If saving the human race from the imminent climate disaster is so imperative, then why did Chancellor Angela Merkel request the immediate shut-down of CO2-saving, technically sound nuclear power plants in an area free of earthquakes or tsunamis?
Merkel suddenly decided that coal power plants emitting 4% more CO2 is no longer a problem.
Not long ago, Chancellor Merkel called climate change due to greenhouse gases emitted by man the greatest crisis facing humanity and said no efforts can be spared in drastically reducing CO2 emissions. So grave was the CO2-climate problem that a massive, society-altering $15 trillion plan was recently unveiled by Brussels, all with the target of reducing CO2 emissions by up to 90% over the next 40 years.
Suddenly all the imperative and urgency oc climate change gets waved aside.
Veteran author Hartmut Bachmann at Die Freie Welt has written an essay on Angela Merkel’s knee-jerk reaction in ordering the closure of 7 of Germany’s 17 reactors, in a political knee-jerk response to Fukushima. Bachmann writes:
The only energy that can really be delivered free of CO2 on a large scale was and is from nuclear power plants. But these have been ordered shut down without a single mention of the word – the term – CO2, neither from the government nor – as is expected– from the media. And this was done without any discussion whatsoever on the consequences this would have on the government’s fight for our purported survivial against CO2. This exposes the fight against CO2 as a hoax, as a fiction, that only serves to bilk the citizens rather than serve them.”
The reactors were certified as safe just months ago
The shutdown of the seven reactors, which were deemed completely safe just a few months earlier, and so were granted extended operating times, will now result in much more coal-burning, which of course will increase Germany’s CO2 emissions by a staggering 4%.
Years of painful investment to reduce CO2 are thus being wiped out, all with the snap of a finger, by the once CO2-fearful Merkel.
One has to ask just how threatened is the human race from Co2 after all. Not very much if coal plants spewing millions of tonnes more of CO2 are even safer than allowing technically approved nuclear reactors to run – in an area that is free of tsunamis and earthquakes.
UPDATE: Merkel wants to accelerate CO2 emissions! http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/germany-nuclear-idUSLDE72G0DD20110317
7 responses to “Angela Merkel Reveals Climate Hoax, Putting Her Political Survival Ahead Of “The Survival Of The Human Race””
Don’t for a moment think that shutting nuclear power stations means she’s dropping her goals on CO2.
I was once persuaded to help a friend with presentation stand at a medical conference. A few minutes into the thing I found myself alone and trying to chat knowledgably with doctors about a subject in which I was just an amateur. Almost at the end my (ex)friend returned and cheerfully told me that she was the ‘bigger picture’ sort of person and wasn’t interested in the basic spade work. It had all gone very well and she’d be very happy to have me as her second in command at the next exhibition. ‘Funny’, I replied crossly ‘I rather wanted to be the bigger picture person and not the person stuck in a hot reception hall handing out leaflets and answering tough questions’.
It doesn’t occur to people like this, that they can’t have it all. They blithely make promises and then expect someone else to achieve the goal. It’s never their fault if targets are missed because they chose impossible standards. In their world, electricity comes from a socket in the wall and milk appears magically in cartons. They leave the icky, dangerous stuff to people who ike that sort of thing (ha, ha). There’s no problem with deciding to shut nuclear stations down because it’s not the decision maker’s job to provide electricity. They’ve done their bit by making the choice to cut CO2 and nuclear.
Save us from the ‘bigger picture’ people.
Interesting article about the GE Mark 1 reactor. 32 abroad, 23 in the US, the ones in the US have been retrofitted with a containment improvement to avoid trouble with hydrogen buildup; the ones at Fukushima as well. Another improvement addressed weaknesses of the torus; done for all in the US but whether Fukushima did it as well is unknown ATM.
1. Nuclear power is CO2 free!
This is nonsense.
The construction of a nuclear plant, the enormous amounts of earth and rock that has to be moved to collect uranium, the transport and containment of used fuel show a totally different picture.
But we can’t do without nuclear power long term.
Thorium reactors would make a great bridging technology.
2. Once again the claim is made that coal plants are bad because of the CO2 production.
As said many times probably to be repeated until the majority of the public finally get’s the picture: CO2 is not a climate driver but a highly beneficial gas that promoted plant growth and is an integral part of the natural life cycle.
Any other view is without scientific merit and should be regarded as pure propaganda for the Green doctrine.
How much more radiation will spread around Germany and its neighbors if they increase the burning of coal? How much radioactivity is spread from a coal plant each year?
Interesting question. I quote a comment from WUWT:
“The Banana Index:
The hyping of the Three Mile Island event on TV thoughout the week is typical of people’s misunderstanding of exposure to radiation. The exposure of the public from TMI radiation was equal to eating a banana (bananas have Potassium 40 in them). CNN has it that ‘No one died!” at TMI. Well, eating a banana doesn’t usually kill people.
I just returned from Ulaanbaatar where ‘greens’ shriek about ‘uranium contamination and radiation from burning coal’. The matter was studied to death and here is so little radiation that it pales in comparison to standing outside, or walking into a concrete building. Standing outside in the natural and continuous cosmic ray showers exposes you to 18 microsieverts. If you step into a building it increases to 26 microsieverts because the stones crushed to make concrete contain uranium (granite does, you know…). The radiation received from living in a building in Ulaabaatar is the equivalent of eating a banana every two weeks.”
So, don’t worry too much.
I should add that i’m pro-nuclear (and pro-every other energy source that makes sense – even PV can make sense in certain locations like islands). But trying to use the Green’s argument that coal burning leads to radioactivity (for whatever purpose) is just silly; it’s one of these typical contortions and doesn’t lead anywhere.
The energy No Fly Zone