nuclear-news

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

General Mark Milley wants low-yield nuclear missile warheads, doctrine of a “winnable” nuclear war

Trump’s nominee for top US military commander calls for nuclear buildup to confront China, WSW, By Bill Van Auken 13 July 2019

In testimony before the US Senate Armed Service Committee Thursday, Gen. Mark Milley, Trump’s nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for a major buildup of the US nuclear arsenal, while identifying China as the main target of US imperialism’s war machine……..

“From East Asia to the Middle East to Eastern Europe, authoritarian actors are testing the limits of the international system and seeking regional dominance while challenging international norms and undermining US interests,” Milley said. “Our goal should be to sustain great power peace that has existed since World War II, and deal firmly with all those who might challenge us.”

Asked by the chairman of the Senate panel, Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, what he was most concerned about in terms of the US confrontation with China and Russia, Milley responded: “I think the very No. 1 for me and No. 1 stated for the Department of Defense is the modernization, recapitalization of the nation’s nuclear triad. I think that’s critical. Secondly, I would say, is space. It’s a new domain of military operations.”

“I think China is the main challenge to the US national security over the next 50 to 100 years,” General Milley, said…….

He charged that China is “using trade as leverage to achieve their national security interests and the One Belt, One Road is part of that.” He said that China is “primarily in competition for resources to fund and improve their military and build and fuel their economy.”

The US response to these economic developments is largely military. Milley spelled out the US military buildup in what the Pentagon terms the “Indo-Pacific” region that is the main arena of confrontation with China. This consists, the general said, of 370,000 US troops, 2,000 warplanes and 200 ships.

Asked whether he thought it would be “helpful” to place conventionally armed, ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific region to help deter Chinese interests in the region, Milley responded, “I do.”

These weapons had been banned under the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which the Trump administration abrogated earlier this year. Washington claims that it is acting in response to alleged Russian violations of the treaty—an allegation that Moscow denies.

The US has advanced the theory that Moscow has adopted a wildly adventurist strategy of utilizing a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon against US-NATO conventional forces encircling its territory on the assumption that Washington would not respond with an all-out thermonuclear attack. No evidence has been presented to support this claim.

In any case, the principal target in the abandonment of the INF treaty is China. Beijing is not a signatory to the accord and has developed its own missiles as a counterweight to the US military buildup in the region………

Milley also defended the development of low-yield nuclear missile warheads that are to be launched from submarines, describing the weapons as “an important capability to have in our arsenal in order to deal with any potential adversary.”

The weapons are ostensibly aimed at countering potential Russian use of similar warheads in a war in Europe. They significantly lower the threshold for nuclear war, while raising the likelihood that the country on the receiving end of such a missile—unable to know the size of its warhead—would deliver a full-scale nuclear response.

Milley’s testimony comes barely a month after the Pentagon briefly posted and then yanked off the internet a 60-page document titled “Joint Publication No. 3-72 Nuclear Operations.” The document, prepared at the request of the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, has since been classified as “for official use only.”

The document spells out the Pentagon’s shift from the Cold War era doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) to the concept of a limited use of nuclear weapons resulting in a winnable war.

The “joint doctrine” outlined in the document bluntly states that “nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and develop situations that call for commanders to win.”

It continues: “Employment of nuclear weapons can radically alter or accelerate the course of a campaign. A nuclear weapon could be brought into the campaign as a result of perceived failure in a conventional campaign … Integration of nuclear weapons employment with conventional and special operations forces is essential to the success of any mission or operation.”

This gung-ho attitude toward winning by going nuclear is somewhat tempered by the acknowledgement that “The greatest and least understood challenge confronting troops in a nuclear conflict is how to operate in a post-nuclear detonation radiological environment.”

The document counsels: “Knowledge of the special physical and physiological hazards, and psychological effects of the nuclear battlefield, along with guidance and training to counter these hazards and effects, greatly improves the ground forces ability to operate successfully.”

How US military commanders are supposed to prepare for the “special effects” of a battlefield in which the dead may number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, is not clarified.

Earlier this month, the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency solicited proposals from the tech industry for the development of Virtual Reality “training and testing platforms for DoD combat forces operating in a battlefield nuclear warfare (BNW) environment.”

In an oddly worded passage, the document makes clear that any use of a tactical nuclear weapon can quickly provoke all-out nuclear war. “Whatever the scenario for employment of nuclear weapons, planning and operations must not assume use in isolation but must plan for strike integration into the overall scheme of fires,” it states.

The chilling testimony delivered by Milley on Thursday, spelling out US imperialism’s preparations for war with China and the increasing turn toward a doctrine of a “winnable” nuclear war, was accompanied by pledges from both Democratic and Republican senators that they would quickly confirm the general’s nomination. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/13/nuke-j13.html

July 15, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK’s new nuclear funding model would leave taxpayers liable for rising costs or delays.

New UK nuclear funding model could leave taxpayers liable, Guardian,  Jillian Ambrose, Energy correspondent 14 Jul 2019

Ministers are expected to announce plans to bolster nuclear industry this week,  The government will set out plans to resuscitate the UK’s struggling nuclear ambitions with a new scheme which would leave taxpayers liable for rising costs or delays.The funding model, expected this week, could help bankroll the multibillion pound plans for a follow-on to EDF Energy’s Hinkley Point C project in Somerset, which ministers aim to build at the Sizewell site in Suffolk.

It could also resurrect the dormant plans for a £16bn new nuclear reactor at the Wylfa project in North Wales, which fell apart last year due to the high costs of nuclear construction.

Government officials are expected to reveal a new financial framework based on the model being used to finance the £4.2bn Thames Tideway tunnel.

Under those plans, the government has allowed the super-sewer’s developers to charge customers upfront for the project, and agreed to cover cost overruns above 30% of the budget and step in as a lender if funding dries up.

The nuclear plans are expected to be unveiled before parliament’s summer recess at the end of this week, alongside a long-awaited energy white paper.

The policy roadmap will set out the government’s plans for the energy sector as the economy moves towards the UK’s target to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050.

The industry is expected to have three months to respond to an official consultation before ministers decide whether to move ahead with the scheme…..

The plans would hand developers an upfront regulated return on their investment at each new phase of the project. This could encourage more investment from infrastructure and pension funds and better borrowing terms for the developer.

Government officials are under pressure to find a new way to finance nuclear projects after the National Audit Office condemned the 35-year deal to support the Hinkley Point project through energy bills at a cost of £92.50 for every megawatt-hour of electricity it produces.

The average electricity price in the UK last year was between £55 and £65 per megawatt-hour.

The watchdog accused ministers of putting energy bill payers on the hook for a “risky and expensive” project which offers “uncertain strategic and economic benefits”.

The new financing plan has already raised concerns that applying the Tideway model to a nuclear project that costs £20bn and takes around a decade to build could leave taxpayers exposed to a far higher financial risk.

Nuclear projects have suffered high-profile delays and multibillion-pound cost overruns in recent years, making them almost impossible to finance without state intervention.

EDF said last month that its struggling French nuclear project at Flamanvillecould be delayed by another three years to repair eight faulty weldings discovered at the site.

The latest delay could push Flamanville’s start date, originally in 2012, to 2022. The project was expected to cost about €3bn when construction began but the latest estimates put its cost at almost €11bn……… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/14/new-uk-nuclear-funding-model-could-leave-taxpayers-liable-edf-sizewell

July 15, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Fukushima Prefecture Council election: both candidates campaign on anti-nuclear platforms

Fukushima Upper House candidates face cynical voters despite anti-nuclear platforms, Japan Times, 14 July 19, JIJI  FUKUSHIMA – Rival candidates, both women, from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the opposition camp for next Sunday’s House of Councilors election in Fukushima Prefecture are campaigning on platforms to eliminate nuclear power from the prefecture.

But their calls are in conflict with the national energy policy of the LDP and the positions of some opposition supporters.

With campaigning in the single-seat prefectural constituency shaping up effectively as a one-on-one race, local voters who were affected by the March 2011 nuclear accident are casting a cynical eye at the race for the July 21 election.

“I’m determined to push ahead with reconstruction following your requests,” Masako Mori, the LDP’s candidate for Fukushima, said on July 4, the opening day of the official campaign period, in the prefectural capital of Fukushima.

“I’ll do my best to achieve the goal of decommissioning all nuclear reactors in the prefecture,” said Mori, 54, vice chair of the LDP’s Headquarters for Accelerating Reconstruction after the Great East Japan Earthquake.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, also president of the LDP, gave a speech in support of Mori.

Reflecting local voter concerns over nuclear power, the LDP’s Fukushima chapter has set goals of scrapping all reactors in the prefecture and building up knowledge and expertise related to decommissioning.

In contrast to the prefectural chapter’s position, however, the Abe government’s basic energy program regards nuclear power as an important base load electric power source, while the LDP’s policy pledges for the Upper House election include efforts to reactivate nuclear reactors.

The LDP suffered losses in recent national elections in Fukushima Prefecture, home to Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, the site of the nation’s worst-ever nuclear accident, which resulted from the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami………

Hard to differentiate

Mori’s key opponent in the three-way race is Sachiko Mizuno, 57, who is running as the opposition camp’s unified candidate.

On June 30, standing in drizzling rain in front of a department store in the city of Fukushima, Mizuno told a small crowd, “Reconstruction of Fukushima is still only half done.”

Referring to the LDP’s policy pledge, she said the government “has not presented a road map for decommissioning all reactors (in the prefecture).”……..

With Mizuno calling for a society free of nuclear power, the policy differences with the LDP are blurred. “It’s difficult to differentiate ourselves (from the LDP) in the prefecture,” a senior official in Mizuno’s campaign office said.

Within her camp, there are differing levels of enthusiasm regarding the elimination of nuclear power…….

Unenthusiastic voters

After the triple meltdown accident, the government issued an evacuation advisory to 11 municipalities around the stricken nuclear plant. Since the advisory was lifted in the eastern part of the city of Tamura in April 2014, the size of the exclusion zone has been reduced in stages.

But the advisory remains in place in the town of Futaba, as well as in parts of six municipalities, including the towns of Okuma and Namie. More than 30,000 people still live as evacuees outside the prefecture…….

In Namie, more than two years after the evacuation advisory was lifted for most of the town in March 2017, just over 1,000 people have returned. Of people who are still registered as residents of areas for which the advisory was removed, only some 7 percent have returned. ……..https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/14/national/politics-diplomacy/fukushima-upper-house-candidates-face-cynical-voters-despite-anti-nuclear-platforms/#.XSucHD8zbGg

July 15, 2019 Posted by | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

Ohio Senate not keen to subsidise FirstEnergy Solutions nuclear power stations

Bailout of Ohio’s nuclear power plants may come too late for FirstEnergy Solutions, Crain’s Cleveland Business, DAN SHINGLER  14 July 19 AKRON’S FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS (FES) might not get the bailout it says it needs in time to save its Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants unless the company is able to change the deadline for refueling the plants a second time.

The company said it’s counting on the Ohio Senate to pass something akin to the recently passed House bailout bill, dubbed HB 6. FES said that plan, as recently amended by the Senate but not yet voted on, would give the plants a $150 million annual subsidy they need to remain open.

If FES doesn’t get it, the company said, it is set to close the plants by May 2021, resulting in probable layoffs for more than 1,300 Ohio employees who staff and service them.

FES initially said it needed a subsidy in hand by June 30 or it would not be able to refuel the plants in time to keep them in service. When that came and went without a bill’s passage, FES said it would need the subsidy approved by July 17………

But a tougher Ohio Senate seems unmoved to be forced to pass the House bill, or its own, by July 17. It has another job lined up first. ……..

Although both chambers are firmly in Republican control, they’ve had their differences, and continue to have them over energy issues.

To pay for the nuclear subsidies, the House favors eliminating standards for renewable energy and any charges to consumers linked to renewable subsidies. The Senate wants to cap state renewable standards before they reach their previously intended peak but not eliminate them. That’s still to the dismay of the wind and solar energy industries, which say they’ll be severely impacted.

The Senate also has been less willing to write a blank check………

Fortney said. “Our members aren’t interested in giving a company a major subsidy for any period of time without being able to see their books.”

That last point about open books has been a stickler with critics of the bailout. FES said it can’t share its financials because it’s in bankruptcy. The company basically is asking legislators to trust it when it says its nuclear plants need a bailout.

Meanwhile, recent testimony in Columbus by outside economists might have led to a more cautious Senate. One is Paul Sotkiewicz, a former chief economist for PJM Interconnection, which runs the electricity grid in the region………

He also said the subsidies don’t make sense from a standpoint of providing Ohio and its industries with the cheapest power.

“It just doesn’t make any sense from an economic development standpoint. This is just crony capitalism, pure and simple,” Sotkiewicz said.

He’s not the only economist telling senators the subsidy is foolish, either. Ned Hill, a former urban affairs dean at Cleveland State University and now a professor of public affairs at The Ohio State University, is another………

Clearly, the Senate has a lot of conflicting testimony to wade through. Whether senators believe the critics or FES likely will determine how it moves forward and when………https://www.crainscleveland.com/energy-and-environment/bailout-ohios-nuclear-power-plants-may-come-too-late-firstenergy-solutions

July 15, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Trump rejects uranium import limits, but begins nuclear fuel review

Trump rejects uranium import limits, but begins nuclear fuel review S and P Global, Author William Freebairn     Joniel Cha , EditorJason Lindquist , 14 July 19, Washington — President Donald Trump issued a decision late Friday rejecting a request from US uranium producers that US utilities be required to purchase a portion of their annual uranium requirements domestically, calling instead for a 90-day review of nuclear fuel issues.

The Trump administration did not take the action sought by US uranium producers, who said imports were hurting their businesses. Instead, he appeared to favor the interests of US nuclear plant operators, who said trade restrictions might cause economically challenged reactors to shut.

The US Department of Commerce, Trump said, found that uranium imports were threatening national security, but the president said he did not agree with the determination. A “fuller analysis of national security considerations with respect to the entire nuclear fuel supply chain is necessary at this time,” Trump said.

A White House working group will be established to report on all aspects of the nuclear fuel supply chain and make “recommendations to further enable domestic nuclear fuel production if needed,” Trump wrote in his memorandum Friday.

The Ad Hoc Utility Utilities Group, which represented most US nuclear plant operators on the matter, in a statement Saturday welcomed the Trump decision, as did the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents a broad range of nuclear energy companies……… https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/071319-trump-rejects-uranium-import-limits-but-begins-nuclear-fuel-review

July 15, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

UK’s energy industry plans, especially nuclear, stalled while waiting for new Prime Minister

Bloomberg 12th July 2019 Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond is blocking a set of government proposals to overhaul the U.K. energy industry because of the potential
spending implications for a new prime minister, people familiar with the
matter said.
The plans are included in a long-awaited energy white paper
that the business department has been working on for months, according to
the officials, who asked not to be identified because the policies
haven’t been announced.
Measures include the way nuclear power plants get funding, boosting technology to capture industrial greenhouse gas emissions for storage, accelerating the decarbonization of the power industry and efforts to make housing more energy efficient.
Greg Clark hoped to publish the proposals in July, but Hammond is reluctant to give the go-ahead to new spending before a successor to Theresa May is in place, the people said.
Whitehall officials across departments are also concerned the document is
both incomplete and too sizable a policy plan to put forward just before a
new premier takes over, according to two of the people familiar. One option
being considered is to publish more urgent sections before recess leaving
the rest for the next government to handle.
If Johnson wins, as expected, neither Hammond nor Clark are likely to remain in their cabinet jobs.
That’s because Johnson has said his cabinet members will have to be
prepared for the U.K. leaving the European Union without a Brexit deal —
something that Hammond and Clark have said they can’t support. The new
prime minister will be announced on July 23.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-12/hammond-poised-to-halt-plans-to-overhaul-u-k-energy-industry

July 15, 2019 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Wyoming lawmakers quietly see $billions in storing spent nuclear fuel. 

Lawmakers quietly explore storing spent nuclear fuel.  Wyo File,  July 12, 2019 by Angus M. Thuermer Jr.     Wyoming legislative leadership voted by email Monday to explore temporarily storing spent nuclear fuel rods in the state, a prospect one senator says could bring in $1 billion a year.

A legislative committee has appointed six of its members to investigate the idea with the U.S. Department of Energy, Sen. Jim Anderson (R-Casper) told WyoFile on Friday. Anderson is co-chairman of the Joint Minerals Business and Economic Development Committee which received approval and funding from the Legislative Management Council in an unannounced vote to study the issue before the next legislative session begins in early 2020. ………

The state is looking for other revenue options, Anderson said, and “this is a way.” The federal government could pay up to $1 billion a year for the temporary storage, he said, depending on the size and scope of a Wyoming project. That’s the amount the federal government offered last time Wyoming considered the issue about 15 years ago, he said.

Anderson couldn’t immediately name the six members who serve on the subcommittee that will engage DOE, but he said it’s unlikely the group would report at the next minerals committee meeting in August. More likely there would be a presentation in November, he said……….

The spent fuel rod casks would be temporarily stored in Wyoming on their way to a permanent storage site at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.  ….

The Wyoming effort is specific regarding fuel rods only, he said. “There’s nothing here about storing nuclear waste,” Anderson said. Storage might be for 5-10 years, he said……..

The old uranium sites are out of the way, Anderson said.

“Nobody will ever see it,” he said of a storage site. “Nobody even knows where it is,” he said of the locations at Gas Hills and the Shirley Basin. “They’ll never see it and there’s no danger from the casks.”

Wyoming might have to build some infrastructure, he said, like a fence around the casks. The state could offer both the old mine sites, he said, potentially increasing revenue.

“Environmental terrorists” sure to object

Wyoming’s previous attempts to bring some types of nuclear storage to the state were blocked by environmental groups, Anderson said.

During an earlier effort to bring nuclear material to Wyoming “the environmental terrorists came out against it and stopped it in its tracks,” he said. That opposition likely remains.

“I think they’ll be back terrorizing us again,” Anderson said.

Wyoming people will likely welcome such a project, Anderson said, given the potential $1 billion or more annual revenue stream. …….

On the Management Council, Sens. Ogden Driskill (R-Devils Tower), Dan Dockstader (R-Afton), Drew Perkins (R-Casper) and Bill Landen (R-Casper) plus Reps. Greear, Albert Sommers (R-Pinedale), and Speaker of the House Steve Harshman (R-Casper) supported the minerals committee request, Obrecht wrote.

Sens. Mike Gierau (D-Jackson), Liisa Anselmi-Dalton (D-Rock Springs, Chris Rothfuss (D-Laramie) opposed the measure along with Reps. Eric Barlow (R-Gillette), John Freeman (D-Green River) and Kathy Connolly (D-Laramie), according to Obrecht’s email.

The Management Council vote was taken by email, Obrecht said. The motion includes funds to support the investigation, but WyoFile could not immediately ascertain how much.

Gierau outlined his opposition to the measure.   “I like a billion dollars as much as the next guy, but some things are not for sale,” he told WyoFile. He pointed to efforts through the state’s  Economically Needed Diversity Options for Wyoming and other programs to diversify the state’s economy.

“Of all the things we want to do… I just don’t see this as a winning proposition, on an environmental, social or personal level,” he said.

He noted the close vote on the Management Council and said he would continue his opposition.

“I will do my best to make sure it’s not as close on the floor,” he said.  https://www.wyofile.com/lawmakers-quietly-explore-storing-spent-nuclear-fuel/

July 15, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Future of the nuclear industry in Britain is far from clear

Times 14th July 2019 If all goes to plan Hinkley Point C should start powering 6m homes from
2025, earning its developers the hefty, taxpayer-backed price of £92.50
per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.

Hinkley is a rare dash of activity in a sector battered by bad news and government inactivity. This week, business and energy secretary Greg Clark will try to sketch out a
future for the new nuclear industry with a funding blueprint that will pass
some of the risks and costs on to bill-payers.

He has been spurred intoa ction by Japan’s Hitachi and Toshiba, which have both pulled the plug on new nuclear projects in Britain. Clark’s paper was meant to appear
alongside a broader revamp of energy policy, but sources suggest political
turmoil and Treasury concerns are expected to delay the full white paper
until autumn, when a new energy secretary is in post.

In a sector being upended by technological change, from electric cars to smart power grids,
every delay in devising a coherent, long-term policy further weakens the
power system and Britain’s competitiveness. For now, the industry is likely
to have to settle for Clark’s nuclear blueprint. Even if a full energy
paper emerges, it could be torn up by his successor. Many tip the current
chief secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss. If they are right, Truss will
arrive to a full in-tray.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a8f5d97c-a589-11e9-97a3-6b6d400e533

July 15, 2019 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Taiwan about to close second nuclear reactor

Taiwan to shut down 2nd nuclear reactor within days, July 12, 2019 (Mainichi Japan) TAIPEI (Kyodo) — Taiwan’s Atomic Energy Council agreed on Friday to shut down a second nuclear reactor on Monday when its 40-year operating license expires, moving the island a step closer to nuclear-free status.

The decommissioning of the No. 2 reactor of the No. 1 nuclear power plant in Shimen, New Taipei City, follows that of the plant’s No. 1 reactor, closed for the same reason last December.

Taiwan still has two other nuclear power plants, each with two reactors.

In a statement, the council said it issued the decommission license Friday to Taiwan Power Co., the builder and operator of the facility, after the state-owned power utility submitted relevant documents.

Li Chi-ssu, deputy director of the council’s Department of Nuclear Regulation, told Kyodo News that with the license, the company can now begin the lengthy process of discharging and storing spent fuel rods.

It originally planned to store them at an outdoor dry storage facility, but cannot do so due to the opposition of the New Taipei City government……….

The operating licenses of the two reactors at the No. 2 nuclear power plant in Wanli, New Taipei City, will expire in December 2021 and March 2023, and those of the other two reactors at the No. 3 facility in Pingtung, southern Taiwan, in July 2024 and May 2025.  https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190712/p2g/00m/0in/095000c

July 13, 2019 Posted by | politics, Taiwan | Leave a comment

Even the nuclear industry itself is pretty pessimistic about its future

Viewpoint: Building a belief in nuclear, financially and emotionally, WNN, 08 July 2019  “………. . Nuclear technology remains emotive and controversial in some countries, and public pressure can ultimately move policy, as has been seen in Germany, which is abandoning nuclear generation entirely, despite the impact this has on its ability to meet CO2 reduction targets.Delivering projects, on time and to budget

The nuclear industry is also susceptible to wavering investor confidence, as has been evident recently in the UK. Nuclear plants are exceptionally large and long-term investments, so private-sector investors set the bar very high when it comes to incentives and the reassurances they need before making final investment decisions.

When Hitachi suspended work on its Wylfa Newydd project, it cited the size of the financial burden as one of the main factors, while the high cost of Hinkley Point has, in part, been explained by the fact that EDF could only borrow capital funding at high interest rates. That’s because this project is deemed ‘risky’, and well over half the cost was attributed to raising the money over the lifetime of the project.

Following the publication of the UK National Infrastructure Assessment last year, these high borrowing costs for nuclear have come into even sharper focus. This report recommended that the Government restrict support to “one more nuclear plant before 2025” as the costs of renewable technologies were “far more likely to fall, and at a faster rate”.

Delays and cost increases don’t help public perception.  …………    It’s our responsibility as an industry to work together to change perceptions and provide stakeholders with the confidence that nuclear projects will be delivered on time and to cost, and to set out the evidence that demonstrates why nuclear energy must form part of the future energy mix. If we can’t do this then the trust simply won’t be there, and neither will the investment……..

we’re working alongside other leading industry bodies including Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, the Electric Power Research Institute, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency to deliver events like the Innovation for the Future of Nuclear Energy – A Global Forum, which took place in Korea last month………

Present a more positive future

There are many exciting possibilities for nuclear, from innovation in waste management and recycling to the emergence of small modular reactors. But, in order to realise this future, the industry has some short-term hurdles that it must overcome. And in particular we must drive efficiencies into existing programmes and onto existing plants.

EDF has said that, by applying lessons learned at Hinkley Point, huge economies of scale can be achieved if a second pair of EPR reactors are built at Sizewell. Even so, the confidence may not be there yet for stakeholders and investors to appreciate where the returns lie. We need to focus on what can make a real difference now, in order to bring about that future.

It’s a crucial time for the nuclear sector.  ……. can we work together to drive transformative change and help persuade all those who will need to invest in its future, both emotionally and financially, to believe in it too?  http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Viewpoint-Building-a-belief-in-nuclear,-financiall

July 13, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics, spinbuster | 2 Comments

War with “small” nuclear weapons – No Such Thing As a ‘Small’ Nuclear War

There Is No Such Thing As a ‘Small’ Nuclear War (But Trump Wants Mini Nukes)
A really bad idea? National Interest, by David Axe  12 July 19, The Democratic lawmakers who control the U.S. House of Representatives are pushing back against Pres. Donald Trump’s plan to expand the United States’ nuclear arsenal with new and smaller “tactical” weapons.
The Democrats’ version of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which funds the military, faces opposition in the Republican-controlled Senate, as well as from the president himself. Trump has threatened to veto the NDAA, potentially setting up a budgetary showdown that could force the Pentagon to operate on so-called “continuing resolutions” that essentially copy previous years’ budgets.

Trump in 2017 laid out a plan for a host of new and modernized nuclear weapons, including less-powerful nukes that some hardliners believe are more useful than larger-yield weapons are and could make limited atomic wars feasible and survivable on a planetary level.

But many nuclear experts disagree. No nuclear war is “small,” they argue. And any nuclear war would be devastating for the entire human race and the only planet that’s known to support life.

The House bill “signals a new, much-needed change in direction for U.S. nuclear weapons policy, one that would reduce the nuclear threat and cut some spending on these weapons,” wrote Eryn MacDonald, an expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Massachusetts.The House bill stands in stark contrast with the version the Senate passed easily in late June [2019], which would fully fund the Trump administration’s nuclear programs and in some cases even increase funding.

We support passage of the House version of the NDAA; if its version becomes law, it will be a victory not only for U.S. security, but also for common sense.

The House bill is chock-full of positive provisions. For example, it would prohibit deployment of the Trump administration’s new ‘low-yield’ nuclear warhead; cut funding for an unnecessary replacement for the current ground-based intercontinental ballistic missile; and reduce the excessive, but congressionally mandated, requirement for the number of plutonium pits that the National Nuclear Security Administration has been told to produce.The House’s version of the NDAA defunds the W76-2 low-yield warhead for the U.S. Navy’s Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which MacDonald described as “an ill-conceived attempt to lower the threshold for nuclear war.”

The W76-2 “would thrust U.S. ballistic-missile submarines into regional conflicts instead of reserving them for their crucial role as a nuclear deterrent, providing a secure means of retaliation if they should ever be needed,” MacDonald added.

The Trump administration requested $19.6 million for the Navy to begin installing these new warheads on missiles later this year. The House defense authorization bill sensibly zeros out this money, but Republicans plan to offer an amendment to the bill on the House floor that would restore that funding……….https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/there-no-such-thing-small-nuclear-war-trump-wants-mini-nukes-66431

July 13, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA nuclear industry in the doldrums – desperate efforts to revive it

U.S. to extend nuclear reactor lifespans   http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0005869248  PARIS (Reuters) 12 July 19 — The United States plans to extend the lifespans of existing nuclear reactors and support new technologies as it seeks to revive an industry seen as crucial to its energy security, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette told an International Energy Agency conference on nuclear and hydrogen in Paris that both technologies were crucial for reducing carbon emissions and boosting energy security.

The U.S. nuclear industry has been in the doldrums for years because of competition from cheap natural gas and falling wind and solar power costs.

Several nuclear plants have closed while a project to build two reactors in South Carolina was abandoned in 2017 with the reactors half-built and billions of dollars in sunk costs.

“We believe strongly that a strong domestic nuclear energy [industry], enabled by our existing fleet and enhanced by game-changing advanced nuclear technologies is critical to our nation’s energy security, our national security, our environmental sustainability,” Brouillette said.

The U.S. Department of Energy agrees with the IEA that extending the life of existing reactors is perhaps the most competitive way to produce low-carbon electricity, he said. The department was working to help extend the licenses for the existing fleet out to 80 years, he added

July 13, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. Congress setting a more reasonable course for nuclear weapons policy

July 13, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia’s grandiose nuclear ambitions – expressed in its floating nuclear plant for the Arctic

Russian floating nuclear plant prepares for towing into Arctic seas,  Plant to support 50,000-person Chukotka region with power for oil and gas industries  Katie Toth · CBC News  Jul 10, 2019   Russia’s controversial nuclear barge is ready to travel through the Arctic seas — and observers across the globe are watching.

Greenpeace has called it a “floating Chornobyl.” 

But the Akademik Lomonosov, which will dock in the Eastern Siberian town of Pevek, also provides a small glimpse into Russia’s northern ambitions and the role of nuclear power in achieving them.

Russia’s atomic energy agency, the Rosatom State Atomiс Energy Corporation (ROSATOM), has said in news releases that the future floating nuclear power plant will be a key piece of infrastructure as it develops its Arctic shipping route. 

Meanwhile, the agency has started work on a fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers to keep that route open. Its latest three ships can cut through three metres of ice, and each can produce 350 megawatts of power. 

It’s a lot more difficult to counter a catastrophe there than anywhere else on the globe.– Jan Haverkamp, Greenpeace

Rebecca Pincus, an assistant professor with the U.S. Naval War College, says Russia’s vision for itself as a global superpower in the 21st century hinges on the far North.

Russia’s grand strategy for the century is centred on developing Arctic resources,” Pincus said. “That economic engine [is] … integral to Russia relaunching its place in the world.” 

According to statements by ROSATOM, the plant will supply the 50,000-person Chukotka region with power and it will support “key industries” in this oil-and-gas rich region. 

‘It’s a classical Russian solution’

The choice to build a floating nuclear power station is “a fabulous little encapsulation of all the challenges Russia faces in developing its Arctic zone,” Pincus said. “Floating a nuclear power plant to a tiny little city in the Russian Arctic is colossally challenging, colossally expensive … it’s a classical Russian solution.”

………. Jan Haverkamp, a nuclear energy expert with Greenpeace, says his organization is right to be worried. The Lomonosov will be docking in one of the most remote places in the world.

The Lomonosov, prior to a paint job. Greenpeace is concerned about the plant and its isolated location, saying that it would be difficult to counter a catastophe in the remote region. (ROSATOM)

“It’s a lot more difficult to counter a catastrophe there than anywhere else on the globe,” he said.

Haverkamp is also concerned about the power being used to extract fossil fuels.

“Climate change is a given.… Opening up new fossil projects at the moment, when the world needs to be fossil-free in 2050, does not seem to make very much sense.”

Meanwhile, ROSATOM says this barge is only a small piece of a new future for floating nuclear power. It’s building a second generation of the floating nuclear units, and it’s in talks with several countries looking to buy nuclear barges of their own.

Emails to ROSATOM’s media contact were not returned before publication.

The barge will start getting towed to Pevek in August. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/russia-floating-nuclear-plant-1.5206448

July 13, 2019 Posted by | politics, Russia, technology | Leave a comment

Tax-payer funding absolutely critical to Russia’s nuclear industry

State support pivotal to Russia’s nuclear sector, says report, WNN 12 July 2019

Russia’s nuclear power industry consists of 89 enterprises that are owned by the state-run joint stock company Atomic Energy Power Corporation (AEPC), or Atomenergoprom, its Russian name.

Since commissioning its first, five-megawatt, nuclear power plant, in Obninsk in 1954, Russia has been one of the world’s leading countries in nuclear power generation, S&P says, and the country plays an important role in all parts of the nuclear cycle, from mining to construction.

The report – What Makes Russia’s Nuclear Sector Competitive – says state support includes capacity-supply agreements, ad hoc equity contributions from the government, and low nuclear liabilities that accrue only after 2011……….

“We expect domestic nuclear capacity to increase only moderately because electricity demand in Russia is stagnating, given only modest GDP growth, a significant potential for energy savings, and the government’s intention to avoid raising electricity prices through additional increases in capacity payments,” the report says.

The key risks, according to S&P, concern international projects: tighter requirements for new builds, which are likely to mean potential delays – “as seen with” the Hanhikivi project in Finland; and, nuclear phase-out policies in Western Europe that “could weigh on exports in the longer run”.

“That said, we believe exports of fuel and enrichment services should be resilient in the next several years because Russia mostly exports to nuclear-supportive countries under long-term contracts,” the report says.

“Meanwhile, treatment of nuclear waste or decommissioning services could increase in importance,” it adds.

AEPC has “solid” profitability and financial metrics compared with international and local peers, S&P says, which provides “financial capacity” for new nuclear power construction, domestically and abroad.

Although Russia is involved in a “record number” of international nuclear power construction projects, the prime contractor is AEPC’s unrated sister entity Atomstroyexport, and AEPC is only directly involved in two projects, Hanhikivi in Finland (34%) and Akkuyu in Turkey (96%), the report notes.

AEPC covers all stages of the civil nuclear cycle,  from uranium extraction (about 13% of global production) through enrichment and fuel fabrication (about 36% and 17% global market shares) to electricity generation in Russia. It is the sole operator of nuclear plants with 29.1 GW, or 12% of Russia’s total installed capacity, and 18% of the country’s electricity production, at ten plants and 35 units in operation. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/S-P-report-on-Russia

July 13, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Russia | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »