Likes Alter energy

Grist reports that french nuclear power company EDF has decided that it is better to pursue renewable energy in the US rather than bating a dead horse - Big nuke company decides renewables are a better bet in the U.S..

The world’s largest operator of nuclear power plants is dumping its stake in American reactors, turning its focus instead to wind and solar power. French utility company EDF announced this week that it will sell its stake in Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG), which operates five nuclear reactors in New York and Maryland.

EDF cited cheap power produced by fracked natural gas as the big reason why it’s abandoning its American nuclear facilities. But the company said it will now focus its American business strategy not on fossil fuels but on renewable energy.

The Business Spectator has an article on French plans to wind down nuclear power in favour of renewables - French carbon tax, feed-in tariff reform and CCS on horizon.

Germany’s neighbour France is also looking to shake up how it supports renewables as the country begins its “energy transition” away from nuclear.

France will introduce a carbon tax and a law to cap nuclear-power capacity as part of a new energy bill next year to boost renewable generation, President Francois Hollande told an environment conference last week. Hollande has vowed to reduce reliance on nuclear to half of total output by about 2025 while also keeping down consumers’ bills.

Among other things, the energy law in 2014 will define how renewables are financed. Hollande said last week that the above-market guaranteed prices currently paid to green energy producers “can lead to a waste of public funds, profit-taking and speculative behaviour.” Bloomberg New Energy Finance expects the shift in renewable support may move towards a greater use of tenders to keep costs low.

The New York Times reports that Japans Prime Minister during the Fukushima disaster thinks the country should completely abandon nuclear power - Japan’s Former Leader Condemns Nuclear Power.

In an unusually stark warning, Japan’s prime minister during last year’s nuclear crisis told a parliamentary inquiry on Monday that the country should discard nuclear power as too dangerous, saying the Fukushima accident had pushed Japan to the brink of “national collapse.”

In testimony to a panel investigating the government’s handling of the nuclear disaster, the former prime minister, Naoto Kan, also warned that the politically powerful nuclear industry was trying to push Japan back toward nuclear power despite “showing no remorse” for the accident. ...

In his testimony, Mr. Kan said that Japan’s plant safety was inadequate because energy policy had been hijacked by the “nuclear village” — a term for the power companies and pronuclear regulators and researchers that worked closely together to promote the industry. He said the only way to break their grip was to form a new regulatory agency staffed with true outsiders, like American and European experts.

“Gorbachev said in his memoirs that the Chernobyl accident exposed the sicknesses of the Soviet system,” Mr. Kan said, referring to the 1986 explosion of a reactor in Ukraine, which spewed radiation across a wide swath of Europe. “The Fukushima accident did the same for Japan.” ...

He complained that nuclear regulators and the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power, or Tepco, kept him in the dark about crucial details in the days immediately after a huge earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, knocked out cooling systems at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, causing three of the plant’s reactors to melt down.

He said he tried to be fully open with the public and hid nothing. But he seemed to undermine that claim when he disclosed that in the early days of the crisis he feared it could spiral out of control, even as his own ministers were giving public reassurances that they had the plant under control.

He said he feared additional meltdowns could “release into the air and sea many times, no, many dozens of times, many hundreds of times the radiation released by Chernobyl.”

Those fears led to the most extraordinary moment of the crisis, when Mr. Kan walked into Tepco’s headquarters after being told the company wanted to evacuate its staff from the crippled plant. He demanded that they stay, saying he was prepared to put his own life on the line to prevent the disaster from worsening.

He also defended his visit to the plant on the day after the earthquake, which has been widely criticized for distracting plant personnel at a crucial juncture in their efforts to save the overheating reactors. Mr. Kan told the panel that he wanted to get an assessment directly from the plant manager because he felt Tepco officials in Tokyo were not giving him enough information.

But his strongest comments came at the end of his testimony, when a panel member asked if he had any advice for the current prime minister. Mr. Kan replied that the accident had brought Japan to the brink of evacuating metropolitan Tokyo and its 30 million residents, and that the loss of the capital would have paralyzed the national government, leading to “a collapse of the nation’s ability to function.”

He said the prospect of losing Tokyo made him realize that nuclear power was just too risky, that the consequences of an accident too large for Japan to accept.

“It is impossible to ensure safety sufficiently to prevent the risk of a national collapse,” Mr. Kan said. “Experiencing the accident convinced me that the best way to make nuclear plants safe is not to rely on them, but rather to get rid of them.”

The currently dominant fossil fuels are thought by many scientists to be the main culprits behind the climate change and global warming. If world really wants to tackle climate change it needs to move away from fossil fuels and focus more on other energy sources such as renewable energy and nuclear energy. This article will discuss which of these two is the better solution for climate change-renewable energy or nuclear?

Renewable energy certainly seems like the better solution than building more nuclear power plants, and this is not just because of the recent Fukushima accident. The accidents such as Fukushima and Chernobyl are rare but when they occur they are usually accompanied by massive environmental damage which is usually long-lasting, and difficult to clean up.

Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to be built because they need to comply with number of different safety measures and also because they are technologically complex. Even choosing site for nuclear power station is very difficult because communities usually oppose having plant nearbye. Renewable energy technologies have been constantly dropping in prices, and its only matter of time before wind and solar become cost-competitive with fossil fuels, in fact if you calculate the total damage in environmental, social and health costs due to climate change and pollution then renewable energy is already better in terms of costs than fossil fuels.

The technologies used for nuclear power generation could be also used for the development of nuclear weaponry, and we must also not discount the possibility of terrorist attack, just imagine what could happen if some radical terrorist organization would take over the nuclear power plant.

Clean energy race is well on, and all countries of the world have been seriously considering their renewable energy options, in order to choose the one best suited for them. In many countries future nuclear power development has been pretty much abandoned and the golden age of nuclear power generation seems to be well behind us.

In the last 10-15 years, from 2000 upwards global renewable energy capacity has more than doubled. In 2012, in United States, renewable energy accounted for 56% of new electricity generation.

It would be wrong to say that we should abandon nuclear energy straight away because nuclear energy accounts to significant share of electricity generation in many countries of the world. The solution is to focus primarily on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind when discussing our energy future. Nuclear power had a pretty good run, and once current nuclear power plants end their lifetime we should consider replacing them with some of various renewable energy solutions.

The ABC has a post on the bizarrely (but not atypically, as it usually reads like a nuclear PR outlet) biased commentary coming out of Barry Brooks "Brave New Climate" on the Fukushima nuclear disaster - Experts protect a nuclear interest.

How have Australian scientists handled the difficult task of keeping us informed about the unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan?

The first thing to note is that precious few Australian scientists have featured in the media. The most prominent have been Professor Aidan Byrne from the Australian National University, RMIT Chancellor Dr Ziggy Switkowski, and Professor Barry Brook from Adelaide University.

A clear pattern is evident − those with the greatest ideological attachment to nuclear power have provided the most inaccurate commentary.

The best of the bunch has been Byrne. He has presented the facts as he understands them and has willingly acknowledged major information gaps.

Switkowski has been gently spinning the issue, repeatedly reassuring us that lessons will be learned, improvements will be made. However, history shows that nuclear lessons are not properly learned. The OECDs Nuclear Energy Agency notes that lessons may be learned but too often they are subsequently forgotten, or they are learned but by the wrong people, or they are learned but not acted upon. The Nuclear Energy Agency says the pattern of the same type of accident recurring time and time again at different nuclear plants needs to be "much improved".

The situation in Japan illustrates the point − it has become increasingly obvious over the past decade that greater protection against seismic risks is necessary, but the nuclear utilities havent wanted to spend the money and the Japanese nuclear regulator and the government havent forced the utilities to act.

Brook is a strident nuclear power advocate and host of the bravenewclimate.com blog, which has received an astonishing 500,000 web hits since the crisis in Japan began.

Brook has egg on his face. Make that an omelette. He has maintained a running commentary in the media and on his website insisting that the situation is under control and that there is no reason for concern.

His message remained unchanged even as it was revealed that efforts to cool the nuclear reactor cores were meeting with mixed success, even as deliberate and uncontrolled radiation releases occurred, even as the outer containment buildings exploded, even as 200,000 people were being evacuated, even as a fire led to spent nuclear fuel releasing radiation directly to the environment, and even as radiation monitors detected alarming jumps in radioactivity near the reactor and low levels of radiation as far away as Tokyo.

On Saturday Brook came out swinging, insisting that: "There is no credible risk of a serious accident".

Phew. That afternoon, after the first explosion at Fukushima, Brook made numerous assertions, most of which turned out to be wrong: "The risk of meltdown is extremely small, and the death toll from any such accident, even if it occurred, will be zero. There will be no breach of containment and no release of radioactivity beyond, at the very most, some venting of mildly radioactive steam to relieve pressure. Those spreading FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong ... but I wont be. The only reactor that has a small probability of being finished is unit one. And I doubt that, but it may be offline for a year or more."

On Saturday night, Brook asserted that: "When the dust settles, people will realise how well the Japanese reactors − even the 40 year old one − stood up to this incredibly energetic earthquake event." The dust is (hopefully) settling and it seems likely that four reactors will be write-offs.

On Sunday morning, Brook said of the unfolding disaster: "I dont see the ramifications of this as damaging at all to nuclear powers prospects" and that "it will provide a great conversation starter for talking intelligently to people about nuclear safety."

But Fukushima will likely prove a great conversation starter for talking intelligently to people about nuclear hazards. Not recommended at parties.

On Sunday afternoon, Brook was congratulating himself on his just the facts approach in media interviews. He pondered: "What has this earthquake taught us? That its much, much riskier to choose to live next to the ocean than it is to live next to a nuclear power station."

Well, the lesson for people in Fukushima is that if you live next to the ocean and next to a nuclear power station, then youre really stuffed.

On Monday, when the second explosion at Fukushima occurred, Brook was still insisting that "the nuclear reactors have come through remarkably well". On Monday evening, half a dozen people were banned from posting comments directly on Brooks website. True, some of their comments were silly and unhelpful, but by that criterion Brook ought to have banned himself.

On Tuesday, with a fire at Fukushima spewing long-lived radioisotopes directly into the environment, Brook was rallying the pro-nuclear lobby, arguing that "now, more than ever, we must stand up for what we believe is right" while introducing a guest web post by someone who announced that Japan gets electricity "from y nuclear reactors at z locations".

But cracks were starting to emerge by Tuesday night, with Brook acknowledging an "ongoing crisis situation", banning another 40-50 "random nobodies" from posting comments directly on his website, and quoting Rudyard Kipling:

If you can bear to hear the truth youve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and buildem up with worn-out tools

Make of that what you will.

One contributor to Brooks website said: "Unfortunately, Prof. Brook has really abdicated a neutral position on this event. His clear support of nuclear power seems to have impacted his critical thinking skills. ... Every time he states something in this crisis is impossible, it seems to happen the next day."

Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun has been urging people to read the "marvellously sane and cool explanation" from "our friend Professor Barry Brook". Both Bolt and Brook claim that no more than 50 people died from the Chernobyl catastrophe.

More on that next month − the 25th anniversary falls on April 26.

The scientific estimates of the Chernobyl death toll range from 9,000 to 93,000.

Bloomberg reports that ex-LDP leader Koizumi in Japan is advocating against restarting the countrys closed nuclear reactors - Abe Mentor Koizumi Reignites Post-Fukushima Nuclear Debate.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe faces another prominent opponent to his plans to return to nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, as a former political mentor called for Japan to immediately abandon its reactors. Former Liberal Democratic Party Premier Junichiro Koizumi spoke out against atomic power today in his highest profile speech since retiring from politics in 2009. He joins three other former leaders who have turned against the industry that once provided more than a quarter of Japan’s electricity, with all of Japan’s 50 nuclear reactors now off-line.

The ongoing problems at Japans nuclear power plants have sent share prices of uranium miners on the ASX spiralling, as part of a more generalised sharemarket fall - Uranium stocks plunge for second day.

Australian uranium stocks plunged for a second straight day amid heightened fears of a nuclear meltdown in Japan following last week’s earthquake and tsunami.

Another explosion this morning at the Fukushima reactor, 220km from the nation’s capital, prompted Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan to warn that substantial amounts of radiation were leaking in the area, triggering waves of panic selling across global financial markets.

‘‘There’s just so much uncertainty. Nobody bar a few nuclear experts actually know what’s happening, which is the scary thing,’’ IG Markets market strategist Ben Potter said. ‘‘Some reports are saying winds could blow low level radiation into Tokyo in 10 hours, while others dismiss the fact.
Advertisement: Story continues below

‘‘Either way, the world’s worst nightmare could be unfolding.’’

CMC Markets sales trader Ben Taylor said speculation that a nuclear cloud was floating towards Tokyo city had terrorised the markets.

‘‘Further rumours of another flash crash coming has seen value thrown out the window as panic selling sets in across world equity markets,’’ Mr Taylor said.

Investors sold out of Australian uranium stocks in droves as the trading session ground on amid a greatly weakened outlook for the sector.

Shares in Rio Tinto-majority owned Energy Resources of Australia (ERA), the world’s fourth largest uranium producer, plunged to a more than six-year low after dropping 12 per cent on Monday. ERA was down $1.18, or 14.3 per cent, at $7.07, its lowest since January 2005.

Africa-focused uranium miner Paladin Energy also continued to slide after slumping more than 16 per cent on Monday.Paladin was down 69 cents, or 17.5 per cent, at $3.26, its lowest since mid-March last year.

The Atlantic has an article on the history of nuclear power in the US - The Nuclear Breakthrough That Wasnt.

The New York Times ran a story about Johnsons speech on page one under the headline, "Johnson Reports a Breakthrough in Atomic Power." They followed up with a series of stories, as did the other major newspapers. Word of a breakthrough in the cost of nuclear power was big news because everyone had been waiting for economically feasible nuclear power for a decade. After the heavy promotion of the early nuclear power days--exemplified by Walt Disneys classic nuclear cartoon, Our Friend the Atom--nuclear power had stalled out with just a few demonstration plants in operation. The coal lobby smelled blood. In March of 1964 the coal industry assailed nuclear power, saying Congress needed to remove "the sheltering umbrella of Government subsidies."

General Electric and Westinghouse, who had helped build Americas military and civilian nuclear program, were getting antsy that their knowledge would go to waste. "Our people understood this was a game of massive stakes, and that if we didnt force the utility industry to put those stations on line, wed end up with nothing," as John Gitterick, a GE vice president, later told Fortune. It was this corporate desire to capture rents on a technology that only a few companies could provide that generated the "economic breakthrough" of Johnsons speech.

As soon as the words left Johnsons mouth, scientists at national laboratories around the country knew what he was talking about, even though he was a few months late with the announcement. When a Chicago Tribune reporter called Stephen Lawrowski, associate director of Argonne National Laboratory, the scientist told him that the president must have been talking about the guaranteed price that General Electric had offered Jersey Central Light and Power for the Oyster Creek plant. That announcement had "caused a flurry" in scientific circles because the price GE was charging for the plant--$68 million for the 515-megawatt plant--made the plant economically competitive with fossil fuels. [Editors note: Oyster Creek was a boiling water reactor with the same basic design and containment vessel as the Fukushima reactor in Japan.]

Yet the scientists knew from the available evidence that nuclear power was far from economically competitive in mid-1964. However, instead of setting the Tribune reporter straight, Lawrowski simply punted, saying "The New Jersey plant is a significant milestone in nuclear power progress because it has affected thinking not only in America but also in Europe."

The price was a door-buster, a loss-leader, an advertisement for a nuclear age that had not actually yet arrived. The so-called "turnkey" plants, as they later became known, probably cost Westinghouse and General Electric over $1 billion combine, though they did not say that at the time.

Coal officials told the Wall Street Journal that GE had "priced the Oyster Creek plant at less than cost." A GE executive denied that, claiming the company would "make a slight profit unless we run into some unforeseen difficulties." British and Russian engineers also called the estimates into question--and French officials unsuccessfully tried to get details out of GE. But American news accounts, though they reported those foreign doubts, always made sure to note the bias that national competition could introduce into other countries expert opinion. None questioned the U.S. expert corps own Cold War sympathies.

Newspaper reporters, with the help of sources within the nuclear industries, came up with stories to explain how prices could have fallen so far, so fast. But like a trend piece about raising chickens in Manhattan, they were little more than anecdotes strung together by plausibility and the publics desire to believe. Although they reported doubts about the breakthrough, they were often run deep inside the paper whereas the optimistic pieces led the sections of the paper. Even the most skeptical piece, a September 1964 article by Washington Post reporter Howard Simons, noting that "not all experts accept General Electrics figures," only questioned the figures within 12 percent. In reality, nuclear power would end up costing not $104 or $1,040 per kilowatt of capacity but more than $3,750 per kilowatt by the mid-1980s.

Perhaps Lewis Strauss, then-chairman of the AEC, overstated the case when he told a crowd of science writers in 1954 that "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter," but his optimism was obviously widely shared within the nuclear establishment. The countrys political leaders were more than willing to believe and promote these technical promises. It was a wonderfully convenient solution to an America battling Communist agitation across the world.

And besides, nuclear proponents said energy usage would soar and they had nice graphs to back it up. Their vision was expansive, expensive, and rather brilliant. Technical reports came out purporting to show energy "needs" for Americans in the future that were spectacularly high. In 1960 the AEC, which had as its mandate to promote the commercialization of nuclear power, projected that Americans would use 170 quadrillion BTUs in 2000. In reality, that year Americans used about 99 million quads of energy. And we still do. Imagine adding 70 percent more power plants, cars, and buildings to our current energy infrastructure. Its nearly unthinkable.

Yet from the early 1950s until the energy crises of the 1970s, politicians accepted as gospel truth nuclear proponents overblown visions of Americas energy needs emanating from the nations national laboratories and the AEC. Legislators continually delivered high-levels of steady funding to nuclear research.

Of course, the political relationship ran both ways. The AEC knew what the government needed and the government knew what the AEC needed. In both cases, the answer was: Dont stop believing!

Despite the occasional call for the free market to work, the opposite happened. For example, nuclear power plant operators are indemnified by the U.S. government for catastrophic disasters (the Price-Anderson Act), thereby lowering their insurance rates. They were given preferential access to markets for borrowing money. There was plenty of informal and regulatory help to go with the R&D and commercialization boosts. In effect, the government socially engineered the cost structure of the industry so nuclear could compete with coal, which got to dump all its extra costs, such as air and water pollution, into the environment.

But even then, convincing utilities that they needed to go nuclear wasnt easy until General Electric hit on the genius idea of guaranteeing a fixed price to risk-averse utilities, effectively subsidizing the cost of the construction. And Oyster Creek was born. If they could just build a ton of plants, they could learn and scale and standardize: Costs would drop. Westinghouse matched GEs pricing, and what came to be known as the "turnkey" plants were built. In the bandwagon market that followed until 1973, utilities ordered more than two hundred nuclear reactors. Nuclear power had arrived.

But the turnkey plant prices did not reflect the actual costs of building a nuclear power plant. As the years wore on, that nuclear power was not as cheap as coal and other fossil fuels became increasingly clear: The prestige of the nuclear authorities began to fall; nuclear whistleblowers came forward; environmental risks were reassessed, perhaps too stringently; the protest movements of the 1960s turned their attention to nuclear power and all the centralization of power it represented. It turned out that Americans were ready to extend democracy to technocratic decision making, and they did not like what they saw from the nuclear industry.