MyThs abouT nuclEar EnErgy

Myths about nuclear energy

hoW ThE EnErgy lobby is pulling

ThE Wool ovEr our EyEs

by gerd rosenkranz

The advocates of nuclear energy in many industrialised countries

becoming increasingly integrated into what economists have

take obvious delight in what they call the ‘de-ideologisation’ of

defined as the triangle of the political energy debate consist-

the conflict surrounding this energy. In view of climate change

ing of economic viability, safeguarding energy supplies and the

and an ever-increasing shortage of fossil energy sources, the

impact on the environment. The fact that safeguarding against

tone is said to have become “calmer and more reasonable”. In

catastrophes is not an aim of nuclear energy is of less concern

particular the supporters of nuclear electricity production are

to its supporters. On the contrary they are extremely satis-

jubilant about this easing of tension unless there happens to be

fied. Supporters of nuclear energy are becoming increasingly

an election looming. For decades the political-societal debate

successful at concealing this technology’s unique potential for

has moved away from the fundamental safety issues of nuclear

catastrophe behind a wall of arguments, all of which have one

energy to questions about the economy, climate protection, the

main purpose: to distract from the fundamental questions of

conservation of resources and the safeguarding of energy sup-

safety. This publication provides the long due knowledge for

plies. In public perception, nuclear energy could thus become

critically debating nuclear power, identifying alternatives and

one technology among many, its use being simply a question

exposing nuclear power as what it is: an irresponsible and ex-

of weighing everything in the same way as choosing between

pensive high-risk technology.

coal and natural gas power stations. Nuclear fission is thus

Rue d’Arlon 15, -1050 Brussels, Belgium

Washington Office - 1638 R Street, NW, Suite 120

T +32 2 743 41 00 F 32 2 743 41 09

Washington, DC 20009, USA

E brussels@boell.eu W www.boell.eu

T 1 (202) 462-7512 W http://www.boell.org

publication series on ecology

Myths about nuclear energy

How the energy lobby is pulling the

wool over our eyes

by gerd rosenkranz

edited by the Heinrich böll Foundation

With the support of the

Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung

Published by the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, European Union, Brussels

in collaboration with the Heinrich Böll Foundation, North America, Washington

Printed in Belgium, September 2010

© The authors, the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, European Union, Brussels

and the Heinrich Böll Foundation, North America, Washington

All rights reserved

Translation from German: Alan and Pauline Chamberlain

English proof-reading and language editing: Yazgülü Zeybek, Alexander Tietz, Arne Jungjohann Coordination and final editing: Annett Waltersdorf

Print production: Micheline Gutman

Photographs by Timm Suess, http://timmsuess.com/decay. Some rights reserved.

D/2010/11.850/4

This publication can be ordered at:

Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, European Union, Brussels

15 Rue d’Arlon

B-1050 Brussels

Belgium

T (+32) 2 743 41 00

F (+32) 2 743 41 09

E brussels@boell.eu

W www.boell.eu

Heinrich Böll Foundation North America, Washington Office

1638 R Street, NW, Suite 120

Washington, DC 20009, USA

T +1 (202) 462-7512

W http://www.boell.org

table oF contents

preface: nuclear energy – a Dead end

4

introduction: Forsmark – 22 Minutes of Fear and terror

7

First Myth: nuclear energy is safe

8

The residual risk of forgetting

9

The insidious poison of routine

11

second Myth: the Dangers through Misuse and terror can be controlled

15

Suicide attacks would put 9/11 in the shade

17

Deadly Siamese twins: the civil and military use of atomic energy

18

third Myth: atomic Waste? no problem!

20

There is no place for permanent disposal – anywhere

21

Fourth Myth: there is enough uranium Fuel

24

Fifth Myth: nuclear energy benefits climate protection

27

How nuclear energy obstructs sustainable climate protection

29

The competition between nuclear energy and renewable energy is intensifying

30

Nuclear climate protection is unrealistic

31

sixth Myth: We need extended life spans

33

Nuclear energy companies break their promise

35

Why cream off surplus profits?

35

Withdrawing from nuclear energy the smart way

36

seventh Myth: nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance

37

Renewable energy is the new global trend

38

Subsidies to prevent nuclear depression

40

the end of the nuclear power myth

44

the decision: the future of energy supply

46

references

50

4

4

MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy

preFace: nuclear energy – a DeaD enD

Anyone following the statements expressed

subsidies and guarantees. It is noticeable that

from time to time about the renaissance of nu-

new nuclear power stations are built particularly

clear energy could get the impression that the

where the government and the energy industry

number of new nuclear plants was increasing at

form an unholy alliance.

an immense and steady rate. In fact, more recent

statistics show 60 plants in the process of being

Up to now, nuclear power plants have been

built, the majority in China and others in Russia,

funded by massive public subsidies. For Germany

India, South Korea and Japan. The USA is only

the calculations roughly add up to over 100 bil-

shown as having one actual building project.

lion Euros and this preferential treatment is still

However, this list (the VGB Power Tech) includes

going on today. As a result the billions set aside

numerous ancient projects that were never com-

for the disposal of nuclear waste and the disman-

pleted and are therefore de facto building ruins.

tling of nuclear power plants represent a tax-free

manoeuvre for the companies. In addition the

Moreover, there are at the present time pro-

liability of the operators is limited to 2.5 billion

posals for about 160 new nuclear power plants

Euros – a tiny proportion of the costs that would

up to the year 2020, 53 of these in China alone

result from a medium-sized nuclear accident. All

and 35 in the USA, followed by South Korea and

things considered nuclear energy proves to be

Russia. In Europe, the UK heads the list with

just as expensive as it is risky.

eight proposed new projects, followed by Italy,

Switzerland, Finland, Rumania and Lithuania.

In addition to the routine arguments about

France, that would like to bless the world with

nuclear energy, there are some new ones. Firstly,

new nuclear power stations, is itself only plan-

the danger of nuclear proliferation is growing in

ning one new plant. Most European states are not

proportion to the number of new nuclear power

entertaining any concrete nuclear plans.

stations all over the world. There is no insurmount-

able division between the civil and military use of

As a matter of fact the number of nuclear pow-

this technology in spite of the efforts on the part of

er plants in the world is continually decreasing.

the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

At the present time there are still 436 reactors in

to regulate this. The most recent example is Iran.

operation. In the next 15 to 20 years more ageing

At the end of the day anyone who does not want

plants will go offline than new ones coming into

to be regulated cannot be forced to do so. With

operation. By no means will all declarations of

the expansion of nuclear energy there is a grow-

intent be implemented. The more energy markets

ing necessity to build reprocessing plants and fast

are opened up to free competition, the smaller

breeders in order to produce nuclear fuel. Both give

the chances are for nuclear energy.

rise to the circulation of plutonium leading in turn

to the creation of huge amounts of fissile material

The costs for new plants are also explod-

capable of making bombs – a horror scenario!

ing. For example, the building cost of the new

nuclear power plant in Finland’s Olkiluoto has

Secondly, an extension of the life span of ex-

already increased from 3 to around 5.4 billion

isting nuclear energy stations, and even more so

Euros although not even the shell of the building

the building of new plants, would act as a massive

is standing yet. In addition, there are the unsolved

brake on the development of renewable energies.

problems of waste disposal and the high suscep-

The claim that nuclear energy and renewable

tibility of the technology to failure. Today, no

energies complement each other is a myth since

privately run energy conglomerate risks building

not only do they compete for a meagre amount

a new nuclear power station without government

of investment capital and power-lines but at the

Preface

5

same time nuclear plants limit the growth po-

tion to climate change nor is it necessary in order to

tential particularly of wind energy owing to their

guarantee energy supply. The exact opposite is true.

inflexible continuous operation. On windy and

Those who want to promote the development of

low-consumption days the energy demand in

renewable energy with the aim of producing 100%

Germany is already covered to a large extent by

of the power demand should oppose the building

the wind energy supply. As the output of exist-

of new nuclear plants as well as the life span exten-

ing nuclear power stations (as well as the big

sion of older ones. Despite the claims about nuclear

coal-fired power stations) is not reduced at short

energy it is not a suitable interim strategy leading

notice for economic reasons, the surplus energy

towards the age of solar energy.

has to be exported to other countries at a loss.

There is method in this madness.

Berlin, January 2010

Whatever way you look at it, nuclear energy has

Ralf Fücks

neither the potential to make a decisive contribu-

(Chairman of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung)

Introduction

7

introDuction: ForsMark – 22 Minutes oF Fear anD terror

It is 25 July 2006 in the middle of the day at

any of the control rods which regulate the chain

13.19 hours when electricians carrying out main-

reaction in the reactor core or about the level of

tenance work outside the central Swedish nuclear

the cooling water in the reactor vessel. It is only

power station at Forsmark trigger a short circuit at

when a technician finally manages to start the

a substation. Such things happen repeatedly wher-

non-functioning diesel engines by manually

ever gigantic turbines turn and enormous amounts

pressing a button and thus supplying the central

of electricity have to be conveyed from large block

measuring and security systems with electricity

unit power stations. Normally, a malfunction such

again that the blind flight of the reactor finally

as this in a nearby electricity grid does not create

comes to an end.

serious difficulties for any nuclear plant. The safety

systems are geared up for this. The reactor is sepa-

The Swedish Atomic Regulatory Authority

rated from the malfunctioning grid before the short

(SKI) soon identified the failure of two AC con-

circuit outside reaches the electrical system inside.

verters as the main cause for the escalation in the

In the worst case scenario the reactor switches it-

boiling water reactor Forsmark 1. As a result of

self off automatically and since the heat producing

this, two out of a total of four emergency back-up

decay of the radioactive inventory in the core of the

generators did not switch on as they should have.

reactor continues for days the reactor is gradually

However, due to the breakdown of substantial

brought into a non-critical state by means of the

sections of the monitoring system of the reactor,

emergency cooling systems.

it was extremely difficult to reconstruct the exact

course of events afterwards. The most worrying

But on this Tuesday nothing is normal at

aspect of all was that experts could not explain

Forsmark. As the separation from the grid takes

why identical AC converters which had man-

place too slowly and because the failure – in itself

aged to start the two remaining generators in the

nothing out of the ordinary – unleashes a torrent

normal way had not reacted to the interference

of further complications, most of the electrical

voltage peak in the power supply of the reactor in

system in Block 1 of the boiling water reactor col-

the same way as the two others. The only certain

lapses. Two of the four diesel generators which

thing in the end was that if they had done so, the

are supposed to supply the reactor control system

reactor would most probably have gone out of

and the emergency cooling pumps with electric-

control. Then all four cables of the reactor’s safety

ity in the case of an emergency fail to start. For 22

system would have been affected and this, as the

agonising minutes during the most critical phases

SKI admitted, would have led to “the electric-

of the emergency the screens in the control room

ity supply in the whole emergency power system

remain blank. The measuring sensors send no

being cut off resulting in a scenario not covered

signals about the nuclear chain reaction in the

in the reactor’s security guidelines” (Society for

core of the reactor; even parts of the loudspeaker

Plant and Reactor Security 2006). There was no

system for the purpose of raising the alarm and

provision for this kind of failure in any manual,

signalling evacuation stay silent. There is an ab-

there were no regulations to deal with it and, in-

sence of vital information about the position of

deed, no possibility for doing so.

8 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy First MytH:

nuclear energy is safe

First MytH: Nuclear energy is Safe

9

What happened on the east coast of Sweden

the residual risk of forgetting

in the middle of that day in the summer of 2006

was a fatal reminder of two events that have cast a

The advocates of nuclear energy in many

warning shadow over the civil use of nuclear en-

industrialised countries take obvious delight in

ergy for decades: the catastrophes at the atomic

what they call the ‘de-ideologisation’ of the con-

power stations of Harrisburg (in March 1979)

flict surrounding this energy. In view of climate

in the US and Chernobyl (in April 1986) in the

change and an ever-increasing shortage of fossil

Ukraine.

energy sources, the tone is said to have become

“calmer and more reasonable”. In particular the

A barely understandable lack of planning, the

supporters of nuclear electricity production are

incorrect installation of important components,

jubilant about this easing of tension unless there

unforgivably sloppy maintenance and not least

happens to be an election looming. For decades

a naive trust in a highly sensitive technology –

the political-societal debate has moved away

none of this was new to us: not only because of

from the fundamental safety issues of nuclear

Harrisburg and Chernobyl but also the reprocess-

energy to questions about the economy, climate

ing plant in Sellafield in England, the Japanese

protection, the conservation of resources and

breeder reactor, Monju, the reprocessing plant

the safeguarding of energy supplies. In public

at Tokaimura in Japan, one of the spent fuel stor-

perception, nuclear energy could thus become

age pools at the Hungarian nuclear station, Paks

one technology among many, its use being sim-

and also the German nu-

ply a question of weighing

clear plants at Brunsbüttel

everything in the same

[The Forsmark incident] could have

and Krümmel on the river

way as choosing between

been much worse and worse can

Elbe. Wherever humans

coal and natural gas pow-

happen at anytime.

are working, mistakes are

er stations.

made. We can count our-

selves lucky that the chain of errors repeatedly

Nuclear fission is thus becoming increasingly

deemed ‘inexplicable’ after every accident does

integrated into what economists have defined as

not always result in such catastrophic conse-

the triangle of the political energy debate consist-

quences as in the Ukraine and its neighbouring

ing of economic viability, safeguarding energy

countries in 1986. In Block 1 of the atomic power

supplies and the impact on the environment. The

station at Forsmark, a good 100 km north of the

fact that safeguarding against catastrophes is not

Swedish capital Stockholm, it only resulted in 22

an aim of nuclear energy is of less concern to its

minutes of fear and terror for the reactor’s per-

supporters. On the contrary they are extremely

sonnel on site and some grave doubts about the

satisfied. Supporters of nuclear energy are be-

reliability of the reactor operator, Vattenfall. Since

coming increasingly successful at concealing this

that time the northern state-owned conglomerate

technology’s unique potential for catastrophe

has also caused nagging doubts to be raised else-

behind a wall of arguments, all of which have one

where, namely at the German sites of Brunsbüttel

main purpose: to distract from the fundamental

and Krümmel.

questions of safety. This development is not a co-

incidence. It is the result of a strategy which has

Since then the name Forsmark has been

been pursued doggedly and deliberately for many

synonymous with supposedly the most critical

years by the operators and manufacturers in the

accident in a European nuclear reactor since the

leading nuclear energy countries.

catastrophe at Chernobyl. Experts at home and

abroad who tried to reconstruct the events of that

day came to the shocking conclusion: it could

have been much worse and worse can happen

at anytime.

10 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy A successful campaign of distraction may well

ducing countries are taking a neutral approach to

quieten public debate for a time but the prob-

‘Generation IV’ which, in the distant future, is due

ability of a huge catastrophe does not reduce the

to replace existing reactors or those being planned.

necessity for such debate. The danger of the ulti-

Even reactors of the next but one construction

mate catastrophe, i.e. an accident which exceeds

phase, with their innovative security systems, are

‘the greatest imaginable catastrophe’ catered for

no longer claimed to be idiot-proof which their

in the security systems and the fact that it can

predecessors are still regarded as being. But they

never be excluded has been and is the prime

will be more economical, less susceptible to mili-

cause for the fundamental conflict surround-

tary misuse and, as a result, more acceptable to

ing nuclear energy. The arguments first and last

the general public. The first of these reactors are

against this form of energy conversion are based

expected to be supplying energy around 2030.

on this very real danger on which the whole

That is the official version. Unofficially, even some

acceptance of nuclear energy stands and falls –

of the high profile supporters, such as the former

regionally, nationally and internationally. Since

president of the French energy supplier Électricité

Harrisburg and even more so since Chernobyl

(EDF), François Roussely, do not expect commer-

the nuclear energy industry has pinned its hopes

cial operation to begin before about 2040 or 2045

on winning back public support for this technol-

(cf. Schneider 2004).

ogy at some point with the

promise of ‘catastrophe-

In the absence of a

Supporters of nuclear energy are

proof’ nuclear reactors.

promise that a fourth gen-

becoming increasingly successful at

As early as three decades

eration of reactors would

concealing this technology’s unique

ago constructors made a

be absolutely safe, the

potential for catastrophe behind a

great promise under the

nuclear energy industry

wall of arguments, all of which have

banner of ‘an inherently

has quietly buried the

one main purpose: to distract from the

safe nuclear power sta-

guarantees of the past.

fundamental questions of safety.

tion’. The Americans called

In the meantime, even

these reactors of the fu-

in day-to-day operation

ture ‘walk-away reactors’ in which a meltdown

relative safety has to suffice. In concrete terms

or similarly serious accident was physically out

this adds up to nothing more than the sweeping

of the question thanks to so-called passive safety

claim happily bandied about by non-experts in

systems. At the time the leading manager of an

the politico-journalistic field that “our reactors

American nuclear reactor construction com-

are the safest in the world.” There has never been

pany commented enthusiastically: “Even in the

any sustainable evidence establishing the degree

case of the worst of all imaginable accidents, you

of truth behind this assertion which has found

can go home, have lunch, take a nap and then

particular favour in Germany. And it is not ex-

come back without the slightest worry or panic”

actly plausible that nuclear power stations, whose

(cf. Miller, 1991). This boastful announcement

construction started in the 1960s and 1970s and

has remained up to now what it was then: a

which had therefore been designed in the 1950s

bad cheque for the future. The technology his-

and 1960s with both the knowledge and the

torian Joachim Radkau suspected as early as

technology of that time, should be able to offer a

1986 that the ‘catastrophe-proof’ reactor was a

satisfactory level of safety today. However, as long

“pipe-dream constantly bandied about under

as no one prevents the nuclear energy support-

false pretences in times of crisis but never to be-

ers in France, Sweden, the USA, Japan or South

come a reality.” (Radkau 1986) This is how it has

Korea from claiming the same of their own re-

remained.

actors, they all live happily with their respective

slogans. In fact there is no nuclear community in

In the meantime, the European Atomic Energy

any country that does not consider its own nu-

Community (Euratom) and ten nuclear energy pro-

clear power stations to meet global standards – or

First MytH: Nuclear energy is Safe

11

at least publicly makes this claim. As a result of

coalition government of Germany, in the end

the arms build-ups of the last 15 or 20 years even

have to face the question of whether they want to

in Eastern Europe claims are increasingly heard

do so until another catastrophic accident elimi-

that Soviet constructed reactors meet Western

nates the option of nuclear energy once and for

safety standards or even exceed them in many

all. One thing is certain: no-one in Europe or the

respects. Incidentally, there is no need for any

USA would talk about the ‘renaissance of nuclear

formal agreement on the terminology used; the

energy’ or would be discussing prolonging the life

general message worldwide seems to be: “There

spans of ageing reactors if, at Forsmark on July 25,

is no cause for concern”.

2006 in Sweden, not two but four of the AC con-

verters had failed and Sweden of all places, prized

In fact concern is actually lessening in many

as a high-tech country, had been the scene of this

countries especially with a generation of politi-

disaster. Northern and western Europe would not

cians for whom accidents like at Chernobyl or

only have been confronted with the suffering of

Harrisburg are no longer a significant event. An

millions of people. Moreover, with 130 nuclear

important question to be asked therefore concerns

reactors the continent would be spending many

the price mankind has to pay for absolute peace of

years dealing with the physical and mental re-

mind on the nuclear front. What does this mean for

constructions and the economic collapse caused

international nuclear energy safety when narrowly

by this catastrophic scenario which would have

avoided catastrophes such as that at Forsmark in

overshadowed the present financial and banking

Sweden are debated in

crisis by far. Every country

public for only a few weeks

with a significant portion

[W]hen public attention wanes or is not

but after that only among

of its electricity supply de-

even tolerated as under authoritarian

committees of experts be-

pendent on nuclear energy

regimes, safety decreases.

hind closed doors?

would have to face black-

outs on a scale hitherto

The comparatively high level of security of

unknown in most of the countries of the European

German reactors was actually attributed in the

Union for decades. At the same time there would

past, even by supporters of nuclear energy, to the

have been an increased impact on the environ-

strength of the anti-nuclear energy movement in

ment as many of the fossil fuel powered stations

former West Germany – a continuous sceptical

still available would have had to operate round the

monitoring of nuclear power stations as a result

clock in a way never intended in order to make up

of a highly sensitised population. If this inter-

for the energy shortfall brought about by the shut-

pretation is correct, it was only the penetrating

ting down of nuclear plants under pressure from a

questions and the establishing of a ‘critical expert

deeply distraught public. It did not come to that at

public’ which ensured that nuclear power sta-

Forsmark, thank God.

tions became the industrial sites with the most

extensive preventative measures against break-

the insidious poison of routine

downs and accidents in economic history. They

still are today. Unfortunately it is to be feared that

No one seriously denies that of course nuclear

the reverse is also true: when public attention

energy has also gained from the progress made in

wanes or is not even tolerated as under authori-

the general technological development of the last

tarian regimes, safety decreases.

decades. The revolution which has taken place

in information and communication technology

Those who want to continue using nuclear en-

since the construction of the majority of commer-

ergy even after Chernobyl and Harrisburg like the

cially operated reactors in the world makes the

Christian-Democrats (CDU) and Liberals (FDP)1

controlling and monitoring of a nuclear power

1 conservative cDu and pro-business FDP coalition.

12 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy station more transparent and more reliable in

made by nuclear technicians: “an accident every

its day-to-day operation. When the older reac-

100.000 years – how time goes by!”.

tors operating today were at the drawing board

stage computers were still using punch cards.

An increase in the intended life span of the re-

Modern operating systems have been and are be-

actors that is promoted worldwide is described by

ing installed retrospectively even in many of the

nuclear plant operators as “unreservedly justifia-

ageing reactors. A better understanding of the

ble from the point of view of security” (Frankfurter

physical workings and other complex processes

Rundschau, 12 August 2005). Walter Hohlefelder,

in the normal day-to-day running of a reactor and

president of the German Atomic Energy Forum

even more so in cases of failure that is achieved

lobby and formerly the chairman of the nuclear

by means of computer simulations and experi-

energy operator E.on, declared in all seriousness

ments also means a higher level of security. These

that such an extension of the life span of reac-

days reactor operators play out complex compu-

tors “made the electricity supply more secure”

ter simulated accident scenarios which could not

(Berliner Zeitung, 9 August, 2005). The most as-

even have been designed 20 or 30 years ago and

tonishing thing about such claims is that they are

were therefore completely unknown. Security

no longer challenged by sections of the public,

technicians also profit from advance probabil-

especially by the politicians who support nuclear

ity analyses and more refined testing and control

energy. For it really is an audacious claim that

systems with which even the older reactors are

nuclear plants – in contrast to cars and planes –

gradually being equipped. Reactor operators also

become safer the older they get. Unfortunately,

claim to have learnt from Harrisburg, Chernobyl

this not only defies common sense; it also contra-

and the serious accidents in Japan. They point

dicts the laws of physics.

to the World Association of Nuclear Operators

(WANO) that today organises an exchange of

The global arsenal of reactors is ‘growing old’.

information and ensures that accident data are

Behind this simple layman’s terminology lurks

swiftly passed on to its members. In 2010 reactor

a whole body of knowledge – materials technol-

operators all over the world will be able to have

ogy and metallurgy – which does not only cover

access to the experience of around 13.000 years of

the simple ‘signs of wear and tear’ but also highly

reactor operations.

complex changes on the surfaces of and within the

metal components. Processes of this kind in the

However, this is by no means a guarantee of

micro area of nuclear structures and the resulting

quality ’new security’ for nuclear power stations.

consequences are difficult to forecast and reliably

The fact that there have been no nuclear core melt-

detect in good time via the monitoring systems

down accidents since 1986 does not mean it could

– especially when high temperatures, enormous

not happen again. Forsmark was simply the loud-

mechanical stress, a chemically aggressive en-

est warning shot in recent times; further warnings

vironment and the continual bombardment of

followed in German reactors at Brunsbüttel and

neutrons from the nuclear fission simultane-

Krümmel with the result that these reactors did

ously affect the security relevant construction

not supply any electricity for several years. About

elements which are difficult to reach. Again and

three-quarters of the reactors in the world are the

again in recent decades there have been incidents

same as those at the time of the Chernobyl disaster.

of corrosion, radiation damage and crack forma-

It is in the very nature of probability that a serious

tions on the surfaces and on the welded joints of

accident could happen today or in 100 years’ time.

central components – even on the inside. Serious

Therefore 13.000 years of reactor operations pro-

accidents have often been avoided because the

vide no evidence to the contrary. When the nuclear

defects were discovered just in time either by the

energy industry faced its first core meltdown in a

monitoring systems or through routine checks

commercial reactor in Harrisburg in 1978, anti-

during periods of shut down and inspection. Yet

nuclear protestors in Germany distributed leaflets

again and again the timely discovery of serious

pouring scorn on the pompous promises of safety

damage can simply be put down to chance.

First MytH: Nuclear energy is Safe

13

This situation has been exacerbated in many

view of the high number of serious failures which

countries as a side-effect of the liberalisation and

cause a stir around the globe again and again.

de-regulation of energy markets. Liberalisation

calls for greater ‘cost awareness’ on the part of the

The (naturally not complete) list of poten-

reactor operators in every power station – with di-

tially catastrophic situations in the recent past

rect consequences: e.g. staff redundancies, cutting

includes:

back on periodic security checks, shorter dead-

lines and consequently greater time pressure when

a burst pipe in the residual heat removal

it comes to inspections and fuel changes. Quite

system in the French pressurised reactor Civeaux

clearly none of this increases security.

1 whereby the primary cooling circuit lost 30 cubic

metres of cooling water per hour until the leak

Preliminary conclusion: if reactor opera-

could be isolated and the situation stabilised

tors succeed in realising their concept of a life

(1998);

span of 40, 60 or even 80 years for nuclear power

stations, the average age of nuclear plants op-

the manipulation of security data at the

erating in the world which was 24 years in 2007

English reprocessing plant at Sellafield and

will increase massively in the future. The risk of

the Japanese nuclear energy station, Tepco

a serious accident will thus increase consider-

(1999/2002);

ably. Even the construction of new reactors of the

so-called Generation 111 will have little effect on

damage to nuclear fuel elements never

this. For decades they will still only account for

seen before in Block 3 of the French reactor

a small proportion of the reactor arsenal world-

Cattenom (2001);

wide. Moreover, a serious accident even in these

reactors cannot be discounted. The European

a serious hydrogen explosion in a pipe

Pressurised Reactor (EPR) , for example, which

at the boiling water reactor at Brunsbüttel in

has been on the drawing board since the end of

Germany in immediate vicinity of the reactor

the 1980s – the prototype of which has been in

pressure tank;

construction in Finland since 2005 – is, accord-

ing to critics, nothing more than ‘half-hearted’

massive corrosion of the reactor vessel in

further development of the pressurised reactors

the US reactor Davis-Besse that had remained

operating in France and Germany at the moment.

undiscovered for years whereby only the thin

The idea is that the consequences of meltdown

steel lining of the reactor boiler prevented a cata-

are contained by means of a complicated system

strophic leak when in full operation (2002);

of catching the melted reactor core – ‘core-catcher’.

The result of this concept which considerably

the dramatic overheating of 30 highly radi-

increases the cost of the whole plant has been,

oactive nuclear fuel elements in the neutralisation

among other things, that reactors have had to be

pond at the Hungarian nuclear energy station,

designed in the development stage to be more

Paks, which finally shattered to pieces like porce-

and more efficient in order for them to remain

lain under a torrent of cold water in the attempt

economically competitive both within and out-

to cool them down from a temperature of 1200

side the field of nuclear technology.

degrees Celsius and prevent a possible atomic

explosion in the unprotected area of the reactor

There is certainly no consensus of opinion

complex (2003) (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung 2006);

even among reactor operators that the probability

of a serious accident has decreased in real terms

serious earthquake damage at the Japanese

through operational experience and the pro-

reactor complex Kashiwazaki, resulting in trans-

longed life spans of individual reactors. Anything

formers catching fire, the leakage of radioactive

else would actually amount to a denial of reality in

liquids and finally a shut down lasting years (2007);

14 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy a transformer fire in the German power

tive actions year in and year out with the highest

station Krümmel which initially led to smoke

degree of concentration at all times. During a

formation in the switch room and consequently

WANO conference in Berlin in 2003 speakers

to serious failures in the fast shut down system.

bluntly broached the subject of what was in their

Almost exactly two years later, just a few days after

opinion rampant negligence and self-satisfaction

being put into operation, there was another short

on the part of reactor operators. It was a Swedish

circuit in one of the transformers, oil leaked out

participant of all people in this gathering of ex-

and the reactor was quickly shut down. However,

perts who warned that both were “a danger for

on this occasion the transformer did not catch fire

the survival of our industry” (Nucleonics Week,

(2007/2009).

6 August 2003). The former Japanese chairman

of WANO, Hajimu Maeda, diagnosed “a terrible

In the meantime such obviously unavoidable

illness” that was threatening the industry from

incidents caused more concern and awareness of

within. It began with a loss of motivation, self-

the problems among the reactor operators than

content and “negligence in maintaining security

among the supporters of the nuclear renaissance.

standards owing to the pressure of cost brought

And that is not simply because the damage and

about by the de-regulation of energy markets”.

loss caused by failures and accidents add up to

This illness had to be recognised and confronted.

billions for the reactor operators.

Otherwise at some point “a serious accident [...]

[will] destroy the whole industry” (Nucleonics

Those in positions of responsibility in nucle-

Week, 6 August 2003). When three years later,

ar plants are more and more worried about the

during the Forsmark disaster, new cases of neg-

consequences of a phenomenon deeply-rooted

ligence in the management of the reactors of the

in human beings: their susceptibility to the in-

Swedish nationalised company, Vattenfall, kept

sidious poison of routine which makes it almost

coming to light this concern proved to be all too

impossible to carry out monotonous and repeti-

prophetic.

seconD MytH: The Dangers through Misuse and Terror can be controlled 15

seconD MytH:

the Dangers through Misuse and terror

can be controlled

16 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy A completely new dimension of the threat has

At the same time it is generally undisputed

arisen as a direct consequence of the terrorist at-

that none of the 436 reactors in operation around

tacks of 11 September 2001 in New York City and

the world at the beginning of 2010 could with-

Washington, D.C., heightened still by the state-

stand the deliberate attack of a large fully-tanked

ments made later by the detained masterminds of

aircraft. Whilst still reeling from the attacks in

the attacks being questioned. The new dimension

New York and Washington even German reactor

of terror which the leading powers of the West ex-

operators were unanimous in confirming this.

perienced as a result of the attacks on the USA had

Admittedly the chance crash of small aircraft

never been considered in previous examinations

and military planes had been taken into safety

of security questions. But it is precisely this devel-

considerations in the construction of many nu-

opment that calls for a fundamental re-appraisal

clear power stations in the Western industrial

of the use of nuclear energy and the enormous

countries. However, the chance impact of a large

risks associated with it.

fully-tanked passenger plane was considered so

unlikely that in no country effective precautions

Going by the admittance of two imprisoned

had been taken against a scenario of this kind. The

Al-Qaeda leaders it is an undeniable fact that

idea of a deliberate attack by a passenger plane

the targeting of atomic power stations actually

converted into a missile had simply been beyond

does play a part in the plans of Islamic terrorists.

the imagination of the reactor constructors.

According to their statements which can be found

in the official report of the US senate on the at-

In Germany the Cologne based Company for

tacks (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks

Plant and Reactor Safety (GRS) launched an exten-

Upon the United States

sive survey into the vulner-

2004) Mohammed Atta,

At the same time it is generally

ability of German nuclear

who later flew a Boeing

undisputed that none of the 436

power stations to air at-

767 into the North Tower

reactors in operation around the

tacks immediately follow-

of the World Trade Centre,

world at the beginning of 2010 could

ing the attacks in the USA.

had already chosen the

withstand the deliberate attack of a

The survey – on behalf of

two reactor blocks of the

large fully-tanked aircraft.

the German government

Indian Point power sta-

– not only ascertained the

tion near the Hudson river as a possible target.

stability of typical nuclear power stations but in

The attack on the nuclear power station only 40

addition half a dozen pilots using a flight simula-

miles away from Manhattan even already had a

tor at the Technical University of Berlin carried out

codename – “electrical engineering”. However,

thousands of attacks of varying speeds, impact sites

as the terrorist pilots thought their approach to

and angles on nuclear power stations operating in

the power station could be cut off by flight de-

Germany, life-like video animations of which were

fence rockets or interceptor jets, the plan was

relayed into the simulator-cockpit. Some of the

in the end rejected. In fact, no such military se-

test pilots – like the terrorist pilots of New York and

curity provisions had been made. The terrorists’

Washington – had only flown smaller propeller

decision to drop the plan was based on an error

planes before. In spite of this, roughly every other

of judgement. The Al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik

simulated kamikaze attack was claimed to have

Mohammed actually stated that his original even

been a strike.

more monstrous plans included the simultane-

ous targeting of several nuclear power stations by

The findings of the investigation proved to be

a total of ten hijacked planes. It is therefore im-

so alarming that they were never made public.

perative that scenarios of terrorist attacks play a

Only one summary of events classified as ‘highly

far more prominent part than has previously been

confidential’ became available to the public (Soci-

the case in the risk assessment of nuclear power

ety for Plant and Reactor Safety 2002). According

stations. The likelihood of attacks of this kind has

to this, especially in the case of the older power

increased dramatically since 11 September 2001.

stations, each strike regardless of the type, size or

seconD MytH: The Dangers through Misuse and Terror can be controlled 17

impact speed of the passenger plane threatened a

station knowing full well that they themselves will

nuclear inferno. Either the ‘shell’ would be directly

be the first victims conjures up scenarios that had

penetrated or the pipe-work system would be de-

never been contemplated before.

stroyed by the enormous vibrations caused by the

impact and the kerosene then catching fire.

From the point of view of extremist suicide

bombers an attack on a nuclear plant is by no

In every situation, core meltdown and the

means irrational. On the contrary, extremists know

widespread release of radioactivity would have

that a ‘successful’ attack would not only unleash an

been the likely consequence of a successful strike.

immediate inferno and cause suffering to millions

Even the intermediate storage facilities within the

of people but would also, quite probably, result in

power station where burnt out fuel elements de-

the shutting down of numerous other nuclear plants

cay in water basins are considered to be at extreme

as a precautionary measure thereby leading to an

risk. In Germany, nearly ten years after the terrible

economic tremor far eclipsing the financial shock

attacks in the USA, there is still no concept for safe-

waves experienced in the aftermath of 11 Septem-

guarding nuclear power stations against attacks of

ber 2001. As monstrous as the attacks on the World

this kind. Plans of the former Social Democrats-

Trade Centre and the Pentagon were, their principal

Alliance 90/the Greens coalition government to

aim was nevertheless demonstrative and symbolic

make power stations invisible for a short time with

– to strike at the economic, political and military

a system of smoke dischargers in the event of an

heart of the superpower, USA, and thereby humili-

air-attack led nowhere. After the German Federal

ate it. The attack on a nuclear plant would not be

Constitutional Court categorically ruled out the

symbolic in the same way. It would affect the elec-

deliberate shooting down of civilian planes with

tricity supply and thus the nerve centre – short, the

innocent passengers on board in February 2006

whole infrastructure of an industrialised country.

the idea was laid to rest. The aim of discharging

The radioactive contamination of a whole region

smoke had been to shroud the nuclear power sta-

and possibly the lasting evacuation of hundreds of

tions in artificial smoke un-

thousands if not millions of

til fighter jets of the armed

The shocking possibility of people

affected people would wipe

forces were airborne and

carrying out suicide attacks on a

out the dividing line be-

were able to ward off the

nuclear power station […] conjures

tween war and terror once

hijacked plane and shoot it

up scenarios that had never been

and for all. No other attack

down if necessary.

contemplated before.

on the industrial infrastruc-

ture, not even on the oil

suicide attacks would put 9/11

depots of Rotterdam would

in the shade

have a similar psychological effect on Western in-

dustrial countries. Even in the case of it not actually

The scenario of ‘targeted air attacks’ did noth-

succeeding in unleashing a super catastrophe, the

ing to remove other fears that had already been

result would be devastating. In the aftermath of an

under international discussion before 11 Sep-

attack of this kind the debate would intensify the

tember 2001. They were simply given a concrete

conflict surrounding the risks of catastrophe of nu-

and more realistic foundation. There had long

clear energy as never before and probably lead to

been intensive research into terrorist attacks in

several industrial countries shutting down many, if

which nuclear plants are attacked on the ground

not all, of its nuclear power stations.

by modern tank and bunker penetrating missiles

or explosives or whereby the attackers manage to

In the light of this new form of terrorism the

gain violent or secret access to security areas. How-

debate concerning the ‘peaceful use of nuclear

ever, the scenario of attackers who are prepared to

energy’ and the threat resulting from a war-like

accept their own death had not been taken into

conflict gains relevance. Up to now it has been,

consideration. The shocking possibility of people

and still is, largely avoided in the nuclear commu-

carrying out suicide attacks on a nuclear power

nity. Reactors in the international conflict areas

18 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy such as the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, Iran, India

tion. The attack was seen as a preventative strike

or Pakistan give rise to an unintentional but dead-

against Saddam Hussein’s attempt to be the first

ly side-effect. Once they are in operation a poten-

to build the ‘Islamic bomb’. American bombers re-

tial aggressor no longer needs atomic bombs in

newed their attacks on the reactor site during the

order to devastate the country in question with

Gulf War of 1991. In retaliation Saddam Hussein

radioactivity – air force or artillery would suffice.

aimed his scud rockets at the Israeli atomic centre of

In view of such perspectives anyone resorting to

Dimona. Last but not least, more and more reports

the term ‘security of supply’ with regard to nu-

relating to the conflict with the Mullah regime in

clear energy is obviously not thinking far enough

Tehran are circulating about a planned Israeli air

ahead. There is no other technology whereby a

strike on supposedly secret nuclear plants in Iran.

single event can cause the collapse of one whole

pillar of the energy supply. A national economy

Deadly siamese twins: the civil and

relying on technology of this kind is anything but

military use of atomic energy

secure in its energy supply. In the case of war it is

more susceptible to conventional attacks than a

Since the birth of the idea to use atomic powers

national economy without this technology.

for the controlled production of energy, their mili-

tary misuse has been on the agenda. This came as

In 1985 the German physicist and philosopher

no surprise to anyone. After all the US bombing of

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker justified his conver-

Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 had clearly

sion from supporter to an opponent of nuclear

demonstrated the infernal potential of nuclear en-

energy saying that: “The worldwide implementation

ergy to the world. US President Dwight D. Eisen-

of nuclear energy implicitly calls for a global radi-

hower’s programme ‘Atoms for Peace’ announced

cal change in the political structures of all present

in 1953 was intended as a kind of starting shot for

cultures. It requires the overturning of the political

the ‘peaceful use of nuclear energy’. This approach

institution of war that has existed at least since the

was born of necessity and concern since by gener-

beginning of the civilised world (cf. Meyer-Abich/

ously revealing its then largely exclusive and secret

Schefold 1986).” But in summing up his thoughts

know-how about nuclear fission, the USA wanted

von Weizsäcker pointed out that politically and cul-

to prevent more and more countries embarking on

turally secured world peace was nowhere in sight.

their own atomic weapons programmes. The deal

In times of ‘asymmetric violence’, in which highly

that the President of the USA, which had conclu-

ideologised extremists prepare themselves for a war

sively risen to the status of superpower as a result

against powerful industrialised countries or even

of the bomb, offered the world was conceivably

the all-embracing ‘clash of civilisations’, the pros-

simple. Any interested country was to be able to

pect of lasting peace is far more remote than in 1985

profit from the peaceful use of nuclear energy as

when von Weizsäcker, still haunted by the old block

long as it gave up its own atomic weapons ambi-

confrontation, formulated his views.

tions in return. In this way he hoped to put a stop

to a development whereby a few years after the

Incidentally, the menace arising from power

Second World War, along with the USA, the Soviet

stations as a result of war-like conflicts is not only a

Union, the UK, France and China had become

theoretical consideration. In the Balkan conflict at

atomic weapons states. Other countries, among

the beginning of the 1990s the Slovenian nuclear

which even those that have always been regarded

power plant, Krško, often found itself exposed to

as downright peace-loving – such as Sweden or

the threat of air attacks. In order to demonstrate

Switzerland – were working more or less intensive-

the possibility of such an escalation Yugoslavian

ly, but at all events under the utmost secrecy, on

bombers flew over the plant. It can only remain a

the development of the ultimate weapon. Even the

matter of speculation whether in 1981 Israel would

Federal Republic of Germany, itself not a sovereign

have refrained from an air attack on the construc-

state from the end of Second World War until 1955,

tion site of the Iraki research reactor Osirak, if the

displayed corresponding ambitions in the era of

40 megawatt reactor had already been in opera-

the ‘Atomic Minister’ Franz Josef Strauß.

seconD MytH: The Dangers through Misuse and Terror can be controlled 19

The Non-Proliferation Treaty which finally

fatal consequence. Every country that can fully

came into force in 1970 was – like the International

handle the civil nuclear technology as promoted

Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna – a result of the

by the IAEA or the European Atomic Community

Eisenhower initiative. The task of the Vienna

(Euratom) can build the bomb sooner or later.

atomic agency, which had been founded as early

Again and again since the beginning of the nuclear

as 1957, was on the one hand to encourage the

age, ambitious and unscrupulous powers have se-

production of nuclear energy and to promote it

cretly gone down the military side road at the same

worldwide and on the other hand to prevent the

time as pursuing the civil nuclear programme. Iran

development of the atomic bomb in an ever-in-

is today and has been suspected of doing this for

creasing number of countries. More than half a

years. The conversion of civil components of the

century after its creation the record of the IAEA

nuclear fuel cycle into military ones can be carried

is as ambivalent as its original purpose. By moni-

out through secret parallel programmes subsidised

toring civil atomic plants

by the respective govern-

and their use of fissile ma-

[A] fundamental problem of nuclear

ments. Or it can take place

terials it has dramatically

energy: even with the best intentions

by secretly diverting civil

succeeded in decelerating

and despite the use of the most modern

fissile materials and thus

the proliferation of the

monitoring technology, there can be

avoiding national and in-

bomb. For this, the Vienna

no fine distinction between its civil and

ternational controls. The

agency together with its

military use.

theft of such materials, mil-

then director, Mohammed

itary relevant technology

el-Baradei, received the Nobel Peace Prize in

or the relevant know-how is also to be feared.

2005. However, it has certainly not prevented the

spread of the bomb. By the end of the Cold War

At the beginning of 2010 in the Near and

three further atomic weapons countries, namely

Middle East 15 new nuclear power stations were

Israel, India and South Africa, had already joined

planned in Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia,

the five ‘official’ ones. When it renounced its

Jordan, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and the

Apartheid system at the beginning of the 1990s

United Arab Emirates. One does not have to be

South Africa destroyed its nuclear arsenals. After

a prophet to foresee that not all of these projects

the Gulf War of 1991 inspectors discovered a se-

will be realised. But if the world were a safer place,

cret atomic weapons programme in Saddam

would even half of them be built? Indisputably,

Hussein’s Iraq that was highly advanced in spite

the more civil nuclear technology expands

of meticulous monitoring on the part of the IAEA.

throughout the 30 countries which use it com-

In 1998 India and Pakistan, which like Israel had

mercially at the moment, the greater the effort

always refused to sign up to the treaty, shocked

becomes to curb military proliferation. In the case

the world with nuclear weapons tests. Five years

of a new nuclear energy boom – similar to that of

later North Korea turned its back on the Non-

the 1970s – resulting in 50, 60 or even more coun-

Proliferation Treaty and declared itself a nuclear

tries having access to nuclear fission technology,

weapons state.

it would pose the IAEA, already overburdened

in the past and chronically underfunded, with

All these threatening developments are rooted

insoluble problems. Furthermore, there is a new

in a fundamental problem of nuclear energy: even

form of danger in the shape of terrorists who

with the best intentions and despite the use of the

would not even shrink from detonating a ‘dirty

most modern monitoring technology, there can

bomb’. The detonation of a conventional explosive

be no fine distinction between its civil and mili-

device containing radioactive material of civil ori-

tary use. In particular the nuclear fuel and fissile

gin would not only claim numerous victims and

material cycles involve a largely identical proc-

dramatically increase fear and insecurity in the

ess whether for peaceful or non-peaceful use.

countries which are potential targets for terror-

Technology and know-how are frequently open

ists but would also render the site of the explosion

to civil as well as military use – ‘dual use’ – with a

uninhabitable.

20 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy tHirD MytH:

atomic Waste? no problem!

tHirD MytH: atomic Waste? No Problem! 21

The comforting concept of the nuclear ‘fuel

nium for civil use in reprocessing plants actually

cycle’ is just one of those astonishing neologisms

no longer exists. Nevertheless, along with France,

of the nuclear industry that have comprehensively

the UK and Russia, Japan and India operate

established themselves in spite of the fact that re-

smaller reprocessing plants with the later stated

ality continually proves them wrong. The myth of

aim of re-using the plutonium produced there in

the nuclear cycle originated from the early dream

the form of so-called uranium-plutonium mixed

of nuclear technologists that after having started

oxide (MOX) fuel elements in their conventional

with commercial uranium reactors it would be

light water reactors. Besides plutonium and ura-

possible for reprocessing plants to separate the

nium, reprocessing plants, when they are not out

fissionable element plutonium produced in its

of operation owing to technical problems, above

core and then, in fast breeder reactors, continually

all produce horrendous costs and create, moreo-

produce plutonium (Pu-239) out of non-fission-

ver, highly radioactive nuclear waste that has to

able uranium (U-238) for further fast breeder

be disposed of. And the surrounding area is also

reactors – like a perpetual motion machine. In

exposed to levels of radiation exceeding that of

this way a gigantic industrial cycle was to be

a light water reactor several tens of thousands of

created with more than a thousand fast breeder

times over. In addition, reprocessing necessitates

reactors and dozens of reprocessing plants all

the frequent, precarious transportation of highly

over the world, on a civil and industrial scale that

radioactive materials which also lend themselves

has so far only been real-

in part to military or ter-

ised in La Hague in France

[T]he nuclear fuel cycle remains in

rorist misappropriation.

and Sellafield in England.

name only

In Germany, alone nu-

As only a comparative-

clear strategists in the middle of the 1960s were

ly small part of the highly radioactive nuclear waste

counting on an arsenal of breeders by the end of

produced in commercial power plants world-

the century capable of generating an aggregate

wide is ever reprocessed and burnt out MOX fuel

output of 80,000 megawatts. For comparison: the

elements are generally not re-cycled again, the nu-

conventional pressurised water and boiling water

clear fuel cycle remains in name only. In the real

reactors in operation in Germany today produce

world this circle is open. Besides electricity, nucle-

about 20,000 megawatts. However the plutonium

ar power stations produce above all high, medium

path of nuclear technology, which the energy

and low-grade radioactive waste which is moreo-

scientist Klaus Traube – himself initially head of

ver highly toxic. It has to be securely and ultimately

the German breeder project in the Lower Rhine

disposed of for immense periods of time. How

town of Kalkar – had called the “salvation utopia

long, is determined by the natural half-life times

of the 1950s” (Traube 1984), has turned out to be

of the radionuclides which differ enormously: the

perhaps the greatest fiasco in economic history.

plutonium isotope Pu-239 loses its radioactivity

Over-priced, technologically ill-conceived and

only after 24,110 years, the Cobalt isotope Co-60

even more controversial in safety terms than con-

already after 5.3 days.

ventional nuclear power stations and, moreover,

particularly susceptible to military misappropria-

there is no place for permanent disposal

tion, breeder technology has not established itself

– anywhere

anywhere in the world. Russia is alone in still op-

erating a breeder reactor dating back to the early

More than half a century after the start of

development stages. Japan (whose demonstra-

nuclear energy production there is not a single

tion breeder in Monju has been shut down since

approved and operational disposal site for highly

a serious sodium fire in 1995) and India are still

radioactive waste in the world – a situation which

officially going down this route.

popularised the image of the nuclear aircraft that

took off without any thought of where it was going

Without the prospect of the breeder option

to land. In some countries – e.g. France, the USA,

the original main motive for separating pluto-

Japan or South Africa – comparatively short-lived

22 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy and medium or low-grade radioactive waste is

100010. However, there is no choice: nuclear waste

deposited in special containers near the surface.

exists and as there can be no absolute certainty in

Germany has chosen the former iron ore mine

this matter we have to search for and find the best

shaft, Konrad, in Salzgitter in lower Saxony for the

technical solution based on today’s knowledge.

deep disposal of non-heat producing waste from

nuclear plants as well as from research reactors

The largest nuclear energy countries are only

and medical usage. The former mine is the first and

gradually and reluctantly coming to the realisation

only approved permanent nuclear waste facility in

that the choice of a permanent disposal site is not

Germany and is being prepared for storage at the

simply a technical or scientific problem. None of

present time. It is due to start operating in 2014.

the national procedures for choosing a site, em-

barked upon for the most part in the 1970s, have

The comment made in 1969 by the previously

so far led to an approved permanent disposal

quoted Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker shows how

site. This is due to the fact that societal resistance,

casually the problem of nuclear waste was initially

democratic participation and transparency in

approached. At the time the physicist and philos-

the choice of a site were ignored or denied for far

opher remarked on the disposal of nuclear waste:

too long. When choosing a suitable disposal site

“It is no problem at all. I have been told that all

usually irrelevant and politically strategic consid-

the nuclear waste present in Germany in the year

erations played a decisive part. In Germany, in an

2000 will fit into a box, a cube with a side length of

attempt to learn from these mistakes, a selection

20 metres. If you seal and lock it properly and put

procedure consisting of several stages with the

it down a mine shaft, we

continuous participation

can hope the problem has

More than half a century after the start

of the public was devel-

been solved” (cf. Fischer et

of nuclear energy production there is

oped and formulated. It

al. 1989).

not a single approved and operational

now seems as unlikely as

disposal site for highly radioactive

ever that after years of in-

However, from the out-

waste in the world.

tensive debate the concept

set there were other, more

finally agreed on in 2002 by

reflective, opinions even if they were seldom heard

scientists who were supporters as well as oppo-

in public. Following a ministerial meeting to discuss

nents of nuclear energy actually came to fruition.

the draft of the Atomic Bill, a Bonn ministerial offi-

The German Christian-Democrats (CDU/CSU)

cial commented soberly: “The harmless disposal of

and Liberals (FDP)2 coalition government elected

radioactive waste is a problem that has to be solved

in the autumn of 2009 has no intention of getting

before we can entertain the idea of building a re-

involved again in the search for disposal sites and

actor in a densely populated Germany.” (cf. Möller

is sticking to the site in Salzstock von Gorleben

2009). That was in February 1955. Meanwhile in

that has been in preparation since the 1970s. This

Germany 19 power and prototype reactors have

is in spite of grave doubts regarding the geologi-

been shut down again without the subject of “the

cal suitability particularly of the overlying rock

harmless disposal of radioactive waste” coming up

and evidence from contemporary witnesses and

on the horizon. In the end it is rather a philosophi-

documents discovered in recent years reinforcing

cal question whether radioactive waste can be

the suspicion that in deciding the site in the 1970s

prevented from penetrating the biosphere at all for

political considerations had played a large, if not a

hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

decisive, role – rather than scientific findings into

It exceeds the bounds of human imagination. The

the suitability of Salzstock. Anyone looking for

age of the pyramids was only 5,000 years ago. But

“the best technological solution based on today’s

the highly radioactive waste produced in German

knowledge” for a permanent disposal of radioactive

nuclear power plants in 2010 will have to be in

waste obviously has to weigh up the alternatives.

secure storage even in the year 10010 or the year

However, that has never happened and could result

2 Conservative CDU and pro-business FDP coalition.

tHirD MytH: atomic Waste? No Problem! 23

in the courts deciding against Gorleben, should

tainers the German daily newspaper Frankfurter

politicians cling to the controversial site. Decades

Allgemeiner Zeitung was forced to observe: “This

would have been lost and the search would have

is certainly another nail in the coffin of nuclear

to begin again. Whether the ‘shut your eyes and

energy in Germany”. According to Paragraph 9a

hope for the best’ strategy pursued by the CDU/

of the Atomic Law those operating nuclear power

CSU and FDP coalition in Germany since 2009 will

stations are “liable for the orderly disposal of the

actually lead to a site being approved is therefore

resulting radioactive waste”. The law has been

questionable. What is not questionable is the effect

unmistakably clear on this for more than half

the aggressive attempt to establish Gorleben as a

a century. But how, where and, above all, when

permanent disposal site and at the same time ex-

the requirements of the law are to be fulfilled is

tend the life spans of reactors will have: namely the

as unclear in 2010 as it was in 1960. Nevertheless,

revival of the fundamental conflicts surrounding

in this respect Germany cannot simply be looked

nuclear energy in Germany.

upon as an irritating exception – it is exactly the

opposite, since the situation is the same in nearly

At the beginning of 2010 a legal report from

all countries where nuclear energy is used com-

the German Environmental Aid Association came

mercially. At the present time it is only in Finland,

to the conclusion that extending the life spans of

a country that is home to only 4 of the 436 atomic

nuclear power stations as planned by the Federal

power stations operating worldwide, that plans for

Republic of Germany violated the constitution

a permanent disposal site are well advanced. The

since the question of disposal remained unre-

disposal site in granite rock near Olkiluoto on the

solved (Ziehm 2010).

west coast of Finland which is nearing completion

is fortunate in enjoying a high level of acceptance

That is all the more probable because the joint

by the local and regional population. A nuclear

attempt by the German state and the nuclear en-

power plant operating in the same place for many

ergy industry to dispose of low and medium grade

years without any major incidents together with

radioactive nuclear waste

a disposal site for low and

in the abandoned salt

In the end it is rather a philosophical

medium grade radioac-

mine at Salzberg Asse 11,

question whether radioactive waste can

tive waste have allayed the

near Saltzgitter, threatens

be prevented from penetrating the bio-

fears of the majority of the

to end in a monumental

sphere at all for hundreds of thousands

residents. The permanent

disaster after only 30 years.

or even millions of years. It exceeds the

disposal site for highly ra-

If over a period of ten or

bounds of human imagination.

dioactive waste is due to

more years, as suggested

start operation in 2020.

at the beginning of 2010 by the Federal Office for

Radiation Protection (BfS), nearly 126,000 con-

However, in none of the countries of the world

tainers of radioactive waste, salvaged from the

with a far larger proportion of nuclear power sta-

mine because it is in danger of being flooded,

tions in operation is a permanent disposal site in

have to be re-packed, stored provisionally else-

prospect. This is also true of the USA where 104

where and at some stage buried underground

reactors supply about 19% of the electricity de-

in a more suitable place, this transaction will

mand. After decades of bitter conflict the plans

symbolise the failure of an energy policy costing

for a permanent disposal site in the Yucca moun-

billions. It is likely that for the first time ever TV

tains in the US state of Nevada were put on hold

pictures will be broadcast into every living room

by the Obama administration at the beginning

for a whole decade showing the repercussions

of 2009 due to continued doubts regarding long-

of nuclear technology and the legacy of burdens

term security and because the size of the storage

bestowed by a generation of parents on their

site is probably insufficient to accommodate the

children and grandchildren for which they them-

highly radioactive waste which has built up over

selves bear no responsibility. On October 16, 2009

half a century in the USA and which will continue

after the decision on the excavation of the con-

to do so in the foreseeable future.

24 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy FourtH MytH:

there is enough uranium Fuel

FourtH MytH: There is enough uranium Fuel 25

The so-called nuclear fuel cycle is not bro-

From then on, governments were not the only

ken in only one place. From the beginning, it

buyers of fissile material. A private market for

has proved to be problematic even at its starting

uranium established itself so that the exceptional

point. The mining of uranium which provides

military strategic position of uranium was no

the fissile material for both the atom bomb and

longer able to justify the particularly harsh min-

for civil use in nuclear power stations claimed

ing conditions. The situation changed radically

an enormous number of victims especially in the

again at the end of the Cold War. The military

early years of the atomic age. Large quantities of

demand for uranium decreased enormously.

naturally radioactive nuclides, previously safely

Superfluous stocks in the USA and the former

bound under the surface of the earth escaped into

Soviet Union were channelled into the civil fis-

the biosphere. By continuing or even expanding

sile material market. Moreover, as a result of the

the use of nuclear energy the health and ecologi-

progress made in nuclear disarmament, large

cal toll of mining uranium will in all probability

amounts of weapons-grade uranium with a high

increase considerably.

proportion of fissile material soon became avail-

able from the mothballed Soviet and American

The rush for heavy metal uranium – in itself

nuclear weapons as well. The consequence was

not unusually rare but only found in sufficient

the most comprehensive programme ever for

concentrations to be worth mining in very few

the conversion of weapons of war for use in the

places – began shortly after the Second World

civil economic cycle. The explosive bomb-making

War. The horrendous effect of the US bombing of

material is ‘diluted’ on a grand scale with the

Japan had not actually done anything to curb the

natural or depleted uranium (Uranium 238 –

endeavours of the Allies to safeguard their access

from which the fissionable isotope Uranium

to this strategic resource but had in fact fuelled

235 had been extracted) and then used as fuel

them further. Enormous efforts were made to

in conventional nuclear power stations. This ex-

expand and secure their access to the uranium

ceptional situation in the uranium market led to

resources. The effects on the health of the workers

a massive collapse in the world market price for

played a secondary role. The USA exploited mines

reactor uranium. The only storage sites to have

in their own country and in neighbouring Canada;

survived are those with comparatively high con-

the Soviet Union intensified uranium mining in

centrations of uranium. By 2010 nearly half of

East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and

the applied uranium in nuclear power stations

Bulgaria. Thousands of

around the world no longer

miners suffered an agonis-

came from enriched ‘fresh'

As a result the price of uranium has

ing death from lung cancer

uranium but rather from

already increased significantly – a trend

after many years of hard

the military legacy of ‘war-

that is likely to continue.

labour in badly ventilated

ring’ Superpowers.

tunnels, polluted with dust

and the radioactive gas, radon. Workers in the East

The military uranium stocks from the Cold

German mine, ‘Wismut’, which at times employed

War era are gradually running out. As a result

more than 100,000 people, were particularly af-

the price of uranium has already increased sig-

fected. Since the concentrations of uranium in

nificantly – a trend that is likely to continue. In

the mines usually amounted to as little as 10%,

the event of existing power stations continuing to

it resulted in large amounts of radioactively con-

operate or the expansion of the global nuclear ar-

taminated debris. This led to permanent serious

senal, mines that were temporarily closed would

radiological damage not only to the miners them-

have to be re-opened and new, ever increasingly

selves but also to the surrounding areas and the

less productive ones developed – in other words,

people living there.

deposit sites which tend to produce less and less

uranium and more and more precarious debris

The situation improved for a time with the

containing an above average proportion of radio-

onset of nuclear energy production in the 1970s.

active isotopes. This poses a huge problem for the

26 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy environment and the health of the people living

After all this one thing is clear: neither the is-

in the affected areas.

sues of supply nor those relating to waste disposal

in the case of the 436 nuclear power stations op-

The anticipated shortage of the supply of urani-

erating in the world at the beginning of 2010 can

um is intensifying as a result of a massive imbalance

be considered to have found a long-term solu-

between the countries producing it and those con-

tion. The construction of new reactors that has

suming it. Canada and South Africa are the only

been the subject of debate in many countries and

two countries in the world using nuclear power for

that some governments have actually pressed

electricity production that are not dependent on

ahead with would only exacerbate the problem.

importing uranium. The most important nuclear

In view of the short supply of uranium and for

power nations either pro-

the most part the dispro-

duce virtually no uranium

In view of the short supply of

portionately high cost of

of their own (France, Japan,

uranium and for the most part the

extracting it, a determined

Germany, South Korea,

disproportionately high cost of

global strategy of expan-

Great Britain, Sweden and

extracting it, a determined global

sion would soon lead to

Spain) or their capacity is

strategy of expansion would soon lead

the start of a plutonium

insufficient for the long-

to the start of a plutonium economy

economy once and for all.

term operation of their

once and for all.

This would involve the

reactors (USA and Russia).

widespread reprocessing

Hardly anywhere in the world is nuclear power a

of spent fuel and fast breeder reactors becoming

domestic energy source as far as the fuel supply is

standard. Such a trend would exponentiate the

concerned. Russia in particular could soon find it-

nuclear risks of the present day. It would even-

self faced with a serious crisis in its uranium supply

tually multiply the amount of radioactive waste

– a situation that could have an effect on the opera-

to be disposed of and the search for permanent

tors of nuclear plants in the EU who import about

disposal sites would have to be extended to more

a third of their fuel from Russia. As well as Russia,

places with an overall correspondingly larger dis-

China and India could be faced with a shortage if

posal capacity.

they carry out their declared intention to expand

their arsenal of reactors.

FiFtH: Nuclear energy benefits climate Protection 27

FiFtH MytH:

nuclear energy benefits climate protection

28 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy The scientific findings that have now gained

not achieve both at the same time. That is just

full acceptance as well as the evidence gath-

wishful thinking” (Berliner Zeitung, 3 December

ered from around the world no longer leave any

2005). By saying so, like many other protagonists

real doubt as to the reality of climate change. In

of the traditional energy industry, the director of

order to just about be able to achieve the aim as-

the largest private energy company in the world

pired to by the world community to limit global

is using the most important argument for contin-

warming to 2 degrees Celsius higher than that of

uing nuclear energy production. It goes like this:

pre-industrial times, substantial reductions of

climate protection is condemned to failure with-

greenhouse gas emissions are compulsory. Cli-

out the use of nuclear energy. “Despised climate

mate experts in industrial nations are calling for

activists” is the slogan used in the most extensive

carbon dioxide (CO ) reductions of 80 to 95% by

advertising campaign by the German nuclear

2

the middle of this century. In highly populated,

lobby in its history. We can still remember the

rapidly developing emerging countries the mas-

delightful pictures – right in the background,

sive increase in emissions has to be moderated,

the nuclear power station at Brunsbüttel bathed

envisaged to come to a standstill and eventually

in soft sunlight while in the foreground sheep

reduced, too. If mankind is to survive, countries

are grazing peacefully on the banks of the Elbe.

such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil can

The text reads: “This climate activist is fighting

no longer simply imitate the affluence model

24 hours a day for the implementation of the

of the industrial North-

Kyoto protocol.” In reality,

ern countries with their

It is only gradually that the public is

since the summer of 2007

high energy consump-

becoming aware of how fundamen-

the old reactor had been

tion, based mainly on

tally flawed this propaganda that

fighting with technologi-

the burning of fossil raw

portrays nuclear energy as the saviour

cal problems and with

materials – and these lat-

of the climate is. Nuclear energy lacks

doubts as to its safety for

ter countries in particular

the potential to make any noticeable

over 2 years – and did not

cannot continue to carry

contribution to solving the problem on

produce a single kilowatt

on as before.

a global scale.

hour of electricity.

It can come as no surprise to anyone that the

It is only gradually that the public is becom-

supporters of nuclear energy are putting nuclear

ing aware of how fundamentally flawed this

technology forward as part of the solution in this

propaganda that portrays nuclear energy as the

precarious situation. The trigger for the conflict

saviour of the climate is. Nuclear energy lacks the

that has flared up again in many industrial na-

potential to make any noticeable contribution to

tions as well as in the emerging and developing

solving the problem on a global scale. In fact, its

nations is its alleged potential for reducing glo-

importance for the global electricity supply – in

bal greenhouse gas emissions. It is this prospect

spite of any talk of renaissance – is predicted to

that encourages the supporters to press for a

decrease dramatically in the coming decades.

‘renaissance of nuclear energy’ after decades of

This was pointed out recently by the Swiss com-

stagnation and the decline of nuclear technolo-

pany, Basler Prognos AG, in the autumn of 2009.

gy. In operation, nuclear power stations produce

In an analysis for the Federal Office for Radiation

practically no CO . Supporters of nuclear energy

Protection the futurologists delivered the fol-

2

therefore see them as an absolutely essential

lowing prognosis bringing the nuclear industry

cornerstone in the stemming of global warming.

down to earth: the nuclear contribution to the

“An energy agenda, if it is going to last for more

global electricity demand will shrink from 14.8%

than a day,” as Wulf Bernotat, the director of the

in 2006 to 9.1% by 2020 and to only 7.1% by the

Düsseldorf energy company E.on, pondered

year 2030 (Prognos AG 2009). We will come back

many years ago, “has to deal with the trade-off

to this later.

between abandoning nuclear power and the

drastic reduction of CO emissions. You can-

2

FiFtH: Nuclear energy benefits climate Protection 29

How nuclear energy obstructs

In Germany, on the contrary, E.on and the

sustainable climate protection

likes categorically dispute the existence of a ‘con-

flict of systems’ between the erratic supply of

With just these few findings it is quite clear

electricity from wind and solar energy on the one

that from a world perspective nuclear energy

hand and nuclear energy on the other. The mo-

production simply lacks the scale to be part of

tive for this two-faced argument is obvious: what

the solution to the climate problem. On the other

would prevent the construction of new reactors

hand it is even becoming part of the problem ow-

in the UK apparently does not challenge the life

ing to the imminent re-structuring of the global

span extensions of ageing reactors that the com-

energy system and this is linked to the fact that

panies are striving for in Germany, where already

more and more countries will be pressing ahead

16% of its electricity was produced regeneratively

with changes to an energy system based on sus-

in 2009. However, it is undisputed that in the fu-

tainable sources: wind, water, solar, bio and

ture, for economic and security reasons, nuclear

geo-thermal energy. New nuclear power stations

power stations will not be able to adjust to the

simply cannot compete in such a world. But above

ever increasing erratic green electricity supply

all they act as obstacles on the road to a compre-

and the electricity demand that is subject to high

hensive solution to the climate problem.

levels of fluctuation as well. Month after month

nuclear power stations deliver their maximum

Ironically enough it was E.on of all compa-

output. That is what they were built for and that is

nies, with Wulf Bernotat at its head, that provided

why they are so lucrative for their operators.

the crucial lead in clarifying the situation – even

if this was not intended. At the beginning of 2009

Admittedly, the output of some reactors can

the British government set up a hearing to con-

be regulated up and down today when they are

sider their strategy on renewable energies that it

operating in their upper performance range.

had already introduced. In order to implement

However, such an unusual procedure affects the

the corresponding EU targets, the aim of the plan

economic viability of power plants because in

is to increase the proportion of green electricity to

their load dependent mode of operation they pro-

almost a third of the British electricity supply for

duce less energy and therefore sell less. It is also

the time being. This proportion is then expected

detrimental to safety because any changes in the

to increase further. According to the documents

reactor’s output involves additional mechanical,

of the hearing, both E.on and EDF (Electricité de

thermal and chemical pressures on important

France), the French state-owned company that is

reactor components. This is precisely what the

intent on promoting nuclear energy, spoke out at

French state-owned company, EDF, confirms

the hearing (UK Department for Business, Inno-

in its aforementioned statement regarding the

vation and Skills 2008). Both sounded an alarm.

renewable energy strategy of the British govern-

E.on warned about ‘endlessly’ promoting renew-

ment. Using the European Water Pressure reactor

able energy. Otherwise the company would not

as an example, the EDF spokesmen point out in

be in a position to implement its plans for the

detail why green energy should provide no more

construction of new nuclear power stations on

than 25% of the British electricity production in

the island. In their statement to the British gov-

the future. The limitations of the power control

ernment the E.on lobbyists suggest limiting the

system in nuclear power stations are the reasons

proportion of green electricity to a maximum of

given for this. Even modern reactors like an EPR

one third – a value that, according to the plans of

can only keep pace with the natural fluctuations

the black/yellow coalition government, is sup-

of energy from renewable energy sources as long

posed to be achieved in Germany as early as 2020.

as their contribution to the electricity supply is

EDF points out explicitly that a higher proportion

not very large. In a supply system orientated to-

of green electricity than 25% would cast doubt on

wards durability and climate protection, nuclear

its own ambitions for new nuclear power plants

and green energy technology therefore obstruct

in the UK.

each other.

30 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy However, in 2010 the UK is a long way from

conditions are favourable, they can satisfy an ever

this situation as green energy only makes up a

increasing proportion of the aggregate electricity

small percentage of its energy needs. It is differ-

demand. And more and more frequently the out-

ent in Germany where the consequences of this

put of large power stations has to be reduced for

conflict of systems are already noticeable today –

hours or days – in any case, as long as the grid gives

and they intensify with every year that passes. The

priority to green electricity. What began as an un-

time will come when the limited ability of nuclear

pleasant Christmas present for the companies at

power plants to control their output will not be

the end of 2009 will gradually become an every-

enough to enable them to adjust at any given time

day phenomenon and threaten their dominance.

to the increasing amounts of energy going to the

By 2020 the proportion of electricity supplied by

grid from wind and solar power. The effects of this

green energy is due to double from the 16% in

phenomenon have been tangibly felt – for exam-

2009. The German Federal Association of Renew-

ple, in the Leipzig energy exchange, EEX, where

able Energies (BEE) even considers the possibility

there have been more and more cases of nega-

of it tripling. A simulation of the electricity supply

tive electricity prices. That means that the energy

in Germany drawn up by the Fraunhofer Institute

supply companies make a

for Wind Energy and En-

loss on the electricity they

In a supply system orientated towards

ergy Systems Technology

produce and supply to the

durability and climate protection,

(IWES) in Kassel comes

grid. This situation that in

nuclear and green energy technology

to the conclusion on the

the first instance seems ab-

therefore obstruct each other.

basis of this prognosis that

surd occurs when a strong

there will be less and less

wind is blowing over Germany and, at the same

room in our future system for large power sta-

time, the demand for electricity is low – usually

tions designed for continuous operation. Against

at weekends or on public holidays as, for exam-

the background of such a perspective, nuclear en-

ple, at Christmas in 2009. For a whole 11 hours

ergy companies will almost be forced to set their

the spot market price was below nil or at times

lobbying power against the further expansion of

down to as far as minus 120 Euros per megawatt

renewable energy – from their point of view, the

hour. On December 26, throughout the course of

more nuclear power stations still on the grid, the

the whole day the average price settled down to

more urgent this will be. In the case of a deci-

under minus 35 Euros per megawatt hour. For the

sion in favour of extending reactor life spans, the

large power plant operators who in spite of this

next great conflict between the Christian-Demo-

situation still supply electricity to the grid and

crats and Liberals3 coalition in Germany and the

trade it on the market, this soon adds up to six or

companies that it has actually promoted is pre-

seven figure sums. However, so far it seems more

programmed.

economical for energy suppliers to supply energy

that is not actually needed at a loss for a few hours

It is not only the danger of nuclear power sta-

from their so-called base load power stations

tions that argues against longer reactor life spans

than to reduce the output of their gigantic power

but also the fear that their continuing operation

plants and soon after raise it again.

will apply the brakes to the restructuring of the en-

ergy system in favour of renewable energy and in

the competition between nuclear energy

the end may even bring it to a complete standstill.

and renewable energy is intensifying

Although the ‘conflict of systems’ between

It is indisputable that we are threatened with

the sun and uranium is a much more burning

an explosive conflict. The production of electricity

issue in Germany than in the UK or the US, poli-

from renewable energy plants is growing from year

ticians seem largely unaware of it. This is not so

to year. More and more frequently, when weather

in the case of economists. In the event of a fur-

3 conservative cDu and pro-business FDP coalition.

FiFtH: Nuclear energy benefits climate Protection 31

ther intensive expansion of renewable energy, the

The message of the investigation is that it is only

company, Prognos AG, considers it likely that the

possible if the energy sectors undergo a funda-

output of nuclear power stations will have to be

mental restructuring and some sectors – among

reduced more and more often (Prognos AG 2009).

them the electricity sector – become practically

The Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU)

CO free within 40 years. A prerequisite is the po-

2

in Germany presented a paper stating that the

litical will to carry through this structural change

continued operation or even expansion of large

against the resistance of the traditional sectors of

coal or uranium power stations was not com-

the economy. Just as in Germany, in the rest of the

patible with the simultaneous ever-increasing

world it is essentially a question of more efficien-

capacity to generate electricity from renewable

cy in the supply and use of energy. The precept

sources. “A decision as to the system has to be

of efficiency encompasses the building sector,

made. It makes no technical or economic sense to

households and, of course, industrial processes

follow both paths at the same time” declared the

and the traffic sector. It is about changing from

environmental experts who then went on to argue

coal to natural gas and an ever increasing supply

decidedly for “a decision in favour of the renewa-

from solar, wind, water, biomass and geother-

ble energies system.” The companies themselves

mal energies which for the most part will be the

choose not to comment on these publications,

only ones remaining in the end. Whether, when

fearing that then the whole absurdity of the de-

and where in the world ‘clean-coal’ technology

bate on extending the life spans of reactors will

– in other words, the separation and subsequent

be exposed. It is even more predictable that they

storage in deep geological formations of the

will renew their fight against the statutory pri-

greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, resulting from

oritisation of renewable energies in the German

the burning of coal and natural gas – can make a

electricity grid as soon as the question of extend-

noticeable contribution in the future remains to

ing life spans is decided.

be seen.

This clearly demonstrates that the contest is

One thing is certain – in this monumental

over the energy system of the future, that is to say

process of change nuclear energy acts as “an

the relationship between renewable and nuclear

obstructive technology” for many reasons, as

energy, long ceasing to be a question of ‘the one

the Advisory Council on the Environment in

as well as the other’ as nuclear energy propagan-

Germany commented. This is not only because

dists try to convince us. It is a question of ‘either/

base load power stations massively obstruct the

or’. The ‘broad energy mix’ that energy companies

conversion to renewable energies for electricity

promote with all their fine words does not work. It

production but also because of the existing risks of

cannot work in a system in which renewable en-

catastrophe, and the commitment of engineering

ergies are supposed to be taking over ‘the supply

capacities and financial means which then lack

of the majority of our energy’. This, however, is one

for the restructuring of the energy system. In ad-

of the aims of the current coalition in Germany ac-

dition, no other technology is faced with a similar

cording to its coalition agreement of October 2009.

threat: a single serious accident or terrorist attack

At the same time, it promises energy companies an

on a nuclear power station would suffice to put an

extension of the life spans of their nuclear power

end to public acceptance of this technology once

stations. This just will not work. The German Federal

and for all. Quite probably a large proportion of

government is trying to square the circle.

reactors, at least in democratic countries, would

have to be shut down prematurely.

How Germany can achieve its long-term po-

litical aims with regard to energy and climate

nuclear climate protection is unrealistic

protection was established by the WWF in its

study entitled “Modell Deutschland – Klimas-

There is no alternative to a transition from the

chutz bis 2050” (Germany as a model for climate

present energy system based on fossil and nuclear

protection by 2050) (WWF Deutschland 2009).

energy sources to a supply completely provided by

32 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy renewable energy if the long-term international

17 nuclear power stations operating in Germany

aims pertaining to the climate are to be attained.

in 2010.

This transition is achievable with the established

technology that is largely available today. The ear-

In view of such numbers in Germany alone,

lier we begin, the less costly it will be. In the end

little imagination is needed to foresee the

there will be a sustainable energy system that will

undesirable worldwide consequences of a nu-

minimise equally the two huge dangers – that of

clear strategy for curtailing the climate impact.

global climate change and that of catastrophic ac-

To achieve the reduction of carbon dioxide called

cidents. The constant claim that there is a conflict

for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

of aims between effective climate protection and

Change (IPCC), thousands of new reactors would

the rejection of nuclear en-

have to be built to achieve

ergy at the same time is an

The constant claim that there is a con-

any noticeable effect. Risks

invention on the part of the

flict of aims between effective climate

to electricity and of catas-

nuclear energy supporters

protection and the rejection of nuclear

trophe would no longer

based on their own self in-

energy at the same time is an inven-

be produced in only 30

terest. A choice between

tion on the part of the nuclear energy

but in 50, 60 or even more

the devil and Beelzebub is

supporters based on their own self

countries. There would

completely unnecessary.

interest. A choice between the devil and

be thousands of poten-

Beelzebub is completely unnecessary.

tial trouble spots spread

In Germany at least

across the world and the

10 new nuclear power stations would have to

creation of new targets for military and terrorist

be built if the expansion of nuclear energy is to

attacks in conflict areas. The problems of perma-

achieve the aim of the Christian-Democrats and

nent disposal and the danger of the uncontrolled

Liberals coalition to reduce carbon dioxide by

proliferation of nuclear weapons in all regions

40% (compared with 1990) by 2020 in the elec-

of the world would reach a new dimension. And

tricity sector. In addition, this would also require

just as importantly, owing to an ensuing uranium

the construction of new nuclear power stations

shortage, the light water reactors that are common

to replace the reactors that have been shut down

today would very soon have to be replaced every-

because of their age. As early as 2002, an Enquiry

where by an even more dangerous and vulnerable

Committee of the German Bundestag determined

plutonium industry with reprocessing and fast

the implications of a scenario of CO reduction by

breeder reactors. And then finally, enormous fi-

2

2050 – achieved mainly on the basis of nuclear

nancial resources would have to be invested in

power stations. Scientists at the time considered

the expansion of the nuclear infrastructure in-

that an arsenal of 60 to 80 new nuclear power sta-

stead of using it to fight world poverty.

tions would be necessary. Compare this with the

sixtH MytH: We need extended life spans 33

sixtH MytH:

We need extended life spans

34 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy In Germany since the beginning of the new

is about nothing more than vast sums of money

millennium the question of new nuclear power

and about securing the market position for the

stations has been broached at best by outsiders

dominant operators.

who included from time to time a certain Roland

Koch or Günther Oettinger (both of the German

And the amount of money involved has been

Christian-Democrats, CDU) until the latter was

calculated over and over by scientists ever since

appointed the EU Energy Commissioner. However,

the debate on longer life spans – which the pass-

even the CDU grandees were regularly whistled

ing of the Nuclear Withdrawal Act in 2002 should

back by their Party colleagues – in December 2008

actually have put an end to – has been the sub-

even by a Federal Party conference. Contrary to

ject of day-to-day politics. Recently even bank

the will of the petitioning commission, the major-

analysts are calculating for their potential inves-

ity of the delegates voted against any new reactors

tors how far the rich rewards of the nuclear power

being built in Germany. This was just a meaning-

station operators could fall should the Federal

less decision without any consequences. Because

Government really reverse its position as it had

even if an energy company considered applying for

laid down in the coalition agreement. In the sum-

planning permission to build a new power station

mer of 2009 the German Baden-Württemberg

in Germany, it would not be able to do so. “For the

bank, LBBW (Landesbank Baden-Württemberg)

construction or operation of power plants for the

calculated the gross surplus profit of these com-

commercial production of electricity (…) no licences

panies at between 38 and over 233 billion Euros

will be granted” – according to Paragraph 7, Section

– the lower value applies if the lives of all reactors

1 of the Nuclear Withdrawal Act passed by the coa-

are extended 10 years longer than the proposed

lition Social Democrats and

32 years negotiated in

Alliance 90/the Greens in

[Calls for extending life spans are]

the phase-out agreement

Germany in 2002. And even

about nothing more than vast sums of

and, at the same time, the

the black/yellow coalition,

money and about securing the market

market price for electricity

newly elected in 2009, is

position for the dominant operators.

remains overall moderate

sticking – for the time being

during that time. The high-

– to a ban on new nuclear power stations. However,

est value would apply if reactor life spans were

this is of little concern to the nuclear power station

extended to 25 years and in the event of high mar-

operators, E.on, RWE, EnBW (Energie Baden-

ket prices for electricity. With the expectation of a

Württemberg) and Vattenfall Europe as even

lucrative surplus the value of the four companies

without the statutory ban, no director of any com-

would increase enormously. In the case of EnBW

pany in his right mind would embark on such an

it could even double – according to the LBBW

adventure for the foreseeable future. Instead of fat

bank which therefore considers it meaningful to

profits, there would be endless losses.

continue the operation of nuclear power stations.

It is a completely different situation with re-

The enormous sums explain why the com-

actors whose life spans exceed the time limits

pany directors are seemingly happy to accept

agreed to with the former red/green coalition

the loss of image undoubtedly associated with

government. Nuclear power station operators are

their campaign to extend the lives of ageing and

arguing in unison about this with such intensity

accident-prone reactors. The reversal of the nu-

as if the survival of their companies were at stake.

clear phase-out agreement therefore comes at a

But it is not about that at all. And neither is it about

cost. For years the nuclear energy opponents and

other motives which the company directors regu-

environmental associations have been appeal-

larly put forward in support of their arguments: it

ing to customers with their campaign ‘Nuclear

is not about climate protection, nor the security of

phase-out – do it yourself’ to switch their elec-

supply, nor independence from imported energy

tricity supply to green energy companies. In this

and especially not about cheap electricity gener-

way and as a result of a series of failures in the

ated by nuclear power for the consumer. In fact it

German nuclear power stations at Brunsbüttel

sixtH MytH: We need extended life spans 35

and Krümmel, Vattenfall Europe lost several hun-

Europe turned their back on the ‘content and

dred thousands of customers.

spirit’ of the agreement which their directors had

ceremoniously signed together with the most im-

nuclear energy companies break

portant representatives of the government. And

their promise

Germany knew – years before the financial crisis

– that on the management floors of some of the

“Both sides will play their part in implement-

most powerful companies in the country there

ing the content of this agreement.” Such were

were businessmen who were not necessarily hon-

the ceremonious words of the delegates of the

ourable – because if they were, they would have

largest energy companies in their agreement

abided by a contract which no doubt also reflect-

with the Social Democrats and Alliance 90/the

ed the wishes of the majority of the population

Greens coalition regarding nuclear withdrawal

even if it had only been agreed by a handshake.

on 14 June 2000. The signatories also included

Gerald Hennenhöfer who, as chief representative

Following the general election of 2009 the

for economic policy for E.on’s predecessor, Viag,

former steel entrepreneur, Jürgen Großmann,

had played a part in negotiating the agreement

who has been at the head of RWE since 2007,

and since autumn 2009 has now been pushing for

announced: “German power stations are safe”,

a reversal of this agreement as head of the reac-

commenting that when they had been in opera-

tor security department in the German Federal

tion for 32 years, at which time German nuclear

Ministry for the Environment. Whether this re-

power stations were supposed to be shut down,

newed shift of allegiances on the part of the lawyer

they were “in their best years”. He then added in a

already in charge of the reactor department of the

casual and snappy way that internationally it was

Ministry under Angela Merkel up to 1998 is legally

rather more common to have “a life span of 50 to

admissible is a subject of political conflict. When

60 years”. The reality is different. The 130 nuclear

this agreement was signed, about a year after be-

power stations that had already been permanent-

ing initialled, E.on’s chairman, Ulrich Hartmann,

ly shut down worldwide by the end of 2009 had

commented: “Political compromises are also a

achieved an average life span of about 23 years at

question of trust [....]. The agreement is just the

the time of their closing whereas in 2010 the aver-

first step. The crucial thing is that both sides feel

age age of those in operation globally is 25 years.

bound to its content and spirit even in the future.

There have only been a handful of permanent

We are prepared to do it.” Three years later the

shut downs after 40 years and there has never

then EnBW director, Utz Claassen, categorically

been a case of a reactor still in operation after 50

endorsed that in no circumstances would there

years, let alone 60 (Prognos AG 2009) – so much

be any change in their position on the question of

for accuracy when Jürgen Großman is fighting for

withdrawal: “I am not speculating about a change

his ageing reactors in Biblis.

in the coalition – my respect for the Chancellor

does not allow me to do that.” Before the gen-

Why cream off surplus profits?

eral election in 2005, Claassen, in a response to

a possible reversal of the nuclear consensus,

Representatives of the Christian-Democrats

topped it all by affirming that “the industry can-

(CDU) and the Liberals (FDP)4 in Germany have

not demand planning security and then question

always maintained that they do not intend the

what it itself has negotiated, agreed and signed.”

beneficiaries of the government’s target for ex-

However, ever since polls showed that a nuclear

tending the life span of nuclear power stations to

friendly government majority was on the cards,

get it ‘for nothing’. They want the extra profits to be

the absolute loyalty of the nuclear energy com-

used selectively for research or the development

panies to the agreement ceased to be an issue.

of renewable energies, the lowering of electric-

Simultaneously E.on, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall

ity prices or other matters that supposedly have

4 conservative cDu and pro-business liberals.

36 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy popular public support. After the election of their

(BMU 2009). According to the Nuclear Withdrawal

‘dream government’ in autumn 2009 reactor op-

Act of 2002 the ‘bridge function’ of nuclear energy

erators signalled willingness to compromise. This

in Germany will therefore end between 2020 and

has not always been the case and the Chancellor

2025. Apart from the companies’ interest in profit

and the Minister for the Environment would do

there is no apparent reason to change anything –

well to remember that the companies had pre-

not even the alleged gap in the electricity supply

viously proved under the Social Democrats and

that is ‘cooked up’ from time to time. This will not

Alliance 90/the Greens coalition incapable of be-

happen since coal and gas power stations will re-

ing loyal to an agreement. When the 2005 general

main on the grid and supply sufficient power for

election already appeared to have been won by

much longer than the specified term and even

the Christian-Democrats and Liberals coalition

some new ones will be constructed.

just a few days before polling day, the aforemen-

tioned Walter Hohlefelder, at that time E.on’s

Withdrawing from nuclear energy

chairman and at the same time president of the

the smart way

German Atomic Forum, candidly spoke out on

the question of a partial drawing off of the sur-

Increasingly the real challenge is to make green

plus profits resulting from life span extensions:

electricity, which is by its nature erratic, available

“in terms of regulatory policy the creaming off of

in the right place at the right time throughout the

profits is totally unacceptable”, adding, “what pos-

year. This will be possible if the electricity grids

sible interest can we expect commercially active

are gradually extended and restructured and if the

companies to have in extending the life spans of

grid coupling points to abroad are strengthened.

power stations if there is no profit in it for them”.

It will also be necessary for existing electricity

storages such as pumped storage hydroelectric-

The coalition that was

ity facilities to be adopted

voted into power in 2009

In roadworks no one would dream of

and instead of for surplus

assures us that it only

building a bridge which made getting

nuclear energy being used

intends to use nuclear

from A to B longer. It is exactly the same

to complement wind gen-

power stations for a lim-

situation with the life span extensions

erated electricity and for

ited period as a ‘bridge’ in

of nuclear power stations.

progress to be made in the

the transition to the regen-

development of new elec-

erative age. It sounds surprising but this does not

tricity storage systems (Solar Institute, Jülich, FH

distinguish the Christian Democrats and Liberals

Aachen 2009). However, there will be no possible

coalition from its predecessors who, as we know,

support for this changeover at all – or at best only

did not negotiate the immediate withdrawal ei-

later – if the 20,000 megawatts generated by nucle-

ther but rather a step by step farewell to nuclear

ar power stations do not go from the grid gradually

technology. A comparison of the expected ‘de-

as planned but block it for decades instead.

parture’ of nuclear power stations following the

Nuclear Withdrawal Act with the forecasts regu-

In roadworks no one would dream of building

larly drawn up for the Federal Ministry for the

a bridge which made getting from A to B longer.

Environment concerning the expansion of re-

It is exactly the same situation with the life span

newable energies demonstrates that the volume

extensions of nuclear power stations. The road to

of electricity generated by new wind, solar and

a regenerative energy age would be longer and

bio energy power stations will always more than

Germany, instead of being in the vanguard of en-

make up for the loss of nuclear electricity right up

ergy change, would be lagging behind within a

until the last nuclear power station is shut down

few years.

seventH MytH: Nuclear energy is experiencing a Renaissance 37

seventH MytH:

nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance

38 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy Today nuclear power stations play an im-power station. The reactor is due to be complet-

portant part to a greater or lesser degree in the

ed by 2012 – 40 years after the foundations were

electricity supply of the 30 countries where they

laid. In Western Europe (except France) reactor

are operating commercially. In this way they

constructors waited 25 years until 2005 for a new

form in part the basis of the economy in these

building contract and even now there are only

countries. Therefore, it is above all the respective

two: one at Olkiluoto in Finland and another one

energy industry that up to now determines the

in Flamanville on the French Channel coast.

future – unless outside strategic or military strate-

gic interests have a part to play. And this industry

The European water pressure reactor of the

under normal circumstances takes into consid-

Areva/Siemens consortium turned in record time

eration sober economic factors. The question of

from being the showcase reactor of the Western

whether electricity generated by nuclear power

nuclear lobby into a nightmare for all stakehold-

means a licence to print money or is more like

ers. The escalation of costs from the initial 3

a bottomless pit can be answered depending on

billion to 5.4 billion Euros (2009) and the delay of

the circumstances: if the reactor has reliably been

three and a half years so far (2012) of the start of

producing energy for 20 years and there is no rea-

operation have resulted in a case being brought

son to suppose it will not continue to do so, then

before a European Tribunal to settle the dispute

the former is more likely –as long as no catas-

between contracting firm and constructor involv-

trophe that is potentially inherent in any power

ing billions of Euros. In the case of the second EPR

station actually happens. But if the power station

there are also signs of a considerable escalation of

first has to be built and moreover is the first in a

costs and delays.

new series, investors would be well advised to

steer clear of any such project, unless they suc-

In short, apart from Asian – to be precise,

ceeded in passing on the incalculable costs to

Chinese – state-owned construction sites, the

a third party. This would be the tax payer or the

demand for reactor constructors remains disap-

electricity customer. The same principle applies

pointingly low. According to the IAEA of the 56

all over the world – even if it is the government

reactors worldwide under construction at the begin-

itself that builds the reactor, operates it and later

ning of 2010, two thirds of them are in Asia. China,

perhaps is responsible for its disposal. Even then

where 20 new nuclear power stations were being

the public foots the bill at some stage.

built at the beginning of 2010, has started 15 new

projects within two years. In the case of eight of the

For private investors who have to, or wish to

new reactors under construction, mainly in Russia

opt for investments in the power plant industry

and Eastern Europe, 20 years have gone by since

today, nuclear power stations are quite obviously

they were first started. Under any other circum-

not their first choice. Even the empirical evidence

stances such building sites would be called ruins.

suggests this. According to the statistics of the

International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna at

renewable energy is the new global trend

the beginning of 2010 there were 436 nuclear reac-

tors in operation worldwide with a net electricity

The analysis prepared by Prognos AG of Basle,

capacity of around 370,000 megawatts. The zenith

for the Federal Office for Radiation Protection has

was passed in 2002 with 444 reactors and since

already been mentioned. With reference to the

then the number has been gradually and con-

question “a renaissance for nuclear energy?” the

tinually decreasing. In the USA alone 104 reactors

experts examined the development that can actu-

are on line and since 1973 reactor constructors

ally be expected based on the global planning of

have not taken on any new orders that were not

and experience in nuclear power station construc-

subsequently cancelled. Nevertheless, since 2007

tion. The result is as obvious as it is shattering for

the USA has been home to the oldest reactor

the nuclear energy lobby: there will be no nuclear

construction site in the world. At that time work

renaissance by 2030. Quite the contrary, Prognos

began again on Block 2 of the Watts Bar nuclear

AG analysts expect the number of nuclear power

seventH MytH: Nuclear energy is experiencing a Renaissance 39

stations operating worldwide to decrease by al-

sion, then ageing reactors of the 1000 megawatt

most a quarter by 2020 and by almost 30% by

capacity category that were written off can con-

2030 (Prognos AG 2009). As a result the global vol-

tinue producing electricity inexpensively without

ume of electricity produced by nuclear power by

any competition. Prolonging the life spans is

2030 will shrink to less than half of what it was in

putting off the ‘bitter end’ of the nuclear energy

2006. Nuclear power as an instrument in the fight

industry – that is to say the de-commissioning

against climate change will therefore prove to be

and dismantling of the large reactors and the

an illusion – even more so in view of the explo-

inevitable costs running into billions that this

sive rate at which the overall capacity to produce

would involve. As fuel costs are a smaller part of

electricity has developed from the start of the mil-

the equation in the operation of nuclear power

lenium to the financial and economic crisis. The

plants, companies everywhere are counting on

available output of power stations has increased

additional yields worth billions.

rapidly at an annual rate of about 150,000 mega-

watts. Nuclear energy only amounted to about

However, all this haggling about life spans

2% of this volume, and in the years 2008 and

has nothing to do with a possible renaissance of

2009 not even that. During this period two new

nuclear energy. If anything, the opposite is true

nuclear plants were put into operation with an

- the calls for ‘extra time’ clearly indicate that

output of a good 1,000 megawatts, but four reac-

electricity suppliers shy away from investments

tor blocks which had an output of just under 3,000

in new nuclear power stations out of economic

megawatts were shut down. In these two years the

considerations, preferring to make a quick profit

developing wind farm industry provided an addi-

from old power plants. They do this without con-

tional volume of nearly 60,000

sidering the increasing

megawatts in spite of the glo-

[F]or half a century the nuclear power

susceptibility to failure

bal economic and financial

industry has always been high on

due to the age of their

crisis.

promises but short on delivery.

reactors.

Although the role of nuclear energy is there-

This has in no way halted the continual de-

fore proving marginal in the light of the gigantic

cline of nuclear energy that has been taking place

global increase in power plant capacity, reactor

for decades. In the USA eight years of aggressive

operators are nevertheless fighting with determi-

pro-nuclear power politics under the Bush ad-

nation to extend the operating life span of existing

ministration did not lead to the building of one

reactors to well over the 25 to 30 years that was

new project. In Western Europe there are merely

originally estimated by their constructors. The

two construction sites. Nevertheless, studies have

optimistic scenarios depicted by the IAEA expect

been launched since decades with the purpose of

an average life span of 45 years for the existing

demonstrating the ability of new nuclear power

generation of reactors. In the last few years US

plants to compete against other technologies for

authorities have granted life spans of 60 years for

generating electricity. The drawback of these stud-

more than half of all the 104 nuclear reactors. It is

ies is that while at best their authors and sponsors

expected that similar applications will be accept-

believe the forecasts, potential investors do not.

ed for most of the remaining reactors. Meanwhile

This is the first reason why there is so much un-

the industry is discussing life spans of 80 years.

certainty about the true costs of a new generation

The actual average age of US reactors in 2010 is

of reactors. There are no reliable data on the large

30 years.

overall cost pools, especially the costs relating to

construction, financing, disposal and disman-

In the absence of any serious accidents to up-

tling – due to the fact that nearly all the published

set the balance and barring any expensive repairs

estimates are evaluated by analysts with consid-

and long periods of shut down or any necessary

erable scepticism. And this in turn is due to the

replacements of central components (e.g. the

fact that all these figures as a rule originate from

steam generator) due to wear and tear or corro-

constructors who want to sell the reactors or from

40 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy governments, associations or lobby groups intent

start of commercial nuclear fission start over and

on gaining public support for the unpopular idea

over again. Therefore in the 1970s and 1980s re-

of nuclear energy by promoting at the very least

actor manufacturers built increasingly bigger

the expectation of low electricity prices.

reactors in the hope that they would produce, on

the whole, cheaper electricity than smaller units.

However, beyond these matters of self inter-

However, switching to economics of scale has not

est there are also problems from an objective

solved the problem. A trend towards less costly

perspective. Because each new series of reactor

reactors has been an unfulfilled promise of re-

constructions so far has had to face the conse-

actor manufacturers for decades. Nuclear power

quences of huge delays, costly compensation for

remains a high risk technology not only consid-

‘teething problems’ and lengthy periods of shut

ered from the safety point of view but also from

down, potential investors regard the ever opti-

the financial one.

mistic prognoses of the builders of new reactors

with the utmost discomfort. Their experience:

subsidies to prevent nuclear depression

for half a century the nuclear power industry has

always been high on promises but short on deliv-

This applies particularly to the USA. For eight

ery. In the USA almost half of the orders for over

years the Bush administration tried everything to

250 reactors were later cancelled, mainly because

motivate the electricity suppliers in the country

the costs of the power plants eventually put into

into building new reactors. There was talk of up to

operation had on average more than doubled.

300 new nuclear power stations by 2050. However,

The magazine Forbes called the collapse of the

we are still waiting for the re-birth of the nuclear

US nuclear industry in the middle of the 80s “the

industry (Squassoni 2009). George W. Bush left

greatest management catastrophe in economic

his successor Barack Obama a whole range of

history”. Of the 1,000 nuclear power stations the

abundant promises of subsidies for the reluctant

US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) had ex-

electricity suppliers. Government guarantees of

pected in the 70s for the turn of the century only

over 80% of the total costs for the first of the newly

about 13% were built. Reactor constructors in

constructed power stations are seen as the most

Western Europe and in the state economies of

important of these promises. In this way the enor-

Eastern Europe also experienced similar situa-

mous cost risk, for example due to the regular

tions.

delays in constructing new nuclear power sta-

tions, is passed on from the

There can be no reli-

A trend towards less costly reactors has

electricity suppliers and

able predictions as to the

been an unfulfilled promise of reactor

the reactor constructors

performance of a new

manufacturers for decades. Nuclear

to the tax payer. Moreover

power plant. This applies

power remains a high risk technology

specific tax breaks are

even more to the new

not only considered from the safety point

intended as a measure

types of reactors based on

of view but also from the financial one.

to artificially reduce the

mainly untried technol-

price of electricity gener-

ogy. According to an analysis published in the

ated by new nuclear power stations. The approvals

summer of 2009, the New York rating agency,

procedure has been trimmed down. The govern-

Moody’s, expects electricity supply companies

ment undertakes to pay a large proportion of the

supporting plans for the construction of new nu-

costs involved in obtaining grants. In the case of

clear power plants to be routinely downgraded

accidents the liability of the companies has been

owing to the incalculable risks involved. Whereas

reduced further. Finally even assistance from other

new technologies – also those outside the field of

countries has been announced. The governments

power plant technology – normally move relative-

of Japan and France have promised some subsi-

ly continuously and predictably along a ‘learning

dies for American reactors should investors from

curve’ with ever decreasing prices, reactor manu-

both countries participate in the construction.

facturers after more than half a century since the

seventH MytH: Nuclear energy is experiencing a Renaissance 41

And yet the US nuclear industry may not see all

disposal capacity that had previously been ap-

of this as an all-round worry-free package. On the

plied for is not even sufficient to deal with the civil

contrary it immediately declared the wide variety

nuclear waste that will be produced by 2020 – let

of government and start-up aid as insufficient. To

alone the radioactive waste from military use and

trigger a real renaissance it would additionally

the residue from the operation of nuclear power

be necessary for coal and gas power stations to

plants which will continue to accrue after 2020.

pay a CO tax. As early as 2003 the Massachusetts

2

Institute of Technology (MIT) stated that com-

Although the US Nuclear Regulatory Commit-

pared with fossil fuel power stations new nuclear

tee (NRC) published a list of 17 licence applications

power stations would only become competitive in

for 26 reactor blocks at the beginning of 2009, no-

the event of a CO price of 100 dollars per tonne. In

body, not even the American nuclear industry

2

2008 the US Congressional Committee on Science

itself, believes that more than a handful of these

and Technology calculated electricity prices from

reactors will be built – if any at all. The insecurity

new nuclear power stations as being higher than

of potential investors is huge, for which the analy-

those produced by all the other competing low

ses and prognoses coming from Wall Street and

carbon technologies with the exception of solar

other independent experts are also responsible.

energy, the price of which is also sinking rapidly

They are coming up with even more dramatic cost

(Kaplan 2008). It became clear then at the latest

estimates. Recent calculations suggest that aver-

that no subsidies would

age construction costs will

help without a simultane-

In effect an established technology

be four times higher than

ous drastic price increase

that has to rely on such a degree of

the amounts quoted at

in the fossil fuel compe-

government subsidies in order to be

the beginning of the ren-

tition through CO taxes

competitive is economically dead

aissance discussion. In a

2

or an emissions trading

on its feet.

cost effectiveness analysis

system. Even in this case,

published by Mark Cooper

according to the Congressional Committee’s

of the Vermont Law School in the summer of 2009

analysis, modern gas power stations would still

the author concludes that nuclear power is by far

be cheaper. In effect an established technology

the “worst option” as a means of overcoming the

that has to rely on such a degree of government

challenges of energy supply in the USA (Cooper

subsidies in order to be competitive is economi-

2009). According to his analysis, electricity from

cally dead on its feet.

nuclear reactors would result in prices of 12 to 20

cents per kilowatt hour, whereas investment in

However, even Barack Obama and his

energy efficiency and renewable energies would

energy minister Steven Chu have not categori-

lead to the price of electricity going down to an

cally ruled out the option of nuclear power. The

average of six cents. If by 2050 only 100 new nu-

budget for the year 2011 has allowed for credit

clear power plants were built – a number that is

guarantees amounting to 54 billion dollars for

just enough to replace the current arsenal of re-

the construction of new reactors – a tribute to the

actors – this would cost the American public over

powerful anti-climate protection coalition in the

the life span of the reactors the enormous esti-

USA. However, no one expects the present ad-

mated sum of 1.9 to 4.4 trillion dollars more than

ministration to continue the pro-nuclear policy

an energy policy that concentrates on efficiency

as aggressively as George W. Bush’s government

and renewable energy technology.

did. As previously mentioned, for the year 2010

Obama has cancelled all budget resources for the

At present the Americans can see from the

construction of the controversial Yucca Mountain

situation in Finland and France, where the only

permanent waste disposal project. Even in the

two new reactors in Western Europe have been

event of a policy shift the question of long-term

in construction since 2005 and 2007 respectively,

security remains as unresolved as ever. In addi-

that the sober economic forecasts on the other

tion, projections made in 2009 showed that the

side of the Atlantic are not the result of the bleak

42 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy picture painted by notorious nuclear critics. Even

At first reactor output was being constantly in-

the prototype of the European Water Pressure re-

creased even during the development of the EPR

actor, being developed as the third block of the

in the 1990s. Size alone was supposed to ensure

nuclear power station Olkiluoto, is not a result of

efficiency and effectiveness. Now the EPR with a

the initiative of the Finnish electricity industry

projected electricity output of 1,600 megawatts is

but of political pressure. The driving force was the

by far the nuclear power station with the highest

hunger for electricity which had been continually

capacity in the world. However, the projections

rising for two decades and resulted in a per-head

that made the reactor in the tendering procedure

electricity consumption in Finland that was more

competitive compared with other, even non-nu-

than double the European average. At the same

clear options, have meanwhile proved even more

time politicians became increasingly worried

illusionary than the opponents of nuclear energy

about their electricity supply becoming too de-

themselves had predicted. Along with the con-

pendent on Russian gas and feared that they would

struction delay of at least three years, as already

not be able to adhere to the national commit-

mentioned, and a cost explosion of around 80%

ment to climate protection as laid out in the Kyoto

per cent it is unlikely that other targets will be met

agreement without any additional nuclear energy.

either. For example, calculations as to its profit-

In the end the electricity supplier Teollisuuden

ability were based on a 90% availability over the

Voima Oy (TVO), which is largely publicly owned,

lifetime of the reactor – a value that so far has nev-

awarded the contract to the French-German con-

er even been remotely achieved by a pilot plant

struction consortium Areva/Siemens.

– just as the estimated life span of 60 years has

not been achieved either. Therefore, long before

With the Olkiluoto project the international

the completion of the project, it is clear that in the

nuclear community wanted to prove two things.

light of the meanwhile applied changes to the pa-

Firstly that a nuclear power plant that two

rameters Olkiluoto 3 would never have been able

European heavyweights have been planning for

to succeed against the non-nuclear alternatives

over 20 years will actually be realised at some

that were competing with it. In other economic

stage. And secondly that nuclear power in a lib-

sectors there is only one word for this kind of sup-

eralised electricity market can once again be a

ply formation: dumping.

worthwhile investment. However, from the be-

ginning doubts were justified since the financing

The financial arrangements of the reactor

of the project was made possible by means of a

project which were strongly influenced by the

structure consisting of about 60 participants,

interests of the home countries of the reactor

mainly electricity suppliers, who, in return for

builders, Areva and Siemens, painted a similar

their involvement, signed purchase guarantees

picture. The German Bavarian bank, BayernLB

of comparatively high prices for the electricity to

(Bayerische Landesbank) with its registered of-

be produced later in the reactor. In addition, TVO

fice in Munich and 50 per cent owned by the Free

and the producer consortium agreed on a fixed

State of Bavaria, where Siemens also has its head

price for the ‘ready-for-use’ reactor that was sup-

office, was a partner of an international consor-

posed to be three billion euros. A contract with

tium which supported the EPR in Finland with

such exceptionally attractive terms for the pur-

a low interest loan (there was talk of an interest

chaser was possible as Areva/Siemens needed

rate of 2.6%) to the amount of 1. 95 billion Euros.

the construction go-ahead at any price. Before

The French government came to the aid of Areva

they had started digging the foundations it was

with an export credit guarantee amounting to 610

obvious that the reactor constructor had set a

million euros via the Coface agency. It is therefore

particularly audacious cost framework in order to

doubtful whether a decision in favour of investing

ensure the triumph of the prototype reactor over

in the nuclear power plant would ever have been

fossil fuel power stations and other contenders

made without financial government support.

from the nuclear sector.

seventH MytH: Nuclear energy is experiencing a Renaissance 43

This problem did not arise at all in the build-

by the electricity consumers even in the case of

ing of the second EPR on the Normandy coast

a reactor’s poor performance. However, in a de-

at Flamanville, France, where the state-owned

regulated energy market the situation is by no

company Areva is building the pressurised water

means certain any longer. Nuclear energy with

reactor for the state-owned electricity supplier

its exorbitantly high start-up investment and the

Électricité de France (EDF). As in Finland, the

timescale for capital repayment lasting decades is

costs are spiralling out of control. At the begin-

not compatible with deregulated markets. Capital

ning of 2010, according to newspaper reports, the

costs explode – unless potential financiers do not

building project was two years behind schedule.

choose to invest in other technologies that are

Numbers three and four in the EPR series are due

not beset with these problems. This was the situa-

to be built in China – that is to say under state-

tion in many countries where highly efficient gas

controlled economic conditions.

power stations experienced a long-lasting boom

in the last few decades for the following reasons:

As a result of the enormous uncertainty re-

the building costs per installed kilowatt hour

garding the building of nuclear power stations

proved to be decidedly lower, the time between

electricity suppliers and reactor builders are

placing the order and the start of operation is

forced to attract venture capital at corresponding-

short and the plant components are largely made

ly high prices if they themselves cannot or do not

in factories in a production series. And in addi-

want to advance the money. Next to the building

tion, because the fuel costs of natural gas, which

costs capital expenditure is therefore the second

make up a higher proportion of the total costs

great chunk in the financing of a nuclear power

than uranium does in nuclear power plants, were

station. This problem too has grown more acute

comparatively low for a long time, nuclear power

with the deregulation of the energy markets in key

stations had virtually no chance. In the meantime

industrial nations. The financial and banking cri-

the price of natural gas may be higher but at the

sis has further intensified the situation and also

same time great progress is to be expected in the

because the demand for electricity has decreased

field of renewable energy technology. The point at

considerably as a result of the economic slump.

which it seems overall more profitable for corpo-

rate finance to invest in these key technologies of

Everything was better in the past – at least

the 21st century instead of in a new series of re-

for those who wanted to build, buy or finance

actors has already been reached in many places.

nuclear power stations. In times of monopolistic

This will also make it increasingly difficult for po-

electricity suppliers that were government guar-

tential reactor builders to generate the necessary

anteed, investors could assume that their capital

investment capital.

would always be refunded at the end of the day

44 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy the end of the nuclear power myth

We have seen that a whole cluster of impon-

of uncertainty regarding the financing of

derable factors make nuclear power stations an

reactors and the calculation of electricity pro-

all-or-nothing gamble for investors. For instance,

duction costs.

the time between the investment decision and

the start of the commercial operation is nowhere

That the number of new reactor projects has

near as long for any other power plant technol-

nevertheless increased slightly in the last few

ogy. Prognos AG calculates a worldwide average

years in spite of all these difficulties can be attrib-

of eight years’ construction time alone. There

uted, as already mentioned, to Asian countries

can be enormous planning problems and delays

alone and especially China where there were 20

in obtaining the permit owing to the fact that

construction sites at the beginning of 2010. As a

the authorities responsible are in the public eye

matter of fact, the building times of six years in

and proceed with exceeding meticulousness. In

China are well under the global average. However,

addition, new security relevant findings make a

even if China actually brings the 50 to 60 Reactor

revision of the approvals

blocks planned by 2030 on

procedure necessary. Or

[A nuclear renaissance?] There is no

line, these power plants

it may well be that a court

evidence of any actual new projects in

once completed will hard-

decides in favour of the

the majority of the countries involved in

ly satisfy more than 4% of

objections raised by nu-

spite of all the hype in the newspapers.

the Chinese demand for

clear power protestors. For

electricity.

example, the go-ahead was given for what is so far

the last British reactor, Sizewell B, in 1979 but the

In contrast the order books of the few remain-

commercial operation started 16 years later.

ing Western reactor builders remain relatively

empty for the time being. This is also due to the

In contrast to most of the other power

fact that China focuses ever more strongly on its

station technologies, nuclear power stations

own technology. Beyond the debate about ex-

incur high costs for decades even after being

tending the life spans of reactors, nothing much

put into operation. These include the disposal

is happening apart from in Asia. There is no evi-

of radioactive waste, the surveillance of reac-

dence of any actual new projects in the majority

tors that have been shut down and finally the

of the countries involved in spite of all the hype

dismantling of the reactors after a ‘fall time’

in the newspapers. As such, it is the politicians

which can vary in length. The financial means

and publicists, even more so than the reactor

to do all this have to be earned during the op-

builders or electricity suppliers, who press on

erating time and set aside for a much later use.

with the debate on the renaissance of nuclear en-

The costs incurred for this and for the insur-

ergy. They believe that with nuclear energy and

ance in case of possible accidents differ from

by maintaining the traditional structures of the

country to country. Estimating these costs, in

energy economy they will better be able to com-

this case, is especially difficult due to the fact

ply with climate protection obligations or avoid

that the normal deduction of accrued interest

electricity shortfalls in the short term. This con-

over the time period expected does not work.

stellation is not without its consequences since

At a discount rate of 15%, costs which become

the more intensively the politicians and the pub-

payable in 15 years or later are to be ignored.

lic push for a resurrection of nuclear technology

As these costs are guaranteed to be incurred

the more uninhibited potential investors are in

sooner or later they represent another source

asking for government assistance.

The end of the nuclear power myth 45

Quite obviously new nuclear power stations

We have seen that nuclear technology oc-

are only competitive where huge subsidies are

cupies a unique place also from the economic

granted or in countries where nuclear technology

point of view. More than half a century after

is part of the state doctrine and costs are therefore

its commercial introduction kick-started by

secondary. Wherever in the future the construction

billions’ worth of subsidies its protagonists

of a new reactor is envisaged within the frame-

insist on, need and receive further govern-

work of a functioning market economy, it must be

ment subsidies amounting to billions for its

expected that investors will call on government

proposed re-birth – just as if it was a question

support along the lines of

of start-up capital for

the previously mentioned

its commercial launch.

[N]uclear energy is past its future,

American model of subsi-

Astonishingly, it is above

renewable energies have their future

dies – to safeguard against

all the politicians who

ahead of them.

rising construction costs,

otherwise cannot shout

unexpectedly long shut

loudly enough for ‘more

down periods during operation, fluctuating fuel

market’ that are calling for and endorsing this

costs and the costs incurred in decommissioning,

exceptional approach as well. These are the

dismantling and waste disposal which are difficult

same ones who for many years and in many in-

to calculate. Finally countries will have to deal –

dustrial countries crusaded against providing

largely on their own – with the consequences of

financial support for the commercial launch

any serious accident involving the massive release

of renewable energies – solar, wind, water, bio-

of radioactivity. No company in the world can do

mass or geo-thermal – with arguments based

that alone. Insurance companies are only liable

on pure market theory. However, there was and

for a fraction of the damage and this differs from

is a crucial difference: nuclear energy is past

country to country. But in view of the anticipated

its future, renewable energies have their future

total cost their contribution would in any case be

ahead of them.

rather laughable.

46 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy tHe Decision :

the future of energy supply

In the light of the climate, resource and

reactors increases the risk of catastrophe dispro-

financial crises, the discussion on nuclear energy

portionately. If all or many nuclear power stations

is experiencing a revival in some of the major

are operated for a longer period of time, the risk of

countries. Behind all the fiery talk of a ‘renais-

a catastrophic accident increases enormously.

sance of nuclear energy’ by reactor constructors

and their political and media spokesmen also lies

The forthcoming decisions on the question of

a decision that will have fundamental far-reaching

how the global energy supply can be sustainably

consequences. The vast majority of nuclear power

designed in a world marked by climate change,

stations built all over the world during the first and

population growth, great poverty and finite re-

up to now last great nuclear energy boom are near-

sources go far beyond the question of how we deal

ing their technical age limit. In the next ten years

with nuclear energy in future. All the developed

– and increasingly more so in the following dec-

industrialised countries and many of the emerging

ade – the capacity of nuclear power plants, which

countries (whereas the latter either do not use nu-

is rapidly decreasing ac-

clear power at all or at least

cording to schedule, has to

So far there is no renaissance of

not to any appreciable ex-

be replaced. The choices

nuclear energy. What we do have is

tent) bear the responsibility.

under consideration: the

a renaissance of the proclamations

One thing is already clear:

rapid expansion of re-

about nuclear energy.

the new energy system will

newable energies (wind,

no longer be exclusively

solar, water, bio-mass and bio-thermal) and an al-

based on large fossil fuel or nuclear power plants.

together more efficient energy system with an ever

It is moreover certain that the future does not lie in

decreasing proportion of fossil fuel energies – or

a revival of a high risk technology born out of the

alternatively extending the production of electric-

interests of the traditional energy industry; dating

ity generated by nuclear energy into the future. At

back to the middle of the last century.

the present time some of the major nuclear energy

countries are predominantly preoccupied with the

So far there is no renaissance of nuclear energy.

question of whether they want to keep their ageing

What we do have is a renaissance of the proclama-

reactors on line beyond the originally intended

tions about nuclear energy. And this has not just

operating time limit. This option is attractive for

happened overnight. “Phase-out plans are being

electricity companies as it enables them to cancel

revised, new building plans put forward and only

investment decisions amounting to billions and to

in Germany is there one last defiant struggle on the

profit from the cheap costs of electricity produc-

part of nuclear opponents”, rejoiced the German

tion from ageing power stations that had been

weekly Wirtschaftswoche in its September 21, 1990

written off. The additional risk that this inevitably

edition entitled “Nuclear Renaissance”. Owing to

involves is calculable for each individual manager

the policy envisaged by the German nuclear in-

– and he does not reckon with a serious accident

dustry and its Christian-Democrats and Liberals5

especially not in one of his own company’s nucle-

‘dream coalition’ of withdrawing from the nuclear

ar power plants and especially not during his own

phase-out, there is also, especially in Germany, a

generally limited period of responsibility. This is

renaissance of the conflict surrounding nuclear

what distinguishes their interests from those of

energy – for some people, a renaissance of hope. In

the general public – extending the life spans of

some countries that are significant for the future of

5 conservative cDu and pro-business FDP.

