& more on this topic here (if anyone wants to read it): http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/03/baseload-power-gets-in-the-way/

Renewables match with quick-starting power sources (i.e. nat gas at the worst).

For two, given that Germany is a true world leader in the energy & CO2 emissions front, I think it has a right to refuse the risk of more radioactive waste.

Hope the citizens don’t get confused like I’m sure they would (and are) in the U.S.

And believe me, Nuclear is a terrible conventional energy source to be combined with the renewable energy system during the transition period.

Nuclear powerplants are perhaps the most centralized and least flexible form of electricity production. That means that they will block the introduction of renewable sources as soon as the capacity of volotile energy sources grows above the conventional powerplants that supplement nuclear power stations in the conventional energy mix.

This happens very fast… it took german households & buisnesses only about 4 years to put up enough PV-Solar to replace all those flexible hard-coal & gas powered powerplants on a very sunny day.

If you realize that the transition to 100% renewables requires to break the baseload oriented energy system, there simply is no place for nuclear in the future….

If you buy the nuclear lobbies arguments, you simply will never reach a 100% renewable energy system, because you will move at the pace of those who never want to achieve such a system.

However, there shouldn’t be any doubt, the german energy revolution is always under threat.
Being the home of E.On & RWE and their buisness/political minions puts this revolution under constant siege.
Since I mean the current federal government when I say political minions that kinda makes the danger rather real….

20% last year. 25% in the next few years.

I suppose that if I had the same experience I might choose Germany’s path. Remember, they are still installing a lot of renewables and their CO2 footprint is still declining.

They’ve decided to deal with the more immediate danger (in their opinion) first while continuing to work on the longer term goal.

If I lived someplace like New York City where I’d have very little chance to flee from a busted reactor I suspect I’d push for shutting down nuclear first…

Unless you’re 100% renewable, it’s coal or nuclear. You’re choosing coal, I’d choose nuclear.