https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eu-co-finances-...
Which might account for why they are reticent about nuclear.
* One one side no regulation, people living in fear of their superiors, money being drawn and sent to compete on the race to the moon and other reasons. * On the other side "nuclear", which is based on science, and had about 6 decades of evolution in safety, regulations, etc. since Chernobyl was first built.
That was exactly what I was referring to when I said the EU is blind to science. And, yes, I read 2 papers and watched many videos, as well as follow the news for about the last 5 years of the safe confinement construction. I still hold the same opinion as my original comment.
That all said we are hosting COP26 climate summit - though like many - the Queen sums up what we all think: - https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-queen-irritated-by...
On a trip to a school in Bristol, southwest England, Johnson told baffled schoolchildren: "I promise to get world leaders to cut greenhouse gases and save the planet."
He later held up a signed, leaf-shaped piece of paper on which he had written his pledge.
Whatever the outcome, I'll be very happy to hear about Johnson's pledge after the COP...
It's the actions I'll measure upon, not the promissory notes of intent.
[0]: for the record, it's supposed to be six, but some people say seven.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/general-...
He has never taken the high road in his life.
As conservative prime ministers go, he'd be one of the better ones in recent memory if it wasn't for awful timing. The UK had about twice the death toll as france and germany in the last couple of years, and it's hard not to blame that on Boris, and those around Boris, essentially being the wrong guys for the job. When it's serious, you need serious people making the decisions, and I don't think anybody, Boris included, genuinely thinks he's a serious person.
I think the UK was kind of a perfect storm where Boris was both the least suited prime minister for a crisis in recent history, and the british state resources were really depleted after a decade of austerity - which also wasn't particularly good for the health of vulnerable people in general.
I'm not really particularly anti-Boris specifically, though. The nice thing about him is he clearly doesn't really care about politics. He's not a hardcore ideologue like Osbourne, or Javid, or even Blair. He's just interested in ratings, polling, and power. So I think his political program is probably better than Cameron's was, for instance, just because he's a populist, and the british public generally has more common sense than the british elite.
In general, a useless head of state isn't too bad, if you have a good state apparatus that gets all the real work done while they basically entertain the public. That's what Boris was supposed to be. Unfortunately, the pandemic happened, and a majority of the people surrounding him turned out to be morons.
Isn't Germany a world leader in implementing renewable energy?
Edit: Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
Then they decided to shut them all down; and that they urgently need a new gas pipeline - Nord Stream 2 - to import natural gas from Russia.
Doesn’t sound very carbon neutral to me.
No, it doesn't.
Attempting to break economic dependence, or to preempt such attempts in the anticipated future, is at least as common a cause of war as geopolitical competition between powers that aren’t in a dependency relationship.
To that end, it’s looking better now that the Greens are in the ruling coalition.
Hysterical shutdown of nuclear plants following Fukushima lead to the gap being covered by fossil fuels
also while US have very cheap gas from the domestic industry, Europe is constrained by a couple of pipelines and shipments and market fluctuations, so it didn't replace coal
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
Renewables provided 45% of Germany's power production in 2020, and 41% in 2021 H1.
however
nuclear capacity fell by 8GW
natural gas grew by 4GW
and the charts only explain the capacity
unlikely the renewables can replace nuclear in that sense
of course, saying that the historical shutdown of nuclear was replaced by fossil fuels I mean in the same and following year.
If Germany keeps betting big on renewable after that and it's currently producing 41% it's a different story
"Wind power is Germany's most important source of clean energy. But wind turbines have become contentious here, as more and more people protest against them being built near where they live."
https://www.dw.com/en/the-germans-fighting-wind-farms-close-...
"Germany has set some of the most ambitious goals of any nation for shifting from fossil fuels to greener energy. Now the centerpiece of that push—onshore wind power—is slumping, prompting the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and the bankruptcies of wind-power developers and turbine manufacturers. Wind power, often seen as a clean, abundant energy source, has faced growing bureaucratic hurdles and acrimony in communities out to block the erection of new turbines. "
https://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-push-for-wind-power-en...
Merkel’s CDU has been popular because they offered stability, but there’s an understanding in Germany now that the country has fallen behind in critical areas like car electrification and grid storage technologies.