nuclear-news

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

If nuclear power is so great, why aren’t we doing it?

If nuclear power is so great, why aren’t we doing it? Thought Leader By Roger Diamond 7 July 09 “………………………..Somewhere, somehow, investors aren’t keen, and my suspicion is that expense is at the heart of their concerns, and not waste (environmental) or accident (social) issues.

The second issue I’d like to raise is that of externalities. These are the real costs not included in the financial cost of an item or service. In the case of nuclear energy, the externalities are associated with mining of uranium, decommissioning and high-level radioactive waste disposal. These are the costs not being added into the price of electricity from nuclear power plants. Specifically, mining of uranium has, like any other mining, a basket of costs that are being put off for future generations to deal with, namely groundwater and surface-water pollution, land disturbance and rehabilitation costs, dust etc. If these were costed into the life-cycle analysis for nuclear power, it would be even more expensive than it is now…………………….Externalities are where renewables get very competitive. Use of coal and uranium has huge externalities, whilst renewables only have the indirect effects associated with energy and resources used to construct and transport the energy-harvesting devices

Thought Leader » Peak Oil Perspectives » If nuclear power is so great, why aren’t we doing it?

July 7, 2009 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | , , , , | Leave a comment

Belarussian kids receive care

Belarussian kids receive careBy John Henderson Rocky Mount Telegram  July 06, 2009 Children from Belarus who continue to be exposed to radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant incident have once again traveled to Rocky Mount from the former Soviet Union to receive free medical care.But fewer local “host families” in this down economy have been able pay for the flights and take the children into their homes for six weeks. The host families also take the children to local offices for medical, eye and dental care treatment………………………….

On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant reactor exploded, releasing dangerous amounts of radiation into the air. The wind on that day carried it toward Belarus, contaminating the region’s air, soil and water.

“The problem is there is so much unknown radiation material (in Belarus), and it will probably be there for 3,000 or 4,000 years,” Patrone said. “Some of the food is not safe.”………………………………….

“Medically, they are small in size,” Patrone said. “Some have thyroid problems and an occasional immune-deficiency problem. They are still suffering, because basically, radiation is still in the dirt.”

If a child is diagnosed with a major problem here such as thyroid cancer, they are sent back to Belarus for treatment, he said.

“(The trip to Rocky Mount) is a way to get out of the radiation zone and to give kids a second (doctor’s) opinion,” he said.

Belarussian kids receive care – News |

July 7, 2009 Posted by | Belarus, environment | , , , , | Leave a comment

Downwinders still waiting for RECA coverage

Downwinders still waiting for RECA coverage By Blair Koch Times-News  7 july 09 A common fear among victims of radiation fallout caused by nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s and ’60s is that they will not live long enough to see the government take accountability.Ilene Hoisington expressed this sentiment when interviewed by the Times-News in June 2007. At 75, she had seen both her sons die of cancer and had her own larynx removed due to the same disease. Hoisington’s sister also died of cancer.In June 2008, Hoisington lost her battle too, having died before Idaho fallout victims were included in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.”I think (the government) is waiting until we all die and then there won’t be anymore downwinders, problem solved,” Hoisington said in 2007.

Times-News: Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID

July 7, 2009 Posted by | environment, USA | , , , , | Leave a comment

New Capitalism Old Capitalism Except Taxpayer Money Is At Risk

New Capitalism: Old Capitalism except taxpayer money is at risk Sunday Herald  Iain Macwhirter 4 July 09 – “………………………..Old Capitalism has long gone and has been replaced by New Capitalism, which is like the previous system, but without the risk of failure………

…………make lots of profit from running it, but then when they stop making profits they hand the keys back to the government and walk off leaving all the losses with the taxpayer. This is a great improvement on boring old capitalism, because it removes all the danger from the investor, and turns public contracts into a licence to print money…………….
…………..Then there’s the nuclear industry. The cost of decommissioning the last generation of nuclear power stations was around £100bn – paid for by us. It was the most expensive way of producing electricity since the Van Der Graaff generator.

The next generation is going to be totally different. Private companies will build and operate super-efficient and totally self-financing nuclear power stations earning healthy profits. Except that, under the deal, when something goes wrong they’ll be handed back to the government.

This is because the insurance costs are so high for these power plants that if the government hadn’t taken on the financial liability for nuclear disasters, the private operators wouldn’t have been able to make a decent profit. And, of course, the bulk of the decommissioning costs and the disposal of the nuclear waste, radioactive for a thousand years, will naturally be the taxpayer’s responsibility.

New Capitalism Old Capitalism Except Taxpayer Money Is At Risk (from Sunday Herald)

July 6, 2009 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | , , , | Leave a comment

Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? |

Diana Hooley: Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? Idaho Statesman  ENERGY BY DIANA HOOLEY  07/05/09 “………………. ……………Wall Street Journal reporter Keith Johnson (WSJ Blog, June 12) says that the capital costs for nuclear are currently prohibitive……………………………current problems in the European nuclear industry suggests that new reactors would be “no easier or cheaper to build than the ones a generation ago.” The Times said that construction of two “new” generation reactors in France and Finland have been riddled with problems and are well over budget with no end in sight for the project’s construction phase.

The Times also said that in Florida and Georgia, state laws have been changed to raise electricity rates in order to pass on the costs of the expensive construction of new nuclear plants to consumers. Some states like Missouri have balked at these preconstruction costs and suspended any nuclear plant projects for their state.

The New York Times quotes MIT economist Paul L. Jaskow in acknowledging the cost of nuclear. Jaskow says a number of U.S. companies are looking in trepidation at the magnitude of investment necessary to build a reactor………………….. renewables are working toward baseload capacities, and with smart grids and other new storage technology, researchers can see the potential for baseload.

Wind power is just one of several renewable resources supported by current federal legislature that produces no greenhouse gasses or toxic waste and is believed to have the long-term technical potential to be five times total current global energy production or 40 times current electricity demand (“Global wind map shows best wind farm locations,” Environment News Service, May 17, 2005).

Additionally, renewables do not have to be built to scale like nuclear, requiring massive investments in large electrical transmission infrastructures. Evidently, investors know the market potential of renewables; wind power alone is growing at the rate of 30 percent annually (Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 update).

Diana Hooley: Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? | Reader’s Opinion | Idaho Statesman

July 6, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, USA | , , , , | Leave a comment

IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem

AEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem 3 July 2009 | 15:00 | Source: B92 BELGRADE — The head of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) has warned that Serbia must dispose of any remaining atomic fuel as soon as possible. Mohammed ElBaradei and Serbian Science Minister Božidar Đelić today signed an additional protocol on cooperation between Belgrade and the IAEA, after visiting the Vinča Nuclear Science Institute yesterday.

ElBaradei warned that Serbia needed to dispose of its remaining supplies of atomic fuel to prevent any possible incidents.

B92 – News – Society – IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem

July 6, 2009 Posted by | EUROPE, wastes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wall must ignore nuclear hype, make an informed decision

“……………………………..the legitimacy of nuclear power as a cost-efficient energy source was dealt a severe blow this week with the news that the Ontario government has suspended the tender to build two new reactors at Darlington — part of a $26-billion nuclear building refurbishment plan. This development has certainly put a perspective on the foremost problem with nuclear power development — the exorbitant pricetag — that business proponents like the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce have sadly been downplaying.

Wall must ignore nuclear hype, make an informed decision

July 6, 2009 Posted by | Canada, politics | , , , | Leave a comment

The nuclear option [Areva]

The nuclear option – AREVA
appomattox’s posterous  2 July 09 “………………………………”Though Niger is the fourth-largest producer of uranium in the world, it sees almost none of the wealth. Because of a long-standing contract, the French consortium* pays only 5.5 percent of its revenue in taxes, and most of it goes to subsidize elites in the dusty capital of Niamey. Almost three-quarters of the people cannot read, and those who survive to the age of forty-five are living on statistically borrowed time. Niger was recently named the most deprived country on earth by the United Nations, ranked dead last among the world’s sovereign nations on a comprehensive scale called the Human Development Index, which charts life expectancy, education, and standard of living…””Uranium: War, Energy, and the Rock that Shaped the World,” by Tom Zoellne……………..

…………..President Nicolas Sarkozy has been active in trumpeting his country’s know-how to win French companies new business abroad…Areva needs between eight and 10 billion euros by 2012 to fund its investment program, notably to develop its third-generation EPR nuclear reactor. It also needs an estimated two billion euros to buy out Siemens’ stake in Areva NP, its reactor subsidiary.” ………………….

…………..Areva needs between eight billion and 10 billion euros (11.2 billion and 14.0 billion dollars) by 2012 to fund its investment program, notably to develop its third-generation EPR nuclear reactor. The company also needs an estimated two billion euros to buy out Siemens’ stake in Areva NP, its reactor subsidiary.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i7L4s3lyWXxYV0rTTNpBou6r7Jeg

In other words, it appears Areva is in deep financial doings, and ownership of the company is being diluted from a state-run operation to privatization – a movement that seems to annoy the French government.While financial doings are deep (albeit perhaps not troublesome, depending on the availability of investors), the climate in Africa poses some problems:

“After a visit in late March from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to Niger, residents in the uranium-exporting desert country continue questioning whether AREVA, a company primarily owned by the French government, will honour its promise to protect communities from mining hazards.” On the other side of that coin, Areva faces problems with water shortages in its mining and milling processes.

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=83706

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=83706

The nuclear option [Areva]: Virginia Business – News – appomattox’s posterous

July 3, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, France | , , , , | Leave a comment

Wheels Coming Off Nuclear Bandwagon

Beyondnuke-plant-sad Nuclear 2 July 09 International leaders of the nuclear power “renaissance” have recently announced major delays, or outright cancellations, of new reactors. In the U.S., John Rowe, CEO and Chairman of the largest nuclear utility Exelon, dropped its application to NRC to build two reactors at Victoria County Station, Texas and instead will pursue a more generic Early Site Permit approval without committing to a specific reactor design. This latest stumble is admittedly due to “limited availability of federal loan guarantees.” (See Wall Street Journal coverage with links to more articles). In Ontario, $26 billion in nuclear power plant refurbishment and new reactor construction plans have been suspended, as the Province seeks to bargain down Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s skyrocketing price tags, especially given the government -owned “Crown Corporation’s” current troubles and uncertain future. (See press coverage). And recent developments in South Africa have likely rung the death knell for the pebble bed modular reactor, once touted as the lead “Generation IV” design for “advanced reactors.” (See The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists story). ??

July 3, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer –

New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer Brattleboro Reformer By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff  July 2BRATTLEBORO — Are nuclear power plant workers at higher risk to die of cancer?A study conducted by a Canadian researcher concluded the risk is substantially higher to them than to the general public.The document, “Exposure to Radiation and Health Outcomes” was made public last week. It was written by Mark Lemstra, who was formerly a senior research epidemiologist for the Saskatoon, Canada, Health Region……………………In the radiation report, in which Lemstra reviewed 1,725 articles related to radiation studies, he concluded that nuclear power plant workers have a “relative excess risk” of getting cancer.

In epidemiology, excess risk is defined as the difference between the proportion of subjects in a population with a particular disease who were exposed to a specific risk factor and the proportion of subjects with that same disease who were not exposed.

In the case of nuclear power plant workers, that risk factor is low-dose radiation.

New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer – Brattleboro Reformer

July 3, 2009 Posted by | Canada, environment | , , , , | Leave a comment

France imports UK electricity as plants shut

July 3, 2009 France imports UK electricity as plants shut TIMESONLINE

France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.

With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.

Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.

France imports UK electricity as plants shut – Times Online

July 3, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, climate change, France | , , | Leave a comment

‘No’ to nuclear power

SOUTHDOWN STAR  Marlene Lang 30 June 09 “……………………Twenty-six plants nationwide showed shortfalls in the funds they are required by federal law to set aside for dismantling the reactors someday and cleaning up after themselves.–

Every year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission checks on the state of so-called “decommissioning funds.”

Most years there are only a handful of plants running short of having those estimated costs laid up, usually four or five one official said. Those billions set aside for close-down and clean-up don’t just pile up under a mattress, of course; the money is invested in the stock market. According to an Associated Press report, some $4.4 billion in decommissioning funds was lost in the downturn, even as the actual costs for shutting down plants has risen by $4.6 billion because of (I love this part) rising energy costs – and labor costs.–

Illinois’ Braidwood Station, Byron Station and LaSalle County Station, each with two nuclear reactors, and the Clinton Power Station are all on the NRC’s shortfall list……………………… Plans for fund-challenged nuclear power plants are to let them sit for about six decades, or however long it takes to accumulate the cash to safely dismantle those reactors and remove those nasty, hot and highly radioactive uranium fuel pellets. Sixty years, idle, is the time-frame estimate the NRC gave media earlier this month.–……………………. I didn’t need to be an engineer to wonder what happens when things get, well, rusty? But immediately I doubted my common sense; I asked if maybe we, the non-technical public, are ill-informed? Maybe even stupid? Maybe magical nuclear power plants don’t actually rust; maybe they can rest safely forever on waterfronts near our homes and always safely contain that high-level radioactive fuel.–

I tried to believe, but I lacked what the nuclear industry and U.S. government policy refer to as: Waste Confidence. This is a doctrine – and I chose that word carefully – which says that the nuclear industry can continue to function and grow even though it has the big gaping problem of what to do with the its own leftovers, being confident that a solution will be found. When common sense fails, there is always faith.– …………………………. What to do? The better question may be, what not to do. How about we listen to common sense and NOT build any more of these reactors until we have solved the great mystery of what to do with the waste, and can afford to pay for that solution?

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/lang/1644764,063009-colLANG.article

July 2, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power has Political Meltdowns

Nuclear Power has Political Meltdowns  Greentech Pastures Harry Fuller 1 July 09 There’s the on-going issue of nuclear waste, and in Ontario, at least, there’s the problem of the expense of the next generation technology.
Only Finland is currently building the latest and best in nuclear generation tech, the work being done by European firms, Areva and Siemens. The project is now far over budget and at least three years from completion. The plant construction began in 2005 and was supposed to have been completed this year. Situations like Ontario and Finland are not going to encourage other nations to go further into nuclear generation.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=5721

July 2, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear power problems remain

News.cincinatti.com Bill Cahalan • July 1, 2009 “……………..about Duke Energy’s plan for a nuclear plant in Piketon, Ohio,……………. many decision-makers appear motivated by fear of shortages (and for the nuclear industry, hunger for big profits) to return to this sleeping dog of nuclear electricity.

Despite some improvements in the technology, the following decades-old problems remain: air, water and human contamination from uranium mining, huge up-front construction (and later, decommissioning) costs, lengthy construction times, higher cancer rates and morbidity from other disorders in nearby residents due to routine radioactive releases, the continuing danger of meltdowns as occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and almost at Davis-Besse in Toledo (2002), high vulnerability to terrorist attacks and the still unsolved problem of radioactive waste passed to our descendants for thousands of years.

I challenge the assumption that, in a world stressed by many transgressed ecological limits besides CO2 emissions, we must resign ourselves to continually increasing population, consumption and energy demands……………

……………..I for one plan to strive even harder now to unplug from Duke and turn to solar cells and conservation,…….

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090701/EDIT02/907010374/Nuclear+power+problems+remain

July 2, 2009 Posted by | climate change | , , , , | Leave a comment

Heatwaves can crimp nuclear power output across Europe

nuke-hotHeatwaves can crimp power output across Europe LONDON, June 30 (Reuters) – Forecasts for warmer temperatures this week in parts of Europe raise the possibility of summer heat waves that can heavily strain the ability of the energy sector to keep supplies flowing.

— French temperatures have been at above 30 degrees Centigrade in some regions and are expected to remain at those levels until the end of the week. Forecasts show tempertures will dip by around 5 degrees next week.

— France, which relies on atomic power plants for 80 percent of its electricity, is especially vulnerable to heat waves. With 14 of its 19 nuclear plants located by rivers, rising temperatures over a longer period of time can trigger cooling problems due to local laws that prevent plants from discharging water in rivers above certain temperature levels.

— Lower output from reactors located near rivers because of cooling problems usually coincides with surging demand as people crank up air conditioners during the summer………………………

GERMANY

— Temperatures in Germany are running between 26 and 31 degrees Centigrade……………….- Some of the plants are on small rivers, which means the ability to draw cooling water from the rivers is reduced when water levels decline in heatwaves.

Heatwaves can crimp power output across Europe | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

July 1, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, climate change, EUROPE | , , | Leave a comment