The World from Berlin: 'A Huge Victory for the Anti-Nuclear Movement'

'A Huge Victory for the Anti-Nuclear Movement'

DPA

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is taking a potentially expensive gamble on the future by abandoning nuclear energy -- but it could pay off in a big way.

The government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel now has concrete plans to abandon nuclear energy by 2022. The move could make Germany a clean energy model for the world, but newspaper editorialists are deeply divided on the issue.

Less than a day after an ethics commission appointed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel determined that Germany could phase-out nuclear power within a decade, the government in Berlin moved to implement plans to shut all the country's atomic reactors. Under the new plan, all German reactors would be forced to go offline by 2022.

It was yet another about-face in the recent history of government nuclear power policy. After the Fukushima disaster in Japan in March, Merkel swiftly reversed controversial legislation passed by her government in October that had extended the lifespan of the country's nuclear power plants by an average of 12 years. An earlier government led by then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the Greens had previously passed legislation that would phase out atomic energy entirely in Germany.

 

Following the nuclear catastrophe, Merkel ordered that seven nuclear plants be taken offline for a moratorium period of at least three months until the government had the chance to reconsider its position. Those plants will now remain shut down, as well as an eighth plant which had already been temporarily closed prior to the moratorium. 

Although Merkel often described nuclear energy as a "bridging technology" until cleaner sources could be found, her shift was seen as nothing less than a 180-degree turn for her government. Many saw it as a cynical election ploy, coming as it did just days before pivotal state elections that her party ultimately lost, anyway. Weeks on, however, the majority believes the chancellor had no other choice given the broad consensus in the German populace that nuclear power has no place in the country. That sentiment is expected to be codified by the German parliament on July 8. 

But despite the massive popular support, there are still clouds on the horizon for Merkel. Already, Germany's major energy utility companies, for whom operating nuclear power plants has been the equivalent of being able to print money, are threatening to sue over lost revenues potentially reaching into the billions as a result of the atomic shutdown. 

German editorialists are split over Merkel's nuclear withdrawal plans. Many left-leaning publications fête the development, whereas conservative newspapers are asking if society can really afford the price tag that will come with green energy. 

The left-leaning Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The reaction was predictable: The bosses of German industrial groups, particularly the energy utilities, are moaning about the decision to undergo an accelerated nuclear phase out like children who don't want to go on a day trip. They did this before the decision was made; they will probably do it for a while yet, until the heads of these firms comprehend what enormous opportunities are on offer in a world in which they have become the first mover on renewable energy and therefore are the market leader in the underlying technology."

"After the -- relatively -- clear decision, it is time to grasp the end of nuclear power in Germany as an opportunity, not just as a loss. The phase-out offers enormous opportunities if it is seen as a transition, or even as an entry into the potentially economically rewarding solar age. If it is dealt with properly, Germany will be at the vanguard of changes that, thanks to the planet's limitations, every nation on Earth will need to undergo at some point. It will be a turning point that marks an end not only to Germany's nuclear plants, but also to energy produced by consuming resources in general."

"Given the size of the task ahead, it seems almost ridiculous when politicians bicker whether three of the nuclear power plants should be running until 2022 instead of 2021, or whether one reactor should be retained as a "cold reserve" (and it is unclear how this could function)."

"The exact exit date is less important than the accompanying, much larger tasks. Germany must now make its own energy consumption more efficient, and increase the already impressive share of renewable energies. It is by no means about a forced surrender or 'green woollen sweater' ideology, but about modern, cutting-edge technology."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"The main difference between the nuclear phase-out law passed by former Chancellor Schröder eight years ago and that agreed on by Merkel's government on Sunday night is that there is no longer a chance that it will be reversed. ... The electorate's memory may be short, but since the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, it is impossible in Germany to mobilize a majority in favor of a return to atomic energy."

"This cross party and societal consensus is an enormous opportunity, particularly for energy firms. The debates will be bitter and protracted when it comes to how the transition into a nuclear-power-free era might look in detail and who has to pay for what. But the crude framework which has now been erected already offers one thing: legal security. Particularly for companies in a sector like energy which must make long-term investments, that is of inestimable value."

The tabloid Bild writes:

"No one can accuse the German government of inaction. Within a matter of months, the government has taken consequential action following the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. … But were they the right decisions? After all, German prosperity and millions of jobs in the country are dependent on affordable energy. In that regard, there are a frightening number of questions left unanswered. Will sun, water and wind be able to provide us with ample and reliable energy? Who will build the needed new power masts? And what share of the costs will have to be picked up by renters and homeowners? The government has acted on the behalf of voters, but who will be forced to pick up the tab in the end?"

The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"Following the Japanese disaster, Merkel had nothing left to win. Sticking with the extension of nuclear plant life spans would have been political suicide. Even the chancellor's (harshest critics) would have agreed that the Social Democrats and Greens would likely get elected as the next government. It doesn't require much imagination to figure out what their first decision might be."

"But even the 'shift' (away from nuclear energy) does little to help Merkel politically. Abroad -- especially, but not exclusively, in the Middle East -- the German government's swing on energy policy (after its abstention on the UN Security Council vote on creating a no-fly zone in Libya) is being seen as yet another sign that the chancellor isn't as iron-cast as many like to think. Critics within her own party once again see the affirmation of their assumption that in questions of stability, Merkel shows considerable mobility -- often in ways that are detrimental to her own party. So far, voters aren't rewarding the Christian Democrats or the Free Democrats in the coalition government for doing what the majority of voters would like them to do, either."

"The ingratitude will continue because the next thing Merkel's government will have to do is open the envelope with the bill in it. The upgrading of Germany's energy supply, related costs and the necessity of greater energy saving will hit or at least be felt by all -- car and home owners, renters, environmental activists and companies. This project will change the entire country, and it will only be possible to know what the actual costs and undesired consequences will be once it is finished."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"Why is no one in Germany celebrating the government's nuclear phase-out plans? It's all over the headlines around the world, but here in our own country no one really knows how to react. … The U-turn that Merkel and her government were forced into could not have been any more dramatic. Just half a year ago, Merkel had decreed that the reactors would stay online until long after 2030 -- now half of them are already off the grid."

"It is a huge victory for the anti-nuclear movement, which had promoted alternative sources of energy with great tenacity and kept the discussion alive. That was the reason why the electorate was so determined (to get rid of nuclear power) after the Fukushima disaster and forced Merkel to reverse her position. … The energy revolution can finally be taken to the next level."

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"The lifeblood of democracy is that you don't just have to follow one path. It's part of that lifeblood that there are always alternatives. But the German government is currently violating this basic rule in the most scandalous of ways. There's no question, in the future the country will need a smart mix of diverse energy sources, and that is why it is urgent to develop alternatives to nuclear energy. But the breakneck speed with which the government decided to hastily and permanently turn its back on the use of nuclear energy by 2022 makes a mockery of every democratic rule of procedure. It began with the repealing of the decision to extend nuclear life spans … which happened at the spur of the moment after Fukushima, without any discussion or reflection -- out of fear of the Greens (who have recently seen their influence increase dramatically in Germany)."

"Swiss Energy Minister Doris Leuthard, whose country determined not to build any more nuclear power plants and to abandon the use of atomic energy by 2034, said: 'We need time for this change, and we have that time.' This casual tone was painfully lacking in Germany. From the conservatives to the Greens, people competed to outdo each other in their proposals for how quickly the exit could happen. That damages reason."

