German nuclear shutdown unlawful

[FBaggins]

The forced closure of RWE's Biblis nuclear power plant after the Fukushima accident was unlawful, the German Supreme Administrative Court has ruled. The utility is now likely to sue for considerable damages.

Germany's reaction to the Fukushima accident in 2011 was extreme, with Chancellor Angela Merkel making two decisions: one to order a shutdown of eight units that started operation in or before 1980 for a three-month moratorium period; and subsequently that those units may not be allowed to restart. Without consultation or reference to independent regulatory advice on the safety of the plants, the orders were executed by the German states which are home to the reactors.

Today the state of Hesse was told it acted illegally by enforcing the decisions on the Biblis nuclear power plant sited in the state, backing up a decision made in February 2013 by the Administrative Court of Hesse. This had been appealed by the Hesse government, but today's ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed that appeal, making the state court's decision binding with no further appeal possible. Efforts to force the shutdowns were "formally unlawful because [RWE] had not been consulted and this constituted a substantial procedural error," said the court.

Plant owner RWE can now sue for compensation over the loss of the Biblis units as an asset. The plant has two reactors, Biblis A and B, which are pressurized water reactors rated at 1167 MWe and 1240 MWe respectively and which had been licensed to operate until 2019 and 2021 just two months before the shutdown order. The company has previously said it suffered losses of over €1 billion ($1.3 billion) in 2011 alone due to the Biblis shutdown.




http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-German-nuclear-shutdown-unlawful-1401131.html

[Demeter]

1. Well, why don't we ask the German PEOPLE what THEY think?

[FBaggins]

2. Mob rule?

You don't determine legal/illegal by taking a poll after the fact. Besides... this doesn't say that the reactors must be turned back on... just that the government has to pay. Essentially the same thing would happen here. The government can "take" your home for a public good... but it has to compensate you for it.

Public opinion can only get you so far. The German people want to get rid of nuclear... get rid of coal... increase the amount of solar/wind... and lower their power bills. All would get very high approval numbers... but they aren't all possible at the same time.

[Demeter]

5. It's called democracy

And you really should try it, one of these days.

[PamW]

9. We'll take a pass on that.

Evidently you never read the Federalists Papers detailing some of the considerations of the Founding Fathers of the USA.

The Founding Fathers were quite correctly concerned about a "tyranny of the majority". The Founding Fathers were concerned that individual rights that they held most dear; could be trampled by a majority of the People in exigent circumstances. That is why they formulated a US Constitution to protect and guarantee individual "God-given" rights even in lieu of opposition by the people.

A Constitutional democracy ensures that individual rights can not be trampled by a majority or a mob rule.

PamW

[Demeter]

11. A nuclear plant is NOT an INDIVIDUAL right

It's a commercial enterprise. Unless you subscribe to the "Corporations are People" philosophy of the Dancing Supremes, who will be overturned, just as several other really bad USSC decisions were later overturned....

Very few things in law are cast in concrete.

[PamW]

15. A LEGAL Commercial Enterprise

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 08:09 PM - Edit history (2)

Evidently your understanding of law is as faulty as your understanding of science.

Nuclear power in the USA is LEGAL. Nuclear power in Germany WAS LEGAL.

Actually, you are in ERROR. It has been the law of the USA for some time that groups of people ( including corporations ) INHERIT the rights of its constituents. That is; if you form a group to protest nuclear power plants, your group has the free speech rights to lawfully assemble and protest a nuclear plant because the individual members of the group have that right.

In the "Citizens United" case; the US Supreme Court was actually expressing something that lawmakers have been eroding for years. Groups inherit their free-speech rights from their members. Groups have the right to do with their finances as seen fit by its leaders acting according to the group's by-laws.

The US Supreme Court merely applied that same reasoning which has held true for all types of protest groups and the like, to corporations. They said corporations have free-speech rights because the members of the corporation have free-speech rights, just like your protest group. The corporation has by-laws as to who has what power with regard to the corporation's finances and resources. If the officers are in compliance with their by-laws; then they can expend funds in furtherance of the corporation's free-speech objectives.

If you actually read the "Citizens United" ruling, which you obviously haven't; you will find that it is based quite soundly on earlier US Supreme Court decisions.

Political speech is "indispensible to decision-making in a democracy", and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.
--US Supreme Court in "Citizens United"

It wasn't the Supreme Court; but the politicians that over the last few decades came to believe that they could treat corporations as if they had no free-speech rights.

PamW

[FBaggins]

19. Actually, no. That's called a direct democracy

And I have no more interest in trying it than the founders did.

Both our form of democracy and that in Germany reject direct democracy.

[PamW]

3. For the same reason..

For the same reason we don't ask the people:

1) Whether you should be allowed to speak freely, and assemble and exercise your religion freely, or ask for redress of grievences.
2) Whether your rights to bear arms are to be infringed.
3) Whether soldiers can be quartered in your home without your consent
4) Whether you can be searched without warrant and without probable cause
5) Whether you can be forced to incriminate yourself during testimony
6) Whether you should be given a speedy trial before an impartial jury when accused.
7) Whether you deserve a jury trial at all.
8) Whether excessive bail is imposed or cruel and unusual punishment meted out.

Like the USA, which is a Constitutional Republic; the laws exist to prevent a "tyranny of the majority".

Evidently, you don't understand that is why we have a US Constitution. The US Constitution prevents the majority of the people from taking away or trampling certain rights that we believe everyone has, and nobody can take away.

The German legal system is similar. There are laws that protect individuals and corporations from the "tyranny of the majority"; that is not even the majority of the people can take away certain rights that are deemed inviolate.

As I recall, you've said that you experienced Chernobyl first hand; so perhaps you aren't familiar with Western-style "constitutional democracy" wherein even the people can't take away certain rights which are inviolate.

In case you didn't pick up on it; the numbers in the enumerated list above correspond to the Amendment to the US Constitution that provides / guarantees that right.

PamW

[Demeter]

4. Running a dangerous, life-threatening nuclear plant is NOT an inalienable right

In fact, it violates most of those rights.

[PamW]

8. BALONY!!

First - that is NOT your call to make. That call is to be made by the legislature.

The legislature in Germany made nuclear power LEGAL in spite of your ill-informed opinions. So the German companies were well within their rights to build / operate nuclear power plants. They had the permission of the German Government. Now the German Government can change that. However, in order to do so that have to PAY the people who built nuclear power plants with permission of the German Government. The German Government can say one thing, and then change its mind without paying the consequences. That's what the German Courts are saying.

Nuclear power plants are safer than airliners, and both nuclear power plants and airliners are safer than cars.

Cars are legal in the USA; and so are airliners, and nuclear power plants.

The laws of the USA and Germany don't recognize or uphold your ill-informed opinions.

PamW

[Demeter]

10. The LAW in Germany and the US hasn't caught up with recent FACTS

but this is the start of the civilian governments, who are not dedicated scientists, finally realizing that nuclear power is unsafe at any speed.

And some evil (yes, you heard me, evil) forces are determined to delay or prevent the codification of that FACT into civil and criminal law by lying, evading, coercing, and otherwise distorting public dialog and the historical record.

[PamW]

12. BALONEY!!! 100% WRONG AGAIN!!

That's just pure BOVINE EXCREMENT.

The legal principles and rights espoused in the US Constitution transcend any recent "facts".

Evidently you don't know the difference between "facts" and "opinion"; because you keep presenting "opinions" ( uninformed, ill-founded ones at that ) as "facts"; just because they happen to be yours.

Your opinions are not facts.

Evidence??? Constitutional democracies require evidence and not just made up fantasies by malcontents on Internet forums.

Where were the legislatures lied to; in either the USA or Germany? Haven't any facts?

Would you like some cheese to go with that WHINE?

PamW

[kristopher]

14. The fact that the method of risk assessment is inapt and too subjective?

From the thread: Chinese nuclear disaster 'highly probable' by 2030
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759049
(You had some choice things to say there also)

Even universities erroneously use subjective probabilities (iii), not frequencies (ii), to assess nuclear-core-melt likelihood, particularly when pro-nuclear-government agencies fund their studies. For instance, although the classic, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-authored, government-funded, reactor-safety study had frequency data for various nuclear accidents that already had occurred after decades of US-operating experience, it did not use them; instead the MIT authors used subjective, pro-nuclear assumptions and conjectures about these accident probabilities (Rasmussen, 1975). When independent, university mathematicians compared US nuclear-accident-frequency data, reported from operating experience, with MIT guesses (iii), they discovered that all ‘guesses’ were far too low, by several orders of magnitude. None of the nuclear-accident-frequency data, based on reactor-operating experience, was within the theoretical, 90% confidence interval of the MIT ‘guesses.’Yet there is only a subjective probability of 10% that any of these true (frequency-based) probability values (for different types of reactor accidents) should fall outside this 90% interval. The conclusion? University mathematicians said that MIT assessors were guilty of a massive ‘overconfidence’ bias toward nuclear safety, a typical flaw in most industry-government-funded, nuclear-risk analyses (Cooke, 1982).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759049#post28

Deadly Force is Authorized
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761458
— trackback to http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761372 #post33 and others

[kristopher]

13. No, that isn't "what the German Courts are saying"

The German court said the procedure they followed to effect closure means they can be sued for damages. It does not say "The German Government can say one thing, and then change its mind without paying the consequences".

They may have crafted a different procedure to force the shutdown or they may receive no award for damages when that is adjudicated.

These shutdowns have been on the horizon since 2000.

[FBaggins]

20. It's pretty close to what they've said so far

All they ruled on was that initial shutdown... but that's because that's all that was part of the case (since it was filed prior to the subsequent decision). That later decision is still in court.

They may have crafted a different procedure to force the shutdown

The only valid "different procedure" would be to accuse the company of failing to fulfill their regulatory requirements (giving the environmental ministry the discretion to order a closure in certain circumstances) or that some change at the plant caused a new danger to the community... then allow the company to defend against the claim... then win that argument in court. Since there was no such violation, they had no legal basis for a shutdown order.

These shutdowns have been on the horizon since 2000.

Nope. They were "on the horizon" at one point and then that decision was changed. The change involved an agreement to pay billions of euros in extra revenue to the government - a fee that the administration didn't get rid of when they reneged on their end of the deal. They're losing that battle in court as well.

[kristopher]

7. Right, just like "Deadly Force is Authorized!!!"

Deadly Force is Authorized
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761458
— trackback to http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761372
#post33 and others

[PamW]

16. That IS what the US Congress authorized!!!

That is what the US Congress authorized!!!

It's just like some prisons have electric fences. If someone gets into the vicinity of the electric fence and makes contact with it - well they are just DEAD. Now some may argue that a death sentence doesn't befit the crime of escaping from prison. However, we aren't in that realm. The Government just establishes a very hazardous, and deadly region; the vicinity of the electric fence; where NOBODY has any business being.

If you get electrocuted by the fence; it isn't that you were given a death sentence for the crime of escape; it's that you were in a dangerous area where you shouldn't have been, and YOU are responsible for your own death. The State didn't kill you; YOU KILLED YOURSELF!.

That's the reasoning behind the "Deadly Force is Authorized" warning.

The DOE can setup security features like electric fences, robotic guns, all sorts of traps that are set to obliterate anyone that trespasses.

In that matter; if you get killed by one of these security measures; YOU KILLED YOURSELF!

PamW

[kristopher]

17. No, PamGreg; that is Your interpretation of what Congress authorized

The actual text of the statute was posted there by caraher and readers are invited to compare your vision of the world with that text.


Deadly Force is Authorized
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761458

— trackback to http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761372 #post33 and others

[PamW]

18. So you would disagree with the "KILLED YOURSELF" interpretation.

kristopher,

So you would disagree with the "KILLED YOURSELF" interpretation.

If someone attempts to gain access to a building that is part of the USA's nuclear weapons complex, and that building or facility is protected by an electric fence; then when a person is electrocuted by the electric fence; you would disagree that they have essentially KILLED THEMSELVES". Perhaps your interpretation is that the person so killed is a victim of a death sentence having been imposed without trial and that it is out of proportion to the offense?

Well, if that is your interpretation; then how do you square that with all the US nuclear weapons facilities that are indeed protected by autonomous security features that can neutralize an intruder by employing deadly force?

It seem my interpretation exactly squares with what the security measures actually are.

Your interpretation is at a distinct variance with what security measures are actually in effect.

Then you have the temerity to say that my interpretation is wrong.

Oh well; I guess we need a ruling by the Courts on this.

However, the Courts don't just rule on cases for no reason; when the damages are only potential. They need real cases.

So someone is going to have to confront the automated security and electric fences and come away dead so we have a real case to present to the Courts.

Do we have any volunteers to be the subject of the lawsuit?

PamW

[PamW]

6. Merkel isn't a dictator; her powers are limited

Merkel isn't a dictator; her powers are limited under law. She can't order the shutdown of a nuclear power plant and not compensate the owner.

Obama is also limited in his power under law. The President can NOT order the shutdown of a nuclear power plant in the USA. The only entity that can do that is the NRC; and they have to have a valid reason; namely that the power plant is in some way in violation of the terms of its operating license.

The Courts told President Obama that he broke the law in delaying the Yucca Mountain project:

Court: Obama broke law with nuke delay

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/316797-obama-administration-must-rule-on-yucca-federal-court-says

A federal court on Tuesday ruled that the Obama administration broke the law by delaying a decision on using the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada as a permanent nuclear waste dump.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) violated a 1982 federal law by halting its consideration of the project. It ordered the NRC to deny or approve the Energy Department’s application to store nuclear waste at the site.

The NRC is currently making the determination to approve / deny the DOE application as per the Court's order.

PamW