France’s new nuclear power – not successful at home, so they might try to sell it off to Czech Republic
French foreign minister: EDF to consider participating in building new Czech nuclear reactors US News 23 Aug 15 PRAGUE (AP) — French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius says his country’s company will consider participating in developing the Czech Republic’s nuclear program.
The Czech government has recently approved a long-term plan to increase the country’s nuclear power production. As part of the plan, the government wants to build one more reactor at the Temelin nuclear plant and another at the Dukovany plant, with an option to build yet another reactor at each plant…..Speaking to reporters after meeting Czech counterpart Lubomir Zaoralek on Sunday, Fabius said it will be state-controlled utility Electricite de France that will be part of a public tender to build the reactors. http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/08/23/france-to-consider-helping-czech-nuclear-program
South Africa’s Finance Minister under pressure about govt plans for unaffordable nuclear power
Nuclear must be affordable, says Nene, Business Day, BY CAROL PATON, 24 AUGUST 2015, FINANCE MINISTER NHLANHLA NENE SAYS HE WILL HOLD THE LINE ON THE PROCUREMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IF IT IS UNAFFORDABLE, AND WILL REDUCE THE HEAD COUNT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE TO ENSURE SPENDING STAYS IN LINE WITH FISCAL TARGETS.
Mr Nene is under enormous political pressure to accede to a presidency-backed plan to procure 9,600MW of nuclear energy capacity at a time when public finances are at their weakest since the mid 1990s.
Underlining this pressure was the appearance of a fake intelligence dossier last week, smearing top Treasury officials as apartheid agents and alleging that they and Mr Nene are part of a conspiracy by the old white establishment to control the Treasury.
The document aroused grave concern among the public, and in political and investor circles, as it is feared it may signal a political attack on the Treasury, which until now has been a strong source of confidence given its ability to exercise tight control over government finances.
The Treasury and Mr Nene say that the document is baseless but appears to be a worrying attempt “to undermine and destablise the institution”.
Mr Nene’s comments, in an exclusive interview with Business Day on Friday, come at a time of keen interest from ratings agencies and the investor community regarding whether the government will stick to self-imposed spending ceilings designed to cut debt in this challenging political context.
Of the challenges, top of the list is whether Mr Nene will be able to hold the line on the nuclear procurement.
Treasury and Department of Energy officials spent most of last week locked in an intense engagement in Cape Town over the financing options for the project.
Mr Nene said that since the Treasury had only just been invited into the process, it was too early to make pronouncements.
However, if it was unaffordable to the country and to consumers, who would have to pay for the energy generated, it could not be done, he said….. the Department of Energy’s discussions with vendors have all assumed the full 9,600MW would be commissioned. The department also envisages using the programme for industrialisation and job creation, and aims to create a nuclear export industry.
It has to date refused to make public its studies or provide evidence that a nuclear procurement of 9,600MW is affordable.
Mr Nene said that as with any project that involved the allocation of resources, the Treasury would have to account to the nation.
“That is why following process is critical…. My job is spelt out in legislation and my role is to uphold and stay within the confines of the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act.”…..http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2015/08/24/nuclear-must-be-affordable-says-nene
Mismanagement at WIPP plant
Critics blame mismanagement for WIPP delay By Lauren Villagran / Journal Staff Writer – Las Cruces Bureau
PUBLISHED: Sunday, August 23, 2015 Albuquerque Journal
The U.S. Department of Energy says its decision to indefinitely delay reopening a southeast New Mexico nuclear waste repository is due to safety concerns and equipment setbacks, but critics claim the holdup has as much to do with missteps and inadequate oversight.
DOE says it needs more time to ensure a safe recovery from last year’s underground fire and radiation leak at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, so the March 2016 target to restart some operations is no longer feasible. A new schedule is expected this fall – and is likely to come with increased costs above the original $500 million estimated.
But local watchdogs claim the delays stem from errors made by the site contractor and inadequate oversight by DOE – not just safety concerns.
John Heaton, head of the Carlsbad mayor’s Nuclear Task Force, rattled off a list of issues at WIPP, including ventilation equipment that was damaged en route from the manufacturer, a safety document that has taken more than eight months to rewrite, delays in decisions about how to permanently reconfigure the contaminated underground ventilation system – among other things.
“It’s just really frustrating,” he said. “How would you call it anything but incompetence?……..http://www.abqjournal.com/632748/news/wipp-delay-blamed-on-mismanagement.html
Pilgrim Nuclear plant shutdown – inquiry to begin
Inquiry to begin over Pilgrim nuclear plant’s ‘safe’ shutdown By Nicole Fleming GLOBE CORRESPONDENT AUGUST 23, 2015 The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station on Cape Cod Bay in Plymouth remains closed Sunday after going into an automatic shutdown Saturday afternoon, according to station and government officials.
“The plant is currently in a safe, stable shutdown condition and there is no impact on the health and safety of the public or plant employees,” said Lauren Burm, a spokeswoman for Entergy Corp., the company that operates Pilgrim, in a statement……This is the Pilgrim station’s third automatic shutdown since Jan. 1. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2015/08/23/pilgrim/167XSkCzXsipC7rRILcV2L/story.html
How Canada’s PM Harper removed the teeth of the nation’s nuclear watchdog
How Harper turned a nuclear watchdog into a lapdog http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/blog/Blogentry/how-harper-turned-a-nuclear-watchdog-into-a-l/blog/53839/
Greenpeace and other environment groups asked the Commission today to release a study censored by CNSC staff because it apparently reveals weaknesses of offsite emergency response around the Darlington nuclear station.
We learned the study had been suppressed by requesting documents under federal Access to Information legislation, but its cover-up fits with the Harper government’s ongoing attack on our democratic institutions.
For a decade now the Harper government has gagged scientists, intimidated independent government watchdogs, and gutted environmental protection laws. All these attacks have a common objective: prevent the release of any information at odds with Harper’s goal of making Canada an energy “super power”.Whether it’s Alberta’s tar sands or Ontario and Saskatchewan’s nuclear industry, Harper’s endgame was to deny Canadians information that puts dirty power in a bad light.
The CNSC decision to suppress this public safety shows how much Harper’s succeeded.
One of Harper’s first attacks on arms-length watchdogs was when he fired the CNSC’s former president Linda Keen in 2008.
Keen was fired because she had the audacity to tell the Canadian nuclear industry they’d need to meet modern international nuclear safety standards if they wanted to build new reactors.
This angered the nuclear lobby, and especially the engineering giant SNC-Lavalin, who wanted to build new reactors on the cheap by cutting back on safety systems by building an outdated pre-Chernobyl, pre-September 11th reactor design.
SNC-Lavalin set out to have Keen ousted and found a sympathetic ear with Harper. Letting environmental protection block industry expansion is anathema to goals of the Harper government. Harper fired Keen and installed a more industry-friendly president.
The new president Michael Binder quickly remade the Commission in Harper’s image. The CNSC became an industry cheerleader with Binder even providing promotional quotes for industry press releases.
While the Harper government gutted environmental laws, Binder let it be known that environmental reviews would be little more than a foregone conclusion under his watch anyway.
And the muzzling of government scientists appears to be alive and well at the CNSC.
A 2014 Environics survey of federal scientists found CNSC staff often feel that politics trumps science at the Commission
The censored study we asked for today is a tangible example of how public safety assessments are being re-written for political ends.
In 2014, the CNSC released a severe accident study purportedly assessing the impacts of a “severe”accident at the Darlington nuclear station.
Such an assessment is needed because Ontario Power Generation (OPG) wants to extend the lives of four aging reactors at Darlington. Sitting just 60 km from downtown Toronto the Darlington reactors are located in Canada’s densely populated. This raises questions about the ability of Canada’s largest city to cope with a major nuclear accident.
The public had also pushed for this study. Following the Fukushima disaster hundreds of citizens called for such a study. It was a reasonable request. Believe it or not, the CNSC has never studied the consequences of a major Fukushima-scale accident in Canada.
CNSC staff reluctantly relented and committed to produce an accident study before hearings on OPG’s application to rebuild the aging Darlington reactors later this year.
But eyebrows were raised when the CNSC finally published the promised study in 2014. Media coverage focused on the study’s rather anti-intuitive conclusion: a severe accident at Darlington would have a negligible impact on the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
I learned later the reason for the curious conclusion. Senior CNSC management had suppressed the original study, which did look at a Fukushima-scale radiation release.
According to documents I received through Access to Information, senior CNSC management stopped the release of the original study when apprised of its findings. They instructed staff to redo the study and exclude scenarios leading to a Fukushima-scale radiation release.
The justification to censor the study provided by CNSC Director Francois Rinfret shows how the CNSC has operationalized Harper’s policy of suppressing any evidence at odds with the expansion of major energy projects.
After Rinfret reviewed the study in early 2013, Rinfet told staff:
“I have taken a quick look at the draft submitted; indeed, this will become a focal point of any licence renewal, and despite brilliant attempts to caution readers, this document would be used malevolent-ly [sic] in a public hearing. It’s a no-win proposition whatever whatever (sic) we think the Commission requested.”
We were refused the details of the study, but Rinfret’s comments suggest the study reveals significant threats to public safety.
This makes sense. Ontario’s nuclear emergency plans effectively pre-date Chernobyl. Population is growing across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). There are surely weaknesses, especially in light of Fukushima.
An independent watchdog mandated to protect public safety would publish the data and use the information to improve safety requirements. But under Harper the CNSC is a lapdog with a mandate to protect the image and profits of the industry it regulates.
CNSC management were clearly concerned the study would be used to challenge the adequacy of the CNSC’s safety requirements. Worse, the public could decide the Darlington life-extension just isn’t worth the risk. Under the Harper regime, such inconvenient information is suppressed instead of being addressed by the government agencies.
We have nevertheless asked for the Commission to release the study. If public safety is at risk, it must be released – and we all need to call for its release.
Whatever the Commission’s response, Harper has created a dangerous culture at the CNSC. It puts Canadians at risk.
The public had good reason to ask for an assessment of the impacts of a Fukushima-type accident. Accidents are happening about once a decade internationally, and we need to know if Toronto could cope with such an event at Darlington before OPG is allowed to spend billions rebuilding the station.
As became clear after the Fukushima disaster, Japan’s industry-friendly nuclear regulator was a key cause of the accident.
Under Harper’s watch, the CNSC has been transformed from a watchdog into a lapdog. The parallels with Japan’s nuclear regulator before Fukushima are worrisome.
Let’s hope the next federal government cleans up the CNSC.
Protest by 3 middle aged women costs nuclear firm €1million
Anti-nuclear demo ‘cost firm €1million’ http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/13610163.Anti_nuclear_demo____cost_firm____1million___/?ref=twtrec AN anti-nuclear protest by three women that blocked the main road into Hinkley B power station cost EDF approximately one million euros, it it was claimed at Taunton Magistrates Court on Friday.
Ornella Saibene, 55, Marian Connelly, 61, and Caroline Hope, 73, effectively prevented all access to the power plant on April 1 this year when they chained themselves together and lay across the road, preventing workers from accessing the site.
The protest started just after 7am and caused a three-mile build up of traffic until they agreed to move at 90.30 a.m.
The women – all from Bristol – were each fined £200 and ordered to pay £105 costs after pleading guilty to obstructing the route. Joanne Pearce, prosecuting, said: “The closure cost one million euros. Their disregard to safety and the security of a nuclear power station cannot be tolerated.”
Connelly, Saibene and Hope argued they were exercising their democratic right to civil disobedience and had not committed a criminal offence.
She read out a statement from Green West Euro MP Molly Scott Cato comparing nuclear power stations to “ageing dinosaurs.”
PCAH says…1:04pm Wed 19 Aug 15
Drought-Fueled Wildfires Burn 7 Million Acres in U.S.
Bobby Magill: “Sap a forest of rain — say, for three or four years — toss in seemingly endless sunshine and high temperatures, and you’ve got just the right recipe for some catastrophic wildfires.
“Such is the story playing out in the West, where, thanks in part to climate change, drought-fueled infernos are incinerating forests at a record pace from Alaska to California, claiming the lives of 13 firefighters, destroying more than 900 structures and requiring firefighting agencies to call in help from the U.S. Army and as far away as Australia and New Zealand.
Photo: The Aggie Creek fire burns along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in June. Credit: USDA/flickr
“Here’s the breakdown: As of Aug. 20, more than 41,300 wildfires have scorched more than 7.2 million acres in 2015, mostly in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. That’s nearly three times the 2.6 million acres that burned nationwide in 2014…
View original post 90 more words
Nuclear SAFER NOT – Nuclear Emergency Backup in Heart of New Madrid Quake Zone
One of the most dangerous, and often ignored, aspects of nuclear energy is that nuclear power stations always have need for backup energy supplies for cooling of the nuclear reactors, and spent fuel pools, as dramatically demonstrated by the never-ending Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
Thus, belatedly, last year, “The nuclear industry has officially opened two National Response Centers — in Memphis, Tenn., and Phoenix, Ariz… The centers, previously called Regional Response Centers, contain extra equipment to duplicate plants’ emergency diesel generators, pumps, hoses and so on. … An industry group, called the Strategic Alliance for FLEX Emergency Response (SAFER), is managing the response centers. This organization also has two control centers that are separate from response centers and would coordinate equipment deliveries.” http://public-blog.nrc-gateway. gov/2014/08/18/watching-response-centers-put-trucks-on-the-road/
Is the area of the New Madrid fault a place to put one of two National Response Centers? It is amazingly blinkered. The Memphis…
View original post 3,699 more words
US NRC: Spreading the Italian Triangle of Death to America? Refuse Omertà. Remember to Comment by September 8th
Why, and by what right, has a “researcher”, Giovanni Pagano, from Italy’s “Triangle of Death”, put in a comment to the US NRC that the US should raise their public radiation level over 100 fold to 100 mSv PER YEAR, which would make America into an even more deadly zone than Italy’s “Triangle of Death”? (Comment until Sept. 8th if you don’t wish to die of cancer, or see your loved ones do so: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057. It will quickly spread elsewhere if approved.)
Triangle of Death
Pagano must know very well that Sorensen (see e-mail) works for Pagano’s colleague Dr. Calabrese, and yet seems to feign ignorance. Sorensen is “Managing Director of the International Dose-Response Society” and Calabrese is the “Director“. The “International Dose-Response Society“, run from U. Mass Amherst, was formerly called the “International Hormesis Society,” (more commonly known as radiation is…
View original post 8,510 more words
23rd to 25th August Wylfa Twinning Camp
Wylfa-Fukushima
23rd -25th August 2015
Wylfa -Fukushima August 23-25th Events
Naoto Kan
On 23 to 25 August, at a camp near the Tregele and Cemaes, the location of
WYLFA power station, guests from Japan, who have lived through the
Fukushima disaster, will warn the people of North Wales and the pro-nuclear
authorities not to go ahead with the planned huge 3 GigaBite reactor WYLFA
B. There are countless unknowns that can lead to a nuclear catastrophe and
any safety is a completely unrealistic idea in connection with any nuclear
devices . Speakers from the campaign against Hinkley point, the nuclear
powerstation in Sumerset, and representatives from Greenpeace and Friends
of the Earth will inform us about their progress.
The existing power station at Wylfa has been shut down many times because
of faults and leaks of radiation into the environment and such events have
always been kept quiet. As there…
View original post 127 more words
Escalating costs, expanding timelines, cast doubt on the future of modular nuclear construction
Fitch: ‘Failure’ of new nuke construction means fewer plants https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-33617164-10551 , Thursday, August 20, 2015 By Matthew Bandyk The troubled construction of new nuclear reactors in Georgia and South Carolina will likely chill the pursuit of more nuclear plants in the U.S., although recent actions by the U.S. EPA and the Department of Energy could improve the outlook over time, according to an analysis by Fitch Ratings.
As a result, there will be less new nuclear to replace the increasing number of retiring plants. Fitch said that the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s forecast of nuclear generation falling by 10,800 MW by 2020 might be too conservative if more plants retire due to local political pressure and the need for costly upgrades.
The nuclear projects at the Vogtle and V.C. Summer plants, the first new nuclear generation built in the U.S. in decades, use the Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC AP1000 reactor design, which promised to be cheaper and more efficient to build than past nuclear plants that saw spiraling cost overruns during construction. In particular, Westinghouse touted the “modern, modular” construction technique in which major plant components would be built off-site as modules, allowing pieces of the project to be completed in parallel and in turn speeding up construction.
But “the recent failure of modular construction to deliver lower prices and shorter timelines will likely keep a cap on U.S. nuclear development into the midterm,” Fitch analysts said in a statement Aug. 20. The Vogtle and Summer projects are each running about three years behind schedule and are now expected to cost a few billion dollars more than originally estimated.
The blame for much of the delays has been centered on subpar work on the modules at facilities like Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V.‘s Lake Charles fabrication facility in Louisiana. CB&I has since shifted work to other facilities, and monitors of the Vogtle project recently reported that the module work has “improved significantly.” But the contractors continue to miss their own deadlines and there is still risk of more delays, the same monitors said.
In addition, four AP1000 reactors under construction in China are also seeing rising costs and delays, Fitch noted.
One of the best hopes for the U.S. nuclear industry comes from the EPA’s recently finalized Clean Power Plan, according to Fitch. The rule allows new nuclear plants and capacity uprates at existing plants to generate credits that states can use to reduce their CO2 emissions levels and comply with the rule. In addition, the DOE continues to try to lower the financing costs for the nuclear industry through loan guarantees. Last year the DOE said it is accepting applications from nuclear developers for $12.5 billion in loan guarantees.
Both the EPA and DOE efforts could “yield growth factors longer term,” Fitch said.
Disposal of nuclear waste turning out to be half the cost of reprocessing with MOX fuel
Disposal beats MOX in US comparison http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Disposal-beats-MOX-in-US-comparison-2108151.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter 21 August 2015
America is reconsidering how it will dispose of 34 tonnes of plutonium as the previous plan involving a MOX plant has been said to be twice as costly as a dilution and disposal option in a leaked Department of Energy (DOE) report.
The plutonium arises from a June 2000 nuclear weapons reduction agreement with Russia under which both countries would put 34 tonnes of plutonium beyond military use. Russia opted to use its plutonium as fuel for fast reactors generating power at Beloyarsk.
The USA, meanwhile, decided to build a mixed-oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel plant at Savannah River, where the plutonium would be mixed with uranium and made into fuel for light-water reactors. The design is similar to Areva’s Melox facility at Marcoule, but modified to handle metal plutonium ‘pits’ from US weapons and their conversion from metal to plutonium oxide. It is this part of the process that has been problematic. Construction started in 2007 with an estimated cost of $4.9 billion but work ran into serious trouble before being ‘zeroed’ in the DOE’s 2014 budget, putting development on ice.
The Union of Concerned Scientists yesterday published what it said was an unreleased DOE report that compared the cost of completing the MOX plant to other options. Use in fast reactors was considered briefly, but with this technology not readily available in the near term, the prime comparison was against a ‘dilution and disposal’ option which would see the plutonium mixed with inert materials and disposed of in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, in New Mexico.
Despite being 60% built, the MOX plant still needs some 15 years of construction work, said the leaked report, and then about three years of commissioning. Once in operation the plant would work through the plutonium over about 10 years with this 28-year program to cost $700-800 million per year – a total of $19.6-22.4 billion on top of what has already been spent. Not only is the price tag very high, but the timescale is too long: the report said this would not meet the disposal timeframe agreed with Russia.
The cost of the MOX plant could not be mitigated by income from sales of the MOX fuel because the regulatory process to gain approval to use MOX would be too burdensome for a commercial utility. The report said “it may be unlikely” that even a utility in a regulated market where fuel costs are passed on to consumers would “bear the risk of MOX fuel even if it is free”.
Dilution and disposal would cost $400 million per year, said the report, “over a similar duration” as MOX, working out at close to half the cost. Other advantages for dilution and disposal are that it requires no new facilities to be created or decommissioned after use, although the increase in WIPP disposal means “it may eventually become desirable to explore expansion of WIPP’s capacity” beyond currently legislated limits. This unique geologic disposal facility was said to be of “tremendous value to both DOE and the State of New Mexico”.
Public meetings in September about reviewing Nevada nuclear waste dump plan
Regulators schedule meetings on Nevada nuclear dump report http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/regulators-schedule-meetings-on-nevada-nuclear-dump-report 08/21 2015 LAS VEGAS
The federal agency reviewing plans for the long-stalled Yucca Mountain national nuclear waste dump in Nevada has set dates and places of public meetings about revisions to an environmental report.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Friday that it’ll hold a Sept. 3 meeting from 3-5 p.m. Eastern time at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.
Meetings will be held Sept. 15 at the Embassy Suites Convention Center in Las Vegas, and Sept. 17 at the Amargosa Community Center in Amargosa Valley, Nevada. Both will be from 7-9 p.m. Pacific time.
On Oct. 15, NRC staff will conduct a public conference call from 2-4 p.m. Eastern time.
NRC officials also plan a public conference call at 11 a.m. next Tuesday, Pacific time, to explain how to submit comments about the environmental report.1
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – with a small chance of actually happening
Critics cite the lack of any track record on cost or safety for small modular reactors, plus concerns over the nation’s lack of a permanent place to store used nuclear fuel. No one has built a commercial small modular reactor yet.
Tri-Cities interests hope to attract mass production of small modular reactors to the never-finished Energy Northwest reactor site at the Hanford nuclear reservation.
Small nukes: a long-term prospect for Tri-Cities?, by John Stang, Crosscut, 18 Aug 15 “……..economics and proximity to buyers will probably be the deciding factors on where NuScale will build both individual small modular reactors and its manufacturing plant, said McGough and John Dobken, spokesman for Energy Northwest (a consortium of Washington public utilities, including Seattle City Light).
Small modular reactors are prefab reactors whose parts are manufactured in one location, and then transported to the reactor site for final assembly. A modular segment would be a mini-reactor of 50 to 300 megawatts. Energy Northwest’s Columbia Generating Station, a nuclear plant, produces more than 1,190 megawatts of electricity, equal to about a tenth of the state’s energy needs. Small modular reactors are supposed to be designed so extra modules can be added as needed — with 12 modules being the theoretical maximum. They are similar to the small reactors that operate on U.S. Navy ships.
The initial cost estimate to take the project from design to the first Idaho Falls reactor is roughly $1 billion. In recent years, the deep-pocketed global giant Fluor Corp. bought NuScale.
NuScale, Energy Northwest, the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (a Utah version of Energy Northwest) and the U.S. Department of Energy facility at Idaho Falls have agreed to build the first such reactor in Idaho by 2023. NuScale plans to submit its design to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by late this year, hoping for a green light about 40 months later.
Rep. Gerald Pollett, D-Seattle and a leading Northwest nuclear power critic, said, “Talking about siting such a thing is premature.”
Critics cite the lack of any track record on cost or safety for small modular reactors, plus concerns over the nation’s lack of a permanent place to store used nuclear fuel. No one has built a commercial small modular reactor yet, although supporters contend they are similar to the small reactors that operate on U.S. Navy ships.
Energy Northwest’s interest in getting its own small modular reactor will depend on if and when Energy Northwest’s member utilities will need extra power. At this time, the consortium does not expect that need to grow for the next few years, Dobken said.
Another wrinkle is that a 1981 state law requires that a public utilities group conduct a public ballot on any significant energy generation project that is likely to increase utility rates. Consequently, a public vote stretching from Seattle to Kennewick could lurk in the future of a small modular reactor project if Energy Northwest’s rates might be affected.
Chuck Johnson of the nuclear watchdog organization Physicians for Social Responsibility voiced concern about a scenario in which a single 50-megawatt reactor module would fall beneath the ballot threshold of the 1981 Washington law, and the addition of 50-megawatt modules one at a time could keep a state project below that public-vote benchmark.
“We’re big on the technology and believe the technology should be made available,” Dobken said.
Such a manufacturing plant would need about 1.9 million square feet of space, employ about 1,000 people and would aim to produce 36 to 52 modules a year, McGough said. NuScale is looking at Hanford, the Southwest, Utah and several Midwest, Southern and Eastern seaboard states as potential manufacturing sites.
“The site is still up in the air. … It depends on who shows up with the orders first,” McGough said……http://crosscut.com/2015/08/small-nukes-a-long-term-prospect-for-tri-cities/
Censorship, Secrecy, and Cover-up Laws as governments try to “End” nuclear disasters
Nuclear Industry And Governments Trying To ‘End’ Nuclear Disasters By Passing Censorship, Secrecy And Cover Up Laws After Chernobyl, TMI, Fukushima http://agreenroad.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/nuclear-industry-and-governments-trying.html Part I – Click on CC at bottom of video for English subtitles Belarus and Chernobyl: time blurs the truth, while nuclear industry and government cover it up and deny the rest.
1 This Month.
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (268)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
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 