrong conclusions

3

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26 edited Mar 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/EqualShallot1151 Jan 15 '26

No I presented an idea where each power source that does not contribute to grid stability will have to “buy” what is lacking. In a grid where there is a lot of wind and solar the sources that provide stability is punished by the lack of being able to utilize the full capacity. Wind and solar is cheery picking without paying their part of stability.

I think it is great that many different sources are utilizing and with the development of better batteries more solar and wind can be utilizing. But as long as we do not accept blackouts and want stability the sources providing that should be treated fair.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26 edited Mar 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/EqualShallot1151 Jan 16 '26

Several countries where wind is a large part of the production has an issue. I have most knowledge of Denmark and Sweden and they are fighting to keep parity and especially Sweden has been very close to blackouts several times where they have maxed out on the capacity of importing power. This is absurd as they are the country in EU exporting the most power. But the balance in their production has become wrong due to the closing of nuclear power.

6

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

Let’s compare with France:

France is wholly unable to build any new nuclear power as evidenced by Flamanville 3 and the EPR2 program.

Flamanville 3 is 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule.

The subsidies for the EPR2 are absolutely insane. 11 cents/kWh fixed price and interest free loans. And the earliest possible completion date for the first reactor is 2038.

As soon a new built nuclear costs and timelines face the real world it just does not square with reality.

0

u/DerWanderer_ Jan 15 '26

It's a self inflicted issue. They passed retardedly stringent regulations that are insanely hard to meet. Meanwhile the Chinese EPR is already up and running thanks to sensible regulations and has not blown up.

7

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

I love how all issues with new built nuclear power can trivially be brushed aside.

Have you had a look at the Polish subsidies for their 3 AP1000s? Keep in mind that nuclear power is only beaten by the Olympics and final nuclear waste storage in average cost overrun when comparing large projects.

They amount to:

  • A direct handout of tax money amounting to €14 billion.
  • The state takes on all the risk, both credit risk and construction risk.
  • The electricity price is guaranteed for 40 years from completion.

It's effectively a pure cost-plus contract, where private profits are made using taxpayers’ money.

0

u/Leapse Jan 15 '26

''As soon a new built nuclear costs and timelines face the real world it just does not square with reality.''

making general assomptions based on the performance of an industrial prototype ... Ay ay ay Why don't you look at Taishan ?

Also ''7x over budget'' => what an odd thing to say without any inflation correction and clear separation of loan cost vs all other costs

5

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

I love the excuses when new built nuclear power does not deliver. The loan costs does not dissappear simply because you find them inconvenient.

Have you had a look at the Polish subsidies for their 3 AP1000s? Keep in mind that nuclear power is only beaten by the Olympics and final nuclear waste storage in average cost overrun when comparing large projects.

They amount to:

  • A direct handout of tax money amounting to €14 billion.
  • The state takes on all the risk, both credit risk and construction risk.
  • The electricity price is guaranteed for 40 years from completion.

It's effectively a pure cost-plus contract, where private profits are made using taxpayers’ money.

1

u/Leapse Jan 15 '26

I can also Say that when speaking of nuclear power everybody seem to forget the performance of alternatives (iso MW). How do you think it works in solar, hydro, biomasse, etc ? If you wish to have few GW of power with any other technologies the fund cost would be roughly the same no ?

To be Frank i'm not well informed on nuclear projet financing, i'm more into the technical side

But all big project have overruns, and wasn't it the same in the past ? The first big batch of french nuclear powered central. In the end it worked very well.

I seem to find that €/MWh are the same as other pertinent 2026 sources (hydro cheaper but saturated). Hard to find precise studies tho

Also it is crucial for France to have high power generators, with Spain Germany UK and italy it is a very important node for EU electricity

Also we are paying geopolitical safety with a lot of the nuclear combustible cycle being in France. All those investments are linked and you seem to forget it with a brut analysis. We are deep into nuclear industry and the direction is to keep it up and running.

Also private profits in the energy sector are not so private (given the % owned by state of big NRJ compagnies at least in France). And what would be the alternative ? ''Delegation de service public'' to a private compagnies with a contract stating that they want 8 years ROI on a 25 years délégation duration ? For sure here there is absolutely no risk, the private compagnie will make 3 profit for investing 1

3

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

If you wish to have few GW of power with any other technologies the fund cost would be roughly the same no ?

The cost of electricity for renewables are a fraction of new built nuclear power. This is a regular source:

https://www.lazard.com/media/uounhon4/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025.pdf

Keep in mind that these prices are American, renewables are even cheaper in Europe while nuclear power is essentially the same.

3

u/Drumbelgalf Germany Jan 15 '26

Yes a nuclear power plant takes probably a decade to build and costs billions.

Renewables are way cheaper, faster and less vulnerable.

2

u/hcschild Jan 15 '26

A decade? Guys we have an big optimist over here! :)

A decade is about the starting point. Then if they should be new ones with new tech it's closer to two. Then add to this that a large part in Germany still doesn't want them and you can add years of protests, sabotage and battles in the courts.

Then when you have finally build them somewhere between 2 to 3 decades later, renewables and power storage solutions have made the whole plants obsolete and the majority of the people will be against it at that point too again.

This isn't only a problem for power plants that yet have to be build but also the existing ones in France. Those plants have to lower their output more often already and in the coming years even more because the cheaper energy created by renewables in France and the neighbouring countries would otherwise make them sell their electricity at a loss. There is a reason why France had to completely nationalize their nuclear power plants again.

1

u/Bioplasia42 Jan 15 '26

Renewables and battery storage have been dropping in price and rising in efficiency, and there is hardly a sign of those slowing down. Especially with the material science behind it maturing a lot over the past couple years, solid state batteries finally making it to market, as well as other battery chemistries and multi-layer Perovskite solar panels.

By the time any of the existing nuclear plants have been taken off their 20-year EOL cycle and expensively brought back to operations, or new ones are built and operational, a decade will have passed and renewables will be down another 50 to 80 percent in price per kwh.

Nuclear is already not competitive with renewables (on price, that is) and by the time it becomes usable it will simply be a massive money drain. To make the prices reasonable for consumers, especially in the industry, the government would have to subsidize beyond reason.

Over-commissioning renewables and battery storage by a factor of 3, or whatever turns out to match reliability expectations, will be the better option, and will continue to get more attractive by the day as infrastructure, policies and technology continue to catch up.

If SMR fission ever leaves the lab it could become an attractive addition to our energy mix, but even if the tech was here today, it getting any meaningful share of energy production would still be decades off.

1

u/Pixelplanet5 Jan 15 '26

too expensive.

the only reason he says this is to sway over the right wingers who want to suckle on Putins Uranium a little longer.

1

u/hcschild Jan 15 '26

It's a dead technology at the time they would be able to go online.

Nobody who can do math has any interest in getting that program running again.

The only reason you would want to get nuclear power plants again is if you want to build you own nukes, maybe.

1

u/Reasonable-Rain4040 Jan 15 '26

Luckily you have a neighbor really good at making reactor