EU Commission's Barroso Tries to Help Germany Shed its Nuclear Neurosis

http://euobserver.com/9/26452
Barroso attempts to woo Germany on nuclear energy



By RENATA GOLDIROVA



07.07.2008



European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has once again made the case for nuclear power, a controversial source of electricity generation in several EU member states, adding to the already heated debate in Germany on whether the country should allow a nuclear comeback.



In an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag (6 July), Mr Barroso acknowledged that "nuclear energy is a delicate issue in Germany".



Germany's previous government committed itself to a gradual phase-out of all 17 nuclear power plants in the country by 2021 (Photo: wikipedia)



"On the other hand," he said, "more and more countries see in nuclear energy an at least temporary solution to stop climate change and to reduce our dependency on oil and gas."



Germany's previous Green-[Red] Social-Democrat coalition government under the leadership of Gerhard Schroeder committed itself to a gradual phase-out of all 17 nuclear power plants in the country by 2021.




But the commitment is now being questioned by the Christian Democrats (CDU) of Chancellor Angela Merkel, the senior partners in the coalition government with the Social Democrats.





Technology minister Annette Schavan from the CDU said that Germany needs to "exit the exit resolution", referring to the phase-out. "We urgently need the life-span extension - as a contribution to global climate protection and for a lasting energy supply," she told Bild am Sonntag.



But the Social Democrats reject the idea of prolonging the life-span of existing power plants, pointing to remaining question marks over how to safely store the nuclear waste.



"It is irresponsible so long as the question of the disposal of highly radioactive waste is not solved," the party top figure, Peter Struck, was cited as saying by Der Tagesspiegel on Sunday (6 July).


The same message came from transportation minister Wolfgang Tiefensee, speaking to Welt am Sonntag. "We believe in renewable energy and not in nuclear energy," he said, pointing to plans to build some 30 offshore windfarms in the Baltic and North seas. [SEE BELOW]




It is up to each EU state to choose its own energy mix. But the current European Commission, headed by Mr Barroso, has not shied away from supporting the nuclear path. Brussels says that nuclear energy has a role to play in meeting the EU's growing concerns about security of supply and CO2 emission reductions.





-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2008/gb2008077_507147.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories

Germany Plans 30 More Wind Farms


Business Week


July 7, 2008


The government's move toward offshore wind farms comes as the debate over phasing out nuclear energy heats up.


The energy debate is heating up in Germany with advocates of abandoning the planned nuclear phase-out pitted against those who argue that renewable energy is the way to go. Now the German government has said it plans to give a massive boost to wind power in the coming years.


Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee said on Sunday that Berlin plans to build up to 30 offshore wind farms to meet the country's renewable energy targets. Speaking to the Welt am Sonntag newspaper he said the plan was to build some 2,000 windmills in the North Sea and Baltic Sea which would provide 11,000 megawatts of electricity.


"The price of oil has made this all the more pressing and the interest from investors shows that it is economically viable," Tiefensee said.


Berlin wants to reduce dependency on energy suppliers from overseas and Tiefensee says the government is aiming to obtain 25,000 megawatts of energy from wind farms by 2030. The farms, which will cost €1 billion ($1.56 billion) each to construct, are to be located in relatively deep water and will require hundreds of kilometers of cables to bring the power generated to the mainland. The first wind farm is to be erected off Borkum Island in the North Sea next year.


In June, Germany's parliament passed a law aimed at increasing the amount of power generated by renewable energy sources like wind and solar power from the current 14 percent to 30 percent by 2020.


However, there are also growing calls to increase Germany's use of nuclear energy as the price of oil soars.


While the ruling coalition of conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) and center-left Social Democrats (SPD) had agreed to honor a previous government's decision to close down the country's nuclear plants by 2020, there are increased calls to take another look at the nuclear phase-out. Many in the CDU, including Merkel, argue that this hinders Germany's efforts to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. The SPD, on the other hand, is firmly against increasing reliance on nuclear power.


Tiefensee, a member of the SPD, said on Sunday that investing in energy sources such as wind was a better option. "We believe in renewable energy and not in nuclear energy."

Ensuring U.S. Energy Security, NOT Climate Change Chastity Is Critical, Given the Worsening Impact Higher Energy Costs Are Having On the Economy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/08oil.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212945335-9fj4kod5eZsdcFZRafXfUA

Oil Prices Raise the Cost of Making a Range of Goods


By LOUIS UCHITELLE


June 8, 2008


Surging oil prices are beginning to cut into the profits of a wide range of American businesses, pushing many to raise prices and maneuver aggressively to offset the rising cost of merchandise made from petroleum.


Airlines, package shippers and car owners are no longer the only ones being squeezed by the ever-mounting price of oil, which shot up almost $11 a barrel on Friday alone, to $138.54, a record.


Companies that make hard goods using raw materials derived from oil, like tires, toiletries, plastic packaging and computer screens, are watching their costs skyrocket, and they find themselves forced into unpleasant choices: Should they raise prices, shift to less costly procedures, cut workers, or all three?


The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company is trying to adapt. Its raw material of choice now is natural rubber rather than synthetic rubber, made from oil. To sustain profits, it is making more high-end tires for consumers willing to pay upwards of $100 to replace each tire on their cars.


These steps have not been enough, however, particularly now that the cost of natural rubber is also rising sharply, along with that of many other commodities. So Goodyear has raised the prices of its tires by 15 percent in just four months.


“Our strategy is to raise prices and improve the mix to offset the cost of raw materials,” said Keith Price, a Goodyear spokesman. “No one has predicted how long we can continue to do that.”
The sense that many companies may be hitting a wall is palpable. Corporate profits peaked last spring and have shrunk since then, Moody’s Economy.com reports, drawing on Commerce Department data.


The housing crisis and the weakening economy are big reasons, but oil prices are adding greatly to the pressure on profits as retailers fail to pass along higher prices to consumers. That helps to explain why expensive oil has not yet pushed up the inflation rate.


So far this year, the nation’s employers have been cutting jobs at an accelerating pace, particularly last month, when the unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent from 5 percent. But with the vise on corporate profits tightening and the price of oil continuing to climb, more dire action, including job cuts and higher prices, may be in store, economists say, although there is still room to avoid such steps.


“Companies came into this period with extraordinarily high profit margins,” said Edward McKelvey, chief domestic economist at Goldman Sachs, “and some of the surge in raw material costs will be absorbed by lowering those profits.”


Still, the prevailing attitude that the economy could just keep absorbing higher oil prices is being tested — for the first time in nearly 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, a barrel of crude is now more expensive than it was in 1980, the previous peak.


“The conventional wisdom a couple of years ago was that oil did not have that much leverage over the economy,” said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. “But now it plainly does. People are suddenly paying much more attention to their energy costs and trying to figure out how to manage them.”


Goodyear has kept its head above water in part by passing along some of the higher prices to dealers. The dealers, however, have not been able to pass along all of those increases to consumers and are absorbing the difference in lower profits.


Since last spring, the average profits of the nation’s corporations — from behemoths like Goodyear to small neighborhood retailers — have declined at an annual rate of nearly 6 percent, government data show.


Even companies that have been performing well in the economic downturn are sounding notes of caution. Take Costco, the discount retail chain, which offers a wide array of consumer goods, food, wine, furniture, appliances, beauty aids and much more.


Costco’s profit was up in the first quarter, but James D. Sinegal, the chief executive, says he is “starting to be confronted with unprecedented price increases” for the merchandise that Costco buys to stock its stores. His first response has been to buy in extra large quantities so that he has stock on hand to carry him through subsequent price increases.
“We just made a big purchase of Tumi luggage,” Mr. Sinegal said.


Procter & Gamble finds itself in a similar predicament. For its fiscal year beginning next month, it expects to spend an additional $2 billion on oil-based raw materials and commodities. That is double last year’s increase, and it is carved from total revenue of just under $80 billion.


Price increases have helped to offset this cost. They have averaged nearly 5 percent for paper towels, bath tissues and diapers, all made with chemicals derived from oil, said Paul Fox, a company spokesman.


Natural oils have been substituted for ingredients made from petroleum; for example, palm oil now goes into a variety of laundry soaps. But like rubber, the cost of palm oil and other natural commodities is rising.


Trying to hold down raw material costs, Procter & Gamble has resorted to “compacting” a few laundry products, Mr. Fox said, so that the same amount of detergent fits into smaller and less costly containers made of plastic, which is derived from oil.


Still, the company’s operating profit edged down to 20.1 percent of revenue in the first quarter, from 21.9 percent in each of the two previous quarters. “That 20.1 percent was down, but it was an improvement on the advance guidance we had given for that quarter,” Mr. Fox said.


No business in America produces more of the oil-based ingredients that go into the nation’s products than the Dow Chemical Company, based in Midland, Mich. From Dow’s petrochemical operations come the basic ingredients of a wide variety of plastic bottles and packaging, including numerous containers once made of glass or tin.


Indeed, paint, computer and television screens, mobile phones, light bulbs, cushions, paper, mattresses, car seats, carpets, steering wheels and polyesters are all made with ingredients that Dow and other chemical companies refine from oil and natural gas.


Dow normally raises prices piecemeal. Last month, though, the surge in the cost of oil and natural gas, the company’s principal raw materials, produced a rare across-the-board price increase of as much as 20 percent.


“We have taken out head count, automated, been very diligent on cost control,” said Andrew Liveris, Dow’s chairman and chief executive, “but these surges in energy prices are just one surge too many.”


Dow’s sweeping price increases will probably have a domino effect, resulting in higher prices or, more likely, shrinking profits, analysts say. Constrained by the weak economy and fewer wage earners among their customers, the nation’s retailers have so far not been able to pass on to consumers much of the rising cost of products that depend on oil. The Consumer Price Index, minus food and energy, is barely rising.


“One of the surprises,” said Patrick Jackman, a senior economist in the consumer price division of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “is that the oil price surges of the 1970s passed through fairly quickly into consumer prices, and this time that is not happening.”

Mr. Clinton, Please Explain: US Must Adopt Europe's Economically Harmful Malthusian Negative Sustainable Development Climate-Energy Policies??

Bill Clinton Says Economic Slowdown Could Be Necessary To Fight Global Warming

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009891998

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=92235

http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2008/02/01/bill-clinton-predicts-an-economic-slowdown-in-order-to-create-millions-and-millions-of-new-jobs-in-an-active-environment-plan

http://www.topix.com/news/global-warming/2008/01/bill-we-just-have-to-slow-down-our-economy-to-fight-global-warming

January 31, 2008 1:42 p.m. EST

Julie Farby - AHN Reporter

Denver, CO (AHN)-Speaking in Denver on Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton did not mince words on how to combat global warming, telling the crowd that the fight against climate change required industrialized nations to "slow down their economies and cut back on greenhouse gas emissions."


Bill Clinton, who was traveling from state to state to campaign on behalf of his wife's presidential bid, spoke to the Colorado crowd about the importance of a good energy plan not only to curb greenhouse gas emission and global warming, but also to stimulate job growth as well.
Although Clinton said that an active environmental plan may require an initial slowdown of the economy, the former President assured the audience his wife was the best candidate for the White House, with a viable, sustainable energy plan to "help save the planet for our grandchildren."


Speaking on behalf of his wife's energy proposals, Bill Clinton told the crowd, "If you want a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future in America...if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles...and to create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

[THAT'S CORRECT. MS. CLINTON WILL ADOPT WHOLESALE ALL OF EUROPE'S FLAWED ENVIRONMENT-CENTRIC ENERGY POLICIES THAT HAVE PLACED EUROPE AT A GLOBAL ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE VIS-A-VIS OTHER COUNTRIES. THESE POLICIES HAVE BEEN ELEVATED TO THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS 27 MEMBER STATES AT U.S. EXPENSE. NOW MS. CLINTON SHOWS HER TRUE COLORS AND OPENLY EMBRACES EXPENSIVE NON-SCIENCE AND NON-ECONOMICS BASED ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES THAT WILL RAISE THE COST OF LIVING FOR ALL AMERICANS WITHOUT PROOF THAT THE POLICIES WILL EVER WORK!!]

Democrats Pander to Environmental Extremists and Foresake the Ultimate Form of Renewable Energy - Recyclable Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285465316288156


Nuclear Fuel: Waste Not, Want Not


INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


January 17, 2008


Power: On the eve of the Nevada caucus, Democrats fall over each another opposing storage of the nation's nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain Repository. But is it really waste or the ultimate form of renewable energy?


At a debate Tuesday, the Democrats' three blind mice were asked if they would kill the nuclear waste repository project at Yucca Mountain 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas. All said they would, demonstrating once again their party's energy policy consists mainly of hot air from the podium.


An underground train enters Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Democratic opposition has delayed plans to turn the site into a nuclear waste dump.


Trial lawyer and one-term senator John Edwards added that he was not only against Yucca Mountain but against nuclear power altogether. "I am against building more nuclear power plants because I do not think we have a safe way to dispose of the waste," he said.


Except that Edwards doesn't mind keeping America's nuclear waste where it is right now — in everybody else's back yard.


Vast numbers of spent nuclear fuel rods are currently being stored at more than 130 above-ground facilities in 39 states. Approximately 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of these existing sites. Each is a terrorist's dream target.


Sen. Barack Obama said he'd "end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people of Nevada that they're going to be safe."


The fact that his home state of Illinois has more nuclear plants than any other, he said, made it all the more noble that he has stood against the project.


Noble? The closed nuclear power plant at Zion, just north of Chicago and 120 yards from Lake Michigan, holds 2.7 million pounds of spent fuel rods. Nearly 4,500 metric tons of nuclear waste in Illinois awaits permanent storage. Obama thinks it's just fine the way it is.


As for Sen. Hillary Clinton, she said she's been "consistently against Yucca Mountain." And indeed she has.


"Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent fuel from our nation's nuclear reactors," she stated at a Senate hearing in October. In her response to a Las Vegas Sun questionnaire, Hillary said: "I'm working with (Nevada senator) Harry Reid to starve it to death."


Yucca Mountain is possibly the safest, most geologically stable and most studied place on the planet. It abuts Nellis Air Force Base and the Nevada Test Site. Even if terrorists managed to penetrate repository security and the mountain itself, the worst-case scenario might be a mild release of radioactivity in the middle of a desert, not a death cloud descending on a major metropolitan area.


The storage facility is supposed to hold 77,000 tons of nuclear waste for thousands of years in a single secure site. Yucca Mountain would be the solution offered by Mark Twain's Puddn'head Wilson: "Put all your eggs in one basket and — watch that basket."


But there may be an even better solution: Recycle spent fuel rods to produce even more greenhouse-gas-reducing nuclear energy.


Over the past four decades, America's reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. Jack Spencer, research fellow for nuclear energy policy at the Thomas A. Rowe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, says this "waste" has enough energy to power every U.S. household for a dozen years.


As we've noted, France long ago achieved energy independence by relying on nuclear energy for most of its power needs. But it also leads the world in processing this waste to create even more energy.


The French have reprocessed spent nuclear fuel for 30 years without incident. There have been no accidental explosions, no terrorist attacks, no contribution to nuclear proliferation. Their facility in La Hague has safely processed more than 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or enough to power the entire country for 14 years.


The U.S. pioneered the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then banned its commercial use in 1977. An energy plan that does not involve continued and even increased use of nuclear power is no plan at all. And even if we closed all nuclear plants tomorrow, the waste problem would remain.


Power to the people — nuclear power.