If you look at the price of nuclear vs. solar it just doesn't make economic sense to build nuclear anymore.

So why should banks fund a dozen high financial risk projects with huge initial investment and lower projected roi, when they can just hedge with a thousand smaller wind and solar projects that can be realised in much shorter time-scales, have a diverse pool of suppliers, and a known roi.

While I'm typing this germany is producing 95% of it's electricity demand via wind and solar.

And we built as much wind and solar capacity in the last 3 years as the total nuclear capacity ever had combined.

So no luck needed, all we need to do is keep steady and avoid derailing everything with bad investments like nuclear.

> If you look at the price of nuclear vs. solar it just doesn't make economic sense to build nuclear anymore.

Not true. Well, unless you fall for nonsense like the Lazard "study" that looked at exactly 1 nuclear power plant, the most expensive one ever built, and used that as "the cost of nuclear". Except that wasn't enough. They also had to lower the expected life of the plant.

When you look at actual costs, nuclear LCOE is highly competitive.

When you start looking at system cost (grid, storage, overcapacity required due to intermittency) nuclear becomes an incredible bargain and renewables are completely unaffordable.

Of course you can also look at actual electricity prices: electricity in France has been cheaper than in Germany for decades. And 7x cleaner.

Let's keep things in perspective. The avg share of renewables for each month in 2024 has been about 60%. Some weeks have been as high as 75% or as low as 43% [0].

That's all great, no doubt. But nowhere near close to 95% renewable mix.

[0] https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart....

This is why I said, "while I'm typing this". Today we produce 106% of our electricity demand renewably.

Sure, it's a windy sunday. But that doesn't change the fact that we're on the right track and just need to continue with renewables.

https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart....

Actually we have a Germany-wide ticket for public transport since last year. With 49€/month it is very affordable and entitles us to use public transport and regional trains as much as we want. The federal government funds the system with a few billions but it’s a great success so far.

So do not despair.

>The federal government funds the system

You mean the Citizens. The Federal Government does nothing but redirect the hard work of its people or print the money, which is essentially the same as it causes inflation. If this were a solution the people actually wanted it would succeed on its own with direct ridership fees.

I always feel like these sorts of sentiments are a bit reductive. Citizens benefit a lot from not being on the losing side of a war.

They benefit even more by not serially starting wars all over the world in the first place.

Which wars did Europe start recently?

Libya and Afghanistan?

do not discount the addictive qualities of endless budget. The same motivations are replayed again and again, with train loads of money attached, without ceasing over years. But the markets today have evolved -- budgets are used to purchase goods and services from companies.. that benefits the government that pays them, the immediate employees, and sometimes the general public.

There has never been a time with so many people, and so few wars, relatively speaking. Why increase budgets? Why operate at an increasing loss each year waiting for giant monetary rescue? The reasons are as old as human failing, and as obvious as poor systems design, sometimes. Its a thousand roller coasters running without synchronizing, it seems.

I'm not saying that every single dollar spent on defense is a dollar well spent. There are tons of priorities that governments have to chose between. All i'm saying is that citizens of a particular country do get some benefits out of appropriate defense spending, depending on the geopolitical situation.

Here's a suggestion for Europe. Keep your promises. Since the Berlin wall fell the west promised to not move their positions beyond it. They did so anyway and went all the way to the point of inviting Ukraine to join. Fast forward to Minsk accords the Germans and French admitted they were never going to abide by those terms. So the Russians have nobody in Europe that they can even deal with, since they never keep their promises. Hollande and Merkel both admitted this publicly.

My suggestiom would be to demilitarize NATO and create a new security architecture that states if you come one step westbound we will nuke you (Russians). That will be enough to appease both sides and you'll save boatloads of money from being pilfered by the west's military industrial complex.

I hate that the Ukrainians have been used as pawns in a western gambit when they could have had literally the best of both worlds. Low energy prices from the east and European culture and influences from the west. But now because of the petulant children in power in Europe they can't have any semblance of a society anymore.

Russia invaded a sovereign country. They are the aggressors here, period. NATO didn't cause this war, Russia alone did that.

Clearly you are ignoring the history of the conflict and the desires of the Russians, and thereby the entire reason for the invasion. It was explained clearly many times prior to the invasion that they would go ahead and do so if you ignore their security concerns.

Remember when they put missiles in Cuba? We can't ignore their security concerns and pretend facts exist in a vacuum.

You are justifying an illegal war of aggression here.

Claiming some nebulous security concerns does not justify invading a sovereign nation. Ukraine did express their desire to join NATO, that is their right as a sovereign nation. Russia does not have a right to control what their neighbours do. Your argument is denying Ukrainian Sovereignty.

Nuclear weapons are a special case, which is why we have treaties today that limit certain types of them. Cuba is not a comparable case here at all.

Pretty sure their security concerns aren't nebulous. They only lost 27 million people. Not a big deal to you, maybe. But they will never forget and allow that to happen again. So yes, they are entitled to protecting themselves from that happening again.

If you want to pretend this is solely about abusing Ukrainian sovereignty then that's fine. The west was happy to abuse Ukrainian sovereignty in 2014 when their intelligence agencies helped overthrow their democratically elected government. So really your logic is just a ruse. The facts speak for themselves.

Ahem! Remember "The Cuban Missile Crisis, also known as the October Crisis (Spanish: Crisis de Octubre) in Cuba, or the Caribbean Crisis (Russian: Карибский кризис, romanized: Karibskiy krizis), was a 13-day confrontation between the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union, when American deployments of nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey were matched by Soviet deployments of nuclear missiles in Cuba." ?

Source: Amongst countless others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

> Endless money for war, never enough money for something that will benefit society or its citizens

Europe has generally been dropping its military spending over the last several decades with a recent inadequate uptick due to Russian aggression. I’d hardly call that “endless money for war.” The real stupidity in their capital allocation is favoring renewables over nuclear in one of the worst regions on the planet for solar and even wind only makes sense in confined areas.

Thanks... it's as if we've completely forgotten to think about 2nd order effects, let alone 3rd or nth order. Whether it's suffocating GDPR, AML/KYC or other regulation, we're really making an effort to suffocate any future development and initiative.