Notably the fact that most of the economic figures in support of nuclear power (a couple of typical delusions you’ll find here and here) come straight out of Hogwarts school of magic, wizardry….and economics (more realistic appraisals of nuclear economics can be found here and here). There is the question about the world’s limited stockpiles of fissile material, not helped by the fact that the LWR reactors that make up the bulk of our present capacity are ridiculously fuel inefficient, as in they only actually burn 2-3% of the fissile material present.

And what are we planning to do with all this waste? Various proposals have been made, but no nation on earth has yet to comprehensively solve this problem. Then there’s the glacially slow build rate of reactors, and of course, the nagging issue of nuclear safety.

But is there a better way?

Of course some supporters of nuclear energy would say that all of the problems I’ve just listed off relate to our choice of large light water reactors (as Richard Black at the BBC recently discussed). They claim that alternative designs would result in much safer reactors that are cheaper to build, easier to build and ultimately produce less nuclear waste. Various alternatives to the LWR have been proposed, these include:

High temperature gas Reactors , “modular” Pebble bed Reactors , the advanced CANDU reactor, so-called “fast” reactors and the Molten Salt reactor (MSR).

But could these reactors actually supply us with something better? In the following series of article below, I explored this question by subjecting these designs to a critical review.

The Mega LWR “death spiral”

But first of all what’s wrong with these large LWR’s? I explore some of these issues in part 4 of my little appraisal. Basically it all boils down to a fateful decision taken back in the 1950’s. The US government was in a race to get nuclear reactors up and running for military use, notably for the submarine fleet. A light water reactor was an obvious choice for a compact power source and one that could be developed reasonably quickly. When the civil nuclear industry in the US got going the corporations took these naval reactors, which in many cases they had themselves designed for the military, and simply scaled them up. There are a multitude of reasons why this decision to use mega-LWR’s in preference to anything else was taken (again I review them in part 4), but cost and ease of development were certainly key. But regardless of the “why’s?” the fact is that the nuclear industry did embarked on this plan and in the process of doing this the nuclear industry essentially laid a trap for themselves.

While the submarine reactors had outputs of between 15-60 MW_e the civil nuclear industry began building 500-1,600 MW_e behemoths. These large “megatron” LWR’s were scaled up to the point where they became inherently unsafe – if the cooling system for any reason failed, the reactor would go into meltdown. This meant the cooling systems and all backups related to it (including its backup power generators) HAD to work perfectly i.e. critical system components.

Unfortunately several accidents since then, notably TMI and Chernobyl, revealed flaws in the original design. The only way to correct these flaws was to include further safety systems, as well as by building a large concrete containment dome over the reactors to contain any radiation releases. The end result has been the size and scale of nuclear projects has ballooned in size, as has the costs of new nuclear build (the following video offers a humorous if foul mouthed appraisal of the situation regarding the Olkiluoto reactor in Finland, first of the new (don’t laugh) nuclear renaissance). All these safety critical components also need careful testing prior to commercial operation, meaning the pace of new nuclear construction has slowed to a crawl. Fukushima will now likely lead to another round of recriminations, further expensive upgrades, redesigns and a further round of reactor shutdowns.

Inevitably I therefore see the civil nuclear industry, so long as LWR are favoured as being caught in a never ending death spiral of further mishaps leading to redesigns and costs rises, which leads to reduced orders, which spreads the fixed cost of nuclear over a smaller number of reactors, which raises the cost yet further. All the while these design changes are slowing the pace of build down (leading to yet more cancelled plants), undermining the entire case for nuclear. Indeed its inevitable now that both the US and Britain will now see a major reduction in nuclear energy use in the next few decades (a recent Bulletin of Atomic Scientist’s article http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/30.full discusses this), simply because there is no way they could now build reactors fast enough to cope with the rate they are about to go offline, nor indeed train the staff to run them (many in the nuke industry are getting old and will be looking for their bus passes pretty soon!) Inevitably, as has already happened in Germany, Italy and Canada recently, beyond a certain point cash strapped governments will just run out of patience, pull the plug and turn off the life support.

Criterion of Success…or failure!

In my analysis I established the following criteria with which to judge the relevant “fit for purpose” strengths of these reactor designs.

• Cost, Any alternative to the LWR must be cheaper. Nuclear energy is already more expensive than renewables at current prices, nevermind future prices. So if nuclear has a future its overall costs must be lower.
• Safety, As I said before, the LWR has numerous inherent safety flaws. The number one barrier to public acceptance of nuclear energy is safety. Argue all you want about it, but the LWR design amounts to an elaborate attempt at trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Our preference would therefore be for a reactor that is not just safer, but inherently safer.
• Fuel efficiency, the global stockpiles of fissile material are limited. We could probably maintain the existing stock of reactors going for 50-80 years or so, but given that they only represent 5% of global energy output, that leaves us with the question of where does the other 95% of our energy come from and the obvious question as to whether nuclear energy is just more trouble than its worth. Better fuel economy would mean more reactors and greater market penetration.
• Reduced nuclear waste, the elephant in the room for nuclear energy is the ever growing waste mountain. We’ve yet to come up with a comprehensive solution to nuclear waste and until we do the argument of environmentalists is “if you’re in a hole, stop digging!”. So needless to say if the reactors we now review can generate a lot less waste that would make them a much more attractive proposition to the LWR. Obviously, if the opposite proves to be true, that’s a potential black mark against them.

In addition I also looked at the ability to use the Thorium cycle (given the limits of Uranium supplies), scalability of reactors (these “mega” LWR’s are just too big and unwieldy and can play havoc with the gird of many smaller nations) as smaller reactors might be more flexible, as well as the idea of modular design and mass production of reactors. This latter 2 points being discussed in part 10 of my little series.

If we can prove that any of the reactors we examine can tick all (or most) of these boxes then maybe the nuclear industry has some future, beyond its current Zombie walk to the grave routine with LWR’s.

The Verdicts

All in all my conclusion is that the case for future Generation IV nuclear reactors is much narrower than the supporters of nuclear energy would have you believe. While they do offer some advantages over LWR’s, notably in the area of safety, his comes with strings attached, notably higher capital costs. This is largely a result of the fact that many of these would need to be built from much more exotic materials, such as high temperature stainless steel alloys, Nickel alloys or Refractory materials, while the predominant material of choice in current reactors is steel (stainless and forged ferritic) and concrete. This materials requirement is itself an issue related to the high temperatures these alternative reactors would be required to operate at, not to mention the more aggressive and corrosive environment in some of them, notably the MSR proposals. Of course one to question whether these higher construction costs (and in some cases higher decommissioning costs) are justified.

But overall it is my conclusions that:

The CANDU does close off some of the safety loop holes associated with LWR’s, but it opens up a whole slew of new ones too and generally means higher rates of fuel consumption, lower thermal efficiency and increased amounts of nuclear waste being generated. Indeed, the Canadian government may well have exhausted its patience on this one, as they recently sold the CANDU reactor business for the bargain basement price of $15 million, as well as writing off several billion in outstanding debts. Not exactly a vote of confidence! To me it seems to be a case of the Fed’s picking up the CANDU and throwing it in at the deep end of the pool to see if it will sink or swim. I’ll leave you to guess what’s most likely to happen!

The High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) offers an order of magnitude improvement in safety as well as potentially better fuel economy and high thermal efficiency. However, it will likely come at the expense of much higher construction costs (and probably a slower construction rate depending on material choices, which again depends on operating temperature), higher decommissioning costs and possibly higher volumes of nuclear waste (that last point I’ll admit is debatable, see the my post for more on that one). While the HTGR is fairly safe from meltdown scenarios, one would have likely weathered the Fukushima tsunami with minor damage, it also opens up a host of other safety issues, notably the potential fire risk associated with that graphite core (again a debateable point, see my full article here on this for more info).

The Gas cooled Fast Reactor (GcFR) offers the intriguing possibility of being able to transmute stockpiles of nuclear waste into less dangerous forms. However, it comes with a rather hefty price tag with a lot of R&D work still outstanding as the design is only in the early concept stage of development (read we don’t know if it even works yet!). In any event it will not eliminate the need for some geological storage facilities given the length of time it would take to develop and then build a sizeable number of said reactors, not to mention store the waste after its passed through the reactor. This, plus the hefty price tag associated with GcFR’s, could well make the whole idea uneconomic. Also the GcFR comes with some safety issues (it is not nearly as safe as the HTGR) and a severe proliferation risk.

The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR or LFTR) does offer a number of unique options in terms of safety improvements and improved fuel economy, plus reduced waste streams. However, its ability to achieve these goals is often heavily overstated by its supporters. Much like the GcFR above the design is at a very early stage in development, with much research into it abandoned back in the 1970’s. Any MSR reactor and its associated Chemical Processing Plant (CPP) would likely be expensive to build and slow to construct (again given the narrow and exotic nature of the materials choice the design enforces on us). Getting a decent thermal efficiency out of the plant might be problematic, which worsens the economic case for them. Also while certainly safer than a LWR in terms LOCA scenarios, the MSR comes with its own particular safety problems, notably that graphite core (fire!), the risks of a leak of radioactive material out of the CPP, or arguably worse a release of potential toxic and highly lethal fluorine gas. So all in all there may be a case for MSR’s, but its unproven at the moment and likely a much narrower case that its supporters would have you believe.

Indeed probably the biggest enemy of the MSR design is its own nutty cheerleaders who badly need to stay off the Kool-Aid. Casing point, without hours of my analysis article going online they were already running up vast blog strings of flaming trolls galore (see comments section of my page) or starting e-mailing me anonymously with various badly typed swear-word filled comments. I even picked up one or two stalkers trying to find out who I was and where I lived (yes really)! You also see the odd comment involving half baked megloamanic schemes (such as burning off the biosphere for uranium). While the best I can tell, the advocates of the other reactor designs I reviewed seem to have taken their punishment “like men”, the MSR fans reached for the tinfoil hat and the two-litre bottle of kool-aid. I shall leave it to the reader to decide who should be taken seriously!

Small to medium sized modular reactors do offer a good deal more flexibility in terms of how nuclear power could be used and yet a further improvement in safety. However, they also comes with lower economies of scale and thus higher construction costs and worse a slower rate of reactor roll out (at least in the early days). We could claw back on these two issues by mass producing said reactors in large volumes but as I point out (again see the full article), it is far from proven whether that would be economically viable and whether there is in fact a market for large numbers of small reactors.

Also as I outline, the case for small reactors would also require a major shift in public opinion, which post-Fukushima is unlikely to be forthcoming. Most of the reactor designs I’ve mentioned above would be wholly unsuitable for “mass” production, only a handful of PWR, BWR and HTGR designs would be feasible options. Worse still, by and large mass production means “dumbing down” our design, and that means accepting a reactor that’s much cheaper and easier to build but has a lower thermal efficiency, a higher rate of fuel consumption and ultimately produces larger volumes of nuclear waste compared to our “mega” reactors. With the exception of a small number of narrow cases, it’s difficult to envisage how this would offer an improvement on the current status quo.

Decommissioning costs, the Elephant’s still in the room!

Not only are the construction costs of many of these proposed reactors higher, but for some (but not all) the decommissioning costs would actually be higher and worse they will generate more nuclear waste from this process. This being a particular problem for graphite cored reactors such as the HTGR and the MSR. Other Graphite cored reactors are proving to be something of a nightmare to decommission, as I discuss in the section on HTGR’s.

As far as the spent fuel waste is concerned, some of these proposed reactors will indeed produce less, but others will actually produce more of it, thought it’s probably important to clarify what we mean by “more” or “less”. For example, CANDU as I point out, produces about 7 times (by mass) the amount of nuclear waste than a LWR. However, I’m quite sure the CANDU supporters will point out that because the waste from a CANDU is less radioactive it can be packed up much more tightly, reducing the size of any waste storage pen (but can it be packed sufficiently tightly to overcome that 7 times greater output?).

At the other end of the scale the HTGR’s have a very high rate of fuel burn up, and so would produce a lot less nuclear waste (pound for pound) than a LWR. However, the waste from a HTGR is contained within a graphite matrix which increases its volume to a much larger size than LWR waste. Hence one has to question which reactor we can claim “produces less waste”.

In a similar vein some of the waste output from a MSR will be mixed up with fluoride salts, from which it will have to be separated before going into long term storage. Disposal of said wastes have been described as “technically challenging”  although certainly doable. It’s estimated that it’s going to cost some $130 million to process the waste from one tiny 8 MW_th test reactor which ran for just over 5 years. Again it begs the question which reactor can truly claim to have the “smaller” waste footprint and the “cheaper” clean up bill.

Thorium….only for comic book heroes?

The Thorium cycle, as covered throughout my little study, does offer the option of solving some of the long term fuel supply issues surrounding nuclear energy. But the level to which it will do this is fairly narrow, as Thorium fuelled reactors still need fissile isotopes, drawn ultimately from Uranium, for startup purposes. Failing this they require the use of expensive (and generally uneconomic) fast reactors and reprocessing of spent fuel. So yes, while Thorium could help stretch things out, it can only help a little bit, but not nearly as much as the supporters of Thorium reactors would have you believe. Thorium fuelled reactors would still generate substantial quantities of nuclear waste and come with a number of potential proliferation risks attached. Even the UK National Nuclear Laboratories (NNL) pours cold water over the idea.

Brayton Cycle and Hydrogen Production….rumours of Rankine’s death have been greatly exaggerated

A proposal common to all Generation IV reactors, and some renewable power plant proposals (notably geothermal), is to use Brayton cycle instead of the Rankine cycle for power generation. This would offer a substantial improvement in terms of energy efficiency, and furthermore could bring down the costs of installation. However, there is still some work to do on this issue, so I won’t write off the Rankine cycle just yet! Similarly, the higher material limits required to raise reactor operating temperatures up to the level necessary to utilize the Sulfur-iodine process and make hydrogen directly (using the reactors heat) could well render the whole idea uneconomic. If we want hydrogen (from nuclear) that badly, build a reactor with a lower operating temperature out of cheaper materials, generate electricity and hook it up to an electrolyser! Less efficient yes, but likely cheaper. And if we really want hydrogen on the cheap, ditch the reactor and use CSP or wind energy!

Fusion?

Finally, I also had a look at Fusion power . This is the great white hope of nuclear energy and it has to be said we are making progress, but it’s a case of slow and steady progress. Indeed I would question whether we are in a position yet to even estimate how long it will take for fusion power to become commercial available…if indeed ever! Recent news from ITER is not positive, its now not due to go online till 2026, which would imply a completion of experiments in 2046. And it will take sometime beyond that before we wind up with a viable working commercial fusion reactor. As I speculate (here), it would likely be the latter half of this century (or the beginning of the next one) before we start to see Fusion play any sort of major role in mass global power generation. Also the first generation of Fusion reactors will be dependant on supplies of Lithium for fuel, of which there is only a limited global supply available, something that limits the amount of energy which can ultimately be generated from Fusion reactors, probably to between 8-20% of global energy use depending on whose figures you believe. Where does the other 92-80% come from?

And of course we have to contemplate the possibility that commercial Fusion energy never arrives. While speaking personally, I still have confidence that the necessary breakthroughs will be achieved according to a reasonable timetable, it would be foolish to blindly assume that they will. To build any nations energy strategy on the forlorn hope that fusion power will arrive on the scene by a certain date, makes about as much sense as selling your house and all your worldly goods because some preacher told you the world was going to end on a particular date.

Curb your enthusiasm!

All in all, my conclusions are that the case for future Generation IV nuclear reactors is much narrower than the supporters of nuclear energy would have you believe – even the case for Fusion doesn’t look that clear cut! And again I would note that this last point about Fusion is important, the way the nuclear energy supporters (and indeed many politicians and members of the public) go on you’d swear Fusion was already a slam dunk. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Nuclear energy supporters need to curb they’re enthusiasm for nuclear energy and accept that due to the high capital costs of reactor construction and the limited fuel supplies it will always only ever be a small bit player in a big energy market, at least as far as the current century is concerned. It currently generates about 1.9 – 5.1% of global energy (depending on how you do your maths) and I don’t see how it can be expanded beyond that level, indeed if they manage to maintain this level I suspect they’ll be doing well.

Even the most optimistic nuclear energy program we can draw up still has a substantial energy gap and something else will have to fill it. This of course means we’ll need to rely on renewables for substantially more energy than we currently get from it. Which means many nuclear energy supporters need to overcome their pathological hatred of renewables and if they are truly serious about combating climate change (as many claim to be) then they need to quit trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.

More news on this developing story will be published here as they come.

We are taking a break from the live-updating. You can continue to follow our updates about the nuclear crisis in Japan here. For live updates about the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan you can check out Al Jazeera or the Guardian.

Update 38: Meltdown may be under way at Fukushima nuclear reactor, official with Japan’s nuclear safety agency tells CNN.

Update 37: AJE has this quote from a Tokyo Electric Power Co spokesman about the No.3 reactor failure:

“All the functions to keep cooling water levels in No.3 reactor have failed at the Fukushima No.1 plant. As of 5:30am, water injection stopped and inside pressure is rising slightly.”

Update 36: While the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is sending two experts to Japan AFP reports that the operators of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, where a second reactor system is overheating, says there is a risk of a second explosion.

Update 35: The Washington Post writes that the U.N. nuclear watchdog says Japan is evacuating 170,000 people from the area near a nuclear power plant damaged in the devastating earthquake and tsunami.

Update 34:

Update 33: Yesterday 3 people had tested positive for high radiation levels. That number has now jumped to 160 says a Japanese nuclear safety official, AJE reports.

Update 32: The emergency cooling system of No.3 reactor has now also stopped working, the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has announced. Sea water is being pumped into the No.1 reactor chamber – and officials are scrambling to secure water supply to the No.3 reactor.

Update 31:

Update 30: Greenpeace has issued a statement regarding the radioactivity release from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan:

“Our thoughts continue to be with the Japanese people as they face the threat of a nuclear disaster, following already devastating earthquake and tsunami. [...] How many more warnings do we before we finally grasp that nuclear reactors are inherently hazardous? The nuclear industry always tells us that a situation like this cannot happen with modern reactors, yet Japan is currently in the middle of a potentially devastating nuclear crisis. Once again, we are reminded of the inherent risks of nuclear power, which will always be vulnerable to the potentially deadly combination of human error, design failure and natural disaster.”

Update 29: There is radiation leaking out, and since the possibility of exposure is high, it’s quite scary said 17-year-old Masanori Ono.

Update 28: If this accident stops right now Fukushima in Japan will already be one of the three worst nuclear accidents in history, CNN reports.

Update 27: The third day since the massive earthquake and the nuclear crisis is still a big and real threat in Japan. Meanwhile about 60,000 people have formed a chain around a nuclear power station in Germany to protest its continued operation. The nuclear accident in Japan has sparked massive protests and discussions about the future of atomic power in Germany.

Update 26: The operator of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co, will fill the leaking reactor with sea water to cool it down and reduce pressure in the unit, a government spokesman says to AJE. Flooding the reactor core with sea water is the last emergency option available to try and cool down reactor fuel rods and prevent a meltdown.

Update 25: The Japanese government has now evacuated more than 300,000 people from their homes near the Fukushima Daiichi (No 1) nuclear power plant.

Update 24: This is coming from our own Twitter-feed, which is another source of information regarding the nuclear situation in Japan: These NASA satellite images show the coastline before and after the tsunami in Japan. And according to German media about 60,000 people have, in response to the nuclear emergency in Japan, formed a chain around a nuclear station in Germany to protest its continued operation.

Update 23: We know have some updates about those three people that have been affected by radiation: According to this Twitter post “3 patients out of 90 were tested for radiation levels. All 3 were above the normal levels. They were scrubbed. No lasting symptoms.” Edit: This has now been confirmed by media. AJE writes:

“Of 90 people from within the 10km exclusion zone around Fukushima nuclear power plant tested, three have given positive results for radiation exposure, says Japanese public broadcaster NHK. That’s just over three per cent. Some 45,000 people who live within the 10km radius were told to evacuate their homes in the early hours of this morning, when pressure inside reactors was building rapidly.”

Update 22:

Update 21: Cabinet secretary Yukio Edano said:

“The nuclear reactor is surrounded by a steel reactor container, which is then surrounded by a concrete building. The concrete building collapsed. We found out that the reactor container inside didn’t explode.”

“We’ve confirmed that the reactor container was not damaged. The explosion didn’t occur inside the reactor container. As such there was no large amount of radiation leakage outside. At this point, there has been no major change to the level of radiation leakage outside, so we’d like everyone to respond calmly. We’ve decided to fill the reactor container with sea water. Trade minister Kaieda has instructed us to do so. By doing this, we will use boric acid to prevent criticality.”

AJE writes: “Edano said due to the falling level of cooling water, hydrogen was generated and that leaked to the space between the building and the container and the explosion happened when the hydrogen mixed with oxygen there.”

Update 20: According to Kohei Hayashi three people have been “confirmed to be affected by radiation”. Still no info about this from media. And Reuters are reporting that police patrolling near the Fukushima nuclear plant are wearing respiratory eqipment.

Update 19: Now we are getting contradicting statements from the Japanese government and TEPCO, the owners of the affected nuclear plants. TEPCO seems to be saying that there has been a meltdown but the Japanese government says that this isn’t the case.

Update 18: Strong aftershock quake with a preliminary magnitude of 6 hits Fukushima:

Update 17: Independent nuclear safety analyst John Large tells Al Jazeera that, by venting the radioactive steam from the inner reactor into the outer dome, a reaction may have occurred, causing the explosion: “When I look at the size of the explosion, it is my opinion that there could be a very large leak … the fuel continues to generate heat.” John Large says that by the end of the day “we should know what the situation really is” and that: “All the jigsaw piece of the Three Mile Island disaster are being replicated at this plant – and this has gone beyond Three Mile Island.”

Update 16: The deputy cabinet secretary for public relations and director of global communications at the Prime Minister’s Office of Japan says there is no no damage to the nuclear reactor container following the explosion.

Update 15: The cause and consequences of the explosion at the nuclear plant in Japan continues to be unclear. But Ian Hore-Lacy believes the explosion was due to hydrogen igniting:

Ian Hore-Lacy, communications director at the World Nuclear Association, a London-based industry body, told Reuters he believed the explosion was due to hydrogen igniting, adding it may not necessarily have caused radiation leakage. “It is obviously an hydrogen explosion … due to hydrogen igniting …If the hydrogen has ignited, then it is gone, it doesn’t pose any further threat,” he said.

Update 14: BBC News says that the operators of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant are claiming that the reactor container was not damaged in the large explosion.

Update 13: AJE reports on the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and the effects of the earthquake in Japan in this video: Japan fears nuclear plant meltdown.

Update 12:

Update 11: The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant says the blast there happened during an aftershock to Friday’s quake. AJE also reports that the Japanese government is taking security measures for an possible nuclear meltdown:

“Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the government is taking contingency measures and collecting iodine, with can be used against radiation sickness, as officials said they have detected eight times the normal radiation levels outside the facility.”

Update 10:

Update 9:

Update 8: Al Jazeera interviews Peter Hayes, the executive director of the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable development in Melbourne, about the current situation and of possible scenarios in the quake-hit nuclear plants:

Update 7: BBC News shows footage of the explosion at the nuclear power plant:

“There has been an explosion at a Japanese nuclear power plant that was hit by Friday’s devastating earthquake. Pictures show a blast at the Fukushima plant and initial reports say several workers were injured. Nuclear expert, Malcolm Grimston told the BBC that nuclear materials may have been able to escape.”

Update 6: AFP and other media sources now confirms that an explosion has occurred at the TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. According to Reuters and NHK “several people appear to have been injured after the nuclear plant explosion”.

Update 5: We are getting words that an explosion has taken place at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. More info shortly.

Update 4: Well this quote from AJE doesn’t sound good: Peter Hayes, a nuclear expert, tells Al Jazeera “it’s still possible that the reactor workers can stabilise the situation” at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant “if power is brought back, if coolant is brought into the reactor”, but “we’re really right at the precipice of a massive nuclear crisis”.

Update 3: Following the news from yesterday that fuel rod have been exposed above cooling water level at the Fukushima nuclear plant Japanese nuclear authorities now say “there is a high possibility that nuclear fuel rods at a reactor at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPC) Fukushima Daiichi plant may be melting or have melted”.

Experts have said that if the fuel rods have been damaged, it means that it could develop into a breach of the nuclear reactor vessel and the question then becomes one of how strong the containment structure around the vessel is and whether it has been undermined by the earthquake – and if it can withstand the likely aftershocks.

Update 2: I am quoting AJE directly here so that we can get back quickly to the latest news:

“The Fukushima nuclear power plant “may be experiencing nuclear meltdown”, according to reports by Japanese media on Saturday, while the Associated Press says an unnamed Japanese nuclear safety commission official has said a meltdown at nuclear power plant is possible.”

Update 1: Al Jazeera English reports that “scientists are warning that Japan may be facing a nuclear disaster on the scale of Chernobyl.” They quote Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert for the Global Security Programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists:

“The events that occurred at these plants, which is the loss of both offsite power and onsite power, is one of the rarest events to happen in a nuclear power plant, and all indications are that the Japanese do not have the situation under control.”

We will continue the live-updates on this developing story here.

Update 23: According to some unverified sources, like this report (Japanese language), fuel rod have been exposed above cooling water level at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Around 50 cm of fuel rod bundle believed to be exposed. Also, we are getting news that the pressure release operation in Fukushima nuclear plant have been halted due to high radio activity.

Update 22: The Guardian summaries the current situation in Japan:

• Diesel generators that normally would have worked as back-ups to keep cooling systems running had been disabled by tsunami flooding.
• Power supply systems to provide emergency electricity for the plants were being put in place, the World Nuclear Association said.
• Both plants are light water reactors operated by the Tokyo Electric Power company (or Tepco):

Fukushima Daiichi (No 1) plant
- has six reactors, three of which were shut down for maintainence. Two of the remaining reactors, Unit 1 has significant problems with a rising temperature and in another the operator says it has lost cooling ability.
– the Unit 1 reactor has seen radiation levels inside its control room rise, and slightly higher radiation levels have been detected outside the reactor. Pressure inside the reactor is twice the normal level, and the operator has been forced to vent radioactive vapor to relieve the pressure.

Fukushima Daini (No 2) plant
– has four reactors, and in units 1, 2 and 4 of them the operator has said it has lost cooling ability.
– Tepco says pressure is stable inside the reactors of the Daini plant but rising in the containment vessels.

• Both plants have been declared to be in a state of emergency by the government, and residents moved outside of a 10km zone around both plants.

Update 21: Here is a map showing the location of the two nuclear power stations that have been declared to be in a state of emergency by the Japanese government:

The Fukushima Daini and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power stations.

Update 20: Reuters report now that TEPCO are having difficulties to open a valve to release pressure at the Daiichi reactor.

Update 19: Bloomberg reports that Tokyo Electric Power Co. has started venting gas from one of the reactors.

“Japan’s government ordered the utility to begin releasing gas to reduce a rise in pressure in the reactor. Radiation spread by the release won’t be at a level dangerous to health, said Ryohei Shiomi, a spokesman at the government’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.”

Tokyo Electric Power Co. are now also apparently preparing to vent gas from a second reactor at the Fukushima Daini nuclear plant.

Update 18: Reuters report that Japan may only have “hours to prevent nuclear meltdown” following “a highly unusual “station blackout”".

Update 17: The Huffington Post asks if nuclear reactors in the USA could withstand an enormous quake similar to the one in Japan. “We do not believe the safety standards for U.S. nuclear reactors are enough to protect the public today,” Edwin Lyman, senior scientist, global security programs, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said. Reuters also have an article explaining what could happen when a reactor loses coolant. And here are some basic background on what’s happening with the Fukushima nuclear plant from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Update 16: The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK have released a statement on the nuclear emergency situation in Japan saying that “today’s incident underlines the constant danger that nuclear power presents”:

Kate Hudson, General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said “We are deeply saddened at today’s loss of life and hope that the emergency at the Fukushima plant is resolved quickly and without further incident. The policy of building ever more nuclear power stations increases the likelihood that a natural disaster such as today’s earthquake could be significantly worsened or even dwarfed by a nuclear emergency. Both Japan and Britain locate all their nuclear plants on the coast to take advantage of unbroken supplies of cooling water. But this also exposes them to the brunt of both tsunamis and the coastal floods which are likely to become ever more frequent due to climate change. With the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster next month, today’s incident underlines the constant danger that nuclear power presents due to events totally beyond the control of power station operations. We urge the government to reconsider its support for building new nuclear power stations in Britain.”

Update 15: The situation in Fukushima seems to be escalating as the Guardian reports that the cooling systems has now failed at three other reactors at the nuclear power station:

“Now there are reports from nuclear plant operator Tepco that the Fukushima Daini plant has lost cooling to three of its reactors. It was one reactor in the Fukushima Daiichi plant that had been the cause for concern earlier – so this news is certainly unwelcome. According to Dow-Jones, Tepco says that the temperatures of its No 1 and No 2 reactors at its Fukushima Daini nuclear power station are rising, and it has lost control over pressure within the reactors.”

AJE writes now: “With a state of emergency declared at another nuclear reactor, there are now five reactors under a state of emergency – two at Fukushima No.1 plant, and three at the nearby Fukushima No.2 plant.”

Update 14: AJE reports that:

“Dozens of troops trained for chemical disasters have been sent to the Fukushima nuclear plant in case of a radiation leak, along with four vehicles designed for use in atomic, biological and chemical warfare, says defence ministry official Ippo Maeyama.”

And that “a total of 45,000 people living within a 10km radius of the Fukushima nuclear power plant have now been told to evacuate their homes”. This is really a steep increase from the 3000-6000 people who were gonna be evacuated initially.

Update 13: Tyler Durden over at zerohedge.com writes that the Japanese officials only have 24 hours to avoid a core meltdown scenario:

In an interview with Mark Hibbs, a Berlin-based senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonprofit think tank, Newsmax magazine asks – what happens next at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. The answer according to the nuclear expert, is that as Fukushima is now well on its way to a full core-melt nuclear accident, a worst case scenario could possibly lead to the same results last seen in 1986 Chernobyl.

Update 12: Reuters reports that Tepco has lost the ability to control reactor pressure at Fukushima Daini nos. 1, 2, 4 reactors. But according to Tepco the pressure in the reactors is still stable.

Update 11: AJE writes that: “Japan’s nuclear safety agency says some radiation has now seeped outside the plant, prompting calls for further evacuation of the area, says the Associated Press news agency.”

Update 10: If you are interested in more live-updates not just about the Fukushima nuclear power plant the Guardian and Al Jazeera English has both fast updates on the situation currently unfolding in Japan.

Update 9: According to AFP the radiation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has reached levels 1,000 times of normal levels. And finally AJE can bring some sense to the story about US involvement. They report that: “Meanwhile, contrary to earlier reports, officials say that the US did not deliver nuclear coolant material, and that Japanese authorities handled the situation themselves.”

Update 8: Japan officials are now expanding the evacuation area around the Fukushima nuclear plant from 3 km to 10 km, Reuters report.

Update 7: An independent nuclear safety analyst tells AJE that Japan officials must “manage a balancing act at the Fukushima nuclear power plant”. Quote from the AJE live-blog:

“He says there is a risk of exposing the public if they try to contain radioactive steam, once vented from the reactor, in the secondary dome – as it may also have been damaged during the earthquake. This means there may be a leak. However, not venting the steam – as the pressure in the reactor builds – may lead to a much worse danger being posed.”

Update 6: Pressure building in the plant was set to be released soon, a move that could result in a radiation leak, officials said. Some 3,000 people who live within a 3km radius of the plant have been evacuated, Kyodo news agency said. Cabinet chief Yukio Edanotol says that:

It’s possible that radioactive material in the reactor vessel could leak outside but the amount is expected to be small and the wind blowing towards the sea will be considered. Residents are safe, after those within a 3km radius were evacuated, and those within a 10km radius staying indoors – so we want people to be calm.

Update 5: The Fukushima nuclear power plant, where cooling systems were knocked out by the quake, is located 240km north of Tokyo. The Huffington Post reports that “the radiation level was rising in the turbine building and the pressure had risen to 1.5 times the designed capacity.” And AJE reports that “officials at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant will release “slightly radioactive vapour” to ease pressure in one of the reactors after the cooling system failed following the huge earthquake”.

Update 4: Now we are getting information that “a small radiation leak could occur” at the nuclear plant in Japan:

Update 3: More updates on the situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant from AJE: Nearly 6,000 residents living in a three-kilometre radius of the Fukushima No 1 nuclear power plant, where a cooling failure was reported, have now been ordered to evacuate.

“An instruction has been issued to residents within a radius of three kilometres to evacuate and those within three to 10 kilometres to stay indoors,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano.

“This is an evacuation instruction just for precaution, and there has been no radiation leak from the reactor.”

Update 2: More updates on the nuclear emergency from Reuters who says that the United States has transported coolant to the Fukushima nuclear plant. The report quotes Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, as saying:

“We just had our Air Force assets in Japan transport some really important coolant to one of the nuclear plants. You know Japan is very reliant on nuclear power and they have very high engineering standards, but one of their plants came under a lot of stress with the earthquake and didn’t have enough coolant.”

Update 1: Al Jazeera English reports that: Authorities have told residents living near the Fukushima nuclear plant, hit by a fire earlier, to evacuate the area. Authorities said peole living in a two kilometre radius of the No.2 reactor of the Fukushima No.1 plant should leave.

“In Berlin an estimated 50,000 people have joined a demonstration against nuclear power in the run-up to the German general elections.

The rally was headed by a convoy of 350 tractors, which drove past the office of Chancellor Angela Merkel,” Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports.

Back in 2001 the former Social Democratic chancellor, backed up by the Greens, pushed through a new legislation in 2001 that would phase out nuclear energy from Germany within two decades. But the Social Democratic and Green government lost the election in 2005 to a right-wing coalition consisting of the current Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats and the liberal Free Democrats.

Angela Merkel, who successfully blocked a strong climate deal for the European Union last year, now wants to scrap the nuclear phase-out legislation that the SPD pushed through in 2001. This is similar to what is happening in Sweden after a coalition of right-wing parties won the recent election there. According to Merkel, Germany “cannot phase out nuclear energy as quickly as some imagine.”

“But in the long term, that’s to say in the second half of the century, we will experience a large amount of renewable energy sources. We are convinced that we will be able to stop using nuclear energy at some point”, Merkel said.

The Social Democratic chancellor candidate, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is accusing Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats and the liberal Free Democrats “of leading the country into an energy policy dead-end and endangering domestic security.”

On the same day as the anti-nuclear protest in Germany were taking place Greenpeace released a survey which found that 59% of Germans are against Merkel’s proposal to extend the deadline for the country’s already aging nuclear reactors.

“Our responsibility is to phase out power plants that endanger the health and livelihoods of future generations, said Greenpeace Finland’s nuclear campaigner, Lauri Myllyvirta at a speech the Brandenburg Gate.

“Each year nuclear power plants are kept running means more nuclear waste, more uranium mining, higher risk of accidents. There is no excuse: Climate change can be best tackled without nuclear plants. The nuclear phase-out in Germany is one of the reasons for the success of wind and solar energy all over the world. A relapse into nuclear power in Germany would send a very bad signal to other countries.”

Nils Diedrich, a political scientist at Berlin’s Free University, says that if Merkel and her right wing coalition manage to push through this pro-nuclear legislation “we’ll see a real battle”. He warns that “then there will be massive demonstrations.”

Although Germany is one of the leading countries in renewable wind energy it still has a dirty and toxic energy portfolio. 42% of the country’s energy comes from coal and 23% from nuclear energy. Only about 15% of the energy comes from clean renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

Images from the Gruene.de

Photo credit: christian.senger

The Times Online are reporting that France have been forced to close down a third of its nuclear power stations this summer due to heatwaves:

“France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.

With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.

Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.”

It seems thirsty nukes can’t take the heat and that climate change puts nuclear energy into hot water. A question we must all ask our self: as the planet is warming up, is nuclear really a smart move?

Greenpeace activists protests against nuclear energy in Sweden.

The Swedish right-wing government seems hell-bent on continue its climate wrecking journey. After calling for as much as 88% of the EU emission cuts to be allowed to do overseas in development countries the government now want to scrap a 30-year-old ban on the building of nuclear power plants.

“The Swedish plan was agreed by the center-right coalition government and foresees the building of new reactors at the 10 sites where reactors still are operating. Under the plan, which still needs approval from the country’s parliament, Sweden would replace existing reactors gradually.”

While ignoring the 1980 referendum when a majority of the Swedish people voted to end expansion and completely phase out nuclear energy they also seem to take no notice of the facts that nuclear energy is still dangerous, not cost-effective, and too expensive and will even worsen climate change.

The Guardian reports that public support for nuclear energy in Sweden has grown since 1980:

“But public support has grown since nuclear power has been repositioned as a low carbon energy source and a weapon in the fight against climate change. The decision by Sweden to back nuclear power contrasts with the nation’s careful cultivation of its green image. In 2006, Sweden pledged to replace the use of all fossil fuels by 2020, but nuclear was not part of that plan.”

While I agree that nuclear energy has gained support over the years due to lobbying from the nuclear industry I firmly believe that when people have to choose between nuclear energy and renewable energy sources they choose the later. And public polls help me to back up my claim. An SOM-poll conducted in 2007 shows that a large majority in Sweden, around 80%, wants to see expansion of renewable energy such as wind and solar compared to around 20% who wants to see an expansion of nuclear energy. Other polls show that a majority of the younger generation in Sweden is against nuclear energy (maybe it’s because they are the ones that will have to live with and pay for the nuclear waste generated?).

In Sweden, and no doubt in the rest of the world, I see seven main reasons why only people who lack good judgment would back up nuclear energy:

1. We don’t need more electricity and we can’t sell the surplus
Advocators for nuclear energy often claim that we need more electricity or we will get energy shortages in the future. But this is far from true. Sweden has a surplus of electricity and has had ever since 1980. In 2007-2008 the energy usage dropped by 2%. And according to reports from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) and the Swedish Energy Agency our energy surplus will increase considerably in the next 10-15 years without any new nuclear reactors or political actions needed. They expect that by 2020 Sweden will have a 60% energy surplus (40 TWh) of what today’s nuclear energy plants contributes. And this is mainly because of the construction of new wind farms, biomass plants and energy efficiency efforts.

And Sweden can’t sell the energy surplus because a majority of the countries in Europe also have a surplus of electricity. Denmark, a neighbouring country to Sweden, even has considered donating away its energy surplus to other countries.

2. Nuclear energy won’t save our climate
If we are to stop the devastating effects of man-made climate change we have to act fast. The conservative estimates of UN’s IPCC shows that greenhouse gases must peak and decline by 2015 for us to be able to stop deadly runaway climate change. So if we ignore the toxic nuclear waste generated by nuclear plants, the potential terrorism threats and the high costs involved in the construction, deconstruction and maintaining of nuclear plants there is one thing that speaks against nuclear energy: time.

Building nuclear plants takes several years and is often delayed. A good example of this is the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) reactor (the only nuclear reactor being built in the West since many years back) as an example here. The construction of the Olkiluoto reactor started in 2003 and was expected to be finished by 2009. But the reactor is now three years behind schedule, have had several severe security incidents and malfunctions during construction and probably won’t be finished until around 2012. The ill-fated Olkiluoto 3 project is massively over-budget and accounts for over 85% energy investment for 2006-2010. Just imagine the money and time wasted which could have been better spent on creating a clean renewable energy future in Finland.

Around the world we today have nearly 450 nuclear plants. If we were to replace all our CO2-polluting energy sources we would need over 1500 nuclear reactors by 2020 and over 3500 reactors by 2050. And as the majority of today’s nuclear reactors are using the rare uranium U-235 as fuel we would, according to reports, run out of U-235 within 60-80 years with today’s consumption. That means we would need to construct (and retrofit the existing nuclear reactors) breeder reactors that uses the more widely spread U-238 as fuel. These breeder reactors are even more expansive and take even longer to build than the “ordinary” nuclear reactors.

According to a new report released by Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh nuclear energy will worsen climate change:

“A widely heralded view holds that nuclear power is experiencing a dramatic worldwide revival and vibrant growth, because it’s competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.

That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete—so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; it weakens electric reliability and national security; and it worsens climate change compared with devoting the same money and time to more effective options.”

We simply don’t have the time needed for nuclear energy, and the money needed would be better and more productively spent on renewable energy.

3. Sweden already get nearly half of its energy from renewable energy sources, and the potential for more is huge
According to nuclear advocators Sweden can’t only rely on renewable energy and that it needs nuclear energy. But already today Sweden has the highest proportion of renewable energy in the EU. 43.3% of all energy and electricity generated already comes from renewable energy sources. That is nearly the same amount as nuclear energy generates in Sweden. According to reports from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) Sweden can decrease its energy usage with up to 40% by 2030. This would save us more energy than today’s nuclear plants actually generates. Besides energy efficiency the Swedish Energy Agency expects Sweden to generate another 30 TWh from wind power by 2020 and another 9 TWh from district heating by 2015. And even with these investments Sweden has the potential to invest even more in renewable energy as for example the total wind production would in 2020 still be much lower than in Germany.

A plutonium convoy passing through a small village. Even if you don't live near a nuclear plant, dangerous nuclear material could be passing your door. © Greenpeace

4. Nuclear energy is dangerous
Just because nuclear energy might be a low carbon energy source doesn’t mean it’s environmentally friendly, renewable or safe.

In Sweden there has never happened any severe nuclear waste spill or a nuclear reactor disaster as the one in Chernobyl in 1986. But just last winter one of the reactors in Forsmark, one of Sweden’s nuclear power plants, was close to a severe radioactive disaster like the one in Chernobyl. And during the fall of 2008 three of Sweden’s 10 reactors were closed down due to security reasons which resulted in a cost of billions of Swedish Kronor.

New reports from around the world show that children living close to nuclear plants have a much higher chance of being killed in leukaemia than other children. In a German study in 2007 they found 77 cases of deadly leukaemia during a five years period among children living near a nuclear plant. That was more than 50% of what the scientists first expected to discover. So far the Swedish government, as well as the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, has refused to perform similar investigations near Swedish nuclear plants.

The toxic and highly dangerous nuclear waste generated by nuclear power will stay radioactive for over 100 000 years, which is ten times longer than what the human civilisation have existed. And so far there exists not a single safe and temporary solution to the nuclear waste problem. Instead the nuclear waste problems are being laid upon our children and future generations to deal with. It seems it’s not enough for the older generation to wreck the climate; they also want to create another huge and toxic environmental problem for the younger generation.

And don’t forget about the fact that nuclear reactors can be potential targets for terrorists, as well as:

“Every state that has a nuclear power capability, has the means to obtain nuclear material usable in a nuclear weapon. Basically this means that the 44 nuclear power states could become 44 nuclear weapons states. Many nations that have active commercial nuclear power programs, began their research with two objectives – electricity generation and the option to develop nuclear weapons. Also nuclear programs based on reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel have dramatically increased the risk of proliferation as the creation of more plutonium, means more nuclear waste which in turn means more materials available for the creation of dirty bombs.”

5. Nuclear energy is expensive
The high costs involved in the construction, maintaining and deconstruction of nuclear plants is another reason why nuclear energy shouldn’t be an option among sane people. The advocators of nuclear energy claim that compared to renewable energy nuclear energy is a much cheaper energy source. But that is not the whole truth.

Often this cost is based on nuclear energy from already existing reactors. Meaning they don’t have to take account the extremely high initial construction costs or deconstruction costs. If you account these two costs as well as the high maintaining cost for nuclear energy the claim that nuclear energy is a much cheaper energy source falls.

“The Bush-ite Coalition had an unerring knack of being resolutely incorrect or in denial about so many crucial matters – anthropogenic climate change, the reasons for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorist threat to Australia, and the cost of meeting the climate change crisis. They are also incorrect in relation to the nuclear option. As summarized in #16 above the nuclear option is more expensive than current renewable wind and geothermal technologies and as expensive as current concentrated solar technology. Further, the FULL nuclear cycle (from uranium mining and processing to waste disposal and plant de-commissioning) can be as expensive in terms of CO2 emissions as a gas-fired power station – and we still have the intractable security and waste disposal problems.”

Compared to nuclear energy the costs of renewable energy are falling. They already cost much les than nuclear to maintain once constructed. And calculations shows that the total costs of all renewable energy sources are, compared to nuclear energy, falling as the renewable energy sector becomes more and more developed.

The nuclear industry also doesn’t have to pay for any kind of insurance if an accident happens. This is because there is not a single insurance company in the world that wants to have a nuclear plant as its customer. In other words it means that the Government and you have to pay for everything if some accident were to happen. This also shows that nuclear energy can never be financed by private companies and needs government funding to survive, something that the renewable energy sector has no problem to live without.

“During the nuclear revival now allegedly underway, no new nuclear project on earth has been financed by private risk capital, chosen by an open decision process, nor bid into the world’s innumerable power markets and auctions. No old nuclear plant has been resold at a value consistent with a market case for building a new one.”

A great example of the cost for nuclear energy versus renewable energy in terms of costs is the proposed nuclear reactor in Turkey:

“Today, the bidding consortium announced how much the electricity produced by the new plant would cost: 21 cents per kilowatt hour. That’s three times the current average price of electricity in Turkey. Electricity would have to triple in price before the reactor became economically viable.

This would make Turkey’s reactor the most expensive electricity generating power plant in the world.. Wind power by comparison is currently generating electricity at one third of this offer.”

And don’t forget that nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source. As the nuclear consumption increases the nuclear fuel will become more and more expensive, just like the case is with oil today.

6. Nuclear energy won’t give us more jobs
Another argument against nuclear energy, especially now when we are in a global financial crisis, is that it won’t give us any more new jobs.

The heavy industry in Sweden which uses large amounts of energy often say that without nuclear energy they would get higher energy costs which would force them leave the country. But as I showed above nuclear energy is actually quite expensive, and it doesn’t help that the energy price in Sweden is based on the current market-price in Europe. So it doesn’t really matter how many energy sources we develop, we will still need to pay the same market-price as the rest of Europe.

If you compare how many jobs renewable and nuclear energy creates, well then the safe and renewable energy sector clearly wins. The industry organisation Swedish Wind Energy says that wind power alone could create over 12000 new jobs in Sweden. Other statistics also show that the maintaining of wind farms and other renewable energy sources creates more jobs compared to nuclear energy. A great example of this is Germany where the nuclear industry only supplies 35000 people with jobs while the renewable energy sector employs over 120000 people. The wind sector alone employs over 53000 people, and yet it’s just a small portion of the energy market in Germany.

Al Gore is so correct when he says that “the solution to the climate crisis will also help us solve the economic crisis“:

“The challenges we face are immense – a global economy in crisis, and two ongoing wars. However, the solution to the climate crisis will also help us solve the economic crisis by putting people to work in green jobs and stimulating the economy with the large investment necessary to convert our energy infrastructure to renewable energy.”

7. Do you want a uranium mine in your backyard?
Well would you? If the right-wing government gets what it wants the next broken promise to the Swedish people would be the ban on toxic uranium mines. Since 2005 many companies from around the world have been allowed into to Sweden to search for potential places to start up uranium mines. This is mainly due to the fact that Centerpartiet (Centre Party) and Kristdemokraterna (Christian Democrats), who are all part of the current government in Sweden, voted no to continue the ban on uranium mines in 2007. They’ve had previously promised to vote yes for a continuation of the ban. Today Centerpartiet (Centre Party) are the main pushers for more nuclear energy in Sweden, something they a few years ago would never support. So, as the fuel prices for nuclear plants keep rising and a potential investment in new nuclear reactors it seems it’s only a matter of time before toxic uranium mines will be opened in Sweden. Are you really sure you want to have a uranium mine in your backyard?

The construction of a nuclear plant in Olkiluoto, Finland, has so far been pretty miserable. The construction is 2-3 years behind schedule, 70% over the budget, experiencing 1500 construction defects and recently had do deal with a damaging fire. But it’s getting worse.

Greenpeace today found out from leaked documents that the French construction company Areva is “failing to implement vital safety procedures” that, according to Greenpeace, cannot guarantee the reactors safety.

“The documents show that, during the construction of the steel framework in the base of the the world’s largest nuclear reactor, welders had no specifications as to how the welding should be properly performed for an entire year and, furthermore, tests to ensure the quality of the welding have not been carried out.”

“Bouygues, an Areva sub-contractor, has had no qualified welding supervisors at the site for over a year and still does not have any. Staff are given a mere two weeks’ training instead of having the international standard university degree. The company also listed people who had not worked in the role as welding supervisors.”

“Areva, the Finnish nuclear safety authority STUK, and the country’s electricity generator TVO have all been aware of these problems and yet the necessary vital safeguards have not been implemented. Poor welding could cause or exacerbate a nuclear accident – both the reactor cooling system and the reactor itself are mounted on the steel framework. If this is how the construction has proceeded so far, what can we expect when it comes to the installation of reactor components or electronic safety systems?”

Greenpeace demands that the construction of the nuclear plant must be halted and that “those responsible for this misconduct should be held to account.” Greenpeace also pointed out that “public safety should always be put before profit and poor procedures.”