5 ms·

Pretty much because Merkel decided so in the days following Fukushima. Not exactly the result of long term strategy.

by cm2187 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago
Pretty much just going by feels. Not exactly good governance.
- aurelwu 8y ago
  nuclear was being phased out before fukushima anyways in germany, it was just accelerated a few years. New nuclear power plants are just way too expensive - take a look at Flamanville, Hinkley point C, Olkiluoto 3, Wylfa Newydd and Hanhikivi and you'll see that they are just too expensive. You can argue for having the old ones run a bit longer but the older the plants become the more maintenance issues arise.
  - acidburnNSA 8y ago
    It's well established that the West has forgotten how to build nukes. But Hitachi, KEPCO, and the Russians have not forgotten, and can build them effectively today. Perhaps with some effort the West can re-learn how its done from these modern success stories.
    - aurelwu 8y ago
      Wylfa Newydd was a project by Hitachi before it got cancelled despite being guaranteed a higher-than-market compensation of £75 per MWh[0], yet despite those heavy subsidies it apparently is not worht it. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/17/hitachi-set-to-scrap-16bn-nuclear-project-anglesey-wales https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/17/hitachi-set...
- detaro 8y ago
  Not exactly good governance was what she did before too, going back on existing long-term exit plans that the majority supported. Fukushima just moved that from somewhat unpopular to entirely politically untenable.
hugi 8y ago
Fukushima was an excellent demonstration of what can happen. You devastate huge areas of land and make them unlivable for generations. This is especially applicable to the United States that has proven entirely unable to handle it's own nuclear waste and just accumulates it at the sites where it's generated, waiting for disaster to happen.
- cm2187 8y ago
  I always thought that nuclear waste was a non problem. It is a minuscule amount of confined hazardous material. Even if you don't recycle it, the impact on the environment is negligible. But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reactors. More modern design do not present those risks [1]. Judging nuclear energy based on 1960s design is like judging aviation based on the safety records of 1930s planes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
  - hannob 8y ago
    > But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reactors. With "early generation reactors" you mean all the ones that exist. The whole "next generation reactor" / "generation 4 reactor" thing is at this point nothing more than vague plans for what could be.
    - DennisP 8y ago
      That's overstating things. Fukushima was built in the 70s. A nearby reactor faced the same challenges but was built a decade later, and it was fine. That's just a GenII, still not as safe as the GenIII+ we're building now. Chernobyl, of course, was a horrific design that didn't even have a containment dome. Nobody builds reactors like that anymore. And GenIV is a little more than vague plans; e.g. Terrestrial Energy's molten salt reactor has already gotten through the hardest part of Canada's licensing process, which puts them on track for a demo reactor by 2025 or so.
hesk 8y ago
That's too simplistic. Retiring nuclear power plants has been the long term goal of the German anti-nuclear movement since the 70s. They were an important faction in the founding of the Green Party. When the Green party came into power in 1998 in a coalition government, they passed a law to retire all nuclear power plants by restricting the remaining energy output they could produce. BTW, this was done in consensus with the German nuclear industry. In 2009, a free-market/conservative coalition came into power again and they reversed course. Then Fukushima happened, a couple hundred thousand people demonstrated against nuclear power in Germany, a Green-led government won the elections in a historically conservative state, and Andrea Merkel changed her opinion. Long story short, phasing out nuclear energy has been a long term goal and has broad support in Germany.
- netsharc 8y ago
  > a Green-led government won the elections in a historically conservative state, and Andrea Merkel changed her opinion. Chronologically was the other way around, and her "Our party now consider nuclear harmful" stance didn't change the outcome post-Fukushima. But it's typical Merkel of the time, changing her tune to whatever's politically advantageous.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  > Then Fukushima happened, [...], and Andrea Merkel changed her opinion. Didn't you say the same as OP, with a lot more words?
  - Tomte 8y ago
    No. He explained that there is a huge societal movement behind that. OP made it sound like Merkel decided on a personal whim.
- tomp 8y ago
  The fact that you missed her name (it’s Angela, not Andrea) makes me doubt the veracity of the rest of your comment.
  - 8y ago
detaro 8y ago
You are aware that the "long-term strategy" had been to phase out nuclear, with laws and contracts laying out a gradual shutdown in place, and Merkels government slowed that process down against majority opinion in the population before Fukushima? The shallow "Merkel did it after Fukushima" meme is a mockery of what has been a long democratic process that Merkels government tried to renege on, with nuclear power having been a contested topic for decades.

Pretty much because Merkel decided so in the days following Fukushima. Not exactly the result of long term strategy.

by cm2187 8y ago

Pretty much because Merkel decided so in the days following Fukushima. Not exactly the result of long term strategy.

stcredzero 8y ago

Pretty much just going by feels. Not exactly good governance.

aurelwu 8y ago
nuclear was being phased out before fukushima anyways in germany, it was just accelerated a few years. New nuclear power plants are just way too expensive - take a look at Flamanville, Hinkley point C, Olkiluoto 3, Wylfa Newydd and Hanhikivi and you'll see that they are just too expensive. You can argue for having the old ones run a bit longer but the older the plants become the more maintenance issues arise.
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  It's well established that the West has forgotten how to build nukes. But Hitachi, KEPCO, and the Russians have not forgotten, and can build them effectively today. Perhaps with some effort the West can re-learn how its done from these modern success stories.
  - aurelwu 8y ago
    Wylfa Newydd was a project by Hitachi before it got cancelled despite being guaranteed a higher-than-market compensation of £75 per MWh[0], yet despite those heavy subsidies it apparently is not worht it. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/17/hitachi-set-to-scrap-16bn-nuclear-project-anglesey-wales https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/17/hitachi-set...
detaro 8y ago
Not exactly good governance was what she did before too, going back on existing long-term exit plans that the majority supported. Fukushima just moved that from somewhat unpopular to entirely politically untenable.

hugi 8y ago

Fukushima was an excellent demonstration of what can happen. You devastate huge areas of land and make them unlivable for generations. This is especially applicable to the United States that has proven entirely unable to handle it's own nuclear waste and just accumulates it at the sites where it's generated, waiting for disaster to happen.

cm2187 8y ago
I always thought that nuclear waste was a non problem. It is a minuscule amount of confined hazardous material. Even if you don't recycle it, the impact on the environment is negligible. But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reactors. More modern design do not present those risks [1]. Judging nuclear energy based on 1960s design is like judging aviation based on the safety records of 1930s planes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
- hannob 8y ago
  > But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reactors. With "early generation reactors" you mean all the ones that exist. The whole "next generation reactor" / "generation 4 reactor" thing is at this point nothing more than vague plans for what could be.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    That's overstating things. Fukushima was built in the 70s. A nearby reactor faced the same challenges but was built a decade later, and it was fine. That's just a GenII, still not as safe as the GenIII+ we're building now. Chernobyl, of course, was a horrific design that didn't even have a containment dome. Nobody builds reactors like that anymore. And GenIV is a little more than vague plans; e.g. Terrestrial Energy's molten salt reactor has already gotten through the hardest part of Canada's licensing process, which puts them on track for a demo reactor by 2025 or so.

hesk 8y ago

That's too simplistic. Retiring nuclear power plants has been the long term goal of the German anti-nuclear movement since the 70s. They were an important faction in the founding of the Green Party. When the Green party came into power in 1998 in a coalition government, they passed a law to retire all nuclear power plants by restricting the remaining energy output they could produce. BTW, this was done in consensus with the German nuclear industry. In 2009, a free-market/conservative coalition came into power again and they reversed course. Then Fukushima happened, a couple hundred thousand people demonstrated against nuclear power in Germany, a Green-led government won the elections in a historically conservative state, and Andrea Merkel changed her opinion. Long story short, phasing out nuclear energy has been a long term goal and has broad support in Germany.

netsharc 8y ago
> a Green-led government won the elections in a historically conservative state, and Andrea Merkel changed her opinion. Chronologically was the other way around, and her "Our party now consider nuclear harmful" stance didn't change the outcome post-Fukushima. But it's typical Merkel of the time, changing her tune to whatever's politically advantageous.
BurningFrog 8y ago
> Then Fukushima happened, [...], and Andrea Merkel changed her opinion. Didn't you say the same as OP, with a lot more words?
- Tomte 8y ago
  No. He explained that there is a huge societal movement behind that. OP made it sound like Merkel decided on a personal whim.
tomp 8y ago
The fact that you missed her name (it’s Angela, not Andrea) makes me doubt the veracity of the rest of your comment.
- 8y ago

detaro 8y ago

You are aware that the "long-term strategy" had been to phase out nuclear, with laws and contracts laying out a gradual shutdown in place, and Merkels government slowed that process down against majority opinion in the population before Fukushima? The shallow "Merkel did it after Fukushima" meme is a mockery of what has been a long democratic process that Merkels government tried to renege on, with nuclear power having been a contested topic for decades.