nuclear-news

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

Stalemate between environmentalists and unions on keeping Illinois nuclear reactors going


Unions, Environmentalists Declare Impasse on Energy Deal wttw, Amanda Vinicky | August 3, 2021 With possibly just a few weeks left before Exelon shutters a nuclear reactor in Byron, feuding and politically powerful interests have failed to reach a deal that would keep the plant open and otherwise move Illinois toward its renewable energy goals.After years of negotiating on a major energy deal, environmentalists and unions agree that they’re deadlocked, and that it’s time for legislators and Gov. J.B. Pritzker to take over talks.Environmental groups, under the mantle of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, blame organized labor working as the umbrella group Climate Jobs Illinois. “We write to regretfully inform you that negotiations between the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition and Climate Jobs Illinois around passing a climate and equitable jobs bill in Illinois have reached an impasse,” the environmental advocates wrote Monday in a letter addressed to General Assembly leaders and Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Unions likewise sent a note to the governor and legislative leaders citing “intractable differences.”……..https://news.wttw.com/2021/08/03/unions-environmentalists-declare-impasse-energy-deal

August 5, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to give OK for spent nuclear fuel storage in Texas

U.S. NRC staff gives environmental OK to proposed $2.3B spent fuel storage site in Texas  Power Engineering 2 Aug 21, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is recommending granting a proposed license for a planned spent nuclear fuel interim storage facility in west Texas.

The NRC issued its final environmental impact statement on the application by Interim Storage Partners LLC, which is a joint venture of Waste Control Specialists LLC and Orano CIS. If granted, the owners would construct a facility to store from 5,000 (in the beginning) to 44,000 short tons of spent commercial nuclear fuel and a small quantity of spent mixed oxide fuel for about 40 years.

U.S. Department of Energy statistics indicate that the U.S. commercial nuclear power industry generates about 2,000 metric tons of used uranium fuel per year. Once spent and removed from the reactor, used fuel roads are currently stored at close to 75 sites in 34 states, according to the DOE.

The proposed interim site would be in Andrews County, Texas less than a mile from the New Mexico border. The owners would build and operate the project within a 14,000-acre parcel of land accessible by rail and road……..

The original plan is to store 5,000 short tons with subsequent expansion eventually bringing the total to close to 44,000 tons, equal to about 20 years of operation by the entire U.S. nuclear power generation fleet, according to reports……….   https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/waste-management-decommissioning/u-s-nuclear-regulators-give-environmental-ok-to-proposed-2-3b-spent-fuel-storage-site-in-texas/

August 3, 2021 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Vogtle nuclear power project’s costs – $27 Billion and rising!

“We’re really so far down the path of absurdity with this project.”

Georgia nuclear plant cost tops $27B as more delays unveiled, By JEFF AMY, July 30, 2021 ATLANTA (AP) — Two new reactors at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle will cost another billion dollars, with shareholders of the parent company of Georgia Power Co. taking a $460 million loss and other owners absorbing the rest.

The news came Thursday as Atlanta-based Southern Co. again admitted what outside experts have been telling regulators for months — its $27 billion-plus project at the complex outside Augusta will take longer and cost more than previously estimated.

Managers project construction will take another three to four months. That pushes the projected start date of Unit 3 into the second quarter of 2022, while Unit 4 is now projected to start in 2023. But independent monitors testified in June that they don’t think Unit 3 will start operation until at least June 2022 and projected total additional spending of up to $2 billion.

“It’s hard to be surprised at this point,” said Kurt Ebersbach, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which opposes the project. “We’re really so far down the path of absurdity with this project.”

The company and regulators insist the plant — the first new U.S. reactors in decades — is the best source of clean and reliable energy for Georgia. Opponents have long pointed to what they say would be cheaper, better options, including natural gas or solar generation.

Southern Co. recorded the entire additional cost as a loss to shareholders on its quarterly earnings report, citing “the significant level of uncertainty that exists regarding the future recoverability of these costs” because the Georgia Public Service Commission must approve spending. The company said it could ask ratepayers to pay for the overrun, though.

Customers are already paying for the plant. Rates have gone up 3.4% to pay for earlier costs and Georgia Power projects rates will rise another 6.6 percentage points for a total increase of 10%. Commissioners are scheduled to vote on another rate increase in November……….

Georgia Power’s capital budget for Vogtle is $9.2 billion, with another $3.2 billion in financing costs projected. The total effect on the budget of the Vogtle project isn’t clear because Georgia Power is paying for only 45% of the project. Electric cooperatives and municipal utilities are paying for the remainder and have different financing costs.

Georgia Power also announced Thursday that it agreed with Public Service Commission staff to not seek any amounts above $7.3 billion until commissioners decide whether the company spent prudently during construction.

Georgia Power already agreed to write off about the first $700 million over the $7.3 billion……..

Besides extended testing, Georgia Power said Vogtle has been delayed by poor construction productivity, the necessity to redo substandard work, the slow pace of contractors turning over systems to the company and repairs to a leak in Unit 3′s spent fuel pool.

In June, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission began a special inspection to determine why so much of the electrical wiring in the plant had to be redone…….

Every month of delay at Vogtle costs roughly $90 million in capital costs, excluding financing costs.

The reactors, approved in 2012, were initially estimated to cost $14 billion, with the first new reactor originally planned to start generation in 2016. Delays and costs spiraled, especially after the main contractor filed for bankruptcy in 2017.

……. The Public Service Commission has reduced the amount that Georgia Power can earn on construction costs because of delays. Southern Co. said those penalties cost it $150 million last year and are projected to cost it another $630 million through 2023.

___    Follow Jeff Amy on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jeffamy.  https://apnews.com/article/business-environment-and-nature-georgia-90bbe5cc8e3a1a6077b9e4318e2bbf7e

August 2, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission doing a ‘special investigation’ at Davis-Besse nuclear station.

“It’s so severely cracked that concrete could fall off the exterior of the containment and take out safety systems down below. In that sense, the containment could cause the meltdown,”


Federal commission launches ‘special inspection’ at Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ottawa County, https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/07/30/federal-commission-launches-special-inspection-davis-besse-nuclear-plant-ottawa-county/By Jim NelsonPublished: Jul. 30, 2021  OAK HARBOR, Ohio (WOIO) – The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced it has launched a special inspection at the Davis-Besse plant in Ottawa County.

The facility is one of two nuclear plants in Ohio; the other is the Perry Plant in Lake County.

The agency said the inspection stems from multiple diesel generator failures during testing and maintenance and a complicated reactor trip.

“The six-person inspection team will review the company’s response to each diesel generator failure, including the company’s cause analysis, extent of condition reviews, maintenance practices and system design,” the NRC said in a news release issued Wednesday. “The team will also focus on the circumstances affecting the recent complicated automatic reactor shutdown, which was triggered by a turbine trip, assessing equipment performance and operator response.”

Since the early 2000′s, several incidents and problems have been reported by the NRC at Davis-Besse.

In 2002, a football-sized hole in a reactor vessel head was discovered. Corrosion was determined to be the cause. The NRC called it a near-failure and ruled it a serious nuclear safety incident.

Years later, cracks were discovered in the reactor building’s concrete.

Just two years ago, a radiation watchdog expressed serious concerns during a briefing with The Environmental and Energy Study Institute in Washington, D.C.

“It’s so severely cracked that concrete could fall off the exterior of the containment and take out safety systems down below. In that sense, the containment could cause the meltdown,” said Kevin Kamps, who represents Maryland-based nonprofit Beyond Nuclear.

To be clear, the NRC has not indicated such event is imminent or even likely.

An email to media representatives at Energy Harbor, Davis-Besse’s parent company, has not been returned.

July 31, 2021 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Exelon moves to shutdown 2 nuclear power stations in Illinois, amidst subsidy negotiations.


Exelon moves to shut down 2 nuclear power plants in Illinois, Pantagraph.com, Dan Petrella Chicago Tribune Jul 29, 2021  CHICAGO — The parent company of scandal-plagued Commonwealth Edison filed plans with federal regulators to shut down two nuclear power plants for which it is seeking state subsidies that have been caught up in stalled energy negotiations in Springfield.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker has proposed a deal that would put power customers on the hook for a nearly $700 million bailout of three Exelon nuclear plants, including the plants in Byron and Dresden that are facing closure. Lawmakers returned to the Capitol in mid-June to vote on an energy policy overhaul but left town without an agreement on the timeline for phasing out natural gas-fired plants.

Exelon has argued that state subsidies are necessary for its nuclear plants, which don’t emit carbon pollution,[ as long as you don’t include the full nuclear fuel chain]  to compete with plants that run on fossil fuels………….

Exelon’s threat to close the plants mirrors the company’s strategy from 2016, when it succeeded in winning approval for subsidies for two other plants. That legislation is now at the center of an ongoing federal corruption investigation in which its ComEd subsidiary has admitted to engaging in yearslong bribery scheme to win support for its agenda in Springfield.

During negotiations this spring, lawmakers were hesitant to appear to be doing the bidding of Exelon and ComEd in the wake of the scandal but also were eager to preserve thousands of high-paying union jobs at the nuclear plants.

Pritzker’s office and Exelon found common ground in the waning hours of the spring legislative session. But disagreements on other issues derailed a final deal on a larger package that would put the state on a path toward Pritzker’s goal of 100% carbon-free energy by 2050.

When the state Senate adjourned its one-day session in mid-June without voting, Senate President Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, pointed to an ongoing disagreement between two of his party’s core constituencies: organized labor and environmental advocates…….

Further complicating the issue, there are discussions in Congress about potential federal tax credits for nuclear plants that could be even more lucrative than what Illinois is considering.

A proposal from U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, would create a tax credit for nuclear generators worth more than three times the ratepayer subsidy Illinois lawmakers are considering. But that plan would subtract the value of any state support, meaning ComEd customers would essentially be picking up part of the tab from federal taxpayers…………

from the company’s perspective, any help from Washington wouldn’t come in time to preserve the plants. Byron, near Rockford, is slated for closure in September, with Dresden, in Grundy County, to follow in November…….. https://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regional/exelon-moves-to-shut-down-2-nuclear-power-plants-in-illinois/article_2f61090a-fb68-56af-a126-8b34875b1f05.html

July 31, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Vogtle nuclear power project – more costs revealed, and even more likely to come.

Georgia Power discloses more Vogtle nuclear delays, big extra costs,    By Matt Kempner, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution    30 July 21, Georgia Power’s parent, Southern Co., announced Thursday yet another delay in its completion of the nuclear expansion of Plant Vogtle and said its share of the costs have increased by nearly half a billion dollars.

Georgia Power customers could see larger increases in monthly electric bills if the company ultimately seeks reimbursement for the higher costs on the massive project south of Augusta. But such a move would require approval from the state’s Public Service Commission.

Southern not only pushed back its timeline for completing the first of two new reactors — something it has done repeatedly this year alone — but also announced a delay for the second reactor. And it cautioned that further delays on both are possible, reeling off a litany of potential challenges to complete a project that was supposed to have been finished years ago and for billions of dollars less.

Another worry: that federal nuclear regulators could continue to increase scrutiny of the project to fix quality problems. The company said in a regulatory filing that “various design and other licensing-based compliance matters” have arisen or may arise that, if not resolved, could lead to additional delays and costs.

As for the latest $460 million in rising costs, the company said it would cover the expense by taking a charge against its profits, a $343 million hit after taxes. The move sparked lower profits for Southern compared to the same quarter a year earlier. The company didn’t say whether it eventually will seek approval from state regulators to recover those costs from its customers. But in a filing it said there is a “significant level of uncertainty” about its ability to get such a full recovery………..

Just a few months ago, Atlanta-based Southern had been sticking by its predictions that the first reactor would be in operation this November, with the second a year later. Now, it projects the second quarter of 2022 for the first, and the first three months of 2023 for the last reactor. In each case that is three or four months later than what it had said in May and reasserted again last month.

The two new reactors were originally slated to be in operation in 2016 and 2017, respectively……….

Kurt Ebersbach, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represents some organizations opposed to customers paying for Vogtle’s excesses, said he believes the power company will seek PSC approval to collect billions of dollars in overruns from customers.

The company’s latest predictions for Vogtle’s schedule come closer to what PSC staff and independent advisors to the state have been predicting for the first reactor. Still, a key advisor has projected substantially higher cost increases still to come and a later completion — at least June of 2023 — for the second reactor.

The construction costs of the Vogtle expansion have not yet been rolled into the bills of Georgia Power customers. But for years, customers have paid fees for a portion of both the project’s financing costs and the company’s profits on it.

By the time the project is completed and produces electricity, it’s estimated that the average residential customer will have already paid over $850 toward it. Then bills are expected to rise higher to cover all “prudent” and “reasonable” construction costs and company profits, which rise as allowed costs rise.………..https://www.ajc.com/ajcjobs/georgia-power-discloses-more-vogtle-nuclear-delays-big-extra-costs/EINKHQ3CNJCMRA6GDWQFNJ3VS4/

July 31, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Renewables overtook coal and nuclear power generation in the U.S last year .


RENEWABLES OVERTOOK COAL AND NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION IN THE US LAST YEAR   by,VICTOR TANGERMANN, 30 July 21,

CLEARER SKIES AHEAD.   For the first time in US history, renewables became the second-most prevalent electricity source in 2020 after natural gas, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

In 2020, renewable energy sources —including wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal — accounted for 21 percent of all the electricity generated in the country. Coal represented just 19 percent, while nuclear power accounted for 20 percent.,,,,,,,,,  https://futurism.com/the-byte/renewables-overtook-coal-and-nuclear-power-generation-us

July 31, 2021 Posted by | renewable, USA | Leave a comment

American public opinion ignored as NASA prioritises colonising Mars, over research to save the climate

63 percent according to a 2018 Pew Research Center survey—believe that NASA should prioritize monitoring Earth’s climate system. Only a minority—18 percent—said that NASA should prioritize sending humans to Mars.

Is using nuclear materials for space travel dangerous, genius, or a little of both? bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Susan D’Agostino | July 28, 2021 

The 1977 Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 was supposed to monitor ocean traffic using radar—a technology that works best at short distances. For this reason, the craft traveled in Earth’s low orbit, where solar panels alone could not provide consistent power. And so, the satellite was equipped with a small, efficient, yet powerful nuclear reactor fueled by approximately 50 kg of weapons-grade uranium 235. Within weeks of its launch, Kosmos 954 veered from its path like a drunkard on a walk. The Soviets tried to eject its radioactive core into a higher orbit by way of a safety system designed for that purpose. But the safety system failed. In January 1978, Kosmos 954 burst into the Western Canada skyline, scattering radioactive dust and debris over a nearly 400-mile path. The cleanup and recovery process, which took nearly eight months and started in the subarctic winter, found that virtually all of the satellite fragments were radioactive, including one that was “sufficient to kill a person or number of persons remaining in contact with that part for a few hours.”

Now that the United States has set a goal of a human mission to Mars by 2039, the words “nuclear” and “space” are again popping up together in newspaper headlines. Nuclear propulsion systems for space exploration—should they materialize—are expected to offer significant advantages, including the possibility of sending spacecraft farther, in less time, and more efficiently than traditional chemical propulsion systems. But extreme physical conditions on the launchpad, in space, and during reentry raise questions about risk-mitigation measures, especially when nuclear materials are present. 

Why not travel to Mars on a chemically propelled spacecraft? Spaceships that use chemical propellants benefit from tremendous thrust to get the job done. However, they also need to carry fuel and oxidizer to power that incredible upward or forward movement………..

Even if a spacecraft were able to refuel with a chemical propellant in space or magically carry enough chemical propellant for the journey to Mars, the long transit time would present a hazard to the crew……..

In theory, nuclear propulsion for space travel will offer two significant advantages over chemical propulsion. First, since nuclear systems are much more efficient, the amount of fuel required for the journey to Mars is practical. Second, without a need to traverse the shortest path, the flight could take off from Earth and Mars anytime—without delay. The latter would reduce the length of the roundtrip journey and the crew’s exposure to radiation.

Still, attaching what amounts to a nuclear reactor to a human-occupied spaceship is not without risks.

Is the idea of sending nuclear materials into space new? The idea of sending nuclear materials into outer space is not new. And unlike Kosmos 954, many instances have been successful. Since 1961, NASA has powered more than 25 space missions with nuclear materials. The only other practical power option—solar power—is often unavailable in dark, dusty, far-off corners of the solar system.

Likewise, the Atomic Energy Commission launched a nuclear-thermal rocket propulsion research and development program in 1955. …….funding and interest in the programs dried up in the 1970s……

What new plans does the United States have for sending nuclear materials to space? The National Academies’ report released earlier this year recommended that NASA “commit within the year to conducting an extensive and objective assessment of the merits and challenges of using different types of space nuclear propulsion systems and to making significant technology investments this decade.” The report offers a roadmap for developing two different kinds of propulsion systems—nuclear electric and nuclear thermal—for human missions to Mars.


A nuclear electric propulsion system bears some resemblance to a terrestrial power plant. That is, first a fission reactor generates power for electric thrusters. That power positively charges the ions in the gas propellant, after which electric, magnetic, or electrostatic fields accelerate the ions. The accelerated ions are then pushed out through a thruster, which propels the spacecraft.

Alternatively, in a nuclear thermal propulsion system, the reactor operates more as a heat exchanger in which a fuel such as liquid hydrogen is first heated to very high temperatures—up to 4,600 degrees Fahrenheit—that is then exhausted through a rocket nozzle to produce thrust.

“For nuclear thermal propulsion, the challenge is: temperature, temperature, temperature,” Anthony Calomino, a materials and structure research engineer at NASA’s Langley Research Center, said. “There are not many materials that can survive those kinds of temperatures.” ………..

While nuclear electric propulsion systems do not require extreme temperatures, they face a different hurdle. Nuclear electric systems have six subsystems, including a reactor, shield, power conversion, heat rejection, power management and distribution, and electric propulsion systems. The operating power of all of these subsystems will need to be scaled up by orders of magnitude—and in such a way that they continue to work together—before they are ready for space……………..

Why is the United States planning to send humans to Mars anyway? Some argue that the scientific value of a human-crewed Mars mission could be captured by robots at a much lower cost and risk. Others think that humans, whose role in terrestrial climate change is apparent, should first rehabilitate Earth before colonizing other planets. Still others worry that human microbes could contaminate the Red Planet.

Indeed, a majority of Americans—63 percent according to a 2018 Pew Research Center survey—believe that NASA should prioritize monitoring Earth’s climate system. Only a minority—18 percent—said that NASA should prioritize sending humans to Mars…………….   https://thebulletin.org/2021/07/is-using-nuclear-materials-for-space-travel-dangerous-genius-or-a-little-of-both/


July 29, 2021 Posted by | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

Jeff Bezos wants to pay NASA $billions to choose HIS company over Elon Musk’s

Jeff Bezos offers Nasa $2bn in exchange for moon mission contract,  Guardian, Adam Gabbatt in New York and agencies@adamgabbatt 28 Jul 2021

Billionaire lost out to Elon Musk’s SpaceX in lunar bid
Bezos claims Nasa’s decision will delay moon mission

Jeff Bezos has offered Nasa $2bn – if the US space agency reverses course and chooses his company, Blue Origin, to make a spacecraft designed to land astronauts back on the moon.

In an open letter to the Nasa administrator, Bill Nelson – a former astronaut and Democratic senator from Florida – Bezos, who last week completed a suborbital trip to space, criticised the agency’s decision to award the moon contract to rival company SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, in April.

Bezos urged Nasa to reconsider and said Blue Origin would waive payments in the government’s current fiscal year and the next after that up to $2bn, and pay for an orbital mission to vet its technology.

Nasa handed Musk’s SpaceX a $2.9bn contract to build a spacecraft to bring astronauts to the lunar surface as early as 2024, rejecting bids from Blue Origin and the defense contractor Dynetics. Nasa had been expected to winnow the field to two companies, but went all in on SpaceX. Blue Origin had partnered with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper in its bid.

The space agency cited its own funding shortfalls, SpaceX’s proven record of orbital missions and other factors in a contract decision that a senior Nasa official, Kathy Lueders, said represented “what’s the best value to the government”.

At the time Blue Origin said the decision “not only delays but also endangers America’s return to the moon”. The company filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Office, accusing the agency of giving SpaceX an unfair advantage by allowing it to revise its pricing.

In his letter on Monday, Bezos wrote: “Blue Origin will bridge the [Human Landing System] budgetary funding shortfall by waiving all payments in the current and next two government fiscal years up to $2bn to get the program back on track right now.

“This offer is not a deferral, but is an outright and permanent waiver of those payments. This offer provides time for government appropriation actions to catch up.”

In exchange, Bezos said, Blue Origin would accept a firm, fixed-priced contract and cover any system development cost overruns…………….

A Nasa spokesperson said the agency was aware of Bezos’s letter, but declined to comment further, citing the GAO protest filed by Blue Origin. A decision in that case is expected by early August, though industry experts say Blue Origin views the possibility of a reversal as unlikely. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/26/jeff-bezos-nasa-blue-origin-space

July 29, 2021 Posted by | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

More underground space is needed at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

More underground space is needed to complete the mission at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant to dispose of nuclear waste, contend WIPP officials
during a Monday public meeting. The U.S. Department of Energy was underway
with a permit modification request (PMR) that would amend the DOE’s
permit with the State of New Mexico to allow for the mining of two new
panels where waste would be disposed of along with drifts connecting the
panels to the rest of the underground repository. At WIPP, transuranic
(TRU) nuclear waste consisting of clothing items and equipment irradiated
during nuclear activities at DOE sites across the country is disposed of
via burying in an underground salt deposit.

 Carlsbad Current Argus 27th July 2021

https://eu.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2021/07/27/wipp-needs-more-space-dispose-nuclear-waste-officials-say-new-mexico-carlsbad/8062308002/

July 29, 2021 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Biden administration approves $25 Billion Pentagon budget increase, despite calls from House Democrats opposing this.

Because of its role in setting defense policy—which determines subsidies and other rewards to private industry—the Senate Armed Services Committee is awash in cash from military contractors. According to OpenSecrets, Reed’s top contributors during the 2020 campaign cycle included Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, two of the leading beneficiaries of federal contracts.


A Huge Outrage’: Senate Panel Approves $25 Billion Pentagon Budget Increase  https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/07/23/huge-outrage-senate-panel-approves-25-billion-pentagon-budget-increase
“Not so incidentally, the $25 billion spending increase approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee exactly matches the cost to scale up Covid-19 vaccine production to meet global demand.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee agreed Thursday to add $25 billion to President Joe Biden’s already massive $715 billion Pentagon spending request, a move that prompted immediate outrage from progressive activists who have been demanding cuts to the bloated U.S. military budget.

“Just the proposed $25 billion increase to the Pentagon budget alone could end homelessness in the United States, making clear that senators are more interested in increasing the profits of military contractors than meeting the needs of everyday working people,” said Carley Towne, co-director of the anti-war group CodePink.

Because of its role in setting defense policy—which determines subsidies and other rewards to private industry—the Senate Armed Services Committee is awash in cash from military contractors. According to OpenSecrets, Reed’s top contributors during the 2020 campaign cycle included Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, two of the leading beneficiaries of federal contracts.

Robert Weissman, president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement Thursday that “anyone who cares about our national security should oppose this increase in Pentagon spending and demand… that the funds that would have gone to the Pentagon instead be allocated to global Covid-19 vaccine production or other human needs priorities.”

“When the coronavirus has demonstrated that all the guns in the world can’t protect our national security; when the U.S. spends more on its military than the next eleven nations combined; when we are withdrawing from Afghanistan and therefore reducing required military expenditures; when the Pentagon can’t pass an audit; when the Pentagon continues to lavish funds on the F-35 which is ten years behind schedule, double the original price tag and plagued by performance issues (like engines that don’t work); what possible justification is there for increasing the Pentagon budget over and above the increase already requested by the Biden administration?” Weissman asked.

“Not so incidentally,” he added, “the $25 billion spending increase approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee exactly matches the cost to scale up Covid-19 vaccine production to meet global demand.”

In addition to money for the Pentagon, the Senate panel’s proposed NDAA includes nearly $30 billion in funding for the Department of Energy, which manages the nation’s nuclear stockpile. Just a day after more than 20 Democratic lawmakers demanded reductions in the United States’ nuclear arsenal, the Senate Armed Services Committee called for “recapitalizing and modernizing the U.S. nuclear triad.”

The House and Senate must ultimately agree to identical legislation for the NDAA to become law. Given the narrow margins in both chambers, progressive members of Congress could credibly threaten to tank any bill that includes what they consider to be excessive funding for the Pentagon.

In March, 50 House Democrats led by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) demanded cuts to Defense Department budget, arguing the money would be better spent on “diplomacy, humanitarian aid, global public health, sustainability initiatives, and basic research.”

But Biden ignored the Democrats’ call, requesting $715 billion for the Pentagon—an increase from the current $704 billion spending level approved under former President Donald Trump.

July 26, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Most Hanford nuclear site workers report exposure to toxic or radioactive chemicals


57% of Hanford nuclear site workers surveyed by WA state report toxic exposures, Tri City Herald

BY ANNETTE CARY, JULY 07, 2021 

 More than half of Hanford site workers responding to a Washington state survey said they had been involved in an incident at the Hanford nuclear reservation that resulted in exposure to radioactive or toxic chemicals.

Some 57% of about 1,600 past and present workers who took the survey reported being in an exposure incident, which could include the release of radioactive material into the air.

And nearly a third, 32%, reported they had long-term exposure to hazardous materials at the nuclear reservation, rather than exposure during a single incident………

Workers are cleaning up and treating radioactive and hazardous chemical waste left from the past production at Hanford of two-thirds of the nation’s plutonium for its nuclear weapons program……….

For incurable diseases, such as chronic beryllium disease caused by breathing in fine particles of the metal beryllium, information sharing could be key to finding cures, the board said.

SICK HANFORD WORKER ISSUES

It also recommended expanding Tri-Cities access to care that is tailored to Hanford workers’ health needs.

Some workers reported they did not receive a diagnosis until they visited clinics outside the Tri-Cities area and sometimes outside the state.

After an initial assessment or diagnosis related to Hanford exposures there was not long-term coordination of care, said workers in survey comments.

Part of the difficulty was that some health problems, such as cancers, are not diagnosed until years after exposures, the report said……………https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article252613523.html

July 26, 2021 Posted by | employment, health, USA | Leave a comment

”Advanced Nuclear Reactors” -desperation to save USA’s nuclear industry – but it’s not likely to work.

the industry has turned to two other gambits to secure a bigger market share: small, modular light-water reactors, which, because they lack the advantage of economies of scale, would produce even more expensive electricity than conventional reactors; and non-light-water “advanced” reactors, which are largely based on unproven concepts from more than 50 years ago.

Unfortunately, proponents of these non-light-water reactor designs are hyping them as a climate solution and downplaying their safety risks

Advanced’ Nuclear Reactors? Don’t Hold Your Breath. With little hard evidence, their developers maintain they’llb be cheaper, safer and more secure than existing power plants,  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lsquo-advanced-rsquo-nuclear-reactors-don-rsquo-t-hold-your-breath/Scientific American By Elliott Negin on July 23, 2021

The U.S. nuclear power industry is at an impasse. Since 2003, 11 of the 104 light-water reactors in operation at the time have closed, mainly as a result of aging infrastructure and the inability to compete with natural gas, wind and solar, which are now the cheapest sources of electricity in the United States and most other countries worldwide.  

In the early 2000s, the industry promoted a “renaissance” to try to stem its incipient decline, and in 2005, Congress provided nearly $20 billion in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. The result? Only two new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactors, still under construction in Georgia, which will cost at least $14 billion apiece—double their estimated price tags—and take more than twice as long as estimated to be completed. Another two partially built AP1000 reactors in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017 after a $9-billion investment.

Given the struggle to build these standard-sized, 1,000-megawatt light-water reactors, the industry has turned to two other gambits to secure a bigger market share: small, modular light-water reactors, which, because they lack the advantage of economies of scale, would produce even more expensive electricity than conventional reactors; and non-light-water “advanced” reactors, which are largely based on unproven concepts from more than 50 years ago.

Unlike light-water reactors, these non-light-water designs rely on materials other than water for cooling. Some developers contend that these reactors, still in the concept stage, will solve the problems that have plagued light-water reactors and be ready for prime time by the end of this decade.

The siren song of a cheap, safe and secure nuclear reactor on the horizon has attracted the attention of Biden administration officials and some key members of Congress, who are looking for any and all ways to curb carbon emissions. But will so-called advanced reactors provide a powerful tool to combat climate change?

A Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis of non-light-water reactor concepts in development suggests that outcome may be as likely as Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss’ famous 1954 prediction that electricity generated by nuclear energy would ultimately become “too cheap to meter.” Written by UCS physicist Edwin Lyman, the 140-page report found that these designs are no better—and in some respects significantly worse— than the light-water reactors in operation today.

 Lyman took a close look at the claims developers have been making about the three main non-light-water designs: sodium-cooled fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and molten salt–fueled reactors. With little hard evidence, many developers maintain they will be cheaper, safer and more secure than currently operating reactors; will burn uranium fuel more efficiently, produce less radioactive waste, and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation; and could be commercialized relatively soon. Those claims, however, do not hold up to scrutiny.

 One of the sodium-cooled fast reactors, TerraPower’s 345-megawatt Natrium, received considerable media attention earlier this year when company founder Bill Gates touted it during interviews about his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In mid-February, Gates told CBS’s 60 Minutes that the Natrium reactor will be safer and cheaper than a conventional light-water reactor and produce less nuclear waste.

According to the UCS report, however, sodium-cooled fast reactors such as Natrium would likely be less uranium-efficient and would not reduce the amount of waste that requires long-term isolation. They also could experience safety problems that are not an issue for light-water reactors. Sodium coolant, for example, can burn when exposed to air or water, and the Natrium’s design could experience uncontrollable power increases that result in rapid core melting.

