nuclear-news

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

This week’s nuclear news

The big news worldwide continues to be about the coronavirus, which is still raging in many countries, especially in the USA.  Meanwhile the race to develop and implement vaccines is already on.

It’s not as if global heating has stopped,  but this newsletter is sticking to the nuclear subject.   That seems to be going quiet,  but not so, really, While the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will come into force next month, there seems to be a rush by the nuclear weapons states to ramp up their nuclear arsenal.
This week, I didn’t add up the numbers of headlined articles on nuclear issues, in Google News.  But I did add up the ones on Small Modular Reactors.  Today – there were over 80 of them, the vast majority enthusing mindlessly about them.  There were 8 articles that raised questions, doubts about the viability of small nuclear reactors.
 

Today’s Google headlines on nuclear issues – weapons and Iran dominate the stories.

The global energy revolution.

Correcting 5 wrong opinions about the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Living with the Nuclear Prohibition Treaty: nuclear weapons states would be unwise to attack it.

Nuclear power hinders fight against climate change.

Standard nuclear reactor designs are still too costly, and safety features are only a third of nuclear costs.

Solar energy is bullish in the market; the same can’t be said for nuclear.

The creeping carbon costs of digital communication.

Book review: The Case for Degrowth.

Extradition hearing of Julian Assange – defence witnesses destroy myths, demonstrate his integrity

JAPAN.  Japanese local governments depend on “nuclear money”.    Destructive potential of over a million tons of radioactive water into the Pacific.  Fukushima nuclear reactor no.1 – debris prevented from falling into fuel storage pool.  Nuclear disaster: Fukushima schools frozen in time.  Survey finds that most Fukushima evacuees do not intend to return.  No. 2 reactor at Tohoku Electric Power Co’s Onagawa nuclear power plant for restart, despite problems.  Surveys to identify nuclear waste disposal site begin in Hokkaido.

TAIWAN.  Taiwanese protest plan to dump water from Japan nuclear plant into sea.

UK

 

 

USA.

 

INDIA.  Cybersecurity breach at Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) undetected for over 6 months.

EUROPE.  The effect on Europe of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

FRANCE.  Extended shutdown for work on Flamanville nuclear reactor build.  Greenpeace launches legal appeal against French nuclear safety authority allowing extension of lifetime of nuclear reactors.  Concern in France over lack of expert inspection of nuclear sites.  Orano, formerly Areva, targeted by judicial investigation for corruption.  Corruption investigation into AREVA’s sale of Nigerian uraniumNew comic book investigates the dilemma about France’s nuclear wastes.

CANADA.  Canada’s environmental groups join to oppose experimental Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs).    Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, the nuclear industry’s latest pipe dream.  Canadian government’s misplacing funding into unviable small nuclear reactors for North West Territories.  Safety dangers of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).  In the face of public opposition, Ottawa delays small nuclear reactor plan.  Ontario could get clean renewable energy from neighbouring provinces, with no need for nuclear power.

IRAN.  Architect of its nuclear programme assassinated – Iran vows retaliation.   Tehran’s UN ambassador says rival Saudi Arabia is looking for an excuse to build nuclear weapons and blaming Iran.  Iran admits breach of nuclear deal discovered by UN inspectorate.  Iran slams European criticism on expanding nuclear programme. What’s behind the assaisnation of Iran’s top nuclear scientist?

BANGLADESH.  Bangladesh draws up a nuclear disaster response plan.

GERMANY.  Uranprojekt –The Nazi Nuclear Program.

RUSSIA. Russia’s latest nuclear icebreaker had to abort maiden Arctic voyage.  Russia claims to have successfully tested an “unstoppable” nuclear missile.

UKRAINE.  First canister of used nuclear fuel loaded into Chernobyl storage facility.  Comprehensive research now shows that irradiated areas near Chernobyl have fewest mammals.

SAUDI ARABIA.  Saudi minister says nuclear armament against Iran ‘an option’.

NORTH KOREA. North Korea sparks new nuclear weapons fears.

ROMANIA. European Commission approves Romania’s purchase of nuclear reactors.

RWANDA..  Growing opposition to nuclear power in Rwanda

AUSTRALIA  Victorian Parliament: Legislative Council Committee finds that nuclear ban should stay.    Victorian Government Inquiry confirms that there is no future in nuclear power.  Inquiry confirms nuclear energy’s ‘proven risks’.  Victorian Inquiry finds nuclear power costly and risky.

December 7, 2020 Posted by | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Britain’s nuclear industry is greatly threatened by climate change

The next ‘Great Tide’, Exposed to rising tides and storm surges, Britain’s nuclear plants stand in harm’s way, Beyond Nuclear International, By Andrew Blowers, 4 Dec 20,

“……………….Apart from Hinkley Point C, which will probably struggle on through a combination of political inertia and a nuclear ideology increasingly remote from economic reality, there remain two projects – Sizewell C and Bradwell B – still in the frame, although precariously so. For both sites, climate change may prove the showstopper. These coastal, low-lying sites are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including sea level rise, flooding, storm surges, and coastal processes.

This was recognised as an issue in the rather equivocal statement that accompanied designation of the sites in 2011. Referring to Bradwell (similarly to Sizewell), it was considered ‘reasonable to conclude that any likely power station development within the site could potentially be protected against flood risk throughout its lifetime, including the potential effects of climate change, storm surge and tsunami, taking into account possible countermeasures’. …..

About a quarter of the world’s nuclear power stations are on coasts or estuaries. The sites on the east coast and Severn Estuary are especially vulnerable to flooding, tidal surges, and storms. Potential impacts include loss of cooling and problems of access and emergency response in the event of a major incident and inundation of the plant, including spent fuel storage facilities.

In areas like the east coast of England, natural protection from saltmarshes, mudflats, shingle beaches, sand dunes and sea cliffs has been rapidly declining. Recent projections indicate substantial parts of the coast below annual flood level in 2100 and a loss of between a quarter and a half of the UK’s sandy beaches, leading to extensive inland flooding. The problems of managing such coasts through adaptive measures such as managed realignment and hard defenses may be insuperable in the uncertain circumstances of climate change over the next century. It seems imprudent and irresponsible to contemplate development of new nuclear power stations in conditions which may become intolerable.

Climate predictions have focused especially on the period up to the end of the century, by which time planned new nuclear power stations starting up in the 2030s will only just have ceased operating. At the turn of the next century the legacy of today’s new build will become the decommissioning wastes of tomorrow, adding to that already piled up in coastal locations. ……

Beyond 2100 sea levels continue rising and the radioactive legacy of new nuclear power stations will remain at the sites, in reactor cores and in spent fuel and waste stores exposed to the destructive processes of climate change. It is predicted that decommissioning and clean-up of new build sites will last for most of the next century.

The logistics, let alone the cost of transplanting, decommissioning and decontaminating the redundant plant and wastes to an inland site, if one could be found, would be well beyond the range of managed adaptation. The government’s claim that it ‘is satisfied that effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the wastes that will be produced from new nuclear power stations’ is an aspiration, and by no means a certainty……..https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3061243158

December 7, 2020 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

USA Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on funding to help Covid-9 victims, but there’s always money for war.

December 7, 2020 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

The next ”Great Tide” will devastate nuclear reactors and their radioactive wasies on the Suffolk and Essex coasts

The next ‘Great Tide’, Exposed to rising tides and storm surges, Britain’s nuclear plants stand in harm’s way, Beyond Nuclear International, By Andrew Blowers, 4 Dec 20,

It was now that wind and sea in concert leaped forward to their triumph.’
Hilda Grieve: The Great Tide: The Story of the 1953 Flood Disaster in Essex. County Council of Essex, 1959 

The Great Tide of 31 January/1 February 1953 swept down the east coast of England, carrying death and destruction in its wake. Communities were unaware and unprepared as disaster struck in the middle of the night, drowning over 300 in England, in poor and vulnerable communities such as Jaywick and Canvey Island on the exposed and low-lying Essex Coast.

Although nothing quite so devastating has occurred in the 67 years since, the 1953 floods remain a portent of what the effects of climate change may bring in the years to come.

Since that largely unremembered disaster, flood defences, communications and emergency response systems have been put in place all along the east coast of England, although it will only be a matter of time before the sea reclaims some low-lying areas.

Among the most prominent infrastructure on the East Anglian coast are the nuclear power stations at Sizewell in Suffolk and Bradwell in Essex, constructed and operated in the decades following the Great Tide.

Sizewell A (capacity 0.25 gigawatts), one of the early Magnox stations, operated for over 40 years, from 1966 to 2006. Sizewell B (capacity 1.25 gigawatts), the only operating pressurised water reactor in the UK, was commissioned in 1995 and is currently expected to continue operating until 2055.

Further down the coast, Bradwell (0.25 gigawatts) was one of the first (Magnox) nuclear stations in the UK and operated for 40 years from 1962 to 2002, becoming, in 2018, the first to be decommissioned and enter into ‘care and maintenance’.

These and other nuclear stations around our coast were conceived and constructed long before climate change became a political issue. And yet the Magnox stations with their radioactive graphite cores and intermediate-level waste stores will remain on site until at least the end of the century.

Meanwhile, Sizewell B, with its highly radioactive spent fuel store, will extend well into the next. Inevitably, then, the legacy of nuclear power will be exposed on coasts highly vulnerable to the increasing sea levels and the storm surges, coastal erosion and flooding that accelerating global warming portends.

Managing this legacy will be difficult enough. Yet it is proposed to compound the problem by building two gargantuan new power stations on these sites, Sizewell C (capacity 3.3 gigawatts) and Bradwell B (2.3 gigawatts) to provide the low-carbon, ‘firm’ (i.e. consistent-supply) component of the energy mix seen as necessary to ‘keep the lights on’ and help save the planet from global warming.

But these stations will be operating until late in the century, and their wastes, including spent fuel, will have to be managed on site for decades after shutdown. It is impossible to foresee how any form of managed adaptation can be credibly sustained during the next century when conditions at these sites are unknowable.

New nuclear power is presented as an integral part of the solution to climate change. But the ‘nuclear renaissance’ is faltering on several fronts. It is unable to secure the investment, unable to achieve timely deployment, unable to compete with much cheaper renewables, and unable to allay concerns about security risks, accidents, health impacts, environmental damage, and the long-term management of its dangerous wastes. 

It is these issues that will be played out in the real-world context of climate change. There is an exquisite paradox here. While nuclear power is hubristically presented as the ‘solution’ to climate change, the changing climate becomes its nemesis on the low-lying shores of eastern England. ………. https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3061243158

December 7, 2020 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

China’s changing aims for nuclear weapons

December 7, 2020 Posted by | China, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Three Mile Island – radiation is forever – will nuclear waste storage withstand flooding?

December 7, 2020 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Good Biden-Kim Relationship Necessary to Avoid a Nuclear Crisis 

Good Biden-Kim Relationship Necessary to Avoid a Nuclear Crisis   Council  on Foreign Relations,  by Guest Blogger for Asia Unbound,  December 4, 2020   The incoming Biden administration will face a nuclear catastrophe unless it can build good relations with North Korea. The U.S. President-Elect can begin by sending the right signals to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Because North Korea has nuclear weapons, the Biden administration cannot unilaterally impose terms on Pyongyang. Refusal to even talk with Pyongyang until it takes steps to denuclearize is a foolish and dangerous approach. Such an approach will likely inflame tensions and return Washington to a tense nuclear standoff with Pyongyang that poses a risk of miscalculation and accidental escalation into a nuclear war. Biden may be under pressure to be “tough” on North Korea to differentiate himself from Trump’s alleged cozy relationship with the North Korean dictator. However, a hostile stance toward Pyongyang will only make North Korea feel more insecure and drive Kim to pursue further nuclear development to ensure his regime’s survival.
Washington must recognize that Pyongyang has no incentive to denuclearize if the regime finds in nuclear weapons a guarantor of its survival and prestige. …………. https://www.cfr.org/blog/good-biden-kim-relationship-necessary-avoid-nuclear-crisis

December 7, 2020 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Texas and New Mexico reject interim nuclear waste storage

December 7, 2020 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, wastes | Leave a comment

UK’s Ministry of Defence keeping seret most of the unsatisfactor report on safety of nuclear bomb sites

REVEALED: Nuclear bomb sites hit by fire safety problems and staff shortages, The National, By Rob Edwards 5 Dec 20,    NUCLEAR bomb sites across the UK have fire safety problems as well as shortages of safety regulators and engineers, according to a new report from the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

But most of the MoD’s latest internal assessment of the safety of nuclear weapons has been kept secret for “national security” reasons – prompting fury from politicians and campaigners. They have attacked the nuclear secrecy as “deeply alarming” and “completely unacceptable”. The official attitude to nuclear safety was a “disgrace”, they said.

Previous nuclear safety assessments, revealed by The Ferret, have highlighted “regulatory risks” 86 times. Many involved the Trident warheads and nuclear submarines based on the Clyde.

The new MoD report also disclosed “significant weaknesses” on safety at non-nuclear sites. These included “serious deficiencies” on fire safety and “significant risk” from old fuel facilities – particularly on the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic.

The MoD accepted that there were “infrastructure issues”, but insisted that they were being addressed. Defence nuclear programmes were “fully accountable” to UK ministers, it said.

The MoD has posted online the 2019-20 report from the Defence Safety Authority, which brings together seven regulators, a safety team and an accident investigation unit operating within the MoD. They are overseen by the authority’s director general, air marshal Sue Gray.

But the report said that the entire section from the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator (DNSR), which is responsible for ensuring safety of the nuclear weapons programme, has been “marked SECRET” and given only “limited distribution”.

The MoD has previously released 10 annual DNSR reports following a challenge under freedom of information law in 2010. They flagged up risks of accidents, ageing submarine reactors, spending cuts and much else.

But in 2017 the MoD abruptly ceased publishing the reports, insisting that they had to be kept under wraps to protect national security. In 2019 that decision was challenged by campaigners at a UK information tribunal, whose verdict is still awaited.

he latest safety authority report, however, does contain a few details of nuclear risks buried in its 80 pages. It doesn’t specify which bases were affected, but they are likely to include the two major nuclear weapons sites, at Faslane on the Clyde and at Aldermaston in Berkshire.

In a discussion of problems with “fire safety assurance” across all MoD sites, the report said: “Particular issues have been noted at defence nuclear sites, where discussions continue between defence and statutory regulators.”

Between April 2019 and March 2020 as many as 374 fires were reported on all MoD sites. Although there had been some improvements “there is still more to do to reinforce the capability of defence to manage fire safety,” the report said.

A section on the “maturity” of the DNSR as a nuclear safety regulator disclosed that it was facing an 11 per cent shortage of staff in 2020-21. Shortfalls had been mitigated by the secondment of two senior staff from the UK Government’s nuclear power watchdog, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and from the nuclear weapons company, AWE.

This had been supplemented by “making full use of partial retirees, graduate placements and development posts during 2019-20,” the report said. But these stopgap measures were failing………………

The Scottish National Party expressed concern about “a pattern of failure” on MoD safety. “Worryingly, the findings of this report reflect significant non-compliance with security and safety regulations at sensitive sites, including those where there are nuclear materials,” said the party’s defence spokesperson, Stewart McDonald MP.

“Not only is nuclear power and weaponry not safe, it is expensive, and not being handled properly under this Tory Government’s watch. The UK Government needs to transition away from nuclear entirely.”

MCDONALD described the nuclear safety failures as “alarming” and accused the MoD of “a lack of regard for public safety and transparency”. He pointed out that the UK Government’s civil nuclear watchdog, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, had criticised MoD secrecy.

The Scottish Green MSP for the west of Scotland, Ross Greer, called for nuclear weapons to be completely scrapped. “It is deeply alarming that the MoD continues to shroud so much secrecy over the safety issues with Britain’s weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

“We’ve known for years of significant issues at sites like Faslane and on the submarines themselves, so continued attempts to hold information back from the public are totally out of order.”

Lynn Jamieson, chair of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: “The MoD’s tolerance of unsafe regimes is a disgrace for an organisation supposedly overseeing our protection. This adds to the urgency of nuclear disarmament.”

According to the Ministry of Defence, the annual assurance report and recommendations were currently being reviewed. Information that “could compromise national security” would not be published, the MoD said.,,,,,,,,,,,,   https://www.thenational.scot/news/18923905.revealed-nuclear-bomb-sites-hit-fire-safety-problems-staff-shortages/

December 7, 2020 Posted by | safety, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Court ruling doubts the credibility of nuclear safetysassessments by Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority

Ruling calls for review of NRA’s nuclear reactor safety screening,   http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13991979 A court ruling cast serious doubt over the credibility of safety assessments by the Nuclear Regulation Authority with regard to the operations of nuclear reactors.

The ruling called into question the safety of reactors restarted with NRA approval after being shut down in the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

It also underscored an urgent need for a sweeping review of the nuclear regulation system as a whole.

The Osaka District Court on Dec. 3 struck down the NRA’s endorsement of safety measures for the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors at the Oi nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture.

It invalidated the green light the nuclear safety watchdog gave in 2017 to Kansai Electric Power Co.’s plan to restart the two reactors.

The court said the NRA’s safety assessment was not fully in accordance with new tougher nuclear safety standards introduced after the catastrophic accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant and screening guidelines based on those standards.

The ruling labeled the NRA’s decision as “unreasonable,” asserting there were “errors and deficiencies that cannot be overlooked” in the process of examining and approving anti-earthquake measures the electric utility adopted for the reactors.

In designing measures to protect a reactor against major earthquakes, the operator estimates the maximum possible ground motion generated by an earthquake around the reactor, called “reference ground motion.” It develops steps to ensure the safety of the reactor based on this estimate and requests for NRA approval for restarting the reactor.

The NRA examines the plan and determines whether the estimate is appropriate and the proposed safety measures are sufficient. It grants approval and authorization if it decides the plan meets the new safety standards.

Kansai Electric Power determined the reference ground motion by calculating the magnitude of the maximum credible earthquake based on its own assumptions concerning the length and width of faults around the reactors.

But residents of Fukui and six other prefectures filed a lawsuit to question the utility’s estimate of the reference ground motion. They argued that the utility’s estimate only represents an “average” for the spectrum of possible quakes, meaning that the safety measures are not based on the maximum strength of a possible earthquake in the area.

They cited a newly included provision in the NRA’s screening guidelines that says consideration should be given for the “variability” that arises due to the calculation methods used.

The plaintiffs claimed the NRA’s approval of the anti-quake measures was illegal because it was based on the utility’s questionable reference ground motion figure.

The government countered this argument by saying the utility’s calculation has a sufficient margin of error that makes it unnecessary to consider variability. But the court sided with the plaintiffs.

The ruling puts weight on the reasons for the NRA’s own decision to introduce the “variability” provision into the guidelines and demands that the screening process strictly follow strictly the established procedures.

The NRA should respond to the ruling by first reviewing the process of the safety screening of the two reactors at the Oi plant. It is possible that the screening of other reactors was similarly flawed. The ruling is likely to arouse anxiety among residents living in the vicinity of reactors that have been brought back online. The NRA should make a sincere and convincing response to the court decision.

The No. 3 and No. 4 reactors at the Oi plant are currently offline for regular maintenance. Debate is unnecessary in stating that the utility must not rush to restart the reactors.

Even without the triple meltdown at the Fukushima plant, it is amply obvious that this nation could be hit by unexpectedly severe natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunami and volcanic eruptions, at any time.

That makes it all the more important to establish nuclear power standards based on the principle of erring on the side of safety and ensure that safety screening and regulation are strictly based on the standards.

The government, which seems to be bent on restarting reactors, should take this imperative to heart.

December 7, 2020 Posted by | Japan, safety | Leave a comment

Hokkaido’s ski areas could lose popularity, due to plans to house nuclear wastes

December 7, 2020 Posted by | Japan, wastes | Leave a comment

UK doesn’t have policies in place ready for COP26 Paris climate summit

iNews 6th Dec 2020, Caroline Lucas: The clock is ticking down to COP26, the most important UN
climate summit since Paris in 2015, and quite possibly one of the most
important international gatherings in history. It’s the moment when
countries need to make good on the commitment they signed up to in Paris to
limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and agree
to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions at the scale and speed that’s
required. On Friday we learned what the UK is proposing – cutting carbon
emissions by 68 per cent by 2030 – but, at present, we do not have the
policies in place to achieve it.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/climate-change-targets-welcome-policies-radical-enough-meet-them-782737

December 7, 2020 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment