Dear Gloria,

We experienced extreme weather in Hong Kong in the recent years. The average temperature rose by 1.3 degree Celsius in the last ten years. It was terribly hot in the summer. Hikers and runners black out and were sent to hospital. Some tragically passed away. Temperature is higher by two to three degree Celsius in city centre walled with high rise buildings. Hong Kong is not spare from climate change. Even common folks could feel the adversities, and are ready to give up some comfort and convenience that are taken for granted in urban life.

To slow down climate change by cutting carbon emission, the SAR government proposed to change the combination of energy supply.

The proposal was inserted somewhere in a consultation paper titled HK’s Climate Change Strategy and Action Agenda published early September this year. The consultation runs for three months and expire on December 6th.  

However, in the Chief Executive’s policy address for 2010-2011, he announced that by 2020, Hong Kong would secure 50% of our energy supply from nuclear plant in Daya Bay, 40% of our energy would come from gas, 10% would come from fossil fuel. Renewable energy might come up to 3-4%. It sounded like a policy already formulated, but the consultation on climate change did not come to a conclusion yet.

The administration failed to come up with a satisfactory answer on how it worked out this projection of 50%.  The formula was arbitrary .

The consultation paper started with cutting greenhouse gas. It proclaimed that nuclear energy was a clean energy without carbon emission, but there was no information on disposal of nuclear waste. When challenged by green groups on this critical issue, the administration could only resort to international standard as a defense. And the international standard is to seal the nuclear waste with cement, and wait for 240,000 years for the radiation to die down. There is no good solution on earth to dispose nuclear waste this far. While nuclear plant does not produce carbon dioxide, it is not a safe energy. According to a visiting expert from Green Peace, the nuclear waste of 400 reactors would be enough to make 8000 warheads. No wonder when green activists talk about no nuke, it means no nuclear waste and no nuclear war. Therefore, if our starting point is sustainable development and safety for human survival, nuclear energy is not the answer.

At the present, only 23% of the energy supply for Hong Kong comes from nuclear plant, which accounts for 70% of Daya Bay output. If we bring it up to 50% of our energy consumption in 2020, and take GDP growth into consideration, the Daya Bay station needs to double its capacity.  With the lack of transparency on the recent pipe leakage in Daya Bay Nuclear Plant, there is no reason for one ounce of confidence in having a nuclear plant of such size lies only 20km from us. And we do not want to pollute the environment with more nuclear waste.

To achieve the two goals of cutting carbon emission and nuclear energy supply, the  viable alternative is to shrink energy consumption. But the sad fact is, Hong Kong people was not truly consulted. We don’t have a chance to voice our opinion.

In the pipe leakage incident, we see the lack of an effective contingency notification mechanism. A level one incident occurred on October 23rd, crystal of boric acid was spotted on an 1.57 inches thick pipe for cooling agent during a routine check. The Hong Kong Nuclear Investment Company Limited was notified only on October 27th. The SAR government, one of the Directors of this company, was not informed about the incident until November 2nd. It took the initiative to make immediate inquiry with the Prevention and Emergency Administrative Commission Office of Guangdong Province for Nuclear Accident of Civil Nuclear Facility. That means, Hong Kong government was not informed of this incident until 10 days had passed, and the notification system agreed by Guangdong authority and the HKSAR government did not function.

The management of China Light told the Legislative Council that after the level 0 incident in May, they realized the public demand for transparency, therefore, asked for the approval of the big shareholder of the Guangdong Nuclear Investment Company to publicize incidents of all level, but the issue was not addressed. The big share holder holds 75% of the company, and it is a state owned enterprise. Apparently, China Light and the HK government has no say.

The effort of the China Light Company to understate the fact was no less alarming. Senior management of the China Light named the leaking of the pipe a “flaw” instead of a leak because it was only crystal on the pipe, not liquid dripping onto the floor. But keeping information from the public does not help to keep the public at ease, people would only be more alarmed once the story broke.

When safety of the 7 millions Hong Kong people is at stake with the expansion of the Daya Bay Nuclear Plant, there should be a consultation with full information provided to the public for a rational debate. Accurate projection of future energy utilities, with effective energy saving plan in the picture, methodology of the projection should be made known to the public. And the public should have the right to choose between the inconvenience arises from energy saving and the threat of increasing nuclear waste. The choice is a perfect initiative for referendum and direct democracy, where people should have the right to make this choice and take the responsibility.

While we should be consulted on expansion of the nuclear plant, we are not even promptly informed on details of the incident . But we are the consumer who pay for the operation of the nuclear plant. And the government has no political will to protect Hong Kong people from fear and worries.

A recent polling conducted by the Green Peace showed that 67% of the respondents are very concerned with safety of nuclear plant, and 74% of the respondents are not aware of the proposed increase in nuclear energy supply for Hong Kong. Green groups are working together to call for more public awareness of the issue.

Let’s urge the Secretary of Environment to conduct a separate consultation on the increase of nuclear energy supply, so that people could understand the issue better and go for a rational public debate before the decision is forced on Hong Kong.
 
Good luck to everybody
Cyd

Letter to Hong Kong (2010-11-28)