Mochovce

Dear Commissioner Piebalgs and Commissioner Dimas,

Do you think that 20 year old construction plans for an outdated design for nuclear power plants with insufficient built-in security are anywhere near safe for European citizens? I think neither of you actually are of that opinion so I would hope that both of you work for that the European commission will give a strong negative opinion about the current plans for Mochovce 3 and 4 in Slovakia.

Furthermore, the foreseeable lack of funds for taking care of the nuclear waste of when the power plants themselves are scrapped would in itself be a strong enough deterrent for even thinking about approval of constructions of such plants. Indeed, the insurance that is required from the operator is only a fraction of that in most other Western European countries.

Also, I would urge you to urge the Slovakian government to perform an impartial environmental impact assessment that includes sustainable options (which nuclear power obviously is not). I see no reason why the people in Slovakia would have to suffer from lower levels of protection against the actual problems with both nuclear waste treatment and the running of nuclear plants than any other European citizen.

Slovakia does not have long-term storage capacity for the highly dangerous nuclear waste generated by its existing plants, nor would it for Mochovce. The Slovakian government has stated that it wishes to have a permanent repository by 2038, but as the country has had nuclear reactors since the late fifties, it seems unlikely that this will ever happen.

The pending “Euratom opinion” may well be the only opportunity for the European Commission to critically assess the Mochovce nuclear power plant. I therefore urgently ask you to issue a negative opinion on the plans for the third and fourth blocks of the Mochovce nuclear power plant.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Submit your thoughts as well HERE

End the Nuclear Industry in Saskatchewan

I just signed a petition to end the Nuclear Industry in Saskatchewan, Canada.

http://www.petitiononline.com/nonuc1sk/.

Do read their argument!
It is a quite interesting read!

energy balance of nulear energy

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark or rather how the nuclear power industry pushes itself as being the solution against further global warming. Alas, their counting of the energy balance is not as correct as it might seem. Or so the authors Storm and Smith has to say. In short: all the steps joint of making nuclear uses more energy that is delivered from the nuclear power plants and in the long run it would actually be better to burn the fossil fuel that is used to produce the nuclear fuel.

Too hot for nuclear!

Nuclear power plants need water. Lots of water to cool down their reactors. But when it is very warm weather for long the waters in the rivers feeding inland nuclear plants also gets warm. Too warm to cool down their reactors. During the heat wave in France 2003 some nuclear actually were shut down because of the warm river water. Read more here.

So much for water cooled nuclear power plants to help fend off global warming...

The USA government will not subsidise the construction of nuclear power plants. Xlnt news!

Too hot for nuclear power

Nuclear power needs water. Lots of water to cool down their reactors. When it gets warm like during global warming it is too warm to be able to cool. So during a heat wave do not rely on nuclear power. Like in France 2003 heat wave 17 reactors were shut down. Read more here.

The UK government will not subsidise the construction of nuclear power plants. Would be great if all other governments would do the same. Including not subsidising the insurance the nuclear melt down and the tearing down of the nuclear plants. Read more here.

REN wants nuclear power in Portugal

In Jornal de Negocios of 2007-03-27 was an article after an interview with the current president of REN (the electricity grid operator in Portugal) Jose Penedo.

He had some really amazing things to say:

"No cannot think that other countries will take of nuclear power. It has to be resolved by us". That would strike most people as a very weird statement since Portugal does not have nuclear power nor do the current government want to have it! So there is nothing to be taken care or be resolved...

Gladely he thinks that solar and wind power together will cover 50% of Portugal needs for electricity (current usage I guess). So instead of building nuclear power plants as Jose wants one should increase the efficiency of the use of electricity. Doubling the efficiency does not seem very much out of reach!!! At least considering the inefficiency of today ...

Furthermore Jose wants that someone should go to prison for not building a hydroelectric dam in Foz Coa. Jose thinks that UNESCO attributed Foz Coa as World Heritage site made Foz Coa into a prisoner. Go figure what is going on in the grey matter of that guy!!!

Since he is head of the only company in Portugal that distributes electricity he of course wants the company to stay in business. Solar panels and wind power (and wave power) would generate plenty of electricity for REN to distribute.

But it is a bit extreme to introduce nuclear power plants in Portugal and to drown a world heritage site just to stay in business ...

600000 signatures, only 400000 to go

The campaign 1 million against nuclear power has 600000 signatures.

Mine is on the list.
Why not add yours as well?
For a better future for us all!