Before the Fukushima disaster in 2011, the Japanese fleet of fifty four nuclear reactors supplied about thirty percent of Japan’s electricity. Japan has the third largest number of nuclear power reactors behind France and the United States. After the Fukushima disaster, the entire reactor fleet was shut down and none of the reactors has been put back into full-time operation. This has resulted in a rise in the importation of fossil fuels that has caused a negative trade imbalance. There is strong public support for an end to the use of nuclear power in Japan.

          The new administration of Prime Minister Abe has made nuclear power and nuclear technology export a major piece of their plan for Japan’s economic renewal and expansion. Without nuclear power, Japan will have serious problems satisfying their need for electricity in the coming years. The Japanese public is opposed to restarting the reactors by about a two to one ratio but the Japanese government is moving ahead with its plans to restart at least some of the idle reactor fleet. Laws have been passed to suppress independent reporting on the nuclear disaster and its aftermath. Political pressure has been applied to silence critics. Heavy PR campaigns are being waged to regain public confidence and support for nuclear power.

          The shut down gave the Japanese nuclear industry and regulatory agencies time to study the causes of the Fukushima disaster and to make certain that all Japanese nuclear power reactors were in compliance with strict new safety rules. After exhaustive analysis of safety regulations as well as seismological, economic, logistical and political problems associated with restarting the idle Japanese reactors, it appears that some of the reactors may never be restarted.

           The most optimistic projections suggest that, at most, two thirds of Japanese power reactors will be able to satisfy all the requirements necessary to resume operation. Of the forty eight remain power reactors in Japan, fourteen will likely be restarted in the near future. Seventeen more may be restarted but there are concerns about them. A final seventeen reactors will likely be retired permanently. The proportion of Japanese electricity generated by nuclear power may fall to about ten percent. Electric utilities will have to pay for decommissioning at least seventeen reactors as well as continuing to pay the higher cost of fossil fuel. This increase in the cost of electricity will have a negative impact on the Japanese economy.

           If many of the problematic seventeen reactors cannot be restarted, it will be impossible for nuclear power to be what is called a “base load” power source in Japan. This refers to a power source that is able to feed a minimum amount of electricity to the Japanese power grid as specified in a draft of a new Japanese national energy plan that will be adopted soon by the Japanese Diet. Applications have been filed and tests are being held to restart some reactors. The government is working on restarting the safest and most technically advanced reactors that are in areas where the resistance to nuclear power is weakest. Ultimately the Japanese central government will defer to local sentiment in choosing which reactors to bring back online.

           Japan is poor in conventional fossil fuel reserves which made the prospect of nuclear power very attractive. After Fukushima, nuclear power is not looking so good. On the other hand, Japan has incredible alternative energy potential. The Japanese people would be better served by a crash program to harness geothermal and tidal power than efforts to revive the nuclear reactor fleet.

Japanese nuclear power stations:

Japanese nuclear power stations map.jpg

Fukushima plant cancels work and moves cooling pumps and emergency generators to higher ground in anticipation of tsunami from Chilean quake. enenews.com

Iran and six world powers began an expert-level meeting about Tehran’s nuclear program today. uk.reuters.com

Workers have re-entered the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico for the first time since a radiological event occurred there in mid-February.  world-nuclear-news.com

The Quad Cities nuclear plant in Illinois declared an alert Wednesday after reports of smoke in a turbine hall. nuclearstreet.com

          The safety of nuclear power plants has been hotly debated. Adverse health effects of nuclear accidents have been documented where large amounts of radioactive materials have been emitted into the environment. One big question that remains is whether there are dangers to the health of people living near a normally operating nuclear power plant.

            There have been studies in France and Germany that indicate that children mainly between the ages of two to four who live within three miles of an operating nuclear reactor are twice as likely to develop acute leukemia those who do not live close to a reactor. U.S. authorities cite a twenty five year old study that concluded that “From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities.” It is about time that that new studies tested this old hypothesis.

            Last week, the results of a controversial study by the World Business Academy were released. The study found that the baby teeth of children who lived near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant contained one third more Strontium-90 than the baby teeth of California children who did not live near a nuclear power plant. Strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope that can cause bone cancer and leukemia. The study covered the period from 1979 to 1997.

           In addition to the findings about the baby teeth, the study also found that there were increased rates of disease and death from infant mortality, cancers in children and cancers for all age groups in the county where the Diablo Canyon reactor is located when compared to other counties in California.  The researchers admit their study does not prove conclusively that the federally permitted level of radiation release at Diablo Canyon caused the difference in public health but the Diablo Canyon reactor is probably a contributing factor. They point out that when the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in Sacramento County was shut down in 1989, the abnormal local death rates declined back to the average for California.

           Of course Pacific Gas & Electric which operates the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant dismissed the study saying that the conclusions were based on prior discredited research. The author of the study report has been attacked in the past with accusations of being highly selective in his choice of relevant data. The nuclear industry in California continues to maintain that nuclear power is safe and no threat to public health. They point to the fact the NRC has stated that Diablo Canyon is being operated within NRC standards and is no danger to the public.

           Researchers from the National Academy of Sciences will meet at Irvine’s Beckman Center to consider the question of whether or not living next to a nuclear reactor is bad for your health. The two million dollar study is going to examine the health data of people living near the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and six other nuclear power plants across the U.S. The Irvine meeting is just the first in a series of meetings that will take place in different states to provide information to and the opportunity for comments from the public.

            Even before the study is underway, there are charges that the results will not be objective because of the regulatory capture of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the U.S. nuclear industry. On the other side of the debate, critics of the Diablo Canyon study question its scientific validity and claim that opponents of nuclear power are trying too hard to find reasons for ending it. Hopefully this new study will help answer questions about health dangers of living near nuclear reactors.

Diablo Canyon Power Plant:

Diablo Canyon.PNG

Dumping of contaminated Fukushima groundwater into the Pacific Ocean will begin in May. voiceofrussia.com

High concentrations of Fukushima cesium have been found in the Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada. enenews.com

Russia has fielded more strategic nuclear weapons over the past six months, but a longtime U.S. analyst suggests the development is unremarkable. nationaljournal.com

Lawsuits filed in recent days by Westinghouse and Duke Energy both assert they are owed money for work related to a proposed nuclear plant in Levy County, Fla., that was not built. nuclearstreet.com

          The Kingdom of Scotland became independent in the early Middle Ages and continued as a sovereign nation until 1707 when it joined the Kingdom of England in the Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1801 the Kingdom of Great Britain formed a political union to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, better known today as the United Kingdom (U.K.).

            Scotland has maintained a separate legal system as well as separate educational and religions institutions to the present day. After a referendum in 1997, the Scottish Parliament reconvened with authority over many internal affairs. There are six members of the European Parliament currently representing Scotland. In 2011, the Scottish National Party (SNP) which is pushing for full Scottish independence gained a majority in the Scottish Parliament. A referendum on Scottish independence is scheduled to be held in September of 2014.

          With the referendum coming in six months, there is still a lot of confusion and questions about exactly how such independence will impact everything from television channels to complex defense issues. While the answers to many of the questions could impact whether Scottish voters choose to remain part of the United Kingdom or strike out on their own with full independence, the only question on the ballot will be “Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes / No.” The details are to be worked out after the vote if independence wins the day.

          The SNP has outlined its vision of an independent Scotland in “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland.” In this paper, the SNP commits to a constitutional ban on nuclear weapons in Scotland. The entire U.K. ballistic missile submarine fleet is stationed at Clyde just north of Glasgow, Scotland. The SNP promises to see that all the submarines are removed during the first session of an independent Scottish Parliament. The SNP has always had a firm stance against nuclear weapons.

          The U.K. government has not carried out any contingency planning for the removal of the submarine fleet from Scotland. The official stance is that to carry out such planning prior to the referendum would be tacit support for the idea of an independent Scotland. Although the polls are very close on the question of independence, the U.K. government maintains that it is confident that a majority of the Scottish voters will not support an independent Scotland. U.K. government will not even begin any planning for moving the fleet unless the September referendum chooses independence.

         Moving the U.K. ballistic missiles submarine fleet would cost millions of British pounds and take years, maybe even decades. Some critics of any such move point out that political resistance might make it impossible to find any other area in the U.K. that would be willing and able to house the submarine fleet. There are those who say that if Scotland votes for independence, the popular sentiment against nuclear weapons in the U.K. might result in de facto unilateral nuclear disarmament.  

         The SNP has said that the issue of nuclear submarine removal from Clyde is a “red line” issue that is non-negotiable. Some commentators have suggested that in the complex set of issues that would have to be negotiated for Scottish independence, nuclear fleet removal might be downgraded to a “bargaining chip” by the SNP.

         The U.S. position on U.K. nuclear weapons is that they are an important part of the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the U.K. So far, the media in the U.S. has not paid much attention to the coming referendum vote in Scotland. If they vote for independence, the U.S. will definitely have to take notice.

Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde:

U.K. Clyde Naval Base.png

There are claims that the U.S. government is not measuring the worst of Fukushima radiation arriving at the West Coast. enenews.com

Helen Caldicott says that Fukushima may be pouring radioactive water into the ocean “forever.” enenews.com

The first half of the Chernobyl arch has been assembled. It is now being gradually moved to make way for construction of the other half. world-nuclear-news.

Construction has finished on the control room of the first reactor at China’s Sanmen nuclear plant, paving the way for some of the final testing at the world’s first AP1000 reactor. nuclearstreet.com

              Exelon operates six nuclear power plants in the state of Illinois. In the last ten years, Exelon has made a profit of more than twenty one billion dollars from their nuclear power plants. Exelon brags about providing ninety percent of Illinois “clean” energy from nuclear power.  

            The widespread use of fracking in the U.S. has resulted in very cheap natural gas which has lowered the price of electricity from gas-fired power plants. Last year, the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant operated by Dominion Resources in Wisconsin was shut down because the owner could not make a profit and they could not find a buyer for the plant.  

             Nuclear power has benefited from the low cost of nuclear fuel created by converting weapons grade fissile material from Russian nuclear warheads. This fifteen year program has just ended so the price of nuclear fuel will rise.

             Many of the nuclear power reactors in the U.S. were built in the seventies and have had to be relicensed because their original design lifetimes have been exceeded. Last year Duke Energy had to shut down their Crystal River nuclear power plant in Florida because the repairs and equipment upgrades necessary to continue operations were too high.

             In the past, nuclear plants could count on being guaranteed a fixed price for their electricity for decades regardless of price fluctuations in the energy market. That practice is ending and nuclear power will have to compete in the short term energy market. Without the guaranteed price support, nuclear power will be much less attractive to ratepayers and investors.

            A recent analysis by the Chicago Tribune found that the Exelon power plants in Illinois have not returned a profit in the past five years. Exelon says that they may be forced to close three of their nuclear plants in Illinois because they are operating some plants at a loss. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules say that if a company cannot operate a nuclear power plant at a profit, they will lose their license and the plant in question will have to be sold or closed.

          Exelon is calling for a Illinois state energy policy that recognizes the value of electricity generation that does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Although they have lobbied in the past against state support of competitors power plants, now they are lobbying to have the state raise the price of electricity so they can make a profit. I wonder if the NRC would allow unprofitable nuclear power plants to operate if they have to have state assistance to survive.

          Exelon has a lot of political power in Illinois. Shutting down some of the Illinois nuclear power plants would cost a lot of jobs and would cut tax revenues generated by the nuclear power plants for local municipalities. Hopefully, Illinois can find a way to balance the need for carbon dioxide free power, cheap electricity, public safety, and tax revenues without burdening the citizens with higher electricity costs or more taxes to help a particular industry.

Byron Nuclear Power Plant in Illinois:

Illinois Byron Nuclear Plant.jpg