Quebec to close down its nuclear reactor
Quebec will close, rather than refurbish, its only nuclear reactor. Montreal Gazette, 12 Set 12, Nearly 30 years after it went into operation, it appears the days are numbered for Quebec’s only operating nuclear power plant.
A spokesperson for the Parti Québécois said the newly-elected government will go ahead with a plan to close Gentilly-2 in Bécancour. The party has wanted to do it since December 2009, Éric Gamache said….
. Gordon Edwards, a mathematician and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, said after it is closed, Gentilly-2 could be transformed into a centre of expertise on dismantling nuclear power plants. Nearly 100 nuclear power plants in
the U.S. will soon come to the end of their natural life, creating a “great” opportunity for Trois-Rivières, he said. http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/09/12/parti-quebecois-says-it-will-keep-promise-to-close-gentilly-2-nuclear-power-plant/
Veil of secrecy over France’s unaffordable nuclear power decommissioning
“What is not tolerable is that the funds are managed by the operators”
Over the past six years there has been a veritable veil pulled over this subject.”
French Nuclear Dismantling Funds May Fall Short, Report Says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-24/french-nuclear-dismantling-funds-may-fall-short-report-says.html By Tara Patel – Jul 24, 2012 Electricite de France SA and Areva SA (AREVA), along with other French nuclear operators, may not be setting aside enough funds to pay for future dismantling of reactors and treatment and storage of atomic waste, according to a parliamentary report. Continue reading
There’s money to be made in nuclear decommissioning
Olympic Park builder eyes nuclear wind-down deal http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/olympic-park-builder-eyes-nuclear-winddown-deal-7965171.html MARK LEFTLY MONDAY 23 JULY 2012 The US group that led construction of the Olympic Park and a New York-listed rival are the latest companies considering bids to oversee the UK’s £5bn nuclear decommissioning programme. Continue reading
“Waste Confidence Rule” allows nuclear waste keep growing, with no solution!
the NRC also stated that it ‘retains confidence that spent fuel can be safely stored with no significant environmental impact until a repository can reasonably be expected to be available and that the Commission has a target date for the availability of the repository in that circumstance’”
As a result of its confidence in the safety of spent fuel storage, NRC rules note that “no discussion of any environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installations for the period following the term of the reactor operating license . . . is required in any environmental report, environmental impact statement, environmental assessment or other analysis prepared in connection with the issuance or amendment of an operating license for a nuclear reactor,”
Group seeks to have spent fuel a factor in re-licensing Limerick plant The Mercury By Evan Brandt 07/17/12 LIMERICK “…….Spent fuel rods are what remains after the uranium pellets inside the fuel rods in a reactor no longer generate enough heat to create the steam that turns the turbines and generates electricity at a nuclear power plant.
Although cooler, this spent fuel remains radioactive to some extent for hundreds of years. For years, spent fuel was kept in concrete “spent fuel pools” located inside a nuclear plant and filled with water to keep it from overheating.
According to the NRDC filing, in 2008 NRC proposed “‘remov(ing) its expectation that a repository (for spent fuel) will be available by 2025’ and acknowledged that its previous finding that sufficient disposal capacity would be available within 30 years after any
reactor’s licensed life ‘is not supportable.’” Continue reading
For relicensing nuclear plants, Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not consider costs of spent fuel disposal
Paradoxically, while the NRC allows potential earnings from a re-licensed plant to be considered as a way to cover the costs of plant shut-down, it does not consider the potential for those added years of operation to generate additional spent fuel when calculating the cost of shutting the plant down.
Group seeks to have spent fuel a factor in re-licensing Limerick plant The Mercury By Evan Brandt 07/17/12 LIMERICK — Despite a recent federal court ruling invalidating a rule that would allow storage of radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods at nuclear power plants for 60 years after they’ve closed, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no plans to consider the issue when deciding on whether to re-license Exelon Nuclear’s Limerick Generating Station for an additional 20 years.
The National Resources Defense Council disagrees with that position and filed papers July 9 seeking to amend its challenge to Exelon’s re-licensing application Continue reading
Burying dead nuclear reactors – expensive, but lucrative for some!
consultancy Arthur D. Little has put the total costs at no less than €18 billion…..
Dismantling a nuclear plant until it has completely vanished can take several decades, depending on which technique is used.
the process of fully decommissioning a plant can take more than 40 years,
Germany’s pricey nuclear burial, Climate Spectator , 18 Jul 2012, Christoph Steitz and Tom Käckenhoff “…..by 2014, almost nothing will be left of what once was Germany’s first commercial boiling water reactor. Germany’s decision to shut down all nuclear plants by 2022,
sparked by last year’s Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, is a done deal……
… a giant hole in the ground where the reactor vessel used to be. Work to decommission plants mainly includes removing and disposing of contaminated material as well as decommissioning the plants themselves while making sure that no radiation spreads.
Spent fuel from reactors needs to be encased and then transported to safe fuel dumps while cooling towers, often regarded a blight on landscapes, then need demolishing…..
Today, the four operators of nuclear plants in Germany – E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall – have made a total of more than €30 billion ($36.7 billion) in provisions for the dismantling of the plants and the disposal of nuclear waste. Continue reading
Nuclear company finds it unaffordable to decommission reactor
Company dismantling Zion nuclear plant under financial stress
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-01/business/chi-company-dismantling-zion-nuclear-plant-under-financial-stress-20120630_1_nuclear-plant-nuclear-fuel-chief-financial-officer July 01, 2012|By Julie Wernau |EnergySolutions, the company dismantling Exelon’s Zion nuclear plant, is struggling financially just as it nears the riskiest phase of the project — moving the nuclear fuel into storage casks.
Last month, the company suddenly replaced its chief executive and chief financial officer for the second time in two years, causing its stock to plunge 55 percent and its credit ratings to fall two notches amid a weak earnings forecast. In March, EnergySolutions revealed that
it underestimated by about $100 million the cost to dismantle Zion piece by piece, and ship the material to Utah for disposal The financial problems call the future of the company and the project into question. Though David Lockwood, the new president and chief executive of EnergySolutions said the company intentionally underbid the work to gain publicity that would help it snag similar work around the world.
“We undertook Zion for strategic, not financial reasons,” Lockwood said.
Old Hanford nuclear reactor closed – no plan for permanent disposal
Hanford workers mothball 6th nuclear reactor, Workers at south-central Washington’s Hanford nuclear reservation have finished the process of closing and “cocooning” the longest-running of nine nuclear reactors built there for the U.S. atomic weapons program. Seattle News, By SHANNON DININNY Associated Press YAKIMA, Wash. 14 June 12, —
Workers at south-central Washington’s Hanford nuclear reservation have finished the process of closing and “cocooning” the longest-running of nine nuclear reactors built there for the U.S. atomic weapons program. Continue reading
Decommissioning nuclear reactors, expensive, but prudent, and cheaper than an accident
Europe’s approach is the prudent one…….America’s approach is to play russian roulette with 105 reactors that are already showing plenty of signs of serious wear and tear Europe’s challenge in decommissioning 150 nuclear reactors
How hard is it to dismantle 150 nuclear reactors? Europe is about to find out http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-hard-is-it-to-dismantle-150-nuclear-reactors-europes-about-to-find-out/2012/06/09/gJQA2EH0PV_blog.html
Brad Plumer, 06/09/2012 Last year, after the tsunami and reactor meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, many European nations decided to phase out their existing fleets of nuclear power plants. Germany and Belgium are aiming to end all atomic generation by 2030. Switzerland is shooting for 2035.
Not so easy to get rid of. Yet the mere act of shutting down those reactors is going to pose a huge challenge in the years ahead. Continue reading
France’s nuclear dilemma – costs of shutting aged reactors
Nuclear Europe: a dream unwinding, China Dialogue, Steve Thomas June 06, 2012“…… the real challenge – regardless of whether Hollande or Sarkozy had won the election – was always going to be what to do about France’s existing plants when they reach the end of their lives. Under present plans, these ageing reactors will be retired at a rate of five to six per year from 2017 onwards. The cheaper option for the country’s power giant EDF would be to do as the Americans and extend the plants’ lifespans from 40 to 60 years, though thanks to post-Fukushima regulatory requirements that existing plants be made more robust for “extreme situations” this is not such a cheap option as it once was.
On the other hand, if France takes the route of replacing old reactors with EPRs, assuming problems around cost, licensing and construction can be solved, and the EPR remains a viable option, then the cost to EDF of replacing old capacity would be astronomical – far higher than first time around. It is doubtful that France could sustain the logistical and financial challenge of ordering and building four or five EPRs a year for a decade. It would also have to start paying huge sums for decommissioning existing reactors. That leaves France facing some tough choices…. http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4956
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
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
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
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
1 This Month
No Nuclear in Cwm Llynfi! Stop the nuclear power station near Maesteg.
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (154)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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 