nuclear-news

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

Financial institutions funding nuclear weapons – theme for June 20

Nobody except a few erratic multi-billionaires is willing to gamble their money on “peaceful” nuclear power.  Still, your taxes are going to so-called “commercial” nuclear power, if you live in a nuclear country.

But banks, pension funds, insurance companies and asset managers are investing in nuclear weapons – and you wouldn’t even know that your money is going there.  Don’t Bank on the Bomb has listed institutions around the world with substantial investments in nuclear arms producers. Fo example  From 2013 to 2016, United States 226 Financial Institutions made an estimated USD$ 344 billion available to 27 nuclear weapon producing companies .

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weaspons, (ICAN) has identified financial organisations funding nuclear weapons The report Don’t Bank on the Bomb, updated annually by PAX, provides details of financial transactions with companies that are heavily involved in the manufacture, maintenance and modernization of US, British, French and Indian nuclear forces.

ICAN is appealing to financial institutions to stop investing in the nuclear arms industry, as any use of nuclear weapons would violate international law and have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. By investing in nuclear weapons producers, financial institutions are in effect facilitating the build-up of nuclear forces. This undermines efforts to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world and heightens the risk that one day these ultimate weapons of mass destruction will be used again.

Engaging in dialogues with financial institutions about their investments in nuclear weapons companies can help to raise their understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons and their status under international law. Here are some tips for letter-writing:

  • How to begin: Let the financial institution know who you are. Do you hold a bank account with them? Are you a member of their superannuation plan? Do you own shares in their company? Are you writing as a representative of a particular organization? Are you simply a concerned citizen?
  • What to include: Inform the financial institution that you are aware of their investments in nuclear weapons companies. Specify which companies and briefly describe the activities these companies are engaged in. Outline why you believe that financing nuclear weapons is illegitimate.
  • Ask for information: Inquire as to whether the financial institution has a policy on investing in the arms industry. If you are already aware that such a policy exists, ask the institution to explain how its investments in nuclear weapons companies can be justified under the terms of the policy.
  • Call for action: Call on the financial institution to divest from all nuclear weapons companies. Explain that nuclear weapons are illegal to use and have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. End by making it clear that you expect a response. –  Don’t Bank on the Bomb 

June 4, 2020 Posted by | Christina's themes | 6 Comments

Most UK pension providers are investing in nuclear weapons companies


“The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was agreed in 2017.

“Once this is ratified by 50 states and comes into effect as a new piece of international law, the implications will be significant for nuclear armed states and financial institutions alike.

“The biggest banking corporations have a global reach and cannot disregard international law.”

June 4, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear power plants in the path of oncoming Cyclone Nisarga

June 4, 2020 Posted by | climate change, India | Leave a comment

Climate Experts Predict ‘Grim Future’ For Nuclear Power 

Climate Experts Predict ‘Grim Future’ For Nuclear Power 

In FOI documents seen by VICE, academics advising the UK government’s nuclear watchdog warn of a climate-invoked disaster.  VICE, By Rick Lyons; illustrated by Ella Strickland de Souza  3 June 20, 

On 30th January, 1607, a massive storm surge swept up the Bristol channel, swamping large parts of Devon, Somerset, Gloucestershire and South Wales. It is estimated that 2,000 people or more drowned, as houses and villages were swept away and around 200 square miles of farmland inundated. In the Church of All Saints at Kingston Seymour, near Weston-super-Mare, a chiselled mark remains showing that the water reached 7.74 metres above sea level.
Some 412 years on from that tragic event, an academic chose to recall it in a talk he was giving. They did so not because it was an interesting slice of British meteorological history, but in order to warn that it could happen again. And the audience they wanted to warn? The people in charge of Britain’s nuclear power stations.
In fact, that warning was just one of several sobering analyses given the same day at a meeting of academics advising the government’s nuclear watchdog, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), on climate change risks. The little known and catchily named Expert Panel on Natural Hazards – Meteorological and Coastal Flood Hazards Sub-Panel meets to advise the ONR once a year. The minutes and presentation slides of the last meeting, which took place at the ONR head office in Bootle, Merseyside, in May 2019, have been obtained by VICE under the Freedom of Information Act. They make interesting, if not alarming, reading.
For starters, according to the academics – whose names were all redacted – climate change-related heatwaves could lead to a nuclear disaster. Or in their words: “significant heat waves of persistent high temperatures are likely to occur” so that “the ability of Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) plant to maintain required temperature limits could be challenged, potentially leading to a plant shutdown and the risk of an accident”. This matters because, as the academics point out, the UK is set for more frequent and intense heatwaves and we have eight operational nuclear power stations, with three more in the pipeline – Bradwell B, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.
Specific words of caution were given to the builders of Hinkley Point C. Currently under construction at an estimated cost of £22.9 billion, it is the flagship project of the new generation of nuclear power stations from the Nuclear New Build (NNB) Generation Company, a spin-off of EDF Energy. It is due to operate from 2025 until 2085 when it will be retired, or decommissioned. This 60-year lifespan is significant as our planet may change quite a bit during that time. “It is possible,” one academic said, “that by the time HPC is decommissioned the planet will be 4C warmer with many extreme weather events, and therefore with significant design implications for NNB.”
The 1607 flood was not the only historical comparison used to illustrate future risks. Our nuclear power stations must be able to withstand events “worse” than both that devastating flood and the Great Storm of 1703, one speaker said. It’s been argued that the Great Storm, an extratropical cyclone, was the worst Britain has ever experienced. It brought down thousands of trees and chimneys and some estimates put the death toll up to 15,000. It occurred around the birth of journalism; Daniel Defoe penned a whole book about it, The Storm. He wrote: “No pen could describe it, nor tongue express it, nor thought conceive it unless by one in the extremity of it.”
Another presentation at the meeting looked at the possibility of “black swan” storm surges and waves. A black swan was ominously defined as a “high-consequence event that has never been previously observed”. The possibility of a black swan event that causes massive coastal flooding is a big deal to nuclear power stations as they’re all on the coast to use seawater for cooling. The Fukushima disaster stands as an example of what can happen. In 2011, the tsunami in Japan caused three nuclear meltdowns, three hydrogen explosions and a radiation leak which led to residents being evacuated within a 20km radius.

The result of research into black swans – called “Synthesising Unprecedented Coastal Conditions: Extreme Storm Surges” aka SUCCESS – was presented at the meeting. It was important to conduct this research, the academic said, because “the storm surge of 5th December 2013 caused sea levels in many parts of the country that were the highest ever recorded and begs the obvious question – could they have been worse?”

In other words: we’re likely to see storms on a scale never seen before and the only way to get a handle on them is to model their impact using software. One conclusion of modelling these “artificially enhanced events” was that we could see black swan coastal floods which reach close to 6m above sea level.

All in all, the presentations and discussions at the meeting would not have been particularly welcome to the ONR, whose job it is to make sure nuclear power stations are built to standards that guarantee public safety. In a statement to VICE, an ONR spokesperson said “ONR requires that nuclear new build sites are able to withstand extreme natural hazards, by designing against a one in 10,000 year event. Sites must identify these external hazards, which include the impact of climate change, and demonstrate that they are adequately protected against them throughout the lifetime of the facility.”

As one of the experts at the meeting put it, it was “grim news”. But exactly how worried should we be?
On one hand, 1607-scale floods, heatwaves compromising nuclear safety and Black Swan storms doesn’t sound particularly good. On the other, the ONR stipulates that nuclear power stations must be built to withstand “external hazards” so severe they only occur, on average, once every 10,000 years. That seems incredibly robust. However, there a few things to think about here. Firstly, how do you work out what a “once in every 10,000 year event” is? The past isn’t a good guide to future extreme weather in the age of climate change. Modelling may not be especially accurate either. In the words of one academic from the meeting minutes: “Climate and weather models are not good enough.”
The limitations of climate projections are currently being borne out in the real world. Nick Ely national coastal modelling & forecasting manager for the Environment Agency says: “It’s increasingly becoming apparent that defences designed over the last 50 years, using the best evidence at time including climate change, are now no longer providing the standard of protection to the original planned level.”
Another problem is claiming something can withstand a one in 10,000 year event when climate change is constantly moving the goal posts. An infrastructure project with a 60-year lifespan like Hinkley Point C might be able to withstand a one in 10,000 year event when it opens, but climate change means a one in 10,000 year event may become, for example, a one in 8,000 year event by the time its decommissioned. At the same time, a one in 10,000 year event may become something more extreme that the power station hasn’t been designed to withstand…….. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/akwayk/ons-nuclear-power-stations-climate-warning-uk

June 4, 2020 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Detection Helicopter Flies Mission Around Washington D.C. Amid Unrest

June 4, 2020 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Assange too sick to attend the very unjust process of the UK extradition hearings

Monica Del Mestre 3 June 20
1. It is extremely concerning that Assange has not been well enough to attend the past several hearings, even remotely. Yet proceedings continue as if this has nothing to do with him – not dissimilar to when he couldn’t follow properly from the glass dock in Woolwich Crown Court.

2. In addition to other ongoing health concerns, Assange faces the serious risk of exposure to Covid in Belmarsh prison, and has been advised that even going to the video room to take part in hearings is unsafe. This is another reason he should be immediately released.

3. Assange’s lawyers have long complained they have had insufficient access to him in prison. Under lockdown conditions, they have had no access to him at all. They have repeatedly flagged that this lack of access seriously impacts their ability to prepare his defence.

4. One of the next steps agreed today is that psychiatric reports on Assange from the prosecution and defence will be due to the court on 31 July. Remember that UN Special Rapporteur @NilsMelzer has expressed alarm many times that Assange shows symptoms of psychological torture.

5. It is a welcome step that the continuation of the full extradition hearing was adjourned, as lockdown conditions present clear barriers to open justice – but 7 September may not be late enough to make a meaningful difference. Also the court is still struggling to find a venue.

6. It remains extremely frustrating that the court does not adequately accommodate NGO observers. I have never experienced so much difficulty accessing a trial in any country as at Woolwich Crown Court in February, and the teleconference option we now have is far from sufficient.

7. The press are also facing severe restrictions. Only 6 journalists have been allowed to attend in person the past 2 hearings, with others limited to the awful phone line. This case is of high public interest and a better solution must be found before the full hearing resumes.

8. Assange’s next callover hearing has been scheduled for 29 June at 10 am. We urge the court to find workable solutions to enable his safe attendance and ensure the press and observers are able to properly monitor proceedings. /END

June 4, 2020 Posted by | civil liberties, Legal, UK | Leave a comment

U.S. taxpayers bearing the crushing cost of nuclear waste

The Crushing Cost Of Nuclear Waste Is Weighing On Taxpayers, Oil Price, 
By Haley Zaremba – Jun 19, 2019  The Maine Yankee nuclear power plant hasn’t produced a single watt of energy in more than two decades, but it cost U.S. taxpayers about $35 million this year.” So begins a powerful report this week about the crushing cost of nuclear waste storage by the Los Angeles Times……..In the United States, where the nuclear industry is ailing, this is particularly bad news. More plants are shutting down than are going online, and many of the nuclear plants that are continuing to function are able to do so in large part thanks to government subsidies at the state level, which is to say, even more taxpayer dollars.

The Trump administration, for its part, has made efforts to combat the rising prices of nuclear waste storage–albeit extremely controversial ones. Just this month, “in a move that will roll back safety standards that have been observed for decades” says not-for-profit news organization Truthout, “the Trump administration reportedly has plans to reclassify nuclear waste previously listed as “high-level” radioactive to a lower level, in the interest of saving money and time when disposing of the material.”

While this may be a quick fix for the massive amounts of money flowing out of taxpayer pockets and into the nuclear energy industry, it’s certainly not a sustainable solution for what could easily become a national health crisis if mismanaged. ……https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Crushing-Cost-Of-Nuclear-Waste-Is-Weighing-On-Taxpayers.html

June 4, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Time that journalists reported on the threat of global heating to the nuclear industry

In this article explaining China’s plans to develop nuclear power, the author states this about nuclear power expansion:
“it does bode well for the climate under any flag. “
China Plans To Dominate The Global Nuclear Energy Push, Oil Price, By Haley Zaremba – Jun 03, 2020,

Really?    Not a mention of the ill effects that climate change has on nuclear power, nor the fact that it, and the uranium mining that feeds it, are highly water guzzling.
Therefore most nuclear reactors are sited near the sea, or near rivers and estuaries.
They have to cut back or even shut down in very hot weather.  They are vulnerable to sea level rise, and extreme events – flooding, hurricanes, wildfires.
Far from nuclear power combatting climate change, it’ds the other way around.

As for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors working against climate change, you would need literally millions of them to be quickly operating around the world, to have any effect on global heating. Time that you journalists told the whole story, not just the nuclear lobby’s version

June 4, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, spinbuster | Leave a comment

UK’s Sizewell nuclear plan in doubt, due to cost and China’s involvement?

Plan for new UK nuclear plant under intense scrutiny, Proposal for reactor attracts attention because of Chinese role as well as cost Ft.com  Nathalie Thomas in Edinburgh and Jim Pickard in London, JUNE 2 2020

On England’s east coast, a 32-hectare piece of land surrounded by marshes and woods has become the latest focus for the fierce debate about the future of nuclear power in the UK. France’s EDF and China’s CGN last week submitted a planning application to a government agency for a 3.2 gigawatt atomic power plant on a site called Sizewell in Suffolk, which could produce about 7 per cent of Britain’s electricity. The location is already home to another plant operated by EDF.

……  The planning application by EDF and CGN for the Sizewell C plant has unleashed fresh questions over whether Britain needs more large nuclear plants, and stirred controversy about China’s role in critical UK infrastructure as diplomatic relations between the two countries cool, notably over Hong Kong. It also comes at a time when the government is focused on pumping money into infrastructure, including energy, potentially as part of an economic stimulus package that chancellor Rishi Sunak is set to unveil in July in response to the coronavirus crisis.

The planning application by EDF and CGN for the Sizewell C plant has unleashed fresh questions over whether Britain needs more large nuclear plants, and stirred controversy about China’s role in critical UK infrastructure as diplomatic relations between the two countries cool, notably over Hong Kong. It also comes at a time when the government is focused on pumping money into infrastructure, including energy, potentially as part of an economic stimulus package that chancellor Rishi Sunak is set to unveil in July in response to the coronavirus crisis.
……. Another proposed plant in Cumbria was shelved by Japan’s Toshiba in 2018. Japan’s Hitachi froze its plans for a plant on Anglesey last year, although it has continued to pursue planning permission.
……..

Environmentalists insist cheaper, green technologies such as wind, solar and batteries should take precedence over nuclear. ……….Nuclear just isn’t cost-effective,” said Doug Parr, chief scientist for campaign group Greenpeace.

 Amid delays partly stemming from technology challenges, the construction costs of Hinkley Point C and other plants using a design called the European pressurised reactor, such as EDF’s Flamanville power station in France, have spiralled. EDF said last year that Hinkley could cost as much as £22.5bn. Two-thirds of that expense will be borne by EDF and the remainder by CGN, and executives at the French company have made clear it cannot afford to shoulder that level of construction risk again. But the electricity produced by Hinkley Point C will come at a high cost to consumers. The government guaranteed EDF and CGN would receive £92.50 per megawatt hour for the power generated at the plant for 35 years in return for the companies taking on all the construction risk, including any cost overruns. That deal was based on 2012 prices and rises each year with inflation. By comparison, offshore wind developers have agreed to build projects for prices as low as £39.65/MWh in 2012 terms.
  Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/4e3221ef-ac1e-43cc-8d68-e1397ca0637f

Against this backdrop, the government last year launched a consultation on a possible new funding model for new nuclear plants. The so-called regulated asset base model is attractive to developers because it would cut the cost of capital for a new nuclear plant, reflecting how consumers would pay upfront for the project through their energy bills. These consumers could be left picking up the tab for cost overruns.

  Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/4e3221ef-ac1e-43cc-8d68-e1397ca0637f

Against this backdrop, the government last year launched a consultation on a possible new funding model for new nuclear plants. The so-called regulated asset base model is attractive to developers because it would cut the cost of capital for a new nuclear plant, reflecting how consumers would pay upfront for the project through their energy bills. These consumers could be left picking up the tab for cost overruns……. https://www.ft.com/content/4e3221ef-ac1e-43cc-8d68-e1397ca0637f

June 4, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Loophole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): small military nuclear reactors lack safeguards

Small military nuclear reactors: In need of global safeguards, Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsBy Victor Gilinsky, Henry Sokolski, June 3, 2020  The US Defense Department recently awarded three contracts totaling $40 million to kick off a design competition to build small mobile nuclear reactors that can “be forward deployed with forces outside the continental United States,” including at “remote operating bases.” The notion of small reactors accompanying troops in battle raises all sorts of military, logistical, and international legal issues. But one that has received little attention is that the program shines a light on a growing loophole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

It goes without saying that, if the program ever comes to fruition, such reactors on US military bases would not be subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the organization that helps implement the NPT. America’s special agreement with the agency takes account of the United States’ nuclear weapon status, and so excludes it from international inspection activities related to national security.

It may surprise readers unacquainted with the finer points of the NPT, though, that, in principle, non-nuclear weapon states could get a similar deal. The treaty does not prohibit non-nuclear weapon states from engaging in all military applications of nuclear energy, only those that involve nuclear explosives. And each safeguards agreement between a country and the IAEA includes a provision that describes this possibility.

Here is how the loophole arises: Article II of the NPT obligates non-nuclear weapon states to not obtain nuclear weapons. Article III requires IAEA safeguards “for the exclusive purpose of verification” of each country’s NPT obligations—the obligations being to not divert nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or nuclear explosives.

The obligation does not extend to non-explosive military applications, so neither do IAEA safeguards or inspections. The safeguards agreement that all non-nuclear weapon states adopt with the IAEA contains a paragraph whose title says it all: “Non-Application Of Safeguards To Nuclear Material To Be Used In Non-Peaceful Activities.” The paragraph imposes a number of restrictions on the removal of nuclear materials from IAEA oversight for “non-peaceful” uses, although it still leaves a good deal open to interpretation.

That includes the dividing line between peaceful and non-peaceful. That the NPT has a problem defining “peaceful uses” should be clear from the treaty’s Article V, which speaks of “peaceful applications of nuclear explosions.” Former Brazilian ambassador Sergio Duarte, who speaks with authority as he was president of the 2005 NPT Review Conference and, before that, chairman of the IAEA Board of Governors, recently wrote, “There is no definition of ‘peaceful uses’ in any multilateral treaty on non-proliferation.”

The possibility of non-explosive military use of nuclear energy by non-weapon states is not just an academic matter—the Brazilian Navy is developing a nuclear-powered submarine and expects its reactor to be exempt from inspection while the submarine is operating. This should draw attention to the extent of the non-explosive use exception: Would such an exception apply equally to a land-based military reactor? Could a country just put a military label on a power reactor and thereby curtail international inspection? What about nuclear fuel cycle facilities?……….

The US program will probably go nowhere beyond the initial contracts. The real motivation apparently stems not from military need but from the Energy Department’s desperate attempt to use Defense Department funds to keep a US nuclear reactor manufacturing industry alive. In any case, it’s doubtful that the Defense Department even thought about the implications of the program for the NPT. 

The State Department describes the NPT as “the cornerstone of the nuclear nonproliferation regime,” and says, “The United States remains dedicated to preserving and strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime, on which the treaty is based.” Whether or not the US small military reactors go forward, or the Brazilian submarines get built, the effect of treating exemptions from the NPT as normal and acceptable undermines the treaty. With the NPT Review Conference slated for early next year, this is the time to clarify these issues with a view to eliminating the IAEA exception to inspections of non-explosive military applications of nuclear energy.  https://thebulletin.org/2020/06/small-military-nuclear-reactors-in-need-of-global-safeguards/

June 4, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, safety | Leave a comment

Confidential documents stolen, hacked from US nuclear missile contractor

Hackers steal secrets from US nuclear missile contractor

Cyber extortionists have stolen sensitive data from a company which supports the US Minuteman III nuclear deterrent.  Sky News, Alexander MartinTechnology reporter @AlexMartin Wednesday 3 June 2020 UK Hackers have stolen confidential documents from a US military contractor which provides critical support for the country’s Minuteman III nuclear deterrent, Sky News has learnt.

After gaining access to Westech International’s computer network, the criminals encrypted the company’s machines and began to leak documents online to pressure the company to pay extortion.

It is unclear if the documents stolen by the criminals include military classified information, but files which have already been leaked online suggest the hackers had access to extremely sensitive data, including payroll and emails.

There are also concerns that Russian-speaking operators behind the attack could attempt to monetise their haul by selling information about the nuclear deterrent on to a hostile state.

Court documents in the US allege that Russian cyber criminals with a financial motivation have collaborated with the intelligence services in order to steal classified government documents.

A spokesperson for Westech confirmed to Sky News that the company had been hacked and its computers encrypted, and that investigations to identify what data the criminals had managed to steal were ongoing.

The company is involved with the nuclear deterrent as a sub-contractor for Northrup Grumman, providing engineering and maintenance support for the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Minuteman III is the land-based component of the US nuclear deterrent, stored in hundreds of protected underground launch facilities operated by the US Air Force.

Each ICBM is capable of delivering multiple thermonuclear warheads further than 6,000 miles, or the distance between London and Buenos Aires.

Brett Callow, a researcher for Emsisoft which specialises in tackling ransomware incidents, told Sky News: “This is not the first incident in which a contractor has leaked data and, unless action is taken, it will not be the last.

“The information exposed in these incidents could potentially be of interest to other nation states and present a risk to both national security and to the safety of service personnel.

“Even if a company pays the ransom, there is no guarantee that the criminals will destroy the stolen data, especially if it has a high market value.

“They may still sell it to other governments or trade it with other criminal enterprises,” Mr Callow warned, adding that another criminal group operating under the same model is offering interested parties the opportunity to bid for its stolen data…….. https://news.sky.com/story/hackers-steal-secrets-from-us-nuclear-missile-contractor-11999442

 

June 4, 2020 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

France goes back to its restrictive nuclear compensation law affecting Polynesian nuclear test survivors

French legislature resets tighter nuclear compensation law,  https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/418189/french-legislature-resets-tighter-nuclear-compensation-law    The French legislature has again tightened the law for those seeking compensation for ill health because of the nuclear weapons tests in French Polynesia.

The new law reintroduces the need for every claimant to prove a minimum exposure to radiation for a compensation claim to be accepted.

It was approved by a joint commission of the National Assembly and the Senate which met after last week’s rejection of the text in the Senate.

The National Assembly had earlier voted for the law, and in a first reading, the Senate had initially also approved it but then acceded to amendments.

The French Polynesian members of the legislature have not been in Paris since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and couldn’t take part in the discussion of the proposed law.

The compensation law clause defining the minimum exposure had been removed in 2017 because almost all compensation claims kept being rejected.

However, in 2018 the government changed its mind and reintroduced the restrictions as part of a finance act to complement a health act.

This was challenged and in February, the supreme court ruled that compensation claims lodged before the 2018 law change were not subject to the new terms.

With the new law, however, all outstanding claims have to meet the same requirements.

Between 1966 to 1996, France carried out 193 nuclear weapons tests in French Polynesia and until a decade ago, France claimed its tests were clean caused no harm to humans.

The test sites of Moruroa and Fangataufa remain excised from French Polynesia and are French no-go zones.

June 4, 2020 Posted by | France, Legal, OCEANIA | Leave a comment

Latina plant, the last of Italy’s 4 nuclear power stations to be dismantled

Italy approves dismantling of Latina plant   https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Dismantling-of-Italys-Latina-plant-to-begin 02 June 2020

Italy’s Ministry of Economic Development recently issued a decree authorising Societa Gestione Impianti Nucleari SpA (Sogin) to begin the initial phase of decommissioning the Latina nuclear power plant. The Latina plant is the last of the four Italian nuclear power plants to obtain a decommissioning decree.
After considering the opinion of the National Inspectorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ISIN) and the other competent institutions, the Ministry of Economic Development issued the decree on 20 May. ISIN is the independent regulatory authority responsible for nuclear safety and radiation protection. The decree establishes the conditions and requirements that regulate the execution of operations in the first phase of decommissioning.

The main activities envisaged during this initial phase of decommissioning concern the dismantling of the six boilers, with a total weight of over 3600 tonnes, and the lowering of the reactor building height from 53 to 38 metres. Buildings and auxiliary systems will also be dismantled. These operations are in addition to those already carried out or in progress at the plant.

By the end of this phase, all previous radioactive wastes generated through the operation of the plant or those produced by the dismantling of structures, systems and plant components will be stored safely at the site. These wastes will be stored both in a new temporary storage facility and in some specifically adapted reactor building premises. This initial phase of decommissioning the Latina plant is expected to be completed in 2027 and to cost EUR270 million (USD302 million).

With the availability of a planned national repository, it will be possible to start the second and final phase of the decommissioning of the plant with the dismantling of the graphite gas reactor. Once all the radioactive waste has been transferred to the repository and the temporary storage facilities demolished, the site will be released, without radiological restrictions, and returned to the community for its reuse.

“We are pleased with the issuance of this decree, the fifth after those obtained for the Bosco Marengo [fuel fabrication] plant and the Trino, Garigliano and Caorso [nuclear power] plants,” said Sogin CEO Emanuele Fontani. “This is a crucial step for the closure of the Italian nuclear cycle, which allows us to get to the heart of the decommissioning of the Latina plant. This measure confirms the fruitful collaboration between the various institutional subjects involved in the dismantling of nuclear plants.”

The Latina plant, comprising a single 210 MWe Magnox graphite gas-cooled reactor, began operating in January 1964. It was permanently shut in December 1987 as a result of the Italian referendum on nuclear power that followed the April 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Sogin took over ownership of the site in November 1999.

June 4, 2020 Posted by | decommission reactor, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Anxieties over the risks of spent nuclear fuel storage at San Onofre

June 4, 2020 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

 Choosing nuclear narrows future energy choices

 Choosing nuclear narrows future energy choices  https://www.ft.com/content/b94e5c1f-05ad-4fe9-b20a-483f6002a500. Dr Andy Wood and William Kendall, Suffolk, UK – 3 June 20  The case Jonathan Ford makes for borrowing at the lowest cost could apply to any capital project including new nuclear (“Britain needs new nuclear, and the government should fund it” June 1). But he doesn’t explain why he thinks EDF can deliver Sizewell C on time and budget when two of their other pressurised water reactor EPR projects are over a decade late and Hinkley’s costs are rising? There are serious questions about nuclear’s role in net zero. Lord Deben, chairman of the UK’s independent committee on climate change, describes it as a “transitional” power source, saying: “If we get better at balancing the grid and the amount of baseload energy, the need becomes smaller.”

There is wide agreement with Mr Ford that new nuclear takes a long time to build and costs are too high, but the National Infrastructure Commission draws a different conclusion: “Making decisions now, such as committing to a fleet of nuclear power plants, rules out a more diverse future generation mix and the potential this has to reduce costs to consumers.” We concur.

June 4, 2020 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries