Measurement date December 13, 2017 Measurement of high doses
9 mcSv/h at 1 m above ground
15 mcSv/h at 0.5 m above ground
46 mcSv/h at 5cm above the ground
Conditions Snow, low winds, cold and radioactive!
Source; kienaiyoru To support this brave soul who is documenting the risk of radioactive hot sports that seem to be being ignored by the main stream media and in even in some academic circles, please subscribe to his you tube channel and click like; https://www.youtube.com/user/kienaiyoru/videos?disable_polymer=1
Image source; DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN EGYPT: FOCUS ON COASTAL RESOURCES AND THE NILE 2002 https://search.oecd.org/env/cc/33330510.pdf
Egypt is to receive the first tranche of Russia’s $25 billion loan for El Dabaa nuclear power plant in January 2018, the electricity ministry reported on Wednesday.
The loan will cover 85% of the total construction cost of the nuclear plant plant valued at $21 billion, as well as designs, safety and environmental studies, Daily News Egypt stated.
On Monday, Egypt and Russia signed the agreement of El Dabaa nuclear power project during the meeting of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Cairo.
The Russian state nuclear company Rosatom will implement the nuclear power project within 12 years.
The project comprises of four units with 1,200 megawatts each.
-Mubasher
http://noozz.com/russia-disburses-1st-tranche-of-el-dabaa-nuclear-power-plant-loan-next-january/
By Ismail Mudashir
The Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA) generated N490million as Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) in 11 months and spent N367million without approval of the National Assembly.
This was revealed by members of the Senate Committee on Petroleum (Upstream) when top management of the agency led by the Director General, Lawrence Dim appeared for budget defence.
The IGR, according to the committee chaired by Senator Tayo Alasoadura (APC, Ondo) was generated between January and November this year.
The senators said out of the N490m, the agency remitted only N122.6m to the Federation Account and spent the rest without budgetary provision.
A member of the committee, Senator Baba Kaka Garbai (APC, Borno) said the agency violated the country’s law by spending the money without approval of the National Assembly.
“You must have the approval of the National Assembly before spending the IGR. What you have done is an infraction of the law that provides that no money is spent without being appropriated for,” he said.
Committee chairman, Alasoadura demanded for the details of how the IGR was spent. “In preparing this, there is no key to show why 25 per cent is remitted and you did not show the balance. What did you do with the balance because it is not captured in the budget?
“I know what the law says but in preparing your budget, you should be explicit about why you remit only 25 per cent of your IGR. Where is the balance? Did we appropriate that money? We didn’t appropriate the money,” he said.
Responding, the DG said the law provides for the agency to spend 75 percent of the revenue for running of it day to day activities. He pledged to produce the details of how the IGR was spent.
Source: Xinhua| 2017-12-14 14:54:15|Editor: Chengcheng
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-12/14/c_136825750.htm
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 (Xinhua) — U.S. Congress took no action before a deadline on reimposing sanctions on Iran on Wednesday, leaving the landmark deal intact and letting U.S. President Donald Trump make a decision in January.
On Oct. 13, Trump announced that he had decided to decertify Iran’s compliance with the Iran nuclear deal reached in 2015, a move that did not pull the United States out of the deal but triggered a 60-day window for Congress to decide whether to reimpose nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, even it means violating the deal on the U.S. side.
In the past two months, Congress did not come up with any resolution to reimpose sanctions.
With no action from Congress, the ball was passed back to Trump, who should decide in mid-January if he would like to waive energy sanctions on Iran.
According to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INRA) passed by U.S. Congress in 2015, the Trump administration is required to recertify to Congress Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal every 90 days.
“There was actually no deadline to act by this week, as the administration did not ask that Congress introduce legislation to re-impose JCPOA-related sanctions,” claimed the White House Press Secretary Sandra Sanders at a Tuesday briefing, citing the deal by its formal title, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The Trump administration also expressed its intention to wait for another month before the president decides.
“I believe the next deadline comes up in January, so I don’t think that we would do anything prior to the deadline,” U.S. State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert said at a daily briefing on Wednesday.
The nuclear deal was reached between Iran and the six world powers of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States plus Germany in July 2015. So far, the deal has helped defuse the Iran nuclear crisis and bolstered the international non-proliferation regime.
During his speech in October, Trump blamed Iran for committing “multiple violations of the agreement” and “not living up to the spirit of the deal.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN watchdog tasked to monitor Iran’s nuclear activities, has certified eight times Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal.
SENATE committee on Upstream Petroleum yesterday rejected the 2018 budget proposals of Nigeria Nuclear Regulatory Authority, NNRA, for some inconsistencies dictated in the documents presented by the agency.
http://nigerianpilot.com/senate-rejects-nuclear-authoritys-2018-budget-proposal/
The committee, while reviewing the performance of the agency’s 2017 budget, discovered that the agency has been in the habit of generating money and spending same without due regard to National Assembly approval. It also noticed some discrepancies in the figures presented to the committee in addition to failure to furnish the committee with comparative budget analysis.
The chairman there and then directed the committee’s clerk to write to all MDAs that they must present the committee with comparative budget analysis of their 2018 budget before appearing before the committee to defend their budget” He insisted that any MDAs that appeared before the committee on budget defence without the comparative analysis would not be allowed to present their budget.
“So director, you have to take this 2018 budget proposal back and do the comparative analysis before bringing it back to us for consideration. The figures are there and any budget that has no comparative analysis would be difficult to consider. Without this essential component of the budget how do we move forward. Look at the salary you showed us. The salary last year was too much. You had a shortfall; you gave us a figure this year how do we compare it with what we had last year and there was a shortfall of over N400million,” he queried. “Do we have to go back to this one before we can refer it with this one with 2018.So please come back on Friday by 12noon with the entire requirement for the 2018 budget.”
Reacting to the NNRA 2017 budget, Senator Clifford Ordia (Edo Central) said,
“I want to believe that you deliberately did what you did because you didn’t want to be transparent. This is not the first time you are presenting a budget and you know what it entails.”
Contributing, Senator Gershom Bassey (Cross River South), who is the vice chairman of the committee, said,
“Here we have a case of constitution breach and I think we have to go into committee look at matter.”
Also, Senator Alasoaodura noted that
“our resolution is that you will have to furnish us with how you expended the N367million internally generated revenue without the National Assembly approval because what you did is against the law. Seconding you must project what you will expend this year and present to this committee to review and appropriate. This information would be forwarded to the Senate plenary for consideration. Internally generated revenue of Agencies of government must be presented to the senate for consideration. We frown on anybody generating money and spending it without presenting it to the parliament for appropriation. It is unconstitutional and we will not encourage it.”
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
December 14, 2017 at 15:10 JST
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201712140031.html
The landmark Hiroshima High Court ruling ordering a suspension of operations at the Ikata nuclear power plant will likely have far-reaching ramifications for Japan’s nuclear energy policy.
It zeroed in on an aspect that has long been an issue with the anti-nuclear lobby, the Ehime Prefecture plant’s proximity to an active volcano and the prospect of the facility being inundated in a pyroclastic flow if Kyushu’s Mount Aso, 130 or so kilometers away, blows its top.
Instead of considering the frequency of major eruptions in the area, the Dec. 13 ruling focused on a massive one 90,000 years ago and the possibility of a nuclear calamity occurring if a similar event occurred today.
The ruling, the first by a high court ordering a suspension of nuclear plant operations, is especially relevant because Japan has 111 active volcanoes that have erupted in the past 10,000 years.
While massive eruptions are rare, occurring in general once every 10,000 years, all it takes is one to trigger destruction on an unimaginable scale.
Aso has had four massive eruptions in the last 300,000 years, the most recent occurring 90,000 years ago that triggered a pyroclastic flow that tossed magma and volcanic rocks over the Kanmon Straits separating Kyushu and Honshu into Yamaguchi Prefecture.
The last major volcanic eruption in Japan occurred roughly 7,300 years ago on the seabed south of Kyushu, devastating the southernmost main island where Jomon Pottery Culture (c. 8,000 B.C.-300 B.C.) was thriving.
The government, which was caught off-guard by the Hiroshima ruling, no doubt will pay close attention to future court rulings at that level because other nuclear power plants are situated at distances similar to that between the Ikata plant and Aso.
For example, the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors of the Sendai nuclear plant in Kagoshima Prefecture that are currently operating are located within a 160-kilometer radius of the Aso caldera, as are the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors of the Genkai nuclear plant in Saga Prefecture that Kyushu Electric Power Co. hopes to bring back online next spring.
Kyushu Electric said it maintains close monitoring of seismic movements in the area caused by the rumblings of five volcanoes and is confident it will detect any signs of a possible huge eruption.
However, experts scoff at the notion on grounds that it is almost impossible to accurately predict the timing and scale of such an event. They also note that Japan has no practical experience in dealing with a massive eruption.
That said, the Japan Meteorological Agency monitors 50 active volcanoes around the clock.
Yoshiyuki Tatsumi, a professor of planetology at Kobe University, said, “Under the current setup of observing (volcanic) quakes and crustal movement, it is impossible to predict the scale of any eruption.”
The groundbreaking Hiroshima court ruling took the government by surprise.
Hiroshige Seko, the economy minister and a champion of nuclear power generation, asserts that the safety standards implemented by the Nuclear Regulation Agency in the aftermath of the 2011 nuclear disaster are “the highest in the world.”
Five reactors that passed the NRA’s more stringent screening have resumed operations since the Fukushima accident.
But the Hiroshima High Court said the NRA’s decision to allow the Ikata plant to resume operations was “not rational” in light of the facility’s location and the danger of a catastrophe occurring if Mount Aso erupts like it did 90,000 years ago.
Although Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga made clear at a Dec. 13 news conference that the government would closely abide by future decisions by the NRA, he was painfully rattled by the thought that the court ruling could sow further doubts among the public about the safety of nuclear plants, especially those located near volcanoes.
The government has set a goal of raising the ratio of electricity generated by nuclear power to between 20 and 22 percent of the nation’s overall needs by fiscal 2030. That would mean resuming operations at about 30 nuclear power plants.
However, utilities are already facing mind-boggling expenses just to meet the tougher safety standards. If they now have to brace for the possibility of being ordered by courts to halt their nuclear plant operations, the burden on private companies could become too much.
“Nuclear power generation is now impossible for a private-sector company because the risks are just too great,” said an executive of an electric power company.
(This article was compiled from reports by Shigeko Segawa, a senior staff writer, Chikako Kawahara and Tsuneo Sasai.)
Leave it to Japan to promote the produce from the Fukushima region by serving it to the Organizing Committee of both the Olympics and Paralympics, and planning to serve nothing but Fukushima-area food to the athletes in 2020. No testing for radiation contamination, just a PR blitz to convince everyone that there ain’t nothing wrong with food grown in a radiation contamination area.
Source for podcast interview and news (1 hr)
David Davis has stated that although there is no ‘systematic impact assessment’ of Britain leaving the European Union, the UK government has produced a ‘sectoral analysis’ of several industries. Joshua McMullan writes that one sector where it would be wise to examine the impact of leaving without any negotiated arrangement would be the nuclear power industry as the UK leaves Euratom. He highlights some potential foundations for a future agreement between the two.
As Britain leaves the European Union through the Article 50 process, it also signalled that it would leave Euratom, the European nuclear regulator, when it leaves in March 2019. However, several MPs and prominent Vote Leave officials, such as Dominic Cummings, have criticised the government’s plans to leave the organisation as a ‘huge misjudgement.’ The government have responded to these claims by producing the Nuclear materials and safeguards issues position paper. However, the position paper does not set out any of the details by which the UK government will ensure the ‘smooth transition to a UK nuclear safeguards regime, with no interruption in safeguards arrangements’.
In fact, it does little more than set out why the UK government believes it is within the interest of both parties to continue co-operation – something that has not satisfied those objecting to Britain’s exit from Euratom. Perhaps it is worth noting that this highly technical policy sector was a salient concern for remainers and leavers alike, but highlights how complex and multifaceted the process of disengaging from the EU, and its various associated institutions is. Yet there are solutions outside of the narrow mindsets of vague position papers and membership of Euratom, people just need to look back into the past relationship between Euratom and the UK.
Most of the discourse so far has centred around the possibility of an association agreement between the UK and Euratom, a solution which many believe will provide the stability and certainty that the industry so desperately needs. However, as Dan Phinnemore and Stuart Butler rightly point out in their respective articles, this is not a credible solution.
Firstly, there is currently no such thing as Associate Membership of Euratom. There are ‘Co-operation Agreements’ that exist between Switzerland and Euratom and Article 342 of the Ukraine Association Agreement that provides for extensive co-operation. Nonetheless, these are not association agreements and would not cover the level of co-operation that the UK requires. It would also potentially mean the involvement of the ECJ, a red line in the Brexit negotiations. Then there is the issue of history, I am referring to the difficult and complicated nature of negotiating with the Community, exemplified best by the rejection of UK EEC membership twice and the difficulty in renegotiating membership as David Cameron found out in 2016. Yet, despite this complication, an answer may yet lie in the agreements signed after 1959 leading up to the UK becoming a full member of Euratom in 1973.
Too often do politicians and commentators on all sides forget to study their history. In this case, it would be prudent for UK officials seeking to find an answer to this problem to examine the 1959 Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. This agreement stated the ‘mutual desire for close co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy’, and this was before the UK applied to join Euratom formally in 1962.
The agreement covers several areas, including research as covered by Article I through to VIII. As well as Articles IX through to XII, that deal with the supply and use of materials and fuel needed for the research and production of nuclear energy. Although this treaty alone is not sufficient to just copy and paste to the present, it does show two vital points. First, it is a historical precedent for UK-Euratom relations which does not involve the UK being a part of Euratom. Secondly and most crucially, it can provide the foundations for future negotiations with Euratom.
Indeed, there are three other such UK-Euratom agreements between 1963 and 1973, these all show the potential for continued and fruitful relations between the two. The first in March 1963, two months after the British application to join the EEC was vetoed by France, was a contract which saw Britain supply France, the same country that two months before vetoed the UK’s entry into the EEC with plutonium oxide. In November 1964, another contract was signed for the UK to supply France with 45kg of plutonium.
Finally, in March 1965, the UK Atomic Authority signed an agreement with Euratom on the full exchange of information in the field of fast reactor physics. These contracts and agreements, made in a time of strained relations between the UK and primarily France, show that not only is nuclear co-operation with the continent outside of Euratom possible, it is also advisable for both parties to make such arrangements. The same is true today with the UK still being the major reprocessing centre for nuclear waste across the continent.
Of course, these treaties alone are not the basis for our future relationship with Euratom; the world we live in today is vastly different to what it was in the 1960s and our nuclear industry is not the size it once was. These old agreements do not cover medical isotopes at all, or nuclear safety regulations to the extent it is now. However, the very existence of these old treaties shows that new agreements that would include medical isotopes can be made.
The time between the original 1959 agreement, the suspension of the application to Euratom and then the new contracts shows that such agreements can take place if the political will is present. This is before we even begin to consider the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency has with nuclear power station inspections or the Nuclear Energy Agency, formerly the European Atomic Energy Agency, has in ensuring the safe running of nuclear reactors and the spread of research to member states. There is also something to be said for the role of private industry in finding practical solutions to the continued safety and commercial success of Britain’s nuclear power industry.
It is politically unfeasible for the government to withdraw the Article 106a notification, without it raising questions about the possibility of withdrawing the notification of Article 50 due it being mentioned in the Article 50 letter of notification. Furthermore, ECJ jurisdiction over Euratom, something that crosses one of the Prime Ministers “red lines”, regardless of whether this is right or wrong, would mean that the government would still seek to leave Euratom even if it was possible to withdraw Article 106a. Rather than continue this endless circle of debate, let’s put pressure on Parliament, not just the negotiators to use historical inspiration to be inventive, and resolve this crisis. The 1959 agreement alone would be a strong foundation, something that can be built on over time.
Finding a solution to this problem is vital for the industry. Euratom is part of the global network of agencies which seek to maintain the effectiveness of nuclear power to provide energy for the future, particularly in the climate of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. Regardless of how the UK government eventually resolves this, perhaps self-inflicted dilemma, negotiators and officials would do well to read up on their history. Not only would it help with Euratom, it could just help David Davis with his impact assessments by understanding what the situation was before joining the Community in 1973. It might just save them a whole lot of trouble.
Note: This article originally appeared at our sister site, LSE Brexit. It gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics.
https://european.economicblogs.org/lse/2017/team-avoiding-nuclear-meltdown-euratom
Dec. 13, 2017, at 11:56 a.m.
(Reuters) – New York’s power grid operator said on Wednesday the state should have enough electricity after the closure of two reactors at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in 2020 and 2021, as new sources of mostly natural gas-fired generation enter service.
In a report, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), which operates the state’s power grid, said the system would remain reliable during the five-year period (2018-2023) it studied.
Entergy Corp said in January it would shut the two reactors at its 2,069-megawatt Indian Point station for economic and other reasons as cheap gas prices from nearby shale formations like the Marcellus in Pennsylvania have driven down power prices.
The NYISO said it expected at least three large gas-fired power plants currently under construction to enter service over the next few years, including a 120-MW addition to the Bayonne Energy Center in New Jersey, Competitive Power Ventures’ 678-MW Valley Energy Center in New York and Advanced Power Services’ 1,020-MW Cricket Valley Energy Center in New York.
One megawatt can power about 1,000 U.S. homes.
The Bayonne plant is tied into New York City’s power grid. It is owned by Macquarie Infrastructure Corp, part of the family of companies overseen by Australian investment bank Macquarie Group Ltd.
(Reporting by Scott DiSavino; Editing by David Gregorio)
Joseph Flaig
The government must identify new sites for nuclear power stations and help quicken the approval of reactors to help the sector thrive, a report has said.
The IMechE report, Nuclear Power: A Future Pathway for the UK, says the government should hold an independent review of the Generic Design Assessment process, a necessary step for the approval of any reactor in the UK. The review is needed to prevent unnecessary costs and enable the faster approval of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), the IMechE report said.
Other “key actions” include adding nuclear construction skills to the shortage occupation list ahead of Brexit – allowing experienced workers from overseas to enter the UK – and running a new Strategic Siting Assessment to identify further nuclear sites beyond Hinkley Point C’s potential completion in 2025, including locations for SMRs.
“The delays and escalating costs of the Hinkley Point C project have provoked a public backlash in recent years against nuclear power,” said Jenifer Baxter, lead author of the report and head of energy and environment at the IMechE. “Yet as a reliable and relatively low-carbon source of electricity, it makes sense for nuclear to form a greater part of the UK’s future energy mix, reducing our reliance on coal and gas.”
The key challenge to the nuclear sector is reducing costs and delays, she said. An independent review of the assessment process will make it easier to approve SMRs and ensure unnecessary costs are not incurred, she added. “SMRs present a lower-cost option, with comparatively straightforward construction and, potentially, a more attractive investment proposition than conventional larger-scale nuclear plants.”
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been contacted for comment.
Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
The UK Government has launched a consultation on the process and criteria for designating potentially suitable sites for new nuclear post 2025.
They would include new nuclear power stations with more than 1GW of single reactor electricity generating capacity for deployment between 2026 and 2035.
The government’s current nuclear power National Policy Statements (NPS) lists eight sites as potentially suitable for new nuclear plants by the end of 2025 – Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, Sellafield, Sizewell, Bradwell, Oldbury, Hartlepool and Heysham.
It is seeking views on potential new sites from industry, local authorities, regulators and non-departmental public bodies, NGOs and local residents as well as a new NPS.
BEIS said: “The need for the UK to continue its efforts in transitioning to a low carbon electricity market is underlined by the 2015 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement. The government is therefore of the view that new nuclear power is important in making the transition to a low carbon economy.
“Therefore, it is important that there is a strong pipeline of new nuclear power to contribute to the UK’s energy mix and security of supply in the future.”
The consultation will run until 15th March 2018.
http://www.energylivenews.com/2017/12/14/uk-consults-on-process-for-potential-new-1gw-nuclear-sites/
CBC News Posted: Dec 13, 2017 9:27 PM ET
Essex MPP Taras Natyshak and Amherstburg fire officials held a press conference at Queen’s Park Wednesday to demand the provincial government provide more support for Ontario towns near U.S. nuclear plants.
The call for action came after a recent report by Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk said Ontario’s emergency response for nuclear disasters is not good enough.
Amherstburg is about 16 kilometres from the Fermi II Nuclear plant in Michigan, yet it does not received the same level of support as communities near Canadian nuclear generating stations, according to Lysyk, including thyroid blocking pills, practice tests and emergency management.
No nuclear protection in Amherstburg
“Local leaders have been speaking out for years, calling for the Liberal government to finally wake up and realize that they are leaving southwestern Ontario municipalities to fend for themselves should catastrophe strike,” said Natyshak. “It’s time for the Wynne government to finally take responsibility for emergency management and provide southwestern Ontario communities with the support they need.”
Amherstburg gets $25,000 annually from Detroit, Mich.-based DTE Energy Co. which goes directly to a nuclear management program, funding things like the town’s siren notification system.
Amherstburg Fire Chief Bruce Montone said the fire department receives no money from the Ontario government to be used for nuclear emergency preparedness. (Chris Ensing/CBC)
“We get nothing from Ontario,” Montone previously told CBC News, adding that communities near nuclear power plants located in Ontario receive more than $100,000 a year in funding from the provincial government.
“We are not nearly as prepared as we need to be.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/nuclear-support-natyshak-amherstburg-1.4447775
A Japanese court overturned a ruling that allowed a nuclear reactor in the country’s south to operate, frustrating the government’s push to bring online dozens of plants shut in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
The decision by the Hiroshima High Court, which cited risks from nearby volcanoes, sides with local citizens and reverses a lower court’s ruling that had cleared the way for Shikoku Electric Power Co. to operate its Ikata No. 3 unit, according to an emailed statement Wednesday from the company. The reactor, which restarted last year under stricter safety regulations, has been shut for maintenance and was scheduled to restart on Jan. 20.
Shikoku Electric fell as much as 11 percent in Tokyo, the biggest decline in more than four years, before paring the drop to 8.3 percent.
The injunction issued by the court is a blow to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s goal of having nuclear power account for as much as 22 percent of the nation’s electricity mix by 2030. Public opposition through local courts and municipal governments has emerged as one of the biggest obstacles to that plan. Just four of Japan’s 42 operable nuclear reactors are currently online.
The ruling was the first time a high court in Japan has overturned a lower court on the issue of nuclear restarts since the Fukushima disaster. A district court in Hiroshima sided with the utility in March in deciding not to issue a temporary injunction.
Shikoku called Wednesday’s ruling “unacceptable” and said it will try to get it reversed. The injunction is effective through Sept. 30, 2018, according to court documents.
The Hiroshima High Court said risks from volcanoes weren’t being “rationally evaluated” by the Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority. The agency declined to comment because it wasn’t involved in the court case.
12 December 2017 https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/12/12/tests-reveal-crack-key-component-chinese-nuclear-power-plant-130km-west-hong-kong/
A component of Taishan nuclear power plant – which sits 130km west of Hong Kong – cracked during performance tests amid safety concerns about further delays, FactWire has learnt from multiple reliable sources.
State-owned China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) entered a joint venture with French utility Électricité de France (EDF) and began building the plant in 2009, but its completion has been repeatedly delayed.
CGN Power, a Hong Kong-listed subsidiary of CGN, has previously said in an operational briefing document and the 2017 interim report that Taishan Unit 1 had entered the stage of hot functional testing and would be ready for commercial operation by the end of 2017.
However, a “boiler” in Unit 1 appeared to have cracked during functional testing and must be replaced, according to a nuclear plant employee.
He also told FactWire undercover reporters when they visited the site last month that representatives from Harbin Electric, the Chinese manufacturer of the “boiler,” came to the plant for a week in late October to discuss with the plant operator, Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture, a plan to replace the faulty part.
The “boiler” device is used to create steam by adding heat energy to water. Several components of the nuclear reactors in Taishan fit this definition, including reactor pressure vessels, steam generators, moisture separator reheaters, low pressure heaters, high pressure heaters and deaerators. Only the deaerator was produced in Harbin.
As a key component and a secondary coolant loop equipment, a deaerator removes dissolved oxygen by adding heat to water. The deaerated water then travels to the steam generator and be compressed into high-pressure steam, which can used to generate electricity.
According to documents from CGN, the deaerator of Taishan Unit 1 is 46.6 metres in length and 4.76 metres in diameter. It was broken into three smaller parts for shipment and then assembled on site by welding them together. It also needs to go through a waterproof test to ensure there are no cracks or water leaks before it goes into operation.
In 2008, a consortium of Dongfang Electric and French manufacturer Alstom won a contract to supply several components for Taishan Unit 1. The consortium then subcontracted the manufacturing of the deaerator to Harbin Boiler, a subsidiary of Hong Kong-listed Harbin Electric. General Electric acquired Alstom’s power and grid businesses in 2015.
Last week, a Dongfang Electric engineer also confirmed to FactWire that the deaerator was supplied by Harbin Electric and the welding on the deaerator was “problematic.”
The National Nuclear Safety Administration of China stipulates that a nuclear plant must seek permission from the agency before loading fuel assemblies to conduct tests. But public records show that Taishan Unit 1 has yet to receive such a permit.
CGN, Dongfang Electric, General Electric, Harbin Boiler and Harbin Electric did not respond to FactWire’s requests for comment.
Part 3 – Exactly a year ago I found a heavily censored story and did 3 posts that got little attention but is relevant to this months theme on nuclear weapons proliferation using low technology techniques that are being planned to be built by ISIS (or whatever their new re branding is)
From Google translate
New Delhi, January 4: the impregnable fortress on the occasion of the Republic Day in New Delhi l President from becoming prime minister, foreign dignitaries, including the countries that are protected, to begin preparations for the Republic Day Parade l Army during the attack of any sort is not so, for final l warn army
Republic Day in Delhi Police has trained l Air Force aerial attacks of any kind, so that the police can handle initially, he has been training for l On the other hand, a special force for the first time can be seen in the Republic Day parade chemical hamalarodhaka l for any kind of chemical attack If the order is given up, it will be prepared for the disaster due to the force of the l mokabilakari force (NDRF) A team with more than 90 people CBRN- day stay at l
Sources…
View original post 1,054 more words
19 February – VIRTUAL EVENT-Decision Time: AI and Our Nuclear Arsenal
12:45 p.m. Central / 1:45 p.m. Eastern
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
nuclear-news 