NEW YORK, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp's 1,166-megawatt Wolf Creek reactor in Kansas shut from full power on Wednesday due to a turbine trip, the company told the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a report.
At about the same time as the turbine trip, the unit experienced a momentary loss of offsite power.
All equipment operated as designed to shut the reactor.
The company said it was investigating the cause of the trip.
The Wolf Creek station, which entered service in 1985, is located in Burlington in Coffey County about 70 miles south of Topeka, the state capital.
One MW powers 800 homes in Kansas.
In 2008, the NRC renewed the plant's original 40-year operating license for another 20 years until 2045.
Wolf Creek is owned by Great Plains Energy Inc's Kansas City Power & Light (47 percent), Westar Energy Inc (47 percent) and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc (6 percent).
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=7485493&subject=markets&action=article
Showing posts with label nuclear issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear issues. Show all posts
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Protest on the water
Comment: No to Nuke Power, therefore, No to uranium mining! Nuke power is not green or CO2 free, just the part of uranium mining, which has brought devastation of health, water, and land all over the world in the reason to no more nuke plants!
11:30am Monday 10th August 2009
CAMPAIGNERS battling plans for a new nuclear power station at Bradwell sailed from West Mersea in a peaceful protest yesterday.
A flotilla of boats took to the Blackwater Estuary for the two-hour vigil.
They displayed banners opposing proposals for a new nuclear facility on the Blackwater shoreline.
A demonstration was also held on the beach at Mersea.
The vigil was organized by the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group.
Spokesman Varrie Blowers said: “We oppose building a new nuclear power station and a highly radioactive waste store at Bradwell.
“This is a departure to what happened there in the past. The waste from the old station was taken up to Sellafield, but waste from the new station has to be stored on site for at least 100 years.”
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/4536952.Protest_on_the_water/?ref=rss
11:30am Monday 10th August 2009
CAMPAIGNERS battling plans for a new nuclear power station at Bradwell sailed from West Mersea in a peaceful protest yesterday.
A flotilla of boats took to the Blackwater Estuary for the two-hour vigil.
They displayed banners opposing proposals for a new nuclear facility on the Blackwater shoreline.
A demonstration was also held on the beach at Mersea.
The vigil was organized by the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group.
Spokesman Varrie Blowers said: “We oppose building a new nuclear power station and a highly radioactive waste store at Bradwell.
“This is a departure to what happened there in the past. The waste from the old station was taken up to Sellafield, but waste from the new station has to be stored on site for at least 100 years.”
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/4536952.Protest_on_the_water/?ref=rss
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Loud noise startles Braidwood neighbors as unit loses power
Comment: This is scary but the NRC will tell you everything is okay! Right!
August 1, 4:51 PM · Robyn Monaghan - Chicago Page One Examiner
Neighbors of Exelon's nuclear power plant near Braidwood were startled Thursday night by a loud pop and hiss as one of its two generating units lost power.
The noise was from steam gushing out of the plant when the off-site power from two diesel generators was disrupted, apparently from a problem with an onsite transformer.
" I am grateful that their back-up diesel generators worked and that they had adequate fuel supplies,' said David Kraft, with the Nuclear Energy Information Services in Chicago.
"Historically this has not always been the case at U.S .reactors, with many being criticized or fined by NRC for failed back-up power and inadequate fuel supply."
The reactor automatically shut down at 8:59 p.m. The plant responded safely and without incident, officials said in a press release issued Friday.
There was no health or safety impact to workers or to the public from the release, Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station officials said, but the sound could be startling to people close by. Plant personnel notified local authorities and plant neighbors of the release Thursday evening.
Braidwood’s Unit 1 reactor continued to operate at full power. The station is working to determine the cause of the power interruption. Exelon Nuclear personnel notified all appropriate federal, state and local government officials of the unusual event, the lowest of four emergency classifications as defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the company said.
Braidwood Generating Station is about 60 miles southwest of Chicago.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5328-Chicago-Page-One-Examiner~y2009m8d1-Loud-noise-startles-Braidwood-neighbors-as-unit-loses-power
August 1, 4:51 PM · Robyn Monaghan - Chicago Page One Examiner
Neighbors of Exelon's nuclear power plant near Braidwood were startled Thursday night by a loud pop and hiss as one of its two generating units lost power.
The noise was from steam gushing out of the plant when the off-site power from two diesel generators was disrupted, apparently from a problem with an onsite transformer.
" I am grateful that their back-up diesel generators worked and that they had adequate fuel supplies,' said David Kraft, with the Nuclear Energy Information Services in Chicago.
"Historically this has not always been the case at U.S .reactors, with many being criticized or fined by NRC for failed back-up power and inadequate fuel supply."
The reactor automatically shut down at 8:59 p.m. The plant responded safely and without incident, officials said in a press release issued Friday.
There was no health or safety impact to workers or to the public from the release, Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station officials said, but the sound could be startling to people close by. Plant personnel notified local authorities and plant neighbors of the release Thursday evening.
Braidwood’s Unit 1 reactor continued to operate at full power. The station is working to determine the cause of the power interruption. Exelon Nuclear personnel notified all appropriate federal, state and local government officials of the unusual event, the lowest of four emergency classifications as defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the company said.
Braidwood Generating Station is about 60 miles southwest of Chicago.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5328-Chicago-Page-One-Examiner~y2009m8d1-Loud-noise-startles-Braidwood-neighbors-as-unit-loses-power
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Sloppy work at Perry nuclear power plant concerns Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Saturday, July 18, 2009
John Funk
Plain Dealer Reporter
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is concerned about sloppy workmanship and employee inattention to detail at the Perry nuclear power plant.
The NRC wants plant owner FirstEnergy Corp. to explain how it plans to correct these problems at a public meeting Tuesday night in Mentor. The agency will also take questions from the public.
Perry's troubles cropped up more than a year ago and, despite the Akron-based utility's efforts, have continued this year, the agency said.
Perry is operating safely, the NRC stressed, but workers have continued to make small mistakes on routine, day-to-day jobs, in a number of unrelated areas.
Such mistakes are not in themselves a safety concern, but they are often the first signs at a nuclear plant that the culture of "safety first" is eroding and attention to safety is slipping.
For example, inspectors have noted inadequate documentation of routine maintenance and repairs at Perry, documentation that workers facing problems in the future would need.
On-site NRC inspectors have cataloged the little mistakes, including problems with carrying out "corrective action" programs that Perry managers designed to correct previous poor performance, according to the agency.
"Performance at the Perry nuclear power plant during the assessment period continued to exhibit weaknesses in the area of human performance," Cynthia Pederson, director of reactor projects for the region, wrote to the company in March. "The effectiveness and sustainability of your corrective actions continues to be of concern."
The letter requested that the company explain, in public, exactly what it intends to do to run a tighter ship and detail in written reports what managers have done -- and will do -- to help workers make fewer mistakes.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1247906025227490.xml&coll=2
John Funk
Plain Dealer Reporter
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is concerned about sloppy workmanship and employee inattention to detail at the Perry nuclear power plant.
The NRC wants plant owner FirstEnergy Corp. to explain how it plans to correct these problems at a public meeting Tuesday night in Mentor. The agency will also take questions from the public.
Perry's troubles cropped up more than a year ago and, despite the Akron-based utility's efforts, have continued this year, the agency said.
Perry is operating safely, the NRC stressed, but workers have continued to make small mistakes on routine, day-to-day jobs, in a number of unrelated areas.
Such mistakes are not in themselves a safety concern, but they are often the first signs at a nuclear plant that the culture of "safety first" is eroding and attention to safety is slipping.
For example, inspectors have noted inadequate documentation of routine maintenance and repairs at Perry, documentation that workers facing problems in the future would need.
On-site NRC inspectors have cataloged the little mistakes, including problems with carrying out "corrective action" programs that Perry managers designed to correct previous poor performance, according to the agency.
"Performance at the Perry nuclear power plant during the assessment period continued to exhibit weaknesses in the area of human performance," Cynthia Pederson, director of reactor projects for the region, wrote to the company in March. "The effectiveness and sustainability of your corrective actions continues to be of concern."
The letter requested that the company explain, in public, exactly what it intends to do to run a tighter ship and detail in written reports what managers have done -- and will do -- to help workers make fewer mistakes.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1247906025227490.xml&coll=2
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Obama Makes Nuclear Compromise to Pass Clean Energy Bill
Comment: The present democratic government made promise of change, well that was not true. The present democratic government has sold out to the Nuke Bunch! At least the republicans’ dude announces his love for nuke bunch! Traitor! Write all the senate and house to stop giving the nuke bunch their wishes because the taxpayers pay for nuke plants, plain and simple! Chu, nuke plants are not CO2 free, if you are so smart, you know that uranium mining, uranium mills, the building of nuke plants are full of CO2! Remember people, Chu is coming to Ringgold, VA soon for the so call green jobs. Do you he will visit uranium hill, how much do you want to bet! No to Nuke Plants, No to uranium mining and milling!
Published on Wednesday, July 8, 2009 by The Guardian/UK
by Suzanne Goldenberg
The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America's nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate.
Steam billows from the cooling towers at Exelon's nuclear power generating station in Byron, Illinois, in 2006. Climate change is rapidly expanding the size of the world's tropical zone, threatening to bring disease and drought to heavily populated areas, an Australian study has found.(AFP/Getty Images/File/Scott Olson)
The seal of approval for nuclear power - a cause embraced by Republican senators - came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama's signature issues.
Obama sent four of his top lieutenants to the Senate - his secretaries of energy, interior, agriculture and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - to try to drum up support for a global warming bill.
The PR effort saw direct appeals to the farming and nuclear lobbies - some of the fiercest critics of Obama's clean energy agenda - with Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, calling for new nuclear plants to re-establish America's technological dominance in the world.
"I think nuclear power is going to be a very important factor in getting us to a low carbon future," Chu told the Senate's environment and public works committee. "Quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead on industrial nuclear power. We have lost that lead as we have lost the lead in many energy technologies and we want to get it back."
The endorsement of a nuclear revival - a generation after the last reactor was commissioned - suggests the Obama administration is open to further compromises as it seeks to find a path through the Senate. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill late last month.
Republicans in the Senate, who are almost universally opposed to action aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as Democrats from rust belt states, have been clamouring for a "nuclear renaissance" in America, which would see the construction of 100 new nuclear power plants by 2030.
The administration officials also tried to make inroads among the powerful farmers' lobby, saying they hoped the effort could help ensure passage of the bill through the Senate.
Yesterday's hearing marks the opening round of a second major push by the White House for Obama's climate and energy agenda.
Obama is in Europe where he hopes to persuade the G8 to commit to limiting global warming to 2C, and to persuade Russia to make its lumbering industries more efficient.
But the White House acknowledges it must also demonstrate American willingness by ensuring passage of a climate bill through both houses of Congress by December, when international climate change negotiations end in Copenhagen. It is widely believed that the international community will not sign up to action on climate change without evidence of US commitment.
The Democratic leadership in the Senate hopes to use the house bill as a template. It has pencilled in a schedule that would see the bill clear the committee process by mid-September and move to vote by late autumn.
But the way ahead is daunting. Despite the Democrats' 77-seat advantage in the house, the bill gained just 219 votes - one more than a bare majority - and the reform package had swollen to more than 1,427 pages. Much of that bloat was in the political sops to ensure the bill's support: concessions to farmers that ultimately damage the bill, protectionist measures to help heavily polluting industries - and even a hurricane centre in Florida.
The administration's case is also damaged by rising criticism of the bill, from environmentalists who say it does not go far enough as well as those opposed to any action.
Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, stopped short of endorsing the package yesterday, saying: "It sends the right signal and you all in the Senate have work to do."
But she said the Senate had little choice, and that inaction on climate change could lead to America's global economic decline.
"Clean energy is to this decade and the next what the space race was to the 1950s and 60s and America is behind," Jackson told the Senate. "Governments in Asia and Europe are ahead of the United States in making aggressive investments in clean energy technology."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/08-2
Published on Wednesday, July 8, 2009 by The Guardian/UK
by Suzanne Goldenberg
The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America's nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate.
Steam billows from the cooling towers at Exelon's nuclear power generating station in Byron, Illinois, in 2006. Climate change is rapidly expanding the size of the world's tropical zone, threatening to bring disease and drought to heavily populated areas, an Australian study has found.(AFP/Getty Images/File/Scott Olson)
The seal of approval for nuclear power - a cause embraced by Republican senators - came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama's signature issues.
Obama sent four of his top lieutenants to the Senate - his secretaries of energy, interior, agriculture and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - to try to drum up support for a global warming bill.
The PR effort saw direct appeals to the farming and nuclear lobbies - some of the fiercest critics of Obama's clean energy agenda - with Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, calling for new nuclear plants to re-establish America's technological dominance in the world.
"I think nuclear power is going to be a very important factor in getting us to a low carbon future," Chu told the Senate's environment and public works committee. "Quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead on industrial nuclear power. We have lost that lead as we have lost the lead in many energy technologies and we want to get it back."
The endorsement of a nuclear revival - a generation after the last reactor was commissioned - suggests the Obama administration is open to further compromises as it seeks to find a path through the Senate. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill late last month.
Republicans in the Senate, who are almost universally opposed to action aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as Democrats from rust belt states, have been clamouring for a "nuclear renaissance" in America, which would see the construction of 100 new nuclear power plants by 2030.
The administration officials also tried to make inroads among the powerful farmers' lobby, saying they hoped the effort could help ensure passage of the bill through the Senate.
Yesterday's hearing marks the opening round of a second major push by the White House for Obama's climate and energy agenda.
Obama is in Europe where he hopes to persuade the G8 to commit to limiting global warming to 2C, and to persuade Russia to make its lumbering industries more efficient.
But the White House acknowledges it must also demonstrate American willingness by ensuring passage of a climate bill through both houses of Congress by December, when international climate change negotiations end in Copenhagen. It is widely believed that the international community will not sign up to action on climate change without evidence of US commitment.
The Democratic leadership in the Senate hopes to use the house bill as a template. It has pencilled in a schedule that would see the bill clear the committee process by mid-September and move to vote by late autumn.
But the way ahead is daunting. Despite the Democrats' 77-seat advantage in the house, the bill gained just 219 votes - one more than a bare majority - and the reform package had swollen to more than 1,427 pages. Much of that bloat was in the political sops to ensure the bill's support: concessions to farmers that ultimately damage the bill, protectionist measures to help heavily polluting industries - and even a hurricane centre in Florida.
The administration's case is also damaged by rising criticism of the bill, from environmentalists who say it does not go far enough as well as those opposed to any action.
Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, stopped short of endorsing the package yesterday, saying: "It sends the right signal and you all in the Senate have work to do."
But she said the Senate had little choice, and that inaction on climate change could lead to America's global economic decline.
"Clean energy is to this decade and the next what the space race was to the 1950s and 60s and America is behind," Jackson told the Senate. "Governments in Asia and Europe are ahead of the United States in making aggressive investments in clean energy technology."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/08-2
Tritium found at Peach Bottom
Comment: Seems tritium is a big problem, however, the nuke bunch is always saying that nuke plants have never killed anyone! Seems strange people around nuke plants have a high rate of all forms of cancers! I usually do not include comments but the comments are good and telling of cancers in the local people!
Report: Levels above EPA standards
Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster New Era
Jul 11, 2009 08:02 EST
By LORI VAN INGEN, Staff Writer
Levels of tritium six times higher than federal standards were identified at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Delta earlier this week.
Exelon Nuclear reported Friday that tritium had been discovered in a localized area on the nuclear plant's property by plant workers performing environmental monitoring.
The tritium, which at high levels has been linked to cancer, was identified Wednesday from a sample taken Monday.
The highest sample concentration showed tritium levels of approximately 123,000 picocuries per liter of water, a news release from Exelon said. A picocurie is one-trillionth of a curie, a measurement of radioactivity.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's standards allow no more than 20,000 picocuries per liter in the environment.
"This is not a public or employee health and safety issue, but we are committed to being open about the status of our plant operations," Peach Bottom site vice president Bill Maguire said in the news release.
The amount of radiation someone would receive if they drank two liters of the water found with the highest level of tritium every day for a year would be equivalent to what someone would receive during six cross-country airplane trips, according to data provided by the plant.
Tritium is a normal byproduct of nuclear energy, created during the fission process. It also occurs naturally in the environment. It is most often found in water, and it disperses into the atmosphere.
Tritium is used commercially to make luminous dials and instruments and as a source of light for exit and safety signs. It also is used as a tracer for biochemical research and in groundwater transport measurements.
The elevated levels of tritium were found in an area adjacent to the Peach Bottom Unit 3 turbine building, which is centrally located on plant property and a significant distance from plant boundaries, according to the news release.
Although additional sample testing is being performed to verify that the tritium is contained to the area where it was found, Bernadette Lauer, an Exelon spokesperson, said no detectable levels of tritium have thus far been found off-site.
Plant engineering and environmental teams are working to locate the tritium source and make necessary repairs, Lauer said.
Exelon Nuclear officials notified state and federal authorities Thursday after the tritium sample was confirmed.
"Our environmental monitoring program works," Maguire said. "It alerted us to the presence of tritium early so that we can address the issue quickly."
Peach Bottom is not the only local nuclear power plant that has discovered elevated levels of tritium on its property.
In September 2006, Three Mile Island found groundwater containing tritium that had migrated into the Susquehanna River, where it was immediately diluted to nondetectable levels, according to published reports.
The reports said TMI's monitoring was prompted by the discovery of leaks of tritium at three nuclear plants in Illinois owned by Exelon Nuclear in 2005.
Lauer identified the plants as Braidwood in Braceville, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago; Byron Generating Station in Byron, about 90 miles west of Chicago; and Quad Cities Generating Station in Cordova, about 120 miles west of Chicago.
Just last month, Exelon's Dresden nuclear plant near Morris, Ill., about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, found tritium levels of 3.2 million picocuries per liter of water in a monitoring well, storm drains and a concrete vault near an outside water storage tank, she said.
Exelon's plant in Oyster Creek, N.J., also had elevated tritium levels of 16,600 picocuries per liter in a June 12 sample, according to a company statement.
Exelon owns 10 nuclear plants: three in Pennsylvania, one in New Jersey and six in Illinois.
E-mail: lvaningen@lnpnews.com
TalkBack comments about this article
Comment on this article
"The amount of radiation someone would receive if they drank two liters of the water found with the highest level of tritium every day for a year would be equivalent to what someone would receive during six cross-country airplane trips, according to data provided by the plant."
Well, that's enough to keep me off of airplanes.
Now pass me that water jug. Yeah, the heavy one.
notveryhowI've had three siblings die of cancer, and two more have breast cancer now. All of us grew up in Peach Bottom. I' ve known so many people here who died of cancer. I've always thought that plant could be the reason.
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/239699
Report: Levels above EPA standards
Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster New Era
Jul 11, 2009 08:02 EST
By LORI VAN INGEN, Staff Writer
Levels of tritium six times higher than federal standards were identified at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Delta earlier this week.
Exelon Nuclear reported Friday that tritium had been discovered in a localized area on the nuclear plant's property by plant workers performing environmental monitoring.
The tritium, which at high levels has been linked to cancer, was identified Wednesday from a sample taken Monday.
The highest sample concentration showed tritium levels of approximately 123,000 picocuries per liter of water, a news release from Exelon said. A picocurie is one-trillionth of a curie, a measurement of radioactivity.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's standards allow no more than 20,000 picocuries per liter in the environment.
"This is not a public or employee health and safety issue, but we are committed to being open about the status of our plant operations," Peach Bottom site vice president Bill Maguire said in the news release.
The amount of radiation someone would receive if they drank two liters of the water found with the highest level of tritium every day for a year would be equivalent to what someone would receive during six cross-country airplane trips, according to data provided by the plant.
Tritium is a normal byproduct of nuclear energy, created during the fission process. It also occurs naturally in the environment. It is most often found in water, and it disperses into the atmosphere.
Tritium is used commercially to make luminous dials and instruments and as a source of light for exit and safety signs. It also is used as a tracer for biochemical research and in groundwater transport measurements.
The elevated levels of tritium were found in an area adjacent to the Peach Bottom Unit 3 turbine building, which is centrally located on plant property and a significant distance from plant boundaries, according to the news release.
Although additional sample testing is being performed to verify that the tritium is contained to the area where it was found, Bernadette Lauer, an Exelon spokesperson, said no detectable levels of tritium have thus far been found off-site.
Plant engineering and environmental teams are working to locate the tritium source and make necessary repairs, Lauer said.
Exelon Nuclear officials notified state and federal authorities Thursday after the tritium sample was confirmed.
"Our environmental monitoring program works," Maguire said. "It alerted us to the presence of tritium early so that we can address the issue quickly."
Peach Bottom is not the only local nuclear power plant that has discovered elevated levels of tritium on its property.
In September 2006, Three Mile Island found groundwater containing tritium that had migrated into the Susquehanna River, where it was immediately diluted to nondetectable levels, according to published reports.
The reports said TMI's monitoring was prompted by the discovery of leaks of tritium at three nuclear plants in Illinois owned by Exelon Nuclear in 2005.
Lauer identified the plants as Braidwood in Braceville, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago; Byron Generating Station in Byron, about 90 miles west of Chicago; and Quad Cities Generating Station in Cordova, about 120 miles west of Chicago.
Just last month, Exelon's Dresden nuclear plant near Morris, Ill., about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, found tritium levels of 3.2 million picocuries per liter of water in a monitoring well, storm drains and a concrete vault near an outside water storage tank, she said.
Exelon's plant in Oyster Creek, N.J., also had elevated tritium levels of 16,600 picocuries per liter in a June 12 sample, according to a company statement.
Exelon owns 10 nuclear plants: three in Pennsylvania, one in New Jersey and six in Illinois.
E-mail: lvaningen@lnpnews.com
TalkBack comments about this article
Comment on this article
"The amount of radiation someone would receive if they drank two liters of the water found with the highest level of tritium every day for a year would be equivalent to what someone would receive during six cross-country airplane trips, according to data provided by the plant."
Well, that's enough to keep me off of airplanes.
Now pass me that water jug. Yeah, the heavy one.
notveryhowI've had three siblings die of cancer, and two more have breast cancer now. All of us grew up in Peach Bottom. I' ve known so many people here who died of cancer. I've always thought that plant could be the reason.
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/239699
NRC reports small fire at North Anna nuclear plant
Comment: Look at the date, April 22, look at this date: July 10! It took the NRC this long to tell us about a fire at the VA nuke plant! How long will it take the NRC to release accidents at the uranium mill that may be built in Virginia? The NRC only reports accidents after the fact, not good news for us with uranium milling nearby!
By Staff Reports
Published: July 10, 2009
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says there was a small fire in late April at Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna nuclear power station.
The NRC released a report yesterday quoting the utility as saying the fire occurred April 22 at 5 a.m. in a circuit breaker at North Anna's Unit 1. Six-inch-high flames were found in the circuit breaker and were quickly extinguished, the utility told the NRC.
There were no injuries and the 903-megawatt reactor remained at full power, the utility told the NRC.
The utility said the fire occurred in a circuit breaker that is not safety-related and not required for safe shutdown of the reactor, one of two at the power station roughly 45 miles northwest of Richmond.
The fire occurred about two weeks after Unit 1 had been brought back up to full power after being shut down for about a month for refueling and other maintenance.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/energy/article/NUKEGAT10_20090710-072601/279206/
By Staff Reports
Published: July 10, 2009
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says there was a small fire in late April at Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna nuclear power station.
The NRC released a report yesterday quoting the utility as saying the fire occurred April 22 at 5 a.m. in a circuit breaker at North Anna's Unit 1. Six-inch-high flames were found in the circuit breaker and were quickly extinguished, the utility told the NRC.
There were no injuries and the 903-megawatt reactor remained at full power, the utility told the NRC.
The utility said the fire occurred in a circuit breaker that is not safety-related and not required for safe shutdown of the reactor, one of two at the power station roughly 45 miles northwest of Richmond.
The fire occurred about two weeks after Unit 1 had been brought back up to full power after being shut down for about a month for refueling and other maintenance.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/energy/article/NUKEGAT10_20090710-072601/279206/
Friday, July 10, 2009
Pfooey To Pfrance
Every time the subject of nuclear energy comes up, someone has to mention France.
France, if you listen to the hoopla, is a kind of holy grail of nuclear energy, a country that has “figured it all out” and does everything right where nuclear power is concerned. And no wonder: France sells electricity all around Europe, so of course they have marketed their energy as clean, green and cheap.
Except, it’s not. And they haven’t. First we have this December 2008 report, commissioned by the Green Party for the EU, which raised several issues, including some cooked books by the French government and contamination from the uranium processing plant at La Hague.
But if you don’t want to believe the Greens, please believe the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Last June they looked at the French nuclear hype and determined it was a lot of hot air:
In 2007, nuclear energy provided 78 percent of France's electricity, which corresponded to 39 percent of its commercial primary energy but only 18 percent of its final energy. Primary energy is the energy contained in the fuel when it enters the system, while final energy is what is left over for the consumer after processing, transformation, and distribution. In the case of large nuclear or coal-fired power plants, only about one-quarter of the primary energy reaches the consumer's home, office, or factory. In France, more than 70 percent of final energy is provided by oil, gas, and coal, of which one-half is oil alone, just as in many other countries. This year, the country will face an all-time record energy bill of more than $80 billion.
So much for the energy independence myth, as well as the climate change myth. France depends on foreign energy sources just like the rest of us.
Furthermore, France closed its last uranium mine in 2001. With 100% of its uranium imported, “energy independence” isn't just far fetched, it's flat-out wrong.
The mythic “low cost” of French nuclear production is also debunked:
For decades, the civilian program has profited from direct and indirect subsidies, in particular through cross-financing with the nuclear weapons program. Current estimates don't appropriately take into account eventual decommissioning and waste-management costs, which remain a concern and quite uncertain. (In addition to post-fission waste, 46 years of uranium mining has left 50 million tons of waste for eventual cleanup and remediation, the cost of which is unknown.) Official final disposal cost estimates for long-lived high- and intermediate-level fission wastes vary between $21 billion and $90 billion.
Heh. Just like here.
And then we have the fancy footwork, the hype and hoopla of the French nuclear miracle, which appears to be smoke and mirrors:
Last year, France exported 83 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and imported 27.5 billion kilowatt hours--obviously, a large net export. But the ambassador neglects to mention that France cheaply exports base-load power and imports expensive, essentially fossil fuel-based, peak-load power to use in its citizens' wasteful winter heating systems.
Net power imports from Germany, which is phasing out nuclear power, averaged about 8 billion kilowatt hours over the last few years, and the emissions linked to these imports are attributed to the exporting country, not France.
But the radioactive waste stemming from its exported nuclear-generated power--equivalent to the output of a dozen reactors--remains in the country.
France’s new nuclear projects are behind schedule and overbudget: for example, the Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, built by France’s Areva, is three years behind schedule and $2.4 billion over budget. That’s billion, with a B, folks.
On July 4, while Americans were grilling hot dogs and trying to figure out Sarah Palin’s latest meltdown, the Kruemmel nuclear reactor in Germany unexpectedly shut down for the second time in a week. It had just been fired up in June, after being shut down for two years after a fire. Swedish utility Vattenfal, which operates the plant, says it is is losing about $750,000 a day from the shutdown.
This isn’t cheap energy, folks. It's not independence, either. As for "clean," well, consider that leaks and other incidents happen with regularity. You don't hear about them because they aren't all of Chernobyl-level scope. But they happen and they pollute water and air and soil and cause problems.
And speaking of Chernobyl, today's irony award goes to Irish firm Greenfield, which is using the poisoned Chernobyl land to make biofuels.
Anyway, I have an idea why some folks want a resurgence in nuclear power. It’s highly centralized, and allows corporate or nationalized government interests to retain control.
The idea of something decentralized, like people putting solar panels on their roof or windmills in their backyard, threatens the centralized status quo. If people produced their own energy, maybe there wouldn't be support for resource wars like Iraq.
I dunno, but I don't see how nuclear power is any better than coal power. It's got all of the same problems and a few others too.
http://sobeale.blogspot.com/2009/07/pfooey-to-pfrance.html
France, if you listen to the hoopla, is a kind of holy grail of nuclear energy, a country that has “figured it all out” and does everything right where nuclear power is concerned. And no wonder: France sells electricity all around Europe, so of course they have marketed their energy as clean, green and cheap.
Except, it’s not. And they haven’t. First we have this December 2008 report, commissioned by the Green Party for the EU, which raised several issues, including some cooked books by the French government and contamination from the uranium processing plant at La Hague.
But if you don’t want to believe the Greens, please believe the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Last June they looked at the French nuclear hype and determined it was a lot of hot air:
In 2007, nuclear energy provided 78 percent of France's electricity, which corresponded to 39 percent of its commercial primary energy but only 18 percent of its final energy. Primary energy is the energy contained in the fuel when it enters the system, while final energy is what is left over for the consumer after processing, transformation, and distribution. In the case of large nuclear or coal-fired power plants, only about one-quarter of the primary energy reaches the consumer's home, office, or factory. In France, more than 70 percent of final energy is provided by oil, gas, and coal, of which one-half is oil alone, just as in many other countries. This year, the country will face an all-time record energy bill of more than $80 billion.
So much for the energy independence myth, as well as the climate change myth. France depends on foreign energy sources just like the rest of us.
Furthermore, France closed its last uranium mine in 2001. With 100% of its uranium imported, “energy independence” isn't just far fetched, it's flat-out wrong.
The mythic “low cost” of French nuclear production is also debunked:
For decades, the civilian program has profited from direct and indirect subsidies, in particular through cross-financing with the nuclear weapons program. Current estimates don't appropriately take into account eventual decommissioning and waste-management costs, which remain a concern and quite uncertain. (In addition to post-fission waste, 46 years of uranium mining has left 50 million tons of waste for eventual cleanup and remediation, the cost of which is unknown.) Official final disposal cost estimates for long-lived high- and intermediate-level fission wastes vary between $21 billion and $90 billion.
Heh. Just like here.
And then we have the fancy footwork, the hype and hoopla of the French nuclear miracle, which appears to be smoke and mirrors:
Last year, France exported 83 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and imported 27.5 billion kilowatt hours--obviously, a large net export. But the ambassador neglects to mention that France cheaply exports base-load power and imports expensive, essentially fossil fuel-based, peak-load power to use in its citizens' wasteful winter heating systems.
Net power imports from Germany, which is phasing out nuclear power, averaged about 8 billion kilowatt hours over the last few years, and the emissions linked to these imports are attributed to the exporting country, not France.
But the radioactive waste stemming from its exported nuclear-generated power--equivalent to the output of a dozen reactors--remains in the country.
France’s new nuclear projects are behind schedule and overbudget: for example, the Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, built by France’s Areva, is three years behind schedule and $2.4 billion over budget. That’s billion, with a B, folks.
On July 4, while Americans were grilling hot dogs and trying to figure out Sarah Palin’s latest meltdown, the Kruemmel nuclear reactor in Germany unexpectedly shut down for the second time in a week. It had just been fired up in June, after being shut down for two years after a fire. Swedish utility Vattenfal, which operates the plant, says it is is losing about $750,000 a day from the shutdown.
This isn’t cheap energy, folks. It's not independence, either. As for "clean," well, consider that leaks and other incidents happen with regularity. You don't hear about them because they aren't all of Chernobyl-level scope. But they happen and they pollute water and air and soil and cause problems.
And speaking of Chernobyl, today's irony award goes to Irish firm Greenfield, which is using the poisoned Chernobyl land to make biofuels.
Anyway, I have an idea why some folks want a resurgence in nuclear power. It’s highly centralized, and allows corporate or nationalized government interests to retain control.
The idea of something decentralized, like people putting solar panels on their roof or windmills in their backyard, threatens the centralized status quo. If people produced their own energy, maybe there wouldn't be support for resource wars like Iraq.
I dunno, but I don't see how nuclear power is any better than coal power. It's got all of the same problems and a few others too.
http://sobeale.blogspot.com/2009/07/pfooey-to-pfrance.html
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Responses ‘personal attack
Comment: The following articles are interesting because the local Canadians are fighting against nuclear power and the bias of the nuke bunch. They are encouraging their people to write letters against Nuke power and we all need to write letters against uranium mining to our local papers and our state and local leaders. Go to the link below and see the history the anti-Nuke bunch:
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/Search.aspx?search=nuclear+power&pubId=145
Read the following letters listed below:
Posted 3 days ago
To the Editor:
It seems to be a tactic of the nuclear industry that whenever someone disagrees with their position on nuclear power, that person is attacked as being ignorant or emotional.
There are certainly some facts that William Olsen failed to consider when he wrote his letter attacking me on June 16, 2009.
Mr. Olsen’s detailed description of the credentials of the four members of Alberta’s Nuclear Panel proves my point rather than refuting it.
These individuals are trained in business and engineering, not biological or health sciences.
A business professor studies such things as supply and demand, profi tability and labour force impact.
A nuclear engineer studies the design, construction and operation of nuclear reactors.
These are honorable fields of study, but they do not give an in-depth
understanding of the impact of low-dose radiation on DNA or the genesis of cancer in children.
Why did our government not appoint a cellular biologist, a geneticist or a pediatrician to its Nuclear Panel?
Why did that Panel refuse to meet with Dr. Helen Caldicott, a world-renowned
pediatrician who worked with child victims of thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl disaster, when she offered to give them information on the health effects of nuclear power?
In fact, if you look at the bibliography of the Alberta Nuclear Panel’s Report you will see that the panel reviewed only one health study—a study on the legacy of
Chernobyl by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is an agency which promotes the use of nuclear energy worldwide.
This report has been roundly criticized by thousands of doctors as vastly understating the health impacts of Chernobyl.
An alternate report, found at www.chernobyl. info gives estimates of cancer deaths that are seven to 15 times greater than those found in the IAEA report. It states that 25,000 of the 800,000 soldiers deployed to clean up the reactor compound have since died of cancer.
By contrast to the Nuclear Panel Report, a recent report by two family physicians in Ontario called “Human Health Impacts Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation” lists 73 sources of health-related information
(Vakil and Harvey, 2009).
These are all sources our Nuclear Panel in Alberta chose to overlook.
One of the most important sources quoted in the latter publication is the KiKK study commissioned by the German government and conducted by scientists at the University of Mainz.
It showed an unequivocal positive relationship between a child’s risk of leukemia
and residential proximity to a nuclear plant.
A previous review of 17 leukemia studies covering 136 nuclear reactors in eight countries, including Canada, found a statistically signifi cant increase in leukemia among infants and children living within 25 km of a nuclear facility.
The results of this review are published in the July, 2007 issue of the European
Journal of Cancer Care.
Another important study is the 2007 Radiation and Health in Durham Region Study, which looked at various health outcomes in the vicinity of the Pickering and Darlington reactors in Ontario.
The authors found statistically significant increases in combined cancers, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, mutiple myeloma, leukemia and
congenital neural tube defects.
It is not only health information that was overlooked by our Alberta Panel (which had about a year to study the nuclear issue, while Albertans were given only
five weeks to respond to their Report).
The Panel apparently chose not to review Pembina Institute’s comprehensive report Nuclear Power in Canada:
An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability (2007). This report contains tables showing the amount of discharge of various radioactive substances and other environmental toxins from Canadian nuclear reactors.
It also discusses the legacy of massive cost overruns, construction delays
and reliability problems at Canada’s nuclear power facilities.
Mr. Olsen states in his letter that members of Alberta’s Nuclear Panel “do not have any vested interest in the nuclear industry in Alberta”. And he acknowledges that Dr. John Luxat sits on the board of Atomic Energy of Canada, which is a crown corporation that is desperately trying to sell nuclear reactors in Canada, including here in Alberta. (It is the same crown corporation that has created the current medical isotope crisis.)
I guess it is just a coincidence that this panel looked only at pro-nuclear sources of information when it compiled its report.
Brenda Brochu, BA, BEd, RSW
Peace River, AB
Nuclear Consultation In Alberta
Posted 18 days ago
To the Editor:
This letter is in response to a letter written by Brenda Brochu entitled “Nuclear consultation flawed” which appeared in the Fairview Post, and presumably in the Peace River Record Gazette, in late May. Her letter was concerned about the government of Alberta’s consultation process to look into whether nuclear power is an appropriate addition to the province’s electrical energy sources.
The consultation process includes a public opinion survey (on-line or in written form) on important questions related to nuclear power for Alberta. The questionnaire is to be considered by a Panel of Nuclear Power Experts along with the technical, economical, and environmental ramifications of nuclear electrical power in Alberta.
Some of the questions might seem to be irrelevant, but I am sure that all of them were skillfully posed to establish whether the responders have some understanding of our electrical system and the demands that are being put on it. Answers which appear to be based only on unfounded, emotional opinion will, I hope, be given less weight than those based on some practical knowledge. One question which was deemed to be irrelevant by Ms. Brochu was whether the responder could explain (some of) the details of our electrical system to others. It seems to me that the purpose of this question is obvious and its answer would be quite revealing.
And then Ms. Brochu objects to the Panel of Nuclear Experts consisting only of technical experts, feeling, I suppose, that opinions based on emotions rather than logic should be allowed to influence the panel. She also thinks there should be public meetings where “citizens can come out and hear which ideas really stand up to scrutiny”. Well, I am certain that the panel doesn’t want to hear ideas which cannot be backed up by scientific facts. Ideas based on emotion only are of no use. In any case, there have been many public meetings held in the Peace region, with scientific experts present, but most of these meetings have been disrupted by rude, boisterous ‘anti-nukes’ who were, I am certain, totally ignorant of nuclear physics and nuclear power.
Ms. Brochu also objects to the composition of the Expert Panel, calling it “the government’s so-called “expert panel”, who are mainly experts in business practice.” And she states that “no one on this panel has any expertise in health or the environment.” Well, for the information of Ms. Brochu and the public in general, let me describe the Expert Panel in some detail.
The Panel is chaired by the Honourable Dr. Harvie Andre; BSc, MSc, PhD, FEIC. Dr. Andre is a chemical engineer who, after receiving his PhD from the university of Alberta in 1966, was one of the founding professors of Chemical Engineering at the University of Calgary. After retiring from parliament Dr. Andre became involved primarily in the oil and gas industry.
Dr. Joseph Doucet; B.Mgt.Sc, MSc, PhD. is another member of the panel. Dr. Doucet holds the prestigious Enbridge Professorship in Energy Policy in the University of Alberta’s School of Business. He directs a specialized MBA program in natural Resources, Energy and the Environment. He is the Director of the University of Alberta’s School of Energy and Environment. Dr. Doucet received his Masters’s and Doctor’s degrees from the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. John Luxat; BSc, MSc, PhD, is a third member of the panel. He is Professor of Engineering Physics at McMaster University where he holds the NSERC/UNENE Industrial Research Chair in Nuclear Safety Analysis. He teaches nuclear engineering and safety to graduate and undergraduate students and conducts research in nuclear safety, reactor physics, and nuclear fuel cycles. Prior to joining McMaster University he spent 32 years in many areas of nuclear safety and nuclear engineering in the Canadian nuclear industry. He is a member of the Board of AECL Ltd. and many other organizations in the nuclear industry.
The fourth and last member of the panel is Dr. Harrie Vredenburg; BA, MBA, PhD, ICD.D.
Continued After Advertisement Below
Advertisement
Dr. Vredenburg is Professor of Strategy at the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business. He holds the Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy and Sustainable Development, a research chair affiliated with the University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy. He teaches in MBA, MSc, Executive MBA, and PhD programs as well as in executive development and director’s education programs. He is also Adjunct Professor of Environmental Science in the Faculty of Environmental Design. He has authored or co-authored more than 50 research articles, book chapters, and case studies on business strategy, energy, environment, and sustainable development in many prestigious, peer-reviewed publications.
If this committee doesn’t qualify as a Nuclear Power Expert Panel, I cannot imagine what would. They are scientists, engineers, and businessmen who live by a strict code of Scientific and Business Ethics and who do not have any vested interest in the nuclear power industry in Alberta.
The rest of Ms. Brochu’s letter relating to nuclear waste storage, the release of radioactive substances into the atmosphere, the preponderance of leukemia victims near reactor sites, and the Pembina Institute’s claim that nuclear power is not needed in the foreseeable future are all unsubstantiated (actually false) Anti-Nuke propaganda.
If only those people who are so opposed to nuclear power would do some unbiased literature search for themselves on both sides of the question, I am sure that most will be convinced that nuclear power is a clean, safe, limitless, environmentally safe, source of electrical energy that will serve humanity indefinitely.
Yours truly,
William C. Olsen, BASc, MASc, PhD
Professor Emeritus (Nuclear Physics)
University of Alberta.
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1617511
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1638877
June 23, 2009
Letter to the Editor of the Peace River Record Gazette:
Nuclear Experts Have No Vested Interest in Alberta Nuclear Power?
I read with both amazement and amusement the Letter to the Editor written by Professor William C. Olsen about the merits of nuclear power. The letter was published in the June 16 edition of the Record Gazette.
In his letter, Professor Olsen was kind enough to give a detailed background description of the qualifications and affiliations of the members on the Panel of Nuclear Experts: Dr. Harvey Andre, retired politician and closely involved with the oil and gas industry. Dr. Joseph Doucet, Holder of Enbridge Professorship in Energy Policy at the U of A. Dr. John Luxat, Nuclear Safety Engineer and current member of the board of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Dr. Harrie Vredenburg, Holder of the Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy and Sustainable Development at the U of C.
Professor Olson goes on to say that these people “do not have any vested interest in the nuclear power industry in Alberta”. That is an amazing statement given the background of the people, as described above.
In the final paragraph of his letter, Professor Olsen says:” If only those people who are so opposed to nuclear power would do some unbiased literature search for themselves on both sides of the question, I am sure that most would be convinced that nuclear power is a clean, safe, limitless, environmentally safe, source of electrical energy that will serve humanity indefinitely”.
What Professor Olsen has very ably demonstrated in his letter is that he, and his fellow academics serving on the government appointed panel, are about as biased as it is possible to be in relation to the desirability of nuclear power generation in Alberta.
Helge Nome
http://www.socialcredit.com/
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/Search.aspx?search=nuclear+power&pubId=145
Read the following letters listed below:
Posted 3 days ago
To the Editor:
It seems to be a tactic of the nuclear industry that whenever someone disagrees with their position on nuclear power, that person is attacked as being ignorant or emotional.
There are certainly some facts that William Olsen failed to consider when he wrote his letter attacking me on June 16, 2009.
Mr. Olsen’s detailed description of the credentials of the four members of Alberta’s Nuclear Panel proves my point rather than refuting it.
These individuals are trained in business and engineering, not biological or health sciences.
A business professor studies such things as supply and demand, profi tability and labour force impact.
A nuclear engineer studies the design, construction and operation of nuclear reactors.
These are honorable fields of study, but they do not give an in-depth
understanding of the impact of low-dose radiation on DNA or the genesis of cancer in children.
Why did our government not appoint a cellular biologist, a geneticist or a pediatrician to its Nuclear Panel?
Why did that Panel refuse to meet with Dr. Helen Caldicott, a world-renowned
pediatrician who worked with child victims of thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl disaster, when she offered to give them information on the health effects of nuclear power?
In fact, if you look at the bibliography of the Alberta Nuclear Panel’s Report you will see that the panel reviewed only one health study—a study on the legacy of
Chernobyl by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is an agency which promotes the use of nuclear energy worldwide.
This report has been roundly criticized by thousands of doctors as vastly understating the health impacts of Chernobyl.
An alternate report, found at www.chernobyl. info gives estimates of cancer deaths that are seven to 15 times greater than those found in the IAEA report. It states that 25,000 of the 800,000 soldiers deployed to clean up the reactor compound have since died of cancer.
By contrast to the Nuclear Panel Report, a recent report by two family physicians in Ontario called “Human Health Impacts Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation” lists 73 sources of health-related information
(Vakil and Harvey, 2009).
These are all sources our Nuclear Panel in Alberta chose to overlook.
One of the most important sources quoted in the latter publication is the KiKK study commissioned by the German government and conducted by scientists at the University of Mainz.
It showed an unequivocal positive relationship between a child’s risk of leukemia
and residential proximity to a nuclear plant.
A previous review of 17 leukemia studies covering 136 nuclear reactors in eight countries, including Canada, found a statistically signifi cant increase in leukemia among infants and children living within 25 km of a nuclear facility.
The results of this review are published in the July, 2007 issue of the European
Journal of Cancer Care.
Another important study is the 2007 Radiation and Health in Durham Region Study, which looked at various health outcomes in the vicinity of the Pickering and Darlington reactors in Ontario.
The authors found statistically significant increases in combined cancers, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, mutiple myeloma, leukemia and
congenital neural tube defects.
It is not only health information that was overlooked by our Alberta Panel (which had about a year to study the nuclear issue, while Albertans were given only
five weeks to respond to their Report).
The Panel apparently chose not to review Pembina Institute’s comprehensive report Nuclear Power in Canada:
An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability (2007). This report contains tables showing the amount of discharge of various radioactive substances and other environmental toxins from Canadian nuclear reactors.
It also discusses the legacy of massive cost overruns, construction delays
and reliability problems at Canada’s nuclear power facilities.
Mr. Olsen states in his letter that members of Alberta’s Nuclear Panel “do not have any vested interest in the nuclear industry in Alberta”. And he acknowledges that Dr. John Luxat sits on the board of Atomic Energy of Canada, which is a crown corporation that is desperately trying to sell nuclear reactors in Canada, including here in Alberta. (It is the same crown corporation that has created the current medical isotope crisis.)
I guess it is just a coincidence that this panel looked only at pro-nuclear sources of information when it compiled its report.
Brenda Brochu, BA, BEd, RSW
Peace River, AB
Nuclear Consultation In Alberta
Posted 18 days ago
To the Editor:
This letter is in response to a letter written by Brenda Brochu entitled “Nuclear consultation flawed” which appeared in the Fairview Post, and presumably in the Peace River Record Gazette, in late May. Her letter was concerned about the government of Alberta’s consultation process to look into whether nuclear power is an appropriate addition to the province’s electrical energy sources.
The consultation process includes a public opinion survey (on-line or in written form) on important questions related to nuclear power for Alberta. The questionnaire is to be considered by a Panel of Nuclear Power Experts along with the technical, economical, and environmental ramifications of nuclear electrical power in Alberta.
Some of the questions might seem to be irrelevant, but I am sure that all of them were skillfully posed to establish whether the responders have some understanding of our electrical system and the demands that are being put on it. Answers which appear to be based only on unfounded, emotional opinion will, I hope, be given less weight than those based on some practical knowledge. One question which was deemed to be irrelevant by Ms. Brochu was whether the responder could explain (some of) the details of our electrical system to others. It seems to me that the purpose of this question is obvious and its answer would be quite revealing.
And then Ms. Brochu objects to the Panel of Nuclear Experts consisting only of technical experts, feeling, I suppose, that opinions based on emotions rather than logic should be allowed to influence the panel. She also thinks there should be public meetings where “citizens can come out and hear which ideas really stand up to scrutiny”. Well, I am certain that the panel doesn’t want to hear ideas which cannot be backed up by scientific facts. Ideas based on emotion only are of no use. In any case, there have been many public meetings held in the Peace region, with scientific experts present, but most of these meetings have been disrupted by rude, boisterous ‘anti-nukes’ who were, I am certain, totally ignorant of nuclear physics and nuclear power.
Ms. Brochu also objects to the composition of the Expert Panel, calling it “the government’s so-called “expert panel”, who are mainly experts in business practice.” And she states that “no one on this panel has any expertise in health or the environment.” Well, for the information of Ms. Brochu and the public in general, let me describe the Expert Panel in some detail.
The Panel is chaired by the Honourable Dr. Harvie Andre; BSc, MSc, PhD, FEIC. Dr. Andre is a chemical engineer who, after receiving his PhD from the university of Alberta in 1966, was one of the founding professors of Chemical Engineering at the University of Calgary. After retiring from parliament Dr. Andre became involved primarily in the oil and gas industry.
Dr. Joseph Doucet; B.Mgt.Sc, MSc, PhD. is another member of the panel. Dr. Doucet holds the prestigious Enbridge Professorship in Energy Policy in the University of Alberta’s School of Business. He directs a specialized MBA program in natural Resources, Energy and the Environment. He is the Director of the University of Alberta’s School of Energy and Environment. Dr. Doucet received his Masters’s and Doctor’s degrees from the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. John Luxat; BSc, MSc, PhD, is a third member of the panel. He is Professor of Engineering Physics at McMaster University where he holds the NSERC/UNENE Industrial Research Chair in Nuclear Safety Analysis. He teaches nuclear engineering and safety to graduate and undergraduate students and conducts research in nuclear safety, reactor physics, and nuclear fuel cycles. Prior to joining McMaster University he spent 32 years in many areas of nuclear safety and nuclear engineering in the Canadian nuclear industry. He is a member of the Board of AECL Ltd. and many other organizations in the nuclear industry.
The fourth and last member of the panel is Dr. Harrie Vredenburg; BA, MBA, PhD, ICD.D.
Continued After Advertisement Below
Advertisement
Dr. Vredenburg is Professor of Strategy at the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business. He holds the Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy and Sustainable Development, a research chair affiliated with the University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy. He teaches in MBA, MSc, Executive MBA, and PhD programs as well as in executive development and director’s education programs. He is also Adjunct Professor of Environmental Science in the Faculty of Environmental Design. He has authored or co-authored more than 50 research articles, book chapters, and case studies on business strategy, energy, environment, and sustainable development in many prestigious, peer-reviewed publications.
If this committee doesn’t qualify as a Nuclear Power Expert Panel, I cannot imagine what would. They are scientists, engineers, and businessmen who live by a strict code of Scientific and Business Ethics and who do not have any vested interest in the nuclear power industry in Alberta.
The rest of Ms. Brochu’s letter relating to nuclear waste storage, the release of radioactive substances into the atmosphere, the preponderance of leukemia victims near reactor sites, and the Pembina Institute’s claim that nuclear power is not needed in the foreseeable future are all unsubstantiated (actually false) Anti-Nuke propaganda.
If only those people who are so opposed to nuclear power would do some unbiased literature search for themselves on both sides of the question, I am sure that most will be convinced that nuclear power is a clean, safe, limitless, environmentally safe, source of electrical energy that will serve humanity indefinitely.
Yours truly,
William C. Olsen, BASc, MASc, PhD
Professor Emeritus (Nuclear Physics)
University of Alberta.
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1617511
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1638877
June 23, 2009
Letter to the Editor of the Peace River Record Gazette:
Nuclear Experts Have No Vested Interest in Alberta Nuclear Power?
I read with both amazement and amusement the Letter to the Editor written by Professor William C. Olsen about the merits of nuclear power. The letter was published in the June 16 edition of the Record Gazette.
In his letter, Professor Olsen was kind enough to give a detailed background description of the qualifications and affiliations of the members on the Panel of Nuclear Experts: Dr. Harvey Andre, retired politician and closely involved with the oil and gas industry. Dr. Joseph Doucet, Holder of Enbridge Professorship in Energy Policy at the U of A. Dr. John Luxat, Nuclear Safety Engineer and current member of the board of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Dr. Harrie Vredenburg, Holder of the Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy and Sustainable Development at the U of C.
Professor Olson goes on to say that these people “do not have any vested interest in the nuclear power industry in Alberta”. That is an amazing statement given the background of the people, as described above.
In the final paragraph of his letter, Professor Olsen says:” If only those people who are so opposed to nuclear power would do some unbiased literature search for themselves on both sides of the question, I am sure that most would be convinced that nuclear power is a clean, safe, limitless, environmentally safe, source of electrical energy that will serve humanity indefinitely”.
What Professor Olsen has very ably demonstrated in his letter is that he, and his fellow academics serving on the government appointed panel, are about as biased as it is possible to be in relation to the desirability of nuclear power generation in Alberta.
Helge Nome
http://www.socialcredit.com/
Nuclear plant shuts down after second mishap
04.07.2009
A controversial German nuclear power plant at the center of a national energy debate has been forced to shut down again following a second mishap.
The Swedish-owned electric utility, Vattenfall, which operates the Kruemmel nuclear power station in northern Germany, said it turned off the reactor on Saturday after a problem with one of the power plant's two machinery transformers.
The defect caused a sudden drop in voltage which, in turn, blacked out between 1,500 and 1,800 traffic lights in Germany's second-largest city of Hamburg and darkened a number of shopping malls.
There were also power cuts last Wednesday thought to have been caused by a transformer problem at the plant.
Safety versus energy security
Kruemmel only re-opened less than two weeks ago after a two-year shutdown triggered by a fire. The 2007 fire which was caused by a short circuit, and other incidents at Vattenfall's Brunsbuettel power plant in the same year, fueled a fierce debate in Germany about the safety of the country's nuclear power stations.
No radioactivity was released by the fire, but concerns remain
The German government and four companies operating nuclear power plants in the country subsequently agreed to tighter safety standards.
When Kruemmel re-opened in June, Vattenfall said the plant, which generates about 10 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year, had been thoroughly modernized and that this would reduce the likelihood of a future incident.
In 2000, Germany decided to mothball its 17 reactors by the year 2020.
However, Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU conservative bloc has for some time been calling for a re-assessment of that policy decision, arguing that Germany's dependence on foreign energy made nuclear power indispensable.
gb/AP/dpa/AFP/Reuters
Editor: Andreas Illmer
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4456153,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
A controversial German nuclear power plant at the center of a national energy debate has been forced to shut down again following a second mishap.
The Swedish-owned electric utility, Vattenfall, which operates the Kruemmel nuclear power station in northern Germany, said it turned off the reactor on Saturday after a problem with one of the power plant's two machinery transformers.
The defect caused a sudden drop in voltage which, in turn, blacked out between 1,500 and 1,800 traffic lights in Germany's second-largest city of Hamburg and darkened a number of shopping malls.
There were also power cuts last Wednesday thought to have been caused by a transformer problem at the plant.
Safety versus energy security
Kruemmel only re-opened less than two weeks ago after a two-year shutdown triggered by a fire. The 2007 fire which was caused by a short circuit, and other incidents at Vattenfall's Brunsbuettel power plant in the same year, fueled a fierce debate in Germany about the safety of the country's nuclear power stations.
No radioactivity was released by the fire, but concerns remain
The German government and four companies operating nuclear power plants in the country subsequently agreed to tighter safety standards.
When Kruemmel re-opened in June, Vattenfall said the plant, which generates about 10 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year, had been thoroughly modernized and that this would reduce the likelihood of a future incident.
In 2000, Germany decided to mothball its 17 reactors by the year 2020.
However, Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU conservative bloc has for some time been calling for a re-assessment of that policy decision, arguing that Germany's dependence on foreign energy made nuclear power indispensable.
gb/AP/dpa/AFP/Reuters
Editor: Andreas Illmer
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4456153,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
Friday, July 3, 2009
New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer
Comment: Nuclear plants are not clean, green and will make you sick!
By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff
Thursday, July 2
BRATTLEBORO -- 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.
Lemstra left -- or was relieved of, depending on which source you read -- his job last year after a dispute over a report he authored that documented the health disparities between different socioeconomic categories in Saskatoon.
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.
Radiation protection standards are based mainly on risk estimates from studies of atomic bomb survivors in Japan, according to a report called "The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk Among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry."
There has been some controversy over the validity of basing low-dose standards on the results of high-dose exposure.
Of the 1,725 reports reviewed by Lemstra, 22 were cited as references.
Lemstra concluded that not only do nuclear power workers have a higher risk of dying of cancer, they also have a higher risk of dying of other causes not related to cancer, such as heart problems.
Lemstra also quoted a German report that determined that children who live within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant have a higher rate of leukemia than those who live outside that radius.
What Lemstra failed to note in his report however, is that the German researchers said they could not conclusively state that the rates were higher because of the proximity to the nuclear power plants or because of some other environmental factor.
Lemstra's report was briefly reviewed by Bill Irwin, Radiological Health Chief of the Vermont Department of Health, who withheld most comment on the report until he has had a chance to further review it.
Nonetheless, said Irwin, "This kind of literature review is rarely used for policy making, but some people find it useful."
While Lemstra used "highly reputable references" such as the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, said Irwin, "It may be better for people to read the complete reference rather than rely on just those parts of the references cited in the report. A more complete picture is provided in the original documents, and readers may draw different conclusions than those drawn by Dr. Lemstra in his report."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also hesitated to comment on Lemstra's report, stated Neil Sheehan, NRC spokesman, in an e-mail to the Reformer.
"One observation made by a staffer who reviewed it was that the controls apparently were not as rigid as would have been expected," he stated. "We will continue to evaluate new studies to determine if further action on the NRC's part is warranted."
A spokesman for Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant had no comment on the Lemstra report other than plant worker exposure limits are set by the NRC based on recommendations by the National Council on Radiation Protection.
There is no database of cancer deaths for power plant workers at specific plants such as Vermont Yankee because death certificates are filed at the place of death and have no reference to the person's occupation.
In 2004, a study conducted by Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health was released, which tracked workers from 15 nuclear utilities in the U.S. for periods of up to 18 years between 1979 and 1997.
More than 53,000 U.S. nuclear power workers were included in the study, which concluded "that employees in the commercial nuclear industry are less likely than the general population to die from cancer or non-cancer diseases due, in large measure, to the so-called 'healthy worker effect,'" according to an executive summary of the report.
The healthy worker effect is based on the premise that nuclear industry workers have to be healthy and are usually required to have annual medical check-ups.
"The researchers did report, however, a strong positive and statistically significant association between radiation dose and death from arteriosclerotic heart disease, including coronary heart disease," stated the executive summary.
However, stated the principal investigator of the Columbia/Mailman study, Geoffrey Howe, "While associations with heart disease have been reported by some other occupational studies, the magnitude of the present association is not consistent with them, and, therefore, needs cautious interpretation and merits further attention."
He suggested that further follow-up studies be conducted to clarify the study's findings.
"The most important results of this study were findings with respect to radiation-related leukemia and radiation-related other cancers," stated the executive summary. "Positive, although non-statistically-significant, associations with radiation were seen for mortality from some forms of leukemia and other cancers as a whole."
While Lemstra refers to two studies conducted following the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, which concluded there was no increased rates of cancer deaths in nearby residents, he does not cite other studies such as the Columbia/Mailman study.
However, he does cite the 15-Country Study, which found that of 24,158 deaths, 6,734 were from cancer.
"These results suggest that an excess risk of cancer exists, albeit small, even at the low doses and dose rates typically received by nuclear workers in this study," according to the study.
Some researchers have cautioned that it is easy for systemic errors to creep into large epidemiological studies "that originate from different countries with different recording procedures," according to the Journal of Radiological Protection.
Researchers have also been quick to point out that correlation does not imply causation, which means that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other.
It does mean however, that a correlation discovered in a study should be the subject of further investigation.
Lemstra's report can be found at www.policyalternatives.-ca/reports_studies.
Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com, or 802-254-2311, ext. 273.
http://www.reformer.com/ci_12739001?source=rss_viewed
By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff
Thursday, July 2
BRATTLEBORO -- 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.
Lemstra left -- or was relieved of, depending on which source you read -- his job last year after a dispute over a report he authored that documented the health disparities between different socioeconomic categories in Saskatoon.
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.
Radiation protection standards are based mainly on risk estimates from studies of atomic bomb survivors in Japan, according to a report called "The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk Among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry."
There has been some controversy over the validity of basing low-dose standards on the results of high-dose exposure.
Of the 1,725 reports reviewed by Lemstra, 22 were cited as references.
Lemstra concluded that not only do nuclear power workers have a higher risk of dying of cancer, they also have a higher risk of dying of other causes not related to cancer, such as heart problems.
Lemstra also quoted a German report that determined that children who live within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant have a higher rate of leukemia than those who live outside that radius.
What Lemstra failed to note in his report however, is that the German researchers said they could not conclusively state that the rates were higher because of the proximity to the nuclear power plants or because of some other environmental factor.
Lemstra's report was briefly reviewed by Bill Irwin, Radiological Health Chief of the Vermont Department of Health, who withheld most comment on the report until he has had a chance to further review it.
Nonetheless, said Irwin, "This kind of literature review is rarely used for policy making, but some people find it useful."
While Lemstra used "highly reputable references" such as the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, said Irwin, "It may be better for people to read the complete reference rather than rely on just those parts of the references cited in the report. A more complete picture is provided in the original documents, and readers may draw different conclusions than those drawn by Dr. Lemstra in his report."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also hesitated to comment on Lemstra's report, stated Neil Sheehan, NRC spokesman, in an e-mail to the Reformer.
"One observation made by a staffer who reviewed it was that the controls apparently were not as rigid as would have been expected," he stated. "We will continue to evaluate new studies to determine if further action on the NRC's part is warranted."
A spokesman for Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant had no comment on the Lemstra report other than plant worker exposure limits are set by the NRC based on recommendations by the National Council on Radiation Protection.
There is no database of cancer deaths for power plant workers at specific plants such as Vermont Yankee because death certificates are filed at the place of death and have no reference to the person's occupation.
In 2004, a study conducted by Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health was released, which tracked workers from 15 nuclear utilities in the U.S. for periods of up to 18 years between 1979 and 1997.
More than 53,000 U.S. nuclear power workers were included in the study, which concluded "that employees in the commercial nuclear industry are less likely than the general population to die from cancer or non-cancer diseases due, in large measure, to the so-called 'healthy worker effect,'" according to an executive summary of the report.
The healthy worker effect is based on the premise that nuclear industry workers have to be healthy and are usually required to have annual medical check-ups.
"The researchers did report, however, a strong positive and statistically significant association between radiation dose and death from arteriosclerotic heart disease, including coronary heart disease," stated the executive summary.
However, stated the principal investigator of the Columbia/Mailman study, Geoffrey Howe, "While associations with heart disease have been reported by some other occupational studies, the magnitude of the present association is not consistent with them, and, therefore, needs cautious interpretation and merits further attention."
He suggested that further follow-up studies be conducted to clarify the study's findings.
"The most important results of this study were findings with respect to radiation-related leukemia and radiation-related other cancers," stated the executive summary. "Positive, although non-statistically-significant, associations with radiation were seen for mortality from some forms of leukemia and other cancers as a whole."
While Lemstra refers to two studies conducted following the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, which concluded there was no increased rates of cancer deaths in nearby residents, he does not cite other studies such as the Columbia/Mailman study.
However, he does cite the 15-Country Study, which found that of 24,158 deaths, 6,734 were from cancer.
"These results suggest that an excess risk of cancer exists, albeit small, even at the low doses and dose rates typically received by nuclear workers in this study," according to the study.
Some researchers have cautioned that it is easy for systemic errors to creep into large epidemiological studies "that originate from different countries with different recording procedures," according to the Journal of Radiological Protection.
Researchers have also been quick to point out that correlation does not imply causation, which means that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other.
It does mean however, that a correlation discovered in a study should be the subject of further investigation.
Lemstra's report can be found at www.policyalternatives.-ca/reports_studies.
Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com, or 802-254-2311, ext. 273.
http://www.reformer.com/ci_12739001?source=rss_viewed
Monday, June 29, 2009
Groups sue Mirant Mid-Atlantic over nuclear power plant
Monday, June 29, 2009, 2:35pm EDT Modified: Monday, June 29, 2009, 2:36pmby Vandana Sinha Staff Reporter
Four Maryland residents and an environmental nonprofit are suing Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC, which operates a southern Prince George’s County power plant, claiming that the plant fails to adequately control the amount of harmful pollutants it releases in the air.
The federal lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, claims that the Chalk Point Generating Plant operated by Atlanta-based Mirant Mid-Atlantic has spewed unacceptable levels of sulfur dioxide into the air hundreds of times without the appropriate pollution controls required under the federal Clean Air Act.
A Mirant spokeswoman said the company hasn’t been served with the lawsuit yet, and can’t comment on the claims.
The Environmental Integrity Project, a legal nonprofit founded by former Environmental Protection Agency enforcement attorneys, and Villari, Brandes and Kline have filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and four residents, including a married couple, Nancy and Norton Dodge, who live seven miles away from the plant on a 1,200-acre farm in Mechanicsville.
The Dodges “need to close windows, limit their time outdoors and/or cover their faces when they are outdoors to avoid the respiratory irritants and smell of the pollution from the Chalk Point Power Plant,” the lawsuit reads.
Of the other two residents suing Mirant, David Bookbinder lives in Accokeek, about 30 miles from the plant, and Chris Schmitthenner lives in Mechanicsville, 11 miles away, and works five miles from the plant. The Environmental Integrity Project had sent Mirant a letter in January notifying of its intent to sue the power company this year.
The plaintiffs pointed to a Harvard University 2006 study that showed that such particulate matter pollution from the Chalk Point plant can have negative effects on the health and respiratory systems of people living in a 400-kilometer, or nearly 250-mile, radius of the plant.
In their initial notification letter, the plaintiffs wrote that EPA hourly data shows that two boilers at the Chalk Point plant exceeded allowable levels of sulfur dioxide emissions 591 times in 2006, 726 times in 2007 and 113 times in 2008.
Mirant has said it’s launched a $1.6 billion project to install scrubbers and other pollution-reducing equipment on its Chalk Point boilers by the beginning of 2010.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/06/29/daily15.html
The federal lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, claims that the Chalk Point Generating Plant operated by Atlanta-based Mirant Mid-Atlantic has spewed unacceptable levels of sulfur dioxide into the air hundreds of times without the appropriate pollution controls required under the federal Clean Air Act.
A Mirant spokeswoman said the company hasn’t been served with the lawsuit yet, and can’t comment on the claims.
The Environmental Integrity Project, a legal nonprofit founded by former Environmental Protection Agency enforcement attorneys, and Villari, Brandes and Kline have filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and four residents, including a married couple, Nancy and Norton Dodge, who live seven miles away from the plant on a 1,200-acre farm in Mechanicsville.
The Dodges “need to close windows, limit their time outdoors and/or cover their faces when they are outdoors to avoid the respiratory irritants and smell of the pollution from the Chalk Point Power Plant,” the lawsuit reads.
Of the other two residents suing Mirant, David Bookbinder lives in Accokeek, about 30 miles from the plant, and Chris Schmitthenner lives in Mechanicsville, 11 miles away, and works five miles from the plant. The Environmental Integrity Project had sent Mirant a letter in January notifying of its intent to sue the power company this year.
The plaintiffs pointed to a Harvard University 2006 study that showed that such particulate matter pollution from the Chalk Point plant can have negative effects on the health and respiratory systems of people living in a 400-kilometer, or nearly 250-mile, radius of the plant.
In their initial notification letter, the plaintiffs wrote that EPA hourly data shows that two boilers at the Chalk Point plant exceeded allowable levels of sulfur dioxide emissions 591 times in 2006, 726 times in 2007 and 113 times in 2008.
Mirant has said it’s launched a $1.6 billion project to install scrubbers and other pollution-reducing equipment on its Chalk Point boilers by the beginning of 2010.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/06/29/daily15.html
Nuclear 101
Public Forum Letter
Updated: 06/26/2009 06:10:19 PM MDT
Sen. Bob Bennett proposed that we build 100 new nuclear power plants by 2030, 21 years from now. ("Bennett: U.S. needs 100 more N-power plants," Tribune , June 23). Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi was stumped why anyone would oppose such a construction blitz.
Here's why. One hundred large nuclear plants of 1,000 megawatts each would constitute a generating capacity of 100,000 megawatts. It costs an estimated $8 a watt to construct nuclear plants today, so the total estimated cost would be around $800 billion! Divide this by 21 years, and this requires an annual expenditure of around $40 billion. Divide this by the 300 million people in America today and you have a cost of approximately $130 each year until 2030 for every man, woman and child in America.
Why do we need this large expenditure for electricity generation? To meet the anticipated needs of the growing U.S. population (births plus immigrants).
One of the benefits of stopping U.S. population growth would be the elimination of the need for all these proposed nuclear power plants and of the associated problems of waste disposal.
Albert A. Bartlett
Boulder, Colo.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12699338
Updated: 06/26/2009 06:10:19 PM MDT
Sen. Bob Bennett proposed that we build 100 new nuclear power plants by 2030, 21 years from now. ("Bennett: U.S. needs 100 more N-power plants," Tribune , June 23). Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi was stumped why anyone would oppose such a construction blitz.
Here's why. One hundred large nuclear plants of 1,000 megawatts each would constitute a generating capacity of 100,000 megawatts. It costs an estimated $8 a watt to construct nuclear plants today, so the total estimated cost would be around $800 billion! Divide this by 21 years, and this requires an annual expenditure of around $40 billion. Divide this by the 300 million people in America today and you have a cost of approximately $130 each year until 2030 for every man, woman and child in America.
Why do we need this large expenditure for electricity generation? To meet the anticipated needs of the growing U.S. population (births plus immigrants).
One of the benefits of stopping U.S. population growth would be the elimination of the need for all these proposed nuclear power plants and of the associated problems of waste disposal.
Albert A. Bartlett
Boulder, Colo.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12699338
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Calif. Activists Ask Feds To Reject Nuclear Plants
Comment: The State of Virginia needs to follow the example of Sacramento, Nuke Power Plants make electricity higher, Nuke is not carbon free, uranium mining, and milling produces lots of carbon plus a lot of uranium milling uses coal. NO NUKE PLANTS, NO URANIUM MINING, AND MILLING!!!
Jun 5, 2009 8:05 pm US/Pacific
SACRAMENTO (AP) ―
In 1989, Sacramento voters agreed to shut down their utility's nuclear power plant, rejecting warnings that their electricity bills would skyrocket.
Twenty years later, the area has among the lowest electricity rates in California, even as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District considers a 13 percent increase.
That's a message former state lawmaker Tom Hayden and others involved in the 1989 campaign say the federal government should note.
Hayden held a news conference Friday in the capital to mark the 20th anniversary of the vote and urge the federal government to invest in conservation and renewable energy.
The U.S. Energy Department is evaluating loan guarantees to four companies planning new nuclear plants. The reactors being considered are in Maryland, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas.
http://cbs13.com/local/Calif.Activists.Ask.2.1033859.html
Jun 5, 2009 8:05 pm US/Pacific
SACRAMENTO (AP) ―
In 1989, Sacramento voters agreed to shut down their utility's nuclear power plant, rejecting warnings that their electricity bills would skyrocket.
Twenty years later, the area has among the lowest electricity rates in California, even as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District considers a 13 percent increase.
That's a message former state lawmaker Tom Hayden and others involved in the 1989 campaign say the federal government should note.
Hayden held a news conference Friday in the capital to mark the 20th anniversary of the vote and urge the federal government to invest in conservation and renewable energy.
The U.S. Energy Department is evaluating loan guarantees to four companies planning new nuclear plants. The reactors being considered are in Maryland, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas.
http://cbs13.com/local/Calif.Activists.Ask.2.1033859.html
Saturday, May 23, 2009
MOX fuel arrives amid strong protest
AFP – Anti-nuclear protesters demonstrate against a MOX fuel shipment carried by the Pacific Heron (background) …Two cargo ships carrying recycled nuclear fuel arrived May 18 in Japan from France for the planned introduction of plutonium-thermal power generation in the fall, power company officials said.
One of the two armed ships entered a port near Chubu Electric Power Co.'s Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture, the first stop for the delivery of plutonium and uranium mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel.
The ships will also deliver the fuel, a combination of uranium and plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel, to Kyushu Electric Power Co.'s Genkai nuclear power plant in Saga Prefecture and Shikoku Electric Power Co.'s Ikata plant in Ehime Prefecture.
The fuel was manufactured in France on an order placed by the three utilities and will be used in conventional uranium-burning light-water reactors.
Anti-nuclear groups staged demonstrations against the pluthermal power generation plan.
The Japan Times Weekly: May 23, 2009
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/weekly/news/nn2009/nn20090523a1.htm
Australian nuclear waste reaches US
Comment: What, don't the US have enough of it's own worst --this should stop!!
Posted Fri May 22, 2009 2:29pm AEST
United States authorities have confirmed a shipment of nuclear waste which left Australia in March has arrived and been safely unloaded.
The consignment of highly enriched uranium came from the reactor facility at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney.
The Australian Nuclear Science And Technology Organisation has exported nine shipments of nuclear waste to Europe and America since the 1960's.
The US Department of Energy has taken more than 100 kilograms of the highly-enriched uranium from Australia since the late 1990s.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/22/2578340.htm
Posted Fri May 22, 2009 2:29pm AEST
United States authorities have confirmed a shipment of nuclear waste which left Australia in March has arrived and been safely unloaded.
The consignment of highly enriched uranium came from the reactor facility at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney.
The Australian Nuclear Science And Technology Organisation has exported nine shipments of nuclear waste to Europe and America since the 1960's.
The US Department of Energy has taken more than 100 kilograms of the highly-enriched uranium from Australia since the late 1990s.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/22/2578340.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
