Japan needs our support

Posted by John Sauven - 16 March 2011 at 6:37pm - Comments

Today many people are struggling to recover from the effects of the earthquakes and tsunami. The focus now for everybody should be on saving lives and supporting people in Japan. Our thoughts are also with the heroic engineers working to reduce the impact of the nuclear accident at Fukushima.

We need to make sure in future that, while we can’t overcome the force of nature, we can reduce the risks associated with currently operating nuclear power plants and find better alternatives. Germany has temporarily shut down seven reactors to carry out safety checks. The EU has agreed on stress tests for all nuclear facilities. China also announced today they would suspend approval of new nuclear plants.

This response, while welcome, is not enough. We’re currently just lurching from one energy crisis to the next. First the BP oil spill in the US, then oil price spikes in response to unrest in the Middle East, and now this nuclear emergency in Japan.

One response, that many fear, is that the nuclear accident in Japan will derail international efforts to reduce carbon emissions and prompt increased investment in fossil fuels like coal. But the long-term solution is the same as it has always been – a sustainable home-grown renewable energy system. This applies as much to China as it does for the UK.

For years our politicians have promised us that we are on the verge of a clean technology revolution where we switch to a safer, cleaner energy system. It hasn’t happened yet, but if not now, when?

We are blessed on this island with vast natural clean energy resources. You have to ask what it will take before ministers finally seize the potential for renewable energy and the huge bounty of jobs and investment that comes with it. Will this century see billions more go in investment on fossil fuels and nuclear, or is this the moment that clean-tech makes a real break through?

Surely it is time to invest in energy that puts people and our environment first.

Article tagged as: clean energy, earthquake, emergency, EU, japan, nuclear power, tsunami

Comments Commenting is now closed

To quote from someone else: "Please may people remember that, belive it or not, Nuclear Power is safer than coal and gas power combined, there have been more deaths associated with Coal and Gas power production than with Nuclear Power. If you want to save the planet there is only one way to go, and that is first Nuclear Fission then, when it is developed properly, Nuclear Fusion. Greenpeace don't complain when a mine collapses, killing hundreds (just look at China) or when a Gas Plant explodes. As soon as the word 'Nuclear' is mentioned people panic! This is not the Cold War anymore, we are not at Two Minuites To Midnight anymore. Remember the fear of Nuclear Power comes from the fear of nuclear weaponary, and a nuclear weapon is nothing like a nuclear reactor. Please also bare in mind that the nucler power sation in Japan was started in the 60's, we have come a long long way since. The incidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island made our nuclear power safer to say the least. Other newer nuclear power stations in Japan are fine as they were built after these disasters, and you can bet that any built after this incident will be safer. Renewables such as wind are not practical, for example here in the UK we would need some 60,000 wind turbines to match demand at it's current rate. Alternatively you could have about 50 of the latest, safest generation of nuclear power plants. Dont be fooled about the 'waste issue' as it is perfectly safe, the spent fuel rods can go in concrete bunkers as thicker than the width of your car, stored in acid so that you could literaly stand next to them without any significat change in background radiation. New nuclear power stations are effectively nuclear bunkers, and can survive nuclear attack! If Greenpeace were to forget its past complaints of the Cold War and looked forward, to today, to see the peaceful uses of nuclear power then problems will be solved, no more arguments over ineffective wind farms (which destory natural beauty) vs a new nuclear power station, we could all agree and solve out CO2 problems, solve our oncomming energy crisis and, to say it bluntly, save our future. The question to you is do you want a global energy crisis in 20 odd years (think of external factors of cut off electricity supplies, hospitals, famine, water treatment to name a few), or do you want a future powered by the latest generation of nuclear power which can power your house to your car with no CO2?" The Anonymous

By Anonymous1994 - 17 March 2011 at 11:25pm

1 person agrees

Well said Anonymous1994!

Despite the fact that the civil nuclear industry is about 60 years old; I think it's a common misconception to think of it as an old industry.

Consider generations of products - most people now change their mobile phones every couple of years, most people change their cars every decade or less. Putting the recyling of such unwanted products to one side; consider the speed of product evolution which can be achieved when society is demanding replacement products at such a high rate.

Now compare this to the civil nuclear industry where reactors have a lifetime of decades. Whilst upgrading plants is possible - we are limited in what we can achieve by doing so and eventually the only way that we can make cleaner, safer plants is by building a new generation.

In summary, we should not forget that this is a young industry which is still learning. To deny such a technology in favour of a small number of alternatives only seems to reduce our available options - if possible would a greater diversity of options not seem more sustainable?

By Paul Hughes - 19 March 2011 at 10:17pm

1 person agrees

Japan are great and need our help

By A NICE GUY - 21 March 2011 at 10:55am

We need 2 support japan as much aswe can,they might of known it was coming but my god was it a hell of a earthquake, if you can try and donate cos i am.

By by your best friend - 28 March 2011 at 10:26am

Any loss of life is a hard price to pay for living in the world we lve in today< maybe nuc power is safer than coal and gas fact of the matter is we are running out of these things we seem to think is important

By kylie - 30 March 2011 at 1:57pm

Of course there is death and injury as a result of the activities of the oil, gas and coal industries, in fact in any heavy industry, but there is a qualatitive and quantative difference between occupational risk and risk to the public. In a nuclear accident many thousands of people may be directly effected. Exposure to ionising radiation can cause morbidity and premature mortality many years after exposure, and the young are particularly vulnerable to it's effects.
When the tale of Fukishime is eventually told I have no doubt that it will be a catalogue of errors and neglect. Evidence of the cosy relationship between TEPCO and the regulatory authorities, and the lax attittude towards safety at Fukishima is already emerging.
Would the respondents who are speaking up to support the nuclear industry please ask themselves if they would have the same views if they and their families lived close to Fukishima? I live in London which is considerably closer to at least four nuclear reactors than Tokyo is to Fukishima.
After Chernobyl we were told that this could never happen in the West. Now we are being told that it could never happen here.
This is the nuclear accident that the industry said could never happen. Now we are looking at the partial or total melt down of three reactors with consequences that nobody can properly predict. The time has come to phase out the use of nuclear power in the UK and invest in some of the sustainable alternatives.

By Jeremy Gilpin - 31 March 2011 at 3:54pm

Sorry Jeremy but, having thought about your post, I don't think you're portraying the situation accuratly - you appear to be comparing the accident scenario unfolding with the regular operations of other sources of energy. Unless you can prove otherwise, the lax attitude of operator and regulator doesn't seem apparent to me - the fact of the matter is that the current situation is due to a catastrophic natural disaster - rather unlike the previous nuclear events you mentioned which are due to a mix of technological faults and human error.

Regardless of what technologies we employ - I think we need to serious consider what we intend to do as our normal operations and what might occur in the event of an accident or natural disaster.

In the case of standard operations; it seems nonsense to me to employ technologies which emit high levels of green house gases or are incapable of fulfilling our energy requirements (for the record, I think a mix of energy sources is required; including nuclear).

In the case of accidents and natural disasters; I think one of the lessons learnt from Fukushima will be that the global nuclear industry needs to prepare emergency responses which are deployed from a distance. I do understand that many countries are providing assistance to Japan right now - but perhaps this could have been prepared in advance? In the past, I think that the approach has always been to have emergency arrangements at the nuclear site which can be deployed immediatly. Whilst this is still necessary, Fukushima evidences that this approach is inefficient when there is a common failing of infrastructure caused by extreme natural disasters. Thus, I think that having that same emergency reponse being located off site (perhaps many hundred or thousands of miles away) would allow for the same emergency measures to be provided regardless.

To reitterate; I really don't think now is the time to be judging the global nuclear industry - now is the time for helping Japan as best we can and seeking to learn exactly what has happened to better inform our future.

Much like everyone else reading this article, my thoughts are with Japan right now.

By Paul Hughes - 1 April 2011 at 11:17pm

I am waiting to hear Greenpeace on the international public media platform. Your silence is unacceptable!
Where have you gone! What are you doing???

By Caroline Sim - 3 April 2011 at 11:01am

Like Caroline, looked to see what Greenpeace UK was organising re the Japan nuclear situation, bewildered as to lack of action; response even. US branch do seem to have made attempts though.

By Christine Padmore - 3 April 2011 at 11:36pm

So what is the greenpeace view on dumping highly radioactive waste into the Pacific!!

Surely by now the nuclear industry must have devised a safer, all be it more expensive way to deal with such waste. Are we saying that water has never been contaminated before?? Why can't it at least be storred in a tanker while a better solution is found. Using the worlds oceans as a nuclear dustbin is not acceptable.

By Chez - 4 April 2011 at 11:30am

I'm glad Chez has said the above as I myself was just about to say something just like that. It's all well and good in helping Japan, but what they're doing with all of their highly radioactive waste is NOT okay. I heard on the news this morning that they're now planning to dump tons of said substance(s) elsewhere out at sea so that they don’t add any more of it to their surrounding waters/areas that are already affected. I'm so angry about this. We're destroying our own planet. Something needs to be done. NOW.

By natashajade - 4 April 2011 at 2:04pm

Thanks for your considered reply Paul but I do not think you have properly addresed several of the issues I raise.
Prioir to the disaster he Japanese governmant, and TEPCO, both maintained that their installations were earthquake and tsunami proof - clearly not true.
You make no comment on the differences between occupational and public risk.
With regard to incompetence. When the third hydrogen explosion occured it took out 3 of the 4 diesel pumps cooling reactor 2, the single remaining pump then ran out of fuel. Hardly an example of competence. It has already emerged that the spent fuel pond in reactor four had more fuel in it than it's design capacity and that safety checks at Fukishima had been missed.
Throughout the crisis TEPCO and the international media have down played the the risks. I have a great deal of sympathy for those Japanese families inside the 'stay indoors zone' where Greenpeace has reported radiation levels equivalent to a whole years 'safe' exposure in two days. We still do not know what the final results of this 'accident' will be but it is clear that the towns, villages and agricultural land for at least 20 km around the plant will have to abandoned for decades.
I agree that climate change is the most pressing problem for our societies. Offshore and onshore wind, tidal energy and solar thermal generation are all clean energy sources and this is where we should be investing our money. That and encouraging people to use less energy, a move from private to public transport for example. Not in a new generation of dangerous nuclear power stations.
And, at the risk of repeating myself, would you be happy for your children to be living 25km from Fukishima?

By Jeremy Gilpin - 4 April 2011 at 6:30pm

Jeremy,

Thanks for your response - apologies if you feel I've not addressed your points; the omission was not intentional - I'll try to respond here.

Regarding TEPCOs claims prior to the tsunami - I cannot really comment here as I'm not aware of the claims you're referring to. I suspect that, like UK nuclear facilities, the plants were built to a specification believed to be sufficiently robust. Perhaps the issue is not one of if earthquakes and tsunamis were considered, but rather if the safety cases made considered an event of this magnitude to be plausible?

Regarding Occupational and Public risk - I don't have any particular comment to make; you are of course correct that, in the event of a nuclear ACCIDENT many people might be affected; however I think it's important to contrast this against the greater propoertion of time whereby NORMAL operations are undertaken and nobody is affected in this manner. Contrast this with the corresponding operations of other sources of energy and I do believe nuclear to be favourable.

Regarding any alleged incompetance; I think you might have better sources of information than I do which I would be interested in reviewing. Personally I'm waiting for the resulting WANO findings of these events rather than trusting some of the gibberish I have read in the press. On this point I really must point out that I agree with the sentiment of this article and believ that right now Japan needs our support - not our accusations.

On the subject of sources of energy, you cite wind, tidal and solar thermal as viable sources of sustainable energy. Whilst I agree that these should be used as part of a diverse array of energy sources, I don't believe these technologies alone can supply the baseload energy required at all times.

Regarding the belief of achieving a greater efficiency by encouraging people to change their habits; even if this were possible - how much more efficient would we need to be to counteract the greater energy required globally due to industralising nations?

Finally, in response to your last question; I have quite happily spent much of my life living less than 25km from Hartlepool nuclear power station and, given the ongoing normal operations to date, have no issue with living near a nuclear power station. Would I like to live near Fukishima? Under normal operations, I would live there just I did in the north east of england. Given recent events in Japan, I would consider living near Fukishima once remediation efforts are under way.

Kind regards,

Paul Hughes

By Paul Hughes - 5 April 2011 at 11:30pm

Saw this and thought of this blog:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

By Paul Hughes - 14 April 2011 at 9:13pm