Jochen Flasbarth, president of Germany's Federal Environment, speaking at a press conference in Montpelier on Tuesday. VTD/Josh Larkin
German environmental leaders are urging Vermont officials to follow their country’s lead and drop nuclear power.
In May, the German government announced plans to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2022. The decision came in the wake of mass anti-nuclear power protests across the country after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station disaster. The Fukushima incident is considered to be the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. An earthquake and subsequent tsunami caused explosions and leaks of radioactive gas at three reactors that suffered partial meltdowns. In addition, spent fuel rods caught on fire and released radioactive material into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean.
The reactors that emitted radioactive contaminants into the Japanese environment are Mark 1 General Electric models, identical to the type used at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon.
In a visit to Montpelier on Tuesday, which was coordinated by the Maryland-based anti-nuclear power group Beyond Nuclear, Jochen Flasbarth, president of Germany’s Federal Environment Agency, and Arne Jungjohann, of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, joined Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, to discuss Vermont’s shift away from nuclear power.
“It’s an amazing shift in energy policy,” Flasbarth said of the Vermont Legislature’s decision not to renew the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant’s operating license in 2012.
Flasbarth said Germany plans to transition toward 40 percent renewable energy by 2020 and 80 to 100 percent renewables by 2050. He said 25 percent of Germany’s energy on its grid comes from renewable sources. The country might use more coal in the next 10 years to replace its nuclear sources, but the amount of coal it burns is capped by the European emission trading system. This system covers installations that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, and it includes nearly half of the European Union’s carbon dioxide emissions. Companies receive emissions allowances that they can buy or sell as needed.
Klein, who chairs the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said the policies Germany has implemented validates the work he and others have been doing to move away from nuclear power.
“We are moving toward a more independent, cleaner energy system,” Klein said. “We are going to be less reliant on big, centralized power producers.”
Jungjohann, who is affiliated with the German Green Party, said Vermont’s legislation is a rare example nationally of cleaner energy initiatives in the United States.
“You don’t change politics in Washington,” he said. “Where it’s happening is at the state level.”
Jungjohann praised Vermont for its decisions to implement a “feed-in tariff” policy that sets different rates for different types of renewable projects in order to encourage investment in renewable technologies. In Vermont, the Legislature enacted a law in 2009 to create a “standard offer” for certain projects of less than 2.2 megawatts. The essence of the standard offer is that it requires utilities to purchase electricity from certain small renewable projects at above-market price—usually calculated to cover the cost of developing a qualifying project. In Germany, unlike Vermont, there is no cap on the feed-in tariff. The system also adjusts such rates to keep them closer to the market cost of energy. Likewise, the standard offer program is open ended in Germany, while in Vermont there are a limited number of projects that can receive the benefit.
Jungjohann said Germany focuses on developing energy cooperatives for projects like wind farms that keep revenue in local communities. He said this type of decentralized, community-owned approach produces acceptance and economic benefit for the people who live near the projects.
“There’s a small-town energy revolution on its way,” Junjohann said.
He said in Germany, people are already seeing the benefit of creating a local energy economy.
In Vermont, proponents of Vermont Yankee fear a shutdown will result in higher energy prices for ratepayers if the state has to purchase its energy from the New England grid.
When asked about the costs of shifting away from nuclear power, Flasbarth said “the bill presented to the consumer is not the real bill” when taking into account the costs of environmental problems that could occur as a result of nuclear power. He claimed, further, that investing in renewable energy in Germany had helped the country overcome the global economic downturn by creating jobs and a “green economy.”
Larry Smith, a spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said he could not discuss the future of the nuclear plant in Vermont’s energy portfolio because of the pending litigation between Entergy and the State of Vermont. Entergy filed a lawsuit in Vermont District Court in April seeking a judgment to prevent the state from forcing the plant to shut down in March 2012.
Vermont Yankee’s position, he said, is that the plant is safe and that comparing the facilities there to the Fukushima Daiichi plant is unfair.
“It’s apples and oranges,” Smith said.
Critics of Vermont Yankee have highlighted the fact that the Vermont plant uses a GE Mark I Boiling Water Reactor similar to the one that failed in Japan, as well as technical problems with the facility, including a tritium leak and the existence of strontium 90, a radioactive material, in fish near the plant.
Smith said the two facilities have a similar design, but there are significant upgrades at Vermont Yankee that were suggested by General Electric or mandated by the Atomic Energy Act. One of these upgrades included hardened vents designed to send hydrogen into the atmosphere in an emergency to avoid build up of the gas that could explode. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed Vermont Yankee’s license earlier this year but maintained that the agency would continue to evaluate safety measures at the plant in light of the disaster in Japan.
Flasbarth also spoke at the Renewable Energy Vermont conference and at the Bethany Church in Montpelier. The Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance and the Vermont Public Interest Research Group also sponsored the Vermont stop on the Beyond Nuclear tour.
Permalink |
Contrary to the American nuclear industry claims of better protection for their Mark I designs, Fukushima Daiichi did install the hardened vents years ago and the vents stuck and failed in the early hours after the earthquake and tsunami. This was reported by New York Times correspondent in Tokyo Hiroko Tabuchi in her May 17, 2011 article “In Japan Reactor Failings, Danger Signs for the U.S.”
Permalink |
This story speaks to the releasing of radiation in Fukushima in the past tense. The industry and the national media would like us all to believe that the crisis in Japan is over. It’s not. The plant is still releasing radiation every day and will continue to do so for quite some time.
Larry Smith put forth the standard response: no (real) comment other than to say that everything’s fine and the NRC will keep a close eye on things going forward.
That’s what we hear from the industry; even when it comes to Fukushima. Everything’s fine and the industry will keep an eye on it. You all just go back to watching American Idol and let us worry about these matters.
Hopefully, people are becoming more educated. Bringing these folks here from Germany might also help educate people as to what is being done elsewhere.
It should be noted that Citizens Awareness Network also helped to coordinate their appearance.
Permalink |
Who pays for German leaders to come from Germany to Vermont during foliage season?
Permalink |
The Vermont tour was funded by the Heinrich Boell Foundation, a German think tank, through its Environment and Global Dialogue Program of the Washington office. Their focus is “identifying and promoting solutions towards a low carbon economy. Transatlantic cooperation on domestic energy and climate policies such as cap and trade and feed-in tariffs for renewable energies is a key aspect for this.”
http://boell.org/calendar/VA-viewevt-en.aspx?evtid=10405
Permalink |
So let’s see. Vermontets should take their lead from these folks and the German Green Party? Really?
Permalink |
“An earthquake and subsequent tsunami caused explosions and leaks of radioactive gas at three reactors that suffered partial meltdowns. In addition, spent fuel rods caught on fire and released radioactive material into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean.”
This is completely incorrect. The spent fuel rods were actually unharmed contrary to early predictions. This has been reported multiple times over the past months with video footage of robotic exploration of the fuel pools demonstrating that the spent fuel is indeed undamaged. There also was no “leak” of radioactive gas. Steam contaminated with I-131 and Cs-137 was vented to the atmosphere.
“The reactors that emitted radioactive contaminants into the Japanese environment are Mark 1 General Electric models, identical to the type used at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon (sic).”
Yes, they are GE Mark 1 BWRs, however, they are not identical. This isn’t terribly relevant as the problem which caused the loss of cooling accident at Fukushima Daiichi was the location of the backup diesel generators being located in the basement and subsequently flooded by the tsunami. This is not a factor with Vermont Yankee and any insinuation that the US plant has an “identical” design fault with its Japanese counter part is disingenuous at best.
Permalink |
This offical from Germany is saying that its OK to burn more coal and gas for ten years, in order to phase out nuclear power and build green supplies. Has he talked to Bill McKibben and his 350 campaign?
MK I Containment at Fukushima? So what? Any power reactor that looses cooling will meltdown (except for one design, built and tested in …..Germany) Saying that the Fukushima containments are like Vermont Yankee’s is true but only a political tactic.
What about the 29 countries, besides the US that are committed to nuclear power? (Germany, Switzerland and Italy not included) Why not follow China’s example? They are building wind, solar, hydro and nuclear.
Permalink |
Tony Klein and the German delegation can tell themselves all the feel-good stories they want about how wonderful it is to have locally produced and consumed wind energy. But don’t try selling that line to the communities and families around the state who are staring down the barrel of industrial wind corporations and their teams of pitbull lawyers. To the non-fairy tale, real people faced with huge wind projects, the Vermont system is totally rigged: it is a landrush lunge to get the huge public subsidies for destructive, inefficient projects, a seamless kangaroo court review process that starts in the sell-out PSB and ends in the brain-dead Vermont Supreme Court.
Permalink |
NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE AN UNRECOGNIZED THREAT MUCH WORSE THAN A TERROR ATTACK!
See the Aesop Institute website to understand how and why.
71 of the 104 nuclear plants in the USA can suffer meltdowns following a very possible solar superstorm.
See CHEAP GREEN on the same website for a revolutionary alternative that may allow the nickel in a 5 cent coin to become the energy equivalent of 5 barrels of oil.
Permalink |
Leslie,
And who gave money to the Heinrich Boell Foundation so it would send Germans to Vermont, all expenses paid during foliage season, to tell Vermonters what to do and give Klein, et al, political cover for expensive renewables build-outs that produce just a little of expensive variable, intermittent energy?
It would be much wiser and more economical to shift subsidies away from expensive renewables that produce just a little of variable, intermittent energy. Those renewables would not be needed, if we use those funds for increased energy efficiency, because it provides the quickest and biggest “bang for the buck”, AND it is invisible, AND it does not destroy pristine ridge lines/upset mountain water runoffs, AND it would more effectively reduce CO2, AND we can do it without public resistance and controversy.
Permalink |
Willem,
Why does it matter who gave the foundation its money so long as Vermonters are not fitting the bill? You went from insinuating that was the case to now insinuating that what: some nefarious renewable energy cartel is behind the funding of the trip? Either way, Vermonters have benefitted from a dialogue that has raised the awareness regarding global approaches to energy provision.
Additionally, you continue to push the false choice that investments can only either go to energy efficiency or renewable production. The fact is, investment in both is lacking. We don’t live in an investment vacuum where money that goes to one can’t go to the other. There are many other societal investments that are probably out of balance with the benefits they accrue, and its looking at the whole picture and determining how those funds can go to EE and RE to secure an energy future where energy is used efficiently and the energy that is used is produced locally or regionally. Also, with Smart Grid implementation, and more distributed power sources, the two work in concert with one another to maximize benefits. One must look at a synthesis rather than fracturing the discussion into antithetical dichotomies.
Merely because something is controversial does not mean it shouldn’t be done. Economics is about trade-offs, and recognizing that they exist, which is precisely what the energy debate over renewables has brought to the forefront of many Vermonters. It’s a debate worth having in order to ensure the best decisions are made. People will disagree, but on the whole I think the debate has moved forward in a responsible way that reflects the values of many Vermonters. In cases where it hasn’t, particularly relating to wind development, many towns have been successful in preventing wind development in their towns.
Permalink |
Well said Mr. Claro.
Permalink |
“Merely because something is controversial does not mean it shouldn’t be done.”
Indeed. Vermont Yankee should be relicensed.