A nuclear alternative
11 Dec, 2011
CanberraTimes
Thorium Nuclear Power
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2011/10/thorium-nuclear-power.html
In the wake of Fukushima, advocates of thorium reactors claim their time has come, says MICHAEL INMAN
NUCLEAR power. The mere mention of it evokes an emotion. But match the phrase with names such as Fukushima or Chernobyl and impassioned division will follow.
Since the disaster in Fukushima earlier this year, many countries are reassessing their nuclear programs.
In Germany, the government committed to shut 17 nuclear power plants by 2022.
Domestically, a renewed push to sell uranium to India is the subject of intense debate.
Passionate opponents of nuclear power claim the process is unsafe, produces toxic waste and is linked to the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile, supporters claim low emissions and new technology make nuclear's baseload energy capabilities the best option in the fight against climate change.
But what if there was a material capable of providing relatively safe and cheap nuclear power, without the risk of increasing nuclear weapons or toxic waste?
That's what a small but candid group of thorium advocates have been trying to tell the world in recent months.
But what is thorium?
Thorium is a natural radioactive chemical element that can be used to fuel a nuclear reactor.
It is estimated to be about three to five times more abundant than the current nuclear fuel of choice, uranium.
India, China, Japan, US and Russia are all undertaking investments in thorium fuel cycle technology, with intensified interest since Fukushima.
Thorium champions claim the world can have safe, baseload nuclear power by swapping the radioactive metal for uranium.
Supporters claim thorium technology is a lower risk than uranium reactors, produces considerably less waste and does not have the capacity to produce weapons.
And Australia, with an abundant supply of the metal, is well-placed to cash in on a future thorium rush.
Australia is believed to have the largest deposits of thorium in the world.
Geoscience Australia estimates Australia has about 474,000 tonnes - about 20percent - of the world's thorium resources.
Geoscience Australia commodity specialist Yanis Miezitis says the largest deposits are found in Western Australia, Northern Territory and Victoria.
Despite the easily accessed thorium resource, there are no large-scale commercial mining operations exploiting thorium.
Miezitis says this is because there is no large-scale commercial demand for thorium because there are no commercial-scale, thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors in the world.
However, that might all be about to change.
India looks likely to commence building a 300 megawatt advanced heavy-water technical demonstration reactor within the next 18 months.
An Australian and Czech Republic consortium last month unveiled plans for the development of a thorium-fuelled molten salt reactor, to be based in Prague, from next year.
Consortium spokesman Phil Joyce says preparatory work on the functioning prototype will be finalised early next year, with development to cost about $300 million.
Joyce says the consortium is pursuing thorium, rather than uranium, because it's less risky and produces less waste.
''Thorium is a non-fission material which means that it can't experience meltdown,'' he says.
''It took the Fukushima disaster to raise awareness and create an understanding of the urgency which exists in finding a safe alternative for base-load power.
''The time for planning and building thorium fuelled base-load energy plants has come and we are looking forward to developing the first working model that will be connected to the grid.''
Joyce says advances in reactor technology demonstrate that thorium-fuelled reactors are much safer than uranium and do not produce waste that can be used in weapons. He claims thorium is also efficient in its energy production, with one metric tonne of thorium creating the same amount of energy as 200 metric tonnes of uranium or 3.5 million metric tonnes of coal.
''Several European countries are moving to de-commission their nuclear powered generators, and the world is looking for more sustainable and safer, cleaner energy options. Investments in renewable technologies can only go so far in meeting the world's energy needs.
''We believe that attention should be shifted to thorium to replace the world's reliance on uranium and coal,'' he said.
But is thorium really the magic bullet that makes nuclear power palatable to the world?
Australian National University nuclear physicist Professor George Dracoulis says no.
Dracoulis admits thorium possesses many advantages over uranium, but also has inherent problems.
''People present thorium as if it's something magic. It's not, but it does have advantages.
''One advantage is that it doesn't produce as much long-life waste, although it actually produces more radioactive waste.
''A second advantage, which is only one of perception, is that thorium doesn't produce plutonium, a weapons material.
''So the argument is, you can't use [thorium] to make weapons but that's not true, it's more difficult but it can be used to make weapons.''
Dracoulis says a large problem with thorium is that it is not a fissile material, meaning it must be processed before the nuclear reaction takes place.
This is a more elaborate process, requiring specialist reactors.
Safety is also a key point pushed by thorium fans, but Dracoulis says this is also partially true.
''It doesn't have the potential to cause a Fukushima-type disaster, but that's because of the reactor, not because of the thorium.
''It's not the material that's safer, it's the way it's processed.''
With some estimates that the world's electricity demand will double by 2030, thorium could still play a role in future energy production.
But this may be in the longer term, according to RMIT nuclear expert Jiyuan Tu.
With energy demands skyrocketing in the short term, Tu says current nuclear stations need to begin developing new reactors, such as those fuelled by thorium.
The development of more sophisticated reactors calls upon radical new designs, moving away from the outdated generation II reactors, such as those at Fukushima.
The new reactors replace water with graphite, helium, sodium and lead to moderate and cool the core.
As a result, generation IV reactors will be more efficient, safer and produce less waste.
Still in the design phase, generation IV reactors are decades from becoming commercially available.
In the short term, Tu says current generation II and III reactors are being upgraded for safety.
With the nuclear industry in a massive state of flux, Tu says it is hard to predict where thorium will sit in the new order.
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Monday, May 26, 2014
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Myths and Facts : The German Switch from Nuclear to Renewables
POLICY PAPER Heinrich Böll Foundation
Myths and Facts: The German Switch from Nuclear to Renewables
Cover of a German language book of children's fairy tales, 1919. Modifications by Anna Milena Jurca. Picture by crackdog under CC BY 2.0 License. Original: Flickr.
March 16, 2012
Craig Morris
As a reaction to the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, starting on March 11, 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing coalition shut down roughly 40 percent of the country's nuclear generating capacity in mid-March 2011 and roughly re-implemented the original nuclear phase-out set forth under Chancellor Schroeder’s Social-Democrat/Green government. This change has been criticized as a panicked overreaction that would hurt the German economy and harm energy security. A year later, however, we can see what the temporary effects have been and what the long-term effects are likely to be.
With its nuclear phase-out, will Germany not have to simply import nuclear power from other countries? Aren't renewables raising the cost of power in Germany, and isn't nuclear cheap? And what about coal – is Germany not going to switch to that? Craig Morris, American writer and translator in the energy sector who has been based in Germany since 1992, answers these and more pressing questions on Germany’s energy transition.
Please click here to read Myths and Facts (8 pages, pdf, 1.59MB)
The German Energy Transition
Arguments for a renewable energy future
November 28, 2012 Arne Jungjohann
http://q.gs/31Wfr
Myths and Facts: The German Switch from Nuclear to Renewables
Cover of a German language book of children's fairy tales, 1919. Modifications by Anna Milena Jurca. Picture by crackdog under CC BY 2.0 License. Original: Flickr.
March 16, 2012
Craig Morris
As a reaction to the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, starting on March 11, 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing coalition shut down roughly 40 percent of the country's nuclear generating capacity in mid-March 2011 and roughly re-implemented the original nuclear phase-out set forth under Chancellor Schroeder’s Social-Democrat/Green government. This change has been criticized as a panicked overreaction that would hurt the German economy and harm energy security. A year later, however, we can see what the temporary effects have been and what the long-term effects are likely to be.
With its nuclear phase-out, will Germany not have to simply import nuclear power from other countries? Aren't renewables raising the cost of power in Germany, and isn't nuclear cheap? And what about coal – is Germany not going to switch to that? Craig Morris, American writer and translator in the energy sector who has been based in Germany since 1992, answers these and more pressing questions on Germany’s energy transition.
