On September 6, the German government concluded a change in its energy policy, with the extension of the life of its nuclear plants. This change has been very welcomed in some sectors in our country who affirm that Germany has gone back to the club of countries favorable to nuclear energy.
So, for example, the nuclear forum has pointed out that, in case the German nuclear policy id applied in Spain, the useful life of Santa María de Garoña could perfectly be extended for 12 years instead of the decision made by the Spanish government to close it down. But, the German agreement to extend for 14 years the newest and safest nuclear plan and for 8 years the remaining ones, fixes the closing date of the nuclear plants built in 1988 for the year 2035, and therefore a useful life of 47 years. Then, considering the recent extension approved, the German nuclear plants will only have a useful life of three more years than Garoña!
There are other aspects of the German agreement that those who advocate for nuclear energy do not like so much, such s the idea of levying a new tax on the uranium. For the concerned industry, the initial of proposal of the German government to set the tax rate at 220 euros per gram of uranium was branded as “preposterous”.
The pressure from the industry managed to get the nuclear fuel tax burden to finally be much lower than previously announced: 145 euros/gram of uranium, which is equivalent to 9 euros/MW nuclear energy.
¿How can we explain the change in the German policy? Until September 6, the government kept the policy approved of in 1999 by the SPD-Green coalition. The nuclear agreement was a commitment to reduce the life of nuclear plants to 8 years, which meant fixing the date of the abandonment of nuclear energy for the year 2022, by fixing the useful life at 32 years.
The agreement that was finally reached has been the result of a tense negotiation between the German government and the industry. The nuclear sector threatened with huge claimed huge compensations for losing trade licenses, while the government was resorting to a law which forbid the transportation of radioactive waste, which was strangling the storage and production capacity of the nuclear plants. Finally, the agreement was to accept a system to transfer the production volume of the oldest plants to the new ones which are safer.
On August 20 and 21, RWE, E.ON, Vattenfall and EnBW published in the press a manifesto entitled: Courage and realism for the future of energy in Germany. This advert in the press, supported by 40 personalities, was directly attacking the government’s policy, which they accused of blocking “the necessary investments” for the energetic future, defending renewable energies but also defending their role of “nuclear energy bridge”, although the argument was to clearly claim for the extension of such bridge (to avoid falling into the river).
Among the promoters, we can find familiar faces. Wolfgang Clement, the former minister for Economy and Labor from SPD, who was expelled for branding the candidate of the SPD in Hesse as a “danger for the industry”.
Another expert in energy policy, Herman Scheer could not believe that an SPD leader could be at the orders of the nuclear energy lobby. But, more important than knowing the profile of these 40 personalities with “silk ties” –as the newspaper Handelsblatt called them-, is to know who participated and we can specially note the absence of Siemens.
Angela Merkel branded this manifesto as “blackmail a government cannot tolerate”. Sigmar Gabriel, president of the SPD, condemned the “unprecedented wave of propaganda in the German democracy” as well as the fact that the industry was trying to “impose its private interests in a violent way.”
The government commissioned a study to analyze the benefits for nuclear plants owners if they extend the useful life by 4, 12, 20 and 30 years. According to Felix Matthes from the Öko-Institut and Uwe Leprich from the University of Sarre, from an average cost of the energy, fixed based on the price of the gas at 65 euros/MW, the nuclear sector would get profits of 127,000 million euros. These are complicated calculations.
In the case of a 29-year-old nuclear power plant of 1,345 MW, the profit for each hour is 48,500 euros; the extra annual profits are 400 million euros. The proposal of 9 euros /MW entails reducing 3,000 million profits. As a very little suspicious person like Bloomberg, pointed out, it represented 6,400 million of “windfall profits” for nuclear plants, which quotation increased at the completion of the agreement.
¿What can we think of the agreement, behind closed doors on Sunday September 6, between Merkel, Röttgen and Westerwelle, by the government, with the presidents of the four energy groups? “It is a clear violation of the law” said Sigmar Gabriel, so “the agreement with the government is contrary to parliamentarism, something which “has never happened in the history of the Federal Republic” At the parliament, Gabriel accused Merkel of behaving like the CEO of the nuclear industry.
¿Which has been the policy of government of FDP and CDU up till now? They are not internal contradictions; the basic principle was to consider nuclear energy as a “bridge energy” or “transition” toward the future of renewable energies. The FDP interprets that a “bridge technology” allows the “extension of expiration dates”.
However, Norbert Röttgen, minister for environment (CDU), has been reluctant to extend the “bridge”, he even proposed a faster solution. What was announced as a “solution to the solution to nuclear energy” (that is, extending deadlines), became a “solution of the solution to the solution” as in the title of the Frankfurter Rundschau: “der Austieg vom Austieg vom Austieg”.
The old agreement to put an end to the nuclear era considers that technology involves unacceptable risks. The program of the CDU and FDP government includes a moratorium to the stores of Gorleben, Asse II and Morsleben. In the case of Asse II, Norbert Röttgen did not have any doubt in criticizing the SPD and the Green of being coward politically for not dealing with the catastrophic situation of 126,000 barrels of radioactive waste, at 450 meters deep with collapse threat. The government must seek an answer to 3.3 million of cubic meters of waste in the mine of Asse II. According to the officials of the ministry there is no safe place
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario