French Nuclear Madness won’t save the climate
Baltic Sea, International — Today six activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise boarded the cargo ship Happy Ranger in the Fehmarn Belt between Denmark and Germany. The activists are carrying banners reading “Nuclear Madness, made in France”. The ship is carrying steam turbines supplied by the French nuclear company AREVA to the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor currently under construction in Finland.
Today’s action was taken to highlight the fact that nuclear energy not only exposes the public to radiation hazards, but undermines effective climate protection. Greenpeace is calling on the Finnish government to stop the work at Olkiluoto 3.
“Construction of the EPR reactor in Olkiluoto has been a disaster. This dangerous mistake has cost Finland years of action on climate protection. By choosing nuclear power the Finnish government shut the door on investments in renewable energy and energy saving projects.” said Lauri Myllyvirta , Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Nordic.
In 2002 Finns were promised that a new reactor would help the country cut its greenhouse gas emissions. But now the owners of the new reactor, far from cutting down on the use of dirty fuels, are planning new polluting fossil-fired power stations. As Greenpeace predicted, the reactor is suffering from chronic quality problems and massive budget overruns. (1)
Construction of Olkiluoto reactor is already more than three years behind schedule and the estimated cost has soared from €3.2 billion to €5.5 billion. While some of that cost will be paid by French taxpayers, the impact of the delay will end up costing 600 euros for every man, woman and child in Finland (2).
“The Finnish experience once more shows that nuclear power is a dead end. If governments are serious about cutting greenhouse gas emissions, they must focus their efforts on renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. Unlike expensive, dangerous nuclear reactors, these are reliable, fast to implement, and clean,” commented Jan Beránek, head of the nuclear campaign at Greenpeace International.
The International Energy Agency projects that even the most ambitious plans to build hundreds of new nuclear reactors would cut the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by only a few percent, while the potential savings from renewable energy and energy efficiency are ten times bigger (3). New reactors would make problems with nuclear waste and weapons proliferation worse, and expose taxpayers to huge liabilities.
Regardless of the enormous risks involved, France’s nuclear industry, represented by Areva and EdF, have been hand in hand with President Sarkozy in aggressively promoting and selling their new reactor technology across the globe. Areva is pushing its reactors in at least thirteen countries (4).
Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution scenario (5) shows how the world’s nuclear capacity can be phased out by 2030 through smart energy use and the adoption of renewable energy, while rapidly reducing reliance on fossil fuels and meeting ambitious emission reduction targets in accordance with current climate science. Greenpeace calls on all countries to abandon subsidies for nuclear power and commit to a rapid, global and clean energy revolution at the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit.
Notes to Editor
1) In 2002, Greenpeace warned that OL3 was likely to cost far more than estimated, pointing to experiences in the UK with e.g. Sizewell B. In 2005 Greenpeace raised concerns about the safety of OL3 in a report commissioned from Large and Associates, stating that the reactor design was unfinished, lacked details with high significance for safety, and relied on unproven concepts.
2) The agreed price for Olkiluoto was 3.2 billion euro, to be supplied at a fixed price. The cost of construction over-runs so far are 2.3 billion Euro, and fall on AREVA which is 95% owned by the French state. However the delay in bringing the plant online will cost around 600 Euro per Finn.
4) AREVA is at various stages of negotiating contracts in at least thirteen countries. AREVA has identified twelve key battlefields for its EPR reactors: France, UK, Finland, Italy, Sweden in Europe; Canada and US in America; India, China, Jordan, United Arab Emirates in Asia; and South Africa. In addition, it is currently contracting a reactor construction for Brazil’s Angra-3 project. http://bit.ly/1XpjKC
3) Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, published by International Energy Agency/OECD in June 2008. Its scenario assumes 1,300 new large reactors in operation in 2050 (achieving four times bigger capacity than today). Yet, this nuclear sector contributes only 6 % to the reduction of carbon from energy sector, while new renewable energy reduced it by 21 % and energy efficiency by 36 %.
5) In October 2008 Greenpeace International and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) published a report called Energy [R]evolution: a Sustainable Global Energy Outlook that sets out a vision for a low-carbon global energy supply comparing it to the energy projection put forward by the International Energy Agency (IEA 2007). The report was developed in conjunction with specialists from the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), the Dutch Institute Ecofys and more than 40 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the renewable energy industry around the world. To download the report go to: www.energyblueprint.info
Further contact information for reporters to get video, photos or report details
Press Officer, Martin Lloyd, Greenpeace International, martin.lloyd@greenpeace.org , +31 646 19 7 324 Spokespeople, On Board : Jan Beránek, Head of Nuclear Campaign, Greenpeace International, Jan.beranek@greenpeace.org, +31 651 109 558 On Shore : Dr. Rianne Teule, Nuclear Campaigner, Greenpeace International, rianne.teule@greenpeace.org, +31 650 640 961 International photo desk, pdeskint@greenpeace.org, +44 797 364 2103 Video, Lucy.campbell-jackson@greenpeace.org, +31 6 46 162 015
Published on: 2009-11-16
Limited copyright is granted for you to use and/or republish any story on this site for
any legitimate media purpose as long as you reference 7thSpace and any source mentioned in the story above. Please
make sure to read our disclaimer prior to contacting 7thSpace Interactive. To contact our editors, visit our online helpdesk. If you wish submit your own press release, click here.
Social Bookmarking
RETWEET This! | Digg this! | Post to del.icio.us | Post to Furl | Add to Netscape | Add to Yahoo! | Rojo
|
|
Of course we must stop burning fossil fuels.. the CO2 is going to be an even bigger problem over the years ahead and most of the critical damage is already done. Storing CO2 underground is just postponing (and magnifying) the catastrophe !
We must use less energy, that is certain, but sadly we must also build one more generation of fission reactors (much safer and better managed than in the past) in order to stop the lights going out. ... but he real answer - I must warn Greenpeace - contains the dreaded "N-word" ! Most |Greenpeace supporters don't know the difference between fission and fusion. But if they did they would be clamouring for us to develop fusion right now... because fusion is nature's own way of releasing energy on the grand scale, and scientists are about to reach the goal of harnessing fusion as an energy source. This is not the ITER people, spending billions but still facing huge problems trying to perfect a technique they have been struggling with for fifty years... this is the new kid on the block... lasers. The laser was only invented just under fifty years ago, but in that time it has demonstrated an amazing ability to compress energy in both time and space... exactly what is needed to trigger fusion in a controlled reaction. Within the next 3 years it is very likely that the National Ignition Facility in Lawrence LIvermore California will have proved that a giant laser can trigger fusion... and from there scientists and governments already have a project lined up to adapt the knowledge to deliver fusion energy to the grid. "But wait !" I hear the Greenpeace folk say... " Lawrence Livermore is just a nuclear weapons laboratory !" ... and here's the truth of it... Lawrence Livermore is indeed a laboratory which performs a function in maintain the nuclear stockpile for the USA, but the National Ignition Facility has another role too... Greenpeace supporters will be familiar with the term "Swords into Ploughshares" ! What they may not realise is that the NIF represents exactly that... the capacity to understand the immense energy source which powers the hydrogen bomb is the same knowledge which will give us fusion energy.
Fusion powers our sun and all stars. More of the known matter in the universe is in a state of fusion than not... and it's as near as a high energy source can get to being clean too !
Do Greenpeace disapprove of the radioactive waste which emerges from hospitals... Maybe so, but I hope not ! It's very low level and has a very short half life... just like the tiny amount of radioactive waste associated with fusion energy. Within a hundred years it's gone... not hundreds of thousands, as is the case for immensely radioacxtive fission waste.
... and what does the reactor make as a bi-product of fusion energy... the answer is.. helium... an entirely harmless gas !
... and where does the fuel come from... the answer is sea water ! The deuterium needed for the reaction comes from sea water, indeed a single cubic kilometre of sea water contains the fusion energy equivalent of the entire world's oil reserves.
Under its new leader, I really hope that Greenpeace has the courage to look again at fusion. Yes, it has the word "nuclear" associated with it... it unlocks the energy which every atom holds, rather like a battery, which was charged in the immense event of the Big Bang. But fusion is not the same as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Unlike theirn old fashioned cousins, fusion reactors will hold such tiny amounts of fuel that their only failure will be to stop... they cannot burn or explode.
Fusion is the answer for the future and, if Greenpeace is serious about our future, and prepared to learn the science, Greenpeace will soon start demanding the acceleration of fusion energy research... otherwise the lights really will start going out... and we'll just be burning fossils until it's much too late.
And where does that lead ? It leads to disaster... something which is much more imprtant to avoid than sticking to an out-dated and narrow mantra from a group which hasn't bothered to do anything more than learned to chant a battle hymn !
Check out fusion now !