The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
An already running power plant? What significant carbon footprint would it have? As a first approximation anyway (especially relative to what will usually replace it), this is typically how nuclear energy is described. Even by, say, Jérôme. Is he too a anti-renewables propagandist?
"and ignores a few other aspects of its footprint"
He makes it clear that his intention is not to provide with a cost-benefit analysis. Rather, Germans have already said they liked the benefits and he intends to state the costs. Note that he then goes on to say that they may well still like the decision, knowing the costs.
"He gets wind wrong on the FIT" OK, that is bad. But what I find when looking it up (and maybe I too will be wrong, but hopefully you will not accuse me of anti-wind propaganda) is that the subsidy is greater -9.02 cents for onshore and 13 cents for offshore.
"and claims it's already destabilizing the grid" No he doesn't. He says that the point where it will is probably not far off with an insufficiently interconnected grid. That too may be wrong -I simply don't know- but he does not say what you claim.
"He claims solar is risky because German companies might be purchased by the Chinese" Oh please! He says that solar is not very appropriate for the German latitudes and climate. Then mentions that DESPITE that the investments had the advantage of making Germany very competitive in the field, an advantage that of course is greater if the industry stays German. Maybe you'd like that bit removed, but the point is that solar will not replace much of the electricity currently produced by the nuclear plants. Do you wish to dispute that? To call it propaganda?
"His main point is that Germany is writing off economically viable options like 125 reactor years"
Absolutely not. The economic viability is mentioned in passing and is not central to any paragraph in the article. The point is that 125 reactor years of production will need to be replaced. And he discusses the ways.
"He's basically shilling for usian energy interests, which of course is his job" That is one interpretation, but hardly an undisputable objective statement.
"But by claiming that the German politicians are not playing fair with the voters, and then not even getting his facts right, he enters the propaganda zone. "
I whish that we stopped calling propaganda anything short of a rousing promotion of our own prejudice. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
by gmoke - May 6
by rifek - May 4 3 comments
by gmoke - Apr 26 1 comment
by gmoke - Apr 20 1 comment
by rifek - Apr 18
by rifek - Apr 17 2 comments
by Oui - May 8
by rifek - May 43 comments
by Oui - May 42 comments
by Oui - May 4
by Oui - May 1
by Oui - Apr 27
by gmoke - Apr 261 comment
by Oui - Apr 25
by Oui - Apr 23
by Oui - Apr 22
by gmoke - Apr 201 comment
by Oui - Apr 204 comments
by gmoke - Apr 18
by Oui - Apr 181 comment
by rifek - Apr 172 comments
by Oui - Apr 12