Biased pro-nuclear report is challenged

Full of problems or ripe with promise?

Meridian Booster By Graham Mason 14 May 09

With the Uranium Development Partnership report being presented to the public next month there is a question over how much the environment was taken into consideration in its glowing conclusions.

The report, titled Capturing the Full Potential of the Uranium Value Chain in Saskatchewan, was released March 31.

The nuclear and uranium industry were well represented on the 12-person panel with Duncan Hawthorne, president and CEO of Bruce Power, Armand Laferrere, president and CEO of Areva Canada, and Jerry Grandey, president and CEO of Cameco Corporation. ……………

……………Dr. Patrick Moore founding member of Greenpeace, was the only member to identify himself as an environmentalist.

In a statement before a U.S. congressional committee in Apr. 2005, he described his views on nuclear power generation where he described himself as an ‘environmental moderate.’

………………………………The Saskatchewan Environmental Society couldn’t disagree more in a recent nuclear pamphlet.

“The real solutions to climate change lie in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energy,” said the report. “If we were to provide the same level of support for these options as we have done for the nuclear industry, we could move much faster into the sustainable, low-carbon energy economy which is where the future lies.

The report argues nuclear is not an alternative to fossil-fuelled plants, rather they are both part of an environmentally unsustainable approach to the electricity system.

Coxworth questions whether Moore qualifies to be the environmental conscience of the report.

“Patrick Moore … is a paid consultant to the nuclear industry,” said Coxworth. “Labelling him by his past Greenpeace involvement would be somewhat analogous to identifying me solely by the fact that long ago I worked for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.”

“Doubtless some of the other partnership members have taken some environmental classes as part of their technical education.”

Local public consultations are at Lakeland College on June 10, the Don Ross Centre in North Battleford on June 11 http://www.meridianbooster.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1566432

May 14, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, spinbuster | antinuclear, nuclear, radioactive, renewables, uranium | Leave a comment

Relicensing Oyster Creek nuclear plant was a mistake

Relicensing Oyster Creek nuclear plant was a mistake
TriTown News 14 May 09 Paula Gotsch Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety

It has been a crisis month for Exelon since federal regulators jumped the gun and relicensed the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey until 2029.

Failure of a main transformer led to the shutdown of the reactor. That followed the recent discovery of high levels of radioactive tritium contamination at the site.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff have tracked the tritium leak to two burst pipes, a concrete vault and a monitoring well. Concentrations of radioactive tritium are 300 times the allowable levels in four test wells at the site.

This raises alarm about the plant’s aging management program, which was the basis of the relicensing that is supposed to prevent this sort of dangerous mishap.

Despite assurances from Oyster Creek spokespeople that tritium has not traveled off company grounds, it has entered the water table. Water flows, and at Oyster Creek it will eventually empty into Barnegat Bay, where the state announced this week a huge reseeding program of the oyster beds…………………

…………………Tritium leaks at Oyster Creek are a serious issue for the public. Contrary to reassuring words, tritium, though low energy, is highly radioactive and has a half-life of over 12 years. Low-energy beta particles, like those emitted by tritium, can cause considerable harm.

Tritiated water is handled by the body like regular water, becoming part of the cells. It easily crosses the placental barrier, with risk of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, congenital malformation and childhood diseases.

Exelon’s record for handling tritium leaks in the past at its other nuclear power stations is horrible. At the Braidwood plant in Illinois, tritium leaked from the site for nine years and state officials were not notified until a citizen noticed and tested a pool of water in his backyard. The test came back positive for tritium, and the state of Illinois subsequently sued Exelon.

………………………..Each day Oyster Creek operates, the public is exposed to continuous doses of low-level radiation. Of all nuclear plants nationwide, Oyster Creek’s airborne emissions for strontium 90 are highest, and they are the second highest for airborne strontium 89. The plant also emits the second highest airborne levels of barium 140. All are radioactive.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says these discharges are just a normal part of routine nuclear operation, and are below acceptable levels for public health. This claim is dead wrong.

The Bier VII report issued by the NationalAcademy of Sciences stated there are no safe levels of exposure to continuous levels of low-level radiation. Also, the socalled allowable standards are set for the most robust: a healthy 35-year-old male.

The “allowable” doses do not protect the most vulnerable: women, children, infants and the developing fetus……………………… http://tritown.gmnews.com/news/2009/0514/letters/009.html

May 14, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, radioactive, uranium | Leave a comment

Village’s fury over radioactive waste plan

Whitehaven News By Andrew Clarke

13 May 2009

CONTROVERSIAL proposals to bury radioactive waste in Keekle have met with opposition from councillors. French-owned company Sita UK plans to drill 24 exploratory boreholes at Keekle Head to see if the area is suitable for disposing of very low-level radioactive waste.

However, councillors from Frizington, which neighbours the potential site, have voiced their concerns.

“We have had enough rubbish dumped on us,” said parish council chairman Peter Connolly.

“We unanimously agree that we don’t want the proliferation of any waste, in particular low-level nuclear waste.”

Coun Tim Knowles gave Cumbria County Council’s view to the parish council meeting, held on Monday.

“The council is strongly against the dispersal of nuclear waste that I believe these boreholes relate to

http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/village_s_fury_over_radioactive_waste_plan_1_554061?referrerPath=home

May 14, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, wastes | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear wastes, radioactive, uranium | Leave a comment

Harvesting the Wind

Three young French designers hatch an ingenious plan to use existing infrastructure to create clean energy.

METROPOLISMAG.com By Suzanne LaBarre

Posted May 13, 2009 “……………………..Delon, who is 31 and an architect, is the recipient of Metropolis’s 2009 Next Generation prize, along with Julien Choppin, also a 31-year-old architect, and Raphaël Ménard, a 34-year-old engineer. Their project, Wind-it, addresses this year’s theme—which beseeched entrants to “Fix Our Energy Addiction”—with the effortless simplicity of a Pythagorean proof. The team proposes inserting wind turbines into existing electrical towers or, where infrastructure is broken or spare, building new towers that double as wind-power generators, thus introducing a fount of renewable energy into an aspect of civilization that’s as certain as taxes. With three potential sizes, the turbine towers could be integrated nearly anywhere: Lille, France, China’s Sichuan Province, or the streets of New York City. http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20090513/harvesting-the-wind

May 14, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, France | renewables | Leave a comment

Oil Giants Say No to Renewable Energy

Oil Giants Say No to Renewable Energy
AllGov May 12, 2009

……………………………….According to Michael Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, an industry trade group, the top five oil companies have spent around $5 billion over the last 15 years to develop sources of renewable energy—a mere 10% of the roughly $50 billion funneled into the clean-energy sector by venture capital funds and corporate investors during this period. “Big Oil does not consider renewable energy to be a mainstream business,” Eckhart told the New York Times. “It’s a side business for them.”

It’s become even less than that for some companies. Royal Dutch Shell has decided to freeze its research and investments in wind, solar and hydrogen power, and focus its alternative energy efforts on biofuels. It also has sold off much of its solar business and pulled out of a project last year to build the largest offshore wind farm, near London.

BP, a company that has spent nine years saying it was moving “beyond petroleum,” has been getting back to petroleum since 2007, paring back its renewable program.

“In my view, nothing has really changed,” Rex W. Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, said after the election of President Obama. “We don’t oppose alternative energy sources and the development of those. But to hang the future of the country’s energy on those alternatives alone belies reality of their size and scale.”

http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Oil_Giants_Say_No_to_Renewable_Energy_90512

May 14, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, ENERGY | renewables | Leave a comment