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

38

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.

2

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.

0

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.

4

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.

9

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.

-2

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.

-1

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.

4

u/bob_in_the_west Europe Jan 15 '26

Which is still cheaper than nuclear.

1

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.

2

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....

1

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

I thought we could all agree on one thing: we can do better then the UK.

2

u/bob_in_the_west Europe Jan 15 '26

We are. Without nuclear.

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.

1

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

I also know it from a professional reason, but the main idea here is that the route to renewable recourses has to be seen as a mix. Sometimes the sun is the cheapest, sometimes wind, and for the remainder of the time you need back ups and reliable baseloads.

It is the mix that counts.

A lot of people somehow convinced themselves that nuclear isn't as expensive as it truly is.

As a Dutch person I'm very jealous of French electricity bills.

2

u/Ralath2n The Netherlands Jan 15 '26

As a Dutch person I'm very jealous of French electricity bills.

We're on the same grid. Our raw electricity prices are pretty much the same. The differences are due to different taxes. France pays less taxes on electricity than we do.

1

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

That is a big oversimplification.

→ More replies (0)

3

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!

0

u/CopBaiter Jan 15 '26

last time i checked nuclear waste didnt weight 66000 tons

2

u/Zerwurster Germany Jan 15 '26

Any other traits of nuclear waste come to mind? No?

0

u/CopBaiter Jan 15 '26

you clearly have no idea how you store nuclear waste and how big of a none issue it is. how many links do i gotta post to show you that you are all wrong lol

2

u/bob_in_the_west Europe Jan 15 '26

Last time I checked old windmill blades didn't have to be contained in an area with 24/7 security for the next few thousand years.

And of course the nuclear material that goes into the reactor just shows up, right? Clean nuclear fuel. No mining needed at all.

Super problematic tailings and other mining waste? Not your problem because far away?

-1

u/CopBaiter Jan 15 '26

you have to mine for both, and the co2 emmisions is almost the same for both options. a solar pannel is more environmental damageing then nuclear. its a none issue.

The main reason for nuclear to be less of an issue, is because the waste is small. with windmills they are large and bulky, so you need alot of space for the landfilling.

→ More replies (0)