In June, TerraPower announced that it would build the first Natrium reactor in Wyoming as part of a 50-50 cost-share program with the Department of Energy. The DOE program originally required TerraPower to have the reactor, still in its early design stage, up and running by 2027. The agency recently changed the target date for commercialization to 2028.

From concept to a commercial unit in seven years?

The new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactor provides a cautionary tale. It took more than 30 years of research, development and construction before the first one was built in China and began generating power in 2018. According to the UCS report, if federal regulators require the necessary safety demonstrations, it could take at least 20 years—and billions of dollars in additional costs—to commercialize non-light-water reactors, their associated fuel cycle facilities, and other related infrastructure

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may have to adapt some regulations when licensing reactor technologies that differ significantly in design from the current fleet. Lyman says that should not mean weakening public health and safety standards, finding no justification for the claim that “advanced” reactors will be so much safer and more secure that the NRC can exempt them from fundamental safeguards. On the contrary, because there are so many open questions about these reactors, he says they may need to meet even more stringent requirements.

Finally, it recommends that the DOE and Congress consider spending more research and development dollars on improving the safety and security of light-water reactors, rather than on commercializing immature, overhyped non-light-water reactor designs.

“Unfortunately, proponents of these non-light-water reactor designs are hyping them as a climate solution and downplaying their safety risks,” says Lyman. “Given that it should take at least two decades to commercialize any new nuclear reactor technology if done properly, the non-light-water concepts we reviewed do not offer a near-term solution and could only offer a long-term one if their safety and security risks are adequately addressed.” Any federal appropriations for research, development and deployment of these reactor designs, he says, “should be guided by a realistic assessment of the likely societal benefits that would result from investing billions of taxpayer dollars, not based on wishful thinking. 

July 24, 2021 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

Trump insurgents came within seconds of capturing ‘nuclear football’ on Jan. 6

Trump insurgents came within seconds of capturing ‘nuclear football’ on Jan. 6, Mark Sumner  Daily Kos Staff,  Wednesday July 21, 2021  During Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial, video footage of events on Jan. 6 revealed just how close Mike Pence came to falling into the hands of the people who were chanting for his execution. Fourteen minutes after the mob of Trump supporters first breached the Capitol, Secret Service agents led Pence from the Senate chamber and down a flight of stairs. He entered that stairwell just seconds ahead of the arrival of insurgents, some of whom were carrying rope or zip ties. Had those insurgents not been delayed through the actions of Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, they could easily have been there to capture Pence and take him to the gallows waiting on the lawn outside.

But in addition to Pence, they might have captured something else that would have been especially problematic. For most of us, our electronic devices—phones, tablets, and laptops

—are regularly trusted with our most confidential information. That’s one of the things that helps to make these devices our constant companions and among the most vital objects that we own. However, there is still information that’s considered too valuable, too sensitive, to be trusted to any electronic device, and one prime example was in the hands of a military aide who was with Mike Pence as he fled from the Senate. 

That aide was carrying a small satchel, and inside that satchel was a book listing the locations of classified military sites, a description of how to activate and use the Emergency Broadcast System, a “black book” of pre-planned military actions, and a small card that contains the codes necessary to authorize a nuclear strike. That aide was with Pence at the top of the stairs in the video that was shown during the Senate trial.

The Jan. 6 insurgents didn’t just almost get Mike Pence. They almost got the backup copy of the president’s Emergency Satchel. Better know as the “nuclear football.”

As Reuters reports, concern over how close the satchel came to being captured by the Trump horde is calling for a review of just how the vital information is carried and secured……………………. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/7/21/2041066/-Trump-insurgents-came-within-seconds-of-capturing-nuclear-football-on-Jan-6

July 24, 2021 Posted by | incidents, USA | Leave a comment

Bill Gates’fast nuclear reactor ”Natrium” – not so safe and a nuclear weapons proliferation risk

At the March Senate hearing, TerrPower’s CEO described a future for the Natrium project that had almost unlimited export opportunities for Natrium and much larger plants. As Levesque explained, the current Natrium offering is a 345-megawatt (electric) machine—not so small in itself—because that size was what today’s market would accept. As TerraPower gained experience, though, he anticipated “growing Natrium output back up to gigawatt scale,” the size of current large light water reactors. The obvious conclusion is that, despite the current ballyhoo about the economic advantages of small units, TerraPower doesn’t think the smaller units would be as economic as larger ones. The “small” label is apparently just for the easily impressed.

Bill Gates’ Fast Nuclear Reactor: Will It Bomb?,  https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bill-gates%E2%80%99-fast-nuclear-reactor-will-it-bomb-189967 The principal reason for preferring fast reactors, historically the only reason, is to gain the ability to breed plutonium. Thus, the reactor would make and reuse massive quantities of material that could also be used as nuclear explosives in warheads.

by Victor Gilinsky Henry Sokolski 23 July 21, “Fast” means Natrium relies on energetic neutrons as opposed to “slow” neutrons that drive all our current power reactors. That’s also what gives it the “advanced” label. DOE and nuclear enthusiasts have advertised that small, factory-built, modular reactors will be cheaper and safer, and will be so attractive to foreign buyers that they will revive America’s nuclear industry, currently dead in the water; that they will enable the United States to compete in an international market now dominated by China and Russia; and they will provide a solid nuclear industrial base for meeting U.S. military nuclear requirements.

