upvote
Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.
reply
> Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.

The only people causing conflict is Russia, and Germany had to be dragged kicking and screaming in shutting down Russian supply pipelines, so don't go talking about "security" when the actions from Berlin showed there was zero consideration for it:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream

When the architect of the retirement ends up on the board of Gazprom:

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper

* https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at...

reply
An adversary could not strike a nuclear powerplant? I said in retrospect in my view, didn't I, not that it was a consideration then (or now).

Gazprom suspended supply via NS1 indefinitely before it was destroyed.

reply
Actually no, or unlikely, since it’s a massive escalation. Even in Ukraine Russia does not strike the nuclear plants. They strike all the other power plants though.

So it’d actually be the safer option.

reply
> It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found).

Maybe you should take a closer look how those prices come to be.

Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades.

Last time they wanted to play the free market game, they had to bring the company back into the forgiving hands of the French taxpayer.

I have rather Germany invest into future tech then waste it on rotting reactors which are obviously unfit for the current state of global warming already.

Nuclear was clogging up the grid with it's expensive energy. It is gone now and the grid is diversifying while it follows the path of complete decarbonisation.

There is absolutely no reason to look back for Germany and only those whose ideology is "looking back" seriously do that currently.

reply
> Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades.

This is just plain false. In the 1990s and early 2000s, EDF was generating a whole lot of profit, which it wanted to reinvest. The governments of the time (both left and right) said: "Nope! We’ll take that, thank you." As a result EDF stopped making new nuclear plants and, most importantly, new nuclear engineers and technicians. When the government suddenly decided to have EDF build a new plant 15 years later, the 1980s generation was all but gone, the industrial know-how had vanished, and thi construction costs very logically skyrocketed. Oh, and in the meantime EDF had been (and still is) forced to sell electricity to its competitors under production cost.

reply
> Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades.

You won't find any grid which isn't subsidized, remember Germany already spent ~2x the French grid and that didn't spend by itself.

reply
Germany isn't setting a fixed end consumer price and hides all that happens behind the tax-cushioned curtains.
reply
> Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades.

So is everything else.

reply