l-r Bruce Kent, Ellen Teague, Fr Peter Hughes, Fr Sean McDonagh, John Vidal
|
|
|
Nuclear energy has been described as a ‘Pandora’s Box’ by Columban
eco-theologian Sean McDonagh. Sean was speaking at the launch on
Thursday evening of his latest book - ‘FUKUSHIMA: THE DEATH KNELL FOR
NUCLEAR ENERGY?’ - held at Heythrop College in London.
“The nuclear
industry began with weapons of mass destruction” he said, “and I would
argue that civilian nuclear power is almost as dangerous”. He referred
here particularly to nuclear waste, pointing out that “no place on Earth
is considered a safe repository for plutonium, which must be minded for
several hundred thousand years”.
He condemned placing the custodial
responsibility of these dangerous wastes on future generations for
centuries to come, suggesting that “we must consider this matter to be
an ethical issue”. He called for investment in nuclear power to be
diverted into investment into cleaner, safer and more localised
renewable energies such as solar, wind and wave power. This would go
alongside educational campaigns and technologies to reduce energy
consumption and deal with peak energy periods. Environment organisations
campaigning for the UK’s new Energy Bill to focus on building up
renewable energy should be supported.
Sean felt that the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan during March
2012 has again shown us that nuclear reactors are fundamentally
dangerous. None of the world’s 435 nuclear reactors are immune to human
errors, natural disasters, or any of the many other serious incidents
that could cause an accident. Millions of people who live near nuclear
reactors are at risk and more than 150,000 people who used to live near
Fukushima remain displaced from their homes. However, he felt that,
ultimately, economic considerations will be the death knell of the
nuclear industry, with the huge expense of setting up new power stations
and decommissioning them. In addition, they are uninsurable, so if
there are accidents the costs are likely to be met from the public
purse. He dismissed nuclear power as a route to reducing carbon
emissions in the light of dangerous climate change. “We are told that
serious action on climate change needs to happen within the next 4-5
years, but new power stations would take at 16 years or more to be up
and running” he said, “and I would argue that from mining uranium to
decommissioning nuclear power stations the nuclear industry carries an
often hidden carbon emissions toll”.
The meeting was chaired by The Guardian’s Environment Editor John
Vidal who thanked Sean for his books over three decades covering such
concerns as Ecocide, Patenting of Life, Climate Change and Nuclear
Energy as moral issues.
“You have been described tonight as a prophet, but you are also a
damn good journalist” said John, who urged people to buy and read the
new book. John went to school in the vicinity of Sellafield in Cumbria -
formerly called Windscale, it is the UK’s largest and most hazardous
site, storing enough high and intermediate level radioactive waste to
fill 27 Olympic-sized swimming pools. John said he had watched over the
last 30-40 years “how this secretive and dangerous industry has got its
claws into government and is almost impossible to disentangle”. On 7
November, Britain’s National Audit Office said Sellafield posed “an
intolerable risk to people and the environment” with hazardous waste
stored in run-down buildings. John described a visit he once made to
Chernobyl, the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident in the Ukraine
in 1986, “terrifying”, saying “don’t believe it when people say that
only six people died”.
When John invited Bruce Kent, Vice-President of Pax Christi and of
CND, to join the panel discussion he commented that “now I have two
heroes, on either side of me”. Bruce focused on the military use of
nuclear power, saying “Britain got nuclear power in order to make
bombs”. Some nuclear materials, in particular highly enriched plutonium
and uranium, may be used for civil purposes or in explosive devices and
in all the countries possessing nuclear weapons, progress in civil
nuclear science has benefited arms development, and vice versa. Bruce
highlighted the proposed massive expenditure of around £67 billion to
clean up Sellafield and £80 billion to renew Britain’s Trident nuclear
missile system, suggesting that nuclear is not a cheap option. “There is
a massive need for public education on these issues and for agencies to
work together to tackle them” he said. Referring to nuclear waste, he
commented, “I find it incredible that lethal material can be left as a
legacy for 200,000 years – this is criminal”.
One intervention from the floor was from Mo Kelly, a Lancaster-based
architect and Pax Christi member, who is challenging the proposed
development of a new nuclear power station in the nearby Heysham area.
Holding a copy of the publication ‘Nuclear Disasters and the Built
Environment’, she was interested in engaging with other professionals
highlighting the short and long term risks involved in nuclear power.
She pointed out that the employment in her region of many Catholics in
nuclear civilian and military establishments meant that challenging the
morality of the nuclear industry often fell on unsympathetic ears in the
Catholic community. Yet, in the light of the Fukushima disaster, the
Vatican changed its policy on supporting nuclear energy when in October
2011 it declared that nuclear power was neither cheap nor safe. Many
Catholic bishops’ conferences around the world have also rejected
nuclear power, including Japan, Korea, Philippines, India, Germany, and
Canada.
Columban Peter Hughes - who heads the Columban Justice, Peace, and
Integrity of Creation Team –thanked all the speakers and promised
follow-up. The presence of Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation
Links’ representatives indicated that some religious orders will also be
involved in campaigning against further nuclear power stations in
Britain and for an Energy Bill that promotes renewable energy
development. During the evening, photos of parishes in the vicinity of
Fukushima after the earthquake and tsunami of March 2011 were on display
– provided by Columban Dan Horgan, who worked in Japan for 30 years.
They showed destroyed buildings and debris. The small Catholic
congregations have now largely left parishes in the region because of
nuclear contamination.
11/23/2012
Forgetting Fukushima India Pursues Massive Nuclear Expansion
By Wieland Wagnerhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/india-pushes-forward-with-massive-expansion-of-nuclear-capabilities-a-868662.html
DER S
The 2011
disaster at Japan's Fukushima plant led many countries to turn away from
nuclear power. But a growing population and rising economy has prompted
India to massively expand its nuclear program -- even in the face of
technological worries and fervent opposition.
They placed the photo of the dead man in the entrance of the hut. A
lightbulb illuminating his face makes it look like that of a saint. The
bereaved widow has her four children stand in front of the photo. They
have lost their breadwinner, and now they can only hope that he will
continue to somehow feed them even after death. Opponents of nuclear
power in India view him as a martyr and are collecting donations for the
family.
Sahayam Francis was only 42, and now his picture is displayed
everywhere on the straw-roofed houses of Idinthakarai, a fishing village
in the state of Tamil Nadu, on the southern tip of the Indian
subcontinent. It looks like an idyllic place, where fisherman spread
their catches out to dry on the beach and repair their nets while
sitting under palm trees. But it's a deceptive paradise.
A few kilometers to the southwest, the new Kudankulam Nuclear Power
Plant, built with Russian technology, towers over the haze. In
September, the Supreme Court in New Delhi dismissed a lawsuit filed by
opponents of nuclear power who were trying to block the loading of fuel
at the plant. Now the countdown continues, and the first reactor could
be ready for start-up by the end of the year, with the second one to
follow shortly thereafter. The reactors are expected to generate a total
of 2,000 megawatts of electricity to help satisfy some of the rising
economic power's thirst for energy.
On the day of the accident, Sahayam and his neighbors were protesting
against the plant. They had formed a human chain in the shallow water,
the women wearing colorful saris and the men carrying black flags.
Sahayam was standing on a breakwater when a coast guard plane suddenly
made a low pass over the crowd. Sahayam's family says that he was so
startled that he fell headfirst onto the rocks, dying a short time
later.
"They surrounded us like prisoners," complains S. P. Udayakumar, the
53-year-old leader of the nationwide People's Movement Against Nuclear
Energy. Udayakumar, who studied political science at American
universities, has gathered the villagers in front of the church in
Idinthakarai, where he preaches about the evils of nuclear power on a
daily basis.
Udayakumar says that millions of people living along the coast could
be exposed to radiation if the government continues to pursue its
ambitious nuclear program. He spreads out his hand to illustrate the
shape of the subcontinent. "Here, here and here," he says. "They want to
build nuclear power plants everywhere, and they'll contaminate our
ocean and our fish populations."
Dressed in a white robe, Udayakumar looks like a cross between a guru
and a guerilla leader. He and several hundred of his fellow activists
risk arrest on charges of agitation and other alleged offences.
Taking Risks to Satisfy Demand
Were any lessons learned from Fukushima? What about phasing out
nuclear power? The Japanese reactor disaster in March 2011 did little
more than briefly stun India's government. Now it is pressing forward
with its plans to expand nuclear energy, often against fierce
resistance.
The new Kudankulam power plant is intended as only one stage in
India's program. Between now and 2032, the government plans to expand
the country's nuclear capacity from 4,400 to roughly 63,000 megawatts.
By 2050, India even expects to satisfy a quarter of its electricity
demands with nuclear energy. Today, about 20 reactors generate roughly 4
percent of India's electricity, but the country plans to double its
nuclear energy capacity in the next five years alone. In doing so, the
Indians will rely on particularly controversial reactor types. To make
matters worse, many doubt that India -- with its bizarre infrastructure
and often chaotic organization -- can keep the technology under control.
Still, the nation of 1.2 billion urgently needs energy, as became
glaringly evident last summer when large sections of the country went
without power for days and more than 600 million people suffered in the
heat without electricity. Blackouts are a common occurrence, and the
lights go out, air-conditioners stop running and elevators get stuck
every day even in the capital city of New Delhi.
Often inefficiently operated coal-fired power plants and chronic
corruption are to blame for India's disastrous power supply. In many
states, for example, local politicians illegally tap electricity from
the grid and then secure votes by supplying households with free power. In addition, the central and local governments are constantly jostling over how energy is allocated.
Given these circumstances, India's business community, in particular,
views nuclear power as a surefire way to stimulate growth. Impatient
backers of nuclear energy even want to see controversial reactors placed
directly under the control of the military.
A Symbol of
Independence
Kudankulam is already practically under a state of martial law.
Journalists who travel to the area are followed and sometimes arrested.
Fishermen in Idinthakarai claim that police officers and thugs in
civilian clothes recently combed the village for Udayakumar and other
activists, albeit unsuccessfully. Before the frustrated intruders left,
say villagers, they urinated in the church and desecrated a statue of
the Virgin Mary. As evidence, one of the nuclear-power opponents holds
up the statue's severed head.
Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's legendary first prime minister
(1947-1964), promoted nuclear development. "We must develop this atomic
energy quite apart from war," he insisted, though he added that India
could "use it for other purposes" if compelled. Ever since, it has been
viewed as a symbol of independence, making a phase-out inconceivable for
planners in New Delhi.
Indian reactors supplied the plutonium for the country's first
nuclear test in 1974, a decade after China detonated its first nuclear
bomb. In 1998, the entire nation celebrated further denotations, which
gave India a permanent place among nuclear powers. Military leaders
named their project "Shakti," the Sanskrit word for "strength." Soon
afterwards, Pakistan, India's nemesis to the north, detonated its own
nuclear bombs.
American, French, Russian and Japanese companies all want to develop
the subcontinent as a market for nuclear power plants. Since the
Fukushima disaster, they have been eagerly looking toward India --
because they've been having more trouble selling their technologies at
home.
India currently needs foreign uranium to power its reactors. In the
long term, however, it hopes to free itself from foreign sources by
developing what it needs to complete the full nuclear-reprocessing
cycle.
Insufficient Expertise
To this end, India's planners are clinging to questionable
technologies, such as fast breeder reactors operated with plutonium as
well as ones that use thorium. Germany, by comparison, abandoned a
similar test plant in the late 1980s because it was too expensive and
prone to failure.
But how is India, a developing country, supposed to master a
technology that even proved too much for a perfectionist, industrialized
nation like Japan to keep under control?
Indeed, there are already growing doubts about the safety of Indian
nuclear plants. In August, the country's general accounting office
released a devastating critique of the domestic nuclear regulatory
agency, noting that more than half of inspection reports were submitted
late and that a number of inspections were never even performed.
The government intends to set up a new, independent monitoring
agency. But nuclear opponents fear that even this agency could devolve
into a vicarious agent of the nuclear lobby.
Arundhati Roy, the novelist and political activist, says that the
government lacks the know-how needed to safely operate nuclear power
plants. "The Indian government has shown itself incapable of even being
able to dispose of day to day garbage, let alone industrial effluent or
urban sewage," she scoffed in a message of solidarity to opponents of
the plant in Kudankulam. "How does it dare to say that it knows how to
deal with nuclear waste?"
Though she might sound rhetorical, Roy is merely describing the sad
reality of those living near the power plant. In fact, there are even
piles of garbage in front of the local police station. Likewise, the
Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the state-owned company that
operates Kudankulam and other reactors, has yet to present a plan for
how to permanently dispose of nuclear waste.
However, India's parliament has passed a compensation law that
obligates the operators of nuclear power plants and their suppliers to
compensate victims should there be a reactor disaster. This is one
reason why foreign companies are currently holding off on signing
agreements to deliver new reactors to India.
The ongoing struggle over Kudankulam should also dampen the nuclear
lobby's enthusiasm. The original contract for the project was signed in
1988 by former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and then-Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev.
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
| 
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar