Group items tagged

Critics of nuclear power won't be among the invited presenters at a Sept. 27 community meeting in San Clemente to discuss lessons learned from Japan's Fukushima nuclear-plant emergency.The City Council on Tuesday night denied San Clemente Green's request to be allowed to present 30 minutes of testimony from three of its own invited speakers. City Manager George Scarborough said the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's participation in the meeting could be jeopardized if the city tries to change the agreed-to agenda.

Last spring, the City Council asked the NRC and Southern California Edison to participate in a public meeting to convey what has been learned from Fukushima and how it might affect the way Edison operates the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station about two miles south of San Clemente. On Aug. 16, San Clemente Green asked the council to also allocate 45 minutes for speakers with alternative views.At the time, Scarborough said the city had already sent the NRC an agenda for the meeting and that the NRC had not confirmed it would attend. Since then, the NRC has agreed to participate based on that agenda, with NRC personnel scheduled to leave at 9:30 p.m., Scarborough said.

There’s a denial of the severity of the accident by the business community and government in Tokyo… they are ignoring and denying severity of problem… Some towns in the NW corridor received 50 rem of radiation, people in those towns received 50 rems.. that means there is almost a 50/50 chance of cancer… that information just came out now 6 months after accident…

The worldwide use of nuclear energy will continue to grow despite the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, told a meeting of its Board of Governors. Non-proliferation concerns remain in some countries, he noted.

"We now expect the number of operating nuclear reactors in the world to increase by about 90 by 2030, in our low projection, or by around 350, in our high projection, compared to the current total of 432 reactors," Amano told the board. "This represents continuous and significant growth in the use of nuclear power, but at a slower growth rate than in our previous projections."

He noted that most of this growth will occur in countries already operating nuclear power plants, especially in Asia. "China and India will remain the main centres of expansion and their nuclear power capacities by 2030 are expected to be as projected before the accident, after a temporary period of slower growth," Amano said. "The projected slowdown in global growth reflects an accelerated phase-out of nuclear power in Germany, some immediate shutdowns and a government review of the planned expansion in Japan, and temporary delays in expansion in several other countries."   According to Amano, interest remains strong in countries considering introducing nuclear energy. He said that the factors that contributed to increasing interest in nuclear energy before the accident remain unchanged: "increasing global demand for energy, as well as concerns about climate change, dwindling reserves of oil and gas and uncertainty of supply of fossil fuels." However, he noted that "a few countries have cancelled or revised their plans, while others have taken a 'wait and see' approach."

Fukui Gov. Issei Nishikawa on Thursday told trade minister Yukio Edano that the central government needs to start using more adequate safety tests that reflect the lessons being learned from the Fukushima crisis before restarting reactors now undergoing regular checkups. In a written request submitted to Edano, the governor of Fukui Prefecture, which at 14 has more reactors than any other prefecture, called on the government to promptly share knowledge and data obtained from the accident and demonstrate a "responsible" energy policy for the future of nuclear power. In the statement, Nishikawa criticized how the nuclear crisis was handled under Prime Minister Naoto Kan — including his request to close only the Hamaoka power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture — and the abrupt introduction of reactor stress tests, saying they were done in an "impromptu" manner.

"We hope the (new) government will quickly present responsible visions for securing energy and for the future prospects of nuclear power," Nishikawa said in the document. In the meeting with Nishikawa at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Edano expressed regret about the trouble and anxiety to residents caused by the Fukushima nuclear crisis and said the government will strive to make the process of allowing reactor restarts trustworthy and transparent. A number of reactors undergoing regular checkups remain halted amid heightened public concern ever since the March quake and tsunami triggered the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant in Fukushima Prefecture.

The new Cabinet is headed by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, who has said it will be difficult to build new nuclear power plants in Japan and that reactors that have reached the end of their lifetimes should be decommissioned. Nishikawa's requests to the government included a rule on how long reactors older than 40 years should be permitted to run, and a sufficient explanation of the reasons for requesting the shutdown of only the Hamaoka power plant. Nishikawa also met Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Minister Masaharu Nakagawa and asked him to ensure the safety of the trouble-prone Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor in Fukui.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3, 2011 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Six months after the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, solid majorities of Americans still view nuclear energy favorably, still support the extension of operating licenses at existing facilities that meet federal safety standards, and still believe that construction of a new reactor is acceptable at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that already is operating, a new national survey shows.While support for nuclear energy has declined from the historically high level seen one year ago, support on a variety of measures is holding at the majority levels found consistently in public opinion surveys conducted throughout the past decade.

Nuclear energy supplies electricity to 20 percent of U.S. homes and businesses, even though the 104 nuclear facilities operating in 31 states constitute only 10 percent of the nation's electric generating capacity.Eighty-five percent of those surveyed agree that, "When their original operating licenses expire, we should renew the license of nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards." Seven months ago, 88 percent of Americans agreed with this statement.

"While there is some evidence of impact of the Fukushima events, support for nuclear energy continues at much higher levels than in earlier decades," company President Ann Bisconti said. "Turmoil in oil-rich areas of the world and hikes in oil prices historically have focused public opinion even more on nuclear energy, and may have helped to preclude serious impact of events in Japan on public attitudes."Despite the Fukushima accident, 67 percent of Americans rate U.S. nuclear power plant safety high. This is identical to the safety rating found in a national survey last February, one month prior to the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima accident. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that "we should learn the lessons from the Japanese accident and continue to develop advanced nuclear energy plants to meet America's growing electricity demand," the new survey showed.

The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee included extensive language in their FY 2012 committee report about nuclear energy.  They wrote of being “extremely concerned that the United States continues to accumulate spent fuel from nuclear reactors without a comprehensive plan to collect the fuel or dispose of it safely, and as a result faces a $15,400,000,000 liability by 2020,” called for the development of “consolidated regional storage facilities,” and mandated research on dry cask storage, advanced fuel cycle options, and disposal in geological media.  The appropriators provided no funding for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program or Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.  In a separate section, they direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study on the lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and discuss beyond design-basis events and mitigating impacts of earthquakes. Language from the committee report 112-75 follows, with page number references to the pdf version of this document.

Nuclear Energy The FY 2011 appropriation was $732.1 million The FY 2012 administration request was $754.0 million The FY 2012 House-passed bill provides $733.6 million, an increase of $1.5 million or 0.2 percent from the current budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill provides $583.8 million, a decline of $148.3 million or 20.3 percent.

“The Committee has provided more than $500,000,000 in prior years toward the Next Generation Nuclear Plant [NGNP] program.  Although the program has experienced some successes, particularly in the advanced research and development of TRISO [tristructural-isotropic] fuel, the Committee is frustrated with the lack of progress and failure to resolve the upfront cost-share issue to allocate the risk between industry and the Federal Government. Although the Committee has provided sufficient time for these issues to be resolved, the program has stalled. Recognizing funding constraints, the Committee cannot support continuing the program in its current form. The Committee provides no funding to continue the existing NGNP program, but rather allows the Department to continue high-value, priority research and development activities for high-temperature reactors, in cooperation with industry, that were included in the NGNP program.”

The government is expected this week to try to use a post-Fukushima green light from Britain’s chief nuclear safety inspector to inject momentum into its stuttering nuclear power and anti-climate-change programmes. The move will run into a hail of criticism from environmentalists who believe the latest inquiry into the nuclear industry has been rushed through and fear that ministers are backing off from their commitments to green issues. On Tuesday, Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, is scheduled to release the final report by Mike Weightman, chief inspector for nuclear installations, into what lessons should be learned from the Fukushima reactor disaster in Japan. The report is understood to contain only small amendments to an earlier, interim, report which made only minor recommendations. End extract http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/09/chris-huhne-fukushima-report-nuclear-programme?newsfeed=true

Environmental campaigners have accused the Government of pushing ahead with new nuclear power plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. The Department Of Energy & Climate Change is publishing its final report into the implications for the UK’s nuclear industry following the crisis in Japan. But Greenpeace said it was concerned the inquiry had been conducted too quickly to learn the lessons from the tsunami-stricken plant. It said the Government had not even waited for the final report to be published before signalling the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear plants this summer. End Extract http://news.sky.com/home/article/16085260

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission released recommendations this week based on lessons from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster, declaring that events like those at Fukushima are unlikely to occur in the United States because of stringent safety measures and regulations.

The 90-day study suggested developing equipment and procedures for U.S. nuclear reactors to keep the core and spent fuel pool cool and requiring that facilities' emergency plans address prolonged station blackouts and events involving multiple reactors.

I have been rereading a 1982 book by Bertrand Goldschmidt titled “The Atomic Complex: A Worldwide Political History of Nuclear Energy.”

The two self-assigned homework projects are as part of a reflective effort to understand more about how human society moved from a period of optimism based on a vision of “Atoms for Peace” to a period where someone reading the advertiser supported press would believe that sensible people would logically consider giving up the whole technology out of fear of radiation and its health consequences.One of the hopeful lessons I have learned so far is that the initial conditions of our current fight to defend and expand the safe use of atomic energy are far different from those that faced the people engaged in the earliest battles against a well organized opposition to nuclear technology development. We have a much better chance of success now than we did then – and there are several reasons why that is true.

One condition that is vastly different is the ability of nuclear professionals to have their voices heard. No longer are most people who understand nuclear energy isolated in small communities with few media outlets. In the 1970s, a large fraction of nuclear professionals were located near remotely sited national laboratories or power stations. Today, though many still work at national labs or in small market communities like Lynchburg, VA, we are all globally connected to a vast network on the Internet. We have Skype, YouTube and blogs. Some of us know that major decision makers and journalists read or listen to our words on a regular basis. We are no longer shy about responding to misinformation and unwarranted criticism.

Scared by the nuclear disaster at the Japanese Fukushima-1 Nuclear power plant, Germany, Italy and Switzerland have decided to abandon nuclear energy towards alternative sources of energy. How safe are these alternatives?  Today ecologists and scientists are trying to answer this question.Nature protection activists call alternative sources of energy “green” sources. However after a more detailed study these sources can hardly be regarded as “environmentally friendly”. Silicon solar arrays Europeans want to see on the roofs of their houses turn to be unsafe right at the stage of their production. The production of one ton of photo elements leads to the emission up to 4 tons of silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance, which combinations may cause different diseases. Besides poisonous gallium, lead and arsenic the photo elements also contain cadmium. If cadmium enters a human body it can cause tumors and affect the nervous system.

As for wind turbines, their noise is dangerous for health and it is impossible to recycle the worn blades. Though green energy sources are not completely safe it is the question of choosing the lesser of two evils, Igor Shkradyuk, the coordinator of the program on the greening of industrial activities at the Center of Wild Life Protection, says."Absolutely environmentally clean energy does not exist.  All its types have stronger of weaker impact on the environment. A solar battery requires a huge amount of unhealthy silicon. Engineers hope that silicon-free materials for solar batteries will be produced in 10-20 years. The solar battery, if you don’t break it, of course, poses no danger. As for wind turbines, the first one was put into operation in mid 1970-s in Germany. But the residents complained about its strong vibration and noise and a local court ruled to stop it. Since then many things have changed and modern powerful wind turbines are unheard already at a distance of 200 meters. But they are the main source of danger for migrating birds which are almost asleep as they fly to their wintering grounds and back."

Vladimir Chuprov, the head of the energy department of Russia’s Greenpeace agrees that all sources of energy cause environmental damage.  But the alternative sources have advantages anyway, he says."Of course, we are negative towards any pollution and here the problem of choice comes up. For example, silicon production requires chlorine which is hazardous. But now the gradual transition to chorine-free methods of silicon production has already begun.  Besides that we see the gradual transition to thin-film photoconverters in particular arsenic based converters. And after all, nobody says that solar batteries will be thrown to a dump site. It is necessary to ensure their proper utilization." 

this is a June 29 Des Moines Register editorial, telling readers "Don't be irrational, don't be hysterical, and don't you dare be anti-nuke". And don't listen to those "baseless rumors": Nuclear plants need scrutiny, not hysteria "Right now the plants are safe."That's what the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said of the two nuclear power plants along the Missouri River in Nebraska after recent flooding. There have been no "nuclear releases." Vital systems to ensure safety are protected. Flood waters are not expected to become unmanageable

Gov. Terry Branstad said that state officials are monitoring the plants and that the public should not worry.Yet some people worry

A healthy dose of concern about nuclear energy is necessary to help keep this country's power plants are safe. The United States must remain dedicated to rigorous scrutiny of plant safety regulations and emergency measures

The government must establish long-term plans for a new generation of nuclear power plants so future generations are not left dealing with its legacy, experts urged on Thursday.Ministers must work with the industry to create a "holistic" strategy which deals effectively with reprocessing and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and does not treat it simply as "an afterthought", they warned.The new build programme must also take into account the UK's stockpile of civil plutonium - the largest in the world - created as a waste fuel from nuclear reactors but which can potentially be reprocessed into new nuclear fuel.

The warning comes as the government pushes ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations in a bid to meet electricity demand and cut carbon emissions from the energy sector.In a report from the Royal Society, the group of experts said the handling of nuclear fuel throughout its working cycle must be considered to reduce security risks and the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons.Research and development programmes are needed from the outset of the new build project to ensure fuel is managed properly, they added.Roger Cashmore, chairman of the Royal Society working group and head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, said: "The last time any UK government articulated a coherent long-term plan for nuclear power was in 1955.

"We need to ensure that government and industry work together now to develop a long-term, holistic strategy for nuclear power in the UK."This must encompass the entire nuclear fuel cycle, from fresh fuel manufacture to disposal. Indeed, spent fuel can no longer be an afterthought and governments worldwide need to face up to this issue."He added: "While the government has made some positive moves towards an integrated approach to nuclear power, more must be done."The call comes after the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, signalled that a new generation of nuclear power plants would go ahead after a government-ordered review into the Fukushima disaster in Japan found no reason to curtail the use of reactors in the UK.

In Chernobyl, 0.09 uSv/h → Children started having symptoms. (near radiation level as westen Tokyo) 0.16 uSv/h → Adults got leukemia within 5 years. (near radiation level as Adachiku) 0.232 uSv/h → Mandatory evacuation area in Cheronobyl. (near radiation level as Asakusa or Tokyo Disneyland) I received a lot of queries. I would like to add some more explanation to this. This is a lecture of Ms. Noro Mika, who runs the NPO “Bridge to Chernobyl”

Annotator’s comment: Because I believe that breast-feeding has a tremendous influence not only on nutrition, but also on the mental aspect; that’s why I hope that the mothers who are breast-feeding their children pay strict attention also to the their level of internal exposure and evacuate as soon as possible. Because the danger of the radioactive substances is known well enough, the world is watching the way Japan is dealing with the situation. A country which abandons its children and doesn’t value their lives is not a country worthy of trust.

In Chernobyl, an area 30 km from the nuclear plant, where the radiation level was 0.232 μSv/hour, was declared “no-entry zone”. In Chernobyl, in area where radiation levels were daily even 0.16 μSv/hour have been admitted as being dangerous, and in fact, adults got leukemia and died. Annotator: In case, in Kamakura, were I live, the level is 0.16 μSv/hour. Concerning the gamma dose rate in a certain spots one meter above the ground level, the radiation levels declared officially for Kamakura city are generally between 0.11〜0.14 μSv/hour. Radioactivity, in case of of iron, concrete, etc causes the oxidation and corrosion, but in humans accelerates the aging process and cause them sickness.

A team of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency praised Japan on Friday for steps it has taken to reduce radiation exposure for the public, particularly children, near the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant.During a nine-day trip, the IAEA team visited schools, farms and government offices outside the 20-mile (12-kilometer) exclusion zone surrounding the power plant, which was damaged by a March 11 earthquake and tsunami.In a preliminary report submitted to the government, the 12-member team said Japan had developed "an efficient program for remediation — allocating the necessary legal, financial and technological resources to bring relief to the people affected by the accident, with priority being given to children."

The report noted efforts to decontaminate schools and some 400 playgrounds — mostly by volunteers, many of them parents of students. Towns around the exclusion zone have begun washing down public areas and removing topsoil in parks and school yards.It was the U.N. atomic agency's second major mission to Japan since the nuclear crisis began. Its purpose was to assess Japan's strategy and plans to reduce radiation exposure in areas around Fukushima prefecture.

No one has died from radiation in the nuclear crisis, but concerns remain high over how the lingering contamination will affect Fukushima's youth. On Sunday, local doctors began a long-term survey of children in the region for thyroid abnormalities, a problem linked with radiation exposure.In Ukraine, more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer have been detected in people who were children or adolescents when they were exposed to high levels of fallout immediately after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Japan's nuclear safety agency has said the radiation that leaked from the Fukushima plant was about one-sixth of that released from Chernobyl.

Japan on Sunday said cesium that is generating significant radioactivity at a location in China prefecture had likely been released from the damaged Fukushima atomic facility, the Japan Times reported (see GSN, Oct. 21). The six-reactor power plant was damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that left more than 20,000 people missing or dead in Japan. Radiation releases on a level not seen since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation of about 80,000 residents from a 12-mile ring exclusion zone surrounding the site in Fukushima prefecture. A Sunday inspection by Japanese Science Ministry and Kashiwa city authorities located an area to which rainwater had likely been carrying contaminants from the plant. The city had previously played down the likelihood that the radioactive material had originated from the nuclear facility (Japan Times, Oct. 24). Fukushima prefecture on Thursday said two boys between 4 and 7 years old had received the highest levels of internal radiation contamination out of roughly 4,500 locals tested, Kyodo News reported. The contamination would amount to roughly three millisieverts of radiation over their lives and would not produce dangerous effects, officials said (Kyodo News/Mainichi Daily News, Oct. 21). The Japanese Forestry Agency indicated that as soon as November it would begin to test pollen from cedar flowers located in the evacuation zone for cesium contamination, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported on Monday (Yomiuri Shimbun, Oct. 24). The government's Science Ministry and Fisheries Agency are set to ramp up and broaden testing for radioactive materials in ocean water and marine produce, the Asahi Shimbun reported on Saturday (Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 22).

Move is first step in long process before its restart* No reactors taken offline have been restarted since Fukushima crisis (Adds comment in paragraph 18-19)

Japan's Kansai Electric Power Co became the first utility to submit the result of a first-stage stress test on one of its nuclear reactors, the initial step in rebuilding public faith in atomic energy.No reactors taken offline for routine maintenance have been restarted since a massive earthquake and tsunami in March triggered reactor meltdowns and the world's worst radioactive material leakage in 25 years at Tokyo Electric Power Co's Fukushima Daiichi station in the northeast.Japan's government, urged by industry, would like to get some reactors running again to support the ailing economy and minimise the risk of a power crunch this winter. It is reviewing its energy policy, including the role of nuclear power and guidelines on its safety.

Several other nuclear operators are also preparing to report on stress tests, with Shikoku Electric Power Co , another highly nuclear reliant utility in the west, seen among the next candidates to do so.Kansai Electric, the country's second-biggest utility, this morning submitted to the trade ministry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) the results of stress tests on the No.3 reactor at its Ohi plant in Fukui prefecture.The Osaka-based utility, which serves the flagship factories of big electronics firms including Panasonic Corp and Sharp Corp , has said meeting winter power demand would be tough without the restart of the 1,180 megawatt unit.

(Reuters) - Japanese utilities will largely avoid power shortages this winter despite prolonged reactor shutdowns amid public concerns over nuclear safety, but hurdles remain for next summer, the government said on Tuesday.

It also unveiled ways to bridge the gap next summer, when peak-hour demand is expected to exceed supply by 16,560 megawatts, compared with the biggest gap this winter of 2,530 MW in one area, if no reactors restart by then.

Utilities plan to secure additional fossil-fuel capacity of 4,090 MW by next summer, but other plans depend on how far policy initiatives, such as fiscal spending, can encourage energy conservation and the use of solar and wind power, leaving the risk of rolling blackouts.

Since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that set off the nuclear disaster, a popular backlash against nuclear power has halted the reopening of reactors closed because of damage at the time or unrelated glitches, or for routine inspections. Regulations require reactors to close at least every 13 months for checks, meaning more and more reactors have gone out of service, with none allowed to restart — until Tuesday.

Only 10 of Japan’s 54 reactors are now generating electricity, a sharp reduction for an industry that once supplied 30 percent of the country’s electricity. The shortfall in supply forced the Tokyo Electric Power Company to tell companies to slash energy use by 15 percent this summer.

The government has been keen to soothe local jitters about nuclear energy and enable reactor restarts. But power companies must submit results of “stress tests” that evaluate a reactor’s defenses against earthquakes, tsunamis, station blackouts and the loss of water for cooling — and they must get a go-ahead from local the government.

On Friday Canadian regulators published their post-Fukushima Daiichi report on nuclear safety, concluding the country’s reactors could stand up safely to the conditions that triggered the crisis in Japan. As in the United States, the Canadian government ordered inspections of its operating nuclear plants and a review of their accident preparedness in response to the March station blackout that severely damaged three reactors. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s Fukushima Task Force Report “concludes that Canadian nuclear power plants are safe and pose a very small risk to the health and safety of Canadians or to the environment.” The report identified no gaps in emergency planning or regulatory oversight related to severe accidents. Further, the CNSC said in a release the country’s reactors can “withstand conditions similar to those that triggered the Fukushima event.”