The tragedy of Tibet Sify.com Tarini Mehta 18 March , 2008 “…………………………China is also reported to have stationed approximately 90 nuclear warheads in Tibet, and the Ninth Academy, China’s academy for nuclear research located in Amdo, Tibet, has dumped a large quantity of radio active waste in a haphazard, dangerous manner.
The potential for devastation will increase as China continues such hazardous activities. One can only imagine the future crisis this will create…………………………………………”
British, Russian Support May Not Save Ambitious Nuclear Power Club World Politics Review Richard Weitz 10 Apr 2008A campaign threat to the nuclear power industry
ASK THIS | Nieman warchdog Questions the press should ask By Joseph Davis January 18, 2008
If a Democrat wins the presidency-and if campaign promises count-it may be time to write the obituary for Nevada’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. What happens then to the renewed call for nuclear power in the U.S.? –“The top three Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards tussled before the Jan. 19 Nevada caucus over which was more opposed to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The fuss has importance as more than just campaign mud-wrestling
-”After hesitating several years, the British government finally accepted American entreaties to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)………..
……..the GNEP remains in trouble, both internationally and within the United States………………GNEP members will not need to foreswear the right to enrich uranium .
…Although such reassurances may have facilitated the entry of Australia and Canada into the program, they have aroused concern among nonproliferation experts that GNEP will have the perverse effect of encouraging the proliferation of sensitive nuclear technologies.
……………………….some have criticized the program for encouraging nuclear proliferation, wasting money on a narrow range of excessively ambitious and unachievable technologies, and diverting resources from other more important priorities, such as cleaning up domestic nuclear waste sites. Members of Congress share many of these concerns, and have severely limited GNEP funding.
Despite Russian and British support for the partnership, it appears that GNEP will remain primarily a research program for the next few years, notwithstanding the grandiose visions for GNEP held by some of its more ardent advocates.
. It may be a sign that it is finally time to write an obituary for the Yucca Mountain plan – and a sign that the industry-ballyhooed “renaissance” of commercial nuclear electric power in the U.S. is headed for trouble – or for a train-wreck………………….Whichever Democrat is nominated, Vegas oddsmakers might well favor that person to win the White House in November, and he or she would presumably be expected to live up to the campaign rhetoric by killing Yucca Mountain.. The cloud over Yucca Mountain’s future is much darker than that…………………………………….Yucca was born of politics, not science, back in 1987, when Congress told scientists they could pick any site they thought best – as long as it was Yucca Mountain. Nevada never agreed. Some 20 years later, after billions of dollars of study, the Energy Department is not much closer to making an air-tight scientific case………………………………This year, politics may be the project’s final undoing……”
Power failure: What Britain should learn from Finland’s nuclear saga
It was hailed as the template for all future reactors – but then they tried to build it.
THE INDEPENDENT By Michael Savage 16 January 2008 – “……………………………..Olkiluoto 3 was meant to be the power plant for the 21st century, a show home for the nuclear industry…………………
to say that Finland’s experience bodes well would be optimistic to say the least. It was not long before Olkiluoto 3 was hit by a slew of safety concerns, building blunders, spiralling costs and chronic delays……..…..The 1,600MW-capacity reactor, which was meant to be producing energy by 2009, is now around two years behind schedule. It is more than 1bneuros over budget, without taking into account the cost of the lost electricity production time which, rough estimates suggest, could run to 600m euros. After Finland’s government rejected greener energy sources for being too expensive, that has angered many Finns………
…………The delays will now cost the Finnish people billions of euros……………………………………………..”.
Scientists take on Brown over nuclear plans Academics say safety concerns of new generation of plants not yet addressed
Guardian Unlimited 6 January 08 A group of scientists and academics today condemns as undemocratic and possibly illegal the government’s plans to force through a new generation of nuclear power stations to meet Britain’s energy needs for the n ext 30 years.
They warn that questions about the risks from radiation, disposal of nuclear waste and vulnerability to a terrorist attack have not been addressed - even though the government was ordered last February to repeat a public consultation on energy supply, after its exercise was declared unlawful by a high court judge oday
The nuclear consultation group, made up of 17 energy economists and several of the government’s independent advisers on nuclear waste, condemned the methods used in the second attempt to gather public and expert opinion.
‘We are profoundly concerned that the government’s approach was designed to provide particular and limiting answers‘ said Paul Dorfman, a spokesman for the independent group, which includes professors of Oxford, Sussex, and Lancaster universities, and Rutgers in the US. ‘Those answers risk locking in UK energy to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable’ he added.…
……..In an 87-page report, the group says: “Significant issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way or resolved in practice. It has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy decision,” the paper warns ………………
…………………The intervention could trigger fresh legal action, however. Yesterday Greenpeace, whose challenge to the energy review was upheld last year, said it would wait to see the government’s formal response on Tuesday before deciding whether to return to the courts ………………….
………………Green groups said the questions were loaded and the information presented biased and inaccurate. A complaint was made to the Market Research Standards Board alleging the market research firm involved broke the code of conduct…………………….” …
Spending Bill Includes $24 Billion Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Industry Democracy Now 21 Dec 07 - “The House is set to vote Tuesday on the $500 billion 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Hidden in the bill is a major energy package that would boost government financing for the nuclear industry. It would provide loan guarantees of up to $25 billion for new nuclear reactors…………………………….”
Tories plan £300m green energy revolution to avoid nuclear option
THE INDEPENDENT By Andrew Grice, Political Editor 06 December 2007
“……………………………………………………A Tory government would spend up to £300m on a ‘green energy revolution‘ by encouraging householders, small businesses, schools and hospitals to create their own electricity from renewable sources. The Tory leader, David Cameron, will announce today that his party would scrap grants for people who install wind turbines, solar panels or combined heat and power generators. Instead, it would guarantee prices for electricity created by householders through a system in ‘feed-in tariffs’
The reforms could help a future Conservative administration avoid building more nuclear power stations if it was successful in reducing carbon emissions……………….…………………………..What the party is proposing
* Decentralised energy to play “major part” in meeting Britain’s needs.
* Every household, small business, school, hospital able to generate electricity through micro-generation.
* Feed-in tariffs to guarantee fixed price for electricity from decentralised, low carbon sources such as wind power, photovoltaic, combined heat and power, biomass, waste and micro-hydro.
* Any person or organisation allowed to install a low carbon generating appliance of below 250kW using accredited professional.
* Credits on electricity bills for surplus amounts fed into local network……………………………………………..”
French Shun Nuclear Energy, Choose Conservation
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research November 04, 2007- “The overwhelming majority of people in France agree there is a need to conserve energy and favour renewable sources.According to a poll by CSA. 96 per cent of respondents think conserving energy should be a priority, and 94 per cent think the European country should focus on developing solar and wind power.
Polling Data
On the topic of energy, do you think (the following) should be a priority?Conserving energy: yes – 96%, no -4% not sure — 0
Developing renewable energy: yes – 94%, no – 5% not sure – 1%Developing nuclear energy: yes – 35%, no – 61% not sure – 4%
GNEP facing opposition from National Academy of Sciences
Current Argus.com By Stella Davis
: 11/02/2007 – “CARLSBAD – The U.S Department of Energy’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has come under fire from the National Academy of Sciences.Earlier this week, the academy published a report recommending that Congress scale back the program because it relies on unproven technology.
The National Research Council, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, said that GNEP, a program that aims to reprocess spent nuclear fuel that then could be shared with partner countries, should not go forward…………………………..…………………………………………..GNEP was launched in February of 2006 as part of President George Bush’s advanced energy initiative. It was established as a federal program and funded at $80 million. Funding for 2007 was $167.5 million. Proposed funding for 2008, from Bush, is $405 million. The Senate and House have both proposed significantly lower levels of funding……………..”.
Science panel calls for Bush to dump nuclear waste plan
Detroit free Press October 30, 2007
BY H. JOSEF HEBERT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON – “A panel of the National Academy of Sciences urged President George W. Bush on Monday to abandon a plan to resume nuclear waste reprocessing that is the heart of the administration’s push to expand civilian use of nuclear power.The 17-member panel said the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, hasn’t been adequately reviewed and is banking on reprocessing technology that hasn’t been proved, or isn’t expected to be ready in the time the administration envisions.It said if the administration proceeds as planned there will be ’significant technical and financial risks’Bush announced the initiative in 2006 and has touted it as key to U.S. efforts to deal with a growing amount of highly radioactive reactor waste and still allow a large expansion of commercial nuclear power.
The plan envisions a few nations, including the United States and Russia, supplying others with reactor fuel and reprocessing their used fuel.
…………………..The panel concluded that the program, even if pursued, is not expected to be ready in time to deal with the commercial nuclear waste accumulating at 104 U.S. commercial power reactors and the waste expected to be added from the reactors being built……………………………”.TIMELINE 3 July 07 - Germany – Merkel confronts German energy industry with radical policy overhaul
July 07 U.S. Expands Renewable Energy Cooperation with Sweden11 June India – 2000 people attended public hearing – opposition to proposed nuclear plants at Tamil Nadu
4 June USA Assembly and Senate pass law to for Article X , slowing approval for new nuclear plants3 June India – students protest govt’s uranium mining project
May 07 Asia Pacific nuclear plan scuttled at APEC meeting
21 May 07 Scotland First Minister to block British plans for nuclear plants in Scotland 25 March 07 Multinational protest in Brussels against doubled nuclear spending15 Feb 07 British High Court rules ‘unlawful’ Govt’s plans for nuclear power18 Jan 07 Spanish President rules out nuclear energy
Tags: nuclear issues
