# Germany Shutting Down Nuclear Power Plants?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [November 26, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290 "2003-11-26T01:19:26Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/1 "2003-11-26T01:19:26Z")
I read in the NY TIMES, that Germany has decided to shut down its 17 operating nuclear power plants. They will be phased out over the next 10 years, and be replaced by coal and gas-burning power plants.
Meanwhile, FRANCE is forging ahead…the French national power comapny is planning new plants, with the goal of having 95% of their electical capcity of nuclear origin by 2015 (it is now about 87%).
Who is right-the French or the Germans?😕
---
### Author:  [@KenGr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KenGr)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/2 "2003-11-26T02:33:19Z")
Oh Lord! This is so painful.
The French are… are… are… right.
Seriously, the German decision was part of a political deal made with the Green Party (who have enough power in Germany to affect which coalition is in the majority). The Green position was that forcing the shutdown would eliminate the nuclear plants they opposed and would result in renewable power sources being used. As you read, they now appear to only be successful in the first half of the bargain due to the practicalities of building large amounts of renewable energy facilities.
The energy industry in Germany continues to maintain that the plan is stupid and will be cancelled before the newer (and more efficient) nuclear plants are closed. As I understand, the Greens are reassessing the deal and trying to choose between what they perceive as two evils.
---
### Author:  [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/3 "2003-11-26T03:03:09Z")
Note as well that even if Germany keeps all of its existing nuclear plants, their plan for handling their continued power growth is to buy as much power as possible from Polish coal power plants, which are in the process of being fairly rapidly modernized. But still, they will be passing the buck somewhat on that point.
(whistles innocently, looks at all the “Warsaw” stamps in her passport…)
---
### Author:  [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/4 "2003-11-26T09:26:53Z")
Currently about a third of electrical power generation in Germany is nuclear. That shortfall certainly won’t be met by regenerative power in the next few decades, but the government’s plans are ambitious - the environment ministry’s target for wind power is 25 % by 2020, using mainly offshore wind parks. Currently wind power is at 4 %; up from just about zero within the last half decade. Power generation from natural gas, biogas and mine gas is also growing. A politically significant part of energy policy (pandering not to the greens but to the coal lobby) is also to continue using domestic coal, to keep the mines open, even if imported coal is much cheaper.
---
### Author:  [@MartinL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MartinL)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/5 "2003-11-26T11:15:59Z")
It is true that the German decision is politically motivated and a tribute to the influence which the Green party has.
However, it is not like abondoning all the existing nuclear power plants for only that single reason. Many of them will soon reach the age at which they were designed to be shut down anyway. The choice was mainly between building new nuclear power plants or using different kinds of energy (or importing electricity). Only a few (if any) nuclear power plants are planned to be shut down prematurely.
---
### Author:  [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/6 "2003-11-26T11:46:26Z")
And it’s not just the Green Party. Just as in Austria a majority of the german people simply don’t want nuclear power.
---
### Author:  [@universe.zip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/universe.zip)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/7 "2003-11-26T11:54:20Z")
Only difference is, Austria doesn´t have any nuclear power plants (except for a small research facility). This just FYI, as I don´t believe this is a well-known fact.
---
### Author:  [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/8 "2003-11-26T12:11:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by universe.zip \*
> \*\*Only difference is, Austria doesn´t have any nuclear power plants (except for a small research facility). This just FYI, as I don´t believe this is a well-known fact. \*\*
Yes, but why don’t they have any? Because the majority of the population doesn’t want them. Austria actually did build a plant (Zwentendorf’ in the 1970s, but massive protests forced the government to hold a referendum, in which the plan was rejected (they could have been a bit more clever by holding the referendum _before_ starting construction, as the plant was almost finished when the vote prohibited taking the facility into operation, but that’s the way it was). Austria surely could install nuclear power plants on its territory if it wanted to.
As far as the deal between the German government and the energy industry is concerned, the latter have found a way to live with the decision (it actually was a compromise and not decreed against the will of the utilities corporations).
Whether or not this is a politically wise move is a diferent question. Fact is, that German nuclear power plants _will_ be phased out (the Conservatives have threatened to sack it as soon as they win the next elections, but having made the deal and taking preparations for the phaseout, , not only voters of the Green Party, do oppose nuclear power, and that the decision is binding.
---
### Author:  [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/9 "2003-11-26T14:30:25Z")
Boy, the German industrialists must be ready to shoot themselevs…German products are going to soar in price! Imagine a Mercedes-Benz auto factory…with their “clean” electric power now 4 times the price o(of electricity in France)! The germans really must want to kill their industry!
---
### Author:  [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/10 "2003-11-26T14:58:45Z")
Well, if it matters to the OP, the Swedes are siding with the Germans.
[Link](http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19349/story.htm):
> [@](#):
>
> The first reactor was closed down in 1999, in line with a referendum almost 20 years earlier that Sweden, like Germany, would gradually close its nuclear plants.
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/11 "2003-11-26T15:56:22Z")
Yes, well Sweden has all those hills and rivers which allow them to use hydroelectric power.
---
### Author:  [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/12 "2003-11-26T16:10:02Z")
Sure you are not thinking about Norway, which in spite of it’s oil uses only hydroelectric power?
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/13 "2003-11-26T16:15:12Z")
[Nope.](http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/edc/countries/Sweden.asp)
> [@](#):
>
> Sweden has one of the highest hydro potentials in Western Europe: its gross theoretical capability is reported to be 176 TWh/year, of which 90 TWh is economically exploitable. The average annual capability of the hydro capacity installed at the end of 1999 was 64 TWh, about 71% of the economic potential. Actual hydro output in 1999 was 70.8 TWh: **hydropower provides nearly half of Sweden’s electricity generation.**
Bolding is mine. Note that environmental concerns have slowed new development, however the potential is there to exploit the resource if needed.
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/14 "2003-11-26T16:35:37Z")
Not that you were wrong about Norway of course…
> [@](#):
>
> Norway possesses Western Europe’s largest hydro resources, both in terms of its current installed capacity and of its economically feasible potential. Its gross theoretical capability is put at 600 TWh/year, of which about 180 TWh is economically exploitable. The hydro generating capacity installed by the end of 1999 had an output capability equivalent to around 63% of the economic potential. **Actual hydro output was 121.8 TWh, providing virtually all of Norway’s electric power.**
Again, bolding is mine.
---
### Author:  [@universe.zip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/universe.zip)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/15 "2003-11-26T18:57:41Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Schnitte \*
> \*\*Yes, but why don’t they have any? Because the majority of the population doesn’t want them. Austria actually did build a plant (Zwentendorf’ in the 1970s, but massive protests forced the government to hold a referendum, in which the plan was rejected (they could have been a bit more clever by holding the referendum _before_ starting construction, as the plant was almost finished when the vote prohibited taking the facility into operation, but that’s the way it was). Austria surely could install nuclear power plants on its territory if it wanted to.
> \*\*
I wasn´t arguing, **Schnitte** , I just thought I´d add that bit of information, because there is a slight difference between saying “the majority of the population is against it” and “they actually _don´t have_ any, because the majority of the population is against it”. I could have added the whole Zwentendorf-story, but I was in a bit of a hurry 😉
Legally, Austria could definitely build a nuclear power plant - there´s just no way the government would get through with it, as this is the one topic on which just about everyone, from the leftist environmentalists to the rather right-wing yellow press, agrees. And if the “Kronenzeitung” doesn´t want it, it just won´t happen…
---
### Author:  [@KenGr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KenGr)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2003, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/16 "2003-11-27T01:41:19Z")
As the posts indicate, Europe is far from having a common position on nuclear power. This was one of the EU problems with some some countries proposing regulations which would make nuclear expansion very difficult. At this time, several countries, like Austria, Switzerland and Italy have rejected the nuclear option. However, Italy is re-evaluating that after the recent electricity outages. Sweden and Germany are phasing out the nuclear program but in both countries skeptics still maintain the phase out will have to be moderated. Phase out was suggested in Belgium and found to be impractical. France, UK and Spain maintain large nuclear programs. Finland is in the process of building their 5th nuclear plant after finding other energy options impractical.
Eastern Europe is another complete chapter in the story with a mixture of relatively modern nuclear units and some older Soviet designs which are viewed with much suspicion.
---
### Author:  [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2003, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/17 "2003-11-27T12:05:59Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by_\* KenGr\*\* \*
> As the posts indicate, Europe is far from having a common position on nuclear power.
Europe is far from having a common position on almost anything…
---
### Author:  [@Mort\_Furd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mort_Furd)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/18 "2003-11-27T13:42:23Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tschild \*
> [ the environment ministry’s target for wind power is 25 % by 2020, using mainly offshore wind parks. Currently wind power is at 4 %; up from just about zero within the last half decade.
Tell me about it. Do you want to come to my house and count windmills?
I’m wondering just how safe the blasted things are and how often they have to be inspected and how often parts must be replaced because of metal fatigue - and how long it will be before the power companies start slacking on maintenance and when the first blade is going to fly off and kill someone.
These bloody be damned things are EVERYWHERE. I’ve lost track of how many you can see in around my town here - which is a bad sign.
The other thing that bugs me is that I don’t see how they can be economical. At any given time, most of the mills in a group are stopped - only a few of them will be turning even though the wind is blowing. From looking, I can’t tell WHY they are stopped. Too much production? Right. Winds too high? Then the others should be shut down, too. Mechanical problems? Could be, damifino.
It may be true that the majority opposes nuclear power, but that by no means implies that everyone is against it.
Atomkraft gegnern überwintern im Dunkeln mit kaltem Hintern. “Nuclear power opponents spend the winter in the dark with a cold backside.” Free translation of a bumpersticker that you can see on a surprising number of cars.
---
### Author:  [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/19 "2003-11-27T16:04:43Z")
\*\* Mort Furd \*\*
I guess it’s more likely you will be hit by a car (with or without bumpersticker) than being crushed by a windmillwing.
I don’t get why you are so opposed to them. You think they look ugly? Hey, so does the autobahn which is also everywhere.
I don’t think wind will realy be able to significantly contribute to electricity production in the near future, but given this law, alternatives to nuclear power have to be found one way or the other.
---
### Author:  [@Mort\_Furd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mort_Furd)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/20 "2003-11-27T17:40:09Z")
Come over here, and take a look around. I’m in a small town (Meisenheim.) I’ve been in Germany since February, 1988 and in Meisenheim since 1997. We are plopped down in valley here (as are most towns and villages in the area) and have these big windmills poking up off of the tops of the hills. Highways and Autobahns tend to lie down in the valleys or run between the trees - you don’t see them much when looking at the scenery.
The windmills stand up above the treetops - you can’t miss the bastards. If they are so wonderful, why will most of them in a group be stopped even when there is wind? I don’t know, and speculation about the cause makes me distrust the whole situation.
Why would you shut down a windmill when you could have it producing power?
Well, one reason is that you are producing too much. Given the figures I’ve heard, that doesn’t seem likely - at least not on a national scale. I find it hard to believe that the power grid as a whole can’t handle the power delivered by the windmills. Possibly the local grid can’t swing it - in which case they’ve overbuilt the windmills and need to work on the grid soon. Preferably before metal fatigue from standing around in the wind weakens the structure to the point that the windmills have to be replaced.
Why did they over build the mills? Well, perhaps there are only a limited number of sites that are available and the power companies are getting in where they can while they can - which doesn’t bode well for the future. If, at this early a stage, you are already having to fight over sites, then what will it look like when you must depend on wind power?
Another possible reason for over building is the need to keep spares on site and ready to go because the things aren’t reliable. This is a possibility. I see vehicles from the power companies going to and from the sites all the time. Granted, some of them are going to the new sites where they are still setting up - but there is still a lot of traffic to the existing sites.
I don’t have numbers to quote at you to prove any of my speculations. They are just that - speculations. They are, however, based on observation of the windmills operating in my area.
Do you know where there are any facts on the reliability of the windmills, the amount of time that each mill (or even just an average) spends online producing power, and the total amount produced yearly?
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290.md?page=2)