found in the woods of Heidelberg, with a nuclear plant visible down the valley.
Populist reaction to Fukushima has set back nuclear energy programs in Germany and the U.S.
For example, NRG was finalizing the needed loans for the new U.S. plants when the tsunami hit, and the program shut down.
nice and unique shot.
“And Lord, we are especially thankful for nuclear power, the cleanest, safest energy source there is. Except for solar, which is just a pipe dream.”
Homer Simpson quotes
“All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.”
Ronald Reagan quotes
“The discovery of nuclear reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than the discovery of matches”
Albert Einstein quotes
"Populist reaction to Fukushima has set back nuclear energy programs in Germany and the U.S. "
To add some perspective, regarding Germany it’s not quite like that. Anti-nuclear sentiments in Germany go back decades – big protests, billions spent on policing waste transports, big fights about the location of waste storage, etc.
Abandoning nuclear power was put into law a decade ago in Germany by the social democrat/green government (Schroeder and Fischer). Shutdown dates were set for all nuclear stations, and generally were criticized back then by green party voters for being way too long, allowing future governments to reverse the decision. The first few plants were due to be switched off this year according to the original law. However, last year Merkel pushed through an extension for these old stations, claiming they’re perfectly safe despite being old technology. After Fukushima that assessment wasn’t popular any more. Some stations are actually located in earthquake areas, and also in very populated areas ( opendata.zeit.de/atomreaktoren/#/de/ )
Additionally, it recently surfaced that the planned nuclear waste storage facility in Gorleben wasn’t safe (ground water has been leaking in for quite a while, which was kept secret for quite a while – needless to say, trust in the nuclear industry is quite low in Germany). So now there is still no concept at all what to do with all the waste (which inconveniently does not fit underneath a desk … 😉 )
So a more adequate statement would be
"After Fukushima the German government abandoned plans to not abandon nuclear energy"… 🙂
Switzerland now followed, phasing out nuclear energy until 2034 (starting to switch off stations in 2019). The exception they included is if there is new nuclear energy technology which, in the case of a worst-case accident, will not affect the environment outside the facility grounds, and if waste will be harmless within 100 years (need to check the facts, just read it on a newspaper on a train).
Btw. the same red/green government introduced the clean energy feed-in tariff and a range of other programs, which was a big success in my opinion. Germany became world leader in wind energy, a major player in solar energy, and created several 100,000 jobs in renewables.
I take the other view, if people put so much hope into future nuclear technology that is not proven at the moment, why not put hope into the vast variety of renewable energy and storage technology? Why not put the big funding that nuclear energy gets (e.g. 10 billion+ for ITER, and all the billions in other subsidies) into distributed storage (e,g, composite vacuum flywheels), alternative fuels (e.g. biofuel based on "weeds" that grow in salinated deserts), solar-thermal generation and storage (e.g. Ammonia storage, as developed by the ANU in Australia, or molten salt in Spain), and a wide-area DC grid?
Well, from a venture perspective, we are putting our funding into renewables, and not nuclear (the regulatory environment makes that completely unattractive). So perhaps I am unbiased when I say that nuclear, broadly defined, is so obviously essential to our future energy mix that it’s irresponsible to delay its development out of misplaced fear.
The clarification on German policy is much appreciated. Thanks. I think it’s still accurate to say that there has been a recent setback, but if I am understanding your post, in the long arc of history, the larger setbacks occurred earlier.
So Germany does not find it hypocritical that they are becoming dependent on France for nuclear energy imports?
If France priced base load support like an oligopolist should, it could get pretty interesting. When "Italy shut down its four reactors in 1987 (in reaction to Chernobyl in 1986), it soon became Europe’s largest energy importer, mostly from nuclear France" (Brand, p.98)
And now, with the "Fukushima decision," Germany flipped from being an exporter of energy to France to a nuclear import nation, prompting France to observe “Germany will be even more dependent on fossil fuels and imports and its electricity will be more expensive and polluting" (Bloomberg)
So while I applaud the rapid development of renewables wherever possible, and that’s where I focus my energies at work, nevertheless, these policy snafus remind us that shifting energy generation away from nuclear is a much bigger health threat than shifting more energy generation toward it. 10x as many people die in Asia alone from coal, every year (no disaster or hypothetical required), than have ever died from all nuclear energy activities globally. And even more surreal, on the topic of policy and fear, Brand summarizes the World Health Organization study: "Fear of radiation is a far more important health threat than radiation itself." Dwell on that for a moment… The human dialog on nuclear energy has killed more people than nuclear energy.
I hear that Germany has one of the largest solar energy programs in the world.
I am still counting on harnessing the tide….maybe.
Bay of Fundy etc
Not in my lifetime..
Since we might be close to developing a new break-through theory in physics – theoretically possible to envision new sources of energy – based on trends in technology – previous period started around 1940-60 is over and something new is coming soon – the coming change is helical and the growth is exponential – thus there is a possibility of growing new miracle (back to Bill Gate’s TED talk). One major concern is the impact on the balance in the world. Who will get to it first… and right now it is probably in the gray area between science and science-fiction any way:D
Finding a clean, safe and responsible solution to our ever-increasing energy needs is of course not easy. Btw. I did not mean to criticize you or DFJ – I am aware that you are heavily involved in green tech. I was actually more thinking in terms of direct and indirect government subsidies, which I think should go towards renewable energy, not nuclear – this industry already makes enough profit, they shouldn’t need subsidies and concessions.
And maybe I am biased a bit – I grew up within 30km of 3 nuclear power plants… 🙂 Generally, all I meant to say is that I believe that we can do the transition to renewable energy without nuclear. One thing I realised is that everything said about nuclear energy has to be taken with a large grain of salt. I’m open to new nuclear technology, but first there has to be a solid answer about the waste problem, a convincing and honest safety concept, and an honest calculation of total cost (including public liability, waste disposal, deconstruction of plants, etc., and true costs as opposed to vastly optimistic estimates that have to be padded with tax dollars in the end). I do agree with the Swiss compromise (no radiation danger outside the compound, and waste harmless within 100 years), but it would have to be absolutely convincing and proven in practice.
Regarding France, maybe there is some hypocrisy in buying their nuclear energy. Maybe i’m a hopeless optimist, but I think this will be only a minor part of future German energy. Calculations I saw in some newspaper indicated that Germany can cover its energy needs most of the time without nuclear power. It’s not such a huge part of the mix anyway at 23%, quite comparable to the current level of renewables. It is hoped that the offshore wind parks will come online soon, but that is unfortunately delayed by environmental concerns about some muddy coastal wetlands, forcing developers 40km out into deep waters. It’s never quite as easy as it seems… but that’s a different story 🙂
Regarding death tolls caused by radiation, ingestion of radioactive substances, and coal exhaust, I am a little sceptical how meaningful numbers can be obtained, and how to properly separate causes of death. The estimates for Chernobyl range from 4000 to >100,000 depending who you ask… Due to the lack of solid numbers, it is easy to argue one way or the other – a lobbyist’s playground…
I think what is needed is substantial government funding (=many billions, as was done to kickstart nuclear initially) for electricity storage technology, and the construction of a wide-area DC grid. Once there is enough storage and power distribution capacity, it is much easier to massively increase the percentage of renewable energy sources.
interesting article on the carbon footprint of nuclear energy:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99.html
Again, quite a range of estimates…
Leave a Reply to Pieces of Eye Cancel reply