THTR Circular No. 122, August 2008

 

Excerpt from a video from the show 'Local time' broadcast on WDR3 on December 20.12.2007th, XNUMX

 

The Signature list.

---

Signature handover in Berlin

For this we had to think about something in order to achieve the greatest possible effect with little effort. Because in Berlin there are dozens of demonstrations or attention drawn to something every day. The press spokesman for Federal Environment Minister Gabriel was quickly identified as a possible contact person: 33 years ago (!) Michael Schroeren was editor of the pacifist monthly newspaper "Graswurzelrevolution", whose readers and authors contributed significantly to the establishment of our citizens' initiative in Hamm (... and the The author of these lines still writes regularly in this paper today ...).

On July 17th, a seven-person delegation from the BI set out to hand over the 4.000 signatures in front of the Federal Environment Ministry at Alexanderplatz. Noteworthy: There were ex-members of the population living in Berlin (or Münsterlanders), who are all still active in the field of energy policy to this day! After the "radiation protection suit" had been put on and the banner unrolled, the press officer came and photos could be taken and interviews given.

Michael Schroeren, on behalf of the minister, welcomed the commitment of the citizens in the vicinity of the THTR and in the WDR interview cautiously indicated efforts by his ministry to do something for a cancer study. - To do exactly this in the one-hour discussion that followed, in which Dr. Thomas Jung from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection took part, declaring it problematic and not possible. - That's how they are, our politicians. The THTR was only a prototype and was in operation for a short time. Therefore no inclusion in the KiKK study (see RB No. 120 +121).

But at least the ministry received us respectably and recognized us as dialogue partners. This is not something that can be taken for granted in German politics. TV and newspapers reported in detail about our concern. Another component of our public relations work has been added. We got the most out of the given circumstances.

Outlook

On July 21, 2008, State Secretary Matthias Machnig reiterated the official line: praise for the commitment, but no cancer study. In the meantime, we continue to receive a number of letters from cancer patients, inquiries and various pieces of advice. This is attentively registered and "processed" by our little BI. Latecomers with the signatures are forwarded to the ministry. Of course, that doesn't mean that the topic is off the table. At the NRW state level, we will increasingly look for allies. Together with the Doctors Against Nuclear Power (IPPNW), we are concretizing our demand as to how a cancer study could be carried out at the THTR without being included in the KiKK study. Events related to this take place in autumn. Local and state elections are just around the corner, opening up new opportunities to address the issue. In the THTR region, the nuclear lobby will not be able to spread its lies without being contradicted.

Horst Blume

Federal Research Minister Schavan announced on July 30, 2008 that her ministry would make fresh money available for research on Generation IV nuclear facilities, including the Thorium High-Temperature Reactor (THTR). According to the Frankfurter Rundschau, it is ten million euros for 2008, 2009 million euros for 13 and 2010 million euros in 14. This decision is justified with an allegedly low level of nuclear waste production, an almost closed fuel cycle and high safety features of this reactor line.

Federal Research Minister Schavan should finally take note of the sobering experiences with the bankruptcy reactor in Hamm, which only supplied electricity on 423 full load days, and should spend research money on meaningful projects in the future. With the now intensified nuclear research, the “nuclear phase-out” decided by the federal government is becoming obsolete.

Dates:

August 29, 2008: Chancellor Angela Merkel comes to the laying of the foundation stone of the new RWE coal-fired power plants in Hamm-Uentrop and is enthusiastically celebrated and pressed down by a large crowd because these large-scale plants mean that alternative energies will no longer have a real chance in this region for the next 40 years. Due to the climate change caused by this, the Lippesee will soon have a new chance: It will then be called the North Sea!

September 20, 2008, 12 noon: European day of uranium action. Blockade with “Die In” on the German-Dutch border near Gronau. The aim is to address the uranium enrichment plants in Gronau and Almelo, as well as the cross-border uranium transports. If possible, motor vehicles should drive to the border from different directions. Info: www.urantransport.de

November 8, 2008: Probably a big opening demo in Wendland against the planned Castor transports. Buses are used from Münster. Departure: 7 a.m. Info: www.sofa-ms.de

From THTR to Generation IV: The nuclear industry is setting the course for the coming decades! Top

Since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, the nuclear industry has tended to be on the defensive worldwide. If a THTR is now being built at the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa and celebrated as a milestone for the future propagandistically, this is an alarming sign.

In 1986 there was still no disaster in the THTR prototype in Hamm, but a serious accident with radioactivity release, which put an end to this nuclear power variant - today we only have to say a temporary end. Fifteen years ago, nobody would have bet a single cent on this reactor line. Today the HTR has taken a preferred place in the strategic considerations of the next decades in all major industrial nations and important emerging countries.

I will try to use simple words to show laypeople how this could happen and where the journey is going - if we do not oppose this development. And above all, what arguments speak against the new edition of the HTR line in the context of Generation IV reactors.

One thing is clear, however: if the citizens' initiatives and their allies are not able to think and act strategically in the long term, they will not be able to achieve great successes with the economic and political power of the energy companies. In my remarks, I quite often rely on the study “Science or Fiction” published by the Austrian Ecology Institute in 2007 and quote it (1). It was funded by the Austrian Ministry of Life, which is really called that.

The nuclear power plants of the 70s to 90s are referred to as Generation II and are designed for around thirty years of operation. It is currently being discussed whether they can be operated for longer. Some of the third generation piles are already under construction. And now the prerequisites for Generation IV have been created for about eight years.

Research and development of nuclear power plants are costly and will last for decades. A completely new generation of nuclear power plants has a lead time of at least 20 to 30 years. Not only do small research reactors have to be built, tested and evaluated beforehand, but a large prototype should also run successfully. All of this costs tens of billions of euros. The existence of entire branches of industry and generations of researchers depend on this development. Once it has been set in motion around the world, it will be difficult to stop it.

Illusions and promises as a marketing strategy for new nuclear power plants

After the Chernobyl disaster, many people are skeptical about nuclear power and many new construction plans had to be put on hold. Renewable energies are moving slowly but inexorably. So it was important for the nuclear industry to regain the confidence of the people. But that is only possible if it at least addresses people's concerns in its public statements.

The nuclear industry is now trying to correct its image with the label “sustainable” and to appropriate this term with positive connotations. Because this was previously reserved for renewable energy sources.

In addition, highly dangerous nuclear raw materials are played down in their rhetoric. For example, uranium is referred to as a “natural fuel” (2). In addition, Generation IV should be safe, economically competitive, proliferation-resistant and CO2-reducing. With this message, the atomic lobby can also try better to divert the research funds that are at disposal away from the growing alternative energy and thus back into their own pots. The atomic lobby calls out to the now somewhat indecisive citizen: “Don't worry, everything is different with the new reactors. They are completely harmless and a GAU is completely impossible here for physical reasons! ”We have to respond to this provocation.

Im May 2000 the "Generation IV Workshop" of the US Department of Energy took place with international participation. A few months later, the preparatory work for the long-term development schedule on this reactor line began.

2001 the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) was founded to coordinate research and development work. The following countries took part:

Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom, USA.

2003 signed Euratom as the eleventh member. In this way, those decisions are being undermined in EU countries that have decided to phase out nuclear power. Research institutions in cooperation with energy companies can continue to work on nuclear power in the future. This is especially true for the FRG, where one wants to build on the development of the THTR. In 2006, Russia and China joined the GIF.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) started a similar initiative with its own financial resources in 2001: The INPRO (3) it founded agreed on a cooperation with the GIF, so that now a total of 28 countries and organizations are involved in the development of Generation IV. In this framework program for an international research cooperation, a total of 6 reactor concepts are further developed and evaluated in order to ultimately concentrate on one or two. They should only be mentioned here briefly:

- Gas-cooled fast reactor systems: Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)
- Lead-cooled fast reactor systems: Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)
- Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)
- Sodium-cooled fast reactor systems: Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)
- Water-cooled reactor systems with supercritical steam states: Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR)
- Gas-cooled maximum temperature reactor systems: Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)

It currently looks like the VHTR is the most preferred of all variants. It is precisely the line that emerged from the THTR and in which the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) in South Africa found its further development.

Now it is our task to dismantle and refute the promises of the nuclear visionaries guided by tough economic interests:

Sustainability?

I'll keep it short here because the following applies to all nuclear power plants: Uranium mining contaminates earth, air and water in the mining areas and destroys the landscapes there. You can even notice that on our doorstep in the German Ore Mountains (Wismut). Uranium leaves behind a huge amount of radiant waste ore. Due to the increasing shortage of uranium, more and more ore with lower uranium concentrations is being mined and processed around the world. This leads to an additional increase in C02 emissions from nuclear power plants, so that alternative energies and energy savings with CO2 reduction will be even more sensible in the future than they are now.

Inexpensive and competitive?

At the THTR in Hamm, we were able to see how much constant driving "teething problems" and the resulting long downtimes can slow down new reactor systems. These reactor types are based on new, largely untested techniques. After starting a project, there can be tons of unexpected problems. Success is by no means certain (4).
The Greenpeace Report from 2005 indicates that the development of Generation IV concepts alone (!) Should cost around 6.000 million dollars. Experience with large projects so far shows that it can get much more expensive. And that the times specified by GIF for the earliest commercial use are far exceeded. Critics consider the year 2030 to be unrealistic and do not forecast the possibility of commercial use until 2045. Until then, alternative energy will be available as a cheaper and more sensible alternative.

Guaranteed disaster-free, high operational reliability?

The name of the most favored type already suggests a serious problem: Very-High-Temperature Reactor. The new reactor systems will turn out to be even more dangerous than the previous systems due to more extreme operating conditions (higher temperature, higher pressure, higher burnup) and therefore have to be designed in a technically more complex manner. You need more complex security systems that harbor new threats. These more complex security systems are more expensive - but shouldn't Generation IV be particularly inexpensive?
This effect should also be achieved by the fact that the pebble bed reactors have no containment (safety container), because the graphite-coated spherical fuel elements are trusted to hold back the radioactivity. If air gets into the primary helium cycle, it could start a graphite fire with catastrophic radioactive releases. If water enters the secondary helium cycle, violent steam / graphite reactions are possible (5). In any case, other risks remain: earthquakes, terror, war, human error, technical problems, unexpected events, etc ... Guaranteed disaster-free looks different. 

No military use possible?

The current non-proliferation problems with Iran and North Korea clearly show that with a worldwide expansion of nuclear power, plutonium production would increase dramatically. The amount of plutonium to be transported would increase sharply and increasingly remote areas would have to be secured. If South Africa were to export its PBMR to politically insecure emerging and developing countries as announced, a completely new quality of international protective measures would be necessary. In addition, especially with a VHTR, there is constant access to partially spent fuel elements through a cyclical change of fuel elements (“handy” balls with a diameter of 6 cm).
The amount of fissile material required for a nuclear explosion is very small. The international atomic energy organization could no longer control a significant increase in nuclear facilities and transport routes and could no longer prevent further spread for military purposes.
In addition to the reactors, Generation IV also requires a gigantic park of reprocessing plants. The extraction of new fissile material carried out here would have to be monitored particularly intensively. In order to be able to rule out improper use, plutonium should not be generated in the first place! 

Recycling of nuclear waste?

The nuclear lobby tries to give the impression that Generation IV is a "closed fuel cycle" that does not consume any resources and does not generate any nuclear waste. Not correct! The fuel chain (this is the more appropriate term for “cycle”!) Always needs fresh uranium. During the operation of the reactor and also when the radioactive waste is stored, gaseous radioactive fission products are produced which are measurably released into the environment through leaky containers. Recycling?
Due to the highly dangerous reprocessing of original fissile material in reprocessing plants, more and more fission products in need of final disposal are of course produced. And more and more new reactors have to be built and ultimately shut down again. Where's the recycling in here?

Safe thorium?

The nuclear lobby claims that the construction of thorium reactors like the one in Hamm-Uentrop could limit the production of new plutonium and reduce the stock of weapons-grade plutonium. However, neutron bombardment of the thorium isotope creates the dangerous uranium isotope 233 in these systems, which can also be used for nuclear weapons! The uranium isotope 233 is highly toxic. A few kilograms of this could kill everyone on earth. Half-life: 159.000 years.

Fast breeder !!

Little is really new about Generation IV reactor systems, as the nuclear lobby tells us. Three of the total of six concepts represent a new edition of the "fast breeder": GFR, LFR and SFR. On the one hand, they should produce electricity and at the same time "breed" new plutonium. From the controversial breeder in Kalkar to Monju (Japan) to the now decommissioned French Super Phoenix, they have all failed. Serious incidents due to sodium leaks, destroyed heat exchangers and dangerous fluctuations in output were often the cause. Switching to fast breeders also means that huge amounts of highly toxic materials (plutonium and uranium isotopes) such as coal or crude oil would be transported halfway around the world.
Under the guise of Generation IV, attempts are being made to revive the concepts for breeder reactors that have long been discarded for safety reasons.

There is no such thing as a nuclear "egg-laying woolly milk sow"!

The nuclear industry is trying to give the impression that Generation IV could solve the trade-offs between safety improvements and the lowest possible investment and operating costs. But the various goals contradict each other. There is no such thing as the nuclear "egg-laying woolly milk sow". What remains are billions in speculation about an uncertain future and a very high security risk.

The implementation of the nuclear ambitions will take much longer than the bold visionaries indicate. This is not only due to the many surprises and problems that will arise during future development, but also to the fact that only a handful of new nuclear power plants have been built in the last 20 years. The big reactor manufacturers have shut down their old production lines and downsized their experienced teams. They currently do not have the capacity to build many Generation IV reactors all over the world at the same time. The specified schedules turn out to be windy speculations. A rapid reduction in CO2, which the atomic lobby falsely (!) Advertises, would not be possible with this reactor line because it is several decades too late.

Generation IV research and development must be prevented. Even many environmentalists are not aware of the dangers that loom here. For many, it looks like they are only working on something that may never be built. That is a big mistake! The many nuclear subsidies for this reactor line, which are well hidden in the state budget, have long been a reality worldwide and could be spent on more meaningful projects.

Our job is to make people aware of the danger. The sobering experiences with the bankruptcy reactor in Hamm-Uentrop and the health effects on the population can be a starting point. The prospect of being “delighted” again with fast breeders and reprocessing plants could mobilize many people again. The positive memory that we have already prevented these plants in the FRG in the last few decades should give us courage.

We should also work harder to address the dangers of Generation IV for many people understandable to represent. The focus on a few statements will be inevitable if we want to be heard by the general public. Criticism and suggestions are very welcome for this article.

Horst Blume

Notes:
1. "Science or Fiction. Does nuclear energy have a future? " by Antonia Wenisch, editor: Austrian Ecology Institute, Vienna. November 2007. Web: www.ecology.at
2. atw, 2004, issue 10, page 616
3. INPRO: "International projects on innovative nuclear reactors and fuel cycles"
4. “The myth of nuclear power. A guide ”. Ed .: Heinrich Böll Foundation. Berlin 2006 (The chapters cited here are based on a study by Greenpeace). Page 45
See 4, page 73

***

Top

***

Donation appeal - The THTR-Rundbrief is published by 'BI Umwelt Hamm e. V. ' issued and financed by donations. - The THTR circular has meanwhile become a much-noticed information medium. However, there are ongoing costs due to the expansion of the website and the printing of additional information sheets. - The THTR circular researches and reports in detail. In order for us to be able to do that, we depend on donations. We are happy about every donation! Donations account: BI Umweltschutz Hamm Purpose: THTR circular IBAN: DE31 4105 0095 0000 0394 79 BIC: WELADED1HAM

***

Top

***