By P Gosselin on 16. October 2022
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
Af Jan Ainali – still picture out of File: Greta Thunberg i Bryssel.webm, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75565690
German talk show host Sandra Maischberger interviewed climate activist Greta Thunberg in her native Sweden. The interview aired on Wednesday.
Many climate policy critics see Greta Thunberg (19) as a puppet of interest groups who can’t possibly have any motivation of her own due to her young age and lack of education. It is noticeable, however, that she occasionally makes recommendations that can generate downright hatred, especially in Germany, among Green and Fridays for Future circles.
In 2019, Greta already classified nuclear power as a “small part of a big new carbon-free energy solution” – even citing publications from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
She was harshly criticized for this and avoided the topic for three years. Since the Greens began in the mid-1970s as scattered citizens’ initiatives against nuclear power plants – which only later also turned to various aspects of nature conservation – energy generation from nuclear fission has become considered as a high-risk technology, and not only in left-wing educated bourgeois circles.
The fact that the civilian use of nuclear power has resulted in far fewer deaths and injuries than, for example, modern traffic or conventional power generation, is often overlooked or deliberately not communicated. The factual situation therefore no longer plays a role here, but only its political usability.
Nevertheless, Thunberg has ventured forth once again with the topic of nuclear power – albeit cautiously – and compares it to coal power, which is also maligned. In words: “If they [the German nuclear plants] are already running, I think it would be a mistake to shut them down and turn to coal.”
In FfF circles, this can already be called courageous because Greta’s popularity is especially large in the rich and populous German-speaking countries where a green-loaded media landscape made Thunberg’s idol figure possible in the first place. Next to Stockholm, Berlin is her main field of activity and here she is always received effusively and with much attention.
From the point of view of the inclined EIKE reader, the above quote is of course at best pragmatic over the short-term, yet it does not show an attitude favorable to a sustainable economic and social welfare development. However, since Brussels redefined nuclear power as a “green” technology months ago, it can be assumed that increasingly parts of the FfF movement are also losing interest in the German government’s misguided energy policy. Perhaps in the near future Greta will already recommend the inherently safe new breeder and DFR reactor types, which already theoretically can no longer be called risky.
The fact that Greta got anointed as an expert without any objective reason is now being questioned from the point of view of nuclear power despisers.
Some in Berlin are trying to denigrate her view. The taz points to approval of Greta’s remark by the CDU conservatives and the FDP free democrats. In addition, lobbyists such as the brother of Eckart von Hirschhausen or Armin Simon are quoted:
“Greta Thunberg is mistaken when she implies that nuclear power plants could help in dealing with the current gas crisis.” (Simon)
“Nuclear power cannot be an instrument of climate policy”, (Hirschhausen, Scientists for Future).
Completely wrong – the more nuclear power plants are on the grid, the more electricity there is, and the cheaper the energy is, which is old familiar market logic. And if there is more electric power, less gas has to be burned to generate it, which benefits the bankruptcy-threatened metal and food industries. Hirschhausen is an economist and thus, in contrast to Greta, an expert. How can it be that the activist without a degree knows more about economics than the economics professor?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Greta must have gotten a talking-to from Jim Hansen.
I think she just changed Socks.
That might explain the mass (ex)stink(tion).
That didn’t even qualify as a Dad joke.
How about grandpa?
It’s a DUD as a joke.
I think the Greens oppose nuclear power because it works. Having cheap and abundant power is “ like giving an idiot child a machine gun” to quote Paul Erhlich.
People want to believe what they want to believe.
If in the present energy crises LPG can be considered to be a ” Bridging fuel” then so can Nuclear.
The Save the Planet people don’t want Nuclear. So why not
Because with no dreaded emissions of CO2 it’s perfect.
But they don’t want a solution which works, they want a State of Chaos.
The only thing they can say against Nuclear is ‘ Wbst about the Radioactive waste.
Now deep burial has been around for many years. Even better is that reactors now in production can extract every last bit of that energy from the Radioactive rods, leaving just a very dense metal ideal for Anti tank sheets.
But it’s all that they have left to scare us with.
Then they will offer us their solution.
Communism Mark two.
Michael VK5ELL
And nuclear power plants yield some very useful byproducts, such as Tritium. But if you worry about economics you can’t be Green.
Hi Michael, Do you have a link to this: “reactors now in production can extract every last bit of that energy from the Radioactive rods, leaving just a very dense metal ideal for Anti tank sheets.” i’d like to know more.
To be fair, he’s correct; nuclear can’t solve their current gas crisis. How long would it take to build enough new nuclear power plants to not only replace their gas-powered ones, but to pick up the slack and supply enough electricity to heat the homes & factories and offices that gas used to as well? How long to beef up the grid by a factor of three? And that’s even before we take replacing oil or coal into consideration?
There’s one way for Germany to pull itself out of this mess: tell its Anglo-American masters that it’ll pursue its own foreign policy… and make nice with Russia.
But that means admitting that incorporating Ukraine into the Western Borg is a lost cause, and I can’t see that happening with the current cadre of comprador “leadership”.
If Germans don’t start protesting on the streets to take back their country soon, they won’t have a country worth taking back.
Keeping the existing nuclear reactors in Germany and France running, rather than going along with the planned shutdowns may well help with the current energy crisis.
I disagree, Tom. The Germans oppose nuclear power due to all the tsunamis in Germany, just like Fukushima.
End the Nukes. We need the big experiment on Germans of what zero carbon means in practice.
Cruel, but it would be valuable.
The U.S. needs a crash-test dummy. We need a real-life example of why politicians can’t regulate away the laws of physics and economics.
But would our MarxStream Media report on it?
Germany could crash and
burnfreeze tomorrow, and in the U.S. all we’d see on the news is how successful pResident Brandon has been in fighting inflation and Climate Change֢™.Oh, and how housing has become much more affordable now. YAY! [Because your home resale value just crashed 40%, but we won’t mention that.]
Germany? *crickets*
You can fool some of …..
… the people all of the time.
We have Sri Lanki as the real-world crash test dummy. I doubt that it got more than 5 minutes of coverage and that none of THAT covered WHY the people revolted against their government.
Crash test Dummy, coming right up.
Mann says, “I do not play hide the salami with Greta.”
Ewww. I can’t unsee that hideous mental image now. I need alcohol and plenty of it!
Germany is full of dummies, just see the latest regional election results where the SPD won.
After WW I & II Germany became such a guilt ridden society that any political nonsense goes there. That was as long as the lights were on and the wallets full; lets see when this changes….
I’m a little bit more optimistic.
To draw an analogy, in UK politics it has often been (apocryphally?) said that when a Conservative Prime minister gets visited at No.10 by a delegation of “Men in grey suits” then the country is about to get a new Prime Minister.
I think in Germany the delegation is a group of German industrialists.
The EU is still largely run for the benefit of German industry, in exchange for them indirectly making significant payment for the funding of the Brussels bureaucracy. When the pain becomes great enough, change may happen surprisingly quickly.
East Berlin / West Berlin // East Germany / West Germany // Eastern Europe / Western Europe // USSR / US // North Korea / South Korea // etc, etc.
All the examples are there, but no one is paying attention.
You can’t get more energy out of the wind than it has from its velocity/
KE = 0.5*m*v^2.
But mass is m = 2*π*R*v*ρ
Where ρ is density of air and R is the blade length.
So KE = π*R*v*ρ*v^2. = π*R*ρ*v^3 the only variable is v
Energy available in the wind depends on the cube of its velocity, for the benefit of Griff
1^3 = 1
2^3 = 8
3^3 =.27
4^3 = 64
5^3 =125
6^3 =216
12^3=1726
24^3=13,824
The key numbers in m/s are 3^3 which is cut-in wind velocity and 12^3 (27mph) the optimum velocity .
24^3 is irrelevant for two reasons
Actually you can’t get more out than the Betz limit, which is 16/27ths of the energy in the wind. The reason is that some of the kinetic energy has to be used to compress the air downstream of the blades, since it moves away slower than it arrives upstream, with the difference being the energy captured. Slowing the downstream velocity more simply uses a greater share of the energy for the extra compression required.
So wrong. Compressibility is not a factor at low subsonic speeds.
The Betz limit is real.
We have had 20 years or so to learn from Spain’s example. What did we learn? We learned to not talk about it.
Those who ignore history ………..
Tough love.
No we don’t need an ‘object lesson’ or ‘experiment’ requiring the needless deaths of thousands. And shame on you for thinking that – you’re not the first to think about such mass ‘experiments’ on human beings but the last lot that tried has left an indelible mark on history that cannot and should never be forgotten. C’mon – we should be better than this guys, we should not be considering this for even a second.
Better them than us. It’s hard to forget the 😏 smirkng jerks mocking Trump’s UN speech.
What does she know? She’s over 18
but still has the IQ of an 8yr old
And, emotionally – perhaps due to a form of abuse – she might seem younger still.
I pity her – she has been treated very poorly, I believe.
Auto
GT had a very positive interview with talented, amusing, Brit journo Caitlin Moran in the London Times this weekend. Comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, bilingual. Steady speech maker to vast crowd. Personally modest, donates all her large grants to charity. Currently at university reading Economics – perhaps cold facts and numbers will modify her views. But she’s never said what her plans are for the billion and a half say without electricity who daily burn up her ‘collapsing environments’ to live.
How does interviewing another journalist produce anything new or useful? Somehow “news” show hosts, Hollywood hanger-ons, comedians and journalists have become the go-to people for scientific analyses. Oh, and throw in Michael Mann who thinks hurricanes are getting worse.
The only thing certain about tree rings is that they were for the Elven Kings. Everything else regarding temperature is speculation at best.
Yep, real experts have proven that tree rings are more of a precipitation indicator.
It’s just a tree ring circus, complete with clowns.
“… talented……..Caitlin Moran…”
There’s three words you don’t often see in the same sentence….
;¬)
It could be that as she gets older, she’s getting wiser. Or maybe she’s examined the numbers and found that renewables like wind and solar aren’t reliable enough and, beyond fossil fuels, only hydro and nuclear can do the job.
Maybe her minders have reprogrammed her campaigning material?
A possible conclusion is that puppet GT’s puppet masters realize the coming winter EU energy apocalypse, and are using her to try to walk it back.
Too little, too late.
How can it be that the activist without a degree knows more about economics than the economics professor?
Because is an activist 😀
Öhm, hmmm wrong cinema 😀
The problem with nukes is what to do with the radioactive waste. In the US the plants are keeping it in pools on site. It must be kept cool with a continuous supply of water for many years. “For instance, high-level nuclear waste remains highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years and must be disposed of in such a way that it can be securely isolated for a long period of time.” link How can we assure that? From the small amount of research I’ve done the Germans don’t know either.
My money is on fossil fuels. Coal is abundant but emits some real pollution i.e sulfur, mercury, and particulates. We can clean up most of it with scrubbers. Natural gas is very clean but the question is bow much do we really have? How fast will we exhaust it if we use it for electricity generation in addition to home heating? Methane burns clean and is apparently abundant in methane hydrate on the sea floor. We currently don’t know how to harvest it. And the greens will certainly object to any method. Nuclear fussion would be great but we’ve been unable to make it work even after decades of research. So for now focus on coal and natural gas. Find ways of collecting methane hydrate. Just my 2 cents worth.
1) In the late 20th Century the U.S. Federal government legally committed to providing a long-term storage site for all nuclear power generation wastes by some date that is now long gone. After all is said and done, I expect low-population (and little political clout) Nevada will be the hole-in-the-ground selected. For everybody afraid of nuclear waste, I ask them do they know what “Nevada Test Site” stands for. It is the site outside of Las Vegas (my home) where they tested America’s nuclear weapons. Tourists and locals would stand on the tops of high-rise hotels to watch the mushroom clouds. With constant and detailed health monitoring of people (downwinders) down-wind of the site no adverse health effects have been found.
