On March 10 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 20-year license extension for the Yankee nuclear power plant in Vermont. Hour laters in Japan, tsunami waves smashed into the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant, which contained reactors with the same design as Yankee's, setting in motion the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.
The Fukushima-Daiichi disaster resulted in irreparable damage to wildlife, agriculture and the surrounding community. Land within 20 kilometers of the plant was deemed an "exclusion zone" that effectively sealed it from the rest of the world. Livestock and other animals affected in the zone were simply abandoned to die. Nearly 2,000 people were evacuated, likely to never see their homes again.
Less than a year on from this tragedy, giant corporations have used their influence to get approval for opening a new nuclear power plant right here in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently signed off on two reactors to be built in Georgia even though their safety mechanisms have never been tested on an active nuclear plant.
Even more worrying is the NRC's continued approval of licenses for aging nuclear reactors -- dozens of outdated facilities continue to receive approval to operate for the next 20 years despite their age and careless placement. The Indian Point Nuclear Plant is located just 38 miles from New York City and sits on a seismic fault. Its license expires in a few years and its operator has applied for a 20 year extension from the NRC.
These decisions require more scrutiny and oversight, and as a candidate for Congress for Hawaii's Second District, I promise to deliver both to the U.S. House of Representatives if elected.
We know all too well what the awful consequences of nuclear can be yet policy makers in Washington, D.C. seem to think that it could never happen to us. If elected, I'd relentlessly challenge that thinking in public and private and be a tireless advocate of the truth about nuclear power.
And the truth is pretty simple. Disaster at nuclear plants can happen at any time through the unlikeliest of circumstances, costing billions of dollars and surrendering huge swaths of land, and the communities they contain, to nuclear oblivion.
On a visit to Europe in 2009, I made a point of visiting Chernobyl to see how dangerous the use of nuclear energy can be firsthand. There, decades later, I saw almost unimaginable devastation. The entire town surrounding the plant completely deserted; the eerie silence a reminder of the toll of nuclear power.
Sadly, the consequences from a nuclear disaster are not isolated to the immediate areas surrounding failed plants.
Recently, my local evening news ran a story about people walking Hawaii's beaches and testing debris floating onto the shores for radioactivity. If even one of those pieces turns up radioactive, even if it's a tiny amount, it will completely destroy Hawaii's way of life and the tourist industry so many of us rely upon for a living.
Situations like these are the result of irresponsible and short-sighted policy making.
In Congress, I will work to ensure that none of us will be forced to bear the burden of nuclear energy by seeking to slash federal funding that nuclear depends on for research and development. The Department of Energy's 2013 budget has $800 million set aside for these projects in addition to the billions the department has already committed to spending as part of its loan-guarantee program to encourage the construction of new nuclear plants.
We shouldn't gamble away another cent towards this destructive and dangerous energy technology. I will fight to end these spending policies and instead aim federal funding toward clean, safe, renewable energy -- the type that we can all feel comfortable living next to.
That's the responsible path forward for our communities, country and planet and one I'll champion in Congress.
Follow Tulsi Gabbard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tulsigabbard
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/03/plutonium-admission-by-epa.html
The Department of Energy's new cost and schedule plan for Hanford's vitrification plant ought to be more definitive than the last one.
No offense to the previous effort, but the team working on the new study has an additional five years worth of experience to draw on, including what's gone wrong in the interim and how much it has cost.
There's no telling how much the new estimate might alter expectations when it comes out in August, but the last attempt to define the cost and schedule produced radical changes in the game plan.
When that exercise was completed in 2006, the estimated price tag more than doubled, from $5.5 billion to $12.2 billion, and the expected start of operations went from 2011 to 2019.
But while the new study should decrease uncertainty, it won't eliminate it. Some level of uncertainty will remain with the vitrification plant until operations are complete and decommissioning is done.
........The technical questions that are plaguing the project these days center around serious issues.
Will corrosive and erosive materials in the wastes wear through the process tanks used in the glassification?
Is there any danger that hydrogen gas in the wastes might explode inside the process tanks?
Is there a risk of plutonium going critical inside the tanks?
Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/03/25/1878523/hanfords-tank-wastes-disaster.html#storylink=cpy
Did a PV estimate for him, its a no brainer
See proposal, net cost around $7000
Annual Production around 7350 kWH
At his really high rates, that is a savings of $8,230 per year
Total Lifetime system production
205230 kwh total produced
$7000 system cost / 205230 = 3.4 cents per kWH
Annual rate of return on investment around 124% (compared that to 3% on a 10 year T bill)
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/03/solar-estimate-for-anti-radiation-fan.html
German Solar: Mission Too Well Accomplished, from Perspective of Fossil/Nuclear Lobby
http://wp.me/pVZyC-9rB
w/ Spot On Comments
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-clunker-pilgrim-same-design-as.html
The San Onofre nuclear plant has been shut down since Jan. 31, but when warm summer weather arrives, officials warn, Southern California could face energy shortages.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0323-san-onofre-20120323,0,2483335.story
Tells me something REALLY BAD is going on with those steam generator tubes. THEY know and ain't telling.
How typically nuclear.......
So San Onofre is probably gone, between out of pocket replacement.....contract distinctly said can only charge the consumer once for them, and they did,
and NRC upgrades, Edison will put in windmills and solar with battery back-up and such.
Fort Calhoun isn't opened yet, BIG problems with underground piping after the floods......(that might happen again this year), and one dam that goes upstream of them or Several other plants would be their tsunami. Lots of Fukus in the heartland.
To Be Continued.....
Then there is Yankee, the pro nukerts are dancing around their idol like this has been a great victory,
maybe, but now the Appeal goes to a 5 judge Federal panel- that's basically next door to Indian.....Indian is not a good, safe plant.
You guys are soooo screwed.
Once upon a time....making deadly weapons and having tritium sources did take a priority, hindsight is 20/20. Now, the reality is that a community or State should protect their people when balanced against an electric companies profits. Don't see Supreme Court taking it after New York Appellate, the last judge did several things very carefully. But there is a broken contract at the heart of the matter. BTW, like most people, judges don't like liars........just saying.....
+
The CA "experts" are doing the nuclear industry a big favor by saying that there "MAY or COULD" be energy shortages without these two leaking turkeys in San Onofre, which is just more Nuclear Baloney (NB) since the State has lots of extra capacity!
http://sanonofresafety.org/2012/03/24/no-blackouts-with-san-onofre-shut-down/
+ as I've posted before I believe that the tubes aar a critical weak link link in the highly radioactive water loop which is vunerable to Nature which can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!
I believe that the CURRENT PROBE into San Onofre will expose many more questionable tubes and also an ongoing coverup of safety related info that was concealed in order to sidestep NRC notifications. San Onofre has the worst safety record of all US reactors and it just makes sense that the Operator will be trying very hard to keep the lid on anything that draw attention to their reactor or it's operation.
The NRC gave the Nuclear Industry a "PASS" on the tube wear issue before on San Onofre and many of the other reactors around the Country http://wp.Âme/p21p6a-Â77L BUT NOWThey are realizing that they have a much bigger problem than they first "imagined"Â; metal erosion/weakness cannot be tolerated when the radioactivÂe leakage is not only high in temperaturÂe and pressure but also high in amount of radiation!
Would you use a dangerous leaking pressure pot day after day,... or would you be smart and replace it with something safer?
Fragile tubes and a EARTH QUAKE could makes a large number of those tubes all fail; which is what I think happened in Fukushima!
How many places will this show up, spambot?
'I believe that the CURRENT PROBE into San Onofre will expose many more questionable tubes and also an ongoing coverup of safety related info that was concealed in order to sidestep NRC notifications.'
Fragile or broken steam generator tubes aren't going to cause a meltdown. Fukushima's meltdowns resulted from the failure of backup generators that were flooded with tsunami water.
EDF's Belleville 2 shuts for an unplanned outage
(Reuters) - EDF's 1,300-megawatt Belleville 2 nuclear reactor stopped for an unplanned outage on March 21, RTE showed on its website.
An EDF spokeswoman, who confirmed the outage, said it had been triggered by a worker knocking a cable. As a result, a valve connected to a steam generator shut.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/france-nuclear-idUSL6E8EN1MJ20120323
Now lets see, If all the heat and power generated by the core, is not being transferred to the steam generator and then turbines.......what could possibly happen? Let's see, rapid increase in heat and pressure of the core? If there is only one steam generator or both valves on that same cable connection that Homer unplugged.....then atmospheric venting of radioactive primary water? Maybe a very big BOOOMMMM!
Over 1% of all nuke plants blow up or melt down.
It just too dangerous to even play with. It kills over long periods of time.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/
'What do the Fukushima exposures really mean? A rough estimate is that for a 50-year-old male working at the Fukushima nuclear facility, his lifetime risk of cancer might increase from 42% to 42.2%. The magnitude of this increased risk is comparable to the added risk of living in Denver (where background radiation is higher because of the altitude and radionuclides in the Rocky Mountains) versus New York City for 10 to 15 years, or smoking one pack of cigarettes a day for one to two years. The Japanese public will, of course, get far less radiation.
Why are people still frightened given the relatively small risks of radiation from Fukushima? Mostly because governments and scientists have done a poor job of explaining radiation to the public.'
In short, Ms Gabbard: do a better job first of understanding these issues and then of explaining them to the public. Your possible future constituents deserve a representative who has done her homework.
The same goes for oil-drilling, coal mining, hydroelectric dams, air travel, car travel, ad infinitum... How come no one calls for a ban on any of those after an accident? And using the word "devastation" to describe the abandonment of Prypiat is melodramatic - it was abandoned, not destroyed. The real devastation has been the unnecessary fear and stigmatism brought to the Ukrainian people who were exposed to the fallout and forced to relocate.
Mrs. Gabbard's piece is nothing more than demagoguery at its finest.
And no, you can keep your nuclear baloney.
Also, you're probably a paid robot from the coal industry the way you've so readily adopted the sloganeering of other Anti-Science posters here. Astroturf abounds.
Funny, even had some pro nukers say that what Hawaii "needs" is a nuke plant.
haha, how absurd. Nuke only helps the nuke cartel, hurts everyone (including the nuke cartel)
There are a lot of respected liberal environmentalists who are pro-nuclear. You should find out why before you assume your canned anti-nuclear talking points will resonate with educated people who really do care about the environment.
"EFN Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy"
http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm
"On Being A Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist"
http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=pt/Whole&qid=3264
For example:
"Recently, my local evening news ran a story about people walking Hawaii's beaches and testing debris floating onto the shores for radioactivity. If even one of those pieces turns up radioactive, even if it's a tiny amount, it will completely destroy Hawaii's way of life and the tourist industry so many of us rely upon for a living."
What's wrong? Ocean water is radioactive. The atmosphere that you are standing in is radioactive. The person you sleep next to is radioactive. All of these are natural phenomenon. We are bathed in the stuff. To argue that if one thing shows up on the shore exhibiting any radiation (ionizing I'm assuming but that assumption is a stretch) 'even if it's a tiny amount' 'will completely destroy Hawaii's way of life' is either disingenuous and pandering or, well, just uninformed. My guess is that it's likely both.
Kudos to Tulsi for stepping forward for the people of Hawaii!
I suggest that she contact the PM of Germany,
... And learn first hand, how Hawaii can benefit from Solar (of all flavors)
If you see here suggest that she ask Merkel how she expects the fool everyone with her green directive that will only work by purchasing power from the Czech Republic and their very dirty coal plants and growing nuclear power. It's a ruse that only the true believers buy into.
Wild exaggerations do nothing for your credibility, and these are wild exaggerations.
I'm an independent. Want my support?
Tell me, then: what is Hawaii's largest single source of electrical energy at present?
Once you have done that, Ms Gabbard, please answer this: what is the largest single industrial source of greenhouse-gas-free electrical energy in the world?
Finally, ma'am: what are the three safest forms of electrical energy as measured in deaths per terawatt-hour, and what is the most deadly by the same metric?
Thanks.
Here are the answers.
Diesel fuel powers Hawaii.
Nuclear energy is the single largest worldwide provider of greenhouse-gas-free electrical energy.
Nuclear (including Chernobyl), hydro (excluding Banquiao), and wind (in descending order of safety) are the three safest forms of electrical energy as measured in deaths per terawatt hour.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/11/opinion/la-oe-gale-fukushima-20120311
snip
Consequently, exposures received by Fukushima workers and the public are quite low, including among the 20,000 or more workers decommissioning the facility and the approximately 100,000 evacuees. This doesn't mean there will be no future radiation-caused cancers, as some claim. But because there may be so few cancers, it is unlikely any epidemiological investigations will detect an increase in Japan or elsewhere that can be directly attributed to Fukushima.
The above claim is far off base from current reality:
http://enformable.com/2012/03/parts-of-metropolitan-tokyo-area-would-be-designated-radiological-area-if-located-at-us-facility-or-doe-site/