Since building new gas plants isn't really an option anymore, and renewable can't produce reliable electricity by themselves regardless of cost, we are back to nuclear.
[1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-needs-20-30-gw-...
I wanted to explain what's wrong with this statement, because that's simply not true. But I don't have to: You just need to read the text that you linked to:
"As Germany ramps up renewables and exits coal and nuclear power, it may need more gas power capacity, which would mostly be put to use at times of high electricity needs and little wind or sunshine – and not necessarily lead to more overall gas consumption."
Gas is different from nuclear in that it's easy to regulate the power generated, which is necessary to deal with demand spikes and generation dips (the latter due to wind/solar which may not always be available). Presumably Germany would only ever want to rely on gas for this purpose.
There are ways to adjust nuclear power output but they are quite expensive (on top of the fact that any nuclear power plant is already expensive).
To get rid of fossil fuel power plants you need to match their exceptional ability to regulate power generation levels. You could do this by using nuclear for base generation and supplementing renewables with storage techniques (e.g. pumped hydro storage), but nuclear is unfortunately not a "drop in" replacement on its own.
Probably biased but reminds me of a recent talk by a Polish nuclear scientist explaining how this gas infrastructure is much more expensive than most people imagine. And it has to be regularly updated. So, if we are to factor in that cost, then brand new nuclear infrastructure and nuclear conversion isn't that much more.
Was it perhaps because of some hidden actors who pushed for the gas pipelines deals?
I can imagine, that the Russian influences in Germany hasn't magically disappeared after the fall of Berlin wall.
(Opposition to) nuclear energy is an emotional topic in Germany, one that mobilizes people. In a democratic society that leads to effects like the phase out of nuclear.
It’s mind-numbingly simple and I do not understand at all why conspiracies are mentioned left, right and center in this thread.
Also, the fact that in most countries there are multiple hidden agents acting on behalf of other countries hardly seems to be a conspiracy theory as well.
There's a substantial age cohort in Germany who can remember when their parents wouldn't let them play outside, or remember the runs on iodine tablets - people who's earliest understanding of the word "nuclear" was either in reference to Chernobyl or to fears of nuclear armageddon.
We know now that Chernobyl was a big deal in the immediate vicinity and not that huge of a deal continent-wide. But the climate in those early days was one of fear - in the midst of the Cold War a massive nuclear accident of unknown real severity in an untrusted neighbouring country was blanketing the continent in an unknown amount of radioactive material.
You can make truthful and rational arguments until you're blue in the face but the issue is emotive - a lot of people's minds have been made up by frightening experiences early in life.
Fukushima incident had a big impact on German public opinion. Even at the time it was a obvious over reaction from the Germans.
Merkel already went against public opinion when she put in place running time extensions in late 2010 to delay the phase-out, that was massively controversial decision.
Then only a few months later Fukushima blew up, so her already unpopular and controversial position became ultimately untannable. Particularly as many faults with German reactors were found during the [atom-moratorium](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom-Moratorium) that was declared after Fukushima.
Prior to that safety inspections were not even mandatory for the operators.
Add Chernobyl, Fukushima and the nuclear industry refusing to pay for the disposal of their waste, and Germany is a prime example of how and why nuclear fission is neither economical, nor sustainable.
> Especially that it hasn't happened in the neighboring France.
It's also happening in neighboring France [0], half their fleet has been offline for most of the summer [1]. A fleet that's already underfunded by billions [2], that's why the French reinvestment into new reactors was a very conservative and modest one with basically no reference to how even that will be financed.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/edf-extend-civaux-nuc...
[1] https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/04/30/681274/French-autho...,
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-nuclear-idUKKCN0VP...