Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
    • Workshops
  • Donate

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

U.S. Energy Market Interests Fuel Ukraine War

By Lindsay Potter

The nuclear industry has demonstrated a long list of failures including costliness, vulnerability, and toxicity. Operators deny the impossibility of safely handling waste from nuclear reactors. Currently, radioactive wastewater is slated for dumping from the Eastern Coast of the United States to Japan’s Pacific Coast. Every natural disaster near a nuclear site risks releasing deadly radiation, poisoning water and soil, and depressing local communities. Of the world’s nuclear reactors, 20 percent are vulnerable to earthquakes. The Santa Susana Field Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory are in areas prone to massive wildfires. The Navy dry docks servicing nuclear submarines in Bangor, Washington, closed bays to study risks of seismic activity. Turkey’s recent devastating 7.8-magnitude quake damaged areas near Incirlik Air Base, where the U.S. stores 50 nuclear warheads, and yet Turkey plans to build even more new fragile reactors. In France, reactors shutdown due to lack of cooling water from rising temperatures and dried up rivers.

The world has also witnessed what disaster nuclear sites can unleash through human error at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, and now potentially at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station. Cataclysmic meltdown and radioactive release have been avoided despite blackouts and nearby strikes, but Ukraine’s 15 reactors, six of which sit at Zaporizhzhia, are all time bombs awaiting an errant missile.

Yet there is a current surge for new nuclear technology that diverts hundreds of billions of dollars away from proven renewable sources of cleaner and cheaper energy. In response to shortages of Russian energy, from sanctions and the war in Ukraine, Europe is walking back commitments to ween off of nuclear and switch to renewables. Belgium deferred plans for a 2025 exit from nuclear, extending the life of two reactors by ten years. Germany pushed off the slated 2022 closure of its remaining three reactors. The U.K. plans to build eight new reactors. In January, Sweden green-lighted legislation to construct new reactors. Not to be outdone, in February, Poland announced plans to construct 79 Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNRs) by 2038 in addition to six other reactors, including the Westinghouse AP1000 (despite the fact two U.S. Westinghouse reactors now under construction at Vogtle in Georgia are seven years behind schedule and over budget at $30 billion). The U.S. loaned $3 billion to Romania on a contract, scooped from China, to build several new reactors. Yet, last year, French power company EDF reported a $19 billion loss. Half of France’s 56 reactors shuttered for repairs, and its nuclear energy production fell by 30%, leaving one of the world’s most nuclear-powered nations a net importer of energy in 2022.

On February 10, 2023, one of the reactor units at Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Facility shut down.

Most unbelievably, Ukraine’s energy minister announced an order for two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors for the Khmelnytskyi facility, despite last November’s emergency shutdown of the site’s two current reactors due to missile attacks. Ukraine’s reactors in the war zone present an unprecedented threat of global catastrophe, reiterated by the UN and IAEA. The world holds its breath in hopes each bout of shelling fails to spill Zaporizhzhia’s more than 2,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel, a prospect made only riskier by reports Ukraine is stashing Western-supplied arms at nuclear reactor sites.

Rather than defending democracy or sovereignty, the U.S. and NATO and their nuclear-backed tyranny pursue, via proxy war, economic and technological dominance. Biden’s sanctions and attack on the Nordstream pipeline resulted in Europe buying more expensive U.S. fracked gas. Still, Russia found outlets for its oil and gas. Exxonmobil took home a record-breaking $56 billion in profits for 2022. Yet Europe needed $640 billion in energy subsidies through the winter to stabilize the disrupted market. African countries were largely unable to cushion the shocking thirty-year-high energy cost spike, another example of African citizens suffering under the political machinations of wealthier nations.

After one year of war in Ukraine, the ripples across the global economic landscape – from cold homes in Europe to famine in the horn of Africa – prove this war is about energy. It should be no surprise, as U.S. arsenals shift from Europe to the Pacific, one harbinger of war in Asia is new nuclear energy policy. After years of increased military presence, arms sales, drills, and missile testing, Japan moves further from its nuclear taboo, and the U.S. continues to antagonize China and intervene on the Korean Peninsula. Japan has now approved draft legislation to allow limitless longevity for reactors, prolonging operation of some to 60 years. As part of their return to nuclear, Japan pledged to build 20 “next-generation” reactors to replace those scheduled for decommissioning. North Korea has increased plutonium processing. South Korea will add more nuclear reactors in lieu of promises to add new renewable energy infrastructure. South Korea and Japan sit under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, but analysts are clamoring at the possibility the two nations could develop their own nuclear arsenals.

From construction of new reactors, to growth in the market for U.S. natural gas, to unfathomable profits for weapons manufacturers whose contracts are inextricably linked with the nuclear power industry, the energy crises caused by the Ukraine war serve U.S. interests – albeit not the interests of the hungry, poor, sick, or unhoused. It is important to note, in the same year, renewables produced more energy than ever before and the affordability and accessibility of renewable technology grew. Though we are still on a cusp of transition, projections continue to confirm renewables can provide faster, cleaner energy than nuclear. Essential energy decisions cast the specter of two very different paths: a future that builds human and environmental well-being or a future of unabated avarice.

— un.org, Feb. 13, 2023; Reuters, Jan. 11, 2023; BBC, Oct. 18, 2022

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy, War

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Former Nuclear Officials: New Reactors Not the Answer

Nuclear-energy-is-a-dead-end-Greenpeace-anti-nuke-protest, Nuclear terrorism kills millions, enriches the few, sfbayview.com/

The former heads of nuclear power regulation in the U.S., Germany, France, and the U.K. issued a joint statement outlining why nuclear power is not the answer to climate chaos and is not a viable nor sustainable source of energy for the health of people or planet. After years of work inside the industry, they should know. The four leaders issuing the joint statement are: Dr. Greg Jaczko, former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and founder of Maxean, an energy company; Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg, a university professor and former Head of Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection, and Nuclear Waste for Germany’s Federal Environment Ministry; Dr. Bernard Laponche, a French engineer and author, former Director General for the French Agency for Energy Management, and former Advisor to French Minister of Environment, Energy, and Nuclear Safety; Dr. Paul Dorfman, an associate fellow and researcher at the University of Sussex and former secretary to the U.K. Government. Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters.

“The climate is running hot. Evolving knowledge of climate sensitivity and polar ice melt-rate makes clear that sea-level rise is ramping up, along with destructive storms, storm surge, severe precipitation and flooding, not forgetting wildfire. With mounting concern and recognition over the speed and pace of the low carbon energy transition that’s needed, nuclear has been reframed as a partial response to global heating. … At the heart of this are questions about whether nuclear could help with the climate crisis, whether [it] is economically viable, the consequences of nuclear accidents, what to do with [radioactive] waste, and whether there’s a place for nuclear within the swiftly expanding renewable energy evolution.

“As key experts who have worked on the front-line of the nuclear issue, we’ve all been involved at the highest governmental nuclear regulatory and radiation protection levels in the U.S., Germany, France, and the U.K. In this context, we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change. The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction. The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe nor smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm. Nuclear isn’t cheap, but extremely costly. Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design. Nuclear as a strategy against climate change is:

• Too costly in absolute terms to make a relevant contribution to global power production.

• More expensive than renewable energy in terms of energy production and CO2 mitigation, even taking into account costs of grid management tools like energy storage associated with renewables rollout.

• Too costly and risky for financial market investment, and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and loan guarantees.

• Unsustainable due to the unresolved problem of very long-lived radioactive waste.

• Financially unsustainable as no economic institution is prepared to insure against the full potential cost, environmental, and human impacts of accidental radiation release – with the majority of those very significant costs being borne by the public.

• Militarily hazardous – newly promoted reactor designs increase risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

• Inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents from human error, internal faults, and external impacts; vulnerability to climate-driven sea-level rise, storms, storm surge, inundation, and flooding hazards, resulting in international economic impacts.

• Subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems associated with newer unproven concepts, including ‘Advanced’ and Small Modular Reactors.
• Too unwieldy and complex to create an efficient industrial regime for reactor construction and operation processes within the intended build-time and scope needed for climate change mitigation.

• Unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation needed by the 2030’s due to nuclear’s impracticably lengthy development and construction timelines, and the overwhelming construction costs of the very great volume of reactors that would be needed to make a difference.”

— Reprinted and edited for space from Power, Jan. 25, 2022.

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Holtec Push to Restart ‘Zombie’ Palisades Reactor

By Lindsay Potter

In January, Holtec International applied a second time for billions in taxpayer-funded federal and state bailouts to restart the Palisades nuclear reactor on the shore of Lake Michigan – source of drinking water for over 12 million people. This despite Holtec’s continued plans to illegally dump more than two million gallons of radioactive wastewater from other decommissioned reactors into the Hudson River and Cape Cod Bay. Former owner Entergy shut down the reactor eleven days ahead of schedule in May 2022 due to risks from Palisades’ crumbling infrastructure, among the world’s most embrittled. Holtec failed to explain how it will find funding, train operators, procure $50 million in fresh nuclear fuel, obtain an operating license, or develop quality control. The NRC granted permission to destroy decades of safety documents as part of decommissioning, further complicating a possible restart. A recent letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, with 115 signatories, requests the DOE deny Holtec’s bailout application, urging Palisades does not qualify. The DOE denied Holtec’s first application for a federal bailout, filed in July 2022. — Beyond Nuclear press releases, Feb. 14, Feb. 6, Jan. 23, 2023 and Dec. 19, 2022.

Palisades Reactor on the shore of Lake Michigan. Photo Credit: beyondnuclear.org/

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

PG&E Seeks License Exemption at Diablo Canyon

By Lindsay Potter

A coalition of environmental action groups is fighting reversal of the slated closure of Diablo Canyon, California’s last two nuclear reactors. As a result of the coalition’s 2016 lawsuit against twice-bankrupted owners, Pacific Gas & Electric, the state had agreed to shut down the reactors at the end of their licensing periods in 2024 and 2025. PG&E admitted a shift to renewables could save California ratepayers $1 billion. However, the Civil Nuclear Credit earmarked $1.1 billion in subsidies to keep Diablo Canyon open and California promised a $1.4 billion ‘forgivable’ loan. On March 2, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission agreed to allow the two reactors to operate beyond the end of their existing licenses, through the next five years, side-stepping the standard licensure process. California lawmakers lauded the step, although many previously supported shutting down Diablo Canyon. The NRC decision does not guarantee approval beyond 2030, but gives PG&E time to complete a 20-year license extension application.

California’s Governor and State Legislature withdrew from the closure agreement in September, claiming the twin reactors will prevent blackouts during heatwaves. Diablo Canyon produces less than 9 percent of California’s electricity, or 2.2 GW. It was running during blackouts in summer 2020, and California added 3.0 GW of solar in 2021 alone. A 2015 NRC report found the reactors could not withstand seismic shock from any of the dozens of nearby faults. Newsom’s revival plan would exempt PG&E from halting their ocean water cooling system and complying with environmental review. Necessary upgrades to Diablo Canyon could cost billions more – which draws funding and grid capacity away from renewable sources. — Reuters, Feb. 14; Associated Press, Jan. 25; LA Times, Mar. 2, 2023 and Aug. 16, 2022

Photo Credit: The Seattle Times

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

International Waste Shipments Halted

By Matthew Jahnke

International non-proliferation advocacy played a significant role in the decision to halt the shipment of radioactive waste from a German port to the notorious nuclear material refinement facility Savannah River Site in South Carolina. According to SRS Watch, German authorities confirmed “the [shipment of] spent fuel has indeed been terminated.” The approximately one million graphite pebbles, six cm in diameter, are stored in two locations in the German state of North Rhine-Westfalia. Most of the graphite pebbles contain highly enriched uranium supplied by the U.S. and used in two experimental reactors in northwest Germany which ceased operations in the 1980’s. Other radioactive isotopes present in the pellets include tritium, potassium-95, and carbon-14. SRS researches repurposing uranium for nuclear weapons and has used the threat of weaponization as justification for accepting the contaminated fuel, lest it pass into other hands. The illegal shipment would have spread radioactive contamination. U.S. anti-nuclear groups, as well as German groups including STOP Westcastor and .ausgestrahlt, successfully protested the waste transfer alongside German politicians in the Green and Left parties. The U.S. Department of Energy failed to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement and kept the public in the dark on the proposal. — SRS Watch Press Release, January 2023

 

Silence on German spent fuel import plan remains a black eye on a derelict DOE (srswatch.org)

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 64
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Facebook

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2023 · Nukewatch