Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

At $18.5 billion, the US Department of Energy's loan guarantee program for new nuclear reactors is "undersized," John Gilbertson, a managing director at investment bank Goldman Sachs said Thursday. That would only be enough for about three new reactors, Gilbertson said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies meeting on the business case for nuclear power.

Twenty-one percent of Americans would support a new nuclear power plant in their hometown, according to a survey released June 2 by investment bank RBC Capital Markets. This is up from 17% support in last year's survey,

PARIS, May 12 (IPS) - Some international organisations and governments in industrialised countries are pushing for further development of nuclear power, but amidst growing doubts over the safety of several nuclear installations. Concerns have arisen particularly over nuclear power stations in France, Germany, and Bulgaria. Environmental organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (FoE) are condemning the involvement of French bank BNP Paribas in construction of the nuclear power station at Belene near the Danube River in northern Bulgaria.

Ottawa's riverkeeper is growing increasingly concerned about an aging nuclear reactor sitting on the shore of the city's primary source of drinking water. Meredith Brown released a two-page report earlier this week that outlines concern over recent leaks at the Chalk River nuclear facility. "Under the best of circumstances I am uncomfortable with the very idea of a nuclear reactor operating on the banks of the Ottawa River," said Brown. "However, when that reactor is old and prone to leaks, I am particularly concerned. Even more alarming is the fact that these leaks are not reported to the public in detail in a timely manner."

Russian state uranium holding Atomenergoprom said on Tuesday it had bought stakes in uranium deposits located in Kazakhstan from tycoon Vladimir Anisimov for an undisclosed sum through its unit Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ). State-controlled Gazprombank, the banking arm of Russian gas giant Gazprom (GAZP.MM), said in a separate statement it had provided ARMZ with a loan for the acquisition of the assets.

In a statement June 12, Kazatomprom sought to reassure worried foreign investors that no existing agreements with foreign shareholders would be changed, despite turnover at the company and the reported arrest of its former president, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, last month. Kazatomprom, or KAP, is the world's third-largest uranium producer. In the statement, KAP's new president, Vladimir Shkolnik, said the company "understands its responsibility for resources provision of the world nuclear power industry." Shkolnik said KAP would continue the same pace of development "in order to cover the growing demand [for] our products." KAP said that its top management had met with foreign partners over the past two weeks to discuss implementation of plans ranging from uranium mining to new joint ventures. In particular, it said, negotiations were held with the representatives of Marubeni, Sumitomo, Nuclear Fuel Industries, and Japanese financial and credit and insurance companies and banks, including NEXI, JBIC, ERM, and ING. KAP said management had also met with Atomredmetzoloto, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co. Ltd., Areva, Uranium One, Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd., and others which it did not name. The statement said KAP management would meet soon with Cameco, Toshiba and Westinghouse Electric on further development of cooperation.

Twenty-three years have passed since The Day of April 26 divided human fates into "before" and "after" the disaster at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Until this day it is the world's worst anthropogenic catastrophe unmatched for its environmental impact. For Ukraine Chornobyl is an everyday reality and a host of global-scale problems. Unfortunately, the problems caused by the catastrophe are as acute today as they were 23 years ago. Can one get used to devastated villages and abandoned fertile land? Today nothing prevents us from learning in detail what was happening on the banks of the Prypiat in late April-November 1986. In May 1986 foreigners were the first to learn the truth: on April 30 a Geiger counter on a Swedish nuclear power plant detected an unacceptably high level of radiation. After the Swedish government ascertained that the discharge did not take place in Sweden, it made an official inquiry. Mikhail Gorbachev addressed the people only 18 days after the disaster, on May 14. And three years passed before the information on the radioactivity conditions was declassified and publicized. After the explosion at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the scientists at the Institute for Nuclear Research (National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) identified two groups of radionuclides emitted from the damaged reactor. One of them included volatile radioactive substances carried up high in aerosols with the streams of warm air (iodine-131, iodine-135, cesium-134, cesium-137, and strontium-90). Nearly 30 percent of cesium accumulated in the reactor core was emitted.

France is banking on 3-1/2 decades of civil nuclear use at home, and three domestic companies with atomic expertise and a global scale to spearhead a worldwide nuclear power rebirth. This is a list of key facts on power group EDF, nuclear reactor maker Areva, and gas and electricity group GDF Suez.

France is banking on 3-1/2 decades of civil nuclear use at home, and three domestic companies with atomic expertise and a global scale to spearhead a worldwide nuclear power rebirth. This is a list of key facts on power group EDF, nuclear reactor maker Areva, and gas and electricity group GDF Suez. AREVA (CEPFi.PA)

"The autobiography of a former director of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) is likely to reignite fears about the safety of nuclear power, as Britain prepares for a new generation of reactors, by exposing the panic that rocked the industry two decades ago when a link was suggested between radiation and childhood leukaemia. At its height, workers at Sellafield were advised not to have children, while bosses at the Cumbrian nuclear complex even proposed establishing a sperm bank or calling for "radiation volunteers" from among older workers in order to reduce levels of exposure for workers of child-bearing age."

"President Barack Obama is going nuclear. He announced the initial $8 billion in loan guarantees for construction of the first new nuclear power plants in the United States in close to three decades. Obama is making good on a campaign pledge, like his promises to escalate the war in Afghanistan and to unilaterally attack in Pakistan. And like his "Af-Pak" war strategy, Obama's publicly financed resuscitation of the nuclear power industry in the U.S. is bound to fail, another taxpayer bailout waiting to happen. Opponents of the plan, which includes a tripling of the existing nuclear plant construction-loan guarantees to $54.5 billion, span the ideological spectrum. On its most basic level, the economics of nuclear power generation simply don't make sense. The cost to construct these behemoths is so huge, and the risks are so great, that no sensible investor, no banks, no hedge funds will invest in their construction. No one will loan a power company the money to build a power plant, and the power companies refuse to spend their own money. Obama himself professes a passion for the free market, telling Bloomberg BusinessWeek, "We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.""

"There are con men who rip people off using the most transparent of ruses. The best one yet was the guy who nailed up a wooden box next to a bank night safe. Then he posted a sign saying "night safe out of order, please use box". A short while later he took the box down, making off with several hundred pounds. You know, it was so simple (and those falling prey to the scam were so unbelievably naive) that the guy almost deserved the money. There are politicians who can promise the sun, moon and stars and, lo and behold, people go out and vote for them. And I'm sick to death of the number of e-mail scams which go the rounds. Every couple of weeks another scam will arrive in the in-box, often forwarded by folks who should know a lot better."

"President Obama's plan to kick-start the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States comes with a big catch: Because private banks won't lend to an industry viewed as financially risky, taxpayers would be accountable for billions in government-guaranteed loans if plant developers default. Precisely how much risk the public would carry remains a subject of lobbying by the industry, which is trying to minimize its financial exposure as the political climate in Washington has warmed in its favor."

"The Conservation Law Foundation lobbed a big curve ball into the controversy over the tritium leak at the Vernon Yankee nuclear reactor Tuesday, saying the land that is contaminated appears to be "filled" land, and thus belongs to the state. The environmental group alerted Gov. James Douglas to the problem Tuesday, saying it had done a records search at the Vernon Town Hall and discovered the potential problem. According to Chris Kilian, state director for the Conservation Law Foundation, maps showing the Vermont Yankee plant, as well as maps submitted to the Public Service Board and the Vermont Legislature, show Entergy's ownership boundary "well inland" from the banks of the Connecticut River. Kilian said the land in question, which he said was about two acres and had multiple buildings on it, was labeled "Vermont Yankee Easement Area." He said that phrase on the Entergy maps had piqued his interest, resulting in the land research down in Vernon."

"Banks won't touch them they are so financially risky. So why does Obama want U.S. taxpayers to fund nuclear plants when there is a 50% chance they will fail? Whether you are Republican or Democrat, pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear, you probably will agree with me that it is wrong to ask the American taxpayers to fund an investment that is so risky it has a 50 percent chance of failing."

"The Nuclear Review, Issue# 7 : Nuclear Constructions, Waste Management, More, March 29, 2010, by Arn Specter, Phila. 1.Managers Warned Against Bungling Los Alamos Lab Construction project 2.Costs Climb for Los Alamos Research Site 3.Project Estimates Go Up and Up, 4.Secretary Chu, NNSA Administrator and the Tennessee Congressional Delegation Join Local Officials in Dedicating Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility at Y-12 5.A recent uranium mining ruling could lead to NM nuke renaissance 6.Need for an Information Repository in the Española Valley as part of NMED Hazardous Waste Permit for LANL 7.Under the Nuclear Shadow 8.Los Alamos scientists write in Physics Today about enabling largest superfund cleanup to date, 9. Australian Prime Minister's Russia Meltdown, 10. IAEA Could Acquire Russian Uranium for Fuel Bank, 11. House Members Criticize Proposal to Halt work on Yucca Mountain"

EnergySolutions has deep pockets. And thanks to the benevolence of the company and a bill pending before Congress, U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop does, too. The nuclear waste disposal firm and its executives have donated $28,200 to the Utah congressman's re-election campaign in the current election cycle, including nearly $25,000 since April. That's more than 40 percent of the money Bishop has received.

In 1953, eight years after the American nuclear bombing of Japan, President Dwight D Eisenhower laid out a vision that he called Atoms for Peace. The United States and the Soviet Union, he suggested, should make joint contributions from their stockpiles of uranium that would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. It was too idealistic for its time. The Cold War was intensifying. At its heart was the competing strength of nuclear arsenals with the apocalyptic scenario of Mutually Assured Destructions - that nuclear conflict would obliterate both sides.

In 1953, eight years after the American nuclear bombing of Japan, President Dwight D Eisenhower laid out a vision that he called Atoms for Peace. The United States and the Soviet Union, he suggested, should make joint contributions from their stockpiles of uranium that would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. It was too idealistic for its time. The Cold War was intensifying. At its heart was the competing strength of nuclear arsenals with the apocalyptic scenario of Mutually Assured Destructions - that nuclear conflict would obliterate both sides.