German environmentalists in an abrupt about turn rally to nuclear energy

[cancel2 2022]

Over the last year, environmentalists have faulted Germany for abandoning its 2020 climate goals, bulldozing an ancient forest to mine for coal, and exporting deadly air pollution to its neighbors. “I hope people see that what motivates nuclear supporters is the wish to leave a better world to our children,” said Iida Ruishalme of Mothers for Nuclear. “We want to let friends of nuclear know that they are not alone.”

Organizers from over a dozen grassroots environmental groups expect hundreds of pro-nuclear “atomic humanists” to come from across Europe to Sunday’s “Nuclear Pride Fest” in Munich’s Marienplatz from 10 am to 4 pm. The environmentalists point to evidence that every time nuclear plants are closed they are replaced mostly by fossil fuels because solar and wind are so unreliable.

Organizers say the Nuclear Pride Fest will be the first time environmentalists have rallied in favor of nuclear. Their goal is both to urge the continued operation of nuclear plants and to confront what they say is an irrational stigma. “At the very least,” said Amardeo Sarma, co-founder of the Ecomodernist Society, “Germany should stop trying to intimidate other European countries to close their nuclear plants.”

Despite having spent $580 billion on renewables like solar and wind, German emissions have remained unchanged since 2009, thanks its abandonment of nuclear power, which does not produce greenhouse gas emissions.

Had Germany spent that $580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables and the fossil plant upgrades and grid expansions they require, it could have replaced all of the fossil fuels it uses for both electricity and transportation. And now, energy experts predict, German emissions will rise in 2018, given the closure of a nuclear reactor in the final hours of 2017.

“Pro-nuclear people are motivated by their love of nature and humankind,” said Fest co-sponsor, Rebecca Lohfert, from Denmark. “The scientific evidence for nuclear is overwhelming and yet it is still taboo to be pro-nuclear.” Climate isn’t the only motivation for the protesters. Bjorn Peters, the head of energy policy and analysis at the German Employers Association (DAV) warned, “Bavaria cannot afford the phase-out of its remaining two nuclear power plants (Gundremmingen C and Isar 2) without severe risks of power cuts.”

“The cards will be reshuffled when we experience blackouts,” said Rainer Klute of Nuklearia, a pro-nuclear German group. “Gas-fired power stations will increase costs, emissions, and dependance on Russian natural gas.”

While a massive electrical grid expansion to support solar and wind is “catastrophically behind schedule,” according to its energy minister, Germany’s construction of a new, $11 billion pipeline to bring more natural gas from Russia is on-schedule. Germany is struggling in other ways. Electricity prices have increased 50% over the last decade and, despite a 9% increase in solar panels since 2015, Germany produced less electricity from solar in 2017 than in 2015 for the simple reason that it was less sunny.

Germany in recent years has pressured its neighbors to close nuclear plants by raising fears and threatening to cut off fuel supplies. And in response to recent elections, Spain is seeking to close its nuclear plants. Not all European nations are backing away from nuclear. Last November, French president Emmanuel Macron faulted German nuclear closures. “They worsened their CO2 footprint, it wasn’t good for the planet. So I won’t do that,” said Macron.

France’s electricity supply is 12 times less carbon-intensive than Germany’s. “If European leaders follow the example of President Macron,” said Sarma, “we stand a chance of limiting damage from climate change.”

When asked whether devoutly anti-nuclear Europeans will change their mind on nuclear, Mirjam Vossen, a pro-nuclear activist from Amsterdam said, “If we’d never reconsider our decisions, we would still be burning witches.”

Electricity prices increased by 51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...y-for-nuclear/

[Nordberg]

Nuclear is a terrible and expensive way to boil water. takes billions to build a plant and about a decade in time. Takes a few billion more to decommission them. Of course, they require enormous amounts of water. They also have serious accidents that poison very expensive beach property. Of course we dunk the nuclearized equipment in pools that sit at the plant. There is a lots wrong with nuclear power plants.

[cancel2 2022]

Nuclear is a terrible and expensive way to boil water. takes billions to build a plant and about a decade in time. Takes a few billion more to decommission them. Of course, they require enormous amounts of water. They also have serious accidents that poison very expensive beach property. Of course we dunk the nuclearized equipment in pools that sit at the plant. There is a lots wrong with nuclear power plants.

Did you read the Forbes article, probably not is my guess?? The Germans are finally waking up to the fact that the Energiewende is a total shambles. How they allowed the Greens to control their energy policy is truly baffling, such is the nature of politics dominating common sense.

[cancel2 2022]

Nuclear is a terrible and expensive way to boil water. takes billions to build a plant and about a decade in time. Takes a few billion more to decommission them. Of course, they require enormous amounts of water. They also have serious accidents that poison very expensive beach property. Of course we dunk the nuclearized equipment in pools that sit at the plant. There is a lots wrong with nuclear power plants.

That wouldn't be the case if fools like you hadn't opposed the Yucca Mountain disposal facility for over three decades!! Harry Reid is truly an arsehole par excellence.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/li-b1/

[Irish Exit]

Energy production involves pollution in some shape or form. There is no way around it.

[Nordberg]

I know why Germany is thinking about it. read about it long ago., But https://amp.freep.com/amp/1417767002 I see it as a bad idea.

[Nordberg]

That wouldn't be the case if fools like you hadn't opposed the Yucca Mountain disposal facility for over three decades!! Harry Reid is truly an arsehole par excellence.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/li-b1/

Yucca mountain was started and its construction failed badly. they had container weld troubles and lots of other problems including enormous cost overruns. Burying radioactive waste is kicking the problem down the line through time. It will eventually leak. No containers last forever.
I actually thought Yucca was a solution until it was proven otherwise.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Opposition to nuclear energy among environmentalists was always dumb. Renewables are making a lot of strides but still nuclear would be a great source of baseline power in a clean energy grid.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Nuclear is a terrible and expensive way to boil water.

I love how you somehow think you've made a great point here?

Haha they're just boiling water!

Stupid steam turbines and their 90% "efficiency", take that!

Of course, they require enormous amounts of water.

Cooling tower based nuclear power plants do not require an enormous amount of water because they primarily use air cooling. I think you're thinking of the few plants that use direct water cooling for temperature control, they typically are next to the sea and pump in tons of water for the purpose. This method, although cheap, is increasingly looked down upon because it causes lots of thermal pollution that disrupts nearby sea life not used to temperatures that high. Also of course being next to the sea makes any nuclear accident that could happen potentially worse and more disastrous. Not worth saving the costs of building those cooling towers at all.

FYI everything that is true about the cooling system of nuclear power plants here is also true about fossil fuel plants. Because those *also* use steam turbines and need a lot of cooling too. They are just rarely at a large enough scale that they require the large cooling towers nuclear plants are famous for.

They also have serious accidents that poison very expensive beach property.

Let me guess, you are from California? The nuclear plants that use tons of seawater I mentioned previously are mostly located in California.

You have to realize that not every nuclear power plant is a costally located saltwater cooled power plant. Surprising as it may seem, most of the world is not California.

"On a gallon per megawatt-hour basis, nuclear energy currently uses slightly more water than comparable fossil-fired plants, in both the once-through cooling mode and the closed-cycle cooling mode."

https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/...r-power-plants

[Nordberg]

I love how you somehow think you've made a great point here?

Haha they're just boiling water!

Stupid steam turbines and their 90% "efficiency", take that!



Cooling tower based nuclear power plants do not require an enormous amount of water because they primarily use air cooling. I think you're thinking of the few plants that use direct water cooling for temperature control, they typically are next to the sea and pump in tons of water for the purpose. This method, although cheap, is increasingly looked down upon because it causes lots of thermal pollution that disrupts nearby sea life not used to temperatures that high. Also of course being next to the sea makes any nuclear accident that could happen potentially worse and more disastrous. Not worth saving the costs of building those cooling towers at all.

FYI everything that is true about the cooling system of nuclear power plants here is also true about fossil fuel plants. Because those *also* use steam turbines and need a lot of cooling too. They are just rarely at a large enough scale that they require the large cooling towers nuclear plants are famous for.



Let me guess, you are from California? The nuclear plants that use tons of seawater I mentioned previously are mostly located in California.

You have to realize that not every nuclear power plant is a costally located saltwater cooled power plant. Surprising as it may seem, most of the world is not California.

"On a gallon per megawatt-hour basis, nuclear energy currently uses slightly more water than comparable fossil-fired plants, in both the once-through cooling mode and the closed-cycle cooling mode."

https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/...r-power-plants

Michigan plants on lakes. Same for most inland plants. They are on rivers too. They require enormous amounts of water.
Lots are on earthquake faults too. https://frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog...thquake-faults You can convince yourself thaty are super safe if you want to. I don't accept it.

[Bigdog]

Over the last year, environmentalists have faulted Germany for abandoning its 2020 climate goals, bulldozing an ancient forest to mine for coal, and exporting deadly air pollution to its neighbors. “I hope people see that what motivates nuclear supporters is the wish to leave a better world to our children,” said Iida Ruishalme of Mothers for Nuclear. “We want to let friends of nuclear know that they are not alone.”

I suspect DJT's comments about the Nord Stream 2 greatly influenced this policy reversal. Especially, after the Saudi threat to throttle oil validated Trump's point.

The nuke industry is one of the major players behind the catastrophic warming hoax.

[cancel2 2022]

Yucca mountain was started and its construction failed badly. they had container weld troubles and lots of other problems including enormous cost overruns. Burying radioactive waste is kicking the problem down the line through time. It will eventually leak. No containers last forever.
I actually thought Yucca was a solution until it was proven otherwise.

Bullshit on steroids!