14 ms·
Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022
- sapper2 15y agoGood move aka burning bridges. If managed right, this will enhance the development and use of better technologies.
- vladd 15y agoNuclear is the safest form of energy that we currently have. More people die from installing solar panels than deaths occurred in nuclear accidents: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener... .
- StavrosK 15y agoHow many people die from building and maintaining nuclear power plants?
- pella 15y agoChernobyl accident .. cancer http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/full "Models predict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."
- latch 15y agoI've heard that argument before. I'm actually inclined to believe the general sentiment (in the sense that producing and burning most non-renewables, or building huge dams is disgusting). However, I'm highly skeptical that they are accurately tracking long term health effects of radiation poisoning.
- vladd 15y agoI'm also highly sceptical of tracking reduced age expectancy due to atmospheric coal pollution.
- lispm 15y agoThe difference is, you can install a solar panel on your house. A nuclear reactor is a high security area which is not open to the public.
- pella 15y ago>Nuclear is the safest form .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_coun... "The nuclear industry says that new technology and oversight have made nuclear plants much safer, but 57 accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Two thirds of these mishaps occurred in the US. The French Atomic Energy Agency (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation. An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005 – 2055, at least four serious nuclear power accidents would be expected in that period" http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_Poli...
- gst 15y agoIIRC the German government stated that at least in the short to mid-term they'd offset the main part of the decrease in energy production with additional coal power plants. I doubt that that's a good move...
- bluedanieru 15y agoYou can apply this reasoning to anything, so what makes you think it necessarily applies to nuclear power? That is to say, by what reasoning do you argue that nuclear power itself isn't a 'better technology'? And better than what?
- sapper2 15y agoA technology that can - by the core physics behind it - make large parts of a country uninhabitable upon failure has no future. And is crazy for a small country like Japan. Maybe it is better than coal. But Germany plans to replace them with renewable energy.
- bluedanieru 15y agoGerman politicians want to replace them with renewable energy. They have no realistic plan to do so. Meanwhile they will continue to import power with no regard for how it was generated. It's pandering and hypocrisy. As for physics, how about the physics of an oil spill?
- henrikschroder 15y agoSweden held a referendum in 1980 about nuclear power, and the only choice was about how fast our nuclear power plants should be shut down. It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed. During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a nuclear reactor, we have to import a lot more electricty from Danish or German coal-powered plants. So the net result for the environment is negative, but the environmentalist movement thinks it's a huge win. I'm willing to wager that this German proposal will have the exact same end result. The only way to successfully switch to renewable energy is by making renewable energy cheaper than coal or nuclear.
- bluedanieru 15y agoWhat I suspect will happen is more power will be imported from nations that flagrantly pollute the environment. The Chinese might be on to something with putting the engineers in charge. Sometimes the public really doesn't know what the fuck they're doing, and should be completely ignored.
- nl 15y agoChina has stopped waterfront nuclear power station approvals: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-suspends-waterfront-nuclear-power-approvals-2011-04-06 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-suspends-waterfront-n... and suspended all other development: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/china.nuclear/?hpt=T2 http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/china.nuclea... Don't believe everything the nuclear power fans tell you. Sometimes the engineers really do know what they are doing.
- bluedanieru 15y agoThey're halting approvals until the safety standards have been revised. That's hardly the same thing.
- briandon 15y ago
- bluedanieru 15y agoMeanwhile Japan itself, which has weathered the effects of several nuclear disasters (Fukushima being the mildest), is doing no such thing. And apparently Germany will continue to import power derived from nuclear plants.
- joe24pack 15y agoThe Czechs and the French are most likely glad that Germany will become a permanent net electricity importer.
- lispm 15y agoThey aren't glad. The french can't even meet their own demand in summer and winter. They are importing electricity from Germany.
- joe24pack 15y agoSounds like good news for the Czechs then, Temelin will be running at capacity most of the time. Maybe reactors 3 and 4 which should be under construction soon will earn the Czechs needed export income, and keep the lights on in Germany.
- lispm 15y agoGood luck to the Czech, if this thing goes the Chernobyl/Fukushima/ThreeMilesIsland route. Too bad for them that Germany follows a totally different strategy. But Czech companies will be happy working in the German supply chain for clean tech, too. Manufactured goods one can actually export.
- nextparadigms 15y agoYes, they are actually. http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/29/inhabitats-week-in-green-hydrogen-powered-space-plane-japans/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/29/inhabitats-week-in-green-... Speaking of solar power, Japan unveiled plans to construct 10 new solar power plants in the wake of the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, while Switzerland announced that it will completely phase out the use of nuclear power.
- Derbasti 15y agoI guess it is pretty obvious that a non-nuclear energy strategy will definitely result in higher energy prices in the short term. That said, some people might be comfortable with this as long as the price increase is moderate. In the long run however, renewable energy sources are absolutely the way to go. It might actually pay off nicely to invest a lot of resources in renewable energy early on and come out ahead of the pack once coal, uranium, gas and oil become more expensive. Whether or not Germany will actually be able to carry this off and reap the benefits of it will remain to be seen, though.
- latch 15y agoI agree..except that's assuming a static world for the next decade. Both China and India are intently looking into Thorium reactors (and the US sorta is)...that's where I'd put my money too.
- rrrazdan 15y agoYup. Thorium fuel cycle is the holy grail of Indian nuclear research. Its the main focus if not the only major focus. This could change but with our investments in renewable energy and closed thorium cycle, we could be looking at a more cleaner future for the world. As for the risks associated with the nuclear power, its clearly a necessary risk. India consumes 1/25th of the American per capita consumption. Even assuming we consume less than US that's a lot of new electricity that has to be added to the grid. Something renewable energy can't provide. I would rather have us build reactors than coal plants. Of course all bets are off, if we ever tame fusion. http://www.physorg.com/news205141972.html http://www.physorg.com/news205141972.html http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/19093.asp http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/19093.asp
- nextparadigms 15y agoThat's why I actually like seeing the negative sentiment around current nuclear reactors. Because this way the status quo can be broke, and they will actually look int other safer technologies and put their money on them to improve them faster. I'd prefer if we'd use mostly only such power from the sun or wind, but I'm open minded enough to accept a safer nuclear power option such as Thorium based reactors. And as a human race working with atoms like that is probably inevitable anyway, but we just need to make sure we choose the right paths. Perhaps the Uranium one wasn't the very best path. Hopefully we can even make fusion reactors in a few decades.
- mrich 15y agoLet's see how long this decision holds up, In 2000 they decided to switch off old plants by 2011 (labor+green party). This was anulled by end of 2010 by the conservatives. Only because of Fukushima (and pending elections) did they anull this again. The green party has been winning in the last elections since Fukushima, and the ruling conservatives have lost ground. This is their opportunistic way of trying to avoid becoming meaningless. In 5 years, energy prices will be high, Fukushima will be forgotten, new reactor designs may be available (pushed by Chinese who will have to depend on nuclear?) Let's see what happens then.
- lispm 15y agoIn five years renewable energy will be MORE competitive, not less. The government decision to increase the life time of the nuclear power plant was highly unpopular. In the German society the majority of people were ten years ago already in favor for the shutdown. You can bet that the next government will not have the FDP and CDU in power and that the move to renewable energy has broad support even then.
- latch 15y agoGermany is a leader in solar power. They installed more panels last year than the rest of the world combined. They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did. If they can further establish themselves as leaders and experts in new-energy, it'll make them even more disproportionally well positioned to most of Europe. However, it's a shame they see no future in nuclear. Seems like they are betting against something we've just scratched the surface of (my money is on Thorium)..for the wrong reasons. The damage from the oil and coal that they burn is far worse.
- seabee 15y ago> They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did. The problem is that a country requires many Fukushimas (in Germany's case, 17). If renewables cannot fill the gap left by shutting down nuclear, you'll have to import your electricity from other countries generating it by the very method you phased out, or by even worse methods like coal. Being the leader in renewables doesn't change this fact. > Seems like they are betting against something... Political decisions are rarely that longsighted. One can hope, though.
- latch 15y agoI'm not saying there isn't a problem with their plan. Just trying to point out that of all the countries who could pull it off, Germany would probably be my first pick. And it isn't just because of solar...they have aggressive energy goals in place already (some before 2022) which makes me think that Germany has an energy plan the likes of which I never saw while in Canada..and certainly not now that I'm in Asia.
- seabee 15y agoGermany are definitely on the right track. I just believe this policy has nothing to do with it, unless you can argue that nuclear is worse than coal, or that importing electricity from nuclear-powered countries achieves something that domestic production does not.
- lispm 15y ago
- dexen 15y agoClosing nuclear powerplants early makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy as well, unfortunately. The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines, ``nuclear power is too expensive because of the costs of disposal of wastes''. Thing is, in normal operation the cost is amortized year by year. Normal life of a nuclear plant is a few decades; say 30 years. Could be longer, but the technological progress is so fast it just makes sensible to replace hardware before it's completely worn down. But it becomes a hefty one-time fee if the plants are closed mid-life. The overall costs barely go down. The difference in amount of waste is small -- because large portion of nuclear wastes stems from decommissioning of the plant itself. The spent fuel itself is not that much. [1] And the headlines in press go, ``See? It's too expensive''. ---- [1] been touring recently a nuclear powerplant in Greifswald, Germany, that undergoes decommissioning right now. Most of the waste is NOT the fuel, but infrastructure of the plant (granted, it was built with old technology).
- ljf 15y agoSorry to repost this (I used it in a reply above) but spent fuel is not the only waste produced by a plant: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/w/waste-radioactive-nnp.htm http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/w/waste-radioac...
- rubashov 15y ago> The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines, The main argument against nuclear goes that it creates a dangerous set of problems that must be handled over many human lifetimes. People simply cannot do that. In fact, it's a little ridiculous to safely assume your successors perhaps 100 years hence will have the means to shut down a plant and safely store all the waste. What if things have gone all Mad Max? What if the financial condition of the nation happens to be worse than Greece, but theres this massively capital intensive need to decommission several plants that are now quite dangerous? Heck, what if there's a financial crisis only ten years after the thing is built and all the people who keep it running safely aren't getting paid? Nuclear is definitely taking a dump on the grandkids, so to speak.
- swombat 15y ago
- andrest 15y agoThroughout the whole article no mention of any specific alternatives to be used? 23% is a big amount to make up to. A relevant TED talk by Bill Gates (Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero): http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html In short, the most viable option currently, in his opinion, is the thorium reactors. Current uranium reactors can be converted to work with thorium. "The main point of using thorium, in addition to the proliferation issues with uranium, is that there is 10 fold amount of it available compared to Uranium. If you take into account also the fact that we only use uranium-235 in our nuclear reactors, and this consitutes only 0.7% of the total amount of uranium, the increase is 100 fold. Thorium reactors also operate by burning uranium. This is created from thorium by bombarding it with neutrons. This forms uranium 232, which is highly radioactive and is hence hard to deal. This is why U232 can't be used for nuclear weapons, it's hard to handle."
- lispm 15y agoGermany does not want a different form of nuclear power. Nuclear power is no option. The goal is to develop renewable energy to 100% over the next 40 years.
- andrest 15y agoDon't take this the wrong way, but when the scientists or the government set an ambitious goal like this, that are 4 decades away. It usually means that currently we have no clue how to go about solving it and hopefully our successors will figure it out. As Bill Gates explains the current renewable technology is not viable. This is because of various reasons, such as low ratio of energy invested vs energy returned, instability (eg. what you do when the wind is not blowing?), requirements for a possible site, et cetera.. I fully agree that it should be the long term goal to switch over to renewable energy, but with current technology it is out of reach. Therefore we a need a stepping stone that the nuclear energy can provide us with. It is too early to go all in.
- lispm 15y agoYou are on a discussion level of ten years ago. All the questions you mention have been discussed for a full decade here. Numerous research institutes have been working on that for a decade. Several plans have been proposed and discussed. As a first step Germany has jump started its renewable energy industry a decade ago. We moved from 6 to 16% during that decade and now have several hundred thousand employees in that industry, numerous small and medium companies, numerous research institutes, ... we are already exporting a lot of that technology. It is expected that in a few years this industry will be larger than our automotive industry. Our government actually does something for the tax payer money: Read it here: http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/47124/3860/ http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/47124/3860/ Renewables' contribution to energy supply in Germany continued to rise in 2010 17 percent share of electricity supply 370,000 employees in the sector The share of renewable energies in Germany's electricity supply rose further in 2010. At 17 percent, the share was about half a percentage point higher than the previous year. These are the preliminary results calculated by the Working Group on Renewable Energy Statistics (AGEE-Stat) for the Federal Environment Ministry. This growth was achieved in spite of the sector being hampered by adverse weather conditions. As there was very little wind in 2010, the wind power yield of 36.5 billion kilowatt hours (KWh) was the lowest since 2006. Even so, wind energy remained the key pillar of renewables, with around a 6 percent share of the total electricity supply. Clear increases were recorded for electricity generation from biogas and the photovoltaic sector. Solar power almost doubled its contribution, covering around 2 percent of total electricity demand. Current scenarios show that in just ten years, renewables can cover 40 percent of Germany's electricity supply. An increase of 12 terawatt hours (TWh) per year is considered realistic. (1 terawatt hour = 1 billion kWh). The renewables' share in total final energy consumption for heat rose from 9.1 percent in 2009 to just under 10 percent in 2010. The renewables' share in fuel consumption rose slightly to an estimated 5.8 percent (2009: 5.5 percent). Overall, in 2010 renewables covered around 11 percent of Germany's total final energy consumption for electricity, heat and fuels. This is significantly higher than the previous year (2009: 10.4 percent) and is remarkable because energy consumption was considerably higher than in 2009, due to both the economic recovery and the cold weather. Renewables also increased their contribution to climate protection. In 2010, around 120 million tonnes of greenhouse gases were avoided through the use of renewable energies (2009: 111 million tonnes). Around 58 million tonnes of these savings can be attributed to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) alone. The figures prove that renewable energies were able to keep pace with the economic recovery and continue their trend of a steadily growing share in our energy supply. Alongside this, renewable energies also gained importance as an economic factor. Initial estimates for the BMU show that, at around 26 billion euros, investments in renewable energy installations were around one quarter higher than in 2009 (20.7 billion euros). This development is reflected in the employment figures linked to the expansion of renewables. Last year, employment in renewables rose again and latest estimates show there are now around 370,000 jobs in the sector. This is an increase of around 8 percent compared to the previous year (around 339,500 jobs), and well over twice the number of jobs in 2004 (160,500).
- zhoutong 15y agoThat's more than 11 years to complete this task. Who can predict what will happen after 11 years? Generating electricity from nuclear fusion may be possible. Or we may move our nuclear plants to the moon. We shouldn't ignore the fact that 70% of France's energy consumption is backed by nuclear plants, and this makes France one of the cleanest country in terms of energy consumption in the world. I just don't understand why people are so hesitant to invest in nuclear energy, which is extremely cheap, infinitely available, non-polluting and moderately safe (burning coals may emit radioactive materials directly to the air). Nuclear energy won't kill thousands of people underground (like coal), nor will it kill tens of thousands of bird (like wind mills). It also doesn't trap heat (like what solar panel does to retain all the heat), or emit greenhouse gases. It seems that nuclear energy is an ideal energy source for the future. We should spend more time and money to find out better ways (like fusion) to build nuclear plants instead of worrying about the rare accidents (in terms of death per watt, I don't think nuclear energy is going to lose out).
- hugh3 15y agoThat's more than 11 years to complete this task. Who can predict what will happen after 11 years? Generating electricity from nuclear fusion may be possible. Or we may move our nuclear plants to the moon Or, far more likely, we'll still be burning coal. Hey, it's no skin off my nose, I'm an Australian. If the Germans wanna quit importing our uranium and start importing our coal instead then that's cool, I just think the German greens are gonna wind up looking pretty stupid when they suddenly need to build fifty new coal power plants by 2011.
- erikb 15y agoI'm a German and I think myself that it is really stupid. The way to think should not be "Don't do nuclear power anymore" but "do X". We have no plan what X is. So we didn't solve any problem.It's so frustrating. We really had a chance with the strong movement from most people here.
- lispm 15y agoWe have plans. Maybe you should get in contact with our government and check it out. There are a lot of publications from them about the future energy strategiy.
- ignifero 15y agoAlternative energy sources are a viable "do X", and not just left-green propaganda. I read somewhere that as soon as 2013, solar power is going to be as cheap as coal [citation needed], which is an important milestone. If projects like Desertec move on, large parts of europe could be solar-powered within our lifetime. The Germans were always ahead of the rest of us in these matters.
- Kliment 15y agoAlso discussed at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2598475 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2598475
- blumentopf 15y agoDebunking myths: "This won't have consequences, it didn't have any in Sweden either." => After the nuclear phase-out was enacted in 2000, two power plants were shut down as planned (Stade 2003, Obrigheim 2005). => After the Fukushima incident, eight additional plants were shut down and will never return to the grid again. "This just leads to increasing energy imports." => Germany exported 9 billion kWh in 1Q2010, can hands-down afford shutting down nuclear power plants. Source: http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutschland-stromexport-weltmeister http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch...
- dexen 15y ago> "This just leads to increasing energy imports." => Germany exported 9 billion kWh in 1Q2010, can hands-down afford shutting down nuclear power plants. Source: http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch.. http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch.... That's theory; compare it to practice: Germany already imports electricity from France[1] -- during peak hours. The capacity your source cites is the optimistic variant. The industry simply can't run on the somewhat fickle solar and wind energy, so energy has to be imported. Of course there are ways around that -- energy storage of various kind, or vastly excess capacity, but those raise costs substantially. And that's the core of the problem: the green power companies shift the costs elsewhere, out of public sight. The sleight of hand works, because the numbers -- the optimistic capacity -- are right. ---- [1] sorry, no link here. They explained it during lecture in Greifswald's powerplant.
- lispm 15y agoGermany exports electricity to France, already. There are two things going on: * there is an energy market. Energy is traded for different prices at different times. Sometimes energy from France is cheap (well, it is government subsidized anyway) - sometimes not. For example the Nuclear Power Plants of France are idling a lot on the weekend, when the demand is low. * there are times when the nuclear power plants have not enough capacity to power France. In winter the demand is possibly very high, like last winter, when it was cold and France was heating a lot with electricity (which we do not that much in Germany). In summer the nuclear power plants have to reduce their capacity, because the rivers are dry and there is not enough cooling water for them.
- sktrdie 15y agoItaly has always been nuclear free because it couldn't afford it. I guess sometimes it pays off being economically weaker.
- woodpanel 15y agoSorry for this rant, but we germans are rather stupid by going down that road. we keep saying that the costs of renewable energies have gone down, but thats only due to massive subsidies. Thanks to fukushima the green party is like a political Steve Jobs on steroids right now: they can promote whatever dumb legislation and nobody questions it. nobody talks about the coal plants that we gonna need to supplement this. it's astonishingly dumb of my people. but as we germans have almost no economical education classes in our schools, we're easily fooled. as long as it sounds nice (i.e. humane, ecological, responsible, sustainable blah blah) anyone who calls for soundness is comitting political suicide.
- xenonite 15y agocome on, another german trait is that everyone believes that everyone is to be fooled easily. People are not that stupid. Most just do not care.
- woodpanel 15y agoNuclear plants are a serious political issue here in Germany. Sound voices are not the ones to ride on those political waves. Last poll on this issue: 22% of Germans are in huge fear of foreign nuclear plants, 29% are in great fear of it, 29% fear it, 20% don't care. http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/tsunami-in-japan/umfrage-mehrheit-der-deutschen-will-atomausstieg_aid_609183.html http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/tsunami-in-japan/umfrage-m...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- BruceForth 15y ago> another german trait is that everyone believes that everyone is to be fooled easily. Historically, they have a reason to believe so.
- pnathan 15y agoWell, that's a shame. I think the famed German ingenuity and attention to detail could provide some really great nuclear innovation and development.
- tomp 15y agoIn march, I was flying over Germany on a sunny day. I saw hundreds of wind turbines polluting the landscape. They are ugly, inefficient, and apparently a huge danger for the birds. I really cannot see how that is environmentally friendly. AFAIK, nuclear fuel cannot be produced, it can only be distilled. So, we're only using whatever radioactive materials exist on Earth anyhow. Were they mined from deep underground? Let's bury the waste deep underground, and there should be no problem. I see three long-term solutions. 1) Use nuclear energy in a safe and responsible way. 2) wait until solar panels are developed enough and use them. However, both these solutions still have a big problem: batteries suck (they are heavy, inefficient, expensive and toxic, short-lived). Final solution: 3) grow genetically modified algae and use them to produce bio-diesel. The only problem would be the concentration of CO2 and other exhaust gasses in urban areas.
- lispm 15y agoI find wind mills much nicer than the huge nuclear sites heating up the rivers, their large cooling towers with the large clouds, their large power lines, ... I find it much better if a city has their windmills, compared to huge mega corporations and monopolies of the nuclear industry backed by corrupt politicians.