No to nuclear power: Nine Nobel Peace Laureates to world leaders

[bananas]

Posted in GD back in April: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x945708

http://www.nobelwomensinitiative.org/home/article/no-to-nuclear-power-nobel-laureates

No to nuclear power: Nobel Peace Laureates to world leaders

On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster - and six weeks after the devastating nuclear disaster in Japan - nine Nobel Peace Laureates are calling upon world leaders to invest in safer forms of renewable energy.

The six women Peace Laureates of the Nobel Women's Initiative, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, and Jose Ramos Horta have sent an open letter to 31 heads of state whose countries are currently heavily invested in nuclear power production, or are considering investing in nuclear power.

Take Action - Join the call.
Read the open letter below.

"It is time to recognize that nuclear power is not a clean, safe or affordable source of energy," they say. "We firmly believe that if the world phases out its current use of nuclear power, future generations of people everywhere--and the Japanese people who have already suffered too much--will live in greater peace and security."

The letter goes on to highlight the serious long-term impacts of nuclear power production, including the challenges of finding safe and secure storage for nuclear waste. The Laureates point out that while countries continue to produce this expensive and dangerous energy, other cheaper and more sustainable sources are very accessible.

"There are presently over 400 nuclear power plants in the world--many, in places at high risk for natural disaster or political upheaval. These plants provide less than 7% of the world's total energy supply. As world leaders, you can work together to replace this small amount of energy from other readily available, very safe and affordable sources of energy to move us towards a carbon-free and nuclear-free future."

OPEN LETTER

April 26, 2011
To: World Leaders
From: Nobel Peace Laureates

Choose Renewable Energy Over Nuclear Power: Nobel Peace Laureates to World Leaders

On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine--and more than two months after the massive earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan--we the undersigned Nobel Peace Laureates ask you to invest in a safer and more peaceful future by committing to renewable energy sources. It is time to recognize that nuclear power is not a clean, safe or affordable source of energy.

We are deeply disturbed that the lives of people in Japan are being endangered by nuclear radiation in the air, in the water and in the food as a result of the breakdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant. We firmly believe that if the world phases out its current use of nuclear power, future generations of people everywhere--and the Japanese people who have already suffered too much--will live in greater peace and security.

"Twenty-five years after Chernobyl, some people claim things are getting better. I disagree," says Mykola Isaiev, a Chernobyl liquidator (a person who helped clean up the site). "Our children are sick from eating contaminated food and our economy is destroyed." Isaiev says he can relate to the liquidators now working in Japan. Like him, they probably did not question much the safety of nuclear power.

Consider the words of a shopkeeper in Kesennuma, one of the towns that bore the full force of the tsunami along the northeast coast: "That radiation thing is extremely scary. It is beyond a tsunami. A tsunami you can see. But this you cannot see."

The sad reality is that the nuclear radiation crisis in Japan can happen again in other countries, as it already has in Chernobyl in the former Ukraine SSR (1986), Three Mile Island in the United States (1979) and Windscale/Sellafield in the United Kingdom (1957). Nuclear accidents can and do result from natural disasters--such as earthquakes and tsunamis--and also from human error and negligence. People around the globe also fear the possibility of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants.

But radiation is not just a concern in a nuclear accident. Each link in the nuclear fuel chain releases radiation, starting with drilling for uranium; it then continues for generations because nuclear waste includes plutonium that will remain toxic for thousands of years. Despite years of research, countries with nuclear energy programs such as the United States have failed to solve the challenge of finding safe and secure storage for "spent" nuclear fuel. Meanwhile, every day more spent fuel is being generated.

Nuclear power advocates must confront the fact that nuclear power programs provide the ingredients to build nuclear weapons. Indeed, this is the underlying concern with regards to Iran's nuclear program. While the nuclear industry prefers to ignore this huge threat in pursuing nuclear energy, it does not go away simply because it is downplayed or ignored.

We must also face the harsh economic truth of nuclear energy. Nuclear power does not compete on the open market against other energy sources, because it cannot. Nuclear power is an exorbitantly expensive energy option that is generally paid for by the taxpayer. The nuclear industry has received extensive government subsidies--taxpayer money--for underwriting of construction, liability caps and insurance for clean up and health costs. We can more responsibly invest this public money in new sources of energy.

There are presently over 400 nuclear power plants in the world--many, in places at high risk for natural disaster or political upheaval. These plants provide less than 7% of the world's total energy supply. As world leaders, you can work together to replace this small amount of energy from other readily available, very safe and affordable sources of energy to move us towards a carbon-free and nuclear-free future.

We can't stop natural disasters such as those that just occurred in Japan, but together we can make better choices about our energy sources.
We can phase out fossil fuels and nuclear power and invest in a clean energy revolution. It's already underway. Globally in the last five years there has been more new energy coming from wind and solar power than from nuclear power plants. Global revenue from solar, wind and other renewable energy sources surged 35% in 2010. Investing in these renewable energy sources will also create jobs.

Renewable energy sources are one of the powerful keys to a peaceful future. That's why so many people around the world--especially young people--are not waiting for governments to make the switch, but are already taking steps in that direction on their own.

Committing to a low-carbon, nuclear-free future will enable countries to partner with and expand the growing and increasingly influential global citizen's movement that rejects nuclear proliferation and supports renewable sources of energy. We ask you to join them and create a powerful legacy that will protect and sustain not only future generations but also our planet itself.

Sincerely,
Betty Williams, Ireland (1976)
Mairead Maguire, Ireland (1976)
Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Guatemala (1992)
Jody Williams, USA (1997)
Shirin Ebadi, Iran (2003)
Wangari Maathai, Kenya (2004)
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa (1984)
Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Argentina (1980)
President Jose Ramos Horta, East Timor (1996)



TAKE ACTION

Write to President Obama: Reverse your support of risky nuclear power, Beyond Nuclear

Appeal for total ban on nuclear weapons, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

LEARN MORE

Laureates Call for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, Nobel Women's Initiative.

After Fukushima, lessons to reduce nuclear terror, Kyodo News, 17 March 2011.

Nuclear Information and Resource Centre

Japan's unnecessary nuclear disaster, rabble.ca, 14 March 2011.

Global Hibakusha Forum Statement for a Nuclear-Free World, Peace Boat, 5 February 2011.

[bananas]

1. Pro-nukes hate Nobel Laureates...

I wonder how many unrecs this has gotten...

[Nihil]

2. Well the Nobel Peace Prize is so highly valued ...

... that a recent recipient is responsible for more deaths today
than anyone in TEPCO ...

FWIW, you've just got an unrec from me for posting exactly the same
self-kicking whinge on two threads now.

:eyes:

[GliderGuider]

3. Unrecs? Not so many.

I just recced and it went to +1...
Don't play the victim card, it's unseemly. The anti-nuke side has won that war already.

[FBaggins]

6. Not at all!

We just prefer the ones whose award is in an area that makes their opinion on the subject relevant.

You do know that there's an award for Physics, right?

Like the current Secretary of Energy (who wisely promotes both renewables and nuclear)?

[GliderGuider]

8. The opinions of Peace Prize winners are even more valuable.

From what I've seen they tend to have a broader and less technical perspective on the world than winners in the hard sciences.

Since the nuclear power debate has a decidedly non-technical side, I'm very happy to hear them raising their voices. The public conversation is far too important to restrict it to those with degrees in physics or nuclear engineering.

[FBaggins]

9. Sorry... that can only be because they agree with you.

There is zero reason to believe that Tutu's opinion on nuclear power is valuable. His opinion of human rights could reasonably be included in any conversation on that topic... but nuclear power? He knows as much about who should be the next American Idol.

Since the nuclear power debate has a decidedly non-technical side

So does the debate on global warming. That doesn't mean that people who look at a snow storm and assume that AGW has been disproven... have an opinion that should sway others.

[GliderGuider]

11. It would be nice to carefully limit the debate, wouldn't it?

Fortunately the real world is a lot messier than that.

[FBaggins]

12. Especially to carefully limit it to people with no relevant experience...

...but who say what you want. :)

Just like the climate change deniers.

[GliderGuider]

13. How much do physicists know about public policy?

If the discussion was just about the technical or scientific aspects of nuclear power I'd be more sympathetic. But this is not just a scientific discussion, the science has been settled for some time. Now it's primarily a public policy debate. Physicists know as little about public policy as you claim Tutu does about nuclear power. I don't want the Edward Tellers of the world setting public policy on their own, thanks. I prefer a broadly based discussion, even if it means those without degrees in particle physics get a say on their futures.

[FBaggins]

14. "Public policy" founded on poor science is poor policy.

We're right back to the climate change analogy. If the "public policy" experts think that we don't need to worry about AGW/CC... how does that impact your opinion?

Because they have. We've had decades of scientists telling us what we were doing was wrong... but those who make public policy have gone right on and continued to ignore science while leaning toward short-term public opinion. The opinion of a public that it incapable of understanding the issues or of looking at their interests beyond next week (let alone those of their great grandchildren).

What do you think of the world that the public policy experts have given you? Bad science combined with uninformed public opinion leads to bad public policy.

Of course... it's also pretty hard to claim that the Secretary of Energy doesn't know anything about public policy.

[GliderGuider]

16. The real world tends to be messy like that.

At one point I was a supporter of Technocracy. Of course I was 18 at the time. Yes, we need to have scientists involved in public policy debates, but I don't want to live in a technocracy and I don't agree with scientists driving policy on their own.

IMO the comparison between nuclear power and AGW from that perspective is inapt.

AGW projections are very new and are changing with every revision of the models. The challenge with AGW policy is getting the public engaged to the point that people are willing to entertain large-scale changes in the way we live. These changes implicate the fossil-fuel use that penetrates all aspects of the world's material economy. Phasing out the use of coal, oil and natural gas will be very difficult because of that. The general risk perception of global warming is negligible, despite the demonstrably enormous risk.

On the other hand, the public is very engaged on the nuclear issue. While there may be a degree of fear-driven over-reaction this is less important to our future than the under-reaction of the world to AGW. It's less important because of the small contribution of nuclear power to the the world's energy picture. It's quite realistic to think of replacing all nuclear power with renewables as nukes are phased out. Nukes currently generate around 12% of the world's electricity. If we were to phase them out over 20 years, we'd need to add less than 1% of our generation capacity each year as renewables. That would take installation of only 63 GW of wind capacity per year for 20 years. That's about twice the current installation rate, and well within the realm of the possible.

The point is that we don't need scientists to tell us that nuclear power is safe(r than we think). The debate has bypassed that argument. The only way nuclear power could ever come back onto the table is if it were to offer some singular benefit to the planet that outweighed both its real and perceived risks. There is no such value proposition in play at this time. We can do the same things we are now doing with nuclear power by switching to renewables over the time-frame of a nuclear phase-out, at lower risk and lower cost, without missing a beat. Nuclear power has nothing special to offer the world in comparison to renewables.

Fossil fuel is a whole other ball game. In order to convince people to move away from FF voluntarily we need to convince the world of the reality of AGW. That's where we need the scientific voices - not to justify a marginal technology of dubious socioeconomic benefit, but to wake people up to the realities of ppmv, radiative forcing, shifting weather patterns and the probability of global disaster that would result from inaction.

[kristopher]

17. Very, very well said.

You are inclined to concentrate on the verbal message; have you considered that an important part of the way we convince people to give up FF is provided by market price signals? We are entering a completely new phase in FF economics brought about by escalating demand in developing countries. That is going to have a very predictable effect that is aimed with laser precision at the heart of what you hope to accomplish.

[GliderGuider]

18. We have to provide both social and economic motivation.

This bit was just aimed at the social motivation. It's up to the engineers to get the costs down to the point where we can also say, "and you'll save money, too...."

[madokie]

4. Neither safe, clean or cheap

rec

[GliderGuider]

5. "We can phase out fossil fuels"

I like the line even better like that.

No nukes, no fossil fuels. Shut them both down and let the Earth regain its balance.

[kristopher]

7. Ethics and moral judgements about the role of nuclear power

German "Ethics Commission" calls for end to nuclear

In the wake of the nuclear disaster in the Fukushima, Japan, the German government put together an "Ethics Commission" specifically to help decide what the country's nuclear policy should be. Today, it was announced that the Commission will recommend phasing out nuclear by 2021.

Just a day after Japan announced an about-face on its nuclear policy, it seems that Germany is also poised to phase out nuclear even faster. Just over a decade ago, the coalition government between the SPD and the Greens resolved to phase out nuclear roughly by 2022, but the Ethics Commission has now recommended that nuclear be phased out by 2021.

The Commission headed by former German Environmental Minister and UNEP head Klaus Töpfer of the Christian Democrats and Matthias Kleiner, President of the German Research Foundation, was created especially for the purpose of reviewing German nuclear policy with an eye to making a proposal after the 30-day moratorium that began after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima in the mid-March. The 17-member Commission was assembled to represent the widest possible range of German society – not only scientists, but also (as the word "ethics" suggests) religious leaders and industry representatives.

In the moratorium, Germany's seven nuclear plants built before 1980 that were still online were shut down, and an eighth plant (Krümmel) that was off-line at the time was kept off the grid for 90 days. In a 28-page paper entitled "Germany's energy consequences – a joint project on Germany's energy future," which has yet to be made public but was leaked to German media in a draft version, the Committee now says that the moratorium "shows that it is no problem to compensate for the approximately 8.5 gigawatts from these seven old plants and Krümmel."

The final version ...

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-ethics-commission-calls-for-end-to-nuclear/150/537/30915/

Nuclear power is not an effective means of addressing energy security or climate change concerns when compared to the available renewable alternatives.

[GliderGuider]

10. I wonder if anyone will discuss capping coal use at the same time?

In order to keep from simply substituting coal for the nuclear power that's taken off-line. Also, they could consider caps on electricity imports to keep from promoting nuclear or coal development in exporting countries.

It would be a step towards shutting down both nukes and coal, which would make a good medium-term goal.

[kristopher]

15. Some reading...

This is just general information, not a specific reply to any specific questions you posed. I thought it might be more productive to start with what their plan actually is...

June 2011
The path to the energy of the future - reliable, affordable and environmentally sound

Germany is one of the most productive and economically successful countries in the world. This would not be possible without a competitive supply of energy for our businesses. We will preserve this asset. Our citizens rely on electricity being available at all times of the day and night, in any quantity and at an affordable price. They can continue to rely on that. We want our energy system to strengthen our economic base, give important impetus to innovation and technological progress, preserve the natural foundations of life and help protect our climate. We stand by these goals. We do not want Germany to be dependent on electricity imports, we want to be able to generate our net demand ourselves. This will remain our motive.

Germany has made the fundamental decision to cover our future energy supply from renewable sources. In autumn 2010 the federal government adopted the Energy Concept, which paved the way for the age of renewable energies. Nuclear power has a bridging role in this Concept, but only until renewable energies can play their part reliably and the necessary energy infrastructure has been established.

However, in the aftermath of the previously unimaginable Fukushima disaster we must reconsider the role of nuclear energy. The catastrophe and its impacts, which cannot yet be fully foreseen, compel us to reassess the residual risks of nuclear energy. The Reactor Safety Commission has presented a comprehensive analysis of the risks associated with the nuclear power plants in Germany. In addition, the federal government has appointed an independent Ethics Commission which has drawn up opinions on all issues relating to our future energy supply. The results presented by these commissions guided us in taking the recent energy policy decisions that needed to be made.

In a step-by-step approach, we will completely phase out electricity production in German nuclear power plants by the end of 2022 at the latest. The seven nuclear power plants shut down during the moratorium and the Krümmel nuclear power plant will not go back on-line. The Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant will be taken off the grid by the end of 2015, followed by Gundremmingen B by the end of 2017, Philippsburg 2 by the end of 2019, and Grohnde, Gundremmingen C and Brokdorf by the end of 2021. The three newest plants, Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim 2, will be shut down by the end of 2022 at the latest. The remaining operating times are based on a lifespan of 32 years to take due account of the rights of the owners. The residual electricity volumes of the seven plants that were taken off the grid during the moratorium can be transferred to other plants. The same applies to the residual electricity volumes of the Krümmel and Mülheim-Kärlich plants.

The Federal ...

http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/47609/3860/

The original framework they drafted (updated in 2010) is fundamental to the above description. It explores 3 paths to their goal of a carbon free energy system based on renewables.

...For Germany an electricity supply system based completely on renewable energies by 2050 is technically as well as ecologically feasible. Such a system can be imple- mented using currently available production and demand side technology and wi- thout compromising neither Germany’s position as a highly industrialised country nor current lifestyles.

An electricity supply system based completely on renewable energies can – at any hour of the year – provide a security of supply on par with today’s high standard. The results of our simulations show that renewable energies – through the inter- play of production and load management and electricity storage – can meet the demand for electricity and provide the necessary control reserve at any time. This is possible even during extreme weather events as occurred in the four-year time period considered.

The constrained renewable energy potentials in Germany (considering technical and environmental constraints) were shown to be sufficient if – at the same time – available efficiency potentials in electricity consumption and building insulation are tapped.

The potentials identified in our simulation are also sufficient to cover the additional power demand from strongly increasing e-mobility and from the use of heat pumps to cover the entire heating and hot water demand, as well as for additional air conditioning.

The expansion of ...

You can download the English version of the Exec Summary here:
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/weitere_infos/3997-0.pdf

Which is on this page:
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/energie-e/index.htm


There, as here, the actual path that will be followed is one that will be determined by political influence. If the right wing takes complete control, you can be sure that they would resurrect their nuclear plans and go full steam ahead with coal plants, hoping in both cases for a future solution to the waste products of both industries. If the Greeen movement continues as it has been lately, however, then it is likely the pace of transition to a renewable energy infrastructure will accelerate.