Germany's coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.

 

The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy.

 

Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement following late-night talks.

 

Chancellor Angela Merkel set up a panel to review nuclear power following the crisis at Fukushima in Japan.

 

There have been mass anti-nuclear protests across Germany in the wake of March's Fukushima crisis, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami.

 

 

'Sustainable energy'

 

Mr Rottgen said the seven oldest reactors - which were taken offline for a safety review immediately after the Japanese crisis - would never be used again. An eighth plant - the Kruemmel facility in northern Germany, which was already offline and has been plagued by technical problems, would also be shut down for good.

 

Six others would go offline by 2021 at the latest and the three newest by 2022, he said.

 

Mad. The Japanese crisis was caused by an earthquake and subsequent tsunami, neither of which ever occur anywhere near Germany.

Very odd given how clean it is [aside from the utterly toxic left overs] far preferable to Oil and Coal.

 

 

There seems to be quite the anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany and this is really just an excuse to get rid.

Very true Mr Giraffe but events in Japan still raise questions about the safety of nuclear power. If anything goes wrong - whether it's a deliberate act like a terrorist attack or an accident - the consequences are potentially catastrophic.

I'm very much against nuclear power, but this timeframe is totally unrealistic and the whole thing is quite bizarre, to say the least! It was only last month when they decided to expand their nuclear sector, why have they changed their mind? Germany seem to be back-tracking on a lot of things lately, namely their stance towards Ireland. Now this. Merkel needs to get her act together and to stick to one stance. I'm getting whiplash with all this toing and froing!

Very true Mr Giraffe but events in Japan still raise questions about the safety of nuclear power. If anything goes wrong - whether it's a deliberate act like a terrorist attack or an accident - the consequences are potentially catastrophic.

 

You're right of course, I'm not denying the dangers of nuclear power for a second, but abandoning it "because we might have an earthquake" is beyond dim. It's clear the government was just looking for an excuse.

It's pretty obvious that nuclear energy is a costly and very dangerous way of going about things... Although, I do have to wonder what has inspired Merkel's rather sudden anti-nuke stance...

It's pretty obvious that nuclear energy is a costly and very dangerous way of going about things... Although, I do have to wonder what has inspired Merkel's rather sudden anti-nuke stance...

She's a politician whose popularity is declining and the anti-nuclear movement in Germany has always been very strong.

She's a politician whose popularity is declining and the anti-nuclear movement in Germany has always been very strong.

 

 

:lol: :lol: Yeah, that'll be it... Still, I guess there are worse things you can do to get votes... Such as manufacture a phoney, colonial war with a South American country and wrap it up in the flag....

I hate nuclear weapons!

i honestly hope that renewable energy will be being used to offset rather than an increase in fossil fuels!

 

i have to say that german politics seem to be the ones that i most agree with lately, particularly the size of the green movement over there

i honestly hope that renewable energy will be being used to offset rather than an increase in fossil fuels!

 

i have to say that german politics seem to be the ones that i most agree with lately, particularly the size of the green movement over there

 

I highly doubt they'll be able to fill the hole with sustainables, although a switch to gas would be a lesser evil than coal or oil given it's the cleanest of the three.

Renewable energy sources should be part of the equation, but they're simply NEVER going to be able to provide all that we need. Nuclear is going to have to be part of it.

Germany's green movement is quite large, but it's not really a great reflection on their politics. It's the same with Sweden. Sweden have quite a large green following (and I think 35% of their energy are from renewables as well), but the ruling coalition isn't the best. Bündnis 90 are a good party, but the problem with green politics is that it's quite a luxury in recessionary times. Most green votes in Germany come from the higher end of society - the section of society that can afford to "go green". "Light" green (Environmentalism) is probably the best direction to go in as you can invest a lot in green energy while still being able to live a normal life and reduce your carbon footprint. "Dark" green (Ecologists/Radical) support this de-growth idea which isn't plausible and will have all of us living back in caves. Hopefully Europe will continue to invest in renewables so that they can be cheaper in the future. Nuclear is a short-term solution that nearly always ends in tears.

Edited June 13, 201114 yr by Cal

Italians have voted against a new nuclear power programme in a referendum at the weekend. The vote was overwhelming. However, the result is only binding if turnout is at least 50%. Therefore many supporters of nuclear power will have abstained in the hope that the vote would be declared invalid. The turnout was comfortably above 50% (for the first time in an Italian referendum for 16 years) so that tactic failed.

Italians have voted against a new nuclear power programme in a referendum at the weekend. The vote was overwhelming. However, the result is only binding if turnout is at least 50%. Therefore many supporters of nuclear power will have abstained in the hope that the vote would be declared invalid. The turnout was comfortably above 50% (for the first time in an Italian referendum for 16 years) so that tactic failed.

 

Yeah, I have to say, I dont like this tactic of "minimum turnout", it's totally bogus... If you were to apply a minimum turnout of 50% across the board, then very few elections would show valid results... I think a better idea would be to make voting in elections or referendums compulsory rather than do something like this...

 

I don't agree with compulsory voting or a minimum turnout. I think people should vote but they should do so from choice not compulsion.