Germany joins Swiss, ends ALL nuke plants

[Singular Intellect]

This is an example of more excellent news in the energy industry. Germany is leading in the transition from conventional energy sources to renewable ones(primarily solar of course). It's going to be a battle to show the world nuclear is not our savior it's proponents claim it to be. Fortunately it's a battle that I'm not only convinced will be a win for renewables, but a curbstomp in the next couple of decades.

[Sharp-kun]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13257804

Costly green solution

In the town of Schalkau, nestling quietly high in the Rennsteig, the citizens demonstrated recently. They are not naturally a demonstrative people and the protest meeting was suitably sedate. They drank beer and ate sausages at trestle tables as speaker after speaker denounced the pylons that they felt would disfigure the beloved landscape around them.

Some told the BBC they were very anti-nuclear. But they were also very anti the power cables entailed by the expansion of wind power.

I asked them what the alternative was, and got various answers: "use the existing power lines" or "put them underground". The authorities say these proposals would either not do the job or would be much more expensive.

On top of the objection to power lines in the region, there is also concern about animals like the black stork, the red kite and the crane, all of which nest in or migrate through areas likely to have more pylons and high-voltage cables, into which they might fly and be killed.

Germany's Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle said planning rules should be changed so that applications could be handled centrally. That would take decision-making further from the local opponents of particular projects and nearer to a national body, which would take into account national needs.

So Germany - like other countries repelled by nuclear power - now has some tough choices. Wind is not an easy, cheap and swift alternative. Another unpleasant fuel may be easier - but it is one which green activists hate: coal

Will be interesting to see if objections on a local level to both nuclear and green options manage to stall this. Nuclear may not be popular, but I suspect it'll be more popular than anything that affects locals.

[Thanas]

^Think again.

Also, it is hilarious how idiots some people try to spin "wind pylons may not be suitable for all places" into "widespread opposition to green energy, equal to opposition to nuclear power".

[weemadando]

That just sounded more like NIMBYism.

[Skgoa]

Actually, I said something very much like that (but in german) ~7 hours ago. Maybe you should stop making an as out of yourself and take the time to learn a little bit about the things you are talking about.

Ok, I apoligize for not picking that up earlier. If you said something similar, I would hope then you could agree with me on the statment then and not assume I was mocking Germany specifically, but rather the anti nuclear hysteria currently sweeping many countries.

Also I would like to take back some of those stament if they seemed offensive. I don't wish to be lumped into "RAR GERMANY STUPID" but just the anti Nuclear going on right now.

Also You are correct that I was not fully informed, the numbers Thanas posted are surprising to me and I did not know that Germany already did not need that much extra power.

That said what is going on right now is still harmful world wide. Nations that WOULD benefit from investing in Nuclear may think twice now.

EDIT: the phrase "Damned Dirty Hippies" I would hope would be considered sarcasm to anyone on the bored who know my poltical leanings, though I should still have stated as much in the OP.

Oh boy, this is turning into a rather long post... but I guess its worth it to compile everything into one place. ^^



First, let me answer the question of my position: I am pro nuclear and not ashamed to stand by that. I would very much like to see e.g. an improved Thorium pebble bed reactor design build. BUT there are certain factors that have to be taken into account, as there is A LOT of context to this. Little spoiler: I am in favor of phasing out our (i.e. Germany's) current nuclear plants.


The thing is - and thats really the key to understanding german sentiment on this - the nuclear power debate has been going strong over here for DECADES. All of our plants have been built between 60 and 82, with the end of nuclear power generation in Germany being more or less certain for as long as I remember. (I am 24.) Indeed, there has been a critical shortage of nuclear engineers FOR YEARS now, with no end to it in sight, since the profession is as despised as abortion providers are in the bible belt. But not only the long time frame is important here, though it does mean that Germany's reactors are getting dangerously old and have not seen much investment for decades. Much more important IMO is that the big wave of reactor construction came at a time when the youth in the whole western world became very skeptic of their governments, big business - and everything nuclear. And by the end of that period people had PROOF they had been lied to regarding the safety of nuclear power. Windscale happened in 73, Three Mile Island in 79 and finally Chernobyl in 86. We all witnessed how the US changed after 9/11, can you image what happens to a society that has to lock it's children inside due to a nuclear cloud coming from a nuclear power plant far away in the Ukraine? After Fukushima, people in California bought up all available Iodine tablets... try to image how deeply unsettled people would have been if there had been a nationwide uncertainty whether or not it was safe to eat produce FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.
After Chernobyl, nuclear power generation in Germany was deader than dead. The majority of the people were (and still are) against it, all parties switched to an anti-nuke stance. The only debate going on from that point onwards was not if the reactors would be switched of, but when. In 98 the Greens managed to get into a federal majority (in coalition with the SPD, who have been for switching of all nuclear plants since Chernobyl) and immediatly seized the chance to make the "nuclear phaseout" (Atomausstieg) the law of the land. Last year, Chancelor Merkel (CDU) had made a highly criticized decission to stretch it out by ten years, but has now revised her position in light of recent state elections, where the Greens have made huge gains partly due to Fukushima, partly due to other scandals. She just doesn't have the political capital to go against the will of the people right now.


Now that we have the neccessary context, lets look at what Merkel's u-turn actually means for Germany:

As Thanas has shown already, nuclear power is neither needed nor economically sensible for Germany. A relevant study by the MIT can be found here: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuc ... te2009.pdf (Summary of the relevant bits: nuclear power isn't cheap anymore, if you have to build new plants.) But there is another economic reason not to build nuclear power plants: they are a huge single investment, one that just isn't viable right now. Banks not ready to finance the construction of NPPs due to the financial crisis is an actual real problem at the moment. And even if the money was available, they would mean a further concentration of power generation capability. Thats a actually bad thing in a country were the population is much more evenly distributed than in many other nations.

The dangers have also been pointed out time and again, but let me remind you of a little thing that is often forgotten in such discussions as this one: greed. Both german energy companies and german regulators have been involved in HUGE scandals in the recent years, commiting staggering acts of criminal negligence and showing that they are not to be trusted to value the lives of their fellow citizens higher than their own advantage. Just look at Asse 2 or the problems that plague Krümmel. And since the german plants are obsolete and near the end of their lifetime, their track records will not get any better. BTW its already a stark (and shameful) contrast to the performance of american plants.

So, we don't need them, building them would actually be a collossal waste of money that we don't even have in the first place and there are very credible reasons to value the actual danger much higher than in a theoretical debate about nuclear power.
But what about the industry, surely we can't afford to let it die in this economic climate? Yeah well... what industry? Germany doesn't have much of a nuclear industry left, in fact Siemens is currently fucking up the construction of the EPR (which was supposed to revitalize nuclear power) in Finnland. We are exporting nuclear know-how to a couple of other countries, but that will continue regardless, as will research. (Fun fact: I will get to take the reactor lab at my university next semester.) On the other hand Germany is one of the leaders in renewables, an industry that is currently booming. Every bit of money spend there is a good investment.

And that leave only one thing on the list: Peak Oil.
Lets get this straight, it very much seems like we have already hit it or are very near it. And both the german government and public know it. Thats why we are so keen on pushing renewables and biofuel. (A german member with a car might want to expand on E10, I don't know much about it.) But Germany is in a much better position to weather this storm than most countries and if push comes to shove we still have coal lying around in massive quantities. (Its just to uneconomical to mine it right now.) Our over-reliance on russian natural gas might be a liability in the future, but thats more a political/foreign policy thing.


A thousand other things could be said and I could expand on every one of the points I made. But in conclussion let me just state this: nuclear power IS important and it WILL continue to be utilized wherever its the most effective thing to do. But Germany is not the right place. We as a people have decided to live without it, we are (in general) well informed about what that entails and we actually had plans for this in place for 13 years, now.

[Simon_Jester]

Thank you, Skgoa. Since I tend to view nuclear power as one tool in a box containing several, rather than as something to be sought for its own sake, I find it interesting to consider the contexts in which expanding nuclear power plant facilities does not make sense.

[J]

Mother Russia welcomes its latest natural gas energy slave.


Getting back on topic, it's too early to tell how things will go but I don't think it looks as good as Thanas claims.

This is total electricity generated by source:


If the charts here and here are correct, net electricity exports are about 3% of total production. Take away all nuclear power generation and it leaves a pretty sizable gap in electricity production, you may have 26GW or so of wind turbines installed but since they do not and cannot run anywhere close to all the time the actual amount of energy produced is a lot less than the nameplate capacity would lead one to believe. If my math is correct the wind farms are running at about 1/6 of their nominal capacity on average, this would imply that an additional 90-100GW of wind turbines would be required to replace existing nuclear power generation. Possible? Sure. But it's a much larger project than it would be going solely by the nameplate capacity.

[Soontir C'boath]

And before anybody places me into the "hippie-camp", I used to be pro-nuclear. Used, because after the leaks at Asse II and the 180°-turn by Merkel and pals after Fukushima I decided, that it doesn't matter how safe nuclear powerplants can be. You just can't trust the people in charge

This is a poor argument to make. If we go by this, any dangerous industry should be halted.

[AniThyng]

And before anybody places me into the "hippie-camp", I used to be pro-nuclear. Used, because after the leaks at Asse II and the 180°-turn by Merkel and pals after Fukushima I decided, that it doesn't matter how safe nuclear powerplants can be. You just can't trust the people in charge

This is a poor argument to make. If we go by this, any dangerous industry should be halted.

If said dangerous industry can be replaced by something safer, than by all means it should. Germany clearly believes it can supplant the nuclear plants. The same can't yet be said of say, petrochemicals or mining or other risky industries. (Though you can outsource a chemical plant to somewhere where the governing authorities are more lenient/corrupt...)

[Terralthra]

This is an example of more excellent news in the energy industry. Germany is leading in the transition from conventional energy sources to renewable ones(primarily solar of course). It's going to be a battle to show the world nuclear is not our savior it's proponents claim it to be. Fortunately it's a battle that I'm not only convinced will be a win for renewables, but a curbstomp in the next couple of decades.

Yes. Clean, renewable, CO2-free natural gas. Oh wait.

[Soontir C'boath]

And before anybody places me into the "hippie-camp", I used to be pro-nuclear. Used, because after the leaks at Asse II and the 180°-turn by Merkel and pals after Fukushima I decided, that it doesn't matter how safe nuclear powerplants can be. You just can't trust the people in charge

This is a poor argument to make. If we go by this, any dangerous industry should be halted.

If said dangerous industry can be replaced by something safer, than by all means it should. Germany clearly believes it can supplant the nuclear plants. The same can't yet be said of say, petrochemicals or mining or other risky industries. (Though you can outsource a chemical plant to somewhere where the governing authorities are more lenient/corrupt...)

Certainly, but according to him, it doesn't matter how safe [insert industry] is when people in power can't be trusted.

[J]

Yes. Clean, renewable, CO2-free natural gas. Oh wait.

Wow, that is bad, like really bad. Nearly half their electricity from natural gas? Wow.
They'd better hope Russia doesn't hold them hostage at some point.

[Simon_Jester]

Certainly, but according to him, it doesn't matter how safe [insert industry] is when people in power can't be trusted.

Well, think about it.

To Germans, it does not and should not matter how safe a nuclear plant on some other continent is. What matters is how safe the plants in Germany are. The plants in Germany are old, nearing the end of their design lives, and are operated by power companies who are locally famous for corruption and incompetence. That is not an encouraging combination.

It doesn't matter to Germans how safe someone else's plants can be; it matters to them how safe their own plants are, given who's running them. Since the people running the plants are unreliable, and the plants themselves are from the antiquated breed that created so much trouble elsewhere... well, you see the problem.

