February 27 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “The Supreme Court is hearing a major case on EPA’s authority over planet-warming gases. Here’s what’s at stake” • The US Environmental Protection Agency is going before the Supreme Court in a case that could deal a significant blow to the federal government’s ability to fight the climate crisis and prevent its worst […]
February 27 Energy News — geoharvey
Climate impacts should be a regular part of war coverage
Climate impacts should be a regular part of war coverage
Algernon D’Ammassa
War coverage typically stops short of its implications for climate change. This obscures how war damages our ability to address an existential threat.
Antarctica’s pristine snow besmirched with horrid black pollution, scientists say
Antarctica’s pristine snow besmirched with horrid black pollution, scientists say
Antarctica is showing some worrying signs of pollution in the form of a black carbon layer blanketing the snow, caused by tourists burning fossil fuels.
UN report on global increase in wildfires due to climate change change
Independent Australia By Sue Arnold | 28 February 2022,
By Sue Arnold | 28 February 2022, Australia can expect an increase in catastrophic wildfires according to a recently released UN report entitled Spreading like wildfire: The rising threat of extraordinary landscape fires.
Wildfires are now a global issue, with predictions of exponential increases as a result of climate change, poor land-use planning and a lack of focus on mitigation strategies.
The report makes from grim reading. Over 50 experts from research institutions, government agencies and international organisations from around the globe contributed to the report.
No estimate has been made of the economic cost of wildfires by governments. A U.S. study mentioned in the UN report estimates that the annual economic burden of wildfire to be between $71.1 billion–$347.8 billion (AU$98.3 billion–$480.8 billion).
Costs to human lives exposed to wildfire smoke are growing exponentially. The Lancet journal estimates the annual mortality as a result of exposure resulted in 30,000 deaths across 43 countries.
According to the UN study, the extreme weather conditions that were potentially a leading cause of the Australian wildfires in 2019/2020 were shown to be 30 per cent more likely to have occurred because of climate change.
Scientists involved predict that by the end of the century, the probability of wildfires like the 2019/2020 fires will likely increase by 31-59 per cent in a given year……………………………
Australia is very similar to the U.S. in that most of the spending goes on helicopters, firefighters, efforts to put out the fires. It’s often not a good use of resources; other integrated management approaches can be more successful. ………….
IA asked Professor Baker to comment on the many studies which indicate logging of forests raises the risk of more wildfires:
‘When you log, you reduce resilience.’
Plantations are a focus of the report. Victoria and South Australia have significant numbers of eucalypt plantations, many burned incinerating thousands of animals. According to the fire experts, the increased availability of fuel and extensive continuous areas allows fire to spread rapidly and unconstrained. Accumulation of flammable fuels in monoculture plantations, plus extended droughts due to climate change, generate increasingly frequent conditions to high intensity forest fires………………
The International Association of Wildland Fire will hold a Fire and climate: issues and futures conference in Melbourne in June 2022 focused on better preparation and response to ‘this formidable challenge in the new decade’ https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/un-warns-australia-in-danger-of-increased-wildfires,16098
On shaky ground? Latest EDF planning application casts doubt on suitability of Sizewell site
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) were surprised to see a late
planning application from nuclear power operator EDF Energy to East Suffolk
Council seeking permission to carry out testing on its proposed Sizewell C
nuclear power plant site.
Commenting, Cllr David Blackburn, Chair of the
NFLA, said: “The application has gone in just as the Planning
Inspectorate is about to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State on
whether to proceed further with the next stage of the development. EDF wish
to be allowed to conduct on-site trials to test whether their construction
methods will work on the land at their disposal. It ‘beggar’s belief’
that they should do this now at such a late stage in the process, rather
than at the start.”
The application concedes that EDF still need to
conduct soil and ground anchor trails to determine if their strategy to
stabilise the site during the construction of the plant will work. The NFLA
fears that the high-risk strategy might make the site unstable and the
cut-off wall could be sent crashing down endangering the lives of
construction workers.
NFLA 26th Feb 2022
Radiation spike near Chernobyl nuclear plant
| A radiation spike has been recorded near Chernobyl’s nuclear power plant which has been seized by Russian forces, monitoring data shows. Invading Russian troops took control of the plant – the site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster in 1986 – on Thursday, Ukraine said. Radiation levels increased about 20-fold on Thursday, monitoring stations there reported. But experts say another major nuclear disaster there is “extremely unlikely”. The rise was caused by heavy military vehicles stirring contaminated soil in the 4,000-sq-km (2,485 sq-mile) exclusion zone surrounding the abandoned plant, Ukraine’s State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate reported. The biggest spike was recorded close to the damaged reactor. Radiation levels are continuously monitored there – measured as a dose that you would receive per hour in a location. Close to the reactor, you would normally receive a dose of about three units – called microsieverts – every hour. But on Thursday, that jumped to 65 microSv/hrs – about five times more than you would get on one transatlantic flight. BBC 26th Feb 2022https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60528828 |
Iran rejects deadline – wants IAEA to drop politically motivated claims in nuclear talks.
| Christina Macpherson <christinamacpherson@gmail.com> | 7:38 AM (10 hours ago) |  | |
| to me |
Iran rejects deadline, ‘politically motivated’ claims in nuclear talks
DUBAI, Feb 27 (Reuters) – Iran said on Sunday it will not accept any deadline set by the West to revive its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers and wants “politically motivated” claims by U.N. watchdog IAEA about Tehran’s nuclear work to be dropped, Iranian state TV reported…………….https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-top-nuclear-negotiator-bagheri-returns-vienna-tonight-irna-2022-02-27/
Reporting by Dubai Newsroom; Editing by Angus MacSwan and Raissa Kasolowsky
U.N. nuclear watchdog to hold emergency meeting on Ukraine
U.N. nuclear watchdog to hold emergency meeting on Ukraine, Reuters, By Francois Murphy, Editing by Andrew Cawthorne and Ed Osmond
- Canada, Poland call meeting at Kyiv’s request – diplomats
- Russia has seized Chernobyl site, staff unable to leave
- IAEA calling on “all parties” to ensure nuclear safety
- Ukraine says missiles hit radioactive waste site in Kyiv
VIENNA, Feb 27 (Reuters) – The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors will hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday about Ukraine, where war is raging in a country with four operational nuclear power plants and various waste facilities including Chernobyl………………………. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/un-nuclear-watchdog-hold-emergency-meeting-ukraine-diplomats-2022-02-27/
Russian troops to take over Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
Russian troops are approaching a second nuclear power plant in Ukraine,
after capturing Chernobyl. Ukraine’s interior ministry has said the
invading troops are approaching Zaporizhzhia. Vadym Denysenko, an adviser
in the Ukraine government, said Russian troops have aimed their rockets at
the site. Kremlin troops stormed the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster
on the first day of the invasion. Since then excess gamma radiation levels
have been recorded but it is unclear why.
Mirror 26th Feb 2022
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-aims-rockets-second-nuclear-26339222
Pentagon to deliver Stinger missiles to Ukraine – AP — Anti-bellum
Associated PressFebruary 27, 2022 U.S. to send Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine The U.S. for the first time has approved the direct delivery of Stinger missiles to Ukraine as part of a package approved by the White House on Friday. The exact timing of delivery is not known, but officials say the U.S. is currently […]
Pentagon to deliver Stinger missiles to Ukraine – AP — Anti-bellum
Ukraine’s reactors – largest nuclear complex in Europe – IN DANGER
| |||
Author Viewsridge/Wikimedia Commons)
Ukraine’s reactors at risk
15 reactors plus Chernobyl in unprecedented warzone situation https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3854353677
A statement by Beyond Nuclear. 25 Feb 22,
Beyond Nuclear joins the chorus of voices calling for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, a situation that could become orders of magnitude worse should any of the country’s 15 nuclear reactors suffer major damage due to military exchanges.
We are in an unprecedented situation, with, for the first time, a war happening in a region where there are operating nuclear reactors. This presents an extreme risk to human life unlike any we have seen in previous wars, even when traditional infrastructure has been bombed and destroyed.
The humanitarian tragedy is already enormous, with people fleeing, abandoning homes and businesses, with their lives upended and their safety and survival in jeopardy. However, should a major release of radioactivity occur due to the damage or destruction of any one of the country’s 15 reactors, the scale of the disaster would escalate to unimaginable proportions, affecting populations well beyond the boundaries of Ukraine and Russia.
Military activity around the Chernobyl nuclear site and within the Exclusion Zone is also of great concern. Reports are coming in showing elevated rates of radiation stirred up by the presence of troops, tanks and heavy equipment moving through the highly radioactively contaminated region, which is closed to regular human habitation. In April 2020, when a major wildfire consumed the area, radiation levels rose by 16 times.
The occupation of the site by Russian military personnel, reportedly the result of a firefight at the plant site, is already a concern. This takeover has called a halt to all activities on the site, which houses a significant inventory of radioactive waste.
Any attack or accidental hit on the Chernobyl nuclear site is of even greater alarm. The new protective dome, euphemistically known as the New Safe Confinement building, that encases the exploded Unit 4’s crumbling sarcophagus, is by no means impervious to damage.
Within this dome lie unstable slurries of radioactive liquids, sludges and sands containing uranium, plutonium and other radioactive wastes. As recently as last May, workers detected an unusual rise in neutrons in the wastes lying in the basement of the destroyed Unit 4, raising fears of a chain reaction or even an explosion. War activities in and around the Chernobyl site, therefore, are a reason for high concern.
The six reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in eastern Ukraine is of greatest concern, given its size — the largest power plant in Europe — and location. (Photo: Wikimapia)
The ISF2 (Interim Spent Fuel Storage #2 dry cask facility) at Chernobyl is also of serious concern. Its design, construction, management, and operation has been flawed from the start. Orano (formerly Areva) of France was effectively fired for the design and construction flaws. But serious problems have persisted even after Holtec International’s takeover of ISF2 management. An irradiated nuclear fuel fire at ISF2, whether due to intentional attack or unintended accident, could result in catastrophic releases of highly radioactive wastes into the environment over a large region.
The 15 operating reactors — located at Rivne (4), Khmelnitsky (2), South Ukraine (3) and Zaporizhzhia (6) — are all vulnerable to catastrophic meltdown, even if they are not directly attacked or accidentally hit.
As at Fukushima, a loss of offsite power followed by a loss of onsite power could cause the workforce to lose control of the reactor. If cooling is lost, the reactor will heat up, the water level within the reactor core drops and the fuel rods are exposed. Explosive gases are released, as happened at Fukushima-Daiichi in March 2011, where we saw three reactor explosions. Should these gases find a spark, similar explosions could occur at one or more of Ukraine’s reactors.
Of even greater concern are the fuel pools containing the irradiated fuel rods, and unprotected by the containment building. If a fuel pool is hit and either drains down or boils dry, exposing the fuel assemblies, fire is a real risk. Fuel pools contain far more radioactivity than the reactor itself and a fire would release even greater amounts of radiation.
A war zone could also create a dangerous environment for the nuclear workforce and their families, tempting some to evacuate. But a nuclear power plant, even under daily, routine operations, is not walkaway safe and cannot be abandoned. This presents a terrible, and sacrificial choice that should not have to be made.
The situation in Ukraine is unacceptable at a time when humanity should be coming together to take on our collective existential threat — the climate crisis. The situation in Ukraine brings home all too clearly that nuclear power plants are a dangerous liability and certainly not a solution to the climate crisis.
We are thinking of those suffering as a result of this pointless and cruel war, and offer a list of organizations to which humanitarian aid donations can be made to help the innocent victims caught up in this senseless violence.
Russian forces now control Chernobyl, inviting speculation and uncertainty
Russian forces now control Chernobyl, inviting speculation and uncertainty, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Susan D’Agostino | February 25, 2022 Yesterday, Russian forces seized control of the defunct Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the still-radioactive site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster. The plant, along with the approximately 1,000-square mile radius around it known as the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, supports ongoing work focused on nuclear waste management and storage…
Though the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations watchdog, reported that there have been “no casualties nor destruction” at Chernobyl, experts and the public are now at work attempting to understand the potential risks posed by the takeover. While some offer measured responses concerning the potential for human and ecological disaster, others express alarm. Many posit theories for why Russia sought to seize control of Chernobyl, including using the site as a base, for a potential act of terrorism, or for the symbolic “win” it may represent.
Igor Konashenkov, a spokesperson for Russian Military of Defense, said in a statement that the Ukrainian staff “continues to service the facilities in a routine mode and monitor the radioactive situation.” Konashenkov did not indicate that Russian soldiers were holding the workers hostage, as Kateryna Pavlova, Chernobyl’s Head of the Department for International Cooperation and Public Relations, told the Bulletin yesterday.
“The most dangerous part is that we lost control,” Pavlova said. “Some part of the staff from Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and National Guard have been kidnapped. They can’t connect. They can’t report.”
White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, later expressed similar concern: “This unlawful and dangerous hostage-taking, which could upend the routine civil service efforts required to maintain and protect the nuclear waste facilities, is obviously incredibly alarming. We condemn it, and we request their release.”
Expert views of the potential risk have changed since the news broke. For example, yesterday the American Nuclear Society wrote in a tweet that the hostilities in the region “have not resulted in any additional radiological risk.” And Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, said, “I can’t imagine how it would be in Russia’s interest to allow any facilities at Chernobyl to be damaged.”
Yet this morning, the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine reported that radiation levels in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone were “exceeded at a significant number of observation points” since Russian forces assumed control. The Ukrainian regulatory body attributed the excessive levels to the “disturbance of the top layer of soil from movement of a large number of radio heavy military” and an “increase of air pollution.”
“But now it is currently impossible to establish the reasons for the change in the radiation background in the exclusion zone because of the occupation and military fight in this territory,” the agency’s website said.
A Russian defense ministry official has disputed the claim of excessive radiation levels……..
Chernobyl sits along a short path from the Russia-Ukraine border to Ukraine’s capital. Pavlova, who described the takeover as a “psychological and humanitarian disaster,” notes that Chernobyl’s facilities and location might have been part of the allure. “We have houses where they can stay and leave. It could be their base,” Pavlova said. “It’s very close to Kyiv—only 140 kilometers. The airport is also nearby. It’s a very good location to bring their troops.”
The stricken reactor has been entombed in a sarcophagus—a steel and concrete coffin-like structure—since 1986. In 2016, another structure—known as New Safe Confinement, which is “strong enough to withstand a tornado” and designed to last 100 years, according to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development—was placed over the sarcophagus. The New Safe Confinement was funded by more than 30 countries at a cost of $1.5 billion.
Still, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that the Russian takeover “may cause another ecological disaster” and that if the war continues, Chernobyl “can happen again in 2022.”
Others were less concerned. “[T]he bigger risk comes from the potential for fighting around Ukraine’s four active nuclear power plants, which contain 15 separate reactors and generated over half the country’s electricity in 2020,” James M. Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in a post………
Despite divergent early takes on the potential risks of this unfolding situation, Pavlova, who once served as Acting Head of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone during a time when wildfires were rampant, is alarmed. “Not so many people understand how dangerous nuclear power plants are in the case of war,” Pavlova said. “I want the world to know that we are one little step—a few millimeters—from destroying our world.” https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/russian-forces-now-control-chernobyl-inviting-speculation-and-uncertainty/
The U.K. Wanted to Extradite Assange to the U.S. From the Start
The attempt to extradite Assange to the United States is a clear breakdown of the rule of law, which is continuing in the post-Trump era. The yearn to punish and send a warning to others has been given precedence over human rights, rule of law, and freedom of expression. The persecution must end now.
The U.K. Wanted to Extradite Assange to the U.S. From the Start https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/julian-assange-extradition-uk-alan-duncan/?fbclid=IwAR0amsrpPJTxuZn_xL12PcO73aDgmjXquIKJvMujvG_m0nDkXY37f5j_7eg
In a 2016 meeting, Britain’s deputy minister of foreign affairs removed the diplomatic mask. Guillaume LongFebruary 25 2022, THE U.K. HIGH COURT ruling that Julian Assange should be extradited to face trial in the United States — a decision that Amnesty International has called a “travesty of justice” — came as no surprise to me. It’s what the U.K. government always wanted. I know because the British deputy minister of foreign affairs told me.
Many pundits and politicians talk of the extradition proceedings against Assange as if they were an unforeseen legal outcome that came about as Assange’s situation unfolded. This is not true. My experience as the foreign minister of Ecuador — the South American country that granted Assange asylum — left me in no doubt that the U.K. wanted Assange’s extradition to the United States from the very beginning.
One encounter I had with Alan Duncan, the former British minister of state for Europe and the Americas, in October 2016 really let the cat out of the bag. At our meeting in the Dominican Republic, Duncan went on extensively about how loathsome Assange was. While I didn’t anticipate Duncan to profess his love for our asylee, I had expected a more professional diplomatic exchange. But the most important moment of the meeting was when I reiterated that Ecuador’s primary fear was the transfer of Assange to the United States, at which point Duncan turned to his staff and exclaimed something very close to, “Yes, well, good idea. How would we go about extraditing him to the Americans?”
His advisers squirmed in embarrassment. They had spent the last four years trying to reassure Ecuador that this was not what the U.K. was after. I responded that this was news indeed. I then wondered whether Duncan left the meeting feeling he had made a mess of it.
I was particularly surprised by Duncan’s candor because my June 2016 meeting with his predecessor, Hugo Swire, in Whitehall, had been quite different. It’s not that Swire wasn’t equally contemptuous of the irritating South American country that had granted Assange asylum; it is more that Swire actually knew the case well.
Swire stuck to the U.K.’s position: Nobody wanted to extradite Assange to the United States. The Ecuadorian government was “deluded” and “paranoid.” This had nothing to do with the issue of freedom of expression or even WikiLeaks. The case was all about accusations in Sweden against Assange. Ecuador should stop protecting a potential sex offender.
Events since have demonstrated that the British argument that Assange was “holed up” in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid facing sexual assault allegations in Sweden was deceitful. The case was always about Assange’s publishing activities as the head of WikiLeaks. In fact, my government had made it clear to both its British and Swedish counterparts that if Ecuador received guarantees of nonextradition from Sweden to the United States, Ecuador would have no problem with Assange traveling to Sweden to face questioning. Assange himself agreed to this. But Sweden refused to offer such guarantees, which obviously further heightened Ecuador’s suspicions that Assange was being persecuted.
Had Swire been telling the truth, the Swedish prosecutor’s decision not to press charges against Assange in May 2017 would have enabled Assange to walk free from the embassy. The remaining claim that he breached his bail by successfully applying for political asylum should have been easily resolved after the European arrest warrant was dropped. But the U.K. refused to let Assange slip away, and he remained in the Ecuadorian Embassy for two more years before a new Ecuadorian government, heavily leaned on by the Trump administration, consented to having him brutally removed in April 2019.
Maybe it was simply that Duncan’s hatred for Assange, whom he referred to as a “miserable little worm” in Parliament in March 2018, was too pure to be tempered in our meeting. Duncan’s published diaries certainly attest to the fact that Assange’s arrest became an overriding obsession and eventually a personal trophy. When the time came, Duncan watched Assange’s extraction from the embassy — which he refers to as Operation Pelican — on a live feed and later held “drinks in my office for all the Operation Pelican team.”
Duncan’s deeply felt disdain for what he called “the supposed human rights of Julian Assange” are probably part and parcel of his fervent allegiance to the Anglo-American security partnership. Duncan served on the U.K.’s Intelligence and Security Committee in 2015–2016. He is also a member of the secretive, transatlantic organization “Le Cercle,” an ultra conservative think tank with strong links to the intelligence community in Europe and the United States.
We can only speculate whether Duncan’s close relationship with whom he calls his “good friend and Oxford contemporary Ian Burnett,” the Lord Chief Justice who gave the green light to Assange’s extradition, interfered with the judicial process. But the extradition proceedings have been problematic from the beginning. A coalition of major human rights and press freedom organizations — including Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, and First Look Institute’s Press Freedom Defense Fund — have urged the U.S. Justice Department “to dismiss the indictment of Mr. Assange” on the grounds that it “threatens press freedom” and marks a precedent that “could effectively criminalize … common journalistic practices.” The top editors of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, and others have agreed with these experts.
The attempt to extradite Assange to the United States is a clear breakdown of the rule of law, which is continuing in the post-Trump era. The yearn to punish and send a warning to others has been given precedence over human rights, rule of law, and freedom of expression. The persecution must end now.
The Most Immediate Nuclear Danger in Ukraine Isn’t Chernobyl
The Most Immediate Nuclear Danger in Ukraine Isn’t Chernobyl, Even though an accident is unlikely, Russia must take exceptional measures to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, James M. Acton 24 Feb 22,
……………The most immediate nuclear danger, however, comes from Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. ………… the bigger risk comes from the potential for fighting around Ukraine’s four active nuclear power plants, which contain fifteen separate reactors and generated over half of the country’s electricity in 2020..
Chernobyl is inside a large exclusion zone, and the uninhabited space would mitigate the consequences of a second nuclear accident there. Ukraine’s other reactors are not similarly isolated. Moreover, much of the fuel in these other reactors is substantially more radioactive than the fuel at Chernobyl. To put it simply, nuclear power plants are not designed for war zones. It seems exceedingly unlikely that Moscow would authorize deliberate attacks on these facilities, but they could nonetheless become targets in a war that will, in any case, disrupt their operations.
For Ukrainian nuclear power plant staff, merely traveling to work may be a dangerous act—making it potentially challenging to ensure the reactor can be operated safely. In the event of an accident, backup personnel, such as firefighters, may not be able to reach the plant—not least because they could be involved in civilian relief efforts
Moreover, nuclear power plants might be targeted inadvertently. These facilities use power from the state’s electricity grid to help cool the reactor in the event it is forced to shut down. While backup power systems, such as diesel generators, are available, the power grid is one important line of defense. There is a very real risk of such power being lost in Ukraine if Russian forces attack the country’s electricity infrastructure—as NATO forces did against Serbia during the 1999 Kosovo War and Russia itself did against Ukraine in 2015 using cyber tools.
Even if Moscow doesn’t authorize direct attacks against nuclear power plants, such attacks might occur anyway. A weapon aimed at a nearby target could hit a nuclear power plant if its navigation system failed. If Russian forces believed that Ukrainian defense forces were inside a nuclear power plant, they could call in an airstrike, perhaps in contravention of an order not to attack nuclear power plants. This concern isn’t hypothetical: In 2017, U.S. special operation forces in Syria called in an attack against a dam that was on a “no strike” list. The resulting damage almost caused the dam to fail, which would likely have led to the drowning of tens of thousands of civilians.
The CEO of the company that operates Ukraine’s nuclear power plants has stressed that they are designed to withstand an aircraft crash. However, munitions are often designed to penetrate thick layers of protective concrete. One particularly serious risk is that a direct attack might drain the pools in which spent fuel is stored, often in large amounts. Without cooling, this fuel could melt, releasing very large quantities of radioactivity. This kind of accident was the “worst-case” outcome envisioned by officials as the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan unfolded in 2011.I set out these scenarios with some hesitation. The likelihood of a serious nuclear accident is probably quite small……………..
Nonetheless, even if a nuclear accident is still quite unlikely, its effects could be severe and would add significantly to the long-term consequences of this invasion for Ukraine’s population. Moscow will be directly responsible for any nuclear accident that is caused, directly or indirectly, by its aggression. If it doesn’t want such an accident to be added to its growing list of crimes, it must take exceptional measures to avoid one. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/most-immediate-nuclear-danger-in-ukraine-isn-t-chernobyl-pub-86521
Doubts about extending the lives of USA’s nuclear reactors as federal regulators halt 80 year extension time for 3 reactors
Feds walk back plans for nuclear reactors to run 80 years, E and E News, By Kristi E. Swartz, Jeremy Dillon | 02/25/202 Federal nuclear regulators have reversed course on letting three of the nation’s nuclear power plants run for an unprecedented 80 years, arguing an updated environmental study is needed beforehand.
The surprising decision is a blow to the nuclear industry, which has been pushing to keep existing reactors running for as long as possible while simultaneously touting next-generation technology that could be ready in the coming decade.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission yesterday told
Florida Power & Light Co. (FPL) that its two Turkey Point nuclear reactors must go through a full environmental review before the agency will allow them to run for an additional 20 years. The NRC originally signed off on the extension in late 2019, using what’s known as a generic environmental study.
The NRC agreed with a legal challenge from several environmental and consumer groups, which argued that a full National Environmental Policy Act review is needed for the already aging reactors to run another 20 years.
The review should include significant new environmental issues that have come up since 2013, the year that a general environmental impact statement was prepared.
Yesterday’s decision applies to other reactors that have won approval to operate for 80 years as well as others with pending applications.
“[We] will not issue any further licenses for subsequent renewal terms until the NRC staff … has completed an adequate NEPA review for each application,” the commission said in one of three written orders.
Diane Curran, an attorney for Beyond Nuclear, said the decision “is a tremendous advance for nuclear reactor safety and environmental protection, because it commits NRC to evaluate the unique risks of renewing reactor licenses for a second term.”
Noted risks include safety and environmental issues that stem from aging equipment, she said.
“This decision paves the way for a hard look at those significant concerns,” said Curran.
Richard Ayres, an attorney for Friends of the Earth, said the decision was a complete surprise. It wasn’t until yesterday that he and others learned that the NRC would hold a morning meeting.
He called the decision “rare” and said he hoped it was a sign that the NRC would continue to strengthen its regulatory action.
Ayers said he thinks the NRC’s decision will lead to a “significant delay” in currently operating reactors getting additional extensions to run for 80 years. And “hopefully, it means a real thoughtful consideration of how climate change will affect these units and how, frankly, age will affect them,” Ayers said in an interview with E&E News.
FPL’s Turkey Point reactors were the first in the nation to win NRC approval to run another 20 years (Energywire, Dec. 6, 2019). The NRC issued that decision in late 2019.
Constellation Energy Corp.’s Peach Bottom nuclear power station in Pennsylvania got the same green light three months later (E&E News PM, March 6, 2020). Dominion Energy Inc.’s Surry nuclear power plant received approval in 2021 but is not named in the NRC’s decisions (Energywire, May 5, 2021). It is not clear why.
An FPL spokesperson said the NRC’s decisions do not affect its authority to operate the Turkey Point reactors currently but apply to the agency’s environmental review for plant operations in the future, starting in 2032.
“We are evaluating the NRC’s decisions to determine our next steps in the license renewal process,” FPL spokesperson Bill Orlove said in a statement.
The Turkey Point reactors are not without controversy, particularly because of their location. Florida has been the centerpiece of debates over the impacts of climate change, and rising seas already plague its coastal towns (Climatewire, Nov. 6, 2019). Turkey Point is on the southern tip of Florida in Miami-Dade County, near Biscayne Bay.
The site is the only one in the United States to use canals to keep the reactors cool. While the 168-linear-mile watery maze has been credited with removing the American crocodile from the endangered species list in a state racked by the effects of climate change, environmentalists argue that the canals make the area ground zero for algal blooms and excessive salinity, threatening nearby water wells (Energywire, July 15, 2019).
“Increased flooding risk caused by climate change poses serious risks to the safe operation of Turkey Point — and greater risks in the decades ahead,” said Caroline Reiser, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement.
The NRC’s decision throws uncertainty into the relicensing process as it undoes a decision previously made by the Republican-controlled commission during the Trump administration……..
For operators of the reactors, the NRC change introduces a new level of uncertainty into the age extension program.
Already, as part of the relicensing process, the reactors had to demonstrate a host of performance metrics to show that the plant’s structural and protective integrity could withstand an additional 20 years of operations.
A new environmental impact statement requirement could add another “three years or more” to an already lengthy process, an industry group said in a statement to E&E News……… https://www.eenews.net/articles/feds-walk-back-plans-for-nuclear-reactors-to-run-80-years/
1 This Month
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (288)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- 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
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 