Germany decides to abandon nuclear power by 2022

Germany decides to abandon nuclear power by 2022

www.msnbc.msn.com

Germany's coalition government agreed early Monday to shut down all the country's nuclear power plants by 2022, the environment minister said, making it the first major industrialized nation in the last quarter century to announce plans to go nuclear-free.

The country's seven oldest reactors already taken off the grid pending safety inspections following the catastrophe at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant in March will remain offline permanently, Norbert Roettgen added. The country has 17 reactors total.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Not surprisingly there is some backlash after Japan's nuke-power disaster. Germany's plants are now somewhat aging and in need of modernizing their power grid. Germany will be the first industrialized nation to decide to do a turnaround and go nuke-free and turn to renewable sources.

Chancellor Angela Merkel pushed through measures in 2010 to extend the lifespan of the country's 17 reactors, with the last one scheduled to go offline in 2036, but she reversed her policy in the wake of the Japanese disaster.

"We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable," Merkel told reporters on Monday.

Germany's energy supply chain "needs a new architecture," necessitating huge efforts in boosting renewable energies, efficiency gains and overhauling the electricity grid, she added.

The German people have not been too keen on nuclear power since Chernobyl and now Japan's incident made this more imperative to take action but this will still make another 10 years or more before they are nuke-free.

Many Germans have been vehemently opposed to nuclear power since Chernobyl sent radioactive fallout over the country. Tens of thousands repeatedly took to the street in the wake of Fukushima to urge the government to shut all reactors.

It appears Germany's neighbors may have similar plans. Some of those a bit more dependent on nuclear power may have a bit longer to before they are ready but it would appear Japan's incident is putting a bug in everyone's ear to listen-up to consider the options.

The government of neighboring Switzerland, where nuclear power produces 40 percent of the country's electricity, also announced last week that it plans to shut down its reactors gradually once they reach their average lifespan of 50 years — which would mean taking the last plant off the grid in 2034.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

And use what? Mice in treadmills?

Do I smell an election looming shortly?

Hope the British government are listening too. but sadly British governments are
more greedy than their German counterpart.

The entire planet should stop this stupidness before it is too late.
Nuke plants are unsafe, we only need about 6 of them to get into difficulties and
then tshtf.

This is the result of anti-nuclear fearmongering and populism, not rational thinking, IMHO. Nuclear will be substituted by dangerous coal and importing costly power from abroad.

reply to post by rigel4

Nuke plants are unsafe, we only need about 6 of them to get into difficulties and then tshtf.

Nuke plants, even counting those decades old, are the safest source of energy per TWh produced, even before renewables.

nextbigfuture.com...

Area 51 needs to unlock those Zero point modules and start distributing them to every Nation.
Or the technology recently unveiled by the Japanese:-

Water fueled cars. if this is not a bogus technology, why can't it be scaled up to
produce power for National use.

Anyone care to tell me why this can't be done.

Ps Zero points was said tongue in cheek.

Rigel4

I think windmills are dangerous. What if they fall on top of people? Have the activists though about how dangerous they are? I bet not. They're just downplaying the risks involved.

reply to post by rigel4

Water fueled cars. if this is not a bogus technology, why can't it be scaled up to produce power for National use.

There are no water fueled cars. If you mean those hydrogen fueled cars that produce water as exhaust, then be aware that the source of hydrogen is electrolysis of water powered by electricity from power plants. It is only a storage mechanism, not a source of energy.

More fearmongering. I knew there would be backlash from Fukushima but this is silly. How prone to earthquakes and tsunamis is Germany?

Power is not a ine size fits all system. Here in the UK nuke power stations are pretty safe, we rarely have earthquakes and they are tiny, and we never have anything like tsunamis or dangerous hurricanes. Japan is different and nuclear power is silly, FOR THEM.

I would love to see the UK go 100% renewable, but its just not ready yet, or cost effective enough.

Thorium Power is the future, IMHO. There have been a few threads on the subject even here on ATS:

Thorium Power Plants Could Solve The World's Energy Problems
Thorium Reactors - Too Effective, Too Cheap, Too Clean to be used?
Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium
Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with Thorium

Here is an interesting study regarding the costs/benefits and longterm advantages of thorium power and also reasons why was is not pursued as it should have been:
www.thoriumenergyalliance.com...

Specifically LFTRs, or Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors have great potential:
Molten Salt Fueled Reactors

In short: One tonne of natural thorium in LFTR produces so much energy as 35 t of enriched uranium (250 t of natural uranium required). 170 kg of longer-term radioactive fission waste results (compared to almost the same 35 t of waste with uranium), but this waste becomes inert in cca 300 years! (100 000s of years with uranium spent fuel products). And in addition, LFTRs are
- passively safe (meltdown physically impossible)
- breeder reactors - produce more fuel than they consume, and there is much more thorium than uranium on Earth
- no need for expensive fuel fabrication
- easily scalable
- nuclear weapons proliferation resistance considerably improved compared to current reactors

And molten salt fuel reactors are not experimental. Several have been constructed and operated flawlessly at 650 °C temperatures for extended times, with simple, practical validated designs, using 1960s technology. There is no need for new science and very little risk in engineering new, larger or modular designs.

Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten Salt Breeder Reactor



Germans would do far better by investing in this technology rather than chasing the pipedream of 21.st century industrialised civilisation running on unpredictable windmills and gloriously ineficient solar panels.

reply to post by arriana


How prone was Chernobyl to earthquakes and Tsunami's???
You see it is not the cause of the failures that worries people, it is the failures them selves!
There is only one reason for failures to happen to any type of machinery, and that is the unexpected.
It is just too dangerous a technology, we can't control a nuclear reaction when something goes wrong.
It's like a train wreck coming down a mountain, there is no way to stop it and we all know that it WILL crash
and burn at the bottom of the hill, there is no way to stop it once it starts.
You thinking is flawed and narrow, it is not about any one type of cause it is about the technology itself.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Just buy THORIUM power from China.

China is going to be the worlds biggest thorium power producer anyway, because the Western world wont build thorium reactors, so the scientists and businesses went to China.

Norway will also be a big Thorium reactor supplier.

The problem isnt the fact we have Nuclear power, the problem is we have the WRONG type of nuclear reactors.

And the reason we have the WRONG type of reactors is both government policies and influence by businesses and those that don't want to pay decent taxes (most applicable to the UK), and also because of fat cats managers / directors (again most applicable to the UK).

As an Austrian. This makes me proud.
Eco-friendly and renewable energy sources are the way. And I'm confident the germans can bring us that innovation. They do make the best cars. Along with us.

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by arriana

 

How prone was Chernobyl to earthquakes and Tsunami's???
You see it is not the cause of the failures that worries people, it is the failures them selves!
There is only one reason for failures to happen to any type of machinery, and that is the unexpected.
It is just too dangerous a technology, we can't control a nuclear reaction when something goes wrong.
It's like a train wreck coming down a mountain, there is no way to stop it and we all know that it WILL crash
and burn at the bottom of the hill, there is no way to stop it once it starts.
You thinking is flawed and narrow, it is not about any one type of cause it is about the technology itself.

Chernobyl wasn't unexpected, they were farting around with the reactor. If they weren't experimenting it wouldn't have exploded. If you show nuclear power the respect it requires it is actually pretty safe.
And your right, is *is* like a train wreck. We cant stop it crashing and burning, but we still use them after one has!

According to the USEIA (US Energy Information Administration), in 2009, 68% of electricity was generated through burning fossil fuels which includes petroleum, coal, and natural gas, 20% was generated through nuclear plants, while wind and solar generated less than 2%.

If we were to develop or discover a cost effective and efficient replacement(s) for current energy production, I would gladly jump on that ship. The truth however, is that no such alternative exists, and environmentalists can hug all the trees they want, it won't change this fundamental fact.

We cannot burn coal, natural gas, or petroleum derivatives because they are dirty. We cannot use nuclear energy because of the radiation risks. We cannot use hydroelectric plants because they destroy water based ecosystems. Some might choose geothermal, but this process is expensive, can lead to land subsidence, high mineral content waste water, release of noxious and poisonous gasses, land usage and noise pollution, prevent its wide spread usage. Others would turn to biofuels, but this doesn't make sense either. It seems rather idiotic to use land for growing fuel instead of food, and especially as the world's population increases, and more and more people are starving. I've heard mention of algae based biofuels, but I'm quite sure the environmentalists would claim the process of growing it polluted the ocean or whatever other body of water was used in that process. Therefore the only "environmentally safe" sources that remain are wind and solar, which I've already factually demonstrated can't sustain current energy needs. Even wind turbines have objectionable points though, most of which involve noise, ruining views, ground vibrations, and bird strikes. It seems as though the environmentalists are hell-bent on destroying any sufficient source of energy we have.

While wind and (or) solar energy might be sufficient for an average family home, they cannot support heavy industry, through which many of the essential goods we use on a daily basis, are produced.

Renewable and green energy sources are no where near cost effective nor sufficient to replace fossil-fuel and nuclear derived energy as the primary source. It's simply a farce. We must protect the environment, however we can't survive with such militant environmentalism, and we are going to have to get out of that mentality if we are to produce sufficient levels of energy. We will have to burn more coal or petroleum derivatives, build more nuclear or hydroelectric power plants, or find or develop a "real" alternative to it which is cost effective and efficient, otherwise we are all heading towards a dark age the likes of which hasn't even been fathomed.

reply to post by Jepic


Yeah, the Austrian way - build brand new, modern and safe nuclear power plant (Zwentendorf), then never turn it on due to anti-nuclear hysteria suddenly kicking in (referendum result 50,5 % against, 49,5 % for), partially dismantle it, and produce the missing electricity by burning far more dangerous coal, and even improting coal produced power from abroad to cover the increased need, thus polluting the whole neighbouhood.

plarmy.org...

Zwentendorf is the only Austrian nuclear power station. It has projected power 730 MWe.

It's start-up was blocked in November 1978 by a thin majority of 50.47% votes.

Why does the closed Zwentendorf plant cause radioactive fallout?

Austria imports electricity, which is produced in coal burning power plants (mostly lignite). Coal typically contains 5-15 ppm of uranium, however in some locations such as Nejdek the uranium concentration reaches 1%. When the coal is burned, uranium spreads into the atmosphere. The decision to not run the Zwentendorf plant therefore results in at least 10 tons of radioactive fallout per year. For comparison, had Zwentendorf been running, it would produce about 7 tons of solid radioactive wastes (recyclable partially spent fuel) and no radioactive fallout.

The alternative to uranium is coal. Coal contains uranium, burning of coal causes radioactive emissions. Inactivated Zwentendorf causes radioactive fallout.
A coal power plant in Dürnrohr was build nearby, instead of the nuclear power plant Zwentendorf. This plant burns Czech and Polish coal. There is a trash burning facility nearby also.

Coal and Oil's dirty little secret.

When they refine and burn coal and oil, it releases radioactivity.

You do NOT want to live down wind stream from a coal or oil refiner or power producer.

If you want a good example of green power producers, look no further than Denmark and Iceland.

Worlds leaders for natural power generation.

China / Norway, Leaders in Thorium.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Should all go Nuclear free i say..... can cause way too much problems for the planet when things go wrong.

I'm pretty sure the Japan crisis isn't over yet.... the air and sea is polluted with poisons from this and its gonna be around for a while just like the Chenobyl catastrophie!!

The ether (not vacume ) is all full of energy, so many ways to generate energy cleanly and cheaply.

We all know the reason why it doesn't happen.

Greed. The only way humanity learns is by things blowing up in their faces.

History repeats in cycles.