nuclear-news

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

  • Home
  • 1 This Month
  • ACTION !
  • Disclaimer
  • Links
  • PAGES on NUCLEAR ISSUES

The U.S. Supreme Court has shut down South Carolina’s attempt to complete a nuclear fuel facility

Supreme Court Lets US Stop Work on $8B SC Nuclear Fuel Plant

The U.S. Supreme Court has shut down South Carolina’s attempt to complete a nuclear fuel facility. https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-10-15/supreme-court-lets-us-stop-work-on-8b-sc-nuclear-fuel-plant, Oct. 15, 2019  BY JEFFREY COLLINS, Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The federal government does not have to restart construction on a nuclear fuel facility in South Carolina that it abandoned after spending nearly $8 billion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The justices refused without comment to hear South Carolina’s appeal of a lower court decision last October that allowed the U.S. Energy Department to stop building the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site near Aiken.

Work on the plant started nearly two decades ago. Its goal was to take plutonium used in nuclear weapons built during the Cold War and convert it into a fuel called MOX to run nuclear plants around the world.

The facility was over budget and behind schedule nearly from the start. It was still decades away from completion when President Barack Obama’s final budget in 2016 pulled funding.  Republicans in South Carolina asked President Donald Trump to restart the project, but his administration has refused.

South Carolina then sued the federal government, saying the government had promised to remove the 11 metric tons (24,250 pounds) of plutonium from the state by 2021. Without the MOX plant in place, there was no guarantee the government would keep its end of the deal, state officials argued.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said he was disappointed with the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear its appeal but said state officials “will continue to do everything necessary to protect the citizens of our state and hold the federal government accountable under the law.”

Federal officials said they should be free to consider any alternatives they want. The plan now appears to be to seal the plutonium and bury it in the western U.S. desert.

The Energy Department first disclosed in January 2019 that it had sent a half ton of plutonium to Nevada in 2018. Two months ago, Wilson said a full ton of plutonium had been removed from South Carolina to meet a federal court-imposed deadline of Jan. 1, 2020. He didn’t say where the other half-ton went.

In August, Nevada lost its own federal appeals court fight to block any more shipments of weapons-grade plutonium to a site near Las Vegas.

October 17, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. presidential candidates should state their position on nuclear weapons

Candidates should state position on nuclear weapons,   https://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20191014/column-candidates-should-state-position-on-nuclear-weapons   David Wright, The upcoming Democratic Party presidential debate in Ohio provides an opportunity for candidates to address an issue that a majority of Ohio voters want to hear about: their plans for U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

A recent Zogby Analytics poll found that more than 80% of Ohio residents believe it is critical that the candidates state their positions on this issue.

They are right to want to hear the candidates’ views. Ohioans understand that the risk of nuclear war remains one of the greatest threats to civilization, and security experts warn that the potential for a nuclear war is greater than it has been in decades.

The good news is that the next president could make America safer by changing U.S. nuclear policy.

Under current policies, the United States could start a nuclear war by mistake. How? Let me explain the chain of events.

The Pentagon keeps its 400 land-based missiles on hair-trigger alert so they can be launched quickly upon warning of a Russian missile attack before they could be destroyed by incoming Russian missiles. If the military received such a warning, the president would have less than 10 minutes to decide whether to launch U.S. missiles. But that warning is generated by computers based on radar and satellite data, all of which are fallible. Indeed, there have been false alarms over the years due to a range of technical and human errors. This tight time span in which to make a decision increases the risk of starting a nuclear war based on a false warning. U.S. missiles cannot be recalled or destroyed in flight, even if the Pentagon belatedly realized that the warning had been false.

Keeping missiles on hair-trigger alert is not only dangerous, it is also unnecessary. Most U.S. nuclear weapons are hidden at sea on submarines where they are safe from attack, so the United States can wait to see if a nuclear attack is actually happening before it retaliates. Debate moderators should ask the candidates if they would remove U.S. missiles from hair-trigger alert and eliminate the possibility of starting a nuclear war by mistake.

The next president also could reduce the chance that the United States would deliberately start a nuclear war. Current policy permits the United States to use nuclear weapons first in a non-nuclear conflict with Russia, China or North Korea — all of which are nuclear-armed. Doing so would almost certainly provoke a devastating nuclear response against the United States.

Moderators should tackle that topic as well. They should ask the candidates whether, if elected, they would clearly state that the only purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack and establish a policy that the United States will never use nuclear weapons first. Such a policy also would make America safer by making it less likely that our adversaries would attack us with nuclear weapons first out of fear that a U.S. nuclear strike was imminent.

The Zogby survey polled Ohioans about this “first use” issue, too. When asked if there were any acceptable circumstances for the United States to use nuclear weapons first, nearly two-thirds said no.

Finally, the United States has long relied on verifiable international agreements to constrain its adversaries’ nuclear forces. Today the United States and Russia still possess 92% of all nuclear weapons, yet the United States recently pulled out of a longstanding nuclear arms treaty with Russia and has threatened to walk away from the landmark treaty that limits long-range nuclear weapons. Debate moderators should ask the candidates if they are committed to maintaining such agreements, how they would reinvigorate U.S.-Russian negotiations and how they would address North Korea and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Voters want to know, but they will only if debate moderators ask the right questions. The presidential candidates must clarify what they would do, if elected, to reduce the nuclear threat and guarantee national — and international — security.

David Wright, co-director and senior scientist in the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, grew up in Lima and attended Miami University and Ohio State University.

October 15, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | election USA 2020 | Leave a comment

Urgent need for diplomacy with Iran

It’s Time to Talk to Iran, With tensions rising in the Middle East and Iran suffering under sanctions, this may be the last best opportunity to walk back from the brink. NYT, By William J. Burns and Jake Sullivan. 14 Oct 19, 

Both authors held high positions at the State Department in previous administrations.

This month, six years ago, we were in the midst of secret talks with Iran that led to the comprehensive nuclear agreement. It was a moment when diplomacy carried considerable risk, and considerable promise. Today, the promise has faded, and the risk is accelerating.

The consequences of the Trump administration’s foolish decision to abandon that nuclear deal last year, with no evidence of Iranian noncompliance, were predictable — and predicted.

We are now at a very dangerous point. The story of how we got here is one of faulty expectations on both sides.

Iran thought it could wait out President Trump, and the United States would simply return to the deal under a new president in 2021. But the pressure of economic sanctions, unilaterally reimposed by the United States, has been more formidable than Iran anticipated. ……..

If we stay on this trajectory, we will soon go off the cliff. The policy questions debated in Washington are too often about whether or not to wear a seatbelt. Instead, we ought to put our hands back on the wheel of diplomacy and steer toward an off-ramp before it is too late. If we stay on this trajectory, we will soon go off the cliff. The policy questions debated in Washington are too often about whether or not to wear a seatbelt. Instead, we ought to put our hands back on the wheel of diplomacy and steer toward an off-ramp before it is too late. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/opinion/iran-nuclear-deal.html

October 15, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

USA anxiety over its nuclear weapons stashed in Turkey

The US is rethinking the 50-plus nuclear weapons it keeps in Turkey, Quartz, By Tim Fernholz,  14 Oct 19, Turkish forces are pushing into northern Syria, replacing and sometimes even firing on the US troops retreating at Donald Trump’s orders.

The question of whether Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is really a US ally was put to US defense secretary Mark Esper on Fox television this morning. “No, I think Turkey, the arc of their behavior over the past several years has been terrible,” he said.

Which brings up a problem: The US is storing perhaps 50 air-dropped thermonuclear bombs at its Incirlik Airbase in southern Turkey, less than 100 miles from the Syrian border where this conflict is taking place.

The nuclear stockpile dates back to the Cold War, when the US sought to keep a sufficient supply of atomic weapons deployed in Europe to deter potential Soviet aggression. Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy also host similar arsenals, and the US trains the participating nations in the use of the doomsday devices.

Today, these bombs remain in place largely because of inertia, and the hope that countries like Turkey will see the depot as sufficient reason not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. It doesn’t seem to be working: Last month, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he could “not accept” efforts to prevent Turkey from developing its own atomic bombs.

But instability in Turkey and the region, along with Ankara’s close relationship with Russia, have had American strategists talking about re-locating their weapons for years. (The US does not officially discuss the arsenal, but there is no indication that the stockpile has been removed.)……..https://qz.com/1727158/us-rethinking-the-50-plus-nuclear-weapons-it-keeps-in-turkey/

October 14, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Turkey, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The truly dangerous situation of USA’s nuclear weapons

US nuclear weapons policies are alarmingly dangerous.  https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/us-weapons, 13 Oct 19, 

The United States tested the first atomic device in July of 1945. Seven years later, it exploded the first thermonuclear weapon—designed in part by Richard Garwin, who now serves on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

In the following years, the United States amassed many thousands of nuclear weapons, each capable of immense destruction. At the height of the Cold War, the United States maintained roughly 30,000 nuclear bombs and warheads, though the total number of weapons has fallen, thanks in part to US-Soviet and US-Russian treaties and agreements.

The policies governing when, where, and why the United States would use nuclear weapons remain unconscionably risky.

The US arsenal

As of 2019, the US arsenal contained some 4,000 nuclear weapons, about half of which are deployed and ready to be delivered. Their destructive capabilities range widely: the most powerful weapon—the “B83”—is more than 80 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The smallest weapon has an explosive yield of only 2 percent that of the Hiroshima bomb. Such “low-yield” weapons are designed to be used on the battlefield, increasing the likelihood they may actually be used.

The country’s weapons are deployed in submarines and in 80-foot-deep missile silos across the American west. Others are stored at air force bases, where they can be loaded on long-range bombers. Some 150 US bombs are deployed at airbases in five European countries.

The arsenal’s primary purpose is “deterrence”—i.e., it’s intended to dissuade others from launching a nuclear attack. However, current policies allow the United States to use nuclear weapons first against Russia, China, or North Korea, effectively beginning a nuclear war.

New weapons

Over the coming years the Pentagon plans to spend more than a trillion dollars maintaining and rebuilding the entire US nuclear arsenal, which is both unnecessary and unwise. US weapons are maintained and upgraded on an ongoing basis and many don’t require replacement. Certain types should be eliminated altogether because they are redundant and provocative. 
 
The main outcome of the Pentagon’s spending spree may be to spark an arms race with Russia and China, which would be expensive and dangerous—especially in the absence of strong arms control agreements.  

Policies

The risk of nuclear war has as much to do with policy as it does to do with the weapons themselves.

In the United States, the President is granted sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. He or she doesn’t need to consult with anyone beforehand and can issue a launch order with very few checks and balances.

It’s also US policy that nuclear weapons can be used first in a non-nuclear conflict with a nuclear-armed state, i.e. not only in retaliation. If the United States crossed the nuclear threshold and started a nuclear war, it would open up our country to a retaliatory attack.

Additionally, 400 land-based missiles are kept on hair-trigger alert, meaning they’re maintained in a ready-for-launch status. Current policy allows the United States to launch these missiles on warning of an incoming attack, despite a long history of false alarms and close calls.  

Collectively, these and other policies increase the risk of nuclear war. Better policies would reduce that risk.  

October 14, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

“The Columbian” jeers the U.S. Department of Energy, over nuclear wastes

In Our View: Cheers & Jeers: storing nuclear waste, The Columbian, 

Jeers: To the U.S. Department of Energy. The Western Governors’ Association is right to decry federal plans regarding the storage of radioactive nuclear waste. Among the complaints: Governors were not consulted before a plan to ship contaminated items to Carlsbad, N.M., was unveiled.

For decades, the federal government has shirked its duty for cleaning up contaminated sites such as the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Federal officials need to better engage with the states that have unwittingly become experts in dealing with contaminated waste. https://www.columbian.com/news/2019/oct/12/in-our-view-cheers-jeers-bo-tax-storing-nuclear-waste/

October 14, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

EPA Announces $125 million settlement for cleanup of the Nuclear Metals Superfund Site in Concord, Massachusetts

EPA Announces $125 million settlement for cleanup of the Nuclear Metals Superfund Site in Concord, Massachusetts   USA EPA, 

10/10/2019    CONCORD, Mass. (October 10, 2019) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced the filing of a consent decree with the four parties responsible for contamination at the Nuclear Metals Superfund site in Concord. Under the agreement, the United States, on behalf of the U.S. Army and U.S. Department of Energy, along with Textron Inc. and Whittaker Corporation, will address the cleanup of the site at an estimated cost of approximately $125 million……..

The site, also known as the Starmet Corporation site, includes the 46-acre parcel located at 2229 Main Street in Concord and the surrounding areas where groundwater contamination has migrated. Several prior owners/operators used the site for research and specialized metals manufacturing and were licensed to possess low-level radioactive substances.

From 1958 to 1985, wastes contaminated with depleted uranium, copper, and nitric acid were disposed into an unlined holding basin at the site. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which likely contained 1,4-dioxane as a stabilizer, were used as solvents and degreasers for the cleaning of machines and machined parts/products and discharged through floor drains to an on-site cooling water pond that resulted in contamination of an on-site supply well.

The facility was listed as a Superfund site in 2001, and EPA placed a temporary cover over the holding basin in 2002 to address one of the most immediate risks at the site. Approximately 185,000 square feet of building space was demolished between 2011 and 2017 at a cost of $54 million under a previous agreement with the EPA.

The long-term cleanup plan for the site was selected by EPA in 2015 and generally includes the following components, which will be completed under the proposed agreement:

  • Excavation and off-site disposal of about 82,500 cubic yards of contaminated soils, sediment and debris.
  • Stabilization of depleted uranium contaminated soils in the holding basin.
  • Extraction and treatment of groundwater for VOCs and 1,4-dioxane.
  • Treatment of depleted uranium and natural uranium in groundwater.
  • Long-term monitoring and land use controls.

A portion of the groundwater cleanup was started in 2016 because a plume contaminated with 1,4-dioxane was migrating away from the property under the Assabet River towards the town of Acton’s water supply. The remainder of the groundwater cleanup will be done under the agreement.

The Consent Decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 9, 2019, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court. A copy of the consent decree will be available on the U.S. Department of Justice’s website at https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.

Site cleanup work can begin upon approval of the consent decree by the court.

For more information on EPA’s cleanup of the Nuclear Metals site visit https://www.epa.gov/superfund/nmi……. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-125-million-settlement-cleanup-nuclear-metals-superfund-site-concord-0

October 14, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

U.S. Congress ponders reckless decision to increase production of plutonium bomb cores or “pits.”

Expanding nuclear weapon production is reckless   https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/464904-expanding-nuclear-weapon-production-is-reckless?fbclid=IwAR2OYVMTWmvWeV-GxEZm4v8jXbLp1MePAtgBaFPwEpig31H5jui9vFuefHc

BY MARYLIA KELLEY AND JOSEPH RODGERS,  10/08/19Behind closed doors, Congress is in the process of making a decision that will have a profound impact on nuclear risk levels and global security. Hanging in the balance is a decision to recklessly increase production of plutonium bomb cores or “pits.” The NDAA conference committee must not make that mistake.

Pits are the triggers for thermonuclear weapons. Currently, the United States does not manufacture plutonium pits on an industrial scale. In its fiscal 2020 budget request the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) seeks authorization to produce at least 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030 at two facilities separated by some 1,500 miles. The Senate NDAA fully funds the request. The House instead authorizes 30 pits per year, all at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in NM. Los Alamos is presently authorized to produce 20 pits annually.

Plutonium pit production at such a large scale represents a major departure from our post-Cold War nuclear weapons policy. Since the Rocky Flats Plant in CO closed in 1989 following a raid by the FBI environmental crimes unit, the United States has produced pits at an annual rate of 11 or fewer. Further, there have been no orders for newly manufactured pits in nearly a decade.

Instead, the government has been utilizing some of the approximately 20,000 plutonium pits in storage at the Pantex Plant in Texas to conduct its ongoing warhead maintenance and refurbishment programs. These pits have very long lifetimes. JASON, a DOD organized group of independent scientific experts, estimated that plutonium pits will last 100 years or more.

Clearly, the Senate NDAA is not meant to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile. Instead, future production is intended to enable modified pit designs for new-design warheads, contrary to longstanding U.S. arms control objectives. Given the current moratorium on explosive testing of nuclear weapons, those pits cannot be full-scale tested or, alternatively, could prompt the United States to return to nuclear testing. This would have international proliferation consequences beyond anything we’ve seen since the most dangerous days of the Cold War.

As if to confirm that this is the ultimate plan, NNSA’s Lawrence Livermore National Lab has already begun to create a warhead, called the W87-1, that goes beyond previously-tested limits. The design that Livermore is pursuing contains a novel plutonium pit, unlike any pits in the stockpile or in storage at Pantex.  The W87-1 is slated go on top of a new-design intercontinental ballistic missile, the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. It too is controversial due to unknowns regarding its pending cost, schedule, and significant integration challenges to accommodate the new warhead.

Further, the 80 pit per year capability will not be reachable in the time frame NNSA posits, and its facilities may not be able to operate properly at that production rate. A Pentagon-funded report by the Institute for Defense Analyses in 2019 concluded that 80 pits per year is not achievable “on the schedules or budgets currently forecasted” by the NNSA. This problem is compounded by the fact that the Savannah River Site in SC, NNSA’s proposed location to produce 50 of the 80 pits annually, has been plagued with decades of cost overruns and mismanagement. Additionally, Los Alamos’s pit production capability has been crippled by safety lapses, even at the lower rate.

Placing a novel warhead design in the active nuclear weapons stockpile with a substantially untested pit is irresponsible. Rapidly increasing production at sites with spotty records compounds that error with added safety hazards. Increasing plutonium pit production to a rate of 80 or more annually is both reckless and unnecessary.

The Conference Committee can follow the Senate approach that heedlessly increases our country’s risk levels. Alternatively, it can follow a more rational approach to nuclear security by supporting the House NDAA that restricts select funding for nuclear weapons production and deployment — including for expanded plutonium pit production.

Marylia Kelley is the executive director of the Livermore, CA-based Tri-Valley CAREs. For 36 years she has monitored the programs, capabilities and budgets of U.S. nuclear weapons complex, including at Livermore Lab. She has provided testimony on nuclear weapons design and production before the House Armed Services Committee of the U.S. Congress and the California State Legislature. In 2002, she was inducted into the Alameda County Women’s Hall of Fame.

October 12, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Wisacasset community to learn more about status of its nuclear waste problem

Maine Yankee to issue update on Wiscasset nuclear waste   https://www.timesrecord.com/articles/front-page/maine-yankee-to-issue-update-on-wiscasset-nuclear-waste/, October 11, 2019
Kathleen O’Brien WISCASSET — The Maine Yankee Community Advisory Panel on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage will meet Tuesday to update Wiscasset residents on the status of the 64 containers of nuclear waste stored at the former Maine Yankee power plant site.The federal government was contractually obligated to remove the radioactive waste by 1998 after the plant was decommissioned in 1996. The advisory panel advocates for the removal of the spent nuclear fuel to a safe location outside New England.

Eric Howes, Maine Yankee director of public and government affairs, will also give an update on the Sensible, Timely Relief for America’s Nuclear Districts Economic Development (STRANDED) Act, which was introduced by U.S. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, in July. The act is aimed at providing financial relief to communities like Wiscasset stuck with storing nuclear waste.

Should the STRANDED Act pass, Wiscasset would be eligible to receive $15 per kilogram of nuclear waste currently being housed at the site, which is the rate for impact assistance established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

There are about 542 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at Maine Yankee, meaning Wiscasset would collect over $8 million from the government. According to Maine Yankee, it costs roughly $10 million per year to maintain the 64 canisters of radioactive waste.

The spent nuclear fuel is housed in 64 dry storage casks, which stand on 16 3-foot-thick concrete pads. Each concrete cask is comprised of a 2.5-inch thick steel liner surrounded by 28 inches of reinforced concrete.

The meeting will be held at the Wiscasset Community Center on Tuesday, Oct. 15 from 4 – 6 p.m.   kobrien@timesrecord.com

October 12, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Ex-generals aim to shift conservative resiliency dialogue away from coal, nuclear subsidies

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ex-generals-aim-to-shift-conservative-resiliency-dialogue-away-from-coal-n/564815/ The project aims to educate stakeholders on the possibilities of competitive contracts to promote resilience. “There’s an element within the country that says we can’t reveal” engineering improvements for the critical substations and nodes “for causes classified…and so there’s no competition in the pricing of those repairs,” Handy told reporters on Thursday.
“What we’re suggesting, from a national security standpoint is … companies know how to compete in a classified area or a confidential area, and not just about the grid, about anything,” Hagee said. “These competitive forces can in fact be brought to bear even when you have information that is sensitive.”
  by  Iulia Gheorghiu  Oct. 11, 2019  

Dive Brief:

  • Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) launched a project this month to direct conservative discussions on energy and national security toward market-based approaches, leveraging the knowledge and experience of three former U.S. generals.
  • The Grid Security Project will focus on federal-level policy, as well as Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania, where state subsidy efforts are underway to aid power plants that SAFE has deemed unnecessary for reliability or security, based on a technical analysis from grid operator PJM Interconnection.
  • On Thursday, General Michael Hagee and General John Handy, two leaders of the Grid Security Project, met with energy and defense committees on Capitol Hill to discuss infrastructure legislation, the defense authorization bill and transportation electrification.

Dive Insight:

The new group aims to shift “the narrative in the conservative community away from subsidizing coal and nuclear plants toward one that emphasizes real grid security and resilience,” following proposals from several states and the Trump administration to subsidize power plants with baseload capacity, according to SAFE’s statement.

The Grid Security Project’s fuel-neutral message would target Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania, with education efforts extending to legislators, public utility commissioners and other thought leaders.

n Ohio, coal and nuclear subsidy legislation could go into effect in mid-October. The Grid Security Project is publishing information and working to oppose the subsidies because, according to SAFE, state legislators and First Energy Solutions have contradicted PJM’s assessment by maintaining certain coal and nuclear plants were important to reliability and national security.

On a national level, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is pursuing a docket on resilience, and the Grid Security Project wants to help steer discussions toward market-based approaches.

“We want a reliable, resilient and affordable grid,” Hagee said. “The best way to get to that… [is] with our ingenuity and our competitiveness.”

The project aims to educate stakeholders on the possibilities of competitive contracts to promote resilience. “There’s an element within the country that says we can’t reveal” engineering improvements for the critical substations and nodes “for causes classified…and so there’s no competition in the pricing of those repairs,” Handy told reporters on Thursday.

“What we’re suggesting, from a national security standpoint is … companies know how to compete in a classified area or a confidential area, and not just about the grid, about anything,” Hagee said. “These competitive forces can in fact be brought to bear even when you have information that is sensitive.”

October 12, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, climate change, USA | Leave a comment

The nuclear industry looks to Trump to bail them out

US nuclear, uranium mining industries hope for Trump bailout  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-nuclear-uranium-mining-industries-hope-for-trump-bailout/2019/10/09/3a857ff2-eaca-11e9-a329-7378fbfa1b63_story.html By Ellen Knickmeyer, Felicia Fonseca and Mead Gruver | AP, October 9 19

WASHINGTON — A plea from uranium mining companies and nuclear power plant operators for tax breaks and other federal financial boosts is going before President Donald Trump, as his administration studies reviving the U.S. uranium industry in the name of national security.

Trump is scheduled to receive recommendations Thursday from a task force of national security, military and other federal officials about ways to revive U.S. uranium mining, which has lagged against global competition amid low uranium ore prices.

Uranium is a vital component for the country’s nuclear arsenal, submarines and nuclear power plants. U.S. uranium users get about 10% of their supply from domestic sources, the federal Energy Information Administration has said. Most of the rest comes from Canada and Australia, followed by Russia and former Soviet republics.

U.S. uranium mining interests have pushed Trump to require uranium users to get 25% of what they use from domestic suppliers, saying the global market is vulnerable to geopolitical turmoil. Trump rejected the quota idea this past summer and gave the task force 90 days to come up with other ideas.

An Aug. 18 letter from the Nuclear Energy Institute industry group laid out the sector’s requests, including a recommendation for the Defense Department to procure more domestic uranium for military needs and for subsidies for electric utilities or uranium producers for the production of up to 3 million pounds (1.4 million kilograms) of partially processed uranium yearly.

Nuclear power plants, which have been suffering in the U.S. marketplace against cheaper natural gas and renewables, also are seeking assistance. Plant operators and utilities had opposed the production quota sought by mining interests.

“There are reactors out there that are financially in difficulty,” Matthew Wald, a Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman, said this week. “We would like to see a thriving domestic uranium industry … We don’t want something that will raise the costs of domestic reactors.”

If the Trump administration ever imposes sanctions against Russia, that could limit the U.S. uranium users can get from that country, said Curtis Moore, a spokesman for Colorado-based Energy Fuels Inc., a uranium mining company.

“Do we really want to put our energy security and national security in the hands of our adversaries? That’s just not smart policy,” Moore said.

But conservation groups and other opponents said the U.S. has enough uranium stockpiled to supply decades’ worth of defense needs. They argue the availability of high-quality imported uranium from close allies, including Canada, means more taxpayer support for the industry is unnecessary.

U.S. uranium producers want “the federal government to prop up their industry through enormous subsidies and self-serving quotas,” plus easing of environmental protections and the opening of more public land for mining, said Randi Spivak, public lands program director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

“It’s not a national security issue,” she said.

The nuclear power industry is “trying to leverage the ‘America First’ moment to get more government financial support for the operating fleet,” said Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert with the Union for Concerned Scientists advocacy group.

Other industry requests to a working group made up of representatives from the Pentagon and agencies including the Commerce and Energy departments include vastly expanding a U.S. uranium reserve that could be tapped in times of supply disruption.

The American Assured Fuel Supply Reserve established in 2011 currently has six so-called “reloads” of low enriched uranium. A nuclear plant needs reloading with processed fuel at least every two years. The U.S. over the next seven to 10 years should expand the reserve to 30 reloads, or 25 million tons of partially processed uranium ore, the industries say.

Some uranium mining companies also have said Trump should reconsider his July decision not to limit imports by reserving 25% of U.S. uranium use for domestic producers.

The administration already has done plenty to ease environmental and other regulations and at this point, only tariffs and quotas would “move the needle” to help the industry, said Travis Deti, director of the Wyoming Mining Association, which represents the state’s mining companies.

Most uranium in the U.S., including all of it from Wyoming, is mined by pumping a solution of water and chemicals into uranium-bearing deposits underground. The water is then pumped to the surface and ore is extracted.

One of the richest known reserves of uranium ore spans parts of northwestern New Mexico. Previous booms in what was once known as the uranium capital of the world occurred during the 1950s and again in the 1970s. Environmentalists have been fighting to prevent future mining in the region and in Arizona around the Grand Canyon.

Amber Reimondo of the Flagstaff, Arizona-based Grand Canyon Trust says she fears moves to boost domestic uranium mining could end protections put in place during the administration of President Barack Obama for uranium-bearing lands outside Grand Canyon National Park.

Uranium mining in the Southwest during the atomic age left a legacy of death and disease, Reimondo said. Hundreds of uranium mines that dot the Navajo Nation, for example, have not been cleaned up. The tribe, whose reservation extends into New Mexico, Utah and Arizona, banned uranium mining and transport on its lands in 2005.

“When people talk about past uranium mining, they talk about it as if the problem is in the past, as if people aren’t still living with the consequences of uranium contamination and that uranium contamination can be segregated in some bubble when it just inherently lasts for longer than any of us can fathom,” she said. “We shouldn’t be meddling in that.”

Fonseca reported from Flagstaff, Arizona and Gruver reported Cheyenne, Wyoming. Associated Press writer Brady McCombs in Salt Lake City and Susan Montoya Bryan in Albuquerque, New Mexico contributed to this report.

October 10, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

USA Congress needs a new approach to the intractable problem of nuclear wastes

nuclear and climate change. While many argue that we have to do everything in our power to bolster nuclear energy in order to effectively fight the climate crisis, bluntly, nuclear energy is not a realistic solution. 

The price tag for new nuclear is too high and the timeline for expansion too long—Plant Vogtle and VC Summer show us that. And while nuclear reactors may not directly emit greenhouse gases, that doesn’t mean that it’s a clean energy source. There are significant traditional environmental impacts from nuclear energy, primarily regarding radiation risks and impacts to water quality. Then there’s the effects climate change will have on the functioning and safety of nuclear plants themselves. The more we look at the issue, the more we see that sea level rise and heat waves risk the safety and dependability of nuclear plants. 

It’s Time to Bury These Nuclear Waste Talking Points https://www.nrdc.org/experts/caroline-reiser/its-time-bury-these-nuclear-waste-talking-points

October 09, 2019 Caroline Reiser

This year we’re seeing yet another attempt from Congress to address the fifty-year problem of what to do with the 80,000 tons of nuclear waste sitting across the country, with approximately 2,000 more tons produced every year by the 96 operating U.S. nuclear reactors. Unfortunately, the multiple nuclear waste bills that sprung up in both the House and Senate (including H.R.2699 which just cleared an Energy and Commerce subcommittee) simply offer the same worn out ideas.

So when NRDC was invited to testify—first by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, then by the House Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, and finally by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources—we decided to present a new way forward.

NRDC has an answer to one difficult fact everyone at the hearings seemed to agree on—that all the important actors in the process have utterly lost trust in one another. As NRDC senior attorney Geoffrey Fettus explained: “Our government is at its strongest when each players’ role is respected. State consent and public acceptance of potential repository sites will never be willingly granted, unless and until power on how, when, and where the waste will be disposed of is shared, rather than decided by federal fiat.”

Trust—especially in a dangerous undertaking like deep geologic storage of nuclear waste—can only flourish when there is an equal balance of power. And consent to host a permanent nuclear waste repository will only be granted when states can trust the deal they are making. Right now, however, there is no equal balance of power and therefore states don’t trust that they can consent to hosting any nuclear waste without being forced to open their doors to the country’s entire waste burden.

Strong environmental laws founded on federalism have a proven track record on precisely this point. But because there has been a presumption of federal exclusivity over it, nuclear waste is exempt from environmental laws and therefore also exempt from the state and EPA regulatory oversight that comes with them. We think this needs to change. Giving states the regulatory authority over nuclear waste that they currently lack will build trust and allow states to consent on realistic scientific and political terms.

We presented this idea before all three Congressional Committees with growing interest from members. (See NRDC’s testimony here, here, and here). And yet Congress is still reluctant to move away from common talking points which have only led to the repeated failures of the past. So let’s take a minute to debunk some of those repetitive points.

First incorrect talking point: Yucca Mountain. Let’s be clear about how we got stuck on Yucca Mountain and why proceeding pretending that it is a ready or wanted solution is naive.  Yucca Mountain was not picked as the permanent nuclear waste repository because it is the best scientifically and technically sound site. Originally, the law set out an adaptive, phased, and science-based process to narrow down potential repository sites. But in 1987, faced with the high cost of comprehensively comparing multiple potential sites, Congress abandoned all pretext of equity and scientific-basis, and instead simply picked the most politically expedient choice at the time, Yucca Mountain.

But Yucca Mountain did not remain the expedient, or for that matter the rational, choice. The science simply doesn’t line up—of particular note are the serious groundwater concerns with the site. And Nevada has been able to stand together for decades to say with one voice: “No!” If the Yucca Mountain process does ever get moving again, Nevada and its supporters are on-deck with the science to prove it’s a bad choice.

Nevada isn’t unique in rejecting any hint of a proposal to host nuclear waste. Utah, Tennessee, South Dakota, New Mexico, and Texas have all rejected nuclear waste storage just as firmly. This is why we need a new system that allows for real consent backed with state authority.

Second incorrect talking point: waste is holding the industry back. At the hearing before the House Energy and Climate Change Subcommittee, the expert witness from the Nuclear Energy Institute stated that the failure to address nuclear waste is “the albatross on the neck of the nuclear industry.” While this reference to Coleridge’s poem The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is a nice use of imagery to describe waste as the industry’s self-inflicted burden and curse, it’s a façade for the larger truth.

Since at least 1957, there has been consensus that nuclear waste must end up in a geologic repository. But no repository has been developed and licensed to address the 80,000 tons of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants that has been piling up in 35 states. And yet over the same timeframe more than 100 domestic commercial reactors were built. Even today two new reactors are being built at Plant Vogtle in Georgia with little discussion on how much it will add to the country’s nuclear waste burden.

So what is the real albatross on the nuclear industry’s neck? The gigantic up-front costs of building nuclear reactors and a lack of economic competitiveness in modern energy markets.

Existing nuclear plants exist thanks to decades of direct subsidies and legal protections provided by the federal government. These reactors are now at risk of early closure because they are no longer economical, have potential safety issues, and simply cannot compete in a marketplace dominated by low-priced natural gas and renewable energy.

The failed VC Summer plant in South Carolina and the on-going Vogtle construction in Georgia are stark examples of how the astronomical up-front costs of new reactors limit expansion of the nuclear industry. $9 billion went into the VC Summer project before the plug was pulled and Vogtle is now estimated to cost approximately $28 billion—twice its originally projected cost. (This isn’t just a US problem either).

It’s not nuclear waste that’s burdening nuclear growth, it’s simple economics.

Third incorrect talking point: reprocessing. While the process of using nuclear waste to create more fuel for energy production seems like a magic wand to wave away the nuclear waste problem, it ignores the reality of reprocessing. Reprocessing doesn’t just create more fuel for energy; it also separates plutonium, dramatically increasing the threat of nuclear proliferation. Further, reprocessing doesn’t consume all the nuclear waste—it has its own radioactive toxic waste streams like the Cold War legacy of reprocessing to create nuclear weapons left in Washington, South Carolina, and Idaho.

And even if you could ignore these bad by-products, reprocessing is simply not economic. Plants that use reprocessed fuel are even more expensive than the traditional nuclear plants that already struggle with upfront costs. So, while on the surface reprocessing may seem like the answer to our 80,000-ton problem, the truth is that reprocessing should never be on the table.

Final incorrect talking point: nuclear and climate change. While many argue that we have to do everything in our power to bolster nuclear energy in order to effectively fight the climate crisis, bluntly, nuclear energy is not a realistic solution.

The price tag for new nuclear is too high and the timeline for expansion too long—Plant Vogtle and VC Summer show us that. And while nuclear reactors may not directly emit greenhouse gases, that doesn’t mean that it’s a clean energy source. There are significant traditional environmental impacts from nuclear energy, primarily regarding radiation risks and impacts to water quality. Then there’s the effects climate change will have on the functioning and safety of nuclear plants themselves. The more we look at the issue, the more we see that sea level rise and heat waves risk the safety and dependability of nuclear plants.

This is why NRDC has laid out a clean energy pathway to cost-effectively reach a low-carbon future while allowing the role of nuclear energy to continue its decline.

Rather than continue to blunder blindly down a legislative path that only leads us through the same unrealistic circles of conversation laid out above, it is time for Congress to take a step back and forge a new path by regulating nuclear waste under standard environmental laws. This is a way to get states to say “yes,” and in a way that can work in our democracy.

That’s not to say that this change will be like waving a wand and suddenly all the waste is gone. But it’s a new direction with real potential because it relies on well-established laws. It is time to regulate nuclear waste the same way as every other pollutant, with the federal government and states sharing authority under our foundational environmental statutes. Now we just need someone brave enough to lead the way.

October 10, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

USA – North Korea talks broke down, but USA calls them “good discussions”

North Korea’s chief negotiator says discussions with the United States on Pyongyang’s nuclear program have broken down, but Washington says the two sides had “good discussions” that it intends to build on in two weeks. ABC News 6 Oct 17

Key points:

  • North Korea said the talks broke down because negotiations had not met their expectations
  • The US State Department said North Korea’s comments did “not reflect the content or the spirit” of the “good discussions” that took place
  • It was the first time US and North Korea had conducted working-level negotiations since a February summit

The North Korean negotiator, Kim Miyong-Gil, said the talks in Stockholm had “not fulfilled our expectations and broke down”.

“I am very displeased about it,” he said.

Speaking outside the North Korean embassy, he read a statement in Korean that a translator next to him read in English.

Mr Kim said negotiations broke down “entirely because the US has not discarded its old stance and attitude”.

Saturday’s talks were the first between the US and North Korea since the February breakdown of the second summit between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un in Vietnam.

North Korea has since resumed missile tests, including an underwater-launched missile that fell inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone on Wednesday……. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-06/nuclear-talks-with-us-leave-north-korea-very-displeased/11577176

October 6, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | North Korea, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Hanford nuclear waste cleanup unlikely ever to be complete, and with a poor safety culture

Worst U.S. Nuclear Waste Dump Inches Closer to Cleanup, Engineering News Record (ENR) October 3, 2019, Tim Newcomb and Debra K. Rubin   The relics of the nation’s World War II and Cold War past spread across 580 sq miles of desert plateau in southeastern Washington state in the form of decaying buildings and massive waste storage tanks that sustained plutonium production from 1943 to 1987.For more than three decades at the massive Hanford site near Richland, Wash., the U.S. Energy Dept. has tasked employees and multiple contractors to assess and clean up the daunting environmental legacy of making America’s nuclear weapons. Billions of dollars have been spent, but billions more are needed.

Now, a core piece of the cleanup program nears a milestone after 17 years and $17 billion of construction: startup of the first phase of a new production complex to transform much of Hanford’s 56 million gallons of long-stored radioactive waste from weapons-making into inert glass for safe disposal and future decay.

Nearly 3,000 on-site employees are attached to Hanford’s Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, dubbed Vit Plant, including 1,500 trades workers. But as it pushes to meet court-imposed mandates, the project and its innovative technology still face big technical and funding uncertainties and stakeholder skepticism.

The project was conceived nearly two decades ago to pump the radioactive waste from 177 aging underground storage tanks, about 60 of which have leaked to the subsurface and likely into groundwater.

Using vitrification technology, the pumped waste will be heated to 2,100° F and blended with glass-forming materials. The molten mixture then will be poured into stainless steel canisters to cool and solidify, protecting humans and the environment from radioactivity as it dissipates over hundreds to thousands of years……..

the project—based on a design in a 1997 environmental impact statement—has been plagued by technical challenges and delays, and its cost now is about four times its original projection.

Project and government managers and regulators sparred regularly over scope changes, and progress and cost impacts that affected Bechtel performance incentives, most recently for 2018, says an April report in Tri-Cities-Herald, the regional newspaper that has followed the Vit Plant closely since its start. The newspaper notes improvements this year.

Even so, the current project price tag remains a moving target more than a decade from full completion, Years and billions of dollars beyond the original scope, DOE has tamped down expectations as safety and quality assurance issues emerged in the high-level waste (HLW) treatment process, some raised by whistleblowers, including one whose alarms resulted in his firing by site subcontractor URS, now part of AECOM, and a subsequent $4-million wrongful termination judgement.

Originally intending to treat all waste in a single stream, DOE in 2013 moved to create what is now called the Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) process, which will allow treatment of what the agency says is 90% of tank waste, which is considered “low-activity”, through a designated vitrification plant as engineers work out technical and design issues for high-level waste treatment.

Last month, Brian Vance, who heads DOE operations at Hanford, told the Washington state Dept. of Ecology in a “notice of serious risk” that his agency “cannot project with certainty” when the high-level waste or pretreatment plants will be completed…….

a congressionally mandated National Academies of Science draft report issued in mid-September raises concerns about the plant’s ability to treat the large amount of site low-level waste in time to meet the deadlines, based on existing design……..

Future Doubts

Tom Carpenter, executive director of leading site watchdog group Hanford Challenge, says no part of the Vit Plant should operate short of a complete and independent inspection that validates and verifies nuclear treatment quality.

“DOE seems to be doing everything in its power to simply walk away from its legal and moral obligations to deal with Hanford’s extraordinary radioactive waste inventories,” he contends, related to the proposed waste reclassification.

“I seriously doubt the HLW facility will ever operate for numerous reasons, and DOE will simply find that the waste is low-level, not high-level, dump concrete on the whole mess and call it good.”

While Carpenter supports vitrifying tank waste, he has concerns with what he calls consistent design flaws, a lack of quality control and a “poor nuclear safety culture”  at the site.

Carpenter cites whistleblower lawsuits and reassignment of employees who raised safety concerns.

For DOE and Bechtel, the focus remains on the 90% of waste they say they can successfully treat via the DFLAW process.

“There have been quality issues in the past that slowed things, but those have been addressed,” McCain says. “Having legacy issues behind us was a big burden off the project.”

David Reeploeg, vice president of federal programs for local economic development group TRIDEC, is encouraged with progress made in recent years, but says funding remains the “single biggest challenge.”

Not only does the project need hundreds of millions of dollars every year to meet milestones and agreements, he says it will be “critically important for DOE and its regulators to identify ways to reduce the long-term cost and schedule for Hanford cleanup,” something that the Vit Plant’s history has already shown won’t be an easy task.https://www.enr.com/articles/47720-worst-us-nuclear-waste-dump-inches-closer-to-cleanup

October 5, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes | 1 Comment

A new process supplies medical isotope 99Mo: no need for a nuclear reactor

Nuclear fusion process could create US supply of Mo-99 https://www.dotmed.com/news/story/48759, by Lisa Chamoff, Contributing Reporter | October 04, 2019  A new nuclear fusion process may shore up supply of the rapidly-decaying, cancer-detecting radioisotope molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) without the need for reactor facilities.

Nuclear technology company Phoenix and SHINE Medical Technologies, a medical isotope production company, this week announced that in July it surpassed a record for a nuclear fusion reaction in a steady-state system.

The reaction at SHINE’s medical isotope production facility produced 46 trillion neutrons per second, surpassing the previous record set at a California facility by nearly 25 percent.

The technology will drive SHINE’s production of Mo-99, which decays into the diagnostic imaging agent technetium 99m (Tc-99m), and other radioisotopes, with production scheduled to start in 2021 at a facility in Wisconsin.Currently, only a handful of government-owned nuclear research reactors produce Mo-99, which has a 66-hour half-life, and none of them are in the U.S., which uses half the global supply.

The companies say the eight Phoenix systems will help address limited accessibility to nuclear reactors for producing medical isotopes, used for cardiac stress testing and cancer detection, and meet a third of the global demand.

The companies expect to produce 20 million doses per year once the plant is up and running. SHINE has already sent Mo-99 samples produced by this method to GE Healthcare to be tested and verified.

Mo-99 is created by accelerating a particle beam into a target and generating a nuclear fusion reaction. The company developed a proprietary nuclear fusion process that uses a gaseous target instead of solid one, said Evan Sengbusch, president of Phoenix.

“The ion beam isn’t wasting energy with a solid matrix,” Sengbusch told HCB News. “It is cheaper than a nuclear reactor and doesn’t produce nuclear waste.”

October 5, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

1 This Month

26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/

​To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com

  • Categories

    • 1
      • Arclight's Vision
    • 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
      • business and costs
        • employment
        • marketing
      • climate change
      • culture and arts
      • ENERGY
        • renewable
          • decentralised
          • energy storage
      • environment
        • oceans
        • water
      • health
        • children
        • psychology – mental health
        • radiation
        • social effects
        • women
      • history
      • indigenous issues
      • Legal
        • deaths by radiation
        • legal
      • marketing of nuclear
      • media
        • investigative journalism
        • Wikileaks
      • opposition to nuclear
      • PERSONAL STORIES
      • politics
        • psychology and culture
          • Trump – personality
        • public opinion
        • USA election 2024
        • USA elections 2016
      • politics international
      • Religion and ethics
      • safety
        • incidents
      • secrets,lies and civil liberties
        • civil liberties
      • spinbuster
        • Education
      • technology
        • reprocessing
        • Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
        • space travel
      • Uranium
      • wastes
        • – plutonium
        • decommission reactor
      • weapons and war
        • Atrocities
        • depleted uranium
      • Women
    • 2 WORLD
      • ANTARCTICA
      • ARCTIC
      • ASIA
        • Burma
        • China
        • India
        • Indonesia
        • Japan
          • – Fukushima 2011
          • Fukushima 2012
          • Fukushima 2013
          • Fukushima 2014
          • Fukushima 2015
          • Fukushima 2016
          • Fukushima continuing
        • Malaysia
        • Mongolia
        • North Korea
        • Pakistan
        • South Korea
        • Taiwan
        • Turkey
        • Vietnam
      • EUROPE
        • Belarus
        • Bulgaria
        • Denmark
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Kazakhstan
        • Kyrgyzstan
        • Russia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • UK
        • Ukraine
      • MIDDLE EAST
        • Afghanistan
        • Egypt
        • Gaza
        • Iran
        • Iraq
        • Israel
        • Jordan
        • Libya
        • Saudi Arabia
        • Syria
        • Turkey
        • United Arab Emirates
      • NORTH AMERICA
        • Canada
        • USA
          • election USA 2020
      • OCEANIA
        • New Zealand
        • Philippines
      • SOUTH AMERICA
        • Brazil
    • ACTION
    • AFRICA
      • Kenya
      • Malawi
      • Mali
      • Namibia
      • Niger
      • Nigeria
      • Somalia
      • South 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
      • thorium
    • Reference
      • Reference archives
    • resources – print
    • Resources -audiovicual
    • Weekly Newsletter
    • World
    • World Nuclear
    • YouTube
  • Pages

    • 1 This Month
    • ACTION !
    • Disclaimer
    • Links
    • PAGES on NUCLEAR ISSUES
      • audio-visual news
      • Anti Nuclear, Clean Energy Movement
        • Anti Nuclear movement – a success story
          • – 2013 – the struggle for a nuclear-free, liveable world
          • – 2013: the battle to expose nuclear lies about ionising radiation
            • Speakers at Fukushima Symposium March 2013
            • Symposium 2013 Ian Fairlie
      • Civil Liberties
        • – Civil liberties – China and USA
      • Climate change
      • Climate Change
      • Economics
        • – Employment
        • – Marketing nuclear power
        • – Marketing Nuclear Power Internationally
        • nuclear ‘renaissance’?
        • Nuclear energy – the sick man of the corporate world
      • Energy
        • – Solar energy
      • Environment
        • – Nuclear Power and the Tragedy of the Commons
        • – Water
      • Health
        • Birth Defects in the Chernobyl Radiation Affected Region.
      • History
        • Nuclear History – the forgotten disasters
      • Indigenous issues
      • Ionising radiation
        • – Ionising radiation – medical
        • Fukushima FACT SHEET
      • Media
        • Nuclear Power and Media 2012
      • Nuclear Power and the Consumer Society – theme for December 2012
      • Peace and nuclear disarmament
        • Peace on a Nuclear Free Earth
      • Politics
        • – Politics USA
      • Public opinion
      • Religion and ethics
        • -Ethics of nuclear power
      • Resources – print
      • Safety
      • Secrets and lies
        • – NUCLEAR LIES – theme for January 2012
        • – Nuclear Secrets and Lies
      • Spinbuster
        • 2013 nuclear spin – all about FEAR -theme for June
        • Spinbuster 1
      • Technology
        • TECHNOLOGY Challenges
      • Wastes
        • NUCLEAR WASTES – theme for October 2012
        • – Plutonium
      • Weapons and war
      • Women
  • Archives

    • September 2026 (305)
    • 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
      • Arclight's Vision
    • 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
      • business and costs
        • employment
        • marketing
      • climate change
      • culture and arts
      • ENERGY
        • renewable
          • decentralised
          • energy storage
      • environment
        • oceans
        • water
      • health
        • children
        • psychology – mental health
        • radiation
        • social effects
        • women
      • history
      • indigenous issues
      • Legal
        • deaths by radiation
        • legal
      • marketing of nuclear
      • media
        • investigative journalism
        • Wikileaks
      • opposition to nuclear
      • PERSONAL STORIES
      • politics
        • psychology and culture
          • Trump – personality
        • public opinion
        • USA election 2024
        • USA elections 2016
      • politics international
      • Religion and ethics
      • safety
        • incidents
      • secrets,lies and civil liberties
        • civil liberties
      • spinbuster
        • Education
      • technology
        • reprocessing
        • Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
        • space travel
      • Uranium
      • wastes
        • – plutonium
        • decommission reactor
      • weapons and war
        • Atrocities
        • depleted uranium
      • Women
    • 2 WORLD
      • ANTARCTICA
      • ARCTIC
      • ASIA
        • Burma
        • China
        • India
        • Indonesia
        • Japan
          • – Fukushima 2011
          • Fukushima 2012
          • Fukushima 2013
          • Fukushima 2014
          • Fukushima 2015
          • Fukushima 2016
          • Fukushima continuing
        • Malaysia
        • Mongolia
        • North Korea
        • Pakistan
        • South Korea
        • Taiwan
        • Turkey
        • Vietnam
      • EUROPE
        • Belarus
        • Bulgaria
        • Denmark
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Kazakhstan
        • Kyrgyzstan
        • Russia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • UK
        • Ukraine
      • MIDDLE EAST
        • Afghanistan
        • Egypt
        • Gaza
        • Iran
        • Iraq
        • Israel
        • Jordan
        • Libya
        • Saudi Arabia
        • Syria
        • Turkey
        • United Arab Emirates
      • NORTH AMERICA
        • Canada
        • USA
          • election USA 2020
      • OCEANIA
        • New Zealand
        • Philippines
      • SOUTH AMERICA
        • Brazil
    • ACTION
    • AFRICA
      • Kenya
      • Malawi
      • Mali
      • Namibia
      • Niger
      • Nigeria
      • Somalia
      • South 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
      • thorium
    • Reference
      • Reference archives
    • resources – print
    • Resources -audiovicual
    • Weekly Newsletter
    • World
    • World Nuclear
    • YouTube
  • RSS

    Entries RSS
    Comments RSS

Site info

nuclear-news
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    nuclear-news
    Join 2,062 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • nuclear-news
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...