Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good

[jpak]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/23/general-eu-germany-abandoning-nuclear-power_8370363.html

Berlin -- Germany stands alone among the world's leading industrialized nations in its determination to abandon nuclear energy for good because of the technology's inherent risks.

Europe's biggest economy is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet its power demands instead. The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but now it is being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant disaster.

Chancellor Angela Merkel says the "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions" has irreversibly marked the start of a new era.

<not much more>

[Drale]

1. Its crazy 65 years ago Germany was under complete

right wing control and fascism, now they are probably one of the most progressive countries in the world.

[opihimoimoi]

2. This limpet welcomes the move away from industrial/military uses is paramount to human

longevity

[bananas]

3. Good - this is what every country should do.

:applause:

[DragonSlave]

4. Isn't this a tinfoil hat, knee-jerk reaction?

Nuclear power is much safer and environmentally friendly than other energy sources. People claim that the role that is currently filled by nuclear will be filled instead by renewables, but in reality only a small portion of the gap will be filled by renewables. So, the net result is an increased reliance on fossil fuel. Nuclear power is far preferable to fossil fuel. If you look at the total waste created, the environmental and political impact of obtaining fuel, and the total cost in terms of human health, all of the results point to nuclear being superior.

Shouldn't the use of junk science and alarmist rhetoric alarm open minded and critical thinking democrats?

[SolutionisSolidarity]

5. Nuclear is superior to coal and oil.

But it has inherent risks that should not be discounted. The disaster in Japan should teach us that the nuclear industry doesn't take safety as seriously as a technology that powerful deserves. So far, we have been lucky, and there has not been a catastrophic release of nuclear material. But they only designed those plants to absorb an earthquake up to 7.5 on the Richter scale, despite several larger earthquakes having occurred at or near Japan in decades prior to their construction. That kind of cost cutting tells me plant owners would rather cut corners than do everything necessary to ensure safe operation. Given that a catastrophic release would kill thousands of people, at best, I can't say this inspires confidence in the industry. If Germany believes they can replace their nuclear industry with renewables, then I wish them all the best.

[Petrushka]

9. Replacing its nuclear industry with renewables doesn't appear to be necessary . . .

. . . not when Germany's "biggest power producer" and "biggest carbon dioxide emitter"---RWE AG---isn't bothered that its nuclear facilities must be shut down. I read somewhere (didn't bookmark the link, dang it!) that RWE threatened to shut 'em down ahead of time rather than pay a proposed tax. Anyway . . .

Meantime: RWE isn't about to stop burning coal when it's in a position to gamble that technology will keep 'em in business till the coal peters out. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=282750&mesg_id=282781

[Petrushka]

10. Too late to edit Reply #9 . . . here's the link to "TAX OUR FUEL RODS AND WE’LL SHUT DOWN"

GERMAN NUCLEAR UTILITIES CALL GOVERNMENT’S BLUFF -– TAX OUR FUEL RODS AND WE’LL SHUT DOWN

http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/german-nuclear-utilities-call-government%e2%80%99s-bluff-%e2%80%93-tax-our-fuel-rods-and-we%e2%80%99ll-shut-down/


(I remembered to bookmark it this time!)

[kristopher]

7. Claims that nuclear power is needed are based on junk science.

You will not find agreement with your statement in any peer reviewed paper which performs detailed analysis of the characteristics of energy generation technologies or that examine the engineering of the grid.

Your statement is actually an expression of one of the PR goals of the nuclear industry. Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner Bradford has identified what he calls 6 "myths" of the nuclear industry.

These are all false:
1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

If you believe the items on this list are true, you are a victim of propaganda by an industry trying to make money by deliberately misinforming you.

You can begin rehab by going here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

[DragonSlave]

12. You are wrong about the science: Some sources

First, it is bad argumentative form to ask me to prove my claim with out you proving yours. Since this thread is, ostensibly, about how good it is that Germany has abandoned nuclear power, it is fair for me to ask for an argument as to why nuclear power is bad. I should not be put in the position of proving it is good; the burden of proof is on you, not me. However, for the sake of education, I will provide some of these peer-reviewed studies that you claim do not exist.

Fthenakis & Kim (2007) argue that Nuclear energy is comparable in efficiency to solar energy and between 8 and 25 times as efficient as the cleanest fossil fuel alternative:

"We conclude, instead, that lifetime GHG emissions from solar- and nuclear-fuel cycles in the United States are comparable under actual production conditions and average solar irradiation, viz., 22–49 g CO2-eq./kWh (average US), 17–39 g CO2-eq./kWh (south west) for solar electric, and 16–55 g CO2-eq./kWh for nuclear energy."

In comparison, the output of a natural gas power plant for 1 kW/h is approximately 400 g CO2-eq.

Citation: Fthenakis, Vasilis M., and Hyung Chul Kim. 2007. “Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: A life-cycle study.” Energy Policy, no. 35 (4) (April): 2549-2557. Available online at: http://oneplanetfellows.pbworks.com/f/Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Solar_Nuclear_Energy_Policy-inPress.pdf


Pigford (1974) writes:

"As a result, the environmental impacts from nuclear fission power plants and their associated fuel cycles are the lowest of any of the currently available power-producing technologies dependent upon natural fuel resources."

But he is writing as a nuclear engineer, so maybe you view his perspective as biased?

Citation: Pigford, Thomas H. 1974. "Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Energy Production." Annual Review of Nuclear Science, no. 24: 515-560. Accessed through my PSU subscription.

I don't feel like staying up to find additional sources right now, sorry.

As for the claims made by Peter A. Bradford, once again, you are putting the cart before the horse. If the value of nuclear power is based on good science, then what about your list of 6 things? They sound like political talking points to me.

Peter A. Bradford is primarily a lawyer by trade, not a scientist. He relies on very conservative classical economic assumptions in order to arrive at cost estimates, usually arguing that nuclear is receiving unfair advantages in the marketplace. Environmental degradation is sadly underrepresented. Similarly, Bradford writes almost exclusively from a dollar cost perspective: see his article "Massive Nuclear Subsidies Won't Solve Climate Change" (at http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/guest/article_37b3c6b1-dff6-5ef1-a21c-8a511e278961.html). Ironically the argument he makes has little to do with the article title, a bit of a rhetorical bait-and-switch. The other discussion you linked is also about "societal impacts" largely based on dollar costs. My point did not deal with dollar costs.

Your suggestion I begin rehab is not appreciated. Maybe you should go to critical thinking school to help cure your sophism?

[jschurchin]

14. 1974, huh?

1979, 1986 and 2011. Just the big ones. And we all know there were a lot of ones that didn't get the attention those three did.

[diane in sf]

11. Nuclear is not safer or more environmentally friendly than efficency, wind, solar,

if all costs are counted it's more expensive as well.

[Petrushka]

16. Wind turbines and solar panels containing materials produced by using an environmenally un-friendly

fuel source (such as "cheap" coal) tends to cancel out any claim to their being friendly to the
environment "...if all costs are counted....". See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=280296&mesg_id=282486

[kristopher]

6. Does anyone know a good language school for German?

I'm thinking of immigrating to a land of rationality.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

15. Well, my sister lives in Germany and works as a translator, but that isn't the same thing.

However, she posted something on FB today that really points out the dangers of even one accident involving radiation.

She and her family live near Augsburg and they had an article in the paper about the two main problems that Germany is facing with wild boar (especially near where they live). The boar are rapidly increasing in population and in radioactivity from the Chernobyl disaster. They eat mushrooms and truffles which are contaminated with radiation and like cows, they end up being too radioactive to consume. The government then has to reimburse the hunters for the boar that are too contaminated to consume. As she points out, they are 885 miles from Chernobyl and the freaking radiation is still way over the "safe" limit. Yeah....as if there is a "safe" level.

The worst part is that my sister was visiting the Soviet Union (at the time of Chernobyl) and was not too far from Chernobyl at the time of the disaster. She's had health issues ever since which I realize can't be 100% attributed to the exposure, but just saying........

More on the Boar and the radiation problems in Germany.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,709345,00.html

[kristopher]

17. Thank you and I hope your sister gets all the good-breaks that fate can bestow.

That story is a graphic illustration of reality vs the spin we always endure.

[Petrushka]

8. Reactor Closures Leave E.ON, RWE an Upside

By JAN HROMADKO and MARTIN RAPP

FRANKFURT—German utilities E.ON AG and RWE AG may find a silver lining in a government move to close four of their nuclear plants.

The companies' shares tumbled last week after an about-face in German nuclear policy threw into doubt the prospects of a business that seemed a surefire profit stream before the Japan crisis.

Yet there is an upside for the German giants of electricity: The government's decision to suspend 5% of German electricity output could address a capacity glut that had depressed profit margins and dimmed the business case for the companies.

As a result, some analysts now believe the two power companies, among Europe's biggest, are well placed to match—or even outdo—profit forecasts compared with prior expectations.

--snip--
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704355304576214644130553916.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No sweat! RWE can always build more coal-fired power plants:


Utility gambles that technology will keep coal plants in business

Greenwire, 14 April 2010 - Europe's biggest carbon dioxide emitter has no plans to stop burning coal.

Johannes Heithoff, the research chief for the German utility RWE, said his company's goal is to burn through its 3.4 billion metric tons of brown coal reserves, a supply that could last for decades.

But there's a complication: Europe's CO2 limits will tighten soon, making the operation of the smoke-stained, decades-old Niederaussem power station here prohibitively expensive. And when the boilers go cold as scheduled in the next few years, Heithoff vows he will replace them and reduce RWE's overall carbon footprint -- by building more coal-burning plants.

Seriously.

--snip--
http://www.wbcsd.org/Plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?DocTypeId=32&ObjectId=MzgyMTc&URLBack=%2Ftemplates%2FTemplateWBCSD2%2Flayout.asp%3Ftype%3Dp%26MenuId%3DMjI1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FWIW, my "favorite" wind turbine is manufactured by an RWE subsidiary: http://www.quietrevolution.com/gallery.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RWE describes itself as the "biggest power producer in Germany and No. 2 in the UK" with interests across n in Central and South-Eastern Europe.<1>

The company's operating divisions are<1>:

RWE Power is Germany’s "biggest power producer" and generates electricity from coal, lignite, nuclear and gas-fired power stations;
RWE Innogy which is the renewable energy arm of RWE with interests in onshore and offshore wind farms, hydro power stations and biomass projects in Europe;
RWE Dea which produces gas and oil in Europe and North Africa;
RWE Supply & Trading which operates RWE's non-regulated gas activities and European energy trading business;
RWE Energy which is the sales and grid management company for customers in Continental Europe; and
RWE nPower which operates solely in the UK and includes the generation of from coal, gas and oil fired power stations as well as the sale of electricity and gas.

--snip--
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=RWE


(Hm-m . . . Looks as though RWE has its bases covered.) http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/111486/rwe/rwe-group/group-structure/

[Statistical]

13. Germany has "abandoned" nuclear power twice and they still have reactors.

Still extending the life of reactors.

No country which has started using nuclear power for electrical power generation has ever stopped.