Bathmate

When it comes to a discussion about keeping 17 well built, well operated EXISTING nuclear plants running until they are at the end of their useful lives, the discussion about cost is something entirely different. According to page 39 of a book titled “Risks and benefits of nuclear energy” (available on Google Books with a very complex link) here are the costs of various forms of electricity in Germany in 2003 in euro cents per kilowatt-hour:
Lignite – 3.3
Hard coal – 3.0
Oil – 3.1
Gas – 3.6
Nuclear – 2.1
Hydro – 7
Wind – 7
Solar PB – 60 (that is right, sixty cents per kilowatt hour!)

These costs come from actual accounting data on real plants. They are not figments of someone's imagination or predictions of the future.

My reason for introducing Schroeder's betrayal into the discussion is that it should cause one to question why he was so adamant about shutting down those already constructed plants. Causing a market demand for Russian natural gas at a time when he might have been negotiating in private for a lucrative private position after “serving” as Chancellor just might be a logical explanation for his actions, especially when you find out just how greedy he was for personal wealth and status symbols.

Say what you will about future nuclear plants; it is hard to assert that the existing ones are expensive to run or cause greenhouse gas emission. Heck, there are some places where governments have threatened to slap a windfall profits tax on nuclear electricity generators because they are so profitable when selling electricity in a competitive market whose price is set by natural gas or in a market where coal plants have to purchase emissions credits.

“Within one month after he lost in his reelection bid to Ms. Merkel, he accepted a high level position with Gazprom, the Russian natural gas monopoly, with the responsibility of directing the completion of a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea directly from Russia to Germany.”

Yes you are correct. And in my opinion that is morally wrong.

But that doesn't take away the fact that Nuclear energy is Expensive, Dangerous, Not Cost-Effective and Will Worsen Climate Change. Simply put: nuclear power is not the answer to our energy and climate crisis.

Within one month after he lost in his reelection bid to Ms. Merkel, he accepted a high level position with Gazprom, the Russian natural gas monopoly, with the responsibility of directing the completion of a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea directly from Russia to Germany. http://bit.ly/ss8Qo

The gas that the pipeline will carry will be used as part of the replacement power generation capacity. So will the biofuels produced by the farmers who led the protests in Berlin. Both gas and biofuels would have a smaller market at a lower price if the nuclear plants were kept in service.

The dispute is not just about illogical fear of the potential consequences of a nuclear plant accident, it is also about a logical – if slightly immoral – desire to make money by selling goods that would not be needed if the useful plants were not prematurely removed from service. People motivated by greed are apparently is winning the hearts and minds of Germans, even though the result will be that they will pay higher prices for dirtier electricity than they would if the plants kept running.

For more info regarding solar energy, have a look at this Green Journal.