Thread: Germany : Halt Nuclear Power Production by 2022

Germany to Halt Nuclear Power Production by 2022
JUDY DEMPSEY and JACK EWING
Judy Dempsey reported from Berlin, and Jack Ewing from Frankfurt.
May 30, 2011

BERLIN — The German government agreed on Monday morning to phase out nuclear power by 2022 in a move that could have far reaching consequences for Europe’s largest economy.

“It’s definite,” Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen said after marathon talks held at the chancellery. “The latest end of the last three nuclear plants is 2022.”

The government said the country’s oldest nuclear power plants will remain permanently closed. Seven plants were shut down in March after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan and one plant had been taken off the grid earlier. The government intends to phase out the remaining nine plants according to their age with the older facilities shutting down over the next few years and the newest ones by in 2022.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been trying to cope with a sharp shift in public attitudes toward nuclear power since the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant after the March 11 Japanese earthquake and tsunami was reacting to a report submitted Monday by the so-called Ethics Commission for Secure Energy.

“We want the electricity of the future to be safe, but also to remain reliable and affordable,” she said in a statement on the government Web site.

Plans to withdraw from nuclear energy are likely to be popular with the German public — the reactors had already been scheduled to be taken out of service by 2036 in the face of widespread aversion to nuclear power — but will be greeted apprehensively by German manufacturers, who fear that the cost of energy could rise.

On Friday, state environment ministers agreed that the seven older nuclear power plants, that were taken out of service after the Japanese disaster, should remain shut down. The commission endorsed that recommendation, and said the other 10 plants should be phased out gradually.

However, in a report Friday that illustrated a national debate that is likely to ensue, the federal agency that regulates the power industry said that without the seven plants Germany could have trouble coping with a failure in some part of the national power grid. The shutdown “brings networks to the limit of capacity,” the Federal Network Agency said.

The report submitted Monday to Ms. Merkel said the commission was “firmly convinced that an exit from nuclear energy can be achieved within a decade.”

Germany must make a binding national commitment, the commission said in a 48-page report. “Only a clearly delineated goal can provide the necessary planning and investment security,” the commission said.

“The exit is necessary, and is recommended, in order to rule out the risks of nuclear power,” the commission said. “It is possible, because there are less risky alternatives.”

The commission added that “the exit should be designed so as not to endanger the competitiveness of industry and the economy.”

It identified wind, solar, water as alternatives, as well as geothermal energy and so-called biomass energy from waste, as alternative power sources.

nytimes.com

Originally Posted by Mid

It identified wind, solar, water as alternatives, as well as geothermal energy and so-called biomass energy from waste, as alternative power sources.

And probably buying of nuclear power from neighbouring countries like France and the Czech Republic which is planning to expand on its nuclear plant right at the german border.

Bollox to wind, solar and water as alternatives, buy coal stocks only going one way short and long term.

what a stupid thing to do,

Originally Posted by Mid

[
However, in a report Friday that illustrated a national debate that is likely to ensue, the federal agency that regulates the power industry said that without the seven plants Germany could have trouble coping with a failure in some part of the national power grid. The shutdown “brings networks to the limit of capacity,” the Federal Network Agency said.

...and Japan, with all of its nuclear capacity is "having trouble coping with a failure in some part of the national power grid" anyway.

solar energy is the future. I really cannot understand why we are messing about with wind farms.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Bollox to wind, solar and water as alternatives, buy coal stocks only going one way short and long term.

True, even though coal actually emits way more radiation into the atmosphere then nuclear and thousands of people are killed every year in coal mines accidents.

Well done them forward thinking Germans.

Meanwhile back in sunny NSW Australia, backflip Fatty O' Barrel decimates the solar industry.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum....cfm?t=1701342

I see no reason that the future of energy production can't be solar. Especially with hot salt storage.

google "A little village in the sun"

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

solar energy is the future. I really cannot understand why we are messing about with wind farms.

Think again.

I agree in the long term, but solar would require a worldwide grid to spred the energy from where it is produced at the moment to where it is needed at the moment. It would involve many politically unstable or hostile countries. Salt storage is fine but reduces efficiency, increases cost and lasts only for hours. The sun may not shine for extended periods.

In europe solar is a bad joke. Germany is wasting a huge amount of money on it. Many billions of € every year. No output when it is needed during winter. There are plans to build huge solar farms in the Sahara area but it would involve an instable region again, where we now have problems with the oil supply.

The US has the advangage, that it can install solar plants domestically.

Wind is fine, because it may produce power at night and in winter. It is also very much cheaper to install. Distributed in a european grid it would increase availability by a lot. But still there is a storage problem. Some mad german architect has proposed building circular walls 400m high and with 20km or more diameter into the sea to pump up seawater into them as energy storage. That could actually solve the storage problem but ........

Originally Posted by socal

coal actually emits way more radiation into the atmosphere then nuclear

Not true or only in China any more. It used to be the case but the filters put into modern coal plants have stopped it. Also the radioactive materials involved are mainly uranium and Thorium, both low level radioactive and not dangerous like the isotopes produced during nuclear fission.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by socal

coal actually emits way more radiation into the atmosphere then nuclear

Not true or only in China any more. It used to be the case but the filters put into modern coal plants have stopped it. Also the radioactive materials involved are mainly uranium and Thorium, both low level radioactive and not dangerous like the isotopes produced during nuclear fission.

there is no emotion of isotopes. Not unless there is a bad accident at a plant that was built in the 70's or older.

Originally Posted by socal

there is no emotion of isotopes.

Agreed, only complex biological organisms have that.

Originally Posted by socal

there is no emission of isotopes.

At least the amount is very small. There is always some leaking of fission products but it usually remains on safe levels, I agree.

Sorry we can't deliver your new BMW; it's been cloudy and windless for over a week and we have no lights....or heat..

can't see it happening
nuclear is clean and affordable
countries that have regular earthquakes
should get rid of them.
yes the waste is a problem.
dump it on mars when nobody's lookin.. .
energy should be a global issue:shared costs.

Originally Posted by billy the kid

nuclear is clean and affordable

run that past the Japanese .......................

Necessity has always been the mother of invention. The Japanese nuclear industry is in ruin so they need to develop a replacement fast. The Germans are wise to take this approach since any country that falls behind in the race to develop clean energy is going to wind up importing the means to do so from those that lead the way.

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by billy the kid

nuclear is clean and affordable

run that past the Japanese .......................

with their history of earthquakes
it was a disaster just waiting to happen
Iran is another.

Originally Posted by Lantern

I see no reason that the future of energy production can't be solar. Especially with hot salt storage.

There will surely come one fucker who invents a method of sucking out more energy from the sun than it currently produces so the sun will eventually go out.
Our grandchildren will be living in 24 hours of dark and will have to go to 7-11 and buy a bag of salt in order to charge their mobile phones..