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

Tepco admits they concealed the fact of meltdown



On 5/30/2016, a director of Tepco, Anegawa admitted that Tepco concealed the fact of meltdown in 311.

He stated that in the press conference of that day. He says it was obviously meltdown, but Tepco avoided mentioning the term of “meltdown”. He thinks that was concealment.

In Tepco’s internal manual, meltdown is defined to be when over 5% of reactor core is damaged. However Tepco did not mention meltdown even though they knew 55 ~ 70% of the core was damaged by 3/14/2011.

Anegawa commented ordinary engineer would call such a state meltdown even without a manual.

At this moment, third-party inspection committee is investigating Tepco for its arbitrariness.

June 13, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | , , , , | Leave a comment

Advisory lifted for most of evacuated village of Katsurao close to crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant

katsurao june 13 2016.jpg

Radioactive waste contained in thousands of black plastic bags are placed in rice paddies in the village of Katsurao, Fukushima Prefecture, where an evacuation advisory was lifted for most of the village Sunday.

FUKUSHIMA – The government Sunday lifted its evacuation advisory for most of Katsurao, a village near the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture.

This is the first time that an evacuation advisory has been lifted for an area tainted with relatively high levels of radiation with annual doses projected at between more than 20 millisieverts and less than 50 millisieverts.

The government’s move allows 1,347 people in 418 households to return home for the first time since the March 2011 disaster at the plant, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.

But only a few people are expected to return home for the time being due to inconveniences in everyday life in the village. Municipal bus services remain suspended while shops have yet to resume operations.

The village government plans to offer free taxi services for elderly people so that they can go to hospitals and commercial facilities outside the village.

Earlier this month, the village’s chamber of commerce and industry started services to deliver fresh foods and daily necessities to homes.

The evacuation advisory remains in place for 119 people in 33 households from the remaining Katsurao area where annual radiation doses are estimated at over 50 millisieverts.

June 13, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | , , | Leave a comment

Japan report on Chernobyl disaster’s health effects to be publicly released


A 50-million-yen Japanese government report on the health effects of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe that was not released to the general public will be released in the near future, the secretariat of Japan’s nuclear watchdog said on June 7.

The Secretariat of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) indicated at a news conference on June 7 that the report would be released on the secretariat’s website. The secretariat will also comply with related requests for information disclosure that it had previously not accepted, it said.

The government’s investigation into the aftereffects of the Chernobyl disaster was budgeted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. It was carried out between November 2012 and March 2013 — after the Fukushima meltdowns in 2011 — at a cost of 50 million yen.

The NRA secretariat, which took over the role of handling the survey in April 2013, placed it in the National Diet Library without publicly releasing it, drawing criticism from experts in information disclosure.

“It was inappropriate as a way of releasing it,” a secretariat representative said.


June 13, 2016 Posted by | Japan | , , | Leave a comment

The alarming hidden costs of nuclear power stations

flag-S.AfricaThe scary hidden cost of building a nuclear power station
Even assuming that SA can find the funds, we would do well to take into account the non-negotiable costs of decommissioning and waste management  BRENDA MARTIN
13 JUNE 2016 
Consider decommissioning costs before committing to new nuclear power investment


As South Africa prepares to invest in new nuclear power, we may do well to consider the other end of such investment: decommissioning. In the north of Germany, the Greifswald nuclear power plant (also known as Lubmin) has been undergoing the process of decommissioning since 1990. Before its closure, with a total planned capacity of 8 x 400MW plant built, but with only 5 reactors fuelled, Lubmin was to be the largest nuclear power station in East Germany prior to reunification. The reactors were of the VVER-440/V-230 type, or so-called second generation of Soviet-design. When it is concluded, the full process of decommissioning at Lubmin will have taken 30 years from first shutdown.  In 1990 the company responsible for decommisioning this 8 x 400MW nuclear power plant, Energiewerke Nord, estimated a cost of half a billion DM per unit. Later this estimate was adjusted to 3.2 billion/unit. Today 4.1 billion/unit is a conservative final estimate (Energiewerke Nord, 2016).

More recently, early in 2012, following the Fukushima disaster in March 2011, the German government announced the immediate withdrawal of the operating licenses of eight German nuclear power plants and revived its plans to phase out nuclear power — by 2022. As this process unfolds, it will be possible to move beyond speculation, to actual data on costs, process and skills required for decommissioning.

What is involved in decommissioning a nuclear power plant?

Nuclear decommissioning is the process whereby a nuclear power plant site as a whole is dismantled to the point that it no longer requires measures for radiation protection to be applied. It is both an administrative and a technical process, including clean-up of all radioactive materials and then progressive demolition of the plant. Once a facility is fully decommissioned it should present no danger of radiation exposure. After a facility has been completely decommissioned, it is released from regulatory control and the plant licensee is no longer responsible for its safety.

The costs of decommissioning are spread over the lifetime of a facility and given that most nuclear power plants operate for over 40 years, funds need to be saved in a decommissioning fund to ensure that future costs are provided for.

What are the current estimates for nuclear power plant decommissioning?

This year, on April 28, an independent commission appointed by the German government (Kommission zur Überprüfung des Kernenergieausstiegs, KFK) presented its recommendations to the Ministry of Economics and Energy. The commission recommended that reactor owners — EnBW, EOn, RWE and Vattenfall — pay an initial sum of €23.3-billion ($26.4-billion) over the next few years, into a state-owned fund set up to cover the costs of decommissioning of the plants and managing radioactive waste. This sum includes a “risk premium” of around 35% to close the gap between provisions and actual costs.

According to the ministry, there will be approximately 10 500 tonnes of used fuel from 23 nuclear power plants, which will need to be stored in about 1 100 containers. A further 300 containers of high- and intermediate-level waste are also expected from the reprocessing of used fuel, as well as 500 containers of used fuel from research and demonstration reactors. In addition, some 600 000 cubic meters of low- and intermediate-level waste will need to be disposed of, including waste from industry, medicine and research.

Just before KFK started its work in October 2015, a study conducted by German audit firm Warth & Klein Grant Thornton for the Ministry of Economics and Energy had estimated the following costs for decommissioning 23 nuclear power plants, in 2014 money i.e. the cost if plants were to be decommissioned in 2014:

  • Closure and decommissioning:    €19.7-billion
  • Containers, transport:                     €9.9-billon
  • Intermediate storage:                     €5.8-billion
  • Final low heat waste storage:       €3.75-billion
  • Final high active waste storage:   €8.3-billion

i.e. a total of €47.5-billion.

However, decommissioning of all of Germany’s 23 nuclear power plants will not be undertaken at the same time. Most costs will be incurred in the future. Annexure 9 of the Warth & Klein Grant Thornton report provides an estimate of likely decommissioning costs when taking into account projected interest rate and inflation scenarios, as well as various likely nuclear-specific cost increases. Their conclusion? Total costs of decommissioning all nuclear power plants in Germany could reach up to €77.4-billion.

Given these emerging figures, even assuming that SA can find the necessary funds needed for new nuclear power investment, we would do well to take into account the increasingly known, non-negotiable related costs of decommissioning and waste management — of both old and new nuclear-related investment.

June 13, 2016 Posted by | business and costs, decommission reactor, Reference | Leave a comment

AREVA’s second biggest shareholder, Kuwait funds, wants to sell out of AREVA

AREVA crumblingKuwait fund wants to sell French nuclear group Areva stake -media,  13 June 16, ra ra  Sovereign wealth fund Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) has told French authorities it wants to sell its stake in nuclear group Areva (AREVA.PA), La Lettre de l’Expansion reported on Monday.KIA is Areva’s second-biggest shareholder with a 4.82 percent stake, according to ThomsonReuters data.

The newsletter said the Kuwaiti fund had complained that its investment in Areva, which is majority owned by the French government, was made based on incorrect company accounts.

French Industry Minister Emmanuel Macron and Areva declined to comment on the report. KIA was not immediately available for comment.

