nuclear-news

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

Five world powers vow to prevent spread of nuclear weapons

Five world powers vow to prevent spread of nuclear weapons
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/3/five-world-powers-vow-to-prevent-spread-of-nuclear-weapons

In a joint statement, permanent members of UN Security Council pledge
to ensure a nuclear war is never fought, amid rising world tensions.

Five global nuclear powers have pledged to prevent atomic weapons from
spreading and to ensure a nuclear war is never fought, in a rare joint
statement ahead of a review of a key nuclear treaty later this year.

The statement on Monday said that the United States, United Kingdom,
Russia, China and France – who are the permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council – consider it their primary responsibility to
avoid war between the nuclear states and to reduce strategic risks,
while aiming to work with all countries to create an atmosphere of
security.

“We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be
prevented,” it said, adding, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must
never be fought.”

The Russian-language version of the statement read, “We declare there
could be no winners in a nuclear war, it should never be started.

“As the use of nuclear arms would have far-reaching consequences, we
also confirm that nuclear arms – as long as they exist – should serve
defensive aims, deterrence against aggression and prevention of war.”

Russia hopes the pledge will reduce world tensions, while saying a
summit of permanent UN Security Council members remains necessary.

“We hope that, in the current difficult conditions of international
security, the approval of such a political statement will help reduce
the level of international tensions,” Moscow’s foreign ministry said
in a statement.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the RIA Novosti news agency that
Moscow still considered a summit between the world’s major nuclear
powers to be “necessary”.

The foreign ministry also said it hoped the agreement will “help build
confidence and form the foundations of future control over offensive
and defensive arms”.

France also released the statement, underscoring that the five powers
reiterated their determination for nuclear arms control and
disarmament. They would continue bilateral and multilateral approaches
to nuclear arms control, it said.

China said the pledge will “increase mutual trust” and reduce the risk
of nuclear conflict.

“The joint statement issued by the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon
states will help increase mutual trust and replace competition among
major powers with coordination and cooperation,” the official Xinhua
news agency quoted vice foreign minister Ma Zhaoxu as saying.

Tensions between Russia and the West have sky-rocketed in recent
months over Ukraine, with the US and its allies warning Moscow of a
massive coordinated sanctions response if it invades its ex-Soviet
neighbour.

January 4, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

President Biden should pledge never to use nuclear weapons first


President Biden should pledge never to use nuclear weapons first, The Hill, BY THOMAS GRAHAM, JR. AND JONATHAN GRANOFF, — 01/03/22 President Biden can make the world a dramatically safer place by declaring that it is now the policy of the United States never to use nuclear weapons first. Such a pledge is consistent with international legal obligations, fulfills campaign promises, and diminishes the risk of using a nuclear weapon. It would make countries subject to the nuclear weapons threats less nervous in a crisis, when irrationality can lead to disaster. It would add to global stability by lowering the political currency of nuclear weapons.

And significantly, it would help strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the world’s most important arms control treaty. Pursuant to Article VI of the treaty, five nuclear weapons states — United Kingdom, United States, Russia, China, and France — have pledged to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.”

The NPT needs such a boost.  Notwithstanding the commitment to disarmament, the five nuclear weapons states, plus the four others not in the treaty — India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea — are spending enormous amounts of money modernizing or expanding their nuclear arsenals, or both. Because of the omicron surge in New York, an important 50-year review conference for the treaty (the tenth five-year review), which was supposed to take place next week, has been postponed for the second year in a row (the scheduled 2020 conference was also cancelled due to a winter COVID surge). Meanwhile, nuclear tensions continue to rise, making progress toward meeting the NPT’s goals critically important.

Normally the NPT gets reviewed every five years. At these periodic review conferences, every nation in the world (except the four that aren’t NPT parties) analyze the state of the treaty’s nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament obligations, and strike agreements to strengthen proliferation constraints and make tangible progress toward a nuclear weapons-free world…………….

 there is one step the U.S. can take which would help reverse the present  dangerous situation: declaring it will never use nuclear weapons first. That would lend credibility to the sincerity of U.S. commitment to fulfilling its disarmament pledges under the NPT.

When brought into deployment practice, a no-first-use posture could make us all dramatically safer. Today, the nuclear posture of the U.S. and Russia supports continuing to threaten to use nuclear weapons first. In practice this tends to keep the arsenals close to Cold War hair-trigger alert status. Such conduct ignores the most important principle of international civilized order and diplomacy: pacta sunt servanda, solemn promises among nations must be kept. Failure to keep arms control commitments — in the nuclear age — could mean the annihilation of civilization.

A no-first-use pledge is consistent with the platform of the Democratic Party on which President Biden campaigned, which states, “(The) sole purpose of our nuclear arsenals should be to deter — and, if necessary retaliate against — a nuclear attack, and we will work to put that belief into practice, in consultation with our allies and military.” A U.S. pledge would challenge all nuclear weapons states to make similar pledges.

Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev got it right when they agreed that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.

Reagan and Gorbachev helped reduce the number of nuclear weapons from more than 65,000 in 1985 to fewer than 14,000 today. This process rested on arms control agreements such as the NPT.

Affirming that the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter attack would respect the NPT, diminish the extremity of the status quo, and help move from an environment of irrational threat to a shared recognition of common security interests and the realistic pursuit of human security.  https://www.dell.com/en-au/work/shop/business-laptops-ultrabooks-and-tablets/vostro-5410-laptop/spd/vostro-14-5410-laptop/smc9wnv5410c09aub?gacd=9695171-8007-5761040-272319172-0&dgc=ST&gclsrc=aw.ds&&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_ISr8_uW9QIVu4GsAh2EXA_HEAEYASAEEgJoSfD_BwE

January 4, 2022 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

German government struggles to unite on EU energy proposal

German government struggles to unite on EU energy proposal, DW, 4 Jan 22,

The EU Commission’s proposal to classify nuclear power and natural gas plants as “green” investments has sparked debate in Germany’s new coalition government. Conflict is also brewing between EU states.

Less than a month after Germany’s new coalition government was sworn in, it is facing a major test: To find a united stance in response to a controversial proposal by the EU Commission, published on New Year’s Eve.

The EU Commission wants to label natural gas and nuclear power as climate-friendly, and include investments in both energies on its long-awaited taxonomy list — a green labeling system for investments in the energy sector.

The list is part of the bloc’s plans to decarbonize the European economy and build clean power plants, which will require the investment of billions of euros.

Under the draft proposal, the gas and nuclear plants must meet certain criteria: Investment in new nuclear plants as they are planned in France, the Netherlands, and Poland, can be considered “sustainable” only if respective states ensure they meet the latest technology standards, and provide a concrete plan for the disposal for high-level radioactive waste. 

Natural gas plants could also be granted a green label for a limited period of time, provided certain criteria are met. These could involve limits on the amount of greenhouse gas emitted or proving that the plants can also be operated with green hydrogen or low-carbon gas. 

The classification of economic activities by the EU Commission under the so-called taxonomy is intended to enable investors to switch their investments to more sustainable technologies and companies.

Divided coalition………………

Climate and Economy Minister and Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, told German press agency dpa that he felt the EU proposal “waters down the good label for sustainability.”

“It’s questionable whether this greenwashing will be accepted by the financial markets anyway,” the Green politician said.

Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens) also rated the EU proposal as “questionable.”………….

Klaus Jacob of the Research Center for Environment Policy at Berlin’s Freie Universität says the debate within the government was completely foreseeable.

“This isn’t a predetermined breaking point in the coalition,” Jacob told DW…………………….

Nuclear phaseout nearing completion

The three governing coalition parties are, however, in agreement when it comes to the phaseout of nuclear energy. Germany’s last nuclear power plants are due to be decommissioned just a year from now.

The decision to phase out nuclear power was made during the 1998-2003 coalition between the SPD and Greens under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, in response to the realization that there was no way to store nuclear waste safely. Almost two decades earlier, Germany’s anti-nuclear protests gave birth to the Green Party and the phaseout has long been one of its core policies.

Angela Merkel’s coalition government of center-right Christian Democrats and FDP then rolled back the phaseout. But in 2011, after the accident at the Fukushima atomic power plant in Japan, Merkel made an about-turn and decided to push through with the phaseout after all.

Referring to the EU’s plans to green label nuclear energy, Environment Minister Lemke said the Commission “creates the great danger of blocking and damaging really viable, sustainable investments in favor of dangerous nuclear power.”……………

EU fissure

The 27 EU member states now have until January 12 to comment on the Commission’s draft. But it’s unlikely that the proposal can be blocked. Besides Germany, only Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Portugal have voiced criticism. 

Implementation can only be prevented if at least 20 EU countries (representing at least 65% of the total EU population) or at least 353 members of parliament vote against it.

Other EU countries are continuing to push nuclear energy and campaign for it to be included on the EU’s list of sustainable energy sources eligible for investment — prominently France which holds the rotating EU presidency and is heading for presidential elections in April.

Austria, meanwhile, is threatening to go to the European Court of Justice to stop the draft from being passed.

Edited by Rina Goldenberg   https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-struggles-to-unite-on-eu-energy-proposal/a-60319292

January 4, 2022 Posted by | climate change, Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Will Biden stay the course toward nuclear disarmament?

When President Joe Biden took office last year, a historic shift in U.S. nuclear policy seemed likely. Now, with ongoing threats from Russia and China, experts say moving away from nuclear weapons may be more difficult. CS Monitor, By Robert Burns Associated Press, 4 Jan 22,

Joe Biden’s arrival in the White House nearly a year ago seemed to herald a historic shift toward less U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons and possibly a shrinking of their numbers. Even an American “no first use” pledge – a promise to never again be the first to use a nuclear weapon – seemed possible.
The outlook will be clearer when the Biden administration completes its so-called nuclear posture review – an internal relook at the numbers, kinds, and purposes of weapons in the nuclear arsenal, as well as the policies that govern their potential use. The results could be made public as early as January.

The biggest unknown is how forcefully Mr. Biden will weigh in on these questions, based on White House calculations of the political risk. During his years as vice president, Mr. Biden talked of new directions in nuclear policy. But heightened concerns about China and Russia would seem to improve the political leverage of Republicans seeking to portray such change as a gift to nuclear adversaries.

Tom Z. Collina, policy director at Ploughshares Fund, an advocate for nuclear disarmament, says the China and Russia problems complicate the politics of Mr. Biden’s nuclear review but should not stop him from acting to reduce nuclear dangers.

“We do not want a new nuclear arms race with either nation and the only way to prevent that is with diplomacy,” Mr. Collina said. “We must remember the main lesson we learned in the Cold War with Russia – the only way to win an arms race is not to run.”………………………

The Pentagon has not publicly discussed details of the nuclear review, but the administration seems likely to keep the existing contours of the nuclear force – the traditional “triad” of sea-, air-, and land-based weapons, which critics call overkill. It also may embrace a $1 trillion-plus modernization of that force, which was launched by the Obama administration and continued by Mr. Trump.

It’s unclear whether Mr. Biden will approve any significant change in what is called “declaratory policy,” which states the purpose of nuclear weapons and the circumstances under which they might be used.

The Obama administration, with Mr. Biden as vice president, stated in 2010 that it would “only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.” It did not define “extreme circumstances.”

Eight years later, the Trump administration restated the Obama policy but got more specific. “Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.”…………… https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2022/0103/Will-Biden-stay-the-course-toward-nuclear-disarmament

January 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Progress in nuclear waste cleanup at Idaho nuclear site

US close to ending buried nuke waste cleanup at Idaho site, KEITH RIDLER, Associated Press, Jan. 3, 2022,

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A lengthy project to dig up and remove radioactive and hazardous waste buried for decades in unlined pits at a nuclear facility that sits atop a giant aquifer in eastern Idaho is nearly finished, U.S. officials said.

The U.S. Department of Energy said last week that it removed the final amount of specifically-targeted buried waste from a 97-acre (39-hectare) landfill at its 890-square-mile (2,300-square-kilometer) site that includes the Idaho National Laboratory.

The targeted radioactive waste included plutonium-contaminated filters, graphite molds, sludges containing solvents and oxidized uranium generated during nuclear weapons production work at the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. Some radioactive and hazardous remains in the Idaho landfill that will receive an earthen cover.

The waste from Rocky Flats was packaged in storage drums and boxes before being sent from 1954 to 1970 to the high-desert, sagebrush steppe of eastern Idaho where it was buried in unlined pits and trenches. The area lies about 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of the city of Idaho Falls.

The cleanup project, started in 2005, is named the Accelerated Retrieval Project and is one of about a dozen cleanup efforts of nuclear waste finished or ongoing at the Energy Department site.

The project involving the landfill is part of a 2008 agreement between the Energy Department and state officials that required the department to dig up and remove specific types and amounts of radioactive and hazardous material.

The agency said it removed about 13,500 cubic yards (10,300 cubic meters) of material — which is the equivalent of nearly 50,000 storage drums each containing 55 gallons (208 liters).

Most of the waste is being sent to the U.S. government’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico for permanent disposal. Some waste will be sent to other off-site repositories that could be commercial or Energy Department sites.

The Energy Department said it is 18 months ahead of schedule in its cleanup of the landfill.

“The buried waste was the primary concern of our stakeholders since the beginning of the cleanup program,” Connie Flohr, manager of the Idaho Cleanup Project for the Energy Department’s Office of Environmental Management, said in a statement. “Completing exhumation early will allow us to get an earlier start on construction of the final cover.”……

The Lake Erie-sized Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer supplies farms and cities in the region. A 2020 U.S. Geological Survey report said radioactive and chemical contamination in the aquifer had decreased or remained constant in recent years. It attributed the decreases to radioactive decay, changes in waste-disposal methods, cleanup efforts and dilution from water coming into the aquifer.  https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/US-eyes-finish-of-buried-nuclear-waste-cleanup-at-16746645.php

January 4, 2022 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Climate Noise Has Obscured Nuclear Dump Cronyism and Nuclear Impacts of Coal Mine – Why Bother With Traffic Light System for Induced Earthquakes? — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND

Originally posted on Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole: The following letter has just been sent to the Coal Mine Planning Inspector Mr Stephen Normington following a letter from the Rt Hon Greg Hands, Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (this Govnt department appointed the coal mine boss as “invaluable” nuclear…

Climate Noise Has Obscured Nuclear Dump Cronyism and Nuclear Impacts of Coal Mine – Why Bother With Traffic Light System for Induced Earthquakes? — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND

Excerpts –  ”……………………..should the coal mine be approved by government, then a seismic Traffic Light System at least as stringent as that for the oil and gas industry should be part of the conditions imposed.   The empirical evidence (presented by Radiation Free Lakeland at the Planning Inquiry) is unequivocal in its findings that coal mining produces earthquakes of far greater magnitude and frequency than that of fracking.  Despite this Greg Hands MP states that there will be no Traffic Light System for the coal mine.

In tandem with the absence of a seismic Traffic Light System is the outrageous allowance of 6mm/s Peak Particle Velocity as agreed by the Inquiry’s Rule 6 Parties and Developer for ground movements as a result of the deep mining proposed.   As you will be aware the PPV at which “receptors”  will make complaints is 1mm/s.

An observer of the bulk of the Planning Inquiry would have had no idea of the uniquely dangerous sense of place regarding the planned coal mine.  If this same coal mine was anywhere in the world the climate impacts would be the same.  

……….   But this coal mine is not anywhere in the world.  It is five miles from Sellafield, the worlds riskiest nuclear waste site,  under the arguably most radioactively contaminated sea in the world and directly beneath the radioactively contaminated Cumbrian Mud Patch………

 our concerns lay with the undeniable connections/cronyism between the coal mine and the proposed Geological Disposal Facility.

The Government’s refusal to consider a seismic Traffic Light System for the earthquake inducing coal mine is a case in point. 

Mark Kirkbride the CEO of West Cumbria Mining was appointed in 2019 as an “invaluable” adviser to the Government (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) on the digging of big holes for a Geological Disposal Facility for Heat Generating Nuclear Wastes and for shallower Near Surface Disposal of Low and Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes.   

We are painfully aware, as no doubt is government nuclear dump advisor Mark Kirkbride, that a seismic Traffic Light System for an earthquake inducing deep undersea coal mine would also impact negatively on the facilitation of an even deeper hole for a GDF. The Irish Sea area adjacent to the coal mine is in the frame for a GDF.

……..  which is far more than the sum of its (more widely reported) climate/jobs parts.   Should this coal mine go ahead the people and environment of Cumbria and the planet WILL be exposed to deep radiological, immediate and irreversible impacts that will make the more widely reported and not to be sneezed at climate impacts pale into insignificance.

The whole thing feels like a massive stitch up in which the climate issues have been used as a smoke screen to hide the nuclear impacts of this coal mine.  If Leonardo DiCaprio (of “Don’t Look Up” fame)  thinks climate campaigners have it bad he should walk a mile in the shoes of nuclear safety campaigners!  https://keepcumbriancoalinthehole.wordpress.com/2022/01/03/climate-noise-has-obscured-nuclear-dump-cronyism-and-nuclear-impacts-of-coal-mine-why-bother-with-traffic-light-system-for-induced-earthquakes/

January 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Angry response in Europe to the draft European Commission plans to accept nuclear power as ”climate-friendly” – eligible for tax-payer financial help.

BRUSSELS (AP) — Draft European Union plans that would allow nuclear and gas energy to remain part of the bloc’s path to a climate-friendly future came under immediate criticism over the weekend from both environmentalists and some governing political parties in EU member nations.

In draft conclusions seen by The Associated Press, the EU’s executive commission proposes a classification system for defining what counts as an investment in sustainable energy. Under certain conditions, it would allow gas and nuclear energy to be part of the mix.

The plans would have a huge impact on nuclear-fired economies like France and on Germany’s gas-fueled power plants since they might have had to fundamentally change their strategies.

….. The plans still need the backing of a large majority of the 27 member states and a simple majority in the European Parliament. But the initial thrust from the EU Commission is a key element of the procedure for passage.

“Classifying investments in gas and nuclear power as sustainable contradicts the Green Deal,” the EU’s initiative that is intended to make the bloc climate-neutral by 2050, said Ska Keller, the president of the Green group in the European Parliament.

…..German Economy Minister Robert Habeck criticized the plan to classify investments in gas and nuclear power plants as climate-friendly.

“The EU Commission’s proposals water down the good label for sustainability,” Habeck, who represents the Germany’s environmentalist Greens in the country’s coalition government, told German news agency dpa. “We don’t see how to approve the new proposals of the EU Commission,” he said.

“In any case, it is questionable whether this greenwashing will even find acceptance on the financial market,” Habeck stressed, referring to the practice of painting investments as sustainable when they actually are not.

In Austria, Climate Protection Minister Leonore Gewessler from the Greens also sharply rejected the proposed regulation, saying “the EU Commission took a step towards greenwashing nuclear power and fossil gas in a night and fog action.”

“They are harmful to the climate and the environment and destroy the future of our children,” Gewessler said.

The environmental NGO Greenpeace called the Commission draft proposals “a licence to greenwash.”

“Polluting companies will be delighted to have the EU’s seal of approval to attract cash and keep wrecking the planet by burning fossil gas and producing radioactive waste, said Greenpeace’s Magda Stoczkiewicz.

Especially nuclear power remains extremely controversial in Europe, where many are still vividly remember the fear following the 1986 nuclear accident in Chernobyl, Ukraine. In Germany, children weren’t allowed to play outside anymore for months, couldn’t go mushroom hunting for years and the farmers had to destroy their entire harvest the year it happened………. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/orange-county/ap-top-news/2022/01/02/eu-draft-on-financing-nuclear-and-gas-plants-raises-ire

January 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | 1 Comment

Growing radioactive waste crisis at Fukushima nuclear power plant

The continuous accumulation of radioactive slurry and other nasty substances, coupled with the problem of finding a safe way to dispose of melted nuclear fuel debris at reactors No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, has plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. frantically scratching around for ideas.

One problem is that storage containers for the tainted slurry degrade quickly, meaning that they constantly have to be replaced.

TEPCO slow to respond to growing crisis at Fukushima plant, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN,  by Yu Fujinami and Tsuyoshi Kawamura, January 2, 2022, Radioactive waste generated from treating highly contaminated water used to cool crippled reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant has thrown up yet new nightmarish challenges in decommissioning the facility, a project that is supposed to be completed in 30 years but which looks increasingly doubtful.

The continuous accumulation of radioactive slurry and other nasty substances, coupled with the problem of finding a safe way to dispose of melted nuclear fuel debris at reactors No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, has plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. frantically scratching around for ideas.

One problem is that storage containers for the tainted slurry degrade quickly, meaning that they constantly have to be replaced. Despite the urgency of the situation, little has been done to resolve the matter.
Fuel debris, a solidified mixture of nuclear fuel and structures inside the reactors melted as a consequence of the triple meltdown triggered by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster has to be constantly cooled with water, which mixes with groundwater and rainwater rainwater that seep into the reactor buildings, producing more new radioactive water.

The contaminated water that accumulates is processed via an Advanced Liquid Processing System to remove most of radioactive materials. The ALPS is housed in a 17-meter-tall building situated close to the center of the plant site.

Reporters from the Japan National Press Club were granted a rare opportunity in late November to visit the crippled facility to observe the process.

The building houses a large grayish drum-like container designed especially to store radioactive slurry. The interior of each vessel is lined with polyethylene, while its double-walled exterior is reinforced with stainless steel.

ALARMING DEVELOPMENTS The use of chemical agents to reduce radioactive substances from the contaminated water in the sedimentation process produces a muddy material resembling shampoo. Strontium readings of the generated slurry sometimes reach tens of millions of becquerels per cubic centimeter.

TEPCO started keeping slurry in special vessels in March 2013. As of November, it had 3,373 of the containers.

Because the integrity of the vessels deteriorates quickly due to exposure to radiation from slurry, TEPCO and the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) predict that durability of the containers will reach the limit after exposure to an accumulated total of 5,000 kilograys of radiation–a level equivalent to 5 million sieverts.
Based on that grim forecast, TEPCO speculated the vessels will need replacement from July 2025.

But the NRA accused TEPCO of underestimating the impact of the radiation problem. It blasted the operator for measuring slurry density 20 centimeters above the base of the container when making its dose evaluation.

“As slurry forms deposits, the density level is always highest at the bottom,” a representative of the nuclear watchdog body pointed out.

The NRA carried out its own assessment in June 2021 and told TEPCO that 31 containers had already reached the end of their operating lives. Its findings also showed an additional 56 would need replacing within two years.The NRA told TEPCO to wake up and “understand how urgent the issue is since transferring slurry will take time.”………………..


With no drastic solutions in sight, a succession of containers will reach the end of their shelf lives shortly.

ANOTHER NIGHTMARE PROBLEM Radioactive slurry is not the only stumbling block for decommissioning.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 disaster, TEPCO stored contaminated water in the underground spaces below two buildings near the No. 4 reactor. In doing so, bags full of a mineral known as zeolite were placed in the temporary storage pools to absorb cesium so as to reduce the amount of radioactive substances.

Twenty-six tons of the stuff are still immersed in the dirty water on the floors under the buildings. Radiation readings of 4 sieverts per hour were detected on their surfaces in fiscal 2019, enough to kill half of all the people in the immediate vicinity within an hour.

TEPCO plans to introduce a remotely controlled underwater robot to recover the bags, starting no earlier than from fiscal 2023, However, it has not determined how long this will take or where to store the bags once they are retrieved.
In addition, radioactive rubble, soil and felled trees at the plant site totaled 480,000 cubic meters as of March 2021, leading TEPCO to set up a special incinerator. The total volume is expected to top 790,000 cubic meters in 10 years, but where to dispose of the incinerated waste remains unclear.

TEPCO is in a race against time. That’s the view of Satoshi Yanagihara, a specially appointed professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Fukui who has specialist knowledge on processes to abandon reactors.

“Now, only 30 years remain before the target date of the end of decommissioning set by the government and TEPCO,” said Yanagihara.As decommissioning work is due to shortly enter a crucial stage, such as recovering nuclear fuel debris on a trial basis from as early as 2022, Yanagihara noted the need for careful arrangements before forging ahead with important procedures.

“The government and TEPCO need to grasp an overall picture of the massive task ahead and discuss how to treat, keep and discard collected nuclear debris and the leftover radioactive waste with local residents and other relevant parties,” he said.https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14503708

January 3, 2022 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

Britain’s National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) advises government against new nuclear power projects.

UK NIC backs alternatives to nuclear,   Renew Extra Weekly, 2 Jan 21, The UK Government asked the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) for its advice on whether an additional new nuclear plant, beyond the proposed Sizewell C project, was needed to deliver the UK’s sixth Carbon (reduction) Budget, due in 2035. In response, the NIC said no, it was not needed or viable for 2035, since new nuclear was slow to deploy. It asserted that ‘it is highly unlikely that a new large scale nuclear plant is deliverable in the next 15 years; trying and failing would jeopardise delivery of the sixth Carbon Budget’. Instead it backed renewables, hydrogen and low/negative carbon technology- which is said could be deployed faster.
It noted that ‘since 1990, nuclear projects have faced significant delays all around the world. Even just in Europe around half of all plants have faced at least a 50% delay in construction, and 1 in 4 plants have faced at least a 90% delay in construction’. So it said that ‘any nuclear project schedule estimate should be expected to take at least 50% longer than planned. If a new project began development next year and took the same amount of time as the Hinkley Point C project is expected to take to complete, it would not come online until at least the mid 2040s’. So that put it well outside the 2035 timeframe.

Small Modular/advanced reactors might be a faster option, but the NIC said ‘relying on significant capacity being deployed before 2035 would be risky’. It pointed out that ‘no SMR has gone through the Generic Design Assessment process and some developer proposals are conditional on government support to progress project development. There are no SMRs in operation in countries similar to the UK.

To fill the same capacity gap illustrated in the BEIS modelling, at least six SMRs would be needed by 2035, if not more. This would require compressing the normal delivery timeline and doing things in parallel rather than in sequence, significantly increasing the risk of delays. Delivery success will also be dependent on the capability of the developer.’

Alternatives  likely to be faster 

Instead of these nuclear options, for delivery within the timeframe to 2035, it backed ‘renewables with a combination of gas power plants with carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fired gas plants and bioenergy with carbon capture & storage’. It said ‘these alternatives are more likely to be deliverable at scale in the next 15 years’. …………………..

even without costing analysis, it said its analysis clearly demonstrated ‘that a third new nuclear plant is not necessary to reach the 2035 emissions target and that more gas CCS, hydrogen powered gas plants, and BECCS could be deployed instead. Whilst these technologies are yet to be deployed at scale, the Commission considers them to be a lower delivery risk than nuclear.’ And it claimed that its proposed alternative technology mix was supported by analysis previously conducted for the Commission and by other bodies such as National Grid ESO & the Climate Change Committee. …………………

It’s odd that the NIC plunge into CCS and Hydrogen, rather than talking about renewables more. Maybe they are taken for granted. But if, led by wind and solar, they could be expanded much faster than BEIS and NIC envisage, then maybe we could forget about fossil CCS, BECCS and also Sizewell C. That might be helped if tidal stream technology could also get going- with CfD help, it ought to be able to by 2030. Geothermal too, for heat and power. All NIC says is that, from the BEIS analysis, it’s clear that ‘significant volumes of renewables are needed to deliver a low carbon power system by 2035. This is supported by previous analysis for the Commission and others. Rapid cost reductions and short and reliable build profiles mean that renewables will be the backbone of any future GB power system’. OK, fine, but we need details & plans now for faster expansion, along with a much improved commitment to energy saving!  https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2022/01/uk-nic-backs-alternatives-to-nuclear.html

January 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

German Greens fight plan to funnel billions of euros into the nuclear industry via deceptive taxonomy ”sustainable” label

German Greens lead attack on EU plan to label nuclear power ‘sustainable’. Brussels’ proposal is central to European goal of channelling billions of euros into green investments, Ft.com,  Mehreen Khan in Brussels and Joe Miller in Frankfurt 3 Jan 21,
  Germany, Austria and Luxembourg have hit out at Brussels’ plans to classify nuclear power as a sustainable technology in the EU’s landmark labelling system for green investment, which is central to Europe’s plans to decarbonise the bloc’s economy. German economy minister Robert Habeck, who is a member of the Green party in the country’s governing coalition, said: “It is questionable whether this greenwashing will even find acceptance on the financial market.” He told German press agency DPA on Saturday: “In our view, there was no need for this addition to the taxonomy rules.”  

Brussels’ proposal is part of a so-called “taxonomy” list, which aims to help channel billions of euros of investment needed to decarbonise the bloc’s economy. The plan, the first attempt by a leading regulator to bring clarity to investors seeking to put private capital into sustainable economic activity, covers about 80 per cent of the bloc’s emissions and is intended to be a “gold standard” for markets to decide what is truly green or not. But the process has been beset by fierce political infighting inside the European Commission and its member states.

Leonore Gewessler, Austria’s minister for climate and energy, said on Saturday that Vienna would consider suing the European Commission if the classification of nuclear power as green went ahead. Claude Turmes, Luxembourg’s energy minister, meanwhile called the inclusion of nuclear power a “provocation”.  The inclusion of nuclear power is widely seen as a victory for the French government which has urged Brussels to ensure the new rules do not punish a technology that provides almost two-thirds of French electricity. Nuclear reactors do not generate CO2 emissions but produce highly toxic waste…………..
The Brussels draft text will form part of a consultation with EU countries and independent experts that will run until January 12. However, anti-nuclear EU governments do not have the power to veto the taxonomy, which diplomats say is likely to win majority support in the EU Council. Astrid Matthey, one of the independent experts who advises the commission on the rules, criticised the draft for “contradicting the very purpose of the taxonomy”. 

“The conditions under which both technologies are to be included are far from ensuring that we reach the Paris climate targets and do-no-significant-harm to the environment. There is still a long way to go for this draft to become aligned with the Green Deal and the EU’s environmental targets”, said Matthey. https://www.ft.com/content/92ab113f-ab17-4492-be65-56c9173cfc53

January 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, Germany | Leave a comment

Biden’s First Year Foreign Policy Record May Be Worse than Trump’s 

In many ways, Biden has actually been worse than Trump, for example, in his expansion of Special Forces operations in Africa, his aggressive stance on war in Ukraine, and in his use of human rights as a weapon to try to rally public opinion against China and Russia.

Biden has also been more dishonest—as in Syria, for example, where Trump admitted that the U.S. military was there to control the oil, while Biden deceptively claimed they were there to help the Syrian people.

The next three years could be very dangerous if tensions between the U.S., Russia and China continue to escalate. Deteriorating domestic conditions—evident in skyrocketing inflation and a rising cost of living—may also lead to greater domestic unrest, which the Biden administration could try to circumvent by trying to mobilize people against a foreign enemy.

Biden’s First Year Foreign Policy Record May Be Worse than Trump’s  Covert Action By Jeremy Kuzmarov – December 31, 2021  His administration has escalated dangerous conflicts with Russia and China while increasing the military budget, expanding deadly sanctions and sustaining forever wars.

AM endorsed Biden for president as a lesser evil to the neofascism of Donald J. Trump and the modern-day GOP. At the same time, we warned readers about Biden’s past and long record as a Cold Warrior and hawk.

Biden’s first year in office has shown that the past was indeed a prologue to the future.

Continue reading →

January 3, 2022 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Bitcoin miners in Kazakhstan will rely on government building new nuclear power plant

Kazakhstan bitcoin miners could use nuclear energy as gov’t might build power plant, Kazakhstan’s government is discussing a plan to build a nuclear power plant, which might boost the country’s Bitcoin (BTC) and crypto mining industries in the long run. Micky.com By Jet Encila -January 2, 2022…….. construction might take up to 10 years……..

Since September’s crackdown, an estimated 88,000 mining rigs have been smuggled across the border from China, increasing electricity demand in many places, based on multiple sources.

Not only in Central Asia, but also in the United States and Europe, the cooperation between mining and nuclear energy providers is deepening. 

In the United States, a handful of miners have already begun getting power from nuclear reactors, while in Ukraine, the national nuclear energy supplier has been collaborating with miners at Europe’s largest nuclear plants in an attempt to mitigate financial losses.
—https://micky.com.au/kazakhstan-bitcoin-miners-could-use-nuclear-energy-as-govt-might-build-power-plant/

January 3, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, Kazakhstan, politics | Leave a comment

France’s electricity consumers face curbs as EDF struggles with problems and shutdowns


French electricity consumers face curbs on their electricity supplies
following shutdowns at four of EDF’s nuclear power plant. France is
highly reliant on its nuclear power plants, obtaining around 70 per cent of
its electricity from nuclear on an annual basis.

This, along with other
various examples of nuclear unreliability, must seriously question the
British Government’s determination to plough on with its programme of new
nuclear power plant. The four nuclear plants have been shut down ‘after
the detection of anomalies in the emergency injection circuits‘.

France’s Grid Operator, RTE, has warned consumers that limitations on
supplies may be necessary soon. France has been struggling with its nuclear
sector and EDF’s efforts to build another nuclear plant at Flamanville
have been hobbled by very long construction delays and massive cost
overruns.

 100% Renewables 31st Dec 2021

 https://100percentrenewableuk.org/french-electricity-consumers-face-brownouts-and-even-power-cuts-after-nuclear-power-plant-shutdowns

January 3, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Risky for UK to plan for small and advanced nuclear reactors

New nuclear technologies, such as small and advanced nuclear reactors, may
have a role to play in the long term. But relying on significant capacity
being deployed before 2035 would be risky. They will face both the
challenges of being first of a kind plants and being a nuclear technology.

 National Infrastructure Commission (Accessed) 1st Jan 2022

Click to access Advice-on-nuclear-power-plant-deployment.pdf

January 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

European Commission drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as ”green”

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green, Reuters, By Kate Abnett and Simon JessopSummary

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green Reuters, By Kate Abnett and Simon JessopSummary

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green Reuters, By Kate Abnett and Simon JessopSummary 2 Jan 22

  • European Commission drawing up green investment rules
  • Draft proposal labels nuclear, some gas plants as green
  • Countries disagree on the fuels’ green credentials
  • EU advisors said gas not compatible with climate goals

Jan 1 (Reuters) – The European Union has drawn up plans to label some natural gas and nuclear energy projects as “green” investments after a year-long battle between governments over which investments are truly climate-friendly.

The European Commission is expected to propose rules in January deciding whether gas and nuclear projects will be included in the EU “sustainable finance taxonomy’.

EU countries and a panel of experts will scrutinise the draft proposal, which could change before it is due to be published later in January. Once published, it could be vetoed by a majority of EU countries or the European Parliament.

Brussels has also made moves to apply the system to some EU funding, meaning the rules could decide which projects are eligible for certain public finance.

A draft of the Commission’s proposal, seen by Reuters, would label nuclear power plant investments as green if the project has a plan, funds and a site to safely dispose of radioactive waste. To be deemed green, new nuclear plants must receive construction permits before 2045.

…………………. Gas and nuclear power generation would be labelled green on the grounds that they are “transitional” activities – defined as those that are not fully sustainable, but which have emissions below industry average and do not lock in polluting assets.

…………….. The policy has been mired in lobbying from governments for more than a year and EU countries disagree on which fuels are truly sustainable.

……………. Some environmental campaigners and Green EU lawmakers criticised the leaked proposal on gas and nuclear.

“By including them… the Commission risks jeopardising the credibility of the EU’s role as a leading marketplace for sustainable finance,” Greens president Philippe Lamberts said……….  https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/eu-drafts-plan-label-gas-nuclear-investments-green-2022-01-01/

January 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »