Thursday, December 29, 2011
Seals with damaged flippers and hair loss 'are being killed by radiation from Fukushima plant', biologists warn
Seals with damaged flippers and hair loss 'are being killed by radiation from Fukushima plant', biologists warn
Seals washed up with hair loss and bleeding lesions
9.0-magnitude quake caused meltdown at Japanese plant in March
By CHRIS PARSONS
28th December 2011
dailymail
Scientists in Alaska are investigating whether seals are being killed by radiation from Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant.
Scores of ring seals have washed up on Alaska's arctic coastline since July either injured or killed by a mysterious disease which biologists first thought was a virus.
But the bleeding lesions on the hind flippers, irritated skin around the nose and eyes and patchy hair loss on the seals' fur coats may have been caused by radiation from the stricken nuclear plant.
Harmed: Seals like this one in Barrow, Alaska, have been found with bleeding lesions, damaged fur and flippers thought to have been caused by radiation from Fukushima, Japan.
Three reactors at the nuclear plant went into meltdown following the catastrophic tsunami caused by an 9.0-magnitude earthquake off Japan's north-east coast in March.
Now animals several thousands miles away in Barrow, Alaska, are washing up with injuries thought to have been caused by the fallout from the nuclear meltdown.
Chaos: Three reactors at the Fukushima plant went into meltdown after the tsunami in March which battered Japan's north-east coast
'There is concern expressed by some members of the local communities that there may be some relationship to the Fukushima nuclear reactor's damage.'
The results of the tests would not be available for 'several weeks,' Kelley said.
Water tests have not picked up any evidence of elevated radiation in U.S. Pacific waters since the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which caused multiple fuel meltdowns at the Fukushima plant and forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate the surrounding area.
Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been seeking the cause of the diseased seals for weeks, but have so far found no answers.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
LCQ3: Radiation levels of Japanese food products
LCQ3: Radiation levels of Japanese food products
Source: HKSAR Government
2011-12-21
Hong Kong (HKSAR) - Following is a question by the Hon Wong Yung-kan and a reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Dr York Chow, in the Legislative Council today (December 21):
Question:
It has been reported that earlier on, a Japanese food company carried out sample tests on its infant formulas and found that some of them contained radioactive substances, namely cesium-134 and cesium-137, and the company decided to recall 400,000 tins of the affected infant formulas, while some supermarkets in Hong Kong removed all batches of this brand of infant formulas from the shelves and stopped selling them right away.Since the Centre for Food Safety has not immediately clarified whether the affected batches had been imported to Hong Kong, parents do not know whether they should stop feeding their babies with the formulas concerned at once.In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
(a) given that the problem of some food products in Japan being contaminated by radioactivity has arisen after the nuclear power plant incident in Fukushima, of the number of tests which have been carried out by the authorities on all infant formulas imported from Japan (including parallel imports and authorised products) since the outbreak of the incident; the test results; the safety standards adopted by the Government at present in the tests and in the safety assessments made on Japanese infant formulas;
(b) given that some Japanese infant formulas were tested and found to contain radioactive substances, whether the authorities will consider stepping up testing and sample checking on all imported Japanese food products and regularly publishing the radioactivity levels of such food products; and
(c) whether the Centre for Food Safety of Hong Kong will be notified immediately and obtain relevant test results when imported Japanese food products are found by the Japanese authorities to contain radioactive substances; whether the authorities have any plan to set up a reporting mechanism in respect of food safety incidents with the Japanese authorities, so as to enhance the exchange of information between both sides?
Reply:
Acting President,
A milk powder manufacturer in Japan announced on December 6, 2011 that radioactive substances were found in some of its milk powder products.Accordingly, it voluntarily recalled the relevant batches of products.The Centre for Food Safety (CFS) took immediate action on the same day and made enquiries with the Japanese authorities and the local trade for more information.At a meeting on December 7, 2011, CFS confirmed with a number of local importers/distributors of Japanese milk powder that the relevant batches of products had not been put on sale in the local market.While an importer had imported a consignment of the affected batch, the whole consignment did not enter the local market as it was still pending testing.The importer is arranging to return the consignment back to the manufacturer.CFS issued a press release on December 6 and 7, 2011 respectively to announce the progress of the investigation and follow-up actions. Furthermore, CFS has deployed staff to inspect local retail outlets and so far, has not found the relevant batches of products being put on sale.CFS will continue to closely monitor the situation and follow up.
My reply to different parts of the question is as follows:
(a) We have always been paying attention to the safety of food imported from Japan.Since March 12, 2011, ie the day of the nuclear plant incident, CFS has stepped up regulatory control of food products imported from Japan, which includes testing of radiation levels of every consignment of food products (including milk powder) imported by sea or air from Japan.As of December 12, 2011, 146 samples of Japanese milk powder had been tested by CFS and none was found to contain radioactive substances.
As regards the testing standards, CFS adopts the Guideline Levels for Radionuclides in Foods Contaminated Following a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency (Guideline Levels) laid down by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) (ie iodine-131: 100 Bq/kg, caesium-134 and caesium-137: 1,000 Bq/kg), to step up testing of radiation levels of food products (including milk powder) imported from Japan.According to Codex, when radionuclide levels in food do not exceed the corresponding Guideline Levels, the food could be considered as safe for human consumption.
On December 7, 2011, CFS briefed the Expert Committee on Food Safety (Expert Committee) on its follow-up actions on the issue.The Expert Committee, which comprises food experts from the Mainland and overseas as well as local experts, agreed that Hong Kong should continue to adopt the Codex Guideline Levels as standards for testing of radiation levels of Japan-manufactured milk powder.The Guideline Levels of caesium-134 and caesium-137 for infant foods and other foods are both 1,000 Bq/kg.
The radiation levels detected in the milk powder concerned were very low.CFS conducted a risk assessment on the milk powder sample with the highest levels of radiation and found that the radiation dose from the normal consumption of the contaminated product by an nine-month-old infant for a prolonged period (one year) was approximately 0.04 millisievert (mSv), which was equal to the radiation dose received from less than one chest X-ray or 1/200 computed tomography scan (CT scan).The dosage is unlikely to cause any adverse health effects.
(b) Since March 12, 2011, ie the day of the nuclear plant incident, CFS has been taking samples from every consignment of food products (including milk powder) from Japan for testing of radiation levels.If the food concerned is found to contain radionuclides exceeding the Guideline Levels, CFS will immediately mark and seal that consignment and arrange for disposal.
To date, over 58,000 samples of Japanese food products collected at import, wholesale and retail levels had been tested.Among them, only three samples of vegetables imported from Chiba prefecture on March 22, 2011 were detected to contain radioactive substances at levels exceeding the Guideline Levels.The test results of all the remaining samples were satisfactory (including 146 samples of milk powder imported from Japan).
As the radiation levels of the above three samples of vegetables were found to have exceeded the Guideline Levels, to safeguard food safety and public health, the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene made an order on March 23, 2011 to prohibit the import of fresh food (including milk, dried milk and dairy products) from five prefectures in Japan, namely Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Chiba and Gunma.
The Fukushima nuclear incident is yet to be fully under control and the radiation fallout following the release of some radioactive substances with long half-lives like caesium could remain in the environment for years, which will continue to pose threats to food safety.The order prohibiting the import of fresh food from the five affected prefectures in Japan will remain in force.For other food products imported from the said five prefectures and food products from other prefectures, CFS will continue taking samples from every consignment of food products for testing.Based on the local surveillance results and those in Japan and other places, CFS will decide the sample size of each consignment according to the risk assessment.Milk powder and other milk products will continue to be under 100% surveillance.CFS will also continue to liaise with relevant Japanese authorities to keep abreast of the latest development of the Japan nuclear incident and take appropriate follow up actions.The surveillance result of food imported from Japan will continue to be posted on the CFS website at www.cfs.gov.hk daily.In addition to unsatisfactory food samples, satisfactory samples found to contain low radioactivity will also be announced.
(c) CFS has been in close contact with the Consulate-General of Japan in Hong Kong to exchange information on the nuclear incident in Japan.Following the detection of radioactive substances in milk powder in Japan, CFS approached the Japanese authorities on December 6, 2011 for more information.To safeguard food safety in Hong Kong, CFS will closely monitor information from Japan as well as the radiation testing results of Japanese food products in Hong Kong and elsewhere.Making reference to the recommendations of international authorities including the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency, CFS will review and adjust if necessary, the surveillance strategy on food products imported from Japan, in a timely manner.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Fukushima to Canada: Nuclear power creates toxic pollution for 250,000 years
Fukushima to Canada: Nuclear power creates toxic pollution for 250,000 years
19 DECEMBER 2011
BY DAVID SUZUKI
Anyone who think that Japan can "decontaminate" a region suffering from nuclear fallout in the manner presented in YouTube video has been duped if you read David Suzuki's insights in the following article.
Nuclear power is experiencing a revival due to growing concerns about climate change. The nuclear industry has reinvented itself as an environmentally friendly option, producing electricity without the air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions of coal, oil or gas.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
But a closer look reveals nuclear power is neither an environmentally or financially viable option. Nuclear power creates radioactive waste for which there is no accepted method of safely managing or storing.
It is also prohibitively expensive. The last plant constructed in Ontario, Darlington, was budgeted at $3.4 billion but ended up costing $15 billion when it was finally completed in the mid-1980s.
Environmental problems
Whatever benefits nuclear technology may provide through decreased air pollutants are more than made up for by large and unresolved environmental problems.
As of 2000, Canada had 35,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste and nowhere to put it. With a radioactive half-life of 25,000 years, nuclear waste remains dangerous for 250,000 years, meaning huge costs and risks for future generations.
As well, mining uranium for nuclear power is extremely energy-intensive, meaning that nuclear power is in fact a considerable source of greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, routine releases and accidental spills of contaminated water from mining operations have poisoned fisheries and threatened the health of local communities.
Many safety issues surround nuclear power, especially as power plants age. Nuclear plants routinely emit radioactive material, imposing cancer risks on workers, their children and people in surrounding communities. Power plants can also leak other hazardous materials.
For example, Pickering reactor #4 had a heavy water leak in April 1996 that released radioactive tritium into Lake Ontario, contaminating drinking water supplies.
Economic problems
The energy source once billed as "too cheap to meter" has proven to be one of the most expensive energy sources in history.
Between 1956 and 2000, Canada's state-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) received subsidies totaling $16.6 billion. Even with these subsidies, nuclear power is far more expensive than both fossil fuels and renewables.
The last 20 reactors built in the U.S. had an average cost of $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity; the last one built in Canada cost $4,000 per kilowatt.
Compare these prices to the current prices for large-scale wind power and natural gas plants, currently at $1,200 and $1,000 per kilowatt respectively.
The figures for nuclear do not include lifecycle costs to society from environmental and health damage, or the costs of accidents, clean up, waste disposal or plant decommissioning.
And nuclear plants are not only expensive, they're also financially risky because of their long lead times, huge cost overruns and open-ended liabilities.
Greenpeace on China Climate Change Policy By The Diplomat
Greenpeace on China By The Diplomat
December 20, 2011
The Diplomat speaks with Li Yan, head of Greenpeace East Asia’s Climate and Energy Campaign, to discuss China’s climate change policy.
What are your thoughts on the recent climate change accord reached in Durban? Do you feel it’s a good step towards a comprehensive treaty or a step in the wrong direction?
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The world urgently needs a fair, ambitious and legally binding (FAB) deal to prevent climate catastrophe. Copenhagen should have delivered that deal. After two years in Durban there was some progress towards a FAB deal, with the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period confirmed. Countries also agreed to start negotiating for a new legally binding treaty that applies to all countries, including China, India and the U.S., which needs to be sealed no later than 2015.
As to the second part of your question: Yes,this is the right direction, and global climate negotiation now enters a new era. However, the process laid out in Durban is worryingly slow and with fatal loopholes. If this next big climate deal will be applicable only “from 2020,” as the U.S. inserted in the Durban agreement, it can easily be delayed for more than a decade and we risk missing the window of opportunity to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
The process to agree a comprehensive global climate treaty needs to be accelerated, and countries registered in such a binding treaty must honor their commitment.
China is now the world’s leading emitter of CO2. Do you feel China is doing enough to limit and lower such emissions? Do you feel China is taking adequate steps to tackle its global contribution to climate change? What steps would you recommend that China take to reduce or lower its CO2 emissions?
China has made impressive efforts to cut back its carbon emission growth, and it’s fair to say that China is doing much better than many other countries, including industrialized ones. However, with the rapid growth of emissions, China needs – and has the capability – to do more.
China’s 11th Five Year Plan (2006-2010) set binding targets to save energy and cut back traditional pollutant emissions. According to official calculations, this has led to 1.5 billion tons in carbon emission reductions. It was a good starting point and has sent a strong political signal to the government system, though at the end of 11th Five Year Plan, the final progress was quite difficult. But China almost achieved its 20 percent energy intensity reduction objective.
However in the 12th Five Year Plan, starting this year, the central government set an energy intensity reduction target at 16 percent (by end of 2015 based on 2010 levels) and a carbon intensity target of 17 percent. These goals aren’t ambitious enough. This isn’t sufficient to force local governments and industries to shift away from energy intensive growth models. Partly as a result of this rather low target, the first 10 months of 2011 only saw an energy intensity reduction of 1.6 percent, falling far behind the scheduled 3.5 percent reduction benchmark supposed to be achieved as the first year of the latest plan. There will be more difficulties for China in delivering its targets if it can’t put a brake on its fast expansion of energy intensive industries and booming coal consumption.
Coal burning is the biggest single source of CO2 emissions in China. With heavy reliance on coal burning as an energy source – it accounts for around 70 percent of energy demands – China is now facing severe environmental and social problem as well as growing energy security concerns. Moving away from coal and introducing more renewable energy into its energy mix is an unavoidable direction for China. One ongoing discussion is whether or not China can, step by step, put absolute limits on its coal consumption.
China is also expanding the amount of nuclear power plants it operates. Do you feel China can adequately secure and store the nuclear waste that will result?
Nuclear is deemed by many in China as the clean energy solution, but it’s not. Environmental and safety issues must be taken into consideration in China’s ambitious nuclear development plan.
There is currently no clear law or regulation to manage nuclear power development and mitigate its risk. The nuclear safety code is still being compiled after Fukushima. The Fukushima tragedy was another sad example of the fact that there’s barely anything humanity can do to stop the dangerous impact of a nuclear plant accident caused by natural disasters. China’s newly designed plants are mostly located near large populations, and under climate change circumstances, extreme weather events could be more frequent and severe, which makes it even more risky and challenging to ensure public safety.
Much has been made in the west of China's investments in “green energy.” Do you feel China has assumed a leadership role in green technology? Do you feel China can use such technology to make a dent in its CO2 emissions?
According to a recent U.N. Environment Program report, China has surpassed the United States in renewable energy investment in 2010, making it now the world’s largest. This has created a buzz that China is leading the race to renewable energies. Clearly, China is taking the lead in many areas of green energy development. In 2010, China’s wind power installation capacity was about 42GW, which places China as the biggest installation country globally.
Most of the renewable energy installation is in western areas, since the natural sources are better than the eastern parts.
However, there are still bottlenecks that stop China from being an even bigger utilizer of renewable energy. The biggest one is the difficulty in grid access. Nearly 30 percent of wind turbines established have no access to the state grid, and similar problems are emerging in solar power generation as well. Technology isn’t the problem, but more the lack of willingness and action from the grid company. If China could solve the grid connection issue, renewable energy will play a more important role in China’s energy mix, which will definitely contribute to its CO2 reduction.
Report that puts nuclear power cost well above 2004 estimate endorsed
Report that puts nuclear power cost well above 2004 estimate endorsed
(Mainichi Japan)
December 20, 2011
The No. 1 reactor building of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant is pictured in this photo taken from an unmanned, remote-controlled helicopter on April 10, 2011.
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- A government panel on Monday endorsed a report that recalculated the power generation costs of various energy sources in the wake of the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, with the cost of nuclear power generation estimated well above the previous projection in 2004.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The report is expected to be reflected in discussions to review the country's energy policy, which is moving toward reducing reliance on nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster threw the safety of Japan's nuclear power plants into doubt.
According to the report, nuclear power generation costs 8.9 yen per kilowatt hour when including expenses associated with nuclear accidents, higher than a 2004 projection of 5.9 yen per kwh. The figure was unchanged from the draft unveiled last Tuesday.
Huge wind power generators stand in the Aomori Prefecture village of Rokkasho with the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the background.
The report said that costs would increase depending on the scale of damage caused by a severe nuclear accident. The 8.9 yen figure assumes losses totaling 5.8 trillion yen and would increase by 0.1 yen for every additional 1 trillion yen in losses.
The cost figures for electricity generated by coal-powered thermal plants as well as by liquefied natural gas-powered thermal plants were also unchanged from the draft at 9.5 yen per kwh and 10.7 yen per kwh, respectively.
In the 2004 projection, the cost of electricity generated by coal plants was pegged at 5.7 yen per kwh and that from LNG plants at 6.2 yen per kwh.
One of two new solar arrays in the Ogishima district of Kawasaki is seen in this aerial photo on Aug. 5. (Mainichi)
Minor revisions were made to the projected cost for 2030 of coal-powered thermal plants, which dropped to 10.3 yen per kwh from the draft estimate of 10.8 yen after including a possible improvement in power generation efficiency.
As for renewable energy sources, the cost of wind power generation on land was estimated at between 9.9 and 17.3 yen per kwh, and of power generated by home solar panels at 33.4 yen to 38.3 yen per kwh.
But in 2030, the report said the cost of wind and solar power generation could drop to as low as 8.8 and 9.9 yen per kwh , respectively, owing to technological advances and mass production of the equipment used.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Hundreds of trillions of becquerels of radioactive strontium leaked into sea
Hundreds of trillions of becquerels of radioactive strontium leaked into sea
December 19, 2011
Asahi Shimbun By NAOYA KON / Staff Writer
At least 462 trillion becquerels of radioactive strontium have leaked to the Pacific Ocean since the March disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, making it one of the world's most severe such cases of marine pollution, according to calculations by The Asahi Shimbun.
The Fisheries Agency is doing its own sampling survey to assess the accumulation of radioactive materials in marine life.
The newspaper based its calculations on data released by the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., and other sources.
With regard to leakages of radioactive-contaminated water from the No. 2 and No. 3 reactor buildings in April and May, respectively, The Asahi Shimbun relied on two sets of figures.
One was the volume of water that leaked from each reactor building. The other concerned the concentration of radioactive strontium in water that accumulated in each reactor building.
By multiplying the volume of leaked water by the concentration of radioactive strontium, the newspaper calculated the total amount of strontium that leaked from the two reactors.
Besides, the volume of strontium apparently contained in treated water used for cooling purposes that was confirmed to have leaked to the ocean on Dec. 4 was added to that from the No. 2 and No. 3 rectors.
In what is regarded as the world's worst case of marine pollution from a nuclear facility, some 500 trillion becquerels of strontium were discharged to the Irish Sea from the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in Cumbria, Britain, per year in the 1970s.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The volume of strontium that leaked from the Fukushima plant is close to that annual amount.
Strontium accumulates in bones and can cause bone cancer and leukemia.
For this reason, health experts have called for extensive surveys on the amount of leaked strontium so that measures can be drawn up to deal with the problem.
It takes two to three weeks to measure the extent of strontium contamination. Because strontium exists with cesium, and its volume is estimated to be less than 10 percent of that of cesium, few surveys have been done to gauge the volume of strontium in marine life.
The Fisheries Agency has performed surveys only on six kinds of fish through its affiliated organization, the Fisheries Research Agency. The fish, including Pacific cod, were caught in the period from April to July.
The fish were caught about 50 kilometers off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture. According to a Fisheries Agency's announcement on Aug. 30, the amount of strontium detected in Pacific cod came to 0.03 becquerel.
However, a different government survey detected 0.094 becquerel of strontium in fish caught in nearby waters before the disaster at the Fukushima plant.
For this reason, it is unclear whether strontium that had accumulated in the Pacific cod resulted from the crisis in Fukushima.
According to Satoshi Katayama, a professor of marine resources ecology at Tohoku University, detailed studies should be carried out on the accumulation of strontium in fish, such as young Japanese sand lance and white bait, as people generally eat every bit.
"Strontium easily accumulates in creatures, even if its concentration level is low," Katayama said.
Friday, December 16, 2011
EU study: clean energy costs no more in long run
EU study: clean energy costs no more in long run
By DON MELVIN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS December 15, 2011
BRUSSELS
A report issued Thursday says the European Union can cut its emissions of greenhouse gases dramatically by 2050 without spending any more money -- and even, perhaps, saving a bit.
That estimate is based on an assessment that the new plants and equipment needed to switch to the generation of clean energy would cost more than continued reliance on fossil fuels, but that the clean energy itself would cost less.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
"Only a new energy model will make our system secure, competitive and sustainable in the long run," said EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger. The report, called "Energy Roadmap 2050," was produced by the European Commission, the executive branch of the 27-country European Union.
The EU has committed itself to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, which contribute to changing the earth's climate, to 80-90 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
"The energy sector produces the lion's share of man-made greenhouse emissions," the report said, adding that reducing emissions would therefore "put particular pressure on energy systems."
The report analyzed various scenarios, including dramatically increasing energy efficiency with new requirements on appliances and buildings, strong support for renewable sources of energy, and carbon capture and storage. It concluded that the various clean energy scenarios would cost no more -- and perhaps a bit less -- than continuing to generate electricity as is done now.
And the report concluded that the time for change is now. In this decade, it said, "a new investment cycle is taking place, as infrastructure built 30-40 years ago needs to be replaced."
Investing in different ways of generating energy would be cheaper now than later, and would also avoid locking the EU into current methods, the report said.
The EU's current policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions about 40 percent by 2050, it said.
The report was welcomed by environmentalist groups.
"The Energy Roadmap is an important step forward in helping the EU create a decarbonized economy," said Arne Mogren, of the European Climate Foundation.
The reaction of Greenpeace, too, was generally favorable.
"The roadmap shows that getting clean energy from renewables will cost taxpayers no more than getting dirty and dangerous energy from coal or nuclear power," said Fraule Thies, Greenpeace's EU energy policy director.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Korea Government sponsored research institute recommends move away from nuclear energy
Government sponsored research institute recommends move away from nuclear energy
The report refutes a renewed push by the Lee administration to expand nuclear power following a series of nuclear accidents
The Hankyoreh
By Nam Jong-young
Dec.15, 2011
A policy research institute has issued a report recommending the end of both current lifetime extensions for existing nuclear power plants and plans to build new plants, in order to promote sustainable development for future generations.
“It is desirable for future generations that we only use nuclear plants currently in operation until the end of their original limits of use and that we do not build any more new plants,” said Gang Gwang-gyu, head of the Korea Environment Institute’s Environmental Appraisal Center.
“Instead of reconsidering policies to supply more energy using nuclear plants, we should change to an energy policy that makes managing demand, including the promotion of energy saving, a priority.”
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The report is expected to cause controversy because it comes in contrast to the Lee Myung-bak administration’s policy of planning to build more nuclear plants despite the accident that occurred at Fukushima in Japan in March this year.
Before the report came out, unease had been growing regarding the safety of nuclear plants and the balancing of supply of and demand for electricity this winter, due to a series of problems where nuclear plants broke down.
At around 8:36 a.m. on Dec. 14, the 950,000kW No.3 reactor at Gori Nuclear Power Site in Busan came to a standstill and stopped generating electricity.
Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Lt. stated, “Excessive voltage in the turbine generator caused a protective relay to come into operation, ceasing electricity generation. We are investigating the exact cause of the accident.”
This incident took place just over 12 hours after the 1,000,000kW No. 1 reactor at a nuclear plant in Uljin was stopped at around 8 p.m. the previous day. This brings the number of reactors stopped for maintenance or because of breaking down to five out South Korea’s total of 21.
Japan Nuclear power generation costs surge ¥8.9 per kilowatt hour
Thursday, Dec. 15, 2011
Government report says post-Fukushima price rose to 'minimum' of ¥8.9 per kilowatt hour
Nuclear power generation costs surge
The Japan Times
Kyodo
A government panel says in a draft report that nuclear power generation costs ¥8.9 per kilowatt hour when including expenses associated with nuclear accidents, higher than a 2004 projection of ¥5.9 per kwh.
The new estimate, calculated by considering the result of the catastrophe at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant, shows that nuclear power is still one of the cheapest energy sources, the panel said.
But its draft report, released Tuesday, notes that ¥8.9 is the "minimum" cost of nuclear power as the total financial damages from a severe nuclear accident are still unclear.
According to the draft report, coal-powered thermal plants generate electricity at ¥9.5 per kwh, while the rate for liquefied natural gas-powered thermal plants is ¥10.7 per kwh.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In the 2004 projection, the cost of electricity from coal-fed plants was pegged at ¥5.7 per kwh, and from LNG-fired plants at ¥6.2 per kwh.
Among renewable energy sources, costs of wind power generation on land are estimated at between ¥9.9 and ¥17.3 per kwh, and of household solar power at ¥33.4 to ¥38.3 per kwh.
Looking forward to 2030, thermal power costs are expected to increase, while the cost of wind and solar power are projected to drop to as low as ¥8.8 and ¥9.9 per kwh amid expected market expansion. The cost of nuclear power is estimated to stay at ¥8.9 per kwh.
The calculation is part of the review of energy policy in light of the Fukushima crisis.
Under the national energy plan endorsed in June 2010, reliance on nuclear energy was projected to increase to 53 percent of the total power supply by 2030, from about 30 percent before the Fukushima accident.
Based on the panel's final report, to be issued later this month, the government is expected to come up with what is known as the "energy best mix."
The latest estimates are different from the 2004 figures because of what the panel calls social expenses, in addition to capital, fuel and operation and maintenance costs.
Social expenses are included in costs for nuclear power in the form of accident risk, and for thermal power in the form of costs to deal with carbon dioxide emissions.
Nuclear accident risk costs are estimated at ¥0.5 per kwh, according to the draft report, which notes that expense could increase further depending on damages caused by a severe nuclear accident.
So far, the panel estimates damages costs to be at least ¥5.8 trillion, drawing on the Fukushima accident. But that figure doesn't include all factors, such as expenses related to cleaning radiation-contaminated land around the plant.
Against Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant Project Facebook Groups Pages
Jaitapur Speaks
Oppose Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
550
Stop Jaitapur Nuclear Plant
308
BIG NO 2 Nukes! "Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant (JNPP)
260
Jaitapur Speaks
189
JAITAPUR NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT PROTESTERS
120
The protest against Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
108
Stop Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP)
100
Scrap Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
88
Citizens Against Nuclear Jaitapur
77
"Say NO to Nuclear plant in Jaitapur" ( Maharastra - India )
67
Save environment stop jaitapur nuclear plant
63
Nucléaire à Jaitapur, non merci - जैतापूर नहीं धन्यवाद - No thank you
http://on.fb.me/tOG5KU
31
No to Jaitapur
29
Students For Jaitapur
27
Students For Jaitapur
27
Stop the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant
23
Lets Protest Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
23
India Against the Proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Plant in Maharashtra
17
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Can California Do Without Nuclear Power?
Can California Do Without Nuclear Power?
Where Are We Going to Get Another 5,000 Megawatts?
Saturday, December 10, 2011
by TAM HUNT
independent.com
Italy recently became the fourth nation to pledge to phase out nuclear power since Japan’s Fukushima disaster. Italy accomplished this feat by a popular referendum, soon after Germany did the same in its legislature (Bundestag). Switzerland has also agreed to a phase-out and Japan itself has agreed to phase out much of its nuclear capacity in favor of renewables and natural gas.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Should California do the same? Could it do the same?
California has effectively banned new nuclear plants in the state since the 1970s due to a law requiring that there be an effective federal nuclear waste disposal facility before any new plants are built in California. And despite efforts to create a federal waste facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and other places, the U.S. is still far from completing any such facility.
Tam Hunt
There has not, however, been any widespread push to phase out California’s existing nuclear plants. We have three: two in California (Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County and San Onofre in San Diego County) and one in Arizona (Palo Verde) that serves California. These three plants provide about 5,000 megawatts of steady electricity to California and have never suffered any major accidents.
Five thousand megawatts is a lot of baseload power and would require enormous amounts of new wind, solar, and/or natural gas to replace these nuclear power plants.
But would we need to replace these plants? That is, if a decision were made to phase out the plants, would they need to be replaced?
No one has yet, to my knowledge, looked at this issue in detail. But the state’s grid operator, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), has recently completed a detailed analysis for “integration requirements” to get to 33% renewables by 2020, as is now required by law since Gov. Brown signed SB 2. “Integration” refers generally to new natural-gas power plants to provide power when variable renewables, like wind power or solar power, aren’t available – because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine.
The good news is that CAISO recently concluded, under its current set of assumptions, that California will need no new capacity to integrate the 33% renewables by 2020. CAISO examined four scenarios in its 33% renewables by 2020 analysis, some focusing on in-state renewables only, others including some out-of-state power, more wind, etc. The analysis found that only a small “load following down” capacity would be required, which could be met through curtailment of existing facilities, rather than building any new facilities.
Why such a surprising finding? A number of factors are relevant, but the primary ones are: an excess of existing natural gas generation, robust statewide energy-efficiency and demand-response programs, and a significant number of new cogeneration facilities coming online.
Not only did CAISO find no new power plants would be required to integrate the 33% renewables mandate by 2020, CAISO also found that by 2020 the state would have about 14,000 megawatts of excess power available, even after meeting the 33% renewables mandate. This is over and above the “planning reserve margin” required by state law. The planning reserve margin is 15-17% above expected normal demand for each utility. It provides a buffer in cases where demand peaks are far higher than expected – during summer heat waves, for example.
Compared to the 5,000 megawatts of nuclear power that serves California, it seems that the projected 14,144 megawatt surplus by 2020 may allow the phase-out of these plants in the coming years without harming the ability of our grid to function reliably.
It is important, however, to recognize that this CAISO report did not explicitly examine a “nuclear phase out” scenario. It would, thus, be irresponsible to conclude without further analysis by CAISO that we could immediately or painlessly phase out these nuclear plants. The responsible course of action would be for CAISO to include a nuclear phase-out scenario in a future iteration of this analysis and vet the results thoroughly with other agencies and stakeholders.
Moreover, the technical ability to serve California’s power demand without our existing nuclear power plants is not the only relevant factor. Another important factor relates to “stranded costs” of these power plants. Nuclear power plants cost billions of dollars to build, which is ultimately paid by ratepayers. Power plants must generally stay online long enough to allow revenue from power sales to pay for the investments. If they are forced offline, and contracts are broken, “stranded costs” must be paid by ratepayers. No one knows at this time what the stranded costs would be for our existing nuclear plants, but it may be a large amount.
Summing up, it seems, based on CAISO’s recent analysis, that California may indeed be able to phase out its nuclear power plants without great detriment to the state. But additional study is required, involving not only the ability to serve the electricity needs of Californians, but also the stranded costs resulting from such a phase out.
Tam Hunt is a renewable energy lawyer and policy advocate based in Santa Barbara. He owns Community Renewable Solutions LLC, which focuses on community-scale renewable energy consulting and project development.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Bangladesh Support No Nuclear Energy Facebook Groups Pages
Raise Your Voice against Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.facebook.com/groups/nailyakada/
260
International
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2011/10/support-no-nuclear-energy-nuclear-free.html
Stand against nuclear power project and save Ishurdi
http://www.facebook.com/groups/cityishurdi/
purpose of this group organize the people who lives in Ishurdi as well as the people of Bangladesh against Roppur nuclear power project. 142
Stop Nuclear Power Project And Save Country
http://www.facebook.com/groups/210300475681245/
Purpose of this group organize the people of bangladesh against "roppur nuclear power project" roppur,ishurdi, pabna and save the country form the danger of nuclear power as well as create consciousness among the people about the danger of nuclear power project. 82
Greenpeace Bangladesh
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55369181918
58
No Nuclear Powerplant in Bangladesh
http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-Nuclear-Powerplant-in-Bangladesh/275496895810838
4
Friday, December 9, 2011
Bill Gates Building Nuke Plant for China
Bill Gates Building Nuke Plant for China
BY SAM BIDDLE
DEC 8, 2011
gizmodo.com
What do you do when you've run out of things to spend money on, and everyone already uses your software? How about developing a nuclear plant with China? Sure! Bill Gates is doing just that, the AP reports. For science?
Although Gates says his baby nuclear energy company, TerraPower, is having "very good discussions" with China regarding the plant, the fact that he's throwing in a billion dollars over 5 years sounds like more than talk.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The plant, however, will be a "Generation IV" reactor, which for now exists only on paper—and the tech isn't expected to start materializing until for at least a decade.
Gen IV cores are expected to be safer, more efficient, create less waste that fades earlier, and essentially address every possible criticism about nuclear power. Again, on paper.
So why China, Bill? Their society is far more open to nuclear power than ours, especially post-Fukushima.
But it's also probably easier to use some remote Chinese backwater as a testbed for an untested form of nuclear energy.
When Gates says, with quintessential hubris, that "[the reactor will] require no human action to remain safe at all times," you have every reason to raise an eyebrow.
The international forum behind Gen IV nuclear says it's "developing safety design criteria for Generation IV nuclear power plants that reflect lessons learned from Fukushima."
Stripping human oversight from a nuclear reactor doesn't sound like a lesson learned.
Bill Gates Talking With China To Develop Nuclear Reactor
Bill Gates Talking With China To Develop Nuclear Reactor
December 7, 2011
BEIJING (AP) — Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates confirmed Wednesday he is in discussions with China to jointly develop a new and safer kind of nuclear reactor.
“The idea is to be very low cost, very safe and generate very little waste,” said the billionaire during a talk at China’s Ministry of Science and Technology.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Gates said he had largely funded a Washington state-based company, TerraPower, that is developing a Generation IV nuclear reactor that can run on depleted uranium.
TerraPower says it has discussed its plans with India, Russia and other countries with nuclear energy programs.
The general manager of state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation, Sun Qin, was quoted in Chinese media last week saying Gates was working with it to research and develop a reactor.
“TerraPower is having very good discussions with CNNC and various people in the Chinese government,” said Gates, cautioning the talks were at an early stage.
Gates says perhaps as much as a billion dollars will be put into research and development over the next five years.
TerraPower says its traveling wave reactor would run for decades on depleted uranium and produce significantly smaller amounts of nuclear waste than conventional reactors.
“All these new designs are going to be incredibly safe,” Gates told the audience. “They require no human action to remain safe at all times.”
He said they also benefit from an ability to simulate earthquake and tidal wave conditions. “It takes safety to a new level,” he said.
Since leaving Microsoft Corp., Gates has concentrated on philanthropy and advocating on public health, education and clean energy issues. He is an investor and strategic adviser to TerraPower.
Gates was at the Ministry of Science and Technology to talk about a joint project between China and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support innovative research and development to help alleviate poverty.
Gates said the ministry will help identify entrepreneurs and companies to manufacture new products in global health and agriculture to “change the lives of poor people,” including new vaccines and diagnostics and genetically modified seeds.
“China has a lot to contribute because it’s solved many of the problems of poverty, not all of them but a lot of them, itself, and many Asian, south Asian and African countries are well behind, whether it’s agriculture or health,” said Gates.
No specific poverty alleviation projects were mentioned.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Japan mulls $13 billion Fukushima bailout
Japan mulls $13 billion Fukushima bailout
By Linda Sieg and Kentaro Hamada
TOKYO | Thu Dec 8, 2011
(Reuters) - The Japanese government may inject about $13 billion into Tokyo Electric Power Co (9501.T) as early as next summer in a de facto nationalization of the operator of the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant, sources said on Thursday.
Tepco's future as an independent firm has been in doubt since an earthquake and tsunami wrecked the plant in March, triggering the world's worst nuclear crisis in 25 years and leaving it with huge compensation payments and clean-up costs.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In addition to public capital, the government and Tepco will also seek additional loans from banks, sources said, but the full scale of any Tepco bailout remains unclear.
Some analysts expressed doubt that the government would take the drastic step of taking control of the giant monopoly, which still has political clout, but the idea has proponents in some sections of Japan's ruling party.
"You have an essentially bankrupt operation, and if you are going to save it, it's going to cost a lot," said Andrew Dewit, a Rikkyo University professor who writes about energy policy.
"You've got a very bad picture getting worse, and dithering just ups the cost."
Tepco President Toshio Nishizawa was mentioned as saying a public fund injection could not be ruled out. "It is better to keep all options, so I don't deny it," Kyodo news agency quoted him as saying in an interview on Thursday.
Tepco has made progress in bringing the Fukushima plant under control and is on track to declare a "cold shutdown" -- when water used to cool the reactors is stable below boiling point -- before the end of the year.
But decommissioning four reactors at the plant is set to cost at least 1.2 trillion yen ($15.4 billion), a sum that would render Tepco insolvent if drastic measures to shore up its financial base were not taken, media reports said.
ENERGY POLICY REFORM
The Mainichi newspaper reported earlier on Thursday that the government planned to inject at least $13 billion and perhaps as much as $27 billion, while Kyodo news agency said the total bailout could reach 3 trillion yen ($38.5 billion) over four years, with half coming from private borrowings.
A government-run bailout fund would buy new stocks such as preferred shares to be issued by the utility, sources said.
Shares in Tepco slid as much as 17 percent before regaining some ground to end down 11 percent at 244 yen.
"The report got investors worried that Tepco could possibly become insolvent," said Hiroyuki Fukunaga, CEO of Investrust. "If they need 1 trillion yen to avoid that, then the money is not coming from anyone but the government."
Tepco would need to get shareholder approval to raise the ceiling on the number of shares it can issue at its next annual meeting in June.
To cover costs, Asia's biggest utility is pushing for hikes in electricity charges. It also wants permission to restart nuclear reactors, particularly those that have been idled at its biggest plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa.
Five of the seven reactors at that plant are off-line for checks or repairs, and two more are scheduled for planned shutdowns before May 2012.
But the ruling party has concluded that the public would be unwilling to accept higher electricity fees, particularly at a time when it is being asked to accept a hike in the sales tax to cover social security costs, Mainichi said, while restarting idled reactors is difficult due to public fears about safety.
Pushing Tepco to accept capital would also allow the government to pursue drastic reform of energy policy, including separating power generation from distribution, the paper said.
But experts questioned whether the two would necessarily go hand in hand. The government aims to finish a review of national energy policy, including nuclear power, by next summer.
"Nationalization could be a first step toward such reforms as splitting generation and distribution," said Rikkyo University's Dewit. "But whether this is a trial balloon and gets shot down in the short run, who's to say?"
The Mainichi report said a government panel led by Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura could, in the new year, announce plans to inject public funds, though Fujimura told reporters the issue of public funds was not now on the table.
Tepco is due to announce new steps in the coming days, which include an increase in its planned cost cuts over 10 years by 100 billion yen to 2.64 trillion yen as well as the sale of a thermal power plant, a source has said.
($1 = 77.7300 Japanese yen)
(Additional reporting by Edwina Gibbs, Taro Fuse, Mayumi Negishi, Hideyuki Sano, Taiga Uranaka and Yoko Kubota; Editing by Alex Richardson, Muralikumar Anantharaman and Will Waterman)
Save Fukushima People Stop Nuking Asia - Hong Kong Alliance Against Nukes
Save Fukushima People, Stop Nuking Asia
Tony Henderson
anti-nuclear protest Hong Kong
5 December 2011
By simply disgorging the information received from the Tokyo the local Japanese Consulate is playing a role is this disinformation exercise and leading the people and the world to believe all is on the mend but the reality is that the calamity is escalating everyday. In this connection, a protest group chanted that the Consul-General should not disinform Hong Kong people.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Image by: Photo Pressenza
Pressenza Hong Kong, SAR, China, 12/5/11 The organizer of the 5 December 2011 protest was the Hong Kong Alliance Against Nukes, staging a protest action at the Japanese Consulate in Hong Kong. The emphasis was placed on the Fukushima plant’s nuclear radioactivity contamination releases that have not stopped nor decreased. Also, that the Japanese government is mis-informing the world, and of course it’s own people!
By releasing false information and thereby downplaying the harm caused by radioactivity contamination in and coming from Japan the consulate is doing a disservice to Hong Kong. To rectify that, five demands were raised by the group to relay on to the Japanese government. These are:
Immediately evacuate all the people living in Fukushima, particularly the 360,000 children who are most vulnerable to radiation harm; and assist the people to rebuild their livelihood in their nuclear-free new homeland.
The Japanese government to instruct TEPCO to honestly disclose the health records of the 18,000 labour workers who have been employed, directly or by subcontractors, to clean up the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant since March 11, 2011.
The Japanese government to acquire Food Radiation Counters and Whole Body Radiation Counters for communities within 1,500,000 square kilometres of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant*. It should also hire independent experts who have experience and reliable research in low dose radiation exposure sicknesses, such as Dr. Chris Busby (scientific secretary, European Committee on Radiation Risks) and scientists at Belrad, Belarus, to monitor children’s health.
The Japanese government to work with other Asian countries for a Nuclear-Free Asia with immediate effect, and stop exporting nuclear technologies to other countries.
The Consul-General for Japan in Hong Kong to stop releasing untrue information to create false sense of security for Hong Kong people by downplaying the harm caused by radioactivity contamination in Japan.
During the same action, they also strongly protested to 15 countries which participate in Nuclear Energy Asia 2011 Conference in Hong Kong (held on December 5-6, 2011, at InterContinental Grand Stanford Hotel) for nuking Asia. They quoted independent scientists researching on low-dose radiation released from nuclear power plants to highlight the following:
Adding a fraction to the background radiation will cause genetic mutation in living organisms (including humans) and lead to premature aging, increased cancer risk (in a supralinear pattern), and a variety of diseases in children and youth such as heart diseases, diabetes, allergies and psychiatric problems. The genetic damage will pass on to future generations and is irreversible.
“Now that we know that nuclear plants release radioactivity and kill a certain number of people, scientists who support these nuclear plants—knowing the effects of radiation—don’t deserve trials for experimentation; they deserve trials for murder.” (John Gofman, M.D., PhD.)
The Chernobyl nuclear disaster having the same rating of Level 7 as the Fukushima disaster, has caused significant radioactivity contamination in the expanse of 1,500,000 square kilometers.
** The 15 countries are the U. S., France, the U.K., Finland, Japan, China, India, Republic of Korea, Mongolia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Vietnam and Thailand
http://www.greenpartypost.net/nonukes.html
Tony Henderson is a freelance writer working in Hong Kong, since 1980, and previously Japan, for seven years following two years in Mauritius after a year in Libya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)