Iran’s Raisi is ‘a murderer president’ who will never get a nuclear bomb, Israeli UN ambassador foxnews.com

Westinghouse Establishes Cooperation with Dozens of Polish Suppliers for the Construction of the First Polish Nuclear Power Plant businesswire4.com

Liz Truss dismisses Putin’s nuclear threats as sign of desperation theguardian.com

Iran’s Raisi Questions Worth of a Nuclear Deal Without an End to IAEA Probes usnews.com

 

 

Ambient office = 74 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 114 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 116 nanosieverts per hour

Avocado from Central Market = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 119 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 99 nanosieverts per hour

      I have been following the Russian occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. A lot of damage has been done in and around the plant. There is great international concern that the Russians may do something stupid and release radiation that could spread across Europe. Now comes a report about possible problematic Russian actions at Zaporizhzhia that could lead to a nuclear disaster. I hope that it is not true.
     There have been unconfirmed reports that Russian forces at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant could be attempting to drain the cooling pond at the plant. They supposedly want to drain the cooling pond so they could conduct weapons searches. Dorfman said that this would be insane and warned of disaster if the Russian forces carried out their plan. He added that “Draining spent nuclear fuel ponds would be utter madness, as cascading problems could lead to very significant radioactive release – and depending on which way the wind is blowing, the radioactive pollution could either go to Europe or Russia.”
      Dorfman’s comments followed unconfirmed reports that a Ukrainian diver at Zaporizhzhia had died after being beaten by Russian soldiers because he refused to enter the cooling pool. This story was reported by the Kyiv Independent with quotes from the Mayor of Enerhodar. The title of the Independent story was Russian forces torture diver at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to death.
     “Enerhodar Mayor Dmytro Orlov reported on July 3 that Andrii Honcharuk died in hospital after he was brutally beaten by Russian forces for refusing to dive into [a] pool at the plant.”
      Dr. Dorfman said that it was obvious that the Ukrainian staff at the nuclear power plant were working “under duress”. He continued, “The fact is, one significant wrong step, one incident will change everything, irrevocably. Both for Ukraine and also for the global nuclear project. Even [the] Nuclear Energy Agency admits profoundly limited real-time information about what’s really happening on the ground. It’s a shooting war, after all. So, the Russian invasion of Ukraine unveils the reality of the weaponization of civil nuclear. It’s clear that Ukraine’s nuclear workers are under huge duress – and that could lead to very troubling consequences. Nuclear is a high-risk endeavor, after all.”
      This is not the first time that events at Zaporizhzhia have triggered anxiety among experts with knowledge of nuclear power plants. Earlier this year, there was a fire in an outbuilding. The plant itself sustained damage due to Russian shelling. Dr. Dorfman remarked, “I didn’t sleep at all for a few days.”
     There are six nuclear power reactors at Zaporizhzhia. Currently four of the six are shut down or are in the processed being cooled. This was reported by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). The Observatoire Départemental d’Equipement Commercial (ODEC) NEA is an intergovernmental agency that works on nuclear technology, science, law and safety.
     One major argument against nuclear power is the problems that would arise if a nuclear reactor were located in a war zone. This was hypothetical until the Russians seized Zaporizhzhia.

Philippines eyes investments on modular nuclear plants from US companies gmanetwork.com

US calls on world to tell Russia to stop its nuclear threats apnews.com

State Department made ‘calculation’ to prioritize Iran nuclear deal over human rights issues foxnews.com

Holy See reaffirms support for Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty vaticannews.va

 

 

 

Ambient office = 74 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 114 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 116 nanosieverts per hour

Yam from Central Market = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 119 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Three EU leaders urge calm over Putin’s nuclear rhetoric reuters.com

Pope praises Kazakhstan’s support of nuclear weapons ban, peace catholicnews.com

Australia may expel Russian ambassador after Putin’s nuclear aggression, Penny Wong says theguardian.com

Unit 3 start-up accelerates achievement of UAE Net Zero 2050 gulfnews.com

Ambient office = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 68 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 69 nanosieverts per hour

Tomato from Central Market = 126 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 109 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 80 nanosieverts per hour

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.