> environment, public health or saving money - it was about energy independence.

What matters in the real world is what actually happened, not why people say that it happened. Energy independence is a good enough reason too. The only issue is that they didn't go all the way and produce fuel with nuclear energy.

> Germany's renewables transition is a massive success. It didn't require writing off titanic, gargantuan levels of wasted capital investment like France did with stuff like ASTRID. Their energy transition has had VASTLY lower capex than France's.

Germany also invests lots in capital, and lots in subsidizes both for home production and for the other producers that are impacted. Additionally high energy prices for both home and commercial producers and despite those high prices German announced a massive subsidization program for energy since the Ukraine war. Germany needs to also convert lots of home heating to electricity as well, they also need capacity for electric cars plus their hydrogen for industry. And do that reliability even when wind conditions are bad.

And they are not even nearly done with the transition yet, while France is basically done for 30-40 years and would be totally done if the people who had took over actually continued on the same trendline.

ASTRID is an optional project as I said they had that type of reactor before and it was killed by anti nuclear people.

Factually speaking, Germany could have transitioned to 100% nuclear powered in about 20-30 for a few % of extra debt to GDP. This would have yield well priced reliable energy for LITERALLY 100 years. It would have also massively improved their public health. Their energy independence. Their carbon output. Their energy security. Just because France didn't do it for all those reasons, doesn't mean Germany couldn't have.

Whenever I talk to anti nuclear people I look at a map, currently France 22 gCO₂eq/kWh, Germany 260 gCO₂eq/kWh. Just always good to think about, how right now Germany is blowing coal dust all over sleeping people. But its ok, they are exporting some of those health risk into nations that are actually green like, Switzerland, Sweden, France, you know, nation that actually have nuclear running their grid at night. So Germany is not even paying for all the damage they do.

But I'm sure happy you and your brilliant policies are saving them from spending 'capital'.

And btw, carbon saved earlier is more valuable. Calling Germany a success when this year they got 50% of their electricity from carbon emitting sources and will continue to blow carbon into the air for more then a decade is frankly ridiculous. Had they switched to nuclear, every single coal plant would be turned off by now.

> It would make sense for France to follow in their footsteps as their nuclear plants start to age out

They age out when anti-nuclear people want them to age out. Switzerland, who btw is also using far less carbon then Germany is running one of the oldest nuclear plants in the world and its running fine and will continue to do so for quite a while. Many reactors of that type are rated for 80 years of operation and some are even starting to think about rating for 100 years.

And as for new plants. All over Europe people are announcing nuclear plants again. Seems many of the people who are in decision making power and look at the numbers are reconsidering it despite the 40 years of neglect of nuclear.

Finland just finished a plant and now whenever I look at the electricity map, their power is mostly nice and green. Despite the delays and the extra cost, they will now have green power for about 100 years.