Group items tagged

Workers at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant contained a small spill of fuel oil Monday morning, the second oil spill in the past couple of weeks. Vermont Yankee, the state's largest generator of electricity, actually heats the plant with boilers fired by fuel oil, according to Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear. Williams said the spill of 5 gallons of fuel oil on pavement was immediately contained and cleaned up by the company's spill response team. He said the spill was the result of a simple mistake of failing to hook up the delivery hoses correctly.

"The "American Power Act", the Kerry/Lieberman energy bill, was drafted to offer a lot of encouragement for offshore drilling. But then the Deepwater Horizon oil rig collapsed in the Gulf of Mexico and reminded everybody that, though drilling rig collapses are extraordinarily rare, they make a disastrous mess when they happen. The incentives to drill were kept, but the legislation was quickly amended to give states veto power over offshore drilling within 75 miles of shore. Why is that offered as a compromise? Does it make any less likely offshore oil rigs might collapse? Of course not. And it only marginally reduces the risk of onshore damage should a spill occur, since whether the oil comes ashore is a matter more of tides and currents and wind and rate of release than proximity. So why does giving states veto power somehow make the risk of offshore drilling seem different? "

"The lesson from Deepwater Horizon isn't that oil is bad and nuclear is good, says Mark Gimein in Slate, it's that, despite our best efforts, accidents happen Slate's Mark Gimein says the BP oil disaster demonstrates why we need to end our pursuit of nuclear power. On first glance, the BP oil spill seems like a good reason to push for more nuclear power, says Mark Gimein at Slate's The Big Money. Nuclear doesn't pollute the air, and it certainly doesn't "turn our beaches black." But, when you look deeper, the real lesson from the BP disaster is that "things go wrong, in unexpected ways, at unexpected times, to catastrophic effect," no matter how many levels of "failsafe" mechanisms we install. Which is why this disaster is a compelling argument against nuclear power. Imagine if Deepwater Horizon had been a nuclear reactor. Here, an excerpt:"

"In the article ["Cardin criticizes Obama for offshore drilling, says oil spills could hurt Bay," April 28] it states that Sen. Ben Cardin supports nuclear energy and that Cardin said that nuclear power plants would help protect the environment. The article then states, "'It also would end the reliance on oil from countries unfriendly to the U.S.,' he said." This is incorrect. Nuclear power plants generate electricity. Less than 3 percent of U.S. electricity is oil- based. Therefore, additional nuclear power plants would essentially do nothing to replace the need for foreign oil or any oil for that matter."

"Canadians have watched in horror as BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill has mushroomed week by week into the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. The damage to the Gulf's ecosystem is unknown. Oceanographers report seeing massive columns of oil well below the surface. This is a phenomenon not seen before. Likewise, the chemical dispersants used so far may prove to be a "cure" that rivals the oil itself for toxicity. Economically, the costs are already staggering. BP has spent nearly $1 billion on cleanup and appears to have barely made a dent. Fishing and oceanside tourism anywhere in the Gulf states are crippled. Huge areas of precious wetland may have to be burnt. Here in Canada we can draw some conclusions already about the consequences of this spill, which is now at least twice as serious as theExxon Valdezdisaster in 1989. "

"The U.S. nuclear power industry, when responding to concerns raised by the nuclear disaster in Japan, leaned on lessons learned from the oil industry's response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a top official with the Nuclear Energy Institute said Thursday. The institute, the main trade group for nuclear power companies, crafted emergency plans and developed a communication strategy after analyzing the events surrounding the April 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Tony Pietrangelo, NEI's chief nuclear officer said. "We were fortunate, I think, as an industry," Pietrangelo said before a panel of nuclear specialists that works with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Following the BP PLC Deepwater Horizon explosion last year, "we kind of did a lessons-learned on that-how we would apply that to our industry if we had an event like that." "

"What if Deepwater Horizon was a nuclear plant? Extracting fossil fuels from ever-more-difficult environments is a dangerous business, a truth underlined spectacularly by the explosion at the Massey mine in April that killed 29 miners or the Deepwater Horizon spill that has left the Louisiana coast a blackened brackish mess. Not in decades has the nuclear option looked more attractive. Earlier this year, the government extended funding to build two new reactors at the Vogtle plant * in Georgia, likely the first reactors to go online since 1996, and a lot more may be in the works. Oil and coal disasters like Massey and Deepwater Horizon may be some of the best arguments for nuclear power."

"Nuclear power is a safer, more environmentally friendly source of electricity. So why does the US still rely on coal and oil instead?"

"Much like Captain Renault in Casablanca, the White House is suddenly shocked, shocked to find that oil rigs can explode, destroying ecosystems and livelihoods. The Obama administration has backed away from its offshore oil expansion policy in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe as the long-term environmental and economical consequences unfold in the Gulf States. Headlines are clamoring for the criminal investigations of BP, TransOcean, Halliburton and ultimately, the federal regulator, Mineral Management Services (MMS). Rather paradoxically, President Obama is using the oil spill to call for more nuclear power. Yet, with the exception of a handful of insightful political cartoonists, the obvious parallel between the regulatory delinquency of MMS and that of its nuclear equivalent - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) - and the potential for an equally catastrophic accident in the nuclear sector, has not been drawn. As with the MMS debacle, the NRC is gambling with inevitable disaster with the same spin of the wheel of misfortune and with potentially even higher stakes. "

"The weaknesses of federal regulatory agencies have been exposed by recent high-profile accidents. Guest columnist Tom Carpenter fears the Department of Energy will reduce its oversight of cleanup at the nation's nuclear waste sites.\n\nBy Tom Carpenter\n\nSpecial to The Times\n\nPREV of NEXT\n\n \n\nRelated\n\nMillions of gallons of oil gush continue to rush unabated from BP's mile-deep well in the Gulf of Mexico, and 11 workers are dead from the massive explosion that caused the biggest oil spill in decades. Weeks before this event, the news was dominated by the preventable explosion that killed 29 West Virginia coal miners.\n\nIn both cases, the not-so surprising news was that the mine and the oil rig had abysmal records of safety violations before the explosions yet were still allowed to operate by the captive regulatory agencies.\n\nWhere is the government accountability? It is the government's job to assure that ultra-hazardous industries operate safely and responsibly.\n\nIs nuclear next? The Department of Energy sits on the nation's biggest nuclear nightmare. Its inventories of highly radioactive and toxic wastes defy comprehension. Washingtonians are familiar with the DOE's No. 1 accomplishment, the Hanford nuclear site, which holds the lion's share of the nation's radioactive detritus. Suffice it to say that the escape of even a small fraction of such material into the environment would constitute a Chernobyl-sized catastrophe."

"As the oil off Louisiana's coast continues to threaten wildlife, tourism, and the fishing industry, nuclear power plants along Florida's Gulf coast are also on edge. Progress Energy spokeswoman Susan Grant says that while forecasts look good now, they are definitely preparing for the worst at locations like their Crystal River Nuclear Plant. Grant says their coastal plants are already somewhat prepared because of standard precautions already in place. She says Progress Energy is taking no chances considering the potentially devastating effects of oil entering their plants. Aside from the Crystal River Nuclear complex in Citrus County, Progress Energy is making preperations at their Anclote Plant in Pasco County and their Bartlow Plant in Pinellas County."

"Residents worried about environmental damage from nuclear waste and those eager for a way to bring jobs to the region spoke Saturday to a commission considering a plan to bury nuclear material from 36 other states in West Texas. Rose Gardner, who lives just over the state line in Eunice, N.M., told the commission she found the plan "very scary." Gardner lives about 5 miles from where material from nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research labs could be buried. She told the commission she worried about her water well and pointed to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as the kind of disaster that could happen. "We all know it's the human error" that can't be predicted, said Gardner, 52. "I want you to remember, I'm just across the state line.""

"Political attacks and pressure from governmental structures against Russian environmental organizations has significantly increased during the last months, according to a report issued by Friends of the Earth Norway. - We are seriously worried over the latest development. The environment in the north is facing increased pressure with climate changes and more resource exploitation. Therefore it is essential to have a strong Russian environmental movement able to influence the politics and development in Russia's northern regions, says Yngvild Lorentzen, head of International project department in Norges Naturvernforbund, the Norwegian branch of Friends of the Earth. The Norwegian organization has actively cooperated with several Russian environmental NGOs since the establishment of the Barents cooperation in the early 90ties. - We don't need an environmental movement that are kept silent in important issues, says Lorentzen to BarentsObserver."

"The human-caused oil gusher on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico illustrates a point about low-probability, high-cost industrial disasters: The industry will pay some; the public will pay the rest in cash and trauma. The nuclear power industry is a lot like that. On one hand, utility companies assure us that nuclear technology is exceedingly safe. On the other hand, it's clear that they don't think a serious accident is out of the question, since they refuse to build nuclear power plants unless the government limits their liability, as it has done since the 1950s. How safe is nuclear energy? Judging from the actions of those in the industry, it's not safe enough for them to bet their own companies' measly futures on it unless they have government backup (that's us). A major accident is improbable, but a nuclear catastrophe would make BP's spill in the gulf look like a paper cut. "

"Texas was all set to be part of an agreement with Vermont to dump nuclear waste in a remote region of the Lone Star state, and for the most part people living near the site were OK with it. Now, though, that compact could mushroom to include waste from 36 other states, reinvigorating those who oppose the project to fight harder. -- Kentucky US Senate candidate Rand Paul's Republican colleagues have tried to contextualize his controversial comments about anti-discrimination laws and the Obama administration's handling of the Gulf Coast oil spill, but privately they bemoan the political newcomer's gaffes and wish he'd focus less on the national media spotlight and more on Kentucky and the economy. "In any campaign there's going to be a few bumps," said Brian Walsh, a spokesman. "

"Not everybody is so sanguine about the Soviet experience. Speaking on condition of anonymity, an expert from Russia's largest oil exporter Rosneft (ROSN.MM), urges the United States to ignore calls for the atomic option. "That would bring Chernobyl to America," he says. Vladimir Chuprov from Greenpeace's Moscow office is even more insistent that BP not heed the advice of the veteran Soviet physicists. Chuprov disputes the veterans' accounts of the peaceful explosions and says several of the gas leaks reappeared later. "What was praised as a success and a breakthrough by the Soviet Union is in essence a lie," he says. "I would recommend that the international community not listen to the Russians. Especially those of them that offer crazy ideas. Russians are keen on offering things, especially insane things." Former Minister Mikhailov agrees that the USSR had to give up its programme because of problems it presented. "I ended the program because I knew how worthless this all was," he says with a sigh. "Radioactive material was still seeping through cracks in the ground and spreading into the air. It wasn't worth it.""

"They've tried nearly everything else to seal the disastrous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, so why not just nuke it? No, that's not an original idea. In fact, you can read that suggestion on the pages of one of Russia's leading daily newspapers, Komsomoloskaya Pravda, which claims that the Soviets deployed specially-designed nuclear explosions to extinguish well fires on at least five separate occasions. The idea was to harness the impact of the explosions that, among other things, would push tons of rocks into place and seal any leaks. The newspaper reports that authorities used a 30 ton atomic explosion triggered at an underground depth of six kilometers on Sept. 30, 1966, to extinguish burning gas wells in Urt-Bulak, an area about 80 kilometers from Bukhara. "

"A nuclear explosion was set off 37 years ago, near Krestishche village in Krasnograd district, Kharkiv Region. It was the first in Ukraine and probably the only one in the European part of the Soviet Union. Scientists had determined that a large gas condensate field in the area which was discovered in 1970 could hold up to 300 billion cubic meters of fuel. In 1971, 17 wells were already operating in the Krasnograd district. But an accident occurred when drilling a new well at the field in July 1971. Gas came to the surface before the well reached its planned depth and the force of the spewing gas condensate reached 400 atmospheres, throwing two workers into the air. Engineers took days deciding what to do to stop the well. The nearest village was just 500 meters away. Residents were told to not light any fires and to stay out of their homes and not turn on any lights. Unable to stop the gas, the engineers decided to light it. By the next day, the burning flare was tens of meters high. Several attempts were made during the next year to put out the fire. Filling the well with tons of concrete slabs did not work - they flew apart like toys. Such flares are normally put out by capping the well. But for this case, specialists from Moscow offered an original solution - an underground nuclear explosion."