tagged w/ nuclear industry
-
"The first study linking radioactive fallout to 14,000 U.S. deaths as a result of Fukushima’s nuclear meltdown following the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that struck the coast of Japan on Friday, March 11th last year has been published in the International Journal of Health Services (IJHS). According to a news release issued over the PR Newswire, the study is the first peer-reviewed study to appear in a medical scientific journal that documents the health hazards associated with the Fukushima nuclear explosion and meltdown catastrophe.
Radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster, the largest nuclear meltdown the world has ever witnessed, was connected to more than 16,500 related deaths in the 17 weeks immediately following the explosion and fire at the Chernobyl Nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. In comparison, the Fukushima nuclear meltdown is being linked to 14,000 U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks preceding the explosion at the Fukushima nuclear plant.""The first study linking radioactive fallout to 14,000 U.S. deaths as a result of... more
-
-
Los Angeles Times...
.
NRC approves new nuclear reactor design
Associated Press
December 22, 2011, 10:11 a.m.
.
WASHINGTON — Federal regulators have approved a nuclear reactor designed by Westinghouse Electric Co. that could power the first nuclear plants built from scratch in this country in more than three decades.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission unanimously approved the AP1000 reactor on Thursday. The certification, effective immediately, will be valid for 15 years.
NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko said the newly approved design would ensure safety through simplified, passive security functions and other features. He said plants using the design could withstand damage from an airplane crash without significant release of radioactive materials — an issue that gained attention after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Approval of the design is a major step forward for utility companies in Georgia, Florida and the Carolinas that have billions of dollars riding on plans to build AP1000 reactors in the Southeast. Without NRC approval, the utilities could not have gotten a license to build their plants.
Federal officials approved an earlier version of the AP1000 reactor in 2006, but it was never built in the United States. Four AP1000 reactors are now under construction in China.
Aris Candris, Westinghouse president and CEO, said the road to receiving design certification of the AP1000 "has been long and sometimes arduous."
The NRC vote brings the U.S "one step closer to constructing AP1000 units and putting thousands to work to ultimately provide future generations with safe, clean and reliable electricity," he said.
Utilities in Georgia and South Carolina have been waiting for the design certification so they can move ahead with applications to build two reactors in each state.
Atlanta-based Southern Co. applied to build the first two AP1000 reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, Ga. The $14 billion effort is the pilot project for the new reactor and a major test of whether the industry can build nuclear plants without the endemic delays and cost overruns that plagued earlier rounds of building years ago. President Barack Obama's administration has offered the project $8 billion in federal loan guarantees as part of its pledge to expand nuclear power.
Close on its heels is SCANA Corp., which is also seeking permission to build two reactors at an existing plant in Jenkinsville, S.C.
Other applications that use the AP1000 design include two plants in Florida, one and South Carolina and another in North Carolina. Each application is for two reactors.
Even with the design certification, it remains unclear when the Vogtle reactors will receive final approval — a major concern for Southern Co. since any delays could increase the cost of the project.
The biggest difference between the AP1000 and existing reactors is its safety systems, including a massive water tank on top of its cylindrical concrete-and-steel shielding building. In case of an accident, water would flow down and cool the steel container that holds critical parts of the reactor — including its hot, radioactive nuclear fuel.
An NRC taskforce examining the nuclear crisis in Japan said licensing for the AP1000 should go forward because it would be better equipped to deal with a prolonged loss of power — the problem that doomed the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.
Marilyn Kray, president of NuStart Energy Development, a nuclear industry consortium that has worked to demonstrate the design's effectiveness, said she was pleased to see the design move forward.
"The AP1000 is the reactor design that will set the foundation for the next generation of nuclear plants in the U.S.," Kray said.
A nuclear watchdog group called the vote disappointing, saying the NRC should have done a new analysis in the wake of the Japan crisis, which occurred after a March 11 tsunami sent three reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant into meltdowns in the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl in 1986.
A new study could have helped identify and correct any vulnerabilities based on lessons learned from Fukushima, said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"It would be more efficient and cost-effective to address problems that could be corrected at the design stage now, before any new plants are constructed," Lyman said.
After plants are built, any new safety requirements would have to be addressed through costly retrofits and other actions, Lyman said, adding that he was "far from convinced" that the AP1000's passive safety features would be effective in coping with severe accidents.
Under existing rules, a reactor design that commissioners have voted to approve must be published in the Federal Register for 30 days before it is legally effective. Southern Co. officials asked the NRC to make the design effective immediately after the vote, a request that was granted. Publication in the Federal Register is expected by Jan. 5.
.Los Angeles Times...
.
NRC approves new nuclear reactor design... more
-
-
Rolling Stone...
America’s Nuclear Nightmare
The U.S. has 31 reactors just like Japan’s — but regulators are ignoring the risks and boosting industry profits
The Davis-Besse nuclear generating station in Ohio, where a football-size hole overlooked by NRC inspectors nearly caused a catastrophe in 2002
Entergy Nuclear via the NRC
By Jeff Goodell
April 27, 2011 9:00 AM ET
Five days after a massive earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, triggering the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, America's leading nuclear regulator came before Congress bearing good news: Don't worry, it can't happen here. In the aftermath of the Japanese catastrophe, officials in Germany moved swiftly to shut down old plants for inspection, and China put licensing of new plants on hold. But Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reassured lawmakers that nothing at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors warranted any immediate changes at U.S. nuclear plants. Indeed, 10 days after the earthquake in Japan, the NRC extended the license of the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor — a virtual twin of Fukushima — for another two decades. The license renewal was granted even though the reactor's cooling tower had literally fallen down, and the plant had repeatedly leaked radioactive fluid.
Perhaps Jaczko was simply trying to prevent a full-scale panic about the dangers of U.S. nuclear plants. After all, there are now 104 reactors scattered across the country, generating 20 percent of America's power. All of them were designed in the 1960s and '70s, and are nearing the end of their planned life expectancy. But there was one problem with Jaczko's testimony, according to Dave Lochbaum, a senior adviser at the Union of Concerned Scientists: Key elements of what the NRC chief told Congress were "a baldfaced lie."
Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer, says that Jaczko knows full well that what the NRC calls "defense in depth" at U.S. reactors has been seriously compromised over the years. In some places, highly radioactive spent fuel is stockpiled in what amounts to swimming pools located beside reactors. In other places, changes in the cooling systems at reactors have made them more vulnerable to a core meltdown if something goes wrong. A few weeks before Fukushima, Lochbaum authored a widely circulated report that underscored the NRC's haphazard performance, describing 14 serious "near-miss" events at nuclear plants last year alone. At the Indian Point reactor just north of New York City, federal inspectors discovered a water-containment system that had been leaking for 16 years.
As head of the NRC, Jaczko is the top cop on the nuclear beat, the guy charged with keeping the nation's fleet of aging nukes running safely. A balding, 40-year-old Democrat with big ears and the air of a brilliant high school physics teacher, Jaczko oversees a 4,000-person agency with a budget of $1 billion. But the NRC has long served as little more than a lap dog to the nuclear industry, unwilling to crack down on unsafe reactors. "The agency is a wholly owned subsidiary of the nuclear power industry," says Victor Gilinsky, who served on the commission during the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979. Even President Obama denounced the NRC during the 2008 campaign, calling it a "moribund agency that needs to be revamped and has become captive of the industries that it regulates."
In the years ahead, nuclear experts warn, the consequences of the agency's inaction could be dire. "The NRC has consistently put industry profits above public safety," says Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear executive turned whistle-blower. "Consequently, we have a dozen Fukushimas waiting to happen in America."Rolling Stone...
America’s Nuclear Nightmare
The U.S. has 31 reactors... more
-
-
Japan's nuclear crisis turns spotlight on U.S. plants
Stricter safety measures sought as Japanese officials try to avert a total meltdown. By Steve Hargreaves, senior writer
March 13, 2011: 6:11 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The safety of America's nuclear reactors is being questioned as Japanese engineers scramble to avert a total meltdown at two of that country's quake-stricken power plants.
Like in Japan, some of the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States are situated along the ocean -- some in earthquake-prone areas.
The reactors are designed to withstand earthquakes, sabotage and other disasters. But the difficulty the Japanese are facing in controlling their plants is raising red flags about the safety of U.S. facilities.
"The tragic events now unfolding in Japan could very easily occur in the United States," Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who sits on the House committee overseeing nuclear power, said in a statement.
Disaster hits nation's economy
Markey has recommended several measures that he believes should be taken by the Obama administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
These steps include stronger safety systems in plants located near fault lines, emergency response drills that model instances when more than one disaster unfolds simultaneously, and the distribution of radiation-blocking potassium iodine pills to everyone living within 20 miles of a reactor. (Such pills are now disbursed to people within 10 miles of a reactor.)
The United States has 104 non-military nuclear reactors operating at 65 plants across the country. In addition, there are dozens of reactors, weapons labs and other nuclear facilities associated with national defense.
Most of the civilian plants are located near major population centers. They currently supply about 20% of the nation's power.
There hasn't been a new nuclear plant commissioned since the Three Mile Island meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979, although dozens that were under construction at the time have come on line.
More recently, increased electricity use, a desire to generate homegrown energy and concern over global warming have made carbon-free nuclear power more attractive.
The government has set aside $18 billion for new nuclear plants, and President Obama wants to spend an additional $36 billion.
Federal regulators are reviewing 20 applications to build new nuclear plants, and several existing facilities have applied to extend their operating licenses.
Yet concerns over safety -- as well as cost -- continue to dog the nuclear industry.
In the United States, perhaps the most vulnerable plants are the two in California built on the Pacific coast near the San Andreas fault.
Those plants were built to withstand a magnitude 7.5 earthquake, said Robert Alvarez, a nuclear expert at the Institute for Policy studies and a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Energy.
The San Francisco quake of 1906 measured 8.3, said Alvarez, while Friday's Japanese quake was a massive 8.9.
"I don't think we should renew those operating licenses," he said.
Alvarez also said the problems at the Japanese facilities highlight the catastrophic outcome of the failure of power, pumps and other infrastructure. Such system malfunctions could happen because of an earthquake or a massive terrorist attack, such as one involving airliners.
Spokesmen for the utilities that own the California plants, Pacific Gas & Electric (PCG, Fortune 500) and Southern California Edison, said Sunday the plants are designed to meet the maximum quake projected for their immediate vicinity, which is not thought to exceed a magnitude of 6.5.
In addition, tests have shown that the country's nuclear plants could withstand an impact from an airliner, said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for industry group the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Responding to Congressman Markey's recommendations, Kerekes said that safety systems at U.S. plants are already robust. He said that disaster planning could always be improved upon, but that studies show there's no need to distribute iodine pills beyond the current 10 mile radius.Japan's nuclear crisis turns spotlight on U.S. plants
Stricter safety measures... more
-
-
Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.
The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus.
http://www.alternet.org/health/146619/new_book%3A_chernobyl_radiation_killed_nearly_one_million_peopleNearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by... more
-
-
President Barack Obama has nominated William Magwood to serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Magwood is a booster of nuclear power with undisclosed business connections to nuclear energy firms.President Barack Obama has nominated William Magwood to serve on the Nuclear... more
-
-
Italy and France have signed an important accord for cooperation in the production of nuclear energy.
The accord, Scajola explained, ''will regard all aspects of nuclear energy, from collaboration on a European level to questions of security, from technical cooperation to the training of experts, from dismantling old plants to industrial collaboration in third countries''.Italy and France have signed an important accord for cooperation in the production of... more
-
-
pibbio
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
The nuclear power industry has latched on to global warming as an argument for its renaissance. Although even industry proponents acknowledge that the problem of disposing of spent nuclear fuel remains unsolved, the industry routinely assumes this problem will be solved in the future. Unfortunately, this is the same assumption made by nuclear energy proponents at the beginning of the nuclear industry fifty years ago. We haven’t solved the nuclear waste problem in the past half century, and there is no reason to think we will be more likely to do so in the next one. Like the shipwrecked economist in the old joke, the nuclear industry continues to postulate that we should “assume we have a can opener” for the nuclear waste problem.[1]
While the impacts of global warming are described as “intergenerational,” the impacts of the nuclear waste cycle are better described as inter-civilizational.[2] Nuclear fuel wastes remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands to as much as a million years.[3] By contrast, recorded human history goes back only about 5,000 years, and human civilization is only about 10,000 years old. Globally, none of the generators of nuclear fuel waste have successfully implemented any permanent disposal option for nuclear waste, leaving this externality of nuclear energy production as a problem for future generations, or, more likely, for future civilizations. Put simply, the nuclear industry, with government complicity, has transferred and deferred the most expensive part of the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle to future generations and civilizations unknown.
Nor are the environmental and public health costs of nuclear waste the only ones that nuclear energy generation has externalized. Nuclear generation also poses a risk externality — the economic and social harms that the public has assumed in the event of a radiation release, for which the generating industry has limited liability. This risk externality arises not only from the risk of accidental reactor meltdown and release of radioactivity, but also from the proliferation and terrorism risks that are inseparable from any scheme of nuclear energy production and waste disposal.
These twin externalities, waste and risk, make any nuclear renaissance an unsatisfactory substitute for fossil fuel power generation. As horrendous as the impacts of global warming will be — millions of people displaced and dead — the likely long-term impacts of increased nuclear energy production are comparable, and longer lasting.
I~~~~~~~~
There is much more information in this very well written and comprehensive report on nuclear power. It is something we cannot once again rush into simply to appease those interests looking to use the climate crisis as a way to profit.The nuclear power industry has latched on to global warming as an argument for its... more
-
