Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good

Germany is going the right way. There is no such thing as a safe nuclear plant.

Willib:

borscht:

" Thorium ;) "

a) I was asking user zucronium, not you. b) Thorium is not "green". c) The smiley is pointless.

Such as? Name them.

Thorium ;)

zucronium:

" The staggering costs associated with the japan nuke failures could pay for japan to develop huge new green energy sources. "

Such as? Name them.

" And experts say Germany’s phase-out provides a good map that countries such as the United States, which use a similar amount of nuclear power, could follow "

No it does not, and no wonder the writer does not name those "experts" and their interests.

The German government wants to windmill and solar-panel itself out of the energy problem, but that is simply a recipe for economic ruin.

Fact is, there is no viable substitute anywhere on the horizon for the classic power sources fossil fuel and nuclear. I absolutely agree the governments should fund research to find alternative sources, but declaring by fiat that windmilling works when it does not is ludicrious.

Nuclear energy as we know it is like a credit card. Free energy today, but pay more later.

When it comes time for the planet to pay, however, it will not be our problem, but a huge, dangerous and probably insoluble problem for our children.

Sure, they can all be dangerous in one way or another, but none of the other sources of energy carry the insidious poisons of radioactivity. Good for Germany.

No such thing as a safe nuke plant.

No energy source is safe. Even wind turbine workers require absurdly high wages to risk their necks going up for maintenance. Considering most reactors are fourty or more years old and there have been only 3 major issues since their inception I'd say thay are far safer than any other viable energy source currently available.

Generation IV nuclear plants will be able to use waste more effectively than modern plants use actual fuel. Green sources of energy, in their current forms, are economically unsustainable with their production costs subsidized to a horrific degree. If it can't stand on it's own as an energy production system it should be considered experimental until such a time that it can. Solar and wind energy are currently too expensive to justify, geothermal and hydroelectric are better, and biomass is the best alternative but all of them require far more work before they should even be considered as viable alternatives.

kokorocloud,

they're doing just because it looks like the world is ending over here

From the article:

unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster drifted across the country. A center-left government a decade ago

It doesn't look like Japan had anything to do with Germany's decision to get off the nuclear wagon. Especially since Merkel has been chancellor for six years, not a decade or since 1986.

It seems they are breaking away quite nicely. Too bad they live next to and are - generally - downwind from France. Will other countries follow their lead? Should be interesting to watch.

No such thing as a safe nuke plant. Three weeks ago all nuke plants in japan were deemed to be safe. Risk for contamination is simply to great. Germany is doing the right thing and in the long run its a cheaper way to go. The staggering costs associated with the japan nuke failures could pay for japan to develop huge new green energy sources. Instead it will go for cleanup and paying those damaged by the nuclear waste that poured out of the "safe" fukushima plants in the last few weeks.

I call an about-face by the German government on forsaking nuclear power within a year.

Another victory for Russia. Germany becomes more dependent upon Russia's natural gas. Who will suffer more blackouts in 20 years due to miserable, foolish energy policies, Britain or Germany. It's a coin toss.

Agree with MrDog. This seems like something they're doing just because it looks like the world is ending over here-- and it's not. There's nothing wrong with looking for alternative sources of energy, and nothing wrong with trying to IMPROVE what one already has incase the worst does happen. Decisions like this make me think they're not being rational about this.

While still theoretical, nuclear fusion is touted as a safer, more sustainable way to generate nuclear energy: Fusion plants produce much less radioactive waste, especially if powered by helium-3. But experts say commercial-sized fusion reactors are at least 50 years away.

The isotope is extremely rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. Some experts estimate there a millions of tons in lunar soil -- and that a single Space-Shuttle load would power the entire United States for a year.

Sounds like a race to the moon.

Hey everybody, let's panic and make rash decisions! - Angela Merkel

The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a “catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions.”

Well, she certainly knows how to blow things all out of proportion.

She must be scared because of all the earthquakes and tsunamis they get there in Germany...

Instead of wasting money on "alternative energy sources" (I have an image of a room full of thousands of men, wearing wooly sweaters and rubing balloons up and down on them), they should concentrate on making safer nuclear energy plants.

Wow. Even fusion?