In a way, it was Germany that took the lead, when Europe, after the German reunification, began to limit nuclear energy.
It’s hard to find anything but political motives.

The first is a summary of information from the Danish organization REO, who advocate a balanced assessment of energy, particularly nuclear energy.

  • Five reactors in the former East Germany were closed during the German Reunification.
  • Four reactors in Bulgaria and Slovenia were closed as a condition of access to the EU.
  • Three reactors in Germany were closed before the disaster at Fukushima.
  • Eight other German reactors were closed after the disaster at Fukushima.
  • A complete reactor in Austria and another in Germany have never been put to use.

In addition, two reactors at Barsebäck (Sweden) were closed, also due to political pressure.
Thus we have closed for 15 GW of clean energy that could easily be available today.

In order to maintain the supply and the green model, Europe, and especially Germany, has spent huge amounts on solar energy and wind power.
Nevertheless, it has been necessary to start the construction of
12 MW of new coal-fired power plants.
Equivalent to about eight modern reactors.

The consequence of this has been:

Now slowly:
A basic understanding of the fact that it will not even be green.
From many sides a beginning distrust in the sustainability of the ambitious plans.
Brunkul i Tyskland

Repeated concern that Germany is ruining both land-shapes and economy.
But even destroys the climate
In order to save it.


And now after many years we start to understand, that most of the horror-stories about radiation at Chernobyl is nothing but the usual falsifikations from Greenpeace and followers.

All this can naturally be done in a rich country.
Still it may be difficult.

But in Germany it is apparently felt that it will be the end of the world if there should be a serious accident at a nuclear power plant.

And then, (March 2016) Der Spiegel got the curage to explain how all these expensive measures were unnecessary and that the fear of nuclear energy was grossly exaggerated.

Tilbageflyttere ved Tjernobyl.png
Tjernobyl dyreliv.pngBut no matter what:
Some live happily in the highly contaminated area of Chernobyl.
They are more afraid of starving than they are for radioactivity.

And the animals,
they understand nothing.

It is high time, we should understand

With the following from Der Spiegel (March 2013), there are signs to suggest that the “Greens” are beginning to understand – Slowly.

Although this conflict touches all political parties, none is more affected than the Greens.
Since the party’s founding in 1980, it has championed for a nuclear phaseout and fought for clean energy.
But now that this phaseout is underway, the Greens are realizing a large part of their dream – the utopian idea of a society operating on “good power” – is vanishing into thin air.
Green energy, they have found, comes with an enormous cost.
And, the environment will also pay a price if things keep going as they have been.

In Germany they have reached a typical ”Bureaucracy Monster”:
From Der Spiegel October 2013 I quote:
And let’s not forget that the German bureaucrats have come up with over 4,000 different subsidy categories for renewable energy, apparently adhering to the principle that what is particularly expensive has to be lavishly subsidized.
August 2016 we read that Germany will change the subsidy system.
It will mean that they will leave the existing system based on
feed-in tariff in favor of a system based on plans to auction contracts to deliver “renewable” electricity to the lowest bidder.

The controversial nuclear power is clean.
You will have enough uranium and thorium for some 100,000 years.
Still it can not be defined as renewable / green.
Only reliable.

And much more

January 2017 The Energy Collective gives a very long attempt at an assessment.
Information and claims are pointing in all directions.

But the truly devastating rule is that “Green Energy” has got Network Priority.
This means that “The Others” are reduced to be backup and ‘shall just’ stand idle until they are called up when suddenly needed.
Although it is destroying the economy, it is ‘just’ assumed that “the traditional” must continue to be available.

If the information from The Energy Collective is reliable, the cost associated with this will amount to € 20 billion per year, corresponding to the price of building four new reactors annually.

New reactors are better when it comes to ramp-up and down.
More than enough to follow the changes in the load.
Still: The risk of Xenon poisoning (Xe135) and a disaster like at Chernobyl will make it very difficult for nuclear power to be used as backup for the unreliable solar and wind.

Agora Energewende Review 2014 provides a wealth of data that seems to be carefully Selected.
But, no matter what, it can be seen that the German “traditional power plants” have still been able to balance the network.

Der Spiegel, despised by the green, provides information on Dunkelflaute, which means “dark windstiles”.
I’ve tried to evaluate this on another page.

Although I have said it many times:
Der Spiegel writes that the dreaded radioactivity may not be as dangerous as we thought.

More KK less Pollution It appears from the above that Germany, although they are working hard to become green and free of pollution –
Yes they can not even see the rear wheel from “Atom-France”.

March 2017, you read on The Energy Collective that we can either repeat Germany’s mistakes or learn from them.
Apparently, the German population does not want to learn.

​​On another page, also from The Energy Collective, shows that Germany’s electricity is almost 10 times more polluting, compared to the French.
You get data from 2016.
Germany generated 545 TWh and polluted 560 g CO2 per kWh
France generated 530 TWh and polluted 58 g CO2 per kWh

Although I have said so many times:
Der Spiegel writes that the feared radioactivity may not be as dangerous as we have believed.

Problems related to managemen of the network.

Very rarely we find information about the costs of Energiewende.
From The Energy Collective Collective, I have the following information.

Redispatch (Redistribution)

In periods, there is not enough capacity to transfer the energy.
This means that the cheapest energy can not be sold and the “net” is forced to use more expensive supplies.
For example, if there is a lot of wind in northern Germany and a great need in southern Germany.

Year Number of days Energy – – – – Costs
2013 – – 223 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 137 million €
2014 – – 330 – – – – – 5.197 GWh – – – 187 million €
2015 – – – – — – – – 16.000 GWh – – – 412 million €

Curtailed energy

In periods, there has been more energy (from the sun) than the demand.
Here are the following:
2013 – – 555 GWh
2014 4.722 GWh

The figure below gives an overview of the costs (Million €/year).German costs.pngTyske omkostninger

In total

By 2015, total expenditure increased to 715 million €
May be the realities will be visible.
Especially when we consider that the “green energy” does not come for free.

But also in the United States

Duck cWithout having more than a suspicion, I claim, that “own use of electricity from solar” is excluded from the data used for the figure above.


Dear unknown reader:
Try to consider the above and draw your own conclution.

In the meantime I ask:
Are we, in Denmark and in Germany, behaving as the man, jumping out of an airplane – without parachute – saying:
“Look it is fine, I am soon halfway and everything is going well.”