They only have about slightly more than 20% of their energy income from nuclear, and have almost 20% income from wind energy already. They rule, you all suck.
Doesn't much matter to me what type of energy they use, so long as they aren't just turning off the Nuclear Power without anything else to take up the slack. I don't mind nuclear energy, but wind/hydro are preferable - if you can get enough of it for it to be effective.
They only have about slightly more than 20% of their energy income from nuclear, and have almost 20% income from wind energy already. They rule, you all suck.
43% of their energy comes from cole and 14% from gas. Considering the climate change I'd say that nuclear energy is much better.
Nuclear energy is excellent. The problem with wind power is everyone wants it yet everyone always complains about having the turbines. If they want to stop using Nuclear Energy then that's their own decision.
They only have about slightly more than 20% of their energy income from nuclear, and have almost 20% income from wind energy already. They rule, you all suck.
Oh, and I forgot to say: They only have 6% incom from wind energy according to this...
Germany has the world's fifth largest reserves of coal, although most of theirs is much lower grade. [Unlike America, leading in Anthracite and Bituminous Coal by as much as two times of Russia's! Bwahahaha]
So they still have loads to work off of. I personally believe that it's a stupid move if they switch on to more Coal. Coal is an excellent fossil fuel when used wisely, especially if they spend the money to gasify it and cut out all the baddies that come without gasification.
Still, as long as they can switch to other stuff in that time period the move makes sense. If, though, the morons just end up burning their crappy coal and buying other stuff from Russia, I don't think it's happening [And to EnterOrion, France doesn't have any Coal. They've been buying theirs from Germany]
Wind energy is nice, but wind isn't dense, and you have to over-produce turbines to make sure you get all the energy you need continuously, since wind can either come in highs or lows so you need preparation for the lows.
Solar energy is pretty much dead. And Dams, while making hydropower, can cause political disputes over water use and kill fishies.
So I hope that they know what they are doing, because to me it looks like Nuclear Power is going to become a future power producer and Germany's act to stop it looks stupid -- unless they have more dams to build, more places to make big wind turbines, or hotspot regions with which to make geothermal energy. Otherwise, this looks like a really fail move.
Didn't read the article, but why did they do it? Afraid of meltdowns like Japan had? Nuclear waste? Or other reasons?
Just double posting to answer the question -- Yeah, protesters about the whole Japan EQ and I'm guessing their legislative body wanted to look nice and support the will of the people or some bs.
It's funny because the tax for the radioactive rods used in the nuclear taxes [about 1.3 Billion I think I read on the article] is going to stay.
Easy solution: invade part of the Sahara desert, put up a bunch of solar panels, and bam! Germany would have enough energy, and even more with only solar energy.
Hey, you know, once they are spent useing the energy, they have to get rid of nuclear fuel rods, and guess what! YOU CANT GET RID OF THEM! You have to bury it in the ground (irratiating it, and killing all 'dem earth worms and such) you can store it in a building, NAUTARAL DISASTER, and suddenly, its a toxic wasteland. You can throw it into the sea, and bam, all the fish die, and the water irraditied. You can smash it, and bam, toxic waste and radiation galor! You see, nuclear energy is great, but once you have to get rid of the fuel rods, its the worst choice.
Oh, and I forgot to say: They only have 6% incom from wind energy according to this...
Well, then we have different sources, I think I remember seeing 17% in the news.. though those might have been renewable energies in general, I didn't listen closely.
You see, nuclear energy is great, but once you have to get rid of the fuel rods, its the worst choice.
Finland already has plans for a terminal storage, very deep and very big, that will probably be full in 2100 and then be filled by concrete. They are, as far as I know, the first who are doing something about their nuclear waste..
I understand all the points that have been made, that it sounds like a stupid thing to do, but being against nuclear, I am glad that someone finally does something in the right direction. Who cares for CO2 pollution when you can't enter an area because of irradiation? Not saying that all nuclear plants will go boom, but the risk is there. But the biggest problem aren't the risks, the biggest problem are the wastes, like have been mentioned above.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure most of those nuclear plants that will be shut immediately were those who were in a bad state anyway, being old. Those who keep on working until then are in a better state.
Who cares for CO2 pollution when you can't enter an area because of irradiation?
Because it can run out [fossil fuels]. Fossil fuels are also very efficient and powerful. Best to save them for the long run, when needed.
but being against nuclear
What is your primary reason as to why you're against it?
They are, as far as I know, the first who are doing something about their nuclear waste..
Most companies use above ground and underground storage of the rods by placing them in concrete shells. So far, no environmental damage has been seen. [Just a question... why can't we blast them into space? :S]
Oh, and I'm pretty sure most of those nuclear plants that will be shut immediately were those who were in a bad state anyway, being old.
This I agree with. Nuclear needs huge subsidies to be efficient, and also has to stay updated. If neither are there then it's just unacceptable and I think countries need to watch out for old, hazardous things.
