Why should Kazakhstan’s nuclear energy plans matter to the West?

Why should Kazakhstan’s nuclear energy plans matter to the West?

Post By World China, climate emergency, European Union, Kazakhstan, Nuclear Energy, Russia

Currently, Kazakhstan is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, making its energy sector vulnerable to market fluctuations and geopolitical shifts, Emil Avdaliani writes.

Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev recently announced that the country will hold a referendum to decide whether to build its first nuclear power plant.

As discussions about sustainable energy solutions gain momentum globally, Kazakhstan’s deliberations on nuclear energy could not come at a more pivotal time.

The proposed project is nestled at the intersection of a host of considerations that resonate far beyond this Central Asian nation’s borders.

From energy security and economic growth to environmental stewardship and geopolitical sway, the implications are expansive.

Addressing domestic shortage and reshaping energy portfolio

Kazakhstan’s desire to move toward nuclear energy is primarily driven by its need for energy security.

As the world’s top uranium producer, the country is sitting on an energy goldmine. The development of a nuclear power plant would not merely represent an economic venture but could serve as an insurance policy against future energy uncertainties.

In particular, Kazakhstan faces a projected electricity shortage in the southern part of the country, and a nuclear facility could contribute 2,800 MW to its grid.

This is not just about meeting domestic energy demands; it’s about reshaping the country’s entire energy portfolio.

Currently, Kazakhstan is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, making its energy sector vulnerable to market fluctuations and geopolitical shifts.

By adding nuclear power to the mix, the country would not just be diversifying its energy sources, it would be fortifying its national sovereignty and position on the global stage.

Carbon-neutral ambitions

The economic advantages of a nuclear plant are another compelling part of the story.

Beyond the obvious benefits of job creation in a specialized sector — Kazakhstan already employs nearly 18,000 people in the peaceful use of nuclear energy — the plant would produce a high energy output with relatively low input.

Furthermore, in a world increasingly worried about climate change, Kazakhstan has already signalled the importance of shifting towards a greener economy.

Tokayev emphasised this need in his recent address. Nuclear energy, with its minimal greenhouse gas emissions, aligns perfectly with this vision.

The project would not only be a significant leap toward meeting Kazakhstan’s ambitious goal to become a carbon-neutral country by 2060 but also be a concrete contribution to global sustainability goals.

But the reverberations do not stop at economic or environmental factors; they spill over into the arena of geopolitics as well.

A successful nuclear program affects geopolitics, too

A successful nuclear program has the potential to help Kazakhstan evolve from a consumer to a Eurasian energy supplier, amplifying its geopolitical influence.

This is particularly relevant in view of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the European Union’s aim to reduce the bloc’s reliance on Russian energy sources.

Therefore, the issue of Kazakhstan’s nuclear energy is more than a question of energy exports, but rather a matter of regional stability and strategic partnerships.

In that sense, Europe and the US could view Kazakhstan’s deliberations on nuclear energy as an alignment with broader goals of energy security, climate change mitigation, and regional stability.

With the EU recognising nuclear energy as a pivotal industry to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, Kazakhstan’s endeavours could find supportive partners in the West.

Partnerships could be particularly beneficial for companies specialising in nuclear technology, security protocols, and related services, tightening economic ties between Kazakhstan and Western countries.

However, not all countries in the EU support nuclear energy. For instance, while France backs it completely, Germany remains opposed.

A history of being someone else’s nuclear test site

Naturally, questions arise about whether Kazakhstan can ensure safety and security if its population votes in favour of building a nuclear power plant.

This concern holds particular significance for ordinary Kazakhs, given that the country’s land was used for nuclear weapons testing during the Soviet era.

These tests caused health and environmental damage around the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, which closed in 1991 when the country gained independence.

Understandably, some segments of Kazakhstan’s population remain worried about the idea of developing nuclear facilities.

However, Kazakhstan has demonstrated it could provide safety. The country is already hosting the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Low-Enriched Uranium Bank, indicating an existing reservoir of international trust.

The nation is pushing this even further by seeking a seat on the IAEA board, a move that will deepen its involvement in shaping and adhering to global nuclear safety protocols.

A referendum to let people decide?

Kazakhstan’s decision to hold a national referendum on the nuclear power plant issue adds an intriguing layer, especially since referendums are relatively rare in Central Asia — although Kazakhstan did hold one last year on constitutional amendments following mass unrest in January.

Tokayev was re-elected last year and will be in power for seven years until 2029, which suggests that the country’s policy on nuclear energy is likely to remain consistent for the foreseeable future.

The government’s rationale is that the vote will enable citizens to express their views on nuclear energy, thereby bolstering transparency.

The perspective is that projects that enjoy public backing are usually more successful in their implementation, lending social and political capital to the initiative.

In the long run, the act of holding a referendum could also set a regional precedent when it comes to major decisions of national significance.

Kazakhstan will be hoping that this not only elevates the country’s regional standing but also facilitates partnerships with countries that prioritize similar governance models.

Altering power dynamics could make Astana a more significant global player

In the end, the debate and the impending referendum on constructing a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan are not merely local or national issues.

They are global talking points embedded in a complex tapestry of economic, environmental, technological, and geopolitical considerations.

As Kazakhstan contemplates its energy future, the world would do well to pay attention. It is not just Kazakhstan’s energy landscape that is at stake — it is a piece of the global sustainability puzzle.

A successful nuclear program would certainly enhance Kazakhstan’s geopolitical standing. By becoming a regional or potentially even global energy supplier, Kazakhstan could wield more influence across Central Asia and beyond.

This could alter power dynamics, particularly with neighbouring Russia and China, and could make Kazakhstan a more significant player in energy geopolitics.

Emil Avdaliani is a Professor at the European University in Tbilisi and Director of the Geocase think tank.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Kazakhstans #nuclear #energy #plans #matter #West

Sustainability has lost its meaning as the nuclear lobby triumphs

Post By World European Commission, European Union, France, Green Deal, green energy, Nuclear Energy

Listening to the 14 EU countries-strong Nuclear Alliance that lobbied for nuclear power’s green label and now wants to see it treated the same as other renewables means everything is allowed, Thomas Stuart Kirkland and Christiana Mauro write.

The European Commission, under the presidency of Ursula von der Leyen, has officially declared climate policy as its number one priority.

But the end of August, in the European General Court in Luxembourg, marks the conclusion of the first phase of one of three lawsuits against the European Commission targeting a key piece of European Green Deal legislation.

These lawsuits were brought not by opponents of climate mitigation policy, but by those, including Austria and a number of environmental groups, who wish to rescue the legislation from what they see as its being fatally compromised.

The pleading in the cases is aimed at revoking the Complementary Climate Delegated Act (CCDA), in force since this January.

This supplements the Taxonomy Regulation, a list of economic activities considered sustainable and thus eligible for green investment, to include, astonishingly, natural gas and nuclear power.

What has led to this situation, in which the EU executive, ostensibly dedicated to achieving its “Fit by 55” plan to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions by 2030, finds itself challenged on its showpiece Green Legislation by one of its own member states?

The answer readily supplied by critics is that it is an appropriate response to one of the most conspicuous triumphs of greenwashing foisted on the public.

The inclusion of gas and nuclear, they say, violates the entire purpose of the Taxonomy Regulation.

The media dropped the ball

This hijacking of the EU’s key instrument of green policy has been openly accomplished through a campaign of misinformation conducted by the nuclear lobby.

In March 2021, seven nuclear member states sent a letter to the European Commission demanding the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy.

The intervention got some attention from news media at the time, but it was not of a critical kind.

Workaday mainstream journalists with tight deadlines to meet certainly haven’t always been keen to delve into all the nooks and crannies of a complicated story or take the responsibility to come down trenchantly on one side of an issue.

But something more insidious has emerged in recent decades: a paralysis in the face of debate, a willingness to report the scientific controversy and to present both sides in a “fair and balanced” way which gives equal time to the consensus of experts and the hype of hucksters.

Like retired journalist Jay Rosen said, “You don’t get a lot of complaints if you just write down what everyone says and leave it at that.”

But this serves the purposes of disinformation, which is not to convince, but to confuse and demoralise. Ultimately, it disables any organised effort to change things.

The Nuclear Seven’s claims are, in fact, dubious

When a team of independent journalists took the letter’s statements apart it found that of the 25 factual claims in the letter, 20 were either fictitious or misleading, including the usual dubious assertions about nuclear’s “valuable contribution” to climate neutrality.

However, the conclusions of the crowd-sourced investigation did not find a publisher among the European outlets and went largely unnoticed.

The letter by the Nuclear Seven — France, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia — was bolstered ten days later by the release of a draft report by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC).

It had been assigned to determine whether nuclear power met the criteria for inclusion in the taxonomy, specifically, the Do No Significant Harm principle. This, in spite of the trifling fact that the JRC was established under the Euratom Treaty and is still tasked with conducting nuclear research under the aegis, and with the funding, of Euratom.

The report concluded that there was no “science-based evidence” that nuclear could do more harm to the environment than other activities in the taxonomy.

To no one’s surprise; but to considerable criticism from experts, including one of Germany’s nuclear regulatory authorities, and from the European Commission’s own Scientific Committee on Health, Environment and Emerging Risks, both of whom pointed out that the report’s conclusions were not supported by the report’s own findings.

Others noted that the JRC mandate neglected many critical taxonomy elements. In spite of these severe strictures, when the final JRC report was published a few months later it contained no revisions.

Nuclear lobby’s swagger

The extent of the influence of the Nuclear Seven and the JRC report on the ultimate decision to formally label nuclear as sustainable is unclear, but likely decisive.

And buoyed up by this, the EU’s successful nuclear lobby has been conducting itself with noticeable swagger.

From the seven signatories of the 2021 letter, the Nuclear Alliance, as it is now known, has expanded to 14 EU countries with the addition, in February, of Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland and the Netherlands, followed by Belgium, Estonia and Sweden, with Italy as an observer.

Now representing a majority in the EU, the Alliance has been emboldened to demand, at their fourth meeting in Spain on 11 July, that nuclear energy should be treated equally with renewables when it comes to EU funding and the promotion of joint projects.

Under their banner of “tech neutrality” — an echo from the 2021 letter — the Alliance has already successfully lobbied for the acceptance of nuclear-produced “pink hydrogen” as “green hydrogen” and managed to wring important concessions in the revision of the Renewable Energy Directive, which would almost double the share renewable in the EU’s overall energy consumption by 2030.

These concessions allow for a greater role of nuclear power in meeting these targets.

Everything goes as sustainability loses its essence

As a crowning irony, the Nuclear Alliance is led by France, whose own national law — a 2015 decree on the “Energy and Ecological Transition for Climate” label — excludes atomic energy from being classified as a green investment.

In “Diversion from urgent climate action”, WISE’s nuclear expert Jan Haverkamp makes the case that vigorous nuclear industry lobbying in Brussels has had a “direct influence on the speed with which urgent climate action is taken”, slowing down the adoption of renewable energy sources, which is a boon for the fossil fuel industry.

Sustainability having lost its meaning, everything is allowed.

And so, living in the Upside Down, we are witness to the triumph of the nuclear lobby.

In the post-CCDA landscape, the nuclear zombies have acquired a new green sheen as they shamble and shuffle pointlessly, consuming all the oxygen in the climate policy conversation until they ultimately expire in obscene cost overruns and non-delivery of their boastfully promised but illusory results.

Thomas Stuart Kirkland and Christiana Mauro are freelance reporters covering Eastern Europe.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Sustainability #lost #meaning #nuclear #lobby #triumphs

Japan’s Fukushima water release plan fuels fear despite IAEA backing

Post By World Asia / Pacific, Environment, Features, fukushima, Japan, Nuclear Energy, pacific ocean, Pollution

Japan plans to release more than 1 million metric tonnes of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean by the end of August. After years of debate, and despite a green light from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the plan continues to stoke fears among the local population and in nearby countries.

Twelve years after the triple catastrophe – earthquake, tsunami, reactor meltdown – that struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in 2011, Japan is preparing to release part of the treated wastewater from the stricken plant into the Pacific Ocean this month. A recent article from the daily Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun revealed the upcoming release without specifying a date.

The release of contaminated water by the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) has been on the cards since 2018 but it was repeatedly postponed until it finally received endorsement from the International Atomic Energy Agency in early July. After a two-year review, five review missions to Japan, six technical reports and five missions on the ground, the international nuclear watchdog said the discharges of the treated water were consistent with the agency’s safety standards, with “negligible radiological impact to people and the environment”. The green light, which cleared the path for the completion of the project, was greeted with scepticism by some members of the scientific community and with animosity by many local fishermen who fear that consumers will shun their products.

Storage capacities reaching their limit

On March 11, 2011, the three reactor cores of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant experienced a meltdown, leaving northeast Japan devastated and adding a nuclear emergency to the devastation caused by the earthquake and tsunami. Since then, massive quantities of water have been used to cool down the nuclear reactors’ fuel rods every day, while hundreds of thousands of litres of rainwater or groundwater have entered the site.

Japanese authorities initially decided to store the contaminated water in huge tanks, but are now running out of space. Some 1,000 tanks were built to contain what is now 1.3 million tonnes of wastewater. Japanese authorities have warned that storage capacities are nearing their limit and will reach saturation by 2024. The power plant is also located in a region with a high earthquake risk – meaning that a new tremor could cause the tanks to leak.

Filtering the contaminated water

To avoid such an accident, the Japanese government has decided to gradually discharge millions of tonnes of water into the Pacific Ocean over the next 30 years. The process is simple: the water is set to be released one kilometre away from the coast of Fukushima Prefecture via underwater tunnel.

Releasing treated wastewater into the ocean is a routine practice for nuclear plants all over the world. Water is usually made to circulate around a nuclear reactor to absorb heat, making it possible to trigger turbines and produce electricity. In the process, the water becomes loaded with radioactive compounds, but it is then treated before being released into the sea or rivers.

“In Fukushima, however, the situation is very different since it is a damaged plant,” said Jean-Christophe Gariel, deputy director in charge of health and the environment at France’s Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN).

“This time, part of the stored water was poured directly onto the reactors in order to cool them,” Gariel added. “Unlike the water from our [French] nuclear plants, [theirs] became loaded with many radioactive compounds, known as radionuclides.”

Before discharging the water into the sea, the challenge is therefore to remove most of the radioactive materials. To do this, Fukushima’s operator, Tepco, uses a powerful filtration system called ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System). “This makes it possible to eliminate a large part of these radioactive substances, which are only present as traces,” said Gariel.

“On the other hand, as in our own power plants, one component remains: tritium, which cannot be eliminated,” he added. This substance is routinely produced by nuclear reactors and released by power plants around the world. While it is considered relatively harmless, it is often blamed for increasing the risk of cancer. “To limit the risks even further, the water will be diluted in a large quantity of seawater to lower the concentration of tritium as much as possible,” Gariel explained.

During the most recent test of the water tanks in March, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency detected 40 radionuclides. After treatment, the concentration in the water was lower than accepted standards for 39 – all of them, except for tritium. The level of the latter reached 140,000 becquerels per litre (Bq/L) – while the regulatory concentration limit for release into the sea is set at 60,000 Bq/L in Japan. After the final dilution step, however, the tritium level was reduced to 1,500 Bq/L.

“To put it simply, while the water from the Fukushima reservoirs is more contaminated than the water from [French] power stations, after treatment and dilution, it is the same as anywhere else,” said Jean-Christophe Gariel.

‘It’s like diluting whiskey in Coke’

Yet these standards and figures must be nuanced and taken with caution, with set thresholds varying greatly from one country to another. For example, France sets its tritium limit at 100 Bq/L, while the WHO sets it at 10,000 Bq/L.

When it comes to diluting tritium, some environmentalists argue that it is like “diluting whiskey in coke”: the presence of coke does not mean there is less alcohol. Similarly, the quantity of tritium in the ocean remains the same; it is simply distributed in a greater quantity of water.

Within the scientific community, the validity of the safety of Japan’s planned water release is thus widely debated. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), based in the United States, has regularly voiced concerns about the project’s impact on the environment. The Institute expressed its opposition once again to Japan’s project in December 2022, lamenting the failure to measure concentration rates in all the the reservoirs of the plant.

Yet for Jim Smith, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom, releasing the wastewater into the ocean “is the best option”. The professor, who studies the consequences of radioactive pollutants, argued in an article published on The Conversation that “on the grand scale of the environmental problems we face, the release of wastewater from Fukushima is a relatively minor one.”

An eminently political subject

“This subject is eminently political. It reflects the desire of the Japanese government to make the Fukushima region an example of resilience after a nuclear accident,” said Cécile Asanuma-Brice, a researcher at the CNRS in France and co-director of the MITATE Lab, which studies the consequences of the Fukushima disaster.

“This is the background of the Japanese government’s reconstruction policy, which includes dismantling the plant and reopening the area to housing,” Asanuma-Brice explained. “The plant can only be dismantled once they have got rid of these contaminated waters, according to the latest statements by the Minister of Economy and Industry, Yasutoshi Nishimura.”

To carry out the project, the government must also deal with persistent opposition from the local population, especially that of the fishermen’s unions. “For [the fishermen’s unions], who represent an important part of the country’s economy, the question is not so much whether their concerns are justified or not,” said Asanuma-Brice. “After the accident, they suffered from a negative image for years, both in the region and internationally. They had just started recovering and regaining a dynamic economic activity. With the project to release the contaminated water, they fear their image will be damaged again and their products shunned by consumers.”

Over the years, several alternative solutions have been examined with varying degrees of attention by the authorities. “One of them seems to have gained approval from the local population – that of building new reservoirs or even installing them underground and continuing to store contaminated water until it loses radioactivity in the coming years,” said Asanuma-Brice. The idea was rapidly dismissed by the government, which deemed it too expensive.

In addition to the local opposition, the Japanese government will also have to deal with mistrust from other Pacific countries, particularly from China. Following the green light granted by the IAEA in early July, Beijing announced a forthcoming ban on the import of food products from certain Japanese prefectures, including Fukushima, for “security reasons”.

This article has been translated from the original in French.

Source link

#Japans #Fukushima #water #release #plan #fuels #fear #IAEA #backing

Zittrex Store

Cart

Cart

Tag: Nuclear Energy