Why are green politicians opposed to clean nuclear energy?

[Zanza]

Tell me about it. If our people had any sense, we would be busy building an other nuclear plant, or two, to sell electricity to the Germans when they will have blackouts in ten years.

If we aren't able to reliably cover our energy needs in ten years without nuclear power, the obvious solution is to just let our own nuclear power plants run a few more years. Some of them previously had operating licenses for another 30 years or so, so it's not like they all need to be decommissioned by 2023.

[Zanza]

I think Germany should rather phase out some of its lignite plants and replace those with the renewables it currently develops. Keep the nuclear and gas power for baseload, use renewables where possible.

[Martinus]

Also you increasing sound like your bitterly ageing while slipping into comfortable provincial sneering yourself.  Lay off the G&T every now and then and embrace some youth(s)

It's funny but actually a lot of my views changed recently because of talking or listening to younger people than me, who are painfully/refreshingly (depending how you look at it) devoid of the idealism I used to have. I'm also getting tired with championing causes.

[The Larch]

In short, nuclear energy is opposed by greens because it's not really as clean as advertised. CO2 emissions is not the only aspect considered of energy production.

[Viking]

in fact, they're building about 10 new nuclear plants in the UK.

Really? If you can trust Wiki, you are currently building 0 new plants and only have a plans for a couple new ones.

Reactors /= Plants

Plans (sometimes)= Action

[Faeelin]

The other thing is that nuclear power is not that cheap: http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022.pdf. This is one of the reasons no plants have built in the US recently.

And it's not like renewable energies are pie in the sky projects: they apparently provide 1/5 of Germany's energy now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/solar-power-in-germany-hit-new-record-high-in-may-producing-10-pct-of-countrys-electricity/2012/06/08/gJQAz3b3NV_story.html

[CountDeMoney]

I love you too, Seedee. The best and brightest of the US police forces.

Goddamned right.  Smart enough to GTFO.

[Josquius]

Its a shame Fukushima came when it did really, before that there was a lot of talk of a new golden age of nuclear power starting up and the greens had long since recognised it as a good thing.
Now though...so much ignorance...

[CountDeMoney]

Its a shame Fukushima came when it did really, before that there was a lot of talk of a new golden age of nuclear power starting up and the greens had long since recognised it as a good thing.
Now though...so much ignorance...

Yup.  Worst possible time for public opinion, which was actually turning the last several years;  now it just gives the industry a convenient excuse to avoid the issue entirely.

[Sheilbh]

in fact, they're building about 10 new nuclear plants in the UK.

Really? If you can trust Wiki, you are currently building 0 new plants and only have a plans for a couple new ones.

Yeah, you can't.  Those are the plans anyway.  I believe there's only been two successful bids so far, because it's a long process you need the construction and the site operator/licensees for however many years and the decommissioning plans all in place.  But the UK is open to many redeveloped nuclear sites and different power companies are bidding to build new plants or redevelop old ones.  But right now the UK's quite big and attractive in the nuclear market.

But they're not building now, but they're going to build.

[Iormlund]

I think Germany should rather phase out some of its lignite plants and replace those with the renewables it currently develops. Keep the nuclear and gas power for baseload, use renewables where possible.

Gas is fairly expensive to use as baseload. It works great as backup, though.

[Valmy]

I think solar has the greatest untapped potential of the common energy sources. But 7+ billion people perhaps can't be part of the nature as we knew it. So, it is fundamental that material consumption targets need to be brought to more sustainable levels and human population must be brought down. I'd prefer non-violent means.

Needs to be brought down?  Well no effort needs to be taken, human birthrates are quickly shrinking to replacement levels.  Why not just let nature take its course instead of calling for possibly violent means?

[Valmy]

And it's not like renewable energies are pie in the sky projects: they apparently provide 1/5 of Germany's energy now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/solar-power-in-germany-hit-new-record-high-in-may-producing-10-pct-of-countrys-electricity/2012/06/08/gJQAz3b3NV_story.html

Well...it is not pie in the sky in the sense that real and not fantasy electricity is generated.  And in some cases, like if you happen to have a hydro-electric dam in the area, it can actually be the best kind of electricity around.  But generally, though, it is really expensive and nearly cripplingly so unless you have a robust economy like Germany devoted to developing it.  I mean how much investment was required to reach 1/5th?

[Iormlund]

The other thing is that nuclear power is not that cheap: http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022.pdf. This is one of the reasons no plants have built in the US recently.

It's far cheaper than any competition once you take into account things like respiratory ailments. It is, however, very risky, since it's extremely long-term, most of the huge cost is upfront and politics can delay or even cancel a project. Also, since few plants are being built there's high chance of cost overruns due to inexperienced contractors and workers.

And it's not like renewable energies are pie in the sky projects: they apparently provide 1/5 of Germany's energy now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/solar-power-in-germany-hit-new-record-high-in-may-producing-10-pct-of-countrys-electricity/2012/06/08/gJQAz3b3NV_story.html

It gets harder the more you produce. Wind turbines, for example, create all kind of problems in the grid. Think of it like a chorus. One so-so singer in a 200 strong chorus might be no big deal. He can ride on the rest. But as you replace good ones with bad ones the performance is bound to suffer. And there'll be a point where bad singers will overwhelm the good ones.

[Sheilbh]

But generally, though, it is really expensive and nearly cripplingly so unless you have a robust economy like Germany devoted to developing it.  I mean how much investment was required to reach 1/5th?

Well it's hardly crippling.  Germany's got one of the best economies in the world.  If it was crippling in any way I'd expect to have read an article on how the cost of Germany's energy program or the costs associated with it were holding their economy back.  I've not read anything, ever.  Germany's made their choice - I think it's the right one, and I don't even give a shit about the environment.

It takes a lot of investment.  It takes politicians stepping away from SEXY solar and moving into dull but more effective energies like wind and biomass.  I think the Germans have been developing renewables in a big way for the past 10 years or so. 

One of the important steps I believe was to establish long-term prices per unit of renewable energy for feed in producers.  So if you're a farmer and you build a windmill to power your farm, obviously you've got no energy bills, and any surplus goes into the national grid and you get paid for it.  I think the like of long-term price stability on that made people reluctant to do it.  Germany's established very long-term set prices which has encouraged a lot of investment.