10 ms·
Germany shuts down seven reactors because of Fokushima
- pieter 16y agoI guess a knee-jerk reaction can be expected in a country where nuclear power is currently pretty controversial.
- raganwald 16y agoThink of a needle on a gauge representing public opinion about nuclear power. One half of the gauge reads green for nukes. The other half is red for no nukes. If the needle is firmly in the green, a slight shift towards red in response to Fukushima might mean commissioning some studies and announcing a budget for upgrading the safety features. But if the needle is just barely into the green, a slight shift moves it into the red and that means shutting them down. So yes, in a country where public opinion is divided, it is not out of the question to swing from yes to no in response to the biggest emergency since Chernobyl. I'm not sure about the phrase "knee-jerk," though. It may seem like a drastic move, like a leg kicking in response to a small tap, which implies a response out of [proportion to the stimulus. However, perhaps the response is in proportion, it's just that when the needle is right on the dividing line, it only takes a small move to get from green to red? Now that I write my thoughts out, I obviously agree with you :-)
- nopassrecover 16y ago"Biggest (nuclear) emergency since Chernobyl" seems hyperbolic unless the situation has changed considerably since I last looked at it. Indeed in Japan alone the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident in 2004 caused more fatalities than Fukushima has so far.
- ceejayoz 16y agoAccording to Wikipedia, the 2004 incident involved people being killed by a broken steam pipe. That's an emergency that happens to have been at a nuclear plant, not a nuclear emergency, and the regional effects were zero.
- secretasiandan 16y agoI don't think this is a knee jerk reaction. I think this is a move for short term political gains without regard for the long term societal costs. They had decided to extend the life of the reactors just last year. No new risk inherent to their design has been exposed. No new tsunami or earthquake risk in Germany has been exposed. I agree with the person quote in TFA (despite the fact that his statement may be a political play as well) : "She just wants to get through the provincial assembly elections," said Social Democrat leader Sigmar Gabriel, accusing her of playing political tactics with people's fears.
- serichsen 16y agoNote that Sigmar Gabriel wants to shut down all nuclear reactors himself.
- secretasiandan 16y agoHere is a link to an article from his official web page where he appears to be stating a generally anti-nuclear point of view http://www.sigmar-gabriel.de/Nachrichten/details/20110313_atomkatastrophe.html http://www.sigmar-gabriel.de/Nachrichten/details/20110313_at... This gives his statement about Merkel's move just being politics more weight
- wladimir 16y agoIt's only a temporary measure anyway, the plants will be inspected and (if everything well) turned on again until 2023 or so. Personally, I'd feel a lot safer if all nuclear plants were turned off forever. Sure, the chance of something going horribly wrong is low, but if it goes wrong it is a big big mess. Just too horrible to warrant any of the advantages that nuclear power has.
- nopassrecover 16y agoThe deaths from other fuel sources, while not as immediately obvious as "oh look that nuclear plant just blew up" are potentially far greater.
- wladimir 16y agoFrankly, I have heard that argument many times. I know other fuel sources cause deaths too. Gas tanks can explode, fossil fuels exhaust gasses can be poisonous, oil can leak into the sea, and so on. And still I'd rather be exposed to all of those risks than worry about one nuclear explosion. As I said, the consequences can be just too horrible, for too many people. I'd love to move on from fossil fuels to something else, but not something that can cause such disasters.
- nopassrecover 16y agoThat's because you're mind is clouded by the effects of a mental fallacy (the availability heuristic to be precise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
- wladimir 16y agoYou have the full right to disagree with me; I voiced my post as my personal opinion. But you're very rude to say my mind is clouded. I simply don't like large downside risks.
- 16y ago
- jrockway 16y agoNice to know that there is another country out there that's as irrational as the US. Does Germany have a lot of tsunamis?
- raganwald 16y agoOnly in public opinion. Did you read the bit about Merkel getting thrashed in regional elections?
- viggity 16y agoDid the US shut down any of its nuclear reactors, if they did, I certainly haven't heard about it
- ulf 16y agoThis is more likely just a publicity stunt to calm down the people, since there are elections coming in several federal states and the reigning party CDU already lost a lot of ground. I would be surprised if anything really changes
- drzaiusapelord 16y agoNaww, but soon they'll have more people with lung cancer from breathing all that burning coal and oil for energy. I think this is a political move that is going to help in the next election. The "greens" will see this as a handout to them and nuclear power is too complex and scary an issue to have someone defend it properly. Oh well, back to fossil fuels!
- sasvari 16y agothe situation is a little bit more complex in Germany: after the former government negotiated the nuclear power exit with the four big power companies maintaining nuclear power stations, these big four were able to adapt their strategy for the days after, which they did. so especially the concession made by the current government about letting the old power plants run longer than planned is considered to be just a huge gift to these companies by a lot of germans (unexpected bonanza for the companies).
- deleted 16y ago
- bhousel 16y agoThis strikes me more as a political stunt by Merkel to rally the conservative base in Germany than anything else. Still, it doesn't surprise me that this is such a hot button issue right now. I've long been a supporter of nuclear power, but the events of the past week have made me start to reconsider a lot of my beliefs about its safety.
- drzaiusapelord 16y agoIf one of the worst earthquakes on record can't break the containment vessel in these old plants, then I think we're actually doing very well.
- Roritharr 16y agoit is not clear at this moment if the containment vessel is damaged or not. the spike in radiation levels that was measured lately does indicate that it is broken. Edit: If you want to read up on the radiation levels: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110315-red-alert-radiation-rising-and-heading-south-japan http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110315-red-alert-radiatio...
- jonknee 16y ago... Which would mean an explosion damaged the containment vessel. The earthquake did remarkably little damage to the plant.
- jedsmith 16y agoYou do realize that everything that has happened at the plant since the earthquake, including that explosion, is a direct result of the earthquake, right? That's like saying the airliners didn't take down the World Trade Center, the fire did. There wouldn't have been a fire if it weren't for the airliners. The earthquake and subsequent effects of the earthquake destroyed these reactors. It's a pointless distinction to say otherwise, designed to soften the blow to nuclear power's reputation.
- ch0wn 16y agoThey are not permanently shut down. This is most likely a move because of the impending elections, as nuclear energy is quite controversial here in Germany.
- more_original 16y agoContext: The previous government had decided to phase out nuclear power by 2020. After the last election the current revoked that decision and even allowed old power plants that were due to be shut down to operate longer. So, if they hadn't revoked that decision, the seven reactors we are talking about her would have been shut down already or would be about to be shut down anyway.
- ugh 16y agoI don’t think all those seven nuclear power plants would already have been shut down – more like three or so. I listened to the press conference this morning and it sounded like their decision to shut down all seven pre-1980 plants had something to do with the relevant law. This law makes a distinction between pre-1980 and post-1980 plants which can be used to justify their decision. If the government wants to shut down power plants they obviously need some basis in law to do just that. There seems to be a section in the relevant law that allows them to shut down nuclear power plants but arbitrarily shutting them down is not possible. (At least if the government doesn’t want to pay damages to the operators.) The government probably is worried that a decision to arbitrarily only shut down certain pre-1980 nuclear power plants without a good reason for the distinction would run counter to the principle of equality.
- more_original 16y agoYou're right, that's what I meant to say with "or would be about to be shut down". Three of the seven would have been shut down this year, another one in 2012 and the final three in 2013 (source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kernreaktoren_in_Deutschland http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kernreaktoren_in_Deut...). Last year it was decided to extend the lifetime of these reactors to 2019 or 2020.
- ajju 16y agoWhat are they replacing nuclear power with? From what I understand, Germany is one of the few countries ramping up manufacturing, which is a huge consumer of power. It's interesting that they are essentially cutting supply as demand increases.
- masklinn 16y agoGermany's green party has been trying to kill the nukes there fore quite some time now: the SPD/Greens officially announced their desire to phase out all nuclear power in Germany in 2000, and two power plants had been shut down in 2003 and 2005 and were planned for dismantling. The CDU (Merkel's party) was an opponent to the phase-out, and has been very open about it since 2008, but I'm guessing they saw the writing on the wall: the Fukushima events can only fuel the already powerful german anti-nuclear movement (we're talking rallies of tens of thousands in recent years) further and there's no point in wasting political capital on a lost battle.
- ugh 16y agoThe phase out seems to have become political consensus during the last years, there is only disagreement about the time table.
- cpr 16y agohttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/print.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/... has a fairly sober analysis that shows just the safeguards are generally working even in a scenario not even imagined. (Yes, yes, one has to imagine all possibilities, but all human life involves some risk.)
- bryanwb 16y agoThe events in Japan represent the end of nuclear energy as a viable long-term option.
- frisco 16y ago"Long-term" is a long time. The next few years? Maybe. The next hundred? Of course not.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- goombastic 16y agoStunt.
- waterlesscloud 16y agoThe real lesson here is that you've got to evaluate options on the basis of what happens when the system fails. Because the system WILL fail. This is one of the hardest lessons for engineers to learn. That you simply cannot prevent failure. You can make it less common. You can take all reasonable steps to prepare against it. But failure will happen. So what are the consequences when it does? The answer in the case of nuclear power is that the cost comes at a level and in a form that many societies are not willing to pay. You can argue the irrationality of that, but you'll lose the argument. Societies don't make decisions on a rational basis. And they're never going to. This incident is in fact a failure of engineering. There was radioactive material released into the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. It doesn't matter if it gets worse or better, that's the thing that absolutely was not supposed to happen. It did. The system failed.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- tobias-ch 16y agoSince when was Germany in a major seismic zone? Political grandstanding I fear.
- fxj 16y agohttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basler_Erdbeben http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basler_Erdbeben know your own history...
- astrange 16y agoFukushima. It's Fukushima.
- silentium 16y agoThis move will push renewable energy know how in germany.