Germany to permanently close all its nuclear power plants

[doodle]

While US is struggling to find a durable solution for the sticky problem of its "packed spent-fuel storage sites (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110323/ap_on_bi_ge/us_japan_quake_us_spent_fuel)", Germany is taking a drastic step to completely stop all its nuclear power plants:


30 May 2011
Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022

Germany's coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.

The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208


Could this affect rest of Europe/US nuclear power plant policy?

Last week EU had announced major stress tests for 143 nuclear reactors in Europe. Not clear if Germany's decision had anything to do with this announcement:


MAY 25, 2011, 10:37 A.M. ET

EU Sets Nuclear Stress-Test Criteria
BY ALESSANDRO TORELLO

BRUSSELS—The European Union has agreed to test its nuclear plants for natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, as well as for man-made catastrophes, while leaving the sensitive issue of terrorist attack-prevention for later, the European Commission said Wednesday.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576344703363712480.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Remember when Socialists put forth arguments to improve the state of man? Yeah...I don't (it's been 60 years). Fuck you John K. Galbraith. Well, more rods for us! Now all we need to do is legalize Nuclear power here in the States. Hey AF any work being done on energy freedom in NH?

[malkusm]

Ummm....what are they replacing them with?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ummm....what are they replacing them with?

Socialists would like to go back to early man and use Windmills. Ha! 'Progressive' policy right there.

[doodle]

Ummm....what are they replacing them with?

Not sure, but they have some modernization of traditional technologies in the works.

Waldeck 1 pumped-storage hydro plant in Germany begins operation

HEIDENHEIM, Germany 6/1/10 (PennWell) --

The Waldeck 1 pumped-storage hydropower plant in Germany has officially been inaugurated, Voith Hydro Inc. reported. Voith Hydro, together with the consortium partner for civil construction, Bilfinger Berger, developed the overall technical concept for the hydro plant.

http://www.hydroworld.com/index/display/article-display/9819548143/articles/hrhrw/hydroindustrynews/pumpedstoragehydro/2010/06/waldeck-1_pumped-storage.html

[ThyGivaOfRep]

all thanks to the nuclear corporatism in Japan

[Agorism]

I don't really trust nuclear power anymore.

[kahless]

It is sad really to see people whom I thought were freedom loving push a technology that requires perpetual tax servitude now and for generations to come.

One can only hope I am good company with other Libertarians or anarchists that will not allow us to be perpetually enslaved and polluted by your nuclear institution.

[malkusm]

It is sad really to see people whom I thought were freedom loving push a technology that requires perpetual tax servitude now and for generations to come.

One can only hope I am good company with other Libertarians or anarchists that will not allow us to be perpetually enslaved and polluted by your nuclear institution.

Perpetual tax servitude? How exactly does nuclear energy require this? Do you think that if governments did not monopolize the right to build and maintain a nuclear power plant (not just in our own country, but practically worldwide), that private companies would not build nuclear plants without taxpayer support?

[doodle]

It is sad really to see people whom I thought were freedom loving push a technology that requires perpetual tax servitude now and for generations to come.


Tax servitutde is no good to artificially support them if that is what is going on.

[UK4Paul]

Remember when Socialists put forth arguments to improve the state of man? Yeah...I don't (it's been 60 years). Fuck you John K. Galbraith. Well, more rods for us! Now all we need to do is legalize Nuclear power here in the States. Hey AF any work being done on energy freedom in NH?

Does energy freedom come with the right to spew radiation across a wide area?

[kahless]

Perpetual tax servitude? How exactly does nuclear energy require this? Do you think that if governments did not monopolize the right to build and maintain a nuclear power plant (not just in our own country, but practically worldwide), that private companies would not build nuclear plants without taxpayer support?

1. They cannot be built and waste maintained infinitely without taxpayer dollars. You are therefore enslaving future generations to government.

I suspect your answer would be that if we did not have government regulations it could be funded privately. The regulations are there to prevent accidents for a technology that completely unforgiving for any kind of accident and despite regulations are still uninsurable.

Ancaps would say the plants would still be built with safety in mind to protect their investment. Thus it makes no difference if regulations were eliminated since the plants would still invest to implement the safety protocols and thus still cannot be built without taxpayer dollars. If the facility does not invest in safety then we all ultimately have to pay the price so again we are back to taxpayers footing the bill since they are still uninsurable.

2. If the nuclear company goes bankrupt for whatever reason the taxpayers must maintain the waste and facility infinitely. You are therefore again enslaving future generations to government to maintain failed facilities and their waste.

3. If a new cheaper clean technology surpasses nuclear power at some point in the future you will have nuclear plants declaring bankruptcy since they will be unable to compete. You are therefore again enslaving future generations to government to maintain the obsolete technology and it's waste.

[malkusm]

1. They cannot be built and waste maintained infinitely without taxpayer dollars. You are therefore enslaving future generations to government.

Sure they can. Just as space shuttles or aircraft carriers can be built without taxpayer dollars. The non-existence of these things today does not mean that they are not possible. Privately funded and maintained nuclear plants have not come into existence because they have not been allowed to. You seem to concede this below, though, so let's talk about how practical they would be....


I suspect your answer would be that if we did not have government regulations it could be funded privately. The regulations are there to prevent accidents for a technology that completely unforgiving for any kind of accident and despite regulations are still uninsurable.

Ah yes, the regulations are there to prevent accidents. The regulators do such a good job in every other industry. The coastal land on the Gulf of Mexico is similarly "uninsurable" against something such as the BP oil spill. There were regulators. The regulators failed. The left's solution was that we shouldn't have any offshore drilling at all. Sounds like you're making a similar argument here. You might agree with the statement that there should be no offshore drilling....I have no idea. But you'd need to, in order to be consistent.


Ancaps would say the plants would still be built with safety in mind to protect their investment. Thus it makes no difference if regulations were eliminated since the plants would still invest to implement the safety protocols and thus still cannot be built without taxpayer dollars. If the facility does not invest in safety then we all ultimately have to pay the price so again we are back to taxpayers footing the bill since they are still uninsurable.

I am not an ancap. If an accident were to happen, it would be the responsibility of government to prosecute the case. You're once again assuming that regulation is a panacea for a potential accident. Again, this is not the case. There were 130 financial regulatory agencies in 2008, and the financial system almost collapsed anyway. Most of the regulators in any industry are former industry executives or managers who have good relationships with the people they are regulating - and, therefore, they aren't going to take a "hard line" stance on the regulations that exist.


2. If the nuclear company goes bankrupt for whatever reason the taxpayers must maintain the waste and facility infinitely. You are therefore again enslaving future generations to government to maintain failed facilities and their waste.

If the nuclear company goes bankrupt in a competitive market, there are going to be other companies and potential investors around who will buy up the bankrupt company's assets during bankruptcy proceedings. Whoever buys the company would be responsible for the waste.


3. If a new cheaper clean technology surpasses nuclear power at some point in the future you will have nuclear plants declaring bankruptcy since they will be unable to compete. You are therefore again enslaving future generations to government to maintain the obsolete technology and it's waste.

I don't really understand why the government would be tasked to assume responsibility for the nuclear waste in such a situation. Even still, how much does it cost to maintain a nuclear waste site, especially in this case, when it is known that there will never be any more nuclear waste added? I'd be willing to bet it's negligible in comparison to the amount spent on almost anything else the government might be doing at the time.

[doodle]

Sure they can. Just as space shuttles or aircraft carriers can be built without taxpayer dollars. The non-existence of these things today does not mean that they are not possible. Privately funded and maintained nuclear plants have not come into existence because they have not been allowed to. You seem to concede this below, though, so let's talk about how practical they would be....


I just want to comment on one of the many points you made.. and I make this point without being thoroughly educated on this issue. But based on what little I know, the difference in risks associated with private enterprise building a space shuttle vs a nuclear reactor is huge. That impresses on me a cause for concern and need for detailed study.

video link (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284593-quot-US-spent-fuel-storage-sites-are-packed-quot&p=3193206&viewfull=1#post3193206)

[malkusm]

I just want to comment on one of the many points you made.. and I make this point without being thoroughly educated on this issue. But based on what little I know, the difference in risks associated with private enterprise building a space shuttle vs a nuclear reactor is huge. That impresses on me a cause for concern and need for detailed study.

video link (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284593-quot-US-spent-fuel-storage-sites-are-packed-quot&p=3193206&viewfull=1#post3193206)

If you believe that there are things that could be taken care of by private industry but are "too important" or "too dangerous" to be left in the hands of private enterprise, you have lost the argument for capitalism. You have implied that the government can do it more safely and more effectively. So why not let them do everything else, too?

[doodle]

If you believe that there are things that could be taken care of by private industry but are "too important" or "too dangerous" to be left in the hands of private enterprise, you have lost the argument for capitalism. You have implied that the government can do it more safely and more effectively. So why not let them do everything else, too?

Actually I didn't mean to say gov could do it better than private enterprise, primary concern is with the risks associated with the current nuclear plants deployed close to population centers regardless of who does it.

It's like I won't trust private contractors to invade Iraq anymore than I would a government department doing it.

[malkusm]

Actually I didn't mean to say gov could do it better than private enterprise, primary concern is with the risks associated with the current nuclear plants deployed close to population centers regardless of who does it.

It's like I won't trust private contractors to invade Iraq anymore than I would a government department doing it.

That's fair enough. I think it would be rather un-libertarian to ban a specific type of power plant, though. Of course, none of us really know what a free market for energy would look like - it's quite possible that the supply for nuclear power might not exist anyway, due to the added cost of transporting, disposing of, or maintaining the resulting waste, which doesn't exist in other energy sectors.

[kahless]

...Just as space shuttles or aircraft carriers can be built without taxpayer dollars.....

Loan guarantees.



Ah yes, the regulations are there to prevent accidents. The regulators do such a good job in every other industry. The coastal land on the Gulf of Mexico is similarly "uninsurable" against something such as the BP oil spill. There were regulators. The regulators failed. The left's solution was that we shouldn't have any offshore drilling at all. Sounds like you're making a similar argument here. You might agree with the statement that there should be no offshore drilling....I have no idea. But you'd need to, in order to be consistent.



I am not an ancap. If an accident were to happen, it would be the responsibility of government to prosecute the case. You're once again assuming that regulation is a panacea for a potential accident Again, this is not the case. There were 130 financial regulatory agencies in 2008, and the financial system almost collapsed anyway. Most of the regulators in any industry are former industry executives or managers who have good relationships with the people they are regulating - and, therefore, they aren't going to take a "hard line" stance on the regulations that exist.

I specifically framed it as regulation vs non-regulation is not the issue therefore removing it from the debate. I know people in this forum will twist anything you say and make it like you are for regulation or are some sort Socialist. So I went out of my way in my first post to point out that the typically anarchist response here is that even without regulation the same safety protocols would be implemented since the operators would want to protect thier investment. (I posted that as the anarchist response, it is not belief since clearly this industry has failed where regulations do and do not exist).

Comparing a nuclear accident to the BP oil spill is just silly. So therefore based on your response I have to ask what your connection is to this industry that you are willing to sacrifice the fruits of your labor, health and that of your family for generations to come? Self or family employed by them? Are you getting your daily dose of propaganda from a college professor and is this the career you are seeking?



If the nuclear company goes bankrupt in a competitive market, there are going to be other companies and potential investors around who will buy up the bankrupt company's assets during bankruptcy proceedings. Whoever buys the company would be responsible for the waste.

Not if there are less costly alternatives in the future. More to that last point below.



I don't really understand why the government would be tasked to assume responsibility for the nuclear waste in such a situation. Even still, how much does it cost to maintain a nuclear waste site, especially in this case, when it is known that there will never be any more nuclear waste added? I'd be willing to bet it's negligible in comparison to the amount spent on almost anything else the government might be doing at the time.

It is bad investment taking into account containment deterioration, waste management, maintaining the facility, closing the facility and security. For example a typically nuclear power plant closing and clean up could take up 15-20 years costing millions of dollars. If the company is not around and no one is willing to step up to the plate the taxpayers will be forced to do so. There is no way around this since there are much cheaper things an energy company can invest in.

[malkusm]

Loan guarantees.

Want to expand this? Are you saying that the government would necessarily have to guarantee a private nuclear energy company a loan in order for it to survive? If so, then by all means, let the nuclear power industry die. Just let it die on its own merits, and not on the basis of the beliefs held by you or by the wise politicians in DC.


I specifically framed it as regulation vs non-regulation is not the issue therefore removing it from the debate. I know people in this forum will twist anything you say and make it like you are for regulation or are some sort Socialist. So I went out of my way in my first post to point out that the typically anarchist response here is that even without regulation the same safety protocols would be implemented since the operators would want to protect thier investment. (I posted that as the anarchist response, it is not belief since clearly this industry has failed where regulations do and do not exist).

Yes, you mentioned the "ancap" response (which is not an "ancap" response, because it does not rely on anarchy). Then you said: "If the facility does not invest in safety then we all ultimately have to pay the price so again we are back to taxpayers footing the bill since they are still uninsurable."

If your answer to this is not government regulation, then I don't know what on earth you were referring to.


Comparing a nuclear accident to the BP oil spill is just silly. So therefore based on your response I have to ask what your connection is to this industry that you are willing to sacrifice the fruits of your labor, health and that of your family for generations to come? Self or family employed by them? Are you getting your daily dose of propaganda from a college professor and is this the career you are seeking?

I'm a graduate student in economics who believes that free markets should be able to sort this out just like it sorts out all kinds of issues. For full disclosure, I worked in a nuclear-related position for a year. I quit and went back to school, because the red tape was unbearable. 90% of the taxpayer dollars that are being squandered in the industry are government contract and compliance related.


It is bad investment taking into account containment deterioration, waste management, maintaining the facility, closing the facility and security. For example a typically nuclear power plant closing and clean up could take up 15-20 years costing millions of dollars. If the company is not around and no one is willing to step up to the plate the taxpayers will be forced to do so. There is no way around this since there are much cheaper things an energy company can invest in.

It's a bad investment as far as you are concerned. Fine. There were people who doubted the viabilities of automobiles and personal computers when they were first introduced into the market. Not everyone is going to have the same view on what a "good" investment is as you do. If they did, we would just be robots, and there would be no need for a market at all - we'd just magically arrive at the proper solution.

I don't claim to know if nuclear energy would work in a free market, and quite frankly I don't care. I do know that we can't say "Nuclear power should be banned" or "Nuclear power should be heavily regulated" without conceding that pretty much any other market can be subject to the government's whims in the same fashion. So let the market decide.

[Crystallas]

I wish I could remember where I saw a recent study that confirmed that cell phone usage has resulted in an increase of brain disorders.

Yet, by allowing the free market to work and not regulate the radiation, the technology has gotten better and safer. Hmmm, I wonder why? Government? No, they regulated minimum standards that were already circulating the market. The free enterprise system allowed this to happen and improve over time.

[kahless]

Want to expand this? Are you saying that the government would necessarily have to guarantee a private nuclear energy company a loan in order for it to survive? If so, then by all means, let the nuclear power industry die. Just let it die on its own merits, and not on the basis of the beliefs held by you or by the wise politicians in DC.

The companies received loan guarantees. Taxpayer dollars. Simple as that. If the private industry cannot build it then it should not be built. If the private industry cannot support it infinitely, which it cannot, then it should not be built. I will not submit myself or my family for generations to come to support technology you happen to be fond of at the moment.

The nuclear power supporters are just as hypocritical as the anti-war Democrats. Anti-war, but wait unless it is Obama's war. In this case, we have some faction of Libertarians, Anarchists and Conservatives saying we are true to our beliefs except for nuclear power where perpetual subservience seems to be a goal.




Yes, you mentioned the "ancap" response (which is not an "ancap" response, because it does not rely on anarchy). Then you said: "If the facility does not invest in safety then we all ultimately have to pay the price so again we are back to taxpayers footing the bill since they are still uninsurable."

If your answer to this is not government regulation, then I don't know what on earth you were referring to.

Here is my full quote from above where my point was to give both sides of the debate:

"Ancaps would say the plants would still be built with safety in mind to protect their investment. Thus it makes no difference if regulations were eliminated since the plants would still invest to implement the safety protocols".

At the same time people say regulation is too expensive which defeats the argument that without regulation the plant operators would implement the same protocols to protect their investment. So like I said with or without regulation it does not matter. If it is too expensive with regulation then it is too expensive without regulation since the same protocols would be put into place regardless. I personally believe they would not put the protocols in place based on history of the industry not implementing protocols where regulations do and do not exist.



I'm a graduate student in economics who believes that free markets should be able to sort this out just like it sorts out all kinds of issues. For full disclosure, I worked in a nuclear-related position for a year. I quit and went back to school, because the red tape was unbearable. 90% of the taxpayer dollars that are being squandered in the industry are government contract and compliance related.

It's a bad investment as far as you are concerned. Fine. There were people who doubted the viabilities of automobiles and personal computers when they were first introduced into the market. Not everyone is going to have the same view on what a "good" investment is as you do. If they did, we would just be robots, and there would be no need for a market at all - we'd just magically arrive at the proper solution.

Not as far as I am concerned, history proves it is a bad investment and currently without government we would not be building new plants. So here we have people that are worried about this country moving closer to Socialism but have no problem with nuclear socialism.

Automobile and personal computers do not force me and my family for generations to come to be tax subservient to them or face the risk of radioactive contamination.



I don't claim to know if nuclear energy would work in a free market, and quite frankly I don't care. I do know that we can't say "Nuclear power should be banned" or "Nuclear power should be heavily regulated" without conceding that pretty much any other market can be subject to the government's whims in the same fashion. So let the market decide.

I really cannot think of anything I want the government involved in other than environmental issues such as this where the nuclear power industry has proven time and time again they ignore regulations and safety protocols where they do or do not exist.

Perhaps a better solution some have suggested here is that CEO's and board of directors be held criminally accountable for accidents instead. However this does not help us from not being tax subservient to maintain facilities for generations to come.

[enjerth]

If it weren't for the government involvement, we wouldn't be using the nuclear technology we see today. Thorium has been far superior as a fuel, in safety, cost, and toxic storage, than uranium fuel. Thorium technology has been around for half a century, but it's not in favor because we're always after the weapons-grade nuclear byproduct of a uranium reactor, which thorium would not provide.

Nuclear energy could be dirt cheap and incredibly safe.

[acptulsa]

Well, it suits me. I've had GE and WX shorted for a little while now.

[steve005]

atomic power=FAIL

[SkarnkaiLW]

I have to agree with enjerth. Sadly, the State has been involved with the nuclear industry to the hilt, and all it has really managed to do is bring the worst part of the technology closer to us in time. That is nuclear weapons. A freed market would most likely never have put so much energy into such a destructive technology, but the State draws its health from War.
On uranium cycle nuclear fission, the reason loan guarantees are necessary sadly is due to the sheer political nature of power plant development in the US. Which is why we haven't broke ground on any new ones since the 70s, and the ones we have operating should probably have been replaced by now. LFTR would be a significant step in the right direction, but the alphabet soup of agencies involved with nuclear power have no interest in the technology at this point, sadly, as they are working on Gen IV reactor designs, still with the uranium cycle.

[doodle]

Getting nervous about nuclear power

The announcement is bound to send further shock waves through an industry grappling with the consequences of the Fukushima disaster. It will certainly cause casualties – both directly as some governments back away from their nuclear ambitions, and indirectly, by forcing the industry to improve its safety technology, further raising the already daunting price of new reactors.

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01280/0601-nuclear_role_1280981a.jpg


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-smaller-role-for-fossil-fuels/article2040647/?from=2040659

[doodle]

I don't really trust nuclear power anymore.

Why?

[Brian4Liberty]

Last week EU had announced major stress tests for 143 nuclear reactors in Europe.

Stress test? Are these people crazy? That's what blew up Chernobyl. If the design of the plant and storage of the radioactive materials is unstable, flawed and not able to be easily (and truly) shutdown, they need to do what Germany is doing and eliminate them ASAP. Stress testing of a known faulty design is foolish. New and safer designs are what is needed.

[doodle]

In their defense, these seem mostly theoratical tests and do not include some of the the more stringent testing criteria. Also if a region did not recently have a strong quake, it is assumed same trend will continue. There are some gaps in these tests.

[steve005]

Why?

hmm.. maybe the fact that it effects people on the other side of the earth if you mess up, also nowhere to store the waste. I'm not surprised you don't know though because its a complete media blackout. there is more radiaton coming over here now than the in the first 60 days, and it will be coming for next 12 months, its a good time to move to south america, thats where I'm going

[doodle]

Ok thanks, that's a good explanation.. and bit troubling.

[Krugerrand]

This is the problem when you can cause damages that far exceed your ability to pay. Bankruptcy doesn't get the people that are owed money what they're owed. It gets them a percentage of it. And when you're talking about nuclear fallout damages, you're probably looking at recouping somewhere between $0.00 and $0.00001 on every dollar owed.

[doodle]

Good point. Another member has noted earlier that AIG was insurer for Japan plants.

[doodle]

Irreversible:


* UNE 3, 2011, 11:14 A.M. ET

Merkel:German Nuclear Exit Gradual; 2022 Irreversible End-date

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110603-707791.html

[BuddyRey]

I don't believe government should have any authority to shut down nuclear plants, but that doesn't mean nuclear power is an optimally safe or desirable alternative to other energy sources either. Do what you want with it if you can keep potential harm contained and geographically isolated, but if it destroys lives, health, or property, it does violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

[doodle]

I don't believe government should have any authority to shut down nuclear plants, but that doesn't mean nuclear power is an optimally safe or desirable alternative to other energy sources either. Do what you want with it if you can keep potential harm contained and geographically isolated, but if it destroys lives, health, or property, it does violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

Seems like the GE made plants in Japan did violate the "Non-Aggression Principle".