there are millions being poured into propaganda against using anything but fossil fuels, much of it stems from there. But i wonder if its better this way or the alternative way where we would use more nuclear energy but since there would be so much money to be made, the rich would use their money to make all safety regulations null. I wish we could just get rid of the source problem.
That's a crazy oversimplification almost all German party's had a part in the phase out and shut down of German nuclear energy. To point at the Greens and say it was them, is a right wing talking point pushed by Springer media.
If there was a way to make good money with nuclear we would have it all around. To say a grass roots movement was able to push this through is laughable, if we look how everything else works in this world. While surely way better to handle securely it's simply not easy to build and operate. Just look at all the plants currently under construction in Europe, they all struggle to get finished, take years to decades longer then planned and are way more expensive to build then initially estimated. Why is France struggling so hard when they have a population that is definitely way more open minded towards nuclear?
The curse of Private-Public Partnerships (P3s) means middle-men sapping all the value out of long-term government projects. We simply cannot trust these organizations with our energy infrastructure.
Well I mean if you take a look at Flamanville Block 3. If you call that a smooth an unproblematic construction... They startet in 2007 wanted to produce energy by 2012, for the construction cost of 3.3 bn Euro. It's still not connected to the network, though it's sceduled for the end of the year and construction cost went up to 13.2bn (EDF) or 19bn (Cour des comptes) whoever you want to believe.
That is what I was talking about, France is the most experienced country in Europe concerning nuclear energy and have serious problems with it. If you want to blame it on European regulations, be my guest.