most popular:
2008 Holiday Gift Guides



most popular: Hot Home Wind Turbines


most popular:
$19k Electric Car in US


th comments
ecobore said: "trouble is it's too big! pesky UK plugtops!..." [read]

earthNRG said: "My wife and I typically share one entre and a salad with no leftovers. Occasionally we'll each order entres and take leftovers for lunch the next ..." [read]

mysoultokeep said: "I have to confess that I am a huge fan of TerraCycle. I fall on the recyclable side of this -- biodegradable still treats packcaging as a..." [read]

said: ""I wonder just how much difference this fridge will make to energy consumption.. Yes I gather that it could mean big loads off the grid, but I want..." [read]

brennan said: "As an owner of the KOR bottle (swag from an IDSA conference), I can say that it is definitely not a better alternative to disposable bottles. ..." [read]

Germany Considers Allowing Seventeen Nuclear Plants To Remain Operating

by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 07.14.08
Business & Politics (news)

Historical-world-nuclear-capacity-additions-germany-phase-out.JPG

Germany May Keep Nuclear Plants Running
The plan adopted in that preceding German administration had been to phase out nuclear power generation by 2020. Apparently, there are 17 nuclear plants still operating in Germany; and, Chancellor Angela Merkel, reacting to the political sentiments unleashed by growing electricity bills and the need to meet GHG-equivalent emission reduction commitments, is asking for a reconsideration of the nuclear phaseout goal. In spite of the fact that Germany did not, historically speaking, have much nuclear capacity to begin with (see graphic), there is popular sentiment behind this changing vision.

Polls show most Germans oppose nuclear power but skyrocketing energy costs have sparked the calls to reconsider the phase-out...Some conservative leaders have proposed using the potential surplus from allowing Germany's power plants to continue operation to lower energy bills -- a suggestion polls published at the weekend showed is gaining some support.

Germany is quite far ahead of the USA and Canada in the setting of government incentives for renewable power; and, they continue to expand those opportunities. (For an example, see Germany Targets 125000 Megawatts Of Wind Power By 2030) Yet in spite of those advances, the possibility of needing nuclear power is dawning.

Germany Approves Offshore Wind Power Test Field in Lower Saxony

Wind Power Business Brief

New Wind Power Record in Spain: 40.8% of Total Demand!


Via::Yahoo News/AFP, Merkel calls for slower nuclear phase-out in Germany Image credit::NEI Nuclear Notes, CFR’s Balancing Benefits and Risks of Nuclear Energy, Historical Nuclear Capacity Additions

Comments (5)

Once built, nuclear plants are cheaper to operate than any other non-renewable source. I'd rather see them keep the nuclear plants open and close 17 coal plants.
Nuclear, while not perfect, is certainly cleaner than coal.

jump to top Anthony [TypeKey Profile Page] says:

Coal and nuclear power are equivalently dirty. The nuclear dirtiness is less near-term, but the nuke's odor is more or less permanent. Solar will save us. Here's hoping.

jump to top Ross Nicholson says:

I'm more worried about air pollution changing our planet so its about as hospitable as Venus.

In comparison storage of radioactive materials is way less worrying, the effect is very localized if it escapes and Chernobyl has shown that it actually helps nature out .. increasing mutation rates so evolutionary adaption happens faster. Not that I would want an radioactive incedent by me either ... it just won't end the world as hospitable planet that supports life.

jump to top john says:

When big money invests *their* money they buy wind, solar & geothermal and sell the power. Look into it and you'll find Pickens buying $12B worth of wind power & several big private money groups building & even trying to buy the existing wind, solar & geothermal projects so they can buy the plants and sell the electricity forever.

By contrast, none of the big private investors want to own nuclear plants. Only public utilities that can pass the costs on want them.

Why? Because nuclear plants are not lifecycle cost effective. The Browns Ferry Unit 1 took five-years and $1.9B to fix. Not to build, just to fix. And the latest cost estimate on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was $61B more and it's not even done yet. So when McCain waves his hands around and claims we should build 100 more reactors for $2B each in the next 2 years he's scamming. Duke Energy's own study shows $6B and 10 years to build their new reactor and they only want it if they get to pass on the costs.

Don't fall for it.

jump to top Ugly American says:

I read somewhere today that the German government changed its mind, and will indeed shut down all their nukes by 2020, if not indeed sooner.

jump to top RemyC [TypeKey Profile Page] says:

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

th ads
th top picks
th ads