Nuclear Technology Germany Association says Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) will always be more expensive than large ones.
German nuclear industry cautious about usefulness of small reactors for energy transition, Nuclear phase-out Technology, Clean Energy Wire, Süddeutsche Zeitung , 6 Nov 20 Small Modular Reactors (SMR) are increasingly hailed as an effective way for using nuclear power to curb the climate crisis without the major risks associated with conventional nuclear plants, but Germany’s nuclear industry is sceptical whether the small reactors really can help boost international climate action, Christian J. Meier writes for the Süddeutsche Zeitung
……… Nicolas Wendler of industry association Nuclear Technology Germany (KernD) says SMRs are always going to be more expensive than bigger reactors due to lower power output at constant fixed costs, as safety measures and staffing requirements do not vary greatly compared to conventional reactors. In terms of levelised energy costs, SMRs will always be more expensive than big plants.” In order for SMRs to be profitable, these should run at maximum utilisation most of the time, Wendler argues, concluding that the potential on the German market would not be much greater than what is needed to adjust oscillating renewable power production…. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-nuclear-industry-cautious-about-usefulness-small-reactors-energy-transition
|
Nuclear wastes from Sellafield UK to arrive in Germany
A ship carrying six containers of waste from the Sellafield reprocessing plant in England docked in the early morning in Nordenham, news agency dpa reported. From there, it is to be transported by train to the now-closed Biblis nuclear power plant south of Frankfurt, several hundred kilometres (miles) away.
Germany has a strong anti-nuclear movement and waste transports have often drawn large protests. Activists question the safety of the waste containers and storage sites.
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan nine years ago, Germany decided to phase out its own nuclear power generation by the end of 2022. The Biblis plant is one of several that was taken offline in 2011, but the site remains in use as a provisional storage facility for nuclear waste.
Germany recently launched a new search for a permanent site to store its most radioactive waste. A final decision is slated for 2031 and the aim is to start using the selected site in 2050.
Hitler’s quest for nuclear weapons
WW2: Hitler’s true nuclear capacity exposed in secret sabotage mission that ‘saved world’
WORLD WAR 2 saw the Allies cooperate to fight Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany but jaw-dropping documents reveal just how close he came to using nuclear weapons. Express UK By CALLUM HOARE Oct 21, 2020 The German nuclear weapons programme was an unsuccessful scientific effort to research and develop atomic weapons during World War 2. It went through several phases but was ultimately “frozen at the laboratory level” with historians and scholars alike generally agreeing it failed on all fronts. With that, Hitler is thought to have focused more on his revolutionary V1 and V2 rockets, but he came terrifyingly close to arming them with nuclear warheads, according to declassified papers unearthed by writer and filmmaker Damien Lewis.
“The greatest fear was that the Nazis had mastered the technology to fit a nuclear or radiological charge to the V2s, in which case there would be no defence possible.
“Churchill ordered aerial surveys to forewarn of such attacks – dry-run rehearsals to prepare for such an ordeal, and for frontline doctors to be briefed on the symptoms of radiation poisoning.
Such fears were very real. Following German physicist Otto Hahn splitting the atom in December 1938, the Allies believed the Germans to be two years ahead in the race to build the atom bomb.”
In May 1940, German forces struck a further blow in the race for nuclear supremacy after seizing Olen, Belgium, where the largest remaining stock of European uranium was located.
British intelligence reports on Operation Peppermint found by Mr Lewis revealed fears from London.
One read: “Since the fall of Belgium, much of the largest stock of uranium has been available [to Germany] from the refinery.”
According to Mr Lewis, its destination was the AuerGesellschaft refinery, at Oranienburg, Germany.
Allied research suggested it would require 20,000 workers, half a million watts of electricity and $150million (£114million) in expenditure to build the world’s first atom bomb.
Hitler, who now controlled most of western Europe, could demand such resources.
And, in concentration camps, he had access to millions of workers.
According to Mr Lewis, its destination was the AuerGesellschaft refinery, at Oranienburg, Germany.
Allied research suggested it would require 20,000 workers, half a million watts of electricity and $150million (£114million) in expenditure to build the world’s first atom bomb.
Hitler, who now controlled most of western Europe, could demand such resources.
And, in concentration camps, he had access to millions of workers.
“Details of Operation Peppermint and the measures taken to prepare for a Nazi nuclear strike were revealed in papers that I unearthed from the National Archives.
“This came as a great surprise to me, for I was unaware that the Allied wartime leaders viewed Nazi Germany’s nuclear programme as such a real and present threat.”
However, a top secret heroic mission would lead to a breakthrough……..
Hunting Hitler’s Nukes: The Secret Race to Stop the Nazi Bomb’ is published by Quercus and available to buy here. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1350513/world-war-2-hitler-nuclear-capacity-secret-winston-churchill-operation-peppermint-spt
In Germany , a new dispute over the old abandoned Gorleben nuclear waste site
16 October 2020 Pledge Times (India/Germany)
New dispute over Gorleben
In an interview, the President of Germany’s Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management says it was problematic that Gorleben (current interim but beleaguered radwaste site) has been ruled out in the first review stage of the process to identify a geological repository site. The Green Party responded that the President “did not understand the procedure for which he is in charge. The search for a repository follows scientific criteria.”
Lower Saxony opposes building of nuclear power plants by Netherlands – location all too close

German state of Lower Saxony against nuclear power plant in bordering Netherlands, Nuclear phase-out 08 Oct 2020, Kerstine Appunn,– NWZ Online
The northern German state of Lower Saxony has been rattled by Dutch plans to assess the construction of up to 10 new nuclear power plants, one of which could be located near the German border. “I will do everything in my power to prevent the Netherlands from seeing a new dawn of nuclear power,” Lower Saxony’s environment minister Olaf Lies (SPD) told Stefan Idel at NWZ online. The Netherlands has only one of formerly two nuclear power stations operating but governing party VVD has suggested that reaching the Paris Agreement climate targets would require the construction of new nuclear plants.
Lies said he was surprised by the Dutch announcement, calling it a “a gigantic step backwards into old times” to invest into new nuclear power plants and “irresponsible” to produce more nuclear waste. The minister said he expected strong resistance in the Northwest of the state. Members of the Green Party in Lower Saxony’s parliament announced they would work together with their Dutch sister party “GroenLinks” to stop this “economic and ecologic lunacy”.
While a study for the Dutch government said that nuclear power had a similar price as renewable installations, critics insist that nuclear power is by now much more expensive. Lies said he would focus on promoting joint renewable energy projects. Germany will phase-out its last nuclear power plants by the end of 2022 and is currently in the decade-long process of finding a permanent repository for the nuclear waste generated in the past 60 years. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-state-lower-saxony-against-nuclear-power-plant-bordering-netherlands
Nuclear no option for hydrogen production: German government
Energy ministry state secretary Feicht says, however, that the rule of nuclear will be discussed at an EU level, Recharge 6 October 2020 By Bernd Radowitz
“Nuclear isn’t an option for our energy system, be it the production of electricity for our electricity demand, [or] for the production of hydrogen,” Andreas Feicht, secretary of state in Germany’s economics and energy ministry, said at a virtual conference on hydrogen organized by his ministry……..
Green’ or ‘carbon-free’ hydrogen?
Germany by the end of 2022 will phase out its last atomic power stations, and in its €9bn ($10.6bn) national hydrogen strategy has laid down that it strives to ramp up a ‘green hydrogen’ economy mostly based on renewables such as offshore wind, with a temporary and limited role for ‘blue hydrogen’ produced from natural gas linked to carbon capture and storage (CCS)…………..
the Dutch government is planning to launch a consultation on building new nuclear power plants after a study commissioned by its economics and climate ministry claimed atomic energy is as cheap as wind or solar power – and supposedly the safest way to produce electricity in the country.
The study was conducted by a nuclear energy consultancy with links to the nuclear industry, though. At the same time, a flurry of studies advises against a nuclear renaissance.
‘Nuclear and renewables don’t mix’
The University of Sussex Business School and the ISM International School of Mangement this week published an analysis of 123 countries over 25 years in Nature Energy that concludes that nuclear and renewables don’t mix, and only the latter can deliver truly low carbon energy.
The researchers found that unlike with renewables, countries around the world with larger scale nuclear attachments do not tend to show significantly lower carbon emissions – and in poorer countries nuclear programmes actually tend to associate with relatively higher emissions.
The researchers found that unlike with renewables, countries around the world with larger scale nuclear attachments do not tend to show significantly lower carbon emissions – and in poorer countries nuclear programmes actually tend to associate with relatively higher emissions.
Champagne of power fuels
Michael Bloss, a Green Party member of the European Parliament, at the same hydrogen conference stressed that only “green hydrogen is clean hydrogen.”
Blue hydrogen as considered as a temporary option by the German government is no real option due to high amounts of methane leakage during its production, which he argued is “much more detrimental for the climate than CO2.”
Despite €3.7bn in EU investments into CCS since 2009 (according to the European Court of Auditors), the technology remained at the “beginning of its development” and is still “not ready to be applied,” Bloss said.
Renewable energies such as offshore wind, meanwhile, are the most cost-competitive energy source and should be used for hydrogen production, he added, without going into the nuclear versus renewables controversy.
Bloss, however, stressed that it has been said that “hydrogen is the Champagne among power fuels,” which must be used only in difficult-to-decarbonise sectors where it cannot be replaced by other applications, such as steel, cement or chemicals.https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/nuclear-no-option-for-hydrogen-production-german-government/2-1-887905
90 areas in Germany identified as potentially suitable for nuclear waste burial
Agency report identifies 90 areas in Germany suitable as nuclear waste repository, https://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2020/09/29/agency-report-identifies-90-areas-in-germany-suitable-as-nuclear-waste-repository By M OritzRommerskirchen and Zhang Yirong, BERLIN, Sept. 28 (Xinhua) — Germany had 90 areas with favorable geological conditions to facilitate the final storage of nuclear waste, the federal agency for radioactive waste disposal (BGE) announced on Monday.According to the interim report of the BGE, around 54 percent of Germany’s total territory, or about 194,000 square kms, were classified as potential sites for nuclear waste repository.
“The geology in Germany is so favorable that we can say with conviction that the one site with the best possible safety for the repository of high-level radioactive waste can be found,” said BGE managing director Stefan Studt during a press conference.
However, identifying a potential area is “still a long way off” from becoming a repository site in Germany, said Studt but stressed the chances of finding a site in Germany that offers safety for a million years are “very good.”
The German government is scheduled to close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022. The process of looking for a repository site for nuclear waste in Germany has been ongoing since 2017. The BGE interim report started the first of the three phases and would also serve as a basis to involve the public.
“We have achieved the first widely visible progress in the search for a repository,” said Environment Minister Svenja Schulze, adding that “this is a good news. Because it is a task for society as a whole.”
In the coming months and years, the list of potential locations would be gradually narrowed down further. According to BGE, after the completion of the underground exploration, the final recommendation of a site is expected in 2031.
UK to return high-level nuclear waste to Germany
|
UK to return high-level nuclear waste to Germany https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/09/28/uk-to-return-high-level-nuclear-waste-to-germany/
28 Sept 20, Preparations are underway for the first of the three shipments in late 2020, The UK will be returning high-level nuclear waste in the form of vitrified residues to Germany over the coming years.The waste results from the reprocessing and recycling of spent nuclear fuel at the Sellafield site in West Cumbria, which had previously been used to produce electricity by utilities in Germany. Preparations are underway for the first shipment in late 2020 under the Vitrified Residue Returns programme, which is a key component of the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) strategy to repatriate high-level waste from the UK. A total of three shipments will be made to storage facilities in Germany, with the returns involving Sellafield Ltd working with International Nuclear Services (INS), a subsidiary of the NDA. INS will transport the waste by sea on a specialised vessel to a German port, followed by rail to the final destinations. Daher Nuclear Technologies has been contracted to safely manage the overland transport in Germany. |
|
Germany launches new search for permanent nuclear waste disposal site
|
Germany has named 90 locations that could safely house containers of radioactive nuclear waste permanently. The controversy over what to do with waste from the country’s nuclear power plants has been long and divisive. Germany formally launched its new search for a permanent nuclear waste disposal site on Monday. BGE, the nation’s waste management organization, named 90 areas around the country as possible candidates for the permanent waste disposal. It said in a long-awaited report that a location needs to be found by 2031. The aim is to start storing containers of radioactive waste at the site by 2050. Germany is seeking a safe place to store 1,900 containers of waste. The containers make up only 5% of the country’s nuclear waste but 99% of its radioactivity, according to BGE chairman Stefan Studt. Regions in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg in southern Germany, as well as Lower Saxony and states in eastern Germany, are among the potential waste disposal sites. The locations suggested “favorable geological conditions for the safe disposal of radioactive waste,” the BGE said. The sites will now be vetted to account for other factors, including population density. Gorleben ruled outNot on the list of possible storage sites is Gorleben, a small settlement in Lower Saxony of 650 residents, and the location of a salt mine which had been earmarked as a site for nuclear waste disposal almost forty years ago. The dispute that led to so much bitterness in Germany over the years began on 22 February 1977: the State Premier of Lower Saxony, the conservative Ernst Albrecht, father of the current European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, made an announcement: Gorleben, near the border to what was then East Germany, was to be the site of Germany’s facility for permanent nuclear waste storage. Locals never accepted the decision, arguing that the salt in the ground cold weaken containment structures and cause radioactive leaks. Gorleben became the focus of Germany’s anti-nuclear movement. Protestors staged sit-ins at the building site and rallied round the farming community in the region. In subsequent years, every transport of nuclear waste to Gorleben was accompanied by major demonstrations. Despite these massive protests, construction work on a new mine began there, in which the salt dome’s geological characteristics were to be explored. This mine alone, which never produced a grain of salt or any other natural resource, has already cost the German tax-payer 1.6 billion euros ($1.9 bn.) So much money has been spent conducting research there that the announcement by Kanitz that the salt dome’s surface cover is not intact and that the chemical composition of the ground water is unsuitable, amounts to a political bombshell. This is exactly what opponents of nuclear power have been saying for years. The debate is almost certain to keep reverberating. But Monday’s announcement in Berlin by Stefan Kanitz, managing director of the state “Federal Society for Permanent Nuclear Waste Storage” still marks a milestone: “Gorleben is not the best possible location,” he said. Following decades of debate which, above all, fueled the rise of the anti-nuclear Green Party, the German government decided after the reactor disaster at Fukushima in Japan in 2011 to permanently phase out nuclear power. Of the roughly 20 nuclear power plants once built, many have already been disconnected from the grid. Currently, six are still in use. They are all scheduled to be decommissioned by the end of 2022. Germany is likely to run into resistance from local politicians at whichever waste disposal site it chooses. Bavaria’s state government has already insisted that it is unsuited for permanent waste disposal. The plan now is to discuss things step by step with the local communities in the 90 regions shortlisted. That is one reason why the process is scheduled to take so long. Construction is to begin on a new permanent storage facility for nuclear waste in 2031. ……… https://www.dw.com/en/germany-launches-new-search-for-permanent-nuclear-waste-disposal-site/a-55077967 |
|
Nuclear energy CHEAP? Nuclear has drained Germany of more than €1trn to date
|
‘No higher cost energy’: nuclear has drained Germany of more than €1trn to date Subsidies tot up to €287bn since 1955, refuting atomic energy’s cheap power myth, says Forum for Ecological-Social Market Economy study https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/no-higher-cost-energy-nuclear-has-drained-germany-of-more-than-1trn-to-date/2-1-877313 17 September 2020 ,By Bernd Radowitz Development of the nuclear energy industry since the mid-1950s has led to more than €1trn ($1.18trn) in costs to the German society, and is wrongly portrayed as an inexpensive power source, according to a study by the Forum for an Ecological-Social Market Economy (FÖS) estimated.
FÖS calculated the support, which includes both state support, power prices and external costs, had been the most draining of all energy sources on the finances of the country, which is Europe’s largest economy. “No other energy source has caused costs as high as those of risky atomic power, which even after 65 years continues highly uneconomical,” said Sönke Tangermann, chairman of independent power provider Greenpeace Energy, which had commissioned the study. Germany by the end of 2022 is phasing out nuclear power. Since a first reactor started operations in 1955, the country had built more than 100 nuclear facilities, including power and research stations, and waste deposits. Other countries, such as Switzerland, have followed Germany’s lead and will also phase out nuclear power, while France at least wants to diminish the share of atomic power in its energy mix. But at the same time a new debate has started to build supposedly cheap mini nuclear reactors for power or hydrogen production. While none of these have been built yet, prices for the construction of conventional new nuclear plants in countries like France or Finland have ballooned into amounts several times the original cost estimate. Direct and indirect German government subsidies alone, including research grants and tax credits, since the mid-1950s have added up to €287bn, FÖS has calculated. Another €9bn were spent on other costs for the state, such as police operations during anti-nuclear protests, or follow-up costs from nuclear operations in former Eastern Germany. “Great part of these costs never had been included in the electricity price, which is why atomic energy wrongly was considered as a cheap power source,” Tangermann said, adding that the study for the overall costs of nuclear energy has included external costs that had been passed on to society for decades, such as the risk of accidents. Even after Germany’s nuclear exit, the country will face high costs, such as at least €7bn for the rehabilitation of the Morsleben nuclear storage facility and the Asse research storage facility as well as the Wismut uranium ore mine, or for the closure of former nuclear power plant sites. Tangermann said he hopes Berlin will resist current demands for an extension of Germany’s nuclear power plants, or investments into new ones, also as those would serve to discredit the expansion of renewables. “Given the enormous costs and aging infrastructure with ever greater risks, nuclear power cannot be a serious alternative to effectively tackling the climate crisis,” he said. |
|
|
Germany’s ‘very, very tough’ climate battle
|
Germany’s ‘very, very tough’ climate battleEnvironment Minister Svenja Schulze aims to steer tough talks over upping the bloc’s 2030 climate goal. Politico, By KALINA OROSCHAKOFF, 08/09/2020, BERLIN — EU leaders last week agreed to increase the bloc’s 2030 climate target by the end of the year. Now it’s up to German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze to make it happen.
That’s a big change for Berlin, which has traditionally been wary of higher EU climate targets. Germany holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, which means Schulze chairs meetings of environment ministers until the end of December. She’ll have to oversee tricky negotiations on raising the bloc’s 2030 emissions reduction goal from 40 percent to as high as 55 percent — something that pits rich countries against poor and East against West. “We have to deliver an updated [EU climate commitment] in 2020. It’s only six months [but] we have to deliver,” Schulze told POLITICO from her Berlin office after hosting a first informal meeting with her peers in mid-July. “The pressure is huge … We need very, very tough negotiations. There are no summer holidays for anyone.” The issue will heat up in late September when the European Commission is due to come out with a plan for reaching the 2030 target, and map implications for the energy sector. The 2030 goal is also part of the bloc’s commitment under the Paris Agreement, and there’s pressure for countries to submit updated and ideally higher emissions reduction objectives by the end of the year. “Not to fulfill the Paris Agreement, not delivering, that’s a global signal the EU shouldn’t give … It’s not an option,” Schulze said. “The Paris Agreement is clear, we need to deliver in 2020 … that’s the challenge for the German presidency.” Busy fall……the German minister faces a massively complex political puzzle in the next months. “Yes, there are some states who worry how they’re supposed to manage it all. They have corona, are dealing with its impacts, they have to revive the economy … and have to do more about climate protection. To bring it all together isn’t easy,” Schulze said. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/09/germany-climate-change-goals-393035 |
|
|
Hosting nuclear weapons is a danger to Germany
Nuclear bomb in Germany would kill hundreds of thousands, Greenpeace warns, euronews, By Alice Tidey 05/08/2020 – A nuclear bomb detonating in Germany would instantly kill hundreds of thousands of people, Greenpeace has said, calling on the US to withdraw the small arsenal of atomic weapons it currently has in the country.
The environmental non-profit released a study it had commissioned simulating the impact of a nuclear weapon exploding in Germany on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing.
“The Federal Government must ensure that US atomic bombs are withdrawn from Buchel with the US soldiers,” he added.
Washington announced last week that it would start withdrawing nearly 12,000 of the 36,000 US troops currently stationed in Germany over the coming weeks.
A threat to Germany’s security
Greenpeace’s NUKEMAP study calculated the impact of various strengths of nuclear bombs in several locations: Berlin, the seat of the country’s political power; Frankfurt, the country’s financial centre; and Buchel, a municipality in south-west Germany where several US atomic bombs are stored at an airbase.
The strength of an atomic bomb is measured in kilotons (kt) and megatons (mt) which means that a nuclear weapon with a detonation energy of one kiloton generates the same amount of energy as 1,000 tons (1 Kt) of TNT.
NUKEMAP found that a 20 kt bomb exploding in Berlin would instantly kill 145,000 people, with an additional 120,000 dying from the radioactive fallout and a further 50,000 passing away from cancer.
A 550 kt bomb — commonly found in Russia’s nuclear arsenal — dropped over Frankfurt would instantly kill half a million people, while 300,000 more would die from radioactive fallout and 160,000 would succumb to cancer at a later date.
Von Lieven argued that “the bombs in Buchel threaten the security of people in Germany and Eastern Europe.”
“Germany must no longer be a potential aggressor and a possible target for a nuclear attack,” he went on.
In another Greenpeace study conducted by pollster Kantar and released last month, 83 per cent of the 1,008 German respondents said they favoured the US withdrawing the bombs kept in Buchel.
Nine countries, 13,800 warheads
Between 90,000 and 160,000 people are believed to have died int he first few months following the Hiroshima bombing, according to the Centre for Nuclear Studies at Columbia University. Another 60,000 to 80,000 are thought to have died in Nagasaki.
Most figures are best estimates as the devastation unleashed by the explosions and uncertainty over the actual population before the bombings make it difficult to have an accurate estimate.
The world’s arsenal of nuclear weapons was estimated at 13,865 at the beginning of 2019 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
Only nice countries have atomic warheads. These are China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, the US. Washington and Moscow each have more than 6,000 nuclear warheads.
Between 90,000 and 160,000 people are believed to have died int he first few months following the Hiroshima bombing, according to the Centre for Nuclear Studies at Columbia University. Another 60,000 to 80,000 are thought to have died in Nagasaki.
Most figures are best estimates as the devastation unleashed by the explosions and uncertainty over the actual population before the bombings make it difficult to have an accurate estimate.
The world’s arsenal of nuclear weapons was estimated at 13,865 at the beginning of 2019 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). https://www.euronews.com/2020/08/05/nuclear-bomb-in-germany-would-kill-hundreds-of-thousands-greenpeace-warns
Germany the first major economy to phase out coal and nuclear
Germany is first major economy to phase out coal and nuclear, Economic Times, 3 July 20
The plan is part of Germany’s ‘energy transition’ – an effort to wean Europe’s biggest economy off planet-warming fossil fuels and generate all of the country’s considerable energy needs from renewable sources…….
Bills approved by both houses of parliament Friday envision shutting down the last coal-fired power plant by 2038 and spending some 40 billion euros ($45 billion) to help affected regions cope with the transition.
The plan is part of Germany’s ‘energy transition’ – an effort to wean Europe’s biggest economy off planet-warming fossil fuels and generate all of the country’s considerable energy needs from renewable sources…….
This week, utility companies in Spain shut down seven of the country’s 15 coal-fired power plants, saying they couldn’t be operated at profit without government subsidies.
But the head of Germany’s main miners’ union, Michael Vassiliadis, welcomed the decision, calling it a “historic milestone.” He urged the government to focus next on an expansion of renewable energy generation and the use of hydrogen as a clean alternativ ..
Nuclear waste from Germany to Russia
A shipment of 600 tonnes of depleted uranium has left a nuclear fuel plant in Germany bound for Russia, a Russian environmentalist group says.
Twelve rail cars left the Urenco plant in the town of Gronau, close to the Dutch border, on Monday 22 June, according to the Ecodefense group.
The waste will reportedly be moved by sea and rail to a plant in the Urals.
Urenco told the BBC its uranium would be further enriched in Russia and the process met environmental standards.
Russia’s state atomic energy corporation, Rosatom, insisted it was “inaccurate and misleading” to refer to the depleted uranium as waste.
But environmental activists have long been concerned that Russia may become a “dumping ground” for radioactive material from power plants.
Greenpeace protested last year after German media reports that Urenco had resumed shipping depleted uranium from Germany to Russia after a gap of 10 years. Russia had halted the practice in 2009 under pressure from environmentalists.
On Monday activists in Germany posted video on social media of what appeared to be the train en route from Gronau, as well as photos of anti-nuclear protesters.
Why is the shipment being sent to Russia?
According to the report (in Russian) by Ecodefense, some of it will be shipped by sea to Russia via the port of Amsterdam.
It will, the group says, eventually arrive at the Ural Electrochemical Combine in Novouralsk, 3,400km (2,500 miles) away in Russia’s Ural Mountains.
The group believes that nearly 3,000 tonnes of depleted uranium have already been shipped from Germany to Russia this year.
The Urenco spokesperson contacted by the BBC said they could not give details of shipments for “safety and security reasons”.
But Urenco did confirm that it had a contract with a firm called Tradewill, a subsidiary of Tenex which is the overseas trade company of Rosatom.
Under the contract, it said, depleted uranium “tails” are sent to Russia for further processing. The enriched uranium product then returns to Urenco while the “depleted fraction” remains with Tenex.
“This is common and legal practice,” Urenco says. “We also retain depleted uranium at Urenco in Europe.”
Urenco, which is a partnership between German, British and Dutch companies, said its representatives had inspected the facilities involved in the process and had found that they complied with “all internationally recognised logistics standards, which includes handling, storage, safeguarding and processing of nuclear material, as well as appropriate environmental standards”.
Why are environmentalists so concerned?
One of the big questions is how much of the waste is eventually returned to Germany, with activists arguing that most of it stays in Russia.
There are also fears of toxic pollution in the event of any spill.
On 15 June, a petition to stop the shipments was sent to Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It was signed by environmental groups and activists from Russia, Germany and the Netherlands.
The petition calls for an end to the “colonial policy of moving hazardous cargoes from Europe to Russia’s Siberian and Ural regions”.
It argues that Germany has the technology to deal with its own nuclear waste and ends with the words: “Russia is not a dumping ground!”
Greenpeace argued last year that Russia lacked a plan to utilise depleted uranium on a large scale. Continue reading
German Parliament in debate on basing of nuclear weapons
|
German Politicians Renew Nuclear Basing Debate Arms Control June 2020
By Oliver Meier A senior member of the German Parliament has revitalized the debate over whether the nation should host U.S. nuclear weapons on German soil. “It is about time that Germany in the future excludes the deployment” of nuclear weapons on its territory, said Rolf Mützenich, the leader of the Social Democrat (SPD) group in the Bundestag, in a May 2 interview with Der Tagesspiegel. The German Social Democrats are coalition partners of the conservative Christian Democrat Union (CDU). The SPD leadership backed Mützenich’s comments. The discussion followed a mid-April decision by the Defense Ministry to replace Germany’s current fleet of Tornado aircraft, some of which are dual-capable with 90 Eurofighter Typhoon and 45 U.S. F-18 fighter aircraft. Thirty of the F-18s would be certified to carry U.S. nuclear weapons. Under nuclear sharing arrangements, NATO allies jointly discuss, plan, and train nuclear missions. According to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey host up to 150 U.S. B-61 nuclear gravity bombs on their territory. These countries, except Turkey, provide their own aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons in times of war. Details of the arrangements remain shrouded in secrecy, but 20 U.S. nuclear weapons are estimated to be deployed at Büchel air base in western Germany.
The Tornado replacement has been controversial for years. Washington has been lobbying Berlin to follow the example of other host nations and buy U.S. F-35 aircraft as the future nuclear weapons carrier.
France prefers a European approach, and it is jointly developing with Germany and Spain the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), a sixth-generation fighter aircraft that will have a nuclear capability in the French Air Force. Germany’s selection of the F-18 was thus a political compromise which Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer presented as a “bridge solution” until the FCAS becomes operational after 2040. Germany plans to retire the Tornado between 2025 and 2030.
Kramp-Karrenbauer may have mishandled the process by not sufficiently consulting with SPD members in the parliament. She has conceded that the Bundestag would not need to make a decision until 2022 at the earliest and said that there would thus be “space for a debate” on the dual-capable aircraft decision in the campaign for the September 2021 parliamentary elections and negotiations on a new coalition government thereafter. In a May 7 article in Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, Mützenich took up that invitation, saying that he would like “an open and honest debate about the rationale for nuclear sharing.” Social Democrats “are not calling for the immediate denuclearization of NATO,” but want to discuss the need “to spend billions on the procurement and maintenance of U.S. aircraft whose sole purpose is to drop American nuclear bombs,” he wrote.
Katja Keul, spokeswoman on disarmament policy for the Green party, told Arms Control Today in a May 14 interview that the Greens “do not want to put Germany on a path of continued involvement in technical sharing arrangements by committing to the procurement of a new nuclear-capable aircraft now.” Based on current polls, many expect the Greens to be part of Germany’s next government. Keul, like other proponents of change, separated Germany’s role as a host nation from the continued participation in NATO political bodies associated with nuclear sharing, such as the Nuclear Planning Group. By contrast, those who have argued in favor of preserving the nuclear status quo have often conflated technical and political dimensions of sharing arrangements, equating the end of forward deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons with a denuclearization of the alliance or even the end of deterrence……..
Keul said the Greens want “Germany to push for a new consensus in NATO that would pave the way for the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe. That would be our plan A.” She cautioned that “because such a consensus will be difficult to achieve, our plan B would be to ask for understanding that Germany will end the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons on its territory once the Tornado reaches the end of its lifetime.”……
Like others, Keul believes that “the future of nuclear sharing should certainly be on the agenda of the NATO experts group” established by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg at end of March. Kiesewetter agrees that “we need an informed debate, including by experts, on the future of nuclear sharing arrangements.” The group, co-chaired by former U.S. diplomat A. Wess Mitchell and former German Defense Minister Lothar de Maizière, is to discuss NATO’s political role. Heinrich suggested that it would also be “useful if the experts include civil society in their deliberations.”…….https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-06/news/german-politicians-renew-nuclear-basing-debate
|
|
-
Archives
- January 2026 (94)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS





