Suchergebnisse

The debate on effective climate protection is heating up in Germany and the rest of the world. Nuclear energy is being touted as 'clean' energy. Given the circumstances, the present study analyzed the historical, current, and future costs and risks of nuclear energy. The findings show that nuclear energy can by no means be called 'clean' due to radioactive emissions, which will endanger humans and the natural environment for over one million years. And it harbors the high risk of proliferation. An empirical survey of the 674 nuclear power plants that have ever been built showed that private economic motives never played a role. Instead military interests have always been the driving force behind their construction. Even ignoring the expense of dismantling nuclear power plants and the long-term storage of nuclear waste, private economy-only investment in nuclear power plant would result in high losses- an average of five billion euros per nuclear power plant, as one financial simulation revealed. In countries such as China and Russia, where nuclear power plants are still being built, private investment does not play a role either. Nuclear power is too expensive and dangerous; therefore it should not be part of the climate-friendly energy mix of the future.

In der sich verschärfenden Diskussionen über wirksamen Klimaschutz wird sowohl in Deutschland als auch in Europa und weltweit die Atomkraft als "saubere Energie" ins Spiel gebracht. Vor diesem Hintergrund analysiert dieser Bericht ihre historischen, gegenwärtigen und zukünftigen Kosten und Risiken. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Atomkraft aufgrund radioaktiver Strahlung für über eine Millionen Jahre mitnichten als "sauber" bezeichnet werden kann, sondern für Mensch und Umwelt gefährlich ist. Zudem fallen hohe Risiken bezüglich Proliferation an. Eine empirische Erhebung aller jemals gebauten 674 Atomkraftwerke zeigt, dass privatwirtschaftliche Motive von Anfang an keine Rolle gespielt haben, sondern militärische Interessen. Selbst bei Vernachlässigung der Kosten für den Rückbau der Atomkraftwerke und die langfristige Lagerung des Atommülls wären rein privatwirtschaftliche Investitionen in Atomkraftwerke mit hohen Verlusten verbunden - im Durchschnitt knapp fünf Milliarden Euro pro Kraftwerk, wie eine betriebswirtschaftliche Simulation zeigt. In Ländern, in denen noch Atomkraftwerke gebaut werden, wie etwa China und Russland, spielen private Investitionen auch keine Rolle. Atomkraft ist zu teuer und gefährlich und daher keine Option für eine klimafreundliche Energieversorgung.

Nuclear energy is among the most important innovations of the twentieth century, and it continues to play an important role in twenty-first century discussions. In particular, there is a debate about the potential contribution of nuclear power to policies of climate change mitigation and energy security in both, industrialized and emerging countries. In this context, many existing nuclear countries, and others considering entering the sector, are facing questions of how to structure organizational models for nuclear power, and what lessons to be learned from the past seven decades of civilian use of nuclear power. The objective of this Data Documentation is to trace the development of nuclear power since its beginnings, by providing both a technological and a country-specific perspective, to allow a better understanding of issues on nuclear power going forward. Our hypothesis, based on the early literature on nuclear power post World War 2, e.g., the Acheson- Lilienthal Report (1946), Lovins and Lovins (1980) but also a more recent survey of the literature (Hirschhausen 2017), is that nuclear power is the "child of scientific research and the military" (François Lévêque 2014, 212), the development of which follows an "economies-ofscope"- logic: nuclear power is developed for military and civilian purposes (e.g., electricity, medical services), and thus obeys no simple economic logic that could be expressed, e.g., in simple business investment calculus (Davis 2012). Rather than searching for an economic rationale where there is none, it is therefore instructive to analyze specific diffusion patterns of nuclear power, based on stylized organizational models, and going back to the origins in the middle of the last century. [.]

In the summer of 2021, European governments removed most NPIs after experiencing prolonged second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most countries failed to achieve immunization rates high enough to avoid resurgence of the virus. Public health strategies for autumn and winter 2021 have ranged from countries aiming at low incidence by re-introducing NPIs to accepting high incidence levels. However, such high incidence strategies almost certainly lead to the very consequences that they seek to avoid: restrictions that harm people and economies. At high incidence, the important pandemic containment measure 'test-trace-isolate-support' becomes inefficient. At that point, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its numerous harmful consequences can likely only be controlled through restrictions. We argue that all European countries need to pursue a low incidence strategy in a coordinated manner. Such an endeavour can only be successful if it is built on open communication and trust. ; peer-reviewed

In the summer of 2021, European governments removed most NPIs after experiencing prolonged second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most countries failed to achieve immunization rates high enough to avoid resurgence of the virus. Public health strategies for autumn and winter 2021 have ranged from countries aiming at low incidence by re-introducing NPIs to accepting high incidence levels. However, such high incidence strategies almost certainly lead to the very consequences that they seek to avoid: restrictions that harm people and economies. At high incidence, the important pandemic containment measure 'test-trace-isolate-support' becomes inefficient. At that point, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its numerous harmful consequences can likely only be controlled through restrictions. We argue that all European countries need to pursue a low incidence strategy in a coordinated manner. Such an endeavour can only be successful if it is built on open communication and trust.

In the summer of 2021, European governments removed most NPIs after experiencing prolonged second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most countries failed to achieve immunization rates high enough to avoid resurgence of the virus. Public health strategies for autumn and winter 2021 have ranged from countries aiming at low incidence by re-introducing NPIs to accepting high incidence levels. However, such high incidence strategies almost certainly lead to the very consequences that they seek to avoid: restrictions that harm people and economies. At high incidence, the important pandemic containment measure test-trace-isolate-support becomes inefficient. At that point, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its numerous harmful consequences can likely only be controlled through restrictions. We argue that all European countries need to pursue a low incidence strategy in a coordinated manner. Such an endeavour can only be successful if it is built on open communication and trust. Copyright (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. ; Funding Agencies|European UnionEuropean Commission [101016233]; Max Planck SocietyMax Planck SocietyFoundation CELLEX; "Netzwerk Universitatsmedizin" (NUM) project egePan [01KX2021]; Digital Society research program - Ministry of Culture and Science of the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia; University of Malta; Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) as part of the COVID-19 Fast-Track research project Cov-Screen [COVID-19/2020- 1/14715687]; European Research Council (ERC) under the European UnionEuropean Research Council (ERC) [863664]; Slovenian Research AgencySlovenian Research Agency - Slovenia [P1-0403, J1-2457]; University of Crete; Maastricht University; European CommissionEuropean CommissionEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre; UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)UK Research & Innovation (UKRI)Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) [ES/T014164/1]; UK Medical Research Council (MRC)UK Research & Innovation (UKRI)Medical Research Council UK ...