German Nuclear Plants May Get Reprieve With Merkel Re-Election

[denem]

Source: Bloombreg.

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Germany’s nuclear-power industry got its wish yesterday, as Chancellor Angela Merkel won re- election and headed toward a coalition with the Free Democrats.

Merkel, 53, may now scrap a law that required Germany’s 17 nuclear plants to close by 2021. Her effort was stymied by her junior partner, the past four years, the Social Democrats, who imposed the deadlines in 2002 when they were in power.

“The new coalition will almost certainly now seek to extend the life-cycle of the younger atomic plants,” said Claudia Kemfert, an analyst at the Berlin-based DIW economic institute. “The nuclear bogey plainly didn’t help the SPD, for it played no role in this election.”

German businesses are concerned about how much it will cost to keep the lights on if the plants are turned off. Nuclear- power stations run by Dusseldorf-based E.ON AG, RWE AG of Essen, Vattenfall AB, which is based in Stockholm, and Karlsruhe-based EnBW Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG generated 23 percent of Germany’s electricity last year. Seven plants, producing 10 percent of Germany’s power, are scheduled to close by 2014.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aPEQHvMLBR.Q

---

Nuclear Plants provided 23% of Germany's electricity 2008, 34% for Japan, and 78% for France. China is raising it's nuclear power generation 10 fold by 2020.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/02/content_8346480.htm

When do you think should nuclear power be decommissioned to save the planet from climate change?

[triple point]

1. Nuclear power is the only feasible source for the planet's needs for the next 50 years.

The neo-Luddites will keep fighting it and it will be more of a losing battle for them every year.
(This is NOT a republican vs. democratic or liberal vs. conservative issue even though some would like to frame it that way)

[bananas]

2. That's not true at all.

There are no serious analysis which agree with that.

[denem]

3. Replace Frances 78% nuclear power by 2025 then,

No reduction in carbon emissions, but oh, it feels so good.

[bananas]

10. You mean 14-18%

But is he correct? For starters, he makes a convenient mistake--mixing up the words "electricity" and "energy." In 2007, nuclear energy provided 78 percent of France's electricity, which corresponded to 39 percent of its commercial primary energy but only 18 percent of its final energy. Primary energy is the energy contained in the fuel when it enters the system, while final energy is what is left over for the consumer after processing, transformation, and distribution. In the case of large nuclear or coal-fired power plants, only about one-quarter of the primary energy reaches the consumer's home, office, or factory. In France, more than 70 percent of final energy is provided by oil, gas, and coal, of which one-half is oil alone, just as in many other countries.

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-reality-of-frances-aggressive-nuclear-power-push

Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear
power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity
produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent
of the final energy consumption in France that year. Excluding
electricity exports, the overall contribution of nuclear power to
France's final energy consumption is only in the range of 14
percent. If the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil
dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives. Over 70
percent of France's final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil,
gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption
in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a
marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the
transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European
average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward
trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and
new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS148422+15-Sep-2009+PRN20090915

[denem]

15. Sp tell me what 78% of France's ELECTRICTY is going to be replaced with

Wind, Solar ... all with minimal carbon emission benefits, or perhaps, good old cheap coal.

[Liberation Angel]

29. Renewables will work (no coal/no nukes)

But if we keep feeding these death industries and supporting them they will kill us all

Radiation and petrochemical pollution is already killing millions with cancer, birth defects, spontaneous abortion.

But for some i guess that is better

[fascisthunter]

39. exactly...

the easy fix regarding nuclear is expensive, wasteful and dangerous.

[Pavulon]

4. You got nukes or prayers, pick one.

nothing else even comes close.

[Psephos]

8. An argument made without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence. n/t

[bananas]

9. IAEA, IPCC, and others

Latest IAEA projections - look at the charts on page 26 and 27,
the teeny grey bars at the bottom are nuclear energy:
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/RDS1-29_web.pdf

IPCC in 2007: "In terms of electricity generation, the IPCC envisage that renewable energy can provide 30 to 35% of electricity by 2030 (up from 18% in 2005) at a carbon price of up to US$50/t, and that nuclear power can rise from 16% to 18%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

The IPCC projections were based on old cost estimates, since then:
"Nuclear Costs Explode": http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=129741&mesg_id=129741
"have blown by our highest estimate": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=149283&mesg_id=149283

Here's what the solution to global warming will look like: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/826
That's based on the best estimates of science and technology, and is the direction international agreements are going in.

As for France:
"The reality of France's aggressive nuclear power push": http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-reality-of-frances-aggressive-nuclear-power-push
"European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are 'As Wrong As They Can Be' About The French Experience With Nuclear Power": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4061591

[Psephos]

35. That's more like it. :) n/t

[bananas]

11. James Hansen, Al Gore, and someone who wants to put ice cubes in your hat

James Hansen: "Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term"
"and they both have serious issues even over the longer term."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/522

Al Gore: "I don't think it's going to play a major role"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4006149&mesg_id=4006173

Al Gore: "We have all the tools we need to solve 3 or 4 climate crises"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/1042

'The idea that nuclear power is making a comeback globally and that Finland is at the forefront of this revival is no more than "hype", according to Jorma Aurela, a senior energy official in the Ministry of Trade and Industry. "I always want to put ice cubes in the hats of those who talk about a nuclear renaissance," he says. "Nuclear power has its role, but it is not the answer to climate change."'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=102552&mesg_id=102552

[bananas]

13. UCS, IEER, Greenpeace, and more Gore

Al Gore: "I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=110777&mesg_id=110825

UCS: "Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy"
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html

IEER: "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy"
pdf: http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf
web sites: www.ieer.org www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org

Greenpeace "Energy Revolution" for USA: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/energyrevolution

[bananas]

14. McKinsey: U.S. can meet entire 2020 emissions target with just efficiency and cogeneration

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/988

[Liberation Angel]

18. Evidence: www.radiation.org

www.radiation.org

or

www.nirs.org

plenty of data on the dangers of nuke plants and how they are killing us and how useless and harmful they are.

Only the ignorant could support such an awful and deadly energy...

or the necrophilic and greedy powerful

Educate yourselves before you jump on this goose-step of a technology

[triple point]

42. Oh, well gosh I just wasted a lot of money on college...I should have just asked you

and bought me a Viper.

[Liberation Angel]

16. Death Industry vs life industry: Nuclear power equals death industry

The emissions from nuclear plants are responsible for murder of millions by cancer, mutations, spontaneous abortions, and nuclear waste leeching into the groundwater.

The Nazis could not have created a more perfect way of mass killing than this. (oops. my bad. They DID. nuclear power is it)

[PatGund]

46. Wow.....

Over the top much? The Nazi's invented nuclear power??

Get a grip and read your history. The first pile to go critical was right here in the USA.

[DRoseDARs]

5. Brian Wang of Next Big Future blog has an excellent analysis of why this is "good"...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/todays-election-in-germany-will.html

-snip-

"The dilemma for the German government is that even though the country now has a significant renewable capacity, this capacity provides nowhere near the same amount of electricity as existing nuclear plants. Neither is there any realistic hope that it can do so in the near future. If, therefore, nuclear power is abandoned and the existing plants are closed, then Germany would have no alternative but to turn to fossil fuel, probably lignite (coal).

One option would be to extend the life of these plants beyond the 2021 limit that was agreed in 2001. This would be the least-worst option for the nuclear opponents and there are signs from some SPD members that the party would consider this compromise in return for a firm commitment that nuclear power will finally be abandoned entirely and no new plants will be built.

The second option is the one favoured by the CDU, to reinstate the nuclear option as part of the energy mix and to build a new generation of nuclear plants to replace the existing fleet as it is retired. Once this route is chosen the lifetime of existing plants would almost certainly be extended too. Other than these two, there are no realistic alternatives except to stick to the agreed phase-out with no compromise."

-snip-

[FarCenter]

6. After fission energy runs out, fusion had better work

http://www.iter.org/default.aspx

[DRoseDARs]

7. ...among other competing fusion technologies. Next Big Future I mentioned in #5 has covered the...

...fusion technology scene quite a bit. If you haven't seen the blog before, give a look to their fusion articles. Fascinating reading, despite being well over my head.

[excess_3]

12. in a 1980 law, Sweden compelled nukes to close by 2000.

Germany and France should
do something similar

[Liberation Angel]

17. Every nuclear power plant emits deadly radionuclides that cause global death

Cancer

Mutations in babies in utero

spontaneous abortion

damaged immune systems and f*ked up hormonal and endocrine systems

mutations of bacteria and viruses causing pandemics of new mutated variations of diseases and influenzas and deadly flu bugs that we have no resistance to

EVERY PLANT LEAKS RADIOACTIVE PARTICULATES which as much as doubles natural background.

The radiation in these particulates is decaying and emitting radiation for centuries or more in some cases (less in others)

As these particulates travel through the atmosphere globally and into the water and come down in the rain they collect in our food and water and then in our bones and teeth and organs (like DDT) and cause further damage INSIDE our bodies collecting in the soft tissues and reproductive organs damaging foetuses in utero.

It is a murderous and dangerous and evil technology.

Nuclear power is insane.

But because it kills us slowly and silently and in the womb we just let them keep making more death factories

while the Cheneys and Bushes of the world reap the profits of death and power....

and those who profit from it sing hosannahs for the death industries...

Hallelula!
Be good German now

and get in step

Nuclear is good for you!

[WriteDown]

20. That's why all sailors on nuclear subs die within 5-10 years...

Or develop mutations. Oh wait...

[Liberation Angel]

22. Navy subs generally are safer than civilian plants and they release waste OUTSIDE the subs

But I know of sailors who worked in reactors who developed cancers

just like the rest of us

from nuke emissions/exposure

[WriteDown]

23. Seems like they should use..

whatever they use inside the sub on the outside of nuclear power plants then. :eyes:

[Liberation Angel]

25. They do but emissions into water and the atmosphere continue in both systems

it just doesn't get released right into the submarine - it is emitted into water and air.

Just like nuke plants outside.

[WriteDown]

26. Actually....

To be clear you could live all year round on the property line of a nuclear reactor and experience less radiation than you get from one airplane trip across the country. People who work in nuclear reactors or nuclear shipyards actually have lower rates of cancer and better health than workers in other industries.

What we really need to do is cool the Earth's core. Its sad that so many people don't realize the danger of the giant nuclear reactor right below our feet. :eyes:

[Liberation Angel]

27. That is totally bullshit and an industry lie - I live in a nuclear plant "zone"

and have read the studies.

PLUS they are different types of radiation.

The kind you get externally (like from the sun) on a cross country trip is entirely different from giving your kids milk with nuke emissions like strontium 90 (man made particulates) that cause them cancer internally.

This is hogwash

[WriteDown]

28. So does all of France...

I think we should claim that land when the French are all gone in 20 year.

[Liberation Angel]

31. see my post #30 below: France's nukes are a dangerous disaster

www.nirs.org has plenty of info on why the French model is a mess and scary as hell

[WriteDown]

33. France's cancer rates are well below that of the US.

Odd indeed.

[Liberation Angel]

34. Leukemia rates in children near nuclear power plants in Germany doubled

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radhealth/kikkcommentary0709ijoeh.pdf


As for the French - maybe the Mediterranean diet helps them.

Americans eat lousy and our lifestyles add to the risk.

Diet can protect you from some effects of nuclear plant effluents and emissions (Calcium and iodine protect against Strontium-90 and radio-iodine emitted from nuke plants as they will pass through the system and not be as absorbed if we have sufficient minerals in our body already). Unfortunately radiation gets into milk and dairy and seafood because of the emissions so we have to carefuully check our sources of such minerals)

[WriteDown]

36. Sounds like what we need is....

more nuclear power plans and less American food.

[Liberation Angel]

37. If childhood friends and family of yours died from Leukemia and brain/bone cancer as mine have

or if someone you love had a spontaneous abortion or birth defect caused by such radiation exposure from living near nuke plants

you would not be so flip

I lost a child to miscarriage due to exposure after a serious leak in my hometown.

Anyone who thinks this technology is safe is lying to themselves and helping a monstrous and murderous industry

[WriteDown]

38. I have...

Just nowhere near a nuclear powerplant. My cousin had 10 miscarriages, also nowhere near a nuclear powerplant. They were all eating American food though.

edited for grammar.

[triple point]

43. I wish DU membership would require reading "Demon Haunted World"

:eyes:

[Liberation Angel]

19. More evidence (links) about the dangers and futility and deadliness of nukes here

www.beyondnuclear.org

educate yourselves folks

this sh*t is deadly and harmful to every single sentient being on this planet

(and any others who might ever visit here or which may have not become sentient yet)

[Nihil]

47. Well, from your posts on this thread you should still be safe.

:eyes:

[hunter]

21. It sure beats building new coal and natural gas plants, which Germany has been doing...

Western Europe depends on Russian natural gas, and it makes them very nervous. Any way you look at it keeping a modern nuclear plant running is better than building a fossil fuel plant to replace it, especially a coal fired plant.

With nuclear power a nation is assured of a stable energy supply for many decades. Depending on imported natural gas is much riskier and only adds to the atmospheric carbon dioxide burden, as does coal which releases more dangerous (and even radioactive) toxins into the environment than nuclear power.

[Liberation Angel]

24. The radiation particulates emitted from nukes are different from coal

but nobody (at least not me) is saying coal is not bad too.

Nuke radiation (man made) mimics or replaces elements in our body (calcium and iodine) and gets absorbed by essential organs mutating them and causing cancers which is why it is worse than what comes from coal plants which is horrific too.

Germany has the technology to be nuclear and coal free by 2050 with 100% renewables

we could do it here too if we stopped subsidizing nukes and the coal industry.

I am not knowledgeable enough about natural gas or biogas (methane?) but know experts in the field who say one step here would be to convert nuke plants to natural gas because the infrastructure could be adapted to natural gas and there is plenty of it and it is so much cleaner than nukes or coal.

[hunter]

41. The mercury from coal plants is pretty horrific too.

And it has a "half life" of forever.

Natural gas is bad too. Even when it is burned cleanly the carbon dioxide is still dumped into the atmosphere, and the mining of it disrupts the natural environment over a much greater area than the energy equivalent of nuclear fuels.

Germany does not have the technology to be "nuclear and coal free by 2050 with 100% renewables" unless they also willing to become a post-industrial agrarian society incapable of supporting their current population.

My own private utopia looks nothing like an Amish American countryside sprinkled over with windmills, solar panels, and zippy electric cars. It's intensely urban and surrounded by wilderness. The coal mines, the dams, and most of the roads and highways are gone.

But whatever sort of society we build, if we are going to have any sort of industry at all we must have high density energy sources of the sort required to build and maintain deeply redundant electrical infrastructures, to make concrete, refine metals, and support a high technology high density communications infrastructure.

Except for large scale and environmentally damaging hydroelectric projects (which have already been developed in most wealthier nations) I haven't seen many renewable projects capable of supporting their own required infrastructures, and much less, capable of supplying the energy demands of an industrial society.

Without these high density energy sources we'd be living in collapsed civilization by 2050 with 6 billion or more people who can't be fed as the last of Earth's wildlife is cooked for dinner over charcoal made from the last trees.

I don't expect that apocalypse will happen, but I doubt from now on many modern nuclear power plants will be shut down for sketchy ideological reasons. In fact I expect many existing nuclear plants will be operated long past their original design life as the true risks of fossil fuels make a deeper impression on people in the wealthier nations as they are forced to confront rapidly increasing numbers of climate refuges.

[Liberation Angel]

30. France's Nuclear Model is a "Dangerous and Costly Illusion"

European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are "As Wrong As They Can Be" About the French Experience With Nuclear Power

Marignac Says "Far From Being a Model, France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power". WASHINGTON, D.C.///Sep tember 15, 2009///U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris.

In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S. His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors.

Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power. The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. The United States could make few worse mistakes than embracing France's sorry nuclear legacy. If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry."

More at link

http://www.nirs.org/press/09-15-2009/1

[Liberation Angel]

32. Greenpeace" "The French Reactor: A Costly and Hazardous Obstacle to Climate Protection"

http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/eprbriefingfinal1108.pdf

anyone who says the French nuclear model is any good is just sad...



Nuclear Waste

Areva claims that one of the advantages of the EPR is that it will
produce less waste than other reactors. But the EPR does not solve
the nuclear waste problem. While the promise is that the volume of
waste will be reduced by 15 percent, the waste that is produced will
be more dangerous because it will be more radioactive. With regard
to radioactivity, the EPR will not be a step forward: improved fuel
combustion rates simply lead to more dangerous waste

Nuclear Power: an obstacle to tackling climate change

Nuclear power could at best make only a negligible contribution to
CO2 reduction, coming many years too late. It would also deprive real
climate solutions of funding. Currently, 439 commercial nuclear
reactors supply around 15 percent of global electricity providing only
6.5 percent of overall energy consumption. Even if today’s installed
nuclear capacity was doubled it would only lead to reductions in
global greenhouse gas emissions of less than five percent and would
require one new large reactor to come online every two weeks until
2030. An impossible task: even in countries with established nuclear
programmes, planning, licensing and connecting a new reactor to
the grid typically takes more than a decade.

[fascisthunter]

40. did not mean to rec this....

blech

[Altoid_Cyclist]

44. If the past is any indication, I'm still not sure that the nuclear industry is safe enough.

I'm not saying that it is positively the cause, but my sister was near Chernobyl when they had their accident and she has had some kind of strange immune disorder since then. The doctors know that it's immune system related, but it doesn't seem to fit anything that they can diagnose.

Her first husband worked at Indian Point before taking a job with the NRC and said that if people knew what really went on there and at other reactors they wouldn't want to live anywhere near one of the nuclear plants. At the very least, he said to make sure you're on the prevailing upwind side of them.

After reading the reports on what happened at TMI, the human factor of ineptitude and the CYA approach to safety better have improved since then. As long as there are people more concerned with their next promotion or career move, they will continue to try to bury the truth at any cost.

It's interesting to read some of the accident reports that the NRC has released. I don't mean in a good interesting way either.

[David__77]

45. I agree with the CDU on this.

Nothing wrong with nuclear energy. Of course, I would have voted for the Left Party, and not the conservatives and their "socialist" and "green" lookalikes.