next update

This page will next be updated on Thurs 26 March

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Radiation emergency at nuclear reactor near Pretoria

Digital Journal By Adriana Stuijt. 17 March 09 A leak of radiation gases occurred at the Pelindaba nuclear reactors near Pretoria at 10am on Monday, the SA Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) said. “Abnormal levels of gamma radiation associated with xenon and krypton gases were detected.”

These high levels of radiation were detected near the building in which radioisotopes are produced for medical applications,” Necsa said, according to their statement on the South African Press Association website.They didn’t say how these xenon and krypton gases could have escaped. However they did decide to declare an on-site emergency, causing the evacuation of the entire nuclear site by staffers until the radiation levels ‘returned to normal’ readings. The residents of the city of Pretoria were not informed about the radiation leaks until this press statement was issued – after the emergency was all over.

Deep concern
This caused deep worry with Mike Kantey, national chairman for The Coalition Against Nuclear Energy in South Africa, who has expressed ‘deep concern” about Monday’s emergency. Pelindaba ‘s security measures have recently also been breached by armed attack gangs.

………………………….. No civil society for independent verification:
He added that iodine was responsible for illnesses that followed the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine in 1986. Kantey said it was also a matter of concern that the NNR did not have a civil society representative on its board.

“This is an occasion when we need such a person,” he said, adding that the post had been vacant since June 2008. The NNR could not be reached for comment.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/269315

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, South Africa | Leave a comment

Low-level waste emerges as hurdle for new nuclear reactors

The New York Times By KATHERINE LING, Greenwire

Published: March 16, 2009

While President Obama’s plan to find alternatives to storing high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev., is grabbing headlines, another problem has begun threatening license applications for new reactors.

What can be done with low-level nuclear waste?

There are dwindling places to put low-level nuclear waste — contaminated resins, filters, wood, paper, plastics, pipes, structural steel and pressure vessels that can be hazardous for up to 500 years. And nuclear-power opponent groups are filing and winning legal fights to force utilities to present disposal plans for low-level waste before they can build a new reactor.

“I’m going to argue low-level waste is a bigger issue than high-level waste right now,” Edward Sproat, then-director of the Energy Department’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, warned at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event last fall.

……………… the low-level waste problem is already affecting reactor applications.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy this month won a legal contention from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board against Southern Nuclear Operating’s Vogtle reactor license application for Georgia. The same contention has already been granted in reviews of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bellefonte application in Alabama; Unistar’s Calvert Cliffs, Md., application; and Dominion Power’s North Anna application in Virginia.

Advocacy groups plan to similarly contest Progress Energy’s Levy County, Fla., application and have already filed against Detroit Edison’s Fermi application.

Sara Barczak, program director for the Southern Alliance, said the focus on low-level waste represents a significant shift for regulators and utilities. “I think most people, when they see ‘low level,’ they say, ‘Oh, low level of radioactivity,’ but the definition of low level is so broad,” she said.

U.S. low-level waste comes from a wide range of places, including hospitals and laboratories, but the greatest — and most toxic — volume is produced by the Energy Department and the 104 commercial nuclear reactors.

Toxic for up to 100 years, Class A waste has just three storage options — sites at Clive, Utah; Richland, Wash.; and Barnwell, S.C. Only Richland and Barnwell accept Class B waste, which is toxic for up to 300 years, and Class C, toxic up to 500 years.

But there is another complication: Barnwell closed its gates to all states but Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina last summer. And Richland only accepts waste from 11 states in the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts.

That means 36 states with reactors, hospitals and other industry with radioactive materials have no place to send much of their waste.

……………………………..”The nuclear industry has really been hiding their head in the sand about the waste for all issues,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which opposes nuclear power…………………….

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/03/16/16greenwire-lowlevel-waste-emerges-as-hurdle-for-new-react-10146.html

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Gore – on nuclear power

Gore on Lovelock, nuclear power and climate change sceptics

Environment Blog 17 March 09

“………………….Gore on nuclear power
I’m not a reflexive opponent of nuclear. I used to be enthusiastic about it, but I’m now sceptical about it. There’s a few reasons. Let’s assume for the moment that we will solve the problem of long-term storage of radioactive waste. Let’s assume also that we’ll figure out how to standardise their design as [each plant] is currently unique and that enhances the risk of operator accidents. Let’s assume we can solve the terrorism threat to nuclear reactors. That still leaves a couple of very difficult problems.

First and foremost, economics. The nuclear industry cannot give any reliable cost estimate for how much it will take to build a nuclear plant. When a utility is confronted with the absence of any advances for how much the construction cost is going to be, then that’s a problem.

…………………………….. If you’re looking at the trends towards more conservation and the rapid introduction of renewables, it’s hard for you to project what your demand is going to be with as much precision as when the world was more predictable. As a result, you are less inclined to take all of your money and place one big bet on something that matures 12-15 years from now at an uncertain cost. That what’s called a “lumpy investment” and they want smaller increments that give them smaller flexibility. In the US, there hasn’t been a new order for a new reactor in 36 years…………………………………

For the eight years that I spent in the White House every nuclear weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a reactor programme. People have said for years that there are now completely different [nuclear] technologies. OK, but if you have a team of scientists that can build a reactor, and you’re a dictator, you can make them work at night to build a nuclear weapon. That’s what’s happened in North Korea and Iran. And in Libya before they gave it up. So the idea of, say, Chad, Burma, and Sudan having lots of nuclear reactors is insane and it’s not going to happen…………………………”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/16/climate-change-al-gore

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, politics | Leave a comment

nuclear-free energy solutions

Greenpeace executive eyes nuclear-free energy solutions

The Kingston Whig Standard JENNIFER PRITCHETT 17 March 09

Ontario’s plan to spend billions in taxpayer dollars on nuclear power is standing in the way of the province realizing its goal of becoming a true leader in green energy, says the executive director of Greenpeace.

“You can’t say you’re going to be a green leader and be committed to 50% nuclear power,” Bruce Cox said. “It’s Orwellian.”

Cox, who’ll be speaking in Kingston tonight, argued for nuclear-free solutions to climate change.

He said nuclear power is “dirty, dangerous, expensive and unnecessary.” …………….. Greenpeace is urging the Ontario government to phase out its Pickering B reactors when they reach the end of their natural life and then abandon plans to install new ones.

Instead of nuclear power, the organization is urging the government to invest in conservation, efficiency and cogeneration — methods to recapture by-products such as steam to use as heat — as well as renewable forms of energy such as wind, solar and biomass.

……………….. Cox also warned people about what he terms as “constant ongoing low-level radiation leaks coming out of the generation process.

“We’ve had two this year dumping into the Ottawa River,” he said. “This is not unusual. It’s ongoing … then after 20-25 years of generation, we’re left with literally tons of radioactive, poisonous waste that takes generations to get rid of. So it’s not green.”

He also challenges the position that nuclear power is affordable.

“Actually, it’s not affordable,” he said. “There’s never been a reactor built on time or on budget. The average cost overrun of a reactor in Ontario is four or five times the original estimate. ”

Finally, Cox disagrees with claims that nuclear power is reliable.

“[Reactors] run at about 62% of their life expectancy,” he maintained. “When a nuclear generator goes down, the province suffers.”

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1479804

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Ontario company’s green ads promote nuclear power in Alberta

Environmental groups think ‘that it’s extremely misleading’

CBC News.ca March 16, 2009

Ontario-based Bruce Power has erected billboards in four Alberta communities positioning itself as a provider of green energy, as it prepares to launch its latest proposal for a nuclear power plant in the northern part of Alberta.

“Exploring opportunities for growth in Alberta,” the billboards read. “Next generation nuclear. Hydrogen. Wind. Solar.”

The billboards are up in Edmonton, Calgary and Grande Prairie, and one will soon be in Peace River, the closest town to the proposed location.

……………………. Environmental groups believe the company is adding more favourable energy sources like solar, wind and hydrogen to make the nuclear proposal more accceptable.

“We think that it’s extremely misleading,” said Brenda Brochu, president of the Peace River Environmental Society. “They’re trying to portray themselves as green when, in fact, they really aren’t and we’ll be stuck with radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years.”

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/03/16/edm-bruce-power-billobards.html

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, spinbuster | Leave a comment

French state faces quandary with Areva

International Herald Tribune

By Marie Maitre Reuters

March 16, 2009

The French state faces a multibillion euro funding shortfall at the nuclear power company, Areva, and needs to take bold steps to keep it at the forefront of a global revival in nuclear power.

The government could raise hundreds of millions of euros by selling Areva’s financial investments or bringing in new investors, people with direct knowledge of the matter say.

But analysts said that such moves would not suffice to finance Areva’s medium-term ambitions.

………………… Areva needs €2.7 billion for capital expenditure in 2009 and another €7 billion for investments between 2010-2012. The money is for modernizing or building new production facilities, financing research and development for new nuclear reactors, and expanding its mining activities.

Areva also needs cash to finance the process of licensing its new-generation nuclear reactors in countries like Britain and the United States. Areva also needs at least €2 billion to buy back Siemens’s 34 percent stake in a reactor joint venture, under a previous agreement.

………………. observers said it might be a tough act to balance, adding that it was impossible to know whether the government would, in the end, opt for bold measures or the bare minimum……………….

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/16/business/deal.php

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

Green lobby and nuclear groups clash over role of renewable energy

Guardian.co.uk by Terry Macalister 16 March 2009

Greenpeace dismisses EDF for protecting its ‘vested nuclear interests’ by undermining the future of renewable fuels

EDF and E.ON have warned the government they may be forced to drop plans to build a new generation of nuclear power plants unless the government scales back its targets for wind power.

The demands – contained in submissions to the government’s renewable energy consultation – reinforces the worries of wind developers that the two sectors cannot thrive simultaneously.

…………………….. “We’ve always said that nuclear power will undermine renewable energy and will damage the UK’s efforts to tackle climate change – now EDF agrees,” said Nathan Argent, head of Greenpeace’s energy solutions unit.

“The National Grid shows that there is capacity to take well over 30% percent of our electricity from renewables. EDF are trying to block efforts to deliver on the most important technology to the UK to tackle climate change and keeps the light on in order to protect their own vested nuclear interests.”

Friends of the Earth agreed. “The UK is the windiest country in Europe with the best wave and tidal resources,” said Andy Atkins, the group’s executive director. “We should be maximising renewables and harnessing as much of that clean, safe energy as we possibly can – not propping up the French nuclear industry.

“Nuclear power is no green alternative – it leaves a legacy of deadly radioactive waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. And nuclear power plants simply cannot be built in time to deliver the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that science says are needed.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/16/nuclear-power-renewables-edf

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

New Generation of Nuclear Power Stations ‘risk Terrorist Anarchy’

Buzzle.com 17 March 09 The new generation of atomic power stations planned for Britain, China and other parts of the world risks proliferation that could lead to ‘nuclear anarchy’, says a public policy report

The new generation of atomic power stations planned for Britain, China and many other parts of the world risks proliferation that could lead to “nuclear anarchy”, a security expert warned in a report published today.

Governments and multilateral organizations must come up with a strategy to deal the impact of the new nuclear age, which will produce enough plutonium to make 1m nuclear weapons by 2075, argues Frank Barnaby from the Oxford Research Group thinktank in a paper for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).

“We are at a crossroads. Unless governments work together to safeguard nuclear energy supplies, the rise in unsecured nuclear technology will put us all in danger. Without this, we are hurtling towards a state of nuclear anarchy where terrorists or rogue states have the ways and means of making nuclear weapons or ‘dirty bombs’, the consequences of which are unimaginable,” says Barnaby.

Any country choosing to operate new-generation nuclear reactors in future would have relatively easy access to plutonium, which is used to make the most efficient atomic weapons, along with the nuclear physicists and engineers to design them. These countries would be latent nuclear-weapon powers “and it is to be expected that some will take the political decision to become actual nuclear weapons powers,” argues Barnaby in his paper submitted to the IPPR’s independent Commission on National Security chaired by former Nato boss, Lord George Robertson.

The issue of nuclear proliferation security has been largely ignored until today as the nuclear power debate has concentrated on the economics, social issues and how to deal with radioactive waste.

…………………… Companies such as E.ON of Germany who want to build new nuclear plants in Britain declined to comment on the issue.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/256709.html

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, safety | Leave a comment

Nonproliferation panel urges U.S. to adopt no first use of nuke arms

Nonproliferation panel urges U.S. to adopt no first use of nuke arms

(Source: iStockAnalyst )

Sunday, March 15, 2009

TOKYO, Mar. 15, 2009 (Kyodo News International) — A panel promoting nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation will urge the United States to take a leadership role in nuclear disarmament by developing a nuclear policy of ”no first use,” according to a draft of policy recommendations made available on Sunday.

The International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament will also urge the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and restore the U.S.-Russia strategic nuclear arms control process as part of its five-point proposals, according to the draft.

The commission seeks to achieve total abolition of nuclear weapons in three stages, with the five-point recommendations for Washington serving as its initial step, said Nobuyasu Abe, former U.N. undersecretary general for disarmament affairs, who is a member of the panel’s advisory board.

The commission, a joint initiative established by the Australian and Japanese governments, will complete the report by the end of this year as the panel seeks to promote nuclear disarmament ahead of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in spring 2010.

U.S. President Barack Obama has set a world without nuclear weapons as one of his policy goals.

No first use is a pledge not to use nuclear arms by a nuclear power unless the country or its allies are first attacked by an enemy with a nuclear weapon.

…………………… Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and then Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda agreed to establish the commission in July last year, and its members have met last October and February this year since its launch.

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/311847

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, politics | Leave a comment