New kinds of safer, simpler nuclear reactors are having a hard time becoming a reality—at least in certain countries. technologyreview.com
Blog
-
Geiger Readings for Feb 04, 2016
Ambient office = 65 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 97 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 87 nanosieverts per hourBrussell sprout from Central Market = 114 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 102 nanosieverts per hourFilter water = 91 nanosieverts per hourDover sole – Caught in USA = 100 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 455 – Unitec Kingdoms Nuclear Plans Are Not Going Well
The U.K. currently has fifteen operating nuclear power reactors supplying about twenty percent of their electricity. Half of these plants will be permanently shut down and decommissioned by 2025 because they will have reached the end of their licensed lifespan. The U.K. will also be closing coal-fired power plants to reduce carbon emissions. New nuclear power plants are planned for Hinkley Point, Wylffa, Sizewell, Bradwell and Oldbury. The U.K. has plans to have sixteen gigawatts of new generating capacity online by 2030. If these planned nuclear power plants are not online and operating by 2030, there could be a serious shortfall in the electricity supply in the U.K.
I have devoted a lot of blog posts to the Hinkley Point C project in the U.K. There have been numerous problems with the project including financing, technology, political issues, etc. After long delays to deal with these problems, contracts have finally been signed and the project is moving forward. The two reactors for Hinkley Point C are a new design. Another reactor of the new European Pressurized Reactor design is being built in France and it is behind schedule. This may be an indication of trouble ahead for the Hinkley Point C project.
Toshiba, a Japanese company which builds nuclear power reactors, has been involved in the NuGen consortium in the U.K. to build a nuclear power reactor in Moorside. Toshiba is in serious financial difficulty and is taking a multibillion-dollar write-down on their nuclear division. There are reports that Toshiba is considering selling its nuclear subsidiary and getting out of the nuclear business altogether. Engie, a French company, is another member of the NuGen consortium and there are reports that they have wanted to get out of the Moorside project for a long time. With two members of the consortium pulling out, the loss of funding for the project may result in its cancellation.
Toshiba and Engie have been looking for other investors to take over supplying funds and nuclear expertise for the Moorside project. Kepco, the South Korean nuclear power company, is a possible replacement for Toshiba and Engie. There have been calls for the U.K. government to work on getting Kepco into the Moorside project.
There have also been calls for the U.K. government to directly fund the Moorside project. In the past, such direct involvement in energy projects has been rejected, partly because of rules that the European Union has about such state financing. With the U.K. getting ready to leave the E.U., E.U. rules will no longer bind the U.K. and they will be free to invest government money if they choose.
The trade unions in the U.K. are also concerned about the nuclear power construction program. In addition to the jobs that will be created for the construction of the planned reactors, there is also the concern that if the nuclear projects fail, the U.K. may be left without sufficient electricity to allow industries to continue to operate at full capacity.
It might be advisable for the U.K. to seriously consider moving from reliance on nuclear power to other low-carbon sources such as wind and solar. Their nuclear plans do not seem to be going well.
-
Geiger Readings for Feb 03, 2016
Ambient office = 82 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 143 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 150 nanosieverts per hourSnow peas from Central Market = 107 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 161 nanosieverts per hourFilter water = 139 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 454 – European Union Nervous About Purchase Of Russian Nuclear Reactors
I have often mentioned in blog posts that nuclear power has serious international political issues. Major countries with nuclear industries such as the U.S., Russia, China, Japan and South Korea are trying to sell nuclear power reactors to other nations. These are such huge projects that they inevitably become involved with the political and economic relationships between the seller and the buyer. The amounts of money involved are in the billions of dollars and are often financed by special loan arrangements of the selling nation. In some cases, the seller offers to build, fuel and operate the new power reactor for the buyer. This would leave the buyer at the mercy of the seller if the seller decided to stop fueling and operating the reactor because of a political or economic dispute.
Russia is currently negotiating to sell two nuclear power reactors to Hungary for about thirteen billion dollars. Rosatom, the Russian-owned nuclear reactor company, would build and operate the reactors at the Paks nuclear power plant on a fifty year contract. For the first decade, Rosatom would be the exclusive supplier of fuel for the Hungarian reactors. Russian banks would supply loans for up to eighty percent of the cost of the project.
The Hungarian government wants to invest in the project. Because Hungary is a member of the European Union and Russia is not, the deal has to be approved by the European Commission which is reviewing the project. The issue before the Commission is whether or not to allow the Hungarian state to provide financial assistance for the purchase. The Commission is expect to approve the deal soon.
The European Union has been trying to reduce its reliance Moscow for energy. Russia has threatened to shutoff flows of oil and gas to EU member nations in the past during political disputes. Russia recently annexed the Crimea from Ukraine and is currently involved in military conflict in eastern Ukraine. Critics of the Hungarian deal point out that it would not be wise to allow EU nations to become dependent on Russian nuclear power reactors given the past and present behavior of Russia.
Ian Armstrong, a senior analyst at the news and analysis firm Global Risk Insights has said that “In instances where Moscow provides significant financial assistance as part of the deal, like in Hungary, [the deals] also serve as a direct purchasing of influence and political favors from EU member states.”
Petr Topychkanov, a fellow in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s nonproliferation program, said that Paks II is a “ticket to the European nuclear market. Success there will help Rosatom to overcome the anti-nuclear lobby in Europe, and to have an upper hand over nuclear competitors in this region.”
Czechoslovakia is also considering the purchase of a nuclear power reactor from Rosatom. They are seeking European Commission approval to skip the usual bidding process for their purchase. Unlike Hungary, Czechoslovakia is not interested in a loan from Russian banks and believes that it can get better interest rates for the project elsewhere. Nonetheless, purchase of Russian nuclear technology will still be another way for Russia to consolidate its hold over the nuclear power reactor market in Eastern Europe.
Rosatom began its current aggressive expansion into the nuclear power reactor market with the appointment of a new CEO in 2005. Rosatom claims that it has over a hundred billion dollars in contracts to supply reactors, fuel and services to forty nine countries in the next ten years. Nuclear industry analysts have questioned these numbers and say that some of the contracts are really just preliminary agreements to explore the possible purchase of Rosatom nuclear power systems.
-
Nuclear News Roundup Feb 02, 2016
Jobs, prestige, access to research, climate change goals and the time table for new nuclear plant projects are under threat from Britain’s exit from the European Union, members of Parliament are arguing, although Brexit Secretary of State David Davis has now confirmed that the British government does plan to exit nuclear research and trade group Euratom with its EU departure. nuclearstreet.com
One San Diego County congressman is taking a high-profile stand against the prospect of parking tons of spent nuclear fuel on the Southern California beachfront for decades to come. sandiegouniontribune.com
-
Geiger Readings for Feb 02, 2016
Ambient office = 69 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 151 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 135 nanosieverts per hourJalapeno pepper from Central Market = 127 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 158 nanosieverts per hourFilter water = 140 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Weapons 250 – Dangers Of Pakistan Move To Tactical Nuclear Weapons
I have blogged about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and nuclear policies before. Pakistan has over a hundred nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them. They are in a tense relationship with their neighbor India which also has over a hundred nuclear warheads and multiple delivery systems.
Pakistan has a big stockpile of weapons grade uranium and is busy building more warheads. In the last ten years, many of the warheads constructed were low-yield tactical warheads. While Pakistan has tightly controlled their nuclear arsenal up to this point, they are now in the process of deploying tactical nuclear weapons to their border with India. They intend to use them if India invades with their much bigger army.
Pakistan is a hotbed of Islamic jihadists and major attacks have been carried out against defense installations, including bases where nuclear weapons were stored. In some cases, there is evidence that the attacks were carried out with help from inside the Pakistani defense establishment. The distribution of Pakistani tactical nuclear weapons to border bases increases the possibility that jihadists might be able to get their hand on one or more of these tactical weapons.
India has concluded that recent terrorist attacks from Pakistan have been condoned and facilitated by members of the Pakistani intelligence service. India is thought to have a “Cold Start” policy with respect to future terrorist attacks from across the border with Pakistan. If terrorists attack and then return across the border to Pakistan, India has plans to send the Indian army across the border in pursuit of the terrorists. Fear of this sort of attack is the reason that Pakistan is sending tactical nukes to the border bases. Pakistan feels that if they used tactical nukes on the battlefield inside Pakistan, the Indian invasion would be stopped but India would not respond with a full-scale nuclear retaliation as they would if Pakistan nuked Indian cities.
With Pakistani tactical nukes at border bases under the control of local commanders and in a “ready to go at any moment” state, in a chaotic conflict situation, a local commander might decide on his own to deploy tactical nuclear weapons against an Indian invasion with unforeseen consequences following.
If a terrorist group obtained a tactical nuclear weapon from a border base and detonated it inside India, it is likely the conflict would rapidly escalate into a full-scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan. This is a fear that many other nations have when confronted with the political instability and jihadist activity inside Pakistan.
With the ongoing radicalization of the Pakistani army in the past few decades, there is a great danger of elements inside the army joining with jihadist to steal tactical nuclear weapons. Pakistan insists that it has excellent nuclear security but its secrecy with respect to the protection of its nuclear arsenal leaves the rest of the world wondering just how safe Pakistani nuclear weapons are. The U.S. military has contingency plans for entering Pakistan in case of the collapse of the government to secure Pakistani nukes. However, the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to the border with India will make any such mission much more difficult.
Pakistani National Command Authority emblem:
