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
  • Donate

January 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Renewables Overtake Nuclear as Scotland’s Top Electric Power Source 

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2014

Clean energy produced more electricity in Scotland than nuclear, coal or gas for the first time, in the first half of 2014. Renewable energy in Scotland from wind farms, hydro power and other clean systems provided the single largest source of electricity to the country for the first time, new industry figures showed.

Analysis by the trade body Scottish Renewables showed that renewables produced nearly one third more power than nuclear, coal or gas in the first six months of 2014, generating a record 10.4 terawatt hours during the six-month period. A terawatt is a trillion watts.

The analysis compared Energy Trends data on renewable energy output produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, with figures produced by the national grid on coal, gas and nuclear power.

Niall Stuart, Chief Executive of Scottish Renewables, said the record figures marked a major leap forward for the government’s plan to generate 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

“This important milestone is good news for anyone who cares about Scotland’s economy, our energy security and our efforts to tackle climate change,” Stuart said.

Onshore wind and hydro power remain Scotland’s main sources of renewable energy, but Stuart said there is significant potential for offshore wind and wave and tidal power if they receive sufficient government support, including new grid connections to Scottish islands.

Scotland’s Business, Energy and Tourism Minister, Fergus Ewing, said the figures highlight the potential that renewable energy has to replace nuclear power.

— The Guardian, Nov. 27, 2014

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy

January 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Netherlands Tests Roadway  Solar Collectors 

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2014

“SolaRoad,” a project that tests road surfaces as a means of collecting solar energy, started in November in Holland with 230 feet of a bike path in the town of Krommenie, near Amsterdam.

The path is built of Lego-like solar panels set in concrete and shielded with glass. Sten de Wit of the engineering firm TNO said Nov. 11 that every square meter of road generated 50 to 70 kilowatt-hours of energy per year, or enough for the initial strip to supply power to one or two Dutch households. The test is scheduled to run for three years and cost 3 million euros or about $3.7 million. Mr. De Wit said successor projects may be even more profitable as solar cells grow cheaper and more efficient.

— AP, New York Times, Nov. 12, 2014

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy

January 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radioactive Waste Fuel Pools Declared ‘No Danger to the Public’

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2014

KEWAUNEE, Wisconsin—The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted Dominion Energy in October a request to lift disaster preparedness requirements for its shuttered nuclear Kewaunee reactor on Lake Michigan.

“Specifically, Kewaunee will no longer be required to maintain offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans or the 10-mile emergency planning zone,” the NRC announced.

The single reactor Kewaunee station was shut down May 7, 2013 and is undergoing decommissioning. Dominion has said the process will take 40 years.

With hundreds of tons of ferociously radioactive waste uranium fuel—known as “spent fuel”—now in the company’s on-site cooling pool, Kewaunee’s accident preparedness exemptions put lake water and hundreds of thousands of downwind residents at risk. A “loss-of-coolant” accident can cause the fuel to catch fire—like the waste fuel fire that may have occurred at Fukushima in March 2011—resulting in catastrophic radiation releases.

Rose-Colored Safety Assumptions

The NRC conducted a series of “Nuclear Waste Confidence” hearings around the country, along with some “transfer of waste nuclear fuel” proceedings. In all of them, NRC declared that in the event of a catastrophic radioactivity release, large-scale evacuations (out to a certain distance) would go well.

Kevin Kamps, of Beyond Nuclear, the Takoma Park, Maryland think tank, asks: “How is it possible that such evacuations would go well, if emergency preparedness requirements have been eliminated?”

The NRC’s optimistic assumption is at the heart of the agency’s conclusion that there is extremely little danger from waste pool storage. The NRC claims that if there’s a large radiation release due to a fire, no one will get hurt, because everyone will have evacuated out of harm’s way.

NRC staff has concluded that the company “will maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness at [Kewaunee]…and that there is reasonable assurance that adequate offsite protective measures can and will be taken by State and local government agencies, if needed, in the event of a radiological emergency.”

The NRC notice claims that, “In the unlikely event of a … complete loss of heat removal …there will be at least 10 hours available before an offsite release might occur and, therefore, at least 10 hours to … restore … heat removal to the spent fuel. … a minimum of 10 hours is considered sufficient time for offsite authorities to …protect the health and safety of the public.”

So far, every US reactor operator that has asked for the exemptions during decommissioning has had their request granted, rubber stamp fashion by the NRC.

Meanwhile, the owners of the Vermont Yankee reactor near Vernon, Vermont have asked for the similar exemptions from accident preparedness rules, but NRC has been far more demanding of Entergy Corp. than of Dominion in Wisconsin.

Vermont Yankee will be shut down at the end of the year, and Entergy has asked that its 10-mile evacuation zone be reduced to the station’s 148 acre footprint.

And while the potential risks of a disastrous waste fuel pool fire are similar at both sites, the NRC has demanded that Entergy rewrite its exemption request, noting three times that the company “inaccurately states” the effects of a waste fuel fire. Left unsaid in the Kewaunee case, the NRC has said about Vermont, “In the unlikely event that there is a catastrophic loss of spent fuel pool water inventory, there is a potential for an offsite release of radioactive material …” —JL

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

January 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Proposed Lake Huron Waste Dump Critics Proliferating

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2014
 By John LaForge 

The proposed Deep Geological Repository for radioactive waste being considered by Canada’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) is such a bad idea that even pro-nuclear Republican US senators like Illinois’ Mark Kirk are against it. Still, it’s not dead yet.

The Southgate Michigan News-Herald reported last September that “some of the waste is highly radioactive and much of it will remain toxic for more than 100,000 years. The proposed site is less than a mile inland from the shore of Lake Huron and about 440 yards below the lake level. It is approximately 120 miles upstream from the main drinking water intakes for southeastern Michigan.”

The language is from a Michigan State Senate resolution against the dump which passed last year. Now the US Senate has taken up the fight with a similar bill introduced by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and co-sponsored by Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin. Dozens of cities along the Great Lakes, Duluth, Minnesota included, have formally opposed the craziness of burying leaky tins of radiation in a watershed that serves H2O to 40 million people.

Dave Herndon, writing for the News-Herald dug up this zinger: The Canadian government itself raised identical objections about radioactive waste near drinking water in the 1980s, when the US Energy Department surveyed sites for a US waste dump. Back then, Canada formally protested and a Parliamentary resolution urges US officials to prevent such a dump from ever being built in the Great Lakes Basin.

Ontario’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) will make a recommendation to the federal government after studying the plans pros and cons. It has held two sets of formal hearings, and loads of highly critical testimony is in the record. Not the least is that of former Ontario Power Generation (OPG) scientist Frank Greening.

OPG—the radioactive waste producer that runs 18 reactors in Ontario—is the dump’s chief promoter. Dr. Greening worked for the company for 22 years.

Radioactive waste generator’s “cavalier attitude” 

A PhD in chemistry, Dr. Greening testified last September that OPG has a “cavalier attitude” toward the long-lived hazards of radioactive wastes.

(In 2013, I testified likewise that one particularly cavalier information sheet from OPG said, “…even if the entire waste volume were to be dissolved into Lake Huron, the corresponding drinking water dose would be a factor of 100 below the regulatory criteria initially, and decreasing with time.” This quip refers to 200,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste in over 50,000 containers.)

In his attack on OPG’s analysis, Dr. Greening reported that the company estimated the sorts of radioactive materials that would be in the waste—and in what proportions—instead of taking samples. “Estimating is cheaper,” Greening told the panel on Sept. 10. “OPG has chosen to skimp on the costs of properly characterizing [its] radioactive waste, perhaps because the analysis of just one sample costs over a thousand dollars,” Greening said.

Last April, Greening reported that materials to be placed in the dump are up to 1,000 times more radioactive than OPG had formally reported. Dr. Greening’s report devastated the company’s (OPG’s) public image and professional credibility.

After Greening broadcast OPG’s gross mistakes, the company said its errors resulted from the use of “available data” in 2010.

“This is simply not true,” Greening then charged. “OPG did not use available data, but used fabricated data instead.”

With cesium-137, OPG’s numbers “are 1,000 times lower” than the actual radioactivity level in some of the waste, Greening discovered. “[OPG] got these numbers wrong up front …” Greening said. “Why would I trust [OPG’s] numbers now?”

Replying to Greening’s crucial testimony, Dr. Stella Swanson, the chair of the JRP, warned that some of his information was “new to the panel,” and could for that reason perhaps be ignored. New information was supposed to been given to the JRP in advance of September’s formal hearings.

Dr. Swanson said the government panel will rule later on whether all of Greening’s materials would be accepted for review.

Louder and more robust objections to OPG’s Lake Huron dump plan need to be organized in order to make the Canadian authorities do the right thing. Senator Stabenow made a start when she told the press, “Canada’s proposed nuclear waste dump … puts our Great Lakes at risk of radioactive contamination that could have devastating consequences for future generations. I have expressed my strong objections to the Canadian government directly, and (this) resolution puts additional pressure on the Canadians to stop this plan.”

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

January 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Rare Public Critique of French Reactors

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2014

In a highly unusual attack, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report Nov. 28 critical of France’s nuclear industry. The stury hints that France’s aging power reactors, 58 of them, are growing dangerously in need of additional oversight. Additionally, a US expert suggested that France’s nuclear power community needed to do more to protect whistle blowers from retaliation. 

The French reactor complex is operated by the state-owned utility Electricité de France. The utility is in turn regulated by a federal watchdog agency—rather like the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission—known as “ASN.” The IAEA’s criticism “highlighted the need for more staff and money in the future,” Reuters said. 

The IAEA’s mission within the United Nations is to promote the expansion of nuclear power worldwide, so it is loath to issue public criticism of anyone’s nuclear reactor operations. 

The head of ASN, Pierre-Frank Chevet, “has regularly warned the government of the need to increase the authority’s budget and workforce, but has so far obtained only a fraction of its estimates,” Reuters said. “We were given an extra 30 positions over the next three years by the government. We say ‘thanks’… but that’s not enough.” Chevet told reporters he needed at least 170 more inspectors “as soon as possible.” 

The urgency is related to the nearly 40-year-old reactors’ upcoming operational reviews. 

The IAEA’s study group identified some needed regulatory improvements and recommended changes in “processes needed to deliver ASN’s mandate.” The NRC’s executive director for operations, Mark Satorius, said this was about something called “safety culture” among employees. 

“Safety culture has to do with having an organization where the members [i.e. whistle blowers] feel free to come forward with problems and voice those problems to management without fear of being retaliated against,” Satorius told Reuters.  —Reuters, Nov. 28, 2014 —JL

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 194
  • 195
  • 196
  • 197
  • 198
  • …
  • 222
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

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
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • 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

© 2026 · Nukewatch