Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumGermany's nuclear power phaseout turns off environmentalists
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-germany-nuclear-20120421,0,2490501.storyKLEINENSIEL, Germany When the German government shut down half the country's nuclear reactors after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, followed two months later by a pledge to abandon nuclear power within a decade, environmentalists cheered.
A year later, however, criticism of the nuclear shutdown is emerging from a surprising source: some of the very activists who pushed for the phaseout. They say poor planning of the shutdown and political opportunism by the government have actually worsened the toll on the environment in Germany, and Europe, at least in the short term.
To make up for the lost nuclear power, which supplied 22% of Germany's electricity before the phaseout began, the country has increased its reliance on brown coal, a particularly high emitter of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and a major contributor to global warming. Brown coal now supplies 25% of Germany's electricity, up from 23% a year ago.
Previously a net exporter of electricity, Germany now imports as much electricity as it sells abroad. Removing so much German electricity from the market has benefited power companies in neighboring countries that rely heavily on coal and nuclear power, thereby undermining Germany's environmental goals and its nuclear safety concerns.
Gee, who could have foreseen this?
Wait, I seem to recall a number of people on this very board six months or more ago predicting exactly this effect.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The conservative pro-corporate, pro-coal, pro-nuclear Merkel government is not responsible, but rather it is the "fault" of the environmentalists? Is that your takeaway?
We've seen a huge amount of this type of nuclear industry propaganda lately.
Only six months before the Fukushima disaster, Merkel had decided to extend, not curtail, the life span of Germany's nuclear power plants, a move that aroused vigorous public opposition. After the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, she made a dramatic reversal, announcing that half of Germany's nuclear plants would be shut down immediately and the remainder within a decade.
To some residents in the northwestern German village of Kleinensiel, Merkel's sudden change of heart was born of political motives.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)It points the finger straight at Merkel's government.
Response to kristopher (Reply #1)
GliderGuider This message was self-deleted by its author.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Somehow, I don't find that re-assuring.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I can't say that I'm surprised.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)you shouldn't be surprised.
You view an extra 25,000,000 tons of CO2 per year as progress, do you?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You don't reject building nuclear plants because there is a temporary carbon cost, yet you find that same kind of cost on a larger scale to be a sign of failure. You are simply rooting for Germany to fail in its effort to move away from nuclear power.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)May we see them?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Comparing it to a one-off is disingenuous at best.
Your statement is just as invalid as if you said "It is the same type of 'expense' as the carbon footprint as one of your wind turbines."
It's not a one off, it's SOP.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It is a temporary state due to the shut down. They are well ahead of their carbon reduction targets and, because they were relying on a dead end technology they need to restructure their system. There is an associated carbon cost however their trajectory of hitting their targets for increasing carbon reductions is still on track for a minimum of 35% reductions by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
Here, on the other hand, where the "We love to glow" nuclear mentality is deeply embedded in out political system, we are not moving the needle at all, are we? Yet the nuclear propornents have the gall to bitch about Germany's decision making???
I'm not a religious person at all but I have read that passage in the bible about plucking the mote from your own eye...
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Edit: Freudian slip, you think?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)If I never hear the words "Turning now to Psalm 127..." or "Please open your bibles to Titus 2..." or (God help me) "Today we will be reading in the book of Ephesians..." again I will be a happy soul.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)"Encourage and rebuke with all authority." would make a good motto for E/E
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)How long are you going to stay drunk? Put away your wine.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)You see me with a copy of Strong's Concordance, you start running.
Tend to label myself an agnostic pantheist.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It's fun times.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Glom on to some science-free factiod, then repeat it ad infinitum. Or am I thinking of something else?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)I do have Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible though.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Try reading the whole thing from the beginning: If you get to Gen 2 without falling asleep, you've got me beat.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts):snore:
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Fuck that.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Definitely recommended.
edit: as far as SOP, you have only established it for me with lackluster reductions by the 2030s and still using 20% fossil by the 2050s.
Ridiculous.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Good book and there were a couple of sequels.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Thanks for the correction.
FBaggins
(26,758 posts)...of an already-constructed nuclear plant?
txlibdem
(6,183 posts)Response to kristopher (Reply #4)
Dead_Parrot This message was self-deleted by its author.
txlibdem
(6,183 posts)From the article:
"Our facilities were serviced every year; they're in perfect shape," said Maik Otholt, a Kleinensiel resident. "Nothing ever went wrong. And so now what are we doing? We're buying nuclear energy from France. Their plant is just over the border. And now we're buying that expensive electricity. It's crazy."
It looks like the anti-nuclear cult is taking one on the chin with this issue.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)- The German rush to decommission nuclear power - not the desire to denuclearize, but the desire to do so Right Now - was driven by politics.
- Changes in a country's energy mix need to be carefully planned, and necessary infrastructure/replacement capacity needs to be in place before a shift is undertaken.
- If changes to a country's energy mix are undertaken for political reasons before the necessary groundwork has been laid, the results are likely to be suboptimal. The German experience is evidence of this.
- Germany is the first Western industrial power to undertake such a shift, so the results of their effort will be watched closely by other nations.
- If Germany succeeds in bringing down their fossil fuel use as the result of this move, other nations will be encouraged to follow suit.
- However, if they DON'T bring their current rise in emissions under control quickly, it will provide ammunition to the pro-nuclear voices in other nations and may hamper/delay/prevent similar shifts in other nations.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)
This wasn't a rush decision.
The power plants in Stade and Obrigheim were turned off on November 14 , 2003, and May 11, 2005, respectively. The plants' dismantling is scheduled to begin in 2007.[22][dated info]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_phase-out#Germany
The narrative you are reciting omits the fact that there is a strong economic force working to confound the transition and that the current political leadership of the country is in thrall to that force. The environment ministry has had in place a plan that does not involve increased burning of coal at all; the decision to resort to coal instead of following that plan is the political action that should be noted. We see the same obstructionist forces here in the US on economic recovery where there is a willingness to ignore what is recognized as the best interests of the country in order to increase strategic political leverage. Another place we see the same strategy over a long period is Japan where at the cost of a prolonged economic crisis the LDP, which ruled uninterrupted for more than 50 years after the war, has obstructed all meaningful action by its political opposition in hopes of eventually returning to power.
This is just one more battle in the struggle between the 99% and the 1%.
See also:Post-Fukushima nuclear allergy spreads in France
By Mycle Schneider
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120419a1.html
pscot
(21,024 posts)Swedens environment minister predicted this a year ago.
France has shown no sign of falling out of love with nuclear, and Poland is just falling in love with it, intending to build two atomic power stations.
The possibility of unintended consequences was raised by the Swedish environment minister who is not by any means a fan of nuclear power. There is a risk they will not manage as quickly to halt the dependency on fossil fuels, especially coal-based energy (said) Andreas Carlgren Swedish Environment Minister
(That) country has decided to phase out its nuclear stations, leaving them run to the end of their planned lives rather than abruptly shutting them.
.... Carlgren said Germany's decision meant an "uneven energy policy" in Europe, so Germany will "most probably need to increase the import of nuclear energy from France".
He added: "There is a risk they will not manage as quickly to halt the dependency on fossil fuels, especially coal-based energy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13595171
Merkel was spooked because the greens were making political gains at the expense of the CDU by running aginst nukes.
txlibdem
(6,183 posts)I feel sorry for the Germans. They are being pulled this way and that like puppets on a string by the anti-nuclear cultists. The only phrase that could sum up is "well meaning fools."
Let's look at the logic: Greenhouse gases are killing the planet. Definitely. 100% sure.
Nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gases but the German government decided to end their nuclear power generation instead of ending the use of planet-killer coal first. Foolish.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)with underwater robots that are free...
Perhaps your judgment is more questionable than the Germans'.
txlibdem
(6,183 posts)It'll solve the rising sea levels problem, along with the human dislocation that it will cause. You know about the rising sea levels, right? Yeah, the same ones caused by using ANY type of fossil fuels, including FRACKING GAS.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)They would have lost to a coalition that would have done it anyway. IMO Merkel was screwed either way.
I want the nukes closed down as much as anyone else (and a lot more than some), but I still think that Public Enemy #1 is CO2. That means the nukes have to be shut down in such a way that CO2 levels are not increased. That was not possible in this case, as far as I can tell - the agendas on all sides were too strong.
It concerns me that we may see other rash agenda-driven decision making in various countries as a result of this fiasco.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Unfortunately promoting agenda driven and partisan decision making by buying influence and peddling massive amounts of misinformation through every available information outlet has been the strategy of the entrenched centralized energy system.
They are being beaten back but it is a slow battle against a massive social and economic force.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)They now effectively own most national governments. Nuclear power has a special door in through the military, but the rest of them - Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Oil, Big Bucks - have all taken ownership of national governments through the policies of the WTO, IMF and WB, even in countries that have no nuclear industry.
They are not being beaten back. You may think the energy battle is being won, but I suspect your perception is somewhat influenced by your minutiae-oriented view of how that particular world works. In the broader view, We the People are losing big-time ... along with all the rest of the life on this planet.
If the global economy doesn't collapse soon, something terrible is going to happen...
kristopher
(29,798 posts)"I suspect your perception is somewhat influenced by your minutiae-oriented view of how that particular world works."
That must be the effect of my early training in cultural anthropology. We tend to not be aware of the big human picture, fer sure, ya know dude?
Response to kristopher (Reply #37)
XemaSab This message was self-deleted by its author.