From MediaMatters.org
I was scanning the radio on a recent commute and heard a Christian Fundamentalist 'Economist" slamming renewable energy.
I suppose conservatives have never been on board with this - but these days when Global Warming is so obvious and when these solutions seem so reasonable, it's hard for me to believe people are continuing to be so dense.
Many conservatives seem to be getting on board as far as being anti-coal, pro-nuclear. Being afraid of emission taxes, cap & trade, or other consequences. Forbes.com pays James Conca to write pro-nuke pieces such as, "How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources".
The right wing doesn't want to acknowledge problems with nuclear waste or meltdowns. Fukushima either did not exist to them or there were no problems. Denial, denial, denial.
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
"Tens of thousands join Japan protests"
Broad dissatisfaction with govt's handling of Fukushima and restart of nuclear reactors
04:45 AM Aug 27, 2012
TOKYO - This is Japan's summer of discontent. Tens of thousands of protesters descend on Tokyo every Friday evening to shout anti-nuclear slogans at the Prime Minister's office.
"I used to complain about this to my family but I realised that doesn't do any good," said a protester. "So I came here to say this to his office. I don't know if we can make a difference but I had to do something, and at least it's a start."
The government's much-criticised handling of the Fukushima nuclear crisis has spawned a new breed of protesters in Japan, especially after the government decided to restart two nuclear reactors in June.
Drawn from the ranks of ordinary citizens rather than activists, they are a manifestation of a broader dissatisfaction with government and could create pressure for change in a political system that has long resisted it.
"All these years, lawmakers have only cared about vested interests, and that was good enough to run this country," said Mr Kiyomi Tsujimoto, an activist-turned-lawmaker.
"The government is still seen doing the same politics, and that's what people are angry about," he added.
Distrust of politics runs deep in Japan. Many think politicians are corrupt and only care about big business.
Some were angered about the recent sales tax hike and many are unhappy that the government has done little to reduce the American military presence on the southern island of Okinawa.
Still, there are signs of change. Many lawmakers have converted to supporting a nuclear-free future amid speculation that an election may be called soon and that nuclear policy will be a key campaign issue.
The government was also forced to step up transparency during town meetings to better reflect public views on energy policy in deciding to phase out nuclear power by 2030. AP
"I used to complain about this to my family but I realised that doesn't do any good," said a protester. "So I came here to say this to his office. I don't know if we can make a difference but I had to do something, and at least it's a start."
The government's much-criticised handling of the Fukushima nuclear crisis has spawned a new breed of protesters in Japan, especially after the government decided to restart two nuclear reactors in June.
Drawn from the ranks of ordinary citizens rather than activists, they are a manifestation of a broader dissatisfaction with government and could create pressure for change in a political system that has long resisted it.
"All these years, lawmakers have only cared about vested interests, and that was good enough to run this country," said Mr Kiyomi Tsujimoto, an activist-turned-lawmaker.
"The government is still seen doing the same politics, and that's what people are angry about," he added.
Distrust of politics runs deep in Japan. Many think politicians are corrupt and only care about big business.
Some were angered about the recent sales tax hike and many are unhappy that the government has done little to reduce the American military presence on the southern island of Okinawa.
Still, there are signs of change. Many lawmakers have converted to supporting a nuclear-free future amid speculation that an election may be called soon and that nuclear policy will be a key campaign issue.
The government was also forced to step up transparency during town meetings to better reflect public views on energy policy in deciding to phase out nuclear power by 2030. AP
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Fate of Japan and the Whole World Depends on No. 4 Reactor
By Akio Matsumura, Finding the Missing Link
11 April 12
Fukushima Daiichi site: Cesium-137 is 85 times greater than at Chernobyl accident.
apan’s former Ambassador to Switzerland, Mr. Mitsuhei Murata, was invited to speak at the Public Hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 22, 2012, on the Fukushima nuclear power plants accident. Before the Committee, Ambassador Murata strongly stated that if the crippled building of reactor unit 4 - with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground - collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4. In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries. Ambassador Murata informed us that the total numbers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421 (396+615+566+1,535+994+940+6375).I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods.
I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]:
In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.
The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da-Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.
Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 - roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).
It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.
Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.
There was a Nuclear Security Summit Conference in Seoul on March 26 and 27, and Ambassador Murata and I made a concerted effort to find someone to inform the participants from 54 nations of the potential global catastrophe of reactor unit 4. We asked several participants to share the idea of an Independent Assessment team comprised of a broad group of international experts to deal with this urgent issue.
I would like to introduce Ambassador Murata’s letter to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to convey this urgent message and also his letter to Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda for Japanese readers. He emphasized in the statement that we should bring human wisdom to tackle this unprecedented challenge.
It seems to us that the Nuclear Security Summit was focused on the North Korea nuclear issue and on the issue of common security from a terrorist attack. Our appeal on the need for the independent assessment at Reactor 4 was regarded as less urgent. We predicted this outcome in light of the nature of the Summit. I suppose most participants fully understood the potential disaster which will affect their countries. Nevertheless, they decided not to raise the delicate issue, perhaps in order to not ruffle their diplomatic relationship with Japan.
I was moved by Ambassador Murata’s courage in pressing this issue in Japan. I know how difficult it is for a former career diplomat to do this, especially in my country. Current and former government officials might be similarly restricted in the scope of their actions, as Ambassador Murata is, but it is their responsibility to take a stand for the benefit of our descendants for centuries to come - to pass on a world safer than our ancestors passed us.
If Japanese government leaders do not recognize the risk their nation faces, how could the rest of us be persuaded of the looming disaster? And if the rest of us do not acknowledge the catastrophe we collectively face, who will be the one to act?
Monday, June 13, 2011
" Hot Particles From Japan to Seattle Virtually Undetectable when Inhaled or Swallowed"
Video of Arne Gunderson on Fairewinds.com
He talks about collecting samples from car air filters in Tokyo and other places in Japan. And the "metallic" taste people get in their mouth when hot particles are abundant (which people got following 3Mile Island, Chernobyl and are now getting in Seattle as well as Japan).
He talks about collecting samples from car air filters in Tokyo and other places in Japan. And the "metallic" taste people get in their mouth when hot particles are abundant (which people got following 3Mile Island, Chernobyl and are now getting in Seattle as well as Japan).
