Leader: For the sake of the planet we cannot follow Germany’s lead

Germany's decision to reject nuclear power will lead to an increase in carbon emissions.

By Staff blogger Published 02 June 2011

In September 2010, Angela Merkel announced plans to extend the operating lives of Germany's 17 nuclear power stations and hailed a "revolution in energy provision". But, just eight months later, the German chancellor has declared that her country will become a nuclear-free state by 2022. The decision, prompted by the Fukushima disaster in Japan, may appear quixotic in a country not known for its high levels of seismic activity.

But Mrs Merkel's retreat has more to do with politics than policy. The German electorate is overwhelmingly opposed to nuclear energy - 88 per cent would like to see all plants closed down - and Mrs Merkel's pro-nuclear stance contributed to the disastrous performance of the Christian Democrats in the five regional elections this year. In addition to Germany, Switzerland has announced that it will decommission all of its nuclear power plants by 2034 and Italy has abandoned plans to re-establish a nuclear energy industry.

In Britain, by comparison, the anti-nuclear backlash has been mild. Following the completion of a post-Fukushima safety review, the government has reaffirmed its support for the technology and is committed to building eight new nuclear power stations by 2025. Yet a recent YouGov poll found that more of the public (48 per cent) now oppose nuclear power than support it (40 per cent). In addition, 55 MPs, including Zac Goldsmith, Caroline Lucas and Charles Kennedy, have signed an early-day motion calling on the government to suspend plans for a new nuclear programme. And, in Scotland, the SNP has vowed to use devolved planning laws to block another generation of power stations. The case for nuclear power must be made anew.

The context in which all energy policy is formed is one in which the planet is warming at a potentially catastrophic speed. The latest figures from the International Energy Agency suggest that the world will fail to prevent a disastrous 2°C rise in global temperatures. At a time when we need to combat climate change by all means necessary, it makes no sense for the UK to abandon nuclear power, a low-carbon energy source that accounts for 20 per cent of all electricity production. Renewable technologies such as solar, wind and wave power should complement rather than replace nuclear energy. Germany's rejection of nuclear power, which at present produces 26 per cent of its electricity, will leave it more dependent on coal, the most carbon-dense of fossil fuels, as well as more reliant on oil-rich autocracies. Deutsche Bank analysts predict that the decision will add an extra 370 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide emissions to the atmosphere by 2020. Should other industrial nations follow Germany's lead, the result will be a vast - and entirely avoidable - increase in global emissions.

Against this, policymakers must weigh up the undoubted shortcomings of nuclear power - the safety risks, the waste and the cost. In a post-Fukushima world, it is unlikely that new plants will be built without some form of public subsidy. However, it would be reckless of ministers to deny a place for nuclear as part of a balanced portfolio of energy sources. The twin imperatives of environmental sustainability and energy security make this no time for Britain to turn its back on nuclear power.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

View the discussion thread.

8 comments

Mon, 2011-07-04 13:45 — rockjock (not verified)

Why not remove the subsidies from all forms of power generation. There is no point running an argument that nuclear can only exist because of subsidy. At the moment the biggest subsidies go to photo voltaic closely followed by wind. A typical 2.5MW turbine will receive £275K per year in subsidy via the ROC system.

Neither is there an argument based on nuclear safety - the tsunami killed 25,000 people in japan if you include the confirmed death toll and those still classified as missing. The Fukoshimi plant death toll was 11 in an explosion. There are more people than taht killed on the raods of the UK every day.

Nuclear power is simply not the most dangerous thing that man ever invented.

Thu, 2011-06-16 17:00 — south pacific

The choice is suffocating from pollution or dying from atomic contamination.

One hell of a choice.

Suicide might be the only painless way out.

Thu, 2011-06-02 20:10 — Hey now.. (not verified)

"In a post-Fukushima world, it is unlikely that new plants will be built without some form of public subsidy." Old plants received public subsidies, too; the entire nuclear industry has been heavily subsidised ever since it began. The costs to the public will only continue to soar if the nuclear folly is not finally laid to rest. Just because Germany leads the way, is no reason to resist!

Sun, 2011-06-05 13:20 — Gideon Polya

While carbon dioxide (CO2) is not released in the nuclear fission part of nuclear power generation it is generated in the overall nuclear power process which is occurring in the context of a carbon-based economy e.g. through uranium oxide mining, transport and milling, uranium enrichment, plant building, waste disposal and plant decommissioning.

Thus Professor Mark Diesendorf (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) says that for the more common low-grade uranium oxide ore the overall nuclear power cycle emits more CO2 than an equivalent gas-fired power station (see: http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/CT_nukes_CO2.pdf ).

The racist Zionist (RZ)-beholden Western Murdochracies rail against nuclear energy exploitation by Iran, a country that has not invaded any other countries for several centuries, does not want nuclear weapons, is not developing nuclear weapons and has repeatedly argued for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East.(a proposition vehemently rejected by the UK's nuclear terrorist friends the US and genocidal Apartheid Israel).

Indeed taking racist Zionist and US propaganda at face value provides a good case for the UK not to be allowed a nuclear power industry - Britain has been invading other countries for 1,000 years, has nuclear weapons, is a nuclear terrorist state and in the last 2 decades has been involved in devastating military invasion of Iraq (4.6 million war-related deaths , 1990-2011 in an Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide ) , Afghanistan (5.0 million war-related dead in 2001-2011, an Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide) and now of Libya with about 1,000 Libyans killed so far in the France-UK-US (FUKUS) Coalition attacks on Libyan cities and towns (once relatively prosperouis Libya is being bombed back t the Stone Age by nuclear terrorist rogue states the UK, US and new Vichy France).

Indeed 1950-2005 avoidable deaths from UK hegemony-linked deprivation in countries occupied by nuclear terrorist UK since 1945 total 727 million - the corresponding death tolls being 142 million for countries occupied post-1945 by nuclear terrorist France and 82 million f or victims of the nuclear terrorist US (for the Awful Truth see my book "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950": http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ).

Sun, 2011-06-05 17:14 — matt (not verified)

All very interesting, but I'll make 2 predictions. In 2022 they will produce less carbon than we do (relying instead on a far greater share of green power) - as we fail to get the necessary nuclear power plants running. They'll also extend their economic lead over us.

Mon, 2011-06-06 21:54 — Tim the plumber (not verified)

How about we build a power transmission line to iceland and use geo-thermal power from all the volcanoes. The loss of power in the line will be less than 50% and the cost of it would be a lot less than one nuclear station.

I don't like nuclear power. It is the one thing which is actually lickly to render the planet uninhabitable.

Wed, 2011-06-08 11:35 — jogblog (not verified)

Since electricity generation by all methods accounts for at most, 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, this article is a bit of a red herring. Most anthropogenic greenhouse gases come from transport, heat production (domestic and industrial) and above all, agriculture and agriculture related activities such as forest clearing, ruminant breeding etc.

Thu, 2011-06-02 14:05 — bessielodber1210

The assumption here is that investment in alternative energy sources; wind, solar, wave energies, will continue at the pathetically minuscule pace we see today.

Removing our nuclear energy reliance could be the very thing that pushes us to take alternative energy sources more seriously.

Global warming is already at catastrophic levels, we are already beyond stopping a 2C global rise in temperatures. What we need is a long term energy source that has minimal effect on future generations.

Nuclear is not the answer. Besides the financial cost of even one disaster is enough to put the whole industry out of business.