Nuclear lobby positioning itself as “green”
Beyond Nuclear 20 Nov 09 Climate change and its impacts are now undeniable. Leaders from around the world will have to reach a new climate agreement during the December 2009 Copenhagen Summit. Urgent measures must be taken to achieve a massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.
Under the current Kyoto Protocol, nuclear energy is rightly excluded from the possible solutions available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the nuclear industry, in collaboration with certain countries, is pushing for this dangerous and polluting technology to be included in the next climate agreement as a “clean” technology.
The nuclear industry would then be able to take advantage of significant public investments at the expense of real solutions! Such a disingenuous strategy would mean losing the fight against climate change and promoting the global expansion of the nuclear industry, with its associated risks. Please sign the petition today asking decision-makers at Copenhagen to reject nuclear energy as a “clean” technology and to oppose its inclusion in the mechanisms to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Please sign today.
People rallying to combat nuclear and fossil fuels
Converging on Copenhagen The INDYPENDENT By Jessica Lee
From the November 20, 2009 issue Leaders of 192 nations will convene for the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Dec. 7 through Dec. 18 to hash out badly needed policy to combat global warming and address climate justice…..Ten years after a coalition of environmental and global justice movements took on the World Trade Organization in Seattle, a vast grassroots effort will come together in Copenhagen to disrupt business as usual. It’s time to act now against the system that threatens the planet.or…
As the coal and oil sectors are targeted as climate culprits, the nuclear power industry is remaking itself as a green alternative. Environmentalists counter that nuclear power has a huge carbon footprint because of the energy needed to mine and process uranium, construct anddecommission the plants, and handle, process and store radioactive waste………………http://www.indypendent.org/2009/11/19/converging-on-copenhagen/
Doctor asserts that nuclear power is unsafe
Nuclear power opponent speaks out on Payette proposal
Dr. Peter Rickards asserts atomic power is unsafe
By JESSICA KELLER
ARGUS OBSERVER
Thursday, November 19, 2009 PAYETTE — Dr. Peter Rickards, Twin Falls, intends to drive to Payette County today to attend the Payette County Planning & Zoning Commission meeting where the board will consider a comprehensive plan amendment regarding a proposed nuclear power plant……“I’m the kind of guy who likes to double checks things,” Rickards said.
He said, beyond the large nuclear power plant accidents in the past, there have been smaller problems at other plants that could have turned into disasters, specifically naming a power plant, Davis-Besse, in Ohio where he said a small leak was detected and then deliberately ignored. The Davis-Besse plant has faced a number of challenges since construction began on the facility in 1970.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported the Davis-Besse plant encountered several of the most dangerous types of nuclear miscues since the late 1970s.
Rickards said voters in Idaho and Payette County should be concerned about any nuclear power plant proposal. ………….“Basically nuclear power is the only energy source that can cause the permanent evacuation of a widespread region such as southern Idaho,” he said. He encourages people to attend tonight’s meeting and get involved because he does not think Payette County should be put on the frontlines again, nor should local residents be asked to compromise their safety or families……..http://www.argusobserver.com/articles/2009/11/19/news/doc4b0588066a35f229277495.txt
Nuclear plant has poor safety culture
San Onofre’s Safety problems , Voice of SanDiego, by Andrew Donahue 18 Nov 09 While two whistleblower complaints at San Onofre nuclear plant made big news locally today, the plant has been dogged by numerous safety issues in the past, as our in-depth piece from former Los Angeles Times energy reporter Elizabeth Douglass found earlier this year. Read more »
Women warned on radiation hazard of mammograms
Repeated X-rays could lead to problems The Desert Sun •Diana Saunders November 19, 2009 In the debate about mammograms, a key word is missing: X-rays. Although mammograms are low-dose X-rays, they pose a small risk of radiation-induced cancer that increases with each mammogram. Read more »
China: No civil rights for nuclear whistleblower
Australian Uranium to China, a Worry for Many Reasons Second shipment of uranium heads to Australia, environmental whistleblowers still in jail By Shar Adams Epoch Times Staff 18 Nov 09 AUSTRALIA—Sun Xiaodi, a warehouse manager at China’s No. 792 uranium mine in Gansu Province, was ignored when he first began to report on corruption and radioactive contamination by mine operatives in 1988. Read more »
How to warn our great-great grandchildren about nuclear wastes?
How Can We Warn the Future About Nuclear Waste?More Atlantic Wire By Heather Horn on November 18, 2009 Disposing of deadly nuclear waste is hard enough, but all the effort is for naught if you can’t stop people from digging it up again. This is especially tricky since radioactive waste stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years. Blogger Matthew Yglesias and Slate’s Juliet Lapidos are pondering what kind of symbol could serve as a warning for millennia: “This seemingly simple conundrum (just use a radiation hazard symbol!) is complicated,” explains Lapidos, “by the fact that such a trespass would prove lethal if it took place not only in 60 years but in 10,000 or 100,000
How Can We Warn the Future About Nuclear Waste? | The Atlantic Wire
Call for sustainable non nuclear energy
New Greenpeace Chief Calls for Sustainable, Nuclear-Free Power Supply New York Times November 18, 2009 By JAMES KANTER - Kumi Naidoo speaks “…………..we can have a clean, sustainable power supply if we embrace existing technologies like wind and solar power. It is a priority to engage more people in this debate. Change on the scale needed will require popular support. People understand that coal and oil are dirty and nuclear power is dangerous. However the coal, oil and nuclear industries have spent years building their political connections. It will take sustained public pressure to cut through that and get real change…………
Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction to real solutions. When you extend a nuclear plant’s life beyond what it was designed for, you make an unsafe technology even more dangerous, create even more waste, and put off decisions on adopting real solutions…………………
The shift to a more intelligent grid is coming, consumers will benefit, industry will benefit and the planet will benefit. The obstacles are the fossil fuel lobby and the nuclear industry who would face increased competition. In the U.K. we’ve seen coal and nuclear companies — E.ON and EDF — asking the government to protect them from the growth of renewable energy. That tells us all we need to know about how winnable the campaign is, and who the obstacles are………………..
it’s time to have a fundamental rethink about the western lifestyle. We know that if everyone consumed at the same rate as an American we’d need eight planets just to support ourselves. But this isn’t just an issue about rich countries — the middle classes in China and India can make the same choices as their Western counterparts. So we need to make sure they get smart as well.
The case against nuclear energy
The case against The Whitehaven News 18 November 2009
THE Government has just announced that 10 sites around the UK can be fast-tracked through the planning system for nuclear new build. Three of them are along the Cumbrian coast, two of them on greenfield sites.
This is bad news for the fight against climate change. Even with changes in the planning system it will still take far too long to deliver a new nuclear power station. Promised building timescales slip badly. At Olkiuoto, Finland, the plant promised to be built in four years will now take at least twice that. There can be no new nuclear power stations operating in the UK before 2015, and probably much later than that…………………..
It is bad news for the economy. The cost of this programme will be huge and unpredictable. At the most recent British nuclear power plant, Sizewell B, capital costs more than doubled. In Finland the promised price has already more than doubled to 5.5 billion euros.
Our Government insisted that any new build is privately financed and companies were apparently content with this, but we always suspected this would change. Nowhere has a nuclear power station been built on these terms, and independent analysts think it impossible for the UK unless help is given with the construction, power price and operational risks. In fact EDF has asked the Government for financial help to build the new reactors.
It’s bad news for jobs…………..
No assessment has been made of the jobs that will be lost in other industries – farming and tourism locally – as West Cumbria regains its nuclear status, but also in the wider public sector as nuclear subsidies result in a drain on public funds. Nor of the jobs that could come, if we went a different route.
It’s bad news for the environment. From the cradle to the grave nuclear is bad news. Uranium mining is often an exploitative affair. Campaigners from Tuareg, Niger, describe vividly the environmental degradation and human rights abuses caused by uranium mining.
Currently the Ranua people of Lapland, Finland, are fighting proposals for uranium prospecting and to mining which threatens traditional livelihoods and would destroy this vast northern wilderness area………………….
THERE is a far better way to reduce our climate change emissions, which is more effective, cheaper, provides more jobs and does not result in a contaminated environment.
We propose a low-carbon energy system that includes making “every building a power station”. The energy efficiency of existing buildings will be maximised, as will the use of renewables to generate electricity.
European Commissionhas a vision of 80% renewable energy
European Commission outlines a vision of 80% renewable energy by 2050 Frontier India Strategic and Defence – Commodity and Energy 19 Nov 09 Brussels, Over 550 high-level political decision makers at EU, national and regional level, representatives of the renewable energy industry, NGOs and scientists gathered in Brussels for the 3rd European Renewable Energy Policy Conference, organized by EREC as an official event of the Swedish EU Presidency. The conference showed a broad consensus that renewable energy will be the mainstream source of Europe’s energy supply by 2050………
…….The Commission’s views were echoed by several Members of European Parliament present as well as by the industry. Prof. Arthouros Zervos, EREC’s President stated “Already today the European Renewable Energy Industry is providing more than 450.000 jobs and has an annual turnover exceeding 45 billion EUR. Renewable energy already contributes to one-quarter of the EU’s 20% greenhouse gas commitment and has reached a share of about 10% in final energy consumption……….
………..
Renewable energy is the competitive advantage of Europe and the key to a sustainable 21st century economy. We have to make renewable energy the mainstream source of our energy system.“
This Month
GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION - Saturday December 12 Synchronised demonstrations around the world – in as many places as possible – to call on world leaders to take urgent action on climate change. Global Climate Campaign
For NOVEMBER, we focus on CLIMATE CHANGE
All reactors on sea coasts endangered by sea level rise
Over the next hundred years there will be significant sea rises, one meter or more, and many closed nuclear reactor sites could be flooded, including the stored nuclear waste. That could contaminate much of the coast lines for decades.
Besides those in France, many nuclear reactors in Japan, the US, the UK, Belgium and China are located on or near sea coast or rivers. For example, (see map) most of the UK’s nukes are on the coast
Cooling needs of nuclear reactors dictate a location at sea or at a large river. A reactor with an output of 1000-MW electric power has to get rid of 2000-MW thermal power. That is why the majority of the world’s 430 or so nuclear reactors are located on sea or river sides. Since 1900 the global sea level has risen by 10 to 15 cm. By 2100 sea levels could rise by another 60 to 110 cm. At the same time many sea coasts, for example in England, are gradually sinking.
Although the French nuclear utility EdF tried to play down the risks during the flooding of Blayais (see also WISE News Communique 523.5123: ‘French reactors flooded by storm, backup safety systems fail’), some media and politicians described the flooding event as a near-core-melt accident.
By 2025, several nuclear sites are predicted to be underwater: Hinkley Point on West Coast, Dungeness and Sizewell on the South East coast, and the BNFL reprocessing plants and other nuclear installations at Sellafield. Military nuclear sites are vulnerable, too. It would be better therefore to decommission nuclear facilities immediately after closure.
-
Archives
- November 2009 (118)
- October 2009 (149)
- September 2009 (140)
- August 2009 (93)
- July 2009 (97)
- June 2009 (131)
- May 2009 (149)
- April 2009 (156)
- March 2009 (151)
- February 2009 (151)
- January 2009 (150)
- December 2008 (140)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
