Siemens To Exit Nuclear Power Business

jones_supa wrote in with a link about the future of nuclear power in Germany. The story reads: "German industrial giant Siemens is turning the page on nuclear energy, the group's CEO Peter Löscher told the weekly Der Spiegel in an interview published on Sunday. The group's decision to withdraw from the nuclear industry reflects 'the very clear stance taken by Germany's society and political leadership.' Along with abandoning nuclear power, Germany wants to boost the share of the country's power needs generated by renewable energies to 35% by 2020 from 17% at present."

Comments

Russian gas

[quenda]

Thats OK, The Germans can rely on their good friends in Russia for a cheap reliable supply of natural gas to fire their power stations for the next century or so while they work on alternatives. What could go wrong?

Greenwash

[afabbro]

If they were making money hand over fist, they would not be exiting nuclear power. Because they decided to exit nuclear power, they take the opportunity to make it look like they're concerned about society.

This is not much different than companies saying "we're going green" and getting rid of postal-mail bills. They're "going green" because it saves them money. If it it was more expensive to send email than paper, you can be certain they would still be sending paper.

This is Slashdot . . .

[Idou]

Such posts will get 5 Insightful just because they support the nuclear industry. It has been a peculiar experience to see just how slanted the community is, especially since I was directly impacted by the Fukushima accident.

Unfortunate, though. Slashdot is usually a great place to find opinions from those with first hand experience. However, when it comes to nuclear power, it might as well be a site for the nuclear lobby. Those with first hand experience are either too intimidated to post or accused of being liars when they do.

Re:A step backwards...

[inviolet]

I'll add my voice to the chorus of people supporting nuclear power as the only currently viable solution to meet the growing energy needs of the future. It's just madness at this stage to suggest that any other technology can be:

A) As environmentally friendly. B) As cheap. C) As reliable. D) As adaptable (goes anywhere in the world).

Nuclear power is ridiculously reliable, cheap, and environmentally friendly... in principle.

In practice, nuclear power plants are built by large groups of humans who are laboring in the presence of perverse incentives. Therefore, a nuclear power plant built by humans will cost about as much as the nearest competitor (natural gas), will be reliable for the time period that the relevant VPs expect to remain at their current post, and will be environmentally friendly in the sense that uranium mining, refining, and disposal are all hand-waved away.

Don't get me wrong, I am a pro-nuke zealot, and I want nuke plants built no matter what the risk. I am just pointing out that when it comes to this subject, you have forgotten your usual justified level of cynicism about humans.