Fukushima to Canada: Nuclear power creates toxic pollution for 250,000 years

Fukushima to Canada: Nuclear power creates toxic pollution for 250,000 years
19 DECEMBER 2011
 BY DAVID SUZUKI


Anyone who think that Japan can "decontaminate" a region suffering from nuclear fallout in the manner presented in YouTube video has been duped if you read David Suzuki's insights in the following article.


Nuclear power is experiencing a revival due to growing concerns about climate change. The nuclear industry has reinvented itself as an environmentally friendly option, producing electricity without the air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions of coal, oil or gas.



http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree



But a closer look reveals nuclear power is neither an environmentally or financially viable option. Nuclear power creates radioactive waste for which there is no accepted method of safely managing or storing. 


It is also prohibitively expensive. The last plant constructed in Ontario, Darlington, was budgeted at $3.4 billion but ended up costing $15 billion when it was finally completed in the mid-1980s.


Environmental problems


Whatever benefits nuclear technology may provide through decreased air pollutants are more than made up for by large and unresolved environmental problems. 


As of 2000, Canada had 35,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste and nowhere to put it. With a radioactive half-life of 25,000 years, nuclear waste remains dangerous for 250,000 years, meaning huge costs and risks for future generations.


As well, mining uranium for nuclear power is extremely energy-intensive, meaning that nuclear power is in fact a considerable source of greenhouse gases. 


Furthermore, routine releases and accidental spills of contaminated water from mining operations have poisoned fisheries and threatened the health of local communities.


Many safety issues surround nuclear power, especially as power plants age. Nuclear plants routinely emit radioactive material, imposing cancer risks on workers, their children and people in surrounding communities. Power plants can also leak other hazardous materials. 


For example, Pickering reactor #4 had a heavy water leak in April 1996 that released radioactive tritium into Lake Ontario, contaminating drinking water supplies.


Economic problems


The energy source once billed as "too cheap to meter" has proven to be one of the most expensive energy sources in history.


Between 1956 and 2000, Canada's state-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) received subsidies totaling $16.6 billion. Even with these subsidies, nuclear power is far more expensive than both fossil fuels and renewables.


The last 20 reactors built in the U.S. had an average cost of $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity; the last one built in Canada cost $4,000 per kilowatt. 


Compare these prices to the current prices for large-scale wind power and natural gas plants, currently at $1,200 and $1,000 per kilowatt respectively.


The figures for nuclear do not include lifecycle costs to society from environmental and health damage, or the costs of accidents, clean up, waste disposal or plant decommissioning. 


And nuclear plants are not only expensive, they're also financially risky because of their long lead times, huge cost overruns and open-ended liabilities.

Greenpeace on China Climate Change Policy By The Diplomat

Greenpeace on China By The Diplomat
December 20, 2011 


The Diplomat speaks with Li Yan, head of Greenpeace East Asia’s Climate and Energy Campaign, to discuss China’s climate change policy.


What are your thoughts on the recent climate change accord reached in Durban? Do you feel it’s a good step towards a comprehensive treaty or a step in the wrong direction?



http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree



The world urgently needs a fair, ambitious and legally binding (FAB) deal to prevent climate catastrophe. Copenhagen should have delivered that deal.  After two years in Durban there was some progress towards a FAB deal, with the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period confirmed. Countries also agreed to start negotiating for a new legally binding treaty that applies to all countries, including China, India and the U.S., which needs to be sealed no later than 2015. 


As to the second part of your question: Yes,this is the right direction, and global climate negotiation now enters a new era. However, the process laid out in Durban is worryingly slow and with fatal loopholes. If this next big climate deal will be applicable only “from 2020,” as the U.S. inserted in the Durban agreement, it can easily be delayed for more than a decade and we risk missing the window of opportunity to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. 


The process to agree a comprehensive global climate treaty needs to be accelerated, and countries registered in such a binding treaty must honor their commitment.


China is now the world’s leading emitter of CO2. Do you feel China is doing enough to limit and lower such emissions? Do you feel China is taking adequate steps to tackle its global contribution to climate change? What steps would you recommend that China take to reduce or lower its CO2 emissions?


China has made impressive efforts to cut back its carbon emission growth, and it’s fair to say that China is doing much better than many other countries, including industrialized ones. However, with the rapid growth of emissions, China needs – and has the capability – to do more.


China’s 11th Five Year Plan (2006-2010) set binding targets to save energy and cut back traditional pollutant emissions. According to official calculations, this has led to 1.5 billion tons in carbon emission reductions. It was a good starting point and has sent a strong political signal to the government system, though at the end of 11th Five Year Plan, the final progress was quite difficult. But China almost achieved its 20 percent energy intensity reduction objective. 


However in the 12th Five Year Plan, starting this year, the central government set an energy intensity reduction target at 16 percent (by end of 2015 based on 2010 levels) and a carbon intensity target of 17 percent. These goals aren’t ambitious enough. This isn’t sufficient to force local governments and industries to shift away from energy intensive growth models. Partly as a result of this rather low target, the first 10 months of 2011 only saw an energy intensity reduction of 1.6 percent, falling far behind the scheduled 3.5 percent reduction benchmark supposed to be achieved as the first year of the latest plan. There will be more difficulties for China in delivering its targets if it can’t put a brake on its fast expansion of energy intensive industries and booming coal consumption. 


Coal burning is the biggest single source of CO2 emissions in China. With heavy reliance on coal burning as an energy source – it accounts for around 70 percent of energy demands – China is now facing severe environmental and social problem as well as growing energy security concerns. Moving away from coal and introducing more renewable energy into its energy mix is an unavoidable direction for China. One ongoing discussion is whether or not China can, step by step, put absolute limits on its coal consumption.


China is also expanding the amount of nuclear power plants it operates. Do you feel China can adequately secure and store the nuclear waste that will result?


Nuclear is deemed by many in China as the clean energy solution, but it’s not. Environmental and safety issues must be taken into consideration in China’s ambitious nuclear development plan.


There is currently no clear law or regulation to manage nuclear power development and mitigate its risk. The nuclear safety code is still being compiled after Fukushima. The Fukushima tragedy was another sad example of the fact that there’s barely anything humanity can do to stop the dangerous impact of a nuclear plant accident caused by natural disasters. China’s newly designed plants are mostly located near large populations, and under climate change circumstances, extreme weather events could be more frequent and severe, which makes it even more risky and challenging to ensure public safety. 


Much has been made in the west of China's investments in “green energy.”  Do you feel China has assumed a leadership role in green technology? Do you feel China can use such technology to make a dent in its CO2 emissions?


According to a recent U.N. Environment Program report, China has surpassed the United States in renewable energy investment in 2010, making it now the world’s largest. This has created a buzz that China is leading the race to renewable energies. Clearly, China is taking the lead in many areas of green energy development. In 2010, China’s wind power installation capacity was about 42GW, which places China as the biggest installation country globally.


Most of the renewable energy installation is in western areas, since the natural sources are better than the eastern parts.


However, there are still bottlenecks that stop China from being an even bigger utilizer of renewable energy. The biggest one is the difficulty in grid access. Nearly 30 percent of wind turbines established have no access to the state grid, and similar problems are emerging in solar power generation as well. Technology isn’t the problem, but more the lack of willingness and action from the grid company. If China could solve the grid connection issue, renewable energy will play a more important role in China’s energy mix, which will definitely contribute to its CO2 reduction. 

Report that puts nuclear power cost well above 2004 estimate endorsed

Report that puts nuclear power cost well above 2004 estimate endorsed
(Mainichi Japan) 
December 20, 2011


The No. 1 reactor building of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant is pictured in this photo taken from an unmanned, remote-controlled helicopter on April 10, 2011. 


TOKYO (Kyodo) -- A government panel on Monday endorsed a report that recalculated the power generation costs of various energy sources in the wake of the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, with the cost of nuclear power generation estimated well above the previous projection in 2004.



http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree



The report is expected to be reflected in discussions to review the country's energy policy, which is moving toward reducing reliance on nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster threw the safety of Japan's nuclear power plants into doubt.


According to the report, nuclear power generation costs 8.9 yen per kilowatt hour when including expenses associated with nuclear accidents, higher than a 2004 projection of 5.9 yen per kwh. The figure was unchanged from the draft unveiled last Tuesday.


Huge wind power generators stand in the Aomori Prefecture village of Rokkasho with the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the background.


The report said that costs would increase depending on the scale of damage caused by a severe nuclear accident. The 8.9 yen figure assumes losses totaling 5.8 trillion yen and would increase by 0.1 yen for every additional 1 trillion yen in losses.


The cost figures for electricity generated by coal-powered thermal plants as well as by liquefied natural gas-powered thermal plants were also unchanged from the draft at 9.5 yen per kwh and 10.7 yen per kwh, respectively.


In the 2004 projection, the cost of electricity generated by coal plants was pegged at 5.7 yen per kwh and that from LNG plants at 6.2 yen per kwh.


One of two new solar arrays in the Ogishima district of Kawasaki is seen in this aerial photo on Aug. 5. (Mainichi)
Minor revisions were made to the projected cost for 2030 of coal-powered thermal plants, which dropped to 10.3 yen per kwh from the draft estimate of 10.8 yen after including a possible improvement in power generation efficiency.


As for renewable energy sources, the cost of wind power generation on land was estimated at between 9.9 and 17.3 yen per kwh, and of power generated by home solar panels at 33.4 yen to 38.3 yen per kwh.


But in 2030, the report said the cost of wind and solar power generation could drop to as low as 8.8 and 9.9 yen per kwh , respectively, owing to technological advances and mass production of the equipment used.