Nuclear realism from Germany: make believe fantasy from the UK.
There are two Fukushima disasters - the mild one reported in the British Press and the intensifying one reported elsewhere throughout Europe. There were no reports in the past few weeks that the no-go area has been extended by 10 kilometres and that it has been proved that meltdowns occurred in three reactors. Foolishly our Government is downplaying the crisis before its full repercussions are known. They are determined to shore up collapsing public and investor confidence. It won't work.
Germany will shut down all its nuclear reactors by 2022 in a dramatic reversal of their nuclear policy After the first explosion at Fukushima officials shut down seven of the country's oldest plants. But Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen announced that they will shut all 17 power stations over the next 11 years.
It's a bold, exciting decision. There will be a bonanza ahead for German renewables sales throughout Europe and the world. They have made rapid strides with the development of mass solar farms helped with sophisticated feed-in tariffs. They were serious about developing mass renewables prompted by members of the Green Party in the coalition.
The nuclear renaissance will be still-born. Nuclear is now a blind alley of delays, losses and cancellations. No advocate of new nuclear can provide a single example of any nuclear station that was built on time, on budget or without massive subsidies.
Having a major industrial European nation planning a nuclear-free future kills the myth that nuclear is essential. It's not. There are a host of alternatives - especially tidal power in Wales. Germany has witnessed massive anti-nuclear protests. Malaysia, Thailand, Italy, Switzerland and Germany have cancelled new nuclear projects.
The UK needs a full debate and a bold change of mind.
In vain?
A Independent newspaper journalist Stuart Alexander wrote movingly today about the death of his son:
My son Sam, at 28, married to Claire with a son Leo, is dead. He was hoping to be given brief leave to be at Leo's first birthday, on 21 July, to see him take his first steps. An improvised explosive device has put paid to that, as it has for his lieutenant, Ollie Augustin. The last time Sam was written up in this newspaper he had taken a bullet through his helmet but escaped injury after leading a defensive firefight that allowed his shot and injured troop leader to be dragged to safety.
Recently, there have been two sustained public relations campaigns. One says that we (Nato/Britain) are succeeding militarily. The other says that we cannot win this thing militarily and that talking with the enemy must be stepped up. Plans for withdrawal are being worked on continuously.
Is that a kind of facing both ways at once, the accusation so recently lodged against Pakistan by a finger-wagging David Cameron? How motivating is it if a stream of analysts say this is an unwinnable war, pointing out that Afghanistan has witnessed more than 100 years of failed interventions?
What is sure is that the deaths of these two Royal Marines from 42 Commando Group brought the total cost in lives for this campaign up to 368; one of those made me, for a while, the subject of that bland reference which is Ministry of Defence speak: "The family has been informed". Informed. What does the public really know? Are we winning the fight for democracy in Afghanistan, or is that country just a loose federation of fiefdoms, often still run by warlords?
Who or what are the Taliban? From what I have been told, this was not a ragbag peasant army. The most likely opponent, often very highly trained, could be Iranian, Chechen or Pakistani, not Afghans. So what does that do for the argument that, by waging war in Afghanistan, we are protecting Britain from a 9/11 or a Mumbai terrorist attack? Where does 7/7 fit into that? How much is the enemy already within?
Nothing should be taken away from Sam or the other 367, or the thousands more with life-changing injuries. But one thing for sure is that these guys and women are fighting primarily for each other in the most professional way. And there is much more emphasis on the ground, though not always in war reports, on forging links with the local community.
But Nato, when the Afghan public opinion chips are down, is not wanted. What we see as liberation is too often seen by them as occupation – and, if they listen to their own history, it is only a matter of time before Afghan life is restored. The average farmer struggles to survive and is certainly not a beneficiary of the reported $1bn of aid funding that has quietly disappeared.
Sam's life has not been wasted, because he was so damned good at what he did. The testimony from that most valuable of analysts, his own peer group, was alpha plus for him, humbling for me. My respect for him far outweighed any pride.
But, God knows, I loved you Sam and always will. And, if a faraway nondescript patch of rock and dust has claimed your flesh and blood, it can never claim your spirit, never destroy the bonds we had.
It is time the politicians were as professional as the men, including you, and the women they send to their deaths.
Right MH, our UK record on renewables is apalling. The Severn Barrage probe was set up to fail because of the scale of the project. Small turbines are the answers for tidal power.
Germany are relishing the prospect of leading the way on renewables and capitalising on the sales to other countries who will abandon nuclear at a later date.
Why are people blind to the dreadful failure of nuclear to deliver. Does anyone we really believe that the UK will have a new nuclear station by 2018? The new one in Finland was planned to start generating in 2009. They are still waiting and they have an extra bill for two billion Euro.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | May 31, 2011 at 12:28 PM
Is it nuclear realism by Germany or a costly gamble fired by the success of the Green Party there.Will they achieve their forecast reduction in energy usage by conservation and manage to obtain the level of renewable energy they forecast in that time scale is extremely doubtful.Both the nuclear and renewable lobbies have in the past been wildly optimistic with their forecasts of performance and costs.
If not how do they bridge the gap,importing electricity made by French nuclear stations,hardly ethical,or by fossil fuel scources,again not acceptable.This debate will run and run because its a simplification to think its a straight choice between nuclear or renewable,with so many vested interests involved and a plethora of misinformation I fear we will still be talking about this in ten years time when the lights will begin to go out.
Posted by: KD | May 31, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Not just Germany, Paul. The Swiss Cabinet made the same decision last week.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/internal_affairs/Swiss_to_phase_out_nuclear_power_by_2034.html?cid=30315730&rss=true.
Germany's commitment to renewable energy puts the UK to shame. The UK languishes near the bottom of the table with only 3.0% of total energy consumption met by renewables, Germany is at 8.5%. In terms of electricity generation the UK is at 5.6%, Germany at 15.6%. Figures here:
http://syniadau--buildinganindependentwales.blogspot.com/2011/04/at-bottom-of-renewable-energy-table.html
Yet we have much better renewable resources than Germany. By flirting with nuclear, we have allowed ourselves to get distracted from renewables.
Posted by: MH | May 30, 2011 at 10:27 PM