Worst Week Since Fukushima: 4 Major Setbacks In 3 Days Are Latest Stumbles For U.S. Nuclear Power Industry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 9, 2013 12:25 PM

CONTACT: Nuclear Experts Leslie Maloy , (703) 276-3256 orlmaloy@hastingsgroup.com; andAlex Frank , (703) 276-3264 or afrank@hastingsgroup.com.

Reverse Renaissance? Experts Point to 6 Reactors on the Chopping Block and Passage of Anti-Industry Florida Law; Beleaguered Industry’s Woes Start With Bad Economics … and Go Downhill From There.

WASHINGTON – May 9 – Call it the “renaissance in reverse.” Not only is the U.S. nuclear power industry mothballing plans for planned reactors in North Carolina and Texas, it also is now pulling the plug (or threatening to do so) on existing reactors in California. All of that and the passage of anti-industry legislation in Florida happened last week (April 28th-May 3rd), easily the worst single week for the U.S. nuclear power industry since the March 2011 meltdown of nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan.

One day after the closure by Dominion Resources of the Kewaunee Power Station reactor in Wisconsin, three experts held a phone-based news conference today to comment on the recent string of adverse developments for the troubled nuclear power industry.

Peter A. Bradford , adjunct professor at the Vermont Law School, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and a former utility commission chair in New York and Maine, said: “2013 is another year in which the pumps can’t keep up with the rush of water aboard the ‘nuclear renaissance.’ It’s no surprise that any utility executive with a modicum of concern for his customers’ electric bills doesn’t consider this to be the right time to build a new reactor. However, the closing of existing reactors in the face of market realities is something new, suggesting that US nuclear generation may actually have reached a peak a few years ago that it will not attain again in our lifetimes.”

Mark Cooper , senior fellow for economic analysis, Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School, and author of “Policy Challenges of Nuclear Reactor Construction, Cost Escalation and Crowding Out Alternatives” (2009), said: “From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke’s abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. In Texas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. In California, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics.”

Between Tuesday to Thursday of last week, the following things happened:

• On Tuesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ruled that a partnership between NRG Energy Inc. and Toshiba Corp. to build the pair of proposed South Texas Project reactors violates a U.S. law prohibiting foreign control of nuclear power plants. (Seehttp://nukefreetexas.org/downloads/staff_FOCD_determination_letter_43013…and http://nukefreetexas.org/2013/05/foreign-ownership-could-halt-licensing-….) In March, the NRC failed to strike down a similar finding that the proposed Calvert Cliffs-3 reactor project in Maryland is dominated by foreign companies. (Seehttp://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/prcc3commorder31113.pdf.)
• Southern California Edison CEO and President Theodore F. Craver told investors Tuesday that one or both reactors at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations (SONGS) face permanent shutdown if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not move immediately to permit the damaged reactors to go back online without a prior hearing to determine if it is safe to do so. Costs related to the shutdown are now pegged at $553 million, including $109 million spent on inspections and repairs and $444 million for replacement power. Other estimates indicate the San Onofre debacle could cost consumers up to $3 billion. (Seehttp://www.powermag.com/nuclear/Decision-to-Close-SONGS-Nuclear-Reactors… andhttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/may/04/san-onofre-nuclear-plant-near….)
• Duke Energy announced Thursday that it will abandon plans for two nuclear reactors at the Shearon Harris nuclear plant in North Carolina. Duke will seek to make Progress Energy customers, instead of corporate stockholders, pay for this blunder – and will likely try to add a mark-up, with profit, on top of the $70 million spent. (Seehttp://www.ncwarn.org/2013/05/demise-of-harris-nukes/.) This February, Duke announced that it would not repair the damaged Crystal River reactor in Florida. (Seehttp://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Press-Update.html?form_id=8&item_i….)
• Also Thursday, the Florida Senate sent a bill to the governor revising a 2006 law allowing utilities to charge for nuclear reactors that may never be built. To date, the “advance cost recovery” provision has permitted Florida Power & Light Co. and Duke Energy (formerly Progress Energy Florida) to collect more than $1.4 billion from customers. Even with the new legislation, the Sunshine State’s six million ratepayers will have to count on the state’s Public Service Commission to rein in industry abuses on advance cost recovery financing. (Seehttp://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Press-Update.html?form_id=8&item_i….)

