Germany Will Shut Down All Nuke Plants by 2022

[SoonerBread]

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/29/germany-shut-nuke-plants-2022/)

Germany Will Shut Down All Nuke Plants by 2022

BERLIN – Germany on Monday announced plans to become the first major industrialized power to shut down all its nuclear plants, with a phase-out due to be wrapped up by 2022, the government agreed Monday.

Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen announced the decision by the center-right coalition, which was prompted by the Japan nuclear disaster, in the early hours of Monday morning, describing it as "irreversible".

He said the vast majority of Germany's 17 reactors would be offline by the end of 2011.

Roettgen was speaking after a meeting of the ruling coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, which lasted from Sunday evening into the small hours of Monday.

Germany has 17 nuclear reactors on its territory, eight of which are currently off the electricity grid.

Seven of those offline are the country's oldest nuclear reactors, which the federal government shut down for three months pending a safety probe after the Japanese atomic emergency at Fukushima in March.

The eighth is the Kruemmel plant, in northern Germany, which has been mothballed for years because of technical problems.

Already Friday, the environment ministers from all 16 German regional states had called for the temporary order on the seven plants to be made permanent.

Roettgen said Monday that none of the eight reactors offline would be reactivated.

Monday's decision is effectively a return to the timetable set by the previous Social Democrat-Green coalition government a decade ago.

And it is a humbling U-turn for Merkel, who at the end of 2010 decided to extend the lifetime of Germany's 17 reactors by an average of 12 years, which would have kept them open until the mid-2030s.

That decision was unpopular in Germany even before the earthquake and tsunami in March that severely damaged the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan, prompting Merkel's review of nuclear policy.

Her zig-zagging on what since the 1970s has been a highly emotive issue in the country has cost her at the ballot box.

Merkel herself has blamed the Fukushima nuclear disaster for recent defeats in state elections.

In the latest, on May 23, the anti-nuclear Greens pushed her conservative party into third place in a vote in the northern state of Bremen, the first time they had scored more votes than the conservatives in a regional or federal election.

Monday's decision will make Germany the first major industrial power to give up atomic energy.

But it also means that the country will have to find the 22 percent of its electricity needs covered by nuclear reactors from another source.

[sooner59]

I don't understand their reasoning. Japan is set along the ring of fire. Germany...not so much. People at Chernobyl were retards. If they do things right in Germany, they shouldn't have those problems. They better invest in something.

[Peach Fuzz]

well...bye

[Okla-homey]

So what will they use to make electricity? Oil or coal? I hope coal. And that they buy it from us.

[sappstuf]

So what will they use to make electricity? Oil or coal? I hope coal. And that they buy it from us.

Maybe they will invade Russia... Again.

[Memtig14]

Maybe they will invade Russia... Again.

:)

[EnragedOUfan]

This doesn't really surprise me on Germany. However, I haven't looked it up, but with all of our nuclear reactors around the world, where is nuclear waste discarded???

[pphilfran]

Germany generated 557 billion kilowatt hours...

Nukes accounted for 128 billion kilowatt hours...

They are going to replace nearly 25% of their entire electrical production by 2022? Going to be tough....

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12&cid=GM,&syid=2005&eyid=2009&unit=BKWH

[EnragedOUfan]

I've always wondered why some huge company hasn't invested money into a crapload of wind power all across Oklahoma............I know they have them in some parts of Oklahoma, but man they could probably power up the whole entire state if not more with wind power, especially with how much and fast the wind blows here on a daily basis.......

[pphilfran]

I've always wondered why some huge company hasn't invested money into a crapload of wind power all across Oklahoma............I know they have them in some parts of Oklahoma, but man they could probably power up the whole entire state if not more with wind power, especially with how much and fast the wind blows here on a daily basis.......

Even with the towers in the most production locations wind power is expensive...

The only reason they have grown in numbers is because of fed subsidies....

They have horrendous downtime when compared to coal or ng electrical production...

[Okla-homey]

I've always wondered why some huge company hasn't invested money into a crapload of wind power all across Oklahoma............I know they have them in some parts of Oklahoma, but man they could probably power up the whole entire state if not more with wind power, especially with how much and fast the wind blows here on a daily basis.......

Problem is, the grid infrastructure isn't currently capable of handling the loads. Even if we had a crapload of windmills in Oklahoma, and even if they fixed the reliability problems with them, we have no way to get that power from there to the urban centers both within and outside of our region that need it.

[AlboSooner]

This is a blow to the nuke-power industry. Germany has some of the best scientists, and has some of the most precise industries in the world. If they feel unsafe, then there is reason to worry, imo. Unless this is a knee-jerk reaction hyped up by politics.

[Sooner_Tuf]

Even with the towers in the most production locations wind power is expensive...

The only reason they have grown in numbers is because of fed subsidies....

They have horrendous downtime when compared to coal or ng electrical production...

You're about to be a boatload of PMs from mdklatt and other telling you you are wrong. Even though you are right.

[delhalew]

Wind power will never be more than supplemental, even in Oklahoma...no matter how fancy your grid is.

[sappstuf]

This doesn't really surprise me on Germany. However, I haven't looked it up, but with all of our nuclear reactors around the world, where is nuclear waste discarded???

Most of Europe recycles the waste. What cannot be recycled is a very small amount.

[Breadburner]

Germany use to be smart what the **** happened.....

[MR2-Sooner86]

I've always wondered why some huge company hasn't invested money into a crapload of wind power all across Oklahoma............I know they have them in some parts of Oklahoma, but man they could probably power up the whole entire state if not more with wind power, especially with how much and fast the wind blows here on a daily basis.......

Let me explain to everybody on here that solar and wind energy are a joke being pushed by the environmentalist.

The biggest wind turbines we have today can generate 5 megawatts under excellent conditions. It would take 100 of these turbines to equal your average coal fire plant and 600 to equal your average nuclear plant.

As for solar, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is proposed to be the biggest solar facility built. The maximum output? It will be a little over 400 megawatts. Lets not forget the loan to build it is over a billion dollars and it'll take up over 4,000 acres. Not to mention with solar, so much is a waste. From what I understand the best solar panels can only extract and use 5-10% of the energy they take it.

Now, can either one of these generate maximum output 24/7 365? Exactly.

As for nuclear waste, we could use at least 60% of it and turn it into fuel. If you look online, there are many scientist coming out with more effective reactors and ways to burn upwards of 90-95% of waste if not all of it. Why won't we? The politicians don't like nuclear reprocessing stations (http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/21/nuclear-waste-energy-technology-breakthroughs-nuclear.html) so we don't build them and instead send some of our waste to France and Japan or India (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/us-india-sign-nuclear-reprocessing-pact-41128) for them to use. So while France and other countries let their nuclear program evolve, become more advanced, and more effective our politicians let ours sit in the 1950's because "it's for the best."

[SoonerBread]

This is a blow to the nuke-power industry. Germany has some of the best scientists, and has some of the most precise industries in the world. If they feel unsafe, then there is reason to worry, imo. Unless this is a knee-jerk reaction hyped up by politics.

That

[Memtig14]

Germany use to be smart what the **** happened.....

We "Americanized" them in 1945.












:P

[Memtig14]

Let me explain to everybody on here that solar and wind energy are a joke being pushed by the environmentalist.

The biggest wind turbines we have today can generate 5 megawatts under excellent conditions. It would take 100 of these turbines to equal your average coal fire plant and 600 to equal your average nuclear plant.

As for solar, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is proposed to be the biggest solar facility built. The maximum output? It will be a little over 400 megawatts. Lets not forget the loan to build it is over a billion dollars and it'll take up over 4,000 acres. Not to mention with solar, so much is a waste. From what I understand the best solar panels can only extract and use 5-10% of the energy they take it.

Now, can either one of these generate maximum output 24/7 365? Exactly.

As for nuclear waste, we could use at least 60% of it and turn it into fuel. If you look online, there are many scientist coming out with more effective reactors and ways to burn upwards of 90-95% of waste if not all of it. Why won't we? The politicians don't like nuclear reprocessing stations (http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/21/nuclear-waste-energy-technology-breakthroughs-nuclear.html) so we don't build them and instead send some of our waste to France and Japan or India (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/us-india-sign-nuclear-reprocessing-pact-41128) for them to use. So while France and other countries let their nuclear program evolve, become more advanced, and more effective our politicians let ours sit in the 1950's because "it's for the best."

Facts, facts.....facts................you can get banned for that!!!







:O

[hawaii 5-0]

There's already a lot of wind generators north of Berlin.

I also saw photovolteic areas along the Rhine. Probably for a village.


I admire them for not buying the idea of 'safe' nuclear energy.


5-0


Trump/ Deiter 2012

[pphilfran]

There's already a lot of wind generators north of Berlin.

I also saw photovolteic areas along the Rhine. Probably for a village.


I admire them for not buying the idea of 'safe' nuclear energy.


5-0


Trump/ Deiter 2012

They will have to replace 128 billion kilowatt hours...

Wind supplies 36 billion...

Solar, tide, and wave supply 6...

I don't think they can triple the combined production of those two in 11 years...

And you must still have back up in case the wind ain't blowing or the sun ain't shining...

[okie52]

There's already a lot of wind generators north of Berlin.

I also saw photovolteic areas along the Rhine. Probably for a village.


I admire them for not buying the idea of 'safe' nuclear energy.


5-0


Trump/ Deiter 2012

Yep, they are switching to clean coal.

[jkjsooner]

They will have to replace 128 billion kilowatt hours...

Wind supplies 36 billion...

Solar, tide, and wave supply 6...

I don't think they can triple the combined production of those two in 11 years...

And you must still have back up in case the wind ain't blowing or the sun ain't shining...

Are there not energy storage technologies out there or proposed for this? Could you use solar energy to pump water uphill and when it's cloudy let it fall downhill and extract energy from it?

Okay, I know that that would be a terribly ineffecient way to store energy but you get the idea. What about using solar/wind energy to separate hydrogen from water and when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing burn the hydrogen (or use in a fuel cell)?

Is the problem with inefficiency or additional cost to add in the infrastructure required to store/retrieve the saved energy?

[Jammin']

Let me explain to everybody on here that solar and wind energy are a joke being pushed by the environmentalist.

The biggest wind turbines we have today can generate 5 megawatts under excellent conditions. It would take 100 of these turbines to equal your average coal fire plant and 600 to equal your average nuclear plant.

As for solar, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is proposed to be the biggest solar facility built. The maximum output? It will be a little over 400 megawatts. Lets not forget the loan to build it is over a billion dollars and it'll take up over 4,000 acres. Not to mention with solar, so much is a waste. From what I understand the best solar panels can only extract and use 5-10% of the energy they take it.

Now, can either one of these generate maximum output 24/7 365? Exactly.

As for nuclear waste, we could use at least 60% of it and turn it into fuel. If you look online, there are many scientist coming out with more effective reactors and ways to burn upwards of 90-95% of waste if not all of it. Why won't we? The politicians don't like nuclear reprocessing stations (http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/21/nuclear-waste-energy-technology-breakthroughs-nuclear.html) so we don't build them and instead send some of our waste to France and Japan or India (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/us-india-sign-nuclear-reprocessing-pact-41128) for them to use. So while France and other countries let their nuclear program evolve, become more advanced, and more effective our politicians let ours sit in the 1950's because "it's for the best."

1st: I'm for nuclear power over coal and oil. If anything, the issues in Japan have furthered my belief that it's pretty safe and can be made much safer with more time and money spent developing newer technologies.

2nd: I don't understand why the same can't be said for wind, tide, solar,etc. though? I understand it doesn't CURRENTLY create enough power for it to be a major player. But perhaps it could be made much better with more time and money spent developing newer technologies. It seems very strange to completely dismiss it.

[NormanPride]

Nobody's saying that wind and solar shouldn't be researched. I think they're saying that they are mostly worthless right now, though.

[I Am Right]

Real smart,they will be N Korea in 6 years.

[pphilfran]

Are there not energy storage technologies out there or proposed for this? Could you use solar energy to pump water uphill and when it's cloudy let it fall downhill and extract energy from it?

Okay, I know that that would be a terribly ineffecient way to store energy but you get the idea. What about using solar/wind energy to separate hydrogen from water and when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing burn the hydrogen (or use in a fuel cell)?

Is the problem with inefficiency or additional cost to add in the infrastructure required to store/retrieve the saved energy?

Excellent questions...

There are storage techniques that can be used...I read about drilling a huge hole and having a super heavy plug that you drive up with water pressure and let the weight of the plug push the water back up...also some past talk about using used car batteries to save power over the short term...

The problem is that without the added cost of the storage systems the power produced by solar or wind is still not competitive...even less competitive with the added storage systems...

Most solar and wind facilities are located in the boondocks and require additional long range power line installation to get the product to the customer...

I think fuel cell technology is still a couple of decades out...but fuel cells will probably be the best drive technology for autos sometime down the road...

I like electrical production from wind...for some reason I am fascinated by the towers...I came very close to buying a wind tower cleaning business...15k to clean one tower...three days, weather permitting, to do the job with the platforms they used...probably should have bought it...

A pic of one of the platforms...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/001-4.jpg

[Jammin']

Nobody's saying that wind and solar shouldn't be researched. I think they're saying that they are mostly worthless right now, though.

I disagree. Reread the the quote of MR2 that I quoted. He/she is saying exactly that wind and solar shouldn't be considered because it's only being "pushed by environmentalists". And in the same post he/she is saying we should continue with nuclear because it's being "researched by scientists".

(again, I'm all for more being done with nuclear and don't disagree with MR2 at all on that front, but I find the "pushed by environmentalists" versus "researched by scientists" stance against wind and solar is only being used to further MR2's agenda)

[sappstuf]

Wind power is useless because it is so unreliable. They just did a two year study in England on wind power. How did it turn out? No well Brian, not well.


1. During the study period, wind generation was:
• below 20% of capacity more than half the time.• below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.
• below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve.
• below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month.

The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.

2. Among the 124 days on which generation fell below 20MW were 51 days when generation was 10MW or less. In some ways this is an unimportant statistic because with 20MW or less output the contribution from wind is effectively zero, and a few MW less is neither here nor there. But the very existence of these events and their frequency - on average almost once every 15 days for a period of 4.35 hours - indicates that a major reassessment of the capacity credit of wind power is required.

3. Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter. They can occur at any time of the year.

4. The incidence of high wind and low demand can occur at any time of year. As connected wind capacity increases there will come a point when no more thermal plant can be constrained off to accommodate wind power. In the illustrated 30GW connected wind capacity model with “must-run” thermal generation assumed to be 10GW, this scenario occurs 78 times, or 3 times a
month on average. This indicates the requirement for a major reassessment of how much wind capacity can be tolerated by the Grid.

5. The frequency of changes in output of 100MW or more over a five minute period was surprising. There is more work to be done to determine a pattern, but during March 2011, immediately prior to publication of this report, there were six instances of a five minute rise in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 166MW, and five instances of a five minute drop in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 148MW. This indicates the requirement for a re-assessment of the potential for increased wind capacity to simulate the instantaneous loss (or gain) of a large thermal plant.

6. The volatility of wind was underlined in the closing days of March 2011 as this Report was being finalised.
• At 3.00am on Monday 28th March, the entire output from 3226MW capacity was 9MW.
• At 11.40am on Thursday 31st March, wind output was 2618MW, the highest recorded to date.
• The average output from wind in March 2011 was 22.04%.
• Output from wind in March 2011 was 10% of capacity or less for 30.78% of the time.

The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on “average output” figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by study of average output derived from the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) record, or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged. It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement.

http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf

[Jammin']

Wind power is useless because it is so unreliable. They just did a two year study in England on wind power. How did it turn out? No well Brian, not well.



http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf

That's good stuff sap. Thanks. I'm not willing to scrap the wind idea just yet because some brits did a 2 year study but it certainly presents some interesting facts.

I guess my point is I hope we don't stop trying to find a way to more efficiently use wind and solar because it is harmless and free. (I know, not free but wind and sun are abundant, you get the idea). Just because we can't get it to work right now, at this point, to me, doesn't mean we scrape it for good. (and I certainly don't think we stop using it because of politics.) I also hope we don't stop trying to use nuclear with more safety.

[pphilfran]

That's good stuff sap. Thanks. I'm not willing to scrap the wind idea just yet because some brits did a 2 year study but it certainly presents some interesting facts.

I guess my point is I hope we don't stop trying to find a way to more efficiently use wind and solar because it is harmless and free. (I know, not free but wind and sun are abundant, you get the idea). Just because we can't get it to work right now, at this point, to me, doesn't mean we scrape it for good. (and I certainly don't think we stop using it because of politics.) I also hope we don't stop trying to use nuclear with more safety.

The whole debate is due to CO2 emissions and climate change...crude usage will not drop because less than 1% of or electricity comes from oil...

I don't see wind costs declining much over the next decade or two...solar has more upside but breakthroughs have been slow coming...

We should be pushing NG as much (or more) than solar or wind...

It is more competitive than either but more costly than coal...

It has much better up time and can be used as a base load plant...

NG produces about 1/3 the CO2 as coal...

NG could also be used in the transportation sector and reduce emissions and reduce crude imports...

[the-rover]

As someone who works in the power production field, I know all about the reliability issues of wind and solar. But I'd still love to own a small windmill providing some supplemental electricity to my house.

Why haven't I? Because it would take years and years to make up the difference between the money saved on my utility bills and the cost of buying the windmill.

It's not any different than having the option from OG&E or PSO to buy wind power from them at a higher price than you would normally pay for coal or NG fueled power. It doesn't make sense unless you are one of them treehugger types or just have more dollars than sense

[MR2-Sooner86]

I disagree. Reread the the quote of MR2 that I quoted. He/she is saying exactly that wind and solar shouldn't be considered because it's only being "pushed by environmentalists". And in the same post he/she is saying we should continue with nuclear because it's being "researched by scientists".

(again, I'm all for more being done with nuclear and don't disagree with MR2 at all on that front, but I find the "pushed by environmentalists" versus "researched by scientists" stance against wind and solar is only being used to further MR2's agenda)

I'm saying they shouldn't be considered because all I seem to be hearing is "we need green energy and off of foreign oil!" Alright, I can follow them up to that point until I hear "wind and solar only" as the only options being pushed. As I stated, it's idiotic to do so as it take so much space and you can't have steady generation. If the technology comes along, sure, lets have at it, however I know as of now we can't meet all our needs with wind and solar. That is, unless everybody is willing to pass laws shrinking our TVs, entertainment centers, etc. to help save electricity?

I know many people on here have talked about solar panels on the roof of a house. It's a good idea, if you live in Florida where many of these companies reside.

The Roscoe Wind Farm, world's largest wind farm, cost over $1 billion dollars, only generates 781.5 megawatts, and takes up over 100,000 acres. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/01/wind-texas-idUSN3023624320091001)

The only thing these types of energy sources have is cost. The wind and solar farms cost well over a billion dollars. A nuclear plant could cost upwards of $20 billion.

Example the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant is the largest in the United States, generates upwards of 3.3 gigawatts, took $5.9 billion to make, and takes up 4,000 acres and can be run when it's not windy.

As I've said, we've hit a ceiling with wind and solar. We can only get so much energy out of so much space from them, however nuclear reactors are evolving by leaps and bounds. There are several reactors said to even be able to use a type of fusion to burn all nuclear waste or not even produce waste in the first place. That's allot of energy we can have for a very cheap price.

Yes, I guess you could say I feel R&D money should be spent on nuclear instead of wind and solar. I mean you can have the best solar panels around but how does that help New York City in the winter when they only have six to eight hours of daylight?

[pphilfran]

I'm saying they shouldn't be considered because all I seem to be hearing is "we need green energy and off of foreign oil!" Alright, I can follow them up to that point until I hear "wind and solar only" as the only options being pushed. As I stated, it's idiotic to do so as it take so much space and you can't have steady generation. If the technology comes along, sure, lets have at it, however I know as of now we can't meet all our needs with wind and solar. That is, unless everybody is willing to pass laws shrinking our TVs, entertainment centers, etc. to help save electricity?

I know many people on here have talked about solar panels on the roof of a house. It's a good idea, if you live in Florida where many of these companies reside.

The Roscoe Wind Farm, world's largest wind farm, cost over $1 billion dollars, only generates 781.5 megawatts, and takes up over 100,000 acres. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/01/wind-texas-idUSN3023624320091001)

The only thing these types of energy sources have is cost. The wind and solar farms cost well over a billion dollars. A nuclear plant could cost upwards of $20 billion.

Example the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant is the largest in the United States, generates upwards of 3.3 gigawatts, took $5.9 billion to make, and takes up 4,000 acres and can be run when it's not windy.

As I've said, we've hit a ceiling with wind and solar. We can only get so much energy out of so much space from them, however nuclear reactors are evolving by leaps and bounds. There are several reactors said to even be able to use a type of fusion to burn all nuclear waste or not even produce waste in the first place. That's allot of energy we can have for a very cheap price.

Yes, I guess you could say I feel R&D money should be spent on nuclear instead of wind and solar. I mean you can have the best solar panels around but how does that help New York City in the winter when they only have six to eight hours of daylight?

They are feeding you a line of chit when they say green energy will get us off foreign oil....

[MR2-Sooner86]

They are feeding you a line of chit when they say green energy will get us off foreign oil....

Oh I know it won't. It seems people think if we reduce how much gasoline we use and oil/natural gas for power then we'll be fine. The thing is they don't think of all the plastics and such that are made with oil.

[Jammin']

I'm saying they shouldn't be considered because all I seem to be hearing is "we need green energy and off of foreign oil!" Alright, I can follow them up to that point until I hear "wind and solar only" as the only options being pushed. As I stated, it's idiotic to do so as it take so much space and you can't have steady generation. If the technology comes along, sure, lets have at it, however I know as of now we can't meet all our needs with wind and solar. That is, unless everybody is willing to pass laws shrinking our TVs, entertainment centers, etc. to help save electricity?

I know many people on here have talked about solar panels on the roof of a house. It's a good idea, if you live in Florida where many of these companies reside.

The Roscoe Wind Farm, world's largest wind farm, cost over $1 billion dollars, only generates 781.5 megawatts, and takes up over 100,000 acres. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/01/wind-texas-idUSN3023624320091001)

The only thing these types of energy sources have is cost. The wind and solar farms cost well over a billion dollars. A nuclear plant could cost upwards of $20 billion.

Example the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant is the largest in the United States, generates upwards of 3.3 gigawatts, took $5.9 billion to make, and takes up 4,000 acres and can be run when it's not windy.

As I've said, we've hit a ceiling with wind and solar. We can only get so much energy out of so much space from them, however nuclear reactors are evolving by leaps and bounds. There are several reactors said to even be able to use a type of fusion to burn all nuclear waste or not even produce waste in the first place. That's allot of energy we can have for a very cheap price.

Yes, I guess you could say I feel R&D money should be spent on nuclear instead of wind and solar. I mean you can have the best solar panels around but how does that help New York City in the winter when they only have six to eight hours of daylight?

I agree with all of this point for point save one small thing. I do hope we continue to R&D solar and wind somehow. Not saying we shouldn't with nuclear, we definitely should. Just think we need to be trying anything we can to figure out alternatives for energy.