Siemens announces the abandonment of the nuclear business

[Celefin]

Source: deltaworld.org (original from German SPIEGEL)

The President of the German Siemens, Peter Löscher, Technology Consortium has announced in a statement carried Sunday by the weekly Der Spiegel the total abandonment of the nuclear business by his group.

“This chapter is closed to us,” says Löscher, whose company has been involved for decades in the construction of power stations and nuclear installations around the world.

The decision, says the head of Siemens, is “the answer” your company “to the clear positioning of the society and politics in Germany for the abandonment of nuclear energy” after the catastrophe of Fukushima, in Japan.

Löscher considers critical the decision before the summer by the Bundestag adopted the nuclear switch in Germany for the 2022 and go until then closing all nuclear plants in this country.

Read more: http://www.deltaworld.org/international/Siemens-announces-the-abandonment-of-the-nuclear-business/

---

Apart from the terrible translation (babelfish?) this is major news.
Siemens is Germany's largest industrial corporation after all, and a very important financial player as well.
Loescher's statement about 35% renewables to be feasible in Germany by 2020 is probably the most important bit.
If he says that it means that Siemens is going to throw its weight behind that - they are experts at lobbying after all.

The original article from German SPIEGEL can be found here:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,786885,00.html

[webDude]

1. OMG, this is Excellent!! Hopefully this will start a trend. If you have seriously...

...looked at the long term aspect of nuclear reactors, it is grim. If there ever is a solar episode, like there has been before, of something so large as to knock out the power on this planet, for even a week, or less, we are all toast as it stands now, we will be lit up like glow sticks. From what I remember, there are ~700 nuclear plants, that would be about ~700 Fukushimas.

[vets74]

40. Since South Korea, China, GE have the price advantage

and there are more orders coming out of China and India that strain every resource.

India's nuclear power industry is increasing nuclear power output to 64,000 MW by 2032. That's a 1,000+% increase.

That's more power than India generates today in all of their power plants.

China is increasing nuclear power by 500% for 2020.

Siemens Germany ??? Who gives a shit ?

(New uranium mining techniques have opened up the sourcing situation. We've got 1,000,000,000+ years supply.)

[Divernan]

2. Outstanding! Where Siemens goes, other corporations will follow.

Except Obama has strong financial ties to the nuclear industry through his early & major backer, Exelon. So if, and that's a big IF, Exelon follows Siemens' lead, then Obama would be instructed to embrace green technologies, i.e, magically find the "political will" to do so.

http://news.nuclear.com/index.php/sbsDayNotes/like-obama-thank-exelon-note

From 2003 (to 2008), executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002 .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.

[Divernan]

4. From Deutsche Welle:Growing Opposition to Obama's nuclear plans

The nuclear disaster in Japan ignited a debate over nuclear energy in the US. While a rapid phase out of nuclear power is not on the public agenda yet, Barack Obama’s pro-nuclear stance is coming under fire.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14913105,00.html

Nuclear subsidies
But as part of its energy agenda, the Obama administration has called for the construction of new nuclear power plants as a way to combat climate change and become less dependent on foreign oil at the same time. To push utilities to build new reactors, Washington wants to hand out loan guarantees to the nuclear industry totaling $55 billion (39 billion euros) to construct up to a dozen new reactors. Should a plant operator default, the government would cough up up to 80 percent of the loan. Until now, the Energy Department has conditionally awarded only one loan guarantee of eight billion dollars for two reactors.

Green Party
The Green Party, a major force behind the anti-nuclear movement in many European countries is virtually non-existent in the US. That and the absence of influential think tanks and NGO's with a clear anti-nuclear stance renders the opposition against nuclear energy less-organized and the general public less-informed about the risks of the technology than in Europe, argues Müller-Kraenner.
The US could phase out nuclear power, say experts.

That the support by Americans for nuclear energy is indeed very limited was highlighted by an opinion survey conducted and released in February before the Japan disaster. Asked specifically in a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll what government subsidies should be slashed significantly to reduce the federal budget deficit, subsidies to build nuclear power plants clearly came in as the number one item to cut. The opposition against federal subsidies for new nuclear plants is likely only to grow as the crisis in Japans deepens. The absence of subsidies however would probably mean that no new plants would be built in the US, as the utilities are unwilling to shoulder the prohibitive costs and risks alone.

That in turn could be a first step for an ultimate phase out of nuclear energy in the US as well. So far the only thing lacking has been the political will to do it, says Müller-Kraenner: "Technically I don't think it would pose bigger problems than in Germany."

[kristopher]

39. Obama has done a HUGE amount to support renewables

His misguided efforts on behalf of nuclear have been far less aggressive. Put another way, the actions on renewables are designed with the expectation of getting results, while the actions on behalf of nuclear have virtually no expectation of actually leading to a surge in reactor construction.

Don't buy into the right wing spin on this president.

[supernova]

3. The Germans are so far ahead of us

on adopting solar technology, it's not even funny.

[Honeycombe8]

10. If it weren't for the Republicans, America could become the world leader in green technology.

As it stands, it looks like China is moving quickly to become the world leader in that. But we won't get anything big done in that area, as long as there are rightwingnuts in control.

[defendandprotect]

16. ... and leader in green jobs, jobs, jobs -- !!

[crazyjoe]

24. Unfortunately, due to the Solyndra f**k show, America's investment

in green jobs has been set back 20 years. Anytime investments in renewable energy are brought up Republicans will use Solyndra as an example of what a huge waste of money it is and kill it.
I am supportive of Obama and will vote for him in the general, but when he came into office, we owned the house, senate, and white house, the republican party was dead and buried, it was obvious, and everybody knew it.
It took him 2 years to turn that around, and basically KILL the Democratic party. Looking back now, I wish Hillary got the nomination, she is becoming more and more popular, 2012 would of been a cake walk.
I guarantee we would of had single payer, or at least a public option.
We are in a real mess.

[Celefin]

29. Proves that Republicans are not only interested in profits

But actually have to have some kind of mental disorder. Otherwise they'd push for renewables like mad.

Siemens doesn't do this because they suddenly have become a green company. They are a corporation.
What sets them apart from others is best described by a German saying:
'Siemens is a conservative bank with an innovative electronics department'

They have massive assets and invest them for long term profit after carefully analyzing market opportunities.
Who will supply all the hardware needed to upgrade the German electricity grid to handle high proportions of non-baseload renewables?
Correct. http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-transmission/grid-access-solutions/#content=Description

Who will deliver hardware to build windfarms, hydropower, solar PV and solarthermal?
Correct. http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/renewables/

Who will provide the specialized financing solutions needed by the energy sector?
Correct. https://finance.siemens.com/financialservices/global/en/sectors/energy/Pages/Energy.aspx

Anyways... for whatever reason they're in it, its certainly a move in the right direction.
And the message is actually much more powerful than any environmental responsibility blabla.
Because its simple: We're going to make so much money with renewables that nuclear power has become uninteresting for our long term investment goals.

[DissedByBush]

36. You do realize they will be making up the energy deficit with coal

Yep. Maybe in the long run eventually they will be majority non-polluting energy, but for the short run it will be coal.

For the record, I lived right across the river from a German nuclear power plant for years.

I had no problems, no fear.

It helped that I knew an engineer from the plant so wasn't basing my opinion on purely irrational fear and ignorance, but facts.

[Yon_Yonson]

5. Great news and I hope this is an infectious decision

[valerief]

6. Bravo, Siemens! nt

[plumbob]

7. Excellent. More like this, please.

The filthiest most dangerous technology on the planet needs to be extinct.

[RC]

25. Coal? Tar Sands?

Far more people die from coal than from nuclear. As for dirty, what can be dirtier than Tar sands?
BTY, did you know that are building nuclear power plants for the heat needed to separate the oil tar from the rock? They are also locking up the natural gas market fro the same reason.

[Celefin]

27. Uranium?

Did you know that the average nuke plant has to be online for 7-10 years before it actually produces any net power?
Building the plant and fuel handling infrastructure is a massive investment. Uranium mining and processing into fuel rods is one of the most energy intensive industries on the planet. Apart from that, Uranium is not exactly in limitless supply, if the UK government energy white paper from 2007 (pro-nuke new labour) is to be trusted. They projected recoverable reserves for 40 years at -current- usage. If you build a few hundred large nuke plants now, they won't even have the fuel to last their scheduled lifetime. Talk about waste.

And you're right, renewables cannot sustain our current consumer society. Not now, not in the future.
That's were it gets inconvenient. THAT society is unsustainable no matter what the energy source should be.
Prolonging the illusion with a temporary flight to nuclear power is shortsighted at best and criminally irresponsible at worst.
Which is why it will certainly happen, as usual.

[RC]

42. By definition 'on line' means producing power, usually into the grid.

A nuclear power plant cannot be up and running an not be producing power.
Fail!

Ever hear of breeder reactors? Uranium not needed.

[Celefin]

44. 'Net' as in net/gross (and a breeder reactor essay :b )

Not as in 'network'or 'grid'.
It takes 7-10 years for a state of the art atomic power plant to produce the energy equivalent consumed in building it, fueling it over its lifetime and decommissioning it. Only after that time does the energy balance turn positive, or to say it like in my previous post, produce a net energy surplus. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

You don't hear much of breeder reactors, regrettably, though the concept is great.
So are the technical and economic challenges.
If it was straightforward, the west would surely be powered by fast breeder reactors like the French 'Superphenix' by now, which has never produced the energy equivalent consumed during construction. India is experimenting with a water cooled thorium reactor as far as I know but a long way from developing anything truly functional.

1 - reprocessing is highly complex due to the nature of plutonium. Ask the French (or actually, ask their neighbours) about La Hague.
2 - reprocessing almost eliminates high level radioactive waste but creates large amounts of low to medium level waste that still needs to be disposed of safely.
3 - reprocessing of spent FBR fuel is an unsolved technical problem due to high burnup rates and buildup of trans-uranium elements
4 - reprocessing requires road or rail transport of waste and fuel, increasing the risk of accidents involving highly hazardous material

4 - cooling in existing designs cannot rely on water as water makes the reaction inefficient
5 - cooling by means of generally very corrosive molten metal like lithium or sodium (the latter being the best coolant but reacting violently when coming into contact with air or water) is an enormous technical challenge as you cannot observe the core through the coolant, cannot shut the reactor down cold with the coolant inside as it would solidify and ruin the reactor, cannot properly decontaminate the coolant in the case of a fuel element failure etc. etc.
6 - cooling by gas (Helium, CO2, N2) is less dangerous but not very efficient for heat transfer and poses its own challenges revolving around containing superheated gas

7 - upscaling much beyond 1GW (like the Superphenix) invalidates the breeders main selling point, as the breeding ratio plummets when the breeding blanket around the core gets to thick because neutrons increasingly fail to reach the outer layers. Breeders are also much more expensive to build due to the technical challenges. These two factors combine to make them uncompetitive to light water reactors that produce 4-5 times the energy at half the cost.

If you have more recent information on workarounds to these problems, please fill me in.
I'm not opposed to the concept as such.

In the meantime until/if such power stations come online (meantime being the next 3-4 decades) i think we're stuck with reducing our energy demands and using available technologies. Which means reducing consumption and going for renewables. If the golden age of limitless thorium-generated energy should become reality, great! But don't hold your breath. It would be far easier, cheaper and more peaceful to drop the illusion of a sustainable consumer society which creates the need for unlimited energy in the first place.

Kind regards,
Cel

[plumbob]

30. I'm not doing anything with tar sands, coal, natural gas or petroleum.

They're all obsolete and dirty. Nuclear waste lasts tens of thousands of years, though, and they're burying it on top of my drinking water 30 minutes away.

Wind and solar is the future, and sooner or later, even the dimmest will come to realize that not burning anything at all is cleaner than burning anything at all.

Right now, money is blinding the power elite, but this Siemens move may be the beginning away from that.

[InvisibleTouch]

8. Most excellent!! n/t

[Honeycombe8]

9. Wow. Japan is also abandoning nuclear energy. What will they turn to for energy?

It will be interesting to see where the other countries and those corporations focus their energies to provide energy for enormous numbers of people. I hope it's not fossil fuels.

[vets74]

41. No way.

Building new plants, no. Expanding the existing plants is the game plan.

Interesting how that story got mistranslated.

[lonestarnot]

11. Here comes the sun.

:)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVBbXKsKXyNU&ei=HiV2Tro76ouwAqmg9YsF&usg=AFQjCNF1_VdxdPZw4mWczt5Ub2qdQRO4pA&sig2=yGazuTTqFYmFF1ueQYir6A

[scentopine]

12. Geiger counters are very good at measuring the total cost of nuclear power -nt

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidwparker]

14. K&R

[defendandprotect]

15. Good for Germany!! But we have Obama who wants a new generation of nuclear reactors ..!!

Obviously, common sense and sanity reigns in Germany --

not only did they get rid of computer voting as "Un-Constitutional" --

they're doing the necessary re nuclear reactors!!


Good to see this -- !!

We should follow -- !!

[proverbialwisdom]

17. And then he'll snarl them in red tape with Dr. Jazcko heading the NRC.

You're being much too simple here, IMO. Democracynow.org interviewed a pro-safety nuke expert during the recent past who said Obama 'threw candy' to a certain constituency without sufficient follow-up for it to matter. Indirect evidence is the extreme vehemence against Obama by the pro-nuke US senators(R) and others of similar ilk.

All that's happening isn't being broadcast to the public. Just a hunch.

[defendandprotect]

21. Obama pushed oil drilling in Gulf -- even after BP ....

Obama has proposed a new generation of nuclear reactors in US --

where rather we should be closing them all down!

And we will be subsidzing that new generation of nuclear reactors!!


If nuclear reactors are over here in US -- let's hear Obama say that -- !!

Till then, as far as I know, Obama is for nuclear reactor power --


and just a reminder on what that is -- i.e., USING NUCLEAR PWOER TO BOIL WATER

TO CREATE STEAM!!

[RC]

26. And your point? They use coal, oil and nateral gas to boil water to make steam too.

Solar even. So what is your problem with using nuclear to make steam? Other than an ignorant talking point, that is?

[defendandprotect]

33. My point .... ? How about Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island -- and Fukushima...????

We can use solar to boil water to create steam --


Nuclear reactors are dangerous and unnecessary --


Capitalism created Global Warming by burning fossil fuels -- isn't that enough?

Or do you prefer that we become Fukushima -- ?

[RC]

43. And all those 10's of thousands of nuclear plants that have never had a problem?

Most do not have problems. But when they do fear and hype rein supreme.

[Celefin]

45. January 2011: 432 reactor units operational worldwide

...and 65 under construction.

Careful when accusing others of 'hype'.

Data from
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm
(European Nuclear Society)

So the two major disasters represent about 1%.
That's a risk that may be acceptable for the US or Russia, but not for densely populated countries like Germany.
A 1% chance of making all of Siemens' home city of Munich (4 reactor units) uninhabitable is unacceptable as it would kill the German economy outright. A 0.1 chance by safer designs would still be unacceptable as it still is uninsurable.

Increasing the chance by building lots of new reactors seems strange in that light.

[Firebrand Gary]

18. Thank you Siemens.

[hunter]

19. This is about Stuxnet.

Remember the computer virus that was supposedly built to take out Iran's nuclear industry?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11388018

No sane corporation wants to be the target of that kind of shit.

[mike3121]

20. This has to be a good thing - no nukes.

Let's see no nukes for electrical power generation. Tear the dams down as they cause environmental damage. Regulate the coal run power plants into bankruptcy. Each one of these things sounds like a good rational decision but when put together; where do we get our power?

[progressoid]

22. They can just buy their nuke power from the French.

Like Spain does.

[Celefin]

23. Don't have to, currently

Germany produces about 130% of its baseload needs with the nukes producing about 27%.
So no lights will go out just yet.

But of course, everybody in Europe buys French nuke power, but also Danish windpower, Norwegian hydro, Polish coal... (yes, the French import electricity too) its a very dense grid.
A grid that needs to be upgraded further to handle larger amounts of renewables. Coincidentally something promising massive profits to companies like, uhm yes, Siemens.
There is money to be made here. Which is why it probably will work.

[blank space]

32. Its ironic that there is no way - zero chance that

Germany, one of the biggest industrial nations on earth, will be able to satisfy their entire electrical needs through renewables.

Well thats according to the Germans themselves, Im sure there are lots of people on Democratic Underground who know better than the Germans do about what the Germans are doing and their own statements.

Yes - thats right, they are clear and unequivocal about this - they have no idea who they intend to meet the demand required........

Wait...............,
hang on...............,
stop...............,
I lied ..............................- they do know and have been very clear about it - they intend to use coal.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay - no nuclear power, but you know - we will all die three decades later from acidifcation of our oceans.

The anti-nuclear advocates are just as short sighted as the pro-coal lobby.

[scentopine]

34. They are at 20% renewable and growing fast with investment

http://www.gizmag.com/german-renewable-energy-20-percent/19720/

So, I'll forgive the coal because they have put money where their mouths are. One nuclear accident will do more lasting and virtually permanent damage than 100 coal fired plants.

Plus, the total cost of ownership makes nuclear more far expensive than a mix of wind, coal, solar, etc.

The pro-nuclear advocates are just as reckless in their faith in nuclear just as the tea baggers are as reckless in their faith in god and the free market.

As the nuke plants were exploding in Japan, and the horrifying consequences of foolish management where coming to light, Obama's DOE came out to offer condolences to the nuclear industry.

Democrat my ass. Enough said.

[scentopine]

35. Oh I almost forgot - the clean air bill Obama killed?

If you put pollution controls on those coal plants to bring airborne hazard to near zero, you'd still spend less than total unsubsidized cost of the equivalent nuke plant.

So - if you are crying about air pollution, go cry crocodile tears on Obama's shoulders. Germany is proving more and more to be the adult in the room these days.

[wordpix]

38. wow, spoken like someone paid by the nuke industry

Let me know when you get your little, er, waste problem figured out, not to mention your, er, cost of building and decommissioning and how you plan to pay for that. Then we can talk like two rational people instead of one.

[reformist2]

28. Can you say... TIPPING POINT? :) :) :)

[DeSwiss]

31. Best. News. I've. Heard. In. A. Long. Long. Time.

K&R

[wordpix]

37. Siemens stock just shot up EXCEPT their earlier decisions will drag them down

for centuries, if they don't go bankrupt first. Decommissioning nukes is VERY expensive and they will have to get rid of the waste. Which in America, is sitting in pools of water onsite, pools designed for many less fuel rods than they're now holding.