First, it's not just nuclear, it's also Natural gas.
Second, lots of nations have incentives for "clean" energy. And now magically, all those incentives apply to nuclear and gas.
It's a money grab from nuclear and gas manufacturers. It's not that the courts were involved for nothing.
Still, we should use more nuclear. If only it was less expensive to build...
In 2015, due mostly to fracking gas, the US was down to around 450g CO₂/kWh.
Germany, with its Energiewende, was at around 560g CO₂/kWh.
Because, of course, the Energiewende was not about climate change. It was about shutting down climate-friendly (CO₂ free) nuclear plants.
Both could have done better. France is currently at something like 32g CO₂/kWh and has been at roughly that level for decades.
Removing what would be nasty targets in a war perhaps in the current light not so much.
That's about as idiotic as you can get.
And simply by not destroying this already existing infrastructure you wouldn't even have needed north-south links.
At its peak (in 1999), nuclear power produced only 31% of Germany's electricity, itself less than 25% of the energy consumed (even considering primary energy, it only provided 12.7%), and by 2011 (Fukushima...), it was producing less than 18% of the electricity.
Moreover, in the East, coal-fired power plants have long produced high-pressure steam for district heating (industry and heating many premises), which a remote reactor cannot provide.
To claim that Germany shut down its reactors for no reason (after Fukushima...) or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as, in Germany, all political parties close reactors, and most reactors were not closed by "Greens".
Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency since it would have replaced part of the huge coal industry, which is very difficult to get rid of.
Precisely.
> but only to a limited extent because the bulk of the coal (especially lignite, a high CO2 emitter) is burned to generate electricity in the former East German regions,
Huh? Not shutting down the existing nuclear plants is a pure positive and does not prevent you from doing other things. Such as building out renewables and/or nuclear plants in the east.
For the money we wasted on intermittent renewables so far, we could have built at least 50 reactors even at the inflated cost of the EPR prototype at Olkiluoto 3. Or 100 inflation-adjusted Konvois. So way more than enough.
Nuclear power is well-suited for district heating and industrial heat applications, unlike solar and wind.
> To claim that Germany shut down its reactors for no reason
Nobody claimed that. Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia
All West German reactors would have survived the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami perfectly fine had they been at the site of Fukushima. And we don't have Tsunamis in Germany. How does shutting down those plants make sense again? When answering, consider that Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants.
It's time for Germany to admit its mistake on nuclear energy
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/12/26/world/ger...
> or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as,
Again, such a good thing that that claim wasn't made in this thread. Or are you misleadingly claiming that it was?
> misleading as, in Germany, all political parties close reactors, and most reactors were not closed by "Greens".
Who "closed" reactors, now that actually is misleading for a change. The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002. Germany happens to be a country with the rule of law, so successor governments can't just act on whim, they are bound by the law of the land. Oh, and it was the Greens who made the Atomausstieg the primary condition for their coalition with the SPD.
So while it is correct that all parties are somewhat to blame, to claim that they are equally to blame is ahistorical nonsense and quite misleading.
> Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency
That is also not true.
Ask Japan, and especially Fukushima's residents, about this.
> building out renewables and/or nuclear plants in the east.
Germany chose renewables and cannot quickly phase out its huge coal industry.
> For the money we wasted on intermittent renewables so far
Source (with investments' perimeters and maturities)?
> Nuclear power is well-suited for district heating and industrial heat applications
If, and only if, it is designed for it, and with the appropriate networks. France nuclear does nearly 0 district heating and 0 industrial heat.
> Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons:
Reason: "Fukushima"
> All West German reactors would have survived the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake
In Japan until 2011, officially "all reactors will survive..."
> we don't have Tsunamis in Germany
Tsunamis are not the sole cause potentially triggering a nuclear accident.
> How does shutting down those plants make sense again?
Refusing nuclear-induced challenges (risk of major accident, waste, dependency towards uranium, difficult decommissioning, risk of weapon proliferation...) while another approach (renewables) is now technically adequate makes sense.
> Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants.
Some sing this song since 2015. In the real world Japan, just like China, massively invests on... renewables! Surprise! And very few reactors were reactivated: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
>> or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as,
> Again, such a good thing that that claim wasn't made in this thread
It is nearly always made, in a form or another, in each and every thread about nuclear energy. In this very post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45230099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228712
> Who "closed" reactors
Read on: https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561
> The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002.
Don't omit anything: "The phase-out plan was initially delayed in late 2010, when during the chancellorship of centre-right Angela Merkel, the coalition conservative-liberal government decreed a 12-year delay of the schedule."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Chang...
Then the Fukushima accident changed it all. Exactly what I described.
>> Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency
> That is also not true.
Germany burns its own coal, and by doing so maintains a huge sector. By letting reactors run it would have had to phase coal our more quickly, leading to massive unemployment and dependency towards uranium. This is sad but true.
Yes, let's ask Japan!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-16/japan-see...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/12/26/world/ger...
>> Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons:
> Reason: "Fukushima"
QED.
> > Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants.
>Some sing this song since 2015
And it still happens to be true. And only in the weird minds of anti-nuclear activists are renewables and nuclear power incompatible. Almost the entire industrialized world is investing massively in both nuclear and renewables.
And once again: The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002. Governments are bound by the law of the land.
Now other governments should have scrapped those laws, but they didn't. So they bear some responsibility for this disaster, but the main responsibility is still with Red/Green (2002) in general and the Greens in particular, because they were the ones pushing it.
It is also really telling that for some reason everyone wants to ascribe this huge "success" to their political enemies...
> the entire industrialized world is investing massively in both nuclear and renewables
Nope: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
Japan has restarted at least 14 reactors.
https://www.modernpowersystems.com/analysis/re-establishing-...
https://pris.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....
Or even just Wikipedia:
"As of January 2022 there are 33 operable reactors in Japan, of which 12 reactors are currently operating.[87] Additionally, 5 reactors have been approved for restart and further 8 have restart applications under review."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Nuclear...
Your ourworldindata links says nothing about current investments. It is therefore not a repudiation of what I wrote about investments in nuclear and renewables.
Here's what ChatGPT says:
Is the industrialized world massively investing in both nuclear energy and renewables?
ChatGPT said:
Yes — there is strong evidence that in many (though not all) of the industrialized world, there is a massive investment push in both renewables (especially solar and wind) and nuclear, though the balance, pace, and scale differ a lot by region. Below are key takeaways, some of the caveats, and what seems likely going forward.
Nuclear energy
Interest in building new nuclear capacity has increased. Many countries are extending the life of existing reactors, and new reactors are under construction. For example: 63 nuclear reactors globally are under construction as of 2025, representing over 70 GW of capacity.
Annual investment in nuclear (both in building new reactors and extending existing ones) has risen by almost 50% since 2020, now exceeding USD 60 billion per year. (IEA)
Some countries are making major new commitments: UK’s investment in the Sizewell C plant, public & private funds for modular reactors, Canadian incentives for SMRs, etc.
Research indicates that global nuclear capacity might more than double by 2050 (from ~398 GW now to ~860 GW).
It says clearly about the respective parts of renewables and nuclear in Japan gridpower, before and after Fukushima (which happened 14 years ago).
If a sustainable massive and very quick restart of such heavy industrial equipment seems possible to you after 14 years I stay alert, popcorn in hand.
Sizewell C seems a good deal to the UK because it will in practice the French taxpayer will have to pay for it. Let's see if it happens, or even will be possible. SMRs are an investment-luring ghost ready to explode: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45182003
Sure, there will be some new reactors. Most will be built horrendously over budget and late, obtaining refined uranium and managing their waste will be a growing concern, will produce electricity at a high cost not compensated by any benefit as other ways to compensate 'intermittency' will be more and more effective, any incident will threaten the depreciation of investments, the decommission costs will skyrocket (see nuclear decommissions in the UK, right now)... Good luck with this!
My bet: in 40 years the nuclear industry of nations which expand it now what coal industry is to Germany.