KIA paid 600 million euros ($676 mln) for the stake in 2010, but since then Areva shares have plunged by about 90 percent as the firm’s equity has been wiped out by years of losses. Areva will be rescued by a 5 billion euro state-funded capital increase and its nuclear reactor unit will be taken over by state-owned utility EDF (EDF.PA) later this year or early next year.

The French state holds about 87 percent of Areva’s capital.

KIA or other minority shareholders have never publicly complained about Areva’s accounts, but former Areva chief executive Anne Lauvergeon was put under formal investigation last month for her role in the 2007 acquisition of uranium mining firm Uramin.

In France, a formal investigation does not automatically lead to a trial but often does.

Lauvergeon has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and has said that asset depreciations at Uramin were partly due to the collapse of uranium prices after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in March 2011.

Areva has had to write down billions of euros on Uramin, which contributed to years of losses and eventually wiped out its equity, leading to a state rescue package early this year.

($1 = 0.8875 euros)

(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, Michel Rose and Andrew Torchia; Editing by Susan Fenton and Alexander Smith)

June 13, 2016 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

Russians call US nuclear reactors a “white elephant” for India

Russian-BearUS Nuclear Reactors to Prove White Elephant for India. Sputnik News 13 June 16 Toshiba Westinghouse India’s latest move in the direction of implementing a nuclear energy pact with the US is gaining strong resentment as the US reactors are most likely to cost three times more than that of Russian reactors already well operational.

The Indian government’s commitment to expedite the formalities of a deal allowing America’s Westinghouse Electric to set up six nuclear reactors in India is drawing flak for being commercially nonviable. The proposition was part of the talks between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama during the former’s latest visit to the US.Many are questioning the rationale behind such a commitment as installing nuclear reactors manufactured by Westinghouse would overshoot the cost of Russian reactors already in operation at Kudankulam of Tamil Nadu…….

June 13, 2016 Posted by | business and costs, India, marketing of nuclear, politics international | Leave a comment

June 12 Energy News


Science and Technology:

¶ Solar Impulse 2, the largest solar-powered aircraft in the world, landed early Saturday in New York City. It is the 14th stop and the final US destination in its year-old trek around the world. It flew past the Statue of Liberty before landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport. [CNN]

Solar Impulse 2 flies above the Statue of Liberty. Solar Impulse 2 flies above the Statue of Liberty.


¶ The heat of the sun is already scorching the era of oil and coal in the Philippine energy sector. A host of factors, including reduced prices of solar panels, new government policy, and growing reliability of solar power plants, is leading the increasing shift to renewable energy. [The Standard]

¶ Vast rainforests, which once covered more than half of Panama’s land surface, are shrinking, eaten away by development. In response, seven indigenous tribes, whose members live in autonomous zones, have…

View original post 578 more words

June 13, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

California Nuclear Power Stations and the Earthquake Rupture Forecast

Mining Awareness +

The Great 1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake: The Last “Big One”, Date/Time: January 9, 1857 about 8:20am PST, Magnitude Mw 8.0 approximately Location/Depth: 35.72N 120.32W, Descriptive location: 45 miles NE of San Luis Obispo, Faulting type: right-lateral strike-slip, Faults involved: San Andreas Fault, Length of surface rupture: about 225 miles (360 km), Maximum surface offset about 30 ft (9 meters)
USGS Earthquakes  June 5 to 11  2016
USGS Earthquakes over last week (dots), with earthquake hazard UCERF-3/USGS (lines), and Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station and San Onofre Nuclear Power Station (More detailed maps below)

The San Andreas fault, which is more than 700 miles (1100 km) in length, is the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates…
USGS Scott Haefner  January 9, 1857, the M 7.9 Fort Tejon earthquake just N. of Carrizo Plain, Wallace Creek, in the Carrizo Plain, the fault moved 30 feet (9m), forming the offset stream channel
San Andreas Fault Photo by Scott Haefner, USGS
On January 9, 1857, the M 7.9 Fort Tejon earthquake occurred just north of the Carrizo Plain. At Wallace Creek, in the Carrizo Plain…

View original post 1,130 more words

June 13, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment