Poll

is it safe?

Yes
172 (54.4%)
No
66 (20.9%)
I don't know
64 (20.3%)
I don't care
14 (4.4%)

Total Members Voted: 316

Author Topic: Nuclear Energy  (Read 50398 times)

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #240 on: June 5, 2012, 05:32:36 pm »
And as you don't challenge any of the other points, I can assume you are in full agreement. Cheers  :wave

You can assume all you like.

When was the last time any of the other countries you listed suffered mag 9 earthquakes or 130 foot tsunamis then? You forget that there's already been a 'nuclear bad hair day in Russia (well, Ukraine) that didn't 'fuck the UK up'.

By the way, the earthquake happened at 14:46, the tsunami at approx 15:36 on 11 March 2011. The meltdowns in reactors 1 and 2 both occurred well after the tsunami hit. If you can't get the basic timeline right why would I believe any of your other claims about the disaster or, in fact, nuclear power in general?

War or terrorism affecting nuclear stations - nuclear power stations are on the list of prohibited targets in the time of war, making air strikes on them a war crime. Attacking a British nuclear power station would probably be seen as equivalent to a nuclear strike and result in the UK launching nuclear retaliation. That alone makes it extremely unlikely. Should we ever go to war with a country willing to launch strikes on nuclear power stations and capable of doing then we're probably going to get nuked anyway, to be frank.

As for terrorists attacking nuclear power stations, they're probably the most secure places in the country.

Bad weather in the UK is unlikely to ever get bad enough to affect nuclear power stations (or any other power stations). We simply don't have the kind of climate that has extremes like that and considering that the likes of Finland and India don't have nuclear power stations melting down on a weekly basis with their far more extreme weather I think the UK should be safe enough for the foreseeable future.

Civil disobedience will never affect nuclear power stations. The nuke police really will shoot people before they ever get close to endangering the reactors.

I'm in agreement about the problems of the UK nuclear industry, hopefully the new reactors will be the start of a rebirth for it.

Frankly I don't really care about the cost. We'll be ripped off because the UK hasn't had a government capable of doing anything without being bent over and done like an Austrian stepdaughter for as long as I've been alive, if not longer. It's still better than getting through a northern European winter with three hours of power a day, if you're lucky.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #241 on: June 5, 2012, 06:07:23 pm »
By the way, the earthquake happened at 14:46, the tsunami at approx 15:36 on 11 March 2011. The meltdowns in reactors 1 and 2 both occurred well after the tsunami hit. If you can't get the basic timeline right why would I believe any of your other claims about the disaster or, in fact, nuclear power in general?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-explosive-truth-behind-fukushimas-meltdown-2338819.html

Quote
The Independent has spoken to several workers at the plant who recite the same story: serious damage, to piping and at least one of the reactors, occurred before the tsunami hit. All have requested anonymity because they are still working at or connected with the stricken plant. Worker A, a maintenance engineer who was at the Fukushima complex on the day of the disaster, recalls hissing, leaking pipes.

"I personally saw pipes that had come apart and I assume that there were many more that had been broken throughout the plant. There's no doubt that the earthquake did a lot of damage inside the plant... I also saw that part of the wall of the turbine building for reactor one had come away. That crack might have affected the reactor."

The reactor walls are quite fragile, he notes: "If the walls are too rigid, they can crack under the slightest pressure from inside so they have to be breakable because if the pressure is kept inside... it can damage the equipment inside so it needs to be allowed to escape. It's designed to give during a crisis, if not it could be worse – that might be shocking to others, but to us it's common sense." Worker B, a technician in his late 30s who was also on site at the time of the earthquake, recalls: "It felt like the earthquake hit in two waves, the first impact was so intense you could see the building shaking, the pipes buckling, and within minutes I saw pipes bursting. Some fell off the wall...

"Someone yelled that we all needed to evacuate. But I was severely alarmed because as I was leaving I was told and I could see that several pipes had cracked open, including what I believe were cold water supply pipes. That would mean that coolant couldn't get to the reactor core. If you can't sufficiently get the coolant to the core, it melts down. You don't have to have to be a nuclear scientist to figure that out." As he was heading to his car, he could see that the walls of the reactor one building had started to collapse. "There were holes in them. In the first few minutes, no one was thinking about a tsunami. We were thinking about survival."

The suspicion that the earthquake caused severe damage to the reactors is strengthened by reports that radiation leaked from the plant minutes later. The Bloomberg news agency has reported that a radiation alarm went off about a mile from the plant at 3.29pm, before the tsunami hit.

The reason for official reluctance to admit that the earthquake did direct structural damage to reactor one is obvious. Katsunobu Onda, author of Tepco: The Dark Empire, explains it this way: A government or industry admission "raises suspicions about the safety of every reactor they run. They are using a number of antiquated reactors that have the same systematic problems, the same wear and tear on the piping." Earthquakes, of course, are commonplace in Japan.

Mitsuhiko Tanaka, a former nuclear plant designer, describes what occurred on 11 March as a loss-of-coolant accident. "The data that Tepco has made public shows a huge loss of coolant within the first few hours of the earthquake. It can't be accounted for by the loss of electrical power. There was already so much damage to the cooling system that a meltdown was inevitable long before the tsunami came."

He says the released data shows that at 2.52pm, just after the quake, the emergency circulation equipment of both the A and B systems automatically started up. "This only happens when there is a loss of coolant." Between 3.04 and 3.11pm, the water sprayer inside the containment vessel was turned on. Mr Tanaka says that it is an emergency measure only done when other cooling systems have failed. By the time the tsunami arrived and knocked out all the electrical systems, at about 3.37pm, the plant was already on its way to melting down.

Kei Sugaoka, who conducted on-site inspections at the plant and was the first to blow the whistle on Tepco's data tampering, says he was not surprised by what happened. In a letter to the Japanese government, dated 28 June 2000, he warned that Tepco continued to operate a severely damaged steam dryer in the plant 10 years after he pointed out the problem. The government sat on the warning for two years.

"I always thought it was just a matter of time," he says of the disaster. "This is one of those times in my life when I'm not happy I was right."

During his research, Mr Onda spoke with several engineers who worked at the Tepco plants. One told him that often piping would not match up to the blueprints. In that case, the only solution was to use heavy machinery to pull the pipes close enough together to weld them shut. Inspection of piping was often cursory and the backs of the pipes, which were hard to reach, were often ignored. Repair jobs were rushed; no one wanted to be exposed to nuclear radiation longer than necessary.

Mr Onda adds: "When I first visited the Fukushima Power Plant it was a web of pipes. Pipes on the wall, on the ceiling, on the ground. You'd have to walk over them, duck under them – sometimes you'd bump your head on them. The pipes, which regulate the heat of the reactor and carry coolant are the veins and arteries of a nuclear power plant; the core is the heart. If the pipes burst, vital components don't reach the heart and thus you have a heart attack, in nuclear terms: meltdown. In simpler terms, you can't cool a reactor core if the pipes carrying the coolant and regulating the heat rupture – it doesn't get to the core."

Tooru Hasuike, a Tepco employee from 1977 until 2009 and former general safety manager of the Fukushima plant, says: "The emergency plans for a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima plant had no mention of using seawater to cool the core. To pump seawater into the core is to destroy the reactor. The only reason you'd do that is no other water or coolant was available."

Before dawn on 12 March, the water levels at the reactor began to plummet and the radiation began rising. The Tepco press release published just past 4am that day states: "The pressure within the containment vessel is high but stable." There was one note buried in the release that many people missed: "The emergency water circulation system was cooling the steam within the core; it has ceased to function."

At 9.51pm, under the chief executive's orders, the inside of the reactor building was declared a no-entry zone. At around 11pm, radiation levels for the inside of the turbine building, which was next door to reactor reached levels of 0.5 to 1.2 mSv per hour. In other words, the meltdown was already underway. At those levels, if you spent 20 minutes exposed to those radiation levels you would exceed the five-year limit for a nuclear reactor worker in Japan.

Sometime between 4 and 6am, on 12 March, Masao Yoshida, the plant manager decided it was time to pump seawater into the reactor core and notified Tepco. Seawater was not pumped in until hours after a hydrogen explosion occurred, at roughly 8pm. By then, it was probably already too late.

Later that month, Tepco went some way toward admitting at least some of these claims in a report called "Reactor Core Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit One". The report said there was pre-tsunami damage to key facilities, including pipes.

"This means that assurances from the industry in Japan and overseas that the reactors were robust is now blown apart," said Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear waste consultant who works with Greenpeace. "It raises fundamental questions on all reactors in high seismic risk areas."

As Mr Burnie points out, Tepco also admitted massive fuel melt 16 hours after loss of coolant, andseven or eight hours before the explosion in Unit One. "Since they must have known all this, their decision to flood with massive water volumes would guarantee massive additional contamination – including leaks to the ocean."

No one knows how much damage was done to the plant by the earthquake, or if this damage alone would account for the meltdown. But certainly Tepco's data and eyewitness testimony indicates that the damage was significant.

As Mr Hasuike says: "Tepco and the government of Japan have provided many explanations. They don't make sense. The one thing they haven't provided is the truth. It's time they did."

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #242 on: June 5, 2012, 06:10:05 pm »
Nowhere in that does it say the reactor was melting down before the tsunami happened.

As you haven't argued my other points I assume you agree with me...
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #243 on: June 5, 2012, 06:41:01 pm »
It states that the cooling system had failed. The tsunami made things worse, but that meltdown was inevitable due to earthquake damage alone.

I don't have the time for responding fully. Have a read of the Japan earthquake thread and the pretty comprehensive list of articles i collated there during the last 12months

Online farawayred

  • Whizz For Atomms. Nucular boffin. A Mars A Day Helps Him Work, Rest And Play
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,917
  • Oh yes, I'm a believer!
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #244 on: June 5, 2012, 07:06:01 pm »
It states that the cooling system had failed. The tsunami made things worse, but that meltdown was inevitable due to earthquake damage alone.

I don't have the time for responding fully. Have a read of the Japan earthquake thread and the pretty comprehensive list of articles i collated there during the last 12months
That in bold is a very wrong statement, maybe you remember it wrong.

The earthquake itself, even though exceeding the reactor design parameters by a significant factor (built for 7.5 earthquake, endured 9), did absolutely noting to the reactor cores, not even to one of the ten reactors (including the four at the other Fukushima site). Even the tsunami on its own would not have lead to meltdown. It was to loss of the diesel generators providing continuous cooling. The batteries could not sustain cooling for more than a few hours. It was the overall layout of the plant (generators too low with respect to sea level) that was a flaw in the system.
Cruyff: "Victory is not enough, there also needs to be beautiful football."

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #245 on: June 6, 2012, 06:13:39 am »
That in bold is a very wrong statement, maybe you remember it wrong.

The earthquake itself, even though exceeding the reactor design parameters by a significant factor (built for 7.5 earthquake, endured 9), did absolutely noting to the reactor cores, not even to one of the ten reactors (including the four at the other Fukushima site). Even the tsunami on its own would not have lead to meltdown. It was to loss of the diesel generators providing continuous cooling. The batteries could not sustain cooling for more than a few hours. It was the overall layout of the plant (generators too low with respect to sea level) that was a flaw in the system.

The guys on the ground in that indy article above state that the earthquake damaged (perhaps catastrophically) the core cooling system. They speculate that one of the cores was also damaged.
Tepco and the gvmt say differently, but then again, they have lied at every juncture and are even now still lying.
They, with the regulator had colluded to falsify safety records, did not complete thorough inspections and were unaware of several key areas where the operator was in breach of regulations.

Naturally they want to play it so that it was an act of god, and could not be forseen, but the whistleblowers  and many onsite workers say that things started to go wrong due to systemic failings - that's why all the other plants in Japan are offline. They are making sure as to not get caught with their pants down again.

« Last Edit: June 6, 2012, 06:56:27 am by RojoLeón »

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #246 on: June 6, 2012, 06:27:27 am »
You can assume all you like.

Don't worry, I will  :)

You believe they are safe, I don't.

I believe there are better and more efficient long term options, you don't.

We agree that the torys are c*nts and that UK nuclear industry (not just nuclear though) is a mess and could do with a boost.

There will be an attempt to build more nuclear in the UK, whether i agree, like, dislike or whatever - even B Liar wanted and squandered billions in it.

Lets hope it all works out for the best, eh?
« Last Edit: June 6, 2012, 06:56:05 am by RojoLeón »

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #247 on: June 6, 2012, 08:38:29 am »
Don't worry, I will  :)

Twice you've quote part of that post and twice you've neatly avoided every point I've made apart from the time of the meltdowns, which you were wrong about anyway.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #248 on: June 6, 2012, 08:51:18 am »
Twice you've quote part of that post and twice you've neatly avoided every point I've made apart from the time of the meltdowns, which you were wrong about anyway.

You're not going to be swayed - or am I.

I've said enough, to the point that this discussion is just retreading the same ground. We are talking about the same things as 12months ago - you're pretty entrenched in your view, as am I. And I've always thought trench warfare is particularly silly.

So I thought that, as we agree on at least one thing, to leave it at that. I have too much on at the minute to be procrastinating about nuclear this or that. If you really want me too, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Otherwise, a pleasure talking to you  :wave

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #249 on: June 6, 2012, 09:04:48 am »
By the way, if cutting subsidies to windfarms will 'kill the industry', why is it any different to nuclear (apart from it's inability to power the nation, obviously)?

Daily Heil
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,902
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #250 on: June 6, 2012, 10:50:21 am »
And as you don't challenge any of the other points, I can assume you are in full agreement. Cheers  :wave

From reading your points in this thread, you'd be better off discussing Mr Fusion power plants :)
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Online farawayred

  • Whizz For Atomms. Nucular boffin. A Mars A Day Helps Him Work, Rest And Play
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,917
  • Oh yes, I'm a believer!
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #251 on: June 6, 2012, 03:59:14 pm »
The guys on the ground in that indy article above state that the earthquake damaged (perhaps catastrophically) the core cooling system. They speculate that one of the cores was also damaged.
Tepco and the gvmt say differently, but then again, they have lied at every juncture and are even now still lying.
They, with the regulator had colluded to falsify safety records, did not complete thorough inspections and were unaware of several key areas where the operator was in breach of regulations.

Naturally they want to play it so that it was an act of god, and could not be forseen, but the whistleblowers  and many onsite workers say that things started to go wrong due to systemic failings - that's why all the other plants in Japan are offline. They are making sure as to not get caught with their pants down again.

Ah, see, and that's where the problem lies - who has expertise, who doesn't, and says what and why (which you eluded to).

So, the workers say that the damage was caused by the earthquake? Do they have the expertise to tell the difference between stress fracture and heat-caused fracture without the use of adequate tools (a powerful microscope or a scanning electron microscope)? Overstress induced fracture (such as from an earthquake) is rather simple. It leaves long cracks with sharp undistorted edges, which one could find even after partial melting of the metal. Fatigue is not an issue here, as it will take 1000s of stress cycles, which the earthquake didn't provide (it ended too early). On the other hand, thermally induced stress would produce uniformly distributed fractures in clusters of larger and smaller ones.

