What’s the real price tag for renewable energy for the planet?
A new Stanford study calculated the cost of global renewable energy would
be $62 trillion (yes, with a “t”). But the big upfront investment would
create jobs, drastically reduce carbon emissions, and pay for itself in
just six years.
It was hot this summer—record-shatteringly hot, in many
places. And the extreme heat around the world in the last few months is
only one symptom of the climate change caused by greenhouse gasses, which
are released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels like coal and gas
burn—more extreme droughts, wildfires, flooding, storms, and unseasonable
weather patterns are also symptoms.
Unless we significantly curb how much
coal and gas we burn in the next few decades, scientists are pretty much in
agreement that the consequences will keep getting more severe.
One of the simplest ways to cut back greenhouse gas emissions is in how the
electricity we use is generated. Even though the current system is
dominated by coal, oil, and natural gas, the technology for producing
energy from renewable sources like wind, hydro, and solar is effective,
available, and increasingly economical.
A new study by Stanford engineer
Mark Jacobson and his team published in the journal Energy & Environmental
Science calculates that the world would need to spend around $62 trillion
to build up the wind, solar, and hydro power generating capacity to fully
meet demand and completely replace fossil fuels. That looks like a huge
number, even spread out across the 145 countries cited in the study.
But after crunching the numbers, estimates show that countries would make the
money back in cost-savings in a relatively short period of time: Between
one to five years. The study also projected that shifting to 100 percent
renewable energy generation would result in a net increase of over 28
million jobs when factoring in the fossil fuel industry jobs that would be
lost.
It also only requires 0.36 percent more land than is currently used
for energy generation, addressing two major concerns about switching from
fossil fuels to renewables. Making the shift, and soon, is important to
slow and limit planetary warming. The study called for 100 percent clean
energy by 2035 ideally, and 2050 at the latest, with an interim goal of 80
percent by 2030.
This lines up with the roadmap laid out in the UN’s most
recent climate report and the Paris Agreement, a 2015 international treaty
for climate action that includes reducing global emissions to net-zero by
2050 to avoid worst-case levels of warming.
Adventure 9th Sept 2022
New forum on nuclear waste policy in UK
A founding document was signed in Edinburgh by the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority’s Head of Stakeholder Engagement and the Secretary of the Nuclear
Free Local Authorities to launch a new NGO Forum. The informal signing
ceremony by Paul Vallance for the NDA and Richard Outram on behalf of the
NGO community took place at the NDA Stakeholder Summit held in the Scottish
capital on 7-8 September.
Work on establishing a forum had started under
Richard’s predecessor, Sean Morris. Good progress was made before
everything halted with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Contact between
the parties was renewed in February 2022 after the NDA had completed its
restructuring into four ‘pillars’ – Sellafield, Magnox/Dounreay, Nuclear
Transport Services and Nuclear Waste Services. An NGO forum to cover waste
issues is already well established and ‘lively’ as meetings represent an
opportunity for representatives from NGOs, generally campaign groups
opposed to local civil nuclear power projects, to question and challenge
senior nuclear industry figures.
NFLA 12th Sept 2022
Chateau Fukushima? Japanese winery tries to shake off negative image
I certainly rather play safe and keep on drinking Australian wine or French wine. Fukushima wine is just too hot for me. No thank you.
Ten years after the nuclear disaster, local agri-businesses are looking to the future
Sun 11 Sep 2022
Ōse Winery sits in pristine forest carved into a hillside, surrounded by fields brimming with ready-to-pick fruit and veg. On a recent afternoon, a gentle breeze took the sting out of the late summer heat, and the vines were heavy with ripening grapes. As Japanese terroir goes, it is hard to imagine a more idyllic location.
The winery’s products have won awards in Japan and overseas, and – as the Observer can confirm – its chilled chardonnay hits the spot on a humid evening. Yet it faces an unenviable marketing challenge: every grape, apple, Asian pear and peach that goes into its wine, cider, calvados and liqueurs is grown locally, in Fukushima.
In the aftermath of the March 2011 disaster at Fukushima Daiichi – the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl a quarter of a century earlier – more than 50 countries and regions stopped importing produce from the region. Fishing near the stricken nuclear plant was banned, and farmers were told not to grow rice and to euthanise their cattle. For a while, it seemed that Brand Fukushima had been destroyed along with the lives and homes swept away by the tsunami that caused the nuclear crisis.
Just over a decade after the triple disaster along Japan’s north-east coast, the winery is proof that the region is making a comeback. “We were determined to counter the harmful rumours about Fukushima produce and get back on our feet,” said Hisanao Okawara, the sales manager at Ōse. “Everything is 100% Fukushima … we like to think of it as our ‘homemade’ wine.”
While it lacks the name recognition of established Japanese wine producers in Yamanashi and Nagano prefectures, the winery – located near the city of Koriyama, about 40 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant – has gained a small, but loyal, customer base since it opened in 2015 with funding from the Mitsubishi corporation and municipal government.
It now provides an income for 15 fruit farmers who supply the grapes – including the cabernet sauvignon, chardonnay and merlot varieties – and other fruit for which Fukushima was celebrated before the nuclear meltdown. Last year it sold 25,000 bottles of wine and 10,000 bottles of its dry and sweet ciders, mainly to other parts of Fukushima prefecture, but also to customers in Tokyo and Osaka. Sales totalled 40m yen (£240,000) in 2021 and are expected to reach nearly 50m yen (£300,000) this year, and an estimated 63m yen (£380,000) next year.
When Britain recently lifted its remaining restrictions on food imports from Fukushima, social media users joked about the potential perils of eating food that “glows in the dark”. In fact, Fukushima has some of the most rigorous food safety regimes in the world, with the government-set upper limit for radioactive caesium in ordinary foodstuffs, such as meat and vegetables, at 100 becquerels per kilogram, compared with 1,250Bq/kg in the EU and 1,200Bq/kg in the US.
Now, just 12 countries, including neighbouring China and South Korea, ban or restrict Fukushima produce, according to the Japanese foreign ministry, with Indonesia becoming the latest country to accept imports from the region.
Radiation levels in neighbourhoods closest to the plant have fallen significantly during the 11 years since the disaster, but some foods, such as matsutake mushrooms and seasonable mountain vegetables, are still off-limits. Local people who eat wild vegetables they pick themselves have shown elevated radiation levels in examinations using whole-body counters, said Kaori Suzuki, director of the Mothers’ Radiation Lab Fukushima, a group of volunteers who test produce to reassure local consumers. “Some people think that because more than a decade has passed they will be OK,” said Suzuki, adding that farmed produce tested at the lab consistently passed safety standards.
“We don’t just say they meet the official safety standards, we let people know exactly what the readings are and let them decide for themselves. It’s not enough to keep saying Fukushima food is safe – you have to present consumers with the evidence. It’s only by being totally open that you can challenge the harmful rumours.”
Tomoko Kobayashi has no qualms about serving local meat, fish and vegetables at her ryokan inn in the Odaka district of Minamisoma, a city about 12 miles north of the nuclear plant. “We only serve food that has been tested, so we have no concerns,” she said. “We wouldn’t give our guests anything that we weren’t happy to eat ourselves.”
Her neighbour, Karin Taira, said she had “total confidence” in the testing regime. “Local agricultural products are very safe because the fields have been decontaminated and radiation levels are tested constantly by the authorities,” Taira said.
“All of the famers here are really careful about following strict guidelines set by the government. And they take a lot of pride in growing food that’s safe to eat.”
According to Okawara, “not a single item” of fruit at the winery had failed safety standards, but he conceded that the region had yet to overcome its image problem. “When people hear the word ‘Fukushima’, all they think about is radiation,” he said. That means our wine has to be exceptionally good to convince people to buy it. After all, this is our livelihood.”
Contaminated water treatment at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant may stall next spring Sloppy waste management, tight storage space
September 11, 2022
TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Okuma-cho and Futaba-cho, Fukushima Prefecture) may be unable to operate its waste treatment facilities next April when its storage facilities fill up with waste generated during the purification process of contaminated water. While TEPCO is preparing to discharge the treated water into the ocean, it has been sloppy in its waste management. The contaminated water treatment could be delayed. (Kenta Onozawa)
The storage space may become tight because of the muddy waste generated by the ALPS (Advanced Land Disposal System), which removes radioactive materials other than tritium. The waste is stored in containers called “HICs” at a yard on the south side of the site. The plan is to dilute the water after treatment with a large amount of seawater and discharge it into the ocean.
As of August, the HIC yard was 96% full. TEPCO estimates that it will be full by the end of April next year if operations continue at the current level.
If the storage space runs out, ALPS will no longer be able to operate, and water that has been reduced in radioactive cesium and strontium by the decontamination facility prior to ALPS treatment will continue to accumulate. This insufficiently purified water is stored in a separate group of tanks from the treated water, which is subject to discharge into the ocean. The risk of leakage is much higher than that of treated water.
TEPCO plans to renovate the HIC yard to create additional storage space for about one year, aiming to start operation at about the same time the yard fills up. However, the renovation work was originally supposed to be completed in March of this year. The process has been delayed due to a review of the seismic design and other factors, and it is uncertain whether the project will continue to proceed as TEPCO had envisioned.
TEPCO initially planned to start operation of a facility capable of disposing of the HIC by the end of this fiscal year. It did not construct a new yard, anticipating that the number of HICs would decrease after the facility went into operation. However, the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) pointed out design flaws, delaying the scheduled operation by more than two years. Lack of contingency plans led to fears of a crunch.
A spokesperson for TEPCO explained to an interview, “We have some prospect of measures to control the occurrence of HICs, and we do not think we will run out of storage capacity, but we will consider adding a storage facility in case of a tight situation.
HIC HIC is an abbreviation for high-performance container. It is a cylindrical polyethylene container 1.5 meters in diameter, 1.8 meters high, and approximately 1 centimeter thick. It is used to store muddy waste generated during the purification process in the Advanced Lockheed Martin (ALPS). The waste is stored in a concrete box in an outdoor storage area on the south side of the site. The storage capacity is for 4,192 units, and as of August 4 of this year, 4,027 units had been placed there.
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/201403?fbclid=IwAR3z1flpnp4q08q_T35ek8Bu_N687llXC150lV_GHTIP34N1OUoMudLkQI0
The Ghosts Of Fukushima & Japan’s Nuclear Turnaround
Sep 7, 2022,
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s announcement that Japan was going to revive nuclear power and invest in it as a solution to Japan’s energy woes, came as a 180 degree policy reversal after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident. Kishida and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) are investing a lot of political capital and their long-term industrial policy commitment in nuclear energy.
With Japan facing summer blackouts, and Russian gas supply in question after Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine politicizing natural gas exports, the Japanese government announced it was approving 33 nuclear projects for operation. 10 nuclear plants have already been restarted, with 7 more planned for Spring 2023 revival. These plants are spread in the Fukui, Miyagi, Shimane, Niigata, and Ibaraki prefectures and some are still pending local and safety approval. In addition, the Kishida administration is looking into increasing the lifespan of nuclear plants from 40 to 60 years. Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings which accounts for 24.8% of Japan’s existing nuclear capacity is aiming to restart 2 of the 7 reactors for 2023 in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa.
The Japanese private sector, energy markets, and economy are ecstatic at the news. Japan’s three nuclear power plant general contractors: Toshiba, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and Hitachi have been developing nuclear technology including next-generation projects, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), and nuclear reactor parts. Fusion energy is also on the horizon but not ready for commercial exploitation.
Other companies running and producing parts for nuclear plants include IHI Corporation, Kansai Electric Power, and Chubu Electric Power. Following the announcement of nuclear plant revivals, the share values of nuclear companies in Japan shot up and energy prices and futures stabilized. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHVYF) has been working with state-owned Japan Nuclear Fuel on the Rokkasho plant had its shares increase by 6.9%. IHI Corporation’s shares rose by 5.4%, and Hitachi’s climbed 1.9%. For the utilities sector, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings’ (TEPCO) share values increased by 10%, Kansai Electric’s 2.9% and Chubu Electric Power’s by 1.3%.
If any country has the “right” to fear nuclear power, it would be Japan. The 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster only solidified a long-running anti-nuclear Zeitgeist in Japanese society stemming back to the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the pacifism engrained in Japan’s constitution via Article 9 which outlaws war as a means to settle international disputes. So, why, and how, has Japan embarked upon such a drastic policy U-turn when many others, such as Germany, are wavering?
One would think that amid soaring energy prices and blackouts, the news of nuclear energy revival would result in a surge of popularity for the LDP, but instead it is facing mixed responses. Only a few weeks ago the LDP felt compelled to announce they had no plans to build new reactors even as the powerful Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) was drafting technology for nuclear plants . Even though the Japanese public is increasingly aware of its energy predicament, public support for building new nuclear reactors and replacing aging units only has a 34% approval rate and a 58% opposition rate. The Kishida administration may see the effects of ignoring public opposition to nuclear in the upcoming local elections. It clearly needs a powerful public information campaign to explain why Japan needs nuclear power.
Nevertheless, Kishida and the LDP are determined to bring the public to its side before the next general elections and show the benefits of their nuclear vision. They should recognize Japan’s structural weaknesses caused by the island’s dependency on imports for industrial inputs, geographic position requiring imports of fossil fuel from thousands of miles away, dependence on the historic foe Russia, the difficulty of employing renewables in Japan. Kishida-san would need to explain that all this is making nuclear a good choice for Japan.
Why can Japan make this embrace, against immediate public concerns, when so many other countries cannot? The most important component is long-term strategic thinking wherein political elites are willing to bear short-term political costs for future gains rather than weaponizing energy politics for partisan food fights as it is the case in Germany and elsewhere. Also vital is the public trust the Japanese Agency for Natural Resources and Energy enjoys, being under the auspices of Japan’s hallowed Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry. Japanese bureaucrats are capable of generating energy policy cognizant of national security demands and private sector capabilities. Flexible zoning laws which allow for dense urban-integrated energy infrastructure is also vital as this preempts NIMBYism and land-use problems found with many other energy projects. Lastly, the non-partisan nature of energy policy in Japan, where no political party clings to a specific energy initiative, is something to emulate in Berlin and elsewhere.
If densely populated, earthquake-prone Japan can step into a nuclear future, there is no excuse for the rest of the world. U.S., Germany, and others should learn from Japan on how to exorcise our own, far less rational, nuclear demons.
TEPCO, which has made public the site of the undersea tunnel construction project, says that the project is proceeding smoothly without local consent for the discharge of treated water into the ocean
September 6, 2022
On September 6, TEPCO opened to the media the construction site of an undersea tunnel that will be used to purify and treat contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Okuma and Futaba towns, Fukushima Prefecture) for discharge into the ocean. Excavation of the tunnel began on August 4 and has progressed to about 80 meters out of its total length of about 1 kilometer. The plan is to finish all the work by next spring, but it is not clear whether the tunnel will actually be able to discharge the water.
The low motor noise reverberated as we entered the narrow tunnel. The entrance to the tunnel was about 3 meters in diameter. Beyond that was a gentle descent. The interior was surrounded by white reinforced concrete walls and crowded with piping and equipment. Beyond the tunnel, a shield machine was digging into the bedrock, but we could not see it.
No sound of digging could be heard, and it was quieter than one might imagine. The machine was digging at a rate of two centimeters per minute. When I touched the piping that carried the rock and mud that had been cut out of the machine to the outside, I felt as if hard objects were rolling around inside.
A person in charge at the site said, “So far, work is going well.” A total of about 100 people work a day on a 24-hour shift, and digging will begin around the end of October at two to three times the current pace.
The fishermen’s union has promised that they will not dispose of the waste in any way (discharge into the ocean) without the understanding of the concerned parties. The fishermen’s union has maintained its opposition to ocean discharge and may not be able to discharge the waste even after the tunnel construction is completed. Kenichi Takahara, risk communicator for the Fukushima Daiichi Decommissioning Promotion Company, predicted, “I think the release will only happen when both the construction of safe facilities and efforts to gain understanding can be accomplished.
According to TEPCO’s plan, the treated water, which mainly contains radioactive tritium, will be diluted with a large amount of seawater to less than 1/40th of the national emission standard and released from the seafloor at a depth of about 12 meters through a tunnel. （The water will be discharged from the seafloor at a depth of about 12 meters through a tunnel.)
TEPCO announced the start of construction of an undersea tunnel to discharge “treated water” from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Citizens’ exclamations
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/200483?fbclid=IwAR3EwrzzVYJ7mmUU8jDVrK4yn3oZ1loFk6NsmNBvZJilmvH31L0E8XErkeU
This week’s nuclear news
Our international news website nuclear-news.net is out of action now, due to a glitch about the domain name. Webcentral Group Limited dba Melbourne it (Australia) might be fixing this for us. In the meantime the international news is going up on antinuclear.net
A bit of good news – Reasons for (cautious) optimism: the good news on the climate crisis
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemiological Update. No – it hasn’t gone away.
Nuclear. The media contradiction continues – as anxiety increases over Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear station – so does the increase in propaganda about how safe, – clean – cheap – is nuclear power!
AUSTRALIA
The Defence Strategic Review and the loss of our strategic autonomy to the US. Pine Gap a target as Ukraine invasion raises nuclear war risk, Australian defence expert warns. Don’t mention the war powers: what’s behind Labor’s silence on inquiry?
PM grills Peter Dutton on location of power plants amid Coalition’s nuclear push. One legal win for Aboriginal people in South Australia gives hope to the Barngarla people who are fighting the Kimba nuclear waste dump plan.
INTERNATIONAL
Leni Riefenstahl said her epic films glorifying the Nazis depended on a “submissive void” in the German public. This is how propaganda is done.
The colossal failure of the 10th Non Proliferation Treaty Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. After U.N. conference, nuclear disarmament advocates look to new strategies.
Wow! The nuclear lobby comes up with a new plan “to compel governments to make difficult decisions“.
Small nuclear reactors emerge as energy option, but risks loom.
Researchers agree: The world can reach a 100% renewable energy system by or before 2050.
UKRAINE. All 6 reactors at Zaporizhzhia now completely stopped operating . Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station is still under threat. Kiev spreading ‘propaganda by fear’ – French ex-presidential candidate. On Ukraine’s war on the Donbass, Russia’s denazification operation, & being on Ukraine’s kill list. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Kp7IpzA5Y Zaporizhzhia: proposals for demilitarised zone around Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant are unprecedented – expert reveals. Putin and Macron trade blame over risk at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.
Western media continues to ignore Ukraine’s public ‘kill list’ aimed at those who question the Kiev regime. . It’s not okay for grown adults to say the Ukraine invasion was “unprovoked”.
EUROPE. Drying up of Europe’s great rivers – the death knell for France’s nuclear fleet?
UK. UK and Europe cannot depend on nuclear power, with reactors shutting down, just as winter hits. Sizewell C nuclear project might be scrapped as UK faces ‘long winter’ due to energy crisis. A farcical detachment from reality’: Green groups respond to Government’s energy bills plan. Nuclear is the worst possible way to back up wind power.
Sizewell C nuclear plant “will never get built” due to impossibility of raising finance for it.Environment Agency rejects EDF’s appeal against requirement to protect millions of fish from Hinkley C’s huge cooling system.
UK government grants £3.3M funding for Advanced Modular Development and Demonstration Nuclear Reactors. Safety a ‘top priority’ for anti-nuclear groups seeking answers on nuclear rail transport. Public opinion in UK – overwhelming support for solar and wind energy .
NORTH KOREA. Kim Jong Un says North Korea’s new law allowing pre-emptive nuclear strikes is ‘irreversible’.
CANADA. Peaceful Walk Against Nuclear Waste Resumes. Medical nuclear reactors becoming redundant as technetium imaging becoming obsolete?
USA. Race Correction and the X-Ray Machine — The Controversy over Increased Radiation Doses for Black Americans in 1968. Trump’s Top-Secret Document Hoard Included Nuclear Weapons Data. Mishandling of Classified Nuclear Documents Is Bad. Mishandling of the Sole Authority to Use Nuclear Weapons Would Be Much Worse. Navy Seeks Solution for Decommissioned Nuclear Carrier USS Enterprise.
IRAN. Revival of the Iran nuclear deal is not likely any time soon. France, Germany and UK lose faith in negotiations with Iran, to restore the nuclear agreement.
GERMANY. German chancellor rejects calls to reverse nuclear power plant closures. Germany to extend last 2 nuclear power plant lifespans by a few weeks. Operator doubts German plan to keep nuclear plants on standby.
SWITZERLAND. Switzerland plans controversial nuclear waste dump all too close to German border.
SOUTH KOREA. Super Typhoon Hinnamnor Could Slam Straight Into Nuclear Power Plant. Jung Jae Kwon: Questioning the nuclear umbrella.
Treated water is almost full, a long way from completion of discharge at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
2022/9/7
Eleven and a half years have passed since the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. TEPCO plans to start discharging the treated water into the sea as early as spring 2023 after purifying the radioactive contaminated water. However, local fishermen and people overseas are deeply distrustful, and the road to completion of the discharge is far from complete.
This summer, there was a major development regarding the treated water. On July 22, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved TEPCO’s plan to discharge treated water into the ocean.
According to the plan, the company will first reduce the concentration of 63 radioactive materials below the national standard, except for tritium, which is technically difficult to remove. The tritium concentration will be further diluted with seawater and adjusted so that it is less than 1/40th of the standard value (1,500 becquerels per liter). The tritium will be discharged to the seafloor about 1 km offshore.
On August 2, Fukushima Prefecture and the towns of Okuma and Futaba, which are the local governments in the area, informed TEPCO that they had given their prior consent to start construction of the discharge facility, and TEPCO began full-scale construction of the facility. A shield machine was used to excavate an undersea tunnel, and pipes were laid to transport the treated water.
However, the construction schedule is already running behind schedule. The installation of the caisson (concrete box) for the water discharge outlet on the seafloor was scheduled for the end of August, but has been postponed until September or later due to weather and other factors. TEPCO has indicated that the discharge may be delayed until next summer.
Zero” Contaminated Water Target Revoked
Contaminated water containing high concentrations of radioactive materials is the source of the treated water. This water is generated when reactor cooling water and groundwater come into contact with the melted-down nuclear fuel (fuel debris) in Units 1 through 3.
The treated water is the result of removing radioactive substances other than tritium using a multinuclide removal system called ALPS (ALPS).
TEPCO has been rapidly adding tanks to store the treated water, but as of March of this year, 95% of the tank capacity (1.29 million tons) had been reached. In order to secure the space needed for decommissioning work, it is difficult to add more tanks. At this rate, the tanks are expected to be full by the summer or fall of 2011.
What is urgently needed is to prevent the generation of contaminated water.
The buildings of Units 1-3 are badly damaged. Groundwater and rainwater flowing from the mountain side of the site have entered the buildings, causing contaminated water to increase.
TEPCO has been reducing the inflow of water into the buildings by pumping up groundwater from wells around the buildings and by building a “frozen soil barrier” to enclose the buildings. 130 tons of contaminated water was generated per day in FY2009, a quarter of the amount generated in FY2003.
However, TEPCO itself still does not know where the water is coming from. TEPCO’s initial goal of “zero generation of contaminated water” is now beyond reach, and the company has replaced it with the target of “reducing the amount of contaminated water to 100 tons per day by the year 2013.
In fact, most of the treated water is “still under treatment.
Once the facilities are completed, will the water in the tanks be discharged into the ocean?
Of the 1.29 million tons of water in the tanks as of March of this year, only 10,000 tons, or less than 1%, has not been treated at Alps. TEPCO has described the other water as “treated” water.
Work proceeds on building tunnel to discharge treated water at Fukushima N-plant
September 7, 2022
FUKUSHIMA — Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Inc. held a press viewing of the construction site of an underwater tunnel leading to the ocean for discharging treated water from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture.
The treated water is to be piped to an offshore discharge site through the tunnel, which is about 1-kilometer long.
On the seaward side of reactor Nos. 5 and 6, there is a shaft about 18 meters deep that leads to a tunnel with a diameter of 3.1 meters that extends toward the sea.
The walls of the tunnel are covered with reinforced concrete to prevent leakage.
A shield machine with many pipes and cables has been used to dig about 80 meters since Aug. 4.
A worker was monitoring the excavation amid the loud sound of the motor.
“Once the tunnel is excavated to 150 meters, the pace of excavation will be several times faster from that point forward,” said a TEPCO official. “We’ll proceed with safety as our top priority.”
The excavation is proceeding smoothly, but rough seas have prevented the installation of the discharge port at the end of the tunnel, which was scheduled to be done in August.
The ocean is expected to be even rougher in the winter. The failure to install the outlet before then could delay the construction work and possibly push back the start of water discharge, which is scheduled in the spring, to around summer.
Source: https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/general-news/20220907-56640/
Operator shows digging of tunnel to release treated water from Fukushima Daiichi
Sept. 6, 2022
The operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has shown to media work to dig an underwater tunnel for releasing treated water from the facility into the ocean.
Tokyo Electric Power Company began building the tunnel in early August to release the water about one kilometer offshore, after diluting it.
The operator gained approval for the work from the Nuclear Regulation Authority and local authorities. The project is in line with the Japanese government’s policy.
On Tuesday, media were allowed to view the construction site, where workers used a huge excavator called a shield machine under the seabed.
The tunnel starts about 16 meters underground near a quay wall of the plant’s No.5 and 6 reactor buildings.
TEPCO officials say the tunnel is being dug at a pace of five to six meters a day, and is so far 80 meters long.
The firm aims to complete the work next spring, but has suggested it may take until next summer, depending on weather.
Local fishery workers have expressed concern about possible reputational damage from the release. Fukushima Prefecture and other local authorities say the plan has yet to gain public understanding.
Reactors at the plant suffered meltdowns in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
Water used to cool molten fuel at the facility mixes with rain and groundwater. Accumulated water is treated to remove most radioactive materials and stored in tanks on the plant’s premises.
The filtered water still contains tritium. The government plans to dilute the water to bring the concentration of tritium well below the percentage permitted by national regulations.
The amount of tritium in the diluted water is also ‘expected’ to be below World Health Organization guidance levels for drinking water quality.
Surgery in junior high school and high school “Everything has changed”, high school senior 6-year-old at the time of the nuclear power plant accident, 2nd oral argument in the Fukushima children’s thyroid cancer lawsuit
September 7, 2022
On September 7, the second round of oral arguments was held at the Tokyo District Court (Saburo Sakamoto presiding) in a lawsuit filed by six men and women, ages 17-28, who were minors and living in Fukushima Prefecture at the time of the accident, seeking a total of 616 million yen in damages from TEPCO for thyroid cancer caused by exposure to radiation from the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. A 17-year-old girl, a junior in high school in the prefecture, who was 6 years old at the time of the accident, gave her statement, saying tearfully, “Everything has changed before I had a clear idea about myself, my character, and my dreams for the future. (Natsuko Katayama)
She sat on the witness stand for about 15 minutes with a screen placed so that the audience could not see her, her voice shaking as she shared her thoughts and feelings. At the time of the accident, she was in kindergarten and living in the Hamadori area in the eastern part of the prefecture. She was diagnosed with thyroid cancer when she was in junior high school and underwent surgery at the age of 13. She thought she was fine, but the cancer returned last fall. She underwent surgery again and underwent painful radiation treatment.
I don’t really know what I want to do in the future. I just want to become a financially stable civil servant. I don’t think love, marriage, or childbirth have anything to do with me. The woman burst into tears and choked on her words several times. “High school life is not a place to enjoy youth, but rather a place to receive college recommendations for a stable future. Even so, there are times when I cannot sleep because I am anxious about the future,” she said.
◆A woman who was in the 6th grade also filed an additional lawsuit
On the same day, a woman in her 20s from the Nakadori area in the central part of the prefecture, who was in the sixth grade at the time of the accident, filed an additional lawsuit. She was diagnosed with thyroid cancer last summer and underwent surgery. She said that she decided to file the lawsuit because “there are other people suffering in addition to me.
TEPCO is seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, claiming that there is no causal relationship between the plaintiffs’ cancer and the nuclear accident.
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/200686?fbclid=IwAR3XPPG3p-NLHg0w9rahtOwIVvCFlfo55sxyFC3yZQOqrXQIpjRBqVb-v0M
Professor of Ryukoku University, angry at the Prime Minister’s reference to “new nuclear power plants.
2022/9/5
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has mentioned the construction of “new nuclear power plants” for the next generation, which has been kept under wraps by successive administrations since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in 2011. This is a move in anticipation of soaring resource prices due to the crisis in Ukraine and other factors, as well as the “carbon neutrality” goal of virtually eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, which the government has declared it aims to achieve in 50 years. We asked Kenichi Oshima, professor of environmental economics at Ryukoku University, who has critically examined the nation’s nuclear power policy, especially from the perspective of costs.
Sudden Change of Policy
–The government’s recent reference to the consideration of new nuclear power plants marks a turning point in its nuclear policy.
◆ Even former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who built a long and stable government based on the lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident that resulted in a huge “negative legacy” over issues such as compensation and decommissioning, did not mention new nuclear power plants while in office. Prime Minister Kishida’s latest statement represents a significant change in policy.
–The Liberal Democratic Party and New Kōmeitō did not mention the new nuclear power plant in the Upper House election to be held in July. The statement was made suddenly at the Green Transformation (GX) Executive Council, a government meeting aimed at realizing a decarbonized society.
◆ The GX campaign pledges did not include the issue, and the Basic Energy Plan, the medium- to long-term national energy policy that was just revised last fall after nearly a year of discussions at a panel of experts, also avoids mention of new nuclear power plant construction. Nevertheless, it is too violent to suddenly overturn the existing policy at another government meeting. It does not seem as if sufficient consideration has been given to the issue. I think it is very shortsighted to consider building new power plants “because there is a shortage of electricity” due to the crisis in Ukraine and other factors.
Contribution to decarbonization “limited”
–How long will it take for new nuclear power plants to come on line?
◆ Nuclear power plants take 10 to 20 years to build, 40 to 60 years to operate, and another 30 years or so to decommission. If we decide to build new nuclear power plants now, our actions will be tied up for the next 100 to 150 years. If we make a decision to build new nuclear power plants based on current resource prices, which fluctuate in the short term, we risk narrowing other options, such as renewable energy. Nuclear power plants have the advantage of producing no carbon dioxide (CO2) when generating electricity, but it will take a long time before they are operational, and their contribution to 50-year carbon neutrality and decarbonization will be limited.
-Involved in accelerating the use of nuclear power plants, the GX Executive Council’s government document also includes a consideration of “business environment improvement.
◆ The theory is that “it will be difficult for electric power companies to recover the huge initial investment in new nuclear power plants on their own, so it will be necessary to ‘improve the business environment. In essence, this means a government subsidy program for electric power companies. This is the same system that pro-nuclear LDP lawmakers had been calling for before the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in 2011. It is a rehash of the same request.
In effect, only the major nuclear power companies will be subject to the environmental improvement program. New power companies will not receive support, further widening the gap in the power industry. This could distort the electricity market, which has been fully liberalized since the Fukushima nuclear accident. It has already been half a century since Japan introduced nuclear power. If it still cannot “stand on its own,” it is proof that nuclear power is inferior as a major power source.
New and additional nuclear power plants must be discussed carefully
–The industry has been calling for the construction of new nuclear power plants. The crisis in Ukraine has caused the price of natural gas and other fossil fuels to skyrocket, and the supply and demand of electricity is tight.
◆ In order for Japan to continue to grow, it is necessary to shift to an industrial and economic structure centered on renewable energy. While Europe, hit hard by the Ukraine crisis, is increasing its investment in nuclear power plants, the main investment for decarbonization and de-dependence on Russia must be in renewable energy. The more the Japanese government works to prolong the life of the nuclear industry, the more it will hurt the Japanese economy in the long run.
Even if there is a possibility of a tight power supply and demand situation in Japan, it will only be serious during peak demand periods. Nuclear power plants are “baseload power sources” that generate electricity all the time, so they cannot contribute to flexible responses such as increasing power generation only during peak periods. While promoting the operation of nuclear power plants will accelerate the consolidation of thermal power generation, which is currently the base-load power source, it will not lead to an increase in the supply of electricity in times of emergency.
Nuclear power plants still face the risk of accidents such as the one that occurred in Fukushima and the problem of how to dispose of radioactive waste. The Kishida administration should carefully discuss the construction of new nuclear power plants, rather than looking only at what is convenient. Interviewer: Daisuke Oka
https://mainichi.jp/articles/20220902/k00/00m/020/219000c?fbclid=IwAR0vx026lpbsEtWMjdWfbLNWw9jP_I9kINx5jZNyMldyIc43hETTe1OdpLE
Sizewell C nuclear project might be scrapped as UK faces ‘long winter’ due to energy crisis
A NEW NUCLEAR reactor which is planned for the Sizewell site in Suffolk could face numerous problems with funding and completion, an expert has warned.
Express UK, By MATTHEW DOOLEY, Sun, Sep 11, 2022 Sizewell C nuclear power station is a proposed nuclear plant in Suffolk which would meet up to seven percent of the UK’s energy demand. The project is owned by the French nuclear giant EDF and the China Nuclear group who own an 80 and 20 percent stake, respectively, in the project.
………. the plant will take years to complete, so it is unlikely it will have any effect on consumers’ bills in the short term.
Concerns have also been raised about the French company taking on the project, EDF. The company is reportedly heavily in-debt – €42.8billion (£37billion) at the end of June, according to Bloomberg.
In July, French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne announced that EDF would be nationalised with the French Government buying 14 percent of the company which it did not already own.
This led some experts to express concern over the viability of the new Sizewell plant amidst an ongoing energy crisis.
Associate Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit, Sussex Business School, University of Sussex Paul Dorfman is an expert in civil nuclear technology.
He said that following the winter, EDF may lose its appetite for building a nuclear project in the UK, particularly when the rest of Europe was struggling with its own energy crisis.
He said: “EDF has huge problems, as they are massively in debt – essentially bankrupt, right now about €42billion in debt, with huge waste and decommissioning costs on the horizon.
“At the moment half of all French EDF reactors are offline, many with ageing maintenance and corrosion safety problems. Because of all this, the French Government has been forced to fully nationalise EDF.
“This winter will be a long time in energy and in politics. It will be a cold winter, and what would happen if France needed all its power for Paris, and fails to deliver power to the UK? How will that go down with UK people and policy, and could that impact the any new nuclear decision at Sizewell C?”
“What will happen if France says, ‘well we are in such problems with our nuclear, we don’t want to commit to the UK?’ Already, just this week, the EDF Board has refused sign off on Johnson’s Sizewell C contract – are they getting cold feet because they worry about taking on more debt for another UK project, when they have their own problems at home.”
Dr Dorfman was referring to a number of sources close to the matter who apparently told the French magazine Le Figaro EDF’s board of directors had voted against the Government’s negotiated decision with EDF to build the reactor at Sizewell……………….
The Sizewell C project would be funded by three parties – EDF would fund 20 percent while the Government would take on another 20 percent of the project. Private investors would take on another 60 percent of the funding while current investor China General Nuclear Power is expected to ease out of its 20 percent investment.
This adds more uncertainty to the project, according to Dr Dorfman who claims the current market won’t “touch nuclear with a barge pole”.
A portion of the construction will be funded by the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) module, which will see consumers pay a premium on their energy bills to go towards the construction of the plant. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1667357/energy-crisis-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-uk-long-winter-energy-crisis
Ukraine Considers Shutting Nuclear Plant After Loss of Backup Power
After shelling destroys key electricity supply, Zaporizhzhia facility may have to rely on generators with 10 days of fuel left
WSJ, By Drew Hinshaw and Laurence Norman Sept. 9, 2022
Ukraine is considering shutting down the sole remaining reactor at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday, after shelling left the plant without a safe and sustainable source of backup power.
The plant, which has already shut down five of its six reactors, risks having only one remaining source of electricity to power its systems in case the sixth reactor has to go offline, said Director General Rafael Grossi in a statement..
Normally, if the plant can’t supply itself power,
it can draw electricity from a nearby thermal-energy plant. But shelling
overnight Thursday destroyed a switchyard that carries electricity out from
that coal-fired plant, Mr. Grossi said.
It is unlikely that it will be
repaired, he added, given the constant artillery fire, meaning the nuclear
plant would have no off-site emergency source of power. The plant could
turn to back up generators, but those only have enough fuel for about 10
days, according to Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear company, Energoatom. The
plant, occupied by Russian soldiers who patrol with grenades dangling off
their belts, is still operated by the company’s Ukrainian workforce.
Plant workers, meanwhile, have no electricity in their homes and the
shelling risks accelerating an exodus of essential staff. “This is an
unsustainable situation and is becoming increasingly precarious,” Mr.
Grossi said. “The power plant has no off-site power, This is completely
unacceptable. It cannot stand. ”The Zaporizhzhia plant is now producing a
minimal 250 megawatts, enough to monitor and sustain the temperature of its
cooling ponds, to pump water through the station, to clean the air inside
the plant, and to perform other basic safety functions, said Petro Kotin,
interim president of Energoatom.
If the last operating reactor goes down,
he said, the staff will need to supply 200 tons of diesel daily to the
generators. The IAEA said in a report Tuesday Ukraine had 2,250 tons of
diesel fuel available for the whole site. Procuring more would require
several truckloads of fuel to cross through an active conflict area
subjected to continual artillery fire, many times a day. Nuclear experts
said it could make sense to shut down the last reactor and work off backup
generators, because the earlier that is done, the cooler the reactor core
would be if Zaporizhzhia’s generators run out of fuel and there is an
accident.
Workers reached by The Wall Street Journal have blamed the
artillery fire on Russia. Plant technicians, backed by European officials
and independent nuclear analysts, have said the shelling serves the
Kremlin’s broader goal of severing Zaporizhzhia’s power connection to
Ukraine’s remaining territory and eventually rerouting it into
Russian-held areas. Russian soldiers have laid land mines around the
plant’s cooling ponds, parked heavy artillery near its reactors, and
turned its safety shelters—meant for plant workers to flee to in an
emergency—into a bunker for themselves, workers say.
When IAEA inspectors
visited the plant last week, they found that the alternative emergency
center that Russian soldiers offered the staff didn’t have its own
ventilation system to filter out radiation from the air, or its own source
of power—or even an internet connection.
Shutting down the plant, in the
midst of an active conflict, would pose enormous and unprecedented
challenges for the nuclear industry. Defunct or dormant nuclear plants
still require electricity and careful maintenance by trained staff to
monitor and safeguard spent nuclear fuel, among other safety operations.
The plant currently suffers obstacles sourcing the spare parts and fuel
that would be required. Compounding difficulties, the Zaporizhzhia plant
has seen a considerable amount of its workforce flee, slipping out through
Russian checkpoints to Ukrainian-held ground.
Wall Street Journal 10th Sept 2022 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-considers-shutting-nuclear-plant-after-loss-of-backup-power-11662747396
Wow! The nuclear lobby comes up with a new plan “to compel governments to make difficult decisions”
The solution that we have created – the creation of a multilateral bank that will support nuclear investment and nuclear infrastructure all across the world – is a needed tool to achieve these objectives.
The proposed International Bank for Nuclear Infrastructure (IBNI)will be based on the same model as the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Asian Development Bank, among others.
“What a multilateral can do, through the establishment, adoption and enforcement of country-level agreements, is compel governments to make the politically-difficult decisions.
Financing issues for nuclear under the spotlight
World Nuclear News, 09 September 2022 The financing of nuclear projects under current mechanisms faces many challenges, panelists at World Nuclear Symposium agreed. However, plans for a new multilateral bank specifically for nuclear infrastructure could help projects move forward.
I think we all share a vision that nuclear needs to play a major role in the attainment of [energy security, sustainable development, climate targets] policy objectives,” said Daniel Dean, chair of the International Bank for Nuclear Infrastructure (IBNI) Implementation Organisation Strategic Advisory Group.
“The more we make nuclear accessible, financeable and achievable in countries throughout the world, the more that nuclear will be considered as a viable option to achieve those carbon transition objectives. But we are talking about multiple trillions of dollars of investment to achieve this vision. That is a problem given the existing financing mechanisms, the existing commercial structures being utilised to deliver nuclear projects.
George Borovas, partner and head of nuclear at law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, who chaired the session, said the financing of nuclear projects is “an issue that is dear to my heart”. He said he has seen many such projects fail because of a lack of the right financial solutions……… You have to think about the financing solution up front.”
“General issues of public acceptance, reputational risk, potential controversies inevitably makes a lot of banks nervous, or at least cautious, about engaging with nuclear,” said Mark Muldowney of BNP Paribas…………..
Dean said nuclear must been considered from an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) perspective as an investor.
“We need to establish a better basis for the ESG status of nuclear and its role in terms of net-zero and its role in energy security,” he said. “That’s important as that will start to aggregate stability and actually say that nuclear is something that collectively financiers want to finance.”
what you need for that assessment is for industry collectively to put together the case why nuclear makes sense – from a policy point of view that’s the government’s domain
Dean said it is not just a financing issue. “It is a multidimensional problem that needs a multidimensional solution. The solution that we have created – the creation of a multilateral bank that will support nuclear investment and nuclear infrastructure all across the world – is a needed tool to achieve these objectives.
…………………… The proposed IBNI will be based on the same model as the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Asian Development Bank, among others.
“What a multilateral can do, through the establishment, adoption and enforcement of country-level agreements, is compel governments to make the politically-difficult decisions. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Financing-issues-for-nuclear-under-the-spotlight
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 