[ad_1]
reGermany is blessed with good geology. ” Steffen Kanitz, managing director of the Federal Association for Final Storage (BGE) was optimistic. More than half the area of the Federal Republic of Germany is basically suitable as a site for a nuclear deposit, according to the first “Subareas of the Interim Report” of the BGE, which Kanitz and his colleagues presented to the public in Berlin.
Whether it’s salty rock, clay, or crystalline rock like granite – the necessary host rock in the required thickness and depth can be found in almost every federal state. But the choice is tough: While the federal government’s legal mandate used to be simply to find a “suitable” repository, according to the most recent amendment to the law it must expressly be “the best.” Therefore, complex comparisons are necessary. With this tightening of requirements, the legislature wanted to defuse decades of deep and sometimes violent social conflict over nuclear power.
14 instead of 59 for location search
There are now 27,000 cubic meters of highly radioactive waste that must be stored. In theory, a space of 30 by 30 by 30 meters is sufficient for this. But the more than 1,000 castor jars and the nearly 7,800 glass jars in reprocessing plants still develop heat and must be buried deeply at great distances from each other and elaborately. The rock formation that houses the deposit must be at least 300 meters deep and at least 100 meters thick.
The BGE is now tasked with selecting the best location in a transparent process with broad public participation. The location should be determined in 2031 and storage should begin in 2050. It has always been unlikely that this legally prescribed schedule can be met. After the presentation of the BGE preliminary report, it has become even less likely. Storage is more likely to no longer start this century.
The deposit commission set the timetable for the search and establishment of a nuclear deposit in 2016 after political rather than factual considerations. In a report for the commission, atomic expert Bruno Thomauske had calculated, without contradicting himself, that finding a location alone would not take 14 as planned, but realistically 59 years. Even after that, surface and underground exploration and clarification of all legal issues will also take much longer.
Source: WORLD infographic
In a “realistic scenario”, according to Thomauske, the start of nuclear waste storage cannot be expected until 2117. Under a pessimistic scenario, the repository would not even be operational until 2150.
However, in discussion of the report, the escrow commission concluded that such long-term planning timelines could not be communicated to the public. Therefore, it was recommended that 2031 be included in the law as the deadline for the search for a repository and 2050 as the start of the site.
Legal resistance to finding a location seems inevitable
This very ambitious program would only be sustainable if all political, institutional and social forces were now committed to this goal. But it doesn’t look like that. Hardly any interest group involved seems to be in a rush to get nuclear waste quickly to earth.
The National Consultative Committee, a citizen group for democratic legitimation and control of the search for a place, has tried time and again to postpone consultations and reports. Reason: communication problems due to corona pandemic.
Even the traditional organizations of opponents of nuclear power showed little inclination to cooperate after the presentation of the BGE interim report. The citizens’ initiative for the protection of the environment in Lüchow-Dannenberg, for example, does not consider that its fight against the storage of nuclear waste has ended after the end of Gorleben as a repository. “We will demonstrate on October 4. But it will definitely not be a jubilee party because we stick to our criticism, “he said.
Despite the numerous specialized conferences planned, the public participation and the debates of the Bundestag in the subsequent proceedings, Jochen Stay, of the anti-nuclear group, also spoke of “pseudo-participation”. Social and legal resistance to the further search for a location seems pre-programmed.
The Federal Association for Final Storage (BGE) itself has done a disservice to the interests of speedy disposal by declaring that the controversial, but possibly suitable Gorleben site in Lower Saxony is not suitable in the preliminary round. Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder (CSU) was not the only one to criticize that this early exclusion of Gorleben was unfounded. If the BGE wanted to speed up subsequent proceedings with its swift judgment on Gorleben, this solo effort could backfire due to poor and vulnerable justification.
Cooperation between federal states is uncertain
Other policy reactions also lead to the conclusion that the search for a repository will take longer than agreed in the law according to the ambitious timetable. Following the presentation of the BGE report, the Chairman of the Left Party, Bernd Riexinger, was even willing to question the entire nuclear consensus, including funding.
Riexinger described it as a “grave political mistake” to allow energy companies to transfer responsibility for disposal to the federal government. According to the nuclear consensus, the nuclear companies had transferred 24 billion of their total of 38 billion euros in provisions for decommissioning and disposal to the federal government. Since then, the companies have only been responsible for the dismantling of nuclear power plants and the so-called conditioning of waste.
It is also uncertain whether all federal states will cooperate in the further search process, especially when drilling work for underground exploration begins. The coalition of CSU and Free Voters in Bavaria had already stated in their coalition agreement that Bavaria was fundamentally unsuitable for a repository. The BGE strongly contradicted this assessment in its interim report.
