nuclear-news

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

After one MOX nuclear reprocessing disaster, is Britain about to start another one?

Pete Wilkinson, an independent environmental consultant, said it “beggared belief” that ministers were going down this path after losing an estimated £600m from operating an original MOX plant.

“It would be interesting to see the commercial arrangements which justify turning Britain into a nuclear waste dump for plutonium that no-one else wants.”

UK nuclear authority takes ownership of German plutonium UK risks becoming a ‘nuclear laundry’ looking after unwanted waste from other countries, warns industry expert Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, 13 July 2012  Britain risks being turned into a “nuclear laundry” by taking ownership of German plutonium in return for cash, the government was warned on Friday.

The move came along with confirmation that ministers were moving towards a controversial decision to build a new mixed oxide fuel (MOX) plant despite having just agreed to close an existing one which lost millions of pounds. Continue reading →

July 26, 2012 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

MOX nuclear reprocessing plant at Savannah River Site

NRC holding public meeting over MOX plant http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/24/4654152/nrc-holding-public-meeting-over.html The Associated Press, Jul. 24, 2012  COLUMBIA, S.C. — Federal regulators are holding a public meeting to discuss a project to create mixed-oxide fuel at a former nuclear weapons site in South Carolina.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is having the open session on Tuesday at the Savannah River Research Campus in New Ellenton.

Construction on the MOX facility began at the Savannah River Site in 2007. Officials say the plant will be used to convert weapons grade plutonium into fuel that will be sold to run commercial power reactors.

The SRS complex once produced plutonium and tritium for atomic bombs. Officials say the nearly $5 billion MOX facility is on schedule and should be running in 2016.

July 26, 2012 Posted by | reprocessing, USA | Leave a comment

MOX plutonium nuclear reprocessing plants for Tennessee and Alabama?

TVA considering fuel made from nuclear weapons http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/ap/energy/tva-considering-fuel-made-from-nuclear-weapons/nP3m5/   CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — The Department of Energy is preparing an environmental impact statement on the use of fuel made from surplus nuclear weapons to power Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear plants. TVA released a set of talking points on Tuesday about the environmental impact statement, which will appear as a draft this week in the Federal Register, TVA spokesman Ray Golden told The Chattanooga Times Free Press (http://bit.ly/MGUFrO ).

The mixed oxide fuel, also called MOX fuel, is a blend of plutonium and uranium, but the variety under consideration is made from retired nuclear weapons, according to the TVA.
The utility has tentatively agreed to consider using the fuel in its Sequoyah and Browns Ferry nuclear plants in Tennessee and Alabama, with a timetable set for 2018. Continue reading →

July 26, 2012 Posted by | reprocessing, USA | 1 Comment

Water continuing to rise in Fukushima Reactor No. 1 basement, after typhoon

Typhoon increases level of radioactive water in Reactor No. 1 basement by 17 inches in a day — Likely to continue rising http://enenews.com/typhoon-increases-level-of-radioactive-water-in-reactor-no-1-basment-by-almost-two-feet-in-a-day-likely-to-continue-rising July 21st, 2011 By ENENews  Heavy rain brought by a tropical storm has increased the
level of radioactive contaminated water at the basements of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant

Tokyo Electric Power Company or TEPCO, the plant’s operator, says that at 7 AM local time on Thursday, the level of contaminated water pooled at the basement of the building of the No. 1 reactor was 44 centimeters [17.3 inches] up from the previous day.

But it is likely that the level of water will continue to rise for the time being. TEPCO says they are monitoring the situation.

July 26, 2012 Posted by | Fukushima 2012 | Leave a comment

Radioactivity in Fukushima reactor No.2 ten times greater than in No.1

Unit 2 water 10 times more radioactive than Unit 1 — 47,000,000 becquerels per liter in turbine room basement July 25th, 2012   By ENENews  Nuclides Analysis Result of the Accumulated Water in the Turbine BuildingBasement at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Tepco Published July 23, 2012 Sample Taken: July 10, 2012

Cs-137 4,300,000 becquerels per liter (Bq/l) in water inside Unit 1 Turbine Building basement
47,000,000 Bq/l in water inside Unit 2 Turbine Building basement
Cs-134 2,700,000 Bq/l in water inside Unit 1 Turbine Building basement
29,000,000 Bq/l in water inside Unit 2 Turbine Building basement 1 cm³ = 1 milliliter…….
http://enenews.com/unit-2-water-10-times-more-radioactive-than-unit-1-47000000-becquerels-per-liter-in-turbine-room-basement

July 26, 2012 Posted by | Fukushima 2012 | Leave a comment

Pitfalls in building nuclear reactors underground

Just build them underground! http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-10-smallreactors-mass-prod/10-2-2-just-build-them-underground/ There is a common misconception, that we could solve a lot of the problems with reactor construction, both large and small (though in particular the small ones) by building them in subsurface pits. I’m assuming the person who thought up this one has never dug a hole in his back garden! If you have, you’d know that digging a hole is not as easy as it seems. Firstly, the soil type has a big bearing on things. Depending on where you live you could be looking at thick sticky soil that difficult to shift, loose gravely soil that collapses easily or rocky earth, that rapidly turns into bedrock (so after a while you’re not digging any more but blasting!). As we need to put foundations down under out reactor to suit the soil type, and probably piling too (due to its weight), this means we essentially need to design each reactor’s containment vessel individually to suit local soil conditions, which increases costs.

Another problem is water intrusion, as anyone who’s ever dug a pit, then gone in for lunch, come back out and found it full of water will know all about! Our reactor “pit” needs to be designed like the hull of a boat to stop water leaking in and flooding it. Doing that with concrete, particularly thick section of it, is always difficult. The fact that the reactor will be generating heat complicates things as it raises the risk of subsidence or settlement cracking. While this can happen if the reactor is on the surface too, putting it under ground level “complicates things”.

In general with any construction project significant efforts are made to reduce the amount of earth movement required to start construction, not increase it, as lots of earth moving nearly always results in delays, hold-ups and ultimately higher costs (not the least of those being the cost of hiring out of earth moving equipment, those guys charge an arm and a leg!).

Overall, except in a small number of narrow cases building reactors this way will often work out as more expensive and slower than just putting the containment dome above ground.

July 26, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, technology, USA | Leave a comment

Building nuclear reactors underground

FirstEnergy looking into building small nuclear reactor   By John Funk, The Plain Dealer , July 25, 2012 FirstEnergy said today it had signed an agreement with a subsidiary of Babcock & Wilcox Co. to study the “potential deployment of the B&W mPower small modular reactor in FirstEnergy’s service territory.” The reactor would generate just 180 megawatts and be built in an underground containment structure, …..

Continue reading →

July 26, 2012 Posted by | Reference, technology, USA | Leave a comment

Japanese turning to clean energy, and energy efficiency, in a big way

The World’s Next Hot Solar Power Market May Be Japan HUFFINGTON POST: 07/25/2012  With its nuclear power plants virtually shuttered since the Fukushima disaster in March 2011, Japan is starting to turn to clean energy in a big way.

On July 1, one of the world’s most aggressive examples of a feed-in tariff (FIT) — a key government incentive for renewable energy — took effect in Japan. A FIT essentially requires utilities to buy kilowatt-hours of electricity from clean, renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal at a rate prescribed by the government. Such policies have been behind the rapid growth of solar energy in countries like Spain, Italy, and Germany. No one thinks of Germany for its sunshine, but it’s actually the largest solar energy market in the world, with 25 gigawatts of solar capacity installed (output comparable to about 20 large nuclear reactors) at the end of 2011…..

Japan’s future will be one of imported oil and natural gas, energy-efficiency measures, and an increasingly large share of clean energy. Already a world leader in grid performance and energy efficiency, Japan has aggressively ramped up those efforts since the Fukushima disaster. Many buildings are going without air conditioning in the hot and humid summer, launching a new business attire called Cool Biz (no jackets and ties) in Japan’s traditional buttoned-down business culture. One of my talks, at a prefectural building in Nagoya, was an official Cool Biz event, although not Super Cool Biz — that’s Hawaiian shirts and sandals. Continue reading →

July 26, 2012 Posted by | Japan, renewable | Leave a comment

Japanese government out of step with public on nuclear power

“the demonstrations started out with 500, then several thousand and have now even reached 150,000. Each week, they have grown.”

The dissent on the issue of nuclear energy is bringing to the fore tensions between the political establishment and public will. 

 “Japan could easily end its reliance on the nuclear energy. From May 5 to July 5, Japan was nuclear free. No single power plant operated and there were no black outs…Japan is the most ideal country for renewable energy. We have sun. We have wind everywhere. What is missing is the political will.”.

After Fukushima, Nuclear Power on Collision Course With Japanese Public The Indypendent, BY TINA GERHARDTJULY 25, 2012 “….. in May, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, in the face of overwhelming public opposition, decided to restart Japan’s nuclear power plants. Now, a growing movement is protesting the decision.

Weekly demonstrations, with turnout initially numbering in the hundreds, have been taking place on Friday evenings in front of the Prime Minister’s office. People show up after work and school. And their numbers have been swelling, reaching into the thousands in recent weeks. Continue reading →

July 26, 2012 Posted by | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

Obama government’s solar energy project for public lands

Roadmap for Solar Energy Development on Public Lands Released to Public Loan Safe.org, BY ALEX FERRERAS   JULY 25, 2012 As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy, the Department of the Interior, in partnership with the Department of Energy, will publish the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for solar energy
development in six southwestern states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.

The final Solar PEIS represents a major step forward in the permitting of utility-scale solar energy on public lands throughout the west. Continue reading →

July 26, 2012 Posted by | Reference, renewable, USA | Leave a comment

Time for USA to lead the retreat from the nuclear arms race

It is in America’s best interest to further this nuclear downsizing……. We ushered in the nuclear era 67 years ago. Now we must do our part to help the world find a safe exit.

Let’s usher out the nuclear era JTA Globe News Service for the Jewish People, Op-Ed: On Tisha b’Av, By Sandy Pappas · July 25, 2012 MINNEAPOLIS (JTA) — As July ends and we wind down the Three Weeks before Tisha b’Av, we mourn the destruction of both Holy Temples.
Unfortunately, this is not the only destruction that bears remembrance. This August marks the 67th anniversary of the only time that nuclear weapons were ever used in warfare. The United States tested the first nuclear weapon in July 1945 and dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9 that year.

These events spawned the nuclear race, Continue reading →

July 26, 2012 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

Radiation hazard in too many CT scans for chest pain

CT Scans For Chest Pain? Study Questions Benefit For Patients HUFFINGTON POST, By MARILYNN MARCHIONE 07/25/12 If you’re having chest pains, an advanced type of CT scan can quickly rule out a heart attack. New research suggests this might be good for hospitals, but not necessarily for you. Continue reading →

July 26, 2012 Posted by | health, USA | Leave a comment

Flat uranium market with more uncertainty about the industry’s future

Uranium, Two Pounds For A Benny International Business Times, July 24, 2012  By Andrew Nelson It was yet another dull week on the spot uranium market last week, marked by slim volumes and another minor price decline. As of Friday, a US$100 bill sporting the inscrutable face of Benjamin Franklin, will now buy you two pounds of uranium.

Industry analyst TradeTech reported just 3 transactions last week, with only 250,000 pounds changing hands. Also affecting trading was news that Honeywell will not restart production at its Metropolis Works conversion facility, operated by ConverDyn. The company said the plant could remain closed for as long as 12-15 months in order to
undertake safety upgrades ordered by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission…….

Whether the news is relevant or not to the daily grind of the uranium spot trading, it certainly did a good job of introducing even more uncertainty into what remains a very tentative market. The end result of low volumes, at least one motivated sell and new uncertainly was a US$0.25 decline in TradeTech’s Weekly U3O8 Spot Price Indicator to US$50.00.

There was no activity and only a little demand in the term market. None of it was new and all of it is coming from non-US utilities. TradeTech’s mid-term and long-term indicators remained unchanged at US$54.00 and US$61.00 respectively….
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/366001/20120724/uranium-two-pounds-for-a-benny.htm#.UBGVnGGe5dM

July 26, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, Uranium | Leave a comment

Keep Virginia’s ban on uranium, says Norfolk Council

Norfolk council backs uranium mining moratorium By Steven G. Vegh The Virginian-Pilot  July 25, 2012 NORFOLK The City Council called unanimously on Tuesday for a continuation of the state’s moratorium on uranium mining to safeguard rivers and reservoirs that provide Norfolk’s drinking water.

“This is a vote for us to stand up for the system and against anything that may somehow taint the quality of the water,” Mayor Paul Fraim said after the vote at the council’s regular meeting.

Fraim said the action intentionally echoed a similar resolution approved by Virginia Beach last month against mining and milling uranium ore…. Fraim said the city’s water system serves 700,000 people a day, including naval bases. “We’re very protective of that system,” he said, and cautious about anything that might interfere with the water quality.

July 26, 2012 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

A critical analysis of future nuclear reactors designs

By D A. Ryan,  Once upon a time I used to be a fan of nuclear energy. As far as I saw it, nuclear energy was the silver bullet solution to all of our energy problems and more. However, the more I’ve learned about the industry the more critical I’ve become.

Notably the fact that most of the economic figures in support of nuclear power (a couple of typical delusions you’ll find here and here) come straight out of Hogwarts school of magic, wizardry….and economics (more realistic appraisals of nuclear economics can be found here and here).

All in all my conclusion is that the case for future Generation IV nuclear reactors is much narrower than the supporters of nuclear energy would have you believe. While they do offer some advantages over LWR’s, notably in the area of safety, this comes with strings attached, notably higher capital costs. This is largely a result of the fact that many of these would need to be built from much more exotic materials, such as high temperature stainless steel alloys  Nickel alloys or Refractory materials, while the predominant material of choice in current reactors is steel (stainless and forged ferritic) and concrete. This materials requirement is itself an issue related to the high temperatures these alternative reactors would be required to operate at, not to mention the more aggressive and corrosive environment in some of them, notably the MSR proposals. Of course one to question whether these higher construction costs (and in some cases higher decommissioning costs) are justified……..

Small to medium sized modular reactors do offer a good deal more flexibility in terms of how nuclear power could be used and yet a further improvement in safety. However, they also comes with lower economies of scale and thus higher construction costs and worse a slower rate of reactor roll out (at least in the early days). We could claw back on these two issues by mass producing said reactors in large volumes but as I point out (again see the full article), it is far from proven whether that would be economically viable and whether there is in fact a market for large numbers of small reactors…….
by and large mass production means “dumbing down” our design, and that means accepting a reactor that’s much cheaper and easier to build but has a lower thermal efficiency, a higher rate of fuel consumption and ultimately produces larger volumes of nuclear waste compared to our “mega” reactors. With the exception of a small number of narrow cases, it’s difficult to envisage how this would offer an improvement on the current status quo…..

 Thorium fuelled reactors still need fissile isotopes, drawn ultimately from Uranium, for startup purposes. Failing this they require the use of expensive (and generally uneconomic) fast reactors and reprocessing of spent fuel. So yes, while Thorium could help stretch things out, it can only help a little bit, but not nearly as much as the supporters of Thorium reactors would have you believe. Thorium fuelled reactors would still generate substantial quantities of nuclear waste and come with a number of potential proliferation risks attached. Even the UK National Nuclear Laboratories (NNL) pours cold water over the idea……

Fusion?

Finally, I also had a look at Fusion power . his is the great white hope of nuclear energy and it has to be said we are making progress, but it’s a case of slow and steady progress. Indeed I would question whether we are in a position yet to even estimate how long it will take for fusion power to become commercial available…if indeed ever! Recent news from ITER is not positive, its now not due to go online till 2026, which would imply a completion of experiments in 2046. And it will take sometime beyond that before we wind up with a viable working commercial fusion reactor. As I speculate (here), it would likely be the latter half of this century (or the beginning of the next one) before we start to see Fusion play any sort of major role in mass global power generation…… nuclear energy supporters need to overcome their pathological hatred of renewables      http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/11/a-critical-analysis-of-future-nuclear-reactors-designs/

July 25, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, technology | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »