Japao e Alemanha abandonam energia nuclear

Muito bem: só que todas as outras fontes custarão mais caro ou serão mais poluentes...

Japão anuncia plano de abandonar energia nuclear até 2040

Alvo de pressões da sociedade desde o desastre de Fukushima, governo japonês informa que desligará seus reatores nucleares nas próximas décadas. País não especificou quando exatamente meta será alcançada.

Um ano e meio após a catástrofe de Fukushima, o Japão anunciou que irá abrir mão da energia nuclear ao longo das próximas três décadas. Em encontro ministerial nesta sexta-feira (14/09), chegou-se à decisão de abandonar tal fonte energética na "década de 2030", informou a mídia japonesa.

O objetivo ambicioso do governo em Tóquio significaria um corte total do uso de energia nuclear até 2040. Então, os reatores que, até o desastre em 2011 produziam cerca de um terço da energia consumida no país, seriam permanentemente desativados.

O acidente nuclear de Fukushima abalou a confiança da população na segurança da energia nuclear. Em pesquisas recentes, a maioria dos japoneses se declarou a favor do fim do uso desse tipo de energia no país. Diante das eleições gerais previstas para os próximos meses, o tema tem sido motivo de protestos, reunindo até dezenas de milhares de pessoas.

"Muitos japoneses esperam construir uma sociedade que não dependa da energia nuclear. Por outro lado, também está claro que estão divididas as opiniões sobre quando e como exatamente uma sociedade do tipo pode ser alcançada", informou um comunicado do governo nesta sexta-feira.

O plano anunciado pelo Japão se alinha ao da Alemanha, que prometeu desligar todos os seus 17 reatores nucleares até 2022. O país europeu se disse disposto a apoiar o Japão em sua empreitada. "Trata-se de uma tarefa complexa, sobre a qual poderíamos relatar nossa própria experiência, se assim for requisitado", declarou o porta-voz do governo alemão, Steffen Seibert, nesta sexta-feira.

Alvo de críticas

Além de não ter sido especificado quando exatamente a meta será alcançada pelo Japão, o anúncio feito nesta sexta-feira não é obrigatório para governos futuros, o que significa que uma nova administração poderia reverter os planos.

Além disso, muitos críticos veem um Japão sem energia nuclear como algo irreal e alertam que o abandono de tal fonte energética poderia ter graves consequências para a terceira maior economia do mundo.

O Greenpeace deu as boas-vindas à nova política, porém, com cautela. Segundo a organização ambiental, o abandono da energia nuclear deveria ocorrer num prazo menor, juntamente com o desenvolvimento de soluções renováveis.

O cronograma de décadas apresentado pelo Japão é desnecessário, já que 48 dos 50 reatores japoneses foram desligados na sequência da crise de Fukushima, considera o Greenpeace. O poderoso lobby empresarial japonês pressionou para a reativação dos reatores, temendo cortes e aumento do preço da energia.

Na última semana, o Partido Democrático do Japão – do premiê Yoshihiko Noda – recomendou que o país expanda o uso de energia renovável e adote mais medidas de economia energética. O país depende hoje fortemente do petróleo do Oriente Médio e foi obrigado a elevar as importações para compensar o deficit energético desde o acidente de Fukushima.

LPF/dpa/afp

Nuclear energy: a non-conclusive debate (CNN)

Six months post-Fukushima, weighing costs, risks key to nuclear debate

Greg Botelho

CNN, September 11, 2011

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• A March 11 earthquake in Japan led to a nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant
• The incident triggered a global debate about the risks and potential of nuclear power
• Some nations, like Germany, Italy and Japan, have opted to abandon such programs
• Others, like France and China, are continuing and, in some cases, building new

(CNN) -- The Futaba district of Japan's Fukushima prefecture was once defined largely by its farmers and its fishermen, as well as by its vast nuclear complexes that funneled power to Tokyo.

But six monthsafter a potent 9.0-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami set off a mad, weeks-long scramble to curb an outflow of radiation from the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant, this area is very much part of the global consciousness.

"Regardless of where in the world a nuclear crisis happens, it affects everybody," said Jasmina Vujik, a professor from the University of California at Berkeley. "Fukushima definitely did affect the entire nuclear energy community."

In Beijing and Berlin and beyond, the crisis has been repeatedly invoked by experts, advocates and policy-makers debating how best to learn from, and perhaps steer away from, nuclear energy.

The answers have varied widely -- from Germany opting to abandon its program, to neighboring France, which stood by an energy source that provides its residents 80% of their power. Still, with exceptions, the debate's framework largely has been the same: Is nuclear energy worth the safety risk? Is it worth it for a country not to have nuclear 

power?

Besides politics of every country being different, economic situations diverge as well. Jim Walsh, an international security expert with Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Security Studies Program, said private investors -- at least in the United States -- "are not chomping at the bit" to invest in building expensive nuclear plants that may need decades to pay off.

Or as Gary Was, an engineering professor at the University of Michigan, succinctly states is the main driver -- before and after Fukushima, for private and publicly funded energy initiatives -- behind any nation's pursuit, or lack thereof, of nuclear power: "It's demand, and it's economics."

In some places, like the United States, the economic downturn has contributed to diminished demand for power and less capital to fund new projects. But it is a different story in places like India and China, which have burgeoning power needs and a desire to steer clear of options, like coal, that emit more air pollutants.

The quandary about balancing energy needs, safety and cost is felt no more than in Japan.

Before the recent disaster, about 30% of the Asian nation's energy came from nuclear plants. Now the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry reports 43 of Japan's 54 reactors are off-line, mostly because of safety inspections but also because of lingering effects from damaged reactors in Fukushima. Tokyo Electric Power Company President Noshio Nishizawa said last month said that these reactors should be under control by January, though they're not expected to ever function again.

That's contributed to a drastic drop over the summer in power usage -- nearly 8% across all of Japan, including more than 18% in areas controlled by TEPCO, which besides running the Fukushima plants steers energy to the capital -- according to the government ministry. But it has come at a price for the nation's already staggering economy, as well as its citizens.

"It was not easy," said Nissan Chief Operating Officer Toshiyuki Shiga, citing the car company's energy-saving measures like having workers take Thursdays and Fridays as their weekends. "I think this is not sustainable. ... We cannot continue this working situation."

Even with its energy needs, the federal government -- first under Prime Minister Naoto and then his predecessor Yoshihiko Noda -- has vowed to gradually phase out nuclear power. But Masaki Ozawa, a nuclear scientist with the Tokyo Institute of Technology, thinks this is a bad idea, especially given the alternatives.

"If people want to cancel nuclear power, we have to be prepared to go back to the 19th century to burn coal," Masaki wrote by e-mail from Japan. "Japanese people should be more logical and strategic, not like Italy or Germany but like France."

Masaki was alluding to Germany's move earlier this year to shutter all its nuclear power plants by 2022. Weeks later, in mid-June, voters in Italy shot down efforts by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to invigorate that nation's nuclear program.

"These events ... are significant," opined Jim Riccio, Greenpeace's nuclear policy analyst. "And in my mind, you have some motion in (the United States) and I believe you're going to see more resistance to nuclear power."

Riccio was referring to what he sees as growing popular opposition to nuclear energy, coupled with what he sees as the rising viability of wind, solar and other sources of renewable energy.

Yet Jack Grobe, a deputy director at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) told CNN, "All of our plants are operating as they were before." He also noted four proposed new plants are in various stages of approval, and that regular inspections continue at the nation's 104 reactors.

Moreover, Grobe said there has been a "significant effort to follow up on Fukushima" -- to learn from what happened there and see if there are any lessons for U.S. plants' safety. This includes a NRC panel that has vowed, in a multi-step process, to review design and crisis response parameters as well as offer several steps that plant operators should initiate "without delay."

Grobe said the Fukushima plant's design and other issues played a major role in the disaster -- like it having a 5.7-meter seawall, which was unable to contain a significantly higher tsunami -- concluding "it is unlikely a similar sequence of events would occur in the United States."

In addition to disasters and human error, one challenge in the United States is whether its reactors will be able to stand the test of time. The newest was built in 1978, with some dating to the 1960s. The NRC has already approved several 20-year extensions for existing U.S. plants.

While some, like Walsh, fear that some of these plants' outdated designs and simple aging could prove dangerous, Grobe stresses that -- despite their official 40-year shelf-life -- "These plants are not stable or stagnant. They're continuously being upgraded."

Was notes that questions about the pressure vessel's integrity, corrosion of the nuclear core and the strength of a nuclear plant's concrete are critical to answer, in order to determine how long reactors can safely and effectively operate.

"Can we run a plant for 80 or 100 years?" asks Was. "We have replaced ... steam generators (and) nuclear vessel heads. Can we replace entire vessels?"

Meanwhile, other nations are more focused on creating new plants than making upgrades to existing ones. Talking to CNN from Belgrade, Vujik noted the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Russia and India are among those still pushing for new nuclear power plants post-Fukushima.

And Was, who recently returned from Beijing, said China is building 24 reactors in its bid to satisfy a surging power demand and realizing "they can't afford use coal" -- another viable option for mass energy use -- "because it's so dirty, and they can see that."

"These countries are absolutely committed to nuclear power," Was said of China and India, among others. "The ideal is that they (build off) the knowledge and wisdom amassed by the nuclear industry over the last 40 years."

There is a widespread belief that nuclear power plants built today are, generally, much safer than those created decades ago. But those following the industry also acknowledge that nature, human error and the innate volatility of fission means there is some inherent danger as well, whatever the improvements.

"Whatever we do in our lives, we must understand the risks associated with them," said Vujik.

CNN's Andrew Stevens and Junko Ogura contributed to this report.

Hiroshima: a promessa, a ilusao e a realidade...

O apelo do primeiro-ministro do Japão não tem nenhum sentido econômico, nem sentido estratégico, nem corresponde a qualquer gesto que venha a ser feito no terreno das possibilidades históricas concretas.
Não haverá renúncia à energia nuclear, até que um equivalente funcional -- talvez fusão nuclear -- seja descoberto, na medida em que o mundo não pode dispensar uma fonte de energia já testada como esta (a menos que o mundo tenha outras fontes abundantes de energia renovável, ou fósseis não poluentes). O Japão, como a Alemanha, pode até dispensar o seu uso, mas precisará importar energia fóssil (petróleo, gás), ou energia nuclear da vizinha China (que constrói reatores às dezenas), como a Alemanha vai ser obrigada a fazer, ou seja, importar energia nuclear da vizinha França ou de outros países da região.
Quanto à abolição das armas nucleares, apenas os ingênuos acreditam ser isso possível. Pode até ser que, num futuro muito distante, a comunidade internacional se ponha de acordo, efetivamente, sobre um tratado de não-uso de armas nucleares, mas não acredito ser possível um banimento e desaparecimento da arma nuclear. O mundo terá de evoluir muito para que isto seja teoricamente possível.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Hiroshima hears PM's nuke-free call
Agencies, Aug 7, 2011

A man stands in a river helping people releasing paper lanterns to remember victims of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima 66 years ago yesterday.

PRIME Minister Naoto Kan yesterday took his campaign against nuclear energy in Japan to Hiroshima, which 66 years ago became the world's first victim of an atomic bomb.

It marks a change of tack in a country that has until now carefully avoided linking its fast growing, and now discredited, nuclear power industry to its trauma as the only country to have been attacked with atomic bombs.

Kan, speaking at an anniversary ceremony for victims of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, repeated that the world's worst nuclear crisis in 25 years at Fukushima after a March earthquake convinced him Japan should end its dependence on nuclear power.

The damage from the earthquake and subsequent tsunami at the Fukushima nuclear plant, which the authorities are still trying to bring under control, has led to widespread calls for an end to reliance on nuclear power in the quake-prone country.

"I will deeply reflect on nuclear power's 'myth of safety,' investigate thoroughly the causes of the accident and fundamental measures to secure safety, as well as reduce the dependence on nuclear power plants and aim for a society that does not depend on nuclear power plants," Kan said.

Kazumi Matsui, Hiroshima's mayor and the son of an atomic bomb survivor, also pressed Tokyo to act after the Fukushima crisis traumatised the public. "The Japanese government should sincerely accept this reality and review its energy policy quickly," he said.

Questioned policy

It was the first time in decades that any Hiroshima mayor had questioned Japan's policy of developing nuclear energy during the annual ceremony, in which tens of thousands observed a minute of silence as the peace bell tolled.

Matsui said it was heartbreaking to see the devastation left by the March 11 quake and tsunami on the northeast coast and how it resembled what was left of Hiroshima after the bombing.

A US warplane dropped the atomic bomb on the western city on August 6, 1945 in the closing days of the Second World War. The death toll by the end of the year was estimated at about 140,000, out of the total 350,000 who lived there at the time.

A second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9. Japan surrendered six days later.

Prior to the Fukushima crisis, nuclear energy accounted for nearly a third of Japan's energy supply. But since the March 11 quake and tsunami triggered radiation leaks at Tokyo Electric Power Co's Fukushima plant 240km (150 miles) northeast of Tokyo, public sentiment has shifted.

"We hadn't thought so deeply about it until now. But I think it (nuclear plant) is not so different from the atomic bomb," said Michiko Kato, a 73-year-old survivor who lost her sister to the bomb.

Unpopular Kan, who has said he will resign without clarifying when, has seized the shift in the public mood and is calling for an overhaul of Japan's energy policy. About 70 percent of voters back his vision, a recent poll showed.

But it remains unclear what will happen to his vision after he resigns.

Greenpeace: por uma vez concordo com esses malucos...

Eu, geralmente, sou contra tudo o que o Greenpeace faz. Não por animosidade de princípio contra esse bando de quixotescos promotores do meio ambiente, mas porque acredito, pelo que vejo e leio, que eles dispõem de pouca base científica para suas ações militantes, atuando mais por transpiração do que por inspiração bem fundamentada.
Por uma vez concordo com eles, mas mais exatamente pelo lado fiscal e orçamentário, do que por uma oposição de princípio contra a energia nuclear. Ou seja, sou contra o financiamento público, não contra a energia nuclear em si.
Creio que o Brasil deve aprofundar a pesquisa e o desenvolvimento de todas as tecnologias, mas não precisamos de energia nuclear por enquanto...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

BNDES banca calhambeque atômico
Porgente, 27/04/2011

O Greenpeace do Brasil lançou uma campanha contra o financiamento público do Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico Social (BNDES) à construção de novas usinas nucleares no País. Veja os argumentos da entidade ambiental mais famosa do mundo:

Na véspera do aniversário de 25 anos do acidente nuclear em Chernobyl, na antiga União Soviética, uma ‘nuvem radioativa’ cobriu a sede do BNDES, no Rio de Janeiro. A fumaça laranja que subiu aos céus no Largo da Carioca, endereço do banco no centro da cidade, foi ao mesmo tempo um alerta sobre os perigos de um acidente nuclear e um apelo para que o BNDES suspenda o financiamento para a construção da usina nuclear de Angra III.

Por volta das nove e meia da manhã, ativistas do Greenpeace vestidos como equipes de resgate em acidentes nucleares dispararam sinalizadores de fumaça na frente do prédio do BNDES, simulando contaminação por radiação. Um cartaz pedia ao BNDES para não financiar uma geração de energia tão insegura, como provam Chernobyl e Fukushima.

O governo brasileiro tem na manga cinco projetos de novas usinas nucleares. Quatro ainda estão sem endereço definido. Jacques Vagner, governador da Bahia, torce para levar a maior parte delas para seu estado. A quinta está para ser construída em Angra dos Reis, no litoral Sul fluminense, no complexo que já abriga as usinas nucleares de Angra I e II. A nova unidade, Angra III, já custou aos cofres públicos 1 bilhão de reais e a estimativa do seu custo total ultrapassa 10 bilhões de reais. É muito dinheiro para se investir em uma usina que até seus criadores, os alemães, consideram uma espécie de calhambeque atômico.