Atomic Attraction: Wind Power’s Abject Failure Forces Europe to Embrace Nuclear Power

To call Europe’s rapid embrace of nuclear power ‘passionate’ is not overstatement. Much to the horror of wind and solar acolytes, a growing number of EU members are ready to declare nuclear power is not only clean and green, but wholly sustainable.

Wind and solar-obsessed Germans and Brits are watching power prices go into orbit and the pro-renewables camp has been forced to grapple with months-long wind droughts when so-called ‘green’ energy couldn’t be bought at any price.

Necessity may well be the mother of invention, but the stark realisation that wind power output can collapse for days and weeks on end is certainly the mother of a renewed attraction to nuclear power.

After months of watching wind power output barely register across Europe, the French President announced a wholesale reversal of their anti-nuclear power plant policy, no doubt driven by the need to ensure that they will never suffer embarrassing power shortages like their British and German neighbours. Macron made it crystal clear that France would invest heavily in their existing nuclear power plants and build 14 next-generation nuclear plantsadding to the 56 plants currently operating and providing the French with over 70% of their power needs, at a cost roughly half that being paid by their wind and solar ‘powered’ German neighbours.

With even Finland’s Greens giving nuclear power thumbs up, Germany’s anti-nuke stance is making it look very much like the sick man of Europe, if not an affordable and reliable energy pariah.

Finland’s Greens Welcome EU’s Classification Of Nuclear As “Sustainable”. Berlin “On The Wrong Track”
No Tricks Zone
Pierre Gosselin
12 January 2022

While Germany recklessly continues to reject nuclear power – Finland welcomes it.

The parliamentary group leader of the Finnish Greens Atte Harjanne thinks EU classifying nuclear energy as a sustainable energy source is right and in WELT AM SONNTAG (WAMS) he explains why his party has dropped its anti-nuclear stance and why he thinks Germany is on the wrong track in terms of energy policy.

Finnish Greens now welcome nuclear
The Finnish Greens used to be against nuclear energy, but today this is no longer the case. In 2020 they dropped their anti-nuclear stance because they now view it as a sustainable source of energy that makes it possible to get rid of fossil energy.

The German Greens, on the other hand, remain steadfast and refuse to allow nuclear power. Germany will be closing its last nuclear power plants in 2022. Coal plants will follow and be closed by the end of the 2030s. How the country will keep the lights on remains a mystery.

Nuclear is sustainable – very little waste
In the interview with WELT AM SONNTAG, Harjanne said nuclear power is sustainable and that the amount of waste “is very small compared to the huge amount of CO2-neutral energy that a nuclear power plant produces”. He also said Finland has solved the problem of storing nuclear waste.

Wind and sun systems generate “problematic waste”
Harriane also noted, “The production of solar plants and wind turbines also generates problematic waste.”

On why the Finnish Greens have become so open to nuclear energy: “Our ultimate goal is to become CO2 neutral, and for that we want to exhaust all possibilities based on science. If the inclusion of nuclear energy is the quickest way to get us there, the end justifies this means.”

Finland to be carbon-neutral by 2035
Overall, Harjanne expects Finland to be carbon neutral already by 2035, while Germany will need until 2045, if not longer. “If Finland were to go the German way and shut down all nuclear power plants, it would also take us that long or longer.”

Berlin on the wrong track – dependent on imports
Harjanne is satisfied with the EU’s decision to classify nuclear energy as sustainable, telling WAMS it’s “a compromise” but at the same called the classification of natural gas, a fossil fuel, as sustainable “absurd” and said that Berlin “is on the wrong track” and Germany “is making itself dependent on imports”.

Rough transition for Germans
He added: “Getting out of nuclear and coal at the same time means a high demand for gas for a long transition period.”

Nice to see the Greens and politicians are not totally crazy everywhere like they are in Germany.
No Tricks Zone

Will Europe Abandon Green Energy?
Powerline
John Hinderaker
3 January 2022

The European Union has led the way in transitioning from fossil fuels to “green” energy, i.e. wind and solar. But that effort has hit a snag: wind and solar don’t work, and energy costs in the EU are skyrocketing. Now a Reuters report suggests that the EU may be thinking about jumping ship:

The European Union has drawn up plans to label some natural gas and nuclear energy projects as “green” investments after a year-long battle between governments over which investments are truly climate-friendly.
***
A draft of the Commission’s proposal, seen by Reuters, would label nuclear power plant investments as green if the project has a plan, funds and a site to safely dispose of radioactive waste. To be deemed green, new nuclear plants must receive construction permits before 2045.

Investments in natural gas power plants would also be deemed green if they produce emissions below 270g of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour (kWh), replace a more polluting fossil fuel plant, receive a construction permit by Dec. 31 2030 and plan to switch to low-carbon gases by the end of 2035.

If CO2 is the alleged threat to the future of the planet, nuclear power is indisputably “green.” Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2. Disposal of spent fuel rods is an issue, but a minor one–a ridiculously minor one if you think the alternative is destruction of the planet. That is why any environmentalist who doesn’t support nuclear power is an environmentalist who doesn’t actually believe the propaganda he spouts.

Likewise, natural gas emits far less CO2 than coal, and “green” advocates have in any case been building natural gas plants like there’s no tomorrow, because gas is what they burn most of the time, when wind and solar fail to produce electricity.

Meanwhile, the EU’s member countries are sharply split on energy issues:

Austria opposes nuclear power, alongside countries including Germany and Luxembourg. EU states including the Czech Republic, Finland and France, which gets around 70% of its power from the fuel, see nuclear as crucial to phasing out CO2-emitting coal fuel power.

It is notable that Germany has just announced that it will close three of its six nuclear power plants, even though German automakers reportedly have warned their government that they will not be able to compete in global markets if their energy costs continue to rise. Maybe, for once, the French will save the Germans from themselves.

The fate of this particular EU proposal remains unknown, but the handwriting is on the wall. The “green” dream of an economy powered exclusively (or even mostly) by wind and solar energy is impossible, not because of a lack of political will but because of the laws of physics. The end of this story has already been written. The question is how much wealth will be destroyed before greenies admit that their dreams have turned into nightmares.
Powerline

Europe’s greens come to where the sustainable power is: nuclear.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. The fact about wind and solar is that it is unreliable.
    Not fit for purpose.
    In the new car market a vehicle that doesn’t reliably perform as it should is called “a lemon”. This is exactly what the unreliables are, they are a lemon, a very costly lemon.
    Politicians and bureaucrats from all countries have ignorantly allowed and fostered this scam on our economies.
    They are being led by the loudest voices and ignoring common sense.

  2. Van Snyder says:

    Compare Germany’s and Britain’s trouble this winter with how much worse it will be when next Tambor erupts and produces another “year without a summer,” like 1815 was. Not “if” but “when.”

    Spent nuclear fuel is only 5% used. The right thing to do is to separate unused fuel from fission products. Unused fuel needs custody for 300,000 years. It’s daft to pretend it can be hidden that long. The pyramids were plundered before 500 years! A better idea is to convert it to electricity and fission products.

    9.26% of fission products — 93 kilograms per gigawatt year — produce 99.4% of total fission-product radiotoxicity and need custody for 300 years. 0.45% produces 0.4% of radiotoxicity and needs custody for 100 years. 43.08% produces 0.21% of radiotoxicity and needs custody for thirty years. 47.1% is not radioactive. This is not a significant problem. Why don’t we do it? Thank James Earl Carter and William Jefferson Cliton.

    Read “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste” in December 2005 Scientific American (online). Read “Plentiful Energy” by Charles E. Till and Yoon Il Chang, for which Dr. Chang has generously given me permission to post a PDF at http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Nuclear.html.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: