‘New Zealand should say sorry’ – sailors posted to watch nuclear tests
RNZ Jimmy Ellingham, Manawatū reporter, jimmy.ellingham@rnz.co.nz 1 May 23
New Zealand sailors exposed to British nuclear tests in the Pacific in the 1950s remain unhappy they have never had a government apology for being placed in harm’s way.
On the weekend the veterans, now aged at least in their 80s, held a reunion in Palmerston North.
For many of them it could be their last chance to catch up with their mates from Operation Grapple, which happened in 1957 and 1958, when New Zealand vessels HMNZS Pukaki and Rotoiti observed tests near Christmas Island, now part of Kiribati……………………………….
In the mid-1990s, Tahi and fellow veteran, the late Roy Sefton, organised the first reunion in Palmerston North, which revealed four decades of suffering.
“They stood up and spoke about the defects they had with their children, and that was terrible.
“A guy stood up and said, ‘How come I lost my two boys? They were 18 years old. They had cancer.’ He was carrying the genes, you see.”
Sefton and Tahi led the veterans’ association and have lobbied successive governments for an apology for being exposed to radiation, to no avail……………
The lack of acknowledgement from New Zealand’s government was particularly frustrating for the veterans, given the effects the tests had on them were confirmed by a scientific study.
It was done by now-retired Massey University associate professor Dr Al Rowland.
“I conducted a big research programme on the nuclear test veterans and I discovered alarming evidence of long-term genetic damage.”
This damage was a consequence of Operation Grapple, he said.
Rowland is the veterans’ association patron and he said it saddened him that they still had not received an apology.
“What we are looking for is recognition of the research, from the government.
“The international scientific community have accepted the work and I’ve received a lot of plaudits. In fact, I received an ONZM for the research from John Key’s government.”
Despite that, he said the veterans’ association had regular meetings with ministers, but was making no progress.
Roy Sefton died two years ago, but down the years he fought for pensions for veterans and their families, said his daughter, Anu……………………………………… https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/489021/new-zealand-should-say-sorry-sailors-posted-to-watch-nuclear-tests
The wrong stuff – Musk and the 4/20 rocket drill
on nearly all the times Musk has tried to land Starship its blown up or crashed.
But its Musk’s money, he can do whatever he likes with it surely? Actually, no Starship now forms a critical part of NASA’s lunar landing project. These tests are mostly taxpayer funded.
So on the 20th of April (4/20, so at least we know what he was smoking), chief twit Elon Musk launched his ego rocket to cheering crowds, which was deemed a success. …despite blowing itself to bits and scattering debris over a wetlands habitat. I’m sorry, but that’s not what can even be considered a success. But it just goes to show the double standards the media applies to Musk and other tech bro’s. And how lazy most journalists are.
The wrong stuff – Musk and the 4/20 rocket drill — daryanenergyblog
……………………………………. its considered bad luck to cheer during a rocket launch (as it was not unusual for people to cheer in these early days only for the rocket to shortly there after blow up). Musk and his fanboys seem intend on re-learning what we all ready know.
Indeed, there’s very little that we learnt from this test flight that couldn’t have been learned from ground testing, simulations, some quick calculations….or applying some basic common sense. For example, the main problem was how Musk’s rocket was less the world’s big’s rocket, but the the world’s biggest drill bit. It chewed up its own launch pad and effectively destroyed it, spraying chucks of concrete out to a distance of several hundred metres, damaging equipment on site (likely including the rocket itself as several engines failed immediately upon launch) and scatter debris into a protected wetland area.
This was entirely predictable and indeed several commentators did predict it (but obviously Musk the college drop out knows way more about rocketry than these guys with their fancy degrees). This is why most other launch complexes have a flame pit and maintain a large separation between the pad and anything that might not react well to flaming chucks of debris (like a tank full of propellants).
There were also some control and stability issues, as the aerodynamic surfaces at the front of the craft require control inputs from the engines at the back just to fly in a straight line (think of an arrow, where you put the fins on the front instead of on the back). Obviously, this means the engines have to work harder to steer. Plus you lose enough of the steerable engines (or you hit gimbal lock) and the rocket becomes uncontrollable (which towards the end of the flight, is basically what happened).
And since we are talking about it, I still can’t understand why he’s using Methane as a fuel. This gives a specific impulse of only 360s, while Lox/LH2 will give you at least 450s (i.e. 20% more bangs for each gram of fuel). And NASA has the RS-25 engines used by the SLS (based on the space shuttle engines, so a proven technology), which are also reusable and can be throttled. The only reason not to use them seems to be not invented here syndrome. Either way, it would make far more sense to adapt Starship to be brought up to orbit in sections by the SLS (or just go with a more sensible space craft design), or adapt SLS to lift it up in one go (e.g. cluster several core SLS stages together, similar to the soviet Energia system).
And least we forget, Starship is supposed to be a man rated rocket (which for NASA means getting the probability of loss down to 1 in 500…good luck with that one!). There has to be serious doubts about it meeting that now. Aside from the issued I discussed previously related to its stainless steel construction, it also has to undertake a very risky manoeuvre in order to separate both halves. The rocket does a 180 degree spin arse over end, sling shooting the upper stage away from the lower stage (keeping in mind the control issues I mentioned earlier, will be much worse due to the fact the rocket is now nose heavy, as most of the fuel in the lower stage is gone). And its possible the rocket broke its back trying to do this.
Its also unclear how Starship is supposed to separate and land safely in the event of a booster failure during the early launch phase (had more of those engines been lost earlier on, this type of failure would have occurred shortly after lift off). By contrast the Orion capsule on the SLS (or indeed Soyuz or the Dragon capsule) has an escape tower, which will boost the capsule and its crew away from a failing rocket. No such escape options appear to exist for Starship. Indeed on nearly all the times Musk has tried to land Starship its blown up or crashed.
But its Musk’s money, he can do whatever he likes with it surely? Actually, no Starship now forms a critical part of NASA’s lunar landing project. These tests are mostly taxpayer funded. Quite apart from the costs of delaying the entire lunar project, the costs of the impending FAA investigation and the time of the US wildlife service who are going to have to devote to cleaning up the mess in the wetlands.
And this is hardly the first time Musk has promised way more than he can deliver. As I mentioned before, Falcon was supposed to be fully reusable, but is only partially reusable (and even then, more in theory than practice), at a significantly higher cost. Hyperloop is still a pipe dream, and the loop is a glorified Disney ride. Meanwhile twitter is an increasingly unreliable hellscape which has lost half its value since he took it over, and self driving cars? Will be available in 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2024.
I mean imagine if NASA behaved the same way as Musk. Or let’s suppose some Mexican billionaire started blowing up rockets just across the border in Mexico showering debris into the US. Would they be treated the same way by the US government or the media? No, they’d be pretty quick to shut them down. But being a billionaire is basically an excuse to get away with anything in America, even if its criminal, immoral or insane. https://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2023/04/30/the-wrong-stuff-musk-and-4-20-rocket-drill/
Largest ever Arctic Challenge NATO fighter aircraft exercise begins in Northern Europe
30 May 2023, By The Brussels Times with Belga
Vast exercises involving around 150 fighter jets from Western countries, began on Monday in Finland, Sweden and Norway, the Finnish air force announced.
Participating countries include the United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium and France,
The manoeuvres are due to last nearly two weeks, according to Finland, a brand new member of NATO, which is leading the ‘Arctic Challenge’ operation……………….. more https://www.brusselstimes.com/527325/major-nato-fighter-aircraft-exercises-begin-in-northern-europe
Sensitive files on nuclear submarine found in English pub restroom
kk/kb 30.04.2023 British services have launched an investigation into the alleged finding of Royal Navy documents marked “official sensitive” in a Wetherspoons pub restroom in Barrow-in-Furness, England, media reported. The files reportedly concerned HMS Anson, the most recent of the navy’s cutting-edge nuclear-powered submarines.
According to “The Sun” daily, the files showed the inner workings of the torpedo-loaded vessel, including key details regarding its hydraulics, which control torpedo hatches.
They were reportedly found with a Royal Navy lanyard from the new GBP 1.3 bn (USD 1.63 bn) submarine……………………………… https://tvpworld.com/69544839/sensitive-files-on-nuclear-submarine-found-in-english-pub-restroom
Discharge of tritium from Fukushima to harm human body: scientist
Tritium, which the Japanese government planned to dump from its crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean, will harm human beings’ inside bodies as internal exposure can be more dangerous than external one, a renowned scientist said Thursday.
“When tritium gets inside the body, it’s at least as dangerous as any of the other radionuclides. And in some cases, it’s more than double as dangerous in terms of the effects of the radiation on the genetic material, on the proteins,” Timothy Mousseau, professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina, told a press conference in Seoul.
The Japanese government and institutions, including the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), have claimed that tritium is not dangerous because it emits a very “weak” beta particle, but the professor called it “fiction.”
“Ingestion is really the most dangerous. People have said that tritium is not dangerous based on the concerns for external exposure, but using the same argument, you would say that uranium 235 is not dangerous,” he noted.
Tritium is known as an emitter of low-energy beta particles incapable of penetrating a human body as they are stopped by a layer of clothing, in contrast to gamma rays that can pass through a human body and only be stopped by several feet of concrete.
If the tritiated water or the organically bound tritium discharged from the collapsed Fukushima power plant is consistently ingested, the ionizing radiation would directly damage DNA or indirectly affect other metabolic activities through oxidative stress or an imbalance inside the body that can lead to cell and tissue damage.
“The way it works is that the tritium molecule comes inside the cell and ejects an electron…It’s a little bullet. It’s like a bullet coming from a gun. It comes out from the nucleus of the tritium atom. That bullet hits something like the DNA,” Mousseau said.
“What makes tritium more dangerous than high-energy emission is that the bullet is moving kind of slow, so it hits something and bounces. And it hits something else and then it hits something else. It doesn’t go anywhere, so you end up with a clustered damage from that beta particle,” the professor noted.
“High-energy beta particles are higher energy. They will hit something, yes, but then they continue and go through the cell, maybe out of the body, and do much less damage as a result. So, this is why we need to pay attention to tritium in particular,” he added.
Mousseau, who published over 130 scientific papers related to radiation effects, presented a new paper on the biological consequences of exposure to tritium earlier this month based on 250 studies after scanning over 700,000 references to tritium.
According to the paper, the scientific literature indicated that tritium could be genotoxic and carcinogenic and can affect reproductive systems such as sperm and eggs.
Japan planned to release over 1.2 million tonnes of the tritium-laced water into the ocean for 30 years from 2023, but the discharge would last much longer than planned, Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace East Asia, told the press conference.
“Those discharges could begin as early as July, possibly later, and continue for many decades, not just the 30 years but maybe 50, 60, 70, 80 years. Next century is really possible,” said Burnie.
“This is water that’s radioactive in tanks, so it’s the deliberate decision to pollute and contaminate the environment, which doesn’t need to take place because actually there is sufficient storage space in the two districts next to the Fukushima nuclear power plant,” he noted.
Burnie was also skeptical of Japan’s claim that the contaminated water could be diluted through an advanced liquid processing system (ALPS).
“This is water that has come in direct contact with a reactor, a nuclear fuel that suffered a severe melt, which means fission products within the nuclear fuel became in direct contact with water,” the specialist said.
“It’s unclear how successfully the ALPS system processes the water. Around 70 percent of the water in the tanks still needs to undergo further processing. So, we still don’t know how effective it’s going to be. It can’t be discharged as it is at the moment,” he added.
Nuclear waste from small modular reactors – Simon Daigle comments on recent article
Simon J Daigle, B.Sc., M.Sc., M.Sc.(A) Concerned Canadian Citizen. Occupational / Industrial Hygienist, Epidemiologist. Climatologist / Air quality expert (Topospheric Ozone). 27 Apr 23
A recent article on SMRs in 2022 on potential nuclear waste risks and other proximate information on industrial and hazardous waste streams globally [References 2 to 5] below.
Nuclear waste from small modular reactors. PNAS Publication. Lindsay M. Kralla, Allison M. Macfarlaneb, and Rodney C. Ewinga. Edited by Eric J. Schelter, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; received June 26, 2021; accepted March 17, 2022 by Editorial Board Member Peter J. Rossky.
Simon Daigle comments:
- Development of SMRs have security issues and threats globally according to many experts including Dr Gordon Edwards (CCNR).
- SMR will produce more toxic radionuclides and waste stream analysis for potential SMR wastes streams are unknown in Canada and currently the Canadian government have no plans to complete this analysis yet or confirmed by an environmental impact assessment.
- SMR development and potential nuclear wastes generated will be extremely dangerous and toxic comparatively with current NPP SNF and other LILW [Ref. 1].
- SMR nuclear waste challenges of DGR disposal risks are unknown and are technically difficult to achieve even with safety assurances by governments globally, even more so for current nuclear wastes from NPP and other nuclear waste streams such as medical radiological waste streams.
- On a global scale, industrial and hazardous wastes are mismanaged to a point where poor countries are the favored territories to dump industry’s hazardous and industrial wastes because of poor regulatory or no regulatory legal framework to be followed by industries and corporations [Ref. 5].
- Global governments want to take on industrial and hazardous wastes for a financial benefit with no real ROI (Return on Investment) for any government or taxpayer when industrial waste companies know they can make a profit and unfortunately, the environment and population health in that country are impacted considerably without their own government helping out [Ref. 5]. This is also the case for nuclear wastes independent of point of origin and all coming from the nuclear industry’s operators, and similar industrial and hazardous waste operators on global scale.
- SMR development (and use) will have the same problems in disadvantaged poor or rich country that will accept SMR as a technology, and the result of a “free for all” dumping ground for nuclear waste that the nuclear industry chooses to dump on will inevitably happen in time. Poor countries are not equipped to deal with hazardous and industrial wastes generally to begin with and especially true for nuclear waste or any potential SMR waste streams.
- Hazardous wastes are already a problem in the province of Alberta. Alberta’s Oil Patch lands are contaminated and polluted to a point where taxpayers are on the hook for 260 billion dollars for the clean-up estimated in 2018 by one Alberta accountability office (Alberta Energy Regulator) [Ref. 2]. This figure is likely even higher in 2023. You could put a “financial” and hazardous caution tape all around Alberta for all the taxpayers in that province.
- If Alberta cannot clean the oil sands and patches, with its hazardous waste legacy coming from the oil industry because of failed financial securities, including the federal government oversight, we will also have a difficult time resolving any SMR nuclear waste issues and existing NPP nuclear waste streams and/or contaminated oil patch lands over decades or millennia as we are already having a difficult time resolving nuclear waste issues in Canada. The short-term benefit has always been profits for corporations and the Alberta taxpayer inherits the legacy waste [Ref. 2]
- International law is clearly inadequate for oil tanker spill accidents, oil platforms, oil exploration, under water gas pipelines, etc. Governments rely on corporate “citizenship” and due-diligence but we have already learned these failures over time with so much damages to the environment and to the population including maritime nuclear waste transport in international waters by nuclear merchants and inadequate insurance and financial securities. [Ref. 4].
- The impact of any nuclear waste accident or incident in open international waters by a nuclear waste operator independent of origin will be the same in the biosphere, financially and ecologically. It is highly likely to occur in time because there is no adequate emergency and contingency plan that exists with international agencies, corporations or governments including adequate financial insurance and securities [Ref. 4] to cover the damages. Very few international ocean cargo shippers accept to transport nuclear waste to any destinations because of the risks (including threats to security) with inadequate insurance and financial liabilities from any point of origin during an accident in international waters. So, who will pay the damages? No one.
- We have yet not cleared the lost nuclear bombs from WWII from the ocean floor so this makes you wonder who will take care of these nuclear wastes and other hazardous materials in time? Will it be IAEA or other international agency such as the IMO (International Maritime Organization). These hazardous and nuclear wastes, including lost nuclear warheads from WWII, in international waters are left to live on the ocean floor for archeologist to discover the “why they were lost” or “left there” to begin with in time [Ref. 3]. They are all plainly left out of sight for anyone to see. These lost nuclear warheads and similar weapons lost at sea remain a serious explosion hazard and ocean contamination is happening to this very day.
- If we can’t resolve current nuclear waste issues in Canada, and globally, we won’t be able to resolve (ever) new development of SMR technology accompanied with even more toxic nuclear wastes, as history showed us, we simply can’t.
- Similarly, we can’t even resolve our current issues for any hazardous and industrial wastes in Canada or globally, because somehow, somewhere, someone will inherit these wastes indefinitely in their backyard including all of its impacts on the biosphere and the general population. One example is clearly worrisome for Alberta with a 260 billion CDN clean up cost in 2018 in which will remain indefinitely [Ref. 2].
- Industries and governments are spreading hazardous wastes and pollution through a thin layer across the globe (air, water and soil), some thicker in concentration and toxicity in different geographic zones and all for a profit by corporations and industries. The population is always disadvantaged.
- In Feb 2023, one article proposed nuclear energy for maritime shipping and we are now looking at it to decarbonize international maritime transport, such as nuclear merchant ships, while further complicating nuclear risks and harm in international waters with nuclear pollution, risks and harm where insurance and financial securities are inadequate to this very day. [Ref. 4]. This is ridiculous to even consider given the risks and legacy waste generated but this article’s authors are from China where the government is planning to expand the nuclear industry.
- While NPP plants are decommissioning in some countries, we will se more advanced countries looking to take on nuclear waste processing and waste management and all will require land and ocean transportation.
- Air transport of nuclear materials or wastes are possible with air transport according to IATA (International Air Transport Association in Montreal) but are limited to Low Specific Activity (LSA) and Shipping Low-Level Radioactive Waste but we won’t see that happening on a large scale because of the obvious threats. IATA also provides information to irradiated individuals (from a source other than medical diagnosis or treatment) that needs to travel in order to reach a suitable treatment facility and new guidance was provided in 2011 by IATA.
- Usually, airlines do not know about radiation from within the body resulting from diagnostic procedures or may not know about contamination of an individual by radioactive material on the skin or clothes and the aviation industry monitoring these activities are inadequate. Just to add my personal experience, in 2006, I had a flight to New Baltimore (US) (within the US) to conduct an EHS audit for a company, and by curiosity, I noticed one traveller was equipped with medical equipment and I asked the flight attendant if there are any radionuclides in the equipment (with a radioactive symbol) or if the passenger had received oncology radiation treatment recently, and the answer was “I don’t know”! So I picked another seat in a different row but the other passengers were oblivious so I kept to myself the question that I even asked until the plane touchdown. Yes, people undergoing radiation treatment can be hazardous to family members at home and on flights. I won’t explain today, I will let an oncologist explain if one is brave and keen to explain.
- Self-governance by corporations is not acceptable for nuclear, hazardous and industrial wastes, and that includes the nuclear industry.
- The Canadian Government must adopt and practice better foresight, insight, hindsight, and oversight with SMRs and nuclear wastes with clear Authority, Accountability and Responsibility for Canadians and indigenous peoples, by Canadians and by indigenous peoples.
- Governments are not playing by their own rules as well for preventing the production of nuclear waste, nuclear risks or reducing harm and not even following IAEA’s ALARA principle “As Low as Reasonably Achievable”. It’s ironic and all for profit in which is a clear negative financially from the get go, even decades, for any taxpayer or any government.
Free Julian Assange, member of our organisations – European Federation of Journalists
https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2023/04/27/free-julian-assange-member-of-our-organisations/ Our Italian FNSI affiliates were visited today in Rome by Julian Assange‘s wife, Stella Morris. The Italian journalists’ union, at the initiative of its Campania branch, presented Julian Assange with an FNSI membership card. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) passed on the initiative to its affiliates in Europe: 18 of them decided to follow the Italian example and grant Julian Assange membership (or honorary membership) of their organisations. The EFJ and its affiliates once again call on the UK authorities to release Julian Assange.
Here is the joint appeal delivered to Stella Morris in Rome this morning:
We, the undersigned European unions and associations of journalists, join the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) in calling on the US government to drop all charges against Julian Assange and allow him to return home to his wife and children.
We are gravely concerned about the impact of Assange’s continued detention on media freedom and the rights of all journalists globally. We urge European governments to actively work to secure Julian Assange’s release.
To show our solidarity, we declare Julian Assange a full member, an honorary member or a free member of our organisations.
Signed:
- Maja Sever, EFJ President and TUCJ President, Croatia
- Fabrizio Cappella, SUGC-FNSI Secretary, Italy
- Satik Seyranyan, UJA President, Armenia
- Borka Rudić, BHJA General Secretary, Bosnia & Herzegovina
- Hrvoje Zovko, HND President, Croatia
- Emmanuel Poupard, SNJ First General Secretary, France
- Emmanuel Vire, General secretary SNJ-CGT, France
- Tina Groll, dju in ver.di President, Germany
- Maria Antoniadou, JUADN President, Greece
- Laszlo M. Lengyel, HPU Executive President, Hungary
- Pavle Belovski, SSNM President, North Macedonia
- Luís Filipe Simões, SJ President, Portugal
- Darko Šper, GS Kum President, Serbia
- Dragana Čabarkapa, Sinos President, Serbia
- Zeljko Bodrozic, IJAS President, Serbia
- Petra Lesjak Tušek, DNS President, Slovenia
- Miguel Angel Noceda, FAPE President, Spain
- Urs Thalmann, impressum Director, Switzerland
- Tim Dawson, NUJ, United Kingdom
Citizen opposition blocks discharge of radioactive water from Indian Point nuke into Hudson River, for now
Radioactive waste water won’t go into Hudson River…yet
Tritium dump paused — Beyond Nuclear International
Note: Beyond Nuclear is holding online teach-ins on tritium. The first — Tritium: Don’t Dump It! Tritium in the US Nuclear Power Sector — will take place on Tuesday, May 16, 2pm-3:30pm EDT and features: Dr. Ian Fairlie providing an overview of tritium and the harm it causes; Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch describing opposition to tritium dumping by Holtec into Cape Cod Bay from the closed Pilgrim, MA nuclear power plant; and lawyer, Michel Lee of the Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy, who will discuss the similar threat of tritium dumping by Holtec from the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York into the Hudson River. Register here.
By Julia Conley, Common Dreams, 30 Apr 23
Clean water and public health advocates in New York’s Hudson Valley applauded on April 13 as the energy technology company Holtec International announced it will not move ahead with plans to dump wastewater in May from the former Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, following intense pressure from local communities and state lawmakers.
The company had initially planned to complete its first discharge of wastewater from pools that were used to cool spent nuclear reactor fuel rods late this summer, but recently announced that in May it would discharge 45,000 gallons of the water into the Hudson River, which at least 100,000 people rely on for their drinking water.
The company ultimately plans to release one million gallons of wastewater into the river.
Holtec International said it was taking a “voluntary pause” in the plan to better explain the process of decommissioning the plant, which was shut down in 2021, to the local community and elected officials.
Local clean water group Riverkeeper expressed appreciation that Holtec “heard the concerns of public” and said advocates will continue pushing for an alternative to releasing the wastewater into the Hudson.
Riverkeeper and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) are among the groups that have raised concerns about the presence in the wastewater of the isotope tritium, which can be carcinogenic and is harmful to pregnant women and developing fetuses. Advocates have called on Holtec to store the water in tanks on the Indian Point site until a safe alternative disposal method can be found.
“There has been no prior disclosure of what pollutants or radioactive contaminants are in the wastewater or any public education on the environmental safety and public health risks associated with any potential discharges from the site,” said local public health experts in a statement in January as PSR held the first of several public forums about the risks associated with Holtec’s discharge plan.
“My constituents are already overburdened with the negative environmental externalities left behind by industrial infrastructure, and we should not be treated like pawns in this process,” said Levenberg earlier this month. “What we need is a partner who will work with us to facilitate a safe and just decommissioning of this plant, in a way that respects the surrounding communities. The people of my district have made it clear that this conversation should not be one-sided; Holtec should not be the only participant driving the schedule. What is efficient for Holtec may not be what is in the best interest of our communities and our natural resources.”
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who joined Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in writing to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about Holtec’s plan on April 6, said he was “relieved that Holtec has heeded our call and will put a stop to its hastily hatched plan to dump radioactive wastewater into the Hudson.”…… https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/04/30/tritium-dump-paused/—
Will The EU Sanction Russia’s Nuclear Industry? (I don’t think France will agree to this)
ED. I can’t see France agreeing to anything that would limit the nuclear industry!!
“France to participate in Russian Rosatom’s Hungary nuclear power plant project.” – https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/04/27/hongrie-la-france-prete-a-participer-au-projet-de-centrale-nucleaire-du-russe-rosatom_6171229_3210.html
By Felicity Bradstock – Apr 28, 2023, Oilprice.com
- One Russian industry that has avoided EU sanctions to date is its nuclear energy sector.
- Rosatom is a major exporter of nuclear fuel and technology.
- Despite uncertainty over how to impose sanctions on Russian nuclear energy without harming the interests of several European countries, Brussels is working on a plan.
In February 2022, the EU imposed sanctions on Russia in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The sanctions at this point included restrictive measures (individual sanctions), economic sanctions, and visa measures. The sanctions aimed to disrupt the country’s economy to prevent Russia from continuing its conflict with Ukraine. Throughout the year, the EU and other parts of the world increased the number and types of sanctions on Russia as they decreased their reliance on Russian energy.
…………………… one area that the EU has avoided sanctioning, to date, is Russian nuclear power. This is largely because of the significant role Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy monopoly, Rosatom, plays in global nuclear power. Paul Dorfman, chair of Nuclear Consulting Group, explained that the problem is a “Russian doll’s worth of interlocking dependencies.” Firstly, Rosatom is a major exporter of nuclear fuel, providing the U.S. with 14 percent of its uranium in 2021. Meanwhile, utilities across Europe purchased around a fifth of their uranium from Rosatom, and they have been unable to diversify their uranium sources since cutting other energy ties with Russia. Rosatom also provided 28 percent of the U.S.’s enrichment services in 2021.”
Further, Rosatom is not just limited to Russia, holding ownership of several nuclear plants around the world. By the end of 2021, one in five nuclear plants worldwide was either in Russia or was Russian-built. Rosatom has repeatedly stepped in to help finance nuclear plants in countries that want to expand their nuclear power sectors but don’t have the money to do so. Many of these plants fall under a build-own-operate model, relying on Rosatom for their operation.
Certain EU states have, therefore, opposed sanctions on Russian nuclear power as they continue to rely on Rosatom for their energy security. For example. Hungary sources around 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and has a long-term financing deal with Rosatom to build two new nuclear reactors. In February this year, the European Commission (EC) scrapped plans for sanctions on Russia’s nuclear energy industry, citing opposition from some member states. The EU had considered imposing sanctions on individual employees of Rosatom and other companies on the list but has not acted on this idea so far. …………………………………….
Biden’s team fears the aftermath of a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive
Behind closed doors, the administration worries about what Ukraine can accomplish.
Politico, By JONATHAN LEMIRE and ALEXANDER WARD, 04/24/2023
The Biden administration is quietly preparing for the possibility that if Ukraine’s spring counteroffensive falls short of expectations, critics at home and allies abroad will argue that America has come up short, too.
Ukraine’s ever-imminent counteroffensive will attempt to retake Russian-seized territory most likely in the east and south, though for operational reasons no senior officials from Kyiv have detailed specifics.
Publicly, President Joe Biden’s team has offered unwavering support for Ukraine, pledging to load it up with weapons and economic aid for “as long as it takes.” But, if the impending fighting season yields limited gains, administration officials have expressed privately they fear being faced with a two-headed monster attacking it from the hawkish and dovish ends of the spectrum.
One side will say that Ukraine’s advances would’ve worked had the administration given Kyiv everything it asked for, namely longer-range missiles, fighter jets and more air defenses. The other side, administration officials worry, will claim Ukraine’s shortcoming proves it can’t force Russia out of its territory completely.
That doesn’t even account for the reaction of America’s allies, mainly in Europe, who may see a peace negotiation between Ukraine and Russia as a more attractive option if Kyiv can’t prove victory is around the corner.
Inside the administration, officials stress they’re doing everything possible to make the spring offensive succeed.
“We’ve nearly completed the requests of what [Ukraine] said they needed for the counteroffensive as we have surged weapons and equipment to Ukraine over the past few months,” said one administration official who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal considerations.
But belief in the strategic cause is one thing. Belief in the tactics is another — and behind closed doors the administration is worried about what Ukraine can accomplish.
Those concerns recently spilled out into the open during a leak of classified information onto social media. A top secret assessment from early February stated that Ukraine would fall “well short” of its counteroffensive goals. More current American assessments are that Ukraine may make some progress in the south and east, but won’t be able to repeat last year’s success……………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/24/biden-ukraine-russia-counteroffensive-defense-00093384
Swedish reactor shutdowns nearly double Finland’s electricity price overnight
Swedish reactor shutdowns nearly double Finland’s electricity price
overnight. A short circuit encountered during maintenance near Stockholm
forced the closure of two nuclear reactors in Forsmark, Sweden.
YLE 27th April 2023
US to send nuclear-armed submarines to South Korea
27 Apr 23, https://www.rt.com/news/575372-nuclear-submarine-south-korea/
The deployment, the first of its kind in decades, comes amid persistent missile tests by the North.
The US will deploy submarines to South Korea armed with nuclear ballistic missiles, officials told reporters on Tuesday. Intended to deter North Korea from further missile tests, the deployment is also likely aimed at reassuring the South Korean public, who recently learned that the US systematically spied on their government.
The plan will be officially announced by US President Joe Biden and his South Korean counterpart, Yoon Suk-yeol, at the White House on Wednesday, the officials said in comments to multiple US media outlets.
Both men are expected to sign an agreement known as the ‘Washington Declaration,’ under which they will step up intelligence sharing and joint military exercises, while the US will send nuclear-armed submarines and bombers to South Korea on a rotating basis.
We intend to take steps to make our deterrence more visible through the regular deployment of strategic assets, including a US nuclear ballistic submarine visit to South Korea, which has not happened since the early 1980s,” one of the anonymous officials said. They compared the move to “what we did with European allies during the height of the Cold War in similar periods of potential external threat,” referring to the north’s missile program.
Pyongyang has test-fired more than 100 missiles since the beginning of 2022, and this month alone tested its first solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile and a nuclear-capable underwater attack drone. Officials in Washington and Seoul have claimed since last year that the north is gearing up for its seventh underground test of a nuclear weapon.
North Korea considers US deployments near its territory to be “provocations,” and usually responds with verbal threats, drills of its own, or new weapons tests.
Aside from deterring North Korea, the deployment of nuclear-armed submarines to the south is likely intended to patch up relations between Washington and Seoul, which were rocked when recently-leaked Pentagon documents revealed that the US spied on top South Korean officials to determine their stance toward sending arms to Ukraine.
The official told reporters that “by undertaking these new procedures,” the US hopes to remind Seoul that America’s “commitment” to the country is “unquestioned.”
Russia fixing power line from Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant to land it controls, IAEA says
VIENNA, April 28 (Reuters) https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-fixing-power-line-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-land-it-controls-iaea-says-2023-04-28/– Russia has informed the U.N. nuclear watchdog that equipment spotted at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which Russia controls, will be used to fix a power transmission line that leads to Russian-held territory, the watchdog said on Friday.
The planned restoration of the downed power line could heighten Ukrainian fears that Russia is preparing to connect Zaporizhzhia, Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, to the power grid of territory that it controls.
A small number of International Atomic Energy Agency officials are present at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP), which is operated by Ukrainian staff working under the orders of Russian forces and the Russian nuclear company Rosatom.
“The (IAEA) Team observed, and following questions were subsequently informed, that a large piece of equipment being transported into the turbine hall of Unit 3 was a transformer to replace the damaged ‘Kakhovka’ node in the ZNPP open switchyard,” the IAEA said in a statement.
“The Kakhovka line is one of the four 750 kV (kilovolt) lines that were operational before the military conflict. This line is linked to the currently Russian-controlled electrical grid, to the south of the ZNPP site,” it added.
Only one of those four power lines is currently working and is the only source of external power to the plant, which it needs to keep cooling the fuel in its six reactors even though they are shut down. Failing to cool that fuel could lead to a potentially catastrophic nuclear meltdown.
The IAEA said it also had not had access to the switchyard at a nearby thermal power plant (TPP) that can supply backup power to Zaporizhzhia. The IAEA last visited that switchyard in December, when damage from shelling was observed.
“Two weeks ago the team was informed that access would be granted in the coming days. It is important that ISAMZ (the IAEA Support and Assistance Mission to Zaporizhzhia) gets the necessary access to the ZTPP open switchyard given the implications on nuclear safety and security at ZNPP.”
Nuclear vs Solar: The Race For Renewable Dominance
oil Price, By Alex Kimani – Nov 11, 2020
“………………………………………………………….. now some nuclear experts and activists are suggesting a middle-ground: The Green Nuclear Deal.
Far more Republicans (65%) than Democrats (42%) are pro-nuclear as per Gallup Polls.
………………………………………………….. The United States Department of Energy (DOE), Nuclear Engineering & Science Center at Texas A&M, and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) have partnered with Chicago-based Clean Core Thorium Energy (CCTE) to develop a new thorium-based nuclear fuel they have dubbed ANEEL. ANEEL, which is short for “Advanced Nuclear Energy for Enriched Life”, is a proprietary combination of thorium and “High Assay Low Enriched Uranium” (HALEU) that hopes to solve some of the knottiest problems nuclear power faces, including high costs and toxic wastes.
That said, we pointed out that the main sticking point to the promotion of thorium as a cleaner nuclear fuel is that it remains unproven on a commercial scale. Thorium MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors) have been in development since the 1960s by the United States, China, Russia, and France, yet nothing much ever came of them. Further, only about 50 of the world’s 440 reactors can currently be configured to run on thorium.
We have also highlighted how scientists have finally broken ground by kicking off the five-year assembly phase of the massive International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the world’s largest fusion reactor, in Saint-Paul-les-Durance, France. Funded by six nations, including the U.S., Russia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea, ITER will be the world’s largest tokamak fusion device with an estimated cost of ~$24 billion and capable of generating about 500 MW of thermal fusion energy as early as 2025. Unfortunately, practical nuclear fusion remains a long-shot and could be decades away from becoming a commercial reality.
We simply don’t have the luxury of time.
Further, nuclear power in the U.S. faces an uncertain future. Of the country’s 97 currently active commercial nuclear reactors, 11 are scheduled for retirement by 2025. Only the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee has been commissioned over the past two decades, though two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia could be pressed into action as early as 2021.
The biggest obstacle for nuclear power, however, is that it remains a tough sell with well-publicized nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island still looming large in the American public’s psyche. A Morning Consult survey has revealed that just 29% of Americans view nuclear energy favorably with 49% viewing it negatively thus making it the most unpopular energy source.
Solar rising
Whereas the nuclear sector comeback has its work cut out for it, solar power has clearly been on the ascendancy thanks in large part to falling costs………………………………….
Strongly Bullish
Despite challenges, the solar sector remains strongly bullish.
Indeed, S&P Platts says that the shift to renewable energy is likely to continue full steam ahead regardless of fed policies noting that the energy transition has “clearly been moving forward on a regional basis,” despite lacking clear endorsement at the federal level under Trump.
It remains to be seen whether nuclear energy can command the same level of support. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-vs-Solar-The-Race-For-Renewable-Dominance.html
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (256)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
