Archive
The Nation: Lessons On Radiation From Hiroshima
Greg Mitchell writes the Media Fix blog for TheNation.com.
The worst nuclear disaster to strike Japan since a single bomb fell over Nagasaki in 1945 occurred in the spring of 2011 at the Fukushima nuclear power plant following the epic tsunami. Earlier this week the New York Times reported (in a sadly submerged fashion, given the news from Libya) the disturbing news that a wide area around the Fukushima plant “could soon be declared uninhabitable, perhaps for decades, after a government survey found radioactive contamination that far exceeded safe levels….
“The formal announcement, expected from the government in coming days, would be the first official recognition that the March accident could force the long-term depopulation of communities near the plant, an eventuality that scientists and some officials have been warning about for months.”
Just two weeks ago, it was reported that radiation readings at the site had reached their highest points to date. The wide release of radiation, and fear of same, has forced the Japanese and others all over the world to reflect on what happened to the country in 1945, and the continuing (but usually submerged) threat of nuclear weapons and energy today.
In its main story marking the 66th anniversary of the atomic bombings, the Times highlighted the new activism of survivors of the bombing (the hibakusha) this year: campaigning against nuclear power, which has provided most of their country’s energy needs. No one in the world can relate to the fears of a wide populace terrified that they (and perhaps the unborn) may be tainted forever by exposure to airborne radiation.
My colleague Robert Jay Lifton wrote an op-ed for the New York Times titled “Fukushima and Hiroshima.” He pointed out: “One may ask how it is possible that Japan, after its experience with the atomic bombings, could allow itself to draw so heavily on the same nuclear technology for the manufacture of about a third of its energy. There was resistance, much of it from Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. But there was also a pattern of denial, cover-up and cozy bureaucratic collusion between industry and government, the last especially notorious in Japan but by no means limited to that country.”
The Mainichi Shimbun sought out Sumiteru Taniguchi, now 82, and currently director of the Nagasaki A-Bomb Survivors Council, for comment. It noted that while he normally talks quietly and haltingly, “when the conversation turns to the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant it is as if the floodgates open, and his tone suddenly turns harsh.” Taniguchi said: “Nuclear power and mankind cannot coexist. We survivors of the atomic bomb have said this all along. And yet, the use of nuclear power was camouflaged as ‘peaceful’ and continued to progress. You never know when there’s going to be a natural disaster. You can never say that there will never be a nuclear accident.”
As it happens, I have interviewed Taniguchi three times, in the United States and in Japan. He is perhaps the iconic symbol of the hibakusha today, thanks to footage of him taken after the bombing, showing him, months after the attack, still on a floor, spread-eagled, his entire back an open wound, flaming red. It was part of footage shot by a US film crew, and suppressed for decades, as I probe in my new book Atomic Cover-Up. (You can see some of the Taniguchi footage here.)
In April, 2011, five survivors’ organizations including Taniguchi’s Nagasaki group submitted a statement to the Japanese government declaring the collapse of the “safety myth” around nuclear power and demanding a change in the government’s energy policy to prevent creating any more hibakusha. And Hidankyo, where Taniguchi still served on the board, “has sent a statement to the government,” Mainichi Shimbun reported, “demanding that it distribute health record booklets — similar to the ones that are distributed to atomic bomb victims and can be used as proof of radiation exposure — to nuclear power plant workers and residents living close to them, and also provide periodic health examinations to those populations.”
Taniguchi pointed out that numerous A-bomb survivors over the decades had sought help from the government after falling ill or suffering cancer and other diseases, allegedly from radiation exposure, but had been “abandoned.” The Mainichi article closed with this question: Will the people who are suffering from invisible dangers in Fukushima be subjected to the same treatment?
Of course, the Fukushima disaster forced me to relive my own experiences in visiting the atomic cities, and my research into the American “cover-up” since. I was hardly alone. Writing in a New York Times op-ed after Fukushima, Nassrine Azimi, a senior adviser at a United Nations Institute, observed: “When it comes to nuclear issues — from atomic weapons to nuclear power — no two nations could be more irredeemably intertwined. After the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, despite dissenting voices of some of its own citizens, America drew mostly wrong conclusions as it plunged into nuclear expansion.”
She cited the book I wrote several years ago with Lifton, Hiroshima in America, for its painstaking account of “the relentless public relations campaign — unleashed by the Truman administration almost within hours of the Hiroshima bombing — that led to the Faustian bargain that blinded the Americans (and later the Japanese) to the insidious, long-term damage of radiation. Prominent journalists and media outlets of the time embraced, with enthusiasm, the ‘Dawn of the Atomic Age’ and America fell, in the authors’ words, into the ‘nuclear entrapment’ that is with us to this day.”
Fukushima – What They Aren’t Saying
By TC Burnett
5-3-11
Scientists Project Path of Radiation Plume
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 16, 2011
A United Nations forecast of the possible movement of the radioactive plume coming from crippled Japanese reactors shows it churning across the Pacific, and touching the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting Southern California late Friday.
The projection, by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, an arm of the United Nations in Vienna, gives no information about actual radiation levels but only shows how a radioactive plume would probably move and disperse.
Japan – Exploded Nuclear Plant Uses MOX Fuel – Not Uranium! What is that? Just 2 MILLION Times WORSE than Uranium or Chernobyl’s Meltdown!
UPDATE 3/13/11 11:18PM est – Video of EXPLOSION OF REACTOR 3 (Mox Fuel) that Just now happened on 3/14/11 at 11am Japanese time (Mox Fuel) * watch this video and the one at the bottom of this article of Reactor #1 exploding on Saturday – to me this explosion is much bigger and more powerful than the other and there was a large flash at the beginning!
UPDATE – 3/14/11 12:12 AM – I was just listening to FOX news and they were talking to a Nuclear Expert as soon as he began saying Reactor 3 which had just exploded has different fuel and about to explain it, she totally cut him off and said there was no more time to talk to him. Wow – they are trying to keep this information about MOX fuel from getting out!
CONFIRMED – REACTOR 3 (Mox Fuel Reactor) Exploded 10:50pm est- On LIVE right now – they are saying it is all still contained – possibly mass radiation from it though – (update) now they have changed that story and saying no radiation! Saying reactor is not damaged now and saying containment vessel still intact – same explosion as what happened with #1 – just the outer building!
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv
UPDATE -3/13/11 10:38PM EST – CNN JUST NOW SAID THERE WAS A BLAST AT REACTOR NUMBER 3 (the mox fuel reactor) – They are not sure of the whole situation and all they know is there has been a blast from it.
UPDATE 3/13/11 10PM est– NUMBER 3 REACTOR – rods may have been damaged (this is the one with the MOX fuel).
The official also said that Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501), the operator of the plant, has been able to release pressure in reactor No. 3 but that he’s concerned that its fuel rods may be damaged.
Another UPDATE – Just out – From IAEA blog about Reactor 3 (MOX fuel reactor) –
Unit 3 does not have off-site power supply nor backup diesel generators providing power to the plant. As the high pressure injection system and other attempts to cool the reactor core have failed, injection of water and boron into the reactor vessel has commenced. Water levels inside the reactor vessel increased steadily for a certain amount of time but readings indicating the water level inside the pressure vessel are no longer showing an increase. The reason behind this is unknown at this point in time. To relieve pressure, venting of the containment started on 13 March at 9:20AM local Japan time. Planning is underway to reduce the concentration of hydrogen inside the containment building. The containment building is intact at Unit 3.
Edit 3/14/11 9am est – I have a question.. they are saying there has not been radiation leaking and the containment vessels are intact with both reactors. Then WHY Those in a helicopter were contaminated found when they landed on the Ronald Reagan? It is said the Ronald Reagan went through a radiation cloud also. Why isn’t MSM asking that question? How can the reactors be intact yet people are getting contaminated from radiation? Can’t they ask the most basic questions? Don’t they know people will on their own know someone is lying somewhere. Lets see….. the Japanese about the reactors not melted down and no radiation leaking or the U.S. military and the soldiers who are now showing radiation contamination? hhhmmm…. let me think about that.
another addition.. 9:26am est – I am flabbergasted CNN anchor says reactor exploded but NO Radiation Leaked! How can they say that with a straight face? When the U.S. military has been contaminated out in the ocean from radiation? How can they easily lie like that, when it doesn’t make sense? They are saying steam released had small amounts of radiation but they are not saying one word about MOX fuel in that steam.
Original post commences about MOX fuel
I am so Astounded that the Japanese have as many Nuclear Power Plants that they have on the most seismic place in the world! How they did not have 100 different back up plans is beyond me! Why didn’t they have their generators 50 feet in the air in case of tsunamis? I have thought of tons of questions regarding it all!
I am sadden by the tragedy in the first place, now the Man made tragedy is unfolding that is a million times worse than the natural tragedy!
We all know some of Japan’s nuclear power plants are in trouble and one exploded.
What is NOT Being released is the FUEL used in that plant! I read about it and decided to research it!
I am SHOCKED at what I found! This power plant meltdown can be 2 MILLION times Worse than Chernobyl! This could make the whole country of Japan uninhabitable, besides being carried around the world!
This is truly Sickening! In fact it really makes you wonder WHY they did not have 100 safety precautions in place! How dare they use MOX in a nuclear power plant in a place that is known for the biggest quakes and tsunamis! Besides Japan putting their plants right along side the ocean!
Read this whole post to understand the FULL ramifications of this Nuclear Plant Meltdown! There is a Power Point Presentation the UN put together for MOX fuel I downloaded it – but there is not a link to go to for it. I can’t insert power point presentations here either.
| Mixing it up: A MOX fuel rod on Saturday is loaded into a nuclear reactor in Fukushima Prefecture. KYODO PHOTO |
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html
about Mox use in nuclear plants
http://archive.greenpeace.org/nuclear/transport/plutoshipsumm.pdf
Green peace information about Mox going to Japan and their very strong concerns about it
http://brc.gov/Reactor_Fuel_Cycle_Technology_SC/docs/Oct_12_Mtg/Kazimi_BRCFuelCycleEvaluation.pdf
A Tepco – Japanese professor about Mox/uranium
http://www.inmm.org/scriptcontent/PNNL/2010/Session%2015%20-%20Safeguards%20by%20Design%20II/Yapunich%20-%20Commercial%20Viability%20of%20MOX%20Fuel%20Transport%20in%20the%20US/Yapuncich%20paper.pdf
DOE – info on Mox and transportation of it
ADDED – 3/14/11 11:25am est – Nuclear Regulatory Fact Sheet on MOX fuel.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/mox.html
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2008/11/mox_fuel_coming_to_ornl.html
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-3/main.html
The joint study cites a number of safety precautions necessary in the fabrication of MOX fuel relative to uranium fuel. MOX fuel emits higher gamma radiation and much higher neutron radiation than uranium fuel. Therefore, a separate fresh fuel storage facility designed for MOX only fuel containers for on-site use, and transport equipment for fresh fuel may be necessary. Dust resulting from MOX fabrication is also a concern for worker safety because of the dangers of inhaling plutonium (see article on health effects of plutonium).
MOX Spent Fuel
Plutonium is both used up and produced when MOX fuel is used in reactors. MOX spent fuel contains more plutonium than conventional spent fuel (that is, spent fuel resulting from loading an LWR with low enriched uranium fuel). Conventional spent fuel from LWRs typically contains about one percent plutonium when it is withdrawn from the reactor. The amount of residual plutonium in MOX spent fuel would depend on the initial plutonium loading (percent of plutonium in the fuel), the burn-up of the fuel, and the configuration in which the fuel is used.
For light water reactors using MOX fuel, the NAS calculates that residual plutonium in the spent fuel would range from 1.6 percent (for a 33% MOX core with 4% plutonium loading) to 4.9 percent (for a 100% MOX core with 6.8% plutonium loading). Ranges of 2.5 percent to 6.8 percent plutonium loading have been suggested. In the case of a CANDU reactor using a 100% MOX core, the percentage of plutonium in MOX spent fuel would be between 0.8 and 1.4 percent for MOX fuel containing 1.2 percent and 2.1 percent plutonium, respectively.12
Repository disposal of MOX spent fuel is complicated not only by the higher plutonium content in MOX, but by the larger quantities of transuranic elements in the spent fuel as well. This results in MOX spent fuel being thermally hotter than conventional spent fuel. The presence of greater amounts of transuranic radionuclides like americium-241 also cause persistent higher spent fuel temperatures, and cause the decay of thermal power level to be slower. MOX spent fuel use may therefore require that a host of issues be revisited, such as design of transportation and disposal canisters, and design of on-site spent fuel storage casks. For instance, the higher temperatures may cause storage problems at reactors that have limited storage room in their spent fuel pools. The higher temperature may also result in a need for more repository space, unless a repository is designed to take hotter fuel and withstand higher temperatures. Greater repository space would result in proportionally higher repository disposal costs. In addition, if the amount of residual gallium in MOX spent fuel is too high, it may result in deterioration of the spent fuel cladding, create new issues in evaluating the suitability of a repository, and pose greater risk of groundwater contamination. There are some uncertainties as to the concentration of gallium that might adversely affect spent fuel integrity. The differences between spent MOX fuel and spent uranium fuel pose many complications for reprocessing as well.
#Danger of Losing Control of the Reactor Is Greater with MOX Conventional LWRs are designed to decrease the reactivity when the temperature rises. But when using Pu-239 as fuel, heating of the core from an increase in reaction rate tends to increase the reaction rate still further. This is called the positive temperature coefficient of reactivity, meaning there is a danger of losing control of the reactor by accelerated chain reaction of fissioning.(10)MOX spent fuel contains more fission products than uranium spent fuel. The important factor in managing spent fuel is the heat generation caused by the highly radioactive fission products. Since spent MOX fuel contains much more fission products, the heat generation from MOX spent fuel is twice as high as that of spent uranium fuel after 10 years and three times as high after 100 years.(14)Plutonium does not exist in the natural environment, and is only produced in nuclear reactors. It is known as one of the most toxic elements. It emits high energy alpha radiation, and has harmful biological effects. Alpha radiation has a very short range but very intense ionization power. If exposed on the surface of the skin, the skin works as a shield and will prevent its penetration into the body, but all of its ionizing power will be focused on the small spot, causing burns and killing the skin tissue. If inhaled into the body, the alpha particle will go in through the respiratory tract, and enter the lung. Due to its long half-life, it will stay in the body permanently, emitting alpha radiation, and killing the surrounding tissues by strong ionization. If plutonium is taken into the body in soluble form (e.g. plutonium nitrate) through food chain, it will enter the blood stream, and into the bones, liver and genital organs where it will be enriched. Alpha radiation leads to reactions in the cells of living things. It can cause damage to the nucleus and DNA of the cell, in effect causing genetic damage in descendants, particularly if germ cells are affected.(15) #Dangers of Resuspension in the Environment In the event of a contamination of the environment with plutonium, the whirling up and inhalation of plutonium particles, known as resuspension, plays an important role. If there is a road traffic, building work or cleaning work at the plutonium contaminated site, plutonium can enter the body through the respiratory tract. Generally, the more whirled up, the greater the dose intake per quantity of plutonium on the ground. If there is fire, and plutonium becomes airborne into fine aerosol particles, plutonium contamination of the environment will extend to a far larger scale, landing on ground, contaminating a vast wider area. Plutonium remains effective over very long periods affecting the health of the people and the environment.(16)#Accident Scenario When Burning MOX Accidents involving overheating and meltdown are possible in any nuclear reactors. In such accidents, not only would readily volatile noble gases, like iodine and caesium be released to the environment, but a small portion of the actinides, including plutonium and neptunium would be released. As the activity of the actinides is substantially higher in the case of MOX, the consequences of such severe accidents become more serious. When MOX fuels are used, the probability of having such serious accidents or trouble would increase due to the high content of plutonium in the fuel. Even if an accident is not a serious one, it could become serious since even a small portion of the inventory of actinides released to the environment could cause significant radiological consequences.#Accidents at Fabrication Plants Accidents at MOX fuel fabrication plants have occurred. In June, 1991, the storage bunker of the MOX fuel fabrication plant in Hanau, Germany was contaminated with MOX. It occurred after the rupture of a foil for container packaging in the course of an in-plant transportation process. Five workers were exposed to plutonium. This accident was the main reason the fabrication plant at Hanau was shut down.(19) In November, 1992, a rod was broken through a handling error and MOX dust released during the mounting of MOX fuel rods to fuel assemblies in the fuel fabrication facility adjoining the MOX facility in Dessel, Belgium.(20) In event of such accidents, if the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about 1 mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment. As a comparison, in uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000mg)of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure. A 1 mg release of plutonium from a processing process can easily happen from various smaller incidents.(21)
Must Watch video – Information about Plutonium in Nuclear Plants.
One other bit of information – KI pills do no good against MOX – it is only good for Uranium radiation. Plutonium is not affected by the pills!
EDIT TO ADD 3/13/11 8:54pm – Link to information about Plutonium Contamination of Large Land Areas.
It stays in the soil 100% for one inch. Even rain does not wash it away. This link also give diagrams of distance to amount of contamination of that distance.
I will say in my own opinion ALL Nuclear Power plants anywhere near fault lines need to be SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY! That includes those that are right on the fault in California (what brilliant idiots decided on that place?) and all that are near the New Madrid Fault! Nuclear power plants ARE NOT Clean Energy! In fact they contaminate the Earth on a level that takes thousands of years to eradicate.
Deadly tsunami slams into Japan, races across Pacific
 A 30-foot tsunami has slammed into the eastern coast of Japan following one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded, causing destruction and damage of mammoth proportions across the country. The 8.9-magnitude earthquake struck at a depth of just 10 kilometres, even shallower than the 6.7-magnitude earthquake that caused staggering destruction in the Haitian capital, Port-Au-Prince in 2010. Across half the world, tsunami warnings have been issued. Almost every country with a coast on the Pacific Ocean has signalled a tsunami alert and hundreds of thousands of people living in coastal areas are being advised to seek higher ground. Since the quake struck, Japan, along with nearby countries, has been struck by as many as 50 aftershocks, many reaching or exceeding 6-magnitude, leading Japanese authorities to issue further tsunami warnings. The scale of destruction is extreme. The tsunami swept several miles inshore, swallowing everything in its path. Horrific images on Japanese television showed the wall of broiling water devouring bridges, roads, farms, houses and vehicles, churning into a broth of deadly debris. According to initial reports, over 1,000 have already been confirmed killed. Authorities have announced 200 to 300 bodies were found in the north-eastern coastal city of Sendai, with a further 349 people missing. The death toll for the nation is likely to be much higher given the scale of the disaster. Although Japan has experienced powerful earthquakes in the past, it has never endured an 8.9-magnitude one and experts have agreed the situation is unprecedented for the Japanese government, which remained on high alert Friday night. A nuclear power plant just 170 kilometres outside the capital, Tokyo, was shutdown in the hours after the quake when its cooling system failed, causing the nuclear core to over-heat. No radiation leak has been reported, but thousands of residents living near the reactor have been ordered to evacuate. At the time of writing the plant’s core had still not begun to cool, despite an all-out shutdown. At least two other nuclear plants reported problems in the aftermath of the quake, though the Japanese government has not released further details. The national public transport system, world famous for its efficiency and time-keeping, has been brought to its knees, in Tokyo and wider northern Japan, all train services have been suspended, while major roads and highways have been either destroyed or closed due to damage. The level of disruption and chaos is immense. Tokyo Airport has been shut down stranding tens of thousands of passengers, Authorities in countries across the Pacific are bracing for similar damage as the tsunami races out across the world’s largest ocean. |
Sick Gulf Residents Beg Officials for Help
| Inter Press Service
By Dahr Jamail
Cherri Foytlin, co-founder of Gulf Change, at a rally at the state capital in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 2010. (Credit: Erika Blumenfeld)
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, Jan 14, 2011 (IPS) – In an emotionally charged meeting this week sponsored by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, fishermen, Gulf residents and community leaders vented their increasingly grave concerns about the widespread health issues brought on by the three-month-long disaster. “Today I’m talking to you about my life,” Cherri Foytlin told the two commissioners present at the Jan. 12 meeting. “My ethylbenzene levels are 2.5 times the 95th percentile, and there’s a very good chance now that I won’t get to see my grandbabies…What I’m asking you to do now, if possible, is to amend [your report]. Because we have got to get some health care.” Ethylbenzene is a form of benzene present in the body when it begins to break down. It is also present in BP’s crude oil. “I have seen small children with lesions all over their bodies,” Foytlin, co-founder of Gulf Change, a community organisation based in Grand Isle, Louisiana, continued. “We are very, very ill. And dead is dead. So it really doesn’t matter if the media comes back… or the president hears us, or… if the oil workers and the fishermen and the crabbers get to feed their babies and maybe have a good Christmas next year… Dead is dead…I know your job is probably already done, but I’d like to hire you if you don’t mind. And God knows I can’t pay you. But I need your heart. And I need your voice.”
Commissioner Frances Beinecke, president of the National Resources Defence Council, vowed to convey her concerns to the White House. “We hear what you are saying,” said Beinecke. “We will take these health issues and concerns back to the president.” The commission, appointed by President Barack Obama, released its final report this week after a six-month investigation into the nation’s worst-ever oil disaster. The report recommended a massive overhaul of the oil industry’s failed safety practices in the Gulf, as well as the creation of a new independent agency to monitor offshore drilling activity. However, most of the 250 people at the meeting here focused on the health crisis that has exploded in the wake of the April 2010 disaster, leaving former BP clean-up workers and Gulf residents alike suffering from ailments they attribute to chemicals in BP’s oil and the toxic dispersants used to sink it. Dr. Rodney Soto, a medical doctor in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, has been testing and treating patients with high levels of oil-related chemicals in their bloodstream. These are commonly referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Anthropogenic VOCs from BP’s oil disaster are toxic and have negative chronic health effects. Dr. Soto is finding disconcertingly consistent and high levels of toxic chemicals in every one of the patients he is testing. “I’m regularly finding between five and seven VOCs in my patients,” Dr. Soto told IPS. “These patients include people not directly involved in the oil clean-up, as well as residents that do not live right on the coast. These are clearly related to the oil disaster.” Nevertheless, U.S. government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with President Obama himself, have declared the Gulf of Mexico, its waters, beaches, and seafood, safe and open to the public. Gulf residents at the meeting on Wednesday made sure the two commissioners were aware of the health crisis they are facing. Tom Costanza of Catholic Charities in the New Orleans area stated that the region is in the middle of a social service crisis and faced a claims process he said is fraught with problems. “People call me crying and dying,” he said. “They need medical attention and support to get through this.” Ada McMahon works with Bridge the Gulf Project, a citizen journalism website that highlights stories from Gulf Coast communities about justice and sustainability. She told IPS that “the unmet health issues are the biggest issue, along with residents turned advocates going to meetings of the commission or with [BP oil spill fund administrator Kenneth] Feinberg to tell people about their health problems.” “People who can afford the 300-dollar blood tests have found alarming rates of chemicals in their bodies, and these people are concerned and doing what they can to speak out,” she said. “But they feel they can’t wait for Congress or Obama to address this, because they need doctors and support now in the communities.” LaTosha Brown, director of the Gulf Coast Fund for Community Renewal and Ecological Health, which works with 250 community groups, agreed that “the key concern expressed by the community in response to the report is the overwhelming need for access to health care.” “Over and over, people exposed to crude and dispersants from the drilling disaster told stories of serious health issues – from high levels of ethylbenzyne in their blood, to respiratory ailments and internal bleeding – and expressed an urgent need for access to doctors who have experience treating chemical exposure,” she said. Stephen Bradberry, executive director of the Alliance Institute, a non-profit that provides community organising support in the Gulf South, worries that the Gulf Coast Claims Facility is not accepting health claims, thus leaving sick residents unable to work and without any income to pay their medical bills. “There is bruising and skin lesions, not just with clean-up workers, these are residents not involved in the clean-up,” Bradberry told IPS. “Just yesterday I learned of five people on Grand Isle who passed away…people who did not have health problems prior to this. Nevertheless, there has not been any talk of monitoring of these communities.” Bradberry, who also attended the forum on Wednesday, also said, “We need a separate health task force that can focus solely on testing, monitoring, and studying the long-term health issues from exposure to crude and dispersants. And this needs to happen now.” ** Dahr Jamail’s MidEast Dispatches ** ** Visit Dahr Jamail’s website http://dahrjamailiraq.com ** Dahr Jamail’s new book, The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, is now available. Order the book here http://tinyurl.com/cnlgyu As one of the first and few unembedded Western journalists to report the truth about how the United States has destroyed, not liberated, Iraqi society in his book Beyond the Green Zone, Jamail now investigates the under-reported but growing antiwar resistance of American GIs. Gathering the stories of these courageous men and women, Jamail shows us that far from “supporting our troops,” politicians have betrayed them at every turn. Finally, Jamail shows us that the true heroes of the criminal tragedy of the Iraq War are those brave enough to say no. Order Beyond the Green Zone http://dahrjamailiraq.com/bookpage “International journalism at its best.” –Stephen Kinzer, former bureau chief, New York Times; author All the Shah’s Men Winner of the 2008 Martha Gellhorn Award for Journalism If you would like to unsubscribe at any point, please send an email to dahr_jamail_dispatches-request@dahrjamailiraq.com and write unsubscribe in the subject or the body of the email.
|
Slovak Republic: Trends In The Support Of Renewable Energy In Slovakia: Biomass Currently Favoured
CommentFollowing the introduction of a new Renewable Energy Act in September 2009, the Slovak renewable energy sources (“RES”) sector has seen some abrupt changes, including in government policy. As a result there has been an unprecedented increase in interest in building new solar and wind power plants. However government policy seems now to be shifting from solar and wind power towards power produced from biomass.
The Slovak transmission grid operator (“SEPS”) and the regional distribution grid operators have introduced significant restrictions on solar and wind power production. At the moment, it is impossible to acquire SEPS’s or distribution companies´ affirmative statement to new solar or wind power projects. It should be noted that such an affirmative statement is necessary to build a new solar or wind power plant in Slovakia.
Some legislative changes have just now been prepared, which, if passed into law, will soon slow down development in the solar and wind power sector. Currently, a new draft law has been passed by parliament and, if the Slovak President signs it and it becomes law, will have effect as from 1 April 2011. The draft states, that:
(i) the “additional payment” (the Slovak form of feed-in tariff) will only be provided as a form of support for solar power if the relevant power plants are located on buildings and have a total output of no more than 100 kW;
(ii) electricity prices for solar power will be determined by the Slovak Regulation Office for Network Industries (RONI) in such a way that the provision under the previous law by which the price for each subsequent period, which shall not exceed three years, must not be lower than 90% of the price applicable in the previous period, will not apply to solar and wind production facilities; in practice it would mean that the electricity price for solar and wind plants determined by RONI may vary by more than 10% for each particular regulatory period; and
(iii) responsibility for divergence between anticipated output and actual output will be born by the operator of any solar plant with a total output more than 100 kW (currently it is born by the regional distribution grid operator).
Under the new draft law RONI is not obliged to fix prices for solar and wind power in such a way that return on investment would be expected within a certain period.
It is clear that currently it is more reasonable for investors to opt for investments in RES other than sun or wind power, e.g. biomass.
On 6.10.2010, the Slovak government adopted a National Action Plan for energy produced from RES. Under the action plan Slovakia is bound to increase its use of renewable energy resources in relation to the gross final energy consumption from 6.7% in 2005 to 14% in 2020.
The plan also provides that energy from biomass should be given preference. According to the opinion of the Slovak government, biomass can be an efficient substitute for energy produced from fossil fuel and can contribute to a reduction in the amount of natural gas used in heat production.
The promotional measures for electricity produced from biomass vary depending on the type of renewable resource and the capacity of the production plant. In general, power plants with lower installed output are promoted more than large facilities.
The Renewable Energy Act stipulates that producers of electricity from biomass have:
(i) the right to priority connection of the facility used for electricity production into the regional distribution grid, if the power plant meets relevant technical requirements and the grid operator’s business terms and conditions have been accepted.
(ii) the right to priority access to the transmission and distribution grids, and to offtake of electricity. Priority access to the transmission/distribution grid involves grid operators being required to reserve some capacity and to distribute the agreed volume of electricity via the relevant grid.
(iii) the right to sell electricity for the “electricity price on loss”. The electricity producer has the right to have all the electricity it produces purchased by the regional distribution grid operator, to which the facility of the electricity producer is connected directly or through the local distribution system, and that for the electricity price on loss. The “price on loss” is the arithmetical mean of the electricity prices paid by all regional distribution grid operators for the purpose of covering losses, and is determined by RONI.
(iv) the right to “additional payment”. The electricity producer has the right to an additional payment to be paid by the regional distribution grid operator, which corresponds to the difference between the regulated price of electricity for the determination of the additional payment determined by RONI and the electricity price on loss determined by RONI. Effectively, the additional payment is determined by RONI.
(v) the right to have the liability for divergence taken over by the regional distribution grid operator in case of facilities with the total output up to 4 MW; if the draft law referred to above becomes law, then from 1 April 2011 this right will only apply to the facilities with the total output up to 1 MW.
The price of electricity produced from biomass is regulated by RONI by way of a generally binding decree and is provided as a fixed price. The 2010 price of electricity (that includes the additional payment and the price of electricity for loses) produced from biomass was determined by RONI as follows:
Electricity produced from:
1) combined cycle combustion (i) of purposefully created biomass (113.10 EUR/MWh) (ii) other waste biomass (127.98 EUR/MWh),
2) combined cycle combustion of biomass or biologically degradable components jointly with combustion of waste with fossil fuel (126.14 EUR/MWh),
3) combustion of fermented biomass (144.88 EUR/MWh)
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna’s free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to http://www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq
Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
The original publication date for this article was 23/12/2010.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
 |
Do you have a question for the author?
|
Southern California hit by severe storm
23 December 2010 Last updated at 00:00 ET
A huge storm system has dumped record amounts of rain on southern California and prompted concern that the poor weather could spread across the US.
Streets flooded, residents were evacuated and authorities were on alert for landslides in the wake of the torrential downpour.
The deluge came at the end of a week that saw Los Angeles receive half its annual rainfall in just six days.
Torrential rain was also reported in neighbouring Arizona, Nevada and Utah.
There are concerns that the weather system will spread across the US, reaching New Mexico by Thursday and the Gulf Coast by the end of the week.
However, forecasters said the rain would ease as it travelled eastwards.
Mudslides: Even before the storm arrived, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for half a dozen communities in California, some of which have already seen mudslides and flooded streets.
Torrential flood waters and fallen trees clogged the streets in some areasHundreds of people were evacuated in the suburbs of Los Angeles, with particular concerns for homes in steep-sided canyons previously ravaged by wildfires.
“The ground is so saturated it could move at any time,” said Bob Spencer, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
There were reports of mudslides in Laguna Beach, California, as intense rain hit the region, and 25 to 30 people were evacuated from their mountain homes in Silverado Canyon, Orange County, the Associated Press reported.
Heavy rains – estimated at up to 1in (2.5cm) per hour – brought down a hillside on a heavily used section of Interstate 10 early on Wednesday, covering three lanes near the city of Pomona.
In Highland, some 65 miles (104km) east of Los Angeles, two creeks overflowed, swamping as many as 20 homes in mud.
“This mud flow moved cars, picked them up, stood them up on their nose at 45-degree angles, buried them,” Bill Peters, a spokesman for the California department of forestry and fire protection told AP.
Homes in the mountains were blocked by boulders and mud as rescue workers helped residents seek shelter before the largest of the storms struck.
In far north-western Arizona, residents rushed to gather belongings from their homes along a flooded stretch where further structures risked being swept away.
“It is a mess,” said Lois Rolfsmeyer, resident of Beaver Dam.
“The water is going to take our next-door neighbour’s house and the one behind us, and it’s eroding under our house.”
On Tuesday, officials ordered the evacuation of 232 homes that sit beneath large hillsides in La Canada Flintridge and La Crescenta, in the suburbs of Los Angeles.
Flood warnings and emergency orders have also been put in place in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.
Are you in California or neighbouring states? Are you affected by the storm? Send us your comments using the form below:
Send your pictures and videos to yourpics@bbc.co.uk or text them to 61124 (UK) or +44 7725 100 100 (International). If you have a large file you can upload here.
Related stories
- California storms: Your stories 23 DECEMBER 2010, US & CANADA
Related Internet links
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites
BBC © MMX The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
Founder
Margot B News
NinetteOur Store
Margot B. News 