India has serious problems with supplying sufficient power to the national grid. Prime Minister Modi is dedicated to the construction of more nuclear power reactors to increase available power for civilian and industrial uses. Russia has agreed to assist India in the construction of twelve nuclear power plants. Westinghouse is currently negotiating to build six power reactors in India. India has recently signed nuclear trade agreements with Canada, Australia and Japan. While the central government may be sold on nuclear power, there are critics of India’s safety record with existing nuclear power reactors.

         Last year the Auditor-General of India found that sixty percent of regulatory inspections for operating nuclear power plants in India were up to one hundred and fifty three days late or did not happen at all.                                 

        The bipartisan Indian Public Accountability Committee has just issued a “scathing” report to India’s Parliament that was very critical of the fact that decades have passed during which India was supposed to create an independent nuclear regulatory agency. The report pointed out that India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is “not an independent statutory body but rather a subordinate agency of the government.”

         The report said that “The failure to have an autonomous and independent regulator is clearly fraught with grave risks, as brought out poignantly in the report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission.” “Although AERB maintains liaison with international nuclear organisations, it has been slow in adopting international benchmarks and good practices in the areas of nuclear and radiation operation. ” The AERB “cannot set or enforce rules for radiation and nuclear safety in India.” In some areas of concern, there are no existing rules. Some smaller facilities that deal with radioactive materials have no licences or regulatory oversight at all. The maximum fine that can be imposed on nuclear operators by the AERB is equivalent to nine U.S. dollars.

         The AERB was charged with creating a comprehensive nuclear and radiation policy for India in 1983 but it has not yet issued such a policy. The report stated that “The absence of such a policy at macro level can hamper micro-level planning of radiation safety in the country.” The report concluded that India was not ready to cope with a major nuclear emergency.
“Off-site emergency exercises carried out highlighted inadequate emergency preparedness even for situations where the radiological effects of an emergency origination from nuclear power plants are likely to extend beyond the site and affect the people around.”

         These problems in India are a perfect illustration of the concern that I have with the current push to sell nuclear power reactors to developing countries. With lax regulation and widespread corruption, future major nuclear accidents are almost guaranteed. And, as the report pointed out for India, these countries are less prepared to cope with nuclear accidents than major industrial nations which have serious difficulties of their own in dealing with nuclear disasters. The promotion of nuclear power reactors to countries ill prepared to deal with the complexity of managing nuclear power generation is a threat to the whole world. 

Major Japanese newspaper reports that there are mutations in nearly every fir tree near Fukushima plant. enenews.com

Radioactive waste from the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria is contaminating shellfish hundreds of kilometers away on the west coast of Scotland, according to a new scientific study. nuclearnews.net

The U.S. Department of Energy is formally launching its initiative aimed at establishing a disposal site for spent nuclear fuel. thehill.com

South Africa approved a plan for the country to procure as much as 9,600 megawatts of nuclear-generated power. bloomberg.com

        The Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant I is located in the Russian town of Sosnovy Bor which on the Gulf of Finland. Sosnovy Bor is about forty miles west of the major Russian city of Saint Petersburg. Construction of the LNPP I began in 1970.  There are four RBMK-1000 reactors at the LNPP I. These reactors are similar to the reactors at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. The LNPP I is scheduled for decommissioning in 2016.

        The RBMK-1000 reactors were based on early Russian military reactors. They have a simple design and can burn natural uranium. They were very popular in the early days of the Soviet nuclear power industry and there are still a few operating in Russia. The cooling system recirculates water into the reactor core where it is converted to steam. The steam drives the turbines and then is condensed back to liquid water to repeat the cycle. In this type of reactor, the steam is radioactive.

       The LNPP I had a series of serious problems including fires and leaks of radioactive materials in the 1970s. More serious problems occured in the 1990s and continued into the 2000s. On a number of occasions, leaks of radioactive liquids and gases were not reported to the public in the vicinity of the plant. The projected engineered life-spans of two of the four RBMK reactors at LNPP ran in 2003 and 2005 but they continued to be operated without the required environmental impact statements. They were operating in what is referred to as un-sustained transitional regimes which often result in the release of radioactivity.

        A few days ago, a steam pipe broke in one of the LNPP I RBMK reactors and released a huge cloud of radioactive steam into the environment. The reactor was immediately shut down but radioactive steam kept leaking. The authorities reported that there was no evidence of increased radioactivity in Sosnovy Bor but skeptics claimed that was only because the winds blew the cloud of steam away from the town. The prevailing winds carried the cloud of radioactive steam west towards the Tallinn, Estonia and Helsinki, Finland.

        Although the operators of the plant announced that the leaking area had been isolated and there was no danger, some citizens took iodine tablets. Others withdrew money from their banking accounts and fled the area leading to traffic jams. There is wide-spread skepticism about the honesty of government officials with respect to accidents at nuclear plants in Russia. There is a history of official denials of released radioactivity and danger to the public in the old Soviet Union and in Russia.

        As the nuclear reactors that were built in the 1970s continue to reach the end of their operational lifespan, there will be more and more accidents and releases of radioactive materials. These will be publicized and scare the public. Even if there is little danger to the public, the negative attitude toward nuclear power will only increase with time. It will become more and more difficult to persuade investors to invest in and local residents to accept the siting of new nuclear power plants across the globe.

        The safe operation of existing nuclear power plants depends on a robust nuclear industry. As the industry goes into decline, it will become more difficult to find replacement parts and skilled technicians. This will increase the probability of more accidents. Nuclear power never was a good idea and, with every passing day, it becomes a greater threat to public safety. All existing nuclear power plants should be shut down as soon as possible.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Wednesday a new U.S. law putting visa restrictions on Iranians and those who had visited Iran would, if implemented, breach a nuclear deal Tehran had struck with world powers earlier this year. news.yahoo.com

The Belgian nuclear regulator has approved the restart of units 1 and 2 of the Doel plant. The units – which were both taken offline earlier this year in accordance with the country’s nuclear phase-out legislation – were required to meet new safety requirements in order to continue operating until 2025. world-nuclear-news.org

Reuters News service reported Wednesday morning that India was close to signing a deal with Westinghouse Electric Company to build six nuclear reactors in the state of Gujarat. nuclearstreet.com

Xcel Energy has agreed to take corrective action to address allegations that contractors at the Monticello nuclear plant in Minnesota didn’t properly test spent fuel storage containers. sctimes.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

         I have blogged extensively about the Hinkley Point C nuclear power project in the United Kingdom. It is a very expensive project that involves the French and the Chinese. There are a lot of controversy about the project from financial concerns to environmental and labor issues. The deal was finalized last Wednesday.

         The day before the deal was finalized, the U.K. Energy Minister said “It is vital that industries over time stand on their own two feet. I don’t think anyone here would advocate an industry that only survives because of a subsidy paid by the billpayer.” She made this statement in defense of the eighty seven percent cut that the U.K. had just made in subsidies for solar power.

          At the end of the announcement of the signed contract for Hinkley Point C was the following statement, “The government confirms that it is not continuing the ‘no public subsidy policy’ [for nuclear power] of the previous administration.” For five years, U.K. government ministers had been claiming that nuclear power needed no government subsidies. Apparently that claim was false. Austria, which is strongly against the use of nuclear power in the European Union has brought a lawsuit against the U.K. for what it says are illegal state subsidies for the Hinkley Point C project.

         Ministers say that nuclear power is essential for the national security of the U.K. The U.K. national security organizations disagree and point out that the deal invites the Chinese into the highly sensitive nuclear energy sector in the U.K. The ministers also say that nuclear energy is necessary to reach lower carbon emissions but the Conservatives in Parliament have been working on banning onshore wind farms which are one of the lowest carbon emitting energy sources.

         Because of all the confusion and controversy surrounding the Hinkley Point C project in particular and energy policy in general, the ministers are promoting a “reset” for energy policy. Critics of this “reset” say that such a move will undermine investor confidence in investing in the energy sector. Finding investors for the Hinkley Point C project was a major problem.

         This problem between huge government subsidies for nuclear power projects and cutting subsidies for renewable alternative energy projects is replicated around the world. Recently, I posted fifteen reasons why nuclear power is not a good way to lower carbon emissions. Renewable alternative power is becoming so cheap that it is reaching the point where it can compete with fossil fuels and nuclear power directly without the need for subsides. As I have said before, the only reason that nuclear power projects are being pushed around the world is the fact that there are billions of dollars in such projects. This huge pool of money attracts governments and major corporate players. There is plenty of money for profits and, if necessary, the occasional bribe.

         Nuclear power is not competitive and is a threat to the environment and public health. The sooner it is abandoned, the better it will be for everyone, even those who profit from it.

Work will commence next week, senior Iranian atomic energy official says, as two countries step up ties. aljazeera.com

Seven more nuclear waste “hot spots” found in St. Louis suburb. cbsnews.com

Four Russian institutes have successfully conducted an experiment on the isolation and separation of americium and curium from used nuclear fuel.  world-nuclear-news.org

AREVA NP has been selected by the utility Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy to decontaminate the primary loop of the Krümmel nuclear power plant, located in Geesthacht near Hamburg, Germany.  nuclearstreet.com

Part Two of Two Parts (Please read Part One first)

6. The public is especially skeptical of nuclear power because of the Fukushima disaster in Japan in March of 2011. Another major accident anywhere in the world will result in massive public backlash against plans to build more reactors anywhere in the world.

7. Nuclear nations are pushing the sale of nuclear reactors to third world countries where regulation is more lax than in developed countries and corruption is more severe and widespread. This invites more accidents.

8. The funds for decommissioning nuclear power plants are not adequate in the U.S. and other countries. If the money is not there when a nuclear power plant reaches the end of its life, then it will likely just be fenced and boarded up, future inviting problems such as environmental pollution.

9. Nuclear power plants are great targets for terrorists. There have already been concerns in some countries involved in conflicts that their nuclear power plants may come under attack.

10. Due to climate change, more severe weather is expected. Many nuclear power plants are located near ocean coasts where there is danger from hurricanes and tsunamis. This invites more accidents.

11. At least twenty nuclear reactors in the U.S. are down-stream from dams. If dams break, the reactors could be flooded. This could result in major accidents.

12. Nuclear reactors in the U.S. can take up to ten years to plan, license and construct. We must act immediately on climate change and cannot afford to wait on nuclear energy projects which often fall behind schedule and are often over budget.

13. Nuclear power plants produce plutonium as a matter of regular operation. Plutonium can be extracted from spent nuclear fuel and used to make nuclear weapons. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a major concern in the world today.

14. Radioactive materials such as nuclear fuel can be used to construct “dirty bombs” by packing such materials around a core of conventional explosives. Such devices are attractive to terrorists and terrorist organizations are actively seeking such materials on the black market today.

15. Insurance programs for covering the damages of nuclear accidents are inadequate. In the U.S., there are caps to what companies could be expected to pay in the case of a major nuclear accident. If the cost of the cleanup after such an accident exceeds the cap, then the U.S. taxpayers are going to have to pay the difference which could be in range of billions of dollars. India is having problems obtaining nuclear contracts from companies in other countries because of its strict liability laws and the Indian government is working to weaken those laws.

       This is a short list to which many other concerns could be added. While nuclear power might look good with respect to carbon emissions, this only holds true if all the problems listed above can be solved. These problems are obvious and well-documented. They will not all be solved any time soon. It is a disservice to those expecting expert advice backed by solid evidence to be told that nuclear power is a good solution for reducing carbon emission.