Germany’s government decided to close its remaining nuclear power plants, with three reactors shut down in 2021 and the last three initially scheduled to close at the end of 2022, as part of a plan to end atomic power.

While nuclear was briefly considered as a bridging technology in 2009, the policy moved firmly away from it, arguing nuclear power is neither entirely clean nor safe due to insufficient safety requirements and high expense.

Germany has strongly opposed EU proposals to classify nuclear as green energy, igniting disputes with nations like France, where the energy mix relies heavily on nuclear, and Spain, which also rejected the proposal.

Despite debate within the EU and between leaders such as Macron and Scholz, Germany has maintained that fossil gas and nuclear do not fit in the bloc's “green” taxonomy.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany faced the threat of gas shortages and increased costs due to its heavy reliance on Russian energy, leading to broad societal anxiety over heating and food prices and risk of social unrest.

Faced with soaring prices, the government introduced measures to help those most affected by the cost-of-living crisis and began welfare overhaul to adjust unemployment benefits and provide more support for renters.

While the shutdown was a Pyrrhic victory for the Greens and supported by major parties, external shocks like the war in Ukraine provoked some reconsideration in late 2022, with the government assessing conditions for a possible temporary extension of reactor operations.

Germany remains divided on nuclear energy, but the government’s official position continues to be one of active phase-out, with sporadic public pressure and political scrutiny influencing the pace and terms of the transition.

Germany’s government decided to close its remaining nuclear power plants, with three reactors shut down in 2021 and the last three initially scheduled to close at the end of 2022, as part of a plan to end atomic power.

Title:

Content: World

Berlin against, Rome is silent, Paris in favor. Nuclear power explodes in the EU

Germany closed three reactors in 2021 and plans to do the same with the other three in 2022. Belgium shares the same idea, “shut down” its seven plants by 2025. Spain, which has some reactors in operation as well, does not consider them “green” at all. Luxembourg dismisses the proposal to include the atom in the green taxonomy as a “provocation”. Austria of the atom does not want to know, with 82% of its primary energy production made from renewables (data 2019), and is studying a legal action against the Commission. France is delighted to see nuclear power (77% of its domestic production) taken into account by Brussels. Italy, which is fond of Minister Cingolani’s idea of increasing its gas extractions, is currently silent and at least hopes for a golden rule to exclude “green” investments from the calculation of the deficit. A few days after the publication of the draft of the European Commission on the green taxonomy, the distances between the 27 instead of narrowing, are widening and if yesterday they seemed divided, today they show themselves to be shattered.

The definition of the green taxonomy is fundamental in orienting investments: with the “green” stamp, industrial and infrastructure projects can be much more attractive for private capital. However, the decision to include nuclear and gas in the EU’s green taxonomy has met with harsh criticism already in recent weeks, when rumors had not yet taken the form of a draft Commission. The technicians from Brussels and the team of experts who collaborated in the drafting of the central document for the definition of the EU energy planning in the context of the Green New Deal tried to circumvent the foreseeable resistance by introducing some conditions for the two sources that are not neutral with respect to the climate and the environment. Nuclear and gas, first of all, will be considered compatible with the green taxonomy only for a defined period of time and “to the extent that they contribute to the transition towards climate neutrality and do not significantly damage the environment”, according to an official of Brussels. “The Commission sees the future energy mix as a predominantly renewable or low-carbon energy system. We really hope that this proposal will help bring about the change we need and channel private funding towards low-emission energy sources ”.

In fact, it means that investments in nuclear power will be “green” only if the projects presented have a well defined plan, funds and site for the disposal of radioactive waste in total safety. Building permits will only be allowed until 2045. It is worth remembering that at the moment there is still talk of third generation or third plus nuclear power. Not the fourth, the (slag-free) fusion that experts believe may have a role on an industrial scale no earlier than the middle of the century. As for gas, investments in power plants will be green only if they contribute to emissions of less than 270 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh and replace more polluting fossil fuel plants. They will need to obtain a building permit before 2030.

On gas, the Commission’s conditions appear much more stringent. It is a non-solid fossil source, certainly less polluting than coal and to which Italy looks with interest, having unused methane deposits. Moreover, in a European context of high prices and constant reduction of supplies from the main supplier, Russia, for reasons of a geopolitical nature. But it is on nuclear power that the clash risks worsening at the community level.

“We believe nuclear technology is dangerous,” government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit told reporters in Berlin, noting that the question of what to do with the radioactive waste remains unresolved. Hebestreit added that Germany “expressly rejects” the EU assessment on atomic energy and has repeatedly affirmed this position towards the Commission. Germany is now considering the next steps to take. Germany is set to shut down the remaining three nuclear power plants later this year and phase out coal by 2030, while its neighbor France aims to modernize existing reactors and build new ones to meet energy needs. Berlin plans to rely on natural gas until it can be replaced by non-polluting energy sources. The opposite paths taken by two of the EU’s largest economies have led to an embarrassing situation for the Commission. The draft EU executive branch concludes that both nuclear power and natural gas can be considered sustainable under certain conditions for investment purposes.

Hebestreit said the German government’s goal is to use natural gas only as a “bridge technology” and replace it with non-polluting alternatives such as hydrogen produced from renewable energy by 2045, the deadline the country has set for becoming climate neutral. . The spokesman did not say whether Chancellor Olaf Scholz supports the opinion of the Minister of Economy and Climate Robert Habeck that the European Commission’s proposals are a form of “greenwashing”.

Germany has pulled the plug on three of its last six nuclear power plants. The Brokdorf, Grohnde and Gundremmingen C reactors, operated by the E.On and Rwe utilities, were closed on December 31st after 35 years of operation. The last three nuclear power plants – Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim II – will be shut down by the end of 2022. However, closure does not mean decommissioning, which will take much longer and is expected to take place by 2040 in the case of Brokdorf, for example. .

In 2021, the six nuclear power plants contributed about 12% of electricity generation in Germany. The German energy mix consists of 41% renewables, 28% coal and 15% gas. By 2030, Germany aims to meet 80% of energy demand with renewables. This is not the case in France where – given Eurostat 2019 – 77.6% of its energy produced comes from the atom and only 20% from renewable.

Germany is not alone in the firm opposition to the proposal put forward by Brussels: the draft “is a provocation from a procedural point of view” and “in terms of content it hides the risk of greenwashing”, wrote on Twitter the Minister of Energy of the Luxembourg, Claude Turmes, saying he is ready to “examine the proposal in detail and discuss further steps” together with Germany and Austria, equally opposed to including nuclear power among sustainable investments. The proposal was sent to governments on Friday, “in a nocturnal and nebulous action. This says a lot about transparency ”, attacked Turmes.

The same tones used by Vienna: if these are the plans “we will sue”, wrote on Twitter the Austrian Federal Minister for Climate, Environment and Energy, Leonore Gewessler, highlighting that nuclear energy is “dangerous and not it represents a solution in the fight against the climate crisis ”. Austria has no reactors and produces almost all of its energy from renewable sources.

The Spanish government also rejected the European Commission’s proposal to include nuclear and natural gas energy in the EU’s “green” taxonomy. According to Madrid, this is “a step backwards” and “a wrong signal” for the financial markets. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge, Teresa Ribera, stressed that “regardless of whether we can continue to invest in one or the other, we believe they are not green or sustainable energies”. Spain – he added – “is a firm supporter of green taxonomy as a key tool to have common references that can be used by investors to achieve the decarbonisation of the economy and climate neutrality by 2050”, but include nuclear and gas “It would be a step backwards,” according to the government official Sanchez. “It makes no sense and sends the wrong signals for the European energy transition as a whole,” he stressed. While admitting that both nuclear power and natural gas have a role to play in the transition, this is “limited in time”. Member States have until 12 January to provide their response to the Commission. Then, once published, it will have to pass the scrutiny of the EU Council and Parliament, where the environmentalist parties are also announcing a battle.

In 2019, France was the country that produced the largest share of energy in the EU (20% of the total), followed by Germany (17%), Poland (9.6%), Italy and Sweden (6%). ). However, the debate on green taxonomy is intertwined with energy security (or sovereignty) in a particular historical phase, marked by risks to the security of supply due to geopolitical and military reasons, as shown by the tensions on the Ukrainian border. Primary energy production in the EU in 2019 was distributed among various energy sources, the most important of which in terms of the size of its contribution were renewables, with over a third (36.5%) of the total. Second place for nuclear power, with 32.0% of total primary energy production, with France in the lead, followed by Belgium (77% of domestic production in 2019) which, however, is about to abound in nuclear power like Germany. However, all European energy production is not enough to meet its needs: more than half of Europe’s energy is imported. The EU energy dependency rate exceeds 50%.

Source link

James Reno

Editor-in-Chief, James loves playing games and loves to write about them more. He knows a lot about entertainment because he has done a drama course. James loves writing, so he is our writer. email: james@d1softballnews.com

Related Articles

Back to top button

While nuclear was briefly considered as a bridging technology in 2009, the policy moved firmly away from it, arguing nuclear power is neither entirely clean nor safe due to insufficient safety requirements and high expense.

Title:

Content: Home / News / World /  Germany quits nuclear power; shuts final 3 plants
Back

Germany has shut its final three nuclear plants, marking the end of the country's end of nuclear era that has spanned more than 60 years.

Nuclear power has long been contentious in Germany.

The move has come as Germany's eyes achieve its green goal. Steffi Lemke, Germany’s Federal Minister for the Environment and Consumer Protection and a Green Party member, "The position of the German government is clear: nuclear power is not green. Nor is it sustainable".

Closure of three nuclear plant's history:

Germany shut three plants-- Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim, representing the culmination of a plan set in motion more than 20 years ago.

During the 1970s, a strong anti-nuclear movement emerged in Germany. The movement gave birth to the green party, which is now part of governing coalition.

However, it was in the 2000s the German government pledged to phase out nuclear power and start shutting down plants.

But in 2009, a new government came to power and it seemed brief as if nuclear would get a reprieve as a bridging technology to help the country move to renewable energy.

Then Fukushima happened. In 2011, an earthquake and tsunami caused three reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant to melt down.

Three days later then-Chancellor Angela Merkel who was previously pro-nuclear, announced Germany would accelerate a nuclear phase-out, with older plants shuttered immediately.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided another plot twist.

Germany isn’t the only country committed to walking away from nuclear — Italy gave up the technology in 1990, and Lithuania recently struck a deal to dismantle its Soviet-era reactors, which have sat idle for over a decade. But in many advanced economies, nuclear is experiencing a resurgence.

On Sunday, Finland will start regular power production at Europe’s newest and biggest reactor. The 1,600-megawatt Olkiluoto-3 unit that faced years of delays had been planned to enter commercial production on Monday. France is planning to build at least six new reactors by 2050 as well as experiment with smaller, modular ones. The UK has similar ambitions. And even in Japan, after a decade of paralysis following the nuclear accident in Fukushima, the public is warming up to the use of nuclear power. The Japanese government wants to restart reactors that have sat idle since the disaster and to extend the lifespan of existing units.

Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
More Less
Recommended For You
×
Get alerts on WhatsApp
Set Preferences My Reads Watchlist Feedback Redeem a Gift Card Logout

Germany has strongly opposed EU proposals to classify nuclear as green energy, igniting disputes with nations like France, where the energy mix relies heavily on nuclear, and Spain, which also rejected the proposal.

Despite debate within the EU and between leaders such as Macron and Scholz, Germany has maintained that fossil gas and nuclear do not fit in the bloc's “green” taxonomy.

Title:

Content: EU chaos! Macron and Scholz in furious bust-up over EU energy plans: ‘Risky and expensive'

FRENCH President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are locked in a furious bust-up over EU energy policy plans as disagreements have sparked division in the bloc.

Link copied

Macron wields 'tools to set EU agenda'

While France has been pushing for nuclear to be included in the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy, Germany is in the process of completely phasing out the energy source in the country. The EU’s taxonomy is intended to hand a green badge to companies and activities — or to withhold it — to “help shift investments where they are most needed". This is part of the bloc’s aim to direct funding towards energy sources with a low or zero carbon footprint.

But this has sparked fury as Germany does not view nuclear power as a form of clean energy.

Mr Macron wants gas and nuclear to be labelled as a “transitional” source under the taxonomy as he claims they are needed for the clean energy transition.

He says that this is because renewables are “intermittent, and thus not totally substitutable, even with our interconnections [in Europe], for non-intermittent sources of electricity production” like gas or nuclear power.

And these calls do not come as much of a surprise, given that 70 percent of French electricity is generated by nuclear power.

Mr Macron has pointed to the verdict from experts on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to back up his calls.

Macron and Scholz are in a furious energy bust-up (Image: Getty )

Emmanuel Macron is pushing for nuclear power to be included in the EU taxonomy (Image: Getty )

They claim that “nuclear power is one of the solutions to decarbonise our economies”.

And this seems to have convinced Brussels, as the EU Commission drew up a draft proposal, circulated on 31 December, for this to come into effect.

Subject to a consultation period until Friday (21 January), It gave EU members and others just three weeks to analyse the proposal and provide their own comments.

Germany is strongly opposed to the nuclear plans and has been phasing out nuclear power for over two decades.

It also plans to shut down its three remaining plants at the end of the year.

READ MORE: World holds breath as Ukraine to fire rocket amid Russia tension

Olaf Scholz's Government is opposed to the EU's proposal (Image: Getty )

But it is not Berlin who disapproves of the proposal.

The EU Platform on Sustainable Finance, a European Commission advisory body, has torn the proposal apart.

In an opinion piece, it argued that nuclear power is not an entirely clean energy source, and that fossil gas is “far from green”.

Under the EU’s draft proposal, gas-fired power plants would get a “transitional” investment label if they meet a certain criteria.

That is if they use “at least 30 percent of renewable or low-carbon gases as of 1 January 2026, and at least 55 percent of renewable or low-carbon gases as of 1 January 2030”.

DON'T MISS
Boris on brink: Red Wall poll signal end of the road for PM [REPORT]
EU Galileo blow as UK’s OneWeb network signs major deals [REVEAL]
EU helpless over Russia thanks to Merkel as Biden poised to step in [INSIGHT]

Germany argued nuclear is not a clean energy source (Image: Getty )

And as of January 1, 2036, the Commission said all gas-fired power plants would have to “switch to renewable or low-carbon gases” to qualify for the EU’s green investment label.

But under EU rules, no technology can be considered green if it causes “significant harm” to any of the taxonomy’s six environmental objectives.

Those are climate change mitigation and adaptation, water protection, the transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention, and biodiversity protection.

Germany has been kicking up a fuss over the proposals, calling them “risky and expensive” in a letter sent to Brussels.

Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said in a joint statement with Environment Minister Steffi Lemke: “As the federal government, we have once again clearly expressed our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy. It is risky and expensive."

Germany has also claimed that there is a lack of safety requirements in the nuclear field.

Robert Habeck sent a letter to Brussels slamming the proposal (Image: Getty )

And it argued that the lengthy construction of new reactors "does not offer a short-term opportunity" to phase out carbon-intensive energy sources such as coal.

But while it has poured cold water over nuclear plans, Germany does not seem so opposed to the inclusion of gas.

In the letter sent to Brussels, it reads that gas used in "ultra-modern and efficient gas-fired power plants forms a bridge for a limited transitional period".

But the German Government did mention that the proposed fuel switch targets to low-carbon and renewable gases laid out by the taxonomy proposal are not realistic.

And Mr Macron is travelling to Berlin today to meet with Mr Scholz.

While the leaders’ meeting will focus on the Russia’s mounting pressure on Ukraine, the energy plans will no doubt be a topic of conversation too.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany faced the threat of gas shortages and increased costs due to its heavy reliance on Russian energy, leading to broad societal anxiety over heating and food prices and risk of social unrest.

Title:

Content: How decades of complacency have left Germany facing a cold, dark winter

Betrayed by its own elite, the country is at risk of social unrest

Germany is facing its worst winter for 75 years. The impending catastrophe risks crippling its economy, sweeping away its government and bringing chaos to the heart of Europe.

In 1946-47, perhaps half a million Germans starved or froze to death in their ruined cities. Older Germans still shudder at the memory of the “Hunger Winter”. Some blamed the Nazis, others the Allied occupation. In fact, the British sent food, fuel and clothing they could ill afford to spare themselves.

Now Europe’s largest economy is heading for a winter of recession, rationing and possible blackouts. This time, though, there is nobody to blame except Germany’s complacent – and in some cases corrupt – political establishment.

As Vladimir Putin chokes off Russian gas supplies – already down to a fifth of their pre-war level – by closing the Nord Stream 1 pipeline for “maintenance” yet again next week, the lamps are going out for Olaf Scholz and his “traffic light” coalition of Social Democrats, Liberal and Greens.

'Autumn of rage'

The Bundesbank has been predicting a recession and the latest figures show that business activity is already contracting. Inflation, which hit 8.5 per cent last month, is expected to keep rising along with the rest of the eurozone, probably into double figures.

Yet for historical reasons Germans won’t just accept high inflation as a consequence of the war in Ukraine. The world remembers the hyperinflation that undermined the Weimar Republic a century ago; only older Germans recall the hyperinflation after the Second World War, which lasted longer. For three years Germany’s only stable currency was American cigarettes. No wonder Germans have been allergic to inflation ever since.

It is true that Germans are not yet demanding big pay rises or going on strike. But energy prices are already rising exponentially. The country's one-year ahead power price has skyrocketed to almost €1,000 per megawatt-hour, a jump of more than 720pc since the start of 2022. If Putin turns off the tap, bringing the mighty German economy to a juddering halt this winter, there is a real danger of civil unrest.

Intelligence officials are warning that extremist organisations, such as the neo-Nazis of Combat 18, are planning an “autumn of rage”. As a foretaste, in the old Prussian town of Neuruppin near Berlin, there were ugly scenes this month as Scholz was shouted down by far-Left and far-Right protesters.

But the panic and indignation now brewing go far beyond the ranks of the “unteachable” extremists.

Germans sense that unaccountable elites have ceded control of their country’s destiny to Putin. The more they are must pay him for Russian gas, the bigger his war chest with which to perpetrate genocide in Ukraine.

Forcing Germany to be complicit in a colossal crime against humanity is a diabolical twist in the vengeance that Putin is now exacting upon Europe for backing Ukraine. According to The Economist’s Christian Odendahl, at present prices Germany will need to spend 8.4 per cent of its GDP on gas. Hitherto it was just 1 per cent.

Already preparations are underway for central heating to be rationed or even switched off, forcing residents to seek shelter in schools or town halls.

The country is scrambling to reduce its reliance on gas with a campaign to make households cut back, and a massive national effort has brought gas storage levels up to 81 per cent full.

Food prices, meanwhile, rose at a rate of nearly 15 per cent in July. Those who fear being unable to afford to heat their homes or feed their families are prey to angst and anger.

Actions have consequences... or do they?

Few foresaw the Russian invasion of Ukraine, let alone its devastating consequences for Europe. But it is dawning on the German people that the seeds of the present crisis were sown over the quarter of a century from 1998 to 2022, under Angela Merkel and her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder.

These were the years of plenty for Germany, when Berlin dominated the European Union, ensuring that its export-led economy benefited from the single currency while loading the social costs on to its poorer neighbours. But Germany’s dirty secret was cheap Russian energy.

Under Schröder – who went on to become one of Putin’s “useful idiots” – German industry began to abandon its postwar reliance on coal and nuclear energy in favour of Russian gas and renewables.

In 2011, after the Fukushima accident, Mrs Merkel announced that all German nuclear power plants would be closed down. It was a pyrrhic victory for the Greens but backed by all the major parties. Public opinion had been turned against nuclear energy in the 1980s by the Soviet-funded “peace movement”. Now the Greens are the keystone of the Scholz coalition.

Even in the country’s present predicament, Robert Habeck, the Green Vice-Chancellor and Environment Minister, is refusing to reverse the exit from nuclear to alleviate the energy crisis, though it is still possible over time to reactivate a number of nuclear power stations.

Yet Berlin is demanding that 26 other EU member states make huge cuts in energy use this winter to help Germany – to the irritation of the Spanish and others, who don’t depend on Russian gas and recall lectures from Berlin during the eurozone crisis about actions having consequences.

For decades, the Kremlin acted as Germany’s geopolitical drug-dealer, tempting Berlin to become ever more addicted to the energy that fuelled its manufacturing, pharmaceutical and chemical factories. Now that the Germans are about to go cold turkey, they are discovering how cynically the national interest was betrayed by their politicians and captains of industry.

With Schröder as its salesman, a new Nord Stream 2 pipeline was built under the Baltic Sea — with the blessing of Mrs Merkel, who fended off Anglo-American pressure to cancel what was regarded as a threat to European energy security.

Last year, as Russian tanks massed on the Ukrainian border and Nato warned of imminent invasion, Gazprom redoubled its efforts to keep the flagship project on track.

The Russian energy giant poured €192 million (£163m) into an environmental foundation set up by Manuela Schwesig, the Social Democratic premier of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — the state that hosted Nord Stream 2 and stood to gain most. She proceeded to denounce the US for opposing the pipeline, claiming that American sanctions were purely self-interested.

Putin’s stooges almost succeeded in persuading Scholz to defy his Nato allies. He dithered until the eve of February’s invasion before shelving Nord Stream 2.

Now, after six months of Europe’s worst war since 1945, some German politicians are once again calling for the pipeline to be opened “so that people do not have to freeze in winter and our industry does not suffer serious damage”, as Wolfgang Kubicki, Vice-President of the German Parliament, puts it.

Meanwhile Ms Schwesig has just been re-elected as leader of the Social Democrats in her state by a large majority. Schröder has yet to be expelled from the party, let alone sanctioned.

Germany’s Achilles’ heel

This is the measure of Germany’s abject reliance, not only on Russian energy, but on the Russian state. For Putin, gas and oil were only ever a means to an end. He has always wanted to reduce the Germans — towards whom Russians have traditionally had an inferiority complex — to a status of servility.

Stalin only succeeded in dividing Germany. Putin seeks to turn the entire Federal Republic into his client state — and thereby impose his will upon Europe.

With the unerring eye of the predator, Putin grasped that energy was Germany’s Achilles’ heel. A single plant of a single corporation, the headquarters of the chemical and pharmaceutical giant BASF at Ludwigshafen, uses as much energy as Denmark.

Over the last 25 years, Germany’s craving for cheap energy led it into an unequal relationship with Russia — what the philosopher Hegel called “the dialectic of master and slave”.

Putin saw that some German politicians could be bought (Schröder), others bamboozled (Merkel), and still others bullied (Scholz). Other EU countries followed the German example by relying heavily on Moscow for energy, influenced by the evasion and ambivalence that has characterised Berlin’s policy for decades.

Germany, whose economy is substantially larger than Britain’s, has given just £1 billion in military aid to Ukraine compared to the UK’s £3.5 billion. The United States has given ten times as much as the EU. Yet Ukraine is a European country under genocidal attack.

The reluctance to provoke Putin that still prevails in wide circles of the Federal Republic is rooted in exaggerated notions of Russian military power, economic importance and cultural pre-eminence.

German fatalism about Russia’s ability to absorb casualties and yet win ultimate victory reflects folk memories of the Eastern Front. But Putin, unlike Stalin, does not have a vast conscript army at his disposal, he does not enjoy technical superiority and he cannot afford the war of attrition that he has unleashed. Nor are the Russian people united against an invading force in defence of their homeland. Only in Berlin do they think this is another Stalingrad.

This historical myopia has much to do with the long-standing German habit of subsuming the other nations that made up the Soviet Union into Russia. To this day most Germans have no awareness of the fact that the Nazis killed millions of Ukrainian civilians and devastated their country.

Ironically, many artists, writers and musicians who have fled Ukraine have found refuge in Germany. One example is the composer Valentin Silvestrov, who fled to Berlin aged 84 with one suitcase, full of his manuscripts. Once there, he discovered that Ukrainian music was unknown in Germany. Now that Silvestrov’s works are being performed, including at the Proms in London, the Germans are slowly waking up to the presence of a greater living composer than any of their own.

Many ordinary Germans, like the British, instinctively warm to the Ukrainian cause. The difference is in leadership – or lack of it. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, unlike Boris Johnson or Liz Truss, has shown only lukewarm support for Kyiv and has been implicitly rebuked by President Zelensky.

Hamburger grilled

Although there is no suggestion that Scholz has been bribed to go easy on Russia, he himself has become embroiled in a corruption scandal. He is accused of helping M.M. Warburg & Co, Germany’s oldest and largest private bank, to avoid a €47 million fine in 2016, during his time as Finance Minister in the Merkel coalition.

The Hamburg-based bank is alleged to have made up to €300 million in a capital gains tax scam which came to light while Scholz was also mayor of the city state. Just as he finds himself facing an unexpectedly grim present and a positively terrifying future, his provincial past has returned to haunt him.

Last week the Chancellor was grilled by a committee of inquiry in Hamburg. The normally meticulous Scholz claimed not to remember any details about his meetings with Warburg’s former chief, Christian Olearius, who has now been charged with tax evasion. Germany’s safe pair of hands, whom millions had entrusted with the nation’s finances, is now accused of being cosy with tax-dodging bankers and being an unimpressive, even unreliable, witness.

In other ways, too, Scholz is failing to live up to the moral example set by the two great Social Democratic Chancellors of post-war Germany, Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt. At a joint press conference with Mahmoud Abbas in Berlin earlier this month, Scholz remained tight-lipped while the Palestinian leader delivered an anti-Semitic tirade, accusing Israel of committing “many Holocausts” against his people.

Schmidt, who concealed the fact he had a Jewish grandfather from the Nazis but as Chancellor was an outspoken philosemite, would not have been impressed by his fellow Hamburger Scholz. Nor would Brandt, who famously fell to his knees at the memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Not for decades has anti-Semitism been such a threat in Germany: in July, Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial was desecrated with swastikas. Now, as Putin’s myrmidons massacre and deport Ukrainians near the site of Nazi genocide, while a quarter of the Russian Jewish population has emigrated in anticipation of pogroms, Germany needs a leader who is not afraid to denounce anti-Semitism even at the cost of diplomatic niceties.

After less than a year in office, Scholz’s personal ratings are plumbing depths never seen during Mrs Merkel’s 16 years at the helm. As Germans brace themselves for unprecedented hardships in peacetime, they are led by a weak and indecisive Chancellor at the head of a fragile three-party coalition.

Post-heroic, post-patriotic

Wednesday’s visit to Kyiv by Boris Johnson – his third – to mark Ukraine’s Independence Day was hugely appreciated not only by Volodymyr Zelensky but by all Ukrainians. Yet it was a gesture of solidarity that did not occur – could not have occurred – to Olaf Scholz.

The German Chancellor’s only visit to the Ukrainian capital last June, accompanied by Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi, was an awkward, chilly affair that yielded little more than promises. This week, Scholz posted a short video message, concluding: “Our hearts are with you.” Ulrich Speck, a German foreign policy analyst, commented: “Hearts, yes. But not weapons.”

Johnson, by contrast, knows he is among friends in Kyiv – a friendship symbolised by Zelensky awarding him Ukraine’s highest honour, the Order of Liberty. It is impossible to imagine the lugubrious German Chancellor finding the Prime Minister’s pithy words: “While people [in the West] are paying energy bills, people in Ukraine are paying with blood.” Nor would Scholz echo him in declaring: “I believe Ukraine can and will win this war.”

For his part, Zelensky told his people that they had been “reborn” in the heat of war. “We used to say: ‘Peace’. Now we say: ‘Victory’,” he declared.

Highly educated Germans find it hard to empathise with such Churchillian sentiments. Jürgen Habermas, the eminence grise of German intellectuals, makes condescending comments about Ukraine as a primitive place, still captive to the nationalist illusions of the last century, unlike more sophisticated, “post-heroic” Germany. It doesn’t occur to the 93-year-old philosopher that without the heroism of its soldiers and civilians, Ukraine would by now have ceased to exist.

Prussian military prowess has long since given way to post-patriotic pusillanimity. Where Merkel and Scholz feared to tread and even Biden was hesitant, Johnson was the first to commit himself wholeheartedly to the cause and to visit war-torn Kyiv.

Many other nations – the Poles, the Baltic states, the Scandinavians and the Canadians among them – have been more supportive than the Germans, who owe Ukrainians the greatest moral debt.

Berlin boasts of handing out a handful of howitzers while dithering over clapped-out armoured vehicles. Meanwhile British arms and training, Turkish drones and American rocket artillery systems have proved decisive on the battlefield.

Sold down the Dnieper

Although the Scholz coalition officially sides with Ukraine, the unpalatable fact remains that Germany and its EU partners are financing Russian aggression by paying vast sums for Russian gas.

Will they stand up to Putin in Germany when the enormity of the ordeal ahead becomes clear to everybody? Will public opinion continue to back even the present feeble commitment, or will the voices calling for peace at the expense of Ukrainians prevail? It is all too believable that at some point, probably early next year when gas storage facilities are empty, Berlin – and Brussels – will open negotiations with the Kremlin, regardless of Kyiv’s wishes.

Yet it is then that the ghosts of the past may rise up to intervene in the present. The thought of Germans and Russians redrawing the map of Eastern Europe at the conference table sends shivers down the spines of every Pole, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and, of course, Ukrainian. On August 23, 1940, exactly 82 years ago this week, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, carving up Poland (which then included Lviv and other parts of present-day Ukraine) and the Baltic states between Russia and Germany. No German Chancellor wishes to be reminded of that precedent.

However, nor can Scholz risk presiding over an even deeper and more lasting recession than that caused by the Covid pandemic. Somehow he must steer a course between the Scylla of appeasing Putin and the Charybdis of economic ruin.

The tension between these positions is reflected in the tripartite coalition. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and the Greens are the hawks, Finance Minister Christian Lindner and his pro-business Free Democrats are the doves, while the Social Democrats are deeply divided. The party leadership leans towards Moscow, the rank and file towards Kyiv. This explains why Scholz never says that he wants Ukraine to win the war, merely that they must not lose it.

The opposition Christian Democrats are only slightly more united. They too have a large wing that privately favours a negotiated peace, represented by their pro-business leader Friedrich Merz, and a smaller but not insignificant group led by the foreign affairs expert Norbert Röntgen, who hope for a Ukrainian victory. Merz has papered over the cracks by focusing on a campaign to reverse his predecessor Mrs Merkel’s exit from nuclear energy.

Meanwhile, the “understanding Putin” lobby has the support of both the hard Left Die Linke and anti-immigration AfD parties. German public opinion has slowly tiptoed away from its initial admiration for Ukrainian resistance and towards a compromise peace.

That subtle shift could soon become an overwhelming tide, once Germans are required to make real sacrifices. Vladimir Putin, we may be sure, is counting on it.

From October, Scholz will impose a gas levy on consumers to compensate energy companies for the cost of replacing Russian gas supplies. Germany’s biggest energy company, Uniper, was bailed out in July to the tune of £12.5 billion; it is now claiming another £18.5 billion of levies.

This policy is bound to be unpopular, since it redistributes tens of billions from the poor to the rich — curious thinking for a government of the Left. But this is nothing compared to the prospect of protests sparked by a national shutdown caused, not by a deadly virus, but by Putin’s energy politics.

A change in the air?

Modern Germany has a volatile history of popular protest. It began with the revolution that toppled the Kaiser in 1918. The Nazis mobilised the masses to carry out their “national revolution” in 1933. A workers’ uprising in East Germany was crushed by Soviet tanks in 1953. Student protests brought about a cultural revolution in 1968. Uniquely bloodless and benign was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This was Germany’s finest hour.

The defiance that breached the Wall and sent the Soviet army home was a blessing, but the despair that Putin’s revenge may induce this winter will surely be a curse. Gas has given the Russian dictator coercive control over the German political class, which willingly acquiesced in its fate.

In Kyiv, Boris Johnson said: “I can tell you that we in the UK will not for one second give in to Putin’s blackmail.” Olaf Scholz is incapable of speaking like this — because he does not believe it. He has failed to frame the coming ordeal as a battle in which Germans must make sacrifices for their own liberty, not just Ukraine’s. People don’t mind his lack of charisma; they do mind facing a nightmarish winter with spineless hypocrisy at the helm.

Will it become so obvious by next spring that Scholz is unequal to the task that either he or his coalition are replaced? Can the centre of German politics hold — or are we about to see a terrible revolt of the masses against a discredited political establishment? It has happened before. It can happen again.

Daniel Johnson was the Telegraph’s correspondent in Germany and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. He is now the editor of TheArticle.

Faced with soaring prices, the government introduced measures to help those most affected by the cost-of-living crisis and began welfare overhaul to adjust unemployment benefits and provide more support for renters.

Title:

Content:   1. Skip to content
  2. Skip to main menu
  3. Skip to more DW sites
The upper house of Germany's parliament signed off on a number of major legislative packages on Friday aimed at helping address inflation and soaring energy costsImage: Wolfgang Kumm/dpa/picture alliance
PoliticsGermany

Germany approves welfare reform, extends nuclear power

2 hours ago

Germany's upper house of parliament approved measures aimed at helping people hit hard by high energy prices and the high cost of living. The country's nuclear power extension will also take effect immediately.

https://p.dw.com/p/4K5HV

The upper house of Germany's parliament, the Bundesrat, approved extending the use of three nuclear power plants, overhauling unemployment benefits and other major legislation on Friday after heated debate among lawmakers.

After receiving approval from the Bundesrat, the measures will soon enter into law. DW breaks down what's set to change in 2023.

Nuclear power extension

The Bundesrat signed off on the extension of three nuclear power plants after the lower house, the Bundestag, approved the move earlier this month.

The nuclear plants — Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2 and Emsland — will remain operational until April 2023 to provide enough power through the winter. The facilities had been slated to close at the end of this year under Germany's nuclear phaseout plans.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz decided to extend the life of the nuclear plants after Germany found itself facing a severe energy shortage. Russia turned off supplies of gas in response to the backlash over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.

The extension was bitterly debated among Scholz's center-left Social Democrats (SPD), the environmentalist Greens and the pro-free market Free Democrats (FDP).

With Friday's approval from the upper house, the nuclear power plant extension will take effect immediately.

Germany set to keep nuclear plants running

Unemployment reform

Germany is set for a major welfare overhaul after the Bundesrat signed off on a compromise to reform unemployment benefits.

The changes will go into effect as of January 1, 2023, replacing the current and frequently criticized "Harz IV" unemployment benefits system that has been in place since 2005.

Under the new "Bürgergeld" system (which means "citizen's money"), those who are unemployed will get higher benefits and better vocational skills training.

The initial proposal by Scholz's government was rejected by conservative lawmakers in the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) bloc. Under the compromise, benefits could be cut during a six-month "trust period" if an unemployed person is deemed to not be looking hard enough for work.

According to the plans, those receiving benefits will also get more support in job training programs to prepare for permanent employment. The change also is an attempt to mitigate the shortage of skilled workers Germany is currently experiencing.

"This reform is a milestone of social policy in Germany," Scholz told the magazine Focus on Friday after the votes. "This reform put assistance for untrained people who belong to the long-term jobless front and center."

The measure must still be signed by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, although nearly all measures approved by the Bundesrat are signed-off by the president.

More money for Germany's unemployed?

Tax relief, higher child benefits

With inflation hitting consumers hard, lawmakers approved measures aimed at softening the blow.

The upper house approved legislation that would help people who receive pay raises that adjust for inflation. The new measures would prevent people having to pay more taxes due to pay raises.

Starting in January 2023, child benefit payments will also be raised. Families will now receive €250 ($260) per month for each child in the household.

The change is a big jump from the current system, which saw parents receive €219 per month for their first and second child, €225 per month for a third child, and €250 for each additional child.

More support for renters

The upper house of parliament also greenlit a law that seeks to help renters deal with skyrocketing heating costs.

Starting from January 1, renters will no longer have to shoulder the costs of heating with oil and natural gas — landlords and property owners will have to chip-in as well.

For buildings that are not energy efficient and produce a high proportion of CO2 emissions, landlords will need to pay more — and not the renters.

In addition, more people in low-income households will receive a housing allowance from the government. The expansion to the law means 1.4 million households are eligible for the payments, as opposed to the current 600,000 households that qualify.

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

rs/ar (dpa, KNA, epd)

Climate, energy woes dim views of holiday lighting

Skip next section Related topics
Skip next section DW's Top Story

DW's Top Story

Ukraine updates: Power returns to nuclear plants

Skip next section More stories from DW
Go to homepage

While the shutdown was a Pyrrhic victory for the Greens and supported by major parties, external shocks like the war in Ukraine provoked some reconsideration in late 2022, with the government assessing conditions for a possible temporary extension of reactor operations.

Title:

Content: Germany To Postpone Closure Of Last Three Nuclear Power Plants - WSJ

(@ChaudhryMAli88)

MOSCOW (UrduPoint News / Sputnik - 17th August, 2022) Germany, faced with possible energy shortages in the winter as gas supplies from Russia have dropped, intends to postpone the closure of its last three nuclear power plants (NPPs) in a move marking a departure from a two-decade policy to abandon nuclear energy, The Wall Street Journal reported citing German government officials.

The decision, which has to be formally adopted by the cabinet of Chancellor Olaf Scholz and would possibly require a vote in Parliament, could be weeks off, but already now the German government says two key conditions have been met that allow a temporary extension of the life of the three remaining NPPs, currently expected to close December 31: the possibility of a gas shortage and the confidence that a longer operation of reactors would pose no safety concern, according to the officials.

"The reactors are safe until Dec. 31, and obviously they will remain safe also after Dec. 31," the WSJ quoted a senior official as saying.

Scholz last week said for the first time that it could make sense to keep Germany's last three nuclear reactors online.

However, even if the life of the three German NPPs is extended, this will not be a panacea for Germany's looming energy crisis this winter as the country is mainly missing natural gas, primarily used for heating and manufacturing.

The European Union has been seeking to diversify energy imports and reduce dependence on Russia after Moscow started its special military operation in Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has repeatedly said that Russia has never used gas supplies to punish anyone, but sells energy solely in its own interests, to increase the welfare of Russians and on a commercial basis.

The German government has also outlined measures to reduce gas and power consumption in the country over the next two years. The measures in particular include lowering the temperature in public buildings. According to Germany's energy regulator, gas consumption will have to be cut by 20 percent if Germany wants to avoid a gas shortfall during this coming winter and next winter.

The three officials who spoke to the WSJ said the extension of the NPPs' life would only be made for several months.

The power plants in question are Isar 2 in the southern state of Bavaria, Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Wurttemberg and Emsland in Lower Saxony. They are operated, respectively, by E.On SE, EnBW AG, and RWE AG.

After the start of Russia's special military operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, the West has stepped up sanctions pressure on Russia, which has led to an increase in prices for energy and food in Europe and the United States.

Germany remains divided on nuclear energy, but the government’s official position continues to be one of active phase-out, with sporadic public pressure and political scrutiny influencing the pace and terms of the transition.


On August 29, 2018, a drop in cabin pressure was detected aboard the International Space Station (ISS), prompting astronauts to locate the source of the leak.

The crew conducted a search and traced the leak to the Russian Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft, which was docked to the ISS at the time.

The leak was found to be caused by a small, 2-millimeter hole in the Soyuz’s orbital module.

The astronauts temporarily sealed the hole from inside the station using tape and gauze to slow the loss of air.

Russian cosmonaut Sergey Prokopyev and the crew made a more permanent repair with epoxy resin and a patch.

Initial reports suggested the damage may have resulted from a drilling incident, but the cause—whether accidental or deliberate—remained under investigation.

Despite concerns, the crew remained safe throughout the event, and cabin pressure was stabilized after the repairs.

Russian authorities stated that the integrity of the spacecraft and the ISS was maintained following the fix.

The Soyuz MS-09 was later used as the return vehicle for its crew, successfully landing on Earth on December 20, 2018.

The incident raised questions and tensions between international partners regarding human error and potential intentional actions.

The repaired area was inspected after landing, with Russian officials continuing to investigate the exact origin and circumstances behind the leak.

On August 29, 2018, a drop in cabin pressure was detected aboard the International Space Station (ISS), prompting astronauts to locate the source of the leak.

Title:

Content: Brought to you by Newscorp Australia

Russia provokes uproar as strike skirts International Space Station

Andrew Backhouse, November 21, 2021 2:30PM

Print Article

The International Space Station currently has seven astronauts on board who were forced to take evasive action after the Russian missile strike destroyed one of its own satellites. The debris cloud has created an international political storm here on Earth. Picture: NASA/AFP

space

Reading level: red

Russia has admitted blowing up one of its satellites during a missile test, causing a space junk storm that had the International Space Station (ISS) on high alert. But it denied endangering astronauts on board the station.

The international space community has criticised Russia for conducting what the US called the “dangerous and irresponsible” weapons test, but Russia maintains the targeted strike posed no threat to the station.

However, NASA rejects this assessment and repeated Thursday that there remained increased risk to the facility and astronauts from the orbiting debris.

Russian spacecraft Tselina-Dsince had orbited Earth since 1982. After the Russian defence ministry first announced that the satellite had been destroyed, Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying: “The fragments that formed do not pose any threat to space activity”.

But the explosion created a debris* cloud that forced the International Space Station’s crew to take evasive* action.

The crew aboard the space station — currently four Americans, a German and two Russians — had to take shelter in their return ships, the standard “safe haven” alarm procedure in the event of an emergency that might force evacuation*.

This 2011 artist’s impression released by the European Space Agency shows the debris field in low Earth orbit, which extends to 2000km above the Earth’s surface. The destroyed Russian satellite has added at least 1500 new pieces of space junk. Picture: AFP

As a result of the explosion, there are at least 1500 new pieces of space junk orbiting the planet at high speed. Hundreds of thousands of smaller pieces of orbital debris could be created in the future.

“Over the next few weeks we will be able to establish high fidelity* tracking on this debris, which will help provide vital space surveillance* for secure and safe operations in space,” said LeoLabs Australia Managing Director and former Air Commodore Terry van Haren.

“If a deliberate act, this would be a very irresponsible action by the Russian Federation. At an altitude of 480km … (the) debris field will pose a significant risk to all operators for decades to come, including the International Space Station, which sits at 420km and Starling at 540km.

“It is probably at the worst altitude you could imagine, above the ISS at 420 km and just under where the mega-constellations* are setting up. What were they thinking?”

LeoLabs is closely monitoring the debris field via this Costa Rica Space Radar array. Picture: LeoLabs

In other words, the debris is dangerously close to the altitude of the famous space station. The ISS could be threatened every 93 minutes, according to Seradata, and it is likely the debris will be orbiting Earth for at least 10 years.

The Russian weapon was only the fourth ever missile to hit a spacecraft from the ground.

In a Pentagon briefing, spokesman John Kirby told reporters the US didn’t receive advance notice of the strike and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave Russia a verbal blast in response.

“We condemn Russia’s reckless test of a direct-ascent anti-satellite missile against its own satellite, creating space debris that risks astronauts’ lives, the integrity of the International Space Station, and the interests of all nations,” he said.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, pictured in Nairobi, Kenya, on November 17, has roundly criticised the Russian weapons test in space. Picture: AFP

Flinders University “space lawyer” Professor Melissa de Zwart called it “particularly irresponsible” and its effect on the ISS “significant”.

The move reignites concerns about the growing space arms race, from the development of satellites capable of booting others out of orbit to laser weapons. In his strongly-worded remarks, Secretary Blinken said the danger was far from over.

“The long-lived debris created by this dangerous and irresponsible test will now threaten satellites and other space objects that are vital to all nations’ security, economic, and scientific interests for decades to come,” he said.

“Russia, despite its claims of opposing the weaponisation of outer space, is willing to jeopardise* the long-term sustainability of outer space and imperil* the exploration and use of outer space.”

The United States was discussing its response with partners, Secretary Blinken added.

Harvard astrophysicist* Dr Jonathan McDowell told AFP such tests amounted to “sabre rattling*”.

“The feeling among people in the space industry is that we have way too much debris up there already — to deliberately generate more is just inexcusable,” he said.

There are currently more than 4500 satellites whizzing around the planet, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, with companies like SpaceX planning to launch up to tens of thousands more, as the private space industry experiences rapid growth.

Russia is increasingly flexing its muscles in space as it seeks to reassert global influence under the leadership of Vladimir Putin.

Under the leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Soviet Union is increasingly flexing its muscles in space. Picture: AFP

“China and Russia are increasingly building space into their military capabilities,” Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said at a space seminar in Washington last week.

Despite these tensions, the United States and Russia have maintained strong space ties since the end of the Cold War, co-operating closely on the ISS, which they built together.

NASA administrator Bill Nelson said he was “outraged” by the missile test.

“With its long and storied history in human spaceflight, it is unthinkable that Russia would endanger not only the American and international partner astronauts on the ISS, but also their own cosmonauts” as well as taikonauts aboard the Chinese space station, Mr Nelson said in a statement.

– with AFP

GLOSSARY

  • debris: remaining pieces of something that has been destroyed
  • evasive action: doing something to avoid potential danger
  • evacuation: urgent, immediate removal and departure of people to avoid an imminent threat
  • high fidelity: accurate reproduction of an effect
  • surveillance: observation, monitoring, scrutiny
  • mega-constellations: low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite networks in the hundreds and thousands
  • jeopardise: risk, endanger, threaten
  • imperil: see jeopardise above
  • astrophysicist: expert in study of stars and other objects in space using physical laws
  • sabre rattling: exaggerated show of power, a deliberate display of force or intent

EXTRA READING

Aussie rocket blasts off

Billionaire’s plan to build new space station

Australia’s historic first moon mission

QUICK QUIZ

  1. How long had the destroyed satellite orbited Earth?
  2. How many pieces of debris are now orbiting at high speed?
  3. How many astronauts are currently on board the ISS?
  4. What is the altitude of the debris field?
  5. How many satellites are currently whizzing around the planet?

LISTEN TO THIS STORY

CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES
1. Point of view
The US and Russia have very differing points of view about this event. Using information from this news story, write and then record yourself presenting two different 30 second TV news stories about the event. Version 1 should show how the event might be reported in the US and version 2 should show how the event might be reported in Russia.

Time: allow 40 minutes to complete this activity
Curriculum Links: English

2. Extension
Do you think that countries have the right to do whatever they want in space? Why or why not? What should the rules be? Explain your answer.

Time: allow 15 minutes to complete this activity
Curriculum Links: English; Ethical Understanding

VCOP ACTIVITY
What happens next?
Imagine this story becomes part of an animated series made up of three cartoons. The three cartoons tell the complete story and this article is only Part 1. Think about what the rest of the story could be and draw the next two cartoons that tell the story.

Time: allow 30 minutes to complete this activity
Curriculum Links: English; Visual Arts; Visual Communication Design; Critical and Creative Thinking

Extra Reading in space

The crew conducted a search and traced the leak to the Russian Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft, which was docked to the ISS at the time.

Title:

Content: Skip to content
NOWCAST News 9 Tonight
Live Now
Advertisement

Newington Middle School students chosen to help with experiment bound for space

Newington Middle School students chosen to help with experiment bound for space
INTRODUCE YOU TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOLERS WHO ARE HELPING THEM... THEY ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT SCIENCE. THE GRAVITY OF THEIR WORK IS NOT LOST ON THESE YOUNG STUDENTS. <SOIL ZOOM, 13:11-13:18 ARIANA METZGER / 6TH GRAR DE OUR SOIL FROM THIS TINY TOWN IS GOING UP INTO SPACE, TH AT VAST EXPANSE OF NOTHINGNESS.> MEET ARIANA AND JAKE... 6TH GRADERS AT NEWINGTON PUBLIC SCHOO L. THEY AND THE IR CLASSMATES WON A STATEDE WI COMPETITION... TO áHELP UNH MANCHESTER STUDES NT WITH áTHEIR EXPERIMENT... THAT'S BOUND FOR SPACE. THE COLLEGE STUDENTS... WHO GO BY 'TEAM COOKE'... WERE CHOSEN BY NASA TO SEND SOIL FROM THE GRANITE STATE TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION. EVENTUALLY... THEYL 'L STUDY IT TO SEE IF BACTERIA IN THE SOIL MUTATES DIFFERENTLY IN SPACE... POTENTIALLY CRTIEANG NEW ANTIBIOTICS. THEY TURNED TO MIDDLE SCHOOLS TO FIGURE OUT WHE ER THE SOIL SHOULD BE COLLECTED. THAT'S WHERE THESE JUNIOR SCIENTISTS COME IN. <SOIL ZOOM, 11:09-11:17 JAKE POULIN / 6TH GRADER I JUST KIND EOFNJOY SCIENCE SOMETIMES. IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE HAD GOT A CHANCE TO SEND DIRT INTO SPACE.> THAT DIRT WILL BE COMING FROM NEWINGTON TN OW FOREST... THE OLDEST TOWN FOREST IN THE COUNTRY. <SOIL ZOOM, 6:39-6:43 NELS TOOKER / 5TH AND H 6T GRADE TEACHER, NEWINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL THE CONTROL WILL BE HEREN I OUR ASCLSROOM. THE EXPERIMENTAL SOIL WILL BE UP AT THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.> TEACHER NELS TOOKER SAYS THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE H AS BEEN A SPARKOR F HIS SCIENCE LESSONS. HIS KIDS MEET REGULARILY WITH TEAM OKCOE TO DO EXPERIMENT S. <SOIL ZOOM, 8:06-8:11 NELS TOOKER / 5TH AND 6TH GRADE TEACHER, THE LAUNCH IS SET FOR THIS FAL L. IT'S REALLY A FASCINATING STORY THERE'S MUCH MORE TO LEARN ABOUT EXPERIMENT BEING DONE BY UNH MANCHEST. ER LAST YEAR WE PROFILED THEM ON NH CHRONICLE...
Advertisement
Newington Middle School students chosen to help with experiment bound for space
Some New Hampshire college students are working with middle school students to send soil from New Hampshire to the International Space Station.Students from the University of New Hampshire Manchester will study the soil bacteria.The gravity of their work is not lost on the young middle school students. Ariana Metzger and Jake Poulin are sixth-grade students at Newington Public School. They and their classmates won a statewide competition to help UNH Manchester students with their experiment that's bound for space.“Our soil from this tiny town is going up into space, that vast expanse of nothingness,” Metzger said. The college students who go by 'Team Cooke' were chosen by NASA to send soil from the Granite State to the International Space Station.Eventually, they'll study it to see if bacteria in the soil mutate differently in space, potentially creating new antibiotics.They turned to middle schools to figure out where the soil should be collected.That's where these junior scientists come in to help. “I just kind of enjoy science sometimes. It's interesting that we got a chance to send dirt into space,” Poulin said. The dirt will be coming from Newington town forest — the oldest town forest in the country.Fifth- and sixth-grade teacher Nels Tooker said the whole experience has been a spark for his science lessons. “The control will be here in our classroom. The experimental soil will be up at the International Space Station,” Tooker said. His students meet regularly with Team Cooke to do experiments. “They're driven, they're curious, they're creative,” Tooker said. “They're just amazing. Both Team Cooke and my own students.”Together, they could make an impact on science. The launch is set for this fall.The New Hampshire Chronicle profiled the project last year.

Some New Hampshire college students are working with middle school students to send soil from New Hampshire to the International Space Station.

Students from the University of New Hampshire Manchester will study the soil bacteria.

Advertisement

The gravity of their work is not lost on the young middle school students.

Ariana Metzger and Jake Poulin are sixth-grade students at Newington Public School. They and their classmates won a statewide competition to help UNH Manchester students with their experiment that's bound for space.

“Our soil from this tiny town is going up into space, that vast expanse of nothingness,” Metzger said.

The college students who go by 'Team Cooke' were chosen by NASA to send soil from the Granite State to the International Space Station.

Eventually, they'll study it to see if bacteria in the soil mutate differently in space, potentially creating new antibiotics.

They turned to middle schools to figure out where the soil should be collected.

That's where these junior scientists come in to help.

“I just kind of enjoy science sometimes. It's interesting that we got a chance to send dirt into space,” Poulin said.

The dirt will be coming from Newington town forest — the oldest town forest in the country.

Fifth- and sixth-grade teacher Nels Tooker said the whole experience has been a spark for his science lessons.

“The control will be here in our classroom. The experimental soil will be up at the International Space Station,” Tooker said.

His students meet regularly with Team Cooke to do experiments.

“They're driven, they're curious, they're creative,” Tooker said. “They're just amazing. Both Team Cooke and my own students.”

Together, they could make an impact on science.

The launch is set for this fall.

The New Hampshire Chronicle profiled the project last year.

The leak was found to be caused by a small, 2-millimeter hole in the Soyuz’s orbital module.

The astronauts temporarily sealed the hole from inside the station using tape and gauze to slow the loss of air.

Title:

Content: Suggested Searches

5 min read

NASA’s 21st Northrop Grumman Mission Launches Scientific Studies to Station

NASA and its international partners are sending scientific investigations to the International Space Station on Northrop Grumman’s 21st commercial resupply services mission. Flying aboard the company’s Cygnus spacecraft are tests of water recovery technology and a process to produce stem cells in microgravity, studies of the effects of spaceflight on microorganism DNA and liver tissue growth, and live science demonstrations for students. The mission is scheduled to launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida by early August.

Read more about some of the research making the journey to the orbiting laboratory:

Testing materials for packed systems

Packed bed reactors are systems that use materials such as pellets or beads “packed” inside a structure to increase contact between different phases of fluids, such as liquid and gas. These reactors are used for various applications including water recovery, thermal management, and fuel cells. Scientists previously tested the performance in space of glass beads, Teflon beads, a platinum catalyst, and other packing materials. Packed Bed Reactor Experiment: Water Recovery Series evaluates gravity’s effects on eight additional test articles.

Results could help optimize the design and operation of packed bed reactors for water filtration and other systems in microgravity and on the Moon and Mars. Insights from the investigation also could lead to improvements in this technology for applications on Earth such as water purification and heating and cooling systems.

Giving science a whirl

STEMonstrations Screaming Balloon uses a balloon, a penny, and a hexagonal nut (the kind used to secure a bolt) for a NASA STEMonstration performed and recorded by astronauts on the space station. The penny and the nut are whirled separately inside an inflated balloon to compare the sounds they make. Each STEMonstration illustrates a different scientific concept, such as centripetal force, and includes resources to help teachers further explore the topics with their students.

More, better stem cells

In-Space Expansion of Hematopoietic Stem Cells for Clinical Application (InSPA-StemCellEX-H1) continues testing a technology to produce human hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in space. HSCs give rise to blood and immune cells and are used in therapies for patients with certain blood diseases, autoimmune disorders, and cancers.

The investigation uses a system called BioServe In-space Cell Expansion Platform, or BICEP, which is designed to expand HSCs three hundredfold without the need to change or add new growth media, according to Louis Stodieck, principal investigator at the University of Colorado Boulder. “BICEP affords a streamlined operation to harvest and cryopreserve cells for return to Earth and delivery to a designated medical provider and patient,” said Stodieck.

Someone in the United States is diagnosed with a blood cancer such as leukemia about every three minutes. Treating these patients with transplanted stem cells requires a donor-recipient match and long-term repopulation of transplanted stem cells. This investigation demonstrates whether expanding stem cells in microgravity could generate far more continuously renewing stem cells.

“Our work eventually could lead to large-scale production facilities, with donor cells launched into orbit and cellular therapies returned to Earth,” said Stodieck.

DNA repair in space

Rotifer-B2, an ESA (European Space Agency) investigation, explores how spaceflight affects DNA repair mechanisms in a microscopic bdelloid rotifer, Adineta vaga. These tiny but complex organisms are known for their ability to withstand harsh conditions, including radiation doses 100 times higher than human cells can survive. The organisms are dried, exposed to high radiation levels on Earth, and rehydrated and cultured in an incubator on the station.

“Previous research indicates that rotifers repair their DNA in space with the same efficiency as on Earth, but that research provided only genetic data,” said Boris Hespeels, co-investigator, of Belgium’s Laboratory of Evolutionary Genetics and Ecology. “This experiment will provide the first visual proof of survival and reproduction during spaceflight,” said Hespeels

Results could provide insights into how spaceflight affects the rotifer’s ability to repair sections of damaged DNA in a microgravity environment, and could improve the general understanding of DNA damage and repair mechanisms for applications on Earth.

Growing liver tissue

Maturation of Vascularized Liver Tissue Construct studies the development in space of bioprinted liver tissue constructs that contain blood vessels. Constructs are tissue samples grown outside the body using bioengineering techniques. Scientists expect the microgravity environment to allow improved cellular distribution throughout tissue constructs.

“We are especially keen on accelerating the development of vascular networks,” said James Yoo, principal investigator, at the Wake Forest Institute of Regenerative Medicine. “The experimental data from microgravity will provide valuable insights that could enhance the biomanufacturing of vascularized tissues to serve as building blocks to engineer functional organs for transplantation.”

This mission also delivers plants for the APEX-09 investigation, which examines plant responses to stressful environments and could inform the design of bio-regenerative support systems on future space missions.

Melissa Gaskill
International Space Station Research Communications Team
NASA’s Johnson Space Center

Download high-resolution photos and videos of the research mentioned in this article.

Search this database of scientific experiments to learn more about those mentioned in this article.

Russian cosmonaut Sergey Prokopyev and the crew made a more permanent repair with epoxy resin and a patch.

Initial reports suggested the damage may have resulted from a drilling incident, but the cause—whether accidental or deliberate—remained under investigation.

Despite concerns, the crew remained safe throughout the event, and cabin pressure was stabilized after the repairs.

Title:

Content: Press "Enter" to skip to content

NASA celebrates winners of second MarsXR virtual reality astronaut training competition

NASA has revealed the winners of the second MarsXR Challenge, a crowd-sourced competition designed to create realistic training simulations and scenarios that could one day be used by astronauts preparing for human-lead missions to Mars and the moon. Three teams shared the $70,000 top prize this year, which focused on playable scenarios involving extravehicular activity on the surface of Mars.

This was the second year of the competition, which is a collaborative effort between NASA, HeroX, Buendea and Epic Games. Game developer Buendea is involved because of NASA’s extensive gamification work, and also because many of the winning scenarios this year almost seem like video games in that they involve exciting and unexpected scenarios taking place on Mars. Most of the winning scenarios also enable players to be scored like in a video game based on their crew’s effectiveness in completing each challenge. Epic Games contributed its Unreal Engine 5 graphical engine, which allowed for the creation of an incredibly realistic environment that mimics over 400 square kilometers of Mars almost perfectly. This includes full Martin days with bright orange hues of sunlight and cold nights filled with deep blues seeping across the landscape as the sun sets. The testbed also has realistic weather conditions happening across hundreds of square miles of virtual Martian terrain.

While the original challenge last year was more of a proof of concept, this year was more about creating realistic scenarios that future astronauts could actually one day use for training. For example, at a press conference last week with the winning teams, NASA officials suggested that the new scenarios might eventually be integrated with the Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog — or CHAPEA — taking place at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. The CHAPEA exercise has a crew living and working in a 3D printed environment that mimics a Mars habitat. NASA officials suggested that scenarios like the ones created in the recent MarsXR challenge could be used with VR headsets to allow CHAPEA volunteers to journey outside their habitat to perform various simulated missions on Mars.

The MarsXR challenge this year was divided up into two parts. The first challenged participants to create virtual reality scenarios by describing them using storyboards. The winning scenarios of part one were then submitted for use by teams in the second part to be made into actual, playable VR scenarios. All told, there were 3,700 participants this year divided up into 272 teams.

“We are thrilled by the growing success of NASA’s second challenge to support extravehicular activity research for the surface of Mars. The dedication and creativity of our innovator community have exceeded all expectations in this challenge,” said HeroX Vice President of Customer Success Kyla Jeffrey. “Our ongoing collaboration with NASA boasts a series of remarkable competitions that will continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible.”

The three winning teams this year included Team Overheat, which also won the challenge last year. They were joined by Team SpaceLux and Nataliia Savchenko’s Team. At the press conference last week, all three teams shared YouTube movies of their VR scenarios in action.

The winning scenario from Team Overheat this year centered around an understandable problem here on Earth: a broken down vehicle. However, if a rover breaks down on Mars, it can quickly become a life-threatening situation depending on how far away it is from a safe habitat. In the Team Overheat mission, crews must quickly load up repair tools and mount another vehicle for a quick rescue. Crews are rated on how efficiently they are able to get the broken down vehicle back up and running.

The winning entry from Nataliia Savchenko’s Team is much more peaceful. It involves having astronauts use some of the realistic tools they will be equipped with on a real Mars mission in order to look for interesting rock samples that have been previously spotted by drones or other surveillance tools. And because the Unreal Engine 5 is so realistic, it even involves having the rock collecting crews compare photographs of the area where the targeted samples reside on their tablets with the actual terrain to confirm their location. That is only possible because of the realistic nature of the VR landscape. Crews in the rock collection scenario are rated on their accuracy and the speed of their collection process.

The final winning entry from Team SpaceLux is more of a mini-scenario that is designed to be inserted into any larger mission to give astronauts a bit of a dangerous surprise. It involves a crew member whose spacesuit springs multiple leaks. With precious oxygen quickly draining out of their suit, it’s up to the rest of the crew to find and repair the leak before their partner passes out or dies from a lack of oxygen. At the press conference, members of Team SpaceLux said that their scenario presented a realistic situation that can happen at any time, and which future astronauts need to be prepared to face.

For example, imagine going out on a rock-collecting mission like the one presented by Nataliia Savchenko’s Team, and then experiencing a life threating emergency, something that is a constant danger on a planet like Mars. According to Team SpaceLux, being able to experience something like that in a VR scenario will make future astronauts more prepared for unexpected situations.

Both NASA and HeroX representatives said that the Mars challenges would likely continue in the future, although details about next year’s challenge were not yet available. NASA officials did say that they liked how this year’s Mars challenge was configured into two tightly integrated parts mutually supporting each other, and that future challenges would likely be similarly designed.

NASA has other non-Martian challenges ongoing right now as part of their NASA Tournament Lab. For example, one with a $345,000 top prize asks the public for suggestions about how to better manage vegetation growth clogging irrigation canals, while another with a $30,000 top prize is looking for ways to make commercial airplanes run more efficiently with less pollution.

John Breeden II is an award-winning journalist and reviewer with over 20 years of experience covering technology. He is the CEO of the Tech Writers Bureau, a group that creates technological thought leadership content for organizations of all sizes. Twitter: @LabGuys

source: NextGov

Russian authorities stated that the integrity of the spacecraft and the ISS was maintained following the fix.

The Soyuz MS-09 was later used as the return vehicle for its crew, successfully landing on Earth on December 20, 2018.

Title:

Content: Constellation Episode 2 Recap: Joanna's Escape Explained

By Klein Felt Posted:

Episode 2 of Constellation on Apple TV+ offered fans their first hints at the series' mind-bending premise.

Starring Noomi Rapace and Breaking Bad alum Jonathan Banks, Constellation is a head-spinning thriller following an astronaut who - after an accident aboard the International Space Station (ISS) - seemingly finds herself straddling two different realities.

The sci-fi thriller has dropped three episodes so far, offering fans just a glimpse at what is to come, as Noomi Rapace's Joanna is left alone on the ISS to fend for herself.

What Happens in Constellation Episode 2?

Constellation Episode 2 set up more reality-splitting subplots in the cold Swedish wilderness while also following Joanna as she completed her mission aboard the International Space Station.

On the Frozen Tundra

Episode 2 (titled "Live and Let Die") starts and ends in the same place as Episode 1 before it, following Noomi Rapace's central astronaut on a separate plane of action in a snow-painted Swedish landscape.

The episode starts with Joanna carrying her daughter Alice (played by Davina Coleman) through the snow with no recollection of how the young girl got there.

The pair enter the warm cabin from Episode 1, with Joanna drawing a bath for her hypothermic daughter.

This is when the series' signature shifts in reality start to happen yet again, with Joanna seeing two versions of Alice during this sequence. One is sitting calmly in the bath, which Jo can see in the mirror, and the other wakes up and walks into the living room from her bed-chamber.

This, of course, startles Joanna, as she races to see if the version of her daughter she placed in the bath moments earlier is still there. With the other pajama-clad Alice in tow, the former astronaut discovers that the bath is, in fact, empty and that version of Alice is gone.

Stranded in Space

The series then cuts back to the space station, where audiences left Joanna in Episode 1. Following an accident and the successful use of the mysterious matter-creating CAL device aboard the ISS, Jo is left on the in-orbit laboratory alone.

With only 6 hours and 45 minutes left of oxygen on the station, Rapace's Swedish astronaut is racing against the clock to finish her work on the ISS, replace the batteries on the Soyuz 1 evacuation capsule, and hopefully make it off the station without descending into madness.

This is when Joanna loses all contact with mission control on the ground, making her Earth-bound collaborators wonder if she is even alive up there.

On Earth, audiences learn more about the priorities of Jonathan Bank's Henry Caldera. The astronaut-turned-quantum physicist makes it known that he needs the CAL experiment device back on Earth as soon as possible.

The CAL device is Caldera's life's work, and - if it was successful in its mission of creating a new state of matter - he needs it now, even if that means sending up another team of astronauts just to retrieve it.

Back in orbit, Joanna is struggling. She has realized that for her to transfer batteries from the ISS to the Soyuz capsule, there simply is not enough time. This causes her to improvise a bit, tying together multiple battery cells to get the job done in as few trips as possible.

On her trip from one end of the space station to the other, Joanna hears a mysterious clanging. She goes to look and finds the severed arm of her now-deceased crew member Paul, who tragically died during the ISS accident seen in Episode 1.

She goes to grab the arm, and it inexplicably grabs back. For a split second, Joanna comes eye to eye with her fallen comrade before jumping back to the reality of the space station.

Welcome to the Party, Bud

Cut back to the ground, and audiences are introduced to Henry Caldera's brother Bud. After being referenced previously by the leader of the Russian Space Program Irene Lysenko (played by Barbara Sukowa), this is the first real look the series gives the viewer of Bud.

Just like some of the occurrences that have been happening to Joanna up in space, the connection between Bud and Henry seems a bit off. Bud (who is also played by Jonathan Banks) is a former astronaut who was a member of the Apollo missions of the 1970s.

Audiences catch up with him as he is aboard a space-themed cruise, of which he is a guest of honor. Bud is here to take part in a panel debate about whether astronauts ever actually went into space, and is visibly shaken hearing the news of Joanna and the accident on the ISS.

Having lost the rest of his crew during his mission to the moon, forcing him to navigate his way back to Earth on his own, Joanna's plight resonates with the retired astronaut.

The Journey Back to Earth

Following the short introduction to Bud, the series then jumps back into space. Joanna's minutes are numbered, and she knows it.

After hours of work, a few hallucinations, and completely losing contact with mission control, Jo finally gets power restored to the Soyuz 1 evacuation capsule.

With a fully charged shuttle, dwindling oxygen supplies, and the CAL experiment in hand (thanks to a recorded message from Earth instructing her to grab it), Joanna finally begins the undocking process of the evac capsule.

She flicks a few switches, does some calculations  - as her reentry will be unaided by mission control - and hits undock.

However, not everything goes to plan. As the capsule begins to undock from the ISS, one of the six bolts locking the vessel in fails to release.

This causes Joanna to panic. Looking at the manual, she discovers the only way to release the sixth and final docking bolt is within the space station, requiring two people to do so.

With the reality of the situation starting to set in, something mysterious and bizarre happens. Cutting to the interior of the ISS itself, audiences see a shadowing figure lumbering towards the bolt-release control panel.

Then, without explanation, the sixth bolt finally releases, sending Joanna on her path back toward Earth's atmosphere. As she looks back at the space station behind her, Joanna sees a corporeal shadow looking out the observation window back at her.

With no time to think about what just happened, Joanna sets off towards Earth, entering the atmosphere, and causing a full-blown search party to be deployed to find where her capsule has landed.

"You Forget How the Earth Smells"

Back on Earth, the mission control search party finds the downed astronaut and extracts her - along with the CAL device and the body of the now-dead Paul - from her mechanical confines.

Joanna is reunited with her husband Magnus and daughter Alice and is ready to start their lives again.

Before they can fly off to begin their recuperation, audiences see Joanna experience one more reality-blurring hallucination. Sitting aboard a military-style helicopter the exhausted astronaut reaches for her daughter and holds her for a moment only for her to quickly disappear and show back up again.

As the family flies away, Jonathan Banks' Henry Caldera is seen ogling over the CAL device. He takes a look at the results the ISS experiment yielded, and likes what he sees, observing what he calls some sort of interference effect, with the device possibly containing matter from two different realities.

To close the episode, the series cuts back to the snowy Swedish cabin seen at the start of Episode 2. Joanna continues to question the Alices that seemingly popped up out of nowhere, replacing the one she had set in a bath.

Not getting anywhere, Rapace's series protagonist, grabs the girl by the arm, declaring they need to find "other [Alice]" as they head out into the snowstorm on their mission.

Who Helped Joanna In Constellation Episode 2?

While Constellation Episode 2 offered up plenty of questions worthy of head-scratching, no detail will produce more theories than Joanna's escape from the ISS.

She should not have made it off the station after the Soyuz 1 capsule locked up during its undocking sequence.

Yet, something helped the thought-to-be-doomed Swedish astronaut.

The series clearly showed something aboard the space station despite Joanna very clearly being the last human on board.

There is no way of knowing, at this point, who it was that helped her out in her ISS launch, but there are a couple of theories for who it could have been.

The number one culprit is Paul. Yes, Paul died during the ISS accident seen early in Episode 1, but there is a possibility that a version of him is still present on the space station in some form.

As Joanna experienced when she grabbed Paul's severed hand during Episode 2, Paul could be stuck in the kind of reality-shifting limbo that Joanna seems to find herself in.

He was the only other astronaut present during the CAL experiment which looks to be the cause of Joanna's bizarre predicament. So who is to say that Paul also is not experiencing the same sort of strife and helped a friend out?

The other option for who it could have been is Joanna herself. If what is happening to Joanna (with her hallucinations and seeing doubles of various people/events) is her being stuck between two realities, then the person to hit that release button could have very well been another version of her that breached the interdimensional void as well.

Only time will tell, though, as Constellation looks like it is going to slow-play its biggest mysteries. One can only hope the answers are satisfactory when they do eventually come.

[ Constellation Apple Series Explained: The Meaning of the Show's Cryptic Plot ]

Constellation is now streaming on Apple TV+.

Read more about various Apple TV+ projects below:

Silo Season 2 Release, Cast and Everything We Know About Apple TV+ Series

Severance Season 2: Release, Cast and Everything We Know So Far

Godzilla 2023 Apple TV Show Reviews: Critics Share First Reactions

How Apple Gave Godzilla His Own Show on a TV Budget (Exclusive)

- In This Article: Constellation
Release Date
February 21, 2024
Platform
Actors
James D'Arcy
Jonathan Banks
Noomi Rapace
Genres
- About The Author: Klein Felt
Klein Felt is a Senior Editor at The Direct. Joining the website back in 2020, he helped jumpstart video game content on The Direct. Klein plays a vital role as a part of the site's content team, demonstrating expertise in all things PlayStation, Marvel, and the greater entertainment industry.

The incident raised questions and tensions between international partners regarding human error and potential intentional actions.

The repaired area was inspected after landing, with Russian officials continuing to investigate the exact origin and circumstances behind the leak.