Comment by opo
2 days ago
>...But we are where we are in 2025 and there is no point crying over spilled milk.
It would be one thing if Germany's bad mistakes in this area only affected Germany. Unfortunately people downwind of Germany die because it is still burning coal. Unfortunately climate change will affect everyone.
>...We also need to decarbonize aviation, shipping, agriculture, industry, construction etc. The grid is not the end,
Many of the changes needed to decarbonize those industries will rely on using electricity, so the grid is critical.
>...The fastest, cheapest and most efficient way of quickly displacing fossil based energy production today is building renewables and storage.
We will see if Germany is still burning coal and natural gas when countries like Finland are not.
Is your suggestion that Germany instead of building renewables quickly displacing said coal instead invests their money in nuclear power?
That would mean they get a fraction of the capacity (in TWh) online and the people downwind of Germany would have to live with the emissions as they stand today without any abatement until the mid 2040s.
Does that sound reasonable?
Unfortunately Germany dug itself into a big hole and the choices aren’t that great. (Yes, continue to build more solar and wind. Though that is what has been happening in 2025, and coal use has increased this year due to the variability of renewable sources.) To move away from coal in a more reasonable timeframe, other approaches could also be done. Like I mentioned in a previous comment, I am sure Germany will decarbonize before Poland, but that is kind of a low bar. Some ideas:
- Restart the nuclear power plants that are feasible to restart. The last 3 plants were only shut down in 2023 - it isn't like all the plants were shut down in 2011. It may very well be that Germany doesn’t feel it has the expertise to run nuclear power plants in the long term, so once the power isn’t needed or can be replaced by clean energy (either produced in Germany or imported), feel free to shut down the nuclear plants.
- Work with Denmark and France to import more of their power that is not coal based.
- Reward conservation more.
- Move the big industrial users of electricity out of Germany.
Some of these alternatives are likely not palatable, but like I said, Germany dug itself into a hole. Any of these alternatives sounds better than essentially deciding instead to murder people by burning coal when you have other options.
This comment shows that you don’t really grasp how the German grid works.
The German grid is currently constrained north-south due to limited transmission capacity. Over production of renewables in the north and over consumption in the south.
The reactors the pro-nuclear lobby in Germany identified as ”most easily restartable” are in the north.
Therefore restarting them is a pure waste of money. It does not solve any problems Germany has with its grid.
Then it comes down to the cost question. You can maintain a piece of infrastructure forever but at some point the costs does not justify the gain. Better spend the money on renewables and storage instead.
An example of such stupidity is Diablo Canyon in California requiring a $12B subsidy on top of regular income for selling electricity to run 5 extra years from 2025 to 2030.
You do know that France is on a downward trend of nuclear power as well? Reactors are entering end of life and the EPR2 program is in absolute shambles.
Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies.
Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix.
A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!
2 replies →