Russia to build dozens of Nuclear

We are fully able to take at least 25% of the world market for construction and operation of nuclear power.” This statement was made by Vladimir Putin in March during the launch of the second power unit of the Rostov nuclear power plant. In early 2009, Rosatom has received nearly 60 billion rubles for the purchase of foreign assets.

Russian specialists are erecting 5 power units abroad. Nuclear power plant Kudankulam (two units) is being built in India, already world famous Bushehr NPP (one unit) is being built in Iran, and Belene nuclear power plant (two units) is being constructed in Bulgaria. In August, Russia and Armenia signed an intergovernmental agreement on construction of a nuclear power plant on the territory of the Armenian Republic. Russia can finance 20% of the construction.
Currently the package of vacant contracts for the construction of new nuclear power plant for Rosatom abroad includes 35 power units. 19 projects already have relevant intergovernmental agreements. They include China (4 units), India (4 units), Belarus (2 units), Armenia (1 unit), Ukraine (2 units), Vietnam (2 units) and Turkey (4 units). Construction of power plants is planned in such countries as Egypt (3 units), Argentina (2 units), Kazakhstan (2 units), Slovakia (1 unit), Hungary and the Czech Republic (2 units), as well as Bangladesh and Jordan (2 units).
Today the information was released that Russia and India have agreed to build a total of 18 units at 3 Indian sites, including Kudankulam.

Obama Defends Nuclear Energy (via Yahoo News)

President Barack Obama on Tuesday defended the use of nuclear energy despite the calamity in Japan where a nuclear power plant leaked radiation in the wake of a devastating earthquake and tsunami.
The president told Pittsburgh television station KDKA that all energy sources have their downsides but that the U.S. — which gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power — needs to look at the full array of them.
The president said facilities in the U.S. are closely monitored and built to withstand earthquakes, even though nothing’s failsafe. Proponents of nuclear power fear their efforts to win over the public to the safety of their industry have been dealt a tremendous blow by the disaster in Japan

Unsafe Nuclear Energy

“The understanding, in our country, on matters connected with nuclear energy and energy on whole is very limited.” Nuclear Energy is not safe, clean and green, it emits radiations and create pollution, said Admiral Ramdas

Problem of discharge of radioactive waste

World is still struggling with the problem of nuclear waste, how to discharge it. Once the reactor becomes operational, we won`t have any way to discharge nuclear waste, then we will have nuclear waste keep lying all over our country. Even the developed countries like UK have not been able to figure out any solution, said Admiral Ramdas

Earthquake prone area

Critics say, the site lies in Earthquake Zone IV, in the increased severity ranging from I to V. But according to Environment Impact Assesment Report(EIA), it is Zone III. The reactors have to be severe earthquake proofing otherwise it may be a hazard.

Nuclear Energy and Uranium Mining Stocks Rebound

There’s an old saying in investing: Buy a winter coat in the summer. Uranium stocks are certainly out of season and deeply discounted. Media coverage has shifted from the destruction of the earthquake to the negative aspects of nuclear energy. Nothing puts fear into the public more than green men in radiation outfits. The media has taken this opportunity to capitalize on the fear of the masses. This has resulted in devastating sell-offs in the uranium mining sector such as in uranium (Global X Uranium ETF (URA)) and nuclear energy ETFs (Market Vectors Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF (NLR)), which has seen its most severe decline in its short history

Greenpeace calls for improved

As the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan entered its second week and levels of radioactive contamination continue to grow, the international environmental organization Greenpeace, along with the Japanese group Citizens Nuclear Information Centre (CNIC), is calling for improved evacuation plans and other protective measures for people still within the 30km exclusion zone, as well as for pregnant women and children in contaminated areas beyond 3Okm.

 

“As the Fukushima crisis continues, it is clear that the Japanese authorities are unable to fully protect public health. Despite early assurances that there would be little risk to the public we have now seen extensive evacuation and increasing radioactive contamination in the food chain. Japanese authorities seem to be one step behind the situation, which has to change in the name of public protection. It is now time for full and prompt disclosure so people can be properly protected and adequate emergency plans put into place,” said Jan Beranek, head of the Greenpeace International Nuclear Campaign.

The Japan Earthquake and the Ethics

For the past decade, the world has experienced a nuclear energy renaissance fueled by society's desire for alternative sources of clean power. However, due to the recent nuclear calamities following the Japan earthquake and tsunami, this resurgence may be over. The disaster has reopened a debate that has spanned generations regarding whether the use of nuclear technology for our energy needs is sensible. Some supporters and opponents even view the issue as a moral one. Proponents argue that refusing to employ nuclear technology in an energy-starved world is unethical. Others believe that the use of nuclear energy, with its potential for catastrophic accidents and radioactive by-products is wrong. This discussion raises key questions: is the use of nuclear energy a moral issue, and, if so, how do we tell if its use is ethical or unethical?
Philosophers generally identify moral issues with decisions or actions that involve possible benefit or harm to oneself and others. The outcomes of such decisions are right/good or wrong/bad. The issue of nuclear energy use meets this requirement. Those on both sides of the nuclear technology issue would likely agree that use of this form of energy does involve potential benefit or harm. However, they disagree about which outcome is accurate.
If deciding to use or eschew nuclear energy is a moral decision, how does one determine whether either decision is right or wrong? This depends on what a person believes is the basis for morality, which is referred to as a moral theory. There is no universal moral theory, and therefore, many different ways to judge the morality of a particular action. However, most of those engaged in the debate regarding the ethics of nuclear energy speak of the consequences of its use. This implies a consequentialist viewpoint.

Nuclear power's uneasy history

The file shows the passage of time, thin and well-fingered. Document 36 in EG1, dating back to 1953, is typical of the thousands of pieces of Whitehall 'literature' housed at the National Archives, fascinating in content, under-stated in terms of political and economic implications.

Document 36 is no different. The one-time secret Energy Department file details the events surrounding the arrival of the nuclear power age, its early teething problems and the political tug of war with the US.

The pen of Lord Cherwell, scientific adviser to both Churchill and Attlee, runs heavily through changes in the draft of a white paper providing reassurances that nuclear power was safe and competitive. More than a decade of work in Britain and in Canada during wartime had proved the technology.

There was an uneasy backdrop. The file provides insight into US reluctance to share post-war atomic secrets and technology with a Labour administration and the difficulties Attlee faced in persuading a reluctant Eisenhower to increase Britain's atomic arsenal.

Almost casually a two page summary of a late 1953 conversation between the two leaders mentions that Britain had a stockpile of 100 atomic bombs while the US with 2,500 in reserve was producing them at the rate of 600 a year. Attlee jumped when told Eisenhower wanted to drop an atomic bomb on Manchuria to bring down the curtain on the Korean conflict.

Nuclear Power

By definition nuclear as an adjective means relating to or constituting the nucleus of an atom, for example: nuclear physics, nuclear fission, or nuclear forces. Nuclear weapons are weapons deriving destructive energy from the release of atomic energy, for example the atomic bomb. This timeline covers nuclear history.

Cloud chamber for tracking charged particles is invented. Wilhelm Roentgen discovers x-rays. The world immediately appreciates their medical potential. Within five years, for example, the British Army is using a mobile x-ray unit to locate bullets and shrapnel in wounded soldiers in the Sudan.

Yemen on the Brink

Even if Yemen manages to avoid civil war, the country's many economic and security challenges may undermine democratic reform. In setting the post-Saleh agenda, will Yemen's disparate opposition movements be able to outmaneuver the country's established powers?

As the political battle for Yemen’s future unfolds, the country’s most immediate challenge is to avert a bloody civil war. Yet if Yemenis avoid this outcome by peacefully transitioning power, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s replacements will immediately face a daunting economic crisis, festering regional tensions, and an unstable security environment. Moreover, as Saleh negotiates with elites in the capital, powerful tribal and religious interest groups may drown out the youth and civil society protesters demanding far-reaching democratic reform.

Should vested interests dominate a potential post-Saleh transition, Yemen may end up with a political system remarkably similar to Saleh’s.

Even if people do accept nuclear power

from nuclear-news by Christina MacPherson

So while nuclear power does return net energy and while it may be true that public opposition to nuclear power will fall, it probably won’t matter – because no society in an energy decline, with declining fossil fuel resources, can afford to front-load a decade or two decades of energy in fossil fuels into a plant.

Fukushima and the Future of Nuclear Power : Science Blogs, Casaubon’s Book, April 1, 2011 , by Sharon Astyk“………More than any other kind of energy generation, nuclear frontloads its energy costs dramatically – reliable estimates vary from as low as 12 years before they produce more energy than went into building them to as high as 20. The upfront plant building costs are also vastly higher than for coal, natural gas or any other source.
At this stage (and this is the most critical point) just about EVERY SINGLE BIT of the upfront cost of nuclear power comes from fossil fuels. The energy that runs the economy to make the money to build them comes from fossil fuels. Uranium mining isn’t done on solar electric. The transport of fuel and worker, the concrete and heavy materials, the containment systems – everything is built with a huge front load of fossil fuels and fossil fueled money.
So while nuclear power does return net energy and while it may be true that public opposition to nuclear power will fall, it probably won’t matter – because no society in an energy decline, with declining fossil fuel resources, can afford to front-load a decade or two decades of energy in fossil fuels into a plant. It simply doesn’t scale – yes, you get more out in the end but that doesn’t matter – you can’t afford it, not financially, not in energy terms. Rising costs of those fossil fuels increases the upfront costs of any plant, while simultaneously undermining the financial stability of both the public and private resources that might otherwise be building nuclear plants. Those upfront costs of building plants also got substantially higher when the Fukushima disaster proved the limits of arguing that the 100 or 1000 year event will never hit your plant. If nuclear plants didn’t take 20 years to return net energy before, they almost certainly do now.