nuclear-news

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

Coronavirus recovery can pave the way to a green energy future

As businesses shut down and many work from home 
around the world, electricity demand has reduced in COVID-19 hotspots. This could have a knock-on effect for the renewable sector.China, where the outbreak first took hold, is the world’s biggest electricity consumer. Output from factories has been substantially diminished with many unable to return to their jobs in manufacturing. Due to the curtailing of industrial electricity use, cuts in energy consumption for 2020 could be equivalent to the power used by the whole of Chile, according to IHS Markit.
In Europe, peak power consumption has also gone down. Italy, Spain, and the UK have all seen an average 10 per cent drop in energy usage with bars, restaurants, offices and factories, which remain closed as social distancing measures continue.In particular, fossil fuel based sources of electricity have been impacted by reduced requirements. Coal, usually one of the cheapest options, has now become the most expensive fuel in the world in the face of cheap green alternatives and natural gas, according to Bloomberg Green.

PAVING THE WAY FOR A GREEN FUTURE?

Renewable energy sources seem to have been given an unexpected boost. Around 40 per cent of the electricity generated in the UK on Sunday 5th March came from wind farms, with nearly a fifth being provided by solar energy. This was due to the unusually sunny day, says the National Grid ESO carbon intensity tracker.

These conditions have meant that renewable sources generated more than enough energy to cover the country’s reduced needs. Green supplier, Octopus Energy, even paid some customers to use energy during the day, using a scheme that has previously only been available during the night when demand is very low.

“In most economies that have taken strong confinement measures in response to the coronavirus – and for which we have available data – electricity demand has declined by around 15%, largely as a result of factories and businesses halting operations,” Dr Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency wrote in a blog post.

“In this way, the recent drop in electricity demand fast-forwarded some power systems 10 years into the future, suddenly giving them levels of wind and solar power they wouldn’t have had otherwise without another decade of investment in renewables.”

He went on to explain that this increase in renewable energy usage could even help some countries figure out how to deal with the drop in power that comes from the sun setting or a strong wind dying down. Previously, these kinds of fluctuating energy sources have proved challenging for those who work to keep our lights on. Managing them more ntelligently by shutting off solar panels at midday when there is more electricity than usual and slowing down wind power as demand decreases at night are just some options Dr Birol suggests.

These new findings have also put the spotlight on more reliable and often neglected sources of green energy, like hydropower, which are essential to making sure we have a consistent supply of energy. In exceptional situations like the current pandemic, where a fluctuation in energy supply could put lives and employment at even greater risk, this is particularly important.

April 21, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, ENERGY, environment | Leave a comment

To save the planet, cultural, social and political transformation is essential; new technologies only part of the answer.

Why relying on new technology won’t save the planet   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200420125510.htm April 20, 2020, Lancaster University

Summary:
Over-reliance on promises of new technology to solve climate change is enabling delay, say researchers. They argue instead for cultural, social and political transformation to enable widespread deployment of both behavioral and technological responses to climate change.

Overreliance on promises of new technology to solve climate change is enabling delay, say researchers from Lancaster University.

Their research published in Nature Climate Change calls for an end to a longstanding cycle of technological promises and reframed climate change targets.

Contemporary technological proposals for responding to climate change include nuclear fusion power, giant carbon sucking machines, ice-restoration using millions of wind-powered pumps, and spraying particulates in the stratosphere.

Researchers Duncan McLaren and Nils Markusson from Lancaster Environment Centre say that: “For forty years, climate action has been delayed by technological promises. Contemporary promises are equally dangerous. Our work exposes how such promises have raised expectations of more effective policy options becoming available in the future, and thereby enabled a continued politics of prevarication and inadequate action.

“Prevarication is not necessarily intentional, but such promises can feed systemic ‘moral corruption’, in which current elites are enabled to pursue self-serving pathways, while passing off risk onto vulnerable people in the future and in the global South.

The article describes a history of such promises, showing how the overarching international goal of ‘avoiding dangerous climate change’ has been reinterpreted and differently represented in the light of new modelling methods, scenarios and technological promises.

The researchers argue that the targets, models and technologies have co-evolved in ways that enable delay: “Each novel promise not only competes with existing ideas, but also downplays any sense of urgency, enabling the repeated deferral of political deadlines for climate action and undermining societal commitment to meaningful responses.

They conclude: “Putting our hopes in yet more new technologies is unwise. Instead, cultural, social and political transformation is essential to enable widespread deployment of both behavioural and technological responses to climate change.”

The researchers map the history of climate targets in five phases: “stabilization,” followed by a focus on “percentage emissions reductions,” shifting to “atmospheric concentrations” (expressed in parts per million), “cumulative budgets” (in tonnes of carbon dioxide), and currently “outcome temperatures.”

  • In the first phase (around Rio, 1992) technological promises included improved energy efficiency, large-scale enhancement of carbon sinks, and nuclear power
  • In the second phase around the Kyoto summit (1997) policy promises focused on cutting emissions with efficiency, fuel switching and carbon capture and storage (CCS).
  • In the third phase (around Copenhagen, 2009), CCS became linked to bioenergy, while policy focused on atmospheric concentrations.
  • Phase four saw the development of sophisticated global carbon budgeting models and the emergence of a range of putative negative emissions technologies.
  • Policy in phase five focused increasingly on temperature outcomes, formalised with the Paris accord of 2015.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Lancaster University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

April 21, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, environment, politics | Leave a comment

North pole soon to be ice free in summer 

April 21, 2020 Posted by | ARCTIC, climate change | Leave a comment

USA’s new rules for nuclear workers – two weeks straight of 12 -hour days

New rules for nuclear plant workers: 12-hour days for two weeks straight, Crains Chicago Business,20 Apr 20, 
Exelon Corp., operator of the biggest U.S. nuclear fleet, says the move allows for “healthy workers to remain on site for more hours, reducing the need to bring in outside travelers and vendors.”

(Bloomberg)—Nuclear power plants can now implement longer shifts for workers and delay some inspections, raising concerns that as the coronavirus pandemic upends basic operations the industry may be bending the rules too far.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is already allowing six U.S. power plants to extend workers’ shifts, to as long as 12 hours a day for two weeks, and more may be coming. That’s up significantly from current standards that require people to get two-to-three days off a week when pulling shifts that long. Employees can also work as many as 86 hours in a week now, up from 72 hours.

To curb transmission of the virus, utilities also say they want to delay inspections that require people to work in close proximity. Environmental groups, though, warn the changes could have disastrous results, and worry they could lead to further deviations from safety rules.

“This is a step backward,” said Eric Epstein, chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, a Pennsylvania non-profit group. “It’s not a good idea to stretch workers and marginalize safety standards.”

The new rules come as at least 42 construction workers have tested positive for the coronavirus at a nuclear plant in Georgia where Southern Co. is building two new reactors. Last week, the utility and its partners announced they would reduce the 9,000-person workforce by 20 percent to slow the spread of the virus. The government considers nuclear power plants to be essential, and reactors will supply almost 21 percent of the country’s electricity this year…….

watchdog groups are concerned that employees may be overworked, leading to fatigue and potentially errors. “You want an alert workforce,” said Paul Gunter, a director at Beyond Nuclear. “You don’t do this with bus drivers, but they’re saying it’s OK for nuclear power plant workers.”

he NRC is also granting utilities utilities permission to defer some inspections as dozens of reactors go through the annual spring refueling cycle. These projects can involve more than 1,000 people converging on a power plant for a month or more of maintenance and testing.

Postponed Inspection

Pinnacle West Capital Corp. also has approval for longer hours and is postponing an inspection of components on the bottom of the reactor vessel at the 3.9-gigawatt Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona, the biggest U.S. nuclear plant. The company had initially planned to conduct the evaluation during its refueling outage this spring, but has now pushed that out until the next one, in late 2021. The utility owner determined that the task posed a potential risk of spreading the deadly virus, and could be safely delayed…….

Entergy Corp. is planning to defer some leak tests at pipes at its Grand Gulf reactor in Mississippi. The tests typically are due every 11 1/2 years, but will now be rescheduled for the next refueling outage in 18 months. Pushing that period out to 13 years won’t affect safety, the company said by email. And at the Indian Point facility north of New York City, Entergy is also seeking permission to postpone annual physical evaluations for firefighters……..https://www.chicagobusiness.com/utilities/new-rules-nuclear-plant-workers-12-hour-days-two-weeks-straight

April 21, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Piscataway Community Energy Aggregation (PCEA) program DOES NOT INCLUDE NUCLEAR ENERGY

Clearing the Air on the PCEA: Nuclear power NOT included By ANN BASTIAN
April 19, 2020 

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/piscataway/sections/green/articles/clearing-the-air-on-the-pcea-nuclear-power-not-included    The Piscataway Community Energy Aggregation (PCEA) program, just rolled out for township residents, does NOT include nuclear power as one of its “renewable energy” sources.  The referendum voters passed last November required that the PCEA use only Class 1 Renewables: wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and other sustainable sources.

We passed the PCEA in order to move our town and state away from dirty power, from the air pollution of fossil fuels and the radioactive wastes of nuclear power.  Bulk purchasing as a community also gives us cost savings, along the way to addressing the climate crisis.

nd that’s what we’re getting: a win-win.  Residents can access 30% clean electricity by automatically staying in the basic plan, with a savings on their electric bill.  If residents want to “opt UP”, they can choose to go immediately to 50% Class 1 Renewables or to 100% Class 1 Renewables, at reasonable rates.  The whole town will move forward in stages, reaching 100% clean renewables in 2035.  Individual households can also opt out at any time, and businesses can opt in.

Still, there may be some confusion about how the PCEA will work:

1) SOURCING: The energy provider, EnergyHarbor, is a diversified power company, with some nuclear and fossil fuel holdings.  But its PCEA contract with the Township is only for clean energy.

(2) SHADE: The Mayor has always knocked the referendum, which let voters decide town policy, not the insiders.  OK, the people have spoken, 64%-36%, let’s move on.

(3) INFORMATION: The town website, which is hard to navigate for basic information, is nearly impossible to navigate for PCEA facts and options, including the choice to opt out.  We do need to inform ourselves. Here’s an upcoming forum for residents who have questions:

his Wednesday, April 22 at 6 pm: the town’s PCEA administrator, Good Energy LP, is holding an online Q & A session: https://www.tapinto.net/towns/piscataway/events/facebook-live-piscataway-community-energy-aggreg

And Piscataway Progressive Democrats, who endorsed the PCEA referendum, did a special segment explaining the PCEA and your PSE&G bill last Saturday, April 18:

https://www.facebook.com/pwayprogressivedems/?epa=SEARCH_BOX

Let’s celebrate this Earth Day by making Piscataway cleaner and greener! 

 

April 21, 2020 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

Formal petition to close Fermi 2 nuclear reactor in Michigan, from coalition of watchdog groups

Watchdog groups file safety concerns on Fermi 2 nuclear reactor, Dave Battagello  Windsor Star  20 Apr 20, A coalition of watchdog groups have filed a formal petition to stop Fermi 2 nuclear reactor in Michigan from further operations, claiming long-required repair work needs to be fully completed in order to avoid a potential “major nuclear accident.”

Groups that include Beyond Nuclear and Don’t Waste Michigan have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to halt reopening within the next week or so of Fermi 2 — currently shut down for routine scheduled maintenance.

The petition was filed Thursday and requires an NRC review board to make an emergency decision on the application over the next week on whether the groups have valid concerns or that Fermi 2 be allowed to resume operations when its current outage for “refuelling” is completed.

“It is a very high-risk situation,” said Michael Keegan of Don’t Waste Michigan. “It is dangerous since the plant, should it reopen, will be operating in a compromised position. They have got a problem that could be a major nuclear accident.”

A spokesman for DTE, which owns and operates the nuclear generating station, said Sunday that proper maintenance and repairs are being conducted and that the facility is safe.

Thousands of residents in Amherstburg and Boblo Island are among those at greatest risk of a nuclear accident at Fermi — which sits across Lake Erie — but there are also potential health risks for thousands more stretching through LaSalle and into Windsor, as well as Michigan, should a Fermi 2 incident occur.

The petition calls on NRC to take enforcement action to inspect Fermi 2 and make full repairs to what’s known as the “torus,” a donut-type structure at the base of the reactor. …….  https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/watchdog-groups-file-safety-concerns-on-fermi-2-nuclear-reactor/

April 21, 2020 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, safety, USA | Leave a comment

Investment in green energy could drive Covid-19 recovery – International Renewable Energy Agency report

April 21, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, renewable | Leave a comment

Occupational Radiation Exposure: Serious Risks and Safety Solutions

Occupational Radiation Exposure: Serious Risks and Safety Solutions,   https://www.diagnosticimaging.com/patient-safety/occupational-radiation-exposure-serious-risks-and-safety-solutions    Mina S. Makary, MDNicholas Mannix, BS-April 6, 2020, Patient Safety, DI ExecutiveWhile the radiation doses utilized in image-guided procedures are generally considered low, recent studies have demonstrated significant effects of chronic low-dose radiation exposure to the procedural staff. Recent work demonstrated an alarming incidence of brain cancer, higher incidence of skin, thyroid, breast cancers and melanomas, higher incidence of stroke and atherosclerotic disease, increased risk of developing cataracts, decreased memory and verbal fluency, and a higher frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in those who performed fluoroscopically-guided interventional procedures compared to control groups.

The deleterious effects of radiation exposure are not only related to dose thresholds of specific exposures, but they are also a function of the cumulative doses over one’s lifetime exposure. These risks prompt increased awareness and education, improved radiation protection techniques, and further research efforts.

Robust radiation safety and risk reduction approaches are multi-faceted. It goes without saying that the ALRA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is the cornerstone guiding rule. This means using intermittent fluoroscopy whenever possible, minimizing the pulse rate for standard fluoroscopy, minimizing the frame rate for digital angiography/digital subtraction angiography, collimating and avoiding magnification if feasible, and utilizing the “last image hold” function rather than obtaining new unwarranted images.

Next, capitalizing upon the nature and distribution of scatter radiation, which is the primary source of occupational exposure, further reduces one’s dose. This translates to stepping back as far as possible from the radiation source and angulating the tube towards the operator when oblique views are desired to avoid back scatter. Furthermore, utilizing shielding is the third effective strategy, and this approach includes personal aprons, caps, thyroid shields, eyewear, table shields, mounted side shields, and patient drape shields. Lastly, monitoring of the amount of radiation utilized, staff doses, and patient exposure rates utilizing personal dosimeter and equipment data is key to addressing any significant doses that were delivered.

In addition to protecting the procedural team, good radiation safety habits are good patient care. Minimizing fluoroscopy time and overall dose as reasonably achievable reduces patient exposure. Interestingly, techniques, such as collimation, actually improve image contrast and quality in addition to reducing the dose – an ultimate win-win situation. With the growth of both diagnostic imaging and imaging-guided procedures that require ionizing radiation, patient exposures have significantly increased at an alarming rate over the past three decades, and it is estimated that medical imaging contributed to 48 percent of the public’s radiation exposure in 2006 compared to only 15 percent in the 1980s.

For patients, the most concerning effects are due to direct radiation beam exposure, such as radiation skin burns, but rarer risks may potentially include cataracts and sterility. In addition to the previously discussed occupational radiation reduction techniques, additional approaches to reduce patient dose include using non-ionizing radiation for procedural guidance, such as ultrasound and MRI, as much as possible, maximizing pre-procedural imaging for planning to minimize procedural time, and avoiding unnecessary procedures.

Occupational radiation safety is critical for many reasons. It protects our proceduralists and staff, as well as our patients while also ensuring the patient receives the best care possible. Challenges, such as hardware costs, buy-in of institutional stakeholders, staff training, the heavy weight of shielding, and time to setup do exist, but education and awareness of the significant health risks, the benefits of appropriate protection, good habits, a culture of safety, and research efforts can overcome any barriers. The risks are real. The benefits are real. Radiation safety is both an occupational safety issue, as well as a patient care issue. It is not a luxury, and chronic low-dose radiation does matter. The time is now to prioritize radiation safety in our daily practice.

Mina Makary, M.D., is an interventional radiologist at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. He also serves on the Diagnostic Imaging Editorial Board. This article was co-written wth Nicholas Mannix, BS, a medical student at The Ohio State University College of Medicine.

April 21, 2020 Posted by | radiation | Leave a comment

Wind or solar technologies will provide UK with 100% energy, in a predominantly electric future

Chartist 18th April 2020,   Dave Toke: As offshore wind technology fully blooms as its own distinctmass industrial technology producing power at low prices, and as the prospect of floating wind turbines comes closer, the potential for the technology threatens to eclipse everything else – at least in countries with a large waterline, such as the UK.
In reality solar pv technology costs are coming down at least as quickly, so that what is likely to happen in the coming years is that these two technologies will compete with each other (and with onshore wind of course) for market share. Indeed, such is the rate of cost reductions that some are now suggesting that the way to approach 100 per cent renewables targets is to minimise the use of batteries and other storage techniques, and simply to build gross overcapacity in wind and solar.
That of course ushers in the possibility of uses for excess production, such as conversion to hydrogen, but that is
another story. The story here is that on its own, the offshore wind available could generate over five times the anticipated total energy requirements for the UK in a ‘net zero carbon’ scenario – that is, based upon the Committee on Climate Change estimate that a mainly electric economy supplied from low carbon sources would require 645TWh of power generation in 2050. Wind power could do this as the cheapest electricity source available – apart from solar power of course, with which the competition will probably be intense in the future.

https://www.chartist.org.uk/offshore-wind-the-force-is-with-you/

April 21, 2020 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment