There was a very short article in yesterday's Post, one I can't find online. Yet it's probably one of the most serious attempts to hoodwink the Indonesian public I've ever come across.
Indonesia and France on Thursday signed an agreement on cooperation in nuclear power plant research.
The agreement came amid a long-standing controversy over government plans to build a nuclear power plant in the central Java town of Jepara to ease the electricity deficit plaguing the country.
After signing the memorandum of understanding with French Ambassador Catherine Boivineau, State Minister for Research and Technology Kusmayanto Kadiman said, "There have been no reports of problems with Frances nuclear power plant technology, which is extraordinary."
What is truly extraordinary is that the minister hasn't done any research using the technology available to the likes of you and me - a search engine.
This calendar page compiled by Greenpeace gives some examples of the everyday nuclear incidents that have occurred all over the world. It demonstrates how technological failures coupled with human error risk public health and the environment on an almost daily basis.
The first accident listed only dates from 1954, thus ignoring the first A-bomb tests, and goes up to 1993. However, it still lists the following twenty, count 'em, 'accidents' and equipment failures in French nuclear power plants.
1967 November 7: Release of radioactivity at Grenoble nuclear power plant 1968 October 2: Leakage at La Hague reprocessing plant 1969 October 17: Fuel elements melt at St Laurent des Eaux nuclear power plant 1980 September 22: Pump failure causes release of radioactive water at La Hague reprocessing plant 1981 January 6: Accident at La Hague reprocessing plant 1983 October 1: Technical failure and human error cause accident at Blayas nuclear power plant 1986 August 19: Flooding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant 1988 April 28: Release of 5000 Curies of tritium gas from the Bruyere le Chatel military nuclear complex 1988 November 23: Two control rods jammed at Blayais nuclear power plant 1989 April 1: Control rod failure at Gravelines nuclear power plant 1990 January 28: Pump failure during a shut-down at Gravelines nuclear power plant 1990 May 26: During refuelling, five cubic meters of radioactive water spilled at the Fessenheim nuclear power plant 1990 September 16: Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor is closed down due to technical failures 1990 November 4: 2 workers irradiated during refuelling at Blayais nuclear power plant 1991 June1: Failure of core cooling system at Belleville nuclear power plant 1992 July 22: Two workers contaminated at Dampierre nuclear power plant 1992 July 22: Temperature rise in storage pool at Gravelines nuclear power plant 1992 August 28: Fire in electro-generator at St.Alban nuclear power plant 1993 January 20: Technical failure at Paluel causes subcooling accident 1993 October 22: Instrumentation and Control failure at Saint Alban nuclear power plant
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is engaged in nuclear diplomacy. Sarkozy has been leveraging France’s leading civilian nuclear technology to gain diplomatic, commercial and military advantages with countries in the Middle East, as well parts of Africa and Asia.
Since taking office last May, Sarkozy has signed deals worth billions of dollars to build nuclear power reactors or offer technical advice to a number of Arab states including Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and now Indonesia.
The deal with Libya has really upset the island state of Malta because they feel threatened by their proximity to a potential nuclear accident.
You see, one took place between Monday 7 and Tuesday 8 July at the Tricastin plant in Bollene, 40km from Avignon, in the heart of the Côte du Rhone wine-producing region. After a plant malfunction, some 30,000 litres of a solution containing 12% enriched uranium overflowed from a reservoir into the nearby Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers.
A spokesperson for France’s nuclear safety agency, Evangelia Petit, admitted that the concentration of uranium in the two rivers was 1,000 times higher than normal after the spill. Enriched uranium is highly carcinogenic and a potential source of radiation poisoning, but Petit downplayed the consequences of last week’s leak, claiming that the risk posed to humans was “slight”.
Nonetheless, inhabitants of nearby towns and villages have been banned from fishing, swimming, drawing well water or using water from the polluted rivers for irrigation purposes
A "slight risk to humans"? Is that a similar cover up to that of the recent release of plutonium into the sewage system of Boulder, Colorado, which was “below the legal limits”?
If Minister Kusmayanto Kadiman really did not know about the most recent accident in France, then he should be fired for gross incompetence.
I have burdened you with my anti-nuclear stance 33+ times in the life of this blog - just type 'anti-nuclear' or 'nuclear power' in the SEARCH box to the right for the multifarious reasons.
However, with only 2 mentions so far this year, it's time for another post, albeit not a rant because there's enough recent evidence around to demonstrate that for Indonesia to follow this route would be madness. This is a country whose electricity company, PLN, cannot get guaranteed supplies of fuel for its largest coal-fired power plant.
That other countries are considering the nuclear power option in the face of rising oil prices is not the focus of my stance, although it's worth bearing in mind that Vietnam, Burma and Malaysia, three of our neighbours in South East Asia, have recently expressed an interest.
Last week, according to the national news agency, Bernama, Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak explained the rationale by pointing out that the country needs to phase out the fuel subsidies, totalling $17 billion this year.
"The prospect of Malaysia opting for nuclear technology cannot be discounted, only we will look at other alternatives first."
He said the cost of setting up nuclear power plants would be high, while a power company official said infrastructure development would take years.
It's good to see at least one country taking a long-term view; however it's important to look even further ahead. Assuming that a power plant has been run efficiently at its maximum expected potential - which, to my knowledge, none anywhere have - then consider what happens when a nuclear power plant reaches the end of its productive life after, say, fifty years.
In 1956, the UK became the first country to open a nuclear power station, Calder Hall, now part of the Windscale/Sellafield complex in West Cumbria, north-west England. At the time, its main purpose was to use nuclear energy for "peaceful purposes" - to provide electricity, 196 megawatts, for the national grid. Although not explicitly stated, this was a reminder that Britain was involved in the Cold War arms race, as a useful by-product was weapons-grade plutonium for our nuclear arsenal.
The main focus of this post is the aftermath, with maths being important. None of the nine nuclear power stations in the UK have proved 'profitable' or efficient. None.
Furthermore, the costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants is astronomical, and no country has yet provided a permanent solution to the problem of storing the radioactive waste products - for up to 100,000 years.
One might have expected a major nuclear power such as the UK to provide a lead to other countries. But all we Brits can offer is a catalogue of disasters.
And there are lobbyists in Indonesia who seriously think that a nuclear power station will help solve this country's energy crisis? That a country which cannot satisfactorily dispose of its household waste can dispose of its radioactive waste?
Don't make me laugh, or cry, and don't just take my words for it either. Please click on the links.
Nuclear Power for Dummies Is nuclear power the answer to the energy crisis? Ian Sample explains how it works - and how we get the awful side-effects of bombs and waste.
Britain's nuclear complex at Sellafield is Europe's biggest single industrial site and home to what was meant to be a huge fuel reprocessing system that would produce power while reducing the legacy of radioactive waste.It was built amid enthusiasm that atomic power would be "too cheap to meter" and yet, 52 years on, its catalogue of failures has left it with one of the world's largest stockpiles of plutonium and a bill to the taxpayer of about £3bn a year,a new report says.
Radioactive waste storage at Sellafield
Sellafield houses two state-owned reprocessing works and a plant for making mixed uranium and plutonium fuel called Mox. None of these facilities, which cost hundreds of millions of pounds, work as they were meant to do. Their problems are rebounding on the part-privatised British Energy (BE), which is wholly dependent on Sellafield to reprocess and store spent fuel from its 14 advanced gas-cooled reactors.
The difficulties have also hit the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which the government set up in 2004 to preside over the £72bn clean-up of all British atomic sites and which was meant to be partly funded by income from reprocessing spent fuel.
On-Site Safety Work on Britain's Trident nuclear warhead programme was suspended for much of the last year due to wide-ranging safety fears, it has been disclosed. Following suspension of work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Burghfield in Berkshire last July, when flooding increased the risk of fire at the plant, concerns about on-site safety became so acute that a decision was taken in the autumn to stop all live nuclear work on missile warheads.
AWE claims to be a 'centre of technological excellence, with some of the most advanced research, design and production facilities in the world'.
Contamination Two kilometres of beach outside one of Britain's biggest nuclear plants, Dounreay, have been closed since 1983, and fishing banned, when it was found old fuel rod fragments were being accidentally pumped into the sea. The cause was traced and corrected but particles - including plutonium specks, each capable of killing a person if swallowed - are still being washed on to this bleakly beautiful stretch of sand and cliff on mainland Britain's northern edge.
Robot submarines fitted with a Geiger counter are to be used to sweep the seabed in one of the most delicate clean-up operations ever in this country. Each submersible will crisscross the sea floor to pinpoint every deadly speck close to Dounreay before lifting each particle and returning it to land for safe storage.
Costs of Decommissioning 1 Although the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) kept no precise accounts (eh?) for building and running Dounreay on Scotland's north coast, it is known to have cost several billion pounds. Now a further £2.5 billion will be spent returning the site to its pre-nuclear condition, leaving only a vault, covered with grass, to hold low-level nuclear waste while high-level waste will probably (eh?) be shipped to a central UK nuclear store yet to be approved.
Costs of Decommissioning 2 The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which is nursing a £300m budget overrun for 2006-07 alone, is attempting to raise cash to help pay for a £72bn clean-up bill. It plans to do this by selling off, to the private sector, everything from stockpiled uranium to atomic fuel manufacturing plants and land at 18 sites where they hope new nuclear plants will be built.
Waste Disposal Scientists know that eventually they need to find a way of storing nuclear waste safely for thousands of years. Some countries, such as America and Finland, plan to store nuclear waste in deep underground bunkers. For this to be safe, scientists have to be sure the material could never leak out and contaminate water supplies or rise up to the surface.Other plans for disposing of nuclear waste have included dumping it at sea and blasting it into space
Apparently Britain already has more than 100,000 tonnes of radioactive waste that needs to be stored. It's worth repeating that no country has yet decided on a definitive method, or place, for the disposal of its radioactive waste.
Sellafield which was built to reprocess nuclear fuel, thus reducing the waste, has been a monumental failure. This February Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, admitted in parliament that the plant had only produced 2.6 tonnes of reprocessed fuel in 2007 and a total of 5.2 tonnes since it opened in 2001, despite promises it would produce 120 tonnes a year.
Alternatives A study, commissioned by the UK's Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, has shown that British buildings equipped with solar panels, mini wind turbines and other renewable energy sources could generate as much electricity a year as five nuclear power stations. Furthermore, the report has shown that a large-scale switch to micro renewable energy units could save 30m tonnes of CO2 - the equivalent of nearly 5% of all the emissions produced in generating UK electricity.
Tom Tuohy R.I.P. An unsung hero, his bravery averted a possible British nuclear catastrophe.
About 100 years ago, the best known radioactive material was radium and folk weren't particularly aware of the damage radioactivity could cause to tissues and cells.
Deddy H. Harsono, the Public Relations Division Head of the National Nuclear Energy Agency, liked the article by Warief Djajanto Basorie which, you will recall if you scroll down a couple of days, I thought shallow and detestable. In fact, Deddy liked the article so much that he wrote a letter to the Jakarta Post.
While stressing the importance of safety and cost of nuclear power plants (NPP), the author described quite satisfactorily the reasons why Indonesia needs NPPs in its energy mix to meet the ever increasing electricity consumption.
However, there is a minor correction we wish to make. It was written in the article that, according to the chief of the National Nuclear Energy Agency (Batan), Soedyartomo, the oil-based fuel subsidy made by the government is enough to purchase eight NPP's from Taiwan. The correct statement by the Batan chief was "the oil-based fuel subsidy of the government is sufficient to purchase the same number of NPP's that Taiwan has".
Which is ... ?
My googling suggests six, or possibly four, i.e. less than Warief suggested.
In Taiwan, obviously there are no adequate places for final deposal of nuclear waste. Even for the low level nuclear waste, it may take 300 years to decay to the nature background level. The high level waste, the spent fuel, may need a hundred thousand years to decay to the nature background level. The current policy of Taipower for storing low level waste is to store them in the nuclear power plant sites.
Which leads me back to the UK where Tony Blair, rapidly losing his allure with the British electorate, believes more nuclear power stations will fill the energy gap.
Yet up at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, formerly called Windscale, they don't actually know what waste they've got.
The problems the UK faces in dealing with nuclear waste are not just about the real nasties in their pure forms - the plutonium, uranium and spent nuclear fuel which can stay radioactive for thousands of years.
In addition - because of our military history - the UK has a large number of different radioactive substances and it is difficult to be sure how these all react with each other and to other elements and conditions.
So while Finland - which is building another new reactor - has less than 30 different types of nuclear waste, the UK has 1,119, according to Nirex's latest radioactive waste inventory.
And some have been moved and they don't know where. In fact, Sellafield is now facing criminal charges!
(Nirex is the government-owned body in charge of setting standards on nuclear storage and decommissioning. It has a poor record of public disclosure.)
I'd be curious to know how Indonesia's Nuclear Energy Agency proposes to dispose of its waste. Sub-contract it to the Jakarta administration?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Indonesia is a Country of Strategic Nuclear Concern, even though this document seems to indicate that Indonesia is already confident in its ability to operate nuclear power plants.
Indonesia is currently thought to be undertaking an ambitious nuclear power plant construction programme to meet its growing energy needs. While the perceived goal of the program is to eventually build 12 nuclear power production facilities, current planning calls for construction to commence on the first plant by 2010, with operational capability to be achieved by 2016.
Indonesia has no nuclear reprocessing facility at this time. Nor does it appear to have experimented in reprocessing operations in the past. However, with its well established nuclear research programmes it is technically feasible that Indonesia could develop the ability to reprocess spent fuel.
"Well established nuclear research programmes"?
That phrase has got me worried so I think it's opportune to investigate further. For example, did know that Indonesia has uranium mines? Did you know that Indonesia is currently a board member of the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Me neither, so here's a Jakartass Appeal.
Given that there is a strong lobby to squander several squillion rupiah on the provision of electricity through a process which is dangerous and potentially catastrophic - what if Indonesia were to become a pariah state like Iran or North Korea, a scenario considered by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (link above)? - then it is vital that Indonesians are fully informed about potential consequences.
The public has the right to know.
Although Jakartass has been and always will be an anti-nuclear lobbyist ~ a minority viewpoint by the way ~ I would value input from all and sundry on this issue.
Key Questions
Who stands to benefit?
Who doesn't?
Is Indonesia a signatory to all the relevant treaties?
What would be the total costs over, say, fifty years?
(These must include the initial R&D costs, power plant purchase/construction, operation costs, decommisioning costs, reprocessing of the waste, storage of the waste (inc. for the next millenium) less the sale of electricity generated during the expected twenty years of operation.)
I know there are more questions. Please help me find the answers.
For the long-term future, Britain needs consistent investment in truly sustainable energy sources. Meanwhile, nuclear is the least worst option even though the questions of safety, especially the treatment of toxic waste, remain highly contentious. There have been some technological advances since the heyday of anti-nuclear protests in the 1980s, but no magic solutions.
The least worst option.
Eh?
Current nuclear waste management is but a stop-gap bandaid. There is NO permanent solution to this problem, a problem which will tax human ingenuity for as much as the next 100,000 years ~ if our race survives that long. Yet although alternatives exist, blinkered "hey, look at me, I'm going to be Prime Minister for ever" Brown, a newish father and proud of it, deigns to leave a mess that his progeny will be unable to clean up.
A monument to arrogance or, as is more likely, a demonstration of the ties between political and commercial monolithic institutions of greed.
Here in Indonesia, ignorance may still hold sway over arrogance, just.
1. How many nuclear reactors are there in Indonesia? Answers I have received range from none to one. In fact there are three, all for experimental use
2. Where (and what) are they? In Yogyakarta - 100 kW Triga Mark II Research Reactor, Bandung - 1,000 kW Triga Mark II Research Reactor, and Serpong, 40 kilometres west of Jakarta - 30 MW Pool Type Research Reactor.
Another 10,000 kW Pool Type Research Reactor is planned and maybe six nuclear power plants are in the pipeline.
In November last year, the Research and Technology minister, Kusmayanto Kadiman, said that up to four nuclear power stations (could) be built on the Muria Peninsula on the northern coast of Central Java province. Another place being considered as a location for plants is Bangkalan, on the island of Madura in East Java.
There have been public protests from the local communities at both Muara and Madura.
The development of the Muria reactor which will be a Pressurized Water Reactor is expected to commence in 2011 in complete disregard of the potential that the Muria Mountain may became volcanically active again. The Madura reactor which will be a System Modular Advanced Reactor- a technology involving desalination of sea water, is expected to commence with development in 2008.
Both reactors are joint projects with the Korean Hydro Nuclear Power Co. Ltd, known for numerous leakages of radioactive materials at its 16 existing nuclear power plants, and that for the past twenty years it has had no waste disposal facilities.
In October last year, Gorontalo Governor Fadel Muhamad announced a deal with Russian electricity company Raoues to build Indonesia's first nuclear power plant. Apparently, it would be built aboard a ship floating off the shore of Gorontalo and would be designed to have a generating capacity of 90 megawatts, which would be sold to state-owned electricity company PT PLN at a price one-third lower than that of conventional electricity.
"The new plant is expected to start operating by the end of 2007. Gorontalo will be registered as the first province in Indonesia to enjoy nuclear electricity," Fadel said.
By the end of this year? Ho hum. This is yet another Indonesian pipedream, especially, as reported last month, the Russians have only just embarked on building the first floating nuclear power plant. Six of them will supposedly be operational in the Arctic Ocean, where Russia has neither the means nor infrastructure to ensure their safe operation, has made no plans for disposing of their spent nuclear fuel (SNF), and has not taken into consideration the enormous nuclear proliferation risks posed by placing nuclear reactors in remote areas.
Furthermore, officials apparently have not considered their vulnerability to terrorist attacks while on site or during transportation to their intended locations.
South Korea is another nation seeking to export this dangerous technology to Indonesia.This month, a $3.35bn agreement was signed to develop seven energy projects, including a nuclear power plant headed by the Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co., possibly to be built on the island of Madura in East Java.
(Read Down to Earth, the International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia, for more details.)
3. What happens to their spent fuel? 4. How many leaks of radioactivity have there been?
I do not have the answers to these two questions, although I have tried to find them.
As Indonesia is preparing to build its first nuclear plant, which scares many people given the many earthquakes, frequent volcanic eruptions, occasional tsunamis and extreme tidal conditions here, there is little information emerging from the Indonesian authorities.
There are three known reactors in West Java for "experimental purposes". Presumably these generate spent fuel.
My question is basic - what happens to it? Also, do you have any information, or can you point me to relevant sites, which can tell us what the authorities intend to do with the waste generated by the proposed plants at Gunung Muara and Madura?
The IAEA refers one to a number of Indonesian sites, most of which I'd already noted. These include the following: Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional (BATAN) - National Atomic Energy Agency Badan Pengawas Tenaga Nuklir (BAPETEN) - Nuclear Energy Control Board Indonesian Institute of Sciences Nuclear Research Institutes * DDG, Batan, Jakarta * R.C.A, C.T.O, Jakarta * PT. Badak NGL CO., Bontang * Materials Science Division, IGCAR Kappakkam, Tamil Nadu (eh?) * National Atomic Energy Agency, Serpong Multipurpose Reactor Centre * National Atomic Energy Agency, Tangerang Radioisotope Production Centre
One of the few references I have found to waste management is in this document, the Country Profile of Indonesia published by IAEA in December 2003.
BATAN as a government institution is now performing nuclear research and development in energy, health, industry, and other sectors. In relation with the introduction of NPP (nuclear power plants), especially, expertise of BATAN man-power, and the availability of BATAN facilities can be utilized.
The Centre for Development of Radioactive Waste Management at Serpong "can be" responsible for R&D on radioactive waste management, and implementation of radioactive waste management.
NB. Their English language siteis currently "down for maintenance", and, no, I'm not being satirical. However, there is one paragraph in English on their Indonesian page.
The radioactive waste management in Indonesia is regulated by the Nuclear Energy Act, Environment Protection Act, and other acts pertaining to the safety and all regulations derived from the above-mentioned acts. The radioactive waste processing technology is already proven and widely used in nuclear industrial countries. In performing radioactive waste management, the regulations dictate the necessity of performing a continous environmental monitoring program, so that the safety of the public and the environement from the radiological impact is under control and assured in compliance with the national and international recommendations.
What a comforting thought, eh? The radioactive waste processing technology is "already proven and widely used in nuclear industrial countries". Such as Japan and the UK?
There is an Asian Nuclear Safety Network (ANSN), which might be another comforting thought. Might be, but for it to have just held its first Topical Group meeting on Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) - in Tokyo, 25-26 September 2006 last year seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse after the stable door has been bolted. At least there was an Indonesian representative in attendance.
Potential IAEA regional activities on RWM were established. The intention is to promote an understanding of concepts in radioactive waste safety; to develop awareness and understanding of IAEA Radioactive Waste Safety Standards; to assist in the development of comprehensive and coherent national radioactive waste management strategies and programmes; and to assist member countries in meeting obligations under the Joint Convention.
I really don't like that word 'potential'. There is a strong implication in this statement that the Asian nuclear countries are not very clued up on what they should do if something goes wrong
Korea, by the way, may have finally resolved the major problem of where to dispose of its nuclear waste. That they had to resort to bribery fits well with the Indonesian scenario, so let's hope that Gyeongju is the destination of the waste generated at Muria and Madura.
In a precedent-setting referendum, the town of Gyeongju in North Gyeongsang Province won the right to host Korea’s first radioactive waste repository - and along with it will receive a huge package of economic goodies, starting with an investment of 300 billion won (US$288 million) plus millions of dollars in annual commissions depending on how much waste is deposited there.
The government plans to complete the construction of the low- and medium-waste facility in the area by 2008. [p.211 Nuclear Waste News November 10th 2005]
So there you have it - a Sunday spent finding out quite a bit about the nuclear industry in Indonesia but not the answers to the two key questions: what happens to Indonesia's current radioactive waste and what is intended should happen with the increased volume generated as a by-product of our insatiable 'need' for electricity?
A major political controversy here is focussed on Indonesia's support for the UN Resolution 1747 (2007) adopted a week ago. In essence, it reaffirms a commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the need for all States Party to that Treaty to comply fully with all their obligations, and recalling the right of States Party to that treaty .... to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.
The problem appears to be based on the historically belligerent attitudes of Iran towards the 'Great Satan' of America and its allies who are in turn belligerent towards the Islamic states of the Middle East. The west, remember, were the 'controllers' of the Shah of Persia, a country with oil reserves. The Islamic revolution of 1979 overthrew the puppets and, much like Indonesia, has sought a way out of its colonial past in order to assert its independence and identity.
Iran has consistently stated that its nuclear programme is for purely for the peaceful use; unfortunately as part of the fuel cycle uranium has to be enriched and this could lead to nuclear weapons grade material, a horrific scenario. The government gives verbal assurances and point sout that it has a 'right' to develop nuclear power. However, all countries which are party to nuclear non-proliferation treaties have to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) and to apply standards on safety and others set and controlled by the IAEA.
As Indonesia's foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda, pointed out last week, the IAEA directorate general in Vienna reported it had not been able to draw a conclusion regarding the peaceful purpose of the Iranian nuclear program and Iran still continued enriching uranium after the issuance of Resolution 1737.
Indonesia's support for the UN resolution has upset over a hundred legislators, mainly on the grounds that Iran is an Islamic nation and, they argue, so is Indonesia. This is, of course, crap. Indonesia may well have the world's largest population of Muslims but however many ignorant and puerile politicians may wish it, it is not an Islamic state.
With all these side issues and jostling for the higher moral ground, the key question has yet to be asked: do we actually need nuclear power to provide electricity? Does Iran? Does anybody?
"Don’t worry, even if there was an accident, the government would pay compensation.”
I'm indebted to Oigal for this highlighting this inane statement from a spokesman for the nuclear power industry in Indonesia.
The government would pay compensation? Or would they tell the (foreign) operators of the nuclear power station to do so, much as they have told Lapindo Brantasto compensate the 12,000+ victims of the Sidoarjo mudflow? These refugees remain dependent on charity, unable to start lives anew and are thoroughly pissed off at the extreme indifference, or is it callousness, shown by the Bakrie Boys who have signally failed to follow SBY's diktat.
Can you trust politicians and officials who speak absolute crap like this?
"These days we have new era science world even also progressively."
(To add insult to the injury to the English language on this site, the web-site official education JAKARTA CITY, uses the British flag, the Union Jack, as its icon. I am indebted to my friend Gene Netto who writes in some depth about this site on his blog.)
So, in this "new era science world" that some claim Indonesia is, it is not surprising that there should be a conference to chart out the road map related to a nuclear power plant development in Indonesia, explore opportunities and challenges in nuclear technology.
And it runs for a couple of days starting tomorrow at the Sultan (né Hilton). It's title is IndoNuclear2007: Nuclear Energy for Peace & Prosperity and according to the programme there are many issues that need to be explored.
This is a worrying statement. As much as the building of a nuclear power plant - slated to be in operations by year 2016 - is at the prerogative of SBY, the organisers of this conference indicate in the proposed agenda that they don't know where to build it, have yet to agree on the technology or its role and anticipate problems.
Well, that's my perception given that the organising committee is from the Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional (BADAN), the National Nuclear Energy Agency, and the advisory board is largely internal with representatives from BADAN, plus the Ministers of Energy & Mineral Resources and of Research & Technology with their deputies.
Could it be that just because there are vested interests in the building of a nuclear power plant - several countries ~ US, Russia, China, Korea, Japan and France have shown interest in building nuclear power plant in Indonesia ~ it should be built?
Rather than reciting a long list of nuclear accidents, and cover ups or even presenting a balanced case, both for and against - we can argue forever about whether there are effects that we don't know about and there undoubtedly are - the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity, I would like to pose a challenge.
I propose that all multi-national companies and foreign governments wanting a slice of Indonesia's nuclear pie should first show their commitment to this country by building a network of public toilets throughout Jakarta, preferably low-tech, and demonstrate that they can deal with the waste generated.
If they can do that here and now - perhaps by using the methane gas produced to generate electricity - then maybe there is hope that they have sufficient intelligence to deal with the waste from Indonesia's nuclear power plant and to not abdicate their responsibilities to ten thousand year's worth of future generations.
I don't trust the Brits either. Documents obtained by New Scientist under the UK's Freedom of Information Act have revealed unsuspected problems with the country's ageing advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs). Government nuclear inspectors say they have uncovered weaknesses in the safety analyses carried out by British Energy, the company that runs the reactors.
Nor the Americans. In a report (November 2003) on the potential for radiation leaks at Yucca Mountain, the Technical Review Board told the Department of Energy that the heat from the expected 77,000 tons of decaying radioactive waste and spent fuel would accelerate corrosion of metal waste containers DoE has designed for use at the site. DoE currently stands by the design, which is supposed to contain radioactivity for 10,000 years, but has not produced data proving its effectiveness.
Nor the Australians. Greens MLC Ian Cohen says it is not good enough that ANSTO has failed to discover how and why one of its workers (at Lucas Heights power plant) was contaminated with radiation. "For a reactor to be operating in the heartland of suburban Sydney is crazy. Sydney-siders deserve a safe, clean, healthy city not one with a high-risk terrorist target on the edge of their backyard."
Nor the Japanese. Japan is considering seeking help from the U.S. military after the accident at a nuclear fuel processing plant. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiromu Nonaka said Japan's Ground Self-Defense Force's chemical warfare unit was ready to be deployed at the accident site but that it lacked relevant experience and .... U.S. forces may have the necessary know-how.
Nor the Russians. The Carlisle (UK) evening paper 'News and Star' reports a 12-fold increase in thyroid cancer in Cumbria after the Chernobyl disaster 20 years ago
Nor the Spanish. The oldest operating powerplant in Spain, the Jose Cabrera power station in Almonacid de Zorita, will be shut down on April 30, 2006 (today). In 1994, more than 170 cracks were detected in the cover of the reactor vessel; the cracks were only repaired in 1997. Dismantling the station is expected to start in 2008 and completed in 2014 at a projected cost of $165 million, according to Spain's National Radioactive Waste Company.
Nor the Indians. Kakrapara Atomic Power Station (KAPS), in the western city of Surat, is India's well-groomed nuclear workhorse and when it comes to controlling radiation leakage, KAPS is "our best station". That, it turns out, is bad news. KAPS may be India's prized nuclear plant, but radiation emitted from its reactors is three times as much as the international norm.
Nor the Iranians. Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Tuesday that Iran would halt all cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if the Security Council imposes sanctions.
In fact, I don't trust any and every nationality which has nuclear power as an energy source.
I've said this before, here, and here, and here, and here and ....
I'll continue to rail against nuclear power as long as sloppy thinkers advocate the expansion of an energy source which is known to be hazardous and outrageously expensive.
There was an article in last week's Jakarta Post by Warief Djajanto Basorie, a teacher of journalism, about Indonesia's nuclear options.
I am not a journalist but I do try to check my 'facts'. For example, he suggests that a major leak at Windscale on the east coast of England in 1957 did not result in radioactive particles escaping the plant.
Oh yeah? Ignore the fact that Windscale is actually on the west coast of England, and note that an estimated 750 terabecquerels (TBq) (20,000 curies) of radioactive Iodine-131 were released in the accident, and milk and other produce from the surrounding farming areas had to be destroyed.
Now try to follow his arguments.
A nuclear power plant for Indonesia is now on the front burner. Soedyartomo Soentoro, head of the National Nuclear Energy Agency (Batan), says the nation needs 100 gigawatts of electric power by 2025. Four nuclear power plants would provide a total of 4 gigawatts.
So Indonesia needs 100 nuclear plants ~ (4x 25 = 100) ?
The most probable site is seven kilometers from the Tanjung Jati B power plant on Muria Peninsula on the north coast of Central Java. The site is in Jepara regency near Mount Muria, an inactive 1,602-meter volcano. The Muria area is chosen because of the relatively low probability of an earthquake occurring there.
Which is why the site is currently occupied by a seismological testing centre?
Geologists say Kalimantan would be a better site as it is less vulnerable to quakes. But as more than 60 percent of Indonesia's electricity needs are in Java, Bali and Madura, a future chain of nuclear plants will be built on and for these three islands.
Does this answer both my questions?
The article has, quite rightly, a focus on safety issues.
On the physical construction of the reactor, safety issues to watch out for are reactor vessel embrittlement, pipe wall corrosion and steam generator degradation. For Indonesia, an external problem would be earth tremors.
Two other safety concerns are post-power use. One is waste management. Spent fuel, nuclear fuel that can no longer economically sustain a chain reaction, is either reprocessed or stored. What is left of the reprocessing, however, is bomb-grade plutonium. This raises the anxiety level of major nuclear energy users of the highly toxic material falling into the wrong hands.
Ah, waste management, something that NO country has satisfactorily solved.
The UK government has been advised by an official panel to dispose of nuclear waste by burying it deep underground - the same solution it has already rejected three times over the last 30 years.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommended today that geological disposal is the "best available approach" for the long term management of 470,000 cubic metres of waste from nuclear power and weapons.
But CoRWM has highlighted the need for secure "interim storage" for one or two generations over "several decades". It said that there may be technical problems at sites proposed for deep disposal, as well as "social and ethical concerns". NewScientist.com 27.4.06
"Best available"? "Interim over several decades"? "Technical problems"? "Social and ethical concerns"?
Do I detect a frisson of doubt creeping in?
Warief continues to argue that there are sound economic reasons for constructing nuclear power plants. I really can't be bothered to counter these but would point out that assuredly the only profit takers have been those involved in the initial construction.
So let's wrap this up.
Whatever the safety features and the costs investors propose in their bid, the government's immediate task is selling nuclear power plants to the public, particularly to the people who would have to be moved from the surrounding land of a proposed site.
Do you trust the Indonesian government to adequately 'socialise' its nuclear power programme?
Would you trust the Indonesian government to provide adequate compensation to those who would have to be moved? Have they ever?
Above all, do you, would you, trust Indonesians to construct and manage nuclear power plants? And secure the resulting waste products for the next millenium?
That Japan's (and the world's) biggest nuclear plant in terms of output capacity may be on a major quake fault line is shocking news.
That this was only discovered during Monday's earthquake is somehow worse.
The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant shook violently when a magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck Niigata prefecture in northern Japan on Monday morning. The plant was not designed to resist shaking caused by earthquakes of greater than magnitude 6.5.
Late yesterday it was reported that 400 drums of low-level radioactive waste had toppled over during the quake. About 40 lost their lids, spilling their contents on to the ground as they fell. The spillage was one of more than 50 malfunctions the plant experienced in the immediate aftermath of the quake.
All kinds of reasons are being put forward for Indonesia needing nuclear power stations and yet, as I've consistently argued, there is not one country which has solved the fundamental problem of how to dispose of the highly dangerous waste which is the by-product. Not one.
The following recent stories from Nuclear Waste News, an industry publication, demonstrate this.
The Canadian government has directed its Nuclear Waste Management Organization to begin searching for a long-term storage site for spent nuclear fuel, but it acknowledges that that could take several years.
France's nuclear-safety authority, known as ASN, has concluded that, if the nation's large volumes of depleted uranium are eventually considered to be nuclear waste, it would require substantial modification to a deep repository for the country's spent nuclear fuel.
The U.S. Energy Department is seeking a public relations firm to develop a communications and public outreach plan for the high-level nuclear waste repository being planned at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. The solicitation process is being conducted by DoE's online portal.
Whichever firm gets appointed will have a nigh on impossible job if they also have to explain away the following mishaps:
Forced by Court, NRC Weighs In on Terrorist Threat at Diablo Canyon
Undisclosed Radioactive Waste Found Near Former Halaco Plant in California
NRC Report Tweaks Los Alamos, Just as Waste Discovered Missing
Hanford Stakeholders Launch Formal Talks to Speed Cleanup
Tennessee Town to Test Water for Radioactive-Waste Contamination
N.J. Company Faces Near-$10,000 Fine for Lost Gauge in Pennsylvania
And from elsewhere in the world:
Radioactive Waste Dumps in Tajikistan Rated in Poor Condition
British Panel Slams U.K. Plan for Spent-Fuel Dump
Taiwan to Close Nuclear Waste Dump; Residents Brace for Economic Hit
Finally, how about corrupting ancient rights?
Australian Aborigines Take $12 Million to Host Nuclear Waste Dump
And that is the core of my anti-nuclear stance. Allow me to re-emphasise that NOT ONE country has solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal, least of all those highly technological countries such as the Good Ol' U.S.of A, the UK, France and Japan.
The one glimmer of hope that I have here is that Indonesians have access to better education facilities than Australian Aborigines, and are rapidly learning how to exercise so-called democratic rights. I can't see that a nuclear industry PR campaign would succeed here.
That Indonesia's proposed nuclear plant may be on a quake fault line is largely irrelevant.
The hostility to nuclear power is a direct result of the anti-rational, anti-capitalist, Pol Pot like hard left bias of the original "ecology" movement, now rechristened as the Greens. They ignored the horrific environmental disasters being committed by the Communist regimes of the Soviet and Chinese bloc and instead concentrated their anger on the West and in particular at the one thing that kept the "workers' paradise" of the Soviet Union at bay; the US/British nuclear deterrent, hence the entirely irrational hatred of (western) nuclear power.
I don't usually bother responding to such monotheistic blasts of vitriol, but there are a few points raised by Miko that need clearing up.
Firstly, I was once, for a short while when (Lord) Jonathon Porritt was our spokesman, on the Executive Committee of the UK Ecology Party. I argued, successfully, at two successive annual conferences that the name should not be changed because too many people, such as Miko, perceive green to be the colour of naivety. (I had left the country when the name change occurred.)
But this is not the same as blinkered, which could be a term to apply to Miko's rant.
We 'greens' were far from the "hard left" Miko thinks we were. The roots of the UK ecology/environmentalist movement being in the libertarianism of the Diggers, both the mid-17th century pastoralist squatters in England and the more recent 'hippies' and 'self-help' movements of the middle to late sixties, and Quakerism.
... the same people today who shriek against nuclear power are the same people who go all misty eyed over the British coal industry and the miners that worked it.
"Misty eyed"? You're the one mentioning coal, Miko. But you can't isolate the coal mining industry and equate it with the nuclear power industry. Sure, mining is dangerous. But even Arthur Scargill, the then President of the Yorkshire division of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), recognised the worse dangers of the nuclear industry. Few know that he was an objector at the Windscale Inquiry. He said that he would be happy to see the closure of all coal mines if that were the way to protect future generations from the nuclear industry. Later, I had to step in to prevent him getting beaten up by the Windscale trade unionists.
Death Tolls
Have you had a look at the death toll in an average week in Chinese, Russian and American coal mines? I think it averages about seventy a week. What about the death toll from oil exploration and the pollution caused by the petrol engine throughout the world, and we won't even go down the road of wars and terrorism caused by petroleum exploitation.
Now we mentioned before the two worst nuclear power disasters in human history; Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, total casualty toll less than a hundred dead in half a century.
A Greenpeace report, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.
The BBC quotes the following figures, given by the Ukraine's Health Ministry: About 15,000 people were killed and 50,000 left handicapped in the emergency clean-up after the Chernobyl nuclear accident, according to a group representing those who worked in the relief operations. (And five million affected by radiation.)
You quite deliberately ate radioactive fish, what harm did it do you?
Long-term? I don't know, but apart from the cat we're all still alive, even though there was a significant rise in the levels of Caesium 137 in my body was recorded and acknowledged by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), the operators of Sellafield.
How does it compare with the endemic pleurisy and emphesema of northern British cities of your parents' generation and the soot clogged atmosphere which they endured as a result of coal exploitation.
It doesn't compare. Before 'smokeless' fuel was developed, we all suffered from smog and lung diseases ~ which weren't just caused by Capstan Full Strength or Wills Whiffs. And coal mining has always been a dangerous job; there can be no disputing that.
But the industry itself was never a danger for citizens of other countries, as occurred with the wind carried fallout from Chernobyl. Not including the total reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island, there is a horrific catalogue of leaks from nuclear power stations worldwide.
Why don't you click on the links I give you Miko? Here and here, for example. You'll find there have been several thousand leaks of nuclear material worldwide; not only in electricity generating power plants, but in reprocessing plants, of which there are but five: Sellafield in the UK, Cap La Hague in France, Rokkasho in Japan, Mayak in Russia and Kalpakkam in India, and in submarines. There are also 'lost' bombs.
I'm not saying nuclear power is perfect, but if it had just been invented this morning and we had full knowledge of the comparative health and safety risks we would leap on it as the perfect solution to the problems of sustainable energy sources.
That is open to dispute. The nuclear power industry was established in order to process plutonium for nuclear warheads; the electricity generated was but a beneficial byproduct. Now there are fears that the USA is thinking of re-embarking on a reprocessing programme.
Plutonium is produced as a by-product in U.S. nuclear power reactors. The used (or "spent") fuel stored at these reactors contains hundreds of tons of plutonium, but it cannot currently be stolen by terrorists because it is bound up in large, heavy, and highly radioactive assemblies of fuel rods that could deliver a lethal dose of radiation to someone standing a few feet away in less than an hour. Yet the Department of Energy (DOE) is planning a radical shift in how the United States handles this spent fuel-a plan that would actually make plutonium easier to steal.
Instead of disposing of highly radioactive spent fuel deep underground, where it would remain isolated from the environment for tens of thousands of years, DOE officials want to 'reprocess' it, using a series of chemical processes to extract plutonium that could then be used to make new reactor fuel. Because plutonium is not highly radioactive it can be handled without serious harm, making it an attractive target for terrorists.
A U.S. reprocessing program would add to the worldwide stockpile of separated and vulnerable plutonium that sits in storage today, which totaled roughly 240 metric tons as of the end of 2003-enough for some 40,000 nuclear weapons. Reprocessing the U.S. spent fuel generated to date would increase this by more than 500 metric tons.
Terrorists, Iran, North Korea - the current bogeymen, and all inextricably entwined with the nuclear power industry. Fortunately (?) on cost grounds alone, reprocessing is not really an option.
Reprocessing and the use of plutonium as reactor fuel is also far more expensive than using uranium fuel and disposing of the spent fuel directly - even if the fuel is only reprocessed once. In the United States, some 55,000 tons of nuclear waste have already been produced, and existing reactors add some 2,000 tons of spent fuel annually.
Based on the experience of other countries, a commercial scale reprocessing facility with an annual throughput of about 1,000 tons of spent fuel would cost anywhere from $5 billion to $20 billion to build. A facility with twice that capacity would be needed to process the new spent fuel produced; taking into account economies of scale, it would cost from $7.5 to $30 billion, excluding operating costs. A second facility would be needed to also reprocess the existing spent fuel over a period of some 30 years.
So the only option available for the industry is to find a way to store the spent fuels in an environmentally secure (i.e. non-seismic) facility which will also prove inaccessible to malevolent forces (terrorists et al) for as much as 100,000 years, the estimated time for spent fuel to decay to so-called 'safe' levels.
No country, let me emphasise that, NO country has yet worked out how to store the waste generated by the industry, some of which has a half-life (the time taken to reach a 'safe for humans' level of radioactivity) of over 100,000 years. We're not talking about planting grass on a few slag heaps, or turning an open cast mine into a vast recreational reservoir.
We're talking about creating no-go zones for eternity and not just for two hundred or so, the life span of a coal mine.
Even the energy requirements of so-called sustainable development are pretty huge with a population of six billion on the planet and unless you suggest mass culling of Indians and Chinese (eh? And Indonesians?) you need to look at the best risk balanced energy source and once more we see nuclear power.
I mention energy sources that are infinite and won't cost us the Earth. There's tidal, hydro, solar, wind, and, especially here in Indonesia, geo-thermal. There are also ways to be energy efficient and education is the key.
But there's one other question which few ask: Do we need all this energy and if 'yes', why?
Where is the safest place to build a nuclear power station, if there is such a thing?
How about countries which are earthquake prone?
Japan to support nuclear power in Asia amid soaring oil costs.
TOKYO (AFP): Japan plans to promote nuclear energy, which has been controversial at home, in other Asian nations such as Vietnam and Indonesia to help them diversify from oil, a trade ministry official said on Tuesday.
"We could help establish a system for nuclear power generation that should be in line with (global) nuclear non-proliferation and domestic laws in countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia," the official said.
Japan will dispatch experts to the two countries, which in turn will send officials here to study with the nuclear safety agency, said the official in the nuclear policy division.
As Indonesia and Vietnam plan to start generating nuclear power, "Japan wants to offer help for its peaceful, safe use," he said.
"It would also beneficial to Japan as it contributes to easing an energy crunch and reducing global warming," he said.
Japan had proposed earlier this year to help neighbor and growing rival China construct nuclear power plants, he added.
Japan depends on nuclear power for 30 percent of its energy needs but the figure is unlikely to grow sharply in the future as few towns are willing to host nuclear plants for fear of an accident and amid slack growth in electricity demand in the barely growing Japanese economy.
Japan's offer of assistance comes amid soaring oil prices triggered by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to the U.S. Gulf Coast (and the economic groweth of China and India!).
Japan has been promoting eco-friendly industry as part of its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, the landmark treaty on global warming reached in Japan's ancient capital.
I agree that it's time to reduce our dependence on oil and Japan does not have alternative natural resources. But Indonesia is in the 'Ring of Fire'.
How about greater investment in geo-thermal energy?
Anything, surely, rather than an energy source which will need safe-guarding for at least a millenium.
The one positive thought I have from this news story is that there are very few people with long-term vision in this country; it's all about bandaid solutions. And nuclear power is certainly not that.
Ee-inche is probably the way to pronounce the acronym of the 1st Indonesia International Nuclear Expo. You may like to know that this is being held this week at the Jakarta Convention Centre (JCC), where JakJazz and the Jakarta Book Fair are held every year.
Ee-inche is being held from the 3rd to 5th Dec., and will be in Assembly Halls 1, 2 and 3. I'd like to tell you more but googling has only got me the JCC website and What's On Jakarta?. The latter site has links to 'details'. Unfortunately these merely load the page you start at.
There's little point in me reiterating my anti-nuclear stance. If you want it in full then type 'nuclear power' in the search box to the right.
But it may be worth pointing out that countries such as the UK dependent to a large degree on nuclear power for their energy consumption needs are faced, as ever, with the need to decommission their old plants nearing retirement.
Decommissionning is very expensive; the current estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is that it will cost at least £70 billion*to decommission the existing United Kingdom nuclear sites; this takes no account of what will happen in the future. Also, due to the latent radioactivity in the reactor core, the decommissioning of a reactor is a slow process which has to take place in stages; the plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame. The long time frame makes reliable cost estimates extremely difficult. Excessive cost overruns are not uncommon even for projects done in a much shorter time.
*Excited AzoCleanTech.com, senses "significant opportunities for specialist companies from North America who have taken part in similar Department of Energy decommissioning projects and are now seeking to transfer this experience to new international markets."
Indonesia does not, as yet, have a nuclear power plant. That's all for the good, because seemingly everything is planned here wiith short-term objectives and this does not bode well for an industry which will outlive humanity. The UK, whose Prime Minister Gordon Brown is a known supporter of the nuclear industry, has been warned that if current plans to build more nuclear plants to replace and supplement existing plants go ahead, there may be a need to build not one, but two, waste repositories at a minimum of £12 billion each.
It's worth bearing in mind that as years go by, new problems and inflation combine to escalate costs.
I hope the delegates to Ee-inche enjoy the seminars along with the free lunches and snacks. I trust that they appreciate that there's no way that a country which cannot manage its banks or transport systems can hope to manage, let alone afford, a nuclear industry.
As I've often written, I have an intimate connection with Britain's nuclear industry - I've been a lifelong opponent of it, even going as far as participating in the Windscale Inquiry back in 1978. This was an Application by British Nuclear Fuels Limited for outline planning permission for a 'plant - now known as THORP* - for reprocessing irradiated oxide nuclear fuels and support site services; at their Windscale and Calder Works, Sellafield, Cumbria, commonly known as the Windscale Inquiry. . Two years ago I responded to a lengthy comment by my frequent commentator and now good friend Miko by outlining, with many links, the credibility of the British anti-nuclear lobby.
In passing, I also mentioned my involvement with the Green (né Ecology) Party. This is an even stronger political force as an interview this week with party leader and parliamentary candidate Caroline Lucas makes abundantly clear.
I have another topical reason for returning to this theme.
Well it didn't, but it might now because it has major problems.
The company that runs the Thorp nuclear reprocessing plant admitted that it may have to close for a number of years owing to a series of technical problems.
The huge £1.8bn plant at Sellafield imports spent nuclear fuel from around the world and returns it to countries as new reactor fuel. But a series of catastrophic technical failures with associated equipment means Thorp could be mothballed at a cost of millions of pounds.
Under strict orders from the government's safety watchdog, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the plant's operators, Sellafield Ltd, is expected to have little option but to mothball the reprocessing plant for at least four years.
Closure of Thorp for any length of time could cost the company and government hundreds of millions of pounds and embarrass the resurgent nuclear industry, which is embarking on an ambitious programme of new reactors for Britain. Thorp is contracted to reprocess more than 700 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel, most of it for Germany, which could sue if Sellafield does not return it on time.
Construction of Thorp began in the 1970s and was completed in 1994. The £1.8bn plant went into operation in 1997 with the assurance from its then owners, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, that it would reprocess 7,000 tonnes of spent fuel in its first 10 years of operation, two-thirds of the business coming from abroad.
To date, Thorp has completed about 6,000 tonnes of its initial order book and is now, largely as a result of the broken evaporators, limited to processing 200 tonnes a year – about a sixth of its original design capacity.
Why is there never any good news from the nuclear industry? ....................................... *Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
This calendar page compiled by Greenpeace gives some examples of the everyday nuclear incidents that have occurred all over the world. It demonstrates how technological failures coupled with human error risk public health and the environment on an almost daily basis.
