Angela Merkel has announced a phase-out of nuclear power by 2022 Der Spiegel’s article includes a roundup of German press commentary.
Deutsche Welle’s coverage includes several other links, including an opinion piece. Some of the controversy seems to be over how the decision was made.
BBC coverage also has extra links and includes this :
Protest groups are already vocal in the beautiful, forested centre of the country which, they fear, will become a north-south “energie autobahn” of pylons and high-voltage cables.
Some independent analysts believe that coal power will benefit if the wind plans don’t deliver what is needed.
And on either side of Germany is France, with its big nuclear industry, and Poland, which has announced an intention to build two nuclear power stations.
The implication of the last para is that if Germany has to buy in power to make up a shortfall, it will be importing nuclear power.
The timetable set is virtually identical with that set by the SDP/Green coalition years ago. Green groups now say that it could be done by 2014.
This article provides a useful summary of some of the issues.
The bottom line politically seems to be that no German party retaining nuclear power can expect to be elected.
The Swiss, with 40% of their power from nukes, have decided to build no more but allow existing ones to run their course.
This map indicates how nukes have spread across the globe.
It is very interesting.
I wont rant on about the policy implications, however I will be fascinated by the facts of Germany’s energy generation mix in ten years. It hardly bears observing that it’ll be a sick and dumb joke if they’re now supported by French nuclear power, as well as mroe fossil fuels. Still, that’s democracy for you.
The Australian equivalent of Merkel’s call would be Julia closing all coal powered generators by 2022. Even Bob Brown would hesitate to say it should be all done by 2014. Imagine what the polls would do!
As a strategic decision regarding energy supply it cannot be faulted. If you must use nuke energy then it is as well to externalise the ecological costs of accidents onto someone else’s soil. Not that radioactive fallout respects national borders but if Fukusihima shows one thing it is that the population in closest proximity top the nuke bears the greatest burden of an accident. Expectations that the Germans, in a spirit of Manicheanism, will disavow nuclear energy just because they’ve decided to not run that particular risk are naive about how governments protect and advance national interests.
It’s a joke. The French have nuclear power plants, at Fessenheim and Cattenom, which are right on the German border, and plenty of others that are closer to Germany than Fukushima is to Tokyo.
There’s no way known the Germans can replace the energy they are losing from nukes with renewables in that time frame, and unless they plan to blow their carbon targets out the water they aren’t going to be burning any more fossil fuels.
So the Frogs will crank up their nukes and sell it to the Germans.
I suppose nuke apologists might insist that Germans keep voting until they arrive at the “right” decision.
And what relevance is there in the fact that the French remain obdurate in their use of nuclear power. That is a French decision, not a German decision. And the Germans have got over invading France decades ago.
Amongst the elements I didn’t highlight is the fact the the Germans are going to emphasise energy savings in buildings, shooting for 10%.
Weren’t there problems in France with access to enough water to cool their nukes? In other words, is there scope for the French to expand their nuclear capacity?
Brian: my undertanding is that there is vigorous and widespread internal opposition to expansion of the French nuke program subsequent to the usual history of accidents, hot water spillage into rivers, inadequate cooling water during a recent drought and cover ups of unregulated waste disposal to Russia (ie, waste sitting around in rotting drums somewhere far away).
Got it in one, Sam.
As for externalising the cost of energy, Germany is about to do a shitload more of it from the emissions coming out of the gas-fired power stations that are the inevitable replacement for the nukes.
No, it wouldn’t take you two seconds of thought to realise that if the direct consequence of this policy is more nuclear (and fossil fuel) power in Europe, including in areas close to Germany, then this policy is strictly pure populism. Democracy allows for populism, it’s a weakness not a strength, countervailed by other strengths.
But it’s a German decision to import more French nuclear power, when the prevailing winds are towards Germany.
Seriously, I know you’re smart enough to get this, I don’t know why you posted.
Is this a phase out or a non-renewal? i.e. are they going to close existing power plants early, or simply not build new ones when the existing ones shut? If the latter, it’s not really an issue from the perspective of AGW provided the replacement power sources are renewable – in fact, if they get the investment plans right it could be a net positive for the world.
The same could hold even if it’s a plan to close existing power plants early, if large investment in renewables is part of the deal. Is it?
I’ll bet London to a brick that the net emissions from whatever they deploy to replace their nukes is higher.
Even if they go mad with solar and wind, they’re still going to have to run gas backup.
Not if they just quietly buy in power from nukes in Poland and France…
sg, from recalling australian media commentary (therefore pretty much guaranteed to be wrong) the plants that were already shut or were immediately shut during Fukushima won’t be reopening. Others will definitely be phased out, i.e. shut early.
well if that’s true wilful and it’s being arranged in that much of a hurry I can’t see that they’ll be making particularly effective transition plans… which means, no doubt, an increase in emissions.
I wonder how serious Merkel is about AGW though? I suspect she’s eyeing the near-term votes and doesn’t really believe the long-term effects will eventuate …
Nukes are not the answer. This is a strategic win for anti-nuke activists who pre-existed AGW activists by a long shot, maybe 40 or more years. That makes the AGW activists arrivistes in my view. Get in line with your demands because the demands of the established environment peace movement is no nukes. Full stop. Suggesting nuke power as a transitional energy supply in a move to steady state renewable production means that you haven’t come to terms with the scale or nature of the changes required to sustain an equitably habitable planet.
They’re just kicking the can down the road until the hysteria’s passed. In a few years time there’ll be a “revised” timetable.
so akn, what you’re saying is that we can’t have electric cars.
The enthusiasts here may as well realise that nuclear power is a dying industry. Talk about spinning like crazy.
I’ve spent a lot of time in France and there’s also strong, and I would suspect, growing opposition to nuclear power. The people who have to live with it in their backyards are voting with their feet.
akn, you haven’t come to terms with the fact that the scale and nature of the changes you presumably seek are likely to be unacceptable to the vast majority of the world’s population.
Look at the kicking and screaming we’re getting over miniscule increases in the cost of electricity, FFS.
Electric bicycles for commuting; share/rent electric cars for longer journeys; shank’s pony for local movement. Otherwise you can have your electic cars to replace petrol cars for all day everyday use … at a very significant premium.
Fine, I would be very happy if we didn’t have to argue about nuclear power.
But I’m still waiting for a realistic plan to go 100% renewable, and haven’t seen one yet.
akn, it’s a tactical not a strategic win. Ten years from now when the AGW situation starts to bite, people will have to ramp up the nuke power in a hurry, and safety concerns will be cast aside in favour of a massive expansion of the industry at great cost. We have a carbon budget timetable, and at some point it’s going to have to be implemented. It’s a rapid but manageable plan now or a catastrophic plan later. And the catastrophic plan is going to fall back on nukes, you can guarantee it.
I wonder how serious Merkel is about AGW though?
Let’s ask him.
Robert, how serious are you about AGW?
Heh
Quite.
For that matter, I think Merkel, Angela, is quite serious about it too.
But these French reactors won’t create any exclusion zones in Germany. Thanks for the compliment, however, lefthanded though it is.
If you don’t know why I posted, I suppose it is a waste of time to attempt to educate you.
sg:
“akn, it’s a tactical not a strategic win. Ten years from now when the AGW situation starts to bite, people will have to ramp up the nuke power in a hurry, and safety concerns will be cast aside in favour of a massive expansion of the industry at great cost.”
In your dreams, baby.
Chernobyl created zones in Cumbria where farming is banned. What makes you think a French reactor can’t do that in Germany?
That may happen, but it’d be worse in France. Germany’s refusal to buy French nuclear power wouldn’t stop the French nuclear industry. So Germany may as well prosper from the recklessness of their Gallic neighbours while they can.
Erm, why not?
No worries, I withdraw it. You’re map of Europe is a bit wrong.
It’s more correct than you’re (sic) grammar.
Thanks for relieving me of an item of no value at all.
But what’s to say Germany’s decision to buy Polish nuclear power won’t encourage Poland’s industry? Or, worse still, what if Germany decides to buy Russian nuclear power, which is much less safe and uses older, less efficient reactor designs?
akn, my dreams are not of a nuclear-powered world, but of a low carbon world. I certainly don’t dream of a world ten years from now that is warming rapidly, with an emissions profile so bad that it’s potentially catastrophic in the long run, and which forces a decision to engage in a sudden expansion of nukes. That’s a nightmare, not a dream.
(the deliberate misplacement of the apostrophe is my little war against pedants)
Robert, I’m purchasing a pony. I’m encouraging everyone to do the same. The clip-clop of little hoofs on asphalt.
Don’t forget the methane emissions from your pony. Probably come to the equivalent of half a tonne of CO2 emissions per year.
Robert Merkel @19: my understanding of what the majority of the world’s population wants is reliable food supplies, clean water, sewage, housing, education, repect and access to justice. It appears that you’ve mistaken the frothing of egg-beater journalism against a carbon tax in Australia as a statement of what is acceptable to the majority of the world’s population. Arguing for middle class patterns of energy consumption, and an energy production system designed to meet those inflated needs, is merely the middle classes attempting to protect their own class advantages and lifestyles. In so far as the Germans have decided to ditch nukes this is a major spanner in the works of the type of SNAFU (situational normal…) thinking that underpins much of western environmentalism.
Yes, and once they have those they want the internet, cars, and jet travel.
Well said akn. It is simply not possible to maintain our profligate lifestyles and reduce our emissions to the extent necessary, with or without nuclear power.
And as the climate worsens and extreme weather events become more and more common, the viability of nuclear power will become increasingly tenuous.
It’s all been said, but add me to the list of those who grasp that, short of a series of astonishing breakthroughs on renewables, Germany will be forced to choose between importing nuclear power, increasing its CO2 intensity by choosing more Co2-intensive energy, or importing more goods — thus offshoring its emissions.
As enthusiastic as I am about the progress of The Greens in Germany, this is surely one of the regrettable overheads.
And if they offshore those emissions, Fran, the likelihood is that they will be to China and Japan – two countries with a continuing (or increasing) use of nuclear power.
I wonder what we call it when a developed nation offshores its nuclear risk to a developing nation?
Well, Robert @36, I don’t agree. The Chinese middle classes may want these things but I say fuck ‘em, they can’t have ‘em, too late, they missed the historical 19 C and 20 C binge party and that’s too bad. Same to anyone else including the so called ‘aspirational’ Australian working classes who seem to think that they’re entitled to live like pharaohs. They might have to re-discover the simple low energy pleasures of life according to their own lights.
That may happen, but it’d be worse in France
Two of the French reactors are right on the border.
Think of Victoria getting electricity from a nuclear power plant in Albury, with the prevailing wind blowing south.
akn 40
How are you going to stop the Chinese getting these things? You can lecture them until you are blue in the face about the future of the planet, blah, blah, blah. They will ignore you or laugh at you.
You know, I don’t like the general right wing / libertarian rants about how everyone who “believes in” AGW is just using it to force us all to wear hair shirts, but comments like akn at 40 don’t help to put that argument to sleep.
Those of you who are unfamiliar with the history of international development may not be aware of this, but the modern infrastructure which enables us to live long and healthy lives, and not die in childhood like flies – as is happening in Afghanistan and parts of rural South Asia – is at least partly dependent on easy access to energy.
When I travelled China in 2002 many areas still had no running hot water for most of the day, no flush toilets or functioning sewer systems, and highly labour-dependent infrastructure. These things are reflected directly in child and adult mortality and morbidity statistics. When you say “fuck ‘em” you’re not just telling the Chinese they can’t have the latest video game. You’re also telling them that their kids can continue to die of diseases that are easily preventable with access to hot water and sewerage.
Do you think this is the kind of rhetoric that is going to see the Chinese strive to rein in their CO2 emissions, akn?
Political cynicism?
I’d just like energy infrastructure to be designed & run by people who knew what they were doing, and thought they were doing it in the public interest. Given near zero emissions/low ecosystem footprint and adequate levels of service, I don’t care what the technology is or how it works, or within reason, what it costs.
You may say I’m a dreamer …
It’s moot anyway, the Chinese are full steam ahead building 27 new nuclear power plants, and barring a sudden lurch towards democracy that will continue, they could have a couple of Fukushimas go into meltdown on their own soil and be undeterred. No chance of “populist” pressure on policy in China.
Actually su, I think that the Chinese government does respond to public concern and external pressure, though not as much as we might like. I wouldn’t be surprised if their regulatory environment for nukes is tougher than Japan’s…
sg @ 43:
“When I travelled China in 2002 many areas still had no running hot water for most of the day, no flush toilets or functioning sewer systems, and highly labour-dependent infrastructure. These things are reflected directly in child and adult mortality and morbidity statistics. When you say “fuck ‘em” you’re not just telling the Chinese they can’t have the latest video game. You’re also telling them that their kids can continue to die of diseases that are easily preventable with access to hot water and sewerage.”
A deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote. When I say eff-’em that is directed towards the aspirant and existing Chinses middle classes; the ‘new entrepeneurs’. You apparently believe in the trickle down effects of industrial wealth production in a market economy. I don’t. The benefits we achieved inAustralia were subsequent to class political struggle which is what the poor of China and other ‘developing’ nations are going to have to wage in order to gain decent subsistence conditions.
Personally I couldn’t care less how right wing ranters characterise my position as ‘hair shirt’ or otherwise. I do know a few things abouit political struggle and one of them is that appeasement of the irrational and selfish arguments of ranters and nut jobs, to the point that your bent double, leaves you looking at your own exit.
so akn, you think it’s cool that we live in a world where half the population – India and China – can’t have things we’ve taken for granted for 30 or 50 years because, well, because we fucked the atmosphere and they have to wear the consequences.
What do you think is the best name for this political position? douchebaggism? Post-colonial angst? Any other ideas?
sg @ 47 – well historically the Chinese government have had difficulty ensuring people don’t steal money from large building projects like dams resulting in substandard construction. And this is with threat of death if they get caught. I don’t have a whole lot of confidence that they’ll do much better building nuclear reactors.
akn @ 48 – If you take that attitude I think the Chinese middle class will just say “screw you!”. And there’s not a whole lot we can do about it then.
No sg. @ 35 I posted the following:
“Robert Merkel @19: my understanding of what the majority of the world’s population wants is reliable food supplies, clean water, sewage, housing, education, repect and access to justice. ”
I don’t know what things you’ve taken for granted. Myself, I’ve never taken anything for granted except the full employment market that we experienced in the 1970′s but I’ve have learnt my lesson about that. All social conditions that we’ve enjoyed – from minimum wage conditions, occupational health and safety legislation, universal health care, free and universal education, the restricted working week, independent wage setting (I could go on) are the result of political struggle so I don’t ever take them for granted. We can lose them.
I suspect when you say that we ‘take for granted’ some things you mean particular types of domestic commodities.
In general my issue is with the inequity of distribution within ‘developing’ nations. The Gucci classes of China and India can get stuffed until they redistribute their wealth towards socially equitable programs. China in particular is not to be taken seriously until it has i) a body of law ii) separation of the state and the legal system iii) civil society iv) an independent trades union movement.
Two minus twenty-four equals minus twenty-two.
Germany has twenty-four reactors presently.
Yes, that’s right. Germany has a net twenty-two fewer nuclear reactors to worry about!
Plus, if those two French border reactors melt down, the political disaster is France’s, not Germany’s.
This isn’t a perfect solution for Germany, but it is an improvement. Nothing is perfect while nuclear reactors still operate. But then again, this is an imperfect world, and Germany has stolen a march on its neighbours.
and akn, what do you think is a fundamental precondition for “reliable food supplies, clean water, sewage, housing, education”? Fairies and pony poo? No, a reliable baseload energy supply. Or do you think your own housing, sewage, food supplies and clean water all come to you with no carbon emissions and not a Watt of non-human energy expended?
There’s a limit to the health and social achievements that are possible in a place like Tibet without access to energy. And if you’re really worried about inequality in developing nations then exactly the best way to ensure it gets worse is to restrict the amount of a basic resource.
Katz, if the Germans have 24 fewer reactors, that either means 24 more gas reactors, or 24 more nukes somewhere else. Which in Europe means France or Eastern Europe. It’s a classic case of externalities. Germany has 3 choices: a) massive investment in renewables, b) more emissions, c) outsource its nukes.
As I said above, it would be good if they took this as an opportunity for a), but do you think that’s going to happen? This just means that the world’s 5th(?) biggest economy has decided to switch from a low- to a high-carbon industrial power supply.
A real win for environmentalists everywhere.
No it isn’t its’ simply immoral. With the very reasonable assumption that France, Poland and maybe Russia will increase they’re production of either or both fossil fuelled and nuclear power to satisfy additional German power demand, this is the worst form of feel-good populist policy.
I havent’ even gotted into the other impacts, such as a whole new series of HV pylons through central Germany.
But anyway, I know that, come 2020, the German government will say “my god, what were we thinking?” and continue their remaining reactors.
I assume as well it will lead to an increase in the price of locally sourced fossil fuels (i.e. Russian gas).
and akn, what do you think is a fundamental precondition for “reliable food supplies, clean water, sewage, housing, education”? Fairies and pony poo? well, historical knowledge of China suggests that social management of resources for several thousand years was equal to the task prior to the development of electricity. Equity, though, in distribution of basic resources is something the Chinses have not yet experienced. If in doubt (as I am) about the Chinese communist party’s ability to manage ecological resources look at the mess they’re making of the Yangtze River.
“There’s a limit to the health and social achievements that are possible in a place like Tibet without access to energy this is the sort of argument that the ruling Han castes of the Chinese communist party are using to justify cultural genocide in China.
I’ll get on board with the argument that ecological resource distribution is equitable when, for one measure, the price of air fares properly reflects the carbon cost of flying.
But wilful, we’re here to help you!
So you’re suggesting with this is that the Chinese should be satisfied with infant mortality and adult life expectancy that no one in the west has considered acceptable for at least 80 years. Is this your idea of progress?
And this:
wtf? You think the Chinese govt is justifying cultural genocide in Tibet by saying “we need to reduce infant mortality”? You don’t actually know anything at all about China do you?
These are fundamental facts of development economics. You can’t improve health in remote, poor, rural areas without energy. You can make some gains but ultimately you need to be able to boil water, transport goods, pump water and build houses and toilets.
Your back-to-the-stone-age rhetoric is counter-productive. If you think that this is how the world should live, you could start by turning off your computer. If you can’t even do that, why should you posture about how the Chinese should go back to mediaeval farming practices?
I think ‘progress’ is bunkum. The Chinses infant mortality rate can be addressed through means other than widespread electricity supply through nuke power. You are arguing that modern industrial production is all of a piece and that the Chinese have to take the good and the bad as a job lot. This is nonsense. In any event, while data is readily available about Chinese mortality rates I don’t get at all worked up over anything much that happens there and won’t until the citizens manage to install a democracy. Until then the citizens of China get what they deserve. The same applies to anyone living under an authoritarian or totalitarian regime or a regime in which there are appalling disparities of distribution (India) – it is the job of the poor and the oppressed to fight for their own liberation. I’ll support that; I won’t support the idea that everyone else has to cop the carbon cost of those countries establishing bloated ruling and middle classes who deign to allow the occasional element of social justice to trickle down while aspiring to the most appallingly selfish and luxuriant lifestyles enjoyed by parasitic classes in the indsutrialised west.
Re: Tibet -the Han Chinese think the Tibetans are animals who don’t deserve the mineral resources and water that the Chinese covet. I know lots about China, in fact.
Meanwhile on LP the air was thick with irony again…
The German, at the very least on the national political level, is evil.
And the comparison with the Chinese Communist party is valid.
In fact, there is a strange symmetry between what the Germans are doing to England and France and what the Chinese are doing to the US! While England and France are off fighting for kingly virtue, courtly love etc by vanquishing the evil Muhammad al-Gaddafi (it’s easier than winning the Euro song contest, btw.) the Germans are going to source their energy at market price from at worst elsewhere, because it’s cheaper to do so. Oh, zees dirdty shwine! These teutonian tricksters!
And it’s all just populist pandering and posturization!
This could just be the spur needed for renewables, there are a whole bunch of technologies languishing for want of serious investment. If the worst happens and the new luddites get their wish, Germany may return to the old ways of nuclear power, but anyone who thinks Nuclear technology would ever be “transitional” has absolutely zero knowledge of politics. No frakkin way the nuclear industry have their eventual demise plotted into the scheduler.
Poland, France and Russia could simply refuse to supply Germany with power. They won’t, of course, because they are as deeply implicated in this transaction as Germany.
So spare us the homily.
Why not buy nuke power infrom Iran? Or will the cabling be too long? Otherwise Kosovo might be a goer.
sg @ 27:
Because Cumbria is not part of Germany. (^.–)
Huh? I mean, WTF? The only way I make sense of that is that you are saying that the neighbours intend to profit from the gullibility of the german electorate. Which is fine, if your one of the aforesaid neighbours. But not if your a german electricity consumer.
Jejune, naive, and ignorant.
Oil is a fungible commodity traded by a network of producers, consumers and arbitrageurs.
Since WWII, Germany has not suffered from a complete absence of a local source of oil.
Commercially, electricity production and distribution could be identical to oil. And with a major consumer like Germany making a Eurasia-wide market, it is highly likely that this is exactly what will happen to electricity.
oooh, Biggum werds! You must be reeel smart. But yeah, you basically are saying that the neighbours are happy about this. You agree that this will encourage more fossil and/or nuclear power production globally.
And of course Germany has suffered from a complete absence of local oil since WW2.
Suffered????
Until recently, Germany was the largest export economy on earth. And Germans enjoy one of the highest material standards of living on earth. In what senses can Germany said to be “suffering” from the absence of oil drilled out of the Fatherland?
It’s a perfectly legitimate move by German government to externalise the most serious risks of nuke power production onto those countries willing to impose those risk/costs onto their own population. Usually they do this in the name of corporate profits. So, international power supply companies will stick the ecological risk/cost onto local populations and Germans will reap the benefit of phasing out nukes. I’m delighted at the prospect of widespread rebellion against nukes that this proposal promises.
wilful,
you sound like a nuclear power operator about to take a loss on investment. Errr, I mean forward earnings.
Maybe you’re just upset that there isn’t the same kind of debate in Germany about the consumer having to pay an extra 21.13Euro a month because thee is no more nuclear energy being produced in Germany? I mean, people are doing it tough. (The part-time job market is finally starting to explode over here as well. You know, it’s based on serfdom, so it’s part of the Euro tradition anyway.)
I don’t, tbh, understand your problem. You sound like you’re being ripped off and I can’t for the life of me, understand how.
There is a fundamental difference between making the decision to do something and talking about doing something. At least the willingness of German politicians to take this decision should be acknowledged as a significant movement towards renewable energy use. The support from the general population, as far as I can tell, is high. People are genuinely excited about trying this out and developing industries to make this happen.
And to remind you a bit about the big picture– if Europe (probably without England) can make this happen it would herald a new era.
“Energy”-politics aka. what we generally call “geo-politics” and actually mean the Middle East and Russia, would be unrecognisably changed.
This is the (West-) European dream and has been for some time. It probably won’t work the first time ’round. But who’s to argue that this isn’t a great dream?
I think this comment tells us all we need to know about the nuance of your views on China, akn. And your belief that China can improve the health and wellbeing of its citizens without access to modern energy supplies is instructive too.
su at 62, absolutely that would be great, but it won’t happen.
It’s more likely to happen than nuclear power being the saviour for our dreams of an abundant cheap energy future, particularly after certain events in Japan.
How’s that going by the way?
sg,
They’ve said that about almost everything which eventually did happen, as people are fond of saying.
What we do, however know, is that it sure as hell won’t be happening in the UK any time soon. The UK economy is shot and still way too hot. Thank you fat City of London financial system! A bigger bunch of crooks is hard to find anywhere in the world!
(Well, maybe it’s possible in Scotland if they become independent.)
Yes, Joe, the geopolitics of this decision are very interesting.
I think it can be argued that Germany is throwing its energy future very firmly in the direction of Russia, both as a source of power and as a conduit through which power travels.
Thus Russia becomes even more central to the future of Germany. Germany needs Russia more than Russia needs Germany. That form of relationship will have diplomatic consequences, most importantly a redefinition of the nature of the NATO alliance and the relationship between the US and Germany.
This stands as a huge geopolitical victory for Putin, but on the other hand, the pressure will be on Russia to deliver.
Katz, maybe another time. (I don’t think that this is strictly true although it is popular theory and I have to go.)
It’s also a very strange attitude to adopt unless people believe we have reached some sort of technological end of history. The regulatory environment sets the conditions for investment and innovation, this move extends the phasing out of coal subsidies, the 35% renewable energy targets and the imposition of emissions targets in clearing as much space as possible for that innovation to occur.
sg: the rate of neonatal mortality in 19 C. Victoria, Australia, dropped significantly after the British Medical Council finally admitted to the bleeding obvious and the state government admitted the registration of midwives to attend homebirths. A candle and a midwife can achieve a lot. The Chinese experience with ‘barefoot doctors’ was that staff rather than expensive centralized facilities (the western hospital model) will achieve more.
As to China itself: many view it as a Han ethno-fascist regime. Their treatment of minorities is terrible. If you think that the Chinese are ‘modernising’ Tibet for the good of Tibetans then the only company you’ll have on that issue are the poor bloody Tibetans who’ve been captured and brain washed (literally) by the party.
Back to Germany and nukes: just how many acres of arable land are now unusable and how many Japanese have been displaced by Fukushima meltdown?
It would be great for the planet if Germany could phase out brown coal power stations first.
@55, I guess whether the Germans change their minds in 2020 may depend on whether Fukushima is under control by then. But we can hope by 2020 investment in alternatives may open new options
It seems to me you are not talking about the same Nation here, like the one I know that has pulled itself by it’s bootstraps twice last century and reunified only twenty years ago at a tremendous economic cost and today a comparative economic powerhouse with a forecast growth of 3.5% for this year.
As for the Swiss, a Nation that brought to you the Red Cross, <A HREF="<A HREF=" they are aiming low. Having observed their recycling habits, I have no doubt they can do it and make a virtue out of it, without donning sg’s hairy shirt.
The comment at 60 is a real eye-opener.
Ignorance , xenophobia and swagger all in one.
Igxenodoccio anyone?
The Japanese disaster highlighted the need for nuclear reactors to be foolproof. It also highlighted that they are not foolproof if disaster prevention depends on back-up systems that are expected to work after an earthquake, tsunami or extended power or water failure.
Foolproof also means that a rogue/incompetent operator, control systems engineer etc cant force a disaster. Ditto faulty software etc. It also means that there is not a crisis if all the operators flee from a plague or invading aliens.
Foolproof needs simple systems that react quickly if the reactor gets too hot or reaches some other critical point. Things like fusible sections on a fuel rod that melt and allow the rod to drop into a borax tank or?….
It may be that alternative designs such as thorium based systems or more advanced uranium based designs can be designed to be both foolproof and a source of low cost power. At the moment I have an open mind. It may be much easier to set up reliable clean power supply systems if nuclear was an acceptable part of the generation mix.
The reason I think su’s ideal (and the one I referred to in an earlier comment as well) won’t happen is that this is clearly policy on the run. It’s energy policy on the run. Think of it the opposite way. Imagine Germany had decided “AGW is a pressing issue, so we’re phasing out all fossil fuel power in favour of nuclear by 2020.” Do you think that under such a rapid change of energy policy they would be able to establish the appropriate regulatory environment? No, it would be a disaster. They don’t have the same safety issues to deal with but there is an obvious risk that they’ll take the easy option and go straight to gas.
As for how fukushima is going … replacement pumps were trialled today, I don’t know if they’re working yet but they hope to have normal pump operations resumed in the chambers by mid-July. PM Kan is in deep doo-doos because it turns out that he ordered the emergency flooding of the reactors stopped on the day that it started, after he was told there was a risk of “re-criticality.” I’m not sure if his decision was a bad thing or not (it only lasted for 40 minutes and when pumping restarted they were adding boron to the mix – I wonder if the meltdown happened due to a mistake in that first 12 hours?) People were due to evacuate from Iitate (outside the exclusion zone) on the 25th May – the exclusion zone is a bit of a waste of time, because all the radiation was delivered in a sausage shaped zone extending to the NW, and the exclusion zone largely covers areas that have quite low radioactivity.
Also it appears that the regulatory framework for nuclear power in Japan is “voluntary” as far as earthquake resistance standards go, according to the Japan Times. I think that makes the nuclear power industry subject to weaker standards than your average house-builder. Their decision not to strengthen the sea walls was taken a decade ago in a one-page document. But in their defense, the largest waves recorded in known history were 5m; the Guardian had some excellent pictures of Fukushima a week ago that were taken from the plant, showing waves of about 15m in height going through the seawall like a hammer.
Cue repulsive stereotype from akn.
Joe, you’re seriously over reading my emotional state in response to this matter. I am gravely disappointed that there will be increasing CO2 emissions from Germany. That’s as far as my emotional connection goes.
katz, you’re coming across as a bit thick here, but in what sense can Germany have benefited from not having a cheap domestic source of oil? Have they really done better by having to import it all? How?
Yup agree murph, us Aussies are so much better at ripping off the natives when extracting resources. In fact we even managed to rip ourselves off.
I heard Iceland wants to export it’s excess hydro and geo-thermally produced electricity. It’s a massive cabling job for sure, but still an avenue Germany could take. Massive cables work, they are, after all, how our telecommunications work between continents.
hey wilful, you are as well– I’m not serious at all
First up, Angela Merkel can be taken to be very serious about global warming and emissions. She began life as a scientist, was environment minister under Kohl and is advised by Hans Joachim (John) Schellnhuber, who heads the Potsdam Institute and is the big cheese amongst climate scientists in Europe. He’s every bit as scary as James Hansen on what we are doing to the planet.
Merkel was President of the EU at the time they set their emissions targets policy. It was largely due to her efforts. Around the same time Germany chaired the G8. I think she was personally responsible for keeping George Bush in the camp and signed up to working within the UN framework, when he seemed hell-bent on going off at a tangent.
Katz, the first link in the post indicates that there are 17 nuclear power stations in Germany. From the BBC article:
In 2002 the SPD/Green coalition passed legislation to phase out nuclear power by 2022. According to Climate Progress the current government as part of its energy strategy announced in October 2010, saw nukes being extended to 2030. Now they are back to 2021, with a possible extension of one year to 2022 for three stations.
Geopolitically, Europe is clearly concerned about dependency on Russia. I understand that Poland has significant gas resources, deposited in shale, similar to those in the US which require a fair bit of fracking. I’d suggest that the chances of these deposits being developed are quite high.
If you don’t understand the concept of opportunity cost, then it’d take too much time and energy to explain.
And briefly, there is a world market for oil. The high cost of oil in Germany is because the State has decided to tax oil consumption. But for that, oil could be as cheap in Germany as it is in the US.
I’ll leave it to others to decide who is the “thick” party in this exchange of views.
Brian, there are some de-activated plants in ex-East Germany, at least one of which has been dismantled.
Wiki numbers 25 sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendal_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Katz @ 94, fair enough.
@ 93, I recall an exchange between a French and a German diplomat. The Frenchman was saying how we needed to engage in foreign military adventures to secure access to oil. The German couldn’t see the problem. He said, we just go out and buy the stuff.
I love how there’s only been one mention of increased efficiency. That’s huge, even in Germany where it’s been a priority for quite some time. In Australia it’s not even funny how much energy we waste. Both domestically and in industry.
The PassivHaus standard for homes is phemoninal in terms of what it acheives. And it’s not too hard. Our home insulation program is one example, unfortunately it’s an example of the opposition’s ability to derail a good government program.
Again, the German approach to industry is one of legislative pushing in socially useful directions to a much greater extent than here. Yes, cutting nukes will have an effect – it will strongly push the Germans to come up with better ways to do things. If we’re lucky we’ll end up with something like the VW Beetle or the Haber-Bosch process for energy generation.
The complaint that advances in human health depend entirely on this wasteful use of energy is so wrong it’s hard to address. By that measure Cuban infant mortality (~5/1000) should be greater than China’s (~23/1000) since their per capita energy use is less (900 in Cuba cf 1100 in China).
sg: it is not at all clear from the available evidence however there is some suggestion that the Fukushima rector was damaged by the earthquake before the tsunami hot – (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/fukushima-may-have-leaked-radiation-before-quake.html).
akn, one person died in the sub-basement of the reactor when the tsunami hit, suggesting that he (?) was working there at the time. Maybe that was why.
Incidentally, another piece of news I read on the train yesterday (but very briefly so I may have misunderstood) is that two additional workers have been identified with high radiation exposure.