Posts Tagged ‘Germany’

Summa cum fraude: Now shoe waving to show contempt for Guttenberg

February 27, 2011

The German academic world is finally reacting to the Googleberg affaire. A demonstration was held in Berlin on Saturday and an open letter to Angela Merkel has been signed by more than 15,000 academics (as of Sunday noon).

Shoe waving as a means of showing contempt is spreading. It was very evident at the demonstration in Berlin on Saturday 26th February against Guttenberg and his fraudulent ways and against Angela Merkel for keeping him in his job.

Several hundred demonstrators protested in Berlin on 26th February 2011 against the fact that Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg simply copied parts of his doctoral thesis and therefore lost his PhD but still remains in his job as Defence Minister. Summa cum fraude was the poster in reference to the very lax standards of University of Bayreuth in awarding him a PhD with  “Summa cum laude”  for his plagiarised thesis.

Tagesspiegel:

"Summa cum fraude": Photo: DAPD

Shoe waving showing contempt for Guttenberg: photo DAPD

Professor Debora Weber-Wulff writes on her blog:

German scientists and doctoral students are signing an open letter to the German Chancellor by the droves. There are some 7000 (over 15,153 on Sunday at noon -ed) signatures as of Feb. 26, 2011. Since I didn’t go to the demonstration in Berlin this afternoon, I will offer this translation:

Dear Chancellor Merkel,

As doctoral students we have been following the current discussion about the plagiarism accusations against the Minister of Defense, Mr. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. We are shocked and do not understand what is happening. We have the impression that you are trying everything in your power to keep a minister in your cabinet who still insists that he did not knowingly deceive in his doctoral thesis, despite massive evidence to the contrary.

With this course of action, the German government and the members of parliament from the coalition [of CDU, CSU and FDP] damage not only themselves, but much more.

Zu Guttenberg has had to distance himself a number of times from statements he has made about his dissertation. The Internet community has with an unparalleled effort managed to demonstrate numerous incidents of clear plagiarism in Mr. zu Guttenberg’s dissertation. The evidence can be openly seen and checked by anyone. It should not surprise anyone that experts in plagiarism are united in the opinion that this is not just a few “embarassing errors”. This is massive, systematic deception.
Zu Guttenberg copied large portions of his dissertation from various sources – apparently with great ambition – and did not name those sources in order to obtain a doctoral title that he used for, among other things, election advertising. The University of Bayreuth did not address this issue of deception [when revoking the doctorate].

In the face of the extent and amount of plagiarism found, it should be as clear to you as it is to us that at the end of an exact investigation by the university, only one result will be possible with respect to the intent to deceive on the part of the minister. This cannot be done unknowingly.

Calling the deception a deception has nothing to do with the minister belonging to a particular political party. We would also demand that politicians from opposing parties step down, if they had given their word of honor that the work was only their own, except for sources as noted, and had plagiarized in the same manner.

On February 23, 2011 Mr. zu Guttenberg stated that he only wants to be judged by his performance as Minister of Defense. He alluded to a phrase you had used when you said that you did not hire him as a research assistant.

This makes a mockery of all the research assistants and doctoral students who honestly endeavor to contribute to the advancement of science. This makes it sound as if obtaining a doctoral title by fraud is just a trivial offense and that the academic word of honor is meaningless in everyday life.

When following the rules of good scientific practice it is not just a question of footnotes, trivialities that can safely be neglected in the face of the larger political problems of the day. This is the foundation of our work and our trustworthiness. We strive in our own work, according to the best of our knowledge and conscience, to reach this high goal at all times. When we fail, we run the risk – and rightly so – of being expelled from the university.
Most of us teach younger students. It is often our job to teach them the basics of good scientific practice. We insist that the students be exact at all times, correctly quoting and clearly noting all help that was used. We don’t do this because we are fanatics about footnotes or because we live in an ivory tower and know nothing about real life. It is our intention to pass on the understanding that scientific progress – and with it progress for society as a whole – is only possible when we can depend on the honesty of the scientific community.

When our students violate these precepts, we grade their efforts as unsatisfactory. On repeated violation, as a rule we try to expel them. Those who have been expelled are denied access to numerous career opportunities – and rightly so – even for jobs that are much less in need of personal integrity then the office of the Minister of Defense.

We may be old-fashioned and are spouting outdated conservative values when we are of the opinion that values such as veracity and a sense of responsibility should also be valid outside of the scientific community. Mr zu Guttenberg seemed to be of this same opinion until very recently.

Research contributes a valuable service to the development of society. Honest and innovative science is the foundation of the prosperity of our country. When it is no longer an important value to protect ideas in our society, then we have gambled away our future. We don’t expect thankfulness for our scientific work, but we expect respect, we expect that our work be taken seriously. By handling the case of zu Guttenberg as a trifle, Germany’s position in world science, its credibility as the “Land of Ideas”, suffers.

Maybe you consider our contributions to society as being negligible. In that case, we kindly request that in the future you refrain from referring to Germany as the “Republic of Education and Culture”, as you often proclaim.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned [at the time of translation]

3242 doctoral students
1817
persons with doctorates
2579
other supporters

(Updated ticker of Germans signing the open letter here)

I have no great faith in the level of integrity of European politicians. I cannot see that any principles of ethics or integrity will have any impact on Angela Merkel’s decisions. She will get rid of  Guttenberg if – and only if – she feels that he will be more of a liability rather than an asset in the March elections.

“zu Googleberg”: PhD retracted at the request of the plagiarist

February 22, 2011

zu Googleberg on 18th February 2011:  “I will temporarily – I repeat temporarily – give up my doctoral title.”

22nd February 2011:

The University of Bayreuth says he has now asked them to retract his doctorate in law, according to German TV. Mr Guttenberg admitted that he had made “serious mistakes”. At an election rally near Frankfurt on Monday, the charismatic defence minister said the mistakes were not intentional but he conceded that they “do not meet the ethical code of science”. ….

Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted on Monday that she is standing by her defence minister, who is seen as something of a rising star in her conservative coalition.

“I appointed Guttenberg as minister of defence,” she told reporters. “I did not appoint him as an academic assistant or doctor. What is important to me is his work as minister of defence and he carries out these duties perfectly.”

He has a nice smile and he is apparently popular but the Defence Minister of the Republic of Germany, Mr. zu Googleberg is nothing but a liar and a cheat and a fraud. And Angela Merkel will at some point realise that keeping him on brings her own ethics and integrity into question.

But maybe it is just a continuation of the long line of German politicians with deficient ethics and little integrity.

“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office”.
Aesop (~550 BC)


Guttenberg (aka “Googleberg”) at a loss for words over plagiarism charges says Deutsche Welle

February 18, 2011

Update 2!

Breaking –

BBC reports that zu Googleberg has temporarily renounced his PhD.

That’s easily done but guilt cannot be as easily renounced!!

Update on my previous post:

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (aka “zu Googleberg”) is in hot water. Without the ability to “cut and paste” he is apparently at a loss for words! Clearly Google is the corrupting influence.

The German MSM are having a field day.

Deutsche Welle: Guttenberg is back from Afghanistan and

Chancellor Merkel called Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg to her office in Berlin to explain severe allegations of plagiarism in his doctoral thesis. Opposition politicians, meanwhile, want Guttenberg to go.

After returning from Afghanistan on a short visit with German troops, Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg had to let down excited guests at a campaign fundraiser in Saxony-Anhalt on Thursday because he was “unavailable and engaged in Berlin.”

Public broadcaster ZDF reported that the popular politician had been called in by Chancellor Angela Merkel for a question-and-answer session regarding allegations that he plagiarized complete – and numerous – passages of his doctoral dissertation.

“Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg did not credit me as the author of excerpts that came from an article I once wrote,” Barbara Zehnpfennig, a professor at Passau University, told news channel N24. “This breaks all academic rules.”

Zehnpfennig is not the only source not “properly cited” in Guttenberg’s text; several German law professors have accused him of blatant plagiarism, citing up to 70 dubious passages.

Newsmagazine Spiegel said Guttenberg even passed off US Embassy material as his own text – translated directly into German – in a string of allegations that has prompted German media to turn the posh Franconian surname “zu Guttenberg” into a far less noble “zu Googleberg.” …….

…… The university has given the minister 14 days to issue a written explanation of the allegations.

Der Spiegel’s headline calls him the Minister of Scandals

Plagiarism Scandal Threatens ‘Merkel’s Minister of Scandals’


Guttenberg plagiarism: Germans fixated with academic titles

February 18, 2011
c. 2011: Axel Völcker, DerWedding.de

Prof. Dr. Debora Weber-Wulff

The Guttenberg plagiarism saga continues while he has gone off to Afghanistan for a surprise visit – probably because it is less dangerous there right now.

Prof. Dr. Debora Weber-Wulff is Professor for Media and Computing at the HTW Berlin. She was involved in the BMBF flagship project “Virtuelle Fachhochschule” developing eLearning materials and carries out Internet- and eLearning-related projects. She also works on detecting plagiarism and has a plagiarism blog.

Following the apparently blatant plagiarism carried out by Germany’s Defence Minister for his PhD thesis, she was interviewed by TheLocal.de which includes the folllowing:

What is your assessment of the Guttenberg situation?

What the rest of the thesis is like, and which chapter the alleged plagiarism is in – that’s another question. There are communities here who say it’s OK to plagiarize a little in your methodology section, but not in others. I think this is completely bizarre. Germans have a way of talking the problem down.The excerpts that the Süddeutsche Zeitung has online are scary, because they are one-to-one copies. And that’s not OK.

What is the real issue then?
This has to do with the German tendency to love titles, they are title-fixated, and people in politics love to have a doctor title so they seem wiser. But it should be about science, for scientists to prove that they can work by themselves – it’s the first proof that they can do research on their own.

Would you say there is a culture of plagiarising and cheating among German students?
I wouldn’t go that far. There’s a download culture. Young people download their music, videos, and why not download their thesis, because they just see it as busy work – something that stands between them and the degree they think they want or need so they can make lots of money and don’t have to work any longer.

She also writes on her blog:

Guttenberg, the conservative German defense minister from Bavaria, has left the country and gone to Afghanistan. They say this was planned, but right now, he’s probably safer there than in the streets of Berlin. The opposition is gleefully taking potshots at him (metaphorically, you understand).

His supporters accuse the scientist who discovered the plagiarism of being part of a commie plot to undermine the country, if I understand their tone of voice correctly.
No one believes that a professor might sit down one evening at the computer, in the midst of writing a review of a doctoral thesis that had been around for a while, but had a very prominent author, currently under fire for other things. The professor, Andreas Fischer-Lescano of the University of Bremen, poured himself a glass of Argentine red wine, looked over the thesis and put three words into Google: “säkularer laizistischer multireligiöser” (secular lay multireligious – the thesis includes a chapter on putting references to a god in a constitution).
And he got a hit. From an article in the Neue Züricher Zeitung by Klara Obermüller, written a few years before his thesis was published. Oops. He poured another glass and tried some other terms, and some more. Fischer-Lescano wrote a scathing review, and includes as an appendix 24 word-for-word passages that are not quoted and not referenced. The review will be published the end of the month in Kritische Justiz, 44(1), pp. 112-119.
A number of journalists have spoken with me today to question this way of working. How do I look for plagiarists? “Well,” I said, “pretty much the same. Except that I prefer Austrian wine.”

As a sociological phenomenon, the rise of the “cut-and-paste” culture together with the German love of academic titles is a worthy subject for study. But what does not seem to be in doubt is that Guttenberg is just another politician who is just another fraud. And a misuse of position – whether to get an academic degree or to amass huge sums of money – is still corruption.

Why voters continue to vote for frauds is an even more interesting subject for study.


German military looking to drop-outs and foreigners as cannon fodder?

February 16, 2011

This seems to indicate a perverse view of military recruitment. With the end of conscription the German armed forces are short of people.  But targeting school drop-outs and foreigners for lower-ranking military positions seems like an attempt to recruit cannon-fodder.

The Local Germany reports:

German military officials are considering pursuing high school dropouts to fill the Bundeswehr’s ranks following the end to conscription.

Photo: DPA

The Bundeswehr is hoping to make military service more attractive to less educated and unskilled Germans as it transitions to a fully professional force, daily Financial Times Deutschland reported.

“In light of the demographic developments as well as the ongoing structural adjustments to the Bundeswehr, young people with below-average education and school dropouts will now be approached for recruiting,” the document acquired by the paper reads. This “opening of new potential for gaining personnel” will be necessary to maintain the necessary troop numbers, it says, calling the plan an “Attractiveness Programme.”

These recruits would be targeted to fill mainly lower-ranking military positions, the paper said.

The latest detail in military reform plans by the Defence Ministry came after this weekend’s news that foreigners living in Germany could be allowed to join the Bundeswehr. But a Defence Ministry spokesperson told the Financial Times Deutschland on Tuesday that only EU citizens and those from a few other countries would be among those considered for enlistment.

Sylvia Bulfone-Paus misconduct story stretches back to at least 1999

February 3, 2011

I have posted earlier about 12 retractions of papers concerning research done under the supervision of Sylvia Bulfone-Paus, a Director at the Research Center Borstel in Germany. Six of the retracted papers had been identified earlier and the next six are reported in Retraction Watch.

The retractions came after an investigation which confirmed the misconduct but put the blame squarely on two Russian researchers Dr. E. Bulanova and Dr. V. Budagian with comments that Bulfone-Paus bore responsibility as their supervisor but that she herself  had not committed any misconduct. The blogger / whistle blower represented by the Marco Berns / Martin Frost persona had commented that the singling out of Bulanova and Budagian was suspicious and hinted darkly at much earlier wrong-doings (and in fact had specifically mentioned the year 1999).

The latest 6 retracted papers  listed include one from 1999 giving some credence to the Martin Frost allegations:

Bulfone-Paus, S., Bulanova, E., Pohl, T, Budagian, V., Dürkop, H., Rückert, R., Kunzendorf, U., Paus, R., and Krause, H. Death deflected: IL-15 inhibits TNF-α-mediated apoptosis in fibroblasts  by TRAF2 recruitment to the IL-15Rα chain. FASEB J. 13:1575-1585 (1999, cited 118 times)

For this paper Bulfone-Paus was both first author and corresponding author. It would seem that any misconduct here cannot be passed off onto authors nos. 2 and 4.

After the investigation Martin Frost  wrote:

It was confirmed that the Institute Directors have been “snooping” on their workforce.  They have indeed viewed the log files of e-mails of the workers.  This deeply distressing news was compounded when it was revealed that the only person who the management arraigned after the Stasi-like “snooping” exercise was a member of der Betriebsrat (workers council) showing that the confidence essential for the worker – Betriebsrat relationship is now severely compromised.

The two other Directors are now discussing what to do next with Bulfone-Paus.

But as Retraction Watch describes, some damage control is being done by the institute with some assistance from the Editor of the EMBO Journal who includes the following sentence in his retraction notice:

The authors declare that key experiments presented in the majority of these figures were recently reproduced and that the results confirmed the experimental data and the conclusions drawn from them.

Why would the Journal publish a line so blatantly intended to white-wash some of the authors? Or does the editor mean that the retraction of the paper is somehow negated!

On this theme of the behaviour of Journals Martin Frost also wrote:

We have been sent the exchange of e-mails below from Dr. Karin Wiebauer.  They describe Dr. Wiebauer’s efforts to rid the scientific literature of the contamination of the mainpulated Bulfone-Paus papers. ….. One interpretation of the exchange is that the Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Immunology is stonewalling and attempting to bury the scientific miscconduct.

The sad saga goes on….


The strange and murky case of Silvia Bulfone-Paus: 12 retractions so far …..

January 25, 2011

Twelve papers where Sylvia Bulfone-Paus was the senior author have been retracted.

Silvia Bulfone-Paus: image retraction watch

That itself is sufficiently unusual and remarkable. But the story seems to go back a long way. Retraction Watch has been following the story.

In September 2010 Nature carried the story of a formal investigation which had started in July 2010 of scientific misconduct being carried out at the Research Center Borstel in Germany (Forschungszentrum Borstel, Leibniz Gemeinschaft, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Medizinischen Fakultäten der Universitäten Lübeck und Kiel). The story however was not about the investigation but about a destabilising influence:

But events around such an investigation in Germany have taken a troubling and damaging turn from such good practice in the past few months. An unknown agitator using the presumed pseudonym Marco Berns is engaged in an e-mail and Internet offensive against two biomedical researchers whom he accuses of scientific fraud.

Berns’s libellous messages are targeted at dermatologist Ralf Paus and immunologist Silvia Bulfone-Paus, a married couple who both hold joint positions at the University of Manchester, UK, and the University of Lübeck, Germany.

The trial-by-Internet is disturbing a formal investigation, organized by the Research Center Borstel in Germany and begun in July, into some of the pair’s publications.

“Marco Berns” and his accomplice (or alter ego?) “Martin Frost” were posting articles on the internet since at least the end of 2009 and had also been subjected to “cease and desist” demands from lawyers representing the Research Centre. Some of these articles questioned Sylvia Bulfone-Pause’s use of academic titles among other wrong doings.

It does seem that the formal investigation started in July 2010 partly – if not wholly – because of the allegations which had been made by Berns and Frost in 2009. Formally the reason for the investigation was that Bulfone-Pause herself had reported some manipulation of data in papers published about research carried out under her supervision but how and when such manipulation had been discovered is not very clear.

In any case the investigation was completed and the results were published by the Research Centre on 2nd December 2010.

The Commission concludes that scientific misconduct (has ocurred) within the laboratory group “Immunobiology” for years. In 6 out of 8 of the analyzed publications in which, the two former research assistants, Dr. E. Bulanova and Dr. V. Budagian, recorded as first authors, manipulation of images found that the manipulation of the reproduction of scientific results. Data corruption within the meaning of “independent inventors” of results are not available. Given the primary responsibility of the first authors in data collection and data presentation in a scientific publication, these two first authors of these publications (bear the) main responsibility for scientific misconduct.

The blame was put squarely on Drs. Bulanova and Budagian – both Russian – and as their supervisor, Bulfone-Paus received a firm slap on the wrist:

The 6  publications complained of (were) produced under the senior authorship of Prof. Dr. Bulfone-Paus………  The Commission considers that this a lack of supervision which must be expected from the senior author / group leader, even if the first author of the offending publications are experienced scientists. The senior author / research group leader, therefore, carries a key responsibility for the scientific wrongdoings within their work group.

Nature reported:

An external investigation, launched in July and chaired by Werner Seeger, a biomedical researcher at the University of Giessen, Germany, found that two former postdocs with the centre’s immunology group were guilty of using pictures of protein blots from unrelated experiments to support their findings on signalling in cells involved in allergic reactions such as asthma. The pair’s supervisor, Silvia Bulfone-Paus, who chairs the centre’s immunology and cell biology department, bears “substantial responsibility” for the manipulations, the committee found, but added that they found no evidence of data fabrication.

The three Directors of the Research Centre are Prof. Dr. Dr. S. Bulfone-Paus, Prof. Dr. U. Schaible and Prof. Dr. P. Zabe. And the elusive Martin Frost continued his writings implying that the Russian scientists could actually just be scapegoats for the more senior authors involved and that some of their wrongdoing could be traced back to 1999!!

Now the six retractions have grown to be 12 papers so far.

This story is not over yet……..

Time to bring in an “Olive Euro” or to bring back the Deutsche Mark?

December 30, 2010

50 Deutsche Mark banknote: image commons.wikimedia.org

As long as there is no economic and fiscal union in Europe, the Euro is going to be plagued by the inherent weaknesses of errant nations. The current economic weakness in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy and the political inability – or unwillingness – to deal with the simple financial housekeeping that any competent housewife would handle as a matter of course suggests that the fiscal union will never happen. Non-compliance with the stability rules by nations lead to few sanctions. This in turn leads to the question whether the Euro has any long term future in the absence of fiscal rectitude across all the participating nations.

100 Euro banknote from Germany

100 Euro banknote from Germany

The weakness of the Euro has in fact helped to boost exports from Germany and the relatively strong growth in Germany is mainly export driven. Nevertheless many Germans are beginning to worry about the value of their Euro when this value is being diluted by the “less responsible” nations. Germans are remembering that “German” Euro notes are easily identifiable (as are the notes printed in the different countries). There are calls for the German government to maintain the value of the “German” Euro when the Euro loses value! (German Euro banknotes can be identified by their serial number, which will always start with the letter “X”.) It is already noticeable that money changers in Asia are beginning to check the country of origin of the Euro banknotes they are dealing with. I can imagine their future reluctance to deal with notes having serial numbers beggining with “Y” (which would be a note from Greece). Some are calling for the Euro to be separated into a “Northern Euro” and an “Olive Euro”. It is only a short step to different values appearing unofficially for Euros from different countries.

Der Spiegel reports on the growing calls for the return of the Deutsche Mark:

Surveys show that many Germans are worried about the future of the euro, but the country’s political parties are not taking their fears seriously. The number of grassroots initiatives against the common currency is increasing, and political observers say a Tea Party-style anti-euro movement could do well.

Rolf Hochhuth is campaigning against the euro — and his stage is Germany’s Constitutional Court. “Why should we help rescue the Greeks from their sham bankruptcy?” he asks. “Ever since Odysseus, the world has known that the Greeks are the biggest rascals of all time. How is it even possible — unless it was premeditated — for this highly popular tourist destination to go bankrupt?”In the spring, he joined a group led by Berlin-based professor Markus Kerber that has filed a constitutional complaint against the billions in aid to Greece and the establishment of the European stabilization fund, which was set up in May 2010. Hochhuth wants the deutsche mark back. “I don’t know if this is possible. I only know that Germany lived very well with the mark.”

It’s an opinion that suddenly places this nearly 80-year-old man in a rather unusual position, at least for him: on the side of the majority of Germans.

(more…)

Underwater robot will dive down to 6,000m

November 2, 2010

The Fraunhofer Institute issued a press release today regarding their new underwater robot POSEIDON which will be able to dive down to 6,000m.

Robots do not have to breathe. For this reason they can dive longer than any human. Equipped with the necessary sensor technology they inspect docks or venture down to the ocean fl oor to search for raw materials. At present, researchers are developing a model which will carry out routine tasks independently, without help from humans.

 

The torpedo-shaped underwater robot will be able to dive down to 6,000 meters. (© Fraunhofer AST)

 

Even when equipped with compressed-air bottles and diving regulators, humans reach their limits very quickly under water. In contrast, unmanned submarine vehicles that are connected by cable to the control center permit long and deep dives. Today remote-controlled diving robots are used for research, inspection and maintenance work. The possible applications of this technology are limited, however, by the length of the cable and the instinct of the navigator. No wonder that researchers are working on autonomous underwater robots which orient themselves under water and carry out jobs without any help from humans.

In the meantime, there are AUVs (autonomous underwater vehicles) which collect data independently or take samples before they return to the starting points. “For the time being, the technology is too expensive to carry out routine work, such as inspections of bulkheads, dams or ships’ bellies,” explains Dr. Thomas Rauschenbach, Director of the Application Center System Technology AST Ilmenau, Germany at the Fraunhofer Institute for Optronics, System Technologies and Image Exploitation IOSB. This may change soon. Together with the researchers at four Fraunhofer Institutes, Rauschenbach’s team is presently working on a generation of autonomous underwater robots which will be smaller, more robust and cheaper than the previous models. The AUVs shall be able to find their bearings in clear mountain reservoirs equally well as in turbid harbor water. They will be suitable for work on the floor of the deep sea as well as for inspections of shallow concrete bases that offshore wind power station have been mounted on.

The engineers from Fraunhofer Institute for Optronics, System Technologies and Image Exploitation in Karlsruhe, Germany are working on the “eyes” for underwater robots. Optical perception is based on a special exposure and analysis technology which even permits orientation in turbid water as well. First of all, it determines the distance to the object, and then the camera emits a laser impulse which is reflected by the object, such as a wall. Microseconds before the reflected light flash arrives, the camera opens the aperture and the sensors capture the incident light pulses. At the Ilmenau branch of the Fraunhofer Institute for Optronics, System Technologies and Image Exploitation, Rauschenbach‘s team is developing the “brain“ of the robot: a control program that keeps the AUV on course in currents such as at a certain distance to the wall that is to be examined. The Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering IBMT in St. Ingbert provides the silicone encapsulation for the pressure-tolerant construction of electronic circuits as well as the “ears” of the new robot: ultrasound sensors permit the inspection of objects. Contrary to the previously conventional sonar technology, researchers are now using high-frequency sound waves which are reflected by the obstacles and registered by the sensor. The powerful but lightweight lithium batteries of the Fraunhofer ISIT in Itzehoe that supply the AUV with energy are encapsulated by silicone. A special energy management system that researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technology UMSICHT in Oberhausen, Germany have developed saves power and ensures that the data are saved in emergencies before the robot runs out of energy and has to surface.

A torpedo-shaped prototype two meters long that is equipped with eyes, ears, a brain, a motor and batteries will go on its maiden voyage this year in a new tank in Ilmenau. The tank is only three meters deep, but “that’s enough to test the decisive functions,“ affirms Dr. Rauschenbach. In autumn 2011, the autonomous diving robot will put to sea for the first time from the research vessel POSEIDON: Several dives up to a depth of 6,000 meters have been planned.

Nuclear Renaissance continues: Germany extends life of nuclear reactors

October 30, 2010

Der Spiegel:

Opponents of nuclear power suffered a setback in Berlin on Thursday as the federal parliament approved legislation that would effectively repeal Germany’s planned withdrawal from atomic power. Now nuclear plants can stay open an average of 12 years longer than originally planned.

Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, a member of Merkel’s CDU, countered  criticism by saying: “You are at a dead loss when it comes to energy policy.” He said the Greens, SPD and far-left Left Party were scaremongering and merely seeking to gain votes. “They are placing their party interests before the interests of the country,” he said. Röttgen also stated that his government’s energy plan — which foresees 80 percent of all electricity coming from clean energy sources by 2050 — was the most ambitious renewable energy program in the world.

The Green Party, in particular, sought in vain on Thursday to prevent the vote at the last minute.

Jörg van Essen, a senior party official with the FDP, angered many with his statement that, “it has never done any parliament in history good when a party appeared appeared wearing the same uniform,” a statement he made while staring at the Greens. Members of the party were angered by the statement, which they considered to be a comparison to the uniformed Nazi members of parliament during the Weimar Republic era.

Meanwhile, members of the government accused the Greens of disobeying parliament. “The Greens need to know one thing: The greater the racket they cause, the more damage they do to themselves in terms of how seriously they are taken outside,” said Peter Altmaier, a senior member of the CDU.

The quiet renaissance is continuing in other parts of Europe as well. The Financial Times points out that:

In Italy, which decommissioned its four power stations after the country voted for a moratorium following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the government is considering new nuclear power stations. Sweden has embarked on a similar path, voting earlier this summer to overturn a 30-year-old ban on new reactors. Neighbouring Finland has announced plans to build two reactors in addition to one already under construction. In the UK, the coalition government, is also backing new plants.

Several east European countries, many of which are dependent on gas imports from Russia, are also proposing new reactors.

“Globally, there is a nuclear revival,” says Colette Lewiner, head of the Energy and Utilities division at Capgemini, “but it is much bigger and sustained in Asian countries, in particular in China, which has proposals to put eight to nine reactors into operation a year.”

For Europe’s cash-strapped governments, hit by the credit crunch, extending the life of an existing reactor is much cheaper than building a new one. In France, for example, recent estimates suggested it would cost about €500m ($697m) to extend the life of a 1,000MW reactor for 20 years. This compares with a cost of about €3bn for the same capacity from a new one that would have a lifespan of about 60 years, says Ms Lewiner.

On the fuel supply side as well companies are developing strategies and positioning themselves to take advantage of the renaissance. From London South East comes the news that:

Severstal, the largest steelmaker in Russia, has made a bid approach for its first uranium asset in Spain, seeking to diversify its mining business and benefit from an expected rise in European demand for nuclear power.

Severstal has approached Berkeley Resources Ltd about a possible takeover of the uranium exploration company worth about A$304 million ($294.9 million), sending Berkeley shares sharply higher in London.  Severstal is considering a cash bid for Berkeley, also listed in Sydney, at A$2.00 (122 pence) per share, Berkeley said in a statement on Friday.

The big due diligence question will concern the start-up of a uranium concentrate line that is part of the Salamanca project, Renaissance Capital analyst Boris Krasnojenov said. The line operated for 16 years before closing in 2000 due to low uranium prices. ‘Some people believe that nuclear generation is the future for Europe because regulation measures linked to coal generation emissions will increase,’ Krasnojenov said.