Iran’s invisible opportunity via The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

By Amory B. Lovins

[…]
And the areas that could do the most to keep Iran from drifting back towards the nuclear path? Energy efficiency and renewables.

Legendary possibilities. At the eye of the storm over the Iran agreement is a zone of silence—an almost unnoticed opportunity to raise the odds of success. On the Iranian side, wisely using the period of restrictions on potential military nuclear activities could help Iran shift its domestic el­ec­tricity priorities from a failed nuclear power program to a world-class, faster-to-implement, and vastly cheaper program that combines energy efficiency, modern renewables, and advances in the electrical grid. By weakening the domestic case for nuclear power, this approach could help remove uncertainty about Iran’s continuing domestic nuclear activities (however benign they may allegedly be, such as the creation of medical radioisotopes for radiation therapy). Importantly, that would clear some of the fog around Iran’s nuclear program. This in turn would isolate bomb-seekers and allow outside intelligence and monitoring efforts to focus on needles instead of haystacks.

Modernizing Iran’s electricity investments could also reduce the risk of renewed sanc­tions, reward and reinforce political moderation, enhance Iran’s prosperity and energy independence, bolster national pride, and—since the same logic applies to neigh­boring coun­tries already making similar energy shifts for economic reasons—help stabilize the region by reversing an incipient Gulf nuclear arms race. More broadly, it could even help guard the global nonproliferation regime from dangerously permissive interpre­ta­tions by updating the purpose of the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT’s) Article IV, which enshrines signatories’ “inalienable right” to the exclusively peaceful use of nuclear energy. Thus, a speedy alignment of Iranian domestic electricity investments with new economic realities could advance the security and economic interests of Iran, Israel, the Arab Gulf states, America and its P5+1 partners, and the world. It could strengthen Iran’s global integration, political evolution, and national stature without compromising others’ similar goals.

Key Iranian officials already publicly favor this approach to their nation’s energy needs, and the technologies are ready and the vendors eager. Indeed, the “United States Assistance to Developing Countries” portion of a 1978 US law called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act requires such assistance from the United States. And encouragingly, a similar shift already helped to defuse a nuclear arms race between Argentina and Brazil over the past quarter-century. As those two countries evolved from military dictatorships to democracies, their energy priorities allowed them to achieve leadership in renewables and leave their nuclear capabilities nakedly uneconomic, isolated, and obsolete—helping to suppress any lingering temptations.
[…]
On the supply side, Iran enjoys Arizona-like sun, vast empty lands, high geothermal potential, and significant opportunities for small hydro projects and waste-to-energy facilities, among other renewable assets. Iran’s average windspeed is also equivalent to that of the so-called “wind belt” of the Midwestern United States, and Iran’s exceptional wind power sites can economically provide more than 30 gigawatts. Consequently, Iran’s New England-sized, 70-gigawatt grid could quickly shift from three-quarter gas- and one-quarter oil-fired generation (plus 10 gigawatts of less reliable hydropower) to modern renew­ables.

How quickly?

To give an idea, take a look at another dry, sunny country at a similar latitude. Portugal, with 22 percent of Iran’s 2014 economy, 13 percent of its population, and 6 percent of its area, doubled its use of renewablesIran’s nuclear disappointment. In contrast, Iranian nuclear power has failed. Pre-Revolutionary internal critiques of the Shah’s nuclear power ambitions as a Western-inspired extravagance have proven correct. Iran spent a near-record $11 billion to build, in 36 years, one cobbled-together power reactor that supplied just 1.5 percent of its electricity last year. Iran’s homebrewed enrichment cost about an eighth of a billion dollars per year above the market price of enrichment from a dozen supplier countries (even before that price fell by half in the past five years). Sanctions triggered by the Iran nuclear program’s ambiguous nature—Is it for building weapons? For peaceful energy, medicine, and research? Both sets of uses?—cost Iran at least $100 billion, and maybe even $500 billion. By diverting capital, it left the hydrocarbon core of Iran’s economy in a shambles. Obsessive nuclear invest­ments thus hob­bled Iran’s quest for a more diverse, resilient, and independent energy system.

And Iran’s dubiously safe reactor sits at a tectonic-plate junction whose earthquakes could readily exceed the plant’s magnitude 8 design basis. Rising Iranian safety concerns are shared by neighbors downwind, including many Arab capitals and Saudi Arabia’s eastern oil zone. These concerns are shared by the Gulf Cooperation Council; tellingly, Iran has not joined the international regime governing liability for accidents.

Across the Gulf, states that didn’t follow Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain in dropping nuclear power plans after Fukushima are increasingly reluctant to emulate the purchase order by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for four South Korean reactors. (That project’s safeguards against proliferation have been touted as the “gold standard,” but they’re flawed, and even more fundamentally, the whole project lacks a sound business case; the reactors were ordered before serious analysis of modern alternatives.) The original $20-billion cost estimate is now about $32 to $40 billion and rising—before it’s known whether Korea’s fake-safety-certificates scandal affects UAE reactors.
[…] in seven years—from 32 percent of Portugal’s electricity in 2007 to 64 percent in 2014. And during Portugal’s significant 2005 drought, when hydropower faltered, the country still managed to get 15 percent of its electrical generation from non-hydro renewables. The logical implication is that Iran could similarly do a lot to boost its renewable energy sector without further reliance on its unreliable hydropower. Dry years tend to be great for power from the sun and, often, the wind.

Renewables are already a modest but vibrant and fast-growing part of Iran’s policy to free up gas and oil for export. Urban air pollution, growing civil-society and small-business pressures, energy security, price stability, climate pro­tec­­tion, and drought (favoring renewables over traditional power plants that need water) add urgency. As Iran’s Energy Minister Rostam Qasemisaid in 2012, “Gradual reduction of oil consumption on the one hand, and a revolution­ary and swift move toward using renewable energies on the other hand, are the only appropriate mechanisms which can help the country.”

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Iran’s invisible opportunity via The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Pilgrim nuclear plant a scary prospect for South Shore via The Boston Globe

By Thomas Farragher

[…]
There’s no way to sugar coat the electric news flowing out of Entergy Corp.’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station these days.

A quick recap: There have been a series of unplanned shutdowns of the Plymouth plant’s reactor in recent years. Inspections have revealed safety problems that are not insignificant.

Just this week, we learned that Pilgrim failed to comply with a government advisory about fire safety systems at the plant. That advisory was issued 23 years ago!

“I know Entergy is a southern company and in the South they do things at a more leisurely place, but this is stretching it,’’ said Mary Lampert, director of Pilgrim Watch, which she directs from her home in Duxbury where, through the trees and across the bay, she literally can keep an eye on Pilgrim.

Lampert and other critics of Pilgrim want the plant shut down. And pronto.

“You can’t run an antique nuclear reactor on the cheap and that’s what they’re doing,’’ she said.

Jeff Berger, a former chairman of the local committee in Plymouth that advises that board of selectman on Pilgrim matters, said the roughly $10 million the plant funnels into Plymouth coffers each year have kept residents “fat, dumb and happy’’ for too long. A recent UMass-Amherst study placed the plant’s direct and indirect economic impact at $255 million.

“We don’t know what we don’t know,’’ said Berger, speaking for himself and not the committee he used to lead. “What else is wrong with that plant that we don’t know?’’

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is so concerned about safety issues at the 43-year-old plant that last month it downgraded its safety rating. There is now no other plant in the country with a lower rating. Essentially Pilgrim is the atomic energy equivalent of a junk bond. It now rates as one of the three least safe units among the country’s 99 reactors.

Still, officials at the plant, which employs nearly 600, say safety remains paramount and insist it will never be compromised.

“Our families live in the community as well and we’re not willing to risk their safety,’’ said David Noyes, a Plymouth resident and Pilgrim’s director of regulatory and performance improvement. “I believe a vast majority of the people feel safe with the plant in their community and feel the town is better for having the plant there.’’

Kevin O’Reilly, executive director of the Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce, agrees. “I grew up with a nuclear plant in my community,’’ O’Reilly said. “You have to put some faith in the NRC.’’

I believe people like O’Reilly, who has raised his family in Plymouth and says he would never do anything to endanger them.

But I can’t help but feeling that the millions that have flowed into the coffers of local government from Pilgrim have had some muffling effect on the alarm bells of safety.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Pilgrim nuclear plant a scary prospect for South Shore via The Boston Globe

WBEZ’s Worldview ‘Little Voices from Fukushima’ via WBEZ

In her film Little Voices from Fukushima, director Hitomi Kamanaka moves between two communities impacted by nuclear disaster- an area in Belarus that saw the effects of Chernobyl, and a community in Fukushima. Kamanaka looks to Belarus to see what, if any, lessons there might be for Fukushima’s residents.

Continue reading and listen to the program at WBEZ’s Worldview ‘Little Voices from Fukushima’

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

St. Louis plans for disaster in case landfill fire hits nuclear waste dump via RT

Authorities in St. Louis County have quietly developed an emergency plan in case a smoldering landfill fire reaches a nuclear waste site 1,000 feet away. Officials say everything is still safe, but the plan notes disaster might strike without warning.

About 20 miles (32 km) from downtown St. Louis, the Bridgeton Landfill has been spewing toxic smoke since 2010. The cause of the fire and its extent remain unknown. Just 1,000 feet (300 m) away is the West Lake Landfill, a site contaminated in 1973 by radioactive waste dating back to the 1940s. It was designated an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site in 1990, but the federal government is still deciding how to clean up the waste.

The county released the details of the emergency plan to local news station KMOX, after area residents reported receiving instructions on what to do in a radiation emergency. If the “sub-surface smoldering event” reaches the nuclear waste site, “there is a potential for radioactive fallout to be released in the smoke plume and spread throughout the region,”the document says.

[…]

The county’s emergency plan includes options for having the population shelter in place, as well as evacuation strategies. Local resources may not be adequate, the document notes, adding that assistance will be required from the federal government, volunteer organizations and businesses.

Landfill fires have been notoriously difficult to defeat. In the most striking incident, the garbage dump in Centralia, Pennsylvania caught fire in 1962 and spread to the nearby coal mine. After several efforts to halt the blaze failed, the town was evacuated and condemned in 1984. Only seven residents who refused to leave remain in the town, whose postal code was revoked in 2002.

Read more at St. Louis plans for disaster in case landfill fire hits nuclear waste dump

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

福島の甲状腺がん発生率50倍…岡山大・津田教授が警告会見 via 日刊ゲンダイ

岡山大大学院の津田敏秀教授(生命環境学)が6日付の国際環境疫学会の医学専門誌「エピデミオロ ジー(疫学)」に発表した論文に衝撃が広がっている。福島県が福島原発事故当時に18歳以下だった県民を対象に実施している健康調査の結果を分析したとこ ろ、甲状腺がんの発生率がナント! 国内平均の「50~20倍」に達していた――という内容だ。

8日、都内の外国特派員協会で会見した津田教授は「福島県では小児や青少年の甲状腺がんの過剰発生がすでに検出されている。多発は避けがたい」と強調した。

福島県で原発事故と子どもの甲状腺がんの因果関係を指摘する声は多いが、権威ある医学専門誌に論文が掲載された意味は重い。国際的な専門家も事態を深刻に受け止めた証しだからだ。

津田教授は会見であらためて論文の詳細を説明。原発事故から2014年末までに県が調査した約37万人を分析した結果、「二本松市」「本宮市」「三春 町」「大玉村」の「福島中通り中部」で甲状腺がんの発生率が国内平均と比較して50倍に達したほか、「郡山市」で39倍などとなった。

津田教授は、86年のチェルノブイリ原発事故では5~6年後から甲状腺がんの患者数が増えたことや、WHO(世界保健機関)が13年にまとめた福島のがん発生予測をすでに上回っている――として、今後、患者数が爆発的に増える可能性を示唆した。

(略)

一方、公表した論文について「時期尚早」や「過剰診断の結果」との指摘が出ていることに対しては 「やりとりしている海外の研究者で時期尚早と言う人は誰もいない。むしろ早く論文にしろという声が圧倒的だ」「過剰診断で増える発生率はどの程度なのか。 (証拠の)論文を示してほしい」と真っ向から反論。「日本では(論文が)理解されず、何の準備もされていない。対策を早く考えるべき」と訴えた。

「原発事故と甲状腺がんの因果関係は不明」とトボケ続けている政府と福島県の責任は重い。

全文は福島の甲状腺がん発生率50倍…岡山大・津田教授が警告会見

当サイト既出関連記事:

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on 福島の甲状腺がん発生率50倍…岡山大・津田教授が警告会見 via 日刊ゲンダイ

Risks of leukemia in nuclear workers more than double previous estimate via The Ecologist

Are low levels of nuclear radiation good for you? Or merely harmless, as many nuclear advocates want you to think? Sadly not, writes Ian Fairlie. A huge new study finds ‘strong evidence’ of a dose-response relationship between cumulative, external, chronic, low-dose, exposures to radiation, and incidence of leukemia.

In 2013, I discussed several epidemiological studies providing good evidence of radiogenic risks at very low exposure levels.

A powerful new study has been published in Lancet Haematology [1] which adds to this evidence. However the study’s findings are more important than the previous studies, for several reasons.

First, it provides “strong evidence”, as stated by the authors, of a “dose-response relationship between cumulative, external, chronic, low-dose, exposures to radiation and leukaemia”.

Second, it finds radiogenic risks of leukemia among nuclear workers to be more than double the risk found in a previous similar study in 2005. The excess relative risk of leukaemia mortality (excluding workers exposed to neutrons) was 4.19 per Gy.

[…]

Third, it confirms risks even at very low doses (mean = 1·1 mGy per year). Unlike the Japanese bomb survivors’ study, it observes risks at low dose rates rather than extrapolating them from high levels.

Fourth, it finds risks do not depend on dose rate thus contradicting the ICRP’s use of a Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor (DREF) which acts to reduce (by half) the ICRP’s published radiation risks.

Fifth, it finds radiogenic leukemia risks decline linearly with dose, contradicting earlier studies suggesting a lower, linear-quadratic relationship for leukemia. It strengthens the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model of radiogenic risks, as it now applies to leukemias as well as solid cancers.

Sixth, the study finds no evidence of a threshold below which no effects are seen (apart from zero dose).

Seventh, the study uses 90% confidence intervals and one-sided p-values. In the past, 95% intervals and two-sided p-values were often incorrectly used which had made it harder to establish statistical significance.

[…]

Study’s credentials

The study’s credentials are pretty impeccable. It’s a huge study of over 300,000 nuclear workers adding up to over 8 million person years, thus ensuring its findings are statistically significant, ie with very low probability of occurring by chance.

Also, it’s an international study by 13 respected scientists from national health institutes in the US, UK, and France, as follows.

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US
  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, US
  • Department of Health and Human Services, US
  • University of North Carolina, US
  • Drexel University School of Public Health, US
  • Public Health England, UK
  • Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, France
  • Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, Spain
  • UN International Agency for Research on Cancer, France

Funding was provided by many institutions, including US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, US Department of Energy, US Department of Health and Human Services, Japanese Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, French Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, and the UK’s Public Health England.

 

Read more at Risks of leukemia in nuclear workers more than double previous estimate

 

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Risks of leukemia in nuclear workers more than double previous estimate via The Ecologist

Time for nuclear sharing to end via Open Democracy

You have to keep threatening to use nuclear weapons to make nuclear deterrence work. A view from Germany on the planned deployment of new US nuclear weapons.

It was already announced some years ago, but last week Germany woke up to the fact that new US nuclear weapons are actually going to be deployed at its base in Büchel. Frontal 21, a programme on the second main TV channel reported last Tuesday that preparation for this deployment was due to begin at the German air force base. The runway is being improved, perimeter fences strengthened, new maintenance trucks arriving and the Tornado delivery aircraft will get new software.

It is a little known fact: Germany (and four other European countries) host nuclear weapons as part of NATO “nuclear sharing”. This means that in a nuclear attack the US can load its bombs onto German (or Belgian, Italian, Turkish and Dutch) aircraft and the pilots of those countries will drop them on an enemy target. This arrangement pre-dates the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which explicitly disallows any transfer of nuclear weapons from a nuclear weapon state to a non-nuclear weapon state, thus undermining the spirit of the treaty.

This new nuclear bomb – the B61-12 – is intended to replace all its older versions and be able to destroy more targets than previous models. It is touted by the nuclear laboratories as an “all-in-one” bomb, a “smart” bomb, that does not simply get tossed out of an aircraft, but can be guided and hit its target with great precision using exactly the right amount of explosive strength to only destroy what needs to be destroyed. Sound good?

Not to us – a guided nuclear bomb with mini-nuke capability could well lower the threshold for use. And the use of any kind of nuclear weapon would lead to the use of more nuclear weapons – this we know from the policies and planning of all nuclear weapon states.

[…]

This is the moment where nuclear weapon-free countries need to call out for a ban on nuclear weapons to stop this madness. It is also the right time for nuclear co-dependents, like Germany, to make up its mind to give its nuclear dependency up.

Deploying new nuclear weapons is forbidden by the NPT, which obligates its members to end the arms race. The transfer of nuclear weapons from the US to Germany and any plans to do so also undermine the NPT. As a responsible member state of this important treaty, it is time to denounce nuclear weapons and to join the international community of nuclear weapon-free countries that is signing the ‘Humanitarian Pledge’, calling for the legal gap to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons to be closed. Time for Germany to show some real leadership for nuclear disarmament.

Read more at Time for nuclear sharing to end

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Time for nuclear sharing to end via Open Democracy

プルトニウム使用の大間原発建設に函館市が国を提訴! その行方は!? via Harbor Business Online

国が原子炉設置許可を出し、電源開発(Jパワー)が建設を進める大間原発(青森県大間町)をめぐり、北海道函館市が建設差し止めを求めて提訴している。津軽海峡を挟んだ23km対岸に大間原発を望む函館市にとって、東電原発事故のような大規模な事故は自治体の消滅にも直結するからだ。

想定しているのは「最大の揺れ」ではなく「地震の平均像」?

函館市が国とJパワーを相手取り起こした建設差し止め裁判で、原告側による6回目の口頭弁論が今年10月6日、東京地裁で開かれた。この日、原告側が指摘したのは、設定された「基準地震動」の問題点だ。

Jパワーは昨年12月、大間原発の基準地震動を従来の450ガルから650ガルに引き上げた。基準地震動とは、原発施設の耐震設計の基準となる揺れのこ とで「原発を襲うと想定される最も大きな揺れ」とされる。すなわち大間原発に照らせば、想定される最大の揺れは650ガルというわけだ。

(略)

大間原発北側の近海(津軽海峡)には、長さ300km・断層面積1000k㎡の断層がある可能性が指摘されている。

国側は「函館市には原告になる資格はない」と否定

一方、国側は「原子炉等規制法に自治体の権利は含まれない」などとして、函館市の原告適格(訴える資格)を否定する。これに対しても原告側は同日、函館市に原告適格があるとする学者4人の意見を載せた陳述書を提出している。

この中で原告は「改正後原子炉等規制法では『財産の保護』が明確に規定されており、原告が原告適格を有することは明白」と反論。神戸大学の阿部泰隆名誉 教授は「明文の規定がなければ救済しないとすれば、それは(中略)包括的な権利救済を求める行訴法に反する。自治体が壊滅しても、司法の保護範囲内ではな いとすれば、それは法治国家とは言えず、放置国家であろう」とまで指摘している。

これについて原告側の中野宏典弁護士は「国はさまざまな理屈をこねているが『当たり前に考えれば函館市に原告適格がある』ということを各教授は言ってくれた」と説明する。

全文はプルトニウム使用の大間原発建設に函館市が国を提訴! その行方は!?

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on プルトニウム使用の大間原発建設に函館市が国を提訴! その行方は!? via Harbor Business Online

Devastated by man… reclaimed by nature: Amazing images reveal how the exclusion zone around Fukushima has been abandoned to become an overgrown wilderness via Daily Mail

A stunning new photo project offers unprecedented insight into the wild and desolate exclusion zone surrounding the Fukushima nuclear power plant – where tonnes of contaminated soil lie untouched and overgrown forest is engulfing hundreds of abandoned vehicles and homes.

The 12.5-mile exclusion zone around the nuclear plant now resembles post-apocalyptic scenes from The Walking Dead after it was instantly abandoned following the 2011 nuclear disaster.

People deserted the area after warnings of dangerous levels of radioactivity, leaving cars, classrooms and libraries to be swallowed by the overgrown wilderness in stark scenes reminiscent of those seen in the show, in which entire towns have been left in stasis after zombies overran the earth.

Posted in *English | Tagged , | Comments Off on Devastated by man… reclaimed by nature: Amazing images reveal how the exclusion zone around Fukushima has been abandoned to become an overgrown wilderness via Daily Mail

Republicans launch new ad in Nevada via Washington Examiner

The National Republican Senatorial Committee unveiled a new televised ad targeting Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto, a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Nevada. The ad will begin airing in the Las Vegas and Reno media markets next week.

The TV-spot specifically takes aim at the former Nevada attorney general’s support for the Obama administration’s deal with Iran, and shows Cortez Masto, juxtaposed with images of people chanting “death to America” and a large explosion accompanied by a mushroom cloud.

“After hiding from the issue for months, Cortez Masto finally announced her support for President Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Iran, a state sponsor of terror,” said Greg Blair, NRSC spokesman, in a statement. “Poll after poll after poll shows that Cortez Masto’s support for the Obama-Reid agenda puts her firmly on the wrong side of the American people.”

The ad’s debut in the Silver State will coincide with the first Democratic presidential debate happening in Las Vegas.

Continue reading at Republicans launch new ad in Nevada

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | 1 Comment