nuclear-news

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

China’s much touted nuclear future is not so sure

flag-ChinaNuclear power in China –  Promethean perils, The Economist Dec 6th 2014 | SHANGHAI |
“………forecasts should be taken with a big pinch of salt. It is true that China is the brightest spot in the global nuclear industry, but that is mostly because prospects in other places are bleak. It is also true that China’s need to tackle pollution and desire to curb carbon emissions will give nuclear power a boost, but these factors also favour rival clean-energy technologies. In short, today’s nuclear revival may well not live up to investors’ lofty expectations.

One factor that could slow growth is cost. In the past Chinese governments were happy to throw endless pots of money at favoured state firms in industries deemed “strategic”. Times are changing, however. Economic growth is slowing, and the government must now deal with massive debts left over from previous investment binges. Since the export-oriented and investment-led model of growth is sputtering, officials may soon be keen to boost domestic consumption rather than merely shovel subsidised capital at big investment projects.

And it is not just that China may—and should—be starting to pay attention to the true cost of infrastructure projects. Rapid technological advances are also making low-carbon alternatives to nuclear power appear more attractive. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, an industry publisher, forecasts that onshore wind will be the cheapest way to make electricity in the country by 2030. Though coal will remain China’s leading fuel for some time, Bloomberg’s analysts think that renewables could produce three times as much power as nuclear in the country by that year……..
Another drag on growth could be nagging doubts about safety. Philippe Jamet, a French nuclear safety commissioner, told his country’s parliament earlier this year that Chinese counterparts were “overwhelmed”. Wang Yi of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, an expert body, has warned that there are indeed “uncertainties” in the approach to nuclear safety…….
A word of warning comes from the man who matters most. President Xi Jinping, speaking at a nuclear-security summit in the Netherlands earlier this year, likened the technology to the gift of fire granted by Prometheus to humanity. It can bring great benefits, he said, but without proper safeguards “such a bright future will be overshadowed by dark clouds or even ruined by resulting disasters.”
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21635498-after-hiatus-nuclear-power-set-revival-china-promethean-perils

December 8, 2014 Posted by | China, politics | Leave a comment

International conference in Vienna gives evidence of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons

dirty bombHumanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in focus, Times of Oman, BY SEBASTIAN KURZ    |    DECEMBER 07, 2014 
In 1983, three years before I was born, a chilling television docudrama about the consequences of a nuclear war was broadcast around the world.  The Day After, now cited as the highest-rated film in TV history, left then-US President Ronald Reagan “greatly depressed” and caused him to rethink his nuclear strategy.  At their summit in Reykjavik in October 1986, he and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev came tantalizingly close to eliminating all nuclear weapons.

My generation has conveniently consigned such fears to history. Indeed, with the Cold War tensions of 1983 far in the past and the international order dramatically changed, many people nowadays ask why these memories should concern us at all.

But the premise of that question is both wrong and dangerous.
This week, Austria is providing the world an opportunity to rethink its complacency. Representatives from the governments of more than 150 countries, international organisations, and civil-society groups will meet in Vienna this week, to consider the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

These weapons, which terrified people 30 years ago, still remain in countries’ arsenals and continue to pose a grave risk to human security and safety. Austria’s concern is that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of their use exists, either by accident or design. An overwhelming majority of states share this view.

Consider how many nuclear weapons there are: an estimated 16,300 around the world, with 1,800 on high alert and ready for use on short notice.

Nearly 25 years after the Cold War’s end, we remain stuck with its strategic legacy: Nuclear weapons continue to underpin the international security policy of the world’s most powerful states.
There are too many risks — human error, technical flaws, negligence, cyber-attacks, and more — to believe that these weapons will never be used. Nor is there good reason to believe that adequate fail-safe mechanisms are in place.
The history of nuclear weapons since 1945 is studded with near misses — both before and after the Cuban missile crisis……….

the goal of Vienna conference is to provide the public with new and updated evidence of the impact of using nuclear weapons and the threat they pose. 

The picture is even grimmer and the consequences more dire than we believed in 1983.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, it is irresponsible not to confront the implications of their use — implications for which there is no antidote or insurance policy. 

They are not some deadly virus or long-term environmental threat. 

They are the poisonous fruit of a technology that we created — and that we can and must control. 

— Project Syndicate http://www.timesofoman.com/Columns/2502/Humanitarian-impact-of-nuclear-weapons-in-focus

December 8, 2014 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

US Energy Dept fined $54 Million by New Mexico, for Nuclear Accidents

dollar-2New Mexico Fines U.S. $54 Million for Nuclear Accidents http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-mexico-fines-u-s-54-million-for-nuclear-accidents-1417898258 Underground Fire, Radiation Leak at Repository Exposed Workers to Contamination By DAN FROSCH Dec. 6, 2014 SANTA FE, N.M.—New Mexico has fined the U.S. Energy Department more than $54 million over accidents at the country’s only underground repository for nuclear waste.

The fines, which state officials announced Saturday morning, stem from an underground fire and a radiation leak earlier this year at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, known as WIPP. Nearly two dozen workers were exposed to contamination at the plant, which handles radioactive waste from the nation’s nuclear-weapons program.

The facility, in southeastern New Mexico near Carlsbad, remains closed.

The fines represent the largest penalties New Mexico has ever levied against the Energy Department, state officials said, noting that their investigation found major procedural problems.

The Energy Department committed 37 violations of state regulations in its handling of radioactive waste, the state said. Drums of the waste were improperly treated and stored at Los Alamos National Laboratory before being shipped to the nuclear repository, according to the state, contributing to the accidents last February. A federal report issued earlier this year traced the radiological accident at WIPP to a drum of waste that contained a mix of material that didn’t meet the facility’s standards for storage. The Energy Department has said it could cost more than $500 million to return WIPP to full operations.

Energy Department officials couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

New Mexico has fined the Energy Department in past years over state violations at Los Alamos and WIPP, according to Don Hancock, director of the nuclear-waste program at the Southwest Research and Information Center, an Albuquerque watchdog group.

Other states, such as Washington and Idaho, have also sued and fined the Energy Department over its handling of nuclear waste, Mr. Hancock said.

Write to Dan Frosch at dan.frosch@wsj.com

December 8, 2014 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear Regulatory Commission reveals that workers inhaled uranium during spill at an in-situ mine

In-Situ-LeachingNuclear regulatory agency: 6 workers inhaled uranium at Wyoming mine after yellowcake spill, Star Tribune by: MEAD GRUVER , Associated Press : December 5, 2014  CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Six workers at a Wyoming uranium mine inhaled the radioactive element while cleaning up a spill inside a processing building just days before the mine delivered its first shipment last year, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The workers’ urine tested positive for uranium at close to seven times the federal agency’s permissible level, the federal agency alleges in a Nov. 14 violation notice against Lost Creek LLC ISR, a subsidiary of Littleton, Colorado-based Ur-Energy.

The spill happened Nov. 28, 2013, at the Lost Creek in-situ uranium mine in south-central Wyoming. In-situ mining involves pumping fluids underground to release uranium into a solution that is pumped to the surface. No shafts or tunnels are dug.

Some 1,500 pounds of yellowcake, a precursor of enriched uranium, surged onto the floor of a processing building while a worker was filling a 55-gallon drum with the dry, powdery substance, according to the notice…….http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/284909581.html

December 8, 2014 Posted by | incidents, USA | Leave a comment

Pacific Ocean is still the sewer for the nuclear industry’s wastes

TV: Plutonium being pumped into ocean through miles of underwater pipes — Nuclear waste left lying on beach — Kids playing on sand where machines scoop up plutonium each day — Alarming test results 1,000% legal limit (VIDEO & PHOTOS)http://enenews.com/tv-plutonium-being-pumped-ocean-miles-underwater-pipes-nuclear-waste-left-lying-beach-kids-playing-sand-machines-scoop-plutonium-day-video-photos?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29
Pacific-Ocean-drain

SWR (German public television broadcaster), 2013 (emphasis added):

  • 25:00 in — The dumping of nuclear waste in the sea was banned worldwide in 1993, yet the nuclear industry has come up with other ways. They no longer dump the barrels at sea; they build kilometers of underwater pipes through which the radioactive effluent now flows freely into the sea. One of these pipes is situated in Normandy [near] the French reprocessing plant in La Hague… The advantage for the nuclear industry? No more bad press… disposal via waste pipes remains hidden from the public eye, quite literally.
  • 28:30 in — 400 km from La Hague [as well as] Holland [and] Germany… we find iodine… 5-fold higher tritium value than [reported] by the operator Areva. It’s now obvious why citizens take their own measurements.
  • 30:15 in — Molecular Biologist: “The radioactive toxins accumulate in the food chain. This little worm can contain 2,000-3,000 times more radioactivity than its environment. It is then eaten by the next biggest creature and so on, at the end of the food chain we discovered damage to the reproductive cells of crabs… These genetic defects are inherited from one generation to the next… Cells in humans and animals are the same.”
  • 32:00 in — The 2nd disposal pipe for Europe’s nuclear waste is located in the north of England… Radioactive pollution comes in from the sea. Their houses are full of plutonium dust… The pipe from Sellafield is clearly visible only from the air… nuclear waste is still being dumped into the sea. Operators argue this is land-based disposal… It has been approved by the authorities.
  • 35:45 in — Plutonium can be found here on a daily basis, the toxic waste returns from the sea… it leaches out, it dries, and is left lying on the beach. The people here have long since guessed that the danger is greater than those responsible care to admit… Every day a smallexcavator removes plutonium from the beach… In recent decadesthe operator at Sellafield has tossed more than 500 kg of plutonium into the sea.
  • 42:00 in — We take a soil sample… The result turns out to be alarming. The amount of plutonium is up to 10 times higher than the permissible limit.

Yahoo News, Dec 5, 2014: All this radiation from the [Fukushima] disaster has definitely not been isolated to just Japan. Researchers monitoring the Pacific Ocean, in which much of the radiation spilled into, have detected radioactive isotopes this past November just 160 km [100 miles] off the coast of California. So this story will continue to unfold for many years to come.

Watch SWR’s investigative report here

December 8, 2014 Posted by | - plutonium, 2 WORLD, oceans, Reference | Leave a comment

Report: Russian Nuclear Industry in Review

Russian-Bear“PAY MORE WITH NUCLEAR” : REPORT 4 http://earthlife.org.za/2014/12/pay-more-with-nuclear-report-4/ The report, entitled “Russian Nuclear Industry in Review”, is authored by Russian environmental activist and academic Vladimir Slivyak; and provides an insider view into the workings of the Russian nuclear industry. The report is fourth in the series “Pay more with nuclear”, which examines the enormous costs involved in building, operating and decommissioning nuclear power plants.

The Russian deal is being marketed as preferential because it includes Russian government funding, construction assistance and fuel cycle services. But the “Russian Nuclear Industry in Review” report shows fatal flaws with the concept and reveals the shady corners of the Russian nuclear industry.

Key Documents:
  1. Report 1: Nuclear Technology options for South Africa
  2. Report 2: Funding Nuclear Decommissioning – Lessons for South Africa
  3. Report 3: What Does It Take To Finance New Nuclear Power Plants?
  4. Report 4: Russian Nuclear Industry Overview

December 8, 2014 Posted by | politics, Russia, South Africa | Leave a comment

America’s dangerous thinking about national security and nuclear weapons

America-eagleBeyond M.A.D.: Reviving Nuclear War, Huffington Post,6 Dec 14 

 Become a fan “Some of the key technocrats and scientists of the Cold War say the nation has become overly confident about its nuclear deterrence. The nuclear enterprise, they say, ‘is rusting its way to disarmament.'”

Let’s meditate on this irony — that disarmament, finally, means no more than growing old and weak and pathetic.

What brilliant Cold War Revival propaganda, masquerading, in the Los Angeles Timeslast week, as objective reporting. Let’s meditate on the dark chuckles of the Cold War technocrats, as they attempt to summon an extra trillion dollars or so from the national coffers to restore America’s nuclear weapons program to the glory of the 1960s and push on vigorously with the design and development of the next generation of nukes: our national strength, the foundation of our security. All that’s missing from the article — “New nuclear weapons needed, many experts say, pointing to aged arsenal” — is Slim Pickens screaming “Ya-hoo!” as he rides the bomb into human oblivion at the end of Dr. Strangelove.

The ostensible focus of the article, as well as a second article published two weeks earlier, both by Ralph Vartabedian and W.J. Hennigan, is the decrepitude of the American nuclear arsenal, with its myriad sites and delivery systems hampered with out-of-date technology and indifferent maintenance, e.g.: “Today, the signs of decay are pervasive at the Pantex facility in Texas, where nuclear weapons are disassembled and repaired. Rat infestation has become so bad that employees are afraid to bring their lunches to work.”

Oh, the horror. Rats and nukes. Next up, Godzilla? Any serious challenge to nuclear weapons as the ultimate manifestation and symbol of national strength is absent from these articles; so is any rational account of the danger their hair-trigger presence poses to humanity — not to mention the insanity of their ongoing development.

For instance:

“John S. Foster Jr., former director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and chief of Pentagon research during the Cold War, said the labs should design, develop and build prototype weapons that may be needed by the military in the future, including a very low-yield nuclear weapon that could be used with precision delivery systems . . .” (emphasis added).

During the Cold War, the primary justification for our gargantuan nuclear arsenal was contained in the acronym M.A.D.: mutually assured destruction. No more world wars, boys and girls! With the Cold War superpowers in possession of the means to destroy the human race, the only wars we could wage were relatively small, proxy wars in Third and Fourth World countries.

“Those who like peace should love nuclear weapons,” said Kenneth Waltz, Cold War academic extraordinaire and founder of the school of neorealism (as quoted recently by Eric Schlosser in The Guardian). “They are the only weapons ever invented that work decisively against their own use.”

But seven decades into the nuclear era, mission creep is making its presence felt along with the rust and rats. Link low-yield nuclear weapons with a word like “precision” and their use in a real war starts to feel almost justifiable — and so much more satisfying, apparently, than simply maintaining a nuclear arsenal for the purpose of never using it. Threat is power in the abstract. But a mushroom cloud over Central Asia or the Middle East is power made manifest, especially if one lacks the mental and spiritual capacity to grasp the consequences……….

What seems desperately outmoded and nearing collapse isn’t our nuclear infrastructure but our thinking about national security. The United States of America, nation of Manifest Destiny, was built on conquest and exploitation. This is the basis of its inability to believe that security could be based on anything except near-absolute power and the reason why, in the corridors of political power, disarmament is synonymous not with sanity but neglect.

Unless the paradigm shifts and we redefine ourselves as a nation — and we redefine our relationship to other nations, including our alleged enemies — our future is nuclear weapons we can use. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-koehler/beyond-mad-reviving-nucle_b_6272094.html
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound (Xenos Press), is still available. Contact him atkoehlercw@gmail.com or visit his website at commonwonders.com.

December 8, 2014 Posted by | psychology - mental health, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The disastrous problem of Russia’s mounting spent nuclear fuel waste

wastes-1flag_RussiaRUSSIAN NUCLEAR INDUSTRY OVERVIEW, Earth Life Johannesburg Vladimir Slivyak Russian environmental group, Ecodefense
National Research University Higher School of Economics Moscow December 2014
“……..Waste and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing
According to governmental sources, about 500 million tons of radioactive waste is accumulated
at various facilities across Russia. There is no clear plan as to how the waste problem should
be solved. Rosatom has pushed through the Russian Parliament the “Law on the Radioactive
Waste treatment,” a first of its kind in Russian history. The adoption of the law was protested
in a dozen of regions across Russia because it effectively excludes local population from the
decision-making process over establishing new sites to store and dump radioactive wastes.
Judging by the supplementary documents given to the parliamentarians in 2009 along with the
proposed draft of the law, the radioactive waste management plan outlined by Rosatom would
affect no more than 30% of all accumulated wastes until 2030. It is unclear when and how the
majority of the Russian radioactive waste will undergo proper management or treatment. Some
of the storage facilities across Russia are in poor condition and require urgent measures to avoid
radiation leaks.22
Mayak nuclear accidentThe overall amount of spent nuclear fuel accumulated at Russian nuclear sites is estimated
at over 22,000 tons. Fuel from seven commercial reactors (six VVER-440s and the BN-600) is
transported for reprocessing at the Mayak nuclear facility in Chelyabinsk Region – a place of a
devastating nuclear accident of 1957, which caused widespread radioactive contamination and
led to the resettlement of about 20,000 of local residents in the subsequent years.
Mayak disaster
Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing does not help to solve the problem of nuclear waste. Rather, it
makes the problem that much bigger. Between 100 to 200 tons of radioactive waste of various
compositions and activity levels is generated during reprocessing per just 1 ton of spent fuel
reprocessed. As a result of the reprocessing activities at Mayak, large amounts of radioactive
waste have been accumulated and, over the years, partly dumped into the local river, Techa,
causing ever wider radioactive contamination.
In 2005, Mayak’s former director, Vitaly Sadovnikov, was taken to court and charged with illegal dumping of radioactive waste into theTecha. Although he was found guilty by the court, Sadovnikov was immediately released under
an amnesty granted by the Russian government. Nevertheless, the court’s decision concluded
that radioactivity levels in the river water were so high in some parts of the Techa that the water
could well be qualified as liquid radioactive waste.23
Although environmental groups successfully pushed the nuclear industry to resettle Muslyumovo
– the most contaminated village in the region – several thousands of local residents still live in
the radioactively contaminated area on the banks of the Techa. The Russian government and the
nuclear industry refuse to provide resettlement funding for the local residents while many of
them continue to suffer from radiation-caused illnesses, including conditions related to genetic
damage.
In 2011, about twenty families of local villagers along with two environmental groups
(Ecodefense, Planet of Hope) filed a class action against the nuclear industry and several
government ministries over the lack of radiation protection in the contaminated area.
Spent fuel from the VVER-1000s and RBMKs is only stored in Russia, as the country does not
possess a facility for reprocessing such fuel. While reprocessing of spent RBMK fuel was never
seriously planned, a plan to build a facility to reprocess spent fuel from the VVER-1000 reactors,
to be sited in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, has existed since the 1980s. After it was approved by the
Soviet government, the plan was stopped by mass protests around 1990. It is unclear if Rosatom
will ever bring it to implementation.
One of the issues under discussion in the nuclear industry is the future plans for the management
of spent nuclear fuel. Rosatom may either go for reprocessing and extraction of plutonium –
especially if the development program for breeder reactors and the concept of using plutonium
as fuel gets political approval – or for final disposal of spent fuel in a repository in a deep
geological formation near Krasnoyarsk. Presently, the option of long-term storage there is
approved with a new storage site partly completed in that area. It is projected that the storage
site will hold close to 40,000 tons of spent fuel in the future. As of today, spent fuel is mostly
stored at nuclear power plants around the country, and the old storage facilities are overfull or
nearing capacity; Rosatom is planning to move 22,000 tons of this fuel to Krasnoyarsk by 2025.
But any final solution for the highly radioactive spent fuel must include efficient barriers to
prevent the radiation from escaping into the surrounding environment during the next million
years. Such a solution obviously does not exist……….. http://earthlife.org.za/www/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/russian-nuc-ind-overview.pdf

December 8, 2014 Posted by | Russia, wastes | Leave a comment

Worrying questions on the real costs of Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear power plant

nukes-hungryFlag-USAState monitor warns on Ga. nuclear plant costs, seattle pi By RAY HENRY, Associated Press, December 7, 2014 TLANTA (AP) — Public watchdogs are giving Southern Co. a between-the-lines warning that building a multibillion-dollar nuclear plant in Georgia without a detailed construction schedule could trigger financial penalties.

That warning came in a report filed by a nuclear engineer and an analyst who work for state regulators and monitor the construction of two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia.

The Public Service Commission has warned for at least two years that Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power is relying on an outdated project schedule that contains almost no detail after December 2015, even though construction will continue for several more years.

Nuclear engineer William Jacobs Jr. and financial analyst Steven Roetger said building a complex, first-of-its-kind project without a schedule was unreasonable. “In fact it runs counter to any prudent project management, nuclear or otherwise,” goes against the project’s construction agreement and an industry group’s own recommendations for construction, Jacobs and Roetger wrote in a semi-annual report.

That keyword — “prudent” — was meant to catch the ears of Southern Co. executives.

By law, the Public Service Commission can prevent Georgia Power, a regulated monopoly, from billing its customers for any construction costs the commission decides are the result of “imprudence.”

The state’s elected utility regulators have agreed to delay any final decisions on construction costs until after the first reactor is finished, likely in late 2017 at the earliest. However, the latest filing shows the commission’s staffers are laying the legal groundwork that could be used in future arguments to prevent customers from paying some of Georgia Power’s costs……….

Georgia Power’s budget estimate does not reflect the potential costs of resolving a roughly $1 billion lawsuit between the plant’s builders and its owners over previous delays and design changes. While Georgia Power has denied any responsibility for those extra costs, company leaders have said they would consider a settlement if it made financial sense.

Follow Ray Henry on Twitter: http://twitter.com/rhenryAP. http://www.seattlepi.com/business/energy/article/State-monitor-warns-on-Ga-nuclear-plant-costs-5941198.php

December 8, 2014 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Study into effects of chronic exposure to radiation in food: Chernobyl wolves as an example

text ionisingECOVIEWS: Chernobyl wolves reveal radiation’s impact, Tuscaloosa News, December 5, 2014 How do scientists determine what the long-term impacts would be to humans living in a radiation-contaminated environment? An ecological study of wolves in the Ukraine may provide the answer……….

Not being shot, trapped or indirectly affected by humans is the upside for wolves occupying the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. But what complications might they face from chronic exposure to radiation in the food they eat and where they sleep? Doctors Jim Beasley and Stacey Lance, research ecologists from the University of Georgia’s Savannah River Ecology Lab, say that whereas radiation concentrations immediately after the accident were known to be “extremely high and dangerous, we don’t know what levels of radiation the wolves or other animals are exposed to now.” The researchers and their students are trained to study how human activities and disturbances affect the ecology of wildlife populations.
The CEZ wolves can serve as a proxy for determining the risks to human safety in low-level radiation areas. Among the questions being asked is whether cancer rates in the wolves are above normal levels, which can be determined indirectly with genetic studies. The researchers will also estimate wolf population sizes and distribution patterns across a gradient from high to low levels of contamination to look for demographic impacts. The findings can be applied to how humans might be affected……….http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20141205/NEWS/141209768/1291?p=1&tc=pg

December 8, 2014 Posted by | radiation, Ukraine | Leave a comment

USA Republican battling against climate change denialism

House Republican Plans to Introduce Pro-Climate-Science Bill http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/house-republican-plans-to-introduce-pro-climate-science-bill-20141205

Chris Gibson wants the GOP to “operate in the realm of knowledge and science.”

renewable-republicanFlag-USABY BEN GEMAN December 5, 2014 A Republican House member is battling the skepticism toward climate-change science that’s common in GOP ranks. And he wants to put lawmakers on record in the process.

Rep. Chris Gibson said Thursday he plans to introduce a resolution on climate change that will help others “recognize the reality” of the situation. Gibson said the extreme weather he has witnessed in his own upstate New York district supports the science, and he wants to be a leader in spurring recognition of changing weather patterns.

“My district has been hit with three 500-year floods in the last several years, so either you believe that we had a one in over 100 million probability that occurred, or you believe as I do that there’s a new normal, and we have changing weather patterns, and we have climate change. This is the science,” said the two-term lawmaker who was reelected in November.

“I hope that my party—that we will come to be comfortable with this, because we have to operate in the realm of knowledge and science, and I still think we can bring forward conservative solutions to this, absolutely, but we have to recognize the reality,” Gibson said. “So I will be bringing forward a bill, a resolution that states as such, with really the intent of rallying us, to harken us to our best sense, our ability to overcome hard challenges.”

Gibson spoke at an event hosted by Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, which is a pro-Republican advocacy group; a PAC that supports Republicans called Concord 51; and the Conservation Leadership Council, a group of conservatives that includes Gale Norton, who was Interior Secretary under George W. Bush. The Environmental Defense Fund helped create the CLC. Event organizers provided a video clip of his comments. Gibson’s office did not respond to inquiries about the matter. But while the specifics of the effort aren’t yet clear, Gibson’s stances are at odds with many in the GOP’s ranks.

Ascendant Republicans on Capitol Hill are preparing fresh assaults on the White House climate agenda, and expressing continued doubts about the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels and other human activity is the leading driver of global warming.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, during his reelection campaign in Kentucky, said he is “not a scientist” when asked about climate change, a line used by a number of Republicans.

Gibson, to be sure, hardly marches in lockstep with environmentalists. He supports the Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline and has voted for expanded offshore drilling.

But he also joined just two other Republicans last March in voting against a bill to scuttle EPA’s carbon-emissions rules for power plants, and he has also voted against other attacks on federal climate-change programs.

He won support in this year’s elections from the political branch of the Environmental Defense Fund. “It’s very encouraging to see this kind of leadership emerging in the Congress,” Tony Kreindler, EDF Action’s senior director for strategic communications, said of Gibson’s planned resolution.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Gibson both touted his support for expanded drilling and called for more investment in federal green-energy investment, while noting the potential of solar energy as costs decline.

December 8, 2014 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

Fast breeder nuclear reactors: Russia the only country with one in commercial operation

RUSSIAN NUCLEAR INDUSTRY OVERVIEW, Earth Life Johannesburg Vladimir Slivyak Russian environmental group, Ecodefense National Research University Higher School of Economics Moscow December 2014

“………..Fast breeders

The nuclear industry started to promote the so-called closed nuclear fuel cycle with fast breeder
reactors some 50 years ago. The idea was to develop a technological cycle that would involve
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, extracting plutonium from it, and then “breeding” this nuclear
material in commercial reactors in order to provide the nuclear power industry with a virtually
inexhaustible source of fuel while also eliminating the problem of managing the highly toxic
nuclear waste. No country in the world, however, has since been able to introduce a closed fuel
cycle successfully. All breeders that were brought online in Western countries that attempted to
close the nuclear cycle stopped their commercial operation long before their designed lifetime
periods expired, for economic, safety, and technical reasons. As of 2014, Russia remains the only
country with a fast breeder reactor in commercial operation, a BN-600 operating at Beloyarsk
Nuclear Power Plant.

Continue reading →

December 8, 2014 Posted by | Reference, reprocessing, Russia | Leave a comment

Troubled story of Russia’s new nuclear reactors plan

RUSSIAN NUCLEAR INDUSTRY OVERVIEW, Earth Life Johannesburg Vladimir Slivyak Russian environmental group, Ecodefense
National Research University Higher School of Economics Moscow December 2014
“…….New reactors
In 2008, the Russian government approved the “General Layout Plan for Siting Power Generation
Facilities for the period until 2020.” It included construction of 13.2 GW in new reactor capacities
within the next five years. By March 2010, this goal had been downscaled to just 5.2 GW. After
auditing the Ministry of Energy in March 2010, the Russian Audit Chamber announced it would
not be possible to achieve the target outlined in the plan. As a result, only about 40% of planned
reactors were expected to come online by 2015.11
In July 2012, Russia’s overall nuclear power development target for 2020 – 44 GW – was again
reduced, to 30.5 GW.12 The new target remains a pie-in-the-sky figure because the Russian
industry is unable to produce more than one reactor per year, according to the industry’s top
officials.
As of today, Rosenergoatom – Rosatom’s reactor-operating branch – lists ten new reactors as under
construction: eight VVER units, one fast breeder that is approaching the 30-year anniversary of
its construction, and a small floating nuclear plant.13
At least two of the VVER projects on this list have seen no progress since mid-2013 – the two units
of a planned Baltic NPP in Kaliningrad Region. A variety of reasons caused the construction to
freeze indefinitely, including the limited market for the future electricity and harsh criticism
by environmental movements on the project’s safety and financing issues. Rosatom sought
funding for this project in European Union countries, in hopes to involve foreign investors and
energy companies in building the plant and exporting its energy to Europe. These negotiations
took three years and proved unsuccessful. Russia’s neighbor and EU member, Lithuania, also
repeatedly criticized Rosatom over the project’s safety and lack of transparency. Environmental
groups from both Russia and Europe successfully campaigned against this project by pushing
European banks and companies to stay away. In 2013, the German Hypovereinsbank and the
French BNP Paribas announced in written form that they would not join the project. Earlier, the Italian energy giant ENEL had stated that it was doing its assessment and looking into the
possibility of investing in the Kaliningrad project. That led to heavy criticism by Russian and
Italian environmental groups in 2011-2012. The company never announced its decision. The
French bank Société Générale was under heavy pressure from Russian and French campaigners
in 2013 over its possible involvement in the Kaliningrad project. Société Générale’s managers
said in the beginning of 2013 that the bank planned to assess the possibility of joining the project
in Kaliningrad by providing the funds for turbine manufacturing by the French firm Alstom. No
decision was announced before the Russian government put the project on hold in June 2013.
Two more VVER-1200 reactors are currently under construction at the Leningrad nuclear plant;
construction started in 2008 and 2010, respectively. The units were slated for grid connection
by 2013 and 2016. Both projects, however, hit delays with grid connection dates pushed back
to 2016 and 2018, partly on account of a major accident that occurred at the construction site on
July 17, 2011. A 600-800-ton reinforcement cage of the containment building fell on its concrete
frame. The weight of the cage caused the concrete frame to crack and the entire structure had to
be replaced, leading to massive additional costs.14
Another two units on Rosenergoatom’s current construction list are so-called “floating reactors”
(Akademik Lomonosov 1, 2), 32 MW each. Rosatom began this project in 2007 with plans to
complete it by 2010. As of 2014, the completion date had been revised to 2019.15 Among the major
concerns with the project are the high risk of accidents, vulnerability to piracy and terrorism
threats, and the increased risk of proliferation of nuclear materials, if the project is taken to serial
production and floating nuclear power plants are deployed on a wide international scale.16
However, two units each at the Novovoronezh plant, Novovoronezh-2 (VVER-1200, under
construction since 2007, delayed for 2-3 years), and Rostov (VVER-1000, under construction
since 1983) are close to completion. Russian media repeatedly reported on corruption and safety
concerns related to the Novovoronezh-2 construction, but there was no investigation of these
claims by Rosatom.17
Another unit that is nearly completed is the fourth unit at Beloyarsk. This is a fast breeder r of the
BN-800 design; construction started back in 1986. So far, the only commercial breeder reactor
in operation in the world is the highly problematic Beloyarsk-3, of the BN-600 design. It was
passing its 30-years-in-operation mark back in 2013 and got its license extended for another 15

December 8, 2014 Posted by | politics, Reference, Russia | Leave a comment