That debate has been done, it is absolutely yes, this is the time to build.
10.03.2026 22:39
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
That debate has been done, it is absolutely yes, this is the time to build.
Most of those pathways include Nuclear.
Including wind and solar biomass geothermal etc. doesn't exclude nuclear.
And your examples of Denmark and Italy I address, there in the process of opening up there laws for nuclear energy.
Yes and no.
The goal is netzero and broader energy independence.
You will not achieve that without nuclear, in electrcity or heat/steam.
Only the Germans left it fully all other nations are keeping there's.
More capacity will be build and nations have already removed bans and preparing to get there first nuclear plants in the future.
Without nuclear there won't be a netzero by 2050
Europe will triple there nuclear capacity by 2050.
Engaging the Disinformation from the old anti-nuclear NGO's will become stronger.
They won't stop it, but can delay it with there nonsense.
The EU-taxonomy and nuclear country coalitions will push for the clean energy source.
Many of them can be restarted, some would need some refurbishment.
The main thing, the Germans have been under constant anti-nuclear misinformation campaigns for some decades.
They don't like to admit mistakes in Germany.
Don't mean Variable RE is nice to displace some fossil fuels, it's a transition period, but to fully replace fossil you need a more robust electricity production.
Also needed.
You are (being) misinformed
YES!
Ist viel mehr, aber uberal auf die welt gibt es.
Cananda, australian uzw.
That's a very compromised and false view of how we get off fossil in everything we do.
It's not so easy.
Disinformation, that keeps revolving
Decades of misinformation.
Uran aus Deutschland, auch hier haben wir es.
no
Completely depended on others.
And as with many minerals China holds the key.
Energy is essential for everything.
It is time for those that know this to say it out loud.
We can't get to netzero we can't have energy independence without including nuclear energy in the form of heat/steam and electrcity.
like we did with wind turbines, you build the same one over and over.
For solar and storage we are
They are safer.
Circa 400 reactors are running and do that for decades
They also have been modernized throughout that, increase operation and able to produce more clean energy.
Europe needs homegrown, low-carbon energy sources.
Nuclear & renewables together have a key role to play.
Nuclear energy is available around the clock, providing electricity all year.
Europe has been a pioneer in nuclear technology.
And can lead again
→ link.europa.eu/jwqwNv
nee
Because these people are black and white thinkers.
No it's a choice and not as stringent as you may think.
The goal of netzero ≠ only sun and wind.
I'm very pro-nuclear as Part of the effort to get to fully netzero in every part of what we do on this world.
Without it we will not achieve that.
There is much more then electricity.
Some items are harder to do, if you don't have the supply methods, yet.
Eventually Europe and other nations will have enough of those abilities.
Reducing all energy imports from Russia is the goal.
PS hydro is also storage.
Europe produces and imports from many sources and the productions is expanding with more nations becoming part of the groups to increase global nuclear capacity.
www.bruegel.org/analysis/end...
Saying it prefers is not accurate.
Russia has a historical supply line.
Per energy unit its delivers much more and compared to fossil imports it's small and shrinking.
Sorry for the keyboard mistakes:
Overall it would have cost the economy of Europe, not just Germany a lot less in the energy crisis.
Easier to pressure Russia and less income for Russia.
They still get income from LNG, that Europe imports, including Germany......