GERMANY - SCHR…DER POLICY STATEMENT ON PHASEOUT OF NUCLEAR POWER

[Source: Gerhard Schršder (Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany), "... Policy Statement on the Phase-out of Nuclear Power...", June 29, 2000] Ê

Policy Statement by Gerhard Schršder Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the Phase-out of Nuclear Power - An opportunity for an energy policy based on social consensus - in the German Bundestag Ê

Ê Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the early hours of 15 June the Federal Government and the energy industry agreed to end the use of nuclear power in a regulated manner.

There is not a shadow of a doubt: the result of the Federal Government talks aiming to reach a consensus with the energy industry speaks for itself.

The agreement means that we will apply a regulated procedure to end the use of nuclear power in Germany.

The safe and uninterrupted operation of plants for the duration of their remaining operating life was at the same time guaranteed.

The broad approval which the agreement has met with amongst coalition partners, the public at large and the energy industry shows me that we have come to a fair compromise.

It is only the opposition which on the grounds of the phase-out of a supposed energy of the future persists in painting a gloomy picture of the fall of the West. I can only ask myself why. Do they not want to face up to the reality?

No energy utility, even in its wildest dreams, thinks of building a new nuclear power plant in Germany in the foreseeable future. Investment levels per kilowatthour are almost twice as high for nuclear energy as they are for other forms of energy.

We will not be able to secure and develop Germany's future as a leading energy producer with nuclear power. You are still blind to the spirit of the times however and are thus totally isolated.

At the same time you decline to solve the thorny problems inherent in the use of nuclear power.

Those who, like some of the Minister-Presidents, are strong advocates of the use of nuclear power, but leave the disposal of nuclear waste entirely for other Federal States to deal with, gradually lose credibility.

This is an "I'm all right Jack" policy. But for too long in this country there have been policies where the onus and cost have been borne by others. We have put an end to this and will not tolerate this in the future.

The use of nuclear power has been the source of intense social conflict in our country for many years.

The images of massive, sometimes even violent, protests and extensive police contingents are embedded in our memory. The marks of the conflict stretch from Wyhl to Wackersdorf and Brokdorf to Gorleben. The political consciousness of an entire generation has been shaped by disputes about nuclear power. Advocates and opponents have been locked in bitter confrontation for decades.

When agreement was reached in the early hours of 15 June 2000 and a Green Environment Minister and the heads of the energy industry had given their endorsement, an era of social conflict came to an end.

A glance into the past helps put the result into perspective. Over the last decade there were a total of three attempts to reach a consensus.

I know what I am talking about here. During this period I became very much involved in trying to end the futile argument of principle on nuclear energy and solve the pressing practical problems. Consensus seemed just around the corner on several occasions.

The fact that we have succeeded at the third attempt is a great success for this Government and a sign of the political maturity of our country.

To those people who have demonstrated peacefully against nuclear power in Wackersdorf and Gorleben, I say: I know that the phase-out is not fast enough for many of you.

But regardless of any individual points of criticism - do not forget: without you there would not have been a consensus on energy or the phase-out of nuclear power. It is your commitment which has made this very agreement possible.

A compromise on the standard operating life of nuclear plants is at the centre of the agreement. Originally nuclear power plant operators had demanded 40 full power years. Even in the final round they called for 35 calendar years as the minimum operating life. The Federal Government entered the negotiations with a demand for 30 calendar years. The agreed standard operating life of 32 years is thus a fair compromise.

I know just how difficult this compromise has been for the heads of the energy utilities, because in the end they have to justify their decision to shareholders and employees.

The agreed flexibility regarding operating life surely made it easier for them to give their approval. It allows companies to continue to operate modern, cost-effective plants for longer, if they in turn decommission older and less efficient plants earlier.

This flexibility does not however mean that the operating lives of plants are up to the companies. Rather on the basis of the standard operating life, agreement was reached for each nuclear power plant on the amount of power it was allowed to generate in its remaining operating life.

Only if a nuclear power station leaves the grid earlier than agreed, can another operate for longer.

When considered in the broadest sense, the decommissioning of older plants also increases security levels at the plants which are still operational. Older plants are not protected as well as modern power stations against accidents.

Thus making the operating life flexible was the key to reconciling the interest of operators in the cost-effective operation of the plants with our shared interest in improved safety.

Besides: there can be no settling for less on safety. Nuclear power plants have to continue to be run at a high level of safety, even in terms of international standards.

Moreover, we have agreed that the obligation to carry out periodic safety checks will for the first time be legally anchored.

For me it is pivotal to solve the problems regarding the disposal of radioactive waste.

It was Frau Merkel who in 1998 halted the transport of such waste in the face of the breaching of contamination levels. Today we are in agreement with the Federal States and the utilities on the safety package for transport.

Similarly we have reached a settlement with the energy industry on ending reprocessing. This is in line with existing international agreements.

Nor can I understand the excitement approaching hysteria about the building of interim storage sites near the plants. In actual fact the heads of national and Federal State governments agreed as early as 1979 on the need for further interim storage sites.

The Bavarian Minister-President, who so enjoys alluding to this agreement, seems to have forgotten this part. Selective memory is probably the term for that.

Our aim with the nearsite storage sites is to avoid unnecessary transport to the regional storage sites in Ahaus and Gorleben.

Above all the regulation means fair burden-sharing between the Federal States. It makes it clear that the disposal of radioactive waste really does affect us all and can only be dealt with as a matter of shared responsibility. I resolutely reject the insinuation that the planned interim storage sites are really final repositories.

In the agreement with the energy industry, the Federation expressly recognizes its obligation to build a repository for radioactive materials.

The exploration of the salt mine in Gorleben has been interrupted for at least three but at most ten years. During this period the lingering doubt on the suitability of the salt mine is to be examined.

A group of experts is already working on laying down suitability criteria for a repository.

I call for the constructive participation of the Federal States in implementing the agreement. This is in the interest of our country, the utilities and the employees.

Now that we have found a political solution to the fundamental dispute on nuclear energy, it is time to look to the future.

We realize that the European energy industry is currently witness to radical change. Liberalization has radically increased cost and pricing pressures.

Amid fierce European competition the utilities are reliant on framework conditions they can depend on in the long term.

The agreement we have reached together gives them the necessary security to plan for the future.

Together the Federal Government and the energy industry will work on further developing an environmentally sound and competitive energy supply.

The consensus allows the companies to make their plants as cost-effective as possible, to secure jobs and make a smooth transition to the new mix of energy forms.

Above all else we face the challenge of reconciling the demands of climate protection with those of a competitive energy industry.

The Federal Government has already set out some key milestones on the path to an environmentally sound and competitive energy policy:

We wholeheartedly support photovoltaic technology. Our heat-power cogeneration programme in the field of public energy supply is exemplary. Furthermore we continue to attach great importance to domestic forms of energy. Modern power plants with low environmental pollution levels and high productivity point the way forward. Just last week I opened the world's most modern lignite power station in Lippendorf.

But it is crucial for the future that we launch an efficiency revolution in our country.

If we took advantage of modern technology, we could reduce our energy needs by a third in twenty years. I am thinking here of the three-litre car, as well as the energy-saving television set and the high-efficiency power station. At a time of worldwide growth in energy needs we are thereby making our economy fit for the future. At the same time we are relieving the strain on the environment by lowering our energy consumption.

I have not given up hope that some Minister-Presidents will also come to realize that it is not worth donning the shining armour of the nuclear warrior to fight the battles of the past for one last time.

The agreement based on consensus clears the way for a new energy policy to meet the challenges of the future. The people want us to take resolute strides along this path.