Please click here to read Myths and Facts (8 pages, pdf, 1.59MB)
The German Energy Transition
Arguments for a renewable energy future
November 28, 2012 Arne Jungjohann
http://q.gs/31Wfr
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Pressing the Nuclear Restart Button - China
Pressing the Nuclear Restart Button
China will continue to safely develop nuclear power after a one-year construction hiatus
By Lan Xinzhen
UPDATED: February 27, 2012
NO.9 MARCH 1, 2012
NUCLEAR COOPERATION: Technicians work at the neutrino experiment facility of the Dayawan reactor in Guangdong Province. Since 2006, an international research team from 39 institutes in six countries are involved in the facility (LI MINGFANG)
After a year long suspension, construction of nuclear power facilities across China may be starting up again, signaling the resumption of a 1-trillion-yuan ($158.73 billion) nuclear investment across the country.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In February, Harbin Electric Corp., one of China's major nuclear power equipment producers, received an order for the main components required in nuclear power generation from Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, located in Lianyungang, east China's Jiangsu Province. This was the first order since the country suspended nuclear power projects last March following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan.
Although nothing official has been announced, industry insiders say the suspension has been lifted, as the construction of the No.1 generating unit of Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant in east China's Zhejiang Province restarted, and three nuclear power-related planning reports were recently submitted to the State Council for review. The reports are expected to be officially released later this year.
Safety check
After the nuclear accident at Fukushima on March 11, 2011, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao chaired a State Council meeting on March 16 and made four decisions on China's nuclear power development: A complete safety check was required immediately on all nuclear facilities; approval of newly built nuclear power projects will be tightened; formulation of a nuclear safety plan will be accelerated; middle and long-term development plan of nuclear power will be readjusted, and before the plan is approved, approval of nuclear power projects, including preliminary work of the projects, should be suspended.
Following the meeting, a nation-wide safety screening on all operational and under-construction nuclear power facilities was put into effect, with approval of some construction projects suspended outright. From April 15 to August 5, the comprehensive check group on national civil nuclear facilities jointly organized by the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) of the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), the National Energy Administration (NEA) and some other departments checked all the country's power plants.
The safety check drew lessons from the Fukushima accident, forcing many nuclear power operators to take a more aggressive approach to nuclear power safety.
On January 21, the generating units at the Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant in South China's Guangdong Province were upgraded, which ended on February 10. The overhaul showed that the plant was in good condition. Starting on February 12, the generators at Tianwan began a 50-day overhaul, including 8,436 checks on individual components and technological upgrades.
Wang Binghua, Chairman of the State Nuclear Power Technology Corp., said besides safety check of nuclear power facilities in operation, designing, equipment manufacturing and construction of projects with third-generation AP1000 technology have been slowed down.
In fact, the AP1000 projects in Sanmen and Haiyang, east China's Shandong Province are safer than second-generation technology used at Fukushima. But China still places safety, not just technology upgrading, as its top priority in the construction of the third-generation nuclear power technology.
Capacity expanded
According to NEA's Readjustment Plan of Middle and Long-Term Development of Nuclear Power, which has been submitted to the State Council for approval, China plans to install a total nuclear power capacity of 80 million kilowatts (kw) by 2020.
Donghai Securities Co. Ltd. estimated that at least 60 million kw of nuclear power installed capacity will be added by 2020, excluding the capacity under construction now, which will drive up investment by 1.2 trillion yuan ($190.48 billion).
A plan previously issued by the National Development and Reform Commission says by 2020 the proportion of renewable energy among primary energy consumption will reach 15 percent, but in 2011, the proportion was only 8.9 percent, and nuclear power only accounted for 1.038 percent of the country's primary energy consumption.
Pan Ziqiang, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and an expert of nuclear radiation protection and environmental protection, said the disparity will be made up for mainly through development of nuclear power, because most exploitable hydropower resources have been developed, leaving little potential for future development. Also, restricted by technologies and natural conditions, wind power, solar energy and biomass energy are unlikely to see rapid development. Compared with other clean energies, only nuclear power can be developed in a large enough scale to meet China's energy needs.
An MEP news release showed that in the future China's safety standards for nuclear power will be raised. The Nuclear Safety Plan completed by the MEP and submitted to the State Council mainly focuses on supervision so as to improve the safety of nuclear power facilities and nuclear power utilization, reduce risks of radiation, ensure operation safety and safety to the environment and public health, and push forward safe, sound and sustainable development of nuclear energy and technology.
China has also made changes to its supervision mechanism for nuclear safety. The NEA will set up a nuclear power department, the NNSA will increase from one department to three and the number of nuclear safety supervision personnel will increase by 1,000, the State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense will also set up a department of nuclear emergencies.
Doubts remain
As China gears up to resume approval of nuclear power projects, arguments against construction of new nuclear power plants abound.
On February 7, a government document requiring the cessation of the nuclear power project construction in Pengze, Jiangxi Province attracted widespread attention on the Internet. The document was issued by the government of Wangjiang County, Anhui Province, as the project in Pengze sits along the Yangtze River, on the opposite shore from Wangjiang.
This report says Pengze nuclear power project will have hidden dangers if completed.
Establishment of Pengze nuclear power plant was approved two years ago, but was suspended by the State Council after the Fukushima accident last year.
The opposition of Wangjiang County Government is also supported by He Zuoxiu, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He published articles opposing construction of nuclear power plants in the inland areas of the country, mentioning that problems such as construction of Pengze nuclear power plant will be blocked by drought and nuclear power plants in inland areas will pollute rivers.
Pan said this reflects the fact that people are still concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants.
"From the safety and nuclear safety standards, there is no difference between inland and coastal nuclear power plants. The site of Pengze nuclear power project is good, and in principle its safety is ensured," Pan said.
According to Pan, China's provisions on preventing and protecting against environmental radiation in nuclear-powered factories impose detailed requirements on site selection and safety standards of nuclear-powered factories. Pengze nuclear power project is located along the Yangtze River, which has plenty of water and is highly capable of diluting and diffusing pollutants.
At present, China has approved a total of 43 nuclear power plants, with a planned capacity of 200 million kw. These plants are located in 16 provinces, including eight inland provinces such as Jiangxi and Anhui.
It is unknown whether opposition from Wangjiang can successfully stop construction of the Pengze project, but according to information from the environmental protection authority, since there are still big disputes on the safety of building nuclear power plants in inland areas, China will temporarily suspend approval of building nuclear power plants inland.
The voice of opposition against nuclear power has always existed in China. An organization named Ocean Protection Commune once organized a signature campaign from March 2006 to January 2008 opposing construction of nuclear power plants, and sent the signatures in written and electronic forms to the MEP and the State Oceanic Administration.
According to a media release from the Ocean Protection Commune, labeling nuclear power as "clean energy" is a total lie.
The commune thinks that there are risks of leaks during the transportation of nuclear fuels. It is also hard to ensure safety in disposal of nuclear waste.
If war breaks out, the enemy state will be able to cause serious nuclear radiation by targeting nuclear power plants, said the release.
The organization says these are problems faced by all nuclear power countries and as of now there is no safe solution.
China's Nuclear Power Plants in Operation
Ling'ao Plant Phase I
Located in Shenzhen, Guangdong, Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant Phase I is the second large-scale commercial nuclear power plant built in Guangdong. It has two 990-megawatt PWR generating units, which came into commercial operation in May 2002 and January 2003, respectively.
Ling'ao Plant Phase II
Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant Phase II is part of China's efforts to propel indigenous innovation as a majority of its technologies were domestically created. It has two 1,080-megawatt PWR generating units. The No.1 unit came into commercial operation in September 2010. The No. 2 unit came into commercial operation in August 2011.
Dayawan Plant
Located in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, Dayawan Nuclear Power Plant is the country's first large-scale commercial nuclear power plant that introduced foreign capital, equipment and technology. Its two 984-megawatt PWR generating units came into commercial operation in February and May 1994, respectively.
Tianwan Plant
Located in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant introduced nuclear power technologies from Russia. Its two 1,060-megawatt pressurized water reactor (PWR) generating units were put into commercial operation in May 2007 and August 2007, respectively.
Qinshan Plant Phase I
Located in Haiyan, Zhejiang Province, Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase I is the first 300-megawatt PWR nuclear power plant independently designed, constructed, operated and managed by China. The plant came into commercial operation in April 1994.
Qinshan Plant Phase II
Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase II is also a PWR plant. Its first two 650-megawatt generating units came into commercial operation in April 2002 and May 2004, respectively.
Its third generating unit, also with an installed capacity of 650-megawatt, came into commercial operation in October 2010.
Qinshan Plant Phase III
Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase III adopts nuclear power technologies from Canada and is the first commercial heavy water nuclear reactor project. Its two 728-megawatt generating units came into commercial operation in December 2002 and July 2003, respectively.
China will continue to safely develop nuclear power after a one-year construction hiatus
By Lan Xinzhen
UPDATED: February 27, 2012
NO.9 MARCH 1, 2012
NUCLEAR COOPERATION: Technicians work at the neutrino experiment facility of the Dayawan reactor in Guangdong Province. Since 2006, an international research team from 39 institutes in six countries are involved in the facility (LI MINGFANG)
After a year long suspension, construction of nuclear power facilities across China may be starting up again, signaling the resumption of a 1-trillion-yuan ($158.73 billion) nuclear investment across the country.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In February, Harbin Electric Corp., one of China's major nuclear power equipment producers, received an order for the main components required in nuclear power generation from Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, located in Lianyungang, east China's Jiangsu Province. This was the first order since the country suspended nuclear power projects last March following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan.
Although nothing official has been announced, industry insiders say the suspension has been lifted, as the construction of the No.1 generating unit of Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant in east China's Zhejiang Province restarted, and three nuclear power-related planning reports were recently submitted to the State Council for review. The reports are expected to be officially released later this year.
Safety check
After the nuclear accident at Fukushima on March 11, 2011, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao chaired a State Council meeting on March 16 and made four decisions on China's nuclear power development: A complete safety check was required immediately on all nuclear facilities; approval of newly built nuclear power projects will be tightened; formulation of a nuclear safety plan will be accelerated; middle and long-term development plan of nuclear power will be readjusted, and before the plan is approved, approval of nuclear power projects, including preliminary work of the projects, should be suspended.
Following the meeting, a nation-wide safety screening on all operational and under-construction nuclear power facilities was put into effect, with approval of some construction projects suspended outright. From April 15 to August 5, the comprehensive check group on national civil nuclear facilities jointly organized by the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) of the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), the National Energy Administration (NEA) and some other departments checked all the country's power plants.
The safety check drew lessons from the Fukushima accident, forcing many nuclear power operators to take a more aggressive approach to nuclear power safety.
On January 21, the generating units at the Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant in South China's Guangdong Province were upgraded, which ended on February 10. The overhaul showed that the plant was in good condition. Starting on February 12, the generators at Tianwan began a 50-day overhaul, including 8,436 checks on individual components and technological upgrades.
Wang Binghua, Chairman of the State Nuclear Power Technology Corp., said besides safety check of nuclear power facilities in operation, designing, equipment manufacturing and construction of projects with third-generation AP1000 technology have been slowed down.
In fact, the AP1000 projects in Sanmen and Haiyang, east China's Shandong Province are safer than second-generation technology used at Fukushima. But China still places safety, not just technology upgrading, as its top priority in the construction of the third-generation nuclear power technology.
Capacity expanded
According to NEA's Readjustment Plan of Middle and Long-Term Development of Nuclear Power, which has been submitted to the State Council for approval, China plans to install a total nuclear power capacity of 80 million kilowatts (kw) by 2020.
Donghai Securities Co. Ltd. estimated that at least 60 million kw of nuclear power installed capacity will be added by 2020, excluding the capacity under construction now, which will drive up investment by 1.2 trillion yuan ($190.48 billion).
A plan previously issued by the National Development and Reform Commission says by 2020 the proportion of renewable energy among primary energy consumption will reach 15 percent, but in 2011, the proportion was only 8.9 percent, and nuclear power only accounted for 1.038 percent of the country's primary energy consumption.
Pan Ziqiang, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and an expert of nuclear radiation protection and environmental protection, said the disparity will be made up for mainly through development of nuclear power, because most exploitable hydropower resources have been developed, leaving little potential for future development. Also, restricted by technologies and natural conditions, wind power, solar energy and biomass energy are unlikely to see rapid development. Compared with other clean energies, only nuclear power can be developed in a large enough scale to meet China's energy needs.
An MEP news release showed that in the future China's safety standards for nuclear power will be raised. The Nuclear Safety Plan completed by the MEP and submitted to the State Council mainly focuses on supervision so as to improve the safety of nuclear power facilities and nuclear power utilization, reduce risks of radiation, ensure operation safety and safety to the environment and public health, and push forward safe, sound and sustainable development of nuclear energy and technology.
China has also made changes to its supervision mechanism for nuclear safety. The NEA will set up a nuclear power department, the NNSA will increase from one department to three and the number of nuclear safety supervision personnel will increase by 1,000, the State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense will also set up a department of nuclear emergencies.
Doubts remain
As China gears up to resume approval of nuclear power projects, arguments against construction of new nuclear power plants abound.
On February 7, a government document requiring the cessation of the nuclear power project construction in Pengze, Jiangxi Province attracted widespread attention on the Internet. The document was issued by the government of Wangjiang County, Anhui Province, as the project in Pengze sits along the Yangtze River, on the opposite shore from Wangjiang.
This report says Pengze nuclear power project will have hidden dangers if completed.
Establishment of Pengze nuclear power plant was approved two years ago, but was suspended by the State Council after the Fukushima accident last year.
The opposition of Wangjiang County Government is also supported by He Zuoxiu, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He published articles opposing construction of nuclear power plants in the inland areas of the country, mentioning that problems such as construction of Pengze nuclear power plant will be blocked by drought and nuclear power plants in inland areas will pollute rivers.
Pan said this reflects the fact that people are still concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants.
"From the safety and nuclear safety standards, there is no difference between inland and coastal nuclear power plants. The site of Pengze nuclear power project is good, and in principle its safety is ensured," Pan said.
According to Pan, China's provisions on preventing and protecting against environmental radiation in nuclear-powered factories impose detailed requirements on site selection and safety standards of nuclear-powered factories. Pengze nuclear power project is located along the Yangtze River, which has plenty of water and is highly capable of diluting and diffusing pollutants.
At present, China has approved a total of 43 nuclear power plants, with a planned capacity of 200 million kw. These plants are located in 16 provinces, including eight inland provinces such as Jiangxi and Anhui.
It is unknown whether opposition from Wangjiang can successfully stop construction of the Pengze project, but according to information from the environmental protection authority, since there are still big disputes on the safety of building nuclear power plants in inland areas, China will temporarily suspend approval of building nuclear power plants inland.
The voice of opposition against nuclear power has always existed in China. An organization named Ocean Protection Commune once organized a signature campaign from March 2006 to January 2008 opposing construction of nuclear power plants, and sent the signatures in written and electronic forms to the MEP and the State Oceanic Administration.
According to a media release from the Ocean Protection Commune, labeling nuclear power as "clean energy" is a total lie.
The commune thinks that there are risks of leaks during the transportation of nuclear fuels. It is also hard to ensure safety in disposal of nuclear waste.
If war breaks out, the enemy state will be able to cause serious nuclear radiation by targeting nuclear power plants, said the release.
The organization says these are problems faced by all nuclear power countries and as of now there is no safe solution.
China's Nuclear Power Plants in Operation
Ling'ao Plant Phase I
Located in Shenzhen, Guangdong, Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant Phase I is the second large-scale commercial nuclear power plant built in Guangdong. It has two 990-megawatt PWR generating units, which came into commercial operation in May 2002 and January 2003, respectively.
Ling'ao Plant Phase II
Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant Phase II is part of China's efforts to propel indigenous innovation as a majority of its technologies were domestically created. It has two 1,080-megawatt PWR generating units. The No.1 unit came into commercial operation in September 2010. The No. 2 unit came into commercial operation in August 2011.
Dayawan Plant
Located in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, Dayawan Nuclear Power Plant is the country's first large-scale commercial nuclear power plant that introduced foreign capital, equipment and technology. Its two 984-megawatt PWR generating units came into commercial operation in February and May 1994, respectively.
Tianwan Plant
Located in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant introduced nuclear power technologies from Russia. Its two 1,060-megawatt pressurized water reactor (PWR) generating units were put into commercial operation in May 2007 and August 2007, respectively.
Qinshan Plant Phase I
Located in Haiyan, Zhejiang Province, Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase I is the first 300-megawatt PWR nuclear power plant independently designed, constructed, operated and managed by China. The plant came into commercial operation in April 1994.
Qinshan Plant Phase II
Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase II is also a PWR plant. Its first two 650-megawatt generating units came into commercial operation in April 2002 and May 2004, respectively.
Its third generating unit, also with an installed capacity of 650-megawatt, came into commercial operation in October 2010.
Qinshan Plant Phase III
Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase III adopts nuclear power technologies from Canada and is the first commercial heavy water nuclear reactor project. Its two 728-megawatt generating units came into commercial operation in December 2002 and July 2003, respectively.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Alternatives to the nuclear option
Alternatives to the nuclear option
Professor Johnny Chan Chung-leung
Dean of the School of Energy and Environment
City University of Hong Kong
January 2012
In the Know
Demonstrations against the use of nuclear energy were staged worldwide following the radiation leaks at the stricken nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan in March 2011. The incident highlighted the concerns of many people of using nuclear power as an option in addressing the issues of climate change, alternate energies and energy security.
Besides the possible environmental effects, there is the issue of cost to contend with. Building a nuclear power plant is very expensive: the best construction materials are required for a strong protective shell; multiple safety measures and contingency plans have to be put in place; and nuclear waste has to be treated and disposed of.
http://www.facebook.com/renewableenergy1
http://www.facebook.com/greenenergy2
However, nuclear energy has proved popular; for example, it currently accounts for around 23% of the total electrical power consumed in Hong Kong.
Many now feel that we have no other option but to go nuclear especially as a reliable, cost-effective and renewable energy supply has yet to be identified.
As an alternative to nuclear energy, and until we can create a sustainable alternative with less of a perceived threat to the environment, we should allocate more resources to researching the more efficient and cleaner use of fossil fuels so as to reduce the amount of pollutants and the emission of greenhouse gases.
Coal can be made cleaner and more efficient, for example. Newly developed devices can reduce the amount of sulphur dioxide emitted when coal is burned, while coal gasification is a promising method of exploiting the planet’s richest source of fossil fuel.
Similarly, scientists are developing carbon capture and underground storage technologies that mitigate the carbon dioxide created when natural gas is burned, although a lot of energy is consumed in this process. Researchers are investigating how to develop an artificial photosynthesis
process that simulates the way plants break up carbon dioxide’s strong molecular bonding.
Another approach is to look for ways of extracting carbon atoms from carbon dioxide and combine them with hydrogen for fuel.
Experts are currently looking at ways to diminish the consequences of using silicon in the production of solar energy. Although the actual process of power generation through solar energy produces minimal pollution,
extracting silicon—the raw material for the production of solar cells—from the earth and transporting it to the plant can damage the environment.
Carbon is contained in food waste, sawdust, the internal organs of animals, and even fallen leaves and branches.
Using them intelligently, we can create fuel. Organic waste can even be used for the production of plastics which would reduce the over-reliance on petroleum.
As Hong Kong is surrounded by water, we can explore the possibility of turning the energies of the sea, such as the kinetic energy of wave and tide, into electricity.
CityU is studying how to use the regular tidal pattern
for power generation. In addition, because wave conditions in Victoria Harbour have become rougher due to land reclamation projects, we can explore the possibility of using wave energy.
Before building any kind of device that can convert energy into electric power, we need to assess the whole production process, from the extraction of the raw materials and power generation to waste management.
Especially we need to study the pollution caused by
the production process and the deployment of manpower and other resources.
The practical solution to the deficiency of nuclear energy and fossil fuels is to develop a more environmentally friendly energy that will ensure the sustainable development of the economy.
Professor Johnny Chan Chung-leung
Dean of the School of Energy and Environment
City University of Hong Kong
January 2012
In the Know
Demonstrations against the use of nuclear energy were staged worldwide following the radiation leaks at the stricken nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan in March 2011. The incident highlighted the concerns of many people of using nuclear power as an option in addressing the issues of climate change, alternate energies and energy security.
Besides the possible environmental effects, there is the issue of cost to contend with. Building a nuclear power plant is very expensive: the best construction materials are required for a strong protective shell; multiple safety measures and contingency plans have to be put in place; and nuclear waste has to be treated and disposed of.
http://www.facebook.com/renewableenergy1
http://www.facebook.com/greenenergy2
However, nuclear energy has proved popular; for example, it currently accounts for around 23% of the total electrical power consumed in Hong Kong.
Many now feel that we have no other option but to go nuclear especially as a reliable, cost-effective and renewable energy supply has yet to be identified.
As an alternative to nuclear energy, and until we can create a sustainable alternative with less of a perceived threat to the environment, we should allocate more resources to researching the more efficient and cleaner use of fossil fuels so as to reduce the amount of pollutants and the emission of greenhouse gases.
Coal can be made cleaner and more efficient, for example. Newly developed devices can reduce the amount of sulphur dioxide emitted when coal is burned, while coal gasification is a promising method of exploiting the planet’s richest source of fossil fuel.
Similarly, scientists are developing carbon capture and underground storage technologies that mitigate the carbon dioxide created when natural gas is burned, although a lot of energy is consumed in this process. Researchers are investigating how to develop an artificial photosynthesis
process that simulates the way plants break up carbon dioxide’s strong molecular bonding.
Another approach is to look for ways of extracting carbon atoms from carbon dioxide and combine them with hydrogen for fuel.
Experts are currently looking at ways to diminish the consequences of using silicon in the production of solar energy. Although the actual process of power generation through solar energy produces minimal pollution,
extracting silicon—the raw material for the production of solar cells—from the earth and transporting it to the plant can damage the environment.
Carbon is contained in food waste, sawdust, the internal organs of animals, and even fallen leaves and branches.
Using them intelligently, we can create fuel. Organic waste can even be used for the production of plastics which would reduce the over-reliance on petroleum.
As Hong Kong is surrounded by water, we can explore the possibility of turning the energies of the sea, such as the kinetic energy of wave and tide, into electricity.
CityU is studying how to use the regular tidal pattern
for power generation. In addition, because wave conditions in Victoria Harbour have become rougher due to land reclamation projects, we can explore the possibility of using wave energy.
Before building any kind of device that can convert energy into electric power, we need to assess the whole production process, from the extraction of the raw materials and power generation to waste management.
Especially we need to study the pollution caused by
the production process and the deployment of manpower and other resources.
The practical solution to the deficiency of nuclear energy and fossil fuels is to develop a more environmentally friendly energy that will ensure the sustainable development of the economy.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Greenpeace Hong Kong slams nuclear 'complacency' on Daya Bay
Greenpeace slams nuclear 'complacency' on Daya Bay
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Kenneth Foo
The Standard
A green group yesterday slammed the government's nuclear disaster contingency measures as "dangerously outdated" and urged it to abandon plans for future atomic expansion.
Greenpeace said the fallout from any meltdown at the Daya Bay nuclear plant in Guangdong will be many times that of the Fukushima disaster last year in Japan.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The group claimed the 20-kilometer evacuation zone around the Daya Bay plant in current plans is insufficient as winds can carry radiation fallout as far as 80 kilometers (not just 80 km!) . Hong Kong is just 50km away from the plant.
There are also no risk assessments and detailed emergency plans to protect the people of Hong Kong from the health and economic repercussions of a nuclear disaster, it said.
"It is ridiculous that governments can approve nuclear reactors but are not ready to protect people from nuclear risks, hazards and disasters," said senior campaigner Prentice Koo Wai-muk.
"You can finish reading the whole emergency plan in a matter of minutes because there is simply nothing there."
He also urged the government to shelve plans to double the amount of power generated through nuclear means by 2020 (Stop import any Nuclear Power!) .
CLP Holdings has a 25 percent stake in Daya Bay, which supplies about 23 percent of the territory's electricity.
Security Bureau officials have rated the chances of a meltdown on the scale of Fukushima at three in 100 million.
This led Koo to accuse them of complacency as Fukushima officials had estimated the chances of a nuclear disaster to be as low as one in a million, but the disaster still occurred.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Climate Spectator: What's really wrong with nuclear?
Climate Spectator: What's really wrong with nuclear?
Tristan Edis
27 Feb 2012
Business Spectator
Climate Spectator
As we approach the 12 month anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, it’s worth reflecting on the potential future role of nuclear power in this country. In spite of this disaster the Australian Government was brave enough to suggest nuclear power as a back-up plan in the Energy White Paper. While I’m very optimistic about renewables in combination with energy efficiency, I’m also keen on a back-up plan given the threat of global warming.
The kind of temperature changes expected as a result of global warming have occurred in the past due to natural causes. The problem is they involved very nasty things called mass extinctions.
That’s why I like anything that has a demonstrated track record of significantly reducing emissions. It’s why I like compact flourescent light bulbs, solar hot water, wind turbines and solar photovoltaic panels. Heck I even like pink batts. After all pink batts don't spontaneously combust, they were put alight by highly inefficient, poorly installed halogen downlights.
All of these things definitely work, and I can see first-hand evidence of them delivering rather than promising to deliver.
It’s also why I like nuclear power. Nuclear power generated a little over 13 per cent of the world's electricity in 2010. It has a horrible track record of meeting construction timetables and budgets, but it can definitely supply large quantities of electricity with low emissions. It has achieved this while resulting in significantly less deaths than coal use, a major plus in my book in spite of Fukushima. I worry that Japan and Germany, with their nuclear phase-outs, will instead revert to fossil-fuels rather than renewables, which is exactly what Japan is doing right now.
For a geologically and politically stable country like Australia, nuclear power could be a good option for us to reduce carbon emissions while meeting the essential need for large quantities of electricity.
http://easss.com/nuclear
The one problem with nuclear power is its advocates.
Why?
Nuclear supporters push the deluded idea that nuclear will be viable without the need for a strong carbon price.
Many of those who back nuclear power are often the same people suggesting that Australia should not be imposing a price on carbon emissions. They seem to suggest that nuclear is a costless fix.
When you dig into the assumptions behind these claims of a costless fix you quickly find a range of clever accounting tricks as well as plain nonsense.
Advocates who try to use nuclear as an excuse to not price carbon will often adopt an incredibly unrealistic interest rate on financing, such as 5 per cent. No company can raise debt or equity finance to build a power station at 5 per cent return, unless perhaps they’re a state-owned enterprise in China or France.
Their second trick is to assume short construction times for nuclear plants that bear no relationship to experience. The World Nuclear Association, for example, will uncritically print claims by power plant vendors of construction taking 36 months. Yet most of the plants built in the western world took over 90 months to build according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
They will then claim that these construction delay problems have been fixed with new ‘Generation 3’ designs. Finland was the first Western country to order a generation 3 reactor, the Olkiluoto-3 unit. The project, which began in early 2005, was reported in 2010 as running €1.7 billion over budget and up to four years late. The other example is the Flamanville-3 project in France, which began in 2007 and was planned to be complete in 2012 at a cost of €3.55 billion. Since then the completion date has slipped to 2016 and the capital cost has been revised up three times. It is now expected to cost about €6 billion.
If you adopt realistic assumptions in accordance with past experience (as opposed to nuclear vendor promises they won’t put in a contract), nuclear could potentially be competitive against wind power in this country. But it will need a very strong carbon price of $60tCO2 or more to be competitive with fossil fuels.
Nuclear advocates argue against efforts to deploy renewable energy based on an excessively simplistic view of how we maintain electricity reliability.
If you were to believe nuclear advocates, if a power plant’s output were to drop-off then the lights would go out. Apparently each individual power plant must produce 100 per cent of the time.
But variability is an inherent feature of electricity systems that means we are already well-equipped to manage wind and solar power. Demand is not constant and can vary quite substantially from day-to-day and hour-to-hour, requiring flexibility from our power plants. Power stations and power lines can also fail unexpectedly. As a result, electricity systems already have a large amount of power generating capacity laying idle for much of the year which can be rapidly ramped-up and down to help accommodate wind and solar power. The idea that we need one new fossil fuel plant to back-up each renewable power plant is nonsense.
Nuclear advocates, rather than acknowledging problems with nuclear power, explain them away with reference to technologies that aren’t commercially available.
On the fact that the plants come in one size – bloody big and hard to swallow – they invoke such things as pebble-bed modular reactors or generation IV designs that will come in nice modular small-scale plants. But the only place these things exist is engineers’ drawing pad and experimental test plants. Not a single reputable nuclear power plant vendor could even quote you a price on such a plant.
In relation to the issues of uranium supplies being limited and the problem of long-term radioactive waste, they cite that this will be fixed through breeder reactors or the use of thorium. One problem – efforts to develop breeder reactors have been beset with problems and none are operating commercially.
Most importantly many nuclear advocates just don’t believe global warming is a problem.
Several nuclear advocates in Australia have regularly called into question whether global warming is real or even a problem. This makes me nervous that they aren’t advocating for nuclear because they see it as a viable and necessary option for reducing Australia’s carbon emissions. Rather they may be using it as a smokescreen to undermine other more readily implemented means of cutting emissions.
The majority of Australians are opposed to the use of nuclear power in this country. We might like to assume this away but it’s a political reality that makes nuclear power impractical for reducing Australia’s emissions for at least the next two decades. We can’t just twiddle our thumbs while we hope for public opinion to change.
Tristan Edis
27 Feb 2012
Business Spectator
Climate Spectator
As we approach the 12 month anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, it’s worth reflecting on the potential future role of nuclear power in this country. In spite of this disaster the Australian Government was brave enough to suggest nuclear power as a back-up plan in the Energy White Paper. While I’m very optimistic about renewables in combination with energy efficiency, I’m also keen on a back-up plan given the threat of global warming.
The kind of temperature changes expected as a result of global warming have occurred in the past due to natural causes. The problem is they involved very nasty things called mass extinctions.
That’s why I like anything that has a demonstrated track record of significantly reducing emissions. It’s why I like compact flourescent light bulbs, solar hot water, wind turbines and solar photovoltaic panels. Heck I even like pink batts. After all pink batts don't spontaneously combust, they were put alight by highly inefficient, poorly installed halogen downlights.
All of these things definitely work, and I can see first-hand evidence of them delivering rather than promising to deliver.
It’s also why I like nuclear power. Nuclear power generated a little over 13 per cent of the world's electricity in 2010. It has a horrible track record of meeting construction timetables and budgets, but it can definitely supply large quantities of electricity with low emissions. It has achieved this while resulting in significantly less deaths than coal use, a major plus in my book in spite of Fukushima. I worry that Japan and Germany, with their nuclear phase-outs, will instead revert to fossil-fuels rather than renewables, which is exactly what Japan is doing right now.
For a geologically and politically stable country like Australia, nuclear power could be a good option for us to reduce carbon emissions while meeting the essential need for large quantities of electricity.
http://easss.com/nuclear
The one problem with nuclear power is its advocates.
Why?
Nuclear supporters push the deluded idea that nuclear will be viable without the need for a strong carbon price.
Many of those who back nuclear power are often the same people suggesting that Australia should not be imposing a price on carbon emissions. They seem to suggest that nuclear is a costless fix.
When you dig into the assumptions behind these claims of a costless fix you quickly find a range of clever accounting tricks as well as plain nonsense.
Advocates who try to use nuclear as an excuse to not price carbon will often adopt an incredibly unrealistic interest rate on financing, such as 5 per cent. No company can raise debt or equity finance to build a power station at 5 per cent return, unless perhaps they’re a state-owned enterprise in China or France.
Their second trick is to assume short construction times for nuclear plants that bear no relationship to experience. The World Nuclear Association, for example, will uncritically print claims by power plant vendors of construction taking 36 months. Yet most of the plants built in the western world took over 90 months to build according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
They will then claim that these construction delay problems have been fixed with new ‘Generation 3’ designs. Finland was the first Western country to order a generation 3 reactor, the Olkiluoto-3 unit. The project, which began in early 2005, was reported in 2010 as running €1.7 billion over budget and up to four years late. The other example is the Flamanville-3 project in France, which began in 2007 and was planned to be complete in 2012 at a cost of €3.55 billion. Since then the completion date has slipped to 2016 and the capital cost has been revised up three times. It is now expected to cost about €6 billion.
If you adopt realistic assumptions in accordance with past experience (as opposed to nuclear vendor promises they won’t put in a contract), nuclear could potentially be competitive against wind power in this country. But it will need a very strong carbon price of $60tCO2 or more to be competitive with fossil fuels.
Nuclear advocates argue against efforts to deploy renewable energy based on an excessively simplistic view of how we maintain electricity reliability.
If you were to believe nuclear advocates, if a power plant’s output were to drop-off then the lights would go out. Apparently each individual power plant must produce 100 per cent of the time.
But variability is an inherent feature of electricity systems that means we are already well-equipped to manage wind and solar power. Demand is not constant and can vary quite substantially from day-to-day and hour-to-hour, requiring flexibility from our power plants. Power stations and power lines can also fail unexpectedly. As a result, electricity systems already have a large amount of power generating capacity laying idle for much of the year which can be rapidly ramped-up and down to help accommodate wind and solar power. The idea that we need one new fossil fuel plant to back-up each renewable power plant is nonsense.
Nuclear advocates, rather than acknowledging problems with nuclear power, explain them away with reference to technologies that aren’t commercially available.
On the fact that the plants come in one size – bloody big and hard to swallow – they invoke such things as pebble-bed modular reactors or generation IV designs that will come in nice modular small-scale plants. But the only place these things exist is engineers’ drawing pad and experimental test plants. Not a single reputable nuclear power plant vendor could even quote you a price on such a plant.
In relation to the issues of uranium supplies being limited and the problem of long-term radioactive waste, they cite that this will be fixed through breeder reactors or the use of thorium. One problem – efforts to develop breeder reactors have been beset with problems and none are operating commercially.
Most importantly many nuclear advocates just don’t believe global warming is a problem.
Several nuclear advocates in Australia have regularly called into question whether global warming is real or even a problem. This makes me nervous that they aren’t advocating for nuclear because they see it as a viable and necessary option for reducing Australia’s carbon emissions. Rather they may be using it as a smokescreen to undermine other more readily implemented means of cutting emissions.
The majority of Australians are opposed to the use of nuclear power in this country. We might like to assume this away but it’s a political reality that makes nuclear power impractical for reducing Australia’s emissions for at least the next two decades. We can’t just twiddle our thumbs while we hope for public opinion to change.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Germany’s nuclear endgame: the lessons
Germany’s nuclear endgame: the lessons
Paul Hockenos, 26 July 2011
opendemocracy
Subjects:International politics Democracy and government Civil society Germany europe democracy & power politics of protest
The historic decision by Germany’s government to end the country’s nuclear-energy programme is owed to the enduring vitality of the anti-nuclear movement. Paul Hockenos maps the implications for the rest of the world.
About the author
Paul Hockenos is a Berlin-based journalist. He is editor of Internationale Politik-Global Edition and senior fellow of the World Policy Institute. He is the author of Free to Hate: The Rise of the Right in Post-Communist Eastern Europe (Routledge, 1993); Homeland Calling: Exile Patriotism and the Balkan Wars (Cornell University Press, 2003); and Joschka Fischer and the Making of the Berlin Republic: An Alternative History of Postwar Germany (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Germany’s anti-nuclear movement is the poster-boy of its kind in Europe, even worldwide. Over the course of nearly forty years this potent, enduring campaign swayed German public opinion decisively against nuclear power. In June 2011, Germany became the first industrialised nation to commit to abandoning the atom as an energy source once and for all by 2022 - a move unthinkable without the unremitting pressure of Germany’s tenacious anti-nukes movement.
Web Hosting
The reactor meltdowns in Fukushima, Japan, following the tsunami of March 2011 forced the German government’s hand; but it was the popular distrust and solid arguments against nuclear technology that left chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative administration with no alternative but to abruptly reverse itself, and pledge to a future based on renewable sources.
By late spring 2011, anti-nuclear activists had convinced the overwhelming majority of Germans and the bulk of the political establishment - finally, even conservatives - of three major points.
First, nuclear energy is unsafe. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima (as well as hundreds of smaller incidents) have confirmed beyond any doubt that the risks inherent in atomic-energy production are real and lethal. Second, there is not now, nor will there ever be, a solution to the problem of nuclear-waste storage. Third, the time of renewable-alternative energies has at last arrived - and nations that ignore it will miss out not only on clean, abundant sources of energy, but will also deprive their economies of profits and jobs.
All these points are applicable everywhere there are nuclear plants. In this sense, perhaps Germany’s groundbreaking shift is a harbinger of a nuclear-free world, one that simultaneously battles climate change and powers its factories with alternative sources. If Germany can do it, so can others, including the United States and China. But that will require more than merely following the German example. For Berlin’s plan to scrap nuclear power was a direct consequence of the efforts of the anti-nuke movement - and at present no other nation has anything comparable to it. In this sense its track record and best practices are vitally instructive for opponents of atomic technology everywhere.
The spirit of Wyhl
There have been in broad terms seven vital elements in the German anti-nuclear movement’s potency and endurance. The first is that from the outset the campaign was decentralised and rooted in local, grassroots opposition. The earliest anti-nuclear protests coalesced in West Germany’s southwestern-most corner in the early 1970s. As reactors began to crop up in rural locations across Germany, so local inhabitants - resident farmers, church pastors, educators, and parent groups - began to look more closely at this supposed miracle technology plunked in their backyards without their say.
An example is a reactor intended for the hamlet of Wyhl, which lay between the progressive college town of Freiburg and France’s fertile Alsace region. The conservative, church-going community had tended vineyards and pressed grapes for centuries. Now they saw their livelihoods endangered by the towers. By 1975, over fifty locally organised citizens’ initiatives had emerged around Wyhl, and in neighbouring towns in France and Switzerland, to protest the reactor’s construction. As word of the rising resistance got out, the grape-growers were joined by students and left-wing faculty from Freiburg’s university. The mobilisation at Wyhl thus radiated from the central core of the local people rather than being imported from the elsewhere.
The second element is non-violent civil disobedience. The precedent here was set at Wyhl in February 1975, when demonstrators stormed and occupied the construction site. The troupe improvised a makeshift camp complete with communal kitchens, teach-ins, and direct democracy. In the end, the energy giant Badenwerk and the local authorities caved in, postponing construction indefinitely. The Wyhl insurgents had achieved a double success: challenging their vastly more powerful opponents, and creating a model for the anti-nuclear movement.
The locally rooted, bottom-up character of the movement is still clearly evident in Germany’s more recent demonstrations, even when they attract as many as 250,000 protestors. This has been central to sustaining the momentum even through difficult years, such as the period of the “red-green” government (1998-2005) when the Social Democrat and Green coalition partners were negotiating a phasing out of nuclear power. The government eventually compromised by deciding to wind down nuclear power gradually over twenty-one years; this was sharply criticised by anti-nuke protesters, yet efforts to mobilise activists became much harder.
But activists continued to push the case, whose third element was to emphasise an issue that won’t disappear until the last reactor is closed: that there’s no solution for nuclear waste. The protests that continued, such as those at the Gorleben waste-storage site in northern Germany along the Elbe river, were sustained by local NGOs and the farmers of Gorleben. Nationwide groups, like x-tausendmal quer and Campact, focused their efforts on helping the Gorleben community to block - or at least delay - the incoming deliveries to Germany’s single repository.
The spirit of Wyhl also lives on in the movement’s fourth element, its un-ideological diversity. Germany’s urban leftists found at Wyhl common ground beyond their own ranks. “This diversity was - and still is - so important because it made it impossible for politicians and the energy lobbies to label the protestors as crazy, left-wing agitators”, explains Dieter Rucht, Germany’s leading expert on social movements. “They had to be taken seriously because they were the conservatives’ own constituency, upstanding folk with jobs and families who voted Christian Democrat.” For four decades, a single, familiar icon and message unified the anti-nuke movement: the smiling, red sun against a yellow background with the simple but powerful message - Atomkraft? Nein Danke! (Nuclear Power? No thank you!)
The green answer
In the wake of the victory in Wyhl, the anti-nuclear movement mushroomed across the country, its fiercest pockets of activism in out-of-the-way places with names like Kalkar, Brokdorf, Grohnde, and Neckarwestheim, where nuclear facilities were stationed or planned. Yet even though many demonstrations in the late 1970s gathered more than 100,000 - and were boosted enormously by the Three Mile Island disaster in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979 - activists were unable to follow up on their success in Wyhl with similar victories. True, legal contests that cost the power companies millions of Deutschmarks; but the reactors hummed along, and Germany’s three main political parties backed nuclear power, including most of chancellor Helmut Schmidt’s ruling Social Democrats.
The answer to this stalemate was the Green Party, initially a hodge-podge of social-movement activists voicing their concerns in town and state legislatures. The fifth element is that the Greens wrote “no nukes” prominently on their banners and fought fiercely to advance the cause, from tiny village councils to the Bundestag in Bonn and the European parliament in Brussels. The Social Democrats and other parties eventually came around to their arguments, but the Greens were the pioneers.
The sixth element is that the Greens both represented the movement in legislatures and provided infrastructure and crucial logistical support, such as offices and copy-machines and access to nationwide public relations. Petra Kelly, one of the first Greens elected to the Bundestag, was prominent among those who gave the movement a recognisable face and even enabled it to reach across national borders and speak to an international audience, including in the United States. The anti-nuclear movement and the Greens, however, were never identical.
When the Greens entered national government for the first time in 1998, the majority of Germans were opposed to nuclear energy. The best the Greens could secure in discussion with their Social Democrat coalition partners was a phasing out of nuclear energy. The Green leaders promised that neither future governments nor the power companies could backtrack on the agreement; it was, they claimed, as good as written in stone. The Greens might even have believed this - but they were wrong.
By the time the Greens left power in 2005, the anti-nuke campaign had been laid low. With the conservatives’ return to power, the muscular energy lobbies of southern German were scoring points by arguing that nuclear energy was the answer to climate change. They claimed that Germany needed its own nuclear-power industry to avoid dependence on France’s nuclear energy and Russia’s gas. The renaissance of nuclear power in the United States and China seemed to reinforce them.
The power of no
But the movement had a potent new asset. This was delivered by the law the Greens had pushed through in office, offering subsidies and tax-breaks to consumers and producers of renewable energies. The outcome was a booming cottage industry around solar-panels and wind-turbines, which added nearly 400,000 jobs to the German economy and transformed Germany into a leading exporter of alternative-energy technology.
This entirely new approach was founded on the seventh element, the Greens’ and the movement’s forceful “argument that renewable energies translated into ‘green jobs’” (in the description of Sascha Müller-Kraenner, the Berlin-based Europe representative of the United States group, the Nature Conservancy). This line of attack was so convincing, notes Müller-Kraenner, that it even won over many Christian Democrats.
The eighth element of the movement was a new generation of activists in its fold, with organisations that reflected their diversity. Campact, for example, is based on the advocacy group MoveOn, which activists like Christoph Bautz had visited in the United States. “We were fascinated by the way they could mobilise people so quickly with the internet”, says Bautz. Campact has a 490,000-address email list that enables it to put together demonstrations like the one in Fukushima’s aftermath in a week’s time. It is also a platform for people to be engaged via the internet, through mass petitions, email campaigns, and blogs.
The nationwide group Ausgestrahlt focuses on supporting the network of smaller, local groups across the country with campaigning materials and ideas, enabling them with more clout. X-tausendmal quer specialises in blockades of nuclear-waste transports; another Gorleben-based group, Castor Shottern, takes civil disobedience a step further by sabotaging the railway tracks along which the waste transports run.
Germany’s scrapping of nuclear power was unthinkable without the pressure and persistence of the anti-nuke campaign. In other countries, the place to begin this rebellion is not at the top, but from below, like the Germans, in those localities directly affected by nuclear-power plants and waste-storage dumps. Until they say Nein Danke! to the power plants in their backyards, there’ll be no convincing anyone else.
Paul Hockenos, 26 July 2011
opendemocracy
Subjects:International politics Democracy and government Civil society Germany europe democracy & power politics of protest
The historic decision by Germany’s government to end the country’s nuclear-energy programme is owed to the enduring vitality of the anti-nuclear movement. Paul Hockenos maps the implications for the rest of the world.
About the author
Paul Hockenos is a Berlin-based journalist. He is editor of Internationale Politik-Global Edition and senior fellow of the World Policy Institute. He is the author of Free to Hate: The Rise of the Right in Post-Communist Eastern Europe (Routledge, 1993); Homeland Calling: Exile Patriotism and the Balkan Wars (Cornell University Press, 2003); and Joschka Fischer and the Making of the Berlin Republic: An Alternative History of Postwar Germany (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Germany’s anti-nuclear movement is the poster-boy of its kind in Europe, even worldwide. Over the course of nearly forty years this potent, enduring campaign swayed German public opinion decisively against nuclear power. In June 2011, Germany became the first industrialised nation to commit to abandoning the atom as an energy source once and for all by 2022 - a move unthinkable without the unremitting pressure of Germany’s tenacious anti-nukes movement.
Web Hosting
The reactor meltdowns in Fukushima, Japan, following the tsunami of March 2011 forced the German government’s hand; but it was the popular distrust and solid arguments against nuclear technology that left chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative administration with no alternative but to abruptly reverse itself, and pledge to a future based on renewable sources.
By late spring 2011, anti-nuclear activists had convinced the overwhelming majority of Germans and the bulk of the political establishment - finally, even conservatives - of three major points.
First, nuclear energy is unsafe. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima (as well as hundreds of smaller incidents) have confirmed beyond any doubt that the risks inherent in atomic-energy production are real and lethal. Second, there is not now, nor will there ever be, a solution to the problem of nuclear-waste storage. Third, the time of renewable-alternative energies has at last arrived - and nations that ignore it will miss out not only on clean, abundant sources of energy, but will also deprive their economies of profits and jobs.
All these points are applicable everywhere there are nuclear plants. In this sense, perhaps Germany’s groundbreaking shift is a harbinger of a nuclear-free world, one that simultaneously battles climate change and powers its factories with alternative sources. If Germany can do it, so can others, including the United States and China. But that will require more than merely following the German example. For Berlin’s plan to scrap nuclear power was a direct consequence of the efforts of the anti-nuke movement - and at present no other nation has anything comparable to it. In this sense its track record and best practices are vitally instructive for opponents of atomic technology everywhere.
The spirit of Wyhl
There have been in broad terms seven vital elements in the German anti-nuclear movement’s potency and endurance. The first is that from the outset the campaign was decentralised and rooted in local, grassroots opposition. The earliest anti-nuclear protests coalesced in West Germany’s southwestern-most corner in the early 1970s. As reactors began to crop up in rural locations across Germany, so local inhabitants - resident farmers, church pastors, educators, and parent groups - began to look more closely at this supposed miracle technology plunked in their backyards without their say.
An example is a reactor intended for the hamlet of Wyhl, which lay between the progressive college town of Freiburg and France’s fertile Alsace region. The conservative, church-going community had tended vineyards and pressed grapes for centuries. Now they saw their livelihoods endangered by the towers. By 1975, over fifty locally organised citizens’ initiatives had emerged around Wyhl, and in neighbouring towns in France and Switzerland, to protest the reactor’s construction. As word of the rising resistance got out, the grape-growers were joined by students and left-wing faculty from Freiburg’s university. The mobilisation at Wyhl thus radiated from the central core of the local people rather than being imported from the elsewhere.
The second element is non-violent civil disobedience. The precedent here was set at Wyhl in February 1975, when demonstrators stormed and occupied the construction site. The troupe improvised a makeshift camp complete with communal kitchens, teach-ins, and direct democracy. In the end, the energy giant Badenwerk and the local authorities caved in, postponing construction indefinitely. The Wyhl insurgents had achieved a double success: challenging their vastly more powerful opponents, and creating a model for the anti-nuclear movement.
The locally rooted, bottom-up character of the movement is still clearly evident in Germany’s more recent demonstrations, even when they attract as many as 250,000 protestors. This has been central to sustaining the momentum even through difficult years, such as the period of the “red-green” government (1998-2005) when the Social Democrat and Green coalition partners were negotiating a phasing out of nuclear power. The government eventually compromised by deciding to wind down nuclear power gradually over twenty-one years; this was sharply criticised by anti-nuke protesters, yet efforts to mobilise activists became much harder.
But activists continued to push the case, whose third element was to emphasise an issue that won’t disappear until the last reactor is closed: that there’s no solution for nuclear waste. The protests that continued, such as those at the Gorleben waste-storage site in northern Germany along the Elbe river, were sustained by local NGOs and the farmers of Gorleben. Nationwide groups, like x-tausendmal quer and Campact, focused their efforts on helping the Gorleben community to block - or at least delay - the incoming deliveries to Germany’s single repository.
The spirit of Wyhl also lives on in the movement’s fourth element, its un-ideological diversity. Germany’s urban leftists found at Wyhl common ground beyond their own ranks. “This diversity was - and still is - so important because it made it impossible for politicians and the energy lobbies to label the protestors as crazy, left-wing agitators”, explains Dieter Rucht, Germany’s leading expert on social movements. “They had to be taken seriously because they were the conservatives’ own constituency, upstanding folk with jobs and families who voted Christian Democrat.” For four decades, a single, familiar icon and message unified the anti-nuke movement: the smiling, red sun against a yellow background with the simple but powerful message - Atomkraft? Nein Danke! (Nuclear Power? No thank you!)
The green answer
In the wake of the victory in Wyhl, the anti-nuclear movement mushroomed across the country, its fiercest pockets of activism in out-of-the-way places with names like Kalkar, Brokdorf, Grohnde, and Neckarwestheim, where nuclear facilities were stationed or planned. Yet even though many demonstrations in the late 1970s gathered more than 100,000 - and were boosted enormously by the Three Mile Island disaster in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979 - activists were unable to follow up on their success in Wyhl with similar victories. True, legal contests that cost the power companies millions of Deutschmarks; but the reactors hummed along, and Germany’s three main political parties backed nuclear power, including most of chancellor Helmut Schmidt’s ruling Social Democrats.
The answer to this stalemate was the Green Party, initially a hodge-podge of social-movement activists voicing their concerns in town and state legislatures. The fifth element is that the Greens wrote “no nukes” prominently on their banners and fought fiercely to advance the cause, from tiny village councils to the Bundestag in Bonn and the European parliament in Brussels. The Social Democrats and other parties eventually came around to their arguments, but the Greens were the pioneers.
The sixth element is that the Greens both represented the movement in legislatures and provided infrastructure and crucial logistical support, such as offices and copy-machines and access to nationwide public relations. Petra Kelly, one of the first Greens elected to the Bundestag, was prominent among those who gave the movement a recognisable face and even enabled it to reach across national borders and speak to an international audience, including in the United States. The anti-nuclear movement and the Greens, however, were never identical.
When the Greens entered national government for the first time in 1998, the majority of Germans were opposed to nuclear energy. The best the Greens could secure in discussion with their Social Democrat coalition partners was a phasing out of nuclear energy. The Green leaders promised that neither future governments nor the power companies could backtrack on the agreement; it was, they claimed, as good as written in stone. The Greens might even have believed this - but they were wrong.
By the time the Greens left power in 2005, the anti-nuke campaign had been laid low. With the conservatives’ return to power, the muscular energy lobbies of southern German were scoring points by arguing that nuclear energy was the answer to climate change. They claimed that Germany needed its own nuclear-power industry to avoid dependence on France’s nuclear energy and Russia’s gas. The renaissance of nuclear power in the United States and China seemed to reinforce them.
The power of no
But the movement had a potent new asset. This was delivered by the law the Greens had pushed through in office, offering subsidies and tax-breaks to consumers and producers of renewable energies. The outcome was a booming cottage industry around solar-panels and wind-turbines, which added nearly 400,000 jobs to the German economy and transformed Germany into a leading exporter of alternative-energy technology.
This entirely new approach was founded on the seventh element, the Greens’ and the movement’s forceful “argument that renewable energies translated into ‘green jobs’” (in the description of Sascha Müller-Kraenner, the Berlin-based Europe representative of the United States group, the Nature Conservancy). This line of attack was so convincing, notes Müller-Kraenner, that it even won over many Christian Democrats.
The eighth element of the movement was a new generation of activists in its fold, with organisations that reflected their diversity. Campact, for example, is based on the advocacy group MoveOn, which activists like Christoph Bautz had visited in the United States. “We were fascinated by the way they could mobilise people so quickly with the internet”, says Bautz. Campact has a 490,000-address email list that enables it to put together demonstrations like the one in Fukushima’s aftermath in a week’s time. It is also a platform for people to be engaged via the internet, through mass petitions, email campaigns, and blogs.
The nationwide group Ausgestrahlt focuses on supporting the network of smaller, local groups across the country with campaigning materials and ideas, enabling them with more clout. X-tausendmal quer specialises in blockades of nuclear-waste transports; another Gorleben-based group, Castor Shottern, takes civil disobedience a step further by sabotaging the railway tracks along which the waste transports run.
Germany’s scrapping of nuclear power was unthinkable without the pressure and persistence of the anti-nuke campaign. In other countries, the place to begin this rebellion is not at the top, but from below, like the Germans, in those localities directly affected by nuclear-power plants and waste-storage dumps. Until they say Nein Danke! to the power plants in their backyards, there’ll be no convincing anyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)