The nuclear industry is dying: with Small Nuclear Reactors they pretend it’s not – theme for December 20
“ nuclear is dead, but pretending it’s not” – so writes Michael Barnard in a brilliant study of the state of the industry in the UK and USA.
Barnard doesn’t even mention Small Nuclear Reactors – he is concentrating on the clean-up costs and the rorts.
But the entire crooked and dirty industry is now hanging its desperate last hopes on Small Nuclear Reactors, which will probably turn out to be even dirtier and more crooked than the old industry’
The Small Nuclear Reactor push is a confidence trick being played on the whole world. In the Western world, by slick propaganda regurgitated by journalists, who, for whatever reason, don’t seek the truth.
In the totalitarian world of Russia and China, it is unlikely that any criticism of government policy would be tolerated.
Small Nuclear Reactors do have that one use – siphoning off public money towards nuclear weapons, training scientists for nuclear weaponry, while putting up the lying facade of peacefulness, and “climate action”
UK’s Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Department rejects the claim that nuclear power is ”zero carbon”
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Department accept that nuclear is not a ‘zero carbon’ source of electricity– implications for EdF’s advertisement claims. TASC 30th November 2020
On the 15th October, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) wrote to BEIS pointing out that the nuclear power developer behind Hinkley Point C and the notional Sizewell C plants was justifying its TV ad claim that it is the ‘biggest producer of carbon free electricity’ by referencing a BEIS website in which the claim of ’zero carbon’ was made for renewables and nuclear.
In a response to TASC received on the 25th November, Director of Nuclear at BEIS, Stephen Speed who also co-chairs the BEIS/NGO nuclear forum acknowledged the error, stated, ‘….we agree with your argument that the environmental impact table of the Fuel Mix Disclosure report could cause confusion. I have asked for the report to be amended with a line that explains that the table relates only to generator emissions in the operational phase and does not include emissions related to the fuel supply chain or maintenance
activities.’
Despite the fact that TASC would still contest the assumption that even generator carbon emissions are zero, the concession
from BEIS is a good interim result. Commenting on the agreement to alter the information on the website, Pete Wilkinson, Chairman of TASC, said today, ‘This acknowledgement from BEIS is welcome and important. At a time when the future of nuclear power in the UK is in the balance, removing official support for the zero carbon claim changes the game, and fundamentally exposes nuclear power’s climate change credentials as insignificant.
The word ‘zero’ can no longer be used when referencing nuclear power and carbon. ‘Moreover, it forces EdF to desist in making
the assertion which they had hitherto justified by pointing to a BEIS website which upheld their misplaced claim. ‘It may also, finally, force our local MP, Dr Therese Coffey, to drop the phrase as well. Incredibly for a Secretary of State, she has used the zero carbon claim in her response to the EdF planning application which the inspectorate will be examining next year and has refused to meet members of TASC on the grounds that our anti-nuclear views are ‘well known’. Such an attitude is rude, facile and possibly in breach of the Parliamentary Code.’
Small Modular Reactors would create a Large Problem of Nuclear Wastes
Nuclear has fewer emissions than other sources of power? Think again! https://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2020/12/02/nuclear-has-fewer-emissions-than-other-sources-of-power-think-again.html Evelyn Gigantes, Ottawa, Wed., Dec. 2, 2020 – “Nuclear a source of clean energy, waste still a problem to be solved, “
There is more than one problem with nuclear (energy).
It is not true that nuclear produces no carbon emissions once it is in operation. The problem is not just the highly dangerous waste, itself, but the fact that dealing with the waste would necessarily involve enormous amounts of machine-handled waste packaging, transportation, construction and maintenance, each of which would produce significant carbon emissions.
To claim that the “only” problem with nuclear is the unsolved waste problem is to sneakily promote more nuclear development: witness the new campaign by the nuclear industry and its backers to start a new building program of so-called SMRs (small modular reactors), some fuelled by recycled high-level nuclear fuel waste and producing more radioactive waste than current CANDU reactors.
You think we have waste problems now?
Trump’s Support for Israel’s Killing of Iranian Nuclear Scientist Could Lead to War
 Trump’s Support for Israel’s Killing of Iranian Scientist Could Lead to War, Marjorie Cohn, Truthout– December 1, 2020,
On November 27, Israel assassinated Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iran’s top nuclear scientist. International law expert Richard Falk called it “an outrageous act of state terrorism.” Although the Israeli government has not claimed credit for the illegal killing, there is little doubt of its culpability. Trump implicitly praised the assassination, retweeting a comment by Israeli journalist and intelligence expert Yossi Melman that the killing was a “major psychological and professional blow” to Iran. This was an “implicit approval if there ever was one,” according to Sina Toossi, a senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council. The Israel Defense Forces have been ordered to prepare for a possible U.S. military attack on Iran before Trump’s term ends, senior Israeli officials told Axios. They expect “a very sensitive period” leading up to Biden’s inauguration. In mid-November, Trump requested plans to attack Iran’s Natanz nuclear power facility but was reportedly talked out of it. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia and strategized about Iran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Israel, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and several countries in the Gulf to discuss Iran. During Pompeo’s visit to the Gulf, the U.S. Central Command announced that B-52 strategic bombers carried out a “short-notice, long-range mission into the Middle East to deter aggression and reassure U.S. partners and allies.” And in an unusual move, the U.S. military sent the aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Nimitz back to the Gulf region following the assassination of Fakhrizadeh. “All options are on the table,” State Department officials who were traveling with Pompeo told reporters. Trump Appears to Have Outsourced His Iran Policy to IsraelIsraeli leaders think Iran poses an existential threat to Israel’s existence, in spite of the fact that Iran has never attacked Israel or any other country in the last 200 years. In fact, Israel is the only Middle East country that has nuclear weapons and it refuses to join the new UN International Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. At Netanyahu’s urging, Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, which was preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And in January, the Trump administration illegally assassinated Iran’s top general, Qassim Suleimani. Shortly before that assassination, Pompeo followed the same pattern — traveling and meetings with U.S. allies in the region, according to Iranian American journalist Negar Mortazavi. The Iran nuclear agreement is embodied in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated during the Obama administration between Iran, the U.S., France, U.K., Russia, China, Germany and the European Union. Iran, which has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is only intended for peaceful purposes, agreed to restrict its uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities. In return, it received relief from the punishing U.S. sanctions. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency certified several times that Iran was complying with its obligations under the agreement. Nevertheless, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and reimposed the sanctions against Iran. One year after the U.S. withdrawal, Iran began to pull back from its commitments under the JCPOA, which allows a party to abandon its obligations if another party is in noncompliance. Trump intensified the sanctions that have devastated Iran’s economy, impoverished 82 million Iranians and hindered its ability to respond to the pandemic. With his campaign of “maximum pressure” on Iran, Trump has waged economic warfare against the Iranian people…….. It is becoming clear that Trump aims to cater to Israel’s agenda until he leaves office. U.S. and Israel Try to Bait Iran to Retaliate and Lead to Middle East WarHopefully, Iran will resist the apparent U.S.-Israeli attempt to provoke it into retaliating for Fakhrizadeh’s assassination and thereby provide Trump with a pretext to launch a retaliatory strike, which would ignite a war in the Middle East. The U.S. military already has more than 40,000 troops in the region on high alert. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani pledged to respond to the assassination of Fakhrizadeh at the “proper time.” Rouhani said, “The Iranian nation is smarter than falling into the trap of the Zionists. They are thinking to create chaos.” The day after the assassination, Iran’s parliament unanimously voted to end future UN inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites. The inspections had confirmed that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA. Terminating them could spell an end to the nuclear deal……. It is up to Congress, as well as civil society, to prevent the Biden administration from continuing the U.S. policy of caving to Israel’s demands — a practice that not only deepens the oppression of the Palestinians but could also actively imperil the national security of the United States. Meanwhile, we must pressure Congress to prevent Trump from attacking Iran. The consequences to the Middle East and the entire world would be catastrophic. https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-support-for-israels-killing-of-iranian-scientist-could-lead-to-war/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1a5fde20-0879-45fe-9c19-50ff3b76e37e |
|
UK and USA nuclear waste clean-up – a $billion here, a $billion there – pretty soon you’re talking real money
US Nuclear Site Cleanup Underfunded By Up To $70 Billion, Clean Technica, December 1st, 2020 by Michael Barnard
Headlines out of the UK are pointing out the horrible state of affairs for nuclear generation decommissioning after a committee of Members of Parliament that the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority really doesn’t have a handle on the 17 sites, their costs, or the vendors they selected for cleanup. They are currently projecting $177 billion and 120 years for the full decommissioning, over $1 billion per site. Some of this is due to botched procurement, with two different cleanup vendors stripped of their contracts.
Certainly the UK cleanup is a fustercluck of epic proportions, equivalent in fiscal sense to building Hinkley. That new reactor, billions and years over budget and schedule, required a commitment for 35 years to pay $150/MWh for every MWh they generated, at a time when onshore wind and solar in the UK are at or under $50/MWh and offshore wind is under $100/MWh.
Some US commenters were feeling chuffed, although that’s not a term they would use, that the US was handling things so much better. But the USA isn’t far behind the UK in problems, it just isn’t as public.
Per the World Nuclear Association:
In the USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. They must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds. About two-thirds of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all US nuclear power reactors has already been collected, leaving a liability of about $9 billion to be covered over the remaining operating lives of about 100 reactors (on the basis of an average of $320 million per unit). NRC data for the end of 2018 indicated that there was a combined total of $64.7 billion held in the decommissioning trust funds covering the 119 operational and retired US nuclear power reactors.
An OECD Nuclear Energy Agency survey published in 2016 reported US dollar (2013) costs in response to a wide survey. For US reactors the expected total decommissioning costs range from $544 to $821 million; for units over 1100 MWe the costs ranged from $0.46 to $0.73 million per MWe, for units half that size, costs ranged from $1.07 to $1.22 million per MWe. For Finland’s Loviisa (2 x 502 MWe) the estimate was €326 million. For a Swiss 1000 MWe PWR the detailed estimate amounts to CHF 663 million (€617 million). In Slovakia, a detailed case study showed a total cost of €1.14 billion to decommission Bohunice V1 (2 x 440 MWe) and dismantle it by 2025.
[Brief aside: I love the World Nuclear Association, because they are actually honest and report details that contradict their mission. I cite them on Germany’s wholesale electricity prices, which they freely admit are among the lowest in Europe as that country ramps up renewables rapidly and dumps nuclear. They aren’t just a lobbying organization, although they are an industry-funded lobbying association. Unlike the equivalent oil and gas organizations, they seem compelled to be honest and complete, perhaps because being honest and complete usually isn’t so disgustingly horrific for them, just simply bad.]
Back to the thread. The US has collected a bunch of money from operating reactors into a cleanup fund that they acknowledge is underfunded to the tune of billions already. But the industry estimates show that they are collecting under half of what it will actually take to decommission the sites.
There are about 100 reactors in the United States. Assuming they collect the $320 million per reactor (they won’t, as reactors are closing prematurely), they would have a fund of $32 billion. But they need a fund of closer to $70 billion, and they are short regardless. So the US fleet cleanup is going to cost the taxpayer probably closer to an additional $40 billion, if it all goes according to the estimates.
Note that the UK and Slovakia examples show that it usually doesn’t, just as building new nuclear never seems to come in on time or budget. The reality is going to be closer to the European and Slovakian costs, so let’s assume a billion per reactor as a reasonable number.
The US will have maybe $30 billion. They’ll need $100 billion. Yeah, $70 billion is the more reasonable number.
“A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.”
– US Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen
Of course, this is on top of the $1.6 billion annual tax breaks nuclear plants in the US get, the $10 billion liability insurance cap with the taxpayer holding the bill should a Fukushima-scale disaster occur and the state-level boondoggles like the $1.1 billion Ohio subsidy that came with a side helping of $60 million in bribes…………….https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us-nuclear-site-cleanup-underfunded-by-up-to-70-billion/
Nuclear corruption – this time it’s Taiwan
 Three detained in probe into nuclear power plant case, https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2020/12/03/2003748020 By Jason Pan / Staff reporter
Police on Friday last week arrested Kuo, 52, who allegedly led the operation, and questioned more than 10 people in connection with the case, including Kuo’s two deputies, both surnamed Lee (李), who were released after posting bail on Tuesday, the office said. The investigation found that Kuo’s operation, based in New Taipei City’s Jinshan District (金山), rigged bids, as well as extorted, coerced and assaulted other contractors, to win about NT$150 million (US$5.21 million at the current exchange rate) in bids related to two nuclear power plants, prosecutors said. Kuo, his two deputies and two colluding contractors were listed as suspects in the case, and could be charged with assault, attempted murder, intimidation and extortion, as well as breaches of the Government Procurement Act (政府採購法). Prosecutors said evidence showed that Kuo from 2016 to last year won seven projects related to the decommissioning of the Jinshan Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Shihmen District (石門) and one project in 2017 at the Guosheng Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Wanli District (萬里). Taipower Power Co (Taipower), which was responsible for the bidding process, is reported to have planned NT$150 billion in expenditures over 25 years to decommission the Jinshan plant. While most of the work requires advanced engineering skills, NT$30 billion has been budgeted for maintenance, material procurement, warehouse construction and other parts of the project, attracting many businesses and contractors. The investigation found that while Kuo and his friends pooled money to register a construction company, he did not have a business license or permits for the projects, but illegally borrowed a license and other documents from colluding contractors. Kuo initially persuaded legitimate contractors to join his bids by offering them a percentage of the project money, but when they refused to cooperate, he instructed his deputies and subordinates to beat them up and scare them off. In March last year, a contractor surnamed Hsu (許), who had won the bid on a landscaping project that Kuo had wanted, was invited to a dinner meeting, at which Kuo’s deputies allegedly stabbed him, leaving him with serious injuries, prosecutors said. An investigation led to Kuo and his deputies being charged with assault and attempted murder, they said. “Taipower should also be held liable for the gangsters’ bid-rigging and other illegal profiteering in this and related cases worth billions of dollars, as company officials failed in their due diligence and permitted gangsters to intimidate and use violence to secure the bids on these projects,” one Shilin prosecutor said. |
|
Armenia’s ticking time bomb – a decaying Soviet nuclear reactor
 Decaying Soviet-era nuclear power plant makes Armenia a ticking time bomb DAILY SABAH, ISTANBUL, DEC 02, 2020 Once Armenia’s defeat against Azerbaijan was put on paper, some Armenians, struggling to face reality, brought up nuclear weapons as a form of potential retaliation. These discussions, however, ignore the fact that Armenia does host nuclear power on its soil but in the form of a decaying Soviet nuclear reactor – a ticking bomb that is not only a threat to Armenia itself but its neighbors as well.
The Metsamor nuclear power plant, located just 16 kilometers (10 miles) from the Turkish border, is one of the oldest nuclear facilities in the world. Built back in 1976, the power plant consists of two VVER-440 Model V270 nuclear reactors, known to be some of the oldest and least reliable reactor models still in use.
Apart from unreliability issues, the power plant also lacks adequate earthquake resistance. While the volcanically-active region is at risk of earthquakes up to magnitude 8, the power plant can only endure a magnitude 7 earthquake, at most. Due to all these issues, Soviet authorities shut down the facility in 1988. However, Armenia reopened it in 1995 due to energy scarcity. Currently, the facility meets nearly 40% of Armenia’s energy needs, thus the security concerns are often ignored. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the European Union increased its efforts to shut down most Soviet-era nuclear power plants, particularly those in Bulgaria and Slovakia that pose any possible threat. Similar efforts were made for Metsamor, considered to be the most dangerous of them all, but in vain. Armenia rejected the EU’s call to shut down Metsamor in exchange for 200 million euros ($226 million) to help meet the country’s energy needs. Giving up on its hopes of closing the facility, the EU instead provided aid to improve the safety standards at the power plant. Although Armenian officials and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claim that there have been major safety upgrades at the facility over the past 20 years, making it no less safe than any other nuclear power plant, given the VVER-440s do not have a containment structure, a characteristic shared with the infamous Chernobyl, its security insurance is still questionable. In fact, many experts still consider it to be one of the world’s most dangerous nuclear facilities. The original closing date of the facility was determined as 2016. However, following an agreement with the Russian state nuclear agency, Rosatom, this date was pushed back to 2026. …… In 2009, the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK) warned about the danger of three nuclear power plants, including Metsamor, in neighboring countries. Ankara, which has not had diplomatic relations with Armenia since the 1990s, also urged Yerevan to shut down the plant due to the imminent danger it poses to Turkey. Six years ago, it submitted an official appeal with the IAEA to shut down the plant. https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/decaying-soviet-era-nuclear-power-plant-makes-armenia-a-ticking-time-bomb |
|
Nuclear power is dead. Here’s why it’s pretending that it’s not
|
US Nuclear Site Cleanup Underfunded By Up To $70 Billion, Clean Technica, December 1st, 2020 by Michael Barnard …………………..Nuclear power is going to be the gift that keeps on returning fiscal dividends for a century.
That’s why Brookfield bought the bankrupt Toshiba Westinghouse division, for the long-term, guaranteed decommissioning revenue. SNC Lavalin bought Canada’s CANDU for the same reason, although I’m sure they are at the trough on the Canadian SMR idiocy too. This isn’t exactly a secret. Nuclear projects always go over budget and over schedule, and there is exactly zero reason to believe decommissioning estimates provided by the industry. So why have jurisdictions been building more nuclear plants, whether at the egregious but at least honest costs of Hinkley, or the massively underestimated but increasingly obvious costs of the Virgil C. Summer and Vogtle sites? Three reasons. The first is the magic of net present value. That calculates the value of future dollars today given inflation. Just as a thousand bucks bought a lot more in 1990 than it does today, in 2050 it will buy a lot less than it does today. That means that liabilities that will be incurred decades in the future approach zero cost in today’s cost benefit analysis. Can you say generational inequity? The second is ideology. When really blatantly obvious economic sense gets thrown out the window, you start looking around for irrationality or graft. A lot of conservatives really hate onshore wind because it spoils the views from their manses (UK) or ranches (US) or country estates (Oz). They also think of wind and solar as inadequate hippy shit. They think nuclear is the answer. These are opinions that they formed in the 1970s or perhaps the 1980s, but conservatives have a stronger tendency to not let empirical reality change their mind. So Hinkley, Vogtle, and Summer are a triumph of ideology over reality. The third is graft. When we start talking about $10 billion or more to build a plant, billions in subsidies, and another billion to take the thing apart, a lot of people start rubbing their hands together and figuring out who they have to bribe now to get a big payoff later. The entire regulatory structure in the two states that had nuclear plants in construction until recently when one was finally put out of the state’s fiscal misery were both structured so that no matter how much the utility spent, it was guaranteed a set profit. If they built a $15 billion nuclear plant, they made a lot of profit off of the rate payers. If they built $2 billion worth of wind and solar instead, they made a lot less money off of the rate payers. It’s dumb as a box of hammers, but it’s part of the reason a lot of utilities love nuclear, and coal-generation carbon capture schemes to boot. They are licenses to print money. Outside of China, where they have trained resources who can build nuclear plants who would be mediocre at building wind and solar (which they are building a lot more of) and nuclear plants will displace coal plants, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to build new nuclear. The looming decommissioning debacle is just the icing on the cake. Wind and solar have proven themselves to be vastly cheaper, completely reliable on grids, and easy to integrate in very large amounts. Their decommissioning costs are trivial. That’s yet another reason why nuclear is dead, but pretending it’s not. https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us-nuclear-site-cleanup-underfunded-by-up-to-70-billion/ |
“……….
|
Incidents at Belarus nuclear station have alarmed neighbouring Lithuania
Lithuania wary of incident at Belarus nuclear plant https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/lithuania-weary-of-incident-at-belarus-nuclear-plant/ Benas Gerdžiūnas | 1 Dec 20, LRT.lt/en Lithuania has asked Belarus for clarification after its new nuclear plant located some 50 kilometres from the country’s capital suffered an incident just five days after launch.
Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko took part in the opening of the plant on 6 November, where he said the launch of the Astravyets NPP was as “ordinary” as building a metro.
“Belarus is becoming a nuclear power,” he declared.
Several voltage-measuring transformers outside of the nuclear reactor exploded during an incident on 7 November, according to sources at TUT.by, an independent media outlet in Belarus.
On Monday, the Belarusian Energy Ministry said that “a need to replace the measuring equipment arose” during testing, without providing further details.
Lithuania’s State Nuclear Power Safety Inspectorate (VATESI) said the plant is still undergoing testing. However, “we have also received no information about the [planned] next steps to launch the plant”, VATESI told BNS in a written comment.
Lithuania has been one of the most ardent critics of the nuclear plant built by the Russian state atomic corporation Rosatom and funded by a loan from the Kremlin.
Vilnius says the plant is unsafe and was built in breach of international safety standards. Minsk denies all allegations.
In September, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland had sent a joint statement to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and contracting parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS), calling on Belarus to start addressing nuclear safety issues without delay.
At the same time, the Russian company Rosatom is in talks with Belarus about the construction of a second nuclear power plant and a research reactor in the country, Rosatom chief Alexander Likhachev announced on Tuesday in a video statement.
In August, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania agreed not to purchase electricity from the plant.
The Baltic states are gearing up to switch from the Russian-controlled BRELL electricity grid that also includes Belarus, and synchronise with the continental European system by 2025.
(Benas Gerdžiūnas, LRT.lt/en | Alexandra Brzozowski, EURACTIV.com)
Armenian paper urges use of a nuclear ”dirty bomb” on Azerbaijan
paper urges use of nuclear bomb on Azerbaijan, Writer urges Armenia to use nukes against Azerbaijani population, turn capital into ‘wasteland for next 5,000 years’ AA 2020 Vakkas Doğantekin |01.12.0 ANKARAAn Armenian newspaper in the US published an opinion piece that urges the use of universally banned weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) against Azerbaijan and its civilian population.
The piece by Stepan Altounian called on the Armenian government to use any nuclear weapon available to turn the Azerbaijani capital Baku into a “wasteland for the next 5,000 years.”
“I, as probably all Armenians, was devastated but not necessarily surprised over the news that Armenia lost to the Azeris,” Altounian wrote, referring to Armenia’s Nov. 10 surrender to Azerbaijan in the conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, also known as Upper Karabakh.
Intense fighting that erupted on Sept. 27 ended weeks later when the Armenian occupiers retreated from territories internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.
In the controversial piece, endorsed and published by the Armenian media group Asbarez, Altounian asked “Where was the nuclear option?” at a time when governments and the UN are urging nuclear disarmament.
“Why not take the nuclear waste from Metzamor and manufacture dirty bombs?” he wrote. …….. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/azerbaijan-front-line/armenian-paper-urges-use-of-nuclear-bomb-on-azerbaijan/2062187
America’s underground radioactive dump – Waste Isolation Pilot Plant facing disruption
 Nation’s Only Underground Nuclear Waste Dump Could Face Disruptions, GAO Report Says, https://weather.com/news/news/2020-12-02-underground-nuclear-waste-dump-carlsbad-new-mexico By Jan Wesner ChildsAt a Glance
The only underground nuclear waste dump in the United States is suffering from shortfalls in planning and staffing that could lead to disruptions at the facility, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.
The report published last month indicated that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico, could become full if the amount of waste shipped to the facility keeps expanding or if a new way of measuring waste is rejected in a pending court challenge, according to the Associated Press. The plant, known as the WIPP, was built in the 1980s for the disposal of defense-related nuclear waste, including clothing, tools, rags, debris, soil and other items contaminated with radioactive elements, according to a fact sheet from the facility. The WIPP’s disposal rooms were carved out of ancient salt beds 2,150 feet below ground. The U.S. Energy Department (DOE) estimates the facility could be full as soon as 2025, and work to expand storage capacity has been delayed. “DOE does not have assurance that WIPP’s planned additional physical space will be constructed before existing space is full, which would result in a potential interruption to disposal operations,” the GAO said in a summary of its report. The facility was shut down after two accidents in 2014 and has been operating at limited capacity since it reopened in 2017. Two ventilation projects need to be completed to return the WIPP to full operations, the GAO said, but those have been met by challenges in oversight and regulatory approval. Construction on a giant utility shaft, which is part of the project, is in danger of being suspended due to missed planning deadlines and the continued spread of COVID-19 at the facility, the Carlsbad Current-Argus reported. The WIPP had recorded 150 cases of COVID-19 as of Nov. 23, according to a news release. The GAO report cited staffing issues dating back to January, when about one-third of positions were vacant in the DOE’s Carlsbad Field Office, responsible for overseeing the project. The DOE has estimated that the WIPP would need to operate for at least 30 years to meet disposal needs, according to the AP. |
|
Nuclear reactors are NOT clean, and NOT zero-emission
 Nuclear reactors are most certainly not clean and not zero-emission, https://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2020/12/02/nuclear-reactors-are-most-certinly-not-clean-and-not-zero-emission.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=star_web_ymbii
Ole Hendrickson, OttawaWed., Dec. 2, 2020 Nuclear a source of clean energy, waste still a problem to be solved, Nov. 26
I was surprised by the statement in this article that “from a greenhouse-gas (GHG) and air-quality perspective, nuclear power is very clean. Once construction is complete, nuclear is a zero-emission technology.” Nuclear reactors are not clean and not zero emission. During operation, they routinely emit radioactive gases. Increasing health risks for nearby residents, CANDU heavy water reactors emit more tritium and carbon-14 than light water reactors. Nuclear reactors produce solid and liquid wastes in addition to gaseous radioactive wastes. Highly toxic fuel-waste products, such as plutonium, require isolation from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. As well, greenhouse gases are generated during nuclear reactor construction, operation, dismantling and disposal, and during uranium mining and processing, fuel fabrication and waste management. |
America’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant needs more space as increasing as nuclear trash amounts increase
Daily Mail 1st Dec 2020, The federal government’s only underground nuclear waste dump could run out of room if the number of drums shipped to the New Mexico site keeps expanding or if a new method for measuring the waste is unraveled as part of a pending legal challenge, according to a nonpartisan congressional watchdog.
The Government Accountability Office in a recent report said better planning is needed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant to avoid
potential disruptions. The report specifically points to the need for adding more physical space at the repository before it becomes full, which the U.S. Energy Department estimates could happen as soon as 2025. The agency faces statutory limitations on how much waste can be disposed of at the site.
Australia and USA to develop hypersonic missiles
|
Australia to help develop hypersonic missiles, AFR
Andrew Tillett, Political correspondent , 30 Nov 20, The Australian and US militaries will develop a new hypersonic missile capable of flying the distance between Sydney and Melbourne in seven minutes, amid an arms race with China and Russia.
The two governments will sign an agreement on Tuesday to collaborate on research, build and test hypersonic cruise missiles that can fly at five times the speed of sound and are able to sink an aircraft carrier. Missiles the Royal Australian Air Force is helping to develop under the Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment Local defence companies, particularly in the small and medium enterprises field, will be tapped to contribute to the project, which is expected to take between five and 10 years to bring a precision-guided missile to fruition. Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said the experiment would culminate in flight tests to see how the weapon performed in operational conditions to guide on future acquisitions. As part of the Morrison government’s 2020 force structure plan, $9.3 billion was allocated for high-speed, long-range strike and missile defence including hypersonic development, in a bid to keep adversaries away from Australian shores. ….. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-to-help-develop-hypersonic-missiles-20201130-p56j75 |
|
Assassination of top scientist may push Iran closer to nuclear bomb
|
Assassination of top scientist may push Iran closer to nuclear bomb, The Strategist
1 Dec 2020| Connor Dilleen Media speculation has gone into overdrive since the assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist on Friday. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was an important albeit little-known figure in the Iranian government and was the head of research and innovation in Iran’s defence ministry.
Fakhrizadeh was also an integral figure in Iran’s pre-2004 nuclear weapons work, and his role in Iran’s Amad program in the early 2000s had long made him a person of interest to those seeking to unravel Iran’s historical weapons program. Fakhrizadeh’s role in Iran’s defence establishment also raised questions about the nature of his ongoing research, including whether there were any elements that related to nuclear weapons……… Israel has, unsurprisingly, emerged as the most likely culprit behind Fakhrizadeh’s killing. As noted by Trita Parsi in Responsible Statecraft, Tel Aviv had the expertise, capacity and motive to conduct the attack, and it has carried out similar assassinations before. Israel has been identified as being likely behind the murder of four other Iranian scientists between 2010 and 2012, and the attempted murder of several others. It’s also likely that the US was complicit in the attack, at a minimum providing Tel Aviv with a green light to conduct the attack. ……… The assassination of Fakhrizadeh was clearly symbolic. It was the first known assassination of a figure associated with Iran’s nuclear program in over eight years. It also occurred at a time when political transition in the US has raised hopes of a renewal of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program, given President-elect Joe Biden has committed to resurrecting the deal. It is also likely to be more than coincidental that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reportedly met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia on 22 November, possibly to advance elements of an anti-Iranian coalition in the dying stages of the Trump presidency. In the absence of any publicly available evidence indicating that Iran has undertaken any substantive research related to nuclear weaponisation since 2003, it appears Fakhrizadeh was targeted because of his historical role, not because of any contemporary work that he was undertaking…… it appears likely that the perpetrators of Fakhrizadeh’s assassination intended to do more than just spoil any chance for a renewal of cooperation with Iran on its nuclear program and the reinstatement of US participation in the JCPOA. It’s likely that they are also seeking to provoke a response from Tehran that would legitimise further punitive action against Iran by Israel or the US. The implications of this could prove catastrophic……. Fortunately, despite the killing of Fakhrizadeh being arguably a de facto declaration of war, Tehran appears set to continue the policy of strategic patience that it adhered to after the assassination of Soleimani. It also followed this approach after the apparent attack on the Natanz nuclear facility and possibly other industrial sites in the middle of the year. ……. The assassination of Fakhrizadeh may not only fail to achieve its core objectives, but may also prove disastrously counterproductive by providing the catalyst to convince policymakers in Tehran that they need the strategic deterrent capability that only a nuclear weapon can provide. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/assassination-of-top-scientist-may-push-iran-closer-to-nuclear-bomb/ |
|
1.This Month
EVENTS
11 March ONLINE Ten Years Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: Rio de Janeiro International Uranium Film Festival Free Online Screening and Debate.
********
13 – March – Protest – France ROUEN (76) – HAUTE-NORMANDIE – RASSEMBLEMENT] Fukushima plus jamais ça : arrêt du nucléaire civil et militaire
*******
-
Archives
- February 2021 (218)
- January 2021 (278)
- December 2020 (230)
- November 2020 (297)
- October 2020 (392)
- September 2020 (349)
- August 2020 (351)
- July 2020 (280)
- June 2020 (293)
- May 2020 (251)
- April 2020 (273)
- March 2020 (307)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
