In Europe as in Asia the true cost of fossil fuels has been born by the consumer economies since World War II. As a result Europeans have embraced many energy producing and distribution technologies that we in the US are constantly told are not cost effective, including, sorry to say, quite a few which were invented by Americans.
However, one of the earliest alternatives to fossil fuel driven energy was pioneered by Germany: the peaceful use of atomic energy. And, of course, it was German and Italian scientists who spurred our atomic programs to their preeminence. When Ike made "Atoms For Peace" a centerpiece of US diplomacy, Germany was an early adopter atomic power plants.
However, not all fossil fuel alternatives were success stories. Germany was also one of the first nations to begin phase out atomic power.
Germany's national psychodrama regarding atomic power can teach the USA so much, if we, for once, would be willing to learn from the experience of another nation.
A nuclear reactor's lifespan is about thirty years, at which point it needs to be replaced. Under legislation passed in 1998, Germany plans to phase out all of its existing nuclear reactors by 2020 as they reach the end of their normal lifespan, rather than replacing them. Alternative energy sources would be used to replace the lost power production capacity.
The problem is that only companies owning the atomic power plants are being given much of a chance to come up with ways to make up the power production shortfall. Strangely enough, they can't seem to think of a way to do this other than to go back to coal fired power plants. Germany has a lot of coal. And, as it happens, the power companies own a lot of coal mines.
The present Conservative Democrat coalition government, headed by Angela Merkel, thinks this is just terrible. Her government thinks Germany should just scrap the whole idea and go back to using the atomic power plants. "Energy cannot become a luxury item," says her Economy Minister Rainer Brüderle from the pro-business Free Democrats.
Atomic energy = cheap power!
It might just be the 1950s as far as the proponents of extending the lifespan of Germany's nuclear reactors are concerned. They claim consumers will end up footing the bill if the country's aging atomic power plants are phased out as planned.
It's an argument thats easy to sell. It speaks directly to the wallet. It sounds plausible. And it is simple, simple, simple. Renewable energy is expensive and has to be subsidized, whereas nuclear power doesn't.
But, as always the argument doesn't hold up under the glow of the nuclear waste that no one has yet figured out how to safely dispose of. Electricity in Germany isn't cheap. Theoretically, the same legislation which phased out nuclear power plants opened up the German power market in 1998. In practice nothing changed. There are four large atomic energy firms in Germany, producing about 80 percent of Germany's power. These firms do not compete with one another. And, despite the 1998 legislation, there is no incentive whatsoever for these firms to develop competitive alternative sources of energy production within their corporate structures.
To make her rollback proposal more palatable to the German voter, Merkel's Government is proposing to levy a new tax on nuclear power production, theoretically to subsidize the development of new sources of power. But, in reality the new tax would give the power companies who do not particularly wish to invest in new sources of power a perfect excuse not to. In effect, the power companies would be paying the government a bribe to let them alone.
Extending the lifespan of the nuclear reactors will cement the status quo. Systematically removing nuclear power plants from the power grid would provide openings that presently do not exist competition. For instance, many German municipalities have already planned and prepared for the nuclear phase-out by investing in renewable energy technology. Keeping the old reactors running longer will invalidate the investments those municipalities have made and strangle their chances at becoming energy producers before they even get started. Much of Germany below the national level has spent the past decade preparing for the elimination of nuclear power plants.
These efforts have been decentralized. Continuing the steady progress towards the elimination of nuclear power plants would also continue this decentralized effort. While the giant energy companies may find this approach very inefficient, it has the charm of actually producing progress in addition to trying a number of different approaches at the same time. True, some will be unsuccessful. But, many will not be. Economies of scale have turned out to be overrated since the benefits have consistently turned to be bonuses for the few who did not earn them in the first place. In the future, hopefully electricity creation will be more decentralized and there will be a greater number of providers. One of the side benefits of this will be that power plants will be less attractive as targets for terrorism. In the end, proper competition will help lower prices and hinder companies from developing the kind of market monopoly which today which stifles technological advances.
The Atomic Subsidy - Finally, opponents of subsidizing renewable energy pretend that atomic power was never subsidized. This is absurd. In Germany, the industry received €165 billion (about US$215 billion) in government support from 1950 to 2008. Needless to say, the businesses were happy to pocket the money. I haven't checked; but, I bet the all those Atoms For Peace have received a Yucca Mountain's worth of government subsidies in the US, too.
Of Course, the Atomic subsidy is piddling compared to the $30 to $158 billion with which the Cato Institute reckons the USA subsidizes Big OIL annually.