Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire - Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry. Nuclear Activities
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
Tuesday, November 5, 2024
[SocialMedia] Short List of Free Online News Services About Nuclear Energy - guest post
c
This is an annual posting for readers.
With the increasing interest globally in nuclear energy, there has been a significant increase in people posting on the Internet about it. Some social media influencers are more interested in calling attention to themselves than being accurate in their reports. These sources list below have established reputations for getting the facts right.
https://neutronbytes.com/nuclear-reading-list/
Online services - (No firewalls here)
Nuclear Town Hall – This is a free M-F news service that is a summary of links to business and political news about nuclear energy. Based in Washington, DC, it has a global perspective and also has a special section on nuclear energy OP EDs and opinion pieces.
World Nuclear News – This is a five-day-a-week service that publishes short news reports about the global nuclear industry. Based on London, it is available on the website, or via email delivery by the time U.S. readers are pouring their second cup of coffee. A searchable archive allows readers to dig into the background of breaking news.
The World Nuclear Association (WNA) also publishes a Weekly Digest for generalists with more focus on significance and context than World Nuclear News (WNN) . Access it and the archive at: http://bit.ly/2tmxeyX
ANS News Wire - Sponsored by the American Nuclear Society, it is a daily roundup (M-F) of interesting nuclear news items plus deep dives into selected topics. This is a news aggregation site along with many posts of original material. You do not have to be an ANS member to read the nuclear newswire. Just sign up for a free account with an email address.
Nuclear Power Daily – This is weekly nuclear news summary that relies on wire services and other sources. Ad supported.
The Partnership for Global Security - (PGS) publishes a biweekly newsletter with briefs on nuclear energy issues and also nonproliferation news. The nonprofit organization is a nonpartisan think tank and is neutral in tone in its reporting on global developments involving new nuclear programs, projects, and news items. The newsletter focuses on the many dimensions of nuclear security today, including the impact of new nuclear technologies, the challenges of cybersecurity, and the growth of nuclear power in emerging economies. It highlights important developments in the global nuclear industry and offer an informed perspective based on many years of work on these issues
# # #
______________________________________
Dan Yurman dan.yurman@outlook.com
NeutronBytes
Mobile: 216-218-3823
Cleveland, OH more or less
Monday, November 4, 2024
Saturday, November 2, 2024
Friday, November 1, 2024
Thursday, October 31, 2024
🎃This Halloween, who you gonna call? Nuclear Mythbusters! -
🎃This Halloween, who you gonna call? Nuclear Mythbusters! - micheletkearney@gmail.com - Gmail
Nuclear Matters
🕸️ This Halloween, we’re exploring what a world would look like without nuclear power...and the facts are spooky. Read on...if you dare. 🦇
Greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide (CO2) are the poison in climate change’s witches brew 🧙♀️ – but nuclear energy can help break the spell. 🪄 By preventing over 437 million metric tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere each year, nuclear energy has the power to mitigate climate change impacts and keep our air clean of harmful pollutants that contribute to acid rain, smog, lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases.
A world without nuclear energy would mean a world without inspiring, clean energy innovation. But thanks to bipartisan legislative momentum and the support of nuclear advocates nationwide, there is an influx of funding for next-generation nuclear technologies and to bring shuttered nuclear power plants, like Michigan’s Palisades Nuclear Plant and Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island Unit 1, back to life. 🧟 These "zombie" reactors are more alive than ever before, with plans to generate clean power and come back online with increased reliability and adaptability for the future energy system we need.
Without nuclear energy – the energy source that can reliably power the grid 24/7/365 – we risk facing energy shortages and increased volatility in energy prices. As the nuclear industry breathes new life into these power plants and continues to invest in new nuclear infrastructure, we’re paving the way for a more resilient energy future that can power your porch lights during trick or treating, keep your jack-o-lanterns illuminated and keep your heating units on all fall and winter long. 🎃
👻 Now that you’ve seen how losing nuclear power would haunt us, we must ask: which of these scenarios is the spookiest?
If you want to hear just how scary a world it could be without your advocacy efforts to support nuclear energy, join us at our “New Age of Advocacy” webinar in December. Keep an eye out for more details on speakers and timing in the coming weeks.
Until next time,
Nuclear Matters
Help us power the nuclear advocacy engine!
Contribute $10+ to join our President's Circle
[Salon] Iran says missile production unaffected by Israel strikes - Guest Post
Iranian Defense Minister General Aziz Nasirzadeh. (File photo: AP)
Iran says missile production unaffected by Israel strikes
AFP, Tehran
Published: 30 October ,2024:
Iran said on Wednesday that its production of missiles remained intact, following Israeli air strikes targeting such facilities last week.
“There has been no interruption in the process of producing offensive systems such as missiles,” Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh told reporters.
“The enemy tried to damage both our defensive and offensive systems,” he added.
Israel launched strikes on military sites in Iran on Saturday, citing Tehran’s October 1 missile attack that followed the killing of Iran-backed militant leaders and a Revolutionary Guards commander.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said later that the strikes “hit Iran’s defense capabilities and missile production.”
Iran’s armed forces said the attack killed four soldiers and caused “limited damage” to a few radar systems. Iranian media said a civilian was also killed.
Israel has warned Iran against retaliating, while Tehran, asserting it does not seek war, vowed an “appropriate response.”
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
Monday, October 28, 2024
Sunday, October 27, 2024
Saturday, October 26, 2024
Friday, October 25, 2024
Thursday, October 24, 2024
Wednesday, October 23, 2024
Tuesday, October 22, 2024
Monday, October 21, 2024
Sunday, October 20, 2024
Saturday, October 19, 2024
Friday, October 18, 2024
Thursday, October 17, 2024
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
Will a Nato nuclear drill really deter Putin? - UnHerd - Guest Post by Anatol Lieven
https://unherd.com/newsroom/will-a-nato-nuclear-drill-really-deter-putin/
Will a Nato nuclear drill really deter Putin?
By Anatol Lieven
October 16, 2024
On Monday, Nato kicked off its regular annual two-week nuclear drill, “Steadfast Noon”. It will include more than 60 aircraft from 13 countries and more than 2,000 personnel, in a bid to show the alliance’s preparedness.
In defence of the drill, Linas Linkevicius, the Lithuanian ambassador to Sweden, called it “a message to the greatest geopolitical maniac of the century.” He warned that Putin’s “nuclear bluff can and will have costs and consequences”.
If Putin really is a maniac who is ready to use nuclear force at a moment’s notice, why would a regular annual Nato drill deter him from escalation? And if on the other hand he is not a maniac and is just bluffing, then what “costs and consequences” can Nato inflict on Russia for its bluff? A drill certainly won’t inflict any.
Linkevicius’s comments provide a good illustration of the incessant tendency of Western diplomats to have their cake and eat it. Putin is simultaneously an irrational maniac who will cause a nuclear war at any moment and a leader who “bluffs” about responding harshly if certain Russian red lines are crossed. Putin is such a maniac that if not defeated in Ukraine he will go on to attack Nato and the Baltic states, probably causing a nuclear war. And yet he is such a feeble bluffer that he will not react if Nato sets out to defeat Russia in Ukraine. European diplomats can’t decide whether Putin will take action or not.
The truth is that there is only one scenario, other than a direct attack on or blockade of Russian territory, that would bring Russia to — or over — the brink of using a nuclear weapon: the prospect of outright defeat in Ukraine, which is unlikely.
As CIA Director William Burns has revealed, the only time that his agency was really worried about Kremlin nuclear escalation was in the autumn of 2022, when Russian forces had been driven out of Kharkiv and were in danger of being surrounded and crushed in Kherson. Really, though, Putin did not escalate but ordered a tactical retreat from Kherson.
Since then, however, Russia has fought Ukrainian offensives to a standstill, and is pushing forward — albeit slowly and with heavy casualties — in eastern Ukraine. There is a risk that the Ukrainian front will at some point break completely. In this event, a panicked West might decide to send troops or planes to Ukraine, triggering a direct war with Russia. It is this eventuality that Russian nuclear sabre-rattling is meant to deter.
It is true that in 2023 there was a public debate in Russia on the preventive use of nuclear weapons in a first strike. However, the proponents of this position have been roundly condemned by a majority of the Russian establishment, and Putin himself rejected the notion. “It is certainly theoretically possible to use nuclear weapons this way,” he said last year. But failing a serious threat to the existence of the Russian state, “we see no need to use it.”
This is not wholly dissimilar to the debate in the West. Certain elements have advocated Western troops for Ukraine, or a Nato “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. In other words, some argue that Nato should serve as Ukraine’s de facto infantry and air force, but the Biden administration and most of the alliance’s member states have categorically rejected this suggestion.
No doubt, this week’s Nato drill comes at a time of heightened tension, when Putin has been publicly mulling over Russia’s nuclear policy. But both the West and Russia recognise that escalation towards a real danger of nuclear war would be an act of unspeakable folly, and that, in Ronald Reagan’s words, a nuclear war “cannot be won and must never be fought”. All the same, it would be a good idea if some Western officials remembered that diplomats are supposed to be diplomatic, and that brainless, genetically-programmed tweeting should be strictly for the birds.
Anatol Lieven is a former war correspondent and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)