If you took inflation into account, those numbers are mostly negative, since dollar inflation out-paces their growth by large. Point is not nominal growth, but how it is measured against the dollar. Even when there is growth, it is negated by extremely aging population and shrinking workforce. Where as for US, the lost ground is quickly regained and expansion and recession are healthily cyclical, as is expected of market economy. We were also due another big recession/depression by now, and financial crisis was by comparison moderate and a good wake up call for many people. It was severe, but not as unmanageable or impossible. US had the foundation and infrastructure in place to weather the storm. Unfortunately for our European friends, they did not. But I am sure US can help out in ways you cannot since security and prosperity of Europe is tied to security and economic benefits of US. Now if only europe would get its act together and stop being so damn bitchy towards us we might just be friendlier.

Also, you did take my statement about shale oil the wrong way. It is but a portion of what the influence of US can reach, and all the taxes and revenues can help further renewable and economical resources in the future. We are now providing those resources to select allies and nations who can make a fair deal with us. Also when importing oil we pay fair dollars for those resources, but apparently many oil exporting nations do not like to share their wealth with the nation but horde it all to their own private accounts.

Reactors don't blow up unless people in charge screw up. You japs were in charge for that one.

Anyway Germany has 25% of its electricity from renewables, which is pretty damn amazing for a northern country without much of a coastline or sismic activity.
The question is: is the sector saturated or they could make it grow still more? Considering a +5% in the last year, I'd say there is much room to do that.

Considering France is its neighbor and a nuclear incident would affect Germany, all Germany accomplished was to pay more for its energy in the end, but the stupid ignorant mass are now happy.

It has a bad rap due to lack of understanding, accidents, etc.

but take it this way, Nuclear energy - not to be confused with Nuclear weapons - has killed less people than coal energy.

The only human fucking stupidity lies with the anti-nuclear protestor pitchfork mob.

Please go see a psychiatrist, so you can be removed from society.

Yet people living on those areas get by without problems - no noticeably higher cancer rates or other issues reported.

In fact I happen to have visited one of those places - the beach of Guarapari in Brazil - many times during my youth, and can attest that neither I nor anyone I know have ever had any health problems due to that, even though its background radiation is as high as twice what is found at Fukushima now.

Personally I think that Abe is right - nuclear energy is the way to go - but if you do disagree, at least take the time to get your facts straight.

Seems all you can do is insult and mock.

I know what I'm talking about, and while yes I do go into and embrace "Conspiracy Theory" there is something to it. We have a source of energy that's grotesquely expensive and a sinister purpose behind it. Alternative methods are ignored and adding argument to the sinister agenda, safer ways of doing it are down played.

From burning coal/oil we keep about 60 percent of the energy. With Nuclear material only 1-3% is used for energy, the rest is pure heat pushed into the atmosphere, that's why there are the huge cooling towers.

But all you can do is insult me and ... my sexuality ... ? Yeah, I'm a heterosexual who likes big boobed women, I'm a real pervert for this site, esp that I'm also old fashioned and anti-PC.