LovisaMovement

25 Years After Chernobyl

Mikael — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:54:00 +0200

Gorbachev on the Chernobyl Disaster 25 Years After

In the Special Issue on Chernobyl of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (March/April 2011), former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev (80), writes:

"The true scope of the tragedy still remains beyond comprehension and is a shocking reminder of the reality of the nuclear threat ... As the global population continues to expand, and the demand for energy production grows, we must invest in alternative and more sustainable sources of energy -- wind, solar, geothermal, hydro -- and widespread conservation and energy efficiency initiatives" ... "While the Chernobyl disaster was accidental, caused by faulty technology and human error, today's disaster could very well be intentional"

A Reconstruction of the Radiaoctive Plume

This is a reconstruction of the Chernobyl radioactive plume by the French Government's official agency on radiation and nuclear matters, the Institut de Radioprotection et Sureté Nucléaire. Source: http://zerodegreeburn.com/chernobyl/

The reconstruction is based on weather patterns for the time period April 26 to May 6 when the fire was burning inside the stricken reactor, and on known Cs-137 measurements.

It is a remarkably graphic illustration of the huge extent of the radioactive contamination of East and West Europe (and eventually the rest of the Northern Hemisphere) by the Chernobyl catastrophe. Link to source with video.

The Chernobyl-25 memorial event

The following quotes a letter from Bellona's office in St Petersburg, Russia about The Chernobyl-25 memorial event. The Bellona Foundation (http://bellona.org/) is an international environmental rights organization that has offices in Oslo, Norway; St. Petersburg and Murmansk, Russia; Brussels, Belgium and Washington, USA. The Chernobyl-25 memorial event is coordinated byBellona's office in St. Petersburg.'' The letter reached us via the Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and Ulla Kloetzer from Women Against Nuclear Power , Finland:

The year 2011 marks the 25th anniversary of the day that affected the lives of millions of people around the world.

On April 26, 1986 the Chernobyl disaster occurred.

We want people to remember once again the immense danger associated with nuclear power plants. We want all the people in the world to remember the Chernobyl disaster. Unfortunately, many people have not even heard about this striking example of the dangers inherent in nuclear energy.

We invite you to join the international event "Chernobyl-25". We urge people around the world to remember the Chernobyl disaster on its 25th anniversary.

What is it about?

First of all, we are looking for partners in the cities, which are located near nuclear power plants all over the world:

http://www.bellona.ru/filearchive/fil_List_of_worlds_nuclear_power_plants.pdf

We suggest that at the time the explosion happened at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (April 26, 01.23,47 Moscow time, time zone UTC +03.00) you light 25 candles on one of the squares of your city in memory of the event.

You can check your time zone and the difference in time zones at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone.

Depending on your wishes and the country in which the event will be held you may adjust the scheduling.

What do you need to do to join the international event "Chernobyl-25"?

1. Inform us of your desire to hold an event in your city by email (chernobyl-25atbellona.ru).

2. Send a press release to local and national media so that as many people as possible can be informed about this event.

3. Organize the event on April 26,

We understand that many NGOs work in countries with nondemocratic regimes. Therefore, we ask that you observe country's laws regarding public functions. If your organization can't participate in the memorial event but you know of another one that might, please feel free to pass this message along.

Remember to check out our Facebook page Chernobyl 25!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chernobyl-25/169839423040473

Over half of world's capital cities join campaign to eliminate nuclear arms

Mikael — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:14:00 +0200

Hiroshima, November 1st 2010 - Mayors for Peace announced

today that 94 new member cities have joined during the month

of October. With Guatemala City, Reykjavik and Yerevan, Mayors

for Peace welcomes three capital cities in its global network

campaigning for the immediate commencement of negotiations

for the establishment of a nuclear weapon free world by 2020.

Mayors for Peace now counts 4,301 members in 149 countries

and regions.

With the capitals of Guatemala, Iceland and Armenia, the network

now counts 98 of the world capital cities (list attached), having

secured the support of 51% of the capital cities in the 192 United

Nations member states. The support includes the cities of Paris,

Beijing, Delhi, London and Moscow in the Nuclear Weapons

States; and Amsterdam, Ankara, Berlin, Brussels and Rome in

the five countries where the US deploys nuclear weapons outside

its territory.

Last month 94 new members (list attached) were welcomed:

Argentina (22), Armenia (1), Austria (9), Chile (1), Colombia (5),

Dominican Republic (3), El Salvador (5), France (8), Ghana (2),

Greece (1), Guatemala (4), Honduras (1), Iceland (1), Italy (1),

Japan (12), Mexico (2), Netherlands (1), Puerto Rico (11), UK (2)

and USA (2).

With its first members in Armenia, El Salvador, Guatemala,

Iceland and Puerto Rico, the network now increases its

membership from 144 to 149 countries and regions. With its

swift growth, Mayors for Peace is without doubt the fastest

growing international network of local governments.

Most of the 94 new members were personally welcomed by Dr.

Tadatoshi Akiba, the Mayor of Hiroshima, during his visit to

Buenos Aires, Argentina, last month. The Mayor of Hiroshima,

the first city to be destroyed by a US nuclear bomb in 1945, is

the President of Mayors for Peace.

Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba also signed an agreement with the

Federation of Latin American Cities, Municipalities and

Associations of local governments (FLACMA) in support of

the campaign to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2020.

FLACMA is the Latin American branch of the United Cities and

Local Governments (UCLG), the world wide organisation of

local governments. FLACMA and Mayors for Peace intend to

establish a close, long-lasting relationship which will be further

developed during a meeting of FLACMA just prior to the 3rd

World Congress of the UCLG in Mexico City November 16 – 21,

2010.

Mayor Akiba also signed an agreement with the Federation of

Argentinian Municipalities (FAM). This is the first agreement

ever between Mayors for Peace and a national association of

local governments. In this initial agreement, FAM calls upon all

Mayors from Argentina to formally join Mayors for Peace and,

as a concrete manifestation of said support, FAM will encourage

local governments from Argentina to make symbolic financial

contributions to the global campaign in solidarity with Hiroshima

and Nagasaki, the two cities that continue to carry the main

financial responsibility for the international campaign.

On November 1st nearly half of the members are from Europe

(2,104 – 48.91%). Asia has the second largest number of

members (1,229 – 28,57%); followed by Latin America and

the Caribbean (371 – 8,62%); North-America (254 – 5,90%);

Africa (229 – 5,32%); and Oceania (114 – 2,65%).

Member cities: http://www.mayorsforpeace.org/english/membercity/map.html

--
Pol Heanna
International Development Director &
Executive Advisor Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation

Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign
Sao Paulo, BRAZIL

E-mail: pol@2020visioncampaign.org
Website: www.2020visioncampaign.org
Skype:poltanner

Confidential EDF documents show serious accident risks with the EPR reactor

Mikael — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:19:00 +0300

On Monday 27 September, the French Nuclear Phase out Network "Sortir du nucléaire" received internal EDF documents, showing that the design and manufacture of the vessel closure head for the EPR in Flamanville could lead to a Tchernobyl-type accident.

Worse still, according to a memo written by the Head of nuclear fuel from EDF in 2001 (1), a Tchernobyl-type accident is possible on all French nuclear reactors. The EPR is also concerned.

Several EDF documents show that the number of welds and the type of steel used in some parts of the reactor vessel at Flamanville EPR may cause leaks. EDF considers that the leaks may, in turn, degenerate into a Tchernobyl-type accident. This type of steel and welds are part of the emergency shutdown system of the EPR and cover 89 points of entry into the reactor vessel.

EDF documents received by the network "Sortir du nucléaire" demonstrate that EDF engineers have designed parts of the vessel closure head for the EPR that not only endanger safety but also knowingly violate French law (2) relating to nuclear facilities under pressure.

For the Network "Sortir du nucléaire", the conclusion is obvious: in spite of all these issues, EDF persists in a policy that sacrifices security for profits! In view of the catastrophic consequences of an accident, this attitude is unimaginable and unforgivable.

Design flaws, increased toxicity of waste, untested technology, vulnerability to attacks (or even cyber-terrorism) ... Before the submission by EDF of a safety report for Flamanville the network "Sortir du nucléaire" wishes to remind everyone about all the problems with this reactor. In France, Finland and elsewhere, it is urgent to put an end to the EPR program and initiate the transition towards a future without nuclear power.

Link to EDF documentation and our detailed analysis (all in french): http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/dossiers/EPR-revelations2.html

More information about all the problems of the EPR:

http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/dossiers/EPR.html

Press Contact

Steven Mitchell: +33 952 495 022

1 Management Activities of Hearts Physics and Fuels, SEPTEN, Andre Berthet (20.12.2001).

2 violations of the decree of 12 December 2005 on nuclear pressure equipment.

Join and /or Support Nuclear Power Plant Blockade in Finland on August 28th!

Mikael — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:21:00 +0300

On the first of July Finnish parliament set a dangerous example to the world by approving the construction of two more nuclear reactors. Four reactors now operate in Finland, two of them in Olkiluoto nuclear power plant (NPP), the fifth reactor (OL3 by Areva-Siemens) is under construction also in Olkiluoto island on Finland's west coast.

We reject and resist the decisions to build new nuclear power plants in Finland!

As a response to these frightening developments the anti-nuclear movement is blocking the roads to the Olkiluoto NPP and construction site. On August 28th, 2010 the Olkiluoto Blockade will take place. The action day was first launched by Nuclear Free Finland, Women for Peace, Action Group for a Nuclear Free Åland, Friends of the Earth Finland and Women against Nuclear Power. By now, 24 groups in have endorsed the action and this number grows daily.

It would be great if your organisation could join the blockade as supporting organisation. We would of course also be extremely happy if people from your organisation attend the blockade.

Unfortunately we cannot cover travel costs to Finland, but we can offer you a free ride on the bus from Helsinki to Olkiluoto and back. Free accommodation is available in Turku and Rauma, and camping places are everywhere!

Read more and find practical information at http://olkiluotoblockade.info/ !

Olkiluoto Blockade: Saturday - August 28, 2010

Mikael — Tue, 25 May 2010 15:57:00 +0300

Shoulder to shoulder the nuclear industry and the Finnish government are on an offensive to push for more nuclear developments in Finland. In the middle of April, just before Chernobyl Day, the Finnish government published their proposal to build two additional nuclear reactors.

Our answer to this unbelievable statement is a blockade of the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) at Olkiluoto on 28th of August 2010 as a signal to show peoples resistance against the rulers irresponsibility.

When corporations and governments act irresponsibly, it becomes our duty to reclaim our own lives and future. On August 28 we will blockade the roads to the Olkiluoto NPP for one day with a colourful diversity of actions - sitting on the road we use our bodies to peacefully block nuclear power.

The Blockade includes a picnic by the road, information events and other actions to make clear that nuclear power is not an option - not in Finland and not anywhere else!

Gordon Edwards answers Juhani Hyvärinen

Mikael — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:30:00 +0200

Commenting upon prof Gordon Edwards' recent visit to Finland, Fennovoima nuclear technology director Juhani Hyvärinen wrote: "In particular, I was amazed when the professor on several occasions openly asked whether Finland at all investigated fuel disposal. A few minutes of googling, not to mention serious information searching, would have given a reply" (See mr Hyvärinen's blog Ydinreaktioita (Nuclear reactions) 10/2/2010) - MB

Gordon Edwards:

In his blog, Juhani Hyvärinen writes that he was interested to know what I had to say about nuclear power and nuclear wastes when I visited Finland – but he never came to any of my talks, nor did he arrange to meet me, nor did he contact me after I returned to Canada. A meeting would have been easy. I had a friendly and fruitful two-hour meeting with officials at the Fortum plant in Loviisa, for example.

Apparently Mr. Hyvärinen has chosen not to follow the procedure he was taught in high school, which is to check the facts from trustworthy sources before making public pronouncements.

Mr. Hyvärinen is clearly misinformed when he says that I asked many times whether Finland has researched the subject of nuclear waste. I never asked this question even once. I know very well what Finland has announced to the world: that it has a geologic repository at Olkiluoto which is ready to receive nuclear waste and to store it permanently and safely there forever.

But surely Mr. Hyvärinen knows there is no scientific methodology available that allows anyone to prove that if radioactive waste is put in one particular place, that it will stay there for the next million years. Scientists who say such things have abandoned science in favor of an almost religious faith that nature – the great recycler – will never succeed in dispersing this waste back into the environment.

The great nobel-prize-winning physicist from Sweden, Hannes Alfvén, wrote about this very problem in 1972. What he said then is still applicable today: “You cannot claim that a problem is solved just by pointing to all the efforts that have been made to solve it.”

Perhaps Mr. Hyvärinen can explain why the United States of America has tried eight times to locate a geologic repository for high level nuclear wastes, and has failed eight times? Perhaps Mr. Hyvärinen can explain to us why Germany has now admitted that it was mistaken when it selected the Aase salt formation as an acceptable repository for high level waste?

I know very well that Finnish engineers have accomplished great things and employ extraordinarily high standards, but is Finland the only country in the world incapable of making a mistake about the so-called “disposal” of high-level radioactive waste? If Finnish experts cannot even accurately predict the cost, or even the time-frame for building the new reactor that is under construction at Olkiluoto, how can they accurately foresee a million years into the future?

On February 14, the Swedish publication Teknik reported that the Swedish Nuclear Waste Council (Kärnavfallsrådet) is now recommending against permanent irretrievable storage of high-level waste, saying that the waste must be retrievable. Are Finnish engineers paying attention? I hope so. Can Fennovoima give us even one example where the human race has successfully disposed of any persistent toxic material? No, it cannot.

In the absence of such examples, and without any scientific definition of what the word “disposal” even means, I share the opinion of the California Energy Resources and Conservation Commission: “Excessive optimism  about the potential  for safe disposal of nuclear wastes  has caused backers of nuclear power  to ignore scientific evidence  pointing to its pitfalls. That's the real crux of what we found --  that you have to weigh scientific evidence  against essentially engineering euphoria.” I would be quite happy to communicate with Mr. Hyvärinen on this and other subjects related to nuclear energy. All he has to do is call me or write me. My e-mail address is ccnr at web dot ca.

Chernobyl news

Mikael — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:56:00 +0200

Chernobyl is leaking radiation and sucking up money. Globe and Mail, the Toronto newspaper, reports:

Almost a quarter-century after its explosion killed hundreds and shocked the world, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor still sits crumbling amid an uninhabitable wasteland in northern Ukraine, still emits surprising amounts of radiation, and still absorbs vast amounts of money.

Much of that money, at least $71-million of it, has come from Canadian taxpayers, intended to pay for a project launched in 1997 under a pledge from leaders of the G-7 countries to enclose the reactor in a permanent, sealed sarcophagus.

It was meant to be finished in eight years and cost $768-million (U.S.), a symbol of a resurgent Ukraine returning to democratic government and an open economy, putting the 1986 disaster permanently in the past.

But in a story of tragic disappointment that exemplifies the web of corruption and distrust that so often ensnares relations between Ukraine and the West, 13 years later the cost of the project has ballooned to almost $2-billion and construction has not even begun.

Read the article by Doug Saunders in Globe and Mail, Tuesday, Feb. 02, 2010.

Tell President Obama: Nuclear Power is Neither Safe Nor Clean

Mikael — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:28:00 +0200

By Michael Mariotte, NIRS Executive Director, January 28, 2010

If you were watching last night's State of the Union address, I'm sure you were as appalled as I was when President Obama suddenly spoke in support of "safe, clean nuclear power" (not to mention support for offshore oil drilling and "clean" coal).

Here, by the way, is the relevant text of Obama's comments last night:

"But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."

Politically, Obama likely was simply parroting the effort being led by Sens. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham to gain support for a climate bill by adding massive subsidies for nuclear power, offshore oil and "clean" coal. But recycling George W. Bush energy talking points is no way to solve the climate crisis or develop a sustainable energy policy.

Please tell President Obama that he's wrong: nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. Write President Obama here:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/? action_KEY=1677

Indeed, Obama knows better. Candidate Obama understood that nuclear power is neither safe nor clean.

Watch this video taken early in his presidential campaign, in which he expresses concern for his daughters growing up in Chicago and surrounded by nuclear reactors.

Barack on Nuclear Energy

In this video, he says he is not a nuclear proponent and speaks out directly against taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power.

We learned just this morning that President Obama's FY 2011 DOE budget will triple the taxpayer loan guarantee program for new reactor construction, to $54 Billion.

The budget is not finalized and not yet submitted. A strong public outcry can still stop this outrage!

Send your letters to President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu here.

Here is a link to a Business Week article confirming the $54 billion figure.

It's not possible to make an inherently dangerous technology "safe," and President Obama should know better.

With radioactive tritium leaks at reactor sites across the country, radioactive waste stored in dry casks with nowhere to go, the ever-present risk of meltdown or terror attack, and sadly deficient new reactor designs, nuclear power remains dirty and dangerous, just as it always has been.

Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

nirsnet ät nirs.org

www.nirs.org

Prognos: Nuclear power losing in importance world-wide

Mikael — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:34:00 +0200

The world-wide renaissance of nuclear power that has so often been predicted will not take place in the next few decades. Nuclear energy will be on the decline till the year 2030, and will continue to decline in importance globally.

This is the conclusion of the Swiss “Prognos” institute based in Basel. Germany’s Federal Agency for Radiation Protection in Salzgitter / Lower Saxony commissioned “Prognos” to carry out a survey on “the renaissance of nuclear energy”. The task was to provide a realistic estimate of the future development of nuclear energy world-wide till the year 2030. The most important results are reproduced below:

No renaissance - nuclear power in decline

The study does not anticipate a renaissance in the use of nuclear energy by the year 2030. On the contrary, shutdowns of aged plants will lead to a decrease in the total number of reactors, and there will be a significant decline in installed capacity and electricity generation from nuclear power plants.

Compared to the reference level of March 2009, the number of nuclear power stations in operation worldwide is likely to decrease by 22% by the year 2020, and by about 29% by the year 2030.

Despite an increase in construction activity of nuclear power stations compared to construction in the last 10 years, the level of the building boom of the 1970s/80s will not be reached again.

Almost 30% fewer nuclear power stations by 2030

Although the number of announcements of new nuclear power stations is on the increase, in the past the ambitious expansion plans – particularly in the USA, but also in other countries – have subsequently not materialized. The study anticipates that about 23% of all the projects announced by ATW, the German ”International Journal for Nuclear Power” for the period until 2020 will be realized, whilst about 35% of the projects announced by the World Nuclear Association (WNA) for the period until 2030 will be realized.

The forecast will be impacted particularly by the assumptions made with respect to the remaining lifetime of existing nuclear power stations and the extent to which the announcements made by China, Russia, the USA, India and Japan are implemented.

If all the projects announced were to be realized, this would mean an increase in construction activity that would overshadow the rapid increase in construction activity at the beginning of the 1970s. This seems extremely unlikely at the present time.

Nuclear energy in decline

Even by comparison to the forecast rapid growth in world-wide electricity consumption, nuclear energy will decline significantly in importance by the year 2030. The percentage of world-wide electricity generation accounted for by nuclear energy will decline from 14.8% in the year 2006 to an estimated 9.1% in the year 2020, and to 7.1% in the year 2030.

Other scenarios – such as the “low” scenario of the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency and the reference scenario of the World Energy Outlook 2008 by the International Energy Agency – also indicate that nuclear energy will have a declining share of world-wide electricity generation. The development of output forecast in this study is most closely aligned with the results of the current “phase out life extension” scenario of the OECD-NEA.

The background: there are currently 436 nuclear power stations in operation, whose average age is already 24 years. The number of reactors has been declining since the year 2002, when there were still 444 reactors connected to the grid. However, many construction projects are now getting bogged down, and work on several of them has been stopped for years. In actual fact, there are only 37 new nuclear reactors currently under construction. This will not be enough to compensate for the decline world-wide.

436 nuclear reactors world-wide

The media have reacted with glee to the completely contrary results arrived at by the "Prognos" researchers compared to the construction boom predicted for nuclear power stations that has never actually come to pass. “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, for instance, gloated: “The mythical renaissance of nuclear power.” Everything has been prepared for the big comeback of nuclear power that will never even take place!

There are plans as far as the eye can see. Poland is looking for a site for a new nuclear power station, possibly not far from the German border. Switzerland is intending to build new reactors. The United Kingdom has invited investors. Italy has overturned its exit from nuclear power, as has Sweden. A new reactor is under construction in Finland, and in France too. Everything seems to have been prepared for the big renaissance of nuclear power. But only in theory. In reality, the role played by reactors will decline over the next few years. Many nuclear projects world-wide are already at a standstill. In view of the growing financing problems and political instability, only a third of the planned new projects will be realized world-wide. At best. And wherever construction is under way, there are also problems, the “Süddeutsche” continues. Many projects that were thought to be dead certs are about to be cancelled.

Read the whole article plus graphs and tables at http://www.wieninternational.at/en/node/16702

The Times: Bitter row throws French nuclear industry into turmoil

Mikael — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:22:00 +0200

Adam Sage, Paris -- The Times, January 19, 2010 - The French nuclear industry is in turmoil as uranium supplies have dried up and the treatment of spent fu el has been blocked amid an increasingly bitter row between the heads of its two main state operators.

EDF, the electricity group that runs 58 reactors in France, said that Areva, the nuclear energy group, had stopped uranium deliveries on January 4 and was refusing to take away spent fuel for reprocessing.

The transport of combustibles isn't working at the moment, Anne Lauvergeon, the chairwoman of Areva, said.

As a result, used fuel is remaining at EDF sites instead of being reprocessed at La Hague treatment plant in northern France.

Quote of the Era

Mikael — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:07:00 +0200

‘Italians have not been able to protect Renaissance art treasures for even as long as one thousand years. Egyptians have not been able to protect the tombs of the Pharaohs for even as long as four thousand years, and some of the graves were looted within centuries. Yet, we in this generation have an obligation to protect our nuclear wastes for more than ten thousand years—a period longer than recorded history.

’It is ironic that we have been civilized for only about 10,000 years, yet we face the task of protecting high-level radwastes, a dangerous and "massive source of potentially valuable energy," in perpetuity. We face the task of storing radionuclides such as plutonium, which has a half-life of 24,000 years, but remains dangerous for more than 250,000 years. We have been separated from the apes for only about 5 million years, yet we face the task of safeguarding iodine-129, which has a half-life of 16 million years but remains dangerous for more than 160 million years. We in the United States have been a nation for only about 200 years, yet we face the task of storing technetium-99 having a half-life of 200,000 years. Given the short span of our experience in handling these materials, how can we deal adequately with long-lived radioactive waste?’

From ‘Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste’ by K. S. Shrader-Frechette.

Blogged 18 January 2010 at http://weblog.greenpeace.org

Grande Banderole "Don't nuke the climate !"

Mikael — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:00:00 +0200

Grande Banderole "Don't nuke the climate !"

On the Nuclear Renaissance in Finland

Mikael — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:58:00 +0300

by Ari Lampinen, Technology for Life, Finland

Finnish INES member organization Technology for Life (TFL) has been active in Finnish nuclear policy issues since its foundation in 1983. TFL took part in the discussions for new nuclear reactors in Finland that took place in mid-1980's, early 1990's and early 2000's. The latter discussion resulted in building a new reactor in addition to the existing 4 reactors built in the 1970s. The Olkiluoto-3 reactor is now under construction as the third reactor of the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant. The project has been proven a financial disaster (Kanter 2009) but, however, three companies have applied for permissions to build 3-4 new nuclear reactors. Government and parliament decisions on these new applications will take place next year.

These Finnish developments have often been quoted as a success story and the beginning of a global renewal of nuclear power. Therefore, it has been seen important to get deeper understanding of the Finnish nuclear power policy available in English. A book titled "The Renewal of Nuclear Power in Finland", written by six Finnish energy researchers, was released by Palgrave-Macmillan in the UK (Kojo & Litmanen 2009). The release event and press conference of the book, where all six authors are

present, will be held at University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science, Unioninkatu 37, 1st floor, on September 15 at 11.00.

Technology for Life is one contributor to the book via my article on the justification arguments given as a substantiation for building the Olkiluoto-3 reactor (Lampinen 2009). Analysis of these arguments may be valuable for future decisions on new nuclear reactors both in Finland and elsewhere.

References:

Kanter J (2009) In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble. New York Times, May 29.

Kojo M & Litmanen T (eds.) (2009) The Renewal of Nuclear Power in Finland. Macmillan, Hampshire, UK, 280 p. <http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=334715>

The Belene nuclear programme must stop immediately

Mikael — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:49:00 +0300

Press Realease from the Mediterranean Antinuclear Watch, Rhodes, Greece 28 April : On 25th April 2009, just one day before the grim 23rd anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the area around the projected location of the Belene nuclear power station in Bulgaria was hit by a 5.3 Richter earthquake. According to the Sofia newsagency there was panic in a number of places while in the nearby towns of Svistov and Nikopol residents stayed out of their houses for over an hour. The epicenter of the earthquake was the same as that of the 1977 earthquake that killed 120 people and destroyed over 2/3 of the buildings in Svistov. .

This earthquake represents yet another warning to the Bulgarian government and those who are responsible for financing the construction of this power station. What is striking is that 3 days before the earthquake (22-04-09) at the general meeting of the shareholders of the German RWE company that has undertaken to finance 49% of the project, with a view to calming the anxieties of shareholders, the Chief Executive Officer of RWE Jurgen Grossman announced for the first time that the company will carry out studies on the seismicity of the area.

"Such an announcement is a confession of the irresponsibility with which the construction of this power station is being promoted. Seismicity studied should have been conducted at the beginning of the programme, not now when planning is almost complete and the procedure of issuance of permits is under way," commented the President of the Mediterranean Antinuclear Watch Thanassis Anapolitanos. .

It is worth noting that not only ecological organizations are expressing anxiety. As emerges from the press release of the German Urgewald Organization, at the RWE shareholders' meeting there were considerable numbers of people disapproving of the financing of the Belene project. Most characteristic is the deposition of the Union Investment Group, which owns 4.5. million shares in RWE, which said, among much else: "Participating in the construction of this power station is an act of irresponsibility. It is incomprehensible that the management of RWE should be associating itself with this time bomb."

Let us not forget that in relation to Belene the man who was for many years President of the Bulgarian Atomic Energy Commission Dr. George Katsiev gave an interview in Brussels in which he appealed to the Commission not to approve the project on the grounds of high risk, an appeal which was not heeded. Let us not forget either that two months ago the French energy colossus SUEZ withdrew from financing the Belene project.

In response to these developments the Mediterranean Antinuclear Watch:

1. Notes that the Greek government is obliged, on the basis of the existing international Espoo Convention, which has been signed by Greece and Bulgaria, to demand all the data on the Belene project and to do precisely what is prescribed and imposed by this Convention.

2. Emphasizes the need for rejection of any possible notion of the Greek Public Power Company and/or other relevant bodies being involved in financing this dangerous project. The statement by the Minister for Development on Thursday 23rd April that the subject has not been officially raised by Bulgarian but that the government will take a position if the matter should come up for discussion, is revealing.

3. We ask the \Greek government to give an undertaking that it will not import electricity produced by nuclear reactors and will take political initiatives to prevent the installation of new nuclear power stations in our region.

The Crash of France's Nuclear Poster Child

Mikael — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:01:00 +0200

By HARVEY WASSERMAN

Counterpunch March 19, 2009

The myth of a successful nuclear power industry in France has melted into financial chaos.

With it dies the corporate-hyped poster child for a "nuclear renaissance" of new reactor construction that is drowning in red ink and radioactive waste.

Areva, France's nationally-owned corporate atomic façade, has plunged into a deep financial crisis led by a devastating shortage of cash.

Electricite de France, the French national utility, has been raided by European Union officials charging that its price-fixing may be undermining competition throughout the continent.

Delays and cost overruns continue to escalate at Areva's catastrophic Olkiluoto reactor construction project in Finland. Areva has admitted to a $2.2 billion, or 55%, cost increase in the Finnish building site after three and a half years. The Flamanville project---the only one now being built in France---is already over $1 billion more expensive than projected after a single year under construction.

In 2008, France's nuclear power output dropped 0.1%, while wind generation rose more than 37%.

Attempts to build new French reactors in the US are meeting stiffened resistance.

And the definitive failure of America's Yucca Mountain nuke waste dump mirrors France's parallel inability to deal with its own radioactive trash.

Widely portrayed as the model of corporate success, reactor-builder Areva is desperately short of money. As it begs a bailout from its dominant owner, the French government, Areva's mismanagement and overextension in promoting and building new reactors has wrecked its image in worldwide capital markets. According to Mycle Schneider, Paris-based author of "Nuclear Power in France---Beyond the Myth," Areva shares have plunged by over 60% since June 2008, twice as much as the CAC40, the standard indicator of the 40 largest French companies on the stock market.

Areva's hyper-active public relations department has made much of recent orders to build two new reactors in China. But it's now begging France's taxpayers for some $4 billion in short term bailout money, and may need still another $6 billion more to pay for investments in uranium mines, fuel production and heavy manufacturing ventures.

Areva will also need more than 2 billion Euros (about US$3 billion) to buy back shares in its nuke reactor unit after Germany's Siemens pulled out of a joint venture. There have been significant, highly-publicized bumps in the Chinese transaction. And Areva may now be forced to pony up billions more in penalties from delays and overruns at its reactor construction fiasco in Finland.

The Finnish government will also have to meet additional costs from trading in carbon emissions because it had firmly counted on the new reactor to supply "green" power as of this year. Olkiluoto is now not expected to deliver electricity before 2012.

Areva's woes have caused French President Nicolas Sarkozy to face possible job cuts and asset sales at the government-controlled energy giant, which was formed in 2001.

China's two-reactor order includes a promise from Areva to supply up to 20 years worth of nuclear fuel. Areva also hopes to sell at least seven reactors in the US, but these plans are meeting stiff resistance. Complex ownership and licensing battles have erupted at Constellation Energy, meant to be the conduit for two new reactors in Maryland. Ratepayer revolts in Florida and Missouri have arisen over plans to force the public to pay for new reactors as they are being built. Electric rates in the Sunshine State have already begun to soar due to proposed nuke construction, prompting an angry grassroots upheaval.

The potential American reactor market has also been bloodied by the definitive disposal of the proposed high level dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. After decades as the centerpiece of America's "solution" to the nuke waste problem, with at least $10 billion spent on it, Yucca's failure underscores France's own waste dilemma.

The French reprocessing center at La Hague has come under widespread attack for its massive radiation discharges into the English Channel and surrounding atmosphere. The plant has produced over nine thousand containers of extremely high level wastes with no safe place to go. Its by-product of plutonium has complicated global attempts to curb the spread of radioactive materials capable of being turned into nuclear bombs.

In addition to the reprocessing wastes, without a permanent repository of its own, France's 58 reactors have also accumulated over ten thousand tons of spent fuel rods, as the 104 units in the US constantly generate.

Areva says it hopes to raise cash by selling part of a uranium enrichment plant under construction in southern France to Japan's Kansai Electric. Other asset sales may be hampered by slumping market values. Areva also hopes to partner with US weapons builder Northrop Grumman to build heavy reactor equipment in Virginia.

But on March 11, European Union regulators raided EdF offices because "suspected illegal conduct may include actions to raise prices on the French wholesale electricity market." The stunning action against the massive conglomerate, which is 84.8% owned by the French government, could result in huge fines.

The EU says EdF may have manipulated prices and redrawn contracts for some 60 key corporate users. Nuke backers constantly tout that close to 80% of France's electricity comes from reactors whose power flows through EdF. But Areva's cash shortage and EdF's price-fixing scandal underscore the huge financial imbalances imposed by building and operating atomic reactors. According to Schneider, "EDF's shares dropped by over 40% during the last six months alone. When management in February 2009 announced that larger than expected charges had corroded profits, share value dropped by 7% overnight and continued to fall since. The EDF share now stands 12% below the value when it was first introduced to the stock market in November 2005. Not really a brilliant investment."

EdF and Areva are at the core of what has been labeled as the global "nuclear renaissance." Their escalating money problems underscore an epic failure that has been a significant factor in the current global economic crisis. After a half- century of massive government subsidies in the US, UK, France and elsewhere, atomic energy still staggers under an unsustainable load of high construction costs and uncompetitive prices for the electricity it generates.

EdF's recent $17.5 billion takeover of nuke utility British Energy came with a warning from EdF officials that England's commitment to wind turbines could undermine the future of nuclear power. The statement evoked widespread astonishment and scorn from the environmental community.

In the financial community, concerns still linger over the half-trillion-dollar (and still climbing) cost of the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl. The instant $900 million conversion of the "asset" at Three Mile Island into an epic liability occurred 30 years ago this month. (The conversion of Michigan's Fermi I reactor at Monroe into a $100 million molten mess happened October 5, 1966).

The costs from the earthquake last year that crippled seven reactors at Japan's Kashiwazaki are still rising. The failure of Yucca Mountain has converted billions of dollars in utility and taxpayer investments into pure waste. Growing grassroots movements in Vermont and elsewhere threaten to cut off license extensions and shut American reactors at which decommissioning funds have been slashed by the collapse of US investment funds.

The argument that atomic energy provides an answer for global warming turned to a deep embarrassment in France when reactors were forced to shut during the summer heat because they were raising river temperatures far beyond legal limits. In another case, a reactor containment had to be sprayed in order to cool it back to operational temperatures. Similar shutdowns came at a reactor in Alabama.

But as massive cost overruns and delays continue to escalate at Areva's showpiece reactor construction fiasco in Finland, the industry clamors for unlimited access to taxpayer funds. The surging stream of atomic failure continues to guarantee that private investors will favor green technologies like solar, wind and efficiency.

Thus in France, as elsewhere, the "nuclear renaissance" may be still-born. In 2007, world nuclear electricity generation dropped by an unprecedented 2%. According to Schneider, in 2008, for the first time in nuclear power history, no new reactor was connected to the grid anywhere on Earth.

As Schneider's "Nuclear Power in France---Beyond the Myth" points out, after 35 years of nuclear power development, the French "nuclear dreamland" gets only 16% of its final energy from nuclear power. Commissioned by the Greens-EFA Group in the European Parliament (Brussels, December, 2008) , Schneider's report shows that despite its huge nuclear commitment, almost half of France's energy consumption still comes from oil.

In fact, says Schneider, "the wasteful nature of the French economy and households leads to a higher per capita consumption of oil than in Germany, Italy, the UK or even the EU on average.

"Those who think that nuclear power would be a cheap and clean way to render the US less dependent on oil should have a close look at the French record."

At the French heart of its "renaissance," the nuclear clock is winding down, not up. Time is running out for a radioactive technology that, after fifty years, remains unable to muster a sustainable level of private financing, shows no real promise of ever paying for itself, and has now plunged into deepening financial chaos.

Harvey Wasserman, a co-founder of Musicians United for Safe Energy, is editing the nukefree.org web site. He is the author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030, is at www.solartopia.org. He can be reached at: Windhw@aol.com

Stop MOX Shipment

Mikael — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:33:00 +0200

Joint Appeal issued by Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (Tokyo),
Green Action (Kyoto ) and Greenpeace Japan

NGOs in Japan Call for Japanese Government and Utilities to Terminate Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Shipments from Europe to Japan,
Call for En Route Countries to Join in Ending Shipments

Contact: *Green Action (Aileen Mioko Smith), CNIC (Philip White)

Cartoon by Shoji Takagi

For immediate release.

5 March 2009, Tokyo/Kyoto, Japan---- Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Green Action and Greenpeace Japan appealed to the Japanese Government to stop the world's largest ever shipment of weapons-useable plutonium due to leave France for Japan on March 6, 2009.

The shipment, due to depart from the port of Cherbourg on British-flagged vessels, contains approximately 1.7 metric tons of plutonium contained in 65 assemblies of MOX (mixed plutonium and uranium oxide) fuel. The fuel, made from plutonium separated from Japanese spent fuel, which was shipped to the French state-owned Areva NC¹ for reprocessing, is destined for nuclear power plants of three Japanese electric utilities, Kyushu, Chubu, and Shikoku Electric Power Companies.

This shipment is part of Japan's failed attempt to utilize plutonium in its nuclear power program². The program, originally designed to commercialise plutonium-producing fast breeder reactors, has been in development for over 50 years costing trillions of yen and yet Japan's plutonium program produces no electricity, lights not a single light bulb.

Japanese electric utilities hope the fuel to be shipped will start its troubled MOX fuel utilization program. If begun, many more shipments will follow as Japan holds about 38 tons of plutonium in Europe, continuing to put the en route countries at risk.

This shipment is a threat to the security, safety, and environment of countries on the route of the shipment. There is no emergency contingency plan made in consultation with maritime authorities of en route states. The shipment lacks an adequate liability and compensation regime, and there is no commitment to salvage the material if it goes overboard.

In 1992, 1999 and 2001, shipments between Europe and Japan containing plutonium were heavily protested by en route countries and ignored by the Japanese Government. Not one atom of the plutonium in those shipments has been used in Japan due to nuclear power plant accidents, data falsification scandals, and Japanese local opposition to MOX fuel use.

According to the Japanese Government and the Ministry of Transport, Land and Infrastructure (MLIT), the utilities are responsible for safety of the MOX fuel transport; "We've told [the Japanese electric utilities] time and time again that they should put more effort into the safety of sea transports, just like they put into the safety of their nuclear power plants." (Section Chief Masato Mori, 13 February 2009 at Diet member briefing. Mr. Mori is the official responsible for the transport cask safety at MLIT.) MLIT says the effort by Japanese electric utilities is not sufficient.

Security for the journey from Europe to Japan will be considerably less extensive than the security provided for the plutonium fuel over the two nights of 4 and 5 March for the 20-kilometer land trip between the Areva reprocessing site in La Hague and the Cherbourg port.

The MOX shipment's transport casks are only required to withstand the following in sequence: a 9-meter drop, 800 degree Celsius fire for 30 minutes, immersion underwater at 15 meters for 8 hours, followed by immersion under water for 200 meters for 1 hour, without a nuclear chain reaction ("criticality") occurring.

Twenty Japanese national Diet members, including prominent members of the leading opposition party signed a letter addressed to MLIT on 26 January 2009, stating that the shipment should not go forward without meeting Japanese Government regulations. At issue was insufficient testing to assure the MOX fuel will not "go critical" under accident conditions. Disregarding Diet members' concerns and the Ministry's own concerns, MLIT rushed through the approval just hours after the initial 15 Diet signatures were submitted.

Notes to Editors:

1. The state-owned French nuclear company Areva, which fabricated the MOX fuel to be transported has misrepresented the proliferation threat posed by commercial plutonium contained in this and other MOX fuel. On 2 March, the Platts trade newsletter reported our letter sent to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei calling on ElBaradei to "remind Areva and the governments involved in the upcoming shipment of the security risks their nuclear programs pose to the world (Platts Nuclear News Flashes, Monday, March 2, 2009).

2. To date, commercialization of the fast breeder has been delayed 10 times (a total delay of 80 years) with the target date for commercialization set back to 2050. Commercial start up of the recently constructed 2.3 trillion yen Rokkasho reprocessing plant has been delayed 16 times and its future is uncertain due to serious technical problems with the plant. The MOX program planned to start in 1999 has been delayed due to nuclear accidents, data falsification scandals, and local citizen opposition.

Nuclear Nightmare

Mikael — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:59:00 +0200

Saddam Hussein keeps asking

What time is it? What is the time?

It 's winter here in Florence

A woman in a hotel room is screaming

Her man commits her suicide

Don't Nuke the Climate

Mikael — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:15:00 +0200

Call to endorse the following position

Don't nuke the climate:

Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) - Greenpeace International - International Forum on Globalization (IFG) - World Information Service on Energy (WISE) - Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) - Friends of the Earth International (FOEi) - Ecodefense! need your support;

Nuclear Power Has No Place in the Kyoto Protocol Financial Mechanisms: It's a Dangerous Obstacle to Climate Change

If you agree that options to include nuclear power in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) should be removed.

(From Agenda Item 3a of the Accra Conclusions of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol: Item I-D, Option 2 in the CDM and Item II-B, Option 2 in the JI)

Send and email to wiseamster@antenna.nl to let us know.

Include the name of the organisation and contact name. On December 2 the list will be published and presented to the negotiators at the COP/Climate Conference in Poznan, Poland.

And forward this mail to your networks - not only those working on nuclear power solely!!

==

Below the full text of the statement http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/special/

Nuclear Power contradicts Clean Development The nuclear industry is using the issue of climate change and energy supply as a vehicle to win political and financial support for its dirty and dying sector. Even a massive, four-fold expansion of nuclear power by 2050 would provide only marginal reductions (4%) in greenhouse gas emissions, when we need global emissions to peak at 2015 and 50 - 80% cuts by 2050.

Nuclear energy's 'contribution' to fighting climate change would come too late (long after 2020), with huge costs (US$ 10 trillion) and would create a myriad of other serious hazards related to accidents, waste and proliferation. These large costs and negative impacts make nuclear energy an obstacle to the necessary development of effective, clean and affordable energy sources - both in developing and industrialised countries.

Activities related to nuclear power must not be allowed to become eligible for the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms in order to avoid:

Undermining climate protection by wasting time and taking resources away from more effective and clean solutions;
Dumping this expensive and unsafe technology on developing countries who would be landed with the associated economic and environmental impacts (accumulation of massive financial debts, increased dependency on foreign fuel and technologies, increased risk from reactor accidents and contamination); and
Decreasing global security as volumes of nuclear waste with no safe methods of disposal increase massively and both nuclear materials and technologies are spread. Nuclear power is not only expensive and slow to develop, it would provide only a marginal contribution to carbon mitigation

The OECD International Energy Agency's (IEA) Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 Blue Map scenario1 assesses what energy mix could achieve a 50% reduction in carbon emission by 2050. The agency assumes a four-fold increase of nuclear power generation, from today's 2,600 TWh/year to 9,900 TWh/year in 2050. But this would only reduce CO2 emissions from the energy sector by 6% (around 4 % of overall greenhouse gases).

Even getting to this 6% would require unprecedented rates of growth, sustained over four decades. The nuclear industry would have to build an average of 32 large (1,000 MWe) nuclear reactors every year from now until 2050. Compare this with the last decade's average where the nuclear industry added 3000MW of new capacity a year. In the 1980's, the decade of the industry's fastest growth, it built an average of 17,000 MW a year2 - still only half the rate needed to realise the IEA's Blue Map scenario. But the IEA believes we can build 32,000MW capacity every year from now to 2050.

Then there's the cost. Moody's3 currently estimates the investment cost for new reactors at USD 7,500 USD/kW. Assuming this, the required 1,400 large new reactors would cost around USD 10,500 billion - and this is only the upfront investment.

While nuclear power presents itself as the largest carbon free energy source, its potential role in carbon mitigation is very limited and is simply not worth taking, given all its risks and costs.

Nuclear energy's massive problems and risks remain unsolved Even today, running at one-tenth of the hypothetically required construction speed, the nuclear industry is struggling with serious problems and has hit many bottlenecks:

Massive technical problems and ever-rising costs have affected attempts to build new reactor units, for example both of the French EPR units - in Finland and France - have experienced years of delays and billions in cost overruns already.4
Capacity to produce reactor components is limited to only several pieces a year and are only produced by half a dozen corporations in a handful of countries.5
Shortages in uranium supplies to fuel the existing fleet of reactors; the annual consumption reached 69,000 tonnes of uranium in 2007, compared to an annual production of just 41,300 tonnes in 2007.6 The world's proven and reasonably assured uranium resources would only be able to cover current consumption for a few decades and, as they deplete, carbon emissions from the nuclear fuel chain would rise significantly.7
A crunch for raw materials, because of the high demand for large volumes of steel and concrete.
Negative health effects of ionising radiation. Recently published peer-reviewed research found statistically high incidence of childhood leukaemia in the close vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany8 and the US9.
Dangerous impacts of uranium mining and milling threatens the lands, communities and health of Indigenous Peoples, many of whom (in Canada, the US, Africa, India and Australia, inter alia) continue to protest the extraction of uranium on or near their homelands and territories
Lack of qualified engineers, inspectors and personnel to safely manage and oversee operations at the current scale.
Long lead-times for projects. It takes 10 to 15 years, even in countries with developed related infrastructure, to plan, approve, site and build a new reactor, not to mention bringing it online. It would take even longer in countries that are just starting their nuclear programmes.
No safe disposal method for radioactive wastes that reactors have already produced, despite decades of research and money spent. In the past five years, the estimated costs of radioactive waste disposal grew by USD 40 billion in United States10 and by GBP 27 billion in the United Kingdom,11 with no guarantees that safe storage, at the end of the day, is really possible.
Growing proliferation problems: As stockpiles of separated plutonium increase, nuclear technologies and materials spread to new countries. International safeguards are under-resourced and structurally weak. It is only a question of time before they become accessible to terrorist groups. One large reactor can produce 200 kgs of plutonium every year - enough for two dozen nuclear weapons.

All these factors raise additional scepticism about the actual potential of nuclear power to really mitigate greenhouse gases on any useful scale and within a reasonable timeframe.

Nuclear power steals "time and money" that would be better invested in energy efficiency and renewable technologies Expensive, dirty and hazardous nuclear power stands in the way of clean and sustainable solutions. It could take USD10 trillion or more to build enough reactors to produce 9,900 TWh of "nuclear electricity" as projected under the International Energy Agency (IEA) 2008 "Blue Map" scenario.

Building enough wind farms to produce the same amount of electricity, for example, would cost USD 6 trillion at current prices, for a savings of USD 4 trillion. And, these costs would decrease over time.

Wind power has no associated fuel costs and does not require expensive dismantling of its power plant at the end of its life and long term disposal of radioactive waste as is required in the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant. Other calculations show that, compared to nuclear, wind power at today's costs replaces twice as much carbon per invested dollar and energy efficiency measures three to six times more.12

Even the IEA's 2008 Blue Map scenario itself shows that, while massive nuclear expansion reduces carbon emissions from the energy sector by 6%, the potential of renewable energy sources is around four times greater, and the potential of energy efficiency six times greater. It is clear by these numbers which technology deserves the priority for investment.

Lastly is the issue of time. Energy efficiency measures can be implemented in months. A wind farm can be planned and built in one year. Nuclear reactors take one to two decades to plan and build.

Every dollar invested in nuclear power means a dollar less invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources - sources that can not only replace several times more carbon for the same cost, but also achieve the desired carbon reduction more rapidly.

Renewable energy sources can easily provide power to remote areas with underdeveloped infrastructure and can be implemented quickly while supporting local job development.

In contrast, large nuclear power plants are often not compatible with established grids and infrastructure in developing countries. Various institutions have recently warned developing countries against unrealistic expectations from nuclear energy plans.

"You should go for it [renewable energy]. It is cheaper than investing in nuclear development." 13 - Ferran Tarradellas Espuny, spokesman for the EU Energy Commissioner, speaking about renewable energy projects in South East Asia.

"Nuclear energy is not the panacea for tackling global warming. Even if you set aside the problem of long-term waste storage and the danger of operator accident and the vulnerability to terrorist attack, you still have two others that are more difficult. The first problem is one of economics.....The second is nuclear weapons proliferation. For eight years when I was in the White House, every problem of weapons proliferation was connected to a reactor program." - Al Gore, Former Vice President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, 2007

Our Conclusion: Too little, too late, too expensive, and just too dangerous: Nuclear power is not a suitable answer to climate change and should be removed as an investment option for the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation strategies

References:
1. International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008
(Paris: IEA, 2008)
2. International Atomic Energy Agency's PRIS database,
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html
3. New Nuclear Generating Capacity - Potential Credit Implications for
U.S. Investor Owned Utilities, Moody's Corporate Finance, May 2008
4. Nucleonics Week, Platts, 4 September 2008; Detailed briefings and
references at http://www.greenpeace.org
5. Platts Nucleonics Week publications; Nuclear Engineering
International; http://www.areva.com
6. See World Nuclear Association, online:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html
7. Benjamin Sovacool, "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear
power" (2008) 36 Energy Policy 2940.
8. Spix C et al, Case-control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity
of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980- 2003, European Journal of
Cancer (December 2007)
9. Joseph Mangano, Janette D. Sherman: Childhood Leukaemia Near Nuclear
Installations, European Journal of Cancer Care No 4Vol 17, July 2008
10. Platts, Nuclear Fuel, 11 August 2008.
11. Guardian, online:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/18/nuclearpower.energy
12. Amory Lovins, The Nuclear Illusion, May 2008.
13. http://www.bangkokpost.com/121008_News/12Oct2008_news08.php

--

Groene Stroom? Ja Graag! campagne
World Information Service on Energy - WISE Amsterdam
Postbus 59636
Bezoekers: Ketelhuisplein 43)
1040 LC Amsterdam
T: 020-6126368
F: 020-6892179
E: wisegreen@antenna.nl
W: http://www.groenestroomjagraag.nl
of http://www.antenna.nl/wise (Engels)

Areva starts major excavation in Finland without ministry permit

Mikael — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:53:00 +0200

(Lauri Myllyvirta - Greenpeace Finland - Friday, November 21, 2008) The main Finnish daily Helsingin Sanomat and state broadcaster YLE report that "Areva has suddenly started massive excavation" in Northern Finland. Areva has sought a uranium prospecting permit for the area but its application still being processed by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Areva accuses the ministry of slowing down the process by organizing public hearings, insisting that the public should only be heard when they apply for a permit to open an actual mine and as a part of the associated EIA process.

Legally the situation is unclear since the landowners do not object to the excavation. A new mining law is in the pipeline but not yet in effect and it will require a public hearing before prospecting permit.

The ministry has already changed its practices to comply with this new regulation. In any case this really shows that Areva thinks Finland is a French colony and a lot of people are going to be pissed of, including the ministry officials.

Reports from Castor resistance

Mikael — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:33:00 +0200

Hi M, we wrote some articles on Indymedia while the Castor resistance happened. If these ones are useful, take them! If you would expect something else to be reported, please tell me.

Students' Demonstration in Lüchow:

Castor: Ralley Monte Göhrde:

Castor: Welcoming International Guests:

16 000 Gather to protest against Castor:

Castor: Blockades on the Tracks by Harlingen:

Castor: Big Blockade in Gorleben removed:

talk soon