# Nuclear Energy News and Development



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> *http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/2021352,obama-nuclear-energy-bill-013110.article*
> 
> *Obama pushes nuclear energy to boost climate bill *
> 
> ...


..


----------



## FritzMitWitz (Feb 8, 2003)

The new conservative- liberal coalition in Germany decided to phase out the the fast phase out process of the German nuclear plants, which was decided under the social-green coalition under Schröder some 10 years ago.

So for sure the phase out process of the remaining plants will be delayed for some years. But it's improbably that the phase out process will be stopped fully, cause in Germany the social consensus that nuclear energy is dangerous is still very strong, due to the strong anti nuclear movements in Germany in the last 30 years and a strong Green party in Germany.

But who knows, maybe Germans will think once again different about nuclear energy in some 10 years, cause the young people in Germany are not as fanatic opposed to this form of energy as the Green movements of the 80s.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

^^ fanatic is the key word. First they kill the best way to produce energy with no CO2, so they can now bitch about CO2!


----------



## siamu maharaj (Jun 19, 2006)

That's the first thing that Obama's said I actually agree with. If he can make the US embrace nuclear energy, I'll worship an Obama doll for the rest of my life. I want to see the day when everything runs on nuclear energy produced by fission.


----------



## 2co2co (Apr 8, 2008)

At the end, I wonder what all that anti-nuclear movements were about.
Was it because of some vocal leftists making people feel like "I'm anti-nuclear because people around myself are anti-nuclear."?


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

^^ Now they have the global warming myth to play with.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> *http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_nuclear_plant*
> 
> *Obama nuke plant loan reflects new energy strategy*
> 
> ...


..


----------



## siamu maharaj (Jun 19, 2006)

I wish they'd given the power generation capacity of each reactor.


----------



## 2co2co (Apr 8, 2008)

Other than Westinghouse AP1000, I don't see much progress happening in commercial nuclear reactors... 

FBR, Accelerator-Driven Subcritical reactor and Pebble Bed all seem like sufferring budget cuts and cancellations.


----------



## WatcherZero (Jul 2, 2009)

Mmm, I think the UK will choose a EPR design, AP1000 has been put forward though requires several changes to bring it upto UK safety standards, mainly thickening of walls as well as adding a backup shutdown, meanwhile the EPR is more powerful requiring fewer reactors to be built. Its also likely EDF will be the largest financer and operator of the plants so it will have a bias to the EPR design.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> *http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_france_nuclear_energy*
> 
> *Nuclear energy gets new French-driven boost*
> 
> ...



..


----------



## siamu maharaj (Jun 19, 2006)

"the NEA forecasts the number of reactors worldwide to grow to between 600 and 1,400 by 2050"

What's the fucking point of such a forecast? Between 600 and 1,400. Wow, that really narrowed it down, now I know we won't have 20,000 reactors by 2050.


----------



## Restless (Oct 31, 2009)

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...ompanies-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-report

*China May OK More Companies To Build Nuclear Power Plants-Report*


By Jonathan Shieber, Of DOW JONES CLEAN TECHNOLOGY INSIGHT

SHANGHAI -(Dow Jones)- China's Energy Administration is in the process of revising its guidelines and requirements for nuclear power plant operators, according to a state media report Friday.

The move by China's top energy agency could mean that more power companies are able to build and operate nuclear power plants as the country looks to move away from energy sources like coal and oil, according to the China Securities Journal, which cited an unnamed source.

China isn't alone in its quest to boost nuclear power- other major developing nations have major expansion programs, and a raft of industrialized nations are mulling enhancing the fleets of reactors.

For China to forge ahead with its plans, the country needs to overcome a bottleneck in the number of companies approved to build and operate power plants, according to Yuanta Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd. analyst Min Li.

The review of regulations by the government could mean that soon independent power producers like Huaneng Power International Inc. (HNP) and Datang International Power Generation Co. (0991.HK), could join the ranks of approved developers like China National Nuclear Corp., China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Corp., and China Power Investment Corp., the Yuanta analyst said.

In a research note, Min said that Sichuan and Guangxi provinces may follow other areas like Jiangxi, Hunan and Hubei in building inland nuclear power plants.

To date, most Chinese nuclear facilities have been built around the coast.

On Feb. 9China Daily newspaper China's cited State Nuclear Power Technology Corp., which is responsible for the development of third-generation nuclear technology in China, as saying it had completed the initial design for the country's first three inland nuclear power stations.

The three projects are at Taohuajiang in Hunan province, Xianning in Hubei province, and Pengze in Jiangxi province, and will use AP1000 third-generation technology developed by U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric, it said, citing SNPTC.

China now has 11 civil nuclear reactors in service, and the government has plan to boost this to as many as 100 over the next two decades.

China already has 21 new reactors under construction, representing approximately 40% of the world's construction of nuclear facilities, according to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency and an analyst report. A February 2009 report by Xinhua news agency quoted Energy Administration head Zhang Guobao saying that China would be able to rely on its own technologies for nuclear power development in the next twenty years.

The government has already issued approvals for subsidiaries of Harbin Electric Group to begin manufacturing boilers and turbines for nuclear plants, according to an announcement on the SASAC web site.

China's State Council has also released a plan to support machinery manufacturing industries in the development of national technologies to supplant foreign vendors, Xinhua said.

The Chinese government now has a target for 40 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2020, which will cost approximately $66.2 billion to develop, state media has reported.

By Jonathan Shieber, Dow Jones Clean Technology Insight; 8621-6120-1200; [email protected]


(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-05-100650ET
Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theti...isaster-could-undermine-u-s-s-nuclear-efforts
> Sun Mar 13, 10:29 am ET
> *Japan disaster could undermine U.S.’s nuclear efforts*By Holly Bailey
> 
> ...





> http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/369325
> *Japan's radiation leak: Shades of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?*
> By Mark Clayton Mark Clayton – Sat Mar 12, 6:12 pm ET
> Japan’s unfolding nuclear power crisis remains at an unstable, volatile stage, warn US nuclear experts who, while hopeful, say past nuclear accidents – at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl – grew far worse over several days before being controlled.
> ...


..


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...nd-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
> 
> *Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium
> 
> ...


....


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3168019.htm?section=world
> 
> *Nuclear community snubbed reactor safety message: expert*By Daniel Miller
> 
> ...


...


----------



## ...aditya... (May 31, 2010)

*'India to push ahead with nuclear power'*

Indrani Bagchi, TNN | Mar 19, 2011

NEW DELHI: The radiation crisis in Fukushima has prompted India to review all new nuclear reactor designs in the country, said Srikumar Banerjee, chairman, Atomic Energy Commission. But India will continue to push ahead with its nuclear power plans and will break ground on eight new reactors this year, he added. 

The two reactors in Tarapur are boiling water reactors of the Fukushima design, Banerjee said. These are old GE reactors. But in the Indian context, he added, there have been extra safety features added. 

These are a passive heat removal system which does not require power, so it will continue to cool the reactor even when there is a total power blackout. The "thermosyphoning" feature, he said, gives the reactor a grace period of eight hours.

India's nuclear energy establishment has also ordered a review of the design of Areva's EPR reactor which will be installed in Jaitapur, Maharashtra. The EPR, Banerjee said, has already added new safety features after 9/11 that would help it withstand a commercial aircraft crashing into it. The Indian reactors, he said, can withstand military aircraft. 

He said there has been no effect in India of radiation exposure from the quake-hit reactors in Japan. "I can categorically say that because of the Japan incident, there has been no recognizable difference in radiation in any part of India," Banerjee said. Radiation is being measured in 87 points across the country. 

The Fukushima reactor, he said, was just 140 km from the faultline, which meant that the period between the quake and the tsunami was just an hour. "(In India) the nearest nuclear power plant from a fault is Tarapur, which is 900 km away from the Makran fault... therefore, we do not expect the arrival of quake and tsunami before six hours."


----------



## Rachmaninov (Aug 5, 2004)

*Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power*
_23 March 2011 by Phil McKenna_
http://www.newscientist.com/article...uels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html
Magazine issue 2805

IN THE wake of the nuclear crisis in Japan, Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its reactors and China, which is building more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, has suspended approval for all new facilities. But this reaction may be more motivated by politics than by fear of a catastrophic death toll. It may be little consolation to those living around Fukushima, but nuclear power kills far fewer people than other energy sources, according to a review by the International Energy Agency (IAE).

"There is no question," says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. "Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people."

A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.

The explanation lies in the large number of deaths caused by pollution. "It's the whole life cycle that leads to a trail of injuries, illness and death," says Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force (The Toll from Coal, 2010). Additional fatalities come from mining and transporting coal, and other forms of pollution associated with coal. In contrast, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN estimate that the death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

In fact, the numbers show that catastrophic events are not the leading cause of deaths associated with nuclear power. More than half of all deaths stem from uranium mining, says the IEA. But even when this is included, the overall toll remains significantly lower than for all other fuel sources.

So why do people fixate on nuclear power? "From coal we have a steady progression of deaths year after year that are invisible to us, things like heart attacks, whereas a large-scale nuclear release is a catastrophic event that we are rightly scared about," says James Hammitt of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in Boston.

Yet again, popular perceptions are wrong. When, in 1975, about 30 dams in central China failed in short succession due to severe flooding, an estimated 230,000 people died. Include the toll from this single event, and fatalities from hydropower far exceed the number of deaths from all other energy sources.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

*pebble-bed reactor*



> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/energy-environment/25chinanuke.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
> 
> *A Radical Kind of Reactor*
> By KEITH BRADSHER
> ...


....


----------



## Basincreek (Mar 10, 2008)

I really hope the anti-nuclear hysteria doesn't stay around long.


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

2012.1.5
Cesium rise in Fukushima.
Pollution does not stop.
http://news.nifty.com/cs/economy/economyalldetail/yucasee-20120105-10032/1.htm


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10362722-us-licenses-first-nuclear-reactors-since-1978
> 
> *US licenses first nuclear reactors since 1978*
> 
> ...


....


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> http://www.livescience.com/18410-reactor-designed-avoid-fukushima-repeat.html
> 
> *First Next-Gen US Reactor Designed to Avoid Fukushima Repeat*
> 
> ...


...


----------



## lukaszek89 (Nov 20, 2008)

> *Next Step in the Nuclear Power Programme – PGE EJ 1 Sp. z o.o. has Launched Two Major Public Contract Awards. *
> 
> PGE EJ 1 Sp. z o.o. has launched two public contract awards within the negotiation procedure with a publication.
> 
> ...


http://www.pgesa.pl/en/PGE/PressCen...ohasLaunchedTwoMajorPublicContractAwards.aspx


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Here's an interesting interview about the troubles and scandals over the German nuclear waste site Asse2 near Wolfenbüttel published on a government website:

Sadly it's only in German of course, so here is the link to the German version:
http://www.das-parlament.de/2012/07/MenschenMeinungen/37785516.html

But for all those who dont speak German google translate helps fairly well:
http://translate.google.de/translat...nt.de/2012/07/MenschenMeinungen/37785516.html

In a few cases the translation seems a bit strange and funny and it often translates the name of the waste site as "aces" since "Asse" in German also happens to be the plural of the German word for ace.
So whenever you read aces in the google translation just think of it as the name Asse. 
And here and there it translates the german word for chamber as "cup".

The recovery of the nuclear waste from the insecure and damaged wastesite is now estimated to take 30 to 40 years and not just 10 as asumed in the beginning.

Edit: 
Here's a wikipedia article on the site with some more background information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Asse_II


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> http://news.yahoo.com/us-orders-safety-changes-japan-crisis-230827097.html
> 
> *US orders safety changes after Japan crisis*
> By MATTHEW DALY | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago
> ...


...


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)




----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)




----------



## andysimo123 (Jul 29, 2004)

japanese001 said:


>


Thats one of the best documentaries I've watched in a long time.


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

Radioactive fluid leaks at French nuclear reactor 
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/radioactive-fluid-leaks-at-french-nuclear-reactor


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

japanese001 said:


> Radioactive fluid leaks at French nuclear reactor
> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/radioactive-fluid-leaks-at-french-nuclear-reactor


Only a minor incident (level 1): nothing to say.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

^^ but it's radioactive, so it must be evil and kill millions. it's funny how anti-nuclear "activists" don't seem to care that 95% of the radiation humanity pumps into the environment comes from coal-fired powerplants.


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)




----------



## X236K (Mar 3, 2007)

mopc said:


> ^^ but it's radioactive, so it must be evil and kill millions. it's funny how anti-nuclear "activists" don't seem to care that 95% of the radiation humanity pumps into the environment comes from coal-fired powerplants.


Good point, but it need to be said that I've never heard of people dying of radioactivity exposure in coal-fired plant while there have been deaths directly related to radioactivity in nuclear facilities.


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)




----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

X236K said:


> Good point, but it need to be said that I've never heard of people dying of radioactivity exposure in coal-fired plant while there have been deaths directly related to radioactivity in nuclear facilities.


That's because it's diluted. Some 15,000 people die every year in the USA alone due to the pollution (not only radiation) released by nuclear powerplants. Worldwide, given lower pollution control standards in China, India, Russia, etc, some 1 million people die due to coal. 

The number of deaths caused by nuclear powerplants is on the scale of a few dozen spread through the years.


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)




----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)




----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

◆ Abnormality in the wings and eye of a butterfly - Damage to the gene / fukushima
http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=soc_30&k=2012081001219


----------



## Slacker2 (May 14, 2011)

Japanese001. Quit thread-crapping.

This thread is meant for nuclear power development and news; It's not your personal platform for anti-nuclear propaganda.


----------

