We can take a look at first reaction to Fukushima among the deciding elites of the “old nuclear” countries which pioneered civil nuclear power – by rank the USA, France, Japan, Germany, the UK and a few other European countries. The ranks have broken! Germany now has a loud-and-proud national plan to totally quit nuclear power by 1st January 2022, and Japanese public opinion, followed by its political deciders could or may soon force the same accelerated exit strategy. At this time, Japan has firmly decided not to go ahead with building 14 more nuclear reactors, and national energy policy, to use a nuclear analogy is now in fusion.

The diehard group has shrunk to the USA, France and UK all with exactly the same basic nuclear legacy and problem that Germany decided was a millstone, not a gift. They have aging reactor fleets, more than 28 years average age, increasing problems keeping up capacity output, and no way out of the coming onslaught of costs to safely dismantle and decommission these left-overs from a not-so-heroic and costly past. In those happy times for the secretive nuclear industry, reactor accidents, worker safety, and public health dangers of atomic energy could be swept under the carpet. Biting the bullet right now is the sane and responsible answer – but the diehards do not see things that way.

As we now officially know from UN IAEA and other sources, like the bankrupt Japanese Tepco operating company of the Fukushima 6-reactor complex, 4 of these reactors have suffered complete meltdown and will spew radiation for six months or more. Compared with video footage of burning tap water due to shale and frac gas leakages which French, if not US and British TV viewers are fed to show the danger of alternate energy sources for power production – making it so necessary to soldier on with the friendly atom — it might have been thought that pursuing energy policies we know endanger our health and safety, and do not come cheap, would give way to full public information, debate and discussion of the energy choices we have to make. This unfortunately is not the case. Official myth still says nuclear power can replace or save oil – and oil prices are high.

REAL ENERGY POLICIES

To be sure, energy policy has a big problem: decisions today can have a 30-year footprint, but political and finance industry timeframes and horizons are measured in days – or hours. By contrast to the German decision to quit nuclear power and likely or possible similar decision in Japan the Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron administrations have not only reaffirmed their commitment to either maintaining or expanding nuclear power, but, according to press and media reports including official statements on energy policy, have reinforced moves to extending reactor operator lifetimes. It is very likely their government officials will go on waiving fire, flood, seismic and power supply cut-off risk protection – simply due to costs. Not content with that and especially in the US, moves continue for licensing and funding  “new generation miniature nuclear reactors” for siting all around the country. Massive long-term radioactive pollution – measured in decades or centuries, not years – is the threat this choice will bring.

Incredibly, the refusal to change policy comes even as at least one French nuclear plant, at Civaux, is powered down due to critical shortage of cooling water, and numerous reactors in all three diehard nuclear countries are revealed to have no fire and plant power-outage readiness, or previous studies of geological fault line presence before their construction. At the same time, the nuclear industry in all these countries – from equipment suppliers and plant builders to nuclear operating companies – is forced by adverse debt and poor financial management, extending many years in the past, to need ever-larger amounts of public finance and support.

In all 3 countries electricity prices will rise, and the main culprit is nuclear power.

SHORT TERM ONLY

Shale and frac gas, and coal seam gas extracted in situ without mining can offer real and fast alternatives to nuclear power, but this subject throws up a strange set of response and reaction. We find a curious interpretation of national priorities, benefits and costs through fully deregulated full-speed-ahead US and UK policy on shale and frac gas, compared with heavily protective policy to this energy alternative in pro-nuclear France with heavy investments in high-cost LNG gas supplies.

The clear need for national standards and controls on this potential energy alternative to nuclear power is evident. Without this, using the deregulated US-model from another age – the 19th century – widespread pollution of water bodies and little or no spending on environmental restitution after the production phase are almost certain.

The deforming lens of short-term energy supply imperatives and a quick bang for the buck ironically lock us in to a nuclear strategy and the worst-possible uptake of new and lower cost gas supplies able to replace nuclear power generation. They also sweep away the biggest potential of them all: energy saving and cutting electricity out of the final user mix wherever it is possible. This especially concerns heating and cooling, where low-energy and no-energy alternatives are in massive availability.

Moving forward is the key – and doing it needs responsibility, transparency and honesty using the best scientific, technical, industrial and economic advice.

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/nuclear-power-diehards-pose...

Submitted by Aletho News on Wed, 2011-06-15 20:28

• Aletho News's blog
• Login or register to post comments
• 142 reads
•