Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Ferghana.ru: Soviet-Era Uranium Waste Sites Now Threaten Central Asia
’Storage sites for uranium tailings that were built in Soviet times in Tajikistan are now leaking radiation into the surrounding atmosphere and ground water supplies, undermining the health and well-being of the people of a republic and a broader region that lack the resources to clean up a problem that it did nothing to create. At three formerly "closed" locations in Tajikistan - Taboshar, Chkalovsk and Adrasman - Soviet state enterprises mined uranium and left enormous piles of radioactive tailings in poorly constructed containment areas. After 1991, the mines closed - in many cases, the veins were running out - but the problems remain. There are now ten tailings preservation sites, intended to prevent the leakage of radiation and chemical poisons into the surrounding environment, but none of them is working and intended.’

When he works for British Energy.

Here’s Jon Coniam writing for Energetika.NET (free subscription required) – ‘the leading Slovenian provider of energy business news covering South Eastern Europe’ – where he responds to an article criticising the Bulgarian nuclear power plant at Belene…

Belene still represents the best option in an electricity-starved, economically weak and polluted area of our planet.

So, we have a pro-nuclear article from a writer, who is described at the end of the piece as…

Jon Coniam is an Independent Energy and Environment Consultant

…making the article a balanced piece by an even-handed observer, yes? The reader can be assured that Mr Coniam looked at both sides of the issue and came to a fair conclusion, can’t they? That there are no hidden agendas behind the article?

Well, not exactly.

According to his biography here…

Jon Coniam is British Energy’s representative in Brussels. As a lobbyist for more than 13 years, he works closely with Members of the European Parliament, Commission officials and other industry representatives to influence European Union regulations, directives and policies so as to benefit British Energy and the low carbon energy industry in general. He has almost 40 years experience in the nuclear sector having been a sponsored student during his Mechanical Engineering degree and post-graduate courses. He has extensive experience working on Nuclear Power plants in UK, Bulgaria and elsewhere.

British Energy of course own eight nuclear power stations in the UK. The company was recently bought by France’s EDF who want to build a fleet of new nuclear reactors.

So who described Mr Coniam as ‘an Independent Energy and Environment Consultant’? Mr Coniam himself? Or was it an oversight on behalf of Energetika.NET, perhaps? Of the article he criticises, Mr Coniam says…

The article was based on an interview with Petko Kovachev, a Green Party politician. I am so disappointed that you should give headline coverage to a pressure group whose declared aim is to stop this project just because it is using nuclear technology.

At least Kovachev’s aims were declared. Unlike Mr Coniam’s.

Why is this important? We’re not suggesting for one minute that Mr Coniam shouldn’t be expressing opinions. It’s just that in a time when the nuclear industry needs to be scrutinised like never before, clarity, transparency, and the declaration of interests are essential. Don’t episodes like this just help to further undermine the public's trust in the nuclear industry?

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Liberian Times: Leading Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Human Rights Defender Arrested
’A prominent human rights defender has been detained as prisoner of conscience since 24 July in the south-east of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). His organization had recently published a report alleging state complicity in illegal mining at a uranium mine, and he is facing politically motivated charges. Golden Misabiko, President of the Association Africaine de défense des Droits de l'Homme in Katanga province (ASADHO/Katanga), was arrested on 24 July by the intelligence services in the provincial capital, Lubumbashi. The charges against Golden Misabiko relate to a report published by ASADHO/Katanga on 12 July about the Shinkolobwe uranium mine. The report alleged that military and civilian officials had been complicit in illegal mining at Shinkolobwe after the government closed the mine for reasons of national security and public safety, in January 2004. The report said that the DRC authorities had not done enough to secure the mine. It also criticised the lack of transparency in a 26 March agreement between the government and the French nuclear energy company AREVA, which grants AREVA rights to prospect and mine for uranium in the DRC.’

Nuclear waste has undergone an image makeover recently. Indeed, the industry is working hard to ensure that the most dangerous kind of nuclear waste isn’t even called nuclear waste any more. It’s now called ‘spent fuel’.

Sounds much friendlier, doesn’t it? Doesn’t make all the nasty problems associated with the nuclear waste that comes out of reactors disappear but giving something horrible a nice name helps to stop people thinking about those nasty problems. It why we call civilians killed in wars ‘collateral damage’ and why genocide gets called ‘ethnic cleansing’.

The issue of we do with this nuclear waste – sorry, spent fuel - has also had a splash of greenwash. There’s been a big push to rebrand nuclear waste reprocessing as recycling. We don’t reprocess nuclear waste any more - we ‘recycle spent fuel’. Isn’t that nice? Sounds green and environmentally friendly, doesn’t it? Nothing in the actual process has changed and we’re still left with the dangerous by-products but it sounds so much better.

So, now nuclear power has successfully rebadged* itself as not-nasty and environmentally friendly, surely it’s been warmly accepted as a renewable energy source?

The International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena) will not back programmes to develop nuclear energy due to the waste it produces and the risks it presents […] 'Irena will not support nuclear energy programmes because it's a long complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky,' Helene Pelosse, director general of Irena, told Reuters in a telephone interview from the French Alps.

That’s a big fat ‘no’.

After all that hard work as well. It’s back to the brainstorming sessions for the nuclear industry and their marketing guys…

* Our new favourite euphemism for nuclear waste reprocessing is ‘plutonium destruction’. Sounds great doesn’t it? Destruction. Just what we need for all that horrible plutonium lying around the place. Except ‘plutonium destruction’ actually means ‘plutonium creation’. It involves the use of a mix of plutonium and uranium nuclear fuel to make so-called MOX ( (Mixed OXide), which results in the production of more plutonium because there is only a small consumption of the plutonium fuel in nuclear reactors while the uranium creates more plutonium.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Committee to Protect Journalists: Niger president tightens grip on media with amendment
’Reuters - In Niger today, the government is holding a public referendum on a constitutional amendment that would pave the way for President Mamadou Tandja to run for office indefinitely. It would also further increase the former army colonel's control over the press. In response to increasing criticism from the press, he granted the head of the official media regulatory agency sweeping powers of censorship in June. The Niger Association of Independent Press Editors, which comprises 60 newspapers, 23 radio stations, and four television stations across the country, reacted by launching a weeklong strike in protest on July 20. Weekly L'Evènement Editor Moussa Aksar was in Niamey's main police station today to sign a statement from a police interrogation on Saturday. Aksar was among eight editors police questioned about their coverage of a leaked document purporting to show that profits from Niger's uranium mining went to the president's son. Dounia Director General Abibou Garba is facing criminal charges of defamation and broadcasting false news for airing a television debate in April in which an activist described a uranium exploitation deal between French nuclear energy giant AREVA and the government as "looting of Niger's resources."’

Turkey’s bid to build its first nuclear reactor has had more comebacks than Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator. Every time you think it’s down and beaten, up it climbs again and continues lumbering and clanking along, looking increasingly pathetic as bits fall off.

POW! The bidding process for the contract to build the reactor receives just one bid. It’s down but not out. Up it gets…

CRASH! That one bid says the electricity produced by the new plant would cost 21 cents per kilowatt hour - three times the current average price of electricity in Turkey. Surely this is the end…? No, it doesn’t know when to quit…

BAM! The bid also has technical shortcomings and stipulates a reliance on Russian nuclear fuel. Down it goes for the third time.

But you know what? With a stoic ‘I’ll be back’, the plan refuses to die and is here again for yet another sequel. This time the story has a new hero but it’s all so very familiar. Who looks like they will step up and save this seemingly-doomed plan? Yep, you guessed it, the Turkish taxpayer…

A state energy company may now become a partner in the project to boost investment and ensure its completion, [the Sabah newspaper] said, citing unidentified government officials.

It’s a story we’ve seen over and over again: the nuclear industry, a towering giant that isn’t as impressive or as cool as it looks, having to be rescued by the tiny but brave ordinary underdog public. It’s time for a new script.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Wall Street Journal: China Nuclear Expansion Chief Faces Investigation
’BEIJING -- China said the head of the powerful company spearheading its ambitious nuclear-power expansion is under investigation for "alleged grave violations of discipline," news that could shine a light on a multibillion-dollar push that has attracted intense corporate interest. Officials didn't release any further details about the allegations against Kang Rixin, the general manager of state-run China National Nuclear Corp., known as CNNC. Phones went unanswered at its headquarters, and officials couldn't be reached. The investigation was disclosed in a statement from officials within the Chinese Communist Party through state-controlled media. Mr. Kang, who is CNNC's top party official, has been a member of the powerful Central Committee of the Communist Party since 2007. Operations at CNNC International Ltd., CNNC's Hong Kong arm, will continue unaffected, said Philip Li, company secretary there, who added Mr. Kang doesn't hold a position there. CNNC International recently took over Western Prospector Group Ltd., a Canadian uranium company. Its Hong Kong-traded shares Wednesday fell 18% to 10 Hong Kong dollars, or $1.29.’

At 8.15am on August 6 1945, over the Japanese city of Hiroshima, the B-29 Superfortress bomber Enola Gay opened its payload doors. The payload was the first atomic bomb, codename ‘Little Boy’.

An estimated 80,000 people were killed by the initial blast. By the end of 1945 up to a further 60,000 had died through radiation, injuries and other conditions. The vast majority of these people were civilians.

Sixty-four years ago today, the Nuclear Age began.

If we are truly committed to ridding our planet of nuclear weapons and preventing such atrocities as happened at Hiroshima, there is one thing we must do…

During my eight years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program’
(Former US Vice President Al Gore)

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand - always have, always will. Yet we do not need either of them. Eradicating the first is needed to eradicate the second.

From the first experimental reactors in the US and UK built in the 1950s to the latest in Iran and North Korea, the legacy of human suffering and environmental destruction will be with us for generations. That’s an insulting tribute to the memory of those who died at Hiroshima. Turning away from nuclear power and, in turn, nuclear weapons should be their true lasting legacy and memorial.

Read more today…

- Japan Today: Hiroshima mayor urges support for 'Obamajority' on nuclear-free world

- The Boston Globe: Hiroshima, 64 years ago

- Artvoice: the bombs keep dropping

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

The Economist: The trouble with nuclear fuel
’PAVED it may be with good intentions, but there are many twists and pot-holes along the road to a nuclear-free world. So many, in fact, that the path, tantalisingly opened up by Barack Obama, may yet turn out to lead nowhere. But to keep things minimally on track, governments that care about the spread of the bomb will make a big effort to shore up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at next year's five-yearly review. The Obama administration, unlike its predecessor, talks of ratifying the test-ban treaty. America and Russia are busy cutting warheads. Nuclear officials from America, Russia, Britain, France and China will meet in London next month to explore ways to build confidence for future disarmament. Yet all will be in vain unless better ways can be found to deal with a practical problem as old as the nuclear age: how to stop nuclear technologies that can be used legitimately for making electricity from being abused for bomb-making. Efforts to tackle it are in a muddle.’

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was in Turkey this week to talk energy with the country’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan:

Energy companies in both countries agreed to a joint venture to build conventional electric power plants, and the Interfax news agency in Russia reported that Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin offered to reopen talks on Russian assistance to Turkey in building nuclear power reactors.

Greenpeace activists revealed nuclear matryoshka dolls of Putin and Erdogan in Ankara’s Kizilay Square. There are certainly surprises waiting inside the Russian-Turkey energy deal, not least Turkey losing energy security by relying on Russian nuclear fuel for any reactor built by Russia’s Atomstroiexport. Add to that the risks of cost and construction over runs, waste management problems, high decommissioning costs, and the distractions from renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programmes, and you have to ask, do we really want to see what’s inside Turkey’s nuclear matryoshka?

(In an attempt to sweeten the nuclear deal and bring down the extortionate construction costs, the consortium bidding to build Turkey’s first nuclear reactor ‘has revised down its price to $0.1235 per kilowatt hour from a previous price of more that $0.15’. That the announcement was made the day before Putin arrived in Ankara was, no doubt, a coincidence. $0.1235 per kilowatt hour is still five cents more expensive than the current average price of electricity in Turkey.)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

London Times: EDF power price curb could hit UK nuclear reactor plans
’Nuclear reactors that are essential for Britain’s future energy needs are in jeopardy, according to analysts, because EDF will not be able to afford to build them. Pierre Gadonneix, chief executive of EDF, wants electricity prices to be increased by 20 per cent over three to four years to fund investments. Last week, however, the French Government proposed a 2.3 per cent average increase in electricity prices on regulated tariffs over the next three years. EDF’s four proposed British nuclear reactors, including Hinkley Point, Somerset, where work is due to start in 2013, could become casualties of the decision. Peter Wirtz, European utilities analyst at West LB in Frankfurt, said: ‘If EDF cannot finance its investment programme they will have to think about cutting back some of their plans.’

A couple of weeks ago we talked about eminent environmentalist James Lovelock and his idea for burying nuclear waste in the rainforests because…

One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by radioactive nuclides is the richness of their wildlife…

He was at it again in the UK’s Observer newspaper last weekend…

Nuclear is the answer. Far, far less dangerous than any propagandist has ever pretended. Look, even now, at the wildlife all around Chernobyl! Because man and his pets have not been near for years!

We’d really like to know where Lovelock gets his information because well… Let’s hand you over to Messrs Møller, Mousseau, de Lope and N Saino, and their paper ‘Anecdotes and empirical research in Chernobyl’…

[JT] Smith suggested, based on two-page reports, that animal populations are thriving in Chernobyl (e.g. Baker & Chesser 2000). These reports provide anecdotal evidence with no information on methods or empirical findings. Although animals and plants can be censused using standard, rigorous methodology (e.g.Bibby et al. 2005), surprisingly, the first large-scale censuses of any living organism were conducted by us during 2006–2007, 20 years after the disaster, showing reduced population densities of most species of birds in contaminated areas (Møller & Mousseau 2007a,b). If we classify species as farmland and otherwise, we find no evidence for farmland species having different slopes between abundance and radiation when compared with other species (F1,78=0.0003, p=0.99), providing no support for Smith's suggestion.

Why has there been no concerted effort to monitor the long-term effects of Chernobyl on free-living organisms and humans? The official reports by IAEA, WHO and UNDP were narrative renditions of parts of the literature, and these reports, with Smith as co-author, concluded that Chernobyl was a thriving ecosystem with increasing populations of animals (Chernobyl Forum 2005; EGE 2005), despite no census data existing. Scientific enquiry depends on rigorous analysis of data rather than rendition of anecdotal evidence.

There has been ‘no concerted effort to monitor the long-term effects of Chernobyl on free-living organisms and humans’. So again, where is Lovelock getting his information? Are his assertions a ‘rendition of anecdotal evidence’ or built on large-scale censuses using ‘standard, rigorous methodology’? If it’s the latter, we’d really like to see the data.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Christian Science Monitor: US intel chief says no Iran nukes possible before 2013
’Iran will probably not have the technical ability to produce enough fuel to make a nuclear bomb before 2013, US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told a senate intelligence committee earlier this year. He also said that he’s seen no evidence Iran is seeking to make fuel for a bomb, and that international scrutiny appears to be deterring such efforts. The American intelligence community’s views on Iran’s nuclear program, progress in Afghanistan, and the extent of Al Qaeda’s operational abilities were all addressed in a 40- page series of answers that Mr. Blair delivered to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on February 12. But only now has it become public. The document was released to Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists following a Freedom of Information Act request. (A PDF to the full document can be found at this link.)

An earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale hit Japan’s Shizuoka Prefecture on Tuesday, injuring 87 people. Two reactors at the Hamaoka nuclear power station in central Japan were also shut down.

Hamaoka’s 4 and 5 reactors were the only two operating at the site. Unit 1 has been closed since 2001 after a pipe rupture caused by exploding hydrogen in the reactor’s heat removal system. Unit 2 was closed down in 2004 after similar problems were found in that reactor. A new reactor is being built on the site which is expected to replace units 1 and 2. Cracks were also found in the water pipes of Unit 3. Indeed, the Hamaoka reactors have something of a poor history.

On this occasion reactors 4 and 5 were shutdown safely. As it happens, the Hamaoka reactors ‘are located in the middle of an intraplate earthquake-prone region, where the Great Tokai Earthquake is expected to occur’. That’s the thing about building nuclear reactors in earthquake zones – you have to be lucky all the time but only unlucky once.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

The Connexion: Gravelines - Nuclear plant shut in fuel incident

’THE nuclear power plant at Gravelines - between Dunkirk and Calais - was evacuated after a "significant" incident at the weekend. While there was no radioactive leak to the outside air, staff were cleared from the site and the reactor shut until the incident was under control. Plant operators were clearing out spent nuclear fuel rods from the No1 reactor overnight on Saturday-Sunday when one became jammed on a support frame. The Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) classed the incident as level 1 on its 0-7 scale of danger and plant bosses said there was "no risk" to the environment from the incident. However, there have been five level 1 incidents at Gravelines over the past three years and an incident of similar severity happened in July 2008 at the EDF nuclear power station at Tricastin in the Drôme.’

Dr. Abdul Qadeer (AQ) Khan, seen by many as the ‘father of Pakistan's nuclear programme’ has written a self-aggrandising, self-serving and self-justifying piece for The International News . The piece, which details the history of Pakistan’s Kahuta uranium enrichment facility which provides material for the country’s nuclear weapons, is also smug, dull, and makes several notable omissions about how Khan has helped make the world a more dangerous place.

Khan says…

While both India and Pakistan are fully justified in pursuing their individual nuclear programmes and not to allow themselves to be blackmailed or bullied by other countries, it is in the larger interests of their millions of people that they remove mutual distrust and come to a clear, unambiguous and failsafe understanding regarding the manufacture or use of nuclear weapons.

How long has he held this view? Was this removal of ‘mutual distrust’ and the need for ‘a clear, unambiguous and failsafe understanding regarding the manufacture or use of nuclear weapons’ close to his heart when he passed technology and blueprints to other countries including Iran, Libya and North Korea, enabling them to launch their own nuclear programmes? We somehow doubt it.

It’s all too clear that AQ Khan have led his country and the wider world - to danger, uncertainty and, quite possibly, horror. He ends his piece with ‘Pakistan Zindabad’. Long live Pakistan. If it does, it will be no thanks to him.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Wall Street Journal: UAE Nuclear Regulator Awaits Final Law To Trigger $41B Project
’DUBAI (Zawya Dow Jones)--A crucial law to establish a nuclear regulator for the United Arab Emirates' $41 billion nuclear power program is still awaiting the signature of the country's ruler before major work can begin. "Nothing can happen without the law," David Scott, Executive Director of Economic Affairs at the Executive Affairs Authority, or EAA, a government agency mandated to provide strategic policy advice on the program, told Zawya Dow Jones in a telephone interview. No deadline has been set for the law but officials had expected the legislation to be approved in July. "The U.A.E. will not import nuclear material or begin actual construction of related facilities until that element is firmly in place," he added. The Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation, or FANR, and the Emirates Nuclear Energy Co., or ENEC, two entities set up to oversee the project require the final signature of President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan before significant work can begin on the ground.’

Don’t you find hindsight to be a wonderful thing? I shouldn’t have stepped in front of that truck. I shouldn’t have petted that mad dog. I shouldn’t have put that nuclear waste (sorry, spent fuel) in casks that hadn’t been properly tested. They’re all easy mistakes to make, don’t you find?

They realised – with hindsight of course – that they shouldn’t have put nuclear waste in casks that hadn’t been tested properly at the disaster-prone US nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee…

The concrete-and-steel "dry casks" used at the Vermont Yankee plant to store spent nuclear fuel were not tested as completely as they should have been, according to federal regulators.

But the decision by Holtec International, the New Jersey company that built the casks, to omit one set of tests does not pose a safety risk…

The decision ‘does not pose a safety risk’. Well, you can say that now with full confidence because on this occasion there was no accident or leak. We can all make lofty claims after the fact (although it is ‘unlikely the casks already loaded with spent fuel will be opened and their contents put into new receptacles’). We wonder if they’d have been so confident if they’d known the tests hadn’t been made before the waste had gone into the casks.

This is doubly worrying because it turns out that Vermont Yankee’s operator ‘was not doing as much radiological monitoring of the dry casks as was required by an agreement with the state’. That is, the casks weren’t properly tested to make sure they wouldn’t leak and the operators weren’t properly making sure the casks weren’t leaking. One day this disregard for regulations and sloppy approach to safety (and Vermont Yankee’s operators are not, by far, the only ones) is going to cost someone dearly. These strict protocols exist for a very good reason – because radiation leaks can be terrible events. And yes, we’re saying that with the benefit of hindsight.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Christian Science Monitor: Nuclear power's new debate: cost
’Overlooking the shimmering waters of Chesapeake Bay, the massive twin concrete domes of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power station's two reactors could soon see a third sister rising alongside them. If construction begins in Lusby, Md., perhaps by 2012, Calvert Cliffs III will be part of the larger promise of a "nuclear renaissance" of reactor construction sweeping the globe, proponents say. Yet a new wave of concern is rising - not over traditional anxieties such as radioactive waste or weapons proliferation - but about the mammoth financial cost of nuclear power and who will bear it. New guarantees in coming years could also leave US taxpayers picking up the tab if nuclear utilities defaulted on their loans. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office said the average risk of default on Department of Energy guarantees was about 50 percent. The Congressional Budget Office projected that default rates would be very high - well above 50 percent." On that basis, the potential risk exposure to US taxpayers from federally guaranteed nuclear loans would be $360 billion to $1.6 trillion, depending on the number of power reactors built, the Union of Concerned Scientists' study found.’

Weird and whacky news from the nuclear industry continues to pour in, thicker and faster than George Bush on a skateboard. Let’s take look and see what’s been happening recently…

The Scottish National Party is calling for an investigation after it was revealed that there have been 165 leaks and fires at the UK’s nuclear plants over the last eight years.

A hundred and sixty-five leaks and fires? We don’t know about you but that gives us the mental image of the UK nuclear industry as a burning garden sprinkler. Spraying in all directions while on fire. Impossible and paradoxical, you say? It’s the nuclear industry we’re talking about here - it’s their job to attempt the impossible and paradoxical. They call nuclear power clean and safe for starters.

Elsewhere, Gwyneth Cravens, author of ‘Power To Save The World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy’ has been telling us just how convenient it is to store nuclear waste…

The world’s entire annual inventory could fit in one large townhouse.

Excuse our ignorance, but who in their right mind would want to store nuclear waste in a large town house? Even if you hid the stuff in the attic and the basement, in cupboards and under the bed, we doubt a townhouse could hold it all safely. Yes, if you were an idiot and piled the world’s entire annual inventory of nuclear waste into a big pile you probably could shovel it all into a townhouse. But it would be very, very wrong. There are lots of very good reasons why nuclear waste storage facilities are huge. For one thing, nuclear waste needs lots of space between the storage casks to allow the heat produced to escape. You don’t get townhouse architects to design these babies. We also liked this part…

Nuclear waste recycling, done abroad, drastically reduces volume, radioactivity, and the need for long-term disposal.

‘Done abroad’? Nice. She means it’s someone else’s problem. Out of sight, out of mind. In America it’s called ‘passing the buck’.

Meanwhile, the construction of the state-of-art fast breeder reactor being built in India is running as one would expect. It’s 40 per cent over budget, a year late and the taxpayer is paying the bill. Fast breeder reactors are supposed to herald a change in the way nuclear power works. It seems however, the more things change in the nuclear industry, the more things stay the same.

Have a great weekend!

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

The Star: Malaysia Nuclear - Costly and unsafe
’The threat of another Chernobyl and the question of where to dump the waste are key arguments against nuclear power. AS mankind begins to come to terms with the fact that oil will run out in the not-too-distant future, nuclear power advocates trumpet a solution that is "clean, efficient, safe and, in some cases, environmentally friendly. However, nuclear power nay-sayers stand on solid ground, too. Elizabeth Wong, the Selangor Exco for Tourism, Consumer Affairs and the Environment, says nuclear energy is not a safe option for the future. "Contrary to the claims of the nuclear industry and the federal government, nuclear energy is neither safe nor inexpensive. It is also not a solution to climate change. Nuclear power usage has environmental, health, and security risks that make it an undesirable substitute for fossil fuels.’

Whatever other phrases you can use to describe nuclear power and its propagandists ‘unfailingly honest’ isn’t one of them. Whether it’s describing nuclear as low carbon or keeping clear of mentioning the dangers, contamination and shameful exploitation surrounding uranium mining (to name but two), if an industry insider or a pro-nuke politician gives you a line, it’s always worth checking the small print.

Take EDF – who wants to build new nuclear reactors in the UK – and its chief executive Vincent de Rivaz’s recent declaration that…

'There is no subsidy in the business case,' said de Rivaz. 'There is no line in the budget which is called 'taxpayers' money'. The nuclear option is based on sound economics.'

Now watch the spin*…

Industry sources said, however, that talks had begun on how to devise “a subsidy by another name” that would allow the government to stand by its promise of no direct taxpayer support.

Plans apparently under discussion involve ‘to subsidise Britain’s nuclear renaissance through a levy tacked on to household fuel bills’. The pro-nuclear UK government can then say it stood by its demand that ‘it is for energy companies to fund, build and develop these, not the taxpayer’. Mr de Rivaz will also be able to stand by his line that ‘there is no line in the budget which is called 'taxpayers' money’.

That energy bill payers and taxpayers are almost entirely the same group of people is merely a question of semantics coupled with age-old political sleight-of-hand and buck-passing. ‘A subsidy by another name’? Your project for today is to go and find out what the phrase ‘putting lipstick on a pig’ means.

* This article in The Times says ‘nuclear power is virtually emission free’. Read the comment underneath to see that myth dismantled.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Finnish Financial Ministry supports 3 new nuclear plants
’HELSINKI, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Finland's finance minister said on Monday he would be in favour of granting permits to build three new nuclear plants to help support competitiveness of the country's industry. 'We have to be able to compensate the electricity imported from Russia and the capacity of old coal plants. Nuclear is clean from a climate perspective and it has a big employment impact during the construction phase,' Jyrki Katainen was quoted as saying in regional daily Kaleva. 'Later it will give Finnish industry competitiveness compared to many European countries,' he said. The Nordic country is due to decide on a construction permit for at least one more nuclear plant by the end of this year -- its sixth -- with three candidates seeking a permit: Fortum , Fennovoima and Teollisuuden Voima (TVO).’

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Italy to sign nuclear protocol with U.S.

Italy will sign a nuclear protocol with the United States next month which will give American companies the chance to compete to build nuclear power stations in Italy, the country's industry minister told a newspaper. Claudio Scajola told La Stampa newspaper in an interview the protocol would cover research and development and "give American companies the chance to compete to build one or more of the 8-10 power stations which the government plans in the next 20 years." He said he would travel to Washington at the end of September to sign the protocol. Italy decided on a return to nuclear power last month after quitting two decades ago and the government is currently drawing up rules for reviving the sector.’

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Nuclear fragments found on seabed off Dounreay
’MORE than a hundred fragments of spent nuclear fuel have been removed from the seabed off Dounreay in the latest phase of work to clean up and decommission the former nuclear plant. The particles were detected and retrieved by a remotely-operated vehicle that scanned an area of seabed equivalent in size to more than 10 football pitches. The robotic system recovered 115 particles during the two-month operation. Of these, 29 were in the higher hazard category defined by independent experts as a "significant" threat to health. Another 16 suspected fragments detected by the ROV also gave readings in this category but were not retrieved. Six could not be targeted accurately for retrieval and 10 were buried deeper in the sediment than the 45cm reach of the ROV retrieval system.’

Calder Hall, the world’s first industrial scale nuclear reactor to produce electricity on a commercial basis, began operating at what is now Sellafield in the UK on August 20 1956. Of course, producing electricity at Calder Hall was secondary to producing plutonium for the country’s nuclear weapons programme. Nuclear power and weapons have walked hand in hand ever since.

As Stephanie Cooke in her nuclear history, In Mortal Hands, says, Calder Hall was…

…designed and built to produce plutonium for weapons; electricity was only an added extra. ‘We needed the nuclear deterrent and in order to get it you needed the by-product of peaceful nuclear energy,’ said Eric Price… a government energy economist.

[…]

As Price soon realise, the government’s nuclear game plan required economic inventiveness and the perpetration of another myth, that nuclear electricity would prove both less expensive and more reliable than alternative energy sources.

[…]

‘The decisions were not economic. In fact they were far from economic. In fact I would say they were gravely distorted,’ Price said.

In 1956 that alternative energy source was coal. Five decades later the sources have changed to wind, solar and the rest. The economic inventiveness, the perpetration of nuclear myth, and the grave distortions, however, remain the same. From these small beginning in the UK (and the US and Russia), the dirty technology and the equally dirty tactics spread out over the globe.

The decommissioning of Calder Hall is ongoing, dangerous and slow. As Ewan Hutton, a decommissioner at Sellafield says in this video, the reactors were ‘built in a great hurry and they didn’t really think about how we were going to take them apart’.
When it was closed for decommissioning after 47 years in 2003 (its cooling towers were demolished in 2007), Calder Hall was the world’s oldest nuclear reactor.

The same year the UK government published a policy paper describing ‘nuclear power as "economically unattractive", and focussed on the potential for renewable energy.’ And yet, from that forward-looking thinking, the UK government, like others, with their new calls for a nuclear ‘renaissance’ have slipped back. Back to 1956.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Attacks on Pakistani Nuclear Facilities
’In July, the CTC Sentinel published an analysis stating that over the past two years, several Pakistani nuclear weapons sites have come under attack. Shaun Gregory, the author of the report and an expert on Pakistani security, pointed to three instances where Pakistani sites were targeted by militants...’

We’ve said before that when it comes to reading news about the nuclear industry, initial reports should never be taken at face value or in isolation. Often the first stories about a nuclear incident consist of industry statements saying, in effect, ‘everything’s fine’. It only by remembering to follow these stories up (if they get followed up at all) does a fuller story emerge.

Take the reactors at the Hamaoka nuclear facility in Japan – the latest to be closed by an earthquake (see also the accident-prone Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant). Initial reports said that reactors 4 and 5 at Hamaoka were closed down safely during the earthquake. So far so good. A steady drip of worsening news then followed.

Reactor 5 was the worst hit of the two by the earthquake. There’s no date for it coming back into service. Hamaoka’s operator, Chubu Electric Power Company, is having to increase coal and gas electricity generation to make up for the shortfall due to the reactor’s closure. The closure is said to be costing the company up to 400 million yen (US$4.2 million) a day.

Now we hear that ‘a small amount of the radioactive iodine-131 has been detected in the exhaust’ of reactor 5. ‘Chubu Electric said it will try to determine if the radioactivity is related to the effects of the quake’. Which is more worrying, do you think, if the leak was caused by the earthquake or if it wasn’t? Keep reading and watching to find out. If this story runs as expected more bad news won’t be far way.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

REVE: Nuclear energy jeopardises green energy revolution
EU has set itself the goal that by the year 2020, 20% of Europe's final energy consumption in the areas of electricity, heating, and mobility should come from renewable sources. Today, many European countries offer favourable framework conditions for the expansion of renewable energies. If these remain in place and continue to evolve, the electricity production from renewables could multiply by the year 2020. The installed wind power alone will reach 180,000 MW throughout Europe, according to industry estimates - almost three times as much as the current capacity of around 65,000 MW. While presenting their plans for the construction of new nuclear power plants in England, E.on and EDF demanded a cap for the development of renewables once their share of power consumption had reached 20 % (EDF) or 30 % (E.on). This shows that Europe's large utility companies have long since understood the fact that renewable energies and nuclear power can only exist side by side until wind, solar, etc. gain the upper hand. After that, there is no more room on the grid for nuclear power. The utility companies will thus do everything in their power to fight the priority treatment of renewable energies.’

We’re grateful to Areva’s North America blog for pointing us towards a speech Areva’s Chief Executive Officer Anne Lauvergeon made back in April of this year. Entitled, ‘Nuclear Industry’s Role In Nonproliferation’, the speech was given to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

We’d like to take a look at the number of fascinating things Ms Lauvergeon had to say during her speech…

…the fact is that we witness worldwide enthusiasm for nuclear energy coming from governments, coming from utilities, or electro-intensive industries…

Or, in other words, from vested interests. Notice she didn’t say ‘and the public’ or ‘and environmental groups’. Can a handful of cheerleaders really be described as ‘worldwide enthusiasm’?

Renewable energy sources, she says…

…don’t meet competitiveness requirements as well, needing heavy subsidies in the USA as well as in Europe. It’s not shocking to subsidize a source of energy at the early stage of its development, but we have to be aware of it.

Unlike nuclear energy which is a source of energy late in its development (having been developed in the 1950s) which is still needing heavy subsidies. Nuclear, says Ms Lauvergeon meets ‘all three requirements of sustainability, competitiveness, and security’. How can an energy source be sustainable when it’s reliant on a finite resource, in this case uranium? If it’s so competitive, why has the CEO of French nuclear giant EDF recently called for a ‘level playing field’ to be created so nuclear power can compete with renewable energy sources? How does having to rely on imported nuclear fuel give energy security to those countries without their own supply? Don’t expect answer from the likes of Atomic Anne.

And on and on she went. She dwelled briefly on the myth of the so-called ‘proliferation proof’ closed nuclear fuel cycle (here’s a clue: it isn’t closed and still produces dangerous nuclear waste). Have a quick look at the speech yourself (don’t spend too long – it’s eight pages) and try and find your own favourite piece of nuclear spin. Maybe we’ll offer a prize for the best one.

There was a spectacular piece of easily debunked spin from Lauvergeon in the question and answer session after her speech. It’s indicative of how Areva and the nuclear industry deal with questions. Questioned about the Savannah River Mixed-Oxide (MOX) fuel plant being built in South Carolina, she said…

…it’s a little bit over budget because the decisionaround this facility in Savannah River has taken a little bit more time in to the Department Of Energy forecast in the beginning. So you know when the projects are longer to be able to be developed, it’s very often a little bit more expensive.

In 2007, the Department of Energy costed Savannah River at $3.6 billion. In 2009 the cost was $4.8 billion. That’s a budget overrun of 33 per cent with costs set to rise still further. That’s a definition of ‘a little bit more expensive’ of which we’ve previously been unaware.

One thing she did get right however was this…

Two billion people are currently living without access to electricity, left by the wayside. And no electricity means life expectancy of 35 or 40 years. We cannot allow this situation to continue.

It’s a shocking state of affairs that cannot, we agree. And yet with stories like those of Barack Obama’s Kenyan grandmother and her newly solar-powered homestead, it’s all too apparent that Areva and Anne Lauvergeon don’t offer the cheap, secure and quickly-provided solution these two billion people – not to mention the rest of us - so urgently need.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Saudi Arabia Plans Nuclear Power Plant

’Saudi Arabia formalized its intention to develop civilian nuclear energy capabilities Friday by announcing that it would build a nuclear power plant, the Australian reported. The plan, disclosed by Saudi Water and Electricity Minister Abdullah al-Hosain in an interview with the newspaper al-Watan, came amid concerns that a growing number of Middle Eastern states might develop atomic energy programs as a step toward establishing nuclear weapons capabilities. Meanwhile, Ecuador has reached a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with Russia, RIA Novosti reported Friday.’

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

The search for a nuclear graveyard

Wanted: Friendly, open-minded community in need of jobs and a whack of infrastructure cash. Must be willing to play host to nuclear waste, perhaps until the end of time.More than six decades after joining the nuclear club, Canada is home to 22 nuclear reactors, 18 of them in operation, producing about 15 per cent of the country's electricity. Canada also has 40,000
metric tonnes of radioactive waste - and counting. For years, the issue of how to best dispose of this waste has plagued policy-makers, scientists and citizens. Suggestions have included shooting it into outer space or exporting it to the South Pole. Now, Canada is preparing to get rid of its nuclear detritus once and for all - by burying it. That solution will cost $16-billion to $24-billion, and it could take until 2020 just to choose a location. But if all goes well, millions of bundles of spent nuclear fuel will be buried half a kilometre underground in a complex network of
subterranean rooms forever. Or at least until future generations come up with something better to do with it. One niggling question remains: Where?

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Marshallese “Guinea Pigs” in Nuclear Lab.

Fifty years ago, Marshallese, exposed to radioactive fallout during U.S. nuclear testing were called "savages" in a Cold War documentary. The 1954 BRAVO blast, which was a thousand times stronger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, contaminated Rongelap atoll. Rongelap mayor John Anjain and six other men were brought to Argonne Lab in Chicago and filmed during health tests. "Guinea pigs" is the term Marshallese use themselves. They believe they were "unwitting subjects" in a long-running research effort designed to study the impact of radiation at the expense of their health. In a 1957 confidential internal memo, BNL's medical researcher Dr. Robert Conard wrote, "The habitation of these people on the island will afford most valuable ecological radiation data on human beings." He added that "various radioisotopes present can be traced from the soil, through the food chain, and into the human beings."

In 2002, politicians in Finland gave in to the construction of a new nuclear reactor largely because it was supposed to help us close down coal and peat fired power plants. Finland is the third highest emitter of greenhouse gases per-capita in the European Union, and one of the worst performers in terms of reducing emissions.

Greenpeace set out to find out whether Finnish energy companies were really going to use less fossil fuels because of their shiny new nuclear toy.. The outcome: Finland’s largest nuclear companies are busy planning and building new dirty power plants, meant to run for decades. The same companies that are busy arguing for new reactors, supposedly to cut emissions are simultaneously planning to keep up their dirty carbon habits.

The math does not look pretty: the two largest nuclear companies plan to build a total of nine large, predominantly fossil-fuel fired power plants. These power plants would spew out a total of four million tons of carbon dioxide yearly – that’s like every car in Finland driving 20 km more each day. This does not sound like a winning strategy to achieve the needed 40 % cut in greenhouse gas emissions in the next ten years.

It’s no accident that fossil fuel and nuclear power go hand in hand. Nuclear power is inflexible – and need fossil-fired plants to respond to variations of electricity demand. Nuclear companies need to keep energy consumption growing to keep their profits high.
Climate protection does not seem to fit in this equation, judging from our experiences in Finland.

I’m sure that nuclear companies will try to keep selling their nuclear waste production facilities as climate saviors. I hope it doesn’t mean the rest of us buy their arguments – or their nukes..

16 largest thermal power plant projects in Finland plotted on a map. Nuclear signs indicate projects run by one of the two main nuclear companies, Fortum and PVO.

(This a guest post by Lauri Myllyvirta, nuclear campaigner based in Finland for Greenpeace Nordic. You can find out more about Olkiluoto 3 at olkiluoto.info.)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Uranium Supply to Fall Short of Demand After 2015, Baobab Says

Supplies of uranium will fall short of demand after 2015 as China, India, the U.S. and Russia expand nuclear-power capacity, said Baobab Asset Management, whose investments include miners of the metal. The nuclear fuel's price may rise to around $60 a pound by the end of this year as expanding demand erodes an oversupply and leaves the market balanced, Russell Fryer, founder of the Greenwich, Connecticut-based fund, said yesterday in an interview in London. Immediate-delivery uranium traded at $47 a pound in the week ended Aug. 21, TradeTech LLC's Web site shows. "In 2015, supply is going to be in balance with demand" barring disrupted production, said Fryer, whose natural- resources fund has advanced 20 percent since its introduction in March. "After that, there will be a deficit because there won't be enough mines and current supply will diminish."

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:
French nuclear workers see risks as conditions worsen

Worsening working conditions, inadequate pay rises, pressure to work faster and safety concerns -- these are the familiar grievances of a disaffected work force. When such complaints arise in France's most sensitive industry -- nuclear power -- alarm bells start ringing. Cyril Bouche and his colleagues at the Tricastin nuclear plant in the rolling hills of the Drome region say the state-owned utility EDF, which runs France's 58 nuclear reactors and has been expanding into the United States and Britain, is not only cutting costs, but also cutting corners. The 39-year old, who works for one of EDF's many subcontracting firms, says working conditions at the plant -- hit by a series of incidents that shook public trust in 2008 -- have deteriorated over the past five to 10 years. "Today France is selling reactors abroad but it should first put its own house in order," said Bouche, the only one of 10 workers interviewed by Reuters who was prepared to be identified.

What is the link between coal power and nuclear power?

I mean - apart from the fact that they are both dirty sources of energy proceeding from fossil fuels that exist in limited amounts on the planet.

And also apart from the fact they are both a threat to the environment; the first one because of the amounts of CO2 it releases into the atmosphere, the second one because of all the dangerous substances released at the surface of the planet - both throughout the nuclear fuel chain and the ever-lasting radioactive waste it leaves behind.

Oh yes, and apart from the fact that both the coal and the nukes industry are committed to undermining all attempts to switch to renewable, clean, eco-friendly energy anytime soon.

No? No other ideas?