The following is a slightly improved Google-translation of the original in a Danish language post on http://wp.me/p1RKWc-f8

.
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.
AND
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 also 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.

BUT
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.
Therefore:
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” should only be backup.
Although it is destroying the economy, it is assumed that ” the traditional ” must continue to be available.
This is stated ‘such only’ to cost $ 24 billion per year.
If the information from The Energy Collective is reliable, it corresponds to the price of building four new reactors annually.

New reactors are better when it comes to ramp-up and down.
Still: The risk of Xenon poisoning (Xe135) and a disaster like at Chernobyl will make it difficult for nuclear power to be used as backup.

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” still have 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.

Advertisements