Thursday, January 12, 2012
12 Nuclear Tourism Destinations: Not Your Typical Vacation
12 Nuclear Tourism Destinations: Not Your Typical Vacation
Thursday, January 12, 2012
http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/eco-tourism/photos/12-nuclear-tourism-destinations/not-your-typical-vacation
Mother Nature Network:
If you're looking for a unique vacation experience, skip the beach this year and check out some of the world's most notorious locations from the Atomic Age.
http://easss.com/travel
A relatively new trend, nuclear tourism involves traveling to significant sites in atomic history. The headlines -- including those for Japan's Fukushima disaster in March 2011 -- make the concept controversial, but that's also what draws people in to learn more.
Radiation-Tainted Japanese Car Parts Confiscated At Russia's Far Eastern Border
Radiation-Tainted Japanese Car Parts Confiscated At Russia's Far Eastern Border
1/11/2012
(RTTNews) - Russian police have confiscated dozens of car parts imported from Japan after they were found to be radiation-tainted.
The Far Eastern customs service in Vladivostok said in a press release on Wednesday that customs officers detected 34 'hot' automotive parts including chassis and engines in the first ten days of January alone.
Russia has been maintaining strict vigil at its borders against import of automobiles from Japan since its Fukushima nuclear power station suffered a series of nuclear meltdowns as a result of an earthquake in March last.
http://easss.com/cars
Several cars with radionuclide contamination traces were spotted at the border checkpoints since then, and those with excess radiation were not allowed to cross the border.
In December, a consignment of radioactive tires shipped from Japan was seized at Vladivostok.
Goods found to be radioactive upon arrival in Vladivostok are usually rejected, but a small portion is allowed into Russia after decontamination.
Russian police confiscate radioactive Japanese car parts
Jan 11, 2012
monstersandcritics
Moscow - Police in the Russian Pacific port city Vladivostok confiscated dozens of car parts contaminated by Japan's Fukushima-1 nuclear power accident, port authorities said Wednesday.
'In the first 10 days of January alone, Vladivostok customs officers detected 34 'hot' automotive parts including chassis and engines,' a statement from the Vladivostok customs office said.
The parts were irradiated as a result of a March nuclear power accident in Japan, according to the statement.
In December, a shipping container packed with of radioactive tyres from Japan was seized at Vladivostok. Dozens of Japanese automobiles contaminated by radiation arrived in the port in April and June, according to official statements.
Some of the Japanese cars were found to emit dangerous isotopes at six times safe levels.
Japan's Fukushima nuclear power station suffered a series of nuclear meltdowns as a result of an earthquake.
Goods found to be radioactive upon arrival in Vladivostok are usually rejected, but a small portion is allowed into Russia after decontamination.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Editorial: Gov't should promote renewable energy as myth of nuclear power's cheapness shattered
Editorial: Gov't should promote renewable energy as myth of nuclear power's cheapness shattered
Mainichi Japan 12/29/2011
"The cost of nuclear power generation is cheap" -- we have repeatedly heard such a line as part of the reasoning for promoting nuclear energy.
The myth of the cheapness of nuclear power generation collapsed following the catastrophe at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant.
http://easss.com/nuclear
A government panel set up in the wake of the nuclear disaster estimates that the cost of nuclear power generation now stands at a minimum of 8.9 yen per kilowatt hour -- 1.5 times higher than the figure presented by utilities and the government before the disaster.
If the costs for decontaminating areas affected by radioactive materials, decommissioning the damaged reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant and compensating for damages emanating from the nuclear crisis soar further, the cost of nuclear power generation would be even higher.
Considering the fact that the costs of coal-fired power generation and liquefied natural gas (LNG)-fueled power generation stand at somewhere near 10 yen per kilowatt hour, respectively, the superiority that nuclear power generation had enjoyed in terms of "cost performance" can be said to have been shattered.
Even wind power generation and geothermal power generation could rival with nuclear power generation in terms of cost performance depending on conditions, while the cost of solar power generation is likely to become cheaper in 20 years time.
The government should take this opportunity to proceed with full-scale measures to invest in and promote renewable energy sources, which had previously been shunned for their "high costs."
What makes the government panel's latest estimation significantly different from previous calculations is that the panel took into consideration the social costs emanating from nuclear power generation, such as accident risks, on top of the expenses for the construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants as well as their fuel costs.
In hindsight, it was a mistake that we failed to take into account accident risks involving nuclear plants.
It shows that the myths of the safety and the cheapness of nuclear power generation were closely intertwined with each other.
The government panel has also indicated that energy savings per household are tantamount to generating power and pointed to the potential of a dispersed power system, to which we should pay renewed attention.
The panel's estimates should be indicating the feasibility of the government's policy of cutting down on nuclear power generation.
In the meantime, we should take heed of the fact that the figures currently presented are highly uncertain. Experts were sharply divided in their opinions over how nuclear accident risks should be evaluated when they were discussing how they should calculate the latest estimates.
While some experts projected that the odds of such a serious accident as the Fukushima disaster happening were once every 100,000 years, their opinions are way too different from ordinary people's feelings considering the fact that we have seen three major nuclear accidents across the globe -- Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979, Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011 -- over the past several decades.
It should be noted that the government panel has given minimum estimates because it excluded accident probabilities from their estimates for nuclear accident risk-related costs.
The panel has also indicated that the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle -- which the government describes as the core of Japan's nuclear energy policy -- is almost twice that of direct disposal. The nuclear fuel cycle program, albeit the large amount of money spent on it, should be reviewed from square one.
The panel's estimates should be examined by people from various quarters in order for Japan to come up with the best mix of energy policies. Those estimates should serve as the first step toward achieving such diverse energy policies.
Two new solar arrays in the Ogishima district of Kawasaki.
Huge wind power generators stand in the Aomori Prefecture village of Rokkasho with the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the background.
Mainichi Japan 12/29/2011
"The cost of nuclear power generation is cheap" -- we have repeatedly heard such a line as part of the reasoning for promoting nuclear energy.
The myth of the cheapness of nuclear power generation collapsed following the catastrophe at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant.
http://easss.com/nuclear
A government panel set up in the wake of the nuclear disaster estimates that the cost of nuclear power generation now stands at a minimum of 8.9 yen per kilowatt hour -- 1.5 times higher than the figure presented by utilities and the government before the disaster.
If the costs for decontaminating areas affected by radioactive materials, decommissioning the damaged reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant and compensating for damages emanating from the nuclear crisis soar further, the cost of nuclear power generation would be even higher.
Considering the fact that the costs of coal-fired power generation and liquefied natural gas (LNG)-fueled power generation stand at somewhere near 10 yen per kilowatt hour, respectively, the superiority that nuclear power generation had enjoyed in terms of "cost performance" can be said to have been shattered.
Even wind power generation and geothermal power generation could rival with nuclear power generation in terms of cost performance depending on conditions, while the cost of solar power generation is likely to become cheaper in 20 years time.
The government should take this opportunity to proceed with full-scale measures to invest in and promote renewable energy sources, which had previously been shunned for their "high costs."
What makes the government panel's latest estimation significantly different from previous calculations is that the panel took into consideration the social costs emanating from nuclear power generation, such as accident risks, on top of the expenses for the construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants as well as their fuel costs.
In hindsight, it was a mistake that we failed to take into account accident risks involving nuclear plants.
It shows that the myths of the safety and the cheapness of nuclear power generation were closely intertwined with each other.
The government panel has also indicated that energy savings per household are tantamount to generating power and pointed to the potential of a dispersed power system, to which we should pay renewed attention.
The panel's estimates should be indicating the feasibility of the government's policy of cutting down on nuclear power generation.
In the meantime, we should take heed of the fact that the figures currently presented are highly uncertain. Experts were sharply divided in their opinions over how nuclear accident risks should be evaluated when they were discussing how they should calculate the latest estimates.
While some experts projected that the odds of such a serious accident as the Fukushima disaster happening were once every 100,000 years, their opinions are way too different from ordinary people's feelings considering the fact that we have seen three major nuclear accidents across the globe -- Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979, Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011 -- over the past several decades.
It should be noted that the government panel has given minimum estimates because it excluded accident probabilities from their estimates for nuclear accident risk-related costs.
The panel has also indicated that the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle -- which the government describes as the core of Japan's nuclear energy policy -- is almost twice that of direct disposal. The nuclear fuel cycle program, albeit the large amount of money spent on it, should be reviewed from square one.
The panel's estimates should be examined by people from various quarters in order for Japan to come up with the best mix of energy policies. Those estimates should serve as the first step toward achieving such diverse energy policies.
Two new solar arrays in the Ogishima district of Kawasaki.
Huge wind power generators stand in the Aomori Prefecture village of Rokkasho with the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the background.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)