Group items tagged

Around 1000 servicemen who were involved in the nuclear testing conducted off the coast of Australia in the 1950's, have finally won their battle to be allowed to take their claim for compensation to the courts. With the help of "after the event" insurance and a "no win no fee" lawyer, they are finally on their way to receiving a payout from the MOD for the illnesses which have plagued them and their families ever since. The servicemen were involved in the testing of nuclear devices in the South Pacific in the 1950's and were expected to carry out such tasks as burying radioactive material and washing the vehicles used to transport the devices. At no time were they provided with protective clothing or told of the possible risks to their health. The eventual outcome has been cases of cancer, leukaemia in the servicemen's children, skin conditions and infertility. The men have attempted to get legal aid to take their case to court but were refused. They finally turned to lawyer Neil Sampson, a partner at Rosenblat Solicitors, who agreed to take on the case on a "no win, no fee" basis. The action is one of the largest group actions taken in the UK and has been financed by gaining After The Event (ATE) insurance from Brit Insurance. The cost is expected to be millions of pounds. It has previously been thought that ATE insurance is usually capped at £200,000, but changing markets have meant that it is possible to find this type of insurance to cover as much as £20m.

Taxpayers could be forced to provide commercial insurance cover to the nuclear industry to safeguard plans being considered by ministers to build a fleet of new reactors in Britain. Private insurers are refusing to offer energy companies full coverage against the risk of a Chernobyl-style nuclear accident, forcing the Government to consider stepping in itself to act as an "insurer of last resort".

Belgium will introduce levies on banks, life insurers and nuclear-power producers next year as Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy seeks to start taming a swelling debt burden without hampering the economic recovery. The government will seek 670 million euros ($991 million) from banks and life insurers in 2011 to protect their depositors and policy holders from default, Finance Minister Didier Reynders said. Power producers GDF Suez SA and SPE NV will have to pay as much as 245 million euros annually for keeping the country's three oldest atomic reactors in operation for an additional 10 years, according to Energy Minister Paul Magnette.

Belgium will introduce levies on banks, life insurers and nuclear-power producers next year as Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy seeks to start taming a swelling debt burden without hampering the economic recovery. The government will seek 670 million euros ($991 million) from banks and life insurers in 2011 to protect their depositors and policy holders from default, Finance Minister Didier Reynders said. Power producers GDF Suez SA and SPE NV will have to pay as much as 245 million euros annually for keeping the country's three oldest atomic reactors in operation for an additional 10 years, according to Energy Minister Paul Magnette.

THE private consortium taking over Sellafield has been given a government insurance indemnity against any major insurance or damages claim. And the taxpayer-backed cover note will extend 30 years into the future. But a Labour MP has described the deal as an "outrage" in that MPs were denied time to debate the matter. Details were posted in the House of Commons library after the deal was signed with Sellafield's new parent, Nuclear Management Partners.

"Raise your hand if US taxpayers are responsible to pay for the most expensive mistakes you make in your business. Chances are, the only hands that just went up are attached to nuclear power executives and, if that unfair advantage were removed we would see the end of nuclear power in this country. Nuclear Power Plant The five decades old Price-Anderson Act sets a cap on liability by power plants and their insurers for damages arising from nuclear accidents. After $300 million in damages are paid by insurance, the US taxpayer takes over to address catastrophic liabilities, including cleanups, property damage, health care, and lives lost. Including some other payments made into accident funds, the utility industry is on the hook for no more than $10 billion for all accidents that could ever occur at all nuclear plants in the nation. Raise your hand if you think just one major accident would result in far more damage claims than that. In England, the system works about the same, with each nuclear plant responsible for no more than £140 million and similar systems exist in Europe, Japan, and Canada. "

The post-World War II Atoms for Peace program failed to convince the electric utilities to invest in nuclear power. Insurance companies would only cover $250 million of potential damages from an accident. The government brought the utilities cooperation with the Price-Anderson Act requiring each atomic plant to buy the maximum commercial insurance and provided a second level of coverage from a pool funded by a potential assessment of up to $10 million against each plant. Under the protection of this act about 109 nuclear plants were built, and licensed for 30 years. The act limited the industries liability to $10 billion with the public to absorb anything over that amount.

I heard Dr. Helen Caldicott speak at the U of C on Tuesday night, and was reminded that the entire nuclear industry is madness built upon insanity, and deliberate misinformation. They haven't been able to attract a penny of private investment or insurance for years; yet they manage to convince governments to prop up their reactors with subsidies and taxpayer-funded insurance in the event of a nuclear accident.

The impact of a severe nuclear accident, should it occur, would not be confined to public safety. Insurance programmes have been in place for decades in the US and Europe to deal with potential liability claims. They might be a useful model for countries contemplating going nuclear. By Steve Kidd

"The Swedish government Thursday presented a draft bill that would quadruple the sum owners of nuclear reactors should pay in damages in case of an accident. "The reactor owners should take full responsibility for the security and insurance at nuclear plants," Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren said. At present reactor owners are obliged to cover costs of up to 3 billion kronor (415 million dollars), but the sum should be hiked to 12 billion kronor, according to the government's proposal. The government said reactor owners should sign up to a mutual insurance system, noting that this is in place in other countries. Other options included that the company has to show it has sufficient securities. These would be reviewed by the National Debt Office, Carlgren told reporters. Further, the proposal states that "all assets in a company" could be used to cover the damages, he said. The bill also scraps a previous ban against building new nuclear power reactors, revoking a 1980 referendum decision to phase out nuclear power, Carlgren said but "at most 10 reactors are allowed". "

The House of Commons is considering a new law that could increase the liability of companies that operate nuclear facilities if there is an accident. Bill C-20 increases the ultimate cost to a nuclear company from $75 million to $650 million. But the NDP, Bloc and the Liberals are already saying the amount is way too little and want it raised. They point to the limits in other countries, like the U.S., for example, where the ceiling is now $10 billion. All companies there contribute to a fund to help pay for their insurance and potential costs in case of an accident. In Europe and Japan, there is no limit to how much a company would have to pay in the case of a nuclear incident. Under this proposed new bill, any liabilities here over $650 million would be borne by the taxpayer.

Nuclear Power Industry is Perfect Illustration of Why Taxpayers Are Saying "No More Bailouts!" - Billions for Plant Vogtle Reactors Impossible to Justify in Terms of Rising Financial Risks, Reduced Demand for Power, Cheaper Renewables and Huge Potential of Energy Efficiency ATLANTA, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- First it was insurance companies, then it was banks and that was followed by auto companies. Now, the federal government is putting U.S. taxpayers and utility customers at new risk under a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program that is slated to award $18.5 billion, with Atlanta-based Southern Company predicted to be first on the list for program funds to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. Ironically, the DOE's "top choice" for the nuclear reactor loan guarantees, which are backed by U.S. taxpayers in the event of defaults, is the very same Plant Vogtle that helped to kill the previous nuclear power boom in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle - which escalated from $660 million for four reactors to a whopping $8.87 billion for two - likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States.

Nuclear Power Industry is Perfect Illustration of Why Taxpayers Are Saying "No More Bailouts!" - Billions for Plant Vogtle Reactors Impossible to Justify in Terms of Rising Financial Risks, Reduced Demand for Power, Cheaper Renewables and Huge Potential of Energy Efficiency ATLANTA, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- First it was insurance companies, then it was banks and that was followed by auto companies. Now, the federal government is putting U.S. taxpayers and utility customers at new risk under a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program that is slated to award $18.5 billion, with Atlanta-based Southern Company predicted to be first on the list for program funds to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. Ironically, the DOE's "top choice" for the nuclear reactor loan guarantees, which are backed by U.S. taxpayers in the event of defaults, is the very same Plant Vogtle that helped to kill the previous nuclear power boom in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle - which escalated from $660 million for four reactors to a whopping $8.87 billion for two - likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States.

Clearly, Sen. Bob Bennett has been in office for a very long time. Consider these contributions to his 2010 re-election campaign from corporate and individual special interests (selected from www.opensecrets.org): oil and gas, $116,650; waste management (nuclear), $51,900; securities and investments, $233,850; commercial banks, $130,725; finance/credit companies, $61,900; insurance, $182,700; food processing and sales, $28,900; defense aerospace, $39,000; defense electronics, $16,000; health services/HMOs, $17,750; pharmaceuticals/health products, $104,044; telecommunication services and equipment, $815,250; lawyers/law firms, $110,900; lobbyists, $157,186; automotive, $16,997; chemical and related manufacturing, $11,200. Given all this special-interest support, it seems Bennett does not serve his constituents.

Clearly, Sen. Bob Bennett has been in office for a very long time. Consider these contributions to his 2010 re-election campaign from corporate and individual special interests (selected from www.opensecrets.org): oil and gas, $116,650; waste management (nuclear), $51,900; securities and investments, $233,850; commercial banks, $130,725; finance/credit companies, $61,900; insurance, $182,700; food processing and sales, $28,900; defense aerospace, $39,000; defense electronics, $16,000; health services/HMOs, $17,750; pharmaceuticals/health products, $104,044; telecommunication services and equipment, $815,250; lawyers/law firms, $110,900; lobbyists, $157,186; automotive, $16,997; chemical and related manufacturing, $11,200. Given all this special-interest support, it seems Bennett does not serve his constituents.

Contents KK-7 Stopped Due to Radioactive Leak, KK-6 Begins Start-up Tests Local groups demand that start-up tests be suspended until investigations into KK-7's leaking fuel rod problem have been concluded and that both KK-6 and KK-7 be immediately shut down. Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Struck By Earthquake The fact that an earthquake that arose so far away could cause so large a ground motion begs the question of whether the plant could withstand an earthquake immediately beneath the plant. Nuclear Energy Policy Under a New Government It might be hoped that a change of government would herald a change of nuclear energy policy, but we should not be too sanguine about the chances of a significant improvement. Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant: 14 Month Delay The estimated date of completion of construction and testing of its Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant has been extended by fourteen months to October 2010. It is the seventeenth time that the schedule had been extended. Public Finance and Export Insurance for Nuclear-Related Exports NGOs demand rigorous safety assessment, information disclosure and stakeholder involvement. An accident not to be forgotten: 10 Years have passed since the JCO Criticality Accident It might not have been so when the plant was first constructed, but at the time of the accident the plant was surrounded by houses. Nuclear fuel should not be handled in such places. Workers' Radiation Exposure Data for FY2008 The total collective dose in FY 2008 for people working at nuclear power plants was 84.04 person sieverts, an increase of 5.86 person sieverts compared to the previous year. Who's Who: Hiromitsu Ino There are many superb specialists in all sorts of academic fields, but there is one important difference between Ino and a large percentage of these "experts". That is that Ino succeeded in bridging the gap between specialist research and social activism.

Contents KK-7 Stopped Due to Radioactive Leak, KK-6 Begins Start-up Tests Local groups demand that start-up tests be suspended until investigations into KK-7's leaking fuel rod problem have been concluded and that both KK-6 and KK-7 be immediately shut down. Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Struck By Earthquake The fact that an earthquake that arose so far away could cause so large a ground motion begs the question of whether the plant could withstand an earthquake immediately beneath the plant. Nuclear Energy Policy Under a New Government It might be hoped that a change of government would herald a change of nuclear energy policy, but we should not be too sanguine about the chances of a significant improvement. Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant: 14 Month Delay The estimated date of completion of construction and testing of its Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant has been extended by fourteen months to October 2010. It is the seventeenth time that the schedule had been extended. Public Finance and Export Insurance for Nuclear-Related Exports NGOs demand rigorous safety assessment, information disclosure and stakeholder involvement. An accident not to be forgotten: 10 Years have passed since the JCO Criticality Accident It might not have been so when the plant was first constructed, but at the time of the accident the plant was surrounded by houses. Nuclear fuel should not be handled in such places. Workers' Radiation Exposure Data for FY2008 The total collective dose in FY 2008 for people working at nuclear power plants was 84.04 person sieverts, an increase of 5.86 person sieverts compared to the previous year. Who's Who: Hiromitsu Ino There are many superb specialists in all sorts of academic fields, but there is one important difference between Ino and a large percentage of these "experts". That is that Ino succeeded in bridging the gap between specialist research and social activism.

"New Subsidies for Constructing Reactors Would Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers Massive government subsidies proposed in two pending Senate climate and energy bills would shift the risk of financing and constructing new nuclear reactors from the industry to U.S. taxpayers, according to an analysis released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Such subsidies would disadvantage more cost-effective, less risky approaches to curbing the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming, including energy efficiency programs and renewable energy technologies, the group said. The UCS analysis is the first to quantify the most significant subsidies for the nuclear industry proposed in the American Power Act (APA) and the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA). Those subsidies include expanded federal loan guarantees, reduced accelerated depreciation periods, a 10 percent investment tax credit, expanded production tax credits, and expanded federal regulatory risk insurance. Assuming eight new reactors are built over the next 15 years, UCS found those subsidies would amount to approximately $40 billion, or $5 billion per reactor, slightly more than half of what a typical 1,100 megawatt reactor would cost to build today. If the industry is able to secure federal approval to build the 31 new reactors it is expected to request, UCS found that total proposed subsidies could be worth from $65 billion to as much as $147 billion."

"BP's apocalyptic Gulf gusher has put our ability to survive in serious doubt. We have no reason to believe an end to the crisis is near---or even in sight. Nor can we begin to calculate the damage to our Mother Earth…to her oceans, to the core of her being…and to each of us as individual organisms. Only one thing IS clear: we cannot ultimately survive without a rapid conversion to a Solartopian economy that is totally green-powered. That transformation will be forced by biological imperatives, not money or markets. The powers that be studiously avoid the core reality that this disaster stems from the ability of large corporations to make all of us pay for their irresponsible greed. The black poisons killing our global body gush from a system that grants corporations human rights but does not demand human responsibility. It is suicidal to allow corporations to deploy technologies they cannot mange or insure and then make us pay for their greed. "

The nuclear industry has hitched a ride on the climate change bandwagon, proclaiming that nuclear power will solve the world's global warming and energy problems in one sweeping "nuclear renaissance." As you might expect, there's a catch. Nuclear energy faces escalating capital costs, a radioactive waste backlog, security and insurance gaps, nuclear weapons proliferation, and expensive reactor decommissioning that will magnify the waste problem.

As industry lobbyists and campaigning politicians are busily pushing nuclear power as "a clean safe alternative" to fossil fuels, a landmark article by Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute shows conclusively that nuclear power is a "bad deal" any way you look at it. Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh, in a recent analysis, 'The Nuclear Illusion," sets the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from a wind farm is half that. Why the huge difference? In addition to fuel costs, capital operations, transmission and distribution expenses, nuclear power must also pay for waste disposal, insurance against accidents, and plant decommissioning. The U.S. leads the world in nuclear power generation, with 104 reactors producing 101,000 megawatts, compared to second-ranked France which produces 63,000 megawatts. The estimated cost of constructing a permanent, safe waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, ballooned from $58 billion in 2001 to $96 billion by 2008, and this repository could not be completed before 2017, meaning that high-level nuclear waste must be stored at reactor sites at least until then.

Over the last few years the nuclear industry has used concerns about climate change to argue for a nuclear revival. Although industry representatives may have convinced some political leaders that this is a good idea, there is little evidence of private capital investing in nuclear plants in competitive electricity markets. The reason is simple: nuclear power is uneconomical. In an excellent recent analysis, "The Nuclear Illusion," Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh put the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14¢ per kilowatt hour and that from a wind farm at 7¢ per kilowatt hour. This comparison includes the costs of fuel, capital, operations and maintenance, and transmission and distribution. It does not include the additional costs for nuclear of disposing of waste, insuring plants against an accident, and decommissioning the plants when they wear out. Given this huge gap, the so-called nuclear revival can succeed only by unloading these costs onto taxpayers. If all the costs of generating nuclear electricity are included in the price to consumers, nuclear power is dead in the water.

WITH the federal government offering the nuclear industry $18.5 billion in loan guarantees and billions more in production tax credits and insurance against bureaucratic delays, at least a few new reactors seem certain to be built. But how many? Worries about carbon dioxide and galloping demand for electricity might seem to be setting the stage for a renaissance of nuclear power. But reactors, it turns out, are not at the top of the list for stopping global warming, at least in the United States, at least not any time soon.

A leak in one of Vermont Yankee's cooling towers has state officials and legislators concerned that the owner of the nuclear power plant in Vernon is not doing all that it promised to insure the plant operates safely. Both cooling towers at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon were pulled out of service Friday morning after technicians discovered sagging and leakage in a pipe that moves thousands of gallons of water through the plant's cooling system. Because of the loss of the cooling towers, power output at the plant was reduced to less than 50 percent.