Group items tagged

The $34.3-billion energy measure would also allow water transfers to help California farmers suffering from severe drought conditions. Similar legislation has been approved by the House. Associated Press July 30, 2009 Washington -- The Senate on Wednesday passed a $34.3-billion energy spending bill that backs up President Obama's promise to close the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility in Nevada. The bill, passed by a 85-9 vote, also covers water transfers to help farmers in California and hundreds of water projects by the Army Corps of Engineers. * Schwarzenegger proclaims that California is in a drought Schwarzenegger proclaims that California... The House passed a similar bill two weeks ago. Once the measures are reconciled, the bill will go to the president for his signature.

The $34.3-billion energy measure would also allow water transfers to help California farmers suffering from severe drought conditions. Similar legislation has been approved by the House. Associated Press July 30, 2009 Washington -- The Senate on Wednesday passed a $34.3-billion energy spending bill that backs up President Obama's promise to close the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility in Nevada. The bill, passed by a 85-9 vote, also covers water transfers to help farmers in California and hundreds of water projects by the Army Corps of Engineers. The House passed a similar bill two weeks ago. Once the measures are reconciled, the bill will go to the president for his signature.

NRC security inspections identified 133 findings in 2008, the agency said in a public version of an annual report to Congress released July 10. NRC said in a July 10 statement that "the report covers the NRC's security inspection program, including force-on-force exercises, for commercial nuclear power reactors and certain nuclear fuel cycle facilities for calendar year 2008." Of the 133 findings from a total of 182 security inspections conducted last year, the NRC said "125 were of very low security significance and eight were of low-to-moderate security significance. All were corrected immediately or compensatory measures put in place, if necessary. Details of the findings are considered sensitive and not released to the public." The public version of the report is on NRC's web site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/congress-docs/correspondence/2009/boxe r-06-30-2009.pdf.

"South Africa's expenditure on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) nuclear technology, as well as on the State-owned enterprises pursuing its development, is set to fall materially over the next three years, the country's 2010 expenditure estimates show. The 846-page '2010 Estimates of National Expenditure' book, which was released together with the National Budget on Wednesday, also indicated that government's contribution to the PBMR would end altogether in 2013. Between 2006/7 and 2009/10, the country allocated R7,2-billion for the development of the PBMR demonstration and fuel plants, while it allocated a further R1,73-billion in 2009/10 for the programme. However, the chapter on 'Public Enterprises' in the expenditure documentation shows that the 'Nuclear Sector', which is code for the PBMR, would receive only R11,4-million over the next three years. For the upcoming fiscal period, some R3,6-million has been set aside, followed by R3,8-million for 2011/12 and R4-million for 2012/13."

Treaty's Entry Into Force Makes Entire Southern Hemisphere Free of Nuclear Weapons Over the last 13 years, all 53 African nations have signed the Treaty of Pelindaba. A Treaty making Africa into a zone free of nuclear weapons entered into force on 15 July 2009, in turn expanding the nuclear-weapon free territories to cover the entire Southern hemisphere. The Treaty of Pelindaba entered into force when Burundi deposited its instrument of ratification, becoming the 28th nation to do so. Over the last 13 years, all 53 African nations have signed the Treaty of Pelindaba. The IAEA has issued the following statement:

CHELYABINSK, Russia - Resident of Muslimovo, in Russia's Chelyabinsk Oblast, will be fully relocated by the end of the year because of nuclear contamination in the village, RFE/RL's Tatar-Bashkir Service reports. The ethnic Tatar-populated village and much of the surrounding region was heavily contaminated in 1957 by the infamous explosion at the nearby Mayak nuclear station. Russia's oversight body for nuclear power, the Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation, and Chelyabinsk Oblast authorities agreed on the village's relocation in 2006, and some 690 families have been relocated since then. About 150 families still live there. Local authorities plan to plant trees where the village stood after residents have been fully relocated and the village has been decontaminated by the end of 2009. An estimated 500,000 people have been affected by radiation from Mayak, and large tracts of land have been polluted.

It's not really a question whether Utah will be the disposal site for three trainloads of depleted uranium from a government atomic-weapons complex cleanup in South Carolina. It's a matter of how soon. Under an agreement Gov. Gary Herbert reached two weeks ago with the U.S. Energy Department, the answer appears to be about six weeks -- much sooner than the state Radiation Control Board expects to complete its review of safety issues surrounding depleted uranium. After spending most of 2009 looking at DU, the board anticipates it will be at least another year before it is ready to say what engineering standards are needed to minimize the long-term hazard posed by DU disposal at the EnergySolutions site, located about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. But under the governor's oral agreement with the Department of Energy, state regulators have until mid-February to develop science-based conditions for burying the Savannah River cleanup waste at the EnergySolutions Inc. disposal site in Tooele County.

It's not really a question whether Utah will be the disposal site for three trainloads of depleted uranium from a government atomic-weapons complex cleanup in South Carolina. It's a matter of how soon. Under an agreement Gov. Gary Herbert reached two weeks ago with the U.S. Energy Department, the answer appears to be about six weeks -- much sooner than the state Radiation Control Board expects to complete its review of safety issues surrounding depleted uranium. After spending most of 2009 looking at DU, the board anticipates it will be at least another year before it is ready to say what engineering standards are needed to minimize the long-term hazard posed by DU disposal at the EnergySolutions site, located about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. But under the governor's oral agreement with the Department of Energy, state regulators have until mid-February to develop science-based conditions for burying the Savannah River cleanup waste at the EnergySolutions Inc. disposal site in Tooele County.

As the threat of nuclear weapons looms large over the very existence of life on earth, Dr Sue Wareham, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons' (ICAN) Australian board member, is calling for a speedy abolition of these weapons and the rejection of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Speaking at the sessions on nuclear abolition and disarmament at the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions here, Wareham said the power of religion should be harnessed to bring peace in the world through disarmament, abolition of nuclear weapons, eradication of poverty and action on climate change. The six-day Parliament, which ends on Dec 9, is a gathering of religious and spiritual communities from different parts of the world to discuss issues relating to peace, diversity and sustainability.

As the threat of nuclear weapons looms large over the very existence of life on earth, Dr Sue Wareham, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons' (ICAN) Australian board member, is calling for a speedy abolition of these weapons and the rejection of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Speaking at the sessions on nuclear abolition and disarmament at the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions here, Wareham said the power of religion should be harnessed to bring peace in the world through disarmament, abolition of nuclear weapons, eradication of poverty and action on climate change. The six-day Parliament, which ends on Dec 9, is a gathering of religious and spiritual communities from different parts of the world to discuss issues relating to peace, diversity and sustainability.

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

The nuclear industry could be on the verge of a major expansion just as the government cancels a plan to store the waste. Where's it going to go? BAY CITY, Texas (CNNMoney.com) -- At a Texas power plant, two men in head-to-toe yellow jumpsuits are perched above a pool filled with still, crystal-clear water -- and nearly 20 years worth of nuclear waste. The 40-feet deep pool, about the size of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, is the current home to thousands of uranium-filled fuel rods -- the radioactive byproducts of a nuclear reactor. The men are using a robotic arm to position the rods sitting at the bottom of the pool. Pools such as this one are a temporary solution to a very long term problem: the hotly contested debate over what to do with the country's nuclear waste.

The nuclear industry could be on the verge of a major expansion just as the government cancels a plan to store the waste. Where's it going to go? BAY CITY, Texas (CNNMoney.com) -- At a Texas power plant, two men in head-to-toe yellow jumpsuits are perched above a pool filled with still, crystal-clear water -- and nearly 20 years worth of nuclear waste. The 40-feet deep pool, about the size of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, is the current home to thousands of uranium-filled fuel rods -- the radioactive byproducts of a nuclear reactor. The men are using a robotic arm to position the rods sitting at the bottom of the pool. Pools such as this one are a temporary solution to a very long term problem: the hotly contested debate over what to do with the country's nuclear waste.

"A panel appointed by Vermont lawmakers to examine the reliability of Vermont Yankee said Tuesday that a change in corporate culture is needed if the 38-year-old nuclear power plant is to operate past its scheduled 2012 closing. In a revised version of its March 2009 report, the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel took up two issues stemming from developments since then - a leak of radioactive tritium that contaminated soil and groundwater around the Vernon power plant and owner Entergy Corp.'s acknowledgment that its representatives misled Vermont lawmakers and regulators by saying the plant had no underground piping capable of carrying radionuclides."

For almost two decades, folks opposed to splitting atoms to turn on a light bulb have been comforted by nuclear power's fall from favor as an electric-generating fuel. In 1993, one of the last reactors to come on line in this country was Comanche Peak Unit 2, located about 45 miles southwest of Fort Worth in Somervell County. Its twin, Unit 1, went into operation in 1990. With no new reactor orders from utilities since then, commercial nukes seemed to be headed for extinction as surely as the dinosaurs that roamed the county millions of years ago. "Were we ever wrong," said Debbie Harper, with a wry laugh.

As part of the Reuters Summit on global climate and alternative energy, Reuters.com asked Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club and Ian Hore-Lacy, director of public communication for the World Nuclear Association to discuss the role of nuclear energy. Here are their responses.

U.S. President Barack Obama is chairing an historic meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Thursday that called on nations with nuclear weapons to scrap their deadly arsenals. Here are some details of official and unofficial nuclear powers and their weapon stocks: OFFICIAL NUCLEAR POWERS: * UNITED STATES: According to the counting rules in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), as of January 2009 the United States had an estimated 5,200 nuclear warheads and 2,700 operationally deployed warheads (2,200 strategic and 500 nonstrategic).

Insiders say Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was rather reticent and stiff in public when he took the job in 1997. He'd spent decades below the radar in Egypt's foreign service, U.S. academia and the U.N. nuclear watchdog as head of the legal and external relations divisions. But Mohamed ElBaradei evolved into a politically outspoken tribune for international peace and fair play. That reputation grew as he challenged George W. Bush's neocons over bogus evidence of mass-destruction weaponry they used to invade Iraq, and their policy of threatening rather than negotiating with Iran, which seemed to backfire by encouraging, not dissuading, Tehran to build up nuclear capability.

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. 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:

U.S. Congressman Charlie Gonzalez wanted two things out of the Waxman-Markey climate bill: assistance for the nuclear industry, and free pollution credits for utilities like our City-owned CPS Energy. He nailed free pollution days before the legislation was voted out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce last week by requiring most carbon credits to be given away to industry rather than auctioned off. This industry-friendly change, among others, outraged the environmental community, most of whom still felt pressured to support the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 in order to make some progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Remarkably, however, amid the bill's 170,000 words, "nuclear" gets hardly a mention.

After a Knoxville metal recycler melted nuclear material that had inadvertently infiltrated its mill, the company learned its lesson: The combination of radiation detectors and a watchful eye can prevent massive, costly messes. The Knoxville company, Gerdau Ameristeel, has since weeded out radioactive isotopes sent to it with scrap metal at least 50 times, according to reports from a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission database. Gerdau Ameristeel has developed an elaborate firewall to keep out castoff nuclear material, according to Jim Turner, corporate environmental director of the Toronto-based company, which has an executive office in Tampa, Fla.

Thousands of everyday products and materials containing radioactive metals are surfacing across the United States and around the world. Common kitchen cheese graters, reclining chairs, women's handbags and tableware manufactured with contaminated metals have been identified, some after having been in circulation for as long as a decade. So have fencing wire and fence posts, shovel blades, elevator buttons, airline parts and steel used in construction.

On May 13, 2009, President Obama has turned to Gregory B. Jaczko, a PhD physicist with critical views of the nuclear power industry to chair the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which is the foremost agency overseeing atomic energy. Senate confirmation was not required because Jaczko was already a member of the commission. At present, he is the only Democrat on the NRC, but that is expected to change soon. Former Chairman Dale Klein and Kristine Svinicki are Republicans, but two seats on the five-member commission are vacant. Although no more than three members of any one political party can be appointed to the commission, it is expected that President Obama will name two additional Democrats, creating a 3-2 majority. Born October 29, 1970, in Norristown, Pennsylvania, and raised in Albany, New York, Dr. Jaczko earned a bachelor's degree in physics and philosophy from Cornell University in 1993, and a doctorate in theoretical particle physics from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1999. Always interested in politics as well as science, while still at graduate school Jaczko applied for an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Fellowship, which paid him to work with Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) as a Congressional Science Fellow. At the same time, he worked as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University teaching science and policy.