Germany Set to Abandon Nuclear Power for Good

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#1
BERLIN (AP) - Germany is determined to show the world how abandoning nuclear energy can be done.

The world's fourth-largest economy stands alone among leading industrialized nations in its decision to stop using nuclear energy because of its inherent risks. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead.

The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions."

Berlin's decision to take seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months for new safety checks has provided a glimpse into how Germany might wean itself from getting nearly a quarter of its power from atomic energy to none.

And experts say Germany's phase-out provides a good map that countries such as the United States, which use a similar amount of nuclear power, could follow. The German model would not work, however, in countries like France, which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting.

"If we had the winds of Texas or the sun of California, the task here would be even easier," said Felix Matthes of Germany's renowned Institute for Applied Ecology. "Given the great potential in the U.S., it would be feasible there in the long run too, even though it would necessitate huge infrastructure investments."

Nuclear power has been very unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster drifted across the country. A center-left government a decade ago penned a plan to abandon the technology for good by 2021, but Merkel's government last year amended it to extend the plants' lifetime by an average of 12 years. That plan was put on hold after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami compromised nuclear power plants in Japan, and is being re-evaluated as the safety of all of Germany's nuclear reactors is being rechecked.

Germany currently gets 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power - about as much as the U.S. It's ambitious plan to shut down its reactors will require at least euro150 billion ($210 billion) investment in alternative energy sources, which experts say will likely lead to higher electricity prices.

Germany now gets 17 percent of its electricity from renewable energies, 13 percent from natural gas and more than 40 percent from coal. The Environment Ministry says in 10 years renewable energy will contribute 40 percent of the country's overall electricity production.

The government has been vague on a total price tag for the transition, but it said last year about euro20 billion ($28 billion) a year will be needed, acknowledging that euro75 billion ($107 billion) alone will be required through 2030 to install offshore wind farms.

The president of Germany's Renewable Energy Association, Dietmar Schuetz, said the government should create a more favorable regulatory environment to help bringing forward some euro150 billion investment in alternative energy sources this decade by businesses and homeowners.

Last year, German investment in renewable energy topped euro26 billion ($37 billion) and secured 370,000 jobs, the government said.

After taking seven reactors off the grid last week, officials hinted the oldest of them may remain switched off for good, but assured consumers there are no worries about electricity shortages as the country is a net exporter.

"We can guarantee that the lights won't go off in Germany," Environment Ministry spokeswoman Christiane Schwarte said.

Most of the country's leaders now seem determined to swiftly abolish nuclear power, possibly by 2020, and several conservative politicians, including the chancellor, have made a complete U-turn on the issue.

Vice Chancellor Guido Westerwelle said Wednesday "we must learn from Japan" and check the safety of the country's reactors but also make sure viable alternatives are in place.

"It would be the wrong consequence if we turn off the safest atomic reactors in the world, and then buy electricity from less-safe reactors in foreign countries," he told the Passauer Neue Presse newspaper.

But Schuetz insists that "we can replace nuclear energy even before 2020 with renewable energies, producing affordable and ecologically sound electricity."

But someone will have to foot the bill.

"Consumers must be prepared for significantly higher electricity prices in the future," said Wolfgang Franz, head of the government's independent economic advisory body. Merkel last week also warned that tougher safety rules for the remaining nuclear power plants "would certainly mean that electricity gets more expensive."

The German utilities' BDEW lobby group said long-term price effects could not be determined until the government spells out its nuclear reduction plans. Matthes' institute says phasing out nuclear power by 2020 is feasible by better capacity management and investment that would only lead to a price increase of 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In Germany, the producers of renewable energy - be it solar panels on a homeowner's rooftop or a farm of wind mills - are paid above-market prices to make sure their investment breaks even, financed by a 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour tax paid by all electricity customers.

For a typical German family of four who pay about euro1,000 ($1,420) a year to use about 4,500 kilowatt-hours, the tax amounts to euro157 ($223).

The tax produced euro8.2 billion ($11.7 billion) in Germany in 2010 and it is expected to top euro13.5 billion ($19.2 billion) this year. The program - which has been copied by other countries and several U.S. states such as California - is the backbone of the country's transition toward renewable energies.

"Our ideas work. Exiting the nuclear age would also be possible in a country like the U.S.," Schuetz said.

Another factor likely to drive up electricity prices is that relying on renewable energies requires a huge investment in the electricity grid to cope with more decentralized and less reliable sources of power. Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle just announced legislation to speed up grid construction but gave no cost estimate.

And even if non-nuclear power is more expensive, Germans seeing images daily of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear complex seem willing to pay the higher price.

Ralph Kampwirth, spokesman for Lichtblick AG, Germany's biggest utility offering electricity exclusively from renewable sources, said since the Fukushima disaster it has been getting nearly three times more new clients than normal, up from 300 to more than 800 per day, despite prices slightly above average.

Sticking with nuclear power would also have its costs and require public funds.

The only two new nuclear reactors currently under construction in Europe, in France and in Finland, both have been plagued by long delays and seen costs virtually doubling, to around euro4 billion ($5.7 billion) and euro5.3 billion ($7.5 billion) respectively.

The disposal of spent nuclear fuel is also a costly problem, but it has no set price tag in Germany because the government has failed to find a sustainable solution.

Many decades-old reactors are highly profitable as their initial cost has been written off, but they now face higher costs as regulators push for safety upgrades in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. One of the most pressing - and costly - requirements is likely to be a mandatory upgrade to reinforce all nuclear power plants' outer shell to withstand a crash of a commercial airliner.

Utility EnBW pulled the plug for good on one reactor temporarily shut down by the government because the new requirements made operating it "no longer economically viable."

But even if Germany abandons nuclear energy, some of Europe's 143 nuclear reactors will still sit right on its borders.

Since France and other nations are firmly committed to nuclear power, shutting down all reactors across Europe won't happen, but Merkel is now pushing for common safety standards. The topic will be discussed at the European Union summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday.

Merkel said the 27-nation bloc, which has standardized "the size of apples or the shape of bananas," needs joint standards for nuclear power plants.

"Everybody in Europe would be equally affected by an accident at a nuclear power plant in Europe," Merkel said.
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/germany-set-to-abandon-nuclear-power-for-good-1.2777570
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#4
Yes, there is going to be shortage with the regular reactors. Had we invested the necessary time and effort into R&D of breeder and thorium reactors, the picture would be very different. As I am sure you know, the uranium that the regular reactors use is only 0.7% of the uranium in the crust, and it has to be enriched at great energetic cost to at least 5% to be burned; the rest is unusable with this technology but can be burned with breeders; the nuclear waste produced by breeders is a tiny fraction of the waste that current reactors produced and it is mostly short-live nuclides.

That's why I am pro-nuclear in general, but for the following reasons I have mentioned before it is not going to make a difference:

1. Shortage of uranium unless breeder reactors are used
2. Insufficient level of development of breeder and thorium reactor technology (there are lots of messy nuclear physics details involved which I will not discuss here)
3. Insufficient time to build the reactors (and before we do that, we need to train the people who can build and operate them because those are right now in very short supply too) even if the technology was ready to go as it takes 10+ years to build a nuclear power plant and we have to build some 10 to 30 times the number we have now.

So it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it is still a boneheaded move
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#5
Yes, there is going to be shortage with the regular reactors. Had we invested the necessary time and effort into R&D of breeder and thorium reactors, the picture would be very different. As I am sure you know, the uranium that the regular reactors use is only 0.7% of the uranium in the crust, and it has to be enriched at great energetic cost to at least 5% to be burned; the rest is unusable with this technology but can be burned with breeders; the nuclear waste produced by breeders is a tiny fraction of the waste that current reactors produced and it is mostly short-live nuclides.

That's why I am pro-nuclear in general, but for the following reasons I have mentioned before it is not going to make a difference:

1. Shortage of uranium unless breeder reactors are used
2. Insufficient level of development of breeder and thorium reactor technology (there are lots of messy nuclear physics details involved which I will not discuss here)
3. Insufficient time to build the reactors (and before we do that, we need to train the people who can build and operate them because those are right now in very short supply too) even if the technology was ready to go as it takes 10+ years to build a nuclear power plant and we have to build some 10 to 30 times the number we have now.

So it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it is still a boneheaded move
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#7
As I have repeatedly said, the dangers of nuclear have been grossly overstated and people have totally unfounded fears of it.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#8
As I have repeatedly said, the dangers of nuclear have been grossly overstated and people have totally unfounded fears of it.
So, humans didnt invent the nuclear warhead? Interesting. Noted.

BTW, fear happens when something like Chernobyl occurs. Something similar also occurred in Eastern Washington...yet, you wont find any news on it. Baffling.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#9
As I have repeatedly said, the dangers of nuclear have been grossly overstated and people have totally unfounded fears of it.

Well obviously they are overstated!

There is nothing for us to worry about because the nuclear program is controlled by the government which (as one siccness member so eloquently stated) is made up of the same morons that constitute the majority of the general population. :dead:
 

Roz

Sicc OG
Jul 22, 2009
2,874
116
0
38
www.facebook.com
#10
Off topic... But, why haven't we moved towards more solar-power manufacturing type of business's here in US, and abroad? It seems like it would add a lot of jobs for many sectors.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#11
So, humans didnt invent the nuclear warhead? Interesting. Noted.
People need to step their basic reading comprehension game up. Why are you replying to me saying that the dangers of nuclear energy by talking about warheads??

BTW, fear happens when something like Chernobyl occurs. Something similar also occurred in Eastern Washington...yet, you wont find any news on it. Baffling.
Nothing similar happened, if it did, there would be elevated radiation levels over a large part of Eastern Washington and this would be known by now.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#12
Well obviously they are overstated!

There is nothing for us to worry about because the nuclear program is controlled by the government which (as one siccness member so eloquently stated) is made up of the same morons that constitute the majority of the general population. :dead:
1. The government isn't running the nuclear plants, nuclear engineers are.
2. The nuclear program isn't where it should be precisely because the government consists of a bunch of clueless morons
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#13
Off topic... But, why haven't we moved towards more solar-power manufacturing type of business's here in US, and abroad? It seems like it would add a lot of jobs for many sectors.
We haven't moved to solar power because solar power is more expensive, because a capitalist society can't see further in the future than the next few quarters, and because, if you expect to be able to replace all energy production with wind and solar, you are most likely completely unaware of the scale of such a project.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#14
People need to step their basic reading comprehension game up. Why are you replying to me saying that the dangers of nuclear energy by talking about warheads??
...

I Pukokeki Ioulo Momu said:
Im against anything nuclear in the hands of humans off top.


ThaG said:
Nothing similar happened, if it did, there would be elevated radiation levels over a large part of Eastern Washington and this would be known by now.

"Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States"

"The plutonium separation process also resulted in the release of radioactive isotopes into the air, which were carried by the wind throughout southeastern Washington and into parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia"

"These releases were kept secret by the federal government.Radiation was later measured downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#15
1. The government isn't running the nuclear plants, nuclear engineers are.
...


ThaG said:
People need to step their basic reading comprehension game up.
...

Mr. Nice Guy said:
There is nothing for us to worry about because the nuclear program is controlled by the government...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission

"The NRC is headed by five Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms."
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#16
...








"Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States"

"The plutonium separation process also resulted in the release of radioactive isotopes into the air, which were carried by the wind throughout southeastern Washington and into parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia"

"These releases were kept secret by the federal government.Radiation was later measured downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
It's not a matter of a binary answer to the question "Was there a release of radiation?", it is a matter of how much and over what area. s



A lot more information here:

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#17
People need to step their basic reading comprehension game up. Why are you replying to me saying that the dangers of nuclear energy by talking about warheads??
So the word nuclear means two different things? I wasn't aware of that.

Either way, the human factor in ANYTHING = unpredictable. Why you are unable to understand that is still baffling.

Nothing similar happened, if it did, there would be elevated radiation levels over a large part of Eastern Washington and this would be known by now.
The people who live there will tell you different. Just because it wasn't reported, doesnt mean it didnt happen. You arent that naive..are you?

Are you from Washington State? Do you have family there? No? Then who are you to even speak on it? I LIVE here, homeboy. Dont tell me what did or did not happen. PERIOD.

The fact that you think nuclear power is harmless is absolutely laughable in so many ways.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#18
So the word nuclear means two different things? I wasn't aware of that.
It doesn't. As an adjective, it is clear what it means, and as a noun, it is used to refer to nuclear energy, not to the bomb. Which means that I was correct to object.

Either way, the human factor in ANYTHING = unpredictable. Why you are unable to understand that is still baffling.
You can minimize the human factor by designing things properly. As I said above, we are not using the type of reactors we should be using, and we are not using it for mostly irrational reasons. Had we taken the right decision decades ago, Chernobyl wouldn't have happened.

The people who live there will tell you different. Just because it wasn't reported, doesnt mean it didnt happen. You arent that naive..are you?

Are you from Washington State? Do you have family there? No? Then who are you to even speak on it? I LIVE here, homeboy. Dont tell me what did or did not happen. PERIOD.
I am not from Washington but I have a brain and I am not afraid to use it. Look at the map above - it is some 500km from Luminec to Briansk. Had a Chernobyl happened at Hanford, Yakima and the Tri-Cities would have been uninhabitable and Geiger counters would have been going crazy in both Spokane and Seattle.

One can not blindly launch himself into conspiracy theories each and every time something happens (or doesn't happen). It is just as much a sign of a sloppy, untrained and lazy mind as the blind acceptance of spoon-fed "truth".

The fact that you think nuclear power is harmless is absolutely laughable in so many ways.
It is much more harmless than fossil fuels are. Fossil fuels threaten us with extinction. Nuclear may kill a few hundred people here and there when it goes wrong (which is very rare) but that's it, and if it was done the right way, there wouldn't even be much waste to deal with. Coal kills when it goes right (a few hundred thousand people a year just from the particulate pollution, plus potentially the whole species and certainly a few billions in the long term). If all the nuclear plants in the world blew up like Chernobyl, it would still be nowhere near close
 
Feb 7, 2011
570
118
0
41
#19
/facepalm


Ive worked at a research facility for 6 years as a Nuclear safety and security specialist. Ive seen cobalt 60, xenon, etc ..

1) Nuclear Energy is the CLEANEST form of energy when you factor in practicality and application. The designs of today have been expanded and improved upon since and other countries have bought our reactors and made them better. We are lagging WAY behind in Nuclear technology..

2)You receive more radiation laying next to you girl then you would rubbing your face up and down the outside of a containment center.

3) Chernobyl happened because A) The military took it over and fired the techs and engineers. B) Was a flawed and now OBSOLETE design and C) had a graphite based fuel source which helped with the spread of its radioactivity. Reactors today use gas and liquids which dissipate much faster into the atmosphere when released.
 
Feb 7, 2011
570
118
0
41
#20
Either way, the human factor in ANYTHING = unpredictable. Why you are unable to understand that is still baffling.
Same can be said for cars,guns,etc..

The human factor is something that we as humans will never get over because.. well we're human, but risks are something that we as humans are going to need to take otherwise we are going to be unable to advance as a society and as a species.