More German fun

[thestonesfan]

Germany's Retreat from Nuclear Energy Begins

By Christian Charisius

STADE, Germany (Reuters) - Germany switched off the first of its 19 nuclear power stations on Friday, launching what it calls the world's fastest withdrawal from atomic energy but a policy that may still be reversed if the opposition takes power.

Germany's center-left government struck a deal with industry in 2000 to close all nuclear power plants by about 2025, the Greens making a phase-out a condition for forming a coalition with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats in 1998.

However, it is still unclear if Germany can meet the deadline and how it will replace atomic power, which provides a third of its electricity, while also meeting commitments to cap its emissions of greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuels.

With little fanfare inside the control room, the Stade plant, Germany's second oldest, ceased operations on Friday morning with the simple pressing of two buttons.

"All rods are engaged. We are now out," said shift leader Bernd Schroeder as the reactor near Hamburg shut off.

Greens Environment Minister Juergen Trittin said Friday's closure showed nuclear power had no future in Germany.

"No country is pulling out as quickly as Germany. Up until 2020 one nuclear power plant will be closed on average every year in Germany," he said in a speech

The Greens held a party in Berlin to celebrate, but operator E.ON said its 32-year-old reactor would have closed anyway on purely economic grounds without government pressure.

Opposition parties have threatened to reverse the withdrawal. Within government, Trittin is at odds with SPD Economy Minister Wolfgang Clement over how much to promote renewable energy as coal subsidies are phased out as Germany seeks alternatives to make up the nuclear power shortfall.

EUROPEAN LEADER

Like Germany, Belgium and Sweden have also announced nuclear phase-out plans. Sweden closed one reactor but postponed further closures after protests from energy-intensive industry.

France, which relies on nuclear power for 80 percent of its electricity, and Britain are keeping their options open to build new nuclear plants to replace aging ones.

Finland, the only country in western Europe expanding its atomic energy production, is soon to start building its fifth nuclear reactor.

"There's little sign of Europe following Germany. If anything it's going more in the opposite direction," said Berthold Hannes, analyst at consultancy A.T. Kearney.

"Germany's conservatives could also reverse the decision if they came to power. I don't think there will be any new nuclear plants, but the present ones could have their lives extended from 32 years to, say 50 years, or even 60 years as in the United States," he added.

Germany's VDEW electricity association urged the government to extend the lives of nuclear power plants, saying it would help the country keep to greenhouse gas limits. It called Stade's shutdown a routine closure, not an ecological triumph.

German Friends of the Earth (news - web sites) was also not celebrating, saying some of Stade's output had been shifted to other nuclear plants.

Despite winning the pledge of an end to atomic power, anti-nuclear protesters are still a force to be reckoned with in Germany, with thousands earlier this week disrupting a shipment of nuclear waste returning to a German storage site.

The reprocessed fuel did complete its journey from France with the help of 13,000 police, but protesters secured extensive media coverage and ensured the nuclear industry remains a costly burden -- at least for the state which footed the policing bill.

Work on dismantling the 672-megawatt Stade nuclear reactor is due to begin in 2005, once its fuel has been removed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't nuclear power the cleanest and most efficient energy source possible? Why do the Greens hate it so much?

I don't get it. This seems like a major step backwards to me.

 

[luiz]

It is indeed a stupid move. Nuclear energy is the cleanest energy source, together with solar energy and other minor sources such as a geothermal energy generation. And nuclear energy, though somewhat expensive, is the cheaper of the clean sources. The risk of an accident is very small with decent maintainance.

 

[thestonesfan]

I read a good article a while back about the potential of more efficient solar energy, but the technology is a long ways off if it's even practical.

I know there are few greenies around here. Maybe they would explain why nuclear energy is so bad.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Isn't nuclear power the cleanest and most efficient energy source possible?

As far as I know, yes.

Why do the Greens hate it so much?

Don't know.

I don't get it. This seems like a major step backwards to me.

To me too. A lot of europeans seem to be very scared of nuclear power, however. Ever since Chernobyl '86. It's strange considering how safe nuclear power is now. The biggest risk of a nuclear disaster now lies not in Germany, but in the eastern European countries who can't afford to make their power plants safer.

 

[Cilpot]

Doesnt it produce nucelar waste that have to be buried 100's of meters underground for safety?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Silly move. I'd hate to see Berlin in the same place the American NE was a few months ago... They'll be calling it Black Germany pretty soon...

 

[Speedo]

Originally posted by Cilpot
Doesnt it produce nucelar waste that have to be buried 100's of meters underground for safety?

All major sources of electricity except hydroelectric have some huge drawback or produce something harmful. I'd rather have to bury nuclear waste than breath the smoke from coal plants.

 

[thestonesfan]

I don't know how much waste is produced, so I really can't say. Hopefully, we'll develop an efficient way of sending it to the moon someday, or finally crack the problem of Fusion.

At any rate, the only practical current alternatives are coal or petroleum plants. You have to build a lot of those to replace one nuclear plant, and they pollute much worse.

Apparently, the Greens haven't played SimCity.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Speedo


All major sources of electricity except hydroelectric have some huge drawback or produce something harmful. I'd rather have to bury nuclear waste than breath the smoke from coal plants.

Hydroeletic energy generation is also harmfull to the enviroment: to build a hydro plant one must flood a huge are, destroying whole echo-systems. Also, the plants that go underwater decompose and CO2 goes to the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect. Still, it's cleaner than the themeletric energy sources.

 

[Ossric]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Hopefully, we'll develop an efficient way of sending it to the moon someday, or finally crack the problem of Fusion.

the moon? Won't be long then before we have to were sunglasses at night to protect us from the light of the moon. This will certainly make the weather forcast on TV a lot different!

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by luiz


Hydroeletic energy generation is also harmfull to the enviroment: to build a hydro plant one must flood a huge are, destroying whole echo-systems. Also, the plants that go underwater decompose and CO2 goes to the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect. Still, it's cleaner than the themeletric energy sources.

A well-planned dam in a good place can be beneficial on the whole, but some have certainly not been kind to the environment or neighboring economies, such as the Aswan dam.

 

[SanPellegrino]

I agree with the stop for nuclear power here. I know it is two-sided, if we have to use more fossile energies again it would be a drawback. but solar and wind technologies improve a lot and will improve further if there is a need and therefore a huge (financial) incentive to do so.

The difference between nuclear power and the other methods of winning electricity is that an accident, although unlikely, would have disastrous consequences. western europe has a very high population density and a total blow would kill millions. and maybe it wouldn't need an accident, a terrorist act is maybe even more likely. the reactors are built safe, but like the carriers acknowledged, the domes could hold off a crashed jet fighter but not a passenger or freight plane.

another point deriving from the population density is that there is just no place for nuclear power plants. whereever they are, the cancer rate grew over the years in their adjacencies, there is just no huge deserted area here that would allow to build reactors.

 

[Cilpot]

Originally posted by Speedo


All major sources of electricity except hydroelectric have some huge drawback or produce something harmful. I'd rather have to bury nuclear waste than breath the smoke from coal plants.

All too true.. Hydro electrics have ruined much of the norwegian wilderness.

It comes down to selecting the lesser of several necessary evils.

 

[jack merchant]

Nuclear waste, unlike hydro-electric dams, has the potential to kill someone a 1,000 years from now. Comparing nuclear plants with regular ones is like comparing apples and oranges; the problems caused by the are completely different from the problems of the other. Thus, there is no way you can claim nuclear energy is the cleanest ever - for one thing we can't compare, for a second we just don't know yet.

 

[Cilpot]

Um.. good point, Jack

But who cares about the future? We'll all be long gone in 1000 years

 

[jack merchant]

Yeah, après nous la déluge . Party like it's 1999 .

 

[Norlamand]

Originally posted by Cilpot
Doesnt it produce nucelar waste that have to be buried 100's of meters underground for safety?

Don't be silly! We export it to some third world country where it is....ummm,........safely disposed of, yeah that's it!

 

[Cilpot]

Originally posted by Norlamand


Don't be silly! We export it to some third world country where it is....ummm,........safely disposed of, yeah that's it!

Anyway.. I don't think Germany should be mocked for cutting down on nuclear dependancy. It clearly has its drawbacks, of wich people here are only speculating on. If nuclear power was the cleanest and most efficient source I find it hard to believe that they would cut down on it..

A bit OT: What I find more disturbing are the Russian nuclear time-bombs situated throughout their country, and especially since some of them are close to my hometown.. They don't excactly have huge maintenance budgets, AFAIK.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Isn't nuclear power the cleanest and most efficient energy source possible?

Yes.

Why do the Greens hate it so much?

I have to quote Reagan on this: "I don't think they'll be happy until the White House looks like a bird's nest."

I don't get it. This seems like a major step backwards to me.

You aren't the only one.

 

[sysyphus]

Nuclear power is far from ideal, but the real environmental demons are fossil fuels, they should be taken care of by far as the top priority.

All things considered, nuclear is safe. Nuclear plants are not ticking bombs, their construction and operation makes it impossible for them to go off the same as a nuclear weapon (intentionally or non-intentionally)

As for the issue of waste, we are able to contain it quite well for now, and the technonlogy is developing rapidly, long term storage of nuclear waste is not a real issue.

It is however, proving to be more costly than initially anticipated. Nuclear plants don't age very well and maintenance costs are proving very high.

The day will come when wind and solar prove more economically viable than nuclear, and I will welcome that day, but I have no problem with the use of nuclear power for the time being.

I certainly hope the Germans know what they're doing, looks to me like they're setting themselves up for a power deficit. Their neighbouring countries had better prepare themselves to make up the difference and profit from it immensely!