Fukushima fuel melted through the containment vessels and is spewing radiation. enenews.com
Blog
-
Nuclear Reactors 339 – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Is Not Doing Its Job
I have often criticized the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for failing to do its job properly. I have charged that it has been a victim of regulatory capture by the industry that it is supposed to be regulating. I have offered examples of this such as the time that the NRC and the owners of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California conspired in secret to change the acceptable parameters of earthquake preparedness to allow the plant to satisfy regulations when new faults were discovered near the plant. Recent incidents have renewed these concerns.
Tritium is the radioactive isotope of hydrogen. When combined with oxygen, it forms water that is radioactive. Such water is often leaked from nuclear power plants and poses a serious health risk. Recently there have been major tritium leaks from the Indian Point nuclear power plant in on the Hudson River near New York City, New York and the Turkey Point nuclear power plant on Biscayne Bay in Florida. Authorities say that the amounts leaked have not threatened public drinking water and that the public should not be concerned but the public is concerned. As a matter of fact, over three fourths of the commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. have reported radioactive leaks. Instead of tighten regulations, the NRC has actually weakened federal regulations in order to allow nuclear power plants to keep operating in spite of thousands of reported problems across the U.S.
In its own defense, the NRC insists that it conducts very thorough inspections and requires nuclear power plants to adhere strictly to federal regulations. Unfortunately, there are many critics who point to many incidents that would seem to raise the question of exactly how competent the NRC at regulating the nuclear industry. Following the Fukushima disaster in Japan in March of 2011, the NRC drafted new standards for emergency equipment and systems needed to cope with catastrophic failures at nuclear power plants. However, it appears that although the NRC requires that such equipment be purchased and installed, they have not drafted a set of minimum required standards for such equipment. This raises the question of what good the new regulations are if it is possible that equipment purchased and installed by nuclear power plants is not able to do the job for which it is intended.
The Indian Point leaks of tritium were not detected by monitoring at the plant which would be best but rather by monitoring of wells in the area around the plant that were drilled to watch for tritium leaks. The leaks from the Turkey Point plant were detected by sampling and analyzing water in Biscayne Bay. In 2010, NRC staffers called for the development of new systems to monitor leaks of radioactive materials at nuclear power plants but the recommendations were turned down by the NRC commissioners.
It is understandable that the companies that run nuclear power plants do not want to spend any money they don’t have to comply with safety regulation from the NRC. The reason for the failure of the NRC to regulate the industry properly is more difficult to understand and accept.
-
Geiger Readings for Mar 15, 2015
Ambient office = 123 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 95 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 89 nanosieverts per hourRoma tomato from Central Market = 55 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 75 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 67 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 338 – Hinkley Point C Project Vital To Britain Energy Future
I have blogged about the Hinkley Point C project in the U.K. several times. The price estimate of over thirty four billion dollars for two nuclear reactors makes it one of the most costly nuclear projects in history. The U.K. government decided that it was not going to fund nuclear projects several years ago which left the funding of the project in doubt. EDF, the French-owned firm that is slated to build the reactors made a tentative and controversial deal with a Chinese-owned company for about one third of the funds. There have been objections from labor unions, environmental groups, utilities and security forces in Britain to the project which I have detailed in previous posts. Today I am going to delve a bit deeper into the reason that the U.K. wants the project so badly.
Most of the nuclear reactors in the U.K. are advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs). About twenty percent of the electricity in the UK comes from eight nuclear power plants, seven of which are scheduled to be closed down by 2030. Coal power plants make up another twenty two percent of the power generation for the U.K. and they are scheduled to be closed permanently by 2025. This means that the U.K. could lose up to fifty percent of its power generation by 2030. The life of these nuclear and coal plants could be extended but this would be a temporary fix. And, extension of the coal plants would mean a setback for the reduction of carbon emissions.
This short fall of power might stimulate the development and adoption of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and tidal generation. But the most likely way to make up the shortage will be with Combined Gas Cycle Turbines burning natural gas. These can be build relatively quickly but they are not low-carbon sources and they will contribute to climate change.
If Hinkley Point C is built, it will be able to supply about seven percent of the needed electricity. However, part of the deal is a guarantee by the British government to pay about twice the current price for electricity for the life of the plant. If Hinkley has to compete with gas-fired power plants and alternative energy sources that can supply cheaper electricity, then the rate payers will be locked into long term contracts at an inflated price.
There are other nuclear projects in various stages in Britain with companies such as Hitachi and Toshiba involved. These projects may continue even if Hinkley Point C is cancelled but the odds are that they will not be unaffected. Investors might pull out because of fear that Britain is no longer able to launch and complete large energy projects.
The U.K., France and China are seriously committed to the Hinkley Point C project. They have a huge political stake in the successful completion of the project. Beyond power generation, there is the goal of convincing the public that nuclear power is safe and economical. The failure of the Hinkley Point C project would deal a serious blow to public confidence in such projects. On the other hand, if the project is started but not finished, it would also be a serious setback. And, if the project is completed but supplies electricity at a very uncompetitive price, that will not help the future of nuclear power generation either.
Artist’s concept of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant:
-
Geiger Readings for Mar 14, 2015
Ambient office = 124 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 92 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 88 nanosieverts per hourAvocado from Central Market = 57 nanosieverts per hourTangerine = 66 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 93 nanosieverts per hour -
Radiation News Roundup Mar 13, 2015
Five years after a natural disaster and nuclear meltdown, a once fertile landscape is abandoned. nationalgeographic.com
Documentary director says that is ‘Shocking how many people died in Fukushima.’ rt.com
Five years after the nuclear plant meltdown at Fukushima, Japan has begun the controversial process of restarting its other reactors. oregonlive.com
-
Geiger Readings for Mar 13, 2015
Ambient office = 132 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 91 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 86 nanosieverts per hourCarrot from Central Market = 100 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 100 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 94 nanosieverts per hour
