nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

“New” Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story

“New” Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story Peak Energy 16 June 09 AMory Lovins has a look at various new forms of nuclear power being touted as the next big thing – “…………

…………on closer examination, the two kinds most often promoted—Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) and thorium reactors4—reveal no economic, environmental, or security rationale,…………………………
Integrated Fast Reactors (IFRs) – ……………Fast reactors were first offered as a way to make more plutonium to augment and ultimately replace scarce uranium. Now that uranium and enrichment are known to get cheaper while reprocessing, cleanup, and nonproliferation get costlier—destroying the economic rationale—IFRs have been rebranded as a way to destroy the plutonium (and similar transuranic elements) in long-lived radioactive waste. Two or three redesigned IFRs could in principle fission the plutonium produced by each four LWRs without making more net plutonium. However, most LWRs will have retired before even one commercial-size IFR could be built; LWRs won’t be replaced with more LWRs because they’re grossly uncompetitive; and IFRs with their fuel cycle would cost even more and probably be less reliable………………………..
Thorium reactors………………..thorium can’t fuel a reactor by itself: rather, a uranium- or plutoniumfueled reactor can convert thorium-232 into fissionable (and plutonium-like, highly bomb-usable) uranium-233. Thorium’s proliferation,9 waste, safety, and cost problems differ only in detail from uranium’s…………
any new type of reactor would probably cost even more than today’s models: even if the nuclear part of a new plant were free, the rest—two-thirds of its capital cost—would still be grossly uncompetitive with any efficiency and most renewables, sending out a kilowatt-hour for ~9–13¢/kWh instead of new LWRs’ ~12–18+¢. In contrast, the average U.S. windfarm completed in 2007 sold its power (net of a 1¢/ kWh subsidy that’s a small fraction of nuclear subsidies) for 4.5¢/kWh. Add ~0.4¢ to make it dispatchable whether the wind is blowing or not and you get under a nickel delivered to the grid.

Most other renewables also beat new thermal power plants too, cogeneration is often comparable or cheaper, and efficiency is cheaper than just running any nuclear- or fossil-fueled plant. Obviously these options would also easily beat proposed fusion reactors that are sometimes claimed to be comparable to today’s fission reactors in size and cost……………………….
Small reactors……………………….the whole nuclear business will complete its slow death of an incurable attack of market forces. Meanwhile, the rest of us shouldn’t be distracted from getting on with the winning investments that make sense, make money, and really do solve the energy, climate, and proliferation problems, led by business for profit.

Peak Energy: “New” Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story

June 16, 2009 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | , , , , | 1 Comment

Going Nuclear: Is France Really the Example to Follow?

* June 15, 2009, 2:20 PM ETGoing Nuclear: Is France Really the Example to Follow? The Wall Street Journal, by Keith johnson  “…………………..

One of the biggest potential hurdles to the Republican Party’s newfound love of nuclear power is that in France, the government is nearly inseparable from its energy industry. The biggest power company, Electricite de France, is state-owned. Nuclear-engineering groups like Areva are extensions of government industrial policy.

That cozy relationship clears away many of the obstacles facing nuclear power—especially financing—

Going Nuclear: Is France Really the Example to Follow? – Environmental Capital – WSJ

June 16, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, France | , , , | Leave a comment

International Agreement on Climate Treaty Seems Unlikely in 2009

International Agreement on Climate Treaty Seems Unlikely in 2009 REUTERS Jun 14, 2009

By Mridul Chadha

It seems unlikely that an agreement on the terms of the next climate treaty could be reached at the December-scheduled Copenhagen talks………………..Many lawmakers are pushing for nuclear power to be included in the climate bill ……………However, they are at conflict of ideas with the environmentalists who argue that the nuclear waste that would be generated from these nuclear plants will pose serious management issues given the fact that President Obama wants to close the Yucca Mountain storage facility. Furthermore, the increase in number of nuclear power plants would also poses national security issues.

International Agreement on Climate Treaty Seems Unlikely in 2009 | Green Business | Reuters

June 16, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Russia postpones Iran nuclear plant operation again – paper

Russia postpones Iran nuclear plant operation again Power Engineering June 15, 2009)Jun 14, 2009 (BBC Monitoring via COMTEX) — On the threshold of commissioning of the Bushehr nuclear power station, Russia has prevented the power plant to begin operation with new excuses. In an announcement on the issue, the Russian company Atomstroyexport said that there were financial impediments in the way of constructing the first unit of the Bushehr nuclear power station. On this basis, Russian experts have quoted Atomstroyexport Company saying that the timing of the commissioning of the Bushehr nuclear power station will be confidential.

Power Engineering International – Russia postpones Iran nuclear plant operation again – paper

June 16, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Swans Commentary: Dreams Of Social Responsibility: Rio Tinto, Capitalism, and Indigenous Rights, by Michael Barker – barker22

Dreams Of Social Responsibility

Rio Tinto, Capitalism, and Indigenous Rights

 

Swans Commentary by Michael Barker 15 June 09

Despite the existence of such environmental connections, which may be better described as greenwash, Rio Tinto remains strongly committed to a nuclear powered (and weaponized) future, and it maintains two of the largest uranium mines in the world (one in Australia that is run by Energy Resources of Australia and the other in Namibia). (2) Chris Salisbury, the chief operating officer with the Bauxite and Alumina division of Rio Tinto Alcan, is the former chair of the pro-nuclear lobby group, the Australian Uranium Association (and a board member of Energy Resources of Australia). This connection to the nuclear lobby group is particularly relevant to this article as in February 2009 the Australian Uranium Association established an Indigenous Dialogue Group, which included Professor Marcia Langton as one of their founding members. Langton was a fitting choice as an indigenous representative chosen to sit alongside mining CEOs, as Langton chairs the pro-corporate Cape York Institute, a “public policy organization that champions reform in Indigenous economic and social policies,” that is headed by the neoliberal indigenous rights activist, Noel Pearson.
Contrary to its demonstrated willingness to abuse human rights in developing countries, Rio Tinto has adopted an alternative strategy in Australia (since 1996) and it has actively sought to establish working — rather than exploiting — relationships with indigenous peoples. The foundation of this strategy was marked by the creation of the Rio Tinto Aboriginal Fund, which is described on the Rio Tinto Web site as being part of a “strategy of working in active partnership with Aboriginal people in Australia.” No doubt such efforts are necessitated by the desire to be seen to be acting as a socially responsible corporation (in an imperial homeland); something which is not necessary in far flung countries where the ongoing abuse of indigenous populations and landscapes rarely makes the headlines of the mainstream media.
The chair of the Rio Tinto Aboriginal Fund, Chris Renwick, is the chairman of Coal and Allied Industries (which is managed by Rio Tinto Coal Australia), and amongst his other corporate connections he is a board member of Downer-EDI, where he sits alongside Michael Harding, the chairman of the Army Project Governance Board of the Australian Department of Defence. Here it should be highlighted that Rio Tinto has always maintained direct military ties and Paul Skinner, the former chair of Rio Tinto (2003-09), was and still is a “member of the Defence Management Board (DMB) at the Ministry of Defence, a high-level committee whose role is to deliver the aims set by the UK’s defence policy, including to ‘achieve success in the military tasks we undertake, at home and abroad’.”…………………………..Finally, having listed some of the types of projects that the Rio Tinto Aboriginal Fund has financed, it is critical to put Rio Tinto’s philanthropic efforts into perspective. This is because since the founding of its Aboriginal Fund (in 1996) they have only distributed around A$20 million (or US$16 million) in funding to groups across Australia. This is only a drop in the ocean when compared with the immense profits Rio Tinto has reaped from destroying the environment and trampling roughshod over human rights. Indeed, according to the Fortune 500 global company ranking for 2005, Rio Tinto ranked as the 10th most profitable company in the world, and while their net earnings were US$5.2 billion in 2005, the following year their earnings had grown to a massive US$7.4 billion. To try to put Rio Tinto’s minor support for indigenous Australians into further relief, John Pilger noted that “When John Howard came to office in 1996, his first act was to cut $A400 million from the Aboriginal affairs budget.

Swans Commentary: Dreams Of Social Responsibility: Rio Tinto, Capitalism, and Indigenous Rights, by Michael Barker – barker22

June 16, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment