Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Democrats Change Tune on Nuclear Energy
‘During the 2008 presidential campaign, it was Sen. John McCain, not then Sen. Barack Obama, who touted nuclear power. Obama, for the most part, was noncommittal on the subject. But in the year since being elected, President Obama and congressional Democrats increasingly appear to be embracing nuclear power. Democrats' support has not been entirely rock solid. Obama's decision, last spring, to scrap a decades-old plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was interpreted by some critics as an early sign of an antinuke stance within the administration. But many less high-profile moves, especially in recent weeks, suggest that Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill, far from turning their backs on nuclear power, now see it as a way of advancing their goals on energy and climate policy. Perhaps the most telling sign is that representatives of the nuclear industry are giving the administration relatively high marks for its nuclear policies thus far. "This administration has been very seriously engaged on nuclear issues," says Alex Flint, the Nuclear Energy Institute's top lobbyist. "There is no longer a political stigma associated with it." "We are pleased with the of support the administration has expressed," says Buzz Miller, who heads up nuclear development for Southern Nuclear, which operates three nuclear plants in the Southeast and is starting to work on building two more reactors near Augusta, Ga.’

Over 55 workers at the Kaiga Generation Station in Karnataka were exposed to an excessive radiation dosage when they drank from a water cooler. How did it happen? The water had been mixed with tritium which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, used in research, fusion reactors and neutron generators. Tritium is a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food, water, or absorbed through the skin. It’s also used in making hydrogen bombs.

The incident took place on November 25, when the number one reactor was under shut down for maintenance. Officials said their suspicions were confirmed when not only workers who worked in the radioactive areas of the reactor but also those who did not work in the radioactive zones had a high dose of tritium in their routine urine samples.

Top officials with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited blamed the incident on ‘an insider's mischief’. They alleged that ‘an insider had mixed tritium in the drinking water in the water cooler kept in the operating island of the first unit’ at Kaiga.

Here is a Greenpeace Canada Report on tritium and its effects.

This is a case where insurance liabilities do not apply - after all the government is not planning to insure against malevolent acts by disgruntled employees! Insurance companies will not pay for such acts. It is a perfect example of liabilities not working.

This is isn’t the first time something like this has happened. As Dr. Sangamitra Gadekar from India’s anti-nuclear journal Anumukti says: ‘Another pet sentence from the nuclear establishment is that all such accidents are studied and their lessons learnt. In 1991 on July 27, something very similar took place at the heavy water plant run by the Department of Atomic Energy at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan.’

YB Ramakrishna from India’s Citizens for Alternatives to Nuclear Energy adds: ‘Tritium can easily get into the food cycle through water. The people here eat the food they grow along this river. Has any one gone and checked them out? The district collector made yet another statement that the radiation is easily treated by having Iodine tablets and drinking a lot of water. Drinking more and more tritiated water? All seem to be worried about the employees. What about the people living in the vicinity who will die subsequently from cancer if their consumption of tritium through the food they eat is never ever measured?”

The official explanation of a ‘disgruntled’ employee causing ‘mischief’ raises more questions than it answers. The issue is much larger than it appears. Kaiga’s operators should immediately admit the tritium concentration found in the water cooler, the amount of tritium ingested by the workers, the estimated doses for the workers, and the source of the tritium (even if it were a malicious act: where did the tritium come from?)

The high radiation levels in some of the employees were found because it is only they who go through routine tests. What happens to the people living along Kali River, especially in the downstream who spend substantial time standing in water to catch fish and eat it? A baseline health study done by independent, international experts must be conducted.

Finally, there must be much more transparency in and around the Kaiga. India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is the perfect example of how not to run a nuclear watchdog.

(This is a guest post by Orsi Kralik, nuclear campaign blogger for Greenpeace India)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

French reactor shut down following loss of cooling
‘PARIS – One of four reactors at the Cruas nuclear power station in southern France was shut down late on Tuesday following a lapse in the cooling system, France's nuclear safety agency said. French energy company EDF reported the incident at 2250 GMT and followed its emergency procedures to shut down the reactor, it added. The agency said it was still evaluating the seriousness of the incident. The cooling system for the reactors use water from the Rhone River and the incident was due to a high level of plant debris in the river blocking intake, it added.’

So a guy puts radioactive tritium in the water cooler at India's Kaiga nuclear power plant, poisoning 50 of his work colleagues. It turns out that this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Back in 1990 someone put heavy water containing radioactive isotopes in a drinks dispenser at Canada’s Point Lepreau reactor*.

Such crazy guys! But then it’s only natural we suppose. Who amongst us, finding ourselves bored or stressed at work, hasn’t decided to unwind by playing a joke on our workmates and putting radioactive material in the drinking water? They must laugh all day at these reactors.

* Thanks to Wisa in the comments for the link)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

House OKs bill to ban imported radioactive waste
‘WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday passed a bill banning the importation of radioactive waste for disposal in the United States. The move was prompted by a Salt Lake City company's plan to import 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste from Italian nuclear plants. The waste imported by EnergySolutions would have been processed in Tennessee and buried at a site in Utah. The bill was approved 309 to 112. The Senate hasn't yet acted on the issue. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said it has no power to bar private companies from importing low-level waste as long as they meet safety and security standards. A commission official told the House in October that it also has pending applications to import waste from Brazil and Mexico for disposal in Utah. "The United States stands alone as the only country in the world that imports other countries' radioactive waste for permanent disposal," Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., a leading sponsor of the bill, said in a statement.’

A survey conducted by the Ipsos MORI polling organisation for the UK Nuclear Industry Association has found that 67 per cent of people it polled agreed with the statement…

Britain needs a mix of energy sources to ensure a reliable supply of electricity, including nuclear power and renewable sources of electricity.

However, 49 percent agreed that "I don't really know enough about nuclear energy to be able to give an opinion." That figure rose to 58 per cent among women.

We do look forward to the nuclear industry spinning these figures. ’Many of the people who support the use of nuclear power don’t know enough about it’ is a hard line to sell, we’d say.

It’s worth considering how that 67 per cent might change were people to be properly informed about nuclear power - about its costs, its dangers, its unreliability, and its inability to fight impending climate change. We’d like to see the results of a survey presenting those arguments.

It’s unlikely we will though, not one conducted on behalf of the UK Nuclear Industry Association (the trade association representing operators of nuclear power stations and companies engaged in decommissioning, waste management, nuclear fuel cycle…) at any rate. When you look at the lamentable state of the nuclear industry and its so-called ‘renaissance’, you’d imagine a continuing state of public ignorance to be the preferred strategy.

Radio France Internationale have featured Greenpeace’s findings of radioactive contamination on the streets of Niger’s uranium mining villages. You can hear an interview with Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner Rianne Teule who was part of the team that found the contamination.

Last year Niger produced nearly 7% of the world’s uranium and is one of the four largest supplier of uranium to the European Union. Yet for all its fuelling of the world’s nuclear reactors, Niger’s people have the worst quality of life in the world, sitting at the very bottom of the United Nation’s Human Development Index. They pay the price but see none of the wealth when we turn on the lights at night.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Double blow dents confidence in £40bn nuclear programme
`Contractors are facing uncertainty about the Government's £40 billion nuclear programme after blows to both the decommissioning and new build programmes this week. The body in charge of decommissioning toxic sites revealed it may have to defer some work as part of a Government cost-cutting drive, while the safety regulator admitted there was still a significant number of flaws to be ironed out in the newbuild reactor designs before work could progress. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority confirmed its board was considering a range of potential cuts to its budget. It could include scrapping some work, although other projects could be brought forward if it was decided they offered better value for money. The NDA, which has an annual budget of almost £1 billion to clean up contaminated sites, said: "The range of scenarios to be considered includes: bringing forward some work, subject to affordability, where there are strong value-for-money business cases; the deferral of some non-essential work to later years; the deletion of scope where alternative plans can be formed; increasing income generation from our remaining assets; [and] opportunities for further efficiency savings."'

Here's Captain Wei Jiafu, the head of Chinese shipping giant COSCO, suggesting that nuclear reactors be used to power container vessels…

`…they are already onboard submarines, why not cargo ships?'

One word, Captain Wei: Pirates.

Yesterday, the BBC World Service's Africa in Focus radio programme featured Greenpeace's findings of radioactive contamination on the streets of the villages close to AREVA's uranium mines in Niger. You can listen to it here…

AREVA have been uncharacteristically silent on this matter. As the radio presenter says at the end of the piece: `We tried to contact the uranium mining company AREVA for comments but they were not reachable.'

The company were certainly reachable when Greenpeace activists boarded the Happy Ranger en-route to Areva's OL3 nuclear reactor last month. AREVA were extremely quick in labelling the activists as `militants'. But when there's evidence that AREVA are putting people's health at risk in Niger? The company spin doctors are nowhere to be seen.

AREVA may be silent but voices in Niger are determined to be heard. Tomorrow, a peaceful march to protest against AREVA and its subsidiaries in Niger is being held by the people of Arlit where AREVA has a uranium mine.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

India, Russia to ink 'aggressive' n-deal
‘As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stepped out on Sunday noon to a Moscow freezing at minus five degrees, diplomatic circles on both sides have been warming up to what they believe would be a very significant nuclear deal between the two countries, going way beyond the contours of the 123 agreement that India has signed with the US. Top sources in New Delhi think the nuclear agreement that Singh would sign with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday would be nothing short of a "path-breaker and a path-finder", with built-in back-up clauses to ensure that the Russians would continue to provide fuel for Indian nuclear plants, regardless of what happens to the bilateral agreement in the future. That apart, there are also implicit clauses in the deal that would allow India to enrich and process nuclear fuel, according to top government sources. The deal, which will cancel out the earlier one dating back to 1998, is an "aggressive document", according to the sources. "It will go way beyond the 123 agreement with the US that says we would need to return nuclear equipment and do without fuel supplies if the bilateral agreement folds up," the sources pointed out.’

The nuclear industry likes to make a big song and dance about reprocessing nuclear waste (or ‘recycling spent fuel’ as they’re currently greenwashing it).

Did you know, for instance that France has sent 33,000 tonnes of nuclear waste to Russia for reprocessing since 2006? How much of that has come back to France? A mere 3,090 tonnes. That’s less than 10%. The rest is dumped and abandoned in places like the ‘closed’ city of Seversk, the nuclear waste storage facility in Siberia. Some of it is even stored in open air car parks. This is the fabled nuclear safety we’ve heard all about.

After these revelations in October this year, along with it emerging that plutonium had been ‘forgotten’ at the Cadarache nuclear plant, the French government announced a moratorium on nuclear waste shipments to Russia while the High Committee for Transparency and Information on Nuclear Safety conducts a full inventory of France’s nuclear waste products. The results are expected in January.

So when the French government decided to pre-empt the inventory’s findings and break the moratorium this weekend, resuming nuclear waste shipments to Russia, Greenpeace France sprang into action. Nuclear campaigner Yannick Rousselet chained himself to the railway line along which the nuclear waste was to be transported, delaying the shipment.

It’s a strange coincidence that French nuclear giant AREVA would choose to resume nuclear waste shipments exactly when attention is focussed on the opening of the Copenhagen climate change summit. Thanks to Yannick and his colleagues, however, AREVA’s dirty little secret is in the public eye once more.

(More information is available in French at Greenpeace France’s website)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Security breach at Tarapur Atomic Station
‘MUMBAI/THANE: In what appears to be a breach of security, two contractual workers attempted to steal computer parts from the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS), one of the oldest and strategic nuclear sector establishments. However, the timely intervention by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) has prevented the theft. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) has denied security breach. The incident has taken place on November 1 at TAPS, which located nearly 120 to 130 kms from downtown Mumbai. The Thane Rural police has been assigned the investigations. The incident took place at the location of TAPS 3 & 4, where two 540 MW plants are located. Both are Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs).’

So, in July 2007, there were these two contractors working at the Sellafield nuclear plant in North West England. They were drilling through a concrete floor in a nuclear waste storage facility that was being converted into offices.

They were wearing protective masks and suits, and had equipment to monitor radiation levels.

When two radioactive ‘hot spots’ were detected, the men decided to keep working.

One of the men removed his mask.

One of the pair received a dose of radiation of 17 milli-sieverts. The statutory annual dosage limit is 20.

Mark Bassett, the UK Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) superintending nuclear inspector, said: ‘Although the radiation doses in this case were below the statutory dose limits, they could potentially have been higher. They should have been zero.’

The operating company Sellafield – which is jointly owned by Amec, AREVA and URS Washington – was fined £75,000 in the ensuing court case which delivered its verdict last week. The consortium was also ordered to pay £26,000 in court costs.

Amec, Areva and URS Washington operate Sellafield under the consortium name Nuclear Management Partners Ltd. Last year it was awarded the contract to operate Sellafield for up to 17 years. The contract is worth £22 billion.

So, that’s a £101,000 penalty over a £22,000,000,000 contract. We’re sure Nuclear Management Partners Ltd felt suitably chastised as they handed over 0.00046% of their money. Mark Bassett of the HSE described the punishment as ‘relatively high’. That’s quite some exaggeration. He must think ants are ‘relatively enormous’.

©Jiri Rezac/Greenpeace

So, let’s talk about the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system. Can you aim it Osama bin Laden? Can you use it against suicide bombers? Is it an effective deterrent against the builders of Improvised Explosive Devices? Can you fight the effects of climate change with nuclear weapons? So what use are they in these times of post-Cold War threats?

For the British government to renew its nuclear weapons arsenal, it’s going to cost £97 billion. Just think what else you could do with all that money. Think of the world class renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes you could build with it. It’s not as if the UK’s defence industry – one of the government’s pets – is going to starve.

The missile in last night’s Greenpeace projection onto Big Ben is heading in the right direction. It’s time to bury Trident. It’s time for Alistair Darling, the UK’s finance minister, to cut the crap and cut Trident.

(Click here to see how the projection was done. More information is available on the Greenpeace UK website.)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Italy Greens leak sensitive nuclear site list
‘ROME, Dec 8 (Reuters) - Italy's Green Party leaked on Tuesday the names of potential nuclear power sites it claims Enel has identified – information that could spark strong local resistance to nuclear renaissance plans. Italy, which abandoned nuclear energy after a referendum in 1987, aims to reintroduce nuclear power to cut energy bills, diversify its fuel mix and reduce carbon emissions. The centre-right government of Silvio Berlusconi has said it aims to generate about 25 percent of its power from nuclear sources but has yet to identify the sites for the plants. Public opinion has been generally hostile to nuclear energy and with local authorities having a crucial say in the approval of industrial projects the worry is that nuclear plans could be obstructed once the sites have been named. On Sunday, Enel Chief Executive Fulvio Conti was quoted by newspapers as saying he would not name the sites "even under torture", leaving any such announcement to the government. Angelo Bonelli, president of Italy's anti-nuclear Green Party, said on Tuesday that Enel had handed a list of potential nuclear power sites to the Industry Ministry.’

The prominent British environmentalist Jonathon Porritt asks some hard questions following the death of the highly influential environmentalist, writer and philosopher, Edward Goldsmith…

Without Teddy, who is going to rub people’s noses in the continuing scandal of nuclear waste mismanagement, and remind people that this government promised time after time that there would be no expansion of nuclear power in this country until it had sorted out the problems of nuclear waste?

Who is going to hold to account politicians and industry leaders for whom secrecy remains the default mindset?

Who is going to expose the near-fraudulent accounting practices endemic within the nuclear industry that continue to blind people to the true economic costs and penalties involved in nuclear power?

Who is going to interrogate the philosophical and moral implications of one generation imposing on the next a set of problems and security hazards for which they themselves have absolutely no solution?

And who is going to take on those sincere but utterly misguided environmentalists who’ve “gone nuclear” over the last few years because they feel there’s no alternative?

It would be nice if the nuclear industry and its supporters could also address these issues with a degree of honesty and transparency. We won’t hold our breath.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

India's 11 Nuclear Power Units Short of Local Uranium
‘NEW DELHI -- Eleven of India's 17 nuclear power reactors are operating below optimum capacity due to a lack of sufficient supplies of indigenous uranium, the science and technology minister told lawmakers Wednesday in the lower house of Parliament. "These reactors use indigenous uranium, which is not available in the required quantity," Prithviraj Chavan said. Of the remaining six, three reactors use imported uranium and are operating at maximum capacity, while the remaining three are currently shut for long-term maintenance, he said. Capacity utilization of nuclear power plants in the April-November period stood at 60%, the minister said.’

The likes of French nuclear giant AREVA and its supporters are trying to push the nuclear ‘renaissance’ onto the agenda at the Copenhagen climate change conference, like some kind of radioactive Trojan Horse. Meanwhile, the reality on the ground for this so-called resurgence of nuclear power continues to be utterly dismal.

The latest casualties – following the cancellation of new nuclear projects in Turkey, Canada, Bulgaria, South Africa, Texas, Missouri, Idaho and Alabama – are at Nine Mile Point in upstate New York and the South Texas Project nuclear power plant.

After announcing last year its plans to build an AREVA-designed EPR reactor at Nine Mile Point, UniStar Nuclear Energy has now asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ‘temporarily suspend’ the review of Unistar’s application to build the reactor. Why? ‘Because of uncertainties over the availability of federal loan guarantee money for new nuclear power plants’. In other words Unistar can’t or won’t build a new reactor without US taxpayers providing a financial safety net.

Meanwhile, over at the South Texas Project nuclear power plant, the cost of building two new nuclear reactors has spiralled from $10 billion to $14 billion. This has led to CPS Energy, the company supposedly building the reactors, to make legal enquires to see what costs would be involved should it or its partner Toshiba withdraw from the project. This follows ‘a postponed a bond issue, a warning on cost escalation, an internal investigation and the departure of its general manager’. That’s one troubled project.

Once again we’re seeing how the economics of nuclear power work against it – rocketing costs and the need for government bailouts. No amount of pro-nuclear propaganda is going to change that any time soon.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

U.S. envoy: No commitment by N. Korea on future talks
‘SEOUL -- President Obama's envoy to North Korea said Thursday that his journey to Pyongyang produced no commitment that the North would return to international talks aimed at ridding the country of nuclear weapons. But Stephen Bosworth, after a three-day visit that marked the first high-level contact between the Obama administration and the government of leader Kim Jong Il, said his conversations had established a "common understanding" of the need for negotiations. "It remains to be seen when and how [North Korea] will return," Bosworth said, adding that "this is something that will require further consultations among all six" of the countries involved in Beijing-based nuclear talks. They include the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, China and Russia. Bosworth traveled to Pyongyang after Kim had sent signals through China and other diplomatic channels that his government might be willing to come back to the talks that it abandoned last spring, after claiming that they had become a vehicle for regime change.’

When it comes to the people making promises on behalf of nuclear power, can any of them be taken at their word? When it comes to Ed Miliband, the UK’s environment minister, we’re not so sure.

Speaking in Parliament last month, Miliband said…

…we are not going to provide public subsidy for the construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power stations.

That sounds pretty definite to us. But if that’s the case, why has he refused to answer the ‘question on whether the nuclear power industry would be given an insurance indemnity subsidy from taxpayers’? As Paul Flynn, the Member of Parliament who asked the question, says: ‘The only sensible conclusion to draw is that there will remain, probably huge, hidden subsidies in the form of insurance underwriting.’ If the minister has nothing to hide surely he’d give a straight question a straight answer?

The same applies to decommissioning and waste disposal costs. Nobody knows how much those will cost but the budget is exploding (it's currently around the £73 billion mark). So in order to keep industry and investors comfortable with predictable costs, the UK government now proposes to introduce a flat, fixed payment from the industry. This shifts all the unpredictability to the public, and socializes all the risks attached to it. Whatever the final costs, our grandchildren will have to pay to clean up our mess with public subsidies.

Then we look at the news that the UK taxpayer is giving £25 million to build the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (NAMRC) and we ask: surely that is a public subsidy to the nuclear industry?

The centre will ‘bring together university research and industrial expertise to develop manufacturing techniques’. That means the £25 million to build NAMRC is, in the words of Ed Miliband, a ‘public subsidy for the construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power stations’

In July, Rolls Royce was given £45 million of public money to help build four new factories in the UK, including one to manufacture ‘components for nuclear power plants’. That is a public subsidy to the nuclear industry. Also, the government ‘is investing £8 million to expand existing civil nuclear research facilities within The University of Manchester’. That is a public subsidy to the nuclear industry.

In June this year Vincent De Rivaz, the Chief Executive of EDF Energy, said…

I’ve always said we don’t ask for taxpayers’ money. We don’t ask for government subsidy.

When it comes to the UK government and taxpayers’ money, one thing is clear: the nuclear industry doesn’t have to ask.

© Sortir du nucléaire. Click image to view large version.

Unfortunately Sebastian, the Little Mermaid’s singing crab companion, couldn’t join her in Copenhagen this week. We’re not sure she’d like to meet the shellfish in the North Sea – they’re an altogether much less happy bunch of characters.

Don’t nuke the climate!

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Moscow Will Fund Bulgarian Power Plant
‘Moscow is prepared to fund most of the construction of a 4 billion euro ($6 billion) nuclear power plant at Belene in Bulgaria, Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said Friday, as Russia tries to sweeten a deal that Sofia has put under review. "We think it is important to ensure steady work on the Belene project in the next year or two," Shmatko said. "We are considering possibilities to take on the main financial burden, including the option of equity participation. We are interested in the success of this project and are prepared to take certain risks." Shmatko was speaking after a two-day session of the Bulgarian-Russian economic cooperation commission, which discussed joint energy projects including the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipe and the South Stream gas link. RWE, Germany's second-largest utility, withdrew from the 2,000-megawatt nuclear power-plant project on the Danube River after the country declined to provide state funding. Atomstroiexport was chosen in 2005 to build the plant, with Areva and Siemens as subcontractors. Construction was delayed as the global financial crisis hindered financing. Bulgaria said it can sell half of its 51 percent stake in the project.’

India’s government has placed a Nuclear Liability Bill in the Winter Session of the Parliament. The bill, going against various Supreme Court judgments, aims to put a cap on the liability amount that private companies will have to pay towards damages in the case of a leak or accident.

The bill is unconstitutional. It goes against the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the precautionary principle, and is therefore contrary to the provisions of Article 21 of the constitution, namely “Protection Of Life And Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Greenpeace India has commissioned a report on the proposed Nuclear Liability Bill. Soli Sorabjee, previously attorney general, agrees with the campaign demand of ‘Drop The Bill’. His opinion: “In view of these Supreme Court judgments which are part of Indian jurisprudence and whose thrust is for the protection of victims of accidents as part of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, there is no warrant or justification for capping nuclear liability, as is sought to be done. Any such move will be in defiance of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgments and will be contrary to the interest of people of India and their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Sorabjee holds several offices in organizations of national and international repute. In India he is Chairman of Transparency International and Convenor of the Minority Rights Group. On the international circuit, he is Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Human Rights Commission since 1997, a member of the United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities since 1998. Sorabjee served as member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague from 2000 to 2006. In 2002, he was awarded the Padma Vibhushan for his defence of the freedom of expression and the protection of human rights.

All of this is happening 25 years after the Bhopal Gas tragedy. The survivors and the people impacted by the slow poisoning of the chemicals left at the plant site are still fighting for justice and the companies involved are evading liability. With nuclear plants, the dangers are graver and thus to pass a bill that caps liabilities is bordering on the ludicrous.

Currently American plants are at the planning stages. Westinghouse and GE hope to construct their nuclear site in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. If the suppliers and designers do not take financial responsibility in case of an accident only the operator, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, is left to pay this huge amount. The Bhopal tragedy’s cost was more than $3 billion.

The movement has snowballed and more and more lawyers and politicians are endorsing Greenpeace India’s demand of dropping the bill. Hopefully, India will follow the right way and do away with introduction of this partial regime!

(This post is by Orsi Kralik, nuclear campaign blogger for Greenpeace India)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Indigenous Peoples in Copenhagen: Ruling out the Nuclear Option -- Neither Clean nor Green
‘COPENHAGEN -- Remembering the words of Chief Seattle, Indigenous Peoples and people of color at the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen sent a message to the world to rule out nuclear energy, which is neither clean nor green. The statement, "The Legacy of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Upon US Indigenous and Communities of Color," was released by communities of Indigenous Peoples and people of color, in partnership with the Peace Development Fund. Together, they form the Building Action for Sustainable Environments Initiative (BASE). "We are citizens who represent some of the communities in the US who bear the legacy of 50 years of nuclear energy and weapons production. We are indigenous nations, we are Latino citizens and farm-workers, and we are African American communities living near nuclear power and weapon production sites. "Reducing and eliminating the wasteful and dangerous means of producing nuclear energy and bringing renewable green energy production and jobs to our communities are the goals in which our communities have a major stake." While Indigenous Peoples from throughout the world rallied, marched and educated the world in Copenhagen this week, the Base communities gave voice to the legacy of death that uranium mining and the nuclear industry have brought to Indigenous Peoples and people of color.’

To Dounreay now, on the north coast of Scotland, a place so contaminated thanks to the nuclear reactor there, the beach is closed and they have robot submarines combing the ocean floor in search of radioactive particles.

In July this year, two people working on the decommissioning of the reactor ‘were treated for exposure to radioactive material’. Earlier this month, weapons grade uranium previously ‘given up for lost’ at the site was found ‘in "nooks and crannies" of scrapped pipes that had been packed into containers’.

Closed beaches, robot submarines, contaminated workers and missing uranium. Sounds like one of the more ludicrous James Bond movies. What future for the Dounreay site? Suggestions from the public include a recreation centre, a tourist attraction, and… a hotel. Maybe the robots can be reprogrammed to serve breakfast once they’ve finished cleaning the beach.

Meanwhile in Bulgaria, we wonder what’s happening with the plans for the Belene nuclear reactor since German utility RWE withdrew its funding in October. The project’s website has been down, cancelled or otherwise missing since the beginning of December. If they can’t keep a simple website up and running, what hope for the reactor? No wonder the Bulgarian government has had to go to Moscow with their begging bowl.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

China’s Rapid Reactor Expansion Raises Concerns
‘SHENZHEN, China - China is preparing to build three times as many nuclear power plants in the coming decade as the rest of the world combined, a breakneck pace with the potential to help slow global warming. China’s civilian nuclear power industry - with 11 reactors operating and construction starting on as many as another 10 each year - is not known to have had a serious accident in 15 years of large-scale electricity production. And with China already the largest emitter of gases blamed for global warming, the expansion of nuclear power would at least slow the increase in emissions. Yet inside and outside the country, the speed of the construction program has raised safety concerns. China has asked for international help in training a force of nuclear inspectors. ‘At the current stage, if we are not fully aware of the sector’s over-rapid expansions, it will threaten construction quality and operation safety of nuclear power plants,’ Li Ganjie, the director of China’s National Nuclear Safety Administration, said in a speech this year. In August, the Chinese government dismissed and detained the powerful president of the China National Nuclear Corporation, Kang Rixin, in a $260 million corruption case involving allegations of bid-rigging in nuclear power plant construction, according to official media reports. No charges have been reported against Mr. Kang, who is being held incommunicado for interrogation.’

While the nuclear industry and its supporters are working their very hardest to greenwash nuclear power as ‘clean’ energy, the latest findings at Chernobyl are creating new uncertainties about nuclear’s radioactive legacy…

Reinhabiting the large dead zone around the accident site may have to wait longer than expected. Radioactive cesium isn’t disappearing from the environment as quickly as predicted, according to new research presented here [in San Francisco] Monday at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union. Cesium 137’s half-life — the time it takes for half of a given amount of material to decay — is 30 years, but the amount of cesium in soil near Chernobyl isn’t decreasing nearly that fast. And scientists don’t know why.

Boris Faybishenko, a nuclear remediation expert at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory says, ‘There are a lot of unknowns that are probably causing this phenomenon’. It makes you wonder about other assurances given by the nuclear industry over the years.

But nuclear energy is ‘clean’ energy insist the US Environmental Protection Agency, the World Nuclear Agency, and French nuclear corporation AREVA, to name but a few.

We’d like to see these people try to define ‘clean’ in this context and how it compares to an ordinary person’s definition of the word. How, for example, do the radioactive contamination on the streets of Akokan in Niger and the nuclear waste being stored in the open air in Siberia classify as ‘clean’?

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

French Nuclear Power Struggles in a Cold Snap
‘France, which gets 85% of its electricity from nuclear power, has long been proud of the system's reliability and its benefits to French consumers, who pay some of the lowest electric rates in the world. But the system also has shortcomings, as became evident this week when a cold snap sent electricity demand soaring. RTE, the state-controlled electricity distribution network, is warning of possible blackouts in some regions because of unseasonably cold temperatures. "The electrical system is strained," the group said in a release on Dec. 16. Although France frequently exports surplus power to neighboring countries, in recent days it has had to import from Germany. A key reason for the problem is that 8 of the country's 58 nuclear reactors, all run by state utility Electricité de France, are shut down for maintenance and refueling. Why not schedule such routine tasks in spring or autumn, when demand is lower? Well, that was EDF's plan - but the schedule was disrupted because of worker protests at some plants. As many as one-third of the utility's reactors have been out of service simultaneously this year. EDF's new boss, Henri Proglio, admits that the system's reliability has suffered in recent years because of under-investment in maintenance and new technologies.’

The United Nations Climate Change Conference currently taking place in Copenhagen is something we’ve only mentioned in passing here on Nuclear Reaction. That said, along with all the other negotiations, Greenpeace and many other organisations and people have been working hard at the conference to prevent nuclear energy being included in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Don't Nuke The Climate action at the Bella Center, Copenhagen
© Sortir du nucléaire.

For those who don’t know it, the CDM is a system set up under the Kyoto Protocol which allows industrialised countries committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to earn carbon credits by investing in low-carbon projects in developing countries rather than building more expensive projects in their own countries.

Nuclear energy was specifically excluded from the CDM at the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change conference in 2001. Needless to say, the nuclear industry and its supporters have been lobbying hard ever since for nuclear’s inclusion in the mechanism.

Just why nuclear energy should be included is something of a mystery. As Hélène Pelosse, Director-General of International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) says, ‘it's a long complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky’. Despite the industry’s attempts at greenwash, nuclear energy cannot be considered clean by any sensible or rational definition.

The clue is in the Development Mechanism’s title: ‘Clean’. IRENA again: ‘The Clean Development Mechanism is not called clean out of any reason – only 100% renewable energy is clean’.

So where does this leave the negotiations at Copenhagen? At the time of writing an agreement of any kind between all the parties (that includes nuclear energy or not) hangs in the balance.

Watch this space.

(More information on the nuclear negotiations at Copenhagen can be found on the Don’t Nuke The Climate website)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

POWER POINTS: Add Currency To Nuclear Power Project Concerns
'NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Add a weaker dollar to the lengthy list of uncertainties developers of new nuclear power projects in the U.S. face. The diminished buying power of the greenback can hike costs for projects looking overseas for billions of dollars in reactor components. So far, the top U.S. developers, such as Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG) and Southern Co. (SO), plan to use strategies, including financial hedges and dollar-denominated contracts, to head off the currency risk of working with Asian and European suppliers. Building the first new reactors in a generation is seen as a crucial step to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change. But the myriad of risks projects face could slow or even derail their construction. The dollar--though showing signs of a recovery--has declined against its major rivals for most of the year as near-zero interest rates maintained by the Federal Reserve prompted investors to sell greenbacks to buy higher-yielding currencies such as the euro and yen. The dollar, for example, fell to a 14-year low to the yen late last month.'

Over in India, and in a fit of wild optimism, the Russian Ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin has declared his country plans to build ‘up 12 to 14 nuclear reactors in India’. He must have missed the news that ‘eleven of India's 17 nuclear power reactors are operating below optimum capacity due to a lack of sufficient supplies of indigenous uranium’. The fuel for those 12 to 14 new reactors is going to have to come from somewhere, Ambassador Kadakin. Still, there should be plenty to go around when the nuclear ‘renaissance’ finally takes off, yes?

Or maybe not. China ‘operates 11 reactors and has 17 under construction, but has 124 more on the drawing boards’. Unfortunately, this is ‘raising questions about its ability to find the uranium it will need, at home or abroad’. Sound familiar? Maybe they could ask Alexander Kadakin for some advice and reassurance. Goodbye Oil Crisis, Hello Uranium Crisis.

In the UK, the consortium looking to build new nuclear reactors at Sellafield in the North West of England have said that ‘a final decision on whether to build a 3,200 megawatt nuclear plant in the U.K. won't be taken before 2015’. 2015? If this is the nuclear industry moving with haste to help in the battle against catastrophic climate change we’d hate to see it moving slowly.

Never fear, however. In (another) fit of wild optimism, Ignacio Galan, Chairman of Spanish energy group and consortium partner Iberdrola SA said ‘the new nuclear plant in the U.K. won't be operational until 2018 to 2020’. That’s a decision made in 2015 and then two state-of-the-art nuclear reactors built and operational (if the designs get approval) three-to-five years later? That’s some weapons grade confidence Senor Galan has going on there. If only we could harness it to generate electricity we could close down the nuclear industry overnight.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

N-operator liability capped at $64 mn in draft bill
’NEW DELHI: In a controversial move, India has capped the legal responsibility for an operator of a nuclear installation to settle damages for any accident at just Rs.300 crore ($64.2 million) in a draft legislation that is likely to get a stormy reception in parliament. The passage of a civil nuclear liability bill is one of last steps in implementation of the landmark US-India civil nuclear agreement. The text was approved by the cabinet Nov 20 and it is expected to be tabled in parliament in the next session. A copy of the draft Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009 bill, which is yet to be made public, is with IANS. It stipulates in Chapter 2, section 6, that while the "maximum amount of liability in respect of each nuclear incident" shall be Rs.2,208 crore (300 million special drawing rights or $471.38 million), the operator's legal responsibility for damages is capped Rs.300 crore. If the operator liability exceeds Rs.300 crore, then the central government will have to pay the rest of it, noted the subsequent section in the bill.’

Thanks to the Boing Boing website, we’ve found these very cool cutaway diagrams of nuclear reactors. They’ve been executed with love and care, and point to a future that was supposed to promise unlimited, clean and safe electricity.

Unfortunately, the diagrams lack the individual reactor designs’ histories. So, here, in handy cut-out-and-keep form, is...

Pin it up next to your nuclear reactor cutaway diagrams.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

$41M ASU project targets nuclear disasters
‘Arizona State University will lead a $41 million research project to develop systems to help first responders assess radiation exposure in the event of a large-scale nuclear disaster. The five-year contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority will focus on the development of prototypes to enable more rapid triage of patients.’

As we’ve pointed out many times before, there are five central promises made by the nuclear industry and its supporters on behalf of nuclear power: that it is clean, safe, cheap, reliable and secure.

The thing is, you can read the news about the nuclear industry on any given day and find stories that torpedo those promises. Each day we publish the latest nuclear news on nuclear reaction. Take today’s selection of stories.

Safe? ‘Arizona State University will lead a $41 million research project to develop systems to help first responders assess radiation exposure in the event of a large-scale nuclear disaster’. (The US government is launching a wider nuclear safety programme that will cost up to $400 million.)

Clean? ‘An Exelon Nuclear monitor located about a mile away from Three Mile Island in Dauphin County picked up trace amounts of radiation during the same week workers were exposed to contamination at the plant.’

Cheap? ‘The Harper government confirmed yesterday it is calling for bids on the reactor wing of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd… AECL hasn't sold a new reactor in years and its maintenance costs are spiking. In each of the last two years, Ottawa was forced to spend hundreds of millions in extra funding on AECL to cover costs that were not forecast in its main spending estimates.’

Reliable? ‘Troubleshooters at the Millstone nuclear power complex were working Monday to find the cause of an electrical short that triggered an automatic shutdown of Unit 3, one of two nuclear reactors at the plant… the utility is buying power from other sources to make up for Unit 3's lost output while the investigation continues.’

Secure? Does the Millstone nuclear power complex offer security of supply? How about the Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island which has been out of action since October 26? If the Arizona State University’s worst fears come to pass I think we can safely assume electricity supplies will be interrupted. AECL may be about to put its reactor designs and expertise into the hands of a foreign bidder. We thought nuclear power meant less reliance on other countries?

Another promise we wish the industry would make and keep is that it will be open, transparent and honest. The thing is, when you look at today’s story about the rigged public consultation in Ontario, Canada (a story repeated all over the world), you realise that this is another promise the industry could never keep in a million years.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Copenhagen’s failure may leave plans for new nuclear power stations high and dry
‘The failure of the United Nations summit in Copenhagen to produce a firm agreement on climate change has jeopardised plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain. Leading energy industry figures said that the meeting’s failure to help to establish a strong international price for carbon dioxide emissions had undermined the economic rationale for developing the new plants, which emit little carbon but are very expensive to build. Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of EDF Energy, the French-owned company that has proposed building four new reactors in Britain, said that there was an ‘urgent’ need for the Government to intervene in support of nuclear investment. It wants a floor price to be set on the carbon credits that companies need to buy to burn fossil fuels.’

French nuclear corporation AREVA is launching what it calls a ‘Community Advisory Council’ (CAC). The Council will apparently ‘raise greater awareness of the benefits of clean energy technology, including nuclear energy and renewables’ and ‘build a working group of representatives from influential organizations who will informally advise the company on energy and sustainability issues’.

We’ll move swiftly over AREVA once again greenwashing nuclear energy as ‘clean’ and instead focus on what Laurence Pernot, vice president of communications at AREVA, had to say about his CAC:

When it is about energy, there must be no taboo subjects. All issues, including the tricky ones, must be on the table. And when it is about nuclear energy in particular, public concerns must be taken seriously and addressed honestly.

No taboo subjects? All issues, including the tricky ones, must be on the table? Concerns must be taken seriously and addressed honestly?

If this is the case then why, in the month since Greenpeace announced it had found radioactive contamination on the streets of a village close to AREVA’s uranium mines in Niger, has there not been a single word on the subject from AREVA?

Is radioactive contamination in Niger a ‘taboo’ subject for AREVA? Is this ‘tricky’ issue on the table or not? When will these concerns be 'taken seriously and addressed honestly' by the company?

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Nuclear plant spills tritium into lake
‘Workers at the Darlington nuclear station filled the wrong tank with a cocktail of water and a radioactive isotope Monday, spilling more than 200,000 litres into Lake Ontario. Ontario Power Generation is investigating how the accident happened and officials say hourly tests of the lake water show that the level of tritium – the radioactive isotope of hydrogen – poses no harm to nearby residents. "Negligence at a nuclear plant can lead to catastrophic consequences. It's an unforgiving technology," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, an energy campaigner with Greenpeace. "This may be presented as a pretty minor spill, but it's a bad sign when you see these types of breakdowns."’

Nuclear economics just don't add up
‘The fall-out from Copenhagen has left the world's biggest "carbon criminals", among them Australia, exposed on climate change. With the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull in the Liberal party along with the proposed ETS, the ascension of Tony Abbot and his emphasis on "direct action" it was inevitable that the federal Opposition would revisit nuclear power as an option for a low-carbon future in Australia. Given the recent sobering Government report on carbon capture and storage, "clean coal" seems less and less as the likely saviour. Elsewhere with his colleague Barry Brook they have discussed common objections to nuclear power such as safety, waste handling and storage, and weapons proliferation. These, however, are among the most contentious and unresolved issues, both scientifically and politically, and by no means did the authors resolve them to the satisfaction of anyone informed on these topics. Surprisingly they avoided the single major issue that is much more convincingly resolvable: costs. And a second major issue, that of time.’

Iran's nuclear negotiator visits world's largest power plant in Japan
Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary and top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili has visited the world's largest power plant in Japan. During his 3-hour visit to Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, Jalili was briefed on how the plant operates. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant is a large and modern nuclear power plant on a 4.2 square kilometer site including land in the towns of Kashiwazaki and Kariwa in the Niigata Prefecture, Japan on the coast of the Sea of Japan, from where it gets cooling water. The plant is owned and operated by The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). It is the largest nuclear generating station in the world by net electrical power rating.’

UAE set up nuclear power body, to name builder soon
The United Arab Emirates set up a body on Wednesday to run its burgeoning nuclear programme to produce electricity, which is expected to award the region's largest-ever energy deals soon, state media reported. A decree by President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan established the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC), the state news agency WAM said. "ENEC is now in the final stages of negotiating with teams of contractors who are bidding to design, build and help operate the plants. Actual construction ... will commence in 2012," WAM said, adding that a prime contractor would be chosen shortly. The multibillion dollar contract is expected to be the largest ever energy contract awarded in the Middle East.’

Scramble to Sell Nuclear Plant
‘The starting gun for Libya's nuclear energy projects was fired on Dec. 9 by the General People's Comitee which called on the Atomic Energy Agency to begin bargaining with countries offering to help Tripoli build a nuclear energy sector. Among them is France. A project to construct nuclear installations in Libya to desalinate sea-water figured among the issues discussed in Libya on Dec. 6 by the secretary-general at the Elysee Palace, Claude Gueant, along with the sale of Rafale fighter aircraft (MC 906). Initialed in March, 2008, a Franco-Libyan nuclear cooperation pact was drafted by the chairman of the France-Libya friendship group in the French Parliament, Patrick Ollier. A French "inter-services mission" on civil nuclear energy travelled to Libya in early July, 2007. It was led by Olivier Caron, director of international relations for the French atomic energy authority and included officials from the finance ministry, the French foreign ministry and the ecology and sustainable development ministries.’

U.S. Suspends Niger Aid Over Democracy Concerns
The United States on Wednesday froze most aid to Niger and imposed travel bans on some officials in response to President Mamadou Tandja's moves to extend his rule over the impoverished West African nation. "In response to President Tandja's refusal to relinquish his mandate, the United States is suspending its non-humanitarian assistance to the Government of Niger," the U.S. State Department said in a statement. The United States contributes about $30 million annually to development in Niger, one of the world's poorest countries. Tandja argued that he needed to extend his rule to oversee projects such as French energy firm Areva's Imouraren uranium mine, a Chinese-funded oil project and a hydroelectric dam. His original term was due to end on December 22 but he has shown no sign that he is prepared to stand down.’

Iran Warned of "Very Real" Deadline on Nuclear Offer
‘The White House indicated that Iran could face new punitive measures if it fails this month to accept a U.N. proposal for enriching its uranium in other countries, Agence France-Presse reported today. There is "a very real deadline" that Iranian leaders must act on before the end of 2009, said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. "The international community is united in this. This is not (just) something that the (U.S.) president has said. ..... This is something that the members of the P-5+1 have said," he said, referring to China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. "That's why we are at the point where we are now with the international community waiting to see and have been waiting to see for months whether Iran will live up to its responsibilities," Gibbs added. Iran rejected key terms of the proposal, which sought to forestall the nation's ability to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon by refining a large portion of its low-enriched uranium in other countries for use at a medical research reactor in Tehran.’

Here’s the UK’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown writing in August 2008 during the conflict between Russia and Georgia…

No nation can be allowed to exert an energy stranglehold over Europe and the events of August have shown the critical importance of diversifying our energy supply [...] And with states such as Russia increasingly using their energy resources as policy tools it is apparent that the security grounds for this shift are stronger as well.

What Brown is talking about here is ‘energy security’. A nation he says, or in this case Europe, puts itself at risk when it relies too heavily on another country for its energy needs. In this instance Brown is talking about Europe’s reliance on Russia’s gas.

Let’s fast forward back to this week. What’s the solution to Europe’s energy security conundrum?…

"The Council of the European Union adopted today (Tuesday) a mandate authorizing the Commission to negotiate a partnership agreement for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy between the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Russian Federation," the European Commission said in a press statement. "Russia is one of the main global suppliers of nuclear materials and equipment. It is also a key supplier of nuclear fuel and related nuclear fuel cycle services to nuclear power plant operators in the EU," it added.

So, Europe will free itself from its dependence on Russian gas by increasing it dependence on Russian nuclear fuel and related nuclear fuel cycle services. A excellent solution, no?

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the land
Not a creature was stirring, ‘cept Atomic Anne.
Her stocking was hung by the cooling towers with care,
In hopes that St Nicholas (Sarkozy) soon would be there.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

There on the grass slumped a little old man,
His red suit all mud-stained and bottle in hand.
When at last I reached him, he was sitting upright,
His tear-filled old eyes staring into the night.

‘Oh Santa’, I cried, ‘whatever’s the matter?’
(The poor man was thin, he should have been fatter)
‘Should you not be in Lapland, preparing the gifts?
‘Return there at once, you have to be swift!’

‘Lapland?’ sobbed Santa, his hat all awry,
He took a drink from the bottle as he started to cry.
‘Lapland?’ he said, his eyes all ashine
‘My beautiful home’s now a uranium mine!’

‘My house is all gone and I’m left without hope,
They bulldozered the toy factory seeking isotopes.
The pollution and danger is starting to show,
It’s not only Rudolph’s nose that’s now all aglow.’

And with that he did rise, in a pitiful stagger,
Gone, I did see, was his jovial swagger.
He called to his reindeers, his voice once again clear,
But to my dismay, not one did appear.

Elsewhere in the darkness, Anne was snug in her bed.
Poor Santa’s plight had not entered her head.
For she had received a fine Christmas favour:
A promise from Nicholas that his love would not waver.

Seasons greetings to all our readers.

* With apologies to Clement Clarke Moore

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Potential for another meltdown?

Debate over the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has developed into a complex game of chicken between executives with Entergy Nuclear Vermont and Democratic leaders of the state Legislature. Entergy, which has owned the Vernon facility since 2002, says if it does not win approval for its plan to sell Vermont Yankee and five other nuclear
power plants to a spin-off company called Enexus, it will likely close the Vermont nuclear plant as scheduled in 2012. Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, say if the Enexus spin-off deal - which they believe is to shield the parent company Entergy from responsibility for cleaning up the site - is approved, it will make it difficult for them to vote in 2010 to allow Vermont Yankee to operate for an additional 20 years. All of which - along with the lack of a new power contract between Vermont Yankee and the state's utilities for power beyond 2012 - leaves the future of the Vernon facility in doubt.

Welcome to the second annual Nuclear Reaction Awards. As the year comes to its close we’d like to recognise those who have help make the nuclear industry the over-subsidised and under-scrutinised joke it is today.

Today’s Award: The Best Nuclear Spin of 2009

As the nuclear industry and its supporters have struggled to coax an increasingly reluctant nuclear ‘renaissance’ off the ground, spin has been everywhere this year. There were many highlights for us.

- Beautiful propaganda paintings of nuclear power in lush, green, unpolluted settings.

- French nuclear corporation AREVA promoting its business in America with full page magazine adverts but not once using the word ‘nuclear’ .

- The continuing desperate push to rebrand nuclear energy (with its uranium mine contamination and high-level waste) as ‘clean’.

In the end we can choose only one. For us the finest piece of spin this year was the nuclear industry’s continuing attempt to convince us that the nuclear ‘renaissance’ is actually happening. Just look.

The construction of the so-called state of the art EPR reactors at Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France continue to descend further and further into over-budget and behind-schedule farce. The Olkiluoto EPR single-handedly destroyed AREVA’s profits this year. AREVA is now conducting a very public fight with its Finnish customer TVO. The UK nuclear industry is already being subsidised by the public before new reactor designs are off the drawing table. Those new reactor designs safety features have been heavily criticised by nuclear safety regulators in the UK, Finland, France and the US.

Then there are worries about uranium shortages in India and China New nuclear reactor projects cancelled or in trouble in Canada, Turkey, Bulgaria, Texas, Alabama and elsewhere. Citigroup calling new nuclear reactors ‘corporate killers’.

So where is the nuclear ‘renaissance’? It’s everywhere and yet it’s nowhere. It’s all talk. We salute the nuclear industry’s spin doctors for fashioning such an exquisitely intangible creation.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Majority in Taiwan favors replacing nuke power with renewable

Nearly 70 percent of the population favors the notion of replacing nuclear power with renewable energy, while 50 percent think nuclear power should be maintained as an option, according to the results of a poll released yesterday. However, Taiwan Power Company, the sole supplier of electricity in Taiwan, said that renewable energy may not be a realistic path as the average consumer would complain about its much higher price. In a telephone poll conducted by Shih Hsin University on randomly chosen citizens over the age of 20, it was found that 49.1 percent support nuclear power as one of the energy production options, while 69.9 percent favor replacing nuclear power with renewable and clean energy. Some 73.8 percent of the respondents support industrial restructuring so as to help cut carbon dioxide emissions, according to the poll, which was commissioned by the Atomic Energy Council to determine people's awareness of and opinions on energy production and consumption.

Welcome to the second annual Nuclear Reaction Awards. As the year comes to its close we’d like to recognise those who have help make the nuclear industry the over-subsidised and under-scrutinised joke it is today.

Today’s Award: Hope Over Experience 2009

The realities of nuclear energy came crashing down around the ears of many in the industry this year. In Canada, Ontario’s provincial government found its plans to build two nuclear reactors would cost three times ($25 billion Canadian) what it expected. German utility RWE abandoned its 49% stake in Bulgaria’s Belene nuclear power plant because of ‘funding issues’ (the issue was that there wasn’t any funding). Texas’s nuclear ambitions bit the dust after it was found there wasn’t enough government bailout cash to go around. There were others.

But the winner of our award soldiered on in the face of the odds, in the face of adversity, and in the face of reality.

After this year abandoning its fourth attempt since the 1970s to build its first nuclear reactor - an attempt whose tendering process was against competition law and attracted just one bidder whose bid was found to have technical shortcomings, and whose price would have made the reactor the most expensive electricity generating power plant in the world – our winner has vowed to carry on and try again.

The winner of this year’s Hope Over Experience Award 2009? Step forward the government of Turkey.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

French nuclear sector re-thinks strategy after UAE setback
The French nuclear power sector is to re-focus its strategy, notably in Britain and the United States, after losing out to a South Korean consortium on a $US20.4 billion ($A22.99 billion) project in the United Arab Emirates. "The French team spent too much time getting itself together," Claude Gerant, the French presidential secretary general, told the newspaper Les Echos. The French group Areva, the world's largest producer of nuclear power, had joined forces with French energy heavyweights EDF, GDF-Suez, Total and Vinci to bid for a huge contract -- worth E14.11 billion ($A22.87 billion) -- to build four nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates. The contract was awarded on Sunday to the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO). "The French sector is poorly coordinated and the problem needs to be addressed by the majority shareholder in Areva and EDF, that is, the state, through the voice of the government and if necessary the president of the republic," said Francois-Michel Gonnot, vice-chairman of the energy studies group in the National Assembly and a member of the ruling UMP party.

Welcome to the second annual Nuclear Reaction Awards. As the year comes to its close we’d like to recognise those who have help make the nuclear industry the over-subsidised and under-scrutinised joke it is today.

Today’s Award: The Blind Eye 2009

For many of us, some of the electricity we use every day comes from nuclear power stations. Those reactors are fuelled with uranium. Do you know where that uranium comes from?

Does it come from Namibia where uranium mining has made the traditional lifestyles of the Topnaar Nama people ‘impossible to maintain’. Does it come from Caetite in Brazil where the drinking water has been contaminated with uranium? Does it come from Australia or Canada where there native peoples’ ways of life are threatened? Does it come from Niger whose streets where children play are contaminated with radiation?

For its silence and unwillingness to publicly acknowledge these issues, the Blind Eye award 2009 goes to the nuclear industry and its supporters.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Two killed in fire at India nuclear research centre

A fire at an Indian nuclear research facility has killed two people. But a spokesman for the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, on the outskirts of Mumbai, said that the accident had not led to any leakage of radiation. He said the blaze, which broke out in a laboratory, was brought under control within 45 minutes. Indian police officials told news agencies that the charred bodies of two research students were found on the third floor of the laboratory. The centre has a number of nuclear research reactors and is one of India's key research centres for both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Welcome to the second annual Nuclear Reaction Awards. As the year comes to its close we’d like to recognise those who have help make the nuclear industry the over-subsidised and under-scrutinised joke it is today.

Today’s Award: The Honest, We’re Not Making This Up Award 2009

This year has seen more than its fair share of nuclear stories that read like works of twisted fiction. Who could possibly forget the radioactive wasps at the catastrophically contaminated Hanford nuclear reservation in America? How about the robots at the Sellafield nuclear facility in the UK that are stealing the nuclear waste being stored there?

Then there was the potentially devastating nuclear accident at the UK’s Sizewell A reactor that was narrowly avoided only because one Sunday morning someone noticed the water on the floor of the site’s laundry room was leaking from the nuclear waste storage pond. If that person had chosen to wash his underwear on another morning, it might have been a different story.

However, the award this year must go to the French nuclear industry after it was announced that France - one the world’s leaders in nuclear power, let us not forget - was having to import electricity during the summer because its nuclear reactors couldn’t function in the hot weather . That might pose a few problems in the face of rising global temperatures. And they say nuclear power can help save us from global warming?

(Then it was announced that France was having to import electricity during the winter as a significant number of the country’s reactors would be out of action during those months as well.)

Nuclear power – reliably unreliable. Honest, we’re not making this up.