nuclear power

Ursula von der Leyen Calls Abandoning Nuclear Power “A Strategic Mistake” – 15 Years After Supporting the Nuclear Phase-Out

2 days ago
Guest Blogger
98 Comments

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Eugyppius

In 2011, when Angela Merkel decided that Germany had to phase out nuclear power because things like earthquakes and tsunamis happen in Japan, Ursula von der Leyen was Labour Minister and also vice-chair of the CDU. In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, von der Leyen defended Merkel’s decision, insisting that her government had “to respond to the new developments”: the Fukushima disaster, she said, had shown everyone “that the unthinkable has now become possible – a worst-case accident in a high-technology country”.

Germany has spent the years since 2011 systematically shutting down its own nuclear reactors and also lobbying other European nations to do the same. Thanks to this very dumb policy which von der Leyen openly supported, our power has got a lot more expensive and our industry a lot less competitive.

Today, von der Leyen is President of the European Commission, and she has decided that maybe the phase-out wasn’t such a great idea after all. Far from abandoning nuclear energy, she now wants the EU to be become a world-leading “pioneer in nuclear technology”:

While in 1990 one-third of Europe’s energy came from nuclear, today it’s only close to 15%. This reduction in the share of nuclear was a choice. And in hindsight, it was as strategic mistake for Europe to turn its back on a reliable, affordable source of low-emission power. This should change. … Nuclear energy is reliable, providing electricity all year around the clock. … Europe has been a pioneer in nuclear technology and could once against lead the world in it.

This of course doesn’t mean Germany will re-embrace nuclear power. That will never happen: the damage von der Leyen helped work is wrought. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said that while he agrees with von der Leyen’s views, “This has no implications for Germany, because the German federal government has already decided to phase out nuclear energy” and “that decision is irreversible”.

This article originally appeared on Eugyppius’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service.
4.9 16 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
Register
98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Toland
March 11, 2026 2:11 am

We are being governed by morons. 15 years ago, the lunatics who wanted to replace nuclear power with utterly useless wind and solar were told that this course of action could never work. It has taken this long for some of them to accept that renewable energy has been an unmitigated disaster with zero redeeming features. Unfortunately, too many politicians are still pushing renewable energy; Ed Miliband makes morons look like geniuses.

81
bobclose
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 11, 2026 4:30 am

All true Bill. Regarding Germanys decision never to reopen nuclear plants- “that decision is irreversible”. is of course total nonsense. They could reopen them tomorrow if by not doing so
they would lose their precious jobs and prestige. It’s not life or death for these dozy politicians-yet!

29
Ron Long
Reply to  bobclose
March 11, 2026 5:08 am

bobclose, you are right-on to call out the “that decision is irreversible” comment. Any politician making that kind of comment ha a personal agenda, and to know what it is, you usually just need to follow the money.

20
ColA
Reply to  Ron Long
March 11, 2026 2:40 pm

European car makers are paying Chinese car makers to reduce the price of Chinese cars in Europe, you couldn’t make this sh*t up!!

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/03/10/volkswagen-loses-half-their-profit-now-plan-to-cut-50000-jobs-over-next-four-years/#more-281419

2
cgh
Reply to  bobclose
March 11, 2026 6:28 am

No, they can’t be reopened now. Having been shutdown without any intention of future restart, their internal systems, particularly steam and electrical systems, will be badly decayed or already removed for scrap. You cannot simply “restart” an NPP, anywhere, ever, once it’s shut down.

2
MarkW
Reply to  bobclose
March 11, 2026 6:29 am

Plants that have been shutdown can’t be reopened tomorrow.
First off many of them have been dismantled.
Of the few that weren’t dismantled, they have been rusting and rotting for years. There is lots of maintenance that will have to be done before they can be “reopened”.

7
KevinM
Reply to  MarkW
March 11, 2026 8:20 am

Replying to two similar comments in a row
“Plants that have been shutdown can’t be reopened tomorrow.”
is very different from
“Plants that have been shutdown can’t be reopened.“

12
isthatright
Reply to  bobclose
March 11, 2026 6:50 am

Reopening some of the nuclear plants would very difficult since some of the local governments burnished their anti-nuke credentials by blowing up the cooling towers. Germany now has some of the highest energy costs in the world, thanks to Merkel and Van der Leyen.

7
atticman
Reply to  isthatright
March 11, 2026 2:10 pm

New cooling towers can be built much more easily than new reactors.

