Since the related thread on the Japan earthquake has broadened, messages on the related policy issues have been moved to this thread. We hope that this will enable clearer discussion.

These messages were posted from 30 May onwards.

Regards

-------------------------
David Rossall
Manager, Internet Services Group
The Institution of Engineering and Technology

Edited: 09 June 2011 at 12:50 PM by rossall

Today's news Germany is to close all its nuclear power plants by 2022.
Wonder if Germany will build any in uk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13594503

It probably means that France will have to build more nuclear plants so that they can export energy to Germany.

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET

The Germans will follow the Austrians and buy cheap off peak nuclear generated electricity from France and Eastern Europe to fill their pumped storage systems and then sell it on as expensive "green" electricity.

Best regards

Roger

It is so disappointing that Germany's decision was based on the reaction to limited but vocal public opinion not on scientific evidence. Recently the BBC stated that the Japanese had admitted that their mitigation measures for an Earthquake were not adequate. Surely this suggests that the issue is not that of the safety of Nuclear power, but that of cutting corners on the mitigation measures? Whose bright idea was it to build such a plant in a well known earthquake zone? When was the last time Germany had an earthquake of any significance? There was a TV programme recently showing how the road bridge in the bay of Corinth I think it is has been specifically designed to withstand quakes etc. It can be done! Until such time as the energy consuming population of this planet choose to reduce its consumption, Nuclear is going to be needed, and please don't give me the BS that windfarms are going to solve all our problems. All they solve is the constructors' profit and loss account

johnhorsley5 I agree with your comments and I support the development of nuclear power as a measure to keep the lights on. Nuclear power is also dependent on fossil fuels so we also need to continue research on fusion. Until then there is one source of power which has been sadly neglected. Britain has utterly reliable tidal power with two high and two low tides circulating the island 24/7. If the subsidies paid for unreliable wind were devoted to tidal power the need for nuclear could be postponed. At present there is a probability that we will have the lights out before the nuclear plants we need are built.

-------------------------
misceng

This decision by Germany is politically motivated, driven by an irrational fear of nuclear power. It is bad news for the global climate because the loss of nuclear generating capacity will inevitably be replaced by additional fossil fuel generation, gas and coal, thereby increasing Germany's energy related carbon emissions. Hopes that electricity demand will be reduced by improved end-use energy efficiency are unrealistic, as are forecasts that wind and solar technologies will fill the gap in base load generation. Germany look likely to need to increase electricity imports from neighbouring countries. I hope the UK Government does not make the same mistake.

What odds that the Germans do not actually end up carrying this through?

Anyhow, there will certainly be plenty of nuclear engineers looking for jobs. As most of them will probably need only to brush up their English it means plenty of engineers happy to get the expanding UK nucleasr programme going.

A certain degree of madness has overcome the German government and is it stunning to consider how they have swallowed the Green party propaganda apparently without thought to go for a non-nuclear future. It makes no sense.
In Green thinking, people say energy, I have never heard the word power used; it is if they cannot tell the difference between these words. Power in a renewable future is uncertain. And what is driving this rush to the new future, surely it is the fear of the unknown, of the unseen, of ghosts, being alone in the dark.
The closure of nuclear plant is an attack on the electrical power industry and there is no doubt that there will be a reduction in capacity. Many German households are electrical powered and there is an electric appliance for everything. I cannot see that the Hausfrau will accept that the Kaffeemaschine machine will not work first thing in the morning because the wind is not blowing.
Germany has been on the forefront of Energiesparung so it is surprising that, when the mass use of rechargeable electric vehicles and electrically operated heat pumps is imminent that, the Germans are using the off switch.
There is no doubt that the technologist will make great steps to reducing consumption. However considering all that has been done, where next? We can see there will be a shift to oil and electricity will be produced from coal and shale gas, both fairly contentious.
That leaves one last question: What happened to the German commitment to carbon dioxide reduction?

A certain degree of madness seems to have affected the Italians as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...umiliating-defeat.html

Well the German government may have made the decision to close their nuclear assets but I'd like to know how they will address the forthcoming Energy Efficiency Directive due at the end of June. This directive proposes the Energiesparung in buildings, vehicles and more industry referred to above.
According to a number of Energy Supply companies within Europe this directive will have the effect of creating an excess carbon permits over the next decade, consequently deflating their prices and undermining investment in renewable energy.
Tradeable permits or investment in renewables curtailed, now their is a question.

Alan

-------------------------
Alan Morris MIET

No they won't do anything except buy gas from Russia's new Baltic pipline because real time solar and gravity derived energy sources are far too weak and variable to power a developed economy's grid. Its why we stopped using them at the industrial revolution. GDP : Energy use. Conservation is not an option ether, we will need at least twice but more likly 3 times the electrical energy at the end of fossil, when alternatoves become expesnively obsolete without fossil backup. Only cheap plentiful nuclear energy can keep us developed, which is why Asia and Russia are building it big time.

Just do the maths. 300,000 IMW turbines at 20% for 60GW peak load. 3 on every one of the 100,000 square mile of the UK assuming 20% of rated delivery - unlikely with sub optimal siting.

Wind is a 30 year old offset to fossil power to offset Sauer regen, its developed to death. Subsidising it won't make it more efficient or the wind more energetic. It just makes lobbyist genersators rich and wastes increasing £Billions we don't have annually. Alternatives do not have a point without "fossil back up" prolong its lfe and emissions by symbiosis and are obsolete when its gone. Nuclear is already zero carbon, cheapest, controllable, and renewable - and the safest by far of current sources with minimal waste problems given the application of known technologies to fuel processing and waste treatment using fast neutron fluxes from fission and fusion machines. The only problem is vacilating ignorant politicians and a stockpile of cold war weapons programme waste, not an insoluble technical problem. We have the technology, can fix that using nuclear engineering to transmute it with the support and funding.

UNAFFORDABLE: On top of that the weakness of wind power means you need huge amounts of equipment to collect it plus massive infrastructure and land use. Not eco or environmental. Offshore Wind for example is 3x more to put on the grid than coal, gas or nuclear, 4x with subsidies that make generators build the most expensive over subsidised generation instead of the cheapest less subsidised. EC fundamentalist directives with no basis in science or economics and their resulting ROC subsidies have totally distorted the reality of economic zero carbon generation for a German marxist political ideology. Just replacing primary gas heating with electricity quadruples energy bills at today's prices. Adding in alternative premium of another 4 times is simply untenable - and totally unnecessary, its all political, not reality. Every 1GW they build wil cost nearly £1B pa in incremental electricity cost for its 25 year life over nuclear build, totally avoidably. We need 60GW peak, 400TWh today. 2 or 3 times this at the end of fossil.

But our lilly livered Institute is too cowardly to represent this point forcefully to Government and the media, even though many have expressed these views and we are by far the most qualified to do so. I have a simple quantified lecture on this if anyone would like to here it. No assertive opinion, just the logical consequences of worked public data from DECC and other respected and peer reviewed sources like the RAE and OECD that directly corroborate the above. Its not hard, but 4 year term politicians don't want to address the inevitable end of fossil issues. Power and ego us far more important to them than our economic future.

Brian Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA 01932 772731

Edited: 15 June 2011 at 03:35 PM by BrianCatt

I think it is a big mistake for Germany to end their nuclear program. Or is it???
Is it possible that they are using this as an excuse to decommission all their old plants and then when they inevitable realise that they need more nuclear.... well, it will be like their productive base which was crushed during the war, and they rebuilt it and are now one of the best producing nations on the planet. Could it be the same with nuclear. While the rest of the world is burdened with aging and obsolete designs, Germany will have a lean modern network up and running.
Sure they could build new plants whilst keeping their old plants running but as the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention".
Just a thought.

Gen 4 Fast Neutron plants are already on the way. We had one at Dounrey. Russia and China are building fast breeders. Bill Gates TWR is coming soon...beats as it sweeps as it cleans - consumes depleted fuel as is including the Plutonium. We have the technology. Just an ignorant public scared hysterical by the media and grandstanding politicians following unscientfic directives from Brussles rooted in irrational Grün ideology. That's the basis for a technologiocal society's energy poolicy. The French don't care. They have 80% plus nuclear and are not replacing them with windmills/watermills anytime soon. Energie Nucleaire? Pas de problem!

For the past few years France has been a nett importer from Germany. What I haven't been able to work out is whether it is actually German power that is imported or whether the import from CZ to D is greater than that from D to F making it an import from CZ to F in practical terms. CZ, of course, has plenty of nuclear since Temelin 2 was put on line.
Mike

-------------------------
Mike Wrigley
Past Chairman, French Network

Brian, don't overlook the fact that France closed down its breeder site quite some time ago. When I was much younger I brushed close to the control systems on breeders whilst I was working on Hinkley and Hunterston. The reaction times that the control systems have to cope with with fast neutrons gave me the shivvers.
Mike

-------------------------
Mike Wrigley
Past Chairman, French Network

There is no doubt that if you look ahead long term, nuclear power could provide more energy than the world could possibly need. And this is without fusion power and without breeder reactors. Thorium reactors have essentially 100% burn up against 2 or 3% for uranium and thorium is three times as abundant as uranium. They are inherently safe and they produce less waste. They could be mass produced and this would reduce the cost dramatically.
Recent research shows that nuclear radiation is not all that dangerous. People are living normal lives in regions with nuclear radiation 100 times the assumed safe level. Research on Hiroshima victims showed that from 1950 on, they had a death rate of 7.9% against the remaining population with a death rate of 7.5%. Not statistically significant. Safe levels of radiation are all based on an assumption that all radiation is bad and that the relationship is linear. The reality is that there is a threshold below which it is not dangerous. There is even some evidence that exposure to moderately high levels of radiation means you have less chance of getting cancer in later life.
Regarding wind and solar power, all the people who push it conveniently forget one critical factor. For it to work on a large scale, you have to have a means of storing the surplus energy so that it can be used when it is needed. Storage needs to be for a period of days, weeks and even months. There is no cheap and efficient technology available and none is even on on the horizon. Without this, it can only play a bit part - and a very expensive one at that.

-------------------------
BryanLeyland

Oh dear,more nuclear madness from Switzerland. Which country will be next?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ar-power_n_873012.html

The Swiss position is currently more political manouvering than a real exit stratergy. Any actual changes will almost certainly go to a referendum, especially if they will cost significant sums of money, or significantly increase energy costs. The Swiss will not be happy if their train fares go up.
There are currently plans in place (from before Fukushima) to build new pumped storage systems and enlarge existing dams. This will, as in other countries, allow the import of cheap off peak nuclear electricity from France or Eastern Europe while waving the green flag.

The Swiss are already having problems meeting their CO2 targets before they try and shut down their nuclear power plants.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/po...put.html?cid=30437394

Best regards

Roger

Edited to add link

Edited: 16 June 2011 at 03:37 PM by rogerbryant

Brian Catt, I would like to have a copy of your lecture/presentation. bryan.leyland@gmail.com

-------------------------
BryanLeyland