Ooops

If that's your take why is exactly nobody doing it? Oh, yeah. Because nobody has a clue how to actually pay the massive (and mostly paid in advance) costs.

Yet a lot of countries are proudly planning to build nuclear soon™ instead of those silly renewables, when what they actually would need to do is building much more nuclear than they are planning right now while also building massive amounts of renewables.

You are not actually wrong. Building more nuclear right now is an option. Building-up storage and infrastructure instead is the other viable one. Building massive amounts of renewables is needed in both cases.

The moment you show me countries starting nuclear in proper amounts right now, while also building and planning the needed increase in renewables alongside I will cheer for them. (For reference: energy demand increasing by a factor of at least 2,5 with ~35% production capacity needed for a solid base load means your minimal goal for nuclear capacities right now should be ~100% of todays demand...)

But as basically no country seems to be able to manage that investment the only option is storage and infrastructure. Is it costing the same in the end? Maybe? Probably? We don't know actually as decade long predictions for evolving technologies are not that precise (just look at the cost development of solar in the last decade for example). We know however that this is a constant investment over the same time renewables are build up to provide 100% coverage (PS: the actual numbers would be 115% to 125% btw... based on (regional) diversification of renewables and calculating losses through long-term storage).

Again: I'm not against building nuclear (and renewables!) right now, if that's your plan. I am however very much about the bullshit that is going on right now, where it's more important to show how smart you are by building some nuclear capacity (with the math not adding up at all) while laughing about others building renewables and spouting bullshit how it's just a scam to burn fossil fues forever.

Contrary to the popular narrative between building up renewables and storage and building just some nuclear capacities and some token renewables -if at all- it's not the former countries that are running on ideology with no actual real world plan.

As already said above: I totally support France' plan for 14 new reactors build until 2050, with a lot of renewable build-up at the same time. Because that's a workable plan. But that they already have problems publically justifying the bare minimum requirement of 14 reactors and the renewable up-build is a symptom of a larger problem. And basically every other country planning new nuclear power right now isn't even close to this scale and just living in a fairy tale world... or just providing an token effort while hoping for other bigger countries to solve the issue for them in the end.

I would love to say we can build renewables and nuclear. But let's look at the actual reality: Not only are most countries with a nuclear plan lacking proper amounts of renewables (because for more than a decade an anti-renewable streak was part of nuclear lobbyism - see the amount of people here or anywhere else hallucinating about "expensive renewables" when their own model of electrity generation needs those renewables (and even some storage) to be viable), it's even worse. Most of these countries aren't even able to build nuclear on the proper scale they would need.

So no, there is no technical reason we can't build both.

But real-world experience right now shows us that most can't even get the proper build-up of nuclear alone done. Explaining to their heavily desinformed voters why they need to build massive capacities and also need to build even bigger amounts of renewables seems to be indeed impossible right now.

The other thing is time frame. If the already agreed upon climate goals give you a remaining co2 budget for another 6 or so years, you can indeed not start building nuclear now. That would have been a wonderful idea a decade or even longer ago.

There is actually only one undisputable thing we need to do right now: build up renewables and massively so. To stretch out the remaining budget (via constantly reducing CO2 emission quickly) to 1-2 decades and use that time to a) either build up storage and infrastructure or nuclear base load. The difference is that the infrastructure and storage can be build in steps alongside renewables while the nuclear base load would need to start today. And most countries seem unable to do it, with the deciding factor being costs. Costs they would also mostly need to pay now in advance.

Es ging mir aber um den fehlenden Preisvergleich im niedrig-Preis-Sektor.

Tesla ist da eine ganze andere Kategorie. Die sind genauso überteuert wie entsprechenden deutschen Modelle. Und in der Tat würde ich da die Produktionsqualität des deutschen Wagens dem Tesla vorziehen. Und außerhalb eines gewissen Yuppi-Hypes sehe ich Tesla da einfach nicht so als die massive langfristige Konkurrenz für deutsche eAutos, wie Asiaten, die einen ganz anderen Preissektor bedienen, der bei deutscher Produktion derzeit ein Totalausfall ist. Wann kommt z.B. noch gleich der ID.1? In 3-4 Jahren, wenn VW es sich nicht noch 3 mal anders überlegt? Und wenn sie das mal endlich gebacken kriegen, haben wir ruckzuck übrigens noch preiswertere Varianten, weil das Design bei Seat und Skoda übernommt wird.

Kurzum: die deutsche eAuto Entwicklung kann mithalten. Die Konzerne haben nur viel zu lange versäumt, da mal was in Bewegung zu setzen. Und wenn das passiert ist, können wir anfangen darüber zu diskutieren, in wie weit andere technisch gerade im Infotainmentbereich weiter sind (und wie gesagt, ob das der springende Punkt wird, denn einfach zuverlässige Autos zu produzieren selbst wenn der technische Schnickschnack geringer ist, ist etwas, das deutsche Hersteller eigentlich können und wofür es auch einen Markt gibt).

Fahren tun die Autos doch alle

Eben da liegt das Problem. Auto müssen primär erstmal fahren. Und dafür müssen sie zur Verfügung stehen. Wenn deutsche Hersteller mal anfangen würde tatsächlich marktdeckend zu produzieren, dann gäbe es da Konkurrenz. Und dann könnte man anfangen zu diskutieren, ob man vielleicht ein stabiles und zuverlässigeres Auto, das fährt, bevorzugt gegenüber der Infotainment gefüllten Plastikkiste, die hübsch bunt ist. Wahrscheinlich gibt es sogar tatsächlich für beides eine Zielgruppe.

Nur aktuell geht es gar nicht um Fortschritte in der Automobiltechnik vs. Forstschritte in Infotainment und Ausstattung. Es geht darum, dass deutsche Firmen komplette Teile des Marktes ignorieren und in der Tat kampflos abgeben, weil ihre Gewinnspanne im Bereich der High-End Luxuskarossen höher ist.

Klar gibt es dafür einen Markt: Aber der Großteil der Leute will einfach ein funktionierndes und zuverlässiges Auto. Sie kaufen keinen Asiaten, weil der so schön fortschrittlich blinkt und leuchtet im Vergleich zu nüchterner gestalteten deutschen Fahrzeugen. Sie kaufen den, weil das deutsche Konkurrenzprodukt schlichtweg nicht existiert, wenn man nicht zu den oben 5% gehört und eine neue Luxuslimousine will. (Und ob da die Infotainment-Ausstattung tatsächlich hinterher hinkt ist dann sogar noch fraglich.)

Also solar panel manufacturing is a very intense process with a lot of carbon impact

The carbon impact mostly is energy used in production. So it's high when you produce solar panels powered by shitty coal plants and basically non-existent when you have build them once and are constructing replacements with solar energy. (The same is true for nuclear btw and also often completely misrepresented in discussion. Nuclear plants in a country full of nuclear plants have a much lower carbon footprint. That's not some technological or scaling effect as often claimed but the simple fact of building the reactor and enriching the fuel with energy already green)

A 100% renewable grid would need a lot of batteries and that too could drive the price up

Actually no. The grid would need batteries (but also alternatives like capacitors or fly-wheels) for short-term stabilisation, but the amount is limited. The grid also need long-term storage but here batteries are completely inadequate. Also the requirements for batteries are usually misrepresented. No, we don't neen some bullshit Lithium-ion batteries or similar stuff requiring rare earths and other rare ressources. Those are used in handhelds where energy density is the main concern. I can perfectly build a stationary grid battery cheaply and without rare ressources as nobody cares if that building-sized installation is 5% bigger and 30% heavier than a build with lithium-ion batteries and also gets 20° hotter in operation... because it's not a handheld.

Case in point: One of the very first things that happened in Germany the moment the new government was sworn in and long before they could actually do anything: energy companies started installing the first battery-based storage units as they now were no longer intentionally sabotaged in creating storage infrastructure for renewables. What did they use? Car battereis. Used ones that were already deposed. Dirt cheap for costs barely above the recycling value. Because the requirements in grid stabilisation and short-term storage are indeed completely different that in cars (again: energy densitiy vs. low price and car batteries with only 60% of their capacity left were completely okay for that job).

Yes, keep believing in lies they tell you so you are distracted when they tell you even more lies about how they will totally save the environment any minu... look there, Germay did something again!

Coal plant produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power plant.

Tell me you are totally brain-washed without telling me you are totally brain-washed.

The correct take: Coal plants without any environmental requirements 50-60 years ago release more radiation into the area in the form of fly ash (containing natural amounts of radiation like all earth around you) than the radiation escaping from a modern nuclear power plant through it's massive concrete hull.

Or in other worlds: If nothing goes wrong and we completely ignore the actual radioactive waste produced (of which a coal plant obviously produces zero) then the radiation levels in the area around the plant are miniscule and it's really safe. So safe indeed that just the redistribtion of natural radiation via ash when coal is burned has a slightly stronger effect.

That's it. That's the actual gist of the study that is from the 1970s (referencing even older data).

Just the fact that this fairy tale about coal power producing radioactive waste based on some (already then criticised and flawed) old study is still going around shows how lobbyists have damaged your brains.

Yes, that is exactly the nuclear motto: It's too late to match any climate goal with nuclear power not already starting counstruction many years ago... so let's say "fuck climate goals and stop trying" and start building nuclear anyway, because it's really cool and in 20-30 years it might solve our 10 year problem of remaining co2 budgets.

Yes, what you are missing is reality.

You can either build renewables to replace fossil fuels in the next years (and if the build-up doesn't work as fast as you want to then it will takes a a few years more to reach zero), getting less and less every day. Or you can build new nuclear reactors and just keep burning coal full steam for 5 years, 10, 15, probably 20. And then you reactors are finally online, but electricity demand has increased by +100% (and further increasing...) so you burn more coal for another 5, 10, 15, or 20 years...

The exact same thing happens btw right now in basically every single European country that promotes nuclear. Because nobody is building enough capacities to actually cover the minimal required base load in 2-3 decades (electricity demand until 2050 will raise by a factor of 2,5 at least - because most countries today only cover 20-25% of their primary energy demand with electricity but will need to raise that to close to 100% to decarbonize other sectors; so we are talking about about a factor of 4-5, minus savings because electricity can be more efficient). They just build some and pretend to do something construtive, while in reality this is for show and they have basically given up on finding a solution that isn't let's hope the bigger countries in Europe save us.

For reference: France -so the country with optimal conditions given their laws and regulations favoring nuclear power and having a domestic production of nuclear reactors- announced 6 new reactors with an option for up to 8 additional ones and that they would also build up some renewables as a short-term solution to bridge the time until those reactors are ready. That's a lie. They need the full set of 14 just for covering their base load for their projected electricity demand in 2050 and that's just ~35% of ther production with the remaining 65% being massive amounts of renewables (see RTE -France' grid provider- study in 2021). Is this doable? Sure. It will be hard work and cost a lot of money but might be viable... But already today the country with good pre-conditions and in-house production of nuclear reactors and with a population highly supportive of nuclear can't tell it's own people the truth about the actually needed investments into nuclear (and renewables!), because it's just that expensive. (Another fun fact: The only reason why their models of nuclear power vs. full renewables are economically viable is because they also planned to integrate huge amounts of hydrogen production for industry, time-independent export (all other countries will have lower production and higher demand at the same time by then) and as storage. So the exact same thing the usual nuclear cult here categorically declares as unviable when it's about renewables.)

Korrekt und richtig so.

Es gibt zwei Optionen:

Weiter mit der Kohle und sie durch den stetigen Zubau von Erneuerbaren nach und nach in den nächsten paar Jahren bis auf Null reduzieren.

Weiter mit der Kohle und Unmengen an Geld in den Bau von Atomkraftwerken stecken (nur um den Verbrauch von fossilen Brennstoffen zu beenden bräuchte Deutschland weit mehr Atomreaktoren als hier je existierten, in den nächsten 3 Jahrezehnten dann nochmal mindestens eine Verdoppelung...). Und dann nichts tun und warten, dass die fertig werden, und fröhlich weiter mindestens ein Jahrzehnt lang CO2 in die Atmosphäre blasen.

Eine dieser Optionen ist eine Lösung für ein existierendes Problem, die andere wird von Lobbyisten und Social Media gehyped.

1990-2005 hatte die Diskussion einen Sinn, 2010 hätte es schon einer extremen Kehrtwende und massiver Anstrengungen bedarft. 2023 über (nicht mehr existierende) Atomkraft in Deutschland zur CO2-Reduktion zu diskutieren, ist ein 30 Jahresplan für ein 10 Jahresproblem (siehe verbleibene2 CO-Budgets) oder anders ausgedrückt: Scheiß aufs Klima, wir wollen lieber 'ne cooler Lösung, die das Problem zwar erst Jahrzehnte später angeht aber cool leuchtet.

Nie war der Vergleich mit einem toten Pferd passender als in der deutschen Diskussion im Moment (passenderweise natürlich angestoßen von Heuchlern, die eigentlich immer anderer Meinung waren, aber jetzt plötzlich den Widerstand gegen die Regierung höher bewerten als ihre vormals eigene Meinung... siehe z.B. "Wenn der Atomausstieg nicht pünktlich und genau wie vorgesehen stattfindet, trete ich aus Protest zurück"-Söder...)

Ich mag besonders die Sachen in Punkt 2 und 10: CO2-Abgabe abschaffen, Pendler-Pauschale erhöhen und die Erforschung moderner Verbrenner- und Kraftstofftechnologien fördern.

Ich bin mal gespannt wie viele Stunde es dauert, bis die FDP durch den nächsten Ruck Richtung Wahnsinn darauf reagiert, dass die AFD gerade versucht, sie im Verbrennungsmotoranbeten und Klimazerstören noch zu überbieten.

Ja, aber sobald sie ihren Hohlköpfen von Wählern erzählen, dass dem bisher nicht so wäre, ist das plötzlich eine total gute Idee... Und es ist ja nicht so, als würde der Durchschnitts-AFD-Wähler Tatsachen überprüfen, oder auch nur an die Realität glauben.