Cry baby, cry

Well, you dishonestly throw figures around, without providing context.

You oversimplify the issue, because you forget that Gen IV nuclear plants, which could have been built decades ago if not for the opposition of dumbasses, are designed to work in closed fuel cycles (reprocessed fuel is reused, which indeed minimizes long-lived radioactive waste. By combining reprocessing with Gen IV reactors, long-lived isotopes in spent fuel can be transmuted into shorter-lived isotopes, reducing the long-term hazard of nuclear waste.

But of course, your opposition to nuclear is stronger, on an ideological level, which is why I don't want to spend more time explaining that to you. My time is more valuable, and there are enough scientific papers that talk about that if you cared enough to search for them.

Here's a fun fact: the total volume of radioactive waste generated by a person's lifetime electricity consumption is roughly equivalent to the size of a soda can (in a country with 60% nuclear in its electricity mix). Compare that to the volume and the impact of CO2 emitted in a country where the mix contains gas/coal burning...

A really small price, especially if you compare it to the 500 billions spent by Germany on renewables, and for which they still emit 10-11 times more CO2eq/kWh than France.

Quite the contrary. This is one of the way to reduce waste.

The fact that you admit being opposed to nuclear in general explains why you want to push the narrative that reprocessing fuel is dirty/dangerous.

Oh yes, the probability of a grid that spans from Germany to North Africa is totally not a pipe-dream. Even without talking about the actual technical challenges and feasbility of the thing, the geopolitical considerations just make me chuckle.

In the meantime, while Germany keeps dreaming and emitting so much CO2 for electricity generation (ie: 350g CO2eq/kWh), France has been (for the past 40 years) and is still emitting ~45g CO2eq/kWh. That's the difference between people doing, and people talking.

Glad we agree that end result is the same though: Germany still emits a shitload of CO2eq/kWh generated, showing the world that trying to rely on solar/wind alone is not working good/fast enough. Too bad we wasted so many years to see the result of that experiment. At least, smart countries are moving toward the right solution since a few years now: a mix of hydro/nuclear/solar/wind.

Pick more points, story is the same. Actually worse.

So your argument is: "but but... look at the neighbor, they are not doing better!". Do you have any experience debating an actual topic with grown-ups, or are you just full propaganda?

Also, you might want to look at actual facts: "Industrial production has fallen for five straight months and is more than 7% below its pre-pandemic levels. The International Monetary Fund expects Germany to be the weakest economy in the G7 group of leading rich nations this year, and the only one to see output fall."

This was in 2023. 2024 was far worse than anticipated for Germany.

This is the definition of "ideological reason".

Because you assume that the only two options are either full nuclear, or full renewables. Breaking news: both don't work. A mixed approach is the most sensible, both short and long-term.

Unfortunately, there is no proof that renewables (in the sense of solar/wind) are a viable strategy. Actually, all recent experience, including Germany which has been at it for the past 30 years, seem to indicate that trying to go only with solar/wind is doomed to failure. Which is why people call what Germany is doing a failed experiment.

If by renewables, you also include hydro, then of course it is a viable strategy, under very particular circumstances: you need the right geological features for hydro, and a relatively low population count. And actually, hydro doesn't even need solar/wind. Some countries like Norway are already at +85% hydro, because they have big mountains, and a small population compared to their country size.

Well, not according to physics laws. Germany is at 350g CO2eq/kWh after 30 years and half a billion spent. France is at 45g CO2eq/kWh since 40-50 years now, and they are one of the biggest exporter of low-carbon electricity in Europe (except for the year 2022, due to delayed maintenance after COVID; and even then, they only needed to import ~3% of their electricity usage that year, on 3 specific months).

The main mistake was prioritizing renewables deployment for ideological reasons, instead of prioritizing an actual low carbon electricity grid based on a mix of hydro, nuclear, renewables.

"Germany is proof that you can go from a very dirty grid to a largely renewable and very dirty one while tanking your economy"

  There, fixed it for you.

The solution is simple: just shut down gas, oil, coal, and nuclear. But don't be surprised when your elevator stops at night, or your fridge goes off, or a respirator keeping a loved one alive shuts down.

Not ready for that? You have a few alternatives:
- You could build enough batteries (as in, a LOT) or hydro storage (though that's a challenge, especially in the UK) and watch solar plus storage become far less affordable.
- You could rely on the one energy source that doesn't depend on the weather or time of day: nuclear.
- Or, you could take a balanced approach: combine solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear, and accept the costs of an energy mix.

Think of it like car insurance: you don't only pay when you expect an accident—you pay consistently to be covered whenever you need it.

As far as I know, Octopus Energy already provides this in the UK. They leverage the fact that to sell "green energy," they only need to generate the equivalent amount of energy their customers use over a 24-hour period. This means their customers still use electricity from nuclear or gas sources at night, but Octopus generates or purchases green certificates the following day to offset that usage with renewable energy.

That's basically close to a scam in terms of real impact on climate change. But hey, at least consumers can feel good while not doing much.

What is the size of your home, and how do you heat it in winter?