Follow this blog:
RSS

Germany to shutter nuclear plants

By | May 31, 2011, 6:17 AM PDT

Under political fire, German chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday announced that the country would phase out all nuclear power sources by 2022.

The news comes after a new report by the Ethics Commission for Security Energy recommended that Germany close all 17 of the nation’s nuclear plants, eight of which are offline.

It also comes in the extended wake of Japan’s Fukushima disaster, which demonstrated a country with heavy reliance on nuclear power.

“We want the electricity of the future to be safe, but also to remain reliable and affordable,” Merkel said in a statement.

State environment ministers agreed that the plants should be phased out gradually. But “gradual” may not be gradual enough: with nuclear’s reliable, 24/7 power no longer available, the country may be more susceptible to power grid failures during the transition period from nuclear to other sources of power, such as renewables.

(The commission recommended wind, solar, water, geothermal and biomass as alternatives.)

There’s also the financial issue. With less power available — less supply but increasing demand — the cost of electricity is expected to rise. While that’s frustrating for most homeowners, it’s even worse for the industrial sector, which uses almost half of the country’s power supply.

The big question on everyone’s mind: is Germany too aggressively giving up nuclear power, or not quickly enough?

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
9
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Politician talk
You'll see, in a couple of years they will claim that "new" information, "the current economical situation", and Germany's lack of earthquakes makes nuclear power "safe" for Germany. It's happened before, even in my country.
Posted by Dukhalion
31st May 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Another mandate without a real plan.
Just a vague goal to replace them with "renewable" sources. We'll see how well this plays out when rates go up and they become more dependent upon their neighbors for power, just like oh-so-green California.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
31st May 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
A new technology that the corporate media is trying to surpress
The US government has been working on this technology for over 10 years.
Please take 15 min and explore the links provided. Why the US media is reluctant to cover this is astounding.

Andrea Rossi has given three demonstrations so far including with professors from Bologna University and the Swedish skeptics society and the Chairman of the Swedish Physics Union. This is an directory of Rossi efforts http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator. This is a link to the LENR site where detailed information about cold fusion efforts is available. www.lenr-canr.org/News... The US Naval Research lab has been working on this with positive results for over 10 years and has confirmed it existence. \



Rossi has announced a 1MW Cold Fusion facility to be opened in Greece this Oct. Still top line periodicals have yet to publish even one article. This will change the economics of the world lifting many people out of poverty and it will also threaten many vested interests.



http://pesn.com/2011/05/17/9501827_Ampenergo_Amps_Up_Rossis_Energy_Catalyzer_in_America/
"..Ampenergo was founded by Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. It is important to note that Robert Gentile was the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during the early 1990's. This helps confirm Rossi's claim that tests of the E-Cat have been observed by the U.S. Department of Defense and the DOE. It is very likely that at least certain individuals in the DOD and DOE are aware and interested in the Energy Catalyzer. However, their silence is deafening.

It is unknown if any military or secret government research is taking place, but there are unsubstantiated rumors floating around the internet of the US Navy using a nickel-hydrogen cold fusion reactor to power a submarine. Although the rumor is not likely to be true, if they have known about the technology for a couple of years, it is possible testing is taking place. Trillions of dollars go missing from the DOD budget on a regular basis, and the money is obviously being spent on something..."
Posted by ralphla54
31st May 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Counterintuitive
Strange if the Navy was having positive cold fusion outcomes why they would be $800/gallon for algae oil to test for both ship and aircraft fuels as they did this past year. You might want to get your numbers straight on DOD budgets, too - which is under a trillion a year ($685 billion in 2010 - $707 billion for 2012 - total DOD expenditures).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
31st May 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
Old news.
The world is already converting to thorium instead of uranium reactors - so yes, forward thinking countries are shuttering their uranium based nuclear reactors. Especially small countries that can't afford to have a major part of their country radioactively quarantined for several life times.

I have never supported uranium based nuclear power, but thorium looks like what we should have been using since it developed by us in the 60's,

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

but GE and the military bought enough Congressmen (just as they are doing today) to cancel what was obviously a safer power source, in favor of one that could also produce vast quantities of electrical power with nuclear warheads as a bi-product - which you can't do with thorium reactors. Now other countries are developing building cheaper, smaller, cleaner and safer thorium reactors post haste - while we're still struggling with what to do with all of our spent uranium fuel rods accumulated of the past 60 years. If we had the death penalty for Congressmen that accept bribes, we might have to pay them more, but spend a lot less on the cost of corruption in this country. Japan is just realizing the cost of their corruption now.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
Updated - 31st May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
One other option
We are told we have an ever increasing demand for energy. The solution until we get a cheaper and sustainable energy source is curtail our demand!

If you are in a disaster situation, like a hurricane or ice storms that will leave you without food for weeks, you eat less until more is available, or else you will run out of food and possibly starbe. Same thing with electricity. Until more abundant energy is available, we need to not increase our demands, but live with what we have.
Posted by dwsimpso
Updated - 31st May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
If you only look at the bottom line, you miss the big picture.
The articles say only the cheapest energy should be made, even if it harms the planet.

We chose a "green" electricity provided, not because it was the cheapest (it isn't), but because it's the right thing to do. We are spending more so eventually all will have a better, renewable and safer planet on which to live.

If you only look at the bottom line, you miss the big picture.
Posted by dwsimpso
31st May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Angela Merkela puts her foor right in it...
Dwsimpso says - May 31, 2011 @ 7:11 PM (PDT) ??? ???We are told we have an ever increasing demand for energy. The solution until we get a cheaper and sustainable energy source is curtail our demand!

Er???the real world that most of us live in is growing rapidly in wealth and increasing opportunities ??? particularly for poorer nations that can only become richer through the use of more advanced technology. Do you really want to stop poor people getter a better life by curtailing energy demand? And do you really think there is a hope of people agreeing to do so?

No of course not! It is just pie in the sky.

The whole argument is only intellectually sustainable if you believe what you are being told about fossil fuels causing dangerous global warming. Actually the balance of probability is moving against that position very rapidly, so this plank of the eco-fascist argument is falling away. Unfortunately the politicians and their fellow travelers are all on the bandwagon now and will find it very, very hard to get off.

Angela Merkel is in cloud cuckoo land, making a cheap political gesture. Is she really serious about replacing baseline electricity generation which currently relies almost entirely on gas, coal and nuclear fuels? In the UK in the last 12 months these three fuels accounted, respectively, for 47%, 31% and 20% (note that???s a total of 98% ) of our electricity generating capacity.

See: www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/UKElectricalEnergy.html

Forget wind. It is intermittent, and so cannot contribute to ???always available??? baseload power. Despite 30 years of effort and billions committed by the UK government in subsidies (in the form of feed-in tariff guarantees for the next 20 years paid for by ever increasing electricity bills), in the last 12 months the UK still only delivered a 1.4% contribution to our electricity requirements.

Solar is likewise completely unsuitable for baseload (think about the night time) and is still very expensive. It is particularly uneconomic for high latitude countries, where much of the world???s population lives.

Biomass is a minor bit player ??? with obvious limits to fuel availability.

Geothermal is only appropriate in rare parts of the world and is still hugely expensive.

So the only face-saving solution to get these crazy politicians off the hook is nuclear power. Firtly, it neatly avoids the embarrassment of having to admit that the planet is not warming like the doomsayers said it would. And secondly, it is anyway a better long term energy solution with practically limitless fuel sources available from countries that don???t have dodgy governments.

So you would think nuclear would be the best way out of the real mess the politicians are in. But what does Angela Merkel do? Puts her foot further into the mire, moving in exactly the wrong direction.
Posted by cosserat@...
1st Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE; Germany to shutter nuclear plants
Sure,

They can burn more Ruhr Valley coal and Black Forest trees to generate electricity.
Posted by bb_apptix
Updated - 8th Jun 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!