Finally, an industrialized country with a sensible energy policy. And this with a Center-Right government! Details here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43214183/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
Some highlights:
"We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable," Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters on Monday after overnight negotiations among the governing parties. "We have to follow a new path."
The country's energy supply chain "needs a new architecture," necessitating huge efforts in boosting renewable energies, efficiency gains and overhauling the electricity grid, Merkel said.
Until March — before the seven reactors were taken offline — just under a quarter of Germany's electricity was produced by nuclear power, about the same share as in the U.S.
Energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric power currently produces about 17 percent of the country's electricity, but the government aims to boost its share to around 50 percent in the coming decades.
Good fer them; it's about time this wasteful, dangerous and economically inefficient power generating scheme was scrapped and cleaner more environmentally friendly measures put in its place.
Originally posted by no1marauder Finally, an industrialized country with a sensible energy policy. And this with a Center-Right government! Details here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43214183/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
Some highlights:
"We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable," Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters heme was scrapped and cleaner more environmentally friendly measures put in its place.
Nuclear energy is much cleaner than fossil fuels.
Of course ideally everything would run on renewable clean fuels like solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc. But until we can convert our entire energy consumption to clean renewable resources, nuclear seems like a better bridge to that time than coal and oil.
I would rather see coal displaced by the jump in solar and hydroelectric than nuclear energy displaced.
Originally posted by sh76 Nuclear energy is much cleaner than fossil fuels.
Of course ideally everything would run on renewable clean fuels like solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc. But until we can convert our entire energy consumption to clean renewable resources, nuclear seems like a better bridge to that time than coal and oil.
I would rather see coal displaced by the jump in solar and hydroelectric than nuclear energy displaced.
Yeah, it's real "clean" in Northern Japan these days ...........................
Nuclear power is too expensive to build to be a "bridge" to anything. The Germans are smart to phase it out.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra A cowardly decision by the Merkel administration. Germany has an excellent safety record on its nuclear power plants.
So did Japan (publicly anyway).
I know you hate the "democracy" thing, but recent elections have left little doubt what the German people want as regards nuclear power. Merkel is bowing to political reality.
Originally posted by no1marauder So did Japan (publicly anyway).
I know you hate the "democracy" thing, but recent elections have left little doubt what the German people want as regards nuclear power. Merkel is bowing to political reality.
No, Japan didn't.
Yes, this is politics. That's why I called it cowardice, because Merkel knows this decision will increase fossil fuel consumption and pollution as well as cost the German taxpayer a lot of money.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra No, Japan didn't.
Yes, this is politics. That's why I called it cowardice, because Merkel knows this decision will increase fossil fuel consumption and pollution as well as cost the German taxpayer a lot of money.
Gee what part of this didn't you bother to read:
Energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric power currently produces about 17 percent of the country's electricity, but the government aims to boost its share to around 50 percent in the coming decades.
One accident like the one that just happened in Japan wipes out any possible savings that nuclear power could possibly produce in decades. The Japanese taxpayer is now on the hook for hundreds of billions of direct and indirect costs due to your "clean" energy source. And nuclear power is virtually certain to increase substantially in costs over the next decade; insurance rates will be raised, safety measures intensified and uranium costs increased.
Originally posted by no1marauder Gee what part of this didn't you bother to read:
Energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric power currently produces about 17 percent of the country's electricity, but the government aims to boost its share to around 50 percent in the coming decades.
One accident like the one that just happened in Japan wipes out any po ...[text shortened]... nsified and uranium costs increased.
Nuclear power is a wasteful dead end.
The dichotomy is not nuclear vs. solar/wind. Everyone agrees that converting to solar/wind in the long run is a good idea. They question is what to rely on in the interim. We can cut fossil fuels as we increase solar/wind or we can cut nuclear while we increase solar/wind.
Originally posted by sh76 The dichotomy is not nuclear vs. solar/wind. Everyone agrees that converting to solar/wind in the long run is a good idea. They question is what to rely on in the interim. We can cut fossil fuels as we increase solar/wind or we can cut nuclear while we increase solar/wind.
So the dichotomy here is fossil fuel vs. nuclear.
No, it isn't. It is between using our resources to build and maintain (at huge cost and substantial risk) nuclear power plants or using those resources to develop more efficient and less dangerous alternatives.
I've been hearing the argument that nuclear power should be a "transitional" power source for 30 years now while money and resources were poured into it and environmentally friendly power sources were essentially cash starved. Germany is wise to finally "pull off the bandage" and is even taking 10 years to do so. This will give plenty of time to develop other technologies once the will to do so is unequivocal and resources committed to that goal. Nuclear power is a distraction and a dead end.
Originally posted by sh76 The dichotomy is not nuclear vs. solar/wind. Everyone agrees that converting to solar/wind in the long run is a good idea. They question is what to rely on in the interim. We can cut fossil fuels as we increase solar/wind or we can cut nuclear while we increase solar/wind.
So the dichotomy here is fossil fuel vs. nuclear.
Solar is too expensive (at the moment). Wind doesn't produce constant power.
Germany to abandon Nuclear Power by 2022
30 May '11 15:00
Back to Top