Author Archive

Sunday, Mar. 13, 2011

by Stephen Lendman
Indy Media News
lendmanstephen(at)sbcglobal.net

For years, Helen Caldicott warned it’s coming. In her 1978 book, "Nuclear Madness," she said:

"As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced."

More below on the inevitable dangers from commercial nuclear power proliferation, besides added military ones.

On March 11, New York Times writer Martin Fackler headlined, "Powerful Quake and Tsunami Devastate Northern Japan," saying:

"The 8.9-magnitude earthquake (Japan’s strongest ever) set off a devastating tsunami that sent walls of water (six meters high) washing over coastal cities in the north." According to Japan’s Meteorological Survey, it was 9.0.

The Sendai port city and other areas experienced heavy damage. "Thousands of homes were destroyed, many roads were impassable, trains and buses (stopped) running, and power and cellphones remained down. On Saturday morning, the JR rail company" reported three trains missing. Many passengers are unaccounted for.

Striking at 2:46PM Tokyo time, it caused vast destruction, shook city skyscrapers, buckled highways, ignited fires, terrified millions, annihilated areas near Sendai, possibly killed thousands, and caused a nuclear meltdown, its potential catastrophic effects far exceeding quake and tsunami devastation, almost minor by comparison under a worst case scenario.

On March 12, Times writer Matthew Wald headlined, "Explosion Seen at Damaged Japan Nuclear Plant," saying:

"Japanese officials (ordered evacuations) for people living near two nuclear power plants whose cooling systems broke down," releasing radioactive material, perhaps in far greater amounts than reported.

NHK television and Jiji said the 40-year old Fukushima plant’s outer structure housing the reactor "appeared to have blown off, which could suggest the containment building had already been breached." Japan’s nuclear regulating agency said radioactive levels inside were 1,000 times above normal.

Reuters said the 1995 Kobe quake caused $100 billion in damage, up to then the most costly ever natural disaster. This time, from quake and tsunami damage alone, that figure will be dwarfed. Moreover, under a worst case core meltdown, all bets are off as the entire region and beyond will be threatened with permanent contamination, making the most affected areas unsafe to live in.

On March 12, Stratfor Global Intelligence issued a "Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown at Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant," saying:

Fukushima Daiichi "nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its seriousness, adding that such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may have happened – the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter.

According to Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the (core’s) breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can be….entombed within specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986.

In fact, that disaster killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said:

"For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

"No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere."

Stratfor explained that if Fukushima’s floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its) containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before," at least not reported. If now occurring, "containment goes from being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives will be jeopardized.

Japanese officials said Fukushima’s reactor container wasn’t breached. Stratfor and others said it was, making the potential calamity far worse than reported. Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said the explosion at Fukushima’s Saiichi No. 1 facility could only have been caused by a core meltdown. In fact, 3 or more reactors are affected. Events are fluid and developing, but remain very serious. The possibility of an extreme catastrophe can’t be discounted.

Moreover, independent nuclear safety analyst John Large told Al Jazeera that by venting radioactive steam from the inner reactor to the outer dome, a reaction may have occurred, causing the explosion.

"When I look at the size of the explosion," he said, "it is my opinion that there could be a very large leak (because) fuel continues to generate heat."

Already, Fukushima way exceeds Three Mile Island that experienced a partial core meltdown in Unit 2. Finally it was brought under control, but coverup and denial concealed full details until much later.

According to anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, Japan’s quake fallout may cause nuclear disaster, saying:

"This is a very serious situation. If the cooling system fails (apparently it has at two or more plants), the super-heated radioactive fuel rods will melt, and (if so) you could conceivably have an explosion," that, in fact, occurred.

As a result, massive radiation releases may follow, impacting the entire region. "It could be, literally, an apocalyptic event. The reactor could blow." If so, Russia, China, Korea and most parts of Western Asia will be affected. Many thousands will die, potentially millions under a worse case scenario, including far outside East Asia.

Moreover, at least five reactors are at risk. Already, a 20-mile wide radius was evacuated. What happened in Japan can occur anywhere. Yet Obama’s proposed budget includes $36 billion for new reactors, a shocking disregard for global safety.

Calling Fukushima an "apocalyptic event," Wasserman said "(t)hese nuclear plants have to be shut," let alone budget billions for new ones. It’s unthinkable, he said. If a similar disaster struck California, nuclear fallout would affect all America, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and parts of South America.

Nuclear Power: A Technology from Hell

Nuclear expert Helen Caldicott agrees, telling this writer by phone that a potential regional catastrophe is unfolding. Over 30 years ago, she warned of its inevitability. Her 2006 book titled, "Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" explained that contrary to government and industry propaganda, even during normal operations, nuclear power generation causes significant discharges of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as hundreds of thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year.

Moreover, nuclear plants are atom bomb factories. A 1000 megawatt reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium annually. Only 10 are needed for a bomb able to devastate a large city, besides causing permanent radiation contamination.

Nuclear Power not Cleaner and Greener

Just the opposite, in fact. Although a nuclear power plant releases no carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas, a vast infrastructure is required. Called the nuclear fuel cycle, it uses large amounts of fossil fuels.

Each cycle stage exacerbates the problem, starting with the enormous cost of mining and milling uranium, needing fossil fuel to do it. How then to dispose of mill tailings, produced in the extraction process. It requires great amounts of greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate.

Moreover, other nuclear cycle steps also use fossil fuels, including converting uranium to hexafluoride gas prior to enrichment, the enrichment process itself, and conversion of enriched uranium hexafluoride gas to fuel pellets. In addition, nuclear power plant construction, dismantling and cleanup at the end of their useful life require large amounts of energy.

There’s more, including contaminated cooling water, nuclear waste, its handling, transportation and disposal/storage, problems so far unresolved. Moreover, nuclear power costs and risks are so enormous that the industry couldn’t exist without billions of government subsidized funding annually.

The Unaddressed Human Toll from Normal Operations

Affected are uranium miners, industry workers, and potentially everyone living close to nuclear reactors that routinely emit harmful radioactive releases daily, harming human health over time, causing illness and early death.

The link between radiation exposure and disease is irrefutable, depending only on the amount of cumulative exposure over time, Caldicott saying:

"If a regulatory gene is biochemically altered by radiation exposure, the cell will begin to incubate cancer, during a ‘latent period of carcinogenesis,’ lasting from two to sixty years."

In fact, a single gene mutation can prove fatal. No amount of radiation exposure is safe. Moreover, when combined with about 80,000 commonly used toxic chemicals and contaminated GMO foods and ingredients, it causes 80% of known cancers, putting everyone at risk everywhere.

Further, the combined effects of allowable radiation exposure, uranium mining, milling operations, enrichment, and fuel fabrication can be devastating to those exposed. Besides the insoluble waste storage/disposal problem, nuclear accidents happen and catastrophic ones are inevitable.

Inevitable Meltdowns

Caldicott and other experts agree they’re certain in one or more of the hundreds of reactors operating globally, many years after their scheduled shutdown dates unsafely. Combined with human error, imprudently minimizing operating costs, internal sabotage, or the effects of a high-magnitude quake and/or tsunami, an eventual catastrophe is certain.

Aging plants alone, like Japan’s Fukushima facility, pose unacceptable risks based on their record of near-misses and meltdowns, resulting from human error, old equipment, shoddy maintenance, and poor regulatory oversight. However, under optimum operating conditions, all nuclear plants are unsafe. Like any machine or facility, they’re vulnerable to breakdowns, that if serious enough can cause enormous, possibly catastrophic, harm.

Add nuclear war to the mix, also potentially inevitable according to some experts, by accident or intent, including Steven Starr saying:

"Only a single failure of nuclear deterrence is required to start a nuclear war," the consequences of which "would be profound, potentially killing "tens of millions of people, and caus(ing) long-term, catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer. The result would be a global nuclear famine that could kill up to one billion people."

Worse still is nuclear winter, the ultimate nightmare, able to end all life if it happens. It’s nuclear proliferation’s unacceptable risk, a clear and present danger as long as nuclear weapons and commercial dependency exist.
In 1946, Enstein knew it, saying:

"Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing the power to make great decisions for good and evil. The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."

He envisioned two choices – abolish all forms of nuclear power or face extinction. No one listened. The Doomsday Clock keeps ticking.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen(at)sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/
sjlendman.blogspot.com

South Texas Project Reactors 1 & 2 are applying for relicensing,
which would extend their operating life by 20 years

Information for How to Intervene or Comment on licensing renewal of the two
existing South Texas Project reactors:

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/south-texas-project.html

For further information, contact Carmen Fells or Tam Tran at the Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mail Stop O11-F1, Washington,
D.C. 20555;
telephone (301) 415-6337 for Carmen Fells and
telephone (301) 415-3617 for Tam Tran.

Deadline for comments on the scoping of the environmental report – April 1, 2011

The reactors came online in 1988 and 1989. A summary of
their troubled history is online at www.NukeFreeTexas.org 

Issues that could be raised include, but are not limited to: 

• Risks of an accident, fires, or explosions at one or more
  reactors at the site, risks that could increase with aging reactors 

• Safer, cleaner alternative ways to generate the same power exist today and
  should be used, 

• Vast consumption of water use, largely Colorado River water, which is
  increasingly needed for drinking water, livestock and farming

• The main cooling reservoir is leaking out the bottom. How and when will
  this be repaired? 

• Climate change – rising temperatures could affect whether
  there is enough cool water to cool the reactors.

• There is no adequate solution for radioactive waste,
  so it makes sense to stop generating more.

from TexasVox:

NRC ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The 22 year old South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 and 2 are up for renewal and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that an application for a 20-year renewal of the operating licenses is available for public review.

The plant’s current operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 will expire on Aug. 20, 2027, and Dec. 15, 2028, respectively.  A 20 year license extension would have the two units in production well past their initial life expectancy, and the onsite spent fuel rod storage, well – that’s a whole other can of worms.

South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 are both pressurized-water nuclear reactors, located 12 miles southwest of Bay City, Texas .  When they were built, these plants were projected to have a 30 to 40 year life xpectancy and STP says it has enough underwater storage capacity on site to safely store spent fuel for the licensed life of the plant.  Since it is up for a 20 year renewal, let’s hope that that means they have enough spent fuel storage capacity for at least that long.  They haven’t been very forthcoming about what their hoped for expansion would mean for their spent fuel storage capacity, continuing to hold forth the promise of a long-term storage solution (Yucca Mountain being the most frequently touted option). But with the development of Yucca Mountain in limbo, and the NRC extending the period for onsite storage past the production life of a plant, it seems likely that an off site long term storage solution is unlikely anytime soon.

The licensee, STP Nuclear Operating Co., submitted the renewal application Oct. 26. The application is available on the NRC website at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal applications/south-texas-project.html. The NRC staff is currently conducting an initial review of the application to determine whether it contains enough information for the required formal review. If the application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally "docket", or file, the application and will announce an opportunity to request a public hearing.

For further information, contact Carmen Fells or Tam Tran at the Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mail Stop O11-F1, Washington,
D.C. 20555;
telephone (301) 415-6337 for Carmen Fells and
telephone (301) 415-3617 for Tam Tran.

Statement by Karen Hadden

March 12, 2011

Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition
NukeFreeTexas.org
512-797-8481

The nuclear crisis in Japan, on top of the devastating earthquake and loss of lives, is absolutely horrifying and our hearts go out to all involved. Reports of radiation victims are starting to come in and it is hard to say what will come next.

Any nuclear reactor can have a loss of coolant accident. Any reactor can have a meltdown. This is the reality of the risk of nuclear power, and we shouldn’t have to keep learning this lesson after the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the horrible scenario now unfolding in Japan. It is time to halt all nuclear investment and relicensing.

At the South Texas Project site in Bay City, a hurricane or floodwaters could knock out power and back up diesel generators. An earthquake is more likely at the Comanche Peak site than at the South Texas Project site, but both locations are also at risk for terrorist attacks that could release radiation.

There could be 18,000 early deaths from an accident at the STP site – followed by thousands of cancers, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 1982 CRAC-2 study.

SEED Coalition has filed legal opposition to proposed new reactors at both the Comanche Peak and South Texas Project sites, and we raised the issue of fires and explosions. We have gotten traction on these contentions and expect to have full hearings on these serious issues.

The risk of serious accidents is prime among the reasons our organization opposes the new reactors proposed for South Texas Project and Comanche Peak. We oppose the power purchase agreements that NRG Energy is peddling, trying to get San Antonio and Austin to buy into the STP reactors in order to prop up the federal loan guarantees for the project.

The South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 are now up for relicensing, and public comment is accepted until April 1st, with a legal opposition deadline of March 14th. It is time to look at whether relicensing nuclear reactors makes sense, especially when affordable cleaner, safer options for generating electricity are available.

There have been many close calls. In 2002 a hole was found in the Davis Besse reactor head, about the size of a basketball, with only 3/8″ of bowed steel left. Acid had corroded away nearly 6″ of the reactor head. The US is lucky that this didn’t lead to a major accident due to loss of coolant.

In 2006 in Sweden, the Forsmark reactor came close to a meltdown. They got lucky since one of the diesel generators that was expected to fail actually held and Stockholm was saved.

A study called the Nuclear Tightrope, by David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, talks about 46 year-long reactor outages in the US that have been the result of very poor reactor maintenance, creating increased risk of accidents. The report is available online on the home page of this site.

Value of Subsidies Often Exceeds Price of Nuclear Energy Produced; Obama Administration Wants to Nearly Triple Loan Guarantees

February 23, 2011

WASHINGTON (February 23, 2011) — Since its inception more than 50 years ago, the U.S. nuclear power industry has been propped up by a generous array of government subsidies that have supported its development and operations. Despite that support, the industry is still not economically viable, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report, "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies," found that more than 30 subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced.

"Despite the fact that the nuclear power industry has benefited from decades of government support, the technology is still uneconomic, so the industry is demanding a lot more from taxpayers to build new reactors," said Ellen Vancko, manager of UCS’s Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project. "The cost of this technology continues to escalate despite billions in subsidies to both existing and proposed plants. Instead of committing billions in new subsidies that would further distort the market in favor of nuclear power, we should focus on more cost-effective energy sources that will reduce carbon emissions more quickly and with less risk."

Pending and proposed subsidies for new nuclear reactors would shift even more costs and risks from the industry to taxpayers and ratepayers. The Obama administration’s new budget proposal would provide an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees to underwrite new reactor construction, bringing the total amount of nuclear loan guarantees to a staggering $58.5 billion, leaving taxpayers on the hook if the industry defaults on these loans.

The key subsidies for nuclear power do not involve cash payments, the report found. They shift the risks of constructing and operating plants — including cost overruns, loan defaults, accidents and waste management — from plant owners and investors to taxpayers and ratepayers. These hidden subsidies distort market choices that would otherwise favor less risky investments.

The most significant forms of subsidies to nuclear power have four principal objectives: Reduce the cost of capital, labor and land through loan guarantees and tax incentives; mask the true costs of producing nuclear energy through subsidies to uranium mining and water usage; shift security and accident risks to the public via the 1957 Price-Anderson Act and other mechanisms; and shift long-term operating risks such as radioactive waste storage to the public.

The report evaluates legacy subsidies that helped build the industry, ongoing support to existing reactors, and subsidies available for new projects. According to the report, legacy subsidies exceeded 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh), well above the average wholesale price of power from 1960 to 2008. In effect, the subsidies were more valuable than the power the subsidized plants produced.

"Without these generous subsidies, the nuclear industry would have faced a very different market reality," said Doug Koplow, the author of the report and principal at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based consulting firm, Earth Track. "Many of the 104 reactors currently operating would never have been built, and the utilities that built reactors would have been forced to charge ratepayers even higher rates."

The industry continues to benefit from subsidies that offset its operating costs, which include uranium mining, cooling water, accident liability insurance, waste disposal, and plant decommissioning. The exact value of these subsidies, however, is difficult to ascertain. According to the report, ongoing subsidies range from 13 percent to 98 percent of the value of the power produced. Even at the low-end however, subsidies account for a significant portion of nuclear power’s operating cost advantage over competing energy sources.

Subsidies to new reactors could significantly exceed those enjoyed by the existing fleet. In addition to benefiting from ongoing subsidies to existing plants, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 introduced a new suite of subsidies for nuclear power. The report estimates that these subsidies could be worth between 4.2 and 11.4¢/kWh, or as much as 200 percent of the projected price of electricity when these plants are built.

"All low-carbon energy technologies would be able to compete on their merits if the government established an energy-neutral playing field and put a price on carbon," said Vancko. "Investing in nuclear power carries the unique risks of radioactive waste storage, accidents, and nuclear weapons proliferation that must be fully reflected in the technology’s costs, which is not the case today."

Based on these findings, the report recommends that the federal government reduce subsidies to the nuclear power industry. If subsidies are necessary, the government should award them competitively to the most cost-effective low-carbon energy technologies. The report also recommends that the government modernize liability systems for nuclear power and establish regulations and fee structures for uranium mining, waste repository financing, and water usage that fully reflect the technology’s cost and risks.

"After 50 years," said Koplow, "the nuclear industry needs to move away from government patronage to a model based on real economic viability. The considerable operational and construction risks of this power source need to be reflected in the delivered price of power rather than dumped onto taxpayers."

###

MORE RESOURCES
For more information about recent congressional proposals to increase nuclear subsidies see UCS’s 2010 issue brief, "Billions of Dollars in Subsidies for the Nuclear Power Industry Will Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers."

For more information on nuclear power subsidies, see UCS’s 2009 report, "Nuclear Loan Guarantees: Another Taxpayer Bailout Ahead."

For information on how the Energy Information Agency systematically undercounts subsidies to many energy industries, see Doug Koplow’s 2010 analysis of the agency’s 2008 report on federal subsidies to the nation’s energy sector.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.

March 9, 2011

The QueQue
San Antonio Current

As city-owned CPS Energy re-enters talks with NRG Energy about possibly buying more deeply into the proposed nuclear power plant expansion they only recently largely extracted themselves from, local and Austin-based activists are fighting a sense of regret and déjà vu. "We wish CPS would have learned the lesson that it should have learned a year ago. I wish we didn’t have to go through this again," Cindy Weehler, of the anti-nuclear group Energía Mía, said at a Tuesday press conference in front of City Hall.

After getting clearance from the CPS Energy Board of Trustees last week, CEO Doyle Beneby is planning to entertain proposals that could once again throw CPS and NRG into deeper partnership, priming the city to either further invest in the group’s two proposed South Texas Project reactors or agree to a long-term power purchasing deal.

Just a year ago, CPS and NRG’s equal partnership in the proposed nukes imploded in a $32-billion lawsuit amid allegations of fraud and manipulation on the part of NRG. quot;The history is so messy, so why would this even be considered again?quot; Weehler asked.

Karen Hadden, director for Texas clean-energy group SEED Coalition, said she has approached city council members and found "no excitementquot; about Beneby’s move. quot;Our concern is these talks just came up so quickly. We’re worried that serious arm-twisting could occur to push this thing through,quot; Hadden said.