Nuclear fallout
Aug 2nd 2007 | BERLIN
From The Economist print edition
Two accidents heat up the debate over whether to revive nuclear power to fight climate change
EPA
UNTIL recently, nuclear power seemed to be making its way back into public favour in Germany. A warm winter, and dire warnings by scientists about climate change, convinced many that carbon emissions might be a bigger danger than nuclear accidents or radioactive waste. Opinion polls this spring showed that fewer than half of Germans favoured continuing the policy, adopted in 2000, of phasing out all nuclear plants by 2021.
About a quarter of Germany's electricity still comes from nuclear reactors, and the country's four big power companies had dared to hope for a reprieve for nuclear power—at least to extend the life of existing reactors, if not permission to build new ones. But that changed at the end of June, when two separate accidents at nuclear plants operated by Vattenfall, a Swedishcompany, in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein, set back the pro-nuclear lobby once again.
The mishaps—a short-circuit at the Brunsbüttel plant and a transformer fire at the Krümmel station—posed little threat. But Vattenfall botched its public relations (and later sacked its German boss), while environmentalists gave warning that the accidents could have been much worse. Public support for the nuclear phase-out climbed back over 50%.
This presents Germany with a dilemma. The chancellor, Angela Merkel, a physicist who in the past helped negotiate the Kyoto Protocol, is a strong campaigner against climate change and wants Germany to set an example. By 2020 the country aims to emit 40% less greenhouse gas than it did in 1990, exceeding the ambitious 30% reduction set by the European Union. But her “grand coalition” is divided over how to do it. Ms Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) wants nuclear power plants, which do not emit carbon dioxide, to run beyond the deadline, buying extra time for the introduction of greener energy. No way, say the Social Democrats, the CDU's reluctant partners. Their role in approving the nuclear phase-out is one of their few strong political cards. Sigmar Gabriel, the Social Democratic environment minister, insists that energy conservation and renewables can make up for the loss of nuclear power.
Germany's decision will be watched closely elsewhere in Europe, where similar debates are taking place. France remains committed to nuclear power, which provides nearly four-fifths of its electricity, and exports both electricity and nuclear-power reactors. Italy has given up nuclear power (but has interests in foreign nuclear plants). Sweden voted to phase it out by 2010 but is having second thoughts. Finland sees nuclear power as an attractive alternative to fossil fuels, while Britain is thinking of building new nuclear plants.
Germany's aversion to nuclear power may run counter to its desire for both cheap electricity and security of supplies. It is set to replace half its ageing power stations (nuclear and conventional) over the next 15 years. Ms Merkel has presided over three “energy summits”, the last one in July, but there is still no clear idea of how to fill the gap left by the nuclear phase-out.
The environment ministry, created after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, has many ideas. Seeking to boost Germany's energy efficiency by 3% a year, it proposes offering tax incentives to modernise buildings and imposing road tolls not only on heavy vehicles but also on light trucks. It wants to tweak subsidies for renewable energy, which already cost consumers some €4 billion ($5.5 billion) a year. Solar energy (not much use in cloudy Germany) would get less, while offshore wind power would get more.
Only the most stubborn optimists think this will be enough. The efficiency target looks unrealistic. Renewable energy, which already generates an impressive 13% of German electricity, will grow either slowly or at great cost. That leaves unpleasant options. Gas is relatively clean, but it is expensive and its main supplier, Russia, has alarmed European countries by periodically choking off oil and gas supplies to those (such as Ukraine and Belarus) that fall out of favour.
The great temptation is therefore to revert to coal, which is cheap, abundant in Germany and, at least until carbon-storage technology is ready, bad for global warming. Ms Merkel has so far done too little to resist its lure. Indeed, Germany subsidises new coal plants by granting them extra permits under the European Union's emissions trading scheme. Around 40 coal-fired generators are being planned, most of them with no provision for capturing carbon emissions (for example by pumping it underground), says Claudia Kemfert of DIW, a think-tank in Berlin.
But the incentives may change. Mark Lewis, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, argues that the carbon-credit subsidy for coal is likely to be withdrawn when the European Union tightens up emissions targets after 2012, making conventional coal riskier. Could that revive nuclear power yet again? Electricity generating companies are pushing to extend the operation of older nuclear plants, in the hope of keeping them open until the 2009 elections, which might bring in a more nuclear-friendly government.
Critics accuse the firms of profiteering, noting that the plants, whose costs have been largely paid off, generate profits of €1m a day. Some analysts suggest keeping them running and imposing windfall taxes that could be used to promote renewable energy. But most Germans would rather kill nuclear power than milk it.