Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022

Source: BBC

Germany's ruling coalition says it has agreed a date of 2022 for the shutdown of all of its nuclear power plants.

Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement after a meeting of the ruling coalition that lasted into the early hours of Monday.

Chancellor Angela Merkel had set up an ethics panel to look into nuclear power following the disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan.

Germany saw mass anti-nuclear protests in the wake of the disaster.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

should be enough for the whole world to abandon nuclear power.

Coal power now, coal power forever.

Because they cannot replace Germany's nuclear energy power by 2022.

Also don't tell me it's a false choice. Be practical, you know that it is what will be built to replace it -- Germany is the fourth largest consumer of coal in the world already.

Because the facts as I understand them (and I've specialized in this area for a number of years) says that renewable energy sources most certainly CAN do the job in the time frame set. It is a matter of political will, not technology.

This article responds to an academic article regarding converting 100% to renewables by 2030, it critiques basically the cost and intermittency issues of converting entirely to renewables:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

The analysis it produces have no more validity than something from the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute.

That particular piece is founded a a string of false arguments that work hard to mix up the technological and economic factors involved.

Jacobson and others have produced a large volume peer reviewed work that underpins the 2030 popular press article. Those who contribute to bravenewclimate often critique those peer reviewed works on their blog, but when they try to get their critiques published in the journals as rebuttals, they are universally rejected. That tells you their claims are bullshit "science".

If we put the money into renewables that was put into nukes, we'd easily be able to power everything in a few years.

Grow up.

It's a start, and that's where the focus for the future will have to be. It's not about lethal nuclear vs. dirty coal - it's about toxic and non-renewable vs. solar, wind, geothermal, etc. If it really *were* a choice between nuke and coal, though, as you seem convinced of, I would still go with coal over the nukes. The lesser of two evils. Fortunately these are not the only viable choices.

As of 2008, Germany plans 26 new coal power plants. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2007/gb20070321_923592.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

And I'm baffled you think coal is the lesser of evil than nuclear. Coal produces emissions that kill thousands of people per year, and release radiation and toxic pollution, and that is when Coal power plants are working as intended. Nuclear release and kill none when working as intended.

But keep on supporting coal, seriously, the coal executives and the dead miners thank you.

solar - wind -- and solar batteries --

Science providing clean and renewable energy -- waiting to be pushed by governments

and subsidized --

Rather than under the control of oil industry dragging it down.

Chernobyl disaster effects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dose to the...|Short-term...|Long-term...|Controversy...... Germany, Italy, Ireland, France ( including ... 1988 was 1.77, and in 1989, it reached pre- Chernobyl ... spread through the many other countries the radiation from Chernobyl ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects - Cached


25 years after the catastropheTwenty five years after the catastrophe, restriction orders remain in place in the production, transportation and consumption of food contaminated by Chernobyl fallout. In the UK, they remain in place on 369 farms covering 750 km² and 200,000 sheep. In parts of Sweden and Finland, restrictions are in place on stock animals, including reindeer, in natural and near-natural environments. "In certain regions of Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and Poland, wild game (including boar and deer), wild mushrooms, berries and carnivorous fish from lakes reach levels of several thousand Bq per kg of caesium-137", while "in Germany, caesium-137 levels in wild boar muscle reached 40,000 Bq/kg. The average level is 6,800 Bq/kg, more than ten times the EU limit of 600 Bq/kg", according to the TORCH 2006 report. The European Commission has stated that "The restrictions on certain foodstuffs from certain Member States must therefore continue to be maintained for many years to come".<6>

As of 2009, sheep farmed in some areas of the UK are still subject to inspection which may lead to them being prohibited from entering the human food chain because of contamination arising from the accident:

"Some of this radioactivity, predominantly radiocaesium-137, was deposited on certain upland areas of the UK, where sheep-farming is the primary land-use. Due to the particular chemical and physical properties of the peaty soil types present in these upland areas, the radiocaesium is still able to pass easily from soil to grass and hence accumulate in sheep. A maximum limit of 1,000 becquerels per kilogramme (Bq/kg) of radiocaesium is applied to sheep meat affected by the accident to protect consumers. This limit was introduced in the UK in 1986, based on advice from the European Commission's Article 31 group of experts. Under power provided under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA), Emergency Orders have been used since 1986 to impose restrictions on the movement and sale of sheep exceeding the limit in certain parts of Cumbria, North Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland... When the Emergency Orders were introduced in 1986, the Restricted Areas were large, covering almost 9,000 farms, and over 4 million sheep. Since 1986, the areas covered by restrictions have dramatically decreased and now cover 369 farms, or part farms, and around 200,000 sheep. This represents a reduction of over 95% since 1986, with only limited areas of Cumbria, South Western Scotland and North Wales, covered by restrictions.<18>

369 farms and 190,000 sheep are still affected, a reduction of 95% since 1986, when 9,700 farms and 4,225,000 sheep were under restriction across the United Kingdom.<19>

In Norway, the Sami people were affected by contaminated food (the reindeer had been contaminated by eating lichen, which are very sensitive to radioactivity).<20>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#25_years_after_the_catastrophe

because their riverside reactors don't have enough cooling water to run at full capacity in persistent drought conditions. This is currently happening at the few power plants that are still online in Germany. no rain in all of may - insufficient cooling. One of the reasons why an expansion of nuclear power in central Europe is very difficult.

The IEA documents have been leaked stating that carbon emissions are increasing almost unchecked and we have completely missed the opportunity to limit global warming to 2 degrees.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1132010/1/.html

This is big news in Australia right now.

Above 2 degrees means global food production is going to be virtually destroyed - do you people understand this ?


This is not alarmist, it is not hyperbole, it is the greatest moral challenge in the history of humanity - if we were to go above 3 degrees it would basically spell the end of modern civilisation - I can not be clear enough about this to you, please try and understand the seriousness of this.

Three degrees and you basically go back to living in a mad max style world of fighting for survival in an agrarian style world, millions upon millions of Americans would perish - nothing would remain even remotely similar to what you have now.

At 6 degrees everything on this planet would be in danger of being extinguished - certainly there would be no humans or large mammals.

The chances of us using renewables to meet our projected energy requirements are simply utterly and completely unrealistic.

The amount of energy returned from wholesale restructuring of our entire society on renewables could not possibly meet our energy needs - absolutely no chance of meeting them at the levels which would be required by 2020 based on current projections.

Those very best renewables can ever possibly hope to achieve - according to ALL THE SCIENCE is assist in mitigating the problem through immediate action - this was the position from a decade ago when we could have turned around.

No serious scientist who understands the totality of the issues involved could say we can use renewables with any current or envisioned technology and keep a straight face, or even keep their job. The idea is utterly desirable.

Almost all the studies assume a maximum efficiency of society - a best case scenario, political will as people call it. Further there is a fundamental assumption in every study of sustainable consumption, in other words massively reducing our energy use.

There is not doubt we can replace fossil fuels with renewables if we use horses to drag the plough and candles instead of lights.

The fundamental assumption is that we massively reduce our energy useage, and continue to reduce this useage until we are using an absolute bare minimum.

The likelihood of global civil society of achieving this is on par with eradicating discrimination, ending poverty, ending global basic health issues, providing education to everyone and clean drinking water - ALL of which are entirely achievable, with maybe two months of the annual American military budget - but will not happen. Simply will not happen.


The alternative to this is nuclear - Fast Burning Breeder reactors are a proven way of delivering the energy requirements for our future without destroying our entire planet with "Green Tech" - the only reason it is not employed is outrageous fear mongering from green baby boomers who refuse to understand it, and the irrational fears of government from the increased ease of plutonium production which could POTENTIALLY be used in nuclear weapons, despite this being proven utterly wrong.

Once again the science and logic of humanities survival is being decided upon by irrational, illogical and ignorance - the three I's of innevitable social collapse.

Quite simply for us to survive what the leaked IEA report spells out we have no choice but to go nuclear or Amish - that is the choice.

The only question of will, political or social, is will people try and understand the science.

Breeders are not proven technology - they are still experimental, with many unresolved problems.
Nuclear proliferation is one of the many serious problems with nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy isn't needed at all to address global warming, it is one of the worst options to choose.

Just as the BP/Gulf destruction impacts more than the US --