Group items tagged

"The formidable Anne Lauvergeon, the CEO of French nuclear giant AREVA, has been doing interviews. She's always worth paying attention to, as much for what she doesn't say as what she does. Take this for example, from her interview with the UK's Financial Times… What is the smartest business idea you have ever had? Setting up Areva and creating the 'CO2-free' strategy. Really? Considering Anne's 'CO2-free strategy' (and it's proper that the term is in quotation marks because AREVA's 'CO2-free strategy' is anything but) is currently eating the company's profits thanks to the botched construction of the Olkiluoto-3 EPR reactor in Finland, we're not sure we'd describe it as the 'smartest' business idea. How about… What do you like most about your job?"

Background: Decades of improper disposal of uranium-mining wastes on the Navajo Nation has resulted in adverse human and ecological health impacts as well as socio-cultural problems. As the Navajo people become increasingly aware of the contamination problems, there is a need to develop a risk-communication strategy to properly inform tribal members of the extent and severity of the health risks. To be most effective, this strategy needs to blend accepted riskcommunication techniques with Navajo perspectives such that the strategy can be used at the community level to inform culturally- and toxicologically-relevant decisions about land and water use as well as mine-waste remediation.

"US President Barack Obama is making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the United States that will permanently reduce the US nuclear arsenal by thousands of weapons, The New York Times reported Monday. But citing unnamed senior presidential aides, the newspaper said the administration had rejected proposals that the United States declare it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. Obama?s new strategy -- which would cancel or reverse several initiatives undertaken by the administration of former president George W. Bush -- will be contained in a nearly completed document called the Nuclear Posture Review, the report said."

"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." "

Article by Paul Sheridan, Tresna Tunbridge and Gemma Sainsbury On 5 June, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (the "NDA") published a consultation on its draft UK Strategy for the Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste (the "LLW Strategy")....

The problematic history of nuclear power in the United Kingdom (UK) suggests that a stronger focus on sustainable energy alternatives is a better and more cost-effective option. This is a conclusion of a report released today by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI). The British Nuclear Industry: Status and Prospects provides a detailed analysis of the current state of the nuclear power industry in the UK, including its energy strategy and the government's plans for possible new nuclear capacity. While the political momentum in support of nuclear options continues to grow, the study's findings show that the government's strategy is once again thwarting technologies that might prove cheaper and more reliable. "The future of UK's nuclear power is clearly tied to meeting two-long term challenges: Tackling climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions both in the UK and abroad, and secondly ensuring the security of UK's energy supplies," writes Ian Davis, the author of the report. "The government's obsession with nuclear power is undermining and marginalizing more efficient and safer technologies - the real energy solutions."

"Expanding our Nation's capacity to generate clean nuclear energy is crucial to our ability to combat climate change, enhance energy security, and increase economic prosperity. My Administration is undertaking substantial steps to expand the safe, secure, and responsible use of nuclear energy. These efforts are critical to accomplishing many of my Administration's most significant goals. An important part of a sound, comprehensive, and long-term domestic nuclear energy strategy is a well-considered policy for managing used nuclear fuel and other aspects of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Yet the Nation's approach, developed more than 20 years ago, to managing materials derived from nuclear activities, including nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, has not proven effective. Fortunately, over the past two decades scientists and engineers in our country and abroad have learned a great deal about effective strategies for managing nuclear material. My Administration is committed to using this advanced knowledge to meet the Government's obligation to dispose of our Nation's used nuclear material."

Purpose The purpose of this strategy is to articulate the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) approach to promote government-to-government relations between itself and Federally-recognized Indian tribes that have a known interest in, or may be potentially affected by, NRC's regulation of uranium recovery facilities.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released today a publication that provides new insights into how best to protect the public during a nuclear power plant accident. The publication is based on the results of focus groups and telephone surveys conducted in the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) around reactor sites. The data will help the NRC review its regulations and guidance related to emergency preparedness and determine if changes need to be considered to existing protective action strategies. Focus groups were used in 2007 to collect information that guided the development of the phone survey. The phone survey was administered in 2008 by Sandia National Laboratories, under contract to the NRC, to approximately 2,500 households randomly selected in order to obtain 800 completed, anonymous surveys.

A new report co-authored by the Electric Power Research Institute and the Idaho National Laboratory details how nuclear energy research, development, demonstration and deployment can help reduce U.S. carbon emissions and bolster energy security. The report, A Strategy for Nuclear Energy Research and Development, outlines the research necessary to create options for the deployment of nuclear energy in the decades ahead. The report also examines nuclear energy's relevance to nonproliferation and the need for the United States to maintain international leadership in developing nuclear energy-issues that must be addressed for nuclear energy to have a prominent role in meeting the nation's future energy needs. Because of the scale, cost, and time horizons involved, sustaining and increasing nuclear energy's share will require a coordinated research effort-combining the efforts of industry and government, sup­ported by innovation from the research community.

For more than 20 years, the government's plan to dispose of highly radioactive spent fuel piling up at U.S. nuclear power reactors has been to haul it to Yucca Mountain and entomb it in a maze of tunnels. But this year, more than a decade before the first shipment was ever expected to arrive at the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and years before a license could have been approved for the project, the Obama administration halted funding, saying the Nevada site was "not an option." That prompted a group of university experts on nuclear waste policy to explore another plan. That plan, they hope, will chart the course for a soon-to-be-chosen Department of Energy blue ribbon panel to follow as it sets out to develop a new national nuclear waste strategy.

The House Science & Technology Committee, which is chaired by Congressman Bart Gordon of Tennessee, today held a hearing on nuclear reprocessing -- looking at the state of capabilities and possible adoption of a national strategy. In a statement distributed after the hearing, Gordon said: "I believe everything has to be on the table when it comes to meeting our growing need for energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I believe nuclear power is part of the solution to the daunting challenge of climate change, and I also recognize that our 104 operating reactors provide very reliable baseload power. To me, the best reason to consider reprocessing is that an expansion of nuclear power may make the once-through fuel cycle inadequate for maintaining our nuclear power supply as uranium resources eventually become scarce."

Outreach effort ramping up from impulse power to warp drive Areva logoNote to public relations consultants to major nuclear reactor vendors, Areva, the world's largest integrated firm across the entire nuclear fuel cycle, thinks the blogsphere is worth its time in terms of dialog. The French nuclear giant has an initiative underway in which company officials hold monthly conference calls with nuclear energy bloggers. During the hour-long call, bloggers get to ask some tough questions. For their part, Areva is working to emerge from a traditional corporate communications strategy of walking softly and not saying very much to the press, much less to bloggers. Wide ranging topics for discussion In the conference call held this past Friday, May 8, the fifth in the series, the firm fielded questions about the facts behind a hostile article published in the Economist May 7, the status of the MOX fuel plant under construction in South Carolina, and next steps at Calvert Cliffs III which was short-listed for federal loan guarantees and got a green light this week from the Maryland PUC. The project to build the first 1,600 MW EPR reactor in the US is scheduled to break ground in 2011 and enter revenue service in 2015.

"Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war." "Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe." "Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country." "The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy and policy for the future."

"Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war." "Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe." "Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country." "The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy and policy for the future."

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.

Weakening Wisconsin laws regulating new nuclear reactors should not be part of a climate change bill. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, unveiled in the state Legislature recently, is a significant step toward addressing global warming while strengthening our state economy. Although much of the bill is a positive step to addressing global warming, it weakens Wisconsin's current law on building new nuclear reactors. Wisconsin's current law is common sense and protects citizens and the environment from radioactive nuclear waste, which poses considerable risks for tens thousands of years and contains plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons if separated. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

Weakening Wisconsin laws regulating new nuclear reactors should not be part of a climate change bill. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, unveiled in the state Legislature recently, is a significant step toward addressing global warming while strengthening our state economy. Although much of the bill is a positive step to addressing global warming, it weakens Wisconsin's current law on building new nuclear reactors. Wisconsin's current law is common sense and protects citizens and the environment from radioactive nuclear waste, which poses considerable risks for tens thousands of years and contains plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons if separated. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday the United States must take an integrated approach to its national security. Clinton, in a speech at The Brookings Institute in Washington, said the United States needs to exercise "smart power" to deal with "new and complicated threats" -- terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, cyber-security and energy security to name a few."

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Indigenous people from across North America will meet in Acoma in late October to launch a campaign to end recent efforts to resume uranium mining, which is seen as a threat to Indian lands in several Native locations across the country. * The Seventh Indigenous Uranium Forum was established in 1987 with conferences on the environmental and health effects of uranium development in the Grants Mineral Belt. Since its inception the forum has developed as a vehicle for strategy development and coordination of communities along the lifeline of nuclear power, from uranium mining in Grants to nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. A statement from the forum reads, "The 7th Southwest Indigenous Uranium Forum will focus on the recent onslaught of exploratory measures to mine and mill uranium in the Grants Mineral Belt. Due to recent price fluctuations of uranium on the world market and U.S. policy still emphasizing nuclear power as an answer to global warming and climate change, we will inform and educate participants of local, national and international nuclear issues impacting Indigenous people." There will also be presentations on health issues affecting both mining and non-mining populations in the affected communities.

Indigenous people from across North America will meet in Acoma in late October to launch a campaign to end recent efforts to resume uranium mining, which is seen as a threat to Indian lands in several Native locations across the country. * The Seventh Indigenous Uranium Forum was established in 1987 with conferences on the environmental and health effects of uranium development in the Grants Mineral Belt. Since its inception the forum has developed as a vehicle for strategy development and coordination of communities along the lifeline of nuclear power, from uranium mining in Grants to nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. A statement from the forum reads, "The 7th Southwest Indigenous Uranium Forum will focus on the recent onslaught of exploratory measures to mine and mill uranium in the Grants Mineral Belt. Due to recent price fluctuations of uranium on the world market and U.S. policy still emphasizing nuclear power as an answer to global warming and climate change, we will inform and educate participants of local, national and international nuclear issues impacting Indigenous people." There will also be presentations on health issues affecting both mining and non-mining populations in the affected communities.

CPS Energy's board unanimously agreed Tuesday to look for buyers for about half the utility's stake in the expansion of the nuclear South Texas Project, while borrowing $400 million more to continue plans to build the new reactors. The change in strategy means the utility, which owns half of the project estimated to cost $13 billion, will cut its ownership to 20 percent to 25 percent. Now CPS must find buyers for the portion it wants to sell.

CPS Energy's board unanimously agreed Tuesday to look for buyers for about half the utility's stake in the expansion of the nuclear South Texas Project, while borrowing $400 million more to continue plans to build the new reactors. The change in strategy means the utility, which owns half of the project estimated to cost $13 billion, will cut its ownership to 20 percent to 25 percent. Now CPS must find buyers for the portion it wants to sell.