First Japanese reactors prepare for restart. world-nuclear-news.org
Blog
-
Geiger Readings for May 22, 2015
Ambient office = 96 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 112 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 89 nanosieverts per hourYellow bell pepper from Central Market = 45 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 95 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 72 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 242 – Problems in the Russian Nuclear Export Industry – Part One of Three Parts
Part One of Three Parts
There has been a lot of talk lately about a nuclear renaissance in the past few years. There has been a surge in new construction lately. In the nuclear nations, China and Russia are strongly committed to major domestic nuclear projects while new construction is rare in other nuclear nations. Nuclear technology companies in nuclear nations are seeking to export nuclear technology to developing nations to help them expand their economies. The most aggressive exporters are Russia’s Rosatom and France’s Areva. One of the big problems for the global nuclear industry these days is that the energy market is much freer these days with a flood of cheap natural gas and the lost of locked in prices for electricity generated by nuclear reactors. Unless nuclear companies have access to state subsidies as in Russia and France, it is difficult to interest investors in new nuclear ventures.
Rosatom is the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, the state owned conglomerate of nuclear companies in Russia. Atomenergoprom is part of Rosatom. It was formed in 2007 when more than 80 of the civilian nuclear companies under the Rosatom umbrella were consolidated into a nuclear holding company operating in all segments of the nuclear energy cycle. Atomenergoprom is dedicated to “large-scale development of nuclear energy in Russia and promotion of Russian nuclear technologies on the international markets.”
In January, Fitch, the international financial rating agency downgraded the ratings of thirteen of the largest Russian nuclear companies including Atomenergoprom to BBB-. This is the lowest category of investment-grade ratings. Having an investment grade rating means that a company has “adequate capacity for payment of financial commitments that may be impaired by adverse business or economic conditions.” The minus sign means that it is possible that a company will have it ratings lowered further in the future. If Atomenergoprom’s rating drops below BBB, that would mean that it would be reclassified to a speculative grade rating. A speculative grade rating means that a company with “an elevated vulnerability to default risk, particularly in the event of adverse changes in business or economic conditions over time.”
Many segments of the Russia economy have been impacted Western trade sanctions triggered by the Russian annexation of the Crimea from Ukraine . Although the Russian energy sector has been hit by the sanctions, this has not included nuclear exports. Other than this down grading of credit ratings, the global nuclear industry is still pretty much a “level playing field.”
This is a critical year for Rosatom with regard to Russian state support. This will be the last year that Rosatom receives major government financing for the construction of new reactors. In 2016, the allowed expenses for Rosatom will be cut from around one billion seven hundred sixty million to seven hundred sixty million. That is a reduction of almost two thirds. This reduction in government support was planned before the trade sanctions were put into place and started impacting the Russian economy. If the Western sanctions are not removed soon, Rosatom may see further reduction in state support.
(See Part Two)
-
Geiger Readings for May 21, 2015
Ambient office = 90 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 62 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 53 nanosieverts per hourHoney crisp apple from Central Market = 85 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 102 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 89 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 241 – The U.S. Navy Considers Commercial Firms for Scrapping of Nuclear Carrier Enterprise – Part Two of Two Parts
Part Two of Two parts (Please read Part One first)
Apparently NNS would like to do more of the work than requested by PSNS, even to the extent of doing the entire job of scrapping the Enterprise. There are over a thousand jobs at stake. And, as they point out, they did build the Enterprise in the first place. The parent company for NNS attended the May 2014 event and will probably submit a reply to the Naval RFI.
In response to the buildup of a backlog of conventionally powered aircraft carriers and other Naval vessels in need of demolition, NAVSEA recently awarded contracts to three different “shipbreaking” companies for two aircraft carriers and three other ships. As a matter of fact, a ship is currently being towed from Puget Sound to Brownsville, Texas where the demolitions are taking place. Two of the three shipbreaking companies attended the May 2014 event and have recently said that they continued to be interested in the Enterprise job.
A representative of one of the companies, All-Star Metals, says that the Navy needs to understand exactly what commercial firms can offer and have confidence in their ability to do the job needed on nuclear powered vessels. Of course, the ability to safely remove and transport nuclear fuel and radioactive components is a very import part of the Enterprise job and the Navy needs to know that commercial vendors are prepared for that task.
Even if the decommissioning of the nuclear propulsion system of the Enterprise is carried out at Bremerton, the Navy wants to get input from commercial firms about how they would go about removing parts of the Enterprise (as NNS proposes) and leaving just enough for the remains to be sufficiently seaworthy to make the trip to PSNS. This would reduce both the cost of towing and the amount of work that had to be done in Bremerton.
There has also been a discussion of how to take sufficient weight and width off the Enterprise so that it could be towed through the expanded Panama Canal which would seriously reduce the distance and cost of towing. The full width of the Enterprise is two hundred fifty feet and the old Canal locks could only handle one hundred and ten feet wide ships. If the carrier was cut down to the width of just the hull, it would be about one hundred thirty feet wide which would fit through the new expanded locks which will be one hundred eighty feet wide when completed.
The Navy has still given no indication of what they intend to do with the Enterprise. If the recycling contract were given to NNS in Virginia, their parent company has said that they might consider a partnership with one of the three shipbreaking companies to have the work done in Brownsville, Texas. Given their backlog of nuclear decommissioning jobs, it does not appear that PSNS would miss the Enterprise contract all that much.
U.S.S. Enterprise:
-
Geiger Readings for May 20, 2015
Ambient office = 66 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 59 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 56 nanosieverts per hourHoney crisp apple from Central Market = 153 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 82 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 76 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 240 – The U.S. Navy Considers Commercial Firms for Scrapping of Nuclear Carrier Enterprise – Part One of Two Parts
Part One of Two parts.
I cover global nuclear issues in my but sometimes a story hits close to my home city of Seattle, Washington. The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) is located in Bremerton, near Seattle. In the early 1990s, a system was developed at PSNS to recycle old submarines and cruisers which were mothballed at Bremerton when they reached the end of their operational lives.
At the Shipyard, the nuclear reactors that power some of the vessels are “defueled” and have the reactor vessels and their compartments removed. The reactor components are then “encased” and barged down to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in south central Washington State on the Columbia River. The remains of the ships are cut up for scrap and recycling.
Over a hundred nuclear subs and eight nuclear cruisers have been disposed of in this way. Planning has been underway for some time for the Shipyard to dispose of the nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise sometime in 2017. This would be the biggest job ever undertaken by the Shipyard. However, recently the U.S. Navy has been considering the possibility of opening the Enterprise job to commercial bidders which would inject an element of competition into what has been a monopoly for nuclear naval vessel disposal.
This possibility appeared in May of 2014 when the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) sent out a request for information to commercial firms about how they would dismantle the Enterprise aside from the nuclear reactor and propulsion system. Despite repeated requests for more information, the Navy has refused to explain its intentions further than issuing a short statement in early May of 2015. “To ensure the best use of resources, the Navy is currently looking at options for recycling of USS Enterprise (CVN 65), including the possibility of commercial recycling,” NAVSEA said May 4 in the statement. “All reactor compartments and radioactive systems will be disposed of by [Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Intermediate Maintenance Facility]. No final decisions have been made.”
Non-Navy sources have speculated that there are probably two major reasons that the Navy is considering commercial firms for the Enterprise project. Apparently, the Navy is concerned about the estimate for the Shipyard to do the job. In order to carry out the entire recycling task at Bremerton, the Enterprise would have to be towed from Virginia, around South American and up to Washington State. This alone would cost more than the Navy had budgeted for the whole project.
A second big concern is the fact that the Shipyard is used to maintain active Naval vessels in the North Pacific and it is quite busy. In addition, there is already a backlog of nuclear submarines lined up for demolition at the Shipyard. Adding the Enterprise to the workload might well overtax the already busy Shipyard’s capacity.
The Enterprise is currently at the Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) yard in Virginia where it was built. In 2013, the Enterprise was moved from the Norfolk Naval Base to NNS to have the nuclear fuel removed and some of the equipment and components stripped. This job was planned in conjunction with PSNS but there has been a conflict over just how much of the Enterprise will be removed before it would be sent to Puget Sound. PSNA wanted it to arrive basically intact while NNS wanted to remove major sections before it left Virginia.
(See Part Two)
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard:
-
Radiation News Roundup May 19, 2015