It is easy, albeit not trivial, to distinguish between the two scenarios. One can tell whether the fractures were formed before the melting of the reactor, or because of the heat stress during the melting. I haven't seen the evidence to judge one way or another, no one here has, so the debate is rather academic, although the circumstantial indirect evidence points to no earthquake damage. The neighbor plant has 4 reactors, experienced the same earthquake magnitude, but had no problem at all, which is statistically improbable (not impossible). Thus, there are a couple of conclusions that ca be drawn:
1. The workers on the ground have no adequate tools and most likely no necessary expertise to make that statement. Seeing a crack does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the earthquake.
2. Whoever has expertise to determine that, and there are plenty of people capable of doing so, has an company or government or other organization-driven agenda and must paint the appropriate picture.

What really is needed in this case is a small group of unattached to any organization experts recording, observing and making conclusions based on which people can make a intelligent decisions. Here we have a nobel ideal of a thread for debating the pros and cons of the nuclear energy option and each of us has an opinion; that's excellent. But the majority of the masses are swayed by the 'media' reporting 'facts and witness/workers statements' that are worth less than shit.

It's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in these conditions, isn't it?... Whatever happened to 'the media'?...
« Last Edit: June 6, 2012, 04:02:05 pm by farawayred »
Cruyff: "Victory is not enough, there also needs to be beautiful football."

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #252 on: June 7, 2012, 03:00:54 am »
Ah, see, and that's where the problem lies - who has expertise, who doesn't, and says what and why (which you eluded to).

So, the workers say that the damage was caused by the earthquake? Do they have the expertise to tell the difference between stress fracture and heat-caused fracture without the use of adequate tools (a powerful microscope or a scanning electron microscope)? Overstress induced fracture (such as from an earthquake) is rather simple. It leaves long cracks with sharp undistorted edges, which one could find even after partial melting of the metal. Fatigue is not an issue here, as it will take 1000s of stress cycles, which the earthquake didn't provide (it ended too early). On the other hand, thermally induced stress would produce uniformly distributed fractures in clusters of larger and smaller ones.

It is easy, albeit not trivial, to distinguish between the two scenarios. One can tell whether the fractures were formed before the melting of the reactor, or because of the heat stress during the melting. I haven't seen the evidence to judge one way or another, no one here has, so the debate is rather academic, although the circumstantial indirect evidence points to no earthquake damage. The neighbor plant has 4 reactors, experienced the same earthquake magnitude, but had no problem at all, which is statistically improbable (not impossible). Thus, there are a couple of conclusions that ca be drawn:
1. The workers on the ground have no adequate tools and most likely no necessary expertise to make that statement. Seeing a crack does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the earthquake.
2. Whoever has expertise to determine that, and there are plenty of people capable of doing so, has an company or government or other organization-driven agenda and must paint the appropriate picture.

What really is needed in this case is a small group of unattached to any organization experts recording, observing and making conclusions based on which people can make a intelligent decisions. Here we have a nobel ideal of a thread for debating the pros and cons of the nuclear energy option and each of us has an opinion; that's excellent. But the majority of the masses are swayed by the 'media' reporting 'facts and witness/workers statements' that are worth less than shit.

It's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in these conditions, isn't it?... Whatever happened to 'the media'?...

That's a fair assessment - I'm in full agreement with you. The other Fukishima site, Daini, received damage also, but it obviously was without the catastrophic multiple reactor failure.

I think that the media have let us down in many ways - there are complex reasons for that and not to go into them in too much detail. Needless to say, people also have changed in their interests and outlook. (I can't explain the Kardashian phenomena, other than a section of the planet has gone mad  :P ).

Still, things are hanging by a thread out there. We (in SoCal) are seeing the effect on our local marine flora and fauna now. lets hope that they master the situation and prevent further catastrophe occurring.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #253 on: July 20, 2012, 07:41:22 pm »
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/13-0

Leaked Docs Reveal 'Off the Charts' Damage at US Nuke Plant
San Onofre's steam generators in worst shape of all US nuclear plants

Problems with the steam generators and miles of tubing at the San Onofre nuclear plant are the most severe found in comparable generators in the US and much more severe than previously reported, according to a new report.

California's troubled San Onofre power plant. Friends of the Earth, along with other nuclear experts and many concerned local residents, say the both reactors at the plant should remain shut down. (AFP/File, Mark Ralston) The report by Fairewinds Associates (and commissioned by Friends of the Earth) also provides an analysis of leaked documents (pdf) by plant owner Southern California Edison that shows, despite assertions by the company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, thousands of tubes inside both San Onofre reactors are severely damaged.

Friends of the Earth, along with other nuclear experts and many concerned local residents, say the reactors at San Onofre should remain shut down.

San Onofre, on the Pacific Coast between Los Angeles and San Diego, has been shut down since January, after a leak of radiation from one of the almost 20,000 thin, tightly-packed tubes that lead from the plant’s four steam generators to its turbines. In an attempt to stop further leaks, Edison has plugged 1,317 of the tubes that show wear. According to NRC data on 31 reactors with comparable replacement steam generators, San Onofre has more than three and a half times the number of steam tubes plugged as a safety measure than at all the other reactors combined.

In addition to the unprecedented scale of plugging at San Onofre, Fairewinds’ analysis of the leaked data from Edison shows that more than 4,000 tubes are showing significant wear, while only 1,317 have been plugged. Fairewinds concludes that plugging the tubes will not eliminate the cause of damage. In fact, operating the reactors with the remaining unplugged but worn tubes could create cascading tube failures, leading to domino-like catastrophic failure that would release significant radiation to a large area of Southern California.

“Edison and the NRC have admitted that the problems with San Onofre’s steam tubes are an anomaly, but they haven’t been forthcoming about just how historically off-the-charts the damage is in comparison to the rest of the nuclear industry,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds and co-author of the report.

"This reveals a far greater problem than has been previously disclosed, and raises serious questions about whether it is safe to restart either unit," said Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear expert at UC-Santa Cruz, to Agence France-Presse.

Meanwhile, local anti-nuclear activists are pressing government authorities to set up a watchdog group to oversee the San Onofre plant.

The groups, including Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE), have launched a letter-writing campaign to the California attorney general, demanding that their voices have a seat at the table when it comes to nuclear safety.

“We are aware of what happened when a committee like this was formed at Diablo Canyon,” said Gene Stone, an organizer with ROSE. “It has taken a very long time for a very small amount of good to come out it. We will not tolerate a San Onofre safety committee filled with people from Southern California Edison or Pacific Gas and Electric and the nuclear industry. We demand true public participation.”

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #254 on: July 20, 2012, 07:42:04 pm »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18721292

Chernobyl's radioactive trees and the forest fire risk

Much of the 30km exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant is pine forest, and some of it so badly contaminated that a forest fire could create a devastating radioactive smoke cloud.

Heading north from Kiev in Ukraine, you can see old ladies and their grand-daughters sitting waiting expectantly in the long grass, shaded from a sweltering sun, under the straight red eaves of tall, orderly Scots pines which line the road.

It is blueberry season, and they are selling them by the plastic pint glass. You could pull in to haggle, but Sergiy Zibtsev, a professor from the Forestry Institute at the Kiev University of Life Sciences does not recommend it. They are laced with radioactive strontium.

Berries are highly efficient at soaking up and storing radionuclides, huge quantities of which were dispersed over large parts of the Soviet Union and Western Europe by smoke plumes from the explosion.

Radiation measurement checks only take place in official markets, and usually only for caesium. As for the hundreds of makeshift fruit stalls, generally run by old ladies, these are never checked at all.

Having said this, the berries are not uniformly harmful. In an average pint of them, perhaps only a quarter will be contaminated. The main thing is to make sure you do not put them on your cereal every day.

Besides the blueberry sellers, the road on the fringes of the exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl feels busier than when I first came here with Sergiy a couple of years ago.

There is a girl in high heels tottering along the verge, chatting on her iPhone. A large barley field ripples in the wind, ready for harvesting. A young couple shoot by on a moped.
Firefighters in Chernobyl Up to 80 forest fires are tended to each year

This region is slowly getting back to normal, says Sergiy. People are returning to farm this once booming agricultural area.

It is happening inside the exclusion zone too. Chernobyl Forestry Enterprise is now planting small new pine stands which it plans to harvest in 80 years' time. But there are serious problems with the rest of Chernobyl's extensive pine plantations.

Pine damages easily. Wind blows it down. Insects infest it. Drought makes brush into perfect tinder which can all too easily catch fire. And these dying radioactive plantations are considered too dangerous and expensive to clear.

If ignited, one expert likens the potential effect to setting off a nuclear bomb in Eastern Europe. Wind could carry radioactive smoke particles large distances, not just in Ukraine, but right across the continent.

To help establish or disprove such hypotheses, Sergiy has come to Chernobyl to gather data about a very large fire which spread unchecked and destroyed a huge area of Scots pine in 1992. A colleague is preparing a scientific paper on the fire's consequences, which are still largely unknown.

Together, they hope to attract funding to model the danger represented by Chernobyl's forest.

If they can pinpoint the most vulnerable pine stands, the next step will be to persuade the Ukrainian government and other partners to invest in training and equipment to safeguard Chernobyl's firefighters, and perhaps eventually to clear parts of the forest considered to be at the most risk.

Firefighters in Chernobyl have one of the least enviable jobs in the world. They spend all day up rusty Soviet watchtowers, which sway in the wind like tin-box metronomes, and act as conductors to the huge lightning storms which swing across the land most afternoons in summer, often sparking fires.

When they spot a wildfire, the firefighters triangulate its location by radio. Teams jump aboard big, red, Soviet fire trucks, and lumber along cracked, overgrown roads to the source of the blaze.
Fire in forest in Chernobyl

Their equipment is very basic. They believe they know when they are fighting a radioactive fire - they experience a tingling, metallic sensation in their skin - but they do not fully understand the serious dangers of being exposed to superheated radioactive particles.
Forest in Chernobyl's exclusion zone Half of Chernobyl's exclusion zone is forest

Their job description still belongs to heroic, Soviet ideals - they must put the blaze out, no matter the personal consequences.

Sergiy says more big wildfires in Chernobyl like the one in 1992 would be catastrophic for Ukraine's image, and potentially devastating for farmland right across Europe.

Lots of people are working on the problem, which continues with each new hot summer.

Sergiy and his colleagues need support, not just to save Chernobyl's firefighters from exposure to high doses of radiation, but to stop the particles migrating up into the air and away wherever the wind blows them, spreading the legacy of an accident which many people think we can already safely forget.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #255 on: August 7, 2012, 01:08:15 am »
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0bc5c4be-dd7c-11e1-8be2-00144feab49a.html (paywall)

Nuclear winter

Not so long ago, it used to be the opponents of nuclear generation who argued that the economics did not add up. Nowadays, at least one of the industry’s more influential proponents seems to agree.

In a Financial Times interview this week, Jeff Immelt, chief executive of GE, said nuclear power was “really hard” to defend financially, when compared both with gas-fired generation and certain renewables. “At some point, really, economics rule,” he added. Mr Immelt is not some disinterested bystander. GE, one of the pioneers of civil nuclear power in the 1950s, still produces reactors through a joint venture with Hitachi of Japan.


Mr Immelt is right that worsening economics are curbing the so-called nuclear renaissance. Since Japan’s Fukushima disaster last year, understandably tighter safety regulations have increased the costs of reactor construction. Meanwhile, those of rival technologies are lower than expected. Gas-fired generation has become cheaper as shale gas has come on stream. Meanwhile, new technology has cut solar panel prices.

True, the economic pressures are not everywhere the same. The picture in the US, for instance, is far bleaker for reactor-makers, because shale-gas exploitation has gone further. In Europe, the differential is narrower.

The snag is that the nuclear industry finds it very difficult to respond by cutting its own costs. Tight regulation has crimped competition and innovation – in spite of generous government-funded research programmes.

Nuclear does have a place in the power mix, not least because of the long-term need for reliable low-carbon sources to complement renewables, such as wind, which provide only intermittent energy. Innovation is still possible; for instance the development of small mass-produced reactors in place of today’s costly bespoke monsters. Despite relatively high costs, some countries will continue to build reactors, not least because of concerns over energy security or because they aspire to develop nuclear weapons.

The best thing governments can do to keep nuclear in the game is to set a proper floor price for carbon, and then to let the market decide which technologies to back. In the near term a realistic carbon price may not be sufficiently high to support widespread usage of the more costly technologies. But a promise to raise it over time would encourage innovation. Meanwhile a near-term emphasis on gas is surely the cheapest way to meet energy and climate goals.

This may rule out a nuclear renaissance, as Mr Immelt’s words suggest: costs remain simply too high. For any renaissance to happen, the industry must reduce them – without sacrificing the need for safety so starkly illustrated by the Fukushima disaster.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #256 on: October 4, 2012, 04:49:26 am »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/europes-dangerous-nuclear-plants-need-25bn-safety-refit-8196457.html

Europe's 'dangerous' nuclear plants need €25bn safety refit

Post-Fukushima tests identify hundreds of problems in reactors, leaked report reveals

Nuclear "stress tests" carried out at the European Union's 143 atomic reactors have exposed "hundreds" of problems which could need up to €25bn of investment in order to restore proper plant safety levels, a report reveals today.

The disturbing safety shortcomings were disclosed in a leaked draft of a report on the state of Europe's atomic power industry, which is due to be published by the European Commission in Brussels today. It was commissioned in the aftermath of last year's nuclear disaster in Japan, when an earthquake and subsequent tsunami led to a meltdown at three of the Fukushima nuclear plant's reactors.

The draft, which could differ from the final version of the report, concluded that "on the basis of the stress test results, practically all nuclear plants need to undergo safety improvements".

"Hundreds of technical upgrade measures have already been identified," it added.

With Europe struggling to shake off its economic woes, the draft report warned that safety precautions differed greatly and that the amount needed to upgrade them ranged from €30m to €200m per reactor unit – or a total of up to €25bn across the EU.

It also pointed out that 47 of the EU's plants contained a total of 111 reactors which were surrounded by more than 100,000 inhabitants living within 30km.

Although the stress tests were conducted to minimise the risk of a Fukushima-style disaster happening in Europe, the report came to the alarming conclusion that in some cases safety recommendations made in the aftermath of much earlier nuclear disasters had not been enforced.

"Following the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, urgent measures to protect nuclear plants were agreed. The stress tests demonstrated that even today, decades later, their implementation is still pending in some member states," it warned.

According to the leak, the stress tests had shown that four reactors in two unnamed countries would have less than an hour to restore safety functions if electrical power was lost. However, the draft failed to specifically identify any of the reactors which suffered problems, or, in most cases, reveal the exact nature of the safety defects.

Fears about causing alarm to residents living in the vicinity of reactors was underlined by a statement issued by the regulatory body for European nuclear safety, which urged the report's authors not to use language that could undermine public confidence.

The stress tests also found deficiencies at Britain's nuclear plants. It said most of them lacked an alternative emergency control room which could be used as a back-up if the main control room became contaminated by radiation. However, the UK Department of Energy insisted to the BBC that there was no evidence that British nuclear facilities were unsafe.

The leaked details of the report prompted criticism from anti-nuclear groups which argued that its warnings did not go nearly far enough. They said the draft failed to address risks in crucial areas, such as ageing technology, human error or inability to withstand terrorist attacks.

"If this exercise were serious, the Commission would be recommending the closure of unsafe or ageing reactors," Rebecca Harms, a veteran German Green party member and co-president of the Green/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament, told the BBC.

Without being specific, the draft report singled out France, which relies on nuclear power for 80 per cent of its electricity and is Europe's biggest atomic energy producer. It has a total of 58 nuclear reactors and the report found failings at all of them.

The problems appear to have been unearthed even though France carried out its own stress tests on its 19 nuclear plants and 58 reactors last year in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

France boosted its investment in nuclear power after Fukushima but in neighbouring Germany, widespread public alarm prompted Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative-led government to perform a policy U-turn and commit itself to abandoning nuclear power by 2022. In the aftermath of the French stress tests, France's ASN nuclear safety agency said they showed that "sufficient" safety levels were being maintained but recommended additional facilities to cope with accidents and ensure that plants could resist extreme situations such as flooding or earthquakes.

Yesterday's leaked document also said that next year the EU Commission intended to propose new insurance and liability legislation which would "improve the situation of potential victims in the event of a nuclear accident".

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #257 on: October 13, 2012, 08:28:23 pm »
Japan Utility (TEPCO) Says Crisis Avoidable

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578052383499017670.html

In a stunning reversal, the operator of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant admitted for the first time Friday that it had made errors of judgment that contributed to one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents last year.

[Tecpo] said in a report that the company failed to adequately prepare for a disaster and that it knew it wasn’t prepared, and yet it did nothing, out of fear for the economic and social consequences.

“There was a worry that if the company were to implement a severe-accident response plan, it would spur anxiety throughout the country and in the community where the plant is sited, and lend momentum to the antinuclear movement,” said the report, explaining what it described as the “underlying reasons” Tepco didn’t have a good plan for such accidents. [...]

The report represents a shift in stance for Tepco, which had continued to maintain it had done its best to prevent an accident from happening—despite repeated criticism from government and private-sector panels that studied events

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #258 on: October 22, 2012, 04:04:35 am »
Predictable. Nuclear is not cost effective, and will not be so while current business practices remain as they are, effectively beyond public scrutiny. The money spent in the past, now and will be spent in the future could have already established the UK as the world leader in renewables technology and R&D.

The sad truth is that UK electricity consumers are still paying for past subsidies. The past cronyism and industry-political ties are still there.The UK energy market is corrupt with profiteering and price fixing. And, no aspect of this industry encapsulates the corruption quite so much as the nuclear energy cartel.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-to-rip-up-rulebook-and-subsidise-new-nuclear-plants-8219870.html

Government to rip up rulebook and subsidise new nuclear plants

Academics claim ministers are set to break promise not to write blank cheques in bid to reassure foreign investors

The Government is planning to write a "blank cheque" to the nuclear industry by underwriting the cost of new power stations, leading energy academics have claimed in a letter to The Independent.

Under a major policy U-turn being considered by ministers, the taxpayer would be left to cover the cost of budget over-runs or building delays at new nuclear plants. Costly setbacks are almost inevitable with such complex construction projects.

The proposals, which would break a long-standing Government promise never to subsidise the nuclear industry, are intended to reassure multi-national energy firms into investing in a new fleet of nuclear plants in Britain.

EDF Energy's plans for a plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset are considered the most advanced.

Last night environmentalists accused the Government of plotting to squander public money to protect the profits of energy giants.

Richard George of Greenpeace said: "Promising no subsidy for the nuclear industry, while plotting to give a massive subsidy to the nuclear industry, is a new level of betrayal for this Government and its shambolic energy strategy. Offering to pick up the tab when new reactors go over-budget would commit billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to a desperate attempt to swim against the tide of history."

In an interview earlier this month, John Hayes, the Energy Minister, hinted at some form of nuclear subsidy, saying: "There are issues around underwriting risk. It's an argument that's been put up many times by people from outside government. That's something I will certainly look at and I do think there's an argument for considering how you imbue the market with sufficient investor confidence to get to where you want to go."

In a letter to The Independent, Paul Dorfman of Warwick University and nine other energy experts write: "The Government have promised that they would never, under any circumstances, subsidise nuclear power. However, the Coalition Energy Minister John Hayes is now considering a major U-turn in energy policy by giving a blank cheque to nuclear by 'underwriting' construction cost over-runs."

There are just two new nuclear power plants under construction in Europe, one in Finland and one in France, and both are significantly over-budget as well as suffering severe delays. Both plants use the same type of nuclear reactors that are being proposed for Britain.

Mr Dorfman said: "Nuclear companies are saying to the Government, unless you do something very serious and very soon, we're not going to undertake to build these new power stations you want. The Government has promised never under any circumstances to subsidise nuclear power but John Hayes has said he is considering underwriting the construction costs, which is a subsidy."

Opponents of nuclear power argue that over many decades it has benefited from government subsidies at the expense of public investment in renewable energy.

Former Energy Minister Chris Hulme pointed out before he stepped down from his post in February that past government subsidies to the nuclear industry meant that electricity customers today are paying for nuclear-generated electricity consumed in the 1970s.


All main political parties have opposed government subsidies to the nuclear industry. But the risks inherent in building new nuclear power plants have led the nuclear industry to seek reassurances from government about who will pay for the spiralling costs.

A spokesman for DECC said last night: "We're in preliminary discussions with EDF and Centrica about the potential financial terms on which they might go ahead with their Hinkley Point C project... There will be full transparency over the terms agreed. No commitments or final decisions have been made."

John Hayes: Profile

John Hayes, the new Energy Minister, is already raising eyebrows for more than his policy initiatives. His personal speaking style, florid and orotund in a sub-Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson manner, held the House of Commons fascinated last week when he managed not to answer questions about David Cameron's own energy initiative – the Prime Minister's off-the-cuff promise that all customers would go on the lowest tariffs.

Aged 54 and married with two young sons, he is a former sales director of a Nottingham IT company and was a long-time member of Nottinghamshire County Council before entering Parliament in 1997. He was previously Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning.

Costly and late: Britain's nuclear option

Were Britain to build a new nuclear power station it would most likely be a European Pressurised Reactor model, a newer version of the Pressurised Water Reactor variant used the last time one was built here. Two EPR plants are currently under construction in Europe – at Olkiluoto in western Finland and Flamenville in Normandy, France

Flamanville

Construction began in December 2007. It was originally expected to start operating in 2012 and to cost €3.3bn, but quality control problems, including the discovery of cracks in the concrete base of the reactor, mean the estimated cost has risen to €6bn and the start date has been pushed back to 2016. Protests have been staged across France against the project.

Olkiluoto

Work began in 2005, with the plant originally set to open in 2009. It is now expected to begin operating no earlier than 2015. The cost was estimated at €3bn, but the final price is expected to be closer to €5bn. The joint enterprise between Areva (France) and Siemens (Germany) has been beset by issues with supervision of inexperienced contractors

Sizewell

The last nuclear power plant built in Britain was Sizewell B in Suffolk, the UK’s only PWR, which took eight years and was finished in 1995. It cost just over £2bn and the engineers said it was on budget and on time, although the project was delayed in part due to a public enquiry which took five years. Site could host a new reactor if the plan goes ahead.

From Indy letters page:

The Government have promised that they would never, under any circumstances, subsidise nuclear power. Ed Davey, the Coalition Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, has stated that "There will be no blank cheque for nuclear – unless they are price competitive, nuclear projects will not go ahead."

However, the Coalition Energy Minister John Hayes, is now considering a major U-turn in energy policy by giving a blank cheque to nuclear by "underwriting" construction cost over-runs. This is despite the fact that the key to nuclear is its spiralling cost over-runs.

There are two nuclear reactors being built in Western Europe at the moment, one in Finland and one in France, and both are hugely over-cost and over-time. Both use the same technology as is proposed for the UK, the European Pressurised Reactor supplied by the French company Areva.

The Finnish reactor was planned to go online in early 2009, but the Finns are now crossing their fingers and hoping to complete around late 2014. Priced at €3bn, the reactor is now costed at €6bn and rising. Because of this, the Finns are in a billion-euro legal battle with the French nuclear construction firm Areva over who pays these extra costs.

And things are no better in France. Here, the builder, EDF, the company that would build in the UK, forecast the reactor would be complete this year, but time-scales keep slipping and they now say they hope to complete around 2016. Originally priced at just over €3bn, their reactor is also currently estimated at €6bn and rising.

Whatever one's view of the risks and benefits of nuclear energy, it is clear that construction cost over-runs are highly likely. The taxpayer and consumer must not end up footing a multi-billion pound bill for what seem to be inevitable nuclear construction cost over-runs.

Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick
Dr David Toke, University of Birmingham
Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex
Dr Nick Eyre, University of Oxford
Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor, Imperial and University Colleges
Jeremy Leggett, Professor Peter A Strachan, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen Business School
Andrew Warren, Director, Association for the Conservation of Energy
Professor Brian Wynne, University of Lancaster

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #259 on: February 4, 2013, 02:42:09 am »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nuclear-storage-cleanup-bill-could-cost-70bn-8479145.html

Nuclear storage clean-up bill could cost £70bn

(when you factor all the hidden long term storage/treatment costs, massive ongoing subsidies, waste and corruption, and the ongoing health care for those ill effects to their health, is nuclear the costliest form of electricity generation?)

Britain is storing an "extraordinary accumulation of hazardous nuclear waste" in "outdated facilities" which will cost nearly £70bn to clean up, MPs have warned the Government.

Almost all of the major nuclear-decommissioning projects at the Sellafield complex in Cumbria are behind schedule and many of them are over-budget according to a Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s “failing” nuclear-reprocessing industry.

The findings will reinforce concerns that the Government’s strategy for dealing with nuclear waste is unravelling following the refusal last week of Cumbria County Council to allow the drilling of a deep underground repository for high-level waste in the Lake District.

In a highly critical report the influential Public Accounts Committee said that of the 14 major projects at Sellafield, 12 are behind schedule and five of them are costing more than anticipated, yet the private companies running the plant are being paid handsomely without taking on any risk.

One project in particular, the plan to build a giant construction called Evaporator D to deal with liquid radioactive waste, has not been good enough and is 18 months behind schedule and almost £250m over-budget since 2009, it says.

At the same time, nuclear executives seconded from private companies are being paid “huge salaries”, averaging £690,000, by the taxpayer without any pay caps. One director was paid just over £1.2m, the report says.

The excessive payments and the way in which they are made could be seen as a “reward for failure”, the committee said.

Yet it is the taxpayer rather than the private consortium running Sellafield that has taken on the risk of delays and cost increases connected with the plant.

Sellafield is under the control of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, set up in 2005 by the Government to oversee the enormous legacy of Britain’s nuclear waste.

The site is managed by Sellafield Limited in conjunction with an international private consortium, called Nuclear Management Partners Limited.

The Government is currently about £1.5bn a year on Sellafield and the estimated lifetime cost of decommissioning the site has now reached £67.5bn.

Margaret Hodge, chair of the public accounts committee, said it was far from clear that this money was being spent wisely.

“An enormous legacy of nuclear waste has been allowed to build up and over decades, successive governments have failed to get to grips with this critical problem,” she said.

“The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority believes that its decommissioning plan is credible but it has not been sufficiently tested and uncertainties remain – not least around what precisely is in the waste that lies in the legacy ponds and silos.

“It is unclear how long it will take to deal with hazardous radioactive waste at Sellafield or how much it will cost the taxpayer. Furthermore, now that Cumbria County Council has ruled out West Cumbria as the site of the proposed geological disposal facility, a solution to the problem of long-term storage of the waste is as far away as ever.

“Taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Private contractors who gain contracts take no risk because of the uncertainties that persist.  Taxpayers are not getting a good deal.”

The committee called on the Major Projects Authority to review the most critical and largest projects, and should report publicly on the progress of key risk reduction programmes against plans and budgets.

It said the authority should ensure all payments to private companies were linked to the value delivered and that payments are not made where companies had failed to deliver.

“All payments to Nuclear Management Partners, and to its constituent companies, need to be strictly controlled and determined by the value gained, so that payments are not made where companies have not delivered,” Ms Hodge added.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #260 on: February 5, 2013, 04:53:46 pm »
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/01/23/fracking-for-uranium/

What??

Energy's Latest Battleground: Fracking For Uranium

No tour of Uranium Energy Corp.’s processing plant in Hobson, Tex. is complete until CEO Amir Adnani pries the top off a big black steel drum and invites you to peer inside. There, filled nearly to the brim, is an orange-yellow powder that UEC mined out of the South Texas countryside.

It’s uranium oxide, U3O8, otherwise known as yellowcake. This is the stuff that atomic bombs and nuclear reactor fuel are made from. The 55-gallon drum weighs about 1,000 pounds and fetches about $50,000 at market. But when Adnani looks in, he says, he sees more than just money. He sees America’s future.

“The U.S. is more reliant upon foreign sources of uranium than on foreign sources of oil,” says Adnani, who himself was born in Iran and looks out of place in South Texas with his sneakers and Prada vest.

America’s 104 nuclear power plants generate a vital 20% of the nation’s electricity. Back in the early 1980s the U.S. was the biggest uranium miner in the world, producing 43 million pounds a year–enough for nuclear utilities to source all the fuel they needed domestically. But today domestic production is down to 4 million pounds per year.

Perhaps worrisome, our biggest supplier is cutting us off. For the past 20 years America bought 20 million pounds a year from Russia, courtesy of dismantled nuclear weapons. But in 2013 the $8 billion Megatons to Megawatts Program comes to an end. Growing production from Kazakhstan (39 million pounds per year), Canada (18 million) and Australia (12 million) will fill the gap. But China, with 15 nuclear reactors, 26 in the works and 100 more planned, will increasingly compete for these finite supplies.

Adnani insists that he can close the yellowcake gap through a technology that is similar to the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that has created the South Texas energy boom. Fracking for uranium isn’t vastly different from fracking for natural gas. UEC bores under ranchland into layers of highly porous rock that not only contain uranium ore but also hold precious groundwater. Then it injects oxygenated water down into the sand to dissolve out the uranium. The resulting solution is slurped out with pumps, then processed and dried at the company’s Hobson plant.

Standing next to a half-dozen full drums of UEC’s yellowcake, we’re not wearing any protective gear, save a hard hat. We don’t need to. The uranium emits primarily alpha radiation, easily stopped by our skin. That doesn’t mean yellowcake is safe. Inhaling or swallowing it–in drinking water, for instance–can cause kidney and liver damage or cancer.

