Skip to main content

German Environment Minister Calls for Shutdown of Older Nuclear Generating Stations

The long-term political fight over Germany's nuclear generating capacity took another interesting turn over the weekend as the government's environment minister proposed shutting the nation's older nuclear power plants in exchange for allowing the country's newer units to operate longer:
The German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, has called for seven of the country's oldest nuclear reactors to be closed down immediately.

Justifying his demand, Mr Gabriel pointed to recent breakdowns at two ageing nuclear plants.

Germany is committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2020.

Mr Gabriel told a German newspaper that it would be of great technical benefit from the safety standpoint to close the oldest reactors now.

As a trade-off, newer reactors could be kept running longer.
As I'm sure many of you already recall, the government led by Prime Minister Angela Merkel is a coalition comprised of Social Democrats and Christian Democrats -- and in this case the Prime Minister and her environment minister are on opposite sides of the divide.

In any case, this proposal sound a lot like a plan that was floated by the owners of Neckarwestheim I nuclear generating station back in December 2006. Then again, a lot has changed since then, especially if Merkel is able to lead her party to victory in the next election without the help of the Social Democrats -- something that might mean overturning the German nuclear phaseout completely.

For more on reaction to the proposal, see Spiegel Online. For our archive of posts on Germany, click here.

UPDATE: In case you missed the official response from Merkel's party, here it is:
The party's general secretary, Ronald Pofalla, rejected Gabriel's latest proposal.

"It is not a case of old or new, but of safe or not," Pofalla said on ZDF television. He argued that there were no indications that the plants in question failed to comply with the required safety standards.

Comments

Joffan said…
Herr Gabriel's call is in sharp contrast to his inflexibility earlier this year towards Biblis A, as discussed at We Support Lee in May.

Now he wants to push "technical benefits", however suspect, but previously he was only interested in bureaucratic lists of alternatives published in legislation.

Perhaps he sees the end of his anti-nuclear opportunity arriving. One can hope.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …