Home
Energy Net's Library tagged → View Popular
St. Petersburg Times - Green Victory as Nuclear Waste Shipments are Halted
Environmentalists from the international pressure group Greenpeace are trumpeting their biggest success in years after German-Dutch company URENCO announced on Monday that it is ending the practice of sending spent nuclear fuel to Russia for reprocessing and storage.
Radioactive loads on board foreign ships had been arriving at the port of St. Petersburg every month for a decade to be sent by rail to factories in Siberia and the Urals.
Environmentalists feared that transporting such loads through the city presented a major threat to public health and environmental security.
In 1999, they failed in their attempts to have the importing of spent nuclear fuel from abroad into Russia banned.
In December 2000, the State Duma voted overwhelmingly to adopt the practice of importing irradiated fuel from other countries.
Japan Uses Controverisal Nuke Fuel - CBS News
Critics of Weapons-Grade "MOX" Fuel Say It's Too Volatile and Generates High Amounts of Radioactive Waste
(AP) Japan used weapons-grade plutonium to fuel a nuclear power plant Thursday for the first time as part of efforts to boost its atomic energy program.
Kyushu Electric Power Co. said workers fired up the No. 3 reactor at its Genkai plant in the southern prefecture of Saga using MOX fuel - a mixture of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide.
The reactor is scheduled to start generating electricity Monday for a monthlong test run, and then begin full-fledged operations after a final government inspection and approval in early December, company official Futoshi Kai said.
The Genkai plant marks the beginning of Japan's use of MOX fuel for so-called "pluthermal" power generation, approved by the Cabinet more than a decade ago.
NNSA admin is 'very happy' with MOX | Aiken Standard | Aiken, SC
The National Nuclear Safety Administration is "very happy" with the progress being made at the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility despite the facility again being cited and not having a customer for the multi-billion dollar product.
Thomas P. D'Agostino, NNSA administrator, was in Aiken on Wednesday to tour the facility and the other missions at Savannah River Site one day after a recent inspection report cited four specific faults with the MOX project's construction.
"These are incredibly minor issues ... very minor. They do not affect the integrity of construction at all," D'Agostino said. "There is strong support (for the project); in fact, the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) was strongly supportive."
MOX inspection finds some minor violations, report says 110309 - The Augusta Chronicle
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s most recent round of inspections at the U.S. Energy Department’s mixed oxide fuel facility yielded four notices of violation for mostly minor infractions, according to a copy of the report made public today.
Inspectors who conducted extensive reviews at the construction site from July 1 to Sept. 30 also noted that many programs—including the placement of concrete and steel—were adequate and in complete compliance.
The $4.8 million MOX facility, scheduled to open at Savannah River Site in 2016, is designed to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus, weapons-grade plutonium by using small amounts to make fuel for commercial reactors.
The inspections involved evaluation of construction of principle structures and included quality assurance activities related to design verification and documentation control; problem identification, resolution, and corrective actions; structural steel and support activities; structural concrete activities; and geotechnical foundation activities, the report said.
Funds for nuclear reprocessing sit idle as energy needs grow | ajc.com
It’s been more than half a year since work stopped on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, after it was hit by the capricious winds of politics. President Barack Obama halted the project at the urging of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is up for re-election in Nevada.
Yet money continues to flow into a government trust fund that Congress created in 1982 to pay for the waste repository.
North West Evening Mail | Campaign against Sellafield
CAMPAIGNERS from Norway descended on Westminster to demand Sellafield be closed down amid fears an accident at the site would cause devastation across the globe.
0508874
CAMPAIGN: Campaigners from Norway protest against Sellafield at Westminster
The group claimed the quality of the radioactive waste is poor and they fear there will be an accident at the site.
Frank Storelv, from Oslo, said 90 per cent of wind blows from the south west and if there was an explosion or accident at Sellafield, one or two days later the radioactive waste would be carried to the west coast of Norway.
Times & Star | News | Sellafield hit by another plant failure
SELLAFIELD has been hit by another plant failure but there is said to be no impact on site safety or operations.
breaking news
Evaporator B known as Bravo and which treats highly radioactive liquor has failed for the second time in six months due to coil corrosion.
Sellafield’s operators stress, however, that as no fuel reprocessing is currently taking place production is not affected and there are no implications for health and safety.
GNEP issues Joint Statement, vowing peaceful, safe use of nuclear energy _English_Xinhua
The third Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Executive Committee meeting was held here on Friday, on which its member countries stressed to support a peaceful and safe use of nuclear energy.
Zhang Guobao, director of the National Administration of Energy, presided over the meeting. In an opening address, Zhang said nuclear energy that is clear, safe and greenhouse gas emission-free, would play a crucial role in the world energy system.
At the meeting, the Executive Committee reconfirmed that safety, security and non-proliferation were fundamental prerequisites for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. All partnership activities should be conducted in a manner to enhance them.
According to the GNEP Joint Statement issued at the meeting, the partners will further strengthen cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and other relevant international organizations.
FACTBOX-What happens to spent nuclear fuel? | Reuters
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GE.N) (6501.T) has proposed an alternative nuclear fuel recycling system, which could reduce radioactive waste and avoid extraction of plutonium that can be used for making weapons.
Nuclear experts say while the proposed Advanced Recycling Center (ARC) could help to solve some of the biggest worries as more countries build nuclear reactors, high costs are drawbacks.
Here is what is happens about spent nuclear fuel at present:
-- What happens to spent nuclear fuel?
Critics say recycling spent fuel creates more problems - Brattleboro Reformer
This is the last story in a three-part series related to the problems of spent fuel produced by the nation’s nuclear power plants.
BRATTLEBORO -- Is the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel the answer to the nation’s nuclear waste storage woes?
The nuclear industry contends reprocessing, or recycling as some in the industry call it, could reduce the amount of spent fuel that will one day need to be stored away and isolated from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years.
The nuclear industry doesn’t consider spent fuel a waste product, said Thomas Kauffman, senior media relations manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry funded organization that promotes nuclear power around the world.
"It can be recycled through reprocessing," he said. "It’s an energy-rich resource that needs to be stored until the government decides how it wants to handle it."
The NEI believes programs currently operating in countries such as Japan, France, Germany and Russia can serve as examples for the United States. The NEI also contends that new technology, including the development of breeder reactors that can consume spent fuel, might make spent fuel storage a thing of the past.
And while it is true that strides have been made in the field of nuclear fuel reprocessing, it has a checkered history that includes contamination of land, pollution of water and huge clean-up costs.
"Reprocessing would be a serious mistake with costs and risks that outweigh the benefits," said Jim Riccio, Greenpeace’s nuclear policy analyst.
The Gillette News-Record: Gov.: Don’t transfer uranium
Gov. Dave Freudenthal is trying to stop the transfer of $150 to $200 million worth of excess government uranium to the United States Enrichment Corp. that he says will hurt Wyoming’s resurgent uranium mining industry.
Freudenthal wrote a letter to the U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Monday. “There is no question that the non-competitive introduction of such a large quantity of uranium will adversely impact the uranium producing industry in my state,” he wrote There also would be an extra $450 million of excess government uranium transferred in the next three years, according to the letter.
“The loss of mining and mining-related jobs in Wyoming and elsewhere will be a direct outcome of the Department’s present course,” Freudenthal wrote.
Several uranium mines in Campbell and Sweetwater counties plan to re-open under new ownership in the next year. Uranium One Inc., one of the largest uranium mining operations in the world, plans to make Wyoming the center of its U.S. operations.
The company bought the Irigaray in-situ recovery central processing plant in Johnson County, the Christensen Ranch processing facility in southwest Campbell County and several uranium resources in the Powder River Basin for $35 million. Both processing facilities already are permitted and licensed, and the company hopes to start production next year.
NukeWatch reports UPF getting $94M in 2010| knoxnews.com
I received an e-mail this afternoon from Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, and he reported that the Energy and Water conference report contains $94 million for the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12. The activist group, which is closely tracking UPF and other spending in the nuclear weapons program, has a similar report on its Web site.
Here's what Coghlan wrote:
Frank:
Looks like Y-12 is being awarded far more than just environmental awards to hang on the wall.
Buried in the budget numbers of the House/Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Conference Report is $94 million for a construction project designated as "06-D-141 Project Engineering and Design (PED), Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN."
North West Evening Mail | Sellafield wants to increase discharges
SELLAFIELD has applied to raise the limit on the amount of radioactive discharge it can release into the air.
The site has applied to the Environment Agency for a five-fold increase in gas discharges known as Antimony 125 from the Magnox reprocessing plant.
The agency says there is no danger to the public, but the move has drawn criticism from the anti-nuclear group Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core).
Core’s Martin Forwood said: “We deplore any increase in environmental discharges but Sellafield has got the agency over a barrel.
“We are now paying the price for the industry’s abject failure to develop an alternative to reprocessing Magnox fuel.”
Whitehaven News | N-waste to be sent back overseas Add your comments
HIGH-LEVEL radioactive waste built up at Sellafield from fuel reprocessing over the years will soon be sent back to foreign customers.
This is a milestone for both the nuclear industry and the British government, who hope the move will dispel claims that Sellafield was destined to become “the world’s atomic dustbin”.
The waste comes from the fuel Sellafield has reprocessed over 30 years after removing the plutonium and uranium energy products.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority says it will reduce the stockpile of high level waste stored at Sellafield.
All UK reprocessing contracts with foreign customers since 1976 have included an option for the waste to be returned to “country of origin” and 10 years later the British government decided the option should be taken up.
16 Minnesota Groups to MN Congressional Delegation: Reprocessing of Radioactive
Higher Costs, Pollution and Proliferation Dangers if Congress Opens Door to Reprocessing
MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Minnesota's Congressional delegation is hearing today from a diverse group of 16 Minnesota organizations -- including Clean Water Action, Environment Minnesota, Sierra Club North Star Chapter and the Minnesota Peace Project -- that strongly oppose any effort to open the door to the reprocessing of radioactive waste from Prairie Island and other nuclear reactors when Capitol Hill considers climate and energy legislation. In the case of Xcel Energy's Prairie Island site, where the entire island, including the dry cask storage, sits in a flood plain of the Mississippi River, the waste needs to be moved to a more secure site as close to the reactor as possible as a necessary interim step.
The joint letter states that the controversial and dangerous practice of reprocessing is "not a solution to Minnesota's or any state's nuclear waste problem." The letter explains in detail how reprocessing actually increases the volume of radioactive waste, is enormously costly, worsens proliferation concerns (including terrorist threats), increases pollution going into lakes, streams and rivers, and poses a range of safety risks. The full text of the 16-group letter is available online at http://www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org/state-groups/minnesota.
A nuclear waste solution -- latimes.com
Yucca Mountain may never be used, but a physicist lays out his argument favoring repositories over costly reprocessing.\nBy Frank von Hippel
The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project is now comatose, if not dead. And that puts us back at square one on a crucial question: What are we going to do with all the radioactive waste being discharged by U.S. nuclear power reactors?\n\nMany conservatives on Capitol Hill favor the French "solution": spent-fuel reprocessing. But reprocessing isn't a solution at all: It's a very expensive and dangerous detour.\n\nReprocessing takes used or "spent" nuclear fuel and dissolves it to separate the uranium and plutonium from the highly radioactive fission products. The plutonium and uranium are then recycled to make new reactor fuel, thereby reducing the amount of fresh uranium required by about 20%. But based on French and Japanese experience, the cost of producing this recycled fuel is several times that of producing fresh uranium reactor fuel.
Reprocessing isn't the answer | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Article Highlights
* With the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain seemingly dead, reprocessing again is being proffered as a way to deal with U.S. nuclear waste.
* But the reality is that reprocessing neither solves the waste problem nor reduces safety risks.
* Research should continue into next-generation reactors that can burn spent fuel, but until then, dry casks and repositories must be pursued.
There are 104 commercial nuclear power reactors in the United States, which supply about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. These are light water reactors (LWR) fueled with low-enriched uranium (LEU), containing initially about 5 percent of the fissile isotope uranium 235. Each nuclear plant receives about 25 tons of LEU fuel annually, in the form of long pencil-thin rods of uranium oxide ceramic enclosed in thin metal "cladding", that are bundled together (in bunches of 300) to form fuel elements. Each year, nearly the same amount of spent fuel is removed from each reactor, but it's now intensely hot, both thermally and radiologically. In fact, even after five years of cooling in the "swimming pool" associated with each reactor, a fuel element would soon glow red-hot in the atmosphere because of the continuing radioactive decay of the products of nuclear fission. At this point, spent-fuel elements can be loaded into dry casks and stored at reactor sites on outdoor concrete pads with two casks added each year per reactor.
Reprocessing is the answer | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Article Highlights
* Advancements in nuclear power should help the world move beyond fossil fuels.
* In particular, spent fuel recycling with fast reactors would solve some of the most vexing problems facing conventional nuclear power.
* Other benefits include reducing weapons proliferation risks and excess plutonium and uranium stockpiles.
When you combine the country's addiction to oil to its mounting concern over global warming you have a clear-cut case for expanded nuclear power. The issue has been clouded, however, by the recent decision to stop work on the Yucca Mountain permanent spent fuel repository in Nevada, so far the only real solution the United States has for its accumulating spent fuel from its 104 light water reactors (LWR).
MOX hearing delayed as more details sought 090809 - The Augusta Chronicle
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants more details on how waste generated by the Energy Department's mixed oxide fuel facility will be managed.
Until more information can be gathered and evaluated, a hearing to discuss environmental groups' concerns over the waste stream will be postponed -- possibly until 2010 or later, according to a letter dated Monday from commission staff to the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board.
The $4.86 billion MOX plant under construction at Savannah River Site will dispose of plutonium from dismantled warheads by blending it with other materials to make fuel for commercial nuclear reactors.
Because commercial power plants would use the fuels, the MOX plant will require an NRC license.
Whitehaven News | Sellafield discharge breached
RADIOACTIVE discharges into the air from Sellafield appear to have been breached.
Source of the discharges is the Magnox reprocessing plant which was shutdown earlier in the year because it was in danger of going over the legal limits.
But operators Sellafield Ltd told The Whitehaven News yesterday: “It seems likely that we will have exceeded the limit up to the end of August. We won’t get confirmation for another six weeks after all the analysis has been done but we think we have gone through it and have written to the Environment Agency to that effect.”
Management have decided not to close the Magnox plant for a second time because there is no hazard from the higher levels of discharge.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in reproces...
-
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
Bush Campaign to reprocess ...
Items: 15 | Visits: 61
Created by: Energy Net
-
Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Reprocessing
The reprocessing of spent-f...
Items: 51 | Visits: 1047
Created by: Energy Net
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo