It’s going to be a nuclear ‘renaissance’, they’ve told us. A dormant (or dying) and discredited nuclear industry was going to spring back to life, provide cheap, safe, reliable and clean electricity, and save us from catastrophic climate change. But then…

Turkey’s government announced over the weekend that it is cancelling (for the fourth time) its farcical tendering process to build the country’s first nuclear reactor (following the likes of Canada, Bulgaria, South Africa, Texas, Missouri, Idaho, Alabama, and the rest who’ve all seen their own nuclear plans fall through).

In the UK is looks like a big chunk of the jobs that were hyped by the British government as part of the nuclear ‘renaissance’ may be going to go to overseas contractors. We hate to say we told you so.

Hard-headed capitalists like Citigroup are calling new nuclear reactors ‘corporate killers’ and an utter financial nightmare for potential investors offering non-existent returns.

Bearing all this mind, you be forgiven for asking, ‘just what kind of renaissance is this anyway?’ Where’s the rebirth and revival?

The Renaissance that swept Europe between the 14th and 17th centuries produced masterpieces that have the power to inspire awe even to this day: Gutenberg’s mighty printing press, Michelangelo’s David and the Sistine Chapel, Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and The Last Supper, the far-sighted vision of Copernicus and Galileo… to name but a very small few.

So where are the nuclear ‘renaissance’s major works and masterpieces? What does this 'renaissance' have to show for itself? The EPR reactor being built in Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France is supposed to be the ‘renaissance’s flagship endeavour. Is it the nuclear ‘renaissance’s Mona Lisa? If it is, it’s one drawn in crayon by a five year-old with his eyes shut.

Is the Turkish government, who can’t build a nuclear reactor after four attempts, the nuclear 'renaissance’s Michelangelo? Is Westinghouse, which lacks the vision to see that its new AP-1000 reactor design might need to include safety systems so it can ‘withstand events like earthquakes and tornadoes’ the nuclear ‘renaissance’s Galileo? It's starting to look pathetic.

With the nuclear industry facing yet more accusations (this time from Peter A. Bradford a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1977 to 1982) of seeking ‘to shift ever more economic risk to taxpayers who are already staggering under the weight of other federal bailouts’, it seems the nuclear 'renaissance' shares just one thing with its historical counterpart: the leading exponents of both being reliant on the money from generous patrons.

The nuclear ‘renaissance’ is really shaping up to be the ‘renaissance that wasn’t’.

Posted by Justin at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Britain poised to lose jobs as £10bn nuclear power plant contract goes to US
‘Thousands of jobs that were to have been created in Britain to build the next generation of nuclear power plants could be heading overseas instead, after Westinghouse, the nuclear company sold by the government three years ago to Toshiba, chose one of its largest shareholders as the lead contractor to build reactors. Westinghouse is expected to confirm this week that it has appointed US-based Shaw Group to head up its £10bn nuclear programme, passing over the favourite for the contract, rival engineering group Fluor. Industry sources said that Shaw is likely to source far more reactor components from overseas than Fluor, which has close relationships with British manufacturers. The Unite union claimed that 10,000 new jobs in the UK would not be created as a result of Shaw being selected.’

Read more »

Posted by Justin at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is a big buzz in the Climate Defenders Camp this afternoon. With at least 400 local visitors, including loads of children, and plenty of laughing and singing – it’s open house again. Krisna Mukti, a famous indonesian singer and actor, is just one of the attractions. Youngsters of Teluk Meranti are having a Bantun contest – which is a very nice Malai Tribe tradition to form your everyday life into poems. I know I miss a lot not being able to understand it – todays Bantun poems are all around forests. Public outreach in the camp is both amazing and motivating.

I finally made it to the camp yesterday evening after almost getting grey in hotelrooms– it was empowering right away from the first step entering it. We (Swiss and Indian campaigners, accompanied by Indonesian colleagues) made sure to travel the last part of the trip in the dark as we wanted to reach the camp at least before possibly getting detained and deported. This happened to our friends from Italy, India and Belgium last Monday.

Read more »

Posted by Crina at 6:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Ashish, a Campaigner from India, who has finally arrived at the camp:

We got into the Climate Defenders Camp late Friday night, the yellow Greenpeace banner emerging out of the night as our boat crossed the river from Teluk Banjai. I got to Jakarta over a week ago, and was beginning to wonder if I would ever see the camp, after the police harassment and deportations of last week. But I was finally here. There wasn't time for much more than a round of introductions, some dinner and then sleep.

This morning however, I got my first good look around the area. We first headed for the dam across one of the canals which is draining the peatland. Work on the dam started about three weeks ago, and it is almost finished. These canals have been dug to drain peat waters into the river, rendering the peatland dry enough for commercial cultivation; by damming the canal we are reversing the process and restoring health to the peatland, aside from preventing further CO2 loss.

The best bit about this effort is that it is the community of the nearby village of Teluk Maranti taking the lead, with Greenpeace supporting. Bustar, Indonesia forests campaigner, says this is because they are convinced of the benefits. Aside from their dependence on the forest, the peat waters are also highly acidic and a sudden increase in peat water flowing into the river affects fish and shrimp productivity.

Next we headed to the Kerumutan conservation area, further upstream of Teluk Maranti. This 1000 square km area is being protected, and offers a glimpse of what these peatland forests should look like, if we only left them alone. Calm but murky peat waters reflect the leaves and
branches above them, and the many fish traps along the way show that the waters provide an important source of livelihood for the community.

Tomorrow I will be heading back to the dam, this time to help in the construction. So far we haven't been harassed by the police, maybe they're taking a weekend break! And even as I send this, our many friends from Teluk Meranti have arrived to visit us! Later!

>> Read more about the Climate Defenders Camp

>> Join the call for an ambitious deal at the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen this December including a forest fund

Posted by Crina at 5:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After what she describes as two very emotional and intense weeks at the Climate Defenders Camp in Sumatra, Corinna Hölzel, Forest Campaigner from Germany has now left Indonesia. Corinna had intended to stay in the camp much longer but after our successful actions against climate criminals APRIL, circumstances have changed and tight restrictions have been placed on foreigners travel within Riau Province.

Before leaving, Corinna took some time to describe her experiences working with the local community to preserve this vital rainforest ecosystem:

I belong to the group of people who at least had a chance to stay in the Climate Defenders Camp for some days, but some of my colleagues who arrived later than me haven't had the opportunity to make this important experience at all.

Now that foreigners are not allowed to go to the village of Teluk Meranti or the camp, and while our Indonesian colleagues are interrogated by the police, I am concerned what will happen to the people from the local communities that supported our work and prevented the eviction of the camp.

In Indonesia, the police and companies like APRIL and Sinar Mas are very much linked and they are working together on a common goal - to kick Greenpeace out of this region. After I was detained and questioned by the police they told me that I am not allowed to return to the camp. I asked him why, and got a strange answer: He said that before Greenpeace established the camp on Kampar peninsula all people were happy and calm. Since Greenpeace is has been here the region has divided into pro and anti Greenpeace, and they fight against each other. For him the only solution is to remove Greenpeace.

I told him that I experienced the people as very aware and self confident. They know exactly what the forest means to them and what will happen once the big companies take their land and convert it into plantations.

Rather than removing Greenpeace they should instead respect the will of local communities.

Even though it was short, I will always remember my time in the camp where I worked together with local people and activists from all over the world to achieve one aim: Save the forest and the climate.

The work was hard – I never understood why the indonesian sandbags have to weight about 40 kilos – and the temperature was high. But it was worth every single minute. The atmosphere in the camp was great, and my abrupt goodbye - caused by my removal by the police - was very touching. Now I am glad to hear that the locals are continuing to build the dam.

The large majority of the locals don't want to give their land to the big companies like APRIL. They know this is short sighted because even if they get some money for selling the land it won't be enough. I talked to some people who live from fishing, small scale agriculture and usage of the forest. In the biodiverse peat forest they find medicine, fruit, nuts, mushrooms and building material. They can cultivate rice inside the forest. On the fields near the village they plant corn and oil palms for their own use and to sell at the local market. Whilst walking through the village you see some cattle, chicken and goats. They say the forest is their 'supermarket’, the only difference is that it's for free.

Azwir, a local farmer, told me he has enough income to cover all his expenses. This would change dramatically if the forest is taken by APRIL or Sinar Mas who would clear it and dry the soil. The free supermarket would go bankrupt, and the fish stocks would decrease heavily. Hence he would need more money to feed his family. Where should the money come from? I asked him if he could work on the plantations. But he refused because it would make him dependent on the big companies and he would earn less. And also because he wants his children and grandchildren to grow up with the forest. That's why he fights for the protection of forest and against 'the company’ (what the people are calling APRIL) and against the government which has already given a 24,000 ha concession on community land to APRIL.

He also signed up a letter which sent the community to the Government in May 2009. They have never received an answer.

I was very impressed by the resoluteness of Azwir. He is aware that his forest is not only important for him and his community, but he knows about the its’ global importance as well. He has big hopes in the climate summit in Copenhagen and that the international community will agree to measures which will protect his forest. He would like to go to Copenhagen and tell his story to the world. He says he would do lots of things in order to protect his forest, but he would never leave it. He will never leave his village Teluk Meranti and move to another place but "fight until the end".

>> Read more about the Climate Defenders Camp

>> Join the call for an ambitious deal at the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen this December including a forest fund

Posted by Crina at 4:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

An independent expert commissioned by Greenpeace has found the two nuclear reactors currently being built in Finland and France have serious safety flaws in their design. Dr. Helmut Hirsch, Scientific Consultant for Nuclear Safety says the design of AREVA’s much heralded third-generation EPR reactor is ‘contradictory to the foundation of nuclear safety’.

A nuclear reactor’s control systems are supposed to be independent, so that a failure of one system doesn’t compromise the whole reactor. This is not the case with the EPR – its systems are interlinked. ‘In the worst case,’ says Dr Hirsch, ‘this can lead to a minor incident developing into a severe accident.’ This has led to the nuclear regulators in the UK (who are evaluating the EPR design as part of their nuclear ‘renaissance’), France and Finland to jointly express their concern with this design flaw.

This is on top of ongoing serious problems at the construction of the OL3 EPR at Olkiluoto, Finland. Last week it was found that the pipes in the reactor’s essential cooling system (the part of the reactor that prevents a meltdown) have been welded using unacceptable methods without any supervision or written records. The surface of the pipes had been welded to cover up damage which may have weakened the pipes beyond repair.

The number of defects in OL3’s construction is around 3,000. The Finnish nuclear regulator STUK has detected many that were in fact approved by AREVA’s quality control but can we be certain that STUK has found them all? In 2006 STUK admitted that they could not be sure due to the high number of problems.

What we can be certain of however is that the EPR reactor is a dangerous and failed experiment. The safety flaws highlighted by Dr Hirsch reveal that there can be no confidence in the safety of the EPR design. The massive budget and schedule overruns show that a programme of building EPRs across the planet, as AREVA plans, presents a very real threat to the fight against climate change. Neither must we forget the legacy of nuclear accidents.

EPR, like nuclear power as a whole, not only threatens our safety, but takes and wastes the vital money, time and resources that we need to expand renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes if we are serious about saving our climate. The risks are too great. EPR must be abandoned immediately.

Read Dr. Hirsch’s report here. Greenpeace’s EPR factsheet is here.

Posted by Justin at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Peak Uranium? Our nuclear future might be shorter than we thought
‘We’ve all heard of Peak Oil (even if there’s some doubt about whether we’ve heard the truth over when it’s going to actually kick in), but there’s no need to worry –nuclear power will step in to fill the gap, right? Well, not for long, perhaps, at least according to Dr Michael Dittmar and his new analysis of the global nuclear industry…’

Read more »

Posted by Justin at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sign the petition asking for a phase out by 2020 - and if you're up for it - put your signature where we can see it - on a body part! (Tasteful choices please!) See who has already donated their body to the cause:

Read more »

Posted by Laura at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It's no secret that big polluting companies are going all out to try and destroy the chance of the US congress passing meaningful global warming legislation with significant emissions reduction targets. On big loop hole is the option of "offsetting" reductions abroad. The flawed nature of large scale carbon offsets has been exposed many times, recently by a Greenpeace investigation into offsets related to rainforest projects.

Big polluters love them because it's a cheap way of passing off their responsibility to someone else, somewhere else. Even though big polluters have already got the current draft US legislation filled with far too many loopholes, last week they wrote a letter asking for even more offsets, otherwise it would mean slightly lower multimillion profit margins. What was surprising was that joining such huge polluters such as Duke Energy, Dominion, Exelon and American Electric Power was Intel.

Yep Intel, one of the foundations of the IT industry that claims in can cut emissions by 15 percent by 2020 and generate billion of dollars of efficiency saving as well. Now Intel is firmly siding with the regressive, dirty companies and adding it's name to calls for US legislators to make even less effort to cut emissions in the US.

The full text of the letter and entertaining translation is in on our US blog but here's a flavour:

Re: The Importance of International Offsets for U.S. Climate Change Mitigation Efforts

We, the undersigned, are companies that employ hundreds of thousands of American workers, and serve hundreds of millions of American consumers. We expect that our companies would be affected significantly by any greenhouse gas regulatory program. We write today to communicate our firm belief that in order for any such program to be both environmentally effective and economically sound it should be market-based and incorporate both domestic and international offsets. To this end, we are concerned about the further restrictions on use of international offset credits in S. 1733, reported last week by the Environment and Public Works Committee.

TRANSLATION: We are some of the biggest, richest polluters in the world and we have a lot invested in dirty business. If you pass climate legislation without huge loopholes for us, we’re going to be very upset. One of the most important loopholes we want are carbon offsets – cheap vouchers that allow us to side-step cutting our pollution with the rationale that someone else, somewhere else, will cut pollution instead. Sure, the legislation in Congress already has massive subsidies for us and billions of tons of offsets in it, but we are still not happy. We always want more.

When IT companies need to be championing a strong deal in Copenhagen Intel is pushing in the wrong direction. It certainly won't help Intel's score in our Cool IT Challenge. Maybe Intel deserves a new slogan "Intel is working on the technologies of the future today" is more like "Intel is promoting excuses at the expense of the future today"

Posted by Tom at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So how do ICT companies size up when it comes to action over climate change? Are some companies really much greener than others? Beyond the leafy veneer of their environmental CSR pages, will their initiatives really have deep impact, or are they just flower arranging?

The Cool IT campaign tracks 14 top companies, rating them based on five criteria: public climate speeches; political advocacy; climate solutions; own emissions targets and renewable energy use. These are combined to give a total score out of 100. At the moment, by our reckoning, less than 50/100 is pretty lame. Anyone who knows what it's like to score 43 on a school assignment would probably agree.

Read more »

Posted by Melissa Wilson at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)