|
Post by b6k on Feb 13, 2012 21:23:19 GMT 3
Folks, the Executive Director of UNEP chimes into the "this is not a joke" debate & asks KE to rethink its priorities. The long term cost in plant decommissioning (20 to 30 years), safe storage of nuclear waste (500 to 1,000 years) alone will keep Kenyans footing the bill 30 generations into the future, to satisfy a few individuals egos today. It just isn't worth it: Excerpts: "NAIROBI, Kenya, Feb 13 – The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is advising against plans by Kenya to set up a nuclear power plant, and is instead urging the government to first explore other available sources of renewable energy. UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner pointed out on Monday that the country has massive potential for clean energy which, if harnessed, would be enough to meet its power requirements for its growing economy." www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2012/02/don’t-rush-for-nuclear-energy-unep/
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Feb 14, 2012 2:10:11 GMT 3
Folks, the Executive Director of UNEP chimes into the "this is not a joke" debate & asks KE to rethink its priorities. The long term cost in plant decommissioning (20 to 30 years), safe storage of nuclear waste (500 to 1,000 years) alone will keep Kenyans footing the bill 30 generations into the future, to satisfy a few individuals egos today. It just isn't worth it: www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2012/02/don’t-rush-for-nuclear-energy-unep/Echo! It is unbelievable some Academics are seriously working on bringing Nuclear power to kenya. How short fused are their thinking really? Maybe till to their pockets? Thats exactly the reason why Power is still expensive in Nuclear power Countries like in Germany. The Consumers pay the costs at the end. And only the small consumers do that. Industries don't pay at all. And the costs of getting rid of the toxics is also taxed from the consumers too!
|
|
|
Post by podp on Feb 19, 2012 8:39:22 GMT 3
Nuclear energy source versus safe renewable energy sources: Which way for Kenya? www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000052418&cid=4¤tPage=3By LILLIAN ALUANGA The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) Executive Director Achim Steiner’s caution to Kenya on the adoption of nuclear energy has reignited debate on the country’s readiness to embrace this source. Steiner urged the Government to first explore other renewable sources of energy, adding that the country had massive potential for clean energy, which if harnessed, would meet its power requirements. These include solar, wind and geothermal sources. Kenya is hugely dependant on hydropower, but this has become unreliable given the erratic rainfall patterns. In view of this, the Government has taken keen interest in alternative energy production, including exploring possibilities of nuclear energy. Abundantly available This has, however, been resisted by some environmentalists and scientists who point to challenges of ensuring safety in the production of nuclear energy, as well as health and environmental risks. Steiner says there was need for the Government to conduct rigorous economic, environmental, and social assessments before settling on the nuclear option. Says Steiner, " When you look at this option, you not only have to factor in the cost of construction and commissioning a plant, but you are also committing the next 20 to 30 generations of Kenyans to continue paying for the energy produced over the period." In a presentation at the Second Conference of the International Year of Chemistry, Collins Juma said there was need to incorporate nuclear into the energy mix. This, he says, has been triggered by the need for energy security. "The country’s power demands have consistently been growing at an average rate of eight per cent per annum, over the last five years. Over the next 20 years the power load is expected to grow at an average rate of 14 per cent per annum, driven by high economic growth rates," he said. Proponents of nuclear energy argue its the best way to produce safe, clean, reliable and cheap electricity, and that its production does not result in the emission of poisonous gases like carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide. There is also the argument based on the source of nuclear power – uranium – which is said to be available, with deposits not exhaustible for about another 1,000 years worldwide. This is in sharp contrast to coal, which is projected to be depleted in the next 160 years. But there are those who feel Kenya is still a long way from adopting nuclear energy. University of Nairobi lecturer, Eric Odada, says it would take Kenya 10 to 15 years to build a nuclear reactor. Radioactive waste While acknowledging that there was nothing wrong with exploring possibilities of adopting nuclear power production, there are serious safety issues and challenges of waste disposal associated with it. "This is something we have to think about. Even countries that have been using nuclear technology have had to sign long term projects, with other nations to dispose nuclear waste," he says. Steiner says Kenya would have to consider where to store pipes, valves and even concrete associated with nuclear power production for anywhere between 100 and 500 years, or even up to 1,000 years safely. Nuclear Electricity Development Project Secretary, David Otwoma, acknowledges that planning is needed for management and disposal of radioactive waste. He says Kenya is aware of the challenges this may pose. In his presentation during the conference at the University of Nairobi, Otwoma said storage is an important component that must be considered, probably for decades. Kenya is among 27 countries considered to be ‘interested’ in nuclear power generation. There are over 400 nuclear units in operation in the world, with 43 countries considering the option. At least 20 countries are considering adopting a nuclear power programme by 2030. But there are also a dozen other countries that have been running nuclear reactors, which they want shut down. Chernobyl incident The 2012 Unep Year Book shows 138 nuclear reactors in 19 countries have been shut down out of about 450 in operation worldwide. There are plans to shut down at least 80 more reactors over the next 10 years. Germany, for instance, plans to shut down all its 17 nuclear reactors by 2022 and focus more on solar, wind, and hydroelectric power production. Prof Odada says while solar and wind are good sources of clean energy, production of the latter may not be feasible in the long term, as has been discovered by countries like Denmark and Norway, which had heavily invested in production of power using wind. "In the long term, the only reliable source of energy may be nuclear, but safety considerations are so important that countries like Kenya would automatically be ruled out of contention for the next 20 years on that basis alone," he says. Juma says while wind power may be an excellent choice for sparsely populated rural economies, particularly if they lack modern electrical infrastructure, it is unlikely that wind power will support the electricity needs of future megacities. The nuclear accident at Japan’s Fukushima plant last year, coupled with memories of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster are reference points by those opposed to nuclear energy. The Chernobyl incident, which involved the explosion of a reactor at the Lenin Atomic power station during routine tests, is believed to have significantly slowed down nuclear developments in the former Soviet bloc. While it has been difficult to prove whether there was a link between the accident and increased number of cancer cases in areas around the plant, there is consensus they do exist. In answer to a question on whether nuclear plants emit dangerous amounts of radiation, Juma says nuclear power plants have controlled and monitored emissions of radiation, but that the amount is extremely small and poses no threat to the public or environment.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 19, 2012 9:21:37 GMT 3
I see where chemists have been consulted, but in all the thought process that Kenya has put into this, has there been any serious input of an economist or economist firm? If we are serious about sound policy decisions we must bring economists into the support machine. That's an overdue step.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Feb 19, 2012 9:32:50 GMT 3
Mank,
At the Least Cost Power Development Plan (LCPDP) team out of the 18, a total of 8 members are economists. Way back in 2008 when doing the economic and financial analysis the nuclear option stood out as cost effective followed by geothermal and coal in order of merit.
At the Nuclear Electricity Project their representative at the LCPDP is an economist. What we need is forums where economists hold local conferences, seminars etc. and invite those in energy to give perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 19, 2012 9:50:59 GMT 3
Mank,
At the Least Cost Power Development Plan (LCPDP) team out of the 18, a total of 8 members are economists. Way back in 2008 when doing the economic and financial analysis the nuclear option stood out as cost effective followed by geothermal and coal in order of merit.
At the Nuclear Electricity Project their representative at the LCPDP is an economist. What we need is forums where economists hold local conferences, seminars etc. and invite those in energy to give perspectives. Sounds like there could be some reasonable groundwork that is not reaching us then ... it should be informing our debate here. We should be looking at economic studies that are advising the process, or at least the major considerations that the LCPDP economists consider to be persuasive. Those should include measured arguments against paranoia of those, including me, who believe a nuclear proposal is way ahead of our times.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Feb 19, 2012 20:53:14 GMT 3
mank
The Executive Summary has in part the answer to your query...
Least Cost Expansion Plan
Candidate generation resources considered in the system expansion plan include geothermal, hydro, Wind, coal, oil-fired and nuclear power plants. The optimal development program is dominated by geothermal, Nuclear, coal, imports and Wind power plants. Geothermal resources are the choice for the future generating capacity in Kenya.
The optimum solution indicates that geothermal capacity should be increased from the current 198MW to 5,530 MW in the planning period, equivalent to 26% of the system peak demand by 2031. The system expansion plan over the 20 year plan period indicates that 26% of the total installed capacity will be obtained from geothermal, 19% from Nuclear Plants, 13% from coal plants and 9% from imports. Wind and Hydro plants will provide 9% and 5% respectively while Medium Speed Diesel (MSD) and Gas Turbines (GTs) - LNG plants will provide 9% and 11% of the total capacity respectively. The present value of the total system expansion cost over the period 2011-2031 for the reference case development plan amounts to U.S.$ 41.4 billion, expressed in constant prices as of the beginning of 2010.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 19, 2012 22:52:40 GMT 3
podp,I do not think such brief summary can tell it all. If it tells about all that was considered, then it must be that risk is not a consideration in the cost-effectiveness analysis at all - yet we know the contingencies of the different energy options are not the same. If risk was not incorporated in the analysis then the all real possible outcomes like Chernobyl and Fukushima were priced at zero, or the analysts made the hard-to-sell assumption that Kenya is immune to such outcomes. Update--------- I have found the full study. It is here www.erc.go.ke/erc/LCPDP.pdfJust searching through for "Risk" I find that all references to risk are with relation to energy prices. In effect the study assumes that the possibility of a Kenyan Chernobyl or Fukushima is without cost. Yet it is that very aspect of cost that is of major concern to those who oppose the nuclear option. I am not sure if they have addressed the cost of waste storage either, which I believe is another huge cost factor of nuclear relative to other energy options.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Feb 20, 2012 7:05:30 GMT 3
mank, The LCPDP found at www.erc.go.ke/erc/LCPDP.pdf dwells on the economic aspects as you correctly point out. If you recall the www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Sto....hz/-/index.html there was a bit that said in part 'The Nuclear Electricity Project Committee is currently undertaking a pre-feasibility study. This is an elaborate undertaking with clear parameters involving issues such as safety, safeguards and security, legislative and regulatory framework, stakeholder involvement, the nuclear fuel cycle, radiation protection and radioactive waste, as well as funding and financing. A team of assessors for the study is drawn from KenGen, the Radiation Protection Board, the Kenya Bureau of Standards, the Energy Regulatory Commission, the Ministry of Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, KIRDI, the Energy Regulatory Commission, and Cotu. Should Kenya go the full hog and begin generating nuclear power, there would be an independent regulatory body to play an oversight role in conjunction with the IAEA. Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6228&page=2#ixzz1mtItUurz' Now returning to your last paragraph it may be important you realize that what the Pre Feasibility Study (PFS) will enable Kenya is what is regarded in the International Atomic Energy Agency nomenclature as fulfillment of Milestone 1 i.e. Make a Knowledgeable Commitment towards Nuclear Power Programme Currently the Executive (political class) have decided Kenya goes nuclear based on the LCPDP. By doing the PFS it will be technical feasible to inform the Politicians what it takes to go nuclear as concerns issues you raise (safety), security, safeguards, financial, human resources, siting etc. After passing Milestone 1 the country can now embark on Milestone 2 whereby possible owner/operator on future nuclear power plants; regulators; financing and financial arrangements; bilateral agreements; international conventions; human resource development; possible candidate sites (Counties) etc. now have to be taken on board plus the perennial Political (Executive) support addressing again issues of safety, security and safeguards....
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 20, 2012 7:43:19 GMT 3
mank,
... 'The Nuclear Electricity Project Committee is currently undertaking a pre-feasibility study. This is an elaborate undertaking with clear parameters involving issues such as safety, safeguards and security, legislative and regulatory framework, stakeholder involvement, the nuclear fuel cycle, radiation protection and radioactive waste, as well as funding and financing.
.... what the Pre Feasibility Study (PFS) will enable Kenya is what is regarded in the International Atomic Energy Agency nomenclature as fulfillment of Milestone 1 i.e. Make a Knowledgeable Commitment towards Nuclear Power Programme I hear you. . ... Currently the Executive (political class) have decided Kenya goes nuclear based on the LCPDP..... Hence the alarm. But as you have pointed out they cannot do anything about this if it does not pass the litmus test.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Feb 20, 2012 8:45:13 GMT 3
mank, After going through the eloquent www.marsgroupkenya.org/the fertilizer (Kemron), goldenberg, angloleasing....etc it may not be prudent to rest on one laurels and wait as something could be or will brew and why wait for a scandal breaking out? Be vigilant all the time as one cannot trust those who have disappointed before! Sometimes the litmus test is never done and yet time and resources have gone down the drain. So keep watch.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 20, 2012 18:18:32 GMT 3
Podp,
I thought it was your point that a sound feasibility study is under way, and that oversight of a nuclear program would be beyond Kenya's politics? Those two points are what I found reasuring.
In your latest response I am wondering what some one in my position can do to influence decision on this alarming proposal.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Feb 21, 2012 23:04:16 GMT 3
mank,
On a forum made up more of technocrats one guy challeneged us by saying-
"I want to believe that a government enterprise running our nuclear power plants will somehow be immune from the immoral "appoint-your-relative-even-if-he-is-not-qualified" tribalism and nepotism that cripples all government sectors and especially the lucrative energy sector. But will that happen? Our history since independence says no.
"Because while the consequences of appointing some unqualified idiot onto the staff of kengen are merely financial with a little disruption to operations, having a plodding idiot - appointed merely because of his tribe - working at a nuclear power plant would be a monumental disaster in the making.
"The power so generated will still need to be distributed - and in Kenya this is done by an inefficient monopoly whose most distinguishing factor is the tribalism used to appoint its boss and it's most important employees.
"There are even more alternatives. We have some of the best geothermal sites in the world - what's stopping us from extending them? Corruption in the awarding of drilling and related tenders (Jaindi Kisero has written extensively on this in the recent press).
"Rwanda has found massive deposits of gas in Lake Kivu - have we done any exploring for gas in Lake Victoria and in the idle, Unutilized Lake Turkana? Nope. "One could go on and on, but the point is that our energy shortages are not necessarily because of a lack of generating capacity across the spectrum of possible energy sources. It is caused by a systemic failure to reform the energy sector in such a way that it responds to energy demands innovatively and adequately.
The above needs independent watchdogs to assure no nepotism as it can be a disaster source as Chernobyl 1986 mishap taught the world and cannot be allowed to recur anywhere else.
Please be watchful.
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Feb 21, 2012 23:48:24 GMT 3
Kenya clean energy potential big: Unep
Kenya has been identified as one of the countries with huge untapped renewable energy resources.
A United Nations Environmental Programme report launched on Tuesday at Gigiri, Nairobi, says Kenya, Cape Verde, Madagascar, Sudan and Chad have particularly significant potential.
The report launched at the ongoing UN Governing Council meeting outlines obstacles to the scaling-up of sustainable energy solutions in Africa.
The report says that to meet the continent’s growing energy demands, Africa’s power sector needs to instal an estimated 7,000 megawatts of new generation capacity each year.
Give incentives
In Kenya, a government feed-in tariff introduced in 2008 to expand renewable energy power generation will give incentives to production of an additional 1300 MW — more than double Kenya’s present capacity, the reports says.
The increased investment in renewable energy, it adds, is also expected to trigger significant job creation through construction of power plants, grid connection and maintenance.
Among the rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa, where only two-to-five per cent of people are connected to the electricity grid, the report says, increasing wind, bio-energy or solar energy supply could be more cost-effective than expanding the existing grids. Share This Story Share
Related Stories
Ouko met Thatcher to discuss ‘political tensions’
The Unep report calls on governments to reform the energy sector with policies leading to a higher level of decentralisation and easier market access for energy producers.
Smart policies
It says that opening up energy markets to private sector investment through the introduction of smart government policies, will be the key to unlocking Africa’s massive renewable energy potential.
In doing so, the report adds, millions can be lifted out of poverty and the sustainable development potential of the continent “far sooner realized.”
“The continent has abundant renewable resources that, with the right kind of public policies in place, could unlock a new development future and light up the lives and the livelihoods of millions of people,” the Unep executive director, Mr Achim Steiner, said during the report’s launch.
By NATION REPORTER Posted Tuesday, February 21 2012 at 20:0
|
|
|
Post by podp on Feb 25, 2012 8:11:35 GMT 3
According to Mr Cyprian Omolo, MP for Uriri constitunecy and member of the committee, the Nuclear Electricity Project committee has done nothing since it was formed in 2010, "other than attend international conferences and swindle public funds in allowances." www.afriquejet.com/kenya-nuclear-energy-no-need-for-nuclear-energy-says-committee-2012022233893.htmlThe Nuclear Energy Commission should make its findings known in a bid for the Parliamentary Committee on Energy to help sensitise Kenyans on nuclear energy. Speaking while inspecting the first of 14 wellheads in Olkaria on Monday, committee chairman James Rege said the findings have not been released and should be done with haste if the country is to set up nuclear energy by 2030. “We need to tell Kenyans what kind of energy they are going to have. Kenyans don’t want to be surprised with a nuclear power plant that springs up one moment and they say they were not consulted on anything. We want to know how much power they are expecting and what they have uncovered thus far, that is why we are saying they should share their information with us,” he said. www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2012/02/explain-nuclear-project-to-kenyans-mps/
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 26, 2012 9:42:26 GMT 3
mank, On a forum made up more of technocrats one guy challeneged us by saying- "I want to believe that a government enterprise running our nuclear power plants will somehow be immune from the immoral "appoint-your-relative-even-if-he-is-not-qualified" tribalism and nepotism that cripples all government sectors and especially the lucrative energy sector. But will that happen? Our history since independence says no. "Because while the consequences of appointing some unqualified idiot onto the staff of kengen are merely financial with a little disruption to operations, having a plodding idiot - appointed merely because of his tribe - working at a nuclear power plant would be a monumental disaster in the making. "The power so generated will still need to be distributed - and in Kenya this is done by an inefficient monopoly whose most distinguishing factor is the tribalism used to appoint its boss and it's most important employees. "There are even more alternatives. We have some of the best geothermal sites in the world - what's stopping us from extending them? Corruption in the awarding of drilling and related tenders (Jaindi Kisero has written extensively on this in the recent press). "Rwanda has found massive deposits of gas in Lake Kivu - have we done any exploring for gas in Lake Victoria and in the idle, Unutilized Lake Turkana? Nope. "One could go on and on, but the point is that our energy shortages are not necessarily because of a lack of generating capacity across the spectrum of possible energy sources. It is caused by a systemic failure to reform the energy sector in such a way that it responds to energy demands innovatively and adequately. The above needs independent watchdogs to assure no nepotism as it can be a disaster source as Chernobyl 1986 mishap taught the world and cannot be allowed to recur anywhere else. Please be watchful. Podp, I hear you. A lot of work is required to get people to be vigilant enough on this. On the issue of explorations, I also have continued to wonder what happened with the alleged oil find in north eastern. I do not remember what year that was, but one time I was living in Isiolo, and I remember 2 days when the town was overshadowed by equipment enrout to the oil fields. The view was a big statement that we really had struck oil. It was around the same time that I saw Nation print a story claiming that someone (I think Nicholas Biwott), had even tested a sample of the oil on his car.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Mar 2, 2012 21:52:25 GMT 3
Radiation fears haunt Japan food shoppers Posted Thursday, March 1 2012 at 18:24TOKYO, Thursday For Japanese shoppers, food safety was taken for granted until the Fukushima crisis. Now many have lost faith in government guarantees and fear that radiation could have contaminated their diet. Meltdowns at the nuclear plant in the aftermath of last year’s tsunami sent poisonous radioactive particles into the air and water, blanketing crops grown near the power station and polluting waters where seafood is harvested. A number of Fukushima products were taken off the official menu, with government bans on beef, milk, mushrooms and some green vegetables. But consumers were unconvinced by the measures and began steering clear of produce from anywhere near the affected area, leaving farmers with fields full of crops they could not sell and fishermen with catches worth nothing. Miwa Yokono says she would like to give locally caught fish to her one-year-old son, but does not believe it is safe. “I want him to eat as much fish as possible because that’s his favourite ... but I think radiation accumulates in creatures at the top of the food chain,” she said. Yokono, 27, now buys imported fish, but says she would support Japanese trawlermen if she knew what she was buying was safe. The problem for Yokono is that she — along with a significant proportion of the Japanese shopping public — does not trust the government’s safety standards. In the immediate aftermath of the nuclear crisis, Tokyo announced it was raising the permitted level of radiation in food by a factor of five, meaning produce that would previously have been thrown out was suddenly fine. Rice grown just a short distance from the plant was declared safe after spot sampling, but later tests revealed radiation levels far higher than even the new raised limits. Hiroaki Koide, assistant professor at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute, said the official declaration that food with five times the previous “safe” level of radiation was fit for consumption raised suspicions the government was acting on behalf of producers, instead of consumers. Exports of Japanese farm produce — once a favourite of the country’s Asian neighbours who prized their safety and quality — fell 7.4 per cent in 2011 from the previous year while exports of marine products dropped 10.9 per cent. www.nation.co.ke/News/world/Radiation+fears+haunt+Japan+food+shoppers+/-/1068/1357206/-/wymj1tz/-/index.html
|
|
|
Post by podp on Mar 2, 2012 23:20:14 GMT 3
Was watching a futuristic thorium reactor physics presentation when the article titled 'Fukushima 1 year on: Poor planning hampered Fukushima response' which has the excerpt below caught my attention while taking a break; "draw up a "worst case scenario" for the nuclear accident as the crisis deepened—that is, six increasingly drastic scenarios that would play out as various systems at the nuclear plant failed" www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/sp-foy022912.phpBack to the thorium documentary, there was a question:- How safe is nuclear energy? A clip retorting 'How safe is a car' produced nice answers that we can apply locally and the answers would include:- 100% safe if its the President's car driven on the road after its cleared of all oncoming traffic 50% if its the terrible trailer/lorry accident that veered of the road and hit killing more than 6 children in Bungoma today! 0% if its the saloon car overtaking a bus and collided head on with another bus killing all the 4 occupants In retrospect other the article notes ""Ultimately, the final outcome of studies of Fukushima Daiichi should be an intense effort to build up the resilience of the country, its organizations, and its people, so future disaster can be averted or responded to effectively," the authors conclude."" www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/sp-foy022912.php
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Mar 3, 2012 0:02:34 GMT 3
A public myth of "absolute safety," nurtured by nuclear power proponents over decades, contributed to the lack of adequate preparation. The public was also ill-informed about the meaning of reported radiation levels.
"It's clear from our investigation of the Fukushima Daiichi accident that even in the technologically advanced country of Japan, the government and the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, were astonishingly unprepared, at almost all levels, for the complex nuclear disaster that started with an earthquake and a tsunami," say the authors. "And this grave oversight will affect the Japanese people for decades." podp: from that article, the statement above is what informs our fears. whereas we have utmost respect for our scientists, the pink gigantic elephant in the room is that safety will be largely dependent on other govt arms. and if japan, which is light years ahead of kenya, were inadequately prepared, then what hope does kenya have for reference look at how kibuchi, kiplagat, ndung'u, etc treat their jobs. not to mention the uhuruto circus. dont you think we have a suicidal leadership complete with brainless followers following the pair on their kamikaze mission
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Mar 7, 2012 21:45:20 GMT 3
The Whistleblower Who Shutdown 17 Nuclear Reactors in Japan Very informative Interview. Real shocking ------This too interresting information on what really is happening...... www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/12/490579.html
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Mar 7, 2012 21:48:18 GMT 3
I have just learned that from Japans former 54 Nuclear Plants, 52 are down already and the remaining 2 will be run down in a few weeks. It’s being said that Japan is doing alright without nuclear power plants right now, despite before being told that, without nuclear power they are finished. Now they are importing more oil but they are doing very well, indeed. The excuse that an Industrial country needs nuclear plants in order to produce power is just a Lobby grumble. Japan Nuclear lies have being discovered and thus the Government must move away from it now and are concentrating on clean energy for Future. Underneath just a tiny example on what can be put up in a short time when people want. -------------- Mitsubishi and Hitatchi join consortium to build experimental 16MW floating offshore wind farm07 Mar 2012 Japan's Fukushima prefecture, which was last year hit by a devastating earthquake and tsunami, could become an export hub for offshore wind technology under plans put forward by a consortium to build the world's first floating wind farm. Logistics Corporation Marubeni yesterday announced it would lead a project to build three floating wind turbines with a total of 16MW capacity and one floating substation off the coast of Fukushima, with work starting as early as this year. The consortium also includes Mitsubishi, Nippon Steel, and Hitachi, and is backed by the government's Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. It plans to start installing a 2MW floating wind turbine this year, as well as the world's first floating substation. The project will then ramp up capacity, installing two 7MW floating wind turbines in 2013 and 2015. Yoshinori Ueda, director of the Japanese Wind Energy Association, told BusinessGreen that Fuji Heavy Industries will supply the first 2MW turbine, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries will supply a 7MW turbine for the second stage but the third stage turbine has yet to be selected. Hitachi will provide the substation. IHI Marine, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsui Shipbuilding will produce "floaters" for the turbines to be installed on 20-40 kilometres out to sea, in waters 100-150m deep. Marubeni said it hoped the floating offshore wind project would spark economic growth in the area, and could potentially allow Fukushima to export floating offshore wind technology. "Fukushima Prefecture expects this experimental project to spawn a new industry in renewable energy and create employment as part of recovery efforts in the wake of the Great East Japan Earthquake," it said in a statement. "Through this experimental project, Fukushima Prefecture hopes to develop a large wind farm industry." The United Nations this week revealed the major earthquake, tsunami and nuclear leak at Tepco's Fukushima-Daiichii power plant, caused an estimated $210bn of damage. Following the earthquake, Japan's wind energy association revealed all but one of its 1,742 wind turbines survived the quake, as wind turbines in Japan use thicker steel and the country has strict planning regulation to counter earthquake risks. The consortium hopes that floating wind turbines will be even more resilient to quakes as their design would allow them to absorb shocks more easily than rigid structures. "We believe that creating a practical wind farm business scheme through this experimental project could lead to the deployment of large scale floating wind farms in the future," added Marubeni. "Taking advantage of the experience and knowledge gained through this, the world's first floating wind farm, this business could be expanded on a global basis and lead to the development of a new Japanese export industry." The UK is also pursuing plans to deploy a prototype floating turbine as part of a £25m Energy Technologies Institute project that aims to have a device in waters off the UK coast by 2016. translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=de&langpair=en|de&rurl=translate.google.de&u=http://www.businessgreen.com/tag/offshore-wind-farms&usg=ALkJrhhtR_NGsevz9zbVWLThxbCRiBg13w
|
|
|
Post by podp on Mar 7, 2012 23:45:50 GMT 3
Kasuku, When one is bent on focusing on negatives one never lacks enough material to suffocate in. Here is one more from a non Japanese but more cleverly put together see www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=335:japans-energy-security-predicament-in-the-aftermath-of-the-fukushima-disaster&catid=121:contentenergysecurity1111&Itemid=386The 3/11 nuclear disaster, although the most severe, has not been the only nuclear accident in Japan. In fact, several reactor accidents occurred during the 1990s, the most serious of which was the 1999 accident in Tokaimura, which killed two workers. These accidents have contributed greatly to negative public confidence in government and corporate nuclear oversight. The share of Japanese people feeling “very uneasy” about nuclear power grew from 21% before the 1999 Tokaimura accident to 52% afterwards. In a survey released in March 2000, 64% of energy experts surveyed expressed strong concerns about the risk to energy security posed by limitations to securing sites for nuclear power plants; and 49% about risks posed by large accidents at nuclear power facilities.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Mar 7, 2012 23:55:52 GMT 3
Kasuku, Some reality check to show you that 16 MW experiemtal planned wind farm is just that.....an experiment and not a solution in the near future. Take a breath in....Capacity at end of 2009 was 48.9 GWe nuclear, 47.2 GWe hydro, 35.3 coal, 44.8 GWe gas, 41.2 GWe oil, 48.9 GWe oil or coal, 2.6 GWe solar, 2.0 GWe wind and 0.55 GWe geothermal. www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.htmlSo in short to replace 48,900 MW from nuclear with units of 16 MW experimental they will have to make more than 3,056 experiments! And even after that they will not be base load but prone to availability of wind which is currently at 40% hence if the really want to replace all the 48,900 MW of nuclear they will mathematically require in excess of 7.640 experiments! Nice arguments but will they be able to continue exporting competitively relative to China, South Korea and other new nuclear power States joining the league of developed countries? And who do you propose Kenya emulates? The experimental giant sliding to oblivion or the new brave world of countries which were 3rd world when we got independence and are now joining the developed States?
|
|
|
Post by podp on Mar 8, 2012 0:06:35 GMT 3
China’s nuclear programme did slow down a bit following Fukushima and a round of safety inspections, but since then the nuclear authorities in Beijing have announced that China’s nuclear reactor roll out is back on track again. Indeed, the authorities are arguing that they are well placed in terms of safety as the CAP1400 reactor is based on Westinghouse’s AP1000 which, they believe, has been confirmed as the safest nuclear power technology globally following the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval of the construction of a new nuclear plant using AP1000 technology at Vogtle, Georgia. That plant is operated by Southern Company (a combination of Alabama Power Georgia Power, Gulf Power and Mississippi Power). Though this week’s news concerned Dongfang Electric, Zhang Fubao, the director of the Technology Department under the State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation, says that, to date, 57 Chinese enterprises, covering six realms of the machinery, electric, material, engineering, instrument control and service, have received certifications and become qualified suppliers for the third-generation nuclear power AP/CAP. analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/new-build/china%E2%80%99s-localised-ap1000-step-closer?utm_source=http%3a%2f%2fuk.nuclearenergyinsider.com%2ffc_nei_decomlz%2f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEI+e-brief+0703&utm_term=China%E2%80%99s+localised+AP1000+a+step+closer&utm_content=118857
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Mar 8, 2012 13:18:21 GMT 3
...Then there’s the attempt to cover up Fuksushima impacts. "Health impacts from the radioactive materials released in the Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns will probably be too small to be easily measured,” began a New York Times piece by Matthew Wald last week. That was based on a Health Physics Society program at the National Press Club. But the Health Physics Society is a booster of nuclear technology. It wasn’t supposed to be that. The health physics profession was founded in 1943 by Karl Z. Morgan, a physicist with an interest in the health effects of radioactivity. He was hired by the Manhattan Project, the World War II crash program to build atomic bombs, to deal with health issues caused by radioactivity at the project. Then, for more than two decades, he was director of health physics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He was the first president of the Health Physics Society. And he saw and protested the profession selling out. “It is with much reluctance and regret that I now must recognize that the U.S. profession of health physics has become essentially a labor union for the nuclear industry not a profession of scientists dedicated to protect the worker and members of the public from radiation injury,” Dr. Morgan wrote in 1992. The radioactivity that has fallen in Japan for many months from Fukushima will have enormous consequences to the people of Japan. The type of accident that occurred at Fukushima Daiichi was “something that never happened a multiple reactor catastrophe…happening within 200 kilometers of 30 million people,” notes Dr. Alexey Yablokov, lead author of Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Dr. Yablokov, a biologist, and two other scientists, in the 2009 book, published by the New York Academy of Sciences, find that 985,000 people died between 1986, the year of the Chernobyl accident, “The Fukushima disaster will be worse than Chernobyl,” agrees Dr. Janette Sherman, toxicologist and editor of the Chernobyl book. She also points to the Fukushima disaster involving several nuclear plants along with spent fuel pools affecting a part of Japan “far more populated” than the region around Chernobyl. Fukushima fall-out has already caused death in the U.S., Dr. Sherman and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project have determined. Dr. Sherman and Mangano cross-checked data on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with records of Fukushima fallout from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that infant mortality spiked by an average of 35 percent in eight cities west of the Rocky Mountains, including San Francisco and Seattle, and by 48 percent in Philadelphia during the ten weeks after the accident began on March 11, 2011. Infant mortality defined as death of children from birth to one year old is considered an early measure of radiation effects because there is rapid growth and cell division at this stage, increasing the impacts of radioactivity. Cancer is a subsequent consequence. “A global increase in cancer can be expected from the Fukushima discharges,” says Dr. Sherman, who has been an advisor to the National Cancer Institute and has studied the impacts of radiation since working for the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1950s. Besides blowing in the wind, the radioactive poisons from Fukushima have been spread in food, which is why several countries have restricted food imports from Japan. Moreover, the sea along the Fukushima site provides a vast pathway for spreading radioactivity. When radioactive poison gets into the marine environment a “concentration factor” kicks in as the radiation moves up the food chain. Small fish eat radiation-contaminated seaweed, and medium-size fish eat the small fish. Then big fish eat the medium-size fish and radioactivity becomes increasingly concentrated. Some of the fish are migratory, so it’s not just sushi in Tokyo that’s imperiled. Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry trade group, continues to insist: “No health effects are expected among the Japanese people as a result of the events at Fukushima.” The American Nuclear Society proclaims on its website that “no public ill effects are expected from the Fukushima incident.” Mangano says that “the absurd belief that no one will be harmed by Fukushima is perhaps the strongest evidence of the pattern of deception and denial by nuclear officials in industry and government.” Further, last May 3,after doing at least weekly monitoring of radioactivity providing the data that Dr. Sherman and Mangano linked to infant mortality, the EPA announced it would only gather readings every three months. Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, described it as “inexplicable that EPA would shut down its radiation monitoring effort” while Fukushima discharges continued to fall on the U.S. Inexplicable, but in line, says Dr. Jeffrey Patterson, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, with the “cover-up, a minimization of the effects of radioactivity, since the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology.” Here and there, there’s been a break through the Fukushima cover-up such the PBS television Frontline program, Inside Japan’s Nuclear Meltdown, that aired last week with an interview with former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan in which he acknowledged that Japanese officials considered at one point an evacuation of the greater Tokyo area with its 30 million people. The New York Times, in a Page One story last week, also reported this based not on its own investigative work but on a six-month inquiry by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation that resulted in a 400-page report. Yes, as WASH-740-update said decades ago, the scale of a major nuclear plant accident “might be equal to that of the State of Pennsylvania.” Another part of the cover-up since Fukushima has been the claim that there is no alternative to nuclear power. As Miranda Spencer wrote in last May’s issue of Extra! magazine, with the Fukushima disaster “U.S. government and nuclear industry spin control kicked in, asserting that a similar disaster couldn’t happen here, and that atomic power is here to stay…An option hardly mentioned: renewable energy, such as wind, solar and geothermal power.” This is especially important for the nuclear establishment because, as Spencer pointed out, “wind is already cheaper per kilowatt-hour than nuclear” and “the National Research Council estimates that by 2020, the cost of geothermal will be comparable to or lower than that of nuclear (10 cents/kwh versus 6-13 cents/kwh). Solar power, which the Council said “could potentially produce many times the current and projected future U.S. electricity consumption,” is projected to cost anywhere from 8-30 cents/kwh. Also, "A Duke University study found that the cost of solar power has not only recently declined by half, but also is poised to become cheaper than nuclear, even in places that aren’t always sunny." The claims, she accurately wrote, that safe, clean, renewable power is not here to substitute for atomic energy “simply don’t stand up to scrutiny.” But “the story that emerged accordingly presented nuclear energy as a path with no real alternatives.” This is despite Germany, Italy, Switzerland and other nations deciding, because of Fukushima, to pursue safe, clean, renewable power instead of nuclear power. It can be done. “Renewable Energy Can Power the World, Says Landmark IPCC Study,” headlined the British newspaper, The Guardian, also in May. It went on: “UN’s climate change science body says renewable supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand.” The article, about a 1,000-page report of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added, however, that this is “only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power.” An especially grisly angle was taken in last week’s The Economist magazine. In an article titled “Radiation and evolution, Surviving fallout,” it reported on a study on birds around Chernobyl and Fukushima. “When researchers looked at the 14 bird species that lived in both regions, they found that the same level of radiation was associated with twice as large a drop in bird numbers in Fukushima as in Chernobyl.” The Economist said that Dr. Timothy Mousseau, professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina, co-author of the study published in Environmental Pollution, believes a “likely explanation is that evolution has already been at work near Chernobyl, killing off individual birds that cannot cope with the background radiation and allowing the genes of those that have some tolerance to be passed on. The birds at Fukushima are only beginning to face the evolutionary challenge of living in a radioactive world.” Does this point to the consequence of living in “a radioactive world” the elimination of huge numbers of people with the more radiation-tolerant humans the survivors? Is this what we want? And is there no choice but to live in “a radioactive world.” Nobel Award-winning biologist Dr. George Wald once said of nuclear power: “If you were to read in the newspapers tomorrow that astronomers had a shocking piece of information for us, they had just found another star is going to collide with the sun and that would be curtains, we’d have eight months more to go and, finished why heavens above! You would put on your best clothes and go dancing in the streets that’s cosmic, that’s fate. You could go out with dignity.” But to die as a result of nuclear power, he said, “is so trivial, it’s so ghastly ignoble as to be, I think, intolerable, altogether unacceptable.” And he called for “the closing down of all nuclear power plants tomorrow.” That’s more relevant and urgent than ever. source:Karl Grossman has been a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury for 32 years www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/05
|
|