"It is more astounding how radical the government here was in its refusal to consider alternatives. … And nobody seemed to be very upset by the fact that the committee Merkel convened to consider the issue of withdrawal was the cheeky 'ethics commission,' as if this were an ethical or moral issue rather than a question of practices and technological reason. Of the 14 members on the committee, the few who were proponents of nuclear energy were more or less silenced by the others. … And that is a victory for pugnacious democracy that lives on debate and doubt?"

methane hydrates: Published Apr 3 2005 ( !!!) by The Guardian (UK)

US in race to unlock new energy source

by David Adam

More than a mile below the choppy Gulf of Mexico waters lies a vast, untapped source of energy. Locked in mysterious crystals, the sediment beneath the seabed holds enough natural gas to fuel America's energy-guzzling society for decades, or to bring about sufficient climate change to melt the planet's glaciers and cause catastrophic flooding, depending on whom you talk to.

No prizes for guessing the US government's preferred line. This week it will dispatch a drilling vessel to the region, on a mission to bring this virtually inexhaustible new supply of fossil fuel to power stations within a decade.

The ship will hunt for methane hydrates, a weird combination of gas and water produced in the crushing pressures deep within the earth - literally, ice that burns.

The stakes could not be higher: scientists reckon there could be more valuable carbon fuel stored in the vast methane hydrate deposits scattered under the world's seabed and Arctic permafrost than in all of the known reserves of coal, oil and gas put together.

"The amount of energy there is just too big to ignore," said Bahman Tohidi, head of the centre for gas hydrate research at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh. "It's not easy, but it's not something we can say we can't do so let's forget about it."

Britain may miss out on any future methane hydrate boom - the North Sea is too shallow and no deposits have been found in the deeper waters further north - but other countries have recognised their potential. Japan, India and Korea, as well as the United States, are investing millions of pounds in hydrate research.

Ray Boswell, who heads the hydrate programme at the US department of energy's national energy technology laboratory, said the US was determined to be the first to mine the resource.

"Commercially viable production is definitely realistic within a decade. The world is investing in hydrates, and one reason for us to do this is to maintain our leadership position in this emerging technology."

Its new project will see the drilling vessel Uncle John spend about a month in the Gulf of Mexico, where it will bore down to two of the largest expected methane hydrate deposits in the region. Scientists on the ship will collect samples for experiments to see how the methane might be freed and transported to the surface.

This is harder than it sounds. In some deposits the crystals occur in thick layers, in others they are found as smaller nuggets. Puncture one hydrate reservoir and the giant release of gas can disrupt drilling, pierce another and getting the methane out is like sucking porridge through a straw.

This unpredictable nature means energy companies traditionally view hydrates as a nuisance. This gives them a joint interest with the US government as both sides want to know where the crystals are - one to avoid them and the other to exploit them.

Mr Boswell said:

"We have a marriage of near-term industry interests and longer-term government interests. If they develop the ability to detect hydrates for the purpose of avoiding them, that's useful for people who want to do the exact same thing for the purpose of finding them."

Devinder Mahajan, a chemist at the US department of energy's laboratory in Brookhaven, is looking for ways to encourage subsea hydrate deposits to release their methane. He has developed a pressurised tank that allows scientists to study hydrate formation. "You fill the vessel with water and sediment, put in methane gas and cool it down under high pressure. After a few hours, the hydrates form, you can actually see it. They look like ice, but they're not," he said. "This is a very important issue, tied to our future national energy security."

Hydrates on land are easier to get at, and in 2003 a team of oil companies and scientists from Canada, Japan, India, Germany and the US showed it was possible to produce methane from the icy deposits below Canada's Northwest Territories. BP and the US government are carrying out similar experiments in Alaska.

Environmental groups oppose attempts to extract methane from hydrate reserves.

Roger Higman, a climate change campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: 

"The Americans are desperately looking around trying to boost their fossil fuels because they think the oil is going to run out or there's going to be a scarcity. The actual scarcity is in the space the atmosphere has for taking the carbon dioxide that burning methane produces."

He added: 

"We already have enough fossil fuel in the world that, if burnt, will ruin the world's climate. Rather than look for more, we need to keep the oil, gas and coal we already know about underground and develop alternative sources of energy, principally renewables."

Paul Johnston, a scientist in the Greenpeace laboratory at Exeter University, warned that disturbing hydrate deposits under the seabed was a risky strategy.

"There are legitimate concerns that attempts to tap into these reserves could cause very widespread destabilisation of the seabed and damage to ecosystems," 

 he said.

Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, he said, and any released during production would make global warming worse.

Mr Boswell said methane was more environmentally friendly than oil and coal, because it produced less carbon dioxide when burnt.

"The prudent approach is to address all the avenues for supplying future energy," he said. "People who say it has to be one or the other, I think, are putting too many eggs in one basket."

Warning Against Adverse Health Effects from the Operation of Digital Broadcast Television Stations (DVB-T)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12548638/Warning-Against-Adverse-Health-Effects-From-the-Operation-of-Digital-Broadcast

In the US, digital broadcast television is scheduled to start operating on February 17, 2009. We write to you today because we wish to save you from the significant negative health consequences that have occurred here in Germany.In Germany, analog broadcast television stations have gradually been switching to digital broadcast signals since 2003. This switchover first took place in metropolitan areas. In those areas, however, the RF exposures in public places as well as at home continued to increase at the same time. As a result, the continuing declining health status of children, adolescents, and adults in urban areas could not be attributed to any single cause. On May 20, 2006, two digital broadcast television stations went on the air in the Hessian Rhoenarea (Heidelstein, Kreuzberg), which until recently had enjoyed rather low mobile phone radiation exposure levels. Within a radius of more than 20 km, the following symptoms that occurred abruptly were reported: constant headaches, pressure in the head, drowsiness, sleep problems, inability to think clearly,forgetfulness, nervous tensions, irritability, tightness in the chest, rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, depressive mood, total apathy, loss of empathy, burning skin, inner burning, leg weakness, pain in the limbs, stabbing pain in various organs, weight increase. Birds had fled the area. Cats had turned phlegmatic and hardly ever went into the garden. One child committed suicide; a second child tried doing it. Over time the same unbearable symptoms showed up in other locations-most recently in Bamberg and Aschaffenburg on November 25, 2008. Physicians accompanied affected people to areas where there was no DVB-T reception (valleys, behind mountain ranges) and witnessed how these people became symptom-free only after a short period of time. (...) In Germany, DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcasting Terrestrial) uses Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex Modulation. The fundamental principle of this type of modulation works by spreading
the information across several thousand carrier frequencies directly adjacent to each other. A channel is 7.8 MHz wide. The amplitude also changes constantly. (...) In Germany, we see strong evidence of a direct temporal association between the start-up of terrestrial digital broadcast television and the occurrence of severe health symptoms. (...) Satellites and cable provide the US population with television services. By contrast, the risk associated with terrestrial digital broadcast television transmitters is unacceptable. We, therefore, ask you, dear Mr. President, who has the wellbeing of his citizens at heart, to stop the scheduled introduction of this new technology in the United States of America and to save the people from the negative health consequences that have occurred in our country. (Signed by 3 German physicians)

Concerns Mount over Nuclear Energy After Series of SCARES!!

Here is our FIRST POST on a brand new blog, one which we wish did not have to be blogged ever, not at all, no way .. but we DO.

This is meant to be an ACTIVISTS blog, and attempt will be made to make SURE you can do something about what you read. In the beginning it may be necessary to post items that should help get you MOVING out of that comfy seat in front of the telly or your computer screen.

Concerns Mount Over Nuclear Energy After Series of Scares

Sceptics say recent errors highlight the drawbacks of nuclear energy

Irregularities at nuclear reactors in Germany and Japan in recent weeks have rekindled safety fears and raised tough questions about nuclear energy amid increasing environmental concerns.

The nuclear plant at Brunsbüttel in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein is now the world's safest. It's not surprising considering the reactor was shut down following a technical irregularity earlier this month.

The problem at Brunsbüttel, one of 17 nuclear reactors in Germany, is by no means the only mishap in recent months that has increasingly called the safety of atomic power into question.

Earlier this month, an earthquake caused leaks at a reactor in northwestern Japan and led to low-level radiation, reviving fears about nuclear safety, and the closure of the Brunsbüttel plant in Germany followed a fire at another reactor close to Hamburg.

Around the world, there are 438 nuclear plants currently in operation. The majority are in industrialized nations -- 104 in the US, 59 in France and 31 in Russia.

How dangerous were the incidents?

Despite the recent slew of incidents at nuclear power stations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the errors in Germany, Sweden and Japan were exceptions and certainly did not pose a danger.

That's a view echoed by Klaus Kotthoff of the GRS group, an independent nuclear assessment and research organization.

While there is no technology that's free of errors, Kotthoff pointed out that nuclear power plants are subject to a range of registration procedures and measures aimed at managing irregularities -- as was the case at two nuclear plants in Germany earlier this month.

A fire broke out last month at the Krümmel nuclear plant near Hamburg in Germany

"I believe these incidents were not noteworthy from a technical security point of view," Kotthoff said.
Critics of nuclear energy, however, don't buy the argument. Henrik Paulitz of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) said the recent German incidents were dangerous.

"The reactor protection system was activated. That only happens in serious cases," Paulitz said, adding that they weren't isolated cases.
There are several nuclear incidents in Germany about which the public is not sufficiently informed, he said. The information that is released is mostly "incomprehensible" and the controversial backgrounds are often concealed.

"Serious security deficits are usually glossed over," Paulitz said.

Experts split over nuclear safety

Experts remain divided about the safety of nuclear reactors.

While Kotthoff said German plants are generally considered the safest, a 1997 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked the German nuclear power station Biblis B second to last in an international nuclear power plant comparison. Only the Maine Yankee plant in the US fared worse, and it's since been shut down.

But Paulitz said other nuclear power stations too aren't much better.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Germany is again debating whether to stick to a nuclear energy phase out"An unfortunate mixture of technical problems and human error can at any time cause a major nuclear meltdown anywhere," he said.

The recent string of incidents comes at a time when nuclear energy seems to be undergoing somewhat of a revival. Considered one of the most cost-effective forms of generating electricity as prices of oil and gas rise, nuclear energy is largely favored by rapidly expanding economies in eastern Europe and Asia to meet their spiraling energy needs.

"The debates about climate change and reducing emissions also play a role here," said Alan McDonald of the IAEA. "And naturally, it's about securing production."

Nuclear energy plagued by problems

Nuclear energy production, however, remains problematic as most countries using nuclear energy need to import uranium. According to the IAEA, there are only 4.7 tons of economically viable uranium reserves worldwide. Given current levels of usage, experts believe stocks will only last for another 60 years. That would mean that uranium would be depleted faster than oil and gas reserves.

Experts also pointed to the unsolved problem of disposing nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for decades.

Experts estimate that uranium stocks will only last another 60 years

Paulitz said the environmental advantages of using nuclear energy are also limited since it only provides an estimated 1.2 percent of the world's energy needs. For nuclear energy to make a real difference in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, thousands of new reactors would have to be built, he said. That is hardly possible given the nuclear industry's low production capacity.

"It's only about sustaining energy production on this low level and maintaining the technology -- also because of interest in nuclear weapons," Paulitz said, adding that the world could easily do without this marginal energy source.

Security poses biggest hurdle

IAEA's Mcdonald said that security issues increasingly pose the biggest hurdle when it comes to using nuclear energy. The Vienna-based nuclear watchdog has set up an entire department to explore ways of preventing the misuse of nuclear materials and terrorist attacks on reactors.

"Terrorists who plant to blow up a nuclear reactor can do so with relatively easy means," Paulitz said. "Protecting against such attacks is just not possible."

So we ask: WHY BUILD THEM THEN?? Seems very short sighted to US.

Originally posted at Nuclear Free SA