nuclear-news

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

To 12 July – nuclear news this week

No – there’s not really much happening in the nuclear sphere.  What is happening is the increasing pro nuke propaganda. It is so noticeable in my country, Australia. Not that it’s widespread (yet), but the pro-nuke spiel from the Murdochracy is so patently, silly, and ill-informed that it deserves mention for its absurdity. I hope to write more about this next time.

CLIMATE  Serious as the pandemic is, –  I’m thinking that in the total picture,  it does not compare with the weather extremes, the suffering, the forced refugees, that the world faces from global heating.

 When it happens in America, the media does sit up and take notice. It’s happening in California, with raging temperatures and raging wildfires. I know that this is terrible, and not funny, but still, I wonder if some climate change denialists might be having second thoughts , as they’re finding it hard to get oysters and other luxury shellfish –   seeing that these coastal marine organisms are being cooked now, before they can be harvested.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTZD5K6JBGk

CORONAVIRUS.  World Health Organisation sounds alarm as global deaths top 4 million, delta variant spreads to 100 countries.

 If They Chose, Biden and Putin Could Make the World Radically Safer,   Nuclear arms control hasn’t worked. We need a new approach.

Key witness in Julian Assange case admits to lies in indictment.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlLbAVSHeA8    U.S. government offers meaningless assurances on Julian Assange’s well-being, as it gets right to appeal on UK court ruling against his extradition. U.S. proposals about extradition of Julian Assange are designed to keep him in prison for life.

Rapid growth of global renewable energy: it’s the major energy source in Europe.


Mobile phones/cellphones
 – the health danger from electromagnetic radiation.

JAPAN. The 44 year process for demolishing TEPCO’s Fukushima No. 2 nuclear station, – with nowhere to put the radioactive trash. Japan’s nuclear regulator to order review of earthquake risks of Genkai nuclear plant. The danger of Japan’s increasing stockpile of plutonium.  Fukushima’s ”nuclear recovery Olympics’‘ has gone even more wrong, as spectators banned.

EUROPE. Both UK and European Commission want nuclear energy excluded from clean energy investments -”otherwise clean energy finances would not be credible”.

GERMANY, As Germany’s election approaches, political parties differ on the future of U.S. nuclear weapons based there,.

UK. 

IRAN.Iran trying to enrich uranium metal that could help develop nuclear weapon, UN watchdog says.


FRANCE
. “EDF’s Chinese dream seems well and truly over“- a minor nuclear incident becomes a major industrial disaster for the French nuclear firm. France’s government helps settle the debts of bankrupt nuclear company AREVA (which is now resuscitated as ORANO) France refuses to hand over maps of nuclear tests in Algeria.

TAIWAN. Taiwan Shuts Another Reactor as Part of Nuclear-Free Goal,.

USA

RUSSIA. Dialogue between Russia and USA must include subject of offensive weapons in outer space – says Russian Foreign Minister.

NORTH KOREA. North Korea Needs the Bomb to Protect Itself From America.

AUSTRALIA. South Australian law demands an Inquiry into the Federal government’s nuclear waste storage plan. Australian Members of Parliament from right and left parties call on US President Biden to drop charges against Julian Assange,

July 12, 2021 Posted by | Christina's notes | 1 Comment

Reaching net zero without nuclear

Our latest Talking Points makes the case

Not only is it possible, it’s essential   https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/07/11/reaching-net-zero-without-nuclear/

The fourth in our series of Talking Points draws on the new report by Jonathon Porritt, New Zero Without Nuclear: The Case Against Nuclear Power. Given the far-off illusory promise of new reactor designs; the enormous costs; the limited capacity for carbon reductions compared to renewables; the unsolved waste problem; and the inflexibility and outdatedness of the “always on” baseload model, nuclear power is in the way of — rather than a contributor to — climate mitigation. You can download the Net Zero Without Nuclear Talking Points here. This is the fourth in our series. You can find all four here.

By Jonathon Porritt 10 July 21

 I first took an interest in Greenpeace back in 1973, before I joined Friends of the Earth, CND and the Green Party (then the Ecology Party) a year later. I’d followed the campaigns against the testing of nuclear weapons in Amchitka (one of the Aleutian islands in Alaska), and then in the French nuclear testing area of Moruroa in the Pacific. I was 23 at the time, with zero in-depth knowledge, but it just seemed wrong, on so many different fronts.

That early history of Greenpeace seems much less relevant now, given all its achievements over the last 50 years in so many other areas of critical environmental concern. But it still matters. Greenpeace has been an ‘anti-nuclear organisation’ through all that time, sometimes fiercely engaged in front-line battles, sometimes maintaining more of a watching brief, and nuclear power plays no part in Greenpeace’s modelling of a rapid transition to a Net Zero carbon world. It’s been very supportive of my new report, ‘Net Zero Without Nuclear’.

I wrote this report partly because the nuclear industry itself is in full-on propaganda mode, and partly because that small caucus of pro-nuclear greens (that’s existed for as long as I can remember) seems to be winning new supporters.

And I can see why. The Net Zero journey we’re now starting out on for real (at long last!) is by far the most daunting challenge that humankind has ever faced. Writing in the Los Angeles Review of Books in June 2019, author and Army veteran Roy Scranton put it like this:

‘Climate change is bigger than the New Deal, bigger than the Marshall Plan, bigger than World War II, bigger than racism, sexism, inequality, slavery, the Holocaust, the end of nature, the Sixth Extinction, famine, war, and plague all put together, because the chaos it’s bringing is going to supercharge every other problem. Successfully meeting this crisis would require an abrupt, traumatic revolution in global human society; failing to meet it will be even worse.’

Not many people see it like that – as yet. But more and more will, as signals of that kind of chaos start to multiply. And we already know that the kind of radical decarbonisation on which our future depends is going to be incredibly hard. So why should we reject a potentially powerful contribution to that decarbonisation challenge?

I became Director of Friends of the Earth in 1984. The same year that my first book, ‘Seeing Green’, was published. Looking back on what I said then, I was indeed fiercely critical of nuclear power, but have to admit that my advocacy of renewables (as the principal alternative) was somewhat muted. Apart from a few visionaries in the early 1980s (including Friends of the Earth’s Amory Lovins and Walt Patterson), no-one really thought that renewables would be capable of substituting for the use of all fossil fuels and all nuclear at any point in the near future. And anyone expressing such a view in official circles was rapidly put back in their box.

Given the scale of the challenge we face, we need to have very strong grounds for keeping nuclear out of today’s low/zero-carbon portfolio. Not least as nuclear power, historically, has already made a huge contribution to low-carbon generation. Since the early 1960s, nuclear power has provided the equivalent of 18,000 reactor years of electricity generation. We’d be in a much worse place today if all that electricity had been generated from burning coal or gas.

Happily, there is no longer any doubt about the viability of that alternative. In 2020, Stanford University issued a collection of 56 peer-reviewed journal articles, from 18 independent research groups, supporting the idea that all the energy required for electricity, transport, heating and cooling, and all industrial purposes, can be supplied reliably with 100% (or near 100%) renewable energy. The solutions involve transitioning ASAP to 100% renewable wind – water – solar (WWS), efficiency and storage.

The transition is already happening. To date, 11 countries have reached or exceeded 100% renewable electricity. And a further 12 countries are intent on reaching that threshold by 2030. In the UK, the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology says we can reach 100% renewable electricity by 2032. Last year, we crossed the 40% threshold.

There is of course a world of difference between electricity and total energy consumption. But at the end of April, Carbon Tracker brought out its latest analysis of the potential for renewables, convincingly explaining why solar and wind alone could meet total world energy demand 100 times over by 2050, and that fears about the huge amount of land this would require are unfounded. The land required for solar panels to provide all global energy would be 450,000 km2, just 0.3% of global land area – significantly less than the current land footprint of fossil fuel infrastructures. As the Report says:

The technical and economic barriers have been crossed and the only impediment to change is political. Sector by sector and country by country the fossil fuel incumbency is being swamped by the rapidly rising tide of new energy technologies. Even countries where the technical potential is below 10 times energy demand. . . have devised innovative approaches to energy generation.

The fossil fuel industry cannot compete with the technology learning curves of renewables, so demand will inevitably fall as wind and solar continue to grow. At the current 15-20% growth rates of solar and wind, fossil fuels will be pushed out of the electricity sector by the mid-2030s and out of total energy supply by 2050.‘

The unlocking of energy reserves 100 times our current demand creates new possibilities for cheaper energy and more local jobs in a more equitable world with far less environmental stress.‘

Poor countries are the greatest beneficiaries. They have the largest ratio of solar and wind potential to energy demand and stand to unlock huge domestic benefits.’

Nuclear plays no part in any of these projections, whether we’re talking big reactors or small reactors, fission or fusion. The simple truth is this: we should see nuclear as another 20th century technology, with an ever-diminishing role through into the 21st century, incapable of overcoming its inherent problems of cost, construction delay, nuclear waste, decommissioning, security (both physical and cyber), let alone the small but still highly material risk of catastrophic accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. My ‘Net Zero Without Nuclear’ report goes into all these inherent problems in some detail.

So why are the UK’s politicians (in all three major parties) still in thrall to this superannuated technology? It’s here we have to go back to Amchitka! Some environmentalists may still be taken aback to discover that the Government’s principal case for nuclear power in the UK today is driven by the need to maintain the UK’s nuclear weapons capability – to ensure a ‘talent pool’ of nuclear engineers and to support a supply chain of engineering companies capable of providing component parts for the nuclear industry, both civilian and military. The indefatigable work of Andy Stirling and Phil Johnston at Sussex University’s Science Policy Research Unit has established the depth and intensity of these interdependencies, demonstrating how the UK’s military industrial base would become unaffordable in the absence of a nuclear energy programme.

What that means is that today’s pro-nuclear greens are throwing in their lot not just with a bottomless pit of hype and fantasy, but with a world still dangerously at risk from that continuing dependence on nuclear weapons. That’s a weird place to be, 50 years on from the emergence of Greenpeace as a force for good in that world.

July 12, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, politics, Reference, spinbuster | 1 Comment

Fukushima’s ”nuclear recovery Olympics” has gone even more wrong, as spectators banned.

Fukushima to ban Olympic spectators as Covid cases rise, 
U-turn deals blow to Japan’s hopes of using Games to showcase recovery from 2011 tsunami, Guardian, 10 Jul 21, 
The Fukushima prefecture of Japan will bar spectators from the Olympic events it hosts this summer owing to rising Covid-19 infections, its governor said on Saturday, reversing a position announced two days earlier by organisers.

The decision deals another blow to Japan’s hopes of using the Olympics to showcase its recovery from a devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit the northern coast in 2011, destroying a nuclear power station in Fukushima in the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.

Organisers had said on Thursday there would be no spectators in the host city, Tokyo, as a resurgent coronavirus forced the prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, to declare a state of emergency in the capital that will run throughout the Games, which were already postponed by a year due to the pandemic……..

Fukushima’s move comes a day after the Australian Olympic Committee president, John Coates, expressed optimism about audiences in Fukushima. Japan take on Australia in a softball game that will be the first competition of the Olympics on 21 July, two days before the opening ceremony.

………. Organisers said there was no change to plans for limited crowds in Miyagi, Shizuoka and Ibaraki prefectures.  https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/10/fukushima-to-ban-olympic-spectators-as-covid-cases-rise

July 12, 2021 Posted by | health, Japan, politics | Leave a comment

Mobile phones/cellphones – the health danger from electromagnetic radiation

Ed. note. We know that ionising radiation from nuclear activities causes cancer and other health ill-effects. But we should also be aware of non-ionising radiation, and its effects on health – electromagnetic radiation as emitted by mobile pnones.

Since then, he said, research has shown significant adverse biologic and health effects — including brain cancer — associated with the use of cellphones and other wireless devices. And now, he said, with the fifth generation of cellular technology, known as 5G, there is an even bigger reason for concern.

Moskowitz: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it. Berkely News,  Anne Brice, Berkeley News| JULY 1, 2021 For more than a decade, Joel Moskowitz, a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe. But, he said, most people don’t want to hear it.

“People are addicted to their smartphones,” said Moskowitz. “We use them for everything now, and, in many ways, we need them to function in our daily lives. I think the idea that they’re potentially harming our health is too much for some people.”

Since cellphones first came onto the market in 1983, they have gone from clunky devices with bad reception to today’s sleek, multifunction smartphones. And although cellphones are now used by nearly all American adults, considerable research suggests that long-term use poses health risks from the radiation they emit, said Moskowitz.

“Cellphones, cell towers and other wireless devices are regulated by most governments,” said Moskowitz. “Our government, however, stopped funding research on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation in the 1990s.”

Since then, he said, research has shown significant adverse biologic and health effects — including brain cancer — associated with the use of cellphones and other wireless devices. And now, he said, with the fifth generation of cellular technology, known as 5G, there is an even bigger reason for concern.

Berkeley News spoke with Moskowitz about the health risks of cellphone radiation, why the topic is so controversial and what we can expect with the rollout of 5G.

Berkeley News: I think we should address upfront is how controversial this research is. Some scientists have said that these findings are without basis and that there isn’t enough evidence that cellphone radiation is harmful to our health. How do you respond to that?

Joel Moskowitz: Well, first of all, few scientists in this country can speak knowledgeably about the health effects of wireless technology. So, I’m not surprised that people are skeptical, but that doesn’t mean the findings aren’t valid.

A big reason there isn’t more research about the health risks of radiofrequency radiation exposure is because the U.S. government stopped funding this research in the 1990s, with the exception of a $30 million rodent study published in 2018 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ National Toxicology Program, which found “clear evidence” of carcinogenicity from cellphone radiation.

In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation, which is produced by cellphones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including Wi-Fi. Yet, the preponderance of research published since 1990 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including DNA damage.

More than 250 scientists, who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields produced by wireless devices, including cellphones, have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits. So, there are many scientists who agree that this radiation is harmful to our health.

Our 2009 review, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that heavy cellphone use was associated with increased brain cancer incidence, especially in studies that used higher quality methods and studies that had no telecommunications industry funding.

Last year, we updated our review, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, based on a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies — twice as many studies as we used for our 2009 review — and obtained similar findings Our main takeaway from the current review is that approximately 1,000 hours of lifetime cellphone use, or about 17 minutes per day over a 10-year period, is associated with a statistically significant 60% increase in brain cancer.

Why did the government stop funding this kind of research?

The telecommunications industry has almost complete control of the FCC, according to Captured Agency, a monograph written by journalist Norm Alster during his 2014-15 fellowship at Harvard University’s Center for Ethics. There’s a revolving door between the membership of the FCC and high-level people within the telecom industry that’s been going on for a couple of decades now.

The industry spends about $100 million a year lobbying Congress. The CTIA, which is the major telecom lobbying group, spends $12.5 million per year on 70 lobbyists. According to one of their spokespersons, lobbyists meet roughly 500 times a year with the FCC to lobby on various issues. The industry as a whole spends $132 million a year on lobbying and provides $18 million in political contributions to members of Congress and others at the federal level.

……… there are strong parallels between what the telecom industry has done and what the tobacco industry has done, in terms of marketing and controlling messaging to the public. ………  For safety tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation from the California Department of Public Health and other organizations, Moskowitz recommends readers visit his website, saferemr.comPhysicians for Safe Technology and the Environmental Health Trust.  https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-phone-radiation/#:~:text=Moskowitz%3A%20Cellphone%20radiation%20is%20harmful%2C%20but%20few%20want%20to%20believe%20it,-By%20Anne%20Brice&text=For%20more%20than%20a%20decade,radiation%20from%20cellphones%20is%20unsafe.

July 12, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation | 1 Comment

EPA Withdraws Disastrous Trump-Era Radioactive Roads Approval

If dispersed, the material would present an unreasonable public health threat stemming from the appreciable quantities of radium-226, uranium, uranium-238, uranium-234, thorium-230, radon-222, lead-210, polonium-210, chromium, arsenic, lead, cadmium, fluoride, zinc, antimony and copper phosphogypsum contains.

EPA Withdraws Disastrous Trump-Era Radioactive Roads Approval

Use of Phosphogypsum in Roads Poses Risk of Cancer, Genetic Damage   https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/epa-withdraws-disastrous-trump-era-radioactive-roads-approval-2021-07-02/

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.— The Biden administration announced it is withdrawing approval given by the Trump administration to use phosphogypsum in construction. The retracted approval had allowed the use of toxic, radioactive waste in constructing roads in parts of the United States prone to sinkholes and erosion.

“Allowing phosphogypsum in roads was a boneheaded, short-sighted favor to the industry,” said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “While the withdrawal cites technical deficiencies in the applicant’s petition, this action is consistent with 30 years of science showing that phosphogypsum poses a substantial risk to humans and the environment.”

In December 2020 environmental, public health and union groups, represented by Earthjustice, sued the Environmental Protection Agency for approving phosphogypsum use in roads. The groups also petitioned the agency to reconsider its approval.

Phosphogypsum is the radioactive waste of fertilizer production. Phosphate ore, mined largely in Florida, is transported to fertilizer plants for processing by chemically digesting the ore in sulfuric acid. For every ton of phosphoric acid produced, the fertilizer industry creates five tons of radioactive phosphogypsum waste.

Since 1989 the EPA has required phosphogypsum to be stored in mountainous piles called “stacks,” and limited the amount of radon gas that can be emitted from the stacks. If dispersed, the material would present an unreasonable public health threat stemming from the appreciable quantities of radium-226, uranium, uranium-238, uranium-234, thorium-230, radon-222, lead-210, polonium-210, chromium, arsenic, lead, cadmium, fluoride, zinc, antimony and copper phosphogypsum contains.

In approving phosphogypsum use in roads, the agency ignored its own expert consultant, who found numerous scenarios that would expose the public — particularly road-construction workers — to a cancer risk the agency considers to be unacceptably dangerous.

The approval would have permitted phosphogypsum to be used in roads within 200 miles of phosphogypsum storage stacks, most of which are in Florida. It would have affected hundreds of protected plants and animals and their critical habitat.

“Phosphate companies should not be allowed to carelessly spread their waste around by mixing it into roads,” said Glenn Compton, chair at ManaSota-88.

“It is the height irresponsibility for any industry to needlessly expose the public and the environment to otherwise avoidable radiation and hazardous waste.”

Florida has 1 billion tons of radioactive phosphogypsum in 25 stacks, including the Piney Point and New Wales gypstacks. The disastrous Piney Point phosphogypsum stack recently discharged more than 200 million gallons of wastewater into Tampa Bay, where there is now a red tide bloom.


The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has drafted a permit approving an expansion of the New Wales stack by 230 acres.

The fertilizer industry adds approximately 30 million tons of phosphogypsum waste each year. The majority of the stacks are in Florida, but they can also be found in Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

“This is great news at a time when we could all use some,” said Brooks Armstrong, president at People for Protecting Peace River. “We will continue in our effort to make known the dangers of phosphogypsum and its continued production.”

This proposal to utilize radioactive materials in roads throughout Gulf communities was just another insult to folks already overburdened with pollution,” said Matt Rota, senior policy director of Healthy Gulf. “We are glad to see this decision to not use radioactive phosphogypsum in local roads and hope that this is a step toward systematically addressing the myriad impacts of phosphate mining and production in the Gulf States.”

“The EPA recognizes that at minimum the prior administration erred in its approval by not following its own rules regarding required information, and that there is no implicit sequencing toward approval based on an applicant’s request,” said Craig Diamond, vice chair of the Sierra Club Florida chapter executive committee. “Further, the EPA affirmed it has authority to pre-approve only select applications of phosphogypsum and road construction is not among those. The Sierra Club is grateful that the federal agency charged with protecting the environment and our health is once again taking the job seriously.”

July 12, 2021 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

The danger of Japan’s increasing stockpile of plutonium

Japan’s plutonium stockpile climbs to 46.1 tons in 2020, first rise in 3 years, July 10, 2021 (Mainichi Japan)     TOKYO — Japan was in possession of a total of some 46.1 metric tons of plutonium at home and abroad as of the end of 2020, the Cabinet Office reported to the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) on July 9. The amount represents an increase of about 0.6 tons from the previous year.

The JAEC had stated that the country would reduce its plutonium stockpile under guidelines revised in July 2018, and the amount in its possession had been on a downward trend since then. The reported increase was the first in three years.

Plutonium is extracted from spent nuclear fuel generated at nuclear plants, for the purpose of recycling. However, the international community has expressed concerns over Japan’s large plutonium stockpile, saying it could be converted into nuclear weapons.

According to the Cabinet Office report, the latest increase in the nation’s plutonium stockpile was due to the addition of roughly 0.6 tons that had been stored in Britain after being extracted from nuclear fuel but which had not been included in the stockpile due to delayed procedures. As the extraction of plutonium in Britain and France has been completed, Japan has no more unrecorded stockpiles, according to the report.

Plutonium is mixed with uranium to produce mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use at nuclear power plants. However, none of the nuclear plants in Japan used MOX fuel in 2020. As a result, the domestic stockpile remained at the same level as the previous year, at roughly 8.9 tons.

If the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant operated by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. in the village of Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, goes into full operation in fiscal 2023, Japan’s plutonium stockpile will increase. However, only 0.6 tons of plutonium is expected to be extracted from spent fuel at the plant in fiscal 2023………….https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210710/p2a/00m/0na/018000c

July 12, 2021 Posted by | - plutonium, Japan | Leave a comment

Green party makes gains in East Suffolk Council by-election – area that includes planned Sizewell nuclear station

The Green Party has taken one of two seats up for grabs in the Aldeburgh and Leiston ward in Thursday’s East Suffolk Council by-election – and came within two votes of winning the other.

Tom Daly is the first Green councillor elected in the area which includes much of the site of the proposed new Sizewell C power station. He will be joined on the council by Conservative Russ Rainger – who was a county councillor for the area before standing down in May.

The second Green candidate, Matt Oakley, came only two votes behind Mr Rainger. Suffolk Coastal Green Party chairman Julian Cusak said on Facebook: “Great result for the Green Party last night.
Aldeburgh and Leiston now has its first Green councillor on East Suffolk Council.

 East Anglian Daily Times 9th July 2021

July 12, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK households to foot the bill for new Sizewell nuclear plant, long before it ever starts to generate electricity.

Sizewell**

 According to a recent report in the FT, the UK government has drawn up new
legislation to underpin a financing plan for the new Sizewell C nuclear
site in Suffolk. This will involve thousands of UK households paying more
for their energy bills in order to finance the new site even before it
starts to generate electricity. It’s estimated that the Sizewell C site,
which has been proposed by EDF, will cost £20bn to build. Previously,
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that he would like the government to
reach a final investment decision on “at least one” new nuclear power
station before the next general election.

 Tech Radar 10th July 2021

https://www.techradar.com/news/rising-energy-bills-will-fund-nuclear-power-plants

 Oil Price 10th July 2021

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/UK-Households-To-Foot-The-Bill-For-New-Nuclear-Plants.html

July 12, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear injustice in New Mexico must end.

The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,100 years, but the WIPP safety assessment period is limited to 10,000 years.

Nuclear injustice in NM must end     https://www.abqjournal.com/2408088/nuclear-injustice-in-nm-must-end-ex-proposed-storage-sites-for-snf-could-create-dangers-far-greater-than-those-posed-by-wipp.html BY DENNIS MCQUILLAN    11 July 21,

New Mexico residents have long endured disproportionately high health and environmental risks from nuclear energy and weapons programs. It is time for the federal government to protect citizens of the state with the greatest possible level of safeguards.

Instead of performing critical site-suitability analyses for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and for two proposed spent nuclear fuel (SNF) “storage” sites near WIPP, federal agencies attempted to validate their predetermined conclusions that these sites were safe. The agencies either disregarded or rewrote siting criteria to accommodate their decisions to approve these sites.

WIPP is intended to provide deep geologic isolation of nuclear waste from the biosphere and, indeed, waste is buried 2,150 feet underground in 250-million-year-old salt beds. The following WIPP safety deficiencies, however, need resolution:

The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,100 years, but the WIPP safety assessment period is limited to 10,000 years.

• For years, the federal government asserted that petroleum resources were minimal to nonexistent below WIPP. But, today, WIPP is surrounded by oil and gas operations in the most prolific oil patch in the United States. The risk that oil drilling may penetrate the repository, or that liquids injected during fracking, advanced recovery and produced water disposal may migrate into WIPP salt beds, must be reevaluated.

 Risks from an artesian brine aquifer, deep-seated salt dissolution and from highly pressurized brine pockets that underlie the WIPP salt beds are not fully assessed.

The geochemical mobility of plutonium and uranium, and possible interactions with carbon dioxide generated by waste decomposition and with geologic brine, needs further analysis.

Additional prevention is needed for such human errors as the 2014 accident where plutonium contaminated nitrate salt packed with organic kitty litter generated heat, burst a waste drum, contaminated 21 workers, and released americium and plutonium into the atmosphere.

WIPP is certified to accept only national defense waste. The federal government, after spending decades and millions of dollars, failed to establish a permanent disposal site for spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors. SNF is highly radioactive and toxic due to fission byproducts created during power generation.\

The federal government now proposes to license two commercial facilities near WIPP, one in New Mexico and one in Texas, for the “storage” of SNF for up to 120 years. Unlike the deep geologic isolation at WIPP, the proposed SNF storage facilities are less than 100 feet deep, in young alluvium, and in a region with shallow groundwater, as well as concerns about ground subsidence and sinkholes. These two sites are geologically unsuitable even for SNF “storage” and it is possible that decades of “storage” could morph into permanent disposal. Excavating SNF that has deteriorated underground for 120 years is a lurid scenario. Or will future engineers build a Chernobyl-style sarcophagus with the hope that it isolates the waste for 24,000 years?

The proposed “storage” sites for SNF could create dangers far greater than those posed by WIPP. Agricultural and petroleum industry organizations expressed concerns that the SNF facilities could damage their livelihoods. Attorney General Balderas sued the federal government to stop these ill-conceived and dangerous proposals to store SNF.

The legacy of nuclear injustice in New Mexico must end. The federal government must:

• Resolve WIPP safety deficiencies

• Disallow the reckless “storage” of spent nuclear fuel

• Establish one or more permanent repositories for SNF that provide geologic isolation

July 12, 2021 Posted by | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

July 10 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “How The American South Is Paying The Price For Europe’s ‘Green Energy’” • In 2009, the EU pledged to curb greenhouse gas emissions, urging its member states to shift from fossil fuels to renewables. It classified biomass as a renewable energy source, on par with wind and solar. This incentivized burning a lot […]

July 10 Energy News — geoharvey

July 12, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bach, Go Back: Radicalization of the opposition against Olympic priorities — limitless life

Dear President Thomas Bach,   As you may know, at present, many Japanese in southern Japan have been forced to abandon their homes in order to save their lives in the face of unprecedented rainfall. The current pandemic is like this unprecedented rainfall with the exception that all Japanese are exposed to the possibility of becoming ill or even […]

Bach, Go Back: Radicalization of the opposition against Olympic priorities — limitless life

July 12, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment