> 5 days ago: https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-g...

This article is riddled with statements that are factually incorrect. :(

I guess this is hard to research if you don't speak German, though.

> If you want a less biased source, here is bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-30/germany-s...

Can't read this, it's behind a paywall.

> Reserve plant capacity needs to double by 2026, regulator says

That does not imply more plants if you're in a phase where you take plants out of continuous operation. It's just that existing plants must be kept in reserve and can't be completely disconnected.

Planned in 2007, entered operation in 2020? Yes, given the changes in the last four years, it is not new!

I don't find a single, reliable German source for all of that fuss. That might make you think about it again...

You'll notice that, if you read the original messages, nowhere did they suggest anything concrete. They're just offering to investigate what would need to be done to continue operation. This is just blown out of proportion and thus far has had no relevance in the German political landscape. It's rightfully ignored.

While it's true that the accusations were out there, the whole thing was quickly proven wrong. The document in question is accessible [0] (in German, and even hosted at the website of Cicero, which invented the story) and clearly comes to the conclusion that nuclear reactors in Germany should not continue to run. It's even written in bold letters.

[0] https://assets.cicero.de/2024-04/2022-03-03_Atomaufsicht_Ver...

Russia is part of the uranium supply chain (not the source of the raw material), because the greens closed off the research&plants in EU.

A well known example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

UK stepped up and started to invest in the supply chain and replace Russia one day.