5
hiskorr
Reply to  bobclose
March 11, 2026 7:28 am

The “irreversible decision” was to “phase out nuclear energy”. It has nothing to do with “restarting old plants”. The former is easily reversed, the latter may be impossible.

8
Ancient Wrench
Reply to  bobclose
March 11, 2026 8:25 pm

The costliest virtue signal in history.

1
Citizen Scientist
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 11, 2026 4:31 am

Actually she has been “A Strategic Mistake” on her own, and she still is. And she is not alone. “My name is Legion, for we are many.”

23
observa
Reply to  Citizen Scientist
March 11, 2026 7:29 pm

Pragmatism bites-
After backlash, von der Leyen stresses ‘unwavering’ support for rules-based order

As the Belgian Defence Minister mused- it’s a bit problematic with international law but it is righteous. Yes Minister right about now the Godless are all at sea trying to work out their ‘righteous’ value set alongside the gaggle of gangsters. Reliance on the scribblings of an old dead bearded white guy name of Karl aint much help either with the commitment of the Judeo Christian Enlightenment against Evil. We live in interesting times again while Evil sprays missiles around furiously at all and sundry and a cross we all must bear at the pump.

3
William Howard
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 11, 2026 6:00 am

how is it that people with zero common sense always get into leadership positions – Trump may finally be turning that around

17
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  William Howard
March 11, 2026 6:41 am

The iron is that many think Trump is the dumb one- mostly because of the way he talks- sometimes sounding a bit crude and too blunt. That’s what I though for years, having lived all my life in Wokeachusetts and thus brainwashed. But I’ve gotten to like his bluntness and his ability to tackle problems in a way no American president has done in my lifetime.

18
Mr.
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 6:55 am

Politicians.
Don’t take any notice of what they say or how they say it.
Just look at what they DO.

8
KevinM
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 8:27 am

“Mike McGuire and Sammy Sooser”

-1
ethical voter
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 11, 2026 12:52 pm

An important question. How, In a democracy, do we become governed by morons? Address this and all other problems will become small.

1
Dan Pangburn
Reply to  ethical voter
March 11, 2026 5:08 pm

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

4
ethical voter
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
March 11, 2026 7:35 pm

Yes. Many don’t participate because of the bad odour of politics. There is also the matter of how one participates. I think this where the problem is and the stink.

0
Tom Abbott
Reply to  ethical voter
March 11, 2026 6:38 pm

I think the Leftwing Media has a lot to do with it.

People cannot govern themselves properly if all they get are lies and distortion, and that is all they get from the Leftwing Media. Then they end up voting for stupid/evil Leftwing Politicians, and off the cliff they go saying, “wha hoppened!?”

1
Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  ethical voter
March 12, 2026 8:17 am

The rewards of promising one thing and delivering another are too high. No American politician leaves office with less than he went in with. Usually, they multiply their wealth dramatically. They are there for the money and personal power.

BTW, Trump isn’t a politician. He’s the modern-day equivalent of a gentleman farmer who becomes president in order to strengthen the Union, not grow his personal wealth and power.

1
whsmith@wustl.edu
Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
March 12, 2026 11:22 am

Then, he should embrace Epstein, clear the boards, and get back to the work of the USA, not Israel.

-4
ethical voter
Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
March 12, 2026 12:42 pm

Promises are election bribes. Political party power blocks only can offer these. Corruption at every level from the voter down.

0
strativarius
March 11, 2026 2:37 am

What’s the German for “act in haste, repent at leisure “?

19
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  strativarius
March 11, 2026 3:11 am

“D’oh!”

17
strativarius
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2026 3:14 am

Thank you

Helmut Zimpson!

9
isthatright
Reply to  strativarius
March 11, 2026 6:52 am

“Idioten” es gibt eine Menge!

5
1saveenergy
Reply to  strativarius
March 11, 2026 8:35 am

In Eile handeln, später bereuen.

0
rovingbroker
March 11, 2026 2:56 am

Not enough math and science in school. Too hard.

23
strativarius
March 11, 2026 3:12 am

The UK Labour government is “still all in”.

The Guardian is chock full of pro Miliband, pro net zero puff pieces.

“the closing of the Strait of Hormuz translates into rising electricity bills in Hull – even as the horizon grows thick with wind turbines and the share of clean power on the grid grows every year.
Ed Miliband knows this. Hence his strategy. Flood the grid with renewables”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/11/renewable-energy-oil-shocks-lower-bills-uk

Spain gets far more Sun than we do and renewable energy systems are flaky to say the least – they killed 11 people in Spain and in clement weather.

