Skip to main content

German Nuclear Update

After Germany's latest parliamentary election left the Bundestag in a deadlock, presumptive Prime Minister Angela Merkel has been forced to create a coalition government with the Social Democrats headed by her predecessor, Gerhard Schroder.

One of the main sticking points has been the phase out of Germany's nuclear plants. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union wanted to overturn it, or at least delay the deadline. Schroder's party, who engineered the deal with an assist from Germany's Green Party, wouldn't agree to any change.

Here's how it came out according to Bloomberg:
NUCLEAR ENERGY: The lifespan of Germany's nuclear-power plants won't be extended. An agreement signed by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and power companies five years ago that aims to phase out nuclear power by 2021 will be left unchanged. Merkel initially sought to delay the phase-out to about 2027.
So it looks like the status quo for the foreseeable future, or at least until the next election.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
We are running out of oil and closing nuclear plants - all at the same time. What program germans have to offset this? More coal stations? It's not that much coal, either, though it's probably ok for the next 20 years or so.
Anonymous said…
I don't see how they can do it and still meet their pledge to honor the Kyoto agreement. So-called "renewables" can't carry the load (just ask the people in California about that). My guess is they'll end up importing more electricity, probably nuclear-generated in France. Imported electricity may end up being for the Germans what imported oil is to the U.S.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…