German economist responds to nuclear fission acolytes criticisms of nuke closures

The WSJ ran an online poll asking Wall Street Journal readers what they thought about the decision by Germany. The comments are dominated by the nuclear emergency response brigade of course, expressing their misinformed opinions as gospel truths as they NEI the poll which is sort of like DUing a poll only more tightly coordinated.

And then there, in a firm voice, was this gem...

Margit Kraus wrote:
Most people here have no idea what they are talking about. Merkel's decision to phase out nuclear power is nothing new at all. Ten years ago chancellor Schroeder's center-left government passed a law that stipulated the shut-down of all nuclear plants by 2022. Utilities agreed with it. There has been a phase-out plan in place since then, and Germany has followed this plan and actually is years ahead of the plan in terms of increasing the share of renewable energy.

The decision to shut down all nuclear plants stems from 2001 and the law was in place until last fall - when Merkel decided to extend the life of the nuclear plants, bypassing the Bundesrat and ignoring the fact that the majority of the people opposed her decision. Constitutional complaints against that decision have been filed and are pending.

Hence, Merkel's post Fukushima decision to shut down the nuclear plants is a u-turn on her part, but it is nothing revolutionary in Germany's energy policy. We're merely going back to the old phase-out plan.

And do you really think the government, either Schroeder's or Merkel's would have passed such a law without extensive studies whether or not the phase-out is feasible? There have been dozens of research institutions, governmental and non-governmental, busy with evaluating the plan. All of them agree that shutting down the plants by 2022 is not a problem, not with regard to stable power supply nor with regard to meeting the CO2 goals. Most of them agree that shutting down the plants would be possibly by 2017.

So please do a bit of research before talking about hasty decisions and accusing us of stupidity.



This was her first post in time, but is now the 3rd of 6 as you scroll down. Have fun.

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/germany-shutting-down-its-nuclear?commentid=2548995


Dr. Kraus bio
http://www.zew.de/en/mitarbeiter/mitarbeiter.php3?action=mita&kurz=mkr


http://translate.google.com/

A lot. A very bright woman.

Of course, given the nature of the arguments they toss out it is not that hard, but I thought she did it particularly well.

When I read those comments I was struck by how much of a bubble the nuclear proponents have created for themselves. They are divorced from reality as much as any of Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads because they refuse to acknowledge any critical input; labeling it "antinuke" the same way Limbaugh labels things "liberal".

Blech.

Or that that conservative's goal is to phase out clean energy in favor of decades of coal? Sorry. Facts are inconvenient.

I think you are very, very confused about what a "conservative" is.

In preFukushima polling a consistent pattern of STRONG support for nuclear, coal, fossil fuels is clear - they are supported by the same group of people:

Solar/wind power.........................79%
Nuclear plants...........................36
Fossil-fuel plants.......................33
Coal mining..............................31

Republicans were 20 points more apt to support building more nuclear plants,
Republicans were 14 points more apt to back more coal mining.

The current (post Fukushima) 75% opposition to nuclear by Dems is only about 9 points higher than it was preFukushima.

All of the usual specious claims by the nuclear lobby are being trotted out, and the impression being created reflects very poorly on them.

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/germany-shutting-down-its-nuclear?commentid=2548995#identifier

Or would that question be specious?

While we're on the subject. I'm sure that we can agree that no nation has done a better job of ramping up solar/wind power over the last several years than Germany... right? Can you compare the last five years or so of that furious ramp-up to the annual output of those eight reactors?

resulted in this response:
"Taking a look at recent economic data, I'd be more worried for the US than Germany. Same goes for CO2 emissions. Preaching to Germany about CO2 emissions as an American is the height of hypocrisy. Per capita CO2 emissions are more twice as high in the US than in Germany - and rising. Join the Kyoto states and bring the US per capita CO2 emissions down to German levels, then you can start preaching to us."

Your use of it appears to be misplaced.

How else can you describe a response to the fact that Germany will pay more for power in the next few years and put out more CO2... that says that some other nation is worse off?

Does the fact that Germany has been ahead of the U.S. in producing renewable energy for years now change the fact that they will use more coal (etc) and import more power (including more nuclear) from neighbors next year than last?