Initial funding in place for Pallas construction world-nuclear-news.org

IAEA initiative on innovative technologies in decommissioning world-nuclear-news.org

Marshall Islands urges U.S. to better address climate change and its nuclear legacy nbcnews.com

Russia Says Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Water Pipe Damaged by Shell usnews.com

Ambient office = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Roma tomato from Central Market = 52 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Dover Sole from Central = 99 nanosieverts per hour

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Siting a nuclear power plant at the site of a recently retired coal power plant is referred to a coal-to-nuclear (C2N) transition. Such conversions could help increase the U.S. nuclear capacity to over three hundred and fifty gigawatts. The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) report on C2N conversions is titled Investigating Benefits and Challenges of Converting Retiring Coal Plants into Nuclear Plants. The current U.S. nuclear reactor fleet has a combined capacity of ninety-five gigawatts.
     The new report is supported by a previous study carried out by the Argonne, Idaho and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, sponsored by the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy. It was guided by three questions. First, where in the U.S. are retired coal facilities located and what factors make a site feasible for transition? Second, what factors of technology, cost and project timelines drive investor economics over such a decision? Third, how will C2N impact local communities?
     The researchers screened recently retired and active coal plants to identify one hundred and fifty-seven retired and 237 operating coal plants as potential candidates for a C2N transition. These sites were then evaluated on parameters including population density, distance from seismic fault lines, flooding potential, and nearby wetlands in order to determine if they could safely host a nuclear power plant. The study found that eighty percent of the potential sites are suitable for hosting advanced nuclear power plants of various sizes and types. This will depend on the size of the site being converted.
      The team then evaluated a case study of detailed impacts and potential outcomes of a hypothetical site. They considered various nuclear technology types for a range of scenarios including big light-water reactors, small modular reactors, sodium cooled fast reactors and very high temperature reactors.
      At the regional level, replacing a big coal plant site with a nuclear power plant of equivalent size could provide some six hundred and fifty jobs and two hundred and seventy million dollars of economic activity. These jobs are distributed across the plant, the supply chain supporting the plant and the community surrounding the plant. Most typically come with wages that are about twenty five percent higher than any other energy technology. Nuclear power plant projects could also benefit from preserving existing experienced workforces in communities around the retiring coal plant sites. These workers already possess the necessary skills and knowledge that could be transitioned to work at a nuclear power plant.
      Repurposing existing coal infrastructure for new advanced nuclear reactors can lead to construction cost savings of fifteen to thirty five percent. Using existing land, grid connections, office buildings, electrical equipment such as transmission connections and switchyard and civil infrastructure could also save millions of dollars.
      Economic potential exists for owners of coal power plants and the communities in which they are located to benefit from a C2N transition. There would be future advantage for interested coal communities to be “first movers” in what the authorities say could possibly be a series of many C2N transitions across the U.S. Although the findings of the study inform only at a general level, the results could be used to generate more detailed, in-depth analyses to allow more accurate evaluations specific to a particular coal plant or nuclear technology design.
     The report was subjected to independent peer review by experts in systems engineering and regional economic modeling to validate analysis and assumptions.  
     The possibility of replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants is being actively explored in the U.S. and elsewhere. In 2021, TerraPower announced plans to build a demonstration unit of its Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor at a retired coal plant site in Wyoming. Earlier this year, the Maryland Energy Administration announced its support for work to evaluate the possibility of repurposing a coal-fired electric-generating facility with X-energy’s Xe-1 small modular reactor. Holtec International recently mentioned that it is considering coal plant sites as possible locations for its SMR-160 with plans to bring the first unit online as early as 2029. In Poland, NuScale is collaborating with energy company Unimot and copper and silver producer KGHM to explore possibilities for its reactor to replace coal-fired power plants.

Ukraine’s PM on Russian nuclear terrorism: “threat of a planetary scale” Ukrinform.net

3D-printed fuel component installed at Swedish reactor world-nuclear-news.org

Iran Says It’s Ready for New Nuclear Deal but Asks if US Is usnews.com

‘I’m not bluffing’: Putin warns west over nuclear weapons theguardian.com

 

Ambient office = 117 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 84 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 82 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 66 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 59 nanosieverts per hour

     South Korea has been working on a geological repository for low and intermediate level radioactive waste at Gyeongju in North Gyeongsang province. They just held a groundbreaking ceremony to mark the start of the construction of the second phase of near-surface disposal facilities.
     The Korean Radioactive Waste Agency (KORAD) applied for a construction permit for the second phase of the facility. It will comprise near-surface disposal facilities for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) with the capacity to deal with one million two hundred and fifty thousand fifty-gallon drums of nuclear waste. The new project will cover an area of about one hundred and forty thousand square yards. The facility is expected to cost one hundred and ninety-five million dollars. It is slated for completion in 2024.
     The construction of the second phase of the Gyeongju facility was approved by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) in July of 2016. The Korean Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) granted a construction permit for the facilities in July of this year.
      The groundbreaking ceremony was held on the 26th of August of this year. It was attended by Trade, Industry and Energy Minister Lee Chang-yang as well as representatives from companies including Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, KEPCO E&C and Daewoo E&C.
     Lee stated that the second stage near-surface disposal system for LLW and intermediate-level (ILW) will be built with the utmost priority on citizens’ safety. He also said that as much as the present generation has benefited from the development of nuclear energy, it is also their duty to tackle the issues regarding high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and its disposal facilities. The minister added that there are plans in preparation to legislate special laws on the management of HLW and to establish a research and development technology roadmap.
     The selection of a site for the one and a half billion dollar disposal facility began in 1986. This was eight years after South Korea’s first nuclear power reactor called the Kori Unit 1 began operating. Construction of the first phase of the repository began in early 2006 and was completed in June of 2014. That phase of the project consists of six underground silos. Each silo is one hundred and thirty-one feet high and seventy nine feet in diameter. This first phase of the repository can hold up to one hundred thousand barrels of ILW.
     The NSSC gave approval in December of 2014 for full operation of the facility to start as the facility’s first phase. The first nuclear waste was sixteen drums of ILW waste within a concrete disposal container. These drums were put into one of the facility’s silos in July of 2015. Ultimately, the Gyeongju facility will be utilized to dispose of a total of eight hundred thousand barrels of waste.
     LLW is typically composed of clothes, filters, equipment and tools that are routinely used at a nuclear site. It is usually placed in drums that are then compacted. ILW contains resins, chemical sludges, and metal fuel claddings. These have higher levels of radioactivity and require shielding.

Kremlin Says Unresolved Issues Remain in Iran Nuclear Deal Talks usnews.com

Constellation’s nuclear plants ran at near 100% capacity over summer clintonherald.com

Marshall Islands Urges U.S. to Better Address Nuclear Legacy, Climate usnews.com

Nevada Files Motion Regarding Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Project 2news.com

Ambient office = 125 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 81 nanosieverts per hour

Blueberry from Central Market = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 115 nanosieverts per hour

     Switzerland has announced their intention to construct a permanent geological repository for nuclear waste near the German border. Germany responded by saying that they want more information on the Swiss plans. Germany had already expressed some concerns about the proposal. The German government said on Monday that it would not be sending any of its nuclear waste to the planned Swiss repository and that it was seeking talks with Switzerland. Germany said that it was examining the Swiss plans in detail.
      The German Environment Ministry has issued a warning that the site of the Swiss repository would “heavily burden communities on the German side of the border.” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that Germany would have to discuss the Swiss decision “through the usual channels with all those responsible in the Swiss government.”
      Swiss authorities made the announcement on Saturday that they had selected the site which is located in the north of the country. Compensation for regions affected by proximity to the site has not yet been decided. Swiss authorities have said that they are open to making payments.
      Nuclear power has been a highly sensitive issue in Germany for a long time. Germany is set to take all of its nuclear plants offline at the end of the year. However, there is currently a raging debate over this plan because of anticipated energy shortages due to the Uranian war.
     A spokes person for the ministry said that Germany was “very carefully” examining the Swiss decision to construct the nuclear waste repository so close to the German border. The site selected for the repository is at Nördlich Lägern which is about twelve miles north of Zurich. It would have surface structures within one and a quarter miles of the German border. However, it is understood that the underground repository would not cross over into German territory. The ministry said that Germany would not use the Swiss site itself. A spokesperson said, “Germany has decided to construct its own final repository for its nuclear waste and not to share this with European partners. We are responsible for our own waste.”
     Nearby German communities have reacted skeptically to the siting of the repository at Nördlich Lägern. Initially, the site was put on hold as a second choice in 2015. Those communities near the planned site of the repository are mainly concerned about the issue of safe drinking water supply.
     The Swiss government spent fourteen years on the evaluation process. Nagra is the Swiss nuclear waste authority. They said that the type of clay found in the area of the chosen site provided the best geological barriers, best rock stability and a high degree of flexibility compared with the other two sites short listed. Matthias Braun is the CEO of Nagra. He told a press conference that “Geology has spoken. The core of the deep store is this grey and inconspicuous stone … here time practically stands still,” he said.” Radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, industry and research could be safely buried at the site, hundreds of meters underground.
     Switzerland also plans to eventually phase out all their nuclear power reactors. It still has four operational nuclear power plants which could continue to operate into the 2040s. Nuclear waste is currently stored at an interim facility that is located about nine miles south of the German border municipality of Waldshut-Tiengen.
     Swiss authorities must still give their final decision on the permit for the construction to proceed. The building of the facility would not start until 2031 at the earliest. It would only become operational in 2050. The Swiss government would have to approve the plant with approval also needed from the parliament. It is possible that the issue could potentially be put to a national referendum under Swiss direct democracy.

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station set to unveil water-test results capeandislands.org

A big win for nuclear: Palisades plant may reopen in Michigan thehill.com

ULC-Energy secures cooperation from Constellation neimagazine.com

Estevan, Elbow regions identified as potential nuclear reactor sites: SaskPower regina.ctvnews.ca