Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Last week’s nuclear news – focus on South Africa

October 7, 2016

a-cat-CANAgain – climate change is the big one.  As UN climate chief calls for clear report on ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal, it’s looking as though this goal is not achievable, and climate change could already be irreversible.  In 2016 atmospheric carbon dioxide will pass 400 parts per million – permanently. Speed of Arctic change shocks scientists.

But nuclear disaster could be imminent, too, as we consider the consequences of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan upping the ante, with belligerent threats to India.

On the so-called peaceful nuclear scene, the focus is on South Africa. South Africa’s corrupt nuclear politics is like a nasty boil that developed slowly over years, and could now be ready to burst.

Shadow Courts – The Secret Tribunals That Corporations Use to Sue Countries.

AUSTRALIA

CLIMATE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.  An electricity blackout in South Australia gave the Turnbull government the opportunity to renew its attack on renewable energy, even though energy minister Josh Frydenberg and the grid operators admit that the source of energy had nothing to do with the catastrophic outage. However Frydenberg later toed the Coalition’s anti-renewables line.   I got some amusement from ANC senior journalist Chris Uhlmann’s misguided rant against wind power. The ABC is always getting blamed for its “left wing” bias – Uhlmann showed the opposite here!

Sadly – all this political and media misinformation could affect the coming election in the Australian Capital Territory

World first wave/solar power grid for Western Australia.

Climate change shifting rain from Australia towards Antarctica. Urgent need for increased research on climate change impacts on Antarctic sea ice. Australian government has had no modelling done to show how Australia is supposed to meet Paris climate pledgen   Australia’s farmers feeling the effects of climate change. Australia’s superannuation funds are backing exploration for fossil fuels.

NUCLEAR   Australia’s $36 billion splurge on submarines, intended for nuclear later on.

South Australia‘s nuclear dump plan – fool’s gold? – senior Liberal MP.  Premier Weatherill either dishonest or ignorant, about Finland’s nuclear waste dump plan.  There would be a long delay for money in for South Australia’s proposed Temporary Nuclear Waste Storage facility.  South Australian government’s barrage of pro nuclear advertising – making the unthinkable “normal”.

A week of anti nuclear protest at Australia’s top target – Pine Gap.

Northern Land Council delay agreement on Rio Tinto uranium exploration.

INTERNATIONAL

EUROPE. The 100 billion pound bill for decommissioning Europe’s old nuclear power stations.

AFRICA. Risk of war in Africa escalates with rising temperatures.

SOUTH AFRICA.  South Africa’s nuclear power programme stalled.  Handing nuclear project to Eskom will limit South Africa’s Parliament control, and increase corruption. South Africa’s renewable energy success.

RUSSIA.  For Russia, Climate Change is Already Producing Fires that are Too Big to Fight

USA.

UK.  Hinkley Pt. Nuclear Power Contract Signed Days AFTER New Warnings About Areva-Creusot Defects.  At the end of the Hinkley nuclear power story – massive radioactive clean-up costs.

CANADA Forest fire risk in Canada much greater due to climate change.

JAPAN. Japan busting to market nuclear reactors to India, and busting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Japan to formally decide to decommission Monju nuclear reprocessing reactor by end of year.   Fukushima. Japan mulls legislation requiring local government approval for restarting Fukushima No. 2 nuclear plant.  Fukushima ice wall failing to deliver on promise.TEPCO Delays Replacing Tainted Water Tanks. High levels of radioactive cesium pooling at dams near Fukushima nuke plant.

UKRAINE. Ukraine joining the renewable energy revolution

GREENLAND. Climate change will expose top-secret US nuclear project in Greenland.

IRAN. Iran complains that international financial sanctions are not being lifted quickly enough.

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill sets up nuclear propaganda meetings

July 20, 2016

brainwash1

The next step in the international nuclear waste dump campaign from the government is “community consultation” and they are visiting 100 sites around SA.  People’s opinions will be used to gauge whether there is community consent or not.

Adelaide locations
29/7-31/7 Rundle Mall
14/9-17/9 Colonnades
1/8 State Library Static Display
5/8-7/8 Adelaide Showgrounds Science Alive
10/8-13/8 Marion (Westfield)
22/8 State Library
24/8 West Beach Harbor Town
1/9 Edwardstown Castle Plaza
2/9 Norwood Town Hall
5/9-9/9 Royal Adelaide Show
21/9-24/9 Smithfield Munno Para Shopping Centre
28/9 Port Adelaide Shopping Centre
30/9 Mawson Lakes Shopping Centre
6/10 Modbury Tea Tree Plaza
10/10 Central Districts Football Club
11/10 State Library

S. Australia Royal Commission Goes Against Tide of History: Proposes Nuclear Power and Nuclear Dump

May 10, 2016

Mining Awareness +

Australia has the highest average solar radiation per square metre of any continent in the world“. http://arena.gov.au/about-renewable-energy/solar-energy/
Greenpeace Greece Solar Panels
RenewablesSA is an initiative of the South Australian Government to support the further growth of South Australia’s renewable energy industry…
RenewablesSA commenced in mid-2009, coinciding with the announcement by the South Australian Government to increase the state’s renewable energy production target to 33 per cent by 2020. This target was achieved in 2013-14. In 2014, a new target of 50% by 2025 was set, subject to national renewable energy policy being retained. South Australia’s significant installed capacity in renewables has translated into investment to the State of $6.6 billion to date, with some $2.4 billion, or 40%, of this occurring in regional areas. In recognition of the economic benefits, South Australia has committed to an investment target of $10 billion in low carbon generation by 2025
“http://www.renewablessa.sa.gov.au

SolarGIS © 2015 GeoModel Solar Australia
CC: http://solargis.info/doc/free-solar-radiation-maps-GHI
29% of suitable…

View original post 2,012 more words

Australia should not be test place for Generation IV nuclear reactors- Chief Scientist

January 25, 2016

scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAIN

Dr Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist, recommends that IF Australia gets ‘new generation’ nuclear reactors, they should be proven successful first, in some other country:

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. President Dr Alan Finkel  Submission to South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission 

EXTRACTS

“ If the Royal Commission should favour establishment of a nuclear power plant, ATSE recommends that ‘first of a kind’ (FOAK) technology – specifically, Generation IV reactors  should not be considered by South Australia at this time”

Finkel supports a nuclear waste import industry:

“South Australia and thus Australia as a whole is well positioned to undertake waste storage as part of the nuclear fuel cycle.”

But qualifies this:

“The opportunity for South Australia to provide commercial permanent waste storage facilities for overseas nuclear power plant spent fuel owners could exist and would certainly offer commercial opportunities for the State. However, based on the negative public reaction to the poorly explained and marketed Pangea proposal some years ago, the public may still find this concept unacceptable”

It is a careful submission, thorough, and with qualified support for the nuclear fuel chain.

On URANIUM MINING  – he recognises that the market is at best uncertain.

On URANIUM ENRICHMENT  PROCESSING & FUEL FABRICATION –he is  in favour but with some serious qualifications.

On NUCLEAR POWER – only vaguely in favour.:

“ – may require government guarantees and/or government capital injections to encourage investment. This could possibly require the South Australian or Commonwealth governments becoming a stakeholder in the establishment of a nuclear power plant.”

“Any feasibility would also establish the likely cost of power from such reactor technologies and the guaranteed selling price to the grid. If this is not an equitable situation then the project would not be able to proceed. If nuclear power is to proceed in its development it will need to be competitive against carbon fuelled generation including carbon capture and storage (CCS) in its supply of baseload generation, and likely renewable energy generation if storage methods continue to improve”

“EPBC Act would need to be amended. South Australian legislation also regulates environmental and transportation matters, including the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 and the Radiation Protection and Control (Transport of Radioactive Substances) Regulations 2003.”

As mentioned above, Finkel is opposed to Australia being the test place for the first Generation IV reactors

#NuclearCommissionSAust – Submission for Synroc (Forget the Russian Synroc disaster)

January 19, 2016

Submission pro nuclear

Roger Smart’s Submission to South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission.

 a very short submission on the subject of nuclear wastes. It canned be summed up as aSong Of Praise for the Synroc Technology for storing nuclear wastes.

EXTRACT: “The safest and cheapest option available for  disposal of high level nuclear waste”

Nuclear Waste  Management  (NWM) — an Adelaide  based  Company  founded  in  1985……..

In 1991 NWM signed a Heads of Agreement with Mayak Production Enterprise, owned by the Russian Ministry of Power and Energy and Greenlawn Association of the Russian Federation to commence a study for the construction of a SYNROC plant. The Russians selected SYNROC as their preferred waste form for the treatment and disposal of their high level waste. They also commenced geological studies to find sites for the disposal of SYNROC in deep drill holes.

………. it proved impossible to find the political/financial  and corporate leadership to secure the funding.  The reasons were many but during the 80’s and 90’s, the nuclear industry was on the defensive and investment, other that in programs already in place, was greatly reduced. Consequently, NWM ceased operation in 1998

…….  A detailed brochure and other material on SYNROC and NWM have been provided to the Executive of the Royal Commission

**********************************************************************************************

safety-symbolNuclear accident much worse than reported , April 28, 1993  The nuclear accident at the Tomsk-7 reprocessing plant in Siberia on April 6 was much bigger than first reported, and now may seriously impede expansion of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia.

Spokesperson John Hallam for the antinuclear groups Friends of the Earth and Movement Against Uranium Mining said, “Proposals to build a replacement research reactor in Sydney and a nuclear waste repository in the NT based on Synroc technology would be compromised by a public realisation that both projects depend on the same sort of technology for waste handling that failed so badly at Tomsk”.

Hallam said that information from Russian green groups indicated that the accident was not a 3 on the international nuclear event scale, as earlier claimed, but at least a 5. Chernobyl was a 6…..www.greenleft.org.au/node/4227

Nukers are Bananas!!

September 16, 2015

Paul Langley speaking out on radiation! Thank you Paul

Paul Langley's Nuclear History Blog

So eat them up!!

A proof that cesium in any form is a toxin not a nutrient:

Nukers promoting contaminated food – the falsehoods of the Potassium excuse

I have blogged about this before. Attempts at selling contaminated food in the market of people’s lives by nuclear advocates has to stop in Japan and everywhere.

It will take me the weekend to finish this post as I gather the historic and current sources which show the Potassium equivalent dose (which the industry calls the banana equivalent dose) is a false, incorrect, wrong and deceptive fallacy.

In the interim, this wiki article explains the fallacy in brief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

In brief: radio potassium (K40) is much a very small proportion of all potassium. It is far less radioactive per unit weight (amount, physical dose) than any biologically active fission product.

Potassium in any form is dangerous to the heart in excess, but…

View original post 5,532 more words

Will China reveal what was in the warehouse that exploded – ?nuclear fuel

August 13, 2015

Top Asian News at 11:00 pm GMT

Yahoo News-20 minutes ago

TIANJIN, China (AP) — Huge explosions at a warehouse for … ore which could supply its nuclear weapons program or fuel nuclear reactors, …–

The blasts ripped through a warehouse storing “dangerous goods” in Tianjin’s Binhai New Area around 11:30 p.m. local time, China’s official Xinhua News Agency said. http://www.wsj.com/articles/huge-blast-rocks-chinese-city-1439403843

#NuclearCommissionSAust’s very selective visit to nuclear sites in Canada

July 25, 2015

The Royal Commission went to Port Hope:Bok-Blind-Faith

I bet they didn’t investigate “Blind Faith” – book reveals the toxic nuclear legacy in Port Hope

They toured the CAMECO Fuel Fabrication and Conversion facilities, got advice from Cameco about uranium mining.

Bet they didn’t discuss Cameco embroiled in tax scandal and indigenous opposition, nor its gloomy economic performance

South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission Unaware of AREVA’s terminal plight

July 6, 2015

France-plants-downDO THEY EVEN KNOW? It’s an awful worry to consider that Kevin Scarce and the

South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission might not even be aware of the plight of nuclear reactor companies in France (and Canada)  –  who are desperate to sell their product, because of their failing economic position

The Royal Commission is just back from getting itself “informed” by the AREVA and EDF companies, and are about to take off for Canada to be “informed” by Canada’s nuclear busineses – which are all too well known for corruption.

Burdened by losses, EDF’s foreign activities are currently unable to finance the increasing requirements at home, where the production costs of nuclear plants are rising by around 5% each year and investment needs are increasing.

The international trend is not for a nuclear renaissance but for a boom in renewable energy, and France will not be able to export significantly more reactors, or to develop new reprocessing contracts abroad under profitable conditions.

To understand just how far the French nuclear industry has fallen in recent years, look no further than the value of EDF and Areva. Since 2007, EDF’s stock price has fallen more than 70%; Areva’s by more than 85%. If Areva weren’t 83% government-owned, it almost certainly would have declared bankruptcy by now.


nuClear News July 15
 http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo75.pdf The deep crisis which the French nuclear industry is experiencing is not new, although it seems to have shocked some commentators. It actually represents the outcome of a strategy launched at the end of the 1990s which was always flawed. The project involved an aggressive export policy which it was hoped would disguise predictable difficulties at home, according to a report by WISE Paris for Greenpeace. (1)

 Faced with declining overseas markets and increasing expenditure at a domestic level, EDF and Areva appear to be heading for a terminal decline. The recent industrial restructuring will not save the industry. Only a genuine reorientation can prevent further disaster for the French economy.
Areva has now suffered four years of losses, including a record figure of €4.8 billion in 2014 and debts of €5.8 billion against a turnover of €8.3 billion. The group is facing bankruptcy and cannot sidestep a far-reaching redistribution of its business operations. Despite less worrying results, the EDF group, whose fifty-eight nuclear reactors operated in France provide more than 75% of the country’s electricity, is also experiencing difficulties. Boosted by its turnover of €72.9 billion, the electricity company recorded net profits of €3.7 billion in 2014. But its debt situation – now at €34.2 billion – is increasingly a matter of concern.
In the era of the energy transition, in which France has set itself the objective of lowering the share of nuclear power in its electricity generation to 50% by 2025, the future looks grim for the two companies.
With 8 GW of wind power and 5 GW of solar power installed between 2000 and 2013, France has developed these energy sources 2.5 times slower than the European average. France has only been able to sell three reactors abroad in the last eight years – one to Finland and two to China. But while France is providing political support to domestic and exported nuclear power, it is also neglecting its renewable energy industry. As a result, it is lagging far behind in international competition in this field, particularly in the two sectors currently experiencing massive growth, namely wind and solar power.
Out of the thirty-one countries operating nuclear power plants, twenty-five have never used or have ceased to use reprocessing. The La Hague plant has lost practically all of its foreign clients over the last decade, with the exception of the Dutch operator, which has only one reactor: it therefore only provides reprocessing service to 0.2% of installed nuclear capacity abroad. Areva holds almost around 90% of this global market, but currently the market consists almost solely of EDF.
The acquisitions of Constellation Energy in the USA by EDF and of Uramin by Areva cost them losses of at least €2.7 billion and €1.5 billion respectively, while the additional costs and delays of the Finnish EPR account for at least €3 billion more in Areva’s losses. Alone, these three items represent more than €0.5 billion in losses per year averaged out over the last ten years.
 Burdened by losses, EDF’s foreign activities are currently unable to finance the increasing requirements at home, where the production costs of nuclear plants are rising by around 5% each year and investment needs are increasing. Lifetime extensions at nuclear plants which No2NuclearPower nuClear news No.75, July 2015 8 Are on average more than thirty years old, could cost at least €110 billion. EDF does not seem to have the financial and industrial capacity today to successfully extend the life of all its reactors.
Areva has even less solid foundations than EDF. The Okiluoto fiasco with costs currently estimated at €8.5 billion as against the €3.3 billion initially projected and delays of more than nine years, significantly reduces prospects for new exports. Areva also suffered a great failure with the construction of a MOX plant at Savannah River in the USA, which has more than fifteen years of delays and soaring costs, to the extent that the project is all but shelved today.
The situation calls for not simply restructuring but a totally new direction. If the fundamental principles that have precipitated the French nuclear industry into its current crisis are not acknowledged, much effort and public money will be invested in an approach which is doomed to fail. The international trend is not for a nuclear renaissance but for a boom in renewable energy, and France will not be able to export significantly more reactors, or to develop new reprocessing contracts abroad under profitable conditions. The future of the French nuclear industry must urgently shift its focus to the maintenance of current reactors and decommissioning and nuclear waste management services.
To understand just how far the French nuclear industry has fallen in recent years, look no further than the value of EDF and Areva. Since 2007, EDF’s stock price has fallen more than 70%; Areva’s by more than 85%. If Areva weren’t 83% government-owned, it almost certainly would have declared bankruptcy by now. EDF’s problems, although not as severe as Areva’s– mostly because it is much larger and as the main electric utility in France at least has cash flow– may be structurally even greater. The basic problem is that EDF can no longer sell electricity for as much as its aging fleet of reactors cost to generate that electricity. EDF’s operating and maintenance costs for its reactors are increasing at about 5% per year–but its electricity rates aren’t. Nor can it easily raise its rates: there are legal issues involved for its regulated business and if it raises rates in its deregulated markets it won’t be able to compete. (2)
A new report by ADEME, a French government agency under the Ministries of Ecology and Research, concludes that a 100% renewable electricity supply scenario is feasible in France. The report estimates that the electricity production cost would be €119 per megawatt-hour in 2050 in the all-renewables scenario, compared with a near-identical figure of €117 / MWh with a mix of 50% nuclear, 40% renewables, and 10% fossil fuels. (3)
The EPR saga shows that even countries with extensive nuclear expertise and experience can mess things up. The EPR might have demonstrated the potential for mass production to drive down costs – but in reality it is demonstrating the opposite. Even before the EPR fiasco, the large-scale, standardised French nuclear power program was subject to a negative economic learning curve – costs were increasing over time. The EPR represents a negative learning curve on steroids.
France has now decided to rescue Areva yet again – this time by combining the nuclear power station construction business with state-controlled power operator EDF, its biggest client. Only a few years back, in 2010, Areva’s finances had been restored by the forced sale of its transport and transmission activities to industrial group Alstom and electrical engineer Schneider.
The rest of Areva includes uranium mines, nuclear waste recycling, transport, storage and some alternative energy activities. For all intents and purposes, Areva is dead. External factors may No2NuclearPower nuClear news No.75, July 2015 9 have precipitated the crash of Areva, but the cause is internal. Areva and the French nuclear industry is controlled by engineers and state officials and the market comes as an afterthought. The problems of time and cost overruns in China, Finland and now in France at Flamanville are self-made and part of the “esprit de corps” arrogant attitude of the organisation, says Forbes magazine. (4)
Suffering from the same delusions as the UK Government, the French Government said “This merger will allow for an ambitious export policy and the future renewal of France’s nuclear power plants.” (5)  (references supplied at the end of this article on the original site http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo75.pdf)

Fukushima nuclear facility plagued by new problems

June 26, 2015

nuclear-ship-sinkingNew Problems & Challenges Plague Fukushima, Simply Info June 23rd, 2015 As June wanes we find more delays, more problems and new admissions about the extent of the disaster.

TEPCO introduced a new roadmap plan. In this they declared they would now focus on safety over speed. At the same time they announced that spent fuel removal work for units 1-3 would be delayed again. Currently they are attempting to remove the cover on unit 1 but this process has not actually begun based on visual evidence at the plant. TEPCO has not been forthcoming what is delaying this work again. Work at unit 3 had been underway in early spring to remove parts of the crane that fell into the fuel pool. An oil leak was found as they attempted to remove a portion of the crane. This stopped the removal work as they cleaned the oil out of the pool water and investigated a cause. Around the same time they discovered damage to the metal gate that connects the spent fuel pool to the reactor well. After this discovery, removal work at unit 3 appeared to cease.

Newer reports also showed that the earlier concept of flooding the reactor containments to remove damaged fuel debris is being phased out. ……..http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=14818