I'm sorry but, I always find it strange when people talk about nuclear energy as the simplest solution.

Nuclear energy is extremely expensive compared to wind and solar once you also account for the cost of processing the uranium and then dealing with the radioactive waste afterwards.

Also take France for example. The EDF has (after being privatized) ran on substance without reinvesting in repairs and renovation so much that last year more than half of its 56(54?) reactors stood still because of problems relevant for their save operation. This was before the last record-breaking summer in 2022 when even more of them didn't have enough cool water to operate. As a consequence the EDF made mountains of dept because they had to buy so much energy from Germany last summer (from all the solar and wind) that Macron (the famously socialist and anti-market-driven-everything-president of France had to re-nationalize EDF last year. If a neoliberal government like France's nationalizes the EDF (famous for its highest percentage of nuclear energy in the mix) you can really see how great of a solution it really is.

Also: where does most of the world's uranium come from? Russia. So not really much of a difference to the gas. France takes a lot of it from Mali as well (which explains their involvement there. So uranium isn't that great in this regard as well).

Also: Nuclear reactors create the most important resource for nuclear weapons automatically.

In north-east Germany there's the Wendelstein 7X an experimental stelarator-type fusion generator that since its operation blew all the best estimates for experimentation out of the water. But it can never create more energy than it takes because it's too small. But it took decades to ensure the funding to even build a small one like this. For a fraction of the subsidies tat nuclear power plants, or gas or coal gets ever year we could've build many larger ones that would be much closer to be net positive in power production.

I'm not against nuclear energy per se. But it's really annoying to hear all these voices from outside that from thousands of miles away know everything about Germany turning off its power plants.

The main advantage of nuclear in capitalism is that its central. Everybody having solar power and large fields of wind farms distributed evenly across the country make it less controllable by singular entities.

I might warm up more to nuclear energy it would be run in a more socialist society where there's no profit-driven operation that drives companies to skip repairs. The corrosion crisis in France is a direct result of "market forces".

If something like Chernobyl happened in France... holy shit. That country has the most tourists in the world and exporting their food into the whole wide world. And -yes - I know that the chernobyl-type reactor (Graphite-mediated and so on) isn't used in France anymore. As someone who lived half of his life worth in 30km to "Fessenheim" - France's oldest and now shut down Graphite-Based reactor - I can yell you that you examine the possible impact more closely from time to time and think about it more.

Solar and Wind are better. But they naturally don't create market monopolies and dilute power over energy. That's why they're not pushed that hard. If a resource is spread out evenly you cannot make money from it. There's no market. Capitalism doesn't like this.

Can't go one thread about about Germany without that shit being spouted.

Optimization feels a lot less optimal when it leads to enshittification. I have worked on the tech side of accounting systems in the US for the last 10 years and can say that American companies have largely embraced this category of innovation as well.

Interesting point of view - your accounting thing.

However, that doesn’t really fit to Deutsche Bahn, I think. Your point is rather about a Monopoly but an accounting exercise.