中国与德国的核电比较！

评论：
Negative-Track-9179
why germany reduce their nuclear power?

德国为什么要削减核电？

AngryStappler
Because when uneducated people hear nuclear they get scared.

因为没受过教育的人一听到 “核” 就会感到害怕。

SextupleRed
Democracy is working

民主正在发挥作用

WalkAffectionate2683
True democracy doesn't exist. Maybe the closest is Switzerland. 

真正的民主并不存在。也许最接近（民主）的是瑞士。

Vintage-Watch-Doktor
We in Switzerland also are getting rid of our nuclear reactors because it's not economically worth it anymore. Renewable are just better.

我们瑞士人也在逐步淘汰核反应堆，因为从经济角度看，它已经不再划算了。可再生能源显然更胜一筹。

Ewwatts
What world do you live in where people get to dictate capitalist expenditures?
The real answer is they weren't profitable. It's the answer for all the ills in western society, and those that we impose on others.

你到底活在一个什么样的世界里，居然觉得人们可以左右资本家的支出决策？
真正的原因是它们不赚钱。这就是西方社会所有弊病的答案，也是我们强加给他人的一切问题的根源。

tmfink10
You know there are public works that don’t need to turn maximum profits, yes? Many utilities are subsidized to encourage strategic decisions.

你知道有些公共工程并不需要追求利润最大化，对吧？很多公用事业都会获得补贴，以此来鼓励做出具有战略意义的决策。

Schmiffy
Uneducated Environmentalists that don’t care for the country and its wealth pushed through with their Agenda after they got a chance at governing. The Green Party.

就是那帮没受过教育的环保主义者，根本不在乎国家和它的财富。绿党一拿到执政机会，就强推他们那一套政治议程。

ThersATypo
Renewables are cheaper. It's money.

可再生能源更便宜。归根结底，就是为了钱。

grumpy_me
Wrong.
Merkel is a chancellor from the conservative christian party.

不对。
默克尔是保守派基督教民主联盟的总理。

new_g3n3rat1on
Good bribes.

不错的贿赂

Vusstar
Scawy fukushima

可怕的福岛

Survivorship-Bias
There are several reasons.
Environmental impact, no solution for the Garbage. 
Its just too expensive compared to other renewable solutions, especially if you take a Look on newbuild plants ins Europe. (Finland, UK) 
Nuclear plants are not flexible enough.
Unsave: the Population does not want a chernobyl or fukushima in their country - even if the risk is low. 
Germany has no nuclear fuel source and would be dependent from russia or China. 
There are not really reasons to build one at all. 

原因有很多。
对环境的影响，核废料问题尚无解决方案。
与其他可再生能源方案相比，核电成本过于高昂，尤其是看看欧洲新建的核电站（芬兰、英国）就知道了。
核电站的灵活性不足。
不安全：民众不希望自己的国家发生切尔诺贝利或福岛那样的事故 —— 即便风险很低。
德国没有核燃料来源，将会依赖俄罗斯或中国。
因此，完全没有建造核电站的理由。

MaxdH_
The greens have their reasons all explained, maybe anyone in here would like to actually take 2 minutes to read it :
https://www-gruene-de.translate.goog/artikel/kurz-und-knapp-atomenergie?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true
Also natural gas is mainly needed for the chemical industry, and private gas heating (which is being phased out ). The few gas Powerplants are a small percentage of energy production and mainly used to smoothen out demand spikes and supply drops.
For those interested in actual information:
https://www.energy-charts.info/downloads/electricity_generation_germany_2025.pdf
Imho the only reason for germany to restart nuclear power plants would be weapons grade plutonium aka nukes. And that was not needed when the US Leadership was still reliable, and will likely not be needed in the future :
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4zlnezrl7o

绿党方面已经把各项原因阐释得很清楚了，或许这里有人愿意花两分钟时间去读一读
此外，天然气的主要需求集中在化工行业，还有正逐步被淘汰的民用燃气供暖领域。为数不多的燃气发电厂在能源生产中占比极低，其主要作用是缓解用电需求高峰、弥补供电缺口。
想要了解真实数据的朋友可以参考这份资料
在我看来，德国重启核电站的唯一理由，就是为了获取武器级钚，也就是制造核武器。而在美国的领导力尚且可靠之时，德国本无此需求，未来大概率也不会有

Huberweisse
Because they build renewables instead, which is cheaper and smarter

因为他们转而建设可再生能源，毕竟这既更便宜，也更明智。

Longjumping_Coat_802
Is Germany stupid?

德国是傻吗？

Repulsive-Mall-2665
原始发帖人
The politicians definitely are, considering there are no earthquakes in Germany.

考虑到德国根本没有地震，那些政客们绝对是愚蠢的。

cool-sheep
The Green parties who increased CO2 by shutting functional nuclear plants should hang their heads in shame.
The future is clearly renewable but making Germany and Europe dependent on Russian gas was one of the most idiotic decisions of the last century

那些关停正常运行的核电站、结果反而导致二氧化碳排放增加的绿党，真应该感到羞愧。
未来毫无疑问是属于可再生能源的，但让德国和欧洲变得依赖俄罗斯天然气，绝对是上个世纪最愚蠢的决定之一

scarisck
It was not. The plan was NOT to replace nuclear with fossil fuels (nuclear is basically considered neither as renewable nor as fossil in Germany), but with actual renewables. Solar, Wind, Hydro, etc. However the decision to shut nuclear power plants down was NOT made by the Greens, they were just heavily advocating for it. It was done by the former conservative unx (CDU/CSU) together with the liberals. But they forget the crucial part of creating attractive conditions to implement renewable sources in an sufficient scale to replace both nuclear and fossil fuels. On the contrary, they have caused our once-thriving solar industry to collapse, failed to adjust the regulations for erecting wind turbines accordingly, and so on.
So yes, while the Greens were very much in favor of shutting nuclear down, the were NOT responsible for the situation we are currently in. Hell, the were net even part of the government, except for the short Ample phase, years later.

