WWF: Say NO to additional nuclear

Passing the message along....





You may hear about the Daya Bay Nuclear Plant had radiation leakage twice within 6 months from the newspaper. You may be aware of its impact on us.


But you may not be aware that the Hong Kong government is proposing to increase significantly from the current 23% nuclear power to 50% by 2020 in its recent public consultation on " Hong Kong's Climate Change Strategy and Action Agenda" in order to lower the carbon emission.



WWF believes that there are other options instead of increasing the nuclear supply.



Pls sign up in our 'Say NO to additional nuclear' online petition and help spread out the news to your networks. The government consultation deadline is Dec 10, 2010, we hope to gather enough petitions to voice out our concerns.



Sign NOW!




http://apps.wwf.org.hk/eng/climateconsult.php

At the risk of being flamed for it, I'll disagree on this one. Now, I'm not saying nuclear reactors should just be built willy-nilly, but they are a viable option.


Nuclear is not a bad thing compared to fossil fuels. Modern reactors pollute far less than, say, coal, even with the whole nuclear waste issue. I'm not saying nuclear is perfect but it has a lot of things going for it.


Going nuclear can significantly lower carbon emissions. Case in point, France has what is probably the cleanest air in the industrialized world, largely because energy production is 75% from nukes.


One could argue that the WWF should in fact be supporting nuclear since it decreases pollution and decreases dependence on oil and coal.


In today's HK, with all the pollution, less burnt coal and oil can only be a good thing. Now it would be great if solar, wind, tidal and hydroelectric could take up the slack but they just can't.


I do have issues with poorly designed, built and maintained reactors of course. Who wouldn't?


Then again, I don't know enough about the issue at hand to really decide one way or another.

The WWF suggests we 'Adopt a vigorous energy conservation target for Hong Kong to reduce 25% of total electricity consumption by 2020, following other developed cities.'


I bet if we forced shops to stop air conditioning the streets of Hong Kong we could cut the electricity bill in half... no need for more nuclear plants...

I'm with you on that one. I read that 50% of HK energy usage is air conditioning.


While we are at it, how about introducing such radical concepts as insulation and triple glazing. Now that would save power. Right now it feels like all the cool air just seeps out, not to mention heating in winter.

Excellent point... the amount of cold air in summer and heat in winter that escapes through inefficiently built homes and offices is appalling...


Instead of building more nuclear plants why doesn't the government consider implementing some building standards and introduce some sort of programme to encourage people to replace old air cons and seal their homes...


Same reason I suppose we are still dumping raw sewage into the harbour...



Madtown... I agree... the air in Hong Kong is atrocious and something needs to be done about that... but before we start building power plants - coal or nuclear - shouldn't we first address the problem by trying to bring down our wasteful use of electricity?


I have to think that Hong Kong is the most wasteful city in the world by a country mile when it comes to inefficient use of power...


In addition to the ideas above why oh why does HK not take the lead in electric cars... very few people would drive more than 50km in a day... and most people live in high rises so it would be easy to sort out charging stations in the parking garages... charge the cars overnight so the grid doesnt get overwhelmed...


Imagine the + PR for the city that would come from the govt pushing such an agenda...


But nope... instead we figure we have lots of money so lets just throw another log on the fire...

I think one of the reasons for the lack of insulation and triple glazing is the preponderance of rented apartments. These things require a higher investment during construction or renovation. But since the owners won't be living there and the cost of heating and cooling is borne by tenants, there is no incentive to insulate.


Agreed about electric cars as well. Then again, HK does have a very efficient public transport system which most people do use. It could be worse.

I have wondered very often about why HK has no standard for thermal insulation in buildings. Mostly when I am freezing my butt off in the winter...

It is a relatively cheap and long term investment that could end up saving the city billions in energy savings.

I suppose that since property developers rule the roost around here, they just don't want to be bothered. Still, the city could offer some incentives for these kind of things in new buildings, it's not like money would be a problem...

Same goes for lift lobby lighting. Every lift lobby of every floor of every residential tower in HK is lit 24/7 by an average of around 70 Watts (my estimate, using fluorescent bulbs). Over the entire city, we are talking about at least 5 to 10 megawatts of power just burning away for no reason.


How hard would it be for the government to impose a few simple energy efficiency measures on all new buildings? I know the government is pretty helpless when it comes to dealing with Li Ka Shing and the gang, but asking for double glazed windows and timers in the lift lobbies can't be that hard to obtain...

Not that I think the government is in any way interested in environment at all, other than as a PR tool...



Anyhow, as far as nuclear energy goes, it is actually a very viable tool to provide the growing world with an efficient, clean and relatively durable source of energy. It is also the only one, save for burning even more coal and oil...


It is far from perfect, but with any other technology, encouraging its use will only make it better.

Generation IV nuclear powerplants have the capability to generate more fissile fuel than they burn, and they can also burn the problematic long period radioactive spent fuel from older powerplants and not only provide energy with it, but also turn it into a short half-life waste (decades instead of the current millenias...).


Those reactors are still experimental, and the technology is complex. Funny enough, they were first developed in Europe and the US, but the tightening of government fundings, the anti-nuclear craze and the improvement of conventional powerplants has more or less put an end to their development there.

But the world is awakening to a new era where global warming, fossil fuel price volatility and the exponentially increasing energy needs from developing countries like China and India are shining a renewed light on these technologies. The interest is here, and the funds for development are lining up, mostly from these growing countries.


Nuclear is not a benign technology, it needs a lot of supervision and responsibility. Whether a corrupt and wildly greedily capitalistic system like China's can be trusted to safely operate nuclear energy, well, I don't know, but I doubt they'd want another Chernobyl on chinese soil.


Saying no to a new technology for no good reason other than fear is, as usual, not going to solve anything.

Until fusion becomes available, nuclear energy is the only viable large scale energy source that does not burn fossil carbon and turn it into CO2. The technology can be vastly improved yet to make it safer and cleaner.

Supporting nuclear energy also means suporting developing countries to better use, supervise and control their reactors to make them safer and avoid ecological disasters.


And let's face it. Since there are no real alternatives, it's not like China or others would just give up on it anyway. It's a lost cause.

Even Europe and the US, where nuclear energy had remained 'dormant' for the last decades due to unfunded public concern are warming up to it again as they are under pressure to lower their CO2 emissions and are realizing that there are no real alternatives.


Sorry about the long post.

Cheers.

So building very expensive power plants should take priority over creating a more efficient infrastructure and encouraging energy conservation?


Hong Kong brands itself Asia's World City... surely that means striving for first world environmental standards...