Group items tagged

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.

A world without nuclear weapons is not only possible, it is at the top of the global agenda. The new American administration could give the initiative for a non-nuclear world a decisive push in the right direction. But the US and other major nuclear powers have to get serious about scrapping their own arsenals.

To be sure, there is no lack of justification to revive the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. Nuclear energy could lessen the country's dependence on imported oil. Because nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, the BNPP revival would support the global consensus to reduce burning of fossil fuels that emit higher carbon dioxide concentrations. Also, the timing looks auspicious, as public sentiment in many First World countries, which has been anti-nuclear for the past 30 years or so, appears to be ebbing away.

Mark Thompson's article "Obama's Showdown Over Nukes," published in Time Magazine earlier this week, did a great job of highlighting the controversy over Secretary Gates' statements in favor of developing a new series of nuclear weapons and President Obama's clear statements against such a development. However, in stating that "there is concern that aging pits may fail to detonate properly, or perhaps at all," the article fails to acknowledge the most current research findings on plutonium pits. The scientific authority on nuclear weapons, the JASON panel, as well as studies from DOE's own nuclear labs, have concluded that the plutonium pits in the current U.S. stockpile are viable for up to 100 years.

For the second time in two weeks, Commissioners at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have rejected staff recommendations to improve security at nuclear power plants by a tie vote of two-two. NRC rules establish that a tie vote means a rejected vote. The first NRC action was to reject a staff recommendation that would have provided the public with more information on the results of security inspections at nuclear power plants. This is a topic that POGO feels strongly about: in fact, we recently submitted public comments in favor of the staff recommendations.

The potent combination of President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bodes well for Nevadans, the majority of whom don't want the nation's high-level nuclear waste dumped in this state. Both men have vowed to do everything in their power to see that a dump is never built at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But until it is certain the dump plan is dead, Nevada has an obligation to its residents to continue fighting, through its Nuclear Projects Agency, the nuclear power industry-backed proposal. Because of the highly complex nature of the issue, it takes a fully staffed office to help research and prepare the state's arguments against a Yucca repository, which is under licensing review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Nuclear energy is again a hot topic, thanks to a bill filed in Congress that seeks to earmark $1billion for a project to "revive" the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) in Morong, Bataan. Due to numerous safety concerns, PNPP was never actually allowed to go on line although for decades it was the country's single biggest source of foreign indebtedness-without producing a single watt of electricity. The bill's proponents, however, have been trying to convince the public that atomic power is the solution to the country's energy problems and that its detractors are merely harping on old fears. Since the 1980s, they add, nuclear technology has undergone much improvement, thus further ensuring its safety. Other sources-expert ones-say otherwise.

Today's topic: U.S. should just say no to imported hazard Our View For a nation that still hasn't found a sure-fire way of storing its own nuclear waste without worry, it certainly shouldn't be taking waste from other nations. U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, a Democrat, and Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican, have teamed on legislation that would ban foreign nuclear waste. The legislation follows efforts by a Utah company, EnergySolutions, to import up to 20,000 tons of nuclear waste from Italy that would go through ports at Charleston, S.C., or New Orleans, and through Tennessee on its way to the EnergySolutions site in Utah. The company says it has plenty of room at its site to handle domestic and international waste, although it proposes to reserve a cap of 5 percent of its capacity for foreign material. Advertisement Gordon and Alexander emphasize the need for the U.S. to handle its own waste before taking on the responsibility of handling that of other countries. Gordon says it's about preserving room for domestic waste. He also says with each load that goes through a community, there could be a problem. Alexander says he agrees with Gordon that the U.S. shouldn't become "the world's nuclear garbage dump."

Way back in August of 2007, Barack Obama having declared he was a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, some "reporter" asked him whether he would be willing to use nuclear weapons, either in the War on Terror or to prevent "nuclear proliferation" by those dirty Mullahs. To the absolute delight of (a) Dubya the Dimwit, (b) Bomb-Bomb-Iran McCain and (c) Hillary the Chicken-Hawk, candidate Obama replied; "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance - involving civilians. Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of [using] nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Jay Bookman's Jan. 4 column reported that recovery of financing costs during construction for two new nuclear units at Plant Vogtle would shift risks to customers ("Nuke revival puts all risks on customers, @issue, Jan. 4). To the contrary, the proposal provides significant benefits to customers. The claim that consumers lose by paying for the nuclear units early is based on incorrect assumptions by intervenors at the Public Safety Commission, leading to wrong calculations. Contrary to the assertion that recovery of financing costs during construction lowers risks to investors, it actually helps maintain quality credit ratings, thereby lowering interest payments to investors and keeping costs lower for customers.

As we move toward a clean energy economy, we are going to need new priorities to assist in establishing an energy strategy supporting solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear power. With respect to priorities for increasing the production of nuclear-generated electricity, at the top of that list would be government incentives to revitalize U. S. companies that manufacture components for nuclear power plants and other alternative energy sources.

Transport of nuclear waste could put area residents at risk Asheville? Nuclear waste? Why worry that Asheville City Council declined to pass a measure that would have sent federal planners the message "Don't come through here" with these deadly wastes? Taken in a larger context, this nonaction by City Council may be vitally important. Folks have a right to know about some very local nuclear history and the potential for future impacts on Asheville residents' safety and welfare. Does the name Sandy Mush mean anything to you? About 25 years ago, a federal agency was studying Sandy Mush-a rural area in Leicester, about 20 miles from City Hall-as a potential site for a permanent high-level nuclear waste dump. Were you part of the citizen action that helped block it?

Having generated electricity as a plant operator, plant manager and vice president in three mid-sized electric power companies for a long career, I wish to express a few facts about using biomass (wood) as a fuel for large boilers ("Trees better alternative to coal" Hattiesburg American, Jan. 6). Advertisement There are several mid-sized boilers in service using biomass fuels. However, the low heat content of such fuels limit the electric output of such units. This causes the cost of such generation to go above the available cost per megawatt, thereby reducing use. The second factor is cost of processing wood into a useable fuel including the disturbing presence of a multitude of trucks on the local highways.

Nodding off A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission decision last week is another blow to efforts to build greater public trust in nuclear power as an alternative to the nation's expensive appetite for foreign oil. The NRC proposed a paltry $65,000 fine against the owner of Peach Bottom nuclear plant, where investigators found that security guards routinely napped on the job. The NRC last year issued a color-coded "white" finding - a low-to-moderate safety violation - for the incident. The agency's actions seem more like a slap on the wrist for Chicago-based Exelon, rather than a strong message about safety and accountability. Exelon says it plans to pay the fine for the NRC's findings, which were confirmed by its internal investigation at the York County nuclear power facility.

Less than three weeks after a congressman demanded more transparency from federal regulators about safety issues at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey, the agency held a secret meeting with plant operators to discuss the implications of new corrosion discovered during the October outage. U.S. Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., in a Dec. 4 letter to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, insisted that citizens be apprised of ongoing safety issues, and specifically referred to corrosion discovered during the October refueling as a "significant case of high public interest." He cited the need for "full transparency" in the continuing corrosion and degradation of the reactor's drywell, the steel containment vessel that shields the public from radiation.

Please be informed. An outstanding book is out by novelist Gwyneth Cravens titled Power to Save the World. In this book the author traces her journey from Nuclear opponent to an understanding that it represents truly the path toward saving the world. Ms Cravens met a scientist Dr Rip Anderson who is an expert in risk assessment and analysis and nuclear energy. He patiently explained the true benefits of nuclear power apparently overcoming every objection posed by the conventional wisdom of nuclear opponents. The two of them decided that the book would detail the authors journey conducted by Dr Anderson toward nuclear understanding.

The Nov. 25 column by Robert Alvarez is full of assertions that require clarification and/or rebuttal. Sign up for breaking news alerts from The Chronicle First of all, reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is an issue because about 95 percent of the energy value in the original fuel remains in the "spent" fuel , so it begs the question of "shouldn't that valuable resource be recovered?" Secondly, the concept of fast reactors coupled with thermal reactors and reprocessing results in minimum waste and sustainable nuclear fuel supplies for hundreds of years.

I am very concerned about the possible nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan, and scared to death that it could be in the Prince Albert area. It is bad enough that we are mining the uranium out of the ground, but to build a reactor would be insane. There is no safe storage option for uranium products and wastes. Radium, radon gas and polonium are highly radioactive byproducts. Storage methods are at best controversial and at worst responsible for death and a toxic legacy for generations. Mining poses serious health risks. Radon gas is a known cancer-causing agent. Uranium mining can poison water sources. Reactors need a lot of water. They, too, can leak radioactive substances into both watersheds and ground water.

I got back last Saturday evening after my short, but hectic trip to Japan, which is now starting its winter season. It's so cold in certain places that going outdoors is no longer funny. It's always good to be back. As always, whenever I return from a foreign trip I must say my piece, that the reason why I hate going on trips abroad is due to the reality that I must return home. While there's nothing that can beat "Home Sweet Home" the nagging question always ringing on my head is, "Why can't we make things the way they do in countries like Japan?" I was in the City of Hiroshima the whole day of Friday, taking the "Nozomi" Shinkansen from Tokyo to Hiroshima (that's the distance from Manila to Cagayan de Oro) in just 4 hours. All we wanted to do is visit the ruins of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbacku Dome) and museum. We also had 4 hours to do this, so we could rush back to Tokyo by 10:00pm on the same day.

State lawmakers Mike Noel and Aaron Tilton are moving forward with their plans for a nuclear power plant in the desert of Eastern Utah, believing that only "extreme environmental groups" and those with "a no-growth agenda" object to nuclear power in Utah. I don't belong to either group, but I do believe they are not in touch with their constituents or the majority of Utahns. I think these men will find that the people of Utah will fight long and hard to block their proposal.