Pro Nuke Bloggers Grow Silent As Japan Nuclear Accident Worsens

Setting aside Chernobyl, the world right now is in the middle of the worst nuclear accident since Three Mile Island, and the loud and proud Pro Nuclear Bloggers such as the NEI Blog, Rod Adams and This Week In Nuclear have grown deathly silent, crawled back into the wood work hoping that the radioactive cloud now hovering over the Nuclear Renaissance will soon pass, and they can get back to Propaganda As Usual.

They do not want to talk about the THREE known leaks at the Tokyo Electric Power site, nor do they wish to discuss that the seven reactors at the site have now been shut down for at least two months as they go through a complete safety check...they want this story to JUST GO AWAY as it is bad for business. Last time it was checked, both TEPCO and Entergy stocks were down, and the worse this story gets the worse their financial numbers are going to be. Even more alarming for the likes of Rod Adams, is this accident has alerted Wall Street to the very real risks of investing in the faulty science that is nuclear energy. How many months, even years has GNEP now been pushed back? Could we see Congress greatly reduce funding to the nuclear pork barrel projects that litter our Federal Budget? Seven reactors at say $1.5 million a day in gross revenues...forced shut down of at least 60 days comes out to $NINETY MILLION in lost revenues, and of course we have repairs to consider, not to mention citizen lawsuits. Any one else hearing the investor screams of SELL, SELL, SELL?

By the way, where is Patrick Moore? The former Greenpeace Founder, now corporate shill for nuclear sure has been rather silent and absent these past few days. Didn't he PROMISE that nuclear was safe, vital and secure? Sure we will see him crawl out from under some rock deep in the woods he wants cut down as soon as someone waves a $15,000 check under his nose. Patrick will insist he has not sold out, but if you bother to see who is funding his CASEnergy group, it is obvious he is firmly in the pocket of the nuclear industry. After all, NEI(Nuclear Energy Institute is careful about where they throw their millions at.

The proverbial cat is out of the bag, and the nuclear industry can no longer dance around the may pole claiming nuclear energy if vital, safe and secure. The world just dodged another Chernobyl, and such and event would topple financial institutions all around the world. Global Warming is real, and we as a world have to take it seriously, but this event has shown that nuclear cannot be a part of the solution.

Situation grave at world's largest nuclear plant

by Deep Harm

Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 06:25:27 AM

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/18/92527/0219

The world's largest nuclear plant, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, experienced a fire and damage after two earthquakes on Monday. Accounts of the damage worsen with each new report, and now data indicate that the plant sits directly over a fault line. The plant's seven reactors are currently shut down, but keeping them safely shut down will be difficult. If technicians cannot keep cooling water flowing to the radioactive cores, those could overheat, resulting in a meltdown and massive release of radiation. The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has urged Japanese authorities to investigate the accident fully.

NEI's Nuclear Notes Blog Has Their Panties in a Knot

NEI's View Of World
NEI's visits to our site yesterday:
neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com
17

Seems that my article, "Trail of Nuclear Tears-Exposing Nuclear's Horrid Truths", posted here on this blog, and picked up by OpEd which uncovers some of the lies that are the nuclear industry has the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) and their Nuclear Notes bloggers in and uproar. The good news, is they are once again caught in another lie, and have shown again they are incapable of discussing in a rational manner issues brought up that they would as soon never see the light of day. Such as the FACT that the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in its fifty years of operation consumed enough coal supplied electricity to meet all of the energy needs for Los Angeles county for a period of 18,250 years...that is a BOAT LOAD OF CO2!

Seems Michael Stuart is so incapable of controlling his emotions and personal bias that he instantly goes into attack mode, and trys to discredit the author of the article (me) and my blog, the Green Nuclear Butterfly by cross pollenating comments in the Nuclear Notes blog, and here. I suppose I should be honored, since he attacks Helen Caldicott in the NEI blog post with the same venom and hatred aimed at myself. Michael in his childish fit of rage accuses Ms. Caldicott of lying and manipulating data, while ignoring the very real fact that it took and act of Congress to force the DOE to provide compensation and medical help to nuclear workers dying of cancers caused by their exposure in the nuclear work place. Further, DOE's own studies now admit that at least 22 cancers have direct links to a persons exposure to radioactive contaminants.

This same VERMIN then comments on his own article, complaining that Green Nuclear Butterfly filters comments from readers, then falsely claims, that the NEI blog allows unmoderated comments. To verify this statement on the part of and NEI employee (assuming this since he writes on/for the NEI Nuclear Notes Blog) I posted a comment to said blog...when said comment was posted by the Green Nuclear Butterfly, we received the following notification from the NEI Nuclear Notes Blog posted below. Maybe Michael needs to meet up with Rod Adams and the two of them can cry in their beer.

Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.

Post a Comment On: NEI Nuclear Notes

Our message was left over on the NEI Nuclear Notes Blog...let's see if it actually gets published.

Michael's Comment Left to Self:

Michael Stuart said...

Anyone wishing to post a comment on that blog should note that all comments are filtered by the moderator. This is particularly unfortunate those of us that might have something factual to say.

Apparently, in order to get a comment posted there you must either:

1. agree with the author,
2. present a weak argument that the author can easily refute, or
3. wait until the author has had sufficient time to write a smack-down rebuttal before posting your comment.

Sadly, that is no way to foster a debate.

The author of that blog should note that even NEI's blog allows unmoderated comments.

Another Part of The Rubberstamp Puzzle

Our Government, DOE and NRC Selling Us Down River

So, you think your towns aging relic of a reactor should be closed, is your community tired of having to deal with the elevated risk factors as these old dinosaurs slowly begin to die? TO BAD, the NRC is rubber stamping the license renewals of at least 85 percent of the fleet, and short of Congressional Action, there may not be much we can do about it...I stumbled across this very disturbing article this evening, and suggest every grassroots activists in America read it carefully. It further confirms the contention of the Green Nuclear Butterfly that our government is trying to force us to play host to unsafe reactors because they have decided Nuclear Energy should be a part of our nation's energy portfolio...problem is, don't we deserve honest, straight forward relicensing procedures that are NOT FIXED GOING IN? One other disturbing note in all of this...is this rule why GREENPEACE is not stepping into this fight? Jim Riccio is the nuke point person for Greenpeace in Washington, DC...he is the same Jim Riccio quoted in the article. Seems to me, that if Greenpeace does not step in immediately on this issue, they are by their actions saying they are fine with, and endorse this crime against humanity being visited upon Nuclear Reactor Host Communities. Riccio is Greenpeace's point man on Nuclear, he pointed out this plan to RUBBER STAMP re-licensing six years ago. The Executive Director of Greenpeace has NO EXCUSES...if he refuses to step in, he is saying Greenpeace is fine with the environmental RAPE of 103 American Communities.

NRC 20-Yr Plant Extensions

To: RADSAFE
Subject: NRC 20-Yr Plant Extensions
From: Susan Gawarecki
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:05:44 -0400
Organization: ORR Local Oversight Committee

+++

This article came to me electronically today, although the news is obviously dated I hadn't heard about it. Would this be considered a "pro-nuclear power" decision by the existing administration?

My personal opinion of the major party candidates is that they are both very comfy with the petroleum industry, which gives them plenty of incentive to ignore the nuclear power question. As a geologist, I think this would be very good for my [original] profession!

The biggest problem with an energy policy is that it forces the candidates to make difficult trade-offs, as all forms of energy generation (not to mention transmission) have environmental or political consequences. I'm sure they find it easier to just not deal with it.

Please note that the opinions expressed in the article below (or that of the activist organization that distributed it) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of me or my organization.

Regards,
Susan Gawarecki

NRC 20-Yr Plant Extensions - Patching Nuclear Power
J.A. Savage, Albion Monitor
September 25, 2000

In a hushed quest to allow an expected 85 percent of the nation's nuclear reactors to live beyond mandatory retirement, the nuclear industry talked the federal government into allowing a generic 20-year extension on the life of reactors. The public only has until October 16 to let the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) know what it thinks of the government's plan to allow license renewal instead of decommissioning.

According to the NRC, the only public meeting on the re-licensing plan has been held at its Maryland headquarters. The government's process effectively shuts out any public input on extending plant licenses, said Public Citizen senior policy analyst Jim Riccio. "Most of the public is not aware of the issues until they land in their laps, by way of their local nuclear plant."

Here's where the "generic" part of re-licensing comes in. Instead of having an "in my backyard" approach for concerned citizens, the generic license extension puts the onus in a generic somewhere-else land. "By making something generic, they don't have to deal with the public," Riccio added.

What few nuclear critics are hip to the industry/government move, are focusing on safety issues. "During the early stage of life and the late stage, the failure rate for both man and machines is generally higher than during middle age; the reliability of both man and machines is generally lower during the early and late stages. The prudent and proper course of action is to retire aging nuclear plants before they reach the point where reliability drops off markedly," notes Dave Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists' nuclear safety engineer. The nuclear industry claims it deserves generic safety rules for re-licensing because its safety track record has only gotten better over the years, now that its reactors are in middle age.

In a fortunate acronym for nuclear critics, the generic re-licensing program is called "GALL"- -for Nuclear Power Plant Generic Aging Lessons Learned. The "generic" part appears most important to both industry and government.

"Aging is the same no matter if the [reactor] maker is GE, Westinghouse or Combustion Engineering," said Electric Power Research Institute manager of life-cycle management, John Carey, who added that the weather surrounding a particular reactor is the only difference.

Long known as an aging problem is the brittleness of the metal enclosing the reactor core. The reactor gets bombarded with electrons for years and the metal becomes brittle. EPRI, for one, believes that brittleness is not a problem. "Many plants even at 60 years won't reach that [threshold] level of embrittlement. There's probably none that will at 40," said Carey.

While most of the government's and critics' attention is focused on reactor safety during aging, the industry's impetus admittedly has to do with short-term financial gains that come with a second license and the value added to a plant for resale.

"In a deregulated, competitive business, a fully depreciated nuclear plant (beyond its original 40-year license) is a tremendous asset. It can sell its power at marginal cost, which is very competitive. Such a plant would have significant profit potential," notes the industry group Nuclear Energy Institute. In other words, once ratepayers have paid off the construction investment, the primary expense of nuclear plants disappears and the only ongoing costs to owners are fuel, safety expenditures and staffing. Less tangible opportunity costs like guaranteed ecological preservation are not a part of the calculations.

The NRC's attempt at generic guidelines for license renewal had been sitting around in various stages since the early 1990s. It was goosed into action, though, when Baltimore Gas & Electric's (Constellation) Calvert Cliffs became the first facility to ask for a 20-year extension. Calvert Cliffs (in the NRC's back yard) was approved this March. Duke's Oconee plant in North Carolina followed suit in May.

License renewal does not come without a price, however, as keeping that license means an owner has to invest in anti-aging technology - a.k.a. capital investments.

Like plastic surgery fixes the fissures and sags in an aging body, keeping a past-prime nuke in shape "depends on how much money you have," Carey. For instance, replacing a steam generator, a typical aging problem, costs about $150 million. Shareholders might be loath to invest that kind of capital in an old plant. But, the beauty of re-licensing is that any such investment can be amortized over an extra 20 years, even if the plant owners do not plan to run the plant that long. Thus, license renewal tucks in the short-term operating costs of nuclear plants.

Public Citizen's Riccio, says that the 20 year extension "shifts the risk of future operation from the stockholder to the ratepayer." Riccio believes that the specter of early shutdowns with their attendant stranded asset risk is driving re-licensing. Fitch ICBA analyst Ellen Lapson explained the early shutdown scenario, "Towards the end of the life of a plant, if there's no re-licensing then there's less reason to invest capital."

Using the medical metaphor again, that means there's a choice between euthanasia (decommissioning) because the patient is too expensive to keep up and take the risk of having to pay all those exorbitant hospital bills, or pump more money into the patient--say an aging pop singer, a la Diana Ross--in the expectation the survival will allow payback when the star makes a comeback tour.

A 20-year extension also "enhances the value of the plant if [owners] decide to get out of the business," said Bob Wood, NRC senior licensing financial policy advisor. He added that no owner had confessed that intent directly.

But the industry's unstated intent appears known to the NRC. "GenCos are snatching up economically uncompetitive facilities," noted Christopher Grimes, NRC chief of license renewal and standardization.

But economics can also kill a re-license. Yankee Rowe, a poster-child nuclear facility, scrapped its plans to live beyond middle age because it would have cost too much money just to prove to the NRC that it could do the repairs needed for re-licensing. EPRI's Carey blamed it on the small size of the plant and the economics of energy in New England.

The other economic benefit to plant owners is that when a plant gets a 20-year life extension, payments into its decommissioning fund also gets drawn out another 20 years, allowing another decrease in short-term operating expenses, noted Fitch's Lapson.

Like a boomer turning 40, the limit for what constitutes old-age in a nuke was "arbitrary," said the NRC's Grimes. "In the Atomic Energy Act of 1956, everybody said 40 years ought to be enough," said Grimes, adding that the arbitrary number was based on financing available to owners. "We looked into what might be life-limiting aging effects. In 1991 the first rule was issued on aging effects. It concluded Mother Nature doesn't care how long the NRC's license term is."

NRC Is Supposed To Be Funded By Industry Fees...Why Are They Asking Congress For More Money?

Someone correct me here if I am wrong, but isn't the NRC supposed to be funded by the fees and fines paid to said agency by the industry that they are supposed to oversee? If they are experiencing a BUDGET CRUNCH, shouldn't they be raising the fees and penalties of the nuclear industry, instead of asking Congress for $100 MILLION dollars. I read another article where Entergy profits are up, yet another that said the company has received over $280 Million in Community Block Grants to recover almost their full losses from Hurricane Katrina. The DOE budget for GNEP related costs in 2007 is $250 Million. Seems to me, that tax payers have subsidized the Nuclear Industry for far too long, and that the NRC needs to meet with the industry to discuss this financial shortfall that will be created when all THESE NEW LICENSE APPLICATIONS start flowing in. Call or write your Senators and Congressmen/women, and tell them you OPPOSE funding additional staff at the NRC. Inform the Congress that any NRC budget increases need to come from their licensees, not the American Taxpayer.

GAO Report: NRC Needs Increased Funding to Handle Heavier Workload

From the AP:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to hire enough workers to manage the expected onslaught of new nuclear reactor applications will be crippled without increased funding, a report by the investigative arm of Congress says.

NRC Chairman Dale Klein said he, too, was concerned about the agency's ability to handle the license requests unless it receives more money from Congress. Without a new budget, the agency will be $95 million, or 12 percent, short.

"It will slow (the licensing) down," he said in an interview.

A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday examined his agency's workforce challenges.

"The funding and full-time equivalent restrictions ... would have a crippling impact on our ability to manage human capital," Klein wrote in a response included in the GAO report released Wednesday.