Top medical isotope can be produced without nuclear reactor
Nuclear medicine has long been touted as a selling point for nuclear power - a kin do healthy fig leaf put over a n unhealthy, toxic industry. – Christina Macpherson
Nuclear Reactors Not Needed to Make the Most Common Medical Isotope, Science Now by Robert F. Service on 20 February 2012, In recent years, hospitals worldwide have been grappling with short supplies of technetium-99 (Tc-99), the most commonly used radioisotope in medical imaging scans. But help may be at hand: A team of Canadian researchers reported today that they’ve made critical progress in developing a stable new supply of the isotope.
Tc-99 is currently produced in nuclear reactors fueled with highly enriched uranium, which has raised concerns that the nuclear fuel could be intercepted by terrorists to make a nuclear weapon. The new setupproduces Tc-99 with a medical cyclotron, thereby eliminating proliferation concerns. But economic and technical considerations may make it more practical for shoring up Tc-99 supplies in Canada than in the United States. Read more »
Monumental mess of UK’s monumental nuclear reprocessing project
Sellafield faces nuclear option as overspending threatens plant’s future, The Independent UK, 13 Feb 2010 Britain’s biggest single nuclear project has run into serious trouble, with missed deadlines and cost overruns threatening the future of the nuclear reprocessing operation at Sellafield in Cumbria.
Nuclear authorities have ordered a review of a monumental construction project at Sellafield that is millions of pounds over budget and more than four years late following a series of delays and financial mismanagement. Read more »
Thorium nuclear reactors – not all they’re cracked up to be
What you then get, as well as heat energy, radiation, and fission products from the Plutonium and Uranium, is U232. U232 (and its decay products) emit very hard gamma radiation.
will anyone really trust the nuclear lobby when it says ‘we have the answer’, as so often before?
Nuclear Problems, Environmental Research Web, 12 Feb 12,”……With uranium fired reactors out of favour after Fukushima, for the longer term, some in the nuclear lobby have been promoting thorium as an allegedly safer fuel- looking at molten flouride salt systems.
The Weinberg Foundation was launched last year to promote the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) Read more »
USA’s failed plutonium plant and the USA insider deals with AREVA
But the good news for Areva is the tax paid contract is still bringing in the big bucks with no 
end in sight.
the waste from these processes all add to the huge amount of waste already stored in leaking tanks at SRS.
Abraham, like so many others in Washington, sells his influence…. And Abraham does not sell influence only in the United States. He sells himself to the entire world.
When is enough, enough? How much money do former government officials have to make before they go home and give back to their communities rather than take money to influence their friends in Washington?
Spencer Abraham Cashes In, DC Bureau, By Joseph Trento, February 2nd, 2012 In January 30 was former U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham’s last day as the non-executive chairman of Areva Enterprises Inc, the French atomic power firm’s American operation. This marked the end of a very lucrative arrangement for both Abraham and the French government own nuclear company – mostly at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.
It all began in the 1990s when the United States’ response to disposing of 34 metric tons of plutonium from shuttered nuclear weapons programs was a proposed mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. When Abraham became Energy Secretary in 2001, Areva was a key contractor for the MOX plant. According to his DOE calendars, among his first trips were to France to visit their nuclear officials and operations. Abraham maintained a close relationship with the then head of Areva, Anne Lauvergeon. In turn, not long after he left the Energy Department, Abraham cashed in and went to work for Areva and “Atomic Annie,” as she was known. In 2007, DOE broke ground on the MOX plant.
Today, the DOE’s MOX fuel plant is still under construction. It has cost billions of dollars, is over budget and behind schedule. But Spencer Abraham will never be held responsible for the cost overruns and delays. In fact, he has been handsomely rewarded.
Despite spending billions of dollars on the MOX plant, DOE has yet to line up a single customer even with massive government subsidies being offered to buy the fuel. No utility will touch it. Read more »
SMRs – Small Modular nuclear Reactors the latest probably dud design
Small Modular Reactors, the latest ‘rabbit out the nuclear hat’ are generally based on scaled down BWR or PWR technology and illustrate the nuclear industry’s schizophrenic attitude to reactor size.
SMRs may turn out to be the latest in a long lineof nuclear designs that looked good on paper, but could not make the transition to commercial technology.
Prospects for Nuclear Power in 2012, Platts, London, 30 January 2012 “……..Technological cul-de-sac If plant life extensions can be achieved in France and the US and Gen III+ does prove a blind alley, it raises the question of what options are open to the nuclear sector. Ten years ago, the industry answer would have been Generation IV designs. Unlike Gen III+, which evolved from existing Pressurised and Boiling Water Reactors, these would be based on radical new technologies. Six technologies were selected by the major nuclear countries as the most promising.
End of the line for Japan’s dangerous, super expensive fast breeder nuclear reactor
Japanese parliamentarian and a critic of nuclear power Taro Kono said: ”We spend billions of yen every year just to maintain Monju. It’s crazy. We spend so much money just to keep things not running.”…
critics and nuclear watchdog groups call Monju Japan’s most dangerous reactor, because it uses plutonium fuel and cools its reactor with sodium, which can explode if it comes into contact with water.
Fast-breeder reactor faces closure, The Age, February 2, 2012 TSURUGA: Japan’s long and expensive pursuit of a super-efficient nuclear reactor is on the brink of failure amid new government concerns about its runaway costs.
The four-decade project to develop a so-called fast-breeder reactor has consumed more than $13 billion in funding, so far producing onlyaccidents, controversies and a single hour of electricity. Read more »
Dim prospects for global nuclear industry
Prospects for Nuclear Power in 2012, Platts a leading global provider of energy, metals and petrochemicals information., London, 30 January 2012 Even before the Fukushima disaster, the long-awaited nuclear renaissance in the West seemed to be running out of steam. There were two main factors behind this failure; the new Generation III+ reactors produced to take account of the lessons of Chernobyl that would spearhead the revival were not living up to their promises, and, more importantly, banks were proving unwilling to provide finance
Energy Economist – Report.
The key markets for the renaissance were the US and the UK. As pioneers of nuclear power, potentially large markets and countries that seemed to have abandoned plans for new nuclear plants, a successful revival in these countries would have been a powerful endorsement for these new technologies. Read more »
BRICs – Brazil, Russia, China, India, all nuclear prospects looking dodgy
China is looking much less committed to nuclear power than it was a year ago.
The reality is that China needs nuclear power much less than the nuclear industry needs China.
Prospects for Nuclear Power in 2012 Source: Platts - a leading global provider of energy, metals and petrochemicals information. London, 30 January 2012 “….BRICs [Brazil, Russia, India and China] + South Korea China has dominated new nuclear plant orders in the past few years, accounting for 25 out of the 38 reactors on which construction started worldwide between 2008-2010. Six of these units were for Gen III+ designs, four AP1000s and two EPRs. Almost all the others used a design imported from France in the 1980s, which in turn had been licensed from Westinghouse in the early 1970s. This design, the CPR1000, is showing its age and there was an expectation, even before Fukushima, that the AP1000 would replace it. This would have been a huge boost to the AP1000, giving it the volume of orders that might have allowed costs to come down and for teething problems to be solved. The EPR, by contrast, appears to have no prospect of further orders in China.
However, there were signs that the strain of the rapid pace of construction was beginning to show. In 2011, no new starts were made, compared with ten in 2010. Fukusima explains this to a degree, but some might have been expected in the first three months of 2011 before disaster struck. The reason behind the slowdown is the high cost of the AP1000. The large Chinese utilities appear to be looking at other options.
There is now talk of pursuing indigenous advanced designs developed from the CPR1000 as well as Small Modular Reactors. China has always been adept at convincing nuclear suppliers that there was a great future for their particular technology in China.
It is unclear whether talk of SMRs and new advanced designs will go any further. Read more »
Nuclear fuel could be corroded by seawater
How sea water could corrode nuclear fuel, UC Davis, January 26, 2012, Japan used seawater to cool nuclear fuel at the stricken Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant after the tsunami in March 2011 — and that was probably the best action to take at the time, says ProfessorAlexandra Navrotsky of the University of California, Davis.
But Navrotsky and others have since discovered a new way in which seawater can corrode nuclear fuel, forming uranium compounds that could potentially travel long distances, either in solution or as very small particles. The research team published its work Jan. 23 in the
journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“This is a phenomenon that has not been considered before,” said Alexandra Navrotsky, distinguished professor of ceramic, earth and environmental materials chemistry. “We don’t know how much this will increase the rate of corrosion, but it is something that will have to
be considered in future.”….
In the new paper, the researchers show that in the presence of alkali metal ions such as sodium — for example, in seawater — these clusters are stable enough to persist in solution or as small particles even when the oxidizing agent is removed.
In other words, these clusters could form on the surface of a fuel rod exposed to seawater and then be transported away, surviving in the environment for months or years before reverting to more common forms of uranium, without peroxide, and settling to the bottom of the
ocean. There is no data yet on how fast these uranium peroxide clusters will break down in the environment, Navrotsky said… http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10131
A cheaper alternative to rare earths, for electric cars
Toyota Finds Way To Avoid Using Rare Earth: Report, Planet Ark, 24-Jan-12, JAPAN by Chang-Ran Kim and Risa Maeda Toyota Motor Corp has developed a way to make hybrid and electric vehicles without the use of expensive rare earth metals, in which China has a near-monopoly, Japan’s Kyodo News reported.
Toyota, the world’s top producer of fuel-saving hybrid cars such as the Prius, could bring the technology to market in two years if the price of rare earths does not come down, Kyodo said, citing a source familiar with the matter.
A Toyota spokeswoman said the company continues to research ways to reduce rare earth usage and has no time frame yet for commercialization.
Rare earth metals like neodymium and dysprosium are used in the powerful magnets in motors that power hybrid and electric cars, and demand is expected to surge as more of the environmentally friendly cars hit the market.
China produces more than 95 percent of the world’s rare earth metals. Its efforts to limit exports, citing resource depletion and environmental degradation, have alarmed its customers and trading partners and have sent prices soaring.
Japan accounts for a third of global rare earth demand and is aiming to cut consumption, providing subsidies for recycling and investing in new ways to limit their use. http://www.planetark.org/enviro-news/item/64496
Effects of a nuclear explosion just above the atmosphere
High-Altitude Nuclear Explosions Dangerous, but not for Reasons Gingrich Cites Scientific American By Michael Moyer | December 14, 2011 | ”………In the June 2004 issue of Scientific American, the national security journalist Daniel G. Dupont wrote “Nuclear Explosions in Orbit” [subscription required], a story that details the sequence of events that would follow a nuclear detonation just above the atmosphere. Read more »
Nuclear power for space research (another ploy to keep nuclear industry alive?)
Nuclear or Solar, Where Does the Future of Space Exploration Lie? Oil Price.com , James Burgess, 24 November 2011 ”………The major problem that NASA faces when pursuing this form of technology is that, as Dr. John M. Logsdon, a space expert at George Washington University, said “It’s really only possible with plutonium-238 to do what it’s intending to do,” and the United States stopped making Plutonium-238 in the 1980’s. Since then they have bought it from Russia, but now they no longer make it either. A 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences called for restarting production, but this has not been done, mostly for cost reasons….
Therefore, solar cells have always been used where possible. Steven W. Squyres, a professor of astronomy at Cornell who is the chief scientist behind the Opportunity and Spirit rovers, said: “You always use solar when you can; it’s simpler, cheaper, just easier to do. You only use nuclear when you have to.’’ This thought was obviously prevalent when NASA launched their Jupiter-bound, Juno space shuttle, as that too relies upon solar cells….”
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Nuclear-or-Solar-Where-Does-the-Future-of-Space-Exploration-Lie.html
Silex laser uranium enrichment may open the door to nuclear weapons proliferation
many of the good things GE is using to make a case about Silex—less use of resources and electricity and increased efficiency—are actually negatives that make it easier for rogue states to hide clandestine plants…..methods for the production and use of nuclear materials that would be more difficult to detect,” the report states
New Uranium Enrichment Technology Alarms Aviation Week, By Kristin Majcher Washington 23 Nov 11 General Electric says it has successfully tested a faster, cheaper way to produce nuclear reactor fuel, and is planning to commercialize the technology by building a facility in Wilmington, N.C. While the prospect of saving resources to generate energy at a lower price sounds like a breakthrough, scientists are concerned that the top-secret method of enrichment that GE is using will indirectly elevate proliferation risks around the world, thus inspiring rogue states to develop their own laser enrichment facilities for nuclear weapons.
The enrichment technology is the Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation (Silex). It was developed by Silex of Australia in 1992. The technology company USEC funded early research on Silex, but abandoned it in favor of focusing on centrifuge enrichment. In 2006, GE signed an exclusive agreement to commercialize and license the technology and spearhead further research and development. Read more »
Nuclear power’s not doing too well on Earth, but then, there’s always Mars
The Competition Between Solar and Nuclear Energy Moves to Mars, NYT By MATTHEW L. WALD, 23 Nov 11 NASA’s last two Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, launched in 2003
and carried solar panels, but the new Mars rover that the space agency is scheduled to launch on Saturday morning from Cape Canaveral uses nuclear power, a fact that did not escape the partisans of nuclear power here on Earth. Read more »
Reprocessing not the answer to nuclear waste, say USA Government Accountability Office
“No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technology developments — including advances in reprocess and recycle technologies — have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decades, if not longer,’’ the report said…..
A Long, Long Road to Recycling Nuclear Fuel, NYT, By MATTHEW L. WALD, 15 Nov 11, The question of what to do with spent nuclear fuel from civilian power reactors has stirred renewed interest in reprocessing — that is, chopping up the fuel, retrieving materials that can power a reactor and possibly recovering the most troublesome waste products so they can be broken up in the reactor into easier-to-handle elements.
But the Energy Department, which is supposed to is evaluate different ways that the used fuel could be recycled, has a long way to go, according to the Government Accountability Office. Read more »
1 THIS MONTH
profile of all three Fukushima documentaries.
of the week: http://sanonofresafety.org/blog/
A website to watch: http://hormesishistory.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/radiation-hormesis-and-adaptive-response-definitions/ Here’s a brand new website. It’s for anyone who wants background knowledge on ionising radiation. It will bust the spin of the current propaganda campaign promoting bodgie pseudoscience. – “radiation hormesis” and “adaptive response” are the latest spin designed by the nuclear industry to reassure us that low level ionising radiation is OK.
EVENTS
March 2012 is “March Against Nuclear Madness” and Beyond Nuclear has created a new March Against Nuclear Madness Facebook page.
March 8th & 9th – Cape Town, South Africa - The Global Conference: Nuclear Power For Africa? http://koebergalert.org/npfree/
March 11 _ UK – Protest at Hinkley nuclear site
May 31 USA - Portland, Maine, Bonnie Raitt benefit concert for New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution
Nuclear power and water – theme for February 2012
Effects of uranium mining and nuclear power on water.
Overuse of precious fresh water.One of the greatest dangers of the nuclear/uranium industry is in its use of water. Both uranium mining and nuclear reactors require enormous amounts of water. This is a threat to the world’s scarce resources of fresh water.
Pollution. Both uranium mining and nuclear reactors also pollute water. In uranium mining, water is often used to pour over radioactive dust tailings: radioactive water can leach down into groundwater. In the “in situ leach” process, radioactive water is disposed of into the aquifer.
Flooding rain can cause overflow and radioactive pollution of waterways.
Nuclear reactors use water for cooling – the resulting hot water is released into the source, river, or coastal sea, to thermally pollute the area, damaging plants and fish.
Effects of water (too little or too much) on nuclear reactors.
Water scarcity, and hot water.. In heat waves, nuclear reactors often will need to be shut down, as their river sources of cooling water become too warm to function as a coolant.
As global warming brings about a rise in average temperatures and ocean levels, inland reactors will increasingly contribute to, and be affected by, water shortages. During the record-breaking 2003 heat wave in France, operations at 17 commercial nuclear reactors had to be scaled back or stopped because of rapidly rising temperatures in rivers and lake. Spain’s reactor at Santa María de Garoña was shut for a week in July 2006 after high temperatures were recorded in the Ebro River.
Paradoxically, then, the very conditions that made it impossible for the nuclear industry to deliver full power in Europe in 2003 and 2006 created peak demand for electricity, owing to the increased use of air conditioning. http://chellaney.net/2011/03/14/paradox-of-nuclear-power-water-guzzler-yet-vulnerable-to-water/
Seawater can be used to cool reactors, but it has to be purified. Corrosive elements in the seawater would otherwise ruin the reactors – so seawater is a last resort for cooling. As in the case of the Fukushima emergency – seawater was used, as ruining the reactors was preferable to a catastrophic nuclear meltdown.
Too much water. It is a laugh that nuclear power is touted as a solution to global warming More likely, global warming is the death knell for nuclear power.
Very many nuclear reactors are located along coastlines, where they are vulnerable to storms, hurricanes, and tsunamis. With climate change and rising sea levels, these events are becoming more frequent and more extreme.
So far, we have considered water only as it relates to only the normal operations of nuclear reactors. Even then, nuclear reactors have leaks, especially as they age, allowing radioactive substances to disperse into water systems.
Uranium mines are vulnerable to flooding. When this happens, the disaster is an economic one, as well as environmental. Canada’s Cameco company and Energy Resources of Australia have found this out to their cost. Both uranium companies are still in financial plight due to the Cigar Lake (Canada) floods of 2006, and 2008, and the Ranger mine (Australia) floods of 2011.
But Fukushima has shown the world how a natural climate event can disrupt nuclear power. In the event of a nuclear accident the effects of nuclear power on water are hugely damaging, catastrophic.
Some figures and facts on nuclear/uranium and water.
URANIUM MINING Water use in a typical uranium mine is approximately 200 to 300 gallons per minute, In water-short Australia, BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam uranium mine has been for years taking 35 million litres of water each day from the underground aquifer, at no cost whatever. When BHP digs its new biggest hole in the world, it will pay a small fixed price for removing even greater amounts, exceeding 42 million litres.
A typical 1000-megawatt pressurized-water reactor (with a cooling tower) takes in 20,000 gallons of river, lake or ocean water per minute for cooling, circulates it through a 50-mile maze of pipes, returns 5,000 gallons per minute to the same body of water, and releases the remainder to the atmosphere as vapor. A 1000-megawatt reactor without a cooling tower takes in even more water–as much as one-half million gallons per minute. The discharge water is contaminated with radioactive elements in amounts that are not precisely known or knowable, but are biologically active.
Some radioactive fission gases, stripped from the reactor cooling water, are contained in decay tanks for days before being released into the atmosphere through filtered rooftop vents. Some gases leak into the power plant buildings’ interiors and are released during periodic “purges” and “ventings.” These airborne gases contaminate not only the air, but also soil and water.
200 billion gallons of water withdrawn from America’s water supply each day for every terawatt of electricity produced by nuclear reactors,
At least 20 USA nuclear plants have admitted leakage of radioactive tritium into the groundwater.
Spills and leaks are common at In Situ Leach mines. The South Australian Department of Primary Industry and Resources lists 59 spills at Beverley mine from 1998 to 2007.
-
Archives
- February 2012 (234)
- January 2012 (259)
- December 2011 (274)
- November 2011 (331)
- October 2011 (248)
- September 2011 (272)
- August 2011 (249)
- July 2011 (227)
- June 2011 (195)
- May 2011 (286)
- April 2011 (336)
- March 2011 (295)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- people
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety and incidents
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina background info
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- general
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