Commenting on the setback for nuclear power in California, Daniel Hirsch , lecturer on Nuclear Policy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear policy nonprofit organization, and co-author of a recent study about the severity of San Onofre’s steam generator problems, said: “San Onofre is crumbling. New steam generators in both Unit 2 and 3 failed in just a year or two of operations. Each plant has hundreds of times more damaged tubes than the typical reactor with new steam generators. Southern California Edison informed investors last week that it is likely to close both reactors permanently if it can’t get the NRC to approve restart of Unit 2 with an exemption from the requirement for a prior hearing to determine its safety. That is like a judge in the Old West saying: ‘We’ll hang ‘em now and give ‘em a fair trial later.’ It appears that Edison is convinced that its proposal to restart the damaged reactor without repairing or replacing the crippled steam generators can’t withstand the scrutiny of a safety hearing. Whatever the industry’s hopes for a revival of nuclear power, San Onofre’s steam generators seem to be working in the opposite direction.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of a related news event will be available by 5 p.m. EDT on May 8, 2013 at http://216.30.191.148/worstweek.html.

SOURCE Peter Bradford , adjunct professor, Vermont Law School and Mark Cooper , senior fellow for economic analysis, Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School

###

Widely Opposed Nuclear Plant Moves Forward in India

Published on Monday, May 6, 2013 by Common Dreams

 

While opponents fear Fukushima-like disaster, Judge says “larger public interest should prevail over the minor inconveniences that may be caused to the people.”

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

The Kudankulam Nuclear Plant (Photo: Eunheui/flickr)India’s Supreme Court gave the OK on Monday for a hotly-contested nuclear plant in the state of Tamil Nadu to move towards operation, sparking opponents to vow to continue their fight.

The court ruled the Kudankulam Atomic Plant “is safe and secure and it is necessary for larger public interest,” dismissing a petition over safety concerns at the plant.

According to The Hindu Times, “Justice Dipak Misra said that the larger public interest should prevail over the minor inconveniences that may be caused to the people.”

Opponents fear “the minor inconveniences” could be a Fukushima-like disaster.

The Wall Street Journal reports that environmental activists and local residents have been fighting the plant since it was first commissioned 25 years ago, and that the protests grew after 2011 when Japan’s Fukushima disaster began.

Further, “Opponents of the plant say that it is located in an area which was badly affected by the 2004 Asian tsunami” BBC News adds. 

“The court has let down the people of this country. The Kudankulam Atomic Plant is not an example of sustainable development, rather symbolises disastrous development,” said SP Udhayakumar, founder of the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE).

“The Supreme Court judgement is unjust,” M Pushparayan, also part of PMANE, said following the decision.

But his group is not giving up the fight, saying, “We will talk to our supporters and soon chalk out a plan of action.”

__________________________

Wind produces almost twice as much power as nuclear in California

By John Upton

Shutterstock / Tim Messick

Blowing away the competition in California

When winds were at their strongest in California this month,wind turbines were providing the state with nearly twice as much electricity as nuclear reactors.

The Golden State saw a surge in new wind farms last year, taking its wind power capacity to 5,544 megawatts. That put it second in the nation behind Texas, which has more than 12,000 MW of installed wind capacity.

From the Los Angeles Times:

California also ranks second in the U.S. in the amount of employment associated with the wind industry, with more than 7,000 jobs, the [American Wind Energy Association] said.

Nationally, wind energy production grew 28% in the U.S. last year in what AWEA describes as the industry’s best year to date.

“We had an incredibly productive year in 2012,” said Rob Gramlich, interim chief executive of AWEA. “It really showed what this industry can do and the impact we can have with a continued national commitment to renewable energy.”

The wind isn’t blowing everywhere all the time, so actual electricity production from wind turbines is never as high as total capacity. But storms earlier this month pushed wind power generation in California above 4,000 MW. From Greentech Media:

Winds that reached over 90 miles per hour on mountain ridges blew down through the wind farms in California’s Altamont, San Gorgonio, and Tehachapi Passes and across the state’s wind installations, raising their outputs to a record-shattering 4,196 megawatts on [the evening of April 7], according the California Independent System Operator …

Peak wind output came at 6:44 PM. Total system generation was 23,923 megawatts at the time, making wind 17.5 percent of the state’s electricity supply.

The total system peak output was 27,426 megawatts at 4:07 p.m. that afternoon. In the hour before that, with the total system producing 23,145 megawatts, California got 6,677 megawatts of its electricity, or 28.8 percent, from renewables.

By comparison, the state has two nuclear power plants. Diablo Canyon’s twin reactors are capable of producing up to 2,200 MW of power. San Onofre hasn’t generated any electricity since January 2012, when radiation leaked into the ocean from damaged tubes, althoughregulators are considering allowing operations to resume soon at reduced capacity.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

 

Ameren, Westinghouse to pursue nuclear funds

 

Print Email

Ameren Missouri

 

St. Louis-based Ameren Missouri operates the Callaway Nuclear Plant near Fulton, Mo. Image courtesy Ameren Missouri

 

 By JEFFREY TOMICH jtomich@post-dispatch.com 314-340-8320

 

Ameren expected to compete for nuclear funds

Energy Department continues push for small-scale reactors Read more

Ameren-Westinghouse passed over for nuclear grant

But electric utility and its partner still in running for additional funding. Read more

Five Questions: Ameren’s Adam Heflin talks about the future of nukes

Utility’s chief nuclear officer says small reactors will ‘have their place’ in nation’s energy mix Read more

Westinghouse Electric Co. and Ameren Missouriconfirmed on Monday that they will pursue up to $226 million federal funding for a small-scale nuclear reactor in central Missouri.

The companies sought a similar grant last year. But the U.S. Department of Energy instead chose to fund a consortium led by Babcock & Wilcox, a company known for making nuclear reactors for ships and submarines.

The Energy Department last month requested additional proposals for small modular reactors that could begin producing electricity by 2025. Any funding award requires a dollar-for-dollar match from recipients.

Westinghouse on Monday said it sent a letter of intent to the Energy Department. Applications are due July 1, and the government expects to select a single grant recipient in September.

At least one other company,

NuScale Power, based in Portland, Ore., and majority-owned by engineering and contracting giant Fluor Corp., has also signaled intent to compete for the funds.

Warren Wood, Ameren Missouri’s vice president of regulatory and legislative affairs, said the Westinghouse-Ameren application was runner-up during the initial round of funding and should compete well again this time.

“The Westinghouse SMR design, we think, is the most advanced and the most likely to be license-able in a short period of time,” he said.

The 225-megawatt Westinghouse small modular reactor is based on the company’s full-size AP1000 reactor that has already been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is being built in the United States and China.

Ameren and Westinghouse plan to pursue designcertification of the smaller reactor and then seek a combined construction and operating license for a plant that would be located next to the utility’s Callaway Energy Center.

St. Louis-based Ameren said there’s no guarantee it will build a second reactor at Callaway, even with federal help. But the small reactors are seen as an option to replace aging coal-fired plants.

The smaller reactors, generally less than a third the size of today’s plants, have been touted by President Barack Obama and the nuclear industry as sources of around-the-clock power that would be easier for utilities to finance and deploy and safer to operate.

Because the plants would be built in modules at a central factory and shipped worldwide, they’re seen as a potential new source of manufacturing jobs — a lure that has drawn support from Missouri politicians.

But opponents of nuclear power question whether promised benefits can be achieved, especially because none of the smaller reactors have been built yet and there’s no guarantee they’ll be economically competitive against relatively inexpensive natural gas.

Jeffrey Tomich covers energy and the environment for the Post-Dispatch. Follow him on Twitter at @jefftomich.

Is the next Fukushima in your backyard?

By Tim McDonnell

NRC

Clockwise from top left: Byron Nuclear Station; Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant; Perry Nuclear Plant; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Each experienced a “near miss” in 2012.

Two years ago today, floodwaters from a massive, deadly earthquake/tsunami combo in Japan knocked out cooling equipment at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, resulting in what experts were quick to deign thesecond-worst nuclear disaster in history (after Chernobyl), after radioactive contamination touched everything from tuna to baby formula to butterflies. The $125 billion incident precipitated an identity crisis among the world’s big users of nuclear power, particularly Germany, which was so spooked that itvowed to shut down every one of its nuke plants by 2022.

But here in the U.S., there’s no sign of any impending nuclear phaseout, despite the steady parade of meltdown scares reported in a new study [PDF] by the Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS dug into public data from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nuclear industry’s top federal regulator, and found that in 2012, 12 different nuclear power plants experienced “near miss” events, defined as an incident that multiplies the likelihood of a core meltdown by at least a factor of 10. The reasons range from broken coolant pumps to fires to “failures to prevent unauthorized individuals from entering secure areas;” in some cases aging equipment was at fault, and two plants were repeat offenders. One, a California plant, already ranks high in vulnerability to earthquakes. In most cases, thestudy charges, weak oversight from the NRC was to blame.

The UCS study found nearly 60 such “near misses” over the last three years. Still, the NRC chair told the Associated Press on Sunday that the performance of most nuke plants is “quite good,” and pointed to itsown study [PDF] from last week, which found 99 of the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants to be in top-tier performance.

But UCS Nuclear Safety Program Director David Lochbaum isn’t convinced: “Failing to enforce existing safety regulations is literally a gamble that places lives at stake,” he wrote in the study.

Fracking and a burgeoning renewables sector have put a squeeze on nuclear development in the U.S., but we’re still far and away the world nuclear leader (see chartbelow). Data from the Energy Information Association, an independent federal bureau, show no declining trend in how much electricity we derive from nuclear plants (although post-Fukushima Japan is a different story, as you can see), and President Obama’s new pick to head the Energy Department, Ernest Moniz, has a reputation as a nuclear cheerleader and is supportedby the nuclear industry. The American people apparently kept their cool after the Japan disaster, too: A Gallup poll last year found an identical majority in support of nuclear power both before and after Fukushima.

EIA

This story was produced as part of theClimate Desk collaboration.

Tim McDonnell is a Climate Desk fellow. Read more of his stories here or follow him on Twitter.

ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー

Comment:　Japan has only the Ohi Plant online now (o.002 billion KWh.).

Economic Realities Sap Zeal for US Nuclear Renaissance

The sluggish economy has slowed growth in nuclear power. (photo: Reuters)

By Steven Mufson, The Washington Post

12 March 13

 

wo years after the tsunami that crippled Japan’s Fukushima power complex, the U.S. nuclear industry is facing fundamental and far-reaching challenges to its own future.

Only five years ago, industry executives and leading politicians were talking about an American nuclear renaissance, hoping to add 20 or more reactors to the 104-unit U.S. nuclear fleet.

But today those companies are holding back in the face of falling natural gas prices and sluggish and uncertain electricity demand. Only five new plants are under construction, while at least that many are slated for permanent closure or shut down indefinitely over safety issues.

On Monday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reiterated its refusal to issue a license for a new unit at Calvert Cliffs, Md., that a French company had hoped to make the model for a fleet of reactors. A pair of reactors in Southern California are under scrutiny over whether a major contractor and a utility there concealed concerns about potential cracks in the tubes of a steam generator. And nuclear plants in Wisconsin and Florida are closing down because their owners said they cannot compete with less expensive natural-gas-fired electricity.

Industry officials still make the case for nuclear as a domestic source of energy that does not emit greenhouse gases. “Anyone concerned about global warming should acknowledge that if society seriously aspires to be anti-carbon, it also needs to be seriously pro-nuclear,” Thomas F. Farrell, chief executive of Dominion Resources, said at a recent conference in Washington sponsored by the industry newsletter Platts.

But Caren Byrd, executive director of Morgan Stanley’s global power group, said at the same conference that, on an economic basis, “it is hard to make the case for nuclear.”

One illustration of that is a joint venture called UniStar, formed to build half a dozen identical nuclear units modeled on a new reactor planned at the existing Calvert Cliffs site. But the Atomic Energy Act bars foreign companies from having “ownership, control or domination” of U.S. nuclear plants, which became a problem in late 2010 when Constellation Energy gave up its 51 percent stake in the joint venture and left UniStar wholly owned by Electricite de France.

Since then, UniStar has been unable to find another U.S. partner. On Monday, the NRC reiterated that it would not issue a license to UniStar, which had asked the NRC to overturn the prohibition on foreign ownership.

Low natural gas prices are discouraging other nuclear investors and utilities. “The natural gas issue is terrific for the U.S. economy and energy mix,” John J. Reed, chairman of Concentric Energy Advisors, said at a Platts meeting of nuclear executives. “It just isn’t so good for those of you sitting out there today.”

Dominion, the owner of the Kewaunee nuclear plant in Wisconsin, and Duke Energy, owner of Crystal River Unit 3 in Florida, recently announced plans to permanently close these reactors because of economic factors, even though the plants have licenses extending well into the future. Wind and natural gas are cheaper.

“It’s a fantastic plant,” Farrell said of the Kewaunee unit, which Dominion bought eight years ago. But it failed to renegotiate a power-selling agreement that expires at the end of the year and could not find a company willing to buy the plant. “Unfortunately, the economics just don’t work,” he said.

Meanwhile, safety issues are plaguing a handful of reactors, and three have been closed for more than a year.

NRC inspectors have kept two reactors at California’s San Onofre complex closed since January 2012 amid an inquiry into whether the manufacturer, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and perhaps the utility, Edison International, covered up the danger of cracks in the tubes of the reactors’ steam generators.

The utility has denied any wrongdoing, pointing the finger at Mitsubishi.

Documents released Friday said that Mitsubishi and Southern California Edison, a subsidiary of Edison International, jointly investigated the problem of vibrations that could accelerate wear and tear in the steam generators before they were installed. And the documents, released publicly by the NRC after Mitsubishi redacted them to protect trade secrets, state that the companies did not change the design because it would have triggered a lengthy license amendment procedure with the NRC.

“Each of the considered changes had unacceptable consequences and the AVB Design Team agreed not to implement them,” the document said.

San Onofre’s Unit 2 was taken out of service Jan. 9, 2012, for a planned outage. Unit 3 was taken offline Jan. 31, 2012, after station operators detected a leak in a steam generator tube. The tubes had lasted about a year. The closures are costing Edison International hundreds of millions of dollars. Replacing the steam generating system could also cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The company has asked the NRC to allow Unit 2 to operate at 70 percent of capacity to reduce vibrations, but the NRC has not granted permission.

“Understanding the root cause ... is a problem,” NRC Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane said in an interview. “We are not going to let the plant restart unless we are sure it can operate safely.”

The NRC has also been keeping an eye on a pair of new reactors the Southern Co. has been building at its Vogtle complex in Georgia. Financing costs were lowered sharply by a promise of a federal loan guarantee by the Obama administration and by a Georgia state law that allows Southern’s subsidiary, Georgia Power, to pass much of the cost along to ratepayers while the plant is under construction. Most states require a power plant to go online before customers have to pay for it.

Within months, however, Southern said that as much as $900 million could be added to its subsidiary’s share of the $14 billion cost. An industry consultant, who requested anonymity to preserve his business relationships, said that the contractor put too much space between steel rebar in the foundations at the heart of the new reactors. To resolve the problem,Southern said it created a 1,000-cubic-yard “mock-up” of the site where concrete would be poured.

“NRC inspectors have identified code compliance issues with the rebar design of the basemat and walls, which delayed pouring concrete for the ‘nuclear islands,’ or bases, of the reactors,” Macfarlane said Feb. 28 in testimony before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She said the problems were being resolved and that the companies were planning to start pouring concrete in March.

Despite the relatively stagnant growth of U.S. nuclear power plants, the industry has found ways to maintain its roughly 20 percent share of electricity generation. The NRC has issued 73 license renewals for plants, and operators have figured out ways to improve efficiency and add the equivalent of 24 new 1,000-megawatt units over the past 20 years, according to Farrell.

Many companies are also talking about the possibility of turning to smaller, cheaper reactors. Macfarlane said she expects an application for design certification in 2014.

The NRC is tightening up guidelines for existing U.S. plants as a result of the Fukushima disaster, adding safeguards and measurement devices for spent fuel pools; ordering hardened, more-reliable vents from containment buildings; and requiring greater emergency communications – all areas that failed at Fukushima.

Utilities are already adding new backup generators at or near reactor sites to make sure power to plants does not fail as it did in Fukushima.

Some nuclear industry executives are already raising concerns about the cost of the post-Fukushima proposals, but Macfarlane plans to push ahead.

In December, she visited Fukushima.

“I was at loss for words,” she said. “It was awesome in a way, but in the negative sense, to see these villages. Everything is there. The gas stations, little shops but nobody there, and weeds taking over parking lots. A nice garden with dry dead stuff. Weeds growing over the train tracks.” At the nuclear site, she surveyed tsunami debris and “the rusting carcasses of overturned trucks.”

Macfarlane said the lesson for the NRC might be to raise the level of the urgency it gives to considering rare events, including tornado hazards. “You might fold climate change into this,” she said.

Our Atomic Dominoes are Falling

EDITOR’S BLOG

FEB 16, 2013

 

Two more atomic dominoes have hit the deck.

At least a half-dozen more teeter on the brink, which would take the US reactor count under 100.

But can we bury them before the next Fukushima erupts?

And will we still laugh when Fox “News” says there’s more sun in Germany than California?

Wisconsin’s fully licensed Kewaunee reactor will now shut because it can’t compete in the marketplace.

Florida’s Crystal River will die because its owners poked holes in the containment during a botched repair job.

UBS and other financial experts say Entergy is bleeding cashat Vermont Yankee. After blacking out the SuperBowl, Entergy has no problem stiffing a state that has sued to shut its only reactor.

But in the face being crushed by renewables and gas, themoney men may finally pull the plug.

The same could happen to New York’s Fitzpatrick and Ginna reactors, as well as the two at Indian Point, which need water permits and more from an increasingly hostile state. New Jersey’s Oyster Creek, slammed by Hurricane Sandy, and Nebraska’s Ft. Calhoun, recently flooded, are also on the brink.

The list of crippled, non-competitive and near-dead reactors lengthens daily. Few are more critical than San Onofre Units Two and Three, perched on an ocean cliff in the earthquake-tsunami zone between Los Angeles and San Diego.

More than 8 million people live within a 50-mile radius of where San Onofre’s owners botched a $600 million steam generator replacement. As radiation leaked, they may have lied to federal regulators, prompting US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) to demand an investigation.

After being down more than a year, Unit Three will almost certainly never reopen. Unit Two may well stay shut at least through the summer.

If a rising grassroots movement can bury them both, it will mark a huge turning point in a state where renewables are booming with new revenue and jobs.

Which gets us to the Murdochian weather report. A recent “Fox & Friends” was mystified by Germany’s popular (and very profitable) decision to phase out nukes while turning to solar, wind, increased efficiency and other Solartopian technologies.

Finally, Shibani Joshi figured it out: “They’re a small country, and they’ve got lots of sun. Right? They’ve got a lot more sun than we do.”

The staggering laugh line that cold, dark Germany has more sunlight than a nation stretching from Hawaii to California to Florida could come only from an industry at dangerous odds with the planet on which it malfunctions.

This latest stretch of shut downs does not mean the death of the industry. Both Georgia and Florida are being assaulted with legislation that would allow utilities to build new reactors while ratepayers foot the bill.

And some activists concerned about global warming still dream of carbon-free reactors they hope might someday alleviate the situation.

But they miss the reality that such plants will likely never exist. Every promise this industry has made—from “too cheap to meter” to “reactors don’t explode” to “radiation is good for you”—has turned toxic.

They also forget that a fragile pool laden with enough fuel rods to poison countless millions still sways 100 feet in the air at Fukushima. It remains horrifically vulnerable to seismic activity that could send it crashing down to a permanently contaminated earth.

Overall the industry’s back is dangerously to the wall. We know it will squeeze every last cent from these dying reactors with less and less care for safety, especially since the federal government still insures them against the financial consequences of a major catastrophe. Every day they operate heightens the odds on something truly apocalyptic to follow in the wake of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Meanwhile they continue to spew out huge quantities of heat and waste. They divert precious capital from the proven green technologies that are now revolutionizing our energy economy in the only ways that can possibly save us from climate chaos.

This may yet become the first year in decades that the US has fewer than 100 operating commercial reactors. It will also be the biggest year worldwide for the booming Solartopian industries that are transforming how we get our energy, create our jobs and grow our economy.

Lets just make sure we win that transition before the next radioactive disaster does its worst.

http://www.nukefree.org/

Nuclear regulatory agency chief hints at no reactor restarts until next year

By Mari Yamaguchi

NATIONAL OCT. 14, 2012 – 05:30PM JST ( 1 )

Shunichi TanakaAP

TOKYO —

The head of Japan’s new nuclear regulatory agency says reactors will not be allowed to restart until they pass seismic inspections and meet safety standards to be instituted next year.

Under the new requirements, emergency procedures for accidents and terrorist attacks will become compulsory for nuclear plant operators, Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, said. This follows criticism that collusion between the plant operators and authorities left the tsunami-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant unprepared for last year’s crisis. Before the accident, operators were allowed to decide for themselves whether to follow safety guidelines recommended by regulators.

Tanaka has criticized as political the government’s decision to restart two reactors in the Fukui town of Ohi in July to avoid a power crunch during the high-demand summer. The reactors are the only ones to resume operations since Japan shut down all of its reactors for safety checks following the Fukushima disaster.

“Right now we don’t have the legal basis to make any judgment over reactors,” Tanaka said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We don’t have the legal power to stop the Ohi reactors.”

Tanaka said that his agency would draft the new requirements by March and that they would become law by July.

Nuclear power provided about a third of Japan’s electricity before the March 11, 2011, tsunami, and Japan had been planning to increase that to 50%. But last month, a Cabinet panel called for Japan to phase out nuclear power over the next three decades.

Tanaka said his five-member regulatory commission needs the new rules to make clear what it takes to safely restart a reactor.

The agency will also raise safety hurdles, ordering reactors shut if ongoing seismic inspections find active faults in their vicinity. Tanaka said towns around the plants must come up with expanded emergency procedures by March before any reactor is considered for resumption.

Under a guideline issued by the agency last week, communities around the plants must compile emergency measures as far as 30 kilometers from the plant, tripling the current requirement and affecting more than 130 municipalities and nearly 5 million people across the country.

Tanaka acknowledged that some of the densely populated areas would face difficulties compiling feasible emergency plans.

The Nos. 3 and 4 reactors at the Ohi power plant are also under scrutiny for suspected active fault lines, and the regulatory commission and independent seismologists are to inspect the ground structure underneath the reactors. The plant’s operator, Kansai Electric Power Co, had failed to submit key data about possible faults, but the then-regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, allowed the reactors to operate without further checks. Tanaka said the two reactors would have to be shut if the faults were confirmed.

He said Japan has faced increased seismic activity in recent years, causing temblors exceeding designed quake resistance at some plants, including Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, which is run by Fukushima operator Tokyo Electric Power Co.

The regulatory agency was inaugurated in September after a delay due to demands from opposition lawmakers for more independence and criticism from some pro-nuclear agency members.

A nuclear physicist and Fukushima native, Tanaka is a former executive of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, which promotes nuclear energy. Tanaka, 67, has helped decontaminate areas around the Fukushima plant contaminated by radiation from the melted reactors.

“We must clear questions and concerns one by one, otherwise we never regain the public trust,” Tanaka said. “No reactor should operate unless the local community has emergency plans that residents can accept.”

Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

Nuclear waste issues freeze permits for U.S. power plants

By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney August 9, 2012: 7:12 AM ET

• EmailPrint

U.S. halts permits for new nuclear power plants and renewals at existing reactors until waste issues are settled.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The U.S. government said it will stop issuing permits for new nuclear power plants and license extensions for existing facilities until it resolves issues around storing radioactive waste.

The government’s main watchdog, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, believes that current storage plans are safe and achievable. But a federal court said that the NRC didn’t detail what the environmental consequences would be if the agency is wrong.

“We are now considering all available options for resolving the waste issue,” the five-member NRC said in a ruling earlier this week. “But, in recognition of our duties under the law, we will not issue [reactor] licenses until the court’s remand is appropriately addressed.”

There are 14 reactors awaiting license renewals at the NRC, and an additional 16 reactors awaiting permits for new construction.

Ultimately, it’ll be up to lawmakers to find a solution to long-term nuclear waste storage, but their track record on the issue hasn’t been good. Nuclear waste disposal has been a daunting political question that is still unanswered after decades of study.

But the NRC is expected to do more research around what would happen if a long-term waste storage facility isn’t built. It will also conduct more research into the environmental impact if waste can’t safely be stored on-site at nuclear plants, where it’s currently stored.

Related: How close are you to a nuclear power plant?

Analysts feel the agency can conduct its research relatively quickly without having a major impact on nuclear plants currently seeking license extensions or utilities seeking permission to build new reactors.

“We believe that the NRC will have sufficient time to complete its waste confidence and temporary storage fixes well ahead of license expirations,” Christine Tezak, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, wrote in a research note Wednesday.

But nuclear watchdog groups – which don’t agree with the NRC’s assertion that the waste is currently safely stored — are hoping the new review will provide an opportunity to push for stricter standards at nuclear power plants.

There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors at 64 plants across the country. Half are over 30 years old.

‘”The court is ordering them to do this analysis that should have been done a long time ago,” said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The more information there is, the more ammunition there is to make changes to the safety regulations.”

In particular, UCS and others want less of the waste to be stored in pools of water, which they believe are vulnerable to sudden draining and possible meltdown, and more of it to go into secured concrete bunkers known as dry-cask storage.

Nuclear power provides the country with about 18% of its electricity. Renewables make up about 14%, with about half of that coming from hydroelectric dams. Most of the rest is split roughly evenly between natural gas and coal.  

First Published: August 9, 2012: 5:36 AM ET

• Share

Lindsey Graham Helps Win Permits for $10B Nuclear Plants, Gets Rewarded with Cash

Josh Israel

Think Progress /News Report

Published: Tuesday 1 May 2012

The $13-billion Cayce, SC-based energy company has long wanted a permit to build two new nuclear reactors at its Jenkinsville, SC, facilities. Graham, one of the Senate’s strongest supporters of nuclear power, actively backed their efforts.

For years, the SCANA Corporation and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have enjoyed a mutually beneficial alliance. Graham backs the company’s nuclear power interests and the company provides him with campaign cash.

The level of symbiosis between the two became especially evident in recent weeks.

The $13-billion Cayce, SC-based energy company has long wanted a permit to build two new nuclear reactors at its Jenkinsville, SC, facilities. Graham, one of the Senate’s strongest supporters of nuclear power, actively backed their efforts.

Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readers–you! Our only accountability is to the public. Click here to make a generous donation.

In February, the U.S. Nuclear Research Commission voted to approve the country’s first nuclear reactor construction permits in more than 30 years. Graham celebrated it as “a major step on the road to a nuclear renaissance,” adding, “I am hopeful SCANA and [its state-owned partner] Santee Cooper will be the next in line to receive permits for Jenkinsville.” He reiterated the message on Twitter the next day.

On March 31, much to Graham’s delight, SCANA received its Jenkinsville permits. The South Carolina Republican boasted:

We worked for years to see these reactors approved and I’m very pleased this long-sought goal has finally been achieved. The construction of two new reactors will be an over $10 billion dollar project and represents one of the largest investments in South Carolina history.

Two weeks later, when Graham’s “Team Graham” Senate campaign committee filed its quarterly lobbying, just one name appeared. SCANA Corporation, the committee revealed, had given the Graham $54,575 in bundled campaign contributions between January 1 and March 31 — raising money for him as he worked to secure their $10 billion project.

The Center for Responsive Politics ranks SCANA as Graham’s second-biggest source of campaign donations, dating back to his 1994 House of Representatives campaign. According to their tabulations, he received at least $37,725 from SCANA’s political action committee and at least $67,380 from SCANA employees over that time. Their support for Graham was relatively cheap, compared to the $260,000 the company reported spending on federal lobbying in the first quarter of 2012 alone.

A Graham spokesman reiterated Graham’s longstanding support for the nuclear industry — noting that he’s been called “the #1 pro-nuclear member” of the Senate — but did not address the industry’s campaign contributions. “Senator Graham has long pushed for a renaissance in nuclear energy. We are ecstatic that the NRC go-ahead was finally secured,” Graham’s communications director told Think Progress. SCANA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ties between these donations and the Senator’s efforts on the company’s behalf.

Graham claims that “the renaissance in American nuclear energy has begun.” Sadly, so has the renaissance of lobbyists bundling large amounts of campaign cash for those who back their interests.