nuclear-news

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

Nuke waste confusion continues with D.C. Circuit ruling

Kennedy Maize, https://energycentral.com/c/um/nuke-waste-confusion-continues-dc-circuit-ruling. 13 Sept 24

The D.C. Circuit appeals court has upheld the authority of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private, away-from-reactor storage of spent nuclear fuel, adding confusion to the gnarly issue of what to do with high-level nuclear waste. With federal circuit courts in collision, it may take the U.S. Supreme Court to sort it out.

On Aug. 27, a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel rejected a challenge to a 2021 Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to Interim Storage Partners, a subsidiary of Orano USA, for a private, above-ground “temporary” waste storage site in West Texas near the New Mexico state line. Not long after that, the NRC granted a similar license to Holtec International for an above-ground storage site in eastern New Mexico, close to the Texas line.

In granting the Holtec license, the NRC rejected petitions to intervene by Beyond Nuclear, a Maryland anti-nuclear group, the Sierra Club, and Texas-based Fasken Land and Minerals, a Permian Basin oil and gas producer.

Almost exactly a year ago (Aug. 25, 2023), the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with jurisdiction in Texas, Louisiana, and Texas, rejected the NRC license for the Texas site in a case brought by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Fasken. The Fifth Circuit ruled that neither the Atomic Energy Act nor the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorized private, away-from-reactor storage of spent fuel, at least until a final federal underground repository is available. That prospect is far in the future, if at all.

In March, the Fifth Circuit expanded its ban of the Texas project to Holtec’s New Mexico waste project, despite it being outside the court’s jurisdiction. In an unpublished decision, the circuit court wrote, “Because this court’s holding in Texas v. NRC dictates the outcome here, we GRANT Fasken’s and PBLRO’s petition for review and VACATE the Holtec license.” The court also rejected an NRC petition to move the case to the D.C. appeals court.

That led to the anti-nuclear filing in D.C., challenging to NRC’s decision to deny them intervenor status in the Holtec license case. In the denial of the petition last month, Judge Neomi Rao wrote for the panel that “the Commission reasonably declined to admit petitioners’ factual contentions and otherwise complied with statutory and regulatory requirements when rejecting the requests to intervene.”

Rao also took on some of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling about the authority for away-from-reactor, above-ground storage. Rao wrote, “According to Beyond Nuclear, the [waste policy act] prohibits DOE from taking title to private spent nuclear fuel until a permanent repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel is built, so it is unlawful for the Commission to consider the application.” That’s an assertion the Fifth Circuit also made.

Citing a 2004 D.C. Circuit decision, Rao found, “Even if the NWPA prohibits DOE from taking title to private spent nuclear fuel until a permanent repository for the disposal of such fuel is built, a point we assume without deciding, the statute does not affect ‘the NRC’s authority under the AEA to license and regulate private use of private away-from-reactor spent fuel storage facilities.’

” The Commission correctly determined that Beyond Nuclear did not raise a genuine dispute of law or fact, so we deny its petition for review.”

Rao, 51, a Trump appointee, has served on the D.C. Circuit Court since March 2019.

As the online legal site Justia noted, “Additionally, the court determined that Fasken’s late-filed contentions were procedurally defective, untimely, and immaterial.”

An analysis by the D.C. law firm Hogan Lovells commented, “This decision is contrary to recent Fifth Circuit decisions, but in line with prior D.C. Circuit and Tenth Circuit decisions—further deepening the circuit split on such authority and increasing the likelihood the Supreme Court will consider the issue in its upcoming term.”

The analysis noted that “commercial interim storage” (CIS) “was initially challenged in federal courts in the early 2000s, when the NRC was licensing the first commercial CIS, known as the Private Fuel Storage facility. At that time, a number of court challenges were brought contesting the NRC’s authority to license a CIS facility, and in two circuit court decisions—specifically, in the D.C. Circuit and the Tenth Circuit—the court upheld the NRC’s authority to license the CIS under the AEA. For NRC licensing decisions, as a general matter, the federal circuit courts have direct appellate review, and the appeal can be brought in either the D.C. Circuit or the circuit court where the proposed facility is located.”

September 18, 2024 Posted by | Legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

The NATO/Ukraine Defeat in Kursk (and Beyond)

SOTT, by Gordonhahn, September 14, 2024

Contrary to the view of Beltway pundits regarding the sunny side or various alleged successes of Ukraine’s Kursk incursion, the Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy’s newest simulacra attack –substituting a fake reality for the real one – has led to yet another predictable catastrophe in the real world of war and politics. Zelenskiy’s gambit had no military logic behind it. Its essence was made up of a propagandistic/PR component and perhaps a terrorist element. It was a reckless, desperate last roll of the dice to overturn the playing board which never had a hope of succeeding. Not one of the goals stated by Ukrainian officials was achieved, nor was the unstated, potential goal of seizng the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant achieved. What was ‘achieved’ was a decimation of some of Ukraine’s best remaining men and materiel.

Ukrainian officials publicly stated several goals of the operation:

(1) to force Moscow to redeploy troops away from Russian forces’ increasingly rapid advance on Pokrovsk and across the Donetsk front;
(2) to seize Russian territory to encourage Moscow to negotiate and to trade for the return of Ukrainian lands in peace talks with Moscow;
(3) to capture Russian prisoners of war to exchange for Ukrainian prisoners;
(4) to create angst in Russia among the elite and population in order to weaken support for the war and/or Putin’s hold on power; and
(5) to make Russia feel the pain of death and destruction that Ukraine has been feeling (Zelenskiy alone said this).

None of these goals was achieved.

Regarding the first goal, Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander Gen. Oleksandr Syrskii has acknowledged that the Russian forces did not redeploy from Donetsk to Kursk. The strategy was misconceived from the get-go. The Ukrainians tried to get the Russians to make an obvious mistake: divert forces need for their offensives in Donetsk to the Ukrainians’ mini-salient in Kursk and thereby weaken their offensive force. Ironically, in order to get the Russians to make the mistake of diverting valuable resources from Donetsk to Kursk the Ukrainians had done the same. This led to an acceleration of the Russian advance towards Pokrovsk – a key hub and perhaps the last best barrier hindering the Russian army’s march to the Dnieper.

Regarding the second and third, before the incursion Putin and other Russian officials had repeated their willingness to negotiate, but Kiev refused or ignored each statement. After the incursion, the Russians announced that there will be no talks while Ukrainian forces remain in Kursk and other Russian territories, according to Moscow’s definition. Moreover, as one exiled Ukrainian newspaper Ctrana.news, notes, no Russian is going to give back 18 percent of Ukrainian territory held by Russia in return for 5 percent of Kursk region’s territory. The same paper notes that even prominent Russian liberals, editor-in-chief of the banned Ekh Moskvy Aleksei Venediktov and Yabloko Party leader Grigorii Yavlinskii (who met with Putin weeks back to discuss peace talks), thought negotiations might have begun by year’s end until the Kursk incursion spoiled the mood in the Kremlin. No talks means there will be no trading for land or prisoners, contrary to Kiev’s goals.

Regarding the fourth goal, there has been no discernible elite or popular demand for a change in Putin’s ‘special operation policy’ (SMO). To the contrary, prominent hardliners and others intensified their clamor for untying the Russian military’s hands and undertaking a full-scale war on Ukraine, and this may explain an escalation in Russian missile attacks. In terms of the population, public opinion surveys demonstrate both continuing popular support for Putin and the mirror opposite effect on its views than that intended by Kiev. Ukrainian forces began their incursion on August 6th, crossing the Ukrainian-Russian border between Sumy, Ukraine and Kursk, Russia. In the Levada Center’s polling in July Putin’s approval rating was 87 percent. In August it fell a mere 2 points to 85 percent (within the margin of error).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. In regard to the Kursk gambit’s unstated and likely real goal of seizing the Kursk NPP and or nuclear weapons storage site in the hope of holding the local population and the Putin government hostage to a possible terrorist attack and/or trading control of the Kursk object(s) for control over the Zaporozhe NPP, now held by the Russians and badly needed to help Ukraine get throught the upcoming winter, given the diminution of the country’s electricity system as a result of Russia’s repeated attacks. 

So just like the attempts to destroy the Crimean Bridge and the drone attacks on Moscow and St. Petersburg, the effect of this newest Kievan-Western move has been the precise opposite of what was supposedly intended. Moscow and all Russia are even more committed to ‘Putin’s unprovoked war of aggression’ and any ‘unprovoked responses’ the Kremlin may mount. 

Worst of all for the bright lights who conjured up this operation in Langley or elsewhere, the war is getting closer to ‘the last Ukrainian.’ The Kursk gambit has led to the destruction of much of Kiev’s best fighters and equipment, and it is likely many of those Ukrainian and other troops who made the incursion will be encircled in short time. At the same time, the Kursk gambit made Russian advances greater along much of the front but especially on the Donetsk and southern Donetsk fronts, which will lead to the more rapid fall of Pokrovsk, Vugledar, and the entire Ukrainian defense effort east of the Dnieper River. And do the Second Ruin of Ukraine continues with Western crocodile tears and calls to keep up the fight in defense of NATO expansion for as long as ‘it’ takes.  https://www.sott.net/article/494845-The-NATO-Ukraine-defeat-in-Kursk-and-beyond

September 18, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

As Biden deliberates, Ukraine’s nuclear plants are increasingly at risk

fear this coming winter may prove to be a breaking point for Ukraine in the energy war.

Stuck in the crosshairs are key substations feeding high voltage electricity to Ukraine’s still functioning nuclear power stations in Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Yuzhnoukrainsk in southern Ukraine. Take these substations out and the reactors have to be shut down rapidly, or else it could provoke a “nuclear incident,” energy expert Mykhailo Gonchar told POLITICO. And “that’s what the Russians are aiming to do — hit the key substations.”

Paralyze the three nuclear power stations, though, and it’s game over for Ukraine in the energy war ,

The risk of Ukraine losing the war this winter has pushed Washington and London to reconsider how Kyiv uses Western-supplied long-range missiles, but the U.S. remains fearful of escalation.

Politico, September 15, 2024 , By Jamie Dettmer

KYIV — As the U.S. ponders loosening some of the restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Western-supplied long-range missiles to allow for the targeting of airfields and missile launch sites deeper inside Russia, Ukraine remains on tenterhooks.

As it stands, Washington doesn’t appear ready to take the gloves off entirely and allow Ukraine to target Russia’s airfields with long-range U.S. missiles quite yet — though it may withdraw restrictions on the U.K.’s Storm Shadows, which use U.S. technology.

“I would like to see a more forthright position coming from the Biden administration that says there’s no reason why Ukraine shouldn’t be fighting back,” former U.S. envoy to NATO Kurt Volker told POLITICO. “Russia’s the one attacking Ukraine from all these facilities across Russia. There’s no reason for there to be a sanctuary. But I don’t think we’re going to see Biden authorizing the use of U.S. missiles to strike at Russian airfields, although the British might be allowed to proceed without U.S. objection,” he added. “That won’t be enough.”

And if that’s really the outcome of these weeks-long intense negotiations, Ukraine’s energy officials will be among those most alarmed.

They fear this coming winter may prove to be a breaking point for Ukraine in the energy war. And that’s largely because Russian commanders are adapting their airstrike tactics, having learned from their previous failed bombing campaign to collapse the country’s energy system — and the recent shipments of Iran’s Fath-360 close-range ballistic missiles to Russia will help them do so.

Ukrainian officials expect Russia will use these missiles, which have a range limit of 120 kilometers, to complement their glide bombs in targeting logistics and communications hubs and ammunition depots in the rear of Ukraine’s front lines. That, in turn, will free Russia up to concentrate its own longer-range missiles on civilian infrastructure — particularly the energy system in a bid to break it.

Stuck in the crosshairs are key substations feeding high voltage electricity to Ukraine’s still functioning nuclear power stations in Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Yuzhnoukrainsk in southern Ukraine. Take these substations out and the reactors have to be shut down rapidly, or else it could provoke a “nuclear incident,” energy expert Mykhailo Gonchar told POLITICO. And “that’s what the Russians are aiming to do — hit the key substations.”

Currently, 55 percent of Ukraine’s energy is generated by its three operating nuclear power stations — the one in Zaporizhzhia, which is the largest nuclear plant in Europe, was captured by Russia in 2022 and has largely been shut down. Russian missile and drone strikes have destroyed 9 gigawatts of the country’s electrical generating capacity — that’s half of the peak winter consumption — with 80 percent of thermal generation from coal- and gas-fired power plants and a third of hydroelectric production capacity wiped out by bombing.

Last year, Russia tried to isolate these nuclear power plants, focusing on degrading Ukraine’s energy transmission. It targeted distribution to consumers and businesses but was met with characteristic Ukrainian ingenuity and confounded by improvised repairs and rerouting.

Paralyze the three nuclear power stations, though, and it’s game over for Ukraine in the energy war , diminishing its war-fighting capacity, crashing the economy and weakening its position if peace negotiations do ever commence.

And according to officials in Kyiv, it’s the fear of this happening that’s been one of the factors driving the Biden administration to reconsider the restrictions, including on U.S. ATACMS and British Storm Shadows. Washington sat up when Russian airstrikes started targeting the main substations feeding operational electricity to the nuclear power plants in late August. “That concentrated minds,” said one Ukrainian official who asked not to be identified in order to speak freely………………………………………………………………………………………………

Burns also stressed no one should underestimate the risk of escalation and admitted his agency genuinely feared Russia might resort to tactical nuclear weapons in 2022. And while Biden and British Prime Minister Kier Starmer brushed off Putin’s threats on Friday, the U.S. administration still appears to be trapped between two worries — fear of how Moscow might respond if Western-supplied missiles start striking Russian airfields, and wreck projects for peace talks to get going, and alarm over the prospect of Ukraine losing power……………………………………………………………… https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-ukraine-nuclear-plants-energy-war-joe-biden-united-states-nato/

September 18, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

India considers joining Russia, China to build nuclear plant on Moon

Rivals India and China are said to be keen on joining a Russian project to build an atomic power plant for a human base on the Moon.

 14/09/2024,  By: Pratap Chakravarty,  https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20240914-india-considers-joining-russia-china-to-build-nuclear-plant-on-moon

Russia’s atomic energy corporation Rosatom says the lunar reactor will be built with “minimal human involvement” and deployed around 2036.

According to Russia’s state-owned news agency Tass, Rosatom CEO Alexey Likhachev told a meeting of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok earlier this month that both India and China have shown interest in the venture.

“The task we are working on is the creation of a lunar nuclear power plant with an energy capacity of up to half a megawatt,” Likhachev told the gathering of potential investors.

“Both our Chinese and Indian partners are very interested in collaborating as we lay the groundwork for several international space projects,” the Rosatom chief executive claimed.

Cooperation among rivals 

Delhi has not commented on the purported collaboration.

While Russia is its key arms supplier and a partner on several space ventures, Indian media have been surprised by the possibility of India teaming up with China.

Alluding to unresolved border disputes which took India and China to war in 1962 and sporadic clashes in following years, local daily Business Standard called the two countries “foes on Earth, pals on Moon”.

The proposed power plant will be integrated into a wider Chinese-Russian project to set up a base called the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), either on lunar soil or in lunar orbit.

ILRS will serve as a fulcrum of scientific research and will be open to all countries and “international partners” after it becomes operational between 2035 and 2045.

But it would require a stable power supply – which only a nuclear reactor can provide, as the Moon’s lengthy lunar nights make solar energy unreliable.

Nasa has been mulling the construction of similar reactors for its own future lunar bases.

India’s space ambitions

The Russian-led project is separate from India’s own ambitions to set up a space station by 2035 and launch a manned mission to the Moon five years later.

Analysts say India, with its ambitions of creating a human colony on the Moon, is actively seeking out potential opportunities to accelerate its space ambitions.

In August 2023, India landed a spacecraft on the Moon and joined a select space-faring club comprising of China, Russia and the United States – the only nations to have ever reached the Earth’s closest celestial object.

India has shortlisted four military pilots to travel on the country’s first manned space flight next year.

The Indian government says the Gaganyaan spacecraft will orbit Earth at an altitude of 400 kilometres and land at sea three days later.

It will also send a humanoid robot into space later this year in line with preparations to land an Indian on lunar soil by 2040.

Air force pilot Rakesh Sharma became India’s first astronaut to go to space in April 1984, when he spent almost eight days on board the Soviet Salyut-7 space station.

September 18, 2024 Posted by | India, space travel | Leave a comment

Pentagon orders simulation of consequences of nuclear weapons use in Eastern Europe and Russia

12 September 2024,  https://en.topwar.ru/249956-pentagon-zakazal-modelirovanie-posledstvij-primenenija-jadernogo-oruzhija-v-vostochnoj-evrope-i-rossii.html

The Pentagon intends to study the consequences of using nuclear weapons weapons in Europe and Russia. The US military has commissioned a third-party contractor to conduct the study. This is stated in documents from the US Department of Defense that have become publicly available.

The Pentagon has ordered a simulation of a situation involving the use of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe and Western Russia, with the Americans particularly interested in the consequences of nuclear weapons use on the agricultural sector. As follows from the contract, the contractor must simulate a global nuclear situation the war, which led to the destruction of agriculture. The Pentagon also requires the contractor to expand the modeling beyond Eastern Europe and Western Russia, but with the obligatory condition of including former Eastern Bloc countries in the report.

Engineering Corps armies The United States has awarded a contract (…) to develop active research programs focused on modeling the effects of nuclear weapons on agricultural systems,
– leads RIA News excerpt from the document.

It is worth noting that this is not the first modeling of the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons ordered by the Americans. Similar studies were conducted for the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, the territory of the United States, the Middle East, as well as Europe and the entire Russian territory.

September 18, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

TODAY. The pen is mightier than the sword.

What made me ponder on this was reading an article about the Vogtle Nuclear Power Station. Not that this article contained anything new. really.

Anyone who has bothered to take an interest in this station would probably know that it is the largest power station in the USA, and the only one with 4 reactors. It was designed and eventually built by Westinghouse (which went bankrupt in the process). Southern Nuclear, and later Georgia Power took over the costs, helped by federal loan guarantees up to $12 billion. It was expanded over 11 years at a cost of $36.8 billion.

So – reams have been published about all this. Noticeably high in jargon, are stories about Vogtle’s energy benefits, how it “helps climate action”. There are also many articles criticising the costs, and financial arrangements, and some of these also give complicated details, that are not easy to read.

So – today’s article? Welcome to Planet Vogtle! The Lessons of Georgia’s Nuclear Boondoggle.”

Well, it is written in easily readable and witty language. Some of the writer’s ideas are novel – but true, too! – “A global race is on to see who will host the next nuclear disaster, and as always the U.S.A. is determined to take the lead”   record-breaking profits for utility companies, record-breaking power bills for the rest of us.“nuclear waste factories like Vogtle “

But within the forceful and witty language, the writer has demolished the nuclear industry’s claims of benefits – about being “economic” “clean” “safe” “low emissions” and noted its euphemisms – like “disposal” of nuclear wastes.

The article actually compresses Plant Vogtle: The True Cost of Nuclear Power in the United States,” a 35-page report exposing the political maneuvering and cynical profiteering that made the Vogtle project a “success.”

So – although I did enjoy the writing style – this is one article that does both – gives the information, and a bit of fun to read. And the writer sure isn’t scared to give his opinion! Which is good fun. I’m sick of everyone worthily trying to give “balance”

If you’ve waded through stuff about the nuclear industry, whether the stuff is pro or con, it is so refreshing to come upon something that is a pleasure to read.

And if you had any doubts about the whole pro nuclear push being crooked – this Plant Vogtle article should clear up those doubts.

September 17, 2024 Posted by | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Christopher Busby: New study: the cause of the cancer epidemic

15 Sept 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMauRgvWnII

Dr Busby presents the results of a study which he carried out to identify the cause of the cancer epidemic which began in 1980. He compared cancer death rates between high fallout and low fallout States in the USA looking for an effect which identified the period of birth of the ten year age groups.

The result showed an astonishing cancer risk effect centred around the peak years of atmospheric test fallout, 1955 to 1965. The result showed a 50% excess risk of dying of cancer in the 55-64 year olds who were born during the fallout years. A earlier version of the study, whic he carried out in 2021 was presented in the journal BMJ Oncology in 2023 and can be found online. Link is https://bmjoncology.bmj.com/content/e…

What this means, he explains, is that it is likely that there is a significant probability that you, or anyone you know who has developed cancer, is a victim of the atmospheric test fallout contamination of Strontium-90 and Uranium-238. The total number of victims of this exceeds 100 million.

He says that those who have been anticipating World War should realise that it has already happened. It was the war of the nuclear military complex against humanity, as Dr John Gofman once said. Further videos in this series Science and reality will take this matter further. He belatedly apologises for placing the high fallout States in the west; they are of course in the south east of USA

COMMENT. Very important. In Australia, through the1960s and even later, repeated bursts of atmospheric fallout from the French nuclear tests . Rainfall from the East was tested for radiation – but the results were kept secret. Prof Ernest Titterton was in charge, and he cancelled the tests anyway. Interesting to study the cancer rates of East coast populations exposed at that time.

September 17, 2024 Posted by | health | Leave a comment

How to Make a ‘War Reserve’ Nuclear Bomb

Earlier this year, at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington, D.C., there was a palpable sense of excitement at the return to Cold War strategies of shoring up our nuclear arsenal. Today, with what some call the two-peer problem—Russia and China—and the specter of nuclear-armed rogue nations and terrorists, the NSE is racing against what-if targets. The language is aggressive. Opposition is largely mute. Congress has opened the tap. The NSE is hiring, training, building, and spending billions a year.

The dark art of crafting nuclear ‘pits’ was almost lost. Now it’s ramped up into a multibillion dollar industry.

The Progressive Magazine, by Jim Carrier , September 5, 2024

Sometime in the next few months a technician at Los Alamos National Laboratory, using an arc welder, will seal together two half-domes of plutonium, creating a “pit,” a seven-pound ball the size of a grapefruit, which, if tucked into America’s newest nuclear warhead and triggered above Times Square, would destroy most of Manhattan and kill more than 1.2 million people.

The bomb is part of a $1.7 trillion plan to rebuild the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The new pit, and hundreds like it, are being made for the W87-1, a new warhead designed to sit atop the Sentinel, a new intercontinental ballistic missile design that will replace all 400 Minuteman III missiles that have been on alert in silos across the Upper Midwest for the last five decades.

Not since the Manhattan Project, the crash program during World War II to invent the atomic bomb, has so much money and urgent energy been spent by the United States to create a weapon of mass destruction. In a paradox of nuclear madness, production of the W87-1—each one with a yield of around 400 kilotons, twenty times larger than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki—is breathing life into the U.S. Nuclear Security Enterprise (NSE), the agency that makes nuclear weapons and runs the planes, missiles, and submarines that deliver them.

The warhead “is reinvigorating and transforming the production complex such that NSE can once again produce all of the components typically required for modern nuclear warheads,” according to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which designed the W87-1. “This work will give the nation expanded options for maintaining an effective nuclear deterrence posture for decades to come.”

Earlier this year, at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington, D.C., there was a palpable sense of excitement at the return to Cold War strategies of shoring up our nuclear arsenal. Today, with what some call the two-peer problem—Russia and China—and the specter of nuclear-armed rogue nations and terrorists, the NSE is racing against what-if targets. The language is aggressive. Opposition is largely mute. Congress has opened the tap. The NSE is hiring, training, building, and spending billions a year.

At Los Alamos, the urgency can be seen inside Plutonium Facility Building 4, known as PF-4, the only building in the United States where plutonium pits are made. Working around the clock, technicians are dismantling old contaminated glove boxes—the laboratory apparatus that allow technicians using built-in gloves to work with toxic or volatile substances inside a sealed chamber—before a new shift of workers arrives to install shiny new steel glove boxes for work on the new pits…………………….

The process of turning plutonium into a bomb is a dark art—an alchemy invented in 1945 on the same New Mexico mesa. Wizards of physics and math who divined the immense energy locked within its atoms, together with master machinists, created the first atomic bomb, “Trinity,” and its copy, “Fat Man,” which destroyed Nagasaki with the power of twenty kilotons, or 20,000 tons of TNT. These two plutonium bombs produced enough heat and radiation to ignite, or trigger, the kind of fusion fire present in the sun.

One year later, as Baby Boom children were teething, Los Alamos blew up a similar plutonium bomb named “Baker” on Bikini Atoll. Its twenty-one-kiloton underwater eruption captured both the bounty of nuclear power and America’s intent to weaponize it.

During the Cold War, Los Alamos produced ninety-four different nuclear weapons—bigger, smaller, deadlier, more accurate. Many were thermonuclear, or hydrogen bombs, whose design, first revealed to the public by Howard Morland in this magazine in 1979, was theorized during the Manhattan Project. In 1952, Los Alamos, using a plutonium pit as a trigger, detonated its first thermonuclear bomb. That same year, the United States built the Rocky Flats Plant, a plutonium pit factory outside Denver. It produced 1,000 pits a year.

The hands-on, metallurgical master craft of fashioning pits was almost lost, though, when Rocky Flats was raided and closed in 1989 by the FBI for massive environmental crimes—the year the Soviet Union began to collapse, ending the Cold War. The NSE fell into a funk, reduced to cleaning up its messes and “stockpile stewardship.”……………………………………………………………………………………………….

“The reestablishment of pit production capabilities is the largest and most complex infrastructure undertaking at NNSA since shortly after the Manhattan Project,” Jill Hruby, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, told the Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century Symposium on April 18. “Our current total estimated acquisition cost range for pit production is $28-37 billion . . . . I know that’s a lot of money . . . . Los Alamos is on track to diamond stamp the first fully qualified War Reserve pit for the W87-1 this year. We anticipate Los Alamos achieving the capability to produce the thirty pits per year envisioned by the two-site plan in or near 2028, with increased manufacturing rate confidence as we install equipment through 2030.”

he United States will never need to make plutonium again. During the Cold War, nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington, produced more than sixty tons of plutonium. Some 14,000 pits, made by Rocky Flats, each bearing the War Reserve diamond stamp, are warehoused in Pantex, Texas.

As Los Alamos cranks up its program, pits are brought from Pantex, torn apart, and subjected to pyrochemistry, which removes impurities. The metal is then heated into a hot syrup and poured into molds, creating two halves of a sphere. These are welded together. This process is done in rows of connected glove boxes, the plutonium moving from one to another in an overhead trolley system, and dumbwaiters that raise and lower it.

…………………………………………………………………………… fundamental questions are being raised. Scientists debate whether new pits are really needed when existing pits might last for decades. And the need for the W87-1 and the Sentinel missile itself is being questioned because of rising costs and its vulnerability as a land-based, easily targeted weapon. The Pentagon reported in July that the missile’s estimated cost has risen 81 percent over budget to $141 billion.

In New Mexico, two longtime watchdog organizations, the Los Alamos Study Group and Nuclear Watch New Mexico, list dozens of reasons to not make pits at Los Alamos: waste disposal, radiation deposits, earthquake potential, cost and schedule overruns among them.

“Every dollar spent at LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory] on this program is wasted,” wrote Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group. “Every drum of waste produced in the process need not have been produced. Every career spent making these pits, or supporting the work, is a career that could have been spent building a sustainable, moral, responsible future. The LANL pit production program is a symptom of pure arrogance, greed, and management failure at the highest levels of government.”

………………………. As America’s nuclear train chugs forward, it is virtually certain that if the Sentinel missiles containing the Los Alamos pits are in their silos by the early 2030s, as planned, they will inflame an arms race that is already underway, while posing—if we’re lucky—nothing more than an apocalyptic threat in a new Cold War.  https://progressive.org/magazine/how-to-make-a-war-reserve-nuclear-bomb-carrier-20240905/

September 17, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, Reference, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Scholz stands firm on long-range weapons for Kiev

 https://www.rt.com/news/604037-scholz-long-range-weapons-kiev/ 16 Sept 24

Berlin will not lift restrictions on its more advanced weaponry, even if Ukraine’s other allies do, German chancellor has said.

Germany will not allow its long-range weapons to be used for Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia, even if other states choose to do so, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has said.

Washington and London have suggested that they could allow Kiev to use missiles such as the American-made ATACMS and the British-made Storm Shadow to hit such targets.

Berlin retains its policy of not permitting Ukraine to use German-provided long-range weapons for such attacks, Scholz said on Saturday at a Q&A session in Prenzlau, Brandenburg.

I’m sticking to my stance, even if other countries decide differently,” Scholz said. “I won’t do that because I think it’s a problem.”

Germany is Ukraine’s second-largest military donor after the US. Berlin has provided or pledged more than €28 billion ($31 billion) in lethal aid to Kiev since the start of the conflict with Russia, according to data from the Federal Government website.

However, Berlin has so far refused to follow the UK and France’s example in arming Ukraine with long-range missiles. In May, Scholz explained that supplying Ukraine with Taurus missiles with a range of 500 km (310 miles) would amount to Berlin’s direct participation in the conflict.

“It would only be tenable to deliver [these weapons] if we determine and define the targets ourselves, and that is again not possible if you don’t want to be part of this conflict,” he stressed.

On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Western powers against further escalating the hostilities. “We are not talking about allowing or prohibiting the Kiev regime from striking Russian territory,” Putin explained, noting that Ukraine was already doing this.

Western-supplied ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles have been used by Ukraine to strike targets in Crimea and Donbass – Russian territories that Kiev claims as its own – leading to multiple civilian casualties.

Kiev lacks the ability to independently use Western long-range systems, Putin explained.

Targeting for such strikes relies on intelligence from NATO satellites, while firing solutions can “only be entered by NATO military personnel.”

“This will mean that NATO countries, the US, European countries are fighting against Russia,” Putin stressed. Such direct participation will change “the very essence, the very nature of the conflict”, meaning Russia will have to “make the appropriate decisions on the threats,” the Russian leader warned.

In June, Putin pledged that Moscow would shoot down any missiles used in long-range strikes, and retaliate against those responsible. One possible response would be to send similar high-tech weaponry to forces that are in conflict with the West.

September 17, 2024 Posted by | Germany, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Obvious Conflict of Interest’: Report Reveals 50+ US Lawmakers Hold Military Stocks

“It’s abjectly terrifying that the personal benefit of any member of Congress is factored into decisions about how to wield and fund the largest military in the world,” said one critic.

Brett Wilkins 12 Sept 24,  https://www.commondreams.org/news/members-of-congress-who-own-defense-stock

At least 50 U.S. lawmakers or members of their households are financially invested in companies that make military weapons and equipment—even as these firms “receive hundreds of billions of dollars annually from congressionally-crafted Pentagon appropriations legislation,” a report published Thursday revealed.

Sludge‘s David Moore analyzed 2023 financial disclosures and stock trades disclosed in other reports and found that “the total value of the federal lawmakers’ defense contractors stock holdings could be as much as $10.9 million.”

Melanie D’Arrigo, @DarrigoMelanie

Over 50 members of Congress, who vote to approve the military budget and approve the sale of weapons, own up to $10.9M in military contractor stocks. Military contractors have also donated $29M this year to election campaigns. That isn’t national defense. That’s corruption.

According to the report:

The spouse of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, holds between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of shares in each of Boeing and RTX, as well as holdings in two other defense manufacturers. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), another Defense Appropriations subcommittee member, holds up to $50,000 in the stock of Boeing, which received nearly $33 billion in defense contracts last year. On the Democratic side of the aisle, Sen. John Hickenlooper (Colo.) holds up to a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of stock in RTX…

The most widely held defense contractor stock among senators and representatives is Honeywell, an American company that makes sensors and guiding devices that are being used by the Israeli military in its airstrikes in Gaza. The second most commonly held defense stock by Congress is RTX, formerly known as Raytheon, the company that makes missiles for Israel’s Iron Dome, among other weapons systems.

All 13 senators whose households disclosed military stock holdings voted for the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, which, as Common Dreams reported, allocated a record $886.3 billion for the U.S. military while many lawmakers’ constituents struggled to meet their basic needs.

“It is an obvious conflict of interest when a member of Congress owns significant stock investments in a company and then votes to award the same company lucrative federal contracts,” Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, told Sludge.


“Whether or not the official action is taken for actual self-enrichment purposes is beside the point. There is at least an appearance of self-enrichment and that appearance is just as damaging to the integrity of Congress,” Holman added. “This type of conflict of interest is already banned for executive branch officials and so should be for Congress as well. The ETHICS Act would justly avoid that conflict of interest by prohibiting members of Congress and their spouses from owning stock investments altogether.”

Holman was referring to the Ending Trading and Holdings In Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, introduced earlier this year by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).

In the House of Representatives—where the 2024 NDAA passed 310-118, with the approval of over two dozen members who own shares in military companies—House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul’s (R-Texas) household owns up to $2.6 million in General Electric, Oshkosh Corporation, and Woodward shares. Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), who sits on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, owns as much as $100,000 worth of Boeing and General Electric stock.

Other House lawmakers with potential conflicts of interest include Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who owns Leidos shares worth as much as $248,000; Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), who owns up to $100,000 worth of RTX stock; and Rep. Patrick Fallon (R-Texas), a member of the Armed Services Committee who holds Boeing stock worth between $100,000 and $250,000.

“Every American should take a long, hard look at these holdings to conceptualize the scope of Congress’ entanglement with defense contractors,” Public Citizen People Over Pentagon advocate Savannah Wooten told Sludge. “It’s abjectly terrifying that the personal benefit of any member of Congress is factored into decisions about how to wield and fund the largest military in the world.”

“Requiring elected officials to divest from the military-industrial complex before stepping into public service would create a safer and more secure world from the outset,” she added.

September 17, 2024 Posted by | politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Data center emissions probably 662% higher than big tech claims. Can it keep up the ruse?

Emissions from in-house data centers of Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple may be 7.62 times higher than official tally

Guardian, Isabel O’Brien, 16 Sept 24


Big tech has made some big claims about greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. But as the rise of artificial intelligence creates ever bigger energy demands, it’s getting hard for the industry to hide the true costs of the data centers powering the tech revolution.

According to a Guardian analysis, from 2020 to 2022 the real emissions from the “in-house” or company-owned data centers of GoogleMicrosoftMeta and Apple are likely about 662% – or 7.62 times – higher than officially reported.

Amazon is the largest emitter of the big five tech companies by a mile – the emissions of the second-largest emitter, Apple, were less than half of Amazon’s in 2022. However, Amazon has been kept out of the calculation above because its differing business model makes it difficult to isolate data center-specific emissions figures for the company.

As energy demands for these data centers grow, many are worried that carbon emissions will, too. The International Energy Agency stated that data centers already accounted for 1% to 1.5% of global electricity consumption in 2022 – and that was before the AI boom began with ChatGPT’s launch at the end of that year.

AI is far more energy-intensive on data centers than typical cloud-based applications. According to Goldman Sachs, a ChatGPT query needs nearly 10 times as much electricity to process as a Google search, and data center power demand will grow 160% by 2030. Goldman competitor Morgan Stanley’s research has made similar findings, projecting data center emissions globally to accumulate to 2.5bn metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030.

In the meantime, all five tech companies have claimed carbon neutrality, though Google dropped the label last year as it stepped up its carbon accounting standards. Amazon is the most recent company to do so, claiming in July that it met its goal seven years early, and that it had implemented a gross emissions cut of 3%.

“It’s down to creative accounting,” explained a representative from Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, an advocacy group composed of current Amazon employees who are dissatisfied with their employer’s action on climate. “Amazon – despite all the PR and propaganda that you’re seeing about their solar farms, about their electric vans – is expanding its fossil fuel use, whether it’s in data centers or whether it’s in diesel trucks.”

A misguided metric

The most important tools in this “creative accounting” when it comes to data centers are renewable energy certificates, or Recs. These are certificates that a company purchases to show it is buying renewable energy-generated electricity to match a portion of its electricity consumption – the catch, though, is that the renewable energy in question doesn’t need to be consumed by a company’s facilities. Rather, the site of production can be anywhere from one town over to an ocean away………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2025 and beyond

Even though big tech hides these emissions, they are due to keep rising. Data centers’ electricity demand is projected to double by 2030 due to the additional load that artificial intelligence poses, according to the Electric Power Research Institute.

Google and Microsoft both blamed AI for their recent upticks in market-based emissions…………………………………………..

Whether today’s power grids can withstand the growing energy demands of AI is uncertain. One industry leader – Marc Ganzi, the CEO of DigitalBridge, a private equity firm that owns two of the world’s largest third-party data center operators – has gone as far as to say that the data center sector may run out of power within the next two years.

And as grid interconnection backlogs continue to pile up worldwide, it may be nearly impossible for even the most well intentioned of companies to get new renewable energy production capacity online in time to meet that demand. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/sep/15/data-center-gas-emissions-tech

September 17, 2024 Posted by | climate change, technology | Leave a comment

Southern boom town that is just 24 miles away from dangerous canyon contaminated by plutonium

By Alex Hammer For Dailymail.Com, 16 September 2024, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13765533/canyon-contaminated-plutonium-santa-fe-boom-town.html

Residents of Santa Fe, New Mexico – less than a half-hour drive from the birthplace of the atomic bomb – are drinking from a water supply with alarming traces of plutonium, scientists have found.

The shocking samples were taken from Los Alamos’s soil just 24 miles from Santa Fe, which has roughly 90,000 residents.

Experts warned have since warned that the discovery could mean a rehabilitation project is necessary to save the city’s drinking water.

The contaminated soil can be found right on the cusp of Los Alamos, in the area’s appropriately named Acid Canyon, where radioactive waste seeped into the land from 1943 to 1964.

‘We need to permanently protect precious, irreplaceable groundwater and the Rio Grande while providing high-paying cleanup jobs for decades,’ said Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch, in an email to Santa Fe New Mexican this past spring.

Pointing to maps showing the contaminated spots across an area of land, Coghlan asserted that there was proof a ‘genuine cleanup’ is needed. 

While the water in Santa Fe is still drinkable with its current levels of plutonium, Coghlan said the radioactive drinking water ‘should be of great concern to Northern New Mexicans’. 

In Santa Fe County, up to 3 picocuries per liter of plutonium were recorded in the water supply – twice the guideline set by the New Mexico Administrative Code, according to the outlet.

Nuclear Watch also compiled data plutonium contamination below the soil from 1992 and 2023 through plot points on a map.

Huge hot spots were found at dump sites of an old lab used for experiments. 

This, of course, was at Los Alamos’ National Laboratory, located a little more than a mile out of town, and one of 16 research and development sites used and owned by the United States Department of Energy. 

Contamination in surface water like streams and rivers has been traced back to places including the hiking trail Acid Canyon, where the lab discarded waste from 1943 to 1964.

Its past pollution could now be migrating down to the area’s unseen aquifer underground – likely bringing the pollutants across San Ildefonso Pueblo land and into the Rio Grande, Coghlan warned.

The river feeds into the Buckman Direct Diversion Project, a system of integrated infrastructure used to divert as much as 2.8 billion gallons of surface water to Santa Fe annually.

That water serves as nearly half of Santa Fe’s public drinking supply – a cause for concern, according to Coghlan.

Over the past 40 years, Santa Fe has seen its population almost double to roughly 90,000, leading it to earn the distinction of ‘boom town’ in a 2019 national survey.

In the years since, the city added roughly 5,000 residents, for an increase of about 6 percent as occupied homes and per capita income have also grown.

The news of Acid Canyon’s contamination comes almost 20 years after the Department of Energy and the University of California – the lab’s previous operator – made an agreement with the New Mexico Environment Department to clean up the contamination.

Spread out over decades, the efforts have so far been unsuccessful in remediating the fallout, data from Nuclear Watch shows – as the NMED seeks a full cleanup at one of the dump sites at a cost of over $800 million to protect Santa Fe’s drinking water.

As it stands, radiation levels are not high enough to hurt those walking the Acid Canyon trail, but Coghlan pointed out another danger that would happen if a fire broke out.

‘Were Acid Canyon to burn in a wildfire, and we know that threat is all too real, that could be dangerous in the form of respirable plutonium that is released to the air through wildfire,’ he said.

Warning the smoke inhaled could lead to lung cancer, Coghlan had his concerns echoed by the Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Northern Arizona University, Dr. Michael Ketterer.

‘I’m just trying to show New Mexicans what the truth is here,’ he said after collecting and analyzing plutonium samples from trailheads at Acid Canyon. ‘I see a lot of things to be concerned about here.’ 

We can’t really predict where it’s going to go and how bad it’s going to be,’ he continued, of the possibility of a fire creating deadly conditions in the area.

Surrounding communities could be at risk as well, including historic Santa Fe, as the shocking contamination data saw Ketterer question whether official warnings should be posted across the trail.

‘I’ve never seen anything quite like it in the United States,’ Ketterer. ‘This is an unrestricted area.’ 

He went on to compare radiation levels seen at the popular park to those at the site of the Soviet Union’s Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

‘It’s just an extreme example of very high concentrations of plutonium in soils and sediments,’ the biochemist said. ‘It’s hiding in plain sight.’

The biochemist also noted that high concentrations of plutonium in the canyon’s water posed wider environmental risks to communities and habitats downstream. 

‘Under monsoon storm flow conditions, Pu [plutonium] laden water and sediment flow through Acid Canyon and into Los Alamos Canyon and ultimately, the Rio Grande,’ he noted in a presentation for Nuclear Watch New Mexico.

Radioactive plutonium in ground water, Ketterer noted, can also be absorbed by plants where it enter the food chain via local veggie-eating herbivores, or spread as airborne ash following increasingly common wildfires. 

‘This is one of the most shocking things I’ve ever stumbled across in my life,’ the biochemist recently told The Guardian of the unsettling find.

Meanwhile, the cleanup of the lab’s Cold War sites is only half complete, the DOE reports. 

Should the department’s plans be finalized, all pits and shafts would be excavated and radioactive waste interred at Carlsbad’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

September 17, 2024 Posted by | water | Leave a comment

Alarm in UK and US over possible Iran-Russia nuclear deal

Britain and the US have raised fears that Russia has shared nuclear secrets
with Iran in return for Tehran supplying Moscow with ballistic missiles to
bomb Ukraine. During their summit in Washington DC on Friday, Keir Starmer
and US president Joe Biden acknowledged that the two countries were
tightening military cooperation at a time when Iran is in the process of
enriching enough uranium to complete its long-held goal to build a nuclear
bomb. British sources indicated that concerns were aired about Iran’s trade
for nuclear technology, part of a deepening alliance between Tehran and
Moscow.

Observer 14th Sept 2024

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/14/alarm-in-uk-and-us-over-possible-iran-russia-nuclear-deal

September 17, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Japan, to make the biggest mistake in history: nuclear energy with water, and risk of explosion

by Jessica A., 09/15/2024,  https://www.ecoticias.com/en/nuclear-energy-japan-hydrogen/6246/

Japan has a traumatic history with nuclear power, but that’s not stopping the country from taking new risks

The Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011 devastated Japan and left the rest of the world terrified of nuclear power. While it wasn’t as horrific as the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion of 1986, it still traumatized both the Japanese people and the government. Yet now, Japan is facing an energy crisis, and nuclear energy may be the only realistic solution.

Japan is one of the countries at the forefront of the green energy revolution. The Japanese government understands that solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy can only produce a portion of the fuel and electricity the country and the world need. Hydrogen will have to make up some of the difference in the industrial sector, for uses in shipping, aviation, and manufacturing. Japan wants to use next-generation nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen with zero emissions.

Next-generation nuclear reactors have lower energy outputs and marginally better safety records

To make hydrogen a viable option for industrial fuel needs, Japan plans to use nuclear reactors

Many companies are already producing hydrogen for the industrial sector, but they often use natural gas or fossil fuels to do it. These methods result in at least some greenhouse emissions, and Japan wants to have a zero-emissions hydrogen production process in place by 2040 to help meet the world’s energy needs.

Nuclear reactors seem to offer a good solution to this problem because they generate a lot of heat, and that heat can be used to break down water for hydrogen harvesting. Hydrogen is the only clean fuel that scientists know of that can power industrial shipping vessels, planes, and large machinery.

To avoid making the climate crisis worse, governments need to commit to making the production of hydrogen a green process, meaning releasing zero emissions. Japan is looking at innovative ways of designing nuclear reactors to keep them safe so that they can power homes and produce hydrogen.

September 17, 2024 Posted by | Japan, safety | Leave a comment

NuScale Power Is Great. Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Buy It.

The Motley Fool, By Reuben Gregg Brewer – Sep 14, 2024 

NuScale Power (SMR 12.17%) is at the leading edge of the nuclear power sector. It is doing great things and making important progress toward its goal of mass-producing small-scale modular nuclear reactors. In a world increasingly looking toward carbon-free energy sources, it is positioning itself well for a bright future. But it won’t be a good fit for every investor. Here’s why you might want to buy the stock and why you might not want to buy it.

NuScale is moving (slowly) toward the nuclear future

Today, nuclear reactors are giant infrastructure assets that cost huge sums of money to build and years of effort to get up and running. NuScale Power is working to upend that inefficient model by offering small, modular reactors that would be built in a factory and then delivered where they are needed.

If one reactor isn’t enough, they can be linked to create a larger reactor………….

Adding to the allure here is a balance sheet with zero debt and $136 million in cash. In other words, it is working from a strong financial position. Also, NuScale Power’s largest shareholder is Fluor (FLR 2.21%), a large construction company.

Clearly, Fluor has its own motives in backing NuScale, like supporting the growth of a new market (small-scale nuclear power plant construction), but it means that NuScale has a strong parent to help it along. That’s showing up right now, too, as a project from Fluor is going to help add revenue to NuScale’s earnings statement, helping the upstart nuclear power company pay for its own product development plans.

There are indeed some good reasons to like the future prospects for NuScale power, including that, as management likes to highlight, it is “the only SMR certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” So, it basically has a leg up on the competition right now.

NuScale Power comes with some big risks

Despite the positives, NuScale Power is not going to be a good fit for every investor. In fact, only aggressive types should really be looking at the stock today. There are a host of reasons.

For starters, NuScale Power’s product plans are approved by U.S. regulators, but not fully approved to the point where it can start building and selling units. So, there’s more work to be done before NuScale Power even has a product to sell. And while it has inked a tentative deal to sell its first units, it can’t actually do that yet. It has to spend even more money on the effort to get the final government nod to start building and delivering a product.

That, in turn, means more red ink. NuScale Power is basically still in start-up mode, so it isn’t unusual that more money would be going out the door than coming in. The revenue from the work with Fluor will help, but the income statement is likely to look ugly for years to come. That’s because it will still have to ramp up its production abilities even after it gets all the approvals it needs. All in all, NuScale Power has a great story, but that story is still in its early chapters.

NuScale Power is an acquired taste

To highlight the risks here, it helps to look at the stock price. Over the past year, the stock has gone from a low of roughly $2 per share to a high of just over $15, and it currently sits at around $7. If you can’t handle price swings like that, you definitely don’t want to own this nuclear power start-up.

That said, investors with a high tolerance for risk might be interested in NuScale power, given that it has achieved a great deal on its path to producing small-scale modular nuclear reactors. But for most investors, the risks are likely too great at this point in time to justify hitting the buy button. https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/09/14/nuscale-power-is-great-heres-why-you-shouldnt-buy/

September 17, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment