BBC – 30 May, 2011
Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022
Germany’s ruling coalition says it has agreed a date of 2022 for the shutdown of all of its nuclear power plants.
Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement after a meeting of the ruling coalition that lasted into the early hours of Monday.
Story here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208
France has 58 nuclear power stations across the country, with more currently on the drawing board. As far as I am aware, France has not experienced any serious nuclear problem since the French Government decided to go nuclear in 1974 following the world’s first major oil crises. But even if there is any risk with nuclear, how can Germany, or any other European country for that matter, be protected from the danger of radiation with so many nuclear plants just across her borders? Radiation does not stop at country borders as far as I am aware. This is an unbelievable decision to take for an otherwise outstanding industrial nation. It seems that Angela Merkel is more concerned with placating the ever stronger voice of the Greens in Germany rather than take a sensible and rational view on the future prosperity of her country. In any case, why should the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami be the basis upon which Germany has made this futile decision. Three old power stations were damaged by the dreadful earthquake and tsunami, but thay had a relatively small amount of radioactivity as a result. So much so that the Japanese government has decided to continue with their nuclear power station programme rather then close it down. Preumably Ms. Merkel has a plan as to how she is going to replace the lost eletricity output when her power stations are no more. or are the Greens looking forward to closing down half the industrial output of the country in the interests of AGW?
For the next 4 years Canada will NOT be committing economic suicide.
Come on German Industry … we got gas and oil and coal and hydro and nuclear.
Good mid-term buying opportunity of shares in uranium producers. I expect the Germans to be less concerned with hedging future supply – until they actually discover they need fuel!
Bought more shares this morning on this bit of “bad” news…
We’ll have to see if I am right, but unlike the ecotards who use my taxpayer dollars, I put MY money on this.
A couple of things. You should have left knee out of the title of this story.
Secondly, without a financially strong Germany the EU is toast.
As this is not practically feasible it is not going to happen. Fact remains that risks of nuclear power plants are hard to pinpoint and more fundamental safety precautions in basic design and dealing with spent fuel appears necessary.
The Germans have simply decided to locate their reactors in France for political reasons – no big deal.
Maybe the Germans have something secret in the works, like solar that works at night in cloudy, rainy weather, or batteries that hold infinite power, or some other such miraculous devices.
Statistically, nuclear is safer than coal. Add up all the health effects of mining coal, transporting it, burning it, disposing of the ash, etc., and nuclear looks safe and clean.
The Fukushima plants were old, poorly sited, and there was inadequate planning for worst case scenarios according to one source (a two page emergency plan was mentioned). New designs incorporate cooling water in tanks above the core, thus even in a total power outage, there is coolant available to shut things down in an orderly manner, which likely would have made Fukushima a non-event.
Germany needs to step back and consider what they are doing. I predict that there will be no new manufacturing plants built, or major expansions planned in Germany until sanity returns. The German government may be stupid, German industrialists are not. They will go where power is plentiful and cheap. China comes to mind.
Legislating utopia
Environmentalists remind me of people who avoid stepping on cracks to avoid the danger posed by stepping on cracks.
The year 2022 is nearly 100 years after the Treaty of Versailles that threw Germany into absolute poverty. This time, if they go through with it, they will have imposed it on themselves. The French next door are keeping their nuclear plants and are building more. It seems the French do think of other things than sex.
It is not a melt down, firstly. A melt down breaks through to the ground water. This has not occurred at Fukushima, and will not occur.
So stop saying it!
As for hydro, infinitely more people have died in history from collapse or overflow of hydro dams, compared with melt-down deaths due to uranium.
Germany is going to look as lit up as North Korea.
Slowly but surely the West is moving into the New Dark Age compliments of the Loony Left!
Look at the bright side – it will be a lot harder for the Muslims to build a new generation of nukes when they become the majority in Germany. In fact, if Germany collapses it’s economy and shuts down manufacturing, immigration will probably slow to a trickle since there will be no jobs.
Sound crazy? But that’s Obama’s plan to deal with illegal immigration here in the US!
tudiant says:
May 30, 2011 at 4:29 am
Fukushima was just the icing on the cake after that, because it showed a Chernobyl could happen even with current day reactors.
————————————–
The reactors at fukushima are not “current day” reactors. they are an old outdated design of generation 1 unlike modern reactors of generation 4.
The modern designs are much safer, and even more efficient using less fuel so there is less waste to dispose of.
By 2022 the Irish Economy should have recovered enough to help bail out the Germans.
After all, they are bailing us out right now and it will be nice to reciprocate.
Doo-be-doo-be-doo
Well I never. I’m going to be richer than a German. And I don’t have to do anything. Just wait and watch them on the way down.
Except that Spain needs a rich Germany……
Erm… Not good
Joe Public says:
May 30, 2011 at 3:08 am
Get your tense right. The reactors are not in meltdown. That implies an ongoing process.
The Fukushima reactors experienced a partial meltdown from the heat produced by the decay of fission products after the reactors were shut down properly. Why did that happen? Because the 45 ft tsunami took out the backup power. The heat could not be removed from the cores, and heat was still being produced by isotope decay. The water in the cores boiled, partially uncovering the rods, and the temperature of the fuel rods increased. The zirconium in the rods reacted with water at high temperature and made H2 gas. The hydrogen made a mess of the external structures when it was not vented and exploded. One building did not experience an explosion because workers created holes in it to prevent H2 from accumulating. Once the temperature of the rods reached 2200 C they began to melt. Again, this occurred due to the decay of fission products, not an ongoing fission reaction. This problem would not have occurred at all if the backup power had not failed due to the tsunami.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8379843/Japan-earthquake-Q-and-A-How-the-radiation-threat-unfolded.html
There were radiation detectors placed in various cities around Fukushima, some quite a distance away. It is clear if you look at the actual data that there was one major release of radioactivity composed of two isotopes: The first had an 4-day half life (nobody talks about that one) which might have been 124-I. The second had an 8-day half life, and was probably 131-I. The levels were not dangerous outside the 12 km ring. There was some uranium and plutonium found outside the plants, but that was perhaps due to damage to stored rods in pools above the reactors resulting from the H2 explosion. There is no nuclear furnace melting down to China. There is a temporary elevation of radioactivity due to 137-Cs, but the iodine is gone now. Hysteria will not help.
Where would we be if cave women had told cave men not to bring fire into the cave? I’m sure they did not like it, but warmth and cooked food were too important. We think we are so advanced, but we are facing the same choice. Warmth, food production, preservation, and preparation all require large amounts of energy. And unless we all want to go out and dig for potatoes in the mud, we need to power industry so we can type away on our computers in a comfortable office.
We can’t leave out the details about Fukushima or the termites of the left, who repeat their talking points and otherwise generally know nothing, will tear down the technology that supports our population. They seem to think we can go back to a ‘simpler time’. Perhaps, but only after 90% of our population dies. We have the technology to support perhaps a world population of 10 billion. The best way to control population growth is through advancing the standard of living for everyone. When we do that, people will not want to have so many children.
That strategy has been so effective at reducing the birth rate, that western civilization is beginning to die off, in part thanks to genocide of the unborn. Nature does things for a reason, and when we interfere, there can be consequences. For nature, the individual is often sacrificed for the good of the species. Our survival strategy is to take over our own destiny and not be subject to the whims of nature. Well, that’s fine as long as we survive. Finally, another risk is to allow us all to be ruled by the decisions of a few. Those people of limited brain power cannot possibly take into consideration the experiences of millions of people. Consequently, a command and control economy is doomed to failure. The free market can do that.
Discussion of America falling into the command and control economics abyss
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/steelman7.html
Peter Dunford says:
May 30, 2011 at 4:28 am
Yeah right. So i’m paying 8 cents per kw/h because nuclear is subsidized?. I’ll have you know France has about the lowest price per consumer kw/h in the civilized world. I believe only Canada comes close due to their hydroenergy.
Reality beats statistics any day, any time every time.
“I am not against nuclear power, however can you please explain how Hydro-electric is in any way, shape or form dangerous?”
He’s probably referring to dam failures like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
TMJ says:
May 30, 2011 at 2:35 am
I will be in Germany for 2 weeks this summer. My tenth year teaching at a Classical Guitar festival there.
Ask them if they want to stop buying nuclear generated electricity from us in France. If yes I wish them all the luck for the future and if you are a FOREX dealer be prepared to sell the euro because with green technology germany, and along with them the rest of europe, will go bust.
There are a lot of minutes, days, between now and 2022.
At the same time, fools are always a great educational medium for the rest.
…..Lady in Red
Petrossa says:
May 30, 2011 at 8:34 am
Peter Dunford says:
May 30, 2011 at 4:28 am
It seems to me that peter dunsford was supporting your premise. There is going to be one major problem, though. During the recent cold winters and hot summers France has been refusing to sell on it’s electricity to keep it for it’s own needs. It cut it to Italy last year for a preiod long enough fro the Italiens to complain. So, both the UK and Germany, both very socialist (read progressive) countries will find their industries and their people cease to function.
Well, the Swedish decided in 1980 that until 2010 they would be nuclear free. In 2009, facing relity, they abolished the phase-out of nuclear power plans.
See, e.g.,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5671753.ece
Can anyone seriously doubt now that behind fashionable “green” thinking is an industrial death-wish, a desire to destroy the technical foundations of modern civilisation? The UK is under the control of twit-of-the-week pseudointellectuals whose grasp of science is below first year university level. Germany is better, but not much, obviously. The Wreckers have taken over.
Rational people like to point to hydro-electric as a green alternative power. But logic and reason are not in play.
The same people that don’t want nuclear and coal power don’t want hydropower. Dams are nearly impossible to get licensed due to environmental reasons, and some people want existing dams removed for some reason. I think I recall reading that hydro is not even on the list of green energy alternatives.
Obama apparently does not think dams are a good thing, as he is cutting funding.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/04/obama-wants-to-cut-hydropower-fundding
and some green groups are against it for some reason
http://news.opb.org/article/hydropower-its-renewable-it-green/
“Fukushima was just the icing on the cake after that, because it showed a Chernobyl could happen even with current day reactors.”
Except that Fukushima was not current day reactors.
And the alternative is?