事实并非如此。该计划并不是用化石燃料替代核电（在德国，核电基本上既不算可再生能源，也不算化石能源），而是用真正的可再生能源 —— 太阳能、风能、水能等 —— 来替代。

然而，关闭核电站的决定并非由绿党做出，他们只是大力倡导这一主张。做出这一决定的是前保守派联盟（基民盟/基社盟）与自由派政党。但他们却忽略了至关重要的一环：那就是没有创造出足够有吸引力的条件，来推动可再生能源达到足以替代核能和化石燃料的规模。

相反，他们导致了我们曾经蓬勃发展的太阳能产业崩溃，也未能相应调整风力发电机的建设法规，诸如此类。
所以没错，尽管绿党非常支持关闭核电站，但他们并不需要为我们当前的处境负责。见鬼，除了多年后短暂的联合政府时期，他们当时甚至都不是执政党成员。

Strong_Region5233
The Greens are stupid, then. If the "greens" say there's the budget for 2GW of solar electricity production, the logical step is to use it to replace coal first, then oil and gas. If they really want to shut nuclear, they could only advocate for it after decarbonating the energy production.

那只能说明绿党蠢。如果绿党声称预算足以建设2吉瓦的太阳能发电规模，合乎逻辑的做法应该是先用它替代煤炭，然后再替代石油和天然气。如果他们真的想要关停核电，也只能在能源生产实现脱碳之后再去倡导。

sregnet
You are clearly clueless and have no idea about the subject. Nuclear power plants are baseload power plants, you can’t simply ramp them up and down, but that’s exactly the flexibility you need when combining them with renewables. Gas and coal can do that, nuclear can’t. Nuclear power would massively slow down the expansion of renewables. Why does everyone seem to have an opinion these days but nobody actual knowledge anymore?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

你显然一窍不通，对这个话题毫无概念。核电站属于基荷电站，无法随意升降负荷，而这恰恰是与可再生能源配合时所需要的灵活性。天然气和煤电可以做到，核电却不行。核电会极大地拖累可再生能源的推广进程。为什么现在好像谁都敢发表看法，却没几个人真正具备专业知识？

Strong_Region5233
Because my opinion is correct. If the plan is to produce x GW of solar energy, and to reduce other sources of energy production to appeal investors at the same time, there is no reason to go against nuclear before doing anything on coal, oil and gas. Likely in this order.
As for the base load, a base load is meant to produce the minimal amount of energy an area needs at all time. This minimum usually being at night when solar doesn't produce any electricity, it doesn't prevent solar to be installed to provide the variable part of energy consumption. Since energy consumption is higher during the day, solar is well fitted to tackle the rest of the energy needs. Especially in summer (because of AC) when the energy spikes in the afternoon which is also when solar is the most efficient. There is absolutely nothing that prevents solar to be used even if a baseload of nuclear is running. It could even make solar cheaper and more appealing as it reduces the need for batteries, which is the expensive part of renewables. It would still need batteries but only to manage the evening and morning peaks, but the night time consumption would be sated by the nuclear.
Your solution, which is to use solar and fossil fuel together to let the fossil fuels run when the conditions for solar aren't met, is very much less ecological. Let me remind you that according to a study made by the Harvard university, around 20% of deaths worldwide are attributed to the air pollution produced by the burning of fossil fuel, and from memory 8.7 millions from electricity production from fossil fuel - so around 43 times the victims of Hiroshima per year. Not even counting the future deaths from climate change that the CO2 being released will cause. Indeed, a fossil fuel - solar mix wouldn't require any batteries as fossil fuels are indeed reactive enough to compensate the fluctuations and intermittency of solar, but I thought we wanted a more ecological solution. My bad.

因为我的观点是正确的。
如果计划是建设X吉瓦的太阳能产能，同时为了吸引投资者而减少其他能源的发电量，那么在没有采取任何措施替代煤炭、石油和天然气之前，就没有理由去反对核电。
合理的顺序理应是先解决这些高碳能源，再谈核电。

至于基荷，基荷指的是一个地区始终需要的最低发电量。这个最低值通常出现在夜间 —— 此时太阳能无法发电 —— 但这并不妨碍安装太阳能发电来满足用电需求中的波动部分。
由于白天的耗电量更大，太阳能非常适合应对其余的能源需求。尤其是在夏季（因为空调的使用），用电高峰会出现在下午，而这也正是太阳能效率最高的时候。

因此，即使核电站在运行以提供基荷电力，也完全不影响太阳能的使用。相反，核电甚至可以让太阳能更便宜、更具吸引力 —— 因为它降低了对储能电池（电池是可再生能源方案中成本最高的部分）的需求。
系统仍然需要电池，但仅用于应对早晚的用电高峰；而夜间的用电量将由核电来满足。
你提出的方案 —— 即太阳能与化石燃料混用，在太阳能条件不足时让化石燃料发电 —— 远不够环保。

