Comment by oezi

This comes two days after, so not sure if you might ever read it.

> "Did they?"

The April 2023 poll reflects a divided opinion under energy cost pressures from Russia’s aggression. One-third opposed extensions, one-third supported them, and one-third favored temporary extensions—hardly a consensus against prior nuclear phase-out decisions made democratically in 2011 post-Fukushima.

> "400bn€ represents 26 European pressured nuclear..."

400bn€ decarbonized over 50% of the grid. This can’t be directly compared to reactor construction alone since nuclear entails significant long-term costs for running, decommissioning and waste disposal. Germany’s nuclear operators already allocated billions for waste storage and disposal (34bn EUR for 17 plants), and it’s unclear if this will suffice as one failed attempt to store nuclear waste temporarily at Asse failed and is projected to cost at lesat 4bn EUR to clean up. Meanwhile, renewables scaled rapidly, avoiding the delays plaguing nuclear projects like Olkiluoto.

My opinion is that Nuclear is already so far behind the cost trajectory of today's solar and wind that it will never recover. Solar will expand by another magnitude and Nuclear will become even more costly.

> "Spent on importing Chinese panels and bankrupting Siemens wind power?"

Chinese dominance in solar manufacturing is relatively new and Europe/Germany squandered their leading role, because they failed their industrial policy in the mid 2010s. China drove cost reductions so steep that over two-thirds of solar costs are now domestic: land, installation, and grid connection. Unlike fossil fuels, solar ensures local economic gains, with China unlikely to profit from solar as the Middle East did from oil. Siemens’ wind issues are a corporate misstep, not a referendum on wind's viability, as it remains crucial for global decarbonization.

Germany’s investment wasn’t a waste — it built a renewable infrastructure capable of rapidly scaling to meet climate goals. Nuclear might offer stability, but it’s slow, costly, and less suited to the urgency of today’s energy transition.