The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
In a handout photo from TEPCO, a worker points to a crack in the ground near Reactor No. 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
The leak, found at a maintenance pit near the plant’s No. 2 reactor, is a fresh reminder of the dangerous consequences of the strategy to cool the reactors and spent fuel storage pools by pumping hundreds of tons of water a day into them. While much of that water has evaporated, a significant portion has also turned into runoff.
They were going to decommission some of the reactors. Need to entomb them ASAP. I recall reading somewhere that Japan had requested that China send the concrete laying equipment China had used to in the Three Gorges Dam effort.
BERLIN (AP) -- A German utility is set to file a lawsuit against the government's decision to take older nuclear power plants temporarily off the grid in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster, a company spokeswoman said Thursday.
RWE AG deems the legal basis of Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to shut down the plants for three months pending safety investigations to be insufficient, Annett Urbazcka said.
Merkel hastily announced the shut down of the nuclear power plants built before 1980 -- seven of the country's 17 reactors in total -- only four days after Japan's March 11 earthquake and tsunami hit the Fukushima Dai-Chi nuclear facility.
RWE's spokeswoman stressed the utility, based in Essen, is not opposed to safety investigations, but it doubts the legal basis of the decision that forced it to shut down its Biblis A plant near Frankfurt.
The lawsuit, formally directed against Hesse state where the reactor is located, will be filed Friday at an administrative court in Kassel, Urbazcka said.
The government justified the decision based on a paragraph that allows it to shut down plants when there is the "suspicion of a threat" to the plants' safety that cannot be fully excluded.
.............
Analysts have said the four affected utilities are poised to lose around 500 million euros($700 million) as they are forced to take their reactors off the grid -- the lawsuit could therefore prove costly for the government should it lose in court.
....................
A center-left government a decade ago penned a plan to abandon the technology for good by 2021, but Merkel's government last year amended it to extend the plants' lifetime by an average of 12 years. The government has now performed a U-turn and put that plan on hold in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.
Japan has pushed nuclear energy hard — at the expense of safety
To get there, Japan has poured lavish subsidies into nuclear, starting with research. Around 65 percent of Japan’s energy research budget goes toward nuclear — the highest of any country — with the industry spending $250 million, well below 10 percent of what the government spends. Even France, which gets 80 percent of its energy from nuclear, spends three-and-half times less than Japan.
Beyond research, the government offers the nuclear energy industry loans that are a full percentage point below commercial levels. And for four decades, Japan has taxed the utility bills of electricity consumers, distributing the proceeds to communities willing to house nuclear plants. In essence, nuclear’s competitors are being forced to act against their own interest to bribe local communities to accept a risk against the communities' interest.
But the mother of all subsidies is the liability cap that nuclear enjoys. In the event of an accident, the industry is on the hook for only $1.2 billion in damages, with the government covering everything beyond that. Japan’s cap is generous even by American standards, which require the industry to cover $12.6 billion before Uncle Sam kicks in. (Nuclear proponents in the U.S. argue that this liability cap is necessary given our insane tort awards. However, the fact that even countries without such awards have to offer a liability cap suggests that nuclear technology is not yet considered safe enough to be viable.)
In light of the above India should immediately upgrade its Liability amount.
Mr. Ishizawa, who was finally allowed to leave, is not a nuclear specialist; he is not even an employee of the Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the crippled plant. He is one of thousands of untrained, itinerant, temporary laborers who handle the bulk of the dangerous work at nuclear power plants here and in other countries, lured by the higher wages offered for working with radiation. Collectively, these contractors were exposed to levels of radiation about 16 times as high as the levels faced by Tokyo Electric employees last year, according to Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, which regulates the industry. These workers remain vital to efforts to contain the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plants.
I am a little perplexed. These are the same Japanese that preach to the rest of the world?
And, did it have to take a tsunami and destruction of such magnitude for such news, if true, to filter out. In 2011!!!!
Stress tests have proven that Russian nuclear power plants are able to withstand natural disasters of the type recently seen in Japan, Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin said on Tuesday.
"We are convinced that Russian nuclear reactor technology conforms to all safety requirements," Sechin - in charge of the fuel and energy sector - said during a nuclear safety summit meeting in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.
The deputy premier said all Russian nuclear power plants were tested for their ability to withstand a 14-meter tsunami, a magnitude 9 earthquake and also underwent other tests.
Sechin urged all other countries with nuclear power to report on their own stress tests at the International Atomic Energy Agency's nuclear safety conference in June.
Entergy Corporation has filed a complaint with the US District Court in a bid to prevent the state of Vermont from forcing the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in 2012.
Vermont Yankee (Image: NRC) The suit filed by Entergy subsidiaries Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear Operations follows the March 2011 decision by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the plant's operating licence to March 2032. The single boiling water reactor plant has been in operation since 1972. The state of Vermont remains opposed to the operation of the plant beyond the expiry of its original licence, in March 2012.
The NRC's licence renewal decision, reached after an in-depth review, would normally be sufficient to ensure that a plant could continue to operate. However, in the case of Vermont Yankee, state approval is also needed for it to extend operations – a condition of the purchase of the plant by Entergy in 2002. Under a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed at the time, the two Entergy subsidiaries had agreed they would seek a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board if seeking to operate the plant beyond 21 March 2012. Entergy contests that a law passed by the Vermont General Assembly in 2006 repudiated the MoU, breaching the agreement and excusing the two Entergy subsidiaries' obligation to further comply with that specific provision.
"The 2006 state law took the decision about Vermont Yankee's future away from the Public Service Board, a quasi-judicial expert decision-maker, independent of legislative control," said Entergy Wholesale Commodities president Richard Smith. In so doing, it "placed Vermont Yankee's fate in the hands of political decision-makers," who could deny the plant's continued operation for unsupported or arbitrary reasons. "This is not what we signed up for in 2002," Smith added.
Entergy says it has made considerable efforts to achieve the necessary state approvals to allow the continued operation of the plant without resorting to litigation, including filing for a certificate of public good, offering Vermont utilities favourable terms for long-term power purchase agreements, offering to negotiate a date for commencement of decommissioning activities at Vermont Yankee earlier than the 60-year SAFSTOR period permitted by NRC regulations, and exploring the potential sale of the plant. The company says its recent attempts to sell the plant were stymied by political uncertainty in the state, and "more specifically, due to the stated intent of Vermont officials to shut down the plant."
Smith described litigation as by far the last preferred approach, but the action was taken following a 30 March meeting between Entergy and state governor Peter Shumlin in which the governor reiterated his opposition to the continued operation of Vermont Yankee beyond March 2012.
The suit contends that the state of Vermont is violating the Atomic Energy Act in asserting that it can close a federally licensed and operating nuclear power plant, and the Federal Power Act in making an agreement to provide power to Vermont utilities at preferential wholesale rates a condition of continued operation.
Meanwhile, Governor Shumlin accused Entergy of "attempting to rewrite history." Shumlin states that the 2006 law clearly outlined the requirements for continued operation of a nuclear power plant in the state. "When it purchased Vermont Yankee, Entergy clearly agreed that it must obtain a new state licence to operate beyond March 2012, and that it would not attempt to claim preemption regarding the state's licensing decision," he said. "Vermont has a proper role in granting or denying state approval for Vermont Yankee," he added.
As the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident approaches, the international community has pledged a further €550 million ($786 million) to ensure the plant site in Ukraine is made stable and environmentally safe.
<snip>
As the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident approaches, the international community has pledged a further €550 million ($786 million) to ensure the plant site in Ukraine is made stable and environmentally safe.
<snip>
Wasn't that some 24 years back? Which other disaster do we remember and keep pumping money to contain it. Oh its TML.
Always need to make them Environmentally safe> I thought they were cleaner and safer etc... what happened?
The system to be installed by Areva applies an original technology that is a type of coprecipitation process. It injects chemicals into the contaminated water that cause radioactive iodine, cesium and other substances to separate out by precipitation so they can be recovered. Lauvergeon asserted that the system would be capable of reducing the concentration of radioactive substances in 50 tons of highly contaminated water to between one thousandth and one ten-thousandth of the current level. She added that the system was also being utilized at the company's La Hague reprocessing plant in Cherbourg and its Marcoule site in southern France
Russian icebreaker forced to return to port. Russian authorities launched an urgent rescue mission after an alleged leak forced it to abandon its mission in the Arctic sea.
>>> Arnab :: safe locations like Chernobyl? Domestic technology that caused chernobyl? Why should anyone trust it? Considering they have more than adequate gas / oil reserves = why?
Chernobyl was certainly pretty bad, and not a safe location. I was thinking of less inhabited places more to the east etc. However I do not claim to know why Russia is taking these steps bucking the global reaction to Fuk-D. I can only guess that the reasons are mentioned before.
Safe locations -- far from habitation, not quake prone etc.
Use of hot water for heating etc,
Availability of land mass for dumping waste
Domestic tech, well understood locally. All parts domestic
Saving carbon fuel for selling internationally.
Higher than others threshold of acceptance of risks.
Sanku wrote:>>> Arnab :: safe locations like Chernobyl? Domestic technology that caused chernobyl? Why should anyone trust it? Considering they have more than adequate gas / oil reserves = why?
Chernobyl was certainly pretty bad, and not a safe location. I was thinking of less inhabited places more to the east etc. However I do not claim to know why Russia is taking these steps bucking the global reaction to Fuk-D. I can only guess that the reasons are mentioned before.
Safe locations -- far from habitation, not quake prone etc.
Use of hot water for heating etc,
Availability of land mass for dumping waste
Domestic tech, well understood locally. All parts domestic
Saving carbon fuel for selling internationally.
Higher than others threshold of acceptance of risks.
All in all, very Russia centric reasons.
I agree they are Russian centric - but I find it mindboggling that they are doing it even when it is not necessary (unlike India). Infact I read somewhere that some of the reactors will be based in the Kamchataka peninsula - right next door to japan. That doesn't sound very safe or responsible to me.
Sanku wrote:>>> Arnab :: safe locations like Chernobyl? Domestic technology that caused chernobyl? Why should anyone trust it? Considering they have more than adequate gas / oil reserves = why?
Chernobyl was certainly pretty bad, and not a safe location. I was thinking of less inhabited places more to the east etc. However I do not claim to know why Russia is taking these steps bucking the global reaction to Fuk-D. I can only guess that the reasons are mentioned before.
Safe locations -- far from habitation, not quake prone etc.
Use of hot water for heating etc,
Availability of land mass for dumping waste
Domestic tech, well understood locally. All parts domestic
Saving carbon fuel for selling internationally.
Higher than others threshold of acceptance of risks.
All in all, very Russia centric reasons.
But but you yourself said that you dont trust any LWRs that include Russian VVERs.
So by inference, as per you, Russia is doing something that is dangerous and not good.
Tanaji wrote:
So by inference, as per you, Russia is doing something that is dangerous and not good.
Correct?
Yes, expect that a NPP going bust in non populated areas such as Kamchatka (from russian perspective) becomes by nature less of a issue than in more populated areas.
Summary
For decades, extended nuclear deterrence (END) has supported stability and non-proliferation. But questions need to be asked about whether and how it might effectively endure in a changing world. Is END somehow coming to an end? Or should it and can it adapt to a 21st century strategic environment involving new threats, shifting power balances and fresh moves towards non-proliferation and disarmament?
In Weathering Change, prominent global experts and emerging scholars share their core assessments on the future of the so-called nuclear umbrella. Their points of difference and agreement make essential reading for anyone concerned about the future of international security and the practical prospects for eliminating nuclear dangers. This publication represents the Lowy Institute’s contribution to the Nuclear Security Project’s May 2011 conference and is designed to stimulate the thinking of policy leaders and opinion makers worldwide.
Not only the pressure vessels, but the containment vessels of the Nos. 1 to 3 reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant were probably damaged within 24 hours of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, according to Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s analysis of the nuclear crisis.
With countries around the world rethinking their energy policies, Toshiba Corp. has been forced to retreat from its ambitious plan to sell nuclear reactors overseas and will focus more on renewable energy.
The Atomic Energy Society of Japan is discussing a plan to make the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant a storage site for radioactive waste from the crippled station
Kan has balls, coming clean and being truthful now, though late. Japanese Govt seems to be trying to make amends. The trouble is their credibility is also damaged. As they themselves realize
And Unkil gets mad if the Russians sell India a Brahmos with 300.000001 km range.