Skip to main content

The power of our outrage, our unwillingness to support any politician allowing nuclear power is growing, is winning and we will prevail. The era of radiation risk is coming to an end.

Germany has ended nuclear power. Germany has joined Switzerland in a permanent commitment to mothball present nuclear stations, and removing all planned new stations.

Germany will shut all its nuclear reactors by 2022, parties in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition government agreed on Monday, in a reaction to Japan’s Fukushima disaster that marks a drastic policy reversal.

As expected, the coalition wants to keep the eight oldest of Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors permanently shut. Seven were closed temporarily in March, just after the earthquake and tsunami hit Fukushima. One has been off the grid for years.Another six will be taken offline by 2021, Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said early on Monday after late-night talks in the chancellor’s office between leaders of the centre-right coalition.

The remaining three reactors, Germany’s newest, will stay open for another year until 2022 as a safety buffer to ensure no disruption to power supply, he said.

Ms. Merkel backtracked in March on an unpopular decision just months earlier to extend the life of ageing nuclear stations in Germany, where the majority of voters oppose atomic energy.

Her Christian Democrats (CDU), their Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU) and junior coalition partner the Free Democrats (FDP) met on Sunday after an ethics commission ended its deliberations this weekend.

“It’s definite: the latest end for the last three nuclear power plants is 2022,” Mr. Roettgen said after the meeting. “There will be no clause for revision.”



Germany decides to pull plug on nuclear power
ANNIKA BREIDTHARDT
Berlin— Reuters

This is a great day, a day to celebrate.

Germany joins Switzerland "Swiss energy minister to back nuclear exit"

ZURICH, May 22 (Reuters) - Energy minister Doris Leuthard is set to propose Switzerland gradually exits nuclear power, two Swiss newspapers reported on Sunday, citing sources close to the government.

The multi-party Swiss government was expected to make an announcement on nuclear policy on Wednesday and may recommend an exit.

The NZZ am Sonntag and the SonntagsZeitung both reported Leuthard favoured an approach similar to that of economy minister Johann Schneider-Ammann.

"She wants to set a clear signal for the exit," the NZZ am Sonntag quoted a source as saying.

In related news:

BERLIN May 30 (Reuters) - Germany plans to double the share of renewable energy in power production to 35 percent by 2020 and its goal of reducing greenhouse by 40 percent in the same timeframe remains in place, according to a government paper.

The paper, obtained by Reuters on Monday, sets out the strategy for securing energy supplies as it exits nuclear power by 2022. It also said Germany planned to cut electricity usage by 10 percent by 2020. (Reporting by Markus Wacket and Annika Breidthardt)


RPT-German to double renewables share by 2020 - document

Merkel lost a safe election in a safe region, as voters rebuked her and other pro-nuke parties just a few weeks ago, losing power there, and threatening her coalition.

We have the same power. All pro-nuke politicians must recant and act, irreversably, or be defeated.

This is the beginning of the end. The end the being resisted by the industry across the world. With lies of course. I am sick unto death of the posts about "you don't understand the science" its not that bad really" "no one  was ever killed by radiation" "a little radiation is good for you" but it allows us to identify those who would continue to threaten the thin endangered life envelope that all life, all known life in the Universe, needs to survive. It allows us to identify and remove them from any office they hold.

The "Great Shutdown" begins.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If a heavy industry nation like Germany (24+ / 0-)

    can pull this off - and I think they can - it will give me new hope humanity's role in world history. I just hope it's not too late.

    "I almost died for the international monetary system; what the hell is that?" ~ The In-laws

    by Andhakari on Mon May 30, 2011 at 09:28:10 AM PDT

  •  A knee jerk reaction to an astronomically (9+ / 0-)

    improbable disaster that will be seen to be very short sighted.   They'll probably end up having to buy nuclear generated electricity from the French, who seem to know how to do it safely, recycling their spent fuel rods to reduce nuclear waste.  

    The science would advance a lot faster if our government did not throw up so many roadblocks, and our existing plants would be safer if we could build new ones, instead of relicensing old plants that are close to the end of their planned usable lives.  

    I would never vote for an anti-nuke hard liner.   Close minded people make poor leaders.

    Alëwi nulinao hnàkay.

    by SpamNunn on Mon May 30, 2011 at 09:29:43 AM PDT

  •  This is where political will comes in (12+ / 0-)

    So encouraging to see a country's people exert their will on their "leaders".   It is about time.

    For decades I have been hearing that the thing we need to address climate change and sustainable green energy is the political will.

    Finally it appears to be happening.  Now we just have to have the same will somehow fly across the Atlantic to the US...

    •  No magic involved... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      and the European clusterfuck of such a proliferation of parties is not the answer, either, heh.

      "All" we need to do is to elect more better Democrats, to displace Republican clients of the Chamber of Commerce (and what's left of the Blue Dogs) in the House and Senate (and down the ladders of power) to the greatest extent possible.

      No mystery about it, this is ALL about relative right/left plurality in Congress, coming out of 2012.  

      Bring the Better Democrats!

      All Out for 2012!

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

      by Radical def on Mon May 30, 2011 at 12:41:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are even some "better" Dems who (0+ / 0-)

        still would endanger us. Its not just left right.

        Though as a rule of thumb, the further left in America the closer to science and closer to protecting "actual people."

        •  LOL...Nobody's perfect. And it's All relative (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          My personal perspective, in general:

          Photobucket
          Hey, Mr. Bourgeois pig, I got your fkn "tax cuts" right here!

          I'll be satisfied with getting rid of enough Blue Dogs and Republicans to allow the more moderate and progressive Democrats to prevail.

          Once this is accomplished, I think among the first results will be some fairly simple electoral, campaign finance and media reforms to allow a much more viable democracy to emerge, which, ultimately, is actually all that left theory is really all about.

          I would also distinguish between those faux "left" poseurs, who posture themselves as being soo "revolutionary" that they would hand the power over to the right, by default, with their electoral boycott and splitting jive.

          You wouldn't be one of THOSE, would you?

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

          by Radical def on Mon May 30, 2011 at 02:22:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have no idea how the thread went rabbit (0+ / 0-)

            oh wait..

            Left and right are good rules of thumb, but stupid on nuclear is non-negotiable.

            •  You're the one who seemed to imply... (0+ / 0-)

              that we shouldn't vote for Obama unless he does exactly what we want on this issue, Right Now...like so many other extremely subjective single issue oriented proponents...which ultimately helped to sabotage likely Democratic voter turnout going into 2010.

              Not wishing to unfairly project such an idiotic, bullshit, traitorous line onto you, but am definitely seeking clarification in that regard.

              No matter how more or less correct your analysis may be, around any given issue, if the bottom line is "don't vote for Obama", then I will feel compelled to challenge that aspect of your position, and it could get harsh, heh.

              NOTHING will get better, and EVERYTHING will get worse, if people boycott or split the vote in 2012, guaranteed.

              And NOTHING of much substance can be expected until 2012, under the present right wing majorities.  

              And it is ALL about relative right/left plurality in Congress, regardless of the issue.

              There's nothing "negotiable" about THAT...as the Republicans have so clearly demonstrated, especially re: science, LOL.

              The right must be crushed...purged and suppressed... democratically, electorally, of course...and legislatively and judicially...for reason, science, and the popular democratic will to prevail.

              Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

              by Radical def on Mon May 30, 2011 at 03:04:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am saying to Obama, (0+ / 0-)

                and all people in the party, give up the drive to nuclear, stop talking about spending money on it, or face rebuke, primaries and defeat.

                I have not heard Obama speak about nukes since his speach where he said "when" it "becomes safe" nuclear is "supportable" - nothing since.

                I am urging people to demand that that lapse become permanent, that our anger and opposition is real, strong and unarguable.

                Stop promoting nuclear, is at your electoral risk.

                Yes, I will speak out about any politician that speaks in favour of nukes now, that time has passed.

                I support the re-election of Obama, I oppose strongly, vociferously, loudly, unfailingly any promotion, let spending on nukes.

                Drive all nuke supporters from office. Prevent all pols from supporting, from speaking for, from spending on any nuclear energy.

                •  I agree, more or less... (0+ / 0-)

                  But, again, am reluctant to make this the sole watershed issue, especially at this time.

                  For one thing, we just cannot expect optimal results, with the present plurality, on any issue.  This is not the "fault" of Obama or the Party, but the realpolitik of a remnant rightwing majority.

                  Keep up the pressure, on all of them, by all means...but it should be more in the positive, in terms of appealing to reason and logic, than threats to withdraw support, I think, although that may be appropriate in some specific instances, where a viable electoral challenge is actually a feasible possibility, heh.

                  Otherwise, it will just seem like hot air, I think...unlikely to be very compelling in itself.

                  Obama's rhetoric thus far is supportable, in a qualified kind of way, and he and other Dems should be encouraged to further inform themselves, to prepare for the day when they can act more decisively, knowing that they will receive strong support for that, once they have the juice in Congress to more materially act on it...

                  That said, I see no problem with very strongly advocating for cancellation of the $36 bil for nukes coming up soon, for example, and framing that as a move that could garner substantial popular democratic support in 2012.  

                  ALL that money should go to renewable energy, instead, and this may be indeed be an opportune time to press hard for that...as long as it's done in an objective manner, and not held up as being some absolutely critical subjective last straw litmus test of viability for the Prez or the Party.

                  I think it should also be integral to no nukes advocacy that there's also no such thing as "clean" coal, and frak a whole bunch of gas, too...that these are NOT the only "alternatives" to nukes, and that we can and must simply go green, all the way, immediately, and that this is, in fact, completely  feasible, viable, and necessary.

                  After all, this is the most compelling argument of the nuke advocates, that we "need" nukes, even if they are somewhat dangerous, and thus we "can't do without them", or that, even if they are ruled out, we will thus "have to" use more coal, gas, oil, etc....because "just" going green supposedly won't cut it.  

                  The real green alternatives have to be more effectively shown to actually be viable and feasible, to effectively knock down the various permutations of Big Energy line, I think.

                  Ultimately, though, we should also be concentrating a lot more on making sure EPA is fully funded and staffed, I think, since that's ultimately going to provide the best ammo re: nukes and so many other environmental issues, seems to me.

                  And, again, that, and everything else, hinges ENTIRELY on the relative right/left plurality in Congress, and virtually NOTHING else, in reality.

                  It's not really so much about the reason and logic around any given issue, per se, at this stage, it's more about whether those most amenable to reason and logic are in control, or not, heh.

                  The position of the Party, and individual Democrats can be expected to shift, very substantially, in the positive, I think, once they are decisively in control, and don't have to cover their ass so much, in terms of being coerced by the right into onerous compromises in order to get anything whatsoever accomplished.

                  That's where all the shortcomings, hedging and vacillation are coming from, is from the huge pressure from the right, due to their majority status.  

                  Take away that rw majority status, and the Dems will be liberated, to a very substantial degree, to surge forward on all fronts.

                  Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                  by Radical def on Tue May 31, 2011 at 12:09:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  You have, simply, the funniest godamned (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radical def

            pictures and cartoons of anyone on the DK. Well done!

            Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

            by davidwalters on Tue May 31, 2011 at 09:52:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  While certain Congresscritters try to force toxic (12+ / 0-)

    radioactive waste down Nevada's throat as they claim we need more nuclear power, Germany shows the world that a greener, cleaner, brighter, nuclear-free future IS possible. So why again must at least 2,000,000 Americans be put at risk of nuclear disaster?

  •  Nuclear cheerleaders can gloss this over, but (14+ / 0-)

    Germany made a rational decision here.  We should do the same.

  •  And replacing it with... what? (8+ / 0-)

    Unless the answer is "going completely renewable"—and the feasibility of that is questionable at best—then they're going to have to either (a) burn more fossil fuels, whose annual death toll from normal, as-intended operation dwarfs that of nuclear accidents, or (b) buy power from someone like, say, France, who will continue to run nuclear power.

    Oh, and this:

    We have the same power. All pro-nuke politicians must recant and act, irreversably, or be defeated.

    Given that President Obama has pretty openly said that he supports nuclear power, and given that his Energy Secretary is quite pro-nuclear, are you now announcing that you are going to oppose his reelection in 2012?

    •  replace first with conservation... (9+ / 0-)

      The US is amazingly wasteful with our energy.  Other industrialized countries with high standards of living do quite well with much less consumption per capita.  

      We could reduce consumption by ~30% almost immediately.  Once we reduce consumption it makes switching to sustainable sources much more feasible.

      The frame spread around here by well meaning folks that our choice is nukes vs fossil is a false choice.  This frame needs to be replaced by drastically reducing our per capita consumption which will make the transition to green energy sources feasible....

      •  And another good place to start: (9+ / 0-)

        ending taxpayers subsidies to BigOilInternational.  And get our own government out of the business of bribing and pressuring other governments to give sweet deals to these entities, which btw bear no allegiance to America.

        In fact charge tolls for tanker traffic leaving the Middle East.  They'd never make it past pirates, terrorists, and hostile governments without Navy presence.  BigOil presently gets the profits.  We get the bill.

        Let them try to compete on the true cost of their products.

        Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

        by deben on Mon May 30, 2011 at 11:10:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Here's what . . . (4+ / 0-)

      http://www.spiegel.de/...

      Germany is going to replace nuclear with coal.  Simple as that.  And after that they, and other countries with the resources, will go to "enhanced recovery" (fracking) natural gas.  That, and the resultant increase in global warming, is the anti-nuclear future.

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Mon May 30, 2011 at 11:24:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So because nuclear power can have accidents.... (6+ / 0-)

        ...that result in death and massive environmental damage, they're going to use a different technology which, when operating as intended, is certain to cause death and massive environmental damage, but in forms that aren't as "photogenic" as nuclear accidents.

        That might be good politics, but it's awful policy.

        •  No...we're going to go green, all the way (3+ / 0-)

          As soon as we have real progressive Majorities in Congress.

          Until then, not so much, or worse.

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

          by Radical def on Mon May 30, 2011 at 11:54:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The news article posted above... (0+ / 0-)

            ...suggests otherwise. (We are talking about Germany here.)

            Or was the planned 2007 expansion of Germany's coal-fired plant fleet called off?

            If the Merkel government said that they are going to execute a plan to replace all nuclear power generation with renewables, I'd be all for it. But it would appear that they're not doing that. Rather, they really are replacing a technology that might cause death and environmental damage if it breaks, with a technology that is guaranteed to cause death and environmental damage in the course of its intended operation.

            •  They actually reduced the number of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy

              coal plants from 26 to 13 I think. I can't find the reference for now. The big winners of course, is Gasprom and the other gas importers, who have helped manipulate the whole things.

              After lobbying intensely against the re-introduction of nuclear by the Merkel gov't (and losing) they bided their time. A god-send in the form a tsunami and the accidents at Fukushima have them jumping for joy. Even the pro-nuclear Russians are happy...more gas to Germany. This is what the phase out means.

              Se wind entrepreneur Joseph Kennedy arguing before the National Gas Association with his "more solar and wind means more gas..". A huh...he's knows what's up. The Germans do or don't but certainly don't care. More fossil.

              Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

              by davidwalters on Mon May 30, 2011 at 04:03:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  For now, they are, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eyesoars, Calamity Jean
        Germany is going to replace nuclear with coal...after that...(fracking) natural gas.

        but they're also among the world leaders in solar, wind, biothermic, geothermic energy, which enables them to gradually switch to alternative energies.

        Ther German government has agreed to spend additional €8billion subsidizing alternative energies while upholding an extra tax on profits from nuclear energy to pay for it, thereby risking serious legal battles with the large energy corporations. You would think they want to see results.

        After the peculiar victory the Green party celebrated in the heartland of German conservatism, the establishment has quickly adopted to the new status quo - anything but nuclear. It's not the Green revolution, but definitely a thorough greening of German politics.

        "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

        by aufklaerer on Mon May 30, 2011 at 01:14:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Please read the article before posting (3+ / 0-)

        from  above,

        In related news:
           BERLIN May 30 (Reuters) - Germany plans to double the share of renewable energy in power production to 35 percent by 2020 and its goal of reducing greenhouse by 40 percent in the same timeframe remains in place, according to a government paper.

            The paper, obtained by Reuters on Monday, sets out the strategy for securing energy supplies as it exits nuclear power by 2022. It also said Germany planned to cut electricity usage by 10 percent by 2020. (Reporting by Markus Wacket and Annika Breidthardt)


    •  This is a bullshit canard... (3+ / 0-)

      ...that we "can't" meet energy needs by going green all the way.

      Likewise the absolutely false assertion that phasing out nukes can "only" mean more coal and gas.

      We've had numerous diaries on dkos detailing the many various ways that going green is, in fact, very feasible, viable, and also, necessary.

      To just keep bringing the same old Chamber of Commerce and Big Energy contradictions, over and over, even after they have been clearly proven to be false, is nothing but subjective trolling, and thus rendered suspect as to your intentions and motives.

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

      by Radical def on Mon May 30, 2011 at 12:53:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not asking what COULD happen. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm asking what is happening.

        Germany is taking their entire nuclear fleet offline by 2022, if this plan goes through. They will need to replace that power generation with something. So what will they replace it with?

        If they aren't actually replacing it entirely with renewables, it really does mean that they're going to either burn more fossil fuels, or buy power from someone like France who generate power at nuclear plants.

        •  Unlike you and the diarist, I could care less... (0+ / 0-)

          about Germany, really.

          And that's not what my response to your remarks was about, anyway, which makes this response from you seem evasive, affording you still less credibility.

          I have no confidence in Germany, to actually do the right thing, and would not be at all surprised if this present decision is just an opportunist ploy to consolidate other Big Energy interests, since the nukes are (rightfully) so unpopular there.

          What matters, and what the rest of the world is far more likely to emulate, is what we do, coming out of 2012.

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

          by Radical def on Mon May 30, 2011 at 01:37:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  from above (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean
          In related news:

                 BERLIN May 30 (Reuters) - Germany plans to double the share of renewable energy in power production to 35 percent by 2020 and its goal of reducing greenhouse by 40 percent in the same timeframe remains in place, according to a government paper.

                  The paper, obtained by Reuters on Monday, sets out the strategy for securing energy supplies as it exits nuclear power by 2022. It also said Germany planned to cut electricity usage by 10 percent by 2020. (Reporting by Markus Wacket and Annika Breidthardt)

          •  So, a 17.5% increase. (0+ / 0-)

            Will that offset the amount of power being generated by the nuclear power plants being shut down?

            Further, even getting to 35% renewables by 2020 means that if they go nuclear-free, they'll be getting 65% of their power from a technology that is certain to cause more death and environmental destruction in the course of its normal everyday operation, than nuclear power does in the unlikely event that there's a catastrophic accident.

    •  Just plain silly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      Ignorant or wilfully attempting to fill the discussion with garbage.

      Germany already produces more power from solar alone, leaving out wind and other renewable sources, than all the reactors failing and endangering our lives in Japan.

      And they announced, as is in the article above, the doubling of all renewables by 2020.

      James, are you on a board, or committee?

      •  What is that supposed to mean? (0+ / 0-)
        James, are you on a board, or committee?

        Explain what you mean by this question.

        •  Is there a position you occupy which could affect (0+ / 0-)

          whether or not nukes are promoted or prevented? Other than citizen of course.

          I want to make sure that people who have the trust of voters, earn the trust by preventing new spending for nukes, earn the trust of voters by organizing the shut down of nuclear power plants.  And to remove them from office if they will not, remove them from office if they demonstrate they do not deserve our trust by speaking for nuclear power.

          Is that more clear?

      •  No it doesn't but nice try. They have a huge (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        solar capacity but as the capacity FACTOR is only about .18 they will never produce as much solar as their nuclear fleet does right now.

        Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

        by davidwalters on Mon May 30, 2011 at 04:05:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The anti-nukers seem to be getting a tad (0+ / 0-)

          desparate, just making stuff up and hoping something sticks . . .

          From a few minutes of internet searching, I've found multiple sources that agree on "ballpark" figures that Japan's nukes generate about 10x as much electricity as Germany's solar sources . . .

          Or maybe the key phrase is

          than all the reactors failing and endangering our lives in Japan

          meaning Fukushima - then the comparison might not be too far off . . . .

          •  As that is what I wrote, you would be correct in (0+ / 0-)

            saying that what I wrote was true and not the paper tiger you try to attribute.

            How speaking the truth is "desperate"  is beyond my merely mortal powers.

            Yep, not too far off.

            All supporters of nukes removed from any office that might affect party policy, energy sector spending or building or similar policy.

            Defeat and remove, the argument is over.

            The Great Shutdown begins.

    •  I won't be voting for him (0+ / 0-)

      I'm opposed to war and nuclear power. Obama's a big proponent of both.

      member of the professional left

      by susanthe on Mon May 30, 2011 at 03:30:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great Shutdown.....what does that even mean? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99
  •  Genius! (0+ / 0-)

    Closing all nuclear power facilities (and other power sources maligned for different, and seemingly endless reasons) will cause the price of energy to skyrocket ... which will cause the price of food to skyrocket ... which will lead to massive unemployment (today's rates being minor by comparison) ... which will lead to massive death and suicide ... which will lead to drastic population reduction.

    Who will be the lucky few left standing?  Not the Luddites who are trying their best to worsen the lives of the rest of us, that's for sure.

    I can't imagine how anyone can deal with the guilt of knowing they'll be responsible for BILLIONS of deaths.  I can only hope there's an especially horrific version of hell in the afterlife awaiting them, as just punishment for their never-ceasing attempts to create hell on earth simply to stroke the massive (but undeserved) egos that reside in the bodies topped by brainless heads.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

    by Neuroptimalian on Mon May 30, 2011 at 10:06:34 AM PDT

    •  This sounds like a comment from RW blog (5+ / 0-)

      Talk about spreading gloom and doom hysteria.  The other nuke apologists keep telling us that it is the anti-nuke dirty hippies that are the ones spreading exaggerated hysteria.

      Closing all nuclear power facilities (and other power sources maligned for different, and seemingly endless reasons) will cause the price of energy to skyrocket

      Wake up dude.  We have no choice but to shut down power sources that are killing the planet and replace them with less damaging sources.  The reason the "maligned" sources of energy are "maligned" is because they kill people and the planet.

      As to

      I can only hope there's an especially horrific version of hell in the afterlife awaiting them, as just punishment for their never-ceasing attempts to create hell on earth simply to stroke the massive (but undeserved) egos that reside in the bodies topped by brainless heads.

      Next time you turn on your air conditioner,or turn the key on your car remember you are responsible for the coal burnt, the oil spilled to make that happen.  So I would not be so quick to wish a special hell for those responsible for killing countless people.  You already have a hand in that....

    •  I'm sure Germany's and Switzerland's (3+ / 0-)

      shutting off nuke plants will cause exactly the Armageddon you fear.

      /snark

      I'm sensing more than support for nuke plants too:

      Closing all nuclear power facilities (and other power sources maligned for different, and seemingly endless reasons) will cause the price of energy to skyrocket...

      Which are those "others" maligned perhaps by us who want only death to befall "BILLIONS?"

      Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

      by deben on Mon May 30, 2011 at 11:27:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've come 180 degrees on nuclear (7+ / 0-)

    due to the Fukushima disaster.  Originally, my thought was that Americans were irrationally resistant to nuclear, and that France and Japan had shown it was a safe and reliable source of electricity.  Now it's clear that any level of safety in a fission system is inherently precarious.  I don't see any meaningful practical barrier to the US decommissioning its remaining nuclear plants on a comparable timetable to that of Germany.

    The conundrum of stable democracy: Reform requires the consent of the corrupt.

    by Troubadour on Mon May 30, 2011 at 12:14:46 PM PDT

  •  I think it would be a serious error... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    To take Too hard a line, presently, about Obama or the Democrats, in this regard.

    Learn2

    I'm not going to make this, or any other issue, the ultimate, sole criteria for whether or not to vote for the Prez, and better Democrats.

    The only problem with the Democrats is the extent to which too many of them have been co-opted, coerced or corrupted by the realpolitik of right wing majorities in government.

    People need to remember that the real source of this, and virtually all other problems we are so concerned about, is the right, and their sponsors, the Chamber of Commerce.  

    Remove enough of such elements from the levers of power, and the tables will be turned, such that real progress will become possible, on all fronts.

    Once we have substantial enough progressive/moderate Democratic Majorities in Congress (which we did NOT have with all those Blue Dogs in there, even after '08), we'll see much more favorable motion on environmental and energy issues.

    For example, for the first time in generations, the EPA will finally be fully funded and staffed, rather than eviscerated by right wing majorities.

    Once that occurs, I have no doubt that within months EPA will put a report on the Prez desk, notifying him that there's actually no such thing as "safe" nukes or "clean" coal, and that we must go green, all the way, immediately.

    At that point, with the juice to back him up, or else to call his bluff, if that's what it is, about "make me", the Prez will be compelled to say "OK, let's do it!".  

    Then, and only then, rolling out the new green paradigm will be greatly accelerated.

    Less substantial plurality, not so much, or worse.

    It's as simple as that.

    Photobucket

    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

    by Radical def on Mon May 30, 2011 at 12:31:17 PM PDT

    •  As I remember, Obama said "when its safe" (0+ / 0-)

      corectly implying its not now.

      I'll bet you dollars to anything you have, (walnuts?) Obama will not be repeating that line any time soon.

      •  Agree that he did seem to give himself (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        workingforprogress

        some wiggle room there, heh...which is, indeed, a good indication, I think.  

        He does not strike me as an ideologue, so much as a pragmatist.  

        He's going to do whatever we "make" him do, or whatever we let the right "make" him do.

        Too many fail to recognize that he has been hostage to right wing majorities ever since elected, and that this has very severely constrained everything he says and does.

        A substantial reversal of that realpolitik will give us much more of a material basis for judging who he really is, and what he's really willing and able to do, and is the ONLY material way to give him the backup, or the jack up, if necessary, to do the right thing, on anything...with a substantially more progressive Congress.

        Which is also the most material way to replace him with more viable leadership going forward, if and when that time comes.

        But until we achieve that plurality, the whole world is screwed, pretty much.

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

        by Radical def on Mon May 30, 2011 at 02:42:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There are over 60 nuclear reactors currently (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99, Roadbed Guy, Mcrab

    under construction worldwide. When asked about the impact the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster would have on China's nuclear program (27 of the 60 reactors are being built there with plans for hundreds more), a representative reportedly replied, "We will not stop eating for fear of choking."

    The French are undeterred (they are now exporting their nuclear-generated electricity to Germany to help it make up the difference). As are the British who continue to plan on building new reactors soon. Italy is going to pull back on new construction for the time being but it is far from clear whether that will be permanent situation.

    For that matter, Germany has a long history of flip-flopping on nuclear, calling for phaseouts and then pulling back the dates. In the big picture Germany's decision may only cause a brief dip in a general trend towards increased nuclear capacity worldwide. Three Mile Island didn't kill nuclear power. Neither did Chernobyl. I doubt Fukushima Daiichi will either. One reason I say that is that the reactors at the Fukushima Daini plant did not melt down despite being just a few miles down the coast from the Fukushima Daiichi plant. It was subjected to the same earthquake and the same tsunami. The only real difference is the reactors at Fukushima Daini are a couple years newer and had a few added enhancements, but it seems to have made all the difference. The reactors countries like China are building are more robust yet by an order of magnitude.

    •  No Great Shutdown, I'm afriad. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blubba

      I don't see an end to the nuclear age until some other energy source is discovered or created.

      I'm afraid there are going to have to be more catastrophic incidents to shut down all, or most, existing plants.

      "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ...Bertrand Russell

      by sebastianguy99 on Mon May 30, 2011 at 12:59:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here, as above, as you seem to have ignored it. (3+ / 0-)
        In related news:

            BERLIN May 30 (Reuters) - Germany plans to double the share of renewable energy in power production to 35 percent by 2020 and its goal of reducing greenhouse by 40 percent in the same timeframe remains in place, according to a government paper.

            The paper, obtained by Reuters on Monday, sets out the strategy for securing energy supplies as it exits nuclear power by 2022. It also said Germany planned to cut electricity usage by 10 percent by 2020. (Reporting by Markus Wacket and Annika Breidthardt)


        •  You don't get it...others do not CARE (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Blubba, Roadbed Guy, sebastianguy99

          what the Germans are doing. Their grid based on being integrated to Sweden and France's nuclear grid. France, because it is nuclear, is the largest exporter of power in the world today across borders. As the amount of wind has increased in Germany, the Germans have bought more nuclear. I find this interesting. The biggest winner is Gasprom whose NEW pipeline was started under the previous SPD/Green government.

          The "plan" is basically BS, as all German energy plans have been, subject, 100% to politics (this includes nuclear, hydro, coal and heavily expensive solar and wind).

          I suspect the next country to announce a phase out (AGAIN) or moratorium, will be Sweden.

          The Chinese are NOT moving to slow down. Nor are most other countries will REAL plans to move ahead. I don't even trust the French since they got bamboozeled to offering people 50 cents Euro per KWhr for solar!

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Mon May 30, 2011 at 04:12:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What is not being understood (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radical simplicity

            Is that we are defeating nuke proponents the world around. We are sick and tired of the BS, the lies, the "phony science" the greed and the destruction of the only life envelope in the universe.

            Defeat and removal of pro nuke politicians. That is what I get, that is what I do, that is what I promote. Those are the people I seek common cause with, those are the people I support.

            And we are winning. Japan is putting solar voltaics on the roofs of all new buildings by law. Switzerland is removing all nuclear plants, there has not been a nuclear plant built in the US in 25 years, there will NEVER be another.

        •  Germany has announce plans to phase out nuclear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sebastianguy99

          power in the past...and then reneged. A lot of things can change in ten years.

  •  YES! (2+ / 0-)

    This is the best news I've had all life.

    “The most important trip you may take in life is meeting people halfway” ~ Henry Boye~

    by Terranova0 on Mon May 30, 2011 at 01:22:14 PM PDT

  •  Cucumbers (0+ / 0-)

    still more dangerous than nuclear power in Germany.

    An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
    -- H. L. Mencken

    by bryfry on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 07:04:59 AM PDT

    •  That's not a fair comparison (0+ / 0-)

      The issue is potential for disaster. Cucumbers pose no threat of disaster.

      God is the problem, not the solution.

      by Sam Wise Gingy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:55:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tell that (0+ / 0-)

        to the families of the 18 people (to date) who have died.

        Tell that to the 1700 people who have been made sick, including over 500 (to date) who are now at risk from life-threatening kidney failure.

        source

        An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
        -- H. L. Mencken

        by bryfry on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 04:33:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  No nukes is good nukes. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    God is the problem, not the solution.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:47:15 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site