Ambient outside =96 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Garlic bulb from Central Market = 59 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 77 nanosieverts per hour

Dover Sole from Central = 93 nanosieverts per hour

     NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg spoke at 18th annual NATO Conference on Arms Control, Disarmament and Weapons of Mass Destruction and Non-Proliferation last Tuesday. He warned that the global arms control system is on the verge of collapse. He added, “We stand at a crossroads. In one direction lies the collapse of the international arms control order and the unrestricted proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, with profoundly dangerous consequences.”
     Stoltenberg also warned that we are in a “deeply challenging period – for arms control and for our security in general”. He added that the Russian invasion of Ukraine should be seen as part of a long pattern of aggressive behavior. He further cautioned that Moscow now seeks to “undermine the foundations of the international rules-based system. Ignoring, violating or abandoning much of the network of international arms control agreements that have kept the world safe.”
     Stoltenberg’s remarks came just weeks after Russia suspended its participation in the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty it had with the U.S. It also put a coda on a period of eroding arms control pacts around the globe.
     According to recent reports from the Federation of American Scientists, Russia now possesses five thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven nuclear warheads. The U.S. only has an arsenal of five thousand, four hundred and twenty-eight warheads. 
     Analysts believe that about one thousand five hundred of Russia’s warheads may be retired but still intact. Two thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine warheads are in reserve and one thousand five hundred and eighty-eight warheads are deployed strategic warheads. There are five hundred and seventy-six warheads on Russian submarines and two hundred warheads at Russian heavy bomber bases.
     The NATO head also noted that the nuclear threat goes way beyond Russia.
      Stoltenberg said, “China is rapidly growing its nuclear arsenal without any transparency about its capabilities. Iran and North Korea are blatantly developing their own nuclear programs and delivery systems.” He also noted that in the long term, the Western nations must rethink and adapt their approach to a more dangerous and competitive world. That will mean that the U.S. must consider engaging with China. China is estimated to have about one thousand five hundred nuclear warheads by 2035.
     Stoltenberg continued, “As a global power, China has global responsibilities. And Beijing too would benefit from the increased transparency, predictability, and security of arms control agreements. NATO is a unique platform where we engage with China and the wider international community for our mutual benefit.”
     Stoltenberg’s address this week follows recent reports that have noted China’s nuclear build-up. The Arms Control Association issued a report earlier this year that China’s nuclear arsenal already exceeds four hundred warheads. The Pentagon estimates that China could have seven hundred warheads by 2027 and one thousand warheads by 2030.
     Of even greater concern is the fact that North Korea is suspected of having an arsenal of forty to fifty nuclear weapons. Iran has an enriched uranium stockpile that already contains sufficient uranium to build at least five nuclear warheads with further enrichment.

Ambient office = 101 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 92 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 143 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 83 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     The new DoE report suggests that coal-to-nuclear would be a good thing in general. The study reviewed every coal plant in the U.S. This included every recently retired coal plant. Some sites were eliminated because they were not owned by utilities. They may have been owned by universities or manufacturers. Others were eliminated because they had a small capacity. That left two hundred and thirty-seven operating coal plants and one hundred and fifty seven retired plants. The authors of the report then compared all of those sites against Oak Ridge Siting Analysis for Power Generation, (OR-SAGE). It is considered an excellent guide for identifying potential nuclear sites. The analytical tool was first developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee in 2012. At the time, the ORNL noted that “Nuclear power plants share some of the same siting considerations as advanced coal. For example, both need to be within about 20 miles of a large body of water to meet cooling needs. In making siting decisions, OR-SAGE also takes into account population density, protected lands, seismic activity, terrain, proximity to airports, military bases, oil pipelines, refineries and a number of other factors.”
     The DoE report found that when factors were run through the OR-SAGE formula, about eighty percent of the coal plants were probably suitable for nuclear power reactors. Christian King is the Director of the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear at the Idaho National Laboratory where the new report originated. He said that this means that they are considered good candidates pending more detailed analysis.
     The report found that just one operating coal plant in Virginia raised no red flags when run through the OR-SAGE analysis. Another received two red flags and a third was disqualified altogether. The Idaho National Laboratory said that the information about which site passed the OR-SAGE analysis was not available. They did not retain a copy of the list of Virginia sites under consideration and would have to run the analysis again to get an answer. They said that the OR-SAGE analysis was more of a theoretical analysis to test the overall premise.
     Virginia has three operating coal power plants which include the Chesterfield Power Station in Chesterfield County, the Clover plant in Halifax County and the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center in Wise County. The first and last are operated by Dominion Energy. Clover is a joint operation between Dominion and the Old Dominion Cooperative. All the report from the DoE says is that one plant that passed the initial screening has capacity of eight hundred and forty-eight megawatts. However, none of the three coal plants mentioned above has that capacity. The Clover plant comes the closest at eight hundred and sixty-five megawatts. King also said that the most frequent reason a site was disqualified was that it was too close to a population center. It seems likely that Dominion would be considering the Clover coal plant for siting SMRs.
     With respect to recently retired coal plants, the report says that five plants in Virginia were considered but does not say how they ranked. The five most recently retired coal plants in Virginia include Birchwood Power Plant, King George County (Birchwood Power Partners), Chesterfield Power Station Units 3 and 4, Chesterfield County (Dominion Energy), Mecklenburg County Units 1 and 2 (Dominion Energy), Spruance Genco, Richmond (Cogentrix), and Yorktown Units 1 and 2 (Dominion Energy). Two of them are close to population centers. That leaves only three candidates but none of them are in Southwest Virginia. That means that siting an SMR in the Southwest will take considerably longer that some advocates would like.

Ambient office = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 97 nanosieverts per hour

Baby bell mushroom from Central Market = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
    Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin is considering the deployment of a small modular reactor (SMR) to be built somewhere in Southwestern Virginia. Many of the legislators in Southwestern Virginia and economic development groups also want a SMR built somewhere in their part of the state.
     Dominion Energy wants to have an SMR constructed somewhere in Virginia. Dominion is the state’s biggest electric utility. It signaled an interest in adding an SMR to its fleet a year ago. That desire did not get much attention until Youngkin unveiled his energy plan in October in Lynchburg and emphasized his interest in building an SMR in the Virginian Southwest.
     Dominion has been more circumspect about where they would like to build a Virginian SMR. Todd Flowers is Dominion’s Director of Business Development. He said, “We are looking in Southwest Virginia, and we certainly are looking at other facilities that either have operating fossil fuel plants or fossil fuels plants to be retired.” He also said that Dominion had space at its two existing nuclear power plants in Virginia to add another reactor. Dominion has been licensed to add a third reactor at its North Anna plant but has not yet taken any action.
     The governor of Virginia will not be the one making the decision to build SMRs in the state. That will be left to whichever utility wants to build one. Appalachian Power has also expressed an interest in SMRs. All the state regulatory agencies would be involved.
      Last week, a Northern Virginia developer announced plans to construct at least thirty data centers next to Dominion’s Surry nuclear plant. They have expressed an interest in adding four to six SMRs to power the electricity-hungry facility. Youngkin has said that it might take ten years to build an SMR in the Southwest, but Green Energy Partners, the Northern Virginia developer, said it could be done in about five years at the Surry site.
     The idea of a private developer constructing their own nuclear power reactor is a new one. Conceptually it is no different from a company with its own coal-fired power plant. This has happened often in the past. However, why would a utility look at a fossil-burning power plant as a possible site for a nuclear reactor? The easy answer is that they already have power transmission lines. Siting new transmission lines can often be as difficult as siting a new nuclear power plant.
     The idea of siting nuclear reactors at existing coal power plants has become part of the general thinking about siting SMRs. The Biden administration is trying to draw east European nations away from coal as part of their strategy for reducing carbon emissions. The U.S. has proposed that their existing coal-burning power plants be converted to nuclear plants. Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy released an entire one hundred- and twenty-seven-page report on the subject. The report is titled “Investigating Benefits and Challenges of Converting Retiring Coal Plants to Nuclear Plants.”
Please read Part 2 next