Nuclear waste repositary still needed: reprocessing is no answer to radioactive trash problem
EU paints challenging picture of Europe’s nuclear future, Energy Post. February 2, 2016 by Sonja van Renssen “……….Limited prospects for recycling nuclear fuel
France is the only country in Europe that is still working towards a fully closed fuel cycle with fast neutron reactors and advanced reprocessing technology. Other countries use open cycles.
France will be the only country to operate reprocessing facilities after 2018 (when those in the UK are shut down). The partially closed cycle that technology currently permits “is not expected to give a major reduction of the final disposal solution footprint in comparison to an open cycle”.
The future of recycled nuclear fuel is limited by the lack of fast-breeder reactors, more safety requirements, a higher risk of proliferation, lower competitiveness, and the fact that it still requires a final waste depository……. http://www.energypost.eu/exclusive-eu-paints-challenging-picture-europes-nuclear-future/
USA govt funds “new nukes’
Energy Department Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs MIT Technology Review, 21 Jan 16, In the latest sign of the U.S. government’s determination to help push nuclear power technology beyond conventional reactors, the Department of Energy is providing $80 million in funding to two advanced reactor programs. At $40 million each in matching funds over the next five years, the grants will go to X-energy, a little-known Maryland-based startup that is developing a new version of a pebble-bed reactor, and to Southern Company, the Atlanta-based utility that is working with TerraPower on molten-salt reactors. ……https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545586/energy-department-funds-two-advanced-nuclear-programs/
Nuclear industry crisis: Generation IV reactors to the rescue?
Nuclear renaissance? Failing industry is running flat out to stand still Jim Green, 30 Jan 2016, The Ecologist, “………Rhetoric about ‘super safe’ Generation IV reactors will likely continue unabated. That said, critical reports released by the US and French governments last year may signal a slow shift away from Generation IV reactor rhetoric.
The report by the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) – a government authority under the Ministries of Defense, the Environment, Industry, Research, and Health – states: “There is still much R&D to be done to develop the Generation IV nuclear reactors, as well as for the fuel cycle and the associated waste management which depends on the system chosen.”
IRSN is also sceptical about safety claims: “At the present stage of development, IRSN does not notice evidence that leads to conclude that the systems under review are likely to offer a significantly improved level of safety compared with Generation III reactors … “
The US Government Accountability Office released a report in July 2015 on the status of small modular reactors (SMRs) and other ‘advanced’ reactor concepts in the US. The report concluded:
“While light water SMRs and advanced reactors may provide some benefits, their development and deployment face a number of challenges … Depending on how they are resolved, these technical challenges may result in higher-cost reactors than anticipated, making them less competitive with large LWRs [light water reactors] or power plants using other fuels … Both light water SMRs and advanced reactors face additional challenges related to the time, cost, and uncertainty associated with developing, certifying or licensing, and deploying new reactor technology, with advanced reactor designs generally facing greater challenges than light water SMR designs. It is a multi-decade process, with costs up to $1 billion to $2 billion, to design and certify or license the reactor design, and there is an additional construction cost of several billion dollars more per power plant.”
Even SMR boosters are struggling to put a positive spin on the situation. Launching a Nuclear Energy Insider report on SMRs, lead author Kerr Jeferies said: “From the outside it will seem that SMR development has hit a brick wall, but to lump the sector’s difficulties together with the death of the so-called nuclear renaissance would be missing the point.”
According to a US think tank, 48 companies in north America, backed by more than US$1.6 billion (€1.5b) in private capital, are developing plans for advanced nuclear reactors. But even if all that capital was invested in a single R&D project, it would not suffice to commercialise a new reactor type.
The UK government also sees a big future for SMRs and has even promised to spend £250 million on “nuclear innovation and Small Modular Reactors”. But it will face two big problems. First, the money won’t go far. And second, nuclear power is already being outcompeted by wind and solar, which are getting cheaper all the time.
Dan Yurman notes in his review of nuclear developments in 2015: “Efforts by start-up type firms to build advanced reactors will continue to generate a lot of media hype, but questions are abundant as to whether this activity will result in prototypes.
“For venture capital firms that have invested in advanced designs, cashing out may mean licensing a design to an established reactor vendor rather than building a first-of-a-kind unit.”
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter, where this article was originally published. Nuclear Monitor is published 20 times a year. It has been publishing deeply researched, often strongly critical articles on all aspects of the nuclear cycle since 1978. A must-read for all those who work on this issue! disaster……. www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987010/nuclear_renaissance_failing_industry_is_running_flat_out_to_stand_still.html
Dangerous and toxic – Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
SMR – Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Meltdown And Explosion SL-1 – Idaho, United States, And Lucens Switzerland; MOX Or Thorium Fueled Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Too Dangerous, Toxic.
What are the downsides to this fantasmic plan to populate the whole world with toxic, heavy metal radiation emitting small buried nuclear reactors and why are they too dangerous to put in the ground, basically anywhere in the world?
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS DO MELT DOWN AND HAVE NUMEROUS TERMINAL ISSUES, EVEN WORSE THAN THE LARGE NUCLEAR REACTORS
They emit radioactive heavy metal poisonous gases and liquids, just like large ones do.
Radioactive fuel such as thorium and uranium must still be mined, which then causes radioactive tailing piles, just like the large nuclear reactors.
Zero Rads Extraction Project; Uranium Mining, Enrichment, Nuclear Fuel Chain, Open Air Testing
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/uranium-mining-and-enrichment.html
The small modular reactors produce radioactive heavy metal poison garbage that no one has a solution for, and no one wants in their backyard, just like the large ones do.
Zero Rad Waste Project; Long Term Storage Of Nuclear Waste, Decommissioning, Ocean Dumping, Incineration, Decontamination, Water Contamination, Dry Cask Storage
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/recycling-or-long-term-storage-of.html …..http://agreenroad.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/the-paper-fantasy-and-real-dangers-of.html
Exploding the false claims of the thorium nuclear lobby
The mythologies of thorium and uranium, Greenpeace, by Jan Beránek – 24 March, 2014 Thorium and uranium represent the heaviest naturally occurring elements on Earth. Both were named after ancient gods: Uranus was the principal Greek god of the sky while Thor was the Norse (and broadly Germanic) god of a thunder.
……What are the chances that replacing the Greek god with a Germanic one will help? Would Thor take his powerful hammer and nail it all down? Not likely….
Let’s look more closely at some of the hopeful claims around thorium.
Safer reactors? The risks inherent in nuclear reactors are due to the massive concentrations of radioactive materials and the huge amount of heat they produce (which is actually needed to generate electricity). No matter if the fuel is based on uranium or thorium, if it’s solid or liquid, this characteristic alone will inevitably continue to be the Achilles heel of any nuclear reactor. As you can read in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ briefing on this issue, the truth is that the U.S. Department of Energy concluded in 2009 after a review that “the choice between uranium-based fuel and thorium-based fuel is seen basically as one of preference, with no fundamental difference in addressing the nuclear power issues [of waste management, proliferation risk, safety, security, economics, and sustainability].”
Less nuclear waste? It’s obvious that fission applied to different nuclear fuel results in a different composition of radioactive waste. But it’s still radioactive waste and whether the waste produced by thorium reactors is less problematic (because there’s no plutonium in it) remains a question. Spent thorium fuel still contains long-lived isotopes such as proactinium-231 (with a half-life 32,000 years which is even longer than plutonium Pu-239) which implies the need for long term management in timescales comparable to typical high level waste from uranium reactors. Not surprisingly, a chart published in Nuclear Engineering International magazine in November 2009 shows that the radiotoxicity of spent thorium fuel is actually higher than uranium spent fuel over the long term, ie after first 10,000 years:
No proliferation? Yes, thorium can’t itself be used to build nuclear weapons but it can’t be used directly as a nuclear fuel either. In fact, it has to be first converted into the fissile uranium isotope, U-233. That’s an isotope that is suitable for nuclear weapons. The US successfully detonated a nuclear bomb containing U-233 in 1955.
Even the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change commissioned a report which concluded in 2012 that the claims by thorium proponents who say that the radioactive chemical element makes it impossible to build a bomb from nuclear waste, leaves less hazardous waste than uranium reactors, and that it runs more efficiently, are “overstated”.
Thorium reactors exist only in blueprints and early experiments, which means there could be other issues not yet detected that would complicate their large scale implementation. In any case, this also means that it would take much longer than a decade before thorium reactors would potentially become available for a larger commercial deployment……. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/the-mythologies-of-thorium-and-uranium/blog/48625/
Risky Plutonium-Mixed Fuel used in Japan’s new nuclear reactor restart
Japan Restarts Nuclear Reactor Using Plutonium-Mixed Fuel http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/japan-restarts-nuclear-reactor-plutonium-mixed-fuel-36593509, By MARI YAMAGUCHI, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 29 Jan 16, Japan on Friday restarted a nuclear reactor that uses riskier plutonium-based MOX fuel, the first of that type to resume operations under stricter safety rules introduced after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Japan’s large stockpile of plutonium has raised international nuclear security concerns, and the government has come up with the idea of burning it in reactors to reduce the amount.
The No. 3 reactor at Takahama nuclear plant in western Japan, operated by Kansai Electric Power Co., went back online Friday. Dozens of people protested outside the plant in Fukui prefecture, where preparations for a restart of another reactor, No. 4, are also underway.
Fukui has more than a dozen reactors, the biggest concentration in one prefecture, causing safety concerns for neighbors including Kyoto and Shiga, whose Lake Biwa is a major source of drinking water for western Japan.
Two reactors that use conventional uranium fuel were restarted last year in southern Japan. Japan started burning MOX, a plutonium-uranium hybrid fuel, in some of its conventional reactors in 2009. Experts say conventional reactors can safely burn MOX for up to one-third of their fuel, but it emits more radiation and could interfere with control rods when they are needed to suppress the nuclear chain reaction.
Japan has enough plutonium, mostly from reprocessed spent fuel, to make 6,000 bombs.
Nearly five years since a massive earthquake and tsunami caused meltdowns at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, about 100,000 people still cannot return to nearby areas. Workers at the plant continue to struggle with its decommissioning, which will take decades.
Aiming to help business by generating energy, Japan’s government is pushing to restart as many reactors as possible after they are deemed safe. Forty remaining workable reactors are still offline for safety checks.
Follow Mari Yamaguchi on Twitter at twitter.com/mariyamaguchi
Her work can be found at http://bigstory.ap.org/content/mari-yamaguchi
Local medical cyclotrons, not nuclear reactors, best for producing medical isotopes
Medical isotope production in Australia: Should we be using reactor based or cyclotron technology? 15th January 2016 Dr Margaret Beavis MBBS FRACGP MPH Medical Association for Prevention of War, Australia Health Professionals Promoting Peace “…….Cyclotron isotope production A cyclotron is an electromagnetic device (about the size of a four wheel drive car) used to accelerate charged particles (ions) to sufficiently high speed (energy) so that when it impinges upon a target the atoms in the target are transformed into another element. 10 In other words, it uses electricity and magnets to shoot a narrow beam of energy at elements, e.g. molybdenum-100, a natural material, and this produces technetium-99.Big anxieties with China and Russia’s plans for floating nuclear reactors
China and Russia plan to cover the oceans with floating nuclear power plants http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-and-russia-plan-to-cover-the-oceans-with-floating-nuclear-power-plants-2016-01-21 By JURICADUJMOVIC Jan 21, 2016
And the big problem: Human memory is short, even when it comes to disaster
In an effort to become the largest exporter of nuclear-energy technology, China has started building a reactor housed in a floating vessel, which is scheduled to be finished by 2020. If that sounds alarming, brace yourself: More than 100 additional nuclear reactors are planned for the next decade.
The idea behind this “micro” 200-megawatt reactor (1 megawatt can power 1,000 homes) was to create a mobile energy source for offshore oil and gas exploration, as well as provide electricity, heating, and facilitate desalination for islands and coastal areas.
I don’t know about you, but this certainly gets my Geiger counter beeping with unease. While some dismiss the danger, saying floating nuclear reactors aren’t all that dangerous — nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers basically fit that description — the truth remains that it’s still a freaking nuclear reactor. History taught us the price we have to pay every time “highly unlikely” disasters happen, and now that another 100 of these will be built in the coming decade, the likelihood of yet another nuclear disaster will increase.
The Chinese government did its best to cover up the disaster, silencing local and foreign journalists. Now imagine if it were a floating nuclear reactor. Nothing would change, apart from more dire consequences and even more censorship.
Also looking to join the fun in the radioactive sun is Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov. This floating nuclear power plant will be ready for deployment in October. It’s going to be used to power port cities, industrial infrastructure, and oil and gas drilling rigs and refineries, which, according to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, will prove to be a great asset in Arctic exploration. The ship is 144 meters long with two reactors capable of producing 70 megawatts of electricity.
Although they have their fair share of nuclear “mishaps,” the Russians are kicking their nuclear efforts up a notch: Akademik Lomonosov is only the first of many floating nuclear power plants that will be built. Vessels will also be available to rent. So far, 15 countries have shown interest in having these power plants for their own use.
Here’s where things get scary: Imagine that out of hundreds of these floating nuclear power plants, just a dozen or so become targeted by terrorists or a military force. Regardless of the scenario, the resulting tragedy would be felt worldwide.
Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps we’re ushering in a sort of a nuclear renaissance, an age in which nuclear energy really proves to be a safer and better solution than fossil-fuel sources.
But I doubt it. Humanity has proven that it understands the dangers of something only when the worst has already happened, and even then just for a brief while. ..
You can thank the Chernobyl disaster for 20 years of stagnation (1986-2006) during which time fewer nuclear power plants were built. In 2007, however, humanity tried its luck with nuclear energy again. Following a short increase, we saw yet another decline in 2011. Why? You guessed it: That was the year of the Fukushima disaster, and it took the world less than five years to forget the effects of the meltdown. It’s time for another adventure!
But what of Fukushima? As of 2013, the site in Japan remained highly radioactive, with some 160,000 evacuees still living in temporary housing, and tracts of land that will likely remain unsuitable for farming for centuries. The difficult cleanup job will take 40 years or longer to complete, and will cost tens of billions of dollars. Following the disaster, Japan shut down 54 nuclear power plants.
We’ve seen what happens when things go awry with just one nuclear power plant. Now, with hundreds in the making, will we live long enough to finally learn from our mistakes? Let’s hope so.
NuScale revs up its marketing propaganda for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)
Mini-nuclear plants in UK by 2025, Fluor’s NuScale Says by Alex Morales, Financial Review, 18 Jan 16
UK ambitions to build small modular nuclear plants may be realised as soon as 2025, according to Fluor Corp’s NuScale unit, which is seeking to be a pioneer in the market.
NuScale plans to submit its 50-megawatt reactor design for approval by US nuclear authorities towards the end of 2016. That would leave it well placed to seek the UK equivalent, called Generic Design Assessment, in 2017, Tom Mundy, executive vice-president for program development at the US company, said in an interview in London.
“Assuming the GDA is submitted and takes four years, we’d be looking at approval in 2021,” Mr Mundy said. “There’s then a 36- month construction time, so it’s plausible to expect that if all things line up, we could have a UK plant built by 2025.”
Britain is trying to secure new baseload power as it closes down all its coal-fired plants by 2025. Conventional nuclear power is proving expensive and time-consuming, while most companies don’t think it’s profitable to build new gas-fired stations. The Treasury in November said it will plow £250 million ($515 million) into research and development over the next five years aimed at building one of the world’s first small modular nuclear reactors in the 2020s………..
The global market for small modular reactors may total as much as £400 billion by 2035, according to a report in late 2014 by the National Nuclear Laboratory, which advises the UK government. It identified reactor designs that may meet UK requirements coming from NuScale, Toshiba.’s Westinghouse unit, China National Nuclear and the mPower venture by Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises. and Bechtel Group.
NuScale won’t manufacture its own reactors and has investigated the UK supply chain, according to Mr Mundy. Once established in Britain, the company could then export its modules to other European countries, he said………
When Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced the R&D funding for modular reactors, it was stated that a competition for funding will be held “early next year”. The Department of Energy and Climate Change said no fixed timetable has been set. Mr Mundy said he doesn’t doubt the government’s intentions.
“Nuclear power has a long legacy in this country, and our reactors are based on tried-and-tested light-water technology,” Mr Mundy said. “I’m optimistic that with what the chancellor said and the indications from DECC we’re going to continue to move forward.” http://www.afr.com/business/energy/nuclear-energy/mininuclear-plants-in-uk-by-2025-fluors-nuscale-says-20160118-gm89c4#ixzz3xd3bnLxN
Anything to make nuclear look good – Russia’s asteroid plan
Scientists plan nuclear strike to save earth http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/scientists-plan-nuclear-strike-to-save-earth/news-story/803d9da83072b44a5934fcb60f1a1268 MARC BENNETTS THE TIMES JANUARY 18, 2016
Russian scientists have come up with plans to protect the planet from asteroids heading towards Earth by launching nuclear missiles.
Although the use of nuclear weapons in outer space is prohibited under a 1967 treaty, Russian scientists say that the ban would be lifted if the planet was in genuine danger. “If the asteroid threat becomes a matter of massive destruction or even the very existence of life on the planet, that ban would naturally be lifted,” they said.
The plan would not be to destroy the asteroid but to deflect it off course to a safe distance from Earth.
The strategy was formulated as part of the 2012-15 European Union-funded NEOShield project. Researchers from Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, said: “Work was distributed among participants from different countries and organisations, and work on deflecting dangerous space objects with nuclear explosions was conducted by Russia.”
NEOShield, which received most of its funding from the EU, brought together researchers from Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Russia and the US. A three-year follow-up programme, NEOShield-2, began last March.
Other proposals developed as part of the project include a “kinetic impactor”, deflecting asteroids by crashing small unmanned spacecraft into them.
Obama funding “new nuclear”
President Obama’s 2016 budget includes more than $900 million for the DOE to support U.S. civilian nuclear energy. The DOE also has $12.5 billion in remaining loan guarantee authority for advanced nuclear projects through Title 17.
DOE Funds Advanced Pebble-Bed and Molten-Salt Nuclear Reactor Development The DOE pushes nuclear research, deployments and some regulatory reform.GreenTech Media by Eric Wesoff January 15, 2016 Last week, small modular reactor startup Terrestrial Energy closed $8 millionin funding for its proprietary Integral Molten Salt Reactor design.
Earlier this week, a bipartisan bill won approval by the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Science, Space and Technology to drive R&D funding for nuclear power in the U.S. According to The Hill, “The bill directs the Department of Energy to prioritize nuclear energy research that utilizes private sector funding.” The legislation encourages private firms to partner with the national labs to study nuclear reactor technology, and calls for the DOE to “complete a research reactor within the next 10 years.”
And this morning, the DOE announced the selection of two companies, X-energy and Southern Company, “to further develop advanced nuclear reactor designs.” These awards originate from the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear(GAIN) program.
DOE’s initial funding will be $6 million for each project, with both firms providing cost-share. The potential “multi-year cost-share value for this research is up to $80 million,” and it is aiming for a demonstration project in about 20 years, according to the DOE.
The advanced nuclear power projects receiving awards are: Continue reading
China to develop small floating nuclear reactors
Chinese oil, nuclear companies to develop floating atomic platforms for offshore drilling http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/15/business/chinese-oil-nuclear-companies-develop-floating-atomic-platforms-offshore-drilling/#.VplMlZp97Gh TOKYO/HONG KONG – China National Offshore Oil Corp. and China General Nuclear Power Corp. will work together to develop nuclear technology for use in sea-based oil fields, the country’s biggest offshore explorer announced on Friday.
The state-owned companies signed the strategic cooperation framework on Jan. 14, China National Offshore said on its official Weibo account on Friday. CGN, China’s biggest nuclear power operator, announced on Jan. 12 that the government had approved construction of a demonstration floating nuclear reactor that could be used for offshore oil production.
“This partnership will push forward the organic integration of the offshore oil industry and the nuclear power industry,” China National Offshore said in the statement.
The National Development and Reform Commission, China’s economic planner, has urged CGN to speed up the pace of development of the floating reactor, known as the ACPR50S, the company said in its Jan. 12 statement. Construction of the demonstration reactor is expected to start next year, with it powering up by 2020, according to CGN.
For China,nuclear reprocessing is both too costly and too dangerous
While reprocessing reduces the level of radioactivity in nuclear waste, The Union of Concerned Scientists – an advocacy group that was founded by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – says it does not reduce the need for storage and secure disposal of waste.
Some within China’s own nuclear establishment are also questioning the merits of reprocessing as the nation mulls huge capital investments in the sector, U.S.-based experts say.
China is an important market for the world’s nuclear industry giants, including the United States. The U.S. last year eased restrictions on its civilian nuclear cooperation with China to allow the reprocessing of fuel from U.S.-designed reactors
China faces nuclear energy choice: reprocess or not? WT, By MATTHEW PENNINGTON – Associated Press – Thursday, January 14, 2016 WASHINGTON (AP) – China is coming to a crossroads as it hurriedly increases nuclear power production to cope with rising electricity demand and cut carbon emissions: Should it reprocess its nuclear waste or store it?
Nonproliferation advocates warn that recycling waste would generate weapons-usable plutonium, posing a security risk and potentially stirring a nuclear rivalry in East Asia. A new Harvard University study, co-authored by a senior Chinese nuclear engineer, gives another reason against reprocessing – it doesn’t make economic sense. Continue reading
Was North Korea’s nuclear test really and H-Bomb: Science can tell
SCIENCE CAN TELL IF NORTH KOREA’S TEST WAS REALLY AN H-BOMB, Wired, 7 Jan 16, “……North Korea has a history of exaggerating its military claims to achieve its political ends. (South Korea, the US, and Japan are typically named…… because North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un is unlikely to let international inspectors anywhere near the test site, the only real way to tell whether North Korea’s big boom was the big H is by analyzing data collected from a suite of global sensors……
Hydrogen bombs, on the other hand, use nuclear fusion—melding atoms together—to release way more explosive energy. These “thermonuclear” weapons are so powerful that they actually need atomic fission to kickstart the fusion process. That’s right, H-bombs use an A-bomb just to get going. American scientists detonated the first H-bomb in 1952, on a Pacific atoll. It was over 500 times more powerful than the bomb the US dropped on Nagasaki. Modern H-bombs are at least twice as powerful. Which is why everyone is so freaked out about whether North Korea, the world’s most famous renegade nation, has a hydrogen bomb…….
why seismologists take recordings from multiple sensors. The agency responsible for monitoring atomic blasts, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, currently has 42 certified seismic stations distributed around the globe (plus over 100 auxiliary stations). Because seismic signals bounce through the Earth, not only did Russia and Japan pick up North Korea’s event, but so did the US……….
The smoking gun can only really come by detecting radioactive material. To that end, CTBTO has radionuclide detection stations scattered throughout the globe. These come in two flavors. The first looks for radioactive dust—fallout. These systems use suction pumps to pull air through a filter, which then goes through a radiation counter. The types of particles present, and their radioactivity, would give a lot of clues as to the bomb’s type. Let’s say you have a typical atom bomb: Its fallout particles would be decayed bits of uranium or plutonium.
A hydrogen bomb also uses those materials, but they’d be mostly burned away by the super hot fusion reaction. According to this 1991 analysis of a Chinese explosionpublished in Science and Global Security, an H-bomb’s radioactive particulate signature would have a lot less decayed plutonium and uranium, and also different ratios of their various decayed isotopes. But if someone knew the exact particles found after an H-bomb went off, they could use that knowledge to build their own H-bomb (that’s probably one of the ways the Soviets copied the US’s weapon). Which is why Wallace told me the details of the analysis are secret. But if the blast is underground, as this one seems to have been, radionuclide detection is little help—the particles get contained.
The other type of detector looks for radioactive gases, rather than particles. Xenon gas is the most potent of these, partly because it is a noble gas that doesn’t interact with other substances. Xenon can, however, decay. And the rate of decay tells scientists the gas atoms’ exact age. For instance, after North Korea’s 2013 test, a Japanese sensor picked up xenon isotopes that scientists deduced were exactly 55 days old. The exact same day as North Korea’s test…….
it matters not just what kind of bomb North Korea detonated, but that the country detonated one at all. http://www.wired.com/2016/01/science-can-tell-if-north-koreas-test-was-really-an-h-bomb/
28 years later Japan’s costly nuclear recycling complex is still not working
Japan’s $25 Billion Nuclear Recycling Quest Enters 28th Year, Bloomberg Stephen Stapczynski sstapczynski Emi Urabe January 5, 2016 It’s designed to recycle spent uranium from Japan’s nuclear power plants, consists of more than three dozen buildings spread over 740 hectares (1,829 acres), costs almost $25 billion and has been under construction for nearly three decades. Amount of fuel successfully reprocessed for commercial use: zero.
Under construction since the late 1980s, the complex is designed to turn nuclear waste into fuel by separating out plutonium and usable uranium. The start date of the project has now been pushed back for the 23rd time, with operations set to commence in 2018.
The money continuing to pour into the Rokkasho reprocessing complex in a northeast corner of Japan’s main island of Honshu is raising speculation that attention is being diverted from more-promising avenues of energy development, including renewables.
Construction on Rokkasho, the heart of the endeavor, was supposed to be completed by 1997. Delays due to technical and safety issues have kept it from operating commercially while costs ballooned to an estimated 2.94 trillion yen ($24.6 billion), according to Japan Nuclear Fuel. The Japanese government and the country’s power industry view fuel reprocessing generally, and Rokkasho specifically, as one of the only ways to lower import dependence and find a home for thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel. Japan has about 17,000 metric tons of spent fuel, almost 3,000 tons of which are stored at Rokkasho.
The facility was originally intended to separate plutonium from spent fuel for use in so-called fast-breeder reactors — plants that produce more fuel than they consume.
While the nation’s first prototype fast-breeder reactor has remained closed due to its own technical issues, Rokkasho expanded construction to include a facility that processes plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide fuel, known as MOX, that can be used in some of Japan’s existing reactors…… http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-04/japan-s-25-billion-nuclear-recycling-quest-enters-28th-year
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (22)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