With all these supposed advantages it is not surprising that DOE is pouring money into SMRs. And based on little more than slogans, it is also getting enthusiastic bipartisan Congressional support. To understand what is really going on, one has to look beyond most of DOE’s small reactor projects, mere distractions with little future, to TerraPower’s Natrium. This is not, by the way, the company’s original “traveling wave” concept. That one apparently did not work.

The Natrium project, more than any other, offers the possibility to fulfill the nuclear community’s eighty-year-old nuclear dream to develop a nuclear power plant that can run on all mined uranium, not just on the relatively rare uranium-235 fissile isotope, as current reactors do, thereby vastly increasing fuel resources. It does this by first turning the inert uranium into plutonium and then using the plutonium as fuel. It can even “breed” excess plutonium to fuel new fast reactors. Those outside the nuclear community have no idea of the grip this captivating idea has on nuclear engineers’ minds. It has, however, serious practical drawbacks. What concerns us here is that plutonium is a nuclear explosive—a few kilograms are enough for a bomb, and it is an awful idea to have untold tons of it coursing through commercial channels.

Fast breeder reactors are not exactly a new idea. The DOE’s predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, pushed fast breeder reactors in the 1970s as the energy solution in what was thought to be a uranium-poor world. It turned out we live in a uranium-rich world, so the expensive project, whose safety problems had not been fully resolved, made no economic sense. Congress canceled the Clinch River Fast Breeder Reactor demonstration project in 1983. Enthusiasts tried but failed to revive fast reactors during the second Bush administration. That effort flopped. Now they are trying again with Natrium, a scaled-up version of a General Electric design for a small sodium-cooled, plutonium-fueled fast breeder reactor (natrium is German for sodium).

TerraPower, of course, is Bill Gates’s company. One might ask, naively, why he of all people needs government support if the Natrium project is as good as he apparently thinks it is, but let us pass over that to focus on what the project technically entails and the difficulties those technical details pose.

Chris Levesque, TerraPower’s CEO, told a March 25 Senate Energy Committee hearing that the Natrium would be fueled with uranium enriched to 20 percent U-235 rather than explosive plutonium. But will that remain the preferred fuel if the Natrium reactor takes off and is offered for export? Currently, only a handful of nations can make 20 percent enriched uranium. It’s hard to believe that foreign customers will want to be tied to a U.S. supply of this fuel.

If they want another source for 20 percent fuel, will the United States go along with foreign enrichers offering it? We currently oppose Iran producing it on grounds that such material is too close to bomb-grade uranium. In a 1976 statement on nuclear policy, President Gerald Ford said the United States would not act in its civilian program in a way contrary to what we ask of others. Has this level of consistency and respect for others gone by the boards?

The thing to remember is that the principal reason for preferring fast reactors, historically the only reason, is to gain the ability to breed plutonium. That is surely what foreign customers will want. The original GE design on which Natrium is based included an onsite reprocessing plant. So configured, the reactor would make and reuse massive quantities of material that could also be used as nuclear explosives in warheads.

The potential weapons link is obvious in India, which has refused to allow international inspections of its fast reactor. And the recent disclosure that China is building two fast reactors more or less under wraps immediately provoked international concerns about Chinese possible weapons plutonium production. The plutonium produced in the fast reactor uranium “blanket” surrounding the reactor core is well over 90 percent plutonium 239, which is ideal for nuclear weapons.

At the March Senate hearing, TerrPower’s CEO described a future for the Natrium project that had almost unlimited export opportunities for Natrium and much larger plants. As Levesque explained, the current Natrium offering is a 345-megawatt (electric) machine—not so small in itself—because that size was what today’s market would accept. As TerraPower gained experience, though, he anticipated “growing Natrium output back up to gigawatt scale,” the size of current large light water reactors. The obvious conclusion is that, despite the current ballyhoo about the economic advantages of small units, TerraPower doesn’t think the smaller units would be as economic as larger ones. The “small” label is apparently just for the easily impressed.

Nor are the touted safety advantages of fast reactors what they seem. The low pressure of sodium-cooled reactors is an advantage. But sodium burns violently when exposed to air or water. And a fast reactor needs a large, concentrated amount of fissile material which becomes more reactive if it loses its coolant. In short, the comparison with the safety of light water reactors is at best a draw.

The March Senate hearing discussion about competing with Russia and China made clear the nuclear industry’s business plan centers on exporting fast reactor technology around the world, however implausible this may be given the cost and safety issues we’ve noted. The question for the U.S. government is, should it be encouraging nuclear technologies that threaten to flood the world with untold tons of plutonium?

Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter made it U.S. policy to discourage commercializing of plutonium-fueled reactors. Ford’s words bear repeating: In 1976, he announced that the United States wouldn’t support reliance on plutonium fuel and associated reprocessing of spent fuel until “the world community can effectively overcome the associated risks of proliferation.” Fast reactors like TerraPower’s Natrium don’t meet this test.

Victor Gilinsky serves as program advisor to The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, is a physicist, and was a commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations.

July 24, 2021 Posted by | Reference, technology, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »