UK financially props up Ukraine’s nuclear industry, while renewable sources there grow.
Signal: UK loan to support Ukraine’s nuclear energy
Nuclear power is Ukraine’s primary source of energy, but Russia’s invasion has created serious problems for the industry.
Energy Monitor, By Eve Thomas 25 Aug 23
The UK has announced a £192m ($242m) loan guarantee to support Ukraine’s nuclear energy industry, following the visit of the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary, Grant Shapps, to Kyiv this week. Nuclear is Ukraine’s main energy source, making up around 60% of the country’s power generation in 2022…………………………
The loan will enable UK-based company, Urenco, to supply uranium enrichment services to Ukraine’s national nuclear company, Energoatom………………………………….
Zaporizhzhia is not the only nuclear energy site to be affected by the invasion, with the South Ukraine nuclear plant also facing serious issues. Drones have reportedly been recorded flying low over the site and, in November, the plant lost connection to one of its three 750kV power lines, leading to a 50% reduction in power to one of its three operating reactors. The Khmelnitsky and Rivne power plants have also faced difficulties due to blackouts caused by missile strikes, which cause them to automatically disconnect from the grid.
The impact on nuclear power in Ukraine has, unsurprisingly, been significant, killing the industry’s growth and limiting opportunities in the nation’s biggest energy sector.
Trends identified by GlobalData indicate that the invasion marked the curtailing of patent filings in Ukraine’s nuclear energy industry, with no filings identified since January 2022. With priorities elsewhere and plants under Russian control, Ukraine nuclear future has become unclear.
However, the invasion has far from killed Ukraine’s alternative energy industry, with active jobs in the industry showing recovery since the invasion, according to GlobalData. Although Ukraine’s nuclear industry is suffering, solar panels have been used to provide off-grid solutions, and the country has plans to rebuild greener than ever. https://www.energymonitor.ai/news/signal-uk-loan-support-ukraine-nuclear-energy/?cf-view
Bibi Isn’t Serious About Preventing a Regional Nuclear Arms Race
Benjamin Netanyahu has long warned of the perils of a nuclear Middle East. Now he seems willing to allow Saudi nukes in exchange for normalization.
FP, By Azriel Bermant, a senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations Prague. 25 Aug 23
Three years ago, the tormented Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu found refuge from his domestic troubles with the announcement of peace agreements with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain which became known as the Abraham Accords. Three years on, speculation has grown in Israel over the possibility of the most significant breakthrough in regional diplomacy in 40 years: the signing of a normalization deal with Saudi Arabia.
……………………………………………………………………………. the Saudi government in Riyadh is also insisting it should be permitted to enrich uranium as part of a civil nuclear program.
This flies in the face of Israel’s long-standing attempts to prevent other countries in the region from acquiring any nuclear capability. This policy became known as the Begin Doctrine, named after then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who famously authorized the bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981……. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/08/24/netanyahu-saudi-mbs-nuclear-enrichment-arms-race/
China outraged at water release from wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant
Japan started releasing treated radioactive water from the wrecked
Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean yesterday, a
polarising move that prompted China to announce an immediate blanket ban on
all aquatic products from Japan.
Irish Independent 25th Aug 2023
Fukushima waste-water decision disregards scientific evidence, violates the human rights of Pacific region communities
Japan announces date for Fukushima radioactive water release
Greenpeace International, 22 August 2023 https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/61364/japan-announces-date-for-fukushima-radioactive-water-release/
Tokyo – Greenpeace Japan criticises the Japanese government’s announcement of the start date for radioactive water discharges from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station into the Pacific Ocean.
The decision disregards scientific evidence, violates the human rights of communities in Japan and the Pacific region, and is non-compliant with international maritime law. More importantly it ignores its people’s concerns, including fishermen. The Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) – the nuclear power plants’ operators – falsely assert that there is no alternative to the decision to discharge and that it is necessary to move towards final decommissioning. This further highlights the failure of the decommissioning plan for the nuclear plants destroyed in the 2011 earthquake, stating that tens of thousands of tons of contaminated water will continue to increase with no effective solution.
“We are deeply disappointed and outraged by the Japanese Government’s announcement to release water containing radioactive substances into the ocean. Despite concerns raised by fishermen, citizens, Fukushima residents, and the international community, especially in the Pacific region and neighboring countries, this decision has been made,” said Hisayo Takada, Project Manager at Greenpeace Japan.
The increasing volumes of and the pending release of the radioactive water demonstrate the failure of the decommissioning plan for the Fukushima Daiichi. The contaminated water will continue to accumulate for many years without effective measures to stop it. The Japanese Government and TEPCO falsely claim that discharge is the only viable option necessary for eventual decommissioning. Nuclear power generation, which experiences shutdowns due to accidents and natural disasters, and perpetually requires thermal power as a backup, cannot serve as a solution to global warming.
“The deliberate pollution of the Pacific Ocean through these radioactive waste discharges is a consequence of the 2011 nuclear disaster and Japan’s decades long nuclear power program. Instead of acknowledging the flaws in the current decommissioning plan, the ongoing nuclear crisis, and the massive amount of public funds required, the Japanese government intends to restart more nuclear reactors despite evidence of major earthquakes and safety risks. The current government energy plan fails to deliver secure and sustainable renewables such as wind and solar energy that the climate emergency demands,” said Takada.
As of 8 June 2023, there were 1,335,381 cubic meters of radioactive wastewater stored in tanks[1], but due to the failure of the ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System) processing technology, approximately 70% of this water will have to be processed again. Scientists have warned that the radiological risks from the discharges have not been fully assessed, and the biological impacts of tritium, carbon-14, strontium-90 and iodine-129, which will be released in the discharges, have been ignored.[2]
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) endorsed Japan’s plans for discharge. However, the IAEA has failed to investigate the operation of the ALPS, has completely ignored the highly radioactive fuel debris that melted down which continues every day to contaminate ground water – nearly 1000 cubic meters every ten days. Furthermore, the discharge plan has failed to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment, as required by its international legal obligations, given that there is a risk of significant transboundary harm to neighboring countries. The IAEA is not tasked with protecting the global marine environment but it should not encourage a state to violate it.
“The myth is being perpetuated that discharges are necessary for decommissioning. But the Japanese government itself admits that there is sufficient water storage space in Fukushima Daiichi.[3] Long-term storage would expose the current government decommissioning roadmap as flawed, but that is exactly what needs to happen. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station is still in crisis, posing unique and severe hazards, and there is no credible plan for its decommissioning,” emphasized Shaun Burnie, Senior Nuclear Specialist at Greenpeace East Asia.
Member states at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, as well as UN Special Rapporteurs, have opposed and criticized Japan’s discharge plans.[4] Japan’s discharge plans also disregard the groundbreaking Human Rights Council resolution 48/13, which in 2021 determined that it is a human right to have a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.[5] Furthermore, Japan has failed to comply with its legal obligations under the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to protect the marine environment including its legal requirement to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment into the discharges into the Pacific Ocean, given the risk of significant transboundary harm to neighboring countries.[6]
“Instead of engaging in an honest debate about this reality, the Japanese government has opted for a false solution – decades of deliberate radioactive pollution of the marine environment – during a time when the world’s oceans are already facing immense stress and pressures. This is an outrage that violates the human rights of the people and communities of Fukushima, and other neighboring prefectures and the wider Asia-Pacific region,” said Burnie.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station is still continuing to release radioactive materials
A new argument for considering the issue of contaminated ALPS water release .
This brief examines the amount of radioactive material that has been
leaking from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station ever since the
meltdowns occurred more than 12 years ago.
It is huge. Both TEPCO and the
government are undoubtedly aware of this reality. Despite this, they are
now attempting to release even the radioactive materials they have been
able to manage in tanks to the outside world. While attention focuses on
this release, this brief attempts to highlight the even larger problems of
Fukushima Daiichi and the irresponsible way the authorities are dealing
with them.
CNIC 23rd Aug 2023
Fukushima: What are the concerns over waste water release?
By Tessa Wong, Asia Digital Reporter, BBC News, 23 Aug 23,
Japan’s controversial plan to release treated waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean has sparked anxiety and anger at home and abroad.
Since the 2011 tsunami which severely damaged the plant, more than a million tonnes of treated waste water has accumulated there. Japan has said it will start discharging it from 24 August.
Despite an endorsement from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the plan has been deeply controversial in Japan with local communities expressing concerns about contamination.
Fishing industry groups in Japan and the wider region are also worried about their livelihoods, as they fear consumers will avoid buying seafood.
China has accused Japan of treating the ocean as its “private sewer”, and criticised the IAEA of being “one-sided”. While South Korea’s government has said it has no objections to the plan, many of its citizens are opposed to it.
So what is Japan’s plan and how exactly has it churned the waters?
What is Japan doing with the nuclear waste water?
Since the disaster, power plant company Tepco has been pumping in water to cool down the Fukushima nuclear reactors’ fuel rods. This means every day the plant produces contaminated water, which is stored in massive tanks.
More than 1,000 tanks have been filled, and Japan says that it needs the land occupied by the tanks to build new facilities to safely decommission the plant. It has also pointed out concerns that the tanks could collapse in a natural disaster.
Releasing treated waste water into the ocean is a routine practice for nuclear plants – though critics have pointed out that the amount from Fukushima is on an unprecedented, far vaster scale.
Tepco filters the Fukushima water through its Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), which reduces most radioactive substances to acceptable safety standards, apart from tritium and carbon-14…………………………………………….
What do critics say?
Despite years of government assurances, the plan remains deeply controversial to the Japanese public. Only 53% said they support it, while 41% said they did not, in a survey conducted in August by the newspaper Asahi Shimbun.
UN-appointed human rights experts have opposed the plan, as have environmental activists. Greenpeace has released reports casting doubt on Tepco’s treatment process, alleging it does not go far enough in removing radioactive substances.
Critics say Japan should, for the time being, keep the treated water in the tanks. They argue this buys time to develop new processing technologies, and allow any remaining radioactivity to naturally reduce.
There are also some scientists who are uncomfortable with the plan. They say it requires more studies on how it would affect the ocean bed and marine life.
“We’ve seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what’s getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it… there’s no way to get the genie back in the bottle,” marine biologist Robert Richmond, a professor with the University of Hawaii, told the BBC’s Newsday programme.
Tatsujiro Suzuki, a nuclear engineering professor from Nagasaki University’s Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, told the BBC the plan would “not necessarily lead to serious pollution or readily harm the public – if everything goes well”.
But given that Tepco failed to prevent the 2011 disaster, he remains concerned about a potential accidental release of contaminated water, he said.
What have Japan’s neighbours said?
China has been the most vocal, accusing Japan of violating “international moral and legal obligations” and “putting its selfish interests above the long-term wellbeing of the entire humanity”.
It has also warned that Tokyo “must bear all consequences”, and has already banned seafood from Fukushima and surrounding prefectures…………….
n contrast to China, Seoul – which has been keen to build ties with Japan – has soft-pedalled its concerns. It says it “respects” the IAEA’s findings and has endorsed the plan.
But this approach has angered the South Korean public, 80% of whom are worried about the water release according to a recent poll.
“The government enforces a strong no-littering policy at sea… But now the government is not saying a word (to Japan) about the wastewater flowing into the ocean,” Park Hee-jun, a South Korean fisherman told BBC Korean………….
Thousands have attended protests in Seoul calling for government action, as some shoppers fearing food supply disruptions have stockpiled salt and other necessities.
In response, South Korea’s parliament passed a resolution in late June opposing the water release plan – though it is unclear what impact this would have on Japan’s decision. Officials are also launching “intense inspections” of seafood, and are sticking to an existing ban of Japanese seafood imports from regions around the Fukushima plant……………………………
the biggest vindication may lie with the IAEA report, released by the agency’s chief Rafael Grossi while visiting Japan in July.
The report, which came after a two year investigation, found that Tepco and Japanese authorities were meeting international safety standards on several aspects including facilities, inspections and enforcement, environmental monitoring, and radioactivity assessments.
Mr Grossi said the plan would have a “negligible radiological impact on people and the environment”.
Yet, Japan’s decision to start discharging the Fukushima water has set the stage for an intensified showdown with its critics.
Additional reporting by Yuna Ku and Chika Nakayama. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66106162
France heatwave curbs cooling water supply to St Alban nuclear plant
PARIS, Aug 23 (Reuters) – A heatwave curbing the availability of cooling water has prompted a production warning from operator EDF for the Saint Alban nuclear power plant on the Rhone river in eastern France for Aug. 26-27.
Similar warnings have been issued this summer at plants including those at Bugey and Tricastin, which are also on the Rhone……………………….more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-heatwave-curbs-cooling-water-supply-st-alban-nuclear-plant-2023-08-23/
Neocon Dark Money Front Launches Desperate Ad Blitz, as Support for Ukraine Forever War Craters
By Alexander Rubinstein / The Grayzone 23 Aug 23
Defending Democracy Together, a neoconservative outfit led by career chickenhawk scribe Bill Kristol, has launched a new initiative called “Republicans for Ukraine” to transform the 2024 presidential election into a referendum on US funding for the NATO proxy war.
Urging Republicans in Congress to support more funding for Ukraine in the upcoming appropriations bill is also a key item on the agenda…………………………………………………….
Now, as the Ukrainian counteroffensive fails and a majority of Americans declare opposition for the first time to sending more military aid to Ukraine, Kristol is launching a multimillion dollar ad blitz to keep the tanks slogging through the Donbas mud and the dark money flowing into his bank accounts. https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/23/neocon-dark-money-front-launches-desperate-ad-blitz-as-support-for-ukraine-forever-war-craters/
China bans Japanese seafood after Fukushima wastewater release
Water containing radioactive tritium being pumped into Pacific via tunnel from Tepco plant, amid protests from China, South Korea and fishing communities
Guardian, Justin McCurry, 24 Aug 23
Japan has begun discharging more than 1m tonnes of tainted water into the Pacific Ocean from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in a move that has move that prompted China to announce an immediate blanket ban on all seafood imports from Japan and sparked anger in nearby fishing communities.
The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), pumped a small quantity of water from the plant on Thursday, two days after the plan was approved by Japan’s government.
Tepco said the release began at 1:03pm local time (0403 GMT) and it had not identified any abnormalities with the seawater pump or surrounding facilities. Live video showed engineers behind computer screens and an official saying – after a countdown – that the “valves near the seawater transport pumps are opening.”
Monitors from the UN atomic watchdog, which has endorsed the plan, were due to be on site for the procedure, while Tepco workers were scheduled to take water samples later on Thursday.
The discharge, which is expected to take 30 to 40 years, has caused anger in neighbouring countries and concern among fishers that it will destroy their industry as consumers steer clear of seafood caught in and around Fukushima.
On Thursday, China criticised the release, branding it “extremely selfish and irresponsible”.
“The ocean is the common property of all humanity, and forcibly starting the discharge of Fukushima’s nuclear wastewater into the ocean is an extremely selfish and irresponsible act that ignores international public interests,” Beijing’s foreign ministry said in a statement…………………
How to dispose of wastewater that has built up at the site on Japan’s north-east coast has proved a diplomatic headache for the government, despite support for its approach from the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)…………………………
Critics of the discharge say a lack of long-term data means it is impossible to say with certainty that tritium poses no threat to human health or the marine environment. Greenpeace said the radiological risks had not been fully assessed, and that the biological impacts of tritium, carbon-14, strontium-90 and iodine-129 – which will be released as part of the discharge – “have been ignored”…………………………
Hong Kong’s chief executive, John Lee, said releasing the water into the ocean was “irresponsible”, adding that the city would activate import controls on Japanese seafood from regions including Fukushima and Tokyo from Thursday. The ban will cover live, frozen, refrigerated, and dried seafood, as well as sea salt and seaweed.
South Korea, once an outspoken critic of the plans, has said that it accepts the science behind the discharge, but has stopped short of publicly supporting Japan’s approach amid concerns over food safety among the South Korean public……………………
Japanese students urge end to nuclear weapons in 1st visit to U.N. Geneva in 4 years
Japan Today 23 Aug 23
A group of Japanese high school students called for the abolition of nuclear weapons on Tuesday as they visited the U.N. office in Geneva as peace messengers for the first time in four years after the COVID-19 pandemic halted any trips.
The 22 female students from 16 prefectures, aged 15 to 18, submitted some 625,000 signatures that they had collected since 2020 to push for the abolition of nuclear weapons and attended the U.N. conference on disarmament, dedicated to a discussion on the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The members are selected each year to convey the messages of the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were devastated by U.S. atomic bombs in the final days of World War II.
“The peace maintained by the presence of nuclear weapons is not sustainable,” said Koharu Osawa, a 16-year-old student from Nagasaki during a meeting with Carolyne-Melanie Regimbal, chief of service of the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs’ Geneva Office.
Noting that “Nuclear weapons continue to be tremendous risks to our society,” Regimbal said that “Japan has a long-standing commitment to peace, disarmament but also youth leadership,” adding, “The U.N. remains determined to find solutions” with the peace messenger initiative………………………………….
The Peace Messenger initiative dates back to 1998, when India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, and since then more than 2,620,000 signatures have been collected and delivered to the United Nations https://japantoday.com/category/national/japan-students-urge-end-to-nukes-in-1st-visit-to-u.n.-geneva-in-4-yrs
French Winter Power Twice as Pricey as Germany’s on Nuclear Woes
By Todd Gillespie, April 19, 2023 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-19/french-winter-power-twice-as-pricey-as-germany-s-on-nuclear-woes?leadSource=uverify%20wall#xj4y7vzkg
France’s weakened nuclear power output means the cost of its electricity for next winter is more than twice as expensive as Germany’s, as concerns over the health of the country’s reactors persist.
The “massive” gap of nearly €250 ($273) per megawatt-hour between French and German prices is because traders are pricing in more risk as they await updates on Electricite de France SA’s struggles with its aging atomic fleet, according to analysts at Engie SA’s EnergyScan. “No participants want to risk being short next winter,” they wrote.
French power for the first quarter of 2024 is trading at €416 per megawatt-hour, more than double Germany’s rate of €169. Normally a power exporter, France’s atomic generation has been gradually returning to service but still remains below historical averages.
France, which relies on nuclear energy for most of its electricity, is expected to remain heavily dependent on power imports during the winter months to meet its demand. Meanwhile, Germany closed its last nuclear plants Saturday after years of political tension over phasing out the technology, but is still very reliant on polluting coal-fired power.
French nuclear availability was at 62% on Wednesday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Nuclear output on Wednesday was above its level for this time last year after weeks of historic lows.
— With assistance by Josefine Fokuhl and Francois De Beaupuy
More nuclear challenges await Japan after Fukushima water release
By Kiyoshi Takenaka, TOKYO, Aug 24 (Reuters) https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/more-nuclear-challenges-await-japan-after-fukushima-water-release-2023-08-24/ Twelve years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan has started to release treated radioactive water into the sea, a key step in the process of decommissioning the stricken plant, but much tougher tasks lie ahead, such as molten fuel removal.
Here are the challenges facing the government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) (9501.T) as they try to draw a line by the middle of the century under the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chornobyl.
MOLTEN FUEL REMOVAL
Tepco has described the effort to remove highly radioactive fuel debris from reactor cores as an “unprecedented and difficult challenge never attempted anywhere in the world”.
Trial-based retrieval at the No.2 reactor, the first at the plant to go through such a step, has been delayed twice from an initially scheduled date of 2021, and is now set for a six-month period starting in October.
At Three Mile Island (TMI), the U.S. nuclear plant in Pennsylvania that partly melted down in 1979 after a failure, fuel debris was kept under water during retrieval work, providing a shield against radiation.
That was the worst nuclear plant accident before the 1986 Chornobyl tragedy in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union.
Japan and Tepco plan to remove molten fuel while it is exposed to air because it is difficult to fill the badly damaged reactor cores with water.
But that will also make it hard to protect workers and retrieval gear from strong radiation.
The Fukushima plant suffered triple meltdowns, compared to the single fuel core meltdown at Three Mile Island, which means the debris retrieval operation will be much larger and more complicated this time around.
The retrieval will be done by a remotely controlled, 22-metre-long (72-foot) robot arm. The initial stage aims to extract only a few grammes of fuel debris, although the total molten fuel at the plant is estimated to be 880 metric tonnes.
RADIOACTIVE SOIL
The 2011 accident spewed radiation into the air, which eventually contaminated the soil. Part of that tainted soil is stored at an interim site more than four times as big as New York’s Central Park.
But the law requires the soil stored at the interim site, located next to the tsunami-wrecked power plant, to be moved out of Fukushima within 30 years from when it began operating in 2015.
More than a quarter of that interval has elapsed with no clear sign the government is nearer to securing permanent storage, though the environment ministry says the earliest the search for specific locations will start is 2025.
BALLOONING COSTS
In 2016, the government doubled to 21.5 trillion yen ($148.60 billion) its estimate of the costs of responding to the Fukushima disaster, including compensation, decommissioning and decontamination efforts.
About 12.1 trillion yen had been spent on such activities by March 2022, Japan’s audit panel, which reviews government expenditures, has said.
That represents an expenditure of more than half of the government’s estimate, even before really tough tasks such as fuel debris retrieval have begun, in turns raising concerns about cost overruns.
Tepco’s continuing payouts to the victims hits its bottom line.
In 2019, a private think tank, the Japan Center for Economic Research, said compensation, decommissioning and decontamination costs were expected to reach 41 trillion yen in a scenario in which Fukushima water was diluted and discharged into the sea.
($1 = 144.6800 yen)
North County Report: What’s the Deal with San Onofre’s Nuclear Power Plant?
Federal and public officials have been working to dismantle the San Onofre nuclear power plant for about a decade, but there’s still a long way to go. Here are the latest developments.
Voice of San Diego, by Tigist Layne, 24 Aug 23
“………………………………………………………. For the past several years, SoCal Edison has been dismantling the plant, a process known as decommissioning. Once that process is complete, the land will go back to its owner, the U.S. Navy.
Before that can happen, though, there’s the issue of the 3.55 million pounds of nuclear waste currently sitting inside the facility.
The latest: Manuel Camargo, principal manager of the San Onofre Decommissioning Project, said 50 percent of the plant has been decommissioned so far. The San Onofre Decommissioning Project was created by SoCal Edison.
As for the nuclear waste, also known as spent nuclear fuel, the Department of Energy is moving forward with a plan to transport the fuel into a temporary storage facility. Once that happens, officials can complete the decommissioning process.
Decommissioning of the Plant Is Carried Out in Three Phases
- First, after allowing the spent nuclear fuel to cool for a few years, the decommissioning team packaged the spent fuel into seal-welded stainless-steel canisters and transferred it to an onsite storage system. That transfer was completed in 2020, Edison International spokesperson Jeff Monford wrote in an email.
- Next is the demolition of above-ground structures like pressure vessels, pumps, motors, fans, cables and structural steel, which are removed from the buildings, packaged and sent offsite for disposal. The rest of the concrete structures are then demolished and transported to a disposal facility in Utah.
- Remaining underground structures will be decontaminated according to federal guidelines for cleanup of the site. The team anticipates this to be completed by 2028, Camargo said.
The final phase of decommissioning and site restoration will occur after the spent nuclear fuel is removed from the site.
The two containment domes are expected to come down sometime in 2025 or 2026.
The big storage issue: By now, you’ve probably gathered that without a place to store the spent nuclear fuel, the decommissioning can’t be completed. And there’s a reason it’s been so hard to find storage space: The federal government doesn’t have a single designated place in the United States to permanently store and/or dispose of spent nuclear fuel.
Let’s rewind to 1982 when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act became law. It established a national program for the disposal of highly radioactive waste and supports the use of deep geologic repositories to store and/or dispose of that waste.
A deep geologic repository is essentially a cavern a couple thousand feet below the Earth’s crust where the spent fuel would be placed, and it would stay there forever. It’s a way to store the waste while avoiding the contamination of the air, ground and underground water.
…………………………. until a permanent site is established by the federal government, the Department of Energy is stepping in.
……………………………………… ….Officials are planning to use consent-based siting to establish these storage facilities, meaning only cities and jurisdictions that are willing and able to store the spent nuclear fuel will be considered and chosen.
But these storage sites will be temporary. ……………………
The Department of Energy also needs approval from Congress to create these interim storage sites because the Nuclear Waste Policy Act would have to be modified to allow for it. It will also be up to lawmakers to eventually amend the act and establish another permanent deep geologic repository for spent fuel.
A few different groups are now working together to get this done: the Spent Nuclear Fuel Solutions Congressional Caucus established by Rep. Mike Levin; the Department of Energy; and the Spent Fuel Solutions coalition, which includes San Diego County, Orange County, Riverside County, SoCal Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and the City of Riverside. https://voiceofsandiego.org/2023/08/23/north-county-report-whats-the-deal-with-san-onofres-nuclear-power-plant/
The ageing nuclear reactors. How to keep them going for decades, (best to forget coming climate extremes)
plant-specific climate simulations do not exist for lower river levels, increased wildfires, or extreme weather events like tornadoes and heavy wind and rain.
Then there’s the issue of what to do with radioactive spent fuel.
Europe’s atomic reactors are getting old. Can they bridge the gap to an emissions-free future?
Reuters, By America Hernandez, Forrest Crellin, Prasanta Kumar Dutta, Anurag Rao and Aditi Bhandari, Aug. 22, 2023
Shaken by the loss of Russian natural gas since the invasion of Ukraine, European countries are questioning whether they can extend the lives of their ageing nuclear reactors to maintain the supply of affordable, carbon-free electricity — but national regulators, companies and governments disagree on how long the atomic plants can be safely kept running………………………………………………
Taken together, the UK and EU have 109 nuclear reactors running, most of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s and were commissioned to last about 30 years.
That means 95 of those reactors — nearly 90% of the fleet — have passed or are nearing the end of their original lifespan, igniting debates over how long they can safely continue to be granted operating extensions.
Extension talk: Bridging the gap or a new lease of life?
Regulations differ across borders, but life extension discussions are usually a once-a-decade affair involving physical inspections, cost/benefit estimates for replacing major worn-out parts, legislative amendments, and approval from the national nuclear safety authority.
In some countries — especially for those that planned to exit atomic power entirely after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan — discussion is focused on the short term: eking out a few years to get through any shortages before new wind, solar and gas installations can be built to take over.
Anti-nuclear Germany had planned to switch off its last three plants by the end of 2022, only to grant the sites an emergency extension to April 2023 to make it through winter without Russian gas — which previously made up 40% of EU gas supply……………………………………….
So far, Finland, Sweden, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands and Hungary have all taken steps to allow reactors to run for at least 60 years, subject to regular safety checks.
France, with the largest fleet, is carrying out a major 40-year inspection and refurbishment programme for its 32 oldest reactors.
ASN, the national safety authority, has said France’s pressurised water reactor (PWR) design in principle can be safely operated for 50 years — meaning the ageing plants can run through 2030 — but the regulator will not take a stance on extending to 60 years until the end of 2026……………………………………..
Some companies are pushing the limits further.
In February, Finland’s Fortum obtained permission to operate two reactors until 2050, when they will reach 70 years of age.
In Sweden, where licences are unlimited in time subject to regular safety checks, Vattenfall is considering 80 years of operation for its five reactors……………… More than scientific one-upmanship is at play.
…………………. The cost of pulling the plug
Politicians are also under pressure to keep energy prices low, especially as movements characterising climate action as costly and elitist gain ground.
That means ensuring steady, abundant supply — any swift, unexpected loss of a major source means market spikes and painful household bills.
Energy prices in Europe jumped exponentially in 2022 after many French reactors went offline. The impact was compounded by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
…………………………………..The biggest challenge is maintaining the reactor vessel, where uranium atoms are split to release neutrons inside the core. Those flying neutrons also hit the vessel’s steel walls, altering the lattice structure of the metal, making it hard and brittle.
Vattenfall and EDF try to slow down that embrittlement process by layering in special rods of hafnium metal or all……………………………….
Reactor vessels are generally seen as non-replaceable — though it has never been tried.
The same goes for the airtight containment building, which houses the reactor and all associated radiation-emitting parts, to keep it from being released into the atmosphere.
………………………… The French government, which this year nationalised EDF, has estimated it needs to hire and train at least 100,000 workers by 2033 if it hopes to run its fleet long term and build at least six new reactors.
That includes automation engineers, boilermakers, draughtsmen, electricians, maintenance technicians, blacksmiths, pipe fitters and welders.
Europe’s new pro-nuclear alliance would require some 450,000 skilled workers if it hopes to build an additional 50 GW of new nuclear by 2050, according to industry lobby Nucleareurope.
2050 and beyond: Hotter, drier, more radioactive trash
Industry cheerleaders point to Dubai’s new Barakah nuclear plant as proof reactors can be successfully designed to withstand desert heat and warmer water temperatures.
But few plants have room to be retrofitted with new safety systems, such as a dyke wall to protect against rising water levels, regulators warn.
“It’s a real headache to find [physical] space on a site that’s currently operating — we have reached certain limits in the feasible modifications of existing reactors,” said Karine Herviou, deputy director-general of France’s Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety, at the industry event on lifetime extensions.
The French fleet’s temperature margin to withstand heatwaves is constantly questioned, she added, while plant-specific climate simulations do not exist for lower river levels, increased wildfires, or extreme weather events like tornadoes and heavy wind and rain.
As a result, Herviou said in France: “There’s a general agreement that what we’ll do at the 50-year, 60-year mark will essentially be replacements for modernisation but very certainly not adding in any new safety systems … and checking for conformity and respect of already-applicable requirements, without further hiking the safety requirements.”
That rings alarm bells for third-party watchdogs like Mycle Schneider, who compiles the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report and said ageing reactors need tighter scrutiny.
“You have a car, 30-to-40 years old, and your generator breaks down. You open the hood, the mechanic takes out the generator and then says, ‘Ooh, everything underneath is rotten’ — a 40-year-old nuclear plant is not all that different, you basically find on the go all kinds of things you didn’t expect to find,” Schneider said.
EDF wants the government to relax biodiversity rules which forbid plants from dumping used cooling water into nearby rivers on days they are deemed already too warm, limiting power production — which risks becoming more frequent.
Then there’s the issue of what to do with radioactive spent fuel.
Used uranium pellets, which are solid, are stored in special refrigerated swimming pools designed to cool the radioactive heat down for five-to-10 years. French company Orano then separates out the material into non-recyclable leftovers that are vitrified into glass (4% of the material), plutonium (1%) to create a new nuclear fuel called Mox, on which some 40% of France’s reactors can run; and reprocessed uranium (95%) which for now can only be re-enriched and “recycled” at one plant in Russia.
Non-recyclable waste can be safely stored in dry casks, but its ultimate destination is deep underground, where it will fully degrade over hundreds of thousands of years.
Sweden, Finland and France have plans to build such long-term underground sites……………………………………………………………………………… https://www.reuters.com/graphics/EUROPE-ENERGY/NUCLEARPOWER/gdvzwweqkpw/
For the sake of Suffolk, Nuclear Free Local Authorities urge Centrica to ‘Say Non to Sizewell C’
Sizewell C is also a site presenting unique challenges. It is located on the Suffolk Heritage Coast, facing the increasing threat of storm surges……………
The Chairs of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) Steering Committee and the NFLA English Forum have written to the Chief Executive of Centrica, which owns British Gas, urging him ‘for the sake of our planet, the people, fauna and flora of Suffolk, the wallets of your hard-pressed electricity customers, and your own company bottom-line’ to say NON to Sizewell C.
The Times reported in July that Chief Executive Chris O’Shea was considering taking a stake in the project and Councillors O’Neill and Blackburn in their letter point out the pitfalls of investment ‘which would bring with it clear financial, ESG and reputational risks for Centrica’.
EDF Energy, now wholly owned by the French state, is currently building a similar plant at Hinkley Point C in Somerset – its history has not been a happy one with the project hugely behind schedule and massively over budget. In addition, Sizewell C will utilise the same EPR reactor as Hinkley Point C, a reactor design with a chequered safety and reliability record. A reactor in China was involved in an accident and is currently again shutdown (Taishan-1) and in Finland a second one only came online after the operator was forced to carry out repairs after a succession of equipment failures (Olkiluoto-3).
Sizewell C is also a site presenting unique challenges. It is located on the Suffolk Heritage Coast, facing the increasing threat of storm surges and coastal erosion, and with climate change modelling suggesting it would become inundated and isolated; there are several sites of scientific interest nearby; and the county is under increasing water stress with fears that there will be insufficient fresh water to meet the needs of the plant as well as local people.
The Councillors point out that several prospective investors who manage large pension funds have clearly indicated that ‘they will not be dipping their financial toe into the radioactive water’ of Sizewell C. Pension managers at The People’s Pension; Nest; BT; BBC; Tesco; and Pearson have all, in correspondence seen by campaigners at Stop Sizewell C, indicated they will not be backing Sizewell C, whilst the Daily Mail reported that Nat West and BT told the paper they would also not be investing and Legal and General’s Nigel Wilson told the BBC’s Today programme: “We are not big fans of HS2 and Sizewell C”.
Councillor O’Neill believes this to be sage advice:
“At a current projected cost of £32.7 billion, Hinkley Point C’s budget is fast approaching twice its first estimate at the time of financial close, and there is no reason to believe that Sizewell C will be delivered any more quickly or any more cheaply as the construction of large nuclear power plants in the UK is a litany of projects being delivered late and vastly over budget.”
Councillor David Blackburn, Chair of the NFLAs English Forum, is a co-signatory to the letter. He is urging opponents of the project to also contact Centrica to ask them not to invest:
“It would be far wiser for Centrica to direct every available penny into the proven renewable technologies that we already have now – these would generate power and heat far more quickly and more cheaply, and generate for them a more immediate financial return, than any further investment in this monstrous nuclear boondoggle.
“The NFLAs are pleased to back the campaign launched by Stop Sizewell C asking supporters to send an email directly to Mr O’Shea asking him not to invest in Sizewell C.
“You can take this direct action in just a few clicks by going to the site at https://action.stopsizewellc.org/centrica
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (74)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
