Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022

[DarthTom]

An interesting choice for a country who's engineering firms are one of the largest builders of nuclear power plants internationally.

So does this mean they won't build them either in another country?

Huffington

BERLIN — Europe's economic powerhouse, Germany, announced plans Monday to abandon nuclear energy over the next 11 years, outlining an ambitious strategy in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster to replace atomic power with renewable energy sources.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said she hopes the transformation to more solar, wind and hydroelectric power serves as a roadmap for other countries.
"We believe that we can show those countries who decide to abandon nuclear power – or not to start using it – how it is possible to achieve growth, creating jobs and economic prosperity while shifting the energy supply toward renewable energies," Merkel said.
Merkel's government said it will shut down all 17 nuclear power plants in Germany – the world's fourth-largest economy and Europe's biggest – by 2022. The government had no immediate estimate of the transition's overall cost.

 

[Jadzia]

I hope this means more research will go into solar energy cells, to improve their efficiency (to something like 50%), and to bring down the cost of the panels (to something like £1000 for a small household that uses 2-3kWh per day).

I look forward to the day we can all be self sufficient in electricity.

 

[Count Zero]

Well, in the most absurd and braindead way imaginable involving, among other things, an ethics commission mostly consisting of people with absolutely no expertise in the matter, including representatives of the two main Churches, this government finally arrived at the same point the Social Democrats/Greens government was 10 years ago, with even the same envisioned date. Bravo...
Of course, the final agreement will probably contain all kinds of stupidities the original plan didn't. Also, thanks to the current government revoking the original agreement from 10 years ago, the way is now open for the companies to sue and some have already said they probably will.

Germany is a net exporter of electric power, and the nuclear power plants are hardly ever producing their maximum output. On days with lots of wind/sun, there aren't even needed today. So, this shouldn't be much of a problem, despite what the lobbyists say.
Of course, you can't tell other countries what to do so electric power made from nuclear power abroad can still be imported and will probably be in the future. It's probably neither feasible nor legal to ban that.

 

[DarthTom]

Well, in the most absurd and braindead way imaginable involving, among other things, an ethics commission mostly consisting of people with absolutely no expertise in the matter, including representatives of the two main Churches, this government finally arrived at the same point the Social Democrats/Greens government was 10 years ago, with even the same envisioned date. Bravo...
Of course, the final agreement will probably contain all kinds of stupidities the original plan didn't. Also, thanks to the current government revoking the original agreement from 10 years ago, the way is now open for the companies to sue and some have already said they probably will.

It's an interesting choice indeed considering your neighbor, France, gets 80% of its electrical power form nuclear and apparently shares no such desire to abandon the power source. It's not as if Germany has shields, in the event of a nuclear accident in Europe.

Germany is a net exporter of electric power, and the nuclear power plants are hardly ever producing their maximum output. On days with lots of wind/sun, there aren't even needed today. So, this shouldn't be much of a problem, despite what the lobbyists say.
Of course, you can't tell other countries what to do so electric power made from nuclear power abroad can still be imported and will probably be in the future. It's probably neither feasible nor legal to ban that.

Nor is good gas mileage to help protect the enviornment. The S-Class Mercedes [which is very popular here in the US among the wealthy] is another major export of Germany and gets a paltry 19 MPG.

 

[Count Zero]

It's an interesting choice indeed considering your neighbor, France, gets 80% of its electrical power form nuclear and apparently shares no such desire to abandon the power source. It's not as if Germany has shields, in the event of a nuclear accident in Europe.

It's a sensible choice. Maybe others will follow, maybe not. There are also countries in Europe which don't rely on nuclear power. Norway seems to get all of their electricity out of water power. Switzerland has also just decided to get out of nuclear power by 2034.
The costs of nuclear power will stay with us for a long time, anyway. There's still the question of what to do with all the nuclear waste. The sooner we stop producing even more without knowing where to ultimately put it, the better.

Nor is good gas mileage to help protect the enviornment. The S-Class Mercedes [which is very popular here in the US among the wealthy] is another major export of Germany and gets a paltry 19 MPG.

I believe that the US versions of European cars usually have less MPG than their originals. Still, yeah, some cars eat a lot of petrol. That's why we tax the hell out of petrol to make it less attractive to own such cars. Generally, the tendency is definetely to build cars with better mileage and less CO2 output, so I suppose that strategy is working.

 

[DarthTom]

It's a sensible choice. Maybe others will follow, maybe not. There are also countries in Europe which don't rely on nuclear power. Norway seems to get all of their electricity out of water power. Switzerland has also just decided to get out of nuclear power by 2034.
The costs of nuclear power will stay with us for a long time, anyway. There's still the question of what to do with all the nuclear waste. The sooner we stop producing even more without knowing where to ultimately put it, the better.

I agree with you generally about nuclear power. Part of the problem [the dangers aside] is that many of the costs are hidden. In a KWH analysis often excluded are such additional costs for the plants e.g. the liability insurance, the cost to dispose of the fuel, and generally the enormous costs to build the plants to begin with - often heavily subsidized [comparatively to other types of electrical production] by the government.

Sci-Fi fans tend to be in my experience default supporters for nuclear power despite the fact that alternatives are equally as viable and often less expensive.

I believe that the US versions of European cars usually have less MPG than their originals. Still, yeah, some cars eat a lot of petrol. That's why we tax the hell out of petrol to make it less attractive to own such cars. Generally, the tendency is definetely to build cars with better mileage and less CO2 output, so I suppose that strategy is working.

I was joshing with you about how inefficient many Mercedes can be. No one who buys a Mercedes [at least here] is worried about gas prices though. But I do find it ironic that many of the wealthy who own them discount the environmental impact their luxury purchase has. Their attitude often is, 'the little people can worry about the environment.'

 

[Jadzia]

Germany is a net exporter of electric power, and the nuclear power plants are hardly ever producing their maximum output. On days with lots of wind/sun, there aren't even needed today. So, this shouldn't be much of a problem, despite what the lobbyists say.

Uranium ore is getting expensive. At one time it was dirt cheap, but the price of it has increased tenfold over the past decade, spiking in 2007. It has dropped a little recently due to the Fukushima incident. When you consider that a nuclear plant has to operate for 25 years to pay for itself, you need the price of the fuel to be relatively stable, otherwise it'll bankrupt you.

So I wonder if this announcement by Germany is intended to manipulate the stock market. When a nation announces that they're abandoning nuclear power, we'd expect the price of uranium to fall due to an expectation of reduced demand.

When you see the price start to climb, make an announcement saying you're abandoning it, and watch the price fall back. Rinse and repeat

 

[Distorted Humor]

Dumbest move in a while by germany...and you will see them slide back into nuclear in a few years when they run the tough numbers....

Nuclear power and space rockets are two things that France, for all the jokes, does VERY well...Guess the French will sell them nuclear power...

 

[JarodRussell]

An interesting choice for a country who's engineering firms are one of the largest builders of nuclear power plants internationally.

So does this mean they won't build them either in another country?

Huffington

BERLIN — Europe's economic powerhouse, Germany, announced plans Monday to abandon nuclear energy over the next 11 years, outlining an ambitious strategy in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster to replace atomic power with renewable energy sources.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said she hopes the transformation to more solar, wind and hydroelectric power serves as a roadmap for other countries.
"We believe that we can show those countries who decide to abandon nuclear power – or not to start using it – how it is possible to achieve growth, creating jobs and economic prosperity while shifting the energy supply toward renewable energies," Merkel said.
Merkel's government said it will shut down all 17 nuclear power plants in Germany – the world's fourth-largest economy and Europe's biggest – by 2022. The government had no immediate estimate of the transition's overall cost.

They are probably going to import nuclear power from us. Their loss.

 

[Count Zero]

Well, as I said, the plan to get out of nuclear power was already in place 10 years ago, with pretty much the same end date. The current government then circumvented it last year by passing a law that would allow nuclear power plants to run much longer - due to the way that remaining life time of the plants was to be calculated, it was even unclear when the last plant would then go offline, probably sometime between 2034 and 2040. But nominally, even this government was still on board with getting out of nuclear power at some point in the future (because there's really a very broad consensus for this here).
However, outrage and mass protests ensued. I think the government seriously underestimated the strength of the movement against nuclear power.
Then Fukushima happened, and realising this decision which was still fresh in people's memory and against which protests were still taking place would come to really, really haunt them for the next years, they decided, or most likely the Chancelorette did, that they needed to do some serious flip-flopping on the issue. At first, I think they still hoped it would blow over but the last couple of elections results really showed them it wouldn't.
Yesterday, they sort of pretended as if they had done something really revolutionary and as if all this had been their idea. It was quite hilarious. I hope not too many fall for it.

 

[{ Emilia }]

They are probably going to import nuclear power from us. Their loss.

Don't be naive.

Last weekend all but 4 of our nuclear power plants were down for maintenance and other reasons as some sort of test run and you know what?
Nothing happened.

Now granted this happened during the summer when less electricity is needed and it was a good weekend for sun and wind yields but still... you really think Germany won't be able to make the transition by 2022?

I'm not saying it'll be easy but your arrogance is amusing.

As a sidenote: The original post mentioned German companies building nuclear power plants all over the world...
The same is true for solar power, you know. Germany's also the world leading manufacturer of solar energy technology.

 

[Lindley]

I guess I'm not really clear on why Germany is so anti-nuclear in the first place.

If they want to get rid of the older, less safe designs, that's one thing. But there are new reactor designs available which are both much safer and produce much less waste----why isn't anyone interested in these?

 

[Count Zero]

Well, they still produce waste - and that's really a big issue. Then, there's still a remaining risk. And lastly, it seems a bit pointless to invest so much money into a technology that's actually rather expensive if you factor in all the costs and which is not a renewable energy source. At one point, the world will run out of uranium and plutonium. So it seems a lot more sensible to me to invest the money in renewable energy and a more efficient power grid.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Then Fukushima happened, and realising this decision which was still fresh in people's memory and against which protests were still taking place would come to really, really haunt them for the next years, they decided, or most likely the Chancelorette did, that they needed to do some serious flip-flopping on the issue.

The strict timeline enforced by the chancelorette is what bugged me. I know for a fact that there wasn't enough time to conduct studies and evaluate the impact.
I personally know that the concerned departments of the federal ministry of economics flat out told their minister Rösler that they simply cannot suggest a reasonable position for him to take cause there was not enough time for a thorough analysis. The divisions tasked with preparing the summit simply couldn't finish their work in time. That's why Rösler seemed so hesitant, he didn't have anything to base his position on.
That is very, very rare. Unheard of basically.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I guess I'm not really clear on why Germany is so anti-nuclear in the first place.

It mostly has to do with not liking cancer and stuff.

 

[{ Emilia }]

ha, all we know how Germany always change their mind....so this decision is not the end Germany is filled with nuclear plants...so what, they all gonna close...another nonsence

There's been a big anti-nuclear movement since the early 1980's and the centre-left parties have been against nuclear energy for quite a while now, too.

Now the centre-right has finally realized that people don't want it. This is definitely happening now, no doubt about it.

 

[Lindley]

I guess I'm not really clear on why Germany is so anti-nuclear in the first place.

It mostly has to do with not liking cancer and stuff.

Well, they still produce waste - and that's really a big issue. Then, there's still a remaining risk. And lastly, it seems a bit pointless to invest so much money into a technology that's actually rather expensive if you factor in all the costs and which is not a renewable energy source. At one point, the world will run out of uranium and plutonium. So it seems a lot more sensible to me to invest the money in renewable energy and a more efficient power grid.

There's always going to be some risk from any kind of power generation. Wind power has killed more people in the last half-century than nuclear. Dams can fail and flood huge areas. Coal mining kills workers and sickens those living nearby with alarming regularity. The risks with modern nuclear designs are not significantly greater than any other power generation method, and in some cases are much lower.

The amount of waste produced in reactors active today is a problem, but updated designs could cut that by a factor of 100 or more.

There is a large up-front cost, yes. But that's what loans are for: to spread a large up-front cost over a more sustainable timeframe.

Even the Fukushima plant, which is notably not a particularly modern design, has (as far as I've been able to tell from the news) not yet killed even a single person due to radiation. (Hydrogen explosions have wounded a few people, and I think a couple were killed at the plant in the initial tsunami.)

 

[JarodRussell]

People fall off windmills? LOL.

 

[{ Emilia }]

The amount of waste produced in reactors active today is a problem, but updated designs could cut that by a factor of 100 or more.

No matter how much the production of waste is reduced you still end up with some nuclear waste. Can anybody honestly (without being a retarded fucktard) guarantee the safe storage of ANYTHING for 100+ or 1000+ years?

I mean, seriously?
Hey, it's not like the world changes much in 1000 years, right?

Germany stored some nuclear waste in sealed containers in a salt mine which is what many countries do. Then a couple of years ago people realized that the water conditions in the ground around the mine changed and that some water enters the mine damaging the containers. Nothing you can do about geological changes, huh? And they've only been there for like 30 years. There's no bloody way you can guarantee anything.

 

[Count Zero]

There is a large up-front cost, yes. But that's what loans are for: to spread a large up-front cost over a more sustainable timeframe.

Again, you can also invest the money into renewable energy sources instead, which seems to have more future than nuclear power and thus seems to be the logical thing to do.