India has a robust civilian nuclear program in addition to its nuclear arsenal. India has not signed the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This raises concerns when India wants to purchase nuclear technology from other countries. There is a fear that India will convert peaceful nuclear technology to military uses in their nuclear weapons program.

         India has recently announced that it will sign an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which will allow the agency to inspect civilian nuclear installations. India wants access to foreign nuclear technology and is signing the agreement as “a signal of our commitment to abide by our international obligations.” India had signed a previous agreement with the IAEA in 2008 which opened up nuclear commerce with other countries but critics attacked this earlier agreement as not providing sufficient safeguards against conversion of civilian technology to military uses.

         Analysts of the new agreement say that it is an indication that the new government in India is interested in expanding imports of civilian nuclear technology from the United States and Japan. India has massive energy shortages that desperately need to be addressed. In his first speech after his election, Prime Minister Modi has promised to make nuclear power a priority for India. India is seeking billions of dollars for investment in new nuclear power plants. Modi will travel to Japan and the US this summer. Both of these countries have expressed interest in increasing nuclear technology cooperation with India.

       Investment in Indian nuclear power plants has been low in recent years. Part of the reason is that there is a strong nuclear liability law that scared off some foreign investors. India already has deals with France and Russia for nuclear technology but just signed a new deal with a US company this year. India is planning to bring several new nuclear power plants online in the coming decade. Greater nuclear cooperation with the US is part of this plan. India intends to get twenty five percent of its electricity from nuclear power by 2050.

        India is investing heavily in nuclear power and intends to become a leader in the global nuclear industry. They have worked on fast breeder reactors for years. In addition, they are working on the development of thorium reactors for power  generation. India has a great deal of thorium that will be easy to access. There are still many technical problems that must be solved in order for thorium reactors to be put into commercial use.

       Critics of Modi’s focus on nuclear power are afraid that the Modi government has less concern for environmental dangers than the previous Indian government. There have been indications that the Modi government may use its power to marginalize environment groups and groups pushing alternative energy sources. If India forges ahead with a vigorous nuclear program while turning its back on environmental concerns and alternative energy, I am afraid that there will be major nuclear accidents and a severe public backlash against nuclear power in India.

Protest outside the Indian Kudankulam reactor:

Kudankulam-protest-pti2.jpg

Angry farmers from Fukushima brought a large cow to the centre of Tokyo on Friday to demand Japan’s government investigate a disease they say cattle have developed since the nuclear disaster three years ago. straitstimes.com

Still extremely high level of Cs-134/137 is measured from agricultural products in Fukushima, according to Fukushima city government. fukushima-diary.com

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has revealed the cause of a fatal industrial accident that took place during refurbishment work last year at Entergy’s Arkansas Nuclear One plant. world-nuclear-news.org

 More than four decades after construction began at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, nearly 3,200 TVA and contract employees are working around the clock to finish what should be America’s first new nuclear reactor of the 21st century. timesfreepress.com

         I usually post Geiger readings and links to articles every day of the week and a blog essay every Monday through Friday. I have not posted anything for several days because I have been traveling. I spent this last weekend in Spokane, Washington at the Washington State Democratic Convention. Most of the time was dedicated to approving the Washington State Democratic Platform. I was quite impressed by how comprehensive, rational and progressive the Platform is. There were a few issues that triggered arguments about whether to retain or remove a particulate plank but most of the Platform was readily adopted. One issue in particular that led to a very passionate argument was the plank of the Platform that dealt with nuclear power.

          The nuclear power plank read: “Permitting expansion of nuclear power only with strong environmental protection, when safe, long-term waste management can be guaranteed and projects are shown to be cost effective without public subsidies.”

          There were two speakers in favor of retaining the plank. One speaker argued passionately that less rainfall in Washington could mean less hydropower and that nuclear was the only viable choice for reliable and carbon neutral power generation because wind and solar would not be able to supply the electricity that society requires.

          There were two speakers against retaining the plank. One speaker railed against nuclear power and said that our Democratic Platform should not support nuclear power in any way. It was also pointed out that Seattle City Light was backing out of support for the only operating nuclear reactor in Washington State.

          It should be obvious to anyone who has read my blog posts that I am strongly opposed to nuclear power. With respect to climate change, it takes a lot of energy to mine and refine uranium. It also takes a lot of concrete to construct a nuclear power plant. Some estimates suggest that it may take up to fifteen years of operation before a nuclear power plant has paid off its carbon debt. With respect to environmental threats, nuclear power has already resulted in areas being permanently evacuated because of radioactivity released by nuclear accidents. Fukushima is still causing environmental problems two years after the accident. Since Yucca Mountain was cancelled as the site for a permanent nuclear waste repository, the latest estimate is that a permanent repository won’t be available in the United States until 2050 at the soonest. Wind and solar energy generation is beginning to beat out nuclear projects on a strictly financial basis on a level playing field.

        After listening to pro and con arguments about the plank, I concluded that I would rather leave it in the Platform. I do not believe that the conditions in the plank can be met by any new nuclear projects. On the other hand, the plank does put us on record with respect to what we require of any new nuclear projects in our state. In the end, I think it is better to have qualified support for nuclear projects as opposed to no plank at all in the Platform that addresses nuclear power.

WaDemsjpg.jpg

Bypass water discharge has not decreased groundwater flowing to the plant buildings at least by now. fukushima-diary.com

The government will step up efforts to urge firms and industry groups to actively deal in products made in Fukushima Prefecture. jen.jiji.com

Nebraska’s Fort Calhoun nuclear plant cut its power output Friday as a precautionary measure while water levels rose on the adjacent Missouri River. nuclearstreet.com

Canada’s nuclear regulator and a federal court are at odds over the sufficiency of an environmental review related to a stalled proposal to build two new reactors at the Darlington plant in Ontario. nuclearstreet.com

              Our understanding of the situation at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico has evolved since the release of radioactive materials in late February. There is still a debate going on about what caused the release and whether there is future risk for breaches of more drums of waste.

         A drum of nuclear waste from weapons production broke open and released radioactive particles of plutonium and americium which were detected twenty miles away in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Plutonium is very dangerous and inhaling a tiny quantity can result in illness and death. The WIPP found radioactive particles in filters but it turns out that unfiltered air was pouring out of the WIPP for weeks before the radiation was first detected so there may have been a greater release of radioactive particles than previously thought.

         Apparently the drum that burst came for the Las Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Records show that hundreds of drums from LANL were treated with a new type of absorbent that was not sufficiently tested before it was used. This absorbent did not properly prevent the formation of dried nitrate salts which are unstable and prone to burning and exploding. Over a hundred of these suspect drums were shipped to a temporary storage facility in Texas and dozens still remain at LANL. Another possible cause was uncovered when it was revealed that the drums from LANL may also have been treated with a chemical to change the pH of the material in the drums. This chemical can take part in a chemical reaction in a drum of waste to produce hydrogen gas that could lead to fires and explosions.

        The WIPP has been closed since the accident. Now the Department of Energy has estimated that it may take years to seal off the rooms called Panels that contain the suspect drums of waste from LANL. These huge rooms are filled with drums and then sealed off. They used to put up thick concrete seals when they finish filling a panel but they didn’t even put a steel door on panel 6 when it was full. Panel 6 contains drums from LANL as does Panel 7.

        A current concern is the possibility of a chain reaction in which one drum explodes and causes one or more other drums to explode. With plutonium as one of the primary constituents in the drums, if a series of drums exploded and released their contents it might just be possible for enough plutonium to combine to achieve a criticality or nuclear chain reaction. If this happened before the Panel 6 and 7 are sealed, the results could be devastating. It is possible that much more plutonium could be released which might require the evacuation and abandonment of the area near the WIPP. Even if the Panels 6 and 7 are successfully sealed, a plutonium criticality might breach the seal. With hundreds of oil wells and fracking wells just outside the WIPP fence, the ground could be destabilized enough to compromise the integrity of the salt formation that is supposed to contain the radioactive waste. At this point, it is too soon to say whether the WIPP will ever be opened to accept nuclear waste again. We will be fortunate if there are no further significant accidents at the WIPP.

WIPP Logo.png

The Northern hemisphere is facing generations of radiologic contamination from Fukushima. enenews.com

Fukushima reactors released about 3 times more radioactivity than Chernobyl. enenews.com

 In a release Thursday, B&W announced it will provide steam generator repair, inspection and cleaning at the Dominion Millstone plant in Connecticut and at the Dominion North Anna and Surry plants in Virginia. nuclearstreet.com

Iran said on Tuesday it expected to sign a deal with Russia in late August on the building of two new 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactors in the Islamic Republic, potentially boosting its case that it is refining uranium for civilian energy, not atom bombs. reuters.com

         The nuclear disaster at Fukushima caused nuclear nations to rethink their use of nuclear power to generate electricity. Germany and Switzerland have decided to close existing nuclear reactors and not to construct any new reactors. France is much more dependent on nuclear power than any of the other thirty one nations that use nuclear power. About seventy five percent of France’s electricity is currently generated by fifty eight operating nuclear power reactors.

         When Francois Hollande was running for President of France in 2012, he promised to reduce France’s nuclear power share to fifty percent of France’s electricity by 2025. He also promised to close the Fessenheim reactor, France’s oldest nuclear power reactor. Following Hollande’s election and a review of national energy policy, the Hollande administration has announced that nuclear’s share of electricity will indeed by reduced to fifty percent by 2025. Nuclear generating capacity will be capped at the current level of sixty three gigawatts. So, if any new reactors are brought online, an old reactor will have to be retired. One new reactor is currently under construction with estimated completion by 2016. The Fessenheim reactor will likely be shut down before the new reactor is brought online.

        In addition to the new goals for nuclear power generation, France’s Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), the agency that regulates the nuclear industry in France, has been given the authority to impose greater fines on nuclear plant operators for failures in plant safety or the failure to implement required safety enhancements.

        There will be regular reviews of France’s energy policy. The first review will cover the period of 2015 to 2018 and then a new review will be held every five years. France also has ambitious goals for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, increase in renewable energy sources, reducing energy consumption and vastly increasing the number of electric cars in use in France. The French Energy Minister has said that they are not going to abandon nuclear power.

         A nuclear expert in France recently discussed three options that France has with respect to nuclear power. First, France could follow Germany in eliminating nuclear power for generation of electricity. Second, France could commit to nuclear power and build new generations of nuclear reactors to replace the old reactors that will have to be decommissioned. Third, France could opt to continue using nuclear power but cap or reduce its proportion of the electricity generated. He pointed out that there is currently a shortage of graduates in nuclear science from French engineering schools and many of the staff who currently operate French nuclear reactors are retiring. He said that if France chose to stop using nuclear power, the availability of new nuclear engineers would not be important. If France chose to go all in on nuclear power, then the students considering careers in the nuclear industry would be motivated to go into nuclear engineering. His big concern was that if France chose the third alternative of an intermediate stance on nuclear power, there was a serious danger that students would decide that work prospects in nuclear engineering was too uncertain to be attractive. A shortage of qualified nuclear engineers to operate the nuclear power plants could seriously impact France’s plans to continue the use of nuclear power.

Fessenheim nuclear power plant:

Fessenheim France Reactor.jpg