Could the US Phase Out Nuclear Power? 657
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."
Re:FUD article (Score:5, Informative)
No, I just needed to see "mdsolar writes" to know this submission is just pure FUD.
Of course we could... (Score:5, Informative)
...and the coal industry would be thrilled.
Why? Nuclear is the *safest* form of power.. (Score:5, Informative)
See: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html [nextbigfuture.com]
Re:Longer Answer: (Score:0, Informative)
You mean, like Spain does? Oh, wait, Spain exports energy to France, and last year over half of its energy production was from renewable resources.
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/06/07/ciencia/1307459605.html
Re:Longer Answer: (Score:5, Informative)
Spain does not export energy to France. It imports energy from France, and exports energy to Portugal, Morocco, and Andorra.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/28/spain-renewables-energy-electricity-france [guardian.co.uk]
"You mean like Spain..." at least check your facts (Score:4, Informative)
You mean, like Spain does? Oh, wait, Spain exports energy to France, and last year over half of its energy production was from renewable resources.
Actually, Spain imported 2% of its energy from France, and gets 20% of its domestic power from nuclear plants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Spain [wikipedia.org].
-- Terry
Bogus. (Score:5, Informative)
MDSOLAR, REVEAL YOURSELF. (Score:5, Informative)
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:Short Answer (Score:4, Informative)
The question is not whether it's worse than standing next to a bunch of bananas. The question is whether it's worse than an alternative source of energy. Assuming the demand for power stays constant (and it's certainly not going down), shutting down a nuclear power plant requires additional power to be generated elsewhere.
Clearly, a nuclear power plant is less safe than an open field. But is it worse than a coal plant, or a natural gas plant, or the equivalent solar or windmill farm? And by what metrics are we measuring 'safety'? How do you compare the (fairly unlikely) danger of a radiation leak at a nuclear plant to the effects of toxic rain, deforestation, and other byproducts of coal?
Re:scared of invisible bits (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that a big disaster in a nuclear power plant affects a wide area and is broadcasted around the world, so people are afraid of it, while coal and other methods kill people all the time, but only in small numbers at once, so nobody cares.
It's the same as with planes vs cars for transport. People die in car accidents every day, but since the numbers are small nobody cares. On the other hand, if a plane crashes somewhere, half the world knows about it since a lot of people die at once.
Re:Short Answer (Score:4, Informative)
Um, no, it's not. Show one example of a civilian nuclear reactor in the United States being used for weapons production. Also note that we're one of the few countries that does NOT reprocess their spent nuclear fuels, with proliferation fears being the primary reason why.
By their nature, the type of reactors used in the USA are not very suitable for producing weapons materials. They are difficult to refuel frequently, so the plutonium produced is contaminated with Pu-240 (bad for weapons). So reactors used for weapons production tend to be designed for frequent refueling to reduce the Pu-240 content. This generally results in various graphite-moderated designs. To my knowledge, the USA never used weapons reactors for civilian power generation. The UK may have (Magnox reactors), and the Soviets most assuredly did. (The graphite-moderated water-cooled reactor at Chernobyl was perfect for weapons production - it could even be refueled while operational.)
At this point, many countries are actually dismantling weapons and using the plutonium to fuel reactors (MOX fuel), or in the case of HEU weapons- diluting it to produce reactor LEU. See Megatons for Megawatts - many of our civilian reactors are fueled by dismantled Russian bombs.
Re:Longer Answer: (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2043.html?countryName=Germany&countryCode=gm®ionCode=eu&#gm [cia.gov]
Re:Longer Answer: (Score:5, Informative)
It most definitely was that.
There were State elections in Baden Wuertemburg several weeks ago, the CDU have *always* ruled there - often with over 50% of the votes.
The Ecology Party (Gruenen) won the election and are going into coalition with the SPD. The FDP (the CDU's partners at State and national level) did not get any seats at all. Merkel panicked.
There were some major reasons why the CDU lost their majority - mostly CDU initiatives which had gone expensively south, although Fukushima will also have been a factor. The CDU decided they had lost touch with their electorate (true) and it was all down to Fukushima (debatable).
There are several State elections this year. One has been held since that nuclear decision. The CDU came in third, their worst result anywhere since the war. The FDP did not pick up any seats there either.
A couple things (Score:4, Informative)
A couple comments on this.