Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

clashreport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 192 posts

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#181

Post by UltraSane »

uecker wrote: post #178
UltraSane wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But the CO2 emissions between a completed transition away from fossil fuels (France last century) and Germany (still ongoing) can obviously not be compared" Isn't that convenient? The truth is that Germany could already have completed the "transition away from fossil fuels" that France did if it wasn't so irrationally afraid of nuclear electricity. "Once the transition is done" It will NEVER be done due to the inter…

The truth is that you need to set the decline of CO2 emissions to the progress of the transition. If you do this, you will see that emissions decrease accordingly to the rollout of renewables. If Germany had decided to build out nuclear, it would also not have low emissions the next day, but only decades later depending on how much coal is replaced by new nuclear. This not difficult to understand. In fact, it is very…

"If Germany had decided to build out nuclear"

This is misrepresenting what Germany did. They shut down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors with 20 to 30 years of remaining life instead of their filthy coal plants, all because of a deeply irrational and anti-intellectual fear of nuclear energy.

By what criteria can Germany's energy transition be considered a success? It has made german electricity some of the most expensive in the world while also emitting 10 times as much CO2/kwh as France. You are getting the worst of both worlds.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#182

Post by uecker »

UltraSane wrote: post #180
uecker wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and Germany's emissions for electricity production were double the amount a decade ago and are dropping as coal is phased out. So renewables do work. 1) Once the transition is complete it will also be close to zero. These numbers only show that if you move to a carbon-neutral production already in the eighties of last century your are done now. Please make a reasonable argument and not this nonsense comparison.…

The sane and sensible thing to do would have been to phase out coal instead of nuclear, then Germany would have as low of CO2 emissions per KWh as France. What does Germany plan to use for dispatch-able power when wind and solar don't supply enough?

I agree that one should have phased out coal faster instead of nuclear. Also with nuclear one needs dispatch-able power because demand is also variable and one does not use nuclear for balancing. But one certainly needs more with renewables. For the time being this is gas (which is a small fraction of overall gas use in Germany). In the long-term it will be replaced batteries for short duration and likely back-conversion of synthetic gas if there is a longer period. Biomass and demand-side electricity management will also help. Overall, I do not see a fundamental problem.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#183

Post by uecker »

UltraSane wrote: post #181
uecker wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is that you need to set the decline of CO2 emissions to the progress of the transition. If you do this, you will see that emissions decrease accordingly to the rollout of renewables. If Germany had decided to build out nuclear, it would also not have low emissions the next day, but only decades later depending on how much coal is replaced by new nuclear. This not difficult to understand. In fact, it is very…

"If Germany had decided to build out nuclear" This is misrepresenting what Germany did. They shut down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors with 20 to 30 years of remaining life instead of their filthy coal plants, all because of a deeply irrational and anti-intellectual fear of nuclear energy. By what criteria can Germany's energy transition be considered a success? It has made german electricity some of the most e…

You are not addressing my comment and again instead switch topics and resort to rhetoric ("deeply irrational", "most expensive", "worst"). You should also say which price you are referring to, there are many different ones.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#184

Post by UltraSane »

uecker wrote: post #182
UltraSane wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sane and sensible thing to do would have been to phase out coal instead of nuclear, then Germany would have as low of CO2 emissions per KWh as France. What does Germany plan to use for dispatch-able power when wind and solar don't supply enough?

I agree that one should have phased out coal faster instead of nuclear. Also with nuclear one needs dispatch-able power because demand is also variable and one does not use nuclear for balancing. But one certainly needs more with renewables. For the time being this is gas (which is a small fraction of overall gas use in Germany). In the long-term it will be replaced batteries for short duration and likely back-conver…

French PWRs routinely load-follow, ramping 1-5% of rated power per minute. With ~70% nuclear generation, they had no choice but to design for flexibility. Their N4 and newer reactors can operate between 20-100% power on demand.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#185

Post by UltraSane »

uecker wrote: post #183
UltraSane wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If Germany had decided to build out nuclear" This is misrepresenting what Germany did. They shut down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors with 20 to 30 years of remaining life instead of their filthy coal plants, all because of a deeply irrational and anti-intellectual fear of nuclear energy. By what criteria can Germany's energy transition be considered a success? It has made german electricity some of the most e…

You are not addressing my comment and again instead switch topics and resort to rhetoric ("deeply irrational", "most expensive", "worst"). You should also say which price you are referring to, there are many different ones.

Germany'a decision to shut down their perfectly safe and young nuclear reactors was a deeply irrational and very expensive decision. Shutting down functional low-carbon plants while operating coal plants during a declared climate emergency is difficult to defend.

Multiple studies estimate the climate and economic cost in the tens of billions of euros.

German culture, especially their "Greens" seems to have mentally fused nuclear power and nuclear weapons into one category unlike most other countries.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#186

Post by uecker »

UltraSane wrote: post #184
uecker wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that one should have phased out coal faster instead of nuclear. Also with nuclear one needs dispatch-able power because demand is also variable and one does not use nuclear for balancing. But one certainly needs more with renewables. For the time being this is gas (which is a small fraction of overall gas use in Germany). In the long-term it will be replaced batteries for short duration and likely back-conver…

French PWRs routinely load-follow, ramping 1-5% of rated power per minute. With ~70% nuclear generation, they had no choice but to design for flexibility. Their N4 and newer reactors can operate between 20-100% power on demand.

This is not about technical possibility, but about economics. The cost of nuclear is capital cost while operating costs are small, you want to run your plant at maximum capacity.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#187

Post by uecker »

UltraSane wrote: post #185
uecker wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not addressing my comment and again instead switch topics and resort to rhetoric ("deeply irrational", "most expensive", "worst"). You should also say which price you are referring to, there are many different ones.

Germany'a decision to shut down their perfectly safe and young nuclear reactors was a deeply irrational and very expensive decision. Shutting down functional low-carbon plants while operating coal plants during a declared climate emergency is difficult to defend. Multiple studies estimate the climate and economic cost in the tens of billions of euros. German culture, especially their "Greens" seems to have mentally f…

Please cite studies instead of making random claims. You again just repeat your rhetoric. But let's first agree that you CO2 emission comment was an invalid argument before we go on to discuss other issues.

As a start to discuss cost, here is Lazards' analysis about the cost of power generation: https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

"On an unsubsidized $/MWh basis, renewable energy remains the most cost-competitive form of generation."

Edit: In other news, and as usual for nuclear projects, EDF had to increase their cost estimate of new reactor again: https://sightlineu3o8.com/2025/12/edf-raises-budget-for-new-...

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#188

Post by UltraSane »

uecker wrote: post #186
UltraSane wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

French PWRs routinely load-follow, ramping 1-5% of rated power per minute. With ~70% nuclear generation, they had no choice but to design for flexibility. Their N4 and newer reactors can operate between 20-100% power on demand.

This is not about technical possibility, but about economics. The cost of nuclear is capital cost while operating costs are small, you want to run your plant at maximum capacity.

France has cheaper electricity that Germany.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#189

Post by UltraSane »

uecker wrote: post #187
UltraSane wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany'a decision to shut down their perfectly safe and young nuclear reactors was a deeply irrational and very expensive decision. Shutting down functional low-carbon plants while operating coal plants during a declared climate emergency is difficult to defend. Multiple studies estimate the climate and economic cost in the tens of billions of euros. German culture, especially their "Greens" seems to have mentally f…

Please cite studies instead of making random claims. You again just repeat your rhetoric. But let's first agree that you CO2 emission comment was an invalid argument before we go on to discuss other issues. As a start to discuss cost, here is Lazards' analysis about the cost of power generation: https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... "On an unsubsidized $/MWh basis, renewable energy remains t…

"let's first agree that you CO2 emission comment was an invalid argument "

It is absolutely NOT an invalid argument, if you think climate change is a real thing it is by far THE ONLY argument that matters. And it quantitatively proves how terrible Germany's decision to shut down perfectly safe nuclear reactors was.

"renewable energy remains the most cost-competitive form of generation."

Not if you want it to be as reliable as nuclear. Again you never explained what Germany is going to use as backup when wind and solar don't produce enough.

Debating you feels like debating Tesla fanboys about Waymo. Waymo actually has hundreds of self-driving cars RIGHT NOW while Tesla keeps saying they are going to have self driving cars any day now yet they all still need a safety driver.

Nuclear energy can power entire countries with almost zero carbon energy RIGHT NOW.

Re: Germany's Merz admits nuclear exit was strategic mistake

#190

Post by uecker »

UltraSane wrote: post #188
uecker wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about technical possibility, but about economics. The cost of nuclear is capital cost while operating costs are small, you want to run your plant at maximum capacity.

France has cheaper electricity that Germany.

You are repeating talking points without understanding. First, there are different prices which also change in time. Also, the price households pay does not relate to generation cost. But even the wholesale price is does not necessarily do this. In France, the problem is that EDF is required to sell electricity from old nuclear plants very cheaply, but this is not even good for the nuclear industry, in fact, it one reason (the other are why it now has a lot debts and is not able to do the necessary investments. But even without these historical rules, it is difficult to fund new nuclear power plants using the expected price levels for electricity in Europe.

https://energynews.oedigital.com/nuclear-power/2025/12/11/fi...

Post reply on HN