Nuclear reactors in the Middle East are vulnerable to missile strikes
Report: Missile strike risks to Middle East nuclear reactors, A new study explores potential radiological fallout and evacuations from a missile strike on commercial nuclear power plants. [Excellent maps] Aljazeera, By Patricia Sabga, 8 Dec 21,
Deliberate attacks on nuclear reactors may seem almost unthinkable – unless the reactor is located in the Middle East, a region that has the dubious distinction of being the only place on the planet where aerial assaults on nuclear facilities are known to have happened.
As debate intensifies in the wake of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) over what role nuclear energy should play in global decarbonisation efforts, a new report published on Wednesday brings to light the radiological fallout and subsequent evacuations that could result if a state-of-the-art missile or drone successfully attacks an existing or planned commercial nuclear power plant in the Middle East.
Produced by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC), a Washington, DC-based research institute, the study offers a rare publically available analysis of conflict risks to nuclear facilities in the Middle East, warning that a successful strike on a commercial nuclear power plant there “could result in the evacuation of millions of people, many of whom would not be able to return to their homes for several decades”.
“Building large, vulnerable power reactors in the Middle East is a pretty weird way to hug Mother Earth,” NPEC Director Henry Sokolski told Al Jazeera. “It was time to spell out what the implications [of a successful missile attack] would be in a place like the Middle East, which is clearly entertaining building and operating more nuclear plants.”
Produced by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC), a Washington, DC-based research institute, the study offers a rare publically available analysis of conflict risks to nuclear facilities in the Middle East, warning that a successful strike on a commercial nuclear power plant there “could result in the evacuation of millions of people, many of whom would not be able to return to their homes for several decades”.
“Building large, vulnerable power reactors in the Middle East is a pretty weird way to hug Mother Earth,” NPEC Director Henry Sokolski told Al Jazeera. “It was time to spell out what the implications [of a successful missile attack] would be in a place like the Middle East, which is clearly entertaining building and operating more nuclear plants.”
Other nuclear safety experts agree.
“I think it is absolutely critical that people and communities are made aware of the very great risk involved in building nuclear [power plants] in an area of high potential conflict risk,” Paul Dorfman, an associate fellow at the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, told Al Jazeera.
The map below, [on original] for example, illustrates four current and planned commercial nuclear power plants and the evacuation footprints – including in surrounding countries – that could follow a successful aerial assault on a densely packed spent fuel pool, where discarded radioactive fuel rods are cooled before being moved to more permanent storage.
“This alarming image should prompt nations to carefully evaluate and mitigate the risks and plausible consequences of constructing and operating nuclear power reactors,” said the report…………..
Given the increased interest in nuclear energy in the Middle East, its unique history of air strikes on nuclear facilities, and the emergence of non-state actors wielding advanced military firepower, NPEC believes that any cost-benefit analysis of commercial nuclear power plants in the region needs to include a public disclosure of the potential radiological fallout and population displacements that could result from a successful aerial strike on a facility.
“There have been no fewer than 13 air strikes since the very early 80s against a variety of [nuclear] reactors [in the Middle East], mostly by air forces and attempts with very inaccurate missiles like Scuds,” said Sokolski…………….
aerial strike technology has come a long way since the early 1980s, when Israel and Iran bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor, or even 2007, when Israel destroyed a suspected reactor under construction in Syria.
“Missiles and drones with high accuracies of 1-10 meters, one thousand times more accurate than during the 1990s,” are available to both state and non-state actors, the report warns…….. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/12/8/report-missile-strike-risks-to-middle-east-nuclear-reactors
Inherent design flaw in EPRs (European Pressurised or Evolutionary Power Reactors) casts doubt on future of UK’s Hinkley and Sizewell nuclear projects.
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities network (NFLA) has been alarmed to
receive a French scientific report that a radioactive leak recently
reported by the operators of a Chinese nuclear power plant could signify a
potentially fatal design flaw in new reactors planned for the UK.
In June 2021, nuclear operator, Framatome, a subsidiary of French-state owned power
utility, EDF, reported a leak of radioactive gas at the Taishan 1 nuclear
power plant in China. It is still unclear what the cause was, but a rupture
of the uranium rods within the reactor core as a result of abnormal wear
and tear was suspected.
Now the French Commission for Independent Research
and Information on Radioactivity (Criirad) has reported to the French
Nuclear Safety Authority that a problem with the design of the vessel
causes early wear in the reactor, that this inherent design flaw is common
to all EPRs (for European Pressurised or Evolutionary Power Reactors), and
that the accident at Taishan ‘raises serious questions in terms of
nuclear safety and radiation protection, both for plant workers and for
residents.
Although French worries revolve around the future safety of the
Flammaville 3 EPR, the NFLA is also gravely concerned that the latest news
puts into question the future safety of EPRs planned for the UK. An EPR to
the same design is currently under construction at Hinkley Point C in
Somerset and there is a further proposed plant at Sizewell, Suffolk.
NFLA 7th Dec 2021
Norway faces up to fast increasing radiation risks. Drones monitor the nuclear ships, icebreakers, submarines that clutter the Arctic
Norway deploys radiation drones along its coast amidst nuclear emergency concerns
Five Coast Guard ships are soon to carry drones with sensors capable of detecting radioactivity in case of a maritime accident involving a potential release from a reactor-powered civilian or military vessel. Barents Observer, By
Thomas Nilsen, December 03, 2021 A sharp increase in nuclear-powered vessels and ships with radioactive materials pose an increasing risk of accidents, a recent radiological- and nuclear risk assessment study for the Arctic Council concludes.
The risk is moderate and increasing in regards to nuclear-powered vessels and floating nuclear power plants, the report reads.
Now, authorities take action and deploy drones with radiation detectors on board Norway’s fleet of five Inner Coast Guard patrol vessels, from the North Sea region in the south to the Barents Sea in the north.
The danger is obvious. A worst-case scenario is a nuclear-powered vessel with a reactor leakage drifting at sea or running aground with a wind direction towards populated areas. In northern Norway, nine out of ten inhabitants live less than four kilometers from the sea.
A drone can help measure levels of radiation in close vicinity to the vessel in distress without exposing any of the emergency response teams to danger. The Coast Guard is already on 24/7 watch and plays an important role in emergency preparedness.
Nuclear-powered icebreakers are more frequently sailing between the yard in St. Petersburg and their homeport in Murmansk, like this weekend when the newest icebreaker, the “Arktika“ sails around Scandinavia a few nautical miles off the coast.
The civilian nuclear-powered “Sevmorput” is also regularly sailing between the Far East and St. Petersburg via the coasts of Siberia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Estonia and Finland loaded with seafood and other products. The ship is 33 years old and is not allowed to make port calls to countries outside Russia.
Every now and then, cargo vessels bring spent nuclear fuel or radioactive substances to the port of Murmansk.
Navy submarines
Caused by increased military tensions, both NATO and Russian nuclear submarines are more frequently patrolling the strategically important North Atlantic. Allied submarines even make port calls to harbors in Norway, like this spring when “USS New Mexico” came to Tromsø in a high-profile visit.
Detailed emergency response plans were made ahead of the submarine’s visit. For Norway, which has a comprehensive network of radiation detectors on land, the challenge however is what to do if something happens at sea. …………………….
Submarines and icebreakers
Norway’s Inner Coast Guard includes the five vessels “Nornen”, “Tor”, “Heimdal”, “Njord” and “Farm”. The latter has Kirkenes as homeport and sails the waters closest to Russia’s Kola Peninsula where several tens of nuclear-powered submarines are based as well as being home to the increasing Arctic fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers.
Two brand new icebreakers, powered by two reactors each, will be added to the fleet before the end of the year. The first is this weekend en route along the coast of Norway from St. Petersburg to Russia’s ice-covered waters around the Yamal Peninsula and the Kara Sea. ………..
Circumpolar cooperation
Two years ago, the Norwegians and Americans sailed north to Svalbard together with Russian experts from the emergency response unit of Rosatom, working on remote-controlled systems for measuring radiation in case of accidents.
Collaboration on nuclear accident preparedness is a priority for all circumpolar nations which agree that shared resources in sparsely populated areas benefit all………
“We never know where accidents might happen. But with the Coast Guard and their skills on operating drones, we are about to become world-class in preparedness,” Aas-Hansen elaborates. …….
“The new drone detectors for radiation are unique. What we learn from this is something we absolutely will share with other nations,” says Øyvind Aas-Hansen. He underlines that cross-sector collaboration with other agencies in Norway has brought the project forward………
Large nuclear exercise in 2022
In May 2022, the partners will test the systems in a large international Arctic radiation exercise in the area around Bodø, northern Norway…….
Sharp increase in reactors
The Barents Observer has published an overview (pdf) listing the increasing number of reactors in the Russian Arctic. The paper is part of Barents Observer’s analytical popular science studies on developments in the Euro-Arctic Region.
According to the list, there are 39 nuclear-powered vessels or installations in the Russian Arctic today with a total of 62 reactors. This includes 31 submarines, one surface warship, five icebreakers, two onshore and one floating nuclear power plant.
Looking more than a decade ahead, the number of ships, including submarines, and installations powered by reactors is estimated to increase to 74 with a total of 94 reactors, maybe as many as 114. Additional to new icebreakers and submarines already under construction, Russia is brushing dust of older Soviet ideas of utilizing nuclear power for different kinds of Arctic shelf industrial developments, like oil- and gas exploration, mining and research.
Although Russia’s existing “Akademik Lomonosov” and four planned floating nuclear power plants are to operate on the coast of the Chukotka Peninsula thousands of kilometers east of the European Arctic, maintenance, testing and change of spent nuclear fuel elements will take place at the Atomflot base in Murmansk, a city with about 300,000 inhabitants a few hours drive from the border to Norway.
“By 2035, the Russian Arctic will be the most nuclearized waters on the planet,” the paper reads.
Also, existing icebreakers and submarines get lifetime prolongation. The average age of the Northern Fleet’s nuclear-powered submarines has never been older than today. Several of the submarines built in the 1980s will continue to sail the Barents Sea and under the Arctic ice cap until the late 2020s.
Serious accidents happen
In recent years, two serious accidents in Russia’s northern waters have shaken the world.
On July 1, 2019, a fire broke out on the top-secret deep-diving submarine Losharik on 60 nautical miles from Russia’s border to Norway. The submarine was at the time working on the seabed in the Motovkiy Bay, just north of the important navy bases of the Northern Fleet. All 14 sailors on board were killed in the fire that likely started in the batteries.
Losharik was powered by one nuclear reactor and operated on a secret mission for GUGI, the Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research, a top-secret unit directly subordinated the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.
No leakages of radiation were reported at the time.
Later that summer, on August 8, a serious radiation accident happened in the waters just outside Nenoksa naval missile test site on the southern shores of the White Sea.
Five Rosatom experts were killed and at least three others injured as a Burevestnik missile exploded. The Burevestnik is a nuclear-powered cruise missile currently under development by the Armed Forces. The small reactor is aimed at giving the missile “unlimited range”.
Shortly after the blast, radiation levels in the nearby city of Severodvinsk were measured to be several times higher than background for about half an hour, the Barents Observer reported. The data was based on the public automated monitoring system in Severodvinsk with eight sensors in town and at the Zvezdockha shipyard.
While normal background in the town with a population of 190,000 is around 0.11 µSv/h (microsievert per hour), the levels measured at the monitor on the Lomonosov Street near Lake Teatralnoye peaked at 2 µSv/h, nearly 20 times higher gamma radiation than normal. That, though, is still way within permissible levels for population exposure.
Fears more accidents
In its annual threat assessment report the following year, Norway’s Intelligence Service warned that more accidents with Russia’s reactor-powered weapons systems could happen.
“The development will bring, additional to the military challenges, also challenges related to both environment and security. In 2019, about 25 Russians were killed during military activity near Norway,” the Intelligence Service Director Morten Haga Lunde said and added:
“I consider the risk for more such unintended incidents in our neighborhoods to be big in the years to come.”
Safety fault in China’s European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) does not bode well for UK’s Hinkley Point C and Sizewell nuclear projects
Key safety components in the UK’s first new nuclear power station for 30 years may need to be redesigned and the project could be delayed after defects were detected at a similar reactor in China.
The £22 billion Hinkley Point C plant in Somerset is already well over budget and a decade late but the defects mean that the scheduled date for starting electricity generation, of June 2026, may have to be revised. The same power plant design is due to be used for another nuclear power station, Sizewell C in
Suffolk, which is planned but has not yet been approved.
An investigation is still under way into the cause of the problems with the plant in Taishan, in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong. It was shut down in August after reports of damage to fuel rods, which hold nuclear materials used to fuel the reactor.
The plant is operated by China General Nuclear Power Group and owned in partnership with the French state-controlled EDF, the two companies involved in building Hinkley Point C.
The Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity, a French association
created in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, said that a whistleblower had reported that a design flaw in the reactor pressure vessel could be the cause of the problem at Taishan. An industry source
told The Times that the investigation was likely to show that the pressure vessel was “demonstrably safe” but it might also show that design changes were needed.
Paul Dorfman, a nuclear expert at the University of Sussex, said: “If the news we are hearing from the Taishan EPR [European pressurised reactor] is right, then it’s beginning to look like there’s a potential generic fault with the key safety mechanism of the EPR reactor design itself. “If so, this is serious news for ongoing construction at Hinkley Point C and plans for Sizewell C.
Times 1st Dec 2021
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ef84adce-5215-11ec-8d72-b8ab431649b1
Whistleblower explained the tank design problem that caused the shutdown at Taishan nuclear power station
Last July, in China, the Taishan nuclear power plant was shut down. A few weeks earlier, an incident had taken place in the only EPR plant in service in the world, designed jointly by the Chinese CGN and the French EDF.
At the end of November, perhaps finally an explanation: the incident was due to a fault in the design of the vessel, according to a major French association specializing in nuclear safety. The incident which led in July to the shutdown of a reactor at the EPR nuclear power plant in Taishan, in southern China, is believed to be due to a design flaw in the vessel, the French association CRIIRAD said on Saturday.
The Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD) would get its
information from a “whistleblower”. “This is a Frenchman who works in the nuclear industry, having access to very precise technical information on the situation of the Taishan 1 reactor core,” a CRIIRAD official told AFP.
Taishan is the only pressurized water reactor (EPR) plant in the world, with two reactors. Four other EPR reactors are under construction, all in Europe: one in Finland, one in France in Flamandville and two in England. It is a tank design problem that would be the cause of the incident in Taishan reported on June 14, 2021. This is a first explanation.
TV5Monde 28th Nov 2021
Design flaw: the incident that shut down China’s EPR nuclear station could happen to other EPR reactors.
| The type of incident that caused a reactor shutdown at Taishan plant could happen to other plants. The incident in the Chinese reactor last June is believed to be due to a design flaw in the reactor vessel. The incident which led in July to the shutdown of a reactor at the EPR nuclear power plant in Taishan (China) is believed to be due to a fault in the design of the vessel, the Independent Research and Information Commission said on Saturday (November 27th) on radioactivity (CRIIRAD) which warns against the risk of an identical problem on other EPRs. An association created in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, CRIIRAD wrote on Saturday to the management of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) to share this information with it, which it says it has from a “whistleblower”. “This is a French person who works in the nuclear industry, having access to very precise technical information on the situation of the Taishan 1 reactor core,” said Bruno Chareyron, director of the CRIIRAD laboratory. Sud Ouest 28th Nov 2021 https://www.sudouest.fr/nucleaire-le-type-d-incident-qui-a-provoque-l-arret-de-l-epr-de-taishan-pourrait-arriver-a-d-autres-centrales-7148273.php |
Nuclear risks are laid bare by COVID-19
Nuclear risks are laid bare by COVID-19, https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/nuclear-risks-are-laid-bare-by-covid-19/
the prioritization of deterrence operations in these circumstances—and the emphasis on conveying this to the public—is fundamentally disquieting. In some circles, there is a call for a reckoning with the massive costs associated with nuclear modernization programs, ever more noticeable with the health sector buckling under extreme pressure.
Wilfred Wan |Researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) 11 june 2020,
Maintaining deterrence postures has emerged as a key security challenge in the era of COVID-19. In recent weeks, officials in more than one nuclear-armed State have reassured their publics about the viability of their nuclear arsenals. A spokesperson for the UK Royal Navy noted “all required outputs are being maintained” at Faslane, home to Britain’s deterrent, following reports of personnel self-isolating. French submarine crews may not even be informed of the COVID-19 situation, according to their Naval spokesperson. The US Air Force Chief of Staff claimed in a press briefing no change to their nuclear deterrence operations. Similarly, the head of US Strategic Command stressed the pandemic had “no impact to our ability to accomplish our (deterrence) mission.”
Claims of ‘business as usual’ invite scepticism. The machinery of nuclear weapons complexes may be relatively immune from the pandemic, but the people that service them are not. Risk of transmission is especially great in the confined spaces like submarines, bombers, and missile silos that military personnel operate in. For instance, there are confirmed cases of COVID-19 at every nuclear base in the United States except one. Changes by now familiar to the working world are impacting military operations too: virtual teleconferencing, minimized on-site contact, identification of mission-critical tasks; with resources drawn from areas deemed inessential to the deterrence mission. The commander of the US Air Force Global Strike Command noted, “You’ll train a little less, but you can keep training; you can do maintenance, but you don’t have to do as much maintenance.” This is not business as usual.
There should be concern that shifting resources from tasks seen as inessential now could have safety implications down the line. Technical malfunction and human fallibility have featured across the known history of nuclear weapons programs, resulting in false alarms, accidents, and near misses. The US program, about which there exists the most declassified information, experienced a number of ‘broken arrow’ incidents during the Cold War such as missile explosions, aircraft collisions, and even the inadvertent release of nuclear weapons. The longer pandemic-containing measures are in force, the more the militaries of nuclear-armed States will face tough operational choices—choices that bear on nuclear risk.
Meanwhile, the prioritization of deterrence operations in these circumstances—and the emphasis on conveying this to the public—is fundamentally disquieting. In some circles, there is a call for a reckoning with the massive costs associated with nuclear modernization programs, ever more noticeable with the health sector buckling under extreme pressure. Beyond economics, continued reliance on nuclear weapons feels anachronistic as today’s threats are increasingly non-traditional, taking shape in cyber offensive operations or hybrid warfare, and adversaries harder to identify, with their motivations, doctrines, and capabilities varied and complex. Security, as COVID-19 underlines, has evolved. It is hard to hit many of these kinds of nails with the nuclear hammer.
Revitalizing nuclear arms control and disarmament is the only means to eliminate the lingering spectre of nuclear war. Given geopolitical tension, however, a critical short-term goal is to enhance understanding of that risk coming to fruition, intentionally or inadvertently. Proper assessment of the risk of nuclear weapon use is a prerequisite to reducing that risk. The veil of secrecy that has long surrounded nuclear weapons management must be lifted enough to ensure proper regulation, oversight, and accountability, including in all the processes linked to the deterrence ‘mission’. Enhanced use of notifications, signalling, and crisis communication channels, meanwhile, can lessen the likelihood that the mission itself will fail, especially in these extraordinary times.
In the meantime, preserving central control over nuclear arsenals during this and any other time is infinitely preferable to most alternatives. But even control cannot be taken for granted. The possibility of human failure in nuclear operations may well be higher with non-routine rotations and altered schedules of personnel. The hospitalization of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for COVID-19 in April underlines the permeability of nuclear command and control at even the highest levels. The state of nuclear normalcy and perceived safety and security States are working so hard to uphold is far more fragile than they are willing to admit.
This is not to say that nuclear-armed States cannot effectively maintain their deterrent postures during this difficult period. But for some time now, experts and many governments have become increasingly concerned about nuclear misperception and miscalculation in an environment marked by worsening great power relations (and more so if the US and China continue their blame game over the pandemic). COVID-19 is a further wake-up call. There is no substitute for the easing of tensions and resumption of stockpile reductions. Nevertheless, States must do more to reduce the risk of any use of nuclear weapons. So long as nuclear weapons exist, the possibility remains. This is business as usual.
The nuclear consequences of cyber vulnerabilities
The nuclear consequences of cyber vulnerabilities, https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-nuclear-consequences-of-cyber-vulnerabilities/ Wilfred Wan |Researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), 29 Nov 21,
A recent report about a massive cyber surveillance campaign allegedly conducted by Russian intelligence against US government agencies reflects disturbing trends in cyberspace. The number of reported data breaches in 2021 is on pace to set a record, with government entities constituting the most targeted sector, and global supply chains increasingly impacted. The planning and sophistication that characterizes some of these operations in recent years also suggest more frequent State-level involvement, underlining the fact that cyber—or information security—capabilities increasingly constitute part of national strategic toolkits.
Operations in cyberspace have also targeted elements of the nuclear weapons enterprise across states. Recent known cases include the discovery in December 2020 of “long duration activity” against the US National Nuclear Security Administration (responsible for the management of the US stockpile), and in April 2021 of operations against a firm linked to the design of Russian nuclear submarines. In neither instance was there any indication that functions related to nuclear weapons systems were impacted.
Yet these revelations should heighten concerns beyond the states targeted, as the existence of these operations could have implications for potential nuclear weapon use. Cyber operations of the kind cited are unlikely to cause detonation events directly. Yet operations that successfully interact with nuclear forces can undermine states’ confidence in their nuclear deterrence capability or credibility, which can trigger forceful military response and even prompt ‘use it or lose it’ nuclear dilemmas. The clearest path to this end involves intrusions into weapons systems themselves. This is not far-fetched. In limited testing with “relatively simple tools and techniques”, the US Department of Defense in 2018 “routinely found mission-critical cyber vulnerabilities” in their weapons systems under development. Other nuclear-armed states are likely to be similarly vulnerable.
Other infringements on deterrence include cyber operations that impact nuclear command, control, and communication. Increased digitalization is likely to create new vulnerabilities, exacerbated by reliance on the supply chain. Even systems isolated from the internet can be compromised. The militarization of cyberspace—and a legacy of Cold War electronic warfare — also raises the possibility that adversaries could now induce the kind of malfunctions (such as erroneous warnings in early warning systems) that in the past have fuelled several nuclear ‘close calls’. Additionally, cyber operations that amplify conventional capabilities to evade radar and air or missile defence may increase nuclear force vulnerability, real or perceived.
The reason why such intrusions may escalate to a scale even beyond the intentions of perpetrators centres on a lack of clarity around so-called cyber ‘red lines’. Several nuclear-armed states have acknowledged the possibility of escalation linked to the cyber domain, or in their nuclear doctrines open the door to use in response to cyber operations. Further precision on thresholds is generally absent, with deliberate ambiguity held in service of deterrence credibility. Yet notions of achievable strategic stability are undermined by the secretive nature of cyber operations, the many potential points of entry for cyber operations, and context-dependent concepts such as ‘critical infrastructure’. Cyber-nuclear interactions open the door for misperception, miscalculation, or misunderstanding.
Reducing cyber-nuclear risks requires preventing interactions between cyber operations and nuclear forces; it also requires mitigating the consequences of interactions when they do take place. Developments in cyber space suggest the potential development of voluntary ‘rules of the road’ that can support the former. Last month the US and Russia submitted a joint resolution to the UN General Assembly (co-sponsored by 104 States) on responsible behaviour in cyberspace. Cyberspace policy also features in ongoing US-Russia strategic stability talks; President Biden in June 2021 had provided President Putin a list of critical infrastructure sectors meant to be “off-limits” from cyber operations. Such negotiations of State behaviours would be significant but would only address part of the risk picture.
It is incumbent on nuclear-armed states to strengthen the cyber security of their weapons and related systems and to elaborate standards across the entirety of their supply chains. Dialogue among nuclear-armed and nuclear-allied states can inform common understandings of risk perceptions, and chip away at the ambiguity around red lines. States can also look to establish guard rails through the conflict-prevention toolkit. In fact, information exchange around cyber military exercises, memorandums of understanding on engagement with communications and radar systems, and political declarations that nuclear command and control lies outside cyber bounds can build a foundation for formal agreements down the line.
Cyber-nuclear interactions are likely to increase given trends in the militarisation of the cyber domain and the digitalisation of nuclear weapons systems. The secrecy across both domains presents significant challenges: not only in their regulation but also to underlining the urgency of the situation and creating the prerequisite momentum for such action. After all, the cyber equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis is unlikely to ever play out in public. Yet the very real risk of cyber-nuclear interactions driving inadvertent nuclear war should provide ready incentive for immediate action.
Wilfred Wan is the co-author of a new UNIDIR report on The Cyber-Nuclear Nexus: Interactions and Risks.
Design flaw could explain problem at EDF’s Chinese nuclear plant
Design flaw could explain problem at EDF’s Chinese nuclear plant-NGO https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/design-flaw-could-explain-problem-edfs-chinese-nuclear-plant-ngo-2021-11-29/Reuters PARIS, Nov 29 (Reuters) – A design flaw in the reactor pressure vessel could be the cause of a problem that was made public in June at French company EDF’s jointly-owned nuclear power plant in China, a French non-governmental organisation said, quoting a whistleblower.
Newly released Government documents reveal safety, terrorist, dangers of Scotland’s nuclear power stations
Leaks from Scotland’s nuclear power plants had the potential to be as
dangerous as terrorist attacks, ministers in Jack McConnell’s
administration were warned.
Newly released government documents reveal that
concerns were raised about the possibility of accidents at atomic
facilities. There are currently two nuclear power stations north of the
border: Hunterston B, which is due to cease operation early next year, and
Torness, which is scheduled to close in 2030.
Both are operated by the French energy company EDF. Minutes from the Scottish ministerial group on
civil contingencies from March 2005 have been released and posted online.
They contained gloomy forecasts, stating: “The threat from terrorism, in
terms of conventional and Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN)
attacks, remains at a historically high level. ”
The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour have both backed nuclear power to play a role in easing
the country’s reliance on fossil fuels. Last week Anas Sarwar, the Labour
leader, said nuclear should be “part of the mix” of a “diverse energy
supply”. Stuart McMillan, the SNP MSP for Greenock and Inverclyde, said:
“We have been absolutely clear about our opposition to building new
nuclear power plants under current technology.
Times 28th Nov 2021
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/warning-over-leaks-scared-scottish-labour-off-nuclear-mb7r2ctc8
Manager at Tricastin NPP files complaint about safety issues and harrassment
In the midst of a debate on the revival of nuclear power, a whistleblower
throws a stone in the pond: a member of the management of the Tricastin
power station (Drôme), one of the oldest in the French fleet, has filed a
complaint against EDF concerning site safety, endangering others, the Labor
Code and harassment, as revealed by Le Monde.
Mediapart 24th Nov 2021
Tricastin nuclear power plant: cascading cover-ups.
Tricastin nuclear power plant: cascading cover-ups. In the case of the
whistleblower at the Tricastin power plant, which files a complaint against
EDF, new elements consulted by Mediapart reveal that the Nuclear Safety
Authority has long known about the problem. According to an internal
document, EDF lied and the safety authority also in its public
communication.
Mediapart 24th Nov 2021
NRC finds five safety violations at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
NRC finds five safety violations at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Jon StinchcombPort Clinton News Herald, CARROLL TOWNSHIP — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently found five apparent violations at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station after completing a nearly two-year initial assessment of multiple diesel generator failures from July 2019 to June 2021.
Based on that assessment, as well as a reactor trip with multiple complicating equipment issues at Davis-Besse in early July of this year, the NRC sent an inspection team to the station later that month………
Of the five violations reportedly found during the inspection, two are still pending and undergoing additional NRC reviews to “assess the safety significance of the performance deficiency,” …….. https://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/story/news/2021/11/24/five-safety-violations-davis-besse-nuclear-power-station-nrc/8746112002/
Scientists Warn Experimental Nuclear Plant Backed by Bill Gates Is ‘Outright Dangerous’
“fast breeder reactor” types “are proliferation nightmares.“
Continuing to support nuclear energy at the expense of faster and cheaper alternatives for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is a losing strategy.“
Scientists Warn Experimental Nuclear Plant Backed by Bill Gates Is ‘Outright Dangerous’ “Gates has continually downplayed the role of proven, safe renewable energy technology in decarbonizing our economy.” Common Dreams ANDREA GERMANOS, November 17, 2021 Officials announced Tuesday that the small city of Kemmerer, Wyoming would be the site of a new Bill Gates-backed nuclear power project—an initiative whose proponents say would provide climate-friendly and affordable energy but which some scientists warn is a dangerous diversion from true energy solutions.
The experimental Natrium nuclear power plant will be at the site of the coal-fired Naughton Power Plant, slated for retirement in 2025, though siting issues are not yet finalized. The company behind the project is TerraPower. Gates, who helped found TerraPower, is chairman of the board.
Mr. Gates,” nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen wrote in an open letter in August, Natrium “is following in the footsteps of a 70-year-long record of sodium-cooled nuclear technological failures. Your plan to recycle those failures and resurrect liquid sodium again will siphon valuable public funds and research from inexpensive and proven renewable energy alternatives.”………….
A feature of the future plant, TerraPower says, is “a molten salt-based energy storage system”—technology it claims represents “a significant advance over the light water reactor plants in use today.”
At a June press conference, Gates said Natrium was poised to “be a game-changer for the energy industry.” In a Tuesday tweet, Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming gave a similar message, saying “the Natrium reactor is the future of nuclear energy in America.”
While the company asserts the safety of Natrium’s sodium-cooled fast reactor, a report released in March by the Union of Concerned Scientists, entitled “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better, casts doubt on those claims.
UCS’s Elliott Negin highlighted the analysis in a June blog post, writing:
In fact, according to the UCS report, sodium-cooled fast reactors would likely be less uranium-efficient and would not reduce the amount of waste that requires long-term isolation. They also could experience safety problems that are not an issue for light-water reactors. Sodium coolant, for example, can burn when exposed to air or water, and the Natrium’s design could experience uncontrollable power increases that result in rapid core melting.
“When it comes to safety and security, sodium-cooled fast reactors and molten salt–fueled reactors are significantly worse than conventional light-water reactors,” says [report author Edwin] Lyman. “High-temperature gas-cooled reactors may have the potential to be safer, but that remains unproven, and problems have come up during recent fuel safety tests.”
Fast reactors have another major drawback. “Historically,” the report points out, “fast reactors have required plutonium or [highly enriched uranium]-based fuels, both of which could be readily used in nuclear weapons and therefore entail unacceptable risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.” Some fast reactors, including the Natrium, will initially use a lower-enriched uranium fuel, called high-assay low-enriched uranium, which poses a lower proliferation risk than highly enriched uranium, but it is more attractive to terrorists seeking nuclear weapons than the much lower-enriched fuel that current light-water reactors use.
Continue readingSafety risks of Bill Gates’ Natrium nuclear reactor
The use of liquid sodium has many problems. It’s a very volatile material that can catch fire if it’s exposed to air or water,” Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists science advocacy nonprofit, told Fortune on Tuesday.
“Honestly I don’t understand the motivation… There are some people who are just strong advocates for it and they’ve sort of won the day here by convincing Bill Gates that this is a good technology to pursue.”
Independent 17th Nov 2021
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/bill-gates-nuclear-reactor-wyoming-b1959777.html
1 This Month
22 June – Virtual Event –Climate Change: New Data, New Debate
Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. CT
YouTube. Register here
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (227)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 