Nuclear Waste Depository Splits Town's Community

[BubbleBliss]

Gorleben Nuclear Waste Depository Splits Community

The Gorleben nuclear waste depository has been a site for anti-nuclear protest for 30 years, and this weekend 30,000 are expected to return to the north German site. The issue of where to store the toxic waste has divided the region and split families apart. SPIEGEL ONLINE examines both sides of the fence.

On Saturday, more than 30,000 protestors are expected to converge in the Wendland region of northern Germany. Their cause: Ending the transport of highly toxic nuclear waste into the area's Gorleben facility. It's an issue that's driven a wedge through the local community for the past 30 years.

Until recently, it seemed as if the environmental lobby's battle to rid Germany of waste-producing nuclear power plants had been won. In 2001, the German government, under a ruling center-left Social Democrat (SPD)-Green Party coalition, announced it would phase-out nuclear power. But this fall Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative government announced it would extend the lifespan of nuclear reactors by an average of 12 years.

The decision breathed new urgency into the country's anti-nuclear movement, and is bringing more protestors back to the Gorleben area, where sit-in blockades on the train tracks have taken place for decades.

The issue at hand is what to do with the high-level radioactive waste. The Federal Office for Radiation Protection estimates the government's decision to extend nuclear reactor lifespans will generate an extra 17,200 tons of heavy metal of heat-generating, radioactive waste by 2040.

In 1979, a former salt mine at Gorleben was selected as a temporary waste site, and the government began investigating whether or not to make the site permanent. The announcement unleashed a wave of protest from the Green movement -- still in its infancy at the time -- and the nuclear issue came to define the fledgling German Green Party.

Now, after a 10-year cooling off period, feasibility research into a permanent storage site in Gorleben have started again. As yet another so-called "Castor transport" of nuclear waste containers makes its way from France, tens of thousands of protestors are preparing to block its path with a sit-in blockade. Old banners declaring "Castor brings cancer," and "Stop Castor," adorn the houses along the route and the Wendland anti-nuclear movement's signature yellow "X" has been nailed to fences and posts in gardens.

But the local population is far from united on the issue. Opponents and supporters live side by side in the idyllic countryside. With views hardening in recent weeks, the dispute is threatening to destroy the harmony of the area's communities. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke to local residents on both sides of the nuclear fence.

The Supporters

In Gartow, a village neighboring the Gorleben site, mayor Friedrich-Wilhelm Schröder and his deputy, Ulrich Flöter, both members of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), have stood in favor of the depository for years. In the 1980s, Flöter even received anonymous death threats because of his stance. "It would be easier if we said we were against it," he said, "but there also have to be people who raise the banner."

For them, the benefits of the site to the local community are obvious. "I stand by the site," said Schröder. "It's an economic asset." The Gorleben site employs 130 locals, and Schröder's son has an apprenticeship there.

And even though their position is deeply unpopular among the anti-nuclear lobby, it has not cost the CDU votes locally -- the party occupies eight of 15 local council seats. "We represent the local citizens when it comes to this issue," said Flöter.

Thirty years ago, local politicians gave their consent to the Gorleben nuclear waste depository, but the decision to make it permanent has long been out of their hands. The legal process lies with the federal government, Schröder told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

The Local Pastor

Eckhard Kruse has been the local pastor in Gartow for 21 years. In the summer of 2009, the local Evangelical Church appointed him "depository officer," a role which involves mulling over the ethical questions posed by the Gorleben site. He has also been tasked with being a sounding board for the local community, regardless of what their views on the nearby storage of nuclear waste are. "I'm there for anybody," Kruse said. "But I can't condone everything that people do."

Personally he is skeptical of the Gorleben project, but doesn't want to alienate his flock by openly displaying the opposition's "X" in his window. "That would mean people wouldn't feel free to come here," he explained. Even now, most visitors to his house come under cover of darkness. They don't want others to see them seeking the advice of a known opponent of nuclear power.

Spokesman for the Nuclear Lobby

Rolf Meyer, the long-time spokesman for the German Company for the Construction and Operation of Waste Repositories (DBE), knows the area's every nook and cranny. His job has not made him popular. "Over time I've become evil personified," he said.

He isn't welcome to come along, whenever his wife, a teacher, goes out for a drink with her colleagues. Still, Meyer understands the opposition's concern. "(Waste) disposal is an incredibly complex process and extends over unimaginable periods of time," he said. "But the problem has to be faced."

For Meyer the core issue in Wendland is: "Who can you trust?"

The District Official

Klaus Poggendorf is among those in Wendland who don't trust the anti-nuclear lobby. As the district's chief executive from 1978-1996, he was heavily involved in making the decisions over Gorleben. He had the final say over whether to ban demonstrations. His most unpopular decision was to clear the "Free Republic of Wendland," a temporary protest camp set up by demonstrators in 1980. "The law forced us to do it," he said. "They were unapproved buildings."

Despite receiving several death threats over the years and even a letter once with wires sticking out of it, which led to a bomb squad unit being called in, Poggendorf is "not dissatisfied" with the time he spent in office. He even spent four years writing a book justifying his actions, titled: "Gorleben - The Dispute over Nuclear Waste Disposal and the Future of a Region."

The Unwavering Opponents

Hans Werner Zachow is a farmer and a founding member of the local Rural Emergency Association, an organization of anti-nuclear farmers formed 30 years ago. The group is determined to make the passage of the nuclear waste transports as difficult as possible. When Zachow helped build the "Free Republic of Wendland" 30 years ago, his parents warned him not to get so heavily involved. Now his 85-year-old father joins the protests.

Wendland farmers are concerned that an accident at the Gorleben site would mean an end to their livelihoods. "If something happened, no one would buy our products anymore," said Zachow, who owns a local dairy farm with 70 cows. "As it is, we don't advertise that our milk comes from Wendland."

Not all farmers have joined the front against the nuclear depository and some made fortunes selling their land to make way for it. Some of the older ones have serious reservations about the protest actions.

For others in the area, the waste facility has split their families apart. Wolf Ehmke, a Hamburg-based teacher, no longer has any contact with his cousin, who sold his land to make way for the depository. "At family occasions my mother always said not to start going on about Gorleben," he said. When Ehmke visits Gorleben on weekends and runs into known supporters of the project, he always remains civil. But he knows the particular pubs where supporters aren't allowed to drink. "Everybody knows which side everybody else is on," he said.

Ehmke believes the plan for a permanent depository at Gorleben is on its last legs. "Times have changed," he said. "You can't govern against the will of the people. It'll be overturned."

The Dependents

If the Gorleben repository were to be closed down Uwe Müller would lose his job. For 20 years he has been working as an IT specialist for the team investigating the suitabilty of the site as a permanent storage facility. As employee council chairman and regional head of the IG BCE union (the Mining, Chemical and Energy Industrial Union) he represents workers from the most hated profession in the area. But, he said, "the community action groups have never turned against the miners."

The workers at Gorleben tend to keep to themselves. They avoid demonstrators and debates and they do not provoke under any circumstances. When Müller's children were taught protest songs at school, it made him angry. But he didn't complain because he didn't want to add fuel to the fire. What annoys the union man most, though, is the fact that there is no genuine discussion between those opposed to the storage facility and those advocating for it. "People who agree with the storage facility or who are ambivalent about it do not speak up," he said.

Miner Gisbert Stevens worked in Gorleben's exploratory mine for 10 years, but never suffered any personal attacks. There are opponents to the facility living in his neighborhood and most of the time everyone gets along well together. It is only when the waste transport begins that the two parties stay out of one another's way. "It doesn't make much sense to have a discussion then," Stevens said.

Whether or not the salt dome is a suitable storage place for the nuclear waste is a complex question -- one which Stevens thinks should be looked into in an impartial way. "If it turned out that it was not suitable, then I will also go and stand on the street and say 'find somewhere else,'" he said.

First up, though, will be the next transport. The demonstrations will take place but Stevens believes they are pointless. "The thing is coming in anyway," he said.

[dblboggie]

And what is your stance on this Bubbles?

[BubbleBliss]

I don't have a problem with nuclear power, as long as it's not for the long term and enough research is put into alternative energy sources. But for now, Nuclear power is, sadly, one of the best sources of energy.

[TexasBlue]

France seems to do OK with it.

[BubbleBliss]

Well I'm more concerned with the storage of nuclear waste. Not a whole lot of it is produced, but it is a risky substance to store and it lasts for a long time. There are definitely better alternatives out there that just have yet to be perfected.

[TexasBlue]

Well I'm more concerned with the storage of nuclear waste. Not a whole lot of it is produced, but it is a risky substance to store and it lasts for a long time. There are definitely better alternatives out there that just have yet to be perfected.

Jut keep burning coal and oil instead.

[dblboggie]

Well I'm more concerned with the storage of nuclear waste. Not a whole lot of it is produced, but it is a risky substance to store and it lasts for a long time. There are definitely better alternatives out there that just have yet to be perfected.

What are those better alternatives that have yet to be perfected?

[BubbleBliss]

Solar, Wind, Hydro, and Geothermal.

[dblboggie]

Solar, Wind, Hydro, and Geothermal.

Hydro power has been in use for thousands of years, and wind has been in use for almost as long. Right now, we have leftists in the green movement opposing the expansion of hydro power because of alleged negative "environmental" impacts of one kind or another. Similar opposition has arisen against wind power (birds being killed by the blades), and there has emerged concerns about the plant and insect life located under the massive number of acres of solar panels that would be necessary to generate even a fraction of the energy that single coal, oil, natural gas or nuclear power plant could generate on a monumentally smaller footprint.

As for geothermal, this technology shows the greatest promise for energy generation and is the one technology that I think is our best chance of doing away with fossil-fuel based electrical power plants. Of course, that is really all that it could replace. You can't fly a plane, or run a train or car on geothermal energy. But it is still well worth investing in making geothermal more widely available.

And I still think nuclear energy is very much worth expanding, especially here in America. After all, the very same energy source that makes geothermal power possible, is that energy source used in a nuclear power plant - and that is the decay of radioactive particles. The core of the earth is nothing more than a giant nuclear reactor.

[BubbleBliss]

Which is why those things have to be perfected. All the things above aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. There's also bio-mass and methane gas based energy production. There are a lot of opportunities and sources out there, and most countries around the world are working on exploring and improving them.... the US is just lagging behind in most of those fields.

[dblboggie]

Which is why those things have to be perfected. All the things above aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. There's also bio-mass and methane gas based energy production. There are a lot of opportunities and sources out there, and most countries around the world are working on exploring and improving them.... the US is just lagging behind in most of those fields.

Wind power as it is currently being approached will never amount to anything. Solar will likely always require a much larger footprint than is practical. Geothermal, on the other hand, is working right now and has been for some time. It is also the cleanest and does not rely on the wind blowing or the sun shining - it's energy source is constant and will last for billions of years.

The only reason wind and solar even exist is due to government subsidies and laws mandating their use... the same for biofuels. And by the way, burning biofuels creates CO2 as well. Not only that, but the raising of crops for biofuels also generates massive amounts of CO2. In overall terms of CO2 production (growing, harvesting, processing and burning), oil and natural gas are better than biofuels.

Wind, solar and biofuels rely on false market demands and thus require government subsidies to exist. Nuclear and geothermal, on the other hand, are proven commercially viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

[TexasBlue]

Minnesota wind-turbine factory idled; 110 layoffs

David Shaffer
Star Tribune
November 1, 2010

Wind-turbine maker Suzlon Group will idle its Pipestone, Minn., plant, putting 110 workers out of jobs, because the once-booming U.S. wind energy market has lost headway.

The layoffs, to take effect Dec. 29, were announced Monday, the same day Suzlon, the world's No. 3 wind energy company, reported a 70 percent drop in U.S. wind turbine installations for the first half of the year. It follows other industry reports of a deep downturn in the U.S. wind market.

Factory employment, once at 500 workers, had declined to 143 before Monday's layoff announcement.

http://www.startribune.com/business/106490454.html

[The_Amber_Spyglass]

Solar, Wind, Hydro, and Geothermal.

Let's not forget the investment in nuclear fusion. That should be a good compromise for the nuclear critics as it is cleaner, safer and produces a lot less pollution than fission.

[The_Amber_Spyglass]

It is also the cleanest and does not rely on the wind blowing or the sun shining - it's energy source is constant and will last for billions of years.

Solar power has come a long way since the 1970s. It no longer relies on summer-bright sunshine.

[BubbleBliss]

Which is why those things have to be perfected. All the things above aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. There's also bio-mass and methane gas based energy production. There are a lot of opportunities and sources out there, and most countries around the world are working on exploring and improving them.... the US is just lagging behind in most of those fields.

Wind power as it is currently being approached will never amount to anything. Solar will likely always require a much larger footprint than is practical. Geothermal, on the other hand, is working right now and has been for some time. It is also the cleanest and does not rely on the wind blowing or the sun shining - it's energy source is constant and will last for billions of years.

The only reason wind and solar even exist is due to government subsidies and laws mandating their use... the same for biofuels. And by the way, burning biofuels creates CO2 as well. Not only that, but the raising of crops for biofuels also generates massive amounts of CO2. In overall terms of CO2 production (growing, harvesting, processing and burning), oil and natural gas are better than biofuels.

Wind, solar and biofuels rely on false market demands and thus require government subsidies to exist. Nuclear and geothermal, on the other hand, are proven commercially viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Not necessarily. Even in the past couple of years there have been huge improvements on these energy sources. And the myth that the solar industry can't survive without gov't funding is not true. Germany ended its subsidies for solar panels not too long ago, and now plenty of people have solar panels on their roofs and are independent from the electricity grid. Even better, those that produce more electricity than they consume can feed some back into the grid and get paid for it.

[dblboggie]

Which is why those things have to be perfected. All the things above aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. There's also bio-mass and methane gas based energy production. There are a lot of opportunities and sources out there, and most countries around the world are working on exploring and improving them.... the US is just lagging behind in most of those fields.

Wind power as it is currently being approached will never amount to anything. Solar will likely always require a much larger footprint than is practical. Geothermal, on the other hand, is working right now and has been for some time. It is also the cleanest and does not rely on the wind blowing or the sun shining - it's energy source is constant and will last for billions of years.

The only reason wind and solar even exist is due to government subsidies and laws mandating their use... the same for biofuels. And by the way, burning biofuels creates CO2 as well. Not only that, but the raising of crops for biofuels also generates massive amounts of CO2. In overall terms of CO2 production (growing, harvesting, processing and burning), oil and natural gas are better than biofuels.

Wind, solar and biofuels rely on false market demands and thus require government subsidies to exist. Nuclear and geothermal, on the other hand, are proven commercially viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Not necessarily. Even in the past couple of years there have been huge improvements on these energy sources. And the myth that the solar industry can't survive without gov't funding is not true. Germany ended its subsidies for solar panels not too long ago, and now plenty of people have solar panels on their roofs and are independent from the electricity grid. Even better, those that produce more electricity than they consume can feed some back into the grid and get paid for it.

That's fantastic. If there actually is a private sector demand based on the true cost competitiveness of solar power vs fossil fuel sources for electrical power, and not a government mandated requirement that people use solar or else, or a government tax on other electrical sources such as fossil fuel plants that artificially raise their costs to consumers thereby making solar more competitive, then I say go for it.

Now when you say that Germany ended subsidies for solar power, does that mean that Germans also do not get any tax breaks for installing and using solar panels? Because that too is a subsidy.

[BubbleBliss]

Which is why those things have to be perfected. All the things above aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. There's also bio-mass and methane gas based energy production. There are a lot of opportunities and sources out there, and most countries around the world are working on exploring and improving them.... the US is just lagging behind in most of those fields.

Wind power as it is currently being approached will never amount to anything. Solar will likely always require a much larger footprint than is practical. Geothermal, on the other hand, is working right now and has been for some time. It is also the cleanest and does not rely on the wind blowing or the sun shining - it's energy source is constant and will last for billions of years.

The only reason wind and solar even exist is due to government subsidies and laws mandating their use... the same for biofuels. And by the way, burning biofuels creates CO2 as well. Not only that, but the raising of crops for biofuels also generates massive amounts of CO2. In overall terms of CO2 production (growing, harvesting, processing and burning), oil and natural gas are better than biofuels.

Wind, solar and biofuels rely on false market demands and thus require government subsidies to exist. Nuclear and geothermal, on the other hand, are proven commercially viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Not necessarily. Even in the past couple of years there have been huge improvements on these energy sources. And the myth that the solar industry can't survive without gov't funding is not true. Germany ended its subsidies for solar panels not too long ago, and now plenty of people have solar panels on their roofs and are independent from the electricity grid. Even better, those that produce more electricity than they consume can feed some back into the grid and get paid for it.

That's fantastic. If there actually is a private sector demand based on the true cost competitiveness of solar power vs fossil fuel sources for electrical power, and not a government mandated requirement that people use solar or else, or a government tax on other electrical sources such as fossil fuel plants that artificially raise their costs to consumers thereby making solar more competitive, then I say go for it.

The Private Sector demand for those energy sources was built up by Government aid and is now self providing without government aid. Fossil fuels are still cheaper here, but people switch to renewable sources because it is cheaper in the long run and because it is better for the environment.

Now when you say that Germany ended subsidies for solar power, does that mean that Germans also do not get any tax breaks for installing and using solar panels? Because that too is a subsidy.

Those subsidies I talked about were in the form of tax breaks, so yes, they have ended.

[dblboggie]

Which is why those things have to be perfected. All the things above aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. There's also bio-mass and methane gas based energy production. There are a lot of opportunities and sources out there, and most countries around the world are working on exploring and improving them.... the US is just lagging behind in most of those fields.

Wind power as it is currently being approached will never amount to anything. Solar will likely always require a much larger footprint than is practical. Geothermal, on the other hand, is working right now and has been for some time. It is also the cleanest and does not rely on the wind blowing or the sun shining - it's energy source is constant and will last for billions of years.

The only reason wind and solar even exist is due to government subsidies and laws mandating their use... the same for biofuels. And by the way, burning biofuels creates CO2 as well. Not only that, but the raising of crops for biofuels also generates massive amounts of CO2. In overall terms of CO2 production (growing, harvesting, processing and burning), oil and natural gas are better than biofuels.

Wind, solar and biofuels rely on false market demands and thus require government subsidies to exist. Nuclear and geothermal, on the other hand, are proven commercially viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Not necessarily. Even in the past couple of years there have been huge improvements on these energy sources. And the myth that the solar industry can't survive without gov't funding is not true. Germany ended its subsidies for solar panels not too long ago, and now plenty of people have solar panels on their roofs and are independent from the electricity grid. Even better, those that produce more electricity than they consume can feed some back into the grid and get paid for it.

That's fantastic. If there actually is a private sector demand based on the true cost competitiveness of solar power vs fossil fuel sources for electrical power, and not a government mandated requirement that people use solar or else, or a government tax on other electrical sources such as fossil fuel plants that artificially raise their costs to consumers thereby making solar more competitive, then I say go for it.

The Private Sector demand for those energy sources was built up by Government aid and is now self providing without government aid. Fossil fuels are still cheaper here, but people switch to renewable sources because it is cheaper in the long run and because it is better for the environment.

Well, if it is cheaper in the long run, then it is cheaper period and therefore competitive with fossil fuels, at least for those who own their own property and plan to live there long enough to realize the savings.

Now when you say that Germany ended subsidies for solar power, does that mean that Germans also do not get any tax breaks for installing and using solar panels? Because that too is a subsidy.

Those subsidies I talked about were in the form of tax breaks, so yes, they have ended.

Sounds good to me. If I owned my own place, and it was cheap enough, I'd go to solar as well. I don't really care where I get my power from, as long as I have it.

[BubbleBliss]

That's fantastic. If there actually is a private sector demand based on the true cost competitiveness of solar power vs fossil fuel sources for electrical power, and not a government mandated requirement that people use solar or else, or a government tax on other electrical sources such as fossil fuel plants that artificially raise their costs to consumers thereby making solar more competitive, then I say go for it.

The Private Sector demand for those energy sources was built up by Government aid and is now self providing without government aid. Fossil fuels are still cheaper here, but people switch to renewable sources because it is cheaper in the long run and because it is better for the environment.

Well, if it is cheaper in the long run, then it is cheaper period and therefore competitive with fossil fuels, at least for those who own their own property and plan to live there long enough to realize the savings.

Yet not everybody is willing to spend thousands of euros on solar panels right when they're first 'introduced'. The reason for gov't subsidies was to increase the buying of solar panels for private homes so that people would get more comfortable with it.

Now when you say that Germany ended subsidies for solar power, does that mean that Germans also do not get any tax breaks for installing and using solar panels? Because that too is a subsidy.

Those subsidies I talked about were in the form of tax breaks, so yes, they have ended.

Sounds good to me. If I owned my own place, and it was cheap enough, I'd go to solar as well. I don't really care where I get my power from, as long as I have it.

Have you looked into putting solar panels on your roof? It's cheaper than you'd think, in some cases.

[dblboggie]

That's fantastic. If there actually is a private sector demand based on the true cost competitiveness of solar power vs fossil fuel sources for electrical power, and not a government mandated requirement that people use solar or else, or a government tax on other electrical sources such as fossil fuel plants that artificially raise their costs to consumers thereby making solar more competitive, then I say go for it.

The Private Sector demand for those energy sources was built up by Government aid and is now self providing without government aid. Fossil fuels are still cheaper here, but people switch to renewable sources because it is cheaper in the long run and because it is better for the environment.

Well, if it is cheaper in the long run, then it is cheaper period and therefore competitive with fossil fuels, at least for those who own their own property and plan to live there long enough to realize the savings.

Yet not everybody is willing to spend thousands of euros on solar panels right when they're first 'introduced'. The reason for gov't subsidies was to increase the buying of solar panels for private homes so that people would get more comfortable with it.

Well I should hope that they've gotten cheaper and more efficient since that time as well.

Now when you say that Germany ended subsidies for solar power, does that mean that Germans also do not get any tax breaks for installing and using solar panels? Because that too is a subsidy.

Those subsidies I talked about were in the form of tax breaks, so yes, they have ended.

Sounds good to me. If I owned my own place, and it was cheap enough, I'd go to solar as well. I don't really care where I get my power from, as long as I have it.

Have you looked into putting solar panels on your roof? It's cheaper than you'd think, in some cases.

Not in my case. First of all, I don't own the place I live in, so it would be a lost investment. Second, I have an all electric place, it would cost $20-30 thousand or even more to provide the power I need, and I don't have the roof space to mount the square footage of panels I would need. And that is even before I factor for available sunlight, as it is very often overcast here. So it would not be even remotely logical for me to go off grid in terms of the economics of it, even with the subsidies.

[Sponsored content]