Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire

Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry.
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Thursday, December 16, 2010

U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable



U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable -- New York Times

Suppose the unthinkable happened, and terrorists struck New York or another big city with an atom bomb. What should people there do? The government has a surprising new message: Do not flee. Get inside any stable building and don’t come out till officials say it’s safe.

The advice is based on recent scientific analyses showing that a nuclear attack is much more survivable if you immediately shield yourself from the lethal radiation that follows a blast, a simple tactic seen as saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Even staying in a car, the studies show, would reduce casualties by more than 50 percent; hunkering down in a basement would be better by far.

Read more ....http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html?ref=us
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 10, 2010

Obama Administration May Allow Nuclear Into Clean Energy Policy SustainableBusiness.com News

The Obama Administration indicated it is willing to include nuclear power--and possibly "clean" coal--in a policy definition of clean energy. It's a compromise that could bring Republicans to the table to draft comprehensive energy legislation.
Renewable energy advocates and environmentalists have long opposed the inclusion of nuclear power generation and so-called clean coal technologies with renewable resoureces like wind, solar and geothermal. 
In the past, Republican lawmakers at the state level have attempted to make nuclear and clean coal elligible technologies to meet Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) requirements. 
At a conference on nuclear power in Washington D.C. this week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu endorsed that very idea. He said a broader definition recognizes the political reality that different regions have different energy preferences. 
Read New York Times coverage at the link below.
Website: www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/12/08/08climatewire-the-administration-explores-a-clean-energy-s-54861.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/21572
Enhanced by Zemanta

Pact Lifts Limits on Civilian Nuclear Projects With Russia By PETER BAKER

U.S. Pact to Share Civilian Nuclear Tech With Russia Clears Congress
A U.S. pact with Russia on civilian nuclear power has cleared what the New York Times today called "its final hurdle" in Congress. The agreement would allow Russia to reprocess spent nuclear fuel from the U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman was quoted as saying the "agreement represents a major step forward in U.S.-Russian civil nuclear cooperation. It enhances cooperation on nonproliferation" and "creates new commercial opportunities for Russian and American industry."

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Russia scholar Matt Rojansky said the agreement was "potentially far more significant" than the New Start arms treaty: "It delivers on the promise of reset because it taps into fundamentally shared interests, benefits both sides and enables the U.S. and Russia to lead together on nuclear security." A spokeswoman for Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., said he opposed the deal, saying Russia continued to "train Iranian nuclear physicists, supply sensitive nuclear technology to Iran, and give secret instruction on Russian soil to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard."
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Iran obtained missiles from North Korea : leaked US documents




Washington (AFP) Nov 28, 2010 US intelligence believes Iran has obtained advanced missiles from North Korea capable of striking Europe, according to US documents leaked by WikiLeaks and cited by the New York Times on Sunday. The newspaper, in a diplomatic cable dated February 24, said "secret American intelligence assessments have concluded that Iran has obtained a cache of advanced missiles, based on a Russian design."
Iran obtained 19 of the North Korean missiles, an improved version of Russia's R-27, from North Korea, the cable said, and was "taking pains to master the technology in an attempt to build a new generation of missiles."
At the request of US President Barack Obama's administration, the New York Times said it had agreed not to publish the text of that cable.
"The North Korean version of the advanced missile, known as the BM-25, could carry a nuclear warhead," said the newspaper, adding it had a range of up to 2,000 miles (more than 3,000 kilometres).
"If fired from Iran, that range, in theory, would let its warheads reach targets as far away as Western Europe, including Berlin. If fired northwestward, the warheads could reach Moscow," it said, referring to other dispatches.
"The cables say that Iran not only obtained the BM-25, but also saw the advanced technology as a way to learn how to design and build a new class of more powerful engines," said the Times.
http://www.spacewar.com/reportshttp://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_obtained_missiles_from_North_Korea_leaked_US_documents_999.html/Iran_obtained_missiles_from_North_Korea_leaked_US_documents_999.html
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Surprise! North Korea Unveils a Huge New Uranium Plant [Updated] from Danger Room by Spencer Ackerman


As if the possible collapse of the Obama administration’s nuclear-arms treaty with Russia wasn’t bad enough. North Korea just unveiled a new facility for enriching uranium, possibly for nuclear bombs, all as talks to disarm the rogue state are practically dead.
Earlier this month, North Korean officials invited a former Los Alamos National Laboratories director, Siegfried S. Hecker, to its Yongbyon nuclear complex, the major installation in the north’s nuclear apparatus. They were eager to show him an “ultra-modern and clean” uranium-enrichment facility with “2,000 centrifuges… said to be producing low enriched uranium” for a new, 25 to 30 megawatt-electric light-water reactor. Those facilities “could be readily converted to produce highly-enriched uranium (HEU) bomb fuel (or parallel facilities could exist elsewhere).”
The U.S. has known about North Korea’s switch from plutonium bombs to an effort at producing weapons from highly-enriched uranium since 2002. But over the past several years, U.S. intelligence has cast doubt on the North’s ability to successfully enrich uranium, as Pyongyang’s bombs have relied on old-school, less-powerful plutonium for their potency. “The 2,000-centrifuge capability significantly exceeds my estimates and that of most other analysts,” Hecker writes. Suddenly the North may have a viable option to a second type of nuke.
This new facility has been built in barely a year, suggesting a big crash program to build more-powerful bombs than the plutonium ones currently in the North’s arsenal — even while United Nations sanctions against the North have grown more severe. And that might indicate Yongbyon is just the tip of the iceberg in a uranium program that the international community didn’t detect. “To outfit a plant with 2,000 centrifuges this quickly suggests that this may not be the first gas centrifuge plant that North Korea has built,” blogged David Albright and Paul Brannan of the Institute for Science and International Security, a leading nuclear-security think tank. “It is possible that North Korea built another plant previously and either transferred it to Yongbyon or simply built another one based on its experience of bringing the first, perhaps smaller, one into operation.”

If there’s any silver lining, Hacker writes that Yongbyon’s plutonium facilities are still being dismantled, cold comfort as that may be.
Hecker and a colleague heard that the North set up the light-water reactor after the U.S. and the North’s neighbors failed to sufficiently bribe it into disarming with heavy fuel for electricity generation. “We are willing to proceed with the Six-Party Talks and the September 19, 2005 agreement, but we cannot wait for a positive agreement,” Hecker writes the plant’s senior technical adviser told him. “We are trying our best to solve our own problems. We will convert our center to a [light-water reactor] and pilot enrichment facility. It is a high priority to develop uranium enrichment.”
The reactor is supposed to be completed by 2012, but Hecker calls that “unreasonably optimistic.” North Korean officials also claimed that they’re already producing low-enriched uranium at Yongbyon, but Hacker couldn’t verify that.
There’s been lots of speculation in the Korean and Japanese press recently that the North is about to attempt its third bomb test since 2006. An imagery analyst at Jane’s told Global Security Newswire that there have been “notable signs of excavation” at the site of the North’s first nuclear test. All this comes months after the North torpedoed a South Korean ship, killing its crew of 46 sailors, and while successor-in-waiting Kim Jong-un appears to be ridding the ruling communist party of possible rivals.
The New York Times reports that the Obama administration has sent envoys to Russia, China, Japan and South Korea to plan what to do about the new uranium-enrichment plant. It wants China, North Korea’s major patron, to exercise its economic leverage over the North, as international sanctions have clearly failed to dissuade Pyongyang from moving forward with uranium enrichment.
Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, one of the most prominent anti-proliferation think tanks in Washington, blogged on Sunday that the new North Korean enrichment facility could represent “another nuclear proliferation tipping point.” Kimball urged Obama to restart talks with the North and “outline, again and in detail, the security assurances, trade benefits, and energy support that the U.S. and other regional allies would be prepared to provide if North Korea once again halted its nuclear and missile programs, ended its proliferation behavior, and dismantled its nuclear complex.”
Like Hecker, Albright and Brannan of the Institute for Science and International Security feared that a lot of the North’s uranium-enrichment work is hidden in secrecy. “[A] centrifuge plant does not exist in a vacuum,” they wrote. “It is still unknown where North Korea researches, develops, and manufactures centrifuges.” But they speculate that the U.S. may have a new weapon in its arsenal to use against the facility: “It is possible that the North Korean plant(s) could be vulnerable to the Stuxnet worm.”
Update, 8:45 p.m.: On the Sunday-show circuit, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, didn’t exactly say that U.S. intelligence was caught flat-footed by the new uranium facility. But he gestured in that direction: “This is something we’ve been concerned about for a significant period of time,” Mullen said, “and also penetration of — of the North Koreans, in terms of intelligence capabilities, is very, very difficult.” Other U.S. officials denied any such intelligence lapse to reporters on Sunday.
Likewise, Defense Secretary Robert Gates
Photo: Institute for Science and International Security
See Also:
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Iran says nuclear swap must be based on Brazil-Turkey deal



http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=247854211242866212 Tehran (AFP) Nov 3, 2010 Iran said on Wednesday that any nuclear fuel swap with the major powers must be based on an agreement it signed with Brazil and Turkey, dismissing reports a revised proposal was on the table. "If the Vienna group is ready for negotiation over the fuel swap... it would be based only on the framework defined in the Tehran Declaration," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state news agency IRNA.
Mottaki was reacting to reports that the six major powers which have been seeking to allay international concerns over Iran's nuclear programme have been drawing up a new fuel swap deal to replace one proposed last year.
Under the deal drafted in October last year by the UN nuclear watchdog, Iran would have received fuel for a medical research reactor in Tehran from France and Russia in return for shipping out most of its stockpiles of low enriched uranium.
After a prolonged stalemate over the proposal, Brazil and Turkey brokered a modified agreement in May but the United States rejected it, arguing it failed to take into account additional uranium enriched in the meantime and led the Security Council in imposing a fourth package of UN sanctions.
Last month, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said any new fuel swap deal would be more onerous than the one on the table last year as Iran needed to be accountable for its persistent defiance of Security Council ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment.
"In order to live up to the responsibilities that they have made and to lift any sanctions, they would have great responsibilities," Gibbs said on October 28.
"The responsibilities get greater each and every day even as the sanctions impact their economy more and more."
Gibbs spoke after the New York Times reported that Washington and its European allies were preparing a new, more onerous offer for Iran than the one proposed last year.
The new offer would require Iran to send more than 4,400 pounds (1,995 kilogrammes) of low enriched uranium out of the country, an increase of more than two-thirds from the amount required under the deal proposed last year.
Iran and the major powers are set to hold fresh nuclear talks later this month after a year-long hiatus. The world powers want the talks to focus on Iran's overall nuclear programme.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, October 30, 2010

US Faces Substantial Obstacles to Increasing Rare Earths Production


Reader James S. highlighted a useful article at the MIT Technology Review, “Can the U.S. Rare-Earth Industry Rebound?” Our only quibble to this solid piece is its summary, which underplays some critical aspects of the article:
The U.S. has plenty of the metals that are critical to many green-energy technologies, but engineering and R&D expertise have moved overseas.
In fact, the while the article does discuss US versus foreign engineering expertise in rare earths mining, it describes in some detail how difficult rare earths mining is in general (more accurately, not the finding the materials part, but separating them out) and the considerable additional hurdles posed by doing it in a non-environmentally destructive manner. Thus the rub is not simply acquiring certain bits of technological know-how, but also breaking further ground in reducing environmental costs.
And this issue has frequently been mentioned in passing in accounts of why rare earth production moved to China in the first place. It’s nasty, and advanced economies weren’t keen to do the job. China was willing to take the environmental damage. For instance, the New York Times points out:
China feels entitled to call the shots because of a brutally simple environmental reckoning: It currently controls most of the globe’s rare earths supply not just because of geologic good fortune, although there is some of that, but because the country has been willing to do dirty, toxic and often radioactive work that the rest of the world has long shunned.
From the MIT Technology Review:
Getting from rocks to the pure metals and alloys required for manufacturing requires several steps that U.S. companies no longer have the infrastructure or the intellectual property to perform….
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Mountain Pass mine in California produced over 70 percent of the world’s supply. Yet in 2009, none were produced in the United States, and it will be difficult, costly, and time-consuming to ramp up again…
The two mines that will be stepping up production soonest are Mountain Pass, being developed by Molycorp, and the Mount Weld mine, which is being developed by Lynas, outside Perth, Australia. Mountain Pass has the edge of already having been established. But the company cannot use the processes used in the mine’s heyday: they’re both economically and environmentally unsustainable.
Several factors make purification of rare earths complicated. First, the 17 elements all tend to occur together in the same mineral deposits, and because they have similar properties, it’s difficult to separate them from one another. They also tend to occur in deposits with radioactive elements, particularly thorium and uranium. Those elements can become a threat if the “tailings,” the slushy waste product of the first step in separating rare earths from the rocks they’re found in, are not dealt with properly…
Mountain Pass went into decline in the 1990s when Chinese producers began to undercut the mine on price at the same time as it had safety issues with tailings. When the Mountain Pass mine was operating at full capacity, it produced 850 gallons of waste saltwater containing these radioactive elements every hour, every day of the year. The tailings were transported down an eleven-mile pipeline to evaporation ponds. In 1998, Mountain Pass, which was then owned by a subsidiary of oil company Unocal, had a problem with tailing leaks when the pipeline burst; four years later, the company’s permit for storing the tailings lapsed.
Meanwhile, throughout the 1990s, Chinese mines exploited their foothold in the rare-earth market. The Chinese began unearthing the elements as a byproduct of an iron-ore mine called Bayan Obo in the northern part of the country; getting both products from the same site helped keep prices low initially. And the country invested in R&D around rare-earth element processing, eventually opening several smaller mines, and then encouraging manufacturers that use these metals to set up facilities in the country.
Yves here. I’d be curious for input on this point from any informed readers. China has allegedly made R&D advances, but are these processes aimed at increased efficiency? If so, they’d give China a cost advantage, but not contend with environmental issues; indeed, it’s conceivable that the toll with these new processes is even worse. Back to the article:
By 2012, Molycorp expects to produce 20,000 tons a year, and under its current mining permits could double capacity to 40,000 tons. Sims also says the company will produce rare-earth products at half the cost of the Chinese in 2012. According to the company, these savings will be made possible by several changes, such as eliminating the production of waste saltwater. Molycorp will use a closed-loop system, converting the waste back into the acids and bases required for separation and eliminating the need to buy such chemicals. The company will also install a natural-gas power cogeneration facility onsite to cut energy costs.
But Ames Lab’s Geschneidner notes that one major source of cost in the separation process can’t be eliminated–the fact that it simply takes a long time. Milled rock is shaken again and again in a mixture of solvents to separate the elements by weight; depending on the ultimate purity that’s required, this must be done 10,000 to 100,000 times. The result is then sold as a concentrate or treated to produce rare-earth metal oxides.
Even if Molycorp does succeed in reducing the costs of separation by half, the next step in production may cause a hiccup. Rare-earth oxides and concentrates do have a market, for example as catalysts for the petroleum industry, but they can’t be made into magnets. To make magnets, rare-earth oxides must first be converted into pure metals, a process that produces caustic byproducts, and is done solely in China today. Sims says that Molycorp is investigating pathways that are environmentally friendly and aren’t covered under intellectual property owned by foreign companies. These metals must next be made into alloys suitable for the magnets, another capability that’s concentrated overseas, mostly in Japan and Germany.
The story is not quite as dire as one might conclude from this article, which focuses strictly on the US mining question. The US is not the only country looking to gear up its rare earth production. Rare earths can be extracted from used products, particularly cars. And some products can be designed to eliminate the use of rare earths, although the tradeoff is typically more bulk and weight. Nevertheless, it is clear that advanced economies will need to make a lot of adjustments, including more investments in R&D and product design, to contend with the challenge of rising demand versus constrained supplies of rare earths.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 25, 2010

ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR AMBIGUITY RECONSIDERED

The Israeli policy of "nuclear opacity" -- by which that country's presumptive nuclear weapons program is not formally acknowledged -- is examined in the new book "The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb" by Avner Cohen (Columbia University Press, October 2010).

For a variety of reasons, the author concludes that Israel's "nuclear opacity" is obsolete and will have to be replaced, sooner or later, with a forthright acknowledgment of what everyone already believes to be the case anyway.

Cohen, an Israeli scholar who was trained as a philosopher, provides a lucid account of how nuclear opacity has "worked," i.e. served Israeli interests, by providing the benefits of deterrence without the negative political and strategic consequences that could ensue from overt disclosure.  But its time has passed, he says.

"I argue that the old Israeli bargain with the bomb has outlived its usefulness, that it has become increasingly incompatible with contemporary democratic values at home and with the growth of international norms of transparency, and that it is time for Israel and others to consider a new bargain."  Among other things, he says, the continuing development of nuclear weapons-related technology in Iran is likely the force the issue to a new degree of clarity.

For the time being, however, there is no sign of any change in Israel's position on the matter.  "Israel has a clear and responsible nuclear policy, and it has frequently reiterated that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East," David Danieli of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission told Haaretz last month.  "Israel neither adds to nor subtracts from this statement."

Avner Cohen's "The Worst-Kept Secret" was reviewed recently in the New York Times and the Forward.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Russia Is Seeking to Build Europe’s Nuclear Plants


Rosatom to bid for Czech project, aims to expand EU market share
Russia's Rosatom, the world's largest builder of nuclear plants, is planning to expand its presence in the EU. The company is preparing a bid on its second EU project -- an expansion of the Temelin nuclear plant in the Czech Republic. Aside from expanding its reactor-construction business in Europe, Rosatom aims to boost its position in the worldwide fuel market from 17% now to 25% by 2025. The New York Times (free registration)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, September 24, 2010

Aid Sought for Nuclear Plants By MATTHEW L. WALD

Will a reactor be added? The Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Lusby, Md.Constellation Energy Will a reactor be added? The Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Lusby, Md
CEG assesses factors needed for Calvert Cliffs expansion
Constellation Energy Group may need more than just federal loan guarantees for it to press forward with a third reactor at its Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland, said CEO Mayo Shattuck. Since Calvert Cliffs is a "merchant" plant, it would benefit from high prices for competing fuels and high demand. But if prices are weak, owners may be unable to pay back construction loans. "I'd like to think we could get over the hurdle of this merchant dilemma," he added. The New York Times (free registration)/Green blog
.http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/aid-sought-for-nuclear-plants/?ref=energy-environment
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

IEA Says World Poverty Closely Linked to More Energy Supplies

IEA Says World Poverty Closely Linked to More Energy Supplies
The International Energy Agency has issued a report for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals meeting in New York that linked the eradication of the worst poverty in the world with access to energy resources, the New York Times reported today. The IEA said $36 billion a year was needed to help access to electric supplies and "clean-burning cooking facilities" over the next two decades to pull 395 million people out of poverty.

Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, was quoted as saying: "Without electricity, social and economic development is much more difficult. Addressing sanitation, clean water, hunger — these goals can't be met without providing access to energy." Wrote the Times: "Without a concerted international effort, it's unlikely that the problem will be solved, because markets alone won't address it. Companies are reluctant to invest in many areas because the return is not guaranteed, he said, so seed money is needed from wealthier countries."
New York Times, Sept. 22
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Experts Weigh Extending the Lives of Nuclear Power Plants to 80 Years

Image representing New York Times as depicted ...Image via CrunchBaseExperts consider plant operations beyond 60 years
Several industry experts are weighing the prospects of prolonging the operations of existing U.S. nuclear plants for up to 80 years. "This gets down to developing techniques to measure the condition of the plants," said Charles Forsberg of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. Operators would want a "clearly defined" license-renewal process before they allocate funds to refurbish facilities, said John Butler, director of engineering and operations support for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The New York Times (free registration)/ClimateWire
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The Bomb Chroniclers

Meet The Men Whose Job Was To Photograph Nuclear Explosions

ZERO HOUR Milliseconds after the image at left, the vehicles beneath the fireball were obliterated. "How to Photograph an Atomic Bomb"
The Bomb Chroniclers -- New York Times
They risked their lives to capture on film hundreds of blinding flashes, rising fireballs and mushroom clouds.
The blast from one detonation hurled a man and his camera into a ditch. When he got up, a second wave knocked him down again.
Then there was radiation.
While many of the scientists who made atom bombs during the cold war became famous, the men who filmed what happened when those bombs were detonated made up a secret corps.
Read more ....
Enhanced by Zemanta