Two months after the devastating earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, those who face an uncertain future and those who are still unable to return home because of the deadly contamination from the still-leaking and still-precarious nuclear complex at Fukushima.
The ongoing Fukushima nuclear catastrophe stands as a stark warning to those who live in the shadow of other nuclear reactors around the world. It stands also as a reminder of the inherent risk of nuclear power: a technology so complex and so dangerous that it will always be prone to the impact of natural disaster, technical failure and human error.
Nuclear power is a technology that comes complete with its own disaster scale: the International Nuclear Events Scale or INES. Fukushima, having suffered the twin onslaught of earthquake and tsunami, registered seven on that scale, the highest possible, yet it is not the worst-case scenario. It can't be. There is still much more radioactivity held inside the wrecked reactors than has been leaked into the environment. There is still no guarantee that the reactors have been brought under control. The future for those living in the area remains fraught with danger, uncertainty and risk.
One thing is certain, though! No one would build a reactor in a high-risk earthquake zone on a coast now. Not after Fukushima. Would they? No one would take the risk?
Regulators would not approve it. Citizens would fiercely oppose it. Banks and markets would not be prepared to take the risk; they would not be prepared to pay for it. Would they?
Apparently, yes! Two of the world's biggest banks, HSBC and BNP Paribas, are doing just that. They are involved in funding a massive nuclear development at Jaitapur on India's earthquake-prone coast in Maharashtra state. If completed according to plan, it will be the world's biggest nuclear power facility.
Long before the Fukushima disaster, local people expressed their opposition to Jaitapur. They have protested the construction and pointed out the inherent dangers and technical threats posed by the planned French European Pressurized Reactors. They pointed out that nowhere in the world has the problem of how to isolate deadly nuclear waste from the environment been solved. Jaitapur is no exception -- there is no plan, period. Nor is there any money being set aside to pay for radioactive waste management. Thousands of people have been unjustly arrested in protest. More than 2,400 families will lose their livelihoods if the plans continue, yet only 154 have so far accepted compensation.
Despite this, and in the face of Fukushima, the Indian government is determined to continue, to let the French company Areva build the reactors. It will not listen to reason nor pay attention to the reality of earthquakes in the region: in the last two decades alone, it has suffered three earthquakes above 5 points on the Richter scale. In 1993, the region suffered a quake measuring 6.3, which left some 9,000 people dead.
I have witnessed firsthand the legacy of the nuclear industry. Last month I traveled to Chernobyl and met with local people who -- 25 years later -- still live with that nuclear disaster every day. I have had the honor of standing alongside the people of the Wendland in Germany who continue to lead a mass movement against a planned nuclear waste storage site that threatens their livelihoods and homes. And along with the rest of the world, I have witnessed the most extreme cost of nuclear energy -- the disaster at Fukushima and the heart-wrenching consequences for the people affected.
Today, I have written to the heads of BNP Paribas and HSBC, reminding them of the need to act responsibly and reminding them of the reality surrounding these already-questionable nuclear investments. I am urging people everywhere to take a stand against future Fukushimas and join me in warning these banks against the risks of investing in nuclear power. Instead we need banks like HSBC and BNP Paribas to invest in clean and safe renewable energy sources rather than bank on the next Fukushima. No money, no reactors, no danger.
Follow Kumi Naidoo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kuminaidoo
Bill Chameides: The Nuclear Option: Waste Plan or a Wasteland?
This should be easier than going after the banks, because instead of convincing the managing directors of a bank to abandon profitable investment, you only need to lobby your elected representatives (in most countries, anyway).
Fukushima was not an isolated incident.
It tells us that a reactor complex with decades old safety systems and designs, operated by an organisation with a complacent (almost criminally so) attitude towards safety, hit by not just a massive earthquake, but then hit by a massive tsunami, killed and injured LESS people than a dam that generated only a fraction of the amount of electricity.
Future accidents are inevitable, and the likelihood of another accident increases over time as more facilities are constructed. It’s unsettling to think that India, a developing nation in a politically volatile region, plans to build on a geological unstable site. With Fukushima, we see a highly organized government, with superior resources, vexed by a nuclear accident.
Ultimately, when you consider the risks involved with the technology, not to mention the problem of storing waste (which we have already committed humanity to for the next 100,000 years) it should become clearer to people that nuclear is a short term solution.
Nuclear fusion, not fission would be closer to the fire of the sun...It does not "burn" hotter than we can handle. To state otherwise demonstrates a fearful amount of ignorance on your part.
>A nuclear reactor is a complex system, with thousands of moving parts and an army of technicians to keep it operating.
Yes, oddly enough the nuclear research reactor I just spent 9 months working at, had 1 reactor plant manager, one mechanic and one electronics technician, me...thousands of moving parts? (now if I counted the individual electronic components, then I'd agree with you, but they don't really move around a lot)...remember I told you up front I have 6 years as a nuclear reactor operator.
>the results of a nuclear accident are far more unpredictable. Now here is where one really needs to step back and think about history. Man, in his infinite ignorance, exploded how many nuclear weapons into the atmosphere before finally stopping?
Unfortunately most people don't or can't understand the difference between a nuclear bomb and a nuclear plant. (Psst, the fuel used in nuclear reactors is very low enriched uranium in almost every plant in the United States now.
The few remaining plants in the United States that do you highly enriched Uranium still do use use the type of Uranium necessary to build a nuclear weapon.
Ultimately, when you consider the risks involved with the technology, (which you clearly have little or no understanding of) not to mention the problem of storing waste...
This is a sore point with me. Not so much with people that blithely throw out the statement to begin with, but the NRC and the Federal Governments inability to start a program to recycle the fuel. (Hint: reference the nation of France when it comes to this)
Now only is nuclear power a short term solution, but a long term one as well.
Where do you think you are going to generate the massive amounts of electricity to power a new country running on electrics cars/trucks/trains? Windmills and solar panels? Now I'm the one that's laughing.