Atomkraft, Ja, bitte… (to help Russia and the Middle East develop)
Pablo Díaz de Rábago
March 10, 2007
As a teenage student in Austria, 1982, I came to see the first “Atomkraft, Nein Danke” sticker. At first , I could not understand the social reaction to nuclear plants in Austria and Germany. Later, the Three-Mile Island incident and the Tschernobil meltdown put some sense of perspective in the claim nuclear energy was dangerous.
However, the dangers of nuclear plants have evolved, probably not as much as computer power has -compare, for example an Apple II computer of the late eighties to a Backberry today-, but to a standard that makes dangers technically manageable and thus politically acceptable. In this respect see the comments on the Tschernobil technology. The link nuclear danger – Tschernobil is like comparing today car safety – Ford model T.
Still, the left (Socialist) and the Green have not, until recently, started to regard (albeit privately) the possibility of endorsing nuclear power and only in the new light of the global warming threat. See in this respect the change of heart of the author of the GAIA theory, James Lovelock one of the brains behind green political activity. But public endorsement is still not there yet.
Why?
Another way to look at atomic energy is what it will mean if it replaces carbon fuels in the European Energy mix. As mentioned by James Lovelock, other alternative energy sources (solar, wind and hydro) are not economical and therefore the only true shift is to nuclear.
To me, this is the correct perspective for the political stalemate and for the right decision.
A new and serious bet for nuclear by Europe (Germany, Spain, Italy) is the right incentive for Russia and for the Middle East to sense that oil and gas rents better be employed in educating their people and promoting sustainable economic models based on labor (instead of commodities) and self-sustainability.
Being able to limit dependence from Russia and the Middle East is what the game is about. Are the German, Spanish and Italian Socialists willing to take the step?
I suggest, as always, a serious positioning by the Socialist parties and a formal European backing for the new nuclear age. Maybe then we can look at a brighter future for our mother Earth.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI | bookmark on del.icio.us.
Leave a comment
Advertencia de Protección de Datos:
Los datos personales capturados con ocasión de la utilización del formulario de comentarios (nombre/apodo, dirección de correo electrónico, sitio web y dirección IP), serán incluidos en un fichero del propietario del sitio web y se publicarán (excepto su dirección de correo electrónico y su dirección IP) en esta página con la finalidad de permitir opinar públicamente al lector, así como para en su caso contestar al comentario o consultas que formule. Podrá ejercitar sus derechos de acceso, de rectificación, de cancelación y de oposición en lo referido a dichos datos personales dirigiendo un correo electrónico a la dirección: datos.personales@blogeuropa.eu.
----
Privacy notice:
Please be informed that by using the comments form, your personal data (name/nickname, e-mail address, website and IP address), will be included in a file owned by the website proprietor and published along your comment (except for your e-mail and IP addresses), in order for the reader to publicly comment, as well as -should that be the case-, to respond to any comment or query that readers may have made. You will be able to exercise your rights to access, rectify, cancel and oppose such personal data by sending an e-mail to the following address: datos.personales@blogeuropa.eu.
The debate raised by Pablo is among the most important ones for the future of Europe. I would like to ask him, the European Council of last week, is it a bold step at EU level in the direction of alternatives to carbon fuels? is is just a public relations excercise, through a very loose agreement in which every Member State retains the right to define what is clean energy?
Comment by JMA — March 16, 2007 @ 9:12 am
The problem of trying to reach consensus when very different approaches to nuclear are present in Europe is that by this agreement the European Council is not endorsing Nuclear Power and therefore does not help Socialists (and incredibly tories in the United Kingdom) to take the step to primary fuel independence.
I think the only serious framework is the Swedish approach, ie. setting a goal, evaluating costs and reaching explicit political consensus.
Comment by Pablo Díaz — March 20, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
I agree with Pablos’s comments. Europe was a forerunner in peaceful use of nuclear power: we now celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Euratom treaty. At that time, European consumption of energy was lower than it is today, petroleum was of course much cheaper, and CO2 emissions did not worry…
Tschernobil-type plant is very different from most nuclear plants in operation today. It was built mainly for military reasons (to enrich plutonium to be used in nuclear heads of missiles and bombs), although it also produces electricity. Both the USSR and the USA operated such plants, but the USA closed them in 1966, due to the risk involved. There is just one Tschernobil-type reactor working in the EU nowadays. It is located in Lithuania and it will be closed in 2009. Not taking on account this reactor, 38 % of electricity in the EU comes from nuclear plants.
Nuclear energy was an option in 1957. In the present context, it is a necessity for Europe.
Comment by Víctor Torre-Silva — March 26, 2007 @ 10:41 am