Germany is closing half of its reactors before the end of the year

Interactive live charts can be found at https://energy-charts.info/?l=en

Direct link to charts: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&...

The obvious reasons this is bad are that it increases German dependence on Russian oil and burning fossil fuels for energy. What are the arguments in favor of it, from the point of view of the German politicians and/or activists that are pushing for it? It has to be more thought out than "Nuclear bad". I'm just trying to understand.

If WWII had nuclear technology in play, bombing raids on nuclear reactors would've been one of the smaller problems. Then again, if MAD had been around pre-WWII it may have never happened.

Well, Germany's wind was done without a thought about how to implement storage; it did not have to; it was a perfect egotistic game-theoretic play:

The EU energy market mandates that wind and solar production must be bought before everything else. What happens at the moment is France's nuclear reduces production when Germany's wind is over-producing; there is no energy storage at all.

So right now, on top of wind uselessly adding to max production capacity, it thrashes zero-CO2 nuclear-allocated capital's effectiveness. That's a form of capital theft.

And on top of that, Germany's huge coal baseline continues producing just as before:

https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE

Really, the EU rules should be changed so as to account for driveability in energy production.

> The nuclear catastrophe in Chernobyl (in today’s Ukraine) in April 1986 caused widespread fear of nuclear power and strengthened the anti-nuclear sentiment

That was a really unfortunate point in the history of our species. Not only because of the lives that were lost or the land that got irradiated, but that event will be indirectly responsible for countless deaths over decades. Not because of anything related to the radiation, but for putting the brakes on deployment of nuclear reactors. We could have safe and plentiful energy by now, with very little downside.

If that sounds ludicrous, consider this: imagine someone saw the wright flyer and said "we'll be using those things to transport millions of passengers at hundreds of miles per hour". That would sound insane as those things were dangerous. Not so much now (although we have paid a price).

Similarly, nuclear tech has advanced significantly. We have designs that cannot meltdown. We have designs that don't cause weapon proliferation. We can reprocess the 'waste'. We can use different types of fuels, some more plentiful than uranium. Instead, we are stuck operating old clunkers. There are still RBMK reactors in operation today (although they have been retrofitted, but still).

Chernobyl was a criminally flawed design one step above what the radioactive boy scout managed to build. That abomination should have never seen the light of the day - and if it did, it should have had a contention building.

If we were really worried about safety and health we should have a planetary-wide ban on coal plants. Not just for global warming, but for all the health issues they cause. Including radiation.

I am a huge fan of renewables (specially solar) and very hopeful on battery storage technologies. But we do have extremely power intensive processes (think aluminum plants) for which we need reliable power that's difficult to satisfy with renewables. Fusion is always 10 years away. Hydro is not available everywhere and can be disrupted as the climate changes.