> > The conservative government of the last 20 years spend an insane amount of effort to stop renewables by ... introducing NIMBY friendly limitations on where wind turbines can be build, ...

> That's non-sense. Germany built more wind and solar capacity per capita the past 20 years than any other country in the world.

How is "but we built more than others" an argument against "CDU/CSU actively worked against renewable energies by implementing 10H"?

Ah the usual case of the left/green acrobatics biting rh back. Covering for their bad-faith allies and swallowing poison pills for the sake of the coalition and taking home a couple wins, only to be nailed to the Cross with the same set of talking points. Yawn

> Wrong. The nuclear phase-out original came from SPD/Greens:

The phase out in it's current form was decided by a CDU led government.

"Chancellor Merkel was so shocked by Fukushima that she turned Germany’s energy focus from nuclear (of which she closed 41% and will close the rest within a decade) to efficiency and renewables."

> After all, the German Ministry of Economics is working on a law to subsidize electricity prices for the industry. They wouldn't do that if electricity was cheap.

Nobody said that electricity was cheap, but that the cause wasn't the 5% nuclear going offline.

> Nuclear provides baseload, wind and solar don't.

Baseload is such a dead horse. Renewables are cheaper even with batteries included.

>In fact, since 2022, Germany returned 19 coal-fired power units with a capacity of 7.3 GW to the electricity market:

Yeah to offset Russian gas. We haven't increased coal/lignite production either, and considering that lignite is pretty much burned immediately that's a good indicator that the missing nuclear wasn't offset with coal. You can actually use the very tool you linked (https://www.smard.de/) to see pretty clearly that the phaseout of nuclear didn't increase energy production from coal plants.

> That's non-sense. Germany built more wind and solar capacity per capita the past 20 years than any other country in the world.

Still far below what would have been possible without the "Solardeckel" and the "Altmeier Dip".

> That's a blatant lie. That project was started by SPD/Greens and the Greens even defended it against criticism:

Nordstream planning started in 1997, when Kohl was still Chancelor.

The Greens should have stopped it when they had the chance though instead of blindly hopping onto the bandwagon.

Note that there is not much difference between SPD and CDU to me personally. I consider both conservative parties, opposed to the goals of the greens. The SPD is only less obviously evil than the CDU.

> The Greens have always been fighting nuclear in Germany.

Believe it or not, the new generation of greens would actually prefer Nuclear to Coal if it was cheaper than renewables, but it isn't so they push for renewables. In a sense the present day greens are not really the ones that governed 20 years ago. I hate most greens from that time period with a passion for example, them killing the transrapid is unforgivable for me personally.

> What energy independence?

We managed to get through winter without shortages didn't we?

> And the Greens even have it in their election program:

"New gas utilities and infrastructure needed for the coal-exit must only be build if it is absolutely unavoidable, and if it is build in a Hydrogen ready way."

It's amazing how you read some kind of gas love from this when in reality it's saying the exact opposite, even arguing that gas is only allowed when it can be switched to clean hydrogen for BaSElOaD later.

> The only parties that have sabotaged Germany's electricity grid and climate goals are the Greens with their owngoing FUD campaigns against nuclear power.

Not even Siemens wants to build new Nuclear plants because they are more expensive and take longer to build than simply rolling out renewables.

Would nuclear have been great if we never stopped investing into them, had fast breeder reactors, and didn't loose the knowhow to build them? Maybe. But as is, it's much cheaper, easier, quicker, and more scalable to just throw our entire weight behind renewables.

> I'm really surprised how one can put so much disinformation into a single comment post.

Pot calling the cattle black it guess.

All optimistic modeling (e.g., by the Fraunhofer) that will “show us the path to green electricity” assume that we will double the capacity for gas by 2030 or so in order to have a backup if solar and wind are not available to sustain the required load.

We will need to build up 5x of the required peak capacity with renewables in Germany per Fraunhofer.

After we have installed about 6x (!) of our peak capacity in renewables and gas, we will still emit about 150g/kWh on average of CO2 - which is more than twice of France.

This is so ridiculous. Electricity prices will increase insanely - e.g., installing 600% of the required capacity isn’t exactly resourceful. But that isn’t what matters here: it’s ideology we are after, right? Having the right ideology.

You are spreading misinformation. Base load is hardly a dead horse. Batteries might eventually solve that problem, but so far no country has deployed significant amounts of battery storage, let alone done so at a cost that would allow for heavy industrial uses. Until battery storage is proven to work on real power grids, nuclear power remains the only viable option to deliver reliable base load.

Hydrogen gas turbines are also a viable option for that and they have proven to run on real power grids, we will need hydrogen infrastructure not for cars but for steel manufacturing and turbines.

Cool. Let us know when someone has grid scale hydrogen production, storage, and generation actually working at scale and is able to report on real world costs.