No2NuKeS .com

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Dublin Castle 26 March 2007

We the Environment Ministers of Ireland, Iceland, Norway, and Austria, met in Dublin today (26 March 2007). Among the issues discussed was the current international debate on the future role of nuclear energy particularly in the context of climate change.

It is the shared view of the Ministers present that it remains the sovereign right of each country to decide on its energy mix. However, for Ireland, Iceland, Norway, and Austria, we voice serious concern that nuclear energy is being presented as a solution to climate change. It is our collective view that the current debate seeks to downplay the environmental, waste, proliferation, nuclear liability and safety issues and seeks to portray nuclear energy as a clean, safe and problem free response to climate change. The inherent risks and problems associated with the nuclear energy option remain and it can not therefore claim to be a clean alternative to fossil fuel use.

The trans boundary nature of the risks associated with nuclear energy and our collective responsibility towards the health and environment of our citizens dictates that we must ensure that their interests and concerns are represented in relation to all nuclear projects and installations. Only the highest levels of safety must be respected and maintained at all nuclear installations. In this regard the specific international liability regimes currently in place for the nuclear industry do not provide full scope compensation for potential damage or injury and provide a hidden subsidy to that industry.

The reality remains that after 50 years of nuclear power the issue of waste remains most intractable. The legacy of the nuclear industry for many generations to come continues to increase with little evidence of any real implementation of necessary long term solutions to the waste issue. Nuclear waste reprocessing, advocated as a solution to the management of nuclear waste, has long since lost its lustre and today the industry remains economically and environmentally untenable.

Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel represents a key source of pollution risks and remains a significant source of radioactive pollution. In particular, we have continuing concerns regarding the ongoing reprocessing operations at Sellafield and the planned reopening of the THORP plant at that facility.

The planned reopening of the THORP plant follows the leak of 83,000 litres of highly radioactive and acidic liquid from an accountancy tank in April 2005 and the publication of an internal report on the incident by the operator which pointed to serious and extensive undermining and breakdown of the safety culture and practice in Sellafield. The importance of safety is underscored by the fact that reprocessing has resulted in the accumulation of very large volumes of extremely hazardous liquid high level waste (HLW) at Sellafield. This waste represents a considerable pollution risk both to the UK and neighbouring countries in the event of a serious accident or incident.

We call upon the United Kingdom Government to desist from reopening the plant on the grounds that this will inevitably increase radioactive discharges, the risk of radioactive pollution and because of the consistent and long standing poor safety performance at the plant over many years. Reprocessing should cease and effort and resources directed to the closure and decommissioning of the Sellafield Plant.

We request that, at a minimum, the safety case for reopening THORP be subject to an international expert peer review. It was noted that the UK has committed to the Sintra strategy under the OSPAR Convention which provides for substantial and progressive reduction of discharges to the marine environment by 2020.

We re-emphasise our commitment to continue to articulate our shared concerns regarding nuclear energy and call upon nuclear countries to take decisive action in addressing the unresolved issues arising from the operation of nuclear facilities namely, safety concerns, pollution risks, radioactive discharges, nuclear liability, waste and proliferation risks.

It was agreed that the Dublin meeting had been very productive and worth while and that a further meeting of the Ministers and other interested States will take place in Vienna in the autumn of 2007.

ENDS


Thursday 15 February 2007

UK Government's Nuclear Plans declared unlawful by High Court

THE GOVERNMENT'S decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations was today declared to be unlawful in the High Court.

The Government will have to conduct a new, fuller review if they want to justify the future of nuclear power in the UK.

In the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Sullivan agreed with Greenpeace, who brought the case, that the energy review was not the 'fullest public consultation' the Government had committed itself to before making a decision to back new nuclear power stations. The commitment had been made in the earlier energy white paper in 2003.

Mr Justice Sullivan said that the consultation exercise was "seriously flawed and that the process was manifestly inadequate and unfair" because insufficient information had been made available by the Government for consultees to make an "intelligent response".

The court had heard last week that the Government failed to present clear proposals and information on key issues surrounding a new generation of nuclear power stations, such as dealing with radioactive waste and financial costs. Greenpeace and other groups were also denied the opportunity to comment on relevant documents which the Government failed to disclose.

Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The Government's so-called consultation on nuclear power was obviously a sham, and we're pleased that the Judge has agreed with us.

"The Government completely failed to consult adequately and even kept relevant documents to themselves. They've now been forced back to the drawing board to conduct a proper and lengthy review.

"Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate change as it only represents 3.6% of our total energy. It's entirely obvious that there are more efficient, effective, safer and cheaper ways than nuclear power to meet our energy needs and cut climate change emissions. 10 new nuclear power stations would only cut C02 emissions by 4%. As well as being too little, it will also be too late. Climate wrecking emissions need to be cut now, not in 20 years."

ENDS


Tuesday 24 October 2006

Greenpeace Press Release

Nuclear Reactor Closure Costs Could Still Fall To Taxpayer

The European Commission today adopted new guidelines on how to cover the costs of dismantling old nuclear power plants. Greenpeace described the move as a 'useful step forward', but added that binding rules on decommissioning funds are urgently needed, to protect taxpayers across Europe from potentially massive bills for managing nuclear waste and redundant reactors.

The European Commission guidelines include calls for nuclear plant operators to establish decommissioning funds separate from a company’s general accounts, for independent scrutiny of cost estimates and investment strategies, and for the transparency of non-sensitive information.

Typically, nuclear reactors that operate for 30-40 years take an even longer period after closure to be dismantled, while their radioactive waste remains hazardous for centuries. Enough money must therefore be set aside to cover the costs that arise after a reactor is shut down. This ensures that the polluter pays principle is upheld and reduces market distortions.

“The new guidelines are a useful step forward,” said Greenpeace EU Energy Campaigner Mark Johnston. “But many nuclear firms will ignore or obstruct advice that does not suit their short-term interests. To guarantee that all liabilities are met by the industry rather than by taxpayers, the Commission must include binding rules in energy market legislation .”

Recent cases have highlighted the need for common rules on nuclear decommissioning funds, in order to cut subsidies and avoid other market distortions. For example:

¨ UK: In 2002, British Energy plc, the operator of eight nuclear power plants, effectively went bankrupt. The company’s failure to put enough money into its decommissioning fund led to restructuring that includes a state aid commitment totalling £3.5bn (€5.1bn) from UK taxpayers over the coming decades; ¨ Slovakia: The national decommissioning fund intended to cover seven power plants is in deficit. The government in 2004 recognised the problem but still has not taken any action to fix this. Four of the seven reactors were recently privatised, with 66% of the ownership now held by Italian firm ENEL. How the deficit will be resolved and who will pay for the liabilities remain open questions;

¨ Germany/Spain: The planned purchase of Endesa by E.ON would in part be financed with the €13.4bn that E.ON has reserved for dismantling its reactors in Germany. If the guidelines were binding, E.ON would not be able to use funds in this way. In contrast, Endesa under Spanish law is barred from using its reserves to buy foreign firms.

Around 150 nuclear currently operate in 15 out of 27 current and soon-to-be EU member states. Most were built in the 1970s and 1980s and are due to be closed down over the next 20 years.

ENDS


Monday 16 October 2006

Nuclear Firm fined £500,000 for radioactive leak

THE FIRM that runs Sellafield nuclear plant was today fined £500,000 for breaching safety conditions following a radioactive leak.

The leak of over 80,000 litres of spent nuclear fuel was discovered at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) at Sellafield in April 2005, but went undetected for nine months beforehand. THORP was closed after the leak and has yet to re-open.

British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd, which runs the nuclear plant, had pleaded guilty to three charges of breaching the Sellafield site licence at an earlier hearing.

Jean McSorley, Greenpeace's senior nuclear adviser, said: "This fine was thoroughly deserved and highlights the sheer ineptitude of the nuclear industry.

"However, as British Nuclear Group is a Government owned company, it effectively means that the fine is being paid by the taxpayer.

"BNG not only completely failed to prevent a leak of highly radioactive nuclear waste, but they didn't even realise their shameful act of incompetence for nine months.

"THORP was lauded by the nuclear industry as a state of the art installation, yet this flagship site has now been run into the ground."



Friday 28 July 2006

New Pro Nuclear Power Campaign Group to set up in Ireland

The Irish Times today carries a report that a new campaign group is being set up to promote nuclear power for Ireland.

The group is made up of scientists, businessmen and academics.

To see the article go to The Irish Times.


Wednesday 12 July 2006

Irish Councils' Forum Reject UK Nuclear Decision

The All Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities Forum (1) will oppose any plans in the UK to build new nuclear stations. Responding to yesterday's announcement by the UK Government that it will support a new generation of nuclear stations, Louth County Councillor Michael O'Dowd, Forum Chair, said

"Nuclear sites on the west coast of Britain continue to pollute the Irish Sea and pose a risk to Ireland in the event of a serious accident or terrorist incident. Most of the higher level solid wastes from 50 years of nuclear operations has still to be safely packaged for future storage or disposal. This radioactive legacy will pose a danger to Ireland for many decades to come.

Yesterday's decision by the UK Government to support a new generation of nuclear stations flies in the face of the detailed evidence submitted by many organisations that the UK is capable of both meeting future energy requirements sustainably while making deep cuts in carbon emissions. The UK Govenment's own advisers on sustainable development have said this.

In September we will be organising a conference in Drogheda for all Irish councils to decide how we can work with our nuclear free local authority colleagues in Britain, and other groups, to reverse this policy that threatens to cast a new nuclear shadow over Ireland well into the middle of the century."

Notes

(1) All Ireland NFLA Forum membership: Border Regional Authority, Bray Town Council, Down District Council (NI), Dublin City Council, Dublin Regional Authority, Dundalk Town Council, Fingal County Council, Louth County Council, Monaghan County Council, Moyle District Council (NI), Newry & Mourne District Council (NI), and South Dublin County Council


Tuesday 11 July 2006

GREENPEACE RESPONSE TO UK NEW NUCLEAR BUILD

Blair' Energy Review: Save the Nuclear Industry, Destroy the Climate

London, U.K., July 11 2006 - Greenpeace warned today that the UK Governments Energy Review published today will neither solve Britains energy problems nor help meet its commitment to reduce carbon emissions.

The energy review offered an opportunity to transform the energy system in the UK. Instead, Tony Blair's continued obsession with nuclear power has overridden the UK's clean energy revolution. The planning process is streamlined in favour of building new nuclear power stations with no guarantee of a Parliamentary vote. The only thing that is guaranteed is that the Government will deliver a nuclear White Paper before the end of the year - before the "consultation" on decentralised energy will even be complete.

The review touches on decentralised energy (DE) schemes and renewables. Two-thirds of the energy generated in most UK power stations is lost in the form of heat up smokestacks or cooling water pumped into the sea, but DE projects capture that heat and use it, giving massive savings in efficiency. However, these and other initiatives on renewables are undermined by a new nuclear reactor program, which is based upon large centralized power. One consequence of a large new nuclear program is that clean and efficient technologies will be starved of political support and funds.

"Tony Blair is fixated with getting new nuclear power stations built, and that means anything substantial in this review that supports clean green energy will be fatally undermined as long as Blair remains Prime Minister," said Greenpeace UK Executive Director Stephen Tindale. "You can't roll out new nuclear power stations and build widespread sustainable energy projects. The reality is that nuclear sucks up all the money. There is an enormous radioactive cloud hanging over this energy review which threatens to drown any positive moves on decentralised energy, renewables and energy efficiency."

The endorsement for nuclear power flies in the face of the evidence that nuclear power is a failed technology with inherent unavoidable risks, and that it is almost irrelevant in combating carbon emissions. The Government was warned by its own Sustainable Development Commission that new nuclear power could make no contribution to UK carbon reductions before 2020, and even by 2035 its role would be small (1). On a global scale nuclear power provides only 6.4% of primary energy, and 16% global electricity (2).

Worldwide nuclear power is declining in terms of its share of the electricity market. To turn around the decline, reactor orders will have to be on a far greater scale than was envisaged in the UK. Just to maintain current capacity, over the next 10 years, 64 new reactors would have to be planned, built and started up by 2015. This is virtually impossible given the long lead times for nuclear power projects (3).

"This review is about trying to save the nuclear industry not the climate. Blair and his industry allies are seeking to create a nuclear illusion that new reactors are the solution to energy security and dangerous climate change. The reality is that nuclear power cannot and will not make a significant impact on reducing Co2 emissions. But it is far worse. In the promotion of nuclear power, the real energy solutions to climate change (renewables and energy efficiency) will be marginalised and undermined, while the inherent threats from nuclear power will be increased," said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International.

The only reactor under construction in Western Europe, the French designed EPR in Finland, is already 12 months behind schedule, with significant cost over-runs and serious quality control problems affecting the concrete base and reactor vessel. The only other reactor on the drawing board is the same reactor design planned to be built by Electricite de France, EDF, in France. The opposition Socialist Party and Greens are committed to cancelling the project if they take power in March 2007.

Notes:

1 The UK Commission for Sustainable Development, Is Nuclear the Answer ?, reported in 2006, that in view of our own majority conclusion, our advice to the government is that there is no justification for bringing forward plans for a new nuclear power programme at this time, and that any such proposal would be incompatible with its own sustainable development strategy.

The relatively small contribution that a new nuclear power programme would make to addressing these challenges (even if we were to double our existing nuclear capacity, this would give an 8% cut on total emissions from 1990 levels by 2035, and would contribute next to nothing before 2020) simply doesn't justify the substantial disbenefits and costs that would be entailed in such a programme.

2 Some statistics expose the minor role of nuclear power in energy supply.

After a fifty-year program of massive state support, nuclear power represents less than 6.4% of global primary energy supply as calculated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) (see, World Energy Outlook 2005, IEA, Paris p.81) If it is measured on the basis of electricity generated and not the two thirds of the energy generated lost into the environment as waste heat, the figure drops to 2.3% of primary energy. Total electricity generation from renewable sources in 2004 was about 4% of global total, and if large hydro is included it was slightly more than 20%, as compared with about 16% for nuclear.

3 Over the next 10 years, 82 new replacement reactors would have to start up operation just to maintain the current number of operating plants: 18 of these are under construction. This calculation takes into account the 18 reactors with a firm start-up date out of the 27 units listed as under construction by the IAEA as of June 2004. In other words, another 64 new reactors would have to be planned, built and started up by 2015. This is virtually impossible given the long lead times for nuclear power projects.



FRIENDS OF THE EARTH IRELAND RESPONSE

Tuesday 11 July 2006

Ireland must not buy nuclear electricity from Britain
Government can't oppose Sellafield and then buy its power

On the day Tony Blair's government announces plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations Friends of the Earth Ireland has called on the government here to pledge that it will not buy nuclear-generated electricity from Britain.

"It would be hypocritical in the extreme for the governemnt to campaign to close Sellafield on the one hand and then turn around and let the ESB buy electricity from a new nuclear station there", said Friends of the Earth Director, Oisin Coghlan.

Noel Dempsey's forthcoming Green Paper on Energy must lay out a plan to ensure Ireland does not rely on British nuclear-generated electricity in the future. To achieve this the government must prioritise local 'distributed generation' using renewable energy. Currently two thirds of electric energy is wasted in transmission from centralised power stations to users. Secondly, the interconnector which will be built between Britain and Ireland should only be used for renewable energy. When we have excess wind energy in Ireland we can export it to Britain. When we need extra electricty we should only buy from renewable sources in Britain, otherwise Irish consumers will be paying to build and run a new nuclear power plant in Sellafield.

"Irish householders would be happy to buy electricity from wind energy in Scotland, they certainly don't want to buy if from Sellafield or any other nuclear plant in Britain", Mr Coghlan added.

The UK energy review to be published today is going to support a new generation of nuclear power stations to be built beside existing nuclear facilities, making Sellafield a prime location. Friends of the Earth also takes issue with Tony Blair's plans to classify nuclear power as a "low carbon" energy which will qualify for price supports in the way renewable energy does. When you look at the full life-cycle of nuclear energy, from uranium extraction through the amount of cement used in building the plants to the decommissioning and waste storage for generations nuclear energy is just as polluting in terms of carbon emissions as gas-fired power. The UK government's own sustainable development commission has said that nuclear is not the answer to Britain's energy needs or to the fight against climate change.

"Rather than saying 'nuclear power is back on the table with avengeance' as he recently did it would be much more powerful and useful if Mr Blair stood up and said the government was going to insulate every attic, put solar panels on every roof and a renewable power plant in every village, but no doubt he would not get the same leadership buzz from such sensible policies", Mr Coghlan concluded.


Wednesday 26 April 2006 - 20th Anniversary of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident

Chernobyl, Ukraine — A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.

Saturday 11 March 2006: Petition Action Day

Revival: Europe-wide protests against nuclear power
Kick-Off for 2006 actions of the campaign "1 Million against Nuclear"

On Saturday March 11, the Campaign "1 Million Europeans against Nuclear Power" will protest in the streets of 10 countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Scotland and Spain) to counter lobby efforts for a nuclear comeback. The spectrum of activities ranges from starting a tour through Germany against nuclear power (BUND Germany) via a big signature collection action in Vienna (GLOBAL 2000 Austria, atomstopp, Wiener Frauen, Freistädter Mütter) to Dutch and Bulgarian protest against the government plans for new nuclear plants producing more nuclear waste.

This campaign, carried out by one of the biggest coalitions of anti-nuclear groups Europe has seen for a long time (1), wants to challenge the EU leaders: Will they phase-out nuclear power and scrap the nuclear promoting instrument, the "Euratom treaty", if 1 million EU citizens demand it with their signature?

"The failure of the European constitution made clear that the EU has to consider the demands and concerns of their citizens. The majority of the Europeans is still against nuclear. But governments all over Europe are ignoring this. We will make sure, that the voice of the citizen will be heard," said Silva Herrmann of Friends of the Earth Europe.

"Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary. Instead of again spending taxpayer's money on building nuclear power plants and storing dangerous waste for centuries, governments should tackle climate change with serious energy saving and renewables," summarises the campaign coordinator Frank van Schaik, the demands of the anti-nuclear movement.

The anti-nuclear campaign aims at gathering one million signatures against nuclear power in the "Chernobyl-Year 2006". In April, when the 20 th commemoration of the Chernobyl disaster will take place, there will be three, Europe-wide action weeks from April 15 th to May 7 th, including:

a big kick-off demonstration in Cherbourg (France) against a new nuclear reactor on April 15th

an anti-nuclear march on foot in Belgium from 15 th to 26 th of April, and

an international activist conference on 23-25 th April in Kiev, Ukraine, called "Chernobyl+20 - Remembrance for the Future".

The timetable also includes an anti-nuclear Summer tour through Europe and will end in a final Petition Action in October 2006 with anti-nuclear signatories from all European countries.


Tuesday 24 January 2006

New EU Energy Opinion Poll

On Tuesday 24th January the EU released an new opinion poll on Energy. One question asked was "what technologies should national governments focus on to reduce dependency on imported energy". This can be found on pages 9 and 10 in the report which is linked below. In the UK, Nuclear gets 18%, Solar 43% and Wind 39%. In the EU as a whole it is 12% nuclear, 49% solar and 31% nuclear. In Ireland: Nuclear 7%, Solar 32% and 52% for Wind.