nuclear-news

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

EDF trying to scam UK gvernment to back uneconomic Sizewell C nuclear project

100% Renewables 1st Sept 2020, EDF are trying to bamboozle ministers to back a scheme that would pay EDF
massive subsidies and premium prices to produce hydrogen that renewable
energy would generate for less than half the cost.
EDF are scrabbling for PR tricks to obscure the fact that they are asking for a blank cheque from
British electricity consumers to fund the proposed Sizewell C plant, on top
of which EDF will also be paid a high guaranteed premium price for all of
their electricity production.

https://100percentrenewableuk.org/edf-tries-to-hide-its-state-subsidies-behind-a-hydrogen-smokescreen

September 3, 2020 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

Nuclear corruption in Ohio: HB 6 was never about jobs and communities by keeping nuclear plants open

HB 6 was never about jobs and communities by keeping nuclear plants open. In fact, First Energy Solutions refused to show legislators there was a need for the bailout. Yet, their own numbers posted on the company’s website show subsidies were never needed and, with the subsidy secure, they paid shareholders $800 million! That’s not done by a company in dire straits. Electricity customers should never have been forced to pay for this – especially now when hospitals, households, small businesses, schools and communities are struggling. ...

September 3, 2020 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Iran Nuclear Deal Parties ‘United in Resolve’ to Preserve Agreement

September 3, 2020 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Petition against dumping ‘nuclear mud’ off Cardiff reaches 5k threshold for Senedd debate

September 3, 2020 Posted by | environment, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Renewable energy can save the natural world – but if we’re not careful, it will also hurt it

Renewable energy can save the natural world – but if we’re not careful, it will also hurt it   https://theconversation.com/renewable-energy-can-save-the-natural-world-but-if-were-not-careful-it-will-also-hurt-it-145166
 September 2, 2020    Laura Sonter, Lecturer in Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, James Watson, Professor, The University of Queensland, Richard K Valenta, Director – WH Bryan Mining and Geology Research Centre – The Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland

A vast transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is crucial to slowing climate change. But building solar panels, wind turbines and other renewable energy infrastructure requires mining for materials. If not done responsibly, this may damage species and ecosystems.

In our research, published today, we mapped the world’s potential mining areas and assessed how they overlap with biodiversity conservation sites.

We found renewable energy production will exacerbate the threat mining poses to biodiversity – the world’s variety of animals and plants. It’s fair to assume that in some places, the extraction of renewables minerals may cause more damage to nature than the climate change it averts.

  1. Australia is well placed to become a leader in mining of renewable energy materials and drive the push to a low-carbon world. But we must act now to protect our biodiversity from being harmed in the process.
  2. Mining to prevent climate change

    Currently, about 17% of current global energy consumption is achieved through renewable energy. To further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this proportion must rapidly increase.

    Building new renewable energy infrastructure will involve mining minerals and metals. Some of these include:

    • lithium, graphite and cobalt (mostly used in battery storage)
    • zinc and titanium (used mostly for wind and geothermal energy)
    • copper, nickle and aluminium (used in a range of renewable energy technologies).

    The World Bank estimates the production of such materials could increase by 500% by 2050. It says more than 3 billion tonnes of minerals and metals will be needed to build the wind, solar and geothermal power, and energy storage, needed to keep global warming below 2℃ this century.

  3. However, mining can seriously damage species and places. It destroys natural habitat, and surrounding environments can be harmed by the construction of transport infrastructure such as roads and railways.
  4. What we found

    We mapped areas around the world potentially affected by mining. Our analysis involved 62,381 pre-operational, operational, and closed mines targeting 40 different materials.

    We found mining may influence about 50 million km² of Earth’s land surface (or 37%, excluding Antarctica). Some 82% of these areas contain materials needed for renewable energy production. Of this, 12% overlaps with protected areas, 7% with “key biodiversity areas”, and 14% with remaining wilderness.

    Our results suggest mining of renewable energy materials may increase in currently untouched and “biodiverse” places. These areas are considered critical to helping species overcome the challenges of climate change.

  5. Threats here and abroad

    Australia is well positioned to become a leading supplier of materials for renewable energy. We are also one of only 17 nations considered ecologically “megadiverse”.

    Yet, many of the minerals needed for renewable energy exist in important conservation areas.

    For example, Australia is rich in lithium and already accounts for half of world productionHard-rock lithium mines operate in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

    This area has also been identified as a national biodiversity hotspot and is home to many native species. These include small marsupials such as the little red antechinus and the pebble-mound mouse, and reptiles including gecko and goanna species.

  6. Australia is also ranked sixth in the world for deposits of rare earth elements, many of which are needed to produce magnets for wind turbines. We also have large resources of other renewables materials such as cobalt, manganese, tantalum, tungsten and zirconium.

    It’s critical that mining doesn’t damage Australia’s already vulnerable biodiversity, and harm the natural places valued by Indigenous people and other communities.

    In many cases, renewables minerals are found in countries where the resource sector is not strongly regulated, posing an even greater environmental threat. For example, the world’s second-largest untouched lithium reserve exists in Bolivia’s Salar de Uyuni salt pan. This naturally diverse area is mostly untouched by mining.

    The renewables expansion will also require iron and steel. To date, mining for iron in Brazil has almost wiped out an entire plant community, and recent dam failures devastated the environment and communities.

  7. We need proactive planning

    Strong planning and conservation action is needed to avoid, manage and prevent the harm mining causes to the environment. However global conservation efforts are often naive to the threats posed by significant growth in renewable energies.

    Some protected areas around the world prevent mining, but more than 14% contain metal mines in or near their boundaries. Consequences for biodiversity may extend many kilometres from mining sites.

     

    Meanwhile, other areas increasingly important for conservation are focused on the needs of biodiversity, and don’t consider the distribution of mineral resources and pressures to extract them. Conservation plans for these sites must involve strategies to manage the mining threat.

  8. There is some good news. Our analyses suggest many required materials occur outside protected areas and other conservation priorities. The challenge now is to identify which species are most at risk from current and future mining development, and develop strong policies to avoid their loss.

September 3, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, renewable | Leave a comment

Geoengineering to counter global heating? It’s a risky gamble

September 3, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

USA – new plutonium pit production – but no new environmental assessment !

 US officials: No new environmental study for nuclear lab, Spectrum,   BY ASSOCIATED PRESS AP,  SEP. 02, 2020, ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — The National Nuclear Security Administration says it doesn’t need to do an additional environmental review for Los Alamos National Laboratory before it begins producing key components for the nation’s nuclear arsenal because it has enough information.
Watchdog groups are concerned about Tuesday’s announcement, saying the plutonium pit production work will amount to a vast expansion of the lab’s nuclear mission and that more analysis should be done.

Los Alamos is preparing to resume and ramp up production of the plutonium cores used to trigger nuclear weapons. It’s facing a 2026 deadline to begin producing at least 30 cores a year — a mission that has support from the most senior Democratic members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation  ……..

The National Nuclear Security Administration on Tuesday released its final supplemental analysis of a site-wide environmental impact statement done for the lab more than a decade ago. The agency concluded that no further analysis is required.

Critics have pushed for a new environmental impact statement, saying the previous 2008 analysis didn’t consider a number of effects related to increased production, such as the pressure it puts on infrastructure, roads and the housing market.

“The notion that comprehensive environmental analysis is not needed for this gigantic program is a staggering insult to New Mexicans and an affront to any notion of environmental law and science,” Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group said in a statement.

Lab officials last year detailed plans for $13 billion worth of construction projects over the next decade at the northern New Mexico complex as it prepares for plutonium pit production. About $3 billion of that would be spent on improvements to existing plutonium facilities for the pit work, the Albuquerque Journal reported…….https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffalo/ap-online/2020/09/02/us-officials-no-new-environmental-study-for-nuclear-lab

September 3, 2020 Posted by | environment, USA | Leave a comment

Republicans And Democrats Clash Over How To Repeal Nuclear Bailout

September 3, 2020 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Santee Cooper and Westinghouse Electric to sell of equipment at the failed $9 billion VC Summer nuclear site.

September 3, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

France’s President Macron joins the global nuclear lobby’s push to export nuclear reactors

Macron talks nuclear energy and ways to control militias during Iraq visit, The National , Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Sep 2, 2020French PM is the most significant leader to visit Iraq since Prime Minister Mustafa Al Kadhimi came to power in May

During a visit to Baghdad on Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron discussed solving Iraq’s massive power shortages with nuclear energy ……. Mr Kadhimi told reporters in Baghdad that he discussed with Mr Macron “a future project” to use nuclear energy to produce electricity and solve decades-long power shortages……..

If realised, the project would place Iraq along with the UAE and Iran as the only Middle East countries with electricity produced by a nuclear reactor. ………. https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/macron-talks-nuclear-energy-and-ways-to-control-militias-during-iraq-visit-1.1071729

September 3, 2020 Posted by | France, marketing | Leave a comment

North Korea’s nuclear activity still a ‘serious concern’: UN watchdog 

North Korea’s nuclear activity still a ‘serious concern’: UN watchdog  https://nypost.com/2020/09/02/north-koreas-nuclear-activity-still-a-serious-concern-un/-By Ben Feuerherd, September 2, 2020 

Nuclear activities in North Korea remain a cause for “serious concern,” and the rogue totalitarian state continues to enrich uranium, which could be used in an atomic weapon, the UN’s watchdog said in a recent report.

The activities by the country are in “clear violation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions,” the International Atomic Energy Agency wrote in the report that was released Tuesday.

The report also notes that what was once the heart of the country’s nuclear program, the Yongbyon site, has likely been shut down since 2018 — and that no plutonium has been produced there in the past year.

Nuclear activities in North Korea remain a cause for “serious concern,” and the rogue totalitarian state continues to enrich uranium, which could be used in an atomic weapon, the UN’s watchdog said in a recent report.

The activities by the country are in “clear violation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions,” the International Atomic Energy Agency wrote in the report that was released Tuesday.

The report also notes that what was once the heart of the country’s nuclear program, the Yongbyon site, has likely been shut down since 2018 — and that no plutonium has been produced there in the past year.

Still, the information it’s able to get about the program is “declining” because the agency’s been locked out of the hermit nation.

“Knowledge of the DPRK’s nuclear program is limited and, as further nuclear activities take place in the country, this knowledge is declining,” the report states.

 

September 3, 2020 Posted by | North Korea, politics international | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste project proposed near Carlsbad sees mixed response in final public hearing

September 3, 2020 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Low Dose Ionizing Radiation Shown to Cause Cancer in Review of 26 Studies

These results contradict the claims of the Japanese authorities who keep repeating that there is no impact observed below a dose of 100 mSv.

The US National Cancer Institute has dedicated an entire volume of its scientific journal, Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, to the impact of low doses of radiation on cancers. The articles are open access.

 

jncmon_2020_56cover

July 13, 2020

An international team of experts in the study of cancer risks associated with low-dose ionizing radiation published the monograph, “Epidemiological studies of low-dose ionizing radiation and cancer: Summary bias assessment and meta-analysis,” in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute on July 13, 2020.  

It is well established that ionizing radiation causes cancer through direct DNA damage. The general public are exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation from medical exposures like computed tomography (CT) scans, naturally occurring radiation (emitted from bedrock with the earth’s crust and cosmic rays emitted by the sun), and occupational exposures to medical, aircrew and nuclear workers. A key question for low-dose exposures is how much of the damage can be repaired and whether other mechanisms, including inflammation, also play a role. This critical question has been long debated for radiation protection standards.

After combing data from 26 epidemiological studies the authors found clear evidence of excess cancer risk from low dose ionizing radiation: 17 of 22 studies showed risk for solid cancers and 17 of 20 studies showed risk for leukemia. The summary risk estimates were statistically significant and the magnitude of risk (per unit dose) was consistent with studies of populations exposed to higher doses.

A novel feature of the research effort was the investigators’ use of epidemiological and statistical techniques to identify and evaluate possible sources of bias in the observational data, for example confounding, errors in doses, and misclassification of outcomes. After a thorough and systematic review, they concluded that most did not suffer from major biases.

The authors concluded that although for the most part, absolute risk of cancer will be small, the data reinforce the radiation safety principle to ensure that doses are “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA).   

Additional research is needed to explore risks for cardiovascular disease (CVD) at low doses. Because CVD is a very common disease, even small risks at low doses could have important implications for radiation protection and public health.  

The 26 epidemiological studies were published between 2006 and 2017 and included a total of 91,000 solid cancers and 13,000 leukemias. Studies were eligible if the mean dose was <100 mGy. The study populations had environmental radiation exposure from accidents, like Chernobyl, and natural background radiation, medical radiation exposure like CT scans and occupational exposure including nuclear workers and medical radiation workers.   

Reference:

Epidemiological studies of low-dose ionizing radiation and cancer: Summary bias assessment and meta-analysisExit Disclaimer,” JNCI Monographs. Volume 2020. Issue 56. July 2020.

https://academic.oup.com/jncimono/issue/2020/56

https://dceg.cancer.gov/news-events/news/2020/low-dose-monograph

September 1, 2020 Posted by | radiation | , , , | 1 Comment

Evacuation orders for Fukushima radioactive areas to be lifted without decontamination

kklmA gate to the Nagadoro district of the village of Iitate, Fukushima Prefecture, is seen in this picture taken on Aug. 24, 2020. The district was designated as a “difficult-to-return” zone in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

 

August 27, 2020

TOKYO — The Japanese government is set to allow the lifting of evacuation orders for highly radioactive areas near the disaster-stricken Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station without decontamination work on condition that residents will not resettle there.

The government on Aug. 26 disclosed the policy to the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) for the so-called “difficult-to-return” zones where residents have remained evacuated since the onset of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 due to high radiation doses in those areas in northeastern Japan. The NRA gave its consent to the government policy, paving the way for residents to enter areas outside the specified disaster reconstruction and revitalization base zones.

The government has heretofore made it a condition for lifting the evacuation orders that: the radiation exposure doses will not exceed 20 millisieverts per year; infrastructure necessary for daily lives is developed and sufficient decontamination work is performed; and consultations are held with local bodies and residents. The government previously designated parts of the difficult-to-return zones as disaster recovery bases, which mainly lie in areas where local residents lived, and planned to lift the evacuation orders by 2023 after decontamination work and infrastructure development.

Meanwhile, upon receiving a request from the village of Iitate in Fukushima Prefecture, the government has also been examining under which situations the evacuation directives can be lifted in areas outside the disaster recovery base areas.

At a regular meeting on Aug. 26, the government explained its line of thinking that the evacuation orders can be lifted on conditions including: the annual radiation exposure doses are confirmed to be no more than 20 millisieverts; residents’ radiation exposure doses are controlled by using personal dosimeters; and information to curb radiation exposure is provided. The government then sought the NRA’s opinion on the matter.

In response, the nuclear watchdog body evaluated the government’s new policy and offered a view that “it is in essence the same” as the current conditions for lifting the nuclear evacuation orders.

Upon receiving the NRA’s stamp of approval, the government is set to hold a meeting of the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters and formally decide on the prerequisites for removing the evacuation orders in areas outside the disaster recovery bases. Following the decision, municipal governments will look into whether to lift their evacuation orders for their local areas.

In Iitate village, the Nagadoro district has been designated as a difficult-to-return zone, dividing the village into a disaster recovery base and an area not designated as such. The Iitate Municipal Government is planning to develop a disaster restoration park in parts of a roughly 9-square-kilometer area that had few residents and falls outside the disaster recovery base, and requested the central government to allow the village to lift the evacuation order for the area at the same time as for the disaster recovery base.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200827/p2a/00m/0na/005000c

 

September 1, 2020 Posted by | Fukushima 2020 | , , | Leave a comment

Japan should leave radioactive water in current storage tanks

Hajime Matsukubo, general-secretary of the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, says an ocean dump doesn’t make sense

7715976536687178Hajime Matsukubo, general secretary of the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC)

Aug.17,2020

What’s the most practical and safest way to handle the radioactive water being stored at Fukushima? According to Hajime Matsukubo, general-secretary of the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), the contaminated water should be left in the aboveground tanks where it’s currently being stored. In a recent email interview with the Hankyoreh, Matsukubo said it doesn’t make sense to release the water into the ocean just because the tanks are running low on space.

The CNIC is a Japanese NGO that was set up in 1975 under nuclear physicist Jinzaburo Takagi, a leading figure in the campaign against nuclear power in Japan. Matsukubo is an active researcher, lecturer, and publisher of materials related to the anti-nuclear movement. The interview is presented below.

Hankyoreh (Hani): When do you think the final decision will be made about dumping the contaminated water at Fukushima into the ocean?

Hajime Matsukubo: TEPCO [Tokyo Electric Power Company] says it will dilute the contaminated water before dumping it into the ocean, which means that a dilution facility would have to be built. Given the time required to get a building permit, I think the final decision will be made this summer or fall.

Japan wants an ocean dump because it’s the cheapest option

Hani: Why do you think the Japanese government is pushing so hard to dump the water into the ocean?

Matsukubo: Not only Japan but all countries that operate nuclear reactors end up with tritium as a byproduct, which they then release into the ocean or the atmosphere. I see this decision as an extension of that. Another factor is that releasing the water into the ocean is the cheapest option.

Hani: There seems to be considerable opposition to the plan in Japan as well.

Matsukubo: Many citizens are opposed to it. Pushback has been particularly strong from fishermen, who are likely to be harmed by the rumors [about the danger of the radioactive matter being released, which could cause people not to visit or eat food from Fukushima]. Lawmakers at city councils in Fukushima Prefecture have adopted a series of resolutions voicing concerns about releasing the contaminated water.

Hani: Do you think that negative public opinion in Japan is capable of changing government policy?

Matsukubo: Since the fishermen are direct stakeholders, I think their opposition will have a big impact. TEPCO has promised not to release the water without the consent of local communities in Fukushima. I think the key is opposing voices in Japan and increasing pressure from overseas.

Hani: Do South Korea or environmental groups in other countries have any way to sanction Japan for releasing contaminated water into the ocean?

Matsukubo: They could consider filing a lawsuit based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. But a large amount of tritium is already being released from Korea’s nuclear plants, especially the Wolseong plant. It would be rather difficult to prove that contaminated water released from Fukushima Daiichi [No. 1] is having an impact.

There’s plenty of land that could be used for additional storage

Hani: What’s the most practical and safest way to deal with the contaminated water?

Matsukubo: The contaminated water at Fukushima should be left in the aboveground tanks where it’s currently being stored. [The government] says there’s no more room at Fukushima Daiichi, but there is. There’s a huge amount of land that could be used to store the radioactive wastewater. While the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry says that land can’t be appropriated for other uses, the government [could and] should negotiate with the landowners. It’s absurd to dump radioactive water into the ocean because there’s not enough storage space in the tanks. Japanese NGOs are suggesting that the government continue storing the water in the aboveground tanks and seal them off with concrete. They’re warning the government that releasing the water into the ocean would create international problems.

S. Korea, Japan both need to reassess their reprocessing plans

Hani: Do you have a message for South Korea’s civic society?

Matsukubo: The Japanese government is pursuing a policy of creating a nuclear fuel cycle that would recycle plutonium and uranium from the spent nuclear fuel produced by reactors. This policy requires reprocessing plants that are currently under construction at Rokkasho, in Aomori Prefecture, which are supposed to begin operations in 2021. These plants will release a large amount of radioactive matter into the ocean and the atmosphere. In terms of tritium alone, the amount released will be 10 times worse than the contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi. That’s a very serious problem, just as releasing the contaminated water would be.

In South Korea, the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute is taking the lead in R&D projects related to reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The problems with reprocessing plants don’t end here. Plutonium can be used as a raw material for making nuclear weapons. I think that South Korea and Japanese citizens need to join forces to shut down both countries’ reprocessing plans.

By Kim So-youn, staff reporter

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/958103.html

September 1, 2020 Posted by | Fukushima 2020 | , , | Leave a comment