Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire - Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry. Nuclear Activities
Friday, December 20, 2024
Thursday, December 19, 2024
Wednesday, December 18, 2024
Tuesday, December 17, 2024
Monday, December 16, 2024
Sunday, December 15, 2024
Saturday, December 14, 2024
Friday, December 13, 2024
[Salon] Trump Team Weighs Options, Including Airstrikes, to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program - Guest Post
Trump Team Weighs Options, Including Airstrikes, to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program
Advisers to the president-elect, concerned economic pressure isn’t enough to contain Tehran, are considering military action
By Alexander Ward in Washington and Laurence Norman in Berlin The Wall Street Journal
Iranian ballistic missiles on display during a military parade in Tehran in September. Photo: Rouzbeh Fouladi/Zuma Press
President-elect Donald Trump is weighing options for stopping Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, including the possibility of preventive airstrikes, a move that would break with the longstanding policy of containing Tehran with diplomacy and sanctions.
The military-strike option against nuclear facilities is now under more serious review by some members of his transition team, who are weighing the fall of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad—Tehran’s ally—in Syria, the future of U.S. troops in the region, and Israel’s decimation of regime proxy militias Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s weakened regional position and recent revelations of Tehran’s burgeoning nuclear work have turbocharged sensitive internal discussions, transition officials said. All deliberation on the issue, however, remains in the early stages.
Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent calls that he is concerned about an Iranian nuclear breakout on his watch, two people familiar with their conversations said, signaling he is looking for proposals to prevent that outcome. The president-elect wants plans that stop short of igniting a new war, particularly one that could pull in the U.S. military, as strikes on Tehran’s nuclear facilities have the potential put the U.S. and Iran on a collision course.
Iran has enough highly enriched uranium alone to build four nuclear bombs, making it the only nonnuclear-weapon country to be producing 60% near-weapons-grade fissile material. It would take just a few days to convert that stockpile into weapons-grade nuclear fuel.
A jet fighter lands on the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Arabian Gulf. Photo: U.S. Navy/Reuters
U.S. officials have previously said it could take Iran several months to field a nuclear weapon.
The president-elect’s transition team is devising what it calls a “maximum pressure 2.0” strategy against the regime, people familiar with the planning said, the sequel to his first-term approach centering on strict economic sanctions. This time, the president-elect and his aides are fleshing out military steps that could be central to its anti-Tehran campaign, though still paired with tighter financial penalties.
Two broad options have come up in discussions, including in some talks that have taken place with Trump, four people familiar with the planning said.
One path, described by two people familiar with the plan, involves augmenting military pressure by sending more U.S. forces, warplanes, and ships to the Middle East. The U.S. could also sell advanced weapons to Israel, such as bunker-busting bombs, strengthening its offensive firepower to take Iranian nuclear facilities offline.
The threat of military force, especially if paired with U.S.-imposed sanctions that manage to cripple Iran’s economy, may convince Tehran that there is no choice but to diplomatically resolve the crisis.
The alternative path is to seek to use the threat of military force, especially if paired with U.S.-imposed sanctions, to drive Tehran into accepting a diplomatic resolution. That is the strategy Trump employed with North Korea in his first term, although the diplomacy eventually faltered.
It isn’t clear which option Trump, who has talked about avoiding a third World War and brokering deals with Tehran, would choose. While Trump has insisted that he seeks to avoid massive escalation in the Middle East, he told Time in an interview published Thursday that there is a chance the U.S. could go to war with Iran, partly because Tehran plotted to assassinate him.
“Anything can happen,” he said. “It’s a very volatile situation.”
Some incoming administration officials have yet to fully weigh in on the issue, and Iran-related proposals could shift as cabinet officials get into place, classified information becomes available, and discussions are held with regional allies like Israel. Crucially, Trump rarely delves deep into details about foreign-policy matters until he is presented with finalized options and a decision needs to be made, former Trump administration officials say.
Iran’s United Nations mission didn’t respond to requests for comment. Leaders in Tehran have long denied that they seek to acquire a nuclear weapon.
The Israeli government also didn’t respond to requests for comment about whether it would pre-emptively attack Iran during the Trump administration. But in November, after holding three calls with Trump, Netanyahu said he and Trump “see eye to eye on the Iranian threat in all its components, and the danger posed by it.”
Trump weighed the idea of pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear program toward the end of his first term, former officials said, shortly after international inspectors revealed Iran’s stockpile of nuclear material had grown. But Trump, after he left office, has since disputed he ever considered military action seriously, claiming senior defense aides developed war plans and pushed him to authorize a strike.
President-elect Donald Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate in July. Photo: Alex Brandon/Associated Press
Trump aides and confidants supporting military options for his second term said the main idea would be to support Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities like Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, and even potentially have the U.S. participate in a joint operation. Many current and former Israeli officials say there are huge uncertainties of how successful Israel would be in mounting a solo attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, some of which are buried deep underground.
Still, some of Trump’s allies insist his first months back in office present him with the rare opportunity to counter Iran’s nuclear buildup while the regime is in a weakened position.
“If you were going to actually do something to neutralize the nuclear-weapons program, this would be it,” said Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who speaks regularly with top Trump aides, including some set to enter the new administration.
Should Trump reach for a serious military option, he would be breaking with recent U.S. policy, and that of his first presidency.
The Obama administration aimed to settle Iran’s nuclear rise with a multinational deal, culminating in 2015’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which temporarily constrained Tehran’s nuclear work. Trump withdrew the U.S. from that pact and mounted economic pressure on Iran in hopes it would abandon the nuclear program. President Biden sought to revive the 2015 agreement, but Iran ended up walking away, leading his administration to keep many of the Trump-era sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Israel, meanwhile, has for years considered attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities but hasn’t done so, in part, because of U.S. caution against it. The Obama administration in 2012 warned Netanyahu off launching attacks as Iran built its nuclear program before the 2015 nuclear deal. The Biden administration has consistently said it seeks a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear advances.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
What steps should the U.S. take to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Join the conversation below.
Discussions of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be different this time around.
“There is strong support for Israel to take military action as they deem in their interests,” said Gabriel Noronha, who worked on Iran policy at the State Department during the first Trump administration. “Iran does not have much room to go before they hit [Israel’s] red lines, and they still seem intent on escalating further.”
Officials on Trump’s transition say they intend to enforce current sanctions and impose new ones, including redesignating the Tehran-backed Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization and prohibiting countries that buy Iranian oil from purchasing American energy.
But more needs to be done than increased economic and financial pressure because Iran “is actively trying to kill President Trump,” a person on the transition said. “That certainly influences everybody’s thinking when it comes to what the relationship is out the gate.”
Iran has given the U.S. assurances it wouldn’t assassinate Trump in retaliation for his 2020 order to kill top Iranian paramilitary leader Qassem Soleimani. The killing of Soleimani was the most aggressive military action by the U.S. against Iran in years.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has signaled that he is open to diplomatic talks with the incoming Trump administration. Photo: Iran’s Presidency/Reuters
The incoming administration insists Tehran’s network of proxies can’t be fully countered unless Iran is starved of economic and military resources. “It’s the head of the octopus,” the transition official said. “We’re not going to solve all these issues where they are. We’re going to solve them in how we deal with Tehran.”
Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, appears to be appealing to Trump’s appetite for high-profile agreements. Pezeshkian “is ready to manage tensions with the United States” and “hopes for equal-footed negotiations regarding the nuclear deal—and potentially more,” Javad Zarif, Iran’s vice president for strategic affairs, wrote in Foreign Affairs last week.
But the diplomatic approach has its pitfalls. Iranian officials say they won’t negotiate with the U.S. under pressure, and they told European officials in Geneva last month that they wouldn’t take any unilateral steps to clip back their nuclear program.
Tehran already has enough fissile material to produce more than 12 nuclear bombs, according to a U.S. intelligence estimate released last week. Although Iran isn’t currently building a bomb, the report said, it is better prepared to do so thanks to research it has carried out in recent months.
Iranian officials have long made it clear their reaction to a strike would be to kick out U.N. inspectors and leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits Tehran to not develop nuclear weapons.
The only country that has ever done that is North Korea, which went on to covertly start producing nuclear weapons—a path Tehran has hinted it could take.
Write to Alexander Ward at alex.ward@wsj.com and Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com
Thursday, December 12, 2024
Wednesday, December 11, 2024
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Monday, December 9, 2024
Sunday, December 8, 2024
Saturday, December 7, 2024
Friday, December 6, 2024
Thursday, December 5, 2024
Wednesday, December 4, 2024
Tuesday, December 3, 2024
Monday, December 2, 2024
Sunday, December 1, 2024
Saturday, November 30, 2024
Friday, November 29, 2024
Why Businesses and the Government Are Turning to Nuclear Reactors for Our Increasing Energy Demands
https://www.powermag.com/why-businesses-and-the-government-are-turning-to-nuclear-reactors-for-our-increasing-energy-demands/
Thursday, November 28, 2024
Wednesday, November 27, 2024
Tuesday, November 26, 2024
Monday, November 25, 2024
Saturday, November 23, 2024
Friday, November 22, 2024
Thursday, November 21, 2024
Wednesday, November 20, 2024
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Saturday, November 16, 2024
Friday, November 15, 2024
Think Locally, Act Globally To Export Nuclear Climate Solutions, it’s Time to Reverse the Dictum Guest Post by Matthew Wald
https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/think-locally-act-globally?publication_id=2392380&post_id=151712992&isFreemail=true&r=1y80w&triedRedirect=true
Think Locally, Act Globally
To Export Nuclear Climate Solutions, it’s Time to Reverse the Dictum
Nov 15
By Matthew L. Wald
The world has a crying need for a new class of high-tech products that companies in the United States have designed and are trying hard to sell. But so far, it isn’t happening.
The products are advanced reactors, which could help meet a potential doubling of electricity demand globally without defaulting to coal.
The nuclear export business is going mostly to countries that have active domestic construction programs, with proven products, and have the ability to offer package deals—financing, fuel, spent fuel removal, and extensive construction assistance. Those countries are prowling the developed and developing world, signing memoranda of understanding, and pouring concrete.
In contrast, American firms have traditionally sold a “nuclear steam supply system,” not an entire reactor complex. Some companies, like Westinghouse and GE, also fabricate fuel, but apart from the Department of Energy supplying fuel to research reactors, nobody takes the fuel back.
The world may be excited about advanced reactors designed here, said Craig Piercy, the executive director of the American Nuclear Society, at a recent webinar, but “it still seems like we’re at a disadvantage. We’re bringing a knife to a gunfight, competing against countries that have an entirely integrated nuclear industry.”
And other countries have many recently built reactors suitable for export, which potential buyers can tour. “Until we have a functioning reactor that we can give them and build in other countries, they’re looking to other countries,’’ said Brad Williams, the lead for energy policy and strategic analysis at the Idaho National Laboratory.
In that sense, we ought to turn the old environmental dictum on its head. We can think globally and act locally, but in fact we should be thinking about local steps that will allow global action. The United States’ share of global emissions in 2021 was about 13.5 percent, down by nearly half since 1980 and certain to decline further. Electricity consumption will nearly double by 2050, not counting new demand from artificial intelligence, according to Third Way and the Energy for Growth Hub, which recently updated their map of the global market for advanced nuclear. Globally, 98 countries “could be markets for advanced nuclear power by 2050.” Ten are viable now, and another ten by 2030, the groups projected, and the global market for nuclear could triple by 2050.
Share
Thus, America’s contribution to stabilizing the climate may turn out to be helping the rest of the world reduce its emissions, especially the developing world. But for now, other countries that want carbon-free power are not looking here. As DJ Nordquist, vice president of the Economic Innovation Group, notes in a recent web post, “Russia has 45 MOUs (memoranda of understanding) to develop nuclear in other countries. China has 13 MOUs with a goal to sell 30 overseas nuclear reactors to Belt and Road partners by 2030.”
“Both Russia and now China are poised to clean our clocks on nuclear exports,” according to Nordquist.
If selling your product abroad requires demonstrating construction proficiency at home, the winners are probably China, Russia, and India. China has 31 reactors under construction, which means it has a large cadre of highly-qualified welders, pipe-fitters and technicians, backed up by foundries, metal fabrication shops, turbine and generator manufacturers, and all the other supply chain elements.
Russia is busy at home, and in India, Turkey, Hungary and Egypt. Rosatom recently started pouring concrete for the fourth of a four-reactor complex in Egypt, that is expected to supply about 10 percent of the country’s electricity. Egypt is a country that the United States has tried hard to lure into its orbit. But Rosatom offers a package deal, including fuel and financing and building a product that it already has experience with.
And Rosatom has MOUs in various African countries, the kinds of places that during the Cold War, we assiduously sought to keep in an American orbit, or at least neutral.
Our hemisphere is not exempt. Forget the Monroe Doctrine, promulgated by the fifth president of the U.S., that the country was going to keep Latin America free from overseas influence. Today much of that influence has its roots in commercial relationships and imported technology. When Argentina went looking for a vendor for a fourth nuclear reactor in 2022, it ended up signing a contract with China. It’s the Hualong One model, China’s adaptation of the pressurized water design. (But Argentina is in financial straits, and the timing of the project is not clear.)
Other Competitors
Other competitors may emerge. India has plans for a fleet of 220-megawatt pressurized heavy water reactors, derived from Canada’s Candu design. While China and Russia build big machines for big grids, India is building smaller generators that can be dispersed across its electric system, making up for a shortage of transmission. In that regard, India’s reactors suit many third world countries that are struggling to meet growing electric demand but do not have a strong grid. If you place a large reactor on a weak grid, every time the reactor trips offline, it can cause a widespread blackout.
But nuclear exports are barely on the American agenda. Last month the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Energy Security and Climate program held a panel discussion called “Powering Progress: Deploying U.S. Clean Technologies in Emerging Economies.” Several panelists used the now-clichéd phrase, “all of the above,” but the above was wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps and geothermal, not nuclear. There was talk of how to make sure that the United States participates in the value chain of global decarbonization, but in a one-hour discussion, nuclear was mentioned only once, by the moderator, as a topic of an upcoming CSIS event.
It's not that this isn’t on the minds of the nuclear start-ups. NuScale Power, for example, notes that its reactor modules can also desalinate water, using reactor heat to boil seawater without carbon emissions or fuel supply problems. NuScale could have pointed out that this was a solution for Texas or California, but its website notes that a four-module plant could meet the water needs of a city like Cape Town, South Africa.
In a rare step towards success, a company in the United States that wants to develop nuclear plants recently signed an agreement with a firm in Ghana for a project that would use NuScale technology. That puts the U.S. in the lead, for now, against Électricité de France, the China National Nuclear Corporation, Korea Hydro Nuclear Power Corporation, and Rosatom, the Russian state monopoly.
If small modular reactors are as smooth to construct as promised, they will fit well into more settings, and may be particularly well suited for markets in countries without a highly sophisticated technology base. This is because they are in the “some assembly required” category, rather than built from scratch. They have two other advantages. Their scale is more appropriate to smaller grids, and their ability to raise and lower their output promptly will be particularly helpful on such grids. On a big, strong grid, operators can cope with local shortages or surpluses by moving electricity over vast areas. On a small grid, that isn’t possible.
Share
Many of the small modular reactors also sidestep an obstacle that faces conventional light-water reactors: they need outside electricity supplies. Today’s reactors draw power from the grid to run their control rooms, pumps, valves and other vital equipment, so that if the reactor “trips,” the equipment to keep the plant safe doesn’t stop working. The plants have emergency diesel generators, but a principle of good design is that they have strong grid connections. Designs like NuScale, BWRX and the AP300 can lose offsite power and still shut down safely, with no overheating from the residual heat production in the core. That makes them good candidates for remote areas that have local demand but limited connections to the outside.
Big Reactors Might Work
There are other routes to success. Reactors of a traditional size, but with more modern designs, are attractive in certain contexts, notably in Europe. Westinghouse may succeed in selling more copies of the AP1000, the design used for the new twin reactors in Georgia, although the delays and cost overruns in that project do not make for good product advertising. Poland is spending significant resources on the idea, and Bulgaria and Ukraine are interested.
The United States notably lost out to South Korea on the contract to build the four-unit Barakah plant in the United Arab Emirates, which now stands as a kind of benchmark for cost and schedule. But the UAE hired several American experts in reactor construction and operation, showing that this country still has expertise to offer.
But sales of any kind of reactor need support from the U.S. government. Countries that want civil nuclear energy have to sign agreements that foreswear military uses. China, notably, does not require such pledges. And financing, which China also provides, is also a big issue for the U.S.
The federal government is only intermittently concerned with promoting high-tech exports of any kind. Among the symptoms: Congress let the charter of the Export-Import Bank expire in 2015, and the five-seat board of directors dwindled to two members. The bank loans up to $100 million to foreign entities so they can buy goods manufactured here, but without a quorum, the loans are limited to $10 million each. Boeing, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others, lamented the lack of a quorum.
The World Bank and the International Finance Corporation could help with loans to help Western companies export reactors.
The World Bank does not finance nuclear plants, partly because of opposition from one large shareholder, Germany. Indirectly, it still finances coal projects.
Exports are front and center for some policymakers in Washington. The ADVANCE Act, Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy, signed by President Biden in July, allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish a “Nuclear Reactor Export and Innovation Branch,” but does not require it to do so, and thus far it has not. The chairman, Chris Hanson, said that the agency is already carrying out many of the functions that such a branch would take on. The agency says it is “generally ready” to license the export of non-light water reactors.
But pre-requisite for exporting them is licensing them for use here, and building them. The NRC is still struggling to establish an advanced reactor licensing framework.
“At the end of the day,” said Amy Roma, a nuclear expert at a Washington law firm, Hogan Lovells, speaking at the American Nuclear Society forum, “for a lot of U.S. origin technologies, we still come back to, ‘please build it in your country first.’”
Thursday, November 14, 2024
Wednesday, November 13, 2024
Tuesday, November 12, 2024
Monday, November 11, 2024
Sunday, November 10, 2024
Saturday, November 9, 2024
The Unignorable Incoherence of Trump 2.0 - Heatmap News
The Unignorable Incoherence of Trump 2.0 - Heatmap News
Let us consider the issue of nuclear energy.
Friday, November 8, 2024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)