Vale anche per i Verdi nazionali

[Roberto Deboni DMIsr]

Giornale austriaco (il piu' letto) riporta una dura critica di
Steven Chu verso i Verdi germanici, ma la critica mi pare calzi
anche i Verdi italiani (il solito asse Berlino-Roma su come
affrontare i problemi del mondo, oggi come allora, contro
ogni buonsenso). Data: 10 febbraio 2024:

<https://www.krone.at/3247125>

Come vedete, hanno riportato il commento in inglese:

"German Greens spread misinformation"

"In April last year, Germany shut down the last remaining active
nuclear power plants. In the fight against climate change and
in the search for green alternatives to fossil fuels, the
government in Berlin - contrary to a growing trend in Europe
- did not rely on nuclear power. This has been criticized in
the USA. Former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu even accuses
the governing Green Party of "spreading misinformation".

"In an interview with the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung",
Chu advises the Germans to urgently rethink their energy policy.
This is because there is a threat of large parts of heavy industry
moving away. This is because it is dependent on a stable and
affordable power supply - around the clock. "So if individual
people say they don't want this, they don't want that, they don't
want nuclear power, they don't want coal, they can do everything
with renewable energies, then these people are obviously not
running semiconductor factories, chemical factories or
manufacturing plants," said the 75-year-old Nobel Prize winner."

"If you want to achieve the climate targets, but at the same time
preserve jobs and remain globally competitive, nuclear power
"doesn't look so bad", emphasizes the former minister. In his
opinion, nuclear reactors would be preferable to gas-fired power
plants, which are envisaged in Germany's recently adopted power
plant strategy. These are intended to compensate for the
fluctuations in electricity feed-in from wind and solar power
plants, but are also to be gradually converted to the more
climate-friendly hydrogen."

"In this context, however, Chu speaks of "misinformation" that the
Greens are spreading. The party's position is "not compatible with
our future reality".

Naturalmente gli austriaci riprendono subito la posizione dei Verdi:

"However, environmental protection organizations repeatedly
emphasize that the theory spread by the nuclear lobby that
nuclear power is so cheap is not entirely true. For example,
the German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation
explains on its website that high investments are necessary for
the construction of nuclear power plants, which can only be afforded
by large companies. This leads to "inadequate competition" and
possible price fixing. In addition, there are massive state subsidies."

Che sono esattamente alcune delle bugie di cui Chu accusa i
mitteleuropei (Germania, ma io estendo anche a Austria e Italia).

"It should also be borne in mind that the electricity price "does
not reflect the true costs of nuclear power".

Questa frase vale quanto vale per il costo reale di eolico e
fotovoltaico, di cui vengono nascosti i costi degli accumuli.

"In this context, reference is made to a study by the Forum
Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft on the real costs of various
forms of energy for society as a whole. Taking into account all
factors for people and the environment, a kilowatt hour (kWh) of
nuclear power costs up to 42.2 cents. Wind energy, on the other
hand, only costs around 8.1 cents/kWh, according to the study."

Noterete come le "fonti" delle bugie verdi sono:
"German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation"
e "German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation"
ovvero siamo alla tipica autoreferenzialita' di una cultura di
stampo fascista, o se volete, mitteleuropea.

Tra parentesi, si nota subito una tattica classica dello "spin
doctor". Scrivono che l'energia nucleare costerebbe FINO A
42,2 centesimi al chilowattora mentre dell'eolico indicano un
costo indicativo (8,1 centesimi al chilowattora).

Avete capito ? Prendono un prezzo indicativo dell'eolico per
confrontarlo con un prezzo MASSIMO (il significato di "fino a"
e' sinonimo di "massimo") del nucleare. Non e' una tattica
fastidiosa, per non dire spregevole, di una certa politica
menzognera, ma anche di certi promotori porta a porta ?

L'intervista e' fatta su un giornale tedesco, ma essendo una
lingua a voi ostica, ho scelto il giornale che la riporta in
inglese. In ogni caso, ecco il link della fonte originale:

<https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/kraftwerksstrategie-steven-chu-raet-deutschland-dringend-entscheidungen-zu-ueberdenken-19508853.html>

"„Wenn die Grünen vernünftig wären, würden sie die Atomenergie vorziehen“"

(articolo aggiornato al 11-02-2024)

"Die Bundesregierung hat gerade ihre Kraftwerksstrategie
veröffentlicht. Der frühere amerikanische Energieminister
und Physiker Steven Chu rät Deutschland dringend, seine
Entscheidungen zu überdenken."

Inizio intervista:

"Herr Professor, Sie sind Physik-Nobelpreisträger und waren
Energieminister in der Obama-Regierung. Im April haben Sie
eine Petition unterzeichnet, um Deutschlands Atomkraftwerke
zu erhalten. Warum?"

"Ich war überzeugt, dass die Deutschen die Energie, die diese
Kraftwerke liefern, nicht ersetzen können. Jedenfalls nicht
allein durch erneuerbare. Ich dachte, sie würden am Ende
fossile Kraftwerke dafür brauchen. Und genau das ist passiert.
Schauen Sie, wir hatten dasselbe Problem in Kalifornien.
Sechzig Prozent unserer Stromversorgung kamen aus
klimaschonenden Quellen, zehn Prozent waren nuklear. Der
Gouverneur wollte die letzten zwei Atomkraftwerke abschalten.
Wir konnten ihn davon überzeugen, dass Kalifornien seine
Klimaziele nicht erreichen wird, wenn er diese zehn Prozent
vom Netz nimmt. Also hat er seine Entscheidung revidiert.
Ich wünschte, Deutschland hätte dasselbe getan."

...