eting by the European Union to check its policies on renewable energy and to ensure that the members were in conformity with the Kyoto protocol (Smith, and Katrina 85). During a recent visit to Gravelines nuclear power plant in located in northern France, ranked the 5th largest globally, the president went further to renew France’s commitment to nuclear industry and gave post Fukushima nuclear fears safety a description as irrational and medieval. Particularly, the president never mentioned anybody but it is hardly difficult to guess the real person he was referring to.
It was by no means the president triggered a salvo over Germany’s nuclear power moves and its chancellor, the renowned Angela Merkel. At some point she refused to put her hand to Siemen’s request to have a stake in Avera, one of French’s nuclear group; this was basically due to the fact that Germany as a nation had imposed a moratorium on nuclear power.
According to officials, German’s option to shut down all its nuclear power plants in a decade will definitely make Germany to be more dependent on fossil fuels, need imported atomic power and increase emission of carbon.
Germany then will be more reliant on imports and fossil fuels and the nation’s electricity will be much expensive and more harmful to the environment. Households in Germany pay twice more for power than homesteads in France; eighty per cent of electricity originates from atomic power plant.
At the same time, Germany announced that of all the 17 reactors, none shall remain opened come the year 2022, going against the plan steered through parliament in the previous year to prolong the plant’s activities by an average of twelve years. The chancellor argues that the Fukushima massacre, the worst crisis since the year 1986, led her to give it a second thought to give support for nuclear power plants in Germany. Germany and France are great nations, in as much as disaster may occur; it should not make a nation embark on