France tries to calm reactor concerns

[Liberation Angel]

Source: Financial Times

France tries to calm reactor concerns
By Peggy Hollinger in Paris

France was trying to avert a crisis of confidence on Tuesday 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.
...

(O)bservers said the recent questions voiced by authorities in Britain, Finland and France over the independence of the EPR’s safety system from operational control systems were merely the latest in a series of matters that had been raised in Abu Dhabi.

Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/796577b6-c8c2-11de-8f9d-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

---

Obama and Congress must decide soon if they are going to continue this dangerous and outdated and way too expensive technology.

Pro-nukers always point to France as being the model for "safe" nukes.

But close examination shows that France's nuclear plants are dangerous and not economical at all.

The solution? Renewables!

Not more coal. Not more nukes.

Renewables can provide 100% of our energy needs in our lifetimes BUT we cannot waste ANY money on nuclear subsidies and loan guarantees for a technology that is, simply put, too toxic and dangerous an harmful to EVER be safe or worthwhile.

If you question ANY of my comments here take a look at the reports on the dangers, failures and inadequacies of France's nuclear programs at www.nirs.org

If you doubt that nukes are dangerous take a look at the website for the Radiation and Public Health Project at www.radiation.org

THEN respond

[Pavulon]

1. Jesus will miracle up the gigawatts needed for the tristate..

there is NO TECHNOLOGY currently online or with a 10 year roadmap that can power the NY metro area other than nuclear power.

Please name 1 source that can produce over 100gigawatts of power day or night, rain or shine, on a calm day,,,

Here is the reality you need to address.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/PollyHo.shtml

[raw oysters]

5. But just think how many hamsters could get jobs...

:eyes: :shrug: :silly:

[Liberation Angel]

6. Actually MOST of New York's power comes from Hydropower, And you err (but that is human)

"The electric power generated for our homes comes from power plants through a system called a power distribution grid. The electric power originates from a power station within the power plant. The power station of a power system consists of a prime mover like a turbine which is then pushed by water or steam to operate a system of generators.

"Most of the power of New York State is provided by Hydro-Quebec. Another major source is Con Edison Company. Actually, most of the world's electric power is generated in steam plants driven by coal, oil, nuclear energy or gas with less percentages generated by hydroelectric, diesel and internal combustion plants."

THAT Quote is from your link.

But the experts I have worked with (and I worked in the industry in an environmental field and later with whistleblowers who convinced me that the industry lies all day long and that the technology is extremely dangerous and causing MANY deaths) say that nuclear plants could easily and inexpensively be retrofitted to use natural gas to run the turbines as an interim solution.

So you are in error.

[Pavulon]

8. Umm no.

I design turbines and systems to manufacture them (aircraft) but can tell you for a straight fact that what you posted is wrong. First we will dismiss conversion of a two loop nuclear system to anything else, insane impossible.

Second turbine driven systems for combustion of fossil fuel (NG burns and emits co) are radically different than a hydro or steam turbine in every way.

NY Metro does not generate 100 gigawats plus from hydro. Canada operated reactors as do many others.

You are WAYYYYYYYYY off on converting any nuclear reactor to anything. I am spot on.

[Liberation Angel]

Umm a Westinghouse Physicist says otherwise --- and I cited YOUR link

I just quoted from YOUR link

Did you even read it?

Try addressing the issues raised by Greenpeace at www.nirs.org .

[Pavulon]

13. Really I spend some time in idaho and did wrote

software that cuts pressure vessels from a metal that is made in one place in the world. I can tell with no FUCKING doubt that a reactor turbine system in any country in the world can not be converted to do anything with NG. Dude there was a nuclear reactor on MY COLLEGE CAMPUS.

Nuclear reactors are are a massive complex system that relies on each part to function. It would be easier to leave it than to convert it.

[Statistical]

23. +1. No possible way a turbine designed for high pressure, high energy steam could operate on

hydro electric power = water weight a magnitude more massive than steam

or

fossil fuel steam = lower pressure, lower thermal energy.

When reactors are shutdown or mothballed nobody builds a conventional plant to use the turbine. Sometimes if the turbine is still in good condition it will be sold to..... ANOTHER NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATOR.

[Liberation Angel]

27. Baloney - NYTimes article on Nuke plant converted to gas

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/25/business/market-place-nuclear-write-off-to-success-story.html

[Statistical]

31. Did you notice the pricetag of $1 BILLION they needed to raise in bonds to pay for the conversion.

Of course that doesn't include the annual fuel costs which is billions more nor the "cost" of thousands of metric tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere.

[Pavulon]

34. Not a DOE / NRC reactor SITE, NO REACTOR WAS THERE.

it was a construction project. Article has no technical details on what was there and what was done.

[Liberation Angel]

9. Most of the power of New York State is provided by Hydro-Quebec

I just quoted from YOUR link

Did you even read it?

Try addressing the issues raised by Greenpeace at www.nirs.org .

[Pavulon]

14. Here is a nuke they operate..one of 4

http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/classics/nuclear/gentilly_2/index.html

like i said, you can pray for a miracle or use nukes.

[Statistical]

22. Hillarious. Hydro-Quebec is the NAME of the utility not the method of generation.

Hydro-Quebec generates about 30% of their power by nuclear and another 57% by fossil fuels.

However CANDU reactors.... BLEH. When will Canada join the 21st century. CANDU was a failed experiment.

We would gladly build them some more efficient & safer 3rd gen AP1000s. Then again that might lead to tens of thousands high paying percision manufacturing jobs. The anti-nukers can't have that.

[Liberation Angel]

29. Well- still - the majority of the power is NOT nuclear (less than a third)

But i stand corrected.

Even still nuclear is not required for NY's needs as you claim.

[Liberation Angel]

2. The Failure of France's Nuclear Program (Greenpeace Report)

The report by Greenpeace can be found here:



http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/frenchnf2008.pdf

[Pavulon]

3. Maybe the KKK has some information on Affirmative Action...

an independent source is a good thing.

[Liberation Angel]

10. Way to avoid the Greenpeace report

Your analogy is disturbing

Try rebutting the positions stated by Greenpeace on why France's nukes are failing.

[Pavulon]

15. You jihad on this topic. It is your white whale..

greenpeace is not a scientific organization. France is not glowing in the dark.

[Liberation Angel]

20. wtf? Greenpeace uses scientists for its research.

and the radiation and cancer gets into the blood and bones and teeth and organs. It doesn't glow, it rots.

[MajorChode]

38. So do the creationists and PETA

It's not that hard to find a hack willing to sell their professional opinions to the highest bidder.

[MajorChode]

37. I found your response to his analogy disturbing

Greenpeace has been rebutted more than enough. They are simply not a reliable source for anything.

[raw oysters]

4. Greenpeace is in many ways like PETA. People with good hearts and no brains.

...

[Liberation Angel]

7. Greenpeace has no brains?

Boy are you on the wrong forum.

Read the reports at my links and tell me that there are no brains among these experts.

You have NO idea...

[raw oysters]

11. If you want to freeze in the dark, it's no skin off my nose. Meanwhile

please don't fucking tell me what kind of energy I choose to support.

[Liberation Angel]

12. Nuclear power is killing people. Supporting nuclear supports a deadly technology

I consider deaths from this industry murder.

And so if I suggest you not support a murderous technology, I am asking you not to choose something that wil hurt my children and me (and you) and all future generations due to its mutation of our dna and the deaths from cancer, immune disorders, thyroid cancers and damage resulting in hormonal and even psychological problems (depression, bipolar symptoms. mania), etc.

I sure as hell will advocate that people NOT support that.

[Pavulon]

16. List one person killed in the US by commercial nuclear power.

provide their death certificate that lists radiotion exposure on the COD.

[Liberation Angel]

17. Childhood Leukemia rates are higher near nuke plants (studies and links)

Increased incidences of childhood leukemias were first reported near UK nuclear facilities in the late 1980s. Various explanations were offered for these increases; however the UK Government Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) concluded in a series of reports <1-4> that the causes remained unknown but were unlikely to involve radiation exposures. This was mainly because the radiation exposures from these facilities were estimated to be too low, by two to three orders of magnitude, to explain the increased leukemias.

Recently, the KiKK (Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von KernKraftwerken = Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants) study <5,6> has rekindled the childhood leukemia debate. The KiKK study had been established partly as a result of an earlier study by Körblein and Hoffmann <7> which had found statistically significant increases in solid cancers (54%), and in leukemia (76%) in children aged < 5 within 5 km of 15 German NPP sites. It reported a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias and a 1.6-fold increase in solid (mainly embryonal) cancers among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. The web publication <8> of the study in December 2007 resulted in a public outcry and media debate in Germany which has received little attention elsewhere.

The KiKK case-control study commands attention for a number of reasons. The first is its large size: it examined all cancers at all 16 nuclear reactor locations in Germany between 1980 and 2003, including 1,592 under-fives with cancer and 4,735 controls, with 593 under-fives with leukemia and 1,766 controls. This means that the study is statistically strong and its findings statistically significant. Small numbers and weak statistical significance often limit the usefulness of many smaller epidemiological studies.

Second is its authority: it was commissioned in 2003 by the German Government's Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS, the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, approximately equivalent to the United States EPA's Office of Air and Radiation) after requests by German citizen groups. The study was carried out by epidemiology teams from the University of Mainz which could not be accused of being opposed to nuclear power. Third is the validity of its results, as vouchsafed for by the German Government's Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz. It officially accepted that children living near nuclear power plants develop cancer and leukemia more frequently than those living further away. It stated


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757021/


The studies covered at this link INCLUDE analysis of US plants.

Now I can't get you the death certificates for children who died of Leukemia who died BECAUSE they got cancer from radiation effluents and emissions from US Nuke plants, but the epidemiological studies show, according to this peer reviewed analysis, that nukes CAUSED the leukemia and other cancers in children.


Go ahead, say that such a technology is FINE and that leukemia and other cancers for kids is somehow WORTH the wonderful POWER from radiation dumped into our air and water by nuclear power plants.

[Pavulon]

18. One name please, with COD listed as Radiation exposure.(nt)

[Liberation Angel]

19. Epidemiologiocal studies demonstrate there are THOUSANDS of such deaths of babies

spontaneous abortions due to birth defects also are established epidemiologically.

death in utero

I have lost several friends who were downwinders to brain and bone cancers. Three cousins who lived near the efluent pipes of the nuke plants. Riddled with cancers.

Three children born with severe birth defects who lived near the plants. One child unable to speak or walk or to control her body at all.

There ARE legal cases where workers in pmats dies of radiation exposure.

But you know as well as i do that the cause of death will be listed cancer and NOT radiation exposure even though the cancers were Caused by radiation.

Do you claim the radiation leaked from the plants in normal operations does NOT cause cancer?

These are SLOW painful merciless deaths. The murder is prolonged and tortuous.

[Confusious]

24. Please, provide links

So that I can read for myself.

[Liberation Angel]

26. Links

there are many links to studies and research at www.radiation.org

read the links to Sternglass at that site

many links also at www.nirs.org

But the studies I linked above are about cancer in children who live near plants.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757021/

My point in all this is that the studies show an increase in cancer near nuke plants which results in the conclusion that the radiation emitted by these plants is causing the leukemia and other cancers.

These radioisotope emissions and effluents in local water, permitted by law or commercial reactors, get into the air and food chain and get ingested by children, pregnant women and everyone in the communities where the plants are located.

These plants cause us to basically eat and drink and breathe in radioactive waste virtually all the time, causing mutations which lead to cancers of the blood and organs and mutations and death of babies in utero.

It is an unacceptable damage to our chromosomes.

[MajorChode]

39. radiation.org + Greenpeace = junk science

The NIH link you provided does NOT reach the conclusion you are trying to suggest and in fact not only implicitly says that the information is little more than correlation and even lists several other hypothesis for it. There have also been other exhaustive studies that have found no link between the plants and cancers. Correlation does NOT prove causation and to suggest it does is a logical fallacy.

If you're that afraid of radiation, I hope you aren't turning on your TV or going outside, because you're likely getting a bigger dose from either than you ever would from living anywhere near a nuclear power plant.

[Liberation Angel]

48. More myths promoted by the nuclear industry

Nuclear power plants dump MAN MADE radiation into our atmosphere and water on a daily basis when they are operating. This radiation gets into the food chain and we breathe it in and consume it in milk and produce and water.

External exposure from a tv or the sun is NOT the same thing at all AND it is not a man made toxic radionuclide which is ingested.

But you knew that already.

[Statistical]

21. Good news for US reactors designs.

EPR behind schedule, over budget, and has complications.

The 4 AP1000 (Westinghouse) reactor starts in China are on schedule and on budget.

Should go online in 2012. If they go online ontime and on budget could swing litterally trillion dollars to US firms over next couple decades.

On paper the simplicity of the AP1000 beats the EPR.

[Statistical]

25. Just till illustrate the point.

The UK has narrowed down the choice for next gen reactors to either AP1000 or EPR.

Each one is designed and supplied by major trading partner (EU and USA). The design that is picked will likely get 100% of nuclear contracts for entire UK for next 40 years. It is far too complex and expensive to maintain multiple reactor types.

Construction failures and delays with EPR could make the AP1000 the world wide standard for nuclear power in 21st century and a flood of US manufacturing dollars back to the US.

China is building a few of each reactor type but likely will standardize on one design. China wants to build 200 reactors ($5B each = $1T in spending) over next 50 years.

The gain in AP1000 exports could cut the trade deficit in half going forward.

[Liberation Angel]

28. Each plant is like a massive Auschwitz

Like the Germans, China may solve some of its population problems by poisoning its people.

Frankly, each one of these plants is like a giant gas chamber which kills people who are nearby and not protected.
Makes lots of money for the utilities, big pharma, the medical industry, and it reduces the population.

The radiation released by Chinese plants will get into food and water and soil not only in China but globally when it is released into the atmosphere.

[Statistical]

30. lol. Sad.

If radiation release from nuclear reactors was so common.... don't you think a single peer reviewed study would support that.
I am talking about pure academic types unaffiliated with the nuclear industry like those teaching in a research University. Strangely they haven't.

Nuclear power is the only carbon free method of generating baseline energy (24/7/365 at low rates) except hydro.
Of course more people die from hydro every year than total from nuclear since 1950s, and it destroys natural habitats, and is limited to certain geographies.

Luddites like yourself have only caused the 500% explosion in coal usage in last 30 years.
Of course that is changing. The rising price of fossil fuels, the emergence of China/India in commodities markets, and eventual passage of some form of carbon "tax" will make nuclear even more competitive with fossil fuels.

The whole world is simply waiting to see how the Chinese construction of 4 AP1000 plants go. If they are on time and on budget then we should see a massive rise in reactor orders and construction starts.

[Liberation Angel]

32. All Nuclear plants emit radioactive emissions and peer reviewed studies DO support that

the fact that children are dying of cancer from nuclear emissions is established by peer reviewed studies I linked

And the idea that nukes are carbon free is a total myth

www.nirs.org has the facts on that issue

I am not a Luddite on this issue of nukes, I support technologies that don't kill (no coal, but renewables)

Your tunnel vision on nukes and total denial of the harm to children (not to mention their mothers) is what is sad...
Nukes will NEVER be competitive because the coste o the waste and damage to health will ALWAYS outweigh any other fictional benefits.

[Statistical]

33. Renewables will not provide baseline power in next 50 years.

Not in the US, not in Canada, not anywhere in the world.

Can we grow renewable allocation? Of course and we should.

50 years from now in every single country on the planet baseline power will be provided by 4 methods
nuclear
coal
natural gas
hydro

Hydro is good but is limited to certain geographies, is dangerous (in terms of lives lost per kwh) and has environmental issues also.
The other two are fossil fuels. That leaves nuclear.

Can we do better than 1% solar? Of course. 10%, 15%, 20% is possible in next 20-30 years. 100% wind & solar? Never going to happen. The storage issue (and storage wouldn't be free) plus variable output issue (need to build facilities large enough to handle the highest peak load = very inefficient during low demand times) will ensure one of the above 4 will be used for baseline power demand.

Anyone thinking otherwise is subscribing to a Pollyanna view of electrical generation which will harm not help adoption of renewables.

[Liberation Angel]

35. I disagree completely: this German model says 100% renewables possible by 2050

The fact is that we CAN transition to nearly 100% renewables by 2050 years IF we do not rely on and waste our money on nuclear technologies and coal if we were to follow the model proposed in this German plan.

The following site has the basic info on how it can be done WITHOUT nuclear or coal:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/germanyRenewable2050.php

[Liberation Angel]

36. What is sad is that nuclear power plants give cancer to our children

and their parents

and anyone who is exposed to the man made mutagenic and carcinogenic emissions and effluents (radioactive waste particulates) which spew out every day that any of these plants is operating into the water and air at the plants where it gets into the food chain and water we drink and air we breathe.

Since the half life of these radionuclides is dozens (if not many times that) of years --- they will keep on killing for generations even after they are all mothballed.

[MajorChode]

40. Actually what's really sad is how much harm has come from such ignorance

Make no mistake, ignorance and stupidity kills and you've just provided an excellent example.

Consider how many children, elderly, and others have actually died due to asthma and other respiratory diseases caused by the explosion of coal fired power plants since 'Green'peace and other organizations have opposed nuclear plants. Have you ever actually thought much about it? The number is staggering compared to any number pulled out of 'Green'peace's ass using junk science. So even if your appeal to emotion BS were correct (and it ain't), you still loose terribly when it comes time to count the bodies.

[Liberation Angel]

41. Ignorance re: deaths from nuclear: European Study: 3.5 million infant and foetal deaths

European Study: 3.5 million excess Infant and in utero deaths due to nuclear project:


Summary of conclusions of the European Study on Radiation Risk (2004):


10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945.
....
The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.


More at link:

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

This includes ALL sources of man made nuclear radiation: both atomic bomb testing and commercial nuclear reactors

[MajorChode]

42. When you actually manage to find a study that withstands peer review, then we'll talk

Fair enough?

All you managed to produce so far is pseudo scientific nonsense intended for the consumption of the weak minded. I might as well go listen to the opinions of a babbling street person on the corner, and actually that might be a better option since it's not as likely such a person has a preconceived agenda.

[Liberation Angel]

43. I already posted one in this thread. Did you read it?

nt

[MajorChode]

44. No, and if such a thing were actually true it got lost in the mountain of BS you posted

When someone starts throwing shit against the wall in an attempt to see what sticks, I generally loose interest pretty quickly.

Cheers!

[Liberation Angel]

45. Link to peer reviewed study: childhood cancer near Nuclear power plants

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757021/

I posted this in a post which is entitled "Links

Insults like yours are no argument

There is no mountain of BS except what nuke industry shills spread.

Actually it is much more toxic than Bullshit is.

It causes mutations and cancerous rot in our bodies...

[MajorChode]

46. I've already replied to this. Did you read it?

[Liberation Angel]

47. Just now I read it...To call Greenpeace studies "junk science" is just name calling

Also the NIH study definitely shows a correlation between higher cancer rates in children and proxinity to nuclear plants AND they found that the evidnce demonstrates causation of the cancers by the exposure to radiation.

Epidemiological studies conducted by others have shown strong correlation between exposure to radiation and cancer and other harm from nuclear plant emissions and effluents.

Like with the Tobacco industry, the nuclear industry's defense is always to claim that THEIR radiation did not cause the the higher leukemia rates and breast and prostate cancer rates near nuke plants. Epidemiological studies such as the one I linked demonstrate that the correlation is statistically demonstrative of causation.

The problem is that very few who get sick have the legal resources or funds to fight a battle against the most powerful industry in the world.

Dp you REALLY trust the industry to tell us the truth when they have so much to lose due to potential lawsuits for death and cancers and so much to gain in profits if they can keep lying to us all?

Do you trust the nuclear industry?

[MajorChode]

49. You're shitting me, right?

Please tell me you are shitting me.

Jebus Harold Christ on a pogo stick.

Calling Greenpeace studies "junk science" is reality, my friend and they are legendary for it. Even Ralph Nader says Greenpeace is full of shit. As I said, your type of ignorance kills. Need proof? Greenpeace lobbied for decades to get DDT banned the world over and they were almost fully successful. All of their so-called "studies" were based on bullshit and junk science. Years later they finally admitted they were wrong, except they didn't take responsibility (and surely they were) for the tens of millions who died as a result and to this day they have not even tried to right their terrible and destructive wrong. The best they could do was to issue a single press release that said, gee I guess maybe we were wrong.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/16803/Greenpeace_WWF_Repudiate_AntiDDT_Agenda.html

Here's another instance where the very leader of Greenpeace admits to using "junk science":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE

Tell me again how calling Greenpeace studies junk science is "name calling", if you can.

So just on the DDT issue alone, Greenpeace is responsible for roughly as many deaths as Hitler or Stalin and with the present resurgence of malaria, their gift just keeps on giving. Although to their credit some of that blame can also be shared with WWF and a few other nutbag organizations. So think about that next time you seek to deify Greenpeace, OK?

So don't hand me this bullshit about Greenpeace not promoting junk science. I ain't buying, friend. I know better even if you don't. Try someone else.

The only question now is how many people have they killed with their anti-nuke campaign and their anti-GMO campaign and how many will they continue to kill with their half-baked, half-fast, junk science (yes junk science) that they continue to proliferate. Greenpeace is nothing more than a group of media whores that use staged events to promote themselves and gather donations from the weak minded.

Have a nice day.

[Liberation Angel]

50. lol- yeah greenpeace kills because they oppose deadly technologies?

silly

big corporate promoting silliness

and deadly

[MajorChode]

51. Let me see if I have this right

I provide you with solid evidence that Greenpeace is a purveyor of junk science, even citing proof of how much disaster their bullshit has caused, complete with admissions from their spokesmen and no less than their supreme commander admitting as much on tape, and you dismiss it as "big corporate silliness", yet you expect everyone else to buy your half-fast conclusions based on half-baked "evidence"?

Got it.

Apparently all you're interested in is falsely accusing anyone who challenges your pseudo-science as "big corporate" hacks and you have no interest in supporting your sources.

I have no interest in someone who wants to argue based on emotion, rather than reason. I'd just as soon point out their fallacies and move on. We're done here. Feel free to have the last word as I'm sure you'll think you're always right so long as you have it.

Have a nice day.

[Liberation Angel]

52. Since you are failing to argue facts but just broad based assertions

I claim it is both silly corporate promotion and it is dangerous misinformation.

If you refuted any of the details in the Greenpeace report I linked then we could talk intelligently, i hope...

Instead you take one or two statements and claim that EVERYTHING Greenpeace says about anything is Junk Science which is patently ridiculous.

Argue on the facts I presented in the links.

Don;t just CLAIM they are somehow wrong or flawed

BTW I would not trust Ralph Nader as far as I could throw him --- he's a republican mole imbedded deep in the left