(©Greenpeace/Vinai Dithajohn)
Posted by Justin on August 7, 2008 - It’s been a very busy week for Greenpeace South East Asia. The energy ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN] met in Bangkok this week to discuss energy issues. - Unfortunately, nuclear power looms large in SE Asia’s energy future despite the region being rich in renewable energy resources. Greenpeace hit the streets of Bangkok with a visually stunning march and laid down the challenge to SE Asia’s governments to set binding renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, and explore CO2 emission reduction technologies.
NEW: Links page
Friends of Earth | The nuclear crisis in Japan
Greenpeace USA | Campaigns | Push for No New Nukes
Riverkeeper | Indian Point Campaign (NY)
Clamshell Alliance (New England)
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (CA)
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace - Diablo Canyon Nuke, CA - Petition to President Obama
Ace Hoffman Nuclear power reports - San Onofre Nuke, CA
Close San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (facebook)
• i need more action group links and contact info!
please send links or post in comments below
@Wikipedia -
Anti-nuclear organizations
List of anti-nuclear power groups
Anti-nuclear groups in the United States
Nuclear power in Japan
Maps of nuclear power plants by country
Chernobyl Disaster @ wikipedia
Fukushima I nuclear accidents
Nuclear and radiation accidents
Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
List of civilian nuclear accidents
List of military nuclear accidents
New and improved nuclear power plant locator map (USA) | Greenpeace USA
IAEA Updates on Ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Disaster
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Hi-Res Photos
Radiation protection by Kami McBride
Anti-nuclear movement
snippets from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and other various resources
The anti-nuclear movement is a social movement which operates at the local, national, and international level. Various types of groups have identified themselves with the movement -
direct action groups, such as the Clamshell Alliance and Shad Alliance; environmental groups, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace; consumer protection groups, such as Ralph Nader's Critical Mass; professional organisations,[2] such as Union of Concerned Scientists and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War; and political parties such as European Free Alliance.
The 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents have "revived anti-nuclear passions worldwide, putting governments on the defensive and undermining the nuclear power industry's recent renaissance"
Protesting nuclear power during Fukushima Daiichi Disaster, April 2011
The anti-nuclear movement is a social movement that opposes the use of nuclear technologies. Many direct action groups, environmental groups, and professional organisations[2][3] have identified themselves with the movement at the local, national, and international level. Major anti-nuclear groups include Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. The initial objective of the movement was nuclear disarmament, though the focus has shifted to include opposition to the use of nuclear power.
There have been many large anti-nuclear demonstrations and protests. A protest against nuclear power occurred in July 1977 in Bilbao, Spain, with up to 200,000 people in attendance. Following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, an anti-nuclear protest was held in New York City, involving 200,000 people. In 1981, Germany's largest anti-nuclear power demonstration took place to protest against the Brokdorf Nuclear Power Plant west of Hamburg; some 100,000 people came face to face with 10,000 police officers. The largest anti-nuclear protest was held on June 12, 1982, when one million people demonstrated in New York City against nuclear weapons. A 1983 nuclear weapons protest in West Berlin had about 600,000 participants. In May 1986, following the Chernobyl disaster, an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 people marched in Rome to protest against the Italian nuclear program.
For many years after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster nuclear power was off the policy agenda in most countries, and the anti-nuclear power movement seemed to have won its case. Some anti-nuclear groups disbanded. More recently, however, following public relations activities by the nuclear industry,[4][5][6][7] advances in nuclear power technology, and concerns about climate change, nuclear power issues have come back into energy policy discussions in some countries. There have been reports of a revival of the anti-nuclear movement in Germany[8][9][10] and protests in France during 2004 and 2007.[11][12][13] In the United States, there have been protests about, and criticism of, several new nuclear reactor proposals[14][15][16] and some objections to license renewals for existing nuclear plants.[17][18] The 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents have "revived anti-nuclear passions worldwide, putting governments on the defensive and undermining the nuclear power industry's recent renaissance".[19]
120,000 people attended an anti-nuclear protest in Bonn, Germany, on October 14, 1979, following the Three Mile Island accident.
