South Australian Government Injects Social Justice with Innovative Solar + Storage and Distribution Plan

The South Australian government has recently announced a trial of a plan, which, if successful, will see people on lower incomes benefit from household solar power generation and energy storage, even though they are renting. It is about time an Australian government seriously the inequity in household energy costs suffered by people who are renting. Such people are unable to benefit from solar subsidies. Neither can they benefit, until now, from roof top solar panels. I have commented previously on this inequity – as time has passed by and as government at all levels have dithered, and as power companies have done nothing much to meet Australia’s growing energy needs, the situation for those who do not own their own home has gotten worse and worse.

I have stated previously that the idea that I should be spared the cost of electricity for the last few years – simply because I could afford to fork out for subsidized solar panels – which means I also receive a feed in tariff from my energy supplier – is unjust to the extreme. It is socially regressive. The poor and the less well off become increasingly vulnerable to totally unsubsidized power costs simply because such people cannot afford to qualify for the benefits.

In the local vernacular this is arse about face. It is inhumane.

Now at last the State Government is making a small and very belated attempt at progressive thinking in order to both generate more clean energy and to store and redistribute it. It is a small start, one which is very much over due. If introduced at the start of the Australian solar panel subsidy system instead of near the end of it, the whole nation would have benefited in a greater manner and in a fairer manner too.

The details of the scheme are explained here:

http://ourenergyplan.sa.gov.au/virtual-power-plant

A brief quote from the site:

World’s largest ‘Virtual Power Plant’ to lower energy bills by 30%

The State Government has unveiled a plan to roll out a network of at least 50,000 home solar and battery systems across South Australia, working together to form the world’s largest Virtual Power Plant.

Beginning with a trial of 1100 Housing Trust properties, a 5kW solar panel system and 13.5kWh Tesla Powerwall 2 battery will be installed at no charge to the household and financed through the sale of electricity.

Following the trial, which has now commenced, systems are set to be installed at a further 24,000 Housing Trust properties, and then a similar deal offered to all South Australian households, with a plan for at least 50,000 households to participate over the next four years.

A registration of interest will be opened today for members of the public who wish to participate in the program.

The Government will release a market notice later this week for a retailer to deliver the program, with a preference of bringing more competition into the market.

Analysis by Frontier Economics shows the 250MW plant is expected to lower energy bills for participating households by 30 per cent.

Additionally, all South Australians will also benefit from the increased generation in the South Australian energy mix, with lower energy prices and increased energy stability.

The State Government is assisting the rollout with a $2million grant and $30million loan from the Renewable Technology Fund.” end quote.

I am heartily sick of the constant harping by conservative forces via the media about the alleged inability of renewable energy to deliver power needed. Over the years since state governments sold off power generation facilities and poles and wires, the energy market in Australia has quite deliberately been kept on an expansion path which clearly has been inadequate. Conservative forces would have it that South Australia continue to burn coal of such low quality that it could be considered to be on par with bitumen. For decades, as a result of this burning, Port Augusta has suffered one of the nation’s highest levels of lung cancer.

Happily, despite the cravings of conservatives for more fuel burning have gone unfulfilled in SA. Port Augusta is to get a solar thermal power plant.

I hope the SA government’s trial of a virtual power generation, storage and distribution will be a success, that it expands, and that indeed it does produce the promised 30% reduction in power costs for participating households.

At long last renters can directly benefit from an equitable solar power, storage and distribution system.

What took government so long to come up with this and to commence putting it in place?

It has always been my view that a percentage of the feed in tariff I receive should have been directed to a community pool of funds which would be used to lower the cost of power to renters and to other who cannot afford to buy subsidized solar panels.

Solar panels should be a compulsory component in any new dwelling and a condition of planning approval. The panels are as necessary for environmental health as toilets are.

There is one thing the fuel industry will hate to see – a clearly progressive, well planned solar program which benefits everyone and which enables an expansion in the rate of growth of energy generation which, to date, private energy suppliers have been totally unable and unwilling to produce.

Government intervention in the SA energy market is clearly over due and this new plan will not only provide relief to renters and those struggling to pay power bills, but the state and nation as a whole.

Paul Langley

Advertisements

EEO Baker Window sign.

EEO BAKER

I’m having trouble with the Fundies Only window sign. How about “Repent, so I can sell you a cake (Tithing comes later.)” ? Seems fair.

Let the market decide.

Dr. Goldman Pronounces on Chernobyl, 1992

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/03/world/a-cancer-legacy-from-chernobyl.html

New York Times, Sept 3, 1992

A CANCER LEGACY FROM CHERNOBYL

Quote:

“Children who were exposed to radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster are developing thyroid cancer sooner and in larger numbers than expected, researchers report.

The results are the first reliable data in the population downwind of the Chernobyl accident in 1986, said Dr. Marvin Goldman, a radiation biologist at the University of California at Irvine who was not involved in the new study.

An increase in thyroid cancer had been reported earlier, but some Western health officials had expressed concern about the reliability of the data. As recently as May 1991, Dr. Goldman took part in an International Atomic Energy Agency study that concluded that there were “no health disorders that could be attributed directly to radiation.” end quote.

Academic paper: “Increases in perinatal mortality in prefectures contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in Japan”

Source Institute: 医療問題研究会
エビデンスに基づく保健・医学・薬学(EBM)の実践的研究を

Institute link : http://ebm-jp.com

Link to full text pdf: http://ebm-jp.com/wp-content/uploads/media-2016002-medicine.pdf

Authors and copyright:

Hagen Heinrich Scherb, Dr rer nat Dipl-Matha,∗, Kuniyoshi Mori, MDb, Keiji Hayashi, MDc

Editor: Roman Leischik.
The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.
a Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Computational Biology, Neuherberg, Germany, b Higashiosaka Health Center 4-3-22 Iwatachou, Higashiosakacity, c Hayashi Children’s Clinic, Osaka, Japan.
∗ Correspondence: Hagen Heinrich Scherb, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Computational Biology, Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany
(e-mail: scherb@helmholtz-muenchen.de).
Copyright © 2016 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC- ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.
Medicine (2016) 95:38(e4958)
Received: 29 June 2016 / Received in final form: 22 August 2016 / Accepted: 2 September 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004958

Title:
Scherb et al. Medicine (2016) 95:38 http://www.md-journal.com
“Increases in perinatal mortality in prefectures contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in Japan – A spatially stratified longitudinal study”

Abstract:

Quote: “Abstract
Descriptive observational studies showed upward jumps in secular European perinatal mortality trends after Chernobyl. The question arises whether the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident entailed similar phenomena in Japan. For 47 prefectures representing 15.2 million births from 2001 to 2014, the Japanese government provides monthly statistics on 69,171 cases of perinatal death of the fetus or the newborn after 22 weeks of pregnancy to 7 days after birth. Employing change-point methodology for detecting alterations in longitudinal data, we analyzed time trends in perinatal mortality in the Japanese prefectures stratified by exposure to estimate and test potential increases in perinatal death proportions after Fukushima possibly associated with the earthquake, the tsunami, or the estimated radiation exposure. Areas with moderate to high levels of radiation were compared with less exposed and unaffected areas, as were highly contaminated areas hit versus untroubled by the earthquake and the tsunami. Ten months after the earthquake and tsunami and the subsequent nuclear accident, perinatal mortality in 6 severely contaminated prefectures jumped up from January 2012 onward: jump odds ratio 1.156; 95% confidence interval (1.061, 1.259), P-value 0.0009. There were slight increases in areas with moderate levels of contamination and no increases in the rest of Japan. In severely contaminated areas, the increases of perinatal mortality 10 months after Fukushima were essentially independent of the numbers of dead and missing due to the earthquake and the tsunami. Perinatal mortality in areas contaminated with radioactive substances started to increase 10 months after the nuclear accident relative to the prevailing and stable secular downward trend. These results are consistent with findings in Europe after Chernobyl. Since observational studies as the one presented here may suggest but cannot prove causality because of unknown and uncontrolled factors or confounders, intensified research in various scientific disciplines is urgently needed to better qualify and quantify the association of natural and artificial environmental radiation with detrimental genetic health effects at the population level.
Abbreviations: CP = change-point, O = odds, OR = odds ratio, PD = perinatal death, SAS = Statistical Analysis System, software produced by SAS Institute Inc., TEPCO = Tokyo Electric Power Company.
Keywords: change-point analysis, detrimental pregnancy outcome, ionizing radiation, nuclear accident, radiation induced genetic effect, stillbirth.” end quote.

The Decommissioning of Nuclear Reactors and Related Environmental Consequences UNEP.

Original Link: https://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=70

Design and Distribution
Most nuclear power plants (NPPs) around the world were designed and constructed before the problem of how to eventually dismantle them had been solved, or was even seriously considered. NPPs were initially designed to function for a term of 30 to 40 years with some granted a 20-year extension to 60 years. Newer plants are now designed to operate for up to 60 years. Notably, extended operating lives are likely to generate more irradiated hardware. Moreover, prospective plans for new construction are on the rise, with a reported investment from China to acquire approximately 30 new reactors, and five planned plus 16 proposed in Central Europe.

Currently, there are nearly 150 reactors still operating that are over 30 years old, 13 of which are over 40 years old (IAEA 2011). These figures do not include military and research reactors. In the coming years, many reactors will be scheduled for decommissioning due to their advanced age, adding to the already large number of inactive reactors

The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan has further accelerated plans to shut down nuclear plants in several countries, with Germany and Switzerland setting a timeline for the closure of all of their nuclear facilities (17 and five respectively). In Japan, 35 of the 54 reactors are currently shutdown and awaiting permission to restart.

Until now, only about seventeen of the 129 shut down nuclear power reactors have been fully decommissioned and the sites removed from regulatory control (World Nuclear Association 2011). Other reactors have been placed into “safe-store” mode for a period of 40 to 60 years to reduce radioactivity before dismantling. Worldwide, three NPPs have been entombed�a procedure considered equivalent to creating a waste repository.

A final strategy for the decommissioning of the majority of sites has not yet been decided. The internationally preferred strategy for the decommissioning of the majority of NPP sites is immediate dismantling. However, reviews indicate countries may employ several options including a combination option of immediate and deferred dismantling.

Nor is decommissioning (and the attendant hazards) restricted to just NPPs. Uranium mines, particle accelerators and nuclear vessels are also decommissioned. Decommissioning nuclear-powered submarines, for example, also poses challenges. Each submarine produces an estimated 850 tonnes of low and intermediate level waste (LILW). A number of problems make dismantling difficult: finding equipment for defuelling, identifying sites for the waste, acquiring sufficient funds, a lack of trained professionals, and disputes over access and liability (Nilsen and others 1997, Webster 2003). As with NPPs, there is also the risk of radioactivity being released (Krylov and Pavlovski 2009). In the past, a nuclear submarine’s reactor was disposed off by extracting it from the vessel and sinking it in the sea (Olgaard 2006).

In 1991 approximately 200 decommissioned nuclear submarines existed in Russia. By 2003, half of these had actually been dismantled. However, many of the reactors from these ships had been dumped in the sea or were still floating in buoys near the shipyards (Webster 2003). In the UK, a site for decommissioning out-of-service submarines has not yet been selected, and fifteen submarines are currently awaiting dismantling or being prepared for “afloat storage” (Environment Agency UK 2011). Fears have been raised over the creation of nuclear hot spots in oceans and seas (Aumento and others 2006).

With respect to the actual decommissioning, activities are carried out (and paid for) by the operator of the plant; however, in the event of operator default or non-performance, this responsibility likely reverts to the regulating entity. In addition, certain countries have established a special body vested with long-term responsibility over decommissions.

The Unquantifiable Costs of Decommissioning
The costs of decommissioning and waste disposal include the possibility of risks to public health, safety and the environment when not properly managed. Some unexpected incidents have been reported during decommissioning, including releases of radioactive elements and fires and floods affecting the storage sites. The primary problems arising from decommissioning relate to reprocessing and removing radioactive wastes for subsequent storage or disposal. One of the greatest dangers arising during equipment disassembly is exposure to radiation, since protective safety barriers are dismantled and a large amount of radioactive substances can migrate outside the confines of the units (Bylkin and others 2011). During the cutting up of the materials for decommissioning, the radioactivity is in a different form (dust and gas) than during the running of the NPP. This has potential to create radioactivity leaks to the environment (Shimada and other 2010). Decommissioning one 1 000 MW reactor generates about 10,000 m3 of low and intermediate level waste (LILW), much of which is concrete and other building materials containing small amounts of radioactive materials (CORWM 2006).

As discussed above, clean-up of a decommission site is typically dictated by governmental regulation. It is satisfying the stringent regulations that prove to be a primary cost driver for decommissioning and waste disposal. Reactor types and sizes, the number of reactors on an individual plant site, and labour costs are among the main factors affecting costs. Mandated long-term site reviews and on-going monitoring and surveillance also drive up final costs, at times beyond original estimates. Further, non-human driven cost factors must be accounted for including classification and type of waste (see above discussion on waste classifications), amount of waste produced, availability of waste repositories for the particular type generated and special transport to those locations. Due to the variations in these cost components and the obvious fact that shortcuts cannot be taken, significant differences between planned and actual costs have not been uncommon. As a result of these lessons, it has become highly recommended practice to estimate and include decommissioning costs from the point of project inception, with review onward.

What We Know Now, and Future Implications
1. Waste
A large number of sites will be required to store radioactive waste from decommissioned NPPs and other nuclear reactors over the long term. It is likely that additional buildings and facilities to treat, package and store resultant wastes will need to be constructed to handle output from newly decommissioned reactors. In turn, the infrastructure itself will also eventually have to be decommissioned. Decommissioning activities produce 68 per cent of LILW-LL waste, of which only seven per cent has been disposed off to date (Figure 3).
Extensive research indicates that significant numbers of countries have plans in place for disposal of LILW-SL and some LILW-LL. However, most countries have no designated sites for high-level waste due to political and public perceptions and long-term uncertainties surrounding the issue. The case of the United States illustrates these difficulties in a developed country (Department of Energy USA 2011): problems associated with the selection of a site for the long-term disposal of high-level waste and spent fuel have been ongoing for many years, leading to an increase in costs as solutions are considered; action is presently suspended. Countries facing greater economic constraints will have even more serious difficulties dealing with radioactive waste disposal. In some cases, no waste management systems exist and the dismantling will be deferred to a later date.
2. Limited information
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2011) of the UK states that: “One of the biggest difficulties we face is the limited information we have for a number of legacy facilities. For instance, some do not have detailed inventories of waste. Some lack reliable design drawings. Many were one-off projects, built as experiments to test new approaches and ideas. Therefore the challenge is often not how to tackle a particular task, but rather deciding what the task is. This is known as scoping.”
3. Soil contamination
Based on past decommissioning experiences, it has been shown that the pattern and extent of soil contamination cannot be planned until late into the decommissioning process. The boundary between the bedrock and soil deposits and the flow pathways in the soil will affect the direction and rate in which the radioactive material will be transported. Soil testing below the buildings cannot be carried out until access has been made safe. Depending on the results of these tests, varying amounts of soil might have to be removed, which cannot be determined until the decommissioning process is well underway. For example, in the case of the decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee NPP in the United States, the soil volume contaminated was higher than expected and 33 000 m3 of soil had to be removed, increasing the cost of the decommissioning. While the case cited is an extreme example, this factor has to be taken into account. Decommissioning should be carried out in steps to avoid such problems disrupting the overall plans (EPRI 2011).
One of the possible consequences of soil contamination is the subsequent contamination of groundwater, either through migration of the contaminants through the soil to the water table, or through the variation in water table height, since as the water rises, it can come into contact with contaminated soil. Reporting any leaks during the lifetime of the NPP will enable decommissioning plans to be more precise (EPRI 2011).
4. Need for trained professionals
An increased number of trained professionals will be needed (IAEA 2005) and techniques need to be improved to ensure safer dismantling. In France, major progress has been made, although no NPPs have yet been fully decommissioned despite the closure of ten NPPs since 1973. The dismantling of the Brennilis power station was meant to be a learning experience to acquire technological knowledge to apply to other sites in France. Operations have been interrupted since 2007, however, due to security issues concerning radioactivity levels and tracing wastes (EDF 2007). As some NPP sites will be placed in safe storage for up to 60 years, professionals will have to be trained now to decommission them at a much later date, to avoid losing current knowledge about how to conduct the decommissioning.
The risks associated with radioactive leaks due to human errors might be higher during decommissioning. Indeed, the perception of risk is lower after high-activity inventory, such as spent fuel, has been removed. In fact, the risk is not negligible due in part to the process being unregulated (Iguchi and Kato 2010).
5. Socio-economic impacts
Decommissioning NPPs affects local employment rates, the price of housing and land use. These impacts should be taken into account when selecting a strategy for decommissioning (IAEA 2005). The release of sites for other uses may help to limit the social impacts, but other constraints still need to be considered. Negative public perception remains the most serious challenge to opening radioactive waste repositories (Oldenburg and Birkholzer 2011).
6. Security
Once the spent fuel is removed from the reactors prior to decommissioning, the risks to the public and environment are relatively small. But where facilities are under decommissioning, and in particular when they are placed in “safe-store” mode or entombed, site surveillance has to be maintained to protect the contents from theft and malicious use. This is a costly factor that countries will need to take into account. Concerns exist about the risks associated with the possible use of nuclear devices created from stolen nuclear material as well as sabotage of power stations (Bunn and Bunn 2008). These concerns have been proven to be real. In 1998 in Kinshasa, Congo, for example, two reactor rods in a temporarily closed-down research station were stolen. Although one was later recovered in Italy, the other has never been recovered. Security at the site is still considered highly unsatisfactory (McGreal 2006).
7. Cost
Since few NPPs have been fully decommissioned, the exact costs of accomplishing this phase are unknown (Ramana 2009). Estimates vary from 9% to 200% of the construction costs (Lenzen 2008). Data are often not made available to the public owing to contractual arrangements, property rights and other reasons. Cost estimates are only accurate from -5% to +15% (Laguardia 2006). A report estimating the cost of decommissioning a site in the United States shows that for some projects, documentation on the data used to estimate costs is in fact missing (GAO 2010). Moreover, the projected trend toward increased private financing of NPPs can be expected to bring with it more extensive and different types of reporting and documentation needs.
Additionally, it is important to note that recent worldwide economic instability could jeopardise these decommissioning funds, as well as premature or “on-time” NPP shutdowns; thus, relevant operators and governments need to act. There are examples of funds for decommissioning plants in the United States losing 10% of their value during the financial crises in 2008, resulting in delayed decommissioning plans (Thomas and Hall 2009).
8. CO2 production
Although in general nuclear energy generation does not produce any CO2, the full life-cycle of a nuclear power station is not “CO2-neutral”. Decommissioning is one of the processes that produces CO2, although studies vary greatly in estimating the amount produced. Based on several studies, it produces an estimated mean of 12g of CO2 emission per kilowatt hour (12 g CO2 e/kWh); while the mean emission level over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant is estimated to be 66 g CO2 e/kWh (Sovacool 2008). While this cost varies according to technique and reactor type, the total energy required for decommissioning can be as much as 50% more than the energy needed for the original construction (Fleming 2007).
Conclusions
The decommissioning of a nuclear power plant is a large-scale organizational and technical process comparable in time, financial and labour resources to the building of the unit. Decommissioning reactors will become a major operation over the next 50 years, with far-reaching implications including an increase in the production of radioactive waste, health and security issues, socio-economic impacts and inevitable technical challenges. Given that the decommissioning process may take several decades, it is important that plans are defined in advance. Detailed procedures and “best practice” policies are needed to minimize the danger posed to human health and the environment by decommissioning nuclear facilities. Greater funding and international cooperation are required to share information and expertise on the decommissioning of nuclear reactors and submarines, as aging NPPs are taken offline and nuclear submarines finally dismantled. Making best use of the Joint Convention on the Safety of the Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management is one of the steps to take in this direction.
References
Aumento F, Cristaldi M, & Zucchetti M 2006. Nuclear powered submarines as hazards to the marine environment, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, vol. 15 no. 9, pp. 1068-1075.
Bunn M and Bunn G 2008. Reducing the threat of nuclear theft and sabotage IAEA-SM-367/4/08, International Atomic Energy Agency http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/nuclear_terrorism/bunn02.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2011).
Bylkin B K, Pereguda V I, Shaposhnikov V A, & Tikhonovskii V L 2011. Composition and structure of simulation models for evaluating decommissions costs for nuclear power plant units. Atomic Energy, vol. 110 no. 20, pp. 77-81.
CORWM 2006. Managing our radioactive waste safely: CORWM’s recommendation to Government. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management Final Report, July 2006. London, UK. http://corwm.decc.gov.uk (Accessed 4 July 2011).
Deloitte Touche, Tohmatsu 2006. Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste: A Global Overview of Strategies and the Implications for the Future Energy & Resources (May 2006). http://deloitte-ftp.fr/Lot-B-Energie-ressources/doc/NuclearDecommissioning.Mai06.pdf (Accessed 28 July 2011).
Department of Energy US 2011. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ (Accessed 4 July 2011).
EDF 2007. La d�construction de la Centrale de Brennilis R�union de l’observatoire de d�mant�lement du vendredi 29 juin 2007 EDF press publication. http://energie.edf.com/fichiers/fckeditor/Commun/En_Direct_Centrales/Nucleaire/General/Deconstruction/documents/DP_Observatoire_juin2007.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2011).
Environment Agency UK, 2011. Nuclear submarine disposal, http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/110346.aspx (Accessed 4 July 2011).
EPRI 2011. Power Reactor Decommissioning Experience Technical. Report ID 1023456. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Palo Alto, California, USA. http://www.epri.com.
Fleming D 2007. The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy: A Lifecycle in Trouble. The Lean Economy Connection, London. ISBN 9780955084928.
GAO 2010. Actions Needed to Develop High-Quality Cost Estimates for Construction and Environmental Cleanup Projects GAO-10-199 United States Government Accountability Office, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10199.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2011).
Kitschelt H P 1986. Political Opportunity and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1986, p. 57 – 85.
Krylov A L & Pavlovski O A 2009. Modeling of consequences of hypothetical accidental radioactive contamination of gulfs and bays in Murmansk region of Russian Federation, Radioprotection, Vol. 44, no. 5, pp 765 – 769.
IAEA 2004. Status of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities around the world STI/PUB/1201. International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1201_web.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2011).
IAEA 2005. Selection of decommissioning strategies: Issues and factors IAEA-TECDOC-1478, International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1478_web.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2011).
IAEA 2006. Decommissioning of Facilities Using Radioactive Material Safety Requirements IAEA Safety Standards Series No WS-R-5. International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1274_web.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2011).
IAEA 2011. Nuclear power plant information, International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.charts.htm (Accessed 4 July 2011).
Iguchi Y & Kato M 2010. Risk-Informed Approach for the Regulation of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, Vol 132, no 10, pp102910-102919.
Lenzen M 2008. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review. Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 49, no. 8, pp 2178-2199.
Laguardia T 2006. Reasons for inconsistencies between estimated and actual decommissioning costs. In Proceedings of an International Conference Athens, 11-15 December 2006, ppp231-244. International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1299_web.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2011).
McGreal C 2006. Missing keys, holes in fence and a single padlock: welcome to Congo’s nuclear plant guardian.co.uk, 23 November, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/23/congo.chrismcgreal (Accessed 15 June 2011).
Nilsen T, Kudrik I & Nikitin A, 1997. The Russian Northern Fleet Decommissioning of nuclear submarines Bellona Report 2:96. http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl6.htm (Accessed 4 July 2011).
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 2011. The Nuclear Legacy, http://www.nda.gov.uk/aboutus/the-nuclear-legacy.cfm (Accessed 28 June 2011).
Newmdb site of International Atomic Energy Agency http://newmdb.iaea.org/datacentre-comparee.aspx.
OECD 2002. The Decommissioning and Dismantling of Nuclear Facilities: Status, Approaches, Challenges. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2002/3714-decommissioning.pdf (Accessed 28 July 2011).
Oldenburg C & Birkholzer J 2011. Comparative Assessment of Status and Opportunities for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage and Radioactive Waste Disposal in North America, in Toth, F. (Ed) Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioixide and Radioactive Waste: a Comparative Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 367 – 393.
Olgaard P 2006. Scientific and Technical Issues in the Management of Spent Fuel of Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines. NATO Science Series, Series II: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, vol. 215, pp. 361-367.
Ramana M V 2009. Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 34, pp 127-152.
Sovacool B K 2008. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey Energy Policy vol. 36 no. 8, pp 2950-2963.
Shimada T, Oshima S & Sukegawa T 2010. Development of Safety Assessment Code for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (DecDose) Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 4 no 1, pp 40-53.
Thomas S and Hall D 2009. The Financial crisis and Nuclear Power. PSIRU, Business School, University of Greenwich, UK.
Webster P 2003. Haunted by red October, Science, vol. 301 no. 5639, pp. 1460-1463.
World Nuclear Association 2011. Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html (Accessed 4 July 2011).
Information is regularly scanned, screened, filtered, carefully edited, and published for educational purposes. UNEP does not accept any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any other quality of information and data published or linked to the site. Please read our privacy policy and disclaimer for further information.

Decommissioning of Nuclear Reactors

https://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Decommissioning-Nuclear-Energy-Facilities original link

source: Nuclear Energy Institute.

August 2016

“Ten reactors have completed decommissioning safely to either the point of license termination or the point where the remaining activities are limited to management of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Currently, 18 commercial power reactors are in decommissioning, and several more will transition to this process over the next few years.”

“After closure of a nuclear power plant, the licensee has to reduce the residual radioactivity to safe levels. This will allow the NRC to release the property and permanently terminate the facility’s license. The site must be decommissioned within 60 years of the plant ceasing operations. The decommissioning process involves removing the used nuclear fuel from the reactor, placing it into the used fuel pool, and eventually into dry storage containers (which can be stored on-site or transported off-site); dismantling systems or components containing radioactive products (e.g., the reactor vessel); and cleaning up or dismantling contaminated materials from the facility. Contaminated materials can be disposed of in two ways: decontaminated on-site or removed and shipped to a waste-processing, storage or disposal facility.”