[UebVar]

What you say is spectacular and completely wrong.

What you claim didn't happen, and can easily disproven with data. Your interpretation of a reasoning of a policy (that didn't happen) is bad faith.

You are wrong about both electricity [1], gas[2] and total energy [3].

Europe was very dependent on energy imports in the past and current policy is the by far most successful attempt in a long at changing it. It will help us for decades to come.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...

[2] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...

[picafrost]

I don't understand your post. Europe absolutely spent many years phasing out nuclear energy while rationalizing that increased gas imports from Russia was good because trade will make us friends [0]. The data supports this (though obviously does not capture the political discourse around Russian gas reliance). I am in agreement that the current, post-Ukraine invasion policy is good.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandel_durch_Handel

[legulere]

I guess you’re talking about Germany. Shutting down nuclear reactors and huge imports of Russian gas are two entirely separate things.

Gas imports like explained in the Wikipedia article you linked started in the 70s. There certainly was too much of a reliance on Russia, not enough investment in alternatives like LNG terminals and warnings of partners in the east were ignored with the north stream pipelines. In the end Germany got a lot of economic growth from cheap gas for decades and managed to get off Russian gas very fast. The European nuclear industry on the other hand is still heavily reliant on Russia.

Broad German anti-nuclear sentiment can be traced back mainly to Chernobyl and the exit plan that was followed in western Germany was decided after Fukushima. Eastern German reactors lacked containment and were shut down after the reunification. Contrary to an often heard claim western German nuclear was not replaced by fossil energy sources, but more than compensated by the growth of renewables. You could certainly point out that coal plants should have been shut off first, but that was even less possible politically at the time. In the end you have to shut off nuclear reactors because of growing safety risks caused by material fatigue and new ones have questionable economics.

[janice1999]

> Europe absolutely spent many years phasing out nuclear energy

Germany is not Europe. Over 70% of electricity in France is nuclear and they have plans to build at least 6 EPR2 plants.

[UebVar]

As you can see in the first link, there was a 472 TWh production of nuclear Nuclear power in 2024, in contrast to your claim that it was phased out. It didn't really changed that much - the absolute change in coal or renewables combinded is larger.