nuclear-news

latest news on the uranium/nuclear industry

73,000 square metres of concrete to cover Fukushima seabed radiation

Tepco to cement Fukushima seabed to stem radiation Times Live, Sapa-AFP | 22 February, 2012 The operator of Japan’s tsunami-crippled nuclear plant is to cover a large swathe of seabed near the battered reactors with cement in a bid to halt the spread of radiation, the company said Wednesday.

A clay-cement compound will be laid over 73,000 square metres (785,000 square feet) of the floor of the Pacific in front of the Fukushima Daiichi plant on the nation’s northeast coast, said Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO).

The area is equivalent to around 10 football pitches. ”This is meant to prevent further contamination of the ocean… as sample tests have shown a relatively high concentration of radioactive substances in the sea soil in the bay,” a company spokeswoman said….

Contaminated water from the plant leaked into the sea and radioactive particles concentrated on the seabed. Scientists fear ocean currents could pollute areas further afield.

The cover will be 60 centimetres (24 inches) thick, with 10 centimetres expected to be eaten away by seawater every 50 years, the TEPCO official said. http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2012/02/22/tepco-to-cement-fukushima-seabed-to-stem-radiation

February 23, 2012 Posted by | Japan, oceans, Reference | Leave a Comment

11 USA nuclear reactors may have unsafe cooling systems

Nuclear Regulatory Commission says accident models could be amiss, By Mike M. Ahlers, CNN February 18, 2012 – The models may underestimate how much nuclear fuel would heat up during system failures
The commission is asking 11 U.S. nuclear power plants for more information
There is no immediate threat to public safety
Washington  – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has asked 11 nuclear power plants for information about the computer models they use to test different accident scenarios, saying those models may underestimate how much nuclear fuel will heat up during cooling system
failures….
At issue is a phenomenon known as “thermal conductivity degradation,” or TCD, the NRC said. TCD refers to the fact that nuclear fuel loses its capacity to transfer heat as it ages.
The NRC said it is concerned that some computer models may not account for TCD. If the plants are not considering TCD, the possibility exists that fuel rods could heat up 100 degrees more than anticipated in an accident scenario, exceeding the 2,200-degree limit considered safe,the NRC said. That could damage the fuel rods’ outer layer, leading to
reactor damage, the NRC said……
The plants have until March 19 to provide the information to the NRC
staff. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/17/us/nuclear-accident-models/index.html

February 18, 2012 Posted by | Reference, safety and incidents, USA | Leave a Comment

Ionising radiation puts medical specialists at risk of rare brain cancer

‘Cardiologists exposed to radiation susceptible to tumors’, Jerusalem Post, By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH02/15/2012  Israelis publish evidence of brain cancer as occupational hazard for certain medical specialists.

Interventional cardiologists around the world have expressed concern over the findings of an Israeli colleague’s medical journal report suggesting aggressive brain cancer – especially on the left side of the head – may be an occupationalhazard from their exposure to ionizing radiation. Read more »

February 15, 2012 Posted by | health, Reference, USA | Leave a Comment

Global problem of burying dead nuclear reactors

Abandon nuclear energy programme, Unep boss urges Kenya , Standard, BY PETER ORENGO, 13 Feb 12 “……..According to the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Year Book 2012, one of   United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) ‘s emerging global concerns is the challenge of decommissioning the growing number of end-of-life nuclear power reactors….

The UNEP Year Book says the cost of decommissioning varies greatly, depending on the reactor type and size, its location, the proximity and availability of waste disposal facilities and the condition of both the reactor and the site at the time of decommissioning….. Read more »

February 14, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, decommission reactor, Reference | Leave a Comment

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 »

February 14, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, safety and incidents, technology, Uranium | Leave a Comment

Reference lists for exposing radiation hormesis and quack radiation “science”

Posts in this Blog covering Radiation Hormesis and modern papers contradicting Radiation Hormesis, Paul Langley’s Nuclear History Blog, 6 Feb 2012, 

Posts which contradict the theory of Radiation Hormesis. Read more »

February 7, 2012 Posted by | Reference | Leave a Comment

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 ,  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 »

February 3, 2012 Posted by | - plutonium, Reference, reprocessing, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a Comment

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.

Read more »

February 2, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, technology, USA | Leave a Comment

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 »

February 1, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, Reference, technology | Leave a Comment

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 »

February 1, 2012 Posted by | China, India, Reference, Russia, South Korea, technology | Leave a Comment

America’s ineffective white elephant Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear wastes

The Commission has entirely ignored the immense evidence that DOE’s plans for disposal of several types of defense waste pose much greater threats to water resources, most especially at Hanford

 “I am dismayed that the Commission saw fit to recommend that the Department of Energy (DOE) have a large upfront role in both the next steps for repository program, …  DOE was in large part responsible for the mess the program is in now,

Radioactive Wastes From Nuclear Bomb Program Given Short Shrift In Blue Ribbon Commission Report EnEws Park Forest, TAKOMA PARK, MD–(ENEWSPF)–January 27, 2012. Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, today commented on some of the recommendations of the final report of the Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future.

The commission was created to address U.S. nuclear waste issues after the Obama administration cancelled the Yucca Mountain program….

….On wastes from the nuclear bomb program:
Makhijani: “It is tragic that the Commission did not substantively address the most pressing radioactive waste contamination threats to precious water resources – for instance hundreds of times the drinking water limit at Hanford, Washington on the banks of the Columbia River.
The Commission had a charter to conduct a ‘comprehensive’ review of the nuclear waste problem, including defense wastes from the nuclear bomb program. Yet, it simply said it did not have the resources to deal with all the problems and punted the nuclear weapons waste issue to Congress while focusing on commercial spent fuel at nuclear reactor sites.” Read more »

January 28, 2012 Posted by | Reference, USA, wastes | Leave a Comment

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

January 27, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, oceans, Reference, technology, wastes | Leave a Comment

“The stars are aligning for rooftop solar energy”

Solar guru receives Australia Day honour , 26 January 2012, Anna Salleh ABC Science,  http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/01/26/3415244.htm  Australia needs to look to Germany if it is to realise the potential of solar cell technology, says an expert who is being honoured today. Professor Martin Green of the University of New South Wales has been made a Member of the Order of Australia(AM) for his work on photovoltaics.

“Germany has been the only country that’s had a sensible long-term program in place to promote the use of renewables,” says Green.

Some argue solar cells are not a competitive option for reducing carbon emissions, and are limited by the fact that they don’t generate energy unless the Sun is shining.

But according to Green, the “stars are aligning for conventional roof mounted solar” and it is ripe for a new kick start from governments.  Read more »

January 27, 2012 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, Reference, renewable | Leave a Comment

Global warming shown in meteorological records over past 10 years

Globally, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000 Environmental news Network,  From: Reuters January 20, 2012 The global average temperature last year was the ninth-warmest in the modern meteorological record, continuing a trend linked to greenhouse gases that saw nine of the 10 hottest years occurring since the year 2000, NASA scientists said on Thursday.

 A separate report from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the average temperature for the United States in 2011 as the 23rd warmest year on record.

The global average surface temperature for 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 degrees C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline temperature, researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said in a statement. The institute’s temperature record began in 1880.

The first 11 years of the new century were notably hotter than the middle and late 20th century, according to institute director James Hansen. The only year from the 20th century that was among the top 10 warmest years was 1998.

These high global temperatures come even with the cooling effects of a strong La Nina ocean temperature pattern and low solar activity for the past several years, said Hansen, who has long campaigned against human-spurred climate change.

The NASA statement said the current higher temperatures are largely sustained by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is emitted by various human activities, from coal-fired power plants to fossil-fueled vehicles to human breath.

Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exceed 390 parts per million, compared with 285 ppm in 1880 and 315 by 1960, NASA said. http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/43880

January 21, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, Reference | Leave a Comment

Public ignorance on what really IS ionising radiation

Fukushima Update: Why We Should (Still) Be Worried Business Insider, Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy | Jan. 20, 2012, ”……..What Radiation Is A great help to nuclear proponents is the fact that nuclear physics is complicated, and most people don’t understand even its most basic concepts. The blanket term “radiation” is used to describe all manner of radioactive contamination—as if it’s just one thing—when, in fact, there are different kinds, some much more damaging than others. It also matters exactly what is being exposed to radiation—i.e., exposure outside the body or inside it—and how long the exposure goes on.

In a nutshell, radioactive elements, also known as radioisotopes or radionuclides, are unstable atoms. They seek stability by giving off particles and energy—ionizing radiation—until the radioisotope becomes stable. This process occurs within the nucleus of the radioisotope, and the shedding of these particles and energy is commonly referred to as ‘‘nuclear disintegration.’’ Nuclear radiation expert Rosalie Bertell describes the release of energy in each disintegration as ‘‘an explosion on the microscopic level.”

This process is known as the “decay chain,” and during their decay, most radioactive elements morph into yet other radioactive elements on their journey to becoming lighter, stable atoms at the end of the chain. Some of the morphed-into elements are much more dangerous than the original radioisotope, and the decay chain can take a very long time. This is the reason that radioactive contamination can last so long.

To further complicate the issue, different radioisotopes give off different kinds of radiation—alpha, beta, gamma, X ray, or neutron emissions—all of which behave differently. Alpha emitters, such as plutonium and radon, are intensely ionizing but don’t penetrate very far and generally can’t get through the dead layers of cells covering skin. But when they are inhaled from the air or ingested from radiation-contaminated food or water, they emit high-energy particles that can do serious damage to the cells of sensitive internal soft tissues and organs. The lighter, faster-moving beta particles can penetrate far more deeply than alpha particles, though sheets of metal and heavy clothing can block them. Beta particles are also very dangerous when inhaled or ingested. Strontium-90 and tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, are both beta emitters. Gamma radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy like X rays, and it passes through clothing and skin straight into the body. A one-inch shield of either lead or iron, or eight inches of concrete are needed to stop gamma rays, examples of which include cobalt-60 and cesium-137—one of the radionuclides of most concern in the Fukushima fallout. Aside from use in medical diagnostics, X rays are also produced in nuclear fission, and their effects are similar to gamma radiation. Neutron emissions are the most penetrating of all types of radiation and require a shield of several feet of water or concrete to contain them.

The behavior of radioisotopes out in the environment also varies depending on what they encounter. They can combine with one another or with stable chemicals to form molecules that may or may not dissolve in water. They can combine with solids, liquids, or gases at ordinary temperature and pressure. They may be able to enter into biochemical reactions, or they may be biologically inert.

In her book No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, Bertell notes that if they enter the body either through air, food, water, or an open wound, “They may remain near the place of entry into the body or travel in the bloodstream or lymph fluid. They can be incorporated into the tissue or bone. They may remain in the body for minutes or hours or a lifetime.” To illustrate how different radioisotopes behave, she points out that: “Plutonium is biologically and chemically attracted to bone as is the naturally occurring radioactive chemical radium. However, plutonium clumps on the surface of bone, delivering a concentrated dose of alpha radiation to surrounding cells, whereas radium diffuses homogeneously in bone and thus has a lesser localized cell damage effect. This makes plutonium, because of the concentration, much more biologically toxic than a comparable amount of radium.”

Specific health effects from internal radiation exposure correlate with where radioisotopes land in the body. Bertell explains: “For example, radionuclides lodged in the bones can damage bone marrow and cause bone cancers or leukemia, while radionuclides lodged in the lungs can cause respiratory diseases. Generalized whole body exposure to radiation can be expressed as a stress related to a person’s hereditary medical weakness. Individual breakdown usually occurs at our weakest point.” In other words, the impact of radiation exposure also depends very much on each individual’s level of health and genetic make-up…..

http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-update-why-we-should-still-be-worried-2012-1

January 21, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, health, Reference | Leave a Comment

« Previous Entries    

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers