Skip to main content

Gear Crunching U-Turn in Germany

Merkel This happened last week:

Angela Merkel's U-turn on nuclear energy became even more gear-crunching on Tuesday when she announced the temporary closure of seven of Germany's nuclear power stations.

The chancellor said that reactors built before 1980 would be taken offline while an urgent review of their safety was carried out.

"Safety has the priority in all our deliberations," Merkel declared after she met politicians from affected German states.

This isn’t enormously surprising, as Germany has a rather fraught relationship with its nuclear plants. Put Germany in our search box and you’ll see we’ve covered German top-spinning over nuclear energy for a long time. So another whipsaw fast change in the wake of the events in Japan seems wrong-headed but not completely unexpected.

In any event, I thought, if Germany has to import electricity, it’ll probably get a fair amount from neighbor France – which of course would be a bit hypocritical.

What I didn’t know was how much political calculus was involved:

Sunday's election in Baden-Wuerttemberg is viewed as the most important of seven state ballots this year. The south-west region is the only one where her centre-right coalition has to face state voters. Its chances of re-election are "small and they have become smaller" due to the nuclear story, said Nils Diederich, political science professor at Berlin's Free University.

Baden-Wuerttemberg is a large state in the southwest that borders France and Switzerland. Since it is one of the most conservative areas in Germany, this is bad news for Merkel’s coalition. But Germany has 16 states and the move against nuclear may not play well on a national level – perhaps not even in Baden-Wuerttemberg:

"The abrupt turnaround hasn't helped," said pollster Manfred Guellner. A majority of her voters "were for using nuclear power, and still are after Japan - and they will be confused by such an abrupt change of course."

Rock, meet hard place. If this move works for Merkel’s party, well, good for her. But the sum of the equation is that she hasn’t helped her country by acting so precipitously – the NRC and the nuclear industry here are doing what Germany is doing without closing the plants – and she may not be helping her party’s cause. We’ll know soon enough.

Angela Merkel – an attractive shot. German newspapers tend to run really harsh pictures of their politicians. Not sure why – but not this time.

Comments

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…