Comparing Germany/UK vs. France/Korea
AKA Comparing wind/solar vs. nuclear for baseload power.
Rather than do a bunch of theoretical number crunching, I figure let’s look at Germany & the UK as the large companies furthest down the wind & solar road vs France & Korea that are nuclear all the way. Which works better?
If you want to my source material, you can view it here. I also have all 4 conclusions at the end of this post (they all agree).
Gemini (this was the best, but way too detailed for a blog post)
Grok (this was also quite good, but long-ish)
Perplexity (quite good and concise)
Qwen (I won’t say this is bad, but it is bland)
I stress that I am using what the AI returns asking for this comparison so you realize this is not a biased hack job by me, it’s a dispassionate comparison using deep research & reasoning.
Navigating Energy Strategies: Wind/Solar vs. Nuclear in Germany, the UK, France, and South Korea
As nations strive to balance climate goals, energy security, and affordability, two distinct approaches have emerged: Germany and the UK1 prioritize wind and solar, while France and South Korea use nuclear power for baseload. Below I evaluate the trade-offs between these approaches, analyzing their impacts on electricity costs, grid reliability, industrial competitiveness, and international dependencies.
1. Electricity Bills: Cost Dynamics
Wind/Solar Approach (Germany & UK):
Germany’s aggressive renewable rollout (1.5 GW added in February 2025 alone) has driven down wholesale electricity prices during peak production. However, hidden costs include grid upgrades, curtailment payments to wind farms, and subsidies for gas backup plants during low-wind periods (Dunkelflaute). Households indirectly bear these costs, with curtailment adding £40–£150 annually to UK bills by 2026[1].
UK consumers face similar challenges. Inefficient grid links between Scotland’s wind farms and England’s demand centers force utilities to pay wind farms to shut down while ramping up gas plants, passing costs to households[1].
Nuclear Approach (France & South Korea):
France’s nuclear-dominated grid historically offered low, stable prices (4.2¢/kWh), but aging reactors and supply-chain disruptions led to a 67% price hike (to 7.0¢/kWh) in 2026[2]. Despite this, nuclear remains cheaper than wind (7.15¢/kWh in Germany)[3] and solar when system costs (storage, backup plants) are included[4].
South Korea’s hybrid strategy (35.2% nuclear, 29.2% renewables by 2038) aims to balance affordability and emissions. Nuclear’s low operational costs ($21–$37/MWh in the U.S.[4]) suggest long-term price stability compared to renewables’ infrastructure demands[5].
Verdict: Nuclear offers lower long-term system costs, but upfront investments are steep. Wind/solar expose consumers to volatile grid upgrade and backup expenses
2. Reliability: Weather vs. Reactors
Wind/Solar:
Germany’s renewables supplied 57.6% of its power in 2024, but winter Dunkelflaute events require gas plants to fill gaps[3]. The UK’s wind curtailment highlights grid inflexibility, risking blackouts during extreme weather[1].
Nuclear:
France’s reactors provide steady baseload power, operating at ~70% capacity year-round. Even during 2022’s reactor outages, neighboring countries supplied backup power, avoiding blackouts[2]. South Korea’s nuclear fleet ensures consistent output, critical for energy-intensive manufacturing[5].
Verdict: Nuclear’s reliability outperforms intermittent renewables, reducing reliance on fossil backups
3. Industrial Impact: Jobs and Competitiveness
Wind/Solar:
Germany’s renewable sector employs ~130,000 but faces job losses as turbine production shifts abroad[3]. Grid bottlenecks also raise industrial electricity costs, threatening competitiveness[3].
The UK’s wind industry struggles with slow turbine approvals, delaying supply-chain growth[6].
Nuclear:
France’s nuclear sector supports high-skilled jobs and exports, but reactor construction delays (e.g., EPR2 program) risk losing global market share[7].
South Korea’s hybrid model leverages nuclear for stable industrial power while scaling solar for diversification[5].
Verdict: Nuclear provides stable, high-value jobs but requires state support. Renewables face volatile global supply chains
4. Cross-Border Dependencies
Germany imports power during Dunkelflaute, relying on Nordic hydropower and Polish coal plants[3].
France became a net electricity importer during 2022 reactor outages, drawing on German solar and Spanish wind[2].
South Korea’s nuclear expansion reduces reliance on LNG imports, enhancing energy independence[5].
Verdict: Renewables increase regional interdependence; nuclear reduces it but requires international uranium supplies[7][8].
5. The No-New-Tech Reality
Without breakthroughs,2 renewables demand massive storage (138 GWh by 2038 in South Korea[5]) and grid upgrades. Nuclear’s existing designs (e.g., SMRs) offer scalable baseload without novel tech[7].
6. Which Approach Is Better?
Nuclear emerges as the superior strategy for three reasons:
Lower System Costs: Lifetime costs for nuclear ($26–$37/MWh[4]) undercut wind ($52/MWh) and solar ($73/MWh) when storage and grid upgrades are included.
Reliability: Baseload nuclear avoids price spikes and blackouts during weather extremes.
Industrial Stability: Predictable nuclear output supports manufacturing better than intermittent renewables.
Recommended Alternative: A balanced mix prioritizing nuclear for baseload (60–70%) and renewables for peak demand minimizes costs and emissions while ensuring grid stability[8][9].
Conclusions
Perplexity
While Germany and the UK’s renewable push cuts emissions, their grids remain fragile and costly. France and South Korea’s nuclear-centric strategies provide affordable, reliable power critical for industrial competitiveness. For nations prioritizing energy security and cost stability, nuclear—complemented by targeted renewables—is the clear path forward.
Gemini
The experiences of Germany, the UK, France, and South Korea offer critical lessons. While the ambition behind the wind and solar-heavy strategies is commendable for its environmental goals, the practical realities of intermittency, system costs, and reliability challenges—especially without game-changing storage technology—make it a precarious foundation for a modern industrial economy.
Nuclear power, despite its own significant challenges (cost, waste, public perception), provides the proven, reliable, low-carbon baseload power essential for grid stability and economic health.
Therefore, a strategy that includes a substantial role for nuclear power, complemented by renewables and other dispatchable sources, represents a more robust and realistic path towards a decarbonized energy future based on technologies available today. Making hard choices based on engineering and economic reality, not just aspirations, is crucial for powering our future.
Grok
After weighing the factors, the nuclear approach taken by France and South Korea is better. It delivers lower electricity bills, crucial for both households and industries, with household rates as low as $0.13 per kWh in South Korea and industrial rates at $0.106 per kWh, compared to higher costs in Germany and the UK.
Reliability is high across all countries, but nuclear’s stable baseload supports consistent industrial operations without the intermittency challenges of wind and solar. The impact on manufacturing is more favorable in nuclear countries, enhancing competitiveness, while the ability to manage shortages internally, as in South Korea, adds resilience.
While Germany’s renewable success is commendable, the economic costs and import reliance tilt the balance toward nuclear for its affordability and reliability.
Qwen
Germany and the UK’s embrace of wind and solar reflects admirable environmental aspirations, but their approach has proven costly and unreliable. Meanwhile, France and South Korea demonstrate that nuclear power can deliver affordable, dependable electricity while supporting thriving economies.
For nations seeking a sustainable energy future, the lesson is clear: prioritize nuclear power as the backbone of your energy mix, supplemented by renewables where feasible. Only then can we achieve the trifecta of affordability, reliability, and decarbonization.
Citations
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67494082
8. https://changeoracle.com/2022/07/20/nuclear-power-versus-renewable-energy/
9. https://kiwienergy.us/blog/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-energy/
While Germany has no nuclear power, the U.K. does have a bit and is building more.
I put a constraint on the A.I. to assume no new technology. Why? Because with supposed wonderous “real soon now” tech you can make any approach look good. We’re unlikely to see any game changers, produced in quantity, in the next 10 - 20 years.
Thought-provoking comparison—interesting to see how different countries approach the same energy challenge in such distinct ways.
Comparing South Korean domestic costs with US wind/solar is wishful thinking. The Koreans can build plants in Korea for less than $3000/kW overnight and in 5 years. But the Korean can't put in a firm bid on a US job when the NRC can change the rules on them, as the NRC did to Westinghouse at Vogtle. Even in the Czech Republic where they must have had some kind of assurance that would not happen, they came in at a reported $8600/kW. And if you want to see what French nuke costs these days, look at Flamanville 3 and Hinkley Pt 3 both of which will come in at over $15000/kW, probably well over.