2016 April 01 « nuclear-news

Absence of Russia at nuclear security summit

Russia’s absence means nuclear summit likely to end in anticlimax for Obama
Signature policy initiative for the president is set to fall short of its goals as the state with the biggest nuclear arsenal stays away from the Washington meeting, IWhen Barack Obama welcomes more than 50 world leaders to Washington on Thursday ahead of his fourth and final nuclear security summit, one of the most important chairs will be empty.

Russia is thought to possess more nuclear weapons than any other country,including the US. Together the cold war foes share more than 90% of the world’s arsenal. So President Vladimir Putin’s decision to boycott the high-level talks threatens to turn them into an elaborate anticlimax, even as fears of nuclear terrorism are on the up……..

n an opinion column in the Washington Post on Wednesday, Obama argued that the US and Russia should negotiate to further reduce their nuclear stockpiles. “Our massive cold war nuclear arsenal is poorly suited to today’s threats,” he said. But the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told Reuters that Russia was skipping the summit because of a “shortage of mutual cooperation” in working out the agenda……….

Jim Walsh, research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s security studies programme, said: “He deserves credit among the nuclear weapons states for being a leader trying to move things in the right direction. You can’t say that about anybody else.”

Assessing the legacy of the Prague speech, Walsh added: “Would you like to have cleared up all the nuclear materials? Of course. Was it realistic? Of course not. But we got a new start.”

Whoever succeeds Obama – and the prospect of Donald Trump gaining access to the nuclear codes fills some with dread – it is very possible that the issue will be less of a diplomatic priority for the next president. Walsh added: “I’m a fan of the summit process but over time the momentum has slowed. Among those attending there’s a bittersweet feeling this may be the last one for a while. It’s hard to build an international regime in six to eight years.” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/31/nuclear-security-summit-obama-russia-absence

April 1, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US and UK to do cyber attack tests on a nuclear power plant

UK and US to simulate cyber-attack on nuclear plants to test resilience
Countries plan to cooperate by exploring the resilience of nuclear infrastructure to a terrorist attack, Guardian, Heather Stewart, 31 Mar 16 Britain and the US will stage a war-game later this year, simulating a cyber attack on a nuclear power plant, to test the readiness of the government and utility firms.As David Cameron prepares to fly to Washington to attend a nuclear security summit, convened by Barack Obama, government sources said the two countries plan to cooperate on exploring the resilience of nuclear infrastructure to a terrorist attack…….

Separately, Cameron is also set to announce an exchange deal with the US, which will see the UK ship 700kg (110st) of nuclear waste, most of it currently stored at Dounreay, in Scotland, to be processed in America.

In return, the US will send supplies of a different type of uranium to Euratom, the European nuclear agency, to be turned into medical isotopes……..

Cameron will also commit to spend £10bn this year to fund the world of agencies including the IAEA, on improving the security of civil nuclear infrastructure worldwide.

Over lunch on Friday, the world leaders will discuss “scenario-planning” for protecting their nuclear facilities, and preventing volatile nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands…….http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/31/uk-us-simulate-cyber-attack-nuclear-plants-test-resilience

Click here to Reply or Forward

2.82 GB (18%) of 15 GB used

Manage

Terms – Privacy

Last account activity: 1 hour ago

Details

April 1, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, UK, USA | Leave a comment

Closing Canada’s Pickering nuclear station will result in jobs, savings and safety

Shuttering Pickering = jobs, savings and safety

Closing the Pickering Nuclear Station when its license expires in 2018 and getting to work on dismantling the plant immediately will be safer, create more jobs between now and 2030, and save hundreds of millions of dollars.

That’s the finding of a new report commissioned by Ontario Clean Air Alliance Research from energy consultants Torrie Smith and Associates. Torrie Smith compared Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG’s) plan of leaving the plant untouched for 30 years before starting decommissioning to the internationally preferred approach of immediate decommissioning.

They found that getting to work immediately would create 16,000 person years of employment, save $800 million to $1.2 billion on decommissioning costs, and ensure a smoother transition for workers and the local economy.

In fact, Torrie Smith points out that the only reason to leave Canada’s oldest nuclear plant sitting idle on the Pickering waterfront for the next 30+ years is money. While there is enough money in OPG’s Decommissioning Fund to fully cover the costs of decommissioning Pickering today, OPG would prefer to wait and let investment returns over the next three decades do the heavy financial lifting.

From a safety perspective, a 30-year wait simply means that Pickering’s components and structures will continue to age and deteriorate, actually raising risks while producing more low-level radioactive waste. A 30-year delay will have little impact on levels of radioactivity in the plant or affect how the dismantling work is approached, which is why the International Atomic Energy Agency states that “the preferred decommissioning strategy shall be immediate dismantling.”

The Pickering Nuclear Station is North America’s 4th oldest and one of the largest nuclear stations on the continent. We should not leave this legacy of a bygone era to future generations to deal with. Instead, we should seize the opportunity to develop expertise in a growing new industry – nuclear decommissioning.

Given that Canada’s nuclear industry hasn’t sold a new reactor in 30 years, the future of our nuclear industry clearly lies in providing the expertise to safely decommission old nuclear facilities – including other aging CANDU reactors in Canada and around the world.

Please send Premier Wynne a message here asking her to order OPG to develop an immediate decommissioning plan for Pickering and to close this dinosaur by 2018 (when its license expires) at the latest.

April 1, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ACTION, business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Australia unwise to sell uranium to Ukraine

The Zaporizhia nuclear facility is Europe’s largest and is only 200 kilometres from the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine. Some commentators have described nuclear plants in the region as pre-deployed nuclear targets and there have already been armed incursions during the recent conflict period.

Australia shouldn’t sell its uranium to Ukraine http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-shouldnt-sell-its-uranium-to-ukraine-20160331-gnv0no.html, Dave Sweeney, 31 Mar 16 Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop’s announcement this week to sell Australian uranium to Ukraine is an ill-advised and dangerous retreat from responsibility.

With timing and placement that a satirist could only dream of emulating – April Fool’s Day, the month of the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown and while attending a nuclear security summit – Bishop is set to sign a uranium supply agreement this week with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

Australia, the country that directly fuelled Fukushima now plans to sell uranium to Ukraine, the country that gave the world Chernobyl – hardly a match made in heaven.

Thirty years ago the Chernobyl nuclear disaster spread fallout over large swathes of eastern and western Europe and five million people still live in contaminated areas in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

Serious containment and waste management issues remain at Chernobyl with a massive concrete shield now under construction in an attempt to enclose the stricken reactor complex and reduce the chances of further radioactive releases.

Against this backdrop there are deep concerns over those parts of the Ukrainian nuclear sector that are not yet infamous names, including very real security concerns about nuclear facilities being targeted in the current conflict with Russia.

Australia has already suspended uranium sales to Russia – it makes scant sense to start selling uranium to Ukraine now. Along with security concerns there are serious and unresolved safety and governance issues that have dropped off the Foreign Minister’s radioactive radar with the sales plan.

Ukraine has 15 nuclear reactors – four are currently running beyond their design lifetime while a further six will reach this in 2020. That means two thirds of Ukraine’s nuclear reactors will be past their use-by date within five years.

On top of that, there is growing regional concern over the risks associated with the Poroshenko administration focus on keeping the reactors running. In rushing to extend operating licences Ukraine is cutting process and safety corners and not complying with its obligations under the Espoo Convention – an international framework agreement around transboundary environmental impact assessment.

In 2013 the Eastern Partnership, a leading East European civil society forum, declared that the absence of environmental impact assessment for nuclear projects posed “a severe threat to people both in Ukraine and in neighbouring states, including EU member states”.

These concerns have been amplified after a series of recent shutdowns, fires and safety concerns at Ukrainian nuclear facilities. Kiev’s response was a 2015 government decree preventing the national nuclear energy regulator from carrying out facility inspections on its own initiative. This coupled with increased pressure on industry whistle-blowers and critics has done nothing to address the real risks facing the nations aging nuclear fleet.

None of these issues have even been touched on by Bishop or by the Mineral Council of Australia’s yellowcake cheer squad who continue to champion a sector that remains in freefall post Fukushima. Price and production has fallen and the high risk, low return uranium sector has been hard hit with an independent market research report showing there are fewer than 1000 jobs in Australia’s embattled uranium sector.

There can be no nuclear business-as-usual in the shadow of Fukushima – a disaster that was fuelled by Australian uranium.

Following Fukushima the UN Secretary-General called for Australia to have a dedicated risk analysis of the impacts of the uranium sector. This has not happened and should take place before any new uranium deals are inked.

This new deal with Ukraine and the recent deal with India – which was signed despite a recommendation by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) that Australia not supply uranium to India at this time or on these terms – are deeply irresponsible policy positions. They put the interests of a small and under-performing mining sector ahead of Australia’s national interest and international responsibilities.

And this persistent failure to either respect or reflect the profound human and environmental lessons of past nuclear errors bodes poorly for avoiding future ones.

April 1, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

Nuclear power’s ever rising costs

Nuclear Power, Once Cheap, Squeezed by Mounting Costs Reactors were supposed to provide near-limitless electricity at low prices. But as they’ve aged, their costs have climbed. US News, By Alan Neuhauser March 30, 2016 “……..Fuel costs have climbed, but age is also a chief culprit: The plants are an average 36 years old, requiring expensive and more frequent repairs.

“It gets harder to keep them running at the same price, even as competitors get cheaper and the market gets thinner,” says Peter Bradford, a commissioner with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1977-1982 and a professor at Vermont Law School.

Electricity markets – flooded not only by cheap gas but also new solar and wind – paid as little as 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity last year. Nuclear plants at times needed a full cent more – an additional 50 percent – to break even…..

the pressure on nuclear plants to cut costs is enormous, industry insiders say, even perhaps at the expense of safety. More than 75 percent of the nation’s nuclear plants have reported a radioactive leak in their lifetimes, for example, most recently outside New York City and Miami in February. They’ve also suffered explosions, fires and corrosion, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly weakened its rules to allow plants to skirt potentially costly safety standards.

“They are expending as little amount of money on the plant as possible,” says Paul Blanch, a longtime engineer and industry worker turned watchdog.

At least four plants in the past four years have gone offline or been slated to be decommissioned, all casualties of rising costs and cheap competitors……http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-30/nuclear-power-once-cheap-squeezed-by-mounting-costs

April 1, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | general | Leave a comment

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station desperate for money: call for taxpayer funding

Nine Mile Point nuclear plant faces financial peril, exec says, syracuse.com, By Tim Knauss | tknauss@syracuse.com 31 Mar 16 SCRIBA, N.Y. — Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station is “losing a lot of money” and could someday face an early closure like its Oswego County neighbor, the FitzPatrick plant, unless state officials develop price supports for Upstate nuclear plants, a top company official said Wednesday.

The pending shutdown of FitzPatrick has dominated headlines, but the larger Nine Mile Point station next door suffers similar financial hardships, said Joseph Dominguez, executive vice president of plant owner Exelon Corp.

Dominguez said the 1,900-megawatt Nine Mile Point facility no longer makes enough money to cover operating expenses. He declined to say how steep its losses are………

state officials scramble to implement new subsidies that would reward Upstate nuclear plants for generating carbon-free power and provide them with millions in additional revenue.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo in December ordered state regulars to establish so-called “zero emission” subsidies for Upstate nuclear plants for a 15-year period. Cuomo has committed to cutting carbon emissions 40 percent by 2030. If nuclear reactors shut down and are replaced by natural gas-fired plants, carbon emissions would increase.

But Cuomo’s plan is opposed by some advocates of renewable energy, who say forcing utility ratepayers to pay more for nuclear power is a waste of resources that should be devoted to cleaner technologies like wind and solar power.

Details of the nuclear price supports have not been worked out. But the staff of the Public Service Commission estimated last month that current wholesale electric prices are about $15 per megawatt-hour lower that what Upstate nuclear plants need to survive. If utility ratepayers have to make up that difference, the cost could be $300 million a year or more, even with FitzPatrick closed……..

Most recently, state Sen. Patty Ritchie proposed $100 million in the state budget to keep FitzPatrick operating until permanent nuclear price supports are in place.

FitzPatrick’s owner, Entergy Corp., has rejected such efforts and stays on course to close the plant.

Dominguez, of Exelon, said FitzPatrick is just one of four Upstate reactors at risk of shutting down -“ including the two at Nine Mile Point and Exelon’s other Upstate facility, the Ginna nuclear plant in Wayne County.

“We appreciate the focus that the legislators are putting on FitzPatrick, but it’s really an issue that’s broader than FitzPatrick,” he said. “It’s four units up there. A limited one-time budget fix for one plant frankly isn’t going to do it. You’re just going to end up with another plant that’s going to be in jeopardy within months, or at most years.”…….http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/nine_mile_point_nuclear_plant_faces_financial_peril_exelon_exec_says.html

April 1, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Next Entries »