Nuclear fuel pool at Fukushima reactor No 4 in danger of collapse
Japan Nuclear Professor: It’s feared Fukushima fuel pool to “collapse in” at any time; “Any scale of accident is possible” — Expert warns ice wall increases risk that reactor units will move or shift; Buildings ‘very precarious’ even without frozen barrier being constructed (AUDIO) http://enenews.com/japan-nuclear-prof-its-feared-pool-of-fukushima-nuclear-fuel-may-collapse-in-at-any-time-any-scale-of-accident-is-possible-expert-warns-ice-wall-increases-risk-of-reactor-units-moving?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29
Radio Forum #72, May 24, 2014 — Translated by DISSENSUS JAPAN, June 10, 2014:
- Jiro Ishimaru, host: About the current progress of decommissioning…
- Hiroaki Koide, professor at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute: […] In November 2013, they started with Reactor #4 because it was the most accessible pool, and the most dangerous. The floor that housed the Used Fuel Pool in Reactor #4 was hugely damaged and it has been feared that the pool might collapse in any time. This is a very dangerous job. Any scale of accident is possible. But they have to do it. […]
- Translation of complete interview available here
WBUR — Here and Now, June 9, 2014:
- Ken Buesseler, senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: Maybe there’s some side effects [to the ice wall] that might also creep into this game, that they really haven’t considered here… if you stop the flow of water into certain soil, you can get things like settling — Buildings can move, so these are very precarious situation anyways, so we don’t want to have shifting.
- Full WBUR broadcast available here
$264 Billion for USA nuclear weapons, and that’s not counting some of the costs
Ten-Year, $264 Billion Nuclear Weapons Spending Estimate Leaves Out Some Things http://blogs.rollcall.com/five-by-five/ten-year-264-billion-nuclear-weapons-spending-estimate-leaves-out-some-things/?dcz= By Tim Starks June 11, 2014 Over the next decade, maintaining and modernizing nuclear weapon capabilities will cost $263.8 billion, according to a joint estimate by the departments of Defense and Energy. But a new report suggests that figure might fall far short of what the United States will actually spend.
The Government Accountability Office noted that the estimate doesn’t include the Air Force’s plans to develop a new bomber, or modernize intercontinental ballistic missiles. Consequently, DOD may be significantly underreporting its 10-year estimate, depending on the magnitude of the costs resulting from upcoming decisions about how to modernize these delivery systems,” a GAO report released Tuesday concluded.
“Air Force officials told us that it would be premature to include potential budget estimates for development programs in their early stages because their long-term costs are uncertain,” the report states, and added that the Air Force considered a specific bomber estimate too sensitive to include in the joint report with the DOE, produced annually for Congress.
But the GAO said the Pentagon should’ve supplied at least a range of possible estimates for the new bomber and ICBM modernization, rather than an assumption of no cost at all: “Without a range of potential estimates and fully documented assumptions and limitations, the report is an incomplete tool for congressional oversight.”
The “fully documented assumptions” part is a criticism of how DOD came up with its $40.8 billion estimate for nuclear command, control and communications, or NC3; the report states that the department didn’t do a good job of explaining how it arrived at the figure.
On the DOE side, the estimate doesn’t include enough funding for planned nuclear weapon life extensions and construction of key facilities, the GAO determined.
“To improve the completeness and transparency of subsequent joint reports, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct DOD components to (1) include at least a range of potential 10-year budget estimates for projects and programs, based on preliminary cost information (this is consistent with a December 2013 recommendation GAO made to DOE); and (2) document assumptions and limitations affecting its NC3 funding estimates,” the report stats. “DOD agreed with these recommendations.”
Japan joins scramble to sell nuclear technology to India, despite Liability Law
Japan wants slice of nuclear pie, warms up to liability law Indian Express, by Subhomoy Bhattacharjee , Anil Sasi | New Delhi | June 12, 2014 While Toshiba owns US-based reactor manufacturer Westinghouse, Hitachi is a partner of GE’s reactor business. The deadlock on the liability issue, which had stonewalled progress on the operalisation of nuclear pacts that India had signed with global reactor vendors, is on the verge of being broken.
Japan could offer Prime Minister Narendra Modi a nuclear deal in the civil sector when he travels to Tokyo next month, Hiroshi Hirabayashi, former Japanese ambassador to India and now adviser to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, indicated.
Russia too is reported to have communicated an “in principle” nod to the Indian nuclear liability law, paving the way for signing a contract for the setting up the third and fourth units of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project…….
Japan is a key player in the operationalisation of the commercial nuclear pacts signed by India. Japanese companies are major players in two of the four reactor vendors that have signed preliminary agreements with India for supply of equipment for imported Light Water reactor-based projects planned on coastal sites.
While Toshiba owns US-based reactor manufacturer Westinghouse, Hitachi is a partner of GE’s reactor business.The government has short-listed Toshiba-Westinghouse’s ‘AP1000’ reactors, GE-Hitachi’s ‘ESBWR’ reactors, along with French firm Areva’s EPRs and the Russian firm Atomstroyexport’s ‘VVER’ series reactors, which are already being deployed at Kudankulam. http://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/japan-wants-slice-of-nuclear-pie-warms-up-to-liability-law/
Renewabl eenergy investments by Warren Buffett set to increase to around $30 billion
Warren Buffett could double renewable energy investment to $30bn http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2014/06/11/warren-buffett-could-double-renewable-energy-investment-to-30bn/ Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 By Richard Heasman
Warren Buffett has said his Berkshire Hathaway holding company could invest a further $15 billion (£8.9 billion) in solar and wind projects in the US.
At a Las Vegas conference this week, the world’s third wealthiest man was reminded by his deputy Greg Abel of the company’s current $15 billion investment in the sectors.
Buffett swiftly declared that the same figure should be committed again, describing the overall potential of sustainable energy as an expanding market.
Bloomberg said Buffett responded to Abel’s prompt with, “There’s another $15 billion ready to go, as far as I’m concerned.” Buffett has remained one of the world’s leading investors in renewable energies,bankrolling major solar and wind power developments with multi-billion dollar investments.
Buffett’s Nebraska-based firm Berkshire Hathaway is now the fifth-largest in the world by market value. It has huge investments in regulated, capital-intensive businesses such as infrastructure and energy.
Buffett has described the renewables market as high in potential, with the predictability of reinvestment and large growth.
In 2011, he bought a massive California-based solar farm project from First Solar. Other investments include the acquisition of an Iowa energy holding company in 2011.
His unit now operates power grids in the UK, natural gas pipelines that run across the entirety of the US and wind farms in Iowa, Wyoming, California and Arizona.
Buffett’s pledge to boost renewables investment comes after Barack Obama declared tighter emission targets for coal power companies – with an overall aim of cutting emissions by 30% by 2030. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared this would bring net climate and health benefits of up to $82 billion (£48 billion).
Total costs of nuclear power make it uneconomic for South Africa
Long time frames and dodgy numbers justify worry about nuclear power’s cost, Business Report, South
Africa June 10 2014 By Yvette Abraam
“………My chief objection to nuclear power is precisely on the cost issue……….from 2008 to early 2010 nuclear costs were stated to be twice as much by nuclear power vendors than by the state. By early 2011, after a multitude of submissions by civil society, even the state admitted that it had undercosted nuclear power by about 40 percent and included a new estimate. The new estimate remained substantially lower than the two tenders submitted by suppliers.
Yet the amount of nuclear energy planned in the IRP II remains unchanged, despite the variation in costs. International experience rates the cost of constructing nuclear plants at about $6 000 (R63 500) per kilowatt hour.
The South African energy planning process calculated this cost as $3 000 in 2010 and $4 300 in 2011 – on what basis remains a mystery.
The second problem with assembling a budget for nuclear procurement is that the costs of waste disposal and decommissioning are of the same order as the cost of construction, but are beset by large uncertainties. For example, in the 2007/08 annual report and accounts of nuclear power generator British Energy, it was estimated the cost of decommissioning its eight plants was £9.4 billion (R167bn) and the cost of disposing of the spent fuel was £5.5bn.
Although we can estimate the order of magnitude, the actual costs are affected by the choice of technology. As such, it is important to include these costs in a tender since they deeply affect the final choice of bidder. So far these costs have not been included in South African energy planning.
As far as the cost of waste disposal is concerned, it has to be borne in mind that these costs have to be borne for a minimum of two and a half centuries before the waste can safely be neglected. Even a very small error in calculation can lead to very large divergences across this timespan. Under conventional accounting procedure, liabilities that must be met in the future should be discounted.
Effectively, this means that a sum of money (or assets of that value) is set aside now and it is assumed that money will earn interest and grow to meet the liability……..What happens if, as is the case in Germany and Japan, the interest rate is negative? It would mean we have to set aside more money now than will be required in the future.
This example demonstrates the point that the really difficult part of nuclear energy planning is that the amount it is going to cost is not knowable. Calculating the net present value of a 250-year expenditure would require that we could foresee the interest rate and the inflation rate for the next 250 years. But we are citizens, not soothsayers. Anybody who tells you they can predict these costs is talking through their hat. To any suggestion that we should give the approval anyway and trust officials to prevent any unreasonable cost overruns, I have but one word: Nkandla.
* Dr Yvette Abrahams works in the department of women and gender studies at University of the Western Cape and with Electricity Governance Initiative South Africa. http://www.iol.co.za/business/opinion/long-time-frames-and-dodgy-numbers-justify-worry-about-nuclear-power-s-cost-1.1700897#.U5oL1HJdUnk
European Energy Commission directs stricter rues on nuclear reactor safety
Europe orders nuclear power operators to be more open on safety issues http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/international-news/124795-europe-orders-nuclear-power-operators-to-be-more-open-on-safety-issues.htmlby ClickGreen staff. Published Wed 11 Jun 2014 The European Union has agreed new laws to tighten up safety standards and improve supervision of nuclear facilities in response to the lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.
For the first time a legally binding “safety objective” will cover all existing and new nuclear installations across Europe.
The new regulations include the requirement for greater transparency and to provide better public information
on the safety record of nuclear sites.
The European Union, in response, carried out a series of stress tests to examine the resilience of nuclear power stations and used the results to draft a response plan based on the latest international standards.
The company also failed to tell the local population that a condition of its continued operation was that it must shut down its reactor immediately should a severe weather warning be issued.
There are 132 nuclear reactors currently in operation in Europe.
Today’s announcement of an agreement for this new Directive was reached under the Greek Presidency, after “delicate and strenuous negotiation”, since the safety of nuclear installations is for member states an important matter of national sovereignty.
European Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger said: “Nuclear safety is paramount to all European citizens. We need to put all our efforts into making sure that the highest safety standards are followed in every single nuclear power plant across the EU.
“The new Nuclear Safety Directive, once formally adopted, will help ensure continuous improvement of the safety of our nuclear installations.”
The new nuclear safety architecture provides that member states implement a regulatory framework requiring accident prevention, and should an accident occur, mitigating the consequences of radioactive releases.
It also reinforces crucial components of the nuclear safety system, such as the independent role and function of the regulatory authorities, the safety peer reviews mechanism and the promotion of safety culture.
Specifically, the Directive:
• Introduces higher standards for nuclear safety in Europe, as it requires that member states take prevention measures for any type of accident, no matter how much unlikely may be considered
• Introduces topical peer reviews of the nuclear installations throughout Europe every six years, in coordination among member states. The first topical peer review is scheduled for 2017
• Requires operators to have infrastructure and suitable arrangements for accident management and emergency response
• Requires the strengthening of the role, function and effective independence of the regulatory authorities
• Introduces for member states the legal requirement to promote and enhance nuclear safety culture
• Introduces requirements on transparency, public information, public participation and cooperation between member states, nuclear and non-nuclear, in the vicinity of nuclear installations.
The Chairman of the Greek Atomic Energy Commission (EEAE), Christos Housiadas, commented: “All member states, nuclear and non-nuclear, had an equal opportunity to participate in this negotiation, as the consequences of nuclear accidents do not stop at borders.”
U.S. shores continue to have increasing levels of Fukushima radiation
Post-Fukushima radiation levels near US shores continue to increase
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_11/Post-Fukushima-radiation-levels-near-US-shores-continue-to-increase-5967/ Radiation levels in Albacore tuna have tripled post-Fukushima, according to Oregon State University (OSU) researchers. The scientists came to that conclusion after conducting a study on fish caught off the coast of Oregon.
According to Delvin Neville, a graduate research assistant at OSU, these trace levels are too small to be a realistic concern. “A year of eating albacore with these cesium traces is about the same dose of radiation as you get from spending 23 seconds in a stuffy basement from radon gas, or sleeping next to your spouse for 40 nights from the natural potassium-40 in their body,” said Mr. Neville.
However, researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences say the worst is yet to come and that the most highly radioactive water hasn’t reached US shores yet.
Regardless, all scientists apparently agree that the radioactive contamination is still traveling in ocean currents, the long-term effects of which remain to be seen.
Iranian Islamic leader stresses fatwa against all nuclear weapons
Leader nuclear fatwa addresses entire world: Analyst http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/11/366530/leader-nfatwa-directed-at-entire-world/ The fatwa by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei against the development of nuclear weapons is addressed to all world countries, an analyst tells Press TV.
“I wish the world leaders and the mass media would pay more attention and engage in more dialogue about the importance of this religious fatwa that prohibits production and use of nuclear weapons,” Imam Mohammad Ali Elahi told Press TV in aninterview.
On February 22, 2012, Ayatollah Khamenei said the Islamic Republic considers the pursuit and possession of nuclear weapons “a grave sin” from every logical, religious and theoretical standpoint.
Elahi said nuclear weapons seriously threaten the “destiny of humanity and democracy,” adding, “The wisdom of this message [of Ayatollah Khamenei] is that all of us work together to bring dialogue instead of deception and destruction…; to end violence and terrorism and extremism instead of bringing more threat.”
Elahi stated that nuclear weapons must be prohibited so that they would never fall into the hands of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda who “would not hesitate to use” them against humanity.
“So we need to learn the lesson from our faith traditions and also moral principles to pay more attention to this message,” he said.
Iran has repeatedly called for turning the Middle East into a region free of nuclear weapons. Israel is widely believed to be the only possessor of nuclear arms in the Middle East, with an estimated stockpile of 200-400 nuclear warheads. In its Yearbook 2012, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said Israel possesses at least 80 “highly operational” nuclear warheads.
The Israeli regime, which rejects all international nuclear regulatory agreements, maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity over its nuclear activities and refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to come under international regulatory inspections.
Questions in US Congress on costs of NATO nuclear burden
House Bill Seeks Answers on Costs of NATO Nuclear Burden-Sharing, Global Security Newswire, By Rachel Oswald, 11 June 14 A defense bill approved by a House panel on Tuesday contains language that seeks to spotlight the costs of nuclear burden-sharing within NATO.
A measure contained in the House Appropriations Committee’s annual military spending bill would require the Pentagon to issue a report outlining “the proportional contributions of NATO members to the cost of sustaining forward-deployed nuclear weapons” as well as the impact that proportional cost-sharing would have on the U.S. military’s budget.
The United States presently shoulders the vast majority of the expense — about $100 million annually — for the operational deployment of less than 200 B-61 gravity bombs in Europe. The nonstrategic weapons are broadly understood to be fielded in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Those five nations in turn are supposed to maintain the aircraft capability necessary to deliver the nuclear bombs in an attack. The host states additionally pay for facility and security costs at the military installations where the weapons are stored.
Separate from the operational expense of keeping B-61s in Europe is the cost of modernizing the gravity bomb. The B-61 life-extension program is anticipated to cost as much as $11.5 billion — all of it currently to be borne by U.S. taxpayers, Kristensen told Global Security Newswire.
Some of the future costs of maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe include an estimated $1 billion to integrate the updated B-61 with European Tornado and F-16 aircraft and U.S. F-15E, F-16 and B-2 bombers; and about $154 million to enhance security at the European military bases that store the nuclear warheads, according to research compiled by Kristensen.
The House bill cites “the growing costs of this mission” as the reason for requiring a report on proportional cost-sharing with alliance members no later than six months after the legislation becomes law.
U.S. Representative Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) inserted the language during the bill’s markup on Tuesday. He sees the requested report as a “first step” toward achieving a “more equitable cost-sharing among NATO allies,” according to a press release from his office. He expects the report also will be useful in enabling U.S. legislators to better evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the B-61 modernization program and a plan give a nuclear capabilityto a future variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The military value of maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe has been questioned on both sides of the Atlantic, although nations shied away from altering the status quo at the 2012 NATO summit. In 2010, then-Vice Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright indicated that U.S. long-range nuclear weapons and conventional arms could handle all of the military missions currently associated with the B-61 in Europe……. http://www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/house-bill-seeks-answers-on-costs-of-nato-nuclear-burden-sharing-20140611
Failures of bolts in 3 Salem nuclear reactor pumps
Bolt failure found in 3 Salem reactor pumps Delawareonline Jeff Montgomery, The News Journal PSEG Nuclear workers have found there is a complete failure of all bolts securing water-pushing impellers in three of four Salem Unit 2 reactor coolant pumps, with investigations continuing inside the last unit.
The findings, released Monday, emerged after the discovery of broken parts in one of the big, water-moving units forced the company to delay a post-refueling restart last month.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said Monday all retaining bolts were found to be “sheared or failed” in three of four 30-foot-tall reactor coolant pumps in Salem 2 in New Jersey. The pumps force water back into the reactor core after it circulates through systems that make non-radioactive, pressurized steam used to turn generators.
The 1,158-megawatt Unit 2 went offline and began a refueling outage April 13, with the shutdown extended when broken bolt-heads were found on eight of 20 fasteners that secure a bladed “turning vane” part inside one of the pumps. Subsequent examinations found all 20 bolts to be “sheared or failed” in three of the four pumps, which had to be shipped off-site for examination.
“Because the pumps are part of the reactor coolant system, they are part of a barrier against release of radioactive water, though that water would be captured inside the reactor containment building during an accident,” said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC’s regional office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania…….
David Lochbaum, a nuclear power engineer and specialist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Monday that the pumps play a part in plant cooling but are not considered part of the plant’s safety system. Loss of bolts could become a safety problem if turbine blades, which spin at thousands of revolutions per minute, or other parts broke loose and penetrated the pump housing or moved into other parts of the cooling system.
“It sounds like they caught it early enough,” Lochbaum said, noting that severe problems would likely have created vibrations or wobbling that would have been detected by plant sensors. http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2014/06/09/bolt-failure-found-three-salem-unit-reactor-coolant-pumps/10245099/
 |
Click here to Reply or Forward
|
1.This Month
1:20 / 13:23
Julian Assange could be released on 20th May
21 May Webinar. Protect Our Waterways. No Nuclear Waste.
7 pm Tuesday May 21 https://www.protectourwaterways.org/webinars
24 May. The Vow from Hiroshima film is coming on PBS, this month https://www.thevowfromhiroshima.com/
3 June – FILM. SOS – The San Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power’s Legacy
6-7 July A summit and a rally in Washington D.C. https://nonatoyespeace.org/
-
Archives
- May 2024 (225)
- April 2024 (366)
- March 2024 (335)
- February 2024 (345)
- January 2024 (375)
- December 2023 (333)
- November 2023 (342)
- October 2023 (366)
- September 2023 (353)
- August 2023 (356)
- July 2023 (362)
- June 2023 (324)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 