Nuclear Energy

Throughout the world there are around 20 different designs under development for
Generation-III and III+ reactors. However, a 2005 Greenpeace study on Nuclear Reactor Hazards
by four eminent nuclear experts noted that most of these are “evolutionary” designs that have been
developed from Generation II (i.e. current) reactor types with some modifications, but without
introducing drastic changes. A typical example is the EPR design: it is simply a slightly modified
version of the French N4 and German Konvoi reactors (the two latest Generation II PWRs currently
in operation in France and Germany respectively), with some improvements. The study noted that it
is doubtful if the modifications which are hailed to be safety improvements will work as claimed.
On the contrary, it has several other modifications which actually reduce safety.
The study concludes: “All in all, 'Generation III' appears as a heterogeneous collection of
different reactor concepts. Some are barely evolved from the current Generation II.” The
modifications are primarily aimed at cost-cutting and better economics, although the nuclear
industry fallaciously claims that these new designs are safer as compared to currently operating
reactors “in the hope of improving public acceptance” of nuclear power (our emphasis). clxix
More recently, US and UK regulators reviewing the designs of some of these latest reactors
have raised serious concerns about their design (discussed in detail in Chapter 6).
Therefore, these latest series of nuclear reactors no more safer than present reactors. On the
contrary, they are inherently more dangerous! That is because many of the Generation III reactors
are of large designs, of 1000 MW and above, and so they are inherently more dangerous than the
present reactors because they have much more radioactivity in their core. For instance, the EPRs
being constructed in Finland and France are of 1650 MW, and so, in the event of a serious accident,
the impact would be more devastating than Chernobyl – the Chernobyl reactor was of 1000 MW
capacity! Therefore, the EPR needs more stringent quality control just to match the safety level of
present day reactors; however, as we discuss in detail in Chapter 6, it is doubtful if even present-day
safety standards will be met! In an attempt to reduce costs and complete the project on schedule, the
nuclear companies constructing these reactors have selected cheap, incompetent subcontractors, and
have overlooked safety-related problems!!
….................
In her classic work, “Nuclear Power is not the Answer to Global Warming or anything else”,
Dr. Helen Caldicott, the pioneering Australian antinuclear activist and pediatrician who co-founded
Physicians for Social Responsibility writes: “Statistically speaking, an accidental meltdown is
almost a certainty sooner or later in one of the 438 nuclear power plants located in thirty-three
countries around the world.” clxx In its greed for profits, the world's nuclear industry is pushing to
making her grim foreboding come true sooner than later.
54