qualche giorno fa le autorità francesi, inglesi e finlandesi hanno rilasciato un comunicato comune per quanto riguarda la costruzione e la gestione dei sistemi di sicurezza delle centrali nucleari di nuova concezione. epr significa european pressurized reactor, un’evoluzione europea dei vecchi pwr, che prenderanno il posto degli attuali modelli di reattori nucleari utilizzati in giro per il mondo. attualmente due sono i prototipi in costruzione: flamanville in francia, e okiluoto in finlandia. e c’è una promessa: una riduzione significativa delle scorie.

non siamo certi che le promesse saranno sicuramente rispettate. siamo certi però che ben quattro centrali epr saranno costruite nel prossimo futuro nel nostro paese. per parlare di epr, e sopratutto della tecnologia dei reattori, ne parleremo col prof. marco sumini, docente di fisica dei reattori nucleari presso l’università di bologna. stay tuned!

download (mp3 – 28,3 mb)

Interview with Giuseppe Onufrio, Director of Greenpeace Italia. 22 Nov 09 Giuseppe Onufrio: “In Finland and in France they are busy building these new power stations known as Epr, which are a French design. In this regard, a few months ago we discovered that these power stations have never been approved due to the fact that their emergency systems do not meet the minimum nuclear safety requirements, which are? The emergency system may not be physically located in the same area as the normal operating systems because, in the event of an accident occurring, if one of the systems should fail, then the backup system would also fail.
The first indication came in a letter dated December last year: the Finnish safety authority wrote to the French manufacturer, Areva, complaining about the fact that the people attending the meetings were incompetent with regard to nuclear safety and stating that: “notwithstanding the fact that we ordered you to re-design the emergency system, this has never been done”.
In April, this letter was leaked and Greenpeace lodged a complaint in this regard. In June 2009, the British Nuclear Safety Agency drafted a document, which, in addition to stating that this type of power station, both the French and the American Ap 1000 design manufactured by Westinghouse, would not survive a direct hit in the event of an aircraft crash, also reiterated the Finnish claims, namely that the emergency system does not meet the minimum nuclear safety requirements regarding the independence of the two systems.
On the 15th October, the French Nuclear Safety Agency wrote to the manufacturer, saying the same thing. On the 22nd October, no less than three Nuclear Safety Agencies issued a joint communiqué stating that it would be impossible to approve the current plans for the Epr reactor.
Yet the power station is already under construction and our politicians are trying to fool you into believing that we will have a plant that is the epitome of safety while, in reality, both in the country in which the power plant is being built, and in England, which is itself interested in replacing its own ageing power plants with these new ones, they are saying that “The project cannot be approved and it is going to take at least two or three years to get back on track”. Meanwhile, back in Finland, the Finnish Safety Authority has discovered no less than 2,100 non-compliances at the Olkiluoto construction site, where one of the two reactors in question is currently under construction. http://www.beppegrillo.it/en/2009/11/nuclear_power_will_never_be_ap_1.html

French Nuclear Energy Policy – a cake the US may do well not to consume too much of Treehugger, by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 11.22.09 “………………. US politicians now cite the French energy policy example with excitement; claiming that nation’s high reliance on nuclear power is exemplary. (Inference that support for climate and energy legislation is more likely if nuclear power expansion incentives are included.) It doesn’t seem to matter to that France is roughly the size of Texas and that the existing US nuclear fleet already is far larger than what France has or will ever have. Nor, that the French government controls the nuclear power industry (socialized electricity).

Think it will matter to US Congressional proponents of government-funded nuclear power that France may be forced to import electrical power this winter due to operating problems and that the newest French power plant design – one that some argue should be used to update the nuclear fleet in both France and the USA – was recently challenged for being overly elaborate, and possibly unsafe?

I love it when Senators use the “Manhattan Project” simile. With Westinghouse, the big “American” nuclear supplier, long owned by Toshiba, and Areva, the French nuclear company, poised to go after an expanding US market, tax payer subsidies could flow to Japan & France, respectively. What’s the big deal?

As Lloyd points out in his post “Why Can’t We Be More Like France” it would be a very big deal indeed:

According to Joe Romm, to generate the same percentage as France, the US would have to build between 300 and 600 nuclear plants, depending on how you deal with existing plants needing retirement or growth in electricity demand.Oh, and Joe calculates that it will cost some four trillion dollars, and would need seven Yucca Mountain sized waste disposal sites. And that there are serious problems in the supply chain. Whether you love or hate nuclear power, there is no way that we can build enough of it fast enough to make much of a difference.

There is no French Energy Revolution. Move along Marie. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/french_nuclear-power-design-cake-let-them-eat.php

Generating Failure  How building nuclear power plants would set America back in the race agasinst global warming.  Environment Illinois 22 Nov 09  – “……Executive Summatry. Far from being a solution to global warming, nuclear power will actually set America back in the race to reduce pollution. Nuclear power is too slow and too expensive to make enough of a difference in the next two decades. Moreover, nuclear power is not necessary to provide clean, carbon-free electricity for the long haul.

The up-front capital investment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors could prevent twice as much pollution over the next 20 years if invested in energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy instead. Taking into account the ongoing costs of running the nuclear plants, a clean energy path would deliver as much as five times more progress for the money.

Early action matters in the fight against global warming….

• Reducing emissions from power plants holds large potential for early progress. The share of the U.S. emissions budget available to electric power plants could be as little as 34 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2010 cumulatively through 2050………………..
• No new reactors are now under construction in the United States. The nuclear industry will not complete the first new reactor until at least 2016, optimistically assuming construction will take four years after regulatory approval.
• However, it is likely that no new nuclear reactors could be online until 2018 or later. During the last wave of nuclear construction in the United States, the average reactor took nine years to build. New reactors are likely to experience similar delays. For example, a new reactor now under construction in Finland is at least three years behind schedule after a series of quality control failures.
• The American nuclear industry is not ready to move quickly. No American power company has ordered a new nuclear power plant since 1978, and all reactors ordered after the fall of 1973 ended up cancelled. As a result, domestic manufacturing capability for nuclear reactor parts has withered and trained personnel are scarce.
• Even if the nuclear industry managed to complete 100 new reactors in the United States by 2030 – the level of construction advocated by supporters of nuclear power – new nuclear power plants could still only reduce cumulative power plant emissions by 12 percent over the next two decades, leading to a higher and later peak in pollution. As a result, America would burn through its 40-year electric sector carbon budget in just 15 years……
• In contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources can make an immediate contribution toward reducing global warming pollution.
• Clean energy can begin cutting emissions immediately. Energy efficiency programs are already reducing electricity consumption by 1-2 percent below forecast levels annually in leading states, and the U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year in wind farms, and growing rapidly.
• With the up-front capital investment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors, America could prevent twice as much pollution in the next 20 years by investing in clean energy instead. (Midpoint estimate, see Figure ES-1 and page 21 of the full report for more details.) ….

http://www.environmentillinois.org/uploads/c4/6b/c46b345b95dd70df2c8341d397e21866/Generating-Failure—Environment-Illinois—Web.pd

This is what Harper should be hoping for....

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent trip to India this week was met with some resounding success, in a diplomatic relationship that has been on the cold side of the bed for about 35 years. “This trip is, in a sense, the culmination but also the jumping-off point,” Mr. Harper told reporters yesterday. A jumping off point that may be a little to late to recuperate a nuclear relationship that is mired in distrust and apathy. It was in the early 1050’s that Canada’s AECL dipped its foot into the international waters, keen on parlaying its heavy water technology into international nuclear reactor contracts. A deal was struck and the research reactor CIRUS (Canada-India Research U.S.) was supplied by Canada in 1954, but used heavy water supplied by the U.S. (hence its name). It is the second oldest reactor in India. It is modeled on the Canadian Chalk River National Research X-perimental NRX reactor. The reactor was not under IAEA safeguards (which did not exist when the reactor was sold), although Canada stipulated, and the U.S. supply contract for the heavy water explicitly specified, that it only be used for peaceful purposes. Nonetheless CIRUS produced some of India’s initial weapon plutonium stockpile, as well as the plutonium for India’s 1974 Pokhran-I (Codename Smiling Buddha) nuclear test, the country’s first nuclear test. This of course outraged Canada who was stung by allegations that the fissionable material use to construct India’s first nuclear device had been obtained through their technology. In the 1990’s diplomatic relations between the 2 countries thawed as Indian economic transformation occurred, attracting business interest from the west.

With the recent plan to sell AECL off to the highest bidder, Harper’s India trip was hedged on a faint hope that India, a nation that is vastly expanding its nuclear power, would show some interest in the beleaguered crown corporation. But AECL isn’t going to be an easy sell. As Ron Banerjee suggested in the National Post yesterday;

Compared to our Russian, European and American rivals, Canada has less to offer in terms of export credits, industrial offsets and diplomatic arm-twisting. Additionally, all the rival firms produce light water reactors, which require enriched uranium. CANDU, on the other hand, uses heavy water reactors, which rely on natural uranium and heavy water as a moderator.

Although India is the second largest producer of heavy water the prospect of an ACEL takeover is bleak, considering the worlds largest democracy does it better than the creators of the technology.

India’s NPCIL has been able to lower costs and outperform AECL thanks to a massive pool of technical talent and an enormous, ever-expanding economy with increasing energy demands. India has built 17 reactors and is constructing six more currently. Indian heavy water reactors have been a scintillating success and, according to the Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Design, have achieved over 90% capacity utilization in the last decade. By contrast, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance reports the province’s fleet of CANDUs sported a 65% utilization rate in 2005. The Canadian Nuclear Society claims an overall CANDU fleet performance of closer to 80%.

So an all out sell off of AECL to India is probably not in the cards, so what next? I think the proposition of joint ownership of AECL between Canada and India would be a great move. First its an investment opportunity for India to move beyond domestic nuclear manufacturing with the well-established international name CANDU. This also provides an opportunity for Canada to re-shape the makeup of the company, moving away from the apathetic that the AECL continues to display. The second benefit is the ability to move into new fields of research in nuclear technology with India, namely Thorium reactors. India is developing a new thorium reactor — an element both India and Canada have in abundance — which will be the world’s cleanest and safest nuclear reactor. With its enormous clout, size and access to low-cost technological solutions, India is much better positioned to achieve global sales. A jointly owned AECL would be of benefit to both countries, providing a check and balance to each others ambitions. If thorium is the new technology that takes the nuclear industry by storm in the coming years we would greatly benefit from being ahead of the curve. Its pretty obvious that AECL needs a total revamping instead of getting sold of to Areva or Westinghouse – two predominant light-water manufacturers who would most likely eliminate AECL, killing of an international competitor and rendering heavy-water technology obsolete. As India has shown a solid record in rescuing downtrodden western corporations maybe they could save AECL.

Greenpeace boards reactor equipment ship( Google News AFP) – 17 Nov 09 COPENHAGEN — Six Greenpeace activists Monday boarded a ship carrying French-made steam turbines bound for a new nuclear power station in Finland, the environmental group said.The protestors climbed on board the Happy Ranger as it made its way through the Fehmarn Belt strait between Denmark and Germany and unfurled banners including one which read “Nuclear madness, made in France”.Greenpeace wants construction halted on a third-generation nuclear reactor currently being built at Olkiluoto, in southwest Finland, by the French company Areva………………

In a statement, Greenpeace Nordic campaigner Lauri Myllyvirta said the Olkiluoto project had so far been a “disaster”.

“This dangerous mistake has cost Finland years of action on climate protection,” Myllyvirta said.

“By choosing nuclear power the Finnish government shut the door on investments in renewable energy and energy saving projects.”

AFP: Greenpeace boards reactor equipment ship

French Nuclear Madness won’t save the climate Baltic Sea, 7th Space  International 16 Nov 09 — Today six activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise boarded the cargo ship Happy Ranger in the Fehmarn Belt between Denmark and Germany. The activists are carrying banners reading “Nuclear Madness, made in France”. The ship is carrying steam turbines supplied by the French nuclear company AREVA to the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor currently under construction in Finland.

Today’s action was taken to highlight the fact that nuclear energy not only exposes the public to radiation hazards, but undermines effective climate protection. Greenpeace is calling on the Finnish government to stop the work at Olkiluoto 3.

“Construction of the EPR reactor in Olkiluoto has been a disaster. This dangerous mistake has cost Finland years of action on climate protection. By choosing nuclear power the Finnish government shut the door on investments in renewable energy and energy saving projects.” said Lauri Myllyvirta , Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Nordic.

In 2002 Finns were promised that a new reactor would help the country cut its greenhouse gas emissions. But now the owners of the new reactor, far from cutting down on the use of dirty fuels, are planning new polluting fossil-fired power stations. As Greenpeace predicted, the reactor is suffering from chronic quality problems and massive budget overruns.
Construction of Olkiluoto reactor is already more than three years behind schedule and the estimated cost has soared from €3.2 billion to €5.5 billion. While some of that cost will be paid by French taxpayers, the impact of the delay will end up costing 600 euros for every man, woman and child in Finland (2).

“The Finnish experience once more shows that nuclear power is a dead end. If governments are serious about cutting greenhouse gas emissions, they must focus their efforts on renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. Unlike expensive, dangerous nuclear reactors, these are reliable, fast to implement, and clean,” commented Jan Beránek, head of the nuclear campaign at Greenpeace International.

French Nuclear Madness won’t save the climate – 7thSpace Interactive

Khi tập đoàn Pháp Areva và tập đoàn Siemens của Đức cùng nhau chào mời công ty điện lực Phần Lan TVO một nhà máy điện nguyên tử thế hệ thứ ba theo hình thức chìa khóa trao tay với giá 3 tỷ euro, hầu như chẳng hề một ai nghĩ đến chuyện thất bại.

Lò phản ứng được xây trên đảo Olkiluoto của Phần Lan là lò phản ứng đầu tiên của thế hệ thứ ba: lò phản ứng nước áp lực châu Âu (European Pressurized Water Reactor – EPR). Lò phản ứng có công suất lớn nhất thế giới này có thể đáp ứng toàn bộ nhu cầu điện năng cho một thành phố triệu dân.

Thế nhưng, hiện TVO và các công ty Areva/Siemens đang tranh cãi kịch liệt trước tòa án. Chi phí tăng cao, thời điểm hoàn thành phải lùi lại nhiều năm. Nhưng đặc biệt là những người chỉ trích hiện đang cáo buộc hai tập đoàn đang xây dựng một cách rất cẩu thả. Bê tông rỗ, thép có vết nứt, nhiều cấu trúc táo bạo đến mức các chuyên gia của cơ quan giám sát nguyên tử Phần Lan phải rùng mình.

Theo dự tính ban đầu, nhà máy điện lẽ ra đã bắt đầu hoạt động vào mùa xuân vừa rồi. Bây giờ phải chờ mãi đến năm 2012. Và ngoài ra phải tiêu tốn thêm ít nhất là 2,3 tỷ euro so với tính toán ban đầu.

Xây dựng nhà máy điện hạt nhân EPR tại Olkiluoto, Phần Lan. Ảnh: AFP.

Vào đầu năm nay, Areva đã đưa đơn kiện TVO ra tòa và yêu cầu đền bù thiệt hại 1 tỷ euro với lý do cho rằng TVO đã cần quá nhiều thời gian cho các văn kiện cần thiết. Về phần mình, TVO cũng phản pháo bằng cách kiện ngược lại và yêu cầu chi trả 2,4 tỷ euro đền bù cho thiệt hại do thời hạn hoàn thành chậm trễ gây ra.

Lò EPR này là lò phản ứng đầu tiên của thế hệ thứ ba, cỗ máy nguyên tử hiện đại nhất của thế giới, một sản phẩm lai tạo từ các phát triển lò hạt nhân Pháp và Đức. Nhưng thường sản phẩm lai thì lại phức tạp: Từ lúc bắt đầu cho đến hiện giờ đã có trên 3000 lỗi trong xây dựng. Và câu hỏi quan trọng nhất vẫn còn chưa được trả lời là câu hỏi về hệ thống điều khiển tự động của lò phản ứng.

Trong tháng 12 vừa qua, tổng giám đốc của cơ quan giám sát đã gửi một bức thư phản đối đến nữ giám đốc của Areva. Ông không nhận thấy có “tiến bộ thật sự” trong “thiết kế các hệ thống kiểm soát” và cho rằng “các lỗi thiết kế đã không được sửa chữa”. Hồi giữa năm nay cơ quan giám sát hạt nhân Anh cũng đã phàn nàn về thiết kế hệ thống điều khiển của Avera. Vì thế nên nhiều chuyên gia cho rằng trong vòng 8 năm tới đây Avera sẽ không xây dựng được một lò phản ứng EPR nào trong Liên hiệp Anh.

Khoảng 4300 công nhân từ 60 nước và 700 doanh nghiệp phụ trợ hiện đang có mặt trên công trình xây dựng. Rất ít doanh nghiệp trong số đó đã có kinh nghiệm trong kỹ thuật lò phản ứng hạt nhân. Nhiều công nhân đang làm việc như thể họ đang xây một nhà để xe cho tư nhân. Nhiều bảng với dòng chữ “Xin đừng tiểu tiện vào đồ vật” bằng 4 thứ tiếng được treo trên công trường xây dựng.

Trong thế giới Phương Tây, ngoài Phần Lan hiện chỉ có một lò phần ứng đang được xây dựng: tại Flamanville trong vùng Normandie – và ở đấy người Pháp cũng đang phải đối đầu với những vấn đề tương tự như ở Phần Lan.

Bản đồ các lò phản ứng trên thế giới. Màu đen: Số lò đang hoạt động, màu đỏ: đang xây và màu xanh: đang còn trong giai đoạn lên kế hoạch. Phía dưới là biểu đồ số lượng lò phản ứng theo tuổi. Ảnh: Der Spiegel.

Trong năm vừa qua, lần đầu tiên kể từ khi kỷ nguyên nguyên tử bắt đầu, không có đến một lò phản ứng mới đi vào hoạt động. Theo báo cáo tình trạng trên thế giới của ngành công nghiệp nguyên tử (World Nuclear Industry Status Report), tuy hiện đang có 52 lò phản ứng “đang được xây dựng” – nhưng 13 lò trong số đó đã được xây dựng từ hơn 20 năm nay. Và ở 24 lò phản ứng khác còn chưa rõ ngay trên lý thuyết là bao giờ chúng có thể khởi động được.

Thêm vào đó, có 36 lò phản ứng mới đang được xây dựng tại Trung Quốc, Ấn Độ, Nga và Hàn Quốc. “Tôi tối cả mắt khi nghĩ rằng hiện đang có 16 lò phản ứng đang được xây dựng cùng lúc ở Trung Quốc và người ta chỉ nghe rằng không có vấn đề gì cả” – Mycle Schneider, nhà phê bình, chuyên gia về nguyên tử từ Paris – cho biết.

Tại Mỹ, chính phủ Bush trước đây đã hạ thấp rào cản cho việc xây dựng lò phản ứng hạt nhân mới. Thêm vào đó, năm 2007 chính phủ cũng đứng ra bảo đảm khoản tiền cho vay trên 20 tỷ USD. Thế nhưng phía công nghiệp đã từ chối. Từ hơn 30 năm nay họ đã không xây một lò phản ứng mới nào cả.

Hiện nay, điện nguyên tử chỉ rẻ tiền khi các lò phản ứng cũ được phép kéo dài thời hạn hoạt động và chính phủ phải đích thân giải quyết vấn đề phế liệu phóng xạ. Hiện vẫn còn chưa có lời giải đáp cho câu hỏi này. “Hoàn toàn chưa có kinh nghiệm với những lò phản ứng hoạt động lâu hơn 40 năm” – chuyên gia Schnneider nói.

“Thật ra thì ngoại trừ lò phản ứng người ta đều có thể thay thế và làm mới tất cả” – phát ngôn viên của Arave, Christian Wilson, cho biết. “Về mặt kỹ thuật, 60 năm là có thể.”

Nhưng thật ra, liệu người ta có thể tin ngành năng lượng có khả năng hiện đại hóa hay không khi có nhiều lỗi xuất hiện ngay trong lúc xây một lò phản ứng mới? Các cơ quan giám sát nguyên tử cho rằng thiếu kinh nghiệm là một trong những nguyên nhân cho loạt sự cố này. Và vấn đề này sẽ càng trầm trọng hơn trong tương lai. Trong thời gian sắp tới, 40% nhân viên trong các nhà máy điện hạt nhân ở Mỹ sẽ về hưu. Trong vòng 10 năm tới đây, ngành điện nguyên tử ở Mỹ sẽ cần đến 26.000 nhân viên mới – ngay cả khi họ không xây thêm lò phản ứng. Nhưng trong năm 2008 chỉ có 841 kỹ sư nguyên tử đã tốt nghiệp đại học tại Mỹ.

Tình trạng tại Đức còn tồi tệ hơn. Từ 1998 đến 2002 chỉ có 2 sinh viên tốt nghiệp chuyên ngành kỹ thuật nguyên tử. Vì thế mà tập đoàn Arave vừa thành lập một khóa đào tạo bổ sung về kỹ thuật nguyên tử tại thành phố Karlsruhe thuộc Đức. Các sinh viên này được Areva tài trợ và bảo đảm sẽ có việc làm ngay sau khi tốt nghiệp.

Tuy vậy, kỹ sư Jean-Pierre Mouroux của Areva vẫn tin tưởng vào sự trở lại của những lò phản ứng hạt nhân: “Chúng tôi sẽ xây lò phản ứng ở khắp nơi trên thế giới”. Nếu máy móc đắt tiền hơn và công cuộc xây dựng kéo dài hơn thì lò EPR cần phải được phép hoạt động đến 60 năm.

Tác giả: Dinah Deckstein , Frank Dohmen và Cordula Meyer

Phan Ba (dịch từ Der Spiegel)

Bài đã đăng trên Tuần Việt Nam.

The reactor relapse takes 3 hits to the head
by Harvey Wasserman November 12, 2009

The much-hyped “Renaissance” of atomic power has taken three devastating hits with potentially fatal consequences.

The usually supine Nuclear Regulatory Commission has told Toshiba’s Westinghouse Corporation that its “standardized” AP-1000 design might not withstand hurricanes, tornadoes or earthquakes.

Regulators in France, Finland and the UK have raised safety concerns about AREVA’s flagship EPR reactor. The front group for France’s national nuclear power industry, AREVA’s vanguard project in Finland is at least three years behind schedule and at least $3 billion over budget.

And the Obama Administration indicates it will end efforts to license the proposed radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. After more than fifty years of trying, the nuclear industry has not a single prospective central dump site.

“If history repeats itself as farce, then the nuclear power industry represents the most incompetent jester of all time,” says Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service. It “seems intent on repeating every possible mistake of its failed past—from promoting inadequate, ever-changing reactor designs to blowing through even the largest imaginable budgets. If the computer industry followed the practices of the nuclear industry, we’d still be waiting for the first digital device that could fit in a space smaller than a warehouse and cost less than a family’s annual income.”

Nuclear sites throughout the world sit on or near earthquake faults. Ohio’s Perry reactor was damaged by a tremor in 1986, just before it went on line. In 1991 Hurricane Andrew did $100 million in damage to Florida’s Turkey Point, causing a critical loss of off-site communication. In 2007 a massive earthquake shook Japan’s Kashiwazaki, shutting seven reactors ( http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2007/1573).

And radioactive waste continues to build up at sites throughout the world, including some 50,000 metric tons here in the US.

The vote of no confidence from regulators in three European countries has stunned AREVA, not to mention its potential customers, including the United Arab Emirates. “It hasn’t helped at all,” says one key source. (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/ articles/djf500/200911110905DOWJONESDJONLINE000473_FORTUNE5.html) “One of the key arguments has been that the EPR is safer than all the others.”

That AREVA would sell reactors to the UAE at all has raised widespread fears that atomic Bombs will soon proliferate throughout the Middle East. Both India and Pakistan got radioactive weapons materials from their commercial reactors.

AREVA’s design safety fiasco follows a Pink Panther-style stumble in October, when federal and state officials bailed on a massive media celebration planned for the Cadarache nuclear facility’s 50th anniversary. As much as 39 pounds of plutonium dust is now believed to contaminate the historic research center, enough to make numerous Nagasaki-sized Bombs. According to the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fbb38bd0-bab3-11de-9dd7-00144feab49a.html) “the discovery that France’s Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) had wildly under-estimated the quantity of plutonium dust that would accumulate – and then delayed notifying the Nuclear Safety Authority – has led the latter to hand its findings to the public prosecutor, who will decide if there should be an investigation into the CEA’s management … This is a severe blow to the credibility of the CEA, flagship of French nuclear research, and to Cadarache, soon to be the site of the world’s first fusion reactor.”

The uproar, writes Peggy Hollinger, has “cast a shadow over the Nuclear Safety Authority’s behaviour since it became independent of the government.”

Finnish regulators have also gone to virtual war with AREVA over the catastrophic Olkiluoto project. In a conversation with me in southern Ohio this summer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v43ahQHvObI) CEO Anne Lauvergeon blamed AREVA’s problems on the Finns. But similar complaints are now coming from French regulators over AREVA’s parallel project at Flamanville, in northern France.

AREVA has also run afoul of British regulators, who say its massive incursions into the UK’s nuclear industry have raised serious safety concerns.

Meanwhile the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s critique of the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor has shattered the industry’s expensive image of a “renaissance” that is “ready to go.” As the machine of apparent choice at vanguard sites throughout the US, the industry has touted the AP-1000 as a standardized “cookie-cutter” design that might make reactor construction and operations easier to manage. Regulators in Florida and Georgia have already imposed massive consumer rate hikes to pay for proposed AP-1000 reactors. An army of high-priced lobbyists is pushing hard for huge subsidies and loan guarantees to go into the Climate Bill.

Wall Street has made it clear it will not finance (or insure) new reactor construction unless backed by the federal treasury. Congressional critics warn half the reactor construction loans are likely to go into default. “This only underscores Moody’s assessment that new reactors are ‘bet the farm’ investments,” says Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “So why is the federal government going to back these projects with US taxpayer dollars?”

Now these critiques from the American NRC and regulators in Britain, France and Finland confirm that no safe standardized design exists, either here or in France, and that the industry could be years away from finalizing one that can be successfully deployed.

The same applies to radioactive waste. The Obama Administration now seems poised to finalize its promise that “all license defense activities will be terminated” on the proposed Yucca Mountain dump ( http://www.lvrj.com/news/memo-casts-doubt-on-license-for-yucca-repository-69639342.html ). Distinguished by its $10 billion price tag and the visible earthquake fault running through it (not to mention the dormant volcanoes that surround it and the water perched at its peak), Yucca is bitterly opposed by some 80% of Nevada’s citizenry. After a hugely subsidized half-century of futility, the US reactor industry has not a single named prospect for a centralized commercial waste dump. The “solution,” as put forth by Stewart Brand and other industry advocates (http://kpfa.org/archive/id/55967; about 32 minutes in) seems to be focussed on leaving high level radioactive waste at the sites and letting future generations deal with it. In the years since the Shippingport (PA) reactor opened in 1957, the industry’s go-to device is a concrete “dry cask” with vent holes and armed guards.

Meanwhile, despite repeated industry denials, the bad news about the health impacts of reactor radiation pours in. “Downwind or near eight reactors that closed in the 1980s and 1990s,” says New York-based expert Joe Mangano, “there were immediate and sharp declines in infant deaths, birth defects, and child cancer incidence age 0-4″ when the reactors shut. “The highest thyroid cancer rates in the U.S. are in a 90 mile radius of eastern PA/New Jersey/southern NY, an area with 16 reactors at 7 plants, which is the greatest density in the U.S.”

The near-simultaneous demise of Yucca Mountain with the regulatory credibility of the AP-1000 and AREVA EPR, along with the attacks by Moody’s and other financial critics, might come as a death blow to any such technology in a sane society. But the financial reach of the atomic lobby remains powerful in Congress and the White House.

At this point, the only certainty about the future of reactor construction is that still more shoes will drop on an industry whose decomposed credibility has become legend.

The reactor relapse takes 3 hits to the head
by Harvey Wasserman November 12, 2009

The much-hyped “Renaissance” of atomic power has taken three devastating hits with potentially fatal consequences.

The usually supine Nuclear Regulatory Commission has told Toshiba’s Westinghouse Corporation that its “standardized” AP-1000 design might not withstand hurricanes, tornadoes or earthquakes. 

Regulators in France, Finland and the UK have raised safety concerns about AREVA’s flagship EPR reactor. The front group for France’s national nuclear power industry, AREVA’s vanguard project in Finland is at least three years behind schedule and at least $3 billion over budget.

And the Obama Administration indicates it will end efforts to license the proposed radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. After more than fifty years of trying, the nuclear industry has not a single prospective central dump site.

“If history repeats itself as farce, then the nuclear power industry represents the most incompetent jester of all time,” says Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service. It “seems intent on repeating every possible mistake of its failed past—from promoting inadequate, ever-changing reactor designs to blowing through even the largest imaginable budgets. If the computer industry followed the practices of the nuclear industry, we’d still be waiting for the first digital device that could fit in a space smaller than a warehouse and cost less than a family’s annual income.”

Nuclear sites throughout the world sit on or near earthquake faults. Ohio’s Perry reactor was damaged by a tremor in 1986, just before it went on line. In 1991 Hurricane Andrew did $100 million in damage to Florida’s Turkey Point, causing a critical loss of off-site communication. In 2007 a massive earthquake shook Japan’s Kashiwazaki, shutting seven reactors ( http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2007/1573).

And radioactive waste continues to build up at sites throughout the world, including some 50,000 metric tons here in the US.

The vote of no confidence from regulators in three European countries has stunned AREVA, not to mention its potential customers, including the United Arab Emirates. “It hasn’t helped at all,” says one key source. (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/ articles/djf500/200911110905DOWJONESDJONLINE000473_FORTUNE5.html) “One of the key arguments has been that the EPR is safer than all the others.”

That AREVA would sell reactors to the UAE at all has raised widespread fears that atomic Bombs will soon proliferate throughout the Middle East. Both India and Pakistan got radioactive weapons materials from their commercial reactors.

AREVA’s design safety fiasco follows a Pink Panther-style stumble in October, when federal and state officials bailed on a massive media celebration planned for the Cadarache nuclear facility’s 50th anniversary. As much as 39 pounds of plutonium dust is now believed to contaminate the historic research center, enough to make numerous Nagasaki-sized Bombs. According to the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fbb38bd0-bab3-11de-9dd7-00144feab49a.html) “the discovery that France’s Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) had wildly under-estimated the quantity of plutonium dust that would accumulate – and then delayed notifying the Nuclear Safety Authority – has led the latter to hand its findings to the public prosecutor, who will decide if there should be an investigation into the CEA’s management … This is a severe blow to the credibility of the CEA, flagship of French nuclear research, and to Cadarache, soon to be the site of the world’s first fusion reactor.”

The uproar, writes Peggy Hollinger, has “cast a shadow over the Nuclear Safety Authority’s behaviour since it became independent of the government.”

Finnish regulators have also gone to virtual war with AREVA over the catastrophic Olkiluoto project. In a conversation with me in southern Ohio this summer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v43ahQHvObI) CEO Anne Lauvergeon blamed AREVA’s problems on the Finns. But similar complaints are now coming from French regulators over AREVA’s parallel project at Flamanville, in northern France.

AREVA has also run afoul of British regulators, who say its massive incursions into the UK’s nuclear industry have raised serious safety concerns.

Meanwhile the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s critique of the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor has shattered the industry’s expensive image of a “renaissance” that is “ready to go.” As the machine of apparent choice at vanguard sites throughout the US, the industry has touted the AP-1000 as a standardized “cookie-cutter” design that might make reactor construction and operations easier to manage. Regulators in Florida and Georgia have already imposed massive consumer rate hikes to pay for proposed AP-1000 reactors. An army of high-priced lobbyists is pushing hard for huge subsidies and loan guarantees to go into the Climate Bill.

Wall Street has made it clear it will not finance (or insure) new reactor construction unless backed by the federal treasury. Congressional critics warn half the reactor construction loans are likely to go into default. “This only underscores Moody’s assessment that new reactors are ‘bet the farm’ investments,” says Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “So why is the federal government going to back these projects with US taxpayer dollars?”

Now these critiques from the American NRC and regulators in Britain, France and Finland confirm that no safe standardized design exists, either here or in France, and that the industry could be years away from finalizing one that can be successfully deployed.

The same applies to radioactive waste. The Obama Administration now seems poised to finalize its promise that “all license defense activities will be terminated” on the proposed Yucca Mountain dump ( http://www.lvrj.com/news/memo-casts-doubt-on-license-for-yucca-repository-69639342.html ). Distinguished by its $10 billion price tag and the visible earthquake fault running through it (not to mention the dormant volcanoes that surround it and the water perched at its peak), Yucca is bitterly opposed by some 80% of Nevada’s citizenry. After a hugely subsidized half-century of futility, the US reactor industry has not a single named prospect for a centralized commercial waste dump. The “solution,” as put forth by Stewart Brand and other industry advocates (http://kpfa.org/archive/id/55967; about 32 minutes in) seems to be focussed on leaving high level radioactive waste at the sites and letting future generations deal with it. In the years since the Shippingport (PA) reactor opened in 1957, the industry’s go-to device is a concrete “dry cask” with vent holes and armed guards.

Meanwhile, despite repeated industry denials, the bad news about the health impacts of reactor radiation pours in. “Downwind or near eight reactors that closed in the 1980s and 1990s,” says New York-based expert Joe Mangano, “there were immediate and sharp declines in infant deaths, birth defects, and child cancer incidence age 0-4″ when the reactors shut. “The highest thyroid cancer rates in the U.S. are in a 90 mile radius of eastern PA/New Jersey/southern NY, an area with 16 reactors at 7 plants, which is the greatest density in the U.S.”

The near-simultaneous demise of Yucca Mountain with the regulatory credibility of the AP-1000 and AREVA EPR, along with the attacks by Moody’s and other financial critics, might come as a death blow to any such technology in a sane society. But the financial reach of the atomic lobby remains powerful in Congress and the White House.

At this point, the only certainty about the future of reactor construction is that still more shoes will drop on an industry whose decomposed credibility has become legend.

the-economic-downside-to-

“……….Are new modern nuclear reactors safe?”  The difficulty in this question is finding a nuclear reactor that has been built within the last 10 years.  According to Der Spiegel there aren’t any new reactors built within the last ten years that are up and running.  Current projects in Finland and France are experiencing severe problems with the construction and the design.  Finnish electric company TVO contracted with French nuclear power conglomerate Areva and German company Siemans to design and build the plant.  To date over 3,000 mistakes have been made including:

The concrete, they say, is porous, the steel is brittle and some of the design principles seem so risky that experts from the Finnish nuclear regulatory agency can only shake their heads in wonder.

The French project is experiencing similar problems.  Both are well over budget and are taking years longer to complete.  Even when completed it is possible that neither will actually be put into service.

Of 52 nuclear reactors under construction world wide, 13 have been under construction for 20 years.  Twenty-four reactors may never go into service.  Thirty-six nuclear plants are planned for China, Russia, India, and South Korea.  None of the named countries is known for its stringent safety requirements.

On top of poor designs, lax safety protocols and construction issues there are the problems with untrained personnel.  Twenty-six thousand jobs at existing nuclear power plants will need to be filled over the next few years because older experienced workers are due to retire.

The answer to the  question is probably not. ……..http://green.blorge.com/2009/11/the-economic-downside-to-nuclear-energy/

The atomic horizon. It seems that beyond all the fear, smear, and leftist jeers nuclear power is being touted as a viable solution to rising Co2 emissions throughout the world as leaders decide to expand their national generating capacity. A couple of notables are;

China is pursuing nuclear power more enthusiastically and on a bigger scale than anyone else. As the data here shows, it has 14 reactors under construction and 115 either planned or proposed to help it cope with rising energy demands.

Sweden has reversed a nearly 30 year-old ban on nuclear reactor construction and is planning to build 10 more stations to replace older models.

South Africa is planning a major expansion in nuclear.

Great Britain has just announced plans to build 10 new nuclear stations

nuclear power around the world

The nuclear industry has been plagued by fear, uncertainty, mismanaged operations, meltdowns, cost-overruns, construction shortfalls, building delays and a continuous barrage of anti-nuke protest and propaganda brought on by the likes of greenpeace, WWF and other well organized environmental groups. Nuclear still has a ways to go before it becomes the dominant source of base-load power and if the latest Areva projects say anything, the industry isn’t doing the best to show itself as the safe, reliable and affordable energy source that it wants to be.

Four new reactors are under way in Europe at the moment: two Russian-designed reactors in Slovakia, plus Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 and France’s Flamanville 3, which both rely on the French state-owned Areva’s involvement and expertise. The Finnish site has been beset by delays, rising costs and criticisms over safety and still has no definite opening date, while the cost of Flamanville 3 has risen from €3.3bn to €4bn.

Ouch.

It costs $3 million to have a nuclear reactor design reviewed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Compared to other nuclear expenditures that’s not a huge amount of money. So when Areva, the French nuclear giant, decided to halt its CNSC design review, you have to wonder if Areve just saw the writing on the wall and decided to cede the Ontario nuclear reactor competition to AECL, the federal crown corporation and maker of the CANDU reactor.

You also have to wonder if Areva has run into serious problems regarding regulators’ views of the computer-based instrumentation and control (I&C) systems that  govern the operation and safety of its EPR, the 1600 megawatt pressurized light water reactor it is offering to Ontario. The trade press has buzzed since last summer with stories on concerns on the part of Finnish, U.K., and U.S. regulators that the EPR’s safety and non-safety I&C are not sufficiently independent of each other. If these concerns persist, Areva might be required to rework the architecture of these I&C systems. This is not a small change.

This would seriously set back Areva’s ambitious drive to be the firm that starts the nuclear renaissance. It would also thereby hurt the image of the world-wide “nuclear industry,” by giving more fodder to those who think the slightest delay on any nuclear project is proof that the entire industry is non-viable.

But Areva’s problems are not necessarily a bad thing from the point of view of Areva’s competitors, and especially AECL. The longer Areva’s projects are delayed, the more time AECL has to catch up to the French company in the all important drive to the two-year-in-service mark (see article). This benchmark is considered critical to demonstrate to nervous power utilities that the “evolutionary” next-generation reactor designs are problem-free and worth investing in.

But of course for AECL to reach that mark, it needs a customer who will actually build its own evolutionary offering, the ACR-1000. Right now, its most likely customer is Ontario Power Generation, the government-owned Ontario utility. And OPG can’t decide to buy any reactor because its provincial government bosses won’t let it. And they won’t let it because they don’t like AECL’s, or anyone else’s, price.

In the case of AECL, Ontario wants the company’s owner, the Canadian federal government, to guarantee a firm price in the event of a construction delay that drives up the cost. All three vendors were required to include such costs in their bids, and since it’s difficult to predict the extent and nature of a future delay, AECL accommodated this requirement by simply jacking up its final price. Ontario has demanded that that price go down, which means the federal government must come up with some guarantee of a backstop.

The presence of the other two vendors, Areva and Westinghouse, gave Ontario some leverage in this bargaining game. If the feds couldn’t or wouldn’t play ball, Ontario could always threaten to do the unthinkable: buy from a non-Canadian vendor.

Well, it appears that one of those non-Canadians, Areva, has lost its bottle in Ontario. Again, was that because Areva just decided to not waste any more money chasing a preferred-vendor contract or because it sees an unfavourable worldwide regulatory consensus? Ontario had better hope it’s not the former, because Westinghouse will likely soon follow suit. In that case, goodbye leverage.

But if it’s the latter reason, i.e., regulatory problems particular to the EPR, then there’s no reason for Westinghouse to bow out.

So the dance continues. Meanwhile, the Canadian employment situation continues to look bleak (see article). A major nuclear build project in Ontario could alleviate that.

Pick CANDU site here.

Slashdot It!

Review. Australia: Fossil fuel lobbyists using their muscle on Rudd govt to further weaken the already pathetic Emissiosn Trading Scheme. Meanwhile Rudd govt ignores Australia’s chance for solar energy leadership. ANSTO’s latest opinion poll results show overwhelming opposition to nuclear power. A Labor politician claims that South Australians wants a nuke waste dump, just to add to their existing radioactive contamination.

International: world-wide push by well-paid puppets of fossil fuel industries, in order to ruin December’s Copenhagen talks. Continued agonising in USA over mounting nuclear waste. Japan embarks on dangerous trip towards fast breeder nuclear reactors. France’s nuclear export industry has dubious future as safety concerns rise. – the week that has been.

Nuclear Socialism, YGLESIAS 7 November 09 the American right’s strangely passionate love affair with nuclear power and the impact it’s having on the climate debate in congress. What I find especially odd about it is that it’s so at odds with American conservatives’ ardor for the free market.

You see this mismatch in a small sense in that their nuclear agenda in congress consists basically of asking for subsidies. But in a larger sense the issue is that the big example one can find of a country living the nuclear dream is . . . France. And it’s not just an irony or a funny coincidence, nuclear power in France is deeply tied to the genuinely socialistic (i.e., not just high taxes and a generous welfare state) aspects of the French economy.

 

When the French nuclear network was being built out Éléctricité de France was wholly owned by the French state and had a statutory monopoly on the distribution of electrical power. What’s more, of the different kinds of French state-owned companies (yes, there are several) it was an Établissement Public à Charactère Industriels et commercial (EPIC) which meant it was fully guaranteed by the state and could, in effect, raise capital at a sovereign rate. This solves the big economic problem with nuclear power. The projects are so big, so long-term, so risky, and have such high up-front costs that financing the construction of these things is a nightmare As the MIT interdisciplinary project on the future of nuclear power wrote in its 2009 update:

…. there remains significant uncertainty about the capital costs, and the cost of its financing, which are the main components of the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants.

These days EDF has been “privatized” in the kind of only-in-France way that many large French firms are private—it’s a standard Société Anonyme with shareholders, but the majority of shares are owned by the state. Areva, the engineering company that does the actual building, is also owned by the state. In Finland, there’s a somewhat problematic big nuclear project underway and the utility doing it Teollisuuden Voima Oy, also involves a hefty share of public ownership.

Matthew Yglesias » Nuclear Socialism

Puisque cela semble si important pour nos gouvernants, puisque visiblement à leurs yeux il y a un véritable soucis d’identité “à la française”, je souhaite moi aussi participer à cela et témoigner sur ce qui fait de moi un français… mais pas seulement, car dans un débat aussi important, il y a certaines choses qu’il est important de ne pas oublier, en tant que français. Jugez donc par vous-même:

Je suis français et fier car je sais que dans l’Histoire du peuple auquel j’appartiens, des hommes et des femmes se sont battus pour leur liberté, et que leur combat a eu un retentissement dans le coeur et la vie de tous, à quelque époque que ce soit, d’hier, d’aujourd’hui et même de demain.

Je suis français parce qu’au fond de mon coeur, les mots « liberté, égalité, fraternité » ont une résonance qu’aucun autre mot ne possède. Pas seulement parce qu’il s’agit-là de notre devise. Ensemble, ces mots forment cette trinité indivisible qui doit composer la vie de tous. Ainsi, dans tout ce qu’ils représentent, ces mots continuent inlassablement de me faire vibrer de tout mon être.

Je suis le français que je suis, car je suis fier que mon pays ait été à l’origine du texte qui représente à lui seul la grandeur de l’Humain, cette Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen qui relit ainsi des millions de personnes au même rang d’égalité, sans aucune distinction.

Je suis français car je crois très sincèrement en la démocratie, et à la liberté des peuples à choisir leurs représentants. C’est ainsi que ma fierté se joint à la joie lorsque mon pays est représenté comme l’un de ses modèles.

Je me sens français, et tous ces éléments emplissent mon coeur d’un enivrant sentiment de fierté, car ils s’unissent parfaitement à cette soif de justice naturelle et d’égalité entre tous que n’importe quel homme dans le monde possède. À tel point que je me dis qu’il n’y a pas de nation plus grande que la France, pays où l’étendard de la liberté de chacun, de l’égalité de tous et de la fraternité de son peuple tout entier n’a jamais été porté aussi haut.

Et pourtant…

Je peine à me sentir français lorsque mon pays s’en va en guerre, avec le culot de la faire passer pour noble – puisqu’au nom de la démocratie, comme si cela pouvait justifier la souffrance causée par les bombes et le nombre de morts.

Je ne me sens pas français lorsque les gouvernants de mon pays sont reçus par une autre nation, avec des valises pleines de contrats de ventes d’armes, de bombes, d’avions et d’hélicoptères de guerre.

Je ne suis pas français lorsque je vois que rien n’est fait pour Paul, Denise ou Antoine qui dorment dans la rue et doivent difficilement franchir d’absurdes démarches administratives pour revenir à une vie normale.

Je ne veux plus être français quand mon pays s’acharne à renvoyer trois hommes qui ont fui leur pays sous peine d’y être blessés, torturés ou tués par une armée ou une autre. J’ai honte de lire sur mon Etat civil que j’appartiens à la nation qui renvoie trois personnes désespérées sans se soucier humainement de leur raison d’être dans notre pays.

Je me demande ce que je fais, en tant que français, lorsque mon pays fait primer ses intérêts économico-financiers et éloigne la question des droits de l’Homme et de la démocratie lors d’entretiens internationaux avec des pays où la situation de la dignité humaine est critique.

À cause d’un tel débat, je ne sais plus si je suis d’abord français ou européen, lorsqu’il y a quelques mois à peine, on s’entêtait à me faire comprendre que j’étais avant tout un européen avant d’être français, pour m’inciter à venir voter et rendre ainsi la légitimité démocratique du Parlement européen plus crédible.

Je ne suis pas français lorsque la politique nationale remet en cause la diversité culturelle et la liberté religieuse de mon pays. Il me semble évident que la laïcité ne doit pas être synonyme de stérilité culturelle.

Je regrette d’être français lorsque mes gouvernants soutiennent de façon parfois non-dissimulée des gouvernements despotiques en Afrique au détriment des populations, qui continuent pourtant de voir en mon pays un symbole exemplaire de la lutte pour la démocratie.

Je ne suis pas français lorsque mon pays ne fait rien pour freiner l’exploitation sociale et minière de nos entreprises à l’étranger, qui n’ont que faire de ces questions fondamentales. La recherche de profit doit se faire dans le respect de la vie humaine et des personnes participant à la réussite de l’entreprise étrangère dans leur pays. Le respect de l’environnement est aussi une question primordiale qui ne doit pas être écartée.

Je ne souhaite plus être français lorsque je découvre avec stupeur l’état des prisons de mon pays et l’immobilité du gouvernement pour réagir à la détresse de ces hommes enfermés qui, malgré leurs erreurs, possèdent le droit inaliénable de conserver toute leur dignité.

Je me demande si je suis bien français lorsque j’apprends qu’à notre époque encore dans un pays tel que le mien, les femmes ne bénéficient pas des mêmes salaires et autres perspectives de carrières que leurs collègues masculins.

Je me demande enfin, ce que je fais en tant que français, lorsque je découvre l’énormité de mon malaise personnel sur cette question. À trop chercher tout ce qui fait de moi un citoyen français, j’en suis à me demander d’oublier cette identité nationale qui me relie à 65 millions d’autres personnes. Tout cela porte atteinte à ce qui fait ma fierté envers ma nation et concourt à faire de moi un étranger dans mon propre pays.

France’s not-so-nuclear winter Greenpeace 4 Nov 09

You may remember that back in July this year, the summer weather put a third of France’s nuclear reactors out of action. It was just too darn hot to keep the reactors safely cooled and France was forced to import electricity from the UK.

So, we can expect things to improve now the colder winter weather is on the way? Er, not so much…

The subsidiary of EDF, which manages the network of power lines, said that France will have to import 4 000 megawatts (MW) of electricity “for several weeks from November 2009 to January 2010, according to a study released Friday. This is equivalent to the production of 4 nuclear reactors.

This strong dependence of France on other countries for its electricity needs is because of the downtime suffered by the French nuclear facilities this year. Fifteen of 58 nuclear reactors were shut down Friday for maintenance, uranium refuelling, because of various problems,

…..So that’s France’s nuclear: out of action when it’s hot, out of action when it’s cold.

France’s not-so-nuclear winter

Winter power cuts could be imposed The Connexion November 03, 2009 HOUSEHOLDS in France could be hit by a series of power cuts this winter as the electricity network tries to cope with a shortage of supply. Electricity network operator RTE has warned that the cuts might be necessary if a long and intense spell of cold weather arrives.This is because France is having to import large amounts of power from overseas this winter for the first time.The power supply problem has arisen because 17 of France’s 58 nuclear reactors are currently out of action after maintenance work due to take place in the spring was delayed by strikes.The equivalent of four nuclear power stations worth of electricity (4,000 megawatts) will be channelled into the country each day between mid-November and the end of January…………

RTE said it would be forced to impose temporary power cuts to save supplies for the coldest parts of the day and stop the whole system from collapsing.

It is encouraging households to adopt basic energy-saving measures, such as avoiding excessive use of power-hungry devices such as washing machines and dishwashers.

News of the potential power cuts came as a trio of European nuclear safety watchdogs warned that not enough was being done to ensure the next generation of nuclear reactors was safe.

The French, British and Finnish authorities said today that the European Pressurised Reactors, which are being built in all three countries, needed better systems to protect the public in the event of an accident.

The Connexion – The Newspaper for English-Speakers in France

France tries to calm nuclear reactor fears FT.com By Peggy Hollinger in Paris  November 4 2009 France was trying to avert a crisis of confidence yesterday over its new-generation EPR nuclear reactor after regulators in three countries raised questions over control and safety systems. French government officials are expected to contact authorities in the United Arab Emirates in an attempt to assuage concerns as the Gulf state weighs bids in one of the world’s biggest nuclear tenders on offer………….

Both Areva and EDF have found themselves reprimanded in recent months by nuclear safety authorities during the construction process of the EPR. Areva also remains in a fierce battle with its utility client in Finland, where the reactor is at least three years late and several billion euros over budget.

EDF, meanwhile, has been criticised for procedures used in the construction of its reactor at Flamanville, northern France……….

the latest safety concerns have raised a stir, even in France,

FT.com / Middle East – France tries to calm nuclear reactor fears

Areva shares fall over nuclear safety concerns New reactor design criticised by French politicians By Nina Sovich

PARIS, Nov 3 (Reuters) - A new generation of French nuclear power reactors came under attack on Tuesday as opposition parties called for an inquiry into their security systems, after three nuclear safety bodies asked for changes to their design.

In a rare joint statement, nuclear safety bodies in France, Britain and Finland on Monday ordered France’s Areva (CEPFi.PA) and EDF (EDF.PA) to modify the safety features on its European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) due to insufficient independence between the day-to-day systems and the emergency systems.

Opponents to nuclear power latched on to the news, with France’s opposition socialist party calling for a parliamentary inquiry.

CAP21, a political party founded by Corrine Lepage, a former environment minister, also said more investment should be made in renewable energy rather than nuclear.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has championed nuclear power, both at home and abroad, where he hopes French companies will benefit from a global drive……… The design problems come as a blow to Areva, which has staked its export growth on the EPR……….. Non-voting shares in Areva closed 3.9 percent lower at 8.75 euros.

UPDATE 1-Areva shares fall over nuclear safety concerns | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

La directrice d’Areva Anne Lauvergeon (fabricant de centrale nucléaire pour EDF notament) a un hobby bien original : S’exhiber en webcam !! Et ceux qui ont eu la chance de faire une cam avec elle pourront témoigner qu’elle sait se lâcher !! Cela confirme ce que nous avions déjà dis ici : Le phénomène webcam se généralise et dans toutes les tranches de la société, même les plus élévées.

The French Connection: plutonium problems in France linked to Duke’s Catawba reactor & the Savannah River Site MOX plant The New Liberator Tom  Clement,  28 Oct 09 “…………..a serious problem at a plutonium facility in Cadarche, France, which is under the control of the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA, French Atomic Energy Commission). This facility, the Atelier de Technologie du Plutonium (ATPu), produced plutonium fuel (MOX) and is being cleaned out and decommissioned. Due to poor accounting methods of the plutonium in the facility, it was discovered that the build-up of plutonium had reached amounts of concern for a nuclear criticality incident, which has been big news in France.

The French Connection: plutonium problems in France linked to Duke’s Catawba reactor & the Savannah River Site MOX plant « The New Liberator

nucléaire non merci!

Chine : Areva va enfin débuter la construction de son EPR

Par Harold Thibault | Aujourd’hui la Chine | 27/10/2009 | 19H20

(De Pékin) Plusieurs fois reporté, le début des travaux du nucléaire de troisième génération en Chine est finalement imminent. Ce « contrat du siècle » signé lors de la visite de Sarkozy à Pékin il y a deux ans a été chèrement renégocié par les autorités chinoises. Areva fera-t-il une bonne affaire ? La suite

non mais c’est une blague? “ENFIN”???

et pas un mot sur les catastrophes nucléaires de par le monde (dans l’État de Washington, USA par exemple)?

il aurait mieux valut que cet EPR ne soit jamais commencé, et que cet article qui ressemble à un sketch de Coluche sur la technocratie ne soit jamais publié.

qu’est-ce qu’on s’en f… de qui a décroché ce contrat qui grève l’avenir du monde???

car il ne s’agit pas seulement d’un problème de stockage pour plus tard, mais bien des dégâts que font ses déchets et tout le reste MAINTENANT!

je ne me réjouis pas plus quand une entreprise français “rafle” un gros marché d’armes, je préfèrerai que “mon” pays refuse de participer à ça, et l’argument “si ce n’est pas nous, d’autres le feraient”, est simpliste et révoltant.

non au dangereux EPR et à ses déchets catastrophiques, d’Aréva ou pas, en Chine ou ailleurs, et non au nucléaire.

bien à vous,

nicogé, militant anti-nucléaire