Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Germany's Nuclear Phaseout Is an 'Historic Moment'
"This is nothing more and nothing less than a revolution in energy supply," said Chancellor Angela Merkel. It was September 2010, and she was referring to her government's newly minted energy strategy. That plan included extending the operating lives of Germany's 17 nuclear plants, which had been scheduled to go offline by 2021. All of this had been intended to help Germany meet its ambitious goals for reducing climate-killing CO2 emissions.
A radiation protection worker walks over a bearing basin containing nuclear fuel elements at Germany's Biblis nuclear reactor. (Reuters) But on Monday, less than nine months later, the German government announced a new energy plan that could also be fairly described as a revolution -- even if it represents a 180-degree reversal of the administration's previous policy.
In marathon talks that went into the early hours of Monday, the government hammered out the details of its plans to phase out nuclear power. The new strategy foresees all Germany's reactors going offline by 2021 if possible and 2022 at the latest. Eight plants which are currently temporarily offline will be shut down immediately. The phaseout will be accompanied by a massive increase in the use of renewable energy, and the government intends to pass a law making it easier to construct the new energy infrastructure that will be needed.
Merkel's U-turn on nuclear power happened in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, with the chancellor quickly realizing the impact the accident would have on attitudes to nuclear power in Germany. A majority of Germans oppose atomic energy.
'Great Opportunity'
The government's new plan is broadly based on recommendations by an ethics commission that Merkel set up after Fukushima to study the future of nuclear energy in Germany. Critics claimed that the chancellor only set up the panel to lend legitimacy to her sudden about-turn on nuclear power, which was widely seen as an electioneering tactic ahead of a key state election.
The commission delivered its findings to the government on Sunday afternoon, recommending that Germany phase out nuclear power by 2021. The panel's final report was officially presented on Monday morning. The head of the commission, former United Nations Environment Program executive director and ex-German environment minister Klaus Töpfer, said that the transition to renewable energy presented a "great opportunity" for Germany to develop a sustainable economy. Speaking at the presentation of the report, Merkel said the government would use the commission's recommendations as a "guideline."
There is likely to be stiff opposition to the new nuclear roadmap. German manufacturers and energy companies have already criticized plans to phase out nuclear power, warning that Germany could face blackouts, and utilities have threatened to take legal action against a withdrawal. A spokesman for the energy giant RWE said that "all legal options" were on the table.
On Monday, Germany's main newspapers take a look at the ethics commission's proposals and the coming energy revolution.
The conservative Die Welt writes:
"The nuclear phaseout marks a creeping rejection of the economic model which has transformed Germany into one of the richest countries in the world in recent decades. ... What will the new energy age cost us Germans in terms of money and jobs? And are we completely indifferent to the risk of a major power outage? Just recently, the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance warned that Germany is totally unprepared for a large-scale blackout."
"It is certainly true that our economic system can survive without nuclear power in the long term. But it is careless to carry out a phaseout under extreme time pressure, rushing it through with scant regard for how fast the economy can adapt. Energy is the lifeblood of industry, which in turn is the basis of our economy and our prosperity. A stable energy supply is taken for granted in Germany and is an enormously important locational advantage when attracting foreign investment. The mere impression that this supply is no longer 100 percent guaranteed would be enough to scare off investors."
"A look back at the oil crisis in the 1970s is enough to show how sensitive the energy issue is. This time, however, it would not be the whole world that has a problem, but only us Germans. The government should be careful not to risk creating a homemade energy crisis on the basis of politically expedient decisions."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"The ethics commission had been given the task of 'reevaluating' the risks of nuclear energy. But by 'reevaluate,' what was meant was that the slightest possibility of a nuclear accident similar to the one in Fukushima -- no matter how unlikely -- was now to be classified as unacceptable. What is being ignored in the process is the fact that each form of energy is associated with incalculable risks."
"It took humanity a hundred years to realize the dangers that burning fossil fuels pose to the environment and to people's health. The harmful effects of an overhasty energy revolution will be mainly felt in economic and social terms -- and it is future generations that will be affected."
The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"The ethics commission has looked far beyond the nuclear phaseout itself. The group has focused less on shutting down reactors and more on the process that such a phaseout would trigger. After all, simply taking the nuclear plants offline is not enough by itself."
"In many areas, the experts have called for exactly those changes which an energy transition would require: renovating buildings (to make them more energy-efficient), the intelligent use of energy and the construction of new power lines. This transition, not the nuclear phaseout, is the real challenge for politics and society. The ethics commission has highlighted the opportunities that the transition holds for Germany as an industrial power, but it also shows the risks. If the switch goes wrong, the nuclear phaseout will turn out to be very, very expensive."
In an editorial titled "A Moment Like the Fall of the Berlin Wall," the left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:
"Usually one does not recognize historic moments if one is too close to them. It's a label that should be used sparingly in any case. But this is one: An industrialized country now has a roadmap for switching to a sustainable energy supply, moving beyond dangerous and expensive nuclear power and dirty coal. That has never happened before. It is a step in the right direction -- and the world is watching."
"The interesting question is whether this government will take the ethic commission's recommendations to heart. From a political and economic perspective, the report gives it all the ammunition it needs to act. In terms of domestic politics, Angela Merkel cannot retreat now, given her sudden violent aversion to nuclear power. And the new direction also makes sense in terms of party politics: Only a business-oriented conservative government can pull off such a revolution, because the loudest opponents are within its own ranks. ... Only Merkel's center-right administration can phase out nuclear power without Germany descending into a crippling conflict."
38 Comments so far
Show AllWhile Germany getting off nuclear power is a great thing long term for itself and the planet; it is a short term windfall for Russian energy companies who supply the country with natural gas via pipelines. None of the four papers quoted from mentioned the 800 lbs. Russian gas gorilla in the room (though Die Welt obliquely referred to it). If Germany can pull off a transition to an economically viable non-nuclear power energy grid that largely eschews fossil fuels as well, it might even shame the nuclear-worshiping French into ditching the most dangerous technology dreamed up by mankind.
In cold countries like Germany, more than 60% of the energy used to heat homes and businesses can be provided without combustion of fossil fuels by the use of passive geothermal. Germany is actually a pioneer in deep drilling (they've gone down about 7 miles) so, even if they can't get enough heat from geothermal to obtain the engineering requirement of 240 degrees fahrenheit for steam generated electricity, they can, by simply making use of the temperature gradient between soil 30 feet (or more) below the surface and air to knock off 60% of the power needed. This, alone, would eliminate the need for expensive and dangerous technology like nuclear power. Going further, a combination of various approaches to temperature gradient energy capture such as power towers which use air temperature differences to generate power without fuel could be incorporated in tall buildings.
It certainly can be done. I believe that Japan is going to beat Germany on this. I know that sounds ridiculous now but the Japanese are a very single minded people. They were focused on nuclear power. They are now focusing on power from anything but nuclear and fossil fuels.
Japan and Germany will show us the way.
Nuclear power was developed in the USA so there is a huge bias among our scientists since it's "our" baby. Don't expect the USA to do anything but put obstacles through zoning, ridicule and lack of funding for renewables. Our government just does not get it. And they want to make sure you don't get it either.
What is it they don't want YOU to get? That ANY difference in temperature (thermocline) can be taken advantage of to heat or cool passively or generate electricity. There is no place on planet eartth that does not have this condition present in the air and the ground.
The plethora of options where a dense population exists are amazing. For example, many years ago, an engineer noticed that sewage decomposition in pipes generates heat. He suggested putting a heat exchanger on the pipes to heat buildings. That is how some buildings are heated in Boston to this day.
There are lots of options. They are cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear. They are sustainable.
That is what the powers that be in the USA don't want you to "get".
Anything but nuclear, the repercussions on human development in evolutionary terms would be catastrophic. I won't even contemplate explaining.
WE HAVE A TINY IDEA ABOUT THE DAMAGE THAT DEPLETED URANIUM HAS DONE ON MOTHERS & INNOCENT BABIES IN FELUGA IRAQ DURING
✠OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM IN A GRAVEYARD✠.
VISIONS OF NIGHTMARE IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT.
NO NUKES, ITS NOT WORTH IT, WELL DON GERMANY, IF ONLY U COULD REMOVE YOUR CHILDREN FORM AFGHANISTAN.
THE US HAS LOST ANY LEADERSHIP IT WANTED TO EMULATE & ITS JUST THE BEGINNING, ITS NOT LEADERSHIP WE NEED BUT PIONEERING EXAMPLES, THAT'S AN AMAZING START GERMANY NO NUKES, CERTAIN THINGS ONE CANNOT UNDO.
No terror no torture just truth
Most of the serious problems with uranium fueled reactors are eliminated with Thorium reactors. The U.S. and many other countries went with uranium reactors in the 1950's because uranium reactors produce plutonium to make nuclear weapons. Another major difference is that it is nearly impossible for a thorium reactor to have a meltdown. They create a much less radioactive waste and can make use of waste products from uranium reactors thus reducing the total amount of nuclear waste. India has one up and running with more planned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
This is remarkable news and I look forward to the details. When one country goes forward with renewable energy, that will be important leadership for other countries. Germany has already been in the forefront of the world on renewable energy with the development of feed-in-tariffs. In the long run, other countries will be forced to follow suit; the impending threat of runaway climate change is already upon us. The oil and coal barons think they have won the war, but theirs is a Pyrrhic victory. We must lobby for renewable energy, improved efficiency, and a reduction in the use of all energy. Nuclear power and fossil fuels are not wise choices and must be avoided if there is a future worth living on this planet. Localize, organize, and re-envision a different way of being.
Well said, Stiv.
I was under the impression that Germany intends, as part of the reactor shutdowns, to build more coal-fired generators. Did I get that wrong?
Mairead,
Yes you did. Germany isn't stupid. They know fossil fuels is a dead end.
There are renewable energy sources that you have never heard of out there.
I suggest you research power towers and temperature gradient energy capture technology. It works and is sustainable. It's available NOW. Beyond the fossil fuel used to manufacture the components, it does not pollute.
What about this,then:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/10/germany-coalplants-idUSLDE74910720110510
Any hard evidence about coal burning or is this just a talking point of the nuclear power industry? Why should it make a difference to the grid how the electricity is produced? Doesn't it all end up as flowing electrons?
Capacitors already exist and can be further developed.
I find that if someone does not use plain English, and throws around unexplained terminology, it is often an attempt to seem super-intelligent and to shut down the discussion.
I don't understand Mark's notation either, Joe.
As for capacitors, I have some technical understanding of them and I believe it's the case that the really large ones might as well be bombs because of the abruptness and magnitude of the energy release when they break down. The little ones, used to buffer and smooth out spikes in circuits, don't store enough at any one time to be a significant problem. But the big ones used as storage devices are a different story.
It seems to me that the storage of wind and solar energy to create a steady flow of electricity is a problem for which we can imagine and develop solutions. The use of fossil fuels and nuclear reactors are "solutions" destined to create problems, disasters waiting to happen and already underway.
Yes, I agree. And we already do have many such solutions. We just have to decide what kind of price we're willing to pay.
At the risk of boring you - I've said this already in other places - my personal preferred solution (because it's our best and probably only chance of survival) is demand-reduction: reducing population via mandatory post-partum sterilisation, ending private-profit capitalism and its pathological greed, reforestation, reducing the strength and redefining the role of the military, retrofitting all housing to Passivhaus standard or better, forbidding any private vehicle over 50Kg unladen weight per seat, constructing different road systems for vehicles of different categories, and constructing a terabit ethernet web that reaches everyone everywhere.
At that point, we could take decisions in a less burdened way about how to supply the remaining need for energy.
It might turn out that the least-bad -or even the only truly feasible- way would be to bite the lossy bullet and construct a power web that maps the comm web, where each dwelling has some combination of switchable generating technologies (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, muscle, nuclear, etc) that would prevent or at least reduce dead times, the resulting energy being consumed on-site or pushed onto the grid to be consumed or buffered elsewhere.
Mandatory sterilization gives me the chills. It requires a class of people who determine that another class of people can or cannot have a child. In general, when women and men are educated and have opportunities, they limit their family size voluntarily.
What does not give me a chill is keeping family planning services of ALL KINDS free and available. Also giving garduated subsidies for child raising (including day care), the first child getting a larger subsidy. It is complicated because of recombinant families, but not so cruel as forcible sterilization.
Other factors can assist in limiting population growth, which is a goal I share with you. For instance, medical care for children will assure that kids are likely to survive, thus reducing the impetus to have more. Taking care of the elderly is important in some areas. For instance, in India care of elderly parents falls to the first son. If there is no son, older people can die of starvation and neglect. Thus they have children until they have a son. If we consider ourselves all part of the same human family and care for the elderly, our parents and those of others, then that motivation disappears.
Sterilisation gives you a chill because you associate it with eugenics. That's not what I'm talking about.
It would not be a case where some group decides about another group, it would be mandatory across all populations, with no exceptions for any reason whatsoever. No group would be able to escape, nor any group be "more sterilised" than another.
It's the only way we can possibly do what we need *in time*, Joe. Your "education" idea presumes we have unlimited time in which to work. We don't, as you must well know. We're talking about *pan-extinction* if we don't get our act together, and the majority of people dying horribly of famine, plague, and war, our population being reduced to maybe 1G by 2100 (Lovelock's optimistic estimate). *That* is the alternative to sterilisation. I won't even ask whether you'd prefer that outcome.
You point out the intergenerational support expectations in other cultures. That is something we would have to take on too. Which is one of the reasons why Capitalism and the psychopaths have to go. We need to make sure nobody has to sacrifice their own life to do the right thing.
Run the numbers for yourself, Joe. I did, and it looks like a squeaker, with us just barely keeping ahead of the curve -- if we do everything right. Start with today's population. Presume for simplicity's sake that everyone has their half-child at 20, and dies at 80. See how long it takes to get down to the 20% of our current population that Lovelock predicts for 2100 if we're stupid enough to let the psychopaths sort us out.
The variability of wind and solar power is a specious argument against them. Spread out the devices sufficiently and share the power they generate over a large enough geographical area, and the variability effect will become negligible.
Install a huge number of solar panels and wind generators in homes and places of business, and though the central grid will still be necessary, its burden will be a small fraction of what it is today and the need to store electricity will be minimized.
The sun is always shining on half of the Earth and the wind is always blowing.
Mairead, I too would feel better if there is a concomitant resolve to NOT increase the use of coal and/or natural gas, especially considering that drastically reducing the burning of coal and natural gas should take place irrespective of what happens on the nuclear front. Although Angela Merkel may like to appear as a "leader", she's clearly the politician here. Unfortunately, many people do not seem to be concerned enough to demand a commitment to NOT increase coal and natural gas use, as if it doesn't matter at all.
I think I see the psychology here: "nuclear" is what "they" do to us - right in our neighborhood, whereas burning coal and natural gas is what "we" do to the rest of the world at large. And our instinct is to stop what "they" do to us, while only paying lip service to what "we" can do to cut back on coal.
"Coal's future suddenly looks brighter in Germany":
www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15065249,00.html
>"The debate about the timing of Germany's nuclear exit strategy has made coal's future look much rosier than before. Public subsidies for the coal industry end in 2018, but private investors could pick up the slack."<<
well at least one of the G8 has decided to pull its head out of its ass.
no place to post this fukushima update:
===================
http://www.economic-undertow.com/2011/05/30/bits-pieces-2/
More good stuff is taking place at the Wonderful Nuclear Resort Fukushima:
■TEPCO says plants won’t be in ‘cold shutdown’ by the end of the year after all.
■TEPCO readings point to a massive increase in Iodine 131 in seawater outside the plant, from 5,200 Bequerels/Liter to 24,000 Bq/L. High levels of radioisotopes are found in areas outside the 20 km exclusion zone.
■TEPCO instruments indicate reactor unit 3 is starting to heat up again even with an flood of 13.5 cubic meters of water injected into it every hour.
■TEPCO jury- rig at unit 5 tempts fate as pump fails then repair is put off for 15 hours. Of course, nobody at the Fukushima Spa bothers to inform anyone until after the fact that the reactor in ‘cold shutdown’ was close to boiling.
=======================================
A different world leader has emerged.
We're getting a lot of corporate flak from both the nuclear industry, their paid bloggers and political toads, and from their oil industry counterparts. Neither one cares for alternative energy.
The problem with Der Spiegel, the corporate name on this story, is they'll cozy up to any business with two nickels to rub together. In the real world Angela Merkel is only reacting because she touched the third rail, nuclear power after Fukushima, and it really hurt her pro-business party. Give her the slightest reason to go back to biz as usual and she's off to nuclear Disneyland again. In particular she actually wants 10 more years of undisturbed productive nuclear power, no changes whatsoever right now, so that people will maybe forget the dangers to their own families after maybe the next 2 elections.
In 2000, Germany committed to weaning itself off of FOSSIL FUELS and nuclear power. They are going to phase out fossil fuels (that does include coal) and nuclear power. Something like this could not even begin to happen in this country. It looks like the US is more of a plutocracy than Germany. But then Germany has a viable Green party with plenty of clout. I hope that Germany sticks to their plan and does not backpedal.
Die Tapazeitung got it right on the mark-- hey, what would one expect it's a progressive news organization. About this we might as well as say with the Who "You better bet your life" on a clean sustainable/damn welll renewable/You better need it/ You better want it/You better bet your life. . .or the nuclear waste will cut you like a knife."
Wonderful news!
Germany is an old country (700-800 years old) and after all the normal hardships and wars they have learned that you can't "spin" your way out of problems and into prosperity. They are a practical people and they are about to leap ahead of us when it comes to sustainable energy.
I read something astounding to me a couple of months ago. It was an article about the shifting of world power and it predicted that Germany would be a major power in the near future. It is that kind of (nuclear power) decision that makes me believe that prediction.
the above comment about a thorium reactor is nonsense, as is the hype for "modular" reactors. germany & japan's commitments to renewables do mark a huge shift in human society. the technical key is a mix of all solartopian technologies---wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, ocean thermal, wave, current, bio-fuels (NOT from food crops), increased efficiency, conservation, restoration of mass transit, etc. the political key is to decentralize ownership as well as deployment. when that happens, the corporate structure will begin to crumble, which is why the moneyed resistance is so fierce.
Well this should certainly be interesting.
Germany's future energy policy will not be determined by Fray Merkel or the German Bundestag but by a handful of super-wealthy German bankers and industrialists. They demand cheap, dependable, and low-risk electricity. They were never enamored with nuclear because of its expenses and high risks hence Frau Merkel did not have a fight with them on her hands to close nuclear in 2022. Given their super-conservative if not reactionary views one can fairly reliably predict that Germany will continue to rely mainly on gas and coal even after 2022 unless a social and political revolution in that country completely changes its power structure. Now that would be a "Historic Moment"! For that to happen the demonstrators must demand much more than stoppage of nuclear. Unfortunately, as long as the German economy is booming, as it is now, there will be no such demonstrations. Like most Germans, German environmentalists (the Greens) are too obedient to revolt.
My informant? The mayor of a major German city, a family member whom I recently met.
I wanna see that newsfilm again where Dubya spontaneously comes up behind Angela Merkel and starts to give her shoulders a massage and she recoils almost like a tomato caterpillar suddenly soaked in vinegar.
This is a remarkable woman.
A huge majority of CD writers and commenters are essentially "green," opponents of all major energy systems that are major contributors to CO2 atmospheric global warming, as well as opposition to nuclear power for basically other reasons.
Here is an international leader who perhaps for the first time in recent history is putting on the table ALL the issues we hold key to our survival. We should all be massaging her shoulders and hope she doesn't shrug.
For years I have tried to second-guess her. No longer.
If she is not in constant and deep communication with Gorbachev, I will be eternally astonished. She seems to have a basic understanding of issues of life and death and seems to be trying to change the paradigm of Western political psychosis. (Germany is of course not the only one recognizing the threat and now trying to respond to it, but it is the biggest [and also has all that Nazi baggage]...so far.)
As to the depredations of the U.S., so far a "soft landing." This could change, abruptly. Forget the price of gold. Watch corn and beans. And read your monthly electricity bill, carefully.
As for coal, as a chemical it is probably second only to oil for extraction and alteration of highly complex chemicals we humans would otherwise have a really hard time manufacturing from scratch. Burning it for heat or electricity is now demonstrably stupid, regardless of its contribution to atmospheric CO2.
Most of the trade-offs inevitably have diminishing returns. The global investment should be in all renewables with the use of carbon-based (and nuclear) fuels devoted only to furtherance of that goal while seeking their phase out as rapidly as humanly possible. We are the result of the fecundity of Mother Nature, not her rape. She gave us large brains. Over the ages many have asked why. Certainly NOT to destroy her. On this score Humanity can go either Entropic---suicide---or anti-entropic. Ultimately, the chemistry and physics here are pretty well established. It may be wise to start with the study of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and work it out from there.
We are being governed by people and institutions whose power rests on demonstrably flawed assumptions and who pose a direct threat to the vast majority of Humanity despite their attempts to claim otherwise. They accuse us of being "reality-based." (From the now-infamous NYTimes Magazine interview with an unnamed Bush operative...) What is so bad about that?
To be "reality-based" needs by no means to be "stuck" in the Present (while all those Republicans were investing in a Future of their own making). LOOK AT WHAT THAT PHILOSOPHY HAS WREAKED. Essentially, a collapse of the Western Economic System. Frank Herbert's "Dune" which based its dynamics on the near absolute absence of water (versus oil today and water tomorrow), had humans travelling in space having outlawed MicroSoft before the latter was incorporated. The Worm Chemical enabled the ABILITY TO PREDICT in space travel.
This is also called EXPERIENCE, and explains why we should respect our Elders, even if we don't agree with them.
The West needs an energy revolution, ASAP.
So, please pardon my admiration for Angela Merkel, the Right-Wing former resident of East Germany.
Rarely do I find older women attractive. Especially when they are "overweight."
Angela Merkel is NOT overweight. Please, God, allow me to kneel and kiss her hand. The science is overwhelmingly on her side here. Is she secretly a Marxist-Leninist observational Empiricist? A PLANT stuck into the heart of Europe, while Loki is considering the Mandrake as a weapon? Eternal Light? Eternal Dark?
Hang in there, Sister.
Anyone for massaging Dubya's shoulders? As he clears the brush outside Crawford? Craw-Ford. Cray. (Isn't brush an alphabetical conversion of the great Molly Ivins' name for Dubya: SHRUB?!)
It is essential that governments confront global corporations here. Otherwise, governments will be subsumed, as most now are in Africa.
Time to clear the brush.
-30-
OleManRiver, sorry to sprinkle a bit of cold water on your crush (not "throw" cold water, just a sprinkle), but Angela Merkel is basically being a politician here. This is what politicians do when faced with electoral reverses in regional elections. Especially when the Green Party and their allies together have won a regional election for the first time.
That said, Angela Merkel was not exactly pro-nuke before this decision to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2021 - she was only being a realist. Being a realist is not as bad as being a status-quoist, which she is not. She had identified nuclear power and carbon capture and storage as "bridge technologies" until such time when Germany can go all-renewable - a great ideal to work toward, while keeping the very real threat due to climate change in mind.
Unfortunately, as of now, there is NO commitment to phase out coal and natural gas. If news reports mean anything, there is even a likelihood that there may be an increase in coal and/or natural gas use to make up for the shortfall from nuclear power.
If that happens, and if there is not a similar level of protests on the streets, that would prove beyond any doubt that most people are just plain selfish - including the German people and their Green Party! And their supporters elsewhere!
Selfish - because while the people rightly recognize the immediate danger to them from the nuclear plants, they obviously do NOT give a damn about the real danger they are causing to OTHER people elsewhere by their continued burning of coal and natural gas. And some may imagine that they are taking a stand on an environmental issue when it is little more than NIMBYism if they do not demand shutting down coal power plants.
Angela Merkel had a real chance for leadership at Copenhagen in December 2009 to bring about a real, more ambitious successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. But she failed. She probably realized that her fellow G8 leaders were all climate criminals and she probably decided to take the best that was on offer - which was shameful, according to so many scientists and activists.
So, bottom line: Merkel is a realist and is a politician who can clearly tell which way the wind is blowing. That is all. I have not seen her leadership in convincing other countries or even her own country people to opt for more aggressive, more ambitious targets for GHG reduction. But of course, Germany is still doing more than other rich countries, so if you want to give some of the credit to your crush, please, by all means... :)
Die Welt warns of potential power outages from non-nuclear power generation. Do they think that the Fukushima plant is still generating electricity?
Contrary to Die Welt's claim, highly distributed power generation, with millions of solar panels and wind generators, would make a major power outage nearly impossible, something that no centralized form of power generation can claim.
Their comparison to the 70's oil shortage is inappropriate. In contrast to oil, no entity can control the Earth's supply of sun or wind, and that completely changes the market forces.
The Algemeine Zeitung is so desperately alarmist in claiming that all forms of energy production are associated with "incalculable risks" that they just sound silly. Incalculable risks from putting solar panels on your roof?
I take it as good news that the best arguments the pro-nukers can come up with are so lame.
Their comparison to the 70's oil shortage is inappropriate. In contrast to oil, no entity can control the Earth's supply of sun or wind, and that completely changes the market forces.
----------------------------------
But it doesn't change them enough.
"They" (I put it in quotes because the owner class is amorphous, and in certain ways not united, yet as Dr Smith wrote "the masters are everywhere in a sort of tacit but constant and uniform combination") own the means of producing the energy extractors (solar cells, wind turbines, etc), own the networks on which electricity travels, and own the governments that permit or prevent the use of such technologies locally. That's sufficient to maintain their hegemony.
We need *political power*.