• Broken clouds
  • 63°
    Broken clouds

sponsored by Edina Realty

  • Comment

OTHER OPINION: Overreacting to reactors

Germany’s decision to close all nuclear plants by 2022 was misguided

Posted: June 15, 2011 - 7:43pm

The International Energy Agency reported ... that global energy-related carbon emissions last year were the highest ever, and that the world is far off track if it wants to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, after which the results could be very dangerous.

So what does Germany’s government decide to do? Shut down terawatts of low-carbon electric capacity in the middle of Europe. Bowing to misguided political pressure from Germany’s Green Party, Chancellor Angela Merkel endorsed a plan to close all of the country’s nuclear power plants by 2022.

German environmentalists cheered, apparently satisfied that the government will be able to scale up renewable energy sources and scale back electricity demand enough to compensate for the loss of the power plants, which produce a quarter of the nation’s electricity. But the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank, points out that renewables would have to generate an incredible 42.4 percent of the country’s electricity in 2020 to displace nuclear. The government could bring that number down some with very aggressive reductions in energy use. But, even then, all that will merely hold the German power industry to its current carbon footprint. The country has an ambitious goal to reduce emissions, which will require yet more drastic reforms to its electricity sector — and all, apparently, over the course of a single decade. 

European financial analysts aren’t convinced, estimating that Germany’s move will result in about 400 million tons of extra carbon emissions by 2020, as the country relies more on fossil fuels. Nor is Donald Tusk, Poland’s prime minister, who ominously announced that Germany has put coal-fired power “back on the agenda” — good for his coal-rich nation directly to Germany’s east but terrible for the environment and public health.

Germany is also likely to import more power from its neighbors, regardless of how well it does in ramping up renewables, since sometimes the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Utilities across Europe may end up burning more coal or natural gas. Anne Lauvergeon, chief executive of French nuclear parts manufacturer Areva, predicts that after shunning nuclear, the Germans will end up buying electricity generated in nuclear plants in nations such as France.

Instead of providing a model for greening a post-industrial economy, Germany’s overreaching greens are showing the rest of the world just how difficult it is to contemplate big cuts in carbon emissions without keeping nuclear power on the table. Panicked overreaction isn’t the right response to the partial meltdowns in Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex. Instead, countries aiming to provide their citizens with reliable, low-carbon electricity should ask how to minimize inevitable, if small, risks - making their nuclear facilities safer, more reliable and more efficient.

  • Comment

Comments (20)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
rolflindy
5906
Points
rolflindy 06/16/11 - 05:30 am
0
0

It's all about scale

There's 2,600 solar panels on the Minneapolis Convention Center roof. They produce 750,000 erratic kwh in one year. Our Prairie Island nuclear plant does that much in 55 minutes. And it does it during a snow storm and in the middle of the night.

fishhead
5344
Points
fishhead 06/16/11 - 06:36 am
0
0

Conservation could reduce

Conservation could reduce demand by at least 30%.

That means that about 1/3 of our energy production capacity is unneeded.

jjWilsen
16
Points
jjWilsen 06/16/11 - 08:13 am
0
0

Real savings??

How long will it take for the taxpayers to realize real savings for converting state and federal buildings to alternative energy ? When that time comes, will the current technology and buildings be considered out dated and no real savings be the result?

rolflindy
5906
Points
rolflindy 06/16/11 - 08:24 am
0
0

Conservation is best, but

the only way you get conservation is by making energy use expensive with nasty things like high gasoline taxes. Then people buy high mileage cars and use public transport. Since those taxes are politically not possible, talking about conservation just creates more wind for inefficient windmills.

rolflindy
5906
Points
rolflindy 06/16/11 - 08:27 am
0
0

State and federal buildings.

Except for passive solar which works well, we don't heat buildings with wind and solar. They cost more than cheaper coal, natural gas and nuclear.

jjWilsen
16
Points
jjWilsen 06/16/11 - 08:56 am
0
0

So then..

no real savings will be passed onto the taxpayer because the structures and energy savings devises will be antiquated by the time real saving come to reality unless current energy cost continue to increase or energy consumption taxes are raised to nasty levels?

fishhead
5344
Points
fishhead 06/17/11 - 07:02 am
0
0

All that is needed is to put

All that is needed is to put the true cost of oil and coal on the bill.

Even at current subsidized rates oil and coal are expensive enough to justify conservation. Add to the cost to our national security and oil is not cost effective by any stretch of the imagination.

wolfg1
601
Points
wolfg1 06/17/11 - 07:31 am
0
0

Fish is right. If we didn't

Fish is right. If we didn't use oil, we wouldn't need a military.

LOL

rolflindy
5906
Points
rolflindy 06/17/11 - 01:42 pm
0
0

Fish and our oil imports

Fish, our big oil suppliers are Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. We don't need an army in those places. Our big military mess and cost is now Afghanistan which doesn't have any oil. Iraq does but we aren't getting much there.
Oil is our largest energy source because it is cost effective, with or without subsidies.

fishhead
5344
Points
fishhead 06/17/11 - 05:13 pm
0
0

Rolf and our oil imports.

According to this website we get 41% of our oil from OPEC nations and only 21% from Canada yet Rolf likes to imply we aren't held hostage by the mideast oil.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=32&t=6

Even if we only got 5% of our oil from OPEC we would still be held hostage by events in the mideast because it affects the price of global oil.

That is why we meddle in their politics and that is why they hate us.

And that is why we spend so many military dollars in the mideast. It amounts to a subsidy for big oil and people who own stock in oil like Rolf.

rolflindy
5906
Points
rolflindy 06/17/11 - 05:39 pm
0
0

You just need money, not guns, to import oil

The Chinese don't have a single soldier in the Middle East and they buy all the oil they need.

rolflindy
5906
Points
rolflindy 06/17/11 - 05:52 pm
0
0

Helping Fish with geography

OPEC is not the same as the Middle East. OPEC includes Venezuela, Angola, algeria, etc.
The only Middle East countries we get any significant oil from are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. That amounts to about 16%, not 41%, of our oil imports - or LESS than we get from Canada alone.

Rolf

rolflindy
5906
Points
rolflindy 06/17/11 - 08:10 pm
0
0

Honest mistake

RD: Fish isn't lying. He is just not that familiar with the oil and gas industry. That happens to be my ball park. Outside my ball park, I try to avoid using numbers. It's too easy to get confused.

fishhead
5344
Points
fishhead 06/18/11 - 07:07 am
0
0

I understand that OPEC is not

I understand that OPEC is not just middle east countries but it's the volatility of the middle east that threatens supply and causes the wild swings in oil prices.

My point was that just because Canada is our main single source supplier (still less than 1/2 of OPEC) and they are friendly towards us that doesn't take 800 pound OPEC out of the equation.

rolflindy
5906
Points
rolflindy 06/18/11 - 10:09 am
0
0

More on OPEC

OPEC is obviously the major player in the oil market. That wasn't the question. The issue raised by Fish was that we needed troops in the Middle East to get their oil; so we had to charge our defense budget as an oil subsidy.
That is nonsense. Oil is produced, bought, and sold by many countries everywhere without the need for armies. Just bring money.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.brainerddispatch.com/galleries/543863/ http://spotted.brainerddispatch.com/galleries/543858/ http://spotted.brainerddispatch.com/galleries/543848/
  • title http://spotted.brainerddispatch.com/galleries/543843/ http://spotted.brainerddispatch.com/galleries/543838/ http://spotted.brainerddispatch.com/galleries/543833/
  • title
Montessori Kindergarten Graduation

CONTACT US

  • Switchboard 218-829-4705
  • Report News 218-855-5860
  • Advertising 218-855-5835
  • Classifieds 218-855-5898
  • Circulation 218-855-5897
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING