PDA

View Full Version : Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good



Eric J (Viking)
29th March 2011, 08:56
About bloody time...perhaps we will have a few more nations doing the same...

JUERGEN BAETZ, Associated Press / March 26, 2011

BERLIN – Germany is determined to show the world how abandoning nuclear energy can be done.

The world's fourth-largest economy stands alone among leading industrialized nations in its decision to stop using nuclear energy because of its inherent risks. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead.

The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions."

Berlin's decision to take seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months for new safety checks has provided a glimpse into how Germany might wean itself from getting nearly a quarter of its power from atomic energy to none.

And experts say Germany's phase-out provides a good map that countries such as the United States, which use a similar amount of nuclear power, could follow. The German model would not work, however, in countries like France, which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting.

"If we had the winds of Texas or the sun of California, the task here would be even easier," said Felix Matthes of Germany's renowned Institute for Applied Ecology. "Given the great potential in the U.S., it would be feasible there in the long run too, even though it would necessitate huge infrastructure investments."

Nuclear power has been very unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster drifted across the country. A center-left government a decade ago penned a plan to abandon the technology for good by 2021, but Merkel's government last year amended it to extend the plants' lifetime by an average of 12 years. That plan was put on hold after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami compromised nuclear power plants in Japan, and is being re-evaluated as the safety of all of Germany's nuclear reactors is being rechecked.

Germany currently gets 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power — about as much as the U.S. Its ambitious plan to shut down its reactors will require at least euro150 billion ($210 billion) investment in alternative energy sources, which experts say will likely lead to higher electricity prices.

Germany now gets 17 percent of its electricity from renewable energies, 13 percent from natural gas and more than 40 percent from coal. The Environment Ministry says in 10 years renewable energy will contribute 40 percent of the country's overall electricity production.

The government has been vague on a total price tag for the transition, but it said last year about euro20 billion ($28 billion) a year will be needed, acknowledging that euro75 billion ($107 billion) alone will be required through 2030 to install offshore wind farms.

The president of Germany's Renewable Energy Association, Dietmar Schuetz, said the government should create a more favorable regulatory environment to help in bringing forward some euro150 billion investment in alternative energy sources this decade by businesses and homeowners.

Last year, German investment in renewable energy topped euro26 billion ($37 billion) and secured 370,000 jobs, the government said.

After taking seven reactors off the grid last week, officials hinted the oldest of them may remain switched off for good, but assured consumers there are no worries about electricity shortages as the country is a net exporter.

"We can guarantee that the lights won't go off in Germany," Environment Ministry spokeswoman Christiane Schwarte said.

Most of the country's leaders now seem determined to swiftly abolish nuclear power, possibly by 2020, and several conservative politicians, including the chancellor, have made a complete U-turn on the issue.

Vice Chancellor Guido Westerwelle said Wednesday "we must learn from Japan" and check the safety of the country's reactors but also make sure viable alternatives are in place.

"It would be the wrong consequence if we turn off the safest atomic reactors in the world, and then buy electricity from less-safe reactors in foreign countries," he told the Passauer Neue Presse newspaper.

But Schuetz insists that "we can replace nuclear energy even before 2020 with renewable energies, producing affordable and ecologically sound electricity."

But someone will have to foot the bill.

"Consumers must be prepared for significantly higher electricity prices in the future," said Wolfgang Franz, head of the government's independent economic advisory body. Merkel last week also warned that tougher safety rules for the remaining nuclear power plants "would certainly mean that electricity gets more expensive."

The German utilities' BDEW lobby group said long-term price effects could not be determined until the government spells out its nuclear reduction plans. Matthes' institute says phasing out nuclear power by 2020 is feasible by better capacity management and investment that would only lead to a price increase of 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In Germany, the producers of renewable energy — be it solar panels on a homeowner's rooftop or a farm of wind mills — are paid above-market prices to make sure their investment breaks even, financed by a 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour tax paid by all electricity customers.

For a typical German family of four who pay about euro1,000 ($1,420) a year to use about 4,500 kilowatt-hours, the tax amounts to euro157 ($223).

The tax produced euro8.2 billion ($11.7 billion) in Germany in 2010 and it is expected to top euro13.5 billion ($19.2 billion) this year. The program — which has been copied by other countries and several U.S. states such as California — is the backbone of the country's transition toward renewable energies.

"Our ideas work. Exiting the nuclear age would also be possible in a country like the U.S.," Schuetz said.

Another factor likely to drive up electricity prices is that relying on renewable energies requires a huge investment in the electricity grid to cope with more decentralized and less reliable sources of power. Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle just announced legislation to speed up grid construction but gave no cost estimate.

And even if non-nuclear power is more expensive, Germans seeing images daily of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear complex seem willing to pay the higher price.

Ralph Kampwirth, spokesman for Lichtblick AG, Germany's biggest utility offering electricity exclusively from renewable sources, said since the Fukushima disaster it has been getting nearly three times more new clients than normal, up from 300 to more than 800 per day, despite prices slightly above average.

Sticking with nuclear power would also have its costs and require public funds.

The only two new nuclear reactors currently under construction in Europe, in France and in Finland, both have been plagued by long delays and seen costs virtually doubling, to around euro4 billion ($5.7 billion) and euro5.3 billion ($7.5 billion) respectively.

The disposal of spent nuclear fuel is also a costly problem, but it has no set price tag in Germany because the government has failed to find a sustainable solution.

Many decades-old reactors are highly profitable as their initial cost has been written off, but they now face higher costs as regulators push for safety upgrades in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. One of the most pressing — and costly — requirements is likely to be a mandatory upgrade to reinforce all nuclear power plants' outer shell to withstand a crash of a commercial airliner.

Utility EnBW pulled the plug for good on one reactor temporarily shut down by the government because the new requirements made operating it "no longer economically viable."

But even if Germany abandons nuclear energy, some of Europe's 143 nuclear reactors will still sit right on its borders.

Since France and other nations are firmly committed to nuclear power, shutting down all reactors across Europe won't happen, but Merkel is now pushing for common safety standards. The topic will be discussed at the European Union summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday.

Merkel said the 27-nation bloc, which has standardized "the size of apples or the shape of bananas," needs joint standards for nuclear power plants.

"Everybody in Europe would be equally affected by an accident at a nuclear power plant in Europe," Merkel said.

www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/humans/nuclear_du_radiation/news.php

viking

witchy1
29th March 2011, 11:21
Hope she pushes for it. It wont be dearer (althought, we know energy should be free) I just helped my son with an nuke assisgnment. They just have excellent output comparatively, but in not one report had they factored in the costs of decommisioning the plants as they only have a shelf life of 40 odd yrs OR what to do with the spent rods......... No-one has a good way to deal with that - transmutation is the better choice, but very expensive. Also they cost squillions to build and can be catastrophic if they are hit by problems.

If they spent the same amount of money on developing green energy, I think they would have a viable solution in no time

str8thinker
29th March 2011, 11:55
Hooray. The Germans are also the biggest users of solar power tech in Europe, as I understand, so let's hope they keep the trend going.

ViralSpiral
29th March 2011, 12:12
and wind......


a little ways outside of Hannover, there is a stretch of farms with literally hundreds of wind turbines. I tried finding suitable image as it pretty impressive. Alas, none to be found.

Gaia
29th March 2011, 12:12
But since the German decision to progressively reduce nuclear, German utilities have taken the lead by multiplying the projects abroad. In Britain, in Russia, France, Finland, Italy. They have even formed a consortium, called Horizon, to build a lots of reactors. The group, which stands as the second largest operator European nuclear EDF is investing heavily in research.

ViralSpiral
29th March 2011, 12:20
But since the German decision to progressively reduce nuclear, German utilities have taken the lead by multiplying the projects abroad. In Britain, in Russia, France, Finland, Italy. They have even formed a consortium, called Horizon, to build a lots of reactors. The group, which stands as the second largest operator European nuclear EDF is investing heavily in research.



yes, makes one wonder......

I recall China announcing boldly it was to increase its plants too.

Google is your friend :D

China to maintain nuclear power goal
By Olivia Chung

todays news: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/MC30Cb01.html

hmmmmmmm
anyhoo, am glad to have my rabbit hole in Germany, for now

Elixer
29th March 2011, 12:42
What I don't get is why they seem so surprised. They thought nuclear was great and then all of a sudden it turns out to be potentially dangerous so we are stopping the nuclear program? Like "We never knew it could be dangerous..."
I mean did we really have to wait for an actual disaster to decide to stop? Chernobyl perhaps could be written off as human error or birthpangs of the nuclear age, but this is a natural disaster and we might all be vulnerable. Is that the thinking?
Those reactors in Japan date back to the 60s as well, so... It doesn't sound right to me. Anyone?
Of course I am glad that this whole nuclear option is seriously being reconsidered, though now it might be framed as not having a choice but to stick with the oil-paradigm. You know.

Maria Stade
29th March 2011, 12:42
I belive they are in to new energy work also.
I recived a film last year on a new patent on a magnetic deviice.
But this is great news, if one starts others will follow.

Nuclear should be banned on the planet !

Matts
29th March 2011, 13:54
It seems to be that the change in policy was made mainly because of elections in several regions this year, not to lose the power position.
You can doubt that there is any chance of awaiting a fundamental new view on the nuclear issue. Too many lobby-groups on the floors of the Reichstag.

Matthias

Gaia
29th March 2011, 14:02
I hope Fukushima will be the last nuclear accident in my lifetime. We still have no solutions for the waste generated by nuclear power. And with so many poorly regulated badly constructed power stations through out the developing world, I mean Russia / former Soviet countries... India, Pakistan etc. How easy would it be for poor maintenance or a terrorist attack to cause a huge accident to occur ? We should be looking at alternatives now, not to greedy power companies profit margins !

Icecold
29th March 2011, 14:14
I remember years ago there was the big story of Japan's plutonium ship (1992).

How the plutonium got to Japan....

Plutonium ship endangers millions

Wednesday, October 21, 1992 - 10:00
By Karen Fredericks

One hundred Greenpeace activists from across Europe chained themselves to the main gates of the French plutonium reprocessing factory on the morning of October 14. Their aim was to alert the world to the danger posed by plans to move 1.7 tonnes of deadly plutonium from France to Japan.

The day before, French naval police had arrested four Greenpeace campaigners and confiscated their vessel, Beluga, when it anchored in a restricted zone in the harbour of Cherbourg, where the Japanese freighter Akatsuki Maru will dock to pick up the plutonium cargo.

Greenpeace had earlier announced that it would tail the Akatsuki Maru and warn all nations along its route of the danger of the ship's cargo.

Both the route and the departure time are closely guarded secrets, although anti-nuclear activists tip late November as the probable date. One of the countries on the route could well be Australia. Green Left spoke to Australian Greenpeace anti- nuclear campaigner Jean McSorley about the shipment, the Japanese nuclear industry and the attitude of the Australian government to both problems.

The forthcoming voyage of the Akatsuki Maru, the ship they call "the floating Chernobyl", is supposed to be the first of a series of plutonium shipments by which Japan plans to transport between 30 and 50 tonnes of the radioactive material from France and Britain over the next 20 years.

The plutonium is for use in both conventional nuclear reactors, which now provide over one quarter of Japan's electricity, and in a new generation of fast breeder reactors (FBR) which actually produce more plutonium than they use. Japan hopes to develop a virtual "closed system" of fast breeder reactors that will not require European supplies of plutonium by the year 2000 and which will provide all Japan's energy requirements by the late 21st century.

Plutonium is one of the most toxic substances on the planet, and remains toxic for a very long time, with a half-life of 24,000 years. The ingestion or inhalation of one-millionth of a gram of plutonium is sufficient to cause cancer, and it enters the food chain with great ease. William J. Dircks of the International Atomic Energy Agency has called the amassing of plutonium stocks on the scale proposed by Japan "a major political and security problem worldwide".

Failed technology

Greenpeace has pointed out that FBR technology has been a dismal failure internationally. OECD figures show that member nations have spent A$62 billion on a technology that has produced only 35,322,130 MWh of electricity — an amount that could be produced by wind turbines in California in 2 years of operation.

Japan's is the only government pursuing the technology on a serious basis. Greenpeace says that Japan, panicked by the oil crises in the '70s, became committed to plutonium production before the difficulties became obvious, and has remained inflexible on the issue.

Greenpeace aims to stop the plutonium industry, and its campaign against the voyage of the Akatsuki Maru has placed Japan, the last remaining bastion of civil plutonium use, squarely within its sights.

"Japan is a classic example of a first world country which wastes energy phenomenally", says Jean McSorley. "They must begin to look at energy conservation, alternative energy, scaling down energy use.

"When you look at Japan, you can see that it is nonsense to say that the first world uses good technology and the developing countries use bad technology. If Japan is supposedly one of the most technologically competent, and it is certainly one of the richest nations on the planet, then they should really be leading the way instead of pursuing this reckless technology.

"A royal commission report in England in 1976 was so concerned about the dangers of plutonium shipment that it emphasised that there are alternative energy sources and that all steps must be taken to use them, rather than go down the 'plutonium economy' path." Japan has not heeded such warnings.

The dangers involved in the shipment include on-board fires and collisions, accidents during loading or unloading and terrorism or hijacking. The cargo of plutonium is sufficient to build 120 nuclear bombs of comparable size with the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945.

International protests

"Greenpeace and other groups have been lobbying like mad in every international forum we can think of to alert people to this

problem", says McSorley. "A number of countries which may have the ship pass near them are quite alarmed at the prospect. What we have seen is a response from a very much alerted international community.

"Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia have now said the ship should not go through the Straits of Malacca. They can't actually ban the ship from that area because it is international waters, but they've said that they don't want it to go through there, and it would create too much of a stink if Japan forced the issue.

"What we are seeing, really, is the response of informed people, unlike the situation when the first shipment left years ago — the Seishin Maru in 1984, the trial shipment. Nobody knew about it, and the risks were not known."

Many international forums, such as the South Pacific Forum, have expressed strong concerns to the Japanese government and requested consultation with affected countries.

Australian government

Disturbingly, the South Pacific Forum motions (prompted particularly by the concerns of Nauru and Micronesia) were diluted somewhat through the intervention of the Australian delegate, says McSorley:

"One of the key issues for Australian anti-nuclear activists is that when the South Pacific Forum were debating this issue, and putting together their letter of protest, the Australian delegate had the whole resolution watered down. Greenpeace believes that was because the Australian government is embarrassed over the fact that Australia also wants to send spent nuclear fuel shipments through the waters of the South Pacific region. Our government is talking about moving the spent fuel from Lucas Heights to the US via that route.

"So Greenpeace Australia is now campaigning around two things: one is we stop the Japanese dealing in deadly cargoes, and the other is that we set an example by not considering doing this ourselves."

Anti-nuclear groups internationally have identified three possible routes the plutonium ship may take: 1. through the Panama Canal via the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; 2. around Cape Horn, also via the Atlantic and Pacific; 3. around the Cape of Good Hope, via the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. If the route is the third, and that seems likely, then the ship will have to pass around Australia, approaching Japan from the central and western Pacific. Jean McSorley says that, even on the parochial level of security for its own citizens, the Australian government, like
the US, has made an inadequate and unrealistic response.

"The Australian government hasn't really commented on whether the ship can come into Australian waters. The Japanese have said that it will not go within 200 nautical miles of the coast of any nation, so in theory it won't go into any waters except those of France and Japan. Our government has loosely indicated that it believes it has the capacity to deal with any problems that would arise on a ship that did come into our waters. Apart from that, they just say they've spoken to the Japanese about it and they believe Japanese assurances that they won't come into our economic zone of exclusion."

The campaign around the Akatsuki Maru is only a part of the Greenpeace campaign against the plutonium industry. McSorley says the group does not believe it will necessarily stop this shipment, but it will certainly continue its assault on the veil of secrecy surrounding it:

"They won't be able to keep their leaving time a secret because the whole area of Cherbourg is being watched very closely. The ship will not be able to leave without being spotted. We will follow the ship, and as it passes various countries we will alert the governments of those nations. If the Japanese government will not assume responsibility as a global citizen, then we'll do it for them.

"Physically, Greenpeace can't stop the ship. It would not only be reckless because of the danger from the cargo, but we are also internationally enjoined against interfering with the passage of any ships belonging to Pacific Nuclear Transport, which is the parent company who own [the Akatsuki Maru].

"However, we have very high hopes of stopping the plutonium trade, and that's the key thing. The Japanese may get one ship through, but we believe that we will stop the plutonium trade, and we'll stop plutonium production. Japan is the cornerstone of civil plutonium production. We've seen, for various reasons, the cessation of military production around the world, and we are going to stop the civil industry."

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/2792