Bad Banks for Nuclear Plants: Utilities Look to German Taxpayers

By and Dietmar Hawranek

Workers dismantle elements of the decommissioned Lubmin nuclear power plant in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in this 2013 archive photo. Zoom
DPA

Workers dismantle elements of the decommissioned Lubmin nuclear power plant in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in this 2013 archive photo.

Fearing astronomical cost overruns, German utility companies want to shift responsibility for dismantling nuclear power plants to the government. Despite the billions of euros in risks it entails, the proposal could still prove attractive for Berlin.

Germany's latest problem weighs 275,000 tons. That's the cumulative weight of the steel and cement scrap that will come out of the dismantling of the Obrigheim nuclear power plant, which is located in the town of the same name in the southern German state of Baden-Württemberg. That scrap includes pipelines, plant sections, turbines, generators and the reactor pressure vessel. It also includes 10,000 tons of potentially radioactive material that will have to be submerged in an ultrasonic bath or processed with a sandblaster to reduce its radioactivity. The most dangerous work will be conducted by remote-controlled robots.

The demolition of a nuclear power plant is a technically complicated undertaking that can take between 15 and 20 years to complete. In the case of Obrigheim, dismantling the power plant will cost energy utility company EnBW, which owns the facility, an estimated €500 million ($684 million). Compared to other plants in Germany, this pressurized-water reactor is relatively small. The dismantling of larger plants like Gundremmingen B or Isar 2 in the state of Bavaria are estimated to cost as much as €1 billion each.

Most Germans have assumed that these costs will be picked up by the energy utility companies, which have gleaned billions of euros in profits from these plants. Besides, why should different rules apply to nuclear plant operators than to normal car owners, who have to pay to scrap their car when it's no longer fit for the road?

But the heads of Germany's three major electric utility companies -- E.On CEO Johannes Teyssen, RWE chief Peter Terium and EnBW head Frank Mastiaux -- have come up with what they think is a brilliant plan to transfer the billions in risks related to dismantling nuclear plants. They want to punt responsibility to the state and taxpayers.

Public Trust

The energy executives are proposing the energy industry equivalent of a "bad bank" to transfer their biggest risk: nuclear power plants.

Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel introduced her Energiewende, or energy turn-around, policy of phasing out all nuclear energy and shifting largely to renewable energies by 2022. After closing the plants, the next step is for them to be dismantled. Fearing significant risks inherent to that task, industry executives would like to transfer ownership of existing nuclear plants into a public trust that would operate the plants until their closure around eight years from now. The trust would be responsible for dismantling the plants, which is estimated to cost billions, and also for storing radioactive waste.

Graphic: Germany's Nuclear Legacy Zoom
DER SPIEGEL

Graphic: Germany's Nuclear Legacy

The bad bank for nuclear power plants would belong to the government. According to the plan, electric utility companies would contribute around €30 billion in reserves, which the government required them to build up over the years in order to cover the future costs of dismantling the plants and storing nuclear waste. The government, in turn, would assume responsibility for all the risks that currently reside with the utility companies.

None of the companies involved agreed to provide a response to SPIEGEL.

RWE chief Terium and E.on boss Teyssen informed the government about the general outline of their project early this year. Now details of the plan have been further honed and energy executives, if they have their way, they will soon enter into negotiations with the government.

At the heart of the matter are risks that, at least for now, are impossible for the companies or the government to estimate in any reliable manner. What is clear is that it is unlikely that the €30 billion in reserves that have been set aside by the companies will be sufficient to handle the task.

Important Questions Remain Unanswered

For one thing, the cost of dismantling atomic power plants is often greater than anticipated. And one of the most pressing questions -- where to safely store radioactive waste -- still hasn't been answered in Germany even after a half-century of producing nuclear power in the country.

A review on the safety of the main site for storing waste in Germany, the salt dome in Gorleben in the state of Lower Saxony, is still ongoing, even 30 years after use of it commenced, and a suitable permanent storage facility has yet to exist, even though the utility companies have already spent €1.6 billion for this purpose. Last year, the German government made the decision to also search for suitable storage sites in other states, with the aim of finding a permanent storage facility by 2031. The estimated cost of exploring a single possible storage site is more than €1 billion.

As Germans have learned in recent years, though, costs can quickly explode for major public works projects -- Berlin's unopened new airport or Hamburg's Elbphilharmonie concert hall, for example. But if you think those are complicated construction projects, try building a permanent storage facility where nuclear waste can be safely stored for thousands of years. It is impossible to predict in advance what an enormously complicated undertaking like that would cost -- €10, €20 or €30 billion? That's why the utility companies would like to see that responsibility carried by the government.

Confirmation of the Anti-Nuclear Movement

In many respects, the company's plan seems to definitively confirm that the Anti-Nuclear Movement of the 1970s and 1980s, with its mass protests, was correct in its main assertions. After the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Fukushima catastrophe in 2011, it is no longer possible to claim that atomic power is a safe and fully controllable technology. And no legitimate solution has been found for the problem of storing or eliminating nuclear waste. Now, on top of all that, come the full economic disclosures.

The government subsidized nuclear power at the time of its introduction, just as it now lends a state hand in the development of wind and solar energy. Depending on which estimate you go by, somewhere between €17 and €80 billion in taxpayer money has been funneled into nuclear energy. Once the reactors began successfully producing electricity, the profits landed in the coffers of the energy utility companies and their shareholders. Now that the end is approaching for the technology in Germany, the state is expected to assume the risks again.

So far, German Economics and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) has dodged official talks on the issue. A few weeks ago, he cancelled a meeting with the heads of E.on and RWE at an industry event at the last minute. The reason given at the time was that Gabriel wants to first wrap up reforms to Germany's Renewable Energy Act (EEG), the core of the country's transition from nuclear power to renewables.

Government Also Faces Major Risks

Its possible Gabriel won't be able to postpone discussion of the controversial issue for long, because what at first glance might look like a crude attempt by the utility companies to cheaply rid themselves of their radioactive legacies is actually more complicated. It could, in fact, be in the government's interest to take up the companies' offer to negotiate. It's not just E.on, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall who have lots at stake over the nuclear issue -- the government in Berlin also faces considerable risks.

The energy producers are asking for about €15 billion in compensation from the government in several lawsuits. Because the Merkel government decided on a swift exit from nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, E.on and RWE are bringing their complaints to the German Constitutional Court. At issue is whether the government's decision represented an illegal invasion of the companies' property rights. The sector is expecting the first verdicts in early 2015. The outcome, legal experts say, is hard to predict.

Vattenfall is also asking an arbitration court in Washington for about €3 billion in compensation for the early closure of the Krümmel and Brunsbüttel nuclear reactors. The Energy Charter Treaty allows a foreign company like Vattenfall to turn to American courts, and the German government needs to abide by the verdict, even if it is decided in Washington.

Things aren't looking good for the Nuclear Fuel Tax introduced by Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) either. The tax has been imposed since 2011 on uranium and plutonium used by power companies in the generation of atomic energy in exchange for an extension of the permitted lifespan of the nuclear plants. A few weeks ago, the Financial Court in Hamburg ruled the tax to be unconstitutional. If the verdict is upheld by the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice, the EU's highest court, then Germany could be forced to pay up to €5 billion back to the companies. The government's goal of presenting a balanced budget would then be almost impossible.

The energy companies have signaled to the German government that it should include the damage suits in the negotiations. If the government backs the founding of a nuclear bad bank, then company heads Teyssen and Terium would be willing to call off some of their lawsuits or refrain from demanding compensation.

The utility company executives don't see this offer as unmoral or as a threat and attempt to blackmail the government. If it's possible, the head of a corporation has an obligation to sue for the compensation of its stockholders, and if he or she wants to abandon such efforts, then the executive needs a reason.

Article...
  • For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.
  • Post to other social networks

Comments
Discuss this issue with other readers!
7 total posts
Show all comments
    Page 1    
1. Germany in isolation: reduction ad absurdum
awareadams 05/15/2014
It's fine for Germany to dismantle its nuclear facilities; but the problem of contaminating central Europe is not just Germany's, it is also the other countries in that locality. The Poles continue recklessly and as expected to pollute the air with filth from coal fired plants. The French have most of the nuclear plants in Europa. Before Germany starts its own "clean up," it needs to encourage its uncompromising neighbors to being a continent-wide cleanup.
2. Energiewende
thorkilsoee 05/17/2014
Energiewende For a long time it has been known that the German Energiewende has been a costly affair – both for the taxpayers and for the environment. Before the no-nonsense part of the population wake up and call for a re-wende, it is important to find a new topic: Decommission – Even a well-functioning plant shall be removed from the surface of the earth well before the initial costs have been recovered. If we just allow some ultra-green to take charge, it will no doubt be so expensive that everybody can see how the nuclear part of the German development was a bad dream. Sure, we have many tools in our toolbox: For example: Scrap steel from a gas plant may be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg radioactivity. However, material from the nuclear industry is dangerous for anything above 500 Bq/kg – Just forget that coffee-beans may be worse. Now, soon we will have something to do for the unemployed environmentalists – Get some good tools and start measuring. Instead of demonstrating in the forest against something you don’t understand. It is much better to dress up in a white spacesuit and pretend that everything is dangerous – except smoking.
3. Go Green, Go Bankrupt
Stelvio 05/18/2014
If you are daft enough to vote for parties that tell you money does not matter, then you deserve to be poor.
4.
pretextat86 05/21/2014
What 's the point of closing your nuclear plants if there are some almost on your border? If a nuclear accident in Chernobyl has consequences in Germany, best believe any such accident in Europe will hurt you as well.
5. Chernobyl
thorkilsoee 05/22/2014
The reactor at Chernobyl was very different from reactors in the west, as we still have, as other countries are getting and as Germany will get after the Energie-rewende. • The design was inherited unstable. The only “advantage” was that it could be used to produce weapon-grade plutonium. Similar reactors have never been considered outside the old Soviet. • There was no containment as in all “western” reactors. • The operators were able to overrule the usual safety procedures. In this way, any reference to the Chernobyl disaster as an argument against use of nuclear power is, at the best, based upon lack of knowledge. For purely political reasons 15.000 MW of well-functioning nuclear power has been closed in Europe. To fill the demand for power we will, each year, send 80 million ton more CO2 up to the atmosphere.
Show all comments
    Page 1    
Keep track of the news

Stay informed with our free news services:

All news from SPIEGEL International
Twitter | RSS
All news from Germany section
RSS

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2014
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH



From DER SPIEGEL


European Partners
Facebook
Twitter