Exploitation of foreign workers in Japan’s Fukushima nuclear clean-up
Japan needs thousands of foreign workers to decommission Fukushima plant, prompting backlash from anti-nuke campaigners and rights activists, SCMP Julian Ryall , 26 Apr, 2019
Activists are not convinced working at the site is safe for anyone and they fear foreign workers will feel ‘pressured’ to ignore risks if jobs are at risk
Towns and villages around the plant are still out of bounds because radiation levels are dangerously high
Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) has announced it will take advantage of the government’s new working visa scheme, which was introduced on April 1 and permits thousands of foreign workers to come to Japan to meet soaring demand for labourers. The company has informed subcontractors overseas nationals will be eligible to work cleaning up the site and providing food services.
About 4,000 people work at the plant each day as experts attempt to decommission three reactors that melted down in the aftermath of the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and the huge tsunami it triggered. Towns and villages around the plant are still out of bounds because radiation levels are dangerously high.
Activists are far from convinced working at the site is safe for anyone and they fear foreign workers will feel “pressured” to ignore the risks if their jobs are at risk.
“We are strongly opposed to the plan because we have already seen that workers at the plant are being exposed to high levels of radiation and there have been numerous breaches of labour standards regulations,” said Hajime Matsukubo, secretary general of the Tokyo-based Citizens’ Nuclear Information Centre. “Conditions for foreign workers at many companies across Japan are already bad but it will almost certainly be worse if they are required to work decontaminating a nuclear accident site.”
Companies are desperately short of labourers, in part because of the construction work connected to Tokyo hosting the 2020 Olympic Games, while TEPCO is further hampered because any worker who has been exposed to 50 millisieverts of radiation in a single year or 100 millisieverts over five years is not permitted to remain at the plant. Those limits mean the company must find labourers from a shrinking pool.
“It has been reported that vulnerable people have been illegally deceived by decontamination contractors into conducting decontamination work without their informed consent, threatening their lives, including asylum seekers under false promises and homeless people working below minimum wage,” the statement said. “Much clean-up depends on inexperienced subcontractors with little scrutiny as the government rushes decontamination for the Olympic Games.”
Cade Moseley, an official of the organisation, said there are “very clear, very definite concerns”.
“There is evidence that foreign workers in Japan have already felt under pressure to do work that is unsafe and where they do not fully understand the risks involved simply because they are worried they will lose their working visas if they refuse,” he said……
As Tokyo Olympics approach, Japan’s futile push to repopulate cleaned-up parts of radioactive areas of Fukushima
|
Japan’s nuclear horror relived as people return to Fukushima’s ghost towns, It is eight years since a devastating tsunami caused three reactors to meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station on the north-east coast of Japan Mirror UK, Emily RetterSenior Feature Writer, Mirror UK, 29 Apr19
Only wild animals, and the 6ft weeds, which have rampaged through deserted homes and businesses, suffocating once-chatty barbers shops and bustling grocery stores; strangling playgrounds and their rusting rides which lie empty and eerily still. Once unextraordinary, mundane symbols of everyday lives have taken on the appearance of a horror film set in these areas closest to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station on the coast of north-east Japan, eight years after the devastating tsunami which caused a meltdown at three of the plant’s reactors, forcing tens of thousands to flee. The earthquake on March 11, 2011, claimed 19,000 lives, and triggered the world’s largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Radiation leaking in fatal quantities forced 160,000 people to evacuate immediately, and most to this day have not returned to their toxic towns and villages……. The official mandatory evacuation order was lifted, and while reports reveal just 367 residents of Okuma’s original population of 10,341 have so far made the decision to return, and most of the town remains off-limits, the Japanese government is keen this be seen as a positive start to re-building this devastated area……. The Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, visited to mark the milestone.
Six Olympic softball games and a baseball game will be staged in Fukushima, the capital of this prefecture, which is free of radiation. The torch relay will even begin at J Village, which was once the base for the crisis response team. Hearteningly, it is now back to its original function, a football training centre. But the truth is, it is mainly older residents who have decided to return to their homes. Seimei Sasaki, 93, explained his family have roots here stretching back 500 years. His neighbourhood in Odaka district now only contains 23 of its original 230. “I can’t imagine what this village’s future looks like,” he admitted. Young families are few and far between – these areas are still a terrifying prospect for parents. But the re-built schools are slowly filling a handful of classroom seats. Namie Sosei primary and middle school, less then three miles from the plant, has seven pupils. One teacher said: “The most frustrating thing for them is that they can’t play team sports.” A sad irony as the Olympics approach. And with so many residents still fearful, so the deadly clean-up operation continues. Work to make the rest of Okuma safe is predicted to take until 2022. The area which was its centre is still a no-go zone. In the years following the disaster, 70,000 workers removed topsoil, tree branches, grass and other contaminated material from areas near homes, schools and public buildings.  Bags of nuclear waste generated after the meltdown of one of Fukushima’s nuclear power plants in 2011 are now stored in the nearby town of Naraha. MUST CREDIT: photo for The Washington Post by Shiho Fukada. A staggering £21billion has been spent in order to make homes safe. Millions of cubic metres of radioactive soil has been packed into bags. By 2021 it is predicted 14million cubic metres will have been generated. The mass scale operation uses thousands of workers. Drivers are making 1,600 return trips a day. But residents understandably want it moved out of Fukushima for good. As yet, no permanent location has agreed to take it, but the government has pledged it will be gone by 2045. At Daiichi itself, the decontamination teams are battling with the build up of 1m tonnes of radioactive water. …..https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/japans-nuclear-horror-relived-people-14420671 |
|
|
Curious contradictions on climate change in USA – Denial and Reality
|
The Last Time There Was This Much CO2, Trees Grew at the South Pole, Dahr Jamail, Truthout, 29 April 19, “……….Denial and RealityWhile this certainly comes as no surprise, yet another report came out highlighting how oil and gas giants are spending millions of dollars in their ongoing effort to lobby their paid politicians to block policies aimed at addressing climate disruption. The giant fossil fuel companies are spending an average of $200 million annually to weaken and/or oppose legislation aimed at addressing climate disruption. BP led the way in spending with $53 million, followed by Shell ($49 million), ExxonMobil ($41 million), Chevron and Total ($29 million each). Meanwhile, as per usual, President Donald Trump has signed executive orders to speed up oil and gas pipeline projects, making it harder for states to block construction projects due to environmental concerns. Yet, as the White House is actively denying climate disruption and working as hard as it can to promote fossil fuel use, the U.S. military is planning and preparing for dealing with the vast impacts of ongoing climate disruption. “People are acting on climate not for political reasons, but [because] it really affects their mission,” Jon Powers, an Iraq War veteran who served as the federal chief sustainability officer who is now president and chief executive of the investment firm CleanCapital, told The Washington Post. “With the military, it’s now ingrained in the culture and mission there, which I think is the biggest change over the last 10 years.” Meanwhile, a federal climate disruption study panel and advisory group that was disbanded by the Trump administration due to it not having enough members “from industry,” recently released a report warning that the muddled political response to very clear climate science is putting Americans at risk. “We were concerned that the federal government is missing an opportunity to get better information into the hands of those who prepare for what we have already unleashed,” Richard Moss, a visiting scientist at Columbia University, who previously chaired the federal panel and is a member of the group who released the report, told The Guardian. “We’re only just starting to see the effects of climate change, it’s only going to get much worse. But we haven’t yet rearranged our daily affairs to adapt to science we have.” With each passing month, the impacts of runaway climate disruption continue to intensify. And as they do, so must our awareness of what is happening across the planet, and our resolve to take action to address it – especially since most governments around the world are failing to meet these challenges.https://truthout.org/articles/the-last-time-there-was-this-much-co2-trees-grew-at-the-south-pole/
|
|
The cost of pretending that nuclear power is “clean”
|
Pennsylvania decides whether to subsidize nuclear energy as “clean” https://thebulletin.org/2019/04/pennsylvania-decides-whether-to-subsidize-nuclear-energy-as-clean/?utm_source=Bulletin%20Newsletter&utm_medium=iContact%20email&utm_campaign=PAnuclear_04222019, By Heather Wuest, April 22, 2019
To drive growth in its clean energy market and combat climate change, Pennsylvania adopted the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act in 2004.This requires energy companies to buy specific percentages of their total electricity from clean energy sources. The requirements started small but are designed to increase over time. There are now 16 different clean energy choices for electric utilities to choose from in Pennsylvania. But new legislation would include a 17th clean generation option—nuclear power. Bills introduced in the state’s House and Senate are intended to prevent the retirement of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant outside Harrisburg and the Beaver Valley plant near Pittsburgh. Both plants are set for closure because they cannot compete on price with electricity from natural gas-fired power plants and renewable energy sources. Adding nuclear to the clean energy list would not be a simple or inexpensive process. Pennsylvania energy consumers would have to pay hundreds of millions in subsidies to make the nuclear plants economically viable. It’s a process that other energy generators and the manufacturing sector worry will distort Pennsylvania’s energy market. But the nuclear industry supports roughly 16,000 industry jobs and generates 93 percent of the electricity produced in the state by sources that don’t emit carbon dioxide in the process. Pennsylvania is hardly alone in its quest to buy clean energy; many other states are implementing plans that require energy companies to purchase set amounts so-called “carbon-free” electricity. In some states, nuclear is subsidized as a “green” energy source; in others, it is not. In Pennsylvania, it may be. The battle over that issue will play out in the state Legislature between now and early June, when the owner of the Three Mile Island plant is expected to decide whether to refuel or close it. |
|
Final closure of nuclear research reactors in Norway
It continues to amaze me, the way that Australia props up its uneconomic research nuclear reactor. Why not move fully to particle accelerators, producing medical isotopes with no nuclear waste?
Norway’s last nuclear research reactor to close permanently https://www.reuters.com/article/norway-nuclear/norways-last-nuclear-research-reactor-to-close-permanently-idUSL5N22789V, OSLO, April 25 (Reuters) – Norway’s last nuclear research reactor will shut permanently and be decommissioned after more than 50 years of operations, the country’s Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) said on Thursday.
The JEEP II research reactor at Kjeller near Oslo has been shut for scheduled maintenance since last December and corrosion was found on several important safety components during an inspection.
The institute said it would be too costly to repair the reactor.
“The board of directors has decided, based on an overall assessment, that the reactor will not be restarted. IFE will consequently initiate work to prepare the decommissioning of the reactor,” the institute said in a statement.
Nuclear fuel and heavy water have been already removed, meaning that the reactor poses no danger to the environment, it added.
The rector, some 20 kilometres away from Oslo, has been used by researchers in physics, materials, cancer medicine, renewable energy and nuclear disarmament since starting operations in 1967, the IFE said.
In June 2018, Norway’s research reactor in Halden was shut down after 60 years of operation.
“Both Norwegian nuclear reactors are now closed and Norway will enter into a new era with decommissioning of the national nuclear programme which was started in 1948,” the IFE said.
Norway has no commercial nuclear reactors, and generates more than 90 percent of its electricity at hydropower plants. (Reporting by Nerijus Adomaitis. Editing by Jane Merriman)
Political leaders in Britain are not strong enough to tackle the climate change crisis- Lord Stern
Times 29th April 2019 , Political leaders in Britain are not strong enough to tackle the climate
change crisis, according to one of the country’s leading authorities on the
subject. Lord Stern of Brentford, author of the Stern Review on the cost of
tackling global warming, said that politicians were holding the country
back from making progress on the issue.
“Has the political leadership been
strong enough? No, I don’t think so,” he said. He added that protests by
campaigners such as Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist from
Sweden, and Extinction Rebellion, a group that caused disruption in the
capital last week, would help to build awareness and spur politicians into
action.
“Leadership is absolutely fundamental, but that doesn’t come out of
nowhere, it comes as these pressures build,” he said. Lord Stern, a former
chief economist at the Treasury and the World Bank, is among Britain’s most
respected thinkers on the environmental crisis. In 2006 he published The
Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, which described global
warming as the “greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen”.
He told The Times that policymakers needed to act to avert a catastrophic rise
in global temperatures. If they waited an additional ten to fifteen years
before taking radical steps to reduce carbon emissions, it would be too
late, he said.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c233cb30-69e1-11e9-95be-9353feb218cd
Subsidies to nuclear industry – legislation “anti-competitive” and “anti-consumer.”
Free-market advocate chastises nuclear energy subsidies in committee hearing, Ohio Watchdog, By Tyler Arnold | Watchdog.org, Apr 24, 2019,
No to nuclear power: Taiwan’s president reaffirms anti-nuclear stance
Taiwan’s president reaffirms anti-nuclear stance at march https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190428/p2g/00m/0in/056000c, April 28, 2019 (Mainichi Japan) TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen on Saturday reaffirmed her opposition to nuclear power before marching with anti-nuclear protesters, reviving an issue that has proven politically divisive in the past.
Tsai said at a news conference that her administration was taking efforts to promote renewable energy and reduce the need for nuclear power.
“In the past, people often said we won’t have electricity without nuclear power, or that Taiwan does not have the conditions to develop renewable energy, or even that renewable and green energy are too expensive,” Tsai said. “But after the efforts we have made since taking office, such talk has dissipated.”
She also vowed to reach her targets in reducing emissions from thermal power plants and to retire current nuclear power plants, though without giving any timeline.
“We will carry on with the targets to eliminate nuclear power and reduce carbon,” Tsai said. “We will reach the targets and Taiwan will not be short of electricity” for the island’s 23 million people.
She then joined hundreds of people who marched through the streets of Taipei, the capital, beginning at the Presidential Office Building in the city’s center, in a show of opposition to nuclear power.
Tsai’s Democratic Progressive Party has long opposed the nuclear industry, particularly construction of the high-tech island’s fourth nuclear plant on the tip of the island, north of Taipei. Nuclear power now accounts for about 15% of Taiwan’s electricity generation, according to the World Nuclear Association.
The main opposition Nationalist Party has promoted nuclear power as one of the best ways to provide reliable energy to the island. The issue has in the past sparked occasionally violent clashes between proponents and supporters.
“Climate Emergency Independents” emerge from Extinction Rebellion to stand for UK Parliament
Guardian 26th April 2019, Activists who took part in the Extinction Rebellion protests have announcedthey will stand in the European elections on a “climate emergency” ticket.
Under the name Climate Emergency Independents the new group, which is
separate from Extinction Rebellion, nine candidates will stand in the 23
May polls – seven in London and two in south-west England region. The group
said it was inspired by the mass civil disobedience demonstrations on the
streets of London over the past two weeks as well by Greta Thunberg and the
global school strikes movement she inspired.
Opposition to nuclear subsidies in Pennsylvania
|
Nuclear subsidies an uphill battle in Pennsylvania WHYY, By Marie Cusick
|
|
British govt about to give nuclear power a massive state-funded financial boost
|
For instance the Financial Times describes the use of “RAB” (regulated asset base) financing as similar to the system used to build the Thames Tideway tunnel’ Under such schemes the developers are allowed to charge consumers in advance for the capital building projects. What Ministers are not emphasising of course, is that in industries such as water the Government does not lend lots of money to the privatised companies. They raise this on private markets. But in the case of nuclear power plants the bulk of the money needed to build them will be borrowed from the Government.
RAB has been used to try to finance nuclear power plants in the USA, in the states of Georgia and South Carolina recently. The result was disaster and the developing company, Westinghouse, went bust. But this was ‘normal’ RAB where the developer takes the risk of cost overruns. But in the proposed UK nuclear version it will be the electricity consumer who goes bust when the almost inevitable cost-overruns set in! The nuclear RAB is really a cover for a nuclear bailout. So let’s call it a ‘nuke bailout RAB’.
What makes this move even more infuriating for green energy supporters is that Hammond offered what amount to a few superficial titbits for green energy in his Spring statement. Meanwhile renewable energy projects will not be able to take part in RAB projects. Not only will nuclear power be funded under much more preferential terms compared to offshore or onshore renewable energy projects but they will be directly funded by government and large parts, if not all, of their liabilities guaranteed by the treasury – again something that does not apply to renewable energy. (1)
According to Harminder Singh, Power Analyst at GlobalData, the RAB model would shift the risk from the developers to consumers, thus raising the electricity bills of consumers. Consumers will be effectively paying for an asset that will come up some time in the future, with all the risks associated with it. Furthermore, with the cost escalations associated with nuclear power projects, there is an additional uncertainty regarding how much it will add to the consumer power bill. The model has so far not been used for projects as expensive as nuclear power plants, which is seen as a key cause for concern. On the other hand, the RAB is a useful tool to attract private investments in the sector, as investors are able to see a fixed rate of return as the project is being built. The key problem that RAB addresses is that of high cost of capital for nuclear power projects. It is revised at regular intervals to take into account increases in capex – subject to regulatory approval. The regulatory protection and government backing means that the RAB is treated as a strong, secure asset. (2) http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/NuClearNewsNo116.pdf |
|
|
USA’s Dept of Energy fails to provide adequate funding for Hanford nuclear clean-up
“The HAB views the combined lack of compliant budget appropriations, the unanticipated problems at Hanford, and the extreme increase in estimated funding levels identified in the lifecycle cost report with great concern,” the board told DOE. Those factors will result in cleanup taking longer and costing more, putting workers, the environment, and the public at increased risk, the letter says.
“They will also result in additional discussion about reducing standards or potentially conducting a lesser quality cleanup,” according to the board.
Unanticipated problems in work at the former plutonium production complex have included the spread of radioactive contamination at the Plutonium Finishing Plant demolition in 2017 and the May 2017 collapse of the older of two PUREX Plant radioactive waste storage tunnels.
The Energy Department has addressed the issues, but the costs and schedule impacts from these and other unanticipated setbacks could compound the challenge of meeting milestones set under the legally binding Tri-Party Agreement on Hanford cleanup, the budget letter said.
The latest Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report, released in January, “is particularly concerning,” the board said. It put the remaining cost of Hanford cleanup and the initiation of long-term stewardship at $323 billion to $677 billion, and said work could continue beyond this century. The amount of funding needed annually would increase to $4 billion starting in fiscal 2020 and later could peak as high as $16 billion in 2088 under the worst-case scenario.
“Receiving appropriation for even the low-range annual funding estimates will be extremely challenging, thereby putting the cleanup mission in further jeopardy,” the letter said.
For fiscal 2020, which begins Oct. 1, DOE is seeking $2.1 billion for the two offices at Hanford. That would be a $400 million reduction from current funding levels.
Lawmakers and media are being conned, as nuclear industry manipulates climate change rules
|
In state after state, operators have figured out how turn green-power incentives into sweetheart deals. https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/04/23/nuclear-energy-climate-change-000893, By TRAVIS KAVULLA 04/23/2019 Yet these laws remain on the books, and recently some of the nation’s largest energy producers have started to turn them to their own benefit. For the past several years, I’ve been researching clean-energy regulations at the state level, and a troubling pattern has begun to emerge: In numerous states, companies with large investments in nuclear energy — including Exelon, First Energy, Dominion and PSEG — have lobbied states to reconfigure their clean-power incentives to subsidize existing nuclear plants, rather than the emergent technologies that the laws were intended for.
 The result is a contagion of subsidies to nuclear power plants that started in Democratic states like Illinois and New York in 2016, spread to Connecticut in 2017 and New Jersey in 2018. Bills to this effect are now being considered by Republican-led chambers in Ohio and Pennsylvania. If those measures pass, nuclear interests will have executed a clean sweep of the six northeastern states that have the largest quantities of nuclear generation.The state nuclear-handout schemes are all slightly different. But they all take advantage of green-sounding energy incentives, and they share a basic outline intended to avoid the appearance of being a naked subsidy. For example, Illinois’ program creates a commodity called a “zero emission credit,” or ZEC. A ZEC may only be created by a “zero emission facility” — which makes it sound like they are available to any form of zero-carbon energy. But the law defines “zero emission facility” as being a power plant “fueled by nuclear power.” The law then creates an artificial demand for ZECs, requiring utilities to buy a certain quantity. The law sets this number at a level tellingly similar to the total expected output of the state’s nuclear power fleet. All of this is topped off with a requirement that a government commission pass through the costs of these ZECs to customers through a mandatory rate they have no choice (other than cutting the cord entirely) but to pay.In short, the law seems to be creating a program that promotes adoption of all kinds of clean energy, but in fact creates a direct subsidy for nuclear power plants and guarantees them customers for years to come. Instead of spurring competition between emissions-reducing power sources, it locks in one energy supplier for the foreseeable future. These state policies starkly differ from other carbon-reduction policies, such as a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program. Those policies have the advantage of aiming directly at their target: carbon emissions. While potentially costly, either would circulate revenue back to consumers or taxpayers, or use that revenue on government spending intended to amplify the program’s core purpose. THAT’S NOT THE case here. The nuclear subsidy schemes are an elaborate greenwashing that neither returns money to the public nor further reduces carbon emissions.
It’s also important to keep sight of the big picture: Lower energy prices are a good thing for consumers, both private citizens and businesses. Lower prices are only a crisis for energy suppliers who can’t compete. In my conversations with state officials, some have struggled to understand how this has emerged as a political issue if the nuclear fleet is not, in fact, facing an existential crisis. This is naïve. Executives at corporations that own nuclear power plants, watching as neighboring states hand out subsidies, have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to try to get it for themselves—whether or not their plants are already turning a profit. Debra Raggio, senior vice president for regulatory affairs for Talen Energy, admitted as much when she testified before a Pennsylvania legislative committee at an April 8 hearing, saying that if the state’s legislation featured a needs test to determine whether nuclear plants actually needed a subsidy to remain open, her company would oppose the bill. Bowring projects that the company’s only Pennsylvania nuclear plant, located along the Susquehanna River, will be profitable in each of the coming three years. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, the whole drama is unfolding on terms dictated by the nuclear plant owners, with utility corporations making threats to shut down certain facilities to force sweeping legislative action without the time for meaningful scrutiny. BY PROPPING UP older technologies, these state bailouts actually risk doing harm to innovative technologies looking to break into the market. Pennsylvania provides a useful example. In 2004, the state Legislature set aside a relatively modest amount of consumer demand to be served by renewable and other technologies in its Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard. That program constitutes 18 percent of consumer demand. Under the current proposal, a whopping 50 percent would be carved out for existing nuclear plants. In other words, 68 percent of customer demand would be met by power plants preordained by government officials for that purpose. That leaves energy producers who don’t benefit from subsidies left to fight for the scraps. One cannot encourage innovation when the innovators have only one-third of the market share to compete for. Sadly, these handouts are unraveling a successful state policy that has benefited customers and reduced carbon emissions in the process. Pennsylvania and the other nuclear battleground states adopted policies two decades ago to replace government planning and monopolies with competition between generators. The results have been significant. Customers in these so-called restructured states have seen their electricity costs drop an average of 8 percent between 2008 and 2016, according to a 2017 study by Phil O’Connor, the late chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission. Customers in states where legislatures, government commissions, and monopolies together select the “right” resource mix have seen prices rise 15 percent. Meanwhile, these competitive markets ensured that when the Marcellus natural gas shale supply boomed, that uneconomic coal plants did not hang around. Carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector have declined 3,855 million metric tons between 2005 and 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration. The majority of those savings, 2,360 million metric tons, come from natural gas’ replacement of coal, and not zero-emission facilities. It’s deeply ironic that these competitive markets might become a victim of their own successes. The necessity of acting on climate change is palpable in our politics today. But the answer is a genuine competition between low-emission producers through a market for carbon, not handouts to the nuclear industry. The legislation proposed in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives plays footsie with this issue, suggesting that if a price of $15 per ton of carbon emissions were enacted, the nuclear handout would sunset. This is silly. After all, if you’ve got your subsidy, are you going to be willing to support a law that sets a more level playing field between clean-energy technologies—or where you might lose out to efficient gas generators? It would be next to impossible to obtain a comprehensive carbon policy if technology-specific handouts such as these continue to become law, because the political support that might have existed for a carbon policy would have been sapped. Whatever your view of nuclear energy, it should compete fairly against other electricity sources. In the run-up to this year’s legislative session in Harrisburg, Exelon tripled its lobbying expenditures in Pennsylvania, to $1.7 million, which is a lot of money in state politics. But the company stands to obtain a large portion of the annual $500 million dole of the Pennsylvania nuclear program. That’s a good return on investment—and easier to earn than having to compete for it. Travis Kavulla is director of energy and environment policy at the R Street Institute. |
|
Turkish nuclear power project looks like being shelved
|
Clouds gather over Turkey’s nuclear ambitions Pantelis Oikonomou is a former nuclear inspector at the International Atomic Energy Agency. The article is an excerpt from his upcoming book “Global Nuclear Threat” (published by Sideris). In early December 2018, five years after Turkey and Japan signed a bilateral agreement concerning the construction of four nuclear reactors in the city of Sinop on the Black Sea, the project looks like it might be shelved. According to foreign news agencies, the Japanese-French consortium is set to abandon the project.The consortium says that delays in launching construction have more than doubled the estimated costs. Tougher international safety measures that came into force following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 have reportedly inflated the bill from 20 billion to 44 billion dollars. Turkey’s economic problems and the significant plunge of the Turkish lira also played a role. It should be noted that the Turkey-Japan deal and the Turkey-Russia agreement for the construction of the Akkuyu power station in the southern province of Mersin both contain controversial clauses (articles 8 and 12 respectively) giving Ankara access to enriched uranium and plutonium. Both nuclear materials are, under certain conditions, required to build nuclear weapons. According to a senior official in the Japanese Foreign Ministry, Article 8 was included on Turkey’s persistent request. In early December 2018, five years after Turkey and Japan signed a bilateral agreement concerning the construction of four nuclear reactors in the city of Sinop on the Black Sea, the project looks like it might be shelved. According to foreign news agencies, the Japanese-French consortium is set to abandon the project. The consortium says that delays in launching construction have more than doubled the estimated costs. Tougher international safety measures that came into force following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 have reportedly inflated the bill from 20 billion to 44 billion dollars. Turkey’s economic problems and the significant plunge of the Turkish lira also played a role. It should be noted that the Turkey-Japan deal and the Turkey-Russia agreement for the construction of the Akkuyu power station in the southern province of Mersin both contain controversial clauses (articles 8 and 12 respectively) giving Ankara access to enriched uranium and plutonium. Both nuclear materials are, under certain conditions, required to build nuclear weapons. According to a senior official in the Japanese Foreign Ministry, Article 8 was included on Turkey’s persistent request. Pantelis Oikonomou is a former nuclear inspector at the International Atomic Energy Agency. The article is an excerpt from his upcoming book “Global Nuclear Threat” (published by Sideris). |
|
Narendra Modi using threat of nuclear bombing Pakistan, as an election campaign tactic
Dear Mr. Modi, A Nuclear Bomb Is Not A Campaign Prop, https://www.newsclick.in/narendra-modi-nuclear-bomb-diwali-pakistan In a campaign speech in Rajasthan on April 22, prime minister Narendra Modi casually threatened Pakistan with the use of nuclear bombs, saying India’s nuclear arsenal has not been saved for Diwali. Newsclick Team, 24 Apr 2019
1 This Month
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
- 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)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
