The French example is amazing. A bunch of negative learning by doing and then the total boondoggle of Flamanville 3. Lets emulate.

Have a look at this crudely drawn graph to see the nuclear French cost over time with Flamanville 3 added as a cherry on top:

https://imgur.com/6G2RBa0

On the other hand Germany has gone from about zero to 50% renewables while spearheading the renewable market. Sure, personally I would prefer if they had closed fossil generation before nuclear, but Fukushima threw a wrench in that plan.

To not utilize the fruits of Germany's efforts today would be insane. We are making decisions 2023, not 2005.

What fruits? German co2 emissions per capital are similar to coal heavy Poland. Energiewende is a massive failure and a great example of politics screwing people and environment over.

Which is amazing considering that Germany has 2.8x the GDP per capita of Poland. As I said, I do not agree with phasing out nuclear before renewables.

Short of that transforming the electricity sector of Germany from all fossil and some nuclear to 50% renewables in 15 years is nothing short of incredible.

Add the current exponential growth in renewables to that, now when the cost side does not require subsidies anymore, and we have an incredible future ahead of us.

Or as wiki puts it, they choose after Fukushima to not use nuclear as a bridging technology.

> The key policy document outlining the Energiewende was published by the German government in September 2010, some six months before the Fukushima nuclear accident.[1] Legislative support was passed in September 2010. On 6 June 2011, following Fukushima, the government removed the use of nuclear power as a bridging technology as part of their policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Status

Per capita per gdp it's 70% higher than France. Going 50% renewables was a huge undertaking but it's clear it wasn't the right thing to do considering this money could've been spent on building more nuclear. It's all about decarbonisation, not about increasing share of renewable energy. Climate doesn't care about your share of renewables. Another thing to consider is that this transistion was in large part built on gas imported from Russia which funded the current war in Ukraine. And I would argue that growth of renewables in Germany has largerly stalled, barely any new wind farms are added to the grid nowadays. More solar has been added in recent years but Germany is so far north that it doesn't make much sense to build solar there (esp. considering energy requirements for winter). Energiewende is a big failure and the faster Germans notice the better.

You are stuck in the mindset of a blank slate with Energiewende as one of the options ahead of you. That decision is done, you can not revert it. The cost is paid.

We are now in 2023. This is how the cost for solar PV and wind have transformed, since that decision.

https://www.lazard.com/media/451886/grphx_lcoe-09.png

We are at the end of that graph. The outlook is not 2009, it is 2023. In 2023 renewables are the only choice, economically. When we hit 70-90% penetration depending on country there will be new problems to solve, but we are extremely far from that.

The current large build-out is off-shore wind, since that has higher capacity factors. We will see to what percentage of penetration that brings us. Then some sprinkling of solar on top because it is essentially free.

Nuclear and renewables both compete for the slice of the energy market being the most inflexible cheapest power source. Renewables win that by a landslide. Now nuclear becomes load following, and that horrific investment became even worse.

LCOE doesn't account for storage, backup and grid costs, please don't use it as a go to indicator that renewables are cheap. How much offshore capacity was added in the last 3 years in Germany? Zero? Or am I mistaken?

Energy grids tend to converge to LCOE of the producers. Just look at the average prices before the current crisis haphazardly replacing Russian gas with alternatives. We are also talking about the 70-90% case here, for that case no storage is needed. That is the point.

A stupid solution, which is cheaper than nuclear, is simply burning hydrogen in turbines like todays peaker plants. We are not at the point where it is needed, so everyone is instead looking for smarter solution.

The European grid is interconnected. UK awarded contracts to add 7 GW @ 60% capacity factor = 4.2 GW average last summer.

Germany seems to have added ~500 MW in off-shore wind in the last three years, so with that generations capacity factor about 230 MW in average power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in...

It just doesn't make sense to only use LCOE for weather and season dependent sources of energy, of course you need storage if you don't want to burn gas/coal during Dunkelflaute. Just look at German grid and what's happening right now (614 gCO₂eq/kWh, mostly gas and coal). Meanwhile France is at 92g. Are you really proposing countries like Poland decarbonise like Germany instead of following France's example? Interconnected or not, you do need cheap and dependable energy and the only clean source of that is nuclear. Hydrogen is just a greenwashed natural gas. And 500MW in 3 years is quite far from being meaningful.