International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jun 2011 02:40

According to Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom:
Capacity hike planned at Russian enrichment plant

Uranium enrichment capacity at TVEL's JSC Electrochemical Plant (ECP) in Zelenogorsk in Russia's Krasnoyarsk Region will be boosted by at least 50%, according to Sergey Kiriyenko, director general of Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom.

The Electrochemical Plant (ECP) in Zelenogorsk (Image: TVEL) Speaking to journalists during a visit to the plant on 3 June, Kiriyenko said that 5.5 billion roubles ($198 million) will be invested in the ECP plant in 2011. However, a long-term investment programme sees 45 billion to 65 billion roubles ($1.6 billion to $2.3 billion) being spent on modernizing and expanding the facility.

<snip>

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jun 2011 02:44

Resources upped at Husab (Namibia)

Uranium resources at the Husab deposit in Namibia have been increased by 33%, making it the fourth largest uranium-only deposit in the world according to Extract Resources.
The new figures include maiden measured resources in zones 1 and 2 of 84 million pounds U3O8 (32,000 tU) at a grade of 510 ppm U3O8 and a 39% increase in indicated resources in zones 1 and 2 to 274 million pounds U3O8 (105,400 tU) at 440 ppm U3O8. Inferred resources at zones 1-5 have increased by 18% to 130 million pounds U3O8 (50,000 tU) at 340 ppm U3O8, including the definition of maiden inferred resources in zone 5. Figures are compliant with both the JORC code and Canadian NI43-101 guidelines.

The total global resource at the deposit is 33% up from August 2010 estimates and including the already defined resources at Ida Dome, 20km to the south, now stands in excess of 500 million pounds U3O8 (192,000 tU).
<snip>
Husab, formerly known as Rössing South, is the highest grade granite-hosted uranium deposit in Namibia.
<snip>

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jun 2011 03:15

U.S. Energy Department suggests smaller nuclear reactors for better safety

U.S. Energy Department officials Tuesday recommended building smaller nuclear reactors ...
Reactors only about one-third as big as the ones commonly used by power companies produce less electricity but also are safer...
“The [Obama] Administration continues to view nuclear power as an important clean energy option,” Kelly said.

President Barack Obama has asked Congress to approve $67 million for the Energy Department to develop small reactors along with corporations such as Westinghouse Electric Co. and Babcock & Wilcox Co...
“Small modular reactors, specifically reactors that have an electrical output of less than 300 megawatts,.....

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Jun 2011 04:09

Japan 'unprepared' for Fukushima nuclear disaster

The nuclear safety agency now says 770,000 terabecquerels escaped into the atmosphere following the 11 March disaster - more than double its earlier estimate of 370,000 terabecquerels.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Jun 2011 04:11

Goodspeed: Iran may be two months from bomb, two new studies say

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Jun 2011 04:11

Czech president calls German nuclear exit "absurd"

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jun 2011 05:19

^^^ From above:

In his speech, Klaus took aim at Germany's popular anti-nuclear movement, calling into question the sincerity of its activists and accusing them of collusion with Germany's renewable energy industry.

"I do not believe the apostates who fight against nuclear energy today," he told the audience.

"I do not believe they are sincere," he said of nuclear energy's opponents. "They are also not entirely innocent. The lobbying of manufacturers of alternative energy sources often lies hidden behind their supposed good intentions."

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jun 2011 06:56

Some posts ago, As I posted, I wondered why Merkel would do something that probably goes against her policy views and scientific training .. A thought shared by this WP post editor too...
WPost opinion (Merkel is on a visit to WH)
Merkel’s flip-flop logic

President Obama is hosting German Chancellor Angela Merkel today. Herrzlich Wilkommen in Washington! Despite past differences over Libya, economic policy and lots of other stuff, the two leaders are doing their utmost to project warmth and unity. Obama draped the Medal of Freedom around Frau Merkel’s neck, and told the Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel that he trusts her “when she makes a commitment.”

No doubt that’s true for the commitments she has made to the U.S. But what about some of the promises she has made to Germany? Specifically, her recent decision to end nuclear power in Germany by 2022 — contrary to her previous decision, in fulfillment of a 2009 campaign pledge, to extend the life of 17 German nukes beyond that date — has to be one of the most blatant political flip-flops of all time.

Here’s the backstory. Running for re-election two years ago, Merkel promised to undo a law, passed in 2002 by the previous center-left coalition, that would have phased out all nuclear energy in Germany by 2021. To be sure, during her first term from 2005 to 2009, in which she and the center-left Social Democrats ruled as an uneasy coalition, Merkel left that law undisturbed. But, courting more pro-business coalition partners in 2009, she argued that nuclear power was safe and economically necessary, and would help eliminate greenhouse gases. "We urgently need to keep the plants up and running for longer," she said. Just eight months ago, the German parliament, dominated by Merkel’s coalition, passed a law extending the life of the country’s nukes by 12 years.

Every country has its national quirks, and one of Germany’s is a fear of nuclear energy. It may seem odd in the nation whose scientists gave us the X-ray and quantum physics – and that elected a physicist, Angela Merkel, as its leader. But, despite the unblemished safety record at German nuclear plants, the country’s Green movement opposes this carbon-free form of energy with the same fervor that the National Rifle Association opposes gun control. And most Germans tend to agree.

After the accident at Fukushima, Japan, anti-nuclear sentiment spiked in Germany, costing Merkel’s party a majority in prosperous Baden-Wurtemberg state for the first time since World War II. No matter that the German reactors which provide 23 percent of the country’s electricity are of a different design than those in Japan, or that the possibility of an earthquake, let alone a tsunami, in Germany is essentially nil.

Merkel promptly put herself at the head of the anti-nuclear movement. The great German sociologist Max Weber defined political leadership as the capacity to declare, with the same passion that Martin Luther once exhibited, “Here I stand; I can do no other.” Merkel seems to have amended that to read: “Here I stand, but I could move if you want.”

Or has she? I have been trying to understand why Merkel would do something that probably goes against her policy views and scientific training, that makes no sense environmentally { That was what I wondered too } (since it will lead to a short-term increase in carbon-belching coal-generated electric power), and that could do major long-term damage to the German economy. The conclusion I come to is that she’s betting a total ban on nuclear power in Germany will never actually occur; or at least that won’t go into effect as early as 2022.

Yes, Germans tell pollsters now that they’d be willing to pay a bit extra on their electric bills to get rid of nukes. But few of them have any idea what it’s really going to cost — not just in higher household bills, but lost jobs and competitiveness in German industry — to replace nearly a quarter of the nation’s electric-power capacity in a little more than a decade. A recent J.P. Morgan analysis notes that solar, wind and hydroelectric can only fill part of the gap, and even that will require “massive grid infrastructure investment.”

Merkel knows this. She also knows that, having flip-flopped on this issue once, she, or some future government, can flip-flop again between now and 2022 — when and if the German public finally figures out what it’s really going to cost to indulge their fears.

<snip>

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Jun 2011 20:01

Defiant Iran plans big rise in nuclear enrichment

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jun 2011 20:50

Wrt to IAEA report (actually preliminary report, full is due some time later this month) - Link given in post around Jun 01 - Just like BRF, here are some diverse opinion/reactions..

From WSJ article:
IAEA Draws Fire

Officials in three Western countries are attempting to sideline the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency from international nuclear safety discussions amid their growing concerns about the U.N. nuclear agency's handling..
In particular, they have raised questions about whether the agency ...have adequately criticized Japan's nuclear disaster plans and response to the crisis.. {IAEA criticized this but rather quietly.. while praising many other aspects} ..
Publicly, influential U.N. member states continue to express support for the IAEA. "The U.S. does view the IAEA as the appropriate venue to discuss nuclear safety," U.S. ambassador to the IAEA Glyn Davies saidin an emailed response to a question from The Wall Street Journal.....

...But the diplomats from three G-8 countries—a group composed of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.—have questioned the IAEA's ability [ to serve as a watchdog over nuclear issues ]
<Read the story if interested >

And: (From Ahmadinejad)
IAEA report [onJapan] is a whitewash.

WSJ has two other items, might be of interest ..
US NRC Chairman Urges Lessons Must Be Quickly Learnt
and
Nuclear Exit Fails to Give Merkel's Party a Boost

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jun 2011 21:25

Iran to move its most sensitive nuclear equipment to bunker

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 Jun 2011 22:08

Few more related reports and news items which are making headlines.

These reports could be an input to IAEA report due sometime later this month. Preliminary report was issued (and discussed in BRF) a few days ago.

(Few excerpts are given from one news item.. please read the original news items and reports for context and interest)

===> From Japan Government:
Japan ‘unprepared’ for Fukushima accident
>>>In a report on the Fukushima accident, the Japanese government has recognized deficiencies in preparedness and responses. It insists that lessons will be learned from the accident. It says:

[The report] is a preliminary accident report, and represents a summary of the evaluation of the accident and the lessons learned to date based on the facts gleaned about the situation so far.

===>From regulators (conf in Paris) from G8, OECD ( Nuclear Energy Agency member countries and associated countries such as India, Brazil,Romania, South Africa and Ukraine. And a ministerial seminar on nuclear safety attended by governments from 33 countries:

Forum finds lessons from Fukushima
>>>Regulators and plant operators must strive for continuous improvement of nuclear safety in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, nuclear regulatory authorities from around the world have agreed...

Interesting part

In answer to questions, all three of the regulators praised the crisis management efforts made in Japan. "I would be surprised if others could do better in the circumstances," said Weightman, referring to the extreme conditions surrounding the accident.

Puts in some perspective the noise made by likes of Busby and their worshipers at the tune of atomic_explosions with 140,000 people dying by "incompetent, deceitful" actions of Japan.

===> Meanwhile also in the news:
NRC chairman cleared on Yucca Mountain decision
>> The story is about decision from an independent review in US which found that
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had the authority to end the licensing review for the Yucca Mountain repository. Report concludes that "there was no scientific basis" for the decision to terminate the project.

..The OIG's conclusion comes as a committee of the US House of Representatives released a report detailing the "complete absence of scientific information and analysis" used to... [support the decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain project.]

Excerpts from committee's statement:

The results of this review outline a systematic and active effort on the part of the Administration to obfuscate, delay, and muzzle scientific and technical information and related process in order to shut down Yucca Mountain.....To the contrary, the committee found great agreement among the scientific and technical experts that nuclear waste can be safely stored at the site for tens of thousands of years.

Chairman of the committee, commented:

The findings are striking. Despite proclamations from the Administration that its policy decisions are based on principles of scientific integrity and transparent process, this report highlights that the decision to shut down Yucca Mountain had no scientific basis.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Jun 2011 05:38

UN nuclear watchdog refers Syria to Security Council

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 Jun 2011 07:59

xpost:
Iran Tests Nuclear Missile Warhead Design
The design mention above (implied as stolen from pak/china) is implosion type device using UD3 as initiator ....IIRC there was a brochure (or newspaper article) where PhotoChor was in front of a blackboard with a design with UD3 as initiator ..

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 Jun 2011 21:01

EU ministers on stress tests and roadmaps

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Jun 2011 19:03

Rising radiation halts water clean-up at Fukushima nuclear plant

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Jun 2011 19:04

Bombshell for ‘Atomic Anne’

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 18 Jun 2011 21:22

Gerard wrote:Rising radiation halts water clean-up at Fukushima nuclear plant

From the above, BBC dorkiness hits a new low..

...It was the world's worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986.

The powerful earthquake and the tsunami it generated are now known to have killed more than 15,280 people, while nearly 8,500 remain unaccounted for.

Who can blame the ignorant reader if one gets from this that the earthquake and tsunami were caused by this.. and it killed thousands of people

Unfortunately there are enough ignorant people who are likely to believe all this.. and then on top of it, these ignorant people will throw insults on anyone who tries to explain even the most basic facts.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 21 Jun 2011 21:05

Shipping of fuel to begin for Watts Bar 2 - The reactor, due to start 2013, will be the first new US unit to start up since 1996.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 21 Jun 2011 22:05

There are currently lot of stories about H3 leak in US nuclear power plants..As always it is worth to look at the figures (and quantitative numbers) to get the right perspective of the risk.

One story from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Tritium leaks found at many nuke sites

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 22 Jun 2011 06:46

^^^^ From the SF Chronicle link above:

"The public health and safety impact of this is next to zero," said Tony Pietrangelo, chief nuclear officer of the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute. "This is a public confidence issue."

Once again, hysteria trumping science. And, so she blows.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 22 Jun 2011 23:41

Meanwhile keep an eye on this ongoing situation... Right now the forecast is for the flood to keep up until August.

http://iowaindependent.com/57641/flood- ... t-critical

At this moment, 19 miles north of Omaha in the small town of Blair, Neb., a barrier of Aqua Dams separates the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Station from the Missouri River’s flood waters. Another 100 miles downstream on the Nebraska side of the river but past the Iowa-Missouri line, more than 5,000 tons of sand was brought in to help protect the Cooper Nuclear Station from rising waters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

A nuclear power plant north of Omaha, Neb., on Tuesday briefly lost the ability to cool a pool of used nuclear fuel after a fire at the site, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Jun 2011 01:10

Minister calls for restart of Japan's reactors

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Jun 2011 13:42

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-nr ... 32412.html

AP IMPACT: NRC and industry rewrite nuke history

ROCKVILLE, Md. (AP) — When commercial nuclear power was getting its start in the 1960s and 1970s, industry and regulators stated unequivocally that reactors were designed only to operate for 40 years. Now they tell another story — insisting that the units were built with no inherent life span, and can run for up to a century, an Associated Press investigation shows.

Read it all. Another TEPCO in the making.

Jai ho onlee.....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jun 2011 17:19

Los Alamos-Apocalypse now?

Wildfire threatens US nuclear laboratory
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 04198.html

AP
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
A wildfire burning near the desert birthplace of the atomic bomb advanced on the Los Alamos laboratory and thousands of outdoor drums of plutonium-contaminated waste as authorities stepped up efforts to protect the site from flames and monitor the air for radiation.

PS:After Fukushima,this is simply devastating for the N-industry if Los Alamos becomes a radioactive fireball

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jun 2011 18:29

Published on Jun 29, 2011
By Fredrik Dahl
West queries China over Pakistan atom ties: Reuters

But China showed no sign of reconsidering its position on building two more reactors at the Chashma nuclear power complex in Pakistan's Punjab region, said the sources who attended a June 23-24 meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Beijing's nuclear ties with Islamabad have caused unease in Washington, Delhi and other capitals. They are worried about Pakistan's history of spreading nuclear arms technology and the integrity of international non-proliferation rules.

Washington and other governments have said China should seek approval for the planned reactors from the NSG, a 46-nation, consensus-based cartel that seeks to ensure nuclear exports do not get used for military purposes.

Beijing is likely to shun such calls, arguing that the construction of two additional units at Chashma would be part of a bilateral deal sealed before it joined the NSG in 2004. China also supplied the facility's first two reactors.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jun 2011 22:36

From WSJ
German Parliament Approves Nuclear Phase-out

Germany's lower house of parliament Thursday approved plans to phase out all the country's nuclear reactors by 2022, completing a major policy reversal begun by Chancellor Angela Merkel in March, following the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant.
The legislation will plan for most of Germany's 17 reactors to cease operations in 2021, with three held in reserve into 2022. Eight of the country's oldest reactors have already been permanently taken offline.

The plan--a stark reversal from legislation championed last fall by Merkel to extend nuclear plant life spans by about a decade--has raised tough questions over what power sources Germany will use to make up for the lost nuclear capacity, and whether it will be able to meet ambitious emissions reduction targets.

****
IN US - Both reactors at Xcel Energy's Prairie Island nuclear power plant in Minnesota have been granted 20 year licence extensions (There plants began life arounf 1970's)
Prairie Island nuclear plant licenses renewed
****
Sarkozy supports nuclear with €1 billion pledge

rench President Nicolas Sarkozy has confirmed plans to invest €1 billion ($1.4 billion) in future nuclear programs including fourth generation reactor research.
...The nuclear funding is part of a €35 billion ($50 billion) project of investment ..
<snip>

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jun 2011 22:46

Interesting article about one of the first RTG ...
Marking a 50-year-old nuclear blast from the past

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jun 2011 22:53

Also of interest to Somnath and co..(Related to one of the post he made)
Nuclear energy support little changed in the U.S., survey says

The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan has had little effect on support for nuclear power in the United States. Participants in a recent survey generally believe the industry will learn from the crisis and improve safety. The results were included in a survey by APCO Insight paid for by the Russian nuclear energy corporation. Results were released June 30 by the American Council on Global Nuclear Energy.

The survey found that 69 percent of U.S. energy policy makers who took part still believe that nuclear energy should be a somewhat high or very high priority for meeting future energy demand. Similarly, 65 percent said they have a favorable impression of nuclear energy for balancing environmental and energy needs. APCO said the priority and favorability for nuclear energy has declined 5 percentage points since the initial survey of this audience in November 2010.

"The survey results indicate a far more measured and thoughtful response to Fukushima Daichii than we experienced in this country after the accident at the Three Mile Island," said Scott Campbell, President of the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness.

While support for nuclear remains relatively stable, interest in fossil fuels, particularly in natural gas, has risen as energy policy leaders consider alternative generation sources.

Survey results said 76 percent of respondents believe nuclear energy has become somewhat or much safer than it was 20 years ago. That compared to 50 percent for offshore oil and gas, 64 percent for onshore oil and gas and 64 percent for hydroelectric power.

Views on specific nuclear energy policies remain mostly unchanged since October 2010. Support for the Obama Administration's federal loan guarantee program was 60 percent for and 25 percent against. However, 71 percent of U.S. energy policy activists agreed that foreign partnerships will be essential to reinvigorating the U.S. nuclear industry.

The events in Japan are of interest to 90 percent of U.S. energy policy activists ...
<snip>

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jun 2011 23:05

From Fortune ...
(Still) Bullish on Uranium ...

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Jul 2011 19:28

From WSJ : Another Nuclear Plant gets License renewal ..
NRC Renews Licenses For PSEG's N.J. Nuclear Plants
Nuclear power generation at the Salem plant in New Jersey has been licensed to continue until April 2040 by US safety authorities...

These two pressurized water reactors have operated at Salem since 1977 and 1981 receptively and among the largest in US

****
BTW New TVA's PWR – Watts Bar 2 – is expected to start up by 2012..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Jul 2011 13:50

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/201 ... 9000c.html

Kan says Japan should aim for nuclear-free society

"Considering the huge risk of a nuclear accident, I have really felt that this technology cannot be controlled by conventional safety measures," Kan said at a news conference, held for the first time since June 27.

"So I have come to realize...that Japan should aim for a society that does not depend on nuclear power generation" by phasing out such energy "systematically and in stages."

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 14 Jul 2011 19:53

Result is consistent with many other such extensive studies in many countries over many decades..

A nationwide study involving more than 1.3 million children in Switzerland has concluded that there is no evidence of an increased risk of cancer for children born near nuclear power plants.

The Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) and the Swiss Cancer League requested that the Institute of Social and Preventative Medicine (ISPM) at the University of Bern perform a study of the relationship between childhood cancer and nuclear power plants in Switzerland. ISPM then teamed with the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry and the Swiss Paediatric Oncology Group to conduct the Childhood Cancer and Nuclear Power Plants in Switzerland (CANUPIS) study between September 2008 and December 2010. The results have now been published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

The researchers computed person-years at risk for over 1.3 million children aged 0-15 years born in Switzerland between 1985 and 2009, based on the Swiss censuses 1990 and 2000. They also identified cancer cases in those children from the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry. The ISPM then compared the rate of leukaemias and cancers in children born less than five kilometres, 5-10 km, and 10-15 km from the nearest nuclear power plants with the risk in children born further away.

Researchers concluded that the risk in the zone within 5 km of a nuclear power plant was "similar" to the risk in the control group areas over 15 km away, with 8 cases compared to 6.8 expected cases. In the 5-10 km zone there were 12 cases compared to 20.3 expected cases. And in the 10-15 km zone there were 31 cases compared to 28.3 expected cases. "A statistically significant increase or reduction in the risk of childhood cancer was not observed in any of the analyses," said the ISPM.

The study concluded, "This nationwide cohort study, adjusting for confounders and using exact distances from residence at birth and diagnosis to the nearest nuclear power plants, found little evidence for an association between the risk of leukaemia or any childhood cancer and living near nuclear power plants."

There are five nuclear power plants in Switzerland (Beznau I and II, Mühleberg, Gösgen and Leibstadt). About 1% of the population lives within 5 km of a plant and 10% live within 15 km.

The radioactive emissions in the vicinity of Swiss nuclear power plants are regularly monitored and the data are published by the Division for Radiation Protection of the FOPH... [The exposure] This corresponds to less than 1/500 of the average total radiation residents in Switzerland are exposed to....
<snip>

Link: Childhood Cancer and Nuclear Power Plants in Switzerland (CANUPIS) study
Or:http://www.news-medical.net/news/201107 ... lants.aspx

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Jul 2011 07:09

Mark Hibbs in Arms Control Wonk on the supply of Chasma 3 and 4 nuclear reactors by P.R.China to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Looks like the German’s have been complicit with P.R. China’s deceit in continuing with the supply of nuclear reactors to Pakistan:

Condi Rice and Germany on Sino-Pakistan deal

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2011 14:00

Interesting things happening in Japan. Grapevine says Kan looking at snap poll to break logjam in Diet. Now what better way to garner public sentiment than talk about nuclear free Japan? However, given the trenchant criticism that comment got him, he did some downhill skiing and said that was his personal opinion.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting article from Japan Times. Talks about German model and the costs involved - both for Germany as well as Japan.

Even Democratic Party of Japan Secretary General Okada questioned the move, saying, "Conducting the stress tests and restarting the reactors are two separate issues." It didn't help much when Kan apologized for the confusion, saying, "My instruction was inadequate and came too late, and I feel responsible for that."

Against this backdrop, Japanese politicians and business leaders are looking more and more to Germany. Last month, the German Parliament decided to completely exit nuclear power by 2022, making it the first major industrialized nation to abandon atomic energy.

Chancellor Angela Merkel pursued this 180-degree change in energy policy following the Fukushima disaster and the subsequent uproar in antinuclear sentiment that has swept the industrious German population.

Many observers have described the political process that led to the abrupt nuclear exit as irrational and highly undemocratic. More than few industry leaders have complained and warned about the risk of higher power prices triggering deindustrialization throughout the country once its reactors come to a halt.{Remember this point was raised before on this forum?}

Now look at some of the numbers that Frau Merkel will have to consider, they don't make for good reading:

A study published by German business consultancy Roland Berger this month attempts to address some of these questions. According to the study, the price of industrial electricity in Germany will rise nearly 40 percent on average by 2050 and have a strong effect on energy-intensive industries.

Assuming annual industry growth of 1 percent, the absolute electricity bill for four selected industries (basic chemicals, metals production, pulp and cement) is expected to grow by up to 60 percent by 2050.

The increase will be even higher without massive investment in energy-efficiency measures. Berger calculates that energy-efficiency investments will amount to €7 billion in the pulp industry and €10 billion in the chemicals industry.

The future is clear: German firms are facing a double punch — higher energy costs plus increased investment needs.

In addition, other industrial countries, such as France, will continue providing massive electricity subsidies to their industries, putting companies operating in Germany at a further disadvantage.

It's no wonder that German industry is crying foul. Its leaders are threatening to move operations abroad on a large scale. However, the study estimates this risk to be rather small. In fact, the authors are convinced that German companies will instead rise to the challenge and stay, further increasing their operational efficiencies and even gaining a substantial advantage over their global competitors in the long run.

But we must not forget two other fundamental aspects of this issue.

First, can Japan as an island state survive without nuclear energy in the medium term and avoid blackouts during peak demand? The potential risks and costs of failing to do so are much higher than in Germany.{Remember Germany always has the option to import nuclear power from France and Easter Europe during peak demand, where will Japan get that option from?}

Second, can Japan afford to stay uncertain about its future energy plans much longer? So far, players in Japan have benefitted for decades from a very clear, pronuclear policy that provided ultimate stability and the ability to conduct long-term planning.

The current chaos is just the opposite. The eventual cost of gambling on whether the government will switch its reactors on or off in the short and long terms is unbearable.

If the chaos continues, Japan will deprive itself of the stability needed for economic activity, and thus prosperity and wealth. Setting a clear direction seems even more important now than the question of whether to follow Germany's course and abandon nuclear power.

In the end, a referendum on this question will probably become necessary at some point if Japan's dysfunctional politicians are unable to come up with a solution otherwise.{I guess Indian politicos are not as unique as we thought them to be!}

Here's another report with a very interesting data point.

Even Kaoru Yosano, a former member of the Sunrise Party of Japan whom Kan had handpicked as economic policy minister, opposed Kan's policy from an economic viewpoint.

"If (electric companies) use fossil fuels in place of nuclear power plants, the additional costs will be equal to an increase of 30 percent in corporate tax," Yosano said at a speaking engagement on July 13.

Another data point:

But others said the absence of nuclear power plants could have devastating effects on the economy.

"It is understandable to call for cutting our dependence on nuclear power, but that would lead to the exit of manufacturers from Japan," a senior official with a leading electronics company said. "In that scenario, we won't be able to protect jobs (for Japanese)."

A top official in the auto industry said the Kan administration should present a way to secure a stable power supply if Japan aims to go without nuclear energy.

Hiromasa Yonekura, chairman of Keidanren (Japan Business Federation), the country's most influential business lobby and a proponent of nuclear power, also demanded that Kan explain further about his vision.

Bottomline is it's difficult to see how both Germany and Japan can wean themselves away from nuclear power and continue to keep jobs and grow their countries economically.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Jul 2011 02:14

^^^ Also.. from Kan's vision opens nuclear debate.

The debate on Japan's future energy policy has started early with some seemingly contradictory statements from politicians.

....government alike Prime minister Naoto Kan was quick to announce a from-scratch review of energy policy within days of the Fukushima accident. He said at the time that nuclear power would remain as one pillar of the energy system, along with fossil fuels. His idea was to add one pillar of renewable energy and another of efficiency to control demand.

This review and new policy set is still forthcoming, but national broadcaster NHK featured Kan yesterday saying he believed "Japan should aim for building a society that is not dependent on nuclear power." He wanted to reduce the use of nuclear energy "in a planned and phased manner, so that future society will be sustained without it."

A common reaction from industry and local leaders, as well as some other areas of government, was a call for the full implications to be considered before any decisions are made. Today chief cabinet secretary Yukiyo Edano sought to clarify the government's position in an official statement: "I think the prime minister's announcement outlined a plan for the country to reduce its dependency on nuclear energy in stages. I understand that it is a starting point for launching a national debate on the issue."

Ending the use of nuclear power would not be easy. Japan turned strongly towards nuclear power in the 1970s for its security, reliability and economics in the context of a large, advanced economy with a strong manufacturing sector. ..
<snip>

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Jul 2011 02:19

^^^ Also from Germany ..
Lawsuit promised over 'nine-digit' nuclear tax

..The utility EnBW has announced that it will sue the German government over its unique nuclear fuel tax, while another nuclear utility is talking with Gazprom as a strategic partner for new power plants. ..

>>> Refuelling the single reactor in operation has cost EnBW over €100 million extra thanks to a nuclear tax EnBW said that it has now completed its tax return and filed it with the proper authorities. Having refuelled the 1392 MWe Phillipsburg 2 reactor, calculations show the tax on nuclear fuel rods will cost it "a nine-digit figure every year" - over €100 million ($140 million).

"Having reviewed the matter in detail and considered it extensively, EnKK [the firm's subsidiary responsible for nuclear operation] has now reached the conclusion that it is time to take legal action. This decision was based on both constitutional law and European law considerations."

The company says the tax of €145 ($203) on every gram of uranium or plutonium fuel goes against the explicit wording of the 2001 'energy consensus' that brought in the phase-out of nuclear power. "The federal government had undertaken with regard to the nuclear operators not to take any unilateral measures against nuclear power," said EnBW, noting this applies to tax law....

"Besides these constitutional law aspects of unlawful invasion of property rights and freedom of occupation, EnBW further has serious doubts as to the compliance of the act with European law, as it is not based on either the Excise Directive or the Energy Tax Directive."

...According to the latest EU figures (from April), Germany has the second highest prices for domestic electricity, at €0.2588 per kWh ( average across the EU's 27 member states is €0.1688 per kWh)
<snip>

"

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 22 Jul 2011 04:02

China - Fast reactor
Chinese fast reactor starts supplying electricity

In USA:

American NRC regulators have approved a longer period of operation for the Hope Creek nuclear power plant as well as the start of a new uranium mine.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 22 Jul 2011 04:13

Also Update on:
Fukushima emissions

Provisional analyses based on radiation dose rates at the site boundary show that emissions to air have reduced by a factor of two million compared to those at the height of the crisis, when the torus suppression chamber of unit 2 ruptured on 15 March.

Someone standing at the western border of the power plant today could expect to receive a maximum of 1.7 millisieverts per year (mSv/y) from airborne radioactivity from the three ruined reactors....

Dose rates from emissions drop dramatically away from the site: five kilometres away the maximum rate from newly released radiation is 0.3 mSv/y; ten kilometres away it is 0.09 mSv/y; and 20 kilometres away it is 0.03 mSv/y.

(Important to note that these figures apply only to the rate of release of radiation now from the plant , and do not include the effects of materials already deposited on the ground... For perspective back ground radiation level is about 3mSV/Year... and areas around could have as much as 20 mSV/year due to accumulated Cs etc.. )

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 22 Jul 2011 04:21

NY times story: (Interesting read)
Split Within Nuclear Regulatory Agency