[Soontir C'boath]

Certainly, but according to him, it doesn't matter how safe [insert industry] is when people in power can't be trusted.

Well, think about it.

To Germans, it does not and should not matter how safe a nuclear plant on some other continent is. What matters is how safe the plants in Germany are. The plants in Germany are old, nearing the end of their design lives, and are operated by power companies who are locally famous for corruption and incompetence. That is not an encouraging combination.

It doesn't matter to Germans how safe someone else's plants can be; it matters to them how safe their own plants are, given who's running them. Since the people running the plants are unreliable, and the plants themselves are from the antiquated breed that created so much trouble elsewhere... well, you see the problem.

I don't think you understand what I was going for. If Merckel et al can't be trusted to handle German nuclear power plants no matter how safe they actually are, then any other dangerous industry in Germany shouldn't be trusted to continue as well.

Singling nuclear power as a bogeyman is exactly what we shouldn't be doing.

[AniThyng]

Certainly, but according to him, it doesn't matter how safe [insert industry] is when people in power can't be trusted.

Well, think about it.

To Germans, it does not and should not matter how safe a nuclear plant on some other continent is. What matters is how safe the plants in Germany are. The plants in Germany are old, nearing the end of their design lives, and are operated by power companies who are locally famous for corruption and incompetence. That is not an encouraging combination.

It doesn't matter to Germans how safe someone else's plants can be; it matters to them how safe their own plants are, given who's running them. Since the people running the plants are unreliable, and the plants themselves are from the antiquated breed that created so much trouble elsewhere... well, you see the problem.

I don't think you understand what I was going for. If Merckel et al can't be trusted to handle German nuclear power plants no matter how safe they actually are, then any other dangerous industry in Germany shouldn't be trusted to continue as well.

Singling nuclear power as a bogeyman is exactly what we shouldn't be doing.

Leaving aside the question of exactly how viable the replacements for nuclear are, there are at least replacements? Is there really any other industry in Germany that has such a disaster potential in the public imagination? The closest I can think of would be something like another Bhophal, but I would imagine a dangerous chemical plant would be next on the list of "things no one wants if they could possibly help it".

[Soontir C'boath]

Leaving aside the question of exactly how viable the replacements for nuclear are, there are at least replacements? Is there really any other industry in Germany that has such a disaster potential in the public imagination? The closest I can think of would be something like another Bhophal, but I would imagine a dangerous chemical plant would be next on the list of "things no one wants if they could possibly help it".

I am only pointing out what Fteik's reasoning is which is pure hysterics. When someone says "no matter how safe it is", a warning light should be flashing. I did not have the intention of going anywhere farther than that.

[Illuminatus Primus]

"Here's a thank you card."

- Gazprom

[Thanas]

Mother Russia welcomes its latest natural gas energy slave.


Getting back on topic, it's too early to tell how things will go but I don't think it looks as good as Thanas claims.

This is total electricity generated by source:

I thought you were a serious analyst. Why use stuff from that source? Go to tagesschau, they got the better stuff.

Yes. Clean, renewable, CO2-free natural gas. Oh wait.

What is the context of that chart? Because it sure as heck does not match any of the projections that are getting thrown around. Also, without context, I am pretty much sure it only refers to Bavaria, not the entirety of Germany. Needless to say, Bavaria is not prototypical.

[Thanas]

I don't think you understand what I was going for. If Merckel et al can't be trusted to handle German nuclear power plants no matter how safe they actually are, then any other dangerous industry in Germany shouldn't be trusted to continue as well.

Singling nuclear power as a bogeyman is exactly what we shouldn't be doing.

It is not Merkel. It is the nuclear industry, which after all is famous for things like:
- Lying about problems at nuclear power plants
- covering up radiation leaks from the regulating agency
- dumping nuclear waste in leaky containers and then stopping caring about them - have you seen the pictures from Asse?
- keeping plants in existence that are not even build to withstand the impact of a sports plane

[Hamstray]

- dumping nuclear waste in leaky containers and then stopping caring about them - have you seen the pictures from Asse?

(3) Die Länder haben Landessammelstellen für die Zwischenlagerung der in ihrem Gebiet angefallenen radioaktiven Abfälle, der Bund hat Anlagen zur Sicherstellung und zur Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle einzurichten. ...

Supposedly this law that it's the governments responsibility to take care of the nuclear waste stems from the agreement to phase out nuclear power in June 14. 2000 between the SPD/Greens and the nuclear industry. So if we're to blame it on someone maybe we should blame it on everyone involved, not just the industry.

[Thanas]

Asse was before that law. I am not saying the regulators are blameless (far from it and there is plenty of corruption to go around), but really, it is a bit disingenious to take a law you say was passed under the greens and apply it to a situation from the previous government, no?

[K. A. Pital]

Still that Bayern graph is downright crazy. Replacing 50% nuclear capacity with 47% natural gas? That's... going to work SO well in the future. Renewables are going to be what, 18-20% of total energy capacity in 2020 by German government's own accounts? At the same time Germany is phasing out 23% of current capacity (that is nuclear). Is the 3-6% increase expected for renewables (hell, I'm giving it a 10% increase to 25%, because renewables had been growing at 1% per year) enough to cover the deficit? I am not convinced. The idea to prolong the phaseout to 2030 was sensible, because by that time Germany had an ambitious goal of 30% renewable energy power generation. More or less enough to cover the phaseout.

Are my calculations wrong?

[Hamstray]

Asse was before that law. I am not saying the regulators are blameless (far from it and there is plenty of corruption to go around), but really, it is a bit disingenious to take a law you say was passed under the greens and apply it to a situation from the previous government, no?

sorry, must have mixed this up with another case.

[Thanas]

Are my calculations wrong?

Yes, see my previous post before for that. We are currently having too many capacities already. I quoted those in my post, but here is a short summary anyway.

The Bayern graph by itself is nothing special and I wonder how they got to 0% coal anyway, seeing how many new coal plants are being built. It loks more like a concept of the greens instead of real projections, which is why I asked to see the context.

[Skgoa]

Maybe they figured natural gas is a better choice than coal for bridging the gap? Are any new coal plants being build in Bavaria?


@Stas: The plan is to get away from fossil fuels entirely... but that would cripple our country, if it was enforced right now. So we have to swallow the bitter pill and go for the least problematic of fossil fuels, until renewables or fusion can pick up the slack.

Mother Russia welcomes its latest natural gas energy slave.


Getting back on topic, it's too early to tell how things will go but I don't think it looks as good as Thanas claims.

This is total electricity generated by source:

I thought you were a serious analyst. Why use stuff from that source? Go to tagesschau, they got the better stuff.

Why not go with the actual data: http://www.transparency.eex.com/de/

In 2010 the max volume (if that term can be used here) of energy that could have been produced by nuclear power plants was 20441 MW. (Note: this includes the plants that are planned to not be switched on anymore.) The total capability to generate electricity in Germany was 133085.1 MW. Now, actual usage numbers are only available for plants >100 MW, so lets keep in mind that 1) 83 GW can be produced in that category (63GW without NPPs) and 2) <100MW is almost exclusively renewables.
For today, the peak (in that category) is expected to be just above 51.5GW, with a "planed non-availablility" of capacity at 20.5GW and "unplaned non-availablility" at 5.5GW. When I had checked back in march, the peak for that day had been 55GW.
What does that mean? Well, nothing less than this little factoid: on a national level, all nuclear power generation capability could be taken from the grid today without energy shortages. The reasons to keep them are: to have a bigger margin of safety, its just economically better to produce energy near where it is needed and the fuel rods and plants are payed for already, other fuels would have to be bought. It also means that due to the reduction in use of electricity that we are seeing right now and that is expected to continue and due to new production capacity comming online in the next decades, the margin of safety will grow ever bigger, allowing us to phase out other kinds of plants, too.

Oh btw, look at how renewables have taken of: