Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Électricité de France’ Category

Contingent on the Heat which occures during Summer, atomic power plants worldwide will have problems. The temperature in rivers is going to rise. So, less cooling water can be used from these rivers. And the other way: To avoid breaking the limit for minimum quantitiy, less warm water from the atomic power plants can be preluded into the rivers, because this would harm fish and the ecosystem.

Several atomic power plants will have their performance lowered. Take an example from 2006 / Germany: Operator and concern E.ON Energie web reduced the output from their atomic power plants by 50 % (!). The cause was the high temperature of the river “Weser”, whose water is directly used for cooling.

Atomic power plants do not guarantee security of supply.

The electricity price will rise.

This is an old blog entry made by me, but the Centre for European Economic Research now (on July 31st 2009) says, that cooling water is getting short because of climate change: HERE

They say, reactors will be without cooling water.

Source: ZEW Mannheim

regards,

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

3aa32ea241adcb28d195b715213

Pro-atomic-power and it’s propaganda: “atomic transmutation”

Two things:

1.) Transmutation is a bad excuse for NOT finding an atomic waste disposal.

2.) Transmutation may transform some material into short-living emitters.

But some into long living emitters.

And don’t forget what atomic reprocessing facilities cause:

Here is

The Real Costs of Cleaning Up Nuclear Waste: A Full Cost Accounting of Cleanup Options for the West Valley Nuclear Waste Site

on the webiste of http://www.synapse-energy.com/

Transmutation is dirty, expensive and dangerous. And, of course, a bad excuse.

Life-Upgrade.com


Read Full Post »

I just returned from the Belarusian Youth Conference, where 150 youths discussed the energy and financial crisis of Belarus (SEE HERE) and now this: http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2008/12/19/13309/

“Settled: nuclear power plant to be constructed in Astravets – close to preserved area”

Dictator Lukashenko (Belarus’ 2nd Chernobyl as some say) is well known for his authoritarian orders, against the will of the people:

Lukashenko: Atomic power plant for Belarus – via Decree.

German Source 1

and German Source 2 HERE

He did this also against his own people and the future of the country: The Belarusian (“Chernobyl”) children: Belarusian children as hostages by Lukashenko’s Decree 555 – HERE.

Lukashenko said on Belarusian state TV, that everyone who is against atomic power is an enemy of the state.

Belarus is the most radioactive affected country in the world.

More than 70 % of the Chernobyl (atomic reactor explosion in 1996, Russia / Ukraine) fallout went down there.

Lukashenko is after his phantom agenda to end Chernobyl, altough it is scientific impossible. See HERE why (1000 villages struck of the radiation map) AND view Radiation maps HERE . He gets help from the UNDP / atomic lobby program CORE – view it HERE.

One of the most important NGOs in Belarus is called “Nasz Dom” or, in English: “Our House”. They want to animate the Belarusian people to claim their given rights. They won several lawsuits in Belarus. They are fighting for people who suffered from abuse by Belarusian militia. It’s about personal consternation and personal rights. They are working on an agenda on informing the Belarusian poeple about atomic power. It’s well known and a scandal that Lukashenko is a bad home-builder and planer:

Many living areas are unlivable because of the construction defects.

And now he wants an atomic power plant.

A 2nd Chernobyl – as Nasz Dom fears.

Costs: 4 – 5,000,000,000 EUROs of money. COSTS for Uranium: HERE

Bidder: Many – Nasz Dom thinks Russian concern ROSATOM web will get the job. They said an atomic power plant architecture from 1993 would be a good choice for Belarus.

Type: Pressurized water reactor with an output of 20 MW.

Location: Near Narach MAP (Belarus)

Belarus cannot afford the costs. Neither financially nor economically. They would have to import Uranium, Russia gets Uranium from Australia: Source HERE (APEC Summit 2007).

More: WISE Information Service / WISE Uranium Project

Belarus is divided, still more than 2 million people are living in contaminated areas. The state uses much money to handle the aftermath of Chernobyl. The former official radiation map is forbidden, the health ministery is printing a new one, as sources in Minsk told me. This time with less radiation (Cs 137, Str90, Pu…) – it’s magic. Medics are not allowed to link illness / death to radiation or otherwise the’ll lose their job.

Gas / fluid is becoming more expensive as Putin / Gazprom said today. And Belarus benefits from low gas prices. Their economic growth was between 8 ad 11 % yearly, from 2004 till 2007. Now, this will end and the bubble will implode. Blame it on world econmic crisis?  The “evil West”? No, it’s the Lukashenko made soap bubble. The whole economic system relies totally on cheap Russian gas fluid.  And now they think atomic power is the solution.

In 2005 25 % of the Belarusian people were pro atomic power. Now it’s more than 60 % – according to Belarusian vice energy minister Mihadjuk. Why? He did not answer why in this interview.

Atomic Power: An effiecency factor of 34 %? High subsidies? A range of Uranium of about 60 years? These prices will also rise, just like gas and oil. It’s a problem in former soviet states: They never become free, always in addiction to the brother / leader.

Dear Belarusian friends – prepare yourself with easy enlightenment:

Ask your liquidators, people like Anatoli Gniewka or Alexander Mikulin, who cleaned the mess of Chernobyl and paid with their health and lifes. Ask them what they think of the new Belarusian atomic power plant. You don’t need it really. You have more than 370 areas in Belarus which are good for Wind Energy – as the the 1st chairman of BelWetroEnergo told me in Dec. 2008. He was working at Russian atomic rocket silos in the past. He knows both sides. Ask your liquidators, don’t let your rights cut by so called experts or Lukashenko.

Or ask Grigorij Lepin and Marina Bogdanovich – Belarusian scientists for an atomic free Belarus. But be careful. Lukashenko has experience in hunting down opponents. Independent scientists like Vassily Nesterenko (former liquidator – see HERE)  are dead or like Bandachevski (of the BELRAD Institute) have emigrated.

Even so, parts of the Belarusian people like Lukashenko. Why is that? ‘Cause they remember the chaotic times after and during the Soviet collapse. In the old days Lukashenko gave the people safety and benefits.  This changed: People have to pay more and more for energy. So, the atomic power bubble was invented, because the gas fluid bubble is gonna implode.

So, Belarus installed in 1998 a Comission which should advice the government in topics of Atomic Energy for Belarus. One member is 70 year old Alexander Mikhalevich – with his bureau inside of the Belarusian National Academy of Sciences / Minsk.

More IPPNW information (quote from their website HERE)

PDF Links HERE: http://2006.tschernobylkongress.de/ReferentInnen/Powerpoint_Okeanov.pdf

PDF Links HERE: http://2006.tschernobylkongress.de/ReferentInnen/Powerpoint_Nyagu.pdf

PDF Links HERE: http://2006.tschernobylkongress.de/ReferentInnen/Powerpoint_Fasy.pdf

PDF Links HERE: http://www.atomkongress.de/z_vortrag_mccoy.pdf

And Low Radiation Effects on Embryos and Humans – by Dr Ian Fairlie:

Niedrigstrahlung_Praesentation_April08.pdf

Nuclear Power is Bad for your Health
Radioactivity is more dangerous than once officially thought. Nuclear installations make people sick. Childrens carcinogenic disease in the area surrounding German nuclear power plants. The health effects of uranium mining. Radioactive contamination of water and earth. The unsolved waste problem.

The effects of Chernobyl: Truth and Deception, Education and Resistance
The increase in childhood leukaemia and carcinogenic disease in Belarus and the Ukraine. The increase in other illnesses. Liquidators (clean-up workers) and their health. Effect on future generations. The effects of Chernobyl in Western Europe. The suppression of scientific results of research on Chernobyl. The relationship of the IAEA to WHO.

