LyrArc Article Gist
A nuclear plant in a war zone with repeated shelling? This is taken up in this debate video of 44 minutes in FR24 which you can click on. The world has not seen this since the start of nuclear energy from plants in the 1950's. Calder Hall the first UK nuclear power station and the first in western Europe started in 1956. Eisenhower opened the first US nuclear power station Shippingport on the Ohio river in Pennsylvania, 50 kilometres from Pittsburgh in 1958 as part of the Atoms for Peace Program. The US built 54 nuclear plants that are operating today in 2022 generating 50% of the renewable energy in use today in the US. The question is what does the unthinkable conducted by the Russians and Ukrainians, by weaponizing a nuclear plant do to public perception of the safety of the Atoms for Peace Program initiated by president Eisenhower in 1954? What does this damaging of public safety perceptions after Fukushima do to the Atoms for Peace type of programs in China India, and European Union that are part of the emissions cutting programs in the world? These are serious questions at a time when climate change is not simply a word but means floods, fires, drought, and declining food production all over the world from Spain to Pakistan, from Germany to China. China and India are affected. China has 53 nuclear plants in 2021 with 50 GW and plans to double this by 2030. India has 22 nuclear plants  with 8 GW in 2021 and plans to triple this to 22 GW by 2030. How will climate change be tackled with public safety perceptions affected with another nuclear accident like that in Fukushima arising from shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. As the president of the UN Security Council Zhang Jun of China clearly stated at the UN SC meeting last week that China opposed use of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant by Russia (or Ukraine) in any way that could lead to damaging nuclear safety leading to an unintended accident. China only gets about 5% of its energy from nuclear, India about 3%, and this will need to increase multiple times to tackle climate change. France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear, the US 20%, by comparison. Nuclear energy safety and clear rules to prevent weaponizing of nuclear plant zones is essential and a solution like that developed for the food grain shipments from Odessa through Black Sea to the Mediterranean has to be arranged quickly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A recent survey by Der Spiegel shows three quarters of Germans want to continue operating the 3 remaining nuclear plants. 78% support keeping them running to 2023, and 67% support keeping them for 5 more years. The idea is that they can be used in this emergency. Even a majority of Green party support keeping them running to 2023. This is a profound change in German opinion.

LyrArc Article Gist
With the 15% mandated cuts to energy use in the European Union countries and the shutoff of Russian gas supplies, three remaining German nuclear plants can be run for an extended period to take off some of the strain on the German economy. Sentiment for nuclear power is changing in Germany. A Spiegel opinion poll is cited in this WSJ editorial that shows 78% of Germans favor keeping the three remaining nuclear plants operating till summer 2023, and 67% say it is a good idea to keep them running for 5 years.  The issues of nuclear vs solar, or coal and gas vs solar is not a yes or no proposition anymore as shown in the negotiated measures to allow some coal and gas operations in the US in the Biden Climate Change bill that passed the US Senate on August 7, 2022. This is not merely a concession to a fossil fuel dependent state (West Virginia) and Senator Manchin, this is a realization that the transition can be better managed economically and the same results for renewable energy and climate change emissions goals can be met with a carefully planned  strategy that allows for LNG exports to Europe, and fossil fuel production flexibility in the face of the embargo on Russian fossil fuel supplies. ...