German scientist admits nuclear decommissioning takes priority over fighting climate change

By agreenerlifeagreenerworld on September 2, 2015 • ( 3 Comments )

A French nuclear power plant. Photo credit: Daniel Jolivet via Flickr.

By Anders Lorenzen

A nuclear row has unfolded on Twitter between clean energy enthusiasts, over whether Germany’s effort in cutting emissions have been hampered by their rapid phase out of their nuclear power plants.

It all started when the American editor of the PV Magazine, Christian Roselund praised the founder of the clean energy analyst company, Bloomberg New Energy Foundation (BNEF), Michael Liebreich, for an article on the energy transition. Liebreich obviously referring to different views on energy policy asked if they were friends again? Roselund then said that he referred the right to challenge him on the Tories (Liebreich is a member of the party) and feed-in tariffs. And then, at once, the row was established with a sharp comment by Liebreich in, which he said he also reserved the right to mock him about Germany’s hypocrisy in talking about climate change, but acting to shut zero-carbon, safe nuclear! The German energy analyst and Political Scientist Arne Jungjohann entered the row in aggressive manner saying: Mock it if German govt weakened its climate target. It didn’t. So move on.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

.@croselund Does this mean we’re friends again? 🙂

— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 19, 2015

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

.@croselund And I shall continue to mock Germany’s hypocrisy, talking about climate change but acting to shut zero-carbon, safe nuclear!

— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 19, 2015

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Imaging the leadership Germany could have displayed at COP21 Paris had it not shut nuclear and kept coal going! @ArneJungjohann @croselund

— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 22, 2015

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

@MLiebreich @ArneJungjohann The numbers don’t support the myth that the nuclear shutdown made much of a difference. http://t.co/Nv91QF00wg

— Christian Roselund (@croselund) August 22, 2015

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

.@croselund @ArneJungjohann Don’t be absurd. You can’t shut zero-carbon generation, keep using coal, and make no difference to emissions.

— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 22, 2015

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

.@croselund @ArneJungjohann No numbers required. However much RE you’re building, you would have more zero carbon power if you kept nuclear.

— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 23, 2015

It then gets technical while the discussion goes back and forwards.Liebreich then moves to declare that we should not choose between nuclear and renewables:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

.@JoyceGorisdGeus @SolarFred @croselund We need to dispel the myth that we have to choose between #nuclear and #renewables. It’s cobblers.

— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 24, 2015

Others entered the debate highlighting the safety issue of nuclear:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

.@SolarFred @croselund Do the math: nuclear power deaths/TWh are same order of magnitude as wind and solar. Including #Chernobyl.

— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 19, 2015

And here it really becomes interesting when Arne essentially admits that Germany priorities decommissioning nuclear over fighting climate change:

.@ArneJungjohann @croselund Marginal, marginal. Prioritising nuclear neurosis over climate action will simply never impress me. Are we done?

— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 22, 2015

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Have those in Germany, too. They are terrible. And still: Nukes go first, coal is next. @MLiebreich @brucenilles @croselund

— ArneJJ (@ArneJungjohann) August 22, 2015

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Nuclear has become a toxic issue in the debate of whether it should be a part of the strategy to tackle climate change. The majority of green groups dismisses nuclear as solution, and many campaigns against it, which are echoed by many environmentalists. However some high profile people who wants to see action on climate change, Michael Liebreich included, see nuclear as a solution.

A new book, Climate Gamble, co-authored by the Finnish energy writer Rauli Partanen asks if anti nuclear activism is endangering our ability to tackle climate change.

Related news:

The energy to fight injustice

Analysis: Does nuclear have a future?

Is France moving away from pledge to reduce nuclear capacity?

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Never miss a story, sign up to our weekly newsletter: