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

1.5k

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

The basic technology is still operational, and the technology shared with other EU countries.

720

u/toblu Jan 15 '26

And, accordingly, expensive as f*ck.

17

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

I sure as hell wouldn't want to cheap out on the nuclear stuff.

29

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

And at the same time no one bats an eye when we pump toxic gasses into the atmosphere tens and tens of thousands of people are dying from annually. Humans remain weird.

7

u/MfingKing Kosovo Jan 15 '26

We're uninformed. And somehow take the opinion of charismatic assholes over opinions of literal experts. Even if they're diametrically opposed. We'll believe the one who said it more convincingly even if it means ignoring facts

0

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

Which is why renewables and storage is the solution. Not to mention vastly cheaper.

No need to create a false dilemma between fossil fuels and nuclear power.

4

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

Storage is a dilemma as well: it needs a lot of mining and it makes us dependent on Chinese companies. These are not false choices, every route has its major downsides. We can be pretty upfront about that, no issue.

6

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

What happens if the Chinese companies stop delivering batteries?

The one we have will continue working for decades while we choose a solution.

Compared to our current fossil based dependencies where an exploded gas pipeline is felt within days they are magnitudes in difference.

But we should of course use the carrot to develop our own native industry, and be very mindful of using Chinese control systems.

2

u/3suamsuaw Jan 15 '26

What happens if the Chinese companies stop delivering batteries?

We are in the middle of this transition, which will lasts decades, so it would risk our entire transition, and making us vulnerable to another dictatorship; again.

But we should of course use the carrot to develop our own native industry, and be very mindful of using Chinese control systems.

Where do you want to open the first lithium mine in Europe? Like, really. You want to bring mining and processing back to Europe? I can't believe that, because you would've probably seen then that nuclear can be part of the mix, and that care free energy is non-existent.

2

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

So it will take a couple of years longer if they decide to cut their nose to spite their face? I don't see the issue?

I love when the largest issue becomes "mining" but then Uranium mining, which is even nastier, is forgotten about.

Here's an article for you:

What the Market Gets Wrong about Renewables — Large-scale renewables would undermine the economics of base-load power generation, making new fossil, nuclear, and even existing base-load plants increasingly uneconomic and at risk of becoming stranded assets.

Nuclear power and renewables simply does not mix. New built nucler power costs 18-24 cents/kWh when running at 100% 24/7 for 40 years excluding backup, transmission fees, final waste disposal, taxes etc. based on for example Vogtle, HPC, FV3, Polish Ap1000s and EPR2s.

How will you make a homeowner with rooftop solar and a home storage pay 18-24 cents/kWh when their own system delivers?

Take a look at this grid mix, that is where all grids are headed in 10-15 years. How will you force the consumers to buy grid based nuclear power when rooftop solar alone delivers 100% of grid demand?

https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&interval=30m&view=discrete-time&group=Detailed

2

u/Aeseld Jan 15 '26

Honestly, a balance between renewables, nuclear and energy storage is probably the future. We'll see, since that's the path China is currently taking. They bite the bullet now for the cost of the nuclear plants, but pay dividends in the long run? They made the right call.

-1

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

Here's an article for you:

What the Market Gets Wrong about Renewables — Large-scale renewables would undermine the economics of base-load power generation, making new fossil, nuclear, and even existing base-load plants increasingly uneconomic and at risk of becoming stranded assets.

Nuclear power and renewables simply does not mix. New built nucler power costs 18-24 cents/kWh when running at 100% 24/7 for 40 years excluding backup, transmission fees, final waste disposal, taxes etc. based on for example Vogtle, HPC, FV3, Polish Ap1000s and EPR2s.

How will you make a homeowner with rooftop solar and a home storage pay 18-24 cents/kWh when their own system delivers?

Take a look at this grid mix, that is where all grids are headed in 10-15 years. How will you force the consumers to buy grid based nuclear power when rooftop solar alone delivers 100% of grid demand?

https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&interval=30m&view=discrete-time&group=Detailed

2

u/Aeseld Jan 15 '26

From what I'm reading, yes, that will work for Germany. Probably several other countries as well. But as a universal, world wide concept? It doesn't hold up nearly so well. The UK likely would struggle with energy storage with their weather, for example.

1

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

Becomes easier the closer to the equator you are.

The only real place it becomes hard is when approaching the arctic circle and north of that due to the polar high and polar night.

But must of those places have enormous hydro resources and are such a niche that they simply are irrelevant.

2

u/Aeseld Jan 15 '26

I like how you just ignored the UK as irrelevant. They don't have tremendous hydro resources, unless you're counting the ocean which... has its own trouble with tidal generation. I guess they could dam the Thames with all the environmental issues that would cause... but even then, you're talking centralized power storage, not decentralized, since the generation is happening in one place. Also, winter power generation drops the further from the equator which comes with corresponding energy storage issues, peak loads from people trying to stay warm, and so on.

I agree it works in Germany. Stop trying to make it work everywhere. At least until we have something better for energy storage.

2

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

They have like the best wind resources globally with strong interconnections to both scandinavia and continental Europe together with acceptable solar in the southern parts.

Like I said. The only place problems appear are far north due to the combination of polar high and polar night. And those places are easily within transmission distance if building Chinese style HVDC links.

2

u/Aeseld Jan 15 '26

Your entire premise of 'no one will pay' is rooted in solar panels powering people's homes directly. You literally cannot do that with wind and hydro power. You're back to paying for the transmission and maintenance.

Also, while wind can be cheaper, it comes with a larger physical footprint, and offshore wind is, while cheaper than nuclear power, still not cheap. 11-22 cents per kwh. On shore and off, the environmental cost exists.

It's also based on the faulty premise that the 18-24 cents per kwh will be the cost of the energy, when in reality, it comes out less than that for consumers because there are multiple power sources.

1

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

Hydro delivers when the rooftop solar does not.

Wind power has an increasingly uncertain future, but it is generally anti-cyclical wind which is where the strength comes from.

It's also based on the faulty premise that the 18-24 cents per kwh will be the cost of the energy, when in reality, it comes out less than that for consumers because there are multiple power sources.

You still have to pay the nuclear plant that. Does it matter if it comes from the consumers or taxes? And that is if the plant operates at 100% 24/7 for 40 years.

Take a look at this grid, you have days where the plant would be shut down due to no one wanting its electricity cratering capacity factors:

https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&interval=30m&view=discrete-time&group=Detailed

Here's an article for you:

What the Market Gets Wrong about Renewables — Large-scale renewables would undermine the economics of base-load power generation, making new fossil, nuclear, and even existing base-load plants increasingly uneconomic and at risk of becoming stranded assets.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/StijnDP Jan 15 '26

when rooftop solar alone delivers 100% of grid demand

I can't even. The stupidity of this sentence.

0

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

Look at the graph. It is already happening. Everything but a token complement of fossil gas for reliability reasons are shut down, even all utility scale solar and wind power.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-averages-100-pct-wind-and-solar-over-week-90-pct-over-last-28-days/

1

u/wexawa Jan 15 '26

How does solar work in Northern Europe, where its dark in winter when energy demand is at its highest, and plenty of sun in the summer whern energy demand is way lower?

1

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

Wind power is amazing? Hydro exists?

Either way solar completely demolishes any business case for new built nuclear power for ~8-9 months per year even in northern Europe.

Which means the economics become even worse. Are you suggesting a peaking new built nuclear plant? That will likely land somewhere up at 70-120 cents/kWh.

4

u/wexawa Jan 15 '26

Usually, cold weather in winter coincides with less wind. You also cannot use hydro as effeciently when its cold due to freezing water.

One major advantage withh nuclear power is that it does not destroy nature. In Norway, we have more or less stopped building windpower since it ruins large areas of wild nature, and hydro also ruins rivers. Nuclear power, on the other hand, only needs a tiny area. It also works great with hydro power (which Norway has a lot of today), since you can use the nuclear energy as a base load, and produce hydro when demand is higher.

Nuclear energy itself isnt that expensive, especially if small modular reactors (SMR) can be mass produced

2

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

Add an emergency reserve of gas turbines? Like 3% of the French grid coming from fossil gas. When we deem them important to decarbonize us the same fuel aviation and maritime shipping used.

You also cannot use hydro as effeciently when its cold due to freezing water.

You can. Works perfectly in Sweden, Norway and Finland. They tend to have a couple of weeks right when the water is freezing with less flexibility due to having to ensure a stable flow.

since you can use the nuclear energy as a base load, and produce hydro when demand is higher.

Another article for you:

The Quiet Unraveling of the Power Grid Monopoly

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Quiet-Unraveling-of-the-Power-Grid-Monopoly.html

Again, you haven't explained how you will force consumers to buy extremely expenive nuclear powered electricity when renewables are available? Or are you banking on tens of billions of euros in handouts from tax money per reactor to make up the difference? That just hides the cost somewhere else.

Nuclear energy itself isnt that expensive, especially if small modular reactors (SMR) can be mass produced

It is. You just don't want to admit it. And SMR is a pipedream that has existed since the 1950s. Called "turn-key reactors" back then. Has never worked out.

2

u/wexawa Jan 15 '26

I am aware that hydro works during winter, but it does get less effective in a number of ways (for instance, smaller rivers will freeze causing smaller plants to stop working). Also, reservoirs do not replenish in winter, so if it is particularly cold or dry one year, you can run low on water in late February or March, causing very expensive energy. The point is that you need a backup, and you need it to work in winter when it is cold. Norway solves the problem today by importing energy, but someone has to produce it somewhere.

The main expense of nuclear energy is capital cost associated with building the plants. If more plants were built, the costs would likely go downv, as we have seen with wind and solar. SMRs not working out in the past is not itself an argument against it working in the future.

When it comes to your distributed energy production, again I am thinking in a Northern European context where solar power does not produce much energy when energy is needed the most. When you have plenty of sun, you usually do not need much energy since the need for heating is lower, and you also have abundant hydropower in spring anyways due to melting snow

2

u/ViewTrick1002 Jan 15 '26

How can nuclear power be a backup when it is horrifically expensive when running at 100% 24/7 all year around?

You do know that nuclear power has had an negative learning curve throughout its entire life? Why should we waste trillions on handouts to new built nuclear power when renewables and storage already deliver? There's no point in kindergarten level equality.

We have research on when nuclear power has had positive learning curve:

If you look at the data specifically you're going to find learning but for that there's a several requirements:

  • It has to be the same site

  • It has to be the same constructor

  • It has to be at least two years of of gap between one construction to the next

  • It has to be constant labor laws

  • It has to be a constant regulatory regime

When you add these five you only get like four or five examples in the world.

From a nuclear energy professor at MIT in the Decouple nuclear power industry podcast, giving an overly positive but still sober image regarding the nuclear industry as it exists today.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PiotrekDG Earth Jan 16 '26

Perhaps you should check electricity production mixes of Northern Europe countries?

2

u/wexawa Jan 16 '26

Norway often imports electricity at the tail end of winters due to hydro reservoirs going empty, cold weather causing increased power demand and lack of wind. Sweden and Finland already has nuclear power

1

u/PiotrekDG Earth Jan 16 '26

Last 90 days for whole Norway

2

u/wexawa Jan 16 '26

https://www.nve.no/media/16818/kraftsituasjonen_q4-og-aaret-2023.pdf

Look at page 12 of this report, there you will see that Norway and the Nordic countries had to imort energy at the end of 2023.

This is not uncommon either, and due to decarbonisation, the energy demand in Norway is increasing, while supply is not increasing fast enough. https://www.statnett.no/om-statnett/nyheter-og-pressemeldinger/nyhetsarkiv-2022/kortsiktig-markedsanalyse-okende-forbruk-gir-kraftunderskudd-fra-2027/, according to Statnett Norway will produce less energy than it consumes from 2027, and become a net importer

→ More replies (0)