Thursday, June 09, 2011
"Japan mulls closure of N-reactors by April"
As seen at the OmanTribune.com
Compared with the cost of the disaster - $30 billion sounds like nothing. Sounds like a good move to me.
Recently Japan owned up to the idea the the reactors not only melted down - but melted through:
Other Recent Headlines:
Japan: green tea exports banned due to high radiation levels 03 Jun 2011
Japanese prime minister survives no-confidence vote after offering to resign 02 Jun 2011
Japan 'underestimated' impact tsunami would have on nuclear plants' 01 Jun 2011
Wary Japanese send sales of Geiger counters soaring 26 May 2011
TOKYO: All 54 of Japan’s nuclear reactors may be shut by next April, adding more than $30 billion a year to the country’s energy costs, if communities object to plant operating plans due to safety concerns, trade ministry officials said on Wednesday....___________________
Compared with the cost of the disaster - $30 billion sounds like nothing. Sounds like a good move to me.
Recently Japan owned up to the idea the the reactors not only melted down - but melted through:
The nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels, according to a report by the Japanese government.From the Telegraph.UK
Other Recent Headlines:
Japan: green tea exports banned due to high radiation levels 03 Jun 2011
Japanese prime minister survives no-confidence vote after offering to resign 02 Jun 2011
Japan 'underestimated' impact tsunami would have on nuclear plants' 01 Jun 2011
Wary Japanese send sales of Geiger counters soaring 26 May 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Ten lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima
BY DAVID KRIEGER (Miami Herald)
PMPROJPROGRESSIVE.ORG
Here are 10 lessons from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 25 years ago and the Fukushima disaster this year.
1. Nuclear power is a highly complex, expensive and dangerous way to boil water to create steam to turn turbines.
2. Accidents happen, and the worst-case scenario often turns out to be worse than imagined or planned for.
3. The nuclear industry and its experts cannot plan for every contingency or prevent every disaster.
4. Governments do not effectively regulate the nuclear industry to assure the safety of the public. Regulators of the nuclear industry often come from the nuclear industry itself and tend to be too close to it to regulate it effectively.
5. Hubris, complacency and high-level radiation are a deadly mix. Hubris on the part of the nuclear industry and its government regulators — along with complacency on the part of the public — has led to the creation of vast amounts of high-level radiation that must be guarded from release to the environment for tens of thousands of years.
6. The corporations that run the nuclear power plants are protected from catastrophic economic failure by government limits on liability. If the corporations that own nuclear power plants had to bear the burden of potential financial losses in the event of a catastrophic accident, they would not build the plants because they know the risks are unacceptable. It is only when government limits the liability, as the Price-Anderson Act does in the United States, that companies go ahead and build nuclear power plants. No other private industry is given such liability protection, which leaves the taxpayers on the hook.
7. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in space and will not stop at national borders.
8. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in time and will adversely affect countless future generations.
9. Nuclear energy — as well as nuclear weapons — and human beings cannot coexist without the risk of future catastrophes. The survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have long known that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist. Fukushima, like Chernobyl before it, makes clear that human beings and nuclear power plants also cannot coexist.
10. The accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl are a bracing reminder to phase out nuclear energy. We need to move as rapidly as possible to a global energy plan based upon conservation and various forms of renewable energy: solar cells, wind, geothermal, and energy that is extracted from the oceans and the tides and the currents.
Poet Maya Angelou once said, “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage doesn’t need to be lived again.” We need the courage to abandon nuclear power. No one should have to experience the wrenching pain of another Chernobyl or another Fukushima.
David Krieger is a councilor on the World Future Council and the chair of the executive committee of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/15/2216014/ten-lessons-from-chernobyl-and.html#ixzz1MQfxNvhg
PMPROJPROGRESSIVE.ORG
Here are 10 lessons from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 25 years ago and the Fukushima disaster this year.
1. Nuclear power is a highly complex, expensive and dangerous way to boil water to create steam to turn turbines.
2. Accidents happen, and the worst-case scenario often turns out to be worse than imagined or planned for.
3. The nuclear industry and its experts cannot plan for every contingency or prevent every disaster.
4. Governments do not effectively regulate the nuclear industry to assure the safety of the public. Regulators of the nuclear industry often come from the nuclear industry itself and tend to be too close to it to regulate it effectively.
5. Hubris, complacency and high-level radiation are a deadly mix. Hubris on the part of the nuclear industry and its government regulators — along with complacency on the part of the public — has led to the creation of vast amounts of high-level radiation that must be guarded from release to the environment for tens of thousands of years.
6. The corporations that run the nuclear power plants are protected from catastrophic economic failure by government limits on liability. If the corporations that own nuclear power plants had to bear the burden of potential financial losses in the event of a catastrophic accident, they would not build the plants because they know the risks are unacceptable. It is only when government limits the liability, as the Price-Anderson Act does in the United States, that companies go ahead and build nuclear power plants. No other private industry is given such liability protection, which leaves the taxpayers on the hook.
7. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in space and will not stop at national borders.
8. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in time and will adversely affect countless future generations.
9. Nuclear energy — as well as nuclear weapons — and human beings cannot coexist without the risk of future catastrophes. The survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have long known that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist. Fukushima, like Chernobyl before it, makes clear that human beings and nuclear power plants also cannot coexist.
10. The accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl are a bracing reminder to phase out nuclear energy. We need to move as rapidly as possible to a global energy plan based upon conservation and various forms of renewable energy: solar cells, wind, geothermal, and energy that is extracted from the oceans and the tides and the currents.
Poet Maya Angelou once said, “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage doesn’t need to be lived again.” We need the courage to abandon nuclear power. No one should have to experience the wrenching pain of another Chernobyl or another Fukushima.
David Krieger is a councilor on the World Future Council and the chair of the executive committee of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/15/2216014/ten-lessons-from-chernobyl-and.html#ixzz1MQfxNvhg
Fukushima Disaster Continues
Accurate data destroys optimistic TEPCO assessment, hampers cooling plan (Asahi.com)
Accurate data shattered the overly optimistic assessment of Tokyo Electric Power Co. concerning the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant and raised doubts about the company's game plan for ending the crisis.
Measurements from a recently installed water gauge provided conclusive evidence that the condition of the No. 1 reactor at the plant was much more serious than TEPCO officials have acknowledged until now.
TEPCO officials admitted on May 12 that a "meltdown" had occurred in the No. 1 reactor. Fuel rods had melted, and the molten fuel accumulated and caused small cracks at the bottom of the reactor pressure container, they said.
Until now, TEPCO officials only said that fuel rods were partially damaged and compiled a work schedule in April for restoring a stable cooling system based on that assumption.
Despite being unable to obtain accurate measurements from gauges in the reactors damaged in the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake, TEPCO officials still made those optimistic assumptions.
From immediately after the quake, the measurements from the water gauge at the No. 1 reactor showed very little change, casting doubt on the reliability of the instruments.
After workers entered the No. 1 reactor building and adjusted the water gauge, the data obtained showed water levels so low that the gauge was unable to measure it.
TEPCO officials concluded that water had accumulated in only about 20 percent of the volume of the No. 1 reactor's pressure container.
Other specialists had long warned that the situation at the No. 1 reactor was much more serious than the scenario that TEPCO officials were presenting.
At a news conference April 1, Shunichi Tanaka, a former vice chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, said all the fuel rods in the No. 1 reactor had melted, raising the possibility of damage to the pressure container.
TEPCO's latest measurements found the temperature of the pressure container was about 100 degrees. If the fuel rods had been exposed because of the low water level, the temperature should have been much higher. The only explanation is that the fuel rods melted, accumulated at the bottom of the pressure container and the melted fuel was cooled by the small volume of water at the bottom.
The No. 1 reactor is not the only one with problems. Small cracks have probably also developed at the bottom of the pressure containers of the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors.
Evidence of that possibility is the highly contaminated water found in the basements of the turbine buildings of the three reactors as well as underground trenches.
The contamination was likely caused by water leaking from the bottoms of the pressure containers of the three reactors.
TEPCO officials now admit that the measurements from the water gauges at the pressure containers in the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors are also unreliable.
While those water gauges will have to be repaired as soon as possible, TEPCO will also have to review its work schedule for cooling the reactors.
That will likely mean rethinking the plan to submerge the containment vessel of the No. 1 reactor in water to cool the pressure container within.
About 10,000 tons of water have already been pumped into the No. 1 reactor's pressure container, but about 3,000 tons of that water are unaccounted for. That likely means the water has leaked out of the containment vessel.
Moreover, if TEPCO continues to pump in water to the reactors to cool them, water contaminated with radiation will continue to leak out from the cracks at the bottoms of the pressure containers.
TEPCO officials have also not denied the possibility that melted fuel has leaked out of the pressure container. That would mean the volume of contaminated water will likely increase, making work in the reactor buildings much more difficult.
Setbacks at Japan nuclear plant(BBC)
A reactor at Japan's crippled nuclear plant has been more badly damaged than originally thought, operator Tepco has said.
Water is leaking from the pressure vessel surrounding reactor 1 - probably because of damage caused by exposed fuel rods melting, a spokesman said.
Contaminated water had also entered the sea from a pit near reactor 3 but this had now been stopped, he said...
He said there was likely to be a large leak in the pressure vessel, possibly caused by the fallen fuel.
"As for a meltdown, it is certain that it has crumbled and the fuel is located at the bottom (of the vessel)," he added.
The water is said to be leaking into the containment vessel and from there into the reactor building.
Experts said the announcement from Tepco did not mean that the situation at the plant had worsened because it was likely that the fuel had dropped to the bottom of the core soon after the 11 March earthquake.
Japan nuclear: Tepco halts Fukushima cooling plan(BBC)
Japanese engineers have abandoned their latest attempt to stabilise a stricken reactor at the Fukushima nuclear plant.
The plant's operator, Tepco, had intended to cool reactor 1 by filling the containment chamber with water.
But Tepco said melting fuel rods had created a hole in the chamber, allowing 3,000 tonnes of contaminated water to leak into the basement of the reactor building.
The power plant was badly damaged by the earthquake and tsunami on 11 March.
Cooling systems to the reactors were knocked out, fuel rods overheated, and attempts to release pressure in the chambers led to explosions in the buildings housing the reactors.
The government and Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Company) said it would take until next January to achieve a cold shut-down at the plant.
Government spokesman Goshi Hosono said the latest setback would not affect the deadline...
Last week the government agreed a huge compensation package for those affected by the disaster.
Analysts say the final bill for compensation could top $100bn (£61bn).
_______
More info can be found @ Radiation Safety Philippines
Accurate data shattered the overly optimistic assessment of Tokyo Electric Power Co. concerning the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant and raised doubts about the company's game plan for ending the crisis.
Measurements from a recently installed water gauge provided conclusive evidence that the condition of the No. 1 reactor at the plant was much more serious than TEPCO officials have acknowledged until now.
TEPCO officials admitted on May 12 that a "meltdown" had occurred in the No. 1 reactor. Fuel rods had melted, and the molten fuel accumulated and caused small cracks at the bottom of the reactor pressure container, they said.
Until now, TEPCO officials only said that fuel rods were partially damaged and compiled a work schedule in April for restoring a stable cooling system based on that assumption.
Despite being unable to obtain accurate measurements from gauges in the reactors damaged in the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake, TEPCO officials still made those optimistic assumptions.
From immediately after the quake, the measurements from the water gauge at the No. 1 reactor showed very little change, casting doubt on the reliability of the instruments.
After workers entered the No. 1 reactor building and adjusted the water gauge, the data obtained showed water levels so low that the gauge was unable to measure it.
TEPCO officials concluded that water had accumulated in only about 20 percent of the volume of the No. 1 reactor's pressure container.
Other specialists had long warned that the situation at the No. 1 reactor was much more serious than the scenario that TEPCO officials were presenting.
At a news conference April 1, Shunichi Tanaka, a former vice chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, said all the fuel rods in the No. 1 reactor had melted, raising the possibility of damage to the pressure container.
TEPCO's latest measurements found the temperature of the pressure container was about 100 degrees. If the fuel rods had been exposed because of the low water level, the temperature should have been much higher. The only explanation is that the fuel rods melted, accumulated at the bottom of the pressure container and the melted fuel was cooled by the small volume of water at the bottom.
The No. 1 reactor is not the only one with problems. Small cracks have probably also developed at the bottom of the pressure containers of the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors.
Evidence of that possibility is the highly contaminated water found in the basements of the turbine buildings of the three reactors as well as underground trenches.
The contamination was likely caused by water leaking from the bottoms of the pressure containers of the three reactors.
TEPCO officials now admit that the measurements from the water gauges at the pressure containers in the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors are also unreliable.
While those water gauges will have to be repaired as soon as possible, TEPCO will also have to review its work schedule for cooling the reactors.
That will likely mean rethinking the plan to submerge the containment vessel of the No. 1 reactor in water to cool the pressure container within.
About 10,000 tons of water have already been pumped into the No. 1 reactor's pressure container, but about 3,000 tons of that water are unaccounted for. That likely means the water has leaked out of the containment vessel.
Moreover, if TEPCO continues to pump in water to the reactors to cool them, water contaminated with radiation will continue to leak out from the cracks at the bottoms of the pressure containers.
TEPCO officials have also not denied the possibility that melted fuel has leaked out of the pressure container. That would mean the volume of contaminated water will likely increase, making work in the reactor buildings much more difficult.
Setbacks at Japan nuclear plant(BBC)
A reactor at Japan's crippled nuclear plant has been more badly damaged than originally thought, operator Tepco has said.
Water is leaking from the pressure vessel surrounding reactor 1 - probably because of damage caused by exposed fuel rods melting, a spokesman said.
Contaminated water had also entered the sea from a pit near reactor 3 but this had now been stopped, he said...
He said there was likely to be a large leak in the pressure vessel, possibly caused by the fallen fuel.
"As for a meltdown, it is certain that it has crumbled and the fuel is located at the bottom (of the vessel)," he added.
The water is said to be leaking into the containment vessel and from there into the reactor building.
Experts said the announcement from Tepco did not mean that the situation at the plant had worsened because it was likely that the fuel had dropped to the bottom of the core soon after the 11 March earthquake.
Japan nuclear: Tepco halts Fukushima cooling plan(BBC)
Japanese engineers have abandoned their latest attempt to stabilise a stricken reactor at the Fukushima nuclear plant.
The plant's operator, Tepco, had intended to cool reactor 1 by filling the containment chamber with water.
But Tepco said melting fuel rods had created a hole in the chamber, allowing 3,000 tonnes of contaminated water to leak into the basement of the reactor building.
The power plant was badly damaged by the earthquake and tsunami on 11 March.
Cooling systems to the reactors were knocked out, fuel rods overheated, and attempts to release pressure in the chambers led to explosions in the buildings housing the reactors.
The government and Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Company) said it would take until next January to achieve a cold shut-down at the plant.
Government spokesman Goshi Hosono said the latest setback would not affect the deadline...
Last week the government agreed a huge compensation package for those affected by the disaster.
Analysts say the final bill for compensation could top $100bn (£61bn).
_______
More info can be found @ Radiation Safety Philippines
Thursday, March 31, 2011
"Workers Give Glimpse of Japan’s Nuclear Crisis"
From the New York Times:
With the power out, trucks were parked in a circle with their lights on, creating a shadowy stage. A manager from the Tokyo Electric Power Company explained how the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had been slammed by a mammoth tsunami and rocked by hydrogen explosions and had become highly radioactive. Some workers wept.
That was the scene at J-Village, 12 miles south of the plant, on the night of March 15. Hundreds of firefighters, Self-Defense Forces and workers from Tokyo Electric Power convened at the sports training center, arguing long and loudly about how best to restore cooling systems and prevent nuclear fuel from overheating. Complicating matters, a lack of phone service meant that they had little input from upper management.
“There were so many ideas, the meeting turned into a panic,” said one longtime Tokyo Electric veteran present that day. He made the comments in an interview with The New York Times, one of several interviews that provided a rare glimpse of the crisis as the company’s workers experienced it. “There were serious arguments between the various sections about whether to go, how to use electrical lines, which facilities to use and so on.”
The quarreling echoed the alarm bells ringing throughout Tokyo Electric, which has been grappling with an unprecedented set of challenges since March 11, when the severe earthquake and massive tsunami upended northeastern Japan. It is also an insight, through interviews, e-mails and blog posts, into the problems faced by the thousands of often anxious but eager Tokyo Electric Power employees working to re-establish order.
Many of them — especially the small number charged with approaching damaged reactors and exposing themselves to unusually high doses of radiation — are viewed as heroes, preventing the world’s second-worst nuclear calamity from becoming even more dire.
But unlike their bosses, who appear daily in blue work coats to apologize to the public and explain why the company has not yet succeeded in taming the reactors, the front-line workers have remained almost entirely anonymous.
In the interviews and in some e-mail and published blog items, several line workers expressed frustration at the slow pace of the recovery efforts, sometimes conflicting orders from their bosses and unavoidable hurdles like damaged roads. In many cases, the line workers want the public to know that they feel remorse for the nuclear crisis, but also that they are trying their best to fix it.
“My town is gone,” wrote a worker named Emiko Ueno, in an email obtained by The Times. “My parents are still missing. I still cannot get in the area because of the evacuation order. I still have to work in such a mental state. This is my limit.”
...In Tokyo, bosses at Tokyo Electric ordered transmission and distribution teams to prepare their gear, including tons of batteries, cables and transformers. On March 14, workers were told that the assignment was dangerous and that they could opt out. Few did. Many workers felt duty-bound to go to Fukushima, particularly those with families who were directly affected by the earthquake and tsunami.
One worker said in an interview that he left for Fukushima on March 15. His convoy had free rein on the highways, which had been cleared for utility vehicles. The local roads were slower going because parts of some streets had literally disappeared.
After heated arguments about how to proceed during the impromptu meeting at J-Village, teams on March 16 went to the Daiichi plant. Everyone wore a mask and special suit. There, they jury-rigged a connection that carried electricity from a nearby substation to the plant.
“I wanted to plug in the cable as soon as possible so the plant would have power again, but the nuclear people wanted to check the safety of various instruments first,” the worker said. “I was so excited to do something that I couldn’t stand the slow speed of the decision making.”
...At J-Village two days later, several dozen Tokyo Electric workers who had completed their tasks were killing time when their boss walked to a white board where their to-do list was written. Next to the last item, he wrote the character “ryo,” which means “good” or, in this case, “completed.”
“I’ll never forget the moment when the manager told us we were done,” said the longtime Tokyo Electric veteran present that day. “Everyone started yelling and crying.”
Many of the workers also used their cellphone cameras to take pictures of the white board and the character, which was circled in red ink. Lacking beer, the worker and his friends celebrated by sharing two bottles of Coca-Cola.
...But like several false dawns in the effort to control the plant, the work they did to extend electrical power to the facility has yet to provide the turning point it once seemed to promise. The main reactor buildings are either too badly damaged, or too laden with radioactivity, to readily reconnect plumbing and electrical systems. And fellow workers at the plant now face even more severe hazards in keeping the reactors cool by pouring water on the fuel in the reactors and spent fuel pools.
Even in the Tokyo office of the power company, the lights and heaters are shut off to save energy. Many people wear coats at their desks and go home when it gets dark. The nuclear crisis is far from over; their company faces possible bankruptcy or nationalization, and many workers fear for their paychecks.
With the power out, trucks were parked in a circle with their lights on, creating a shadowy stage. A manager from the Tokyo Electric Power Company explained how the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had been slammed by a mammoth tsunami and rocked by hydrogen explosions and had become highly radioactive. Some workers wept.
That was the scene at J-Village, 12 miles south of the plant, on the night of March 15. Hundreds of firefighters, Self-Defense Forces and workers from Tokyo Electric Power convened at the sports training center, arguing long and loudly about how best to restore cooling systems and prevent nuclear fuel from overheating. Complicating matters, a lack of phone service meant that they had little input from upper management.
“There were so many ideas, the meeting turned into a panic,” said one longtime Tokyo Electric veteran present that day. He made the comments in an interview with The New York Times, one of several interviews that provided a rare glimpse of the crisis as the company’s workers experienced it. “There were serious arguments between the various sections about whether to go, how to use electrical lines, which facilities to use and so on.”
The quarreling echoed the alarm bells ringing throughout Tokyo Electric, which has been grappling with an unprecedented set of challenges since March 11, when the severe earthquake and massive tsunami upended northeastern Japan. It is also an insight, through interviews, e-mails and blog posts, into the problems faced by the thousands of often anxious but eager Tokyo Electric Power employees working to re-establish order.
Many of them — especially the small number charged with approaching damaged reactors and exposing themselves to unusually high doses of radiation — are viewed as heroes, preventing the world’s second-worst nuclear calamity from becoming even more dire.
But unlike their bosses, who appear daily in blue work coats to apologize to the public and explain why the company has not yet succeeded in taming the reactors, the front-line workers have remained almost entirely anonymous.
In the interviews and in some e-mail and published blog items, several line workers expressed frustration at the slow pace of the recovery efforts, sometimes conflicting orders from their bosses and unavoidable hurdles like damaged roads. In many cases, the line workers want the public to know that they feel remorse for the nuclear crisis, but also that they are trying their best to fix it.
“My town is gone,” wrote a worker named Emiko Ueno, in an email obtained by The Times. “My parents are still missing. I still cannot get in the area because of the evacuation order. I still have to work in such a mental state. This is my limit.”
...In Tokyo, bosses at Tokyo Electric ordered transmission and distribution teams to prepare their gear, including tons of batteries, cables and transformers. On March 14, workers were told that the assignment was dangerous and that they could opt out. Few did. Many workers felt duty-bound to go to Fukushima, particularly those with families who were directly affected by the earthquake and tsunami.
One worker said in an interview that he left for Fukushima on March 15. His convoy had free rein on the highways, which had been cleared for utility vehicles. The local roads were slower going because parts of some streets had literally disappeared.
After heated arguments about how to proceed during the impromptu meeting at J-Village, teams on March 16 went to the Daiichi plant. Everyone wore a mask and special suit. There, they jury-rigged a connection that carried electricity from a nearby substation to the plant.
“I wanted to plug in the cable as soon as possible so the plant would have power again, but the nuclear people wanted to check the safety of various instruments first,” the worker said. “I was so excited to do something that I couldn’t stand the slow speed of the decision making.”
...At J-Village two days later, several dozen Tokyo Electric workers who had completed their tasks were killing time when their boss walked to a white board where their to-do list was written. Next to the last item, he wrote the character “ryo,” which means “good” or, in this case, “completed.”
“I’ll never forget the moment when the manager told us we were done,” said the longtime Tokyo Electric veteran present that day. “Everyone started yelling and crying.”
Many of the workers also used their cellphone cameras to take pictures of the white board and the character, which was circled in red ink. Lacking beer, the worker and his friends celebrated by sharing two bottles of Coca-Cola.
...But like several false dawns in the effort to control the plant, the work they did to extend electrical power to the facility has yet to provide the turning point it once seemed to promise. The main reactor buildings are either too badly damaged, or too laden with radioactivity, to readily reconnect plumbing and electrical systems. And fellow workers at the plant now face even more severe hazards in keeping the reactors cool by pouring water on the fuel in the reactors and spent fuel pools.
Even in the Tokyo office of the power company, the lights and heaters are shut off to save energy. Many people wear coats at their desks and go home when it gets dark. The nuclear crisis is far from over; their company faces possible bankruptcy or nationalization, and many workers fear for their paychecks.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Radiation Disaster at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
Photo from the Institute for Science and International SecurityThe March 11 earthquake and tsunami was enough of a disaster in itself. One of the effects of 10 meter tsunami was to knock out the system that cooled the nuclear facility at Fukushima. The plants automatically shut down with an earthquake - but a tsunami of that size was not anticipated. Without cooling, there has been explosions and some amount of melting and release of radiation.
The presence of radiation has made it difficult to have people working at the plant to fix the problems because of the high levels of radiation around the plant. Based on the sievert level (see below) - there are limits to how much a person should be exposed to in an hour, in a day, in a year.
From the BBC ->"After Tuesday's explosions and fire, radiation dosages of up to 400 millisieverts per hour were recorded at the Fukushima Daiichi site, about 250km north-east of Tokyo. Later, a reading of 0.6 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was recorded at the plant's main gate, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said."
Radiation has spread out app. 15 miles. The US advised an evacuation of 50 miles out. France advised it's citizens to leave the country. Tokyo is about 150 miles away. People have been concerned about the wind direction - as far as radiation spread. It has mostly gone out over the ocean so far.
Summary of conditions put together by Greenpeace as of March 18th:
Overall, with possible exception of spent fuel pool of reactor #3, the status of all facilities is very similar to yesterday, which is a bad thing. Major uncertainty relates to amount of radiation already being released to air and sea, to risk of a violent fire in the cladding of the fuel rods as the spent fuel pools are exposed for hours, as well as to the behavior of the reactor cores as water levels remain low.
Good news is that the violent release of radioactivity due to fire or explosion feared yesterday has not happened yet. Power is still not restored to the facility, but some progress has made to bring off site power and more equipment. This means more effective cooling could be established in some days. At least until that happens, the situation remains critical and unpredictable.
Reactors 1-3: water level in reactors low (about half of fuel rods exposed), no grid power, seawater injection apparently ongoing. Fuel rods have certainly damaged and are releasing radioactive substances.
Fire department has brought in 30 more trucks, at least one reported to be a “Super Bomber” able to shoot to a distance of 2 kilometers. Yesterday police trucks were unable to operate close to plant because of high radiation levels, only SDF (Self Defense Force) trucks that can be operated from inside the cabin were used.
Spent fuel pools of units 1&2: Water levels in Unit 1 are decreasing. Steam was reported from unit 2, expected to be boiling.
Spent fuel pool of unit 3: Water in #3 almost depleted, but Tepco hopes some water is left. Fuel rods have certainly damaged, releasing radioactive substances. The reactor buildings are heavily damaged, allowing releases directly to outside air.
Spent fuel pool of unit 4: Water level very unclear.
Spent fuel pools of units 5&6: Temperatures still rising, water left but level unclear.
Worst case scenarios
* The zirconium contained in the fuel rod cladding can react violently with air, if exposed for hours. This fire would release and spread very large amounts of radioactivity high up in the air. Wide disagreement on the probability of this happening.
* A large amount of molten fuel accumulates at the bottom and a nuclear reaction starts. Very low probability and can be prevented if there is any borated water in the pool.
* Reactor boils dry, molten core breaches reactor pressure vessel and comes in contact with the water in the containment, which boils rapidly causing a steam explosion.
* A major risk is an event (e.g. increased release of radioactivity from a spent fuel pool due to overheating) that raises local radiation levels to completely intolerable levels - preventing further work to restore cooling.
Tepco seemed to suggest that encasing the plant in concrete is an option if cooling efforts fail (according to Reuters live feed).
Wind
Local wind speed slowed down considerably in the morning but direction remained towards the sea. Winds towards Tokyo are still feared for Sunday.
____
A more detailed summary can be found @ Reuters
__________________
There was 3 Mile Island, there was Chernobyl, and now this. This situation has made it clear that all nuclear plants need to have their systems and possible catastrophic scenarios more thought out. There are many plants of the same type in the US - where people have warned of this and this sort of possible problem and yet - nothing has been done to fix and avert the potential problem.
Clearly more people need to accept that nuclear energy poses very extreme risks to people and the environment.
About that Radiation and Sieverts:
The sievert (symbol: Sv) is the SI derived unit of dose equivalent. It attempts to quantitatively evaluate the biological effects of ionizing radiation as opposed to the physical aspects, which are characterised by the absorbed dose, measured in gray. It is named after Rolf Sievert, a Swedish medical physicist renowned for work on radiation dosage measurement and research into the biological effects of radiation.
Frequently used SI multiples are the millisievert (1 mSv = 10−3 Sv = 0.001 Sv) and microsievert (1 μSv = 10−6 Sv = 0.000001 Sv).
An older unit of the equivalent dose is the rem. In some fields and countries, the rem and millirem (abbreviated mrem) continue to be used along with Sv and mSv, causing confusion. Here are the conversion equivalences:
1 Sv = 1000 mSv (millisieverts) = 1,000,000 μSv (microsieverts) = 100 rem = 100,000 mrem (millirem)
Single dose examples:
Eating one banana: 0.0001 mSv
Sleeping next to a human for 8 hours: 0.0005 mSv[1]
Dental radiography: 0.005 mSv[2]
Average dose to people living within 16 km of Three Mile Island accident: 0.08 mSv; maximum dose: 1 mSv[3]
Mammogram: 3 mSv[2]
Brain CT scan: 0.8–5 mSv[4]
International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended limit for volunteers averting major nuclear escalation: 500 mSv
International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended limit for volunteers rescuing lives or preventing serious injuries: 1000 mSv
Hourly dose examples:
Approximate radiation levels near Chernobyl reactor 4 and its fragments, shortly[clarification needed] after explosion are reported to be 10–300 Sv/hr
Yearly dose examples:
Living near a nuclear power station: 0.0001–0.01 mSv/year
Living near a coal power station: 0.0003 mSv/year
Cosmic radiation (from sky) at sea level: 0.24 mSv/year
Natural radiation in the human body: 0.40 mSv/year
New York-Tokyo flights for airline crew: 9 mSv/year
Total average radiation dose for Americans: 6.2 mSv/year
Current average limit for nuclear workers: 20 mSv/year
Lowest clearly carcinogenic level: 100 mSv/year
Elevated limit for workers during Fukushima emergency: 250 mSv/year
Dose limit examples:
Criterion for relocation after Chernobyl disaster: 350 mSv/lifetime
Public dose limits for exposure from uranium mining or nuclear plants are usually set at 1 mSv/yr above background.
Symptom benchmarks
Symptoms of acute radiation (within one day):
0 – 0.25 Sv (0 - 250 mSv): None
0.25 – 1 Sv (250 - 1000 mSv): Some people feel nausea and loss of appetite; bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen damaged.
1 – 3 Sv (1000 - 3000 mSv): Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured.
3 – 6 Sv (3000 - 6000 mSv): Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, peeling of skin, sterility; death if untreated.
6 – 10 Sv (6000 - 10000 mSv): Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death expected.
Above 10 Sv (10000 mSv): Incapacitation and death.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
"GOP Goes off the Deep End, Proposes 100 New Nuclear Reactors in the U.S."
By Harvey Wasserman, AlterNet
__________________________________________
From the Las Vegas Sun:
GOP plan would increase nuclear waste destined for Yucca
By Mary Manning
Statements on Reprocessing:
*Union of Concerned Scientists
*Citizen.org
As the prospective price of new reactors continues to soar, and as the first "new generation" construction projects sink in French and Finnish soil, Republicans are introducing a bill to Congress demanding 100 new nuclear reactors in the U.S. within 20 years. It explicitly welcomes "alternatives" such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and "clean coal." Although it endorses some renewables, such as solar and wind power, it calls for no cap on carbon emissions.
According to the New York Times, this is the defining GOP alternative to a Democratic energy plan headed for a House vote later this month.
But niggling questions like who will pay for these reactors, who will insure them, where will the fuel come from, where will waste go and who will protect them from terrorists are not on the agenda. Given recent certain-to-prove-optimistic estimates of approximately $10 billion per reactor, the plan envisions a trillion-plus-dollar commitment to a newly nuke-centered nation.
With this proposed legislation, the GOP makes atomic energy the centerpiece of its strategy to deal with climate change.
Nuclear power requires energy-intensive activities such as uranium mining, milling, fuel enrichment, plus other carbon expenditures for plant construction, waste management and more.
Reactors also convert buried uranium ore into huge quantities of heat, much of which becomes hot water and steam emitted into the environment. Reactors in France and elsewhere have been forced to shut because adjacent rivers have been taken to 90 degrees Fahrenheit by hot water dumped from reactor cooling systems.
None of this troubled GOP hearings this week on the future of atomic energy. There were no answers to how new reactors would be insured. Since 1957, the federal treasury has been the underwriter of last resort for potential reactor disasters. Renewed in the 2005 Bush energy plan, the commitment applies to all new reactors.
So reactors licensed to operate through 2057 -- as would be virtually certain under the GOP plan -- would extend to a full century the atomic industry's inability to cover its own risks. Neither the Obama administration nor the GOP has presented detailed plans for dealing with such disasters, or explained how they would be paid for.
Despite the GOP's endless focus on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, no significant structural upgrades have been made to protect the currently licensed 104 U.S. reactors from an air attack. The new reactors will be required to demonstrate an ability to resist a jet crash, but testing that requirement remains an open issue.
The ability to fuel this new fleet of reactors remains questionable. Reprocessing used fuel into reusable mixed oxide rods has proved dirty, expensive and dangerous...
__________________________________________
From the Las Vegas Sun:
GOP plan would increase nuclear waste destined for Yucca
By Mary Manning
A new energy plan unveiled today by House Republicans streamlines expanding nuclear power plants and the amount of spent nuclear fuel destined for a proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
The bill calls for building 100 nuclear power plants within the United States in the next 20 years and combines higher limits on nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain with plans for more repositories and reprocessing.
The Nevada congressional delegation, which has opposed a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, reacted negatively to the American Energy Act, another plan introduced by Republicans within a month.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that President Barack Obama has already approved a blue ribbon task force to find alternative solutions without a Yucca Mountain repository. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has already started the research into alternatives.
"It's unfortunate that the House Republicans did not come up with real solutions to the nation's energy problems," Reid said.
"It's just not going to happen," said Reid's spokesman Jon Summers of the Yucca Mountain repository approved by President George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she would continue to highlight both the cost and the danger that Yucca Mountain poses in hopes of building opposition in the House. A Democratic energy-climate change package underway does not include any language that would double the capacity of the dump, she said.
"House Republicans just cannot help themselves when it comes to their support for Yucca Mountain and its $100 billion price tag," Berkley said. "Now they have renewed efforts to 'supersize' Yucca Mountain as part of their energy package, a move that would more than double the amount of deadly radioactive garbage to be dumped in Nevada."
Berkley also said that the GOP bill would be financed by a monthly tax on power bills...
On what would happen to increasing nuclear waste, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said that reprocessing* as well as further construction of nuclear waste dumping sites, such as Yucca Mountain, would be necessary...
Statements on Reprocessing:
*Union of Concerned Scientists
*Citizen.org
Saturday, June 21, 2008
"Union of Concerned Scientists Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming"
To address global warming, we need a profound transformation of the ways in which we generate and consume energy. The urgency of this situation demands that we be willing to consider all possible options for coping with climate change. In examining each option we must take into account its impact on public health, safety, and security, the time required for large scale deployment, and its costs.
While there are currently some global warming emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction, when nuclear plants operate they do not produce carbon dioxide. This fact is used to support proposals for a large-scale expansion of nuclear power both in the United States and around the world.
It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events—a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian—most likely non-U.S.—nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.
In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:
1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.
2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.
3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.
4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants—from accidents and acts of terrorism—are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.
5. An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.
While there are currently some global warming emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction, when nuclear plants operate they do not produce carbon dioxide. This fact is used to support proposals for a large-scale expansion of nuclear power both in the United States and around the world.
It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events—a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian—most likely non-U.S.—nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.
In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:
1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.
2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.
3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.
4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants—from accidents and acts of terrorism—are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.
5. An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Nuclear Waste
It's hard to imagine that there would be talk of building new nuclear reactors when the waste from over 20 - 30 years ago sits waiting for a solution.
This article in the New York Times discusses nuclear waste in the US and how it is not being disposed of in a reasonable manner.
This article in the New York Times discusses nuclear waste in the US and how it is not being disposed of in a reasonable manner.
Each circle entombs a nuclear waste canister near Aiken, S.C.
_______
Forgotten but not gone, the waste from more than 100 nuclear reactors that the federal government was supposed to start accepting for burial 10 years ago is still at the reactor sites, at least 20 years behind schedule. But it is making itself felt in the federal budget.
With court orders and settlements, the federal government has already paid the utilities $342 million, but is virtually certain to pay a total of at least $7 billion in the next few years and probably over $11 billion, government officials said. The industry said the total could reach $35 billion....
The payments are due because the reactor owners were all required to sign contracts with the Energy Department in the early 1980s, with the government promising to dispose of the waste for a fee of a 10th of a cent per kilowatt-hour. It was supposed to begin taking away the fuel in the then far-off year of 1998....
Sunday, December 09, 2007
"Energy Department Fined $500,000 for Hanford Radioactive Spill"
The Washington State Department of Ecology has issued a $500,000 penalty against the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, for a release of radioactive hazardous tank waste to the soil at the Hanford Nuclear Site on the Columbia River in central Washington.
The waste endangered workers and brought a halt to cleanup of the leaky underground single-shell tanks.
The spill occurred on July 27, 2007, when contractor CH2M HILL Hanford Group was pumping waste from a tank. Workers tried to unblock a pump by running it in reverse. This resulted in a high-level waste spill to the ground.
"Over 80 gallons of highly radioactive tank waste spilled to the environment," said Jane Hedges, manager of Ecology's Nuclear Waste Program. "Before the spill was discovered, a series of poor decisions put workers in grave danger from exposure to the tank waste and vapors. This accident calls into question the adequacy of the safety culture which is so critical at the tank farms."
Hedges, who leads the state's oversight of the Hanford cleanup, said, "We are troubled by the length of time it took CH2M HILL and the Department of Energy to determine there was a release of radioactive tank waste. There was a delay of more than seven hours from the time the first high radiation readings were discovered. This is completely unacceptable."
...Van Mason said, "The inspection found that too few staff were on the job to manage the incident during the graveyard shift. Inspections determined that lighting was inadequate in the pump pit area, and poor positioning of the S Tank Farm video camera also contributed to the delay in response to the accident."
As a result of this accident, all work related to retrieving the liquids from Tank 241-S-102 has been stopped. Additionally, all tank waste retrieval work throughout the tank farms has been suspended until the contributing factors can be identified and resolved and work can resume safely.
The Department of Energy has already missed several deadlines for retrieval of waste from the 149 single-shell tanks.
"Radioactive tank waste is the greatest human health and environmental risk at Hanford," said Hedges. "Getting the waste out of the aging, leaky Hanford tanks is the state of Washington's top cleanup priority. The mismanagement of the retrieval work that caused this spill has set back the already delayed tank retrieval work even further."
The waste endangered workers and brought a halt to cleanup of the leaky underground single-shell tanks.
The spill occurred on July 27, 2007, when contractor CH2M HILL Hanford Group was pumping waste from a tank. Workers tried to unblock a pump by running it in reverse. This resulted in a high-level waste spill to the ground.
"Over 80 gallons of highly radioactive tank waste spilled to the environment," said Jane Hedges, manager of Ecology's Nuclear Waste Program. "Before the spill was discovered, a series of poor decisions put workers in grave danger from exposure to the tank waste and vapors. This accident calls into question the adequacy of the safety culture which is so critical at the tank farms."
Hedges, who leads the state's oversight of the Hanford cleanup, said, "We are troubled by the length of time it took CH2M HILL and the Department of Energy to determine there was a release of radioactive tank waste. There was a delay of more than seven hours from the time the first high radiation readings were discovered. This is completely unacceptable."
...Van Mason said, "The inspection found that too few staff were on the job to manage the incident during the graveyard shift. Inspections determined that lighting was inadequate in the pump pit area, and poor positioning of the S Tank Farm video camera also contributed to the delay in response to the accident."
As a result of this accident, all work related to retrieving the liquids from Tank 241-S-102 has been stopped. Additionally, all tank waste retrieval work throughout the tank farms has been suspended until the contributing factors can be identified and resolved and work can resume safely.
The Department of Energy has already missed several deadlines for retrieval of waste from the 149 single-shell tanks.
"Radioactive tank waste is the greatest human health and environmental risk at Hanford," said Hedges. "Getting the waste out of the aging, leaky Hanford tanks is the state of Washington's top cleanup priority. The mismanagement of the retrieval work that caused this spill has set back the already delayed tank retrieval work even further."
"S.C. nuke landfill to close; 36 states left in lurch"
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Starting next summer, many power plants, hospitals, universities and companies in 36 states will be forced to store low-level radioactive waste on their own property because a South Carolina landfill is closing its doors to them.
The states have known for years that this day would come. But because of political opposition, environmental fears and cost concerns, most of them have done almost nothing to construct new landfills in the meantime.
At issue is the Barnwell County dump site, a 235-acre expanse that opened in 1971 close to the Georgia line. The equivalent of more than 40 tractor-trailers full of radioactive trash from 39 states was buried there each year before South Carolina lawmakers in 2000 ordered the place to scale back because they no longer wanted the state to be the nation’s dumping ground.
As of July 1, the landfill will take waste only from South Carolina and the two states with which it formed a partnership: New Jersey and Connecticut.
State and industry officials say the not-in-my-backyard resistance will ironically lead to “temporary” storage sites in backyards across the nation...
The danger, some officials say, is that storing the waste in potentially hundreds of locations across the country could allow radiation to escape.
While none of the trash could be used to make a nuclear bomb, some experts fear it could be stolen to make “dirty bombs,” which use conventional explosives to scatter radioactive debris.
“As a matter of national security, health and safety, it makes good sense to ultimately dispose of this stuff and not just store it all over the country,” said Rick Jacobi, a nuclear engineer and former general manager of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority.
“There will be hundreds, maybe thousands of them. People won’t want to pay others to store the material. They’ll find a closet or warehouse or a shed out back and stick it in there and see what happens.”
The trash sent to Barnwell includes protective clothing and gloves, tools, cleaning rags, lab equipment, industrial measuring devices and equipment used to treat cancer patients. It does not include spent fuel from nuclear power plants. The waste is stored in steel containers that are put in concrete vaults and then buried in long trenches.
Most waste from hospitals, universities and power plants falls into the lowest-hazard class, which means it decays to nonradioactive levels within 100 years.
The closing of Barnwell will mean roughly 20,000 cubic feet of trash per year, or enough to fill six tractor-trailers, will be turned away.
Only two other landfills now exist nationwide for low-level nuclear waste.
One, in Clive, Utah, takes only the least hazardous trash, such as slightly contaminated clothing. It accepts waste from all states.
The other landfill, in Richland, Wash., receives such material along with hotter waste that decays to non-hazardous levels within 500 years. But it accepts shipments from only 11 states, including Idaho, Nevada and Colorado...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)