nuclear-news

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

Rolls Royce largely getting out of the nuclear industry

Times 3rd March 2019 Rolls-Royce is selling the vast bulk of its civil nuclear business, dealing a new blow to efforts to rebuild Britain’s atomic power industry. The FTSE 100 engineer has hired consultants from KPMG to find a buyer for the
nuclear division, which could fetch up to £200m.

The move marks the end of an era for the country’s premier engineering company, which has more than 50 years’ expertise in nuclear power but is being slimmed down by chief executive Warren East to focus on jet engines, power generators and defence. The nuclear business makes instruments and controls to monitor radiation and temperature and prevent reactors overheating. Its equipment is installed in more than 200 reactors around the world, and it has a big presence in France, where it works with the state-backed engineering firm Orano , [formerly Areva, which went bankrupt]

Rolls-Royce’s retreat from civil nuclear work reflects the industry’s broader problems. Plans for new power stations in Britain have been left in tatters after the Japanese industrial giants Toshiba and Hitachi withdrew, leaving just Hinkley Point in Somerset under way.

The Japanese exit has triggered an inquiry by the Commons business committee into future investment in energy infrastructure. The sale will not include Rolls-Royce’s work on Hinkley Point, which is ringfenced, the company’s
project to develop small reactors or its nuclear submarine reactor business.

Rolls-Royce has been in talks to install its equipment at a plant in Essex planned by China General Nuclear, to help assuage security concerns. This work is likely to be transferred to the new owner. Sources said the business, which has more than 1,000 staff, was likely to go to a trade buyer. A Chinese deal is unlikely.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/rolls-royce-to-offload-civil-nuclear-unit-zsq59zlmm

March 4, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

U.S. army wants risky small modular nuclear reactors

The Army wants mobile nuclear reactors for FOBs, but some scientists say that’s ‘naive’, Army Times By: Todd South  3 Marc 19, The Army wants to bring back mobile nuclear reactors to power forward bases and is asking industry how to make that happen.

A collection of scientists that closely monitor nuclear issues thinks that the concept is “naive,” dangerous and describes the chances for the current technology to accomplish what the Pentagon wants as “vanishingly small.”

In January, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office posted a request for information on the government website fbo.gov asking for information from industry on how companies might provide a less than 40-ton small mobile nuclear reactor design, capable of operating for three years or more and putting out 1 to 10 megawatts of power.

Dubbed “Project Dilithium,” a nod to the fictional dilithium crystal, a fuel source that powered warp drives in the Star Trek films and television series…….

But Edwin Lyman, acting director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the Army’s own study showed the devices would “not be expected to survive a direct kinetic attack.”

Lyman acknowledges the Army’s need to save fuel, reduce convoys and transports and minimize attacks on those elements of the force. But, he also argues that adding reactors to the battlefield could create more problems than it solves.

In a lengthy response to the program posted on the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists website, Lyman outlines the scientific, safety and policy problems with developing and deploying a small mobile nuclear reactor.

But he closes with his analysis that the nuclear ambitions of the ground forces are part of a “patient, decade-long effort by nuclear lobbyists” aimed at gaining the interest of both the Pentagon and Congress to be “the savior small nuclear reactor vendors need: deep-pocketed and unbeholden to return-seeking investors.”

He implores defense officials to “pull the plug on this misguided effort.” ……….

The Army Nuclear Power Program, which ran from 1954 to 1977, developed eight small nuclear reactors. Those reactors ranged in power production from 1 to 10 megawatts.

How five of the eight reactors were used:

  • The PM-1 reactor was used in Sundance, Wyoming, from 1962 to 1968.
  • The PM-2A was used at Camp Century, Greenland, from 1961 to 1964.
  • The PM-3A was used at McMurdo Base, Antarctica, from 1962 to 1972.
  • The ML-1 was used in developmental testing from 1962 to 1966.
  • The MH-1A Panama Canal Zone from 1965 to 1977.

Lyman notes a major failure with one of the original eight designs in 1961 when a core meltdown and explosion of the ML-1 reactor in Idaho killed three operators.

The three deployed to Antarctica, Greenland and Alaska proved “unreliable and expensive to operate,” Lyman wrote.

The idea was resurrected by the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014, in which Congress asked for a report on a “small modular reactor” to power forward or remote operating bases.

A Defense Science Board task force then published a detailed report in 2016 outlining the power requirements that could be met with such hardware. Last year, the Army’s deputy chief of staff, G-4, published a 148-page study on the use of mobile nuclear power plants for ground operations, adopting the recommendations of the 2016 Defense Science Board and further advocating, as the board did, that the Army manage ground nuclear reactor programs and pursue existing or near-to-maturity technologies.

Last year’s Army G-4 report outlined a dozen existing locations that officials think could have power provided by the type of mobile reactor they’re seeking:

March 4, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, spinbuster, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Santee Cooper continues search for new owner after failed nuclear project

https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/berkeley-county-news/santee-cooper-continues-search-for-new-owner-after-failed-nuclear-project/1820291050 MONCKS CORNER, SC – A special legislative committee is looking into what to do with state-owned utility, Santee Cooper.

The company is in billions of dollars in debt because of the failed nuclear reactor project in Fairfield County.

The State newspaper reports that this week the committee authorized co-chairmen State Senator Paul Campbell of Charleston and State Representative Murrell Smith of Sumter to hire an outside consultant.

That hire will eventually evaluate bids to buy Santee Cooper and negotiate with those potential buyers.

March 2, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Radiation in a crematorium traced back to a human body

It wasn’t enough radiation to be alarming, but it could be a sign of an ongoing problem The Verge By Rachel Becker  Feb 26, 2019, 1A crematorium in Arizona became contaminated with radiation when workers cremated a man who had received radiation treatments for cancer right before he died, a new study reports. The findings highlight a potential safety gap for crematory workers, who might not know what’s in the body they’re cremating.

In this case, the radiation in the crematorium wasn’t significant enough to be worrying for the crematory worker’s health, according to a study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But the study also found clues that exposure to radioactive compounds from medical treatments may be an ongoing safety risk for crematory workers……..

It’s not an easy problem to fix. Manufacturers provide detailed instructions for handling the drug with patients who are alive, but not for ones that have died, Yu says. “It presents a unique safety challenge.” Detecting radioactive materials is more complicated than running a Geiger counter over the body. And there aren’t any federal regulations for what to do with a radiation-treated body, Yu says, so the laws change from state to state. ……https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/26/18241402/radiation-crematorium-arizona-radiopharmaceuticals-cancer-body-lutetium

March 2, 2019 Posted by | employment, radiation, USA | Leave a comment

A new moral low – Trump Selling Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia

Trump Selling Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia Is a New Moral Low,  Inderjeet Parmar, The Wire, 27 Feb 19

In doing so, he has declared the return of great power global rivalries, with China and Russia as the biggest threats to US power.

The Trump administration’s plan to sell nuclear technologies to the Saudi Arabian regime is a case study in the decay of American imperial power, the essential corruption of the Trump White House and the self-serving and reckless character of the military-industrial complex. After two years of this administration, it is shocking, if unsurprising, that President Trump shows flagrant disregard for the law, is hypocritical with regard to his claimed desire to ‘drain the swamp’ of big money lobbying and is enabling the intensified militarisation of great power geopolitical rivalries.

In so doing, Trump has accelerated longer-term trends begun under successive previous presidents since the end of Second World War. He has declared the return of great power global rivalries, with China and Russia as the biggest threats to US power.

But Trump is not alone in this drive to further destabilisation: the Saudis have also shortlisted Russia, China, France and South Korea to bid for nuclear contracts. Russia has already signed nuclear power agreements or understandings with Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. And China’s Belt and Road Initiative features plans to build nuclear plants in dozens of countries on the Silk Road; China has signed nuclear cooperation agreements with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Armenia and the UK.

There have been reports that Russian and Chinese firms would cooperate with other states’ nuclear plans in West Asia, including Trump’s, but that Obama-era US sanctions on Russia stood in the way. If taken seriously by the numerous investigating bodies focused on the Trump White House, this may well prove to be a key driver of Trump’s relatively non-hostile rhetoric towards President Putin.

But this ramped up cooperative competition for markets and contracts, and other pending arms deals, may also explain the immediate reasons why the Republican president ignored CIA intelligence that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had ordered and directed the killing and dismemberment of regime critic and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

The gruesome killing of the journalist – a member of Trump’s “enemy of the people” fake media, as opposed to his supporters at Fox News – could hardly be expected to hold up the brutal jockeying for advantage in the world’s most volatile – and tragic – region.

An interim report by the Democrat Elijah Cummings-chaired House Committee on Oversight and Reform, based largely on credible whistleblower accounts – including emails and other documents from within the White House itself – suggests that Trump and his trusted lieutenants, in particular, Jared Kushner, regardless of legal advice to the contrary, are finalising plans that may violate the Atomic Energy Act 1954, which provides powers to Congress to oversee the sale and use of nuclear technologies……..

Conflicts of interest abound in this matter. Trump acolytes are looking to make billions of dollars by winning fees, commissions and contracts in Saudi Arabia. What is sold as an attempt to make Saudi Arabia less reliant on fossil fuels for revenues, and more secure against regional powers like Iran and Syria, appears to be a rather unsubtle money grab. At the centre of the controversy is IP3 International, a firm whose leadership reads like the membership list of the morally and intellectually bankrupt military-industrial complex. Its name, according to its website, is an abbreviation for ‘international peace, power and prosperity’.  

Before digging a little deeper into IP3 International, it’s worth looking at where within the Trump camp this scheme originated and developed. Retired General Michael Flynn’s name is all over this plan. His Flynn Intel Group consultancy is closely linked with IP3 International’s plan to build dozens of nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia and across the Gulf states. Flynn pushed the Saudi plan before and after the 2016 election, once he was named national security adviser and even after he had been dismissed for lying about his discussions with the Russian ambassador about US sanctions; he’s currently awaiting sentencing for lying to the FBI, among other things.

Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, troubleshooter and West Asia peace envoy, has been praising and protecting the Saudi crown prince as some sort of Kemal Ataturk-like visionary set to drag the kingdom and the region into the 21st century. Kushner has links with Westinghouse Electric Company – a nuclear services breakaway from the original Westinghouse Electric Corporation – and its current major shareholder, Brook Asset Management, which is closely linked with IP3 International.

Trump’s inauguration lead and close confidant, Tom Barrack, was reported by the New York Times as having raised investments topping $7 billion since Trump’s nomination, with a quarter of that deriving from the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Barrack justified his and the Trump administration’s business dealings with Saudi Arabia by praising the economic vision of the kingdom’s “young, brilliant new leader”. He justified the killing of Khashoggi thus: “Whatever happened in Saudi Arabia, the atrocities in America are equal or worse than the atrocities in Saudi Arabia.” Skullduggery, falsehood and self-interest justified by a self-serving admission of truth, while Trump’s brutal anti-immigrant policies and defence of police killings continue apace.

IP3 International and Flynn Intel Group are core drivers of the programme, as are ACU Strategic Partners – a nuclear power consultancy led by Alex Copson, who was advised by Michael Flynn; and Colony NorthStar, Tom Barrack’s real estate investment firm.

IP3 International’s leadership team is almost a case study of the military-industrial complex. Of its leadership team of 21, there are five retired US generals and four retired US Navy admirals. Among its three co-founders are General John ‘Jack’ Keane and Robert ‘Bud’ McFarlane. An architect of Reagan’s Star Wars nuclear programme, McFarlane is a convicted felon from the Iran-Contra scandal – found guilty of illegally selling arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war to illegally fund the Contras fighting the revolutionary-democratic Sandinista administration in Nicaragua. Congress had banned US aid to the Contras at the time. McFarlane spends some of his time promoting US wars via the Committee on the Present Danger. He is a non-executive director of the British military corporation Aegis Defence Services, which has ‘offices’ across West Asia.

General Keane retired from the military in 2003, became an analyst with Fox News and advised on the US occupation of Iraq. He was an architect, along with Fred Kagan, of the murderous 2007 “surge” in Iraq. Keane is a director of General Dynamics, consultant-advisor for the Erik Prince-founded private military company Blackwater, now called Academi, and executive chair of the Humvee manufacturer AM General.

Finally, ambassador Denis Ross is on IP3 International’s advisory board. Ross, a Democrat, has faithfully served American imperial power for decades – under both Republican and Democratic presidents. IP3 International opens its coffers and serves both parties. Ross is an arch-Zionist, indeed named as such in Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby as a key supporter of AIPAC. He advised Hillary Clinton on West Asian affairs, and considers the Saudi crown prince a true “revolutionary”……….

Kushner heads off to West Asia in the final days of this month to continue discussions on the nuclear programmes. President Trump is reported to have attended a meeting on February 12 at the White House with private nuclear corporations including Westinghouse, General Electric, and AECOM, “led by General Keane… ,” according to the congressional report.

The military-industrial complex has made the US government and geopolitical interests inseparable from their own personal and corporate interests. A remarkable March 4, 2017 email from McFarlane to the National Security Council’s Derek Harvey, titled “We’re Very Close to Losing Our Position in the Middle East” and reproduced in the House committee’s interim report, makes this all too clear……..https://thewire.in/world/trump-selling-nuclear-technology-to-saudi-arabia-is-a-new-moral-low

February 28, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Danger signs in Trump and co’s continuing push to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia

Why proposals to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia raise red flags, The Conversation,  Chen Kane,Director, Middle East Nonproliferation Program, Middlebury, February 23, 2019 According to a congressional report, a group that includes former senior U.S. government officials is lobbying to sell nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. As an expert focusing on the Middle East and the spread of nuclear weapons, I believe these efforts raise important legal, economic and strategic concerns.

It is understandable that the Trump administration might want to support the U.S. nuclear industry, which is shrinking at home. However, the congressional report raised concerns that the group seeking to make the sale may have have sought to carry it out without going through the process required under U.S. law. Doing so could give Saudi Arabia U.S. nuclear technology without appropriate guarantees that it would not be used for nuclear weapons in the future.

A competitive global market

Exporting nuclear technology is lucrative, and many U.S. policymakers have long believed that it promotes U.S. foreign policy interests. However, the international market is shrinking, and competition between suppliers is stiff.

