nuclear-news

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

Nano diamond batteries from nuclear waste? Impractical and not likely to ever happen

Arkenlight “surprised” by NDB’s grand nuclear diamond battery claims, New Atlas By Loz Blain, September 30, 2020  Totally safe, self-charging batteries that generate power for thousands of years … It’s an exciting thought, and when we wrote about California’s NDB in August, the story generated all kinds of feedback. A lot of people felt some of NDB’s claims were outrageously false, contravening the laws of physics and vastly overstating the capabilities of a device that was already well understood.

To briefly recap, the device in question is what NDB calls the nano diamond battery. This is also known as the nuclear diamond battery, a technology first developed at the University of Bristol. The concept is this: you take particular types of nuclear waste from nuclear power stations – specifically parts of the graphite moderators and reflectors that have been exposed to fuel rod radiation and that have themselves become radioactive in the form of carbon-14. ………
The claims that caused the uproar were around the technology’s utility in consumer devices. NDB representatives told us in an interview that if the company made one of these cells the same size as an iPhone battery, “it would charge your battery from zero to full, five times an hour,” for decades. They said they could replace the battery in a Tesla electric car with something slightly more powerful that’d last some 90 years without ever needing a charge, and would come in cheaper than a standard Tesla battery……..
Commenters – and indeed YouTube debunkers – called us out for publishing these claims, saying that carbon-14 simply can’t produce energy fast enough to be useful in a device that requires sustained high power draws. The diamond part of the battery would charge up the supercapacitor so slowly, they pointed out, that either you’d need a much, much larger quantity of it, or you’d need to find applications that give the supercapacitor a long time to charge itself up between high-power discharges. The idea of using one in a phone or a car, they said, was laughable.

IWe ended up having a very informative chat with Morgan Boardman, an Industrial Fellow and Strategic Advisory Consultant with the Aspire Diamond Group at the South West Nuclear Hub of the University of Bristol.

He is also – and this is much less of a tongue twister – the CEO of a new company called Arkenlight, which has been created to commercialize the Bristol team’s diamond battery technologies, among other radioisotope-driven power sources.

In short, Boardman broadly agreed with the position that these “betabatteries” produce power far too slowly to replace the cells in your iPhone or Tesla; yes, you could build a betabattery for a phone or a vehicle, but only if you’re prepared to have the battery be several times the size of the device it’s powering.

What’s more, he pointed out that the University of Bristol took out patents covering all devices that embed radioisotopes in diamond structures, and that Arkenlight now holds those patents. So if NDB is talking about using the same kind of nuclear diamond technology – which it sure sounds like it is – it could have some licensing issues ahead of it.

So it seems it’s time to pump the brakes on some of NDB’s more exciting claims  ……….. https://newatlas.com/energy/arkenlight-nuclear-diamond-batteries/

October 3, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Reference, technology, USA | Leave a comment

On the moon ”normal” humans (i.e males) will get 200 Times the Radiation Experienced on Earth, (what about females?)

Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs

 

It is amazing that in all this propaganda for putting a woman on the moon, – no mention is ever made, of the fact that women are much more susceptible to the effects of ionising radiation, meaning that their risk of developing cancer and other illnesses is greater than it is for men. Apparently the space enthusiasts are still buying into that traditional view that the ”normal” human being is male.

Moonwalking Humans Get Blasted With 200 Times the Radiation Experienced on Earth, Smithsonian Magazine ,

By Alex Fox, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM, SEPTEMBER 29, 2020
The new findings will inform how much shielding future astronauts will need to safely explore the moon,  The 12 human beings who have walked on the moon were all bombarded by radiation roughly 200 times what we experience here on Earth, reports Adam Mann for Science. That’s two to three times what astronauts experience aboard the International Space Station, explains Marcia Dunn for the Associated Press (AP), suggesting that any long term human presence on the moon will require shelters with thick walls capable of blocking the radiation.

The 12 human beings who have walked on the moon were all bombarded by radiation roughly 200 times what we experience here on Earth, reports Adam Mann for Science. That’s two to three times what astronauts experience aboard the International Space Station, explains Marcia Dunn for the Associated Press (AP), suggesting that any long term human presence on the moon will require shelters with thick walls capable of blocking the radiation.

Despite the fact that the measurements, which come courtesy of China’s Chang’e-4 lunar lander, are quite high compared to what we experience on Earth, the data is quite useful for protecting future moonwalkers. According to Science, the levels of radiation at the lunar surface wouldn’t be expected to increase the risk of NASA astronauts developing cancer by more than 3 percent—a risk threshold the agency is legally required to keep its astronauts’ activities safely below.

Despite the fact that the measurements, which come courtesy of China’s Chang’e-4 lunar lander, are quite high compared to what we experience on Earth, the data is quite useful for protecting future moonwalkers. According to Science, the levels of radiation at the lunar surface wouldn’t be expected to increase the risk of NASA astronauts developing cancer by more than 3 percent—a risk threshold the agency is legally required to keep its astronauts’ activities safely below……

Some forms of radiation, which is electromagnetic energy emitted in forms like heat, visible light, X-rays and radio waves, can mess with the cells inside the human body by breaking up the atoms and molecules they’re made of. On Earth, most people are familiar with ultraviolet radiation’s harmful effects on our skin, but in space, astronauts are also subjected to galactic cosmic rays, accelerated solar particles, neutrons and gamma rays, according to the research published this week in the journal Science Advances. This material can damage our DNA and lead to increased incidences of cancer or contribute to other health problems such as cataracts and degenerative diseases of the central nervous system or other organ systems.

Humanity measured the radiation astronauts on the Apollo missions experienced on their journeys to the moon, but those measurements were cumulative for each astronaut’s entire journey, per Science. To figure out the daily dose of radiation exclusively on the surface of the moon, the robotic Chang’e-4 lander used a stack of ten silicon solid-state detectors.

The renewed interest in collecting such measurements is partly because NASA has plans to send more people to the moon. The Artemis moon mission, scheduled for 2024, will feature the first woman ever to walk on the moon as well as a week-long expedition to the lunar surface and a minimum of two moonwalks, reports Katie Hunt for CNN.

Berger tells the AP that these new findings suggest the shelters needed to protect Artemis’ astronauts during such a long stay on the moon should have walls made of moon dirt that are some two and a half feet thick. Science notes that the shelter would also need an even more heavily shielded inner sanctum to protect astronauts in the event of a solar storm. Adequate shielding for this inner chamber would be roughly 30 feet of water, and would also need to be reachable within 30 minutes—the current limit of satellites’ abilities to provide astronauts with advanced warning of such hazards.

The findings aren’t exactly suprising: they are in line with calculations made using existing measurements. But they’re a crucial step towards putting people on the surface of the moon for extended periods of time. According to Science, the results confirm that with proper shielding astronauts could spend as long as six months on the moon.  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/moonwalking-humans-get-blasted-200-times-radiation-experienced-earth-180975926/

October 1, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation, space travel | Leave a comment

Lunar base woud have to be underground, due to the danger of high radiation on the moon

After measuring radiation on the moon for the first time, scientists say a lunar base should be built underground to protect astronauts, Business Insider, AYLIN WOODWARD, SEP 30, 2020, 

  • NASA recently unveiled the plan for its Artemis program, a series of missions that would return astronauts to the moon.
  • A new study found how much radiation astronauts are exposed to on the lunar surface: a daily dose about 200 times as great as on Earth.
  • NASA wants to build a base on the moon, but the new data suggests it’d be safest to bury such a base under 2.5 feet of moon dirt to protect astronauts from radiation.
NASA wants to build a permanent base on the moon by the 2030s — a place astronauts could stay for extended visits at the lunar south pole.

But a new study found that any astronauts who go there would face levels of radiation nearly three times as high as what the astronauts on the space station deal with. Long-term exposure to enough of this cosmic radiation poses significant health risks, including cataracts, cancer, and diseases of the central nervous system.

The new research, published last week in the journal Science, calculated for the first time what a moonwalker’s daily dose of radiation would be.

“If you think about people staying on the moon for extended periods of time — say, on a scientific research station for a year or two — then these levels start getting problematic,” Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber, an author of the new study, told Business Insider.

The solution, he said, would be to build any lunar base beneath the moon’s surface.

“Covering your habitat with sufficient amounts of lunar dirt should do the trick,” Wimmer-Schweingruber said.

The first study to calculate radiation on the moon

Apollo astronauts carried radiation-measuring instruments on their missions in the 1960s and ’70s, but those dosimeters could tell scientists only the total amount of radiation the astronauts were exposed to throughout their time in space, from blasting off to landing, not just on the moon.

Wimmer-Schweingruber’s team was able to document daily radiation levels on the moon’s surface by analysing data collected by China’s Chang’e 4 spacecraft, which landed in January 2019………

Astronauts on the moon, meanwhile, face a daily radiation level five to 10 times as high as transatlantic fliers, since the moon doesn’t have the shield that Earth does.

So an astronaut on the lunar surface would be exposed to 1,369 microsieverts of radiation per day, about 200 times the daily level on Earth. ……….. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/radiation-on-the-moon-lunar-base-should-be-buried-2020-9?r=US&IR=T

October 1, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, health, space travel | Leave a comment

One more Utah city withdraws from NuScam small nuclear reactor project

Kaysville withdraws from nuclear power project. Post Register, By NATHAN BROWN nbrown@postregister.com

    Sep 28, 2020   One more Utah city has withdrawn from a project to build 12 small nuclear reactors west of Idaho Falls.

The Kaysville City Council voted unanimously a week-and-a-half ago to withdraw from the Carbon Free Power Project, although the resolution left the door open for the city to hold a special meeting to rejoin the project if anything changes……….

Lehi and Logan have also withdrawn from the Carbon Free Power Project over the past month-and-a-half, citing potential risks to local taxpayers if costs go up. There are still more than 30 cities and power systems, including Idaho Falls, that are part of it, and the members have until Oct. 31 to recommit to the project’s next phase by approving the new budget. Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems is waiting for the U.S. Department of Energy to give final approval to a promised $1.4 billion to support the project.  ……. https://www.postregister.com/news/government/kaysville-withdraws-from-nuclear-power-project/article_fbb6f15e-e8c6-5207-b6e9-bbf632538c85.html

October 1, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Dr Helen Caldicott busts the media spin on ‘small nuclear reactors’

HELEN CALDICOTT: Small modular reactors — the next big thing?

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/helen-caldicott-small-modular-reactors–the-next-big-thing,14342#disqus_thread  By Helen Caldicott | 27 September 2020  Politicians debating nuclear power as an energy source, know little of the facts that make small modular reactors a bad idea, writes Dr Caldicott.    AUSTRALIAN politicians are contemplating developing nuclear power for this country. In their ignorance, they are mooting “small modular reactors” (SMRs) about which they clearly know little.

The so-called “nuclear renaissance” died following the Fukushima catastrophe when one-sixth of the world’s nuclear reactors closed. However, global nuclear corporations – Toshiba, NuScale, Babcock & Wilcox, GE Hitachi, General Atomics and the Tennessee Valley Authority – did not accept defeat.

Their new strategy has been to develop small modular nuclear reactors without the dangers inherent in large reactors — safety, cost, proliferation risks and radioactive waste. But these claims are fallacious for the reasons outlined below.

Basically, there are three types of SMRs which generate less than 300 megawatts of electricity compared with current day 1000 megawatt reactors.

Light water reactors designs

These will be smaller versions of present-day pressurized water reactors using water as the moderator and coolant, but with the same attendant problems as Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Built underground, they will be difficult to access in the event of an accident or malfunction.

Mass-produced (turnkey production) large numbers must be sold yearly to make a profit. This is an unlikely prospect because major markets – China and India – will not buy U.S. reactors when they can make their own.

If safety problems arise – as in General Motors cars – they all must be shut down which will interfere substantially with electricity supply.

SMRs will be expensive because the cost per unit capacity increases with a decrease in reactor size. Billions of dollars of government subsidies will be required because Wall Street is allergic to nuclear power. To alleviate costs, it is suggested that safety rules be relaxed, including reducing security requirements and a reduction in the 10-mile emergency planning zone to 1,000 feet.

Non-light water designs

These are high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR) or pebble bed reactors. Five billion tiny fuel kernels consisting of high-enriched uranium or plutonium will be encased in tennis-ball-sized graphite spheres which must be made without cracks or imperfections — or they could lead to an accident. A total of 450,000 such spheres will slowly and continuously be released from a fuel silo – passing through the reactor core – and then be re-circulated ten times. These reactors will be cooled by helium gas operating at very high temperatures (900 degrees Celsius).

A reactor complex consisting of four HTGR modules will be located underground, to be run by just two operators in a central control room. Claims are that HTGRs will be so safe that a containment building will be unnecessary and operators can even leave the site – “walk away safe” reactors.

However, should temperatures unexpectedly exceed 1,600 degrees Celsius, the carbon coating will release dangerous radioactive isotopes into the helium gas and at 2,000 degrees Celsius the carbon would ignite creating a fierce graphite Chernobyl-type fire.

If a crack develops in the piping or building, radioactive helium would escape and air would rush in, also igniting the graphite.

Although HTGRs produce small amounts of low-level waste they create larger volumes of high-level waste than conventional reactors.

Despite these obvious safety problems and despite the fact that South Africa has abandoned plans for HTGRs, the U.S. Department of Energy has unwisely chosen the HTGR as the “Next Generation Nuclear Plant”.

Liquid metal fast reactors (PRISM)

It is claimed by proponents that fast reactors will be safe, economically competitive, proliferation-resistant and sustainable.

They will be fueled by plutonium or highly enriched uranium and cooled by either liquid sodium or a lead-bismuth molten coolant. Liquid sodium burns or explodes when exposed to air or water and lead-bismuth is extremely corrosive producing very volatile radioactive elements when irradiated.

Should a crack occur in the reactor complex, liquid sodium would escape, burning or exploding. Without coolant, the plutonium fuel could reach critical mass, triggering a massive nuclear explosion scattering plutonium to the four winds. One-millionth of a gram of plutonium induces cancer and it lasts for 500,000 years. Extraordinarily, claims are made that fast reactors will be so safe they will require no emergency sirens and emergency planning zones can be decreased from ten miles to 1,300 feet.

There are two types of fast reactors: a simple plutonium fueled reactor and a “breeder” in which the plutonium reactor core is surrounded by a blanket of uranium 238 which captures neutrons and converts to plutonium.

The plutonium fuel, obtained from spent reactor fuel will be fissioned and converted to shorter-lived isotopes — caesium and strontium which last 600 years instead of 500,000. Called “transmutation”, the industry claims that this is an excellent way to get rid of plutonium waste. But this is fallacious because only ten per cent fissions, leaving 90 per cent of the plutonium for bomb-making etc.

Three small plutonium fast reactors will be grouped together to form a module and three of these modules will be buried underground. All nine reactors will then be connected to a fully automated central control room operated by only three operators. Potentially then, one operator could simultaneously face a catastrophic situation triggered by the loss of off-site power to one unit at full power, in another shut down for refuelling and in one in start-up mode. There are to be no emergency core cooling systems.

Fast reactors require a massive infrastructure including a reprocessing plant to dissolve radioactive waste fuel rods in nitric acid, chemically removing the plutonium and a fuel fabrication facility to create new fuel rods. A total of 10,160 kilos of plutonium is required to operate a fuel cycle at a fast reactor and just 2.5 kilos is fuel for a nuclear weapon.

Thus fast reactors and breeders will provide extraordinary long-term medical dangers and the perfect situation for nuclear weapons proliferation. Despite this, the industry is clearly trying to market them to many countries including, it seems, Australia.

You can follow Dr Caldicott on Twitter @DrHCaldicott. Click here for Dr Caldicott’s complete curriculum vitae.

September 28, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Russia’s nuclear-powered ice-breakers lead towards military domination of the Arctic

Russia’s Nuclear-Powered Icebreaker Is a Step Toward Military Domination

The country is fast becoming an icebreaking superpower.  BY KYLE MIZOKAMI, SEP 24, 2020   Russia’s newest icebreaker, the nuclear-powered Arktika, is headed to its new homeport in St. Petersburg, Russia. The ship, painted in the colors of the Russian state flag, will operate north of the Arctic Circle in anticipation of a year-round shipping route across the icy far north. Arktika is part of Moscow’s emerging policy of exploiting a warming arctic region—and protecting its stake in the region from competitors.

  • Russia’s first new nuclear-powered icebreaker in decades, Arktika, is joining the country’s large fleet of icebreaking ships.
  • Arktika is capable of smashing through ice that’s nearly 10 feet thick.<
  • Millions of Russians live above the Arctic Circle, and warming ocean temperatures could create ice-free shortcuts between Asia and Europe.Russia’s newest icebreaker, the nuclear-powered Arktika, is headed to its new homeport in St. Petersburg, Russia. The ship, painted in the colors of the Russian state flag, will operate north of the Arctic Circle in anticipation of a year-round shipping route across the icy far north. Arktika is part of Moscow’s emerging policy of exploiting a warming arctic region—and protecting its stake in the region from competitors.

<Arktika is the first of a new class of nuclear-powered icebreakers. Construction began at the Baltic Shipyards in St. Petersburg in 2012 with a scheduled launch in 2017, but delays pushed the completion back to 2020. This past February, a short circuit damaged one of the ship’s three 300-ton electric motors, disabling one of the three propellers. Russian authorities ordered the ship to continue, however, and the ship is currently moving on just two propellers.

In 2019, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the country would ultimately have a fleet of 13 icebreakers, the majority of them nuclear-powered. …………..

Iceabreakers like Arktika could also allow Russia to militarily dominate the Northern Sea Route, smashing a route for Russian warships and transports full of Russian Marines. Warming temperatures will mean other countries, such as Canada and the U.S., will likely move to unlock natural resources previously trapped under sheets of sea ice, and Russia will be in a position to threaten oil, gas, and mineral exploration and exploitation…………. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a34128219/russia-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-arktika/

 

September 26, 2020 Posted by | ARCTIC, oceans, Russia, technology, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Canada to splurge $billions on non-existent small nuclear reactors, ineffective and no use against climate change

GIBBONS: Nuclear power no solution to climate change https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gibbons-nuclear-power-no-solution-to-climate-change, Author of the article:, Jack Gibbons, Sep 25, 2020  At a time when action on climate change has never been more urgent, the federal Liberals want to throw billions of dollars at non-existent technology that will not make a difference for decades, if ever.

But that’s pretty much the way things have always been when it comes to federal spending on nuclear power: As long as the word “nuclear” is attached, we put common sense aside and fund projects that lead to one dead end after another.

More than $400 million for Advanced CANDU reactors that never got built? You bet. Another $600 million on the infamous Maple medical isotope reactor design, which proved unsafe to operate? No problem.

Now the industry’s latest pitch is Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and off we go on another wild goose chase with Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan once again promising billions for technology that is nowhere in sight, let alone use.

Meanwhile, costs for wind and solar have plunged to the point where these energy sources are now outcompeting even natural gas.

Nuclear, for its part, is fading fast. Due to its high costs and safety concerns, nuclear’s share of the world electricity market has cratered in the past two decades. More places are now retiring aging reactors than building them.

The nuclear industry loves to claim they are a critical climate change solution — except on a cost per tonne basis.

Nuclear is like buying a Mercedes to go to the corner store.

Ontario pays as little as two cents a kilowatt hour (kWh) for energy efficient improvements that could displace the need for nuclear while reducing greenhouse gas pollution.

Alberta is now paying around five cents per kWh for solar and four cents for wind.

Ontario Power Generation says it will need to be paid 16.5 cents per kWh for nuclear by 2025.

A whole lot has changed since the bad old days of Ontario’s Green Energy Act.

Yes, the sun doesn’t always shine or the wind blow. Which is why it is fortunate that in Ontario we live beside a giant battery.

Quebec has an enormous water-power reservoir system that Hydro Quebec is keen to integrate with renewable sources for its out-of-province customers.

When we have surplus solar and wind, Quebec stores water. When not, it produces hydro power for export.

We have the connections necessary to make this system work and can expand them at a cost that looks like spare change next to what it costs to rebuild a nuclear reactor or get an SMR prototype built.

The nuclear industry is grasping at straws. Its technology is obsolete, its promises unfulfilled and its costs ever rising.

Betting on nuclear as a climate solution is just sticking our heads in the sand because SMR technology is decades away, extremely expensive, and comes with a nasty pile of security and waste headaches. Yes. Virginia, SMRs still produce lots of highly radioactive waste and we still have no place to put the stuff.

That our government would be this gullible is distressing, especially given the havoc already being wreaked by a changing climate.

We have simple, affordable, reliable and truly clean answers to our climate problem at our fingertips.

Yet our government sits and waits for the nuclear industry to call with some good news. And the phone never rings.

— Jack Gibbons is chairman of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance

September 26, 2020 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Radiation exposure on the moon is nearly three times that on the International Space Station

Radiation exposure on the moon is nearly three times that on the ISS, 25 September 2020

By Layal Liverpool Astronauts on the moon would face nearly three times more radiation exposure than those aboard the International Space Station, which could make long-term missions riskier than thought.

“Once you’ve survived being on the moon and come back to Earth, radiation damage is what stays with you for the rest of your life and that’s why this is a critical measurement,” says Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber at the University of Kiel in Germany.

Wimmer-Schweingruber and his team analysed several weeks of data acquired by China’s Chang’e … (subscribers only) https://www.newscientist.com/article/2255545-radiation-exposure-on-the-moon-is-nearly-three-times-that-on-the-iss/#ixzz6Z61souv7

September 26, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation, space travel | Leave a comment

Small modular nuclear reactors for Canada? – useless, expensive, untested, and a wasteful distraction

NB Media Co-op 22nd Sept 2020,Premier Blaine Higgs has endorsed so-called “small modular nuclear reactors” or SMRs. SMRs represent an untested technology but what we know on the basis of technical characteristics and historical precedent is that they will be expensive and any electricity they generate will not be economical. The nuclear industry is pushing small reactors because large reactors are simply not economical. Constructing nuclear plants is just too expensive—as Ontario’s government found out after its call in 2008 for bids to build two more reactors at the Darlington site.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. reportedly bid $26 billion for two 1200-megawatt CANDU reactors and the province abandoned its nuclear plans. Since then, the business case for nuclear power has become much worse as the cost of renewables has fallen dramatically.

https://nbmediacoop.org/2020/09/22/no-business-case-for-new-nuclear-reactors-in-new-brunswick/

Sierra Club Canada (accessed) 23rd Sept 2020, No plan that gets us to net zero in a reasonable time frame includes new  nuclear reactors. Nuclear is far too slow and expensive to deal with the climate emergency. Just like fossil fuel energy, nuclear produces wastes that pose unacceptable health hazards and economic costs.
Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants have been piling up for over 70 years. Canada still has no long-term strategy to deal with either nuclear or fossil fuel wastes. Building Canada back better means major investments in conservation and renewable energy, providing hundreds of thousands of good green jobs. Global investment in renewable energy and newly-installed renewable capacity has far surpassed nuclear in recent years. Investors are  smart: they put their money where it will yield good returns. https://www.sierraclub.ca/en/new-nuclear-is-not-part-of-path-to-net-zero

September 24, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, climate change, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, wastes | Leave a comment

Japanese government dangles financial carrot to persuade reluctant communities to take nuclear wastess

But there is no prospect for the establishment of such a recycling system which would allow for disposing only of the waste from reprocessing and recycling.

Eventually, Japan, like most other countries with nuclear power plants, will be forced to map out plans for “direct disposal,” or disposing of spent fuel from nuclear reactors in underground repositories.

Hokkaido Governor Suzuki has taken a dim view of the financial incentive offered to encourage local governments to apply for the first stage of the selection process, criticizing the proposed subsidies as “a wad of cash used as a powerful carrot.”

 

September 22, 2020 Posted by | Japan, politics, reprocessing, wastes | 5 Comments

USA.Federal Bill to promote nuclear waste borehole system, and the dubious plan for reprocessing

September 22, 2020 Posted by | politics, reprocessing | Leave a comment

Utah lawmakers seek details on planned nuclear plant in Idaho

Utah lawmakers seek details on planned nuclear plant in Idaho, Next generation technology on board in 2029? Deseret, 

By Amy Joi O’Donoghue@Amyjoi16  Sep 19, 2020,  SALT LAKE CITY — As the next station approaches for cities and special service districts to potentially disembark from additional financial investment in next-generation nuclear technology, Utah lawmakers are seeking more details on NuScale Power’s Small Modular Reactor plant……..
The Public Utilities, Energy and Transportation committee on Wednesday heard an update on the Carbon Free Power Project that is being pursued by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems — a political subdivision of the state of Utah representing 47 cities or special service districts that provide energy.

Cities and districts invested in the plant have until Oct. 31 — one of several so-called off-ramps — to bow out of the project.

During the committee hearing, Sen. Ron Winterton, R-Roosevelt, shared his concerns over the cities’ financial commitments.

“I want to feel warm and fuzzy” he said, but questioned the technology and potential risks…….

Under both the Obama and the Trump administrations, the NuScale project has received strong financial support, Squires said. The federal energy agency gave NuScale a competitive award of $226 million in 2013 to develop the technology. Two years later, the federal agency gave NuScale $16.7 million for licensing preparation. …….

Critics like the Utah Taxpayers Association, however, say the investment by Utah cities is too risky and they should not be acting as seed investors.

“We are not opposed to nuclear power, we are opposed to the financial risk,” said the association’s vice president, Rusty Cannon. ……….. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/9/19/21438026/news-nuclear-plant-in-idaho-lawmakers-seek-details-on-planned-nuscale-uamps

September 21, 2020 Posted by | politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

NuScam’s ”small” nuclear reactor design approved – but cost, safety, public acceptance hurdles loom against them

First U.S. Small Nuclear Reactor Design Is Approved, Concerns about costs and safety remain, however, Scientific American By Dave Levitan on September 9, 2020   

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the design of a new kind of reactor, known as a small modular reactor (SMR). The design, from the Portland, Ore.–based company NuScale Power, is intended to speed construction, lower cost and improve safety over traditional nuclear reactors…………
    some experts have expressed concerns over the potential expense and remaining safety issues that the industry would have to address before any such reactors are actually built.  ………
    The NRC’s design  and related final safety evaluation report (FSER) do not mean that the firm can begin constructing reactors. But utility companies can now apply to the NRC to build and operate NuScale’s design. With almost no new nuclear construction completed in the U.S. over the past three decades, SMRs could help reinvigorate a flagging industry.

NuScale’s SMR, developed with the help of almost $300 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, has a generating capacity of 50 megawatts—substantially smaller than standard nuclear reactors, which can range to well more than 1,000 megawatts (MW). A utility could combine up to 12 SMRs at a single site, producing 600 MW of electricity—enough to power a midsize city. The NRC says it expects an application for a 60-MW version of NuScale’s SMR in 2022……….

Opponents have cited the unresolved issue of disposing nuclear waste, as well as the significant price tag and time involved in building any nuclear plant, compared with renewable energy sources.
NuScale believes it can avoid the dramatic cost overruns and years-long delays that have plagued construction of traditional nuclear power plants in recent decades. Diane Hughes, the company’s vice president of marketing and communications, says that the company expects to sell anywhere from 674 to 1,682 reactors between 2023 and 2042. ……
NuScale has signed memorandums of understanding with companies and utilities in the U.S., Canada, Jordan, Romania, Ukraine and other countries. The agreements simply mean the parties will jointly explore potential deals. 
NuScale’s first scheduled project is with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), a state-based organization that supplies wholesale electricity to small, community-owned utilities in surrounding states. NuScale plans to deliver its first reactor to the UAMPS project at the Idaho National Laboratory by 2027; it is scheduled to be operational by 2029. Another 11 reactors will round out the 720-MW project by 2030. A portion of the generated power will be sold to the U.S. Department of Energy, with the rest purchased by UAMPS member utilities. Agreements for some of the power are in place, although a few municipalities have already walked away because of price concerns. Others have until September 30 to exit the project.
Experts have expressed skepticism about both the safety of the NuScale SMR and its potential costs. In an online press event on September 2, M. V. Ramana, a professor and nuclear expert at the University of British Columbia, discussed a report he prepared at the request of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility that highlighted significant issues associated with the UAMPS project.
“I am sorry to say that what lies ahead is risky and expensive,” Ramana said. Just in the past five years, he noted, cost estimates from various sources for the UAMPS project have risen from approximately $3 billion to more than $6 billion. NuScale’s initial goal of having operational reactors by 2016 has been extended by more than a decade, reflecting the sluggish U.S. nuclear industry in general. Costs to consumers could far exceed those associated with other emissions-free power sources such as solar and wind, Ramana added.
And despite the NRC’s design approval of the new SMR, some safety features still require adjustment. “I don’t think future NuScale applicants will benefit from a design certification that has safety gaps in it,” says Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He points out that the NRC has issued its final safety report in spite of questions raised both by an expert at the agency and an external advisory board.

In a July 2020 report, NRC nuclear engineer Shanlai Lu discussed a complicated issue known as boron dilution, which could possibly cause “fuel failure and prompt criticality condition”—meaning that even if a reactor is shut down, fission reactions could restart and begin a dangerous power increase. And in another report, the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards also noted that “several potentially risk-significant items” are not yet completed, though it did still recommend that the NRC issue the FSER. The agency’s response to the latter report stated that those items will be further assessed when site-specific licensing applications—the step needed to actually begin building and operating a reactor—are submitted. ……..

Lyman says that in general, the NRC’s design certification process should reduce uncertainty for utilities aiming to build nuclear plants because they can reference a completed safety review. But he thinks the NuScale approval undermines that advantage. Whether the gaps in safety will result in further delays to NuScale’s time line remains to be seen. The NRC will undertake another review when the company’s 60-MW design is submitted.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-nuclear-reactor-design-is-approved/

September 10, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Bill Gates and nuclear bigwigs-a conglomerate of propaganda for Small Nuclear Reactors

 

 

September 5, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, marketing, technology | 1 Comment

Fluor could improve its finances by abandoning NuScam, as some cities pull out of ”small” nuclear reactor scheme

Fluor could improve earnings by reducing underperforming assets, including NuScale
Some U.S. cities turn against first planned small-scale nuclear plant, WHTC, Wednesday, September 02, 2020 by Thomson Reuters, By Timothy Gardner and Nichola Groom,   (Reuters) – The first U.S. small-scale nuclear power project, grappling with cost overruns and delays, faces another challenge: the defection of cities that had committed to buying its power. The more than 30 members of the public power consortium Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) have until Sept. 30 to decide whether to stick with the project and devote more funds to NuScale Power LLC’s first-of-a-kind reactor.

But two cities, Logan and Lehi, Utah have walked away from the project, and a third is now considering dropping its support because of risks and a lack of backers, according to officials.

Allen Johnson, the power department director for Bountiful, Utah, said chances are greater than 50-50 it will withdraw.

“You’ve got to have enough people to support it and some of the players I thought would be interested are not,” he said.

The defections are bad news for U.S. efforts to develop modular nuclear energy …

Combined, cities have so far committed to buying just under 200 megawatts of the plant’s planned 720 megawatts of power.

The U.S. Department of Energy has pumped more the $280 million into the project since 2013, and is expected to commit another $1.4 billion over the next nine years. The department did not respond to requests for comment…….

The consortium earlier this year pushed back the project’s commercial operation date to 2030 from 2026, Webb said, to provide more time for public input and opportunities for cities to reconsider their participation at various phases.

CITIES RETHINK COSTS

NuScale, based in Portland, Oregon, is majority owned by construction and engineering firm Fluor Corp.

The project would include 12 60-megawatt modules at the Energy Department’s Idaho National Laboratory.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week approved NuScale’s design, the first such green light for a modular reactor.

Small modular reactors are meant to be cheaper and quicker to build than traditional reactors because they can be manufactured in factories. But critics say economies of scale are lost with the smaller plants.

The NuScale project’s projected cost of $6.1 billion has risen from $3.6 billion in 2017, Mark Montgomery, head of the municipal utility in Logan told officials there last month ahead of their vote to abandon the project.

Lehi withdrew from the project due to a lack of interest from other entities and increased costs, according to the Aug. 25 resolution approved by its city council.

“These cities should not be acting as venture capital investors,” said Rusty Cannon, vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association, which has been pushing cities to leave.

Previous cost estimates did not account for financing and decommissioning, as well as higher labor, construction and materials costs over ten years, UAMPS spokesman Webb said, explaining the change.

NuScale said the project delay had been requested by UAMPS. It did not comment specifically on the city defections.

A Wednesday report written by M.V. Ramana a professor of disarmament and human security at the University of British Columbia said Fluor had cut its own investment in the project and excluded NuScale expenses from its financial forecasts because it was expecting additional funding from third party investors.

Financial analyst Jamie Cook of Credit Suisse said last year that Fluor could improve earnings by reducing underperforming assets, including NuScale. ………https://whtc.com/news/articles/2020/sep/02/some-us-cities-turn-against-first-planned-small-scale-nuclear-plant/1054578/

September 3, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »