The THTR Circulars from 2011

***

***

THTR Circular No. 136, July 2011

Content:

Whistleblower award for THTR critic Moormann

Interview with Rainer Moormann

THTR research continues!

Tax relief for THTR operators

20 years ago: THTR cooling tower blast

Angela's bankruptcy reactor for Angola?

Joy through strength for the energy companies

Whistleblower award for THTR critic Moormann

The citizens' initiative for environmental protection in Hamm congratulates the Aachen scientist Dr. Rainer Moormann on the presentation of the biennial Whistleblower Prize 2011, which he received together with an anonymous personality who published the video "Collateral Murder" on Wikileaks.

Dr. Rainer Moormann, who has been researching high-temperature reactors (HTR) at Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ) for 35 years, has in recent years contributed significantly with scientific publications and lectures to the risk potential associated with pebble bed reactors appearing in a new light . The myth of the "inherent safety" of this type of reactor has been shaken by its scientific findings.

The whistleblower price

On July 1, 2011, the Association of German Scientists (VDW) and the German section of the IALANA Lawyers' Association ("Lawyers against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons") awarded the "Whistleblower Prize" for the seventh time in the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences.

The "Whistleblower Prize" is awarded to personalities who, as insiders, have uncovered serious grievances, risks or undesirable developments in their professional environment in the public interest.

The VDW was founded in Berlin in 1959 by a group of prominent nuclear scientists, among them Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and the Nobel Prize winners Max Born, Otto Hahn, Werner Heisenberg and Max von Laue. Two years earlier, this group had become known to the general public as 'Göttingen 18': the nuclear scientists had spoken out publicly against nuclear armament for the German armed forces. The Göttingen Declaration and the founding of the VDW were both expressions of a new sense of responsibility among the natural scientists gathered there after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Criticism of the pebble bed reactor is reinforced

For 36 years, BI Environmental Protection Hamm has focused on the dangers and incidents of the same reactor type as in Jülich and feels confirmed by the factual statements made by Rainer Moormann in their criticism of the THTR 300.

The award of the whistleblower prize to Rainer Moormann is of particular importance in the current situation. At a time when the criticism of nuclear power is increasing significantly, parts of the nuclear industry and the scientists who depend on it are trying to bring the HTR line back into the discussion as a particularly safe nuclear variant. Although the pebble bed reactor has failed once again, despite the current total of 1,5 billion euros in South Africa, attempts are still being made to build this type of reactor again in other countries!

In 2010 alone, under a red-green state government in North Rhine-Westphalia, over a dozen projects and scientific work on the further development (!) Of the pebble-bed reactor were carried out at Forschungszentrum Jülich and paid for by the taxpayer (see below). What problems and difficulties you can still get at Forschungszentrum Jülich today when you touch the holy of holies can be read in the attached reason for the price. How much the orientation of research in German institutions consistently ignores the majority will of the population in favor of certain corporate interests, which has been expressed many times over for decades, is a scandal!

The award ceremony for Rainer Moormann is an incentive for all those who have pointed out the dangers of HTR technology over the past decades and who campaign against the construction of future reactors.

In recent years, with scientific publications and lectures at home and abroad, but above all with statements and interviews in the media, he has made a significant contribution to the risk potential associated with pebble bed reactors appearing in a new light. The myth of the "inherent safety" of this type of reactor has been shattered.

Dr. Moormann has discovered that the experimental reactor in Jülich, which was finally shut down in 1988, was inadequately secured in normal operation for years against increased operating temperatures in the reactor core. Immediate direct temperature measurements appeared not to be possible; Lengthy measurement procedures were developed as early as 1974, but were not used adequately until 1986. Indications of excessively high reactor temperatures were not adequately followed up. Dr. Moormann has provided evidence that the operating company had presumably noticed the problem of excessive operating temperatures since the late 1970s. Perhaps there were concerns that such investigations could mean the end of the AVR operation. The supervisory authority was satisfied with the submission of model calculations by the operating company.

Through the investigations of Dr. Moormann also had a well-founded suspicion that the AVR Jülich only narrowly escaped a GAU on May 13, 1978 with the devastating consequences of widespread radioactive contamination of the environment. The reason for this was a hairline crack in a steam generator pipe that was located above the reactor core and from which steam and later liquid water entered the reactor vessel for more than a week (approx. 30 t). If the leak and thus the water ingress rate had been greater and had occurred at the typically excessive temperatures, Dr. Moormann, there is a high probability that very large quantities of highly explosive gas (hydrogen plus carbon monoxide) would have been produced. Furthermore, the graphite-water mixture could have had a positive reactivity coefficient, which would have led to the reactor running through within a very short time - as in Chernobyl. The AVR's low safety barriers would have been breached. Even the release of the radioactive dust in the reactor vessel, which was caused by the poor retention of the fuel spheres, would have led to considerable contamination of the environment. Operating company, FZ Jülich and supervisory authorities in the state and federal government have not yet adequately dealt with this dangerous situation.

As a result of the water ingress classified as a normal incident in 1978, highly radioactive water from the reactor container also got into the ground under the reactor and into the groundwater when it was pumped out. The concrete effects of this contamination are still in the dark today. There is uncertainty about the associated health hazards and a possible connection with the increased incidence of leukemia in the surrounding area. The current head of reactor safety research at FZ Jülich, Prof. Allelein, recently said in front of the cameras in the WDR that the AVR never posed a threat to people or the environment. The analysis of the accident of 1978 is not a matter for his institute.

After a three-part series on WDR in April 2011 and presence in the ARD Tagesthemen on April 8.4.2011, 11.4, FZ Jülich has now opened on April 2011. Commented on a press release in XNUMX. It says: "The facts presented by Dr. Moormann are - according to the assessment of the research center - not called into question in the professional world. Scientifically controversial, however, is discussed, such as the conclusions of Dr. Moormann with regard to the release of fission products within the reactor and the safety of the operation of the AVR are to be assessed at that time. "

Now there is apparently to be a serious investigation of the incident at the time by a committee of experts envisaged by FZ Jülich in "Reaction to the reactor accident in Fukushima". Its pluralistic composition, ability to work and academic independence have not yet been adequately secured.

In view of the intense efforts of the "atomic community" after Germany's "atomic exit", which was decided in 2001, to export the technological know-how as well as construction elements of the HTR and to market them in South Africa, China and other countries, including Poland , an investigation of the AVR / HTR technology that is independent of the operating company and FZ Jülich is overdue. Your result will be measured, among other things, by the extent to which it is detailed and generally comprehensible with the information provided by Dr. Moormann addresses the knowledge and research gaps identified.

Dr. Moormann's whistleblowing also gives rise to strong doubts about nuclear supervision. Indications of temperatures in the reactor core that were far too high were not followed up in good time not only by the operator and the FZJ, but also by the nuclear supervisory authority. It is important to clarify the responsibilities here. To date, the causes of the excessively high core temperatures and other essential conditions of the accident of 1978 and the resulting safety problems have not been determined with absolute certainty. It is not even certain that all security-relevant incidents, without exception, have been completely documented.

Dr. Moormann also contributed to the fact that the problems and immense costs of disposing of the AVR Jülich, which was closed in 1988, have come into the public eye for taxpayers and voters. As has long been known internally, the reactor pressure vessel is highly radioactive. The exact causes for the high level of contamination could not yet be determined, especially since the reactor was poured with concrete to bind the radioactive dust. It is unclear to what extent the high level of contamination is an "inherent" problem in pebble bed technology. The resulting disposal costs have meanwhile exploded from 39 million DM in the prognoses from the 90s to - for the time being - 600 million €, which are supposed to be raised by the taxpayers. A glossing over information policy has long tried to disguise this.

After the shutdown of the AVR in 1988 and the conversion of the KFA into the FZ Jülich, further research was carried out there into the safety problems of HTR technology. The safety research for the planned HTR reactor in South Africa generated ample third-party funding. One of the unwritten laws at FZ Jülich was that no negative reports about reactor safety should get "outside". That Dr. Moormann was nevertheless able to articulate his criticism internally and publicly without disciplinary sanctions, is gratifying.

Nevertheless, he had to pay dearly for his moral courage. He was defamed internally and by the external "ball pile community" as a polluter and slandered as "insane". His working group at FZ Jülich was dissolved. He himself was transferred to another department, where he works for the "European Spallation Sources" (ESS) project. There he was asked to stop his "anti-nuclear activities", as one was dependent on orders from the nuclear sector. He is to be transferred again shortly "for financial reasons". In a few months he will take early retirement.

Dr. Moormann's whistleblowing and its focus on the common good are exemplary for responsible scientific conduct. That is why he received the 2011 Whistleblower Award.

What were you doing at Forschungszentrum Jülich and what did you uncover there?

I worked in the safety of pebble bed reactors for a long time. In contrast to conventional light water reactors, the fuel here is enclosed in graphite and cooled with helium. The fuel elements are the size of a tennis ball and are constantly in motion. Over the years, more precisely: When this model was exported to South Africa, it became increasingly clear to me that only positive properties of this technology were communicated, but the pronounced negative properties were completely swept under the carpet. For example, the reactor in Jülich: For years, operation was practically a single incident. The reactor vessel is so contaminated that it cannot even be dismantled for the next 60-70 years. This disaster also has its origins in the technology itself. I continued to investigate a serious incident, a water ingress that occurred in 1978. If the leak had been bigger at the time, there could have been a catastrophe - triggered by an explosion like the one experienced in Fukushima.

What were the first steps?

In 2007 I wrote a report for those responsible for the nuclear sector at the research center, which of course did not help. I then turned to the board of directors of Forschungszentrum Jülich and, one year later, after lengthy internal discussions, published a study that caused a sensation. This certainly contributed to the fact that the construction of a pebble bed reactor in South Africa is no longer pursued. A lot of money was involved here: South Africa had already invested at least 1,5 billion euros in this technology.

What other channels did you use to make the grievances public?

First found that was on the purely scientific level. It wasn't until the research center's support waned that I went public. It must be said that the research center is also under the influence of its shareholders, and that includes the state of North Rhine-Westphalia with what was then a black and yellow government, including at least two ardent supporters of pebble bed technology. My guess is that there was pressure from there to give me less leeway. That means I was given conditions: For example, I was not allowed to give interviews to specialist publications. At the beginning of 2009 I participated in a WDR documentary that deals with the reactor project in South Africa, followed by an article in Spiegel about the reactor in Jülich.

What resistance did you encounter?

When I first approached the board of directors, I received effective support from the head of the research center. That then became less and less. I became a burden for the research center, felt the massive pressure. I had to leave nuclear technology and was ostracized. My employees were withdrawn without my being informed beforehand. Business trips have been canceled. Suddenly there was no longer any adequate computer technology for me. I then asked myself to switch to another area. That was something of a sideline, and so I applied for partial retirement. At the beginning of 2012, I will in fact no longer be working at the research center.

What role did the nuclear regulatory authority play at that time?

My impression is that the nuclear supervisory authority dealt very negligently with what happened in Jülich. She didn't look closely. There were early indications of the high temperatures in the reactor. At the beginning of 1988 it was found that it had been driven far beyond the permissible limits, that it was extremely unsafe. The supervisory authority would of course have been embarrassed if they had to admit that an unsafe reactor had been in operation for more than 10 years, after all, it is their job to prevent that. Since the reactor was supposed to be shut down at the end of 1988 anyway, the authorities probably thought: 'Sponge over it'. The bad thing about it: For all proponents of this unsafe technology, the signal was: there were no problems, the supervisory authority had no complaints whatsoever. This has had an impact to this day: In mid-March, after the Fukushima disaster, an article was published in DIE WELT entitled "Are there safe nuclear power plants?" The question was answered with yes with reference to the pebble pile reactor!

What will the breakdown reactor still cost the taxpayer?

The reactor in Jülich once cost around DM 120 million. In terms of disposal costs, we're lucky to end up at one billion euros - the plan was 90 million DM at the end of the 39s. A total failure! Capacities that we have in Jülich in the area of ​​reactor technology, and which are obviously no longer needed, should now be shifted to the area of ​​nuclear dismantling, the topic will keep us busy for many decades.

Henrik Flor asked the questions.

From: Entermagazin, 2011

Anyone who thinks that not all nuclear power plants will be shut down immediately after the half-hearted "nuclear phase-out", but at least that development and research on the bankruptcy reactor THTR will be stopped, is an incorrigible illusionist. Of course it goes on. As an exception, the Greens in Saxony - because they are currently in the opposition (in the government they are known to do the opposite; see North Rhine-Westphalia) - make this fact an issue. Here is her press release from June 14, 6:

The parliamentary group BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN in the Saxon state parliament calls for the end of the public funding of nuclear research from the Saxon budget. "If Germany pulls out of atomic energy, it would be ridiculous to finance two professorships with Saxon taxpayers' money who will continue to work on the use of atomic energy," said Karl-Heinz Gerstenberg, university policy spokesman for the GREEN parliamentary group. "The professorships and the associated staff should be rededicated as quickly as possible for research on renewable energies, grid and storage technologies, and energy efficiency."

"I am not questioning the freedom of research," said the MP. "But I do not see the need to publicly finance things that society does not want. Successor professorships should only be filled if staff and equipment are financed by companies, for example through permanent endowed professorships."

Gerstenberg refers to Prof. Antonio Hurtado (TU Dresden), who still campaigned in mid-April for the construction of a pebble bed reactor on the Polish side of the triangle (LVZ / DNN, 11.04.11/XNUMX/XNUMX). "Old thinking should no longer be financed with tax money." ---

We in the THTR-RB No. 132 already reported; about the busy Professor Hurtado also in issue 117. The response of the Saxon state government to the request from Karl-Heinz Gerstenberg (Greens) about state nuclear research reveals some piquant details:

"Current and future main tasks of the professorship for hydrogen and nuclear energy technology at the Technical University of Dresden (TUD) are the fundamentals for hydrogen technologies based on high-temperature reactors as well as contributions to the development of advanced power reactors on the way to high-temperature energy technology." - And how long is the professor supposed to continue his nuclear mischief in the country where the country was leaving Germany? - ... "age-related expiry 2025" writes the Saxon state government and also provides the professor with 6 employees - "unlimited"! So it should go on like this for another 14 years!

The state government writes about the funding of nuclear research in Saxony:

Technical University Dresden:

2008: EUR 347,8 thousand

2009: EUR 76,3 thousand

Research Center Dresden-Rossendorf 2010:

EUR 7,825 million for operation (EUR 7,825 million)

2,543 kEUR for invest

EUR 7,993 thousand third-party funding

Third-party funds include the THTR-specific EU grants for the RAPHAEL and HTR-E projects (see THTR Circular No. 107) over EUR 169 thousand. Guest stays by Polish, Czech and Ukrainian (...) scientists are also subsidized with several hundred thousand euros so that they can listen to lectures on high-temperature reactors and other nuclear facilities during their months-long stays in Saxony in order to then propagate them in their home countries. So here a perfect cadre forge for a very special group of nuclear friends is financed with taxpayers' money! If the business of the nuclear industry in Germany can no longer go on quite unchecked, then please a few kilometers behind the border!

The "Center for Energy Technology" (ZET) in Dresden, recently completed for 11,7 million euros, offers undreamt-of opportunities to spend millions of euros in tax money on THTR research. In an interview with the Dresden University Journal, Professor Hurtado goes into raptures: "The ZET offers us a usable area of ​​around 1500 square meters and the infrastructure to build an experimental basis for cutting-edge research in energy technology. This includes, to name just a few examples, the most modern Training nuclear reactor in Germany for the promotion of young talent and maintenance of competence in nuclear technology, a high-temperature reactor based on the principle of the circulating fluidized bed ... "(9/2009).

Anyone who is annoyed about the state of Saxony should take a look at the long list of HTR projects and elaborations from 2010 from the again red-green governed North Rhine-Westphalia. After 10 years of government activity in NRW and 7 years in the federal government, they did not manage to stop the further development of the THTR and will probably not make it again during the third joint NRW legislative period.

Forschungszentrum Jülich - publications in 2010 on pebble bed reactor development (without dismantling / disposal):

Allelein, H.-J .; Kasselmann, S .; Xhonneux, A .; Herber, S.-C. "Progress on the development of a fully integrated HTR code package" 5th International Conference on High Temperature Reactor Technology, HTR 2010, Prague, Czech Republic, October 18-20, 2010 Article in a book (proceedings volume)

Li, J .; Nünighoff, K .; Pohl, C .; Allelein, H.-J. "Investigating Spatial Self-Shielding and Temperature Effects for Homogeneous and Double Heterogeneous Pebble Models with MCNP" Annual Nuclear Technology Conference 2010, Berlin, 4.-6. May 2010, on CD-ROM, Deutsches Atomforum eV and Kerntechnische Gesellschaft eV, Berlin

Nabielek, H .; Verondern, K .; Kania, MJ "HTR Fuel Testing in AVR and in MTRs" Proc. of HTR 2010, Paper 064, Prague, Czech Republic, CD-Proceedings, 12 pages, 2010

Nünighoff, K .; Druska, C .; Allelein, H.-J. "Code-to-code comparison between TINTE and MGT for transient scenarios" Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on High Temperature Reactor Technology, HTR 2010, Prague, Czech Republic, October 18-20, 2010

Pohl, C. * Temperature reactivity coefficient for plutonium fuel in a high temperature reactor * Proceedings PHYSOR 2010, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. May, 9th - 14th 2010

Pohl, C. "Temperature Reactivity Coefficient for Plutonium Fuel in a HighTemperature Reactor" Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park, IL (2010) so far only available on CD-ROM

Pohl, C .; Allelein, H.-J. * Burning minor actinides in a HTR energy spectrum * 5th International Conference on High Temperature Reactor Technology, HTR, 2010, Prague, Czech Republic, October 18-20, 2010

Verondern, K .; von Lensa, W. "Nuclear Coal Gasification for Hydrogen and Synthetic Fuels Production Proc." 18th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering ICONE18, Paper 29176

From Lensa, W .; Verfondern, K. "Coal Gasification for Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Energy Proc." 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conference WHEC2010, Paper C1004, Essen, Germany

As well as two lectures by FZJ and one by RWTH at the Freiberg Conference on Coal Gasification 2010 (no longer available on the web)

On May 10, 5, several members of the Bundestag of the Greens made various inquiries about the dismantling, disposal and subsidies of the THTR Hamm.

In particular, the tax exemption of the THTR operator, Hoch Temperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG), is causing displeasure. We quote the Greens from Bundestag printed paper 17/5764:

Currently there is a proposal by the EU Commission for a Council decision on the maintenance of the benefits under the Euratom Treaty "of the joint enterprise Hoch Temperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG)", which the company has held since January 1, 1974, last extended in 1999 for eleven more years. A corresponding application by the HKG dated April 26, 2010 is supported by the federal government.

The status as a "joint venture" under the Euratom Treaty provides for considerable tax breaks, such as: B. Property tax, property transfer tax and trade tax on interest. The EU Commission advocates maintaining the benefits of a joint company until 2017, among other things because by then a financing agreement for further "safe containment operation" should have been concluded between the federal government, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and HKG. To justify the tax privileges, the submission by the EU Commission states, among other things:

"In the opinion of the HKG, the knowledge gained from maintaining safe containment (containment time) and the subsequent dismantling will be of great importance for nuclear technology in Europe and worldwide. This is all the more important as the work on Generation IV also revives high-temperature reactor technology and the various phases of decommissioning were part of an overall picture (lifecycle cost). "

The questionnaire is certainly to be welcomed. However, this is not the first time that the criticism and the request for information regarding HKG's tax breaks have taken place. As early as 2002, the citizens' initiative for environmental protection in Hamm sent a catalog of questions on this subject. Namely to the red-green NRW state government. And what did she answer? This: "Further information on the actual use of the possible exemptions and the associated tax losses are not possible due to tax secrecy" !!

Im THTR Circular No. 77 (2002) we documented the entire process and commented on the secrecy of the red-green state government of North Rhine-Westphalia.

The current request in the Bundestag has been signed by name by Oliver Krischer and Bärbel Höhn.

At that point in time in 2002, both were involved in precisely the government that had harshly ironed out our BI request at the time: Krischer was a research assistant in the green parliamentary group in North Rhine-Westphalia, Höhn Environment Minister in North Rhine-Westphalia.

Nine years later - this time in the opposition - they put the same questions to the federal government. This process no longer needs to be commented on. He speaks for himself.

On September 10, 9 the "landmark" of the city of Hamm, the cooling tower of the THTR, was blown up. As a strictly progressive party, the Hammer SPD even named its newspaper after the high nuclear symbol in the 1991s. It was called "Kurhaus, Kühlturm, Kolonie". After the bankruptcy reactor was shut down in 80, the overwhelming embarrassing memory of the billions dumped in the sand should disappear from the scene as quickly as possible.

Shortly before the dry cooling tower was blown up, the public discussion briefly flared up again as to which possible uses would be possible with the help of the striking structure. BI Hamm intervened in the debate with an ironic proposal, not without serious ulterior motives. At that time, he was honored in detail with an article and commentary in the Westfälischer Anzeiger.

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the cooling tower detonation, we are documenting the open letter dated July 14, 7 to the responsible NRW Minister for Urban Development and the Westphalian Office for Monument Preservation:

Ladies and gentlemen!

After it became known to the public that the Westphalian Office for the Preservation of Monuments is still sticking to the protection of the controversial THTR cooling tower, the Citizens' Initiative for Environmental Protection Hamm e. V. intervene in the debate with their own thoughts.

The previous proposals (museum, disco, circus tent, etc.) suffer from the fact that they have very little to do with reality. They do not take into account that the THTR will remain a radioactive ruin for millennia. The question arises, how will people be warned of such dangerous legacies 10.000 years from now, so that they can protect themselves from them? The US Department of Energy has addressed this problem in a study. It is found that human language changes on average every 300 to 400 years, so that in 10.000 years today's languages ​​and scripts will no longer be understood.

In order to get this problem under control, well-known scientists suggested in this study that nuclear cemeteries should be marked by the construction of stone rings based on the model of the English Stonehenge. Drawings of dying people and the international emblem for radioactivity are said to be on the obelisks. According to this study, the deterrent effect is to be supplemented by the creation of myths and rumors which - not so unrealistic at all - suggest that something terrible happens when you get close to this taboo zone.

(Sources: Marshall Blonsky: The Immense Message - Semiotics in Agony; Baltimore 1984; William M. Hewitt et al .: Reducing the Risk from Future Activities that could affect the performance of high-level waste isolation systems, Washington DC, US Department of Energy, 1981).

The State Office for Monument Preservation has justified the protection it is aiming to place the THTR cooling tower with the fact that it is an "outstanding, significant industrial structure of the 20th century, which is unique (!) In the world" (WA from June 21st . 6). City Director Dr. Krämer confirmed our view that the cooling tower was a symbol "with a negative aura" (WA of July 1991, 3).

With simple, easily feasible design changes, additional deterrent effects could be achieved on the cooling tower, which guarantee for millennia that people will also be terrified of this radioactively contaminated nuclear ruin in the distant future.

We also encourage you to advertise a competition for the realization of this project and to implement the best proposal. Since up to now about 5 billion DM have been uselessly wasted on the THTR, no narrow-minded savings should be made to secure the radioactive ruins. Future generations will thank us.

We hope that you will examine our proposals with the same seriousness with which the above study was commissioned by the US State Department a few years ago.

Sincerely!

i. A .: Horst Blume

Anyone who has previously thought that after the bankruptcy of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) in South Africa no increase in the nuclear megalomania among friends of high-temperature reactors (HTR) would be possible, will be told by the Angolan conscientious objector's article "Hunger for nuclear power" Emanuel Matondo in "afrika süd" No. 5/6 (2010) taught a lesson.

In this article, Matondo, who has lived in Germany since 1990, describes the background that has led to Angola, a crisis-ridden developing country after 30 years of civil war, trying to become a regional hegemonic power in Africa. And for this, as is well known, one urgently needs nuclear power plants and the option for nuclear weapons behind closed doors.

Similar to neighboring Namibia and South Africa, the MPLA (Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola), a "liberation organization", has conquered state power in Angola. Meanwhile, a party elite of 3.000 families not only dominates Angola, but also buys into the economy of the former colonial power Portugal due to its own enormous oil reserves (1).

First, according to the information provided by Matondo, here are the individual steps Angola took on the path to becoming a nuclear power in chronological order:

1999

Angola joined the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

2003

Spurred on by the oil boom and high oil prices, Angola's elite began to prepare for greater industrialization in the country. To do this, the electricity problem must be solved.

2004

The Angolan government asked the US to draft a national energy strategy for Angola. The AABBEE Training Institute, founded by The American Association of Blacks in Energy (AABE) and funded as a nuclear lobby association by the US Department of Energy, has signed a three-year cooperation agreement for knowledge transfer.

2005

Angola registered with the IAEA its interest in the use of atomic energy.

2005 - 2008

North Korean experts and the EDF from France are visiting Angola and exploring opportunities for cooperation.

2007

Nuclear law passed in Angola. The government creates its own supervisory authority "Autoridade Reguladora de Energia Atomica" (Area) by decree, which is subordinate to the Ministry of Energy and Water.

End 2007

China offers financial support for the nuclear program. Vietnam pledges scientific assistance to train Angolan scientists in nuclear physics. "Immediately afterwards, the Vietnamese Atomic Energy Commission accepted Maria Candida Teixeira, a member of the central committee of the ruling MPLA, into a doctoral program in nuclear physics, which she was able to successfully complete in 2009" (2).

April 2008

The draft of the Angolan nuclear program is written by Andrew Kadak, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) at Boston University. Kadak is not only responsible for the spread of nuclear technology in Africa, but in particular a promoter of the high temperature reactor line (HTR) and the reactors of generation IV!

2008

Maria Candida Teixeira, mentioned above, will become Angola's Minister of Science and Technology. A high-ranking ministerial delegation from Angola visits an exhibition of the US nuclear company ANS in Reno (Nevada, USA). Title: "Nuclear Power - Ready, Steady, Go".

In addition to this interesting information from Matondo, there are some other important backgrounds in the relations between Angola and the FRG to be considered.

Ambassador as a nuclear bridge builder

The first to be mentioned is the Ambassador of Angola in the FRG, HE Alberto do Carmo Bento Ribeiro. In the 60s he was a student of electrical engineering at RWTH Aachen University, which is closely linked to Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ). The FZJ is the ultimate research institution worldwide that is connected to the development of the THTR. Whether at the "North-South Dialogue" 2002 or the celebrated "Homecoming" meeting of the alumni, Alberto Ribeiro is there and is particularly highlighted in the media. On its homepage, the Angolan embassy writes on the north-south profit dialogue of the business elites: "Enable concrete contacts between developing and industrialized countries, reduce the north-south divide, pave the way for science and business transfer., We want cooperation with Germany to build an infrastructure in our country, and Aachen University can play an important role in this, 'says Ribeiro "(3).

The so-called "Alumni Group" in Aachen, which also has good relationships with Tsinghua University on the Shandong Peninsula (China), acts as a connecting link and international communication and career network. China's THTR is to be built there on the former German colonial base (4). As ambassador, Alberto Ribeiro is co-author of the "Strategic Future Plan" published in 2008 by the "Southern African Development Community" (SADC), in which 14 South African countries have been working together since 1980. With regard to cooperation with the FRG, special emphasis is placed on "support for knowledge transfer and technology transfer" (5).

Economic forum as a profit exchange for the elites

As ambassador, Ribeiro is also involved in organizing the "German-Angolan Economic Forum", which has been taking place annually since 2008 (6). It is co-organized by the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, the African Association of German Business and the Federal Association of German Industry (BDI) and brings together ministers, company representatives and scientists from the two countries. The economic forum, to which up to 200 representatives also come to initiate business, is sponsored by, among others, RWE, Eon and Enbw. At the 2nd German-Angolan Economic Forum on February 27, 2, the two countries signed a declaration of intent on a strategic partnership, which also includes cooperation on energy issues. The following formulation of the agreed agreement is particularly interesting: "Mechanism for environmentally compatible development (Clean Development Mechanism - CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. Both sides share the view that other areas may also prove to be suitable to be included in the envisaged cooperation in the energy sector to become" (7).

Matondo points out that this language code is a common paraphrase for nuclear cooperation in international agreements, because at least the "nuclear phase-out decision" was formally valid at that time in the FRG: "The term 'CDM' has been used since the UN climate conference in Kyoto nuclear lobbyists around the world gladly presented in all forums in order to make a pro-nuclear policy palatable to the rulers of the underdeveloped countries and to be able to sell this expensive and dangerous technology there "(8).

Bismuth as a shining example for Angola

On the same day that this German-Angolan agreement was concluded, the Wismut managing director Dr.-Ing. Stefan Mann gave the following lecture: "The Wismut, a federal company - Remediation of the legacy of uranium mining in Saxony and Thuringia - Opportunities for the Republic of Angola". Since Angola has not only huge oil reserves, but also a lot of uranium in the earth, its elites are preparing for another plundering raid against their own people. "There are uranium deposits in the provinces of Bengo (Ucua), Kwanza-Norte (Zenza do Itombe) and Huambo (Longonjo)" (9).

The example of bismuth should actually be a deterrent: 20 years of renovation have cost 6,5 billion euros so far; the work is expected to continue until 2040. An insane effort, not to mention the danger to people. And what does the new Angola consultant and Bismut managing director Stefan Mann say about this in the Thüringer Allgemeine? "The work of the bismuth shows that damage caused in nature can be repaired" (10). Now we can imagine what this man said to the Angolans at the event. Even today, Angola is contaminated to a third with landmines due to the 30-year civil war and can only be entered with great danger. Uranium mining areas will soon be added.

BRD institution as a stooge of the uranium industry

A year later, in 2010, the 3rd Economic Forum will take place in Angola itself. Seventy business-minded German citizens come expectantly to Luanda, the capital. There you will hear a lecture by Dr. Rainer Ellmies (11): "Contribution of the BGR in the International Cooperation with Special Reference to the German-Namibian Partnership". He is the project coordinator (12) of the partnership agreement "GSN-BGR" (Geological Admission Department of Namibia and Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources). In Angola's neighboring country * Namibia *, formerly a German colony in South West Africa, he oversees the uranium mining sites in Namibia. The THTR circular reported in detail on the problems and scandals at the "Langer Heinrich" and "Rössing" locations (13).

"The Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) in Hanover, as the specialist authority of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, is the central scientific and technical institution for advising the Federal Government on all geo-relevant issues", it says in the self-characterization of this institution (14). This obviously also includes the "exploration of deposits" for uranium mines and "the classic tasks of geological mapping, mineral prospecting" in other countries such as Namibia - and, as an environmental cloak, the processing of environmentally relevant questions. This has made a total of 2004 million euros since 2,8, booked as development aid for Namibia at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (15). The respective economic elites imagine it to be similar for Angola.

And also for the uranium country Mauritania. There, too, on November 10, 11, the bustling Rainer Elmies reported on his experiences in Namibia at the "Mauritanides 2010" conference (16). - Uranium mining is a crime against humanity. We should take a closer look at the institutional henchmen coming from the FRG for these misanthropic activities.

Generation IV - reactors in Angola?

"The Angolan parliament provided funds for the nuclear program for the first time in the 2011 budget," writes Matondo (17It is noteworthy that in the consortium led by Andrew Kadak (18) especially the Generation IV reactors (pages 12 and 19), thorium as fuel (page 18) and the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) for Angola. Euphoric it says on page 25 of "The Angola Citizens' Permanent Trust Fund & Industrial Infrastructure Project": "The fantastic worldwide economic potential of South Africa? S Pebble Bed Nucelar Reactor". To the Chinese Tsinghua University, near which the new THTR is to be built (19), is also referred to on page 16. Incidentally, China is one of the largest lenders, trading partners, reconstruction "helpers" and providers of know-how in Angola. Thousands of Chinese traders and workers have become an integral part of the streetscape of Luanda. - It is also noticeable that with Reinaldo Luis da Silva Trindade (see page 34) a German-speaking former graduate (1982 - 1988) of the Technical University of Ilmenau (FRG) is involved in the efforts of the consortium.

Rich country - poor people

There is a special relationship between the emerging regional power Angola and the powerful South Africa. When Angola became independent from the colonial power Portugal in 1975 after fierce fighting, the army of the brutal apartheid state of South Africa invaded to prevent the victory of the then "Marxist" liberation front MPLA. When the MPLA and Cuban troops drove the apartheid regime out of Angola in 1988 and neighboring Namibia became independent, it was not long before the South African regime was overthrown. As a result, these countries can look back on a common history and numerous former anti-colonial resistance actors are now in high positions, know each other and unfortunately often share a certain uncritical belief in progress. It is therefore not uncommon for Angola to be interested in the South African PBMR and the Namibian experience with uranium mining.

Much of the multi-billion dollar oil profit in Angola disappears into the pockets of the super-rich, while the majority of Angolans are very poor. Despite double-digit economic growth, Angola ranks 162nd out of 177 on the current UN Human Development Index (20). The infrastructure is in a catastrophic state. The lack of culture of money, unrestrained enrichment of the elites, corruption and the MPLA nepotism make it difficult for ordinary people to survive. Oppositionists are not only hindered wherever they can, they are sometimes killed. The UN human rights office had to be closed due to pressure from the Angolan government in 2008 (21). The MPLA, which has since given up its name "People's Liberation Front" and only appears as a four-letter abbreviation, recruits its supporters in the diaspora who threaten opposition members abroad (22).

Such a regime is of course a preferred strategic partner of the FRG and has been crammed with the most modern armaments technology for years. In his article "Angola: Armament and Corruption" (23) Emanuel Matondo describes the costly rearmament of the dictatorship by the FRG and the intensive military-economic relations between the two countries.

It has become clear in this article that there are already a number of connections in the area of ​​nuclear technology transfer. But would the construction of a nuclear power plant in Angola really be realistic in the medium term? Millions of people live in shacks in Luanda, one of the most expensive cities in the world, and next to it stands the tallest skyscraper in all of Africa, built by South Korean companies. After the experience with the PBMR in South Africa it is doubtful whether this country would be able to build a THTR. But what is certain is that the large amount of money spent on this would be better spent on social projects and poverty reduction.

Notes:

1. "Hunger for atom and power" by Emanuel Matondo in "afrika süd" No. 5/6, 2010, page 44. On the Internet: http://www.issa-bonn.org/afsued.htm
2. See 1., page 47
3. See http://www.botschaftangola.de/content.php?nav=news/themen/kolloquium_ac&details=1 (no longer active)
4. See http://213.144.5.171/cas0006tw01/teamworks.dll
5. See http://www.suedafrika.org/fileadmin/downloads/sadc_strategic_plan.pdf
6. See http://www.dawf.de/de/index.php?node_id=78&rootnodeid=72&parent_id=72&level=2&maxorder=1 (no longer active)
7. See http://www.botschaftangola.de/regierung/beschluesse_gesetze/absichtserklaerung_deutsch.pdf (no longer active)
8. See 1., page 45
9. "south africa" ​​No. 5/07, p. 29
10. See http://www.thueringer-allgemeine.de/startseite/detail/-/specific/Die-Wismut-bleibt-noch-lange-praesent-Zur-Zukunft-des-Bergbausanierers-177509653
11. See http://www.dawf.de (no longer active)
12. See http://www.az.com.na/umwelt/geologen-und-ffentlichkeit-sperren-grundwasser-fr-uranabbau.114229.php
13. THTR newsletters No. 100, No. 101, No. 103
14. See http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/DE/Home/homepage__node.html?__nnn=true
15. See http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_160/nn_327772/DE/Themen/TZ/TechnZ Zusammenarbeit/Projekte/Laufend/Afrika/namibia__berat__gd.html (no longer active)
16. See http://www.mauritanides2010.com/html/conferenceprogram.html (no longer active)
17. See 1., page 47
18. See http://www.angolaiigroup.com/uploads/AngolaIIProjectupdateApril08xENGLISH75.doc - (no longer active)
19. "The reactor world should recover from the German being", THTR Circular No. 105
20. "south africa" ​​No. 3/08, p. 26
21. "south africa" ​​No. 3/08, p. 26
22. "South Africa" ​​No. 4/05, page 17
23. See http://www.connection-ev.de/z.php?ID=823

In the "nuclear phase-out" debate, the well-known Kraft-Werkunion made up of the SPD and energy companies put the brakes on again.

Contrary to the full-bodied announcements and promises of Sigmar Gabriel, the real positioning of the social democratic leadership in North Rhine-Westphalia looks completely different from their shop window speeches for the common electorate. The WAZ newspaper publisher "Der Westen" wrote on May 29, 5 in its Internet edition:

"In the nuclear debate, SPD woman Hannelore Kraft agrees with the FDP of all people. The NRW Prime Minister warns of a 'rush' exit from nuclear energy. Security of supply and prices must be taken into account. The 'week of truth' about the The nuclear phase-out brings new alliances: The FDP and the Social Democratic Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, Hannelore Kraft, warned of "realism" at the weekend and warned against hasty decisions. The conflict of interests in energy policy between the SPD and the Greens is increasingly radiating on North Rhine-Westphalia at their state party conference in Emsdetten a 'nuclear phase-out without tricks and backdoors'. The end of nuclear power should be no later than 2017. Kraft considers so much haste to be risky. "

Such behavior is not in the least surprising. When more and more worrying facts came to light in 2004 that Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ) was continuing research on the HTR line even under the red-green pseudo-exit and was providing international nuclear services for countries willing to join such as South Africa, we as a citizens' initiative raised questions the Minister for Science and Research of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Ms. Hannelore Kraft. And on July 12, 7, we received such an overt endorsement of nuclear research in response that astonished even the greatest pessimists among us:

"The research on HTR technology carried out at Forschungszentrum Jülich is safety research. The center thus makes a valuable contribution to the international safety of HTR reactors. It would not be justified to press for an end to this research. (...) There are none Concerns about HTR safety research with EU funds, insofar as it fits into the program planning of the respective institution. "

Hannelore Kraft has always been a loyal assistant to energy companies. As the Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, she is now receiving personal support from the Hamm nuclear site, of all places, from the local politician and FDP friend (see THTR circular No. 132, "Marcig right") Marc Herter, who took over the office of the SPD parliamentary group manager in North Rhine-Westphalia from July 2011. Who is next to help Kraft in helping greedy energy companies? What is Laurenz Meyer doing right now? Does he still have the CDU party book? Just why?

***

Top

***

***

Top

***