Deny, Deny, Deny

The worst nuclear crisis ever is upon us, but Tokyo continues to deny the reality of what it faces. As does the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

IAEA: No Indication of Nuclear Reactor Meltdown in Japan

However under current Japanese leadership it is but a lap dog of Tokyo.

"Yukiya Amano, a veteran Japanese diplomat who heads the IAEA, said the agency was discussing details with Tokyo."

Both their assurances that nothing 'serious' is occurring flies in the face of reality. Over the weekend they went from one to two to three nuclear plants blowing up,

Japan crisis: third explosion raises spectre of nuclear nightmare

Japan's nuclear safety agency said Tuesday's explosion at the plant's No.2 reactor was caused by hydrogen. There was no immediate word on damage, but Jiji news agency quoted the trade ministry as saying radiation levels remained low after the blast, the third at the plant since Saturday.

And as coolant ran out and nuclear power rods were exposed to the atmosphere still denial from Tokyo and IAEA.

Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expressed confidence Japanese authorities were doing all they could to restore safety at the sites and said a Chernobyl-style disaster was "very unlikely."

He spoke as Japan scrambled to avert a meltdown at a stricken nuclear complex after a hydrogen explosion at one reactor and exposure of fuel rods at another, just days after the devastation that killed thousands.

I have been following the nuclear disaster in Japan as soon as it occurred on Friday, posting updates on my Facebook page. Through out this period as news of the damage to these reactors was reported, the official line, which continues even today, has been deny, deny, deny.

The Japanese government and their UN lacky continue to insist that they 'have it under control', they reassure us that nothing serious or to terrible is occurring,.

The reality as report after report shows is that Japanese authorities and their electrical companies are not in control and lack the resources to actually deal with this crisis.

TOKYO, March 15 | Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:29am EDT

TOKYO, March 15 (Reuters) - Japan's prime minister was furious with the power firm at the centre of the nuclear crisis for taking so long to inform his office about a blast at a stricken reactor plant, demanding "What the hell is going on?".

Kyodo news agency reported that Naoto Kan also ordered Tokyo Electric Power Co on Tuesday not to pull employees out of the Fukushima plant north of Tokyo, which was badly damaged by last week's earthquake and has been leaking radiation.

"The TV reported an explosion. But nothing was said to the the premier's office for about an hour," a Kyodo reporter quoted Kan telling power company executives.

But being too proud to ask for help, which would incur obligation (giri), which is why they have not responded to international offers of help. They would rather deny they require help in dealing with this disaster because that would oblige them to admit to weakness.

Daily denials of the serious nuclear crisis they are facing is belied by hourly reports of yet another explosion, or continuing lack of water to cool the nuclear power rods.

The word Meltdown has been used since Friday, and they deny the reality. Their plants are in critical condition, their are indeed melting down. Whether they are equivalent or like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or Hanford, is irrelevant. They are in the process of critical collapse. Only if their containment shells hold and the superheated rods are cooled, will there be no meltdown.

Should there be a melt down or two or three, then this situation will be a completely different scenario , another reason reassess Nuclear Power and especially policies regarding closing old plants like these.

These plants were built in the 1970's and even then were problematic.

In 1972, the first warning was issued about the vulnerability of the sort of General Electric reactors used in Fukushima in Japan

Government regulators knew of a heightened risk of explosion in the type of nuclear reactors used at the Fukushima plant in Japan from the moment they went into operation.

Safety inspectors at America's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) warned as early as 1972 that the General Electric reactors, which did away with the traditional large containment domes, were more vulnerable to explosion and more vulnerable to the release of radiation if a meltdown occurred.

Michael Mariotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said: "The concern has been there all along that this containment building was not strong enough and the pressure containment system was not robust enough to prevent an explosion."

The ageing GE reactors are regarded as less resilient then newer models. Dr Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environment Research, said: "They are not designed to contain these explosions. They are not designed to contain an aircraft crashing into it. Modern reactors are significantly different. Designs built from the 1980s onwards don't have the vulnerabilities of mark one reactors."

All six of the reactors at the Fukushima Two plant, which has suffered two explosions, are GE-designed boiling water reactors. Five are the original mark one design and went on line from 1971 to 1979.

And that is also part of their denial, the reality that the reason these plants are so hard to shut down is that they are past their prime and the technology is flawed by comparison to modern nuclear power plants. And despite knowing their shortcomings the Japanese electrical industry and the government kept them operating hoping nothing terrible would ever occur. That is not contingency planning nor risk planning.

Japanese campaign groups have also warned of problems at the Fukushima 2 plant including a failure of the generator when the plant lost power in June last year.

In addition to the Fukushima 2 plant, eight reactors of the same design are in use in Japan at nuclear facilities at Tsuruga, Hamaoke and Shimane. Like the Fukushima plants, all three are also on Japan's main Honshu island.

Nuclear reactors of the same design are in widespread use in America.Of the 104 reactors currently in use, 23 are of the same GE mark two design, according to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Twelve more are a modified version of the boiling water reactor.

And instead of being taken offline they were used beyond their time. This is the core problem of why these plants now are a danger to Japan and the whole planet.

Japanese isolationism and xenophobia are the problem, they no longer are an isolated culture on an isolated island, an island unto themselves. Having entered the atomic age, their island culture now has an impact on the whole planet. Their culture of doing things Japanese style now threatens the planet.

Nuclear Bait and Switch

The reason that Gary Lunn fired the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission was to cover up not only his own complicity in the whole Chalk River screw up but also to divert attention from the fact that the Conservative appointed Chairman of AECL was assigned to look at privatizing the AECL. Instead of spending more money on maintenance the Conservatives were and are looking at selling off AECL. Dismantling the effectiveness of the Nuclear Safety Commission and changing its mandate would allow for an easier sale. The Chalk River crisis that led to this political meltdown was tailor made for the Tories Hidden Agenda.

Political and industry sources suggest the Chalk River crisis was very timely for the government, breaking just as it mulled transferring AECL, and its voracious appetite for federal cash, to the private sector. The isotope issue allowed the government to impugn a regulator that has acted as an obstacle to that privatization.

Also limiting AECL is the fact that as a Crown corporation it has limited ability to borrow money or seek alternative financing for its projects. "It can't run itself like a regular business," said the insider. "They used to run on a year-by-year basis, so that by the time they got approval for their plan, it was time to start writing another one. Who can run a business like that? No one."

It is an open secret in Ottawa that the Conservatives' preferred solution to AECL's dilemma is privatization. Doing so would allow the company more latitude in financing while unburdening the government of a troublesome file. Other former Crown corporations have been successfully privatized, including MDS Nordion, the company that distributes the isotopes produced at Chalk River.

Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, this week hinted at major changes to come, noting that AECL suffered from financial and managerial challenges.

SEE:

A Little Golf A Little Hustle

CANDU

Nuclear NIMBY

Tarsands To Go Nuclear

Conservatives Glow Green





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Chalk River, isotopes, CANDU, Canada, privatization, nuclear, nuclear-power, power-plants, nuclear-energy,
Stephen Harper, Gary Lunn, , atomic energy, Conservatives, Government, AECL, Natural Resources Minister, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission,Linda Keen,

Harpers Nuclear Opportunism

The Nuclear Crisis in Canada produced an opportunity for Stephen Harper to not only engage in political opportunism but to set the AECL and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the path to privatization. His former appointed head could not get the job done, so time to replace him

Never one to miss an opportunity to make a purse out of a sows ear, Harper once again used his autocratic power as PM to supposedly solve the crisis by 'firing' the head of the AECL and demand the reactor be put back on line. Except the 'firing' was a big lie.

AECL chair tendered his resignation in November, long before controversy was made public

The former chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. lashed out Tuesday at attempts to blame him for the Chalk River nuclear reactor controversy, calling the Harper government's handling of his resignation “a clumsy piece of political opportunism.”

Michael Burns told The Globe and Mail he submitted his resignation as chair of the Crown corporation on Nov. 29, before the medical isotope crisis stemming from the Chalk River shutdown became public. His departure was announced last Friday with no explanation, but was soon linked by a key cabinet minister to the Chalk River situation.

“I was quite taken aback two weeks later when I heard my resignation had been accepted by the Prime Minister in the midst of the crisis,” Mr. Burns said.

Health Minister Tony Clement has since connected leadership changes at AECL, including the replacement of Mr. Burns, a Vancouver energy executive and onetime Tory fundraiser, as well as the appointment of a new CEO, with the need to give the organization better management.

“Well, maybe they do [need better management],” Mr. Burns shot back. “But this is a clumsy piece of political opportunism. If they're going to do it, they could do it with a little more skill.”

Mr. Burns said he submitted his resignation, which becomes effective on Dec. 31, after a little over a year in the job because of delays in getting a series of proposed reforms instituted at the Crown corporation. He would not elaborate on the nature of the reforms.

Mr. Burns also took issue with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attack on Linda Keen, chair of the Canadian Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which ordered the Chalk River reactor to extend a routine maintenance shutdown in order to install additional safety equipment, provoking the isotope shortage. Emergency legislation was passed by Parliament last week overriding the regulator and forcing the reactor to restart.

Mr. Harper labelled Ms. Keen, a career public servant, as a Liberal appointee who put the lives of Canadians in danger by cutting off the supply of isotopes.

Asked whether he thought Ms. Keen had acted in a partisan manner, Mr. Burns responded: “I think not. There's no politics in that. There may be administrative politics but there are no party politics in that dispute.”

SEE:

CANDU

Nuclear NIMBY

Tarsands To Go Nuclear

Conservatives Glow Green





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
yellow-cake, uranium, CANDU, Canada, nukes, nuclear, nuclear-power, power-plants, nuclear-energy,
Stephen Harper, nuclear waste, , atomic energy, Conservatives, Government,

A Little Golf A Little Hustle

Alberta suddenly has become a destination of preference for U.S. Ambassador Dave Wilkins.Though his presence in the province has been downplayed despite his visiting the largest American city north of the 49th Parallel.

There are 75,000 Americans who call Calgary home -- more than any other city in the nation.

U.S. Consul General for the region Tom Huffaker says Calgary may indeed have a higher number of American ex-pats than any other city on the planet.

And this Saturday, Huffaker is calling all to share some food and good times to celebrate the great relationship that exists between Canada and the U.S.

The Can-Am Celebration, formerly known as the American Picnic, will take place at Heritage Park starting at 10:30 a.m.

Dignitaries at the Calgary Economic Development-sponsored function include Huffaker and U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins.

Last weekend he shot a little golf and shot the shit with Prince Ed over the royalty review.

U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins reportedly button-holed Stelmach last weekend in Banff about the key Hunter recommendation not to "grandfather" out any oilsands plants "on the grounds of fair treatment for all participants."

In October he will return to address that august body the Whitecourt Chamber of Commerce. Whitecourt is softwood lumber country, and it just so happens Alberta is named in the U.S. softwood suit.

Whitecourt is the site of three mills:

• Blueridge Ranger Lumber Sawmill (owned by West Fraser)
• Millar Western Sawmill / Pulp Mill (owned by Millar Western Forest Products)
• Alberta Newsprint Company Pulp & Paper Mill.

• 
  

It is also being courted as a site for a nuclear power plant by a Franco Canadian company. One in competition with Canadian Candu and American G.E. reactors.

Furthermore, Areva is talking to the federal government about forming a partnership with AECL. (Ottawa is also in discussions with Areva's American competitor, General Electric.)

So why is he visiting? Talk a little softwood, a little G.E.?

Nuclear Power Discussion is Back ( 9/26/2007 )

Nuclear power is back in the spotlight in Whitecourt. Areva Canada President, Armand Laferrere, attended town council last night, to give a presentation on his company in relation to nuclear power. Laferrere says Whitecourt would be the perfect site for his companies next project. He also said he was encouraged by the reaction from council members. Areva is the world's leading nuclear power plant provider, and currently has 98 plants worldwide.

Areva Canada does not build nuclear reactors, that is done by its parent company in France. In Canada Areva is involved solely in uranium mining in Saskatchewan. Given the fact that Whitecourt's sits right on the Athabasca river, this is an advantage for the companies expansion in competition with Energy Alberta who plans a nuke plant in neighbouring Peace River.

It's late afternoon in Saskatoon and Armand Laferrere's flight back home to Toronto doesn't leave for a couple of hours yet.

The president of Areva Canada Inc. doesn't seem to mind the wait. The day is typically busy for the smartly dressed Frenchman -- leaving Toronto in the early hours of the day for a morning business meeting in Alberta, and then hopping on another plane to give an afternoon presentation to the Canadian Nuclear Workers Council in Saskatoon before heading home.

Laferrere is talking about excited American customers who have already purchased equipment to compliment Areva's newest reactor, the EPR, although it's still in the licensing process. The model is being built in Finland and France, he explained, and is a third-generation plant that has buyers eagerly awaiting the day they can purchase the technology. The EPR, perhaps, is the model he would like to see in Western Canada.

"Saskatchewan has been pro-nuclear for a while because uranium is involved with it. The friendly atmosphere for nuclear in Saskatchewan, which we're already used to, seems to be spreading even further west, which is good news for the industry," Laferrere said. "I think public opinion is moving at astounding rates right now. Alberta is very seriously considering a nuclear build. Even British Columbia, which used to be very anti-nuclear, is starting to think about it -- much quicker than we thought."

Sitting in a nearly empty hotel conference room, Laferrere makes it clear that when the opportunity arises, he would like to see an Areva reactor in Western Canada. With the recent nuclear announcement coming from Alberta, Laferrere is keeping a close eye on the situation. Although plans for a nuclear reactor there aren't a done deal, Calgary-based Energy Alberta Corp. said its partner, Atomic Energy of Canada, would use Candu reactor technology if its applications are approved.

"We're interested in working in Alberta, definitely, and we're continuing contacts for that," he said. "The business model is not the kind of business model Areva would use; we would rather partner with an existing utility. But still everything that goes on in the industry is positive for the industry, and I'm watching it very closely. We just wouldn't do it this way."

With buzz around the nuclear horizon in the West, Laferrere notes that without uranium mining in Saskatchewan, Areva would be at a significant disadvantage in the industry. Though a provincial election could alter some contacts in his address book, he doubts any major changes would take place if a new party came into power.

A nuclear power plant in White court would be a carbon offset to the pollution spewed by the lumber processing plants. And in effect would allow them to continue spewing, without having to add scrubbers and new technology to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Whitecourt is also a hub into the Tarsands. Which is another reason the nuclear industry is looking at it. In the global economy the way big oil treats the environment, using up fresh water for tarsands extraction, creating deserts of sand from the extracted mud, whether in Ecuador or Whitecourt, it's all the same.
Long term pain for short term gain.

As bobert the blogger writes from the Amazon jungle on Blogging It Real he compares the situation of Ecuadorian oil workers, many working for Canadian companies, with those in Whitecourt. Of course some of those Ecuadorian workers may be coming here soon.

I’m in the Amazon. In a place called las joyas de sachas. It should be a pretty town, but it is the text book definition of an ecological and human disaster. The girl here is in a "soccer pitch" and that dark horizontal line is indeed the petrol vein. This is the place that Texaco came tearing into, and pulled out as much crude oil as possible with very little given to environmental and human health. The public outcry of Texaco’s handicraft forced them to change their name to Chevron. You know, a new name means a new history, no?

Despite Texaco / Chevron rubbing the slate clean, the after effects of their work in the Amazon is still devastating, as all the new petroleum developers continue to follow a few basic rules: pay nothing to environmental sustainability, pay very little to the Ecuadorian government (only $4 - $7 of every barrel of oil pulled out of Ecuador, actually stays in Ecuador), and pay the workers next too nothing.

Oil workers in sachas get paid about $120 a month, when the work is good. If it is slow, or there is maintenance to be done on the pipeline, that number goes down…a lot. The rates of cancer, according to some local doctors, are skyrocketing! Cancer is just about ready to takeover as the number one killer in sachas. That’s a pretty impressive accomplishment, to have a first world disease compete among diseases of the poor for the champion of morbidity. I can see the mayor now, broadcasting to all how 25 oil workers died from cancer, while only 14 pregnant mothers died on the road to the hospital to give birth (this is quite a common occurrence, as despite the abundance of Texas tea, locals can hardly afford anything, let alone a working vehicle with petrol in it).

So now, I’m curious. About 6,000km to the north and a little to the west is Alberta. Canada’s very own American State. In June I was passing through the town of Whitecourt, another oil town. Whitecourt is struggling, in its own way, as it can’t build enough houses or schools to accommodate the growing population that is seeking fortune on the oil fields. Car dealers can’t keep up with the demand for hummers, and the guy selling big screen TV’s is struggling to keep inventory in his store for more than a day.

At the local Boston Pizza, the young oil workers, almost all high school drop-outs who abhor any idea of higher education as salaries of $100,000 for a guy without grade 12 math is pretty hard to turn down, are doing lines of cocaine in the bathroom. They just can’t spend their money fast enough, so it goes up their nose. Without their grade 12, and the mentality of a spoiled kid in the candy store, they spend and spend.

What I can’t figure out is why my pals in Whitecourt, who don’t have enough math skills to do their own taxes, have the right to furiously spend money as if it were on fire. And in the light of the bonfire comes the chatter of how Alberta needs private healthcare, more private schools, and won’t give one cent from the oil boom to other provinces who are struggling with public debt.

Meanwhile in the broiling Amazon, oil workers only have the right to work, get paid next to nothing and die from being poisoned. Oil is oil. Be it from Alberta or Ecuador. The world market says there is no difference between oil pulled out of ground by a group of guys who get paid $100,000 a year compared to another group of guys who do the very same job, and sell the proceeds to the very same market, for about $1400 a year.

Halliburton and friends should have an annual worker exchange program! The boys from Alberta should come down to the Amazon and get cancer, and the Ecuadorians should enjoy a month in Whitecourt complete with nightly visits to Boston Pizza’s bathroom.

In many ways Alberta is the whitewash of oil. It justifies the extraction, because life is good for those who do it. But, the grim reality is that most of the world’s oil is pulled out of the ground by the desperate of the earth, who either have to suffer through bad health or brutal violence, and in the case of Iraq…both! If the entire world’s oil was pulled out of the ground with same lifestyle and mentality as it is in Alberta, we would be paying a solid $20 a gallon for fuel. No questions there.

But most of the world’s population enjoys bargain prices on oil, and complain about the imposed taxes that get thrown in there. It’s the brutality of labour conditions coupled with trade policies that ensure that next to no money remains in the communities of oil workers; money that could be put into safety equipment, transportation systems and basic social services that could do something about the monthly occurrence of a dead-would-be-mother lying in the ditch 20km from the nearest hospital. Spikes in energy prices might occur from time to time when speculators smell war, or hurricanes, but the baseline price, is based on places like sachas. Places torn open and left to rot, with absolutely no capacity to take care of those in need.

It’s the same philosophy that lies in Whitecourt, only seen through the fun-house mirror that is the global economy.

SEE:

RONA Vs Greenpeace

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
peak-oil, Tarsands, water, Pembina, oil, nukes, nuclear, gas, water, drought, Alberta, Canada,
Government, Alberta, tarsands, nuke, nukes, power, energy,

Tory Transparency: GNEP

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

Nuclear Energy Partnership? The government is planning to sign a Nuclear Energy Partnership? Was this one of the Conservatives five priorities? It was not publicly discussed nor raised in the House. It was a side deal from John Howard's visit to Canada.

Ottawa near decision on nuclear plan: Bernier

"Australia and Canada, we are two major producers in the world and we have considerable interests in whatever the United States and the international community have in mind in terms of future uranium development and production and marketing," said Bernier. "So we will have a decision in the near future about our participation."

No pressure for Canada to state intentions on nuclear partnership

With barely a week to go before a key planning meeting in Vienna on the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the world's biggest uranium producer still hasn't said publicly whether it will attend the talks.

The Conservative government has been tight-lipped about the so-called GNEP, saying only that Canada is reviewing the matter.

The initiative is controversial because it proposes that uranium exporting countries bring back spent fuel for disposal on their home turf.

Harper, in his first public comment on the proposed partnership since May 2006, denied that Canada is feeling any pressure to join despite the involvement of key allies Australia and the United States. Australia announced its intention to join this week.

The Harper government's hesitation in declaring a clear position on GNEP isn't surprising, despite more than a year of internal government discussions and cross-border talks.

Internal government talking points from 2006, obtained by The Canadian Press, showed enthusiasm for the proposal, but that has never been expressed publicly.

Oh dear that certainly is counter intuitive to the Canadian ideal of Public Service and Public Policy.

Transparency? Accountability? Responsible government? I think not. Anymore than the Harpocrites negotiations around the SPP. But this more than just about jelly beans.


SEE:

Nuclear NIMBY


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Greenplan, APEC, Stephen Harper, nuclear waste, Australia, George Bush, uranium, nuclear, nuclear power, atomic energy, Greenhouse gases, CO2, Conservatives, Government,

Silence is Acquiescence

So the Americans want Uranium producing countries to accept nuclear waste as the country of origin.

Canada has also been asked to join a U.S.-led nuclear partnership that could eventually see big uranium exporters - like Canada and Australia - be asked to dispose of spent nuclear waste.

Sources have told The Age discussions are under way that could see Australia and Canada made part of the powerful Washington-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership on a "parallel" track, without having to assume full membership of the organisation.

The Bush Administration has made it plain to the Howard Government informally that it would like Australia to be part of the GNEP — which is an alliance designed to restrict the number of countries enriching uranium to current players, such as the US, Britain, France and Russia.

GNEP members operate on a "leasing" concept whereby nuclear fuel is produced and exported and members ship back nuclear waste.

The initiative came to light in Canada in May 2006 when Prime Minister John Howard of Australia -- like Canada, rich in uranium -- visited Ottawa and voiced interest in the U.S. proposal, but also concerns about its effect on the mining and natural-gas industries.

And what does Harper say? Nada. Nothing. Zip.

Harper silent on nuclear energy initiative

And while Harper is silent on this crucial issue being discussed at the APEC meeting, Australia isn't.

Australia 'will never' accept nuclear waste

Of course it just so happens that his government is planning to open up a nuclear waste site in Northern Ontario. So will it be accepting American and other countries nuclear waste as well? Inquiring minds want to know.

Canada is poised to join an elite club of “advanced nuclear nations” that — led by U.S. President George W. Bush — plans to promote nuclear energy as a key solution to global warming and to control the international movement of enriched uranium and radioactive waste, CanWest News Service has learned.

Silence is acquiescence.

Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister Howard of Australia

We also agreed on joint statements regarding climate change and energy, a joint nuclear energy action plan which involves cooperation on civil nuclear energy, including R&D, skills and technical training, and regulatory issues. Australia intends to participate in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and there will be great benefits in terms of access to nuclear technology and nonproliferation. And the United States will support Australian membership in the Generation IV International Forum, which involves R&D to develop safer and better nuclear reactors.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Greenplan, APEC, Stephen Harper, nuclear waste, Australia, George Bush, uranium, nuclear, nuclear power, atomic energy, Greenhouse gases, CO2, Conservatives, Government,

Nuclear NIMBY

Unlike many opponents to nuclear power use in the Alberta tar sands, I am not anti-CANDU.

I support the use of CANDU as the safest low volume residue reactors in the world. That their need for continuing capitalization for maintenance is what has been problematic in the case of the industry in Ontario. Had the world adopted CANDU disasters like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl would never have occurred, because the technologies are different.

That being said, as a power engineer I oppose the use of Nuclear power in the Tarsands, as inefficient and not cost effective, because it will be used for steam injection of bitumen rather than for production of electricity. This will take up larger volumes of water, and further pollute the existing Athabasca river with heated effluent.

Nuclear power might be all the rage for some interested parties in Alberta's oil patch, but others question the need for such controversial power generation in an industry that requires more steam than electricity.

And let's understand that is what is being proposed for the tarsands, not just an electrical plant but one for steam and electrical production needed for bitumen production.

He was one of a small delegation of community leaders from Peace River, interested in visiting New Brunswick’s nuclear power plant. Whitecourt and Peace River are in the running to host Western Canada’s first nuclear plant, putting it about an hour’s drive from the B.C. border. It’s proposed for northwestern Alberta due to the presence of bitumen trapped in rock west of the main oilsands deposits.

Nuclear power may soon run deep electric heaters to extract that rockbound oil, reduce emissions for conventional oilsands extraction and perhaps light northeastern B.C. homes. It would spur the proposed pipeline to deliver the black gold to the west coast at Kitimat and on to Asia, and further cement the merger of Alberta and B.C. into Canada’s western super-province.

The prize Royal Dutch is chasing is bitumen trapped in hard-rock limestone, rather than the conventional oil sands around Fort McMurray where bitumen is mixed with dirt and sandstone.

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant is the likeliest customer for a nuclear power plant proposed by Energy Alberta Corp., a private company working with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.Unlocking the multibillion-barrel bonanza encased in limestone requires an astounding amount of electricity.

The resource has been known for decades but efforts to recover it have failed.

Royal Dutch is working on electric heaters below ground to loosen up the gooey bitumen to draw it to the surface through wells.

The firm is trying to commercialize what it calls a "novel thermal recovery process" invented by Shell's technology arm.

But because companies in the oilsands are now becoming conservationists due to the provinces carbon tax, they are finding alternatives to nuclear power in other fuels they generate as waste.

oil companies are already moving rapidly towards cheaper, more efficient technologies than those used for the past 20 years, one representative said.

''Nuclear may be an option in five to 10 years from now, but in the meantime, people are already moving off of natural gas and moving on to other things,'' Greg Stringham, with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said.

In the meantime, gasification of asphaltines, the dregs of the bitumen barrel, is one process being piloted in the oil sands as an alternative fuel, and underground fires fueled by oily air is another revolutionary technology being piloted to reduce costs in the oil sands, Stringham said.

So the guy who once was the leader of the Young Conservatives in Alberta now has to find a different market for his nuclear power plant. While still hoping to sell it to the oil companies as a possible mode for steam injection processes.

Energy Alberta, with partner Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., originally targetted the energy-hungry oil sands in its sales pitch, but has moved on to focus on Alberta in general. ''The purpose of this plant is to produce electricity only,'' spokesman Guy Huntingford said. ''Obviously hydrogen and steam are byproducts of it, but that's not why it's being built; it's being built purely for electricity, so we can place the plant anywhere.''

Nuclear power production of electricity is cleaner than coal, even when considering the environmental impact of both its energy source; uranium mining and fresh water, and its waste problems. It is also less environmentally damaging in comparison to the impact of hydro plants.

In fact nuclear power was one alternative source that M.K. Hubert recommended when offering alternatives to oil consumption in his Peak Oil theory.

The Green NGO's and their campaigners target nuclear power because they equate it with two false premises; fear of radiation, and fear of nuclear war.

They equate peaceful nuclear power with the military industrial complex, and they play on peoples fear of radiation.

There are all kinds of other problems with nuclear energy, including safety (even if technology has improved there is no such thing as a 100% accident proof anything, and a nuclear accident is the stuff of nightmares), dangerous waste (there is no way to get rid of nuclear waste at this time and the plant to be built would store all waste on site), environmental concerns (water would be drawn from the Peace River and that could mean pollution or an effect on local ecosystems), security (governments say nuclear power and nuclear waste are potential terrorist targets), and scarcity (uranium is a limited, non-renewable resource).

Facing reality
Editorial - Monday, June 18, 2007 @ 08:00

Not in my backyard. The call is going out loud and clear. In fact, it has been reverberating in both political and community circles ever since it was realized nuclear energy generates waste that must be stored somewhere.

As recorded in Saturday's Nugget, Nipissing-Timiskaming MP Anthony Rota has grave doubts about the whole concept of burying nuclear waste.

Rota is both a cancer victim and survivor. He cannot be thanked or commended too much for having the courage to admit his experience with cancer, and always being at the forefront in every effort to fight this dreaded disease.

Nuclear waste is radioactive. Radiation causes cancer. Rota speaks for millions of Canadians who are afraid of the stuff and do not want it in their backyards

Radioactive waste is the trouble with nuclear power says the right wing Green NGO Energy Probe which opposes nuclear power because they are shills for King Coal.

Dealing with the waste produced by nuclear reactors is one area that constantly dogs the nuclear power industry. Norman Rubin, director of nuclear research for the anti-nuclear organization Energy Probe, believes the waste is the primary problem with the technology.

The real problem is that with Canada's state funded CANDU, uranium industry and its provincial funded utilities,etc. the control lies with a closed group of state sanctioned corporations like Atomic Energy Canada, which have no public transparency, with no public representation on the board; union, consumer, engineering associations, MP's, etc.

The licensing of more reactors would also be a great boon, at potentially greater public expense, to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, which has received subsidies of $17.5 billion over 50 years, according to the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout.

Widespread distrust of existing agencies led Canadians to call for a new independent, non-partisan oversight body to keep tabs on how both government and industry handle nuclear waste.

This message means that top elected officials in Ottawa and the provinces must "revisit the mandates of existing oversight bodies in the nuclear field," concludes the report. Bodies like the federal regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, will need to have a "very public face."

Where our concern has to be is the privatization of nuclear power, it is when plants like that at Three Mile Island or worse; Hanford, are built by Westinghouse and contractors in a P3 with the State that slip shod construction and maintenance leads to critical problems.

The same kind of cronyism that saw the MIC in the U.S. build nuclear power plants was the kind of cronyism that occurred when the Soviet State built its MIC nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. After all Ukrainians were expendable just like the nice folks around Hanford, or those who live in the Nevada desert.

CANDU was a state sponsored engineered and maintained nuclear power process plant different from the Westinghouse and other designs. It was during the Harris and Martin governments rush to privatize and cut back public sector funding that resulted in the Bruce plant in Ontario running into problems. Bruce is now operated by a more public corporation which includes the Power Workers Union.

But in the Post-Kyoto era all that has changed. Those who once talked about selling off government assets now embrace them and are promoting them not only in Alberta but internationally.

Stephen Harper would seem an unlikely pitchman for nuclear power. When the Prime Minister launches into his familiar spiel about Canada as an emerging "energy superpower," we all think we know what he's talking about -- he's an Alberta MP, after all, and his father worked for Imperial Oil. Yet in a key speech last summer in London, his most gleeful boast was not about record oil profits, but about soaring uranium prices. "There aren't many hotter commodities, so to speak, in the resource markets these days," Harper joked to the Canada-U.K. Chamber of Commerce crowd. Then, noting that Britain is among those countries poised to begin buying new reactors for the first time in decades, he added: "We'll hope you remember that Canada is not just a source of uranium; we also manufacture state-of-the-art CANDU reactor technology, and we're world leaders in safe management of fuel waste."

And in response to the key criticism of waste storage these leaders in the 'safe management of fuels", a state sanctioned private conglomerate of nuclear power companies, have blown the dust off another old proposal from the seventies; using the Canadian Shield to store radioactive waste. Not much of a different plan than that used by the US. And one opposed by the Canadian public.

Canada's Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn announced Friday the Harper government's endorsement of nuclear power and its approval of going ahead with storing high-level radioactive waste underground.

The Conservatives' announcement allows existing reactor sites to continue accumulating waste indefinitely, and it initiates a search for an "informed community" willing to host a "deep repository" for burial of wastes. It will also explore moving wastes to a central location for temporary, shallow underground storage and recycling of nuclear fuel.

As Susan Riley writes in today's Ottawa Citizen, "Apart from the experimental nature of the proposed solution, many hurdles remain — notably, finding a community desperate enough to become a nuclear dumping ground. It has been long supposed that some remote northern town would be the lucky winner, given the technological preference for disposing of the waste deep in the Canadian shield. But recent research suggests the sedimentary rock underlying much of southern Ontario would also be suitable. That said, the prospect of a bidding war between Oakville and Rosedale appears unlikely."

Lunn said the planned depository would cost billions of dollars but said the cost would be borne by the nuclear industry.

It would take 60 years to find a location, build the facility and then transport in the used fuel.

The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) regulates this waste, which is currently stored safely and economically in water-filled pools or in dry concrete canisters at the nuclear reactor sites. While there is no technical urgency to proceed toward disposal right away, the issue needs to be addressed partly because the volume of the waste is growing, and partly because the Government has recognized a public concern that a disposal option needs to be identified. In 1978, AECL began a comprehensive program to develop the concept of deep geological disposal of nuclear fuel waste in igneous rock of the Canadian Shield. AECL, assisted by Ontario Hydro, subsequently developed the detailed proposal that is the subject of a public environmental review process by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Public hearings began on March 11, 1996, and are expected to continue until the end of the year.

Subsequently, in 1978, the Governments of Canada and Ontario established the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program “to assure the safe and permanent disposal of nuclear fuel waste”. In this program, the responsibility for research and development on disposal in a deep underground repository in intrusive igneous rock was allocated to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

As it stands, the AECL concept for deep geological disposal has not been demonstrated to have broad public support. The concept in its current form does not have the required level of acceptability to be adopted as Canada’s approach for managing nuclear fuel wastes.

Ignoring a 1998 recommendation by a federal environmental panel (the Seaborn Panel) to create an impartial radioactive waste agency, the Chretien government in 2002 gave control of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to the nuclear industry - namely Ontario Power Generation, Hydro Quebec and New Brunswick Power. Also in 2002 the federal Nuclear Fuel Waste Act gave NWMO a three-year mandate to choose between (a) "deep geological disposal in the Canadian Shield"; (b) "storage at nuclear sites"; and (c) "centralized storage, either above or below ground". NWMO must make its final recommendation to the federal government by November 15, 2005.

The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act results from the response of the Canadian federal government (December 1998) to the recommendations of the report of the Environmental Review panel (March 1998) on AECL's nuclear fuel waste management proposal. The report concluded that the plan for Deep Geological Disposal is technically sound, and that nuclear waste would be safely isolated from the biosphere, but that it remains a socially unacceptable plan in Canada. The report makes several recommendations, including the creation of an independent agency to oversee the range of activities leading to implementation. The scope will include complete public participation in the process. (See also the author's March 1998 editorial on this subject, and a detailed critique by industry observer J.A.L. "Archie" Robertson, published in the Bulletin of Canadian Nuclear Society, vol. 2 and 3, 1998)

Over a study and consultation period of three years the NWMO was mandated to choose among three storage concepts and propose a site:

• Deep underground in the Canadian Shield
• Above-ground at reactor sites
• Or at a centralized disposal area

The final report of the NWMO was released in November 2005, recommending a strategy of "Adaptive Phased Management". The strategy is based upon a centralized repository concept, but with a phase approach that includes public consultation and "decision points" along the way, as well as several concepts associated with centralized storage (vs. disposal), and the ability to modify the long-term strategy in accordance with evolving technology or societal wishes. The approach of Adaptive Phased Management was formally accepted by the federal government on June 14, 2007.

The NWMO is financed from a trust fund set up by the nuclear electricity generators and AECL. These companies were required to make an initial payment of $550 million into the fund: Ontario Power Generation (OPG), contributed $500 million, Hydro-Quebec and New Brunswick Power each paid $20 million, and AECL contribute $10 million. The participants are also required to make annual contributions ranging between $2 million and $100 million (one-fifth of their respective initial contributions).

Another important component of the disposal plan is the transportation of nuclear fuel to the disposal site. In Canada this aspect is the responsibility of the Ontario utility, Ontario Power Generation Inc.. Special transport casks have been designed that are able to withstand severe accidents. The battery of tests applied to these casks include being dropped 9 metres onto a hardened surface, exposure to an 800 degrees Celsius fire for 30 minutes, and immersion in water for 8 hours. The development of such specialized containers has proceeded in parallel with efforts in other countries. Sandia Labs in the U.S., in particular, has published some remarkable photographs of severe crash tests performed on one such design.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Hubbert, Technocracy, Peak-Oil, Veblen, Engineers, Howard, Scott
peak-oil, Tarsands, water, Pembina, Klein, oil, nukes, nuclear, gas, water, drought, Alberta, Canada,
AECL, candu, nuclear, nuclear-power, EnergyProbe, privatization, Conservatives, Flaherty, Munn, Government, Alberta, tarsands, nuke, nukes, power, energy,

Alberta Tories Support Nuking the Tarsands

At least one Alberta Tory knows the difference between power and energy. Though apparently one delegate at this weekends PC Convention thinks the Liberals are still in power in Ottawa.

Nuclear power is for creating electrical energy, the use that is being looked at for the Tarsands is to produce steam for injection into the oilsands to release the bitumin, which is neither efficient nor cheap. Nuclear power to just produce steam is like hunting flies with a shotgun.

Also Saturday, delegates voted to explore using nuclear power plants to assist oilsands development.

Delegate Bill Dearborn of Medicine Hat said the oilsands need a nuclear option as a bulwark against any future federal raids on Alberta's resource-based economy.

"We're familiar with these Liberal governments in Ottawa that have imposed unfair taxes on the oil and gas industry in the past,'' he said.

But delegate Don Dabbs said he has participated in a past provincial study on nuclear power and that it's not the way to go to generate steam power for the oilsands.

"A reactor to generate steam is not the principal purpose of a nuclear reactor. It's for electrical energy.

"It's a very expensive source of steam.''

Thomas Savery (1650-1715)
Thomas Savery was an English military engineer and inventor who in 1698, patented the first crude steam engine, based on Denis Papin's Digester or pressure cooker of 1679.

Thomas Savery had been working on solving the problem of pumping water out of coal mines, his machine consisted of a closed vessel filled with water into which steam under pressure was introduced. This forced the water upwards and out of the mine shaft. Then a cold water sprinkler was used to condense the steam. This created a vacuum which sucked more water out of the mine shaft through a bottom valve.

Boilers

The high-pressure steam for a steam engine comes from a boiler. The boiler's job is to apply heat to water to create steam. There are two approaches: fire tube and water tube.

A fire-tube boiler was more common in the 1800s. It consists of a tank of water perforated with pipes. The hot gases from a coal or wood fire run through the pipes to heat the water in the tank, as shown here:

In a fire-tube boiler, the entire tank is under pressure, so if the tank bursts it creates a major explosion.

More common today are water-tube boilers, in which water runs through a rack of tubes that are positioned in the hot gases from the fire. The following simplified diagram shows you a typical layout for a water-tube boiler:

In a real boiler, things would be much more complicated because the goal of the boiler is to extract every possible bit of heat from the burning fuel to improve efficiency.

Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR or CANDU).

The CANDU reactor design has been developed since the 1950s in Canada. It uses natural uranium (0.7% U-235) oxide as fuel, hence needs a more efficient moderator, in this case heavy water (D₂O).**

** with the CANDU system, the moderator is enriched (ie water) rather than the fuel, - a cost trade-off.

The moderator is in a large tank called a calandria, penetrated by several hundred horizontal pressure tubes which form channels for the fuel, cooled by a flow of heavy water under high pressure in the primary cooling circuit, reaching 290ƒC. As in the PWR, the primary coolant generates steam in a secondary circuit to drive the turbines. The pressure tube design means that the reactor can be refuelled progressively without shutting down, by isolating individual pressure tubes from the cooling circuit.

A CANDU fuel assembly consists of a bundle of 37 half metre long fuel rods (ceramic fuel pellets in zircaloy tubes) plus a support structure, with 12 bundles lying end to end in a fuel channel. Control rods penetrate the calandria vertically, and a secondary shutdown system involves adding gadolinium to the moderator. The heavy water moderator circulating through the body of the calandria vessel also yields some heat (though this circuit is not shown on the diagram above).

Steam generator (nuclear power)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an article about nuclear power plant equipment. For other uses, see steam generator.

Steam generators are heat exchanger used to convert water into steam from heat produced in a nuclear reactor core. They are used in pressurized water reactors between the primary and secondary coolant loops.

In commercial power plants steam generators can measure up to 70 feet in height and weigh as much as 800 tons. Each steam generator can contain anywhere from 3,000 to 16,000 tubes, each about three-quarters of an inch in diameter. The coolant is pumped, at high pressure to prevent boiling, from the reactor coolant pump, through the nuclear reactor core, and through the tube side of the steam generators before returning to the pump. This is referred to as the primary loop. That water flowing through the steam generator boils water on the shell side to produce steam in the secondary loop that is delivered to the turbines to make electricity. The steam is subsequently condensed via cooled water from the tertiary loop and returned to the steam generator to be heated once again. The tertiary cooling water may be recirculated to cooling towers where it sheds waste heat before returning to condense more steam. Once through tertiary cooling may otherwise be provided by a river, lake, ocean. This primary, secondary, tertiary cooling scheme is the most common way to extract usable energy from a controlled nuclear reaction.

These loops also have an important safety role because they constitute one of the primary barriers between the radioactive and non-radioactive sides of the plant as the primary coolant becomes radioactive from its exposure to the core. For this reason, the integrity of the tubing is essential in minimizing the leakage of water between the two sides of the plant. There is the potential that if a tube bursts while a plant is operating; contaminated steam could escape directly to the secondary cooling loop. Thus during scheduled maintenance outages or shutdowns, some or all of the steam generator tubes are inspected by eddy-current testing.

In other types of reactors, such as the pressurised heavy water reactors of the CANDU design, the primary fluid is heavy water. Liquid metal cooled reactors such as the in Russian BN-600 reactor also use heat exchangers between primary metal coolant and at the secondary water coolant.

Boiling water reactors do not use steam generators, as steam is produced in the pressure vessel.

See:

Sustainable Capitalism

Tarsands To Go Nuclear

Nuke The Tar Sands

Dion Pro Nuke

Cutting Your Nose

Energy

CANDU

Peak Oil

Tar Sands


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Greenplan, Alberta, Saskatchewan, GaryLunn, JohnBaird, CleanCoal, hydro, nuclear, nuclear power, Ontario Power Workers Union, EPCOR, Utilities, Greenhouse gases, CO2, Conservatives, Government, eak-oil, Tarsands, water, Pembina, Klein, oil, nukes, nuclear, gas, water, drought, Alberta, Canada,AECL, candu, nuclear, nuclear-power, EnergyProbe, privatization, Conservatives, Flaherty, Munn, Government, Alberta, tarsands, nuke, nukes, power, energy,

Sustainable Capitalism

Is nuclear power, and it is green, including its glow. And it is now being promoted as an environmental, green, alternative to the Peak Oil crisis.

And the Conservative governments in Ottawa as well as in Alberta embrace the green glow of nuclear power.

IPCC sees role for nuclear energy in new report

Current nuclear power is included as a 'key mitigation technology' in the field of energy supply while advanced nuclear power is considered key for the 2030 timeframe, alongside advanced renewables like tidal and wave energy, concentrating solar and photovoltaics.

The text states: "Given costs relative to other supply options, nuclear power, which accounted for 16% of the electricity supply in 2005, can have an 18% share of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents), but safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints.

Nuclear industry welcomes climate report backing

The world nuclear power industry welcomed on Friday the tacit backing given to their technology by some of the world's top scientists and economists in the latest analysis of the climate change crisis.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting in Bangkok said tackling global warming was both technologically and financially feasible as long as action was taken promptly, and that nuclear power could be in the arsenal.

It is common sense. What else is there for most of electricity generation that is carbon free," Ian Hore-Lacy of the World Nuclear Association said.

"If you have a major technology that is capable of being deployed on a larger scale than now that emits no carbon, you don't need a Phd (doctorate) to work out that it has got an awful lot of potential," he told Reuters in London.

The civil nuclear industry, which saw its future evaporating after the reactor explosion at Chernobyl in 1986 sent a pall of radioactive dust across Europe, has seen its prospects improve dramatically in the hunt for a solution to global warming.

See:

Tarsands To Go Nuclear

Nuke The Tar Sands

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Greenplan, Alberta, Saskatchewan, GaryLunn, JohnBaird, CleanCoal, hydro, nuclear, nuclear power, Ontario Power Workers Union, EPCOR, Utilities, Greenhouse gases, CO2, Conservatives, Government,