I’m not sure why this was even reported, although I suspect it was just a reporter with some kind of agenda.   The Associated Press usually reports news stories that are actually topical and related to current events – not just random lifestyle and interest stories.   However, a recent report from the AP has been making the rounds about older nuclear activists who are trying to renew their fight against nuclear energy as the US embarks on a new round of nuclear power plant construction.

Via the Associated Press:

Older activists, younger crowd team to fight nukes

DES MOINES, Iowa — It’s been 33 years since Raye Fleming’s arrest outside Southern California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, near the height of the anti-nuclear power furor.

That was the first arrest of many and, Fleming believed, such actions paid off as a generation of Americans turned against nuclear power.

“It was just the correct, moral thing to do,” said 66-year-old Fleming.

But after years of believing they had won the fight against nuclear energy, activists suddenly feel the battle is starting all over again. And they’re trying to figure out how to win in an era of Facebook and Twitter as well as get the younger generation involved in the movement.

Lately, the option for nuclear energy has gotten more popular.

President Barack Obama has backed billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia. If approved, they would be the first nuclear power plants in the U.S. to begin construction in almost three decades. Political support for nuclear power has grown, especially after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico highlighted risks of fossil fuel production. And people are more open to nuclear energy.

For those like Fleming, that change is hard to understand.

“A call for more nuclear power plants,” sighed Fleming, of Arroyo Grande, Calif. “It’s still not safe, there’s still no solution to the waste storage and it’s costly.”

For many, the issue isn’t as simple as it once was. Concerns about global warming have left several environmentalists unsure about what really is the “green” side of the issue, and it’s been more than 30 years since the last high-profile accident in the U.S.

(more…)

Some of the anti-nuclear energy interest groups in Vermont are trying a new tactic against Vermont Yankee, demanding that the NRC order the reactor temperature lowered and thus the power output dramatically cut. Their argument is that the zirconium-based alloy used to clad the fuel can oxidize rapidly (basically burn) at the temperatures the reactor is authorized to run at.

The NRC denied their petition, which is no surprise at all.

Via the Battleboro reformer:

NRC says VY temps within limits
BRATTLEBORO — Anti-nuclear activists were denied a petition by the Nuclear Reactor Commission’s Petition Review Board Friday.

In a June 7 letter addressed to William Borchardt, executive director for operations at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, consultants for the New England Coalition, Mark Leyse and Ray Shadis, requested that the commission lower the limit of the peak fuel cladding temperature at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon.

Zirconium alloys used in Vermont Yankee’s cladding, which are also commonly used at other nuclear plants across the country, are designed to contain the plant’s reactor fuel, consisting of uranium dioxide ceramic pellets, Shadis said.

“Everything about nuclear safety has to do with containing those pellets,” he said. “The cladding has to retain its integrity to ensure fission products, like strontium-90, never get into the environment.”

The fuel cladding temperature set by the NRC, 2,200 degrees, is far too high to ensure the public safety, according to Leyse and Shadis.

Shadis told the NRC that lowering the temperatures could help ensure an accident similar to the partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in March 1979, or even worse, won’t occur again.

Experiments and studies conducted in Germany have shown that rapid oxidation, an exothermic reaction where the reaction is self sustaining and generates more heat as the process continues, can occur as low as 1,832 degrees.

“Once rapid oxidation begins there’s nothing you can do about it,” Leyse said. In the experiments, it took only 60 seconds for the temperatures to reach 3,300 degrees because of the runaway oxidation.”

Trying to combat it with water would only make it worse, Leyse added, because the process would just drain the oxygen from the water, rising in temperature.

Based upon the nuclear plant’s analysis, Vermont Yankee is well within the NRC accepted criteria at 2,060 degrees, Entergy spokesman Larry Smith said.

The NRC agreed, which is why the petition was dismissed.

Leyse said the NRC constantly states its purpose is public safety and that it is overly conservative in those measures.

“To be truly conservative, the temperature limits should be lowered to well below the 1,832,” he said.

He estimates that the temperature should be below 1,700 to avoid rapid oxidation.

Leyse said that although the petition was denied, it was passed along to the NRC’s rule making branch for further study and analysis and could be considered for the regulations that govern all the U.S. nuclear plants.

(more…)

This story has recently been making the rounds in various news outlets.

Via Fox News:

Radioactive Boars Rampaging Through Germany
It sounds like the plot of a B-movie, yet it’s bizarrely true: Radioactive boars are on the loose and thriving in Germany’s forests.

A succession of mild winters has left Germany scrambling to deal with a skyrocketing wild boar population. Tales of swarming beasts rampaging through city streets and attacking citizens occur with alarming regularity.

The problem has been aggravated by the lingering effects of the Chernobyl disaster from twenty-five years ago; a large portion of the wild animals are contaminated by radioactivity.

Poisonous radiation leaves the beasts completely inedible (wild boar is considered a delicacy in Germany), and the phenomenon is becoming expensive for the German government. In the last hunting season, 650,000 boar were shot versus 287,000 in the previous year. And due to atomic energy regulations, the government must buy contaminated animals from hunters who catch them.

Berlin compensated hunters to the tune of over $500,000 in 2009, writes German newspaper Der Spiegel — quadruple the payment in 2007.

Though the Chernobyl explosion happened a quarter century ago, high levels of radiation remain in the region’s vegetation. And wild boars are especially susceptible because of their proclivity for mushrooms and truffles, which are especially efficient at absorbing radiation.

Sounds scary, doesn’t it?

It should be noted that despite the descriptions and headlines of boar “rampaging” or “storming” Germany, the hogs themselves are no more prone to rampaging or storming towns and cities than the non-radioactive variety (or rather less radioactive, since all animals are radioactive). They generally live in sparsely settled areas and, although the population of boar in central Europe has risen in recent years, they’re not tearing through homes and eating people alive or anything like that.    Boar can certainly be aggressive, nasty animals and their increase in population has lead to some concern over their damage to property or danger to people, but that is not a new concern and is not related to radioactivity.

There is no rampage.

The primary isotope that seems to be o concern is Cesium-137. With a half-life of 30.7 years, close to half the Cs-137 from the Chernobyl accident has already decayed away and it will continue to decrease, both due to radioactive decay and the continued dilution in the environment. As time goes on, sedimentation and erosion will tend to cover or wash away much of the Cs-137 from the area and make it less available to life forms.

Still, if the levels are high enough, it could be dangerous. Cs-137 is similar chemically to potassium and has a fairly high biological uptake in both plants and animals. It emits strong beta and gamma radiation and is produced as a fission byproduct. Today Cs-137 is the single largest contributor to gamma radiation left over from the Chernobyl accident, as most other fission byproducts have long decayed away.

How radioactive the Boars in question actually are:
(more…)

In the past I’ve made a number of posts and videos mentioning the fact that uranium is a rather common mineral and that it’s been used in a number of consumer products.   Indeed, thousands of kitchen cabinets contain uranium-glazed dinnerware, some of which was mass produced as recently as the 1980’s.

This has been met with a curious response on numerous occasions.   Many concede that uranium is not all that harmful when touched or even ingested but then say “but what about the nano-particles.”   The dust, or “nanoparticles” resulting from uranium combustion are one thing that seems to come up again and again.  They are often credited with nearly magical properties, like the ability to stay suspended in the air indefinitely or to cause horrible health problems even in those far from the location where the uranium projectile was fired.

Indeed uranium tends to be more hazardous when inhaled than when exposure is by other routes, but that’s the extent of the truth to these statements.  Uranium is hardly unique in this respect.  Exposure to dust in general can cause respiratory problems, and certain metallic particles, such as beryllium, are well known to be especially hazardous if inhaled.   By comparison, uranium less dangerous, though it can be a hazard in high concentrations.

(more…)

Via the New York Times:

MIT Researchers See Natural Gas as the Choice for Lower Carbon Emissions
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are encouraging U.S. policymakers to consider the nation’s growing supply of natural gas as a short-term substitute for aging coal-fired power plants.

In the results of a two-year study, released today, the researchers said electric utilities and other sectors of the American economy will use more gas through 2050. Under a scenario that envisions a federal policy aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, researchers found a substantial role for natural gas.

“Because national energy use is substantially reduced, the share represented by gas is projected to rise from about 20 percent of the current national total to around 40 percent in 2040,” said the MIT researchers. When used to fire a power plant, gas emits about half of the carbon dioxide emissions as conventional coal plants.

The report asserts the impact of national policies that place an economic cost on greenhouse gas emissions would, first and foremost, be a reduction in energy use across the United States. It would flatten demand in the electricity sector.

….

Gas is an option for cutting power plant emissions and addressing global warming in the short term. But the researchers warned that the gas cushion shouldn’t distract policymakers from addressing the need for nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology for coal-fired generation.

“Though gas frequently is touted as a ‘bridge’ to the future, continuing effort is needed to prepare for that future, lest the gift of greater domestic gas resources turn out to be a bridge with no landing point on the far bank,” the report says. “Barriers to the expansion of nuclear power or coal and/or gas generation with CCS must be resolved over the next few decades so they are capable of expanding to replace natural gas in generation.”

…
Economics favor vehicles run on natural gas

Automakers that take the plunge into compressed natural gas vehicles would see a significant jump in demand under a national climate policy that makes carbon dioxide emissions costly. Biofuels are expected to advance, but it’s unclear how quickly and at what cost to important food crops. But even with biofuels in the picture, MIT projects natural gas vehicles will be 15 percent of the private vehicle fleet by 2050.

New shale gas fields could reconfigure the national map of gas producers and consumers. Gas production in the Marcellus Shale and other burgeoning gas fields in the Northeast, stretching from New England through the Great Lake states, is set to rise 78 percent by 2030. Under a carbon price regime, the researchers said gas production matches increasing gas consumption.

(more…)

This ignoramus is the type we generally find on the “opposition” side.

Nothing angers me more than idiots who don’t know what they’re talking about walking around and talking like they have some kind of authority

Well, “Rick” let me first assure you that there’s no reason to worry about the nuclear plant at Chalk River, because there is no such plant. There is a research and isotope production reactor there, however. You know why it was allowed to run without the mandated triple-redundant cooling system? Because the reactor is quite important to producing medical isotopes and shutting it down would create a shortage.

Of course, it was shut down anyway when it sprung a leak and hence the world now has a shortage of medical isotopes. This wouldn’t be a big deal if either of the two replacement reactors built right nextdoor to it were online, but because of people like yourself, they’re not. It also would not be a huge deal if other countries had built more medical research reactors, but again, anti-nuclear groups have managed to stunt that, so now we’re reliant on mostly 40 year old reactors.

Pat yourself on the back, idiot.

Finally, repeat after me “I replaced the old cloudy water with new clear water.” That is how you say “nuclear” just like “new clear.”

Our friends at Areva have been subject to a number of crimes of vandalism by Greenpeace.  Now the criminal organization is claiming that it is because of their sabotage that the company is no longer shipping depleted uranium waste (which isn’t even really waste) to Russia.  However, Areva has attempted to set the record straight, although I’m sure many will ignore the facts.

Via Nuclear Street:

AREVA Sets The Record Straight On The Termination Of Depleted Uranium Transports To Russia

Despite explanations provided by AREVA, the press this week-end reports Greenpeace’s allegations that the AREVA group decided to end transports of depleted uranium to the Russian enriching company Tenex this year, suggesting that this decision was made due to pressure from the anti-nuclear organization. These claims are completely unfounded.

Termination of these transports end of 2010 results from the completion of a commercial contract that the parties decided not to renew back in 2006. The final transport of AREVA’s depleted uranium to Russia, within the scope of this contract, will occur as planned in the weeks to come. This topic was raised during an Haut Comité à la Transparence (Transparency committee) meeting back in November 2009 in presence of Greenpeace representative, Mr. Yannick Rousselet. In addition, Mr. Rousselet contributes to the drafting of the Haut Comité à la Transparence report on the fuel cycle in which the transport termination deadline is referred to.

For Jacques-Emmanuel Saulnier, AREVA spokesperson, « This situation illustrates that Greenpeace has extensive imagination but little memory. Locked in its anti-nuclear dogma, Greenpeace is once again fighting the wrong battle. »

In April, Greenpeace vandals tore up train rails to stop a nuclear waste shipment to Russia. According to a report by RIA Novosti, Greenpeace activists tore up the train track near the Tricastin Nuclear Power Center in southeast France to stop a shipment of nuclear waste to Russia, the organization said. Depleted uranium hexafluoride was due to be transported via rail to the port of Le Havre and on to St. Petersburg.

“Yet another Greenpeace protest is a clear manipulation of public consciousness. They [Greenpeace activists] demanding the halt of shipments while it was widely known in 2006 that deliveries of uranium hexafluoride expire in 2010. Each time a shipment occurs, they chain themselves to the train tracks and put their heads on the tracks pretending to fight against further deliveries which will not take place after 2010,” Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said, adding that the protestors are “drawing attention to an issue that doesn’t exist.”

Activists say that shipments of nuclear waste to Russia violate French law and an EU directive banning the import and export of dangerous waste. In February, activists held several protests against nuclear waste transportation to Russia and its storage in the country.

What is so disgusting about this is that it demonstrates, yet again, that Greenpeace believes that they are not only justified in lying about the facts, but are above the law. Greenpeace seems to believe that they have the right to do anything they want, destroy any property they want and violate the laws of any country with impunity. Simply because they believe nuclear energy is so terrible, they may do anything and everything, acting as if there is no authority higher than themselves.

(more…)

Given that there’s been a lot of hubbub about various small sources of enriched uranium around the world, some of which are already far too burned up to actually be used for much of anything, I’m surprised to see a small country is actually standing up for its own rights and domestic ability to do nuclear reactor science.   Many nations are finding that the US and other major powers are demanding that they give up any nuclear material that is deemed a risk by politicians.

Belarus, however, is setting the record straight about the uranium they have, its security and its usage.   Furthermore, they’re not about to let the US, the Russians or anyone else demand that they give up valuable material from their domestic nuclear sciences program, especially when its perfectly secure and not a proliferation threat.

(more…)

Via Today Online:

Chile hands US weapons-grade uranium
SANTIAGO – With United States President Barack Obama shifting his nuclear non-proliferation strategy to rogue states and terrorists, Chile has become an example of how small countries help make the world safer.

Vast amounts of highly enriched uranium (HEU) are being stored in relatively unsecured locations globally. Just 25kg of it – the size of a grapefruit – could devastate an entire city if detonated.

At a nonproliferation summit next Monday in Washington, Mr Obama will encourage leaders from 47 countries to work with the US to secure and remove HEU from reactors. Chile did so last month, giving 18kg of HEU from Santiago reactors to the US.

Mr Obama has promised to lead a global effort to recover all of this material within four years.

The US has helped convert or verified the shut down of 67 reactors in 32 countries from HEU to low-enriched uranium that is much harder to weaponise. It also has secured HEU supplies more than 750 vulnerable buildings and removed 2,691kg of weapons-grade nuclear material for safer storage. AP

This news story has been making the rounds and getting a lot of attention.   Some press outlets are making quite a big deal about it, such as Time Magazine which ran a story entitled Bomb Chasers: Rescuing a Potential Nuke from the Chile Quake.  You can view photos of the uranium removal on the NNSA Flickr site.

This sure sounds like a big step forward toward a safer world where terrorists won’t be able to raid a research reactor for material ton use in a bomb, but is it really?  Lets take a closer look.
(more…)

What is a blog without comments? It would seem to defeat the whole purpose of a blog. The whole idea behind “web 2.0,” blogging, citizen journalism and the like is that communications should be social with user-generated content, contributions and exchanges by readers. A blog without comments is just an editorial column, or even someone’s rant.

So why would someone remove the option to comment form them blog? An even bigger question: why would they remove the option to comment from one blog and leave it on many others that the same organization runs?

Chances are that they’re not happy with the comments they’re getting. It can make a site look pretty bad when all the feedback shown publicly is heavily against their view. Worse still is when the comments contain effective counter arguments or point out factual errors. How do you deal with that?

Well apparently Greenpeace didn’t want to deal with it, because their anti-nuclear blog, called “nuclear reaction” has now gone comment-less. Even the previous comments have been expunged from the record.

(more…)