Merz Called It a Mistake. Then He Called It Irreversible
garryslist.orgYou can't accidentally write an article about German energy and not mention solar, wind or renewables once.
So what's going on here? Why intentionally avoid those topics?
Because they are cheap, and nuclear is expensive?
Because they are being shut down politically in the US (and threatened in Germany by Merz) which makes their argument that nuclear is the test of pragmatic government ridiculous?
Do they have investments that mean this is them in sales mode and so lying (not just by omission) is considered okay?
None of this is true.
What is cheap is nuclear, what is expensive (and requiring massive subsidies) are intermittent renewables.
And the article is about the mistake of getting out of nuclear.
Not about the mistake of going all-in on intermittent renewables, although those two mistakes are linked.
Mind you: intermittent renewables are not a mistake. Going all-in on them is.
But they're not all in. The politician who is being attacked in this very article for being insufficiently pro-nuclear is also against wind power.
And if the author believes the non-mainstream claim that nuclear is cheaper than renewables then they could have stated that rather than mysteriously avoid the topic.