+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: robbrogers
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7843
Total Topics: 220
Most Online Today: 16
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Nuclear Insecurity Today  (Read 1370 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2015, 09:35:32 pm »
PR:Oak Ridge Bomb Plant Cost Soaring Towards $10 Billion

OREPA releases cost estimate for Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee


— Bomb Plant to cost $10 billion or more, NOT $6.5 billion —

Says Senator Lamar Alexander shields bomb plant from scrutiny and withholds information from public


Tuesday, September 8, 2015
 Oak Ridge, Tennessee

The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance’s UPF Accountability Project today released a $10 billion cost estimate for the Uranium Processing Facility bomb plant slated to be built at the Y12 Nuclear Weapons Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

OREPA’s cost estimate, based on the cost of the bomb plant design through FY2016, reveals the current assurances of Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and the National Nuclear Security Administration to be deceptively erroneous.

“They are lowballing the actual cost of the project,”
charged OREPA coordinator Ralph Hutchison. “And they are withholding information from the public about the money they have already spent. They know there is no way in the world they will build the UPF for $6.5 billion, even though they’ve scaled back the project and shifted major pieces to other lines in the budget. Still the UPF is on a trajectory to cost more than ten billion dollars.”

OREPA’s calculations, explained in the September 2015 UPF Update, are based on the simple calculation of total project cost from the cost of design.

“Our number is actually conservative,” said Hutchison. “We are cutting them slack because the UPF is a complicated project. And we’re not counting the first half billion dollars plus they spent on their first two designs.”

By the end of FY 2016 (September 30, 2016) the UPF bomb plant design team will have spent more than one billion dollars on the current design (since November 2013). The industry standard for calculating design cost as a fraction of total project cost is 3.5%; for complex projects, it can be as high as 6.5%.

“We’re saying the UPF design may be 10% of the total cost—which means the whole thing will cost over $10 billion. If they come in closer to the industry standard, the total cost will be even higher. And the longer they take, the more it will cost.”

Quote
The Uranium Processing Facility has been plagued by mismanagement, runaway cost projections, and schedules that recede toward infinity. It continues, year after year, to be listed on the Government Accountability Office’s “High Risk Projects” list.

Despite the problems, the UPF continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget.  Rather than be accountable to the public for the money it is spending, the UPF project managers and contractor representatives hold secret meetings with Senator Alexander, chair of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. The subcommittee holds the purse strings for the UPF.

The NNSA has declined to provide any numbers or cost projections related to the UPF, saying it will wait until the design is 90% complete before hazarding a guess about the total cost.

OREPA also wrote to Senator Alexander on Friday, September 4, demanding accountability for the money spent so far on the UPF design. “We still live in a democracy,”    Hutchison said, “Even here in Tennessee. In a democracy, taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going. And the government has a duty to disclose.”

## The UPF Update, September 2015 is available here.
## The letter to Alexander is available here.

For more information: Ralph Hutchison +1 865 776 5050




 The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance works to stop nuclear weapons production at the Y - 12 Nuclear Weapons Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This is a tightly moderated list which includes a wide range of members from across the country. It is strictly limited to matters of concern to OREPA and its work to abolish nuclear weapons.

http://www.nuclear-heritage.net/index.php/PR:Oak_Ridge_Bomb_Plant_Cost_Soaring_Towards_$10_Billion
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2015, 06:53:50 pm »
I was googling articles on the viability of storing high-grade nuclear waste under the ocean beds and it would seem this idea while challenging could be feasible. What is more due to characteristics of the ocean bed it would not require any further active measures to contain the radioactive waste. In some of the ocean beds the rock formation share a number of favourable characteristics namely they are not permeable to water absorption but can absorb any leaks from the canisters themselves. In addition they have a natural plasticity meaning that any breaches in the containment would be sealed by the actual rock formation. Finally if there are number of highly stable regions that have not shown any notable seismic activity in tens of millions of years which is a long enough time-frame to make these materials inert.

In the end these measures will face a lot of political and social opposition and this is before you consider the international laws in place. I do know that the London Convention does not place a distinction between conventional ocean dumping and the placement of waste under the sea bed. However that treaty is due to expire around 2018 so in theory you could have enough time to get this idea of the ground provided you plug it in the right places. One of the disadvantages mentioned about this method is that it becomes difficult to retrieve the waste at a later date. However even that is not impossible. For example most of the proposed solutions to this disposal involve vitrification of the waste (to make the waste safer and less prone to nuclear proliferation) and then using rigs similar to oil extraction to bore holes in the actual ocean floor. Those regions are marked in some measure so if those vessels need to be recovered at a later date it could be possible.

Monsta,
As to the "feasibility" of the new scam to fleece the taxpayers, I suggest you try real hard to understand that the designers of these nuclear power pants knew damned good and well, WHEN THEY WERE DESIGNING THEM, that the day would come when they couldn't suck more electrical energy from fuel assemblies for PRIVATE corporate profit.

So NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, the "feasibility" of vitrification, reprocessing or baby sitting in underground caves (all techniques are DECADES old already - they just haven't suckered all of us to pay for them YET), ALL of which will be PAID for by SOCIALIZED (i.e. we-the-people) is being "pondered".

This is not hard, Monsta. The people that PROFITED by owning STOCK in those nuclear power should be required to PAY for any baby sitting or reprocessing of "waste" radionuclide fuel assemblies, PERIOD.

After EVERY CENT those stockholders (the records over the past 60 years clearly contain everybody, including pension funds, who fed at that trough so they CANNOT hide) made in profits is spent taking care of the nuclear CRAP, then, and ONLY THEN, can we discuss the feasibility of making ALL OF US foot the bill for that TOXIC WASTE.

People are getting just a little tired of the old "Privatize the profits and socialize the costs" BALONEY.

While you are Googling, I suggest you look up boondoggle.

The other rather important aspect of the Manhattan project is that it was the beginning of the secret, behind-the-scenes shadow government that now controls everything in the West. Until then, we had pretty good transparency built into our system. From the Manhattan Project, we got NSA, CIA, USMIC, and a load of other nasty little acronyms that all mean secret government.

I suggest we store a couple of truckloads of nuclear waste in the basement of any government building whose occupants work for departments with initials like that.

As long as the stockholders who profited from the utilities that ran those nuclear power plants are the only people taxed to pay the costs, I agree.   
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2015, 08:35:44 pm »
Monsta,
As to the "feasibility" of the new scam to fleece the taxpayers, I suggest you try real hard to understand that the designers of these nuclear power pants knew damned good and well, WHEN THEY WERE DESIGNING THEM, that the day would come when they couldn't suck more electrical energy from fuel assemblies for PRIVATE corporate profit.

So NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, the "feasibility" of vitrification, reprocessing or baby sitting in underground caves (all techniques are DECADES old already - they just haven't suckered all of us to pay for them YET), ALL of which will be PAID for by SOCIALIZED (i.e. we-the-people) is being "pondered".

This is not hard, Monsta. The people that PROFITED by owning STOCK in those nuclear power should be required to PAY for any baby sitting or reprocessing of "waste" radionuclide fuel assemblies, PERIOD.

Whether we like it or not there is nuclear waste and it has to be tackled somehow. Just because I provide an explanation on how to tackle the waste this doesn't equate to me being an advocate for nuclear energy. It is simply a case of trying to solve a long standing problem. Plus there are means to pay for this privately through some sort of levy system. If the tax payer must foot the bill then there has to be clear guidelines to stopping the plants or/and reducing any subsidy direct or otherwise in the near to medium future. If the technology is truly viable it should be able to stand on its two feet. In any case though this business of nuclear waste needs to be tackled before economic collapse because without abundant sources of energy managing and disposing of this waste gets a whole lot harder. It is boondoggle but this rubbish needs a solution in the near future and waiting will just increase the costs further.

In reality nuclear energy is not compatible with a long energy future and has to be wound down; part of that winding down though will involve tackling the nuclear waste issue though. If the taxpayer has to pay to get this thing wound up then that is bad and should be avoided if possible but if there are no other means it needs to be done as this problem needs to be sorted as quickly as possible. A long delay will just increase the costs for future generations who are unlikely to have the same capacity to deal with this issue.

Yes - it must be "wound down" and "tackled".  I like your semantics or "choice of words" in your comment Monsta.  Are you running for any "office"?   ;D   



        ;D

Hey Monsta, as long you pay for the "tackling", go for it. Nuclear energy was NEVER "cost effective" or a "benefit" to society. I WON'T PAY for other people's TOXIC WASTE, PERIOD. And I do not really care if that leads us to extinction. If you do the crime and want to socialize the time, then to HELL with human society!

And by the way, the effect of future generations is FAR MORE DIRE form burning fossil fuels, but I don't hear you demanding drastic GOVERNMENT FUNDED measures to STOP burning fossil fuels and go to 100% Renewable energy within a decade or so.    

Sorry old chum, I think your position lacks objectivity.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2015, 03:54:31 pm »

Feds rule Entergy must disclose some details of Yankee trust fund use 

Oct. 15, 2015, 5:53 pm by Mike Faher

VERNON  – If Entergy wants to use the Vermont Yankee decommissioning trust fund to pay for expenses such as property taxes, insurance and emergency preparedness, it’s going to have to tell the federal and state governments in advance.

On Thursday, the federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that requiring Entergy to provide such specifics in its notifications “will afford Vermont an opportunity, if it chooses, to dispute a specific disbursement” from the Vernon plant’s trust fund.

The licensing board’s decision is a victory for the state, and it is also an acknowledgment that many legal and regulatory battles – especially regarding controversial disbursements from the trust fund – have yet to be resolved.

“Although Entergy has stated in previous 30-day notices to the NRC that its disbursements are for ‘legitimate decommissioning’ expenses, this proceeding makes clear that Vermont and Entergy define the term differently,” the licensing board wrote.

Vermont Yankee stopped producing power Dec. 29, but decommissioning will take decades as the plant enters a period of extended dormancy called SAFSTOR. The speed of the cleanup process is reliant on how much cash is in the plant’s decommissioning trust fund, and that fund currently contains about half of the estimated $1.2 billion needed to finish the job.

Any use of the trust fund attracts scrutiny: For example, the state and Entergy are battling over the company’s plans to withdraw from the fund for spent nuclear fuel management and property tax payments.

Additionally, when Entergy asked for permission to stop sending 30-day advance notices to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission before dipping into the trust fund, Vermont officials objected on the grounds that the state wouldn’t be able to challenge those expenditures before they happened. The state was granted a hearing on the matter Aug. 31, but Entergy later decided to drop the license-amendment request and continue providing 30-day notifications.

But, as is often the case with Vermont Yankee matters, the argument did not end there. State officials had asked the licensing board to do two things before allowing Entergy to withdraw its request:

• First, the state wanted key parts of the case preserved – specifically the fact that, after much legal wrangling, Vermont had been granted two admissible arguments and a hearing. Otherwise, if Entergy walked away from the matter and refiled the same request later, Vermont “would be starting over again from scratch, without the benefit of the large amount of resources already expended in this proceeding,” officials wrote.

• Second, the state wanted Entergy to give far more detail on “specific expenses” from the trust fund when providing 30-day notices. Currently, the company does not detail its planned expenditures; it provides only the maximum amount it intends to withdraw from the fund during a specified time frame.

Thursday’s ruling by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board serves as the official termination of Entergy’s original license-amendment request, and it grants the state one of its demands – but only in part.

Siding with Entergy, the board declined to preserve any of the license-amendment case for future proceedings. “Vermont has not demonstrated sufficient legal harm to justify the sanction of turning a voluntary withdrawal into a withdrawal with prejudice,” the board wrote.

Also, board members said the state’s specific arguments in this case may not necessarily apply to any future license amendment filed by the company.

But the licensing board leaned toward the state’s point of view by requiring Entergy to specify in its 30-day notices when the company plans to use trust-fund cash for any of six purposes – all relating to issues that state officials had raised in the license-amendment case.

The six trust-fund uses that require disclosure are:

• Payment of $5 million to Vermont as part of a settlement agreement with the state.

• Emergency-preparedness costs.

• Shipments of non-radiological asbestos waste.

• Insurance.

• Property taxes.

• “Replacement of structures related to dry cask storage, such as a bituminous roof.”
(Dry cask storage is the manner in which all of Vermont Yankee’s spent fuel eventually will be stored at the plant site.)

Entergy also must provide advance notice if it plans to use the trust fund for legal fees that were disputed in the license-amendment case.

There was one additional condition imposed by the licensing board – a condition that also had been recommended by the NRC staff: In a mechanism designed to give Vermont more time to respond to future regulatory changes proposed by Entergy, the company “must provide written notice to Vermont of any new license-amendment application relating to the decommissioning trust fund at the time such application is submitted to the NRC,” the board wrote.

In reaction to Thursday’s ruling, Entergy spokesman Marty Cohn said the company “will continue to abide by all NRC requirements, and we’re exploring our legal options.”

Though state officials didn’t get everything they wanted, Public Service Department Commissioner Chris Recchia lauded the licensing board’s decision.

“I am pleased that the licensing board has seen the wisdom of Entergy notifying us of specific expenditures from the decommissioning trust fund,” Recchia said in a statement. “I think this will help us in being able to ensure that the funds are used appropriately and that decommissioning can occur at the earliest possible time.” 


http://vtdigger.org/2015/10/15/feds-rule-entergy-must-disclose-some-details-of-yankee-trust-fund-use/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2016, 12:09:50 am »
Feds won’t stop nuclear plant exemptions 

Jan. 10, 2016, 8:20 pm by Mike Faher

SNIPPET:


BRATTLEBORO – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission won’t change its controversial practice of exempting shut-down plants like Vermont Yankee from federal regulations governing emergency operations, trust fund spending and other issues.

That’s the word from NRC Chairman Stephen Burns in a new letter sent to federal lawmakers from Vermont and Massachusetts.

http://vtdigger.org/2016/01/10/feds-wont-stop-nuclear-plant-exemptions/

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2016, 10:10:41 pm »
Groundwater problem emerges at Vermont Yankee

Feb. 3, 2016, 5:29 pm by Mike Faher

Vermont Yankee 2010
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon. File photo
(at link)

VERNON — Greater-than-anticipated amounts of groundwater — 90,000 gallons so far — are encroaching into a key building at Vermont Yankee, and plant administrators are weighing options to deal with the contaminated liquid.

Those options include shipping the water — which an official described as having “slight radioactive contamination” — to an out-of-state storage facility. There also has been preliminary talk of releasing water that is within allowable pollution limits into the Connecticut River, though state officials say they’ve not received any request to do so from plant owner Entergy.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission also is monitoring the water situation, and it appears to be improving: The agency noted in a recent inspection report that “the groundwater intrusion rate has slowed considerably” at the nuclear plant’s turbine building, and there is still excess storage capacity to handle it.

“Our inspectors will continue to track Entergy’s efforts to address the issue, but it does not pose any threat to public health and safety,” NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said.

Entergy spokesman Marty Cohn said that, while the amount of water is unexpected, the issue itself was part of the company’s decommissioning plans and will not cause any significant additional costs. “We anticipated this water management program in our decommissioning costs estimate,” Cohn said. “All we’re doing now is figuring out how to dispose of it.”

Vermont Yankee ceased producing power in December 2014, and Entergy has spent the past year preparing the plant for an extended period of dormancy that will precede decommissioning. The NRC says Yankee is in a “post-operation transition phase.”

Last year, the NRC pulled its resident inspector from the plant. But the agency continues to visit and inspect the site. The most recent quarterly inspection report, dated Jan. 28, was based in part on two site visits and identified “no findings of safety significance.”

Within that report, however, is a paragraph saying the plant’s “radioactive water inventories were increasing due mainly to the intrusion of groundwater.” An NRC inspector “determined that VY is considering options regarding future disposal of on-site radioactive water inventory and is also considering options for future action to further mitigate groundwater intrusion,” the document says.

Sheehan said the issue is ongoing. Since the plant shut down, “Vermont Yankee has experienced greater groundwater intrusion into the lowest level of the turbine building,” he said. “Generally, the groundwater totals a few hundred gallons a day, though there are occasional spikes, including one recent day when the amount rose to about 1,500 gallons.”

He cited increased rainfall as one factor. A bigger problem is that the plant is no longer operational, since higher temperatures from power production had led to greater evaporation of intruding groundwater in the past.

Sheehan said Entergy has been working to slow the flow by hiring a contractor to seal cracks in the turbine building and drilling “interceptor wells” nearby. Cohn clarified that those are not deep wells, but rather horizontal holes that act as drainage routes. “What you’re trying to do is redirect the water,” Cohn said.

The NRC inspection report says Entergy is tracking the plant’s water inventory daily, and Sheehan said the company has been pumping and storing groundwater — about 90,000 gallons at this point. He characterized the liquid as having “slight radioactive contamination” after having come into contact with the turbine building.

Cohn said the location of the water is what dictates its contamination status. “Any water that comes into the protected area — rain, etc. — becomes part of our onsite radioactive water inventory,” he said. “We have to come up with ways to dispose of it.”

The NRC says Entergy is developing a radioactive water management plan for Vermont Yankee. Its scope will extend beyond the current groundwater intrusion issue; Sheehan said the site has more than 1 million gallons of radioactive water. That includes water in the torus, a doughnut-shaped reservoir at the base of the reactor building, and in a condensate storage tank.

Shipping radioactive water away from the plant appears to be the most immediate proposed disposal solution.

“One element of this plan would be to ship approximately 200,000 gallons of the torus water to U.S. Ecology Inc. in Idaho by truck for disposal,” Sheehan said. “Entergy last month submitted an exemption request to the NRC seeking approval for these shipments.” It wants an answer by April 15, he said.

While such a shipment falls under federal regulations, state officials say they are aware of Entergy’s request and want to keep an eye on any transfer of radioactive water. “We’re evaluating what kind of monitoring we would want to do,” said Trey Martin, deputy secretary of natural resources.

Some of the water could end up in the Connecticut River. “All nuclear power plants are allowed to discharge slightly radioactive water to adjoining waterways provided the radioactivity is within allowable federal limits,” Sheehan said.

Any proposed discharges would be likely to cause controversy, and they would be regulated by the state. Martin said his agency has no permit requests to review, so he can’t take a position on the matter at this point.

“(Entergy) would have to come to us to talk about a discharge,” Martin said. “If they do come to that, we’ll obviously take a very hard look at that.”

Also watching closely is Bill Irwin, the state Health Department’s radiological and toxicological sciences chief. At a meeting in Brattleboro last week, Irwin made the case for ongoing, intensive Vermont Yankee groundwater monitoring by both Entergy and the state.

“We certainly are interested in what’s occurring there relative both to the groundwater into the turbine building” and Entergy’s disposal plans, Irwin said Wednesday. “Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of information about that, and I’ve asked for additional information.”

http://vtdigger.org/2016/02/03/groundwater-problem-emerges-at-vermont-yankee/

Agelbert NOTE: The Vermont wit and humor is showcased below in EXCELLENT comments.     


Quote
Bob Stannard 

I wonder if Neil Sheehan has ever stopped to think about how many times he’s said “it’s just slightly radioactive”? How much radiation is safe? Zero. There is no such thing as a safe level of radiation. Much like the lead poisoned water we’re hearing about radiation is cumulative. The more you get; the more you get to keep.

Meanwhile, Entergy is doing what it planned to do all along; confiscate as much of the decommissioning fund as possible and abrogate as much responsibility as possible. They would walk away from all of these old, leaking plants if they could. I’ve never had much faith in Neil Sheehan taking any action that was in the public’s best interest.

The NRC is funded by the industry it oversees. In Vermont we call that rabbits watching over lettuce.  ;) ;D


Quote
Terry Allen

Hi there Vermont, Martin Shkreli here (of 5000% price boost on life-saving drug fame) and I have a solution for you guys for the radioactive groundwater challenge. You are looking at it all wrong!! It is NOT a problem. It is an opportunity. Instead of trucking the radioactive toxic waste water to Idaho, send it to Flint, MI, and sell it to the local populace there. First of all it’s safer than their lead-contaminated water they have been drinking, and second, the health consequences are less documented and further out into the future, when likely Entergy will have figured out how to wash it’s hands (in Perrier) of the whole thing before any law suits wend their way to settlement. Win, win win win, win. Glad to help. The consulting bill is in the mail.  

    Reply
    Greg Morgan

This is not a big problem – and one that has already been solved. Post 3 Mile Island, SNL’s Garrett Morris entered the reactor building with a mop and bucket. Problem solved. I looked for a link to the skit, but couldn’t dig it up. One of my SNL favorites. I am a bit worried about proposing this, fearing that it might be picked up as a good idea!?  ;)

   Reply 
   Jon Warren Lentz

Ship the tainted water to D.C. & plumb it to the Senator’s & Representative’s  drinking fountains.  :D
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2016, 07:06:31 pm »


State will allow nuclear critic’s testimony in fuel case 

Feb. 14, 2016, 12:58 pm by Mike Faher

http://vtdigger.org/2016/02/14/state-will-allow-nuclear-critics-testimony-in-fuel-case/

Agelbert Note: The Entergy nuclear power Welfare Queens are not happy campers. GOOD!   
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2016, 03:45:13 pm »

7 Top NRC Experts Break Ranks to Warn of Critical Danger  at Aging Nuke Plants

Harvey Wasserman | March 9, 2016 11:48 am

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/09/nrc-experts-warn-dangers-nuclear/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2016, 06:33:47 pm »
Nuclear Waste Ship MV Sigrid Runs Aground  :P in Sweden

April 8, 2016 by gCaptain

The MV Sigrid is designed to transport up to 12 nuclear waste containers. Photo: SKB

A Swedish cargo ship designed to haul radioactive waste ran into a little trouble Friday outside the harbor of a decommissioned nuclear power plant in southeastern Sweden.

The Swedish Maritime Administration confirmed that the MV Sigrid had a pilot on board when it ran aground at about 8 a.m. as it approached the Barsebäck nuclear power plant.
Barsebäck nuclear power plant

The ship was not carrying any dangerous cargo  , the administration and the ship’s owner confirmed. 

Wind at the time was about 10 to 12 knots.

A tugboat, two coast guard vessels and a ship inspector from the Swedish Transport Agency were sent to assist the vessel, confirming that no oil was leaking from the ship.

By noon, a tug was able to free the Sigrid and pull it into deeper water. Within a few hours, divers were able to confirm that there was no damage to ship’s hull or propellers.

The cause of the grounding is under investigation.

The nuclear cargo vessel MV Sigrid was delivered in 2013 by Damen’s Galati Shipyard in Romania to the Swedish Nuclear Waste Management Company (SKB).

The ship was designed to transport radioactive material from Swedish nuclear power plants to SKB’s facilities in Oskarshamn and Forsmark. The vessel can transport up to 12 nuclear waste containers, as well as standard cargo containers or special trucks.

The Barsebäck Nuclear Power Plant has two reactors that have been decommissioned since 1999 and 2005, respectively. 

https://gcaptain.com/nuclear-waste-ship-mv-sigrid-runs-aground-in-sweden/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2016, 04:35:31 pm »
(German) Federal Ministry for the Environment / Süddeutsche Zeitung

"Target mark 2031"

Germany’s federal cabinet has agreed on a law that is aimed at facilitating the search for a final repository for the country’s nuclear waste by 2031, the Federal Ministry for the Environment has said in a press release. Environment minister Barbara Hendricks said that “historically speaking”, the law perhaps was her most important one in this legislative period and was going to “put an end to the nuclear waste chaos”, Michael Bauchmüller writes in Süddeutsche Zeitung. According to Hendricks, the search conducted over the next 15 years is going to be based on “broad and transparent public participation” and will be conducted across Germany. “The search for a nuclear repository is not going to be any easier now”, Bauchmüller says, but “its much debated start is coming closer”, he adds.

For background read the CLEW factsheet What to do with the nuclear waste – the storage question.

 
Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz

“Living a lie”

The problem of finding a final repository for Germany’s nuclear waste does not have “a solution in the true sense of the word, but only makeshift at best”, Reinhard Breidenbach writes in an opinion piece for Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz. Advocates of nuclear power production have been “living a lie” from the beginning, Breidenbach says, adding that the technology “actually does not help with anything but only creates absolutely inacceptable risks”. The “so-called temporary storage” was a “highly explosive farce” many generations to come are going to be burdened with, according to Breidenbach.

For background read the CLEW dossier The challenges of Germany’s nuclear phase-out.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/federal-cabinet-agrees-final-repository-law-vw-settlement-deals
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2016, 08:54:07 pm »


December 23, 2016
How Will Trump Wield Obama's Modernized Nukes?   

The President-elect's off-the-cuff, ignorant and inconsistent remarks suggests he's either a cynical war profiteer or a true believer in the American myth that more militarism leads to fewer wars, says Noble Prize nominee David Swanson


http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18012
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2017, 06:21:28 pm »
A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall
Posted on February 1, 2017, by Radio Ecoshock

Extreme rains will breach to unseen levels, says new science led by Dr. David Neelin from University of California. Our cities and farms are not ready. Arnie Gundersen on his trip to Fukushima Japan, and the risks of Trump with the nuclear codes.

http://www.ecoshock.org/2017/02/a-hard-rains-gonna-fall.html

Agelbert NOTE: Don't miss the second half of this audio podcast. Nuclear Engineer describes, including all the trouble he and his wife have endured for telling the truth (isince 1990!), how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOES NOT now enforce the regulations on the books, never mind what Trump wants to do to help the nuke polluters even more.

And ALL the nuke assemblies and parts for nuclear power plants, new or used in the USA, are NOW manufactured in CHINA, so there is NO WAY that building nukes is really going to help Trump bring jobs here anyway.

He also recounts the inhuman behavior of the Japanese government NOW. They will NOT reimburse a doctor that treats a person for radiation sickness (hair falling out, vomiting, bleeding gums)  UNLESS the doctor states the reason for the symptoms is "stress". 



PODCAST AT LINK:


http://www.ecoshock.org/2017/02/a-hard-rains-gonna-fall.html

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #42 on: February 11, 2017, 06:28:05 pm »

New Nukes Make Global Warming Worse: CO2 Smokescreen w/ Arnie Gundersen

Published on Oct 19, 2016


What you’re about to see is a profound presentation that’s taken Fairewinds almost a year to develop. The topic today is the CO2 smokescreen.
I was in the nuclear industry and built nuclear power plants in the 70’s and the 80’s, and I can assure you that when those plants were built, they had absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide and global warming.
The bottom line here is that 35 years in the future, that this nuclear plants that are proposed are only going to mitigate carbon dioxide by about 6 percent. And what I’d like you to do today – I’m going to ignore for the purposes of this presentation the desecration of native lands from mining, the desecration of Fukushima Prefecture and other areas that might be destroyed from nuclear disasters; and also, of course, the long-term storage for a million years of the nuclear waste. So let’s just set all of those liabilities aside and talk about money.
And what I’d like to do for the first half of this presentation is focus on the impact that the nukes that are running right now are having on the environment.
438 plants that the nuclear industry will tell you are critically needed, and if we shut them down, we’re going to melt the arctic ice – are only contributing 3 percent.
So each power plant reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 7/1000’s of 1 percent. (...)
FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE: http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-ene...

CO2 Smoke Screen: New Nukes Make Global Warming Worse uncovers the ludicrously small impact that nuclear power has on saving the Earth from CO2 emissions in contrast to the promises of the atomic power industry. Well received by fellow experts in the field and filmed by award winning photographer Martin Duckworth, the CO2 Smoke Screen is the culmination of one year’s worth of research and hard work by the Fairewinds Crew, Fairewinds science advisors, and a group of amazing interns from the University of Vermont (UVM).

CO2 Smoke Screen: New Nukes Make Global Warming Worse had its debut presentation at the 2016 World Social Forum at the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM). Invited to present both a keynote speech and during workshops, Fairewinds’ Chief Engineer Arnie Gundersen and Program Administrator Caroline Aronson attended the Montreal Forum and made presentations at UQAM and McGill University, where Mr. Gundersen shared a condensed version of the “CO2 Smoke Screen” keynote and addressed the issue of radiation releases from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean.

A groundbreaking presentation like the CO2 Smoke Screen takes time, hard work, and funding for the Fairewinds Energy Education Crew to conduct the necessary research and create the videos, podcasts, and newsletters we share with you.

Your donations to Fairewinds Energy Education non-profit provide the funding necessary to produce work of this quality, and it also feeds the fire to push forward, to do more for you, our viewers and listeners. The information we provide on www.fairewinds.org is free for all to read and share, but it takes money to produce. That’s where you can step in and help support Fairewinds. http://tinyurl.com/gp7yrwy

Keep Fairewinds’ work accessible to all; please donate today! http://www.fairewinds.org/donate

CO2 Smoke Screen: New Nukes Make Global Warming Worse Presentation http://tinyurl.com/zm72d2r

FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE: http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-ene...
~~~~~

or listen here https://soundcloud.com/fairewinds-energy

BONUS LINK: Donald Trump Addresses this topic in the following campaign speech last week: https://youtu.be/PJAjoQ4J5pk?t=56m10s called Donald Trump Disassembles Teleprompter In The Middle Of Campaign Rally In North Carolina! at 56:10 into the video.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #43 on: March 12, 2017, 01:55:24 pm »


Osnabrücker Zeitung

Who wants to live on a nuclear toilet:P
 


The new procedure laid out in the reform bill to search for a final nuclear waste repository is a step in the right direction, but involving the public will not prevent protests, writes Uwe Westdörp in an opinion piece in Osnabrücker Zeitung. “In the end, it will again be a political decision – and there will be many people who will see themselves as the losers, because their home is turned into a nuclear toilet,” writes Westdörp.

Read the opinion piece in German here.


For background read the CLEW dossier The challenges of Germany’s nuclear phase-out and the CLEW factsheet What to do with the nuclear waste – the storage question
.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7673
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #44 on: March 15, 2017, 08:04:06 pm »
Did you know the Radioactive Cesium standards for food in Japan are FAR more stringent than in the USA and Canada?   


SEE BELOW for that and a "Present" in our WATER RADIONUCLIDE STANDARDS that we-the-people were given on behalf of the Nuclear Polluters, BY Obama. the day before Trump was Inaugurated: 
 
 
Thom talks with Kevin Kamps (Radioactive Waste Watchdog - Beyond Nuclear) about the drastic effects of radioactivity still seeping out of the nuclear plant at Fukushima, and reaching our shores and our stores.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/japans-rejected-radioactive-food-ending-your-grocery-store-wguest-kevin-kamps

 

 


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
69 Replies
2955 Views
Last post August 29, 2017, 02:56:59 pm
by AGelbert
4 Replies
501 Views
Last post September 04, 2014, 02:54:38 pm
by AGelbert
1 Replies
204 Views
Last post July 21, 2014, 10:29:36 pm
by AGelbert
0 Replies
109 Views
Last post March 02, 2015, 02:57:28 pm
by AGelbert
1 Replies
102 Views
Last post February 09, 2017, 07:52:40 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Non-routine News by AGelbert
September 25, 2017, 11:06:59 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
September 25, 2017, 10:37:34 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
September 25, 2017, 09:37:40 pm

Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity by AGelbert
September 25, 2017, 09:26:33 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
September 25, 2017, 08:59:44 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
September 24, 2017, 05:22:13 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
September 23, 2017, 06:37:02 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
September 23, 2017, 04:45:57 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
September 23, 2017, 03:34:08 pm

Money by AGelbert
September 22, 2017, 06:05:21 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial