> Spending 10x as much on nuclear power subsidies and hopefully getting some plants finished in the 2040s?

Here's the thing. If Germany had spent on nuclear the same amount of money it has spent (so far) on renewables, then it could have had 100% carbon-free electricity and heating. With lower energy prices than now.

So yes. Nuclear all the way.

Instead, we now face the reality where Germany will have to rely on imported natural gas as far as the eye can see. And certainly past 2040. While having one of the highest electricity rates in Europe, so high that they're now depressing the industry. And the plan to fix it is to keep repeating the word "hydrogen" until something happens.

Meanwhile:

> The coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU alliance and the SPD mentions the construction of up to 20 GW of gas-fired power plant capacity by 2030. In June, Reiche announced a first step with a tender volume of between five and ten gigawatts.

It is sad to see someone fall to logical inconsistencies because you know you are wrong, but can't bring yourself to admit it.

Do we live in 2005 or 2025? We live in 2025 and can not influence past actions.

Solar power was expensive a decade ago. Today it is not. We build it based on 2025 costs and not 2005. I would suggest you stop crying over spilled milk and instead start looking forward.

Today renewables are the cheapest source of energy in human history, why don't you celebrate that we over the coming decades finally are able to let go off fossil fuels for all but emergency and niche use cases?

How much money has been spent on extra subsidies on top of what a fossil based system would cost for Energiewende? Say €200B? Please do not link the Norwegian professor double counting costs as a source, that would just prove how desperate you are.

As per modern western nuclear construction costs that would result in about 10-15 GW of nuclear power. But somehow that would be enough to power a grid which over the year averages 56 GW. Does not sound very logical does it? Or do you suggest the now phased out fleet could be running today without spending enormous sums on LTO upgrades?

And then you round it all off with crying about perfect. Missing the forest for the trees.

Who cares if the emergency reserves are a tiny bit of fossil fuels when we have an entire economy to decarbonize? The costs to switch the reserves to biofuels, synfuels or pure hydrogen are negligible and trivial to do when they become the most pressing matter to decarbonize.

Take the US and ethanol mix in for gasoline. That is enough energy to run the entire US grid without any other source for 16 days. What happens as we switch the car fleet to BEVs? The ethanol becomes available for emergency reserve duties.

> Do we live in 2005 or 2025? We live in 2025 and can not influence past actions.

Yeah. "Oh, we made a mistake, but it's water under the bridge now. It's too late to build nuclear. Here, get this lump of coal and burn it to warm up. It's fine, we'll phase it out in 20 years. Just don't think about it now, and don't forget to vote for more green energy"

> Today renewables are the cheapest source of energy in human history, why don't you celebrate that we over the coming decades finally are able to let go off fossil fuels for all but emergency and niche use cases?

OK. Why is Germany directly paying for new natural gas generation? Wouldn't it be cheaper to replace coal with cheap renewables and storage? Should be a no-brainer, yeah?

Oh, it's the "cheapest energy" only when you don't care about the grid stability (see: Spain) or winter (see: Germany).

> As per modern western nuclear construction costs that would result in about 10-15 GW of nuclear power.

Germany has spent more than $500B on Energiewende so far. It'll need to spend about that amount _again_ to decarbonize, even with some generous assumptions about future technologies.

If we use Oikiluoto Unit 3 as a guide, it cost 11B euros for 1.6GWe of capacity. Getting to 60GWe would have required 400B euros. Without considering any economy of scale or savings from streamlining the construction.

> And then you round it all off with crying about perfect. Missing the forest for the trees.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror? Maybe YOU are missing the forest for the trees? In this case, "trees" are vapid editorials about how Germany generated 100% of energy from renewables. Small print: in summer, when demand is low.

> Yeah. "Oh, we made a mistake, but it's water under the bridge now. It's too late to build nuclear. Here, get this lump of coal and burn it to warm up. It's fine, we'll phase it out in 20 years. Just don't think about it now, and don't forget to vote for more green energy"

This truly is getting sad. Coal is already being phased out. It is very telling that you don't dare to look forward.

Only complain about what has been. Why don't you go and invest your own money in nuclear power? Why do you want trillions in handouts from the state on a dead-end technology?

Is your income dependent on the nuclear industry?

> OK. Why is Germany directly paying for new natural gas generation? Wouldn't it be cheaper to replace coal with cheap renewables and storage? Should be a no-brainer, yeah?

As per their changing energy mix they are quickly replacing coal with renewables? In 2024 60% renewables in the mix.

What is your option? To not build said natural gas plants and wait until the 2040s for new built nuclear power?

How will that solve Germany's electrification needs from switching from natural gas heating to heat pumps in the short term?

I love how you keep evading all real questions. The nuclear cult, never logical.

> Oh, it's the "cheapest energy" only when you don't care about the grid stability (see: Spain) or winter (see: Germany).

And now we're diving straight into falsehood. Can't stay with the truth with you nuclear cultists can we?

Maybe you can explain why 50% of the Spanish nuclear fleet was either offline or withdrawn from the market when the blackout happened?

Maybe you can explain what problems Germany had last winter? A few expensive days? You want to solve a few expensive days by making the electricity all year around multiples more expensive by through authoritarian means forcing everyone to pay for your imaginary nuclear boondoggle?

> If we use Oikiluoto Unit 3 as a guide, it cost 11B euros for 1.6GWe of capacity. Getting to 60GWe would have required 400B euros. Without considering any economy of scale or savings from streamlining the construction.

Thank you for once again confirming that you are out of your depth.

The figure you quote is from a settlement 6 years prior to the plant being finished while construction costs and interest kept accumulating.

No one knows the final cost for OL3, but we do know that it bankrupted Areva and that the French paid for the majority of the costs.

Why didn't you dare bring up Vogtle, Flamanville 3 or Hinkley Point C? Because using those as a guide my numbers was being kind on nuclear power?

> Perhaps you should look in the mirror? Maybe YOU are missing the forest for the trees? In this case, "trees" are vapid editorials about how Germany generated 100% of energy from renewables. Small print: in summer, when demand is low.

Getting stingy now. Annoying dealing with someone who has seen all your talking points and lies you usually shield yourself behind before?

> This truly is getting sad. Coal is already being phased out. It is very telling that you don't dare to look forward.

We'll see if it actually happens. It probably will, but I can say for certain that it WILL be phased out in favor of imported natural gas. Not renewables. Not hydrogen. Not power-to-gas.

This is completely locked-in right now, with new replacement natural gas plants already in the process of bidding.

> Maybe you can explain why 50% of the Spanish nuclear fleet was either offline or withdrawn from the market when the blackout happened?

Because the useless renewable strategy incentivizes only dirt-grade generation. It priced out reliable power, resulting in an unreliable grid. It's like the McDonalds of energy generation: fast food results in obesity because it's so cheap.

Once stability requirements are taken into account, solar and wind stop being so cheap. You suddenly need storage and grid-forming inverters that require a part of the capacity go unused.

To be fair, for Spain, solar and wind are still likely going to be cheaper than nuclear even when the grid investments are considered. For Germany? Not a chance.

> The figure you quote is from a settlement 6 years prior to the plant being finished while construction costs and interest kept accumulating.

No. I took the figures from 2023. The levelized cost of energy from Oikiluoto Unit 3 is 5 cents per kWh, according to the recent report from Finland.

> No one knows the final cost for OL3, but we do know that it bankrupted Areva and that the French paid for the majority of the costs.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. How about we take the cost for the Rooppur power plant then? Or maybe Shin-Hanul Unit 2? They work out to about 2-3 times _less_ than OL3. I specifically took the numbers that are overly conservative to demonstrate the utter failure of Energiewende.

> Getting stingy now. Annoying dealing with someone who has seen all your talking points and lies you usually shield yourself behind before?

Want a bet? In 10 years Germany will de-facto abandon Energiewende and will increase reliance on fossil fuels. The turning point will be the phaseout of coal which will increase the rates past the limits of affordability for the industry. This will result in stalled transport electrification and further cause the industry to lose its edge.