nuclear-news

It could. if we set our minds to it, be the decade when the planet’s use of fossil fuels peaks and then rapidly declines. We’ve built a movement that, for the moment, is starting to tie down the fossil fuel industry: from the tarsands of Alberta to the (as yet unbuilt) giant new mines of Australia’s Galilee Basin, the big players in coal, gas, and oil are bothered and even bewildered by a new strain of activist. They’re losing on the image front: when the Rockefeller family, the Church of England, and Prince Charles have begun divesting their fossil fuel stocks, you know the tide has turned.

And with it comes the sudden chance to replace that fossil fuel, fast and relatively easily. Out of nowhere the price of solar panels has fallen like an anvil from a skyscraper, dropping 75 percent in the last six years. Renewable energy is suddenly as cheap or cheaper than the bad stuff, even before you figure in the insane monetary cost of global warming. So in Bangladesh they’re solarizing 60,000 huts a month; the whole country may be panelled by 2020.

“The next 10 years will be decisive when it comes to the planet’s future — what we do (or don’t) will play out over geologic time.”

That rapid change wouldn’t be enough to stop global warming — we’re already seeing drastic changes, as anyone living through California’s drought can attest. We’ll continue to see record-breaking years (like 2014. And like 2015 so far). We’ll have to deal with record flooding. The ocean will grow more acidic. But maybe, if we really ratchet up the transition we’ll avoid a challenge of civilization-scale……..http://linkis.com/wordpress.com/tknNA

A panel of experts concluded Wednesday that it is safe to bury the hazardous nuclear waste in a deep underground bunker at the site near Lake Huron.

The 430-page environmental assessment report found that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, though it would require strict attention and regulation. The proposal put forth by Ontario Power Generation calls for hazardous waste to be buried 680 metres underground in a deep geological repository or DGR, a distance that would comfortably fit the CN Tower.

The DGR will be at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, which stands on the shores of Lake Huron, Southwest of Owen Sound, Ont……..

After taking a tour of the proposed site, Hobbs wasn’t convinced that there aren’t other places that would serve the repository better.

“One of our main concerns was that no other sites were looked at,” he said. “And when we’re looking at high-level nuclear waste…I think they really missed the boat here in looking at other sites.”

Hobbs believes locations like Ignace in Northern Ontario or Saskatchewan would handle the nuclear waste better, and are away from a water source.

The federal environment minister has four months to decide whether to approve the plan. The goal is to start construction by 2018, and have the site running by 2025. Before that can happen, there will have to be further approvals and consultations with local First Nations…….http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ont-mayor-calls-nuclear-waste-location-a-bone-headed-move-1.2363486

However, no US interceptor jets scrambled to shadow the bombers, according to defense officials familiar with the situation.

A Russian embassy spokesman did not return an email seeking comment on the matter, the Free Beacon said.

For his part, Navy Captain Jeff Davis, a spokesman for the U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), declined to confirm the incursion, also saying that no attempts were made to intercept the Tu-95s.

According to the Free Beacon, last week’s incident was the first alleged Russian bomber incursion of a US or Canadian air defense zone this year.  http://sputniknews.com/world/20150501/1021607454.html#ixzz3YvlT8L4R

Customer access to clean energy has increased dramatically in the past 15 years, as technology cost reductions, electricity market deregulation, and financial creativity have combined to produce more accessible renewable products for end users.

Energy managers now have a wealth of tools at their disposal. The most recent product class is the offsite solar PPA. This product represents the fourth major way that large electricity buyers can access the benefits of renewables. It’s the most flexible and satisfying yet, and appeals to a broad range of end users, including universities, corporations, manufacturers, municipalities and other government agencies.

We will briefly recap the history of customers’ renewable energy options, as well as the pros and cons of each…….http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-evolution-of-customer-renewable-energy-choice-from-recs-to-offsite-ppas

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a year ago issued a license to Powertech Uranium Corp. for the proposed Dewey-Burdock mine near Edgemont. Powertech is now Azarga Uranium.

The license was put on hold when mine opponents including the Oglala Sioux raised questions about possible damage to aquifers and cultural sites.

The Rapid City Journal reports that the board has ruled in Azarga’s favor on five challenges relating to water quality and quantity. But it also instructed the company to make more efforts to locate existing drill holes at the site to prevent contamination, and it said the mine could threaten cultural sites.

Importing countries rely on producing countries to correctly identify where their products come from, which means there is no real way to protect the food supply from such fraud, British experts said.

“There is a risk that radioactive food is getting on to the UK market,” said Eoghan Daly of the Institute of Food Safety Integrity and Protection.

Under British law, food produced in the area around Fukushima must be labeled as such and must be subjected to radiation testing upon exiting Japan and entering the United Kingdom. The United States has a similar system in place, mandating the inspection of certain products including dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables, meat and seafood produced in “areas of concern” around Fukushima.

“I suspect what has happened in Taiwan might well have already happened in the UK. Intermediary supply chain middlemen can buy food in bulk and package and label as they like – before shipping them to the UK,” said Alastair Marke of the British food safety consultancy

“Although we have adopted one of the world’s most comprehensive and stringent traceability laws, the UK has virtually no control over how foods are processed, manufactured and packaged in Japan.”

“No safe level” of exposure

The radioactive element most likely to be contaminating food produced near Fukushima is cesium, which has a long half-life and can actually remain in the human body for decades. Although large amounts of radioactive iodine were also released during the meltdowns, this isotope largely dissipates within a few weeks.

“There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources, period,” warned Jeff Patterson, former president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, shortly after the Fukushima disaster.

“Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine 131 and cesium 137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”

“Consuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous,” agreed physician Alan Lockwood. “If an individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body.”  http://www.naturalnews.com/049509_radioactive_food_fukushima_cesium.html#ixzz3YfMkHGBy

Once Japan reaches cost-revenue parity in solar energy, it will mean the technology is commercially viable in all G7 countries and 14 of the G20 economies, according to data from governments, industry and consumer groups.
…
“Just as shale extraction reconfigured oil and gas, no other technology is closer to transforming power markets than distributed and utility scale solar,” said consultancy Wood Mackenzie, which has a focus on the oil and gas industry.

Oil major Exxon Mobil says that “solar capacity is expected to grow by more than 20 times from 2010 to 2040.”

Three hundred delegates from 20 countries that produce uranium for nuclear power, weapons and medical uses called for an end to all uranium mining in a declaration launched on Earth Day this week at a meeting in Quebec, Canada.

The venue for the World Uranium Symposium was chosen because Quebec state is currently considering whether to continue its moratorium on uranium mining, having already closed down its only nuclear power plant in 2013.

Symbolic choice

But the symposium was more concerned about the damage that existing uranium mining is doing to the welfare of indigenous peoples, and the “erroneous view” that nuclear power can help solve the problem of climate change.

The declaration applauded the expansion of renewable energy and the significant strides in phasing out nuclear power following the growing awareness that “nuclear power is not a cost-effective, timely, practical or safe response to climate change”.

“The risks to health, safety and the environment represented by the entire nuclear fuel chain . . . greatly exceed the potential benefits for society”

It called for “a worldwide ban on uranium exploration, mining, milling and processing, as well as the reprocessing of nuclear waste, and the irresponsible management of radioactive waste”.

Dr. Eric Notebaert, associate professor of medicine at the University of Montreal, co-president of the Symposium, and member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said that the symposium delegates all agreed that “the risks to health, safety and the environment represented by the entire nuclear fuel chain—from uranium mines, to power reactors, to nuclear weapons, to radioactive wastes—greatly exceed the potential benefits for society”.

Dr. Juan Carlos Chrigwin, a physician affiliated with McGill University, and president ofPhysicians for Global Survival, said: “The issuing of this World Declaration on Uranium is the culmination of essential work carried out over many years by international coalitions who, despite geographical and cultural differences, share common objectives and who desire to shape a common vision of a better world.

“Uranium does not provide a viable or sustainable approach for dealing with climate change, nor for providing isotopes for medical use. Today, there are a number of medical and energy alternatives that are cheaper and safer.”

The declaration is open for organisations and individuals to sign on the internet and is bound to put further pressure on an industry already suffering from falling confidence.

The price of uranium has dropped from $138 a tonne in 2007 to less than $40 a tonne currently as plans to build more nuclear stations have been shelved in several countries.

While the search continues for rich new uranium deposits—particularly by China in Africa and the US in Greenland—it is unlikely to be economically viable to exploit them at current prices.

Carbon footprint

According to the World Nuclear Association, 52% of the world’s production comes from 10 mines in six countries. The largest is in Canada, followed by one in Australia, but the largest single producer is Kazakhstan, which has four mines in the top 10 in the world. In Africa, Niger and Namibia are also big producers.

While many pro-nuclear governments—including the UK’s—regard nuclear power as a clean, low-carbon form of energy, the politicians ignore the carbon footprint of the mines and the consequences for the health of workers.

It is in developing countries that the miners and the local environment tend to suffer most because of open cast mines. For example, large areas of Kazakhstan are too dangerous to inhabit as a result of mountains of uranium tailings and mildly radioactive dust.

The Symposium’s co-president, Dr. Dale Dewar—a physician who is associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan and is co-author of the book, From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You—summed up by saying: “We are calling on national and international leaders to protect our planet and our populations from any further nuclear catastrophes. Anything less would be irresponsible.”