web design small business

nd wind power equipment makers gained sharply as investors anticipated the accelerated nuclear phase-out will result in faster expansion of alternative and greener energy sources. Shares in solar cell makers Q-Cells SE (QCE.XE) and SolarWorld AG (SWV.XE), as well as wind turbine maker Nordex SE (NDX1.XE), traded sharply higher, posting gains of 11.3%, 7.8% and 12.1% respectively. On Sunday night, Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen announced to reporters following a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that Germany would end the use of nuclear energy by 2022 at the very latest. The country's seven oldest nuclear reactors, which have been shut down since mid-March, will never resume power generation, the government said. An eighth power plant--the 1.4-gigawatt reactor Kruemmel that has been glitch-prone and offline for the best part of three years--will also be shut down permanently. The remaining reactors--except for three that will be kept as reserve capacity for an additional year to ensure that energy demand can be met--will be shut down by 2021. In 2010, nuclear reactors accounted for around 23% of Germany's power production, making them the second largest contributor to overall output behind lignite-fired power plants. The government also said that it plans to keep the new tax on nuclear fuel rods that was introduced at the beginning of the year. The tax is expected to generate proceeds of around EUR2.3 billion per year and was officially introduced to help plug public budget holes. Many observers, however, have also linked the tax to the extension of reactor operating lives, for which the power plant operators had to make several concessions. RWE and E.ON have signaled in recent weeks that they are considering to sue the government over the levy, particularly if the extension of reactor lives were to be Admiral Mullen told the West Point graduating class that, “I fear they do not know us….I fear they do not comprehend the full weight of the burden we carry or the price we pay when we return from battle.”  It makes it far to easy for our political leaders to commit armed forces to battle when their own children will never have to fight or die. Or to continue in a war they are unable to win, but unwilling to end because the broad mass of Americans don’t rise up and say no. Or commit overwhelming force to a war we need to win, because they worry voters would balk if they knew the real price tag in lives and treasure.  When only a tiny fraction of our people pay the price of our politicians’ mistakes, those politicians are rarely held accountable. More Members of Congress have been to law school than officer candidate school. In recent years our presidents have not been veterans, or if so, not combat veterans.  We’ve come to expect that our presidential candidates spend several years in law school or business school – but it’s a rarity if they’ve done a tour of duty in the military. Does that leave them lacking as leaders when one of the most important constitutional responsibilities of a president is to be commander in chief, or Congressmen to vote a declaration of war and appropriate funds for the common defense?  What do they know of the sacrifices and responsibilities of our servicemen and women, when the closest they’ve come is marching next to them in a Memorial Day parade?  We’re now engaged in at least two unpopular wars -- a third if you count Libya -- and none of them have gone well. Our nation is understandably war weary and concerned about the burden on our nation’s budget at a time of financial crisis. As a country, we seem more disconnected from each other – and from our leaders – as any time in our history. And the notion of “ask not what your country can do, but what you can do for your country” seems as alien and anachronistic as a victory garden in the backyard. Isn’t it time we think again about national service?  Not bringing back the draft, or mandatory military service -- the military doesn’t want that any more than the population. But what about some sort of national military or public service for America’s youth?  Every few years someone introduces legislation calling for national public service. In times of plenty, it was unrealistic. Why would any of our young people want to give up high paying jobs for a year or two, for low paying jobs of sacrifice? But times are different now. Those high paying jobs have dried up, and our young people often find no jobs at all. Youth unemployment is at an all time high, and unlikely to improve anytime soon.  Now is the time to seize the moment, and make lemonade out of lemons.  Let’s reconsider national public service, and ask that our 18-year-olds to spend 18 months serving their country – in the military, rebuilding our parks system, teaching in schools, helping out in senior citizen centers.  Today our high school and college graduates compete fiercely for internships – often unpaid – just for the chance to get some real life experience and get off mom and dad’s couch. Wouldn’t it be better for them to spend 18 months putting something back in, doing something to help the country, moving beyond their comfort zones, meeting their fellow countrymen from all walks of life? Understanding that America is not a collecti