€7bn needed to keep loss-making nuclear company AREVA alive
Lossmaking Areva needs €7bn capital injection, Ft.com Michael Stothard in Paris, 30 July 15 Struggling French nuclear group Areva on Thursday disclosed it needed a bigger than expected capital injection worth €7bn as the company also unveiled a far-reaching agreement with EDF on asset disposals and other projects.
The two companies — both state-controlled — agreed in principle that EDF will pay €2bn for a 75 per cent stake in Areva’s reactor unit, called Areva NP, in a radical reshaping of the French nuclear industry that has come after months of tense negotiations……..
Following the deal, Areva, which reported a €4.8bn net loss last year, will be reduced to a nuclear fuel company that mines, enriches and then disposes of uranium. The heart of the company — designing, building and servicing nuclear reactors — is being sold off.
Areva said that overall it would need €7bn in capital over the next two years, however, meaning that as much as €5bn will be required from sources other than EDF, the French utility group. Much of these additional funds are likely to come from a government-backed capital raising.
The French government may have to contribute between €4bn and €5bn, far more than the €2bn to €3bn that ministers had hoped for just a few months ago, according to people familiar with the situation, although the exact level of the capital raising was not announced on Thursday.
Areva said it could secure €0.4bn from selling some other assets including Canberra, its nuclear measurements subsidiary, and as much as €1.2bn from other sources of equity financing. This suggested a government-backed capital raising that might be closer to €4bn.
On Thursday the two companies also said they would set up a dedicated company to be 80 per cent owned by EDF and 20 per cent by Areva NP, aimed at improving the design and management of brand new reactors projects.
One of the problems that has weighed on Areva in recent years has been cost overruns at key projects, particularly the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland, which is 10 years behind schedule and prompted the company to take €3.9bn in impairment charges………..http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/110c0476-368c-11e5-b05b-b01debd57852.html#axzz3hPaCUU5g
France moves towards renewable energy, while government still shelling out $billions to save AREVA
France‘s decision to reduce dependence on nuclear power will not go down well with the already struggling nuclear industry, which includes French players like Areva, EDF and GDF Suez. Areva, the world’s largest nuclear company, reported a loss of $4.8 billion in 2014 after it started facing a dip in demand following the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Areva is one of the most prominent companies in France, so the French government has been trying hard to save the company through a proposed deal with EDF, which involves selling off its reactor and fuel treatment business. According to recent reports, the French government could end up shelling out $5.5 billion to rescue Areva, far more than anticipated.
Is France Ready To Move Away From Nuclear Energy? http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Is-France-Ready-To-Move-Away-From-Nuclear-Energy.html By Gaurav Agnihotri 30 July 2015 | 0
But unlike the U.S., nuclear energy represents France’s largest source of electricity generation, accounting for around 77 percent of the country’s energy generation in 2014. However, in the last few years, France has witnessed growing public support in favor of developing newer technologies that can reduce carbon emissions and replace nuclear power.
In the year 2012, France’s newly elected President Francois Hollande pledged to reduce his country’s dependence on nuclear power to 50 percent by 2025. This triggered a ‘national debate for energy transition’ in France which lasted for eight months. The National Assembly of France then passed an Energy Transition for Green Growth bill in 2014 which would put a cap on the country’s nuclear power capacity at the current level of 63.2 gigawatts.
Last week saw French Lawmakers finally pass this bill which seeks to cut the country’s growing dependence on nuclear power. With the move, France is following Germany, which decided to significantly reduce its dependence on nuclear energy after the infamous 2011- Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.
In order to meet this tough new target, Electricite De France or EDF (which is 85 percent government-owned) would have no other option but to close some of its nuclear power capacity in order to accommodate its new European Pressurized Reactor (EPR), which is currently under construction in Normandy.
The new law further requires France to increase the contribution of renewables in its total energy consumption to 32 percent by 2030. This is in addition to reducing the C02 emissions by 40 percent by 2030 when compared to 1990 levels and also reduce conventional fossil fuel consumption by 30 percent by 2030 from 2012 levels.
Although the law has made it quite clear that France now has to reduce its dependence on nuclear power, there are still several loopholes. as it hasn’t provided a clear manner in which the set target is supposed to be met and there is no specific implementation strategy put in place yet. “This law sets goals, which is interesting, but it doesn’t explain how to reach them, postponement of the detailed implementation plans is not a good sign,” said Yannick Rousselet of Greenpeace.
“I want France to become a nation of environmental excellence,” said French environmental minister Segolene Royal. She further said that recent steps taken by the French government could create close to 100,000 jobs in the renewable sector.
As the new law has also set a goal of increasing overall renewable energy consumption while also curtailing nuclear power, we can expect some major foreign investments in the French clean energy sector in the coming few years. French energy giant Total has in fact been investing a substantial amount in the solar sector. With its partnership with U.S. based Sunpower, Total might just ramp up its investments in the French solar sector.
It is interesting to note that wind energy also enjoys local public support in France as a 2014-CSA survey revealed that around 64 percent of local people see wind energy as a worthy replacement for nuclear power. According to the European Wind Energy Association, France increased its target for energy generation from wind to 19 gigawatts by 2020 from 8.2 gigawatts in 2014.
France is also the second largest producer of biofuels in Europe after Germany, mostly producing biodiesel. France has already set a goal of blending 10 percent of biofuels with its conventional fuels by 2020. So, with the current push towards renewables one can reasonably expect a surge in biofuel investments as well.
However, the same cannot be said for natural gas, as France is one of the four countries that have banned hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Experts predict that the French natural gas demand might even fall by the year 2020.
What does this mean for the suppliers of nuclear fuel and companies like AREVA?
France‘s decision to reduce dependence on nuclear power will not go down well with the already struggling nuclear industry, which includes French players like Areva, EDF and GDF Suez. Areva, the world’s largest nuclear company, reported a loss of $4.8 billion in 2014 after it started facing a dip in demand following the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Areva is one of the most prominent companies in France, so the French government has been trying hard to save the company through a proposed deal with EDF, which involves selling off its reactor and fuel treatment business. According to recent reports, the French government could end up shelling out $5.5 billion to rescue Areva, far more than anticipated.
With its desire to shift away from nuclear energy, France is slowly and steadily preparing itself to adapt newer technologies and eventually move towards renewables. However, this transition requires a clear road map with a clear plan on the systematic closure of its nuclear capacity. Without these, it might take several years (beyond the target dates) for the Energy Transition law to get implemented.
By Gaurav Agnihotri for Oilprice.com
$10 billion bonanza to save Exelon nuclear plants in Illinois?
New power rules may preserve Exelon nuclear plants in Illinois, St Louis Post Dispatch, By Scott DiSavino Reuters , 30 July 15, New rules for U.S. electricity providers could save two money-losing nuclear power plants in Illinois from shutting down and may amount to a $10 billion bonanza to U.S. power producers.
A system of rewards and penalties is part of a requirement approved last month by federal energy regulators that applies to a power auction next month.
It may benefit some costly nuclear reactors in the PJM power region, which stretches from New Jersey to Illinois, that have had a tough time competing against the growing use of wind turbines and power plants fired with cheap natural gas.
That is particularly true for two plants operated by Exelon Corp., the biggest U.S. nuclear power plant operator. It has warned it might be forced to shut its Quad Cities and Byron nuclear plants in northern Illinois, unless the reactors’ revenues increase.
Thanks to the growth of alternative power sources and abundant gas from shale formations, PJM power prices have fallen an average of 20 percent over the past five years to around $50 per megawatt hour compared with the prior five years…….
The rule creates a niche for nuclear plants, which run consistently, unlike breeze-dependent wind turbines, and do not need potential upgrades to withstand harsh winter temperatures like gas plants.
Under so-called capacity performance requirements, generators will receive higher fees to keep plants available but face stiff penalties if their units don’t deliver power when needed during system emergencies. Fines for an average 100-megawatt plant would be around $350,000 an hour………
If analysts’ estimates are correct and all ten of Exelon’s reactors in northern Illinois are selected to provide capacity in the auction, the company could receive around $600 million for those reactors during the 2018-2019 delivery year………
Exelon has lost close to $1 billion over the past five years on its nuclear operations — about $350 million at Quad Cities alone. It expects those losses to continue, based on forward power prices, Dominguez said.
Even if Byron and Quad Cities clear the auction, Dominguez said they still face the risk of shutdown unless federal, state and regional policy makers find ways to compensate generators for the environmental and reliability benefits that non-carbon emitting nuclear plants provide.
In the meantime, extra revenues from the capacity auction could keep the money losing reactors operating for a few more years until possible new carbon standards are available. http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/new-power-rules-may-preserve-exelon-nuclear-plants-in-illinois/article_e4007591-df54-5795-9b5f-de5a1e6ab3f8.html
Fukushima compensation increased to 7.07 trillion yen
Japan increases Fukushima compensation to US$57 billion, Malaysian Insider, 28 July 2015 Japan on Tuesday approved an increase in compensation payments for the Fukushima crisis to 7.07 trillion yen (RM218 billion), as tens of thousands of evacuees remain in temporary housing more than four years after the disaster.
Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), the operator of the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station, will receive 950 billion yen (RM29 billion) more in public funds on top of the 6.125 trillion agreed earlier, the utility and the government said.
The increase, agreed after a request by Tepco, adds to the bill for taxpayers for the disaster in March 2011, when three reactors melted down after an earthquake and tsunami, in the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl in 1986, destroying businesses and livelihoods….
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government and Tepco, which was bailed out by taxpayers in 2012, are undertaking an unprecedented cleanup to lower radiation levels in towns closest to the plant, although some areas will likely remain off limits for decades.
Inside the plant, Tepco has struggled to bring the situation under control and it is estimated removing the melted fuel from the wrecked reactors and cleaning up the site will cost tens of billions of dollars and take decades to complete.
The government plans to revoke evacuation orders for most people forced from their homes by the disaster within two years as part of a plan to cap compensation payouts and speed up reconstruction. – Reuters, July 28, 2015. http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/japan-increases-fukushima-compensation-to-us57-billion#sthash.NtMaDGfW.dpuf
South Africa is warned – Nuclear power is a dying industry
With the South African build is set to cost anywhere up to R1-trillion, that would mean the same cost (adjusted upward with inflation) would have to be born near the end of this century, he says. “Except then you will have no income coming in. Just the cost of powering the reactors while you wind down operations. And the endless cost of looking after the nuclear waste.”
“This is a dying industry and there are just too many unanswered questions for South Africa to go down this path. Except we know the element of corruption can always be present in the nuclear industry,”

Nuclear a ‘technology of the past‘, Mail & Guardian, 27 JUL 2015 SIPHO KINGS A Russian nuclear activist has labelled South Africa’s pursuit of new nuclear capacity – with Russian support – as “naive” and advised against it. “Nuclear is not technology of the future. This is technology of the past, of the Cold War.” This is the conclusion Vladimir Slivyak, of the Russian environmental group Ecodefense, reaches when talking about nuclear technology. Continue reading
Thorough analysis of Switzerland’s plan for exit from nuclear power
It is a simple statement of fact that Germany today produces more solar and wind power than the entire projected electricity demand for Switzerland in 2050. What is possible in Germany should be manageable in Switzerland too. ………Conservation, greater efficiencies, alternative energy sources, the smart grid, and the introduction of new technologies mean that Switzerland should be readily able to find ways to replace the energy lost by the closing of its existing nuclear power plants.
Small country, big challenge: Switzerland’s upcoming transition to sustainable energy,Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 25 July 15 Dominic A. Notter
Abstract
Switzerland has long met a good portion of its energy needs by using nuclear power. But in the wake of the accident at Fukushima, the country will have to turn elsewhere—while still remaining true to its history of self-sufficiency and energy independence. This effort is made more complicated by fears that one of its traditional energy sources, hydropower, may no longer be as reliable as in the past. But with a combination of energy conservation, greater efficiencies, alternative energy sources, the “smart grid,” and the introduction of new technologies currently on the drawing board, the country may readily be able to replace the energy lost by the closing of its existing nuclear power plants. And the loss of the snowpack and glaciers (due to climate change) may not be as dire for Switzerland’s hydropower as first anticipated……. Continue reading
Canada Environment Minister to decide on Lake Huron nuclear waste plan before court case happens ?
Challenge to nuclear waste bunker near Lake Huron on hold until new year http://www.610cktb.com/OntarioCP/Article.aspx?id=474127 Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press, 26 July 15 TORONTO – A court challenge to the preliminary approval of a plan to bury dangerous nuclear waste near Lake Huron has been put on hold now until next year — well after the next federal election.
The delay means that Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq will have made her decision on whether to green light the proposed storage before the case is heard.
Initially, Aglukkaq was to render her decision by Sept. 2, but she instead moved that back to December — ostensibly to allow for public input on any conditions that should be imposed.
“The minister decided to in effect give herself more time, which took the time period until after the federal election,” Rod McLeod, with Save our Saugeen Shores, said from Southampton, Ont., on Wednesday.
“We were put in a position of being required to comply with rather stringent procedural rules of Federal Court … when the minister in fact had unilaterally delayed the whole thing to suit her convenience.”
Save the Saugeen Shores had turned to Federal Court to overturn a review panel’s approval of the Ontario Power Generation proposal on the grounds that its recommendation to Aglukkaq was illegal and unreasonable. The group argues the panel was biased, failed to consider Canada’s international obligations, and violated Canadian environmental rules.
Approval of the billion-dollar deep geological repository near Kincardine, Ont., along with any conditions rests with Aglukkaq.
All the parties involved agreed to put the judicial review in abeyance, and Federal Court Prothonotary Roger Lafreniere issued the relevant order. Doing so also makes sense in terms of efficiency, McLeod said.
“If (Aglukkaq) decides in favour, then the judicial review in effect becomes a judicial review not just of the (panel) decision (but) of her decision.”
The citizens’ group now has until Jan. 16, 2016 to file its materials.
The waste proposal calls for permanently storing hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of so-called low and intermediate level nuclear waste in bedrock 680 metres underground at the site at the Bruce nuclear plant. Storage would be about one kilometre from Lake Huron.
While the company argues the rock is stable and would provide a hermetic seal to prevent any radioactivity reaching the lake for tens of thousands of years, opponents decry the plan as too risky.
More than 150 communities — many in the United States — have passed resolutions against any storage of nuclear waste near the Great Lakes.
Content Provided By Canadian Press.
France quadruples carbon price, will move towards renewable energy
France Passes New Energy Law Quadruples Carbon Price, Bloomberg by Tara Patel 23 July 15, French lawmakers adopted a long-delayed energy law that will reduce the country’s reliance on nuclear reactors and raise carbon prices almost fourfold.
Lawmakers late Wednesday passed legislation that included a last-minute amendment initially rejected by the government to increase the target price of carbon to 56 euros ($61.48) a ton in 2020 and 100 euros a ton in 2030, according to the National Assemblywebsite. The rate, now 14.50 euros a ton, climbs to 22 euros a ton in 2016 and is integrated in a levy on fossil fuels.
The rise provides “visibility” to the business community on how carbon prices will evolve, Environment Minister Segolene Royal said. Higher taxes on fossil fuels will be offset by lower levies on other products, she also said.
Stephen Harper, Canada’s PM blocking action on climate change
![]()
Canada’s PM blocking climate reform, says Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne, Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg , 21 July 15 Leader of country’s biggest province condemns Stephen Harper ahead of elections: ‘There isn’t a collaborative process around any of this’ The leader of Canada’s biggest province has escalated her feud with the country’s prime minister, accusing Stephen Harper of obstructing efforts to fight climate change and calling on Canadians to make global warming a decisive issue in the coming elections.
In an interview with the Guardian, Kathleen Wynne, the Liberal premier of Ontario, brought long-simmering tensions with Harper over energy and economic policy to a rollicking boil, repeatedly calling out the Conservative prime minister for blocking efforts to cut carbon pollution.
When it came to fighting climate change, Harper was an obstruction rather than a help, she said……….
Wynne called on Canadians to vote on climate change in the October elections. “I hope that climate change and taking action on climate change is an election issue,” she said.
As premier, Wynne has championed the efforts of Ontario and other provinces to deal with climate change. Last week’s meeting of 22 states, provinces and territories called for setting a price on carbon.
Ontario won positive attention when it phased out the use of coal in its power plants last year.
But the environmental commissioner said on 7 July that theprovince would have to do much more to meet its 2020 target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Wynne’s advisers said she hoped to cut carbon pollution from transport by investing in public transit and easing congestion.
Climate change looms even larger over Harper, who faces increasing criticism at home and abroad tying Canada’s economic future to the development of the tar sands.
At international climate conferences, the Harper government now is routinely handed out mock “fossil” awards for its failure to deal with climate change. Campaigners have accused Harper of treading on the rights of government scientists……..
Wynne said Canada should have put forward a more ambitious climate pledge ahead of the UN negotiations in Paris.
Canada will not meet its 2020 target for cutting emissions because of the tar sands, and it has retreated still further from those earlier promises in its pledge ahead of the Paris climate talks……..http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/21/canada-climate-change-kathleen-wynne-stephen-harper-ontario
USA Nuclear Regulatory Commission seriously considering quack science of “radiation hormesis” !
Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation, Office of the Federal Register USA
A Proposed Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 06/23/2015 This document has a comment period that ends in 46 days (09/08/2015)
ACTION
Petition For Rulemaking; Notice Of Docketing And Request For Comment.
SUMMARY
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model.
The radiation hormesis model provides that exposure of the human body to low levels of ionizing radiation is beneficial and protects the human body against deleterious effects of high levels of radiation.
Whereas, the LNT model provides that radiation is always considered harmful, there is no safety threshold, and biological damage caused by ionizing radiation (essentially the cancer risk) is directly proportional to the amount of radiation exposure to the human body (response linearity). ………The NRC is examining the issues raised in these petitions to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking.
The NRC is requesting public comments on these petitions for rulemaking………
Submit comments by September 8, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):……. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/23/2015-15441/linear-no-threshold-model-and-standards-for-protection-against-radiation
Jamaica passes Bill to regulate ionising radiation, prohibit building of nuclear reactor
Bill to regulate radiation and nuclear practice passed, Jamaica Star 21 July 15 A Bill seeking to create a legal framework for the regulation of activities, practices, apparatuses and facilities involving ionising radiation and nuclear technology was passed by the Senate on Friday.
The Bill entitled, the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Act, 2015, was piloted by Minister of Justice, Senator Mark Golding.
The objectives of the Bill are to protect people and the environment from exposure to ionizing radiation to the maximum extent that is reasonably practicable, taking into account social and economic factors, and recognising the need for the use of ionizing radiation for beneficial purposes; and to protect radioactive sources from misuse that may result in harm to people or the environment. ……..
This Bill seeks to create a robust framework for the regulation of activities, practices, apparatus and facilities involving ionising radiation and nuclear technology, in keeping with international standards and best practices,” the Minister explained.
The Bill, which was approved by the House recently, also prohibits: building, importing, exporting or operating a research reactor………http://jamaica-star.com/latest/article.php?id=235
USA’s reputation at stake, if Congress votes against Iran nuclear deal
White House: Congressional vote against Iran nuclear deal would be ‘devastating’ By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times – Friday, July 17, 2015
The White House said Friday that Congress would devastate the U.S. leadership role in the world if lawmakers vote to reject the Obama administration’s historic nuclear deal with Iran.
“For the United States, because of a congressional action, to isolate our country on such an important issue, would be devastating to our standing in the world,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “If Congress killed this agreement, it would have a terrible impact.”
The U.S. struck the deal in cooperation with Russia, China, Germany, France and the United Kingdom.
Republicans and some Democrats are expressing serious concerns about the agreement, which will lift economic sanctions against Tehran in exchange for imposing limits on Iran’s nuclear program. President Obama said it’s the best way to ensure that Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 years.
Mr. Earnest said international sanctions “would collapse” if the U.S. kills the agreement.
“Iran would still obtain the financial benefits of sanctions relief,” he said. “Iran will get all the benefits of this deal without having to give up anything.”
Such action by Congress would “allow Iran to get off scot-free,” Mr. Earnest said……….
The president’s spokesman also said the administration isn’t trying to disregard Congress by requesting the U.N. Security Council to approve the agreement before Congress can review it. Congress has 60 days to debate the accord.
UK’s plan for Hinkley C nuclear power station runs into more and more trouble
UK’s proposed Hinkley C nuclear power plant faces resistance on all sides http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/uks-proposed-hinkley-c-nuclear-power-plant-fa/blog/53534/
The plans for new nuclear reactors at Hinkley in the UK are too expensive, too late, won’t help cut greenhouse gas emissions, violate EU competition law, and will distort Europe‘s energy markets. On 6 July 2015, Greenpeace Energy, together with German and Austrian energy utilities, filed a legal challenge in the European Courts against the EU Commission’s decision to rubberstamp billions of euros in state subsidies for new nuclear reactors at the Hinkley nuclear power plant in the UK.
The filing argues these massively subsidised reactors will influence energy prices in Europe and grossly distort competition.
In a similar filing, the Austrian government submitted a complaint to the European Court against the European Commission for failing to properly implement EU law when it approved the UK’s nuclear welfare package. As Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann said in a statement, nuclear power “is not an innovative technology and is therefore not worthy of subsidy.”
In short, the Hinkley reactors threaten to block the road to a safe, clean renewable future. “The EU Commission’s decision threatens to have negative consequences for our environmentally sound production plants,” says Dr. Achim Kötzle, Managing Director of Stadtwerke Tübingen on behalf of the eight municipal utilities in the action.
Here’s the situation:
The price of the electricity generated by the new Hinkley C reactors has been guaranteed by the British government for 35 years. This means that, no matter the fluctuations in the price of electricity, Hinkley owner EDF will always get its money.
With renewable energy getting cheaper all the time, and the Hinkley reactors not expected to be in operation before the middle of the next decade, you can see why EDF wanted to fix its prices.
Figures commissioned by Greenpeace Energy (an organisation independent of Greenpeace) show that this is a gift to EDF of some 108 billion euros of public funds. In addition, the British government has made guarantees of more than 20 billion to investors in the construction of the new nuclear plant. As Sönke Tanger, Managing Director of Greenpeace Energy says: “We are taking legal action against these exorbitant nuclear subsidies because they appear to be ecologically and economically senseless and signify serious disadvantages for other energy providers, for renewables, and for consumers.”
The approval of this state funding of nuclear reactors also sets a bad example for the rest of Europe. If Hinkley succeeds, countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are likely to follow.
There are also huge doubts about the European Nuclear Reactor (EPR) technology EDF wishes to build at Hinkley C. The ones being built in Finland and France are massively over budget, years behind schedule, and have experienced huge technical problems.
Why wait ten years (at least) for new expensive and unsafe nuclear reactors when renewable energy projects are ready to go right now? Hinkley C must be stopped before it irreparably damages our future.
Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) – no go ahead for uranium mining in Quebec
BAPE cites ‘uncertainties’ and ‘low acceptability’ in report on future of uranium mining in Quebec, Montreal Gazette, PRESSE CANADIENNEJuly 17, 2015 By Stéphanie Marin
The Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) concluded that would be inappropriate to give the green light to uranium mining in Quebec right now. Their findings were presented to the provincial government on Friday afternoon.
According to the BAPE, there are too many uncertainties and unanswered questions regarding the risks posed by uranium mining to human health and the environment.
“These uncertainties are compounded by the radioactivity of uranium residues, which may remain problematic for thousands of years,” the agency wrote in its 600-page report, dated May 2015 and entitled “The challenges of the uranium industry in Quebec.”
The report noted that social acceptability is also an issue for uranium mining.
“Because of the uncertainty and sometimes significant gaps and limitations in scientific and technological knowledge, we are very far from reaching a social and political consensus and there is very low acceptability in Quebec.”
And in areas where the potential mines would be located, “the rejection of the uranium industry is almost unanimous.”
The city of Sept-Îles, which is near a uranium mining project, has been the scene of many protests in recent years. In 2009, 20 doctors resigned from a Sept-Îles hospital to protest the construction of a uranium mine on the North Shore.
The BAPE notes that the Institut national de santé publique du Québec states that the presence of a uranium mine could create additional exposure to radiation for people living nearby.
Quebec’s environment minister asked the BAPE to address the mining industry in March 2014. Uranium mines are considered different from other mines because they emit radiation……….http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/bape-cites-uncertainties-and-low-acceptability-in-report-on-future-of-uranium-mining-in-quebec
Language of USA’s Republicans give away their desire to bomb Iran
Who cares if no Republican has read the full text of the deal, which won’t be given to Congress for days?
Many of the Republicans’ statements on Iran in the past few months have just a word salad of insults – “evil”, “malevolent”, “corrupt”, “terrorists”, “the devil” – as though there were a contest to see how many despicable adjectives they could fit into one paragraph.
Republicans hate the Iran nuclear deal because it means we won’t bomb Iran Trevor Timm,
Guardian 14 July 2015
The Administration’s agreement with Iran would curtail the latter’s nuclear program. The only people who can hate that are the kind who just love war As soon as President Obama announced the historic nuclear agreement between the US and Iran on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidates raced to see who could get out the most hyperbolic, foaming-at-the-mouth condemnation of the potential for peace.
Republicans frontrunner Jeb Bush was first out of the gate, more than 24 hours before the deal was actually signed. He boasted on his YouTube channel: “History is full of examples of when you enable people or regimes who don’t embrace democratic values you get a bad result…it’s called appeasement.” Continue reading
-
Archives
- June 2026 (221)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- 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)
-
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






