With a rough coalition, there could be a runtime extension of AKWs, so again a look at the arguments of the atom lobby
The coalition negotiations go dragend. There comes the dispute over the arrangement of the maturities of the nuclear power plants just correct to bring the whole card house to collapse in addition to the difficult personal details. But also the unions are embarrassed with their latest statement, because they lightbirdly follow the arguments of the industry instead of representing their own positions.
The exit from the nuclear energy is a long-worn and well-groomed favorite child of the green. That was not just one of their basic ideas, but is ultimately one of the few presentable successes of their seven-year coalition. They have made the exit from nuclear power with a lot of effort and zaha negotiations with the energy companies and their own coalition partner and in return for many other demands of an ecological development small.
Now that everything should be questioned again. The Union has already played months ago with the idea of a runtime extension for the atom lobby and made it to her mouthpiece. Last week then supported support from the unions. In a joint explanation, the electricity companies with the unions IGBCE and Verdi for a defining of the runtimes. Special attention has found that even Verdi boss Bsirske has set his signature under the call.
The call is based on a perfectly accurate study of the BDI completed study. It has been advertised with the reduced CO2 emissions as well as additional workplaces of a runtime extension, 42.000 should be according to the industry representatives. However, it will forget that it is already about 130.000 workplaces in the field of renewable energies gives rise to the further expansion of renewable energies up to half a million, so more than ten times as much as the scenario of atomic lobby.
And also the CO2 reduction due to atomic energy is only yes, if one follows the logic of the electricity groups, after which the regenerative energies are unable to secure our energy supply. Here, it is simply amed that instead of the switched-off atomic particles then gas and coal-fired power plants must be used. The renewable energies are available to the genouses and the previous successes in their commitment are by far the forecasts of the skeptics, as Craig Morris has already shown elsewhere .
Marchen of Atomlobby
Also at this study of the BDI you can see how the atom lobby always simply compared apple with pears and then – already scientifically packed – bite-friendly happchen for the media and the politicians are extrapolated. It is therefore time to take up again with some marches of the atomic lobby:
Atomic energy is safe. As with all technical feasories, nuclear power plants are not completely safe. The commodities of nuclear energy are happy to speak of a "residual risk". For all reactor types operated in Germany, a melting of the reactor as in Chernobyl is not excluded, even though the opposite is maintained again and again. Smaller Stammalle are even on the agenda. And with about 450 reactors worldwide, statistical analysis from a super-Gau somewhere in the world is about every 100 to 200 years. But those have not included the threat by increasingly pointing terrorists.
And what is likely to be concealed by the caratinations: Civil and military use of atomic energy are two pages and the same medal. The European Commission published a study in 2003, after which up to 65 million people already died of the consequences of the military and civil use of atomic energy .
From an operating time of the reactors of about 20 years, the risk of operating sites and thus an accident increases significantly. The intended relocation of the remaining maturities of up to 60 years makes atomic energy so much more dangerous than it is already possible anyway.
Atomic energy is cheap. Atomic energy is probably one of the most expensive energy productions that we operate today. The hidden costs of the atomic current are raised not only today's taxpayers, but also equal generations for the next millennia.
This already begins with the tremendous research and development costs for the atomic technology, which is almost exclusively at the expense of taxpayers. Even now, nuclear research is still far more demanded than all regenerative energies.
If the nuclear power plant operators had to insure their plants as well as any other operation, they were able to seal the same. But here, too, there are special conditions: the power plant operators can are each other and the damage is simply limited by decree to 2.5 billion. Even careful estimates, however, go from a more than a thousand-fold damage in a Gau. In the case of all cases, the Germans were not much better ared than the people of Chernobyl.
That ends in the disposal. Although the nuclear power producers set a certain amount for the disposal of the mulls, but we can keep the money and speculate with it. Whether the money is still available when it is needed is questionable. And how much money the disposal will cost, is not yet fixed at all. But it can not be too much, because the problem of final storage is only a few millennia. The next generations will already judge.
Atomic energy has the future. Even with optimistic estimates, the uranium reserves are still highest 60, but probably 30 to 40 years. This is true when operating the existing nuclear particles, if you also include the suspected reserves. If the nuclear power is further expanded, the stock decreases accordingly.
Only the bruters technology promises a way out here. But that has remained only a promise. The fast bruters in Kalkar is never gone from different reasons, but above all because of safety-technical problems. 5 billion taxpayers set in the sand. Also in all other countries, the bruters technology has been set to gigantic investment and sympathetic failure mostly.
To date, there is still no repository in sight. There are also almost 30 years of intensive research and exploration financed with taxpayers. So we still do not know where to become with the whole high-radioactive mull, which has been in recent decades and still comes. Meanwhile, it is recycled, intermediate and upgraded or by American example just as a tank breaking ammunition in Kosovo or Iraq. Also a form of entreatment.
That atomic energy is future-proof, let probably not really say. Rather, she contradicts all the rules of sustainability: it is dangerable, in time only very limited and leaves the next generation of incalculable risks
So why put on nuclear power?
The actual core of the story is probably a completely different. Regenerative energies can be generated and inserted decentralized. For this you do not require any major electricity companies, which then play highly a role as basic load supplier and residual utilizers. If everyone can generate its electricity itself, not only the structures of energy generation but also the structures of their financing are completely changed. And exactly before the current beneficiary of the powerful electricity cartels are scared. A delay of the nuclear phase-out is the old central structures for at least for a while. Above all, she now gives the wrong signal for the future.
Thus, the offer of electricity giants, the gains from the prolonged maturities of their nuclear particles into the exploration of regenerative energies makes sense,. Firstly, the transition to the regenerative energies once again delayed for at least a decade and secondly, they want to finance the inevitable transition to the new energies as well. With the patents gained from this, at least the production and distribution of the new energy carrier can be monopolized.
Profit will make the electricity cartels properly with the runtime extensions. If an atomic divider is written off first, the operation is indeed relatively inexpensive. For the follow-up costs, all others, only not the operators pay.
The anti-nuclear movement has aroused the whole hype from the dorn paste. The calls back to nationwide demonstrations – as in old times. But in the style of the new mediocracy, you can also sign a letter to the negotiators of the SPD, but please not bend in the coalition negotiations. Whether it really helps remain to be seen.