I have often mentioned that the U.S. and Russia are both spending huge amounts of money in the near future to modernize their nuclear arsenals. Members of the U.S. defense establishment are currently testifying to Congress about the need for funds to be appropriated for this modernization.

        The U.S. stockpiling of nuclear warheads began in the 1950s, during the early days of the Cold War. They have been maintained by the “Enduring Stockpile” program. The weapons are distributed among the three legs of our nuclear triad; land launched nuclear missiles, air launched nuclear bombs and missiles, and sea-launched missiles. Even if an enemy managed to destroy some of our nuclear weapons, those remaining would be able to totally destroy the enemy. The U.S. maintains its nuclear deterrence against the only two nations on Earth that have both the antagonism and the nuclear arsenals to consider striking the U.S.; Russia and China.

       This Thursday, Frank Klotz, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration was on Capitol Hill testifying before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee. He told the committee that half of the budget for the Department of Energy, thirteen billion nine hundred million dollars, would be used for modernizing nuclear weapons in fiscal year 2018. Most of the money will go to the Navy and Air Force. The DoE spent about thirteen billion dollars on such modernization in fiscal year 2017.

     Klotz said in his testimony, “We’re very grateful for the level of spending that has been proposed in the president’s [fiscal 2018] budget. It will allow us to tackle some of our very important infrastructure recapitalization projects, such as the uranium processing facility at Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We expect to complete design this year and actually start construction next year We didn’t get into the situation we face with aging and in some cases crumbling infrastructure overnight, and we’re not going to get out of it in a day.”

        The nuclear budget will be increased ten point eight percent to ten point two billion dollars. The Naval nuclear reactor program will go up by four point two percent to one point five billion dollars. There will be an increase of salaries for federal employees who staff these programs by eight point one percent to four hundred and eighteen billion dollars. The nuclear nonproliferation programs will remain at their 2017 levels of one point eight billion dollars.

        Dr. Rob Soofer, Deputy Secretary of Defense, also testified to the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee on Thursday. He pointed out that the only serious deterrent that the U.S. has against a massive nuclear attack is the threat of massive retaliation posed by a modern nuclear arsenal. He said that “strategy, forces and posture also must be flexible enough to maintain stability while adjusting to gradual and rapid technological and geopolitical changes.”

       It is estimated that the recapitalization of the U.S. military nuclear program could run between two hundred and thirty billion dollars and two hundred and ninety billion dollars over the next several decades.

       General Robin Rand, of the Air Force Global Strike Command, told the committee that “Fiscal constraints, while posing planning challenges, do not alter the national security landscape or the intent of competitors and adversaries. Nor do they diminish the enduring value of long-range strategic forces to our nation.” 

The emergency alert that popped up on TV screens across South Jersey on Tuesday night was sobering, if not terrifying: A “NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WARNING” is underway, it announced in capital letters. Thedailyjournal.com

For the second year in a row, ten new nuclear reactors started to generate electricity in 2016, the highest number since the 1980s, according to the 2017 edition of the IAEA’s Nuclear Power Reactors in the World. Iaea.org

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting Thursday night on safety at the Watts Bar nuclear power plant. Knoxnews.com

Be prepared for a long ride as the Army Corps of Engineers cleanup of the nuclear waste dump in Parks Township could last into 2031. Triblive.com

 

 

 

 

Part Two of Two Parts (Please read Part One first)

Impose tougher U.N. sanctions

        N.K. currently makes about five hundred million a year by supplying cheap labor to other nations. The U.S. is seeking tougher sanctions for all trade with N.K. to cut off the flow of revenue from international contracts. Some analysts believe that the U.S. should seek explicit sanctions on N.K. “slave” labor to deprive the N.K. regime of money that could be used for their weapons programs. It would be very difficult to impose sanctions tougher than those already imposed. In addition, many of the sanctions imposed have not been honored by other nations who trade with N.K. Having sanction in place that are not actually applied in practice would make the U.S. and the U.N. look weak. Increase failing sanctions may be difficult of not impossible.

Impose U.S.-coalition sanctions

        There are calls for the U.S. to form a coalition of nations with the express purpose of applying harsher sanctions to N.K. that have been or could be approved by the U.N. Security Council. This could include issuing warrants for individuals and companies in China who are known to have broken sanctions by trading with N.K. The problem with this approach is that it could offend China to the point where we would lose their cooperation in trying to reign in N.K. weapons development. How would the U.S. respond to another nation issuing warrants for prominent U.S. businessmen?

Cut Access to U.S. banks

       The U.S. could cut off access to U.S. banks for any company or individual anywhere in the world that does business with N.K. companies. This would cripple the N.K. weapons sales which represent forty percent of the N.K. economy. While this might seem to be an attractive move against N.K., the unanswered question is what sort of impact such a ban would have on world trade? Such an action by the U.S. against many international companies could result in a tsunami of lawsuits and diplomatic turbulence.  Cutting off bank access for a company that only did a small part of their business with N.K. might cause economic and political turbulence that could cause problems for the U.S. far beyond the Korean Peninsula.

       While some of the ideas on this list may be useful in our struggle with N.K., a great deal of study would be required to insure that the U.S. does not cause more problems than it is solving. As the severity of sanction mounts, international resistance to sanctions increases. There is a term from chess, “zugzwang” which means that a player has to make a more but no move that he can make will improve his position on the chessboard. We must be very careful in crafting our policy toward N.K. to insure that we do not make the international situation any worse than it already is.

Emblem of North Korea:

:

Horizon Nuclear Power has today launched the third formal consultation on its planned Wylfa Newydd nuclear power plant on the Isle of Anglesey. The public will be able to give their opinion on the latest proposals for the project, including a more compact plant design. World-nuclear-news.org

A false alarm that went out to some people’s television sets Tuesday might have scared some in New Jersey. Nbcnewyork.com

For a third straight year, the Three Mile Island nuclear plant has been shut out of a key auction to sell its power, intensifying the chances that the country’s most famous nuke facility will close in two years. Lancasteronlne.com

President Donald Trump told Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in a phone call last month that two nuclear submarines were somewhere in the waters near North Korea. Businessinsider.com

Part One of Two Parts:

       A few weeks ago, USA Today published an article about six things that the U.S. could do to put pressure on North Korea to abandon their nuclear ambitions. There are some interesting suggestions but some of the ideas do not hold up very well when scrutinized. Today I am going to go through their list and make a few comments.

Enforce Current Sanctions

        In November, the U.N. Security Council voted the most severe sanctions yet for North Korea. The new sanctions limit the North Korean’s ability to sell conventional weapons, coal and iron ore, especially if the profits could benefit the N.K. nuclear weapons program. Not all of these sanctions have been implemented by China and S.E. Asian countries. In some cases, it may be complex financial transactions that are difficult to disentangle. Countries whose products find their way to N.K. are not necessarily aware of their ultimate destinations. However, in other cases, the countries trading with N.K. are benefiting from low prices for N.K. products and services and may not be willing to give them up. China is in an especially difficult position. If the N.K. economy collapses under the weight of the sanctions, the resulting economic and social chaos would send waves of refugees across their border with N.K. which they would be unable to handle without severe damage to their own infrastructure and society.

Stop Chinese missile carriers.

       The U.S. could publicly criticize Chinese companies that are aiding the N.K. missile program. Two Chinese trucking companies have made heavy vehicles for the N.K government to transport, erect and launch its missiles. An analyst suggests that all we have to do is demand that the Chinese government force the trucking companies to repossess all of the vehicles that they supplied to N.K. That could be easier said than done. The companies might reply that those vehicles are now property of N.K. and they have no claim on them. In addition, the N.K. military might directly prevent such a repossession. It is unlikely that Beijing is unaware of trade between the two trucking companies and N.K. If there is clandestine support for this trade by the Chinese government, it will be very difficult to stop.

Expose Beijing’s support.

        U.S. intelligence sources claim that Chinese companies are helping N.K. develop the capacity to produce lithium-6, an isotope that is critical in the development of thermo-nuclear weapons. These hydrogen bombs and boosted atomic bombs are much more powerful than atomic bombs. N.K. has purchased materials including mercury and lithium hydroxide from Chinese suppliers. These materials are what are referred to as “dual use” meaning that they can be used for civilian purposes or to create lithium-6 for their weapons program. Analysts say that high level Chinese government officials must be involved in the export of those materials to N.K. They suggest that those officials be publicly identified to pressure the Chinese government. This might work if the Chinese government was willing to cooperate. Otherwise, it could be difficult for the U.S. to identify the officials. In addition, if there is approval of the Chinese government at high levels for the sale of those materials, the U.S. would have little ability to change the practice and might offend China in the attempt. A big question is how far the U.S. is willing to push China and what the consequences might be for the U.S. – China relationship.

(Please read Part Two)

Emblem of North Korea:

French utility EDF, which is majority owned by the state, used a Twitter account to deny a media allegation that it secretly intended to roll back the country’s nuclear power reduction plan by 25 years. Nuclearstreet.com

A Nuclear Industry Association spokeswoman in Britain confirmed talks would take place with the State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) of China and NuGen, which has plans to build three AP1000 reactors in Moorside, near Sellafield. Nuclearstreet.com

Should utility bills and taxes be used to subsidize money-losing nuclear power plants so they can compete with renewable energy and low-cost natural gas? Washingtontimes.com

NUCLEAR power should be explored as a way to deal with Australia’s energy crisis.NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro said with rising energy costs “crushing businesses, farmers and families”, all available options, “including nuclear energy”, must be considered. Weeklytimesnow.com.au

       The Russians have made a major and long standing commitment to nuclear power. They have been a major exporter of fossil fuels for decades and they would like to also like to become a major exporter of nuclear technology and nuclear fuel. Their government-owned nuclear company, Rosatom is traveling around the world trying to sell Russian reactors and fuel to developing nations. The Russian government is offering to loan other countries the money to build the reactors, to provide trained staff to run the reactors, to provide fuel for the reactors and to remove the waste from the reactors. Some observers express concern that the Russian may attempt to apply political leverage against other nations through control of their nuclear power.

       The Russians are currently working on the development of a fast breeder reactor that can burn fuel that is a mixture of uranium and plutonium. Spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed to add to the mixture of materials used to make new nuclear fuel. This is known as a closed-cycle process. The Brest-OD-300 fast breeder is an experimental reactor being developed in the Tomsk Region of Russia. This reactor will be able to burn spent fuel from other reactors as well as its own spent fuel.

       The Brest-OD-300 reactor is cooled by lead which makes it much safer than conventional pressurized water or sodium cooled reactor cores. Lead itself is a radiation shielding material. It has a high boiling point which severely reduces the danger of a pressure explosion. Unlike sodium, if there is a breach, it will not react explosively with water or air.

       In order to produce the new type of fuel for the new reactors, Russian nuclear engineers have developed a new furnace design that bakes the special uranium-plutonium nitrate fuel pellets for the closed-cycle reactors. Six fully automated high-temperature radiation-resistant furnaces was built and tested in the Russian city of Bryansk. The new furnace system is ready to be shipped to the Tomsk Region to be used on site with the Brest-OD-300 experimental reactor where it will be used to make new fuel from spent fuel.

      The use of the nitride uranium-plutonium fuel pellets instead of the conventional uranium and plutonium oxides fuel pellets provides a number of benefits. These new fuel pellets have increased fissionable density which reduces the amount of fuel needed. They have greater thermal conductivity which improves the circulation of heat from the core. They have a higher melting temperature which makes them less vulnerable in case of an accident that raises the temperature of the core. They are less prone to swelling and mechanical deformation. All of these factors combine to make it possible to burn a set of fuel rods containing these pellets for longer periods of time than conventional fuel rods.

       One concern of the international community is that fast-breeder reactors and attendant fuel reprocessing create and refine plutonium which can be used to build nuclear weapons. Agencies and individuals who are working on global nuclear disarmament are opposed to any reactor technology which produces and refines plutonium.

Brest-OD-300 experimental reactor diagram: