Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

German watchdog pushes to keep coal plants (less nuclear = more coal)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 09:28 AM
Original message
German watchdog pushes to keep coal plants (less nuclear = more coal)
A German regulator is urging authorities to postpone plans to retire four coal-fired power plants operated by E.ON (EONGn.DE: Quote) to make up for capacity lost due to the nuclear phase out, a German paper reported.

Federal Network Agency chief Matthias Kurth wrote to North Rhine-Westphalia's (NRW) premier Hannelore Kraft, asking her to delay the shutdown of four coal-fired units in the regional state planned for end-2012, Financial Times Deutschland said on Friday. "We think this is sensible given the limited power plant capacity following the (nuclear) moratorium," an agency spokeswoman told the German business daily.

...snip...

The Federal Network Agency is currently preparing a report on the current state of power plants due for publication in September. It has also been lobbying to keep one of the closed nuclear plants on standby for the coming winter when demand runs high, but these attempts have not yet generated results as they run counter to the argument that nuclear power is unsafe. The Agency is responsible for overseeing network operators which must ensure that grids are stable and balanced.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE7740...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. No. Blame it on the power industry, not the nuclear moratorium
They lobbied and built an unsustainable power system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. It's unsustainable because idiots who are preparing for a tsunami in Berlin
made it that way.

Yes, the "moratorium" (which will be repealed by shivering Germans this winter) is to blame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Because, we all know
there's no other way that a nuclear fission plant might lose grid connection and its backup power
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Wonder what the odds are: global warming vs. simultaneous meteorite strikes
on every nuclear plant in the world?

It could happen, you know. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Meteorite stikes. Really?
You cant imagine any other way?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20156...

NRC chief urges action on nuclear safety review

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko is urging his agency to decide within 90 days how to proceed with safety changes intended to improve the U.S. nuclear industry's response to catastrophic events such as the tsunami that crippled a nuclear plant in Japan.

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko is urging his agency to decide within 90 days how to proceed with safety changes intended to improve the U.S. nuclear industry's response to catastrophic events such as the tsunami that crippled a nuclear plant in Japan.

A task force appointed by the NRC said last week that nuclear plant operators should be ordered to re-evaluate their earthquake and flood risk. The task force also recommended adding equipment to handle simultaneous damage to multiple reactors and ensuring electrical power and instruments are in place to monitor and cool spent fuel pools after a disaster.

Jaczko said Monday that 90 days is enough time to review the recommendations - and was exactly the amount of time the task force was given to complete its report.

"We all know that some changes are in order," Jaczko said at the National Press Club. "I believe we have enough information at this time to take the necessary interim steps" in response to the task force report. The five-member commission is scheduled to review the task force report on Tuesday.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Your imagination is much more fertile than mine.
Fortunately Obama and Stephen Chu don't rely on fantasy for policy decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. Interesting
So, youre painting the chair of the NRC as a raving loony then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. The chair of the NRC is urging a safety review, not a moratorium.
See the diff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Not just a review
Edited on Fri Aug-05-11 02:16 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Hes been quite clear, "We all know that some changes are in order" Not a moratorium, by any means, but not just a safety review either. (See the diff?)


http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commissio...


In laying out a Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century, the Commissions Task Force has charted a path forward on how we can fundamentally strengthen the NRCs nuclear safety program. The Task Forces recommendations are too extensive for me to fully discuss today. They range in areas from loss of power to earthquakes, flooding, spent fuel pools, venting, and emergency preparedness. They include proposed new requirements for nuclear power plants to reevaluate and upgrade their seismic and flooding protection, to strengthen their ability to deal with the prolonged loss of power, and to develop emergency plans that specifically contemplate the possibility of events involving multiple reactors. Throughout the report, the Task Force emphasizes that effective NRC action is essential in addressing these challenges and that voluntary industry initiatives are no substitute for strong and effective NRC oversight.

In addition to specific recommendations, the Task Force calls on the Commission to redefine adequate protection in light of what we have learned from Fukushima. Now for those of you not steeped in NRC parlance, adequate protection is likely not a familiar term. As our statutory mandate for safety, it is the touchstone of what we do as regulators. It is the standard of safety that the NRC must require of nuclear power plants and other licensees in order to allow them to operate. Over the past 25 years, there have been few occasions when the Commission has deemed it necessary to revisit this standard and redefine how safe is safe enough. We did so after September 11th, and now, the Task Force believes we should do so again, given the insights that the Fukushima accident has provided about rare, catastrophic events. While the decision of whether we redefine this core definition of safety is one for the Commission to make by examining the Task Forces recommendations, its clear that Fukushima was an unacceptable accident and that we need to take strong steps to ensure that type of accident does not happen in the United States.



That is why I am calling today for the NRC and the nuclear industry to commit to complete and implement the process of learning and applying the lessons of the Fukushima accident within five years by 2016. This will take a lot of hard work, strong and decisive leadership from the Commission, and an even stronger commitment by our licensees to put safety first. We have no other choice. The costs of inaction are simply too high.

The Task Force has provided an excellent start to this effort. I believe that we are more than up to the task of seeing this effort through. This is not an NRC problem or a nuclear industry problem. This is an imperative for nuclear safety. The American people are looking to everyone involved in nuclear safety from the operators to the regulators to do their part in continuing to protect the public. We must deliver. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Not a moratorium. The Germans have a moratorium.
I'm always fascinated at the bizarre lengths to which you will go to save face, when you're just wrong.

Give me another winner...please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Once again, you pretend that everything is black and white
It its not a moratorium, its full-speed-ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. NRC Study Shows the Serious Consequences of a Fukushima-Type Accident in the US
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/8243137367/nrc-study-s...

NRC Study Shows the Serious Consequences of a Fukushima-Type Accident in the US

| by Ed Lyman | nuclear power safety | japan nuclear |


UCS has obtained a preliminary analysis by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of a hypothetical severe accident at a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania very similar to the one at Fukushima Daiichi. The NRC analysis finds thateven assuming early evacuation of the areathe accident could cause nearly 1,000 cancer deaths among the population within 50 miles of the plant, on average. Under unfavorable weather conditions, that number could be much higher.

The October 2010 draft report, which UCS obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), contains some of the results of a long-delayed NRC study known as the State of the Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) project. The NRC initiated SOARCA in 2005 to provide updated and more realistic analyses of severe reactor accidents.(Links to the report are given at the end of this post.)



The SOARCA report analyzes the consequences of an earthquake-induced station blackout the total loss of off-site and on-site alternating current (AC) powerat the Peach Bottom nuclear power station in southeast Pennsylvania. This is exactly what happened at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Moreover, Peach Bottom consists of two General Electric Mark I boiling-water reactors. These reactors, known as BWR/4s, are similar to Fukushima Daiichi units 2, 3, 4 and 5. Thus the event chosen by the NRC to analyze in detail several years ago was uncannily close to the Fukushima Daiichi accident.



In summary, the NRC has just spent more than five years and likely a considerable sum of money to essentially reconfirm the validity of the radiological consequence analyses it has been carrying out since the 1980s. This should be a disappointment to nuclear power advocates who were expecting the study to show that the public health consequences of severe accidents were far less than previous studies had indicated. And in fact, the Fukushima accident has provided a real-world demonstration of how large a radioactive release such accidents can cause.

In responding to the UCS FOIA request, the NRC posted the draft SOARCA report on July 14, 2011. It appears in three parts:

SOARCA draft, part 1

SOARCA draft, part 2

SOARCA draft, part 3

The NYT posted a story about this study today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Yikes! The potential for a tsunami in Pennsylvania has been severely underestimated.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I knew youd get to the funny smilies
You really cannot help yourself can you?

Your implicationthat the NRC is concerned about a tsunami in Central Pennsylvaniais absurd. However, the alternativethat there might actually be a valid safety concern on the part of the NRCis unacceptable to you, so you resort to mockery.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1119/ML11192A300.pdf

3.1.1 Initiating Event

The long-term station blackout scenario is a composite of several similar sequences that differ only by their initiating event. The initiators can be a large seismic event or an internal fire or flood. The seismic event is the largest contributor to the composite frequency of this sequence, and is used as the basis for defining consequential events and conditions at the plant. Damage caused by the earthquake is assumed to result in a total loss of offsite power. In addition, onsite AC power is unavailable, with all diesel generators failing to start or run as needed. The diesel generators have a shared configuration between the two units, which causes power failure to affect both units. This analysis considers only the response of failures at one of the two units, however.

3.1.2 System Availabilities

Immediately following the initiating event, specifically the loss of AC power, reactor scram and containment isolation would occur. The station blackout line from the hydroelectric station downstream of the plant site is also assumed to fail because of structural damage to the dam and electric station components. The station batteries are assumed to provide DC power for four hours following loss of AC power, allowing components and systems powered by DC power to operate for this four hour period. This duration of DC power assumes the batteries are at their allowable end of life and that operators successfully follow procedural actions to shed nonessential loads from the emergency DC bus. As a result, high-pressure coolant injection from RCIC and/or high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) would be available for the first four hours following the loss of AC power. Additionally, manual control of the safety/relief valves (SRV) would be available. Note that the station battery beginning-of-life rating is 8 hrs and the end-of- life rating is 2 hrs. Use of a mid-life rating together with load shedding would translate to a longer duration of DC power, on the order of 7 hrs.

3.1.3 Mitigative Actions

An unmitigated MELCOR calculation was performed for the long-term station blackout scenario assuming that manual actions to mitigate the loss of vital safety systems are limited to those currently implemented in EOPs. The effects of additional mitigative actions and equipment at the plant were then examined in a separate "mitigated" calculation. Results of the unmitigated calculation are described in Section 5.1; results of the separated mitigated accident scenario are described in Section 5.2.

Two operator actions were credited in the unmitigated long-term station blackout calculation. First, operators are assumed to open one SRV to begin a controlled depressurization of the reactor vessel approximately one hour after the initiating event. This action is prescribed in station emergency procedures to prevent excessive cycles on the SRV. The target reactor vessel pressure is at, or above, 125 psi, which would permit continued operation of RCIC (or HPCI if necessary). Second, operators are assumed to take manual control of RCIC approximately two hours after the initiating event. This involves local manipulation of the position of the (steam) throttle valve at the inlet to the RCIC turbine to reduce and control turbine speed. This action flow reduces and stabilizes coolant flow from the RCIC pump to maintain reactor vessel level at within a prescribed range.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Holy cow. You must never step outside.
Having to worry about events which occur every thousand years or so must really suck.

And PA is about 600x less likely to have an earthquake like Tohoku. So you could worry yourself right into another eon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. A masterful misdirection!
Congratulations! Well played!

The NRCs scenario is now mine!

You didnt actually read any of the report, did you? (You know, the business about fires, floods)

Of course, youre right, the NRC is crazy. Why prepare for a fault in PA?

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/hazards/es10.pdf


Pennsylvanians probably will continue to feel small earthquakes generated on local faults, although the exact identity of those faults is likely to remain elusive. A large local earthquake, one with magnitude greater than 6, though unlikely, is not impossible. A probabilistic analysis that takes into consideration the threat from earthquakes both outside and inside Pennsylvanias borders indicates a relatively low level of earthquake hazard in our commonwealth. Nevertheless, some precautions might be in order. These include contingency planning by emergency management agencies and emergency response services; incorporation of at least moderate earthquake resistance into the design of new buildings and other engineered structures, such as bridges and pipelines; and individual preparedness that would include having on hand a flashlight, battery-powered radio, water and food supply, and first-aid kitas one might prepare for the possibility of a disaster of any sort. Further information about how to prepare for earthquakes and other emergencies may be obtained from the South- eastern Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Red Cross, 23rd and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or from their web site at http://www.redcross-philly.org .

(No preparation at a nuclear plant is required, because theyre completely safe!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
47. The entire point of a regulatory agency is to be concerned about safety.
The fact that they ARE concerned about guaranteeing safety is a sign that the NRC is operating correctly. I'm sure that if they weren't closely examining safety, you would take that as evidence that they were shills in the pocket of Big Uranium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. And the potential for hurricanes in Florida!
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/7529027683/fission-sto...

Fission Stories #48: Hurricane Andrew vs. Turkey Point

| by Dave Lochbaum | nuclear power safety | fission stories |

Figure 1

Hurricane Andrew hit south Florida on August 24, 1992. The eye of the hurricane, which had sustained winds of up to 145 miles per hour with gusts up to 175 miles per hour, passed directly over the Turkey Point nuclear plant site and caused extensive damage to its four generating units. Turkey Point, located about 25 miles south of Miami, had two oil-fired units and two nuclear-powered units. Figure 1 shows the two nuclear units in the right foreground with the two oil-fired units in the left background.The hurricane knocked out all offsite power for the plant for more than five days, caused the total loss of the plants communication systems, blocked the access road to the site with debris, and damaged the fire protection and security systems as well as the warehouse facilities. There was no damage to the safety related systems except for minor water intrusion. No radiation was released to the environment. The nuclear units, which had been manually shut down hours before the hurricane arrived, remained in a stable condition.

The telephone systems at Turkey Point did not function because the hurricane damaged the onsite antennas and the offsite repeating stations. Except for one hand-held radio, the plants radio systems did not function during and immediately following the storm. Overall, all offsite communications were lost for about four hours during the storm, and reliable communications were not restored for about 24 hours following the storm.

The fire protection system at the plant was disabled when winds knocked a high tower tank onto a 500,000 gallon tank containing water for the fire protection system. Figure 2 shows the blue base of the high tower tank (B) and the green walls and siding of the demolished water tank (A). Figure 3 shows the red fire protection system piping snapped in two when the high tower tank smashed the 500,000 gallon tank. The high tower tank was intended to supply water by gravity feed for fighting fires while the tank held water that diesel-driven and electric-motor-driven fire pumps could deliver for fire fighting.


Figure 2


Figure 3


In addition, the winds severely cracked the exhaust stack on the Unit 1 oil-fired plant. Figure 4 shows a close-up of the cracked exhaust stack. If the damaged stack had fallen, it could have landed on the building housing the emergency diesel generators for the nuclear units. Considering that the diesel generators were the only source of ac power at the plant for several days, it was extremely fortunate that the leaning stack of Turkey Point did not fall.


Figure 4


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Fission Stories #50: Manual Inaction
Edited on Fri Aug-05-11 03:02 PM by OKIsItJustMe
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/8081059829/fission-sto...

Fission Stories #50: Manual Inaction

| by Dave Lochbaum | nuclear power safety | fission stories |

About 10 years ago, NRC inspectors uncovered violations of fire protection requirements at many plants. Some plant owners did not physically separate the electrical cables for safety systems and their backups, which meant that a fire could destroy both sets of cables. They relied on operator manual actions to save the dayoperators would race to the far end of fire-damaged cables and manually start or stop equipment as needed to cool the reactor core. Because these operator manual actions had not been formally reviewed and approved by the NRC, they were illegal.In June 2011, the NRC released a report on its evaluation of safety problems caused by the lack of a different kind of manual actions. The manual this time refers to the manuals supplied by vendors with safety equipment installed at nuclear plants.

The vendor manuals contain instructions on how to install, operate, test, and maintain safety equipment. But like directions in a recipe, these instructions are only successful when followed. The NRCs evaluation concluded that many safety problems are caused by workers not following the vendors guidance. Between 2008 and 2010, the NRC found that manual inactions:
  • caused 40 safety system failures

  • caused 15 reactor shut downs

  • triggered 2 nuclear plant emergencies

  • resulted in 45-50 NRC inspection findings each year

  • factored in approximately 30 percent of risk significant safety violations


The NRC was justifiably concerned that not following vendor recommendations could lead to the common-cause failure of an entire array of emergency components. For example, if pumps are not properly lubricated, they could all be disabled by overheated bearings.

The NRC concluded:
While there appears to be no distinguishable upward trend, the consistent number of findings year to year, combined with the number of significant events related to ineffective use of vendor recommendations, indicates a real opportunity for licensees to improve their programs and reduce their vulnerability so such events.
This NRC evaluation report is available online.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. If you keep posting blurbs from the Union of Concerned Wannabe Scientists
you'll damage your reputation. Especially the engaging fiction created by Wannabe Scientist Dave Lochbaum.

http://theenergycollective.com/margaretharding/42438/fi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Very good!
The Full Monty!
  • False Dichotomy
  • Personal Abuse
  • Poisoning the well


Are these reports false? Or, are they simply inconvenient?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-09-11 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #30
45. Well, they *are* CONcerned about where their next corporate donor check is gonna come from!
That has to count for something...

Union of CONcerned Sciency-twists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
36. Right. That would be impossible! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJvR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
35. LOL!
You never know! There is the Spree and several large lakes in the area... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. So the plan is to shut down 4 coal plants. Good.
Germany To Construct 2,800 Miles Of Transmission Lines as it Abandons Nuclear Power for Renewable Energy
by Timon Singh, 08/04/11

As Germany faces life without nuclear power, the German government faces a whole host of challenges in order to properly distribute renewable energy. This includes upgrading grid technology, mustering investments, installing 200-foot-tall transmission towers that could potentially ruin the landscape of picturesque villages and vineyards.

The construction of these new transmission networks is key, however there is the potential for a lot of internal political wrangling and rising costs. The grid cannot become the bottleneck of the energy shift, said Stephan Kohler, president of the German Energy Agency, or Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH. Wind and solar power wont do any good if we cant transmit it to where it will be used or stored.

However the goal could be worth the cost, as Germanys new renewable energy plan aims to reach 80 percent by 2050.


http://inhabitat.com/germany-to-construct-2800-miles-of... /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Demand for Wind Power, Wind Turbines Rises with German Nuclear Power Shutdown
Demand for Wind Power, Wind Turbines Rises with German Nuclear Power Shutdown

The German plan to completely phase out nuclear power by 2022 announced May 30 by Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Christian Democratic Union-led political alliance is boosting demand across the alternative and renewable power value chain.

As a result, the EUs largest member nation will add 1,800 megawatts (MW) worth of new wind turbines this year, 16% more than the 1,551 MW total for 2010, according to BWE, the German Wind Energy Association. Installed wind power capacity totaled 27,214 MW in Germany last year, up 5.6% from 25,777 in 2009, according to the European Wind Energy Association.

European offshore wind power capacity has grown 4.5% in the first half of 2011, as 101 new offshore wind turbines with a total 348 MW capacity were connected to power grids in Germany, Norway and the UK. Another 2,844 MW are currently under construction, the EWEA reported recently.

The German government has laid out a roadmap for the nuclear phase-out, which calls for renewable power sources to replace the capacity lost from shutting down all its 17 nuclear power reactors by 2022. Eight of them had been shut down as of late June, according to a Voice of America report....

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/02/demand-for-wind-pow...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Germany Boosts Clean-Energy Research by 75% to Ease Nuclear Exit
Germany Boosts Clean-Energy Research by 75% to Ease Nuclear Exit

The German government agreed to increase investment in clean-energy technology research by about 75 percent as Europes largest power market prepares to exit nuclear generation by 2022.

Chancellor Angela Merkels Cabinet will pump 3.4 billion euros ($4.9 billion) into renewables, energy efficiency, energy storage and grid-technology research in the next three years, the Environment Ministry said today in an e-mailed statement.

We need innovative and efficient energy technologies to make the path into the age of renewable-energy sources safe and affordable, Economy Minister Philipp Roesler said in the statement.

Merkel said in June she will replace Germanys 17 reactors with a combination of renewable sources and fossil-fuel-based power plants, after explosions at Japans Fukushima nuclear complex stoked safety concerns in Europes largest economy...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/germany-boosts...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. These were old coal plants that were shutting down as NEW coal plants replacesd them.
Now even the oldest/dirtiest need to be brought back from the dead to keep the lights on.

IOW... no... not "good".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. It is hard trade
They REALLY want to shut down the nuclear plants but they can not let the population freeze in the dark. No easy alternative while renewables spin up (pardon the pun) to take their place. Can't be done overnight. Japan faces the same sort of choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Can you substantiate from the German plan that has been actually been adopted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Were you under the impression that the plan they just adopted was that granular?
Edited on Fri Aug-05-11 01:38 PM by FBaggins
By all means, continue to spin... but do try to make sense, ok?

These were plants that were scheduled to close this year and next due to age. They sit right next to a brand new plant (of greater capacity) that is almost complete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. What their plan states
Edited on Fri Aug-05-11 03:52 PM by kristopher
During the transition period the energy sector will require highly flexible gas-fired power plants, as well as efficient gas CHP power plants. As has been shown by UBA24, additional construction of coal-fired power plants will not be necessary to secure energy supply.

Energy Target 2050: 100% Renewable Electric Supply p. 32
Federal Environment Agency Germany 2011


What is most damning to your argument, baggins, is that the economic and political entities that WANT to build more coal are the same as those that want to extend nuclear. Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin. They don't care if they have nuclear or coal; as long as they can preserve an energy market that is centered around them, they are happy. What both the coal AND nuclear industry reject however, is the system that displaces them - renewables.

Last week Georgia Power's CEO was trying to defend shifting financial risk from corporations to ratepayers via CWIP financing. After making clear his abundant enthusiasm for nuclear he continued on to say that his utility was experiencing a horrendous amount of regulation from the EPA that was "overreaching in terms of what theyre trying to do relative to regulating coal-fired generation in this country and basically putting coal out of business.

He continued on to say of his network of coal plants, " Well do everything we can to protect it, ...I think its pretty secure.

Coal and nuclear - two sides of the same coin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-06-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. Because Germany and Georgia both start with a "G" ???
Two sides of the same coin?

One pollutes the air, land and water, kills a million people a year, stores nuclear waste in open pits.

The other is nuclear power.

:dunce: two sides of the same coin :dunce:

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-06-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. How strange. You talked about a "plan" that has already been "adopted"... then posted that?
That is by no means an adopted plan.

The plan that they have adopted is clear. The German greens are (correctly) complaining that the government is planning to build new coal plants... and do it with climate-change cash.

What is most damning to your argument, baggins, is that the economic and political entities that WANT to build more coal are the same as those that want to extend nuclear.

Your life is just one big circular argument, isn't it? YOU see anyone that isn't 100% renewable as being the same so you just operate under that assumption and even use it as evidence for other arguments. You've tried proving it in the past and failed misserably, but keep trying to push that spin.

Underlining it doesn't make it any more persuasive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-11 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
46. Just in case you ever care what their ACTUAL plan states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. Germany is still planning to build new fossil fueled plants as well during its transtion off of
nuclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. 20.82 - 19.18 - 10.06
Tons per capita of CO2e emissions in 2008
Australia 20.82 - United States 19.18 - Germany 10.06
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. They are indeed doing better than many, though new fossil fuel plants were a surprise to many of us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. What new fossil plants?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. LOL n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
37. But please explain...
which one of you pro-nukes is which? I am pretty sure that isnt you on the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-06-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Easy...
You are on the right, Kris on the left, your hosiery surrogate is in the middle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-11 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #38
44. Your reading comprehension is terrible...
For a so-called professor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-06-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. What a shock!
"I know you are but what am I" is really your best response?

Don't worry. You're bound to grow out of that by the time you hit your teens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
42. Germans use public transit far more than Americans or
Edited on Sun Aug-07-11 04:24 PM by txlibdem
Public transit use (very nice chart):
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/natgeo_surv...

Every day or most days: USA 5%, Australians 8%, ... Germans 20%
At least once a week: USA 2%, Australians 7%, .... Germans 13%

I guess that would contribute to the reduced per capita CO2 numbers, but there's more. A popular trend in Germany is to build suburbs without cars:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12subur...

Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vaubans streets are completely car-free except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home.

As a result, 70 percent of Vaubans families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. When I had a car I was always tense. Im much happier this way, said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.

Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called smart planning.


And the average temperatures determine who is forced to use more electricity (and today that means higher CO2 emissions):
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/climate/Germany....
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/climate/Australi...
http://www.climatetemp.info/usa /


Sometimes "per capita" can confuse an issue. Here are the actual CO2 emissions per nation (China emits far more than USA):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/wor...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. And have a much higher population density
And smaller houses... and climate differences... and any number of valid differences.

But none of that matters because the poster does not allow facts to inform his conclusions. He starts with his conclusion and assumes that any fact supports it. See his frequent claim that the same people who support nuclear support coal. He has frequently posted a poll showing 35% support (iirc) for each and just assumes that they're the same 35%. Or a power company owns both a reactor and a coal plant (and wants both) so hat proves it (regardless of the fact that they also own wind turbines and solar panels and hydro plants).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC