5 ms·

- All your fellow citizens keep voting for said welfare state/pension system (which is undoubtedly pro-Boomer and has unsustainably low retirement ages and larg

- All your fellow citizens keep voting for said welfare state/pension system (which is undoubtedly pro-Boomer and has unsustainably low retirement ages and large benefits). - The lack of energy security is because the Red/Greens convinced everywhere except France (go Framatome!) to give up nuclear. I wonder why resource rich Russia would push such an outcome... - Europe needs to spend its savings to get nuclear going again, with a massive construction program for nuclear, solar, hydro, batteries. It also needs battery tech re-capitalisation to keep its car industry viable. - Leaving won't make it better, it is the same or worse in most places you could go.

onli 1y ago
Nuclear energy is very expensive and does not necessarily provide energy security. You just have to check on the energy usage in France during the summer, when the nuclear power plants had to be shut down repeatedly now. Pushing nuclear power would neither provide reliable nor cheap energy. The route forward is solar, hydro, wind and batteries.
- selfmodruntime 1y ago
  Nuclear, while not cheap, is clean. Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production. All this endless talk about nuclear and whatnot, but other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now. A goal that Germany will never reach.
  - onli 1y ago
    Nuclear is not clean. It causes toxic nuclear waste that will still be radioactive when our civilization ends, radiating the humans of the future. CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage. > other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now. No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surprising giving the EU energy mix and the petrol based traffic sector. Sources please. > Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production Which means 60% is renewable, and that part is actually growing.
    - selfmodruntime 1y ago
      > Nuclear is not clean The EU court agrees with me. I trust it to have more knowledge than either of us. Nuclear is low-carbon. End of story. You can deal with toxic waste easily. [1] > adiating the humans of the future. Gas and coal produce more radiation than nuclear energy. > CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage. But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious. > No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surprising giving the EU energy mix and the petrol based traffic sector. Sources please. Sorry, mistake on my part, I meant low carbon electricity (so not burning literal poison, like Germany). Let's take France, the very country you critiqued [2]. Or Norway. Or Switzerland [3]. Now, compare it with Germany [4]. Note that every country that achieves a high score can either rely on geothermal energy or hydro, neither of which is reliably useable in Germany. So for anyone who can't make use of these technologies, nuclear is the only option. > Which means 60% is renewable, and that part is actually growing. There is a hard limit here for Germany. We are not a prime candidate for neither wind nor thermal energy, so our renewable mix actually decreased this year, back to 55%. [5] We need a flexible backup option for situations like this. The only option is either continuing to burn dirty fuel, go back to nuclear energy or to make ourselves eternally dependent to buy electricity from other EU states (which is the current plan). [1]: https://apnews.com/article/europe-nuclear-energy-natural-gas-renewables-finance-26c575d819e15ec686ec7e3e8e8e22fc https://apnews.com/article/europe-nuclear-energy-natural-gas... [2]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/France https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/France [3]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Switzerland https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Switzerland [4]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Germany https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Germany [5]: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/slow-wind-speeds-reduce-renewable-share-german-power-2025-07-15 https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
      - onli 1y ago
        You can not deal with toxic waste easily, as all attempts to do so have shown. See https://web.archive.org/web/20140508211057/http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/publikationen/broschueren/transport_lagerung/dezentr_zwischenlager.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20140508211057/http://www.bfs.de... for a report. Nuclear energy is decidedly not a flexible backup option for anything. Those plants are slow to regulate, have never been and will never be a backup. The solution is energy storage and producing so much more at the peak that at the low end is enough. Also, there is no problem importing from countries that do have more geothermal or hydro energy. > But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious The comparison is invalid in the first place. It's not about nuclear vs fossil, I never did argue for fossil energy. So the comparison you opened up is bs anyway. It's a propaganda talk point of nuclear proponents that tries to mislead from the actual comparison to make, which is renewables vs the other options. The decision of the EU court was unfortunate, stupid, and that appeal to authority does not function.
  - jll29 1y ago
    True, nuclear is clean, but only if the final storage question is ignored. (I would have used nuclear reactors for longer, at least so that those that were already built could work until they reach their planned end of life. But until the storage question isn't solved properly, one perhaps should not advocate for new nuclear reactors.) The problem is nobody wants nuclear waste near their front door, even limited politicians were quick to realize that. And yes, Germany's energy mix is a shame.
- modo_mario 1y ago
  Yet it used to be very cheap. In some places it still is cheap whilst being much safer than in the past. Meanwhile the requirements for it and the processes it has to abide by are kafkaesque. Not in a double down on security way. Just plain nonsensical. I have heard so many stories from outside and people workin in it. Things like considering refabricating the same lightbulb from some now non existant company from the 80's because that one got listed and is certified and the process to go trough to allow a new one is too cumbersome and the light went out in the toilets of some irrelevant sidebuilding. So you get a lightbulb that costs an insane amount. Or here in belgium the greens pushed some new tests to detect microfisures deep in a ridiculously thick vat that isn't security critical that would have been there since fabrication and which nobody else in the world checks for and they shut down the place for it when found. Anything to validate their own theory that nuclear is too expensive whilst planning for new gas plants. Meanwhile the plant in france that was shut down is because they didn't want to have an ecological impact on a nearby nature reserve. Something that indeed wasn't accounted for decades ago. At the same time one manages to have such plants running in Saudi Arabia? Additionally Germany has spend untold amounts more on it's renewables. It still hasn't linked it's own damn grids, put strain on infrastructure and prices abroad... and those same investments won't go for nearly as long. A good part of that green wave investment already needs replacing. All whilst necessitating fossil fuel production because that capacity figure that people hold up means jack shit when it's not what they actually produce in summer and those panels in berlin produce not even a fraction of that capacity in winter.
  - onli 1y ago
    It was never cheap. Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users, but not cheap in general. You can read a writeup of the parliamentary scientific service about that at https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d883a81adcf2697313c7d/WD-5-090-21-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d88... A striking example is the German state having to pay for storing the nuclear waste (temporary and final, see https://www.bafa.de/DE/Wirtschaft/Handwerk_Industrie/Rueckbau_Rueckstellungen_Kernkraftwerke/rueckbau_rueckstellungen_kernkraftwerke_node.html https://www.bafa.de/DE/Wirtschaft/Handwerk_Industrie/Rueckba..., though Germany has no final storage). Also when tearing down the old plants it can happen that the state is paying for that, as in https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/atomkraft-neue-milliardenlast-kosten-fuer-akw-abriss-landen-wohl-beim-bund/100066216.html https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/atomkraft-n.... Those costs were not part of the calculated energy costs, and in the past there were further subventions for the companies that lowered the price. Those are also listed at my first link.
- fakedang 1y ago
  Nuclear is cheap if you still have the expertise to make plants cheaply. Countries like Korea, India and China are rapidly expanding nuclear power plants, building them in the range of $2-5 billion dollars, while a smaller-sized plant in the West would set the books back by at least $5 billion. Korea is even winning bids internationally to build powerplants - first they won the bid to build the UAE's first powerplant, and more recently they won the bid to build another large powerplant in Czechia.
selfmodruntime 1y ago
> All your fellow citizens keep voting for said welfare state/pension system (which is undoubtedly pro-Boomer and has unsustainably low retirement ages and large benefits). 60% of the voting block is above 55. Of course they would.
AdamN 1y ago
The nuclear energy thing is a lark. The German nuclear base was already old and minimal by the time those decisions were made (unless you're talking about Greens in the 90s - but they barely had any power). Fundamentally Fukushima happened and Merkel realized that the blast radius of full sized nuclear plants is too big for Germany and there's no expectation that Germany has better controls than Japan had. Anyway, nuclear just wasn't driving big energy percentages at low prices so getting rid of it had minimal impact. The big impact was Russian gas being severed.
- deaux 1y ago
  > Merkel realized that the blast radius of full sized nuclear plants is too big for Germany and there's no expectation that Germany has better controls than Japan had. Unfortunate that she didn't realize that Germany does have less devastating earthquakes and tsunamis than Japan has. Less as in effectively zero.
- fakedang 1y ago
  Merkel is like the Caracalla of modern-day EU. Responsible for 3 of the biggest crises that the union is currently facing today. I do not know why people give a damn about that hag when all she did was stand up to Trump and laugh at him (while cozying up to Putin who threatened her with a dog, literally).
jijijijij 1y ago
> The lack of energy security is because the Red/Greens convinced everywhere except France (go Framatome!) to give up nuclear. I wonder why resource rich Russia would push such an outcome... This is completely untrue. The Atomaustieg happened under Merkel (CDU) and was catalyzed by Fukushima. That's democracy, for you, btw. The current energy "crisis" was due to idiotic trust (CDU/SPD) in Russia's goodwill and consequently opting for huge structural natural gas dependency. Foreign energy dependency wouldn't change with with nuclear power, since uranium isn't mined in Germany. Russia actually is a major uranium exporter (btw still supplying the US). Uranium mines are a horrible dirty shit show, western nations tend to outsource... Another grave mistake was discontinuing the funding/support of renewable energy industry and research, where Germany was leading once. Now, China rules in solar manufacturing. Germany still got game for wind energy, tho. Germany does not have a need for "base load" nuclear power plants, we need a substitute for gas power plants, which can be easily turned on/off as needed. Factually, no one in the energy industry in Germany wants to go nuclear, again. It's just not economical, sensible (as for time scales) or overall competitive with renewables (unless less regulated/dangerous, enormously substituted). Overall, we got mostly off Russian gas dependency exceptionally well and quick, all things considered, because of pragmatic green politics at the time (Habeck's image suffered because of deliberate smear campaigns, not because of severe factual failings). Lights stayed on, things kept moving, under downright hostile conditions. Renewable energy is booming. You see solar everywhere, no matter the political alignment. Considering the real threat of war with Russia, distributed renewables are an invaluable asset. Try bombing wind power or solar... gonna get expensive. Many houses here are becoming quasi autarkic for heating, electricity and mobility, due to household solar panels, heat pumps, energy storage in electric cars and dedicated batteries. A central multi-GW nuclear power plant is a huge liability for national security, especially, since Germany is existentially dependent on the French and UK strategic nuclear deterrent. (US not reliable/trustworthy anymore.) The only sensible reason to build reactors in Germany would be breading/enriching weapons-grade fission material, for self-sufficient nuclear defense... Which I don't see happening really.
- miroljub 1y ago
  > This is completely untrue. The Atomaustieg happened under Merkel (CDU) and was catalyzed by Fukushima. That's democracy, for you, btw. So, when the government does something populistic (with majority support) that is bad for the country, it's a democracy. But when the government refuses to do something populistic (with majority support) that is good for the country, that's also democracy. Looks like our democracy #unsereDemokratie it is not possible to do good, only harmful dealings are allowed :)

onli 1y ago

Nuclear energy is very expensive and does not necessarily provide energy security. You just have to check on the energy usage in France during the summer, when the nuclear power plants had to be shut down repeatedly now. Pushing nuclear power would neither provide reliable nor cheap energy. The route forward is solar, hydro, wind and batteries.

selfmodruntime 1y ago
Nuclear, while not cheap, is clean. Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production. All this endless talk about nuclear and whatnot, but other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now. A goal that Germany will never reach.
- onli 1y ago
  Nuclear is not clean. It causes toxic nuclear waste that will still be radioactive when our civilization ends, radiating the humans of the future. CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage. > other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now. No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surprising giving the EU energy mix and the petrol based traffic sector. Sources please. > Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production Which means 60% is renewable, and that part is actually growing.
  - selfmodruntime 1y ago
    > Nuclear is not clean The EU court agrees with me. I trust it to have more knowledge than either of us. Nuclear is low-carbon. End of story. You can deal with toxic waste easily. [1] > adiating the humans of the future. Gas and coal produce more radiation than nuclear energy. > CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage. But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious. > No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surprising giving the EU energy mix and the petrol based traffic sector. Sources please. Sorry, mistake on my part, I meant low carbon electricity (so not burning literal poison, like Germany). Let's take France, the very country you critiqued [2]. Or Norway. Or Switzerland [3]. Now, compare it with Germany [4]. Note that every country that achieves a high score can either rely on geothermal energy or hydro, neither of which is reliably useable in Germany. So for anyone who can't make use of these technologies, nuclear is the only option. > Which means 60% is renewable, and that part is actually growing. There is a hard limit here for Germany. We are not a prime candidate for neither wind nor thermal energy, so our renewable mix actually decreased this year, back to 55%. [5] We need a flexible backup option for situations like this. The only option is either continuing to burn dirty fuel, go back to nuclear energy or to make ourselves eternally dependent to buy electricity from other EU states (which is the current plan). [1]: https://apnews.com/article/europe-nuclear-energy-natural-gas-renewables-finance-26c575d819e15ec686ec7e3e8e8e22fc https://apnews.com/article/europe-nuclear-energy-natural-gas... [2]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/France https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/France [3]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Switzerland https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Switzerland [4]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Germany https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Germany [5]: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/slow-wind-speeds-reduce-renewable-share-german-power-2025-07-15 https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
    - onli 1y ago
      You can not deal with toxic waste easily, as all attempts to do so have shown. See https://web.archive.org/web/20140508211057/http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/publikationen/broschueren/transport_lagerung/dezentr_zwischenlager.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20140508211057/http://www.bfs.de... for a report. Nuclear energy is decidedly not a flexible backup option for anything. Those plants are slow to regulate, have never been and will never be a backup. The solution is energy storage and producing so much more at the peak that at the low end is enough. Also, there is no problem importing from countries that do have more geothermal or hydro energy. > But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious The comparison is invalid in the first place. It's not about nuclear vs fossil, I never did argue for fossil energy. So the comparison you opened up is bs anyway. It's a propaganda talk point of nuclear proponents that tries to mislead from the actual comparison to make, which is renewables vs the other options. The decision of the EU court was unfortunate, stupid, and that appeal to authority does not function.
- jll29 1y ago
  True, nuclear is clean, but only if the final storage question is ignored. (I would have used nuclear reactors for longer, at least so that those that were already built could work until they reach their planned end of life. But until the storage question isn't solved properly, one perhaps should not advocate for new nuclear reactors.) The problem is nobody wants nuclear waste near their front door, even limited politicians were quick to realize that. And yes, Germany's energy mix is a shame.
modo_mario 1y ago
Yet it used to be very cheap. In some places it still is cheap whilst being much safer than in the past. Meanwhile the requirements for it and the processes it has to abide by are kafkaesque. Not in a double down on security way. Just plain nonsensical. I have heard so many stories from outside and people workin in it. Things like considering refabricating the same lightbulb from some now non existant company from the 80's because that one got listed and is certified and the process to go trough to allow a new one is too cumbersome and the light went out in the toilets of some irrelevant sidebuilding. So you get a lightbulb that costs an insane amount. Or here in belgium the greens pushed some new tests to detect microfisures deep in a ridiculously thick vat that isn't security critical that would have been there since fabrication and which nobody else in the world checks for and they shut down the place for it when found. Anything to validate their own theory that nuclear is too expensive whilst planning for new gas plants. Meanwhile the plant in france that was shut down is because they didn't want to have an ecological impact on a nearby nature reserve. Something that indeed wasn't accounted for decades ago. At the same time one manages to have such plants running in Saudi Arabia? Additionally Germany has spend untold amounts more on it's renewables. It still hasn't linked it's own damn grids, put strain on infrastructure and prices abroad... and those same investments won't go for nearly as long. A good part of that green wave investment already needs replacing. All whilst necessitating fossil fuel production because that capacity figure that people hold up means jack shit when it's not what they actually produce in summer and those panels in berlin produce not even a fraction of that capacity in winter.
- onli 1y ago
  It was never cheap. Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users, but not cheap in general. You can read a writeup of the parliamentary scientific service about that at https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d883a81adcf2697313c7d/WD-5-090-21-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d88... A striking example is the German state having to pay for storing the nuclear waste (temporary and final, see https://www.bafa.de/DE/Wirtschaft/Handwerk_Industrie/Rueckbau_Rueckstellungen_Kernkraftwerke/rueckbau_rueckstellungen_kernkraftwerke_node.html https://www.bafa.de/DE/Wirtschaft/Handwerk_Industrie/Rueckba..., though Germany has no final storage). Also when tearing down the old plants it can happen that the state is paying for that, as in https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/atomkraft-neue-milliardenlast-kosten-fuer-akw-abriss-landen-wohl-beim-bund/100066216.html https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/atomkraft-n.... Those costs were not part of the calculated energy costs, and in the past there were further subventions for the companies that lowered the price. Those are also listed at my first link.
fakedang 1y ago
Nuclear is cheap if you still have the expertise to make plants cheaply. Countries like Korea, India and China are rapidly expanding nuclear power plants, building them in the range of $2-5 billion dollars, while a smaller-sized plant in the West would set the books back by at least $5 billion. Korea is even winning bids internationally to build powerplants - first they won the bid to build the UAE's first powerplant, and more recently they won the bid to build another large powerplant in Czechia.

selfmodruntime 1y ago

> All your fellow citizens keep voting for said welfare state/pension system (which is undoubtedly pro-Boomer and has unsustainably low retirement ages and large benefits). 60% of the voting block is above 55. Of course they would.

AdamN 1y ago

The nuclear energy thing is a lark. The German nuclear base was already old and minimal by the time those decisions were made (unless you're talking about Greens in the 90s - but they barely had any power). Fundamentally Fukushima happened and Merkel realized that the blast radius of full sized nuclear plants is too big for Germany and there's no expectation that Germany has better controls than Japan had. Anyway, nuclear just wasn't driving big energy percentages at low prices so getting rid of it had minimal impact. The big impact was Russian gas being severed.

deaux 1y ago
> Merkel realized that the blast radius of full sized nuclear plants is too big for Germany and there's no expectation that Germany has better controls than Japan had. Unfortunate that she didn't realize that Germany does have less devastating earthquakes and tsunamis than Japan has. Less as in effectively zero.
fakedang 1y ago
Merkel is like the Caracalla of modern-day EU. Responsible for 3 of the biggest crises that the union is currently facing today. I do not know why people give a damn about that hag when all she did was stand up to Trump and laugh at him (while cozying up to Putin who threatened her with a dog, literally).

jijijijij 1y ago

> The lack of energy security is because the Red/Greens convinced everywhere except France (go Framatome!) to give up nuclear. I wonder why resource rich Russia would push such an outcome... This is completely untrue. The Atomaustieg happened under Merkel (CDU) and was catalyzed by Fukushima. That's democracy, for you, btw. The current energy "crisis" was due to idiotic trust (CDU/SPD) in Russia's goodwill and consequently opting for huge structural natural gas dependency. Foreign energy dependency wouldn't change with with nuclear power, since uranium isn't mined in Germany. Russia actually is a major uranium exporter (btw still supplying the US). Uranium mines are a horrible dirty shit show, western nations tend to outsource... Another grave mistake was discontinuing the funding/support of renewable energy industry and research, where Germany was leading once. Now, China rules in solar manufacturing. Germany still got game for wind energy, tho. Germany does not have a need for "base load" nuclear power plants, we need a substitute for gas power plants, which can be easily turned on/off as needed. Factually, no one in the energy industry in Germany wants to go nuclear, again. It's just not economical, sensible (as for time scales) or overall competitive with renewables (unless less regulated/dangerous, enormously substituted). Overall, we got mostly off Russian gas dependency exceptionally well and quick, all things considered, because of pragmatic green politics at the time (Habeck's image suffered because of deliberate smear campaigns, not because of severe factual failings). Lights stayed on, things kept moving, under downright hostile conditions. Renewable energy is booming. You see solar everywhere, no matter the political alignment. Considering the real threat of war with Russia, distributed renewables are an invaluable asset. Try bombing wind power or solar... gonna get expensive. Many houses here are becoming quasi autarkic for heating, electricity and mobility, due to household solar panels, heat pumps, energy storage in electric cars and dedicated batteries. A central multi-GW nuclear power plant is a huge liability for national security, especially, since Germany is existentially dependent on the French and UK strategic nuclear deterrent. (US not reliable/trustworthy anymore.) The only sensible reason to build reactors in Germany would be breading/enriching weapons-grade fission material, for self-sufficient nuclear defense... Which I don't see happening really.

miroljub 1y ago
> This is completely untrue. The Atomaustieg happened under Merkel (CDU) and was catalyzed by Fukushima. That's democracy, for you, btw. So, when the government does something populistic (with majority support) that is bad for the country, it's a democracy. But when the government refuses to do something populistic (with majority support) that is good for the country, that's also democracy. Looks like our democracy #unsereDemokratie it is not possible to do good, only harmful dealings are allowed :)