Design Flaws In Nuclear Transport Ships Increase The Risk Of Accidents Claims Report
Design flaws in nuclear transport ships increase the risk of accidents, claims report
Sunday Herald 13 April 09 Consultant says claims of safety ‘lack scientific and technical credibility’By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
THE GROWING number of nuclear waste shipments being made through the Irish Sea risk accidents that could cause widespread radioactive contamination, according to an expert report out this week.The transport ships have “design flaws” that could make them unsafe while the emergency plans in place for coping with an accident are non- existent or inadequate, the report says.At least 45 movements of nuclear materials have been made north and south through the Irish Sea since 2004.
Cargoes of radioactive waste and fuel are transported from the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria to nuclear plants in Japan, the US and Europe.advertisementThe report was commissioned by a coalition of more than 70 local authorities in the UK and Ireland worried about nuclear power. It was written by the independent marine pollution consultant, Tim Deere-Jones, and is due to be published in a few days.
Nuclear financing watchdog established – ClimateChangeCorp.com
Nuclear financing watchdog established Climate Change Corp 7 Apr 2009 | Author: Jeanette Wiemers,
|Board will ensure that public doesn’t shoulder costs for nuclear cleanupThe UK government announced the members of its Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board, which will examine plans for financing nuclear waste cleanup from power stations, in an effort to keep taxpayers from having to bear the costs. Energy and Climate Change Minister Mike O’Brien said the Board will be yet another protection to ensure that taxpayers are protected from the costs of decommissioning and waste disposal from new nuclear power stations, and that the Board’s diverse membership will help to provide independent scrutiny and advice on the issue.
Nuclear financing watchdog established – ClimateChangeCorp.com
A £1bn nuclear white elephant
A £1bn nuclear white elephant
THE INDEPENDENT 7 April 09 Call for public inquiry as Sellafield recycling plant is costing taxpayer millions every year A controversial nuclear recycling plant, approved by the Government despite warnings over its economic viability and reliance on unproven technology, has racked up costs of more than £1bn and is still not working properly.
Backers of the plant at Sellafield, which promised to turn toxic waste into a useable fuel that could be sold worldwide, had claimed the plant would make a profit of more than £200m in its lifetime, producing 120 tonnes of recycled fuel a year. But after an investigation by The Independent, the Government admitted technical problems and a dearth in orders has meant it has produced just 6.3 tonnes of fuel since opening in 2001.
With construction and commissioning costs of more than £600m, the facility, known as the Mox plant because of the mixed oxides (Mox) fuel it is designed to produce, has cost more than £1.2bn, confirming its status as the nuclear industry’s most embarrassing white elephant and one of the greatest failures in British industrial history, losing the taxpayer £90m a year. Green campaigners and opposition MPs are now calling for the plant to be closed immediately, and a minister who fought its construction at the time has called for a public inquiry into how the plant was ever given the go-ahead.
Fiscal stimulus and the environment
Greenstanding
Apr 2nd 2009
From The Economist print editionGordon Brown’s New Deal will do little to advance renewable energy
Mr Brown’s green New Deal looks flimsy. On March 31st HSBC, a big bank, published a report ranking countries by how green their economic-stimulus packages were. The bank reckons that Britain is allocating just 7% of its fiscal stimulus to greenery, compared with 12% in America, 34% in China and a whopping 81% in South Korea (see chart). A separate report prepared for Greenpeace, a pressure group, by consultants at the New Economics Foundation (NEF) considers only genuinely new funding and arrives at a figure of just 0.6%, or £120m……………………….
………………….It has moved speedily to revive the nuclear-power industry, by contrast. From a position of cordial dislike in 2003, the government announced itself in favour of new nuclear plants in principle as early as 2006.More recently ministers have been positively prescriptive, suggesting how many plants might be built and where. A takeover of British Energy, which runs most existing nuclear plants, by EDF, keen to build more, took place last year. A new nuclear laboratory has been founded, schemes to train workers set up and the vexed issue of waste disposal re-examined.Nuclear-power stations take many years to build, so new ones will not help Britain meet its 2020 targets for curbing emissions. But the technology is well understood. Politicians may have calculated that a few nuclear-power stations will be easier to sell the public than thousands of wind turbines. And energy does not have to be renewable to be low-carbon.
Fiscal stimulus and the environment | Greenstanding | The Economist
A victory of sorts
A victory of sorts
In August last year, the British government finally conceded, after years of denial and resistance, that servicemen had indeed been exposed to dangerous radiation levels during nuclear tests in Australia and the South Pacific in the 1950s, in which New Zealand sailors also participated or witnessed.
The admission came only after some 800 former servicemen from Britain, New Zealand and Fiji began a multimillion-dollar suit against the Ministry of Defence seeking compensation for being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation during tests at sites including Maralinga, in South Australia and at Christmas Island.
The admission was, however, a narrow one: the ministry agreed that the tests were responsible for the deaths of some British servicemen, but said only 159 were affected out of the 20,000 who were present………………. Just last week, after decades of refusal, France announced that it will compensate victims of past nuclear tests in the Pacific and the Sahara, and for the first time has formally recognised a link between the explosions and illnesses suffered by soldiers and civilians…………………………….
Quite properly, the French Government has decided the burden of proof should be reversed: victims will no longer have to prove that their illness was due to the nuclear tests; it will be up the state to prove otherwise.
Furthermore, compensation will apply to any nationality.
Given past attitudes, however, we may expect that getting it will prove to be extremely difficult.
Anti-nuclear groups fear danger at new reactor
Anti-nuclear groups fear danger at new reactor Mar 28 2009 by Darren Devine, Western Mail ANTI-NUCLEAR campaigners have warned a type of uranium that is up to 15% more radioactive and has to be stored on site for 100 years will be used, should a new Welsh plant get the go-ahead.The warning came as the Government’s deadline for nominations for sites to house a new generation of nuclear plants passes on Tuesday.The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which owns Wales’ only nuclear power station at Wylfa, on Anglesey, has already indicated it intends to nominate the site as suitable for a new facility.But the Wales Anti-Nuclear Alliance and Anglesey group Pawb warned that the only two firms left in the bidding process to build and run the new plants intend to use so-called “high burn-up uranium”.The two firms hoping to build the new nuclear sites are US company Westinghouse Electric and Areva of France.
WalesOnline – News – Wales News – Anti-nuclear groups fear danger at new reactor
We must learn to live with wind power
We must learn to live with wind power
The zealous backing given to wind farms this week by Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, has stirred up the usual protests about the beautiful British landscape being papered over with metallic monstrosities. But arguing against wind energy is, well, a waste of energy. Denouncing wind turbines in favour of another technology, such as nuclear, tidal and wave, solar or even “cleaner” coal is missing the point. The argument is over.
………………………….There are two standard objections to wind turbines. The first is that wind farms generate negligible amounts of electricity, and cost more carbon to produce than they save. This is a myth: the typical 3MW turbine powers 1,700 homes annually and “pays back” the energy – and saves the carbon emissions – expended to manufacture, transport, install and commission it in a mere six months.
The next objection is aesthetic: we don’t want turbines in our back yards, or in the picturesque areas we like to visit…………………………The future is not a vast forest of wind turbines obliterating every prized view,………………………..In fact, wind turbines can add sparkle to lacklustre locations.
Green lobby and nuclear groups clash over role of renewable energy
Guardian.co.uk by Terry Macalister 16 March 2009
Greenpeace dismisses EDF for protecting its ‘vested nuclear interests’ by undermining the future of renewable fuels
EDF and E.ON have warned the government they may be forced to drop plans to build a new generation of nuclear power plants unless the government scales back its targets for wind power.
The demands – contained in submissions to the government’s renewable energy consultation – reinforces the worries of wind developers that the two sectors cannot thrive simultaneously.
…………………….. “We’ve always said that nuclear power will undermine renewable energy and will damage the UK’s efforts to tackle climate change – now EDF agrees,” said Nathan Argent, head of Greenpeace’s energy solutions unit.
“The National Grid shows that there is capacity to take well over 30% percent of our electricity from renewables. EDF are trying to block efforts to deliver on the most important technology to the UK to tackle climate change and keeps the light on in order to protect their own vested nuclear interests.”
Friends of the Earth agreed. “The UK is the windiest country in Europe with the best wave and tidal resources,” said Andy Atkins, the group’s executive director. “We should be maximising renewables and harnessing as much of that clean, safe energy as we possibly can – not propping up the French nuclear industry.
“Nuclear power is no green alternative – it leaves a legacy of deadly radioactive waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. And nuclear power plants simply cannot be built in time to deliver the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that science says are needed.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/16/nuclear-power-renewables-edf
Nuclear waste clean-up drive still lacks leader
From The TimesMarch 6, 2009Nuclear waste clean-up drive still lacks leaderRobin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
The Government’s handling of the nuclear power industry’s rebirth was attacked by MPs last night as it emerged that the executive responsible for the £73 billion clean-up operation has still not been replaced eight months after his departure.
Ian Roxburgh quit as chief executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a key organisation tasked with the clean-up of 19 toxic UK sites, including Sellafield, Harwell and Dounreay, last July.
But The Times has learnt that the NDA is still struggling to find a replacement, leaving a string of pressing issues building up in his successor’s in-tray, including questions over how the UK should handle waste created by new reactors……………………………. This year alone the NDA will spend £2.8 billion on decontamination, including £1.8 billion from taxpayers. It
Nuclear waste clean-up drive still lacks leader – Times Online
Nuclear reactor from HMS Vanguard being dismantled in Plymouth’s Devonport Dockyard
Nuclear reactor being dismantled in Devonport The Herald (UK) March 04 2009
A massive section of the reactor from HMS Vanguard – which was refitted and refuelled at Devonport dockyard between 2002 and 2004 – is being dismantled at the city dockyard.
Royal Navy sources have said it was the first time a submarine reactor had been cut up in the UK.
And campaigners against the storage of nuclear waste at the naval base claimed they knew nothing of the scheme and accused the Ministry of Defence of ignoring public opposition to reactor disposal work in the city.
They fear it is a precursor to the reactors aboard seven redundant submarines stored in the naval yard being cut up at Devonport…………………….an Avent, of the Campaign Against Nuclear Storage and Radiation (Cansar), said: “This is the first phase in Plymouth becoming a nuclear scrapyard.
“The Ministry of Defence are going to use this project to justify doing all the other submarines here. What makes it worse is that they are doing it behind our backs.”………………………Five years ago, the public rejected any plans to manage or store nuclear waste at Devonport after consultation on the Ministry of Defence’s controversial Interim Storage of Laid Up Submarines (ISOLUS) project.
Nuclear reactor from HMS Vanguard being dismantled in Plymouth’s Devonport Dockyard
Nuclear Waste
Nuclear Waste The Herald (UK) “……………………A large nuclear power station will produce up to 30 tonnes of high-level waste per year.After reprocessing and vitrification, using current technology, this reduces to a volume of three cubic metres.advertisementWorldwide, to date, there are just over 120,000 tonnes of high-level waste stored above ground at power stations and other sites.
When all this waste is treated, it will have a volume of 12,000 cubic metres; or it will fit into a cube 23 metres on each side.In other words, all of the high-level nuclear waste produced by all the commercial power reactors in the world would fit into 180 40ft shipping containers.
There are 438 commercial power reactors operating in the world today, producing 12,000 tonnes of high-level waste each year.So, our storage problems are increasing at the rate of 18 shipping containers per year………………………..
these numbers only take account of nuclear reactors used to generate electricity: the nuclear weapons industries produce much more high-level waste than commercial power generation (99 times more in the US).
Also, I don’t think shipping containers are the best place to store vitrified nuclear waste.”
Thomas W Durning,
Future is bright and green in renewables energy sector
From Times OnlineFebruary 25, 2009
Future is bright and green in renewables energy sectorT
here are opportunities in this global business to suit all types The good news is that renewable energy is “no longer an option” and opportunities in the sector will multiply, according to Kristen Herde, the head of human resources at E.ON Climate & Renewables…………….
…….. With the UK bound under EU law to generate 15 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020, Fruzsina Kemenes, a skills and education policy officer for the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), says that compared to other sectors, wind, wave and tidal industries are holding up well in these straitened times. “To achieve government targets for renewable energy generation, by 2020 the wind industry is set to provide jobs for at least 36,000 people directly.”
Future is bright and green in renewables energy sector – Times Online
| Nuclear claim in ‘bomb plot’ case
Nuclear claim in ‘bomb plot’ case BBC News 18 Feb 09
An alleged terrorist accused of a plot to blow up airliners researched other targets including nuclear power stations, a jury has heard.
Woolwich Crown Court heard that Assad Sarwar had a memory stick with details of nuclear power stations as potential terror targets.
Mr Sarwar and seven other men are accused of conspiracy to murder by blowing up planes with home-made bombs.
UK nuclear policy ‘insane’
UK nuclear policy ‘insane’ politics , Feb 2009
By politics.co.uk staff
The government has been accused of its left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing over its ‘contradictory’ attitudes towards nuclear disarmament.
The foreign secretary has unveiled the steps that need to be taken for the world to move towards a nuclear weapon-free future…………………….Until the government puts plans to replace Trident on hold, anything they say about ridding the world of nuclear weapons is severely undermined,” said the Greenpeace’s executive director John Sauven.
Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said Mr Miliband’s speech, which accompanied a policy information paper from the Foreign Office was a “great disappointment”, which treated Trident as the elephant in the room.
And the Liberal Democrats said the government’s leadership on non-proliferation was threatened by the “premature and provocative” decision to renew Trident ahead of the global disarmament conference next year.
Anti-nuclear group urges people to be afraid of Drigg ‘secrets’
Last updated 16:44, Monday, 16 February 2009
An anti-nuclear group has warned west Cumbrians: “Be afraid, very afraid” after bosses at the Drigg waste dump admitted they don’t know what’s buried there.
Management at the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR), near Sellafield, have placed newspaper adverts appealing for ex-employees who worked at the site in 1960s, 70s and 80s to come forward.
The aim is to build up a picture of what was stored there and how it was buried………………………….Martin Forwood, spokesman for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core), said the admission should send shockwaves through the local community. He added: “Be afraid, very afraid.
“If they can’t even account for the lower category of radioactive wastes, what hope is there for the volumes of significantly more dangerous intermediate and high level wastes they now so desperately want to dump deep underground somewhere in the UK?
“(The) advert implores workers who tipped nuclear waste into the site’s open trenches over a 25-year period from 1960 to try and remember exactly what it was they dumped……………………….
-
Archives
- October 2026 (92)
- September 2026 (339)
- 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)
-
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
