German Bundestag Election

[dot]

Where is the nuclear waste being stored now? Somewhere in Germany is it one of your major exports?

AFAIK a part is stored at home and some is send to France.

The problem with getting out of nuclear power is, as Winner sadly but correctly pointed out already, that it would currently force Germany to buy power from neighboring countries. Those would generate there power mostly by nuclear plants though. And those nuclear plants are more likely then not less well maintained and controlled than those currently active in Germany. Go figure green demands!

So even though I don't feel really comfortable about nuclear power - getting out now would be plain stupid, imho.

 

[Bill3000]

You should just store the nuclear waste in Warsaw and Moscow.

 

[Dumanios]

Who won the election?

 

[Godwynn]

Who won the election?

We'll find out in a week.

 

[kronic]

AFAIK a part is stored at home and some is send to France.

We get the stuff back from France once it has been recycled.

But the disposal of nuclear waste is indeed a hotly debated und unresolved issue. There's no such thing as an ultimate disposal place yet. There's a location once designated by the Kohl government but local and political opposition was so strong that the location could not yet be pushed trough as final destination for our waste. Only recently, it was made public that the Kohl government forced the federal bureau in charge of finding a proper location to whitewash its report on said location. Neither the Schröder nor the Merkel government touched the issue...

 

[Dumanios]

We'll find out in a week.

I always see you screaming every post.

anyway,I wonder who will win?

 

[luiz]

For the Greens, it would be absurd to become pro-nuclear. The anti-nuclear movements of the 70s and 80s are one of the roots of the German Greens.

Which is why they suck. Anti-nuclear hysteria is illogical and in fact harmful to the environment. Modern nuclear plants are extremely safe and the waste can be stored with extreme safety as well. Anti-nuclear ayatolahs exploit the fears of the ignorant to win votes.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Why are you calling them ayatollahs?

 

[ThERat]

I wanted to be a good citizen this time round and finally vote again. You wouldn't believe what hurdles they put in place to get registered as a German living abroad.
I would need to fill in endless forms just to get the right to ask to get all the forms for the actual election...absurd. Germany wouldn't be what it is without all the forms...

Anyway, I hope not to see Westerwelle from the FDP in the government. People are foolish to forget what his party did to Germany together with Kohl.

I also have to say that the top candidates of the major parties are somewhat boring and really dull. Gimme a Obama any day. Maybe the mayor of Berlin would be better.

 

[Godwynn]

That has been referenced earlier in the thread, what exactly did the FDP do in the Kohl government?

 

[ThERat]

For me the Kohl government stands for doing basically nothing at all...Kohl's favourite was to simply let problems go away...seems his mentee Merkel learned pretty well.

Many things should have been addressed e.g. the pension system, the health system, the crazy taxation system etc. Instead they chose to lull people into thinking everything will be fine for another 1000+ years (famous: Die Renten sind sicher). And for me the FDP was just a needless appendix always eager to get minister posts and power. For the fact that they always had around 5-10% of the votes, their influence has been far to big for far too long.

 

[Thorbal]

What surprises me quite often is how many Greens are secretly not all that opposed towards nuclear energy. I get to talk a lot of Green party members due to my current job und a lot of times they whisper that they are personally not all that hostile towards it as it may seem. But because the "nuclear energy question" is part of the founding myths of the Greens, they say that they cannot say so openly for fear of being shunned by their colleagues.
( I´m not in favour of nukes, btw)

I´m not exactly looking forward to the elections - I don´t want the "Grand" Coalition to continue, but a CDU/FDP coalition would be even worse imho. But the alternatives aren´t remarkably better, either. German politics seem to have become stuck in the 80s or 90s somehow and I don´t really feel represented by any party at all anymore. Seems like I have to become Kanzler myself! See you at the next election in 4 years !

 

[Masada]

Why are you calling them ayatollahs?

I'm guessing it has to do with the purported pseudo-religious rhetoric.

 

[Winner]

I'm not decided on the issue, but my answer would be:

You think in short terms.

Quite on the contrary. We can't hope that nuclear fusion becomes commercially viably anytime soon (form what I've read on the issue, the optimists say it could become viable by 2050s), and until then we need to cover our rising energy demands.

We can conserve energy, and I support that. We can try to increase the share of renewables and I support it too, if it doesn't contradict common sense (sometimes the renewables are simply too expensive and eco-unfriendly). But even with these measures, we will still need a lot more energy in the next half a century.

There is enough coal to produce this energy in conventional coal power plants, but since that produces a lot of CO2, we don't want that. We can't build more hydroelectric plants in Europe as all the available places already have them, or they are protected natural reserves. We can't rely on renewable sources, because these sources generally need backup due to their inherent unreliability and unstable output. Geothermal energy isn't viable in most of Europe.

This leaves us with ONE SINGE OPTION - the nuclear energy. Especially if we have any intention on introducing electromobiles or hydrogen-powered cars - you need to get the electricity somewhere.

Having a nuclear plant run another 10 years would give us another 10'000 years of time til the nuclear waste has vanished. (or something like that). So if you believe in long term, there is no reason to keep it going any more, the scale of the damage is exponential.

What damage? There are few facts you're missing in your equation:

1) Most of the so-called nuclear "waste" can be reprocessed and used again in different types of reactors, which are already approaching economic viability.
2) The actual amount of unreprocessable nuclear waste is just a fraction of the overall amount of nuclear waste - about 5-10%, I think.
3) This amount of nuclear waste can be safely stored underground without any risk whatsoever for anybody. This is not black magic we are talking about, this is science and technology. Science say that if you bury radioactive materials under a thick enough layer of rock, nothing can go through. Technology allows us to build such underground vaults and ensure that the waste is stored safely.

So again, where is the damage? I see none.

Again, it's more ideology than factual thinking. What is the goal? to live peaceful and not destroy our planet, go green. to be energy-independent from other countries and have enough for your own, go the other way.

The point is that nuclear energy is

a) the safest available source
b) the most economically viable one
c) the one that ensures greater energy independence of Europe
d) the one which doesn't pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse emissions
e) the greenest one - you need only few big nuclear power plants to power a whole country, not thousands of smaller ones. The whole energy demand in the Czech Rep. could be covered with just four medium sized nuclear power plants. We currently have 2 which provide over 40% of our consumption. There is a discussion going on about another one, which could put this number at some 60 or 70%.

Who am I to tell you which is more correct?

Again, this is not a matter of ideology, but science and technology. The matter should be discussed on this level. Unfortunately, people are bringing their irrational fears into this, which is not acceptable, especially if their fear can threaten the future of the entire continent.

And in correction to my previous post. Of course one can talk about politics and issues like the economy, but let's not pretend that we have the slightest clue about the whole thing. It's just too complex for us single humans. So the discussion really boils down to the question of "more or less state" for me. Which if spelled out, pretty much gives you the 5+ parties the election is about. Subjective choice.

Don't be so relativistic. With such an attitude, you could never seriously discuss any matter.

I am saying that the decision to decommission all nuclear power plants in Germany was totally insane and based on nothing but populism and pandering to people's hysteria about nuclear energy. Just as other countries in Europe have reversed their decisions to abandon nuclear energy, I am really hoping that the next German government is formed by sane people who have the future of their country in mind, not just the votes and victory in the next elections.

 

[Dragonlord]

Re nuclear power: Building new nuclear power plants is a politically dead issue in Germany - that will NOT happen, whover wins the Bundestagswahl.

Though Green myself, I feel that the issue of letting existing nuclear power plants run a few years longer than planned is another matter. We may wish the stupid things had never been built, but they're here now, so we might as well use them.

Winner, nuclear power is NOT cheap - the running cost are, yes, but once you factor in the costs for eventually tearing down the old plants and the costs for the indefinite storage of the nuclear wastes, it becomes at least as expensive as other power sources. Unfortunately, a lot of those costs are put on the taxpayer - which is why the power companies love nuclear power.
And this isn't even counting the risks - you do remember Czernobyl, don't you?
It's also not environmentally friendly - you trade one environmental problem (carbon emissions) for another: storing extremely dangerous nuclear wastes. Note that, after what? 50 years? of nuclear power we STILL don't have a safe long-term disposal site.

That said, the major problem with the existing nuclear power plants, IMO, will be the costs for tearing them down and storing the resulting radioactive wastes - and that problem will be the same with longer running times. We might as well get some more of the good (low running costs, no carbon emission) out of them to balance the bad.

But I'd fight tooth and nail against anyone proposing to build another of the stupid things - and so would the overwhelming majority of Germans.

 

[Dragonlord]

For me the Kohl government stands for doing basically nothing at all...Kohl's favourite was to simply let problems go away...seems his mentee Merkel learned pretty well.

Many things should have been addressed e.g. the pension system, the health system, the crazy taxation system etc. Instead they chose to lull people into thinking everything will be fine for another 1000+ years (famous: Die Renten sind sicher). And for me the FDP was just a needless appendix always eager to get minister posts and power. For the fact that they always had around 5-10% of the votes, their influence has been far to big for far too long.

This!

I still have my 'Kohl, nein danke' T-shirt - I voted against the guy for 16 years, with increasing disbelief that he constantly got himself re-elected!

I especially hated his stated motto: "We'll sit that out". That's exactly what he did for 16 years: sat all the problems out and did basically nothing. The much-needed reforms were delayed and the governments since then have been playing catch-up.

BTW, you forgot the most serious problem: unemployment. Kohl did absolutely nothing to combat that, either.

 

[kalif]

i wonder how it is even debatable to renegotiate the current nuclear power phase-out. It was a gist in the successful election of the SPD/Green coalition. Both times! A consensus was formed and contracts negotiated. How is it possible that the contracts are negotiable, anyway?

Even today a majority is pro phase out. 53% are pro phase out, 26% pro extension of runtime of nuclear power plants and the rest is undecided. How could a government act so deliberately against those it should represent and who give the government its right of existence? Renegotiation is a kowtow before the energy companies, who still cling to their paradigm of nuclear power as a clean and cheap energy source, while at the same time increasing the prices for electricity.

And that argument, that nuclear energy makes us more independent is a big eyewash.
Four mining corporations are producing 2/3 of the world wide amount of uranium. Only Romania and the Czech Rep are producing Uranium in Europe. In small amounts. There is no lucrative production of Uranium possible in Germany. And nobody takes into account the troubles this production brings with it: the dangers of Uranium transportation, the environmental damages - e.g. contamination of ground water and the surrounding area, the costs of the decontamination of the production area, the health problems and its costs due to production etc. By supporting npp we luckily relocate these problems to different countries. It shouldn't matter to us, if some Inuits in Canada or Indios in Brazil lose their habitats... Then add the costs for the transportation of the plutonium garbage from France to Germany. These transports have to be secured due to protests and it costs about 20 million a year, a pissed off population and an overstrained police that acts against those it should protect. Why? Because the government couldn't reach consensus with its subjects.

No, thanks...

 

[RedRalph]

anti-nuclear ayatollahs.... my god, some people just cannot seperate issues

 

[Mise]

It would be incredibly difficult for any major nation, and especially an economic and industrial powerhouse like Germany, to meet environmental targets without nuclear power. I hope that they will take the necessary but difficult steps to meet those targets anyway, rather than simply ignoring them...

 

[Winner]

Winner, nuclear power is NOT cheap - the running cost are, yes, but once you factor in the costs for eventually tearing down the old plants and the costs for the indefinite storage of the nuclear wastes,

Which are minimal after the storage facility has been built. It isn't that expensive to maintain an underground vault...

it becomes at least as expensive as other power sources. Unfortunately, a lot of those costs are put on the taxpayer - which is why the power companies love nuclear power.

This is hardly a fair remark, given how huge support do the so-called renewable sources receive from the government(s).

And this isn't even counting the risks - you do remember Czernobyl, don't you?

Oh please. I didn't know there were still people who are willing to stake their credibility on this argument. In short, it was a different type of reactor, a flawed design, and even then it took numerous consecutive errors by the operators and total violation of security protocols to make it explode. Modern reactors simply can't cause such a disaster, it's physically impossible.

Smaller scale accidents happen from time to time, but the number of deaths and damage they cause are totally incomparable with anything the other possible sources of energy (and related industries) cause. Japan operates many nuclear power plants in earthquake zones, how many of them exploded?

To sum it up, this is a typical scaremongering which I so hate on the greens. I do sympathize with many parts of the green program, but their fanatical religious-like refusal of nuclear power makes it 100% sure that I'll never give them my vote (in any country or institution).

It's also not environmentally friendly - you trade one environmental problem (carbon emissions) for another: storing extremely dangerous nuclear wastes.

It is NOT an environmental problem. Storing relatively small amounts of final nuclear waste is not an issue - it will be safely encased in stainless steel, glass and put underground in places where even a huge disaster can't cause contamination of the surface or underground water.

Note that, after what? 50 years? of nuclear power we STILL don't have a safe long-term disposal site.

Mostly because the greens are rabidly opposed to building one - anywhere. Thus they're in fact forcing the governments to use temporary storage sites which are much more vulnerable to possible natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

In fact, this is another example of the suicidal mentality sometimes demonstrated by the left wing.

But I'd fight tooth and nail against anyone proposing to build another of the stupid things - and so would the overwhelming majority of Germans.

Calling nuclear power plants stupid is pretty... stupid. Given how technically advanced these things are, how rigorous are the safety procedures, how clever people operate them, I think they're more clever than all the people who oppose them (combined).

You still didn't explain how do you plan to make enough electricity to compensate for the decommissioned nuclear power plants. And please, don't tell me you plan to build more wind turbines - that's not a viable alternative due to their unreliability, price, and the necessity of having backup conventional power plants. So you're left with one thing: coal. The ultimate refuge of people who call themselves "green". Yay...