Could the US Phase Out Nuclear Power?

mdsolar writes "In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, [German Chancellor] Merkel announced that her country would close all of its 17 existing reactors by 2022. Other nations, including Japan, Italy, and Switzerland, have announced plans to pare back nuclear power, but none have gone as far as Germany, the world's fourth-largest economy. Merkel vows to replace nuclear power with alternatives that do not increase greenhouse gases or shackle the economic growth. Could the US do the same? An increasing number of reports suggest it is not beyond the realm of possibility, and Germany could provide a road map."

Comments

Longer Answer:

[Colonel Korn]

And neither can Germany.

Re:Longer Answer:

[h4rr4r]

Sure they can, just buy power from France. Who are of course using Nuclear power plants on the other side of the river.

Re:Longer Answer:

[Caerdwyn]

Germany is not phasing out nuclear power. They will need to import power in the short- and medium-term from France and England, both of which are nuclear-heavy (particularly France). Germany will still use nuclear-generated electricity; they're just playing a "not in my back yard" game. And by "they", I mean politicians which are pandering to their electorate to try to keep in power.

Long-term, they are putting themselves at the mercy of Russia. The NordStream natural gas pipeline will eventually be providing fuel, which can and will be used as a political lever (Russia has successfully done so several times in the past to strong-arm NATO over membership for the Ukraine and Georgia). Also, natural gas is a fossil fuel just like oil, and if the CO2 boogeyman is still the boogeyman, well... how does that not cause problems? On a per-megawatt basis, nuclear power remains much cheaper than natural gas, and a full decimal order of magnitude cheaper than solar (recall how far north Germany is. That's a problem for solar.) Switching from nuclear power to natural gas is not a step forward, economically, politically, ecologically

This is just another example of politicians doing long-term harm for short-term political dominance.

Re:Longer Answer:

[thelovebus]

How much of that renewable energy is subsidized? Considering Spain's current budget issues, I hope not much, because otherwise the price of energy in Spain could be very unstable.

I'm certainly not anti-renewable, but nuclear energy is such an attractive alternative I hate seeing all the fear-mongering that goes on with it.

Additionally, the link you provided says that only 32% of Spain's electricity is generated from renewable sources, not "over half".

FUD article

[Lunix Nutcase]

No. This is just another anti-nuclear FUD article from mdsolar. Secondly, if the US did phase it out what exactly is going to replace it? More coal plants? Yeah, that sounds like a brilliant plan but would be an extremely amusing backfire from the anti-nuke nuts campaign.

Re:FUD article

[eln]

all the extra land required to build these alternatives.

No worries, nothing bad has ever happened because Germany decided they needed more land.

Re:Short Answer

[enderjsv]

Sure they could. Never underestimate the power of fear and ignorance, my friend.

Why? Nuclear is the *safest* form of power..

[Richard_J_N]

See: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

From Isaac Asimov's "Foundation"

[Red Jesus]

And you men and half of the Internet as well are just as bad. We sit here, considering Wikipedia the all-in-all. We consider the greatest end of science is the classification of past data. It is important, but is there no further work to be done? We're receding and forgetting, don't you see? Here in the America they've lost nuclear power. In Japan, a power plant has undergone meltdown because of poor repairs, and the Chancellor of the Empire complains that nuclear technicians are scarce. And the solution? To train new ones? Never! Instead they're to restrict nuclear power.

--Salvor Hardin, paraphrased

Re:Short Answer

[drooling-dog]

Never underestimate the power of fear and ignorance

Fear, maybe, but ignorance? I'd say it's more an issue of trust. Not everyone can be a nuclear engineer, but most can smell the stink when the assurances they are given by them are contradicted repeatedly by empirical reality. When people who purport to know what they're talking about ridicule popular concerns about safety and accidents, they allow themselves to appear cavalier about those matters, which erodes public confidence even further.

Personally, I believe that nuclear energy should be part of the mix in the future. But the next time the impossible happens and a reactor melts down, don't try to convince me that it's no worse than standing next to a bunch of bananas.

MDSOLAR, REVEAL YOURSELF.

[TrisexualPuppy]

This is yet another FUD article on nuclear power submitted by mdsolar. I personally have nothing against publicizing the dangers of nuclear power, but this should be done in a fair way. User mdsolar has repeatedly posted FUD articles on nuclear power and frequently gets them through because of the mass volume of his submissions and the lack of attention paid by the moderators to specific users' agendas.

mdsolar, reveal yourself. What is your viable plan for generating electricity once you have wiped all the reactors off the map? How do you plan on dealing with the decommissioning and waste? Could you try easing up and submitting articles not chock-full of such alarmist banter? Are you a BP employee?

Re:Mod parent up!

[NoSleepDemon]

Reading through the first and second pages comes up with such treats as "Fukushima meltdown could be template for terror", "sustainability experts: nuclear energy not essential", "radiation understated after quake" and "nuclear in 2018 more expensive than solar PV today". Definitely an agenda there, especially with the abuse of the word 'terror', regardless of whether or not the stories are credible.