# Germany Shutting Down Nuclear Power Plants? **URL:** \ **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:** 6
**Author:** ![Nuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ea666f/32.png) [@Nuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nuke)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/101 "2003-12-02T17:13:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by T. Mehr \* > \*\ ***Nuke** , **Una Persson** , **Dr. Zoidberg** , **Sam Stone** , **WinstonSmith** I would like to invite you to read this article: > [15 years after Chernobyl : nuclear power AND climate change?](http://www.greens-efa.org/pdf/documents/greensefa_documents_20_en.pdf) > from the above mentioned website of [Greens in the European Parliament](http://www.greens-efa.org/en/documents/). > Maybe start on page 7: “The German Case - The Nuclear Phase Out Plan”. > > Can you comment on this? There are a lot of numbers and suggestions (both on how to solve the problem and how to invalidate pro nuclear arguments). > > Now, of course this document is heavily biased, considering where it comes from. > I am sure, that you can come up with a very similar document proving the very opposite. > This of course renders the whole discussion futile. We might as well argue whether ManU or Real is the better soccer team. Or if it’s nicer to die by hanging or drowning (just to stay closer to the issue). > It’s a matter of belive. \*\* I’m not going to put forth a 100 page report on why the Green report is incorrect. My comment is that the views put forth in that report (yes, I read it) are not based in fact. Otherwise the French, Ukrainians, South Koreans, Japanese, Spanish and British (who get a larger portion of their electricity from nuclear power than the USA does) would have shut down all of their reactors years ago. I don’t buy the theory that the German government is smarter than the rest of us. The [Nuclear Energy Institute](http://www.nei.org) (yeah, they’re an industry shill, too) has numerous articles on why nuclear power is not only a viable, but a preferable option. Here’s an example: [European Commission Study Finds Nuclear Energy Causes Least Socio-Environmental Damage Among Baseload Electricity Generation Sources](http://www.nei.org/documents/EC_External_Costs_Study.pdf) And you’re right, arguing about nuclear power is like arguing about abortion; there often are no winners, just a lot of pissed-off people. I will say that I do have a big problem with people who want to put me out of a job. ---
**Author:** ![MartinL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ebca7d/32.png) [@MartinL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MartinL)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/102 "2003-12-02T17:43:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nuke \* > \*\*I will say that I do have a big problem with people who want to put me out of a job. \*\* I understand your concern, but this is not the point. **If** we discover that nuclear power (or anything else for that matter) is too dangerous, we **must** drop out of it as fast as possible. Surely we must think about new jobs for the people who may lose theirs because of any such action. But such consequences can only be part of the discussion, and not an absolute no-go. If we discover that something is wrong (contrary to previous belief), we must act accordingly. And it will not get better just because there are people who get paid for it. IMHO, this only makes it worse. So while I would **never** say “Abandon nuclear power, I do not care about the jobs”, jobs cannot be an argument for or against nuclear power. From what may be at stake, jobs are only a side-effect. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/103 "2003-12-02T19:00:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nuke \* > \*\*The money to pay for spent fuel disposal is paid for by the rate payers, not by higher taxes. This is simply a cost of doing business; rate payers also pay for the fuel consumed to create the electricity. \*\* You seriously want to claim that the entire R&D involved in the process was funded with money from the power companies? Not a single researcher or engineer was funded by in-house funds of the DOE? > [@](#): > > \*\* > It does not make sense to hold each utility responsible for their radioactive waste; otherwise every utility would have to dispose of its waste individually and you would have 100 separate disposal sites around the USA. It makes better sense (economically and otherwise) to have one disposal site for all the nuclear utilities. Thus the deal was struck with the utilities in the '50s that the government would take charge of the spent fuel. The original intent was that the fuel be reprocessed, but obviously times changed. \*\* You could claim the same about toxic waste. The power companies could easily create a joint operation to take care of the waste. Which, once more, is MUCH more than spent fuel. Of course, they would have to foot the entire bill that way. Nuclear power is artificially reduced in price by not having to take care of things other power plants have to tackle by themselves, thus increasing costs. It’s as easy as that. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/104 "2003-12-02T19:22:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nuke \* > \*\*I’m not going to put forth a 100 page report on why the Green report is incorrect. My comment is that the views put forth in that report (yes, I read it) are not based in fact. Otherwise the French, Ukrainians, South Koreans, Japanese, Spanish and British (who get a larger portion of their electricity from nuclear power than the USA does) would have shut down all of their reactors years ago. I don’t buy the theory that the German government is smarter than the rest of us. \*\* You seem not to have read it very carefully. And I am not quite sure in what way you want to support your argument by citing the Ukrainians of all people. Last I checked, it was in their area the biggest disaster so far happened. And last I checked, they are trying everything to keep the reactors running even WHEN they universally accepted as unsafe. [quote] \*\* Here’s an example: [European Commission Study Finds Nuclear Energy Causes Least Socio-Environmental Damage Among Baseload Electricity Generation Sources](http://www.nei.org/documents/EC_External_Costs_Study.pdf) Focusing on electricity generation alone is going to skew the result. It artificially reduces the benefits of combined power and heat plants, because the added steps necessary to produce the heat in absence of combined power and heat plants does not figure into the direct impact of nuclear power. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I will say that I do have a big problem with people who want to put me out of a job. \*\* Which suggests your claims should be taken with healthy skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/105 "2003-12-02T19:23:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nuke \* > \*\*I’m not going to put forth a 100 page report on why the Green report is incorrect. My comment is that the views put forth in that report (yes, I read it) are not based in fact. Otherwise the French, Ukrainians, South Koreans, Japanese, Spanish and British (who get a larger portion of their electricity from nuclear power than the USA does) would have shut down all of their reactors years ago. I don’t buy the theory that the German government is smarter than the rest of us. \*\* You seem not to have read it very carefully. And I am not quite sure in what way you want to support your argument by citing the Ukrainians of all people. Last I checked, it was in their area the biggest disaster so far happened. And last I checked, they are trying everything to keep the reactors running even WHEN they universally accepted as unsafe. > [@](#): > > \*\* Here’s an example: > > [European Commission Study Finds Nuclear Energy Causes Least Socio-Environmental Damage Among Baseload Electricity Generation Sources](http://www.nei.org/documents/EC_External_Costs_Study.pdf) \*\* Focusing on electricity generation alone is going to skew the result. It artificially reduces the benefits of combined power and heat plants, because the added steps necessary to produce the heat in absence of combined power and heat plants does not figure into the direct impact of nuclear power. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I will say that I do have a big problem with people who want to put me out of a job. \*\* Which suggests your claims should be taken with healthy skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/106 "2003-12-02T19:56:27Z")
I am not an expert, but I believe the UK is a bit of a maverick on nuclear power-rather than building water-cooled reactors (as the USA and France have done), the UK opted for gas-cooled reactors. I understand these are expensive to build , but operate at higher temperatures (more efficient), and are actually safer…is the UK building more of these gas-cooled nukes? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/107 "2003-12-02T21:50:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **Well they do here.** That’s great. And so does Japan. And the total worldwide, in terms of percent of coal generating capability, is…not nearly as large. > [@](#): > > \*\*SCR is present in my birth town’s power plant.[/B Good. Meaning…? > [@](#): > > \*\*No, you don’t. Only if you actually ship it as ammonia gas. The plant above uses ammonia in liquid solution at 25%, which is dehydrated prior to injection. Needs more volume and dehydration, and as such is more expensive, but also more responsible, since it drastically reduces the chance of gas release. > \*\* Really? Then I guess these State-mandated safety precautions I’m reviewing for an SCR installation which uses anhydrous ammonia, which include issuance of gas masks for residents within 0.5km of the plant, is incorrect? I’ve been working with SCRs for some time now; I know a little bit about how stringent Federal, State, OSHA, county, city, and township safety regulations can be. (pssst…anhydrous doesn’t have to be more expensive, depending on your proximity to fertilizer plants) > [@](#): > > **And the plant above made over 6 Million in post-tax profits in 2002 to distribute among its shareholders.** Irrelevant. I didn’t say they weren’t profitable, just reflected on their cost. Most utilities in a regualted environment are able to not only pass costs on to customers, but make a modest profit as well. > [@](#): > > **But your argument shoots off the mark anyway, since I never argued for more extensive use of coal.** Ummm…that’s great. Let’s review the _only_ statement of yours I quoted: > [@](#): > > **Acid rain is produced by sulfur oxides, which are nowadays removed from the exhaust.** OK - out of the total SO2 and NOx emissions produced by coal plants in the World, what percent are removed by scrubbing? (hint: it’s less than half) That’s the main thing I was commenting on, since by making that statement you didn’t seem to have the experience needed to talk about coal power plant emission controls. Or else had plenty of experience, and were just overgeneralizing. Whatever the case, your statement impies that nowadays acid rain is not a problem since the precursors of it are “removed from the exhaust”. They _can_ be removed, with effort, but even then it’s difficult to break 90% efficiency for continuous, real-world operation. And the majority of the power plants of the world are simply not scrubbed, or not operating at maximum removal efficiency. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/108 "2003-12-02T22:03:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Una Persson \* > \*\*That’s great. And so does Japan. And the total worldwide, in terms of percent of coal generating capability, is…not nearly as large. > \*\* Which is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here, namely one of the world’s leading developers of high tech relying temporarily on fossil fuel. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Really? Then I guess these State-mandated safety precautions I’m reviewing for an SCR installation which uses anhydrous ammonia, which include issuance of gas masks for residents within 0.5km of the plant, is incorrect? I’ve been working with SCRs for some time now; I know a little bit about how stringent Federal, State, OSHA, county, city, and township safety regulations can be.\*\* No, you’re merely confusing anhydrous and aqueous. There is little use in gas masks when you are dealing with a liquid. > [@](#): > > \*\* > (pssst…anhydrous doesn’t have to be more expensive, depending on your proximity to fertilizer plants) \*\* Psst… I never said anhydrous is more expensive. I said aqueous is more expensive, because you need to dehydrate it prior to use, whereas anhydrous can be used straightaway, and because it not being 100% ammonia, and a liquid, you need more storage space per volume of ammonia > [@](#): > > \*\* > Irrelevant. I didn’t say they weren’t profitable, just reflected on their cost. Most utilities in a regualted environment are able to not only pass costs on to customers, but make a modest profit as well. \*\* Which is relevant how in a pretty rich country? > [@](#): > > \*\* > OK - out of the total SO2 and NOx emissions produced by coal plants in the World, what percent are removed by scrubbing? (hint: it’s less than half) That’s the main thing I was commenting on, since by making that statement you didn’t seem to have the experience needed to talk about coal power plant emission controls. Or else had plenty of experience, and were just overgeneralizing. Whatever the case, your statement impies that nowadays acid rain is not a problem since the precursors of it are “removed from the exhaust”. They _can_ be removed, with effort, but even then it’s difficult to break 90% efficiency for continuous, real-world operation. And the majority of the power plants of the world are simply not scrubbed, or not operating at maximum removal efficiency. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/109 "2003-12-02T22:04:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Una Persson \* > \*\*That’s great. And so does Japan. And the total worldwide, in terms of percent of coal generating capability, is…not nearly as large. > \*\* Which is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here, namely one of the world’s leading developers of high tech relying temporarily on fossil fuel. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Really? Then I guess these State-mandated safety precautions I’m reviewing for an SCR installation which uses anhydrous ammonia, which include issuance of gas masks for residents within 0.5km of the plant, is incorrect? I’ve been working with SCRs for some time now; I know a little bit about how stringent Federal, State, OSHA, county, city, and township safety regulations can be.\*\* No, you’re merely confusing anhydrous and aqueous. There is little use in gas masks when you are dealing with a liquid. > [@](#): > > \*\* > (pssst…anhydrous doesn’t have to be more expensive, depending on your proximity to fertilizer plants) \*\* Psst… I never said anhydrous is more expensive. I said aqueous is more expensive, because you need to dehydrate it prior to use, whereas anhydrous can be used straightaway, and because it not being 100% ammonia, and a liquid, you need more storage space per volume of ammonia > [@](#): > > \*\* > Irrelevant. I didn’t say they weren’t profitable, just reflected on their cost. Most utilities in a regualted environment are able to not only pass costs on to customers, but make a modest profit as well. \*\* Which is relevant how in a pretty rich country? > [@](#): > > \*\* > OK - out of the total SO2 and NOx emissions produced by coal plants in the World, what percent are removed by scrubbing? (hint: it’s less than half) That’s the main thing I was commenting on, since by making that statement you didn’t seem to have the experience needed to talk about coal power plant emission controls. Or else had plenty of experience, and were just overgeneralizing. Whatever the case, your statement impies that nowadays acid rain is not a problem since the precursors of it are “removed from the exhaust”. They _can_ be removed, with effort, but even then it’s difficult to break 90% efficiency for continuous, real-world operation. And the majority of the power plants of the world are simply not scrubbed, or not operating at maximum removal efficiency. \*\* The majority of power plants of the world is of zilch interest in this thread. If you think that tearing comments out of context is going to achieve something, I doubt it achieves what you want to achieve. This thread was about power plants in Germany from post 1. It’s even in the thread title. It was about GERMANY relying on fossil fuel plants. As such, whether coal plants in Tansania are scrubbed is totally irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![TWOTfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de053/32.png) [@TWOTfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWOTfan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/110 "2003-12-02T23:45:56Z")
I want to ask a question about the earlier references to nuclear waste. Isn’t this “waste” just a concentration of radioative materials that already exist in the environment? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/111 "2003-12-03T02:00:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **No, you’re merely confusing anhydrous and aqueous. There is little use in gas masks when you are dealing with a liquid.** No, I’m not, and don’t try to tell me what safety regulations I’m reading right in front of me, thank you. You may be a very bright individual, but you obviously have no real-world experience whatsoever around anhydrous ammonia, or about the regulations involved in handling ammonia products. I would advise no one on this message Board to take your advice in not having breathing apparatus available around ammonia products in an industrial setting - especially as it may violate OSHA regulations. > [@](#): > > \*\*This thread was about power plants in Germany from post 1. It’s even in the thread title. It was about GERMANY relying on fossil fuel plants. As such, whether coal plants in Tansania are scrubbed is totally irrelevant. \*\* Hey bub, I’m reading the thread too, and it had clearly gone into you fighting with Nuke over the pros and cons of nuclear power and nuclear waste management, including you mocking his chemistry (I believe you said it “sucked”) as well as other issues. And then you responded to Dr. Zoidberg: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg > > Yes I did. But there are chemical reactions facilitated in generating fossil fuel energy too. Like the ones that make acid rain and the global warming I keep talking about. Maybe you Germans can get rid of your nukes and make do with cogeneration and greater efficiency. Good, but I do know that such a policy would not work in the US. You have given me a new perspective on the German energy industry though. > > * * * > > The reactions in fossil fuel use can be directly addressed. Acid rain is produced by sulfur oxides, which are nowadays removed from the exhaust. And again, you assume that CO2 emissions will increase, when they will actually decrease. Dr. Zoidberg was _clearly_ addressing the difference between conditions in the US and the “German energy industry”. So get off your high horse, calm down and work with me, and try to see why what I said _was_ relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/112 "2003-12-03T03:20:35Z")
Ok, 17 nukes are being phased out over 10 years, in Germany. Does anybody know how additional plant-years of life are being given up by this policy? For example, if the nukes were built in the 1950s, they may be due for retirement anyway. This is intended as a question, not a claim. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/113 "2003-12-03T03:58:03Z")
**OliverH** , let’s try again, shall we? I made a comment because I felt that the context had shifted to a comparison of what was capable and what was being done in the US versus Germany with respect to addressing the “chemical” issues involving coal post-combustion treatment. Somehow, we’ve got into a pissing contest of who knows more about industrial ammonia safety precautions and regulations than the other. In carefully reviewing your posts here, you seem intelligent, so I I’m willing to tone down my responses and listen to you, as well as give you the benefit of the doubt w.r.t. generalizations, if you will show the same courtesy in return. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/114 "2003-12-03T10:54:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Una Persson \* > \*\*No, I’m not, and don’t try to tell me what safety regulations I’m reading right in front of me, thank you. You may be a very bright individual, but you obviously have no real-world experience whatsoever around anhydrous ammonia, or about the regulations involved in handling ammonia products. I would advise no one on this message Board to take your advice in not having breathing apparatus available around ammonia products in an industrial setting - especially as it may violate OSHA regulations. \*\* The problem with that statement is that I never gave such an advice. And frankly, the concept of aqueous solutions quite obviously being alien to you, I doubt you have any idea what you are reading there. I never made any statement on how to handle anhydrous ammonia, because I said from the very beginning you don’t need to. But thanks for making such a convincing case for your not being interested at all in any serious debate, but more in slander campaigns. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Dr. Zoidberg was _clearly_ addressing the difference between conditions in the US and the “German energy industry”. So get off your high horse, calm down and work with me, and try to see why what I said _was_ relevant. \*\* I would seriously suggest you acquire a wee bit more reading comprehension. There’s “German energy industry” right in your statement up there. See above for your interest in a serious debate. Come back when you actually adress what is being said, instead of outright lying about other people’s statements. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/115 "2003-12-03T10:56:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Una Persson \* > \*\*[ > > In carefully reviewing your posts here, you seem intelligent, so I I’m willing to tone down my responses and listen to you, as well as give you the benefit of the doubt w.r.t. generalizations, if you will show the same courtesy in return. \*\* I don’t consider lying about my statements and making claims about adivce that I allegedly gave that have no connection whatsoever to reality as careful review of my posts. ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/116 "2003-12-03T12:42:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **Nuke** \* > And you’re right, arguing about nuclear power is like arguing about abortion; there often are no winners, just a lot of pissed-off people. Unfortunately, exactly this seems to happen right here. So let me point out, that I oppose nucler power, but I don’t want you to loose your job and personally I don’t give a shit about ammonia products. Also, I don’t see how it benefits an argument to insult your oponent. ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/117 "2003-12-03T12:47:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **TWOTfan** \* > Isn’t this “waste” just a concentration of radioative materials that already exist in the environment? No, these are nuclear reactions, actually creating new elements that haven’t been there before. Thus from radioactive uranium you’ll get much worse plutonium and the like. google (or **Nuke** ) will help on the physics. ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/118 "2003-12-03T13:05:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **flowbark** \* > Ok, 17 nukes are being phased out over 10 years, in Germany. > Does anybody know how additional plant-years of life are being given up by this policy? For example, if the nukes were built in the 1950s, they may be due for retirement anyway. The deal is this: The energy companies are allowed to produce **another 2623.3 Terrawatthours** alltogether in their nuclear plants. According to my source this is as much Energy as has been produced in Germany since 1968! It’s up to the companies how and in which plant they do this. (Theoretically if they close all but one, this one would run forever.) The idea is, that older plants get closed sooner, newer ones will run for decades to come. The one in Stade, that was closed now, was an old one and the owner EoN claims, they closed it because it’s no longer economical to run it. Who knows? Another part of the deal is, that no new facilities will be built and that a permanent disposal site will be set up. Considering the current public opinion, the first thing is clear. To set up a new plant would spur so massive protests that it would simply be impossible. Just think about the almost ten year, at times warlike struggle at Wackersdorf. The second will be subject to fight and protest for the years to come. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/119 "2003-12-03T13:41:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TWOTfan \* > \*\*I want to ask a question about the earlier references to nuclear waste. Isn’t this “waste” just a concentration of radioative materials that already exist in the environment? \*\* There’s two issues here: One is that it’s not enough to talk about elements, but also isotopes. In the context of nuclear reactions, uranium isn’t necessarily uranium. Some purposes require specific isotopes that need to be artificially enriched. Since the halflife is isotope-specific, it makes a big difference for waste purposes what isotope you are dealing with. Second, the nuclear reactions produce as byproducts other radioactive elements from surrounding material. That in some cases will make non-radioactive materials radioactive while staying the same element, and in other cases produce new elements that are entirely artificial. The bombardment of the material with particles can have “interesting” consequences, from a physical point of view. E.g. if a neutron is captured by the nuclear core of another element, the isotope of that element is changed, and the new isotope might very much be radioactive on its own. Alpha ‘radiation’ on the other hand can be described on the other hand as a helium core. When it is captured by another core, there’s suddenly two protons more in that core than there used to be (and two neutrons), which makes for a shift of two down the periodic system -an element has basically been transformed into another. (Which often will be in an unstable isotope and decay subsequently) As such, after a given period of time, you can neither be sure that only the material you put in there is radioactive, nor that you are actually looking at the same elemental composition you looked at when you introduced the radioactive material. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/120 "2003-12-03T13:42:16Z")
substitute ‘core’ with ‘nucleus’ -translation problem. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290.md?page=7)