|
|
| Fig. 1: A picture of the Biblis Nuclear Power Plant (Source: Wikimedia Commons) |
In 2011 Germany voted to eliminate all of its nuclear power plants (see Fig. 1). Chancellor Angela Merkel subsequently announced that all nuclear power plants would be closed. Those constructed prior to 1980 would be closed down immediately. [1] Up till March 2011, 25% Germany's electricity came from its extensive nuclear power network. In total, Germany had at this time 17 fully functional nuclear reactors. [2] The effects of this action will be far reaching. Shifting the source of electricity for such a large percentage of any nation is a large initiative. [2] There are both positive and negative aspects of Germany's decision to forego nuclear power.
Following the Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union, general support for nuclear energy within Germany fell greatly. This was in sharp contrast to the great support that nuclear energy felt within Germany around the 1970s as a result of the oil price shock. [1]
Around 1998, a coalition government consisting of the left-leaning parties in Germany - SDP (Social Democratic Party) and the Green Party - decided to phase out all nuclear energy. However, with the rise of Angela Merkel's conservative coalition to power this phase-out was postponed. In 2010, the German govenrment enacted legislation to extend the operating lives of Germany's nuclear power system an additional 12 years. [3]
However, in 2011 Japan's Fukushima disaster tipped the balance firmly against nuclear power. A vote taken shortly after the disaster committed Germany to rejecting nuclear power. The initial anti-nuclear bill was was subsequently reintroduced, and 8 reactors were closed immediately. [2] Germany then set in motion plans to phase out nuclear power completely by 2022. [3]
There are a number of potential benefits of foregoing nuclear energy. The fact that a disaster as great as Fukushima could happen in as technologically advanced a country as Japan brings question to the effectiveness of existing safety practices at nuclear plants. [2] There are also environmental concerns in play beyond carbon emissions. [4] For example, it is common practice for nuclear power plants to reject heat into nearby large bodies of water. This can have severe effects on fish populations and the downstream ecology in general. [4] And one ceases to generate dangerously radioactive nuclear waste. The only known way to sequester nuclear waste for the necessary long times (1000 years and greater) is to place it in large geological repositories. Even that is problematic. [5]
There also a number of potential liabilies, however. An immediate consequence of the rollback of nuclear energy has been that Germany's major electric suppliers have been forced to regress back to coal and natural gas. [1] It will necessarily happen that Germany (the 4th largest economy in the world in 2011 and largest economy in Europe) will fall back on traditional forms of dirty energy. [1] There may also be energy cost and supply problems. Although in 2005 the country achieved a CO2 emissions reduction equivalent of nearly 19% compared to those levels in 1990, this has since been moving in the opposite direction. [6] The initial achievement was due in part to Germany's closing inefficient coal plants in East Germany and replacing them with newer (and more efficient) ones. Although according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy that coal generation contracted by 3.3%, this can be done only once. [7] However, it also remains true that a combination of climate change and an increased reliance on dirty sources of energy (natural gas, etc.) in the wake of the loss of nuclear reactors have seen this percentage slowly decrease. [6]
The plan to rely increasingly on renewable sources of energy has the problem that these sources are unreliable. [8] Sun and wind, in particular, are capricious. Absent backup or storage, their cutting out could cause blackouts within Germany, which is unacceptable. [8]
Then there is the Nordstream pipeline. Nordstream supplies natural gas from Russia to Western Europe (particularly Germany) via the Baltic Sea. The amount is presently around 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year. [9] Since 1 cubic meter of natural gas contains about 3.8 x 107 Joules, we have for the energy per year delivered by Nordstream [10]
| 5.5 × 1010 m3/year × 3.8 × 107 Joules/m3 | = | 2.09 × 1018 Joules/year |
By contrast, a large (1 GW) nuclear plant delivers an energy per year of
| 1.0 × 109 Watts × 3600 sec/h × 24 h/day × 365 day/year | = | 3.15 × 1016 Joules/year |
Thus Norstream delivers 66 times as much energy as a large nuclear power plant. The current plan is for there to be a second parallel Nordstream pipeline of the same size. Thus, the rejection of nuclear power amounts practically to a transition from domestic nuclear reactors to foreign natural gas. [11] This will make Germany increasingly reliant on foreign nations for energy.
While there exist argument both for and against Germany's decision regarding nuclear power, only time will tell as to whether or not this decision will have been good for Germany.
© Riley Noland. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] E. Rosenthal, "Germany Dims Nuclear Plants, But Hopes to Keep Lights On," New York Times, 29 Aug 11.
[2] Dolores L Augustine, Taking on Technology: Nuclear Power in Germany, 1945 to the Present (Berghahn Books, 2018).
[3] H. Pidd, "Germany to Shut Down All Nuclear Reactors," The Guardian, 30 May 11.
[4] M. Damian, et al., "Nuclear Power: The Ambiguous Lessons of History," Energy Policy 20, 596, (1992).
[5] M. Totty, "The Case For and Against Nuclear Power," The Wall Street Journal, 30 June 08.
[6] C. Erdmenger, et al., "A Climate Protection Strategy for Germany - 40% Reduction of C02 Emissions by 2020 Compared to 1990," Energy Policy 37, 1, (2009).
[7] "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018," British Petroleum, June 2018.
[8] H. Pidd, "Germany Nuclear Shutdown by 2022 May Mean Blackouts, Merkel Warned," The Guardian, 23 May 11.
[9] D. Zhdannikov and D. Pinchuk, "Russia's Gazprom to Expand Nord Stream Gas Pipeline with E.ON, Shell, OMV," Reuters, 18 Jun 15.
[10] C.-A. Paillard et al., "Russia and Europe's Mutual Energy Dependence," J. Int. Aff. 62, 63, (2010).
[11] J. Dempsey, "Construction of Contentious Nord Stream Gas Line to Begin," New York Times, 8 April 10.
