nuclear-news

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

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

Canada’s nuclear waste problem, risks to Lake Huron

 In Canada’s 40-year nuclear power program, two million used fuel bundles have been created, enough to fill six hockey arenas. As Canada’s largest nuclear plant, about 50 per cent of that used nuclear waste is stored above ground at the Bruce plant…..

Nuclear-waste dump proposal sparks protest in cottage country, Frances Barrick, The Record  Apr 04 2012 SAUGEEN SHORES — The battles lines are drawn in Saugeen Shores over the contentious issue of whether this Lake Huron tourist community should be the site of Canada’s first underground repository for high-level nuclear waste.

“I can’t imagine why people would want to come here and vacation beside Canada’s nuclear waste dump,” Continue reading →

April 5, 2012 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

A very long haul to clean up Savannah River’s plutonium wastes

The amount of plutonium in the waste tanks is uncertain. Savannah River was built to make plutonium, and the material in the tanks is what was left over after the material was produced in reactors and scavenged in chemical plants. But a fair amount ended up in the waste tanks

A Very Long Road for Military Nuclear Waste By MATTHEW L. WALD, NYT, March 29, 2012  Slowly, slowly, the Energy Department is moving forward with solidifying the liquid nuclear wastes left over from cold-war weapons production. On Thursday, the department said it had closed two more of the 51 underground tanks at the Savannah River Site  in western South Carolina. The high-level waste was mixed with molten glass to keep it chemically locked up for millennia, and the lower-level material was mixed with a kind of cement that is supposed to keep it in place until the radioactivity dies down.

The department has 22 tanks at Savannah River that do not meet Environmental Protection Agency standards , mostly because they are single-wall tanks rather than double-wall. It closed two of them in 1997 but has faced numerous technical problems. Continue reading →

March 30, 2012 Posted by | - plutonium, Reference, USA | Leave a comment

Lynas rare earths company has to get Australia to agree to take back radioactive wastes

Onus is on Lynas to get nod for waste shipment’, The Malaysian Star Reports by MARTIN CARVALHO, YUEN MEIKENG, RAHIMY RAHIM and TASHNY SUKUMARAN , 29 March 12,  THE onus of obtaining permission from the authorities to ship waste from the proposed rare earth plant in Gebeng, Pahang, to Australia lies with operators Lynas Corporation, said Science, Technology and Innovations Minister Datuk Seri Dr Maximux Ongkili.

“There has been no official word from the authorities in Australia over the shipment (of the waste) and I have not received any formal communication,” he said at Parliament lobby.

Though helping facilitate Lynas’ investment in setting up the plant here, he noted there were conditions that the company must fulfil with the onus on them to obtain approval for waste shipment to Australia if the need arose. “We are not here for the purpose of just helping Lynas. We have set conditions and they must follow,” he said.

The Atomic Energy Licensing Board’s (AELB) imposed five conditions for the issuance of a temporary operating licence for the Lynas plant which includes locating a suitable site for a permanent disposal facility. “If Lynas cannot process the wastes here according to our standard or cannot find a permanent disposal site, then they have to seek a site outside this country…..

“Otherwise, I am not giving the licence as they have signed for that,” Ongkili repeatedly said…..  Ongkili said Lynas Corporation chose to have its rare earth plant in Malaysia because the cost to operate the facility here was 30% of that in Australia….. http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp file=/2012/3/28/parliament/11002216&sec=parliament

March 29, 2012 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, Malaysia, Uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

Alas, ‘fast breeder’ reactors don’t solve the nuclear waste problem

Ultimately, however, the core problem may be that such new reactors don’t eliminate the nuclear waste that has piled up

Can Fast Reactors Speedily Solve Plutonium Problems? The U.K. is grappling with how to get rid of weapons-grade plutonium and may employ a novel reactor design to consume it , Scientific American, By David Biello  | March 21, 2012   The U.K. has nearly 100 metric tons of plutonium—dubbed “the element from hell” by some—that it doesn’t know what to do with.

The island nation does not need the potent powder to construct more nuclear weapons, and spends billions of British pounds to ensure that others don’t steal it for that purpose. The unstable element, which will remain radioactive for millennia, is the residue of ill-fated efforts to recycle used nuclear fuel. Continue reading →

March 26, 2012 Posted by | - plutonium, reprocessing, UK | Leave a comment

Students alerting public to danger of nuclear waste dumping in Cumbria, UK

 the proposals … will be a ‘travesty of democracy’…..

there are claims that important scientific information is being ignored

Students fight Cumbria nuclear dump plan The Westmorland Gazette, 23 March 12, CONSULTATION over whether a nuclear waste repository should be built on Cumbria’s west coast comes to a close tomorrow with opponents making their voices heard in many imaginative ways… Continue reading →

March 24, 2012 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Texas likely to take in radioactive wastes from other States

Critics maintain that that Mr. Simmons’s financial might has helped him win state backing for the site. Mr. Simmons has donated more than $1 million to Gov. Rick Perry, who appoints board members to Texas agencies that oversee the waste site,

Texas Nears Approval of Multistate Nuclear-Waste Dump  WSJ, By NATHAN KOPPEL, March 23, 2012, Texas moved closer Friday to allowing low-level radioactive waste from dozens of states to be trucked in and disposed at a site in West Texas, which would become one of only four in the nation that could take low-level radioactive waste shipped from out of state.

A state agency with oversight of waste imports adopted rules Friday that help clear the way for the 1,338-acre dump near the New Mexico border, despite concerns expressed by environmentalists that such a facility may be unsafe. Continue reading →

March 24, 2012 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

USA in a pickle – can’t afford to bury its dead nuclear reactors

Decommissioning a reactor is a painstaking and expensive process that
involves taking down huge structures and transporting the radioactive
materials to the few sites around the country that can bury them. 

The cost is projected at $400 million to $1 billion per reactor, which in some cases is more than what it cost to build the plants in the 1960s and ’70s.

As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags NYT, By MATTHEW L. WALD March 20, 2012 WASHINGTON — The operators of 20 of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. Continue reading →

March 22, 2012 Posted by | decommission reactor, Reference, USA | Leave a comment

Confusing messages about where Lynas will put its rare earths radioactive wastes

Lynas had denied reports that the Western Australian government had refused to accept the radioactive waste from the miner’s RM2.5 billion rare earth plant in Malaysia.

“If the (Australian) government accepts waste, why not they (Lynas) stay in own country?” Himpunan Hijau chairman Wong Tack asked. Wong said Lynas Corp was “clearly taking advantage” of Malaysia’s
“loose environmental laws” and “non-functioning administration”.

Australia: No request from Lynas to accept waste http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/australia-no-request-from-lynas-to-accept-waste By Lisa J. Ariffin March KUALA LUMPUR, March 21 — Canberra
has yet to receive any request from Lynas Corp to accept radioactive waste from the Australian miner’s controversial rare earth plant in Gebeng, Kuantan that will be ready this June.

“Australia has not received any request to import residues from the plant,” an Australian High Commission spokesman told The Malaysian Insider when contacted today. Continue reading →

March 22, 2012 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, Malaysia, Uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

Taipower poisons island with nuclear wastes, and islanders’ minds with money

“Taipower contaminates our island with nuclear waste and it also contaminates our minds with money,”  “They are trying to make us think that we cannot live without nuclear waste.”…

a lot of Taos depend on Taipower for jobs and are afraid of losing their jobs if they tell people what they really think.

Lanyu’s residents grudgingly accept nuclear storage Taipei Times, By Loa Iok-sin 19 March 12,  The Tao Aborigines of Lanyu (蘭嶼) — also known as Orchid Island — are once again taking to the streets to voice their opposition to a nuclear storage facility on their island, calling for its immediate removal.

While it may appear that the removal of nuclear waste is the only thing the Taos want, the
real situation is much more complicated, as Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) is exerting considerable effort on the resource-scarce island to minimize opposition. Continue reading →

March 20, 2012 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, Taiwan, wastes | Leave a comment

Taxpayer cleaning up many millions of tons of uranium wastes,since company went bankrupt

Five Million Tons Of Uranium Tailing Disposed, The U.S. Department Of Energy Says They Are A Third Of The Way Done With Their Entire Project To Move All Of The Tailings To Crested Junction KJCT8.com Janelle Ericsson  MOAB, UT. — Five million tons of uranium tailings has been removed from an old waste site near the river in Moab. The U.S. Department of Energy says they are a third of the way done with their entire project to move all of the tailings to Crested Junction.
Once they reach their destination they will be put in an engineered cell that will prevent contamination to ground water for a thousand years…

. The UMTRA project was originally started in 2001 when the a corporation went bankrupt. Through legislative actions, the project was given to the Department of Energy to take responsibility of the clean up.

March 19, 2012 Posted by | Uranium, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

140 nuclear reactors now dead, but only 17 buried!

Intermediate-level waste, contrary to its name, is even more of a problem because it may require deep ground burial alongside the high-level spent fuel

In 1976, a British Royal Commission said no more nuclear power plants should be built until the waste disposal problems were resolved. Thirty-five years on, nothing much has changed.

How to dismantle a nuclear reactor, New Scientist, 15 March 2012 by Fred Pearce  By the start of 2012, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 138 commercial power reactors had been permanently shut down. At least 80 are expected to join the queue for decommissioning in the coming decade – more if other governments join Germany in deciding to phase out nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster in Japan last year.

And yet, so far, only 17 of these have been dismantled and made permanently safe. That’s because decommissioning is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Continue reading →

March 16, 2012 Posted by | 2 WORLD, decommission reactor, Reference | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »