Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Energy/ Group items tagged south

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear Power And South Africa's Climate Change Policy [23Oct11] - 0 views

www.care2.com/...cas-climate-change-policy.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • The South African government released its official climate change response policy this week and while it contains many positives, many environmentalists, myself included, are very concerned about the fact that it contains a continued and increased commitment to nuclear energy. First, some of the good news. In the National Climate Change Response White Paper, the government reiterates its conviction, based on the research of the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists, that climate change is happening, that human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are the main causes and that there will be very severe consequences if the international community does not take decisive collective action to halt it. That’s great. There’s not denying that. What’s more, the South African government acknowledges that, while Africa as a continent has been a relatively minor contributor to climate change, South Africa itself is a significant emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG), largely as a result of its energy-intensive, fossil fuel powered economy. If nothing is done, the country’s emissions are projected to quadruple by 2050.
  • Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of all of South Africa’s GHG emissions and clearly this represents a major opportunity for future reductions. More than 90% of the country’s electricity is produced by coal-fired power stations. The French-built Koeberg plant outside Cape Town, which dates back to the Apartheid era, remains the country’s only commercial nuclear energy facility. It’s interesting to take a look at how a major new nuclear energy construction program has become an integral part of South Africa’s climate change policy. The ruling African National Congress, in power since the first democratic elections in 1994, used to be a staunch opponent of atomic energy. When the organization was in exile some of its underground operatives even sabotaged Koeberg while it was being built.
  • These days, however, the ANC government is a very strong proponent of nuclear energy. Critics believe that this is mainly the result of effective lobbying by the international nuclear industry and the country’s main industrial and mining electricity consumers. This week, Minister of Energy, Dipuo Peters confirmed that plans to construct 6 new nuclear plants with a combined capacity of 9 600 megawatts would cost something like R1 trillion (about $125 billion). The formal acceptance of nuclear energy into South Africa’s climate change policy can be traced back to a study of so-called long term mitigation scenarios (LTMS) which modeled various actions that could be taken to bring the country’s GHG emission under control in line with what is required internationally to prevent catastrophic climate change.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • It’s quite clear that South Africa, a country with vast solar and wind energy potential, could make a transition to a clean, green economy free of environmentally dubious nuclear power and fossil fuels within a reasonable time frame. But since the government-sanctioned LTMS study did not provide this as an option, it seems not to have been considered by the powers that be. Even though the authors of the study emphasize that it was not a decision-making process in itself and was only meant to present policy-makers with options, the fact that the options it presented were severely limited meant that its recommendations became policy and nuclear energy became part of South Africa’s Integrated Resource Plan defining electricity generation until 2030 as well as the national climate change response policy. Unless anti-nuclear campaigners make some serious progress soon, nuclear energy will play a very significant role in South Africa’s future.
D'coda Dcoda

The nuclear power plans that have survived Fukushima [28Sep11] - 0 views

www.scidev.net/...have-survived-fukushima-1.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 01 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • SciDev.Net reporters from around the world tell us which countries are set on developing nuclear energy despite the Fukushima accident. The quest for energy independence, rising power needs and a desire for political weight all mean that few developing countries with nuclear ambitions have abandoned them in the light of the Fukushima accident. Jordan's planned nuclear plant is part of a strategy to deal with acute water and energy shortages.
  • The Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) wants Jordan to get 60 per cent of its energy from nuclear by 2035. Currently, obtaining energy from neighbouring Arab countries costs Jordan about a fifth of its gross domestic product. The country is also one of the world's most water-poor nations. Jordan plans to desalinate sea water from the Gulf of Aqaba to the south, then pump it to population centres in Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa, using its nuclear-derived energy. After the Fukushima disaster, Jordan started re-evaluating safety procedures for its nuclear reactor, scheduled to begin construction in 2013. The country also considered more safety procedures for construction and in ongoing geological and environmental investigations.
  • The government would not reverse its decision to build nuclear reactors in Jordan because of the Fukushima disaster," says Abdel-Halim Wreikat, vice Chairman of the JAEC. "Our plant type is a third-generation pressurised water reactor, and it is safer than the Fukushima boiling water reactor." Wreikat argues that "the nuclear option for Jordan at the moment is better than renewable energy options such as solar and wind, as they are still of high cost." But some Jordanian researchers disagree. "The cost of electricity generated from solar plants comes down each year by about five per cent, while the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power is rising year after year," says Ahmed Al-Salaymeh, director of the Energy Centre at the University of Jordan. He called for more economic feasibility studies of the nuclear option.
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • And Ahmad Al-Malabeh, a professor in the Earth and Environmental Sciences department of Hashemite University, adds: "Jordan is rich not only in solar and wind resources, but also in oil shale rock, from which we can extract oil that can cover Jordan's energy needs in the coming years, starting between 2016 and 2017 ... this could give us more time to have more economically feasible renewable energy."
  • Finance, rather than Fukushima, may delay South Africa's nuclear plans, which were approved just five days after the Japanese disaster. South Africa remains resolute in its plans to build six new nuclear reactors by 2030. Katse Maphoto, the director of Nuclear Safety, Liabilities and Emergency Management at the Department of Energy, says that the government conducted a safety review of its two nuclear reactors in Cape Town, following the Fukushima event.
  • Vietnam's nuclear energy targets remain ambitious despite scientists' warning of a tsunami risk. Vietnam's plan to power 10 per cent of its electricity grid with nuclear energy within 20 years is the most ambitious nuclear energy plan in South-East Asia. The country's first nuclear plant, Ninh Thuan, is to be built with support from a state-owned Russian energy company and completed by 2020. Le Huy Minh, director of the Earthquake and Tsunami Warning Centre at Vietnam's Institute of Geophysics, has warned that Vietnam's coast would be affected by tsunamis in the adjacent South China Sea.
  • Larkin says nuclear energy is the only alternative to coal for generating adequate electricity. "What other alternative do we have? Renewables are barely going to do anything," he said. He argues that nuclear is capable of supplying 85 per cent of the base load, or constantly needed, power supply, while solar energy can only produce between 17 and 25 per cent. But, despite government confidence, Larkin says that a shortage of money may delay the country's nuclear plans.
  • The government has said yes but hasn't said how it will pay for it. This is going to end up delaying by 15 years any plans to build a nuclear station."
  • The Ninh Thuan nuclear plant would sit 80 to 100 kilometres from a fault line on the Vietnamese coast, potentially exposing it to tsunamis, according to state media. But Vuong Huu Tan, president of the state-owned Vietnam Atomic Energy Commission, told state media in March, however, that lessons from the Fukushima accident will help Vietnam develop safe technologies. And John Morris, an Australia-based energy consultant who has worked as a geologist in Vietnam, says the seismic risk for nuclear power plants in the country would not be "a major issue" as long as the plants were built properly. Japan's nuclear plants are "a lot more earthquake prone" than Vietnam's would be, he adds.
  • Undeterred by Fukushima, Nigeria is forging ahead with nuclear collaborations. There is no need to panic because of the Fukushima accident, says Shamsideen Elegba, chair of the Forum of Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Africa. Nigeria has the necessary regulatory system to keep nuclear activities safe. "The Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority [NNRA] has established itself as a credible organisation for regulatory oversight on all uses of ionising radiation, nuclear materials and radioactive sources," says Elegba who was, until recently, the NNRA's director general.
  • Vietnam is unlikely to experience much in the way of anti-nuclear protests, unlike neighbouring Indonesia and the Philippines, where civil society groups have had more influence, says Kevin Punzalan, an energy expert at De La Salle University in the Philippines. Warnings from the Vietnamese scientific community may force the country's ruling communist party to choose alternative locations for nuclear reactors, or to modify reactor designs, but probably will not cause extreme shifts in the one-party state's nuclear energy strategy, Punzalan tells SciDev.Net.
  • Will the Philippines' plans to rehabilitate a never-used nuclear power plant survive the Fukushima accident? The Philippines is under a 25-year moratorium on the use of nuclear energy which expires in 2022. The government says it remains open to harnessing nuclear energy as a long-term solution to growing electricity demand, and its Department of Science and Technology has been making public pronouncements in favour of pursuing nuclear energy since the Fukushima accident. Privately, however, DOST officials acknowledge that the accident has put back their job of winning the public over to nuclear by four or five years.
  • In the meantime, the government is trying to build capacity. The country lacks, for example, the technical expertise. Carmencita Bariso, assistant director of the Department of Energy's planning bureau, says that, despite the Fukushima accident, her organisation has continued with a study on the viability, safety and social acceptability of nuclear energy. Bariso says the study would include a proposal for "a way forward" for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, the first nuclear reactor in South East Asia at the time of its completion in 1985. The $2.3-billion Westinghouse light water reactor, about 60 miles north of the capital, Manila, was never used, though it has the potential to generate 621 megawatts of power. President Benigno Aquino III, whose mother, President Corazon Aquino, halted work on the facility in 1986 because of corruption and safety issues, has said it will never be used as a nuclear reactor but could be privatised and redeveloped as a conventional power plant.
  • But Mark Cojuangco, former lawmaker, authored a bill in 2008 seeking to start commercial nuclear operations at the Bataan reactor. His bill was not passed before Congress adjourned last year and he acknowledges that the Fukushima accident has made his struggle more difficult. "To go nuclear is still the right thing to do," he says. "But this requires a societal decision. We are going to spark public debates with a vengeance as soon as the reports from Fukushima are out." Amended bills seeking both to restart the reactor, and to close the issue by allowing either conversion or permanent closure, are pending in both the House and the Senate. Greenpeace, which campaigns against nuclear power, believes the Fukushima accident has dimmed the chances of commissioning the Bataan plant because of "increased awareness of what radioactivity can do to a place". Many parts of the country are prone to earthquakes and other natural disasters, which critics say makes it unsuitable both for the siting of nuclear power stations and the disposal of radioactive waste.
  • In Kenya, nuclear proponents argue for a geothermal – nuclear mix In the same month as the Fukushima accident, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency approved Kenya's application for its first nuclear power station (31 March), a 35,000 megawatt facility to be built at a cost of Sh950 billion (US$9.8 billion) on a 200-acre plot on the Athi Plains, about 50km from Nairobi
  • The plant, with construction driven by Kenya's Nuclear Electricity Project Committee, should be commissioned in 2022. The government claims it could satisfy all of Kenya's energy needs until 2040. The demand for electricity is overwhelming in Kenya. Less than half of residents in the capital, Nairobi, have grid electricity, while the rural rate is two per cent. James Rege, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Energy, Communication and Information, takes a broader view than the official government line, saying that geothermal energy, from the Rift Valley project is the most promising option. It has a high production cost but remains the country's "best hope". Nuclear should be included as "backup". "We are viewing nuclear energy as an alternative source of power. The cost of fossil fuel keeps escalating and ordinary Kenyans can't afford it," Rege tells SciDev.Net.
  • Hydropower is limited by rivers running dry, he says. And switching the country's arable land to biofuel production would threaten food supplies. David Otwoma, secretary to the Energy Ministry's Nuclear Electricity Development Project, agrees that Kenya will not be able to industrialise without diversifying its energy mix to include more geothermal, nuclear and coal. Otwoma believes the expense of generating nuclear energy could one day be met through shared regional projects but, until then, Kenya has to move forward on its own. According to Rege, much as the nuclear energy alternative is promising, it is extremely important to take into consideration the Fukushima accident. "Data is available and it must be one step at a time without rushing things," he says. Otwoma says the new nuclear Kenya can develop a good nuclear safety culture from the outset, "but to do this we need to be willing to learn all the lessons and embrace them, not forget them and assume that won't happen to us".
  • But the government adopted its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for 2010-2030 five days after the Fukushima accident. Elliot Mulane, communications manager for the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, (NECSA) a public company established under the 1999 Nuclear Energy Act that promotes nuclear research, said the timing of the decision indicated "the confidence that the government has in nuclear technologies". And Dipuo Peters, energy minister, reiterated the commitment in her budget announcement earlier this year (26 May), saying: "We are still convinced that nuclear power is a necessary part of our strategy that seeks to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through a diversified portfolio, comprising some fossil-based, renewable and energy efficiency technologies". James Larkin, director of the Radiation and Health Physics Unit at the University of the Witwatersrand, believes South Africa is likely to go for the relatively cheap, South Korean generation three reactor.
  • It is not only that we say so: an international audit came here in 2006 to assess our procedure and processes and confirmed the same. Elegba is firmly of the view that blame for the Fukushima accident should be allocated to nature rather than human error. "Japan is one of the leaders not only in that industry, but in terms of regulatory oversight. They have a very rigorous system of licensing. We have to make a distinction between a natural event, or series of natural events and engineering infrastructure, regulatory infrastructure, and safety oversight." Erepamo Osaisai, Director General of the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC), has said there is "no going back" on Nigeria's nuclear energy project after Fukushima.
  • Nigeria is likely to recruit the Russian State Corporation for Atomic Energy, ROSATOM, to build its first proposed nuclear plant. A delegation visited Nigeria (26- 28 July) and a bilateral document is to be finalised before December. Nikolay Spassy, director general of the corporation, said during the visit: "The peaceful use of nuclear power is the bedrock of development, and achieving [Nigeria's] goal of being one of the twenty most developed countries by the year 2020 would depend heavily on developing nuclear power plants." ROSATOM points out that the International Atomic Energy Agency monitors and regulates power plant construction in previously non-nuclear countries. But Nnimmo Bassey, executive director of the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN), said "We cannot see the logic behind the government's support for a technology that former promoters in Europe, and other technologically advanced nations, are now applying brakes to. "What Nigeria needs now is investment in safe alternatives that will not harm the environment and the people. We cannot accept the nuclear option."
  • Thirsty for electricity, and desirous of political clout, Egypt is determined that neither Fukushima ― nor revolution ― will derail its nuclear plans. Egypt was the first country in the Middle East and North Africa to own a nuclear programme, launching a research reactor in 1961. In 2007 Egypt 'unfroze' a nuclear programme that had stalled in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. After the Egyptian uprising in early 2011, and the Fukushima accident, the government postponed an international tender for the construction of its first plant.
  • Yassin Ibrahim, chairman of the Nuclear Power Plants Authority, told SciDev.Net: "We put additional procedures in place to avoid any states of emergency but, because of the uprising, the tender will be postponed until we have political stability after the presidential and parliamentary election at the end of 2011". Ibrahim denies the nuclear programme could be cancelled, saying: "The design specifications for the Egyptian nuclear plant take into account resistance to earthquakes and tsunamis, including those greater in magnitude than any that have happened in the region for the last four thousand years. "The reactor type is of the third generation of pressurised water reactors, which have not resulted in any adverse effects to the environment since they began operation in the early sixties."
  • Ibrahim El-Osery, a consultant in nuclear affairs and energy at the country's Nuclear Power Plants Authority, points out that Egypt's limited resources of oil and natural gas will run out in 20 years. "Then we will have to import electricity, and we can't rely on renewable energy as it is still not economic yet — Egypt in 2010 produced only two per cent of its needs through it." But there are other motives for going nuclear, says Nadia Sharara, professor of mineralogy at Assiut University. "Owning nuclear plants is a political decision in the first place, especially in our region. And any state that has acquired nuclear technology has political weight in the international community," she says. "Egypt has the potential to own this power as Egypt's Nuclear Materials Authority estimates there are 15,000 tons of untapped uranium in Egypt." And she points out it is about staying ahead with technology too. "If Egypt freezes its programme now because of the Fukushima nuclear disaster it will fall behind in many science research fields for at least the next 50 years," she warned.
D'coda Dcoda

South Africa: The Return of Highly Enriched Uranium to the U.S. in Context [17Aug11] - 0 views

allafrica.com/...201108240901.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 28 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • On 17 August 2011, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the United States issued a press release announcing that the South African government, through the Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), had returned 6,3kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) spent fuel to the US for safe storage and ultimately for destruction.
  • NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the US Department of Energy (DOE) responsible among other things for maintaining and enhancing the safety, security, reliability and performance of the US nuclear weapons stockpile. The shipment arrived at Savannah River Site (SRS) on 16 August. The SRS is a key DOE industrial complex dedicated to nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship and nuclear materials destruction in support of the US nuclear non-proliferation efforts. It is situated 20 miles south of Aiken, South Carolina.
  • Subsequent press reports and releases by mainly US-based academics and NGOs lauded this development as a significant step in 'reducing and securing vulnerable [emphasis added] radioactive materials held at civilian sites around the world' and stated that it represents an important effort to 'strengthen the world's defences against nuclear terrorism'. While at first reading these may seem reasonable assertions, a number of important caveats need to be highlighted.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Firstly, 'spent fuel' is defined as fuel whose elements have been removed from the reactor because the fissionable material they contain has been depleted to a level near where it can no longer sustain a chain reaction. The high concentration of radioactive fission products in spent power-reactor fuel creates a gamma-radiation field, which at a distance of a metre would be lethal. South Africa, or more accurately Necsa, no longer has any use for this material.
  • Secondly, the US and South Africa have been working constructively for a number of years on various peaceful use applications of nuclear material and in particular on the need to minimise the use of HEU. Examples of such co-operation are the conversion of South Africa's SAFARI-1 reactor to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel as well as training in medical responses to nuclear and radiological emergencies. Indeed, today South Africa is leading the transition to produce the medical isotope molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) with LEU rather than HEU.
  • Zuma was one of only five African Heads of State or government invited to develop concrete measures towards ensuring that nuclear materials under their control are not stolen or diverted (the others being Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Nigeria). They pledged to improve security as changing conditions may require, and to exchange best practices and practical solutions for doing so. The Summit's final communiqué also highlighted the fact that 'highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium require special precautions'.
  • Thirdly, the return is not unique. The repatriation of used and unused HEU fuel to its country of origin - either the US or Russia - has been an international goal since the early 1980s. Some 1,249kg of US-origin highly enriched uranium from sites around the world have already been returned, including from Chile in April 2010 just after the earthquake the previous February.
  • Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the spent fuel storage facility at Necsa is not, and has never been, 'vulnerable' - in the sense of being in danger of being accessed by organisations or persons with criminal intent or worse, with terrorist ideologies.
D'coda Dcoda

The True Cost of Nuclear Energy | Greenpeace Africa [04Aug11] - 0 views

www.greenpeace.org/...he-True-Cost-of-Nuclear-Energy

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 27 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • In our new report “True Cost of Nuclear Power in South Africa”, presented to the Department of Energy today, we expose the significant social and economic impacts of the country’s nuclear program in the past, and highlight the benefits of a nuclear-free future. At the same time we also made a submission to the Environmental Impact Assessment on the proposed Nuclear-1 power station to the DoE.
  • Greenpeace urges the Minister of Energy to reconsider the role of nuclear energy in South Africa and put a moratorium on any new nuclear reactors at least until the safety implications of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan have been fully evaluated. Rather than investing in dangerous energy technologies, our country should opt for clean energy options. The True Cost of Nuclear report outlines South Africa’s costly nuclear history, its failure to learn from past mistakes, and how the country could leave dirty and dangerous energy behind by investing in renewables. To achieve a nuclear-free South Africa, whilst still reducing the country’s dependency on coal, the electricity sector needs to be the pioneer of renewable energy utilisation. According to our Advanced Energy [R]evolution, 49% of electricity can be produced from renewable sources by 2030, increasing to 94% by 2050. “Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction from the clean energy development needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. Nuclear power simply delivers too little, too late, and at too high a price for the environment,” said Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International.
  • As host of the international climate negotiations COP17 in Durban this year, South Africa should play a leading role both in terms of its domestic energy choices, and by debunking false energy solutions to catastrophic climate change, such as nuclear. Greenpeace Africa is calling for decisive action and the political leadership required to secure the brighter future South Africans deserve. A future that is free of the threats posed by nuclear energy. “We need an Energy [R]evolution driven by the creation of green jobs. With the political will and South Africa’s abundance of renewable energy resources, the country could and should become a renewable energy leader in Africa,” said Ferrial Adam, Greenpeace Africa campaigner.
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear Energy in South Africa [4Sep11] - 0 views

www.home-windmills.net/nuclear-energy-in-south-africa

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 14 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • Dr. Yvres Guenon from AREVA gave a good pitch at the recent SANEA talk on “The nuclear program is a true opportunity for South Africa. He started off stating that we weren’t alone in the energy epidemic; “don’t think you are the only country with bad decision makers” he said. Europe is in the same boat. In the past countries went coal as it was the only option, but in the future it will be about finding the ‘right mix’ of energy producers. Guenon’s solution is to include nuclear power in that mix.
  • The argument was a fair one – nuclear does have financial benefits to it. The cost might be a bit hefty in the beginning; but most (if not all) energy providers are. The one thing about nuclear is that the price of energy thereafter doesn’t change. What you pay today for your electricity will stay that way for the next 50 – 60 years. In his presentation he included a diagram that showed nuclear was the least in greenhouse gases. Europe doesn’t have many options for energy development but here in South Africa, where we are blessed with sun and the south-easter wind, we have a variety. Even though we can include renewable in our mix, Guenon showed that solar costs 10 times more than coal and wind was four times more.
  • Guenon’s main purpose of his presentation was also the job development and therefore economy improvement, that comes from nuclear power. As nuclear involvers building an entire plant consisting of a variety of technologies and includes a variety of industries there is huge potential in employment and expansion in industries. Other energy producers, such as solar or wind, involve a slice of professions and specific exclusive industries. Nuclear touches on engineers, technicians, welders, management and a wide variety of workers. When asked about the chances of an accident, Guenon simple answer was “about the same chance of a meteorite landing in your lounge.” It creates abundant energy at a fraction of the price, while creating job opportunities and improving the economy; all of this and to top it off – no coal. On the outside it seems to provide the answer to all our problems. So what’s the catch? “Dr Guenon!” A hand shot up in the audience. “What about waste?”
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Guenon that in France they have chosen to repossess the fuel, reduce the toxicity level as much a possible by running it through a chemical process (twice) and then putting it into a storage container which can hold it up to 300 years. The concept is that the technology currently is only a few decades old. Hopefully in a few more decades, or longer, research and technology improvements will find a solution to how to completely deal with the built up waste. It wasn’t mentioned if that was the case for the proposal in South Africa, nor was it mentioned what would happen if the container had a leak.
  • Here in South Africa there is another side to the plant. One proposed site for building the nuclear plant is only a few kilometres outside Cape Town in Bantamsklip Location, location, location Bantamsklip is within 50km of one of Cape Town’s biggest ‘holiday’ towns; Hermanus. Known for its unspoilt natural beauty, the area is the biodiversity core area of the Cape Floral Kingdom and is one of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The proposed site contains 800 plant species and 22 red data species, 6 of which grow no where else in the world.
  • The nuclear power plant will be right by Agulhas National Park, and on the edge of a threatened marine ecosystem. Due to the beauty of the area, it is a high tourist attraction. In another article [Age of Stupid] a woman from the U.K. refused to have wind plants built on her neighbours farm as it ‘spoilt the view,’ which frustrated a lot of the environmentalists in the audience, as if we don’t start investing in renewable energy there won’t be much of a view to enjoy.
  • In this case, however, ‘spoiling the view’ with a nuclear power plant doesn’t only mean damaging the tourism in the area, but also threatening protected species like Blue Cranes, due to the overhead power line collisions; also threatening the marine sanctuaries of the Southern Right Whales and Great White Sharks. According to Barry Clark who did a review of the Marine Impact Study for the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] for the proposed nuclear power station; continuous lowlevel dosing with chlorine is proposed as a means of reducing biofouling on the seawater intake pipes. Clark questions “the impacts of this are dismissed as being ‘very localised and are considered unlikely to have a significant negative impact on the receiving environment’ the source of which is the previous EIA for the Koeberg Power Station.
D'coda Dcoda

South Africa Says 'No Decision Made' on Building Nuclear Plants [10Oct11] - 0 views

www.bloomberg.com/...-new-nuclear-power-plants.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 10 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • South Africa’s Department of Energy said reports of a tender process being under way for six new nuclear power plants “are factually incorrect.” “At no point has the government committed to build six new nuclear reactors,” the department said in an e-mailed statement today. The government "hasn’t selected any design, vendor nor suppliers of the nuclear power plants. No decision has been made on the actual number.’’ South Africa plans to diversify energy sources away from coal, which makes up more than 90 percent of its generation capacity of about 40,000 megawatts. It also aims to prevent a repeat of power outages in 2008 that temporarily shut most of the nation’s mines and smelters, its biggest source of foreign exchange.
  • Energy Minister Dipuo Peters has proposed a strategy for the roll-out of new nuclear power plants to the Cabinet, the ministry said. The government approved plans to boost its nuclear energy capacity by 9.6 electrical gigawatt, it said. Safety concerns following the meltdown of nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan, prompted Peters to postpone the opening of the bids until next year, she said on Sept. 15.
  • ‘Factually Incorrect’ The energy department’s statement said it “noted” an article published by the Mail & Guardian on Oct. 6. The newspaper listed potential bidders for a 1 trillion rand ($126 billion) tender to build six nuclear plants by 2030 as Areva SA, EDF SA (EDF), Toshiba Corp. (6502)’s Westinghouse Electric Corp. unit, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Corp., Korea Electric Power Corp. (KEP) and Rosatom Corp. The report, which cited unidentified people in government and industry, is “full of statements that are not true and factually incorrect,” the Department of Energy said in its statement.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The country has one nuclear power plant, the 1,800 megawatt Koeberg plant near Cape Town, built by Areva and operated by the South African power utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. The nation also has an atomic research station, Pelindaba near Pretoria, and is a former nuclear power that destroyed its weapons toward the end of the apartheid era in 1994.
  • Areva is hoping to be part of the nuclear bid program in South Africa,” an external company spokesman said yesterday in an e-mailed response to questions.
D'coda Dcoda

Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity - Environmental S... - 0 views

pubs.acs.org/...es202816c

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 09 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • The impacts on the ocean of releases of radionuclides from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants remain unclear. However, information has been made public regarding the concentrations of radioactive isotopes of iodine and cesium in ocean water near the discharge point. These data allow us to draw some basic conclusions about the relative levels of radionuclides released which can be compared to prior ocean studies and be used to address dose consequences as discussed by Garnier-Laplace et al. in this journal.(1) The data show peak ocean discharges in early April, one month after the earthquake and a factor of 1000 decrease in the month following. Interestingly, the concentrations through the end of July remain higher than expected implying continued releases from the reactors or other contaminated sources, such as groundwater or coastal sediments. By July, levels of 137Cs are still more than 10 000 times higher than levels measured in 2010 in the coastal waters off Japan. Although some radionuclides are significantly elevated, dose calculations suggest minimal impact on marine biota or humans due to direct exposure in surrounding ocean waters, though considerations for biological uptake and consumption of seafood are discussed and further study is warranted.
  • there was no large explosive release of core reactor material, so most of the isotopes reported to have spread thus far via atmospheric fallout are primarily the radioactive gases plus fission products such as cesium, which are volatilized at the high temperatures in the reactor core, or during explosions and fires. However, some nonvolatile activation products and fuel rod materials may have been released when the corrosive brines and acidic waters used to cool the reactors interacted with the ruptured fuel rods, carrying radioactive materials into the ground and ocean. The full magnitude of the release has not been well documented, nor is there data on many of the possible isotopes released, but we do have significant information on the concentration of several isotopes of Cs and I in the ocean near the release point which have been publically available since shortly after the accident started.
  • We present a comparison of selected data made publicly available from a Japanese company and agencies and compare these to prior published radionuclide concentrations in the oceans. The primary sources included TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company), which reported data in regular press releases(3) and are compiled here (Supporting Information Table S1). These TEPCO data were obtained by initially sampling 500 mL surface ocean water from shore and direct counting on high-purity germanium gamma detectors for 15 min at laboratories at the Fukushima Dai-ni NPPs. They reported initially results for 131I (t1/2 = 8.02 days), 134Cs (t1/2 = 2.065 years) and 137Cs (t1/2 = 30.07 years). Data from MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology—Japan) were also released on a public Web site(4) and are based on similar direct counting methods. In general MEXT data were obtained by sampling 2000 mL seawater and direct counting on high-purity germanium gamma detectors for 1 h in a 2 L Marinelli beaker at laboratories in the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The detection limit of 137Cs measurements are about 20 000 Bq m–3 for TEPCO data and 10 000 Bq m–3 for MEXT data, respectively. These measurements were conducted based on a guideline described by MEXT.(5) Both sources are considered reliable given the common activity ratios and prior studies and expertise evident by several Japanese groups involved in making these measurements. The purpose of these early monitoring activities was out of concern for immediate health effects, and thus were often reported relative to statutory limits adopted by Japanese authorities, and thus not in concentration units (reported as scaling factors above “normal”). Here we convert values from both sources to radionuclide activity units common to prior ocean studies of fallout in the ocean (Bq m–3) for ease of comparison to previously published data.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • We focus on the most complete time-series records from the north and south discharge channels at the Dai-ichi NPPs, and two sites to the south that were not considered sources, namely the north Discharge channels at the Dai-ni NPPs about 10 km to the south and Iwasawa beach which is 16 km south of the Dai-ichi NPPs (Figure 1). The levels at the discharge point are exceedingly high, with a peak 137Cs 68 million Bq m–3 on April 6 (Figure 2). What are significant are not just the elevated concentrations, but the timing of peak release approximately one month after to the earthquake. This delayed release is presumably due to the complicated pattern of discharge of seawater and fresh water used to cool the reactors and spent fuel rods, interactions with groundwater, and intentional and unintentional releases of mixed radioactive material from the reactor facility.
  • the concentrations of Cs in sediments and biota near the NPPs may be quite large, and will continue to remain so for at least 30–100 years due to the longer half-life of 137Cs which is still detected in marine and lake sediments from 1960s fallout sources.
  • If the source at Fukushima had stopped abruptly and ocean mixing processes continued at the same rates, one would have expected that the 137Cs activities would have decreased an additional factor of 1000 from May to June but that was not observed. The break in slope in early May implies that a steady, albeit lower, source of 137Cs continues to discharge to the oceans at least through the end of July at this site. With reports of highly contaminated cooling waters at the NPPs and complete melt through of at least one of the reactors, this is not surprising. As we have no reason to expect a change in mixing rates of the ocean which would also impact this dilution rate, this change in slope of 137Cs in early May is clear evidence that the Dai-ichi NPPs remain a significant source of contamination to the coastal waters off Japan. There is currently no data that allow us to distinguish between several possible sources of continued releases, but these most likely include some combination of direct releases from the reactors or storage tanks, or indirect releases from groundwater beneath the reactors or coastal sediments, both of which are likely contaminated from the period of maximum releases
  • It is prudent to point out though what is meant by “significant” to both ocean waters and marine biota. With respect to prior concentrations in the waters off Japan, all of these values are elevated many orders of magnitude. 137Cs has been tracked quite extensively off Japan since the peak weapons testing fallout years in the early 1960s.(13) Levels in the region east of Japan have decreased from a few 10s of Bq m–3 in 1960 to 1.5 Bq m–3 on average in 2010 (Figure 2; second x-axis). The decrease in 137Cs over this 50 year record reflects both radioactive decay of 137Cs with a 30 year half-life and continued mixing in the global ocean of 137Cs to depth. These data are characteristic of other global water masses.(14) Typical ocean surface 137Cs activities range from <1 Bq m–3 in surface waters in the Southern Hemisphere, which are lower due to lower weapons testing inputs south of the equator, to >10–100 Bq m–3 in the Irish Sea, North Sea, Black Sea, and Baltic Seas, which are elevated due to local sources from the intentional discharges at the nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities at Sellafield in the UK and Cape de la Hague in France, as well as residual 137Cs from Chernobyl in the Baltic and Black Seas. Clearly then on this scale of significance, levels of 137Cs 30 km off Japan were some 3–4 orders of magnitude higher than existed prior to the NPP accidents at Fukushima.
  • Finally though, while the Dai-ichi NPP releases must be considered “significant” relative to prior sources off Japan, we should not assume that dose effects on humans or marine biota are necessarily harmful or even will be measurable. Garnier-Laplace et al.(1) report a dose reconstruction signal for the most impacted areas to wildlife on land and in the ocean. Like this study, they are relying on reported activities to calculate forest biota concentrations,
  • D'coda Dcoda on 09 Dec 11
     
    From Wood's Hole, note that calculations are based on reports from TEPCO & other Japanese agencies. Quite a bit more to read on the site.
D'coda Dcoda

U.S. to restart construction of nuclear reactors [28Nov11] - 0 views

seattletimes.nwsource.com/...016866631_japanreactors27.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 29 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • After 34 years, the United States is expected to resume construction of nuclear reactors by the end of the year, and Toshiba will export turbine equipment for the reactors to the U.S. early next month, it was learned Saturday. According to sources, construction will begin by year-end on the Nos. 3 and 4 reactors of the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia Georgia Country Georgia /ˈdʒɔrdʒə/ (Georgian: საქართველო, sak’art’velo IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ( listen)) is a sovereign state in the Caucasus region of Eurasia. Located at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern E... View full Dossier Latest news and the Nos. 2 and 3 reactors of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina U.S. state South Carolina /ˌsaʊθ kærəˈlaɪnə/ is a state in the Deep South of the United States that borders Georgia to the south, North Carolina to the north, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Originally pa... View full Dossier Latest news .
  • The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Government Agency (United States of America) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an independent agency of the United States government that was established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 from the United States Atomic Energy C... View full Dossier Latest news is expected to shortly approve the construction and operation of the reactors, which have been designed by Westinghouse, a subsidiary of Toshiba. The decision to resume construction of reactors is expected to pave the way for Japan Japan Country Japan /dʒəˈpæn/ (Japanese: 日本 Nihon or Nippon; formally 日本国  Nippon-koku or Nihon-koku, literally, the State of Japan) is an island nation in East Asia. Located in the Pacific Ocean, it lies to the... View full Dossier Latest news to export related equipment to the United States, observers said.
  • The reactors to be constructed are of the AP1000 type
D'coda Dcoda

Some countries make progress on nuclear energy despite Fukushima fears [25Sep11] - 0 views

djysrv.blogspot.com/...-make-progress-on-nuclear.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 27 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • Germany’s decision to close its reactors rejected as unrealistic
  • Since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami hit the six TEPCO reactors at Fukushima Japan, anti-nuclear groups have been on a roll.  Germany’s panic attack which will result in closing 17 reactors accounting for a quarter of its electricity is widely touted as a bellwether example for other countries.   The goal of post-industrial visionaries is to get the mainstream media and the public to accept a scenario of the inevitable end to the use of nuclear energy in as many places as possible. But is this trend really taking place?  Recent developments indicate it is not.  Here are some examples.
  • China to lift ban on new projects By early 2012 China will resume approving the start of new nuclear energy projects following completion of a national nuclear safety plan.  According to wire services, the China Securities Journal is reporting that in August the government completed the inspection of its existing fleet of nuclear reactors which provide about 11 Gwe of power.  It said that plants under construction, including four from Westinghouse and two from Areva, were also part of the review.  In an unexpected move, the Journal said the government would offer greater transparency on nuclear safety issues by making the results of the safety reviews available for public inspection.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Czech utility CEZ plans Europe’s largest reactor complexes The Czech government is planning a significant expansion of nuclear energy now that Germany has moved to shutter its 17 reactors by 2020.  A national energy strategy would call for building two or more new reactors at Temelin and three more at Dukovany. The two sites house a total of six existing reactors and grid infrastructure. 
  • Czech Industry & Trade Minister Martin Kocourek (right) told the Bloomberg wire service  September 8 the country will not give in to anti-nuclear influences from Austria or Germany. “Czech doesn’t need ideology.  What it needs is a rational update of its energy strategy.  The current ideology-driven policies of some countries is one thing; our reality is another.” If state-owned Czech utility CEZ builds all five reactors, worth about $28 billion, it will export electricity to Germany and Poland.  CEZ is expected to release documents related to the bid process next month.  The bidders are Areva, Westinghouse, and Rosatom.  An award for the first two new reactors to be built at Temelin is expected in 2013.
  • On September 15 CEZ named Daniel Benes, 41, as its new CEO with a mandate to execute a national energy strategy that includes building new nuclear reactors.  On September 20 Benes told financial wire services it will be his top priority linked to the goal of energy security for the Czech Republic.
  • On September 23 Czech President Vaclav Klaus (left) spoke at the United Nations in support of nuclear energy.  According to English language Czech news media, Klaus said: . . . “We consider what happened in Fukushima did not by any means question the arguments for nuclear energy.  These arguments are strong, economically rational and convincing.” He called Germany’s decision to close its reactors an “irrational populist event.”  In a parallel statement trade minister Kocourek said that CEZ would not expand renewable energy sources beyond 13% because it is unrealistic to expect to run a modern country on them.  He added CEZ “has big doubts” about biomass.
  • South Korea to invest in Romanian nuclear plant A South Korean nuclear energy consortium may invest in a project to build a third and a fourth reactor at Cernovoda in southeast Romania. The consortium replaces an investor group which pulled out of the project earlier this year.  The project manager for the new reactors is EnergoNuclear.  Right now Romania’s state owned electric utility holds an 85% share in the project and Italy’s ENEL holds another 9%. If the deal goes through, the South Korean group could take up to a 45 % stake in the project which is estimated to cost $5.7 billion.  Romania has two CANDU reactors at the site near the country’s Black Sea coast.  South Korea has experience with the CANDU design so it is plausible it may reference it in a proposal to build the next two units. This would be a huge win for AECL which recently was split up with its reactor division sold off for peanuts to SNC Lavalin.  AECL has marketed itself in eastern Europe hoping for this kind of development.
D'coda Dcoda

Skyrocketing new reactor construction costs that just toppled Calvert Cliffs ... - 0 views

www.beyondnuclear.org/...on-costs-that-just-topple.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 15 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • NIRS, Public Citizen, South Carolina Sierra Club, and former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford have warned in a press release that the same forces -- skyrocketing new reactor construction costs, decreased demand for electricity, competition from renewables and efficiency, low natural gas prices, etc. -- which just undermined the Calvert Cliffs 3 new reactor proposal in Maryland are also battering away at the new reactor proposals in Texas (South Texas Project Units 3 and 4) and South Carolina (V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3). Calvert Cliffs, South Texas Project, and Summer were the top three federal nuclear loan guarantee finalists after Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia, which the Obama administration awarded a conditional $8.3 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantee last February. The audio recording of the full press conference is also posted online.
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear energy ~ Think again [22Oct11] - 0 views

www.coolhandnuke.com/...uclear-energy-Think-again.aspx

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 31 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • It is fashionable among green groups and others who have utopian visions of a low tech post industrial society to say that nuclear energy is finished as a result of the Fukushima crisis. This is dead wrong. Charles D. Ferguson, President of the Federation of American Scientists, has an important essay in Foreign Policy Magazine on the subject. In an article titled, "Think Again: Nuclear Power," he writes that while Japan has "melted down, that doesn't mean the end of the atomic age."His point is that the fashionable approach to the nuclear fuel cycle is sometimes wrong.Also, there is other positive news about nuclear energy. The NRC is making headway with the final design certification of the Westinghouse AP1000. South Africa will try again to get financing and build new nuclear reactors instead of more coal plants.
  • Here's a quick summary of Ferguson's essay.First, Fukushima did not kill the nuclear renaissance. Germany already had a significant anti-nuclear political constituency well before March 11, 2011. Fukushima simply accelerated a process that was already underway. Meanwhile, China, India, and South Korea are moving ahead with their plans to rely on nuclear energy.Second, nuclear energy is not "an accident waiting to happen." The accidents which have happened are mostly the result of issues with organizational culture, and not technology failures.
  • Third, the expense of building nuclear power plants is offset by the low cost of running them. Once you factor in the benefits of stopping carbon emissions and the issue of climate change, nuclear energy looks like a bargain. While nuclear energy has been good for highly industrialized countries, it doesn't have nearly the same potential in the developing world for two reasons – cost and lack of robust electrical grids. Ferguson doesn't address small modular reactors which could find a niche in these markets.Fourth, commercial nuclear development does not necessarily lead to bomb making. Most of the 30 or so countries that use nuclear power have not built their own enrichment plants nor reprocessing centers.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Firth, management of radioactive waste and spent fuel are solvable problems. Dry cask storage works and deep geologic repositories are feasible once you get the politics right.Sixth, windmills will not replace reactors nor will solar nor anytime soon. These are intermittent and niche technologies which require massive government subsidies to get their electricity to market. Smart grids will improve the use of these technologies, but claimed improvements in energy storage technologies contain some starry eyed projections.The FAS describes itself as being focused on national and international security issues connected to applied science and technology. 
  • NRC progress with AP1000The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's technical staff has recommended to the full commission that it approve final design certification of the Westinghouse AP1000. According to agency officials, the commission will vote on the matter by the end of the year. Eight new reactors in the southeast have referenced the AP1000 design. Construction of four units is already underway in China.The NRC rejected a petition by anti-nuclear groups to stop all new licensing until safety improvements related to the Fukushima crisis are issued as regulatory requirements. The commission said that the Part 52 licensing process allows for new safety measures to be added to licenses as the commission approves them.
  • The first U.S. utility to break ground for twin AP1000s is Southern at its Vogtle site in Georgia. Southern says it expects a combined construction and operating license sometime in the first months of 2012. At that time it will also ink the final term sheet of its $8.3 billion loan guarantee with the Department of Energy.Other utilities which plan to build twin AP1000s include Scana (2 at V.C. Summer site in South Carolina, Florida Power & Light at Turkey Point and Progress at Levy County. Both sites are in Florida.
  • South Africa new buildThe South African government, which tried to offer a tender for 12 new nuclear reactors in 2008, but failed to arrange the financing for them, is making a second attempt. Energy Minister Dipuo Peters told financial wire services Oct 19 a tender for 9.6 GWe is under review by the government.The reactors would be built over a period of two decades. The bid process could begin as early as winter 2012.
  • The value at $4,000/kw could be in the range of $38 billion for the reactors, but as much as three times that amount in total for turbines, upgrades to the grid, including lines and substations, first fuel loads, and spent fuel management.A critical issue remains which is how the government will finance the new build. The country has suffered through a series of power crisis because in prior years the government failed to raise rates or diverted money from Eskom, the state owned utility, to social welfare purposes. As a result, the country's overall GDP suffered as manufacturing plants and mines had to close periodically or reduce operations due to problems with electricity supply.Since then the government has imposed rate increases, but faces some political opposition because of chronically high unemployment officially measured at 25% of the workforce. New coal plants are being built along with wind and solar plants.An interesting note is that China's Guangdong Nuclear Power Group has indicated interest in providing the financing in return for the right to build and operating the plants. Other bidders include the major developed country vendors.
D'coda Dcoda

South Korea's 15 Year Power Demand Forecast Includes More Nuclear Power Plants [08Dec10] - 0 views

nuclearstreet.com/...clear-power-plants-120803.aspx

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • South Korea, which currently has 20 operational nuclear reactors, will build 14 new facilities to make atomic power the biggest source of energy by 2024, said Ministry of Knowledge Economy in a statement Tuesday. As a result, nuclear energy will provide 48.5% of the nation's energy consumption by the target year from the current 32%, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy said in a long-term national energy development plan
  • Coal is currently the biggest source of energy in South Korea that meets 42% of the nation's energy needs
  • Renewable energy sources like solar and wind power will also provide 8.9% of the nation's energy needs by 2024 compared with the current 1.3%, it said.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Asia's fourth-largest economy imports 97% of its energy needs from overseas and has moved to cut dependence on fossil fuels and to diversify energy sources.
  • In October Seoul unveiled a five-year plan to spend 36 billion dollars developing renewable energy as its next economic growth engine, with a goal to become one of the world's five top players in the sector.
D'coda Dcoda

South Korea and India sign nuclear deal [26Jul11] - 0 views

www.bbc.co.uk/...business-14287086

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 26 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • South Korea's ambitions to enter the Indian energy market have received a big boost as the two countries signed a civil nuclear deal. The agreement will allow South Korea to export its nuclear energy technology to India. The deal comes at a time when India has been struggling to keep up its energy supply to meet the increased demand in wake of its rapid expansion. South Korea is the ninth country to sign a nuclear deal with India.
D'coda Dcoda

Clear spike in radiation measured across Japan on September 21 (CHARTS) [27Sep11] - 0 views

enenews.com/ion-levels-september-21-charts

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 27 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • Fukushima & Japan Tokyo Area Outside Tokyo Fukushima Reactors Status of Reactors Reactor No. 1 Reactor No. 2 Reactor No. 3 Spent Fuel Pools Spent Fuel Pool No. 1 Spent Fuel Pool No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool No. 3 Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 Common Spent Fuel Pool Radiation Releases Plutonium Uranium Longterm Chernobyl Comparisons Criticality US & Canada West Coast California Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area Hawaii Seattle Canada Midwest East Coast Florida US Nuclear Facilities North Anna (VA) Calvert Cliffs (MD) World Europe France UK Germany Chernobyl Rest of Europe South America Russia Asia China South Korea Taiwan Rest of Asia Pacific Rad. Maps & Forecasts Radiation Maps Radiation Forecasts Rad. Facts Internal Emitters Health Testing Food Water Air Rain Soil Milk Strange Coverups? Children Video Home Log In Discussion Forum page_item
  • See all charts here.
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear Expert Discusses 'Melt-Through' at NRC Meeting: I believe melted nuclear core l... - 0 views

enenews.com/hima-reactors-onto-floor-video

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 22 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Fukushima & Japan Tokyo Area Outside Tokyo Fukushima Reactors Status of Reactors Reactor No. 1 Reactor No. 2 Reactor No. 3 Spent Fuel Pools Spent Fuel Pool No. 1 Spent Fuel Pool No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool No. 3 Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 Common Spent Fuel Pool Radiation Releases Plutonium Uranium Longterm Chernobyl Comparisons Criticality US & Canada West Coast California Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area Hawaii Seattle Canada Midwest East Coast Florida US Nuclear Facilities North Anna (VA) Calvert Cliffs (MD) World Europe France UK Germany Chernobyl Rest of Europe South America Russia Asia China South Korea Taiwan Rest of Asia Pacific Maps & Forecasts Radiation Maps Radiation Forecasts Rad. Facts Internal Emitters Health Testing Food Water Air Rain Soil Milk Strange Coverups? Children Video Home page_
D'coda Dcoda

South Korea restarts oldest reactor [06Aug12] - 0 views

www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/...starts_oldest_reactor_999.html

south korea reactor

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 15 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • South Korea's oldest nuclear reactor -- shut down since March -- will resume operations, the government said. The announcement Monday coincides with a power shortage warning by the government amid a heat wave that has stretched for 10 days. Built in 1977, the Kori-1 reactor, in the southern port city of Busan, had been shut down since March after it briefly lost power in February during a safety check. That blackout was covered up by officials for more than a month.
  • The International Atomic Energy Agency gave the go-ahead for the 578-megawatt reactor to restart following a safety check in June. While Korea's Nuclear Safety and Security Commission approved the restart on July 4, it has faced strong opposition from activists and residents.
  • Nature magazine reports Hiromitsu Ino, an emeritus professor of materials science at the University of Tokyo, as saying that Kori-1 isn't safe to operate because the weld material in the pressure vessel has degraded. "Any 50 nuclear power plants in Japan are much better than Kori-1," he said.
D'coda Dcoda

Mainichi: Radiation detected in drinking water from underground source - Over 15 miles ... - 0 views

enenews.com/miles-from-fukushima-meltdowns

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 27 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Water underground is contaminated, Fukushima Diary, Dec. 26, 2011: Ministry of the Environment measured cesium from well water at 4 locations in Minamisoma [25 km north of Fukushima plant]. It was about 1.3~14.7 Bq/kg, it was for drinking. The samples were taken in October and November. [...]
  • Babelfish Translation result for http://mainichi.jp/select/weathernews/news/20111227k0000m040028000c.html Headline: Fukushima 1st nuclear plant: From well water 4 places of cesium detection south Soma Source: Mainichi.jp Date: Dec. 26, 2011
  • t announced that the environmental ministry on the 26th, inspected the density of the well underwater radioactive cesium of drinking which in emergency evacuation preparation area (in 9 ends of the month cancellation) inside Fukushima prefecture
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • detected the small quantity at 4 places of south Soma city. Being maximum, water 1 liter (kilometer) to hit and but with 14.7 Becquerel, below provisional regulation value (1 kilo- hit, 200 Becquerel) of the public welfare Ministry of Labor, the new reference level (same 10 Becquerel) which aims April toward of next year enforcement was exceeded at 3 places. To investigate at 1317 places of the same city and Hirono Cho and Naraha Cho 10, in November, as for the other self-governing community and the like of the same area in the midst of continuation. At 1 places of the same Ku Kitahara as 2 places of south Soma Ichihara Cho Ku Kita Nagano, per 1 liters 11.4~14.7 Becquerel, 1.3 Becquerel were detected with the same Ku 萱 beach. As for detection lower limit value with 5 Becquerel, as for the other well it was non- detection. According to the environmental ministry you say that there is a possibility the earth near the cesium is attached blending. The well with private possession, has informed about the result, almost there is no possibility many people drinking.
D'coda Dcoda

Japanese Typhoon Hammers Nation, Allegedly Spreading Radiation to Tokyo [21Sep11] - 0 views

www.washingtonsblog.com/...radiation-tokyo-fukushima.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 21 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • CBS reports: Typhoon hits Tokyo, grazes nuke plant
  • A powerful typhoon slammed into Japan on Wednesday, leaving 13 people dead or missing in south-central regions and halting trains in Tokyo before grazing a crippled nuclear plant …
  • The leaking Fukushima nuclear power plant avoided a direct hit (a broken video camera is the only damage reported by Tepco). However, as CBS reports, there is some danger of spent fuel pools from overflowing and spilling radioactive water:
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • A powerful typhoon slammed into Japan on Wednesday, leaving 13 people dead or missing in south-central regions and halting trains in Tokyo before grazing a crippled nuclear plant …. Workers were trying to prevent pools of contaminated water from flooding and leaking outside the complex, said Junichi Matsumoto, another power company spokesman. “The contaminated water levels have been rising, and we are watching the situation very closely to make sure it stays there,” Matsumoto told reporters. Yokohama-area blogger Mochizuki provides the following on-the-ground reporting, claiming that radiation from Fukushima is peaking right now in Tokyo (click through any image to see larger version):
  • Radiation level is spiking up around in Tokyo and Fukushima. In Kawasaki, 0.05 uSv/h →　0.10 uSv/h In Futabamachi,Fukushima,it’s 21 uSv/h now. Wind is blowing from South to North, and it’s very salty. It’s assumed typhoon is spreading the sea water around.
  • Radiation is assumed to have come from the sea.
D'coda Dcoda

Savannah River Site Gets Nuclear Waste - National Academy of Sciences Draft Report Conf... - 3 views

www.dcbureau.org/...eapons-testing-not-needed.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 29 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher said on Monday, September 19, 2011, that high-level nuclear waste once destined for the Yucca Mountain repository will be sent, instead, to the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site.
  • The Obama Administration has spent more than $1 billion in Stimulus Act funds cleaning up legacy Cold War nuclear and chemical waste at the site. Despite this effort, there is now more radioactive waste at SRS than when the clean-up started. The idea of bringing nuclear reactor waste and surplus weapons plutonium from around the world to SRS only exacerbates already chronic problems. The 312 square mile site near Aiken, South Carolina, was once the home of five reactors that churned out nuclear materials for H-bombs. The last reactor at SRS had to be shuttered for safety reasons during the Reagan Administration. Tritium, which is needed for nuclear weapons, is produced by Tennessee Valley Authority reactors and processed into gas for nuclear weapons at SRS.
  • The decision to use the Savannah River Site in South Carolina as a permanent storage facility is controversial. It is the most radioactive site in the United States. Aiken County, in which part of the site is located, sued the Department of Energy unsuccessfully when the Obama Administration decided not to use the multi-billion-dollar Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada for high-level nuclear waste storage that was supposed to be removed from SRS. Currently, millions of gallons of high-level nuclear waste are stored in 49 leaking tanks on the site as well as huge amounts of surplus plutonium. Deadly chemicals and radiation will contaminate the facility for thousands of years. “The Bomb Plant,” as locals refer to the site, is uniquely unsuitable for a permanent nuclear waste repository, according to leading geologists. It sits on an earthquake fault and one of the most important aquifers in the South. The sandy soil and swampy conditions make it highly vulnerable to waste seepage.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Today, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration is paying the French-government-owned-company AREVA to supervise the construction of a new, multi-billion dollar facility to convert excess weapons plutonium into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use in civilian nuclear power reactors. (AREVA provided a less potent MOX fuel to Fukushima Daiichi Reactor Number Three last September that suffered a hydrogen explosion after the March earthquake and tsunami.) NNSA’s MOX plant is behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. It does not have any paying customers for its fuel if it is ever made. It will create its own new waste stream. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not licensed the plant, and SRS and DOE management are late reporting on the cost overruns.
1 - 20 of 123 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page