The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

European Leadership Network aims to build a new nuclear network

Building a new kind of nuclear network: The N Square example, European Leadership Network , Sara Z. Kutchesfahani |Director of the N Square DC Hub, Jenny Johnston |Editorial Director at N Square 29 Aug 21,

Networks are central to the ELN’s way of working. As part of a series of reflections on the ELN’s anniversary, we invited N Square to share their case study of building a diverse network to work creatively on nuclear policy.

In 2014, five of the world’s largest peace and security funders set out to address a glaring problem. The field of professionals working to control the threats from nuclear weapons has long been insular and fragmented. While the field is filled with brilliant and committed individuals dedicated to ending the nuclear threat, they almost universally do that work in organisational silos, disconnected from other fields and even from one another (see N Square’s 2019 “Greater Than” report for a deep dive into factors inhibiting collaboration and shared learning in the nuclear field and how we might overcome them). Working collaboratively, the funders launched N Square, a path-breaking initiative built on the idea that sparking new forms of cross-sector collaboration will accelerate the achievement of internationally agreed goals to reduce nuclear dangers.

In the years since, N Square has done wide-ranging work to bring new people, new ideas, and new resources into the nuclear field, seeking to light up the field with ingenuity and innovation. At the heart of this effort is the N Square Innovators Network (NSIN), a vibrant, intentional community of cross-sector experts who work together in novel ways to tackle nuclear challenges.

The NSIN represents an entirely novel kind of network in the nuclear space. It reaches outside the sector to build bridges with other fields as well as to enable those inside the field to work collaboratively across organizations and focus areas, empowering them to work in new ways and to access new ideas that will help them achieve national security goals. At the same time, the model enables non-nuclear experts to explore nuclear issues and discover how they might apply their skills to nuclear challenges. Given the siloed nature of the field, it can be challenging for newcomers to know how and where to offer their expertise unless they are given well-defined entry points—an impediment to cross-sector collaboration that the Innovators Network helps overcome.

The network we have today includes people from fields as diverse as marketing and communications, artificial intelligence, finance, filmmaking, social science, and big data. What unites them is the belief that by working together, bringing their own diverse experiences and expertise, we can bust open longstanding problems and explore them in ways that are more effective when we work collectively versus apart. 

How the NSIN works

A key characteristic of our network is that it is iterative. Roughly 120 individuals have joined the network as NSIN fellows, but they did not all join at once. Rather, we continue to host “cohorts” of cross-sector fellows, with each cohort bringing a new mix of expertise, energy, and issue-area focus to the network. ………………….


August 30, 2021 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Lawmakers anxious that Taliban may try to get nuclear weapons

What is your strategy to stop Taliban from acquiring nuclear weapons? US lawmakers to Biden   WION Web TeamNEW DELHI  Aug 27, 2021,  A group of US lawmakers has urged President Joe Biden to prevent the Taliban, Afghanistan’s de facto rulers, from destabilising Pakistan and acquiring nuclear weapons.

The lawmakers demanded that Biden answer critical questions about what happened in Afghanistan and his plans for the future.

“Are you willing to provide military support to regional allies if the Taliban militarise the Afghan border?”

In a letter addressed to Biden on Wednesday, a group of 68 lawmakers from the Senate and House of Representatives asked, “What is your plan to help ensure that the Taliban do not destabilise its nuclear neighbour Pakistan?”

The lawmakers stated that in recent weeks, the world has watched in astonishment as the Taliban took over Afghanistan with astonishing speed, as a result of “unforced errors made by withdrawing completely the small remaining footprint of our main military force from Afghanistan, and by unnecessarily delaying the evacuation of US personnel and Afghan partners.”,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Afghanistan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

This space-based weapon remains in the dark—for now

This space-based weapon remains in the dark—for now

The US was reportedly going to reveal the existence of a weapon in orbit. Here’s why that’s a bad idea.

BY KELSEY D. ATHERTON | PUBLISHED AUG 26, 2021Space can only keep so many secrets. And, if everything had gone as planned for General John Hyten, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this week space would have contained one fewer secret, with the unveiling of a space weapon already in orbit. As reported by Breaking Defense, Hyten had hoped to use the 2021 Space Symposium conference to declassify a secret space weapon program.

The reveal, reportedly planned originally for last year’s Space Symposium until that was canceled for pandemic reasons, was delayed this time because of the abrupt end of coordinated fighting against the Taliban. 

The weapon was originally supposed to be declassified as the culmination of the Space Force’s launch: not only did the Pentagon have a new branch, but it had weapons in orbit, too. With the timing now delayed a second time, three big, ominous questions remain: Why would the military want an anti-satellite weapon, why put it in orbit, and what are the dangers of such a weapon?

Why an anti-satellite weapon?

The first human-made objects to pass the Kármán Line (100 km above the ground) and make it into space were military V-2 rockets. This start of human activity in space, and especially in orbit, began as a military enterprise. Inter-continental ballistic missiles, the descendants of those earlier V-2s, are designed to carry thermonuclear payloads into space before crashing back to Earth with catastrophic effect. 

Satellites are the other major military tool in space. Parked in orbit, satellites carry sensors and transmit information to human attendants on the ground. In 1960, the US put a satellite into orbit with a camera, which would eject film canisters full of sensitive information to Earth below. That same year, the US launched a satellite with a covert mission to track radar signals from the USSR. The USSR shortly followed suit. This satellite race stayed focused on surveillance, with both superpowers using objects in orbit to keep an eye on militaries below.

For decades, this has remained a tenuous line: nations build and move weapons below, and put sensors in orbit to provide early warning of everything from ground invasion to nuclear launches.

This reliance on sensors in orbit carries with it vulnerability. A nation’s ability to perceive an attack in real time could be destroyed, if the satellite tracking those movements was also incapacitated or outright eliminated. Several nations have demonstrated an ability to destroy satellites with missiles fired from the ground. Other Earth-based tools, like anti-satellite jammers, count more broadly as weapons.

Why in orbit?

Putting an anti-satellite weapon in orbit is an old idea. In the 1970s, the Soviet Union even built a big cannon into a space station, and test-fired it in orbit. Also in the 1970s, the United States began research on a dedicated anti-satellite weapon

There’s a pretty good reason a military might want to hide a weapon in a satellite: it can already be in place when it needs to attack.

Some satellites generally like this already exist. China’s Shijan-17 is an inspector robot, which can move in orbit to repair and change the paths of other satellites. A future tool developed for debris removal, in the form of a robot tentacle arm, could also be used to lash out at and harm other satellites.

What are the dangers?

There is a real danger in placing weapons in orbit, especially if other nations know about them. At present, orbit serves every nation with satellites by allowing those satellites to observe the Earth below unencumbered. If every satellite was instead a potential weapon, it might lead nations to attack each other’s satellites, for fear of losing any assets already placed in space.

Violence in orbit risks a cascading series of harm. Broken satellites produce orbital debris, which can accelerate and punch through other satellites with a force much greater than that of a bullet. If debris from one destroyed satellite breaks another satellite, the risk to every other object in space goes up exponentially, as the debris cloud grows and further satellites crumble, ultimately rendering the once-useful part of space into a scorched orbit.

This has implications not just for space war. It also makes it harder for nations to understand and anticipate nuclear attacks. If nations decide that satellites are fair game for military attacks, it will likely benefit whoever attacks first, even as it risks nuclear miscalculation below. Revealing a weapon in orbit declares to every other nation not just that a country thinks satellites are fair targets, but that an offensive war against satellites could be winnable.

Whatever space weapon the United States has that Hyten is eager to reveal, teasing it without coming clean about the weapon is likely the worst of both worlds. If the weapon had remained secret, it would only change the strategic calculations of other countries that could discover its existence. If it was public, then it could possibly have a deterrent effect against other space weapons, as nations have a direct threat of retaliation to worry about. By having the weapon half-public and half-private, it is hard for nations to adjust their response based on reality, which is a recipe for error and potentially tragedy.

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear power “just doesn’t make sense” for Ireland, a leading energy expert says.

Why nuclear power ”just doesn’t make sense” for Ireland, news talk,  Stephen McNeice, 26 AUG 2021

Nuclear power “just doesn’t make sense” for Ireland, a leading energy expert says.

John Fitzgerald was speaking following recent fears that Ireland could face potential blackouts this winter.

Those concerns have eased now that two power generators are due to come back online in October and November, ahead of the high-demand winter season.

However, the situation has raised concerns about how the system will cope during periods when renewable sources such as wind turbines are unable to produce much power.

Those concerns have increased as more and more data centres are announced for Ireland – all of which require substantial and consistent supplies of electricity.

That has led to some questions about whether nuclear power – which, outside of safety concerns, is seen as a reliable source of energy by many countries – should be considered for Ireland.

Professor Fitzgerald – Research Affiliate at the ESRI and an Honorary Fellow of Trinity College Dublin – told The Pat Kenny Show it wouldn’t work for Ireland.

“Our generators come in what are called 400 megawatt lumps – nuclear comes in 1200 megawatt lumps.

“If you have a bloody massive nuclear generator in Ireland, you’ve got to have three gas stations puttering away and ready to go in case anything goes wrong. It just doesn’t make sense.”

rading electricity……   

he suggested the current make-up of Ireland’s electricity grid does make sense.

He said: “The thing about nuclear is it’s always on, whereas with wind it’s intermittent.

“When you have a load of wind on the system, having a load of nuclear doesn’t fit – it makes more sense to put in more wires to France and Britain and trade the electricity.

For now, he said the concerns with wind energy are about what happens in periods – usually in January – when you have several weeks with low or no wind.

He explained: “You have to have alternatives so the lights don’t go off when the wind doesn’t blow.

“What the concerns were – although there are less now than they would have been two weeks ago – is there are two big gas generators which are broken.

“They’re an important part of the system, and if they didn’t come back on… then when the wind didn’t blow we’d be short of generation.”

However, he said EirGrid and its predecessors have ensured Ireland’s electricity supply has been one of the most reliable in the world.

He added: “We just need to keep them at it.”

August 30, 2021 Posted by | ENERGY, Ireland, politics | Leave a comment

Space Force brass want live warfighter training in orbit,

Space Force brass want live warfighter training in orbit,

U.S. Space Force officials say they want more live orbital training in space, as the newest military branch activates its training and readiness command.

“I think we need to move space training specifically to more live operations on orbit,” said Brig. Gen. Shawn Bratton, who serves as planning lead for the new command.

Bratton spoke on a panel Tuesday at the non-profit Space Foundation’s annual Space Symposium in Colorado, one of the biggest annual events for the space industry.

Simulated spaceflight has improved dramatically in recent years, but Bratton said the Space Force must not rely only on simulation. Officials provided no details for how such orbital missions would occur.

“We need to get into realistic training or lifelike opportunities … to actually have experience with how long it takes for maneuvers to unfold on orbit — more realistic live training,” Bratton said.

Space Force warfighters will “focus education and training 100% on the space domain … and the very tough tactical problems that Space Command faces every day.”

Maj. Gen. DeAnna M. Burt, a Space Force commander based in California, said she agreed.

Part of the solution is “providing real-time Intel, investing in those real-time lifelike arenas … We are doing better than where we were. And we still have a long way to go,” Burt said.

The Space Force, founded in 2019, has about 16,000 personnel, by far the smallest military branch.

Bratton and Burt said the Space Force will encourage science and technology education in schools, especially in those aimed at military careers.

“We’ll go after a population that’s reflective of the nation and that’s exactly what we’re after. It makes us a stronger force, people with different backgrounds bring different thoughts,” Bratton said.

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Swedish government decides to increase interim storage capacity for nuclear waste

The Government has decided to allow a capacity increase of the interim
storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, pending a repository for final
disposal being constructed and put into operation. An intermediate decision
on interim storage is necessary to safeguard the energy supply in the
coming years.

The Government is prioritising and working as swiftly as
possible to prepare the decision on the repository. In the Government’s
assessment, it will be a matter of months before such a decision can be
made. However, the permit process following a government decision will take
additional time.

Without a valid permit for increased interim storage in
place before the end of 2023, Sweden’s electricity generation could be
adversely affected. This is why an intermediate decision on interim storage
is necessary.

The Government is examining how spent nuclear fuel and other
nuclear waste will be disposed of. In the next step, the Government will
refer the evaluation of new research on the protective capability of the
copper canister in relation to both copper corrosion and the planned cast
iron insert to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority and the Swedish
National Council for Nuclear Waste.

In the consultation process, the
Government wants these authorities to determine whether the article on
copper corrosion and the research to which the article refers provide new
information that may be of significance to the Government’s decision on
the case.

 Swedish Government 27th Aug 2021

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Sweden, wastes | Leave a comment

Rocket launches may be damaging the ozone layer

Rocket launches could be affecting our ozone layer, say experts.

Industry experts are calling for more research into how launches affect our atmosphere, Nicole Mortillaro · CBC News ·  Apr 23, 2021   

Industry experts are calling for more research into how launches affect our atmosphere   Rocket launches are a breathtaking culmination of human ingenuity as they propel us into the future, but there is a growing concern that not enough research has been done on their effect on the environment.

While some may be worried about potential greenhouse gas emissions that’s not the main issue. Instead, it’s ozone depletion and the potential effects in our upper atmosphere, specifically the stratosphere, along with concerns about toxic fuels.

The problem has flown under the radar, according to Martin Ross, an atmospheric scientist at The Aerospace Corporation, because people still think of rocket launches as rare. 

But it’s time to face the fact that we may be entering a boom era, he said.

“One of the arguments that people have used in the past was to say that we don’t really need to pay attention to rockets or to the space industry, or the space industry is small, and it’s always going to be small,” Ross said. 

“But I think the developments that we’re seeing the past few years show that … space is entering this very rapid growth phase like aviation saw in the ’20s and ’30s.”

Black soot in the atmosphere

The stratosphere is an important weather driver for Earth’s systems, and that’s where some particles from rocket launches are ending up.

The ozone layer, which helps protect us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays, is also located in the stratosphere. In 1990, the Montreal Protocol was signed into law, banning harmful ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in things like refrigerators and air conditioners, after it was revealed that the ozone layer was being stripped away by these chemicals. While the protocol touched on airlines, there was no mention of the aerospace industry.

But now some industry experts are concerned that with no oversight, we could be in for a problem.

There are different types of rocket propellants. Some, like liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, produce mainly water vapour and have little environmental impact. These were used in past shuttle launches and even in the Apollo-era Saturn V vehicles. 

Then there are those that produce alumina particles in the stratosphere, such as those in solid rocket boosters, which were also used in past shuttle launches, and are still being used today by some launch companies.

Finally, there are those that deposit black soot in the stratosphere, such as kerosene used in SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Russia’s Soyuz rockets.

It’s the alumina and black soot that is most concerning to experts.

“The atmosphere is complex,” said Jessica Dallas, a PhD candidate at the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research, in New South Wales. “We don’t have a complete understanding of atmospheric circulation and how all of the mechanisms in the atmosphere actually work. And so that means that we also don’t have a good idea of what happens when we’re injecting these particles into the stratosphere.”

Dallas, who wrote a comprehensive analysis of research on rocket propellants, said that she’s concerned that there haven’t been studies on how these particles interact in our atmosphere……………………….

August 30, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, environment | Leave a comment

U.S. Strategic Command general tries to stir up trouble about nuclear arsenals

US Strategic Command general aspires to muddy the water of nuclear arsenals, By Hu XijinGlobal Times, Aug 29, 2021 US Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas Bussiere, who is deputy commander of the US Strategic Command which oversees the nuclear arsenal, said on Friday that China will soon surpass Russia as the top nuclear threat of the US, a Reuter report said………..

I think Bussiere’s remarks had two malicious goals. First, he wants to sow discord between Russia and China, instigating a sense of crisis in Russia that China’s nuclear capabilities are to surpass Russia.  

His reasoning is problematic. The number of nuclear warheads in China and Russia is not in the same order of magnitude. It is known that Russia owns more nuclear warheads than the US. It’s incredible that China’s nuclear capability could surpass that of Russia in the foreseeable future. 

Bussiere said his judgment is not based solely on the number of China’s stockpiled nuclear warheads, but he didn’t give any other parameters. Instead, he just vaguely said that it also depends on how they are “operationally fielded.” What he wants to achieve is to confuse and mislead the public. 

It’s well-known that China is the sole nuclear power that has declared a policy of “no-first-use” of nuclear weapons at any time, and, under any circumstances. China has far fewer nuclear warheads than Russia or the US, and has made the aforementioned self-restrained commitment. How can China’s nuclear deterrent surpass that of Russia? 

Bussiere’s second purpose is sinister, too. ……..

He wanted to prevent China from increasing nuclear deterrent, and, to sustain the huge disparity of nuclear weapons between China and the US…………

August 30, 2021 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

 Engie nuclear subsidiary Endel in bad shape about to be sold

 Nuclear: Engie about to sell its Endel subsidiary to the Altrad group. The
energy company’s industrial and nuclear maintenance subsidiary is in bad
shape. The state has given the green light for the operation.

 Le Figaro 26th Aug 2021

August 30, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Even the right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute doubts the wisdom of bailing out struggling nuclear power stations

The dubious Senate proposal to bail out nuclear powerplants,  BY BENJAMIN ZYCHER, — 08/28/21 Costly economic distortions are an inexorable result of government bailouts for specific industries, the justifications for which are almost always deeply dubious.

Consider section 3203 of the proposed Senate Energy Infrastructure Act. It would establish a $6 billion credit program over four years starting in fiscal year 2022 for nuclear electricity plants “projected to cease operations due to economic factors.” The credits, disbursement of which would cease after 2031, would be defined as a certain dollar amount per megawatt-hour (mWh) of generation. And just as the production tax credit for wind electricity has been extended 13 times, it is difficult to believe that once implemented a similar subvention for nuclear power will fail to prove semi-permanent.

And sure enough: The draft legislation directs the comptroller general to submit by Jan. 1, 2024 “any recommendations to renew or expand the credits.” 

The bill makes it clear that the ostensible rationale for the credits is “the potential incremental air pollutants that would result if the [given] nuclear reactor were to cease operations. …and be replaced with other types of power generation.” 

But the draft legislation asks no one to investigate or even to speculate about whether the hypothetical increase in air pollutants resulting from a shutdown of a nuclear generating plant would yield a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the relevant geographic region for any of the (criteria) pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. 

Because the Clean Air Act requires that the respective NAAQS “protect the public health” with “an adequate margin of safety,” it is difficult to believe that a shutdown of a limited number of reactors and replacement with, say, combined-cycle gas generation, would result in ambient air quality in excess of a given NAAQS. The “public health” would continue to be protected.

Forget air pollution. This proposed subsidy is a bailout — that is, a sizable economic distortion to be added to all of the other distortions inflicted by various policies upon electricity markets. Would it not be better to reduce that aggregate of economic losses rather than to add to them? The actual unpublicized justifications for this proposal are exceedingly weak. 

Competitive price pressures from generation fueled with inexpensive natural gas. Competition is the very basis of a market economy, and a failure to foresee the sharp decline in natural gas prices when nuclear investments were made does not justify a federal bailout. Investors and managements contemplating large investments know that there are important risks, both known and unknown, and make their decisions accordingly. The proposed subsidy would shift those risks onto the taxpayers writ large, and there is no reason to believe that such a shift is efficient. 

Single-unit vs multi-unit nuclear operating costs. Two of the nuclear generating stations desperate for operating subsidies (Davis Besse and Perry, both in Ohio) are single-unit facilities, which have operating costs per mWh higher than those for multi-unit stations, because their fixed overhead costs are spread over less generation, and because they cannot achieve scale economies similar to those of multi-unit plants when negotiating service and fuel contracts. There is no reason that taxpayers should bear the attendant economic burdens.

Potential mismanagement. It is no secret that business management, like all human endeavors, varies in terms of the efficiency of the decisions made and the conduct of operations. Not only does the proposed legislation not consider the cost effects of possible mismanagement, it also reduces the economic penalty for such inefficiency.

Costly state regulation and the effects of “renewable portfolio” or “clean energy” standards. Regulation at the state level, imposed by legislatures, public utility commissions and other official bureaus, obviously creates costs and distortions, often sizable. Moreover, about 30 states require that some proportion of the electricity produced or consumed in the state be generated by certain technologies (e.g., wind and solar power), and those requirements often exclude nuclear electricity.

Is there a reason that federal taxpayers should be forced to bear the consequences of state laws and regulations? Reforms of state policies yielding adverse outcomes must be implemented at the state level; a federal bailout reduces the incentives for such reforms. The owners of nuclear powerplants should make their case to the state legislatures.

The distortions created by the federal wind production tax credit. The one argument in support of the proposed nuclear subsidy that is not wholly spurious is the effect of the wind production tax credit (PTC), now between $15 and $25 per mWh. The PTC thus allows the wind producers to reduce the prices that they bid for sales into bulk power markets – sometimes to negative levels – while still “earning” positive net prices. 

This obviously is unfair competition: The operators of nuclear plants receive no such subventions, and for technical engineering reasons, it is difficult or impossible for nuclear plants to ramp generation up and down in response to short-term price fluctuations.

So, one could argue that the proposed nuclear subsidy corrects the competitive problem created by the PTC, but that is a non sequitur. If the distortions created by given policies are to be addressed by incorporating new distortions, over time the entire economy in effect will become centrally planned, as one set of distortions after another is adopted to deal with the problems created by earlier ones. The proper course is to end the wind PTC and not to bail out nuclear plants with another subsidy program.

Note also that the prospective “profitability” of a given nuclear plant hinges on assumptions about prices, operations costs and other parameters that are subject to important uncertainties. One study by the former chief economist of the PJM Regional Transmission Organization projects net operating profits for 2021 of $30.4 million and $47.5 million for the two plants in Ohio referenced above, respectively. Another study from the PJM itself projects 2021 operating losses for those units of $28.8 million and $33.2 million, respectively.

In short, such calculations are far from straightforward, and no one will be surprised when those applying for the new nuclear credits find ways to increase the magnitude of the operating losses they will claim. 

The arguments in favor of this proposed subsidy are exceedingly weak, and the central principle weighing against it is powerful: Let us reduce rather than increase the distortions created by government economic policies. A failure to keep that principle in mind will yield ongoing economic losses for all of us.

Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 

August 30, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

UN urges Japan to investigate damaged Fukushima nuclear reactors for clean-up

UN urges Japan to investigate damaged Fukushima nuclear reactors for clean-up, New York Post, 
By Isabel Vincent 28 Aug 21.
 A team of United Nations experts is urging Japan to investigate nuclear reactors damaged a decade ago by a massive earthquake and tsunami.

Scientists working for the International Atomic Energy Agency reviewing the progress of the Fukushima plant’s clean-up say that Japan has been slow to examine the melted fuel inside the reactors.

And they’re worried that the country will be unable to meet a 2051 target to clean up the mess, according to a report.

“We need to gather more information on the fuel debris and more experience on the retrieval of the fuel debris to know if the plan can be completed as expected in the next 30 years,” said Christophe Xerri, head of IAEA, at a press conference after he and a colleague submitted a report on their recent findings to the Japanese government Friday……….

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Fukushima continuing | Leave a comment

Nuclear Safety Commission Directs Bruce Power To Assess Fitness For Service Of Reactors

Nuclear Safety Commission Directs Bruce Power To Assess Fitness For Service Of Reactors John Divinski, Aug 29, 2021

A public Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (SNSC) meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 3rd to talk about the recent discovery of elevated hydrogen equivalent concentrations and the responses by nuclear power plant licensees and CNSC staff.

The meeting is being held by the External Advisory Committee on pressure tubes.

You may recall Bruce Power ran into some issues earlier in July with the condition of pressure tubes in two units which are not operating at this time.

A Commission report says the Bruce Power pressure tubes in Units 3 and 6 had higher measurements of hydrogen equivalent (Heq) than predicted which contravened the company’s operating licence conditions.

A Commission report says the Bruce Power pressure tubes in Units 3 and 6 had higher measurements of hydrogen equivalent (Heq) than predicted which contravened the company’s operating licence conditions.

The reactors with the higher hydrogen content in pressure tubes are shut down for refurbishment and maintenance outages and do not pose a safety concern to the public or environment.

Hydrogen content is not a concern when reactors are shut down or have reached operating temperature.

At the time, the CNSC said in its release, “Since hydrogen content can only be measured while the reactors are shut down, CNSC staff have directed Bruce Power to assess the fitness for service of the other operating reactors and issued formal notices to all nuclear power plant licensees in Canada requesting further analysis on the continued safe operation of pressure tubes.”

The September 3rd virtual meeting will be webcast live at

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear Regulatory Commission finds cable issues in special inspection of Vogtle Unit 3

Nuclear Regulatory Commission finds cable issues in special inspection of Vogtle Unit 3,  Augusta Chronicle Abraham Kenmore, 27 Aug 21, The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has finished its special inspection of the Plant Vogtle Unit 3 expansion. The report found several preliminary issues with how cables had been installed during the construction of the new nuclear power facility.

“The NRC inspectors found that Southern Nuclear did not adequately separate safety and non-safety-related cables for reactor coolant pumps and equipment designed to safely shut down the reactor,” according to a press release sent with the report. “They also found instances where the company did not identify and report construction quality issues related to the safety-related electrical raceway system and enter them into its corrective action program.”

Southern Nuclear, the company in charge of construction, can choose to accept the results of the inspection or provide additional information before a final determination is reached. Unit 3 currently has no fuel loaded into the reactor and the press release makes it clear there is no increased risk to the public from the safety issues. Southern Company will not be allowed to operate the reactor until construction is finished to standards………

August 30, 2021 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Scotland: campaign against Trident nuclear weapons

  CAMPAIGNERS yesterday delivered the message that a “nuclear-free
independent Scotland is possible” as a rally was held outside the Faslane
submarine base on the Clyde. The demonstration against Trident, organised
by All Under One Banner, brought together a range of speakers from parties
and campaign groups.

 The National 29th Aug 2021

August 30, 2021 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Secret nuclear waste proposals initiated by private landowners and companies

Dr Ruth Balogh, West Cumbria & North Lakes Friends of the Earth.
The NDA is touring West Cumbria with yet another set of proposals for a
deep geological disposal facility for high & intermediate level radwaste in
West Cumbria. The idea of siting this dump in the nuclear industry’s
traditional dumping ground, the Irish Sea, is enjoying favour.

Interest in such proposals has been expressed elsewhere, in Lincolnshire and
Hartlepool, to – unlike in West Cumbria – some political acrimony. In the
NDA press release about the Hartlepool initiative, Steve Reece, Head of
Siting said: ‘This is a process that is driven by communities.’

Yet all of these proposals were initiated in secrecy by private landowners and
companies. In Allerdale’s case the company isn’t even situated in the
Borough. It was followed by the establishment of a small Working Group with
a Borough Council representative on it.

Overtures from at least one community group to take part have been rebuffed. Which community is in the
driving seat here? Not ours. If the NDA want to dig an almighty hole, and
fill it with waste which has been waiting decades for a rational plan- and
which is going to be compounded by far more from Hinkley Point than we have
here already at Sellafield, it’s time they called a spade a spade. We
deserve truthful engagement, not high-minded aspirations.

 Times and Star 26th Aug 2021

August 30, 2021 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, wastes | Leave a comment