You underestimate how making something illegal can stop the thing in that country. Look at a place like Germany, blocking fracking and nuclear power and now reliant on Russian gas.
Germany has historical low usage of gas for generation and is adding 14-17GW of solar per year. Germany will need ~57 GWh of batteries by 2030 to sunset coal generation, scaling to 271 GWh by 2050. Current storage is just ~19 GWh (mostly in homes).
> Germany needs north of 10TWh of batteries to sunset _gas_ generation.
Citation? Because the EU intends to phase out Russian gas entirely by 2027. I'm not too concerned about Germany consuming non Russian LNG at this time as they continue to deploy renewables and batteries (GP said "and now reliant on Russian gas." in their comment above). Germany is now getting almost two-thirds of its power from renewables; if that isn't a success story, I don't know what is.
Import volume of natural gas from Russia in Germany from June 2021 to November 2024 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1332783/german-gas-impor... ("As of November 2024, Germany has imported no Russian natural gas since September 2022. To compare, in August 2022, the import volume of the named commodity stood at around 953 million cubic meters. Over the period observed, the highest figure was recorded at 5.2 billion cubic meters in December 2021.")
(edit: Supermancho wrote in a deleted comment about energy demand destruction due to German de-industrialization, but I'm unsure if that energy demand should be forecasted in the future without good data about potential re-industrialization in the future creating said energy demand)
> Citation? Because the EU intends to phase out Russian gas entirely by 2027.
Yes, by replacing it with natgas from Azerbaijan, Qatar, and other wonderful countries.
I'm kinda jaded about this whole topic because it exposes the utter hypocrisy of Germany's Greens.
But long story short, Germany can get Dunkelflaute. Long periods of time in winter when renewable generation falls to about 10% of the _normal_ generation for that time period. A once-in-100-years event is a full month of sustained Dunkelflaute. And this is not a hand-wavy theory. For example, in 2019 there was a 10-day sustained Dunkelflaute: https://energy-charts.info/charts/price_spot_market/chart.ht... - look at the period from 17 to 26 Jan. And as you see, they also coincide with heightened energy consumption, which will become even _worse_ as Germany switches to heat pumps for heating.
The current plan for these is to build more natgas powerplants (German government had to _subsidize_ them directly). With noises about magic "hydrogen".
> 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.
> It probably will, but I can say for certain that it WILL be phased out in favor of imported natural gas.
It is very hard to take you seriously when the fossil gas contingent have been reducing in most countries, or stayed constant like in Germany. While phasing out coal at the same time.
In California fossil gas is down 40% mainly due to storage time shifting previously curtailed renewable production.
> 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.
You know, so reliable that France relies on 35 GW fossil based production to manage cold spells.
Just pretend the grid demand is a flat line and everything is solved.
> 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.
Source please. Why do you keep making stuff up when you time and time again prove that you are flailing out of your depth here?
> 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.
Hahahahhaha. Oh my god. How can you function at work when you desperately cling to any information that confirms your bias?
The 5 cents per kWh report is with subsidized financing and for the Finnish portion of the costs. You know, they signed a turn-key fixed price contract and the French has paid the vast majority of the costs.
Nuclear power is of course amazing, when someone else pays for it!
What do you think is the likelihood of the French signing another turnkey contract at OL3 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.
You mean KHNP which has withdrawn from the international market after the settlement with Westinghouse? Yeah, go buy that! Of course ignoring that the South Korean plants have completely opaque accounting and costs, with a massive corruption scandal to boot.
Just cheat yourself to cheap nuclear power! I love it when you nuclear cultists just make ridicule of yourselves by not being read up on the energy source you have entwined your identity with.
And we of course have Indian salaries in the west. The problem with nuclear power is that it is a civil engineering project.
> 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.
There we have it. You are an old man shouting at the clouds because reality is moving past your decades old identity.
I would suggest some curiosity when approaching the world instead. It would do you good.
I just responded to you in a different thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45021981), but you broke the site guidelines egregiously here as well. Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, so please stop doing that, and please also don't post in the flamewar style generally.
Where are you getting that number? Germany produced 488 twh of electricity from all sources over the entire course of 2024. That's a bit over 1 twh per day.
Please provide a source for this. It seems like you are making stuff up because you can’t accept renewables and storage delivering.
I also love how the goalposts keep moving.
A few years ago ”even an hour” of storage was the impossible marker. Then it quickly became ”a day!!!” and now we are at a month without any solar or wind power.
> "Nuclear power mitigates storage needs, but only to a limited extent"
So you suggest we spend 10x as much to not solve Dunkelflautes.
This truly is getting quite sad. Who cares if the 1 in 36 year event is solved with fossil fuels, biofuels, synfuels, hydrogen or whatever?
We are literally talking the scenario happening once during a nuclear plants economic lifespan.
Do you build technologies which are extremely heavily weighted towards CAPEX to solve a problem happening once?
Of course not. You minimize CAPEX and accept high OPEX to solve it. Which might be rationing for a week in the 40 year period.
The study of course did not specify what level of renewables they implemented. What would a 20% overbuild lead to? 50%? It would still cost a fraction compared to new built nuclear power.
This is what is so funny with you nuclear bros. You cry about Dunkeflautes and reliability but then propose literally the worst solution for extreme events.
Take a look at France. They generally export quite large amounts of electricity. But whenever a cold spell hits that export flow is reversed to imports and they have to start up local fossil gas and coal based production.
What they have done is that they have outsourced the management of their grid to their neighbors and rely on 35 GW of fossil based electricity production both inside France and their neighbors grids. Because their nuclear power produces too much when no one wants the electricity and too little when it is actually needed.
Their neighbors are able to both absorb the cold spell which very likely hits them as well, their own grid as the French exports stops and they start exporting to France.
> This truly is getting quite sad. Who cares if the 1 in 36 year event is solved with fossil fuels, biofuels, synfuels, hydrogen or whatever?
Because it requires maintaining costly infrastructure that needs to provide more than 100% of normal generation for these cases.
And even without considering _extreme_ events, normal weather variations still require multi-day storage capacity which is _still_ prohibitively expensive.
> The study of course did not specify what level of renewables they implemented. What would a 20% overbuild lead to? 50%? It would still cost a fraction compared to new built nuclear power.
Renewables need 10x (1000%) overbuild to ride through Dunkelflaute in Germany. And that's a conservative estimate.
> But whenever a cold spell hits that export flow is reversed to imports and they have to start up local fossil gas and coal based production.
It is quite telling that you don't comprehend what I am saying. Or maybe don't want to comprehend? Easier to call me a "green liar".
Did I talk about the state of the French grid at average? Yes, I clearly validated your point that when no one cares the French are exporting massive amounts of electricity. Citing myself: "They generally export quite large amounts of electricity."
But the point, and interesting question what happens when the French grid is strained. That is where I spent the bulk of my comment, which you pointedly ignored because that means accepting that the French grid does not work during the similar conditions as you decry renewables for.
You even gave me a link to a study saying that nuclear power does not solve storage requirements during Dunkeflautes.
Let me cite myself:
> Take a look at France. They generally export quite large amounts of electricity. But whenever a cold spell hits that export flow is reversed to imports and they have to start up local fossil gas and coal based production.
> What they have done is that they have outsourced the management of their grid to their neighbors and rely on 35 GW of fossil based electricity production both inside France and their neighbors grids. Because their nuclear power produces too much when no one wants the electricity and too little when it is actually needed.
> Their neighbors are able to both absorb the cold spell which very likely hits them as well, their own grid as the French exports stops and they start exporting to France.
Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? We've asked you this more than once before, and we eventually have to ban accounts that keep doing this. I don't want to ban you.
The study was from 2005. I can find it, if you want.
> A few years ago ”even an hour” of storage was the impossible marker. Then it quickly became ”a day!!!” and now we are at a month without any solar or wind power.
No. The problem has been known for decades, but governments simply ignored it. That's why there's so much noise about hydrogen in Geramny. It's used to whitewash the natural gas.
LOL. Can't find any modern research can you? I love how the nuclear bro crowd never wants to step into 2025 and instead keeps living in the past.
> That's why there's so much noise about hydrogen in Geramny. It's used to whitewash the natural gas.
Nah. There's so much noise about hydrogen because the fossil and chemical industries in Germany rely on hydrocarbons. They want another complex gas based system to profit from.
We will likely keep a fleet of gas turbines around for emergency reserve duties for the coming decades. But you are trying to paint the emergency reserves as if they would be the entire grid. When they very much are not.
I quoted newer research in the next post. For your information, the article was actually from 1997.
And if you don't like the old research, the first investigation of the greenhouse effect was done by Svante Arrhenius in 1889.
> Nah. There's so much noise about hydrogen because the fossil and chemical industries in Germany rely on hydrocarbons.
And the second largest consumer of natural gas in Germany is household heating. It has to be replaced by electric heating, but it's not feasible with the current generating capacity.
> We will likely keep a fleet of gas turbines around for emergency reserve duties for the coming decades.
No. Germany will paint gas turbines in green color and then keep burning natural gas from Qatar, the USA, Nigeria, etc.
> And the second largest consumer of natural gas in Germany is household heating. It has to be replaced by electric heating, but it's not feasible with the current generating capacity.
Which is why we're expecting a large increase in grid size coming from renewables. Of course ignoring that heat pumps are amazing.
> No. Germany will paint gas turbines in green color and then keep burning natural gas from Qatar, the USA, Nigeria, etc.
Running out of arguments are you? Maybe you should read up on the ETS scheme in Europe? That is a component of why fossil gas electricity has become expensive in Europe outside of being forced to use LNG.
