General Atomics (GA) has just revealed a steady-state, compact advanced tokamak Fusion Pilot Plant (FPP) concept. GA says that the FPP design capitalizes on its innovations and advancements in fusion technology.
     The GA fusion system creates a plasma with powerful magnets and microwave heating. In steady-state operation, the fusion plasma is maintained for long periods of time. This is done to maximize efficiency, reduce maintenance costs and increase the lifetime of the facility.
     GA said that the facility would utilize its proprietary Fusion Synthesis Engine (FUSE). This will enable engineers, physicists, and operators to rapidly perform a broad range of studies and continuously optimize the power plant for maximum efficiency.
     GA has also developed an advanced modular concept referred to as GAMBL for the breeding blanket which is a critical component of the fusion power cycle that breeds tritium which is a fusion energy fuel source. This will make the fusion fuel cycle self-sufficient.
     According to GA, the FPP will provide baseload energy without any harmful emissions or long-lived waste. GA said that the plant will be “Capable of operating around the clock, commercialized fusion power plants would provide sustainable, carbon-free firm energy for generations.”
     Wayne Solomon is the Vice President of Magnetic Fusion Energy at GA. He said, “Our practical approach to a FPP is the culmination of more than six decades of investments in fusion research and development, the experience we have gained from operating the DIII-D National Fusion Facility on behalf of the US Department of Energy (DOE), and the hard work of countless dedicated individuals. This is a truly exciting step towards realizing fusion energy.”
     Brian Grierson is the Director of the Fusion Pilot Plant Hub at GA. He said, “General Atomics has a long and storied history of being at the forefront of fusion innovations. We are proud to be a world leader in plasma theory and modeling, advanced materials engineering, and other areas necessary for commercializing fusion. We intend to bring the full strength of our institutional expertise to this effort as we advance our vision for fusion energy.”
    DIII-D has been conducting groundbreaking fusion research since the mid-1980 with support for the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and substantial international collaboration. There are over one hundred participating institutions and a research team of more than six hundred scientists collaborating at DIII-D,
     In March of last year, scientists at DIII-D released a new concept for a compact fusion reactor design they said could help define the technology required for commercial fusion power. The Compact Advanced Tokamak (CAT) concept enables a higher-performance, self-sustaining configuration that holds energy more efficiently. This will allow it to be built at a reduced scale and cost. The CAT concept was developed from simulations of a first-of-a-kind reactor. The physics-based approach combines theory developed at the DIII-D facility with computing by Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists using the Cori supercomputer at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center. It is based on development and testing of the underlying physics concept on DIII-D.
     In July of this year, GA announced that it was collaborating with the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to address a critical challenge to the economic fusion energy as part of a public-private partnership funded by the DoE. The partnership will combine GA’s experience in fusion energy research with SRNL’s expertise in processing and storing tritium. Tritium is one of the fuel gases used in fusion.
     Anantha Krishnan is Senior Vice President of the General Atomics Energy Group. He said, “Excitement for fusion energy is at an all-time high, with historic interest from private industry and government. We look forward to working with our partners to make our vision for economic fusion energy a reality. Now is the time for fusion, and General Atomics plans to lead the way.”

USA, Japan partner with Ghana on SMR deployment world-nuclear-news.org

Russia’s Putin: ‘No need’ to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine tribdem.com

Iran Is an Ever More ‘Relevant’ Problem usnews.com

Putin watches first Russian nuclear drill since invasion of Ukraine bbc.com

Ambient office = 69 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 121 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 118 nanosieverts per hour

Roma tomato from Central Market = 106 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 97 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 83 nanosieverts per hour

     Fortum is a Finnish utility company. They have just launched a two-year feasibility study to review the prerequisites for constructing new commercial nuclear reactors in Finland and Sweden. Both small modular reactors (SMRs) and conventional big reactors will be included in the study. Fortum will examine commercial, technological, and societal, including political, legal and regulatory, conditions for the construction of new reactors.
     The Fortum feasibility study will also consider the new build process. This includes progress of planning, siting and licensing. Fortum said that the intention of the working group is to engage the essential external stakeholders in active dialogue. The stakeholders include political decision makers, civil servants, and nuclear authorities in Finland and Sweden.
     Fortum issued a statement that said, “With the current uncertainty in the energy market, ventures in the nuclear industry will most likely involve partnership constellations. Partnerships may be formed e.g. between nuclear generating and district heating companies, industrial off-takers of power and heat for whom competitive energy supply is of increasing strategic importance, and nuclear utilities, or start-up companies and established utilities with nuclear competence. Thus, the feasibility study will also explore the potential for service business offerings for new projects in Europe and hydrogen for industrial applications.”
     Simon-Eric Ollus is the Executive Vice President in the Generation Division at Fortum. He said, “The goals of energy independence, security of supply and carbon neutrality are challenges facing our entire society. We want to find out under which conditions we could meet them with nuclear power generation, which is known to be reliable and CO2-free.”
     Laurent Leveugle is leading the Fortum study. He said, “The challenges related to new nuclear are well-known. Achieving competitive construction times and costs are must-win battles for our industry. In this feasibility study, we aim to explore novel partnerships, new business models and technologies, such as small modular reactors, which are promising in terms of taking nuclear power forward to future generations.”
     Fortum operates the Loviisa plant which contains two VVER-440 type pressurized. That plant was the first nuclear power plant in Finland and currently provides more than ten percent of the country’s electricity. Loviisa Unit 1 began operating in 1977. Unit 2 began operation in 1981. In March of this year, Fortum filed an application to operate both Loviisa’s Units 1 and 2 until the end of 2050. The current operating license for Unit 1 expires in 2027 and the Unit 2 license expires in 2030.
     Fortum holds stakes in Units 1 and 2 of the Olkiluoto plant in Finland. They also hold stakes in Units 1, 2 and 3 at the Forsmark plant as well as Unit 3 of the Oskarshamn in Sweden.
     Matti Kattainen is the Head of Nuclear Futures Agenda for Fortum. He said, “For us at Fortum, nuclear power is a central pillar of carbon-free electricity generation together with hydro and wind power. We just submitted an operating license application to continue production at Loviisa until 2050. Nuclear power’s stabilizing effect also makes it possible to increase weather-dependent, renewable energy production. One of Fortum’s key strategic targets is to strengthen and grow in CO2-free generation. In terms of nuclear power, the share of production of Olkiluoto unit three and the lifetime extension of the Loviisa nuclear power plant are part of our strategy implementation. Fortum is exploring opportunities to also grow in small nuclear power.”

Australia drops nuclear weapon opposition huntervalleynews.net.au

General Electric’s Next Big Nuclear Tech is Going Small news.daily.com

UN nuclear agency to probe Russia claim of `dirty bombs’ federalnewsnetwork.com

Nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile Has ‘Zero Value’ news.usni.org

Ambient office = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 106 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 106 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 98 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     On October 23rd, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said he had recently held phone talks with France’s defense minister Sébastien Lecornu, Turkey’s Hulusi Akar, and Britain’s Ben Wallace. During the talks, Shoigu expressed “concerns over the alleged possible use of a ‘dirty bomb’ by Ukraine”.
What is meant by the term dirty bomb? A dirty bomb is a mix of explosives, such as dynamite, with radioactive powder or pellets. When the dynamite or other explosives are set off, the blast carries radioactive material into the surrounding area.
     Oleksiy Reznikov is the Defense Minister of Ukraine. He said, “A guilty conscience gives itself away. Today the Russian federation at the top international level gave an official illustration to this proverb. Lies about a ‘dirty bomb’ that Ukraine is supposedly preparing to use is an element of the Kremlin’s usual tactics. The one where Russian criminals are trying to preemptively blame the victim of aggression for their own crime”.
     According to Reznikov, the Russians have repeatedly threatened the use of nuclear weapons. “In spring, they deliberately provoked disaster at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant, and now they are blackmailing the world with a disaster at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Their missiles pose a threat to other Ukrainian nuclear facilities.” Reznikov emphasized that unlike Russia, Ukraine has always been extremely responsible in matters of nuclear safety. Even today, Ukrainian nuclear sites are open to the IAEA. “It is easy to make sure that Russian statements are nonsense.”
     Reznikov continued, “The best response to Russian accusations is decisive steps to increase pressure on the criminal terrorist regime in Moscow, as well as active assistance to Ukraine with means that will help cleanse our land from the scourge quicker. So that no one would even think of committing a nuclear crime in Europe.”
     Reznikov also said that Ukrainians had a special relationship to their land.  “Today from the reaction of our soldiers and all our people I can see how sincerely they strive to free Ukrainian land from Russian dirt. From projectiles, remnants of equipment, garbage left behind by the Russian hordes. It is not even a military need; it is a mental one. Therefore, even theoretically, it is impossible to imagine that Ukraine is capable of doing something that could cause the long-term contamination of our land. This is nonsense.”
     Volodymyr Zelensky is the President of Ukraine. He said that Russia’s statements about the alleged use of a dirty bomb by Ukraine indicate that Russia has already prepared all this. Therefore, he said, the world must react to that in the toughest possible way.
     Following the statements by the Russian Defense Minister, U.S. officials flatly reject as false repeated Russian claims being made to senior western officials that Ukraine is preparing to use a radioactive dirty bomb in Ukraine. At the same time, these officials say that they are not seeing any indication that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons. In any case, U.S. officials, as well as UK and French officials, warned Russia that there would be severe consequences if Russia used even a tactical nuclear device in Ukraine.
      All this provides scant comfort because a dirty bomb could easily be constructed somewhere in Russia and then transported to Ukraine in an ordinary freight truck to be detonated. Following such a dirty bomb explosion, it would be difficult if not impossible to prove who made the bomb.

Mochovce 3 achieves first criticality world-nuclear-news.org

NuScale and Prodigy conceptual design for marine-based SMR plant world-nuclear-news.org

Brookfield sees new dawn for nuclear world-nuclear-news.org

China will not accept US blackmail on use of nuclear weapons plengish.com

Ambient office = 90 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 125 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 126 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market = 48 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 98 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 86 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, has repeatedly threatened other nations with the possible use of nuclear weapons. His nuclear bombers have repeatedly flown into the airspace of other nations with no warning or apology. His nuclear submarines and surface ships have entered the territorial waters of other nations without warnings or apologies. He has bragged about new horrific nuclear weapons under development in Russia such as the Poseidon stealth torpedo. He claims that it will be able to travel underwater undetected for many miles to enter the harbor of an enemy nation. Its detonation would obliterate the city around the harbor and cause a huge tidal wave that would travel inland for miles destroying everything in its path. Another Russian project is a nuclear cruise missile that could fly under radar for years without refueling. It would not need to detonate to cause harm because it would spew an exhaust filled with radioactive materials across the landscape of an enemy.
     Back in February of this year, Russia invaded Ukraine. Many times, during the ensuing conflict, Russia has claimed that explosions that devastated civilian targets and killed thousands of Ukrainian civilians were actually caused by the Ukrainian army to make Russia look like a villain. Attributing such attacks to other parties is known false flag operations.
      Five years ago, I wrote up a list of forty reasons not to use nuclear power. The last items on the list had to do with military issues. (1) Nuclear power plants produce plutonium which can be used to make nuclear weapons. (2) Nuclear power plants are great targets for terrorists. (3) Radioactive materials such as spent nuclear fuel can be used to construct “dirty bombs” by packing such materials around a core of conventional explosives. (4) In time of war, nuclear power stations make great targets. Destroying them would both deprive an enemy of power and spread radioactive materials over a wide area, threatening the lives of millions of people. They would also be great targets to hold hostage and they might accidental be hit during bombardment.
     At the time I wrote this list, such military issues were hypotheticals. Now, however, the Russian occupation of Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants during their invasion of Ukraine has made such problems much more likely.
     There has been great international concern that explosions and fires at Zaporizhzhia might lead to a nuclear disaster. The Ukrainians blame the Russians, and the Russians blame the Ukrainians.
     Putin has been threatening NATO countries that are supporting the Ukrainians with nuclear retaliation since the invasion. He recently said that if there was a nuclear incident at Zaporizhzhia, he would consider utilizing tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. His pretext would be that the nuclear incident would threaten Russia and justify the use of nuclear weapons.
      Putin has threatened for years to use tactical nuclear weapons in eastern Europe if he is losing a ground war with conventional weapons against NATO. He has repeatedly said that NATO has been helping Ukrainian fight Russia and that makes them part of the fight.
Please read Part 2 next