Three Mile Island Alert

Four former heads of nuclear agencies: "Nuclear is not a Practicable Means to Combat Climate Change

www.ccnr.org/nuclear_climate_change_2022.pdf
Communiqué – Statement – January 6, 2022

Nuclear is not a Practicable Means to Combat Climate Change.

Former Heads of Nuclear Regulation and
Governmental Radiation Protection Committees:

Dr. Greg Jaczko,
former Chairman of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg,
former Head of
Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Waste,
Federal Environment Ministry, Germany.

Dr. Bernard Laponche,
former Director General,
French Agency for Energy Management,
former Advisor to French Minister of Environment, Energy and Nuclear Safety.

Dr. Paul Dorfman,
former Secretary of the UK Government
Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters.(CERRIE)

The climate is running hot. Evolving knowledge of climate sensitivity and polar ice melt-rate makes clear that sea-level rise is ramping, along with destructive storm, storm surge, severe precipitation and flooding, not forgetting wildfire. With mounting concern and recognition over the speed and pace of the low carbon energy transition that’s needed, nuclear has been reframed as a partial response to the threat of global heating. But at the heart of this are questions about whether nuclear could help with the climate crisis, whether nuclear is economically viable, what are the consequences of nuclear accidents, what to do with the waste, and whether there’s a place for nuclear within the swiftly expanding renewable energy evolution.
As key experts who have worked on the front-line of the nuclear issue, we’ve all involved at the highest governmental nuclear regulatory and radiation protection levels in the US, Germany, France and UK. In this context, we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change.

The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction. The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm. Nuclear isn't cheap, but extremely costly. Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design.

In short, nuclear as strategy against climate change is:

• Too costly in absolute terms to make a relevant contribution to global power production

• More expensive than renewable energy in terms of energy production and CO2 mitigation, even taking into account costs of grid management tools like energy storage associated with renewables roll-out.

• Too costly and risky for financial market investment, and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and loan guarantees.

• Unsustainable due to the unresolved problem of very long-lived radioactive waste.

• Financially unsustainable as no economic institution is prepared to insure against the full potential cost, environmental and human impacts of accidental radiation release – with the majority of those very significant costs being borne by the public.

• Militarily hazardous since newly promoted reactor designs increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

• Inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents from human error, internal faults, and external impacts; vulnerability to climate-driven sea-level rise, storm, storm surge, inundation and flooding hazard, resulting in international economic impacts.

• Subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems associated with newer unproven concepts, including 'Advanced' and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

• Too unwieldy and complex to create an efficient industrial regime for reactor construction and operation processes within the intended build-time and scope needed for climate change mitigation.

• Unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation needed by the 2030’s due to nuclear's impracticably lengthy development and construction time-lines, and the overwhelming construction costs of the very great volume of reactors that would be needed to make a difference.

06.01.2022

By admin at Mon, 01/10/2022 - 20:29

Read more about Four former heads of nuclear agencies: "Nuclear is not a Practicable Means to Combat Climate Change

NRC Denies Oklo Combined License Application for Lack of Information; Company May Reapply in the Future

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 22-002 January 6, 2022
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Denies Oklo Combined License Application for Lack of Information; Company May Reapply in the Future

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has denied, without prejudice, Oklo Power, LLC.’s application to build and operate the company’s Aurora compact fast reactor in Idaho. The denial is based on Oklo’s failure to provide information on several key topics for the Aurora design. The company is free to submit a complete application in the future.

“Since Oklo submitted its application almost 22 months ago, our engagement with the company has included multiple information requests, audits and public meetings,” said NRC Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Andrea Veil. “We thoroughly considered Oklo’s proposals for satisfying our safety requirements.”

“Oklo’s application continues to contain significant information gaps in its description of Aurora’s potential accidents as well as its classification of safety systems and components,” Veil said. “These gaps prevent further review activities. We are prepared to re-engage with Oklo if they submit a revised application that provides the information we need for a thorough and timely review.”

Veil added that the NRC remains committed to efficiently and reliably reviewing advanced reactor designs.

Oklo submitted the application on March 11, 2020, seeking an NRC license for an advanced reactor to be built at the Idaho National Laboratory site. The proposed Aurora design would use heat pipes to transport heat from the reactor core to a power conversion system. The NRC staff accepted the application on June 5, 2020, taking a novel approach of working to align with Oklo on identified information gaps related to key design and safety aspects early in the process before developing a review schedule. Those alignment efforts included Oklo’s submission of reports on several topics in July 2021. The company supplemented those reports in October of that year, and the staff has concluded the reports fail to close the information gaps.

As the application lacks information on key topics, the NRC’s action makes no safety findings regarding the Aurora design. Following the publication of an upcoming Federal Register notice, Oklo will have 30 days to request a hearing regarding the agency’s decision. Other interested persons or entities who might be affected by the decision can also ask to participate in a hearing.

22-002.pdf

By admin at Fri, 01/07/2022 - 20:08

Read more about NRC Denies Oklo Combined License Application for Lack of Information; Company May Reapply in the Future