Wednesday, August 24, 2016

New Study Casts Doubt on the Future of Nuclear Power - EcoWatch

While it's been touted by some energy experts as a so-called "bridge" to help slash carbon emissions, a new study suggests that a commitment to nuclear power may in fact be a path towards climate failure.

For their study, researchers at the University of Sussex and the Vienna School of International Studies grouped European countries by levels of nuclear energy usage and plans, and compared their progress with part of the European Union's 2020 Strategy.

That 10-year strategy, proposed in 2010, calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by least 20 percent compared to 1990 levels and increasing the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption to 20 percent. The researchers found that "progress in both carbon emissions reduction and in adoption of renewables appears to be inversely related to the strength of continuing nuclear commitments..."

more: New Study Casts Doubt on the Future of Nuclear Power - EcoWatch

Monday, August 22, 2016

Say No to These Three Uranium Mines at Grand Canyon


The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is preparing to issue permits to allow the operation of three uranium mines in greater Grand Canyon watershed. Of course, this would benefit Energy Fuels Resources, Inc., the mining company that's requesting the permits. But what do the rest of us get? Radioactive pollution that threatens human health, wildlife, and ground and surface water.  

Allowing private companies to profit at the expense of public health and the environment is just wrong -- and we can't let it happen.  

Uranium mining creates fine dust containing radioactive particles, lead and arsenic. Because the dust is so fine, it travels far from mines into our waterways, recreation sites and communities. It can increase the risk of lung cancer, birth defects and kidney disease. Uranium mining exacts other costs as well: The federal government has spent billions trying to clean up old uranium mines, and the costs continue to mount. 

The Center for Biological Diversity has been working to end all uranium mining in the greater Grand Canyon region. Stopping these three mines is a very important part of that greater goal, and we need your help to make it happen. 

Please take action below -- tell the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality that you oppose the operation of the Canyon, AZ1 and EZ uranium mines.  

And if you can, join us on Tuesday, Aug. 30 in Flagstaff at Sinagua Middle School to voice your opposition to the issuance of new permits that will allow toxic uranium mining to continue on the rim of Grand Canyon. If you plan to attend, RSVP to Katie Davis.

SIGN NOW: Say No to These Three Uranium Mines at Grand Canyon

Sunday, August 21, 2016

what next: regarding today's edition

"regarding today's edition"

Robert Cherwink’s Daily • #RCDaily #ECO | #RCDaily #ECO ::: WEEKLY edition
The #OcNukeDaily • #OccupyNuclear | The #OcNuke Weekly • #OccupyNuclear

F Y I ::: {note of 31 JULY} :::  i am having a hellish time with my long-injured neck and a week-long headache, so not much time online. All issues are postponed ~ stay tuned!

UPDATE 11 AUGUST: it has shifted, and i am feeling better. – i hope to have everything up and running again early next week.
UPDATE – 14 AUGUST: the situation with my neck has improved. watch for new editions this week!

UPDATE – 18 AUGUST: i had hoped to restart, but find that i need to postpone all publications for at least another week.

please see 

#RCDaily #ECO ::: WEEKLY edition

ARCHIVES* of #RCDaily *

The #OcNuke Weekly

last completed edition of the #OcNuke Weekly: 
Wednesday, Jul. 27, 2016 - The #OcNuke Weekly • #OccupyNuclear

ARCHIVES of The #OcNukeDaily *

* find the archives calendar feature in the subhead, in the line with the date –

you can't nuke global warming!

Support #OcNukeDaily/#OccupyNuclear: 

Support #RCDaily #ECO News! 

my homepage:

originally posted at what next: regarding today's edition

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Nuclear power plant? Or storage dump for hot radioactive waste? | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Nuclear power plant? Or storage dump for hot radioactive waste?

Robert Alvarez
In addition to generating electricity, US nuclear power plants are now major radioactive waste management operations, storing concentrations of radioactivity that dwarf those generated by the country's nuclear weapons program. Because the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository remains in limbo, and other permanent storage plans are in their infancy, these wastes are likely to remain in interim storage at commercial reactor sites for the indefinite future. This reality raises one issue of particular concern—how to store the high-burnup nuclear fuel used by most US utilities. An Energy Department expert panel has raised questions that suggest neither government regulators nor the utilities operating commercial nuclear power plants understand the potential impact of used high-burnup fuel on storage and transport of used nuclear fuel, and, ultimately, on the cost of nuclear waste management.
Spent nuclear power fuel accumulated over the past 50 years is bound up in more than 241,000 long rectangular assemblies containing tens of millions of fuel rods. The rods, in turn, contain trillions of small, irradiated uranium pellets. After bombardment with neutrons in the reactor core, about 5 to 6 percent of the pellets are converted to a myriad of radioactive elements with half-lives ranging from seconds to millions of years. Standing within a meter of a typical spent nuclear fuel assembly guarantees a lethal radiation dose in minutes. 
Heat from the radioactive decay in spent nuclear fuel is also a principal safety concern. Several hours after a full reactor core is offloaded, it can initially give off enough heat from radioactive decay to match the energy capacity of a steel mill furnace. This is hot enough to melt and ignite the fuel’s reactive zirconium cladding and destabilize a geological disposal site it is placed in. By 100 years, decay heat and radioactivity drop substantially but still remain dangerous. For these reasons, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) informed the Congress in 2013 that spent nuclear fuel is “considered one of the most hazardous substances on Earth...”
more: Nuclear power plant? Or storage dump for hot radioactive waste? | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

What's wrong with nuclear power? | Wise International

There are many good reasons to oppose the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear power installations are vulnerable for accidents, incidents and attacks. Radioactive material can be disseminated. Radiation is harmfull and can, even in small quantities, be lethal. Contamination with radioactive material can make entire regions uninhabitable for thousands of years. 
Even during 'normal operation' nuclear power stations (and other installations) disseminate radioactive materials. The nuclear fuel chain is complicated and in every step transport is needed. These transports are in itself vulnerable for accidents, incidents and theft. Radioactive material in the 'wrong hands' leads to a horror-scenario. The use of nuclear power leads to the production of large quantities of dangerous radioactive waste. Although the nuclear industry has been seeking for solutions for more than 6 decades now there is still no country in the world that has found a scientific sound way to deal with its radioactive waste. 
It does not take much to build a nuclear weapon ones you have access to the material, knowledge and infrastructure provided by the 'civil nuclear fuel chain'. 
Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive and hard to finance. Only when supported by public money a nuclear power station is build. In almost all countries risks and non-direct costs are passed on to the government (the public, the taxpayers); longterm management of the waste, security of the nuclear power plant, costs of transport for instance. It is impossible to insure your nuclear facility on the private market. So in all cases it is the government again who guarantees the compensation for accident-related costs -  which is in itself again impossible. The Fukushima disaster in Japan is estimated to costs at least $143 billion. The nuclear disaster in Japan has tragically demonstrated how unsafe nuclear power can be. The chance that a major accident happens is maybe slim but the consequences are devastating. 
A nuclear power station itself does not emit greenhouse gasses like CO2. Yet nuclear power contributes to climate change; with every step in the whole fuel chain, needed to in the end generate electricity, many energy is used. For instance, the extraction of uranium and the enrichment of uranium are extreme energy-intensive processes. Life-cycle analysis of the whole fuel chain clearly shows the contribution of nuclear power to climate change. 

What's wrong with nuclear power? | Wise International

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Nuclear Hotseat #268 – Australia: Nuke Waste Dump to the World? Dave Sweeney –

This Week’s Featured Interview:

Dave Sweeney has been active in the uranium mining and nuclear debate for two decades through his work with the media, trade unions and environment groups on mining, resource and indigenous issues. He works as a national nuclear campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation and holds a vision of a nuclear free Australia that is positive about its future and honest about its past.

LISTEN: Nuclear Hotseat #268 – Australia: Nuke Waste Dump to the World? Dave Sweeney –

Monday, August 8, 2016

A bittersweet Clean Energy Standard in NY

By now you may have heard that New York State adopted a “Clean Energy Standard” last Monday, one that finally puts a requirement on utilities to buy renewable energy, but one that also requires that we all pay to subsidize unprofitable nuclear power plants. The nuclear portion of the policy will cost New Yorkers over $7 billion, and it locks in these escalating nuclear subsidies for 12 years. The policy is designed to ensure that nuclear plants on the brink of closure will not close, and that they will be insulated from competition from energy efficiency and renewables.
It was a bittersweet day for us at Alliance for a Green Economy (AGREE) because we have fought hard over the last two years for that renewable energy mandate on utilities, and we also fought tooth and nail against that nuclear bailout. We are glad to see New York joining other states in an enforceable renewable energy policy, but we are outraged that our “Clean Energy Standard” got hijacked by nuclear corporations and that our Governor and the New York Public Service Commission rammed through the nuclear bailout over the objections of environmentalists, consumer advocates, elected officials and the business community.

We were also disappointed that the Commission did not heed the strong demands coming from all over the state for enforceable energy efficiency targets, nor did it commit to a certain amount of offshore wind development. Instead, they kicked those decisions down the road to another time...

more: A bittersweet Clean Energy Standard in NY