So Busch is generally a pretty shit politician and wrong on most things that she says, but in the case of Germany needing to reform it’s electricity market, she’s not wrong.

She’s also not wrong that shutting down the nuclear capacity in Germany was a generally bad choice, but her opinion that we should go back to nuclear is hilariously bad.

Finally, there’s a clear need for a change in rules when it comes to electricity pricing in Sweden - the fact that we’re having to pay the rates that Germany offers for what electricity they import while most electricity in Sweden is still produced very cheaply is clearly an exploitative system.

Well, surplus renewable energy - which more wind capacity would bring - probably doesn’t hurt the economics of storage solutions, which ultimately would solve these issues.

This is true, and at the same time not really an issue any more at the rate that energy storage systems are progressing. Similarly to how solar and wind have absolutely plummeted in price, so is the case with energy storage systems s well. As of now, the LCOE of solar + storage is at half the price of nuclear (source) and trending cheaper. Nuclear is trending more expensive. Add on a construction time of 17 years for plants and any nuclear plant is basically economically dead on arrival.

It’s not necessarily an either-or situation, but when it comes to allocating public budgets, one can certainly come at the cost of the other.

This is generally what people talk about when advocating focus on renewables over nuclear.

I personally have no problem with privately funded and insured nuclear - if you’re able to swing that, then all the power in the world to you. The issue at hand is that nuclear fundamentally fails here - it’s too expensive to build and insure (not to mention the energy it produces being more expensive than its alternatives), hence public funding and insurance is essentially a prerequisite.