NUCLEAR WASTE....A NIGHTMARE for us now and for future generations to come!

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

125 posts / 0 new

Comments

Nice......

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Legend, I already explained that to you, seems you ignore everything I said. You need to learn the ABC's of politics and our crony capitalist system. You've been on this site since 2012 and you haven't learned anything in all those years about politics? Do you know what a lobbyist is? Do you know what a lobby does? Are you familiar with corruption?

During the boom years of the 70's and 80's nuclear was kicking Oil, Gas & Coal's butt. Nothing like that has occurred in history. Take a look:

http://docs.wind-watch.org/USELEC.gif

See how oil generation was just about wiped out by nuclear. Compare that big fat nuclear yellow line with your hyped up renewables skimpy little red line, almost invisible, except for conventional hydro which is static. Now look at France:

http://azimuthproject.org/azimuth/files/electricity_generation_in_france...

See that giant yellow line that wiped out coal and oil electricity generation, mostly in 20 yrs. You think that in the $100 trillion energy market, the largest market outside of banking, that the crony capitalists, just sit back and say: "let it be", "let the best man win", "we believe in fair play", "let honest politicians do what is best for the country", "we do not attempt to influence politicians". Yep, Legend living in wonderland. It's all about love, according to Legend.

Germany, Electricity Generation by fuel, 1971 to 2007:

http://docs.wind-watch.org/DEELEC.gif

Look what Germany achieved with their all-out effort on Solar & wind. Compare the big fat nuclear yellow line with the skinny little red solar, wind, geothermal line. Even Germany did much better with Nuclear than they ever have with Wind & Solar. Still producing as much electricity with their "long shutdown" Nuclear as with their mega-effort, mega-expense Wind & Solar failure.

In any case it is of little significance that nuclear power plants were planned and the plan abandoned, especially after the 20% interest rates of the early 80's, and the onerous regulations of the NRC, run by fanatical anti-nuclear radicals. It is all explained right here:

http://depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/

Shutdown a perfectly good, newly completed Nuclear power plant, by a bunch of well-paid radicals, using dirty tricks supported by the NRC. 50% of their budget was fighting lawsuits by money-no-object anti-nuclear lobbyists.

Massive subsidies to wind & solar for supposed "low carbon emissions", zero subsidies to nuclear for proven "low carbon emissions.

Many solar & wind bankruptcies, I didn't say cancelled, I said Totally Bankrupt:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/news/economy/obama-energy-bankruptcies/

"...President Obama is getting hammered for funding renewable energy companies that have since gone belly up.

During the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney said "about half" of the companies funded by Obama's administration went bankrupt. That is true..."

Green Energy Bust in Germany:

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

Why China’s renewables industry is headed for collapse:

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/why-chinas-renewables-indus...

A once highly touted wind turbine manufacturer has spun to a halt:

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/print-edition/2012/10/19/turbine-m...

Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/wind-power-investments-in-g...

President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures:

http://dailysignal.com/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green...

Rest in Peace: The List of Deceased Solar Companies, 2009 to 2013:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Rest-in-Peace-The-List-of-De...

Rest in Peace: The Fallen Solar Companies of 2014:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Honoring-the-fallen-solar-so...

Solar Companies Continue to Go Bankrupt

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2013/04/09/solar-companies-contin...

As for Greenpeace, they do have financial statements for their upwards of $368M/yr income, but the don't show individual large donors, and alternative sources show > $1M large donations from Big Oil/Gas & Bankster owned foundations like Turner Foundation, various Rockefeller foundations, Tides Foundation, even the pro-Coal Joyce Foundation.

Almost all of these anti-nuclear ENGO/Lobby groups get large ~$million annual donations from anyonymous donors. Which is just how the Sierra Club was being secretly financed from just one Shale Gas company - Chesapeake energy. A disgusted whistleblower in the Sierra Club leaked that they received $25 million from 2007 to 2010 to fund their anti-nuclear and anti-coal campaigns. With another $30 million to follow. This was largely through personal donations of the CEO of Chesapeake Energy Aubrey McClendon. And of course, during that time Sierra Club supported natural gas as "a bridge fuel" while being vehemently opposed to nuclear & coal.

The rabidly anti-nuclear ENGO/Lobby group, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA), which actively tries to shutdown Nuclear Power in Ontario (62% of generation), is directly funded by the Natural Gas industry which is largely owned by Big Oil.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Lets just take one electrical energy company. Exelon. $25 Billion in Revenue, $80 billion in assets. Do you think that they do not have lobbyiests or know how tha political game is played. You have multible other(Duke, Entergy, AEP, PG&E, FP&L, Southern Nuclear etc) large generating companies that dwarf Greenpeace and Sierra Club. There is no plot by millionaires to support Greenpeace and Sierra Club to sabatoge nuclear. That is a very sick ploy. The nuclear industry has never solved its problems. Thus it cannot get financing. If the above listed companies could make a nickel with it they would be building plants. Greenpeace would be steamrolled if they tried to stop it.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

During the boom years of the 70's and 80's nuclear was kicking Oil, Gas & Coal's butt. Nothing like that has occurred in history. Take a look: - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/07/nuclear-wastea-nightmare-us-now-and-future-generations-come?page=1#sthash.9S8cpNta.dpuf

Then a little thing called Three Mile Island happened. Showing how a minor mistake could destroy a multi billion dollar plant. And at that they were very lucky that the right person walked in the door otherwise the damage to surrounding area would have been great. How close to you need to come. So then the utilities and NRC had to re-evaluate nuclear and a lot of plants under construction and planned were cancelled. For no apparent reason???

Shutdown a perfectly good, newly completed Nuclear power plant, by a bunch of well-paid radicals, using dirty tricks supported by the NRC. 50% of their budget was fighting lawsuits by money-no-object anti-nuclear lobbyists. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/07/nuclear-wastea-nightmare-us-now-and-future-generations-come?page=1#sthash.9S8cpNta.dpuf

Like I said earlier the utilities have way more money than the anti nuclear lobbyiests.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Legend: "... Exelon. $25 Billion in Revenue, .. Do you think that they do not have lobbyiests or know how tha political game is played..."

Exelon is the largest nuclear player in the USA. But still half their capacity is non-nuclear, mostly gas. And that is where the profit lies, since they just dump the fuel cost on the consumer and make a substantially increased profit as the gas price rises, on top of very lucrative capacity payments. Nuclear gets low market price for its electricity - no capacity payments and none of the giant "low carbon" subsidies and mandates that wind & solar get. So Exelon doesn't care about Nuclear, their plants are old, being regulated and sued to death, they are gradually shutting them down. The CEO even admitted it, they love gas, gas is BIG PROFITS, but not for the consumer:

http://atomicinsights.com/john-rowe-explains-how-exelons-self-interest-i...

And so for ALL nuclear generation, there is no "Big Nuclear" its all "Big Gas", "Big Coal" and "some Nuclear". The nuclear lobby is like a few mice walking on the floor amongst a herd of elephants = Oil & Gas, Coal and their greenwashing partners in Wind & Solar.

And the well paid anti-Nuclear lobbies, use guerrilla warfare tactics "death of a thousand cuts" to destroy Nuclear. i.e. Greenpeace lawsuit forced Ontario nuclear to issue Iodine pills to all public residents near Nuclear power plants - fear mongering tactics. No Greenpeace lawsuits for fire protective clothing after massive Oil & gas fires killing over 50 people. San Onofre a good example of the effectiveness of these tactics:

http://atomicinsights.com/foes-manipulative-legal-strategy-closing-nucle...

Here the two top Nuclear physicists in the entire USA discuss how the Nuclear shutdown occurred - they were Johnny-on-the-spot:

http://atomicinsights.com/cloistered-nuclear-scientists-needed-sun-tzus-...

"....Organized opposition had begun, arguing environmentalism initially, and then joined by proliferation-related attacks. In the last year or two of the sixties the attacks had begun and with growing influence, by the mid-seventies the anti-nuclear groups had had their way. Their strategy focused on driving up the cost of nuclear power plant construction, so far up that the plants would be uneconomic, if possible. To do so, they attacked every issue that could be used to insert the legal system into interference with construction decisions, blocking construction progress by any means possible. In so doing they introduced very lengthy construction delays. Success in delaying nuclear construction while interest on the borrowed construction funding kept increasing and increasing eventually made their argument self-fulfilling. They had made their assertion a reality; nuclear construction was now expensive. Every possible facet of the legal system was used. Plant after plant with financing in place for billions of dollars, and interest charges running up, had construction held up month after month, year after year, by one legal challenge after another, as a rule related in some way to environmental permits. Nuclear opponents could congratulate themselves; they had destroyed an industry. Their strategy had been a brilliant success. To what purpose, though, may one ask? It stopped orderly progression of nuclear power development and implementation by the U. S., and, indeed, led to similarly destructive movements in other countries too. The world then went back to fossil energy and hundreds, more probably thousands, of new fossil fuel plants have gone into operation in the years since then...."

And the shutdown began Before TMI, forty planned nuclear power plants already had been canceled before the TMI accident. Funny how after the massive Gulf destroying Oil rig explosion, which unlike TMI, actually killed people, oil drilling just continued as usual. And the Kleen energy NG power plant explosion that killed six workers, business-as-usual.

While Nuclear got stuck with an onerous regulater that blatantly opposed Nuclear energy, Big Oil has a regulator that they had drug & sex parties together, pregnancies included. The regulator's official plan for any oil rig spill or disaster included "save the Walruses in the Gulf of Mexico" and "contact long dead scientists". And Fracking special, Natural Gas, is legislated to be exempt from:

The Clean Water Act.

Safe Drinking Water Act.

Clean Air Act.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act.

National Environmental Policy Act.

Radioisotope emissions regulations.

Pretty obvious who has the cash to buy the politician$. And it sure ain't Nuclear.

Isn't it funny how the likes of Legend here, are all wound up about Climate Change:

"...It's a dire emergency...we must do everything...cost is irrelevant...lives are at stake.."

until the largest clean energy source on the planet - the "N-Word", Nuclear is mentioned, then suddenly its:

"...Nuclear is too expensive...why should Nuclear get subsidized...Gas is a bridge fuel...what's the hurry...cost is #1...let the market decide...too cheap to meter ha, ha.."

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

HIghly fluctuating Wind Energy, really worthless, forced down our throats by corrupt politicans, in Big Oil's pocket. Heavily subsidized, it destroys once cheap baseload power, converting it into expensive peaking generation. I like this example by Main Wind Concerns:

"...The ISO-New England Grid operator pays plants "capacity" payments that essentially keep the backup plants afloat. As the piece points out, demand ("load") is fairly flat, but our existing fleet of generation plants is growing. Maine alone has installed roughly 500 megawatts of new windmill capacity. Of course, windmills cannot perform the peaking or baseload functions of coal and oil plants, so the windmills are duplicative. Not only do we pay a premium for the wind energy, the old standby plants get paid too.

In 2011 Maine's only oil plant (at 620 MW our biggest plant) produced only 56,000 MwH of electricity. A comparably sized natural gas plant in Maine produced 1.9 million MwH in 2011, operating at only 40% capacity. The oil plant sold its power for a year-long average of $121 / MwH, getting $6.7 million in energy revenues PLUS $27 MILLION IN CAPACITY PAYMENTS for net revenue of $34 million. Meanwhile the gas plant sold at a year-end average of $41 / MwH and received ZERO capacity payments for net revenue of $79 million.

The net annual costs to consumers for the oil plant: $610 / MwH. For the gas plant: $41 / MwH...."

Wow, 61 cents/kwh for dirty Oil generation. And here Oil was supposed to be finished for Electricity generation. Wouldn't want an extra cent or two per kwh to make zero-CO2, old Nuclear plants profitable, but no problem paying plus 20 cents/kwh (up to 80 cents/kwh) for somewhat low CO2 solar, imported from China. Trade clean energy zero-CO2 American jobs for moderate CO2 Chinese jobs. Welcome to Crony Capitalism and the new Enron style of political electricity.

In Ontario capacity payments for dirty NG power producers have pushed average cost of NG generation to 17 cents per kwh for 10% of Ontario's electricity. That's with the current rock bottom low gas prices. Whereas good old reliable Nuclear, supplying 62% of Ontario's electricity, and also the cleanest, gets 5.8 cents per kwh average. As worthless wind electricity increases, forced upon the grid, the capacity payments to NG producers will have to be increased, and when gas prices skyrocket once the Shale Gas bubble bursts, well let's just say it ain't gonna be pretty. Big Oil will love it though. There will be no apologies from Legend, Greenpeace and their ILK, however.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Around The World, Nuclear Can’t Compete With Growing RenewablesBy GREENTECH MEDIAon July 20, 2015 at 10:00 AM

“What is spectacular is the extent to which the nuclear industry is appearing to ignore reality.”

Global investment in new nuclear is an order of magnitude less than renewable energy investment. That is just one of the findings of a newindependent report on the state of the worldwide nuclear industry that was issued on Thursday. No matter which aspect of the nuclear industry is assessed, the picture isn’t pretty.

Despite talk of a nuclear renaissance in the 1990s, no single Generation III reactor has come into service in the past 20 years. Most are delayed three to nine years and are far over budget.

“The impressively resilient hopes that many people still have of a global nuclear renaissance are being trumped by a real‐time revolution in efficiency‐plus‐renewables‐plus-storage, delivering more and more solutions on the ground every year,” Jonathon Porritt, co-founder of the Forum for the Future and former Chairman of the U.K. Sustainable Development Commission, wrote in the forward to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015. “[The report] remorselessly lays bare the gap between the promise of innovation in the nuclear industry and its delivered results.”

China, which leads the world in new nuclear builds, spent about $9 billion in 2014, but invested more than $83 billion on wind and solar in the same year. China’s non-hydro renewable fleet produces more energy than its nuclear capacity.

What’s more, Germany, Brazil, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain and Japan all generate more electricity from non-hydro renewables than from nuclear. Those countries make up nearly half of the world’s population and three of the world’s largest economies.

For nuclear that is being built, the word “boondoggle” seems to come up frequently, especially in the West. “The project is in shambles,” the report said of the U.K.’s Hinkley Point C reactor, which was meant to be the first new nuclear in the country in decades. Now, the company building it, Areva, is bankrupt. Areva’s Olkiluoto 3 project in Finland and Flamanville 3 in France are also both way over budget and still not in operation.

“What is spectacular is the extent to which the nuclear industry is appearing to ignore reality,” the report states. In 2013, Areva’s then-CEO predicted reactors would be coming back on-line in Japan by the end of the year and that his company would be taking new orders in the next few years. In 2015, Japan has been nuclear-free for the first time in more than four decades. Areva has had no new orders.

Despite the issues with Areva reactors, there are more than 60 reactors currently under construction. Of those reactors, most have been under construction for more than seven years. Three-quarters of the building sites are delayed and, amazingly, five have been listed as “under construction” for more than 30 years.

For the reactors that are in operation, many are aging rapidly. The mean age for reactors worldwide is about 29 years, and most were designed for life spans of 40 years, but many will operate beyond that. The cost of going beyond 40 years isn’t cheap — about $1 billion to $5 billion per reactor. By 2050, nuclear’s share of global electricity generation is expected to be similar to its role today, which amounts to about 10 percent.

Given the cost and time necessary to build large reactors, many in the industry have argued for a move to small modular reactors. Yet SMRs have also suffered from higher-than-expected costs and long development timelines, the report states.

The U.S. Department of Energy has been one of the proponents of this technology, yet none of the designs it said in 2001 could be available by the end of the decade were deployed. Of the two companies the DOE chose years later for SMR development funding, one slashed its spending on SMRs in 2014. NuScale, the other SMR manufacturer, is still continuing with development. Even so, “there is no evidence that SMRs will be constructed in the United States anytime soon,” the report states.

The picture is not rosier in other countries that have lent support to SMRs. South Korea, for example, has been developing an SMR since the 1990s, and while it was approved in 2012, no orders have yet been received. Saudi Arabia did say earlier this year it would test the technology in a three-year pilot.

“The static, top-heavy, monstrously expensive world of nuclear power has less and less to deploy against today’s increasingly agile, dynamic, cost-effective alternatives,” wrote Porritt. “The sole remaining issue is that not everyone sees it that way — as yet.”

By Katherine Tweed

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

You tend to blame everyone else. You even blame the NRC which is made up of Nuclear Scientists, Personnel from the nuclear industry and retired Nuclear Navy personnel. They know that they do not have a job unless there are nuclear plants. Yet they are also required to make sure that the industry is kept as safe as possible. Yet they are constantly confronted with plants that have to be put on the watch list because of poor unsafe operation. You have ignored the close calls: TMI (hardly close but could have been much worse), Davis Bessee (reactor corrosion), Browns Ferry (Fire), Turkey Point (hurricane) and others. What about Fukushima? We have 26 identical reactors. What about the need for 400 security guards per plant. What about the schedules and costs overuns in Finland, Taiwan, France, UK, USA and others. Why can you not get financing to build a plant? Now you are saying that the utilities do not even want it! So who does? You bring up the state of Maine. Why was the nuke in maine shutdown 20 years ago? It is not because of Greenpeace. It is a poorly run industry that does not solve its problems. It has more problems than solutions.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Talk about Nuclear Waste!!!

http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/abandoned-nuclear-powerplants-wor...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

This is about 2 reactors under construction in GA. They are barely out of the ground and all ready over schedule and over budget. They are being built on a goverment subsidized guarenteed loan. The 2 in SC are even worse. Instant claims that they are new technology, first of a kind, Which is completely false.

Vogtle 3 And 4 Face Delays And Higher CostsRATE THIS
Mon, Feb 2 2015 11:30 AM

  • Comments2
  • Likes

Southern Company subsidiary Georgia Power said late in the week that they had pushed back the estimated start date for the Vogtle 3 and 4 nuclear power reactors by a bit over three years past the original start-up dates.

In a regulatory filing, the company pushed the start-up dates to the the second quarters of 2019 and 2020, respectively. The original estimated date for putting Unit 3 online was April 2016, while the Unit 4 was to begin commercial operations in April 2017.

With the delayed starts, there are higher costs and, as of Friday, a quick downturn in stock prices. Southern Co. closed at $50.70 per share on Friday, a 4 percent decline from prior to the announcement, AP reported.

At the same time, the project costs have gone up from an estimated $6.1 billion to $7.4 billion and those figures, media reports indicate, could be a low estimate.

New suppliers have had trouble hitting targets on quality and on timeliness. Further delays could push costs higher and major overruns could force the issue of who is to blame into courts if the disputes become intractable.

Southern Co. and Georgia power contend that they are contractually protected from overrun costs, which means they would be covered by consortium of Westinghouse, Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. and Webster, the major contractors for the Westinghouse AP1000 units, which will be the first of their kind in the United States.

Georgia Power is expected to present the new cost estimates to the Georgia Public Service Commission by the end of the month.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

So Legend’s resident expert on Energy & Nuclear, some journalist with zero experience or qualifications in ANY energy field. Just quotes Big Oil's usual anti-nuclear talking points. Ripped apart in comments:

“….the classical elements of most anti-nuclear arguments:

  • Complaints about higher cost. This violates the core principal of all environmentalism: that we should be willing to pay extra to reduce the harm that our lifestyles cause to the environment (e.g. why not just dump our untreated sewage into the bay? why waste money on catalytic converters and mufflers for cars?).
  • Disregard for the enormous harm caused by fossil alternative (air pollution, AGW, etc).
  • Disregard for serious technical and economic problems posed by non-fossil alternatives, and the very real risk that the variable renewables in particular will lead to fossil fuel lock-in.
  • Appeals for efficiency. Efficiency is not a substitute for any energy source, but is a supplement to every energy source. Hence it is irrelevant to the discussion.
  • Mischaracterization of nuclear advocates as "big business". Most western nuclear companies (GE, B&W, Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, Areva, etc) also make fossil fuel and renewable equipment; they are agnostic. Nuclear advocacy comes almost entirely from within the environmental movement, in particular the more technical members (see Scientists-sign-nuclear-entreaty).
  • Exaggerated claims and/or implications about the danger of nuclear accidents. The more experience we get with nuclear accidents (and medical and natural radiation exposure), the more absurd these arguments become (see Like We've Been Saying -- Radiation is Not a Big Deal). There are still zero fatalities from Fukushima radiation (although hundreds were killed by unnecessary evacuations prompted by anti-nuclear fearmongering); see WHO_Low_radiation_risk_from_Fukushima . Meanwhile, the villagers who refused to evacuate after Chernobyl and the workers tending the remaining reactors there did just fine.
  • Non-technical authors. Mark Cooper is with the Vermont Law school; other prominant nuclear opponents work for foundations (e.g. RMI) whose primary purpose is to oppose nuclear power. Am I the only one who's bothered when a lawyer or lobbyist tells a group of scientists and engineers that they have the technology wrong? Why does the news media turn a blind eye to this?

These could all be honest freshmen mistakes…”

“…One never need to look far to find the stain of fossil fuel money supporting most antinuclear "activism". Meredith Angwin has been doing a terrific job exposing this network of backroom dealing, which extends Vermont's dependence on fossil fuels indefinitely - lining many pockets in the process.

http://atomicinsights.com/mark-cooper-wrong-smrs-nuclear-energy/
http://vtdigger.org/2015/02/10/ftc-warns-green-mountain-power-clear-rene...
http://vtdigger.org/2015/02/09/federal-regulators-clear-utility-deceptiv...
http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2012/03/gaz-metro-merger-consumers-are-not.html#.Vasfu4ZharX…”

…"...renewables‐plus-storage, delivering more and more solutions on the ground every year"

"...Really, where? As far as I know, the only storage being installed is small demonstration projects that are far too expensive to be replicated at scale (such as this 8 MW * 4 hour, $6.8/Watt unit in Tehachapi, California). The world's existing (pumped-hydro) storage was all built during the first nuclear era (before "environmental groups" helped save the fossil fuel industry by joining the anti-nuclear team). All of the solar and wind technology which is being installed today is completely dependent on a fossil fuel dominated grid.

"China, ... nuclear ... spent about $9 billion in 2014, but invested more than $83 billion on wind and solar in the same year."

Tellingly, the electricity production ratio is way out of balance with the investment ratio. China has 23 GW of nuclear, 114 GW of wind, and 28 GW of solar (accounting for capacity factor, the average wind and solar production should be around 28 GW and 5.6 GW respectively). So China is just as active in nuclear as solar and wind, but they are getting a better price for the nuclear.

Also, note that China halted new nuclear plant starts in 2011 (following Fukushima); following 2 years with no new starts, they have resumed new builds based on four different Gen III designs (the American AP1000, the EPR from the EU, the Russian VVer-1000, and the Chinese-designed Hualong 1), with a fifth design (the Chinese CAP1400) in the works for this year too.

In fact, in China, India, and South Korea, nuclear is being built for bargain prices in the sub $3/Watt range (only $1.7/Watt in India).

As for SMRs, I agree that they will likely produce more expensive power than big reactors, but I believe that they will play a small but important role. For places like the US and China with average grid demand in the hundreds of GWatts and strong transmission systems, mainstream reactors like the AP1000 are plenty small enough. The reason to build SMRs in the US is mainly to allow utility and construction personnel to gain experience before moving on to bigger, more cost effective projects (i.e. China doesn't need them because they have recent nuclear experience). SMRs are also good for isolated places like Alaska and Hawaii with small demand, and for colder climates SMRs are well suited to locations close to cities where they can supply district heating systems via combined-heat-and-power. Many developing countries will likely leapfrog SMRs and go straight to more cost effective big reactors (by leveraging foreign expertise); even though this means they must wait until their grids have reached multi-GW scale…”

“…Renewables always sound wonderful, until you start running the numbers.

How is America going to provide storage for the ~500 gigawatts that renewables will have to produce, were they to replace our existing fossil and nuclear baseload sources?

Alternatively, what will it cost to upgrade the national grid to accommodate the widespread use of intermittent energy sources?

As environmentalists, we're proposing to use a lot of land with renewables. Like, thousands of square miles, vs a few dozen square miles - if that - to run the country on nuclear power.

Wind turbines and solar panels last perhaps 25 years. Reactors 60+. Where will we get the resources to build our national powerplants 4X per century? What about the recycling and waste?

The thorium that is currently thrown away each year in the fabrication wind turbines (by mining the neodymium for the magnets) could literally power the entire world. Wind generates less than 1% of global power. That doesn't seem to be a prudent use of resources to me….”

Well that pretty much destroys Legend's Big Oil anti-nuclear propaganda & disinformation talking points.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Legend claims "...You tend to blame everyone else. You even blame the NRC..."

Wrong, you just made that up as usual. In fact I blame our crony capitalist system, that ensures the big money interests get the policy they want from our corrupt politicians that they buy. As an admitted Big Oil sycophant, you probably luv crony capitalism, and could care less about the subversion of our government by the super rich. Why you wave your little Bernie flag when you basically oppose the main issues Bernie stands for is beyond me.

#1 of Big Money is Banksters which rely on Petrodollars and the Oil & Gas trade for their power & wealth. Note favorite Bankster stooge Henry Kissinger stated: " If you control the energy you control the country; if you control food, you control the population..".

#2 of Big Money is Oil & Gas, six of the top ten Fortune 500, and a 100 yr history of buying politicians, government, media, institutions as I already documented.

According to their stooge, Legend here, they wouldn't oppose Nuclear, their only real competition, that wouldn't be fair play. Yep, Big Oil plays fair, according to Legend.

That's why the last head of the NRC (for 7 yrs) was a rabid anti-nuclear fanatic, with zero qualifications and zero experience. Yep that's honest, according to Legend.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Legend claims: "...Vogtle start-up dates to the the second quarters of 2019 and 2020, respectively. The original estimated date ... April 2016, while the Unit 4 was to begin commercial operations in April 2017...from an estimated $6.1 billion to $7.4 billion and those figures, media reports indicate, could be a low estimate..."

Here again we see Legend is basically innumerate, incapable of calculation or understanding numbers. I explained all this to him, and he ignored everything I said. So $7.4B for 1.1 GW of clean, zero-CO2 energy @ a 90% CF = $7.5k per avg delivered kilowatt. Compare with:

Quebec’s latest Hydro project – La Romaine River: $7.3k per kwavg – 100x the land area of a Vogtle – water consumption 10X higher than Vogtle – construction time 12yrs vs Vogtle 7 yrs.

Latest Canada Hydro project - Muskrat Falls is 825 MWpk, minimum $7.4B, 4.9 TWh/yr or CF so that's 560 Mwavg. So a minimum cost of $7.4B for 825 MWpk, 560 MWavg or $13.2k per kw avg output.

BC’s latest Site C Hydro Project on Peace River, 900MW, 4600 GWh, 58% CF, 93 sqkm, $6.6B, $12.7k/kwavg.

Record Hill Wind Farm, Maine, 50.6 MW, 96GW/yr, 11MWavg, 22% CF, Cost $130M total, $2.6k/kwpk, $11.8k/kwavg

Granite Reliable, Wind Farm, NH, 99MWpk, 224GWh/yr, 26%CF, $275M, $2.78k/kwpk, $10.7k/kwavg

New Wales Wind Farm, Latest & Biggest onshore in UK, 1600MWpk, 20% CF, $3.1B plus $620M for transmission is $10.3k/kwavg or $12.4k/kwavg incl transmission.

Caithness Shepherds Flat in east Oregon, 845 MW, 1797 GWh/yr, 205 MWavg, 24% CF, $9.6k/kwavg not incl transmission.

Kahuku Wind Farm in Hawaii, Wind Cost, $3.9k/kwpk, 30 MW, 71 GWh p yr, 27% CF, $14.4k/kwavg

Kibby Mountain, Maine, 132 MW, capital cost $320 million, CF was 22.5%, $2.42k/kwpk, $10.8k/kwavg

Hempstead, NY, 100 kw Wind Turbine, 180MWh/yr or 20.5% CF, $6.15k/kwpk, $30k/kwavg

University of Maine, 600 kw Wind Turbine, est. capital cost $2M, actual 12% CF, $2M/.6k = $3.3k/kwpk, $27.5k/kwavg

The latest and greatest Solar PV plant in California, California Valley Solar Ranch by NRG, cost $1.6B and delivers an avg of 62MW which = $25.6k/kwavg

Agua Caliente Solar PV Project, April 2014, World's largest, First Solar, thin film, 290 MWpk, $967M loan guarantee, $1.8B cost, $6.21/wpk, 626 GWh/yr, 24.6% CF, $25.2k/kwavg

So Vogtle 3&4, and contrary to what you said they are indeed FOAK (First-Of-A-Kind) GenIII reactors, built with zero supply chain, zero trained workforce, zero experience here in the USA, after a 25 year complete nuclear boycott. And even with NRC/lobbyist imposed delays, a 7 yr construction time works out to 2.2GW x 8760hrs X 90%CF /7 = 2477 GWh/yr of clean, green, zero-CO2 energy. Whereas sunny California, after an all-out effort on solar @ > 3X the cost of Vogtle has averaged 1333 Gwh/yr of not-so-clean, not-FOAK, not-zero-CO2 solar energy, over the past 7 yrs. And that is intermittent, part-time power that lasts for 25yrs vs Vogtle 60-100yrs. And all the solar does is replace some fuel, doesn’t replace any power plants or infrastructure, unlike the Nuclear. Solar cannot function without fossil, nuclear doesn’t need fossil. Yet Big Oil lackeys like Legend here call Vogtle a failure and California solar a big success.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

The one point I will concede to Legend, right now nuclear in US is more expensive than coal & gas. And I can understand how some private utilities, like Exelon really are focused on gas and coal rather than nuclear. There is no incentive in the US to avoid GHG emissions except for non-hydro renewables. For nuclear, nothing but hassles, non-stop lawsuits from lobbyists, NRC fanatical regulation, low coal price and low NG price. And NG plants are cheap & fast to build.

So if like Legend, you could care less about climate change, don't give a damn about long term cost stability, then go-for-it, burn-baby-burn, build them gas plants, frackaway like there is no tomorrow. And when the Shale gas bubble bursts, the utilities, including Exelon, will be laughing their way to the bank, while we consumers will be paying 25 cents a kwh for electricity or more. And the Shale gas bubble will burst as soon as the Banksters stop giving free money to the Shale producers or when they run out of easy & comparatively cheap sources. Then America will be importing LNG at 8X the cost of the current gas price, from the Middle East - terrorist, job-killing LNG.

Some utilities, mainly public utilities, have the foresight to hedge against high gas prices by going nuclear. Nuclear locks in low prices for 60-100yrs because nuclear fuel is dirt cheap, far cheaper than coal of gas. Whereas as wind & solar only lock-in the need for gas.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

It just keeps coming. Cannot blame this one on Greenpeace, The NRC, USA utilities, or a vast conspiracy:

Areva refinancing cost could double, sources say, as government sets timetablePARIS | BY BENJAMIN MALLET AND YANN LE GUERNIGOU

left2 of 2rightA view shows the Areva Tower, the headquarters of the French nuclear reactor maker Areva, at La Defense business and financial district in Courbevoie near Paris, France, May 7, 2015.REUTERS/CHARLES PLATIAUleft1 of 2right left2 of 2right left1 of 2right

The French government set out a timetable for the tie-up between utility EDF (EDF.PA) and Areva (AREVA.PA) on Tuesday as sources said the cost of recapitalizing the struggling nuclear reactor maker could be double what was previously expected.

Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron told a parliament committee details would be announced on July 31, with a recapitalization plan to be set out in September.

"We will open a new operational phase on the new Areva on July 31 ... with a date in September on additional subjects including Areva's recapitalization," he told a parliament committee.

A source close to the matter said the amount needed for Areva's capital increase, needed after four years of losses, was higher than previously expected by the French treasury at Bercy.

"There was a very bad surprise for Bercy on the amount of the capital increase. The government was hoping for one or two billion euros, and it might be more than double that," the source said.

A second source with knowledge of the matter confirmed the figures, and said the final figure would depend on negotiations between the two parties over nuclear fuel recycling and other commercial contracts.

EDF and Areva declined to comment on the subject.

Macron also said the risks coming from Areva's troubled EPR project in Finland, where the French company is locked in a dispute on delays and cost overruns with a Finnish utility, will not be passed on to EDF, but could not be left to Areva alone.

It could therefore end up as a liability for French taxpayers. "Considering the amounts involved, we know very well that the majority shareholder (the government) will have a role to play," the minister said.

EDF CEO Jean-Bernard Levy said earlier this week he expected to reach a deal to buy the nuclear reactor business of loss-making Areva by the end of July.

"The talks are well advanced, everybody has agreed on a price," a source close to the talks said, without giving a figure.

Le Figaro said in its Wednesday edition, citing unnamed sources, it would be near 2.7 billion euros ($2.93 billion), rather than the 2 billion euros initially offered by EDF.

A firm offer from EDF will not come before the end of October, the source said.

Areva, which is 87 percent owned by the French state, is due to release first-half results on July 31.

(Reporting by Yann Le Guernigou and Benjamin Mallet; writing by Michel Rose; Editing byAndrew Callus and Alan Crosby)

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

From the top of post 63 by IOR:

Legend claims "...You tend to blame everyone else. You even blame the NRC..."

Wrong, you just made that up as usual.

From the bottom of post 63 by IOR:

That's why the last head of the NRC (for 7 yrs) was a rabid anti-nuclear fanatic, with zero qualifications and zero experience. Yep that's honest, according to Legend.

Can you not remember what you said at the top of your post? What was actually said in post 59 by me with no answers from IOR

You tend to blame everyone else. You even blame the NRC which is made up of Nuclear Scientists, Personnel from the nuclear industry and retired Nuclear Navy personnel. They know that they do not have a job unless there are nuclear plants. Yet they are also required to make sure that the industry is kept as safe as possible. Yet they are constantly confronted with plants that have to be put on the watch list because of poor unsafe operation. You have ignored the close calls: TMI (hardly close but could have been much worse), Davis Bessee (reactor corrosion), Browns Ferry (Fire), Turkey Point (hurricane) and others. What about Fukushima? We have 26 identical reactors. What about the need for 400 security guards per plant. What about the schedules and costs overuns in Finland, Taiwan, France, UK, USA and others. Why can you not get financing to build a plant? Now you are saying that the utilities do not even want it! So who does? You bring up the state of Maine. Why was the nuke in maine shutdown 20 years ago? It is not because of Greenpeace. It is a poorly run industry that does not solve its problems. It has more problems than solutions.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Legend, there's that reading comprehension problem of yours again. If a criminal gang invades and takes over a neighbourhood, using guns, knives and bats. Yes I will say guns, knives & bats were used. But who do I blame? I blame the gang - guns, knives & bats were some of the means used.

And you seem to think the NRC controls the entire Nuclear world - sorry but they don't. In the USA they unquestionably have been a major factor in restraining and indeed blockading nuclear power, including blatantly Yucca mountain - a judge ruled that illegal. And contrary to what you said they are mostly politically appointed lawyers and bureaucrats, and they get there orders from the top.

A good example of the double standard against nuclear, oil & gas pipelines get quite radioactive from the uranium, thorium & radium daughters that condense out on the pipe walls. Even if they clean the steel it is still mildly radioactive, as is steel used in NPPs. But the NRC imposed regs on steel recycling for NPPs is 1000X lower than that for Oil & gas pipeline steel. Fracking wastewater has leaked radiation levels 15,000X maximum allowable into drinking water sources, without any action taken. If a NPP leaked even 1/100th that it would be immediately shutdown with a dozen lawsuits from the likes of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, SACE.

http://www.propublica.org/article/is-the-marcellus-shale-too-hot-to-hand...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/la_health_report_1...

"...The State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality has recently issued a notification concerning a potential health hazard associated with handling pipe used in oil and gas production that may be contaminated with radioactive scale from naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM). (Copies attached) The concern is the possible inhalation and/or ingestion of scale particles contaminated with radium-226 and possibly other radioactive material that may become airborne during welding, cutting or reaming of pipe containing the radioactive scale. The State of Louisiana is using the term for this material Technologically Enhanced Natural Radiation (TENR), which is a subgroup of a larger group, referred to as naturally occurring radioactive materials or NORM.

The investigation and regulatory control impact of most of these sources may have been overlooked by Federal and State agencies in the past, while stringent controls were placed on X-ray and other man-made sources of radiation. Compliance Officers should be aware of the potential radiation hazard to workers due to TENR in the oil and gasindustry...."

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

And you seem to think the NRC controls the entire Nuclear world - sorry but they don't.

Never said that. But you certainly attack the one department that is in charge of makinf Nuclear Power Safe.

In the USA they unquestionably have been a major factor in restraining and indeed blockading nuclear power, including blatantly Yucca mountain - a judge ruled that illegal. And contrary to what you said they are mostly politically appointed lawyers and bureaucrats, and they get there orders from the top.

I thought that you said that you did not blame the NRC???

For the rest of your rant there is a lot of difference between uranium and irradiated uranium.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

You keep failing to answer this:

You tend to blame everyone else. You even blame the NRC which is made up of Nuclear Scientists, Personnel from the nuclear industry and retired Nuclear Navy personnel. They know that they do not have a job unless there are nuclear plants. Yet they are also required to make sure that the industry is kept as safe as possible. Yet they are constantly confronted with plants that have to be put on the watch list because of poor unsafe operation. You have ignored the close calls: TMI (hardly close but could have been much worse), Davis Bessee (reactor corrosion), Browns Ferry (Fire), Turkey Point (hurricane) and others. What about Fukushima? We have 26 identical reactors. What about the need for 400 security guards per plant. What about the schedules and costs overuns in Finland, Taiwan, France, UK, USA and others. Why can you not get financing to build a plant? Now you are saying that the utilities do not even want it! So who does? You bring up the state of Maine. Why was the nuke in maine shutdown 20 years ago? It is not because of Greenpeace. It is a poorly run industry that does not solve its problems. It has more problems than solutions.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

James Hansen, world's #1 climatologist, warns sea level rise due to global warming is going to be much worse than previous estimates.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/21/1404232/-Climate-Bombshell-Sea-...

"...even 2 degrees Celsius of global warming may be "highly dangerous" for humanity... projects sea levels rising as much as 10 feet in the next 50 years..."

"...The paper notes there is evidence indicating that average temperatures just 1 degree Celsius warmer than today caused sea levels to rise 16 to 30 feet and fed extreme storms thousands of years ago.

Hansen and 16 co-authors drafted the paper as a message to policymakers that current greenhouse-gas reduction goals are not strong enough..."The message for policymakers is that we have a global crisis that calls for international cooperation to reduce emissions as rapidly as practical," wrote the authors..."

Add that to 7 million deaths annually due to fossil fuel pollution and biomass burning pollution. Hansen has been a consistently strong advocate for Nuclear power, and proved in a peer reviewed paper that it has already saved 1.8 million lives. Hansen warns renewables WILL NOT prevent catastophic global warming:

"don't drink the renewable energy kool-aid...it is much less than worthless. If you drink the kool-aid...you are a big part of the problem...The problem is that, by drinking the kool-aid, you are also pouring it down the throats of my dear grandchildren and yours. The tragedy in doing so is much greater than that of Jim Jones' gullible followers, who forced their children to drink his kool-aid. All life will bear the consequences..."

"don't drink the renewable energy kool-aid".

"....The tragedy is that many environmentalists line up on the side of the fossil fuel industry, advocating renewables as if they, plus energy efficiency, would solve the global climate change matter. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

This Easter Bunny fable is the basis of 'policy' thinking of many liberal politicians. Because they realize that renewable energies are grossly inadequate for our energy needs now and in the foreseeable future and they have no real plan. They pay homage to the Easter Bunny fantasy, because it is the easy thing to do in politics.

It will be a tragedy if environmentalists allow the illusion of ‘soft’ energies to postpone demand for real solution of the energy, climate and national security problems. Solar power is just a small part of the solution. Subsidies yielding even its present tiny contribution may be unsustainable..."

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

This is how you solve the Climate Change crisis:

"....At that point, we’ll be back to the 1940s can-do, will-do, mindset. The attitude that anything is possible. I really don’t think most people understand how countries mobilised and committed themselves during World War II. Winning was everything — it was a matter of life and death — the difference between the survival or downfall of a nation and political ideology. Military spending went from 2 — 5 % of GDP to 35 — 60 % for the major powers. The US diverted most of its automobile factories to making an extraordinary 300,000 planes and a vast naval fleet (the emergency shipbuilders). Russia produced over 50,000 T-34 tanks within the space of a few years, and threw millions of men against the German war machine, losses be damned. Japan was going to fight tooth-and-nail on the home islands, with millions of projected causalities,.."

"...If society realises that it has to build 10,000 nuclear power plants in a period of 20 years, then it’ll do it (as others have pointed out, things happened incredibly fast in the early years of nuclear power — the first 15 years saw a staggering rate of technical development). We’ll find the way to make it happen — of that I have little doubt...."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2015/05/15/potential-for-worldwide-displaceme...

"...I’ve just had published another new open access paper on energy policy, this time in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE. You can read it in full here..."

"...Our results indicate that a replacement of current fossil-fuel electricity by nuclear fission at a pace which might limit the more severe effects of climate change is technologically and industrially possible—whether this will in fact happen depends primarily on political will, strategic economic planning, and public acceptance.

I think this is a genuinely exciting finding—yes we can!"

And save at least 400 million lives over the next 50 years, probably much more accounting for the catastrophic effects of climate change, like mass starvation. And massive and permanent loss of land due to the predicted sea level rise - makes Fuku + Chernobyl and multiply by 100X, look like a bad rainy day.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

You still have not answered the questions.

How do you propose to do this nuclear renaissance?

People do not want to live near a nuclear plant.

They take huge quantities of cooling water.

Banks will not finance them unless the Government guarentees the loan.

You say that Utilities do not want to build them.

They have a strong record of being extremely over schedule and over budget.

They do not have a good safety record.

Many of the existing plants have had operational problems that have caused years of shutdown.

Many existing plants have been shutdown early due to operational problems.

There is no solution with the spent fuel storage.

You cannot leave fuel that is dangerous for 10000 years remain in dry casks that are licensed for 40 years.

There is not even a good solution for the normal day to day radwaste that they produce. Has the Government ever gotten the New Mexico repository operational that was shut down due to canisters leaking? The leaking was caused by kitty litter that caused corrosion.

They have a 40 year schedule for decommissioning when they are finished. Basically pawning off all of the dirty work and spent fuel to the next generation.

These are just a few of the problems. How do you propose to overcome them?

Also if your figures added up at all they would not have recently shutdown Kewaunee, San Onofre, Crystal River and Vermont Yankee. In previous years they shut down many others for economic reasons.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Read post #70.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

French state faces €5bn bill to rescue struggling Areva

©AP

Areva nuclear power plant site in Tricastin, southern France

The French government could be required pay as much as €5bn to rescue the struggling state-controlled nuclear group Areva as part of a deal that is set to reshape the country’s energy sector.

Areva and EDF are in the midst of tense, last-minute discussions ahead of key board meetings on Wednesday, where the two groups — both more than 85 per cent owned by the state — need to find a wide-ranging agreement.

MoreON THIS TOPIC

IN ENERGY

Sign up now

FirstFT is our new essential daily email briefing of the best stories from across the web

The negotiations, which concern the price EDF will pay for Areva’s reactor businesses and fuel treatment contracts, will shape how much France’s cash-strapped state has to put in to recapitalise Areva.

People close to the talks say that the government could be forced to contribute as much as €4bn-€5bn to a capital raising expected in September, far more than the €2bn-€3bn that ministers had hoped for just a few months ago.

Relations between EDF and Areva are strained. Philippe Varin, Areva’s chairman, last week wrote a letter to the government warning that the whole deal was in danger of falling apart.

The two companies, which both report half-year results on Thursday, need to agree on the price for Areva’s reactor unit, called Areva NP.

According to people close to the talks, the expectation is that the unit will be valued at about €2.7bn, more than the €2bn expected last month, but EDF, which operates France’s 58 nuclear plants, will take only about 75 per cent of the equity in the company.

This would leave Areva with a 25 per cent stake of Areva NP. But then it would receive roughly €700m less cash, and the shortfall would probably need to be made up by the state in the capital raising, according to those same people.

Even more tense negotiations are under way over a number of commercial contracts between EDF and Areva, chiefly over the price that EDF will pay for fuel treatment and recycling until 2023.

People close to Areva say that the price being offered by EDF is too low. The French state also has an interest in EDF paying a higher price for this major contract, as more revenue could lead to lower capital needs for Areva.

The third part of the talks is over whether the French state will indemnify both Areva and EDF against any future losses on a construction project in Finland, which has already cost Areva €3.9bn in impairment charges.

Areva has over the past five years suffered from delays to key projects as well as a slump in global demand for new reactors following the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

The company reported a €4.8bn loss last year, prompting the government to step in to try to broker a solution with EDF to save a key player in one of France’s most important strategic industries.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

It just keeps going downhill:

By

REBECCA SMITH

Updated July 27, 2015 8:36 p.m. ET

25 COMMENTS

Building nuclear reactors out of factory-produced modules was supposed to make their construction swifter and cheaper, leading to a new boom in nuclear energy.

But two U.S. sites where nuclear reactors are under construction have been hit with costly delays that have shaken faith in the new construction method and created problems concerning who will bear the added expense.

“Modular construction has not worked out to be the solution that the utilities promised,” said Robert B. Baker, an energy lawyer at Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP in Atlanta and former member of the Georgia Public Service Commission, the state utility authority.

The new building technique calls for fabricating big sections of plants in factories and then hauling them by rail to power-plant sites for final assembly. The method was supposed to prevent a repeat of the notorious delays and cost overruns that marred the last nuclear construction cycle in the 1980s.

It hasn’t worked. Georgia Power Co., a unit of Southern Co. that is building one of the nuclear power plants, reports that construction is three years behind schedule, although it is making steady progress.

“The promise of modular construction has yet to be seen,” said Joseph “Buzz” Miller, executive vice president of nuclear development for Georgia Power.

RELATED

· Corporate Intelligence: What Is Nuclear Power’s Future?

· Nuclear Power Firms Feel Squeeze

· Can the U.S. Government Revive Nuclear Power?

The Georgia plant’s delay will increase the project’s financing costs, potentially adding $319 annually to each residential bill, according to the public interest advocacy staff of the state utility commission. The utility is seeking to recover $778 million in total added financing costs from vendors. It hopes customer bills won’t rise more than 8% to pay for the plant.

Georgia Power expects to spend $7.5 billion for its 46% share in the Vogtle power plant, which is adding two nuclear reactors adjacent to an existing plant near Waynesboro, Ga. That tab is $1.4 billion higher than the spending limit state regulators approved in 2009.

The cost of the V.C. Summer plant that South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. is building near Jenkinsville, S.C., now stands at $6.8 billion for the company’s 55% stake, up $1.1 billion from a 2012 estimate. The company recently agreed to trim its profit margin on the project if regulators approve a revised construction schedule and cost estimate. The commission heard testimony last week but has yet to rule.

Both Georgia Power and South Carolina Electric & Gas are using reactor designs by Westinghouse Electric Co., which is a unit of Toshiba Corp. The utilities say one factor slowing the projects is long wait times for key components from the primary equipment vendor, Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., and CB&I’s subcontractors.

Stephen Byrne, president of South Carolina Electric & Gas, recently told investors his company is in discussions with Westinghouse and CB&I about the cost overruns and who will bear the burden. Utilities want those added costs to be shared, getting vendors to pay for some of the added expense but vendors are examining the claims. “We feel that there’s an opportunity for a settlement in the future,” he said.

Westinghouse said it is working through issues with its new nuclear reactor design that have hampered construction but believes the modular building method will be vindicated as more reactors get built in China and around the globe.

Jeff Lyash, president of CB&I’s power business, said it has been hard to find skilled employees to work on the nuclear reactors and find components. That is because the new plants essentially require the company to revive an entire manufacturing base that hasn’t existed for decades. Since the last major construction cycle in the 1980s, a small number of vendors have only served a replacement-parts market.

Each reactor requires 2,000 modules that must be built to precise specifications and must meet stringent quality requirements of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mr. Lyash said.

“The quality we’re getting now is very good,” he said, adding that CB&I has 240 inspectors and engineers focused on quality control at its main factory in Lake Charles, La., and smaller factories operated by eight U.S. subcontractors.

Less than 40% of the reactor modules have been delivered to plant sites so far, but the construction process should speed up, Mr. Lyash said. The biggest reactor modules weigh up to 2.2 million pounds apiece and stand several stories high. Once those massive units are in place, more people will be able to work simultaneously, accelerating the time it takes to build each reactor.

South Carolina Electric & Gas earlier this month reached a major milestone installing the big module that will contain one of two reactors.

U.S. utilities proposed building more than two dozen reactors five years ago before the shale-gas revolution drove down the price of natural gas and made plants that burn gas a more attractive option for the power industry. Last month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it was folding a division to manage construction of new reactors back into the division from which it was pulled a few years ago, acknowledging a nuclear renaissance hasn’t materialized.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Legend, your persistence is much appreciated. But we can expect ole JerkOff to ignore everything you've dug up as he continues talking over you and past you. And 'round and 'round it goes...

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

Actually I've wondered where he went after Legend started posting his long messages. It seems that he's left the scene.....for awhile maybe?

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Edison will lose this one.By

Southern California Edison is seeking almost $7.6 billion from the Japanese manufacturer of the faulty steam generators that led to the permanent shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear power plant.

Edison’s latest claim is at least $3 billion higher than the utility had previously sought from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, a Tokyo-based firm that reported the latest figure in a statement Tuesday.

How much Edison wins -- if anything -- could be significant to the utility's customers.

Stunning photos, celebrity homes: Get the free weekly Hot Property newsletter

Under a settlement agreement, state regulators assigned Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. customers the responsibility to cover $3.3 billion of the shutdown costs, or 70%, even though Edison installed the troubled replacement steam generators that caused the January 2012 shutdown.

Money collected from Mitsubishi would be split 50-50 with customers, said Mindy Spatt, a spokeswoman for the Utility Reform Network.

"The more Edison gets, the more the customer gets," said Spatt, whose organization advocates for consumers before the California Public Utilities Commission.

On Monday, Edison and three other companies submitted evidence to support their case for a higher payout to the International Chamber of Commerce in San Francisco, which is serving as the arbitrator in the dispute, Mitsubishi stated.

But Mitsubishi maintains that under the agreements for development of the steam generators, its liability is limited to $137 million.

“The allegations and demands made by those parties disregard the history of the contract negotiations and performance and are factually incorrect, legally unsound, and inappropriate,” Mitsubishi said in its statement.

cComments

  • What kind of political corruption is going on in California? We already paid for the decommissioning of the plant. They are all required to have a decommissioning fund that is paid for in the rate over years. Two years ago, this account was going to pay for it. Now we're on the hook? Is...CHRISTOPHEREFELIXAT 9:32 PM JULY 28, 2015

ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS 8

In addition to the reported claim against Mitsubishi for almost $7.6 billion, Edison also has filed about $400 million in claims with the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited, or NEIL, a consortium of power plant owners that provide insurance for the nation’s reactors. Money recovered from NEIL would go to the benefit of Edison customers.

Scott Cunningham, an Edison spokesman, declined to comment about Mitsubishi’s statement because of the ongoing arbitration that requires confidentiality. Cunningham said Edison’s lawyers were determining what, if any, statement the utility would make.

The two nuclear units at San Onofre closed permanently in June 2013, a year and a half after Edison initially closed the defective steam generators. The new $680-million steam generators were found to be defective after one leaked a small amount of radiation.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Why do the rate payers like me, who never wanted the nuclear power plant in the first place, have to pay for the decommission anyway? I found that comment that we already paid for decommissioning of the plant! What IS going on here??

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

They put in a monthly charge in your rate to cover decommisioning. If they put in enough is very difficult to say since they have scheduled a 40 year decomissioning. How good is the crystal ball. Most (if not all) costs in nuclear sky rocket from original estimations.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

The sentence where Mitsubishi says it Liability is Limted to $137 million is probably true. All nuclear contracts are negotiated with Limited Liability. Usually 1 times the amount of the contract. Otherwise you could be sued for billions like SCE is trying to do.

By contact the reporter

Federal regulators dismissed a complaint against Southern California Edison that accused the utility of failing to seek approval for changes to the San Onofre nuclear power plant that ultimately led to the facility’s permanent closure.

In a July 28 letter, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that because the plant is no longer in operation, the complaint filed by the environmental group Friends of the Earth does not need further consideration.

Friends of the Earth had claimed that Edison failed to request a license amendment for changes to the new but faulty steam generators. A small radiation leak in one of the steam generators led the utility to shut down the facility in January 2012. The facility was permanently closed a year and a half later.

San Onofre has “permanently ceased operations and the licensee has permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessels,” wrote William Dean, director of the commission’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “As such, there is no longer a potential for the [San Onofre] Units 2 and 3 steam generators to be operated, and the petitioner’s request for the NRC to order the licensee to submit a license amendment application . . . is moot.”

Southern California Edison praised the decision, stating in a news release Friday that federal regulators already had determined in 2012 that the changes to the new steam generators did not require a license amendment.

“SCE is focused on safely decommissioning San Onofre,” the utility stated.

The commission decision this week likely ends the federal regulator’s look at what went wrong at San Onofre and what, if anything, Edison contributed to the troubles that led to the nuclear plant’s closure.

“What this means is the perpetrator got off the hook,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer who served as the lead witness in the complaint against Edison. “The bad behavior that got them in this mess is not being punished but is being supported.”

The decision comes at a time when Edison is in arbitration for financial compensation of $7.6 billion from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the contractor involved in the changes to the nuclear plant.

Edison alleges that Mitsubishi manufactured "a lemon" and could not fix "defects in its product because they were so fundamental and pervasive."

Mitsubishi does not dispute that the generators failed after being installed as part of a repowering project designed to prolong the life of a facility that provided electricity for more than 1.4 million homes in Southern California.

How the dispute is resolved could help determine whether customers of Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, which jointly own the nuclear plant, remain on the hook for costs related San Onofre’s closure.

As it stands, ratepayers face costs of $3.3 billion toward the plant’s closure, but that could be offset with compensation from Mitsubishi. Whatever Edison can collect from the contractor will be divided 50-50 between the utilities and their customers.

Mitsubishi argues that the contract with Edison limits its liability to just $137 million.

At issue is a decision by Edison to replace the old steam generators at San Onofre in 2010 and 2011 with units that turned out to be faulty. One of the new units leaked small amounts of radiation that forced the shutdown of the facility.

Friends of the Earth argued that Edison should have sought to amend its nuclear operating license for the design changes that ultimately caused problems with the steam generators and led to the radiation leak. The review during the license amendment, the group argues, might have identified the change as a problem.

In addition to compensation from Mitsubishi, Edison is seeking money from the plant’s insurer, Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. The utilities are seeking $433 million from NEIL, including $339 million for Edison.

Edison said all funds recovered from NEIL will go to the benefit of customers.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Is France Ready To Move Away From Nuclear Energy?

By Gaurav AgnihotriJuly 30, 2015 1:43 PM

·

France is the world’s most nuclear dependent country. With 58 nuclear reactors in 19 power stations having a total capacity of 63.2 gigawatts, France is the second largest producer of nuclear energy in the world, second only to the United States.

But unlike the U.S., nuclear energy represents France’s largest source of electricity generation, accounting for around 77 percent of the country’s energy generation in 2014. However, in the last few years, France has witnessed growing public support in favor of developing newer technologies that can reduce carbon emissions and replace nuclear power.

In the year 2012, France’s newly elected President Francois Hollande pledged to reduce his country’s dependence on nuclear power to 50 percent by 2025. This triggered a ‘national debate for energy transition’ in France which lasted for eight months. The National Assembly of France then passed an Energy Transition for Green Growth bill in 2014 which would put a cap on the country’s nuclear power capacity at the current level of 63.2 gigawatts.

Last week saw French Lawmakers finally pass this bill which seeks to cut the country’s growing dependence on nuclear power. With the move, France is following Germany, which decided to significantly reduce its dependence on nuclear energy after the infamous 2011- Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

In order to meet this tough new target, Electricite De France or EDF (which is 85 percent government-owned) would have no other option but to close some of its nuclear power capacity in order to accommodate its new European Pressurized Reactor (EPR), which is currently under construction in Normandy.

The new law further requires France to increase the contribution of renewables in its total energy consumption to 32 percent by 2030. This is in addition to reducing the C02 emissions by 40 percent by 2030 when compared to 1990 levels and also reduce conventional fossil fuel consumption by 30 percent by 2030 from 2012 levels.

Although the law has made it quite clear that France now has to reduce its dependence on nuclear power, there are still several loopholes, as it hasn’t provided a clear manner in which the set target is supposed to be met and there is no specific implementation strategy put in place yet. “This law sets goals, which is interesting, but it doesn't explain how to reach them, postponement of the detailed implementation plans is not a good sign," said Yannick Rousselet of Greenpeace.

“I want France to become a nation of environmental excellence,” said French environmental minister Segolene Royal. She further said that recent steps taken by the French government could create close to 100,000 jobs in the renewable sector.

As the new law has also set a goal of increasing overall renewable energy consumption while also curtailing nuclear power, we can expect some major foreign investments in the French clean energy sector in the coming few years. French energy giant Total has in fact been investing a substantial amount in the solar sector. With its partnership with U.S. based Sunpower, Total might just ramp up its investments in the French solar sector.

It is interesting to note that wind energy also enjoys local public support in France as a 2014-CSA survey revealed that around 64 percent of local people see wind energy as a worthy replacement for nuclear power. According to the European Wind Energy Association, France increased its target for energy generation from wind to 19 gigawatts by 2020 from 8.2 gigawatts in 2014.

France is also the second largest producer of biofuels in Europe after Germany, mostly producing biodiesel. France has already set a goal of blending 10 percent of biofuels with its conventional fuels by 2020. So, with the current push towards renewables one can reasonably expect a surge in biofuel investments as well.

However, the same cannot be said for natural gas, as France is one of the four countries that have banned hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Experts predict that the French natural gas demand might even fall by the year 2020.

France‘s decision to reduce dependence on nuclear power will not go down well with the already struggling nuclear industry, which includes French players like Areva, EDF and GDF Suez. Areva, the world’s largest nuclear company, reported a loss of $4.8 billion in 2014 after it started facing a dip in demand following the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

Areva is one of the most prominent companies in France, so the French government has been trying hard to save the company through a proposed deal with EDF, which involves selling off its reactor and fuel treatment business. According to recent reports, the French government could end up shelling out $5.5 billion to rescue Areva, far more than anticipated.

With its desire to shift away from nuclear energy, France is slowly and steadily preparing itself to adapt newer technologies and eventually move towards renewables. However, this transition requires a clear road map with a clear plan on the systematic closure of its nuclear capacity. Without these, it might take several years (beyond the target dates) for the Energy Transition law to get implemented.

By Gaurav Agnihotri for Oilprice.com

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/2015/08/01/vogtle-nuclear-expansion-to...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

http://www.wsj.com/articles/edf-postpones-flamanville-nuclear-reactor-st...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am
Quote Legend:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/edf-postpones-flamanville-nuclear-reactor-st...

The two links you posted want me to suscribe in order to read the article! Maybe you can post some of the highlights of the article instead of the links since that site doesn't want to share the information unless you suscribe and I'm not going to,

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

That is nteresting I got the link from Google News which takes you to it with out needing to subscribe. Here are the highlights:

PARIS—State-controlled power utility Électricité de France SA Thursday again delayed the startup of its new nuclear reactor in northwestern France to the end of 2018.

The company also raised the estimated cost of construction of the reactor, being built in the town of Flamanville, to €10.5 billion ($11.8 billion), three times the original estimated price tag, and €2.5 billion higher than the previous estimate, EDF’s Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy said Thursday.

The announcement is the latest in a string of setbacks for the project and Areva SA, the government-controlled company that is building the reactor. The reactor was originally meant to start operating in 2012 and cost €3.3 billion.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am
Quote Legend:

That is nteresting I got the link from Google News which takes you to it with out needing to subscribe. Here are the highlights:

PARIS—State-controlled power utility Électricité de France SA Thursday again delayed the startup of its new nuclear reactor in northwestern France to the end of 2018.

The company also raised the estimated cost of construction of the reactor, being built in the town of Flamanville, to €10.5 billion ($11.8 billion), three times the original estimated price tag, and €2.5 billion higher than the previous estimate, EDF’s Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy said Thursday.

The announcement is the latest in a string of setbacks for the project and Areva SA, the government-controlled company that is building the reactor. The reactor was originally meant to start operating in 2012 and cost €3.3 billion.

Thanks for posting the highlights. I hope they are considering and end to the madness! Can't they think of a better use of their money? Like clean renewable and sustainable energy?

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Here's another:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34149392

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

UK is building 11 more nuclear power plants???

http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/13/uk-build-new-nuclear-plants/

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Don't worry- its not all bad news, there are over 1,000 coal fired plants under construction throughout asia. No nukes there.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Remember, these are the same pinheads that are supporting and promoting the use nuclear power in Iran, a land full of sun and wind.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am

withdrawn...

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote stwo:

Don't worry- its not all bad news, there are over 1,000 coal fired plants under construction throughout asia. No nukes there.

Please say it's NOT TRUE!!!!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Its panic caused by irrational fear of nuclear fostered by ignoramouses like MRS Lee that kills-

This spring, four years after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath.

No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by theInternational Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.

But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html?_r=2

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I can thow articles like this at you all day long:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-in-perspecti...

Mind you that the major affect from radiation is cancer. The people that receive the most exposure are the workers. The amount that they can receive (dose) has been lowered dramatically throught the years. For no apparent reason I guess, because the nuclear industry does ZERO to track if any workers come down with cancer. A current employee that comes down with cancer is not a statistic in any way, shape or form. So do you think that any of those workers at Fukushima will be tracked?

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am
Quote Legend:I can thow articles like this at you all day long: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-in-perspective/24730
Why would you? Because I need a good laugh? That is the most vapid pathetic piece I've seen on the topic. By all means- more.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

What's happened, and continues to be happening, at Fukushima is an ever revealing process, at least partly due to its newness as a phenomenon, and certainly partly due to the danger of the materials involved, which make examining what's taking place extremely difficult because of their inherent danger to living organisms. I am ever skeptical of any public relations conclusions produced by the UN-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a proven track record of spinning any information that may contradict its goal of promoting nuclear energy as a safe source of energy world wide.

From NHK News (Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai)

New Findings on Fallout

Nearly 4 years have passed since the nuclear accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant. But even as work proceeds on decommissioning the reactors, experts are still trying to grasp all the details of the disaster. They have made new discoveries about the radioactive substances released from the reactors. In this installment of Nuclear Watch, we tell you what they've found.

------->

Why wasn't the fallout discovered until now?

Several independent panels investigated the accident. Some were appointed by the government... others by the Diet, or private groups.

The members tried to figure out why no one was able to control the situation. They focused on the 4 to 5 days after the disaster, when TEPCO failed to prevent the reactors from melting down.

Are the investigations ongoing?

Radiation levels around the Fukushima Daiichi reactors remain extremely high.

And no one has been able to get close enough to determine what's happening inside. And it's possible there may still be more data to analyze about radioactive substances released from the plant.

This explains why experts believe it will take several decades to get a complete picture of what happened. In the meantime, everyone needs to keep in mind that no nuclear plant is perfectly safe.

That was as of Jan 29, 2015

Here's an recent bit of alarming news that also originated with NHK News Sept. 25, 2015 (my thanks to Antifascist in this post in another forum):

Fukushima: the World’s Never Seen Anything Like This

Quote Robert Hunziker:

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 2 nuclear reactor fuel is missing from the core containment vessel. (Source: Up to 100% of No. 2 Reactor Fuel May Have Melted, NHK World News, Sept. 25, 2015.)

Where did it go? Nobody knows.

Not only that but the “learning curve” for a nuclear meltdown is as fresh as the event itself because “the world has never seen anything like this,” never.

The problem with a core melting and its lethal composition of nuclear materials disappearing into the earth:

Quote Robert Hunziker:

Here’s the big, or rather biggest, problem: Cesium is water-soluble and makes its way into soils and waters as it quickly becomes ubiquitous in a contaminated ecosystem.

Obviously the journalist isn't gearing this article to a monosyllabic-limited audience. For those not familiar with words like "ubiquitous" he means omnipresent. Ooops, that may be too big for some. In other words, it's everywhere in a contaminated ecosystem.

Why is this a new problem and why has the world not seen this one before? He explains Chernobyl and the partial core meltdown. Then he explains the danger of Cesium:

Quote Robert Hunziker:

Categorically, “Long-lived radionuclides such as Cesium-137 are something new to us as a species. They did not exist on Earth in any appreciable quantities during the entire evolution of complex life. Although they are invisible to our senses they are millions of times more poisonous than most of the common poisons we are familiar with. They cause cancer, leukemia, genetic mutations, birth defects, malformations, and abortions at concentrations almost below human recognition and comprehension. They are lethal at the atomic or molecular level,” Steven Starr, senior scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Director, Univ. of Missouri, Clinical Laboratory Science Program, The Implications of the Massive Contamination of Japan With Radioactive Cesium, Speech to NY Academy of Medicine, March 11, 2013.

And in relation to our pro-nuke contributors on this board he raises this point:

Quote Robert Hunziker:

Meanwhile, there is another angle to the nuclear issue. On the opposite side of the anti-nuke crowd it is instructive to note that a sizeable pro-nuke coterie claim nuclear power is safe and also claim that few, if any, serious human health problems have arisen, or will arise, from radiation exposure. In fact, some nuke addicts even claim a “little radiation exposure” is good.

That, however, has been debunked via a recent (July 2015) landmark study concluded by an international consortium under the umbrella of the International Agency for Research on Cancer / Lyon, France where a long-term study for low radiation impact was conducted on 300,000 nuclear-industry workers. The study proves, beyond a doubt, there is “no threshold dose below which radiation is harmless.” Any amount is harmful, period.

Nevertheless, here’s one example of the pro-side:

“The Fukushima incident will continue to attract media attention for some time to come, I imagine. It has become such a good story to roll with that it will not just go away. However, in sober reflection and retrospection one has to come to the conclusion that far from being a nuclear disaster the Fukushima incident was actually a wonderful illustration of the safety of nuclear power,” Dr. Kelvin Kemm, CEO of Nuclear Africa, Physicist: There was no Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: The Terrible Toll From Japan’s Tsunami Came From the Wave, not Radiation, Cfact, Oct. 12, 2013.

So back to this recent revelation of missing core materials from that Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 2:

Quote Robert Hunziker:

Regardless of whom to believe, it is now known for a fact, a hard fact, that Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 2 is missing its fuel within its core containment vessel. This leads to a world of unknowns, and the biggest question is: What can be done about a full meltdown should it occur (maybe it’s already occurred)? Then what?

A full meltdown would involve all of the fuel in the nuclear plant core melting and a mass of very hot molten material falling and settling at the bottom of the reactor vessel. If the vessel is ruptured, the material could flow into the larger containment building surrounding it, which is shielded by protective layers of steel and concrete (Ferguson).

“But if that containment is ruptured, then potentially a lot of material could go into the environment,” according to Charles Ferguson, president of the Federation of American Scientists (Source: Mechanics of a Nuclear Meltdown Explained, PBS Newshour, Science, March 15, 2011.)

What does a lot of material going into the environment really mean?

Sources claim deadly Cesiun-137, which is only one of many dangerous isotopes, is water-soluble and makes its way into soils and waters, as it quickly becomes ubiquitous in the ecosystem. The question thus becomes would a full meltdown turn lose this deadly isotope, as well as others, on the surrounding environment? Frankly, it kinda seems like it would.

Nobody knows whether Fukushima morphs full meltdown into Mother Earth, although the signposts are not good, and not only that but nobody knows what to do about it. Nobody knows what to do. They really don’t.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

@ .ren your favorite source:

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University)

has zero qualifications in any nuclear or radiation field. He simply doesn't understand even the basics of radiation health physics, nuclear fission or nuclear power.

They've known for years now that #2 reactor core melted down and sloughed into the bottom of the pressure vessel, might have even penetrated the pressure vessel bottom onto the concrete containment. Wow! How scary that is. So what?

For real unbiased scientific knowledge, try Wade Allison:

Emeritus Professor of Physics at Oxford University. Author of Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear.[1]

http://atomicinsights.com/radiation-is-not-a-big-threat-to-mankind-dr-wa...

http://www.radiationandreason.com/

http://www.radiationandreason.com/uploads//enc_DefinitiveRandRSept19Dist...

"...Dr. Wade Allison, the author of Radiation and Reason addressed the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ) Food Safety meeting on October 3, 2011. Unlike Arnie Gundersen (sometimes misspelled as Gunderson), an unlicensed nuclear engineer from Vermont who has been working hard for several months to encourage an unreasonable fear of radiation, even at low dose rates, Dr. Allison is on a mission to reassure people..."

"...

Wade Allison explains, in simple terms and without using fancy maths, how radiation affects life. He is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford with 40 years of teaching experience.

His account challenges the traditional view that nuclear radiation is hard to understand and an extreme hazard. Modern scientific and medical evidence makes it obvious that this view is wrong -- but how dangerous is ionising radiation? Thanks to evolution, biology protects life and radiation is about a thousand times safer than suggested by current international safety standards -- but readers should look at the evidence for themselves and make up their own minds.

A little nuclear radiation is quite harmless and in a world of other dangers -- social and economic instability, global warming, population growth, shortages of power, food and water -- the pursuit of the lowest possible radiation levels is in nobody's best interest. Levels should be permitted as high as is relatively safe (AHARS). Radiation, far from being a major cause of cancer, is one of its major cures through radiotherapy applied in every major hospital.

Without justification great damage has been inflicted on public health and economic life in Japan as a result of the accident at Fukushima. Throughout the world the intention of many countries to abandon the use of nuclear power or load it with ever greater safety regulation and cost is unnecessary, and even dangerous to the future of mankind. Evidently there should be a complete change of approach by the United Nations towards radiological safety..."

James Conca is also an actual expert on Nuclear Energy, Is Radiation Necessary For Life?:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/09/23/is-radiation-necessary...

Climate Scientists Get Respect, So Why Don't Nuclear Scientists?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/05/14/why-dont-nuclear-scien...

"...When we talk about climate change, we point out that 97% of climate scientists agree that we are in a warming period and that we need to act.

When we converse about biological evolution, we acknowledge that 100% of geologists understand that biological evolution has been acting on Earth for the last 4 billion years.

When we discuss medical science, we understand that 99% of physicians agree that everyone needs to be vaccinated.

When we discuss war, we listen to generals, diplomats and other “experts” on the subject.

But whenever nuclear energy is discussed on TV or in the news, the nuclear science community is never referenced, in fact, there rarely is a real nuclear scientist present. Only anti-nuclear activists.

Why?

Even when climate change appears on the news, often a climate denier is invited just for balance.

But not with nuclear.

As a research scientist, a geologist and a nuclear scientist, this is really annoying. And sad. Nuclear is such a complicated scientific discipline that it is insane not to tap this group of scientists if you want to know the reality. Because without them, you will not get any real understanding of this subject.

Part of the problem is the small number of nuclear scientists and the few nuclear programs left at universities. Because of this, nuclear scientists are just not very visible.

But it’s even more insidious for nuclear..."

"...Scientists do not get into science to make money. It takes too much dedication and love of science to go through 10 years or more of education, mostly in poverty, to get a PhD that doesn’t pay very well anyway. My first job as a PhD paid $20,000/year. The next year that went up to $21,000.

But nuclear scientists are routinely accused of selling out to someone or something, and sometime it gets pretty nasty. I guess the mainstream media buys off on this and doesn’t care to delve into it.

One reason for this might be that there is no constituency for nuclear. No Texas like there is for oil. No West Virginia like there is for coal. No Pennsylvania like there is for natural gas. There is no congressional delegation that cares much. Even though nuclear energy produces most of our low-carbon energy and provides more economic development per kWh produced than any other energy source..."

"...last week the Presidents of 39 scientific and international societies signed a pro-nuclear declaration for addressing climate change. The Nuclear for Climate Declaration was introduced during the International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants in Nice, France, and re-iterated that nuclear power is vital to fighting climate change. These societies represent 50,000 members from 36 countries (American Nuclear Society).

The declaration urges all countries to access “the widest possible portfolio of low-carbon technologies available, including nuclear energy, in order to reduce CO2 emissions and meet other energy goals.” It further calls on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) protocols to “recognize nuclear energy as a low-carbon energy option, and to include it in its climate funding mechanisms, as it the case for all other low-carbon energy sources.”..."

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am
Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

.ren your favorite source:

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University)

has zero qualifications in any nuclear or radiation field. He simply doesn't understand even the basics of radiation health physics, nuclear fission or nuclear power.

They've known for years now that #2 reactor core melted down and sloughed into the bottom of the pressure vessel, might have even penetrated the pressure vessel bottom onto the concrete containment. Wow! How scary that is. So what?

What is my name doing in your post?

If you want to dismiss what a journalist writes on that lack of expertise basis, my name does not need to be involved.

The American Nuclear Society/Sourcewatch

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-america-s-newest-nuke-p...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

America: Meet Your Overlord Rupert Murdoch...

Thom plus logo The main lesson that we've learned so far from the impeachment hearings is that if Richard Nixon had had a billionaire like Rupert Murdoch with a television network like Fox News behind him, he never would've resigned and America would have continued to be presided over by a criminal.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system