Nuclear Power in Germany

[Tender Branson]

Merkel in an epic flip-flop to save her party before the elections, reacts today:

Germany to shut down pre-1980 nuclear plants

Germany will shut down all seven of its nuclear power plants that began operating before 1980 at least till June, the government said on Tuesday, leaving open whether they will ever start up again after Japan's crisis.

Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the closures, which will leave only 10 nuclear stations still generating, under a nuclear policy moratorium imposed as Japan faced a potential catastrophe at its earthquake-crippled Fukushima complex.

"Power plants that went into operation before the end of 1980 will ... be shut down for the period of the moratorium," Merkel told a news conference, adding that the decision would be carried out by government decree as no agreement with the plants' operators had been reached.

Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said it was not clear if the reactors to be shut down in the three-month moratorium would remain closed or be reconnected to the grid afterwards.

Merkel astonished German politicians on Monday by suspending an unpopular coalition decision taken only last autumn, under which the life of Germany's 17 nuclear power plants would be extended by years.

She drew accusations on Tuesday of transparent trickery for the move, with the opposition and media saying she was trying to avoid a regional election disaster later this month.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-germany-nuclear-idUSTRE72E61V20110315

[Tender Branson]

There's a new poll out for Austria, conducted among more than 700 Austrians from March 12-14 about Nuclear Energy. I have never seen a country more opposed to nuclear energy:

Do you follow news reports about Japan ?

96.5% Yes
  3.5% No

Currently Nuclear Power in Europe is booming. Do you personally ssupport this development ?

 7.6% Support
92.1% Oppose

Nuclear Energy, despite its risks, is a useful energy form for humanity, economically, ecologically and energy-politically.

90.8% True
  8.8% Wrong

Do you support the full exit of Nuclear Energy in all of Europe ?

90.9% Yes
  8.7% No

And many more questions i´m too lazy to translate, but almost all are opposed by 80% or more.

http://www.oekonsult.eu/atom2011.pdf

[Tender Branson]

Nuclear Energy, despite its risks, is a useful energy form for humanity, economically, ecologically and energy-politically.

90.8% True
  8.8% Wrong

Woops. That should be the other way round ...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Obviously this thread mostly exists because a dispute on the subject was turning an elections thread into something different... but I'm genuinely curious about something (and have been for a while). While is Nuclear Power so controversial in Germany and Austria, even by the standards of other countries? It isn't without controversy in Britain, but only a minority of the population care greatly either way, while in Germany and Austria it seems to be an issue on which everyone has a genuine opinion.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Obviously this thread mostly exists because a dispute on the subject was turning an elections thread into something different... but I'm genuinely curious about something (and have been for a while). While is Nuclear Power so controversial in Germany and Austria, even by the standards of other countries? It isn't without controversy in Britain, but only a minority of the population care greatly either way, while in Germany and Austria it seems to be an issue on which everyone has a genuine opinion.

Good question. I guess we would wonder why other countries are still so pro-nuclear... despite Chernobyl and all.

Chernobyl was certainly a pivotal moment that managed to solidify anti-nuclear opinions in Germany in many ways. The original anti-nuclear movement with first mass demonstrations sprung up during the early/mid-70s though.

I suppose excessive police violence against protesters (which itself stirred national debates) and the subsequent radicalization and counter-violence by protesters caused the polarization before 1986. Hence it became an issue where all bridges had been burned?

[Franzl]

It's strange how German opinion is so vehemently anti-nuclear. In Sweden there is a very solid majority in favour of retaining it.

I agree. I've never understood the German Left's weird fetish for destroying valuable energy sources.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Obviously this thread mostly exists because a dispute on the subject was turning an elections thread into something different... but I'm genuinely curious about something (and have been for a while). While is Nuclear Power so controversial in Germany and Austria, even by the standards of other countries? It isn't without controversy in Britain, but only a minority of the population care greatly either way, while in Germany and Austria it seems to be an issue on which everyone has a genuine opinion.

Good question. I guess we would wonder why other countries are still so pro-nuclear... despite Chernobyl and all.

Chernobyl was certainly a pivotal moment that managed to solidify anti-nuclear opinions in Germany in many ways. The original anti-nuclear movement with first mass demonstrations sprung up during the early/mid-70s though.

I suppose excessive police violence against protesters (which itself stirred national debates) and the subsequent radicalization and counter-violence by protesters caused the polarization before 1986. Hence it became an issue where all bridges had been burned?

     Given the unique circumstances surrounding Chernobyl, opposing nuclear power because of it is utterly nonsensical. Less so with Fukushima, though the full extent of the crisis is as of yet unclear.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Worth noting, countries ranked by percentage of electricity produced via nuclear power:

France 75.2%
Slovakia 53.5%
Belgium 51.7%
Ukraine 48.6%
Armenia 45.0%
Hungary 43.0%
Switzerland 39.5%
Sweden 37.4%
Bulgaria 35.9%
Czech Republic 33.8%
Finland 32.9%
Korea, South (ROK) 31.1%
Japan 28.9%
Germany 26.1%
Taiwan (ROC) 20.7%
Romania 20.6%
United States 20.2%
United Kingdom 17.9%
Russia 17.8%
Spain 17.5%
Canada 14.8%

[Tender Branson]

Obviously this thread mostly exists because a dispute on the subject was turning an elections thread into something different... but I'm genuinely curious about something (and have been for a while). While is Nuclear Power so controversial in Germany and Austria, even by the standards of other countries? It isn't without controversy in Britain, but only a minority of the population care greatly either way, while in Germany and Austria it seems to be an issue on which everyone has a genuine opinion.

Because large swaths of Austria were contaminated after Chernobyl:



Or maybe we are just greener-thinking than other countries.

[Lief 🗽]

It's strange how German opinion is so vehemently anti-nuclear. In Sweden there is a very solid majority in favour of retaining it.

I agree. I've never understood the German Left's weird fetish for destroying valuable energy sources.

Well if you read about what's happening currently in Japan I think that should help.

[minionofmidas]

In Germany it seems to be an issue on which everyone has a genuine opinion.

THat's an exaggeration.

Apart from that, broadly what Old Europe said.

[Franzl]

It's strange how German opinion is so vehemently anti-nuclear. In Sweden there is a very solid majority in favour of retaining it.

I agree. I've never understood the German Left's weird fetish for destroying valuable energy sources.

Well if you read about what's happening currently in Japan I think that should help.

Nope. I tried, but it didn't help.

[dead0man]

The "specialists" said a big Nuclear Meltdown is only one in 100000 years. I'm 43 years old and in my life there was 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Japan.

Under any definition of the word "big" you want to use, Three Mile Island didn't have a "big" meltdown.  Partial yes, (just like in Japan), but under no circumstances was it "big".  Chernobyl was big, yes, but it was caused by idiots.  Clearly it should be illegal for idiots to run nuclear power plants (or any power plants for that matter), but to suggest we shouldn't continue to utilize nuclear power as one of our many methods of getting electricity based on these three incidents is just silly.

[Franzl]

The "specialists" said a big Nuclear Meltdown is only one in 100000 years. I'm 43 years old and in my life there was 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Japan.

Under any definition of the word "big" you want to use, Three Mile Island didn't have a "big" meltdown.  Partial yes, (just like in Japan), but under no circumstances was it "big".  Chernobyl was big, yes, but it was caused by idiots.  Clearly it should be illegal for idiots to run nuclear power plants (or any power plants for that matter), but to suggest we shouldn't continue to utilize nuclear power as one of our many methods of getting electricity based on these three incidents is just silly.

Especially because other energy forms have led to far more deaths and destruction than nuclear ever has. (Not to mention the evil CO2 caused by them.)

[dead0man]

Yeah, but oil and coal deaths don't have scary words like nuclear and atomic attached to them.  Greenies are, by nature, scared pessimists.

[Hans-im-Glück]

Yeah, but oil and coal deaths don't have scary words like nuclear and atomic attached to them.  Greenies are, by nature, scared pessimists.

I do not live by the motto "After me the flood, " as you.

We must find a way to live without Nuclear Energy. Even without accidents, it is very questionable. There is no country that knows what to do with its nuclear waste.

I know that we can not turn off overnight, all nuclear power plants, but it exists nothing in this world without an alternative.

@Franzl
You must feel very alone in Germany with your opinion. Even the majority of the CDU / CSU and FDP voters are opposed to nuclear power.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The "specialists" said a big Nuclear Meltdown is only one in 100000 years. I'm 43 years old and in my life there was 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Japan.

Under any definition of the word "big" you want to use, Three Mile Island didn't have a "big" meltdown.  Partial yes, (just like in Japan), but under no circumstances was it "big".  Chernobyl was big, yes, but it was caused by idiots.  Clearly it should be illegal for idiots to run nuclear power plants (or any power plants for that matter), but to suggest we shouldn't continue to utilize nuclear power as one of our many methods of getting electricity based on these three incidents is just silly.

     That's my issue with the notion of opposing nuclear power over Chernobyl. Given the gross negligence of the staff at the Chernobyl reactor & the poor design of the reactor, it's hardly representative of nuclear accidents. As you point out, nuclear power can be disastrous if handled by idiots, but so can many other things. If a drunk driver ran over 6 small children, I doubt many people would be calling for cars to be banned as being "too dangerous".

[Hans-im-Glück]

Chernobyl victims:
   

These are the consequences of nuclear power

[minionofmidas]

I really don't like it when people frame the issue in the light of Chernobyl alone (though what's happening in Japan right now makes is less silly-sounding than before)...

So, quick reality check for the American Nuclear Brigade. Tell me how old the newest American nuclear power plant is, and speculate on the reasons why. Thank you.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Chernobyl victims:
   

These are the consequences of nuclear power

     I could just as easily post pictures of mangled corpses with the caption: "These are the consequences of cars". That's an appeal to emotion, not logic.

I really don't like it when people frame the issue in the light of Chernobyl alone (though what's happening in Japan right now makes is less silly-sounding than before)...

So, quick reality check for the American Nuclear Brigade. Tell me how old the newest American nuclear power plant is, and speculate on the reasons why. Thank you.

     The newest reactor running is about 37 years old. I know many reactors that were planned to be built were cancelled, which I am guessing was a reaction to the events at Three Mile Island.

[Middle-aged Europe]

^^

Time to post some aborted fetus pics!

[Franzl]

@Franzl
You must feel very alone in Germany with your opinion. Even the majority of the CDU / CSU and FDP voters are opposed to nuclear power.

Certainly. CDU and FDP aren't really good representatives of my views on nuclear power, but I don't think there is any party with real common sense on this issue.

I support nuclear power because it's one of the safest and cleanest energy forms available at the present time.

Regarding your pictures from Chernobyl.....tragic, absolutely. But I could show you lots of pictures from other things, such as abortion, which I imagine you support. Or PiT's example with cars is just as valid. Showing pictures like that only seeks to add an emotional factor to the debate without seriously presenting any facts.

[minionofmidas]

Three Mile Island happened six years after the completion of the last reactor, so no, guess again.

[Tender Branson]

These are the consequences of nuclear power

     I could just as easily post pictures of mangled corpses with the caption: "These are the consequences of cars". That's an appeal to emotion, not logic.

Cars don't make large swaths of land uninhabitable though. Cars also do not cripple whole generations with having birth defects like nuclear power does.

[Franzl]

These are the consequences of nuclear power

     I could just as easily post pictures of mangled corpses with the caption: "These are the consequences of cars". That's an appeal to emotion, not logic.

Cars don't make large swaths of land uninhabitable though. Cars also do not cripple whole generations with having birth defects like nuclear power does.

They kill far more people than nuclear power ever has or will.