Private U.S. nuclear companies have trouble competing against state-supported international suppliers in Russia and China. These companies offer complete construction and operation packages with attractive financing options. Russia, for example, is willing to accept spent fuel from the reactor it supplies, relieving host countries of the need to manage nuclear waste. And China can offer lower construction costs.

Saudi Arabia declared in 2011 that it planned to spend over US$80 billion to construct 16 reactors, and U.S. companies want to provide them. Many U.S. officials see the decadeslong relationships involved in a nuclear sale as an opportunity to influence Riyadh’s nuclear future and preserve U.S. influence in the Saudi kingdom.

Why does Saudi Arabia want nuclear power?

With the world’s second-largest known petroleum reserves, abundant untapped supplies of natural gas and high potential for solar energy, why is Saudi Arabia shopping for nuclear power? Some of its motives are benign, but others are worrisome. ………..

US nuclear trade regulations

Under the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, before American companies can compete to export nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, Washington and Riyadh must conclude a nuclear cooperation agreement, and the U.S. government must submit it to Congress. Unless Congress adopts a joint resolution within 90 days disapproving the agreement, it is approved. The United States currently has 23 nuclear cooperation agreements in force, including Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt (approved in 1981), Turkey (2008) and the United Arab Emirates (2009).

The Atomic Energy Act requires countries seeking to purchase U.S. nuclear technology to make legally binding commitments that they will not use those materials and equipment for nuclear weapons, and to place them under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It also mandates that the United States must approve any uranium enrichment or plutonium separation activities involving U.S. technologies and materials, in order to prevent countries from diverting them to weapons use.

American nuclear suppliers claim that these strict conditions and time-consuming legal requirements put them at a competitive disadvantage. But those conditions exist to prevent countries from misusing U.S. technology for nuclear weapons. I find it alarming that according to the House report, White House officials may have attempted to bypass or sidestep these conditions – potentially enriching themselves in the process.

According to the congressional report, within days of President Trump’s inauguration, senior U.S. officials were promoting an initiative to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, without either concluding a nuclear cooperation agreement and submitting it to Congress or involving key government agencies, such as the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. One key advocate for this so-called “Marshall Plan” for nuclear reactors in the Middle East was then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who reportedly served as an adviser to a subsidiary of IP3, the firm that devised this plan, while he was advising Trump’s presidential campaign.

The promoters of the plan also reportedly proposed to sidestep U.S. sanctions against Russia by partnering with Russian companies – which impose less stringent restrictions on nuclear exports – to sell reactors to Saudi Arabia.

Flynn resigned soon afterward and now is cooperating with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. But IP3 access to the White House persists: According to press reports, President Trump met with representatives of U.S. industry, a meeting organized by IP3 to discuss nuclear exports to Saudi Arabia as recently as mid-February 2019……..https://theconversation.com/why-proposals-to-sell-nuclear-reactors-to-saudi-arabia-raise-red-flags-112276

February 25, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Iran’s nuclear power station struggling financially

Financial Future Of Iranian Nuclear Power Plant In Question, February 24, 2019, Radio Farda
While the parliament weighs President Hassan Rouhani’s budget for the new Iranian year (beginning March 21), senior officials at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) have complained of the “minimal” budget allocated to the Bushehr nuclear power plant.The head, deputy head, and spokesman for AEOI have all criticized the government, saying the budget allocated to the plant in southern Iran is so low that it endangers the future of the nuclear reactor.

The Energy Ministry “pays peanuts” for electricity produced at Bushehr, AEOI and former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on February 23. “For each kilowatt per hour of electricity produced at Bushehr, ME pays half a cent but exports electricity for nine cents,” he said.

Speaking at an industrial seminar, Salehi said, “The electricity produced at Bushehr reactor is bought for $40 million, while the annual budget needed for running the plant is $120 million. There’s a deficit of $80 million for which we don’t know how to compensate.”

Iran is currently suffering from an acute economic crisis and has been unable to issue a budget for the upcoming Iranian fiscal year. U.S. economic sanctions have halved Iran’s oil exports, which provide the hard currency needed for government operations.

AEOI spokesman Behrooz Kamalvandi says that given the budget allocated to Bushehr, the fate of Iran’s only nuclear power plant now hangs in the balance.

Bushehr’s construction started during the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1975 by Kraftwerk Union, a Siemens company, along with several other German firms.

Following the downfall of the monarchy, work on the nuclear reactor ground to a halt.

A veteran Iranian diplomat and former foreign minister, Abbas Khalatbari, was executed by firing squad in April 1979 for charges that included signing a contract with Germany for the power plant’s construction.

However, in 1988, Russia signed a contract with Iran to complete the project……..

Based on a parliamentary motion endorsed by the parliament 14 years ago, the Iranian government is obliged to construct 13 more plants with output similar to Bushehr’s.

Opponents have long insisted that since Iran is rich in oil and natural gas resources and poor in uranium ore deposits, the viability of its nuclear program is questionable. …….. https://en.radiofarda.com/a/financial-future-of-irn-nuclear-power-plant-uncertain-salehi/29787790.html

February 25, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, Iran, politics | Leave a comment

Utility JEA on the hook for billions of dollars for Vogtle nuclear station

Feds reject JEA plan to ditch Georgia nuclear plant, JEA still responsible for billions to help pay for Plant Vogtle, News4JAX, By Jim Piggott – Reporter ,February 23, 2019  JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says it will not intervene in JEA’s dispute with the owners of Plant Vogtle and that JEA is still bound by its agreement to buy power from the nuclear plant still under construction.The expansion of Plant Vogtle, a nuclear power plant near Waynesboro, Georgia, is way behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.

JEA is on the hook for billions of dollars to help pay for that construction because, in 2008, the utility signed a contract to fund 41 percent of the construction cost and, in turn, JEA would get a good price on electricity for 20 years. The problem is that construction cost has doubled and there’s still no power coming online anytime soon. JEA is trying to get out of the deal. It has filed lawsuits and taken other measures, but so far that has not worked. JEA is still bound by the contract.

JEA was hoping to get help from the feds, but now, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says it’s not going to intervene. That means JEA is still responsible for 41 percent of the construction cost, which is now nearly $3 billion, and that could go up even more.  ……

More court actions are expected, with both sides planning lawsuits. For now, plan on seeing JEA pay billions. If history holds true, that means customers could see an increase in rates to pay for it.  https://www.news4jax.com/news/feds-vote-to-reject-jeas-request-to-withdraw-from-power-purchase-deal

February 25, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant under federal investigation for worker exposure to radiation and chemical hazards

WIPP under federal investigation for worker exposures

Adrian C Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus   Feb. 21, 2019 Workers at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant were allegedly exposed to several hazardous chemicals and excessive heat last year, prompting a federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Energy into WIPP’s operations.

The DOE’s Office of Enterprise Assessments filed a notice on Jan. 29 of its intent to investigate to Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP), the DOE-hired contractor responsible for WIPP’s daily operations.

Between July and October 2018, employees in the underground nuclear waste repository were potentially “overexposed” to carbon tetrachloride, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, read the notice, including a “series” of heat-stress incidents.

The DOE intends to investigate the circumstances leading up to the alleged “hygiene-related events,” and could fine NWP, based on what is uncovered. ……

A pattern of bad management?

Don Hancock, director of the Nuclear Waste Program at the Southwest Research and Information Center – an Albuquerque-based environmental watchdog group – said the alleged incident was just the most recent example of evidence that NWP is improperly managing WIPP.

“This is a constant problem where workers are exposed to dangers, radioactive or otherwise, that shouldn’t have happened,” Hancock said. “These are not just paperwork problems.”

Hancock also pointed to an accident radiological release in 2014, which led to a three-year closure of the WIPP facility, as part of what he called a pattern of mismanagement and undue hazards. He said NWP’s recent contract renewal shouldn’t have happened because of numerous safety issues throughout its operations at WIPP……. https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2019/02/21/wipp-federal-investigation-department-energy-hazardous-chemicals/2905747002/?fbclid=IwAR21RsaxA4oeB8aZSoXOcCiBzEHDPqQFOyHhE6aF50S3F6bJzgsGxIGusfo

February 25, 2019 Posted by | employment, health, USA | Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s enthusiasm to sell nuclear technology to the reckless Saudi regime

February 23, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Future is not looking good for thorium nuclear reactors

the millions in subsidies thorium will require to become commercially viable would be better spent on solar, wind and other alternative energy sources.

Can Thorium Offer a Safer Nuclear Future?  Thomas net by David Sims. Staff Writer Feb 21, 2019  

Is thorium the great hope for a clean, viable and safe nuclear-fuel alternative to uranium, or is it an impractical and overly expensive option that could never be adopted by the nuclear industry?

Nuclear energy has numerous advantages, but there are drawbacks as well: nuclear waste poses a significant environmental threat, meltdowns are a possibility and nuclear materials can be used to create weapons of mass destruction.

However, advocates of using thorium as a nuclear fuel instead of uranium point out that it solves many of these problems……. (unsuitable for nuclear weapons, wastes last less long, can’t melt down )

If it’s so great, why aren’t we using it?  When nuclear power was being developed in the 1950s, it was part of a broader Cold War strategy. Governments were paying for the research and it was in their interest to develop uranium as the primary nuclear fuel because it could also be used in weapons development.

However, critics of the thorium alternative point out that it’s more expensive than uranium because it can’t sustain a reaction by itself and must be bombarded with neutrons. Uranium can be left alone in a reaction, while thorium must be constantly prodded to keep reacting. Although this allows for safer reactions (if the power goes out it simply deactivates), it’s a more expensive process.

Thorium is a popular academic alternative: in the lab it works well, but it hasn’t been successfully — or profitably — used on a commercial scale yet.

Current Usage of ThoriumIndia is the market leader in trying to harness thorium for the energy grid. It has the largest proven thorium reserves and the world’s only operating thorium reactor, Kakrapar-1, a converted conventional pressurized water reactor. China is working to develop the technology as well, while the United States, France and Britain are studying its viability.

Flibe Energy, which is based in Huntsville, Alabama, recently noted the company is looking to establish a liquid fluoride thorium reactor in the U.S. within the next decade, with Wyoming as a possible location.

Proponents of renewable energy concede that thorium is preferable to uranium, but argue that the millions in subsidies thorium will require to become commercially viable would be better spent on solar, wind and other alternative energy sources.

While nuclear advocates are more hospitable to thorium, they are hesitant to put all their eggs in one basket at this point. The element hasn’t shown itself to be feasible as a profitable commercial energy source, whereas uranium has. Despite a history of reactor meltdowns and near-meltdowns, there’s a renewed emphasis on nuclear power in the world today, and nuclear industry advocates don’t see now as the time to try an unproven alternative.

The bottom line is that when it comes to thorium versus uranium, thorium is more abundant, as well as cleaner and safer, but given current capabilities, it produces more expensive energy than uranium and still leads to environmental waste issues.

Thorium could be part of the answer to the world’s energy needs, but it currently lacks a track record of cost-effective energy generation. In the meantime, nations like China and India are taking the lead in developing thorium-based nuclear systems. https://news.thomasnet.com/featured/can-thorium-offer-a-safer-nuclear-future/

February 23, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, technology, thorium | 2 Comments

Ending The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War

Mutually Agreed Peace: Ending The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War By Ethan Indigo Smith, Contributing Writer for Wake Up World, 22 Feb 19, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” ~ Pericles.

Everything is ultimately political these days, but everything is firstly biological. Yet, ignoring our biology and our humanity, the military-industrial complex, with all its toxic modalities, still claims to operate in our best interests.

The fact is, modern politics has become the imposition of institutional formality where individuals and truth once were. Increasingly favoring institutional privilege over individual rights, politicians on all sides of the game act to reinforce and advance the standing of corporations at the expense of our physical world. They embark on resource wars for profit, destroy our environment for energy, construe zealotry as patriotism, and steer a culture of social competition – not cooperation – all the while hiding behind veils of secrecy and meaningless rhetoric. …..

The Nuclear Energy and Armament Experiments

One of the largest tentacles of the military-industrial complex is the nuclear experimentation facet of their operations. These operations include both energy and armament — programs which are inextricably linked, as I will demonstrate – with negative impacts on all life on earth and, and when disaster strikes, capable of negating life altogether.

Maintaining a deafening silence over the ongoing Fukushima disaster, for example, the world’s political heads show zero regard for our biological wellbeing (much less our social wellbeing) in both the formulation and the execution of policy. Instead of shutting down the deadly reactors at Fukushima, the world’s powers simply shut down any information about the situation.

For example, the Japanese government passed a law through Parliament, called the “States Secret Act” following the 2011 Fukushima meltdown. Under this act, both officials and private citizens who leak “special state secrets” (ie. details of the disaster) face prison terms of up to 10 years, while journalists who publish classified information (ie. all relevant information) face up to five years.[1] Meanwhile, in 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s response to increases in detected radiation levels within the United States was to reduce the use of radiation monitoring while at the same time, raising the official allowable levels of radiation in food, water and soil. [2] Of course, this was not reported by mainstream media.

Nor was the 2014 partial shutdown of the Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point facility in the Miami area, following a steam leak that resulted from the failure of the archaic facility’s cooling system.[3] While mainstream news completely blocked coverage of this potential meltdown situation, the facility remained in operation not because it managed to rectify the cooling problem, but because the corporation lobbied for special permission to violate allowable water temperature safety thresholds from the previous limit of 100’F limit up to 103’F. [4]

The simple reason for the secrecy and suppression of information is that the nuclear experimentation industry is just that — an experiment. Although it is touted as a ‘clean’ technology, the nuclear industry has no mechanism for disposing of the radioactive waste it generates, and no viable plan for such a mechanism in the future. All it has is a plan to contain the mounting radioactive waste it generates each day and store it for the million years it takes for radioactive waste to break down naturally.

o, whether nor not we accept or reject the philosophies of government, it is an inarguable fact that our biology, and that of our grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren — is at the complete mercy of those individuals who, hiding behind political formality, have their fingers “on the button”. And, for as long as their priorities are clearly shaped by the objectives of the corporate-military-industrial complex, there is very little mercy involved. Instead our collective future and the future of our planet is heavily influenced by corporate profitability and contrived political hemispheres which, with the support of corporate media, teeter between deliberately limited polarities, never really making progress or improvement or exploring possibilities — such as peaceful solutions, or sustainable energy investment — beyond those which may profit those already in power…….

The rise of the military industrial complex changed the whole dynamic of war and peace, and in the process, steered our society from exploring sustainable energy solutions toward the constant danger of nuclear meltdown. Nuclear power generation is inherently risky of itself; both the waste it stores and the pollution it releases pose a largely unseen but no less dangerous threat to our Earth Mother, and to our biology. But it also creates obvious military strike targets for enemy nations which, if detonated, can destroy entire nations in one sweep. Building nuclear power experiments is akin to building a self-destruct button into your nation’s infrastructure; one false move, be it intentional (military) or accidental (like Fukushima), and it destroys the landscape and all who dwell on and around it for an eternity, with no known remedy……..

“I foolishly once believed the myth that nuclear energy is clean and safe. That myth has completely broken down. Restarting nuclear reactors while we still have no place to dispose of nuclear waste is a criminal act toward future generations.” — Morihiro Hosokawa, 79th Prime Minister of Japan

The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War

One of the best ways to gain and maintain power is to keep the people in constant fear — in fear of wars, of outsiders, and more recently, of “terrorism”. Maintaining a culture of war-minded fear ensures the public consent to the constant funding of the military-industrial-complex, under the guise of security and protection.

If we look at the history of the Presidents of the United States since the end of the Second World War, we see that each administration invented a presidential Doctrine directly pertaining to war – either inviting involvement in or directly inciting conflict………

the most famously barbarous doctrine was the Bush Doctrine, in which President George W. Bush Jr. essentially declared that the United States was adopting a shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy pertaining to perceived terrorist activities, both in other countries and at home. [19] Advocating the illogical notion of “preventive war”, the Bush Doctrine is based on the faulty reasoning that attacking a potential threat before it attacks the United States is the only way to ensure peace and security, rather than — as history has proven — the most effective way to ensure more wars and security threats…..

The fact is, the United States has been at war for 225 years out of the last 242 years. That’s 93% of the time! Since the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, the U.S. has actually been at peace (albeit planning for further wars) for a total of only 21 years. [20] Not one U.S. president actually qualifies as a solely peacetime president, and the only time the United States lasted five years without going to war was between 1935 and 1940 — during the period of the Great Depression.

Since U.S. involvement in World War II began in 1940, most of the world’s military operations have been initiated by the U.S., [6] and U.S. military spending today exceeds the rest of the world’s military spending combined. [21]  In addition, the U.S. also supplies in excess of $3 billion each year (over $10 million per day!) in military aid to Israel, funding the continued war in Palestine.[22] ………

Today, the U.S. economy is now so dependent on war, there is no incentive for the U.S. government to strive for peace — it simply isn’t profitable. The U.S. defense industry employs a staggering 3.5 million Americans, while the private companies supporting the military generate in excess of $300 billion in revenue per year. [24]

With the U.S. economy and military operations so intrinsically linked, the American people have over time come to accept its war culture as normal, believing the increasingly ludicrous propaganda that tells us the U.S. is subject to threats from far weaker military nations and that the U.S. is nobly “fighting for peace” — an oxymoron of the highest order. ……….

clearly, the lessons of history and failed Presidential policy have not been learned by those in power in recent years, who claim to have our interests at heart. Barack Obama, for example, despite his (false) doctrine of negotiation and collaboration (“change”) as a contrast to the confrontation and unilateralism of the Bush Jr. era, invested a trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money into the military industry to develop and build more nuclear weaponry [25] This, despite the fact that the U.S. is already the most heavily armed nuclear nation in the world — something current President Trump, who also campaigned on a platform of “change”, has done nothing to wind back.  ……

The institutions of the United States and Russia may have different perpetrators behind them, they may play different melodies and use different instruments, but in fact they sound very much the same. The collectivism of the oligarchy in the U.S.A. is flavored with corporate tones, whereas in Russia it is dominated by state tones. Different name, same game. In the U.S.A. the divine right of corporations rules and in Russia it’s the godhead of the state the leads the symphony. Either way though, it’s a war song of militant, nationalistic not individual concerns.

In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.”  ~ Iroquois Maxim

The Indigo Doctrine: Mutually Agreed Peace

We, The People of the World, can supersede institutional war-mongering concerns that belittle individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We have no other choice. If we do not act to mandate Mutually Agreed Peace, we are allowing politicians to shrug their shoulders and say, “it’s politics”, as Earth Mother is ravaged and its inhabitants are systematically annihilated by nuclear, war-driven madness.

………History has shown us that preparing for war doesn’t just lead to more war; it makes war an economic necessity. The only way to ensure peace in our world is to adopt a doctrine of Mutually Agreed Peace in theory and practice; to give peace a budget, give peace a mandate, and give peace all our energy, both politically and personally — and to remove from government, through the power of our will and our numbers, any individual who fails to act on it……. https://wakeup-world.com/2015/08/29/mutually-agreed-peace-ending-the-doctrine-of-perpetual-war/ 

February 23, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Global weapons trade, war profiteers, booming, in the era of Donald Trump

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A hard Brexit is going to be really hard for UK’s nuclear industry

U.K. Nuclear and Military Exporters Told to Prepare for Hard Brexit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/u-k-nuclear-military-exporters-told-to-ready-for-hard-brexit, By Jonathan Tirone,  February 21, 2019,

U.K. makers of nuclear material, weapons and sensitive technologies are being urged by the government to get new export licenses to prepare for a no-deal exit from the European Union.

Companies need to register and to obtain permission under the U.K.’s new “Open General Export License” to continue exporting so-called dual use goods to the EU from March 29, according to a statement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Licenses for dual use items “will not be valid” if the U.K. crashes out of the bloc without a deal. Existing licences issued in the U.K. for the export of so-called Trigger Listitems — which have already been subject to assessment — will remain valid .

BAE Systems Plc and Urenco Ltd. are among U.K. companies that would be most directly impacted by a no-deal Brexit. Thousands of items ranging from computer software and digital converters to fuel cells and robotic arms face trade restrictions without new paperwork.

The U.K. also warned this week that new restrictions could be imposed on shipments of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste under a no-deal scenario. Just as banks have made London a global financial hub, its ties to the EU’s nuclear industry has helped turn the U.K. into a central cog servicing the world’s flow of atomic materials.

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Tough times ahead for America’s nuclear industry

U.S. Nuclear Has A Tough Road Ahead https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/US-Nuclear-Has-A-Tough-Road-Ahead.html By Tim Daiss – Feb 19, 2019, The United States nuclear industry is in a tough spot. It’s unpopular with the public due to high-profile disasters like 1979’s Three Mile Island meltdown, and its bottom line has been hit hard by the rise of ultra-cheap domestic shale oil and gas as well as a nearly plateaued post-recession demand for electricity. Some states, including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have approved financial packages to revive their failing nuclear industries, and now Pennsylvania could be the next if they can push past a plague of doubt.Pennsylvania is a hard sell for nuclear support as the home of the United States’ most famous nuclear disaster at the Three Mile Island site in Dauphin County 40 years ago. The nuclear industry has continued to function, however, in Pennsylvania in the intervening decades–in fact, it’s the second biggest nuclear power state in the country–it hasn’t been until the recent surge of cheap domestic fossil fuels thanks to the boom of production in the Permian Basin that the sector has hit a rough patch that they are unable to surmount on their own.

Even the notorious Three Mile Island plant itself remains in operation today. It has survived four decades of being synonymous with everything that’s wrong with nuclear in the United States, until now. The Chicago-based owner of the plant, Exelon Corp., has announced that the plant will finally be closing its door on September 30th of this year unless the state of Pennsylvania can pull it out of its financial hole. The Three Mile plant would soon be followed by Beaver Valley nuclear power plant in western Pennsylvania and two nuclear plants in Ohio, which Ohio-based owner FirstEnergy Corp. said they will close within the next three years if Pennsylvania can’t pass a financial package to save them.

In light of this newfound hardship, over the past few years industry leaders in Pennsylvania have been working diligently to rouse support for a financial package like those approved in other nearby states to keep the floundering industry afloat. While nuclear support packages have been approved in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, the path has not been laid clear for Pennsylvania to follow–those already-approved initiatives have been mired in legal appeals debate between federal energy regulatory authorities, and general outcry against a rise in electricity prices for consumers.

The already-socially-sticky-situation is only made more politically complex by the ongoing litigation surrounding nuclear bailout packages, making the decision to push any such financial package in Pennsylvania a particularly precarious one. “Anything that Pennsylvania does is going to be subject to a degree of policy and legal uncertainty,” said University of Pennsylvania’s Christina Simeone, director of policy and external affairs at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy.

Further complicating the issue, the contentious and divisive topic of nuclear energy’s future has recently entered the national spotlight with a new fervor thanks to the Democratic party’s newly unveiled Green New Deal. Although the official bill itself makes no mention at all of nuclear (a striking omission in and of itself), a fact sheet released alongside the bill, made public by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, states outright and in no uncertain terms that the Democrats’ Green New Deal “will not include investing in new nuclear power plants.”

The debates on the national stage as well as on a state level, such as what’s happening in Pennsylvania, are indicative of a larger issue: in a world with rising temperatures and populations and declining reserves of traditional fossil fuels, is the United States willing to follow in the footsteps of other world powers and make politically unpopular moves in order to confront our new energy reality? So far, in Pennsylvania at least, the answer seems to be a resounding “we don’t know.” By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »