> Nuclear is literally cheaper, even if we assume no savings from large-scale production This is blatantly false. Even the cheapest conceivable nuclear (which

> Nuclear is literally cheaper, even if we assume no savings from large-scale production This is blatantly false. Even the cheapest conceivable nuclear (which is not realistic in Germany) is more expensive than any form of solar and wind: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/EN2024_ISE_Study_Levelized_Cost_of_Electricity_Renewable_Energy_Technologies.pdf https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p... > The transition could have been already over, if Germany had chosen nuclear in 2000-s. The finish reactor OL3 came in at 11 billion Euros and produces up to 13 twh/year. Germany currently consumes 500 twh/year. So we'd have had to build close to 40 reactors at a cost of more than 400 Billion Euros to satisfy today's demand. By 2050, Germany's electricity demand will be around 2,000 twh/year. For that we'd have to build more than 150 OL3s at a cost of 1.7 Trillion Euros. How's that cheaper than 1 Trillion Euro for renewables and batteries? At the same time, renewables already provide more than 50% of electricity today and could have provided more, if the Merkel administration had not been actively hostile towards their buildout. And again: per kwh produced, any form of new solar and wind (yes, even including in combination with chemical batteries) is cheaper than new nuclear. There are certainly some (very) niche use cases where you can make the case for nuclear. Grid-wide baseload at competitive prices in a country like Germany is not one of them.