Dangerous reactors send
a clear signal: phase out nuclear power
06 July 2007 Germany — It's been a bad
few weeks for the nuclear industry, especially
in Germany. While the nuclear companies
were lobbying to reverse the German nukes
phase out, two German nuclear plants suffered
a fire and emergency shut down.
With the nuclear industry's false assurances
of safety and reliability exposed, German
chancellor Merkel announced Germany would
not revise nor abandon the plan for nuclear-phase
out by 2021.
As in many other countries, nuclear energy
companies are lobbying the German government
to keep old, dangerous reactors open for
longer. But it was recent events that highlighted
the growing nuclear risks. Less than a week
before the German energy summit a fire broke
out at Kruemmel nuclear station and another
one in Brunsbuttel suffered an emergency
shut down due to technical failure. Also,
there was a similar UK accident in May where
a fire shut down an old reactor at Oldbury.
In many countries most nuclear plants are
reaching the end of their planned life spans
of 25-30 years. Most energy companies who
operate the plants are pushing to extend
operations many years beyond the time the
plants were originally planned to close.
This has serious safety implications. Not
only are older reactors prone to all kinds
of failures, like any old, complex machines,
but many of their crucial components are
physically loosing their ability to withstand
extreme situations that may occur during
an accident. For example the reactor vessel,
at the very heart of the plant and key for
nuclear safety, gets more and more brittle
over time due to intensive radiation.
Compromising on safety
While an old car that fails a safety test
is taken off the road, an old nuclear plant
that fails safety tests tends to get patched
up and given a license to continue working,
despite the fact a serious accident could
threaten millions of lives. Operators claim
that due to their growing experience and
technical upgrades, they can run reactors
much more safely and reliably twenty one
years after Chernobyl. State safety inspectors
buy this line and tend to be positive about
proposals for plant life extensions.
These reactor fires were a reminder that
we cannot trust operators, and not even
state regulators. Often the true scale of
the problems are hidden. Only a week after
the fire at Krummel station it was revealed
that there was a direct nuclear risk involved.
Yet a spokesperson from plant operator Vattenfall
stated the fire "looked more dramatic
than it really was" and that "it
affected only a transformer with no implication
for nuclear safety".
"I always want to put ice cubes in
the hats of those who talk about a nuclear
renaissance."
Jorma Aurela, a senior energy official
in the Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry.
New reactor, same problems
The great hope of the nuclear industry
is the showcase EPR reactor in Olkiluoto,
Finland. But even before it's close to being
finished it's demonstrating the familiar
problems of nuclear energy. After just two
years of building it is 18 months behind
schedule and a massive E700 million over
budget. This supposed 'showcase' project
has had so many safety problems with substandard
construction that the Finnish nuclear regulator
has uncovered a series of safety "deficiencies".
In just two years there have been multiple
major problems with construction of this
'bright new hope' for the nuclear industry
at Olkiluoto. First the concrete base was
made of poor quality concrete, and then
the reactor vessel failed safety standards.
Cooling pipes had to be scrapped due to
bad quality steel and it was discovered
the steel containment lining (crucial to
protect against radiation leaks) was found
to have almost 50 holes in the wrong places.
Relying on keeping old dangerous reactors
going long past their close by date and
unable to even build on new reactor without
massive delays, blowing the budget and failing
minimum safety standards. That betrays the
industry hot air of an "nuclear renaissance"
for what it really is - an industry on life
support, kept alive only by massive tax
payer subsidies and putting profit over
safety.
Luckily we can secure energy supply and
prevent dangerous climate change without
hazardous nuclear power. As our Energy Revolution
scenario shows, we can phase out existing
reactors without building new ones, and
achieve the required cut in greenhouse emissions.
