nuclear-news

KYRGYZSTAN: Nuclear waste dumps threaten environment
IRIN News 10 September 2008 “………………………Kyrgyzstan was one of the former Soviet Union’s most important sources of uranium and rare-earth metals. The enterprises that extracted those materials – which began in the 1940s – left behind enormous amounts of industrial waste, including radioactive materials, according to UNDP.

From 1946 to 1968, more than 10,000MT of uranium ore was extracted from the Mailuu-Suu uranium mine and processed in the area, according to the Kyrgyz Emergencies Ministry. The ministry said some 2 million cubic metres of radioactive waste was being stored in 23 dumps and 13 tailings in the region.
Some 6,500 hectares of land in Kyrgyzstan have been exposed to radioactive contamination. It now hosts 92 hazardous waste dumps holding 254 million cubic metres (475 million tonnes) of waste containing radionuclides and other toxic substances.

This volume of waste includes dormant mines, untreated tailing dumps and untreated rock debris………………………………Specialists say the potential for environmental pollution from radioactive waste in Kyrgyzstan is high and they have highlighted several factors that increase this risk – earthquakes; soil erosion, through floods, mudslides, and landslides; long-term lack of controls and reconstruction/maintenance engineering at the tailing sites; and the location of most of the radioactive waste close to transboundary river basins, which creates a risk that contamination could spread across the Central Asian region.

Nuclear is the real threat to the fuel-poor, not wind energy
The Guardian September 10 2008 Recent allegations that a dash for wind would cause a big increase in fuel poverty crumble when you do the numbers, says Oliver Tickell. Nuclear is the real worry “…………………………………The Investigation’s figure that wind power will add £400 to the average’s family’s annual electricity bill is plain wrong. In fact, with the savings on coal, we can probably achieve 35% wind penetration in our electricity supply by 2020 for under £50 per household per year, and in the high fuel cost scenario, it would add nothing at all. It will also yield security benefits by making the UK less dependent on politically sensitive Russian gas imports. And that’s before even starting on the environmental cost of carbon dioxide emissions………………………….Perhaps his real problem with bringing 35% wind into our electricity supply is that it leaves little space for new nuclear power – that much wind would more than close the anticipated energy gap caused by the impending closure of our 23 nuclear stations over coming decades: their total contribution is just 80bn units a year, compared to the 133bn units we would be getting from wind.

But for anyone worried about cost to both electricity consumers and taxpayers, nuclear power is the truly scary option. The cost of decommissioning our existing nuclear power stations has already escalated to £83bn and seems certain to keep on climbing towards £100bn – roughly the cost of our whole wind power programme. If King’s concern really is for the Britain’s fuel-poor households, he must abandon his nuclear dream, and look instead to a clean, green future for the UK’s electricity.

Environmentalists protest against Belene nuclear power plant Sofia Echo, Bulgaria  09 Sep 2008 – Elitsa Grancharova On September 9 Bulgarian and international environmental organisations, including the local coalition BeleNE (No to Belene nuclear power plant) and Greenpeace, sent a letter to the European Union (EU) Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes asking him to investigate the tender procedures for subcontractors in the construction of Bulgaria’s Belene nuclear power plant……………….They also criticised “the propaganda war that the Bulgarian government is waging to hide the problems around the project”. Ten activists presented Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev with a toy dragline, pointing out that playing around with nukes wastes time for serious energy policy.