Germany moving away from nuclear energy

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,192
#1
Is Germany trying to become irrelevant?

Germany on Monday said it would close all of its 17 nuclear reactors by 2022, a sharp policy reversal that will make it the first major economy to quit atomic power in the wake of the nuclear crisis in Japan.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that she plans to follow a government-appointed commission's recommendation to shut eight of the country's reactors immediately and close most of the others by 2021. Three plants may be kept online into 2022 as a source of reserve power.
Germany's largest neighbor, France—where nuclear energy makes up three-quarters of the electricity mix—said Ms. Merkel's move wouldn't sway its nuclear policy. "I respect the choice that Germany made," French Prime Minister François Fillon said in Strasbourg on Monday, but "it's not the choice that we are making—we think that nuclear energy is a solution for the future."
In few countries is nuclear energy the hot-button issue it is in Germany, where polls show some 70% of the populace opposes it, the legacy of a broad-based antinuclear movement that harks back to the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Since the Fukushima accident, antinuclear protests have taken place across the country.
Ms. Merkel's change in course, though, hasn't produced the desired political effect. Conservative allies have been frustrated by her turn away from a cherished policy victory, and nuclear opponents have seen the move as opportunistic. Those perceptions contributed to several stinging regional election losses for the Christian Democratic Union this spring, and have led to a surge in clout for the opposition Green Party.
​
​
Germany to Forsake Its Nuclear Reactors - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

P1-BA952A_GERNU_NS_20110530192707.jpg
 
#13
#13
Germany’s Nuclear Society called the proposed 2022 exit date “deeply irresponsible and not ethically motivated” and noted that the nuclear safety commission had favorably reviewed the safety of German nuclear power plants after the Fukushima accident. The eight reactors shut down after Fukushima will remain offline, although fear of blackouts over the next two winters means some may be kept in a state of “cold standby.” The national grid operator has been asked to arrange reserve capacity. Expressing doubts about Germany’s ability to quickly ramp up renewables and concerns about the stability of the European electricity grid, AREVA CEO Anne Lauvergeon said she was unsure that future German governments would complete the announced phase‐out as planned. “You don’t erase generating capacity just like that,” she said. Support for the development of renewables comes from taxes on electricity consumption and from a nuclear fuel tax of €145 per gram of uranium. The latter levy is equivalent to about half of nuclear plants’ operating profits.
Click to expand...

http://resources.nei.org/documents/NEO.pdf

a.) I don't know how you can leave such a massive plant, that requires about 800 well trained employees, on cold-stand-bye. And that doesn't include other infrastructure costs.

b.) That's a steep tax to pay for renewables.
 
#16
#16
Germany is extremely liberal and "green" has a lot of pull. Merkel, imo, is buying votes with this move.
 
#17
#17
VOLatile said:
There is a lot of progress being made on the solar power front, it only makes sense to invest in solar energy right now.
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah, in about 200 years it may be self sufficient without the government subsidizing it.

it's not going to happend. it will interesting to see how much their power goes up because of lib fearmongering.
 
#18
#18
VOLatile said:
There is a lot of progress being made on the solar power front, it only makes sense to invest in solar energy right now.
Click to expand...

It seems scientifically unethical to dismiss the fact that it's not baseload in a frigid place like Germany. And you're plan for providing baseload is leaving a $1 Million/per day plant in standby.

And I'm an advocate of solar, but until you are really ready to attack the baseload power side, I think this is a reach.
 
Last edited:
#19
#19
joevol320 said:
LOL, yeah, in about 200 years it may be self sufficient without the government subsidizing it.

it's not going to happend. it will interesting to see how much their power goes up because of lib fearmongering.
Click to expand...

Go take a science class and stop reading stupid anti-lib blogs.

Weezy said:
It seems scientifically unethical to dismiss the fact that it's not baseload in a frigid place like Germany. And you're plan for providing baseload is leaving a $1 Million/per day plant in standby.

And I'm an advocate of solar, but until you are really ready to attack the baseload power side, I think this is a reach.
Click to expand...

Still major humps, and I'm not advocating dumping nuclear power. I'm actually a proponent of nuclear to get away from oil and coal.
 
#20
#20
I guess for a base explanation of what I'm thinking, every kW of power from solar or wind has to be backed by a baseload energy source (oil, NG, coal, or nuclear). And I just don't see Germany as a very sunny place for 5 months out of the year. So that's ~25% of standby power so you avoid people freezing to death. Seems expensive and overly ambitious. I'm an advocate of green energy, but it's probably something you want to work your way into, not force it.
 
#21
#21
Weezy said:
I guess for a base explanation of what I'm thinking, every kW of power from solar or wind has to be backed by a baseload energy source (oil, NG, coal, or nuclear). And I just don't see Germany as a very sunny place for 5 months out of the year. So that's ~25% of standby power so you avoid people freezing to death. Seems expensive and overly ambitious. I'm an advocate of green energy, but it's probably something you want to work your way into, not force it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be sunny. The solar panels will convert light to power even on cloudy days.
 
#23
#23
What capacity is it operating at though? Surely with more sunlight, it's got greater power generation. It might still be producing power, but I doubt that's its benchmark for $/kWhr.

You have to have every kW of your electrical needs based in something that can be counted on at 100% capacity at all times. Can't have blackouts, and no baseload power source wants to sit on the sidelines and lose money because a green energy source can't run at 100%. That's my general understanding of our power needs. That's why I also question the greater than 30% marks.
 
#24
#24
I truly wish solar were the answer. However last time I checked the economics still didn't work.

There are other problems. If windmills are eye sores then what would you call miles and miles of solar arrays? How will they effect ecosystems? Used in large quantity, will the absorption of mass amounts of light that would have warmed the atmosphere produce real climate change? What is the conversion rate from light to electricity and what does that suggest about how much you would need?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top