A bombshell report in Germany released this morning by Cicero, a German media outlet, has uncovered that government officials manipulated documents to enable Germany’s phase out of nuclear power plants.
Top officials of Germany’s Green party, as per Cicero, manipulated expert reports to enable the shutdown to occur. Top officials from both the economics and environment ministries are said to have falsified the reports, leading to information being withheld from Economics Minister Robert Habeck.
One example of falsified reports include an internal note from the Environment Ministry in 2022, which was led by Steffi Lemke of the Greens. The note consists of an expert explanation on why the continued operation of the nuclear plants in Germany would be possible from a safety perspective. However, the note was re-written in a manner that was misleading, with the re-written note stating that the plants should not be extended for even months and that the suggestion should be “rejected for reasons of nuclear safety.”
Cicero summarizes the ordeal by stating, “The expertise of the experts in the own ministry, who were paid with taxpayers’ money, hardly played a role. Most of the time they weren’t even asked. The leadership circle of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for nuclear safety, made up of Green party soldiers, has agreed on all the essential steps among themselves. When the specialist departments of both ministries were allowed to share their assessment, it was usually ignored – or deliberately falsified.“
It seems the Green party wanted to push through with the nuclear phase-out, regardless of the cost, and despite it defying economic and scientific reason.
And as it turns out, there is still hope for nuclear energy in Germany – expert opinions, which were previously not released, have indicated that at least five of the last six German nuclear power plants could be reactivated and begin generating power once again. Two different political parties in Germany, the CDU and CSU, have already indicated they intend to do as much should they return to power.
More to come.
Information for this story was found via the sources and companies mentioned. The author has no securities or affiliations related to the organizations discussed. Not a recommendation to buy or sell. Always do additional research and consult a professional before purchasing a security. The author holds no licenses.
9 Responses
Why do fossil fuels “need to be replaced”? Life as we know it without fossil fuels would be impossible, and l’m not talking about just energy. More than 6,000 products, from drugs to plastics, clothing and fabrics, foods and fertilizers are made from them. When did a windmill produce a household object like a wash basin or TV cabinet?
They don’t need to completely replaced, but by far the biggest uses of fossil fuels are domestic heat, fueling transportation, industrial power (heat and electricity), and electricity. If we phase those out, our fossil fuel reserves will last much much long for things like plastics, pharmaceuticals, and other manufactured goods vs. as an energy source. Also the impact of running out of an dominant energy source without a transition to an alternative is absolutely society-collapsing. That argument can’t be made (or at least not as strongly) for running out of fossil fuels as a raw material for manufacturing.
At the rate we have been discovering oil and gas reserves and developing extraction techniques it does not look like the “peak oil” meme is in any way a real problem for a least a few thousand years at current levels of consumption. It looks like Thomas Gold was right, and we have virtually limitless amounts of methane seeping out of a deep hot biosphere. The challenge is slowly replacing uses that have immediate negative effects like urban pollution. That should eventually reduce extraction to the rate hydrocarbons are being replenished, extended the life of the reserves to astronomic timeframes.
No morals. Dishonest.
Fanatics always believe that the ends justify the means.
That’s not alright for consumer advertising, let alone politicians and professionals paid with public money
You have to manipulate data and information to make a compelling case against nuclear power. In the USA, it has taken decades of stonewalling and mismanagement at the NRC, and hostility from fossil fuel companies to close down nuclear power. But when you examine the science, nuclear is the best hands down, despite the higher cost.
USA still better than us Canadians, we’re ruled by an epic🤡🤡🤡🤡 trudeau
By the way, the CSU is basically the Bavarian sister party of the CDU. Technically they are separate, but in practice they represent the same bloc.
and now the current admin in the US is composed of green advocates who are similarly ignoring the realities of replacing baseload electrical generation provided by fossil fuels
Not the same, fossil fuels needs to be replaced