Hi everybody,
I was very pleased to read all your opinions on the nuclear debate. I think we can agree that we are all kind of on the same page.
As a conclusion I would like to state that we feel an abrupt switch to renewable energy would be mistake. The evolution should be gradual and measures should be taken to guarantee a steady energy supply, the use of nuclear plants for their full intended lifespan should help providing in this need. Also in the future it might not be the best idea to fully concentrate on renewable energy but that can change depending on the evolution of the technology in the future.
I hope this kind of sums up the global opinion.
As a follow up question I would like to ask you whether you think that the German energiewende is a good idea?
If you need some extra information to form your opinion you can check one of our earlier blogs and I also found an article with has a critical view on the subject.
Based on the article I’m inclined to say no. The article creates an image of a decision that has been taken way to quick without enough planning. The cost of the operation seem to be going trough the roof and the infrastructure isn’t ready for this at all. Eventually it will be the German people who will have to pay the higher prices.
Nevertheless I admire the courage of Germany to make this decision and sticking to it (not all country’s follow their promises that strictly, think about Kyoto and “buying clean” air), I just think that how this change is accomplished could be done better and maybe they had to give themselfes some more time.
Let me know what you think!
GroupT1318 
Your opinion is consistent with the previous debat and I share your opinion.
It’s a very good idea and the chances that in the future everyone will follow the Germans example are real. But like you said they want to change to quickly. I think it would have been a better idea if they had left (some) nuclear plants open while developing the new structures. Because if there are some problems (no wind, little sun) the maybe can not assure sufficient energy.
Also as stated in the article the ‘unfair’ payers cut is a problem. Because of the (small) problems they are facing it is or will be the normal citizen who will pay the innovation. I think the governement had to negotiate more with the bigger (energy) companies and find some kind of sponsors who would invest on ‘die energiewende’ and when it was working at full potentials these investing companies would receive benefits for their investment.
I also think that letting companies invest in backup generators to guarantee the energy supply but it is difficult seen as the generators are only there as backup so the return on investment would be rather small. Belgium deals with the same problem (I will search an article to support my view)
About the conclusion, I would put it like this: Let’s focus on renewable energy, because that is the future. But don’t forget do adapt to the rapidly changing technology and do not underestimate the importance of nuclear energy for the next then (twenty, thirty ?) years! At the end of the story nuclear energy should be no more but for now it wouldy be stupid and naive to just stop the reactors right now…
About the German energiewende: I hate it that people argument their ‘NO-vote’ with ‘it ruins the landscape and makes to much noise’. About the noise, recent technology reduces this so hard that only you’re dog can hear it 😉 and about ruining the landscape, first it is a ridiculous argument seen the advantages and the effect of using renewable energy on many different aspects (like environment). And second, WELCOME TO THE FUTURE!
I have the same idea about the turbines and the landscape and I actually think they don’t look that bad. Of course I don’t have one in my backyard so I’m not sure if my opinion would change if that were the case.