Personally I would of course prefer to phase out fossil fuels before nuclear power. But we are where we are in 2025 and there is no point crying over spilled milk.

We can only look forward and make sure we spend our money wisely. We also need to decarbonize aviation, shipping, agriculture, industry, construction etc. The grid is not the end, it is only the beginning of our decarbonization journey.

The fastest, cheapest and most efficient way of quickly displacing fossil based energy production today is building renewables and storage.

▲

opo 2 days ago | parent [-]

>...But we are where we are in 2025 and there is no point crying over spilled milk.

It would be one thing if Germany's bad mistakes in this area only affected Germany. Unfortunately people downwind of Germany die because it is still burning coal. Unfortunately climate change will affect everyone.

>...We also need to decarbonize aviation, shipping, agriculture, industry, construction etc. The grid is not the end,

Many of the changes needed to decarbonize those industries will rely on using electricity, so the grid is critical.

>...The fastest, cheapest and most efficient way of quickly displacing fossil based energy production today is building renewables and storage.

We will see if Germany is still burning coal and natural gas when countries like Finland are not.

▲

ViewTrick1002 2 days ago | parent [-]

Is your suggestion that Germany instead of building renewables quickly displacing said coal instead invests their money in nuclear power?

That would mean they get a fraction of the capacity (in TWh) online and the people downwind of Germany would have to live with the emissions as they stand today without any abatement until the mid 2040s.

Does that sound reasonable?

▲

opo 2 days ago | parent [-]

Unfortunately Germany dug itself into a big hole and the choices aren’t that great. (Yes, continue to build more solar and wind. Though that is what has been happening in 2025, and coal use has increased this year due to the variability of renewable sources.) To move away from coal in a more reasonable timeframe, other approaches could also be done. Like I mentioned in a previous comment, I am sure Germany will decarbonize before Poland, but that is kind of a low bar. Some ideas:

- Restart the nuclear power plants that are feasible to restart. The last 3 plants were only shut down in 2023 - it isn't like all the plants were shut down in 2011. It may very well be that Germany doesn’t feel it has the expertise to run nuclear power plants in the long term, so once the power isn’t needed or can be replaced by clean energy (either produced in Germany or imported), feel free to shut down the nuclear plants.

- Work with Denmark and France to import more of their power that is not coal based.

- Reward conservation more.

- Move the big industrial users of electricity out of Germany.

Some of these alternatives are likely not palatable, but like I said, Germany dug itself into a hole. Any of these alternatives sounds better than essentially deciding instead to murder people by burning coal when you have other options.

▲

ViewTrick1002 2 days ago | parent [-]

This comment shows that you don’t really grasp how the German grid works.

The German grid is currently constrained north-south due to limited transmission capacity. Over production of renewables in the north and over consumption in the south.

The reactors the pro-nuclear lobby in Germany identified as ”most easily restartable” are in the north.

Therefore restarting them is a pure waste of money. It does not solve any problems Germany has with its grid.

Then it comes down to the cost question. You can maintain a piece of infrastructure forever but at some point the costs does not justify the gain. Better spend the money on renewables and storage instead.

An example of such stupidity is Diablo Canyon in California requiring a $12B subsidy on top of regular income for selling electricity to run 5 extra years from 2025 to 2030.

You do know that France is on a downward trend of nuclear power as well? Reactors are entering end of life and the EPR2 program is in absolute shambles.

Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies.

Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix.

A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!

▲

opo a day ago | parent [-]

>Over production of renewables in the north and over consumption in the south.

Well I guess it is impossible to upgrade the grid in any kind of reasonable timeframe in Germany. There are still other options that could be done to hasten the end of burning coal - I pointed out a few, there are likely others.

>Then it comes down to the cost question. You can maintain a piece of infrastructure forever but at some point the costs does not justify the gain. Better spend the money on renewables and storage instead.

Yes it is a question. Unfortunately you have given no evidence of the actual costs.

>...You do know that France is on a downward trend of nuclear power as well?

In 2014 France set a goal to reduce nuclear's share of electricity generation to 50% by 2025. This target was delayed in 2019 to 2035, before being abandoned in 2023. (I am sure France is also trying to increase renewables and storage.)

>An example of such stupidity is Diablo Canyon in California requiring a $12B subsidy on top of regular income for selling electricity to run 5 extra years from 2025 to 2030.

This comment shows you don't really grasp the issue of power in CA. The 12 billion dollar estimate included costs unrelated to Diablo Canyon according to PG&E. Their estimate is closer to 8B, of which the majority will be covered by selling the electricity. They have a 1.1 billion dollar grant to help with some of the rest, though unclear how much the state will have to subsidize things in the end. The issue is that Diablo Canyon provides about 1/4 of the clean power in CA and can provide it when renewables can't - like every other place, CA currently has a tiny amount of grid storage. Without Diablo Canyon, CA will likely have to buy power from coal plants in other states. So CA is willing to pay extra to avoid having to burn coal. That is different than Germany that decided it would rather burn coal than use nuclear.

We will see when Germany actually stops during fossil fuels. Unfortunately, there certainly do seem to be some advocates of solar/wind who would prefer to go decades (or maybe much longer) burning coal and killing people and destroying the environment when their country had the option to use a clean energy source.

	▲	ViewTrick1002 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Upgrades are on the way but you were trying to frame it as a desperate issue to solve immediately, without realizing your solution didn’t solve anything. For evidence have a read: https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2024/06/pge-quietly-s... Just keep hiking the rates in a monopolized system. All good! You do know that California in recent years has cut fossil gas usage by 40% due to storage? Many evenings batteries are the largest producer in the Californian grid for hours on end. Happened yesterday for example. But batteries are of course insignificant. Just delivering the equivalent to 8 nuclear reactors pretty much removing the duck curve. I suggest you update your worldview to 2025. https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply