Finland’s Green Party in government firmly against new nuclear power
Greens meet to strategise, remain cold on new nuclear power, http://yle.fi/uutiset/greens_meet_to_strategise_remain_cold_on_new_nuclear_power/7284419 UUTISET, 6 June 14 Delegates from Finland’s Green League are gathered at an annual party congress in Jämsä, central Finland to hammer out a campaign platform ahead of parliamentary elections due next year. Green party chair Ville Niinistö said although the party wants to stay in governmen it’s holding its ground on its opposition to new nuclear power in Finland.
One thing became clear from the start of this year’s three-day Green League party congress: the Greens want to stay in government. Green party chair and Environment Minister Ville Niinistö pointed to the party’s recent achievement in orchestrating government agreement on a proposal for climate change legislation.
However, the party is not prepared to give way on its opposition to new nuclear power facilities in Finland. It intends to hold fast to the current government programme, which stipulates that no new decisions-in-principle on nuclear energy should go before the parliament…….
The party has hinted that it is prepared to leave the government if a revised permit for the proposed Fennovoima nuclear power plant returns to parliament for consideration.
Niinistö added that nuclear power contractors are now experiencing great difficulties.
Nuclear power “not rational” for Finland
“The question is, at what stage will the parties admit their mistake, which is that holding on to nuclear power no matter what at the taxpayers’ expense isn’t rational for the Finnish economy, for our jobs, our business community, or for us to develop domestic forms of renewable energy,” Niinistö
Political donations got the Texas Waste Control site going
Breaking Bad: A Nuclear Waste Disaster By Joseph Trento, DC Bureau, June 5th, 2014 “………Former President George W. Bush and Texas Governor Rick Perry’s single largest political contributor, the late Texas billionaire Harold C. Simmons, founded Waste Control Specialists and used his political influence to get the West Texas nuclear disposal site approved by state and federal licensing officials. The political efforts used to secure the licensing caused years of controversy in Texas. Environmentalists opposed the site because it is on an important aquifer in Texas. Another reason is that one of Simmons’s companies had operated a lead incinerator in Dallas that became an EPA Superfund Site.
Despite this environmental pedigree, LANL and DOE officials chose Waste Control Specialists to administrator their alternative nuclear waste storage site. While technically the company has licenses only for low-level nuclear waste, under its Texas permit, Waste Control can accept certified waste from federal agencies.
DOE officials said the Waste Control site is just a temporary alternative to the disabled WIPP. That is not true. Los Alamos and other national laboratories with high-level nuclear waste have been planning to use the Texas site for years, well before is licenses had been approved. The political promises that were made that it would be only for low-level waste were a ruse. As long as four years ago, during a Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board meeting in Aiken, South Carolina, DOE officials and SRS contractors talked openly about using the Texas site to offload uranium waste from SRS.
In late May, DOE investigators became so concerned about the Los Alamos containers being stores in what amounts to an open pit, they halted the shipments to Waste Control. The 112 canisters already at Waste Control were ordered to be isolated and surrounded by large concrete containers as well monitored by television camera. As of May 28, seventy-three Los Alamos containers have been segregated and covered with the cement and gravel-filled barriers.
Harold Simmons’s team lobbied hard to get only the second license in U.S. history from DOE for a private nuclear dump. They got the licensing in the last days of the Bush administration. Prior to the LANL decision to ship containers of transuranic waste to the site, there were warnings to Waste Control that it had already been accepting waste it was not permitted to receive.
Pressure has been building for years for DOE to stabilize and isolate its growing high-level nuclear waste stream. After the WIPP explosion, the DOE suddenly concluded that the thousands of feet below earth in salt beds were no longer needed to store the most deadly radioactive material on earth. Open trenches in the West Texas desert would be good enough. On April 2, tractor trailers hauled the first of the Los Alamos casks of radioactive high-level waste to the Andrews County dump before the WIPP investigation team succeeded in halting the shipments……….http://www.dcbureau.org/201406059835/natural-resources-news-service/breaking-bad-nuclear-waste-disaster.html
$1billion Liability Limit for Canada’s Nuclear Industry
Canadian Nuclear Industry Accepts $1 Billion Liability Limit OTTAWA, June 5, 2014 /CNW/ – The Canadian nuclear industry told a parliamentary committee today that it accepts a proposed $1 billion liability limit for nuclear accidents.
“The $1 billion limit balances the nuclear industry’s operational needs and the public’s need for an effective liability regime,” Dr. John Barrett, the President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, told the Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
The $1 billion limit would take effect if Bill C-22, the proposed Energy Safety and Security Act, becomes law. The bill would replace the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act (NLA) with a Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, and ratify an international treaty providing additional coverage for foreign damage caused by Canadian nuclear operators…
….. the bill’s treaty provisions would enable industry members to operate in other countries, and increase the industry’s economic contributions to Canada…… f Parliament passes Bill C-22, the nuclear industry would encourage the government to increase the number of insurance companies eligible to provide nuclear liability insurance.
Bill C-22 would allow nuclear operators to provide insurance alternatives for up to 50 per cent of their liability. http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1368049/canadian-nuclear-industry-accepts-1-billion-liability-limit
Clean Technica refutes the sales pitch of nuclear salesman Rod Adams
Renewable Energy Growth Greater Than Nuclear Decline in Germany http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/03/renewable-energy-growth-germany-nuclear-decline/ Energiewende Germany wrote this on Twitter:
Renewables have grown more than nuclear been shut down. Coal? In decline again.
Rod Adams, who tries to delay deployment of renewable energy since he rightly perceives it as dangerous competition to his preferred nuclear option, challenged that:
@EnergiewendeGER Do you have credible sources for that assertion?
This is a good occasion to have a new look at the figures. The renewable side of the statistics is best documented in this PDF published by Bernard Chabot at RenewablesInternational a couple of days ago, based on data released by the German Ministry of Economy in this report (in German language).
But first we need to get data for the nuclear decline, so as to find a suitable time frame for measuring the renewable growth.
The mid-term decline of nuclear in Germany is easily documented by looking at the figures released by Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen.
Nuclear peaked in 2001 at 171.3 TWh. It has been relatively stable for the five years until 2006, where it scored 167,4 TWh. From there on it’s a rapid decline. 148,8 TWh in 2008. 140,6 TWh in 2010. 108,0 TWh in 2011. 99,5 TWh in 2012. And 97,3 TWh in 2013.
That’s a decline of 74 TWh in the 12 years since 2001, and a decline of 42.9 TWh since 2010 (the last year before the Fukushima accident).
So has renewable grown more than that in those years?
Renewable scored around 36 TWh in 2001 and 152.6 TWh in 2013. That’s an increase of 116.6 TWh, which beats the nuclear decline since 2001 by a large margin.
The figure for renewable energy in 2010 was 104.8 TWh, which means an increase of 47.8 TWh, again beating the nuclear decline since 2010, though the margin is smaller in this case.
So, to answer Rod Adams’ question, there are reliable sources for the assertion that nuclear decline has not been able to keep up with renewable growth in Germany.
I am not sure if the opposite result would be worth much as a pro-nuclear argument, since it would mean that nuclear is declining even faster than it already is. That’s not a competition you really want to win if you are pro nuclear energy.
While I’m at it, there are some other interesting points found in the report by Bernard Chabot.
For one, Germany is well on track to reach the target of 35% renewable energy electricity generation in 2020. The figure for 2013 was already at 25.4%.
Solar capacity was at 35.9 GW at the end of last year, beating wind with 34.7 GW. That solar capacity figure is way ahead of the national renewable energy action plan Germany filed with the EU in 2010 (Table 10 at page 116), where the government expected only 27.3 GW in 2013. The number for wind is only slightly higher than expectations (33 GW).
Nuclear company Exelon spends $millions buying support in Washington
Nuclear Giant Exelon Launches Front Group to Cover Its Assets Elliott Negin HUFFINGTON POST 2 June 14,
“……..Exelon Already Holds Sway in Washington
Nuclear Matters is just the latest gambit of a very powerful political player. Over the last five years, Exelon has spent millions on political candidates and tens of millions on lobbying, and has taken advantage of its close ties with the Obama administration to weaken or stymie stronger nuclear plant safeguards.
According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Exelon has spent nearly $8 million on political campaigns since 2008, more than any other private electric utility. Over that same time period, Exelon also spent $34.6 million on lobbying, putting it in the top 10 among electric utilities. In addition, Exelon is one of the biggest corporate donors to trade associations, pro-business alliances and other politically active nonprofits, according to a January report by the Center for Public Integrity. In 2012, Exelon gave $13.6 million to approximately two dozen nonprofits, the second-largest amount voluntarily disclosed among the Fortune 300 companies CPI reviewed.
Exelon’s lobbyists also have enjoyed unparalleled access to the Obama administration, according to an August 2012 New York Times exposé. The Times provided several examples of how the company exerted its influence, including delaying and weakening a proposed EPA rule to prevent power plant water intake systems from killing fish and other aquatic life.
The Times also reported that Exelon joined with NEI and other plant owners to challenge the NRC’s post-Fukushima safety recommendations. Specifically, they opposed a proposed requirement that they install filters on hardened vents at 31 boiling water reactors to help prevent radiation discharges into the environment in the event of an accident. Those reactors are similar in design to the six at the Fukushima facility.
Filtered vents are now required in Japan and much of Europe, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical staff recommended they be installed here. But Exelon and the rest of the U.S. nuclear industry, loathe to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on filters, insist there are other ways to achieve the same result and lobbied hard to avoid the upgrade.
In early 2013, more than 50 of the industry’s friends in Congress sent letters to the NRC requesting that the commissioners reject the filtered vent recommendation and slow down the implementation of other post-Fukushima safety reforms. A number of the signatories have reactors in or near their districts, and most have received sizeable campaign contributions from the nuclear industry. Two sign-on letters, for example, came from House members, one from 21 Republicans and the other from 26 Democrats. Since 2008, the nuclear industry gave more than $3.32 million to the 41 of the letters’ 47 signatories. Roughly 30 percent of that funding came from Exelon.
The industry prevailed — for the time being. Despite the fact that the NRC technical staff provided ample evidence that filtered vents are a sensible, cost-effective measure that would protect nearby communities, NRC commissioners issued an order requiring owners of the 31 reactors to upgrade their hardened vents that stopped short of requiring filters. Instead, the commissioners gave their staff two years to review all the options for reducing radiation releases. The NRC will then open the proposed rule to public comment and finalize it by the end of 2017…… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/nuclear-giant-exelon-laun_b_5428994.html
US tax-payer is propping up the uranium industry
THE GOVERNMENT IS PROPPING UP THE URANIUM INDUSTRY AND WE’RE PAYING FOR IT http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/white-mesa-uranium-mill-lawsuit-053014 The Department of Energy is promoting uranium mining at places like the White Mesa Mill and is tasked with the pricey cleanup. By Leslie Macmillan on May 30, 2014
The Grand Canyon Trust, an environmental group, has sued the operator of America’s last conventional uranium processing mill, saying its vast piles of spent ore and radioactive waste emit dangerous levels of radon and other toxins that violate the Clean Air Act.
The group and other critics of the White Mesa Mill near Blanding, Utah say it is a poorly disguised nuclear waste dump that would have gone out of business long ago were it not propped up by a lucrative federal contracts.
The uranium market has declined in the wake of the Fukushima meltdown. To stay alive in a depressed market, Energy Fuels Resources, the mill’s operator, recycles mine tailings and radioactive waste — known as “alternate feed” — from Superfund sites around the country. The mill extracts any remnants of uranium from the waste then sells the concentrated, purified uranium, called yellowcake, to its customers, some of which are government-owned utilities obligated to buy White Mesa yellowcake at prices far higher than the $35 a pound it is currently fetching on the spot market. The leftover waste, a toxic stew of industrial chemicals, is stored in open pits called impoundments.
Energy Fuels spokesperson Curtis Moore said the issues raised in the lawsuit “are either inaccurate or have already been addressed through the proper regulatory channels.”
Taylor McKinnon of the Grand Canyon Trust says he hopes the lawsuit will “rip the mill from the rat’s nest of bureaucrats who have been protecting the status quo.”
The mill, he and other critics contend that uranium mining, milling and cleanup has become a virtual cottage industry — one orchestrated largely by the federal government.
During the Cold War period of 1940s through the 1980s, uranium was mined extensively in the Colorado Plateau to supply critical materials for the nation’s nuclear weapons program. The U.S. Department of Energy manages the nation’s surplus uranium and much of the cleanup of old processing mills.
Travis Stills, an energy and conservation law attorney, argues that the DOE’s mandate to “provide a domestic supply of uranium” is outdated and wreaks havoc on environmental and human health. He also says it’s unnecessary. The DOE already owns a uranium stockpile worth $7 to $8 billion.
The DOE doesn’t want to sell off the stockpile, Stills argues, because that would drive uranium prices down. Instead, the government artificially inflates prices to keep the industry going, he says.
Energy Fuels also operates several mines at the Grand Canyon, despite the federal ban on uranium mining there, because it possesses old mining claims that were “grandfathered in.” The company said in December it planned to shutter its Pinenut Mine there as well as the White Mesa Mill in 2014 and potentially reopen them in 2015. It reversed that decision last month and announced it would continue mining, but stockpile the ore pending better market conditions.
Cleaning up uranium is not cheap. The DOE is spending a billion dollars to dispose of tailings at an enormous site near Moab — a cost “born by the taxpayer,” the Trust’s lawsuit points out. On the Navajo reservation alone, there are 500 abandoned uranium mines. The EPA estimates the cleanup cost would be in the hundreds of millions. An $18 million bond has been posted for cleaning up White Mesa Mill when it stops processing uranium — not nearly enough, Stills argues. He says the federal government — and the taxpayer — will be left holding the bag for that cleanup too.
Indeed, the DOE is slated to inherit White Mesa Mill for cleanup. Stills says that the department’s mission, to at once promote uranium mining and oversee its cleanup, is contradictory but that it keeps the agency employed. “It’s bureaucratic make-work,” he says. “As long as they keep making a mess, they’ll need to keep cleaning it up.”
Ontario’s politicians coy about their $25 billion plans for nuclear power expansion
Why no one is talking nuclear on the election trail Despite tens of billions of dollars of nuclear projects in the pipeline, nuclear policy is a no-go area in the Ontario election The Star, By: John Spears Business reporter, on Fri May 30 2014 Nuclear energy policy has been almost a no-go area in Ontario’s election campaign.
The sector is on the verge of spending $25 billion or more on two massive projects, and constructing a nuclear-waste site that must last for millennia to come.
But while voters will ultimately pay for the projects through their hydro bills, the nuclear issue has barely raised a ripple in the current election campaign. In fact, it doesn’t even rate a mention in the New Democratic Party’s election platform.
Mid-life overhauls of two nuclear stations – Bruce and Darlington – are on the table. The price tag for Darlington’s four reactors alone is currently estimated at $10 billion in 2013 dollars – or $12.9 billion if interest and contingencies are included.
The price tag at privately operated Bruce Power – where six reactors will undergo mid-life refits – comes in at $2 billion per reactor, but with associated work over the next 15 years, spending will total $15 billion, company officials said earlier this year.
In addition to the nuclear overhauls, Ontario Power Generation proposes to construct a permanent disposal site for low and intermediate level nuclear waste at the Bruce.
But the mega-projects have raised scarcely a ripple on the hustings……..
it’s a lot of money – even if the projects stay within budget.
And staying within budget is not something that nuclear projects have been prone to in Ontario. The unpopular debt retirement charge – an extra 0.7 cents a kwh that’s finally due to expire at the end of 2015 – was levied to pay for past nuclear project cost over-runs.
The Liberal and Conservative platforms clearly support the nuclear overhauls.
“We will invest in the refurbishment of 10 nuclear units and Darlington and Bruce over 16 years, creating and sustaining 25,000 high-wage jobs,” the Liberal platform pledges.
The Conservatives go even further.
They note that Pickering with its eight reactors is due to close.
“We must build new ones and refurbish others,” they say in their Paths to Prosperitypolicy paper, released prior to the election.
The price tag on new reactors of unknown size and design is unclear, but would be multiple billions. Building them would be further complicated by a federal court ruling that told OPG it can’t build new reactors, in part because there are no firm plans for handling waste that will remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousand of years.
The same environmental groups who won that decision are seeking a similar ruling on the Darlington refurbishment.
The New Democratic Party is more skeptical of the nuclear overhauls, according to energy critic Peter Tabuns.
“We haven’t seen a business case that supports refurbishment and we won’t make a decision on this until we do see a business case,” he said in an interview.
The NDP unequivocally opposes building new reactors, he said.
The Liberals have suspended any consideration of new reactors, declaring last December that they are “not needed at this time,” though keeping the option open for the future.
The one issue none of the parties address in their formal platforms is OPG’s proposal to entomb low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste in a limestone formation 680 metres below ground on the shore of Lake Huron.
A federal review panel is currently examining the proposal, but since OPG is owned by the province, the ultimate decision to proceed with the billion-dollar-plus proposal will lie at Queen’s Park.
The proposal took a new twist in February when a similar waste storage facility in Carlsbad, New Mexico leaked radiation……..
Various local, state and federal politicians in Michigan have expressed alarm at OPG’s proposed nuclear waste site.
The latest is Michigan state senator Phil Pavlov, who has called the waste site a “critical threat to the health of the Great Lakes.”
(Michigan’s federal senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin have also expressed stiff opposition to the site.)
Pavlov has introduced resolutions calling on the president or Congress to submit the project to the International Joint Commission, which deals with cross-border issues on the lakes.
“I talk to people every day that can’t understand the rationale behind this,” Pavlov said in an interview.
“The fact that we’re even considering something this close to the lake needs to be challenged,” he said……..
The Liberals say they’re waiting on the federal panel to report before taking a final position on the waste site.
The panel has extended its hearings to gather information on the New Mexico incident, but no dates have been announced……. http://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2014/05/30/why_no_one_is_talking_nuclear_on_the_election_trail.html
With Allison MacFarlane and Gregory Jaczko. USA’s nuclear power plans could be very different
NRC rejects effort to move radwaste from pools; Macfarlane issues strong dissent Michael Mariotte, Green World, 30 May 14,
“……….Back to the composition of the NRC. If Greg Jaczko, who 
voted against licenses for the Vogtle and Summer reactors and since leaving the Commission has recommended phase-out of U.S. reactors, were still chair, Allison Macfarlane would almost certainly have still been President Obama’s next Democratic nominee (the NRC is required to have no more than three of its five members from the same political party). And there are two Democratic seats up this year: Commissioner Magwood is leaving the agency soon to head up Europe’s Nuclear Energy Agency, which exists not to regulate, but promote nuclear power (a position that raises the issue of whether it was a conflict-of-interest for Magwood to have taken this vote, and for that matter any other vote at this point) and Commissioner Apostolakis’ five-year term ends next month. He has not announced publicly whether he wants a second term, but the President is certainly under no obligation to re-appoint him even if he does.
We would have a very different Commission then. But we still could. Now, President Obama is in a position to act to fundamentally change the NRC and support his chosen chair. And, as this vote makes clear, to support his chosen NRC chair Macfarlane, he mustuse this opportunity to appoint such advocates to the NRC. Otherwise, he will be simply hanging her out to dry.
For that reason, NIRS has begun an e-mail campaign to urge the President to appoint such people to the Commission now. You can make your voice heard here. And NIRS and other groups will be making this point as forcefully as possible in other venues in the coming weeks as well. http://safeenergy.org/2014/05/29/nrc-rejects-effort-to-move-radwaste-from-pools/
Ontario Liberal and PC parties not winning hearts, minds or judges with their pro nuclear agenda
Anti-nuclear advocates, Federal Court trouble Ontario Liberal and PC energy plans rabble.ca BY STEVE CORNWELL
MAY 30, 2014 Falling demand for electricity, sky-high cost projections, a catastrophic meltdown in Japan and a dedicated resistance to nuclear expansion have contributed to tough times for advocates of new and rebuilt nuclear reactors in Ontario.
The latest punch in the gut for nuclear proponents in the province comes from a May 14 Federal Court decision to nullify the approval of up to four new reactors at Darlington Station, about 60km east of Toronto.
Among other issues, the presiding Justice James Russell cited inadequate planning for both nuclear waste storage and a catastrophic accident as reasons to revoke the project’s license, which was originally secured following a multi-year environmental assessment (EA). Justice Russell found that the EA failed to adhere to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The Federal Court review of the EA was initiated by environmental groups Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Greenpeace Canada, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (LOW) and Northwatch with lawyers from Ecojustice and CELA representing the application in court.
In a press release following the decision, the environmental groups called the Federal Court’s ruling “common sense.”
Justin Duncan, Staff Lawyer for Ecojustice and co-counsel for groups, said “the court’s ruling means that federal authorities can no longer take shortcuts when assessing nuclear projects.” “The federal government must protect Canadians from energy projects that may harm the health of the environment. Because the panel failed to assess certain environmental effects, the court revoked the project’s licence.”
Ontario Power Generation (OPG), who was ordered by the McGuinty Liberals in 2006 to start the process for new reactors at Darlington, still has options towards building the new reactors.
Rick Lindgren of CELA, who presented the case alongside Duncan said, “we do not yet know if the decision will be appealed, or if the EA process will be restarted to address the various deficiencies identified by the Federal Court.”
While Lindgren strikes a cautious note regarding OPG’s intentions going forward, he’s much more optimistic about the message that the decision sends.
“The decision sends a strong signal to other proponents and federal authorities that environmentally significant projects must be subject to a robust EA process that satisfies the legal requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.”
And it seems the call for more robust environmental regulation is gaining traction in the host community. In an editorial following the decision, a local paper called on OPG to “accept the ruling and work quickly to address the gaps Justice Russell has identified in the existing environmental assessment.”
Greenpeace’s Nuclear Analyst, Shawn-Patrick Stensil thinks that receiving an endorsement from media around Darlington Station is telling.
“Durham Region is always being portrayed as uniformly supportive [of nuclear] by OPG. But many locals seem to think it’s fair for OPG to not to have a blank cheque, and do due diligence. But will OPG be willing to openly discuss the risks its reactors pose?”
Nukes on the campaign trail…… http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/anti-nuclear-advocates-federal-court-trouble-ontario-liberal-and-pc-energy-plans
Barack Obama takes action on climate change
Obama to unveil historic climate change plan to cut US carbon pollution
• Proposed regulations could cut carbon pollution by up to 25%
• President still faces potential opposition from Republicans
• Q&A: why the carbon proposal could make climate history
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent theguardian.com, Friday 30 May 2014 President Barack Obama will unveil a plan on Monday that will cut carbon pollution from power plants and promote cap-and-trade, undertaking the most significant action on climate change in American history.
The proposed regulations Obama will launch at the White House on Monday could cut carbon pollution by as much as 25% from about 1,600 power plants in operation today, according to those claiming familiarity with the plan.
Power plants are the country’s single biggest source of carbon pollution – responsible for up to 40% of the country’s emissions.
The rules, which were drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and are under review by the White House, are expected to do more than Obama, or any other president, has done so far to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions responsible for climate change.
They will put America on course to meet its international climate goal, and put US diplomats in a better position to leverage climate commitments from big polluters such as China and India, Obama said in a speech to West Point graduates this week.
“I intend to make sure America is out front in a global framework to preserve our planet,” he said. “American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We can not exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else.”
It won’t be without a fight. Obama went on in his remarks at West Point to take a shot at Republicans who deny climate change is occurring, and the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, on Thursday accused critics of making “doomsday claims” about the costs of cutting carbon…….
Obama had originally hoped to cut carbon pollution by moving a bill through Congress. Four years after that effort fell apart, campaigners say the EPA rules could deliver significant emissions cuts – near the 17% Obama proposed at the Copenhagen climate summit – and the cap-and-trade programmes that were so reviled by Republicans.
The EPA, using its authority under the Clean Air Act, proposed the first rule phase, covering future power plants, last September.
In this the more politically contentious phase of the plan, it is widely believed the EPA will depart from the “inside the fence-line” convention of earlier environmental regulations for mercury and other pollutants, which focused on emissions-scrubbing on specific power plants.
The EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, is seeking steep reductions – as much as 25% – but she has hinted repeatedly that she will allow states latitude in how they reach those targets.
The plan would allow electricity companies to reduce pollution by shutting down the oldest and most polluting coal plants. They can install carbon-sucking retrofits. They can expand wind and solar energy, upgrade the electrical grid, encourage customers to update to more efficient heating and cooling systems, or more efficient appliances and lightbulbs.
“They have recognised huge emissions reductions opportunities are often cheaper than trying to do it all inside the plant,” said David Doniger, who heads the climate programme at the NRDC. “If you want to get substantial reductions and you want to get it economically, you have to take into account a system-wide approach.”…….http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/29/obama-unveil-historic-climate-plan-carbon-pollution
Liberal and PC parties in Ontario have expensive expansive nuclear power plans
Anti-nuclear advocates, Federal Court trouble Ontario Liberal and PC energy plans rabble.ca BY STEVE CORNWELLMAY 30, 2014 “……..the court’s decision does seem to enhance the credibility of the Ontario New Democrats’ (ONDP) energy platform, while troubling those of the Liberals and Conservatives.
Dating back to Howard Hampton’s leadership, the ONDP has remained opposed to building new reactors in Ontario. The ONDP’s election platform highlights a pledge for a solar panel and energy efficiency fund to help homeowners produce clean electricity and consume less power.
In response to a recent Ontario Clean Air Alliance questionnaire, the ONDP was very critical of the Liberals’ plan to rebuild nuclear units in the province. The ONDP indicated that they would support cost-effective conservation and efficiency measures before spending tax and rate-payer dollars on rebuilding reactors.
They added, “hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted through the cancellation of gas and nuclear plants…Signing contracts for nuclear refurbishment without knowing the final price tag or seeing the business case will only push costs even higher for consumers. That’s just not acceptable.”
Both the Liberals and PCs have placed nuclear expansion and or revitalization as large tenants of their projected energy plans.
The Liberal spokesperson interviewed for this piece condemned the PCs plan, saying “Tim Hudak wants to build $15 billion worth of new nuclear we don’t need and cancel existing clean energy contracts, putting ratepayers on the hook for up to $20 billion.”
While Liberals did not include new nuclear in their Long Term Energy Plan, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli also suggested that “sometime in the future, we might be looking at it.”
Lefty voters being wooed by the latest Liberal attempt to position themselves as the more progressive and reasonable choice to slay the Conservatives should note that the Grits and PCs are mostly identical on nuclear power.
In addition to both the PCs and Liberals openness to spending billions and testing the risks of new nuclear in the province, each party’s energy stance includes a commitment to rebuilding existing reactors at Darlington and Bruce Stations.
Following the ruling striping approval of new reactors at Darlington, a decision Greenpeace’s Stensil called “a firewall from a really bad political decision,” he wants the debate during the rest of the election to focus on plans to rebuild existing nuclear units. “I’d hope that it allows us to focus on the current plan to spend billions of dollars rebuilding Ontario’s ten remaining reactors.”
Plans to rebuild reactors at Darlington have already passed through an expedited assessment.
Cost analyses on rebuilding the reactors vary wildly, but if the difficulties of refurbishing units in Pickering and other Canadian jurisdictions are any indication, Ontarians might be in for some pocketbook punishment if the Liberal or PCs implement their plans.
“The Liberal government has given the ok to rebuild reactors at the Darlington and Bruce nuclear stations without a cost estimate or a public review. The gas plant scandal has gotten lots of attention since the last election, but it’ll end up being small change compared to the nuclear fiascos coming our way.”
Steve Cornwell is an MA candidate at York University. He is interested in the interactions of social movements, science and technology. Steve has worked on energy issues with Greenpeace Canada, Environmental Defense, and Safe and Green Energy Peterborough. Follow Steve Cornwell on Twitter @steve_cornwell http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/anti-nuclear-advocates-federal-court-trouble-ontario-liberal-and-pc-energy-plans
Urge Obama to support his NRC chair, appoint strong safety advocates to NRC.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has again sided with the nuclear power industry (where have you heard that one before?) and rejected efforts by environmental/clean energy groups and five U.S. Senators to move high-level 
radioactive waste out of overcrowded, dangerous and poorly-protected fuel pools as soon as it is cool enough to be placed in dry casks.
Not only did the NRC Commissioners take this unconscionable vote, they said this was their last word on the subject and they would refuse to ever again consider the issue.
But the vote wasn’t unanimous: NRC Chair Allison Macfarlane, who has spent her career studying radioactive waste issues, issued a strong dissent to the decision, essentially arguing that the NRC staff hasn’t done its homework.
Japan about to extract the teeth from its Nuclear safety Watchdog?
The government should not be allowed to make the nuclear watchdog toothless by nominating experts who are convenient to it and the industry.
EDITORIAL: Nuclear watchdog must not be made toothless –The Asahi Shimbun, May 29 Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has a habit of trying to promote policy changes through political appointments. His administration seems to have employed this political ploy to achieve its goals in the area of nuclear safety inspections.
This is the only possible way to put proposed replacements for two outgoing commissioners of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) into perspective. Continue reading
Japan’s Abe govt determined to bring back nuclear, but the impediments are strong
Abe and Kepco Push Nuclear Restart The government and nuclear companies maneuver to restart Japan’s reactors, as nearby cities dig in. The Diplomat, By Clint Richards May 29, 2014 As The Diplomat noted last week, Japan’s nuclear energy providers are struggling to remain profitable with all the country’s nuclear reactors currently offline. The government is highly aware of its struggling nuclear power sector, and the threat of another summer where Japan’s energy grid is stretched to the limit, and energy imports soar. With both of these problems in mind, three news items highlight the direction both the government and nuclear companies may take to avoid another summer energy crunch.
The Fukui District Court ruling would allow people living within 250 km of the plant the right to sue to have the plant closed. According to a separate Japan Times article, “The entire Kansai region, most of Chubu, including Nagoya, much of Chugoku, including Hiroshima, and roughly a third of Shikoku lies within 250 km of the Oi plant.”
Despite strong local opposition, Abe’s government is determined to bring back online as many nuclear reactors as logistically possible. On Wednesday, an NRA official told AFP that Abe’s government wants to replace two of five commissioners serving on the NRA when their terms expire. One of the commissioners Abe reportedly most wants to replace is Kunihiko Shimizu, who has been criticized for saying that at least two reactors sit on active fault lines………
Local governments and their constituencies are determined to keep the tragedy of Fukushima as far from their own doorstep as possible. The inability of Tepco to adequately address the continued problems at the Daiichi power plant only further reinforces the fear of people who live near existing reactors. Despite Abe’s insistence, local populations are likely to keep the number of reactors that come back online much lower than the government wants, at least in the near future, as long as the central government and energy providers give them veto power. http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/abe-and-kepco-push-nuclear-restart/
With new Indian government a slowdown in nuclear power expansion looks likely
Narendra Modi government may go slow on nuclear energy expansion: PwC, The Economic Times, May 27, 2014, MUMBAI: The new government may put on the back-burner a plan to install 20 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity in the country by 2020 and instead focus on wind and solar to achieve energy security, says PwC……….
Rather than nuclear, the Modi government may focus on increasing wind and solar power capacity, especially when these models worked successfully in Gujarat, Mohapatra said.
The power, coal, and new and renewable energy portfolios in the Modi Cabinet are held by Piyush Goyal, who is from Maharashtra, where BJP ally Shiv Sena was opposing the 9,900 MW Jaitapur nuclear project……..An industry expert from KPMG, who did not want to be identified, said that before the new government takes any decision on nuclear power, it will first have to tackle issues of supply chain, safety and acceptance from locals. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-05-27/news/50122504_1_energy-security-power-capacity-nuclear-power
1 This Month
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (241)
- 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
nuclear-news 