How the Nuclear Industry Abuses Science + What Happens with an "All Of The Above" Energy Policy?

[kristopher]

- First item:

Remember the NRC's meaningless, proforma inspection of US plants that was undertaken with the predetermined outcome of "reassuring" the public in the wake of Fukushima?

The EU went a bit further down the rabbit hole by doing "stress tests" that were based solely on computer simulations. Think about it - an industry intent on defusing public anger and mistrust after a major disaster uses a computer program they've developed to "test" the safety of their own product. What could possibly be wrong with that kind of science?

Well, faced with a rebellion by local and prefectrual governments taking stands refusing to allow the restart of reactors in their jurisdictions, now both the program and the logic has been imported into Japan. These headlines in the Telegraph closely approximate the words used by the pronuclear Japanese politicians trying to revive the nuclear industry:

Japan plans to run “stress tests” on all its nuclear reactors in an attempt to quell growing safety concerns in the aftermath of the tsunami disaster

..."We are planning the stress tests to gain the understanding of local residents. We will get further confidence from the people and will restart operations at some plants."

The move is the latest step by central government to address growing public concerns surrounding the safety of nuclear power plants in Japan, one of the world’s most earthquake prone nations.

Workers are still battling around the clock to regain control over the damaged Fukushima power plant after the Pacific coastline tsunami knocked out its crucial cooling functions, causing explosions, meltdowns and radiation leakages.

A growing number of nuclear reactors across the country have since stopped operations as a result of the disaster, due to safety testing and opposition from both local government officials and the public.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8619799/Japan-plans-reactor-stress-tests-to-ease-nuclear-fears.html

METI is the primary pillar of bureaucratic support for nuclear.

From the coverage on NHK TV it is completely clear that all plants will be cleared as "safe to reopen" once this sham is completed. The nuclear industry trades on the reputation of some very fine, noble and ethical scientists when they pull unethical public relations stunts like this; which is one of the things I find so personally offensive about their methods.

But my understanding of the Japanese public is that they are generally pretty well informed, and in this case they are in an eyes-wide-open state. I really don't think this is going to have the effect on public opinion that is intended.



- Second item:

Is "all of the above" a well considered energy policy?
No, it isn't; it is a recipe for business as usual.

When Germany decided to continue down the path of shutting down their nuclear fleet instead of extending its life as the right-leaning Merkel government had attempted to do, we heard much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the nuclear fan club. One of the most oft heard refrains was how it was counterproductive to global efforts against carbon emissions.

That I disagree is no secret as I've often referred to the interchangable nature of nuclear and coal, and how a fundamental obstacle against shutting down coal is the perpetuation of the system of centralized thermal generation by false promises that nuclear will save us. These promises not only routinely misrepresent bassic central facts like GHG abatement efficacy, but they ignore the heavy external baggage and myriad unsolved problems related to cost, waste, proliferation and safety that plague the industry; thereby only serving to aid in retaining the centralized coal/nuclear system, not actually solving the climate crisis.

This 2010 paper was written to examine the consequences of Merkel's stated intention to change long standing policy and extend the life of the nation's nuclear fleet well beyond the designated shut down date of 2022. The policy had not yet been finalized at the time of publication. It obviously predates the Fukushima meltdowns and the consequnt reversal of Merkel;s reversal of nuclear policy.
"Systems for Change: Nuclear Power vs. Energy Efficiency & Renewables?" is by Antony Froggatt with Mycle Schneider collaborating. It is an excellent look at how clear commitments compare to regulatory uncertainty in phasing out nuclear power. It makes the point that far from hindering our response to carbon emissions, such a policy provides a planning clarity that is essential to effecting a rapid buildout of a sustainable, renewable global energy infrastructure.

...Nuclear power as a “bridging technology”? Germany’s conservative coalition government has announced that it plans to extend the operation of its remaining 17 nuclear power plants beyond the deadlines that are defined in the still valid nuclear phase-out legislation. According to the coalition agreement between the two government parties, “the lion share” of the additional utility profits from plant life extension shall be taxed by the government and reinvested in renewable energies and energy efficiency in particular. The explicit prohibition of nuclear new built shall remain untouched. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government and her own party are split when it comes to the implementation of the agreement. Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen stated that the challenge is to shift “quasi entirely to renewable energies” and he stresses that he does not know “anybody in the coalition that says: Nuclear is our technology of the future”. Röttgen wants the nuclear phase-out to be accomplished by 2030 – about eight years later than the timeframe under the current legislation, when reactors reach about 40 years in age and renewables are supposed to cover 40% of the electricity, up from 16% today. The German minister points out that “a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don’t fit together as economic concepts”.

Fit or don’t fit together? Germany is likely the most interesting case when it comes to the analysis of potential complementary or contradictory aspects of nuclear and efficiency+renewables-based energy systems. The German Federation of Municipal Enterprises (VKU) – a powerful association of 1,350 companies that covers over half of the country’s end-users in the electricity and heat sectors – is concerned about the consequences of the planned delayed phase-out of nuclear power. VKU’s executive director, Hans-Joachim Reck, declared in a press statement:
"The negative implications for competition and for the conversion of the energy system toward decentralization and renewable energies are entirely blanked out. <...> It is counterproductive to discourage investments of municipal utilities into efficient and future- oriented energy generation."
Municipal power plant investments in Germany in the order of €6.5 billion would now have to be reassessed, and even the economic viability of already implemented projects would be threatened, VKU added.

Many systemic issues have not been thoroughly investigated yet when it comes to compatibility or incompatibility of the centralized nuclear approach versus the decentralized efficiency+renewables strategy. What are the consequences for grid development or how do choices on grid characteristics influence power-generation investment strategies? To what extent is the unit size co-responsible for structural overcapacities and thus a lack of incentives for efficiency? How do government grants/ subsidies stimulate long-term decision-making? Will large renewable power plants reproduce the same system effects as large coal/nuclear plants?

The present report presents the basic situation and raises questions that urgently need to be addressed. Successful energy policy will have to address the energy service needs of people in a much more efficient way than has been done in the past, as increased competition for ultimately finite fossil fuel leads to higher energy prices for all. For too long, energy policies have aimed at “supply security” of oil, gas and kilowatt-hours, rather than general access to affordable, reliable and sustainable services like cooked food, heat and cold; light ; communication; mobility; and motor torque...

Please don't let my clumsy introduction give you the wrong impression; if you don't see why nuclear and renewables are in conflict, this paper is definitely worth looking over.

You can download it with this link: http://boell.eu/downloads/Froggatt_Schneider_Systems_for_Change.pdf

[AndyTiedye]

1. k/r