Showing posts with label nuclear power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear power. Show all posts

Saturday, July 18, 2009

New rules would limit power plants' use of ocean water for cooling

Tribune file photo: Each day, more than 2 billion gallons of seawater cool Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant when it is running at full power.

Thursday, Jul. 16, 2009

State water officials have proposed a set of stringent new rules that are intended to eliminate or greatly reduce a harmful type of ocean-water cooling at power plants such as Diablo Canyon nuclear plant and Morro Bay.

It is unclear what effect the new rules would have on Diablo Canyon. They contain two exemptions for which nuclear plant operators could apply for reasons of safety or cost.

Known as once-through cooling, the process involves pumping massive amounts of ocean water through the cooling system to condense steam after it has passed through the electrical generators.


It damages ocean life in a number of ways including killing millions of larvae and, in some cases, sucking in and drowning seals.

The new rules are intended to force plant owners to use less damaging cooling methods by reducing intake of ocean water by at least 93 percent or finding other ways to reduce damage to ocean life.

Options available to plant owners include the use of giant radiators to condense the steam, called dry cooling, or using evaporation towers or other wet-cooling techniques that use substantially less water.

Officials with Dynegy, owners of the Morro Bay power plant, are hinting that the expense of complying with the new rules at older plants like the one in Morro Bay may be too great and the plant might close as a result.

The 50-year-old Morro Bay plant uses natural gas fired boilers. Although proposals have been made to renovate the plant, Dynegy is not moving ahead with those plans.

“But we would not want to speculate on the future of the Morro Bay plant,” added David Byford, Dynegy spokesman.

As it is, the antiquated plant operates “very seldom,” usually only during the summer when demand for electricity is at its highest, Byford said. The plant has contracts to sell power until 2013.

The State Water Resources Control Board proposed the new rules June 30. They are several years in the making and involved consultation with numerous other state agencies and stakeholders.

“The State Water Board staff’s intent with this draft policy is to assure that California’s coastal waters are protected while making certain that essential electrical power is available to Californians,” said Dorothy Rice, the board’s executive director.

Emily Christensen, spokeswoman at Diablo Canyon, said plant owners Pacific Gas and Electric Company are encouraged by the board’s commitment to electrical reliability and are reviewing whether to apply for either of the exemptions.

In one exemption, PG&E could argue that the rules conflict with Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety requirements. In another, the utility could argue that the cost of the new rules is “wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits.”

In either case, the utility would have to propose alternate methods of reducing ocean impacts.


The Morro Bay plant would have until 2016 to be in compliance; Diablo Canyon’s deadline is 2022.

Ongoing disagreement The proposed rules are the latest chapter in an ongoing disagreement between PG&E and state water officials over once-through cooling.

Diablo Canyon’s water discharge permit has expired and the plant is operating under an extension while the two parties try to reach an agreement on how to offset the effects of ocean-water cooling.

The nuclear plant typically circulates nearly 2.3 billion gallons of seawater a day. This water carries with it an estimated 1.5 billion fish and crab larvae a day, according to state water board documents.

Many, if not all, of the larvae are killed by the nearly 20-degree temperature increase or are eaten by barnacles and other crustaceans that line the cooling water pipes.


The heated water has also altered the marine ecology of the plant’s water discharge cove.

PG&E biologists have argued that the effect of the larvae mortality is minimal because most would not reach adulthood under normal circumstances. State officials have proposed land conservation deals and the creation of artificial reefs as ways of offsetting the mortality but no deals have been reached.

Of the state’s 19 power plants that use once-through cooling, others have more dramatic impacts on wildlife. Some plants use narrow offshore pipes to draw in their cooling water.

These pipes create enough suction to draw in fish and marine mammals. The worst is the state’s other nuclear power plant, San Onofre in Southern California.

State records show that between 1978 and 2000, 64 harbor seals, 153 sea lions and four sea turtles were found dead in San Onofre’s intake structure. Power plants in Ormond Beach and Redondo Beach, both in Los Angeles County, have killed lesser numbers of seals.

Diablo Canyon avoids this problem because its intake pipes are large enough that the suction they create is weak enough that fish and animals can swim out of it. No marine mammals have died in Diablo Canyon’s intake structure although divers removed seven live sea turtles from the structure from 1985 to 2001.

A 60-day public comment period on the new rules begins Sept. 30. The state water board is expected to vote whether or not to adopt the rules late this year or early next year.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/786140.html

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Bruce shuts Ontario Bruce 8 reactor due low demand

Comment: Suprising that Cameco Corp owns a Nuke Plant!!!! No wonder they are coming south to Virginia, out west America taking uranium back to Canada!

Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:32am EDT

NEW YORK, July 14 (Reuters) - Bruce Power LP shut the 795-megawatt Unit 8 at the Bruce nuclear power station in Ontario on July 14 at the request of the grid operator for what is expected to be a brief outage due to surplus baseload generation in the province, the company said in a release.

Temperatures in Toronto will reach 23 Celsius (74 F) on Tuesday with no humidity, according to AccuWeather, keeping cooling demand low. That is a few degrees below the average high of 26 degrees C for this time of year.

Before Bruce 8 shut, all of the baseload nuclear units and most of the coal units in Ontario were available for service.

Baseload units usually operate around the clock to meet a grid's minimum generation needs.

The 6,261 MW Bruce station is located in Tiverton on the eastern shore of Lake Huron about 155 miles (250 km) northwest of Toronto. There are four 750 MW units, 1 to 4, at the A station, which entered service in 1977-1979, and three 822 MW units, 5 to 7, and one 795 MW unit, 8, at the B station, which entered service in 1984-1987.

The company expects to increase Unit 8's output to about 822 MW by modifying the fuel-loading system later this year.

All of the other units remained available for service.

One MW powers about 1,000 homes in Ontario.

Bruce Power LP, of Tiverton, Ontario, operates the entire Bruce complex and leases the Bruce B station from Ontario Power Generation, the province-owned generating company.

Bruce Power LP is owned by uranium miner Cameco Corp (CCO.TO: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) (31.6 percent), energy company TransCanada Corp (TRP.TO: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) (31.6 percent), BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust, an investment entity owned by Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (31.6 percent), the Power Workers' Union (4 percent) and the Society of Energy Professionals (1.2 percent).

Bruce Power A LP, which leases the Bruce A station from OPG, was set up when Bruce Power and the government agreed to restore the A station to full service. It is a partnership among TransCanada (47.4 percent), BPC (47.4 percent), the Power Workers' Union (4 percent) and the Society of Energy Professionals (1.2 percent).

BRUCE A RESTART

The company plans to restart Units 1 and 2 in early 2010, at an estimated cost of up to C$3.4 billion.

Ontario Hydro, the former province-owned power company, shut Unit 1 in 1997 and Unit 2 in 1995 because they needed extensive upgrades.

The return of Units 1 and 2 would replace more than 20 percent of the province's 6,400 MW of coal-fired generation, which the government wants to shut by 2014 for health and environmental reasons.

Bruce also planned to refurbish the other Bruce A units.

Bruce expects Unit 3 to remain in commercial service until at least 2011 before refurbishing the unit to increase its life to 2038 and beyond.

Unit 4 is expected to remain in service until 2016 before its refurbishment, which will increase its life until 2042.

In addition, Bruce is considering refurbishing the four Bruce B reactors and/or building new reactors, Bruce C, at the station.

In 2007, Bruce launched an environmental assessment of the possible Bruce C project that would add 4,000 MW by about 2016.

Previously, Bruce said it would need to refurbish the four Bruce B units between 2015 and 2020. The company said it would decide in the future whether to refurbish the existing units, replace them with new reactors or both. (Reporting by Scott DiSavino; Editing by John Picinich)

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSN1425530720090714

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Cooper: Escalating Nuclear Reactor Costs Seen in Major Reversals for Industry on Wall Street and in Texas, Canada




Comment: We do not Nuclear Plants, they are too expensive, too dangerous, not CO2 free because of uranium mining and milling!

Ratings Warning From Moody’s Followed by Mothballing of New Reactor Plans in Texas and Ontario; Developments in Line with Cooper Report from June Projecting Trillions in Excess Costs for Nuclear, Compared to Combination of Renewables and More Efficiency.

Press Release
Source: Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, South Royalton, VT.
On Tuesday July 7, 2009, 10:30 am EDT
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the “The Economics of Nuclear Reactors,” a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.

Available online at http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/Institutes_and_Initiatives/Institute_for_Energy_and_the_Environment/New_and_Noteworthy.htm,

the Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry’s so-called “nuclear renaissance” at the beginning of this decade – a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the “Great Bandwagon Market” of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.

Cooper said that three late June developments provide new evidence of the validity of the cost-related concerns documented in his report:

•On June 30, 2009, Exelon cited “economic woes” as a major factor in postponing for up to 20 years plans to build two nuclear reactors at its site in Victoria, Texas. (See http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/30/gs_exelon_070109_56587/?business&local-news for local coverage of the decision.)

•On June 29, 2009, the Government of Ontario announced that it has suspended the competitive bidding process to procure two replacement nuclear reactors planned for a Darlington, Ontario site. As the New York Times reported: “Two years into a $20 billion nuclear upgrade project meant to replace aging reactors with next-generation technology, the Ontario government postponed the entire process on Monday, citing excessive cost and uncertainties involving the ownership status of the sole Canadian bidder … Yesterday’s move is a setback for the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the 57-year-old government-owned corporation that has built all of Canada’s reactors and could soon be sold off to a private investor.” (See http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/ontario-puts-nuclear-expansion-plans-on-ice/.)

•On June 23, 2009, Moody’s Investor Services issued a report titled “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing.” The summary to the report included the following: “Moody's is considering “taking a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new nuclear power plants … Rationale is premised on a material increase in business and operating risk … most utilities now seeking to build nuclear generation do not appear to be adjusting their financial policies, a credit negative.

First federal approvals are at least two years away, and economic, political and policy equations could easily change before then …” Cooper pointed out that even though Moody’s concludes that reactors might be financially viable once operating, the barriers to actual permitting and affordable construction may make it impossible to reach the operational new-plant phase.

See the report summary at http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/moodys/PBC_117883 and a related news story at http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200906250936DOWJONESDJONLINE000658_FORTUNE5.htm.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cooper-Escalating-Nuclear-bw-2650257226.html?x=0&.v=1

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Judge rules Indian Point's fish-killing cooling process must stop



Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y., is said to be responsible for killing fish, eggs, larvae and plants.


Comment: Nuke plants uses a huge amount of water and fish kills have been going on for years all the earth! Thank goodness for River Keepers! Will Virginia Rivers be protected from uranium mining and milling accidents? Will the Basin group sue the Canadian uranium company when they ruin our water, kill fish or animal?



BY Abby Luby
SPECIAL TO THE NEWS
Friday, July 3rd 2009, 4:00 AM

Officials at the Indian Point nuclear power plant - which has been called responsible for killing more than a billion fish each year - will have to figure out another way to cool its giant heated steam turbines, a state court has ruled.

The plant sucks in and returns more than 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water daily - 2 million gallons per minute - in a system that pulls in and kills fish, eggs, larvae and plant life.

The hot water flushed back into the river is fatal to some 1.2 billion fish every year, according to the state Department of Environmental Conservation. The cooling system doesn't use radioactive water from the reactor core.

Last week, acting state Supreme Court Justice Gerald Connolly turned down plant owner Entergy's bid to overturn a year-old DEC decision that faulted Indian Point's water intake system for killing the fish.

The judge said Entergy's appeal was premature, stating: "Petitioner's claims are not ripe for review by the Court at this time."

The ruling now gives the DEC the green light to push for a new cooling system that would reduce fish-killing water usage by 95% at the Westchester County plant.

Entergy spokesman Jerry Nappi said the court's decision determines how the utility company will "ultimately obtain a water-use permit that makes the most sense environmentally and economically for the area around Indian Point."

Entergy has balked at the $1.4billion price tag for the new cooling system. Nappi said the plant already has spent more than $100 million to protect fish by installing special screens to reduce the number of fish pulled inside.

The DEC estimates a new cooling system would cost $740 million, and $145 million a year to run - or 5% to 6% of Entergy's annual gross revenue.

Entergy makes more than $2 million a day - and more than $700 million a year - from electricity produced at Indian Point.

The court ruling was a victory for the DEC and the environmental group Riverkeeper, which have been waging court battles with Entergy for years over the fish kill. Riverkeeper's chief prosecutor is Robert Kennedy Jr.

Indian Point, 24 miles outside the city, is applying to renew its operating license and keep running until 2035. If the license is renewed, Riverkeeper and the DEC say, the power plant would be forced to build a cooling system if it wants to stay open.

Hearings on the new draft water-use permit for the plant, which would mandate closed-cycle cooling, are tentatively scheduled for next year.

Nappi said Entergy is weighing an appeal of the court ruling.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/03/2009-07-03_judge_rules_indian_point_fishkilling_cooling_process_must_stop.html#ixzz0KLg63lO3&C

Friday, July 3, 2009

Nuclear energy neither clean nor safe

Comment: People in Canada do not want uranium mining or nuclear power! Is that the reason for Canada to come south to take America's uranium? Canada, we are not welcoming your uranium mining, we do not want uranium mining in Virginia or anywhere else in America!

July 03, 2009
Re:Nuclear delay called risky,

July 1

Several assumptions need to be corrected. Canada's energy mix is 59.8 per cent hydro, 16.1 per cent coal, 11.6 per cent nuclear, 6.7 per cent oil, 4.9 per cent natural gas and 0.9 per cent renewables.

Hydro will continue to produce the same amount of electricity every year; however its proportion of the energy mix will decline due to net increases in demand. Wind generates power 30 per cent of the time, solar 20 per cent and other renewables 30 to 50 per cent.

Replacing all nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources with renewables by 2040 would result in this mix: 47.2 per cent hydro; 13.8 per cent wind; 7.2 per cent solar; 5.5 per cent tidal/wave; 23.1 per cent geothermal; 3.2 per cent other renewables, such as biomass and waste water.

This is a manageable expectation, especially in Ontario where we have made a commitment through the Green Energy Act. The GTA has made significant progress in both renewable sources of energy and energy conservation.

Renewable energy is clean, safe and cost effective. The same cannot be said about nuclear.

Uranium mining is not clean; the transport of radioactive materials is hazardous; waste management solutions do not ensure safety; and nuclear weapons proliferation is a serious threat.

Amy Collard, Natural Resources Critic, Green Party of Canada

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/660100

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

German minister rules out new nuclear power stations



Comment: US, pay attention to Germany, they are smart!! Nuke power is not clean, green or CO2 free, the steam from stacks have CO2 plus the uranium mining, milling or transportation, the building of the plant has CO2! Too expensive and dangerous!! I have been to Japan and seen the Reprocessing plant! It is scary to think of the nuke stuff that will be process there and plan to burn some of it and my family lives downwind!

BERLIN, June 19 (AFP) Jun 19, 2009

Germany's economy minister on Friday ruled out building new nuclear power stations but said the life of some reactors might be extended and the development of alternative technologies stepped up.

"We need limited extensions until we are able to work with sensible alternative technologies in an economical and environmentally friendly manner," Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily in an interview.

"That includes the possibility of equipping existing nuclear power stations with state-of-the-art technology in order to make them even safer and more efficient," the conservative minister said.
"But I see no need to build new nuclear reactors."

Asked if he were in favour of reversing the decision to abandon nuclear, zu Guttenberg said: "If we can manage to put in place quickly enough alternatives that make economic sense, no."

Germany decided in 2000 under former premier Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens -- when current Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives were in opposition -- to mothball its 17 reactors by about 2020.

The CDU/CSU conservative bloc's has been calling for some time for a re-think, but zu Guttenberg is the first conservative minister to rule out building new plants.

His comments are significant because they come less than four months before general elections in September.

At the election Merkel has the very real possibility to be able to dump as coalition partners the fellow architects of the nuclear phase-out, the centre-left SPD.

High oil prices in 2008, worries about the reliability of supplies from the Middle East and Russia and efforts to reduce Germany's greenhouse gas emissions have made a return to nuclear, as Italy is doing, less unpalatable.

German firms like Siemens, EON and RWE have highly active in tapping into the renewed interest in nuclear being seen worldwide, with over 30 reactors currently in construction, according to lobby group Deutsche Atomforum.

But polls show that a majority of Germans still remain opposed to nuclear power and believe the technology remains highly dangerous because of potential accidents and terrorist attacks.

Shipments of nuclear waste from France and other countries to the Gorleben storage site in northern Germany regularly spark angry protests by thousands of people.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/090619101723.hjisya7e.html

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Taxpayers will pay dearly for nuclear power


Comment: No Nuke Plants, they are too expensive, the taxpayers for for them, no one will insure Nuke Plants, Tell Virginia, we do not want nuke power or uranium mining!!

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Prince Albert Daily Herald

Editor,

The Herald:

The proposed nuclear reactor is going to cost Bruce Power a lot of money. Guess again. The private sector does not invest in nuclear power - for good reason: the public will be on the hook for many generations for the biggest part of the costs.

Nuclear power plants are usually over budget and start up behind schedule. If power is needed in the meantime, we will have to purchase elsewhere. It would be 10 years or likely more before a nuclear plant starts producing electricity.

Construction of power grids to export to possibly Alberta and the U.S. will be a large expense - estimated at $1 billion, again largely at public expense.

Power backup for both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and refurbishing is necessary. Note that eight nuclear power plants were once shut down for a whole decade in Ontario. The UDP report says that nuclear is compatible with 'clean' coal. It better be, as coal will be required when the huge, equally highly centralized nuclear system goes down. Note that there is not an operational clean coal plant on the planet. $1.4 billion plus of our money is being spent on an experimental project to produce only 100 MW of clean coal power. What if it does not work or is too costly to expand? Where does the backup power come from? Old dirty coal that will cost us in carbon charges?

Refurbishing of nuclear power plants is again usually over budget and behind schedule, often needing to be done earlier than predicted.

Decommissioning costs are huge and nuclear companies set aside only modest funds for this. Will Bruce Power even be in business at that stage? It is a complex process.

The public will be burdened with the costs of storing radioactive waste somewhere for hundreds of thousands of years. The $10-billion Yucca Mountain site in the U.S. was abandoned before being used.

There seems to be a lot of expensive experimenting going on for a province of one million people. Are we the sparsely populated area that is being coerced into being the guinea pigs - just in case something goes wrong?

Why would we support even more socialism for the rich? Why not a proven, safe energy system that private capital will invest in, will provide many jobs and financial benefits to many communities, rural municipalities, farmers, ranchers and First Nations?

Renewable energies, energy conservation and efficiencies and cogeneration combined with some hydro from Manitoba as needed seems to be a more attractive choice.

Mike Bray Indian Head

http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=263435&sc=643

Sunday, June 21, 2009

NATIONAL POST ATTACKS ALBERTA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS FOR MENTIONING ‘ETHICS’ + ‘NUCLEAR ENERGY’ IN ONE SENTENCE

Comment: Remember, people, Canada will be mining uranium in Virginia and out West. Their Nuke Side slammed the Catholic Bishops about the statement against Nuke Power. We are Stewarts of the earth; therefore, we must protect the earth against the corporate raid!

The Roman Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Alberta is not exactly a coven of unkempt Greenpeace treesitters, but one would never know it by reading the lead unsigned editorial in that Death Culture newspaper yesterday, June 19, 2009 on page A12.

There the bishops are attacked at some length by the CanWest Global mothership newspaper’s anonymous editorialist for having the audacity to suggest that atomic power raises ’serious ethical questions.’

Seems this is a touchy subject these days for Death Culture pushers who have been trying mightily to convince the Canadian hoi poloi that nuclear power is somehow cleaner than all other energy sources, supposedly in order to address their concerns about ‘global warming’ or ‘climage change’.

The brave National Post editorialist is very concerned to castigate the Churchmen as (once again) mired in superstition, and therefor unqualified to say anything of substance at all on these public interest matters: ‘The idea that there are unique ethical concerns about nuclear energy is nothing more than a superstition, unworthy of an organization that possesses the Catholic faith’s commitment to intellectual rigour.’

NP’s editorialist asks the Alberta bishops whether their qualifications ‘entitle’ them to offer ’special insight into these matters’?

The National Post has disgraced itself with this pathetic pandering to anti-Catholic bigotry in order to cast aspersions on the motifs of these usually quiet bishops finally doing the job they have been trained to do.

By the way, they are still Canadian citizens with all the Charter-protected rights to free speech and expression as any other Canadian citizen, are they not?

Since when does the National Post appoint its editorialist to sit in judgement of who is supposedly ‘entitled’ to make public comments on nuclear power in Canada?

One wonders what type of infernal training the Aspers would put such a person through to get the miserable job?

- Gregory Paul Michael Hartnell, President

Concerned Citizens’ Coalition

Victoria

CCC

http://gregoryhartnell.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/national-post-attacks-alberta-conference-of-catholic-bishops-for-mentioning-ethics-nuclear-energy-in-one-sentence/

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Why Nuclear Energy is Still a Really Bad Idea


Jonathan Cloud

After all the literature and public policy discussion and decision-making of the past 50+ years, it is hard to believe that there is still an industry – and a lobby – advocating for the expenditure of vast sums of money for the use of “controlled” nuclear reactions anywhere on this planet, let alone in the densely-populated Northeast.

But nuclear advocates have found new hope in the argument that nuclear power is “carbon-free.” New organizations have been formed to promote nuclear as “clean, affordable, and safe.”

As Environment NJ’s Matt Elliott has noted, “Recently, Exelon Corp. funded the creation of a group with the misleading name of Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy (ACRE) Coalition. The group is little more than a front for the nuclear industry.” (Philadelphia Inquirer – 2007-09-17)

And I was alarmed to hear the Deputy Speaker of the NJ Assembly say the other that a new unclear plant in New Jersey was “inevitable,” and could be approved as early as 2015. He based this in part on the delays in getting massive amounts of renewables in place – as called for in the state’s new Energy Master Plan – to meet the goals of the Renewable Portfolio Standard. In his view, and that of many others, the implementation of the state’s energy policy goals was hopelessly inadequate, and would fall so far short of these goals as to make nuclear inevitable.

For all these reasons, it’s important to state why nuclear energy is still a bad idea – for New Jersey, for America, and for the world:

To start with, it’s not renewable. Uranium is a fossil fuel, that has to be extracted through mining, and there is a limited amount of it that is accessible and likely to be recoverable on a cost-effective basis. The IAEA states, “Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand- also called the “Red Book” – estimates the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than USD 130 per kg, to be about 4.7 million tonnes. Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years, the study states.” (Global Uranium Resources to Meet Projected Demand, 2 June 2006.) While this may not be a limiting factor immediately, the way peak oil appears to be, the same arguments will ultimately apply: this is not a sustainable source of energy.

It is also not “clean.” While no greenhouse gases are emitted in the reaction cycle, nuclear power plants are massive construction projects, requiring huge quantities of cement and other materials; and the process of mining uranium is itself very energy-intensive and damaging to the environment.

As John Busby points out,
The claim for the carbon-free status of nuclear power proves to be false. Carbon dioxide is released in every component of the nuclear fuel cycle except the actual fission in the reactor. Fossil fuels are involved in the mining, milling, conversion and enrichment of the ore, in the handling of the mill tailings, in the fuel can preparation, in the construction of the station and in its de-commissioning and demolition, in the handling of the spent waste, in its processing and vitrification and in digging the hole in rock for its deposition.

The lower the ore grade, the more energy is consumed in the fuel processing, so that the amount of the carbon dioxide released in the overall fuel cycle depends on the ore grade. Only Canada and Australia have ores of a sufficiently high grade to avoid excessive carbon releases and to provide an adequate energy gain. At ore grades below 0.01% for ‘soft’ ores and 0.02% for ‘hard’ ores more CO2 than an equivalent gas-fired station is released and more energy is absorbed in the cycle that is gained in it…

The industry points to the presence of uranium in phosphates and seawater, but the concentrations are so low that the energy required to extract it would exceed many times the energy obtained from any nuclear power resulting and the resulting carbon emissions would be massive.

When the energy inputs, past, present and future are totalled up and set against the actual energy derived from the entire nuclear power programme and its waste handling, it may well be that the overall energy gain has been negative. This has been masked by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, but as that era passes it behoves energy professionals to make an honest assessment of the energy and monetary economics of proceeding further with a failed technology. (Why nuclear power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy, 31 October 2005.)

Nuclear energy is not cheap. Massive subsidies to the nuclear industry are now widely understood as “hidden costs” that give the lie to the idea that nuclear electricity can be generated for as little as 3¢ a kilowatt hour. It is not even possible to fully account for the “externalities” involved in producing electricity, because the final costs of disposing of wastes, decommissioning power plants, cleaning up accidents, protecting plants from terrorist attacks, etc. cannot be known.

The storage problem remains unresolved. Despite technological advances that may allow for the re-processing of spent fuels (for something other than making nuclear weapons), the ultimate disposal problem remains.

Public opinion is now firmly against the development of more nuclear, and is likely to prevent siting of nuclear plants near dense population centers (where the energy is needed), leading to even higher costs or the need to site plants far enough away to require an even-more massive upgrading of the grid.

Nuclear power is more “centralized” energy production, rather than distributed generation.
A number of other arguments could also be made, but these should suffice to make the point that nuclear is not a solution to our present global climate and energy crises. Investing additional billions of dollars in nuclear will only divert resources from developing truly clean and renewable sources of energy, and delay the transition to a sustainable economy.

http://jc.atg-host.com/?p=104

Saturday, June 13, 2009

The Trojan Horse of Nuclear Energy


Comment: Look at the June 18 date, almost one ago, what has happen with the following statement: "there is no future for expanded nuclear", well they are going to perform uranium mining at the Grand Canyon, the voice of change, is the same old, same old plus, they will continue to blow up the Appalachian mountains for coal!

Posted June 18, 2008 02:08 PM (EST)

"Nuclear power is among the surest ways to gain a clean, abundant, and stable energy supply." Those words came from John McCain' this week in Houston as he laid out his energy policy.

This week in Detroit, Barack Obama talked about making nuclear power "safe," and his website position paper says, "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table."

Neither of them has spotted the obvious:

Nuclear power is the Trojan horse of the energy debate.

Using the guise of concern over climate change, proponents ask us to re-consider our aversion to new nuclear power plants. But hidden beneath the claims of zero carbon emissions are the same old problems that have stopped any new nuclear plant from being commissioned since the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania in 1979.

So let's talk about what's inside the Trojan Horse. (I quote from a fact sheet by Leslie Lai and Kristen Morrison.)

Proliferation Risk -- Plutonium is a man-made waste product of nuclear fission, which can be used either for fuel in nuclear power plants or for bombs. In the year 2000, an estimated 310 tons (620,000 pounds) of civilian, weapons-usable plutonium was produced. That's enough for 34,000 nuclear weapons of the same type used on Nagasaki.

Accident Risk - Remember 1986. Chernobyl. An explosion at that nuclear plant killed at least 30 people at the site. Thousands more died of cancer. The fallout reached Scotland.

Environmental Degradation -- The mining of uranium, its refining and enrichment, as well as the production of plutonium, all produce radioactive isotopes that contaminate the surrounding area, including the groundwater, air, land, plants, and equipment.

Nuclear Waste -- A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays. And that's a very long time. (The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.) Opposition to the proposed Yucca Mountain depository is strong and getting stronger. No one seems to want to store radioactive poison in their state. How many homeowners would like it trucked down the highway through their neighborhood or carried in a train down the local tracks?

Reprocessing Risk -- Though some countries reprocess nuclear waste (in essence, preparing it to send through the cycle again to create more energy), this process is banned in the U.S. due to increased proliferation risks, as the reprocessed materials can also be used for making bombs. Reprocessing is also not a solution because it just creates additional nuclear waste.

Now, I will state that as an employee of a 501 c 3 educational charity, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, I am not allowed to be partisan. And in fact, it is the stated policy of the Foundation to educate and advocate for a world free of nuclear weapons, but never to influence any campaign for elected office and never to ask any voter to do anything but vote their conscience.

However, education is vital for an informed voting public. And in a media environment that can accentuate the insignificant while leaving the issues unexplored, I see getting the basic policy facts out to voters as hugely important. Then citizens can vote their conscience.

So here are two key passages from the nuclear energy policies of our two candidates for President. I invite people to also check out these links to the complete energy policies of John McCain and Barack Obama.

John McCain ( speech on June 17, 2008): "As for nuclear energy -- a proven energy source that requires zero emissions -- we haven't built a new reactor in 31 years. In Europe and elsewhere, they have been expanding their use of nuclear energy. But we've waited so long that we've lost our domestic capability to even build these power plants. Nuclear power is among the surest ways to gain a clean, abundant, and stable energy supply, as other nations understand. One nation today has plans to build almost 50 new reactors by 2020. Another country plans to build 26 major nuclear stations. A third nation plans to build enough nuclear plants to meet one quarter of all the electricity needs of its people -- a population of more than a billion people. Those three countries are China, Russia, and India. And if they have the vision to set and carry out great goals in energy policy, then why don't we?... What is certain in energy policy is that we have learned a few clear lessons along the way. Somehow all of them seem to have escaped my opponent. He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too quickly. He's doesn't support new domestic production. He doesn't support new nuclear plants. He doesn't support more traditional use of coal, either."

Barack Obama (from his website "Plan to Make America a Global Energy Leader") "Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R - IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-crandell/mccain-obama-the-trojan-h_b_107726.html

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

MLAs weigh in on Uranium Development Partnership meeting

Rick Closs sits down after addressing the Uranium Development Partnership consultation meeting Monday night. Herald photo by Joshua Pagé

Comment: Most people do not want nuke power or uranium mining. Only Corporations want Nuke power! Greed!! Plus, locals do not put faith in their government!

JOSHUA PAGÉ
The Prince Albert Daily Herald

The Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) public consultation came and went Monday night, but political reaction is now pouring in.

Saskatchewan Rivers MLA Nadine Wilson said the turnout of nearly 400 was both large in numbers and opinions.

"I was hoping a few more people would have had the chance to speak, perhaps the time was a bit restrained, but I really valued hearing the public speak," said Wilson.

She noted that many concerns brought to the Prince Albert meeting were similar to previous UDP meetings, and that it appears the public does need more information.

"I think we will probably need a more informational document to get to the public," said Wilson.

She added the consultation's chairman, Dan Perrins, was highly respected and the province would value his recommendations highly, whatever they may be.

According to Prince Albert Northcote NDP MLA Darcy Furber, many speakers brought up issues the NDP had also been hammering away on previously.

"People want to make a direct comparison to all the energy sources available. It's as simple as that," said Furber.

The meeting broke into smaller groups for more specific discussion about halfway through, but many remained in the main group, including Furber and Wilson.

Most speakers at the meeting blasted the nuclear power industry and any plans to pursue further uranium development in the province.

Neither politician would go so far to say Prince Albert had become the centre of the province's nuclear debate, but they did say the city and surrounding area was extremely passionate about the issue.

Wilson stressed the government would make its decision "based on the voices of the people," but Furber disagreed.

"Truthfully, I have zero confidence the government is going to do the right thing," said Furber.

"If you look at the history of this file, (the Saskatchewan Party) have been on the wrong side of this file the entire time."

Wilson noted the government's next step was to listen to the rest of the consultations, then await Perrins' report, which should be submitted by the end of August.

Perrins and several facilitators record everything said at the meetings so he can bring back each voice to the government.

Their findings thus far are available at www.saskuranium.ca

jpage@paherald.sk.ca

http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=259506&sc=4

Monday, June 8, 2009

McCain Tries to Classify Nuclear Power as Renewable Energy; Voted Down


Comment: The south has lots of other things to offer for alternative energy, The South has sun, wind off the coast and mountains!! The southern coast has lots of wind but most Senators from the south has their heads in the Nuke Cycle, where they monies may come from!! Nuke Power is old, dirty, not clean because begins with uranium mining and milling which is not clean, green or carbon free. No to Nuke Power, No to Uranium mining & milling anywhere in the world!!

If you’ve wondered how life would be different if John McCain had won the 2008 presidential election, here’s one example of McCain supporting a policy that Barack Obama opposes.

At the urging of President Obama, members of the U.S. Senate are trying to craft a plan that would require utility companies to generate 15% of their power from renewable energy sources by 2021.

During debate this week over what a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) would encompass, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) tried to push through an amendment that would classify nuclear power as a renewable energy. “Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, have cleaner sources of energy and diversity: I certainly think nuclear power meets all of those definitions,” McCain told his colleagues, who rejected his proposal.

McCain isn’t the only senator trying to find a place for nuclear power in the current energy debate.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) claims excluding carbon-free nuclear power from the renewable standard penalizes states in the Southeast that have invested heavily in nuclear power plants. Unlike the Midwest, which can turn to wind, or the Southwest, which has lots of sun, the South does not possess the same abundance of a natural renewable source of energy.

But it does have the highest density of nuclear plants of anywhere in the country.

-Noel Brinkerhoff

href="http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/McCain_Tries_to_Classify_Nuclear_Power_as_Renewable_Energy__Voted_Down_90607

Thursday, May 28, 2009

In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble

Comment: So the Rep want to build 100 nuke plants in the US, wants to give them fed'l loans (means taxpayers will pay for the plants), so call new (untested) reactor, duh - wake up Rep - Look at Finland, Maryland gov - pay attention, Virginia pay attention .....cost too high, uranium mining & milling are dangerous, ---we want true green power, solar, wind, tide, thermal~!!!!!!!

May 29, 2009
By JAMES KANTER

OLKILUOTO, Finland — As the Obama administration tries to steer America toward cleaner sources of energy, it would do well to consider the cautionary tale of this new-generation nuclear reactor site.

The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.

But things have not gone as planned.

After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online.

While the American nuclear industry has predicted clear sailing after its first plants are built, the problems in Europe suggest these obstacles may be hard to avoid.

A new fleet of reactors would be standardized down to “the carpeting and wallpaper,” as Michael J. Wallace, the chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between EDF Group and Constellation Energy, the Maryland-based utility — has said repeatedly.

In the end, he says, that standardization will lead to significant savings.

But early experience suggests these new reactors will be no easier or cheaper to build than the ones of a generation ago, when cost overruns — and then accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl — ended the last nuclear construction boom.

In Flamanville, France, a clone of the Finnish reactor now under construction is also behind schedule and overbudget.

In the United States, Florida and Georgia have changed state laws to raise electricity rates so that consumers will foot some of the bill for new nuclear plants in advance, before construction even begins.

“A number of U.S. companies have looked with trepidation on the situation in Finland and at the magnitude of the investment there,” said Paul L. Joskow, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a co-author of an influential report on the future of nuclear power in 2003. “The rollout of new nuclear reactors will be a good deal slower than a lot of people were assuming.”

For nuclear power to have a high impact on reducing greenhouse gases, an average of 12 reactors would have to be built worldwide each year until 2030, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Right now, there are not even enough reactors under construction to replace those that are reaching the end of their lives.

And of the 45 reactors being built around the world, 22 have encountered construction delays, according to an analysis prepared this year for the German government by Mycle Schneider, an energy analyst and a critic of the nuclear industry. He added that nine do not have official start-up dates.

Most of the new construction is underway in countries like China and Russia, where strong central governments have made nuclear energy a national priority. India also has long seen nuclear as part of a national drive for self-sufficiency and now is seeking new nuclear technologies to reduce its reliance on imported uranium.

By comparison, “the state has been all over the place in the United States and Europe on nuclear power,” Mr. Joskow said.

The United States generates about one-fifth of its electricity from a fleet of 104 reactors, most built in the 1960s and 1970s. Coal still provides about half the country’s power.

To streamline construction, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington has worked with the industry to approve a handful of designs. Even so, the schedule to certify the most advanced model from Westinghouse, a unit of Toshiba, has slipped during an ongoing review of its ability to withstand the impact of an airliner.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also not yet approved the so-called EPR design under construction in Finland for the American market.

This month, the United States Energy Department produced a short list of four reactor projects eligible for some loan guarantees. In the 2005 energy bill, Congress provided $18.5 billion, but the industry’s hope of winning an additional $50 billion worth of loan guarantees evaporated when that money was stripped from President Obama’s economic stimulus bill.

The industry has had more success in getting states to help raise money. This year, authorities permitted Florida Power & Light to start charging millions of customers several dollars a month to finance four new reactors. Customers of Georgia Power, a subsidiary of the Southern Co., will pay on average $1.30 a month more in 2011, rising to $9.10 by 2017, to help pay for two reactors expected to go online in 2016 or later.

But resistance is mounting. In April, Missouri legislators balked at a preconstruction rate increase, prompting the state’s largest electric utility, Ameren UE, to suspend plans for a $6 billion copy of Areva’s Finnish reactor.

Areva, a conglomerate largely owned by the French state, is heir to that nation’s experience in building nuclear plants. France gets about 80 percent of its power from 58 reactors. But even France has not completed a new reactor since 1999.

After designing an updated plant originally called the European Pressurized Reactor with German participation during the 1990s, the French had trouble selling it at home because of a saturated energy market as well as opposition from Green Party members in the then-coalition government.

So Areva turned to Finland, where utilities and energy-hungry industries like pulp and paper had been lobbying for 15 years for more nuclear power. The project was initially budgeted at $4 billion and Teollisuuden Voima, the Finnish utility, pledged it would be ready in time to help the Finnish government meet its greenhouse gas targets under the Kyoto climate treaty, which runs through 2012.

Areva promised electricity from the reactor could be generated more cheaply than from natural gas plants. Areva also said its model would deliver 1,600 megawatts, or about 10 percent of Finnish power needs.

In 2001, the Finnish parliament narrowly approved construction of a reactor at Olkiluoto, an island on the Baltic Sea. Construction began four years later.

Serious problems first arose over the vast concrete base slab for the foundation of the reactor building, which the country’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found too porous and prone to corrosion. Since then, the authority has blamed Areva for allowing inexperienced subcontractors to drill holes in the wrong places on a vast steel container that seals the reactor.

In December, the authority warned Anne Lauvergeon, the chief executive of Areva, that “the attitude or lack of professional knowledge of some persons” at Areva was holding up work on safety systems.

Today, the site still teems with 4,000 workmen on round-the-clock shifts. Banners from dozens of subcontractors around Europe flutter in the breeze above temporary offices and makeshift canteens. Some 10,000 people speaking at least eight different languages have worked at the site. About 30 percent of the workforce is Polish, and communication has posed significant challenges.

Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns. But Areva said it was not cutting any corners in Finland. The two sides have agreed to arbitration, where they are both claiming more than 1 billion euros in compensation. (Areva blames the Finnish authorities for impeding construction and increasing costs for work it agreed to complete at a fixed price.)

Areva announced a steep drop in earnings last year, which it blamed mostly on mounting losses from the project.

In addition, nuclear safety inspectors in France have found cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places at the site in Flamanville. They also have warned Électricité de France, the utility building the reactor, that welders working on the steel container were not properly qualified.

On top of such problems come the recession, weaker energy demand, tight credit and uncertainty over future policies, said Caren Byrd, an executive director of the global utility and power group at Morgan Stanley in New York.

“The warning lights now are flashing more brightly than just a year ago about the cost of new nuclear,” she said.

And Jouni Silvennoinen, the project manager at Olkiluoto, said, “We have had it easy here.” Olkiluoto is at least a geologically stable site. Earthquake risks in places like China and the United States or even the threat of storm surges mean building these reactors will be even trickier elsewhere.

Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?_r=1

Tennessee's sick nuclear workers get $1 billion

Comment: Well uranium mining & milling will bring money down the way with federal compensation program for sick uranium miners, if you live long enough to see it!!

By Frank Munger (Contact)Wednesday, May 27, 2009

OAK RIDGE — Tennessee residents have collected more than $1 billion from the federal compensation program for sick nuclear workers — far more than any other state.

The Department of Labor announced the milestone Tuesday, saying it had paid more than $1 billion in compensation and medical benefits to 9,134 Tennessee residents under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.

Congress passed the act to compensate workers who were exposed to radioactive materials and other toxic hazards in the workplace while producing nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

Matt Murray, associate director of the University of Tennessee’s Center for Business and Economic Research, said the compensation to sick workers and their families has a significant impact on the East Tennessee economy.

“In some ways, it’s like having another large employer in our region,” Murray said. “That’s a huge amount of money that is intended to make up, in part, for the income they can no longer receive.”

Nationwide, since the act was implemented in 2001, the Department of Labor has paid 51,331 claimants more than $4.8 billion in compensation and medical benefits.

In a statement released Tuesday, Rachel Leiton, director of the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, noted several of the facilities covered by the compensation program were in Oak Ridge — including Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, and the former K-25 uranium-enrichment plant.

“Individuals who worked at these and other covered facilities … sacrificed their health to build this nation’s nuclear defense programs,” Leiton said.

While saying she was proud to announce the benefits paid, Leiton said the Labor Department believes there may be others eligible in Tennessee who have not yet filed claims for compensation.

She encouraged potential claimants to call this toll-free number: 1-866-481-0411.

Glenn Bell, a former Y-12 machinist who developed chronic beryllium disease from his workplace exposures, said he viewed the $1 billion milestone as both a negative and a positive.

“First of all, the negative part is that there was a need for it to begin with,” Bell said. “The positive part is that a lot of people have gotten compensation.”

Bell said much more money has been spent on compensation than on medical benefits. That probably means the program came too late to help many sick workers when they really needed it and it went to their survivors instead, he said.

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

7 reasons why nuclear power is stupid


Comment: Nuke Power is too expensive, Not CO2 free because of Uranium Mining & Milling, and could melt the center of the earth!!

May 16, 2009
by Tim McDonald

Nuclear power has always been seen as a “safe” alternative energy to burning fossil fuels. So much so they today is accounts for about twenty-five percent of worldwide power generation.


But here are 7 reasons why nuclear power sucks:

1 - It costs a lot of money to setup:

Nuclear power plants are definitely not a cheap investment. At around six to twelve billion dollars each - just for installation - taxpayers have subsidized billions of dollars to keep the utilities afloat. This money could have been invested in cleaner renewable energies instead.

2 - It causes global warming:

Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power is far from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain - from the mining of uranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant - greenhouse gases are emitted.

Another thing is the installation of a nuclear reactor takes far too long to have any positive impact on global warming. Why not use that money and time instead in the technological advancement of cleaner renewable energies, like solar power?

3 - What happens to all that radioactive waste?

Each reactor creates a lot (twenty to thirty tonnes) of highly toxic radioactive waste per year. Not to mention the so-called “low” level radiation emitted in the rest of the supply chain - such as during the mining and milling process.

4 - A damaged reactor could lead to a catastrophe:

A nuclear reactor is so vulnerable to damage or attack it could be considered a nuclear bomb just waiting to be detonated. And if an accident were to happen the precautions in place are ridiculous. Not to mention that the utilities are liable for less than 2% of the actually cost of damage that could be caused. Guess who pays for the remaining 98%? We, the taxpayers, of course.

5 - Increased risk of cancer:

The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil are considered “safe”. However, this standard is based on how it impacts healthy, white males and does not take consideration for children that are sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.

The way utilities currently “store” nuclear waste is irresponsible. The have made assumptions instead of finding scientifically safe places to dispose of the waste. Just imagine how much worse the problem would get if more reactor were built. Additional waste would soon have to be incinerated or buried in landfills. Who knows how much water, soil and air pollution that would cause!

6 - Where there’s nuclear power, there’s war and terrorism:

A country’s national security always feels at threat when extremist countries start harnessing nuclear power. Just think about Israel attacking Syria’s so-called nuclear site back in 2007, and how uneasy America was when Iran was developing its own nuclear program. Nuclear power sets the stage for the production of atomic bombs, so as long the number of reactors increases, the likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons increases.

7 - There are greener energy solutions:

What bothers us most is we already have better, cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives available and ready to implement. Perhaps with the recent election of our new US government, nuclear energy will be put to rest and renewable energy will be harnessed on a larger scale.

But while we wait, it is possible to start harnessing renewable energy at home. What’s more is, it does not cost very much and is rather simple to implement. Various solar and wind power guides have already become available, which you can see in our reviews section.

http://onlinecreditprofessor.com/7-drawbacks-to-using-nuclear-power/

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Safety threat to planned nuclear power stations

Construction of the first EPR at the Olkiluoto site in Finland is already three years behind schedule

Comment: The Nuke Group wants to build new and improved Nuke Plants in the South and Maryland, they will be building something that never been tested!!! Remember, starting price is $10 billion and look at the overruns in this budget -NOTHNG IS WORTH THIS MUCH MONEY AND IT COULD MELT THE CENTER OF THE EARTH - DUH!!!!

Devastating blow as leaked letter shows regulator could pull plug on proposed UK reactors because of 'design errors'

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 10 May 2009


Britain's plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations have been thrown into jeopardy by startling official safety fears.

The nuclear regulatory body in Finland, where the first of the reactors is being built, has taken the extraordinary step of threatening to halt its construction because it has not been satisfied that key safety systems will work.

STUK, the Finnish government's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, says that "evident errors" have not been corrected more than a year after it raised its concerns and condemns the "lack of professional knowledge" of people working for the firm responsible for its design and construction.

This is an unexpected, and potentially devastating, blow because one of the main selling points of the new European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) has been that its safety systems will work far better than those in current reactors. It is particularly important that they do because, as The Independent on Sunday reported in February, they will produce many times as much radiation that could be rapidly released in the event of an accident.

EDF, the French electricity generator, plans to build at least four EPRs in Britain; two each are expected for existing nuclear sites at Sizewell in Suffolk and Hinkley Point in Somerset. It plans to let the first construction contracts this year and to have the first power station in operation by 2017. However, the first EPR, called Olkiluoto 3 – which is being built on an island in the Gulf of Bothnia, off western Finland – has already been plagued with problems. It was supposed to begin operating this year but its construction is now three years behind schedule, vastly exceeding its original cost of €3bn.

The new crisis has been sparked by a leaked letter from Jukka Laaksonen, STUK's director general, to Anne Lauvergeon, the chief executive officer of the French nuclear company Areva, which has designed and is building the reactor, to express his "great concern" over "the design of the control and protection systems".

He said he first raised the issue in the spring of 2008, but "we have not seen expected progress in the work on the Areva side" adding that "the attitude or lack of professional knowledge" of some of the people representing the firm in expert meetings on the issue "prevents progress in resolving the concerns. Therefore evident design errors are not corrected and we are not receiving design documentation with adequate information." He warns: "Without a proper design that meets the basic principles of nuclear safety... I see no possibility of approving these important systems for installation. This would mean that the construction will come to a halt."

John Large, an independent nuclear consultant, describes the warning as "a hell of a damp towel for the reactor", and says that STUK's ultimatum shows that "it must consider the safety issue very serious indeed". The Health and Safety Executive, which will have to approve the EPR for use in Britain, is already liaising closely with STUK.

The letter was written last December, but a spokesman for STUK said late last week that, as far as he was aware, the situation had not changed since. Areva said it had sent some more files to the Finnish utility that will operate the power station, but admitted that "there are still some problems to solve".

EDF declined to comment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/safety-threat-to-planned-nuclear-power-stations-1682293.html

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Storm forces Comanche Peak nuclear power plant to reduce output


Comment: Well, this is scary, thought it was better protected!
May 9, 2009
Posted on Thu, May. 07, 2009

By JACK Z. SMITH
jzsmith@star-telegram.com
The Comanche Peak nuclear power plant has significantly curtailed generation at one of its two units in recent days as a result of damage wrought by a thunderstorm Saturday.
It represents an "unusual" situation whereby the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, operator of the power grid serving 75 percent of the state, asked Luminant Generation to reduce electricity generation from Comanche Peak, ERCOT spokeswoman Dottie Roark said Thursday.

As a result of the storm, there was a failed breaker, and it knocked out two transmission lines, Roark said. One of the two large lines could not be returned to service.

"That created congestion on the ERCOT transmission network," Roark said. "So ERCOT operators had to ask Comanche Peak to reduce its output."

The plant’s Comanche Peak One unit scaled back from 100 percent to 76 percent of capacity, Luminant spokeswoman Ashley Monts said. Each of the plant’s two units can produce 1,150 megawatts of electricity.

ERCOT is working with Oncor Electric Delivery, the electric transmission and distribution company serving much of North Texas, to ensure that the failed breaker is repaired, Roark said. Repairs are expected to be completed soon.

Luminant and Oncor are subsidiaries of Energy Future Holdings, the former TXU Corp.
siness/story/1364915.html

Friday, May 8, 2009

Obama budget rescinds energy industry tax breaks

Comment: does this group confuse you? One of them, want Nuke stuff, another says we do not need nuke stuff, then this .....they confuse me - simple:NO NUKE PLANTS, NO URANIUM MINING!!!

By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama outlined a budget plan Thursday that would end $26 billion in oil and gas industry tax breaks, point to a new direction for dealing with nuclear waste and shift government aggressively toward helping to develop renewable energy sources.

Obama called the tax break to the oil and gas industry "unjustifiable loopholes" in the tax system that in most cases other companies do not get.

The proposed budget, details of which were released Thursday, calls for abandoning the decades-old Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada and begin the search for another answer to disposing thousands of tons of used reactor fuel now kept at power plants in 31 states.

It also would end government subsidies to the nuclear industry to help them certify and plan new nuclear power plants, cutting the program from $178 million to $20 million. (well, surprise but do not invite overseas Nuke People over to build the plants!!!!!)

The oil and gas industry tax breaks have often been targeted by congressional Democrats in recent years, but they have not been able to muster enough votes to rescind them. Most Republicans and the Bush administration vigorously defended the tax benefits, saying they're needed to boost domestic oil and gas development.

In the budget statement, Obama said the tax breaks, which are expected to save the oil and gas industry more than $26 billion over the next 10 years, are "unjustifiable loopholes ... costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices."

Responding to the Obama budget priorities, Barry Russell, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, complained, "We can't tax our way to energy independence."

The White House last February outlined in general terms its proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning in October. But the documents released Thursday provided specific numbers.

The budget would provide $197 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada, but it directs that the money be spent to "explore alternatives" to the Nevada site and ongoing licensing activities that have yet to be terminated. It stipulates that no money go for site access work, new engineering or land purchases.

"There has to be an orderly shutdown" at Yucca, said Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who added that, nevertheless, "the administration is completely committed to finding a path forward" on the issue of nuclear waste. It plans soon to name a commission to develop a new nuclear waste plan. (please to reprosses the junk!!!)

Closing down the Yucca project, located 90 miles from Las Vegas, has been a relentless ambition of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Obama, during his presidential campaign, promised Nevada voters that he would look for other ways to address the disposal of highly radioactive waste from commercial power plants.

Obama's budget also would largely abandon the Bush administration's push to develop hydrogen as an energy source, calling its emergence as a viable fuel unrealistic for the near future. Funding for the program, one cited frequently by President George W. Bush as a key to the country's energy future, would be cut by $101 million to $68 million. A separate $8 million research program on using nuclear power plants to produce hydrogen was canceled.

Other research into electric car technology, better batteries and development of biofuels is "a much better place to put our money," said Chu.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g4cCu-nX8XRobYtxPqWdtQ4uJmPwD981O2OO0

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Progress Energy nuclear plant delayed by at least 20 months

May 01, 2009

Progress Energy’s $17 billion nuclear project has been delayed by 20 months, but its customers will continue to pay for it in their monthly electric bills.

The utility wants to start charging customers nearly twice as much next year for the Levy County project even though it won’t start producing power until March 2018 at the earliest, the St. Petersburg utility announced Friday morning. The delay may also increase the price of the project, but the utility won’t know the details until later this year.

Jeff Lyash, president and chief executive of Progress Energy Florida, defended the utility’s decision to continue to charge customers for the plant. The investment will save customers money in the long run, he said. Without it, the project will likely fail.

“Nuclear is critically important in helping us hit the right balance with fuel diversity, security, greenhouse gas reductions and it’s in the best interest of our customers,” Lyash said.


The utility has faced populist outrage this year against its rising rates. In January, its customers saw a monthly increase of $11.42 per 1,000 kilowatt hours to pay for nuclear projects, part of an overall 24 percent increase.
Customers rebelled, flooding their legislators with angry phone calls. Some lawmakers threatened to reverse the 2006 law that allowed utilities to bill customers for the early costs of building a nuclear power plant, years before the plant starts producing electricity.

Fearing that the threats could lead to a repeal of the law, and out of deference to the state’s financial straits, Progress Energy took a step backward. The utility lowered its rates, reducing the monthly nuclear charge to $3.62 per 1,000 kilowatt hours. Now, the utility wants to raise that charge to $6.69 per 1,000 kilowatt hours. A small portion of the charge pays for upgrades at the existing Crystal River reactor, but most of the money pays for the Levy County project.

Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, said Friday, “It really amazes me how shameless Progress Energy is. They have no consideration for the customer. None whatsoever. They can talk all they want about how they want to put the customers first. They have yet to put the customer first when it comes this issue.”

Fasano voted in favor of the legislation in 2006, but said he feels differently about it today. He said he wants to see the early charges for the plant suspended.

“We have already now nuclear power plants that, when they were brought to the legislature a few years ago, the cost was going to be half of what it is now. With further delays, the cost will increase. Unfortunately, it is going to be the customer that is going to pay for that.”

Fasano said that there are no guarantees that there won’t be more delays and ballooning costs. Customers should not have to bear that risk, he said.

Delays and cost overruns derailed the nuclear industry in the 1970s and 1980s, leading to a 30-year break in new plant construction. This time, the industry worked with federal regulators to streamline the years-long licensing review process. Instead of power plants that differed from project to project, this time energy companies would pick from a handful of standardized “off the shelf” designs. Instead of two licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — the first to build, the second to operate — the utility would get one combined license. The industry promised that the changes would speed projects along, and forestall the multi-billion dollar boondoggles of decades past.

However, there are early signs that all is not going smoothly. This week, the NRC said that its review of the Westinghouse AP1000 — the reactor design picked by Progress Energy, Florida Power & Light and four other energy companies -- is running 15 months behind schedule. The NRC estimates that its review will be complete by August 2011. Without approval of the design, Progress Energy and the other energy companies can not get their licenses to start construction.

The NRC said the delay in the reactor review is not expected to significantly delay plans for the seven projects that plan to build the AP1000 reactors. Adrian Heymer, director of strategic programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group, agreed. From here on out, though, the NRC must maintain its schedule or risk delaying construction of several projects, each worth billions of dollars.

“I think moving out from now on everything has to mesh perfectly,” Heymer said.

On Friday morning, Progress Energy announced another hitch. The utility had hoped to begin excavation and site preparation below the Levy County nuclear site before the NRC granted its license. However, the NRC said Progress Energy would have to wait until the license is granted, which is planned for January 2012.

If the review of the AP1000 takes longer than anticipated, or if Progress Energy’s license runs into further delays, construction would likely be pushed further back.

Lyash said that work on the Levy County project continues. The utility will continue to spend money on licensing, permitting, and the transmission lines needed for the power plant. The utility can also continue to order long lead-time components, and build a barge slip and heavy haul road to bring equipment to the site.

“The project is not stopping,” he said.

So far, Progress Energy said it has invested $389 million in the Levy County project, and that approximately $80.5 million has been collected from customers.

-Asjylyn Loder, Times Staff Writer

http://blogs.tampabay.com/energy/2009/05/progress-energy-nuclear-plant-delayed-by-at-least-20-months.html

Saturday, April 25, 2009

"YELLOWCAKE"


Comment: Please watch the Documentary on our Blog!

DOCUMENTARY DESCRIPTION

From Exploration to fuel production, this documentary relates the contamination, water consumption, waste generation, costs to the American taxpayer through government subsidies, health impacts,and the CO2 emissions that are caused by the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Each phase has its own devastating impact on the environment and the surrounding population, from socio-economic to health and safety. This film takes a deeper look into the facts that are, all too often, left unsaid.

America is going "Down the Yellowcake Road," but given this information, shouldn't we ask the necessary question: Is this what we really want?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why We Made This Documentary

The full spectrum of the Uranium Industry and Nuclear Fuel Production has not been a part of the “Green” debate. We are addressing this lack of disclosure. Besides the Carbon Emissions, there is widespread toxic and radioactive contamination left behind. Water usage associated with nuclear power generation is exorbitant.

As the nuclear industry lobbies legislators and government agencies, they influence laws, regulations, and budgets. Their persuasive advertisements claim this energy is "Green." The entirety of the Fuel Production Cycle for reactors is never mentioned. Legislators are not made aware of contamination affecting people and the environment across the United States. The public is not aware of hidden costs, cracks in our protective regulatory systems, and the enormous government subsidies for construction of power plants and eventual clean up that comes at taxpayer expense.

What is GREEN about the URANIUM Industry that produces the fuel for NUCLEAR Power Plants? The answer is NOT-A-THING. The only stage that is somewhat "green" is when the Power Plant is producing electricity. However, coal-fired power plants take over when a nuclear plant is off line.

Communities around the United States and the Globe are under siege from proposed operations by the Nuclear Energy Industry. Often their voices are not heard. Beyond the lawsuits and cleanups, what is the real toll? County governments, in many cases, try to regulate what they don’t fully understand: risks to the population, and dangers of long-term contamination and waste management. Communities are left to respond to overwhelming lobbying forces from the Uranium Industry who have nearly unlimited funding, government subsidies, and long-entrenched lobbyists.

Our goal is to present the side of the story that goes untold, so that people will know when they flip the light switch, that this decision comes at a large cost to our land and to the American taxpayer. Our hope is that this documentary will provide information that will allow citizens to make a more educated decision about their energy future.

Contact Us
Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste, Inc.
P O Box 964
Canon City, CO 81215

info@downtheyellowcakeroad.org

http://www.downtheyellowcakeroad.org/