After a controversial debate, the German Parliament (Bundestag) voted in favour of two amendments of the Atomic Energy Act (AtG). Bundestag also cleared two new laws concerning an energy and climate fund and a nuclear fuel rod tax. The government’s recently presented Energy Concept also got parliamentary approval.UPDATE
The existing Atomic Energy Act, passed by a previous government, limited the maximum amount of electricity that could be produced by each nuclear power plant. The limitation was intended to shut down the last nuclear power plant by 2022.
With the new 11th amendment of the AtG, the German nuclear power plants are allocated additional generation quantities. These additional quantities shall lead to an extension of the operating times of the 17 German nuclear power plants for an average of 12 years. Nuclear power plants that started operating in or before 1980 will get generation quantities that shall last for an additional 8 years. Newer plants shall get quantities that shall allow an extension of 14 years.
The 12th amendment of AtG adds provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2009/71/Euratom into German law. Furthermore, the amendment introduces further safety requirements for nuclear power operators, obliging them to further develop and refine safety standards in accordance with the development of science and technology. The amendment also contains a provision allowing expropriations in favour of the exploration and operation of nuclear waste disposal sites.
The new nuclear fuel rod tax law shall enter into force on 1 January 2011. Until 31 December 2016, it levies taxes on nuclear fuel rods which are commercially used to generate electricity. The government expects to raise EUR 2.3 billion per year.
The law on the new Energie- und Klimafonds (Energy and Climate Fund – EKFG) creates a special purpose energy and climate fund. The money shal be used for the promotion of an environmentally-friendly, reliable and affordable energy supply, for instance with respect to energy-efficiency. Revenue will mainly come from a contractual agreement of the nuclear power plant operators with the German state that skims off part of their extra profits.
In the comments Silke Beck points to some potential problems with the legitimacy of the German nuclear power decision:
Yes, it is time to opening up the discussion on Germany’s energy future, but not a cost of its democratic achievements.
There is a remarkable gap between the idea of nuclear power as a bridging technology and the concrete outcome of German nuclear agreement. The agreement in its current form (Atomkonsens) is certainly not a rational, efficient and far-reaching strategy but a typical lowest common denominator-solution reflecting the short-term interest driven logic of neocorporatist regulation. The SPIEGEL called it 'A Gift to the Nuclear Industry'.
The “atom consensus” was reached behind closed doors. The Federal countries, the “Bundesrat” and even the German Ministry for Environment were excluded (http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2010-09/ atomkonsens-roettgen?page=all& print=true).
The lack of accountability and violation of democratic rules and the rule of law contribute to undermine the trust into the government and its deal.
“The cloak-and-dagger approach contributed to spark suspicions among the public that the government had reached a secret agreement benefiting the power companies” (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518, 717092,00.html).
Even if democratic procedures are not guarantees for a rational and effective outcome, they may contribute to make critical aspects such as the question of waste disposal and the security of power plants and their costs more transparent and agencies who are responsible for dealing with them more accountable and thus far-reaching policies more acceptable.
14 comments:
As you say, this is a revision of a law to shut the stations early and is presumably a response to EU carbon trading policy. The law was originally passed because scientific evidence showed nuclear power plants were dangerous. An inconvenient truth.
Science is always correct, except when we say so. It is mind boggling that environmentalists are so attached to the CO2 financial drip feed they are embracing nuclear power.
The truth is that alternative energy sources are uneconomical, and this is the only way they can achieve their targets. The German economy is apparently doing very well, particularly the production of large luxury cars. They are saving the planet one Mercedes at a time !
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/01/germany-working-economy-inspiration
We're on the expressway to full employment," crowed Rainer Brüderle, Germany's economics minister, last week. The country's labour market was evolving "from problem child to model student". He was celebrating news that German unemployment had dipped below 3 million for the first time since 1992 – or the height of the post-unification economic boom that then collapsed into a string of recessions/downturns that called into question the durability of the German economic model.
Magical thinking is fun until the lights start to go off.
Yes, it is time to opening up the discussion on Germany’s energy future, but not a cost of its democratic achievements.
There is a remarkable gap between the idea of nuclear power as a bridging technology and the concrete outcome of German nuclear agreement. The agreement in its current form (Atomkonsens) is certainly not a rational, efficient and far-reaching strategy but a typical lowest common denominator-solution reflecting the short-term interest driven logic of neocorporatist regulation. The SPIEGEL called it 'A Gift to the Nuclear Industry'.
The “atom consensus” was reached behind closed doors. The Federal countries, the “Bundesrat” and even the German Ministry for Environment were excluded (http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2010-09/atomkonsens-roettgen?page=all&print=true).
The lack of accountability and violation of democratic rules and the rule of law contribute to undermine the trust into the government and its deal.
“The cloak-and-dagger approach contributed to spark suspicions among the public that the government had reached a secret agreement benefiting the power companies” (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,717092,00.html).
Even if democratic procedures are not guarantees for a rational and effective outcome, they may contribute to make critical aspects such as the question of waste disposal and the security of power plants and their costs more transparent and agencies who are responsible for dealing with them more accountable and thus far-reaching policies more acceptable.
"The SPIEGEL called it 'A Gift to the Nuclear Industry'."
That their plants are allowed to operate? Why is that a gift?
It seems like a reasonable agreement. They are extending the life of nuclear plants that have performed well and safely. They will tax these plants to provide funds to dispose of them safely and to fund research into clean energy, what's not to like?
The German economy is doing well and they need energy. Better to use proven sources of energy that are cost effective than to throw away even more money on non cost effective solar and wind energy.
Thanks to silke beck for the reality check.
key words carbon trading, dirty tricks, EU, undemocratic
That is the reason why Europe has gone along with carbon trading. A lack of democracy and a compliant population. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if France had faced the same dilemma. We know they had to retreat at breakneck speed from a carbon tax scam that favoured big business. The French enjoy setting things on fire.
The British work force has been battered into submission for the last 30 years. Result : an 80% cut in CO2 with no public support worth speaking of. What democracy ?
keywords boot face eternal stamping Orwell.
I am surprised that no one commenting on this posting has linked the ideas of "settled science" and "anti-science" to the nuclear and AGW controversies in Germany and more broadly in Europe.
Both of these issues are related to the expression of a left-right or green-capitalist ideological conflict. However in these controversies the faith in science seems to shift according to the needs of the particular ideology. So being anti or pro-science is an attitude of convenience. Green campaigners are strong deniers of science in the case of nuclear power.
Unless nuclear energy is also on the other side of that bridge, it is a bridge to no where.
"The law was originally passed because scientific evidence showed nuclear power plants were dangerous."
And conveniently ignored that every other form of power generation has dangers as well. Demanding zero risk is foolish.
"And conveniently ignored that every other form of power generation has dangers as well"
That may be correct, but the law was democratically passed on the basis of scientific research. I am not saying the research was correct, only that is has been overturned in what appears to be a murky manouvre.
**
In 2000, the German government, consisting of the SPD and Alliance '90/The Greens officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear power. Jürgen Trittin (from the German Greens) as the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, reached an agreement with energy companies on the gradual shut down of the country's nineteen nuclear power plants and a cessation of civil usage of nuclear power by 2020.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
Higher cancer risk for children near nuclear power plants found in Germany
A new study on behalf of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection is the first study to show reliable results: the risk of children under 5 years of age to contract leukaemia increases the closer they live to a nuclear power plant. This is the result of an investigation of the German Childhood Cancer Registry (GCCR) in Mainz carried out on behalf of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection. The investigation concludes that in the study period from 1980 to 2003, within a radius of 5 km around the reactors, 37 children contracted leukaemia.
http://www.insnet.org/ins_headlines.rxml?id=5571&photo=
There are a large number of semi opened worm containers in the BBC article below. Democracy ? What democracy ?
Labour and the nuclear lobby
Anti-nuclear campaigners like to portray the government as being in the pocket of the nuclear industry. How else, they argue, do you explain the return to favour of an industry once written-off as dirty, dangerous and prohibitively expensive.
...
Weber Shandwick's UK arm is headed by Colin Byrne, the Labour Party's former chief press officer. French energy giant EDF has also been at the forefront of the campaign to change perceptions of nuclear power.
The company, which operates 58 nuclear reactors in France and is already a big player in the UK electricity market, has said it is ready to invest in a new generation of plants in the UK, provided it gets the go-ahead from government.
It has successfully lobbied ministers to introduce a fast-track planning process to make it easier to build new plants without lengthy public enquiries.
Chancellor Gordon Brown's brother, Andrew, is EDF's head of media relations in the UK.
Yvette Cooper, housing and planning minister, and wife of Mr Brown's closest political ally Ed Balls, also has links to the nuclear industry.
Her father, ex-trade union official Tony Cooper, is the former chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, and is currently a director of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
He has been one of the most vocal champions of the industry's green credentials.
One of the most well-connected nuclear lobbyists is Alan Donnelly, former leader of the Labour group in the European Parliament.
Mr Donnelly's company, Sovereign Strategy, represents US engineering giant Fluor, one of the world's biggest nuclear contractors, which is currently vying for a slice of the UK's £70bn nuclear clean-up market - but like other US firms, such as Bechtel, also has an eye on future nuclear build.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5149676.stm
eric144 said... 10
"Higher cancer risk for children near nuclear power plants found in Germany"
How does one explain elevated Leukemia rates in Alaska?
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hematologic/leukemia/statistics/state.htm
If I then look at Washington State, which also has above average Leukemia Rates and break it down by county, I find Benton County Washington, home of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation with below average Leukemia rates and Grays Harbor County, separated by the Cascade Mountain Range from Hanford with the highest Leukemia rates in the State.
http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/incidencerates/index.php?stateFIPS=53&cancer=090&race=00&sex=0&age=001&type=incd&sortVariableName=rate&sortOrder=default
Harrywr2
"How does one explain elevated Leukemia rates in Alaska?"
One of the guys in my football team was an epidemiologist, so I'll give it a bash. Is it the Palin effect ?
:-)
Great dog catcher comment on the other thread btw.
Police have clashed with activists trying to halt a train carrying nuclear waste from France to Germany.
Officers used batons, pepper spray, tear gas and water cannon to disperse about 250 activists who were trying to sabotage railway tracks.
The activists hurled fireworks at officers and set a police vehicle on fire, police said.
Earlier, the train was halted after activists lowered themselves on ropes from a bridge over the tracks.
The clashes near Dannenberg, northern Germany, followed peaceful protests against the train on Saturday by tens of thousands of people.
About a dozen protesters were injured on Sunday, demonstrators were quoted as saying by local media reports. Police gave no reports of injuries on their side.
'Not safe'
The train, made up of 14 wagons containing 123 tonnes of reprocessed nuclear waste in glass and steel containers, is heading to a storage site in Gorleben, northern Germany.
Activists maintain that neither the waste containers nor the site are safe.
The BBC's Berlin correspondent Stephen Evans says that the plan is to transfer the waste to lorries for the final part of the journey but the police and protesters are now trying to outmanoeuvre each other in the countryside along the route.
Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to extend the lifespan of Germany's 17 nuclear power plants despite strong public opposition has highlighted the issue of the waste trains.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11706115
Post a Comment