Nuclear industry declining world-wide
Nuclear decline set to continue, says report
Nuclear Engineering 27 August 2009
Nuclear will continue to decline according to a new report. At this point there is no obvious sign that the international nuclear industry could turn the decline into a promising future, it says. Continue reading
Nuclear energy a fading dream
Energy dream fades in New Brunswick
By Megan O’Toole, Canwest News Service“……………The $1.4-billion refurbishment of New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau nuclear generating station, home to the first Candu 6 reactor in the world, was undertaken with the mantra “on time and on budget” as its driving force. But unforeseen delays and cost overruns have since plagued to the project–already half a year behind schedule–with ratepayers on the hook for replacement power costs. Continue reading
Uranium price “flat”
Flat outlook for uranium spot prices
Australian Mining 26 August 2009 | by Michael Mills
Equity research company Resource Capital Research (RCR) said it is not expecting any significant changes to uranium spot prices in the near term.
The uranium spot price is currently trading at US$47.50 per pound, down 8% from the US$52 three months ago.
At the end of December 2008, the prices were US$52.50 per pound.
…………. The long term contract uranium price is US$65.00 per pound, which is down from US$70 per pound price at December 2008.
http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/Article/Flat-outlook-for-uranium-spot-prices/495758.aspx
The search for a nuclear graveyard
The search for a nuclear graveyard
The Globe and Mail 26 August 09
40,000 metric tonnes of radioactive waste is stored at sites across Canada. Anna Mehler Paperny reports on the hunt for a permanent solution
Wanted: Friendly, open-minded community in need of jobs and a whack of infrastructure cash. Must be willing to play host to nuclear waste, perhaps until the end of time.More than six decades after joining the nuclear club, Canada is home to 22 nuclear reactors, 18 of them in operation, producing about 15 per cent of the country’s electricity. Canada also has 40,000 metric tonnes of radioactive waste – and counting.
For years, the issue of how to best dispose of this waste has plagued policy-makers, scientists and citizens. Suggestions have included shooting it into outer space or exporting it to the South Pole.
Now, Canada is preparing to get rid of its nuclear detritus once and for all – by burying it. Continue reading
‘Dirty timebomb’ ticking in Russian nuclear dump threatens Europe
Dirty timebomb’ ticking in Russian nuclear dump threatens Europe
Belfast Telegraph By Rachel Shields 25 August 0920,000 discarded uranium fuel rods stored in the Arctic Circle are corroding. The possible result? Detonation of a massive radioactive bomb experts say could rival the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
A decaying Russian nuclear dump inside the Arctic Circle is threatening to catch fire or explode, turning it into a “dirty bomb” that could impact the whole of northern Europe, including the British Isles.
Experts are warning that sea water and intense cold are corroding a storage facility at Andreeva Bay, on the Kola Peninsula near Murmansk. It contains more than 20,000 discarded fuel rods from nuclear submarines and some nuclear-powered icebreakers. A Norwegian environmental group, Bellona, says it has obtained a copy of a secret report by the Russian nuclear agency, Rosatom, which speaks of an “uncontrolled nuclear reaction”.
John Large, an independent British nuclear consultant who has visited the site, told The Independent on Sunday: “The nuclear rods are fixed to the roof and encased in metal to keep them apart and prevent any reactions from occurring. However, sea water has eroded them at their base, and they are falling to the floor of the tanks, where inches of saltwater have collected.
“This water will begin to corrode the rods, a reaction that releases hydrogen, a gas that is highly explosive and could be ignited by any spark. When another rod falls to the floor and generates such a spark, an enormous explosion could occur, scattering radioactive material for hundreds of kilometres.”
Mr Large, who was decorated by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin for his role in the salvage operation that retrieved nuclear material from the Kursk submarine in 2000, added: “This wouldn’t be a thermonuclear or atomic explosion, as in a bomb, but the outcome is just as bad. Remember Chernobyl? If you had the right weather conditions and wind pattern, this would mean a radioactive cloud drifting over the UK.”
The three storage tanks contain more than 32 tons of radioactive material. But the Kola Peninsula is littered with relics of Soviet nuclear facilities, housing more than 100 tons of nuclear waste – the largest concentration in the world.
Experts predict that a major explosion at Andreeva Bay could destroy all life in a 32-mile radius, including Murmansk and a sliver of Norway, whose border is only 28 miles away. But a much wider area of Norway, north-west Russia and Finland would be rendered uninhabitable for at least 20 years, and huge quantities of radioactive material would be dumped into the Barents Sea……………………
Another Chernobyl-type meltdown, this time in the Arctic, could have much more far-reaching effects. The worst case would be widespread fallout caused by rain in a densely populated area, causing untold social and economic disruption beyond the threat to life.
German customers are saying ‘No Thanks” to nuclear power
Many German customers are saying ‘No Thanks” to nuclear power
American German Business News Flavia Westerwelle 24 August 09
After the recent nuclear reactor shutdown at the Vattenfall Kruemmel nuclear plant near Hamburg, Germany, many German customers are preferring green energy.On July 4th, 2009 the Kruemmel nuclear plant near Hamburg had been running for less than two weeks after a two year shutdown, when a sudden drop of voltage send shopping centers and traffic lights in Germany’s second largest city into an hour long blackout.After this incident the green energy company Lichtblick saw a dramatic jump in customers, with ca. 200 new customers per day.
This corresponds to a 70 % increase in customers for Lichtblick, a Hamburg-based company providing energy from renewable sources, with a mix of hydro, wind, solar and biomass power.It looks like the recent series of problems at nuclear plants combined with the issue of storing the nuclear waste has trigger a process of rethinking by many German customers eager to find a long term solution for Germany’s energy needs.
Many German customers are saying ‘No Thanks” to nuclear power « American-German Business News
Nuclear Safety in India
Nuclear Safety in India
The Pakistani Spectator 25 August 09
India has not ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, it has been exempted from nuclear restrictions imposed on non-signatories. The West has accorded preferential treatment to India ostensibly in consideration of her `immaculate’ nuclear safety record.India’s Nuclear Power Corporation boisterously claims: “NPC engineers have shared their expertise internationally by participating in safety reviews and inspection of reactors in other countries conducted by the World Association of Nuclear Operators and the International Atomic Energy Agency. We are continuously updating our safety systems and procedures even at the cost of short-term economic benefit. Besides, all our plants are designed, constructed, commissioned, operated and maintained under strict supervision.
”What’s the real situation? It is true that there has not been an accident, leading to core meltdown and radiation exposures. But, the fact remains that several minor accidents have happened in the past. These accidents range from leaks of oil to complete loss of power in the reactors causing all safety systems to be disabled.
Let us look at some of the accidents. The accidents at Tarapur, Madras and Rajasthan plants were due to non-compliance with safety standards. According to the mandatory standards of operation, each reactor is supposed to have an independent emergency core-cooling system. But, in practice, one cooling system was being shared between two reactors.
The investigators were astonished to find that the reactors at Madras and Rajasthan had been operating without backup pumps to continue smooth operation. The plants had to be shut down as whenever the operating pumps were disabled by external factors such as fluctuations in the grid.A study by India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board documented over 130 extremely serious safety issues warranting urgent corrective measures in the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Uranium Corporation of India, Heavy Water Board, Indian Rare Earths Limited and several other facilities.
The CIRUS reactor had an inherent problem of radiation leakage. Candu reactors suffered from heavy leakage of water. Dhruva reactor experienced fuel leakage, attributed to imperfect design architecture. Radioactive waste from the Tarapur Plant endangered lives of about 3,000 villagers living nearby……………….
Poor safety practices in India’s nuclear-power plants remain camouflaged under a cloak of secrecy. Authorities get alerted only when an accident occurs, necessitating a shut down. The NSG should have a second look at safety measures `observed’ in India’s power plants.. A cavalier approach to poor safety standards could result in a major accident, like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump plan is being killed off
Yucca Mountain funding nears its demise
Government Executive By Darren Goode Congress Daily August 21, 2009
House and Senate Democrats are well on their way to helping the Obama administration kill Nevada’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.Both chambers have approved fiscal 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bills that match the administration’s $197 million request to let the Energy Department officially keep the project open on paper for a year while funding Energy Secretary Stephen Chu’s blue ribbon panel to develop an alternative plan for storing and managing nuclear waste.
The current 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste are held in temporary surface storage facilities at 131 sites in 39 states.
Yucca Mountain funding nears its demise (8/21/09) — www.GovernmentExecutive.com
Texas anti-nuclear groups to take part in legal hearing
Anti-nuke groups win standing in Comanche Peak expansion case
Dallas News Aug 21, 2009 Elizabeth Souder
Several anti-nuclear groups and Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, have won a seat at the table when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides whether to grant Energy Future Holdings license to expand a North Texas nuclear power plant.The decision means the NRC must hold a contested hearing after staff has finished reviewing the company’s application for a license to build and operate two new reactors.The review is expected to take until 2012, and the contested hearing could delay a final decision on expansion of the Comanche Peak plant in Glen Rose by a few months, according to NRC spokesman Scott Burnell…………………
……………The groups — Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, Public Citizen, True Cost of Nukes — and Burnam made 19 contentions, and the licensing board agreed that two of the complaints should be addressed.
The two contentions that the board agreed should be heard are:
That Luminant failed to consider what might happen to the new reactors if there were a severe accident at one of the existing reactors,
And, that the company failed to explore alternatives to nuclear power, including “combinations of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, with technological advances in storage methods and supplemental use of natural gas, to create baseload power,” according to the board’s decision.
Sellafield nuclear waste: Cumbrian Council doesn’t want it
(UK) Nuclear waste sites set for thumbs down
Charlie, The Whitehaven News 20 August 09
Why do Sellafield want to store their waste in other peoples back yards? If it safe to be stored at Lillyhall then why not dig a big hole on the site of the old reactors? If waste is contained within a defined site it will not give surprises to future generations when the paperwork has been mislaid. This is proved by the problems over what is stored at Drigg. If we can’t trust them to keep track of dangerous waste for fifty years how can we expect them to know what is buried in hundreds of years to come.
The Whitehaven News by Alan Irving 20 August 09
TWO local sites earmarked for radioactive waste disposal are set to get the thumbs down from Cumbria County Council even though one – at Lillyhall – has already taken small amounts.
Cabinet councillors next week are expected to approve a recommendation that the low level radioactive waste is kept at Sellafield rather than sent to Keekle Head or Lillyhall…………
……………..yesterday Councillor Knowles said: “Sellafield waste should be dealt with at Sellafield. What we don’t want is a proliferation of radioactive waste, it should not be put in holes around West Cumbria and imposed on people.” At Keekle Head, French company subsidiary Endecom is already drilling boreholes to see whether it will be suitable. It also has an agreement to buy the derelict 173-acre site……………………
Consultations on the national strategy to manage future arisings of waste will close on September 11. Cabinet members will consider a county council response on the lines that “LLW produced at Sellafield should be disposed of near to Sellafield and should not be dispersed in sites further afield in West Cumbria.”
Whiitehaven News | News | Nuclear waste sites set for thumbs down
Malaysia: Nuclear Energy Costly and Unsafe
Costly and unsafe – opinion from Malaysia
August 16, 2009
The threat of another Chernobyl and the question of where to dump the waste are key arguments against nuclear power.AS mankind begins to come to terms with the fact that oil will run out in the not-too-distant future, nuclear power advocates trumpet a solution that is “clean, efficient, safe and, in some cases, environmentally friendly.………………..Elizabeth Wong, the Selangor Exco for Tourism, Consumer Affairs and the Environment, says nuclear energy is not a safe option for the future.
“Contrary to the claims of the nuclear industry and the federal government, nuclear energy is neither safe nor inexpensive. It is also not a solution to climate change. Nuclear power usage has environmental, health, and security risks that make it an undesirable substitute for fossil fuels.
Nuclear costs spell the dying of this industry?
Nuclear power’s new debate: cost
Issues of safety and waste make way for a focus on funding.
By Mark Clayton | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ August 13, 2009
“…………a new wave of concern is rising – not over traditional anxieties such as radioactive waste or weapons proliferation – but about the mammoth financial cost of nuclear power and who will bear it.
The big hurdle for Calvert Cliffs III and at least 21 other nuclear power reactors now in the US development pipeline is all about money – finding the billions in loans to build them. And the key to getting those loans is winning federal guarantees to back them.
Today, the US has 104 nuclear reactors, providing about 20 percent of the nation’s power. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the US since 1978. This is not because of protestors, but because of a lack of investor funding and Wall Street remembering the ghosts of nuclear power’s past – massive construction cost overruns, utility defaults, and bankruptcies. Yet these no longer seem to haunt the nuclear industry or its supporters.
……………….“Despite industry efforts to frame nuclear energy as the cheapest option, the reality is that nuclear power’s very survival has required large and continuous government support,” writes Doug Koplow, president of the Boston energy consulting company Earth Track, in a recent analysis of public subsidies for nuclear power. Mr. Koplow tracks $178 billion in public subsidies for nuclear energy for the period from 1947 to 1999. Others have reached similar figures.
ALTOGETHER, NUCLEAR-INDUSTRY BAILOUTS in the 1970s and ’80s cost taxpayers and ratepayers in excess of $300 billion in 2006 dollars, according to three independent studies cited in a new nuclear-cost study by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
New guarantees in coming years could also leave US taxpayers picking up the tab if nuclear utilities defaulted on their loans. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office said the average risk of default on Department of Energy guarantees was about 50 percent. The Congressional Budget Office projected that default rates would be very high – well above 50 percent.”
On that basis, the potential risk exposure to US taxpayers from federally guaranteed nuclear loans would be $360 billion to $1.6 trillion, depending on the number of power reactors built, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ study found.
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/13/nuclear-power%E2%80%99s-new-debate-cost/
TVA reduces plans for Alabama nuclear plant to 1 reactor, instead of the 4 originally planned
TVA reduces plans for Alabama nuclear plant to one reactor instead of the 4 originally planned
by Duncan Mansfield NOXVILLE, Tenn. 7 August 09 — The Tennessee Valley Authority, faced with falling electric sales and rising costs from cleaning up a massive coal ash spill in Tennessee, on Friday trimmed plans for a potential four-unit nuclear plant in northeast Alabama to one reactor.The nation’s largest public utility, which two years ago had positioned itself as a leader in this country’s so-called “nuclear renaissance,” said it would prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement to consider a single reactor for its unfinished Bellefonte site near Scottsboro, Ala.
That single unit might be one of the two advanced Westinghouse AP1000 reactors for which TVA has already applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined construction and operating license. Or it might be one of the two incomplete reactors that have been mothballed at the site since 1988……………
….TVA had plans in the 1960s and 1970s for as many as 17 reactors, but scrapped most of them because of cost and lack of power demand.
TVA reduces plans for Alabama nuclear plant to 1 reactor, instead of the 4 originally planned
Overcoming Nuclear Power’s Biggest Hurdle
Nuclear Power’s biggest hurdle
Strategy and Business 4 August 09 Nuclear power supporters had long hoped that the solution to the nuclear waste problem could be found in a storage facility hollowed out of Yucca Mountain, deep in the Nevada desert roughly 80 miles north of Las Vegas.But questions about Yucca’s long-term ability to keep radioactivity from leeching into groundwater energized nuclear opponents, as well as nearby residents and Nevada political leaders.
Soon after taking office, President Obama defunded the project.Pending another solution, the roughly 60,000 tons of nuclear fuel waste currently in the U.S. is stored on-site at nuclear plants, either in subsurface canisters or in secure “ponds” filled with boric acid.
If this approach continues much longer, it could cost Washington a lot of money: Utilities have successfully sued the federal government for failing to provide a permanent storage solution after they ponied up roughly US$30 billion in fees paid over several years to fund the Yucca project.
Indeed, untangling the nuclear waste problem may be more a matter of economics than of location.
Strong anti-nuclear group having effect in Texas
New Anti-Nuclear Group, Energía Mía, Putting Heat on CPS
TEXAS VOX August 6, 2009 by citizensarah
“……………..Citizens are uniting in efforts to halt CPS’ spending for more nuclear reactors. Speakers from many diverse organizations and businesses relayed their concerns about nuclear power as part of the newly formed Energia Mia network and are working to increase visibility and awareness of the problems of nuclear power.
“Energía Mía urges all citizens in San Antonio to get involved now and contact the mayor and city council. The rate hikes that would come from more nuclear power are unacceptable. They would create a severe economic hardship on many people and local businesses” said Cindy Weehler. “We have set up a new web site, www.EnergiaMia.org to provide information to the public and let people know how to get involved.”
According to the San Antonio Express-News, their membership includes representatives from
…the Southwest Workers Union, Project Verde, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, Texas Drought Project, Green Party and the San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition.
Alongside fundamental concerns about water, security, radioactive waste, and health and safety risks, the group is concerned about the financial effect the project could have on the city and the rate hikes that CPS has said will accompany STP’s expansion. CPS has already said that 5-8% rate hikes will be needed every two years for the next ten years to pay for this project, and that electric rates could increase nearly 50% as a result.
The good news is that all the noise these activists are making is starting to have an impact.
http://texasvox.org/2009/08/06/new-anti-nuclear-group-energia-mia-putting-heat-on-cps/
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
World Nuclear Power. Reactors 1951-2026, 75 Years of Nuclear Power.
Interactive Map– https://dv.worldnuclearreport.org/
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (211)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 