We all want our communities to be safe. Last year, Shell made USD23.7billion in profit. It was also the hottest year on record for the planet.
Fossil fuels are the biggest contributor to the climate crisis that causes communities to push through devastating extreme weather everywhere.
Their profit is our loss
Disclaimer: Images of CEOs used in this campaign are staged and doctored for illustrative purposes. Illustrations are created without the use of regenerative AI
It has its own problems, among them:
- It is super expensive - look at the cost overruns of the projects in Great Britain and France.
- You have to deal with the radioactive Waste.
- Fuel is mainly from Russia and production is dirty.
- Building them takes very long. Too long to really help.
- They have "static" output that can't be easily regulated. This means that they will hinder renewables
In the end, you can get a lot more power generation a lot cheaper if you go for wind power.
You'll even have more than enough left over money compared to the cost of nuclear reactors to build a shitload of storage systems, too.
There are ideas for new concepts. But they don't solve the problems, they only make them a little bit less problematic.
Also, they are just concepts and have been concepts for decades, and still look far from commercial use. So those will take even longer than "classic" reactors to contribute.
@dacig @greenpeace
In Germany, they are now building wind farms where individuals and local communities can own them together.
I doubt this will ever be the case with Nuclear.
It will always be big cooperations making money with them.
You need to get your sources straight, or not talk about things you don't fully understand.
Germany doesn't procure gas from Russia anymore. Putin himself turned the gas off about half a year after he invaded Ukraine.
Germany hardly procures nuclear energy from France. Of course, the energy of France is part of the European grid, so it'd be wrong to say Germany doesn't procure any, but last year Germany has exported more energy to France than the other way around (https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1380045/umfrage/deutscher-stromhandel-mit-frankreich/).
As you say, German energy mix includes coal, LNG (mostly from the US), and natural gas from Norway etc. But this has nothing to do with turning off nuclear. Coal and natural gas have been part of the energy mix for a long time.
The nuclear plants didn't provide much to the energy mix to begin with and the German politicians simply dragged their feet about expanding the renewable grid because they were so reliant on the Russian gas (due to reasons that would take a while to explain). And by dragging their feet, I mean shenanigans like building wind turbines at a rate of >5 per year in some federal states.
Luckily this has changed and the expansion of renewable energy has gained in speed. Last year 56% of Germany's total energy has come from renewable energy sources (https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/presseinformationen/2025/oeffentliche-stromerzeugung-2024-deutscher-strommix-so-sauber-wie-nie.html#:~:text=275%2C2%20TWh%20Strom%20und,3%20Prozent%20im%20Jahr%202023.)
Now as for nuclear energy:
Germany decided to exit nuclear energy production after the accident in Fukushima. An accident that is still causing problems to Japan today, see the massive pumping of contained water into the ocean, for example. Such accidents can still happen at any moment, and even as we speak, the power plants in Ukraine are in danger of causing another disaster.
The problem of nuclear waste hasn't been solved yet either. That waste needs to be stored for around 10,000 years. And by stored I mean, it has to be safely put away and get checked regularly.
On top of that, the uran needed for nuclear energy is a finite resource. Just like oil and gas it'll eventually run out, and you'll be facing the same problem as today.
Moreover, building new nuclear power plants is expensive. The new one in England is already up to 50 billions in costs. The price for building that thing will be entirely thrown back at the consumers.
It's not about demonizing nuclear energy. It's just that too many rational reasons speak against using it.
@TobiWanKenobi @dacig @greenpeace
In fact, France depends on imports in summer, because they have to throttle or shut down reactors due to summer heat waves. Current hot summers make proper cooling impossible. And - as we all know - this will get even worse.
Also, nuclear power is not clean. Maybe in the CO2 sense, but both refinement and enrichment of nuclear fuel, as well as the waste produced are huge environmental hazards.
Germany planned to phase them out much earlier, but delayed because of the Russian invasion.
Read again my first reply - the money is better invested in renewable energy and storage. Can be built much faster and much cheaper.
Greenpeace International
Juan Per¢ent,🇲🇽 🍉,🇻🇪
Juffo-Wup
TobiWanKenobi