That’s why Adnani’s plan has prompted concern in a region otherwise nonchalant about environmental impacts on health and comfortable with the risk-reward ratio that comes with fracking. This part of Texas is in the core of the Eagle Ford s hale, currently the most profitable oil and gas field in the U.S. The people around here understand that the fracking of this shale, the injection of billions of gallons of sand-and-chemical-laden water, takes place 2 miles beneath the ground. They know that steel pipe cased in concrete, when engineered correctly, is not going to leak chemicals into their water.

UEC’s process doesn’t take place 2 miles down. Rather, it’s dissolving uranium from just 400 feet to 800 feet down–not only from the same depths as groundwater but from the very same layers of porous rock that hold it. “By design it’s much worse than fracking,” says Houston attorney Jim Blackburn, who is suing UEC on behalf of residents near the company’s new project in Goliad, Tex. “This is intentional contamination of a water aquifer liberating not only uranium but other elements that were bound up with the sand. We know this process will contaminate groundwater; that’s the whole point of it.”

UEC argues that it is doing the environment a favor. “We’re taking out a radioactive source from the aquifer that won’t be there for future generations,” says Harry Anthony, UEC’s chief operating officer. Adnani adds: “The water is already polluted. Uranium is so close to the water table such that by-products like radium and radon are already in the water. We’re pumping water out of the polluted aquifers and reinjecting less radioactive water.”

Such analyses haven’t mollified critics. But they’ve proven enough for this unknown company to move full steam ahead. “The Eagle Ford,” smiles Adnani, “will be the site of a uranium boom.”

Adnani’s putative uranium boom is 45 million years in the making. Back then volcanoes dotted West Texas and New Mexico, blanketing the countryside in a thick layer of ash that contained uranium and other elements. As uranium is easily dissolved by water, most of it washed out into the Gulf of Mexico over the millennia. But enough got stuck along the way–converted into solid ore when it came in contact with natural gas bubbling up from below–to produce one of the largest uranium deposits in the U.S.

Enter UEC, which already has one mine in operation, a second under construction and a handful more in the works, making it the most notable uranium producer in South Texas. As companies go, it’s still a pip-squeak. Founded in 2005 in Vancouver, its roots are more in marketing than mining. Before UEC Adnani, just 34, was founder of Blender Media, an investor relations firm catering to speculative Vancouver mining companies. Adnani’s cofounder was his father-in-law, Alan Lindsay, 61, who, in the words of Citron Research analyst Andrew Left, “has left behind nothing but companies that have promised high hopes and left investors with empty pockets.” That would include defunct or bulletin-board firms like Strategic American Oil, Phyto-medical, TapImmune and MIV Therapeutics. Adnani says that as nonexecutive chairman of UEC, Lindsay has no day-to-day role with the company. And besides, he says, when Left critiqued UEC a couple years ago “we hadn’t produced a pound of uranium. Since then we have executed on everything that Citron said we wouldn’t be able to do.”

UEC is listed on the American Stock Exchange and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. BlackRock, Oppenheimer Funds and the closed-end Geiger Fund all hold large chunks, and the company boasts a market capitalization of $250 million, despite a net loss of $25 million in the past year on yellowcake sales of $13.7 million. Over five years it’s run through more than $100 million, though money from follow-on stock offerings have kept it debt free, with $17 million in reserve. Shares peaked at $6.70 in the months before Fukushima. They’re down to $2.45 now.

UEC inherits a checkered legacy. From the 1950s through the early 1980s big oil and chemical companies like Union Carbide, Exxon, Chevron, Conoco and even U.S. Steel mined uranium in South Texas. Not only did they find a lot of the stuff while hunting for oil and gas, but the federal government, amid the Cold War, even required that they also run tests in every oil and gas well to check for the presence of uranium. The oil companies sold their yellowcake to the government for the production of nuclear weapons and reactor fuel. “Back then every company was down here,” recalls Anthony, who was a young engineer for Union Carbide. “This was the stomping ground.”

But in the process, they made a mess, gouging out muddy pit mines and building tailings ponds to hold toxic sludge left over from processing ore with acid. A uranium mine in Karnes County was designated a Superfund site; it remains polluted, as does the nearby Falls City uranium mill site, where, the Department of Energy says, “contaminants of potential concern are cadmium, cobalt, fluoride, iron, nickel, sulfate and uranium.”

In 1987 dozens of local ranchers began raising questions about the Panna Maria uranium processing mill and dumping grounds that Chevron operated near UEC’s plant in Hobson. Chevron later sold its uranium operations to defense contractor General Atomics, which cleaned up the site. Even so, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports that groundwater “remains an outstanding issue.”

UEC’s flagship site, Palangana, has had its share of trouble. Palangana’s uranium hoard was discovered in the 1950s. In 1958 Union Carbide took the first whack at developing an underground mine there but abandoned efforts because of high levels of hydrogen sulfide gas. Union Carbide tried again in 1967, using what were brand-new in situ recovery techniques and drilling thousands of holes. But instead of using oxygenated water to dissolve the uranium, the company injected ammonia, which reacted poorly to clay in the earth. Recovery rates were disappointing; in 1980 Union Carbide sold Palangana to Chevron.

Chevron figured there was enough uranium left at Palangana to justify an open pit mine, but when uranium prices fell in the 1980s, it shelved the idea and in 1991 sold Palangana to General Atomics, which spent years trying to clean up groundwater before finally getting the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to allow it to leave slightly higher levels of pollutants than were there before mining. In 2009 UEC acquired Palangana and the Hobson plant from Everest Exploration and its partner, Uranium One, for $1 million and 2.7 million shares of stock, then worth $10 million. It has since invested more than $10 million to clean up another nearby Everest site and to build out Palangana for a new generation of uranium fracking.

So, after a history of mining messes can Texas ranchers now trust UEC in its Goliad project? UEC’s Anthony says there’s nothing to worry about. “I live a mile away from two uranium mines, and I drink the water out of those aquifers,” he says.

But Goliad skeptics have been fighting UEC’s plans for five years. At Goliad the uranium ore is located just 400 feet deep within the same rock as a groundwater reservoir that ranchers tap for drinking water, both for themselves and their livestock. Water, not oil, is the region’s long-term liquid gold. “We are running out of water; I don’t want mine ruined,” said one rancher who asked not to be named. “When you’re out of water, you’re out of everything.”

She has reason to be skittish. A 2009 study of Texas in situ mines by the U.S. Geological Survey determined that the groundwater around uranium deposits is naturally high in junk like arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, radium and, of course, uranium. Though levels of some pollutants ended up lower after mining and remediation efforts, the USGS found no instance in which there wasn’t more selenium and uranium in the water than before mining.

An investigation of 76 in situ mining sites by geoscientist Bruce Darling done on behalf of locals in Goliad County concluded that producers’ inability to sufficiently reduce concentrations of uranium (and other pollutants) “calls into question the operators’ understanding of the geochemistry of the hydrogeologic systems that they are exploiting.” A study of in situ leaching for the Natural Resources Defense Council by University of Colorado hydrogeologist Roseanna Neupauer found that “contaminants will remain in the aquifer after all efforts at restoration and will migrate through the aquifer into the future.”

The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates mining in the state, gave UEC the permit to do exploratory drilling at Goliad. Then in 2007 UEC was investigated and sued for failing to properly plug exploration wells, allegedly leading to groundwater pollution. A federal judge found reason to believe UEC had acted improperly, but he had no choice but to dismiss Goliad County’s suit to block further drilling because his court lacked jurisdiction. In 2008 Goliad County urged the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, another regulatory agency, to turn down UEC’s production drilling permits. That request was denied.

Harry Anthony insists that technology breakthroughs make older failures largely irrelevant. He adds that the sections of the aquifers UEC will be mining contain only nonpotable water to begin with and that the ring of monitor wells it will install around the site will detect any movement of dissolved uranium beyond the production wells. Because the vacuum pressure of UEC’s pumps suck solution up the production wells, “the groundwater flows towards our wells. So it sweeps up anything that shouldn’t be allowed to get away. It’s a simple process, just tedious to do it right.”

In December, to help placate any skeptics, Adnani signed up Spencer Abraham, former Secretary of Energy in the George W. Bush Administration to head UEC’s advisory board. Naturally, Abraham is not worried. “The United States has the world’s most stringent mining regulatory standards firmly in place,” says Abraham in an e-mail exchange. “Uranium mining activities, including those undertaken by Uranium Energy Corp., are being performed in line with the highest recognized safety standards.”

And to put a bit of money where its mouth is, UEC has posted $5 million in surety bonds that will go toward eventual reclamation efforts. Says Anthony: “There will be no degradation to the water of the state of Texas.”

The stakes are sizable. The Hobson plant has the capacity for one million pounds of ore a year, five times as much as it does now. With the Goliad project and a handful of other prospects, UEC aims to get to 3 million pounds a year before the end of the decade.

That kind of output dovetails with Adnani’s nuclear rhetoric. “Even after Fukushima there is a nuclear building boom worldwide,” says Adnani. “And even without new reactors coming online, demand will outstrip supply.” That’s especially true in the U.S., which, despite the stain caused by Fukushima, is slowly inching toward a nuclear renaissance. The Tennessee Valley Authority is building a new reactor at its Watts Bar site. Scana is building two in South Carolina, while Georgia Power, a division of Southern Co., is also building two at its Vogtle power station. These will be completed around 2016 at a cost of some $30 billion.

Where Adnani’s rhetoric falls short is the need for domestic uranium. America’s nuclear utilities aren’t worried about being able to source it, says Jonathan Hinze, analyst with Ux Consultants, which studies market trends for miners, power utilities and institutional investors. Reactors get refueled only once a year, so supplies don’t need to come from nearby. Besides, Hinze says, uranium buyers and sellers have planned for the end of the Megatons to Megawatts Program for a long time. “Even if prices tripled from where they are today it would not impact the bottom line for utilities because fuel is just a small part of their operating cost,” says Hinze. And at higher prices Canada, Kazakhstan and Australia have a lot more uranium to go after. “The U.S. is not blessed with the same resources.”

That’s why for Blackburn, and the people he represents, the idea of a tiny company gambling a region’s groundwater on a market that may never appear seems nothing short of insane. “There’s no source of water here other than groundwater,” says Blackburn. “How can you mine inside a drinking water aquifer?”

And yet it is happening. Last month UEC received the last permit it needed: an aquifer exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency. Construction and drilling at Goliad has begun–and UEC has leased more than 20,000 acres in the area. The company plans to be producing uranium there by the end of this year.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #261 on: April 10, 2013, 05:40:38 pm »
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/ex-regulator-says-nuclear-reactors-in-united-states-are-flawed.html?_r=0

All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday.

Offline Quaid

  • Thinks clinical is cretinous. Takes one to know one.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,237
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #262 on: April 10, 2013, 07:18:17 pm »
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/ex-regulator-says-nuclear-reactors-in-united-states-are-flawed.html?_r=0

All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday.

That shouldn't cost too much should it..?

I was all for nuclear energy before Fukushima in 2011. I wasn't alive during the Chernobyl incident but as far as I'm aware, it sounded as if it was down to the poor management of nuclear power stations by the Soviet Union. So in that respect, I'm sure such an incident will never happen again. But Fukushima just highlights that no matter what technology and safety measures you have in place to prevent such accidents, mother nature will always have the upper hand if she so chooses. And the subsequent fallout from these kind of accidents has too much of a catastrophic effect on the life/nature in the surrounding area of the plant.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 07:21:19 pm by Quaid »
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

Online farawayred

  • Whizz For Atomms. Nucular boffin. A Mars A Day Helps Him Work, Rest And Play
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,917
  • Oh yes, I'm a believer!
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #263 on: April 10, 2013, 08:41:42 pm »
That shouldn't cost too much should it..?

I was all for nuclear energy before Fukushima in 2011. I wasn't alive during the Chernobyl incident but as far as I'm aware, it sounded as if it was down to the poor management of nuclear power stations by the Soviet Union. So in that respect, I'm sure such an incident will never happen again. But Fukushima just highlights that no matter what technology and safety measures you have in place to prevent such accidents, mother nature will always have the upper hand if she so chooses. And the subsequent fallout from these kind of accidents has too much of a catastrophic effect on the life/nature in the surrounding area of the plant.
Nah, mate, not quite the case with Fukushima. If the diesel generators were up on the hill, or just raised two stories high, we wouldn't be talking about Fukushima. The problem is that Mr. Hindsight is a great teacher - you wouldn't know anything about the subject before he comes along...

Regarding the article (thanks fro keeping us updated!), that's the issue with smaller reactors versus bigger reactors as well. Sure, you can solve the major thermal environment that way, but at what expense (and I don't mean only financial cost)? Larger reactors are more cost effective, therefore the industry will drive technology in that direction. The NRC is charged with safety, so they will push in the other direction. But there is a limit - how long before the industry pulls out? Or are we willing to subsidize the nuclear energy like corn production? We will be paying for any change one way or another, no doubt about that.

Old reactors have another problem that I haven't seen people talk about too much. A lot of the vessels and hardware is made of Al alloys. Exposed to neutrons for a long time, Al atoms capture a neutrons, undergo beta decay and become Si atoms. Si inclusions increase the brittleness of Al alloys. So, even if your reactor can withstand a certain force when first turned on, 40, 60, or 80 years later it may have a severely reduced strength. A failure of that type hasn't happened yet, but it's bound to; we don't become any younger with age either... And the problem is that most stress concentration in reactors is at feedthroughs, joints, etc., where the failure is the same type that defines the "worst foreseeable failure". Think of a break of the weld that holds the main cooling pipe at the reactor vessel; there is no need for salvage efforts, one can only entomb the reactor in concrete and hope it doesn't reach the water table... 
Cruyff: "Victory is not enough, there also needs to be beautiful football."

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #264 on: April 12, 2013, 06:37:09 pm »
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/legacy-danger-old-nuclear-waste-found-in-english-channel-a-893991.html

German journalists have discovered barrels of radioactive waste on the floor of the English Channel, just a handful of thousands dumped there decades ago. It was previously thought the material had dissipated. Now politicians are calling for the removal of the potentially harmful containers.

Some 28,500 containers of radioactive waste were dropped into the English Channel between 1950 and 1963. Experts have assumed that the containers had long since rusted open, spreading the radioactivity throughout the ocean and thus rendering it innocuous. But a new investigative report from the joint French-German public broadcaster ARTE has concluded that the waste is still intact at the bottom of the sea.

As part of an investigative report set to air on April 23, affiliated German public broadcaster SWR sent an unmanned, remote-controlled submarine into the canal's depths, where they discovered two nuclear waste barrels at a depth of 124 meters (406 feet) just kilometers from the French coast.

Jettisoned by both the British and the Belgians, the containers hold some of the estimated 17,224 metric tons of low-level radioactive waste dumped in the English Channel's underwater valley known as Hurd's Deep, just north of the isle of Alderney, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The British barrels are estimated to have contained 58 trillion becquerels (units of radioactivity), while the Belgian barrels held some 2.4 trillion bequerels. By way of comparison, the European Union's limit for drinking water is 10 becquerels per liter.

"We think that there are still many more undamaged barrels below," SWR journalist Thomas Reutter told SPIEGEL ONLINE, adding that it was very unlikely that the broadcaster's expedition uncovered the only intact containers in existence.

'High Potential for Danger'

In response to the discovery, members of Germany's environmentalist Green Party have called for the barrels to be removed from the channel, SWR reports. "I believe that at such shallow depths these barrels pose a high potential for danger," Green Party parliamentarian and nuclear policy spokesperson Sylvia Kotting-Uhl told the broadcaster. "And it's not for nothing that dumping in the ocean has been forbidden for 20 years."

Hartmut Nies, a German oceanic expert for the IAEA, is also in favor of removing the waste. "If it's not too complex, then of course they should be removed," he told SWR.

In response to a parliamentary inquiry from the Green Party in August 2012, entitled "Final Disposal Site Ocean Floor," the German federal government stated: "The Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH), as part of its radioactivity monitoring in the North Sea, regularly carries out monitoring runs, which went into the British Channel Most recently in August 2009. The monitoring data contained no indication of emissions from dumping areas."


(more money required, for electricity already generated - least cost effective form of energy generation)

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #265 on: April 13, 2013, 03:46:20 am »
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/inhuman-radiation-experiments/

Inhuman Radiation Experiments
by JOHN LaFORGE

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the declassification of top secret studies, done over a period of 60 years, in which the US conducted 2,000 radiation experiments on as many as 20,000 vulnerable US citizens.

Victims included civilians, prison inmates, federal workers, hospital patients, pregnant women, infants, developmentally disabled children and military personnel — most of them powerless, poor, sick, elderly or terminally ill. Eileen Welsome’s 1999 exposé The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War details “the unspeakable scientific trials that reduced thousands of men, women, and even children to nameless specimens.”[ii]

The program employed industry and academic scientists who used their hapless patients or wards to see the immediate and short-term effects of radioactive contamination — with everything from plutonium to radioactive arsenic.[iii] The human subjects were mostly poisoned without their knowledge or consent.

An April 17, 1947 memo by Col. O.G. Haywood of the Army Corps of Engineers explained why the studies were classified. “It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans and might have adverse effect on public opinion or result in legal suits.”[iv]

In one Vanderbilt U. study, 829 pregnant women were unknowingly fed radioactive iron. In another, 188 children were given radioactive iron-laced lemonade. From 1963 to 1971, 67 inmates in Oregon and 64 prisoners in Washington had their testicles targeted with X-rays to see what doses made them sterile.[v]

At the Fernald State School, mentally retarded boys were fed radioactive iron and calcium but consent forms sent to parents didn’t mention radiation. Elsewhere psychiatric patients and infants were injected with radioactive iodine.[vi]

In a rare public condemnation, Clinton Administration Energy Sec. Hazel O’Leary confessed being aghast at the conduct of the scientists. She told Newsweek in 1994: “I said, ‘Who were these people and why did this happen?’ The only thing I could think of was Nazi Germany.”[vii] None of the victims were provided follow-on medical care.

Scientists knew from the beginning of the 20th century that radiation can cause genetic and cell damage, cell death, radiation sickness and even death. A Presidential Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was established in 1993 to investigate charges of unethical or criminal action by the experimenters. Its findings were published by Oxford U. Press in 1996 as The Human Radiation Experiments.

The abuse of X-radiation “therapy” was also conducted throughout the ’40s and ’50s. Everything from ringworm to tonsillitis was “treated” with X-radiation because the long-term risks were unknown or considered tolerable.

Children were routinely exposed to alarmingly high doses of radiation from devices like “fluoroscopes” to measure foot size in shoe stores.[viii]

Nasal radium capsules inserted in nostrils, used to attack hearing loss, are now thought to be the cause of cancers, thyroid and dental problems, immune dysfunction and more.[ix]

Experiments Spread Cancer Risks Far and Wide

In large scale experiments as late as 1985, the Energy Department deliberately produced reactor meltdowns which spewed radiation across Idaho and beyond.
  • The Air Force conducted at least eight deliberate meltdowns in the Utah desert, dispersing 14 times the radiation released by the partial meltdown of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979.[xi]


The military even dumped radiation from planes and spread it across wide areas around and downwind of Oak Ridge, Tenn., Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Dugway, Utah. This “systematic radiation warfare program,” conducted between 1944 and 1961, was kept secret for 40 years.[xii]

“Radiation bombs” thrown from USAF planes intentionally spread radiation “unknown distances” endangering the young and old alike. One such experiment doused Utah with 60 times more radiation than escaped the Three Mile Island accident, according to Sen. John Glen, D-Ohio who released a report on the program 20 years ago.[xiii]

The Pentagon’s 235 above-ground nuclear bomb tests, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are not officially listed as radiation experiments. Yet between 250,000 and 500,000 U.S. military personnel were contaminated during their compulsory participation in the bomb tests and the post-war occupation of Japan. [xiv]

Documents uncovered by the Advisory Committee show that the military knew there were serious radioactive fallout risks from its Nevada Test Site bomb blasts. The generals decided not to use a safer site in Florida, where fallout would have blown out to sea. “The officials determined it was probably not safe, but went ahead anyway,” said Pat Fitzgerald a scientist on the committee staff.[xv]

Dr. Gioacchino Failla, a Columbia University scientist who worked for the AEC, said at the time, “We should take some risk… we are faced with a war in which atomic weapons will undoubtedly be used, and we have to have some information about these things.”[xvi]

With the National Cancer Institute’s 1997 finding that all 160,000 million US citizens (in the country at the time of the bomb tests) were contaminated with fallout, it’s clear we did face war with atomic weapons — our own.

Offline macca888

  • Macca the Militant Illiterate Gnok. Chief Football Hack aka macca888. Jacqui Smith and Anne Widdecombe, in any order. Or together. He's not fussy. Overdue with Crosby Nick. Recently elevated to status Sir Precious C*nt.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,860
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #266 on: April 13, 2013, 04:46:02 am »
Jesus Christ, how long are we going to have to put up with this mispelt thread title? Everyone knows it's spelt "nucular".
Macca resplendent!
A colossus bestriding the
moral high ground as ever.

Online farawayred

  • Whizz For Atomms. Nucular boffin. A Mars A Day Helps Him Work, Rest And Play
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,917
  • Oh yes, I'm a believer!
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #267 on: April 13, 2013, 05:53:55 am »
Jesus Christ, how long are we going to have to put up with this mispelt thread title? Everyone knows it's spelt "nucular".
Jesus Nucular Christ, someone finally noticed...
Cruyff: "Victory is not enough, there also needs to be beautiful football."

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #268 on: May 2, 2013, 12:21:19 am »
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/world/asia/radioactive-water-imperils-fukushima-plant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Still calling it second worst? Maybe it is, but that is only because further catastrophic mishaps in the Ukraine. I think it would be fairer to call it a tie. Over two years in and things aren't that much better than they were Summer 2011.

Quote
TOKYO — Two years after a triple meltdown that grew into the world’s second worst nuclear disaster, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is faced with a new crisis: a flood of highly radioactive wastewater that workers are struggling to contain.

Groundwater is pouring into the plant’s ravaged reactor buildings at a rate of almost 75 gallons a minute. It becomes highly contaminated there, before being pumped out to keep from swamping a critical cooling system. A small army of workers has struggled to contain the continuous flow of radioactive wastewater, relying on hulking gray and silver storage tanks sprawling over 42 acres of parking lots and lawns. The tanks hold the equivalent of 112 Olympic-size pools.

But even they are not enough to handle the tons of strontium-laced water at the plant — a reflection of the scale of the 2011 disaster and, in critics’ view, ad hoc decision making by the company that runs the plant and the regulators who oversee it. In a sign of the sheer size of the problem, the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, plans to chop down a small forest on its southern edge to make room for hundreds more tanks, a task that became more urgent when underground pits built to handle the overflow sprang leaks in recent weeks.

“The water keeps increasing every minute, no matter whether we eat, sleep or work,” said Masayuki Ono, a general manager with Tepco who acts as a company spokesman. “It feels like we are constantly being chased, but we are doing our best to stay a step in front.”

While the company has managed to stay ahead, the constant threat of running out of storage space has turned into what Tepco itself called an emergency, with the sheer volume of water raising fears of future leaks at the seaside plant that could reach the Pacific Ocean.

That quandary along with an embarrassing string of mishaps — including a 29-hour power failure affecting another, less vital cooling system — have underscored an alarming reality: two years after the meltdowns, the plant remains vulnerable to the same sort of large earthquake and tsunami that set the original calamity in motion.

There is no question that the Fukushima plant is less dangerous than it was during the desperate first months after the accident, mostly through the determined efforts of workers who have stabilized the melted reactor cores, which are cooler and less dangerous than they once were.

But many experts warn that safety systems and fixes at the plant remain makeshift and prone to accidents.

The jury-rigged cooling loop that pours water over the damaged reactor cores is a mazelike collection of pumps, filters and pipes that snake two and a half miles along the ground through the plant. And a pool for storing used nuclear fuel remains perched on the fifth floor of a damaged reactor building as Tepco struggles to move the rods to a safer location.

The situation is worrisome enough that Shunichi Tanaka, a longtime nuclear power proponent who is the chairman of the newly created watchdog Nuclear Regulation Authority, told reporters after the announcement of the leaking pits that “there is concern that we cannot prevent another accident.”

A growing number of government officials and advisers now say that by entrusting the cleanup to the company that ran the plant before the meltdowns, Japanese leaders paved the way for a return to the insider-dominated status quo that prevailed before the disaster.

Even many scientists who acknowledge the complexity of cleaning up the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl fear that the water crisis is just the latest sign that Tepco is lurching from one problem to the next without a coherent strategy.

“Tepco is clearly just hanging on day by day, with no time to think about tomorrow, much less next year,” said Tadashi Inoue, an expert in nuclear power who served on a committee that drew up the road map for cleaning up the plant.

But the concerns extend well beyond Tepco. While doing a more rigorous job of policing Japan’s nuclear industry than regulators before the accident, the Nuclear Regulation Authority has a team of just nine inspectors to oversee the more than 3,000 workers at Fukushima.

And a separate committee created by the government to oversee the cleanup is loaded with industry insiders, including from the Ministry of Trade, in charge of promoting nuclear energy, and nuclear reactor manufacturers like Toshiba and Hitachi. The story of how the Fukushima plant ended up swamped with water, critics say, is a cautionary tale about the continued dangers of leaving decisions about nuclear safety to industry insiders.

When Tepco and the government devised the current plans for decommissioning the plant in late 2011, groundwater had already been identified as a problem — the plant lies in the path of water flowing from nearby mountains to the sea. But decision makers placed too low a priority on the problem, critics say, assuming the water could be stored until it could be cleaned and disposed of.

According to some who helped the government plan the cleanup, outside experts might have predicted the water problem, but Tepco and the government swatted away entreaties to bring in such experts or companies with more cleanup expertise, preferring to keep control of the plant within the collusive nuclear industry.

Tepco also rejected a proposal to build a concrete wall running more than 60 feet into the ground to block water from reaching the reactors and turbine buildings, and the Trade Ministry did not force the issue, according to experts and regulators who helped draw up the decommissioning plan.

Instead, Tepco made interim adjustments, including hastily building the plastic- and clay-lined underground water storage pits that eventually developed leaks.

It was only after the discovery of those leaks that the regulation agency was added as a full-fledged member to the government’s cleanup oversight committee.

But the biggest problem, critics say, was that Tepco and other members of the oversight committee appeared to assume all along that they would eventually be able to dump the contaminated water into the ocean once a powerful new filtering system was put in place that could remove 62 types of radioactive particles, including strontium.

The dumping plans have now been thwarted by what some experts say was a predictable problem: a public outcry over tritium, a relatively weak radioactive isotope that cannot be removed from the water.

Tritium, which can be harmful only if ingested, is regularly released into the environment by normally functioning nuclear plants, but even Tepco acknowledges that the water at Fukushima contains about 100 times the amount of tritium released in an average year by a healthy plant.

“We were so focused on the fuel rods and melted reactor cores that we underestimated the water problem,” said Tatsujiro Suzuki, vice chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, a government body that helped draw up Tepco’s original cleanup plan. “Someone from outside the industry might have foreseen the water problem.”

Tepco rejects the criticism that it has mishandled the growing groundwater problem, saying that the only way to safely stop the inflow is by plugging the cracks in the damaged reactor buildings. It contends that no company in the world has the ability to do that because it would require entering the highly radioactive buildings and working in dangerously toxic water several feet deep.

“We operate the plant, so we know it better than anyone else,” said Mr. Ono, the Tepco spokesman. He then teared up, adding, “Fixing this mess that we made is the only way we can regain the faith of society.”

For the moment, that goal seems distant. The public outcry over the plans to dump tritium-tainted water into the sea — driven in part by the company’s failure to inform the public in 2011 when it dumped radioactive water into the Pacific — was so loud that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe personally intervened last month to say that there would be “no unsafe release.”

Meanwhile, the amount of water stored at the plant just keeps growing.

“How could Tepco not realize that it had to get public approval before dumping this into the sea?” said Muneo Morokuzu, an expert on public policy at the University of Tokyo who has called for creating a specialized new company just to run the cleanup. “This all just goes to show that Tepco is in way over its head.”

http://science.time.com/2013/05/01/leaks-rats-and-radioactivity-why-fukushimas-nuclear-cleanup-is-faltering/

Quote
Honestly, if the consequences weren’t potentially so dire, the ongoing struggles to clean up the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in northern Japan would be the stuff of comedy. In March, an extended blackout disabled power to a vital cooling system for days. The cause: a rat that had apparently been chewing on cables in a switchboard. As if that’s not enough, another dead rat was found in the plant’s electrical works just a few weeks ago, which led to another blackout, albeit of a less important system. The dead rats were just the latest screwups in a series of screwups by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the owner of the Fukushima plant, that goes back to the day of March 11, 2011, when an earthquake and the resulting tsunami touched off a nuclear disaster that isn’t actually finished yet. I’m not sure things could be much worse if Wile E. Coyote were TEPCO’s CEO.

But it’s not funny, not really, because the consequences of the meltdown and TEPCO’s mismanagement are very real. The latest threat comes from nearby groundwater that is pouring into the damaged reactor buildings. Once the water reaches the reactor it becomes highly contaminated by radioactivity. TEPCO workers have to pump the water out of the reactor to avoid submerging important cooling system — the plant’s melted reactor cores, while less dangerous than they were in the immediate aftermath of the meltdown, still needed to be further cooled down. TEPCO can’t simply dump the irradiated groundwater into the nearby sea — the public outcry would be too great — so the company has been forced to jury-rig yet another temporary solution, building hundreds of tanks, each able to hold 112 Olympic-sized pools worth of liquid, to hold the groundwater. So TEPCO finds itself in a race: Can its workers build enough tanks and clear enough nearby space to store the irradiated water — water that keeps pouring into the reactor at the rate of some 75 gallons a minute? More than two years after the tsunami, TEPCO is still racing against time — and just barely staying ahead.

TEPCO spokesperson — there’s an unfortunate job — Masayuki Ono put it this way to the New York Times, which has reported closely on Fukushima’s troubles over the past month:

    The water keeps increasing every minute, no matter whether we eat, sleep or work. It feels like we are constantly being chased, but we are doing our best to stay a step in front.

Indeed, the job has been taking its toll on the workers and on TEPCO itself, which recently announced that it lost some $7 billion in the fiscal year to March. Cash-strapped, TEPCO is struggling to make ends meet — and more to the point, the company knows that every yen it spends trying to clean up Fukushima is a yen it will never get back again, as the plant will never produce energy again. TEPCO’s struggles are hardly unique among Japan’s hard-hit utility sector — the country’s regional electricity monopolies posted a combined loss of $16 billion — but the fact that the company is still running the Fukushima cleanup seems like a worse idea with each passing day.

TEPCO argues that its workers know Fukushima best, but the performance of the company’s management hardly inspires confidence. As the groundwater debacle demonstrates, TEPCO has been making things up as it goes along since the beginning — and the Japanese government has let them. It shouldn’t have been a surprise that radioactive groundwater would be a threat — the movements of water underground are not exactly unpredictable. The Times reported that TEPCO decide not to build an underground concrete wall that could have prevent the groundwater from reaching the reactor, apparently assuming that it would be able to construct a filtering system before the water became a problem. TEPCO was wrong, as they’ve repeatedly been. Meanwhile, Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority has just a handful of inspectors to oversee the more than 3,000 workers at Fukushima.

This is a typically Japanese problem. Collusion between industry and the government helped propel the country to economic greatness after World War II, but since the crash in the early 1990s, those tight relationships have held Japan back — especially when it comes to dealing with unexpected crises like Fukushima. If ever there were a moment for letting outsiders have some say, it would be in the Fukushima cleanup — but in Japan, there are no outsiders, only the marginalized. If the price of safeguarding consensus and the cozy relationship between industry and government is a little radioactive water leaking into the Pacific Ocean, so be it. And while Japan is unique, collusion between the tightly closed nuclear industry and the government elsewhere isn’t.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #269 on: May 24, 2013, 10:43:44 pm »
http://ecowatch.com/2013/countdown-to-nuclear-ruin-at-paducah/

Disaster is about to strike in western Kentucky, a full-blown nuclear catastrophe involving hundreds of tons of enriched uranium tainted with plutonium, technetium, arsenic, beryllium and a toxic chemical brew. But this nuke calamity will be no fluke. It’s been foreseen, planned, even programmed, the result of an atomic extortion game played out between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the most failed American experiment in privatization, the company that has run the Paducah plant into the poisoned ground, USEC Inc.

Quote
As now scheduled, main power to the gargantuan gaseous diffusion uranium plant at Paducah, Kentucky, will be cut at midnight on May 31, just nine days from now—cut because USEC has terminated its power contract with TVA as of that time [“USEC Ceases Buying Power,” Paducah Sun, April 19, page 1] and because DOE can’t pick up the bill.
DOE is five months away from the start of 2014 spending authority, needed to fund clean power-down at Paducah. Meanwhile, USEC’s total market capitalization has declined to about $45 million, not enough to meet minimum listing requirements for the New York Stock Exchange, pay off the company’s staggering debts or retain its operating licenses under financial capacity requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Paducah plant cannot legally stay open, and it can’t safely be shut down—a lovely metaphor for the end of the Atomic Age and a perfect nightmare for the people of Kentucky.

Dirty Power-Down
If the main power to the diffusion cascade is cut as now may be unavoidable, the uranium hexafluoride gas inside thousands of miles of piping and process equipment will crystallize, creating a very costly gigantic hunk of junk as a bequest to future generations, delaying site cleanup for many decades and risking nuclear criticality problems that remain unstudied. Unlike gaseous uranium that can be flushed from pipes with relative ease, crystallized uranium may need to be chiseled out manually, adding greatly to occupational hazards.
The gaseous diffusion plant at Oak Ridge, TN, was powered-down dirty in 1985, in a safer situation because the Oak Ridge plant did not have near the level of transuranic contaminants found at Paducah. The Oak Ridge catastrophe left a poisonous site that still awaits cleanup a quarter-century later, and an echo chamber of political promises that such a stupid move would never be made again. But that was before the privatization of USEC.
Could a dirty power-down at Paducah—where recycled and reprocessed uranium contaminated with plutonium and other transuranic elements was added in massive quantities—result in “slow-cooker” critical mass formations inside the process equipment?
No one really knows.
Everybody does know that the Paducah plant is about to close. Its technology is Jurassic, requiring about ten times the energy of competing uranium enrichment methods around the world. The Paducah plant has been the largest single-meter consumer of electric power on the planet, requiring two TVA coal plants just to keep it operating, and it’s the largest single-source emitter of the very worst atmospheric gasses—chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
The plant narrowly escaped the selection process that shuttered its sister plants in Tennessee and Ohio long ago. A 2012 apocalypse for Paducah workers was averted only by a last-second, five-party raid on the U.S. Treasury involving four federal entities pitching together to bail out USEC financially, a deal so arcane that knowledge of Mayan astrological codices would be required to grasp its basic principles. The plot would make for a great super-crime Hollywood movie in which Kentucky’s own George Clooney and Ashley Judd could star, if only the crafting lawyers and bureaucrats had made the Code of Federal Regulations as easy to decipher as bible code, or half as interesting.
“The deal” that saved Paducah operations for a year, past one crucial election non-coincidentally, probably consumed more net energy than it produced by stupidly paying USEC to run depleted uranium waste back through the inefficient Paducah plant—like a massive government program paying citizens to drink their own pee as a way to cut sewerage costs and keep medics employed prior to a Presidential contest. The deal never would have passed muster if it had been subjected to environmental or economic reviews of any kind, but it wasn’t. The “jobs” mantra was chanted, and all applicable laws from local noise-control ordinances to the Geneva Conventions were waived.
But the deal expires on May 31, in nine days. USEC and DOE have both said that discussions for a new extension deal continue, but rumors of a new deal were dashed on May 7, sending USEC stock into a flip-flop, when in an investor conference call, the company announced that no extension had been agreed, with very pessimistic notes about even a “short-term” postponement. That accompanied news that USEC had suffered a $2 million loss in the first quarter of 2013, largely attributable to the power bill at Paducah, which USEC says it’s under no obligation to keep paying.
Showing no enthusiasm whatsoever, USEC CEO John Welch said on May 7:
“While we continue to pursue options for a short-term extension of enrichment at Paducah beyond May 31, we also continue to prepare to cease enrichment in early June.”
Meanwhile, the Kentucky DOE field office in charge, managed by William A. Murphie, has advertised a host of companies “expressing interest” in future use of the Paducah site, with no explanation of how the existing edifice of egregiousness will be made to disappear. “Off the record,” the Kentucky field office has floated dates like 2060 for the completion of Paducah cleanup.
That’s two generations from now and kind of a long time for the skilled workforce and other interested parties to hang around. Even the 2060 date assumes that costs can be minimized by evacuating the diffusion cells before power-down—the scenario that seems certain not to happen because no one has the funding for it. Flushing the cells of uranium hexafluoride gas is the only sensible way to power-down, but it’s costly and time-consuming. At the Piketon, Ohio, plant a semi-clean power-down has cost billions of dollars and has taken twelve years and counting to accomplish. (Murphie will have to explain why he paid USEC so much money for the extended power-down at Piketon, while simultaneously asserting that a Paducah power-down can be accomplished swiftly and cheaply). Clean power-down also requires that workers and supplies be available on demand, and in the Paducah case, there simply isn’t time.
According to reliable sources, contracts are being prepared for the work of placing the plant into what Murphie calls “cold storage”—a term of his invention. But those contracts won’t take effect until October when fiscal 2014 funds are available. “Cold storage” at that point means closing the doors, posting guards outside, and otherwise walking away.
Can there yet be an extension deal to hold over the plant until 2014 funds are available? Probably not, because USEC may not last that long, the equipment in the plant has been run to decrepitude with no attention to maintenance, there isn’t sufficient time to make the arrangements, and a second end-run around environmental compliance would likely generate lawsuits.
Captains Log: A Heck of a Long Time
As to when the site might be cleaned up for “future use” under a “cold storage” scenario, nothing has even been rumored. I think we are talking Star Trek dates. Or consider the half-life of natural uranium, which is about four and a half billion years.
Until such time, the Paducah plant will either sit like a massive metallic boil on the planet, or be demolished and scavenged for semi-precious metals like the Oak Ridge facility. But the plutonium, americium and neptunium at Paducah may nix the latter possibility. The dirty power-down arranged by Murphie would make it impossible to prevent transuranic atmospheric release during demolition.
I propose a bronze encasement for the whole fandango, with a plaque that reads:
WRECK OF THE U.S. USEC
GREATEST FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT PRIVATIZATION IN WORLD HISTORY
IN MEMORIUM
At least that would help Murphie comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. Call it a learning experience.
Interested observers are still awaiting some rabbit to be pulled from Murphie’s hat, as he produced one year ago in 2012. To gauge that possibility I sent Murphie an e-mail on May 10, asking him where he was going to get the money to pay for clean power-down with the cut-off date only weeks away as reported by USEC. Specifically, I wrote: “What’s up with that?”
And, within hours I received a reply, probably because I had copied Mitch McConnel’s chief of staff on my correspondence. Murphie wrote:
“As you are likely aware, the Paducah procurement process has begun involving the USEC facilities. I suggest you look at the DOE CBC home page regarding the proposed IDIQ business opportunities and keep an eye on it for updates. As for the funding question, the DOE did submit a request to Congress that includes language regarding the potential USEC facilities return [a fiscal year 2014 request].”
That’s a very interesting reply because, aside from the vacuous PR about fantastic “business opportunities” at a site of nuclear catastrophe (maybe a lollipop factory!), it confirms that DOE does not have some secret stash of funds to evacuate the diffusion cells at Paducah, at least until fiscal year 2014, at least five months too late. Murphie is still calling the certain closure of the Paducah monstrosity “potential,” meaning he can’t yet pay for it. I asked Murphie to resolve that dilemma in a follow-up e-mail, but alas I had used up my entitlement to one response per five years and so got none.
I admit that some pretty cool proposals for Paducah “future use” have been cooked up by Murphie and his PR people. In mid-2012, Kentucky state legislators sought an exemption from the state’s moratorium on nuclear power (a giveaway to coal interests), so that Paducah could become a research center exploring the use of nuclear explosives in fracking for oil and gas. Hot diggity!
“Discussions” between DOE and USEC about extension may indeed be ongoing. But I imagine they are like the proverbial separation negotiations between the gold-miner and the gold-digger. The gold-digger demands maintenance for the lifestyle to which she’s become accustomed, or she’ll walk. The gold-miner looks at the lump of iron pyrite he’s been left with and says: “You already got everything I had.”

DOE’s William Muphie and Daniel Poneman (second and third from left) with USEC employees at the Piketon site. Photo credit: U.S. Department of Energy
Murphie’s Law
So how did it come to this? Since the plant was originally scheduled to cease operations on May 31, 2012, why didn’t USEC and DOE have plenty of time to plan for orderly and funded clean power-down, which was precisely what the sleazy one-year extension deal was supposed to give time to accomplish.
The answer is that the entire uranium enrichment enterprise of the U.S. has become a sham operation, a sham designed to funnel U.S. Treasury funds to private companies including USEC and its partners, a sham designed to convert any problem or scandal into additional contractor award fees, a sham designed to keep the fig-leaf of a privatized USEC Inc. from blowing away and exposing all the naughty bits.
Those became the goals of the operation, not enriching uranium, developing new technology or achieving safe operations or cleanup of the sites. Murphie’s Law is that if anything can go wrong, it will boost contractor award fees, for a select group of companies hand-picked by Murphie himself. Thus, the principal “cleanup” contractors at Piketon are Fluor and Babcock & Wilcox (B&W), both of which are suppliers to USEC’s fake “American Centrifuge Project,” and B&W is a strategic partner of USEC with a large share of USEC preferred stock, poised to take over USEC’s operations if the latter goes under.
And USEC is going under, by design, leaving its bondholders, pensioners and U.S. taxpayers holding one very empty bag. USEC stock has now lost 99% of value since its bubble peak in 2007. USEC’s auditors issued a “going concern” letter in March of this year, warning that the company appears to have no viable business plan moving forward. The New York Stock Exchange issued a delisting warning to USEC in May of 2012, and a second warning on a separate deficiency in May of 2013.
If USEC is delisted, about half a billion dollars of debt to bondholders becomes due immediately, and at least $100 million in pension obligations are owed in Ohio and Kentucky each. But the entire company is only worth about a twentieth of its debts, or about 1 percent of the cost of the new commercial plant it pretends it will build. USEC’s 2013 shareholders meeting, at which the crisis might come to a precipitous conclusion, was postponed from April to June, presumably to give the company a chance to depart from Paducah without adding a nuclear crisis to its public liabilities. USEC is now an empty shell about to be shucked: the company’s dissolution and the Paducah plant’s decommissioning have been timed to coincide.
Once USEC has departed Paducah, it will no longer be in the uranium enrichment business, as it will operate no enrichment facilities. The company, which was created by statute for the sole purposes of enriching uranium and developing new technology, will be doing neither. It will only be an international uranium broker, ironically a front for Russian uranium interests. Imagine if the U.S. Postal Service decided to hoard its U.S. government subsidies, exit the mail delivery business and become only a marketing agent for Russian stamps. That analogy precisely applies to what USEC is doing, in stark violation of the USEC Privatization Act.
But USEC has had two quite powerful politicians in its service, from the states in which it has operated, men who control the Republican caucuses in both chambers of Congress—John Boehner of southern Ohio and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. If Congress had appropriated the funds to pay for Paducah power-down in a timely fashion, for fiscal year 2013, then the USEC house of cards would have come down one year earlier. There could not have been rumors of federally-financed extension deals, or stock speculation runs premised on talk of a USEC buyout, or shipments of “spare parts” from Piketon to Paducah just to make it look like USEC is a going concern.
In short, if Bill Muphie’s office had secured the funds and let the contracts to do a clean power-down of Paducah starting June 1, then the jig would have been up for USEC months ago, the company might already be in liquidation, and hundreds of millions of dollars in continuing federal subsidies to USEC might not have been wasted. For its part, USEC has even now failed to announce a date certain for Paducah closure, although cancellation of its power contract was an effective extortion tactic for wheedling additional dollars from federal coffers.
So Murphie didn’t secure the funds and didn’t issue the contracts, and kept right on doing federally-paid PR work to falsely suggest there could be a smooth economic conversion at Paducah. Boehner and McConnell ate it all up while chanting the “jobs” mantra, for it reinforced their narrative that USEC Inc. is the best thing since sliced atoms. To keep a large campaign contributor out of bankruptcy court for a few more months, the Paducah plant was permitted to reach the current crisis state. And the people of Kentucky were sent straight to nuclear hell.
Nine days.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #270 on: May 24, 2013, 10:46:50 pm »
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/61218

NOVA Calls for End of "American Centrifuge" Hoax

Quote
Neighbors for an Ohio Valley Alternative – an alliance of formerly nuclear-dependent communities stretching from Piketon, Ohio, to Paducah, Kentucky – today called for an end to the ruse of an “American Centrifuge” commercial plant at the Piketon site. The non-materializing plant has been promised to the jobs-starved area in one form or another since 1976, when Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter campaigned for the presidency on the promise that they would deliver a new uranium enrichment plant to southern Ohio voters.

The first centrifuge project at Piketon was terminated by the Reagan Administration in 1985, after a test-run contaminated the site and produced erratic assays of uranium in a manner deemed not commercially viable. The same technology was revived in 2001 by the privatized USEC Inc., which promised workers and investors completion of a commercial facility by 2009.  But in 2013, four years after the promised completion date, USEC has yet to even complete a test of the technology, or to propose a financing plan to support a commercial plant. About $500 million in bonds issued in 2007 to finance commercial construction are due for repayment  in October of 2014, before construction of a commercial plant can even begin.

“It’s time to end the charade,” says NOVA executive director Geoffrey Sea, who also is a fence-line neighbor of the Piketon project.  “At this point, all parties including USEC know that no commercial centrifuge plant will ever open at Piketon.  The play-acting is continued for political reasons:

    because the age-old backers of an Ohio centrifuge plant will not acknowledge the scandal,
    because neither USEC nor the federal government have set aside the funds required by law to pay for the site’s full decommissioning and cleanup,
    because ACP’s continuance is used to justify a 100-acre radioactive waste dump that Fluor-B&W and the Department of Energy would like to put at Piketon, (Fluor and B&W are also ACP partners)
    because  industrial interests wish to reserve the Piketon site as a storage location for spent nuclear fuel, as they actively attempted to secure in 2006.”

NOVA issued its call at a public meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in Piketon on Thursday evening, at which NRC purported to certify the “safety” of USEC’s centrifuge operation. “It’s not too difficult to certify the nuclear safety of an operation that hasn’t, in fact, been operating,” said Geoffrey Sea. “NRC pulled this ruse twice before. Once when it used the period of USEC’s 'operation' of the gaseous diffusion plant at Piketon to certify its safety record, even though the plant was closed during that period. And again when NRC certified USEC’s 'safety' after the horrendous centrifuge crash of June 2011, even though the machines that crashed were running no uranium.  NRC isn’t certifying USEC’s safety. It’s certifying USEC’s continued sham of non-production.”

If NRC used USEC’s record of operation at the working Paducah plant as a basis for analysis, NRC would conclude that USEC has the worst safety record in the nuclear industry. The Paducah plant is scheduled to close at the end of May, one month from now. After Paducah closure, USEC will have no operating production facilities and will be reduced to what some have called a “uranium broker.”

On April 29, NOVA will present the Commissioners of the NRC a letter detailing USEC violations of NRC requirements for maintenance of a construction and operating licence, and will call on NRC to suspend USEC’s licences at both Piketon and Paducah, as a matter of public safety, until such time as the deficiencies can be rectified.

Numerous factors make it highly unlikely if not impossible that a commercial ACP plant will ever be completed:

    1.       USEC’s technology is forty years old, dating to the 1970s. While USEC’s technology has stagnated, its competitors have forged ahead. URENCO now operates a state-of-the-art centrifuge plant in Lea County, New Mexico, and GE-Hitachi is moving to commercial-scale implementation of SILEX laser technology that will render centrifuges obsolete. GE-Hitachi has expressed interest in locating its SILEX plant at the Paducah site.
    2.       USEC missed every deadline for demonstration of the viability of its technology, which was due by contract in October of 2005. That demonstration has yet to occur, and USEC now relies on 80% federal financing to accomplish it, contrary to provisions of the USEC Privatization Act.
    USEC has terminated its power contract at Paducah after May 31, even though no firm closure date has been announced, suggesting that USEC’s financial capacity is severely strained.
    There are strong indications that USEC’s dire financial predicament led to shortcuts that caused the multiple-centrifuge crash in June of 2011.  Neither NRC nor DOE takes responsibility for investigating that situation, leading to a potential safety calamity of the kind that just led to the fertilizer plant explosion in West Texas.
    USEC has proffered no plan to pay off its bond holders before the 2014 due date, and the schedule for ACP construction start after that date appears to anticipate that the company will no longer be around to make good on its present commitments.
    USEC’s stock has declined from a 2007 high of $23.91 to the current all-time low value of between 29 and 32 cents per share, a total depreciation of about 99%. 99% losses are frowned upon by investors.
    USEC stock is selling at less than one third of the required minimum for listing on the New York Stock Exchange and NYSE issued a delisting warning in May of 2012. If delisted, USEC bonds would immediately be due for repayment. USEC has delayed its 2013 shareholders meeting , at which measures to prevent delisting must be voted upon, without explanation.
    There is no indication that USEC has met or can meet the Financial Assurance requirements to cover the costs of decommissioning for either the “Research, Development and Demonstration” facility or a commercial ACP plant, indicating that no party has an expectation that a commercial plant will be built.
    USEC has proffered no credible financing plan for a commercial plant. USEC continues to say it will obtain $1 billion of additional needed financing, on top of a $2 billion federal loan guarantee, from a “Japanese Development Bank,” even though such financing is considered out of the question following the Fukushima disaster, which involved uranium fuel supplied by USEC.
    The Department of Energy took an ownership share of USEC’s operation in the summer of 2012, suggesting  that DOE knows that USEC is in danger of liquidation under various planned or unplanned scenarios.

Given these and other factors, NOVA contends that continued government support for ACP in any form constitutes a hoax perpetrated on the people of southern Ohio and all Americans. Ohioans deserve real jobs and real development, free of legacy waste dumping, at the Piketon federal “reservation.”

http://songsheetohio.blogspot.com/2012/06/secret-crash-report-reveals-usec.html

Quote
Secret Crash Report Reveals USEC Centrifuges as Rube Goldberg Machines

by Geoffrey Sea

After claiming to “invest” two billion dollars in the project but having produced only thirty-eight test centrifuges, USEC Inc. had virtually none of the technical measures, management practices, or safety culture in place to make the project safe or viable on a commercial scale. Whether USEC had the financial wherewithal to undertake a commercial centrifuge venture was also highly dubious. Those assessments come from a government-commissioned engineering report on the June 11, 2011, crash of six centrifuges at the USEC facility near Piketon, Ohio.

The report, done by Parsons Corporation as part of the Department of Energy's review of USEC's application for a federal loan guarantee, was never made public or available to Congress by USEC nor by any federal agency, and it was not disclosed by DOE to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is charged with licensing and regulating safety at the facility, before NRC completed its own, less-thorough investigation in April of 2012. The Parsons report was kept secret even though USEC, allegedly a private company, has sought backing for a $2 billion federal loan guarantee and a $300 million federal bailout package, and Congress has been asked to make appropriations for USEC without benefit of the report. It is made available for Congress and the public for the first time here, courtesy of Commonwealth Environmental Services of Paducah, Kentucky, which has posted the document at my request. (CES was not my source -- I provided the document to CES for posting.)

Three months to the day after world attention focused on the loss-of-power catastrophe at the Daiichi nuclear complex, an eerily similar failure of backup electricity caused the crash of six centrifuges, and one breach, at Piketon. USEC had provided the uranium fuel then in process of melting down inside three of the Japanese reactors, and was nearing a June 30 deadline on attainment of a "conditional commitment" on the federal loan guarantee. TEPCO, the Daiichi operator now with all its nuclear reactors shut down and reporting fresh leaks of radioactive water at Fukushima, auspiciously had provided the lead potential customer endorsement for USEC's proposed "American Centrifuge Plant" in Ohio.

A "crash" in this context means the destruction of a centrifuge generally from overheating damage. A "breach" means that the outer casing was ruptured. The breach on 6-11-11 did not result in a release of uranium, only because most of the centrifuges were not running uranium at the time. This is itself an indictment of the project -- USEC was "testing" centrifuges at Piketon for almost a year without any uranium, raising the question of just what was being tested. USEC has refused to address that question.

Following the June centrifuge crash, with the Solyndra scandal breaking (Solyndra had restructured its loan in February and would file for bankruptcy in August of 2011), the U.S. Department of Energy commissioned Parsons to evaluate the causes and conditions of the June event. In October of 2011, DOE denied a loan guarantee for USEC on grounds of technical and financial inadequacy, but Secretary of Energy Steven Chu then proposed a federally funded bailout program through congressional appropriations. The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the 2013 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, including a USEC bailout provision, later today or tomorrow.

The draft Independent Engineer's Interim June-11, 2011 Incident Evaluation Report of July, 2011, was provided to me by a reliable source on condition that the source remain anonymous, in order that the report be made public and come to the attention of government investigators, as a matter of public safety.

 A prefiguration of USEC's centrifuge operation?
Cartoon by the original Reuben Goldberg

In April of 2012 I was informed by representatives of the NRC Region 2 office, which was also investigating the 2011 USEC incident, that NRC had been unsuccessful in obtaining a copy of the Parsons report from DOE, despite requesting it, since NRC learned of the report in January of 2012. In that conversation, I offered to provide NRC a copy of the report which DOE had refused to provide.

One business day later, apparently in response to the news that I had offered to give the report to NRC, NRC succeeded in obtaining a copy from DOE. That copy, however, was a “final draft,” which, based on a selected passage read aloud by NRC officials at a public meeting in Piketon in April, appears to have been whitewashed, with damaging statements of the July draft altered or removed. According to NRC, neither DOE nor NRC will release the final report to the public, because “it is not a public document,” despite the fact that, also according to NRC, the report is free of any classified material, prepared with the expectation of public release.

That DOE is withholding crucial unclassified documents about the USEC project from the public and from other government agencies, while simultaneously asking Congress to make appropriations in support of USEC's project, is an enormous contradiction and a challenge to the integrity of the American system of governance.

More detailed analysis of the Parsons report will be forthcoming on this blog, with only some preliminary comments sufficing for now.

The issue of financial incapacity is a critical one, as USEC sinks deeper into corporate crisis, closer to looming debt deadlines, its market capitalization plunging toward the abyss. The Parsons report, referring to an earlier Parsons study of USEC done in connection to the loan guarantee review in early 2011, states on page x-iii:

    The recent IER [Independent Engineering Report] noted that USEC ...had financial considerations judged as "very significant risk."

If USEC was judged as a "very significant risk" because of financial inadequacy in early 2011, its condition in mid-2012 would have to be characterized as casket-case.

One critical fact mentioned in the Parsons report of which the NRC inspection team was not made aware is that USEC centrifuges had crashed at least twice in testing before the incident of 6-11-11, which now joins 9-11-01 and 3-11-11 (Fukushima) in the pantheon of disaster numerology. And the breach of 6-11-11 also had a precursor in another breach of an AC-100 centrifuge that occurred in 1977 as part of the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant program, precursor to ACP.  On page XX-ii of Parsons it states:

    The incident was unlike the previous machine crashes which were investigated by the IE [Independent Engineer] at K-1600 in February and March of this year [2011].


Who knew there had been prior USEC centrifuge crashes? Certainly not the NRC, which licenses the facility and certifies its safety. Certainly not Ohioans asked to provide political booster support for USEC. Certainly not Congress, asked to appropriate funds based on undocumented assertions of the centrifuge project's “viability.”

Mention of the K-1600 facility is also a revelation. K-1600 is a federal facility, not in Ohio, but in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, part of the old K-25 gaseous diffusion plant site. USEC pays no leasing fee for that facility, as it pays no leasing fee at Piketon. Rather, K-1600 is leased by the U.S. Air Force as a “seismic testing laboratory,” which might be considered rather odd until the obvious interest of the Air Force in subjecting uranium centrifuges to seismic shock tests is recognized. Since the Parsons report discloses that K-1600 is USEC's principal R&D testing facility in Oak Ridge, shut down since June 11, 2011, along with the Piketon Lead Cascade, we might infer that this is the key information that involved parties do not want disclosed to the public.

Such information suggests that the entire USEC operation, with its mysterious support from the clandestine National Nuclear Security Administration, is actually oriented toward providing useful information to the Department of Defense, explaining mystery contract payments to USEC that were not identified as part of any overt program. And that would explain why the clear commercial non-viability of the American Centrifuge Plant has had no effect on levels of DOE and NNSA support. ACP is simply not a civilian project, and it will have no commercial result. It is, at this point, just a military R&D project, located principally in Oak Ridge, threatened with exposure if USEC were to enter bankruptcy and liquidation.

Though the Parsons report is critical of USEC's corporate culture, management practices, worker training, financial capabilities, and overall technological competence, the report represents a lower-limit estimation of the severity of problems at USEC. Workers charged with assembly and maintenance of the centrifuges at Piketon have told this writer that they were instructed by USEC managers to not disclose certain key facts about the operation and the incident to the Parsons investigators.


A Crash Course in Duplicity

As I reported at Ecowatch.org in November, 2011, the 6-11-11 accident was immediately hushed up. Though categorized as a "24-hour event" for required regulatory notification, USEC delayed filing a written report with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) until July 1, with public notice further delayed by the July 4 holiday. The report that was filed oddly included no mention of the most salient aspect of the occurrence -- the centrifuge crashes -- and was limited to a description of safety violations in peripheral parts of the facility.

By waiting nineteen days, USEC Inc. avoided adverse publicity and impact to its stock price, before the critical deadline of June 30, a date USEC itself had established by ultimatum as the date by which the Department of Energy had to award a conditional commitment on a $2 billion federal loan guarantee, or risk project termination. (Despite the threat, eleven months have now passed without a loan guarantee or a federal bailout and the project has yet to be terminated.)

U.S. Senator from Ohio Rob Portman, acting as a mouthpiece for USEC, downplayed the 6-11 accident as "a hiccup" -- a PR term invented by USEC for the occasion, when the story broke:

    The hiccup at the plant a few weeks ago, I think that has been addressed…We believe all the technology questions about the refinements have been answered. Those should be behind us now.


Portman made that comment to area newspapers in the context of his continued lobbying for a loan guarantee for USEC, even as the Parsons team was conducting its investigation, which would result in the condemnatory report , submitted later that month but never released to the public by DOE or USEC.

Portman is now touted as a likely Romney running-mate. Romney, as we know, terrified the family dog into gastrointestinal distress by driving with the pooch on the roof of the car. Portman isn't like that. He'd scare us shitless, by throwing all of us under the bus.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 10:51:31 pm by RojoLeón »

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #271 on: November 10, 2013, 04:04:44 pm »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/report-damns-sellafield-firm-over-cleanup-8930953.html

$70 Billion pounds would go a very long way to providing all of the UK with renewable energy supply, with capital covered and most of the operations paid down for a long time. Instead, these are the externalized costs of nuclear electricity that you don't get told about when they promote new plants and talk about how clean and cheep it is.

What it is is a massive toxic fraud on the public, with people carrying the weight of a legacy of waste and corruption, the ill effects of unregulated pollution from the site for decades and the ongoing transfer of public funds to already wealthy entities who are still mismanaging an incredibly sensitive engineering project.

That $70 Billion would be moving the UK into territory as a world leader in renewable energy innovation and self sustainability, creating thousands of jobs across the UK. Instead, it is being spent now, to pay for electricity that was used 30 years ago.

The nexus of political/business corruption at it's finest and most sickening. 


Quote
The £70bn project to rid Sellafield, Europe's most hazardous nuclear site, of its waste legacy is more than a decade behind schedule and is managed in shareholder, not taxpayer, interests, a damning confidential report reveals.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee chair, Margaret Hodge, said yesterday that the failings at the Cumbrian plant proved how "outrageous" the decision had been to trust a private company to decontaminate the facility.

The Independent on Sunday can reveal that nine of the 11 biggest projects to make Sellafield safe, including building a storage facility for radioactive sludge, are £2bn over budget. Seven will complete late, with a combined delay of eleven and a half years. The expansion of a huge waste processor, Evaporator D, is now expected in February 2016, a year and nine months later than planned.

The evaporator, which has been likened to a "giant kettle" for reducing liquid waste, has also been found to be a prime example of poor project management, as design deficiencies were discovered too late to avoid delays and spiralling costs.

A report detailing the problems at Sellafield, produced by the accountant KPMG, runs to 292 pages and will heap pressure on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's (NDA) decision last month to hand a five-year extension of the contract to clean up the site to Nuclear Management Partners (NMP). The consortium, led by US engineer URS, includes the British nuclear reactor specialists Amec.

Unions wanted to see NMP stripped of the contract, and KPMG, for its part, looked into the option of bringing the clean-up back under the control of the public sector.

Buried deep in the KPMG report is a finding that the structure of the contract is "inappropriate", arguing that the "NDA is not yet an 'intelligent client'". The report added: "A consequence of contracting with the private sector is the introduction of objectives additional to NDA's own. Chief among these is a duty to protect shareholders interests and to maximise shareholder returns."

Mrs Hodge said: "That is outrageous, actually, an incredibly powerful finding. This demonstrates that NMP does not have the taxpayer's interest at the heart."

Dr David Lowry, the research consultant who obtained the report through the Freedom of Information Act, pointed out security breaches had been raised by KPMG. Since April 2012, it found there had been 11.5 "security events" per month.

He said: "Sellafield actually has quite a lot of security issues that have been played down and I'm concerned that a site of that size with that amount of radioactive material has any breaches. There has to be 100 per cent security and clearly there is not."

An NDA spokesman said: "The NDA continues to focus on resolving the underlying issues at the site while ensuring its safe stewardship."

Offline mulfella

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,308
  • Hedgehogs are boss
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #272 on: November 11, 2013, 01:50:51 pm »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/report-damns-sellafield-firm-over-cleanup-8930953.html

$70 Billion pounds would go a very long way to providing all of the UK with renewable energy supply, with capital covered and most of the operations paid down for a long time. Instead, these are the externalized costs of nuclear electricity that you don't get told about when they promote new plants and talk about how clean and cheep it is.

What it is is a massive toxic fraud on the public, with people carrying the weight of a legacy of waste and corruption, the ill effects of unregulated pollution from the site for decades and the ongoing transfer of public funds to already wealthy entities who are still mismanaging an incredibly sensitive engineering project.

That $70 Billion would be moving the UK into territory as a world leader in renewable energy innovation and self sustainability, creating thousands of jobs across the UK. Instead, it is being spent now, to pay for electricity that was used 30 years ago.

The nexus of political/business corruption at it's finest and most sickening. 



Couldn't agree more. Instead we get more nuclear and fracking. All from lobbying and backhanders.
A place full of grammer Nazi's?
'Grammar' and no apostrophe in 'nazis'.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #273 on: November 13, 2013, 02:40:29 am »
Yup - Business decides policy. We live in a 'banana republic' global economy.

Privatized profits, Socialized costs

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/fukushima-radiation-arrives-in-alaska-111213

The catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear power plant -- aka Yesterday's Tragedy -- appears to be ongoing, and Alaska now has become part of the story.

   
Quote
Some radiation has arrived in northern Alaska and along the west coast. That's raised concern over contamination of fish and wildlife. More may be heading toward coastal communities like Haines and Skagway. Douglas Dasher, a researcher at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, says radiation levels in Alaskan waters could reach Cold War levels. "The levels they are projecting in some of the models are in the ballpark of what they saw in the North Pacific in the 1960s," he said
.

That was when we were blowing up nuclear bombs all over the ocean because Communism. This resulted in an extended game of genetic roulette for the local populations. This was in no way a good thing. Meanwhile, back on site, it appears that local quality control may not have been what it should have been (h/t the C&L gang).

   
Quote
When tons of radioactive water leaked from a storage tank at Fukushima's crippled nuclear power plant and other containers hurriedly put up by the operator encountered problems, Yoshitatsu Uechi was not surprised. He wonders if one of the tanks he built will be next. He's an auto mechanic. He was a tour-bus driver for a while. He had no experience building tanks or working at a nuclear plant, but for six months last year, he was part of the team frantically trying to create new places for contaminated water to go.

What the fk? I mean, seriously, what the fkity fk fk? A tour-bus driver is helping throw together the response to the worst nuclear disaster in 30 years? Was the sous-chef at the local Applebee's busy that day?

 
Quote
   Uechi and co-workers were under such pressure to build tanks quickly that they did not wait for dry conditions to apply anti-rust coating over bolts and around seams as they were supposed to; they did the work even in rain or snow. Sometimes the concrete foundation they laid for the tanks came out bumpy. Sometimes the workers saw tanks being used to store water before they were even finished.
Lovely.

It's past time for the world to step in because this problem now is riding on the wind and the tides to places far from Fukushima. Japan has had its chance to manage this disaster, and, despite the best efforts of its tour-bus operators, Japan has failed miserably. For example, there are 1,500 spent fuel rods that the company running the plant doesn't know what to do with. Lovely, again.
Quote
    Tepco hopes that a smooth start to the removals will help it regain at least some of the credibility it lost in its response to the quake and tsunami that overwhelmed the plant and in the cleanup. A string of blunders by Tepco, including underestimating the potential for large amounts of groundwater to become contaminated and reach the ocean, has some experts wondering whether the company is up to the task. Even minor problems with the fuel removal could strengthen calls for the decommissioning work to be taken out of Tepco's hands. "All I can do is pray that nothing goes wrong," said Yasuro Kawai, a former plant engineer who now heads a group that is independently monitoring the decommissioning process.

Me, too. Also, Alaska.

Offline Ronster

  • A Real Man who doesn't like Girlies
  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #274 on: November 13, 2013, 10:09:07 am »
 Personally i hope the clean up stays in Tepco's hands now as they understand the plant and what is where. It is their disaster, they have lost colleagues and if anything, have more passion for the clean up - to right what is wrong. Much better that, than another firm replacing them with no understanding of the site apart from a few maps and plans and only financial motives. This is a time bomb that has already exploded and it affects us all.
'When circumstances can not be changed attitude is everything'

Offline Ronster

  • A Real Man who doesn't like Girlies
  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #275 on: November 15, 2013, 12:45:15 am »
If there is blame for Fukashima which there is, then Babcock (Who are instrumental in the privatisation of our Fire Service) need to shoulder the majority of responsibility for the catastrophic failings of reactor number 4. They built the core, they stress tested the core - it warped - however they decided to patch up the core then cover up and downplay what had occurred and proceed to fission with a weakened reactor.

How Babcock is allowed to still operate after Three Mile Island and now Fukashima reactor 4 is a mystery. Maybe it's just me.
'When circumstances can not be changed attitude is everything'

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #276 on: November 15, 2013, 02:07:50 am »
I think part of it is that there are so few firms equipped to actually do this stuff - they do all the typical contractor shit like overbilling, bloating out their expenses while cutting corners on the most important stuff: It's the age old government/contractor paradigm.

Except this shit can be deadly. Another example (of the idea you're expressing) is Bechtel's project to remediate Hanford in Washington State, USA. It is possibly the most toxic groundwater polluted site in north America (and there is serious competition for that dubious honor). Bechtel have fucked up repeatedly and yet, are going to be paid upwards of 100 billion USD when all is said and done, by doing a half assed job, primarily because they don't really have anyone else that can do it except them.

Tied into this is the culture of secrecy and disinformation behind nuclear energy. Every nuclear regulator in the world is in bed with the very people they are subposed to observe and monitor. Because these things are so specialized, you have a handful of firms that lobby all the right politicians and gov insiders. The whole thing is a sleezy and corrupt, incestuous mess.

Offline Ronster

  • A Real Man who doesn't like Girlies
  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #277 on: November 15, 2013, 02:23:25 pm »
I think part of it is that there are so few firms equipped to actually do this stuff - they do all the typical contractor shit like overbilling, bloating out their expenses while cutting corners on the most important stuff: It's the age old government/contractor paradigm.

Except this shit can be deadly. Another example (of the idea you're expressing) is Bechtel's project to remediate Hanford in Washington State, USA. It is possibly the most toxic groundwater polluted site in north America (and there is serious competition for that dubious honor). Bechtel have fucked up repeatedly and yet, are going to be paid upwards of 100 billion USD when all is said and done, by doing a half assed job, primarily because they don't really have anyone else that can do it except them.

Tied into this is the culture of secrecy and disinformation behind nuclear energy. Every nuclear regulator in the world is in bed with the very people they are subposed to observe and monitor. Because these things are so specialized, you have a handful of firms that lobby all the right politicians and gov insiders. The whole thing is a sleezy and corrupt, incestuous mess.


First off, as always brilliant post. The way you see this mirrors mine. The truth, unfortunately is - nobody knows how to clean up nuclear mess hence why so few countries are continuing with it as an energy option. As catastrophic as a meltdown is, this is only the tip of the iceberg if the spent fuel rods in cooling pools become involved. Glancing at the Hanford cleanup i see evidence immediately of escaped isotopes of Colbalt 60 and Cesium 137, these along with Strontium 90, are the most dangerous by products of fission. Colbalt60 has a half life of up to 3 years with intense gamma rays however. Cesium137 and Stontium90, also gamma emitters have half lives of 30 years hence why nobody goes within 10 miles of Chernobyl. These three isotopes are the main reason of why cleanups of nuclear sites take 30 years before decommissioning even starts to begin.

An alpha emitter i can hold in my hand. A beta emitter i could stop it penetrating me with a shield of a piece of paper (If either are inhaled or ingested then it's a different story altogether). Gamma radiation i cannot stop penetrating unless i'm surrounded by 4 inches of lead. There will be radiation fatalities at Fukashima because they have to stabilise cooling in the spent fuel pools. Protection from radiation relies on Time - Distance - Shielding. They don't have time. They have to act now and they know it.

I would bet that there are already signs of these 3 isotopes at Fukashima. They have a precarious siting within reactor 4 of a spent fuel pool containing over 1000 spent fuel rods which if cooling ceases then can spontaneously commence fission again, ignite of explode then it's airborne and catastrophic. Not only for the people of Japan but the whole world. Because billions of particles of these lethal isotopes will be delivered around the globe, in the air and by sea currents.

Bechtel, Babcock, all of them are governed by greed, nothing else. They understand that they are accountable to nobody. Their board rooms are full of ex politicians and cigar club associates. It's a conspiracy of corruption and greed and we are fucking blind. i fucking despise these people so i shall be voting NO, it's not safe, in fact it's fucking lethal.

I will look into Hanford today because i was unaware of this incident. Just how Bechtel likes it, nice and hush hush.
'When circumstances can not be changed attitude is everything'

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #278 on: November 15, 2013, 03:10:23 pm »
Hanford was the site that produced plutonium for the weapons program. Oak Ridge, in Tennessee is probably the next most polluted groundwater site in N. America.(also a nuclear weapons site)

Hanford is on the banks of the Collumbia river and much of the highly toxic plutonium (half life, 300,000 years) tailings and associated waste is in tanks with porous lining and apparently there are several contaminant plumes moving away from the point sources.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #279 on: November 18, 2013, 01:35:37 pm »
I hope everyone has their fingers crossed and are saying their prayers for a safe completion of this task - the most deadly piece of engineering ever attempted (being done so by liars and incompetents, no less). I mean, worst case scenario would be uncontrolled radioactive fires, evacuating Tokyo, then Northern Japan (70+ million people) and bunkering down to watch the site spew more radiation than all the previous accidents combined - billions of lives would be affected negatively. And there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it (with present technology). And it will take the best part of a year to finish

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-plant-delicate-operation-underway-to-remove-uranium-fuel-rods-from-unstable-storage-facility-8946429.html

Quote
Workers have begun the delicate operation to remove the first radioactive uranium fuel rods from a reactor at the tsunami-damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant.

In a landmark moment for the full decommissioning process likely to take decades, a custom-built crane started lifting batches of fuel rods from a storage pool described as being in an “unstable condition”.

The rods are bundled together in assemblies, of which there are 1,533. Each one needs to be lifted out of the pool individually in a water-tight cask, before it is placed on a trailer and moved to a safer storage facility.

Experts warned that any mistakes by workers during the process – or worse still another large earthquake – could be disastrous. If the uranium rods are exposed to the air at any point during removal it could result in dangerous overheating and contamination levels.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), said the painstaking task got underway successfully at Fukushima’s Unit 4 reactor this morning.

Unit 4 was offline at the time of the March 2011 disaster, when an earthquake and subsequent tsunami knocked out the cooling systems for the other three reactors, causing them to suffer partial melt downs. It was nonetheless crippled by later hydrogen explosions, which blew off the building’s roof and walls.

Tepco has since reinforced the building, but experts say keeping so many fuel rods in a storage pool in the building still poses a major safety risk.

The company has built a massive steel structure next to and partly over Unit 4 to mount cranes for the operation. It will take at least until the end of 2014 to finish moving the 1,533 sets of fuel rods, including 202 unused sets, to a safer location. Each set includes about 60-80 rods.

Tepco has decided to remove the unused fuel first, before moving on to the more radioactive spent fuel. There are also three sets of fuel rods at the very end of the pool which reportedly suffered slight damage during the disaster.

Experts said the fuel rod sets may have been damaged or jammed by small pieces of debris that fell into the pool during the explosions. Some also raised concern about a major earthquake hitting during the removal work.

Hiroaki Koide, assistant professor at Kyoto University's Research Reactor Institute, told the AFP news agency the timing of the fuel rod removal was crucial as “the reactor's storage pool is in an unstable condition”.

Koide added that the whole decommissioning process would involve tasks that pose “unprecedented challenges”.

Yoshihide Suga, Japan's top government spokesman, told the BBC he hoped the operation would be done properly.

“We hope that this [process] will be conducted in a manner that will not disturb local residents, and that the removal will be done on schedule, properly and safely,” he said.