>German Green ministers have reiterated their opposition to the EU Commission’s consideration of classifying nuclear power as a “sustainable” form of energy production. “I don’t think nuclear power is the right technology,” Economy and Climate Minister Robert Habeck told Deutschlandfunk radio on Monday. Environment Minister Steffi Lemke said in Brussels that she saw “no added value from nuclear power on the way to climate neutrality.”
The classification is part of the Commission’s planned new taxonomy for sustainable forms of energy. This was supposed to be presented in December; according to EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, however, the presentation of the list of “green” investments has since been postponed until probably mid-January.
“I hope that we will then be able to present our final proposal in mid-January,” Breton told “Welt am Sonntag.” In addition to nuclear power, this also involves the classification of gas as a climate-friendly transition technology, which is also controversial.Habeck and Lemke again strongly rejected a renaissance of nuclear power in the EU. It will now be very important “that the Commission proposes the right thing,” said the Economics and Climate Minister.
No benefit for climate protection, says Lemke
“I can say that the German government’s position that nuclear power is not a sustainable form of energy still stands,” Lemke also stressed ahead of consultations of EU environment ministers in Brussels. Accordingly, the taxonomy was not officially on the agenda there on Monday, but Lemke spoke of “intensive talks on this at various levels” and with open results.
“I don’t see at all how the classification of nuclear power as a sustainable form of energy use is supposed to advance climate protection,” the German environment minister said. She also referred to the difficult search for a final repository for nuclear waste in Germany, which “shows how problematic the use of nuclear power is.” In addition, contrary to what is sometimes portrayed, it involves a “high expenditure of resources”.
*** Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ***
[deleted]
France doesn’t agree.
Hopefully the new Dutch government will indeed realise 2 nuclear powerplants. That’d be great
Man, Habeck just never learns.
So his previous statements before election was pure pandering, as we expected.
Ýou guys in here do realize that we need to reach the climate goals in 20 Years.
A new nuclear plant will not be running in that time. Since theire were no in planning anyway.
Also nuclear is not the answer anymore.
it may be a answer in the future. But only for the still emitting Stuff we put undergrund, certainly not sourcing new Uranium. It jsut is to dangerous and too expensive.
If you want to know why nuclear is not the answer for our energy demands:
renewable sources are way cheaper, are not a potential and actual envoirment hazzard, are way cheaper in production, planning and actual producing power. Also they dont produce waste taht we dont know where to put.
The heating of houses needs to be adressed but their is nuclear also not the answer. It oculd be ins some places but it certainly is not the answer in general and again we need it sooner than 20 years. Also the most effeicent way to heat up water is a Heatexchanger, which will be installed in mostplaces combined with more insulation.
The newest Austrian chancellor made a statement last week saying “we will fight against nuclear power to the end, but we expect to lose the battle.” So there’s that.
F*ck him
Very wise. Why risk nuclear accidents and create a build up of toxic waste that harms the environment wherever it is dumped when you can get ample energy from solar, wind and water? Energy that doesn’t come with the risk of toxic waste and radioactive fallout.
The greens’ roots are in the movement against nuclear…why would anyone expect differently?
What is it with redditors and their love for nuclear? As things stand it is much to expensive and the construction of a nuclear reactor is 10+ years. Where is the connection to climate change? In 2035, when the first ones could be ready, there will be no coal power plants anymore, they will be priced out of the market. I’m starting to suspect the nuclear lobby is just doing a great advertising job…
Nuclear vs Coal vs Gas!
I understand that nuclear might not be the greenest alternative, but it sure is greener than gas and coal!
Bearing in mind that we have no autonomy in gas….
And remember, change happens one step at the time
Fucking Habeck. You are supposed to like nuclear because *you are a bloody Green*. Goddam I hate this debate.
13 comments
>German Green ministers have reiterated their opposition to the EU Commission’s consideration of classifying nuclear power as a “sustainable” form of energy production. “I don’t think nuclear power is the right technology,” Economy and Climate Minister Robert Habeck told Deutschlandfunk radio on Monday. Environment Minister Steffi Lemke said in Brussels that she saw “no added value from nuclear power on the way to climate neutrality.”
The classification is part of the Commission’s planned new taxonomy for sustainable forms of energy. This was supposed to be presented in December; according to EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, however, the presentation of the list of “green” investments has since been postponed until probably mid-January.
“I hope that we will then be able to present our final proposal in mid-January,” Breton told “Welt am Sonntag.” In addition to nuclear power, this also involves the classification of gas as a climate-friendly transition technology, which is also controversial.Habeck and Lemke again strongly rejected a renaissance of nuclear power in the EU. It will now be very important “that the Commission proposes the right thing,” said the Economics and Climate Minister.
No benefit for climate protection, says Lemke
“I can say that the German government’s position that nuclear power is not a sustainable form of energy still stands,” Lemke also stressed ahead of consultations of EU environment ministers in Brussels. Accordingly, the taxonomy was not officially on the agenda there on Monday, but Lemke spoke of “intensive talks on this at various levels” and with open results.
“I don’t see at all how the classification of nuclear power as a sustainable form of energy use is supposed to advance climate protection,” the German environment minister said. She also referred to the difficult search for a final repository for nuclear waste in Germany, which “shows how problematic the use of nuclear power is.” In addition, contrary to what is sometimes portrayed, it involves a “high expenditure of resources”.
*** Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ***
[deleted]
France doesn’t agree.
Hopefully the new Dutch government will indeed realise 2 nuclear powerplants. That’d be great
Man, Habeck just never learns.
So his previous statements before election was pure pandering, as we expected.
Ýou guys in here do realize that we need to reach the climate goals in 20 Years.
A new nuclear plant will not be running in that time. Since theire were no in planning anyway.
Also nuclear is not the answer anymore.
it may be a answer in the future. But only for the still emitting Stuff we put undergrund, certainly not sourcing new Uranium. It jsut is to dangerous and too expensive.
If you want to know why nuclear is not the answer for our energy demands:
renewable sources are way cheaper, are not a potential and actual envoirment hazzard, are way cheaper in production, planning and actual producing power. Also they dont produce waste taht we dont know where to put.
The heating of houses needs to be adressed but their is nuclear also not the answer. It oculd be ins some places but it certainly is not the answer in general and again we need it sooner than 20 years. Also the most effeicent way to heat up water is a Heatexchanger, which will be installed in mostplaces combined with more insulation.
The newest Austrian chancellor made a statement last week saying “we will fight against nuclear power to the end, but we expect to lose the battle.” So there’s that.
F*ck him
Very wise. Why risk nuclear accidents and create a build up of toxic waste that harms the environment wherever it is dumped when you can get ample energy from solar, wind and water? Energy that doesn’t come with the risk of toxic waste and radioactive fallout.
The greens’ roots are in the movement against nuclear…why would anyone expect differently?
What is it with redditors and their love for nuclear? As things stand it is much to expensive and the construction of a nuclear reactor is 10+ years. Where is the connection to climate change? In 2035, when the first ones could be ready, there will be no coal power plants anymore, they will be priced out of the market. I’m starting to suspect the nuclear lobby is just doing a great advertising job…
Nuclear vs Coal vs Gas!
I understand that nuclear might not be the greenest alternative, but it sure is greener than gas and coal!
Bearing in mind that we have no autonomy in gas….
And remember, change happens one step at the time
Fucking Habeck. You are supposed to like nuclear because *you are a bloody Green*. Goddam I hate this debate.