Germany to abolish nuclear power

[future.architect]

...The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy.

Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement following late-night talks.

Chancellor Angela Merkel set up a panel to review nuclear power following the crisis at Fukushima in Japan.

There have been mass anti-nuclear protests across Germany in the wake of March's Fukushima crisis, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami.
...

Full story

Very interesting since this will surely mean more money will be spent on developing renewables.

Or is it a rash decision considering that Germany isn't exactly known for earthquakes and tsunamis and a surefire way to having power shortages and having to import electricity?

[alonzo-ny]

Stupid decision in my opinion.

[mexico86]

Originally Posted by alonzo-ny

Stupid decision in my opinion.

Completely stupid. Little more than a knee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima disaster. Western politicians these days simply don't seem able to get science.

[Core Rising]

Germany has 15% of the world’s brown coal. Economics always wins. Sad day for environmentalism.

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by Core Rising

Germany has 15% of the world’s brown coal. Economics always wins. Sad day for environmentalism.

eh?????????? have you actually looked at what german power production consists of? they have built so many renewables they have a surplus, and the german government was having to guarantee to nuclear power they would pay them MORE than the going rate for unit of electricity just to keep them running, despite a surplus.

[Core Rising]

What are you on about? Germany's power generation is something like 15% renewables, 10% nuclear and the majority of the rest fossil fuels.. By getting rid of the 10% of nuclear energy this short fall is going to be made up for by fossil fuel burning plants as the uptake of renewable energy is simply not occurring at a fast enough pace to make up for the shortfall. Anyway I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Burning coal is cheaper than nuclear energy. The Economic argument has won out because it is cheaper to use Germany's vast brown coal reserves to fuel itself than pay so much more to import nuclear fuel.

[PresidentBjork]

Originally Posted by gothicform

eh?????????? have you actually looked at what german power production consists of? they have built so many renewables they have a surplus, and the german government was having to guarantee to nuclear power they would pay them MORE than the going rate for unit of electricity just to keep them running, despite a surplus.

Wrong way round. The German grid must buy up wind power even when demand is low and supply is high. The excess power is essentially wasted. Other power sources that can't just been turned off or on like nuclear need to some subsidy as a result of the subsidy given to wind to make sure they keep going when the wind isn't blowing.

If Germany can make up the loss and meet their ambitious emissions targets then great. If it leads to more coal/lignite burning - not so great. Right now ten new coal plants are being built which kinda detracts from the impressive renewable credentials. Incidentally these power source are not cheaper in the long run considering carbon costs/ environmental costs etc..

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by PresidentBjork

Wrong way round. The German grid must buy up wind power even when demand is low and supply is high. The excess power is essentially wasted. Other power sources that can't just been turned off or on like nuclear need to some subsidy as a result of the subsidy given to wind to make sure they keep going when the wind isn't blowing.

If Germany can make up the loss and meet their ambitious emissions targets then great. If it leads to more coal/lignite burning - not so great. Right now ten new coal plants are being built which kinda detracts from the impressive renewable credentials. Incidentally these power source are not cheaper in the long run considering carbon costs/ environmental costs etc..

yeah they are building ten new coal plant to er... replace the existing ones. and you'll find the german government WAS in the process of signing a law saying that they would pay more for nuclear power. the excess power they have currently isn't wasted, it means they have lower electricity bills. how come they do if they are forced to pay more than they would have to otherwise for renewables? do answer. because the set price for renewables is less than if you removed them, and then let the price rise thanks to the market (as we have in the UK). renewables meanwhile are sold unless i'm very wrong for the same price as other power, not for a premium and of course they must buy them - that's what a feed in tariff is. it's precisely because of the excess demand that prices are falling, and if they didn't buy them no one would build renewables so it would actually cost them more.

101 widgets costs £100. 90 widgets costs £120. you're against option one but for option two.

[Core Rising]

Coal produces cheaper electricity than nuclear. Germany has massive amounts of coal. Heavy industry is a major user of electricity. The German economy is still largely geared around heavy industry, which makes up a greater percentage of the economy than it does over here. The German government was therefore under pressure from the industrial sector to go for coal as well as the Green lobby. It makes sense to the industrial sector as cheaper electricity is good business for them. What is good for German industry is ultimately good for the German economy. Simples.

[PresidentBjork]

Originally Posted by gothicform

yeah they are building ten new coal plant to er... replace the existing ones. and you'll find the german government WAS in the process of signing a law saying that they would pay more for nuclear power. the excess power they have currently isn't wasted, it means they have lower electricity bills. how come they do if they are forced to pay more than they would have to otherwise for renewables? do answer. because the set price for renewables is less than if you removed them, and then let the price rise thanks to the market (as we have in the UK). renewables meanwhile are sold unless i'm very wrong for the same price as other power, not for a premium and of course they must buy them - that's what a feed in tariff is. it's precisely because of the excess demand that prices are falling, and if they didn't buy them no one would build renewables so it would actually cost them more.

101 widgets costs £100. 90 widgets costs £120. you're against option one but for option two.

I don't know what you mean in the second bit and i'm not aware of any law, but the power fed into the grid must be kept a close as possible to demand. It's not necessarily possible with current infrastructure to transport sudden surges in generator power to other parts of the country where it is needed. If much more is electricity being generated than is in demand controllers must lower the frequency of active generators. Since that is hard to do with wind, other generators need to slow their turbines and close steam valves to reduce their total power outputs. Nuclear can't do this so quickly so excessive and intermittent cuts beyond what is normally planned for by a base load generator will make it completely uneconomical. Yes the immediate effect is lowering the day to day unit price of electricity but what if you need to rely on other types of power when the wind isn't blowing as strong but alternative generators have shut down? And yes the price of renewable energy is subsidized in Germany depending on type - it is a tariff after all.

[pricemazda]

Originally Posted by gothicform

eh?????????? have you actually looked at what german power production consists of? they have built so many renewables they have a surplus, and the german government was having to guarantee to nuclear power they would pay them MORE than the going rate for unit of electricity just to keep them running, despite a surplus.

And they have signed mega deal with Russia for gas. That's all that will realistically happen, is they will increase renewables, but they'd have to swap the 23% generated by nuclear on top of the 16% they already generate in 10 years.

Now it's clear that either the timetable is whack or they will have to import energy from countries that either produce it using carbon fuels or nuclear energy. They are also pimping out their foreign policy to Putin, imagine what having Europe's largest economy sucking on Putin teet and fearing he might switch off suppplies will do to the EU/West.

[Caiman]

They had already committed to doing this in 2001 and deferred the decision for 10 years, Fukushima has just affirmed it for them.

[london-b]

Hippies!

[manrush]

Exactly what the world needs right now, the phasing out of zero-emissions energy.

[Isaac Newell]

Originally Posted by manrush

Exactly what the world needs right now, the phasing out of zero-emissions energy.

Isn't there a debate about that, i.e. surrounding the amount of emissions incurred building nuclear power stations, mining uranium and disposing spent fuel.

[manrush]

Originally Posted by Isaac Newell

Isn't there a debate about that, i.e. surrounding the amount of emissions incurred building nuclear power stations, mining uranium and disposing spent fuel.

IMO, a drop in the bucket compared to the combined emissions from coal-fired power stations.

[Fizmo1337]

Didn't they want to abolish nuclear power because of the pressure of the green lobby? The green party which gained a lot during the last regional elections. They punished Merkel during these elections because they hold on to nuclear power. I doubt they would go for an even worse non-green option.

Besides, they want to phase out nuclear power by 2022. By then they could have at least 25-30% renewables if they rly go for it.

[Sister Anne]

This is fantastic news. It's going to encourage the greatest engineering nation on earth to develop means of increasing the contribution of the renewables sector and the result will be new technologies that will be used around the earth. If we had the balls we'd do it here, and our domestic technology companies could not only help save the planet but also lead us out of the economic shitstorm. Sadly, we lie helpless in the hollow of the age of mediocre men.

[Bob]

I've just been over in Germany and the electorate is in a frenzy about nuclear. It's front page stuff every day and Merkel didn't have an option. Nuts if you ask me.

Some background on the coal production plans.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2396828,00.html

[Rational Plan]

Plus there plan to get rid of nuclear involves reducing power use by 10% through "efficiencies". I'm not sure there enough low energy bulbs around for that.