Myths about nuclear energy

Myths about nuclear energy
How the energy lobby is pullingthe wool over our eyes
By Gerd Rosenkranz

The advocates of nuclear energy in many industrialised countries
take obvious delight in what they call the ‘de-ideologisation’ of
the conflict surrounding this energy. In view of climate change
and an ever-increasing shortage of fossil energy sources, thetone is said to have become “calmer and more reasonable”. In
particular the supporters of nuclear electricity production are
jubilant about this easing of tension unless there happens to be
an election looming. For decades the political-societal debate
has moved away from the fundamental safety issues of nuclear
energy to questions about the economy, climate protection, theconservation of resources and the safeguarding of energy supplies. In public perception, nuclear energy could thus become
one technology among many, its use being simply a questionof weighing everything in the same way as choosing between
coal and natural gas power stations. Nuclear fission is thus

becoming increasingly integrated into what economists havedefined as the triangle of the political energy debate consisting of economic viability, safeguarding energy supplies and theimpact on the environment. The fact that safeguarding against
catastrophes is not an aim of nuclear energy is of less concern
to its supporters. On the contrary they are extremely satisfied. Supporters of nuclear energy are becoming increasingly
successful at concealing this technology’s unique potential forcatastrophe behind a wall of arguments, all of which have one
main purpose: to distract from the fundamental questions ofsafety. This publication provides the long due knowledge for
critically debating nuclear power, identifying alternatives andexposing nuclear power as what it is: an irresponsible and expensive high-risk technology.

Rue d’Arlon 15, -1050 Brussels, Belgium
T +32 2 743 41 00 F 32 2 743 41 09
E brussels@boell.eu W www.boell.eu

Washington Office - 1638 R Street, NW, Suite 120
Washington, DC 20009, USA
T 1 (202) 462-7512 W http://www.boell.org

publication series on ecology

Myths about nuclear energy
How the energy lobby is pulling thewool over our eyes
By Gerd Rosenkranz
Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation

With the support of theHeinrich-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 Office1638 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 

7First Myth: Nuclear Energy is Safe 
The residual risk of forgetting 	
The insidious poison of routine Second Myth: The Dangers through Misuse and Terror can be Controlled 
Suicide attacks would put 9/11 in the shade
Deadly Siamese twins: the civil and military use of atomic energy
Third Myth: Atomic Waste? No Problem! 
There is no place for permanent disposal – anywhere 

8
9
11
15
17
18
20
21

Fourth Myth: There is Enough Uranium Fuel 

24Fifth Myth: Nuclear Energy Benefits Climate Protection 
How nuclear energy obstructs sustainable climate protection 
The competition between nuclear energy and renewable energy is intensifying 
Nuclear climate protection is unrealistic 

27
29
30
31

Sixth Myth: We need extended life spans 
Nuclear energy companies break their promise 
Why cream off surplus profits? 
Withdrawing from nuclear energy the smart way 

33
35
35
36

Seventh Myth: Nuclear Energy is Experiencing a Renaissance Renewable energy is the new global trend Subsidies to prevent nuclear depression 

37
38
40

The end of the nuclear power myth 

44

The decision: the future of energy supply

46

References

50

4Myths about Nuclear Energy

Preface: Nuclear Energy – a Dead End

Anyone following the statements expressedfrom time to time about the renaissance of nuclear energy could get the impression that the
number of new nuclear plants was increasing at
an immense and steady rate. In fact, more recent
statistics show 60 plants in the process of being
built, the majority in China and others in Russia,
India, South Korea and Japan. The USA is only
shown as having one actual building project.
However, this list (the VGB Power Tech) includes
numerous ancient projects that were never completed and are therefore de facto building ruins.
Moreover, there are at the present time proposals for about 160 new nuclear power plants
up to the year 2020, 53 of these in China alone
and 35 in the USA, followed by South Korea andRussia. In Europe, the UK heads the list witheight proposed new projects, followed by Italy,
Switzerland, Finland, Rumania and Lithuania.
France, that would like to bless the world withnew nuclear power stations, is itself only planning one new plant. Most European states are notentertaining any concrete nuclear plans.
As a matter of fact the number of nuclear power plants in the world is continually decreasing.
At the present time there are still 436 reactors inoperation. In the next 15 to 20 years more ageing
plants will go offline than new ones coming into
operation. By no means will all declarations ofintent be implemented. The more energy markets
are opened up to free competition, the smaller
the chances are for nuclear energy.
The costs for new plants are also exploding. For example, the building cost of the new
nuclear power plant in Finland’s Olkiluoto has
already increased from 3 to around 5.4 billion
Euros although not even the shell of the building
is standing yet. In addition, there are the unsolved
problems of waste disposal and the high susceptibility of the technology to failure. Today, no
privately run energy conglomerate risks building
a new nuclear power station without government

subsidies and guarantees. It is noticeable thatnew nuclear power stations are built particularly
where the government and the energy industry
form an unholy alliance.
Up to now, nuclear power plants have been
funded by massive public subsidies. For Germany
the calculations roughly add up to over 100 billion Euros and this preferential treatment is stillgoing on today. As a result the billions set aside
for the disposal of nuclear waste and the dismantling of nuclear power plants represent a tax-freemanoeuvre for the companies. In addition theliability of the operators is limited to 2.5 billion
Euros – a tiny proportion of the costs that would
result from a medium-sized nuclear accident. All
things considered nuclear energy proves to bejust as expensive as it is risky.
In addition to the routine arguments about
nuclear energy, there are some new ones. Firstly,
the danger of nuclear proliferation is growing in
proportion to the number of new nuclear power
stations all over the world. There is no insurmountable division between the civil and military use ofthis technology in spite of the efforts on the part of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
to regulate this. The most recent example is Iran.
At the end of the day anyone who does not want
to be regulated cannot be forced to do so. With
the expansion of nuclear energy there is a growing necessity to build reprocessing plants and fast
breeders in order to produce nuclear fuel. Both giverise to the circulation of plutonium leading in turnto the creation of huge amounts of fissile material
capable of making bombs – a horror scenario!
Secondly, an extension of the life span of existing nuclear energy stations, and even more so
the building of new plants, would act as a massive
brake on the development of renewable energies.
The claim that nuclear energy and renewableenergies complement each other is a myth since
not only do they compete for a meagre amountof investment capital and power-lines but at thePreface						same time nuclear plants limit the growth potential particularly of wind energy owing to theirinflexible continuous operation. On windy andlow-consumption days the energy demand inGermany is already covered to a large extent by
the wind energy supply. As the output of existing nuclear power stations (as well as the big
coal-fired power stations) is not reduced at short
notice for economic reasons, the surplus energy
has to be exported to other countries at a loss.
There is method in this madness.
Whatever way you look at it, nuclear energy has
neither the potential to make a decisive contribu-

5tion to climate change nor is it necessary in order toguarantee energy supply. The exact opposite is true.
Those who want to promote the development of
renewable energy with the aim of producing 100%of the power demand should oppose the buildingof new nuclear plants as well as the life span extension of older ones. Despite the claims about nuclear
energy it is not a suitable interim strategy leading
towards the age of solar energy.

Berlin, January 2010
Ralf Fücks(Chairman of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung)Introduction 

7Introduction: Forsmark – 22 Minutes of Fear and Terror

It is 25 July 2006 in the middle of the day at
13.19 hours when electricians carrying out maintenance work outside the central Swedish nuclear
power station at Forsmark trigger a short circuit ata substation. Such things happen repeatedly wherever gigantic turbines turn and enormous amountsof electricity have to be conveyed from large block
unit power stations. Normally, a malfunction suchas this in a nearby electricity grid does not create
serious difficulties for any nuclear plant. The safetysystems are geared up for this. The reactor is separated from the malfunctioning grid before the shortcircuit outside reaches the electrical system inside.
In the worst case scenario the reactor switches itself off automatically and since the heat producing
decay of the radioactive inventory in the core of thereactor continues for days the reactor is gradually
brought into a non-critical state by means of theemergency cooling systems.
But on this Tuesday nothing is normal at
Forsmark. As the separation from the grid takes
place too slowly and because the failure – in itself
nothing out of the ordinary – unleashes a torrentof further complications, most of the electricalsystem in Block 1 of the boiling water reactor collapses. Two of the four diesel generators which
are supposed to supply the reactor control systemand the emergency cooling pumps with electricity in the case of an emergency fail to start. For 22
agonising minutes during the most critical phasesof the emergency the screens in the control roomremain blank. The measuring sensors send no
signals about the nuclear chain reaction in thecore of the reactor; even parts of the loudspeakersystem for the purpose of raising the alarm andsignalling evacuation stay silent. There is an absence of vital information about the position of

any of the control rods which regulate the chain
reaction in the reactor core or about the level ofthe cooling water in the reactor vessel. It is only
when a technician finally manages to start the
non-functioning diesel engines by manuallypressing a button and thus supplying the central
measuring and security systems with electricity
again that the blind flight of the reactor finallycomes to an end.
The Swedish Atomic Regulatory Authority(SKI) soon identified the failure of two AC converters as the main cause for the escalation in theboiling water reactor Forsmark 1. As a result of
this, two out of a total of four emergency back-up
generators did not switch on as they should have.
However, due to the breakdown of substantial
sections of the monitoring system of the reactor,
it was extremely difficult to reconstruct the exact
course of events afterwards. The most worrying
aspect of all was that experts could not explain
why identical AC converters which had managed to start the two remaining generators in thenormal way had not reacted to the interference
voltage peak in the power supply of the reactor in
the same way as the two others. The only certain
thing in the end was that if they had done so, thereactor would most probably have gone out ofcontrol. Then all four cables of the reactor’s safetysystem would have been affected and this, as the
SKI admitted, would have led to “the electricity supply in the whole emergency power systembeing cut off resulting in a scenario not coveredin the reactor’s security guidelines” (Society for
Plant and Reactor Security 2006). There was noprovision for this kind of failure in any manual,
there were no regulations to deal with it and, indeed, no possibility for doing so.

8Myths about Nuclear Energy

First Myth:

Nuclear Energy is Safe

First Myth: Nuclear Energy is Safe What happened on the east coast of Swedenin the middle of that day in the summer of 2006
was a fatal reminder of two events that have cast awarning shadow over the civil use of nuclear energy for decades: the catastrophes at the atomic
power stations of Harrisburg (in March 1979)
in the US and Chernobyl (in April 1986) in the
Ukraine.

9

The residual risk of forgetting

The advocates of nuclear energy in manyindustrialised countries take obvious delight inwhat they call the ‘de-ideologisation’ of the conflict surrounding this energy. In view of climatechange and an ever-increasing shortage of fossil
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 areincorrect 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 awaynone 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 andbreeder 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 simply a question of weighing
and also the German nueverything in the sameclear plants at Brunsbüttel
[The Forsmark incident] could haveway as choosing between
and Krümmel on the river
been much worse and worse cancoal and natural gas powElbe. Wherever humans
happen at anytime.
er stations.
are working, mistakes are
made. We can count ourNuclear fission is thus becoming increasingly
selves lucky that the chain of errors repeatedly
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 consistquences 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 bereliability of the reactor operator, Vattenfall. Since coming increasingly successful at concealing thisthat 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
questions of safety. This development is not a coand Krümmel.
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 theaccident in a European nuclear reactor since the leading nuclear energy countries.
catastrophe at Chernobyl. Experts at home andabroad who tried to reconstruct the events of thatday 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 toquieten 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 theirin 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 milicause for the fundamental conflict surround- tary misuse and, as a result, more acceptable toing nuclear energy. The arguments first and last the general public. The first of these reactors areagainst 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 commerthe 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 thepromise of ‘catastropheIn the absence of a
Supporters of nuclear energy are
proof’ nuclear reactors.
promisethat a fourth genbecoming increasingly successful at
As early as three decades
erationofreactors would
concealing this technology’s unique
ago constructors made abeabsolutely
safe, thepotential for catastrophe behind agreat promise under the
nuclearenergyindustrywall of arguments, all of which havebanner of ‘an inherently
hasquietlyburiedtheone main purpose: to distract from thesafe nuclear power staguarantees
of
the
past.
fundamental questions of safety.
tion’. The Americans called
In the meantime, eventhese reactors of the fuin day-to-day operationture ‘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 sweepingof the question thanks to so-called passive safety claim happily bandied about by non-experts insystems. 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 beenpany commented enthusiastically: “Even in the any sustainable evidence establishing the degreecase of the worst of all imaginable accidents, you of truth behind this assertion which has foundcan go home, have lunch, take a nap and then particular favour in Germany. And it is not excome 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 andhas 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 thetorian Joachim Radkau suspected as early as technology of that time, should be able to offer a1986 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 supportfalse 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 reremained.
actors, they all live happily with their respective
slogans. In fact there is no nuclear community inIn the meantime, the European Atomic Energy any country that does not consider its own nuCommunity (Euratom) and ten nuclear energy pro- clear power stations to meet global standards – or

First Myth: Nuclear Energy is Safe 11coalition government of Germany, in the end
have to face the question of whether they want todo so until another catastrophic accident eliminates the option of nuclear energy once and forall. One thing is certain: no-one in Europe or the
USA would talk about the ‘renaissance of nuclear
energy’ or would be discussing prolonging the lifespans of ageing reactors if, at Forsmark on July 25,
2006 in Sweden, not two but four of the AC converters 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 thiscountries especially with a generation of politi- disaster. Northern and western Europe would notcians for whom accidents like at Chernobyl or only have been confronted with the suffering ofHarrisburg 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 remind 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 haveavoided catastrophes such as that at Forsmark in overshadowed the present financial and banking
crisis by far. Every country
Sweden are debated inwith a significant portion
public for only a few weeks[W]hen public attention wanes or is notof its electricity supply debut after that only among
even tolerated as under authoritarianpendent on nuclear energy
committees of experts beregimes, safety decreases.
would have to face blackhind closed doors?
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 environstrength 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 themonitoring of nuclear power stations as a result clock in a way never intended in order to make upof a highly sensitised population. If this inter- for the energy shortfall brought about by the shutpretation is correct, it was only the penetrating ting down of nuclear plants under pressure from aquestions 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 mostextensive preventative measures against break- The insidious poison of routine
downs and accidents in economic history. They
No one seriously denies that of course nuclear
still are today. Unfortunately it is to be feared thatthe reverse is also true: when public attention energy has also gained from the progress made inwanes or is not even tolerated as under authori- the general technological development of the last
decades. The revolution which has taken placetarian regimes, safety decreases.
in information and communication technology
Those who want to continue using nuclear en- since the construction of the majority of commerergy even after Chernobyl and Harrisburg like the cially operated reactors in the world makes theChristian-Democrats (CDU) and Liberals (FDP)1 controlling and monitoring of a nuclear power
at least publicly makes this claim. As a result of
the arms build-ups of the last 15 or 20 years evenin Eastern Europe claims are increasingly heardthat Soviet constructed reactors meet Westernsafety standards or even exceed them in many
respects. Incidentally, there is no need for any
formal agreement on the terminology used; thegeneral message worldwide seems to be: “Thereis no cause for concern”.

1	Conservative CDU and pro-business FDP coalition.

12

station more transparent and more reliable inits day-to-day operation. When the older reactors operating today were at the drawing board
stage computers were still using punch cards.
Modern operating systems have been and are being installed retrospectively even in many of theageing reactors. A better understanding of thephysical workings and other complex processes
in the normal day-to-day running of a reactor andeven more so in cases of failure that is achievedby means of computer simulations and experiments also means a higher level of security. Thesedays reactor operators play out complex computer simulated accident scenarios which could noteven have been designed 20 or 30 years ago andwere therefore completely unknown. Security
technicians also profit from advance probability analyses and more refined testing and control
systems with which even the older reactors aregradually being equipped. Reactor operators also
claim to have learnt from Harrisburg, Chernobyl
and the serious accidents in Japan. They point
to the World Association of Nuclear Operators(WANO) that today organises an exchange of
information and ensures that accident data areswiftly passed on to its members. In 2010 reactor
operators all over the world will be able to haveaccess to the experience of around 13.000 years ofreactor operations.
However, this is by no means a guarantee of
quality ’new security’ for nuclear power stations.
The fact that there have been no nuclear core meltdown accidents since 1986 does not mean it could
not happen again. Forsmark was simply the loudest warning shot in recent times; further warnings
followed in German reactors at Brunsbüttel andKrümmel with the result that these reactors did
not supply any electricity for several years. About
three-quarters of the reactors in the world are thesame as those at the time of the Chernobyl disaster.
It is in the very nature of probability that a serious
accident could happen today or in 100 years’ time.
Therefore 13.000 years of reactor operations provide no evidence to the contrary. When the nuclear
energy industry faced its first core meltdown in acommercial reactor in Harrisburg in 1978, antinuclear protestors in Germany distributed leaflets
pouring scorn on the pompous promises of safety

Myths about Nuclear Energy

made by nuclear technicians: “an accident every
100.000 years – how time goes by!”.
An increase in the intended life span of the reactors that is promoted worldwide is described by
nuclear plant operators as “unreservedly justifiable from the point of view of security” (Frankfurter
Rundschau, 12 August 2005). Walter Hohlefelder,president of the German Atomic Energy Forumlobby and formerly the chairman of the nuclear
energy operator E.on, declared in all seriousness
that such an extension of the life span of reactors “made the electricity supply more secure”(Berliner Zeitung, 9 August, 2005). The most astonishing thing about such claims is that they are
no longer challenged by sections of the public,
especially by the politicians who support nuclear
energy. For it really is an audacious claim that
nuclear plants – in contrast to cars and planes –become safer the older they get. Unfortunately,
this not only defies common sense; it also contradicts the laws of physics.
The global arsenal of reactors is ‘growing old’.
Behind this simple layman’s terminology lurks
a whole body of knowledge – materials technology and metallurgy – which does not only cover
the simple ‘signs of wear and tear’ but also highly
complex changes on the surfaces of and within themetal components. Processes of this kind in the
micro area of nuclear structures and the resulting
consequences are difficult to forecast and reliably
detect in good time via the monitoring systems– especially when high temperatures, enormousmechanical stress, a chemically aggressive environment and the continual bombardment of
neutrons from the nuclear fission simultaneously affect the security relevant construction
elements which are difficult to reach. Again andagain in recent decades there have been incidentsof corrosion, radiation damage and crack formations on the surfaces and on the welded joints ofcentral components – even on the inside. Serious
accidents have often been avoided because thedefects were discovered just in time either by themonitoring systems or through routine checks
during periods of shut down and inspection. Yetagain and again the timely discovery of serious
damage can simply be put down to chance.

First Myth: Nuclear Energy is Safe This situation has been exacerbated in many
countries as a side-effect of the liberalisation andde-regulation of energy markets. Liberalisation
calls for greater ‘cost awareness’ on the part of thereactor operators in every power station – with direct consequences: e.g. staff redundancies, cuttingback on periodic security checks, shorter deadlines and consequently greater time pressure whenit comes to inspections and fuel changes. Quite
clearly none of this increases security.
Preliminary conclusion: if reactor operators succeed in realising their concept of a life
span of 40, 60 or even 80 years for nuclear power
stations, the average age of nuclear plants operating in the world which was 24 years in 2007
will increase massively in the future. The risk ofa serious accident will thus increase considerably. Even the construction of new reactors of theso-called Generation 111 will have little effect on
this. For decades they will still only account fora small proportion of the reactor arsenal worldwide. Moreover, a serious accident even in thesereactors cannot be discounted. The European
Pressurised Reactor (EPR) , for example, which
has been on the drawing board since the end of
the 1980s – the prototype of which has been in
construction in Finland since 2005 – is, according to critics, nothing more than ‘half-hearted’
further development of the pressurised reactors
operating in France and Germany at the moment.
The idea is that the consequences of meltdown
are contained by means of a complicated systemof catching the melted reactor core – ‘core-catcher’.
The result of this concept which considerablyincreases the cost of the whole plant has been,among other things, that reactors have had to be
designed in the development stage to be more
and more efficient in order for them to remain
economically competitive both within and outside the field of nuclear technology.
There is certainly no consensus of opinion
even among reactor operators that the probabilityof a serious accident has decreased in real terms
through operational experience and the prolonged life spans of individual reactors. Anythingelse would actually amount to a denial of reality in

13view of the high number of serious failures whichcause a stir around the globe again and again.
The (naturally not complete) list of potentially catastrophic situations in the recent past
includes:a burst pipe in the residual heat removal
system in the French pressurised reactor Civeaux
1 whereby the primary cooling circuit lost 30 cubic
metres of cooling water per hour until the leak
could be isolated and the situation stabilised(1998);
the manipulation of security data at the
English reprocessing plant at Sellafield andthe Japanese nuclear energy station, Tepco(1999/2002);
damage to nuclear fuel elements neverseen before in Block 3 of the French reactor
Cattenom (2001);
a serious hydrogen explosion in a pipeat the boiling water reactor at Brunsbüttel inGermany in immediate vicinity of the reactor
pressure tank;massive corrosion of the reactor vessel in
the US reactor Davis-Besse that had remained
undiscovered for years whereby only the thinsteel lining of the reactor boiler prevented a catastrophic leak when in full operation (2002);
the dramatic overheating of 30 highly radioactive nuclear fuel elements in the neutralisation
pond at the Hungarian nuclear energy station,
Paks, which finally shattered to pieces like porcelain under a torrent of cold water in the attempt
to cool them down from a temperature of 1200
degrees Celsius and prevent a possible atomic
explosion in the unprotected area of the reactor
complex (2003) (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung 2006);
serious earthquake damage at the Japanesereactor complex Kashiwazaki, resulting in transformers catching fire, the leakage of radioactive
liquids and finally a shut down lasting years (2007);

14

a transformer fire in the German power
station Krümmel which initially led to smoke
formation in the switch room and consequently
to serious failures in the fast shut down system.
Almost exactly two years later, just a few days after
being put into operation, there was another shortcircuit in one of the transformers, oil leaked out
and the reactor was quickly shut down. However,on this occasion the transformer did not catch fire(2007/2009).
In the meantime such obviously unavoidable
incidents caused more concern and awareness ofthe problems among the reactor operators thanamong the supporters of the nuclear renaissance.
And that is not simply because the damage andloss caused by failures and accidents add up tobillions for the reactor operators.
Those in positions of responsibility in nuclear plants are more and more worried about theconsequences of a phenomenon deeply-rooted
in human beings: their susceptibility to the insidious poison of routine which makes it almost
impossible to carry out monotonous and repeti-

Myths about Nuclear Energy

tive actions year in and year out with the highest
degree of concentration at all times. During a
WANO conference in Berlin in 2003 speakers
bluntly broached the subject of what was in theiropinion rampant negligence and self-satisfaction
on the part of reactor operators. It was a Swedish
participant of all people in this gathering of experts who warned that both were “a danger forthe survival of our industry” (Nucleonics Week,
6 August 2003). The former Japanese chairmanof WANO, Hajimu Maeda, diagnosed “a terrible
illness” that was threatening the industry fromwithin. It began with a loss of motivation, selfcontent and “negligence in maintaining security
standards owing to the pressure of cost brought
about by the de-regulation of energy markets”.
This illness had to be recognised and confronted.
Otherwise at some point “a serious accident [...][will] destroy the whole industry” (Nucleonics
Week, 6 August 2003). When three years later,
during the Forsmark disaster, new cases of negligence in the management of the reactors of theSwedish nationalised company, Vattenfall, kept
coming to light this concern proved to be all too
prophetic.

Second Myth: The Dangers through Misuse and Terror can be Controlled

Second Myth:The Dangers through Misuse and Terror
can be Controlled

15

16

A completely new dimension of the threat hasarisen as a direct consequence of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in New York City andWashington, D.C., heightened still by the statements made later by the detained masterminds ofthe attacks being questioned. The new dimensionof terror which the leading powers of the West experienced as a result of the attacks on the USA had
never been considered in previous examinationsof security questions. But it is precisely this development that calls for a fundamental re-appraisalof the use of nuclear energy and the enormous
risks associated with it.

Myths about Nuclear Energy

At the same time it is generally undisputedthat none of the 436 reactors in operation aroundthe world at the beginning of 2010 could withstand the deliberate attack of a large fully-tanked
aircraft. Whilst still reeling from the attacks in
New York and Washington even German reactor
operators were unanimous in confirming this.
Admittedly the chance crash of small aircraft
and military planes had been taken into safety
considerations in the construction of many nuclear power stations in the Western industrial
countries. However, the chance impact of a large
fully-tanked passenger plane was considered sounlikely that in no country effective precautions
had been taken against a scenario of this kind. The
idea of a deliberate attack by a passenger plane
converted into a missile had simply been beyond
the imagination of the reactor constructors.

Going by the admittance of two imprisoned
Al-Qaeda leaders it is an undeniable fact thatthe targeting of atomic power stations actually
does play a part in the plans of Islamic terrorists.
According to their statements which can be foundin the official report of the US senate on the atIn Germany the Cologne based Company fortacks (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Plant and Reactor Safety (GRS) launched an extenUpon the United Statessive survey into the vulnerAt the same time it is generally2004) Mohammed Atta,
ability of German nuclear
undisputed that none of the 436
who later flew a Boeing
power stations to air atreactors in operation around the767 into the North Towertacks immediately followworld at the beginning of 2010 couldof the World Trade Centre,
ing the attacks in the USA.
withstand the deliberate attack of a
had already chosen the
The survey – on behalf oflarge fully-tanked aircraft.
two reactor blocks of thethe German government
Indian Point power station near the Hudson river as a possible target.
The attack on the nuclear power station only 40
miles away from Manhattan even already had acodename – “electrical engineering”. However,as the terrorist pilots thought their approach tothe power station could be cut off by flight defence rockets or interceptor jets, the plan wasin the end rejected. In fact, no such military security provisions had been made. The terrorists’decision to drop the plan was based on an errorof judgement. The Al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik
Mohammed actually stated that his original evenmore monstrous plans included the simultaneous targeting of several nuclear power stations bya total of ten hijacked planes. It is therefore imperative that scenarios of terrorist attacks play a
far more prominent part than has previously been
the case in the risk assessment of nuclear power
stations. The likelihood of attacks of this kind has
increased dramatically since 11 September 2001.

– not only ascertained thestability of typical nuclear power stations but in
addition half a dozen pilots using a flight simulator at the Technical University of Berlin carried out
thousands of attacks of varying speeds, impact sites
and angles on nuclear power stations operating inGermany, life-like video animations of which wererelayed into the simulator-cockpit. Some of thetest pilots – like the terrorist pilots of New York andWashington – had only flown smaller propeller
planes before. In spite of this, roughly every othersimulated kamikaze attack was claimed to havebeen a strike.
The findings of the investigation proved to be
so alarming that they were never made public.
Only one summary of events classified as ‘highly
confidential’ became available to the public (Society for Plant and Reactor Safety 2002). According
to this, especially in the case of the older power
stations, each strike regardless of the type, size orSecond Myth: The Dangers through Misuse and Terror can be Controlled

impact speed of the passenger plane threatened anuclear inferno. Either the ‘shell’ would be directly
penetrated or the pipe-work system would be destroyed by the enormous vibrations caused by the
impact and the kerosene then catching fire.

17

station knowing full well that they themselves willbe the first victims conjures up scenarios that had
never been contemplated before.

From the point of view of extremist suicide
bombers an attack on a nuclear plant is by noIn 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 shockattacks in the USA, there is still no concept for safe- waves experienced in the aftermath of 11 Septemguarding 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 militarya system of smoke dischargers in the event of an heart of the superpower, USA, and thereby humiliair-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 elecdeliberate shooting down of civilian planes with tricity supply and thus the nerve centre – short, theinnocent 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 oftions in artificial smoke unthousands if not millions of
The shocking possibility of people
til fighter jets of the armed
affected people would wipe
carrying out suicide attacks on aforces were airborne andout the dividing line benuclear power station […] conjures
were able to ward off thetween war and terror onceup scenarios that had never beenhijacked plane and shoot it
and for all. No other attack
contemplated before.
down if necessary.
on the industrial infrastructure, not even on the oil
Suicide attacks would put 9/11
depots of Rotterdam wouldin the shade
have a similar psychological effect on Western industrial countries. Even in the case of it not actually
The scenario of ‘targeted air attacks’ did noth- succeeding in unleashing a super catastrophe, theing to remove other fears that had already been result would be devastating. In the aftermath of anunder international discussion before 11 Sep- attack of this kind the debate would intensify thetember 2001. They were simply given a concrete conflict surrounding the risks of catastrophe of nuand more realistic foundation. There had long clear energy as never before and probably lead tobeen 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 thegain 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 commucarrying out suicide attacks on a nuclear power nity. Reactors in the international conflict areas

18

such as the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, Iran, India
or Pakistan give rise to an unintentional but deadly side-effect. Once they are in operation a potential aggressor no longer needs atomic bombs inorder to devastate the country in question withradioactivity – air force or artillery would suffice.
In view of such perspectives anyone resorting to
the term ‘security of supply’ with regard to nuclear energy is obviously not thinking far enoughahead. There is no other technology whereby asingle event can cause the collapse of one whole
pillar of the energy supply. A national economy
relying on technology of this kind is anything but
secure in its energy supply. In the case of war it ismore susceptible to conventional attacks than anational economy without this technology.
In 1985 the German physicist and philosopher
Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker justified his conversion from supporter to an opponent of nuclear
energy saying that: “The worldwide implementationof nuclear energy implicitly calls for a global radical change in the political structures of all present
cultures. It requires the overturning of the politicalinstitution of war that has existed at least since thebeginning of the civilised world (cf. Meyer-Abich/Schefold 1986).” But in summing up his thoughts
von Weizsäcker pointed out that politically and culturally secured world peace was nowhere in sight.
In times of ‘asymmetric violence’, in which highly
ideologised extremists prepare themselves for a war
against powerful industrialised countries or eventhe all-embracing ‘clash of civilisations’, the prospect of lasting peace is far more remote than in 1985
when von Weizsäcker, still haunted by the old block
confrontation, formulated his views.
Incidentally, the menace arising from power
stations as a result of war-like conflicts is not only atheoretical consideration. In the Balkan conflict atthe beginning of the 1990s the Slovenian nuclear
power plant, Krško, often found itself exposed tothe threat of air attacks. In order to demonstrate
the possibility of such an escalation Yugoslavian
bombers flew over the plant. It can only remain amatter of speculation whether in 1981 Israel would
have refrained from an air attack on the construction site of the Iraki research reactor Osirak, if the
40 megawatt reactor had already been in opera-

Myths about Nuclear Energy

tion. The attack was seen as a preventative strikeagainst Saddam Hussein’s attempt to be the firstto build the ‘Islamic bomb’. American bombers renewed their attacks on the reactor site during the
Gulf War of 1991. In retaliation Saddam Hussein
aimed his scud rockets at the Israeli atomic centre ofDimona. Last but not least, more and more reports
relating to the conflict with the Mullah regime in
Tehran are circulating about a planned Israeli air
strike on supposedly secret nuclear plants in Iran.

Deadly Siamese twins: the civil andmilitary use of atomic energy
Since the birth of the idea to use atomic powers
for the controlled production of energy, their military misuse has been on the agenda. This came asno surprise to anyone. After all the US bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 had clearly
demonstrated the infernal potential of nuclear energy to the world. US President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s programme ‘Atoms for Peace’ announced
in 1953 was intended as a kind of starting shot forthe ‘peaceful use of nuclear energy’. This approach
was born of necessity and concern since by generously revealing its then largely exclusive and secretknow-how about nuclear fission, the USA wanted
to prevent more and more countries embarking on
their own atomic weapons programmes. The deal
that the President of the USA, which had conclusively risen to the status of superpower as a resultof the bomb, offered the world was conceivably
simple. Any interested country was to be able toprofit from the peaceful use of nuclear energy aslong as it gave up its own atomic weapons ambitions in return. In this way he hoped to put a stop
to a development whereby a few years after theSecond World War, along with the USA, the Soviet
Union, the UK, France and China had become
atomic weapons states. Other countries, among
which even those that have always been regarded
as downright peace-loving – such as Sweden or
Switzerland – were working more or less intensively, but at all events under the utmost secrecy, on
the development of the ultimate weapon. Even theFederal Republic of Germany, itself not a sovereignstate from the end of Second World War until 1955,
displayed corresponding ambitions in the era ofthe ‘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 fullycame 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 seproduction of nuclear energy and to promote it cretly gone down the military side road at the sameworldwide and on the other hand to prevent the time as pursuing the civil nuclear programme. Irandevelopment of the atomic bomb in an ever-in- is today and has been suspected of doing this forcreasing 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 carriedis as ambivalent as its original purpose. By moni- out through secret parallel programmes subsidised
toring civil atomic plants
by the respective govern[A] fundamental problem of nuclear
and their use of fissile maments. Or it can take placeenergy: even with the best intentions
terials it has dramaticallyby secretly diverting civiland despite the use of the most modern
succeeded in decelerating
fissile materials and thus
monitoring technology, there can be
the proliferation of the
avoiding national and inno fine distinction between its civil andbomb. For this, the Vienna
ternational controls. The
military use.
agency together with its
theft of such materials, milthen 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 andthree further atomic weapons countries, namely Middle East 15 new nuclear power stations wereIsrael, 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 theApartheid 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 expandsof meticulous monitoring on the part of the IAEA. throughout the 30 countries which use it comIn 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 casethe world with nuclear weapons tests. Five years of a new nuclear energy boom – similar to that oflater North Korea turned its back on the Non- the 1970s – resulting in 50, 60 or even more counProliferation Treaty and declared itself a nuclear tries having access to nuclear fission technology,
weapons state.
it would pose the IAEA, already overburdenedin the past and chronically underfunded, withAll these threatening developments are rooted insoluble problems. Furthermore, there is a newin a fundamental problem of nuclear energy: even form of danger in the shape of terrorists whowith 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 oritary use. In particular the nuclear fuel and fissile gin would not only claim numerous victims andmaterial cycles involve a largely identical proc- dramatically increase fear and insecurity in theess whether for peaceful or non-peaceful use. countries which are potential targets for terrorTechnology 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

Third Myth:

Atomic Waste? No Problem!

Myths about Nuclear Energy

Third Myth: Atomic Waste? No Problem!

21

The comforting concept of the nuclear ‘fuel nium for civil use in reprocessing plants actuallycycle’ 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 operateestablished themselves in spite of the fact that re- smaller reprocessing plants with the later statedality 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 mixedof nuclear technologists that after having started oxide (MOX) fuel elements in their conventionalwith commercial uranium reactors it would be light water reactors. Besides plutonium and urapossible 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, moreoproduce plutonium (Pu-239) out of non-fission- ver, highly radioactive nuclear waste that has toable 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 ofthis way a gigantic industrial cycle was to be a light water reactor several tens of thousands ofcreated 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 realin part to military or ter[T]he nuclear fuel cycle remains in
ised in La Hague in France
rorist misappropriation.
name only
and Sellafield in England.
In Germany, alone nuclear strategists in the middle of the 1960s werecounting on an arsenal of breeders by the end of
the century capable of generating an aggregate
output of 80,000 megawatts. For comparison: theconventional pressurised water and boiling water
reactors in operation in Germany today produce
about 20,000 megawatts. However the plutonium
path of nuclear technology, which the energy
scientist Klaus Traube – himself initially head of
the German breeder project in the Lower Rhine
town of Kalkar – had called the “salvation utopia
of the 1950s” (Traube 1984), has turned out to beperhaps the greatest fiasco in economic history.
Over-priced, technologically ill-conceived andeven more controversial in safety terms than conventional nuclear power stations and, moreover,particularly susceptible to military misappropriation, breeder technology has not established itself
anywhere in the world. Russia is alone in still operating a breeder reactor dating back to the early
development stages. Japan (whose demonstration breeder in Monju has been shut down sincea serious sodium fire in 1995) and India are still
officially going down this route.
Without the prospect of the breeder option
the original main motive for separating pluto-

As only a comparatively small part of the highly radioactive nuclear waste
produced in commercial power plants worldwide is ever reprocessed and burnt out MOX fuelelements are generally not re-cycled again, the nuclear fuel cycle remains in name only. In the realworld this circle is open. Besides electricity, nuclear power stations produce above all high, medium
and low-grade radioactive waste which is moreover highly toxic. It has to be securely and ultimately
disposed of for immense periods of time. How
long, is determined by the natural half-life timesof the radionuclides which differ enormously: theplutonium isotope Pu-239 loses its radioactivity
only after 24,110 years, the Cobalt isotope Co-60
already after 5.3 days.

There is no place for permanent disposal– anywhere
More than half a century after the start ofnuclear energy production there is not a single
approved and operational disposal site for highly
radioactive waste in the world – a situation which
popularised the image of the nuclear aircraft thattook off without any thought of where it was goingto land. In some countries – e.g. France, the USA,
Japan or South Africa – comparatively short-lived

22

Myths about Nuclear Energy

and medium or low-grade radioactive waste isdeposited in special containers near the surface.
Germany has chosen the former iron ore mine
shaft, Konrad, in Salzgitter in lower Saxony for the
deep disposal of non-heat producing waste from
nuclear plants as well as from research reactors
and medical usage. The former mine is the first andonly approved permanent nuclear waste facility inGermany and is being prepared for storage at thepresent time. It is due to start operating in 2014.

100010. However, there is no choice: nuclear waste
exists and as there can be no absolute certainty inthis matter we have to search for and find the best
technical solution based on today’s knowledge.

The largest nuclear energy countries are only
gradually and reluctantly coming to the realisationthat the choice of a permanent disposal site is not
simply a technical or scientific problem. None of
the national procedures for choosing a site, embarked 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 inapproached. 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 considthe 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 theit down a mine shaft, we
continuous participation
More than half a century after the start
can hope the problem hasof the public was develof nuclear energy production there isbeen solved” (cf. Fischer etoped and formulated. It
not a single approved and operationalal. 1989).
now seems as unlikely as
disposal site for highly radioactive
ever that after years of inwaste in the world.
However, from the outtensive debate the concept
set there were other, more
finally agreed on in 2002 byreflective, opinions even if they were seldom heard scientists who were supporters as well as oppoin 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 electedradioactive 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 andactor in a densely populated Germany.” (cf. Möller is sticking to the site in Salzstock von Gorleben2009). 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 geologibeen shut down again without the subject of “the cal suitability particularly of the overlying rockharmless disposal of radioactive waste” coming up and evidence from contemporary witnesses andon 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 ahundreds 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 forage 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 result2Conservative CDU and pro-business FDP coalition.

Third Myth: Atomic Waste? No Problem!

in the courts deciding against Gorleben, should
politicians cling to the controversial site. Decades
would have been lost and the search would haveto begin again. Whether the ‘shut your eyes andhope for the best’ strategy pursued by the CDU/
CSU and FDP coalition in Germany since 2009 will
actually lead to a site being approved is therefore
questionable. What is not questionable is the effectthe aggressive attempt to establish Gorleben as apermanent disposal site and at the same time extend the life spans of reactors will have: namely therevival of the fundamental conflicts surrounding
nuclear energy in Germany.

23

tainers the German daily newspaper Frankfurter
Allgemeiner Zeitung was forced to observe: “Thisis certainly another nail in the coffin of nuclear
energy in Germany”. According to Paragraph 9aof the Atomic Law those operating nuclear power
stations are “liable for the orderly disposal of theresulting radioactive waste”. The law has been
unmistakably clear on this for more than halfa century. But how, where and, above all, when
the requirements of the law are to be fulfilled is
as unclear in 2010 as it was in 1960. Nevertheless,in this respect Germany cannot simply be looked
upon as an irritating exception – it is exactly the
opposite, since the situation is the same in nearlyAt the beginning of 2010 a legal report from all countries where nuclear energy is used comthe 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 thesolved (Ziehm 2010).
west coast of Finland which is nearing completionis fortunate in enjoying a high level of acceptanceThat 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 withradioactive nuclear waste
a disposal site for low andIn the end it is rather a philosophicalin the abandoned salt
medium grade radioacquestion whether radioactive waste canmine at Salzberg Asse 11,
tive waste have allayed thebe prevented from penetrating the bionear Saltzgitter, threatensfears of the majority of thesphere at all for hundreds of thousands
to end in a monumental
residents. The permanentor even millions of years. It exceeds thedisaster after only 30 years.
disposal site for highly rabounds of human imagination.
If over a period of ten or
dioactive waste is due tomore years, as suggested
start operation in 2020.
at the beginning of 2010 by the Federal Office for
Radiation Protection (BfS), nearly 126,000 conHowever, in none of the countries of the world
tainers of radioactive waste, salvaged from the with a far larger proportion of nuclear power stamine because it is in danger of being flooded, tions in operation is a permanent disposal site inhave 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 dein 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 mounbillions. It is likely that for the first time ever TV tains in the US state of Nevada were put on holdpictures 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 longof 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 thechildren and grandchildren for which they them- highly radioactive waste which has built up overselves 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

Fourth Myth:

There is Enough Uranium Fuel

Myths about Nuclear EnergyFourth Myth: There is Enough Uranium Fuel

The so-called nuclear fuel cycle is not broken in only one place. From the beginning, it
has proved to be problematic even at its starting
point. The mining of uranium which provides
the fissile material for both the atom bomb andfor civil use in nuclear power stations claimed
an enormous number of victims especially in theearly years of the atomic age. Large quantities ofnaturally radioactive nuclides, previously safely
bound under the surface of the earth escaped into
the biosphere. By continuing or even expanding
the use of nuclear energy the health and ecological toll of mining uranium will in all probability
increase considerably.

25

From then on, governments were not the only
buyers of fissile material. A private market for
uranium established itself so that the exceptional
military strategic position of uranium was nolonger able to justify the particularly harsh mining conditions. The situation changed radicallyagain at the end of the Cold War. The militarydemand for uranium decreased enormously.
Superfluous stocks in the USA and the former
Soviet Union were channelled into the civil fissile material market. Moreover, as a result of the
progress made in nuclear disarmament, large
amounts of weapons-grade uranium with a highproportion of fissile material soon became available 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 forconcentrations to be worth mining in very few the conversion of weapons of war for use in theplaces – 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 theJapan 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 fuelthem further. Enormous efforts were made to in conventional nuclear power stations. This exexpand and secure their access to the uranium ceptional situation in the uranium market led toresources. The effects on the health of the workers a massive collapse in the world market price forplayed a secondary role. The USA exploited mines reactor uranium. The only storage sites to havein their own country and in neighbouring Canada; survived are those with comparatively high conthe Soviet Union intensified uranium mining in centrations of uranium. By 2010 nearly half ofEast Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the applied uranium in nuclear power stations
Bulgaria. Thousands ofaround the world no longer
miners suffered an agoniscame from enriched ‘fresh'
As a result the price of uranium has
ing death from lung cancer
uranium but rather fromalready increased significantly – a trend
after many years of hard
the military legacy of ‘warthat 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 sigfected. 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 artaminated 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 lessuranium and more and more precarious debris
The situation improved for a time with the containing an above average proportion of radioonset of nuclear energy production in the 1970s. active isotopes. This poses a huge problem for the26environment and the health of the people livingin the affected areas.

Myths about Nuclear Energy

After all this one thing is clear: neither the issues of supply nor those relating to waste disposal
in the case of the 436 nuclear power stations opThe anticipated shortage of the supply of urani- erating in the world at the beginning of 2010 canum is intensifying as a result of a massive imbalance be considered to have found a long-term solubetween the countries producing it and those con- tion. The construction of new reactors that hassuming it. Canada and South Africa are the only been the subject of debate in many countries andtwo 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 prothe most part the disproduce virtually no uranium
portionately high cost of
In view of the short supply ofof their own (France, Japan,
extracting it, a determineduranium and for the most part theGermany, South Korea,
global strategy of expandisproportionately high cost ofGreat Britain, Sweden andsion would soon lead to
extracting it, a determined global
Spain) or their capacity is
the start of a plutonium
strategy of expansion would soon leadinsufficient for the longeconomy once and for all.
to the start of a plutonium economy
term operation of theirThis would involve theonce and for all.
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 theconcerned. Russia in particular could soon find it- nuclear risks of the present day. It would evenself 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 morea third of their fuel from Russia. As well as Russia, places with an overall correspondingly larger disChina 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

Fifth Myth:

Nuclear Energy Benefits Climate Protection

27

28

Myths about Nuclear Energy

The scientific findings that have now gained not achieve both at the same time. That is justfull 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 oforder 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 continwarming 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 withgreenhouse 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 (CO2) reductions of 80 to 95% by advertising campaign by the German nuclear
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 bathedenvisaged 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 theof the industrial NorthKyoto protocol.” In reality,
ern countries with theirsince the summer of 2007
It is only gradually that the public ishigh energy consumpthe old reactor had been
becoming aware of how fundamention, based mainly onfighting with technologitally flawed this propaganda thatthe burning of fossil raw
cal problems and withportrays nuclear energy as the saviour
materials – and these latdoubts as to its safety forof the climate is. Nuclear energy lacks
ter countries in particularover 2 years – and did not
the potential to make any noticeablecannot continue to carryproduce a single kilowatt
contribution to solving the problem on
on as before.
hour of electricity.
a global scale.
It can come as no surprise to anyone that the
supporters of nuclear energy are putting nuclear
technology forward as part of the solution in thisprecarious situation. The trigger for the conflictthat has flared up again in many industrial nations as well as in the emerging and developing
nations is its alleged potential for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. It is this prospectthat encourages the supporters to press for a‘renaissance of nuclear energy’ after decades ofstagnation and the decline of nuclear technology. In operation, nuclear power stations produce
practically no CO2. Supporters of nuclear energy
therefore see them as an absolutely essential
cornerstone in the stemming of global warming.
“An energy agenda, if it is going to last for morethan a day,” as Wulf Bernotat, the director of the
Düsseldorf energy company E.on, pondered
many years ago, “has to deal with the trade-off
between abandoning nuclear power and thedrastic reduction of CO2 emissions. You can-It is only gradually that the public is becoming aware of how fundamentally flawed thispropaganda that portrays nuclear energy as thesaviour of the climate is. Nuclear energy lacks thepotential to make any noticeable contribution tosolving the problem on a global scale. In fact, its
importance for the global electricity supply – inspite of any talk of renaissance – is predicted todecrease dramatically in the coming decades.
This was pointed out recently by the Swiss company, Basler Prognos AG, in the autumn of 2009.
In an analysis for the Federal Office for Radiation
Protection the futurologists delivered the following prognosis bringing the nuclear industry
down to earth: the nuclear contribution to theglobal electricity demand will shrink from 14.8%
in 2006 to 9.1% by 2020 and to only 7.1% by theyear 2030 (Prognos AG 2009). We will come backto this later.

Fifth: Nuclear Energy Benefits Climate Protection

29

How nuclear energy obstructs
sustainable climate protection

In Germany, on the contrary, E.on and thelikes categorically dispute the existence of a ‘conflict of systems’ between the erratic supply ofelectricity from wind and solar energy on the one
hand and nuclear energy on the other. The motive for this two-faced argument is obvious: what
would prevent the construction of new reactors
in the UK apparently does not challenge the life
span extensions of ageing reactors that the companies are striving for in Germany, where already
16% of its electricity was produced regeneratively
in 2009. However, it is undisputed that in the future, for economic and security reasons, nuclear
power stations will not be able to adjust to theever increasing erratic green electricity supply
and the electricity demand that is subject to highlevels of fluctuation as well. Month after month
nuclear power stations deliver their maximum
output. That is what they were built for and that is
why they are so lucrative for their operators.

With just these few findings it is quite clearthat from a world perspective nuclear energy
production simply lacks the scale to be part ofthe solution to the climate problem. On the other
hand it is even becoming part of the problem owing to the imminent re-structuring of the global
energy system and this is linked to the fact that
more and more countries will be pressing ahead
with changes to an energy system based on sustainable sources: wind, water, solar, bio andgeo-thermal energy. New nuclear power stations
simply cannot compete in such a world. But above
all they act as obstacles on the road to a comprehensive solution to the climate problem.
Ironically enough it was E.on of all companies, with Wulf Bernotat at its head, that provided
the crucial lead in clarifying the situation – even
if this was not intended. At the beginning of 2009
the British government set up a hearing to consider their strategy on renewable energies that it
had already introduced. In order to implement
the corresponding EU targets, the aim of the plan
is to increase the proportion of green electricity toalmost a third of the British electricity supply forthe time being. This proportion is then expected
to increase further. According to the documentsof the hearing, both E.on and EDF (Electricité deFrance), the French state-owned company that is
intent on promoting nuclear energy, spoke out at
the hearing (UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2008). Both sounded an alarm.
E.on warned about ‘endlessly’ promoting renewable energy. Otherwise the company would not
be in a position to implement its plans for theconstruction of new nuclear power stations on
the island. In their statement to the British government the E.on lobbyists suggest limiting the
proportion of green electricity to a maximum of
one third – a value that, according to the plans of
the black/yellow coalition government, is supposed to be achieved in Germany as early as 2020.
EDF points out explicitly that a higher proportionof green electricity than 25% would cast doubt on
its own ambitions for new nuclear power plants
in the UK.

Admittedly, the output of some reactors canbe regulated up and down today when they areoperating in their upper performance range.
However, such an unusual procedure affects the
economic viability of power plants because in
their load dependent mode of operation they produce less energy and therefore sell less. It is also
detrimental to safety because any changes in thereactor’s output involves additional mechanical,
thermal and chemical pressures on important
reactor components. This is precisely what the
French state-owned company, EDF, confirms
in its aforementioned statement regarding therenewable energy strategy of the British government. Using the European Water Pressure reactor
as an example, the EDF spokesmen point out indetail why green energy should provide no morethan 25% of the British electricity production in
the future. The limitations of the power control
system in nuclear power stations are the reasons
given for this. Even modern reactors like an EPR
can only keep pace with the natural fluctuationsof energy from renewable energy sources as longas their contribution to the electricity supply is
not very large. In a supply system orientated towards durability and climate protection, nuclear
and green energy technology therefore obstructeach other.

30

Myths about Nuclear Energy

However, in 2010 the UK is a long way from conditions are favourable, they can satisfy an everthis 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 outent 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 untime 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 everyenough 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 bygrid 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 Renewple, 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 Institutesupply companies make afor Wind Energy and EnIn a supply system orientated towards
loss on the electricity they
ergy Systems Technology
durability and climate protection,
produce and supply to the(IWES) in Kassel comes
nuclear and green energy technology
grid. This situation that into the conclusion on thetherefore obstruct each other.
the first instance seems abbasis of this prognosis thatsurd occurs when a strong
there will be less and lesswind is blowing over Germany and, at the same room in our future system for large power statime, 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 enple, 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, thehour. On December 26, throughout the course of more nuclear power stations still on the grid, thethe whole day the average price settled down to more urgent this will be. In the case of a deciunder minus 35 Euros per megawatt hour. For the sion in favour of extending reactor life spans, thelarge power plant operators who in spite of this next great conflict between the Christian-Demosituation still supply electricity to the grid and crats and Liberals3 coalition in Germany and thetrade it on the market, this soon adds up to six or companies that it has actually promoted is preseven figure sums. However, so far it seems more programmed.
economical for energy suppliers to supply energy
It is not only the danger of nuclear power stathat is not actually needed at a loss for a few hours
from their so-called base load power stations tions that argues against longer reactor life spansthan to reduce the output of their gigantic power but also the fear that their continuing operation
will apply the brakes to the restructuring of the enplants and soon after raise it again.
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

It is indisputable that we are threatened withan explosive conflict. The production of electricity
from renewable energy plants is growing from year
to year. More and more frequently, when weather
3	Conservative CDU and pro-business FDP coalition.

Although the ‘conflict of systems’ between
the sun and uranium is a much more burning
issue in Germany than in the UK or the US, politicians seem largely unaware of it. This is not soin the case of economists. In the event of a fur-Fifth: Nuclear Energy Benefits Climate Protection

31

ther intensive expansion of renewable energy, thecompany, Prognos AG, considers it likely that theoutput of nuclear power stations will have to be
reduced more and more often (Prognos AG 2009).
The Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU)
in Germany presented a paper stating that thecontinued operation or even expansion of large
coal or uranium power stations was not compatible with the simultaneous ever-increasing
capacity to generate electricity from renewablesources. “A decision as to the system has to be
made. It makes no technical or economic sense tofollow both paths at the same time” declared theenvironmental experts who then went on to argue
decidedly for “a decision in favour of the renewable energies system.” The companies themselves
choose not to comment on these publications,fearing that then the whole absurdity of the debate on extending the life spans of reactors will
be exposed. It is even more predictable that they
will renew their fight against the statutory prioritisation of renewable energies in the German
electricity grid as soon as the question of extending life spans is decided.

The message of the investigation is that it is only
possible if the energy sectors undergo a fundamental restructuring and some sectors – among
them the electricity sector – become practically
CO2 free within 40 years. A prerequisite is the political will to carry through this structural change
against the resistance of the traditional sectors of
the economy. Just as in Germany, in the rest of theworld it is essentially a question of more efficiency in the supply and use of energy. The preceptof efficiency encompasses the building sector,
households and, of course, industrial processes
and the traffic sector. It is about changing fromcoal to natural gas and an ever increasing supply
from solar, wind, water, biomass and geothermal energies which for the most part will be theonly ones remaining in the end. Whether, when
and where in the world ‘clean-coal’ technology– in other words, the separation and subsequentstorage in deep geological formations of thegreenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, resulting fromthe burning of coal and natural gas – can make a
noticeable contribution in the future remains tobe seen.

This clearly demonstrates that the contest isover the energy system of the future, that is to say
the relationship between renewable and nuclear
energy, long ceasing to be a question of ‘the one
as well as the other’ as nuclear energy propagandists try to convince us. It is a question of ‘either/or’. The ‘broad energy mix’ that energy companies
promote with all their fine words does not work. It
cannot work in a system in which renewable energies are supposed to be taking over ‘the supplyof the majority of our energy’. This, however, is oneof the aims of the current coalition in Germany according to its coalition agreement of October 2009.
At the same time, it promises energy companies anextension of the life spans of their nuclear power
stations. This just will not work. The German Federal
government is trying to square the circle.

One thing is certain – in this monumental
process of change nuclear energy acts as “anobstructive technology” for many reasons, as
the Advisory Council on the Environment inGermany commented. This is not only because
base load power stations massively obstruct theconversion to renewable energies for electricity
production but also because of the existing risks ofcatastrophe, and the commitment of engineering
capacities and financial means which then lackfor the restructuring of the energy system. In addition, no other technology is faced with a similar
threat: a single serious accident or terrorist attack
on a nuclear power station would suffice to put an
end to public acceptance of this technology once
and for all. Quite probably a large proportion ofreactors, at least in democratic countries, would
have to be shut down prematurely.

How Germany can achieve its long-term political aims with regard to energy and climate
protection was established by the WWF in its
study entitled “Modell Deutschland – Klimaschutz bis 2050” (Germany as a model for climate
protection by 2050) (WWF Deutschland 2009).

Nuclear climate protection is unrealistic
There is no alternative to a transition from thepresent energy system based on fossil and nuclear
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 establishedtechnology that is largely available today. The earIn 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 thethere will be a sustainable energy system that will undesirable worldwide consequences of a numinimise 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 Climateof aims between effective climate protection and Change (IPCC), thousands of new reactors would
the rejection of nuclear enhave to be built to achieve
The constant claim that there is a conergy at the same time is an
any noticeable effect. Risks
flict of aims between effective climate
invention on the part of theto electricity and of catasprotection and the rejection of nuclear
nuclear energy supporters
trophe would no longer
energy at the same time is an invenbased on their own self inbe produced in only 30
tion on the part of the nuclear energy
terest. A choice between
but in 50, 60 or even more
supporters based on their own self
the devil and Beelzebub iscountries. There wouldinterest. A choice between the devil andcompletely unnecessary.
be thousands of potenBeelzebub is completely unnecessary.
tial trouble spots spread
In Germany at leastacross 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 permaachieve 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 everybecause 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 CO2 reduction by breeder reactors. And then finally, enormous fi2050 – 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 inthat 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

Sixth Myth:We need extended life spans

33

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 thestations 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 passeven the CDU grandees were regularly whistled ing of the Nuclear Withdrawal Act in 2002 shouldback by their Party colleagues – in December 2008 actually have put an end to – has been the subeven by a Federal Party conference. Contrary to ject of day-to-day politics. Recently even bankthe will of the petitioning commission, the major- analysts are calculating for their potential invesity 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 sumplanning 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 comcommercial 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 and32 years negotiated in
Alliance 90/the Greens in
the phase-out agreement[Calls for extending life spans are]Germany in 2002. And even
and, at the same time, theabout nothing more than vast sums of
the black/yellow coalition,market price for electricity
money and about securing the market
newly elected in 2009, isremains overall moderate
position for the dominant operators.
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 maroperators, 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 toprofits, there would be endless losses.
continue the operation of nuclear power stations.
It is a completely different situation with reactors whose life spans exceed the time limits
agreed to with the former red/green coalition
government. Nuclear power station operators arearguing in unison about this with such intensity
as if the survival of their companies were at stake.
But it is not about that at all. And neither is it aboutother motives which the company directors regularly put forward in support of their arguments: it
is not about climate protection, nor the security ofsupply, nor independence from imported energy
and especially not about cheap electricity generated by nuclear power for the consumer. In fact it

The enormous sums explain why the company directors are seemingly happy to accept
the loss of image undoubtedly associated with
their campaign to extend the lives of ageing andaccident-prone reactors. The reversal of the nuclear phase-out agreement therefore comes at acost. For years the nuclear energy opponents andenvironmental associations have been appealing to customers with their campaign ‘Nuclear
phase-out – do it yourself’ to switch their electricity supply to green energy companies. In thisway and as a result of a series of failures in theGerman nuclear power stations at Brunsbüttel

Sixth Myth: We need extended life spans

and Krümmel, Vattenfall Europe lost several hundred thousands of customers.

Nuclear energy companies breaktheir promise“Both sides will play their part in implementing the content of this agreement.” Such werethe ceremonious words of the delegates of thelargest energy companies in their agreementwith the Social Democrats and Alliance 90/theGreens coalition regarding nuclear withdrawal
on 14 June 2000. The signatories also included
Gerald Hennenhöfer who, as chief representativefor economic policy for E.on’s predecessor, Viag,
had played a part in negotiating the agreement
and since autumn 2009 has now been pushing fora reversal of this agreement as head of the reactor security department in the German Federal
Ministry for the Environment. Whether this renewed shift of allegiances on the part of the lawyer
already in charge of the reactor department of the
Ministry under Angela Merkel up to 1998 is legallyadmissible is a subject of political conflict. When
this agreement was signed, about a year after being initialled, E.on’s chairman, Ulrich Hartmann,commented: “Political compromises are also aquestion of trust [....]. The agreement is just thefirst step. The crucial thing is that both sides feelbound to its content and spirit even in the future.
We are prepared to do it.” Three years later thethen EnBW director, Utz Claassen, categoricallyendorsed that in no circumstances would there
be any change in their position on the question ofwithdrawal: “I am not speculating about a change
in the coalition – my respect for the Chancellor
does not allow me to do that.” Before the general election in 2005, Claassen, in a response toa possible reversal of the nuclear consensus,
topped it all by affirming that “the industry cannot demand planning security and then question
what it itself has negotiated, agreed and signed.”
However, ever since polls showed that a nuclear
friendly government majority was on the cards,
the absolute loyalty of the nuclear energy companies to the agreement ceased to be an issue.
Simultaneously E.on, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall
4	Conservative CDU and pro-business Liberals.

35

Europe turned their back on the ‘content andspirit’ of the agreement which their directors had
ceremoniously signed together with the most important representatives of the government. And
Germany knew – years before the financial crisis– that on the management floors of some of themost powerful companies in the country there
were businessmen who were not necessarily honourable – because if they were, they would haveabided by a contract which no doubt also reflected the wishes of the majority of the populationeven if it had only been agreed by a handshake.
Following the general election of 2009 theformer steel entrepreneur, Jürgen Großmann,
who has been at the head of RWE since 2007,
announced: “German power stations are safe”,
commenting that when they had been in operation for 32 years, at which time German nuclear
power stations were supposed to be shut down,
they were “in their best years”. He then added in acasual and snappy way that internationally it was
rather more common to have “a life span of 50 to
60 years”. The reality is different. The 130 nuclear
power stations that had already been permanently shut down worldwide by the end of 2009 had
achieved an average life span of about 23 years at
the time of their closing whereas in 2010 the average age of those in operation globally is 25 years.
There have only been a handful of permanent
shut downs after 40 years and there has neverbeen a case of a reactor still in operation after 50
years, let alone 60 (Prognos AG 2009) – so muchfor accuracy when Jürgen Großman is fighting forhis ageing reactors in Biblis.

Why cream off surplus profits?
Representatives of the Christian-Democrats(CDU) and the Liberals (FDP)4 in Germany havealways maintained that they do not intend thebeneficiaries of the government’s target for extending the life span of nuclear power stations to
get it ‘for nothing’. They want the extra profits to be
used selectively for research or the developmentof renewable energies, the lowering of electricity prices or other matters that supposedly have36

popular public support. After the election of their‘dream government’ in autumn 2009 reactor operators signalled willingness to compromise. This
has not always been the case and the Chancellor
and the Minister for the Environment would dowell to remember that the companies had previously proved under the Social Democrats andAlliance 90/the Greens coalition incapable of being loyal to an agreement. When the 2005 generalelection already appeared to have been won by
the Christian-Democrats and Liberals coalition
just a few days before polling day, the aforementioned Walter Hohlefelder, at that time E.on’s
chairman and at the same time president of theGerman Atomic Forum, candidly spoke out on
the question of a partial drawing off of the surplus profits resulting from life span extensions:“in terms of regulatory policy the creaming off ofprofits is totally unacceptable”, adding, “what possible interest can we expect commercially active
companies to have in extending the life spans of
power stations if there is no profit in it for them”.

Myths about Nuclear Energy(BMU 2009). According to the Nuclear Withdrawal
Act of 2002 the ‘bridge function’ of nuclear energy
in Germany will therefore end between 2020 and
2025. Apart from the companies’ interest in profit
there is no apparent reason to change anything –not even the alleged gap in the electricity supply
that is ‘cooked up’ from time to time. This will not
happen since coal and gas power stations will remain on the grid and supply sufficient power formuch longer than the specified term and evensome new ones will be constructed.

Withdrawing from nuclear energy
the smart way

Increasingly the real challenge is to make green
electricity, which is by its nature erratic, available
in the right place at the right time throughout theyear. This will be possible if the electricity grids
are gradually extended and restructured and if thegrid coupling points to abroad are strengthened.
It will also be necessary for existing electricity
storages such as pumped storage hydroelectricity facilities to be adopted
The coalition that was
In roadworks no one would dream ofand instead of for surplus
voted into power in 2009building a bridge which made getting
nuclear energy being usedassures us that it only
from A to B longer. It is exactly the same
to complement wind genintends to use nuclear
situation with the life span extensions
erated electricity and for
power stations for a limof nuclear power stations.
progress to be made in theited period as a ‘bridge’ indevelopment of new electhe transition to the regenerative 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 nuclether but rather a step by step farewell to nuclear ar power stations do not go from the grid graduallytechnology. A comparison of the expected ‘de- as planned but block it for decades instead.
parture’ of nuclear power stations following the
In roadworks no one would dream of building
Nuclear Withdrawal Act with the forecasts regularly 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 toof electricity generated by new wind, solar and a regenerative energy age would be longer andbio energy power stations will always more than Germany, instead of being in the vanguard of enmake up for the loss of nuclear electricity right up ergy change, would be lagging behind within auntil the last nuclear power station is shut down few years.

Seventh Myth: Nuclear Energy is Experiencing a RenaissanceSeventh Myth:

Nuclear Energy is Experiencing a Renaissance

37

38

Today nuclear power stations play an important part to a greater or lesser degree in theelectricity supply of the 30 countries where they
are operating commercially. In this way they
form in part the basis of the economy in thesecountries. Therefore, it is above all the respectiveenergy industry that up to now determines the
future – unless outside strategic or military strategic interests have a part to play. And this industry
under normal circumstances takes into consideration sober economic factors. The question ofwhether electricity generated by nuclear powermeans a licence to print money or is more likea bottomless pit can be answered depending on
the circumstances: if the reactor has reliably been
producing energy for 20 years and there is no reason to suppose it will not continue to do so, thenthe former is more likely –as long as no catastrophe that is potentially inherent in any power
station actually happens. But if the power station
first has to be built and moreover is the first in a
new series, investors would be well advised tosteer clear of any such project, unless they succeeded in passing on the incalculable costs toa third party. This would be the tax payer or theelectricity customer. The same principle applies
all over the world – even if it is the government
itself that builds the reactor, operates it and later
perhaps is responsible for its disposal. Even thenthe public foots the bill at some stage.
For private investors who have to, or wish to
opt for investments in the power plant industry
today, nuclear power stations are quite obviously
not their first choice. Even the empirical evidence
suggests this. According to the statistics of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna at
the beginning of 2010 there were 436 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide with a net electricity
capacity of around 370,000 megawatts. The zenith
was passed in 2002 with 444 reactors and sincethen the number has been gradually and continually decreasing. In the USA alone 104 reactors
are on line and since 1973 reactor constructors
have not taken on any new orders that were notsubsequently cancelled. Nevertheless, since 2007
the USA has been home to the oldest reactor
construction site in the world. At that time work
began again on Block 2 of the Watts Bar nuclear

Myths about Nuclear Energy

power station. The reactor is due to be completed by 2012 – 40 years after the foundations werelaid. In Western Europe (except France) reactor
constructors waited 25 years until 2005 for a newbuilding contract and even now there are only
two: one at Olkiluoto in Finland and another one
in Flamanville on the French Channel coast.
The European water pressure reactor of the
Areva/Siemens consortium turned in record timefrom being the showcase reactor of the Western
nuclear lobby into a nightmare for all stakeholders. The escalation of costs from the initial 3
billion to 5.4 billion Euros (2009) and the delay of
three and a half years so far (2012) of the start ofoperation have resulted in a case being brought
before a European Tribunal to settle the dispute
between contracting firm and constructor involving billions of Euros. In the case of the second EPR
there are also signs of a considerable escalation of
costs and delays.
In short, apart from Asian – to be precise,
Chinese – state-owned construction sites, thedemand for reactor constructors remains disappointingly low. According to the IAEA of the 56
reactors worldwide under construction at the beginning of 2010, two thirds of them are in Asia. China,
where 20 new nuclear power stations were being
built at the beginning of 2010, has started 15 newprojects within two years. In the case of eight of the
new reactors under construction, mainly in Russia
and Eastern Europe, 20 years have gone by since
they were first started. Under any other circumstances such building sites would be called ruins.

Renewable energy is the new global trend
The analysis prepared by Prognos AG of Basle,
for the Federal Office for Radiation Protection has
already been mentioned. With reference to thequestion “a renaissance for nuclear energy?” theexperts examined the development that can actually be expected based on the global planning ofand experience in nuclear power station construction. The result is as obvious as it is shattering forthe nuclear energy lobby: there will be no nuclear
renaissance by 2030. Quite the contrary, Prognos
AG analysts expect the number of nuclear powerSeventh Myth: Nuclear Energy is Experiencing a Renaissance39

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 con2030 (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 is2030 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 thean illusion – even more so in view of the explo- inevitable costs running into billions that thissive rate at which the overall capacity to produce would involve. As fuel costs are a smaller part ofelectricity 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 megawatts. 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 of2009 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 contional volume of nearly 60,000
sidering the increasing[F]or half a century the nuclear power
megawatts in spite of the glosusceptibility to failureindustry has always been high on
bal economic and financial
due to the age of theirpromises but short on delivery.
crisis.
reactors.
Although the role of nuclear energy is therefore proving marginal in the light of the gigantic
global increase in power plant capacity, reactor
operators are nevertheless fighting with determination to extend the operating life span of existing
reactors to well over the 25 to 30 years that was
originally estimated by their constructors. The
optimistic scenarios depicted by the IAEA expect
an average life span of 45 years for the existing
generation of reactors. In the last few years US
authorities have granted life spans of 60 years formore than half of all the 104 nuclear reactors. It is
expected that similar applications will be accepted for most of the remaining reactors. Meanwhile
the industry is discussing life spans of 80 years.
The actual average age of US reactors in 2010 is
30 years.
In the absence of any serious accidents to upset the balance and barring any expensive repairs
and long periods of shut down or any necessary
replacements of central components (e.g. thesteam generator) due to wear and tear or corro-This has in no way halted the continual decline of nuclear energy that has been taking placefor decades. In the USA eight years of aggressive
pro-nuclear power politics under the Bush administration did not lead to the building of one
new project. In Western Europe there are merely
two construction sites. Nevertheless, studies havebeen launched since decades with the purpose ofdemonstrating the ability of new nuclear power
plants to compete against other technologies forgenerating electricity. The drawback of these studies is that while at best their authors and sponsors
believe the forecasts, potential investors do not.
This is the first reason why there is so much uncertainty about the true costs of a new generationof reactors. There are no reliable data on the large
overall cost pools, especially the costs relating toconstruction, financing, disposal and dismantling – due to the fact that nearly all the publishedestimates are evaluated by analysts with considerable scepticism. And this in turn is due to thefact that all these figures as a rule originate fromconstructors who want to sell the reactors or from40

governments, associations or lobby groups intent
on gaining public support for the unpopular ideaof nuclear energy by promoting at the very least
the expectation of low electricity prices.
However, beyond these matters of self interest there are also problems from an objective
perspective. Because each new series of reactor
constructions so far has had to face the consequences of huge delays, costly compensation for‘teething problems’ and lengthy periods of shut
down, potential investors regard the ever optimistic prognoses of the builders of new reactors
with the utmost discomfort. Their experience:for half a century the nuclear power industry has
always been high on promises but short on delivery. In the USA almost half of the orders for over
250 reactors were later cancelled, mainly because
the costs of the power plants eventually put into
operation had on average more than doubled.
The magazine Forbes called the collapse of the
US nuclear industry in the middle of the 80s “thegreatest management catastrophe in economic
history”. Of the 1,000 nuclear power stations the
US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) had expected in the 70s for the turn of the century only
about 13% were built. Reactor constructors inWestern Europe and in the state economies ofEastern Europe also experienced similar situations.

Myths about Nuclear Energy

start of commercial nuclear fission start over andover again. Therefore in the 1970s and 1980s reactor manufacturers built increasingly bigger
reactors in the hope that they would produce, on
the whole, cheaper electricity than smaller units.
However, switching to economics of scale has not
solved the problem. A trend towards less costly
reactors has been an unfulfilled promise of reactor manufacturers for decades. Nuclear power
remains a high risk technology not only considered from the safety point of view but also fromthe financial one.

Subsidies to prevent nuclear depression

This applies particularly to the USA. For eight
years the Bush administration tried everything tomotivate the electricity suppliers in the country
into building new reactors. There was talk of up to
300 new nuclear power stations by 2050. However,
we are still waiting for the re-birth of the nuclear
industry (Squassoni 2009). George W. Bush left
his successor Barack Obama a whole range ofabundant promises of subsidies for the reluctant
electricity suppliers. Government guarantees ofover 80% of the total costs for the first of the newly
constructed power stations are seen as the mostimportant of these promises. In this way the enormous cost risk, for example due to the regulardelays in constructing new nuclear power stations, is passed on from the
A trend towards less costly reactors has
electricity suppliers andThere can be no relibeen an unfulfilled promise of reactor
the reactor constructors
able predictions as to the
manufacturers for decades. Nuclear
to the tax payer. Moreover
performance of a new
power remains a high risk technology
specific tax breaks are
power plant. This applies
not only considered from the safety point
intended as a measureeven more to the newof view but also from the financial one.
to artificially reduce thetypes of reactors based on
price of electricity genermainly untried technology. 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 governMoody’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 ofclear 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 othernew 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 subsily continuously and predictably along a ‘learning dies for American reactors should investors fromcurve’ 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 Renaissance41

And yet the US nuclear industry may not see all disposal capacity that had previously been apof 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 – letof government and start-up aid as insufficient. To alone the radioactive waste from military use andtrigger 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 CO2 tax. As early as 2003 the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) stated that comAlthough the US Nuclear Regulatory Commitpared 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, nothe event of a CO2 price of 100 dollars per tonne. In body, not even the American nuclear industry
2008 the US Congressional Committee on Science itself, believes that more than a handful of theseand 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 analythose produced by all the other competing low ses and prognoses coming from Wall Street andcarbon 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 averthat no subsidies would
age construction costs will
In effect an established technology
help without a simultanebe four times higher thanthat has to rely on such a degree ofous drastic price increase
the amounts quoted atgovernment subsidies in order to bein the fossil fuel compethe beginning of the rencompetitive is economically deadtition through CO2 taxes
aissance discussion. In aon its feet.
or an emissions trading
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 thethat 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 fromcally 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 ancally ruled out the option of nuclear power. The average of six cents. If by 2050 only 100 new nubudget 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 rethe construction of new reactors – a tribute to the actors – this would cost the American public overpowerful anti-climate protection coalition in the the life span of the reactors the enormous estiUSA. However, no one expects the present ad- mated sum of 1.9 to 4.4 trillion dollars more thanministration 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 theconstruction 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 othertion, projections made in 2009 showed that the side of the Atlantic are not the result of the bleak

42

picture painted by notorious nuclear critics. Even
the prototype of the European Water Pressure reactor, being developed as the third block of thenuclear power station Olkiluoto, is not a result of
the initiative of the Finnish electricity industry
but of political pressure. The driving force was thehunger for electricity which had been continuallyrising for two decades and resulted in a per-headelectricity consumption in Finland that was morethan double the European average. At the sametime politicians became increasingly worried
about their electricity supply becoming too dependent on Russian gas and feared that they would
not be able to adhere to the national commitment to climate protection as laid out in the Kyoto
agreement without any additional nuclear energy.
In the end the electricity supplier Teollisuuden
Voima Oy (TVO), which is largely publicly owned,
awarded the contract to the French-German construction consortium Areva/Siemens.
With the Olkiluoto project the international
nuclear community wanted to prove two things.
Firstly that a nuclear power plant that two
European heavyweights have been planning forover 20 years will actually be realised at somestage. And secondly that nuclear power in a liberalised electricity market can once again be aworthwhile investment. However, from the beginning doubts were justified since the financingof the project was made possible by means of astructure consisting of about 60 participants,
mainly electricity suppliers, who, in return for
their involvement, signed purchase guarantees
of comparatively high prices for the electricity to
be produced later in the reactor. In addition, TVO
and the producer consortium agreed on a fixedprice for the ‘ready-for-use’ reactor that was supposed to be three billion euros. A contract withsuch exceptionally attractive terms for the purchaser was possible as Areva/Siemens needed
the construction go-ahead at any price. Before
they had started digging the foundations it was
obvious that the reactor constructor had set a
particularly audacious cost framework in order toensure the triumph of the prototype reactor overfossil fuel power stations and other contenders
from the nuclear sector.

Myths about Nuclear Energy

At first reactor output was being constantly increased even during the development of the EPR
in the 1990s. Size alone was supposed to ensure
efficiency and effectiveness. Now the EPR with aprojected electricity output of 1,600 megawatts is
by far the nuclear power station with the highest
capacity in the world. However, the projections
that made the reactor in the tendering procedurecompetitive compared with other, even non-nuclear options, have meanwhile proved even more
illusionary than the opponents of nuclear energy
themselves had predicted. Along with the construction delay of at least three years, as alreadymentioned, and a cost explosion of around 80%
per cent it is unlikely that other targets will be met
either. For example, calculations as to its profitability were based on a 90% availability over the
lifetime of the reactor – a value that so far has never even been remotely achieved by a pilot plant– just as the estimated life span of 60 years has
not been achieved either. Therefore, long before
the completion of the project, it is clear that in thelight of the meanwhile applied changes to the parameters Olkiluoto 3 would never have been able
to succeed against the non-nuclear alternatives
that were competing with it. In other economic
sectors there is only one word for this kind of supply formation: dumping.
The financial arrangements of the reactor
project which were strongly influenced by theinterests of the home countries of the reactor
builders, Areva and Siemens, painted a similar
picture. The German Bavarian bank, BayernLB(Bayerische Landesbank) with its registered office in Munich and 50 per cent owned by the Free
State of Bavaria, where Siemens also has its head
office, was a partner of an international consortium which supported the EPR in Finland witha low interest loan (there was talk of an interest
rate of 2.6%) to the amount of 1. 95 billion Euros.
The French government came to the aid of Areva
with an export credit guarantee amounting to 610
million euros via the Coface agency. It is therefore
doubtful whether a decision in favour of investingin the nuclear power plant would ever have been
made without financial government support.

Seventh Myth: Nuclear Energy is Experiencing a RenaissanceThis problem did not arise at all in the building of the second EPR on the Normandy coast
at Flamanville, France, where the state-owned
company Areva is building the pressurised water
reactor for the state-owned electricity supplier
Électricité de France (EDF). As in Finland, thecosts are spiralling out of control. At the beginning of 2010, according to newspaper reports, thebuilding project was two years behind schedule.
Numbers three and four in the EPR series are due
to be built in China – that is to say under statecontrolled economic conditions.
As a result of the enormous uncertainty regarding the building of nuclear power stations
electricity suppliers and reactor builders areforced to attract venture capital at correspondingly high prices if they themselves cannot or do notwant to advance the money. Next to the building
costs capital expenditure is therefore the second
great chunk in the financing of a nuclear power
station. This problem too has grown more acutewith the deregulation of the energy markets in key
industrial nations. The financial and banking crisis has further intensified the situation and also
because the demand for electricity has decreased
considerably as a result of the economic slump.
Everything was better in the past – at least
for those who wanted to build, buy or financenuclear power stations. In times of monopolistic
electricity suppliers that were government guaranteed, investors could assume that their capitalwould always be refunded at the end of the day

43by the electricity consumers even in the case ofa reactor’s poor performance. However, in a deregulated energy market the situation is by nomeans certain any longer. Nuclear energy with
its exorbitantly high start-up investment and thetimescale for capital repayment lasting decades is
not compatible with deregulated markets. Capitalcosts explode – unless potential financiers do notchoose to invest in other technologies that are
not beset with these problems. This was the situation in many countries where highly efficient gas
power stations experienced a long-lasting boomin the last few decades for the following reasons:the building costs per installed kilowatt hour
proved to be decidedly lower, the time between
placing the order and the start of operation isshort and the plant components are largely madein factories in a production series. And in addition, because the fuel costs of natural gas, whichmake up a higher proportion of the total costs
than uranium does in nuclear power plants, werecomparatively low for a long time, nuclear power
stations had virtually no chance. In the meantime
the price of natural gas may be higher but at thesame time great progress is to be expected in thefield of renewable energy technology. The point at
which it seems overall more profitable for corporate finance to invest in these key technologies ofthe 21st century instead of in a new series of reactors has already been reached in many places.
This will also make it increasingly difficult for potential reactor builders to generate the necessary
investment capital.

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 proall-or-nothing gamble for investors. For instance, duction costs.
the time between the investment decision andthe start of the commercial operation is nowhereThat 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 attribof 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 inand 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[A nuclear renaissance?] There is noprocedure necessary. Orline, these power plants
evidence of any actual new projects in
it may well be that a court
once completed will hardthe majority of the countries involved indecides in favour of thely satisfy more than 4% ofspite of all the hype in the newspapers.
objections raised by nuthe Chinese demand forclear 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 remaincommercial 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 exincur 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 eviof 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 hypedismantling 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 enThe costs incurred for this and for the insur- ergy. They believe that with nuclear energy andance in case of possible accidents differ from by maintaining the traditional structures of thecountry to country. Estimating these costs, in energy economy they will better be able to comthis 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 conover 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 pubpayable 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 insooner or later they represent another source asking for government assistance.

The end of the nuclear power myth45

Quite obviously new nuclear power stations
We have seen that nuclear technology ocare 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 afteris part of the state doctrine and costs are therefore its commercial introduction kick-started bysecondary. Wherever in the future the construction billions’ worth of subsidies its protagonistsof a new reactor is envisaged within the frame- insist on, need and receive further governwork 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 ofof start-up capital forthe previously mentioned
its commercial launch.
[N]uclear energy is past its future,
American model of subsiAstonishingly, 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 shutloudly enough for ‘more
down periods during operation, fluctuating fuel market’ that are calling for and endorsing thiscosts and the costs incurred in decommissioning, exceptional approach as well. These are thedismantling and waste disposal which are difficult same ones who for many years and in many into 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, bioof radioactivity. No company in the world can do mass or geo-thermal – with arguments basedthat alone. Insurance companies are only liable on pure market theory. However, there was andfor 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 disprofinancial 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 ofcountries. 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 ofa 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 reup 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 nuis rapidly decreasing acclear power at all or at least
So far there is no renaissance ofcording to schedule, has to
not to any appreciable exnuclear energy. What we do have is
be replaced. The choicestent) bear the responsibility.
a renaissance of the proclamations
under consideration: theOne thing is already clear:
about nuclear energy.
rapid expansion of rethe 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 indecreasing proportion of fossil fuel energies – or a revival of a high risk technology born out of thealternatively 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 proclamareactors 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 Germantion 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, agenerally 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 of5	Conservative CDU and pro-business FDP.

The decision: The future of energy supply

nuclear energy there is a revival of a socio-politicaldebate. Its outcome is uncertain. The new building projects known to have been authorised so far
are not even enough to maintain the contributionof nuclear energy to the global production of electricity – not in absolute terms and certainly not in
relative terms.
Up to now, nuclear power station projects
only exist where this form of electricity production shapes part of the state doctrine or where
governments are prepared to advance billions
as a safeguard against the security and financial
risks involved. Anyone wanting to build new nuclear power stations or is politically encouraged
to do so – as for example in the USA or in the UK– needs the government almost as much as thepioneers of nuclear energy did in the 1960s.
It sounds paradoxical but the commercial
launch of nuclear energy at the time was madepossible because no electricity market existed
that could have made it an inefficient proposition.
Because on the one hand the provision of electricity was considered overall to be a ‘natural
monopoly’ owing to the electricity grid monopoly,and on the other hand, being one of the generalpublic services it was provided by state-owned orsimilar companies – in any case by quasi-monopolies. Therefore, in most industrialised countries it was
the government that initially led the way in launching nuclear energy for overt or secret military andlater industrial-political reasons. The government
bore the immense costs of research, development
and the commercial launch of the new technology either directly or it ensured the shifting of theseburdens onto the consumer through its influenceon the electricity price structuring of the electricity
suppliers.
In a functioning deregulated electricity market the building of new nuclear power stations is
as yet not an attractive proposition for companies. It is not only in the USA that there are much
more financially attractive options with nowhere
near comparable economic risks. Therefore no
new nuclear power stations are built within a freemarket economy even if electricity demand andpower station output increase overall – unless the47

public purse bears once again a large proportionof the financial risks as it once did at the launch of
nuclear energy. That is what they did in Finland
and that is what they will do in America unless thepolicy change that many experts are anticipating under the Obama administration really does
result in the cancellation of the long-awaited planning approvals for new reactors. Neither can theroute of generous subsidies be generalised as ina functioning power station construction market
the competitors from other sectors – namely andincreasingly more importantly from the renewable energies sector – will not sit by idly forever
and watch the government one-sidedly subsidisea 50-year old technology. This criticism is alreadybeing heard in the USA. For instance in 2009 representatives of the Natural Resources Defence
Council before the US Senate demanded that theconstruction of a series of reactors already tried
and tested abroad should not be given financial
support again in the USA, saying that the nuclear
route signified not only market interference tothe detriment of other technologies but also led
to an economically inefficient route being takenin the change to a low-carbon energy industry(Cochran/Paine 2009).
At the beginning of the 21st century an impartial reappraisal of all aspects of nuclear energy
leads to an unequivocal conclusion – it is the sameas it was 30 years ago:
the risks of catastrophe which at the time
made nuclear energy the most controversial formof electricity production have not been overcome;the new dangers of terrorist attacks categorically rule out an expansion of this technology ininsecure regions of the world;
the global expansion of electricity generated by nuclear power would lead to a shortage of
uranium fuel even more quickly than if the statusquo were maintained – or else force the blanketchangeover to breeder technology. Such a newtechnological orientation would be tantamountto committing nuclear technology to the so-called
plutonium path once and for all. It would raise

48

the risk of catastrophic accidents, terrorist attacks
and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to a new,even more critical, level;

Myths about Nuclear Energy

does not stop the expansion in China – and may
the people living there be spared such a fate– dozens of reactors will go on line there. And
this will continue until the money runs out orwith 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 muchis 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 thatson not to further intensify this problem afflicting have been written off, but rather it is politics thatmankind by increasing the volume of waste;is bringing nuclear energy into the equation – innuclear energy cannot solve the climate prob- the light of diminishing fossil resources, greatlylem. 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 protecon the whole, would only lead into a belated and tion. All three aspects are driving the debate inmodest contribution to climate protection – if at all. the USA, even after the changeover from the ferLacking any industrial capacity for extension, ow- vent nuclear power supporter George W. Bushing to the immense costs and a multiplication of the to the moderate sceptic, Barack Obama. And it isattendant risks involved, nuclear energy would be these aspects that triggered the construction ofjust as unrealistic as it would be irresponsible. On the new reactor in Finland, the campaign to withthe 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 surof existing power stations
rounding the construction
If we want to avert catastrophic global
there will be a considerableof new reactors in many
warming, why should we choose thedecrease in global reactor
other countries.
slowest, most expensive, most ineffeccapacity in the coming dective, least flexible and riskiest option?
ades. At the same time there
All over the world
Source: “nature, Scientific Journal”
are solid predictions that apoliticians tend to plan
global energy strategy whichand continue within theabove 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 themthe 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 nusary reductions in CO2 emissions – even without clear energy more than half a century after the
resorting to nuclear energy. The challenges that start of the commercial production of electricthis involves are huge but so are the possibilities. ity in nuclear power plants – as if it were theOvercoming 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 incalaims – ‘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 morerevival 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 andtervention. This does not of course mean that it Liberals coalition government are at their servis 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

ageing reactors and in precisely this way they are
helping the companies to make surplus profits
amounting to billions – companies whose market dominance they deplore at length in theirsoap box oratories.
But in any case, the principles of logic hardly
ever play any real part in the fundamental conflictsurrounding the future of nuclear energy. As earlyas October 2007 the arguably most renowned
scientific journal, nature commented thus on49

the development: “The nuclear energy industry
needs climate change more than climate change
needs the nuclear energy industry. If we want toavert catastrophic global warming, why should
we choose the slowest, most expensive, most ineffective, least flexible and riskiest option? In 1957
it was right to attempt this with nuclear energy.
Today nuclear energy is simply an obstacle in thetransition to a sustainable electricity supply.”
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 ofmetallurgy, 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 SuessCover:

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 constructedaround 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 towerof 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 pullingthe wool over our eyes
By Gerd Rosenkranz

The advocates of nuclear energy in many industrialised countries
take obvious delight in what they call the ‘de-ideologisation’ of
the conflict surrounding this energy. In view of climate change
and an ever-increasing shortage of fossil energy sources, thetone is said to have become “calmer and more reasonable”. In
particular the supporters of nuclear electricity production are
jubilant about this easing of tension unless there happens to be
an election looming. For decades the political-societal debate
has moved away from the fundamental safety issues of nuclear
energy to questions about the economy, climate protection, theconservation of resources and the safeguarding of energy supplies. In public perception, nuclear energy could thus become
one technology among many, its use being simply a questionof weighing everything in the same way as choosing between
coal and natural gas power stations. Nuclear fission is thus

becoming increasingly integrated into what economists havedefined as the triangle of the political energy debate consisting of economic viability, safeguarding energy supplies and theimpact on the environment. The fact that safeguarding against
catastrophes is not an aim of nuclear energy is of less concern
to its supporters. On the contrary they are extremely satisfied. Supporters of nuclear energy are becoming increasingly
successful at concealing this technology’s unique potential forcatastrophe behind a wall of arguments, all of which have one
main purpose: to distract from the fundamental questions ofsafety. This publication provides the long due knowledge for
critically debating nuclear power, identifying alternatives andexposing nuclear power as what it is: an irresponsible and expensive high-risk technology.

Rue d’Arlon 15, -1050 Brussels, Belgium
T +32 2 743 41 00 F 32 2 743 41 09
E brussels@boell.eu W www.boell.eu

Washington Office - 1638 R Street, NW, Suite 120
Washington, DC 20009, USA
T 1 (202) 462-7512 W http://www.boell.org