Human cost of nuclear power too high: German minister

Related Topics

A general view of the Cruas nuclear power plant, southern France April 19, 2011. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier

A general view of the Cruas nuclear power plant, southern France April 19, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Benoit Tessier

BERLIN | Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:40am EDT

BERLIN (Reuters) - Nuclear energy may appear cheap at first glance, but the potential human costs of atomic power make it unaffordable over the long term, German Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said in comments released on Friday.

In an article for news weekly Der Spiegel on the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine, Roettgen said Germany's decision to move away from nuclear power generation was a matter of responsible economic policy.

"In the short term, it may look like a cheap source of energy, but if catastrophe strikes, the costs are too high... no economic target is worth endangering people's well-being, today or in future generations."

The Fukushima reactor accident in Japan caused an abrupt U-turn in Germany's nuclear energy plans, with the government now focused on how to abandon nuclear power after it shut down several plants.

Roettgen said that apart from the human cost, the disaster had dealt a serious blow to the Japanese economy, the world's third largest. He predicted this would lead to a broad reassessment of atomic power, with signs of a rethink already emerging in Europe.

"The costs of the Fukushima reactor accident will weigh on Japan's economy for years, if not decades," he said. "These economic costs will lead to a rethinking of nuclear energy."

The center-right Berlin government scrapped an earlier decision to extend the lifespans of German nuclear plants but has yet to decide when it will permanently close them down.

After Chancellor Angela Merkel met regional leaders this month, the premier of one state said Germany's last nuclear plant would close no later than 2022.

NO GOLDEN PATH

Some politicians are calling for an even quicker exit. In Der Spiegel, the head of Merkel's conservative Bavarian sister party, Horst Seehofer, once a fierce opponent of limiting plant lifespans, said all plants could be closed by 2020.

Roettgen said Germans would have to be ready to shoulder new costs as a result.

"There is no golden path to the future that costs nothing and requires effort from no-one," he wrote. "Everyone will have to contribute, both industry and private households."

Der Spiegel said Germany's largest energy concerns had made a first assessment of potential costs if the seven nuclear plants now offline remain closed.

The study showed cost increases would be only moderate for households -- one euro cent per kWh -- but energy-intensive industries would face some 1.5 billion euros ($2.19 billion) in extra costs annually, above all in the chemicals sector.

(editing by Paul Taylor)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
jcaple wrote:
Don’t let yourself be swayed by this misinformed writer. Germany has wanted to close it’s nuclear plants for years but won’t due to the high cost of doing so. There was no U-turn after Fukushima, so please do your research next time. Also, Roettgen is misinformed and just being a fear-monger as this point. Nuclear power is by far the safest power in history. Fukushima killed ZERO people from radiation effects while the tsunami was the disaster that killed thousands. Three Mile Island hurt NO ONE and the US nuclear power industry has never had a radiation caused death. Chernobyl was an unsafe plant without a containment while every US reactor has a containment and I’m sure every German reactor has one also, so that accident isn’t possible there. Greenhouse gases have a much higher human cost than carbon-free nuclear power.

Apr 22, 2011 12:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ladygoodman wrote:
jcaple: The fact that humanity and the earth haven’t suffered enough from this destructive source of power doesn’t mean it is the safest power in history – history isn’t finished yet, and there is still the problem of what to do with the waste. There are several U.S. nuclear facilities that are keeping spent fuel rods in inadequate storage – and many of them are sitting on earthquake faults, too.

Apr 23, 2011 4:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
LtDan wrote:
Good points from both jcaple and lady goodman, illustrating once again that there is often no simple answer. Most alternatives have their faults. Personally, I would like to see more alternative energy powers explored, whether it be geothermal energy (with its flaws,) wind power (with its flaws, ) etc. Then, perhaps, we can make a sounder decision based on the “lesser of two evils” evidence.

Apr 23, 2011 4:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.