nuclear-news

Nuclear Denial

September 18, 2008Nuclear Denial RENEWABLE ENERGY WORLD by Michael MellishNuclear power plants have a productive life of at least forty years. Unfortunately unlike other power plants, after forty years they cannot simply be decommissioned, razed and the site redeveloped into other uses.Fuel rods used in nuclear power plants are actively exothermic (generating heat) for up to seventy-five years after removal from the reactor…………………………Today, the fuel rods have to stay in the ponds on the site because there is no other place for them to go. The U.S. doesn’t operate a fuel rod processing plant (like BNFL does for the United Kingdom) and has no current plans for such a vitrification facility (imbedding the active radio active waste within glass). Even then the glass-encased radioactive material must be actively cooled for 75 years, so it must be kept somewhere with human management of the site.
Who is going to pay for this? Consider the cost of staffing for 75 additional years when there is no revenue stream from electrical generation to cover this, and there is no easy way to pass the cost onto the electrical customers. This problem is only starting to be recognized since so few reactors have actually reached the end of life in the U.S. If you check the balance sheets of the major electrical utilities that own and operate nuclear power plants, you will not see any allowances for this future cost. It would be simpler to spin off the plant, let it go bankrupt and leave it to the taxpayers to deal with the mess……………………………The operation of existing nuclear power plants, labs and facilities has been fraught with accidents, incidents and discharges throughout the 50-year history of nuclear power. Full and open disclosure of the accidents and risks taken by operators (including the U.S. government) remains dubious at best…………………………Uranium mining and processing of uranium ore to fuel grade is hardly a “clean” activity. Vast quantities of overburden must be removed to mine the ore (with all the attendant pollution problems). The ore itself is quite difficult to process, separating the useful material U235 from its counterparts clearly produces significant quantities of radioactive waste products, dust and chemical wastes from the separation process, all of which are quite nasty.

Nuclear Denial

September 19, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

Still no safe place to store nuclear waste | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

Still no safe place to store nuclear waste
Indt Star.com Jim O’Neill 8 sept 08 With all the talk about renewable energy, there is resurgence in the nuclear debate. However, one fact remains hidden in all the pro nuclear talk. That is the storage of nuclear waste. So far no one has come up with a satisfactory plan to store this extremely hazardous material………………..Think of it. Our best scientists have not come up with a safe way to dispose or hide from this horrible danger. Yet, as Will says, it is being stored temporarily within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.

This is outrageous. Where is the popular outrage?

Indianapolis

Still no safe place to store nuclear waste | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

September 15, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

Uranium explorer’s dumping plan blocked – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Uranium explorer’s dumping plan blocked

ABC News 10 Sept 08 A council has now decided to ban uranium explorer Marathon Resources from dumping any waste at the Hawker dump in the northern Flinders Ranges of South Australia.

The company wants to dump waste including industrial clothing, calico and plastic bags and cardboard from its uranium exploration site in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) said it would ensure that none of the waste was radioactive before it was dumped.

Flinders Ranges Council CEO Lee Connors says a meeting last night decided to ban any use of Hawker dump, because residents wanted that.

“The advice from the EPA and their radiation group was available to the council but at the end of the day it really meant nothing,” he said…………………………………..

Marathon had its drilling licence suspended last February after buried waste in calico and plastic bags was found in the wilderness sanctuary late last year.

Marg Sprigg, from Arkaroola sanctuary, says Marathon should have known how people would feel about its waste dumping plan.

“When it leaves here it’s supposed to be, you know, of no threat at all to the community but the fact that the Leigh Creek dump – the dump of a mining town – wouldn’t take it and then it was to go to Hawker, I do find surprising that they thought a local community would be willing to accept it if a mining town doesn’t,” she said.

Uranium explorer’s dumping plan blocked – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Tags: nuclear antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

September 10, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment