Merkel backs proposal to end nuclear power in 2022

May 22, 2011
Reactors 1 and 2 of nuclear power plant Neckarwestheim, run by German energy supplier EnBW, are pictured in Neckarwestheim, southern Germany. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that 2022 was "a good time" for Germany to end nuclear power, backing a proposal by the Bavarian wing of her party.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Saturday that 2022 was "a good time" for Germany to end nuclear power, backing a proposal by the Bavarian wing of her party.

She described as "an important contribution" the scenario set out by the Christian Social Union at a meeting in the southern town of Andechs.

The centre-right government is to set out its strategy by the beginning of June and agree at a cabinet meeting on June 7 or 15.

Following the earthquake and tsunami which wrecked the Japanese nuclear plant of in March, Merkel ordered the closure for three months of Germany's seven oldest reactors.

She also announced a moratorium for the same period of an earlier decision by her government to extend the lifetime of Germany's 17 reactors by an average of 12 years.

Explore further: Scientists invent award winning 2-in-1 motor for electric cars

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Germany shuts down seven reactors

Mar 15, 2011

Germany announced Tuesday the temporary shutdown of the oldest seven of its 17 nuclear reactors pending a safety review in light of Japan's atomic emergency.

German nuclear exit 'would cost up to 2 bn euros'

Apr 15, 2011

German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle said Friday that a switch from nuclear power to alternative forms of energy could cost Europe's top economy up to two billion euros ($2.9 billion) per year.

Google in German solar investment

Apr 07, 2011

Google on Thursday announced a multi-million-euro investment in a solar power plant outside Berlin in what the US Internet giant said was its first clean energy project investment in Europe.

Germany's Merkel vows 'measured' nuclear exit

Mar 17, 2011

Chancellor Angela Merkel vowed Thursday that Germany would speed up the transition to renewable energy as Europe's top economy mulled a "measured exit" from nuclear power after the events in Japan.

German cabinet approves CO2 storage bill

Apr 13, 2011

Germany's cabinet approved a draft law on storing carbon dioxide underground on Wednesday after months of debate as Europe's top economy wrangles over energy policy following Japan's nuclear disaster.

Recommended for you

First self-contained step dimming LED tube

18 hours ago

Samsung Electronics today introduced the industry's first AC Direct step-dimming LED linear replacement for T8 and T12 fluorescent tubes at the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) Convention ...

Battery system will be able to light 2,500 homes

19 hours ago

One of the largest, most environmentally-friendly, battery-based energy storage systems in the nation will be installed at the University of California, San Diego the campus announced today (Sept. 29).

NREL software tool a boon for wind industry

21 hours ago

Wind energy is blowing away skeptics—it's so close to achieving cost parity with fossil fuels that just a little extra efficiency is all that is likely needed to push it into the mainstream and past the ...

Harvesting energy from walking

22 hours ago

A device that fits into a shoe harvests the energy made by walking and successfully uses it in watch batteries.

User comments : 16

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hush1
not rated yet May 22, 2011
All is well...
That ends well.
antialias
3.5 / 5 (4) May 22, 2011
Unfortunately the proposal contains enough backdoor for merkel to keep moving the goalpost. The conservatives (i.e. Merkel's party) have been the staunchest supporters of nuclear for decades.

Luckily the people aren't buying this sudden fake green conscience in the conservatives and are voting for the true green parties. Just today in a regional election the conservatives got severely defeated.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) May 22, 2011

Luckily the people aren't buying this sudden fake green conscience in the conservatives and are voting for the true green parties.


Unfortunately, they are buying the green fake concience, which is ultimately worse.

Why not nuclear power?

Because it's too easy - you don't have to change the society and culture to what the green ideologists want when you can solve the problems in some other way than what they propose.

Energy has to be expensive, resources must be scarce, consumption and energy use must go down, because only under those circumstances do their rhetorics come valid.
kaasinees
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2011
Unfortunately, they are buying the green fake concience, which is ultimately worse.

how?

Why not nuclear power?

There are many reasons...

Because it's too easy - you don't have to change the society and culture to what the green ideologists want when you can solve the problems in some other way than what they propose.

what are green ideologists?

Energy has to be expensive, resources must be scarce, consumption and energy use must go down, because only under those circumstances do their rhetorics come valid.

resources ARE scarce.
energy IS expensive.
what rhetoric?

You are being very implicit.
Titan900
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2011
Is this about fission reactors without the idea building fusion reactors when they become commercially available?

Surely relying on just on renewable energy sources would be irresponsible leaving a unstable power grid?
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2011

what are green ideologists?


Well, my strawman for the green idelogist is the person who needs scarcity of energy for example to justify a certain social ideal. Namely the neo-socialist model whose argument is that since resources are strictly limited, they should be controlled by an authority to ensure proper distribution.

The rhetorics is; the gain of one is the loss of others, so nobody should strive for more than what their neighbor has, and you need a government to ensure that nobody does, or at least succeeds in it.


resources ARE scarce.
energy IS expensive.


Nuclear power is less expensive, potentially very cheap, and with enough cheap energy available to you, recycling (instead of downcycling which is what most "recycling" actually is) materials starts to have a point.

Renewable energies are very very expensive and difficult, both to produce and to use, which is masked by the fact that they are subsidized heavily.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2011
My personal categorization for the "greenies", based on observation of people:

Ideologists: energy/environmental crisis is used as a tool for social change. Anything that solves the crisis is bad, if it disrupts the plan. Don't really care for the environment. (e.g Greenpeace)

Hippies: magical thinkers with a strange version of reality where nuclear power disrupts the "chakra of nature" or something equally incredible bullshit.

The scared: people who don't know much about nuclear power, often possess weird ideas of how nuclear power works, what are the hazards or radiation, why powerplants fail. These are easily led by the ideologists through simple propaganda.

The pessimist: people who basically understand nuclear power, but don't believe the corporations/governments/scientists can ever make it safe enough, or if they can then there's still some hidden caveat which makes it all blow up anyways.

The idiot: "electricity comes from the wall - why do we need nuclear power?"
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2011
And finally there's the misanthrope who hates people and believes we should all die, or most of us should die, or at least revert back to being simpler animals, because people are a virus of nature or something.

These "back to the nature" and "responsible elite" types hate nuclear power because it represents the continuation of the modern human culture and the power of humans to change nature to whatever we desire.
Eikka
2.5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2011
Though one should include simple capitalist competition to the mix as well.

People who produce and sell windmills and other renewable energy technology on the large scale, or have invested in it don't like nuclear power, because renewables and nuclear power don't really get along in the grid, and nuclear power is cheaper. Their interest is to do anything they can to lobby for the removal of nuclear power, so they could sell their stuff instead.

All in all, there are good reasons why you should argue against nuclear power, but in my opinion most people are doing it for all the wrong reasons.
antialias
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2011
Because it's too easy - you don't have to change the society and culture to what the green ideologists want when you can solve the problems in some other way than what they propose.

In germany there has been a society wide agreement that we should stop using nuclear power. This has been the norm since shortly after Chernobyl. The social democracts and the greens put this agreement into law when they were in power at the beginning of the millenium. The current conservative government overturned that (against the people's will).

So it's not a matter of changing the culture to green ideologies. That change has already happened 25 years ago.
Eikka
2.5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2011

So it's not a matter of changing the culture to green ideologies. That change has already happened 25 years ago.


Yet you still used, depended and built on energy from nuclear power for 25 years, and still do. The culture didn't change because it couldn't change then.

I think it's called "let's not and say we did".

It's a feelgood law that plays into the delusions of the people who think going without nuclear power is going to be just peachy.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2011
The total irrationality of the situation is just astounding to me.

People can smoke themselves to death by cigarettes and poison their neighborhood with soot particles from burning wood in their heating systems as an effort to be "green", and spew thorium and uranium sky high from the smokestacks of coal fired powerplants.

And then complain about the hypothetical possibility of a Chernobyl-type accident in a German nuclear powerplant of a completely different design.

I guess slowly destroying yourself and the environment is better.
hush1
not rated yet May 23, 2011
The only experience I have is forty years living and working in Germany. And the only personal contact, are numbered in the tens of thousands countrywide. I concur with the assessment "wide agreement" within the scope of my personal contacts.

Fukushima was Germany's last calling.
This is a second chance. Second chances are rare.
Third chances are nonexistence.
hush1
not rated yet May 23, 2011
@Eikka
Sie reden völlig Quatsch. Menschenkenntnis null.
StandingBear
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2011
If the German government follows through on this, the result will be the generational impoverishment and relegation to permanent third world status of the German Nation. Such would be one of the greatest crimes perpetrated upon the German Volk! Future generations will out of the agony of poverty remember those politicians of today in infamy and disgust as today's luddites are screaming fire in the crowded theater of German politics. Solar requires the sun, and land. A great deal of land! Sunny land! Land that is free of litigation from locals who 'do not want it in their neighborhood', or from economic saboteur luddites that paradoxically or intentionally abound in free and prosperous nations. Germany does not have this free, open, and sunny land. Wind power requires windy places, and the only such places here are the mountains and in the halls of power in Berlin. The only helpers for an energy impoverished Fatherland will be exploiters who will demand intolerable concessions.
Eric_B
not rated yet May 29, 2011
Eikka,

It is ignorant and arrogant to speak for and about others the way you do.

As for your neo-fascist specious screeds about socialism, there can't be anything more "socialistic" by your definition than nuclear power. It's subsidized by taxpayers and the companies that run these plants never pay the full cost of decommissioning them (which is at least the same cost as building them. So it is NOT cheap).

If thorium reactors work then GREAT! If lefties need education on the technology then so be it.

What do born again right wing anti-science anti-intellectual religious freaks know more about science than "hippies"?

How much more do wall st. greedheads who aren't educated in that area know?

Uranium fission designs of the past are DEAD.

BTW wood burning masonry/finnish stoves create almost NO SOOT! What's that? a 200 year old design? Sorry, it is YOU who is ignorant of the social, political and economic implications of these technology designs...