Eight EU countries have created a new anti-nuclear bloc

[bananas]

www.nirs.org

May 31, 2011. Eight European Union countries (Austria, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal) have created a new anti-nuclear bloc within the EU. Initial declaration here. PDF

Four page declaration - worth reading: (pdf) http://www.nirs.org/international/declarationofnon-nuclearcountries2011-05-25.pdf

Declaration
May 25, 2011, Vienna

Ministers and Heads of Delegations of Austria, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal, responding to the challenges posed by another severe
nuclear accident, met in Vienna today, in order to enhance co-operation and contribute further
to the discussions as regards environment, combating climate change as well as developing
safe and sustainable energy systems without necessarily relying on nuclear power.

Ministers and Heads of Delegations reiterated their utmost sympathy for the plight of the
Japanese people as well as their solidarity. They underlined their readiness to learn jointly
from this event.

The disastrous earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, and the subsequent events in the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant which has now been classified as a level 7 accident on
the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), once more demonstrated that
the risks of nuclear power outweigh any potential benefit.

The principal issues discussed at the meeting were environmental aspects of nuclear power,
climate change policies, the potential for phasing out nuclear power, nuclear safety, nuclear
security and safeguards; the expectations regarding the stress tests for nuclear power plants;
the need for more and better information to be provided to countries neighbouring nuclear
states; issues of transparency and participation regarding nuclear plans and projects; but in
particular alternatives to nuclear power and the need to ensure the development and provision
of safe and sustainable energy supplies and services.

In their discussions, Ministers and Head of Delegations

• Emphasised their view that nuclear power is not compatible with the concept of
sustainable development and underlined their conviction that nuclear power does not
provide a viable option to combat climate change.

• Reiterated that the very significant safety, security, environmental and proliferation
risks associated with the nuclear power option remain, and need to be further
addressed by the international community, including co-operation between nuclear and
non-nuclear states in assessing the risks, exchanging information on their
management, and enhancing preparedness for responding to nuclear emergencies.

<snip>

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Do any of them currently rely on nuclear generated power, domestic or imported?

If so, what are they planning to do about transitioning to other sources?

Dumping nukes is a no brainer, but making statements without solid transition plans is just showmanship

[kristopher]

2. Are you saying Germany doesn't have "a solid transition plan"?

Please stop pretending you are not here to promote nuclear. Every post you make works to that end.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Germany was not among the eight nations in the OP

Please stop pretending you actually read and understand the post made here. Evey post you make shows otherwise

[kristopher]

5. Are you seriously saying your remark wasn't directed at Germany's decision?

Seriously?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. My comments specifically addressed those 8 nations

None of which have nuclear power plants, but may well be buying nuclear generated power.

[kristopher]

12. Then perhaps the context of events lent it a meaning you didn't intend.

But then again...

[FBaggins]

14. You've confused implied and inferred again.

He's not responsible for how far afield you want to take a conversation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Nobody else seemed to take it that way

[FBaggins]

6. Depends on what they're transitioning to.

If they merely return to the plan they already had in place, it's reasonably "solid"... if they're shutting down several reactors now for good that the original plan had operating for a decade or more then no, they don't have a "solid" transition plan.

Yet.

Of course it also depends on how you define "solid". I don't consider relying on other countries to provide power that you can't produce yourself a particularly "solid" plan... but perhaps you do.

[kristopher]

7. German economist responds to nuclear fission acolytes criticisms of nuke closures

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x297260

German economist responds to nuclear fission acolytes criticisms of nuke closures

The WSJ ran an online poll asking Wall Street Journal readers what they thought about the decision by Germany. The comments are dominated by the nuclear emergency response brigade of course, expressing their misinformed opinions as gospel truths as they NEI the poll which is sort of like DUing a poll only more tightly coordinated.

And then there, in a firm voice, was this gem...

Margit Kraus wrote:
Most people here have no idea what they are talking about. Merkel's decision to phase out nuclear power is nothing new at all. Ten years ago chancellor Schroeder's center-left government passed a law that stipulated the shut-down of all nuclear plants by 2022. Utilities agreed with it. There has been a phase-out plan in place since then, and Germany has followed this plan and actually is years ahead of the plan in terms of increasing the share of renewable energy.

The decision to shut down all nuclear plants stems from 2001 and the law was in place until last fall - when Merkel decided to extend the life of the nuclear plants, bypassing the Bundesrat and ignoring the fact that the majority of the people opposed her decision. Constitutional complaints against that decision have been filed and are pending.

Hence, Merkel's post Fukushima decision to shut down the nuclear plants is a u-turn on her part, but it is nothing revolutionary in Germany's energy policy. We're merely going back to the old phase-out plan.

And do you really think the government, either Schroeder's or Merkel's would have passed such a law without extensive studies whether or not the phase-out is feasible? There have been dozens of research institutions, governmental and non-governmental, busy with evaluating the plan. All of them agree that shutting down the plants by 2022 is not a problem, not with regard to stable power supply nor with regard to meeting the CO2 goals. Most of them agree that shutting down the plants would be possibly by 2017.

So please do a bit of research before talking about hasty decisions and accusing us of stupidity.

[FBaggins]

10. New spam?

Can't stay on topic?

You know that makes you look like you need a strawman, right?

[kristopher]

11. Every argument the nuclear blogosphere can muster re Germany is there.

And so far they have been made to look extremely inaccurate and petty.

I notice you've stayed well away from it here.

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/germany-shutting-down-its-nuclear?commentid=2548995#identifier

[FBaggins]

13. Yet it remains irrelevant to this thread.

Not that that has ever slowed you down. :)

[kristopher]

17. I would expect that to be your opinion.

It is extremely relevant to this thread since the pronuclear presence here use the exact same talking points. SSDD.


http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/germany-shutting-down-its-nuclear?commentid=2548995#identifier

[Divernan]

18. Thanks for your posts, Kristopher.

I appreciate your efforts and agree with your evaluation of the motivation of pro-nuclear posters.

[FBaggins]

4. Four of them don't use enough power to justify a reactor

Heck... a couple of them could get by on hamster wheels. :)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. I haven't had the time to see how each of them generates power

and what percentage of their power they purchase from neighbors, especially the very small ones. None of them have nuclear plants today, which for Ireland and Portugal some may find surprising.

[kristopher]

16. self delete

[Divernan]

19. These countries' statement hurts nuclear industries' efforts to sell to supplier countries.

or to get operating extensions on present plants.

These 8 countries are saying that to the extent they may have to purchase power from other countries, it will not be nuclear generated power. This will factor into decisions by countries considering building new reactors, or extending the operating permits for existing nuclear plants.

Further, this news will be significant in other EU countries, where citizens keep themselves far better informed on news stories impacting their safety, the environment, health and welfare. This news will influence citizens to pressure their national governments to also move away from nuclear energy as a power source.

[Divernan]

20. Scotland says no to UK's new generation of nuclear plants;aims for non-nuke future.

Nuclear power currently generates around a sixth of the United Kingdom's electricity. As of 2011, the United Kingdom operates 19 nuclear reactors at nine locations. The country also operates a nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

The United Kingdom's first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in 1956 and, at its peak in 1997, 26% of the nation's electricity was generated from nuclear power. Since then a number of stations have closed and the share had declined to 19.26% by 2004 and approximately 16% by 2009. The two remaining Magnox nuclear stations and two of the seven AGR nuclear stations are currently planned for accounting purposes to close by 2016. This is a cause behind the UK's forecast 'energy gap', though secondary to the reduction in coal generating capacity. However older AGR nuclear power station have been life-extended, and it is likely many of the others can be life-extended, significantly reducing the energy gap.

In October 2010 the Government of the United Kingdom gave the go-ahead for a new generation of up to 8 nuclear power stations to be built.The Scottish Government, with the backing of the Scottish Parliament, has however made it clear that Scotland will have no new nuclear power stations and is aiming instead for a non-nuclear future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Perhaps...It certainly will not hurt.

The move away from nuclear power had already begun before Fukushima, which has made the anti-nuclear case much more compelling. I don't believe that a non binding declaration by minor nations without their own reactors will dramatically change the landscape beyond what is already happening. The disaster in Japan will be the forcing function. Without it or something like it, the nuclear twilight would have been several decades away. With it, a future where no new nuclear plants are built is foreseeable. In a sense, some good is coming out of Fukushima.

The key to a non-nuclear future is the continued development of multiple kinds renewables suitable to the location including appropriate management and engineering techniques. It will also require redo of much of the grid as we know it. It is much more than a GE PR announcement about higher yield photovoltaics, the seminal post in this thread.

However, when it comes to buying power from another nations, it is not clear you can tell how it was generated.