# Germany's non-nuclear future



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

To put it in perspective, nuclear power accounts for 22% of the energy production in germany. And energy demand is expected to decrease by roughly 10% in the next decades. As much as I love nuclear power, it won't be that big of an issue. A few coal plants here and there (helps german coal producers) and of course some windparks offshore (helps german windpower producers). 

A couple weeks ago, 13 of the 17 german nuclear powerplants went offline for a week and the electrical grid didn't collapse.

Between Switzerland wants to get rid of nuclear energy as well. And there nuclear power accounts for roughly 40% of energy production. So the challenge to find alternatives to nuclear power in Switzerland is much bigger than in Germany. They probably go hydroelectric.


----------



## Shenkey (Mar 19, 2009)

They energy demand decrease is just plainly wrong.


----------



## strandeed (May 31, 2009)

goschio said:


> A couple weeks ago, 13 of the 17 german nuclear powerplants went offline for a week and the electrical grid didn't collapse.


Yes, Germany has started importing electricity at inflated prices.

The German taxpayers are getting a raw deal.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

strandeed said:


> Yes, Germany has started importing electricity at inflated prices.
> 
> The German taxpayers are getting a raw deal.



Well, the switch to renewable energies will be even more expensive. Increasing energy costs are unavoidable. Thankfully, energy costs per GDP unit are constantly decreasing due to higher efficiency. So in the end, the share of energy costs on total costs will remain pretty much the same.

Think about the high gas prices in Germany. Did it hurt the German economy in any way? No. It forced German producers to develop more fuel efficient cars.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

I could understand a temporary moratorium on building _new_ nuclear reactors, as I know Germany and a few other countries have had for years. However, deciding to phase them out all together is foolish; it would be if there wasn't global climate change, and it's even more so in the face of our current reality. There have only apparently been three accidents in the German industry's history, and yet it's still being shut down. Even if it were to be looked at from the waste storage perspective, France is managing a far, far greater wasteload with some manner of adequacy. I know that Merkel wants to boost Germany's renewable energy technology sector, but the flaws present in todays' technology are inherent to the technology itself, not to its current state. And that's not to say that renewable energy shouldn't be utilized extensively, but it seems at best unwise to pursue it as a means to satisfy all energy demand. What in the world is Germany thinking here?


----------



## Obelixx (Apr 14, 2005)

In fact there are not few people in Germany against the erection of new wind turbines. 
It should not to be forgotten that most wind turbines with a total height of more than 180 metres are in Germany - including the most powerful and the tallest one!


----------



## strandeed (May 31, 2009)

wind turbines are hopelessly uneconomical and undependable, not to mention you need some method of storing the electricity for when there is no wind.

Governments love them because they are highly visible, thus making it look like they are investing in fashionable green technologies.

Huge waste of taxpayers money


----------



## Obelixx (Apr 14, 2005)

Even in Germany sometimes wind turbines collapse

http://www.osthessen-news.de/beitrag_J.php?id=1199336


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

Nuclear power is dangerous.
Experience showed.


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

There is always a consequence to everything (good or bad).

In the case of Germany, if they choose to abandon nuclear power, that's fine.

Of course, they would have to deal though with initially exorbitant power costs for the next few years (in which the only way is to decrease costs and/or tech improvements). 

In short, there is always upsides and downsides to everything.


----------



## Norkey (Apr 12, 2006)

Well, Germany will have to buy energy from us, like Austrians.  Doubling the size of Temelin is a matter of few years and plans for our 3rd nuclear power plant are there as well.

Coal, wind and sun energy are the biggest evil on this planet anyway. I guess in CZE it already destroyed bigger territory than Fukushima and Chernobyl alltogether.. And it's for ever (unlike radioactivity which is a matter of few decades only..). Not to mention damaged landscape of Poland, Eastern Germany..

And, cost of energy will not increase in Germany only. It will affect most of the Europe and us as well, of course. Single market..


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

The French are poised to win big also. Nuclear power remains popular there, they will happily supply France and Germany.


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

1 Suicide also came out.(Nuclear accident)
2 Exposure to radioactivity(Workers 1365,Fukushima residents)
2 The sea has been polluted.
3 Fukushima uninhabitable for 30 years.
4 Half-life of 100,000 years of nuclear waste
　 The human race can not be managed.
5 Can not open the windows.
　 The food&Water was contaminated.
6 Lithium was detected from the body of the child.
7 Tritium leak found in the U.S.(Nuclear,48/65 points)
8 cancer in the province, 190 km doubling of nuclear power generation.
9 Prague Spring and the bribes of the atomic bomb material.
10 True cost(Nuclear waste disposal, add the Management Fee)
　 8 from the right (nuclear power generation)


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

Is there any reason that germany is getting rid of all its nuclear power plants in the future? If so, please specify them.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

japanese001 said:


> Nuclear power is dangerous.
> Experience showed.


Everything is dangerous. Should we stop doing everything?

There are no means of producing energy that don't have downsides. When you really factor in everything, and calculate environmental en human effects than nuclear energy beats about every other means of large scale energy form. 

The number of workers killed per energy unit produced is even higher for wind energy than for nuclear energy, even if we include accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

goschio said:


> Between Switzerland wants to get rid of nuclear energy as well. And there nuclear power accounts for roughly 40% of energy production. So the challenge to find alternatives to nuclear power in Switzerland is much bigger than in Germany. They probably go hydroelectric.


There is no potential to increase hydorelectric production in Switzerland. And don't forget that the challenge is not how to replace the nuclear plants. The real challenge is what to replace all those barrels of oil that are imported every year.
Most European countries will have to at least double electricity production to compensate for the increasing electrification of transportation and heating.

No, at the momen Switzerland is basically not doing anything. With one exception most plants are operating, and will continue to do so until their licences expire. We'll see then.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Jim856796 said:


> Is there any reason that germany is getting rid of all its nuclear power plants in the future? If so, please specify them.


The vast majority of people don't want this technology. And as Germany is something close to democratic politics had to bow to the will of the electorate eventually.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

flierfy said:


> The vast majority of people don't want this technology. And as Germany is something close to democratic politics had to bow to the will of the electorate eventually.


The problem is that the public has a false expectation that it is possible to get electricity from elsewhere at the same prices. It isn't.

At the end of the day, the worst environmental trade-off might happen: avoidance of nukes, and embrace of coal-fires plants.

Even accidents on daily operation of coal mines make them more deadly than nuclear reactors.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> The problem is that the public has a false expectation that it is possible to get electricity from elsewhere at the same prices. It isn't.
> 
> At the end of the day, the worst environmental trade-off might happen: avoidance of nukes, and embrace of coal-fires plants.
> 
> Even accidents on daily operation of coal mines make them more deadly than nuclear reactors.


In Western Europe even windmills kill more people than nuclear plants...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

flierfy said:


> The vast majority of people don't want this technology. And as Germany is something close to democratic politics had to bow to the will of the electorate eventually.


The main reason is that Germany has a lot of coal, as one of a few countries in the world. As a result Germany will have a competitive advantage (cheaper energy) if they manage to make nuclear energy an unacceptable option in the rest of Europe also.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Think for most germans a potential nuclear meltdown is more concerning than the abstract concept of global warming. Thats why there is only little opposition to new coal powerplants.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Do you guys really think Germany is going to phase out nuclear energy for good by 2020? BTW,I read things aren't going so well with producing renewable energies in Germany. Is that true?


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

Cesium pollution of the food does not stop.>(


----------



## khoojyh (Aug 14, 2005)

no comment but it is a bravo decision. so far they are first country in world declared to shut down all nuclear energy plant.

opposite way of the world in nuclear energy industry.


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

Cesium scattering, even beyond 250 km
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0927/TKY201109270600.html


----------



## preservarbuenosaires (Nov 11, 2010)

khoojyh said:


> no comment but it is a bravo decision. so far they are first country in world declared to shut down all nuclear energy plant.
> 
> opposite way of the world in nuclear energy industry.


Did you ever heard of a country called "Italy"?


----------



## 2co2co (Apr 8, 2008)

LtBk said:


> Do you guys really think Germany is going to phase out nuclear energy for good by 2020? BTW,I read things aren't going so well with producing renewable energies in Germany. Is that true?


Due to stochastic intermittence, renewable energy without storage capability never goes well, and large-scale battery technology is still under development.hno:


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

There are still coal and gas plants and new one ones are uc or planned. So not everyting will be renewable. LOL


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

Cesium-137 flow into sea 30 times greater than stated by TEPCO: report‎
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111029p2g00m0dm016000c.html


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

2012.1.5
Cesium rise in Fukushima.
Pollution does not stop.
http://news.nifty.com/cs/economy/eco...05-10032/1.htm


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

japanese001 said:


> 2012.1.5
> Cesium rise in Fukushima.
> Pollution does not stop.
> http://news.nifty.com/cs/economy/eco...05-10032/1.htm


You are aware that McDonalds alone is responsible for far more cancer than all the Cesium from Fukushima ever will?

So yes, the cesium is turning up in unexpected places. One reason is that it is very easy to detect. A property you wish all polluants had...


----------

