nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Thorium nuclear reactors are no solution to energy problems

It doesn’t solve the proliferation problem. It doesn’t solve the waste problem, either. So every nuclear reactor, no matter what type, creates fission products, which are highly radioactive materials, some short-lived, some long-lived

This is highly radioactive waste. If you look at Oak Ridge’s current evaluation, they say you have to condition this waste, you have to convert the fluorides, and then you have to have a deep geologic repository.

What’s in this waste? Cesium-137 and strontium-190, hundreds of years, just like today’s reactors. Cesium-135 and iodine-129, millions of years half-life. Technetium-99, 200,000 years. 

Is Thorium A Magic Bullet For Our Energy Problems?  NPR May 4 2012, “……..With me is Dr. Arjun Makhijani. He is president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. He’s here in our D.C. studios. Do you agree with Richard Martin that we missed out on thorium? If we had started out with thorium, would be in better shape now?

ARJUN MAKHIJANI: I don’t think so. I think the problems of nuclear power, fundamentally, would remain. The safety problems would be different. I mean, Mr. Martin and proponents of thorium are right in the sense that the liquid fuel reactor has a number of safety advantages, but it also has a number of disadvantages. Continue reading →

May 7, 2012 Posted by | Reference, Uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

The thorny question of the importation of nuclear wastes for temporary management

Importation of foreign radioactive waste into the U.S. sets a bad precedent and may well serve to discourage other countries from developing safe techniques to manage their own waste

US company applies to import radioactive waste from Mexico, incinerate it and return the ash  Washington Post, 2 May 12,  YAKIMA, Wash. — A waste management company has applied to the federal government for a license to import up to 500 tons of radioactive waste from Mexico to south-central Washington, where the waste will be incinerated and the resulting ash returned to Mexico.

This isn’t the first application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to import foreign radioactive waste, but it’s among several recent proposals that have generated little opposition because the waste won’t be permanently stored in the U.S.  In 2009, a proposal to import thousands of tons of radioactive waste from Italy, treat it and ultimately store the remnants in Utah was abandoned following public outcry. Continue reading →

May 3, 2012 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

UK may have 1000 radioactive waste sites

Nuclear waste ‘may be blighting 1,000 UK sites‘ MoD under fire after report finds number of contaminated sites is far higher than previously estimated Rob Edwards, guardian.co.uk,  2 May 2012 Hundreds of sites across England and Wales could be contaminated with radioactive waste from old military bases and factories, according to a new government report. Continue reading →

May 3, 2012 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Investors need to consider the radioactive waste problems of rare earths processing

Uranium and thorium present real risk to rare earths developers – Dennis    Mineweb 2 May Interview with Carolyn Dennis of Dundee Capital Markets   “….. TCMR: Some rare earth deposits include uranium and thorium byproducts and, if a company is not recovering those, it needs to dispose of them. Is that a challenge most REE miners face?

CD: It’s a real risk across the board for rare earth companies. Each deposit, depending on the type of mineralogy, will have varying grades of uranium and thorium. The jurisdiction the deposit is in and how it approaches dealing with the uranium, thorium and radioactivity will dictate how much of an issue it is for the project. It can be a problem in processing as well. In a lot of cases, the thorium should be removed from the concentrate earlier in the process in order to improve processing downstream. Beyond that, radioactive waste material needs to be disposed of….”

May 3, 2012 Posted by | Reference, wastes | Leave a comment

Safety shortcomings at Hanford nuclear waste site

The radioactive waste is currently stored in 177 aging, underground tanks, many of which have leaked into the groundwater, threatening the neighboring Columbia River.

Energy Department audit finds nuclear plant vessels procured to 2005 fail to meet requirements The Republic, SHANNON DININNY, 30 April 12  YAKIMA, Wash. — The Energy Department and a contractor building a waste treatment plant at the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site procured and installed tanks that did not always meet requirements of a quality assurance program or the contract, a federal audit concluded Monday. Continue reading →

May 1, 2012 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Fukishima’s radioactive wastes and the failure of nuclear reprocessing

The main reason why there is so much spent fuel at the Da-Ichi site is that the plan to send it off for nuclear recycling has collapsed.

This scheme is based on long discredited assumptions of …. a new generation of “fast” reactors

 nearly all of the spent fuel at the Da-Ichi containing some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet will remain indefinitely in vulnerable pools.

The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Is Far From Over   HUFFINGTON POST, Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies, 22 April 12,“……Last week, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) revealed plans to remove 2,274 spent fuel assemblies from the damaged reactors that will probably take at least a decade to accomplish. The first priority will be removal of the contents in Pool No. 4. This pool is structurally damaged and contains about 10 times more cesium-137 than released at Chernobyl. Continue reading →

April 23, 2012 Posted by | Japan, reprocessing, wastes | Leave a comment

Dubious plan by Lynas to sell 300,000 tonnes of converted radioactive wastes

The anti-Lynas groups also questioned today whether the market “can fully absorb the colossal amount produced given that Lynas will be producing at least 300,000 tonnes of contaminated waste every year.”

Locals say market won’t buy Lynas’ recycled waste, ww.themalaysianinsider.com/mobile/malaysia/article/locals-say-market-wont-buy-lynas-recycled-waste/ The Malaysian Insider ,21 April,  By Shannon Teoh KUALA LUMPUR, — Lynas Corp’s plans to recycle waste from its controversial RM2.5 billion rare earth plant in Kuantan into a commercial product will not be accepted by the market, local residents opposed to the refinery said today.(Jan 26 ) Continue reading →

April 21, 2012 Posted by | business and costs, Uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

Rare Earths company has no proper radioactive waste management plan

Unlike the Lynas plant, the other three refineries’ radioactive wastes are sent back to the respective mines.

“Lynas has no concrete radioactive waste management plan. Lynas claims it can store its waste onsite forever.

The Lynas plant, she added, would have 500 tonnes of liquid discharge per hour channelled into the Balok River.

Lynas whitewashing refinery safety concerns, says Fuziah, The Malaysian Insider, By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal April 16, 2012 KUALA LUMPUR,  — PKR’s Fuziah Salleh has accused Lynas Corp of whitewashing safety concerns of its planned refinery in Kuantan by claiming there is a “concerted political campaign” against the plant’s construction,
In response, Fuziah  accused the Lynas Corp head of “deviating” from the real issue of safety, saying that a simple comparative study showed the Lynas refinery did not support any form of “sustainable development.”

“They are not addressing concerns of safety, whitewashing safety concerns, silent about safety issues. “They have only addressed radiation aspects, external radiation… they are narrow-minded in terms of perspective of radiation,” the PKR vice-president told The Malaysian Insider. Continue reading →

April 18, 2012 Posted by | Malaysia, Uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

The cleanup of Moab uranium tailings – 17 more years to go?

Lack of funding to slow cleanup of uranium tailings (includes video) KSL.com Utah By Geoff Liesik , 13 April 12,  MOAB — Environmental crews have removed more than 5 million tons of radioactive tailings from the banks of the Colorado River in less than three years.

They still have about 11 million tons to go, but the pace of the cleanup is about to slow down. Continue reading →

April 14, 2012 Posted by | Resources -audiovicual, Uranium, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

The bitter history of Malaysia’s Bukit Merah rare earths project.

Some of the surviving residents of Bukit Merah are still plagued with severe health problems. Until this very day, the Malaysian authorities refuse to acknowledge that the radioactive waste was responsible for the sudden escalation of health problems among the residents

Today, the government is the official custodian of this repository in Bukit Merah. This site in Bukit Merah is declared as a restricted and dangerous dump site for radioactive materials but a curtain of official silence has descended on it. Has the government not learnt from Bukit Merah?

The Lynas project is likely to be a replay of the ARE fiasco but on a much larger scale.

The benefits gained by Malaysia from the Lynas investment are very little relative to the risks involved. Whilst the profits of the project go to Lynas (untaxed) and the few Malaysian companies that are involved in the construction of and the provision of supplies to the Gebeng rare earth plant, the radioactive waste will remain in
Malaysian soil for hundreds of years.

Lynas issue: Not learning from bitter experience —The Malaysian Insider,  Richard Pendragon, April 12, 2012 “……..Bukit Merah The history of the rare earth industry in Malaysia is little known to most Malaysians. Most Malaysians in fact think that the Lynas project in Pahang is the first time Malaysia has been associated with this industry.
Few Malaysians actually know that there was a rare earth plant in Bukit Merah, Perak, which has been closed some 10 or more years ago, following a ruling by the High Court of Malaysia that the company involved was in negligence, and that the radioactive waste generated by the plant was dangerous and had to be removed and secured in a safe
place away from people for hundreds of years.

The evidence of the hazardous legacy of this rare earth plant is still present in our midst as a reminder to every one of the risks involved. Continue reading →

April 13, 2012 Posted by | environment, history, Malaysia, Reference, Uranium, wastes | 2 Comments

The danger of nuclear powered drones, and plutonium for spacecraft

The Deadly Folly of Nuclear Power Overhead HUFFINGTON POST, Karl Grossman: 04/12/2012  The crash last week of a U.S. drone on the Seychelles Islands– the second crash of a U.S. drone on Seychelles in four months — underlines the deadly folly of a plan of U.S. national laboratory scientists and the Northrop Grumman Corp. for nuclear-powered drones. Continue reading →

April 13, 2012 Posted by | - plutonium, Reference, safety, technology, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The eternal cost of dealing with dead, but radioactive, nuclear reactors

Turkish nuclear power – an unwarranted venture, Hurriyet Daily News, ERHUN KULA, 12 April 12 “……Studies in France (available from the author), the most nuclear dependent nation, reveal that nuclear energy is more expensive then hydro and fossil fuel powered units, even when the end cost of nuclear power plants – which is decommissioning and storing highly dangerous nuclear wastes in repositories for thousands of years – is ignored. The most expensive and risky problem with nuclear energy is the safe disposal of the radioactive waste. It has to be transported over long distances, stored and monitored over a very long period of time.

A few months ago the Mersin Akkuyu Nuclear Electricity Production Corporation commissioned an “independent” engineering company, DOKAY, to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the proposed nuclear power unit. In its over 100 page report, DOKAY provided a “pleasing” document to its sponsor. As for nuclear wastes – the end product – only a few sentences are reserved, which is quite outrageous.

There are more than 400 nuclear reactors operating in various countries. A nuclear power station has 35-40 years of operating life. After that it must be dismantled and the area must be cleaned up (the decommissioning process). But so far, no nuclear power station has been completely decommissioned in the world. It has been estimated that decommissioning could last about 50 years and it would cost more than the construction cost.

One of the earliest decommissioning efforts is taking place at Dounrey plant, on the northern tip of Scotland. It started more than 15 years ago and we need at least 30 years more to finish the job. After that, waste must be stored in nuclear graves (waste repositories) for thousands of years. United States regulations require the storage period to be at least 10,000 years.

The cost of decommissioning and waste storage will fall upon future generations at huge costs.   My American colleague, Prof. S. Frachette,  argues that large quantities of nuclear waste is likely to endanger the health, safety and civil liberties of generations yet to be born.

Professor Erhun Kula, from Istanbul’s Bahçesehir University, researched economic and moral aspects of nuclear power in the U.K., the United States and Sweden, and has published widely in this field.  http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-nuclear-power–an-unwarranted-venture.aspx?pageID=238&nID=18223&NewsCatID=396

April 12, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, decommission reactor, Turkey | Leave a comment

Germany needs to make sure that nuclear companies pay for nuclear decommissioning

Germany open to nuclear shutdown fund – minister  Greenpeace calls for state to run nuclear dismantling fund

* Environment minister says Greenpeace proposal can be examined

* Major utilities reject idea

DUESSELDORF, Germany, April 11 (Reuters) – Germany would consider ringfencing billions of euros to be put aside by utilities for disposing of radioactive waste, the environment minister said, to ensure decommissioning of the country’s nuclear power plants is completed decades from now. He was speaking on Wednesday in response to a call from environmental group Greenpeace that wants the government to administer some of the money earmarked for nuclear decommissioning.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision last year, following Japan’s nuclear plant disaster, to phase out nuclear power by 2022 has thrown big utilities on the defensive, weakening their finances and forcing them to rethink their business models.

Germany’s top four nuclear operators – E.ON, RWE , EnBW and Swedish’s Vattenfall – are footing the bill to dismantle the plants and dispose of radioactive waste. They have already made provisions of more than 30 billion euros ($39.3 billion).

Managing the disposal of waste will take decades after the last nuclear plant is due to shut in 2022 and Greenpeace fears that the companies may not be able to honour their obligations in the future or could try to wriggle out of them.

Parking the companies’ money in a separate state-run fund would protect German taxpayers should one or more of the firms become insolvent, Greenpeace said. “This is an idea that can be examined,” Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen told Reuters on Wednesday, adding it was clear that the operators of nuclear plants were responsible for dismantling them. ”We need to look at whether a combined fund is a better solution than relying on individual responsibility,” he added.

Greenpeace has also called for provisions to be raised to 44 billion euros.  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/germany-nuclear-idUSL6E8FB2XT20120411

April 12, 2012 Posted by | decommission reactor, Germany | Leave a comment

There’s gold in them thar dead nuclear reactors

Christina Macpherson's websites & blogs

And some of us thought that the nuclear industry wasn’t profitable any more!

Well, after ripping off the taxpayer all these years  they  will now be back in business with a vengeance.   The almost eternal task of buryng dead nuclear reactors could turn out to be even more profitable than ever

UK in nuclear decommissioning deal with Japan http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/10/japan-britain-nuclear-idUSL6E8FA3JP20120410    by Oleg
Vukmanovic; Edited by David Holmes  LONDON, April 10   Apr 10, 2012  (Reuters) – Britain and Japan signed a framework civil nuclear co-operation pact opening up Japan’s multi-billion pound decommissioning sector to UK companies, the UK energy ministry said.

The announcement on Tuesday came as UK Prime Minister David Cameron kicked off his tour of Asia in Japan. The tour is aimed at boosting trade and investment ties, while the nuclear pact follows the devastating Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown in March last year. Continue reading →

April 11, 2012 Posted by | business and costs, decommission reactor, Japan, UK | Leave a comment

Plutonium in space – another great idea from the pro nuclear lobby

despite precautions, scenarios exist in which plutonium-238 from spacecraft could contaminate Earth. If a nuclear-laden spacecraft performed a high-speed slingshot fly-by and a calculation mistake occurred, the craft could enter the Earth’s atmosphere, disintegrate, and spew plutonium throughout the planet.

The public will have to weigh the benefits [what benefits? – Christina Macpherson] of these pioneering space missions against the costs and risks of use

Nuclear Renaissance in Space, Miller-McCune, By Wendee Holtcamp, April 6, 2012 As the U.S. prepares to relaunch domestic production of plutonium-238, the space community wishes to assure the public of its safety. Are they right?

In this, the 50th year of using nuclear energy for space missions, the U.S. is preparing to restart domestic production of a plutonium isotope that fuels space vehicles — a topic that was front and center at the recent Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space conference, held in The Woodlands, Texas…. Continue reading →

April 7, 2012 Posted by | - plutonium, Reference, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »