Uranium in the tank?

Politicians committed to the nuclear industry are instrumentalizing the Russian oil dispute to stir up opposition to the nuclear phase-out

The Druzhba (Friendship) pipeline is not living up to its name at the moment and is also causing controversial discussions in this country about the security of energy supply. In the wake of the dispute over higher oil prices for Belarus, the lobbyists are positioning themselves and once again questioning the move away from nuclear power. Even the EU Commission advocates a stronger role for nuclear power in its latest energy report.

So much activism per atom, without existing supply bottleneck, makes one think. Because there is no reason to worry in the short term, the ol could run out. By law a reserve of 90 days is prescribed, at present it is sufficient for 123 days and the pipeline supplied only 20% of the oil for Germany. Including reserves, supply would be ared at the same level for 20 months even if the pipeline were further blocked. Accordingly, Borsians reacted calmly yesterday, with the price of ol even falling to 51.40 euros on Tuesday afternoon.

Moreover, Rubland has never, even during the Cold War, seriously threatened to cut off gas or oil supplies. The country needs the money that the EU countries pay. It should not be forgotten, moreover, that Western Europe pays higher prices than countries like Belarus or Ukraine. Russia cannot do without its most important source of income and was more likely to secure its olexport by shifting to the sea route. Tanker capacity is plentiful, as OPEC has just decided to limit its demand. In retrospect, the controversy also seems to prove the policy of the former chancellor Schroder right, because it can also be seen as an argument for the Baltic Sea pipeline, that Weibrussia has turned off the tap. Also the construction of the Flussiggasterminal in Wilhelmshafen seems to be very justified.

Germany imports about 100 million tons of petroleum annually. Of this, about 40 million tons come from Russia, with 20 million tons delivered by pipeline and 20 million tons by sea. In any case, it is time to think about diversifying supply routes, suppliers and supplier countries. Just as opponents of renewable energies like to argue that wind power only blows when the wind blows, the current situation shows how dependent conventional energy sources can be, not only on natural events such as Hurricane Katrina and technical failures such as those at the Forsmark nuclear power plant. They are simply also dependent on the will of despotic regimes, be it in the former Soviet empire, be it in the Middle East. With the present politics in the country, however, another dependence on Rubland is to be feared.

Nevertheless, this also offers no factual reason to discuss a revision of the nuclear phase-out again. Because nuclear energy provides electricity, but the oil does not play a significant role in the production of electricity in this country. Nuclear energy accounts for 12.5% of Germany’s energy mix, only half as much as the much vaunted coal. Nuclear power is also losing ground in other European countries. Two-thirds of the EU member states, 17 out of 27, have agreed to abandon nuclear power plants or do not use nuclear energy at all. The preference of some local politicians for nuclear power seems to be related to personal ties and perhaps also to a tendency to a monopoly- and corporation-friendly attitude.

CSU leader Edmund Stoiber found:

However, despite opposition from the SPD, we must once again discuss whether, in view of the energy situation and our dependence, it is justifiable to phase out the safest nuclear power plants over the next few years.

Hermann Scheer, SPD energy expert replied:

Well, this is not an argument that one has the best technology. We also have the best technology in renewable energies. Why does one want to continue where one has a good technology, although this technology carries massive risks, why does one want to continue where one has an excellent technology, which brings no risks with it, which is permanently available, where there is no waste, why does one want to slow it down?? Here are nevertheless quite clearly double Mabstabe in the play…

Reinhard Butikofer, head of Grunen, responded to Angela Merkel’s comments by saying that "we must also consider the consequences of shutting down nuclear power plants".:

This is a kind of Pavlovian reflex, I don’t know what Mrs. Merkel has in mind, whether she thinks that we will put a pack of uranium in the tank of her company car.

The EU Commission, too, is keen to remain neutral and, in its latest energy report, warns against turning away from nuclear energy, since it is necessary in the fight against climate catastrophe and is also the cheapest form of power generation. If nuclear power was phased out, dependence on fossil energy carriers would increase dramatically. Even if the current energy mix – i.e., without nuclear phase-out – was maintained, up to 93 percent of gas and oil demand would have to be imported in 2030 – an increase of about 40 percent. It is not clear from where and how these required quantities could get to Europe.

So much aimlessness and lack of concept is shocking. In other words, this means that the EU technical rates still do not want to give clear targets to the industry. For example, to reduce fuel consumption, which accounts for one-third of total energy consumption. Why is it still allowed to average 8.5 liters per 100 kilometers?? Why has the EU building passport not yet been introduced throughout the EU four years after its adoption?? Whereas another third of the total energy is wasted on heating buildings alone, and savings of at least a factor of 4 could be achieved in the renovation of old buildings alone?

Environment Minister Gabriel also refutes claim of "electricity hiccup". The 7.500 megawatts of nuclear power coming off the grid by 2020 far outweighed by the 17 in the pipeline.500 megawatts of new fossil-fuel power plants and 13-19.000 megawatts from renewables. at all:

Nuclear power is, as the name says, electricity, and we usually need the oil to produce gasoline or diesel, so they have nothing to do with each other. Nuclear energy certainly does not help us to replace oil, but the right argument is that we need to develop renewable energy, biofuels, so that we become less dependent on oil and gas. This is good for consumers and independence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *