USA Congress mulls ‘new nuclear’ but the prospects are not great
Nuclear energy draws renewed interest in Congress, Houston Chronicle, 9 May 16 “…….Most mainstream environmental groups in the U.S., however, still see nuclear as an ecological disaster waiting to happen, that produces a radioactive waste that remains hot for tens of thousands of years. They also are equally skeptical that advanced reactors under development can provide cleaner, safer nuclear power.
“Even though many of these advanced reactors have been around for decades, none of them have proved to be safe or that they can compete commercially,” Geoffrey Fettus, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, testified before the House last month. “This may serve as a distraction to the rapid scale-up of proven technology to combat climate change, like wind and solar.”……
Close to half of the 99 nuclear plants operating in this country will reach the end of their government-sanctioned life spans by 2040. With licensing of nuclear plants taking a decade or more, it’s unclear whether the power would be replaced by new nuclear facilities, or through other fuels.
For now, developing an affordable, meltdown-proof nuclear reactor remains very much theoretical. Marvin Fertel, president of the trade group Nuclear Energy Institute, said he knew of no such reactor commercially operating anywhere in the world ……
Larry Koehrsen: Nuclear power and climate change
Ames Tribune, 10 May 16 By Larry Koehrsen “……There are few greenhouse gas emissions from an operating nuclear plant. However, the carbon footprint of mining uranium for fuel, and the cement and steel required for construction of a generating plant is significant.
High–level waste from generating plants is relatively small in volume, but may remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Most regulators agree that deep burial of such wastes in a stable geological setting is the preferred method of disposal. However, after almost six decades of nuclear power generation, no government has succeeded in opening such a repository. In this country all commercial high-level waste is in “temporary” storage, mainly at nuclear power plants…….http://amestrib.com/opinion/larry-koehrsen-nuclear-power-and-climate-change
Claim that dragonfly wings can track radiation
Dragonfly wings can track radiation doses after a nuclear mishap, New Scientist, By Bas den Hond, 5 May 16, Humble insects may be called as witnesses to the next nuclear accident. Shining UV light on their wings reveals how much radiation they have absorbed.
Staff at nuclear plants carry dosimeters, instruments that take real-time measurements of radioactive exposure, usually expressed in grays (Gy). Civilians in the surrounding areas probably won’t have these devices. In the event of an accidental release of radioactive material, this leaves a gap in the data on its dispersal and resulting radioactivity doses, making it hard to estimate health effects by location.
Part of the solution is to investigate how radiation alters materials in the body or in personal property – for example, nails or the glass of a mobile phone. And if no one is present close to a radiation leak, insects may do the job, says Nikolaos Kazakis of the Athena Research Centre in Xanthi, Greece.
“Insects are everywhere,” he says. Their short lives give them an advantage over phones: “They live only a few weeks, so you don’t have to make corrections for natural radiation when you want to measure the accidental dose.”
Nuclear power – a very dangerous idea for Nigeria
Is Nigeria ready for nuclear power? Greg Odogwu, Punch, 5 May 16 For more than one year now, the Nigerian government has been playing around with the idea of acquiring nuclear technology for electricity generation. It started at the twilight of the past administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan, when it was reported that his government signed an agreement with a Russian company, Rosatom, to cooperate on the design, construction, operation and decommissioning of an atomic power facility.
Then, two months ago, President Muhammadu Buhari received the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr Yukiya Amano, at the Presidential Villa with the Vice President, Yemi Osibanjo and some key ministers, where it was reported that the President told the IAEA boss that Nigeria welcomed the support of the agency for our country’s aspiration to generate electricity using nuclear energy……
How could one even start to imagine that our dear country, with all the infrastructural lapses, zero maintenance culture and poor leadership could handle a nuclear project of whatever size? Nuclear power is not tea party, it is not a try-fail-and-repair project, and, seriously, it is not a matter of my-government-is-better-than-yours!……
The Nigerian government must be reminded that no matter the size or purpose of a nuclear plant, accidents do happen with radioactives and the effects of uncontrolled radioactive contamination are reported around the world, with many unreported. We can never be prepared enough.
Secondly, ours is a country in a serial battle against insurgents and anti-government elements. These individuals over the years have used all sorts of weapons to fight both the government and the people. We have seen cases of improvised bombs made in people’s bedrooms. We have also seen sophisticated shoulder-launched anti-aircraft guns wielded by these insurgents. We have seen them poison water reserves to kill civilians as a maximum impact strategy.
Now, what prevents insurgents from invading Nigeria’s nuclear facilities to acquire materials for dirty bombs? Even on the Internet, one could learn how to string together radioactive elements with conventional explosives for terror purposes……..
if Nigeria starts a nuclear plant, where shall we dispose our nuclear waste? As the plant begins operation, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during nuclear fuel process, including high-level radioactive waste, and low-level radioactive waste. Even a country as sophisticated as the United States finds it excruciatingly hard to dispose of its nuclear waste. Official and carefully groomed repositories are commissioned and decommissioned accordingly.
These are no waste products you throw away like we throw away our hazardous hospital waste in poor people’s neighbourhoods. Once you throw away nuclear waste carelessly, be sure that both the poor and the rich will suffer immensely………
Nigeria has so much sun that could readily give us 4,000 mega watts with less money than we would spend setting up a hazardous nuclear plant to generate same quantum of power………http://www.punchng.com/54529-2/
Germany to get right out of coal power, well before 2050
Germany to exit coal power ‘well before 2050’ : draft document, Reuters 4 May 16 BERLIN | BY MARKUS WACKET Coal-fired power production in Germany should come to an end “well before 2050”, according to a draft environment ministry document seen by Reuters on Tuesday on how Europe’s biggest economy can achieve its climate goals.
Calls have grown for Berlin to set out a timetable to withdraw from coal in power production, after global leaders clinched a climate-protection deal in Paris last December to transform the world’s fossil-fuel driven economy.
The government is due to decide on a national climate action plan for 2050 by mid-2016 which will lay out how it plans to move away from fossil fuels and achieve
its goal of cutting CO2 emissions by up to 95 percent compared to 1990 levels by the middle of the century…….
Germany generated more than a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources – such as wind and solar power – in 2014. The document said the amount of energy produced by green sources should increase by around 75 percent by 2030.
Support for research into energy-storage technologies should be doubled over the next 10 years, the paper says.
The government will also push for a stricter European emissions trading system and is considering whether an additional levy on petrol, heating oil and gas would increase demand for green technologies. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-environment-coal-idUSKCN0XU1R1
Michigan Utility, German Nuclear Plant Infected with Malware
E Security Planet The system used to monitor fuel rods at the nuclear plant was infected with several viruses, and the utility was hit by a ransomware attack. By Jeff Goldman May 05, 2016 A nuclear power plant in Germany and an electric utility in Michigan were both recently hit with malware infections.
The system used to monitor fuel rods at the Gundremmingen nuclear power plant, about 75 miles from Munich, was recently found to be infected with several viruses including W32.Ramnit and Conficker. However, the infected system wasn’t connected to the Internet, Ars Technica reports.
Still, Carl Wright, executive vice president and general manager atTrapX Security, told eSecurity Planet by email that a system that isn’t connected to the Internet may still be at risk. “TrapX Labs has found malware in several client sites that has jumped the gap into isolated or secure environments, which is often the case with complex process control systems and SCADA networks,” he said…….http://www.esecurityplanet.com/malware/michigan-utility-german-nuclear-plant-infected-with-malware.html
Leakage of radioactive material from Hanford poses danger to Tri-Cities area of Washington state.
NUCLEAR WASTE LEAKING AT ‘AMERICAN FUKUSHIMA’ IN NORTHWEST, NewsWeek, BY ALEXANDER NAZARYAN ON 5/3/16 “……..The 177 underground tanks were never a permanent solution, and the government has hired private contractors to build a plant that will solidify the waste and prepare it for permanent safe storage. The project will cost an astonishing $110 billion, according to estimates, making it what many believe to be the most expensive, and extensive, environmental remediation project in the world. Completion is about five decades away.
When I visited Hanford in 2013, construction of the Waste Treatment Plant—which will pump nuclear sludge out of the tanks and turn them into a hardened, glasslike substance—was slow and rife with technical challenges. Whistleblowers, meanwhile, were alleging that private contractors had neglected safety and engineering concerns in their rush to complete the job. Otherwise sober observers likened the place to a nuclear tinderbox. “America’s Fukushima?” asked the resulting Newsweek cover story.
The question remains disturbingly open. Of the 28 newer double-shelled tanks, AY-102 was already known to be leaking toxic sludge into the soil. Now a second double-shelled tank, AY-101, is believed to be leaking as well, according to a report by Seattle news station KING 5. A contractor’s memo obtained by the station acknowledges “the possibility that the material is from tank waste that has escaped from the primary shell of the double-shell tank.” That material likely includes radioactive isotopes like cesium-137 and strontium-90, though nobody really knows the exact composition of the sludge in each tank.
But everyone is certain that their escape bodes poorly for the thousands who live and work in the Tri-Cities area of Washington state……http://www.newsweek.com/hanford-nuclear-reservation-radioactive-waste-454808
Hinkley nuclear plant – one of the most expensive projects ever on Earth
UK’s proposed nuclear plant is one of the costliest things on Earth http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/02/nuclear-reactor-may-cost-35-billion/The proposed Hinkley Point C reactor could cost $35 billion. Jon Fingas , @jonfingas 05.02.16 Nuclear power has been around for decades, but it still isn’t cheap… in fact, it may result in one of the most expensive objects on the planet. Cost estimates for the UK’s proposed Hinkley Point C reactor have crept up to £24 billion (about $35 billion), making even some of humanity’s more ambitious construction projects seem like small potatoes. The Large Hadron Collider cost “just” $5.8 billion to build, the BBC notes. About the only thing that rivals Hinkley on Earth is Chevron’s recently completed $54 billion natural gas plant in Australia. If you’re not picky, the International Space Station’s collective modules top everything at a total of $110 billion.
As for why it would be so absurdly pricey? Greenwich University professor Steve Thomas says it’s due to not just the inherent complexity of nuclear power, but the safety concerns. Tragedies like Chernobyl and Fukushimahave made it clear that disasters are far more costly than getting it right the first time.
Not that this is going to assuage critics of the plant, which has spent several years on ice. Greenpeace contends that it’s not just audacious in an era of budget cuts, but that the money could be better-spent on renewable energy sources like solar and wind farms. And it’s not just because they’re safer, either. They’d likely be finished much sooner, Greenpeace claims, and falling renewable energy prices could make these options more affordable. There’s no certainty that the government will listen to calls for change, but it’s clear that Hinkley Point C is the product of an era when nuclear tech still seemed like the most cost-effective way of powering the population.
Japan’s ex Prime Minister Kan honoured for his work to stop nuclear power
3/11 Prime Minister Kan recognized for efforts to phase-out nuclear power, Japan Times, 1 May 16 KYODO FRANKFURT – Former Prime Minister Naoto Kan was honored in Germany Saturday for his work to promote the phase-out of atomic power in Japan following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis.
At a ceremony at Frankfurt City Hall, former German Environment Minister Juergen Trittin praised Kan as a “fighter” for his work on nuclear and renewable energy.
Kan received a certificate from a representative of EWS, a power company in Schoenau, southern Germany, on the initiative of citizens against nuclear power.
Kan, who led the former Democratic Party of Japan, was prime minister from June 2010 to September 2011. He was the man who had the misfortune of being in office when the unprecedented March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters struck……http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/01/national/311-prime-minister-kan-recognized-efforts-phase-nuclear-power/#.VydmpNQrLMx
Nuclear disasters crippled the industry. the next one will kill it off quickly
Has the Chernobyl disaster affected the number of nuclear plants built?
Thirty years on from one of the worst radiation leaks in history, several countries have moved to phase out nuclear energy production altogether, and experts say another accident would kill the industry, Guardian, Charlotte Beale, Saturday 30 April 2016 “……..some of the change was directly down to the disaster in Ukraine. Italy, for example, voted in a referendum soon afterwards to stop producing nuclear energy. However, consultant nuclear engineer John Large says that regulations and transparency demands introduced in the wake of a 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania actually had a bigger impact. “Fukushima will have the same effect,” he says.
The disaster in Japan prompted the German government to phase out its plants, with the last one closing in 2022. “Nuclear energy is failing because it is simply too expensive,” says Dr Paul Dorfman, senior research fellow at the Energy Institute, University College London. “If there’s another nuclear accident in the next five or 10 years, you can say goodbye to the industry.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/30/has-chernobyl-disaster-affected-number-of-nuclear-plants-built
Hanford nuclear workers affected by chemical vapour exposure
20 Hanford nuclear facility workers checked for chemical vapor exposure http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/04/20_hanford_nuclear_facility_wo.html RICHLAND, Wash. — Officials say 20 workers at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation have sought medical attention in the past two days after working near an area where waste from a leaking tank was being transferred.
KVEW-TV reports that 13 of the workers reported having various symptoms after smelling suspicious odors. Officials say seven more sought a medical evaluation as a precaution.
Nineteen of the workers have been cleared to return to work while one was still being evaluated Friday afternoon.
Industrial hygiene workers gathered air samples and analyzed data, which they say found chemical concentrations well below regulatory standards. Chemical vapors are generated in the radioactive and chemical waste stored in the underground tanks.
Earlier this month, officials revealed that a tank known as AY-102 had leaked several thousand gallons of radioactive waste from its primary tank. Last week, officials said they were trying to determine whether a second giant underground tank was also leaking.
The sprawling site near Richland, Washington, was constructed during World War II to make plutonium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons. Workers at the site are now engaged in cleaning up the leftover waste at a cost of more than $2 billion a year, The Tri-City Herald reported.
The most dangerous wastes are stored in 177 underground tanks, most of them old, single-walled tanks, some of which have leaked. The double-walled tanks were presumed to be much safer.
The latest estimate to finish the cleanup of Hanford is $107.7 billion and the work will take until 2060.
Amber Rudd discredited on her claim of “no liabilities’ if Hinkley nuclear project is cancelled
Non-nuclear options for constant energy, Guardian, Pete Wilkinson, Chairperson, Together Against Sizewell C 28 Apr 16 Energy secretary Amber Rudd clearly has the gift of clairvoyance. She says that no liabilities would fall to the UK taxpayer or consumer should Hinkley Point C be cancelled. Who, pray, would foot the bill to complete the project should EDF withdraw after a few years of construction when cost and time overruns became apparent, as they have with other projects in France and Finland?
And assuming the plant ever began generating its costly electricity, who would be responsible for the waste management costs, the size of which can only be estimated since the location, depth, technical details about cladding, inventory, or even if there will ever be a repository, remain stubbornly vague and could yet result in indefinite storage on site? Spent nuclear fuel from Hinkley C or Sizewell C would be on their respective sites for an estimated 160 years. Who will take title to hundreds of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel if, as is likely, within that time period, EDF disappears?
As usual, the public purse would be required to bail out a private venture. Rudd’s claim of “no liabilities” is as irresponsible as a short-term response to legitimate concerns as government’s energy policy will prove to be in the long term. Better to cancel Hinkley, Sizewell and all the other nuclear plans now while some semblance of energy policy credibility remains, than to see it unravel in the most embarrassing way over the coming decades, leaving communities like ours to carry the can for government obsession with a nuclear fix.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/27/non-nuclear-options-for-constant-energy
Vattenfall puts pressure on Swedish government to cut nuclear tax,
State-owned Swedish utility Vattenfall will struggle to invest in required safety upgrades of its nuclear reactors in Sweden if the government doesn’t abolish its tax on nuclear power, Chief Executive Magnus Hall said on Thursday……..http://www.reuters.com/article/vattenfall-nuclear-idUSL5N17V5HN
France’s government says decison on Hinkley nuclear plant is again delayed
Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant decision delayed again by EDF French economy minister says the energy giant’s green light on the £18bn project is now not expected until September, Guardian, Rob Davies, 25 Apr 16 The decision on whether to go ahead with the £18bn Hinkley Point C nuclear power project has been delayed again, after France’s economy minister said the country’s energy giant EDF may not give it the green light until September.
Emmanuel Macron’s comments come a week after he said EDF would deliver its verdict on Hinkley Point, which is set to meet 7% of the UK’s energy needs, in “the coming week or month”.
EDF said just days ago that it was expecting to make a final decision in the summer, having previously promised to do so by the time of its annual general meeting on 12 May.
The fresh delay raises the prospect that even if the project does go ahead, it will not meet its scheduled completion date of 2025, already eight years later than originally planned.
Macron told a French newspaper that three conditions must be in place before EDF, which is 85% government-owned, could proceed with building two reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
He cited an improvement in EDF’s financial position, consultation with French trade unions and unspecified measures to ensure construction goes according to plan……..
[EDF has]approved a £3.1bn capital injection funded partly by the state, in a bid to shore up its finances ahead of the Hinkley decision……
Greenpeace’s director, John Sauven, responded to EDF’s previous announcement that a decision would not come until the summer by cautioning that the project was doomed…….http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/24/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-plant-decision-delayed-again-by-edf
Nuclear Waste: Hinkley Point is too expensive for the taxpayer and for its potential investors
The Times, 22 Apr 16 Bad political decisions sometimes gain their own momentum regardless of the demerits of the case. The government should acknowledge that the decision to build Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset is an error before further expense and political stasis makes it unstoppable…..(subscribers only) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nuclear-waste-rcf0j2q6c
1 This Month
Watch the 2026 Doomsday Clock unveiling live here on January 27 at 10 a.m. EST
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (277)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 