Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumBusting the carbon and cost myths of Germany's nuclear exit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/may/23/energy-nuclear-power-germanyA control room plan of nuclear fuel rods at the former Rheinsberg nuclear power plant in Germany, which is being dismantled at a cost of 560. (Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
With the UK taking another step towards supporting new nuclear power on Tuesday at either no extra cost to the consumer if you believe ministers, or substantial cost if you believe most others it's worth taking a look at what actually happens when you phase out nuclear power in a large, industrial nation.
That is what Germany chose to do after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, closing eight plants immediately 7GW - and another nine by 2022. The shrillest critics predicted blackouts, which was always daft and did not happen.
But more serious critics worried that the three things at the heart of the energy and climate change debate - carbon, cost and security of supply would all head in the wrong direction. Here in Berlin, I have found they were wrong on every count.
On security of supply, critics predicted that Germany would have to import energy to make up that lost by the closure of the nuclear plants. It's an important issue for a nation that imports 70% of its energy. But what actually happened is that Germany simply exported less in 2011: 7TWh instead of 70TWh. "We are still a net exporter," says Franzjosef Schafhausen, a senior civil servant.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 777 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Busting the carbon and cost myths of Germany's nuclear exit (Original Post)
xchrom
May 2012
OP
kristopher
(29,798 posts)1. Growing economy a result of high volume renewable deployment perhaps?
Given a bit of time for analysis and I suspect we'll see a conclusion something like that.
If security of supply and carbon emissions did not suffer as the reactors cooled, surely the cost of electricity must have gone up? And it did, with wholesale spot prices rising 10-15% in the weeks following the Fukushima catastrophe. But a year on, they are now below pre-Fukushima prices by about 10-15%. That is due to fast increasing renewables now 20% of electricity supply - which cut peak costs. Bärbel Höhn, a Green party MP and former state environment minister, says Germany industry now has lower power prices than the UK, France, Spain and Italy.
I posted this on another thread about Japan, but it applies to Germany also. Japan was supplying 17% of its energy demand with nuclear.
And as a point of reference, Germany was providing for 11% of its total energy needs with nuclear, meaning the nation's carbon footprint would be expected to rise a maximum of 11% in a worst case scenario.
Sampling of per capita carbon emissions and global rankings (2008 in metric tons of CO2)
1. Qatar - 53.5
7. Kuwait - 26.3
12. US - 17.5
27. Finland - 10.7
37. Germany - 9.6
38. Japan - 9.5
90. Jamaica - 4.5