|
North Korea leader sincere, must be rewarded for move to abandon nuclear weapons: South Korean president, 15 Oct 18, PARIS (Reuters) – North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is sincere and really means to abandon nuclear weapons, South Korean President Moon Jae-in told a French newspaper, adding that the international community needed to reward him for that.
……..“This year I have discussed in depth with Kim for hours. These meetings have convinced me that he has taken the strategic decision to abandon his nuclear weapon,” Moon told Le Figaro in an interview before a state visit to Paris. Moon is to meet President Emmanuel Macron on Monday.
……Moon said he hoped another Trump-Kim summit would allow the two leaders to go further than the statements they made at their first meeting in Singapore.
“Declaring an end to the Korea war would be a start to establishing a regime of peace,” he said, also calling for the United States to take “reliable corresponding measures to guarantee the security of the regime”.
“We could also in the future discuss the easing of sanctions, in accordance with progress on denuclearization,” he added. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-southkorea-northkorea/north-korea-leader-sincere-must-be-rewarded-for-move-to-abandon-nuclear-weapons-south-korean-president-idUSKCN1MO0SG?il=0 |
|
October 15, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics, South Korea |
Leave a comment
Trump’s Latest China Salvo Could Hurt U.S. Nuke Industry, Administration says Beijing is diverting U.S. nuclear technology for military use. BY KEITH JOHNSON, FP.COM OCTOBER 12, 2018, The Trump administration is increasing its economic pressure on China by restricting U.S. nuclear power exports, a move that could end up hurting an American industry desperate to compete in the world’s fastest-growing market for nuclear energy.
Senior administration officials say Beijing is stealing U.S. nuclear technology to gain a competitive edge and is also diverting U.S. nuclear technology toward military uses, such as propulsion systems for submarines and aircraft carriers. In response, after almost a year of review, the administration decided Thursday to restrict the export of some U.S. nuclear technology and components to China.
“The United States cannot ignore the national security implications of China’s efforts to obtain nuclear technology outside of established processes of U.S.-China civil nuclear cooperation,” U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in a statement.
The restrictions essentially prohibit any new technology transfers, as well as the export of advanced reactor technologies, including small, modular reactors that are seen by many as the industry’s future. Additionally, the U.S. government is essentially banning any and all U.S. exports to China General Nuclear Power Group, one of the country’s two big nuclear energy developers. China General Nuclear was indicted in 2016 for organizing an espionage campaign to acquire U.S. nuclear know-how.
But the new restrictions won’t apparently affect some of the highest-profile U.S. projects in China, such as the construction of new nuclear power plants using the state-of-the-art Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. Chinese utilities are currently building four Westinghouse reactors at two locations; the first just became operational.
For the U.S. nuclear power industry, further restrictions on its ability to compete overseas come as a blow. For a year, export licenses to China have been held up by the government’s review, and nuclear industry advocates have repeatedly warned U.S. officials of the economic harms of being locked out of the world’s one real growth market, potentially worth tens of billions of dollars in future sales……..https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/12/trumps-latest-china-salvo-could-hurt-u-s-nuke-industry/
October 15, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, China, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Prof. Brook is probably, in my opinion, clearly very inadequate when he researches things such as nuclear industry. He claims academic privilege when he communicates his mere opinions related to a field he possesses no training or little training or qualifications in. He can’t have it both ways. The privilege which springs from his actual qualifications may give him status in other things on campus. Away from the lecture theatre though, his opinions of the nature of nuclear industry have zero academic weight….“I’m an academic and therefore I am right” does not wash with me
2003 saw Prof. Shimazaki speak at the first meeting of the government’s Disaster Management Council. This council formed government disaster policy. He urged the council to study the Jogan earthquake of 869 and warned the Japanese Trench could generate earthquakes anywhere along Japan’s Pacific coast.
since 2008 TEPCO management had been busy suppressing THE SAME CONCLUSION of grave risk of 15 metre tsunamis hitting the Fukushima coast, made by TEPCO’s own engineers using simulations and mathematics.
Expert fore warning of the 2011 Tsunami Ignored and Suppressed by Nuclear Authorities.Nuclear Exhaust 12 Oct 18
this post is in progress. Not finished.
I am again going to contrast the statements made by Barry Brook in regard to the tsunami defences at Fukushima Daiichi with the facts as presented by Mark Willacy. These facts are published in Willacy’s book, “Fukushima – Japan’s tsunami and the inside story of the nuclear meltdowns”, Willacy, M., Pan Macmillan, copyright 2013, Mark Willacy.
An interesting aspect of the work of Barry Brook is this: The views expressed by Barry are very frequently attributed by Barry to people who are, according to Barry, experts in nuclear industry. I have heard Barry’s public broadcasts in which Barry makes this attribution. I have not heard Barry give the names of his advisors and friends in the nuclear industry. However it is extremely likely Barry is correct in his attributions. Barry’s statements of opinions and claimed facts can reasonably be assumed to have been provided to Barry by unnamed – as far as I am aware – experts in the nuclear industry. The credibility of Barry statements ride therefore upon the credibility of the nuclear industry.
Of course it is no surprise to hear Barry Brook mirror the statements of nuclear experts from around the world in 2011. The narrative of the global nuclear industry as broadcast by the mass media and the narrative provided by Barry Brook were, as I recall, mutually re-affirming.
Here again is a selected, partial transcript of Barry Brook’s Australian ABC TV interview (please watch the complete interview at the youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFs_-8DtZvo
“Prof. Brook: “I think they (events) show the vulnerability of any human infrastructure to the forces of nature. Especially when they are unleashed with such fury as they were with that massive earthquake, the largest one to hit Japan in recorded times, and a 10 metre tsunami. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect any infrastructure along a coastline like that to survive an event like that. But what it does highlight is that decisions were made back in the ‘60s, when that nuclear power plant was planned and built, they did not anticipate the scale of the natural disaster that occurred here.”
Prof. Brook: “They predicted up to a 6.5 metres tsunami and protected against that. But of course, as events turned out, the tsunami was even bigger than that………
In a previous post I pointed out that Willacy had found that Dr.Yukinobu Okamura, the director of Japan’s Active Fault and Earthquake Research Centre, had, in 2007, found evidence in the geologic record that the Fukushima coast had been hit by massive tsunamis in its past. (Fukushima, page 26) Continue reading →
October 15, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Nuclear power continues its decline as renewable alternatives steam ahead, World Finance, Author: Courtney Goldsmith, October 15, 2018“…………
China’s waning nuclear interest
By a wide margin, China is currently the global leader in the construction of new nuclear plants. In fact, for three years in a row, global electricity generation from nuclear power would have decreased if China were removed from the picture. By 2030, the IEA expects the country to overtake the US as the world’s top generator of nuclear power.
Of the 10 reactors that started up globally in 2016, half were located in China. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of the total reactors currently in construction are Chinese. However, China has not launched a new construction of a commercial reactor since December 2016.
The country had planned for 58GW of total nuclear capacity to be in place by 2020, but having failed to get 30GW of new plants under construction by 2018, China’s lead in the field of nuclear power may be slipping.
What’s more, even in this hub of nuclear activity, renewable generation is moving even faster. As of July 2017, China had 37 operating nuclear reactors with a total net capacity of around 32GW. In 2017, however, the country added a whopping 53GW of solar power.
“To illustrate the speed with which things change, and [which] the invading species is taking over, if you only go back five years in 2012, Germany was the world record holder in the addition of [solar PV] with 7.5GW,” Schneider said. “Now it’s China with [53GW] five years later. The speed is just unbelievable.”
The return of small reactors
One often-cited glimmer of hope for the nuclear industry is in small modular reactors (SMRs). These shrunken-down nuclear reactors generate electrical output of between 50MW and 300MW on average, compared with the generation of 1,000MW or more from a conventional reactor, but it is unlikely they will be commercially available before 2030.
Proponents say SMRs will be cheaper and safer than conventional nuclear plants, and will be capable of competing with solar and wind power. Desbazeille said SMRs were a “game changer” that could put Europe back at the forefront of nuclear technology…….
But while SMRs are purported to be the key to transforming the nuclear sector, history has painted a troubling picture: SMR designs have been in the works for decades, but none have reached commercial success. In fact, Westinghouse worked on an SMR design for about a decade, but the project was abandoned in 2014. At the time, then-CEO Danny Roderick said: “The problem I have with SMRs is not the technology, it’s not the deployment – it’s that there’s no customers.”
A number of companies continue to work on new designs, however. US firm NuScale Power plans to develop an SMR to re-establish the country’s leadership in nuclear technology. The design is currently under review for approval by US regulators. While NuScale is seen as one of the firms closest to commercialisation, it may be too late by the time the arduous process of securing approvals is completed.
Therefore, by the time SMRs are ready for mass deployment, the energy debate may already be over. “Look at what happened over the past five years,” Schneider said. “But can you imagine what will happen in the next 10 years? This is going to be a completely different world.”…
Although SMRs have been talked about for decades, the progress made so far has been tiny. New technologies in the nuclear sector take a huge amount of time to develop – just look at the struggle to build EPRs in Europe. Plus, opting for a small design cuts out the economies of scale, or the cost advantages that come about due to increasing the size of a project. This is something nuclear projects often rely on.
A report by researchers at Harvard University, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of California, San Diego concluded that in the absence of a “dramatic change in the [US] policy environment”, a convincing case for a domestic market for SMRs is difficult to make.
Much of the nuclear debate is powered by opinions and estimates, but looking at the hard data, it’s strikingly clear that the industry is in a slow and inevitable decline. China’s plans to become a nuclear powerhouse have been overshadowed by its huge investments in renewable energy – in fact, the number of new construction starts (see Fig 2) has fallen around the world as stubbornly high costs and complex designs make new nuclear a hard sell.
Even in spite of nuclear power’s role in reducing carbon emissions, the potential safety issues and environmental impact of a meltdown are too big to ignore. With the cost of renewable and battery technologies expected to continue falling, wind and solar power appear to be the next golden opportunity. https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/nuclear-power-continues-its-decline-as-renewable-alternatives-steam-ahead
October 15, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, China, politics |
1 Comment
US curbs China nuclear exports as Trump warns that Americans are not ‘stupid’
US ‘cannot ignore national security implications’ of supplying China with nuclear technology any longer, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said, SCMP, 12 October, 2018, The United States said Thursday that it will increasingly restrict civilian nuclear exports to China as President Donald Trump vowed a hard line on trade, bluntly warning not to think Americans are “stupid”……..
Energy Secretary Rick Perry said that there were “national security implications” to continuing the trade, but an insider said that the government is concerned by Beijing’s strategy “to acquire nuclear technology to gain economic advantage”………
The Energy Department said it would not end exports to China but would show greater scrutiny and that there “will be a presumption of denial” for new licences related to the state-owned China General Nuclear Power Corp.
The company was indicted last year along with a naturalised US citizen on charges of conspiring to develop sensitive nuclear material with US know-how without going through the required approval process……
October 13, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Campaign begins for Fukushima governor race with reconstruction in focus, Oct. 12 FUKUSHIMA
Official campaigning started Thursday for the gubernatorial election in Fukushima Prefecture, with the incumbent governor’s policies on reconstruction work following the 2011 earthquake and nuclear disaster seen as a main issue.
In the governor election which will be held on Oct 28, incumbent Masao Uchibori, 54, is challenged by three candidates — Jun Kanayama, a 78-year-old self-employed worker, Sho Takahashi, a 30-year-old IT company owner, and Kazushi Machida, a 42-year-old prefectural chairman of the Japanese Communist Party.
Although all of the four candidates are running as independents, Uchibori, currently in his first term, gets support from the ruling and opposition parties except for the communist party.
The eastern Japan prefecture is still on the road to recovery from the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi power plant, which was crippled by the earthquake-tsunami on March 11, 2011.
“Taking the important missions of the prefecture’s reconstruction and revitalization into consideration, I’ll challenge,” said Uchibori in Fukushima city after filing his candidacy.
Kanayama said he seeks a prefectural administration which “children can be proud of,” while Takahashi appealed for assistance for start-up businesses. Machida called for the complete abolition of all nuclear power plants in Japan.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/10/11/national/politics-diplomacy/campaigning-fukushima-gubernatorial-race-kicks-off-reconstruction-focus/
October 13, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, politics |
Leave a comment
People in Japan criticize US nuclear test https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20181010_40/ People in Japan have criticized the US government for conducting a subcritical nuclear test last December.
A 39-year-old man expressed regret over the test during a visit with his baby to the Peace Memorial Park in the city of Hiroshima, which was hit by a US atomic bombing in 1945.
He said it’s regrettable that the United States conducted the test, which no one wanted, despite people’s hope for peace.
He said for the sake of children, he does not want nuclear weapons to exist in the future.
A 52-year-old woman in the city said the administration of President Donald Trump is not moving in the right direction, while provoking the world to divide.
She said she hopes the Japanese government will have its own views, without following the US administration.
Shigemitsu Tanaka, the head of the atomic bomb survivors’ organization in Nagasaki, also criticized the subcritical test.
He said it was a move against the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted last year, and the test is unforgivable.
He said he hopes the US will lead efforts to eliminate nuclear arms as the only country to have used nuclear weapons and will call on other nations to abolish them.
October 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, opposition to nuclear, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
China’s Nuclear Diplomacy in the Middle East
China will have to balance its nuclear ‘going out’ with nonproliferation concerns. The Diplomat , By Samuel Hickey, October 09, 2018 On September 21, China’s Ministry of Justice published its draft Atomic Energy Law, which urges its vast nuclear industry to go forth into the world and secure a portion of the nuclear export market. Unlike the “Gold Standard” interpretation of the “1+2+3” agreement in the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, China will not officially limit a partner country’s access to the full nuclear fuel cycle in exchange for nuclear cooperation.
This is an important distinction and is the same policy that Russia subscribes to in its nuclear export agreements. While both countries may not be willing to export enrichment technology, they will not explicitly state this or preclude any future partnership on the nuclear fuel cycle. Nuclear exports are an extension of their foreign policy as they seek to secure long-term geopolitical influence and they are signaling that negotiations are always on the table with the Global South.
China’s proliferation policy until Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 “reform and opening up” policy was characterized by countering the imperialist powers, and it stood firm with the Third World, arguably advocating proliferation.China now boasts a solid reputation against proliferation and support for the nuclear order, but it has shown a flexibility to negotiate with all actors; this causes concerns for the nonproliferation regime. The nuclear order currently relies on multinational efforts to constrain with whom a supplier state can partner, but this top down perspective challenges China’s nuclear energy promises to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, including Iran.
China has a unique opportunity to capture a significant portion of the nuclear export market because of their finance schemes and domestic experience. However, MENA states will view China as underperforming in its diplomatic promises if collaboration does not turn into geopolitical gains or enhanced security assurances. China’s efforts to influence the international order will find an audience in the MENA region as states hedge their bets against a distracted and noncommittal United States, but China will not be coaxed into overextension to prove their geopolitical worth — to the distress of MENA states.
The Onus is on the Supplier
China and Russia dominate the civil nuclear import conversation among the MENA states because, for many, the United States’ nuclear export doctrine equates to removing it from the running. The United Arab Emiratesare the only MENA country to sign the gold standard U.S. nuclear agreement, which precludes them from the full nuclear fuel cycle and ensures there cannot be any military dimensions to nuclear cooperation. Even though they have no intentions of completing the nuclear fuel cycle soon, many MENA states refuse to sign this interpretation of the U.S. agreement simply to preserve their sovereign rights guaranteed to them under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).…………
Conclusions
Momentum on regulating China’s nuclear industry increased with China’s Nuclear Safety Law entering into force on January 1, 2018 and the State Council’s issuance of guidelines for the standardization of the nuclear system in August. China’s domestic nuclear expansion has stalled since 2016 so it must expand to new markets and increase its bureaucratic efficiency to support its massive nuclear industry.
China will not upset the nuclear order and prefers to retain the onus of preventing proliferation on the supplier state because that gives it leverage. It is distinctly not in China’s interest for any new nuclear states to crop up and maintaining a little ambiguity in its nuclear export policy allows it to pay lip service to the Global South and keep the West engaged in improving the nuclear order……….https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/chinas-nuclear-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east/
|
|
|
October 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, marketing, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
First, cooperate on nuclear safety in the Korean Peninsula, The Hill,
BY VIET PHUONG NGUYEN AND NAJMEDIN MESHKATI, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS — 10/06/18 Last month in Pyongyang, South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un held their third summit in less than a year, concluding with agreements that ranged from security issues to the economy, and even a pledge to make a joint bid for the
2032 Summer Olympics. Yet, despite positive assessments of the summit’s outcome by Presidents Trump and Moon,
many observers remain skeptical about real progress because of the conspicuous lack of a concrete statement by North Korea for denuclearization.
Absent since the restart of dialogue with North Korea is any discussion on inter-Korean nuclear safety cooperation, despite concerns over possible safety risks at the North Korean nuclear complex. Inattention to the facility could have dire consequences for the peninsula: radioactive fallout does not recognize borders.
For example, because of its inability to acquire civil nuclear technology from abroad, North Korea might try to develop its own power reactor from a variation of outdated Soviet designs such as the RBMK-1000 type that resulted in the most catastrophic man-made disaster in history, the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. On the other hand, the possible dismantlement of nuclear facilities such as the Punggye-ri nuclear test site, which contains hazardous material and radioactive elements, could contaminate the surrounding environment and expose North Korean workers if there is improper clean-up.
In addition, as the operator of several fuel cycle facilities, North Korean leaders and experts no doubt would be interested in learning more about Japan’s costly lessons with nuclear safety. Despite having sophisticated industrial capability and arguably high nuclear safety standards, Japan has experienced deadly accidents in fuel cycle facilities — most notably the accident at a fuel fabrication plant in Tokaimura in September 1999, when the mishandling of enriched uranium led to the death of two workers from acute radiation exposure, and permanent injury of another. The accident, attributed to poor safety culture and inadequate regulatory oversight, exposed 436 people to radiation.
Without strict safety practices and adequate protection, North Korea might experience a similar scenario. Furthermore, the country has issues related to emergency response and communication in the event of a nuclear accident because of the secretive nature of its nuclear program. In particular, because North Korea terminated all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2009, it would be difficult for outsiders to learn about any incident and provide support, if necessary. It is equally difficult for North Koreans to improve their safety culture and standards without an adequate, transparent working environment.
Why make nuclear safety an early priority in the high-level diplomatic process with North Korea? The number, pervasiveness and close-to-the-border locations of nuclear facilitates in North Korea are reasons enough.
The significant role of nuclear energy in electricity generation in South Korea, where 24 nuclear power units contribute almost 30 percent of the electricity production, means South Korean experts would have much to share.
Indeed, South Korea has had to overcome its own safety problems, such as the cover-up of a plant blackout at the Kori-1 nuclear power unit in 2012, and the revelation of falsified test results for safety-grade equipment in the same year. Scientists and engineers from these two countries should be enabled to cooperate on nuclear safety by sharing information about their safety practices.
Besides, communication platforms have existed for this kind of engineering diplomacy. Striving for the middle-power status in the region, South Korea has proposed several initiatives aimed at regional integration among Northeast Asian countries; thus, the issue of nuclear safety in North Korea would be a perfect opportunity for Moon to promote a nuclear safety initiative for bilateral cooperation of nuclear safety professionals from the two Koreas. …….. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/409750-first-cooperate-on-nuclear-safety-in-the-korean-peninsula
October 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, safety, South Korea |
Leave a comment
Why North Korea’s latest nuclear concession isn’t one at all
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wants you to believe North Korea just gave up something big. It didn’t. Vox By Alex Ward@AlexWardVoxalex.ward@vox.com Oct 8, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Monday that he and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made “significant progress” over the weekend toward dismantling Pyongyang’s nuclear program. The problem is it’s not clear what advancement he’s pointing to.
The two met for a nearly three-hour summit in Pyongyang on Sunday to discuss a way to break the impasse in discussions. Speaking after the meeting on Monday, Pompeo told reporters that North Korea has agreed to let international inspectors visit Punggye-ri, the site of all six of North Korea’s nuclear tests. In September 2017, Pyongyang tested a nuke there that was around seven times stronger than the bomb America dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Letting inspectors visit the facility may sound well and good, except for one thing: It’s already been destroyed.
North Korea blew up that facility in May. And although the country’s leaders had originally invited international inspectors to witness the demolition, they changed their minds and said they would only allow a small group of foreign journalists to watch. CNN, for example, could only watch the destruction from about 1,600 feet away.
Letting inspectors in now to verify that the site is, in fact, destroyed is certainly a welcome step. After all, North Korea has been reluctant for years to let outsiders into its nuclear facilities and question officials at the sites. And while it’s unclear how much access the inspectors will get, it’s understandable that Pompeo is touting this as a victory……….
A second Trump-Kim summit may be on the horizon
The US and North Korea remain in a stalemate over how to dismantle Pyongyang’s nuclear program.
Washington wants Pyongyang to destroy much of its nuclear arsenal upfront and offer an inventory list of all parts of its program. Kim’s regime, meanwhile, wants President Donald Trump to sign a peace declaration — a nonbinding document that would formally end the Korean War — before Pyongyang makes any concessions.
Experts are split on whether that’s a good idea. Those who want the US to sign the agreement say it’s costless because it’s nonbinding, and therefore America has nothing to lose and everything to gain by signing it………https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/17952178/pompeo-north-korea-trip-nuclear-site
October 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international |
Leave a comment
POMPEO: U.S., N.KOREA HOPE TO BREAK NUCLEAR STALEMATE https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Pompeo-US-NKorea-hope-to-break-nuclear-stalemate-568823
BY REUTERS OCTOBER 7, 2018 EOUL, – US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday he met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during his trip to Pyongyang, aimed at breaking a stalemate in nuclear negotiations between the two countries.
Shortly after arriving in South Korea following the visit, Pompeo posted a photo of himself walking along with Kim on Twitter, saying: “Had a good trip to #Pyongyang to meet with Chairman Kim. We continue to make progress on agreements made at Singapore Summit. Thanks for hosting me and my team @StateDept.”
October 8, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Floating Nuclear Power Plants in Northeast Asia? A Daunting Prospect. Weak multilateral architecture, territorial disputes, and natural disaster vulnerability compound the unknowns of Russia’s new energy platform. The Diplomat, By Tom Corben October 05, 2018 Given the controversy of all things nuclear power in the post-Fukushima era, it was no surprise that the April launch of Russia’s first floating nuclear power plant (FNPP), the Akademik Lomonosov, drew polarizing responses immediately (in spite of the fact that its nuclear fuel was only loaded earlier this week). Russia’s state-owned nuclear utility Rosatom, claimed that the Akademik Lomonosov’s safety precautions exceed “all possible threats,” granting it “invincibility against natural disasters,” and highlighted the enhancements to economic development efforts in Russia’s far-flung territories. Conversely, environmental organizations like Greenpeace labeled the Akademik Lomonosov a “nuclear titanic” or “Chernobyl on ice,” a serious risk to the global environmental and human security. Observers ought to regard warily the sensationalist claims of advocates and opponents of FNPPs alike. Even so, it is difficult not to view Rosatom’s “invincibility” claim without incredulity.
Rosatom has previously claimed in safety briefings to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that the Akademik Lomonosov could withstand a magnitude-10 earthquake, tsunamis powerful enough to cast the barge ashore, and even the impact of a 10-ton aircraft. However, disasters such as that at Fukushima in March 2011 show the perils of blind faith in the integrity of nuclear technology and existing safety regimes that claim to preclude all possible disaster scenarios, particularly those where consecutive or compounding disaster events may present unforeseen challenges. That the Akademik Lomonosov is essentially the first of its kind (the comparatively small USS Sturgis aside) means that practitioners and observers alike have little historical experience to draw upon in offering completely watertight safety assessments. Commentators have pointed to nuclear-powered carriers and submarines to counter criticisms that seaborne reactors are inherently dangerous, yet several such vessels have sunk in the past, along with their radioactive cargo. There is, however, no precedent for a reactor complex the size of the Akademik Lomonosov’s going down in coastal or blue waters, nor for the sorts of short- or long-term hazards that may result or the responses that may be required.
These unknown risks are particularly accentuated when framed in the Northeast Asian context. Either the Akademik Lomonosov or one of its successors will reportedly head for the seismically-active Kamchatka Peninsula, which lies north of the Kuril Island chain presently disputed by Japan and Russia. The Sanchi oil tanker disaster in January demonstrated that the region’s geopolitical faultlines can complicate multilateral responses to industrial-environmental threats when they occur in or impact upon disputed territories, even when multilateral fora designed to facilitate collective risk management response to ocean-born hazards already exist. As far as FNPPs are concerned, these mechanisms do not presently account for potential radiological crises. In short, Northeast Asian states will need to move quickly and recalibrate existing institutions accordingly if they are to preclude another serious geopolitically-charged, potentially radiological, environmental disaster.
The Akademik Lomonosov features two KLT-40C reactors (variants of the military-grade KLT-40M model used aboard Russian icebreakers), capable of generating 70MWe — enough energy to provide power and desalinated water for between 100,000–200,000 people. These impressive statistics aside, however, neither the KLT-40C model nor Russia’s overall nuclear safety record are entirely reassuring. In May 2011, for example, the Russian icebreaker Taymyr experienced a severe coolant leak, releasing radioactivity into the atmosphere, and needed to be towed into port for urgent repairs — all this despite recent safety upgrades. There are also several cases of Russian nuclear submarines sinking with hundreds of kilos of uranium and/or nuclear-tipped missiles still aboard, most notably the K-159 wreck in the Barents Sea, though what threat these might pose to the local environment remains unknown.
Furthermore, the appeal of FNPPs as a portable baseline power source for developing distant territories could become a significant setback in the event of a crisis of “unforeseeable” circumstances. Remote territories are just that — remote. In the event of a serious crisis, and considering the absence of local Russian nuclear infrastructure, it may take considerable time for a response team to reach the vessel. That would translate into more time for said crisis to spiral further.
Compounding the tyranny of distance is the region’s geological volatility. A magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck the Kamchatka Peninsula last July, while magnitude 8 quakes struck the Kuril Islands in 2006 and 2007, generating 50-foot tsunamis. While none of these instances resulted in major damage, in 1952 a massive earthquake and tsunami killed thousands and wrought destruction on settlements across the peninsula and the Kuril Islands. In fact, recent research has also demonstrated that seismic and volcanic activity in Russia’s Far East poses a serious natural disaster threat to the entire Pacific Rim. As far as the Akademik Lomonosov is concerned, some argue that its flat-bottomed hull design and lack of self-propulsion increases its vulnerabilityto impending or sudden disaster events. With a registered top speed of only 4 miles per hour with the assistance of tugboats, the task of avoiding an oncoming threat would become all the more difficult. For the sake of comparison, nuclear-powered carriers can hit anywhere between 55-92 kilometers (34-57 miles) per hour unassisted.
In a worst case scenario, a damaged or sinking FNPP could pose a regional radiological threat, one quickly compounded should the vessel be cast toward or into disputed territories or those of another state. Events in January suggest that Northeast Asia is unprepared for such an event. A slow response to the Sanchi oil tanker incident saw the burning vessel drift out of recognized Chinese waters and into those adjacent to the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, where it eventually sank. Neither Beijing nor Tokyo moved to assume control of clean-up operations because of these geopolitical tensions, yet their inaction ironically saw the corruption of adjacent common fishing grounds.
In response, commentators (including myself) called for the creation of a regional disaster response agreement capable of bypassing competing territorial claims in the interests of containing similar catastrophes in the future…….
The likely arrival of FNPPs in Asia in the future will bring with them unprecedented risks that should not be discounted if states are serious about avoiding, or at least preparing for, an unprecedented radiological crisis of regional proportions. https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/floating-nuclear-power-plants-in-northeast-asia-a-daunting-prospect/
October 8, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ASIA, Russia, safety, technology |
Leave a comment
South Korea says Kim Jong Un could have 60 nuclear weapons SEOUL, South Korea , CBS News, 2 Oct 18-– A top South Korean official told lawmakers that
North Korea is estimated to have up to 60 nuclear weapons, in Seoul’s first public comment about the size of the North’s secrecy-clouded weapons arsenal. Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon told parliament Monday the estimates on the size of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal range from 20 bombs to as many as 60. He was responding to a question by a lawmaker, saying the information came from the intelligence authorities.
The National Intelligence Service, South Korea’s main spy agency, couldn’t immediately comment.
Cho may have unintentionally revealed the information. His ministry said Tuesday Cho’s comments didn’t mean that South Korea would accept North Korea as a nuclear state, suggesting Seoul’s diplomatic efforts to rid the North of its nuclear program would continue.
The South Korean assessment on the North’s arsenal is not much different from various outside civilian estimates largely based on the amount of nuclear materials that North is believed to have produced……….https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-kim-jong-un-60-nuclear-weapons-south-korea-minister-atomic-bombs/
October 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international, South Korea, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
SimplyInfo.org Report: Fukushima Microparticles, An Unrecognized Threat Simply Info 7th Sept 2018, In the years since the initial disaster there have been disparities between
the official radiation exposure estimates and the subsequent health
problems in Japan. In some cases the estimates were based on faulty or
limited early data. Where a better understanding of the exposure levels is
known there still remained an anomaly in some of the health problems vs.
the exposure dose. Rapid onset cancers also caused concern. The missing
piece of the puzzle may be insoluble microparticles from the damaged
reactors.
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=16788
October 1, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
health, Japan |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 