2013-06-07 The Consequences of Major Nuclear Releases
The consequences of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear releases are horrendous. Yet the 'worst-case' nuclear releases are 100 times greater, with far worse consequences. This is shown by three reports below, originating from within the nuclear 'community'. So the UK siting criteria are wholly inadequate and almost all the citizens of Britain are threatened by the existing and proposed nuclear power plants. In the words of Dr John Gofman, this is 'licensing random premeditated murder'.
Moreover such releases are inevitable, yet nuclear power incurs huge energy debts and money costs, for clean-up, decommissioning, and the storage of radioactive waste for ever. Thus the existing plants must be phased out forthwith and the proposed plants abandoned. However, energy efficiency and renewable energy, especially from wind, offers truly safe and sustainable solutions without such costs.
Meanwhile Switzerland and Germany have set dates for phasing out their nuclear power plants and Japan shut down all their nuclear power plants, with all turning to energy efficiency and renewable energy supply. The German case is particularly relevant to the UK, since it is larger and more industrialised, with a higher proportion of nuclear power, while the wind resource – though ample – is less than that of the UK. Yet their nuclear phase-out should be complete by or before 2022. The 'Energiewende' (turn to energy efficiency and renewables) will increase their energy security and employment, while reducing the costs of imported oil, gas, coal and uranium. Moreover, a strong home market will be a showcase for exporting such products and services worldwide. Unlike nuclear technology, such exports can be unrestricted and so materially mitigate climate change.
When researching my studies 'The Case Against Nuclear Power', 'The Real Lessons of Fukushima' and subsequently, I found accounts of three reports on the Consequences of Major Nuclear Releases that originate from within nuclear circles:
- That from the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the forerunner of the Office of Nuclear Regulation, after Fukushima: Guardian. 'UK government's Fukushima crisis plan based on bigger leak than Chernobyl', 2011-06-20. and Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, '(Worst Case Release Involving Three Reactors and Six Cooling Ponds)', No Date.
- That from Shunsuke Kondo, chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, as required by the then Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, after Fukushima:
Asahi Shimbun. 'Government envisioned Tokyo evacuation in worst-case scenario'. 2012-01-07.
- That from the IRSN (the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety), in 2007-2012: IRSN, 'Massive radiological releases profoundly differ from controlled releases', 2012.
Section 3 A MAJOR NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN FRANCE WOULD BE AN UNMANAGEABLE EUROPEAN CATASTROPHY.
3.3 Huge losses
In total, a typical major accident could cost more than € 400b, i.e. more than 20% of annual French GDP, more than 10 years’ economic growth. For lack of other references, this can be compared to the cost of waging a regional war. The country would durably be stunned by such a blow, History would remember the catastrophe for many years, Western Europe would be affected.
Two impacts would combine: the country would be irradiated and, in addition, would face extremely heavy losses. In all probability, this would lead to profound political and social transitions'.
and
LeJDD, 'Le scénario noir du nucléaire', 2013-03-10. Where the first link discusses a 'median case' (€ 400bn), this discusses a 'base case' (€ 760bn) and a 'worst case' (€ 5800bn).
'Dans ce cas extrême, 5 millions de personnes doivent être évacuées sur une zone de 87.000 km², équivalant à la superficie des régions Aquitaine et Midi-Pyrénées réunies. L'évacuation, le relogement, la décontamination des sols mais aussi le traitement des déchets coûteraient 475 milliards d'euros.
[In the worst case, 5 million people would require evacuation from an area of 87,000 km2. The cost would be 475 billion euros].
Le plus lourd tribut découle de l'impact économique sur la zone contaminée au césium 137, où habitent 90 millions de personnes. Une région de 850.000 km², qui correspond à la superficie de la France et de l'Allemagne. L'indemnisation des agriculteurs, des salariés, des entreprises, mais aussi les coûts environnementaux et les dépenses de santé explosent à 4.400 milliards d'euros'.
[The fallout of cesium 137 would contaminate an area with 90 million people, of 850,000 km2. The additional cost would be 4400 billion euros].
The geographical extents of the 'base case' and 'worst case', together with the long-term health effects, are shown in the map at the end of the article. For the worst case, the fallout of radioactive cesium 137 reaches as far as London. Also, there are many French nuclear plants even nearer to the UK.
All three reports show that the consequences of major nuclear accidents are horrendous. So the UK Government's failure to alert both the Parliament and people to these is a gross betrayal of trust.
Recent articles
2021-09-29 Nuclear Power and the EU Taxonomy
Around September 2021, the European Commission considered the inclusion of nuclear power in the taxonomy for future investments in energy. This was based on a single report from the European Joint Research Centre, which still has close links with the nuclear industry and is widely perceived as playing a promoting role for nuclear energy within the European Union. The JRC Report ignored the report of the German Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply of 2011, which had lead to Germany phasing out nuclear power by 2023. The European Commision also ignored 'Sustainability at risk, A critical analysis of the EU Joint Research Centre technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the "do no significant harm" criteria of the EU Taxonomy Regulation, of 2021-09 by Dr. Christoph Pistner, Dr. Matthias Englert and Dr. Ben Wealer, for the Heinrich Boell Foundation.2023-06-06 Nuclear Power Has No Future
The UK government proposes to build nuclear power plants totalling 24 GW.This implies Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and about six more of similar size.The Labour party proposes to include nuclear power in it’s new ‘green’ energy policy.Yet nuclear power has no future, as shown in this document of 3 pages with 52 references. The first section shows that nuclear fuel may be effectively exhausted before 2050, when the climate targets should be met. The second section shows that the costs of nuclear power have risen over time, and are now uncompetitive. So nuclear power must be replaced by sustainable and affordable options such as energy savings and renewables like wind, solar and storage. The third section shows that nuclear power conflicts with energy savings and renewables, so impairing the business case and deterring investment.So the UK should phase out nuclear power and join the rest of the world in deploying energy savings and renewables.Although this document is published after the latest Government and Labour Party proposals,I have published many earlier documents on nuclear power, dating from 2006-0-19. (See below).Most notably, my report on the Fukushima disaster was published on 2012-04-11, with copies sent to several MPs and Ministers.2022-10-05 Nuclear Nonsense
The new UK government appears to support the previous government’s proposal of building new nuclear power plants. The Labour party proposes to include nuclear power in it’s new ‘green’ energy policy. However such nuclear proposals are nonsense, as shown in this 4-page due diligence assessment.2022-08-12 Stopping Sizewell C and all nuclear power in favour of a rational energy policy
Among the last acts of the Johnson government was the approval of a new nuclear plant - Sizewell C. The claim was that it would increase energy security and reduce carbon emissions. But the invasion of Ukraine has underlined that all nuclear sites are targets, and reduce national security. Also nuclear power would be far more costly than energy savings and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, with storage, and could not be generating electricity before 2030. They need uranium for fuel, yet almost half comes from Russia and Kazachkstan, so that the money and carbon costs would increase twice as fast. Moreover, they require huge amounts of energy to manufacture and build, so reducing energy security until construction is complete, and this energy repaid. Yet Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are coastal sites, at risk from flooding by sea level rise and storm surge by 2100. As decommissioning and site clearance would take at least 50 years, they would need to be shutdown before 2050. Many reasons for stopping Sizewell C and all nuclear power are given in this collection of five documents.2022-08-13 Nuclear Power And Weapons Are Killing Us
The Manhattan Project in the US covered every stage of the production of nuclear weapons. This included the mining and refining of uranium, enrichment to 80 to 90% U235 for uranium bombs, fuelling nuclear reactors with uranium to produce plutonium, and reprocessing the spent fuel to extract the plutonium for plutonium bombs. It was recognised from the beginning that these processes and plants would give rise to radioactive releases that would be harmful to the plant operators and the general public, yet they were never informed. This continues to the present day, when the nuclear weapon and power industry does everything in its power to deny and understate the many and extensive harms done to all living things. To this has been added the use of uranium in bunker-breaking bombs and tank-busting shells, that spread the dust so formed over their own forces, the enemy forces, and innocent bystanders, harming them all for generations to come. The human harms include many and extensive cancers, and also non-malignant diseases such as stillbirths, deformities and mental impairment and heart disease. With so much harm already done to humans that will take up to lifetimes to express, and so much nuclear debris laying in wait to harm even more humans, it is essential to identify every strategy and measure that can reduce the total harm.This document covers the first warnings of nuclear harms in the 1950s and - following studies beginning in the 1960s - five books of evidence by Dr Ernest Sternglass in 1981, Mr Harvey Wasserman et al in 1982, Dr John Gofman in 1990, Mr Paul Zimmerman in 2009, and Professor Chris Busby et al in 2010.2022-06-14 Energy Transition Technologies
This is prompted by the Energy Hierarchy of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. From the most to the least sustainable, Tier 1 is Energy Demand Reduction, Tier 2 is Energy Efficiency, Tier 3 is Utilisation of Renewable, Sustainable Resources, Tier 4 is Utilisation of Other, Low-GHG-Emitting Resources, and Tier 5 is Utilisation of Conventional Resources as we do now.2022-06-18 Nuclear Insecurities
This is a three-page re-cast of 2016-08-09 Nuclear Insecurities (below).It includes 16 criteria under the original 10 headings, supported by 21 references.2021-06-09 The Futility of Fusion - A Dream Too Far
For the Presentation, Conclusions and a document with references, click on Read More. Nuclear fusion power on earth poses extreme technical challenges. One is the attainment of at least 100 million degrees C for long enough to produce net energy. Another is that any power plant fuelled with Deuterium and Tritium must 'breed' enough Tritium to sustain itself. Yet fusion power is futile because it cannot be deployed at a meaningful scale before 2050. This is the target date for Zero Carbon - hopefully limiting Global Warming to less than 2 C. So by this date all energy must be supplied from proven renewable sources such as Solar Photovoltaics, Wind Power, Hydro Power, sustainable Biomass and Solar and Deep Geothermal Heat.2021-03-26 District Heating for the UK
This is a proposal for District Heating for carbon reduction in the UK.It follows the passing of enabling legislation in Scotland, with help from Denmark.2016-12-01 Energy Solutions for Sustainability
This note reflects Danish and German precedents on energy solutions, from which I have learnt the underlying principles.Humankind requires not energy but energy services such as illumination, movement and thermal comfort. Germany realisesthat it is not enough to set targets for reducing carbon emissions; policies, plans and actions are also required. It has adoptedthe ‘Energiewende’ energy transition plan for 80 to 95% carbon reduction by 2050. 1 Solutions for sustainable energy servicescan be determined by following a few fundamental principles and metrics, enumerated in this document.