THe DecISIoN: The future of energy supply 47

nuclear energy there is a revival of a socio-political

public purse bears once again a large proportion

debate. Its outcome is uncertain. The new build-

of the financial risks as it once did at the launch of

ing projects known to have been authorised so far

nuclear energy. That is what they did in Finland

are not even enough to maintain the contribution

and that is what they will do in America unless the

of nuclear energy to the global production of elec-

policy change that many experts are anticipat-

tricity – not in absolute terms and certainly not in

ing under the Obama administration really does

relative terms.

result in the cancellation of the long-awaited plan-

ning approvals for new reactors. Neither can the

Up to now, nuclear power station projects

route of generous subsidies be generalised as in

only exist where this form of electricity produc-

a functioning power station construction market

tion shapes part of the state doctrine or where

the competitors from other sectors – namely and

governments are prepared to advance billions

increasingly more importantly from the renew-

as a safeguard against the security and financial

able energies sector – will not sit by idly forever

risks involved. Anyone wanting to build new nu-

and watch the government one-sidedly subsidise

clear power stations or is politically encouraged

a 50-year old technology. This criticism is already

to do so – as for example in the USA or in the UK

being heard in the USA. For instance in 2009 rep-

– needs the government almost as much as the

resentatives of the Natural Resources Defence

pioneers of nuclear energy did in the 1960s.

Council before the US Senate demanded that the

construction of a series of reactors already tried

It sounds paradoxical but the commercial

and tested abroad should not be given financial

launch of nuclear energy at the time was made

support again in the USA, saying that the nuclear

possible because no electricity market existed

route signified not only market interference to

that could have made it an inefficient proposition.

the detriment of other technologies but also led

Because on the one hand the provision of elec-

to an economically inefficient route being taken

tricity was considered overall to be a ‘natural

in the change to a low-carbon energy industry

monopoly’ owing to the electricity grid monopoly,

(Cochran/Paine 2009).

and on the other hand, being one of the general

public services it was provided by state-owned or

At the beginning of the 21st century an im-

similar companies – in any case by quasi-monopo-

partial reappraisal of all aspects of nuclear energy

lies. Therefore, in most industrialised countries it was

leads to an unequivocal conclusion – it is the same

the government that initially led the way in launch-

as it was 30 years ago:

ing nuclear energy for overt or secret military and

later industrial-political reasons. The government

the risks of catastrophe which at the time

bore the immense costs of research, development

made nuclear energy the most controversial form

and the commercial launch of the new technol-

of electricity production have not been over-

ogy either directly or it ensured the shifting of these

come;

burdens onto the consumer through its influence

on the electricity price structuring of the electricity

the new dangers of terrorist attacks categor-

suppliers.

ically rule out an expansion of this technology in

insecure regions of the world;

In a functioning deregulated electricity mar-

ket the building of new nuclear power stations is

the global expansion of electricity gener-

as yet not an attractive proposition for compa-

ated by nuclear power would lead to a shortage of

nies. It is not only in the USA that there are much

uranium fuel even more quickly than if the status

more financially attractive options with nowhere

quo were maintained – or else force the blanket

near comparable economic risks. Therefore no

changeover to breeder technology. Such a new

new nuclear power stations are built within a free

technological orientation would be tantamount

market economy even if electricity demand and

to committing nuclear technology to the so-called

power station output increase overall – unless the

plutonium path once and for all. It would raise

48 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy the risk of catastrophic accidents, terrorist attacks

does not stop the expansion in China – and may

and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to a new,

the people living there be spared such a fate

even more critical, level;

– dozens of reactors will go on line there. And

this will continue until the money runs out or

with or without breeder technology the

the large power stations even in China halt the

problem of permanent disposal is not solved ei-

expansion of the then less expensive renewable

ther. A solution will have to be found as the waste

energies. All over the world it is not so much

is already with us. But it will only ever appear to be

the electricity industry, which above all wants

a solution. In itself that would be a sufficient rea-

to continue to make use of old investments that

son not to further intensify this problem afflicting

have been written off, but rather it is politics that

mankind by increasing the volume of waste;

is bringing nuclear energy into the equation – in

nuclear energy cannot solve the climate prob-

the light of diminishing fossil resources, greatly

lem. Even concentrating all means available on this

increasing energy prices and in the anticipation

technology, which would be devastating for progress

of rigorous obligations towards climate protec-

on the whole, would only lead into a belated and

tion. All three aspects are driving the debate in

modest contribution to climate protection – if at all.

the USA, even after the changeover from the fer-

Lacking any industrial capacity for extension, ow-

vent nuclear power supporter George W. Bush

ing to the immense costs and a multiplication of the

to the moderate sceptic, Barack Obama. And it is

attendant risks involved, nuclear energy would be

these aspects that triggered the construction of

just as unrealistic as it would be irresponsible. On

the new reactor in Finland, the campaign to with-

the contrary, it is predictable and more likely that in

draw from the nuclear phase-out in Germany

the light of the age structure

and the discussion sur-

of existing power stations

rounding the construction

If we want to avert catastrophic global

there will be a considerable

of new reactors in many

warming, why should we choose the

decrease in global reactor

other countries.

slowest, most expensive, most ineffec-

capacity in the coming dec-

tive, least flexible and riskiest option?

ades. At the same time there

All over the world

Source: “nature, Scientific Journal”

are solid predictions that a

politicians tend to plan

global energy strategy which

and continue within the

above all focuses rigorously on the development of

established structures and with the economic

renewable energies and also on more efficiency in

players that they are familiar with. Some of them

the energy, industry and transport sectors and in

therefore will not hesitate to grant once again

heating systems will be able to achieve the neces-

financial support for the ‘market launch’ of nu-

sary reductions in CO emissions – even without

clear energy more than half a century after the

2

resorting to nuclear energy. The challenges that

start of the commercial production of electric-

this involves are huge but so are the possibilities.

ity in nuclear power plants – as if it were the

Overcoming these challenges requires nothing less

most natural thing in the world. In Germany

than a world energy policy in which sooner or later

the construction of a new reactor is not on the

all the nations responsible for global greenhouse

agenda for the simple reason that no potential

gas emissions pull together. The alleged conflict of

reactor builder is willing to undertake an incal-

aims – ‘climate protection or nuclear energy’ is a

culable economic risk of this kind and because

chimera born out of the interests of the nuclear en-

no majority support among the general public

ergy industry.

for radiation technology is anywhere in sight.

Instead of this, RWE, E.on, EnBW and Vattenfall

After all this it is clear that there will be no

intend to live off the reserves for a few more

revival of nuclear technology in the foreseeable

decades – at the expense of the safety of all.

future without massive government financial in-

And politicians of the Christian-Democrats and

tervention. This does not of course mean that it

Liberals coalition government are at their serv-

is out of the question. If a catastrophic accident

ice. They are prepared to prolong the life spans of

THe DecISIoN: The future of energy supply 49

ageing reactors and in precisely this way they are

the development: “The nuclear energy industry

helping the companies to make surplus profits

needs climate change more than climate change

amounting to billions – companies whose mar-

needs the nuclear energy industry. If we want to

ket dominance they deplore at length in their

avert catastrophic global warming, why should

soap box oratories.

we choose the slowest, most expensive, most in-

effective, least flexible and riskiest option? In 1957

But in any case, the principles of logic hardly

it was right to attempt this with nuclear energy.

ever play any real part in the fundamental conflict

Today nuclear energy is simply an obstacle in the

surrounding the future of nuclear energy. As early

transition to a sustainable electricity supply.”

as October 2007 the arguably most renowned

scientific journal, nature commented thus on

There is really nothing more to add.

50 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy references

BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit) (Ed.):

“Die Energiestudie” – Vergleich wegfallender Atomstromproduktion mit zusätzlicher EE-Stromproduktion jeweils seit 2000. Präsentation Nestle, Uwe. Berlin 2009.

Cochran, Thomas B./Paine, Christopher E.: Statement on Nuclear Energy Developments Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.Washington DC 2009.

Cooper, Mark: The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse? South Royalton (Vermont) 2009.

Fischer, Bernhard/Hahn, Lothar/Küppers, Christian: Der Atommüll-Report. Hamburg 1989.

Fraunhofer IWES: Dynamische Simulation der Stromversorgung in Deutschland nach dem Ausbauszenario der Erneuerbaren-Energien-Branche. Abschlussbericht. Kassel 2009.

Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (Ed.): Schutz der deutschen Kernkraftwerke vor dem Hintergrund der terroristischen Anschläge in den USA vom 11. September 2001.

Zusammenfassung. Köln 2002. www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundnet/pdfs/atomkraft/20021127_

atomkraft_grs_gutachten_zusammenfassung. pdf

Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (Ed.): 3. Ergänzung der Kurzinformation zu einem Ereignis im schwedischen Kernkraftwerk Forsmark, Block 1, am 26.07.2006:

“Nichtstarten von zwei Notstromdieseln beim Ausfall der Netzbindung”. Köln 2006.

Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (Ed.): Mythos Atomkraft – Ein Wegweiser. Berlin 2006.

Kaplan, Stan: Power Plants: Characteristics and Costs, CRS Report for Congress, RL34746.

Washington DC 2008.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Cambridge 2003.

Meyer-Abich, Klaus Michael/Schefold, Bertram: Die Grenzen der Atomwirtschaft.

München 1986.

Mez, Lutz/Schneider, Mycle/Thomas, Steve (Hrsg.): International Perspective on Energy Policy and the Role of Nuclear Power. Multi Science Publishing. Brentwood 2009.

Miller, Peter: Our Electric Future – A Comeback for Nuclear Power. In: National Geographic, August 1991.

Möller, Detlev: Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt a.M. 2009.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Ed.): The 9/11 Commission Report. Official Government Edition. www.9-11commission.gov/

Prognos AG (Ed.): Renaissance der Kernenergie? Analyse der Bedingungen für den weltweiten Ausbau der Kern energie gemäß den Plänen der Nuklearindustrie und den verschiedenen Szenarien der Nuklearenergieagentur der OECD. Berlin/Basel 2009.

Radkau, Joachim: Tschernobyl in Deutschland? In: Der Spiegel 20/1986.

Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen (Ed.): Weichenstellungen für eine nachhaltige Stromversorgung. Thesenapier. Berlin 2009.

Schneider, Mycle: Der EPR aus französischer Sicht. Memo im Auftrag des BMU. Berlin 2004.

Solar-Institut Jülich/FH Aachen (Ed.): Zwischenbericht: Struktur und Dynamik einer Stromversorgung mit einem hohen Anteil erneuerbarer Energieerzeuger. Energiestudie. Berlin 2009.

Squassoni, Sharon: The US Nuclear Industry: Current Status and Propects under the Obama Administration. Nuclear Energy Future Paper, November 2009. Waterloo (Canada) 2009.

Traube, Klaus: Plutonium-Wirtschaft? Hamburg 1984.

UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Ed.): UK Renewable Energy Strategy Consultation 2008. Log Number 00407e, Organisation: E.ON. www.google.com/search?q=%22

Renewable+Energy+Strategy+Consultation%22+E.on+00407e&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft: en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

WWF Deutschland: Modell Deutschland – Klimaschutz bis 2050; erstellt von Prognos AG/

Öko-Institut/Dr. Hans-Joachim Ziesing. Berlin 2009.

Ziehm, Cornelia: Ohne Endlager keine Laufzeitverlängerung – zur Rechts- und Verfassungswidrigkeit einer Laufzeitverlängerung. Berlin 2010.

Dr gerd rosenkranz, holder of a doctorate in material science and graduate engineer in the field of metallurgy, completed his postgraduate studies in communication science and worked as a journalist for national daily and weekly newspapers for 20 years; at last until 2004 five years as editor for the berlin office of the news magazine Der Spiegel specialised in environment and energy policy. Since october 2004 he is head of the department politics and public relations of Deutsche umwelthilfe e.V.

(german environmental aid) in berlin.

52 MyTHS abouT NucleaR eNeRgy list of images by timm suess

Cover: Lenin Square. View from Hotel Polissya in the ghost town of Pripyat near Chernobyl.

Page 8: Swimming Pool Clock. Clock on the public swimming pool in Pripyat.

Page 15: Bumper Cars. Amusement park in Pripyat.

Page 20: Chernobyl Sarcophagus Detail 07. Detail of the concrete sarcophagus constructed around Chernobyl disaster reactor #4.

Page 24: Car in front of Militia Station. Car wreck at Pripyat’s old militia station.

Page 27: School Greenhouse 06. Greenhouse of a school in Pripyat.

Page 33: Reactor & Chernobyl Memorial 02. Chernobyl monument and cooling tower of disaster reactor #4 in the background.

Page 37: Ferries Wheel 05. Amusement park in Pripyat.

Timm Suess is an urban decay photographer. His work deals with the slow battle between human structures and nature’s decay processes and the unseen effects of time. His pictures are memento mori of forgotten places, demonstrating that the absence of human life fundamentally changes a location. His photo tours have taken him to abandoned factories, clinics, hotels and ghost towns in Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the continental US, and Hawaii.

In 2009, Timm Suess visited the Chernobyl zone of exclusion in Ukraine. The photographs in this publication are part of his "Chernobyl Journal", an extensive travelogue with 450 photographs, videos and sounds.

Visit his website on http://timmsuess.com/decay

MyThs abouT nuclEar EnErgy

Myths about nuclear energy

hoW ThE EnErgy lobby is pulling

ThE Wool ovEr our EyEs

by gerd rosenkranz

The advocates of nuclear energy in many industrialised countries

becoming increasingly integrated into what economists have

take obvious delight in what they call the ‘de-ideologisation’ of

defined as the triangle of the political energy debate consist-

the conflict surrounding this energy. In view of climate change

ing of economic viability, safeguarding energy supplies and the

and an ever-increasing shortage of fossil energy sources, the

impact on the environment. The fact that safeguarding against

tone is said to have become “calmer and more reasonable”. In

catastrophes is not an aim of nuclear energy is of less concern

particular the supporters of nuclear electricity production are

to its supporters. On the contrary they are extremely satis-

jubilant about this easing of tension unless there happens to be

fied. Supporters of nuclear energy are becoming increasingly

an election looming. For decades the political-societal debate

successful at concealing this technology’s unique potential for

has moved away from the fundamental safety issues of nuclear

catastrophe behind a wall of arguments, all of which have one

energy to questions about the economy, climate protection, the

main purpose: to distract from the fundamental questions of

conservation of resources and the safeguarding of energy sup-

safety. This publication provides the long due knowledge for

plies. In public perception, nuclear energy could thus become

critically debating nuclear power, identifying alternatives and

one technology among many, its use being simply a question

exposing nuclear power as what it is: an irresponsible and ex-

of weighing everything in the same way as choosing between

pensive high-risk technology.

coal and natural gas power stations. Nuclear fission is thus

Rue d’Arlon 15, -1050 Brussels, Belgium

Washington Office - 1638 R Street, NW, Suite 120

T +32 2 743 41 00 F 32 2 743 41 09

Washington, DC 20009, USA

E brussels@boell.eu W www.boell.eu

T 1 (202) 462-7512 W http://www.boell.org