我要提醒你，根据哈佛大学的一项研究，全球约有20%的死亡案例归因于化石燃料燃烧产生的空气污染，而据我记忆，其中约870万例源于化石燃料发电 —— 这相当于每年的遇难人数是广岛原子弹受害者的43倍。
这还未计入二氧化碳排放导致的气候变化在未来将造成的死亡人数。
诚然，太阳能与化石燃料的混合方案不需要电池，因为化石燃料的灵活性足以弥补太阳能的波动和间歇性 —— 但我以为我们追求的是一个更环保的解决方案。是我失言了。

sregnet
Sure, those who don’t know what they’re talking about just have an opinion.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
Edit: Somehow pathetic that you completely rewrite your post hours later.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

当然了，那些根本不懂自己在说什么的人，就只会发表观点。
补充：几个小时后你彻底改写了自己的帖子，这多少有点可悲。

Strong_Region5233
Well I'm ragebaiting you as you deserve to be as you are some guy or girl coming yelling at me I have the wrong opinion and I don't know what I'm talking about. Without saying anything about why you would be correct yourself despite being in opposition with the European leaders, and so their coalitions of experts advising them, who consider phasing out of nuclear was a massive mistake as per the post. The burden of proof should be on you.
I also edited my last reply to expand a little bit on this, because you really deserve to be ragebaited more by the way you act.

好吧，我就是在故意激怒你，因为你活该—— 不管你是男是女，都跑来冲我大喊大叫，说我的观点是错的、我不懂自己在说什么。
你自己却完全不解释你凭什么是对的，即便你的看法与欧洲各国领导人相悖，也与为他们提供建议的专家联盟意见相左 —— 正如帖子里所说，这些专家都认为逐步淘汰核电是一个巨大的错误。举证责任本应在你身上。
我还编辑了上一条回复，稍微展开说了说这些，顺便说一句，就你这态度，我多气气你也是你应得的。

Frequent_Builder_187
Still it wasnt the "green" parties. It was the conservstives after the population screamed for it. No green bashing. In THAT case u r wrong. Sorry

这事儿真不是绿党干的。是民众强烈呼吁之后，保守派政府这么做的。别乱骂绿党。在这一点上你错了，抱歉。

Curious_Paul_78
Your reasoning is ridiculous. The Greens didn't shut down nuclear power in Germany, the CDU did... So the Greens don't even have the authority to shut anything down. And the CDU decided so themselves; the Greens haven't given a damn for ten years...

你的逻辑简直荒谬。在德国关停核电站的根本不是绿党，而是基民盟……所以绿党压根就没有权力去关停任何东西。这是基民盟自己拍板决定的；这十年来绿党甚至都没怎么管这事儿……

_eg0_
When do you think was the decision made to shut them down? Who was in the government back then? Who was the "Kingmaker" and wanted nuclear shut down? And what exactly do you think the CDU did?

你觉得关停核电站的决定是何时做出的？当时是哪个政党执政？谁是那个关键的 "Kingmaker" ，一心要关闭核电？还有，你认为基民盟到底做了些什么？（译者注：Kingmaker可翻译成造王者，这里指的是德国政治中的“关键少数”或联合政府中的小党派——通常指绿党或自民党，他们往往能决定谁能当总理）

medium-rareeeeee
"not the greens fault, we weren't in the driving seat"
They just relentlessly advocated for this policy for more than 15 years, brainwashed SEVERAL generations of Germans whilst being funded by russians oligarchs.
Im left winger but the lack of political accountability is astonishing.

“这不是绿党的错，我们当时并不掌权。”
他们只是不知疲倦地为这项政策鼓吹了十几年，在俄罗斯寡头的资助下，给好几代德国人洗了脑。
我虽然是左翼人士，但这种政治上毫无责任感的表现实在令人震惊。

sregnet
You are clearly clueless and have no idea about the subject. Nuclear power plants are baseload power plants — you can’t simply ramp them up and down, but that’s exactly the flexibility you need when combining them with renewables. Gas and coal can do that, nuclear can’t. Nuclear power would massively slow down the expansion of renewables. Why does everyone seem to have an opinion these days but nobody actual knowledge anymore?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

你显然是完全没搞懂，对这个话题一无所知。核电站属于基荷电站，没法随意升降负荷，而这恰恰是可再生能源并网时所需要的灵活性。天然气和煤电可以做到，核电却不行。核电会极大地拖累可再生能源的推广进程。为什么现在好像谁都敢发表看法，却没几个人真正具备专业知识？

jonnieggg
Forgot about baseload the fools.

那帮蠢货居然把基荷这事儿给忘了

Calm_Possibility8842
Why do green party boot lickers, don't admit that we should, use renewable energy combined with nuclear energy, to dismantle the use of fossil fuels etc.

为什么那些绿党的舔狗们就是不肯承认，我们应该将可再生能源与核能结合使用，以此淘汰化石燃料等能源？

Money_Elderberry_197
Wasn't the green party in Germany. Merkels admin decided on the exit in 2011 after Fukushima. Claiming that it was die Grünen is alt right propaganda

这不是德国绿党干的。默克尔政府在2011年福岛核事故之后就决定了弃核政策。硬说这是绿党的错，纯属极右翼的宣传话术。

Ancient_Pangolin1453
That was the conservative party. The greens had literally nothing to do with it

那是保守派的事。绿党和这件事从头到尾都没有任何关系。

dschazam
CDU and FDP aren’t Green parties you lying clown.
At least get your facts straight if you’re trying to discuss politics in my home country.

你这个满嘴跑火车的小丑，基民盟和自民党根本不是绿党。
想讨论我祖国的政治，至少先把事实搞清楚。

Asdfnexus12
Because Germany is known for its huge native nuclear fuel supply ...

毕竟德国可是出了名的核燃料资源大国啊……

cool-sheep
The average European nation has a few months gas supply.
If you fuel a nuclear power plant it’s for decades.
You can easily buy enough uranium to be independent, the real cost of nuclear power is the huge construction. When uncle Vladi cuts off your gas supply you’ll be freezing within weeks.
True independence will come to Europe with renewables, even if they’re mostly Chinese made. Until then we weren’t ready to cut off nuclear.

欧洲国家平均只有几个月的天然气储备。
而一座核电站一旦加注燃料，就能运行几十年。
你可以轻松买到足够的铀来实现能源独立，核电的真正成本在于巨额的建设费用。一旦普京大帝切断你的天然气供应，几周之内你就会挨冻。
真正的能源独立终将通过可再生能源来到欧洲，即便这些设备大多是中国制造。但在那之前，我们本不该关停核电。

TheJonesLP1
They didnt increase CO2. The amount of nuclear Power that was shut down at last was already compensated by renewables one year later. This has btw nothing to do with Gas. Germany did and would buy it, no matter if having nuclear or not.
Also, the Green Party didnt make the plans to shut down nuclear. Actually it was the CDU, who are now, 15 years later, those Nukecel-Fanboys in EU parliament. Double Standards...
So I would kindly ask you to stop spreading dis/misinformation

他们并没有增加二氧化碳排放。最终被关停的核电规模，在一年后就已经由可再生能源弥补了。顺便说一句，这和天然气毫无关系。无论有没有核电，德国过去都会、未来也都会购买天然气。
此外，关闭核电站的计划也不是绿党制定的。事实上，这是基民盟做的，而十五年后的今天，他们却成了欧洲议会里那些狂热的拥核分子。这就是双标……
所以我球你别再传播虚假或错误信息。

Fuzzy_Fondant7750
I have a feeling there were foreign influence operations partially involved in this.

我有种感觉，这起事件部分涉及境外势力的渗透操作。

Arcosim
Earthquakes don't matter in modern plants. Fukushima was an older plant with 2nd gen reactors and construction standards. There was a plant with newer 3rd gen reactors and more modern construction standards that was closer to the epicenter, Onagawa NPP, and tanked an even bigger quake and taller waves. The reactors were unharmed and continued operating uninterrupted.
Now there are even more modern reactors and plant standards, 4th gen reactors, but only China has them so far. These reactors are nearly meltdown proof since they're an interlixed closed loop and if anything breaks the entire processes winds down.

现代核电站根本不怕地震。福岛那是老掉牙的电厂，用的是第二代反应堆和过时的建筑标准。而距离震中更近的女川核电站，配备了更新的三代反应堆和更现代的建造标准，它经受住了更强的地震和更高的海啸巨浪，反应堆完好无损，并且持续不间断运行。
如今甚至有了更先进的反应堆和电站标准，也就是四代反应堆，但到目前为止只有中国拥有。这类反应堆几乎不可能发生堆芯熔毁，因为它们采用互联式闭环设计，一旦出现故障，整个反应过程会自动减速停机。

dan-dreamz
Its because of stuff like this
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/bergung-von-radioaktivem-abfall-auf-unbestimmte-zeit-verschoben-a-e54840cb-d7ee-4add-bf07-b5ad3c022ac1?sara_ref=re-so-app-sh
"The recommended cleanup of the dilapidated Asse nuclear waste repository in Lower Saxony has been postponed for the time being. "Currently, there are still so many uncertainties in the overall system that no new start date for the retri can be reliably given," said Dagmar Dehmer, spokesperson for the Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Disposal (BGE). Previously, the responsible operating company, based in Peine, Lower Saxony, had targeted the retri of the waste starting in 2033."

就是因为这类事情（链接）
下萨克森州破旧的阿塞核废料处置库的清理整治工作，按建议方案已被无限期推迟。德国联邦放射性废物处置公司发言人达格玛・德默表示：“目前整个系统里还有太多不确定因素，根本没法给出一个靠谱的回收启动日期。” 此前，负责该处置库运营、位于下萨克森州派尼市的相关公司，原本计划在2033年启动核废料的回收工作

Queasy_Cartoonist_87
Let’s all produce radioactive waste we have no idea how to handle. Let’s bury it and let the future generations handle it. It’s only toxic for 20,000 years. Great idea.

咱们就只管制造那些根本不知道该如何处理的放射性废料好了。挖个坑埋了，把烂摊子丢给子孙后代去收拾。这些废料的毒性可是要持续两万年的。真是个“绝妙”的主意。

Stock_Childhood_2459
I read that spent nuclear waste still contains more than 95% energy so to me it sounds absolutely moronic to just bury it for tens of thousands of years instead of trying to figure out how to use all of that energy and massively shorten half-life.

我看到资料说，核废料中还残留着超过95%的能量，所以在我看来，不去想办法利用这些能量、大幅缩短其半衰期，反而直接把它掩埋数万年，这简直愚蠢至极。

Deep-Aardvark-680
We already know how to, with IV Gen reactors.

我们已经知道该怎么做了，通过第四代反应堆就可以实现。

FibonacciNeuron
Always have been. Remember 20th century

一直都是这样。别忘了20世纪的那档子事。（切尔诺贝利？）

Motor-Region-1011
Yes. They unfortunately beacame moronic.

