The U.S. government is planning to review the environmental effects of operation at one of the nation’s prominent nuclear weapons laboratories. However, its notice issued Friday leaves out federal goals to increase production of plutonium cores used in the nation’s nuclear arsenal. The National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) said that the review is being carried out in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. It will examine the potential environmental effects of alternatives for operations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for the next fifteen years.
     That work includes preventing the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons across the globe and other projects related to national security and global stability, according to the notice. Watchdog groups claim that regardless of the review, the NNSA will proceed with its production plans for plutonium cores at the LANL.
     The LANL is located in New Mexico. It was part of the top secret Manhattan Project during World War II. It is the birthplace of the U.S. atomic bomb. The LANL is one of two sites selected for the lucrative mission of manufacturing the plutonium cores. The other site is the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
     Democratic members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation fought to ensure that the LANL would be among the recipients of the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs that will generated by the mission.
     The U.S. Energy Department (DoE) had set deadlines for 2026 and 2030 for ramping up production of the plutonium cores. However, it is unclear whether those goals will be met given the billions of dollars in infrastructure improvements that are still needed.
     Watchdog groups that have been critical of the LANL accused the NNSA of just going through the motions instead of taking a hard look at the escalating costs of preparing for production, the future consequences to the federal budget and the potential environmental fallout for neighboring communities and Native American tribes in the area.
    Jay Coghlan is the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico. He said, “This is too little too late, a sham process designed to circumvent citizen enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act. The key sentence in NNSA’s announcement is that absent any new decisions in the site-wide environmental impact statement, the agency will continue to implement decisions it previously made behind closed doors.”
     The Los Alamos Study Group is another New Mexico-based organization that monitors LANL activities. They said that there is no indication that the NNSA will pause any of their preparations in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Act mandates some scrutiny before moving ahead with major federal projects. The group pointed to more than nineteen billion dollars in new construction and operating costs for LANL’s new plutonium core production mission through fiscal year 2033. They said that it is probable that the price tag will grow.
      According to planning documents related to the sprawling LANL campus, lab officials have indicated that they need more than four million square feet of new construction to expand one of its main technical areas and that area where the lab’s plutonium operations are located. There will also be a need for several thousand new staff members.
      Greg Mello is the director of the Los Alamos Study Group. He said, “This is a completely bogus process in which NNSA seeks to create a veneer of legitimacy and public acceptance for its reckless plans.”
     The NNSA mentioned that in 2020 it conducted a supplemental analysis of a 2008 sitewide environmental impact statement focused on infrastructure and capability increases needed for the lab to make thirty plutonium cores per year.
     Toni Chiri is a spokeswoman with the NNSA’s field office in Los Alamos. She said that it was time for new review to cover alternative activities to meet what she described as the “full suite” of the lab’s mission. She added that “NNSA looks forward to engaging the public, governments and other stakeholders and receiving their input on the process and outcome.”
     People have until October 3rd to make comments on the scope of the planned review.

Kazatomprom to increase uranium production in 2024 world-nuclear-news.org

Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor world-nuclear-news.org

Poland amends laws to speed investment in nuclear energy world-nuclear-news.org

ABS awarded federal contract for marine nuclear propulsion project world-nuclear-news.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ambient office = 133 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 71 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 72 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 115 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 64 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 55 nanosieverts per hour

     Nuclear power plants can provide large amounts of low-carbon energy. However, their construction and fuel do generate a lot of carbon dioxide. And the disposal of spent fuel and decommissioning of nuclear power plants also produce carbon dioxide. The levelized cost of nuclear power is greater than hydro, wind or solar power. Analysts report that choosing to support massive expansion of nuclear power would preclude similar expansion of renewable power sources. In addition, nuclear power plants are becoming more expensive to construct, operate and maintain while the cost of renewable energy sources keeps dropping. A great deal of effort is being put into making nuclear power plants cheaper to construct and operate.
     Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) Argonne National Laboratory are developing systems that could make nuclear energy more competitive by employing artificial intelligence (AI). Argonne is midway through a one million, three-year project to explore how smart, computerized systems could change the economics of nuclear power.
    The Argonne AI project is funded by the DoE office of Nuclear Energy’s Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies program. The project’s goal is to create a computer architecture that could detect problems early and recommend appropriate actions to human operators at a nuclear power plant. Roberto Ponciroli is a principal nuclear engineer at Argonne. He and his colleagues estimate that the Argonne project could save the nuclear industry more than five hundred million dollars per year.
     A typical nuclear power plant can contain hundreds of sensors which monitor different parts to ensure that they are working properly. Currently, the job of inspecting each sensor and checking the performance of system components such as valves, pumps and heat exchanges is performed by the plant’s staff. They have to walk around the plant to check each component. With the new Argonne AI system, algorithms could verify data by learning how normal sensors function and looking for anomalies.
      After validating the operation of the power plant’s sensors, the AI system will then interpret the signals from them and suggest specific actions where necessary. At a nuclear power plant, computers could detect problems and flag them to plant operators as early as possible. This would help optimize control and avert more expensive repairs in the future. In addition, computers could prevent unnecessary maintenance on equipment that does not need it.
     Richard Vilim is an Argonne senior nuclear engineer. He said, “The lower-level tasks that people do now can be handed off to algorithms. We’re trying to elevate humans to a higher degree of situational awareness so that they are observers making decisions.”
     Collaborating with the nuclear industry to develop testing scenarios, Argonne engineers have built a computer simulation of an advance nuclear reactor. While the system is designed to serve new reactor technologies, it is also flexible enough to be applied at existing nuclear power plants.
      Currently, researchers are validating their AI concept on the simulated reactor. They have completed systems to control and diagnose the vital parts of the reactor. The remainder of the Argonne project will focus on the system’s decision-making ability and what it does with the diagnostic data. An autonomous nuclear power plant requires varied functions. The endproduct of the Argonne project is a system architecture that combines multiple algorithms.

German economy minister rules out keeping nuclear plants running to save gas

Iran gloats, America plots, but even a nuclear deal will not tame Tehran theguardian.com

British Lawmaker: Nuclear Accident Could Draw NATO Allies into War voanews.com

News Wrap: Russia to allow inspectors into occupied nuclear plant pbs.org

Ambient office = 114 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 120 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 118 nanosieverts per hour

Pineapple from Central Market = 66 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 132 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Xia mentions that her study relies on many assumptions and simplifications are about how the complex global food system would be affected by a nuclear war. But the numbers they produced were stark in their implications. Considering even the smallest war scenario studied, of an India-Pakistan conflict that produces only five million tons of soot, calorie production across the planet could drop by seven percent in the first five years after the war. In the forty-seven million ton India-Pakistan soot scenario, global average calories would fall by fifty percent. In the study’s worst-case scenario of a U.S.-Russia war, calorie production would drop by ninety percent three to four years after the war.
     The nations most affected by a nuclear war would be those as high latitudes because they already have a short season for growing crops. They would be cooled more dramatically after a nuclear war than tropical regions would. The U.K. would see sharper drops in food available than a country such as India that is located at lower latitudes. However, France, which is a major exporter of food, would fare relatively well, at least in the lower soot levels scenarios. This is because if their food exports were halted, they would have more food available for their own people.
      Another nation that would not be affected as nations in high latitudes would be Australia. It would be isolated from international trade in the wake of a nuclear war. Australia would likely rely mainly on wheat for food. Wheat would grow relative well in the cooler climate caused by the soot in the atmosphere. Xia and her team drew a world map with color coding indicating probably wide-spread starvation. Many countries are colored red for famine. Australia in contrast remained green for sufficient food even in the worst U.S.-Russia war. Xia said, “The first time I showed my son the map, the first reaction he had is ‘let’s move to Australia,’”
     Deepak Ray is a food-security researcher at the University of Minnesota in Saint Paul.  He said that the new study is an excellent step towards understanding the global food impacts of a regional nuclear war. However more work is required to accurately simulate the complex mix of how crops are produced around the world according to Ray. The research took into consideration national crop production numbers, but reality is much more nuanced, with different crops being grown in different regions of a country for different purposes.
      Nuclear war might appear to be less of a threat than during the Cold War. However, there are still nine countries with more than twelve thousand nuclear warheads among them. Understanding the potential consequences of nuclear war in detail could help nations better assess the risks. “It is rare to happen — but if it happens, it affects everyone. These are dangerous things.”
     It is obvious from the new study that a nuclear war, even a small one, would cause millions of deaths and great human suffering. It would deal a devastating blow to human civilization, crippling it or destroying it.

Climate bill: Could coal communities shift to nuclear? Djournal.com

Pentagon Blasts Russian Provocations at Ukrainian Nuclear Plant as ‘Height of Irresponsibility’ usnews.com

VIDEO: Joe Biden set to revive 2015 Iran nuclear deal abc.net.au

Sizewell C nuclear plant funding approved despite Tory split theguardian.com

Ambient office = 163 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 115 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 112 nanosieverts per hour

Mini Bellas mushroom from Central Market = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 81 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     I have posted about the devastating aftermath of even a small exchange of nuclear weapons would lead to a worldwide famine according to new research. Soot from burning cities and military targets would spread around the planet and cool it by reflecting sunlight back into space. The result would be a massive failure of crops worldwide. In a worst case scenario, billions of people would die.
     Lili Xia is a climate scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick led the team in the new research. She said, “A large percent of the people will be starving. It’s really bad.” Her research was published in the August 15 issue of the journal Nature Food. The report is the latest in a though experiment that has been going on for decades about the global consequences of nuclear war. Considering the danger of a nuclear war triggered by the war in Ukraine, this study is especially relevant. The Ukraine war has already disrupted global food supplies, which emphasizes the far-reaching impacts of a regional conflict.
     Discussions of nuclear war covers a range of lethal impacts form killing people directly in atomic detonations to the linger effects of radiation and other environmental pollution. Xia and her team wanted to look at more remote consequences farther from the scene of a war. They wanted to explore how people all around the plante could also suffer.
      Xia and her team modelled how the climate would change in different parts of the world following a nuclear war. They wanted to know how crops and fisheries would be affected by those changes. Xia’s team analyzed six different war scenarios. Each of these would inject different amounts of soot into the atmosphere. This would result in a drop of surface temperatures from two degrees to twenty degrees Fahrenheit which would last for at least a decade.
     A nuclear war between India and Pakistan which could be  triggered by their dispute over the Kashmir region, could toss between five millions and forty seven tons of soot into the atmosphere. The exact amount of soot would be dependent on how many warheads were exchanged and how many cities destroyed. On the other hand, a full nuclear war between the United States and Russia could produce one hundred and fifty million tons of soot. The global-encircling shroud of soot would last for years until the skies eventually cleared.
      Xia and her team used information from United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. They calculated how declining crop yields and fishery catches after a nuclear war would affect the number of calories available for people to eat. They studied several options that would affect their calculations such as whether people continued to raise livestock or whether they routed some or all crops meant to feed livestock to feed human beings instead. The study assumed that there would be some repurposing of biofuel crops for human consumption. People would be forced to reduce or eliminate food waste. The researchers also assumed that international trade would stop as countries chose to feed their citizens rather than exporting food.
Please read Part 2 next