Photo captures the moment the containment vessel was destroyed at Fukushima. enenews.com
The Tennessee Valley Authority completed a crucial phase of testing this week at the Watts Bar 2 reactor it plans to bring online next year. nuclearstreet.com
Blog
-
Geiger Readings for October 04, 2014
Ambient office = 102 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 88 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 90 nanosieverts per hourCrimini mushroom from Central Market = 79 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 136 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 119 nanosieverts per hourPacific Cod – Caught in USA = 96 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 170 – Russia Offers Early Bird Special to Investors in Its Fast Breeder Research Reactor
I have blogged in the past about the Russian dedication to the creation of fast breeder reactors for the production of nuclear fuel to compete with mined and refined or recovered uranium nuclear fuel. Russia is working on exporting nuclear reactors to developing countries. Control of the actual nuclear fuel required to fuel the exported Russian reactors would give Russia total control over the energy generated by the reactors. It is obvious from past behavior that Russia would consider using that control to leverage political support from their clients.Rosatom, the Russian government corporation that oversees nuclear power generation in Russia, was represented by its deputy director, Vyacheslav Pershukov at the International Atomic Agency’s General Conference that convened in Vienna last week. Pershukov took the opportunity to discuss the Russian plans for its International Research Center (IRC) which will be based on the multipurpose sodium-cooled fast neutron research reactor (the Russian acronym for this reactor is MBIR). The IRC will be located at the Research Institute of Atomic Reactors in Dimitrovgrad and the estimated price of the project is one billion dollars. The Russian government has already dedicated three hundred million dollars to the project.Rosatom is seeking investors for the IRC project. In addition to just getting the extra money needed, getting other countries or nuclear companies to join their research project will increase the global support for the idea of fast breeder reactors supplying nuclear fuel. Russia needs foreign markets to justify its massive investment in fast breeder technology. The “early bird” special that Russia is running for investment in the IRC is valued in percentages of the MBIR’s flux. Ten million dollars will equal one percent of the MBIR project. That one percent will be set equivalent to twelve displacements per atom in a cube about four inches on a side. This has to do with the effect of neutron bombardment on the atoms in a material. After 2020, the cost of a one percent share of MBIR will be thirty six million dollars. In return for not only money but also in-kind contributions such as supplying equipment and involvement in the creation and operation of the research program, investors will receive access to the equipment and research programs at the IRC. If enough investors cannot be found, then the Russian government will make up the difference.The IRC will probably have to be run as a not-for-profit organization. The Rosatom representatives at the conference conceded that research reactors have never turned a profit or even broke even on covering expenses. They pointed out that the international nuclear community has been able to put competition aside and cooperate on huge projects such as the international thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER) for nuclear fusion research. They feel that smaller projects such as MBIR also deserve to be the focus of international cooperation. Investors in the project will be able to work on designing reactors to their own specifications and will be able to sell or share their research with non-member companies and countries.Russia has a bad record of dealing with safety in its pursuit of nuclear technology. Given the rampant corruption in Russia, it is virtually certain that sooner or later there will be major accidents in Russia’s pursuit of fast breeders reactors and nuclear fuel generation. Russia is currently heading in a totalitarian direction. If the hard-liners such as Putin dispense with the fiction of democracy and openly seize control, then there is a danger that, just as Chernobyl, the Russian government will lie and try to cover up any major nuclear accident. It is doubtful that their response to such an accident will be adequate.Artists concept of the Russian International Research Center: -
Radiation News Roundup October 03, 2014
Analysis reveals seriousness of contamination from Fukushima was much worse than first thought. enenews.com
Bolivia is to invest more than $2 billion in the development of nuclear energy over the next decade, the country’s president has announced. world-nuclear-news.org
South Africa intends to sign agreements with French and Chinese reactor vendors, following on from its recent intergovernmental nuclear partnership agreement with Russia. world-nuclear-news.org
-
Geiger Readings for October 03, 2014
Ambient office = 104 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 91 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 97 nanosieverts per hourMango from Central Market = 136 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 107 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 92 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 169 – Sweden is Working on Replacing Nuclear Power with Renewable Sources
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in March of 2011, Germany decided to shut down all of its nuclear reactors as quickly as possible. Over three years later, Japan is still debating the restart of their idled fifty four nuclear power reactors. Other nations are reconsidering their commitment to nuclear power as well. Now Sweden is involved in a discussion about the future of their nuclear power plants.
Sweden’s outgoing center-right governing coalition concluded in 2009 that new nuclear reactors should be built to replace aging reactors that are being retired. The Social Democrats party took thirty one percent of the vote in a recent election but did not have a clear parliamentary majority so they have to create a coalition government with other parties. Stefan Lofven, the leader of the Social Democrats, had previously said that Sweden would need nuclear power for the “foreseeable” future. The Swedish Green Party, part of the new governing coalition, would like to see more of Sweden’s nuclear reactors closed in the next four years and replaced with renewable energy sources instead of new reactors. The Social Democrats and the Greens have agreed to establish an energy commission to explore how to convert Sweden completely to renewable sources for electricity.
Currently Sweden gets about forty percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Lofven just issued a statement that ” “Sweden has very good potential to expand renewable energy through our good access to water, wind and forests. In time, Sweden will have an energy system with 100% renewable energy.” He said that there should also be support for offshore wind power and solar energy. Both Social Democrats and Greens have issued statements that nuclear power should be replaced by renewable sources and energy efficiency. They have set a goal of generating at least 30 gigawatts from renewable source by 2020. Social Democrats and Greens agree that “Nuclear power should bear a greater share of its economic cost.” They said that “Safety requirements should be strengthened and the nuclear waste fee increased.”
Agneta Rising, the director of the World Nuclear Association, said that the statements of the two parties suggests a “a very bad situation for Sweden.” “There is big support for using nuclear power in the country and the electricity system is working very well. From regulation to the operation of nuclear power plants, to a fully-costed system for taking care of the waste, there are no major obstacles in the way of the system, which has worked well for more than 40 years,” Rising said. “Sweden has an electricity system that is almost optimal when you consider that nearly 50% comes from nuclear power and nearly 50% from hydro power. It is a clean, competitive and stable electricity system. To get out of that situation, which every other country would dream of being in, is bad news for Sweden and a bad example for the rest of the world.” Rising went on to say that closing the Swedish nuclear reactors would be expensive and that expense could take money away from work to convert to renewables.
-
Geiger Readings for October 02, 2014
Ambient office = 81 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 124 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 120 nanosieverts per hourOrganic tomato from Central Market = 123 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 106 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 94 nanosieverts per hour -
European Commission Report Calls for Permanent Geological Repositories for Spent Nuclear Fuel
What to do with spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste is the great unanswered question of nuclear power. The spent nuclear fuel pools in the one hundred U.S. nuclear power reactors will all be full in five years unless massive amounts of temporary storage casks are built to hold the spent fuel until a permanent repository is built. Best estimates are that there will not be a permanent geological nuclear repository in the United States before 2050. Other nations with nuclear power face similar problems.
France, Sweden, and Finland have selected preferred sites for geological repositories for high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel and begun construction. The U.K., Germany and Switzerland are involved in site selection for a repository. A 2004 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency urged all countries with nuclear waste disposal problems should cooperate in exploring multinational repositories. The report said that such multinational repositories would improve world safety and security. The International Panel of Fissile Materials issued a report in 2011 that stated that although the idea of multinational spent fuel geological repositories has been discussed, there has been very little progress in exploring that possibility. The benefits of multinational geological repositories include taking advantage of economies of scale, providing more time for nations to consider different fuel cycles and help to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
A report titled ‘Management of spent nuclear fuel and its waste’ has just been published by the European Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre, and the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council. The report points out that even with a closed fuel cycle where the spent fuel is recycled to create more fuel, there will still be nuclear waste generated that will have to disposed of in geological repositories. Although there has been a great deal of research around the world on deep geological repositories for nuclear waste, there is still no operational geological repository anywhere. All European nations with nuclear power are encouraged to immediately implement deep geological repositories.
The report pointed out that specifying a policy for dealing with spent nuclear fuel is an important part of planning for nuclear power and that there must be financial and technical support for developing ways of dealing with spent nuclear fuel. The report said that a nuclear power program must be a long term commitment that includes permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel as well as operation of nuclear reactors. The waste disposal will have to monitored for a century or more. Any permanent geological repository must ” guarantee the very long term safety of long-lived and high level waste.” Any safety functions must not depend on human intervention which will be problematic at best and must be able to withstand changing circumstances such as seismic activity and extreme weather conditions. Of course, education and training of staff are critical for safe long-term storage of nuclear waste and the report says that sharing of training materials and research facilities will be important.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc-report-anagement-spent-fuel-and-waste.pdf