是的。很遗憾，他们变得愚蠢至极。

MiyuHogosha
Germany banned nuclear power after Fukusima (frankly very badly and cheaply made power plant compared to German ones). Which makes me wonder if Fukusima was sabotaged during "rescue" operations by russian company. Most of video feeds somehow got "lost".

德国在福岛核事故之后禁止了核电（坦白说，和德国核电站相比，福岛那玩意儿造得又烂又廉价）。这让我不禁怀疑，福岛核事故是否在“救援”行动期间被俄罗斯公司蓄意破坏了。大部分视频监控画面都莫名其妙地“丢失”了。

NyxAsh3nvaldr
Result of hyper democracy

这就是过度民主的后果

possibilistic
Democracy is good.
Lack of hardship leads to people becoming sheep and wanting stupid things. This is Germans and Europeans being weak and giving way to stupid.
The anti-nuclear plot was actually a psyop from big oil and Russia. And these idiots fell for it.
Now that times are getting harder, they realize how much they fucked up.
But this will take generations to fix.
Europeans are in for a rough wake up call. America can't afford to bail them out, and Russia is being belligerent. They're stacking up debts and working far less than their peers in America and Asia. They're going to be in for so much pain it isn't funny.

民主本身是好事。但日子过得太舒坦，人就会变成绵羊，开始想要那些蠢东西。这就是德国人和欧洲人的软弱之处，向愚蠢妥协。
反核运动背后，实则是石油巨头与俄罗斯联手策划的心理战。而这些蠢货们居然上当了。
现在世道变难了，他们才终于意识到自己搞砸了一切。但要修复这一切，恐怕需要几代人的时间。
欧洲人即将面临残酷的现实毒打。美国已自顾不暇，根本无力拯救他们；而俄罗斯态度强硬，剑拔弩张。
他们不仅债台高筑，工作时长也远低于美国和亚洲的同行。接下来的痛苦日子，绝对够他们受的，简直惨不忍睹。

Invelusion
Almost whole Europe was stupid for at least last decade

在过去至少十年里，几乎整个欧洲的脑子都一直不太灵光。

sregnet
As a German: Good that we got rid of that crap. Germany is massively expanding renewables, even if the CDU is currently trying to slow down the pace. Nuclear power plants are baseload plants and cannot simply be ramped up and down, which means they clog the grid for renewables and block the energy transition. As a backup during “Dunkelflaute” periods, we switch on flexible gas-fired power plants and are massively expanding battery storage. It is well known that the levelized costs of renewables are already the cheapest form of power generation today, which is why China is also relying primarily on them.

作为一个德国人：很高兴我们摆脱了那堆破东西。德国正在大规模扩建可再生能源，即便基民盟目前正试图放缓这一步伐。核电站属于基荷电站，无法随意升降负荷，这意味着它们会挤占可再生能源的电网空间，阻碍能源转型。在“无光无风期”作为备用，我们会启动灵活的燃气电站，并正在大规模扩建储能电池。众所周知，可再生能源的平准化成本如今已是最便宜的发电形式，这也是中国也主要依靠它们的原因。

possibilistic
Your generation output is down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany
Your costs have doubled:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/household-energy-prices-germany-continue-fall-remain-high-early-2023
It's not going well.
As AI begins to take over labor, you're going to be bending over backwards buying from the Americans and the Chinese.
Y'all are in trouble.

你的发电量出现了下滑
能源成本已然翻倍
现状堪忧。
随着人工智能开始逐步取代劳动力，你们还得费尽心思从美国和中国采购物资。
你们这下麻烦大了。

sregnet
LOL, another person who can’t tell apart industrial electricity prices and end-consumer prices. You probably don’t even know the difference. For industrial power, Germany is in the European mid-range. Household electricity is expensive because we pay grid fees and high taxes (about 60% of the bill), funding the shift to renewables and grid upgrades. Our CO₂ emissions are higher because we still run coal plants as backup, which nuclear could never have provided. Those coal plants will soon be replaced by gas plants convertible to hydrogen. Then we’ll be fully independent from foreign fuels, have the cheapest power, and be CO₂-neutral. We’ll talk again then about what Germany supposedly did wrong. In the meantime, please stop wasting my time with this uneducated nonsense.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

哈哈，又一个分不清工业电价和终端居民电价的人。你恐怕连两者的区别都搞不懂吧。德国的工业电价在欧洲处于中游水平，居民电价之所以高，是因为我们需要支付电网费和高额税费 —— 这部分占了电费账单的约60%，这些资金会用于可再生能源转型和电网升级。

我们的二氧化碳排放量之所以还居高不下，是因为目前仍在依靠燃煤电厂作为备用电源，而核电根本无法承担这一备用角色。这些燃煤电厂很快就会被可改造为氢能发电的燃气电厂取代，届时我们将彻底摆脱对国外化石燃料的依赖，拥有最低廉的电价，实现碳中和。

等那一天到来，我们再来讨论德国究竟哪里做错了。在此之前，别再用这些毫无专业认知的废话浪费我的时间了。

_juan_carlos_
评论图像（评论图像为正文中的图）
it is going great, look at the evidence, do you want to give yourself another pat on the back? Germany is doing great unlike all those other idiots from Europe that have cheaper and cleaner energy, just imagine, France and Spain must be so moronic to look that green, only Germany manages to be s proudly brown. Bravo!

一切都进展得 “好极了”，你倒是看看证据啊，还想再自我陶醉一番吗？
德国表现得“太棒了”，可不像欧洲其他那些蠢货，还拥有更便宜、更清洁的能源。
你想想看，法国和西班牙居然能做到那么环保，他们也太蠢了吧。
也就只有德国能如此骄傲地保持高碳排放。
干得漂亮！

sregnet
LOL, where did you dig up those Mickey Mouse graphics? Got a source for them? And which electricity costs are we even talking about here, household or industrial? You probably don’t even know the difference. For industrial power, Germany is in the European mid-range. Household electricity is expensive because we pay grid fees and high taxes (about 60% of the bill), funding the shift to renewables and grid upgrades. Our CO2 emissions are higher because we still run coal plants as backup, which nuclear could never have provided. Those coal plants will soon be replaced by gas plants convertible to hydrogen. Then we’ll be fully independent from foreign fuels, have the cheapest power, and be CO2-neutral. We’ll talk again then about what Germany supposedly did wrong. You clearly haven’t had much time to dive into this complex topic. I especially laughed at one of your graphics where France looks like it has the cheapest electricity.
France’s nuclear-generated electricity remains costly despite supplying around 70% of the country’s power, driven by soaring operations, maintenance, and refurbishment expenses for its aging fleet, mostly built in the 1970s and 80s, compounded by frequent outages that spiked market prices, as seen in 2022. Megaprojects like Flamanville 3 exemplify the debacle: costs ballooned from €3.3 billion to €23.7 billion with 12 years of delays. The government artificially caps prices (e.g., 4.2 ct/kWh until 2026 versus market rates of 7–11 ct/kWh), absorbing EDF’s multibillion deficits, Europe’s highest nuclear subsidies at €400–600 million/year (2017–2020) plus €1.4 billion for pricing. From 2026, prices rise 67% to 7 ct/kWh, but EDF must repay surpluses; life extensions to 50+ years add €66 billion. Modernizing or replacing the entire fleet, including 6–8 planned EPR2 reactors, is estimated at €56–58 billion plus €18 billion in decommissioning costs; park-wide expenses including extensions and maintenance could run into the hundreds of billions, amid corrosion issues, safety upgrades, and EDF’s €100plus billion debt. France’s cheap power myth crumbles — subsidies hide an expensive, risky dependency.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
Edit: LOL, now I finally get what kind of graphics you cherry-picked there. You seriously looked at a 15-minute window and then come out with that kind of statement? For real? On cloudy days with little wind, we fire up coal (which, as mentioned, will be replaced by gas). Sure, our CO2 emissions and production costs spike short-term then. Feel free to check the average annual costs and average CO2 emissions again. Totally different story. Honestly, it bores me how few people actually understand the electricity market but still have rock-solid opinions. Educate yourself or stop wasting the internet with your shit.

哈哈，你这都是从哪扒来的这些糊弄人的图表？有靠谱来源吗？另外我们现在说的到底是哪种电价，居民电价还是工业电价？你恐怕连两者的区别都搞不清楚吧。德国的工业电价在欧洲处于中游水平，居民电价之所以偏高，是因为我们需要支付电网使用费和高额税费 —— 这部分占了电费账单的约60%，而这些资金会用于可再生能源转型和电网升级。我们的二氧化碳排放量暂时偏高，是因为目前仍将燃煤电厂作为备用电源，而核电根本无法承担这一备用功能。这些燃煤电厂很快就会被可改造为氢能发电的燃气电厂取代，届时我们将彻底摆脱对国外化石燃料的依赖，拥有性价比最高的电力，实现碳中和。等那一天到来，我们再来讨论外界口中所谓的德国的失误。你显然根本没花多少时间去深入研究这个复杂的议题。你的一张图表尤其让我发笑，上面显示法国的电价似乎是全欧洲最低的。

尽管核电供应了法国约70%的电力，但法国的核电成本依然居高不下。究其原因，该国的核电机组大多建于上世纪七八十年代，设备日趋老化，运维和翻新成本飙升，再加上机组频繁停运推高了市场电价，2022年的情况就是典型例子。弗拉芒维尔3号核电站这类大型核电项目就是一场彻头彻尾的失败：项目成本从33亿欧元一路飙升至237亿欧元，工期更是延误了12年。法国政府人为设定了电价上限（比如2026年前将电价控制在每千瓦时4.2欧分，而同期市场电价为每千瓦时7至11欧分），为法国电力公司承担了数十亿欧元的巨额亏损。

法国每年为核电提供4亿至6亿欧元的补贴，这一数额在欧洲高居榜首（2017-2020年），此外还为电价管控投入14亿欧元。2026年起，法国的管控电价将上调67%，至每千瓦时7欧分，而法国电力公司还需向政府上缴超额利润；将核电机组的使用年限延长至50年以上，还将产生660亿欧元的额外成本。对整个核电机组群进行现代化改造或更换，包括计划新建的6至8台欧洲压水堆二代机组，预计将耗资560至580亿欧元，再加上180亿欧元的退役拆解成本；再考虑到设备腐蚀、安全升级等问题，以及法国电力公司超千亿欧元的债务，整个核电体系的相关支出，包括机组延寿和日常运维，最终可能高达数千亿欧元。所谓法国电价低廉的神话早已破灭 —— 种种补贴的背后，是法国对核电昂贵且高风险的依赖。

补充一句：哈哈，我现在总算明白你选的都是些什么图表了。你居然只看了15分钟的时段数据，就得出这样的结论？真的假的？在阴天、风力不足的时段，我们会启动燃煤电厂发电（正如前文所说，这些电厂后续都会被燃气电厂替代）。诚然，在这种情况下，我们的碳排放和发电成本会出现短期飙升。你大可以去查查年度平均电价和年度平均碳排放数据，那会是截然不同的结果。说实话，我真的很反感这种现象：没几个人真正了解电力市场，却偏偏抱有无比坚定的错误观点。要么去好好学习相关知识，要么就别在网上胡说八道浪费大家的时间。

_juan_carlos_
the live electricity map provides a transparent, up-to-date view of electricity generation and CO₂ emissions across Europe. It’s not a “Mickey Mouse graphic”—it’s a widely respected tool used by researchers, policymakers, and energy analysts. The map clearly shows that Germany’s reliance on coal and gas results in significantly higher CO₂ emissions per kWh compared to France, which is dominated by nuclear. While Germany is making progress with renewables, the current reality is that coal and gas still play a major role, especially during periods of low wind or solar output. That clear for you? or do you need me to explain it with colors?
the real question here is where did you got that Mickey mouse brain of yours that comes and celebrate that household have to pay expensive electricity prices because obviously the gas prices went through the roof. Data confirms this. And you come and say with such a moronic arrogance that nuclear energy could have never worked as a backup, while it was working indeed as a backup. And then you confirm that Germany is indeed generating more emissions by setting up more gas plants.
I don't waste my time here with the gas lobby anymore.

实时电力地图为全欧洲的电力生产和二氧化碳排放提供了透明、实时的展示。它根本不是什么“糊弄人的图表”，而是广受认可、被研究人员、政策制定者和能源分析师广泛使用的专业工具。这张地图清晰地表明，与以核电为主的法国相比，德国对煤炭和天然气的依赖导致其每千瓦时电的碳排放显著更高。尽管德国在可再生能源方面取得了一定进展，但当前现实是，煤炭和天然气仍扮演着主要角色，尤其是在风能或太阳能发电量较低的时期。

这够清楚了吗？还是需要我用颜色给你标出来解释？
真正的问题在于，你那浆糊脑子是从哪来的，居然还为居民不得不支付高昂电价拍手叫好 —— 明明天然气价格已经暴涨到离谱。数据已经证实了这一点。而你还带着这种愚蠢又傲慢的态度说核电根本无法作为备用电源，可它明明就一直在充当备用电源。然后你还承认，德国通过新建更多燃气电厂，实际上确实造成了更多排放。
我不会再在这里浪费时间跟天然气游说集团的人废话了。

MeatResident2697
Politicians and the general public are stupid and fear nuclear power plants. In fact, they are one of the most cleanest, efficient and safest source of electricity.

政客和大众简直蠢透了，一提到核电站就怕得要死。事实上，核电明明是最清洁、最高效、也最安全的电力来源之一

D3m0nSl4y3r2010
They are not clean, nor efficient, and compared to renewables they are also not safe. Nuclear plants still emit CO2, and everyone pro Nuclear always skips over the fact that we will never be able to store the waste safely for thousands of years. Also in a democracy no-one wants it anywhere near their own Home. Nuclear is effective, but not efficient. It costs billions to build a reactor and the electricity produced is only profitable because of state subsidies. Which is the same case for fossil fuels btw, not for wind or solar though.
Is there alot of fear mongering in the public? Yes. Is nuclear a short term solution to get away from fossil fules? Yes. But praising Nuclear as the Holy Grail is also wrong.

它们既不清洁，也不高效，而且与可再生能源相比，它们也并不安全。核电站仍然会排放二氧化碳，而所有支持核电的人总是刻意忽略一个事实 —— 我们永远无法安全储存那些需要衰变数千年的核废料。此外，在民主国家里，没有人愿意让核电站建在自己家附近。

核电是有效的，但并不具备经济性/效率低下。建造一座反应堆要耗费数十亿欧元，而其生产的电力之所以能盈利，完全是依靠政府补贴。顺便说一句，化石燃料也是如此，但风能和太阳能并非这样。
公众中存在大量制造恐慌的言论吗？是的。
核电是摆脱化石燃料的短期解决方案吗？是的。
但将核电吹捧为终极圣杯同样是错误的。

_Alex_42
100% agree

完全同意

Mamkes
They are not clean
They are, pretty much.
nor efficient
Per what metric?
and compared to renewables they are also not safe
Renewables killed more people than nuclear power did per MWh produced. And ever, at that matter.
Nuclear plants still emit CO2
Yes, some indirect carbon footprint does exist for NPPs.
What you forgot to mention is that solar and wind have vastly more CO2 footprint per MWh produced, and hydro is slightly more than NPPs.
that we will never be able to store the waste safely for thousands of years.
Based on what?
Even assuming that no more efficient technology would ever arrive as well no more efficient recycle technology, it wouldn't be an actual problem to hold waste.
This is precisely why everyone slacks with building long-term storage - even in current, short-term caskets/other storage, High-level Waste wouldn't be a problem for many decades longer. And politicians don't like spending money on something that would never be an issue in their term instead of something that would boost their popularity and/or allows them to take something for themselves.
If nuclear waste would be a problem tomorrow, they would find funds and political will to do everything to make something for a long term storage, else they would be ousted. It isn't, thus that clown show.
Also in a democracy no-one wants it anywhere near their own Home.
No reliable research could tie proximity to nuclear powerplants to any health problem; outside of few exceptions, obviously.
And I mean, France had not much of a problem out of that
and the electricity produced is only profitable because of state subsidies
No? Or, I guess, kind of.
NPPs take a long time to get net profit, but they can sell electricity for a profitable price just shy of it being free due to extremely low production price. It's extremely bad for shareholders (thus the LCOE), it's reasonable for a nation in general.

它们并不清洁
——其实相当清洁。

也不高效
——请问是按什么标准衡量的？

而且与可再生能源相比，它们也并不安全
——按每兆瓦时发电量计算，可再生能源造成的死亡人数比核电更多，而且历来都是如此。

核电站仍然会排放二氧化碳
——没错，核电站确实存在一些间接碳足迹。但你忘了提到的是，太阳能和风能每兆瓦时的碳足迹要大得多，水电则略高于核电站。

我们永远无法安全储存那些需要存续数千年的核废料
——依据是什么？
即便假设未来不会出现更高效的处理技术，也不会有更先进的回收技术，储存核废料也并非真正的难题。
这恰恰就是大家都懒得建设长期处置库的原因 —— 即便使用现有的短期储存罐或其他储存方式，高放射性废料在未来几十年内也不会构成问题。而政客们不愿把钱花在自己任期内根本不会出事的项目上，更愿意投给能提升人气、或是能从中牟利的事情。

如果核废料明天就会酿成大祸，他们立马就能找到资金和政治意愿去建设长期处置设施，否则就会下台。正因为没事，所以才上演这种闹剧。
此外，在民主国家里，没有人愿意让核电站建在自己家附近
没有可靠的研究能证明居住在核电站附近会引发任何健康问题，当然，极少数特例除外。

而且说实话，法国在这方面就没遇到什么大问题。
其生产的电力之所以能盈利，完全是依靠政府补贴
是吗？或者，我只能说算是吧。
核电站确实需要很长时间才能实现净利润，但由于生产成本极低，它们完全可以以接近免费的盈利电价出售电力。这对股东来说极其不利（因此平准化度电成本偏高），但对整个国家而言是合理可行的。

_juan_carlos_
评论图像（评论图像为正文中的图）
and here the evidence.

这就是证据。

GermanOgre
And even if those assertions were true, which they aren't, Germany produces 0 uranium on its own. It would be beholden to foreign supplies like Russia again.
With battery storage costs reaching 1 ct per kWh we will prevail in the end. But yeah feed your ego by commenting on this dead horse.

就算那些说法是真的 ——可它们根本不是真的—— 德国本土也不生产任何铀矿。
它将再次受制于俄罗斯等外国供应方。
随着储能电池成本降至每千瓦时1欧分，我们最终必将胜出。
不过你尽管继续在这件早已定论的事上喋喋不休，满足你的虚荣心吧。

Famous_Distance_1084
"but meh energy security"
Here are some simple facts:
Less then 5% of natural gas consumed in German is locally produced
More then 85% of PV production and 90% of battery manufacture capacity around globe is in China

“呵，还能源安全呢。”
这里是一些简单的事实：
德国消耗的天然气中，不到5%产自本土。
全球超过85%的光伏组件产能和90%的电池制造产能都在中国。

Legal_Lettuce6233
Batteries are the least relevant metric of power storage.

电池是衡量电力储能最无关紧要的指标。

StudySpecial
what's this fascination about comparing energy production of a country of 1.4 billion population to countries with a fraction of its population?

为什么人们这么痴迷于把一个14亿人口的大国，和那些人口只有其零头的国家去比较能源产量？

Queasy_Cartoonist_87
Let’s all produce radioactive waste we have no idea how to handle. Let’s bury it and let the future generations handle it. It’s only toxic for 20,000 years. Great idea.

咱们就都来生产那些我们根本不知道该如何处理的放射性废料吧。咱们把它埋起来，让后代去收拾烂摊子就好了。它也就有毒个两万年而已。真是个好主意。

Afraid-Presence1440
Let's start by getting there... you have no idea how much better burning coal like we have done for thousands of years is! We surely know what to do with all those toxic byproducts! The future generations won't be impacted at all!

咱们先从这一点说起…… 你根本不知道，像我们几千年来那样烧煤，要好上多少！我们当然知道该怎么处理所有这些有毒副产品！后代绝对不会受到任何影响！

Lolicon1234
Let alone the amount of radioactive waste from the coal plants that are probably stored and not just dumped in most plants

更不用说大多数燃煤电厂产生的放射性废料数量，这些废料很可能是被储存起来的，而不只是随意丢弃。（译者注：煤炭中含有微量的铀和钍，燃烧后这些放射性物质会富集在粉煤灰中）

Beautiful-Edge-22
What's fascinating isn't that China has surpassed Germany in Nuclear energy production, that was sooner or later inevitable. What makes it interesting is instead of Germany's nuclear power production also going up or leveling out over time it just flat out fell down to zero, which is just insane.

令人感慨的并非中国在核电产量上超越了德国 —— 这迟早都是必然的事。
真正耐人寻味的是，德国的核电产量非但没有随之上升或保持稳定，反而直接一路暴跌至零，这简直太疯狂了。

blexta
What's really fascinating is that the share of nuclear energy production is dropping, despite them ramping it up. Renewables and coal are just that much cheaper and easier to build.

真正令人费解的是，尽管他们在大力发展核电，核电在电力生产中的占比却在下降。
原因就在于可再生能源和煤炭成本低得多，建设也容易得多。