Beyond Nuclear International

Not only is it possible, it’s essential

The fourth in our series of Talking Points draws on the new report by Jonathon Porritt, New Zero Without Nuclear: The Case Against Nuclear Power. Given the far-off illusory promise of new reactor designs; the enormous costs; the limited capacity for carbon reductions compared to renewables; the unsolved waste problem; and the inflexibility and outdatedness of the “always on” baseload model, nuclear power is in the way of — rather than a contributor to — climate mitigation. You can download the Net Zero Without Nuclear Talking Points here. This is the fourth in our series. You can find all four here.

By Jonathon Porritt

I first took an interest in Greenpeace back in 1973, before I joined Friends of the Earth, CND and the Green Party (then the Ecology Party) a year later. I’d followed the campaigns against the testing of nuclear weapons in Amchitka (one of the Aleutian islands in Alaska), and then in the French nuclear testing area of Moruroa in the Pacific. I was 23 at the time, with zero in-depth knowledge, but it just seemed wrong, on so many different fronts.

That early history of Greenpeace seems much less relevant now, given all its achievements over the last 50 years in so many other areas of critical environmental concern. But it still matters. Greenpeace has been an ‘anti-nuclear organisation’ through all that time, sometimes fiercely engaged in front-line battles, sometimes maintaining more of a watching brief, and nuclear power plays no part in Greenpeace’s modelling of a rapid transition to a Net Zero carbon world. It’s been very supportive of my new report, ‘Net Zero Without Nuclear’.

I wrote this report partly because the nuclear industry itself is in full-on propaganda mode, and partly because that small caucus of pro-nuclear greens (that’s existed for as long as I can remember) seems to be winning new supporters.

And I can see why. The Net Zero journey we’re now starting out on for real (at long last!) is by far the most daunting challenge that humankind has ever faced. Writing in the Los Angeles Review of Books in June 2019, author and Army veteran Roy Scranton put it like this:

‘Climate change is bigger than the New Deal, bigger than the Marshall Plan, bigger than World War II, bigger than racism, sexism, inequality, slavery, the Holocaust, the end of nature, the Sixth Extinction, famine, war, and plague all put together, because the chaos it’s bringing is going to supercharge every other problem. Successfully meeting this crisis would require an abrupt, traumatic revolution in global human society; failing to meet it will be even worse.’

Not many people see it like that – as yet. But more and more will, as signals of that kind of chaos start to multiply. And we already know that the kind of radical decarbonisation on which our future depends is going to be incredibly hard. So why should we reject a potentially powerful contribution to that decarbonisation challenge?

The politics of “fait accompli” will ensure a new industrial and financial disaster

Editor’s note: Despite the latest safety failures at the Taishan EPR in China; the endless delays and cost over-runs at the EPR projects in France and Finland; the technical fiascos and do-overs at the EPR construction sites in France, Finland and the UK; and the ongoing reckless plans for 6 EPRs in India, the French nuclear sector has far from abandoned its hubris. Instead, incredibly, and as Stéphane Lhomme tells us in a recent new blog on the topic, here translated into English, EDF has announced plans to begin construction of the “EPR2”. What could possibly go wrong?

By Stéphane Lhomme

Despite the fact that it has proven incapable of properly carrying out the construction of the EPR reactor at the never-ending Flamanville site underway since 2008, EDF leadership has nevertheless decided — according to the media outlet, Contexte — to allocate hundreds of millions of Euros to launch a construction program for new reactors, called “EPR2”.

Despite being fiercely pro-nuclear, President Macron has declared on several occasions that the EPR at Flamanville would need to be operational before any decision to build other reactors could be made.

However, it’s very likely that Mr. Macron is perfectly well aware of — and complicit in — this decision by EDF management to move forward with a new project.

Just as it has often done in the past, in its contempt for democracy and the interests of the French public, the leadership of EDF intends to use the politics of fait accompli: it proposes to spend hundreds of billions to start one or several “EPR2” reactor construction projects in order to then proclaim that the ship has sailed so the program cannot be stopped…. under threat of wasting hundreds of billions.

But it’s precisely by building nuclear reactors that EDF is already wasting astronomic sums, just as Areva did before that, going bankrupt due to the disastrous EPR construction project in Finland (which began in 2005, was supposed to come on line in 2009….but is still not complete)!

That’s the outlook for a spectacular stretch of coastline should new reactors be built there

From Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group

“The Essex coastline is remarkable for its length, at 350 miles the longest of any county in England, its more than thirty islands, and its estuaries, like the Blackwater, extending the sea miles inland,” writes Andy Blowers. “And yet, its very character is threatened by the proposed new reactor project at Bradwell B.” 

The Bradwell B nuclear power station would be a joint two-reactor project of the French government energy company, EDF, and China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN). The proposed design is the Chinese HPR1000. The project has not yet received its Development Consent Order and is vigorously opposed by the local community and by environmentalists and scientists.

“What is to be lost, should Bradwell B come to pass?” Blowers asks. “First and foremost will be the sense of openness and space, for this coast is a place where land, sea and sky meet; the vast East Anglian sky with endlessly changing weather, the daily theatre of blue and grey sky, scudding clouds, tranquil and stormy, sometimes a golden sunrise or a glorious glowing sunset.

“Beneath is the restless sea, the ebb and flow of the tide revealing for a while the mud and gravel of the foreshore, draining and refilling the creeks, eroding and replenishing the mudflats and saltmarshes. This vast panorama, the essence of the Essex coastal scene, would be utterly destroyed by a massive nuclear complex, with cooling towers pluming to the sky, discharges polluting the waters and the air and earthworks disrupting the land.”

The threat at Bradwell is similar to that for the proposed Sizewell C new nuclear plant site in neighboring Suffolk, also a joint project of EDF and CGN. (The Sizewell reactors will be French EPRs.) Both projects are on fragile, low-lying coastal sites vulnerable to inundation and will be increasingly exposed to the impacts of climate change in the form of sea level rise, storm surges and coastal processes. And both are situated in areas of considerable environmental importance and sensitivity that would be severely compromised by nuclear development.

That is why Blowers, an international expert on radioactive waste management and sustainable development, has written to the Sizewell C Examining Authority declaring that both Bradwell B and Sizewell C should be abandoned as a whole now to avoid falling victim to the catastrophic impacts of climate change later.

Billard à trois bandes entre Américains, Chinois et Français

Nouvelles: Update from Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear (6/24/2021): Taishan Unit 1 nuclear power station was the first French-designed European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) in the world to provide electricity, beginning in December 2019. After 19 months of operation, the reactor is experiencing structural failure in the first “defense-in-depth” barrier, the thin-walled steel tubes that clad 60,000 stacks of enriched uranium pellets. The cracking is releasing radioactivity from the uranium fission process into the reactor’s pressurized cooling water system. Apparently, the radioactivity is twice the technical specifications for operations per the reactor supplier, Framatome.  Technical specifications have a purpose for safety and operability. That Taishan is still operating raises questions about Électricité de France’s global marketing of nuclear power plants and China’s safety policy.

Par Stéphane Lhomme, Observatoire de Nucléaire

Si l’opacité entretenue par le régime chinois empêche pour le moment de connaître les conséquences précises de la fuite radioactive impliquant l’EPR n°1 de Taïshan, révélée hier 14 juin par CNN, en revanche il est d’ores et déjà possible d’analyser le déroulement de cette affaire et d’en prévoir certaines suites. 

La défectuosité de l’étanchéité de gaines de combustibles au sein de l’EPR de Taïshan remonte à octobre 2020, c’est-à-dire qu’elle dure depuis plus de 8 mois : les co-exploitants du réacteur, c’est-à-dire les Chinois et les Français de Framatome, étaient de toute évidence parfaitement conscients de la gravité du problème et avaient conjointement décidé d’en cacher l’existence à la population mais aussi à l’AIEA (Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique).

Par chance, l’information a fini par “transpirer” vers la filiale américaine de Framatome (Areva NP Inc). Cette dernière, après de très probables discussions avec la CIA et la Maison blanche, s’est fait un plaisir d’en informer CNN.

En effet, maintenant que la situation de l’EPR de Taïshan est connue dans le monde entier, il va être compliqué pour les Chinois de continuer à exploiter ce réacteur dans des conditions qui sont très probablement hors de “son domaine de fonctionnement et de sûreté autorisé”, contrairement à ce prétend Framatome (canal Français !) pour ne pas froisser les Chinois. 

Radioactive leak at Chinese reactor could finish French nuclear exports

Update from Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear (6/24/2021): Taishan Unit 1 nuclear power station was the first French-designed European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) in the world to provide electricity, beginning in December 2019. After 19 months of operation, the reactor is experiencing structural failure in the first “defense-in-depth” barrier, the thin-walled steel tubes that clad 60,000 stacks of enriched uranium pellets. The cracking is releasing radioactivity from the uranium fission process into the reactor’s pressurized cooling water system. Apparently, the radioactivity is twice the technical specifications for operations per the reactor supplier, Framatome.  Technical specifications have a purpose for safety and operability. That Taishan is still operating raises questions about Électricité de France’s global marketing of nuclear power plants and China’s safety policy.

By Stéphane Lhomme, Nuclear Observatory

If the opacity maintained by the Chinese regime prevents us, for the time being, from knowing the exact consequences of the radioactive leak involving the EPR no.1 reactor at Taishan, revealed on June 14 by CNN, it is, on the other hand, already possible to see how this unfolded and to recommend some next steps.

The fault in the fuel duct seals inside the Taishan EPR dates back to October 2020, that is to say, it had already been going on for more than eight months: the operators of the reactor — the Chinese and the French company Framatome — were perfectly well aware of the gravity of the situation and had jointly decided to hide the existence of the problem from not only the surrounding population but also from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Luckily, the information ended up seeping out via the American subsidiary of Framatome (Areva NP Inc.). This latter, likely after discussions with the CIA and the White House, happily informed CNN.

Indeed, now that the situation at the EPR at Taishan is known around the world, it will be difficult for the Chinese to continue to operate the reactor under conditions that are most likely beyond its “scope of authorized operational safety” — contrary to what Framatome claims in order not to offend the Chinese.