nuclear-news

McCain’s Nuclear Energy Plan May Cost $315 Billion
According to a Bloomberg analysis, John McCain’s plan to revive the U.S. nuclear power industry with 45 new reactors may cost $315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk………………………………

The Energy Information Administration estimated last year that adding nuclear power capacity would cost $2,143 a kilowatt (kW) before financing and inflation. That compared with $1,434 to $2,302 for clean-coal technologies.

Over the past year, the expense has more than doubled to $5,000 a kilowatt, or $7 billion for a typical reactor, utility filings and company statements show. The increase in part reflects rising prices for commodities such as steel and cement………………………

Taxpayers are on the hook for most of the nuclear bill if borrowers default. A 2003 Congressional Budget Office report said that the default rate on nuclear construction debts might be as high as 50%, in part because of the project’s high cost. In short, such defaults could potentially cost taxpayers $100 billion.

Senator McCain’s primary solutions to the United States’ energy problems are increased nuclear production and offshore drilling. He has expressed little confidence or interest in pursuing renewable energy,

Election candidates talk about the issues
 By DAVE FLAHERTY, LINDSAY POST REPORTER 12 Sept 08

“……………………….NDP candidate Stephen Yardy said the environment has been one of the most discussed topics in his travels across the riding.

“There are water pollution problems in this riding,” he said, adding that he will fight against controversial uranium mining in Haliburton County.

Bush Sends US-India Nuclear Deal to CongressBy VOA News11 September 2008 U.S. President George Bush has sent the text of a proposed U.S.-India nuclear agreement to Congress for approval.

The White House issued a statement Thursday saying the agreement is a priority for Mr. Bush…………………………..India also announced Thursday that it is negotiating agreements to buy nuclear technology and facilities from other countries such as France and Russia. But India’s foreign ministry said the deals will be signed only after the U.S. and India agreement is approved by the U.S. Congress.

The Bush administration is trying to push the U.S.-India nuclear deal through Congress before lawmakers adjourn in late September, ahead of the November presidential elections……………………………………

Austria, New Zealand and Ireland were the last three countries withholding approval. They had reservations about granting a waiver to India because it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Two Very Different Energy Visions
Washington Post GENE KARPINSKI 12 Sept 08 “………………………….Mr. McCain used this issue as an example of how he was supposedly different from President Bush and from the other candidates for the GOP presidential nomination…………………..Mr. McCain’s voting record proves that he is no advocate for a clean-energy future. He voted against fuel efficiency increases in 2003 and 2005. He missed the vote in 2007.

He voted against a renewable electricity standard in 2005 and missed a key vote on renewable energy last year. He also opposed cutting $13 billion in subsidies to Big Oil and putting the money into clean energy. In each of these instances, Mr. Obama supported clean alternative energy……………………………..Mr. McCain has no plan to increase fuel efficiency. Mr. Obama would double it. Mr. McCain has no plan to promote renewable energy. Mr. Obama would require that 25 percent of our electricity come from wind, solar and other clean sources.

Australia stands by position to not sell uranium to India
ABC News September 12, 2008 Australia’s foreign minister, Stephen Smith, has reiterated his country’s policy of not selling uranium to India despite being given clearance for nuclear trade by the Nuclear Supplier’s Group last week.

Speaking at the Indian Council for World affairs, Mr Smith said it was Australia’s policy not to export uranium to a country which has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“This is not a policy which is aimed at India,” he said.

“This is a policy where long-standing, domestic, party political approach has been that we don’t export uranium to a country that’s not a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

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.