文章 Articles

Nuclear notes from Germany

Back from a visit to a derelict nuclear-waste facility in Germany, Chinese environmentalist Li Bo talks to Meng Si about the roles of risk, science and public participation in energy policymaking.

Article image

Meng Si: What lessons do you think China can draw from Japan’s nuclear crisis?

Li Bo [director of NGO Friends of Nature]: Chinese media coverage of the tsunami and nuclear crisis has waned as time has passed, and this is very dangerous. Both in the affected area and in Japan as a whole, a deep revaluation of energy generation, energy policymaking, energy security and even the mode of development is quietly taking place. China should watch closely and learn. Facts win out over rhetoric. Japan is a nation of extremely cautious people, and that re-evaluation – and particularly the action that follows – is of more value than any empty preaching.

After the incident in Japan, the Chinese government quickly announced a suspension of approvals for new nuclear-power plants. During my recent visit to Germany, I heard representatives from many nations applaud the quick and high-profile way in which China took this cautious measure.

In April, I visited Germany’s Asse II nuclear-waste repository. Due to poor choice of location and management problems that arose early on, when there was no public oversight, it is now a dangerous and costly mess. If that kind of mistake can happen in a country with ample room for scientific and political debate, what cause do we have to believe that we in China can do better, that we won’t make mistakes?

MS: Tell us more about that nuclear-waste facility.

LB: The Asse nuclear-waste storage facility is a former salt mine, three hours’ journey west of Berlin. When it was built in the 1960s, this area was in West Germany. It’s estimated that over 5,000 barrels of nuclear waste are stored here.

The underground storage space is 800 metres deep and is set up like two large, underground buildings. The nuclear waste is stored 750 metres from the surface. We saw supporting pillars that were badly cracked because they are unable to bear the weight of the ceiling, with water seeping in.

MS: How are those problems going to be fixed?

LB: Workers are pumping out water daily. The water is treated to remove the radiation risk. They’re also constantly bringing in minerals containing salt to fill up tunnels and relieve some of the pressure on the underground spaces in order to delay or prevent cracking and collapse.

Every part of this process is incredibly complex. Large machines have to be broken down into parts and then reassembled 400 metres down the mine shaft.

At the same time, both temporary storage – the casing of many of the barrels is severely damaged – and a permanent home for the nuclear waste has to be found above ground. 

Even optimistic estimates from officials indicate it will take at least eight years to remove all the waste. The project has had annual government funding in the billions of euros ever since the 1970s – it’s a bottomless pit.

MS: Why was this location chosen for nuclear-waste storage?

LB: Because radiation from the waste can spread via water, dry environments are typically chosen for storage. Originally, experts believed that the location was very dry and that there wouldn’t be any water inflow and that the salt deposits would act as a radiation block. So, it was proposed that the nuclear-waste storage facility be built there. It is now believed that the scientists didn’t fully check and examine their findings – a basic error that should not have occurred.

MS: What’s your opinion on the risks of “scientific policy-making”?

LB: Science is a constantly improving system of knowledge. What is currently seen as the peak of understanding will in time be replaced by new peaks. Tetracycline was found to turn teeth yellow, DDT caused unprecedented ecological problems. The inventors of nuclear power didn’t plan to cause disasters, but when we use a technology, we also need to protect ourselves from its potential dangers – to rigorously debate and examine the issues it throws up. Otherwise, problems may appear that we never anticipated. 

But even then, there are risks that cannot be avoided – human risks. Regardless of how powerful our thinking and our technologies are, you cannot completely get rid of human errors. In the example of the Asse repository, the choice of location was such an error.

MS: How is public participation in Asse organised? What do you think about the use of nuclear power and public participation?

LB: Research in Germany has found much higher incidences of childhood leukaemia within a five-kilometre radius of nuclear facilities than in control regions. Science still can’t explain the link, but the facts are clear. So the locals are strongly opposed to the facilities. The authorities were willing to make changes to deal with that conflict and lack of trust, to help the locals understand, so the German environmental and nuclear authorities intervened to change the management and way the plant was run, and since around 2000, it has been open to the public. There are four or five visits a week, with 10 people each time. Anyone can visit. And nearby, staff from the environmental authorities are present to explain the nuclear waste management process to the public.

The public should be involved in deciding whether or not a nation needs nuclear power. That kind of participation lets people see what the costs of the choices are – costs that the whole of society will bear, not just the experts. If public education is done well, then people will understand the government’s choices and be willing to pay for them. When problems arise they will accept that, and together pay the costs of solving the problems. Public concern and fears often stem from ignorance. The more the public know, the more rational they will become.

MS: With energy demands and the need to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, is nuclear power an inevitable choice?

LB: The energy-demand crisis must not be allowed to hijack our full, open, transparent and scientific policymaking process. There are pressures from energy-saving and emissions-reduction needs, and from energy supply, and we should have effective measures to deal with those pressures. But that is no reason for rashly or hastily getting energy projects under way. We need to examine the real costs and risks of producing energy – including nuclear energy. 

Germany recently closed seven of its nuclear-power stations. The public were told that the closures may result in rolling power cuts in some areas. But according to the German Green Party, the WWF and members of the German public I spoke to, there has been no real energy shortage as a consequence of the closures. Germany has started to exploit its own potential, and to reduce exports of electricity and increase imports.

How much influence do the power companies ultimately have over the amount of electricity a country produces? From Germany’s example, it’s not as much as you might think.

MS: Many experts argue that all renewable-energy sources have failings, and it will be hard for them to replace conventional energy sources.

LB: Many do stress the failings of renewable energy. It’s as if we don’t have the patience for a safer, more sustainable, less socially costly energy structure and energy policy. We just want fast, short-term results, leaving future generations to pay the safety costs.

From the outset, clean energy has issues with grid access, pricing, technology and so on. We always call it alternative, rather than mainstream. When I was in high school, I remember a teacher saying that one day we would do our shopping on the internet – that wasn’t mainstream back then, but it is very common now.

Alternatives don’t stay alternative forever, they can become mainstream. The way a country views alternative energy now reflects its expectations and confidence in the future.

MS: What attitude does Friends of Nature have towards China’s development of nuclear power?

LB: Nuclear power is, for the average member of the Chinese public, an unknown field – the information is either too technical to understand or there aren’t the channels for the public to learn about it. Friends of Nature also has this problem.

But through learning about Japan, Germany and Chernobyl, we’ve seen the importance of public participation and openness of information in this area. We are concerned about nuclear safety, the real costs of nuclear power, and the social and environmental costs of handling nuclear waste. We hope the government will do more research and trials in this field. We also hope public education will improve understanding of the operation of nuclear-power plants and their costs and benefits.

 
Meng Si is managing editor in chinadialogue’s Beijing office.

Homepage image from Dima Konsewitch shows a protest against nuclear-waste storage at Asse II.

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default thumb avatar
liuyf651019

凡是人造物,至少利弊各半

最近,我研究神学的结果是:凡是上帝造的,都没有任何副作用;凡是人造物,都是利弊各半——这只是最好的情况,有些人造物,只有一分利,却有九分害处。或者说,人们越是追求极大的利益,所带来的危害,也越大。核能,乃是其一。

因此,在这个问题上,关键是,如何制止人的贪欲。人的贪欲得不到约束,人就会拼命去追求最大的利益和效率,结果是,未得其利,先受其害,特别是,害处远远超出了所得,甚至把老本——人和人类的生命,都搭上了。

再说,决策的问题。

科学决策,是人们努力想达到的目标,可是,问题的复杂性,几乎总是超过人和计算机智力的增长。所以,所谓的科学决策,最后就是掷骰子。这不是我说的,是一位著名哲学家说的,虽然,我忘了他是谁。

因此,别太迷信科学、科学家以及“科学决策”,迄今,人类的很多决策,和我们的祖先,以龟纹甲骨占卜没有本质差别。

这就需要公众的参与,需要乱枪打鸟,需要社会的公开和信息交流,否则,人类将把自己逼上死胡同。


The man-made is not flawless

According to my recent studies on theology, I found out that what created by God is perfectly benign, whereas that of by mankind is partly beneficial and partly, if not primarily, detrimental. In short, greater benefits always go along with greater harms, as is the case of nuclear power utilization.

The crux of the problem is our greed. Without reining in our greed, we would just go for maximized profits and high efficiencies relentlessly. As a result, those goals might do harm to us prior to bringing about benefits. Moreover, they could inflict upon us damages far greater than betterment , possible to put the livelihood of all mankind into jeopardy.

On the flip side, let’s take a look at the decision-making.

We yearn for scientific decisions. However, the problem is these sophisticated decisions, more often than not, outsmart the growing intelligence of man as well as electronic minds. As such, the so-called scientific decision-making is no more reasonable than Farkle Dice, a fate game. I did not say this. Some famed philosopher did, whose name I could not recall.

Therefore, do not blindly believe in scientism. Up to now, there are a multitude of decisions from contemporary world that has no substantive differences with those made according to inscriptions on tortoise shells or bones in ancient times.

Public participation, social openness and information exchanges are therefore essential. Or else, it is possible that we may force ourselves into extinction.

This comment is translated by Hunt.lee

Default thumb avatar
meleze

没有亮出的底牌

您写道:“最近,德国关停了七座核电站... ... 公众被告知,关停后部分地区可能轮流停电。”但是,您忽略了最近启动的“北溪”项目,该项目将天然气从俄国运到德国。如果说核泄漏丑闻在一定程度上反应了对核能的更合理利用,那么德国并没有完全放弃核能。

此评论由 hunt.lee翻译

a hidden joker

You wrote "Germany recently closed seven of its nuclear-power stations. The public were told that the closures may result in rolling power cuts in some areas." But you failed to report on the recent opening of the NORTH STREAM, the new pipe which drives gaz from Russia to Germany. If the nuclear waste scandal partly explains a more moderate use of the nuclear, Germany didn't completely gave up to the nuclear energy.

Default thumb avatar
yunnanren

需要矫正或者补充的两点

我的一位在欧洲一家NGO工作的同事发来的两个小评语:评感谢Jan的重要纠正:

两个小错误:

1。ASSE核废料库储藏着12.6万多桶核废料,不(止)是5000桶……这就是他们面临的大困难……12.6万多桶核废料大部分埋在混合着盐水的盐岩、盐粉下

2。在2009 年(就这么新近),ASSEII 的管理从研究部转换到德国联邦辐射防护局。所以情况这么糟都是研究部惹的祸……

two additions or errors to be corrected

Comments from a colleague working for from an EU-based env't NGOs. Thanks Jan, vital correction.

Two small remarks:

1. There are 126.000 barrels stored in Asse, not 5000 (only)... that is the big mess they are in...
126000 barrels largely under salt rock and powder mixed with brine...

2. In 2009 (so very recently) the management of Asse II was transferred from the Ministry of
Research to the Radiation Safety Authority in Germany. It was the Ministry of research that was
fully responsible fo the mess....