This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons
Roots of the movement
Main article: History of the anti-nuclear movement
The application of nuclear technology, both as a source of energy and as an instrument of war, has been controversial.[20][21][22][23][24]
Scientists and diplomats have debated nuclear weapons policy since before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945.[25] The public became concerned about nuclear weapons testing from about 1954, following extensive nuclear testing in the Pacific. In 1961, at the height of the Cold War, about 50,000 women brought together by Women Strike for Peace marched in 60 cities in the United States to demonstrate against nuclear weapons.[26][27] In 1963, many countries ratified the Partial Test Ban Treaty which prohibited atmospheric nuclear testing.[28]
Some local opposition to nuclear power emerged in the early 1960s,[29] and in the late 1960s some members of the scientific community began to express their concerns.[30] In the early 1970s, there were large protests about a proposed nuclear power plant in Wyhl, Germany. The project was cancelled in 1975 and anti-nuclear success at Wyhl inspired opposition to nuclear power in other parts of Europe and North America.[31][32] Nuclear power became an issue of major public protest in the 1970s.[33]
Early anti-nuclear advocates expressed the view that affluent lifestyles on a global scale strain the viability of the natural environment and that nuclear energy would enable those lifestyles. Examples of such expressions are:
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other."
—Amory Lovins, The Mother Earth - Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22
Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
—Paul Ehrlich, "An Ecologist's Perspective on Nuclear Power", May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report
We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we should be making anyhow for other reasons.
—Russell Train (EPA Administrator at the time, and soon thereafter became head of the World Wildlife Fund), Science 184 p. 1050, 7 June 1974
Let's face it. We don't want safe nuclear power plants. We want NO nuclear power plants.
—A spokesman for the Government Accountability Project, an offshoot of the Institute for Policy Studies, The American Spectator, Vol 18, No. 11, Nov. 1985
Nuclear Power Plants in California
snippets from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and other various resources
Bodega Bay Nuclear Power Plant
The Bodega Bay Nuclear Power Plant was proposed but never built.
The proposed plant site was right on the San Andreas fault and close to the region's environmentally sensitive fishing and dairy industries.
...The conflict ended in 1964, with the forced abandonment of plans for the power plant. Thomas Wellock traces the birth of the anti-nuclear movement to the controversy over Bodega Bay.
Pacific Gas & Electric planned to build the first commercially viable nuclear power plant in the USA at Bodega Bay, California, a fishing village fifty miles north of San Francisco. The proposal was controversial and conflict with local citizens began in 1958.[1]
The proposed plant site was right on the San Andreas fault and close to the region's environmentally sensitive fishing and dairy industries. Fishermen feared that the "plant's location and thermal discharge would interfere with their livelihood". Other citizens did not want their "simple isolated lifestyle" disturbed. The Sierra Club became actively involved and opposed the choice of the site.[2] The Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, said he was "gravely concerned" about the Bodega site.[3]
How Bodega Bay Nixed The Atomic Park
by Simone Wilson
Folks around Bodega Bay are still pretty smug about their David and Goliath encounter with PG&E back in the 1960s. Why shouldn't they be? When Pacific Gas and Electric announced plans to create a nuclear power plant on Bodega Head, there was no Coastal Commission and no California Environmental Quality Act. But when the dust cleared, PG&E had scrapped the plans and there was nothing but a big crater where the nuclear reactor would have been -- a site locals now call The Hole in the Head.
In 1961 PG&E announced plans for an atomic reactor on the picturesque promontory near the southern end of Sonoma County. The Public Utilities Commission okayed the permit, subject to approval from the Atomic Energy Commission. PG&E started digging a 70-foot shaft for the reactor and put up signs announcing "The Atomic Park."
Then Rose Gaffney got mad.
"She was a wonderful friend but a wretched enemy, so you always made sure she was a friend"
A rancher with holdings out on Bodega Head, Gaffney was (to use a geologic word) flinty. "She was a wonderful friend but a wretched enemy," recalls Don Howe of Salmon Creek, "so you always made sure she was a friend." Even friends of the feisty landholder called her stubborn and irascible. (She once told a reporter Bodega Bay was "a village of 350 souls and a few heels.") Her spread included the mud flats where fishermen moored their boats, a stretch of land PG&E now wanted to acquire for its road out to the Head.
Gaffney wasn't keen on selling her land, and eventually she got riled about the whole project. The irresistible force (the world's largest utility) had met the proverbial immovable object (Gaffney).
Locals credit the prickly rancher as the one who really galvanized public opinion against the plant. Other opponents included Hazel Mitchell, a Bodega Bay waitress who was shocked when hundreds of people signed her petition against the plant, and Doris Sloan, later a professor of environmental science at Berkeley. When Sloan who took geologist Pierre Saint-Amand on a walking tour of the site, he discovered a flaw PG&E had overlooked: The San Andreas Fault, the Bad Boy of California quakes, went right through Bodega Head.
Armed with this geologic ammunition, locals lobbied hard for PG&E to pack up and go away. Geologists from the Kennedy administration confirmed the fault. PG&E pressed to build the reactor anyway, but in 1963 the PUC turned down their request. The dramatic 8.5 Anchorage quake in 1964 caused slippage on Bodega Head, which put the idea to rest for good.
PG&E sold the land they had acquired to State Parks for $1. The Hole in the Head is now a duck-pond, a favorite stop-over on the Pacific Flyway, and the Head is now part of Sonoma Coast State Beaches. It's a park alright, but not an atomic one.
The Northern California Association to Preserve Bodega Head (NCAPBH) was formed and released press statements and submitted appeals to various state and federal bodies. In June 1963, NCAPBH organized a public meeting and 1,500 helium balloons were released into the air. They carried the message "This balloon could represent a radioactive molecule of strontium 90 or iodine 131". These two substances had reached public prominence in the debate about fallout from nuclear weapons testing.[3][4]
The conflict ended in 1964, with the forced abandonment of plans for the power plant. Thomas Wellock traces the birth of the anti-nuclear movement to the controversy over Bodega Bay.[1]
Attempts to build a nuclear power plant in Malibu were similar to those at Bodega Bay and were also abandoned.[1][3]
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Diablo Canyon Power Plant is an electricity-generating nuclear power plant at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, California. It was built directly over a geological fault line, and is located near a second fault.[1][2][3][4][5] The plant has two Westinghouse-designed 4-loop pressurized-water nuclear reactors operated by Pacific Gas & Electric. The facility is located on about 750 acres (300 ha) in Avila Beach, California. Together, the twin 1,100 MWe reactors produce about 18,000 GW·h of electricity annually, supplying the electrical needs of more than 2.2 million people, sent along the Path 15 500-kV lines that connect to this plant.
Diablo Canyon was originally designed to withstand a 6.75 magnitude earthquake from four faults, including the nearby San Andreas and Hosgri faults,[6] but was later upgraded to withstand a 7.5 magnitude quake.[7] It has seismic monitoring and safety systems, designed to shut it down promptly in the event of significant ground motion.
The plant draws cooling water from the Pacific Ocean, and during heavy storms both units are throttled back by 80 percent to prevent kelp from entering the cooling water intake. The cooling water is used once and not recirculated.
The plant is located in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV. In November 2009, PG&E applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for 20-year license renewals for both reactors.[8]
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace - Protest against Diablo Canyon Nuke, CA, April 16, 2011 - Petition to President Obama
Diablo Canyon Protests
from Anti-nuclear protests in the United States -
Seabrook's Clamshell Alliance inspired the formation of California's Abalone Alliance, a coalition that included sixty member groups by 1981. The Abalone Alliance staged blockades and occupations at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant site between 1977 and 1982.[38] Nearly two thousand people were arrested during a two-week blockade in 1981, exceeding Seabrook as the largest number arrested at an anti-nuclear protest in the United States.[38] Specific protests included:
August 6, 1977: The Abalone Alliance held the first blockade at Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, and 47 people were arrested.[39]
August 1978: almost 500 people were arrested for protesting at Diablo Canyon.[39]
April 8, 1979: 30,000 people marched in San Francisco to support shutting down the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.[40]
June 30, 1979: about 40,000 people attended a protest rally at Diablo Canyon.[41]
September 1981: more than 900 protesters were arrested at Diablo Canyon.[39][42]
May 1984: about 130 demonstrators showed up for start-up day at Diablo Canyon, and five were arrested.[43]
In April 2011, there was demonstration of 300 people at Avila Beach calling for the closure of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and a halt to its relicensing application process. The event, organized by San Luis Obispo-based anti-nuclear group Mothers for Peace, was in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.[44]
Santa Cruz Indymedia, Apr 17th: Yesterday speakers on the beach said that there are financial motives involved when corporations like PG&E try to side-step safety issues with nuclear reactors. They called for a renewed commitment to conservation and demanded the US government stop subsidizing nuclear power plants.
On April 16th, over 300 people gathered for a protest at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County. They called for the closure of nearby Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and insisted that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must halt PG&E's relicensing application process for the structure.
The group Mothers for Peace was behind the fight to stop the construction of the nuclear power plant in the 1970s and was the organizer of Saturday's rally as well. Jane Swanson, speaking on behalf of the anti-nuclear organization, said that her group spearheaded the rally in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. She commented from the podium, "Mothers for Peace said in 1973 a workable evacuation plan is not possible at Diablo Canyon and in 2011 this is still true. It is time to shut it down". The crowd raised their voices in agreement, shouting "Shut it Down!" over and over.
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is a nuclear power plant located on the Pacific coast of California. The 84-acre (34 ha) site is in the northwestern corner of San Diego County, south of San Clemente, and surrounded by the San Onofre State Park and next to the I-5 Highway.
Unit 1 is no longer in service and has been dismantled. It is being used as a storage site for spent fuel. It had a spherical containment of concrete and steel with the smallest wall being 6 feet (1.8 m) thick. This reactor was a first generation Westinghouse pressurized water reactor that operated for 25 years, closing permanently in 1992. Units 2 and 3, Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, continue to operate and generate 1,172 MWe and 1,178 MWe respectively.
The July 12, 1982 edition of Time (magazine) states, "The firm Bechtel was further embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre.[1]
The plant is operated by Southern California Edison. Edison International, parent of SCE, holds 78.2% ownership in the plant; San Diego Gas & Electric Company, 20%; and the City of Riverside Utilities Department, 1.8%. The plant employs over 2000 people.
Strong, spherical containment buildings around the reactors are designed to prevent unexpected releases of radiation. The closest tectonic fault line is the Cristianitos fault, which is considered inactive. Southern California Edison states the station was "built to withstand a 7.0 magnitude earthquake directly under the plant".[3]
Unlike many pressurized water reactors, but like some other seaside facilities in Southern California, the San Onofre plant uses seawater for cooling, and thus lacks the iconic large cooling towers typically associated with nuclear generating stations. However, changes to water-use regulations may require construction of such cooling towers in the future to avoid further direct use of seawater. Limited available land next to the reactor would likely require the towers to be built on the opposite side of the Interstate 5 highway.[4]
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at San Onofre was 1 in 58,824, according to an NRC study published in August 2010.[5][6]
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station
On 20 March 1978 a failure of power supply for the plant's non-nuclear instrumentation system led to steam generator dryout. (ref NRC LER 312/78-001). In an on-going study of "precursors" that could lead to a nuclear disaster if additional failures were to have occurred,[1] in 2005 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded that this event at Rancho Seco was the third most serious safety-related occurrence in the United States
The Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station is a decommissioned nuclear power plant built by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) in Herald, California.
The plant operated from April 1975 to June 1989 but had a lifetime capacity average of only 39%; it was closed by public vote on 7 June 1989 (despite the fact that its operating license did not expire until 11 October 2008) after multiple referendums.
In 1966, SMUD purchased 2,100 acres (8 km2) in southeast Sacramento County for a nuclear power plant, which was built in Herald, 25 miles (40 km) south-east of downtown Sacramento.
In the early 1970s, a small pond was expanded to a 160-acre (0.6 km2) lake to serve as an emergency backup water supply for the station. The lake has always received its water from the Folsom South Canal and has no relationship with the power plant's daily water supply. Surrounding the lake is 400 acres (1.6 km2) of recreational area originally operated by the County of Sacramento for day-use activities.
The 2,772 MWt Babcock and Wilcox pressurized water reactor (913 MWe) achieved initial criticality on 16 September 1974 and entered commercial operation on 17 April 1975.
On 20 March 1978 a failure of power supply for the plant's non-nuclear instrumentation system led to steam generator dryout. (ref NRC LER 312/78-001). In an on-going study of "precursors" that could lead to a nuclear disaster if additional failures were to have occurred,[1] in 2005 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded that this event at Rancho Seco was the third most serious safety-related occurrence in the United States[2] (Behind the Three Mile Island accident and the cable tray fire at Browns Ferry).
The plant operated from April 1975 to June 1989 but had a lifetime capacity average of only 39%; it was closed by public vote on 7 June 1989 (despite the fact that its operating license did not expire until 11 October 2008) after multiple referendums.
On 23 October 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission released the majority of the site for unrestricted public use, while approximately 11 acres (45,000 m2) of land including a storage building for low-level radioactive waste and a dry-cask spent fuel storage facility remain under NRC licenses.[3]
Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant
The Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant is a 63 MWe boiling water reactor, owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company that operated from August 1963 to July 1976 just south of Eureka, California. Concern about previously undiscovered seismic faults combined with more stringent requirements required after the Three Mile Island Incident rendered the small plant unprofitable if restarted. It was shut down permanently in July 1976. It was then placed in SAFSTOR inactive status in 1988.
In 2004 Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced that three nuclear fuel rods were unaccounted for due to conflicting records of their location. The fuel rods were never accounted for, though PG&E investigators believe that they are still onsite in a storage pool. The investigation is believed to have cost one million dollars.[1]
In December 2008, PG&E finished moving the spent nuclear fuel into dry cask storage on site. The next step is the decommissioning of the plant, planned to begin in 2010 along with the two original fossil-fuel-powered steam-turbine generators on site. The plant began being powered by an array of modern, multi-fuel Wärtsilä reciprocating engine-generators in late 2010. The work to dismantle the older turbine generators and continued dismantling of the nuclear side of the operations is scheduled to finish by April 2013.
Nuclear Plants in California
California Energy Commission, State of California
Operating nuclear power plants in California are Diablo Canyon, near San Luis Obispo, [pictured in a PG&E photo to the right] and San Onofre, about midway between Los Angeles and San Diego. Nuclear units at both plants use ocean water for cooling.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which consists of two units. Unit 1 is a 1,073 megawatt (MW) PWR which began commercial operation in May 1985, while Unit 2 is a 1,087 MW PWR which began commercial operation in March 1986. Diablo Canyon's operation license expires in 2024 and PG&E must apply to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 20 year license extension.
Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric own the two operating units at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Unit 2 is a 1,070 MW PWR that began commercial operation in August 1983, while Unit 3 is a 1,080 MW PWR that began commercial operation in April 1984. San Onofre's operation license expires in 2022 and Southern California Edison must apply to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 20 year license extension.
California also has four commercial nuclear power plants and an experimental plant that are no longer in operation. These include:
The Sodium Reactor Experiment facility in Ventura County, 1958
This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons
The Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experimental (SRE) was a small sodium-cooled experimental reactor built by Southern California Edison and Atomics International at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, near Moorpark in Ventura County. It came on line in April 1957, began feeding electricity to the grid on July 12, 1957, and closed February 1964. This reactor used sodium rather than water as a coolant and produced a maximum of about 7.5 to 20 megawatts (electric). It was considered as the country's first civilian nuclear plant and the first "commmercial" nuclear power plant to provide electricity to the public by powering the near-by city of Moorpark in 1957. On July 26, 1959, the SRE suffered a partial core meltdown. Ten of 43 fuel assemblies were damaged due to lack of heat transfer and radioactive contamination was released. The plant has subsequently been dismantled. For more, please visit the U.S. Dept. of Energy's website at: www.etec.energy.gov/History/Major-Operations/SRE.html.
The Vallecitos Nuclear Power Plant near Pleasanton, Calif., was jointly built by PG&E and General Electric Company and operated from 1957 to 1967. This was a small, 30 megawatt power plant. On October 19, 1957, Vallecitos connected to the electrical grid and became the first privately funded plant to supply power in megawatt amounts to the electric utility grid. The plant was shut down in December 1967. The plant is in SAFSTOR and there are no plans for any significant dismantlement in the foreseeable future. All nuclear fuel has been removed from the site.
The 63 MW Boiling Water Reactor at the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant in Eureka was in operation by PG&E from August 1963 to July 1976. It was the seventh licensed nuclear plant in the United States. It was closed because the economics of a required seismic retrofit could not be justified following a moderate earthquake from a previously unknown fault just off the coast. It was permanently shut down July 2, 1976, and retired in 1985. The plant was then placed in SAFSTOR (with spent nuclear fuel rods stored in water pools on site) until anticipated full decommissioning in 2015. See more on SAFSTOR below.
The 913 MW Pressurized Water Reactor at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, located about 25 miles south of Sacramento, is owned by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in and was operation from April 1975 to June 7, 1989. It was closed by public referendum.
The 436 MW San Onofre Unit 1 Pressurized Water Reactor was in operation from January 1968 to November 30, 1992. It was closed by its owners rather than incur $125 million in required modifications.
The Vallecitos, Santa Susana, and San Onofre Unit 1 have been decommissioned (which involves have a plan for dismantling the reactor and transporting all radioactive materials to a site for disposal.) The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in 1996 approved the decommissioning plan for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant.
The dismantling process will occur in stages, with "final teardown" scheduled to begin in 2008. The nuclear spent fuel produced during 14 years of operation at Rancho Seco was kept cool in a water pool on site and is now in protective dry storage.
The Vallecitos facility, a General Electric nuclear plant, was the first reactor in the country to be decommissioned. The plant is in SAFSTOR and there are no plans for any significant dismantlement in the foreseeable future.
Under SAFSTOR, often considered "delayed DECON," a nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay; afterwards, it is dismantled. Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), soon after the nuclear facility closes, equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release of the property and termination of the NRC license.
Spent fuel can either be reprocessed to recover usable uranium and plutonium, or it can be managed as a waste for long-term ultimate disposal. Since fuel re-processing is not commercially available in the United States and has not been shown to be commercially viable n this country, spent fuel is typically being held in temporary storage at reactor sites until a permanent long-term waste disposal option becomes available.
Nuclear Reactors in Earthquake Zones in the U.S.
Treehugger.com
As we watch with baited breath to see if Japan can dodge a nuclear catastrophe, nuclear-powered nations themselves have succumbed to heavy scrutiny over both policy and safety. The United States leads the pack in operational nuclear power reactors with 104 total, and 32 additional reactors used in research. France comes in second with 58 reactors, Japan has 54 and Russia, 32 reactors. South Korea, India, UK, Canada, Germany and the Ukraine round out the remaining top ten, each with less than 20 reactors.
Nuclear Reactors 101
Before diving into the doom and gloom, let's cover some nuclear reactor basics. There are essentially two types of nukes: boiling water reactor systems (BWR) and pressurized water reactor systems (PWR). The reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant are boiling water reactor systems. PWRs were originally designed to serve as nuclear submarine power plants... more
Wikipedia -
List of nuclear reactors
Nuclear power in the United States
List of cancelled nuclear plants in the United States
US NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
"Protecting People and the Environment"
Power Reactors
There are currently 104 licensed to operate nuclear power plants in the United States (69 PWRs and 35 BWRs), which generate about 20% of our nation's electrical use. For more information about operating reactors, see the location map, list of power reactors, and NRC Project Managers.
Research and Test Reactors
The NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has oversight responsibility for the licensing of operating research and test reactors. Within NRR, the staff within the Research and Test Reactors Branches of the Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR) performs most functions associated with the regulation of research and test reactors. These efforts take the facility from initial licensing through transition to decommissioning status. The Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) has project management and inspection oversight for decommissioning research and test reactors. There are three major oversight responsibilities for operating research and test reactors: Program Management, Inspection, and Operator Licensing.
New Reactors
In accordance with its mission, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) protects the health and safety of the public and the environment by regulating the design, siting, construction, and operation of new commercial nuclear power facilities.
What We Regulate
For new reactor facilities, the NRC reviews applications submitted by prospective licensees, and (when appropriate) issues standard design certifications, early site permits, limited work authorizations, construction permits, operating licenses, and combined licenses. At present, the NRC anticipates that these activities may involve new light-water reactor (LWR) facilities in a variety of projected locations throughout the United States.
NEWS
Anti-nuclear protest turns violent
MUMBAI, April 19 (UPI) -- Violence hit an Indian state on the second day of protests against a nuclear power project, a day after a protester died in police gunfire, officials said.
Police resorted to caning to disperse demonstrators Tuesday and later slapped an indefinite curfew in Ratnagiri town in western Maharashtra state, the Indian Express reported. The nuclear power plant is proposed to be built in nearby Jaitapur.
A local fisherman who had joined the demonstrators protesting the project died Monday after police began firing to prevent protesters from setting fire to a police station, authorities said. Police said they feared the demonstrators might loot weapons and ammunition in the station.
NEWS: WASHINGTON | Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:06pm EDT
NRC extends life of largest U.S. nuclear station
(Reuters) - The U.S. nuclear safety regulator said on Thursday it has extended the operating life of the nation's largest nuclear power plant, the three-unit Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona for an additional 20 years.
Palo Verde - The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station®, located about 55 miles west of Phoenix, has been the largest power producer of any kind in the United States since 1992. Its three units are capable of generating nearly 4,000 megawatts of electricity.
Because of its desert location, Palo Verde is the only nuclear plant in the United States that does not sit on a large body of water. Instead, it uses treated effluent from several area municipalities to meet its cooling water needs, recycling 20 billion gallons of wastewater each year.
Palo Verde, the largest single commercial taxpayer in Arizona, is operated by APS and is owned by a consortium of seven utilities in the Southwest. APS owns 29.1 percent of the plant.
See also
• LINKS PAGE
• VIDEOS PAGE
• TOP OF BLOG for more recent posts
• Fukushima & related updates for nuclear news, background info, links and actions -
Truth About Nuclear Power | Lethal Levels of Radiation
Diablo Canyon | Need To Know | It Can Happen Here
You can't see it, and you can't smell it either | Nuclear Nightmare Unfolding
Three Nuclear Meltdowns, Radiation Leaked into Sea; U.S. Waste Poses Deadly Risks
Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe Update | Related News
Nuclear Safety is an Oxymoron | How will broken-melting-fuming-leaking Fukushima Daiichi weather Monster Typhoon?
What's going on at Japan's damaged nuclear power plant?
End the nuclear loan program now | Quaint Vermont fixer-upper
Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown Confirmed
abolish atomic - new art | news from Beyond Nuclear | TAKE ACTION
Learning from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster? | Unsafe at Any Dose
We do not want atom!
Fallout? | Delay Licensing! | Evacutation? | Taxes?
NO NUKES | RE-TOOL NOW - Flyer
Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 | Downwinders | Nuclear Law
25th Anniversary of Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster | NUCLEAR "SAFTEY" = NUCLEAR THREAT
>Anti-nuclear movement | California Nukes
Arnie Gundersen on Current Fukushima Daiichi Situation
Deepak Chopra homebase: Fukushima ~ Indian Point, NY
Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth
Fukushima a "Ticking Time Bomb"
Nuclear Catastrophe in Japan “Not Equal to Chernobyl, But Way Worse”
Nuclear Power = Crime Against Humanity
Obama: No Money for Nukes!
Pacifica Nuclear Teach-in | The Code Killers by Ace Hoffman
Nuclear Obama, Radioactive Boars & Frogs of Fukushima
fukushima plutonium
Fukushima still fuming - nuclear catastrophe update
MARCH ARCHIVE
CHECK FOR NEWS:
• news feeds on right, and links at top of previous posts
• more news feeds below
-!- fukushima nuclear plant japan nuclear crisis nuclear disaster radiation radioactive fallout nuclear energy safety environment ecology pollution -!-
NO NUKES | RE-TOOL NOW
No comments:
Post a Comment