[pdubouilh]

ABSTRACT: Germany has one of the most ambitious energy transition policies dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ to replace nuclear- and fossil power with renewables such as wind-, solar- and biopower. The climate gas emissions are reduced by 25% in the study period of 2002 through 2022. By triangulating available information sources, the total nominal expenditures are estimated at EUR 387 bn, and the associated subsidies are some EUR 310 bn giving a total nominal expenditures of EUR 696 bn. Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power.

[KingOfCoders]

We won't settle this debate (and I'm not against nuclear), but it's a discussion around "Do I need fire insurance when my house has a low chance to burn down" and should I use the money for something else.

If it doesn't burn down, you look great. If it burns down, you look like an idiot.

I think people will not understand (some|most) Germans if you haven't lived through Chernobyl and Pershing-II days, dying forrests (from East European coal plants) and also red terrorism (mid 70s, early 80s were a crazy time). The discussion is not a rational one but one out of trauma of that time.

[wrKaxnc]

Germany is stationing nuclear capable missiles again, with the approval of the Green Party, which had been at the forefront of the anti Pershing-II protests but is now a war party:

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-shrugs-off-putin-comments-on-u...

If that is possible, why not pebble bed reactors?

[rapnie]

> Germany could have [..] [which] shows Germany could have [..] Thus, Germany should have [..]

Germany could have skipped the industrial revolution, so they should have reached their targets already.

[defensive7132]

I always supported nuclear power. It's just the best we have right now. Renewable power is all good and all, but technology is not there yet. Plus, many people in support of green energy never think about all the mining done for this and how it impacts and often destroys environments. It's OK when it's not your environment being hurt. :-)

Anyways, nuclear power is safer than people think. And most, if not all, nuclear power disasters were due to human error.

[aniviacat]

> most, if not all, nuclear power disasters were due to human error

How is this less of an issue? Are modern reactors not built and operated by humans? We have better sensors and more digital components now, which reduce the risk. But the risk for a wind turbine is, and always was, zero.

[ponorin]

In the winter of 2022, France had to restart permanently shut down coal plants[0] and pump gas to Germany[1] for electricity because of a pipe crack that made half of their nuclear plants go into maintenance. Note that this was on top of curtailing energy use (funny enough, because of gas, not nuclear[2]).

You could say "that was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of event!" (I'd love to have machine without flaws but nuclear fusion would be faster) but, if it wasn't for the European grid, this could have resulted in prolonged emergency saving measures or possibly a (partial) blackout. Nuclear power is often touted as the stable one, but ironically, solar and wind would not suffer from this kind of problem because they are inherently variable in output. If energy storage for renewables was already a headache, imagine an energy storage system for nuclear.

[0]: https://apnews.com/article/europe-business-france-climate-an...

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230114183054/https://www.nytim...

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20240709121249/https://www.nytim...

[jahnu]

> Renewable power is all good and all, but technology is not there yet.

Actually it is and here is the best summary explaining why I know of:

https://www.volts.wtf/p/what-the-sun-isnt-always-shining

[AlphaGeekZulu]

"[...]And most, if not all, nuclear power disasters were due to human error.[...]"

And the remaining nuclear power disasters were due to unpredictable natural disasters.

So at what time exactly did we eliminate human error and unpredictable natural disasters, so that we don't have to worry about the dangers of nuclear power anymore? It seems, I somehow missed this two super important historic events...

[fabian2k]

Human error makes it worse. We can fix technical issues, it is much harder to fix human nature and all the potential human causes for safety violations.

[SiempreViernes]

No analysis of costs if Germany had adopted a strategy of transitioning to renewables in 2002 is offered, you are just meant to look at figure 2 and say take it on fait it is the result of a coherent green transition strategy rather than Germany dallying and going back to its traditional coal power.

[oezi]

If 350bn is all we need to cut our emissions in Germany (we have a 4000bn annual GDP) by 75%, then I don't get what the big fuss about climate change is. Every industrial country could cough up such small an amount (loan, Fed printing money, etc).