Anti-Solar Propaganda Fossil Nuke Post at “Brave New Climate”

Geoff Russell just posted at the “Brave New Climate” site about the wondrous advantages of nuclear energy and the complete failure of solar and wind energy to get anything done in Germany (link omitted on purpose). Thanks to this tweet by Rod Adams for the link.

Here are a couple of gems, all in one paragraph,  from that rather long post:

In contrast, it’s been 12 years since the Germans introduced a feed in tariff to reward rich Germans for electricity generated by putting solar panels on their roofs. We copied them. During this  period the German Government has incurred a 100 billion Euro debt to be paid over the next 20 years to those same rich Germans for a miserable 19 terawatt hours per year of day-time only electricity (about 3.3 percent of its total).

Might there be any factual error in that paragraph, I wonder?

The feed-in tariff was introduced in March 2000, which is thirteen years ago right now.

The four goals of the Law on Priority for Renewable Energy are stated in its Article 1, none of them being “rewarding rich Germans”. For the record, these are (1) enabling a sustainable energy supply, especially in the interest of protecting the climate, (2) lowering the cost of energy, also by including long term external effects, (3) leave more fossil fuel reserves for future generations, and (4) contribute to the development of renewable electricity technology.

The German government has incurred exactly zero Euro debt. That fact is obvious to anyone who has clue one on how a feed-in tariff works (which seems not to include this author).

The latest record on solar generation is from 2012, where it provided for 5.7% of consumption, corresponding to 27.9 TWh.

So, yes, as expected for something published at the anti-renewable propaganda site “Brave New Climate”, this article is full of errors when talking about Germany.

And this is another great example to point to for my impression that many pro-nuclear voices want an all-out war with the renewable camp, which of course completely ruins the climate argument for nuclear and only leads to generate even more opposition than this hopeless climate policy option has in the first place.

Published by kflenz

Professor at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo. Author of Lenz Blog (since 2003,

4 thoughts on “Anti-Solar Propaganda Fossil Nuke Post at “Brave New Climate”

  1. Fossil-Nukes is for USA not an adequate category.
    In the States its fossil versus nukes. The latter are at least not denieing climat change.
    Unfortionally Obama believes in their solution.


    1. “Brave New Climate” is based in Australia, and the author of this particular post is an Australian as well.

      For a discussion in the American pro-nuclear camp on climate change see for example this post at Rod Adams’ blog:

      For a explanation of my term “Fossil Nuke” (shorthand for “someone pro-nuclear opposing renewable”) see this post:

      That means that there are Fossil Nukes in the United States, Rod Adams being the most visible one.


  2. @Manfred,

    I beg to differ. Fossil Nukes is entirely appropriate for the USA. Fossil Nukes represents big centralised energy business. There is no real fossil vs nuclear vs renewables battle. The real battle is between centralised and decentralised energy business models. Big energy companies which offer either fossil fuel or nuclear systems prefer no one know about decentralised, renewable based systems.

    Another way to describe it is “energy dictatorship vs energy democracy.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: