Sweden, the U.K., and Germany: The European trio leads the world in fighting climate change.

That’s the finding of the most recent Climate Change Performance Index [PDF], which was released yesterday at COP 17 in Durban. But Swedes, Brits, and Germans shouldn’t cheer just yet; even their countries are not contributing their fair share.

In fact, that is the most worrying result of the index: No country is doing enough to seriously fight climate change. Consequently, the report — published by Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe — did not reward any country a ranking of 1-3. The countries ranked worst this year are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kazakhstan.

What about the United States? In comparison to 2010, the U.S. has climbed up two ranks, mainly due to emission reductions from the recession and increased renewable energy capacity. However, given still-high emissions and the lack of substantial national policies, the U.S. remains toward the bottom of the index, ranked No. 52. Among the large emitters around the world, only Canada, Russia, China, and Iran are worse.

China is a particularly interesting case, with a somewhat contradictory performance. While it remains the world’s largest CO2 emitter (in absolute, not per-capita, terms) and its emissions continue to grow dramatically, its attempts to curb domestic emissions are intensifying, with binding energy-intensity targets and renewable-portfolio requirements. In just a few years, these top-of-the-class policy efforts will influence its emission trajectory.

This is how the index works:

On the basis of standardized criteria, the index evaluates and compares the climate protection performance of 58 countries that are, together, responsible for more than 90 percent of global energy-related CO2 emissions. 80 percent of the evaluation is based on objective indicators of emissions trend and emissions level (50 percent for emissions trend, 30 percent for emissions level). 20 percent of the index results are built upon national and international climate policy assessments by more than 200 experts from the respective countries.

Meanwhile, at the Durban climate talks, the U.S. is pushing an alarming proposal to lock in a 10-year timeout, with no new targets to lower emissions until 2020. If it succeeds, by all rights it should plunge to the bottom of the Climate Change Performance Index and stay there.

Photo: Dan Zelazo

The latest example of this rage is a piece in The New Republic: “How Germany Phased Out Nuclear Power, Only to Get Mugged by Reality.” Before digging deeper into the arguments, let’s figure out just what reality we’re talking about.

As I’ve written before, Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, is aggressively pursuing a transition away from both nuclear power and conventional fossil fuels. It will likely encounter the challenges — and reap the benefits — of this strategy before other countries. Some analysts have hypothesized that Germany’s 20-year support for renewable energy would place a drag on the economy. However, Germany has rebounded from the financial crisis faster than many other countries around the world and is currently enjoying its strongest economic growth (and lowest unemployment) since its reunification 20 years ago. Renewable energy currently employs 370,000, compared to 50,000 in the coal industry (from mine to power plant). And Germany forecasts that its exports of clean energy technologies and expertise will continue to expand in the future. If the investment that Germany is making in renewable energy pays off, it is likely that Germany will remain the economic engine of Europe for decades to come.

Now let’s do a reality check on the grim “reality” that mugged the New Republic.

First, the author claims that “electricity prices have risen for consumers, and it could cost the country’s four operators of nuclear plants more than $40 billion simply to shut the nuclear reactors down.” Exactly. Each kilowatt hour of nuclear power is much more expensive than stated on customers’ utility bills. Shutting down reactors is only a small part of the lifetime costs for nuclear power, but still: It costs at least $1.4 billion to dismantle one reactor unit in Germany. Nuclear’s burden is even greater in the case of an accident, when taxpayers are stuck with the bill. Tepco, the operator of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, just sought about $13 billion in public funds to deal with compensation claims.

Over the last 40 years, the German nuclear industry has been pampered with more than $230 billion in direct subsidies. Over the same period, renewable energy technologies have received just $56 billion [PDF] in incentives. Subsidies kept the price for electricity generated from nuclear energy artificially low. The argument of cheap nuclear power turns into a boomerang once the hidden costs of nuclear become visible. For economic reasons, nuclear should never have been regarded a viable option in the first place.

Second, the author wants us to believe that “Germany became a net importer of electricity almost overnight” after shutting down the eight nuclear power plants in March 2011. This is false. Germany is a long-time net exporter of electricity and continues to be one — even after Fukushima. In the first half of 2011, Germany exported 27.9 terawatt-hours (TWh) while it imported only 23.9 TWh, according to the Federal Statistical Office.

The explanation is simple: Germany has installed much more power-generating capacity than it needs for domestic consumption. Power demand ranges from 40,000 to 80,000 megawatts (MW), depending on time of day and year. Coal, gas, and renewables provide a capacity of 81,000 MW, even without nuclear power.

Since Europe has a common market, countries import and export electricity. Power is imported not because of a lack of supply, but as an economic decision to shop where prices are lowest. Thanks to this common market, the nuclear phaseout does not threaten German energy security. To the contrary: the shift to renewable energy and efficiency will increase energy security in Germany. After all, its nuclear fuel is imported from other countries.

Third, the article quotes an expert who claims Germany’s nuclear phase-out has already “caused a 25-million-ton annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions” by replacing nuclear with coal-fired power plants. The attentive reader will note that this claim undermines the previous one, but that is beside the point. The nuclear phaseout does not jeopardize Germany’s ambitious climate targets: reducing greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2020 and at least 80 percent by 2050. If emissions were to rise due to the nuclear phase-out, the government would have to come up with compensating measures to reach these targets.

However, it is unlikely that emissions will rise. By the rules of the E.U. cap-and-trade system, emissions from the energy sector are capped. Even if coal were to replace nuclear capacity in Germany, emissions in the sector overall will still have to be reduced, either by shifting to more natural gas or by replacing old coal plants with more efficient ones. That’s the genius of a cap-and-trade system. Believe it or not, with that system in place, Germany’s nuclear phaseout will even cause emissions in other European countries to fall.

The decision of the Merkel government to shut down all nuclear power plants in Germany by 2022 may have caught some international observers by surprise. But it was no surprise if you followed Germany’s political discourse over the last decade. What Chancellor Merkel did after Fukushima — with the overwhelming support of voters — was go back to the timeline of the 2002 Nuclear Exit Law implemented by the Social Democrats and Green Party in agreement with Germany’s nuclear energy industry. By making it sound like Germany has suddenly gone off track, the author paints it as irrational, random, and thoughtless. Nothing could be further from reality.

Phasing out nuclear power is the right thing to do. The future of nuclear power was yesterday. Germany has entered the race to the age of renewables. If the Germans can power their highly competitive economy with wind, solar, hydro, and biomass power, than everyone else should be able to do it too. This is exactly what status-quo interests are afraid of. They better be.

Of the many myths about nuclear power, we kinda knew that the myth “nuclear power is cheap” is not true. The stunner is how expensive it turns out to be when you start factoring in its real costs, according to this analyst from a public bank in Germany:

“The quantification of dismantling costs is in line with our estimate amounting to 1 billion euros per block,” but “such estimates comprise several uncertainties”, said Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg (LBBW) analyst Bernhard Jeggle.

There you have it: It costs at least $1.4 billion to dismantle one reactor unit. The utilities are required by law to build up a cash pile to finance the decommissioning. Still, one can expect them to raise rates for their customers. In a regulated market without competition, this would hit ratepayers. In a deregulated electricity market — like Germany — this makes nuclear power less competitive. Customers can choose their power provider and switch to one without nuclear — such as city municipalities or green power brokers (which is very easy). By factoring in the true costs of nuclear power, we are getting closer to a level playing field among different energy sources. This is Environmental Economics 101: The market sends only true price signals if external costs (such as pollution) are being internalized. If we had the perfect market and all external costs of fossil fuels (climate change, air pollution) and nuclear (decommission, contamination, full insurance against an accident, final waste deposit) were truly factored in, renewable energy would today already be cost competitive.

In many countries, the nuclear industry has been pampered with billions of dollars in subsidies while emerging technologies received comparably little support (e.g. the United States). Green Budget Europe, a German think tank, calculated nuclear subsidies over the last half century to $230 billion for Germany alone. It’s one thing to support the deployment of renewable energy and efficiency technologies. It’s another to internalize those costs that the fossil fuel and the nuclear industry burden our societies with. Eventually, we need to do both to transition to a low-carbon economy that is powered completely by renewable energy.

Until recently, the idea of powering a local economy with 100 percent renewable energy seemed unrealistic. That has changed: there’s a small town energy revolution underway.

Take Juehnde, a village in the German state of Lower Saxony: it reached total self-supply by 2006 with biogas and wood chip heating. It now attracts visitors from around the world (e.g. from Thailand). Eric Burch, of Indiana’s Office of Energy and Defense, visited and summarized what he saw like this:

With nearly 750 residents, Juehnde is the first village in Germany to produce its complete heat and electricity supply from bioenergy … The German Bioenergy Village project planning began in 1998, and the village officially reached self-sufficiency in energy production in June 2006. Juehnde’s plant provides heat and water to the village and also sells electric energy onto the electricity grid. It took the German community nearly 8 years to bring its project to reality.

Juehnde is not alone. What we see in Germany is a small town energy revolution. Today more than 75 villages and municipalities are striving to meet their energy needs with 100 percent renewable energies. Large associations like the German Association of Towns and Municipalities and the Farm Federation support this development. An annual 100 Percent Congress, coming up at the end of September, provides a platform for exchange of ideas. This year, more than 700 representatives from rural areas will get together to discuss ways forward to 100 percent renewable communities.

Replacing fossil fuels and fighting climate change are not the main reasons this movement is growing so rapidly. The main driver is the aim to strengthen local economies. When solar, wind, and biogas power replace supply from big utilities (mostly dirty coal and nuclear power), it creates jobs for local craftsmen, technicians, architects, and farmers. Plus it keeps millions of dollars in the community that would otherwise be spent importing energy.

Furthermore, it protects these towns from rising global energy prices and volatility. In 2010 alone, the additional turnover from renewable energies for German rural areas was more than $14 billion. This has brought an additional $1.2 billion of tax revenue on the municipal level, as this study shows.

German villages benefit from the Renewable Energy Act, which has triggered an investment boom in wind, solar, and especially biogas around the country. Today, 20 percent of German energy comes from renewables. The policy provides high certainty for investors and thus keeps costs down. In addition to federal policy, villages and municipalities can accelerate the deployment of renewable energy with simple measures. They can set up and support a network of regional expertise, they can rent their property for solar PV on rooftops or the construction of biogas plants, they can streamline permitting, or they can even own and operate their own renewable energy facilities. In many of these places, 70 to 90 percent of the population owns the installations through cooperatives. Residents can buy shares in energy cooperatives with as little as $350.

Similar projects pop up in the U.S. here and there, but there seems no broader movement. Why not take power production in your own hands and democratize electricity? Why not replace power imports with renewable energy, thus keeping money in the local economy? (As an example: residents and businesses of Washington D.C. pay more than $1.4 billion a year for electricity produced outside the local economy. Just imagine keeping that money in the community!)

People are under strain from high unemployment and the weak economy. Governments are limited by tight budgets, leaving little room for spending. By pursuing ambitious renewable energy strategies, rural areas fight the economic downturn. They keep and create additional jobs for farmers, technicians, carpenters, and engineers. They generate tax revenue. And above all, they clean up the air and fight climate change.

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Solar photovoltaics drove Germany’s recent renewables surge.Photo: Cornelia KoppGermany set another record with renewable energy. A new report by the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW) highlights, in the first half of 2011, renewables accounted for fully 20.8 percent of power production, as Der Spiegel reports.

Throughout the past decade, Germany has fundamentally transformed the way it produces electricity. The country increased its share of renewable electricity from 5 percent in 2000 to 18 percent in 2010. Over time, Germany has consistently met its legislated targets ahead of schedule, and appears poised to outdo itself again in the next years. The goal by the current center-right government of Chancellor Angela Merkel is to draw at least 35 percent of production from renewables by 2020. The opposition parties claim that 40 percent or even more is realistic.

Today, wind and biomass are the pillars of Germany’s renewable sector. The main driver of the 2011 development, however, has been photovoltaic — in a country that is as sunny as the state of Alaska. Reports Der Spiegel:

The real change came in the photovoltaic sector, where output almost doubled — up more than 76 percent since 2010. “Because of the volume of new photovoltaic installations and the amount of sun during the spring, solar energy knocked hydroelectric from third place for the first time,” the BDEW said in a statement. The BDEW saw two reasons for the boost in new installations: Equipment prices have plummeted by 50 percent since 2006, reflecting more competition, and the federal government decided against a planned cut in subsidies for private solar-power generation.

The reason for all of this? Germany’s Renewable Energy Act provides certainty that manufacturers and investors are looking for. As feed-in tariff guru Paul Gipe explains here, the center-right government just increased incentives for the deployment of wind, biomass, and geothermal yet again. Just recently, Deutsche Bank, a largely German bank, gave German renewable energy and climate policy high marks [PDF], and rates Germany’s feed-in tariffs as “best in class.”

As discussed before, Germany accelerated the transition towards a renewable energy economy in the aftermath of the nuclear catastrophe of Fukushima. The rapid growth of the renewable sector demonstrates that Germany will likely succeed in phasing out nuclear power completely by 2022.

Nuclear power? Nein, danke!Photo: Dan Zelazo

Germany’s plans to phase out nuclear power seemed to catch many around the world by surprise and create a fair amount of skepticism. Some painted it as a “panicked overreaction” to the nuclear meltdown in Japan, and even as “environmental vandalism.”

One can argue that Germans are more risk-averse than other cultures. The Chernobyl accident in 1986 resulted in a radioactive cloud hanging over large parts of Europe for several weeks. It was a smart precaution to stay out of the rain and skip eating vegetables to avoid contamination. After experiencing this physical threat to personal health, Germans are more concerned about the risks of nuclear power than others might be.

The Fukushima accident not only confirmed this skepticism. It demonstrated the need for a new risk assessment: If a high-tech nation like Japan is not able to cope with a nuclear meltdown, why should Germany be? And why let a few corporations make all the profits when taxpayers are asked to pay billions for an accident in the end? With 80 million people in an area half the size of Texas, Germany is so densely populated that a nuclear disaster would turn into an economic catastrophe beyond imagination.

A decade ago, Germany started transitioning towards a low-carbon economy. The share of renewable power has tripled. Wind farms, solar modules, biogas, and hydro power provide 18 percent of Germany’s power supply. Today, renewables are a reliable and indispensable pillar of Germany’s power supply that keep trains running and factories humming. The sector is fast growing and provides 370,000 well-paying jobs — much more than the 22,000 jobs in Germany’s lignite coal industry. Many of these jobs are within traditional industries, such as steel, farming, and the ceramic and glass industries.

Critics argue that Germany will hurt its economy by raising energy costs, replacing nuclear power with imports from France, and building more coal plants, thus increasing carbon emissions. The facts do not bear this out.

First, Germany is able to supply its power needs on its own without nuclear. The country has been mostly a net exporter of power over the last decade. Depending on the time of day and year, households and industry consume 40,000 to 80,000 megawatts (MW) of power. Even if all 17 nuclear power stations were shut down at once, coal, gas, and renewables still provide a capacity of 81,000 MW.

Power is imported not out of a lack of supply, but as an economic decision to shop where prices are lowest. Though Germany is often importing electricity from France during the spring and fall, the relationship is reciprocal: In summer and winter, France is importing power from Germany. When temperatures rise and the water levels drop, river-cooled nuclear reactors have to reduce output or be shut down. 

Second, the nuclear phaseout does not jeopardize Germany’s ambitious climate action efforts: reducing carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by 2050. By rules of the E.U. carbon market, emissions from the energy sector are capped. Even if coal were to replace nuclear capacity, emissions will have to be reduced within the entire sector, either by shifting to natural gas or by replacing old coal plants with more efficient ones.

Third, a shift to a renewable energy powered economy comes with costs. However, this price tag is modest in comparison to the heavy burden that nuclear brings. Over the last 40 years, the German nuclear industry has been pampered with more than 200 billion Euros ($281 billion) in subsidies. In comparison, renewable energy technologies have been incentivized by about 4.8 billion Euros ($6.7 billion) in 2010. By replacing fossil fuel imports and avoiding health costs, renewables already pay off today. 

When the German Parliament passes the nuclear phaseout legislation in early July, it will be accompanied by seven other laws to accelerate investments in renewables and retrofitting of houses, to increase energy efficiency, to develop new storage technologies, and to improve the energy grid infrastructure. By 2020, Germany aims to supply its economy with at least 35 percent of renewable power, and 80 percent by mid-century.

Politics, too, played a role in the recent decision. Chancellor Angela Merkel used to be a strong proponent of nuclear. Her governing coalition has paid a high price for this. The Green Party has won one election after another. In the most recent state election, Merkel’s Conservative Party came in third behind the Greens. Her reversal on nuclear policy after Fukushima was driven by the understanding that most Germans across the political spectrum favor a phaseout as soon as possible.

Germany’s gradual nuclear phaseout is neither unique — Japan, Switzerland and Italy are following suit — nor a hysterical overreaction. It is yet another cornerstone in a comprehensive, long-term strategy of industrial modernization that turns the energy challenge into an economic opportunity. Saying “Auf Wiedersehen” to nuclear will accelerate the transition towards a low-carbon economy.

This is the fourth and final post in a series on the United States and nuclear power. Read parts one, two, and three.

Fukushima gave many Americans a sense of déjà vu: In 1979, a threatened explosion at Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania caused by venting an explosive gas mixture was just barely warded off. Faulty design and human error were to blame. Since then, no new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States (though some that were already under construction were completed).

But the industry has soldiered on, trying to present the public with a picture of nuclear as a clean, safe, and cheap energy option. In many ways, it’s been successful: Nuclear power is now accepted as a firm element of the energy portfolio by the American political mainstream, across party lines. Under President George W. Bush, new loan guarantees were promised in 2005, and the industry celebrated that promise as a turn toward a new age of building nuclear plants. President Barack Obama has asked Congress to triple those guarantees to $54.5 billion.

Can we then look forward to a new renaissance of nuclear power in the United States, as its supporters like to claim? Unlikely, for the nuclear revival is on financially shaky ground. Exploding costs and cheap competition from natural gas are grave problems for the industry. The Wall Street banks see the new construction plans as too expensive and too risky. Even with billions in federal guarantees, American businesses can’t afford the price of nuclear power. Only a handful of new nuclear projects have moved ahead in recent years, primarily at existing nuclear plant sites in the southeastern United States.

So anti-nuke activists are not afraid of any looming wave of new nuclear reactors, despite the fantasies of the lobbyists and some politicians. But they warn of a covert renaissance by way of 20-year lifespan extensions for dozens of old power plants.

In May 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found many U.S. nuclear plants ill-prepared to handle simultaneous threats like the earthquake and tsunami that hit Fukushima. A little under one-third of the 104 U.S. reactors were said to be vulnerable to extreme emergencies.

Meanwhile, public support for nuclear power seems to be eroding. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey, 40 percent of likely voters in the U.S. oppose the building more nuclear power plants, while 38 percent support it. That’s a good start.

In only a few years, the cost of renewable energy will drop to the point of being fully competitive in the U.S. This country has gigantic renewable resources that other countries can only dream of. Wind power in Texas and the Midwest, biomass from the forests of New England and the Southeast, and solar power in California and neighboring Southwestern states could bring America’s new energy age into being much faster than predicted.

The nuclear lobby has been an ally in the fight for a carbon price and stricter pollution standards. But progressives, the environmental movement, and climate hawks in the United States will have to decide whether nuclear power deserves to be seen as a pillar in a clean energy strategy. In the best case, nuclear will be an unnecessary delay for a transition toward a renewable energy-based economy.

This is part three in a series on the United States and nuclear power. Read parts one, two, and four.

Although Democrats and Republicans in Congress feed at the nuclear industry’s trough in equal measure, Republicans in particular have been trying hard for years to bring about a renaissance of nuclear power in the United States. If they had their druthers, 100 new nuke plants would be built during the next two decades — on top of the 104 reactors already operating. The Republicans’ battle cry is “all of the above” — a strategy that supposedly leaves out no energy option. This is pure political eyewash — a cover for a brutal agenda of more oil and gas drilling, more coal, and more nuclear power.

But the Democrats too are relatively amenable to nuclear power, including the Obama White House. President Obama has requested that Congress triple the Bush-era nuclear loan guarantees to $54.5 billion. After the Fukushima catastrophe, he came out again in favor of building new nuclear power plants. As a former senator from Illinois, he has been closely tied to Exelon, one of the biggest nuclear corporations in the U.S., since the beginning of his political career. Obama’s team of advisers is shot through with former employees of the nuclear industry: top advisers David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel were once on the Exelon payroll, and the corporation contributed generously to Obama’s presidential campaign.

The federal bureaucracy, too, stands wholly behind nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) monitors compliance with safety standards and approves lifespan extensions for nuclear power plants. So far, it has not turned down a single renewal application: 62 reactors have already received approval of an extension of their 40-year lifespans to 60 years; a dozen more applications are pending. The NRC was embarrassed by an internal investigation in September 2007 which revealed that in more than 70 percent of cases, text from industry’s applications was copied verbatim into the NRC’s approvals. Nuclear experts like Michele Boyd of the Physicians for Social Responsibility had assumed that the old plants built during the 1960s and ’70s could not be approved today [PDF], but their lifespan extensions keep getting the OK. One NRC spokesperson commented, “We have a high degree of confidence that our 104 reactors have adequate protection” — despite the fact that 23 of those reactors are very similar to the Fukushima plant.

Singing another tune in the states

At the state level, things look a lot different. In a number of states, politicians and activists are fighting for early shutdown of reactors they believe to be unsafe, and corporations are deciding that new nuclear plants are just too risky.

Vermont:  The state legislature wants to shut down Yankee

In Vermont, the nuclear corporation Entergy has been operating the Yankee nuclear power plant since 1972. It is one of the oldest and most accident-prone in the United States. Recently, radioactive material entered the environment through defective underground pipes — after the operator had sworn under oath that these pipes did not even exist. Due to these and other safety mishaps, the Vermont state legislature in February 2010 voted against a lifespan extension. A state law gives the legislature the power to shut down the reactor after its federal license expires in March 2012, but Vermont Yankee’s owners are fighting that law in court.

Meanwhile, the NRC approved a license extension for Yankee in a closed session the day before the Fukushima disaster. After the catastrophe, the commission was afraid to inform the public of its decision. After all, the Yankee plant is the same GE model as Fukushima I. But a few days later, the reactor was publicly given the green light for 20 more years of operation. The NRC said there was no cause to be concerned about safety. In view of the dramatic events in Japan and the history of incidents at the reactor, most politicians in Vermont continue to disagree.

New York: Gov. Cuomo wants to shut down Indian Point

The Indian Point nuclear power plant is just 42 miles from downtown Manhattan. In case of emergency, millions of people would have to be evacuated immediately — and might never be able to go back.  Indian Point is also located in an earthquake-risk area, as Columbia University’s Earth Institute has warned [PDF]. An earthquake in the area in the 1880s reached 5.2 on the Richter scale, though Entergy, which operates Indian Point, reports that the plant is designed to withstand earthquakes of up to 6.1.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) wants to shut down Indian Point, arguing that it poses a danger to New York City, particularly in the wake of 9/11. Originally, the NRC was to make decisions about extensions for the reactors at Indian Point in 2012 and 2015. Now, Cuomo is pressuring the agency to speed up its decision. Neither the governor nor the state legislature has the right to cancel the operator’s license; the safety check is the sole responsibility of the NRC. However, the state can impose environmental stipulations on the operation of a power plant, for instance to protect bodies of water. It’s unclear how the situation will shake out.

California: Activists go after San Onofre and Diablo Canyon plants

The nuclear lobby says that an earthquake or tsunami of Japanese proportions is unlikely in the United States, but a look at the location of nuclear power plants in earthquake risk areas shows that some of them are ticking time bombs:

Seismic hazards and nuclear reactors: Black triangles are active reactors; blue are proposed reactors. Probability of strong shaking increases from very low (white), to moderate (blue, green, and yellow), to high (orange, pink, and red).Image: Kimberly Leonard/Center for Public Integrity

The two nuclear plants at highest risk from earthquakes are in California: the Diablo Canyon plant, near an offshore fault, and the San Onofre plant, halfway between Southern California’s two huge metropolitan areas, Los Angeles and San Diego. More than 7 million people live within a 50-mile radius of San Onofre — many more than around the Fukushima plant. Three very active faultlines are located 20, 40, and 55 miles away, including the notorious San Andreas fault.

Just two weeks before the Japanese tsunami, 10 California Congress members warned the Department of Energy that both nuclear power plants in their state were more seriously threatened by earthquakes than had previously been assumed. The San Onofre plant in particular is vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis — contrary to the claims of its operator. And Diablo Canyon doesn’t even have an earthquake emergency response plan; the NRC didn’t require one when it went online in the mid-‘80s. Republican State Senator Sam Blakeslee, a geophysicist who specializes in earthquake research, has warned about the “seismic uncertainty surrounding California’s nuclear power plants.”

Anti-nuke activists in California believe they have the momentum to force an early shutdown of San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. They may get support from Gov. Jerry Brown (D), a great fan of renewable energy. But the NRC still calls the shots.

Maryland and Texas: New construction plans abandoned

One would think the billions in federal loan guarantees promised by Obama would be enough to breathe life into a nuclear revival, but not so far. One case in point is the planned new reactor at Calvert Cliffs, Md., which is facing cancellation. The investor, Constellation, pulled the plug on the contract last October, proclaiming the settlement fee for the federal guarantee of $7.6 billion was too expensive. That decision was rewarded on Wall Street: Constellation’s stock went up when the cancellation was announced.

After the Fukushima disaster, NRG Energy Inc. cancelled its plans for a reactor in South Texas, saying it had become “impossible for us to justify to our shareholders any further financial participation.”

Next: “Is pro-nuke enthusiasm in the U.S. waning?“

This is part two in a series on the United States and nuclear power. Read parts one, three, and four.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the lobby association for the entire process chain of the nuclear industry in the U.S., from uranium mining to the manufacture of the reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel, all the way to nuclear power production. Its lobbyists are well-connected in the Obama administration and on Capitol Hill. In the last midterm and off-year election campaign cycle, politicians of both parties received approximately $4 million from the NEI. In order to boost public acceptance, shiny ad campaigns, such as those of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, filled the airwaves. This greenwashing by the NEI has repeatedly crossed the border of the permissible, and has been criticized by environmental and social organizations. The NEI PR staff even drafts opinion pieces which are sent to nuclear engineers across the country, to be signed and submitted to local newspapers.

In addition to the umbrella lobby, the major nuclear power plant operators and corporations to which they belong also play an important role. In the last election campaign, they, together with the NEI, spent sums for lobbying and campaign contributions that went into the double-digit millions. Chief beneficiaries of this largess were Congress members from the states where their corporate headquarters are located, as well as committee heads and members of the caucus leaderships. Contributions of up to $10,000 to each individual Congress member are legal. The most generous corporations were:

• Exelon — $515,000: This nuclear corporation operates 11 nuclear power plants in Illinois alone, and contributed to 14 of the state’s 19 representatives, as well as to the caucus leaderships of both parties.
• Duke Energy — $475,000: This utility, headquartered in North Carolina, helped fill the coffers of 12 of North Carolina’s 13 representatives and five of the six from South Carolina, as well as the caucus leaders of both parties. CEO Jim Rogers was one of the most prominent voices in the last two years lobbying for a comprehensive climate bill.
• Florida Power & Light (FPL) — $507,000: Twenty-six of Florida’s 27 Congress members received contributions from FPL. The corporation is headquartered in the state, but also operates nuclear reactors in New Hampshire and Illinois.
• Entergy — $400.000: All four representatives from Arkansas got a check from Entergy, as did 12 from New York and five from Michigan. Even Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the strongest critics of the nuclear industry on Capitol Hill, received $3,500.

Much of this money was intended to help push through a climate bill, an effort that was ultimately unsuccessful. The nuclear industry hoped that a cap-and-trade system would give it a competitive advantage over coal-fired power plants. Since the industry is a powerful voice in the business community that calls for fighting climate change and tightening pollution standards for conventional power plants, it has reached a truce with large parts of the environmental movement.

The anti-nuke movement is as weak as the nuclear lobby is strong. In the weeks after Fukushima, it fought like a lion, but it is still too small and its resources too few. Experts from NGOs such as Beyond Nuclear, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Union of Concerned Scientists trot from one TV channel to the next and try to explain to puzzled moderators that nuclear power is not clean energy, that it is much more expensive than generally assumed. Their attempts at an explanation are good, but they don’t strike home. All this leaves us a long way from any basic change in direction for America’s energy policy. The U.S. is still the land of nuclear power madness. The nuclear revival in the United States won’t come to an end because of any fear of a meltdown, but simply because of financial necessity.

Next: “States fight back against nuclear power, even as the feds remain in its thrall.”

Why aren’t Americans more freaked out about the possibility of a nuclear accident? Photo: Mike

After the nuclear catastrophe of Fukushima, as a German living in the U.S., I often get asked these days: What’s going on in Germany with the shutdown of nuclear power plants — is that all mass hysteria? There are good reasons why Germany is moving away so quickly from nuclear power. Certainly, fear is a factor. However, this angst in the face of a nuclear catastrophe has a rational core. Fukushima provides enough grounds to take every single nuclear power plant on the face of the Earth off-line. Regardless of whether the cause is an earthquake, a tsunami, a flood, a plane crash, a terrorist attack, or simple human error, failure of the emergency power system leads to uncontrollable consequences.

There is also an energy reality in Germany that differs from the United States. In Germany, the economic success of the renewable energy economy is visible between the North Sea and the Alps. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created for steel workers, carpenters, technicians, architects, bankers, and farmers. Foreign companies have heavily invested in manufacturing plants for wind turbines, biogas systems, and solar panels in Germany. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is viewed as a constraint on this development. Nuclear and renewables are not perceived as allies, but as conflicting and competing energy sources. One is centralized, capital-intensive, ponderous, outdated, and anti-democratic, whereas the other is flexible, smart, labor-intensive, and open for community participation. Thus, in recent polls an overwhelming 85 percent of Germans favor a nuclear phaseout as fast as possible or at most within 10 years. To them it seems simply outdated to stick with a 1950s technology like nuclear that is risky, dirty, and blocking new investments in better technologies. It is like to holding on to your rotary phone instead of switching to a cell phone.

Germany: No question if, but how quickly nuclear power will be phased out

Following Fukushima, the German government announced a three-month shutdown of eight of its 17 nuclear power plants and a review of its nuclear strategy. That’s 8,400 megawatts of capacity off the grid. In mid-May, another five nuclear plants are down for maintenance with a capacity of 6,600 megawatts. That leaves four nuclear plants together supplying 5,400 megawatts of power. Are the lights still on? Are the trains still going? Are the car factories still humming? Yes, yes, and yes. No blackout followed; the power supply is stable. Nuclear power capacity is replaced by reducing surplus electricity exports, by using the reserve capacity of traditional back-up power plants for peak times, and by temporarily importing electricity from neighboring countries if necessary. [UPDATE: On Monday, Germany announced plans to shut down all 17 of its nuclear reactors by 2022.]

Some analysts have argued that the nuclear scale-back in Germany would prevent the country from reaching its long-term climate and energy goals. In reality, and as discussed here, Germany is already well on its way to transitioning from nuclear and fossil-fuel power to renewable energy. It is aiming for 35 percent renewables by 2020, and 80-100 percent by 2050. Not despite, but because of shutting down nuclear power, investments in renewable energies accelerate.

As a German living in Washington, D.C., you can’t help asking in return: Why is the accident of Fukushima perceived as something far away without consequences for a broad discussion of the future U.S. energy infrastructure? Why does the myth survive that America depends on nuclear power and must do so in the future? And overall, why is American society so pro-nuclear?

United States: Fukushima and no consequences?

Things run by different rules here in the U.S. than they do in Germany, as the statements from the days after the Fukushima meltdown show. The Obama administration left no room for doubt that it was unimpressed by the events in Japan, and would hold tight not only to nuclear power, but also to the plans to expand it. Energy Undersecretary Dan Poneman announced: “We view nuclear energy as a very important component to the overall portfolio we’re trying to build for a clean energy future … Nuclear power has been a critical component to the U.S. energy portfolio [and] … we do see nuclear power as playing an important role in building a low-carbon future.” Most media outlets doubt that the United States can do without nuclear power, indeed without even more nuclear power plants. Cautious questions in editorials in The Washington Post and The New York Times regarding risks and safety standards at American nuclear power plants were a rare exception in the overall reports.

It is worthwhile to take a close look at the strong standing nuclear energy has in the U.S.

The United States is the world’s No. 1 nuclear country. Of the 435 reactors worldwide, 104 are in the United States, providing approximately 20 percent of the nation’s power supply (in comparison to around 27 percent in Germany in 2010). In the United States, the share of nuclear power in the overall energy portfolio may be lower than in Germany, but the nuclear industry’s political clout is greater. One would think the catastrophe in Japan might have taken some of the wind out of its sails. But the nuclear lobby is prepared for all eventualities. Thanks to numerous advertising campaigns and intensive lobbying work in recent years, nuclear power is accepted by the broader public.

Next: “The nuclear industry has powerful backers and weak opponents.”