2009 July 11 « nuclear-news

Italy Returns to Nuclear Power While the World Looks Ahead

Italy Returns to nuclear Power while the World Looks Ahead Eco Worldly, by Eva Pratesi, 10 July 09 While world leaders are addressing the issue of climate change during G8 in L’Aquila, Italy has chosen to ditch research and promotion of renewable energy sources going back into a dangerous past. Environmental organisation Legambiente meanwhile described the law as a ”return to energy prehistory”, saying United States President Barack Obama had ”refused to finance” that technology because it was ”polluting and unsafe”.The cost of building four nuclear plants would be 20-25 billion euros, while they would contribute less than 5% to the country’s energy consumption………………………………….The law foresee that nuclear power will produce a 25% of the electric energy needed in Italy. But the production of electric energy represents only a 18% of our total energy demand, with a 82% plus required by means of transport. Attending to the new law, the goal of 25%, concerning that 18% of electric production, means that nuclear energy will satisfy only a 4.5% of the Italian energy demand.
– A recent research, “The case for investing in energy productivity” by McKinsey Global Institute, explains that applying energy efficiency in building sector would be possible to cover a 4% of our national consumption, the same percentage predicted by nuclear plants. Italian politicians don’t understand that change our mind investing in efficiency and renewable energies is possible from now and with lower costs.

Italy Returns to Nuclear Power While the World Looks Ahead : EcoWorldly

July 11, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Utilities Seek to Halt Nuclear Waste Fee

The New York Times By Matthew L. Wald July 11, 2009, 8:02 amUtilities Seek to Halt Nuclear Waste Fee

The nuclear industry is contemplating something akin to a rent strike.

Since the early 1980s, utilities have been paying the Energy Department a fee of one tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour generated in reactors, to pay for a nuclear waste repository. In exchange for the payments, the department signed contracts promising to take the wastes beginning in 1997……………………

Now the power-generation industry wants to stop paying the fee — which would amount to about $769 million for 2009. Some $29.6 billion has already been paid though the end of last year, according to a Bloomberg report.

The law requires the energy secretary to determine every year the “adequacy” of the fee, the industry’s trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, pointed out in a letter on Thursday.

It is now well beyond adequate, according to utilities, since the government is spending very little money on the project.

Power companies have already won court decisions that allow them to collect damages, now likely to run well over $20 billion, from the federal government, for their extra costs — including building temporary steel-and-concrete silos, in which old fuel can be stored for decades.

(The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also preparing to vote on a new policy for waste that would consider such storage adequate for the next few decades, and would permit new reactors to be built even without a long-term plan for waste disposal.)…………………………..“There is no clearly defined program for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste,’’ wrote Frederick Butler, the president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

Utilities Seek to Halt Nuclear Waste Fee – Green Inc. Blog – NYTimes.com

July 11, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs | Leave a comment

Energy risk –

French power supply problems could hit UK COMMODITY RISK MANAGEMENT & TRADING Energy Risk News 10 July 2009 : London Unusually high temperatures last month put a third of France’s nuclear power stations out of action, forcing the country to import electricity from the UK. According to Chris Bowden, CEO of energy and carbon advisors Utilyx, the UK may face similar crises in years to come.Bowden says higher temperatures in summer periods can increase UK demand significantly because of increased use of air-conditioning. This, along with accidental and planned power plant outages, could “dramatically reduce” supply margin.”The UK must not become complacent and believe that France’s crisis call for electricity is limited to France alone,” says Bowden. “Nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of the UK’s total electricity generation so our own security of supply could also be at risk during hot weather.”

Energy risk – – risk management, trading, finance, commodities in the global energy market

July 11, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | antinuclear, nuclear costs, radioactive, uranium | Leave a comment

Nuclear critics suspect hidden agenda in Sask. medical isotope plan

Nuclear critics suspect hidden agenda in Sask. medical isotope plan , July 10, 2009 CBC News Critics of nuclear development in Saskatchewan say a plan by the provincial government to supply medical isotopes may lead to more substantial nuclear facilities…………………………….

Jim Penna, a retired philosophy professor and a member of the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan, said there are ways of producing isotopes for medical diagnostics that do not require the construction of a nuclear reactor.

Penna said people should be wary of the motives behind the premier’s proposal. Penna said a plan for a research reactor may be the thin edge of the wedge leading to further expansion of the nuclear industry.

“That’s how it’s argued you see,” Penna told CBC News on Thursday. “They do talk about a research reactor … as one of the elements of a nuclear program for Saskatchewan. So this is a way of bringing about their nuclear agenda by piggybacking on the medical isotope issue.”…………………………….

Sandra Morin, environment critic for the Saskatchewan NDP, said Thursday that an economic feasibility study should be prepared, to demonstrate the project’s financial viability.

“We need a much more careful examination of just how much money will be put up by the Saskatchewan taxpayer and whether this is truly a feasible option for our province,” Morin said. “By all accounts, an isotope reactor simply doesn’t make sense from an economic standpoint so I would question the rush for the province to get involved in one.”

Morin also raised questions about one of the people closely involved in Saskatchewan’s pitch to the federal government, Richard Florizone.

Florizone, the vice-president of finance and resources at the University of Saskatchewan, is helping to prepare Saskatchewan’s proposal.

Florizone also chaired the province’s Uranium Development Partnership, the group appointed to look for ways to develop the uranium industry. Their report recommended building a research reactor that could produce medical isotopes.

Morin called the overlap of roles troublesome.

Nuclear critics suspect hidden agenda in Sask. medical isotope plan

July 11, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, environment | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear spin, radioactive, uranium | Leave a comment

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that the Green Party of Florida and two other environmental groups could challenge Progress Energy’s plan for two new nuclear reactors. | Ocala.com | Star-Banner | Ocala, FL

Legal challenge to nuclear plant advances Environmental groups opposing Progress’ proposed Levy reactors may argue issues in court, board rules. Ocala.com By Fred Hiers

Friday, July 10, 2009

Progress Energy’s road to building its proposed nuclear power plant in Levy County northwest of Dunnellon is becoming anything but smooth.

On Wednesday, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board – an arm of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission – ruled that the Green Party of Florida and two other environmental groups could challenge the utility company’s plan for two new nuclear reactors and had successfully raised major concerns about the plant’s potential environmental impact.

That means Progress Energy will have to argue its case about those environmental issues during a legal hearing, including in oral arguments

The other two environmental organizations that petitioned to be part of future hearings and had objections were the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Ecology Party of Florida.

The environmental groups had 12 areas of concern. The licensing board dismissed nine. The remaining three had to do with radioactive waste, how construction would affect the aquifer in the area and the plant’s use and disposal of salt water…………………………

The environmental groups also said the proposed plant should make better plans as to what it would do with its spent radioactive waste and have long-term storage strategies. The utility should also better explain its safety and security procedures for the waste.

The licensing board also agreed with the environmental groups that the utility company should better address the environmental impact of building its plant on a flood plain and its effect on the aquifer and wetlands.