We are living in troubled
times in Spain thanks to nuclear energy.
The incoherence and inconsistency of the
socialist government of Jose Luis Rodriguez
Zapatero about nuclear energy in the last
few weeks has plunged us into confusion.
The nuclear lobby is taking advantage of
this situation, proving the Spanish proverb
that ‘in troubled waters, fishermen gain’.
With much propaganda,
but no truth or accurate information, the
nuclear lobby was quick to proclaim everywhere
that the recently adopted Law of ‘Sustainable’
Economy now allows the Spanish government
to ‘extend the life of nuclear plants beyond
the 40 years hitherto permitted’.
That’s doubly false.
On the one hand, it’s not true that Spanish
law says nuclear plants could operate for
40 years and, secondly, it’s not true that
the Law of ‘Sustainable’ Economy now allows
the extension of the lifetime of nuclear
plants beyond 40 years.
In Spain, nuclear plants
have never had a certain lifetime set by
law. All nuclear power plants are granted
temporary operating permits that have to
be renewed - at the request of the owner
of the plant - by authorization of the central
government. This only after receiving the
required - but not binding - favourable
report from the Nuclear Safety Council.
Rewind to early July
2009, when the operating license expired
on the Garoña nuclear plant (38 years
old and suffering serious safety problems).
The company owner, Nuclenor, had requested
an extension of ten years until 2019. The
Zapatero Government, instead of closing
the plant in 2009, finally decided to order
the termination of its operation in 2013.
A few days later, stung by criticism, the
government publicly announced that the Law
of Sustainable Economy would set the the
lifetime of nuclear plants at 40 years,
fulfilling its election promise.
Zapatero's electoral
promise at the 2008 General Election said:
‘We will keep our commitment to phase out
nuclear energy, substituting it for safer,
cleaner and less expensive energies; closing
down nuclear reactors in an orderly fashion
over time at the end of its lifetime, giving
priority to safety, looking for the highest
social consensus, and promoting saving and
energy efficiency and renewable energy,
distributed generation and transmission
and local distribution.’
When proceedings began,
the Draft Law on Sustainable Economy in
its provisions had, in effect, limited to
40 years the lifetime of nuclear power plants
(which is a very generous period of time
for the nuclear industry). The bill came
out of Congress to the Senate with the article
as is, but (what a surprise!) in the Senate
any reference to the 40 years lifetime disappeared.
The government had negotiated,
surreptitiously, with the opposition parties
- Partido Popular, Convergencia i Unio and
Partido Nacionalista Vasco - an amendment
to eliminate it. And so it remained, despite
the scandal that arose, in the final step
in Congress, a few days ago. That leaves
things as they were previously - without
the lifetime of nuclear power plants being
fixed in law, which remains in a legal limbo.
So, the only thing that
is true is that the Zapatero government
has backed away under pressure from the
nuclear lobby and has broken its promise
to fix in law the 40-year lifetime for nuclear
power plants. It has renounced its commitment
to its citizens to phase out nuclear energy.
+ More
Oil and ice
On the evening of February
17th, the Icelandic containership Godafoss
ran aground in the Hvaler national park
in southern Norway and started leaking heavy
oil. One of the biggest challenges of the
cleanup operations has been to clean up
oil from ice covered areas. This clearly
illustrates that we can’t let the oil industry
move into the Arctic.
I know that coastline
well and I have been there with the Rainbow
Warrior to document the unique cold-water
coral reefs in the area. The same summer
the Norwegian government decided to make
the area a national park – the only one
at sea. This national park is home to more
than 6000 marine species - around 220of
which are on the Norwegian national redlist
of endangered and threatened species. Yesterday
I visited the same area but on a coast guard
ship struggling to get oil up from the ice.
Since last Friday we
have seen a heroic effort from staff from
the Coastal Administration, Coast Guard
and local fire brigades to try to clean
up and limit damages to the environment.
It’s not an easy battle. Temperatures have
been down to minus 20, days are short and
the fjord is full of ice.
Over the course of the
week it has become clear that one of the
biggest challenges in the area is the ice
that covers the fjord.
The ice gets into the
booms and fill them with ice;
The oil gets in under the ice and makes
it difficult to find it;
Ice covered in oil needs to be clean up
with excavators;
The cold conditions makes it difficult for
staff on site.
These problems are hard to solve in Norway's
most densely populated area and only a few
hours from the capital Oslo.
The challenges to clean
up an oil spill in icy conditions are one
of the reasons we are against letting oil
companies into the Arctic. Many say it’s
virtually impossible to clean up an oil
spill in Arctic conditions.
Standing on the bridge
of the coast guard ship and watching the
crane lifting up one piece of oil covered
ice at the time in the beautiful surroundings
of the national park made me sad but also
more committed to fight the oil industry.
On our way out to we passed a seal pup on
an ice flow – baby seals are much more dependent
on their fur than older seals to keep them
warm since they don’t have enough blubber
to keep them warm.
The pictures we see
from the south Norwegian coast is in sharp
contrast to what Shell use in their promotion
video on their Arctic oil spill cleanup
plans for Alaska. In Shell’s movie we see
how they easily operated booms and that
they are well prepared to handle any spill.
The things that struck me with that video
are that none of the images from Alaska
are taken in winter, the sea is very calm,
it's not that cold and there is no sea ice.
The images they do show
from icy areas are taken from the Norwegian
Arctic island Svalbard, there you see burning
oil and thick smoke rising to the sky. The
fact is, there's very little oil and it’s
a planned exercise with Coast Guard and
Norwegian Polar Institute on site. That
is not the reality in the Arctic.
An accident is never
planned and in the far north the preparedness
is limited and the areas vast. This should
be enough to keep oil companies out of the
Arctic.
Looking at the mess
from the ship, I can see why Shell use their
own carefully constructed images and not
these scenes from the mess of real life.
Standing here, I’m reminded that nature
is random, unexpected and hard to predict.
It’s obvious that Shell would try and lead
us believe that they are in control, by
showing such structured images instead
I would suggest to Shell
to update their Arctic spill response video
with some pictures from Hvaler, an area
far from darkness, icebergs and thick sea
ice but where challenges around oil and
ice are a big problem.