Nuclear Energy Renaissance
Globalisation of the nuclear industry and protection of interests. Trade in nuclear electricity in a liberalised Europe. The myth of nuclear energy as the solution to climate change. When will the fuel for nuclear reactors run out? Extension of the operating lives of nuclear reactors and degeneration of safety standards. The European “Safety” Reactor. Safety deficits in Western nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Power: Access to the Bomb
Dual use technologies: The link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Who has the nuclear option? How can we prevent nuclear proliferation? Iran. North Korea. Uranium weapons. Nuclear terrorism.

Renewable Energy
The road to energy security – alternatives to the fossil-nuclear path. Solar or atomic – future or chaos. The energy issue and megatechnology: nuclear energy, fusion reactors, hydrogen versus a decentralised approach to energy generation and supply. Best Practice: exemplary projects on renewable energy – national and international. The use of science, research and teaching to achieve a turning point in energy policy.”

Quotes from http://www.facts-on-nuclear-energy.info

Nuclear Power is a Dead End

Uranium will only last a few decades – what then?

Nuclear power – like the wasteful consumption of finite reserves of fossil fuels – is at a dead end. This is because the uranium, which is needed to operate nuclear power stations, is a scarce resource. “Fast breeder” reactors, with which it was hoped to stretch out the reserves for some time, have proven to be a failure on technical and commercial grounds. In just a few decades the nuclear power industry’s fuel reserves will run out Since oil and natural gas reserves will be used up in the foreseeable future, as well as uranium reserves, the human race can only meet its long-term energy needs by using forms of renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency.

Nuclear Power is a Con Trick
Nuclear energy is dispensable for power supply

In order to claim more importance for nuclear power, the nuclear industry repeatedly overstates nuclear energy’s share of electricity generation. If one examines closely what contribution nuclear energy makes to total worldwide energy consumption, it becomes evident that nuclear power is of practically no significance for mankind’s energy needs. In 2001, nuclear electricity supplied only 2.3 percent of worldwide energy needs. Renewable energy’s contribution to world energy supply is already significantly greater. The human race can easily do without nuclear power’s marginal contribution. The risks of nuclear accidents, production of highly radioactive waste and the costs necessary for its disposal, bear no rational relationship to the slight short-term gain in energy that nuclear power provides. Nuclear power is both hazardous and superfluous.

Nuclear Power Gambles with our Lives
Risk of Worst-Case Scenario Nuclear Incident in Europe: 16 Percent

An accident could happen in any power station as a result of technical defect or human error, releasing large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. According to the official “German Nuclear Power Station Risk Study – Phase B”, a German nuclear power station in operation over some 40 years has a 0.1 percent probability of a worst-case scenario nuclear incident. In the European Union there are more than 150 operational nuclear power stations. The probability of a worst-case scenario nuclear incident is around 16% in Europe. That equates to the chances of throwing a 6 with the first cast of the dice. Worldwide there are some 440 operational nuclear power stations. The probability of a major worst-case scenario incident within the next 40 years is in the region of 40 percent. As the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl shows, a major worst-case scenario nuclear incident can be expected to cause several thousand fatalities.

Nuclear Power is a Waste
No one wants such a legacy

Every nuclear power station converts uranium fuel rods through nuclear fission into highly radioactive nuclear waste. Nuclear waste constitutes a life-threatening hazard because of its radioactive emissions. People, animals and plants need to therefore be shielded from it for several hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear power stations have been in operation for some 50 years but to date no one knows how nuclear waste can ultimately be stored. Worldwide there is not one safe and secure disposal option for the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations In the short period of time that nuclear power has been used, it is leaving behind – in the shape of the resultant nuclear waste – a dead hand of historical dimensions for the Earth. If prehistoric man had already had nuclear power stations we would even today still be having to maintain a watch over his waste.

Nuclear Power is a Bomb Factory
Nuclear power promotes proliferation of nuclear weapons

Those countries which have developed and built nuclear bombs in recent decades began with a civil nuclear program. However, these civil programs were often only a cover for their military interests and provided them with access to the technologies and know-how for the design of nuclear bombs. This fact shows that the export and further proliferation of nuclear technology significantly increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Nuclear Power Cannot Save the Climate
Climate change can only be prevented by using renewables

The nuclear industry concedes that coal, oil and gas cannot be replaced by nuclear power. In order to replace a mere 10 percent of fossil energy in the year 2050 by means of nuclear power, up to 1000 new nuclear power stations would have to be built (at the moment there are about 440 nuclear power stations worldwide). Construction of these plants would – if ever realised – take several decades. Existing uranium reserves would then be rapidly exhausted. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) admits that nuclear energy could not be expanded swiftly enough to stop climate change. The solution is quite different: various world energy scenarios show that the climate problem can only be solved by the use of renewable forms of energy in conjunction with efficient and economical energy technologies.

Nuclear Power Makes Less Jobs
Jobs? Wind power beats nuclear!

Nuclear power is capital intensive while renewable forms of energy are labour (job) intensive. For example, in Germany in 2002 some 30,000 people were employed in the nuclear industry. On the other hand, more than 53,000 people are presently employed in the German wind power industry alone. Overall, the renewable energies industry in Germany has already secured 120,000 jobs despite its as yet only small share of power generation. Further expansion of renewable energies is adding new jobs on a daily basis. Millions of new jobs could be created worldwide within the space of a few years by expanding the use of renewable forms of energy.

Alternatives to Nuclear Energy
100% of energy from sun, wind, water and biomass

In 2002, the German parliament presented an energy scenario according to which the entire German energy supply requirement could be achieved through the use of renewable forms of energy. If that is possible in Germany – a country with a small geographical area, high population and energy density and a high standard of living – it is possible anywhere. Meanwhile even the energy industry concedes that, by the year 2050, more energy could be provided from renewable sources worldwide than mankind is using today. The energy needs of this earth can be met through a mix of solar thermal power plants and solar electricity stations, wind farms, hydroelectric power stations and the various uses of biomass. In order to restrict growth of the energy requirement, economical energy technologies must come into play. Added to this, the rapid expansion of a world solar energy industry is an important step towards preventing wars over scarce resources such as oil, gas and uranium.

Shut down nuclear power plants.
Атомная энергия – тупиковый путь
Урана хватит только на несколько десятилетий – а что потом?

Атомная энергия ведёт в тупик также, как и сжигание имеющихся в ограниченном количестве ископаемых энергоносителей. Ведь запасы необходимого для работы АЭС урана малы. “Реакторы на быстрых нейтронах”, с помощью которых люди надеялись растянуть запасы атомного топлива, по техническим и экономическим причинам оказались несостоятельными. Через несколько десятилетий атомная энергетика окажется без сырья. А так как наряду с ураном в обозримый период времени будут израсходованы также запасы нефти и природного газа, то человечеству останется только возможность пользоваться возобновляемыми источниками энергии и более эффективно использовать вырабатываемую энергию.

Так ли нужна атомная энергия?
Вырабатываемый на АЭС ток не имеет принципиального значения для энергоснабжения

Для подчёркивания значения атомной энергии атомная энергетика постоянно ссылается на долю атомной энергии в производстве электрического тока. Но если взглянуть на вклад атомной энергии в удовлетворение мирового спроса на электроэнергию, то окажется, что на практике атомная энергия для человечества почти не имеет значения. В 2001 году доля получаемого от АЭС тока составила только 2,3 процента от мирового потребления электроэнергии. Это явно ниже сегодняшней доли возобновляемых источников энергии в мировом энергоснабжении. Человечество может позволить себе полностью отказаться от столь малого вклада атомной энергии. Риск аварий на АЭС, производство опасных радиоактивных отходов и высокие затраты на их ликвидацию несравнимы с выгодой от незначительного увеличения производства энергии в относительно короткий период времени. Атомная энергия опасна и не нужна.

Технические риски атомной энергии
Риск серьёзной атомной аварии в Европе: 16 процентов

На каждой атомной электростанции в результате технического дефекта или человеческой ошибки может произойти серьёзная авария с высвобождением большого количества радиоактивности в окружающее пространство. Согласно официальному документу “Исследование риска, связанного с немецкими АЭС – фаза B” на любой немецкой атомной электростанции при эксплуатации в течение 40 лет с вероятностью 0,1 процент может произойти серьёзная атомная авария. В Европейском Союзе работают более 150 АЭС. Таким образом, риск атомной аварии в Европе составляет 16 процентов. Это приблизительно соответствует вероятности выбросить шестёрку при игре в кости. В мире существует около 440 атомных электростанций. Вероятность серьёзной атомной аварии на одной из них в течение 40 лет составляет уже 40 процентов. Как показала атомная катастрофа в Чернобыле, каждая серьёзная авария на АЭС может повлечь за собой десятки тысяч смертей.

Атомная энергия в качестве производителя атомных отходов
Желающих на такое наследство нет

На каждой АЭС в результате расщепления ядра урановые стержни превращаются в высокорадиоактивные отходы. Радиоактивные отходы представляют опасность для жизни людей и поэтому в течение многих сотен тысяч лет должны храниться в могильниках, надежно защищённых от людей, животных и растений. Атомные электростанции эксплуатируются уже 50 лет, но до сих пор никто не может предложить надёжный способ захоронения радиоактивных отходов. В всём мире не существует абсолютно безопасного способа хранения отходов деятельности АЭС. Короткий эпизод использования атомной энергии оставит радиоактивное наследство на целый исторический период. Если бы первобытный человек имел атомные электростанции, то мы бы и по сегодняшний день охраняли его радиоактивные отходы.

Атомная энергия и атомная бомба
Атомная энергия способствует распространению атомного оружия

Государства, разработавшие и создавшие за последние десятилетия атомные бомбы, начали с использования атомной энергии в гражданских целях. Но часто подобные гражданские программы были всего лишь прикрытием для чисто военных целей. Эти программы обеспечили доступ к необходимым технологиям и «ноу-хау» для создания атомных бомб. Это означает, что экспорт и дальнейшее распространение атомных технологий значительно увеличивают риск распространения атомного оружия.

Атомная энергия не спасёт климат
Атомная энергия не способна остановить климатические изменения

Атомная энергетика признаёт, что АЭС не способны заменить такие энергоносители, как уголь, нефть и природный газ. Только для того, чтобы к 2050 году заменить всего 10 процентов ископаемых энергоносителей ураном, пришлось бы построить до 1000 новых АЭС (на настоящий момент их число во всём мире составляет около 440). Строительство подобных объектов – если оно вообще возможно – продолжалось бы многие десятилетия. За это время запасы урана были бы уже исчерпаны. Даже Международное агентство по атомной энергии IAEA признаёт, что быстрое расширение использования атомной энергии в целях ограничения воздействия на климат является невозможным. Решение лежит в иной сфере: различные сценарии развития мировой энергетики показывают, что решение климатических проблем следует искать в использовании возобновляемых источников энергии в сочетании с эффективными и энергосберегающими технологиями.

Атомная энергия не создаёт рабочих мест
Рабочие места? Ветряные электростанции создают больше рабочих мест, чем АЭС!

Атомная энергия является капиталоёмкой отраслью – возобновляемые виды энергии являются трудоёмкими. Опыт работы АЭС в Германии свидетельствует: в немецкой атомной энергетике в 2002 году было занято около 30 000 человек. В то же время на немецких ветряных электростанциях трудилось более 53 000 человек. Всего же в сфере возобновляемых видов энергии – несмотря на их незначительную долю в энергоснабжении – уже создано 120 000 рабочих мест. Дальнейшее расширение сферы использования возобновляемых видов энергии означает ежедневное создание новых рабочих мест. В мировом масштабе расширение использования возобновляемых видов энергии приведёт к возникновению многих миллионов рабочих мест в течение нескольких лет.

Альтернативы атомной энергии
100% энергии от солнца, ветра, воды и биомассы

В 2002 году в Германии парламент представил энергетический сценарий, согласно которому до 2050 года всё немецкое энергоснабжение могло бы быть реализовано исключительно за счёт возобновляемых видов энергии. То, что возможно в Германии – стране с небольшой площадью, большой плотностью населения и энергии и высоким уровнем жизни – возможно везде. Даже энергетики согласны с тем, что к 2050 году в мире из возобновляемых источников энергии можно будет производить больше энергии, чем всё человечество потребляет её сегодня. Потребность нашей планеты в энергии может удовлетворяться за счёт солнечных тепловых и электрических станций, ветровых электростанций, ГЭС и энергии, получаемой различными способами из биомассы. В целях ограничения роста мирового потребления энергии следует, кроме того, использовать соответствующие энергосберегающие технологии. Быстрое развитие глобальной солнечной энергетики является важным шагом для предотвращения войн за обладание ограниченными запасами такого сырья, как нефть, газ и уран.

Выключить атомные электростанции.

all text above was used by during Workshops / Youth Conference 2008.

More questions for the Belarussian officials and the people:

Chernobyl effects on humans (source: Ukraine) ?

Full liability for all atomic rectors (also in Belarus) ?

WHO – gagged by the IAEA (the truth about the radiation in Belarus) ?

Radioactive waste disposal do not fulfill international standards (example from Germany) ?

Higher Cancer risc near atomic reactors (German KiKK study) ?

Atomic accidents in Europe (2008 ) ?

Atomic reactors + Atomic bombs = Siamese Twins (atomic reactors were originally build to produce Plutonium, NOT electricity) ?

regards,

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

Every single atomic reactor on the whole planet is inadequately insured.

Who bears the risc?

YOU

The explosion of an atomic reactor means:

contamination and lost of all belongings

lost of houses and flats

fall of factories and business

condemned areas

In Germany the lawgiver arrogates 2,500,000,000 EUROs of money from the operator, when an atomic reactor explodes. But that covers only 0,1 % of possible damage. The operators are unassured against big accidents.

So, 4 former federal ministers, 300 professors and hotelier signed a signature list for Full liability for all atomic reactors, carried out by the IPPNW (web) New Judges Association (web) and the BUND (web)

Source and Link http://www.atomhaftpflicht.de/

maximum amounts of loss nuclear power plant operators are adhere:

Germany: 2.5 billion € for 17 nuclear power plants

France: 91 million € for 59 reactors

Belgium: € 297 million for seven reactors

Sweden: € 327 million for eleven reactors

Czech Republic: € 306 million for six reactors

Slovakia: 50 million € for four reactors

United Kingdom: 147 million € (33 reactors) – German Study: nuclear power unaffordable: http://www.nachrichten.at/nachrichten/politik/landespolitik/art383,729015

regards,

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

Against all genteel euphemism of IAEA and WHO, Radiation from Chernobyl fallout is still a major problem in Belarus. The IAEA is the servant and profiteer of the atomic industry with it’s heavy subsidies – just like the ICRP. But why doesn’t the WHO protest?

The IAEA denies every illness, disease, death and mutation caused by radiation, excpet thyroid cancer. And the WHO keeps it’s mouth shut.

But what exactly is the Gag Contract all about? Read all about this scandal here: http://www.independentwho.info

Medics – gagged by Physicists.

The Belarussian government has no other choice then denying the problem and tells the people to come back and live in contaminated areas (25 % of Belarus).

Photos I’ve shot in Belarus in 2006:

 

MORE

Forbidden Belarussian children cancer data

Radiation maps from Belarus

For an independent WHO and against the IAEA, because a dead musician plays only silent songs.

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers