North Korea seeks easing tensions, but vows to advance nuclear power Nikkei Asian Review, 16 Feb 18, BEIJING (Kyodo) — North Korea called on South Korea on Friday to abandon its joint military drills with the United States to improve inter-Korean ties further, while reiterating its eagerness to advance its nuclear capacity to make the country a military power.
Uriminzokkiri, North Korea’s propaganda website, said U.S.-South Korea joint exercises, which have been postponed while the Winter Olympics and Paralympics are under way in the South, “should be ended forever.”
“To mend relations between the north and the south and to make a breakthrough toward the unification, military tensions should be reduced as a matter of first priority,” it said in its editorial published on the 76th anniversary of former leader Kim Jong Il’s birth.
Pyongyang has been steadfastly opposed to the annual joint military drills, describing them as preparations for invasion.
The official newspaper of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party, meanwhile, said in an editorial Friday that Pyongyang has become a nuclear power thanks to earnest efforts by Kim Jong Il, father of the current leader Kim Jong Un.
“We have to boost our prestige as the world’s strongest nuclear nation,” the Rodong Sinmun, North Korea’s most influential newspaper, said, indicating Pyongyang is still intending to develop nuclear weapons despite a thaw with the South.
Relations between the two Koreas are apparently improving after North Korea decided to join the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics, which began late last week. Through high-level delegates including his sister, Kim Jong Un has invited South Korean President Moon Jae In to visit Pyongyang for a summit.
Washington and Seoul have agreed to suspend their joint military drills until the March 18 end of the Paralympics, to which North Korea has pledged to send its athletes.
Pyongyang, however, has so far shown no sign of giving up its missile and nuclear development programs despite facing U.N. sanctions that ban it from developing or testing nuclear and ballistic missile technology…….https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/North-Korea-seeks-easing-tensions-but-vows-to-advance-nuclear-power
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international |
Leave a comment
Greenpeace Africa hopes Ramaphosa will scrap nuclear deal https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/energy/greenpeace-africa-hopes-ramaphosa-will-scrap-nuclear-deal-13320867 16 FEBRUARY 2018 CAPE TOWN – “We trust that president Cyril Ramaphosa will listen to the massive opposition from the South African public and leave the dodgy nuclear deal far behind,” Greenpeace Africa said on Friday.
The South African civil society groups and opposition parties have been pushing back on government’s plan to add 9 600 megawatts of electricity to the grid through nuclear plants.
Happy Khambule, the political advisor at Greenpeace Africa notes that there is a tough job ahead for the new leadership of the country. “We believe one of the most pressing issues is to start to create stability, increase trust in the country’s government, and to choose a new pathway in establishing transparency and accountability in the energy sector”.
In an interview with the eNCA, Khambule has said that they will utilize all communication platforms at their availability to engage with the relevant government departments in ensuring that Greanpeace influences Ramaphosa’s decisions on energy matters.
Greenpeace Africa also looks forward to the new Integrated Resource Plan and calls on Ramaphosa to “stop that coal”.
Khambule feels that there was a distant relationship between the former president Jacob Zuma and the energy advocacy groups.
“It is time to remove the barriers to renewable energy, which can enable the achievement of universal access to energy and power disadvantaged communities much faster and at a cost South Africans can afford. We call on the President to push ahead with a renewable-powered future that will not leave South Africans in the dark,” this organisation said in a statement.
Ramaphosa recently commented at the World Economic Forum in Davos, that South Africa had “excess power right now and we have no money to go for major nuclear plant building”.
Melita Steele, the senior campaign manager at Greenpeace Africa said, “Greenpeace has long argued that nuclear is never safe, and is simply unaffordable”.
She further said that the organisation looks forward to the updated IRP without the inclusion of crushing nuclear energy investments.
Meanwhile, Ramaphosa will soon elect his new cabinet and the Energy Minister, David Mahlobo is unlikely to retain his position, according to lobby groups and economists.
Wayne Duvenage, the CEO of the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse told Business Report that Mahlobo has limited experience on energy and his appointment as the Energy Minister was based on Zuma’s interest in speeding up the nuclear deal with Russia. “Ramaphosa will be problematic with him in this regard”.
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
NFLA 15th Feb 2018, NFLA report on UK National Policy Statement for new nuclear argues it is
‘not needed’ given existing energy efficiency measures and the growing
deployment of cheaper renewable energy alternatives are more effective. The
Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) publishes today its analysis of the
UK Government’s proposals to develop a new National Policy Statement
(NPS) for the deployment of new nuclear power stations. In its report NFLA
notes that changes in the electricity system have seen renewable energy
deployment rapidly taking place at the same time as its costs have come
down, and at the same time wider energy demand has significantly reduced
compared to government projections.
http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nfla-report-uk-national-policy-statement-new-nuclear-not-needed/
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Editorial: EPA chief’s only true option is to remove West Lake’s radioactive hazards http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-epa-chief-s-only-true-option-is-to-remove/article_929d4e36-9dc3-519b-af15-a9e5a8b582ce.html, By the Editorial Board, Jan 29, 2018
E
nvironmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is
hours away from a decision
on the future of the West Lake Landfill — a decision that could free the St. Louis area of the seven-decade environmental burden it has borne in America’s quest for nuclear superiority.
For Pruitt, the right decision would be costly and complicated. The wrong decision, though far cheaper and most expedient, would leave in place a radioactive nightmare that would haunt the region for generations to come. The right decision is the only decision.
At issue are thousands of tons of radioactive waste left over from secret uranium refinement carried out in St. Louis during the Manhattan Project, the 1940s effort to produce America’s first nuclear bomb. Although officials at the time were well aware of the radioactive dangers, they paid little heed to where they dumped the wastes from years of uranium processing. An uncovered, unlined pit at the West Lake landfill became the dumpsite of choice, two miles northwest of St. Louis Lambert International Airport.
The landfill, uphill and less than two miles from the Missouri River, was never designed for radioactive waste and never would have met today’s federal safety guidelines. Various radioactive hot zones have been discovered in downstream watersheds, as have large cancer clusters among residents. For years, a slow-moving underground fire at an adjacent landfill is believed to be advancing toward the buried nuclear waste.
In tests conducted from 2012 to 2014, groundwater at West Lake contained unsafe levels of radioactive uranium, radium and thorium-230, along with arsenic, manganese, barium and benzene.
An exhaustive, 814-page EPA study, updated on Jan. 10, outlines the dangers and costs associated with six options Pruitt can choose from for West Lake. One option, doing nothing, is laughable. Three cheaper proposals call for partial excavation of the site at varying depths and capping the site but leaving many toxins behind. The two best options involve full excavation — one would store the waste on-site in a modern, secure containment cell, and the other would transport it offsite to a remote, federally approved storage facility.
Full excavation and removal would keep the region safest over the long term. But it’s also the most expensive option at $695 million. Capping the site would cost about $75 million but also would pose the greatest future cancer risks to farmers and residents downstream.
Pruitt has the comfort of making this decision from Washington, D.C., far from the exposure zone. We urge him to consider all who have suffered so far because of the irresponsible, lazy solutions imposed on St. Louis decades ago. If Pruitt would regard it as unacceptable for his own family to be exposed to such risks, then he must conclude that St. Louisans deserve the same consideration. This radioactive time bomb must go.
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, USA |
1 Comment
A year in review: the trends in nuclear construction http://www.constructionglobal.com/infrastructure/year-review-trends-nuclear-construction By DAN BRIGHTMORE . Feb 12, 2018
We look back on a mixed year for construction in the nuclear industry with the delivery of further nuclear power plants (NPPs) under threat from both the rise in renewable energy and the global trend for decommissioning in the prolonged aftermath of 2011’s Fukushima disaster.
According to the latest findings of the annual World Nuclear Report, as of January 2018, there are 52 reactors currently under construction worldwide. Four NPPs began the long-term process of construction in 2017 – one each in Bangladesh, China, India and South Korea.
The Chinese project, a pilot fast reactor, was launched on Christmas Day last year at the Xiapu site in Fujian province, but there were no other new NPP projects or construction starts announced in the country. Analysts suggest it’s a sign of a major shift or slowdown in Chinese nuclear policy, following the country’s domination of world nuclear construction for the past decade when it contributed over 60% of all new global sites since 2008.
The sector is experiencing profound structural change. The introduction of renewable energy at scale, thanks to declining costs driven by technological advances, has increased renewable power output at the expense of conventional technologies such as coal and nuclear. Though an operating NPP can provide up to nine times more electricity per installed kilowatt than a photovoltaic plant, the challenge to the industry from renewables is tangible. China’s massive rates of solar capacity deliver over 50GW to its grid. Even when taking into account lower productivity per installed GW from solar, research shows new solar plants in China alone in 2017 will generate significantly more power than all nuclear reactors started up (four) in the same year in the entire world.
Construction delays are common due to a number of factors, including political upheaval (the US embargo caused a 15-year delay to Iran’s first NPP in Bushehr before construction resumed in 1995) and the type of prolonged protest experienced during the delivery of India’s largest NPP. The progress of the Kundankulam NPP (KNPP) was besieged by various activist groups over potential radiation threats and issues related to nuclear waste disposal, with the anti-Kudankulam campaign intensifying following the Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan in 2011.
Decommissioning is also a factor in construction slowdown. Globally, three reactors were permanently closed in 2017. In Germany, Gundremmingen-B was closed in December as part of the country’s nuclear phase-out policy. South Korea and Sweden both shut down their oldest units – Kori-1 and Oskashamn-1. In addition, two more Japanese reactors, Ohi-1 and -2 were officially closed after the operator abandoned plans for restart and lifetime extension.
The past 20 years has seen the industry place more emphasis on sustainability and focus on the potential for extending the operating life of NPPs. It’s often more economical than building a new one, and why many plant operators, particularly in the US, are seeking licence renewals. “It is very important for us as a world community to care how electricity is produced,” reckons Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), who offers hope for NPP construction specialists nervous about the rise of renewables. “You can produce electricity of an intermittent nature, like wind and solar, but you are going to also need 24/7 baseload energy supply that is still kind to the environment, and nuclear is just that.”
Utilising guidance from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA – the world’s central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the nuclear field) the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues licences for NPPs to operate for up to 40 years with subsequent renewals of up to 20 years. Following a round of previous renewals, around 90% of American plants will soon reach the end of their 60-year term, prompting the NRC to look at the way it handles regulation when reviewing a NPP’s system metals, welds and piping, concrete, electrical cables and reactor pressure vessels. It must also evaluate potential impact on the environment, so speedier processes have been called for. “In the beginning, an NRC review took years to complete,” recalls Korsnick. “Now that the process is better understood, we are just under two years. For subsequent licence renewal, we will probably get the process down to 18 months.”
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and other kinds of so-called ‘advanced reactors’ continue to be positioned as a solution to the problems confronting nuclear power and the still costly renewal requirements of monolithic reactors. SMRs are nuclear power reactors with an electrical output below 300MWe and distinguishable from large reactors by modular design, with prefabrication in offsite factories and the potential for multiple reactors to be deployed at the same site to create bigger power plants. Proponents claim they will be faster, cheaper and less risky to build while safer to operate than large nuclear plants.
NuScale has claimed that “once approved, global demand for SMR plants will create thousands of jobs during manufacturing, construction and operation” and “re-establish US global leadership in nuclear technology, paving the way for NRC approval and subsequent deployment of other advanced nuclear technologies”. It predicts “about 5,575GWe of global electricity will come from SMRs by 2035, equivalent to over 1,000 NuScale Power Modules”.
However, Danny Roderick, former president and CEO of (now bankrupt nuclear services market leader) Westinghouse, once countered: “The problem I have with SMRs is not the technology, it’s not the deployment – it’s that there’s no customers… The worst thing to do is get ahead of the market.” Currently there are no operational NPPs in the world that can be considered fully-fledged SMRs. Several countries and companies are at different stages in the development of SMR technologies. NuScale is the frontrunner to deliver a SMR in Idaho with the initial operational date of 2024. Meanwhile, mPower (another previous beneficiary of Department of Energy funding to the tune of $80m per year) has been struggling to advance a similar project mooted in Tennessee which was terminated in March last year. Elsewhere, South Korea’s System-Integrated Modular Advanced Reactor (SMART) is the first land based SMR to receive regulatory approval anywhere in the world. However, SMR’s are often found to be too expensive on a per-unit generating-capacity basis which has led to this project being shelved. The words of incoming South Korean premier President Moon echo the sentiments of many world leaders now exploring other forms of energy creation: “We will scrap the nuclear-centred policies and move toward a nuclear-free era. We will eliminate all plans to build new nuclear plants.”
Sam Friggens is an energy economist with engineering and development consultancy Mott MacDonald, experts in the nuclear sector. He suggests that emerging innovations in renewables, power storage, efficiency and smart technologies, driven by fast manufacturing cycles, are yielding rapid cost reductions and improving performance, which means that by the time SMRs are ready for mass deployment in the 2030s the market may have disappeared.
He adds: “Will SMRs be acceptable to the public? The closest-to-market SMR technologies produce the same waste as current large reactors and will need refuelling every few years. New sites closer to demand may be attractive from an energy system perspective, but perhaps not to residents of the cities in question. Overall the challenges associated with SMR deployment are likely to be of similar magnitude to those faced by carbon capture and storage. At the same time, recent work suggests that if these challenges can be overcome then smaller, flexible nuclear technologies could still play an important role in future energy systems in countries like the UK.” In any case, it appears SMR construction projects would need the support of major government funding to play a role in tomorrow’s electricity generating business.
These are uncertain times for the industry which saw Westinghouse suffer a spectacular fall from grace in 2017. Its owner Toshiba recently agreed to sell off the US nuclear business for $4.6bn. The Japanese conglomerate made the decision after heavy delays to two Westinghouse nuclear projects drove the troubled engineering group to file. On top of the economic fallout and challenging ageing issues, nuclear operators are struggling with low electricity prices and the consistently dropping costs of their main competitors, wind and solar in particular. In countries like the United States, many nuclear power plants have continued to operate only because of massive subsidies. Despite this, the World Nuclear Association notes that, thanks to the planet’s voracious appetite for power, 160 power reactors (with a total gross capacity of some 160,000MWe) are on order or planned, and over 300 more are proposed.
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, business and costs |
Leave a comment
Radiation levels near this Siberian village were 1,000 times above normal last fall. But no one worried much, LA Times, By SABRA AYRES, FEB 16, 2018 sabra.ayres@latimes.com, KHUDAIBERDYNSK, RUSSIA “…. this Siberian landscape on the edge of the Ural Mountains bore the brunt of one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents. On Sept. 29, 1957, decades before Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima entered the lexicon of landmark nuclear disasters, a buried cache of liquid radioactive waste from Mayak exploded. More than a quarter-million people were exposed to radiation, and nearly two dozen villages, home to more than 10,000 people, had to be vacated forever.
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, Russia |
Leave a comment
Nuclear Weapons: an Absolute Evil, The Citizen, ANNE BARING | 16 FEBRUARY, 2018 Review of John Scales Avery’s book “……. Most of the planet’s inhabitants, even those who are highly educated and working in governments and organizations like the United Nations have very little awareness of what an exchange of nuclear weapons would be like or what its immediate and long-term effects would be in terms of the massive numbers of civilian deaths and the rapid deterioration of the planetary environment. This is the lacuna that Professor Avery’s book sets out to fill in an admirably clear and comprehensive way, enriching it with photographs and quotations from men who have, from the outset, expressed their opposition to nuclear weapons.
The book is an education in itself on the many facets of this complex subject including how these weapons first came into being in first five, then nine nuclear nations. It addresses both the amorality and the illegality of nuclear weapons. Many people like myself who are appalled by the existence of nuclear weapons but insufficiently informed of their history and the threat they pose to the planetary biosphere, could benefit by reading its highly informative chapters.
The first chapter, “The Threat of Nuclear War”, explores the important subject of how existing ethical principles about avoiding the bombing of civilians were eroded during the Second World War with the carpet bombing of cities by German and British air forces, culminating in the incendiary raids on Coventry, Hamburg and Dresden that destroyed those and other German cities and many thousands of their helpless inhabitants.
Not long after these, in August 1945, came the horrific obliteration of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the first atom bombs, together with most of their civilian inhabitants. It is noteworthy that the First and Second World Wars cost the lives of 26 million soldiers but 64 million civilians. We live, Professor Avery comments, in an age of space-age science but stone-age politics.
Instead of drawing back in horror from the evil it had unleashed, America and then the Soviet Union embarked on an arms race that has led, step by step, to the current existence of nine nuclear nations and some 17,000 nuclear weapons, with the greater part of these situated in the United States and Russia.
Thousands of these are kept on permanent “hair-trigger” alert. 200 of these nuclear bombs are situated in Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, as well as Turkey, available for use by NATO and placed there by the United States principally to deter a Russian attack. The danger of the launch of one of these weapons in error is a constant possibility and would precipitate a genocidal catastrophe.
His first chapter also addresses the important concept of nuclear deterrence and shows how, according to the historic 1996 decision by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, this was declared to be not only unacceptable from the standpoint of ethics but also contrary to International Law as well as the principles of democracy. The latter have been reflected in the pattern of voting at the United Nations (originally founded to abolish the Institution of War) which has consistently shown that the overwhelming majority of the world’s people wish to be rid of nuclear weapons.
The basic premise of this chapter and indeed, the entire book, is that nuclear weapons are an absolute evil and that no defence can be offered for them, particularly the defence that they act as a deterrent. He brings evidence to show that the effects of even a small nuclear war would be global and all the nations of the world would suffer. Because of its devastating effects on global agriculture, even a small nuclear war could result in a ‘nuclear winter’ and in an estimated billion deaths from famine.
A large-scale nuclear war would completely destroy all agriculture for a period of ten years. Large areas of the world would be rendered permanently uninhabitable because of the ‘nuclear winter’ and the radioactive contamination affecting plants, animals and humans.
Summarising at the end of this chapter Professor Avery writes: “In the world as it is, the nuclear weapons now stockpiled are sufficient to kill everyone on earth several times over. Nuclear technology is spreading, and many politically unstable countries have recently acquired nuclear weapons or may acquire them soon. Even terrorist groups or organized criminals may acquire such weapons, and there is an increasing danger that they will be used.”
To believe that deterrence is a preventive to their being used is to live in a fool’s paradise. It only needs one inadvertent mistake, one mis-reading of a computer, one terrorist nuclear bomb to unleash unimaginable horror on the world. There have already been several near disasters. Governments claim to protect their populations by holding these weapons. Instead, they offer them as hostages to the greed and will to power of the giant corporations, of arms manufacturers such as BAE and the Military-Industrial Complex in general. Professor Avery refers to the greed for power that drives each of these as “The Devil’s Dynamo”.
As an example of this will to power, concealed beneath the mask of deterrence, there is the existence of a Trident submarine which is on patrol at all times, armed with an estimated eight missiles, each of which can carry up to five warheads. In total, that makes 40 warheads, each with an explosive power of up to 100 kilotons of conventional high explosive—eight times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 which killed an estimated 240,000 people from blast and radiation. One nuclear submarine can incinerate more than 40 million human beings. This capacity for mass murder is presented as essential for our defence but it begs the question: ‘How many people are we prepared to exterminate in order to ensure our security?’ We would have no protection against a reciprocally fired nuclear missile directed at us. The concept of deterrence puts us at risk of instant annihilation.
Many people are not aware that the illegality of war was established in 1946 when the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed “The principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal.” These set out the crimes that henceforth were punishable under international law. It is obvious that the nine nuclear nations, in developing and holding their weapons, have ignored and violated these principles.
Professor Avery draws attention to the significant fact that NATO’s nuclear weapons policy violates both the spirit and the text of the NPT. An estimated one hundred and eighty US nuclear weapons, all of them B-61 hydrogen bombs, are still on European soil with the air forces of the nations in which they are based regularly trained to deliver the US weapons.
These nations are Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands as well as the United Kingdom with its Trident submarines. Turkey, one of the 29 nations that have joined NATO holds about 50 hydrogen bombs at a US base at Incirlik. The aim of all these weapons is to intimidate Russia. This “nuclear sharing” as he points out, “violates Articles 1 and 11 of the NPT, which forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon states.”
In another most important chapter “Against Nuclear Proliferation” Professor Avery draws attention to the danger of nuclear reactors, a danger that is very rarely reflected on by the governments who have committed vast sums to building them and is virtually unknown to the general public. ……….
Summing up the effects on the world of a nuclear war, Professor Avery writes:
The danger of a catastrophic nuclear war casts a dark shadow over the future of our species. It also casts a very black shadow over the future of the global environment. The environmental consequences of a massive exchange of nuclear weapons have been treated in a number of studies by meteorologists and other experts from both East and West. They predict that a large-scale use of nuclear weapons would result in fire storms with very high winds and high temperatures [similar to what happened in Hamburg and Dresden]… The resulting smoke and dust would block out sunlight for a period of many months, at first only in the northern hemisphere but later also in the southern hemisphere. Temperatures in many places would fall far below freezing, and much of the earth’s plant life would be killed. Animals and humans would then die of starvation.
I cannot recommend this book too highly. It has given me what I wanted to know and what I had no immediate access to: the complete picture of how we have lost our humanity and how we could regain it by ridding the Earth of these demonic weapons. ………
(Professor Avery is Associate Professor Emeritus at the University of Copenhagen.
Nuclear Weapons: an Absolute Evil can be purchased at http://www.lulu.com/home or downloaded from http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/library/nuclear.pdf
Anne Baring is an author and a Jungian Analyst: www.annebaring.comhttps://youtu.be/TOsuJuHUgv4 on nuclear weapons) http://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/9/13044/Nuclear-Weapons-an-Absolute-Evil
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
resources - print, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
NASA revives its Cold War-era idea of using atomic rockets to create ‘drastically smaller’ craft that will get to Mars by the 2030s
NASA plans to use the same technology it discontinued using in the 1970s
NASA partnered with BWXT Nuclear Energy to develop nuclear propulsion tech
A nuclear system can cut the voyage time to Mars from six months to just four
Nuclear Thermal Propulsion project could significantly change space travel
By CECILE BORKHATARIA FOR MAILONLINE, 17 February 2018
“……..NASA says it will use technology it discontinued in the 1970s to create ‘drastically smaller’ craft capable of greater speeds than their non-nuclear rivals.
This system could cut the voyage time to Mars from six months to four and safely deliver human explorers by reducing their exposure to cosmic radiation.
NASA first hinted at the potential for nuclear thermal propulsion technologies last year, saying that they are more promising than ever.
It partnered with BWXT Nuclear Energy, based in Lynchburg, Virginia, in an $18.8 million (£13.3m) contract to refine those concepts.
The resulting Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) project could significantly change space travel, according to its creators.
This is mostly due to its ability to push a large amount of propellant out of the back of a rocket at very high speeds, resulting in a highly efficient, high-thrust engine.
‘As we push out into the solar system, nuclear propulsion may offer the only truly viable technology option to extend human reach to the surface of Mars and to worlds beyond,’ said Sonny Mitchell, nuclear thermal propulsion project manager at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre, in Huntsville, Alabama.
We’re excited to be working on technologies that could open up deep space for human exploration.’
…….. getting to Mars entails a 55 million-kilometre (34 million-mile) flight, more than 100 times the distance between Earth and the Moon.
The NTP project is under the umbrella of NASA’s Game Changing Development Program, which advances space technologies that may lead to entirely new approaches for the Agency’s future space missions and provide solutions to significant national needs.
Given its experience delivering nuclear fuels for the US Navy, BWXT will help with the design and testing of promising, low-enriched uranium-based nuclear thermal engine concept and ‘Cermet’ – ceramic metallic – fuel element technolgy.
During BWXT-NASA contract, which is set to run through to September 30, 2019, BWXT will manufacture and test prototype fuel elements and also help NASA address and resolve nuclear licensing and regulatory requirements.
The project will test full-length fuel rods using a unique Marshall test facility.
………. the complexities of the technology and testing could lead to high development costs, which could be a major barrier, however, using NASA technology developed decades ago could help speed up progress, says Claudio Bruno,
Russia also has plans to reach the red planet using nuclear technologies.
Russia’s Rosatorm Corporation plans this year to test a nuclear engine for a spacecraft that can travel to Mars.
China also plans to use nuclear-powered shuttles as part of its space explortation endeavours through to 2045.
NASA also faces competition in reaching Mars from the likes of Elon Musk and his company SpaceX, which just launched its Falcon Heavy rocket, which is designed to carry humans to space.
However, SpaceX is planning on using a liquid oxygen and methane fueled engine.
…….NASA is also developing technologies that could power human settlements on Mars.
The agency, along with the Department of Energy, is developing Kilopower which could provide 10 kilowatts of power and be used on others planets. ….http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5399043/NASA-set-use-nuclear-powered-rockets-reach-Mars.html
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
technology, USA |
Leave a comment
EDF UK profits hit by fall in sterling and nuclear prices https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/16/edf-uk-profits-hit-by-fall-in-sterling-and-nuclear-prices, Rob Davies, 17 Feb 18 Pound’s decline against euro costs French firm €608m as home energy usage also drops
French state-owned energy firm EDF reported falling profits, including a downturn in the UK due to falling prices for nuclear power, improved energy efficiency among its household customers and the slide in the value of sterling since the Brexit vote
Profits in the UK division, which includes EDF Energy, slumped by a third to €1.035 (£920m) as sales dwindled by €579m to €8.68bn, partly because UK customers pay their bills in pounds but the company reports its results in euros.
EDF said the decline of the pound against the euro had cost it €608m.
The company has faced criticism over delays and the cost of its £20bn Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant. However, it has blamed a 12% fall in nuclear energy prices in the UK, where it is the market leader.
Revenues were depressed by lower home energy consumption among customers, with usage falling 1.9% due to “milder weather and rising energy efficiency”.
EDF, which is majority-owned by the French government, reported a 2.2% decline in overall revenues to €69.6bn, with profits down 16% to €13.7bn, excluding the impact of asset sales.
It said group results had declined due to lower prices in almost all of the regions where it operates and an exodus of nearly 1 million customers.
It was also affected by lower nuclear and hydroelectric output in its domestic market, where it is the dominant supplier with more than 85% market share.
Last year the company had unplanned outages at some of its 58 French nuclear plants, where reactors had to be shut down for safety reasons.
It lost 960,000 customers, shaving €341m off profits, blaming the exodus on heightened competition, including in the UK.
Chief executive and chairman Jean-Bernard Levy said the group’s profitability in the face of a “difficult market context” was evidence of EDF’s financial strength, adding that he expects a “rebound” in 2018.
He said the company would launch an “unprecedented” ramp-up of renewable energy this year, as France looks to reduce nuclear’s share of power generation from 75% to 50% by 2025.
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, France, UK |
Leave a comment
Radio Free Europe, 16 Feb 18, MUNICH — UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned that for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the world faces the “threat of a nuclear confrontation” in light of North Korea’s nuclear activities, while NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said the international community must apply “maximum pressure” on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear and weapons program. ……https://www.rferl.org/a/un-guterres-world-at-risk-of-nuclear-confrontation-cold-war/29044113.html
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
general |
Leave a comment
Energy Voice 15th Feb 2018, The Dounreay nuclear site in Thurso was rated as ‘at risk’ by the 2016
SEPA report owing to a number of management breaches over the period. A
spokeswoman for Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd said: “Safety, security and
environmental compliance is always our first priority and we are committed
to the highest standards of performance. “Decommissioning of the site is
recognised as one of the most complex in Europe as we maintain and
ultimately dismantle a large number of facilities that date back several
decades.
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/163763/environmental-concerns-scottish-energy-sites-rated-poor/
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
general |
Leave a comment
All utilities lack disposal sites for low-level waste from reactors http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201802160049.htmlBy TSUNEO SASAI/ Staff Writer, February 16, 201 8
Seven electric power companies that plan to decommission nuclear reactors have yet to secure disposal sites for the low-level radioactive waste produced in the dismantling process, an Asahi Shimbun survey showed on Feb. 16.
It may take years for the utilities to gain approval from local governments to dispose of the waste, some of which must remain buried for 100,000 years, meaning that the decommissioning work could be suspended.
Low-level radioactive waste generated during conventional operations of nuclear reactors can be buried at a disposal site of Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture.
However, the electric power companies themselves must dispose of the low-level radioactive waste produced during decommissioning work.
The Asahi Shimbun asked 10 electric power companies, including Japan Atomic Power Co., about whether they have secured disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste.
Seven companies–Tokyo Electric Power Co., Chubu Electric Power Co., Kansai Electric Power Co., Chugoku Electric Power Co., Shikoku Electric Power Co., Kyushu Electric Power Co. and Japan Atomic Power–replied that they have not secured sites despite their plans to decommission reactors.
In total, they plan to decommission 17 reactors.
The demolition of a 1.1 gigawatt-class nuclear reactor produces more than 10,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste.
The three other companies–Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Tohoku Electric Power Co. and Hokuriku Electric Power Co.–also have not secured disposal sites, but they have no decommissioning plans at the moment.
“We are not considering decommissioning our nuclear reactors,” a Hokuriku Electric Power official said. “As of now, we have not yet decided on a plan to secure disposal sites.”
There are three categories of nuclear waste–L1, L2 and L3–depending on their radioactivity levels.
L1 waste, which has the highest radioactivity level and includes control rods, must be buried more than 70 meters deep into the ground for 300 to 400 years.
After that, the government manages the waste for 100,000 years.
The government is currently studying regulation standards for such waste.
Electric power companies decided to decommission some of their nuclear reactors after the March 2011 disaster unfolded at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
Full-fledged decommissioning work is expected to start soon, but parts removed from the reactors have high radiation levels and cannot be placed temporarily in the compounds of nuclear power plants.
High-level radioactive waste is also produced as a result of the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The government is looking for a disposal site for such waste.
Electric power companies could heighten their demands that the government get involved in efforts to secure disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste.
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, wastes |
Leave a comment
WNN 17 Feb 18 US-based GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) has been awarded a three-year contract to dismantle the reactor internals of units 1 and 2 at the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant in Sweden
Under a contract signed with plant operator OKG AB on 19 December, Wilmington, North Carolina-based GEH will segment the reactor pressure vessel internals of both units. The work includes dismantling, cutting and packing the reactor internals for final disposal.
Segmentation of the reactor internals of Oskarshamn 2 is scheduled to begin in January 2018, with that of unit 1 set for 2019. The segmentation project is expected to be completed by the beginning of 2020.
Lance Hall, executive vice president of GEH’s nuclear services business, said today: “This is a breakthrough project for us in the decommissioning space in Europe and we look forward to drawing upon the many resources of the ‘GE Store’, including the depth of the global supply chain of GE and the former Alstom power businesses to deliver superior safety and cost efficient performance for our customer.”…….http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-GE-Hitachi-to-dismantle-Oskarshamn-units-0301174.html
February 17, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Sweden, wastes |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 