Renewable not radioactive – Joint organizational statement prior to the COP26 Climate Summit
Urgent global energy shift must not include nuclear power
Renewable not radioactive — Beyond Nuclear International Our shared energy future should serve human needs
Joint organizational statement released prior to the COP26 Climate Summit
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report highlights the growing climate crisis and the energy challenges we face. We need an urgent global shift to clean and renewable energy and national governments need to actively facilitate and manage the transition from reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear to renewable energy.
This global transition to clean, safe, nature-friendly renewable energy is already underway and is generating employment and opportunity. Growing this based on principles of environmental and social justice, equity, diversity, resilience and the rights and interests of communities and our environment will provide skilled and sustainable jobs, economic activity and reliable electricity access around the world. Every dollar invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse by diverting investment from renewable energy technology. Nuclear is increasingly unsafe and unreliable in a warming world with more frequent shutdowns and an inability to operate safely under changed climate conditions. From nuclear weapons tests to radioactive waste facilities the nuclear industry has a history of displacing, disrupting and damaging the health and rights of workers and communities. Indigenous peoples face a disproportionate burden and risk from the nuclear industry as mining and waste storage primarily affects their lands and they are often not consulted, compensated or respected.
Nuclear is slow, expensive and dangerous. It is not carbon neutral and poses unique security and waste management risks. We do not have the time to wait for the industry to recover from its own economic failures, overcome construction delays or to fulfil the false promise of new technology.
The legacy of contaminated mining zones, nuclear weapons fallout and the unresolved issue of nuclear waste demonstrate the profound risks of nuclear power. These risks are amplified by the changing climate and are in fundamental conflict with the foundation principles of sustainability and intergenerational equity.
Renewables give us the ability to make a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and to provide secure global access to sustainable low carbon electricity. Renewable energy is real, affordable, low risk and clean. Nuclear simply cannot meet our future energy needs.
Globally, we have multiple renewable energy options which, unlike nuclear, enjoy broad social license. Our organisations, representing a broad cross section of the global community, maintain that nuclear power is not a credible or effective climate response.
We support a renewable energy future and view nuclear power as a dangerous distraction from the real movement on the climate policies and actions that we urgently need.
Our organisations maintain that nuclear power is:
Dirty & Dangerous: …………
Unsustainable:………
Unjust: …….
Expensive:……
A Security Risk:…….
Aging or Unproven: Existing nuclear reactors are highly centralised and inflexible. They lack the capacity to respond to changes in demand and usage, are slow to deploy and are poorly suited to modern energy grids and markets. Many existing reactors are old and due for decommissioning and any move to extend their life would raise serious safety concerns. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and other ‘new generation’ nuclear projects are not in commercial production or use and remain unproven and uncertain. Neither the failed current reactors nor the non-existent promised reactors are a credible basis for a national energy system.
Not Carbon Neutral: …… https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/10/24/renewable-not-radioactive/
See more at www.dont-nuke-the-climate.org
The very great risk that sea level rise poses to UK’s nuclear reactors
The UK nuclear military complex is on the front-line of climate breakdown – and not in a good way. As if we already didn’t know, climate change is here, now. Widespread wild-fire and flooding has focused minds on the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) report which, perhaps unsurprisingly, confirms that as the world heats, ice stored at thepoles and in glaciers melt and sea levels rise.
In short, sea-level rise is significantly faster than previously thought. Meanwhile, predicted changes to storm patterns affecting ‘storm surge’ and river flow will drive ‘combined hazards’, making flood mitigation efforts increasingly
obsolete. Because all UK nuclear military installations began operationwell before global heating was considered in design or construction, near-term climate change risk to nuclear is very great.
Ecologist 22nd Oct 2021
https://theecologist.org/2021/oct/22/things-fall-apart
There are no real climate leaders yet – who will step up at Cop26? – Greta Thunberg
Greta Thunberg Like other rich nations, the UK is more talk than action on the climate crisis. Something needs to change in Glasgow.
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, called the recent IPCC report on the climate crisis a “code red” for humanity.
“We are at the verge of the abyss,” he said. You might think those words would sound some kind of alarm in our society. But, like so many times before, this didn’t happen. The denial of the climate and ecological crisis runs so deep that hardly anyone takes real notice any more.
Since no one treats the crisis like a crisis, the existential warnings keep on drowning in a steady tide of greenwash and everyday media news flow. And yet there is still hope, but hope all starts with honesty. Because science doesn’t lie. The facts are crystal clear, but we just refuse to accept them. We refuse to acknowledge that we now have to choose between saving the living planet or saving our unsustainable way of life. Because we want both. We demand both.
Guardian 21st Oct 2021
l’association négaWatt reports on planned closure of nuclear reactors, and carbon neutrality to be achieved by reducing energy consumption and by renewables.
Caution, efficiency and renewables: the negaWatt scenario for achieving carbon neutrality. The association presents the broad outlines of the 5th edition of its prospective work, which provides for the closure of the last nuclear reactor in 2045. No construction of a new nuclear reactor, energy consumption halved, electricity production 100% from renewable energies …
The fifth edition of the scenario of the negaWatt association will undoubtedly contribute to fueling the debate, more and more lively in the context of the presidential campaign, on the contours of the energy transition. Although the association, led by independent experts, will not publish its detailed report until October 26, it unveiled its broad outlines
on Wednesday October 20.
Le Monde 20th Oct 2021
Nuclear power has no place in a green energy future-because of – time delay, success of renewables, huge costs, dangers, weapons connection, and wastes
from Yahoo News, 21 Oct 21, ”…….Practical concerns also temper enthusiasm for a nuclear future. The next generation of reactors, heralded as a game changer by supporters, still haven’t been proven in the real world. Even if those technologies are as revolutionary as advertised, skeptics say it could take decades before they make a real difference in the global energy grid — too long if the worst outcomes of climate change are to be avoided.
Renewable energy technologies can be enough on their own
“The drawbacks to nuclear are compounded by the burgeoning success of renewables — both solar and wind are getting cheaper and more efficient, year after year. There is also a growing realisation that a combination of renewables, smart storage, energy efficiency and more flexible grids can now be delivered at scale and at speed — anywhere in the world.” — Jonathon Porritt, Guardian
The world doesn’t have time to wait for next-gen nuclear
“When it comes to averting the imminent effects of climate change, even the cutting edge of nuclear technology will prove to be too little, too late. Put simply, given the economic trends in existing plants and those under construction, nuclear power cannot positively impact climate change in the next ten years or more.” — Allison Macfarlane, Foreign Affairs
A major ramp-up in nuclear technologies isn’t economically feasible
“While nuclear power may have once been cheaper than wind or solar, the economics have since changed dramatically. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build and the economics of nuclear power are getting steadily worse. By contrast, renewables continue to come down in price.” — Ian Lowe, Conversation
There’s no way to guarantee that nuclear plants will be safe
“People around the world have witnessed the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents. It is more than enough to believe that a safe nuclear power plant is nothing but a myth.” — Jang Daul, Korea Times
More nuclear power could lead to more nuclear weapons
“Some nations — India and Pakistan, and in all probability Israel — became nuclear powers after originally seeking nuclear technology for research or to develop nuclear power. … This is important: The technology used to turn on lights or charge mobile phones shouldn’t need to involve national or international defence apparatus.” — Editorial, Nature
Nuclear waste is still a major problem
“Nuclear waste lasts for hundreds of thousands of years before they are half-decayed. Our United States government — perhaps the longest continuous government in the world — is only 232 years old. Who will be around to manage uranium wastes?” — David Ross, Courier-Journal
Nuclear power has no place in a healthy, sustainable future – IPPNW
Nuclear power has no place in a healthy, sustainable future. IPPNW
statement for COP26 UN Climate Change Conference 2021. In the lead-up to
COP26, there has been another round of concerted and increasingly desperate
attempts to portray nuclear power as an acceptable, safe and low carbon
energy source that can help address the climate heating crisis. We reject
this deception, which serves only those with vested interests in the
nuclear power industry, and those whose motive is not safe low carbon
electricity, but maintaining or being in a position to build nuclear
weapons.
IPPNW 18 October 2021
https://www.ippnw.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/IPPNW-COP-26-10-18-21.docx.pdf
The nuclear industry might get taxpayers money by calling itself ”amber”, if it’s too hard to appear ”green”
possible compromises included creating an “amber” label for activity that did not win the green label but would still secure a place in the bloc’s transition and not discourage private sector investment. ………..
Brussels to delay decision on how to classify nuclear power for green finance. Debate over energy has been supercharged by surging electricity costs, Ft.com Mehreen Khan and Sam Fleming in Brussels, 20 Oct 21
Brussels will delay long-awaited proposals on how to classify nuclear power and natural gas under the EU’s landmark labelling system for green finance, as member states demand looser rules to help counteract the continent’s energy crisis. EU financial services commissioner Mairead McGuinness told the Financial Times that Brussels would take more time before deciding how to deal with the controversial energy sources under the so-called “taxonomy on sustainable finance” that had been due this autumn.
The debate about how to classify low carbon natural gas and nuclear energy, which produces no CO2 [ ed.except in its long complex fuel and waste chains] but whose waste byproducts are toxic for the environment, has been supercharged by surging electricity costs that have prompted EU governments into emergency financial action to protect households. European leaders are due to debate the taxonomy and how to mitigate soaring prices at a summit in Brussels on Thursday.
“As we come to the end of the year there will be more pressure to resolve this,” said McGuinness. “We don’t have a ready-made solution because this is, both technically but politically . . . one of those issues where you have very divided views.” Europe’s pro-nuclear countries, led by France, and pro-gas member states in the south and east, are demanding the taxonomy rules do not penalise technologies they say are vital in securing the transition to net zero emissions. Environmental groups, however, want the system to abide by scientific criteria to ensure the rules stamp out, rather than encourage, so-called “greenwashing” in the investment industry. ………..
Europe’s energy crisis is the latest challenge to the credibility of the EU’s green labelling system which was designed to be a “gold standard” for investors to know what counts as truly sustainable economic activity. But the rules have been mired in controversy as Brussels struggles to balance science with sensitive political decisions about whether to award some activities the highest green label — penalising those that do not. Ten countries, including France, Finland, Poland and Hungary this week said it is “absolutely necessary that nuclear power was included in the taxonomy framework”.
McGuinness said it remained an “open question” as to whether the green label would be expanded to “accommodate nuclear and gas”. She said possible compromises included creating an “amber” label for activity that did not win the green label but would still secure a place in the bloc’s transition and not discourage private sector investment. ………..
The rules are being closely watched by investors and regulators in the US and UK, who have also said they will come up with their own classification systems. Within the EU, the taxonomy will be used to judge whether investments made by member states are truly green and will form the basis for an EU “green bond standard” that will be used to issue €250bn in sustainable debt under the bloc’s recovery fund. https://www.ft.com/content/898e6c53-8e85-4cfc-b00b-16a09d50b462
UK’s ”Net Zero” climate strategy fails to give concrete commits to reduce energy use, promote renewables.
| In reaction to the government’s Net Zero Strategy, Rebecca Newsom, Greenpeace UK’s head of politics, said “This document is more like a pick and mix than the substantial meal that we need to reach net zero. Extra cash for tree planting and progress on electric vehicles doesn’t make up for the lack of concrete plans to deliver renewables at scale, extra investment in public transport, or a firm commitment to end new oil and gas licences. There are only half-hearted policies and funding commitments to decarbonise our draughty homes at the speed necessary, and it fundamentally fails to grapple with the need to reduce our meat and dairy consumption to stop global deforestation. With just eight years left to halve global emissions, the government can’t just keep dining out on its ‘ambitious targets’. Until the policy and funding gaps are closed, Boris Johnson’s plea to other countries to deliver on their promises at the global climate conference next month will be easy to ignore.” Greenpeace 19th Oct 2021 https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/latest-updates/?news_type=press-release |
If nuclear is at the heart of our trip to net-zero, then it is a rotten heart.
A substantial step forward, or huge letdown? The green economy reacts to the Net-Zero Strategy. The UK’s Net-Zero Strategy is finally here, but the reaction to the nation’s blueprint to decarbonisation ranges from those believing it provides much-needed clarity for business to others claiming it does nowhere near enough to drive all parts of the economy to net-zero by 2050.
Tom Burke, chair, E3G said “New nuclear power can do nothing to help the UK achieve a net-zero power system by 2035. It will, however, take away a huge amount of public investment from things that could get us to net-zero cheaper and faster. If nuclear is at the heart of our trip to net-zero, then it is a rotten heart.”
Edie 19th Oct 2021
Nuclear power is itself vulnerable to climate change, and there are better ways to tackle global heating
As Michael E Mann, another giant of climate science activism, points out in his book, The New Climate War, nuclear support has long seemed a “shibboleth” for US conservatives; its opposition more a feature of the left. Nuclear energy comes with a lot of politically-toned symbolism here in the UK too. For some it represents security (all the more potent in the face of a gas crisis), for others, including the Scottish Greens who criticised possible UK plans recently, a terrifying threat to public and environmental safety.
But it’s worth noting that Mann, unlike Hansen, is sceptical about nuclear, citing not only the dangers and problems of waste, but also the fact that climate change itself, floods and drought, could make reactors more vulnerable.
“If we are forced into a choice between one risk or the other,” he writes, “a reasonable argument could be made that there’s a significant role to be played by nuclear energy.
The problem with this argument is that it buys into the fallacy that nuclear power is necessary for us to decarbonise our economy.” We can do it, he says, with renewables – and it would be cheaper. “The average nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-hour, compared with $50 for solar and $30 to $40 for onshore winds,”he notes.
James Hansen says nuclear power is answer to climate. Is he right? https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/19653021.james-hansen-says-nuclear-power-answer-climate-right/ By Vicky Allan, Senior features writer 18th October
Last week, James Hansen, prominent climate scientist and a keen advocate of nuclear power, gave his verdict on the current path of the UK. “Regarding Boris Johnson: it’s possible he will put the UK on a path to 100 percent clean electricity (renewables + nuclear, no gas or coal), in which case the UK, which led us into the fossil fuel era, could lead us out.”
Just a few days ago it was announced that the UK government was poised to approve funding for a fleet of Rolls-Royce mini nuclear reactors. And with that, the way is paved for modern nuclear. The fears provoked by the memories of Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are dismissed, passed over, or countered.
We have a climate guru like Hansen saying that the only answer can be the “development and deployment of modern nuclear power”.“Otherwise,” he says, “gas will be the required complement to intermittent renewable energy for electricity generation…Modern nuclear power, in contrast, has the smallest environmental footprint of the potential energies because of its high energy density and the small volume of its waste, which is well-contained, unlike wastes of other energy sources.”
How did we come to this? How did the search for an answer to a climate crisis caused by an excess of an everyday, non-toxic gas, land on a technology which, though now vastly improved in terms of safety, still comes with a risk of terrifying toxicity?
I don’t want to plunge into any kneejerk anti-nuclear tirade. I realise how politically tribal our responses on this can be. As Michael E Mann, another giant of climate science activism, points out in his book, The New Climate War, nuclear support has long seemed a “shibboleth” for US conservatives; its opposition more a feature of the left. Nuclear energy comes with a lot of politically-toned symbolism here in the UK too. For some it represents security (all the more potent in the face of a gas crisis), for others, including the Scottish Greens who criticised possible UK plans recently, a terrifying threat to public and environmental safety.
But it’s worth noting that Mann, unlike Hansen, is sceptical about nuclear, citing not only the dangers and problems of waste, but also the fact that climate change itself, floods and drought, could make reactors more vulnerable. “If we are forced into a choice between one risk or the other,” he writes, “a reasonable argument could be made that there’s a significant role to be played by nuclear energy. The problem with this argument is that it buys into the fallacy that nuclear power is necessary for us to decarbonise our economy.” We can do it, he says, with renewables – and it would be cheaper. “The average nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-hour, compared with $50 for solar and $30 to $40 for onshore winds,”he notes.
That chimes with a recent report issued by INET Oxford, which looked at progress on renewables according to Wright’s Learning Curve, which predicts how costs and efficiency change with investment. It found that “a major, accelerated push to deploy renewables and drive out carbon emitting fossil fuels is likely to lower energy costs by trillions of dollars”.
Even the National Grid’s recently published Future Energy Scenarios report did not rely on new nuclear. The most ambitious of its three different plans for progress towards net zero focussed on renewables, storage and “only very limited new nuclear development after Hinckley Point C”.
It strikes me that nuclear is the “clean energy” we turn to in pessimism, when we think that all the other changes aren’t going to happen – the societal change, the development of storage, the advance in renewables. It’s not surprising Hansen feels that pessimism;it’s what experience tells him. Since he started calling out anthropogenic climate change in 1988 our yearly emissions have only grown.
Still, my hope, though it may be naïve, is that we are nearing a paradigm shift. Nuclear is what we look to when we feel cornered into embracing its risks. But we can reach for more.
Nuclear power? It’s of zero use to Australia’s emissions plan
I have no problems with nuclear power. But the only way it would be viable is with an extremely high carbon price. I say bring that on!
Except a high carbon price makes renewables an even better investment, and thus nuclear less needed.
And even a high carbon price won’t get enough nuclear plants built soon enough to prevent temperatures rising above 2C.
Nuclear power is too costly, too slow, so it’s zero use to Australia’s emissions plan, EXCELLENT GRAPHS Guardian, Greg Jericho 18 Oct 21, With a 20-year development timeline, nuclear plants won’t be built soon enough to stop temperatures rising above 2C. So why are we wasting precious time debating them?
The catch-22 of nuclear power in Australia is that you would only consider it if you wanted to reduce emissions because of climate change, but if you agree climate change is real and we need to reduce emissions, you would not consider nuclear power.
Currently Australia burns a lot of coal – more than other comparable economies with nuclear power.
Even worse, Victoria relies greatly on the dirtiest and least-efficient brown coal.
But if you think climate change is a load of bunk then, as current head of charging with ChargeFox, Evan Beaver, puts it in his excellent blog post on the issue, “we might as well burn all the coal we have. And we have a lot.”
But if you do agree climate change is real then what we need to do is reduce emissions as fast as possible. As I noted last month, at a certain point there will be so much CO2 in the atmosphere that we won’t be able to limit temperatures rising above either 1.5C or 2C above pre-industrial levels, no matter when we get to net zero afterwards.
Projected cumulative emissions between 2021 and 2050
6,161Gt is the carbon budget to stay below 2C; 3,521Gt is the carbon budget for 1.5C
We must cut emissions fast – at least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030, and probably by about 75% if we want to limit temperature rises to less than 1.5C.
Nuclear power is of zero use on that score.
We know this because nuclear power has already been examined a lot.
One excellent study was in 2006 under the Howard government, by Ziggy Switkowski. It noted that “the earliest that nuclear electricity could be delivered to the grid would be 10 years, with 15 years more probable”.
Alright then. Firstly, not even the National party is insane enough to make nuclear power an election promise.
So let’s assume if the Coalition wins next year’s election, but announces a move to legalise nuclear power, that even with the best intentions, given the task of getting the votes, it’d be lucky for that to happen until the end of 2022.
Now all that has to happen is choose the type of reactor, and oh, pick a spot (have fun).
Ignore the coming election in 2025 and assume everything gets in place by 2024 (not a hope, but hey, let’s play pretend). That means at best we’re looking at 2035 but more likely 2040 before the first nuclear plant comes on line.
That is already too late to help prevent temperatures reaching 2C, and by then an overwhelming amount of our electricity will already be generated by renewables.
That means the need for such a plant is gone. Markets know this, which is why no one will ever invest in such a plant here.
The CSIRO’s latest “GenCost” report suggests the capital costs of small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear power plants by 2030 and even out to 2050 will be greater than renewables, including solar thermal plants.
But perhaps rather surprising is that nuclear becomes even less viable when the CSIRO projects the world getting to net zero by 2050.
The reason is that, under such a scenario, the push for renewables accelerates so greatly that the development of nuclear power effectively stalls, meaning Australia would have to be a leading investor in new plants – thus paying the first mover costs.
As the CSIRO notes, “a major source of discomfort” for nuclear stakeholders is that the high cost estimate of nuclear power “is of theoretical value only” because “a nuclear SMR plant is not planned to be built in Australia anytime soon”………………….
I have no problems with nuclear power. But the only way it would be viable is with an extremely high carbon price. I say bring that on!
Except a high carbon price makes renewables an even better investment, and thus nuclear less needed.
And even a high carbon price won’t get enough nuclear plants built soon enough to prevent temperatures rising above 2C.
Nuclear power: too costly, and too slow. https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2021/oct/19/nuclear-power-too-costly-too-slow-so-its-zero-use-to-australias-emissions-plan
Flamanville nuclear power plant has exceeded the threshold for discharging a powerful greenhouse gas.
Flamanville nuclear power plant has exceeded the threshold for discharging
a powerful greenhouse gas. In nine months, the quantity of SF6, the most
powerful greenhouse gas, released by the Flamanville nuclear power plant in
La Manche, has already exceeded the annual declaration threshold. This
threshold was reached on September 27, 2021, as confirmed by EDF on
Thursday, October 14, 2021.
Ouest France 14th Oct 2021
Demonising China is unhelpful while encouraging China to participate in Cop26
As Britain prepares to host the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow next month, it is pursuing two contradictory policies that undermine its chances of success. On the one hand, it is seeking a unified global response to the climate crisis with nations agreeing to targets for the reduction of their coal and petroleum emissions.
But at the same time, it has joined the US in escalating a new cold war directed at confronting China and Russia at every turn. The two policies have polar opposite objectives in trying to persuade China, responsible for 27 per cent of global carbon emissions, to cut back on building new coal-fuelled power stations, but at the same time demonising China as a pariah state with whom political, commercial and intellectual contacts should be as limited as possible.
Independent 15th Oct 2021
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/china-russia-climate-cop26-b1939164.html
There are Much More Powerful Greenhouse Gases than CO2 and EDF’s Nuclear Reactors are Spewing Them Out (Apart from Toxic Radioactive Emissions!!)
EdF finally admit that operational nuclear power station discharges of Sulfur hexafluoride gas make massive contributions to Global warming/Climate change Flamanville nuclear power plant has exceeded the threshold for discharging SF6. In nine months, the quantity of SF6, the most powerful greenhouse gas, released by the Flamanville nuclear power plant in La Manche, has already […]
There are Much More Powerful Greenhouse Gases than CO2 and EDF’s Nuclear Reactors are Spewing Them Out (Apart from Toxic Radioactive Emissions!!) — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND
There are Much More Powerful Greenhouse Gases than CO2 and EDF’s Nuclear Reactors are Spewing Them Out (Apart from Toxic Radioactive Emissions!!) https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2021/10/15/there-are-much-more-powerful-greenhouse-gases-than-co2-and-edfs-nuclear-reactors-are-spewing-them-out-apart-from-toxic-radioactive-emissions/
ON OCTOBER 15, 2021 BY MARIANNEWILDARTEdF finally admit that operational nuclear power station discharges of Sulfur hexafluoride gas make massive contributions to Global warming/Climate change
Flamanville nuclear power plant has exceeded the threshold for discharging SF6. In nine months, the quantity of SF6, the most powerful greenhouse gas, released by the Flamanville nuclear power plant in La Manche, has already exceeded the annual declaration threshold. This threshold was reached on September 27, 2021, as confirmed by EDF on Thursday, October 14, 2021.
The Flamanville nuclear power plant (Manche) declared a “significant environmental event” after having emitted a cumulative quantity of SF6, the most powerful greenhouse gas, above the declaration threshold, we learned from EdF on Thursday October 14th.
“On September 27, 2021, the cumulative annual quantity of SF6 gas emissions reached 100.37 kg, exceeding the declaration threshold of 100 kg,” said EDF in a press release posted on the plant’s website. SF6, targeted as early as 1997 by the Kyoto Protocol on the climate, has a warming potential 23,000 times that of CO2 and remains in the atmosphere for up to 3,000 years. It is the most potent of greenhouse gases, even though it represents a small part of it.
The campaign group Sortir du Nuclear criticized EdFs pollution, saying : “Letting 100 kg of this gas escape is like emitting more than 2 million kg of C02 into the atmosphere. In just nine months, the Flamanville site has already exceeded (the 100 kg threshold). And the year is not over. Each year, each of the 18 nuclear power plants in France has this right to pollution and thus actively contributes to global warming, not to mention refrigerant leaks.”
Sortir de Nuclear further states that until 2018, EDF did not report any of these emissions. Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) gas “is used to ensure the electrical isolation of high voltage equipment. On the Flamanville site, SF6 gas is used as insulation for the energy evacuation stations and the supply stations for auxiliary transformers “, stated EDF.
Ouest France 14th Oct 2021
https://www.ouest-france.fr/normandie/flamanville-50340/la-centrale-nucleaire-de-flamanville-a-depasse-le-seuil-de-rejet-d-un-puissant-gaz-a-effet-de-serre-4ef83064-2cdc-11ec-9285-f388b2ea32b0
Nuclear power is not sustainable energy – German environment ministry
Nuclear power is not sustainable energy – German environment ministry https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclear-power-is-not-sustainable-energy-german-environment-ministry-2021-10-13/Reuters BERLIN, Oct 13 (Reuters) – Germany’s continues to push for the European Union not to classify nuclear power as a sustainable energy source, the country’s environment ministry spokesperson told a press conference on Wednesday.
“In the event an accident, entire regions would become uninhabitable and many future generations of taxpayers would have to pay for the damage as well as deal with the waste. All this is obviously not sustainable,” the spokesperson said.
He added that nuclear power is more expensive than renewable energy, and said new construction projects take too long in light of the need for urgent solutions to the climate crisis.
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (317)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 