2015 January 03 « nuclear-news

The year when some real action might happen on climate change

Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs

However much people can achieve through individual action, in 2015 it’s a critical time for public action. In December, world leaders meet again to make a plan for climate change action.

At the same time, the failing nuclear industry is making its last, and most dangerous stand, as the nuclear lobby portrays itself as the cure for global warming. Sometimes this pitch is subtly put, touting nuclear and renewable energy as both “part of the mix”. Whether subtly or blatantly, the nuclear lobby’s agenda includes stopping the development of renewable energy and of energy efficiency.

Pope Francis has come out loud and strong for climate action. And he’s going to be there at the December Summit. (A bit awkward for that devout Australian Catholic, Tony Abbott?) Sir David Attenborough warned world leaders to stop their ignoring and/or denial of climate change

USA. The latest shutdown, of the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility, is having its impact across the whole American nuclear industry. USA is really in a mess here. Because the government is legally bound to provide a permanent nuclear waste dump, and has not done so, nuclear companies like Vermont Yankee’s Entergy Wholesale Commodities can go ahead andsue the government. As always, in matters nuclear, it’s the tax-payers who cop the bill.

At the same time, this sorry mess, plus the low costs of oil, gas, and renewables makes investors very averse to the nuclear industry.

Diplomacy. USA and Iran make a tentative agreement on advance of the next round of nuclear talks. Success in these world talks would be a great step forward for global peace. Equally important would be a renewed nuclear arms control agreement between America and Russia. India and Pakistan exchange lists of their nuclear facilities.

Despite those positive trends – there remains the problem of increasing nuclear weaponry –NATO , USA , China , India ,Russia,

Renewable energy – going ahead in leaps and bounds – Germany – 25% of its electricity production in Nov 14. Big companies investing in renewables – Norway’s Statkraft and big multinational corporations

January 3, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

For world peace, a nuclear arms control agreement between USA and Russia is vital

A Vital Nuclear Agreement, at Risk, NYT, By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JAN. 1, 2015There’s much more to the deeply troubled Russian-American relationship than Ukraine. Under the radar, tensions have also been brewing over compliance with a number of arms control treaties that for decades have been vital to keeping the peace between the two nuclear powers and setting an example for other countries.

Washington accuses Moscow of violating at least five of these agreements. A failure to resolve the impasse could have extremely dangerous consequences for the post-Cold War order, since even 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the two sides together possess more than 10,000 nuclear weapons, more than 90 percent of what exists in the world.

The most serious dispute centers on the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which bans both sides from deploying ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 300 and 3,400 miles that carry nuclear or conventional warheads. These were among the weapons America once stationed in Europe to demonstrate a commitment to its allies and deter the Soviets from aggression.

Under the treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan and the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, America destroyed 846 missiles and the Soviets, 1,846 missiles. Both sides had come to see the systems as unacceptably risky to their own forces…………….

Despite the dispute, it would be a huge mistake for the United States to withdraw from the I.N.F. treaty, as some congressmen have demanded. That would remove all restraints on Russia and seriously weaken a system of treaties that has been remarkably effective over decades at curbing the spread of destructive weapons.

It would also be a mistake for either side to reintroduce the banned weapons onto their own territory or elsewhere. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, recently asserted Moscow’s right to put nuclear missiles in Crimea, while Brian McKeon, a senior Pentagon official, told Congress this month that one response to Russia’s treaty violation could be to deploy American ground missiles in Europe. New deployments would reverse a trend in which the two countries have substantially reduced their huge arsenals in recent years.

The Obama administration should continue pursuing a diplomatic solution to the treaty dispute and resist the growing pressure in Congress for quick retaliation, which could make the situation worse. And it should explore other forms of pressure, like economic punishment and deployment of new defenses against cruise missiles.

So far, there is no evidence that Russia has deployed its new missiles, which would be a serious escalation. The United States and its allies should make efforts to bring Russia back into compliance with the treaty, and Russia needs to know that defiance will come at a cost.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/opinion/a-vital-nuclear-agreement-at-risk.html?_

January 3, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

Very worrying questions about the safety of Ukraine’s nuclear reactors

Has the Largest Nuclear Plant In Europe – Located In Ukraine – Suffered a Major Accident? December 31, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog

Preface by Washington’s Blog: Investigative journalism requires asking questions in the face of potential cover-ups. Guest writer George Eliason is asking question, and admitting both that (1) the reports are unconfirmed and (2) he doesn’t have the necessary expertise to render an authoritative opinion on this issue.

But since the stakes are so high, it is worth asking the question.

By George Eliason, an American journalist living in Ukraine.

Over the last week more publications including Zero Hedge have started reporting on the possibility of a still developing nuclear problem at the largest nuclear plant in Europe. This news has been widely circulated in Eastern Europe over the last few weeks.

The problem in Ukraine has been and remains verification. Ukrainian sources have not been forthcoming. When this first occurred I was contacted through a 2nd party and told directly after the officially reported transformer incident a radiation spike was observed in Crimea which is 140km away from Zaporozhye nuclear power plant. This spike was small against background radiation but noticeable on a geiger counter. I was also given hacked files of the emergency conversation that happened at the plant that day. They are included at the bottom of the article. The closeness to what is coming to light makes them too close to be ignored………

Ukraine reported an incident (non-nuclear) which was a transformer short circuiting, not an accident which is used for radiological issues. This was carried across the nuclear industry forums that talked about it. The case was closed on that basis.

As reported at Zero Hedge–Two days ago we reported of the odd coincidence of a 2nd emergency shutdown at Ukraine’s Zaporozhye Nuclear reactor – Europe’s largest nuclear power plant – following our earlier fears of disinformation. Today, we get information of a leaked report sourced from three different place – unconfirmed for now (but RT is trying to verify) – that Ukrainian nuclear scientists misled the public and a radioactive leak has been detected – citing the country’s emergency services claiming that levels of radiation are 16.3 times the legally permitted norm.

What does 16.3 times allowable (legal) mean? In a pre-Fukashima world if any nuclear plant in the US were to report 1X allowable radiation/ steam (contamination) release every major publication in the country would be focused on that event.

Allowable release at nuclear power plants falls under a Zero tolerance policy. At Zaporozhye power plant background radiation before the event registered at 10-12 counts per minute on a geiger counter. At 50 counts it does not cause an alarm but is something to monitor.

At 100 counts the threshold for alarm is reached and radiological personal protective gear might be warranted. Zaporozhye is well beyond that threshold now………..

What We Know about Zaporozhye

We now know that radiation was released and reports of a steam blow off are starting to surface. Unfortunately this is in line with information I was told about a fire in the cooling system and a contaminated side steam pipe burst inside the containment (their word sarcophagus). We know people that have left the area have reported that iodine tablets are being handed out to people that live close to the plant.

We know that the plant shut down all social media for plant workers so they would not talk about the incident. This was a highly unusual move for a transformer problem.

A second reactor(#6) has been shutdown at the same plant and restarted at the same plant on December 28th or has it. This linked document shows that unit #6 is still down on December 29th.

A third at South Ukraine Nuclear Power plant which has been testing Westinghouse fuel assemblies is in an abnormally long shutdown. Normal is 30-40 days. This is predicted at 120 days.

This is not the first time this year Zaporozhye had unscheduled shutdowns.

In the spring Pravy Sektor tried unsuccessfully to storm nuclear power plants 3 times. Later the government of Ukraine ordered that they guard nuclear material, nuclear facilities, and even nuclear waste through their troops in the Ukrainian National Guard.

As surreal as it sounds Poroshenko’s government put the terrorists that tried to take nuclear plants by force in charge…………http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/largest-nuclear-plant-europe-located-ukraine-suffered-major-accident.html

January 3, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Tentative agreement between Iran and USA

Iran and US tentatively agree on formula to reduce nuclear programme http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/02/iran-us-tentative-deal-nuclear-programme-uranium-russia Washington hopes Tehran will ship enriched uranium to Russia to reduce its weapon-making ability, diplomats say Iran and the United States have tentatively agreed on a formula that Washington hopes will reduce Tehran’s ability to make nuclear arms by committing it to ship to Russia much of the material needed for such weapons, diplomats say.

In another sign of progress, two diplomats told Associated Press that negotiators at the December round of nuclear talks drew up for the first time a catalogue outlining areas of potential accord and differing approaches to remaining disputes.The diplomats said differences still dominate ahead of the next round of Iran six-power talks on 15 January in Geneva. But they suggested that even agreement to create a to-do list would have been difficult previously because of wide gaps between the sides.

Iran denies it wants nuclear arms, but it is negotiating with the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany on cuts to its atomic programme in the hope of ending crippling sanctions. The talks have been extended twice due to stubborn disagreements.

The main conflict is over uranium enrichment, which can create both reactor fuel and the fissile core of nuclear arms.In seeking to reduce Iran’s bomb-making ability, the US has proposed that Tehran export much of its stockpile of enriched uranium – something the Islamic Republic has long said it would not do.

The diplomats said both sides in the talks are still arguing about how much of an enriched uranium stockpile to leave Iran. . It now has enough for several bombs, and Washington wants substantial cuts below that level.

But the diplomats said the newly created catalogue lists shipping out much of the material as tentatively agreed upon.The diplomats, who are familiar with the talks, spoke to the AP recently and demanded anonymity because they are not authorised to comment on the closed negotiations.

Issues that still need agreement, they said, include the size of Iran’s future enrichment output. The US insists that it be cut in half, leaving Tehran with about 4,500 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, or fewer if it replaces them with advanced models. Tehran is ready for a reduction of only about 20%, according to the diplomats.

Two other unresolved issues are Iran’s Fordo underground enrichment site and the nearly built Arak nuclear reactor. The US and its five allies in the talks want to repurpose Fordo to a non-enrichment function because it is believed impervious to a military attack from the air. The six also seek to re-engineer Arak from a model that produces enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons a year to a less proliferation-prone model.

Negotiators hope to reach a rough deal by March and a final agreement by 30 June.

January 3, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

New book – Towards a World War III Scenario

The Dangers of Nuclear War http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-dangers-of-nuclear-war/5422597 By Prof Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, January 02, 2015 While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality.

The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace.

“Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.

Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

Book NEW: Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War https://store.globalresearch.ca/store/towards-a-world-war-iii-scenario-the-dangers-of-nuclear-war/

January 3, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | resources - print, Resources -audiovicual | Leave a comment

Enormous risk in France’s plan for nuclear garbage tip near the town Bure.

Nuclear Waste on the Aquifer Nuclear free by 2045? http://nf2045.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/the-inconvenience-of-geothermic-energy.html by Professor Canardeau translation of Des déchets (nucléaires) sur la nappe Le Canard enchaîné December 2014

A huge pocket of warm water exists beneath what is supposed to be France’s largest nuclear garbage pit, located near the town Bure. This site is destined to store, for at least 100,000 years, the most dangerous high-level waste that has accumulated since France built its first reactor. 125 meters tall, 30 kilometers wide and dozens of kilometers long, this reserve of warm water could sooner or later be used to produce heat or energy. The water is a comfortable 66 degrees, but it is found at a depth of 1,800 meters, while the nuclear waste is to be buried above it at a depth of 500 meters.

On January 5, 2015, the agency for the management of radioactive waste (ANDRA) will find itself on trial in high court in Nanterre for having divulged false information concerning the supposed absence of concern about significant underground water tables at the site in Bure. The citizen groups Sortir du nucléaireand Stop Bure 55, and Mirabel Lorraine Nature Environnement have brought the charges.

Some background: The fundamental rules related to deep geological disposal of nuclear waste, established in 1991 and still in force, clearly state that sites should not involve significant concerns about geothermal sources or build-up of heat. But in 2002, the geophysicist André Mourot (now deceased) was going through the archives at the Bureau of Geological and Mining Research in Nancy, Reims, and he discovered the existence of this aquifer, and he realized its significance as a source of energy. The geologist Antoine Godinot remembers that André Mourot wrote a report and distributed it to all interested groups. Next, they demanded that ANDRA conduct testing to learn fully about the aquifer.

ANDRA made no response until 2008. “What a disaster, this drilling and testing,” laughed the nuclear physicist Monique Sené. “The probe got stuck. They couldn’t even reach the aquifer.”

This fiasco didn’t stop ANDRA from declaring in 2009 that the geothermic source is negligible. Since then it has stuck to this position. To the malcontents it accuses of spreading this information about a geothermic potential, it responds, “The studies done by ANDRA concern whether there is an exceptional geothermic resource.” For ANDRA, as far as Bure is concerned, there is “no geothermic resource of exceptional interest.” Everything hinges on what is understood by “exceptional.”

Tada! At the end of 2013, at the request of the local information committee tracking the Bure laboratory (composed of representatives of the State, local collectives, and civil society groups), a Swiss group called Geowatt, specializing in geothermic energy resources, produced a report that stated, “We are of the opinion that the geothermic resources of the Bure region could at present be developed at an economical cost with the use of appropriate technology. The nail in the coffin was the additional comment stating, “The burial of nuclear waste prevents access to the geothermic resource.”

The physicist Bernard Laponche points out, “If we build this project at this site, we are going to impose enormous risks on future generations, and for sure one day people will want to exploit this geothermic energy, but they will stumble upon the nuclear waste that is blocking access to it. ”

Perhaps ANDRA will be able to leave their contact information for future generations to get in touch.

January 3, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | France, wastes | 1 Comment

Secretive information on Ukraine’s nuclear reactors feeds fears that all is not well there

‘Second Chernobyl’ may be underway in Ukraine. Bobby 1’s Blog 30 dec 14 Denis Pushilin, a pro-separatist leader in southeast Ukraine, has said the Ukraine faces a ‘second Chornobyl’ due to Ukraine’s decision to use nuclear fuel supplied by Westinghouse for its Soviet-built nuclear power plants.

He said radiation has increased to 14 times the acceptable norm at the Zaporizhia nuclear plant. This is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, and the fifth largest in the world.

The Russian news agency Interfax reported that in a statement on December 28, Pushilin said Ukraine faces “a second Chornobyl” due to Kyiv’s decision to use nuclear fuel supplied by Westinghouse — a reference to the deadly 1986 nuclear power plant accident that spead radioactivity over parts of Europe.

Pushilin said that “currently the level of radiation is 14 times higher than the acceptable norm” in the area around the Zaporizhzhya plant and that the problem started November 28 “after an unsuccessful attempt to replace rods in the Russian-made third block (reactor) with the product of the American company Western house.”……….

it seems that all 6 reactors will have their fuel rods replaced with Westinghouse fuel at some point. Crimea is nearby Zaporizhia, and it is now part of Russia. Irradiation of Russian citizens, especially due to a switch in fuel supplier from Russia to Westinghouse, would add even more tension to the Ukraine crisis, which is already threatening to lead to global nuclear war.

The reason Ukraine is switching to Westinghouse fuel is political. Russia has already agreed to supply its fuel to Ukraine, and there are no sanctions involved. Ukraine has become a vassal state to the West after the coup earlier this year. It is being used as a pawn, and a place to deploy missiles near the Russian border, in an encirclement strategy by the US and NATO.

In 2012, during a routine inspection, Energoatom reported that Westinghouse’s assemblies had structural damage. It had to swap those for Russian-made fuel assemblies, which the utility estimated cost it $170 million.

After a suit threatened by Energoatom, Westinghouse tried to make good on its deal and produced modified fuel rods for the Russian built VVER-440 reactors. These, too, were found defective………..http://optimalprediction.com/wp/second-chernobyl-may-be-underway-in-ukraine/

January 3, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment