Author: admin

  • BIG NUCLEAR’S COSY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

    Big Nuclear’s cosy relationship with the Obama administration

    One year on from Fukushima, the US is rewarding the nuclear energy lobby by underwriting new investment – regardless of risk

    • Nuclear Power in The U.S.

      The North Anna nuclear power plant, owned by Dominion Power, near Mineral, Virginia, US. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA

      Super Tuesday demonstrated the rancor rife in Republican ranks, as the four remaining major candidates slug it out to see how far to the right of President Barack Obama they can go. While attacking him daily for the high cost of gasoline, both sides are traveling down the same perilous road in their support of nuclear power.

      This is mind-boggling, on the first anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, with the chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission warning that lessons from Fukushima have not been implemented in this country. Nevertheless, Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing: they’re going to force nuclear power on the public, despite the astronomically high risks, both financial and environmental.

      One year ago, on 11 March 2011, the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami hit the northeast coast of Japan, causing more than 15,000 deaths, with 3,000 more missing and thousands of injuries. Japan is still reeling from the devastation – environmentally, economically, socially and politically. Naoto Kan, Japan’s prime minister at the time, said last July;

      “We will aim to bring about a society that can exist without nuclear power.”

      He resigned in August after shutting down production at several power plants. He said that another catastrophe could force the mass evacuation of Tokyo, and even threaten “Japan’s very existence”. Only two of the 54 Japanese power plants that were online at the time of the Fukushima disaster are currently producing power. Kan’s successor, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, supports nuclear power, but faces growing public opposition to it.

      This stands in stark contrast to the United States. Just about a year before Fukushima, President Obama announced $8bn in loan guarantees to the Southern Company, the largest energy producer in the southeastern US, for the construction of two new nuclear power plants in Waynesboro, Georgia, at the Vogtle power plant, on the South Carolina border.

      Since the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, and then the catastrophe at Chernobyl in 1986, there have been no new nuclear power plants built in the US. The 104 existing nuclear plants are all increasing in age, many nearing their originally slated life expectancy of 40 years.

      While campaigning for president in 2008, Barack Obama promised that nuclear power would remain part of the US’s “energy mix”. His chief adviser, David Axelrod, had consulted in the past for Illinois energy company ComEd, a subsidiary of Exelon, a major nuclear-energy producer. Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel played a key role in the formation of Exelon. In the past four years, Exelon employees have contributed more than $244,000 to the Obama campaign – and that is not counting any soft-money contributions to PACs, or direct, corporate contributions to the new Super Pacs. Lamented by many for breaking key campaign promises (like closing Guantánamo, or accepting Super Pac money), President Obama is fulfilling his promise to push nuclear power.

      That is why several groups sued the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last month. The NRC granted approval to the Southern Company to build the new reactors at the Vogtle plant despite a no vote from the NRC chair, Gregory Jaczko. He objected to the licenses over the absence of guarantees to implement recommendations made following the Japanese disaster. Jaczko said, “I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened.”

      Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, one of the plaintiffs in the suit against the NRC, explained how advocates for nuclear power “distort market forces”, since private investors simply don’t want to touch nuclear:

      “They’ve asked the federal government for loan guarantees to support the project, and they have not revealed the terms of that loan guarantee … it’s socializing the risk and privatizing the profits.”

      The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, noting the ongoing Republican attack on President Obama’s loan guarantee to the failed solar power company Solyndra, said:

      “The potential for taxpayer losses that would dwarf the Solyndra debacle is extraordinarily high … this loan would be 15 times larger than the Solyndra loan, and is probably 50 times riskier.”

      As long as our politicians dance to the tune of their donors, the threat of nuclear disaster will never be far off.

      • Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column

      © 2012 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate

  • Nuclear threats

    News 10 new results for DANGER TO US NUCLEAR PLANTS
    Nuclear Fallout
    New York Times
    The threat from nuclear power plants is twofold: grand scale catastrophe and continuing health problems connected with radioactive contamination in our air, water, soil and food supply — both short-term, high-level contamination and the long-term,
    See all stories on this topic »

    New York Times
    Invisible threat hangs over people of Fukushima
    Sydney Morning Herald
    1 nuclear power plant’s triple meltdown last March, sending radioactive particles over a wide area. The immediate threat of a catastrophic release has passed, but residents of several towns, including those outside the 20-kilometre exclusion zone,
    See all stories on this topic »

    Sydney Morning Herald
    Nuclear meltdown danger kept secret
    Sydney Morning Herald
    TOKYO: Just four hours after a tsunami swept into the Fukushima nuclear power plant on March 11 last year, Japan’s leaders knew the damage was so severe the reactors could melt down, but they kept it secret for months. The revelations were in documents
    See all stories on this topic »
    Japan’s Hamaoka nuclear plant sees tsunami defense in (very big) wall
    Christian Science Monitor
    It has been branded the most dangerous nuclear power station in the world by some seismologists. Its operator, Chubu Electric, is determined to reopen the plant as soon as its workers have finished building a six-ft.-thick anti-tsunami wall that will
    See all stories on this topic »
    Japan tsunami anniversary: the firemen who risked their lives to stop nuclear
    Telegraph.co.uk
    Photo: Androniki Christodoulou By Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo It was late at night after a rigorous training session that Yasuhiro Ishii was informed that he was being sent on a dangerous mission to the heart of Fukushima’s damaged nuclear power plant.
    See all stories on this topic »

    Telegraph.co.uk
    Radiation still leaks from nuclear power plant
    Winnipeg Free Press
    This is life with radiation, nearly one year after a tsunami-hit nuclear power plant began spewing it into Ota’s neighbourhood, 60 kilometres away. She’s so worried she has broken out in hives. “The government spokesman keeps saying there are no
    See all stories on this topic »
    Is Helen Caldicott’s Nuclear Madness still relevant?
    The Hindu
    The Germans have decided to phase out nuclear reactors for energy by 2020 or so — that is within the next 10 years. From her own anti-nuclear testing experiences spearheaded in Australia and the US, Caldicott learned the following valuable lessons
    See all stories on this topic »
    A year after tsunami, a cloud of distrust hangs over Japan
    Kansas City Star
    Even in Tokyo, more than 200 miles from the northeastern region devastated by the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami that caused radiation to spew from the nuclear plant, residents fear that local schoolyards are laced with dangerous isotopes.
    See all stories on this topic »
    Aging Nuclear Reactors: Are We Doing Enough to Ensure Safety?
    Huffington Post
    It had only been ten days since Japan’s 9.0 earthquake and tsunami overwhelmed the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station, washing away the plant’s emergency generators, and forcing the plant into nuclear meltdown. The danger of operating nuclear
    See all stories on this topic »
    Is nuclear power the demon it’s made out to be?
    The Hindu
    Sometimes, the trucks ferrying water came late at night and even those who’d been toiling endlessly at the plant site had to wait to take their shower. Rice cooked in this water had a yellow tinge. But what tormented us the most were the heaps of dust
    See all stories on this topic »

     


    Tip: Use site restrict in your query to search within a site (site:nytimes.com or site:.edu). Learn more.

  • Major cities at risk of Brisbane-like flooding

    Major cities at risk of Brisbane-like flooding

    Updated February 17, 2012 08:47:06

    Flood engineers say the huge floods that devastated Brisbane last year could also happen on a similar scale in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast and Newcastle.

    They argue that thanks to Australia’s three levels of government, flood planning around the country is patchy at best, allowing for houses to be built where they should not.

    On Wednesday, ABC Radio’s PM aired the first of a two-part look at Australia’s flood planning. Now it looks more broadly at how well Australia is prepared for flooding and the battle between development and nature.

    Last week Federal Minister for Emergency Services Robert McLelland stood on a levee bank as floods surrounded the southern Queensland town of Charleville. He liked what he saw.

    “We’ve literally stood up on the levee bank – dry on one side – looking over the moving water on the other,” Mr McLelland said.

    “It unquestionably, unquestionably saved the town and I think from the long-term point of view of resilience, we need to methodically go through these areas that have been effected and look at mitigation steps we can take.”

    Talk to any flood engineer and they will tell you that is an admirable proposal, but they want more.

    Steve Molino, a consultant who has advised on flood plain planning for 20 years, says places which have not flooded recently also need to be examined.

     

    “You do need to look at the places that have flooded but you also need to look at the places that did not flood,” he said.

    “There’s many places in Queensland that got out of the floods this year and got out of the floods last year scot free, but are at just as much risk of flooding as many of the places that flooded last year or this year.

    “Those places need to be encompassed in any studies that are done.”

    And that is just Queensland.

    Mr Molino says the potential flood risk across all of Australia is “huge”.

    Hayden Betts, who has a PhD in flood plain management and works for KPR consulting engineers in Brisbane, agrees.

    “I’m not sure how many hydrologists and hydro-engineers there are in the country – must be a thousand or two. If they applied their mind to it, I think there’d probably be enough work to keep them going for a decade or three,” he said.

    Patchy preparation

    But Mr Molino says Australia’s flood preparation is patchy.

    “We have places where there are good structural works in place; there are places where structural works are needed,” he said.

    “There are places where there is good town planning place; there are many places where better town planning is needed.”

    All our major cities have been built for historical reasons around rivers and on flood plains, so there are parts of our cities where we really do need to rethink whether those areas should be vacated and put over to other uses.

    Steve Molino

     

    And therein lies the big problem – just who is responsible for planning and dealing with floods in Australia?

    “The responsibility falls to local, state and federal government but it varies around the country,” Mr Molino said.

    Steve Opper, the director of community safety with the New South Wales State Emergency Service, thinks New South Wales has got the balance about right.

    “Our situation I believe is extremely robust,” he said.

    “The State Emergency Service in New South Wales is unique nationally in that we control the management of floods in an emergency context all the way from state level to local government level.

    “In other jurisdictions, quite often it might be just the local council that’s responsible for planning and they may just not have enough expertise to do that.”

    Money is also an issue.

    Take the problem of levees – the raised banks which can protect towns from floods.

    Often state governments might provide the funds to build levees but then leave it to local government to do the maintenance.

    “There are levees that have been built, have settled over decades and are now providing a lower level of protection than they were originally designed to provide,” Mr Molino said.

    “And there are many levees that have just been left to their own devices; there’s been no maintenance undertaken on them and therefore there’s cracks appearing in them, there’s trees growing in them.”

     

    Then there is the problem of protecting our big cities.

    Mr Molino points to the fact that there have been a number of one-in-a-thousand flood events in Australia in the past five years.

    Luckily they have been in sparsely-populated areas, but Mr Molino says the damage would be far worse if a rare flood were to occur in a bigger city.

    “If a flood of that frequency were to occur somewhere like the Gold Coast, on the Hawkesbury Nepean river or on the Georges River – they’re major rivers running through Sydney – floods of that type of frequency, and they do occur around the world all the time, were they to occur in one of those areas, we’re talking about tens of thousands of houses under water and many of those homes washed away,” he said.

    “And Melbourne is not immune. Melbourne has the Yarra and the Maribyrnong River and other rivers – as Melbourne expands – going into other catchment areas.

    “The Torrens through Adelaide hardly ever flows, but it can flood.

    “The Swan River in Western Australia.

    The balance between how much development we put in an area and the flood risk is a very complex one; between what you can achieve to create housing and places for people to live against the risk that you place when you live almost anywhere.

    Steve Opper

     

    “All our major cities have been built for historical reasons around rivers and on flood plains, so there are parts of our cities where we really do need to rethink whether those areas should be vacated and put over to other uses.”

    National leadership

    For Mr Opper, who has drawn up the plan for evacuating tens of thousands of houses in western Sydney, proper town planning is part of flood preparation.

    “The balance between how much development we put in an area and the flood risk is a very complex one; between what you can achieve to create housing and places for people to live against the risk that you place when you live almost anywhere,” he said.

    Last year, the state and federal governments signed off on a national strategy for disaster resilience, which deals with floods.

    It makes note that all levels of government must share the responsibility.

    But some people believe that system does not work.

    Dr Anthony Bergin, the director of research at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the Federal Government should be taking the lead.

    “Now’s the time for the Commonwealth to take a leadership role in natural disaster planning, particularly flood plain planning,” he said.

    “The new Federal Emergency Management Minister Robert McLelland needs to be arguing an economic case for disaster mitigation around micro-economic reform, because a dollar spent in mitigation – flood mitigation – does save somewhere between two and $10 in reduced disaster response and recovery costs.

    “And this could be the opportunity for him to leave a legacy of national leadership around disaster management.”

    Topics: floods, emergency-planning, federal-government, states-and-territories, local-government, australia, sydney-2000, surfers-paradise-4217, adelaide-5000, melbourne-3000

    First posted February 16, 2012 20:44:15

  • Fracking action ‘induced’ quakes

    Fracking action ‘induced’ quakes

    March 11, 2010

    WASHINGTON: A series of small earthquakes in Ohio late last year was probably caused by activity from fracking, a review by authorities in the US has concluded.

    The Ohio Department of Natural Resources said its review revealed the quakes in the north-east of the state in December appeared to be caused by a rare confluence of events in which wastewater injected into the ground triggered seismic activity in an unmapped fault area.

    ”Geologists believe induced seismic activity is extremely rare but it can occur with the confluence of a series of specific circumstances,” the report said.

    ”After investigating all available geological formation and well activity data, state regulators and geologists found a number of co-occurring circumstances strongly indicating the Youngstown area earthquakes were induced.”

    It concluded that disposal fluid from the Northstar 1 well ”intersected an unmapped fault in a near-failure state of stress, causing movement along that fault”.

    With the report, Ohio’s oil and gas regulators announced new standards for transporting and disposing of brine, a by-product of oil and natural gas hydraulic fracturing, or ”fracking”, saying the rules will be ”among the nation’s toughest”. Some US states and other countries have moved to ban certain types of fracking, although the industry contends the techniques have been in use for decades and are safe.

    The new rules call for a review of geologic data for known faulted areas within the state and a ban on putting certain disposal wells within these areas.

    The state will also require oil and gas operations to plug with cement any wells that penetrate into the Precambrian basement rock and prohibit injection into these formations.

    The report is the latest to raise fresh questions about fracking, a technique that offers the potential to unlock vast quantities of natural gas from shale formations but has come under intense scrutiny from environmentalists.

    The Ohio Oil and Gas Association said the report simply indicated the well was in an unknown fault area.

    The association’s executive vice-president, Thomas Stewart, said that the report ”confirmed … our belief that the recent seismic activity in the Youngstown area was associated with a previously unknown geologic factor, in this case, an unmapped fault”.

    Agence France-Presse

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/fracking-action-induced-quakes-20120310-1ur0v.html#ixzz1olDY9WAl

  • Dam full but desalination plant on line at $500m a year

    initial cost 2 Bn.

    Dam full but desalination plant on line at $500m a year

    Rachel Browne, Heath Aston

    March 11, 2012

    IT WILL be more than four years before the Sydney desalination plant produces a drop of water again, if the water level at Warragamba Dam declines at the same rate as the last time it topped out in August 1998.

    Even if levels drop at the same rate as the fastest decline it would be two years before the dam falls to 70 per cent – the point at which the desalination plant would be turned on.

    Assuming the former rate, a private owner of the plant – to be announced by the State Government this year – will take more than $500 million from NSW taxpayers without producing a litre of water.

    Based on estimates from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, a private sector owner would take $591 million in ”availability charges” from Sydney Water – payment for keeping the plant available.

    Taking away fixed costs, including $1.1 million a month to be paid to the plant’s operator, Veolia Water, and financing debt on the expected $1.1 billion price tag – which excludes a possible privatisation of the $600 million pipeline – a little over $50 million a year will go to the owners in profit.

    The Greens MP John Kaye said: ”Labor’s desalination plant was always a white elephant, but the coalition are now taking away the opportunity to turn the plant off and avoid $600 million of wasted availability charges,” he said.

    Interested bidders include local and international, a number of investment banks and pension funds from Canada and Korea.

    Warragamba Dam, one of the largest domestic water supply dams in the world, is likely to continue to spill if the Bureau of Meteorology’s long-range forecast for more rain proves correct.

    The Bureau of Meteorology NSW climate manager, Dr Aaron Coutts-Smith, warned NSW residents to brace for more wet weather.

    He said there was a 60 per cent chance of above average rainfall throughout autumn when low pressure systems off the east coast are more prevalent.

    ”There are increased odds of above average rainfall over the next three months, but most of that will be west of the divide,” he said.

    ”We can’t tell whether it will come in heavy showers like Thursday’s downpour or whether it will be more evenly spread.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/dam-full-but-desalination-plant-on-line-at-500m-a-year-20120310-1ur5i.html#ixzz1ol59IWyn

  • Opposition supports freedom of speech. No to Regulator

    The federal opposition does not support a super regulator for the Australian media because that would repress free speech, opposition communications spokesperson Malcolm Turnbull sa lateline

    A five-month-long independent media inquiry, headed by former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein, recommended that a government-funded News Media Council should be created to regulate print, online, radio and television news in Australia.

    But Mr Turnbull told the ABC’s Lateline program he would not support the recommendation, saying the country should be able to trust competition and a diversity of voices to regulate its media.

    “I think it would be bad for freedom of speech; it would repress freedom of speech,” Mr Turnbull told Lateline on Friday night.

    “We don’t support the recommendation; it (the report) only had one recommendation of any consequence, which was to set up a new super regulator for news media, a news media council, and we’ve said we don’t support that.”