Another chance to comment on the decision in Germany to shut down nuclear power, prompted by an article in Der Spiegel about "The Downside of Germany's Nuclear Phaseout".
Germany produced 46% of its electricity from coal in 2008 (and another 14% from natural gas). Nuclear is 23%. While I agree that there are a lot of problems with nuclear power - how many lives have been lost from it in operation in Germany? In the three accidents that have happened in the industry in Germany - the number is zero. Now how many people are killed annually from coal mining? From the pollution from coal power plants? What about the climate impacts of coal? Oddly, I can't find this (maybe I would if my German was better...) - but premature deaths from air pollution in Germany are estimated at 65,000.
While I agree that nuclear waste is not good, I think that the very real risks and impacts of coal must be the first thing tackled. Once coal is phased out, and gas, then nuclear should be addressed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
My follow-up comment:
My desire is that the worst energy sources for health, safety and climate be prioritized out of use first. And I think the numbers show that coal is the worst energy source, and coal provides twice as much power as nuclear to Germany right now. As Germany moves towards renewable energy, it should phase out the worst options first, and then move to the slightly less bad options, such as nuclear.
My home province, Ontario, has decided to do that. And the price of new nuclear has also meant that it's unlikely to build new nuclear - and has followed the footsteps of Germany in developing a progressive Feed-In Tariff top promote renewable energy. In that instance, we chose well to follow the German model. I hope Ontario doesn't make a huge mistake and step backwards in the upcoming provincial election in October.
Post a Comment