There is nothing like being an idealist and I wish her joy, but I can't see it happening in that time frame.

David

I am trying to get my ancient brain around this whole business. A Japanese area was hit by an earthquake of extreme ferocity (about 8000 times the energy of the Christchurch earthquake). There is then a tsunami of the order of 15 to 20 metres height. Some 20000 people are killed by that disaster.
A nuclear power station in the area is shaken and then overwhelmed by the tsunami. The loss of power resulted in some degree of meltdown in some of the reactors. There was, and still is it seems, some significant leakage of radiation. Those levels are not large and it is highly probably that nobody will die as a result. I see what has happened at the Fukushima plant as indicating that with adjustment to provide passive cooling the design, old as it is/was, was extraordinarily safe.
Germany has never had, and never will have, and earthquake remotely like the Japanese event. I am not aware that there has been any nuclear accident in Germany that has caused death. If I am wrong there please indicate how many and when.
For some reason that is beyond me Germany has decided to scrap nuclear power because of the Fukushima accident. Meantime Germany will continue to get over 20% of its power from Lignite, a really dirty way to go. They will keep the Lignite stations.
Meanwhile UK held a heavy duty examination of the Fukushima incident and its consequences for UK nuclear power. The Conservative government have stated that they will go ahead will 10 new stations. The Labour party supported that decision in the Commons.
I never expected to see the day when UK would be more sensible and logical than Germany!

What I find hard to believe is that Merkel once said “Opponents of nuclear energy were ‘bad at assessing risks,’”.

Surely she is familiar with the relative risk of coal power against nuclear power. In terms of direct deaths per unit of energy generated, coal is 4000 times more dangerous than nuclear. It would make more sense to shut down the coal plants rather than the nuclear plants. It seems she is more influenced by one example (Fukushima) than the long-term risk assessment. It sure smells like politics rather than rational assessment of risk.

Of course, she might response “we are going to shut down both and go renewable energy”. In the words of Sir Humphrey: “this is a courageous decision Prime Minister”.

In the meantime she has a major economy to run where energy reliability and security is paramount. Compromising either of these can be a death sentence for a politician. Relying on wind and solar PV with no economically viable very-large-scale electricity storage option is ‘courageous’ indeed!

Could it be that the German Chancellor has seen the writing on the wall and come to the conclusion that sooner, rather than later, the rest of the world must reduce risk to the environment? She obviously thinks that by taking a leadership roll in switching to renewable energy sources, Germany will benefit by escaping future punitive measures levied against CO2 polluters. Those measures will be made necessary as global warming continues to increase and major polluters increase, rather than reduce, their missions.

Of the ten largest polluting nations, responsible for over 80 percent of global CO2 emissions, only the UK and Germany have announced reduction targets which address the problem of global warming. Those countries are taking the lead which others will in the near future be forced to take. Germany clearly sees economic advantage in becoming a leader in developing and selling clean technology which will be increasingly demanded by countries which persist in burning fossil fuels to sustain their economies.

Fossil fuels are finite and the cost of using them is rising both financially and environmentally. During the present decade it will become increasingly evident that their price is unsustainable. Those countries which have reduced their dependence on fossil fuels will be far more competitive than those which cling to what is essentially 19th century technology. The German Chancellor clearly thinks she is taking a course of action which will give her country political and economic advantage – and she is right!

I agree with your argument Agnostic, but Merkel is walking away from the one technology best positioned to address the twin issues of reducing CO2 emissions and replacing finite fossil fuels. Why are the Chinese and the UK expanding their nuclear fleet to address these twin issues instead of relying on wind and solar alone? They have seen the same Fukushima drama that she has.

If this all goes badly perhaps Basil Fawlty will say 'don't mention the wind farms'. There must be something about the German psyche that propels them into unpromising ventures. If they burn more coal, Russian gas or import French nuclear power the cynics will gloat. If they stick to their guns and the German economy contracts the 'green uprising' may reverse. Already they are talking about previous quarter GDP when the nuclear phaseout hasn't happened yet. This raises concerns they may be willing to spin the statistics. We need to see GDP growth with overwhelmingly renewable energy.

They've also overlooked the fact that liquid fuel imports will increasingly get expensive post global Peak Oil. Somehow they need to power the transport sector with renewables as well as generate electricity. If they can pull it off we'll be amazed. If not they may get the reverse result... a worldwide realisation there is little alternative to nuclear.