(The 101 is an occasional series examining the claims made by the nuclear industry on behalf of nuclear power. You can read the series introduction here, part one ‘clean and safe’ here, and part two ‘cheap’ here.)

If nuclear power is as reliable as the industry and its supporters claim, why is it so unreliable?

Nuclear reactors are a massively complex way of boiling water. That’s all they do – boil water to create steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. They are huge, complicated kettles.

This complexity means that reactors can be temperamental beasts. The smallest of faults can stop electricity generation or prevent reactors running at full power. The history of nuclear energy is littered with examples and the every day news shows that things are not getting better.

Look at the technical problems Japan’s Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant. Look at the country’s supposedly earthquake-proof Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, closed for nearly two years by an earthquake and a series of fires. Technical problems at the THORP reprocessing plant in the UK that may close it for years. South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear power station shut down after ‘an unspecified technical fault’. The US’s Prairie Island nuclear plant Unit 1 is offline after an electrical fault its coolant system. ‘Most of the UK's reactors have performance figures in the lowest 25% of the world league table, with only two in the top 50%’. We could go on all day.

Can we expect an improved performance from the next generation of nuclear reactors? Judging by the long list of problems and setbacks seen at the construction sites of the new EPR reactors at like Olkiluoto and Flamanville, we wouldn’t bet on it.
Critics of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind say that they are unreliable. And yet these sources are built on tried, tested and above all, simple (meaning easily mass-produced and repairable) technologies. The history of nuclear energy shows its unreliability and shortcomings all too clearly.

Posted by Aslihan at 2:08 PM | Permalink

(This series of blog posts examines the false and dangerous claims of the nuclear industry. The introduction to the series can be found here.)

If nuclear power is as cheap as the industry and its supporters claim, why is it so expensive?

Let’s be blunt. The economics of nuclear power are atrocious. The economic risks of nuclear power are carried by governments and taxpayers while urgently needed resources are diverted from renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes.

Nuclear construction costs consistently rocket above forecasts. Finland’s OL3 reactor - under construction since 2005 - is three years behind schedule and 1.5 billion euros over budget. The last ten reactors built in India have on average been 300% over budget. The Czech Republic’s Temelin reactor was finished ten years late and five times over budget. Across the world, the average construction time for nuclear plants has increased from five and half years in the 1970s to nearly ten years between 1995 and 2000.

The UK government’s Stern Report said the costs of energy production have ‘fallen systematically’ since the 1970s - except for those of nuclear power. As few new reactors have been built in recent years, there can be little confidence in the forecasts of future construction costs.

- Part one
- Part three

Continue reading "No to Nuclear Power 101: ‘cheap’" »

Posted by Justin at 2:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

(This series of blog posts examines the false and dangerous claims of the nuclear industry. The introduction to the series can be found here)

If nuclear power is as clean and safe as the industry and its supporters claim, why is it so dirty and dangerous?

Start with the highly dangerous waste nuclear power stations produce. Before we start producing more with a new fleet of reactors, we simply do not have the capability to store the highly dangerous nuclear waste we have produce in the last 50 years safely or for the length of time – millions of years in the case of some waste – needed until it is safe. Waste produced by the new generation of power stations is going to be even more radioactive and dangerous.

The morality of nuclear waste is also highly questionable. Our producing and storing of nuclear waste in the past and present asks a binding commitment from a group of people we cannot consult or ask permission: namely, future generations. If Neanderthal man had built nuclear reactors, we would still be guarding the waste.

The operation of nuclear power stations is also inherently highly dangerous. The local residents living close to the Triscastin power plant in France were last summer told not to swim or fish in the nearby rivers, or feed their animals and irrigate their crops with river water, after 18,000 litres of a uranium solution were leaked. The French authorities are currently conducting tests of groundwater at the country’s 58 reactors to monitor contamination.

Ask why the British nuclear industry has to employ sharpshooters to cull the seagulls that swim in the water of outdoor nuclear waste storage pools. Or why ships transporting nuclear fuel require armed guards and naval guns. Find out who Hisashi Ouchi was and how he died. The list of questions about the dangers of nuclear power is almost as long as the list of leaks and accidents.

With the Chernobyl disaster fading in some people’s memories, many now question or even deny whether such an accident could ever happen again. Yet Europe found itself within minutes of a similar disaster as recently as 2006 when safety systems failed at Sweden’s Forsmark power station. The Boiling Water Reactors at Forsmark are of a design used around the world.

It’s an irrefutable fact that renewable energy sources are incapable of creating the dangers to human health and the environment that nuclear power does – dangers that extend into the future far further than human experience or expertise has ever known. Nuclear power is neither clean nor safe and presents not just a threat to us in the present but also to the very planet and the lives of future generation.

- Part two
- Part three

Posted by Justin at 5:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Let’s get a few things straight. Let’s address a few of the accusations and myths levelled at Greenpeace and our opposition to nuclear power.

Greenpeace does not campaign against nuclear power for fun or spite or just for the sake of it. It is a hard, frustrating battle against vastly better resourced opponents, some of whom aren’t averse to using dirty tricks.

Greenpeace does not want to make people poor or poorer.

Greenpeace does not want people to sit in the dark or the cold.

Greenpeace does not want us all to return to living in caves. (You wouldn’t believe how many times we hear that one.)

We are not anti-technology or anti-progress. We are the very opposite of those things. We look to the future. We embrace the exciting and rapidly growing renewable energy technologies, be they solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and the rest.

In the last few days, prominent environmental campaigners in the UK – previous opponents of nuclear power – have come out in support of it, arguing it is a vital tool in the fight against climate change.

The nuclear industry and its supporters will tell you nuclear power is clean, safe, cheap, reliable, secure and low-carbon. It is none of those things. If nuclear power is so wonderful, as is argued, why is the industry mired in corruption and cover-up?

Over the next few days we’ll be examining each of these claims in turn and showing why they are false and dangerous – that they are the real myths about nuclear power. We’ll explain why Greenpeace campaigns against nuclear power and why you should too.

- Part one
- Part two
- Part three

Posted by Justin at 3:04 PM | Permalink