17
observa
March 11, 2026 3:21 am

Trump called them all out for their idiocy-
Ford’s EV losses are SHOCKING… | MGUY Australia

9
strativarius
Reply to  observa
March 11, 2026 3:23 am

EV. Electric Victim.

9
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  strativarius
March 11, 2026 6:06 am

EV. Empty-headed / Vacuous

1
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  strativarius
March 11, 2026 6:44 am

but… but.. every day, the Electric Viking on his YouTube channel tells us that soon everyone will have EVs! Every day he talks about the latest battery that will run your car for a zillion miles and it can be recharged in minutes!

5
atticman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 2:13 pm

In your dreams…

0
KevinM
Reply to  observa
March 11, 2026 8:36 am

Enough readers here must have worked at a big public company to know:
Even if
EVs were an awful idea
The company was in a position where:

What they were doing before was not on a growth pathThere were bigger problems than the type of motors they were makingThe massive EV loss list would include items that would makea a reasonable person scepticalIt has often been called “big bath accounting”.

0
KevinM
Reply to  KevinM
March 11, 2026 8:39 am

“Big bath accounting is an earnings management technique where managers intentionally overstate losses or expenses in a single, often already bad, year to “clean up” the balance sheet. By taking large, one-time write-offs (e.g., restructuring, inventory, goodwill), they reduce future expenses, artificially boosting future net income and creating an illusion of a strong recovery.”

3
Alexander Rawls
March 11, 2026 3:30 am

The shut-down of nuclear is proof that the eco-alarmists aren’t actually worried about CO2 at all. It proves that they the danger in their view, the thing they need to stop, is the human race.

With a robust enough nuclear-powered grid, we could plausibly reduce fossil fuel burning to very low levels, even moving transportation to CO2-free electric vehicles (pending a safer battery technology).

The alarmists rejected that because for them, demonization of CO2 is just an excuse to stop economic growth, which they idiotically see as gobbling up the planet.

Switching to nuclear would take away their excuse for stopping people, so they rejected it.

They really are just anti-human.

34
strativarius
Reply to  Alexander Rawls
March 11, 2026 4:00 am

Indeed they are most Malthusian

Greenpeace activists storm stage at France’s nuclear summit, confront Macron

The protesters, dressed sharply in black suits and ties, held banners bearing the Greenpeace logo ​and reading “Nuclear Power = Energy Insecurity” and “Nuclear power fuels Russia’s war”.
https://www.reuters.com/world/greenpeace-activists-storm-stage-frances-nuclear-summit-confront-macron-2026-03-10/

11
atticman
Reply to  strativarius
March 11, 2026 2:14 pm

And who is funding these idiots? One guess is all I’m giving…

4
Doug S
Reply to  Alexander Rawls
March 11, 2026 5:10 am

 excellent point, Alexander. This whole climate theater is very likely, in my opinion, orchestrated by our communist enemies abroad. What better way to defeat the Western world than by encouraging it to commit suicide? 

6
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Doug S
March 11, 2026 6:08 am

The plans were put in place by the Soviet Union and Communist China at the end of WWII when both recognized they could not compete toe to toe with the USA with its dominant economy, dominant military might, and a united society, the combination of which made the USA indomitable

1
cgh
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 11, 2026 6:31 am

Exactly so. The success of those plans was precisely the reason why Yuri Andropov was chosen to be Leonid Brezhnev’s successor in 1982.

1
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Alexander Rawls
March 11, 2026 6:06 am

The Population Bomb is the manual.

1
Tom Johnson
Reply to  Alexander Rawls
March 11, 2026 6:11 am

Even with “robust enough nuclear and safer batteries” there is still not enough electrical power and grid capacity to come even close to charging these fleets without huge waits. There’s not enough copper and other quired minerals to so it either. If we’re going to dream of what to do about it, how about this:
With sufficient low-cost nuclear electrical energy and power, there is presently known technology to manufacture liquid fuels from air captured CO2 and produce high power density liquid fuels for transportation with fast refills. These processes are far too inefficient to be used now, but they are still real. They are far more feasible than windmills and solar panels in keeping furnaces and transportation running during the dark doldrums global wide. There is also no question that the required energy efficiency could be improved, too.

6
Marty
Reply to  Tom Johnson
March 11, 2026 6:37 am

Someday in the far distant future, when fossil futures actually do become scarce, what you propose will happen. Cheap energy from nuclear will be used to make synthetic gasoline and diesel to power our transportation. But of course, right now fossil fuels are abundant, and it is cheaper just to pump oil out of the ground.

6
Tom Johnson
Reply to  Marty
March 11, 2026 7:59 am

I agree, completely, but mankind should put no more money into bird and whale killing windmills or solar panel blight on the countryside and rather, put it into feasible alternatives.

2
whsmith@wustl.edu
Reply to  Tom Johnson
March 12, 2026 11:31 am

The extinction of fossil fuels has been predicted, and predicted, and predicted. The EROI of nuclear permits the chemistry to make hydrocarbon fuels anew. Just think of it as recycling.

0
Beta Blocker
Reply to  Tom Johnson
March 11, 2026 10:08 am

Tom Johnson: “With sufficient low-cost nuclear electrical energy and power, there is presently known technology to manufacture liquid fuels from air captured CO2 and produce high power density liquid fuels for transportation with fast refills.”

Direct air capture from the atmosphere doesn’t supply nearly enough CO2 for the input energy consumed.

If synthetic gasoline and diesel are eventually produced using nuclear for supplying process electricity and process heat, the CO2 will come from seawater, not from direct air capture.

To my knowledge, no highly-detailed engineering feasibility estimates have yet been done for using nuclear as the source of electricity and process heat for manufacturing synthetic gasoline and diesel from seawater.

Suppose that a serious, detailed engineering feasibility estimate were to be done for using nuclear to manufacture synthetic gasoline and diesel at the state of today’s conversion technology.

What would a gallon of synthetic gasoline cost at the pump? What kinds of improvements in the first-cut process technology choices might be suggested based on the initial results of this feasibility study?

In any case, some number of years will pass before synthetic gasoline and diesel are being produced commercially using nuclear in the CO2 conversion process.

My bet is this. As we look further out into the future, we will see commercially-produced synthetic gasoline and diesel using nuclear fission well before we see commercially-produced electricity from nuclear fusion. (If we ever see commercial fusion at all.)

1
KevinM
Reply to  Beta Blocker
March 11, 2026 3:09 pm

Since nuclear fusion requires a non-existant idea, it could happen today or it could happen never at all or anything between. I’d bet the same way, synthetic gas before fusion, but it would still be a bad bet. I just don’t know.

0
JonasM
Reply to  Beta Blocker
March 11, 2026 5:00 pm

Didn’t I read a while back that the US Navy, with its nuclear aircraft carriers, was able to create aviation fuel, though at an effective cost of something like $25-$30 per gallon? Fine when you’re stuck at sea, not so good commercially yet.
I’m too lazy to go search for it, but so I think I read here on this site.

0
whsmith@wustl.edu
Reply to  JonasM
March 12, 2026 11:55 am

There are a number of studies of the CO2 to fuel process. The Navy (e.g. NRL/MRi6180··10·9300) used electrolysis powered by a nuclear powerplant (a carrier) in demonstrations converting CO2 from sea water to fuel. Waste heat would also work, of course.The energetics: 41 KJ/mol – are well known, and catalysts already exist. The superior method is to use dolomite or other limestone which exists in great abundance. The CO2 in the air needs to be raised to and kept at 500-600 ppm to maintain food production. CO2 is quickly reduced by biology if we do not add it. BTW, renewable CH4 in limited amounts also comes from cows 🙂 which consume grass taking CO2 from the air quite naturally. Digestion of animal waste performs a similar task, and the sludge is fertilizer. India uses these methods in rural areas.

0
AGW is Not Science
March 11, 2026 3:43 am

I always understood Germany’s decision to shut down their nuclear power. It’s obvious, with Germany being so exposed to the risk of tsunamis and all.

/sarc if needed

31
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 11, 2026 6:10 am

Earthquakes do occur in Germany, but rarely are felt or do any level of damage.
A non-issue.

4
KevinM
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 11, 2026 3:18 pm

Only 2 earthquakes in California over ‘6’ in 2000s?

“Since 684 AD, 143 tsunamis have been recorded, averaging a notable event every few years. Major, destructive, seismically generated tsunamis occur along Japan’s Pacific coast with a return period of roughly 800 to 1,100 years, similar to the 2011 Tohoku disaster.”

Someone in Japan probably said “Earthquake-Tsunami in Japan! Ha! Like maybe every _thousand_ years.” Then they said “Oops.”

0
Michael Standfast
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 11, 2026 1:14 pm

Well, the Germans have been known to take false beliefs to the extreme . . .

1
Steve Case
March 11, 2026 4:12 am

If a businessman makes a mistake, 
he suffers the consequences.
If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, 
you suffer the consequences.
                                      Ayn Rand

29
isthatright
Reply to  Steve Case
March 11, 2026 6:59 am

We could begin suing the individuals who makes these insane decisions. That would provide some measure of accountability.

0
KevinM
Reply to  isthatright
March 11, 2026 8:44 am

Who appoints judges? Where did candidate lawyers go to school?

0
observa
Reply to  Steve Case
March 11, 2026 6:57 pm

Bureaucrats don’t make strategic mistakes but it’s important to be earnest at the time and be seen to be doing something noble with good intentions with other people’s hard earned-
Infamous Hockey Stick and time travel coral restoration
Oh and once the difficult decision is made to spend other people’s hard earned everyone is on the same page or they’re outta there.

0
Denis
March 11, 2026 4:12 am

“..the German federal government has already decided to phase out nuclear energy and that decision is irreversible.”

What a morinic thing to say. On what possible basis is a political decision irreversible? The head of the German government just doesn’t want to be involved? Merz should be led to the door.

17
Scissor
Reply to  Denis
March 11, 2026 4:23 am

They also used to be against genital mutilation before they were for it.

8
Michael Standfast
Reply to  Denis
March 11, 2026 1:14 pm

Well, the Germans have been known to take false beliefs to the extreme . . .

0
Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2026 4:28 am

Is her name pronounced lyin’? Just wonderin’.

1
strativarius
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2026 5:36 am

…an ongoing investigation is digging into lucrative contracts that were illegally awarded by Leyen and her senior staff when she was the defence minister, in what has been described as corrupt practices. Von der Leyen was hauled in front of a powerful investigative committee of German MPs as evidence has mounted that there may have been tampering with her phones when they were handed back to the ministry and fully wiped of any information which may have proved valuable to the investigation. – https://www.trtworld.com/article/13113699

Then she became EU Commission (Politburo) President and it all went away

4
SCorn
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2026 6:06 am

Ursula Fond of Lying is her usual name.

3
Steve Case
March 11, 2026 4:34 am

How many coal fired power plants did Germany decommission so far this century? 

Google AI says:

Since the start of the 21st century, Germany has experienced a net reduction of 
approximately 46% in its operating coal capacity. While a precise single count 
of every individual unit decommissioned since 2000 is not universally aggregated 
in one figure, recent data highlights the rapid acceleration of this process: 

Total Decommissioning Goal: In 2019, Germany announced a plan to shutter all 84 
of its remaining coal-fired power plants by 2038. Recent Activity (2024): In a 
single weekend in early 2024, 15 coal-fired units (including seven large plants) 
were officially taken offline following the end of the winter energy crisis.
________________________________________________________________

How many hydroelectric dams did the United States decommission since 1990?

Google AI says:

While over 2,200 dams have been removed in the United States since 1912, 
only fewer than 50 of those were hydroelectric dams removed since the 1990s. 

The vast majority of decommissioned dams are small, non-power-generating
structures that are often obsolete or safety hazards. Hydroelectric dam removals
are less common because they typically involve a complex federal relicensing
process and require the owner’s consent.

1
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Steve Case
March 11, 2026 6:12 am

in early 2024, 15 coal-fired units (including seven large plants) 
were officially taken offline following the end of the winter energy crisis.

Brilliant! /s

5
Rod Evans
March 11, 2026 5:00 am

The most insane decisions are the ones declared irreversible. Herr Merz please note.

5
Sparta Nova 4
March 11, 2026 6:02 am

No decision is irreversible.

3
cgh
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 11, 2026 6:34 am

I agree. But sometimes the amount of money and resources that has to be expended is prohibitive.

1
whsmith@wustl.edu
Reply to  cgh
March 12, 2026 12:10 pm

Superphenix in France was irreversibly closed just after reaching full output. That is a feature, not a fault from the perspective of the carrots making the decisions. The plant remains intact, but 30 years of rust and rot have accumulated.

0
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 11, 2026 11:12 am

Plus, what is the alternative? Surely not more Retardables.

0
ResourceGuy
March 11, 2026 6:23 am

Add it to the list of multi trillion euro policy mistakes. They know not what they do. How about congratulating the French now.

0
ResourceGuy
March 11, 2026 6:24 am

The forced labor prison camp gulag workers in western China will be glad to know.

1
MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 11, 2026 6:36 am

Is that an example of China diversifying their energy sources?

2
Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 6:36 am

“This has no implications for Germany, because the German federal government has already decided to phase out nuclear energy” and “that decision is irreversible”.

That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in years. There goes any remaining respect I may have had for German intelligence.

3
isthatright
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 7:03 am

The Germans appear to enjoy paying more for electricity than Californians. Newsom still has a few months to screw things up even more to put California back into the lead in electrical prices.

2
whsmith@wustl.edu
Reply to  isthatright
March 12, 2026 11:59 am

You mean the guy Trump is trying to elect as president?

0
KevinM
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 8:54 am

I remember there were a large number of Brexit votes and debates arranged with the obvious intent to reach the opposite conclusion. Then in other cases, the science is settled. Some animals are more equal than others?

0
Tom Abbott
March 11, 2026 6:43 am

From the article: “that decision is irreversible”.”

How stupid can you get?

The only thing that seems irreversible is stupid Germans electing stupid German politicians who say things like “that decision is irreversible”.

7
Richard Mott
March 11, 2026 7:29 am

“… von der Leyen defended Merkel’s decision, insisting that her government had “to respond to the new developments”: the Fukushima disaster, she said, had shown everyone “that the unthinkable has now become possible – a worst-case accident in a high-technology country”.

The evacuation of Fukushima likely resulted in more life-years lost than the emitted radioactivity by a factor of about 2000. Fukushima prefecture had 2/3 of the entire country’s later “disaster-related deaths” (not directly from the tsunami, what we would call “deaths of despair”) among people 66 years old and older. They were forced out of their homes in the middle of the night, in the dark without power, due to an 80-year old model of radiation risk which is provably incorrect, and were not allowed to return for 8 years. Here is a slide set which shows the evidence, with literature citations if you want to learn more:
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZWKDd5ZSLgDSejg6x4YkcP7P58arjK8OXMk

3
KevinM
Reply to  Richard Mott
March 11, 2026 9:01 am

Her speach writer’s fine use of a thesaurus aside,
was what happened at Fukushima “unthinkable”?
did it only “become possible” at that time?
did it represent “a worst-case accident “?

If Fukushima were a barely possible event that defines the worst case, then why is Germany not building such plants as fast as possible?

1
whsmith@wustl.edu
Reply to  Richard Mott
March 12, 2026 12:12 pm

Thanks for the reference. It is quite new and I had not seen it.

0
Walter Sobchak
March 11, 2026 7:41 am

Too soon old. Too late smart.

4
ballynally
March 11, 2026 8:11 am

The context is religious zealotry. De-growth, Net Zero, de-population is the target. Not by Merz cs but by many left wing voters.
They actually believe in self flagellation because of the sin of ‘destroying the planet’.
Back to Nature, full equality, turbo charged control Soviet style.
The european leaders speak as if they are going to change then do nothing..

1
KevinM
March 11, 2026 8:16 am

Was the primary difference between W Bush and Merkel term limits?

0
whsmith@wustl.edu
Reply to  KevinM
March 12, 2026 12:15 pm

That is an insult to Merkel who is practically impossible to insult.

0
KevinM
Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
March 12, 2026 6:27 pm

They both seemed to possess and understand principles, then yield to people who did not.

0
Gilbert K. Arnold
March 11, 2026 8:55 am

@strativarius :March 11, 2026 2:37 am; “Handle in Eile, bereue in Muße”

1
Bob Armstrong
March 11, 2026 9:12 am

LoL ! Had to click on this .

Well , Duh !

0
tinny
March 11, 2026 10:45 am

In recognition of this, Merkel has just been awarded the first EU honour.
They really don’t get it, do they.

1
Mike71
March 11, 2026 4:22 pm

It is like watching the old Soviet Union or the modern CCP in China, what the emperor has in mind, everybody has to do. Today it is this, tomorrow it is that. Not based on knowledge but purely on Ideology

0
1 2
wpdiscuz   wpDiscuz

Related Posts

nuclear power

Hinkley Point C UK: France’s EDF Boondoggle Sets a Record

17 hours ago
Guest Blogger
nuclear power

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Defining Moment

2 days ago
Guest Blogger
nuclear power

Trump II’s ‘Nuclear Renaissance”: A Government Play

1 week ago
Guest Blogger
nuclear power Regulation

Nuclear at 70: Federal Subsidies and Regulation Did Not Work

1 week ago
Guest Blogger