2) Geology.com: “Methane hydrate is a crystalline solid that consists of a methane molecule surrounded by a cage of interlocking water molecules.” “To date there has been no large-scale commercial methane production from gas hydrate deposits. All of the production has either been small scale or experimental.” It is my understanding that there are significant problems in getting the methane out of its water “shell.” We need energy now.
The U.S. spent 20 years and over $20 billion nuclear industry funds to locate a suitable site and demonstrate it could contain high level radioactive waste for 10,000 years using worst case bounding estimates. They even had to consider the probability of asteroid strikes and magma intrusions, all to protect a stupid clueless downgradient farmer at some dim future time who might be fool enough to irrigate his crops with groundwater that centuries ago had leached through the mountain to his aquifer. Yucca Mountain. Ready to go into operation, President Obummer shut it down as one of his first acts as president as a political favor to the senator from Nevada.
Yes, ready and waiting.
Did you know that the oldest deep ocean is only 220 million years old. Therefore if you drop the hazardous waste in the Mariana deep (near Japan it would not resurface for a long long time. Because the subduction zones cleanse the abysmal plains.
Fair comments.
We just await the Apocalypse. 🙄
What do you do with the so called radioactive waste?
Reprocess it and turn it into new fuel. Waste gone. Problem gone.
Mostly works but still some waste left
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-nuclear-fuel/?sh=4615d5b8390f
Many years ago it was suggested we drop bullet shaped glass logs not the deep ocean where they will sink into miles deep sediments. It sounded cheap and easy to do but OMG the ocean!
Can’t happen in the USA. Mainly because they’ve never really had a civilian reprocessing centre – that may change in the next few years so could be interesting to see if it can reprocess the huge stockpile of material that’s just sitting around.
David,
Actually the waste problem is easily solved…google ‘Synroc’. But of course the Greenpeace types don’t want any solution.
Basically you make a synthetic rock with a pinch of the nasty stuff safely locked into the crystal lattice of selected minerals in the synthetic rock.
The real benefit comes form making it a solid waste; more thermally and radioactively stable over geological timeframes that the borosilicate glasses now used (eg the French). You then bury this a couple of kilometeres underground encased in stainless steel and wrapped and backfilled with carbaonaceous shale in boreholes. Carbonaceous shale is what traps uranium in groundwarter to make orebodies so any leakage is immobilised, essentially forever at great depth. Three very robust levels of protection.
OK, it’s not as cheap as swimming pool ‘solution’ but is a realistic very long term solution. Would only add a few % to the cost of electricity.
Why not just take that synthetic rock and dump it into the Marinas Trench subduction zone so that it can be reabsorbed into earth’s core? It’s not like the added radiation down there would be noticed.
There’s an international treaty prohibiting ocean dumping: the 1993 London Convention.
Sub seabed disposal of nuclear waste has been considered for many years but never seems to have got anywhere.
Wet storage pools are just for short term cooling off. Then the waste is moved to dry cask storage. A good deal of what is stored as “waste” is actually recoverable fuel.
You can look at a Google Earth view of Plant Vogtle and find the nuclear waste storage yard. Unit 1 went online in 1987 and Unit 2 in 1989. All the waste produced by both reactors since startup is still on site. The storage yard has a strip with what looks like designated spots for 80 casks; there are currently 10 occupied. In the existing fenced area there is easily space for another strip of 80 casks, and the fenced area could be at least doubled by incorporating the adjacent area to the north.
Reactor 3 started fuel load October 14 on schedule for an in-service date 4th quarter this year; Reactor 4 should follow 6 months later. That will roughly double the nuclear waste production rate. The existing area is easily large enough to hold the waste of all four reactors through their end-of-life (assuming they run 80 years each) Units 1 and 2 are currently licensed to run 60 years and applications for another 20 years beyond that (to 2067 and 2069) are already in the preliminary stage.
See Google Earth view of Plant Vogtle dry cask storage yard.
Nuclear fission has several million times the energy density of combustion. Given an expanding population with expectations of a better standard of living, I don’t see how we can walk away from such a massive increase in energy density.
IIRC, there is a Jimmy Carter-era law against recycling and reusing this waste.
Did that extend to depleted waste, or just partially depleted?
We already use natural gas for home heating and industrial processes.
Vitrification of High Level Nuclear Waste (HLW) has been carried out in France, Japan, Russia, UK and US for over three decades. The HLW is incorporated in borosilicate glass as an insoluble solid waste that will remain stable for many thousands of years.
Other HL wastes are mixed with additives to form a slurry, dried to a powder, sealed in cans and heat and pressure is applied to lock in the radionuclides. The powder mixture fuses together without releasing any emissions. Product is called Synroc.
The problem with nuclear waste is the political will to do anything about it. We once were going to put it in abandoned mines in New Hampshire, IIRC. But New Hampshire had some political juice at the time and the site was moved to the Nevada Test Site.
Many considered the Nevada Test Site to be geologically less-suitable but we spent years and billions on how to make it work. Then Nevada got juice (or “vig” in Vegas-speak) when Harry Reid became Senate Majority Leader and Obama POTUS. Barry owed Harry big-time for his lie about Romney’s taxes and in return, shut everything down.
And that’s where we are today — stuck in limbo and forbidden to reuse and recycle nuclear waste.
dingy harry is dead now. perhaps if the opposition party gains office in Nevada the Yucca Mountain facility can be reopened and fitted out for its intended purpose to store nuclear wastes
I read somewhere you could fit all the nuclear waste in the world in the end zone of a football field and it would be about 8 foot high
No wonder. He studied in Boulder, the communist center of America. I know, l lived relatively close to it for years. I also worked at the adjacent Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant just before it was raided by the FBI (back when the FBI were the good guys).
Who knows? Maybe Greta has started reading WUWT and picked up a thing or two about the importance of reliable power. 🙂
gretas neighbor norway is raking in Huge windfall profits selling FF to UK and elsewhere . they could care less what greta thinks
So a nearly totally uneducated kid that looked like she could not even be bothered to get out of her pajamas for a TV interview says something semi-rational for once and people go nuts.
They will turn on her.
Leftard playbook 101.
That could be an interesting fight. Can I put in an order for popcorn now please?
The Candu reactor of Canada is the best, cheapest to build and most reliable, but chauvinism runs deep in the global nuclear industry. Canada’s Chalk River, Ontario research facility even built the first molten salt/breeder reactor (all the rage today as hope for the future!) in 1947 and ran it for 50 years! They collaborated with Oak Ridge on their 1953 molten salt reactor and US Atomic Energy ordered it shutdown a decade later. The reason? It didnt produce plutonium for weaponry.
Some info on this remarkable Candu tech:
– its modular, $CDN350million each (maybe 500 now) and seemingly unknown outside the country, the worlds largest nuke power station has operated at Bruce Point, Ontario for many decades (made up of 7 identical modules). I recently learned that S Korea now has a larger one – you guessed it – it’s a Candu, too. China cut its baby teeth on the Candu, too. Britain in the 70s did a joint venture with the Candu folk on a plant, but a few years later backed out and on their own, built a neanderthal plant that had a several billion overrun and never operated. T
-it uses unenriched yellowcake and heavy water instead of going through the enrichment process. This has a synergistic effect burning other isotopes than just the U235.
-because of another innovation not taken up by other world nuke makers for some reason, the Candu is the only nuke that doesnt need to shut down to refuel (a different configuration of fuel rods) a dream of many commenters on future dev.
-The Candu has virtually trouble free ops (worker spilling a cup of coffee goes for a nuclear accident in Canada). The invariable scheme is a planned obsolescence schedule of 23 years, with an upgrade kit for extension to a 40yr life.
– far and away the cheapest power cost. The latest, improved upgrade generates power at a cost CDN 2½cents/kWh – less than US 2cents!!!! It nullifies the 100s of millions of words written and tattooed on brains
of unaffordable nuclear.
A smear campaign by other global manufacturers and anti nuke activists floods the internet. They do this because they know Candu would sweep the table if its performance, reliability, safety, power costs, etc were to become known. Such stories as a Candu in india, tech supplied by Canada, construction by India ran into metal cracking propblems and had to be shut down. Meanwhile in Canada, performance has been sterling since inception over 70yrs ago as have their projects in Korea, China, Argentina, etc.
Excellent report.
Thanks, it’s hard to get a reply on this subject.
You sold me on Candu. 🙂
My understanding of CANDU’s limitation is the expense of the heavy water moderator limits scalability. Of course at the rate we’re managing to build reactors of any kind, it should be possible to produce heavy water fast enough.
Another feature is Candu uses 15 percent less fuel per kWh than other types because extra neutrons emitted cause fission of U238 along with the small amount of U235 in the unenriched product. You are also spared the enrichment costs and U238 in the enriched fuel doesnt participate in the fusion. Technically, it would seem possible for the standard nuke plant to put a module of Candu with it and feed with its waste to wake up the U238 thrown away at a cost of 2cents/ kWh..
France had considerable beneficial collaboration with Chalk River in its in early days of its nuclear. I’m frankly surprised that they are beset with brittle/leaking piping shutting down a sizable part of their nuclear. Canada’ s fleet with engineered obsolescence at 23 years with a upgrade for an additional 17 years preempts this problem. Also the modular design makes it constructable in 3yrs (I believe) and the design was vetted long ago. We have multi-unit plants operating within Greater Toronto city limits! Nobody seems concerned. They’ve been there since 1965.
Gary, yes Candu is a great technology…well remember walking around and almost into one of the Pickering or maybe Darlington units back in the 1970’s(?) before it went online.
The online refueling is a great asset.
However, I think they’re not completely trouble-free. Weren’t quite a few units shut down about a decade ago to deal with leaks or cracks somewhere in the plumbing? Presumably any built these days would have that issue sorted out though. We do actually learn and make things safer over the decades (eg. cars, planes, nuclear reactors).
There’s a large comprehensive refit program to extend all of Ontario’s large reactors for operations into the 2060s. The Provincial Government announced that it was seeking an operating extension of four Pickering reactors subject to a full engineering study on life-extending them as well. Naturally the antinuclear industry and the Toronto Star and the Liberal Party of Ontario and the socialist New Democratic Party are all going ballistic.
Candu reactors produce Tritium, an essential feedstock for D-T fusion reactors when they eventually reach operating scale:
https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started
Time to start building a lot more of them?
If you read the wind power literature, you will find that nuclear power is the greatest negative factor for wind power or solar. This is because the nuclear plants run 24/7 and they don’t care what the current price of electricity is. The fuel is paid for and it’s use it or lose it. Since nuclear power cannot be ramped up and down like natural gas, the plants just run flat out.
A wind power farm or solar farm with plenty of power to sell when the wind is blowing or the sun is shinning can find out that the price they can command is severely limited by nuclear power plants, and the presence of such plants on the grid is a big predictor of renewable power curtailments.
This explains why the Greens want to shut down nuclear power and build inefficient open cycle natural gas power plants as the bridge to a green future. Pure deception. Pure evil.
So, the worst nightmare for the renewable industry is nuclear power.
Well said Joel.
There is so much opposition to nuclear power plants but these greens that are against nuclear and coal and gas are either brainless or their end goal is to drastically reduce the worlds energy production and population .
There is no other rational for their thinking as affordable energy is essential now that the worlds population will pass 4 billion next month.
I grew up without electric power and have worked over sixty hours a week for many years farming before modern tractors and excavators became available.
Without electric power and diesel powered machines the heavy work would again be performed with MAN power . A lot harder than driving a computer .
I met a elderly chap yesterday and he had worked on installing the first gas line in New Zealand .
He told me he worked 84 hours a week 12 hours a day to complete the project and they had excavators and bulldozers .
Would these greenies ever think of working those hours today .
They have never thought what could happen if countries run out of energy .
I must note that the world population is not 4 billion but 8 billion.
Actually, Joel, nuclear power can be ramped. France’s EdF operates a number of its nearly 60 reactors on load-following.
Interesting. Are these plants specifically designed to load follow?
This paper from University of Groningen, Holland found
“when there is a large installed capacity of renewables investing in a nuclear plant is more efficient than further extending the renewable capacity” and
“this implies it is more efficient to install a nuclear power plant than renewable technologies to reduce carbon emissions”
CEER Policy Paper 12 ‘Economic value of nuclear power in future energy systems’, May 2022
https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/economic-value-of-nuclear-power-in-future-energy-systems-required.
That’s what skeptics have been saying all along. 🙂
I think the biggest opposition is to things that actually work.
Yeah but they all make a lot more f money net ff it in the short run.
as a schoolboy in the late 60s, I recall reading articles in science magazines of the day which portended a day when atomic power is so prevalent that electricity would be essentially free of charge
Apparently, Greta Cyborg has been reprogrammed by her Globalist handlers.
Greta needs to finish school
Greta has finished schools, and colleges, and universities and apprentiships.
Pretty well finished the whole lot with her ignorant green whining.
Didn’t she attend Finnish Schools?
Damn few economics professors know anything.
Are these the economic professors that throw a fit when the PM proposes a tax cut? Or more correctly, proposes to not increase taxes?
I had to be careful because I am a fan of Milton Friedman, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.
Doesn’t AOC claim to have a degree in economics? Hahaha!
AOC is able to make change at the bar.
French eco prof and univ co-president Sandrine Ruisseau say we need a shock of un-productivity with less working days and more people doing agriculture… Everything and the oppositive of everything. Also she wants jihad terrorists back in France so we can monitor them closely, instead of leaving them in Irak and Afganistan
Never heard of her but she is a crackpot.
Last I knew the final three operational German nuclear plants were all scheduled to shut down this December. The government announced in early September they would keep two of them “available on an emergency backup status“. Not sure what that means in terms of how soon they could be brought back online.
It will take far more than a press interview with Greta to reverse course. Maybe Greta can convince some fellow activists to super-glue themselves to the reactor controls so they can’t be shut down …
If we could just convince them to glue themselves to the reactor core while it’s at full power.
Have you noticed that since the French FN party (national front) is financed by Russian banks, MLP (Marine Le Pen), now “Russian agent” has turned her doctrine objectively against Russia by supporting nuke after saying it was dangerous?
I’m not accustomed to accepting lectures on energy from petulant teenaged high school dropouts.
Greta only became a figure of notoriety because she echoed the sentiments of the Progressive elite and mainstream media. Now that she’s attacking Progressive sacred cows and has long since passed her expiration date of political usefulness, I expect her to disappear from the public consciousness soon.
Why she is still in the spotlight is the question. A child, on the mental spectrum, didn’t even finish standard school, and captures peoples imagination?
Why are child pop stars followed by young people?
Publicity agents and clever marketing.
She won’t be in the spotlight much longer if she doesn’t get right-think.
As most people now know Greta was always a child actress and recruited by climate hoax activists as a “role model” for young people, like a pop star created public relations image.
So the switch to supporting nuclear is obviously a political agenda decision, the globalists always have ulterior motives.
Presumably worried about the pesky far right that don’t like freezing in the dark-
Bavarian Prime Minister warns of a possible resurgence of the far right due to the energy crisis (msn.com)
motives easy
theyre waking up to the fact they may be tarred n feathered soon
at best
Greenies are transitioning fast-
Greens narrowly support plan to extend use of coal to generate electricity (msn.com)
Since the Greens began in the mid-1970s as scattered KGB created/funded “citizens’ initiatives” against nuclear power plants.
Fixed it for you…