Ethics of the German Power Crisis - Nuclear Power: A Conundrum

"Nuclear Power: a conundrum"

Introduction

Fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases and are running out; this is a well known fact and an issue long at the forefront of energy related debate. Alternative fuel sources are not a new concept, countries have been seeking greener, cheaper and more recently, safer energy alternatives. One such alternative is nuclear power. Nuclear power is exceptionally cheap, produces zero emissions, and is capable of much higher output than alternative sources, however it also produces slow decaying radioactive waste and has the potential to cause horrific nuclear disasters, such as the Fukushima disaster of 2011.

Fukushima has catalysed growing trepidation amongst the world community concerning the increasing usage of nuclear power. Germany is a country that utilises the benefits of nuclear power, with 2012 figures indicating their 17 reactors produced 25% of their energy requirements (World Nuclear Association, February 2012). Talks regarding the cessation of nuclear dependence have been ongoing since 1986, shortly after the disaster at Chernobyl, with the recent disaster at Fukushima causing the German government to shut down 8 of their oldest reactors. The remaining reactors are to be decommissioned by 2022 with the loss in capacity replaced largely by renewable means (Fairley, 2011).

Utilitarianism or Deontology?

Is the German government worried about the repercussions of nuclear power? They could be taking a utilitarian approach and concerning themselves with the consequences of long term dependence to nuclear power. They may be taking precautions against disaster, or they may simply be cultivating a positive image on the global scene by presenting Germany as an advocate to a greener world. The government may simply acting according to their own moral compass, or their sense of obligation to their populace with a utilitarian response to Fukushima.

Consequences of nuclear disaster can take many forms: political sway, environmental damage, and loss of life. The government's recent decommissioning of nuclear plants is indicative of a government making a utilitarian decision fearful of disaster.

Germany has long been vocal about Europe's increasing usage of nuclear power, just recently Germany's government passed motions appealing to Poland's plans for future nuclear power plants (Jan Puhl, March 2012). Such a response would indicate that Germany is trying to impose its deontological beliefs onto the Polish government, acting as a moral big brother.

There certainly isn't any financial gain to be had by the phasing out of nuclear power, especially when it is replaced by more expensive renewable sources such as wind, geothermal and hydro-electricity. Germany has been a strong advocate for reductions in greenhouse emissions, with the government committing to a 40% reduction cf. 1990 levels (Fairley, 2011). The aforementioned points are all indicative of a moral decision making scheme, doing what's best for both country and planet.

Where's the energy going to come from?

This question was asked immediately after Germany's announcement that it was ceasing use of nuclear power. It is a important point given that currently 25% of their energy requirements are fulfilled by nuclear power (World Nuclear Association, February 2012). The push towards renewable resources, although admirable, is likely unviable as only approximately 13% of Germany's power requirements are met by renewable resources (German Minister Sigmar Gabrial, 5 July 2007).

Coal burning makes up for approximately 24% of Germany's power requirement (Stephen F. Hayward, 2011) and a strong public view is that this will rise sans nuclear power. It seems nearly an impossible task for Germany to reach its stated carbon emission targets while at the same time