> The part about renewables requiring trillions in investment to replace nuclear I didn't get at all - they're the cheapest possible solution. The problem with

> The part about renewables requiring trillions in investment to replace nuclear I didn't get at all - they're the cheapest possible solution. The problem with renewable energies in Germany is that we do not have (or can't get?) enough water power plants. Solar energy doesn't really work at all, because energy is also needed at night and wind energy is also not very reliable. To compensate for this you need even more wind turbines. The assumption here seems to be that these are really better for the climate, but I don't see that either if you have to use that much resources to build these to compensate for miniscule amounts of basic electricity load. > My guess is that renewables will continue to be a huge winner, especially in this crisis. Winner of what? In Germany we have thousands of thousands of wind turbines and still we are sliding into an energy crisis. Sure, some days they probably could produce 100% of the electricity demand, but some days they barely produce any electricity. The idea was to compensate with gas power plants ...