Germany’s Decision to Shut Down Reactors: Hurting or Helping
After reading one of the assigned articles about Germany’s decision to shut down all of its nuclear reactors by 2022 I was interested to find out more about the progress of this decision and some of the effects this decision has had.
Germany’s decision came after the melt down in Fukushima. This melt down had an effect on the way that nuclear plants were viewed everywhere. A main reason for this is that Japan was thought to have some of the safest plants and toughest regulations. So this raised the question in a lot places where these plants existed if this could happen to them too.
In late 2013 the United Kingdom made the decision to build its first nuclear power plant since the meltdown at Fukushima in 2011. This decision sparked debate across Germany on whether or not it was the right choice to decide to close all of the nuclear plants, especially so soon after a crisis. The argument being made is whether it was just a quick emotion filled response to the meltdown at Fukushima or if it is a smart thought out plan that will only benefit Germany.
An interesting argument brought up in the article, relating to the UKs decision to build this power plant, is the idea that the international community needs to realize that these meltdowns are not exceptions to the norm but actually a part of the industry. When thinking about this argument it really makes you think about the major pros and cons, the pros being cleaner energy, and the cons being the risk, this risk is something that according to this article is not out of the norm but an accepted fact, and meltdowns and disasters will only continue to occur.
In the case of Germany shutting down it’s plants, the argument is that the risks over
power the pros. But this plan is costly and so far seemingly ineffective as their technology and use of other renewable sources is currently lacking. So as of now Germany is continuing on shutting down nuclear plants, while using more fossil fuels which are worse for the environment, when this whole movement of no more nuclear was to be both safer and more environmentally friendly, ultimately wanting to rely much more heavily off of renewable resources other then nuclear.
This also brings up the issue of preparedness for a nuclear meltdown. With the idea that the risk is just the norm of this industry and how it is known that it is very possible for a meltdown to happen at some point, how prepared can these states be for a meltdown and disaster. With what happened in Fukushima it may be possible for countries to learn from that for the response to these disasters, but with nuclear disasters it is hard to know the level of devastation that is going to occur, based on how bad the melt down is. If these disasters are just a fact of nuclear plants, like hurricanes in florida, then how prepared are certain countries for a meltdown of any size.
This also raises a lot of questions about the idea of borders, sure Germany can decide that in its country borders it doesn’t want any more nuclear plants for fear of meltdown, but with neighboring countries, and now the UK making this new push for new plants, if meltdowns happen in these places, and turn into disasters how isolated will these disasters be? When we look at what happened in Japan, of course the greatest effects are in Japan but the effects are being seen and felt in many other different places.
Is Germany’s decision really helping the country or is it hurting it because it is hurting ties to many other countries whose new ideals are focused on building up nuclear energy. Especially with a major increase in the Green Peace party in Germany, a group that strongly protests against new plants and nuclear energy and instead focuses on other renewable sources, I think that it will be difficult for Germany to have as strong of bonds and relations with certain states because of this matter, when it seems as if the international consensus is still that nuclear plants should be continued.
Acadia Ryder
No comments:
Post a Comment