Europe's ageing nuclear reactors must have an environmental assessment
Source: Greenpeace
World Environment Day today was important for European nuclear energy policy, and the triggering issue was in Ukraine. No, it was not because of the G7 meeting talking about the consequences of energy dependence in the shadow of the political problems in Ukraine. The G7 did not really address nuclear, because they are aware nuclear cannot really help them out and the risks of nuclear power in conflict areas are not a strong issue on their agenda.
The important issue was a decision of the Meeting of Parties of the Convention (MoP) on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, also known as the Espoo Convention [1]. Such meetings are normally rather boring with occasional pearls at side-event and seminars. This time there was a lot of heated discussion on the lifetime extension of the Rivne 1 and 2 nuclear reactors in Ukraine.
In the end, the MoP endorsed the conclusions of its Implementation Commission [2]. As a result, all ageing nuclear power stations in Europe will have to be submitted to an environmental impact assessment before a licence renewal or the approval of a 10-year-periodic safety review.
This is a groundbreaking decision. Until now, most European countries prolonged the lifetimes of their ageing nuclear reactors by only looking at whether prescribed safety standards are met. Normally, there is no further consideration about whether the increasing risk of potential large environmental impacts due to a severe accident at an ageing power station can be justified in comparison with other alternatives for generating electricity. The public is not consulted before old reactors receive another lease on life. This now has to change.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/europes-ageing-nuclear-reactors-must-have-an-/blog/49545/
bananas
(27,509 posts)A little more from the article:
With this MoP decision, 60 ageing nuclear reactors in Europe will have to undergo an environmental assessment in the coming three years [4].
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,031 posts)cstanleytech
(26,229 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)For a country phasing out its nuclear plants, you might expect a downturn in energy production. But Germany has actually seen its power output quadruple between 2011 and 2012. Europes leading economy has been pushing for a green revolution, becoming one of the largest markets for solar voltaics and where support for renewables is subsidized by taxpayers. The countrys Federal Statistics Office reported a surplus of 22.8 billion kilowatt hours over the last two years. The government has set a goal to source 80 percent of its electricity from green technology by 2050, leaving the old fossil fuel-based utilities behind. Holland, Austria and Switzerland were the countrys main customers for the extra energy.
Read more: http://inhabitat.com/germany-quadruples-energy-surplus-over-the-last-two-years/
http://www.radiationnetwork.com/Europe.htm
- K&R
Alternative energy is more than doable. Only corporate interests stand in the way.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)"This is one of the biggest inconsistencies of the energy transition, and if the government wanted to address it, it could," says Prof Hey.
"To address this paradox, the government needs to adopt a regulatory approach on coal. It is relying on the market, rather than regulation, and this is key to the problem."
Or as Prof Kemfert puts it: "The government isn't doing anything."
In fact, the new coalition has said that all fossil fuel power sources are equally important for the security of supply for the foreseeable future.