A few months ago, the European Commission declared nuclear power plants “sustainable”, and there are not enough EU member states to overturn this decision.
The economic war between the “West” and Russia as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine led to major disruptions in the energy markets. The significant increase in gas prices, as well as electricity, comes primarily to the detriment of people with low and middle incomes. The federal government responded to this in the spring with preliminary decisions. However, there is still no comprehensive concept that limits the rise in prices, eliminates private profits, creates a ceiling on the minimum price for consumption of gas and electricity and creates incentives for lower consumption so that the social consequences can be controlled.
Instead, politicians from the CDU, CSU, and FDP are trying to talk about the renaissance of nuclear power. They suppress or deny their own arguments that led to the gradual abandonment of electricity from nuclear power plants. Now, contrary to all scientific knowledge and social consensus that has grown over many years, nuclear energy, or “nuclear energy” as it is phrased in these circles, is once again claimed to be safe, climate-friendly and sustainable.
Many are no longer satisfied with “extended operation” for a few months beyond the planned closing date. They feel the opportunity to organize a return to the era of atomic energy in Germany. This will be especially easy for some because they voted for nuclear power out of opportunism rather than out of personal insight. These are the same ones that have prevented renewable energies, especially the sun and wind, from expanding as much as they could have been in recent years. Instead, their policies have destroyed more than a hundred thousand jobs in the renewable energy industry and made Germany dependent on China in this field.
A statement that was posted on January 6, 2021 but received no noticeable public response illustrates how absurd the idea of continuing to rely on Atom is. Former heads of state authorities for nuclear supervision and radiation protection from the USA, Germany, France and Great Britain urgently warn against misunderstandings and propaganda slogans that nuclear energy is a contribution to preventing or limiting dramatic climate changes. Your main message is:
“The central message, repeated over and over again, that a new generation of nuclear power plants will be clean, safe, small, smart, and cheap is fiction. The truth is that nuclear power is neither clean, safe, nor smart, but it is a very complex technology that has the potential to cause significant damage. Nuclear power is not Cheap, but very expensive. Perhaps most importantly, nuclear power is not, and for objective reasons cannot be, part of a viable climate change mitigation strategy.”
More than ever, citizens of today should be able to expect that all those with a political responsibility will take their observations and take them seriously when the heads of the former powers of nuclear supervision and radiation protection, based on their experience and knowledge, urgently warn of a relapse to nuclear energy. energy.
Here is the full text of the January 6, 2021 announcement:
Former heads of nuclear regulators and state radiation protection committees have declared: Nuclear power is not a viable measure to tackle climate change
Dr. Greg Jackko, former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Professor Wolfgang Rinberg, former head of the Department of Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection, Supply and Disposal at the Federal Ministry of the Environment.
Dr. Bernard Labonche, former Director General of the French Energy Management Agency, and former Adviser to the French Minister for Environment, Energy and Nuclear Safety
Paul Dorfman, former chair of the UK Government’s Committee for Radiation Risk Assessment
Temperatures on our planet are rising. Evolving knowledge of the effects of climate change and the rate of polar melt clearly shows that sea levels are rising, that destructive storms are getting stronger and more frequent – along with increased rainfall and floods – and that wildfires are becoming more frequent and at unprecedented rates.
Nuclear power has returned to public discussions as a climate savior with growing concerns and recognition that the transition to largely carbon-neutral energy supplies is becoming increasingly urgent. But at the heart of the debate are unresolved questions about whether nuclear power can actually help fight global warming, whether nuclear power is an economically viable alternative, how the consequences of nuclear accidents affect life, the environment and the economy, and what happens with the That radioactive waste occurs and how nuclear power fits into the growing renewable energy market.
The central message, repeated over and over again, that a new generation of nuclear power plants will be clean, safe, small, smart and cheap, is fiction. The truth is that nuclear power is neither clean, safe, nor smart, but it is a very complex technology that has the potential to cause great harm. Nuclear power is not cheap, but it is very expensive. Perhaps most importantly, nuclear power is not, and for objective reasons cannot be, part of a viable strategy to reduce climate change.
In short, as part of the climate change strategy, nuclear power will be:
• Too expensive to make an adequate contribution to global energy production
• More costly than avoiding CO2 through renewable energy, even if one takes into account the costs of managing the grid, for example through energy storage
• Too expensive and risky for financial market investments, and therefore they depend on huge government support and loan guarantees
• Unsustainable due to unresolved long-life radioactive waste issues
• Financially unsustainable because no insurance company is willing to adequately insure nuclear power plants against potential accident costs of damage caused by radioactive emissions
• Dangerous in terms of security policy because a large number of new reactors, especially the newly proposed types of reactors, contribute to an increased risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons
• dangerous in nature due to accidents that cannot be avoided due to human error, technical errors and external forces; The danger is increasing due to the effects of climate change such as sea level rise, more powerful storms and floods affecting the international economy
• Confronting too many unresolved technical and safety issues for so-called “new” reactor designs, including “advanced” reactors and small reactors (SMR)
• Too large and complex as a project against climate change to be mastered industrially, technically and practically in the short time available and to the extent necessary. Given the large number of nuclear reactors that would be necessary to make an adequate contribution to mitigating climate change, the length of development, planning and construction periods and the costs involved, nuclear power is not a realistic option.