reactors « nuclear-news

No solution to ever-growing nuclear wastes

the intractability of the nuclear-waste problem confronting the power sector and the failure of policymakers to find a permanent solution.……the president and the energy secretary are looking to a new blue ribbon commission to recommend “a safe, long-term solution” to the waste problem

Solutions Remain Few on Issue of Nuclear- Waste Storage – Atomic Waste Gets ‘Temporary’ Home, WSJ.com, JUNE 1, 2010 By REBECCA SMITH Three months after the U.S. cancelled a plan to build a vast nuclear-waste repository in Nevada, the country’s ad hoc atomic-storage policy is becoming clear in places like Wiscasset, Maine. Continue reading →

June 3, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, radiation, reactors, uranium | Leave a comment

U.S. govt in legal trouble over nuclear wastes

Solutions Remain Few on Issue of Nuclear- Waste Storage WSJ.com, JUNE 1, 2010 By REBECCA SMITH “……….Utilities have filed more than 70 lawsuits against the government accusing it of breach of contract because it hasn’t taken the waste. So far, $1.3 billion has been paid out. The Department of Justice estimates the liability will top $12 billion if a waste facility is not opened by 2020…….utilities continue to contribute $770 million a year to a Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for a permanent repository that now isn’t even on the drawing board.In April, a group of utilities sued the federal government, demanding that these storage fees be suspended. Ellen Ginsberg, general counsel of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group, says, “We don’t want to pay any more fees until the government has a waste plan.”

Solutions Remain Few on Issue of Nuclear- Waste Storage – WSJ.com

June 3, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, nuclear wastes, radioactive, reactors | Leave a comment

Thousands of tons of nuclear wastes in above ground casks

– Atomic Waste Gets ‘Temporary’ Home, WSJ.com, JUNE 1, 2010 By REBECCA SMITH “……Power companies are likely to rely on casks even more in coming years. About 80% of reactor sites in the U.S. intend to move used fuel to casks because their storage pools are filling up.

So far, more than 800 casks have been filled and they sit tucked away behind fences on reactor sites. They hold 14,000 metric tons of waste, an amount that is steadily growing. There is an additional 49,000 metric tons being held in spent-fuel pools, used fuel’s first stop after it leaves reactors. Each year, another 2,000 metric tons of nuclear reactor waste is created. Continue reading →

June 3, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, nuclear technology, nuclear wastes, radioactive, reactors | Leave a comment

Nuclear Non-Proliferation not solved, nor is Nuclear Waste

Christina Macpherson's websites & blogs

As the May Nuclear Non Proliferation conference ends, the nuclear industry and President Obama continue to use this story as a selling point for the “peaceful” nuclear industry. And for June, perhaps the critical issue is – how to convince the world that nuclear wastes are OK, that this problem is solved, – when it’s not!

Other selling points are emerging now – perhaps a sign of the desperation of the industry?

There’s a push to use a nuclear bomb as a cure for the oil spill – based on Russian experience – for goodness’ sake! Who in their right mind would trust the Russian history of things nuclear?

Then there’s the push for little reactors, thorium reactors, instead of uranium-fuelled reactors. Anything to look as though the nuclear industry is forging on. But it’s not – except for nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, despite all the propaganda, and lack of real government incentives, renewable energy technologies are forging on.

June 1, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | antinuclear, disarmament, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear spin, nuclear technology, nuclear wastes, nuclear weapons, reactors, renewable energy, renewables | 8 Comments

The nuclear industry in decline

Ockham’s Razor – 30 May 2010 – Nuclear energy: a panacea for climate change?

Nuclear energy: a panacea for climate change?. ABC Radio National, Ockham’s Razor, Dr Adam Lucas – 30 May 2010 “………..What is the status of nuclear energy in the world at the moment? And do the arguments of its proponents stand up to scrutiny? Continue reading →

June 1, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, business and costs | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear spin, nuclear technology, radiation, radioactive, reactors | Leave a comment

Doctors oppose radiation experiments on squirrel monkeys

Belmont hospital faulted for monkey experiments, BostonHerald.com, By Associated Press , May 31, 2010 BELMONT – An anti-animal research group is preparing to unveil two billboards criticizing McLean Hospital in Belmont for experiments with squirrel monkeys.The Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is scheduled to unveil the billboards Tuesday near the hospital.According to the group, squirrel monkeys will be exposed to harmful radiation at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York and will then be sent to McLean for various tests.

June 1, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Religion and ethics, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, radioactive, reactors | Leave a comment

Leaking and lying – time for Vermont Nuclear Plant to close

Nuclear Power Plant Leaking AGAIN AGAIN – IndyPosted, by Maggie Romuld May 31, 2010 The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant could close in March 2012 when its current license expires. While that might not be good news for some, it seems fair for a plant that has been plagued with problems for years, and leaked once again over the weekend. And, perhaps more importantly, when you consider that radioactive tritium was found in an underground pipe and plant officials “acknowledged they had misled state regulators and lawmakers regarding whether the plant had underground pipes that carried radioactive substances.”

Nuclear Power Plant Leaking AGAIN – IndyPosted

June 1, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | general | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear secrecy, nuclear technology, radiation, reactor, reactors | 1 Comment

Short term approach to nuclear wastes masks reality of the problem

as the world’s nuclear military powers are discovering the costs continue after the submarines and power stations have been decommissioned from active service. The equipment and reactors cannot easily or cheaply be dismantled and will remain radioactive for hundreds of years

Nuclear and radioactive waste disposal – by Patrick Boniface – Helium, 30 May 2010, Nuclear waste is dangerously toxic, its environmental impact if released would be devastating, as was witnessed during both the Chernobyl explosion, the American Three Mile Island scare and the Windscale fire of 1957.In these cases radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. With the Windscale fire some 15,000 terabequerels (TBq) of radioactive material (notably Iodine-131) were released (3).

A report compiled by Crick & Linsley in 1983 estimated that 260 people would eventually die from dieases, such as thyroid cancers, related to the release of the material during the fire, (4).

Other aspects that environmentalist’s voice concerns over include the storage of spent nuclear fuels, from commercial nuclear reactors and increasingly from redundant nuclear warships such as submarines.

In particular in the former Soviet Union around the submarine base of Arkangel in Northern Russia there are around sixty nuclear submarines that are rotting away but still with large amounts of nuclear material contained within their hulls.

The Russian economy is unable to afford the costs of de-commissioning these submarines. The cost of decommissioning is between $100-300 million per submarine (5). Continue reading →

May 31, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, wastes | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, nuclear weapons, radioactive, reactors, uranium | Leave a comment

Oil disaster now, nuclear later?

BP oil spill live feed & oil spill update: people express frustration as Top kill fails Chronicle.com, May, 2010 “…Top Kill has failed to work and BP bosses have no idea as to why it failed. ….. Meanwhile people have started shooting off tough question in the eye of increasing oil leak problem. A disgruntled reader says, “They can’t control OIL. How will they control NUCLEAR ? These are the same energy billionaires that own nuclear power plants / giant CANCER machines. How will they control invisible highly radioactive cancer causing nuclear radiation when a nuclear power plant melts down ? AND DONT !! try to tell us accidents “never happen” You make your billions from us while you destroy us. And Obama just approved 54 billion in loan guarantee’s to build more nuclear power plants ! Why should we pay for the billionaires to build more cancer machines ? And we pay their insurance. Because they are uninsurable the government (with our money)” BP oil spill live feed & oil spill update: people express frustration as Top kill fails : ndChronicle.com

May 31, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | general | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear spin, nuclear wastes, radiation, reactors | 2 Comments

American Indians against new uranium mining

“Our Navajo communities rely on the groundwater for everything. These new projects could contaminate the source of drinking water for 15,000 Navajo community members,”

Navajo Activists Protest Uranium Mining Plans, May 28, 2010, warresisters By Bruce Finley, The Denver PostUranium-mining leaders and federal regulators poised to fuel a resurgent nuclear power industry gathered in Denver on Wednesday,…outside the conference Wednesday, American Indian demonstrators with drums and signs demanded a halt to all new uranium mining on Navajo land, where federal regulators have permitted several projects. Continue reading →

May 29, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | indigenous issues, USA | antinuclear, indigenous, nuclear, nuclear wastes, radioactive, reactors, uranium | Leave a comment

How the world’s savings are used to promote the nuclear industry

Who gives the nuclear industry the billions of dollars and euros of our money to build new reactors, block renewable energy, contaminate the environment and create highly dangerous waste that will be with the human race for hundred of thousands of years to come? The banks do. This is the secret the www.nuclearbanks.org website will tell you.

Nuclear banks? No thanks! | Greenpeace International, by jmckeati – May 26, 2010 , Today sees the launch of the http://www.nuclearbanks.org website, a joint venture between BankTrack, Greenpeace International, Urgewald (Germany), Les Amis de la Terre (France), Antiatom Szene (Austria), WISE (the Netherlands) and CRBM (Italy).Banks around the world love to boast about their investments in green technologies and renewable energy. What they don’t like to boast about is their involvement with the dirty and dangerous business of nuclear power. Continue reading →

May 27, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, spinbuster | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear spin, nuclear technology, reactors, uranium | Leave a comment

Nuclear solution to oil spill could be worse than the problem

BP Oil Spill: The Nuclear Option, THE HUFFINGTON POST, Susan Deily-Swearingen, 26 May 2010, “……One solution that is getting increased attention on the web and in the European press is the terrifying sounding nuclear option which, essentially, would detonate a nuclear bomb underground near the oil well shaft……………What are the lasting effects of such an explosion? Is there a potential for them to be even worse than the pollution from the dispersants already used to “solve” or abate the problem? Continue reading →

May 27, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, nuclear wastes, radioactive, reactors | Leave a comment

Core aim of U.S. Climate Bill is to promote nuclear energy

Nuclear Energy Has a Friend in Heads of Obama’s BP Oil Disaster Commission, by kgosztola May 25, 2010“……..Public Citizen reports the current climate legislation is a “nuclear energy-promoting, oil drilling-championing, coal mining-boosting” piece of legislation “with a weak carbon pricing mechanism thrown in.” The public interest groups warns against the nuclear power incentives currently in the climate change bill: Continue reading →

May 26, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, USA | antinuclear, climate change, global warming, nuclear, nuclear renaissance, nuclear spin, nuclear technology, radioactive, reactors, uranium | Leave a comment

Graham and Reilly – two nuclear promoters heading oil spill commission

The EPA under Reilly specifically called for “the construction of 600 more 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants around the world.”

Nuclear Energy Has a Friend in Heads of Obama’s BP Oil Disaster Commission, by kgosztola May 25, 2010 “…….The single largest nuclear industry contributor to Graham’s campaign was Exelon, which has provided him with $19,000 since 1998. Exelon, in fact, is a particularly generous donor, giving a total of $588,044 to members of Congress in 2002 alone. That makes it the kindest nuclear company to politicians, according to a Public Citizen report issued this past May 20 titled “Hot Waste, Cold Cash.” ….

Former EPA Administrator William K. Reilly: A Chum for Nuclear Energy
In Reilly’s career, he has demonstrated significant support for nuclear energy Continue reading →

May 26, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | antinuclear, climate change, global warming, nuclear, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, reactors | Leave a comment

UK tax-payer might have to foot the bill for nuclear industry

…….over the years, nuclear has had the lion’s share of R&D and public investment in new energy technology, and we are still spending about half our energy R&D funding on nuclear fission and fusion. By comparisons, renewables, as a group, have been starved of funding

(UK) The cost of nuclear – environmentalresearchweb, 24 May 2010, “………The capital cost is high, and the ultimate cost, if something goes seriously wrong, could be very large.The UK’s nuclear liability law is based on the Paris and Brussels Convention on Nuclear Third Party Liability, which has been in operation since the 1960s. Continue reading →

May 24, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | antinuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear spin, reactors | Leave a comment