Germany scraps nuke power

[Walsingham]

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

 

Can someone please explain what in holy hell the Germans are up to?

 

My understanding is that wind power is a fantasy in terms of generating power on a mass scale. Solar's obviously out. So that only leaves coal and gas. Gas is better than coal but all Germany's gas comes from Russia. And we know how well they play with others.

 

And this is all over a nuke scare which has claimed less than 100 lives to my knowledge, and which demonstrates that even in the worst imaginable circumstances nuke plants are not the terrifying beasts we've always been taught about.

 

If it's half as stupid as I think it is then this is a dark day for both Germany and democracy.

[Morgoth]

This is what happens if the Green party has too much power in your coalition.

 

Seriously, very dumb move. No nuclear power plants results in diminished industrial output.

 

Kiss the "Wirtschaftswunder" bye bye.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Morgoth

[Gorgon]

Damn hippies. It's going to affect my electric bill, Denmark buys most of its juice.

[Meshugger]

At least the russians are very happy about this

 

Truth to be told, i find it kind of alarming if Russia and China will become the big power houses in terms of providing electrical power to the rest of the world. People seem to forget what kind of political power that it holds.

[Walsingham]

I might understand the Germans not getting alarmed about Russia standing on its economic windpipe, if the Russians hadn't already tried squeezing it a couple of years ago!

 

I mean seriously, this is ****ing la la land, to me. Wanting an alternative to nuclear power is perfectly fine. Thinking there is one when there isn't is childishness on a monumental scale.

[Meshugger]

I agree.

 

I mean, we already have to technology to switch from Uranium to Thorium nuclear, but noooo. And where is the political will for nuclear fusion? Outside of the scientific community, there is none.

[pmp10]

Really if those issues were that simple they would be solved long ago.

And funnily enough the complains are about the means of power distribution not the form of it's generation.

 

I mean, we already have to technology to switch from Uranium to Thorium nuclear, but noooo.

Because its not so easy.

For 60 years nuclear industry ran on uranium.

Even if all the problems involving thorium were solved it will take decades for such a major change to occur.

And where is the political will for nuclear fusion? Outside of the scientific community, there is none.

There is plenty of wishful thinking but little intent to pay for a serious R&D process.

And it's hardly surprising, it is said that today we could have a fusion plant build in 5 years.

You only need to find someone to foot the 30 billion $ bill for something that may never work.

Fusion may be the technology of the future but the politicians need to be reelected today not 30 years from now.

[Rosbjerg]

While nuclear is nowhere as clean or good as some claim, it is without a doubt a better alternative to coal and gas.. I agree completely, I'd rather deal with radioactive waste than the political ****-storm ala the oil crisis in the 70's, which could arise from China and Russia sitting on the main line.

[Nepenthe]

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

 

Can someone please explain what in holy hell the Germans are up to?

 

My understanding is that wind power is a fantasy in terms of generating power on a mass scale. Solar's obviously out. So that only leaves coal and gas. Gas is better than coal but all Germany's gas comes from Russia. And we know how well they play with others.

 

And this is all over a nuke scare which has claimed less than 100 lives to my knowledge, and which demonstrates that even in the worst imaginable circumstances nuke plants are not the terrifying beasts we've always been taught about.

 

If it's half as stupid as I think it is then this is a dark day for both Germany and democracy.

The Swedes came out with a similar, grand declaration after Three Mile Island.

 

No points for guessing that they quietly backtracked before the deadline.

[Walsingham]

Good point, Nep. Could this be a case of Merkel saying she'll do it to please her lunatic minor partners in the greens. then when an almighty cack-kessel brews up she can turn round and get out of the commitment without losing them?

[Gorgon]

I wonder if there are stages to be agreed upon or whether she can just string them along for 10 years. t

[Calax]

The US could probably go more towards nuclear power and get a LOT less waste if they changed a rule that allowed them to reuse fuel (right now you use it once and it's kicked aside).

 

I'm guessing the Germans aren't about to drop their Nuclear program. Not only does it put them in a... tenuous position politically, but it also limits their ability to create/maintain their weapons.

[Gorth]

Never underestimate the engineering prowess of the Germans. It's the country that brought the world things like Einstein, Werner von Braun and Bullet Proof Bra's

 

If they want to change focus towards sustainable/renewable energy, the more power to them I say (unintended pun). It's not like they are going to go 100% windmill electricity overnight (if my Google skills were correct, it's still "only" 29% of their current energy production they are looking at alternatives for).

[Enoch]

At least the russians are very happy about this

 

Truth to be told, i find it kind of alarming if Russia and China will become the big power houses in terms of providing electrical power to the rest of the world. People seem to forget what kind of political power that it holds.

The Russian Oligarchy/Kleptocracy is busy looting the country's petroleum resources for as much short-term personal benefit they can get, using decades-old technology. (The modern tech is generally in the hands of US/British/Dutch companies, who know better than to invest seriously in a nation with such a tenuous relationship with the rule of law.) The way they're going, it's going to run out within the next decade or so. China is still using coal for the vast majority of its power-- I'm not sure why people would think they'd be a net exporter.

 

While the source of production does hold some considerable political power, the force that controls the pipelines and shipping lanes has much more-- they can starve both the exporters and importers if and when they want to.

[Humodour]

Good point, Nep. Could this be a case of Merkel saying she'll do it to please her lunatic minor partners in the greens.

 

Please clearly detail in what ways the Greens are 'lunatic'.

 

It doesn't just become so because you say it.

[Moose]

Japan have gone in the same direction, maybe the two countries have some secret plans they're not telling about.

[Humodour]

Japan has also mandated that all new buildings have solar panels on their roofs.

 

Meanwhile, China now spends more than any other country on Earth on renewable energy manufacture, research, and development. And Britain's conservative government recently unveiled a massive new initiative to support a homegrown clean tech industry and cut carbon emissions 50% (on 1990 levels I believe) by 2025. And India's minister for the environment is an environmentalist, which has been framing his governments actions lately, for the better.

 

Oh, and America under Obama is investing heavily in renewables, too. They're building some really promising solar thermal tower projects. Interesting, the US military supports action to prevent climate change. It might be a conservative institution, but obviously they can see the writing on the wall.

 

And, finally, Australia is starting to act too - by 2012 people and industry will have to pay money if they want to pollute (a.k.a price on carbon). And while support for this isn't fully bipartisan, quite a few members of the local conservative party (Liberals), including all the ex-leaders of the party (Hewson, Howard, Turnbull, Fraser), support the move.

[Walsingham]

That's all very festive, Krez. But as I think the banking crisis alone should have highlighted, wishful thinking doesn't end at the doors of Parliament. Any Parliament.

 

The problem is that neither wind nor solar produce power on a scale or to the right time schedule as non-renewables. To make Britain entirely renewable is literally impossible using current technology.

[Rosbjerg]

That's all very festive, Krez. But as I think the banking crisis alone should have highlighted, wishful thinking doesn't end at the doors of Parliament. Any Parliament.

 

The problem is that neither wind nor solar produce power on a scale or to the right time schedule as non-renewables. To make Britain entirely renewable is literally impossible using current technology.

 

But governments focusing on it and thus creating an incentive to advance the technology, so the companies can make money, is good - no?

[Enoch]

That's all very festive, Krez. But as I think the banking crisis alone should have highlighted, wishful thinking doesn't end at the doors of Parliament. Any Parliament.

 

The problem is that neither wind nor solar produce power on a scale or to the right time schedule as non-renewables. To make Britain entirely renewable is literally impossible using current technology.

 

But governments focusing on it and thus creating an incentive to advance the technology, so the companies can make money, is good - no?

Depends. If the return on that investment turns out to be good, then sure.

 

But the problem with governmental incentives is that good projects (i.e., ones likely to have a strong ROI) would be getting plenty of private financing even without them, so they end up either A) further enriching the successes that would've happened anyway or B) funding marginal pursuits with a low success rate. I'm not a big "Markets are efficient, and Governments can only screw them up by meddling!!" advocate, but the case against subsidy is probably where that crowd's logic is at its strongest. At best, you might generate some comparative advantage, promoting domestic rather than foreign development/production of a particular technology that was almost certain to come along whether you acted or not. If you don't run afoul of WTO anti-subsidy rules.

 

(That said, the water gets considerably muddied where the energy sources that you're looking to displace have large subsidies of their own and generate significant external costs (e.g., environmental damage; risks of catastrophe) that aren't fully captured in the price seen by consumers. An attempt at a counter-balancing subsidy might be the least-bad of the politically teneble options available. But even in that case there are a lot of ways for it to get screwed up on the way.)

[Gfted1]

Someone bring me up to speed here. Why is Germany freaking out? Being virtually landlocked we can probably rule out tsunami's, I dont think they have ever suffered a hurricane or tornado, so is the country on a fault zone or something?

[Morgoth]

The left of the political spectrum in Germany is very, very strong.

 

What am I saying, there is only a left in Germany.

[Nepenthe]

Someone bring me up to speed here. Why is Germany freaking out? Being virtually landlocked we can probably rule out tsunami's, I dont think they have ever suffered a hurricane or tornado, so is the country on a fault zone or something?

Oh, we have the same thing going on here, as well. And we're on the most seismically stable region in the world. Classic case of turning people's attention away from real problems, of which we have plenty here in the euro zone.

[Monte Carlo]

Hippies. I hope that wind-farm thingie and yurt-dwelling works out for them.

[Walsingham]

+1 Enoch, really.

 

My understanding of the tech is that one can improve the energy receiver, but you can't alter the delivery of the energy into the system except by shifting geographical location. Or more simply it don't blow regular and it don't shine at night. Not in northern Europe, anyway.

 

Natural energy is predicated on a chaotic system. It's inherently uncontrollable. You can engineer catchment up the wazoo, but it won't get you an increase in efficiency in the order of 200/400% which is what I understand would be needed. Never mind the fact that the irregularity of the supply places huge strains on power storage.

 

Reason we should ALL care, leaving aside geopolitics, and the fact that I regard Germany as on our side:

 

Money spent on retooling and re-engineering the German power system is money that can't be spent on schooling, aid to the developing world, buying crap which we make over here, and so on and so forth. It's not OK to just write it off as 'basically green so it's ok'. Even if green power is your focus it would make far far more sense to devote the same money to delivering sustainable power in countries like Bangladesh or Brazil.