There are mea culpas and there are mea culpas. The report by an independent commission on the nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant is a dandy. In the preface to the report the commission chairman, Kiyoshi Kurokawa, a medical doctor and professor emeritus at Tokyo University, laid it on
Continue readingTag: nuclear power
Blunt Objects: Weapons Grade Uranium Going to the U.S.? Quel surprise.
Yep, that’s right folks – Canada, one of the largest uranium producers (if not, really, the best) is shipping weapons-grade uranium, apparently enough to make more than a few Hiroshima-size bombs, to the United States, travelling throughout our fair land in collision-resistant, anti-theft, super-duper-controlled containers that you just know are
Continue readingDavid Climenhaga's Alberta Diary: Rust never sleeps … and neither do tar sands nuclear power boosters
Grande Prairie, or some other northwestern town in Alberta’s Peace Country, as it’s sure to be portrayed by the nuclear industry. Not exactly as illustrated, but then, these things never turn out to be exactly as illustrated, do they? GRANDE PRAIRIE,…
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: On nuclear testing
One of the obvious questions facing Saskatchewan voters in the lead up to this fall’s election is that of how much credit (if any) Brad Wall and his government should be able to claim for economic gains based mostly on favourable resource prices. So le…
Continue readingFukushima—radiation damage that just won’t quit
I admit to a love-hate relationship with nuclear power. One day I am all for it because of the large amounts of relatively green power it can provide. I wonder if we can seriously reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without it. And then an incident l…
Continue readingSaskboy's Abandoned Stuff: Nuclear Insurance Fraud
Have you wondered why so many people oppose nuclear power generation when there are so many ads claiming there’s a “nuclear Renaissance” and that it’s “green” or “sustainable” and free of greenhouse gas emissions? There are smart people like George Monbiot, and even my dad who think there’s room for nuclear power on our grid. […]
Continue readingMind of Dan: Irregular Climate Episode 21: Ironic frozen deniers
On this episode: German nukes, safety nukes, underwater nukes and jelly nukes, another pseudo-scandal in a teapot, the true cost of gas, GHG emissions reach record breaking levels and the weather goes berserk while crazy deniers predict an ice age, The disgusting harassment of scientists, Christy Crocks, the Kyoto protocol is finally dead, and a delicious […]
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: Thursday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.- Andrew Jackson points out and sums up a Statistics Canada study showing how much possible revenue is lost to the underground economy:Statscan have produced interesting and important new estimates of the upper b…
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: On selloffs
Sure, it takes some effort to pull a sweetheart deal out of the wreckage of AECL. But we probably shouldn’t be surprised that the Cons seem to have pulled off the feat:Versant Partners analyst Neil Linsdell told CBC News there’s still a market for the …
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: On radioactive deals
Yes, there are plenty of reasons for concern about the sale of AECL to SNC-Lavalin. But let’s add another by raising the other issue that has put SNC-Lavalin in the news recently:Hon. Jack Layton (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people wou…
Continue readingThe Disaffected Lib: A Rational View on Nuclear Power
Like George Monbiot or James Hansen and James Lovelock, I don’t think we’re going to be able to free ourselves of our fossil fuel addiction without embracing every non-carbon energy source currently available to us. What that means in the short t…
Continue readingMolly'sBlog: Molly’sBlog 2011-04-05 21:07:00
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT JAPAN: JAPANESE ANARCHISTS CALL FOR INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER:Since the recent triple disaster in Japan Japanese anarchists have been active in both relief work and in furthering protest agains…
Continue readingJimBobby Sez: Canada’s nuclear waste management plan looks good on paper. Will it ever go beyond the planning stage?
Whooee! Well, friends an’ foes, the other day, I tweeted calling attention to an article in StraightGoods.com, Canadians can’t afford Candu complacency, by Paul McKay. One of my Twitter followers took exception to a number of points in the article and since it’s dang tough to give a detailed response
Continue readingJimBobby Sez: Canada’s nuclear waste management plan looks good on paper. Will it ever go beyond the planning stage?
Whooee! Well, friends an’ foes, the other day, I tweeted calling attention to an article in StraightGoods.com, Canadians can’t afford Candu complacency, by Paul McKay. One of my Twitter followers took exception to a number of points in the article and since it’s dang tough to give a detailed response
Continue readingJimBobby Sez: Canada’s nuclear waste management plan looks good on paper. Will it ever go beyond the planning stage?
Whooee! Well, friends an’ foes, the other day, I tweeted calling attention to an article in StraightGoods.com, Canadians can’t afford Candu complacency, by Paul McKay. One of my Twitter followers took exception to a number of points in the article and since it’s dang tough to give a detailed response in 140 characters or less, I’m using this blog post to kick off a more in-depth discussion.
The first point of contention relates to a quote from Paul McKay’s artcle:
Some may contend that since our generation has already built two dozen Candu’s that must be entombed some day, and created some 60,000 tonnes of lethal nuclear wastes, adding more is no big deal.
That might be plausible if there was a proven, safe method of dismantling defunct Candu reactors, and permanently isolating nuclear wastes for millenia. But there is not, and virtually no thought or resources are being devoted to such solutions.
Meanwhile, the Canadian inventory of hellishly dangerous radioactive materials grows — and that is a fact for which our grandchildren will almost certainly curse us.
The bold text is the part my Twitter friend took issue with. To dispute the veracity of McKay’s statement, his tweet linked to Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) website. According to the NWMO website, the “Government of Canada (GoC) selected Canada’s plan for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel in June 2007.”
Okay, so there’s a plan. The timing begs a question, though. We’ve been accumulating highly radioactive spent fuel since Canada’s first nuclear power plant (NPP) was commissioned in 1954. In the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s, most of Canada’s nuclear power plants were brought online and began creating 100’s of tonnes of waste annually. Doesn’t 2007 seem a bit late in the game to just be selecting a plan for dealing with such toxic and dangerous waste?
Considering the immediacy and severity of the waste problem, the mere fact that NWMO has a plan does not, at least to me, indicate a significant expenditure of thought or resources. Waiting until 60,000 tonnes of waste have accumulated on site at NPPs in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick before deciding on a plan borders on reckless endangerment… at least that’s how I see it.
So, how’s that plan progressing? Well, stage one of the plan is to find a willing host community that wants to have all of Canada’s nuclear waste stored underground nearby. Although NWMO and the GoC selected a plan back in 2007, they didn’t start actively soliciting for a willing host community until 2010. If – and it’s a big if – a willing host community comes forward and says it is willing to receive all present and future high-level nuclear waste, the geological conditions must be suitable. So, not only do we need a willing host community, that community must be located in an area with very specific physical attributes.
If the elusive willing community is found and if public resistance to harbouring deadly material is overcome, the plan then calls for building the deep geologic repository to safely contain the waste, isolated from ground water, for thousands of years.
Bruce Power’s SWAT Team |
Like the current stored spent fuel, the deep geologic repository will need to be kept secure by use of a well-equipped, well-armed security force. SWAT teams are on duty today safe-guarding our 60,000 tonnes of nuclear waste from those who could very easily fashion a dirty bomb from a small quantity of spent fuel.
Another big question: if the deep geologic repository is eventually built, how is highly radioactive waste going to be transported to the facility? Are the public highways and/or waterways to be used for carrying this deadly cargo? Will municipalities do as many European and American municipalities have done and declare themselves nuclear-free zones, thereby prohibiting the transportation of high level radioactive materials on their roads and highways?
Those 60,000 tonnes were created producing electricity that’s been used and paid for. Who pays for the construction of the waste storage facility? Who pays for the centuries of SWAT teams needed to secure that waste? Who pays for the transportation?
The expected lifespan of a nuclear power reactor is 40 years. That said, real life experience has shown that 25-30 years is more accurate. With costly, time-consuming refurbishments, it is conceivable that a reactor could deliver 60 years of service. The waste created during those 60 years, however, requires secure, safe storage for 100’s of years beyond the lifespan of the reactor. When the reactor is decommissioned, it obviously is no longer generating electricity… or revenue. There is a logical disconnect when we create an ongoing expense without creating an ongoing revenue source.
For what it’s worth, I can understand how this waste problem got to where it is. Back in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the energy sector was brimming with optimism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated that we could derive massive amounts of energy from tiny bits of nearly inexhaustible fuel. Nuclear electricity generation was going to make energy so inexpensive that it would be “too cheap to meter.”
The early investors, developers and scientists were aware of the problem posed by spent nuclear fuel. But they were understandably confident that a solution would be found relatively quickly. After all, the atomic age was upon us. Nuclear weapons proliferation and “Atoms for Peace” were both employing the world’s brightest minds. Remarkable strides had been made in the past 10 years. Einstein was involved, for heaven sakes. Surely, a small problem like spent fuel would be solved in short order. Five years was a widely accepted prediction.
Fast forward 50 years to 2011 – or 2007, if you prefer – and we’re not a whole lot further ahead when it comes to permanently storing waste. We’re keeping it in concrete and steel water-filled tanks and circulating cool water over it for anywhere from 1 to 10 years. At some point, it becomes cool enough to transfer to dry cask storage. It is these dry casks that will be moved to that deep geologic repository… someday, somewhere, if a suitable location is found.
But hold on a minute. The waste inside the dry casks will remain hazardous to human health for thousands of years. How about the dry casks? How long are they expected to last? The manufacturers of the dry casks say they’re good for 100 years. Nuclear waste management professionals feel that’s a modest estimate and that the casks should be good for at least 150 to 200 years. What then?
I will concede that having a plan is better than not having a plan. But a plan is not a storage solution. It is a storage solution on paper. It requires a whole series of happy events to actually achieve fruition: willing host, suitable geology, continued public investment and perhaps most important, the forgiveness of future generations for saddling them with a radioactive toxic legacy.
The mere existence of a plan is held out by the nuclear industry as proof that the waste issue is being handled. In fact, the waste issue is only being temporarily handled and the permanent disposition of waste is still, almost inexplicably, in a very early stage – the planning stage. A plan is not a solution and, in my opinion, does not constitute justification for building even more NPPs and generating even more high level radioactive waste.
Well, friends an’ foes, I done rambled on longer than I thought I would. You might say my plan for a concise rejoinder didn’t quite come to the quick and easy fruition I planned for. I got more arguments to make against nuclear energy. Next time, I plan to post something about the relationship between nuclear power generation and nuclear weaponry.
JimBobby
Continue readingJimBobby Sez: Think CANDUs are safer than anything else? Think again.
It is a popular Canadian myth that CANDUs are exponentially safer than other reactor designs. Is nationalistic pride trumping real evidence? Or, has the massively funded PR machine of the nuclear industry convinced an all-too-gullible public with its “Don’t worry. Be happy” corporate bullshit? If CANDUs are so safe, why
Continue readingJimBobby Sez: Think CANDUs are safer than anything else? Think again.
It is a popular Canadian myth that CANDUs are exponentially safer than other reactor designs. Is nationalistic pride trumping real evidence? Or, has the massively funded PR machine of the nuclear industry convinced an all-too-gullible public with its “Don’t worry. Be happy” corporate bullshit? If CANDUs are so safe, why
Continue readingJimBobby Sez: Think CANDUs are safer than anything else? Think again.
It is a popular Canadian myth that CANDUs are exponentially safer than other reactor designs. Is nationalistic pride trumping real evidence? Or, has the massively funded PR machine of the nuclear industry convinced an all-too-gullible public with its “Don’t worry. Be happy” corporate bullshit? If CANDUs are so safe, why can’t AECL turn a profit? One would think a super-safe nuclear reactor would be the obvious choice but even Ontario is leaning away from CANDU heavy water technology and toward other designs.
Greenpeace’s Shawn-Patrick Stensil has an excellent Q&A on whether Canada is safe from a nuclear accident. Here’s what he tells us about the CANDU.
Canada’s CANDU nuclear reactor is no safer than any other reactor design.
Additionally, the spent fuel storage pools that must circulate cool water over hot waste for 10-15 years are essentially the same at CANDU facilities as at every other facility. We have no deep geologic repository for spent fuel. All spent fuel in North America is being stored on site at nuclear power plants.
Spent fuel will remain hazardous for 1000’s of years past the time when the plant responsible for creating it has ceased production. No production means no income… obviously. Yet today, we have SWAT teams guarding nuke plants to ensure bad guys don’t get their hands on spent fuel. Who will be paying for the SWAT team and keeping the SWAT team armed with advanced weaponry 100 years from now? 200 years from now? 250,000 years from now? Remember, the most optimistic lifespan of a nuke plant is 60 years, including refurbishment.
BTW, all of Canada’s plants are about the same age as Fukushima’s 1971 reactors. They’re failing. Pickering’s CANDU leaked 73,000 liters of contaminated water into Lake Ontario this week. NB’s Pt Lepreau refurbishment is years behind schedule and costing millions and millions more than estimated. Bruce Power’s refurbishment is 18 months behind schedule and 100’s of millions over budget.
Pro-nuke spinmeisters and vested interests are flailing desperately. It’s their death throes. AECL was already on the auction block at a fire sale price with precious few (2) qualified bidders. Right now, I don’t think we could give it away.
Continue readingTattered Sleeve: Ain’t she a beaut? (Fukushima reactor #4, all duckied-up)
That is all they got: Minoru Ogoda, the official with Japan’s nuclear regulatory agency, said a proposed plan to use helicopters to put more cold water into the pool was looking unlikely. He said Tokyo Electric would probably try to spray water into the reactor building through a gaping hole
Continue readingToo little of late, and now Japan: a roundup
P’n’P’s been ignoring you all. Sorry ’bout that. I’m back for a bit, anyway. To start, here’s a rundown of good links for those who want to know. Here‘s what the Japanese government has said. The Sunday update from t…
Continue reading