Atomic Nightmare: Krümmel Accident Puts Question Mark over Germany’s Nuclear Future
Krümmel Accident Puts Question Mark over Germany’s Nuclear FutureBy SPIEGEL 13 July 09 The recent accident at the Krümmel nuclear power plant in northern Germany was more serious than was previously known. Anglea Merkel’s Christian Democrats are now finding themselves on the defensive with their plans to extend the life of German nuclear reactors………..
It was already awkward enough for Vattenfall that the accident, which resembled a similar breakdown two years ago, occurred after it had spent €300 million ($420 million) upgrading the plant. As in the 2007 incident, this time there was also a short circuit in a transformer. The reactor, which had just been started up, quickly had to be shut down again on Saturday, July 4.
Züfle was also forced to admit that the accident in the nuclear power plant was more serious than previously known. In addition to the transformer problem, he conceded, there was damage to “perhaps a few fuel elements,” namely the radioactive core of a nuclear power plant.
POWER POLITICS: West Virginia redefines dirty energy as “alternative”
POWER POLITICS: West Virginia redefines dirty energy as “alternative” FACING SOUTH 14 July 09 “………. In the recent legislative session, Gov. Joe Manchin (D) (in photo at right) championed and state lawmakers approved an energy portfolio standard bill requiring 25% of generation to come from “alternative and renewable” sources by 2025. But the new standard, which goes into effect this month, has defined “alternative” to include……………………… nuclear power, which releases radioactive pollution to the environment and also produces dangerous waste products.
The West Virginia Environmental Council head lobbyist Donald S. Garvin Jr. blasted the new standard in an op-ed:
No other state includes natural gas as a source of “alternative” energy. Nuclear energy is included by only a few, and they specify “advanced generation” nuclear facilities.
ISS – POWER POLITICS: West Virginia redefines dirty energy as “alternative”
A Look at Uranium Mining
A Look at Uranium Mining Texas Vox July 8, 2009 by Public Citizen Texas
“………………………There is one destructive aspect of nuclear power that public discourse tends to be especially silent on. Just as coal industry apologists brush over the enormous damage caused by coal mining, any discussion of nuclear is power is likely to be silent on the damage done by uranium mining.
The damage to human health associated with uranium mining is huge. Historically, uranium miners have had a significantly higher risks of developing small cell Carcinoma, which is a likely product of their exposure to Radon-222 — a cancer causing agent created by decaying uranium. The presence of Radon gas also makes uranium mines a very dangerous work environment.………………………..
Last year the French mining company Areva was nominated for a Public Eye Award (a recognition intended for companies who brought about the most social or ecological damage) by Pro Natura (Switzerland’s branch of Friends of The Earth), and the Berne Declaration development campaign. The nomination came from the company’s perceived failure to adequately disclose the risks associated with uranium mining to its workers in Niger, as well as neglecting to treat patients who are unable to pay at company hospitals. Workers also mentioned deaths caused by radioactive contamination of air and ground water.
Aside from the dangers of uranium exposure, mining projects also cause considerable damage to the local environments and to the health of people who live nearby.
A Look at Uranium Mining « TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas
Another Green World: Nuclear power? No point, says new report
Nuclear power? No point, says new report
Another Green World 12 july 09 In Nuclear Power? No Point! the Green Party’s spokesperson on trade and industry, Darren Johnson AM, reviews recent developments and argues that:a.. Nuclear power provides less than 4% of UK energy – which is far less than could be saved by energy-efficiency measures that would cut people’s fuel bills.b.. New nuclear stations will not help the fight against climate change because major CO2 reductions are needed in the next ten years. New nuclear power stations could not be built fast enough.c.. Massive investment in renewables could deliver the necessary short-term CO2 cuts – but “feeding cash to the nuclear delusion” could help starve the renewables industry of some of the investment and skilled personnel it needs to grow rapidly.d.. The nuclear industry’s current financial problems cast serious doubt on its ability to deliver new power stations anyway. Darren Johnson, who is currently chair of the London Assembly and Green Party candidate for Lewisham Deptford, said today:
“The industry that was going to produce electricity ‘too cheap to meter’ has landed us with massive costs for handling its dangerous waste. Now the nuclear industry can’t even give us a reliable quote for the cost of a power station. The current projects in Finland and France are experiencing safety concerns, long delays and big overspends.
“There’s no point expecting nuclear to solve the climate crisis, because new stations couldn’t be built fast enough to help achieve the big CO2 reductions we need to make in the next ten years – which mature renewables could deliver.
“There is no point even considering nuclear power, because demand-reduction measures could easily save far more power than nuclear could generate. And the latest studies argue convincingly that green energy sources with a European smart grid could provide all the power we need.”
Another Green World: Nuclear power? No point, says new report
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
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
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
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
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, 2009Progress 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.
Don’t nuke the climate
International campaign “Don’t nuke the climate” : we need your support
Please answer before the 12th of July 2009.
Register your group
The first partners In December 2009, at the next UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, it will be the world leaders’ duty to aim for an ambitious agreement regarding greenhouse gas emissions cut targets. They should also agree on a relevant budget to finance climate change mitigation and adaptation.Nuclear power has been kept outside of climate change mitigation mechanisms like CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and JI (Joint Implementation) so far. However, some evidence shows that the nuclear lobby could be preparing its comeback at the next COP to have this dirty energy labeled as clean or carbon-free and thus benefit from new subsidies. Will our leaders let themselves be talked into financing a dangerous, costly and irrelevant technology, which would divert urgently needed money from real solutions to climate change?
This is why we now propose you to support the international campaign “Don’t nuke the climate” which will be initiated by the Réseau “Sortir du nucléaire” (French Network for Nuclear Phase-out). A campaign document will be edited at a large scale (several hundreds of thousand copies) by September 2009. It will include petition postcards to be signed by citizens, which will be gathered and then presented in Copenhagen during a media-oriented action. Beside, we will ask citizens to send us pictures to make a huge mosaic showing the face(s) of world citizens’ refusal of nuke as a solution to global warming.
We would highly appreciate to see your logo on this document and on the dedicated website, our aim being to distribute this campaign as broadly as possible, not only in France, but also in Europe and maybe further. Our last campaign on this topic, in year 2008, has already gathered 27 partners at a national level. However, the issue is global and requires international committment. We know some of you are already active on the issue of nukes and global warming, and hope this campaign could contribute in joining our efforts to allow the antinuclear voice to be heard even stronger in Copenhagen.Like already many organizations, do not hesitate to register your NGO as a partner of the campaign “Don’t nuke the climate”The writing work is in progress and your remarks will be welcomed.
Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland
Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland By Rob Broomby BBC World Service, 10 July Olkiluoto, Finland
When it is finished, Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear reactor will be the biggest the world has ever seen, the excavation site alone is the size of 55 football fields.
It was to have been a pilot project for bigger, better, cleaner, Generation III reactors, which would lead the charge back to nuclear power in a continent which had gone cold on atomic energy after the accidents at Chernobyl and Thee Mile Island.
But hopes of an early nuclear dawn on the Baltic coast are fading – the May start up date came and went and the OL3 is now not expected to begin pumping out electricity until 2012 – three years later than planned and about $2.4bn dollars (1.7bn euros) over budget.
The soaring cranes tell the tale: this project is far from complete.
There have been a string of problems starting with the concrete, then the welding.
Now, the safety regulator is questioning the designs for the reactor’s nerve centre – the Instrumentation and Control system……………………..
Even Philippe Knoche, Areva’s chief operating officer, admits things have not been going well.
“It’s no secret that Areva is losing money on this project,” he tells me……………………………..the EPR could be struck-off the list of reactor designs approved for use in the UK, a devastating blow to the French company and the British nuclear programme.
Conflict on African continent hampers mining industries
Conflict on continent hampers mining industries Mining Weekly
By:Megan Wait 10 July 09Foreign nations’ and companies’ interests in African resources also lead to negative effects. Many foreign companies on the continent are primarily extractive. This means that the countries are seen as suppliers of raw materials, which are exported for processing to other countries. This prevents the esta- blishment of manufacturing and service industries in these countries, which inhibits job creation. The export taxes also create expenses for the country, which is chroni- cally strapped for revenue.Meanwhile, French nuclear company Areva’s subsidiary, uranium explorer UraMin, reports that the company, although at peace with the government, is concerned about its uranium-excavating project Bakouma, in the Central African Republic (CAR)……………………………….The negative perception of the political, societal and economic situation in Africa, weak leadership and poor governance, and the lack of regional coherence and identity create structural problems that continue the cycle of poverty and insecurity.
Nuke plant blames maintenance problems for leak
Nuke plant blames maintenance problems for leak philly.com Jul. 9, 2009 The Associated PressLACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. – Officials at a New Jersey nuclear power plant say a maintenance problem is to blame for a tritium leak this year.The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a statement explaining what operators of Lacey Township’s Oyster Creek plant say went wrong.A 1991 report indicated two pipes had been recoated. But a new analysis finds they were not completely recoated and were prone to corrosion.
Nuke plant blames maintenance problems for leak | AP | 07/09/2009
Swedish nuclear watchdog puts plant on probation amid safety concerns |
Swedish nuclear watchdog puts plant on probation amid safety concerns
Detsche Welle 9 July 09 After a series of incidents that could endanger the security at a nuclear plant in Sweden, officials in the Scandinavian country have called for new security measures.
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) has placed the Ringhals nuclear plant, in the southwest of the country, under special supervision after a series of incidents.
“The agency has on several occasions pointed out deficiencies that have been followed by measures from Ringhals, but the problems still remain,” said Swedish Radiation Safety Authority official Leif Karlsson……………
……………Sweden at one time had as many as 12 nuclear reactors in operation, but decommissioned two reactors at the Barseback plant in southern Sweden in an effort to cut back on nuclear energy. The current center-right government has announced that the country will continue relying on nuclear plants, disregarding a 1980 referendum in which Sweden decided to gradually phase them out.
‘Let’s take steps to bring green choices within the reach of everyone’
From The Times (UK)
July 8, 2009
On day three of our series on the low-carbon economy, Conservative politician Zac Goldsmith tells Robin Pagnamenta that private enterprise has a key role to play
Which concrete measures can governments introduce to support the growth of a low-carbon economy in Britain?
Many green choices are still the preserve of the committed or the well-off. With the right incentives and signals, an intelligent government could make pollution and waste a liability and at the same time bring those green choices within reach of us all. Until that happens, green will always be a marginal niche.
Broadly, the Government needs to put a price on pollution, waste and the use of scarce resources, and to invest proceeds into the alternatives. For example, if a new tax is introduced – at the point of purchase – on the “dirtiest” cars, it should be used to bring down the cost of the “cleanest” cars.
That would clean up the car fleet very quickly, and without punishing people for decisions they’ve already taken.
We also need to make better use of subsidies. In my view they should exist to stimulate new technologies and to fund research not yet attractive to the market. The German system of feed-in tariffs is one way we could support green energy technologies, by shortening the payback time………
……………… Should nuclear energy play a role in the low-carbon economy?
If it was up to me, I wouldn’t block nuclear per se, but I would absolutely oppose any use of taxpayer funds to prop it up. That includes dealing with waste, security concerns and so on. I don’t believe it’s right for the Government to use taxpayer funds to support old technologies, no matter how powerful their lobby groups. The job of the Government is to provide energy solutions at the lowest cost and in the cleanest way. That will never, in my view, be nuclear.
Don’t forget there has never been a nuclear power plant that wasn’t constructed and run at the public’s expense. In a free market, nuclear wouldn’t exist. On that basis I would like to see subsidies diverted elsewhere, and, logically, that would mean nuclear has almost certainly had its day.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6665944.ece
1 This Month
10 June – Assessing Canada’s Investments in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – https://zoom.us/meeting/register/IiqHA5feRhaEBycOLNTJlA#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (89)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 