I have always felt that nuclear power was our future, because the power of the atom is undeniable. But power that great needs to be respected, controlled, and very carefully monitored. The current tragedy in Japan is a fair enough example of that, but the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters should have been more than enough.
Fine, everyone knows that fission is dangerous and finicky, but if you treat it with the respect and care it deserves, meltdowns, coolant leaks, and gas explosions can usually be avoided. And again, as the current tragedy in Japan has reminded us, if you build a reactor in an earthquake zone, you should make a point of earthquake-proofing it. And if that cannot be reliably done to protect against the worst-case-scenario, then you should consider an alternative source of power.
Fusion reactors are a much better option, but unfortunately, they are still only experimental. The proposed designs are similar in principle to fission-based power plants, but the primary hold-up is sustaining a thermonuclear reaction long enough to produce a reliable source of energy. The two best approaches to confinement of thermonuclear reactions available today with present technology are magnetic and inertial.
The largest magnetic-confinement fusion reactor currently under construction is the ITER tokamak in Cadarache, France. It is worth looking into: iter.org
The largest operational inertial-confinement fusion reactor is the NIF. It uses lasers to ignite the tritium-deuterium mix. You can check it out here: lasers.llnl.gov
As for the safety of fusion reactors over fission reactors, Wikipedia has a remarkably good summary with cogent points. It is available here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor#Safety_and_the_environment but I will also quote the first section of it for your benefit in case the article is ever tampered with or moved (all the links within the quote point back to relevant articles on wikipedia).
There is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment or injury to non-staff, unlike modern fission reactors. The primary reason is that nuclear fusion requires precisely controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters to generate net energy. If the reactor were damaged, these parameters would be disrupted and the heat generation in the reactor would rapidly cease. In contrast, the fission products in a fission reactor continue to generate heat through beta-decay for several hours or even days after reactor shut-down, meaning that melting of fuel rods is possible even after the reactor has been stopped due to continued accumulation of heat (Fukushima I incidents demonstrated the problems that can rise in a fission reactor due to beta decay heating even days after SCRAM, an emergency shutdown of the fission reactor).
There is also no risk of a runaway reaction in a fusion reactor, since the plasma is normally burnt at optimal conditions, and any significant change will render it unable to produce excess heat. In fusion reactors the reaction process is so delicate that this level of safety is inherent; no elaborate failsafe mechanism is required. Although the plasma in a fusion power plant will have a volume of 1000 cubic meters or more, the density of the plasma is extremely low, and the total amount of fusion fuel in the vessel is very small, typically a few grams. If the fuel supply is closed, the reaction stops within seconds. In comparison, a fission reactor is typically loaded with enough fuel for one or several years, and no additional fuel is necessary to keep the reaction going.
In the magnetic approach, strong fields are developed in coils that are held in place mechanically by the reactor structure. Failure of this structure could release this tension and allow the magnet to “explode” outward. The severity of this event would be similar to any other industrial accident or an MRI machine quench/explosion, and could be effectively stopped with a containment building similar to those used in existing (fission) nuclear generators. The laser-driven inertial approach is generally lower-stress. Although failure of the reaction chamber is possible, simply stopping fuel delivery would prevent any sort of catastrophic failure.
Most reactor designs rely on the use of liquid lithium as both a coolant and a method for converting stray neutrons from the reaction into tritium, which is fed back into the reactor as fuel. Lithium is highly flammable, and in the case of a fire it is possible that the lithium stored on-site could be burned up and escape. In this case the tritium contents of the lithium would be released into the atmosphere, posing a radiation risk. However, calculations suggest that the total amount of tritium and other radioactive gases in a typical power plant would be so small, about 1 kg, that they would have diluted to legally acceptable limits by the time they blew as far as the plant’s perimeter fence.
The likelihood of small industrial accidents including the local release of radioactivity and injury to staff cannot be estimated yet. These would include accidental releases of lithium, tritium, or mis-handling of decommissioned radioactive components of the reactor itself.
— Wikipedia.org, “Fusion Power” Pt. 3.1
As you can see, fusion reactors are much, much safer than fission reactors, and meltdowns are effectively impossible. And once tritium containment is perfected so none whatsoever leaks into the atmosphere, it will be the cleanest, safest, and most abundant source of energy ever known to humanity.
We must not forget atomic batteries either. They’re called batteries because they are portable, self-contained sources of energy, but in actuality they should be called nuclear-decay generators. They represent a highly customizable technology, and currently can be made as small as a penny (for liquid semiconductor atomic batteries)—select your energy requirements, match it to an appropriate isotope, and stick it in the most efficient package for your needs. Betavoltaic cells are one great option. They rely on beta-decay, so don’t need much shielding at all. The isotopes they use generally have really low alpha and gamma radiation, so even if you break them open (which is still a dumb idea, but I’m just saying), the harm is minimal. And the best part? We can customize atomic batteries to suit our current needs, swap out the chemical batteries and pop in an atomic, and we suddenly have mobile devices that never need to be charged. Just swap the battery once the half-life of the isotope expires. For some, that can be as high as 140 years (even longer, if your energy requirements are lower than normal, and the decay product of the isotope continues to produce enough of an electric charge). The isotopes keep decaying at high energies for centuries. The problem is actually not with them, but with the semiconductor material. It breaks down over time, as the decay particles pass through it to produce a charge. Obviously, liquid semiconductors are better than solid, and will last substantially longer. This sort of technology will allow for stable, long-use portable power, in basically any environment, and at least 90% of the components (including all of the reaction mass) can be recycled.
Now that I’ve talked a little about the current options for nuclear power, I can get on to my actual point. The use of nuclear power and propulsion in Placeholder.
(Spoiler Alert! The rest of this post discusses technical details of Placeholder’s plot and primary characters.)
Nuclear Energy in the SPQS Universe:
The political system of the SPQS is (obviously) imperialistic with a transnationalist economy. The military controls the civilian government, and education is restricted to military personnel. Furthermore, higher education is restricted to Officers. The best that a civilian can expect in this world is grade school (elementary), plus some trade school in their teenage years. Every citizen of the SPQS is given rigorous personality, aptitude, and IQ tests throughout their childhood, plus a final placement test shortly before their twelfth birthday. This is a very nasty system and means no freedom for anybody, not even the privileged Officer-class. The Military government controls all resources, all supply lines, all employment, all education, and even all religions. But it is functional, insofar as the safety and welfare of the human race as a whole is taken care of, and communist-style rationing isn’t necessary because a transnational military government has full control over nuclear energy (and weapons), and doesn’t have to answer to anybody.
Any functional government has to also promote loyalty within its citizenry; while a military government can often be cruel and cover it up with propaganda, it’s actually easier to play nice with the people who can’t get up to much trouble in the first place. Your average citizen actually wants safety and comfort above freedom and education, as sad as that may seem to some. So long as they are ultimately left to live their life in peace, have their needs and comforts attended to, and can find some amusement to distract them from their work (even if they happen to love their work), then society as a whole will remain stable.
Now, this point is important. Nuclear power is perceived as dangerous, and has to be treated with respect and care. Who better to be the stewards of the atom than our soldiers? They are disciplined, sharp, used to an undue amount of stress that would make a normal person crack, and ultimately, extremely responsible individuals with a great respect for authority. They are also willing to lay down their lives for a greater cause—a fact most civilians can’t even appreciate. With specific training in nuclear engineering, they are the perfect candidates to work in a reactor. So having nuclear power exclusively in the hands of the military might not be such a bad thing. It would certainly boost public confidence in nuclear power.
Of course, even if the people didn’t like it, a military government could impose it’s own ideals on society. With enough propaganda, anything is possible. And a space age society needs nuclear power. Nothing else is even close to good enough.
I also mentioned a lack of restrictions. Allow me to elaborate. There are certain aspects of nuclear energy that are currently unavailable to the general public, and even unavailable to our militaries and research institutions. Thanks to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty of 1996 (which has not yet entered into force), our options for maximizing the beneficial uses of nuclear energy are severely limited. Inertial confinement fusion is one workaround (which is a stipulation that the US is trying to enforce for the CTBT before ratifying it), because it allows simulation without the need for actual thermonuclear detonation. But still, any hope of launching a nuclear pulse propulsion rocket, whether from orbit or from earth, was completely crushed by the partial test ban, and only further enforced by the later two treaties. For feasible interplanetary and interstellar exploration and colonization, we need nuclear pulse propulsion at the very least. There’s no way around that. Chemical rockets are too inefficient, wasteful, and expensive to support a successful, active space program. But that’s what we’re stuck with. The SPQS has no such restrictions. They control all nuclear energy, fuels, and weapons, so they can use them to their best ends. And seriously, what use does a universal-military-government have for nuclear weapons? They might maintain a stockpile, just in case, but in that situation at least 99% of nuclear R&D would go into power and propulsion tech.
Right now, the only real limitation on atomic batteries is the expense in making them. NASA uses them when they have to. They’re a good, reliable, long-term source of energy to power their space probes. And they’ll certainly come in handy on manned missions to Mars (if NASA ever gets around to doing it). But as any technology, now that we have it, it will be improved over time and the costs will go down as they become mass-produced. Right now, atomic batteries are very much ‘special use’, and complete overkill for most purposes. But as our mobile technology is steadily improved, and power requirements keep raising, the move from chemical to atomic batteries will be a natural one. Obviously, in the SPQS Universe, atomic batteries are used exclusively, because even the ‘simplest’ devices have advanced AI systems that require multicore processing in a modular computing environment. Also, they have moved entirely from electronics to optronics (except for a few select people who also have access to quantum computers), and optical computers are only more energy efficient when kept entirely self-contained. Powering a ship-wide optical computer network with several supercomputer cores is actually very energy taxing, especially when many of the systems are constantly running and all of them need to be kept cooled (in addition to all the other electrical draws from life support, mechanics, internal and external sensors, etc., etc.). It’s worth the cost though; optical cores are a big step up from our current processing capabilities, and don’t need much of a refinement to the logic behind it (whereas with quantum computers, it’s a whole new science; everything has to be redesigned from the ground up, to harness the unique properties of quantum systems).
Lastly, the SFS Fulgora is outfitted with two fission reactors; instead of hard water, they use an inert pressurized gas to drive the turbines. The primary reactor is always running, whereas the secondary reactor is only used during peak times when strain needs to be taken off the primary. The reactors have no connection with the nuclear pulse propulsion rocket, except for powering the systems which make it work. Most of the electrical power is needed for the MRD, computer systems, and lab equipment.
Nuclear Propulsion in the SPQS Universe:
I’ve already talked a bit about Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, but there are other options. I’ve only focused on nuclear pulse propulsion because that is what the SFS Fulgora is outfitted with. Within Placeholder, it’s considered barebones backwards tech. The SFS Fulgora is stuck with it simply because it was the cheapest practical option to meet mission requirements.
I should also mention why the SFS Fulgora needs a rocket in addition to the MRD—after all, it has a jump drive, so why does it need traditional propulsion at all, beyond simple ion drives for shuffling around local space? Simply put, since they designed the MRD with Relativistic M-Theory in mind, the MRD can only be used to merge two ‘level’ points within spacetime: interstellar space. The calculated ‘gravity wells’ caused by a star’s gravitational field are strongest within the heliosphere, and thus according to Relativistic M-Theory, are heavily warped regions of spacetime. When a REZSEQ is performed between two disparate gravity wells, the object itself is reintegrated with massive distortion because of the errors introduced in the calculation of spacetime by the 4n model. This problem is overcome when Konrad reprograms the MRD with his 11n model, allowing him to jump between stable orbits of planets. But that is a unique capability of his ship (until the SOLCOM Celestine Corps catches up with him and reverse engineers his work). Until he reprograms the MRD, though, the SFS Fulgora has to be piloted out of the solar system, beyond the heliopause to level space. The ship can then only be jumped to a location beyond the heliosphere of another system, and piloted into it. This requires a robust means of propulsion, to cover distances of up to 100 AUs within 3 months. No mean feat, let me tell you. But a nuclear pulse propulsion rocket is capable of achieving velocities upwards of .1c (10% of the speed of light). After that, acceleration peters out. The shaped nuclear charges no longer detonate quickly enough or produce enough of an effect to add any additional acceleration. ie., you’re just wasting fuel at that point.
There are better nuclear rockets, of course. For example, there are some good designs for fusion rockets and antimatter-catalyzed nuclear propulsion. But since the SFS Fulgora is supposed to be a low-budget research vessel (without even a proper artificial gravity system), I thought it unlikely that they would go ahead with a top-notch antimatter or plasma-based propulsion system.
Anytime you start dealing with nuclear energy and/or propulsion in spaceship design, you have to think about shielding the crew from it. But the truth is, most of the harmful radiation astronauts face is from cosmic radiation, not the reactors or engines they might some day get. Granted, any extra radiation from these sources would only make matters worse, but my point is only that radiation shielding is already an essential aspect of spacecraft design for extended missions.
My solution for the SPQS Universe is the new and exciting field of meta-materials. It has so much potential that I couldn’t leave it out—but it also requires its own post. Suffice it to say for now, that I used a choice selection of metamaterials for radiation-shielding. Combine that with more traditional means of radiation shielding for the reactor and nuclear rocket, and you have a safe and happy crew, unencumbered with radiation sickness and sterility, even on the longest of space voyages.
I suppose that about covers it. My main points have been to identify the risks involved with nuclear energy, but also show how in the ‘right’ hands (emphasis on quote-unquote), it’s actually the cleanest form of energy we have. It just needs to be respected. Naturally, we need to have an invested commitment in perfecting fusion technology, so we can start building safer and cleaner reactors; but even fission, when managed properly, is cleaner than coal or natural gas, and is normally much less detrimental to the environment than hydro dams or windmills. People who build and run fission reactors need to understand that you can’t cut corners with nuclear engineering, because a meltdown is as bad as a dirty bomb. But again, if they’re built to standard, and managed with vigilance, they are exactly what we need to step into the future we’ve always dreamed of.
And as far as Placeholder and the SPQS Universe is concerned, I made my future history dominantly atomic because it’s still the best source of energy we have. Maybe someday we’ll discover something better, but every other avenue that’s been explored requires more energy input than we can get back (such as with the models for antimatter-based power plants). But you never know.
In my next post, I’ll deal with the new field of meta-materials. It’s an especially exciting topic, since it’s such a new field that it hasn’t gotten much treatment in science fiction yet. And in the SPQS Universe, it’s fundamental to just about everything.
— the Phoeron


MHPS: Handover Completed for Turbine Generation Facilities at Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 in China
Operations Begun, Follows Start at Sanmen Plant Unit 1
- All standards required by China cleared in functional, safety confirmation, and performance tests
- 1,250 MW high-quality turbine generation facilities to contribute to stable energy supplies
YOKOHAMA, Japan, Dec, 19 2018 - (JCN Newswire) - Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd. (MHPS) announces that the steam turbine generation facilities supplied for the Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant in China have cleared all functional, safety confirmation, and required performance tests, and a handover was made on December 11. Operations at the plant have begun, making it the second site with a 1,250 megawatt class pressurized water reactor (AP1000), after the Sanmen nuclear power plant.
The Haiyang Unit 1 began fuel loading on June 21, 2018, and reached 100% output in mid-September. On October 22, the facility reached the 168 hours of continuous demonstrated operation required by the Chinese government, and performance tests were completed on November 6. As with the Sanmen Plant Unit 1, MHPS conducted the appropriate prior verification tests of the interface between the nuclear reactor and turbine sides. The meticulous project management and close communication led to a smooth start of official operations. Trial operations for the next system, Haiyang Unit 2, are proceeding steadily, and are expected to reach 168 hours of continuous demonstrated operation within the year.
The Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant was built by Shandong Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. in Haiyang, Shandong Province, approximately 130 kilometers east of Qingdao. This is the first nuclear power plant built in Shandong Province, and the first nuclear power project undertaken by Shandong Nuclear Power's parent company, State Power Investment Corporation Limited (SPIC).
The Haiyang facility comprises two units, each with an output of 1,250 megawatts. Based on a technology transfer agreement with Harbin Electric Corporation, MHPS handled the designs for the turbine, heat exchanger, and auxiliary equipment, and transferred the technology. MHPS also manufactured and provided six low-pressure turbines, two high-pressure turbines, the main valves, and other equipment for the two units within the facility. Harbin Electric handled the manufacturing of the turbine casing, heat exchanger, and other equipment, while Mitsubishi Electric and Harbin Electric each supplied one of the two generators.
Going forward, MHPS will continue to contribute to resolving the global issues of stable energy supplies, economic development, and reducing the environmental load by providing steam turbines for safe, highly reliable nuclear power generation facilities.
About Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd.
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd. (MHPS), headquartered in Yokohama, Japan, is a joint venture formed in February 2014 by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Hitachi, Ltd. integrating their operations in thermal power generation systems and other related businesses. MHPS today ranks among the world's leading suppliers of equipment and services to the power generation market, backed by 100 billion yen in capital and approximately 20,000 employees worldwide. The Company's products include GTCC (gas turbine combined-cycle) and IGCC (integrated coal gasification combined-cycle) power plants, gas/coal/oil-fired (steam) power plants, boilers, generators, gas and steam turbines, geothermal power plants, AQCS (air quality control systems), power plant peripheral equipment, digital solutions and solid-oxide fuel cells (SOFC).
For more information, please visit www.mhps.com.
Corporate Communication Department
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Email: [email protected]
Source: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd.
Copyright ©2019 JCN Newswire. All rights reserved. A division of Japan Corporate News Network.


Our Nuclear client is looking for a Nuclear Piping Designer to support projects based out of their Peterborough, ON location.
With our Nuclear client you will be required to work on on technically challenging projects as a member of the Fuel Handling mechanical engineering team. You will be responsible for the design of mechanical equipment and systems for CANDU reactors. Projects will involve you in the design, development and test of mechanical equipment for automated and semi-automated fuelling machines, robotic systems, and maintenance tooling for CANDU reactors and related systems. There is also opportunity to work on site assignment at one of the nuclear power plants in Ontario.
- Provide execution of design and analysis of complex CANDU piping systems from concept to issue of final engineering documents.
- Preparation or approval of design documentation, specifications, design reports, analysis reports, technical specifications, applicable codes & standards, development and test plans, and engineering quotations requests. Prepare and present technical data to internal and external customers as required.
- Performing piping stress analysis calculations, overpressure protection calculations and reports, pipe support load capacity data sheets, etc. Traditional methods of the analysis as well as the use of associated software packages would be included.
- Support of existing equipment to address obsolescence issues, performance shortcomings, and troubleshooting scenarios.
- Maintain knowledge of stress analysis techniques and applications and provide consultation to design engineers as required.
- Assure proper documentation of technical data generated for the assigned projects and/or tasks is consistent with engineering policies and applicable standards.
- Adhere to on-time/on-budget criteria associated with project commitments and customer success.
- Bachelor or Masters of Engineering degree in Mechanical with specialization in piping system design and analysis techniques.
- PEO certified Professional Engineer, or in process.
- Knowledge in the application of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Section III and VIII), ASME B31.1, B31.3, CSA N285.0, CSA B51.
- Experience with creation of Nuclear piping design reports in accordance with ASME NB/NC/ND-3600.
- Experience with creation of Nuclear piping overpressure protection reports in accordance with ASME NB/NC/ND-7000.
- Minimum 10 years experience in mechanical engineering analysis practice in a manufacturing environment with modern technology.
- Minimum 5 years experience at Nuclear Power Plant in Ontario
- Strong preference given to experience related to CANDU nuclear heavy water systems or safety systems: Primary Heat Transport, Moderator Auxiliary Systems, Fuelling Machine Auxiliaries, Purification, Leak Collection, Shutdown and Maintenance Cooling, ECI, etc.
- Consideration given to experience related conventional CANDU light water systems: LP Service Water, HP Service Water, etc.
- Knowledge of the jurisdictional processes for pressure vessels (TSSA, CNSC).
- Competence in mechanical equipment design and design processes.
- Creative problem-solving skills, outstanding analytical abilities, demonstrated leadership skills and the ability to work in a team environment.
- Knowledge of Nuclear Engineering Change Control Process


NUCLEAR MEDICINE DEPARTMENT HEAD
Doctor Elise Lestanc
Nuclear medicine groups together all of the medical procedures which require the use of radioactive markers for diagnosis or therapy.
The external detection of gamma radiation after administering a radioactive isotope, provides functional imaging of various organs (allowing the observation of the metabolism).
Nearly all organs are now regularly examined using this method: skeleton, heart, lungs, thyroid, kidneys, brain, etc.
WHICH EXAMINATIONS ARE PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT?
The Hôpital Foch nuclear medicine department is divided into two units:
The standard scintigraphy unit for the more common scintigraphy imaging techniques:
A PET (Positron Emission Tomography) unit, open to hospital patients 3 and a half days per week for FDG, Choline and (soon) F-DOPA PET scans.
The nuclear medicine department is located on level -1 of the south wing of the main building (Blue Sector)
The department is open 8am to 5pm, Monday to Friday.
To make an appointment
Appointments can be made by telephone: 01 46 25 23 20 for nuclear medicine, and 01 46 25 22 16 for PET scans.
For Scintigraphy appointments
Reception tel.: 0146252320


Radiation Tolerant Devices
Monday April 14, 2014
Way back in 1999 Thistle Design manufactured a unique Radiation Tolerant Encoder for use in the Vitrification Plant at Sellafield.
This device combined an Incremental Encoder with a Wire Wound Potentiometer connected by an integral precision gearbox. The resulting twin output was capable of operating in extremely high radiation environments (100,000,000 Rads).
Thistle Design has continued to develop encoders, meters and counters for use in the nuclear industry for both operational and decommissioning projects.
The latest device developed is Incremental Encoder Type 24SQ-126 for EDF Energy’s Torness Power Station.
The design is based on lessons learned during the development of a range of Absolute Encoders for EDF Energy’s Hartlepool Power Station.
These were successfully Type Tested at a cumulative radiation dose of 70kRads at a certified nuclear test facility.
The 24SQ-126 is a generic design capable of being assembled to give a variety of output options.
The available range is:
20 to 1000 PPR


Where a crown jewel once stood in NASA’s ambitious plans for human space exploration, now lays a green field. Current regulations bar NASA from directly building or researching fueled nuclear devices. Yet, in a bygone era five decades ago, the space agency’s future was dependent on one facility: the Plum Brook Reactor Facility in Sandusky, Ohio.
NASA turned on its first, last, and only nuclear fission test reactors in 1961 to research nuclear-powered airplanes, then eventually nuclear-powered space rockets. But the mounting cost of the Vietnam War and waning interest in manned space exploration led President Richard Nixon to mothball the NASA Plum Brook Station’s two test reactors in 1973.
Ending nuclear propulsion research and development, as this document will describe, may have been an over-reaction fueled by a bad economy and by anti-nuclear proponents in the 1970’s. NASA Glenn and NASA Plum Brook Station could potentially help not just Ohio’s economy, but America’s economy, in the development of new nuclear technologies, while being safe, making the environment better, and aiding in the creation of thousands of good paying jobs.
NASA’s Roots in the Atoms for Peace Program
In 1953, President Eisenhower delivered a speech called “Atoms for Peace” to the United Nations General Assembly. He described the emergence of the atomic age and the weapons of mass destruction that were piling up in the storehouses of the American and Soviet nations. Although neither side was aiming for global destruction, Eisenhower wanted to “move out of the dark chambers of horrors into the light, to find a way by which the minds of men, the hopes of men, the souls of men everywhere, can move towards peace and happiness and well-being.” One way Eisenhower hoped this could happen was by transforming the atom from a weapon of war into a useful tool for civilization.
Many believed that there were unprecedented opportunities for peaceful nuclear applications. These included hopeful visions of atomic powered cities, cars, airplanes, space bases, and interplanetary and possibly even interstellar spaceships. Eisenhower wanted to provide scientists and engineers with “adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas.” But in attempting to devise ways to use atomic power for peaceful purposes, scientists realized how little they knew about using reactors for propulsion. As a result, the United States began constructing nuclear test reactors to enable scientists to conduct research on the atom.
American scientists and engineers carried out the “atoms for peace” initiative at the nearly 200 research and test reactors built in the 1950s and 1960s. Test and research reactors are very different from power reactors, which are built to produce power by converting the heat produced from nuclear fission into electricity. In contrast, research and test reactors are used for scientific and technical investigations. Research reactors help engineers design experiments to enable them to build better reactors with desirable characteristics. Though some private commercial and academic institutions built some research and test reactors, the federal government supported the large majority of them. One of the most powerful in the world (60MWth) was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) test reactor, located at Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio. From 1961 to 1973, this reactor was home to some of the most advanced nuclear experimentation in the United States. The facility also supported a second test reactor, though much less powerful (110 KWth.).
In addition to the nuclear reactors, many of the test facilities constructed at NASA Plum Brook are nuclear capable, meaning, they are designed to be subjected to radiation.
Nuclear Powered Aircraft
One specific 1950s aim for this 1960s research reactor was to build a nuclear-powered airplane (bomber) capable of staying aloft for months at a time. To support this effort, in 1956 NASA’s predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), began to design and build a large test reactor at Plum Brook Station. By the time the reactor was completed in 1961, President Kennedy had suspended the nuclear aircraft program in favor of inflight refueling. However, in its place he advocated an even bolder plan—a nuclear powered rocket. The Plum Brook Reactor Facility became one of the primary nuclear research facilities to test materials for this rocket. Working with contractors from Lockheed, Westinghouse, General Dynamics, and General Electric, scientists and engineers conducted many groundbreaking nuclear experiments.
Despite the promise of their work, many of the valuable experiments were never concluded. In 1973, just over a decade after President Kennedy first extolled the nuclear rocket’s importance, the project shared the fate of the nuclear airplane. In the post-Apollo era, NASA terminated costly, long-term, non-reusable projects like the nuclear rocket in favor of programs that appeared to have greater immediate payoff, such as the Space Shuttle. Two weeks after Apollo’s last mission, Plum Brook was ordered to shut down its reactor. The entire facility was maintained in a standby mode (under a “possess but do not operate” license) for nearly a quarter century. In 1998, a decommissioning plan was formulated to dismantle the reactor piece by piece, until nothing would be left but bare land, suitable once again for farming. $253 Million taxpayer dollars later, the area now has achieved greenfield status with the EPA.
The Economic Impact of A Large Manufacturing Facility
The original impetus for building NASA Plum Brook Station (NPBS) was the Aircraft Reactor Experiment that started after WWII (May, 28th 1946). The facility was envisioned to carry out the experiments necessary to engineer, build, and put a fleet of nuclear powered bombers in the skies that could stay aloft for months on end, without refueling, to protect America from a Soviet Union attack.
NPBS was to be a modern test facility to do all the testing that Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL was, and still is, America’s premier nuclear testing facility), Argonne National Laboratories, and Los Alamos National Laboratories, could not do, in order to commercialize the production of these envisioned nuclear powered bombers.
Since its inception, the purpose of the NPBS facility, along with its parent NASA Glenn (formerly NASA Lewis), was to test and commercialize nuclear power systems, though its focus has changed as the missions of NASA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have changed. While initially the NPBS mission was of a terrestrial nature (a nuclear powered bomber), one week after NPBS’s reactor went critical John F. Kennedy cancelled the nuclear powered bomber program. NPBS was then transitioned to a Nuclear Space Power laboratory.
NPBS was not used for its intended purpose. The building of a fleet of nuclear powered bombers would have employed thousands of persons in very well-paying manufacturing jobs. A production facility at Plumb Brook was envisioned that would have been larger than the Lordstown, OH General Motors manufacturing facility.
“Why was Sandusky, OH chosen to develop a nuclear powered bomber fleet?”
One of the most prominent reasons for selecting Sandusky, Ohio was that our government wanted the facility to be close to a workforce experienced in the type of manufacturing and assembly that could produce a bomber fleet. This requirement ruled out most of our other national laboratories, such as ORNL, at the time. The thought was, when it came time to build a prototype nuclear bomber, many new manufacturing techniques would have to be developed, and it made sense to develop a mass assembly plant for producing nuclear bombers on the same grounds where the prototype was developed. The size of NPBS was right for an airstrip for the takeoff and landing of bombers needing service and refueling. Sandusky ports on Lake Erie could be made capable of accommodating ships that would deliver materials necessary for construction of the bombers. The facility had access to a modern highway system, and was close enough to the lake, a water source that may have been needed for cooling future test reactors.
Couple the NPBS facility with NACA facility in Cleveland, Ohio, Ohio’s Uranium Enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio, the planned Ohio State University’s research reactor and nuclear engineering program, and Wright Patterson Air Force Base’ mammoth testing facilities in Dayton, Ohio, and it is easy to see why the federal government saw Sandusky, Ohio as the ideal location for the development and commercialization of a state of the art nuclear bomber production facility. Sub-assemblies would feed a production facility of this nature and fuel-assemblies built and developed elsewhere in Ohio, with many of those workers trained at OSU’s nuclear reactor facility. A massive number of machine and tool shops and other manufacturers would have been engaged in the manufacture of these state of the art bombers.
Reviving an Old Idea with a new Purpose
Think of the potential benefits that 5,000 high paying assembly jobs would have meant to Sandusky, Ohio and to the State of Ohio. Think of what the potential 60,000 direct and indirect jobs would have meant to the State of Ohio and to the United States. [Job numbers have been estimated from a Ford Mass Assembly study] A nuclear bomber mass assembly plant would have had the potential for massive economic impacts across all industry and professional sectors in Sandusky, Ohio, its surrounding townships, and for the State of Ohio, as well as many other states.
Ohio has a large nuclear presence. Its nuclear reactors include two commercial civilian nuclear power plants, one in Northeast Ohio and the other in Northwest Ohio, both on the shore of Lake Erie; and a test reactor at the Ohio State University; Babcock and Wilcox, a company that builds nuclear power plants, originated in Cleveland and still does nuclear research and supply chain functions in the state. Battelle Memorial is headquartered in Columbus and has extensive experience running laboratories that deal with nuclear power. Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton was home to a reactor that was to fill the same type of mission the NPBS reactor was to fulfill: the development of a nuclear powered bomber.
Reviving and Re-envisioning a Mass Assembly Plant
What would you think of reviving this massive mass assembly plant envisioned at NPBS – minus the nuclear bomber?
All of the positive factors of a mass assembly plant continue to be applicable today, but toward a different and more beneficial end. During the aircraft reactor experiment, the MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) was conceived as the best reactor to put in an airplane because it could be made very small and did not need water as a coolant. Alvin Weinberg, who was the director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory at the time (he also owns the patent for today’s modern light water reactors, like the kind at Davis Besse and Perry nuclear power plants in Ohio), became a strong proponent of MSR technology. Dr. Weinberg saw this molten salt reactor technology as the future of civilian nuclear power for producing electricity.
MSRs produce no long-lived nuclear waste, cannot melt down, are inherently safe, and can most easily be adapted for construction on an assembly line. Additionally, these MSRs can be made to consume current nuclear waste stockpiles as a fuel, or use Uranium, Plutonium, or Thorium as a fuel. According to many studies MSRs will produce electricity at half the cost of coal (a very conservative estimate). Because of their low production costs, and because MSRs will produce no carbon emissions, they will improve our environment and give us a leg-up on manufacturing competition in the world market place. This will help to bring back to America millions of jobs that have gone overseas. MSRs can even produce energy cheaply enough to transform our massive reserves of coal into environmentally friendly synthetic gasoline and synthetic diesel fuel that can help make America energy independent, and make the OPEC (Oil Producing and Exporting Countries) irrelevant in determining the price you pay to fill your tank at the gas pump.
Additionally, molten salt reactors can produce the medical isotopes that we do not make here in America. We are dependent upon the rest of the world to create and provide us the isotopes we use here for over 320,000 medical imaging procedures per week, and there are periodic shortages which worry our medical community and potentially harm American patients. MSRs will produce in quantity, isotopes that show the very real potential for curing cancer and HIV AIDS. Abundant and valuable medical imaging Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) radioisotopes could be produced by a small multipurpose liquid-fueled molten-salt reactor (MSR). Additionally, a fleet of commercial scale Utility MSRs could provide Actinium-225 and Bismuth-213 for research and treatment of cancer and HIV AIDS.
Currently, America is helping China develop and commercialize our MSR technology. This is a proven technology, as a molten salt reactor was built and successfully operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, without incident, for more than four years in the late 1960s – early 1970s. America just never commercialized the technology. This is the very same technology (MSR Technology) that was envisioned to be commercialized and mass-produced in Ohio at NPBS for the nuclear bomber fleet.
Many organizations and startup companies are encouraging American legislators to jump back into the Molten Salt Reactor race (Flibe Energy, TransAtomics, and ThorCon), as China, Russia, and India have stepped up their efforts to commercialize this American-developed technology. With a change in administrations in Washington, DC, and direction toward adopting a long-term national energy strategy in 2016, together with support from Ohio legislators and our Congressional delegation, America may very well join and win the MSR race. Ohio could be, and arguably should be, the “heart of it all” for a MSR program revival.
Many in Erie County and Huron County (where NPBS is located), had been pressing for NPBS’s massive 6,400 acres to become a wind farm. However, with Ohio’s change on supporting a renewable energy mandate with the passage of Ohio Senate Bill 310 in 2014, and the possible repeal of Ohio Senate Bill 221 in 2015, coupled with the end of the federal wind production tax credit, creation of a wind farm at NPBS is very unlikely.
A very positive use of the facility would be a testing and research facility for development, and mass assembly plant for production of, small modular molten salt reactors that could be shipped around the United States by truck, rail, or ship. Such a mass assembly plant would still be on the order and scale of a Lordstown assembly plant, employing some 5,000 direct jobs in northern Ohio, and indirectly employing 60,000 . [Job numbers have been estimated from a Ford Mass Assembly study].
During 2015, eGeneration Foundation, based in Cleveland, Ohio will be promoting NPBS and Sandusky, Ohio as the best place for the U.S. government to base a Molten Salt Reactor commercialization program. Will Ohio legislators and our Ohio delegation in Congress step forward and openly embrace the development of this technology and manufacturing facility at NPBS? Only the future will reveal this.
Why Produce Molten Salt Reactors in Ohio?
Ohio is one of the most energy abundant states in the country; rich with a diverse array of energy resources ranging from fossil fuels to nuclear based civilian power plants. Ohio’s economy also ranks among the most energy-intensive in the nation, home to energy-dependent industries ranging from agriculture to manufacturing.
At the turn of the 20th century, Ohio was the largest oil producer in the United States. With the Appalachian Basin, which crosses the eastern part of Ohio, and with recent oil and gas formation discoveries, the state may return to being a large oil and natural gas producer. The Basin’s Marcellus shale formation contains shale gas, and the Utica shale formation contains both tight oil locked in shale and gas.
Besides oil and natural gas production, Ohio has long been a perennial coal producer as well. Ohio is currently the 10th largest coal producing state.
Because of Ohio’s energy resources, the state has always supported and benefited from a heavily industrial economy. Today, Ohio’s energy consumption is among the highest in the nation. The industrial sector dominates energy consumption in Ohio, largely due to several energy-intensive industries, including chemicals, glass, metal casting, and steel.
But, Ohio’s energy prices have been steadily rising in comparison to its economic competitors in the same industrial sectors, such as, China, India, and South Korea. This rise in energy costs is primarily caused by federal EPA regulations and the early closure of many coal-fired plants that power Ohio’s economy. As energy costs rise, products produced in Ohio become less competitive in the world marketplace, and that means less revenue, less business, and ultimately a lackluster Ohio economy. Additionally, RPSs (Renewable Portfolio Standards) mandated by the State of Ohio, mandate high-cost clean energy sources. These costs, combined with federal regulations, create a trying atmosphere of competition for manufacturers.
eGeneration’s SAFER Alliance is promoting and pursuing the development of a Department of Energy-envisioned Clean Energy Parks initiative for the development of Gen IV molten salt reactors. NASA Plum Brook Station’s 6,400 acres has high-tension lines running across its property (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant’s primary distribution lines) making it a very promising location for a joint NASA/Department of Energy – Clean Energy Park initiative.
To boost NASA Plum Brook’s chances to lure business to the region and create more jobs, civic leaders in the facility’s home base of Erie County, and in Cleveland, where NASA Glenn is located, have tried raising funds to build an airport with a 9,000-foot runway at NPBS without success.
The runway would make it much easier to transport large, bulky spacecraft components and sensitive satellites to Plum Brook for testing.
Currently, such items are flown into airports in Cleveland or Mansfield and trucked 50 to 60 miles to the NASA facility, requiring police escorts and special traffic arrangements. Some potential Plum Brook customers opt to test bits and pieces of their space hardware at smaller government or private facilities individually, rather than transport the full-sized article to Ohio for testing. This piecemeal testing is a costlier process and does not accurately simulate real world conditions.
United Launch Alliance, a Denver-based commercial space launch company, tested the nosecone of its Atlas V rocket in Plum Brook’s largest vacuum chamber in 2002 after flying it into Cleveland Hopkins International Airport aboard a giant Russian cargo jet.
“Certainly having a runway out there would have made that a lot easier,” said United Launch vice president George Sowers.
NASA’s budget doesn’t have the estimated $40 million the Plum Brook runway would cost, nor the additional $40 million or more for roads and other infrastructure to support it.
The runway project “remains one of our highest priorities,” said Carol Caruso, a vice president at the Greater Cleveland Partnership at the time.
Economic development and NASA officials think that the airport, in turn, would be a catalyst for development of a 1,200-acre high-tech business park on Plum Brook land that NASA is willing to lease. The site has railroad and highway access, and ample cheap water, electricity and sewer service.
Erie County Commissioner Patrick Shenigo foresees a cluster of spacecraft and satellite company tenants who want to take advantage of the proximity to Plum Brook’s facilities for quick-turnaround tests, as well as nuclear energy or other research firms that could benefit from NASA’s engineering expertise.
Such business clusters already exist near NASA centers in Florida, Alabama, and Texas.
Currently, about 25 NASA employees work at Plum Brook. If the runway brings more testing work to the center as expected, and its NASA workforce rises to 100, that should generate 475 new commercial jobs in the area and an economic boost of $45 million, according to a 2009 study cited by Commissioner Shenigo in the Sandusky Register.
If a desktop sized molten salt research reactor were to be built onsite, such a reactor could produce enough medical isotopes to supply half of America’s Molybdenum99 (medical isotope) needs. Currently, America depends upon other countries for a vast majority of its Molybdenum 99.
A medical isotope production facility at NASA Plum Brook would generate a large amount of economic activity and an income stream more than sufficient to pay for the construction and operation of an airport necessary for the facility’s operations in distributing medical isotopes throughout the United States in a timely manner. Isotopes produced at the facility would be placed in medical isotope generators and then flown to cities all over the United States for deliver to local hospitals and nuclear pharmacies. Such a medical isotope facility would potentially employ 500 highly skilled workers and professionals, including logistic professionals.
The Congress and the NRC have suspended the rules that otherwise prohibit a test or research reactor from making a profit by allowing such a reactor to produce medical isotopes (Molybdenum 99) because the federal government has recognized an impending Molybdenum 99 shortage crisis.
eGeneration advocates for an NRC permit to allow up to six research size molten salt reactors to be constructed on site at NASA Plum Brook Station for the purposes of research and materials testing, and for the production of Molybdenum-99 medical isotopes.
This group would consist of three reactors to produce Molybdenum-99. These reactors would be heavily outfitted with instrumentation to monitor their internal operational characteristics. This will serve as an information gathering and development tool depicting the behavior of these reactors in normal operation with a high fidelity. In addition to the three MSRs for Molbdenum-99 production, three additional reactors will be built. One reactor will be built to study uranium molten salt fuel, a second reactor will be built to study thorium molten salt fuel, and a third reactor will be built to study the use of traditional nuclear waste as a fuel to produce energy. Concurrent with testing and research being conducted, all of America’s Molybdenum-99 needs could be met by such a NASA Plum Brook Medical isotope facility. This is a $1.5 billion and growing medical isotope market.
The clean energy park concept builds on a DoE initiative to transform DoE sites formerly used to support national defense missions into energy parks focused on future clean energy production. Such initiatives will allow reuse of existing assets, aid in the clean up of these sites, and support sustainable economic development for their respective regions.
Northern Ohio is the location of a major portion of Ohio’s manufacturing base. This is where NASA Plum Brook Station is located. In fact, this NASA site sits directly in the middle of Northern Ohio, an energy production facilities there would be easily shared with manufacturing centers to the west (Toledo, OH) and to the east (Cleveland, OH).
This project is not a walk in the park. It will initially focus on the environmental analysis ultimately necessary to support deployment of Generation IV Molten Salt Reactors, as well as development of licensing documents for submittal to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The SAFER Alliance believes that a Generation IV molten salt reactor, providing very cheap carbon-free electricity to millions of homes, creates a compelling Clean Energy Park story. MSRs have the potential to significantly reduce energy costs for consumers.
At the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in northeast Ohio, Perry I is one of the most powerful reactors ever built. The utility had plans to build a second reactor on site, but Perry II was only partially completed. With Perry’s infrastructure and its current connections to the electrical grid, the Perry II site would be a very attractive placement for a 1/4 scale pilot MSR producing electricity for the grid.
Piketon, OH Uranium Enrichment Facility
Piketon, Ohio is very close to Ohio’s coal country. It is within the Marcellus shale formation, is in close proximity to many old and non-producing oil wells, and is close to the Utica shale oil formation. The Piketon, Ohio Uranium enrichment facility is a 3,777 acre complex in Southern Ohio, now operated by the Department of Energy, which is in shutdown status. It is the last American owned facility capable of producing commercial quantities of Low Enriched Uranium for use in civilian reactors.
This facility has a long history of working with nuclear materials, and a Duke Energy led alliance is leading efforts to establish a clean energy park and build an Areva-designed Generation III+ reactor there. It makes sense to base a high-temperature full-scale pilot Molten Salt Reactor at this location, as well. There will be a need for quite a bit of research and development into harnessing the heat and electricity produced by an MSR to convert coal into liquid transportation fuels. The Piketon facility could provide the perfect testing grounds for a full-scale pilot reactor with applications in the coal and oil industry. Excess carbon dioxide easily harvested from the production of coal-derived synthetic fuels, powered by MSRs, can be pumped by pipeline to many of Ohio’s thousands of played out oil wells where carbon dioxide is needed to enable enhanced oil recovery. Additionally, the electricity produced by a pilot molten salt reactor plant could be used to convert Natural Gas to synthetic gasoline or methanol.
There is a natural synergy in many respects for the Piketon, OH facility and the production of energy and fuel, and the facility is already owned by the Department of Energy, which will allow the elimination of a lot of red tape.
Financing America’s Economic Recovery
Molten Salt Reactors can be adapted to consume traditional nuclear waste. Producing electricity from nuclear waste is a much better use of that waste than to store it for hundreds of thousands of years. The federal Nuclear Waste fund has in excess of $28 Billion and earns $750 Million in interest every year. Legislators could properly authorize the use of these funds to develop commercial MSR technology in Ohio with the intent to reduce our nuclear waste stockpiles and produce energy.
These small reactors are envisioned to be constructed on an assembly line, and the NASA Plum Brook site would fulfill all of the criteria of a business wanting build an MSR mass assembly plant. Such a plant on the grounds of NASA Plum Brook would potentially directly employ 5,000 workers of various skill sets.
Additionally, there are technologies that are currently not economically viable to transform oil shale (kerogen), coal, other heavy oil deposits, and MSW (Municipal Solid Waste from trash) into oil and synthetic liquid transportation fuels. Their lack of economic viability is due to the cost of the massive amounts of energy required to transform these feedstocks. MSRs can allow for the economic development of these fuel sources.
- Advocating for NASA Plum Brook to host very small research molten salt reactors for the purpose of Molybdenum-99 production, while researching MSR engineering issues, makes sense from a security standpoint, not only for America, but for the world.
- Medical Isotopes (Molybdenum-99) produced from such reactors need to be distributed across North, Central, and South America. This business model can support the construction of an $80 Million airport required for such distribution.
- An airport at NASA Plum Brook means access to much more business for the testing facilities at Plum Brook.
- The NASA Plum Brook grounds are large enough to incorporate a business park that would support the mass assembly of molten salt reactors.
- Perry Nuclear power plant has the capability to support a ¼ scale test reactor that would be needed in the commercialization process of molten salt reactor technology.
- Piketon, Ohio’s uranium enrichment facility has the capability to host a full-scale modular molten salt reactor, which would require testing before initiating assembly line manufacturing of such reactors.
eGeneration is seeking Alliance members that support these initiatives and will be our organizational and funding partners.
Funding efforts will focus on:
- Public education regarding myths and realities of Generation IV nuclear reactors, including molten salt reactors, and their safety and benefits
- Organization of community roundtable discussions on these subjects with governmental and business and manufacturing interests
- Interacting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s various working groups
- Educating nuclear research and development committees, including governmental, private industry groups, and grassroots organizations
- Economic and feasibility studies
The environmental analysis ultimately necessary to support deployment of Generation IV Molten Salt Reactors, as well as development of licensing and site


08 May, 2019
Iran threatened Wednesday to restart enriching uranium in 60 days if world powers fail to negotiate new terms for the 2015 nuclear agreement.
In a televised speech, President Hassan Rouhani also said that Iran would stop exporting extra uranium and heavy water from its nuclear program. The export of heavy water and extra uranium were requirements of the deal.
Enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons. Heavy water is used to cool nuclear reactors.
Rouhani did not explain how much uranium it would enrich.
One year ago, U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement. China, Russia and European nations are still part of the deal, however.
After the United States withdrew from the deal, it put strong sanctions on Iran. The move caused a severe economic crisis.
Rouhani said Iran wanted to negotiate new terms for the deal with remaining partners. He wants new terms to permit Iran to sell its oil, which it currently cannot do because of the U.S. sanctions.
Rouhani also warned of a "strong reaction" if European leaders try to put more sanctions on Iran through the U.N. Security Council. He did not explain what a "strong reaction" might be.
Rouhani also said that Iran wants action within 60 days. If there is no action, Iran will stop a Chinese-led effort to redesign its Arak heavy water nuclear reactor. Such reactors produce plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons.
U. S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday was meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt for talks before Trump's visit to Britain next month. Pompeo told reporters the United States would decide how to answer Iran after Iran takes action.
Hunt said on Wednesday the agreement remained an important achievement and urged Tehran to think before breaking it. He said Britain and the United States agreed that Iran should never be permitted to have a nuclear weapon.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov welcomed Tehran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif for talks on Wednesday in Moscow. Following the meeting, both countries condemned the United States for leaving the deal a year ago, a move they say caused the current problems.
Zarif gave his own warning from Moscow.
"After a year of patience, Iran stops measures that (the) US has made impossible to continue," he wrote on Twitter.
The 2015 nuclear deal lifted economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. Iran reached the deal after years of negotiations that included secret talks in Oman between Iran and the administration of former U.S. President Barack Obama.
Western governments had long feared Iran's nuclear program could lead to the development of nuclear weapons. Iran has always said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The United States left the deal after Trump campaigned on a promise to end the agreement. His administration says the deal should have put limits on Iran's ballistic missile program. It also believes the deal did nothing to end Tehran's efforts to influence Iraq and other countries in the area.
There is still hope for the deal. Iran did not walk away from it, but instead chose to stop exporting its extra uranium and heavy water. Observers say that means there is still the possibility for an agreement to be reached.
Under the 2015 deal, Iran cannot keep more than 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium and 130 tons of heavy water. By comparison, the country used to possess 10,000 kilograms of higher-enriched uranium.
I'm Susan Shand.
The Associated Press and the Reuters News Agency reported this story. Susan Shand adapted it for VOA Learning English. Ashley Thompson was the editor.
Write to us in the Comments Section or on 51VOA.COM.
Words in This Story
uranium – n. a radioactive element that is used to make nuclear energy and nuclear weapons
sanctions – n. an action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws by limiting or stopping trade with that country, by not allowing economic aid for that country,
plutonium – n. a radioactive element that is used to make nuclear energy and nuclear weapons
patience – n. the ability to wait for a long time without becoming annoyed or upset
ballistic missile – n. a weapon that is shot through the sky over a great distance and then falls to the ground and explode


U.S. Industry Opportunities for Uranium Production Technology Devel...
The Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain (NE-4), conducts Research and Development (R&D) focused on technological advances for the front and back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. One area of research includes Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Transportation (UMCAT) R&D activities. The goal of this program is to fund R&D for technological advances that benefit the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle and enable competitive domestic uranium production and supply chain stability.The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to fund projects that enable cost competitive domestic uranium production and conserve water. Specifically, this FOA seeks proposals for R&D projects focused on uranium mining water treatment technologies that reduce the volume of water usage associated with and/or improve extraction efficiency and resource utilization for uranium production. This may include subsurface in situ treatment ...
- Nonprofits having a 501 (c) (3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education
- Nonprofits that do not have a 501 (c) (3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education
- For-profit organizations other than small businesses
- Small businesses


Physicians call for a moratorium on nuclear power
CPPNews –Ottawa- "There is no safe level of radiation exposure," said Michael Dworkind, MD, immediate past president of Physicians for Global Survival. “Only recently scientists discovered that background natural radon was responsible for an estimated 20% of lung cancers in Canadians; the same scientists estimate that 20% of childhood leukaemia occur as a result of exposure to natural radiation.” “We cannot continue to expose human populations to increased radiation from nuclear power plants,” he said.
With its United States affiliate, Physicians for Global Survival called for a moratorium on new nuclear reactors in Canada and a suspension of operations at the nuclear reactors on fault lines. PGS cited the medical risks associated with radiation exposure and stressed that, unlike x-rays which expose a person for a limited time, radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants expose entire populations and are the “gifts that keep on giving”.
“Human fallibility being what it is, the only way to avoid nuclear accidents is to not build nuclear reactors," said Dr. Birkett, a long time member of the board of Physicians for Global Survival.
According to the US National Academy of Sciences, any exposure to radiation increases a person's risk of developing cancer. In the case of the Japanese Fukushima reactors, the primary radionuclides of concern are:
Cesium-137 and Iodine-131 are fairly easy to measure and were used to mark the extent of the Chernobyl radiation contamination, but, in fact, there are more than 47 radioactive elements being released during the Fukushima disaster. Physicians are concerned that external radiation exposure does not adequately account for the effects of internal emitters.
Medical treatment for radiation exposure is limited, at best. Iodine pills provide only limited protection against the absorption of Iodine-131, mostly in children. It does not offer protection against gamma irradiation from Iodine-131.
The public health risk from a large radioactive release from Canadian reactors near densely populated areas around Toronto is substantial.
Physicians for Global Survival is also deeply concerned about the financial effects of an accident at a Canadian nuclear power plant because the federal government would be liable for the environmental and human costs.
Physicians for Global Survival applauds the increased safety measures that have been taken by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission but maintains that nuclear power cannot be made completely safe. “Clean renewable energy is the only sustainable option” said Dr. Richard Denton, President.
Physicians for Global Survival calls upon the Government of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to:


Dr. Prasun Kumar Mukherjee
FELLOW, ELECTED 2014
Born in village Nowanagar, West Bengal, on 18 October, 1963. Educated at Khujutipara RGJ High School, Burdwan Municipal High School, Visva Bharati, GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. Ph.D. (Plant Pathology) 1991.
Scientific Officer H and Professor and Head, Environmental Biotechnology Section, Nuclear Agriculture and Biotechnology Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai.
Principal Scientist (Plant Pathology), Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur, 2011-13 on deputation.
Awards/Honours: Dr. K.S. Krishnan DAE Research Fellowship; Prof. M.J. Narasimhan Academic Merit Award and J.F. Dastur Memorial Award, Indian Phytopathological Society; Pran Vohra Award, Indian Science Congress Association; BOYSCAST Fellowship (DST); VASVIK Award; Govt. of India-Dept. of Atomic Energy Homi Bhabha Science and Technology Award; Govt. of India-Dept. of Atomic Energy Group Achievement Award (as Group Leader, twice); Fulbright-Nehru Academic and Professional Excellence Fellowship; Visiting Scientist, Israel Institute of Technology, and Texas A&M University.
Fellow: National Academy of Sciences, India.
Research Areas: Biological control, Trichoderma, fungal genetics, secondary metabolism
Address: Scientific Officer H, Nuclear Agriculture & Biotechnology Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai 400085, Maharashtra; Kamet 13 B, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400094, Maharashtra; [Tel: Off: (022) 25590367, Cell: 9757414312; Fax: (022) 25505151; Email: email@example.com]


An experimental study was carried out to determine the radiation doses received by the brain, thyroid glands and the genital organs (i.e. ovaries testicles) of the babies in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) during chest radiography. A Perspex block phantom of similar size to the neonate was exposed to radiation using the actual average exposure parameters that applied normally in the NICU. The doses were measured using thermo-luminance lithium fluoride dosimeter chips (TLD). The entrance and exit doses were then measured for the brain, thyroid and gonads organs. The measurement was obtained with and without shielding. The results of our study showed that infants did not receive what might be considered excessive radiation from diagnostic modalities. Entrance Skin Dose (ESD) was found to be below the European Committee (EC) reference dose of 80 mGy for mobile chest radiographs. Applying the radiation protection shield such as 0.5 mm lead rubber sheet is of great value in reducing the radiation doses to the brain cells and the gonadal organs.
Emadeldin B, Abukonna A
All Published work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Copyright © 2018 All rights reserved. iMedPub LTD Last revised : May 22, 2018


By Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon
The White House is currently examining ways to enable Iran to have its own “domestic” uranium enrichment program, according to a senior Obama administration official.
Iran has made clear that it will not halt activity at its nuclear sites in Fordow and Arak despite promises to do so
As the details of a six month interim nuclear deal between Iran and Western nations are hashed out, the White House is exploring the practicality of permitting Iran to continue certain enrichment activities, an issue that Iranian officials have described as a “redline.”
“Over the next six months, we will explore, in practical terms, whether and how Iran might end up with a limited, tightly constrained, and intensively monitored civilian nuclear program, including domestic enrichment,” White House National Security Council (NSC) spokesman Caitlin Hayden told the Washington Free Beacon.
“Any such program,” she said, “would be subject to strict and verifiable curbs on its capacity and stockpiles of enriched uranium for a significant number of years and tied to practical energy needs that will remain minimal for years to come.”
The White House clarified its openness to a limited Iranian enrichment program just days after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani promised to “forge ahead” with the country’s controversial nuclear program.
Rouhani stated over the weekend that Iran’s contested enrichment program would “never stop” despite the regime’s promise to eventually halt most nuclear activities for a period of six months under an interim agreement inked two weeks ago in Geneva.
The deal reached in Geneva would provide Iran up to $7 billion dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for a temporary halt to some of its nuclear activities, including the enrichment of nuclear fuel to high-grade levels.
Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, had been a key sticking point in Geneva. Many in Congress say that Iran should be forced to dismantle its entire nuclear program and be prohibited from all enrichment activities.
Asked about Rouhani’s promise to continue enriching uranium—a promise echoed by other senior Iranian officials—the White House’s Hayden told the Free Beacon that “the United States does not recognize that Iran has a ‘right to enrich.’”
However, “the Iranian people should have access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” Hayden said, echoing recent comments made by Obama.
The precise requirements of the interim deal with Iran have yet to be finalized, the White House told the Free Beacon last week. This means that Iran is not yet beholden to the six-month nuclear freeze negotiated as part of the deal.
The White House could not tell the Free Beacon late Monday exactly when these final discussion will take place.
Congressional critics have lambasted the White House in recent days for approving a deal that they say would allow the Iranians to continue their most controversial nuclear activities.
“Providing Iran with sanctions relief without dismantling their nuclear weapons program was a colossal mistake,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) told the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the White House has reportedly been aggressively lobbying lawmakers to shelve legislation aimed at imposing new sanctions on Iran.
Read full news report - http://freebeacon.com/white-house-exploring-ways-to-let-iran-enrich-uranium/
STATE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT MOST OF IRAN'S URANIUM ENRICHMENT OCCURRED UNDER THIS U.S. ADMINISTRATION
BOTH THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT OBJECTED TO U.S. COURT-ORDERED COMPENSATION FOR IRAN GOVERNMENT VICTIMS
WHITE HOUSE SECRETLY NEGOTIATING WITH HEZBOLLAH TERRORISTS
WHITE HOUSE ARMING AL QAEDA IN SYRIA


Despite this cooperation, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Saudis in January there would be “all kinds of NPT consequences” if Riyadh received a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.
The Saudis began financing Pakistan’s atomic weapons project in 1974. “Our achievements are yours,” the Pakistani president, General Zia-ul-Haq, told the Saudis in the 1980s.
In the late 1980s the Saudis secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China. The CSS-2, also known as the Dong Feng, is based on the Russian 9K720 Iskander missile. The intercontinental ballistic missile is designed to carry a 3 megaton nuclear warhead to a distance up to 12,000 kilometers.
“I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan,” said Gary Samore, Obama’s former counter-proliferation adviser.
In 2013 a senior NATO spokesman told the BBC nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are ready to be delivered. In 2009 King Abdullah warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross Saudi Arabia “will get nuclear weapons” if Iran pursued a nuclear weapons program.
Following the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, the Saudis reasserted their desire to obtain a nuclear weapon.
“I think Saudi Arabia would seriously try to get the bomb if Iran did. It’s just like India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis said for years they didn’t want one, but when India got it, so did they,”said Jamal Khashoggi, the head of a Saudi news channel owned by the Saudi royal family.


OUR BIG OSCAR TIP! Acclaimed director Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, Dunkirk, Tenet) is back with the story of American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his role in the development of the atomic bomb.
The film stars Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Oscar® Winners Matt Damon and Rami Malek and Oscar® Nominees Robert Downey, Jr., Florence Pugh, and KennethBranagh. Written and directed by Nolan, the film is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and the late Martin J. Sherwin.
- MA 15+
- 180 MINS


Last August 17, at 8:41 a.m. Eastern time, Earth received a message from deep space that solved — perhaps — a decades-old puzzle.
The message began as a subtle quiver in the fabric of space, a gravitational wave. It grew to a cosmic cacophony that included gamma rays, radio waves and visible light. It all emanated from a galaxy roughly 130 million light-years away, where the dense cores of two long-dead stars collided. In the debris from the crash, some of the heaviest atoms in the cosmos, such as gold, platinum and uranium, were born.
For over 60 years, scientists had debated where such elements came from. Some physicists favored supernovas, the violent explosions of massive stars. Others suspected that heavy elements might be generated in the explosive collisions of superdense neutron stars, remnants of supernovas. But no direct conclusive evidence had been available to settle the question. Thanks to the August 2017 gravitational wave signal, though, astronomers could train a full array of instruments on the collision site. Their data now confirm that precious heavy metals and heavier radioactive atoms emerged from the neutron star smashup.
Astrophysicist Friedrich-Karl Thielemann, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, and colleagues had just wrapped up a paper about the issue for the Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science.
“It was a relief,” he says. “All the things discussed in my review have been happening.”
Researchers had long ago figured out how lighter elements in the cosmos had formed. The unimaginably high temperatures of the Big Bang gifted the cosmos with hydrogen and helium (plus a dash of lithium) by fusing together primordial protons. Further fusion reactions in the cores of the first stars forged heavier elements, such as the carbon and oxygen needed for life. But stellar fusion can produce elements no heavier than iron, atomic number 26 on the periodic table.
“After that, it gets murky,” says Matthew Mumpower, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Stars are in the business of producing energy to radiate into space, which fusion accomplishes nicely. But fusing nuclei heavier than iron consumes energy, rather than releasing it. Populating the rest of the periodic table — the dozens of elements with atomic numbers higher than iron — requires a different strategy.
Adding protons to make nuclei with higher atomic numbers doesn’t usually work. Protons carry a positive electrical charge; it’s tough to stuff more protons into heavy atoms because of the overwhelmingly repulsive positive charge from the protons that are already there.
Fortunately, there are neutrons. They are electrically neutral and so can slip into a nucleus easily. And they possess a secret weapon — the ability to transform into protons. A nucleus capturing a neutron can then emit an electron, turning the neutron into a proton, and thereby raise the atomic number — creating a new, heavier element.
Neutron by neutron
This neutron capture process can proceed slowly or rapidly. When slow, it’s called the s-process: Neutrons enter the nucleus much more slowly than they can create protons. The s-process takes place over thousands of years in the bloated interiors of aging stars. It’s responsible for about half of the elements heavier than iron.
The rest of the periodic table, including its heaviest members, relies on rapid neutron capture: the r-process. If the s-process resembles the gradual carving of a canyon by a trickle of water, then the r-process is like the rupture of a dam wiping out a village. In the r-process, a tsunami of neutrons overwhelms the atoms, penetrating them faster than the rate of changing into protons. Each nucleus becomes stuffed with neutrons until it can’t hold any more. The nucleus becomes dramatically unstable and either splits into two lighter elements, is transformed by high-energy light, or decays as one of its neutrons morphs into a proton, creating a heavier element that can now take on more neutrons.
It’s the r-process that has kept scientists busy for six decades. While physicists struggled to understand the dizzying variety of ways that new nuclei could be created, astronomers searched the cosmos for a site that could produce the necessary torrent of neutrons.
Evidence from existing stars suggested that elements born in the r-process must come from a single type of source. Every star that harbors r-process elements — including the sun — has them in the same relative amounts.
“The relative ratio of r-process elements in the sun is actually universal,” says Alexander Ji, an astronomer at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California. “The fact that it’s so consistent means that it has to be drawn from a single place.”
For decades, the prime suspects were supernovas, the cataclysmic deaths of stars much more massive than the sun. But the more theorists pursued that possibility, the less likely the supernova explanation seemed. “We were having trouble in supernova models getting enough neutrons fast enough,” says Jennifer Johnson, an astronomer at Ohio State University.
A rare source for rare elements
In 1982 astrophysicists Eugene Symbalisty and David Schramm suggested that collisions between neutron stars might work. Suspected to exist in the 1930s and first detected in the 1960s, neutron stars betrayed their presence by emitting regular pulses of radiation, earning the designation of pulsar. The first binary pulsar — a pair of neutron stars orbiting each other — had been discovered just eight years before Schramm and Symbalisty’s suggestion. Observations of the binary pulsar revealed that over the next few hundred million years, the two neutron stars would spiral closer together and eventually merge. Such a collision would probably eject gobs of neutron-rich material, which could then be folded into the next generation of stars and planets.
Other data also implicated neutron stars as r-process sources. Radioactive elements on Earth, for example, can reveal how much of these elements were created long ago based on how much remains around now. The r-process element plutonium-244, for instance, has a half-life of 81 million years. Its abundance today indicates initial yields much lower than expected from something as relatively common as a supernova. It seems that r-process synthesis must be a relatively rare event.
Dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way have also helped trace heavy element origins. These wispy collections of stars are considered probable remnants of the early universe, untouched since their formation. Because they are simple and pristine, they preserve a clear record of how their elements were synthesized.
In 2015, Ji (then at MIT) and colleagues examined the dwarf galaxy Reticulum II. They found that most of its brightest stars were loaded with r-process elements. Nine other dwarf galaxies showed comparatively few of these elements, indicating that at some point Reticulum II hosted a single, rare event that polluted its stars with r-process debris. Ji and collaborators concluded that a collision between two neutron stars could explain all the observations.
“You would need to have 1,000 supernovas to bring [the r-process abundances] up to the level observed,” says astrophysicist Anna Frebel of MIT, a coauthor of the Reticulum II study. But the dwarf galaxy is so tiny that it would never survive that sort of onslaught. “Just a few supernovas would blow this thing apart,” she says.
While the case for neutron stars was growing, the evidence remained circumstantial. No one had yet witnessed a definitive collision — until last August.
The initial signal came from LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, which operates instruments in Louisiana and Washington state. LIGO is designed to sense ripples in space-time from a variety of cosmic calamities. Virgo, a gravitational wave detector in Italy, helped triangulate where the gravitational wave signal was coming from.
Just 1.7 seconds after LIGO spotted the gravitational waves, NASA’s Fermi space telescope recorded a flash of gamma rays coming from the same direction. An automated system alerted the astronomical community. “It was a worldwide effort where basically every telescope pointed at this thing,” Ji says.
Details of the gravitational wave signal revealed that two neutron stars had spiraled together and merged. Colors of light from the crash scene revealed telltale signatures of newly formed heavy elements. The timescale, energy, colors and amount of ejected material all closely matched theoretical predictions for a neutron star merger.
“People are still sorting out which parts of it are not exactly the same,” says Ji. “But the overall picture is almost on the dot.”
The numbers are staggering. The neutron stars, whipping around each other hundreds of times per second, merged in just a few milliseconds. The ejected debris weighed up to as much as 4 percent of the mass of the sun. That material sped away at 20 percent of the speed of light, crossing an expanse equal to Pluto’s distance from the sun in under 30 hours. The entire synthesis of new elements occurred in less than one second. Researchers estimate that the synthesized gold alone was as massive as a few dozen Earths.
“This event was a double slam dunk,” says Brian Metzger, an astrophysicist at Columbia University. The observations revealed how much r-process material was produced and provided an estimate of how often such collisions occur. With just one event, the uncertainties in those estimates are pretty large. But given how long LIGO was searching and how deep into space it could peer, astronomers estimate that every year there are roughly 1,500 such collisions in one cubic gigaparsec, a sphere about 4 billion light-years across.
At that rate there is one collision in the Milky Way every 100,000 years. Supernovas are 100 to 1,000 times more frequent. But given the amount of material that neutron stars' mergers produce, their infrequent collisions are probably enough to account for the heavy elements found in our galaxy, says Mumpower of the Los Alamos lab.
The quest to understand the origin of the elements is far from over, though. “People who tell you that the site of the r-process has been solved are oversimplifying,” Mumpower says. “There are so many uncertainties, just on the nuclear physics alone.”
Last August’s neutron star collision told researchers that they are on the right track. But they don’t yet know if this event was typical or not. LIGO’s detectors are now undergoing an upgrade to improve their sensitivity. Once back online, LIGO could detect dozens of neutron star collisions per year, providing a much clearer picture of how the heavy elements are created and dispersed. “We’re in for a fun ride over the next decade,” Metzger says.


Opportunity at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Development of Nuclear Analytical Imaging Techniques for Materials Analysis with Spatial and Spectral Specificity
Material Measurement Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division
Please note: This Agency only participates in the February and August reviews.
|Chen-Mayer, Huaiyu Heather
The objective of this research is to develop new measurement capabilities for nuclear analytical techniques associated with the measurement of induced charged particle and/or gamma ray emissions during thermal and cold neutron beam irradiation. Nondestructive methods such as Neutron Depth Profiling (NDP) and Prompt Gamma Activation Analysis (PGAA) are well suited for applications in Li ion battery in-situ studies (NDP) and multi-elemental analysis (PGAA). The research will explore imaging of the induced charged particle and gamma ray emission, and develop image reconstruction techniques to obtain spatial distribution of the elemental composition based on spectral analysis of the emitted radiation. Much of the effort will be dedicated to developing and applying detection systems suitable for charged particle and spectral gamma ray imaging during neutron beam irradiation. The research is conducted at two neutron beam instruments at the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR).
Shrikant C, et al: Neutron depth profiling technique for studying aging in Li-ion batteries. Electrochimica Acta 56(13): 4735-4743, 2011
Paul RL, et al: NGD cold-neutron prompt gamma-ray activation analysis spectrometer at NIST. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 304(1): 189-193, 2015
Polf JC, Parodi K: Imaging particle beams for cancer treatment. Physics Today 68(10): 28-33, 2015
Charged particle imaging; Gamma ray imaging; Neutron activation analysis; Composition analysis; Prompt gamma activation analysis; Elemental analysis; Non-destructive analysis;
Open to U.S. citizens
Open to Postdoctoral applicants


New images from inside Fukushima reactor spark safety worry
TOKYO (AP) – Images captured by a robotic probe inside one of three melted down reactors at Japan’s devastated Fukushima power plant showed exposed steel bars in the main support structure and parts of its thick outer concrete wall missing. , causing concerns about its earthquake resistance. in the event of another major disaster.
The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, has been sending robotic probes inside Unit 1’s main control room since last year. The new findings released on Tuesday were from the latest investigation conducted at the end of March.
A remotely operated underwater vehicle called ROV-A2 was sent inside Unit 1’s pedestal, a support structure just below the core. He returned with images seen for the first time since an earthquake and tsunami crippled the plant 12 years ago. The area inside the pedestal is where traces of melted fuel are most likely to be found.
A roughly five-minute video — part of 39 hours of images captured by the robot — showed that the 120-centimeter (3.9-foot) outer concrete portion of the pedestal was significantly damaged near its bottom, exposing the steel reinforcement inside. .
TEPCO spokesman Keisuke Matsuo told reporters on Tuesday that the steel reinforcement is largely intact, but the company plans to further analyze data and images over the next two months to find out if and how the reactor’s earthquake resistance can be improved.
Images of exposed steel reinforcement have raised concerns about reactor safety.
About 880 tons of highly radioactive molten nuclear fuel remain inside the three reactors. Robotic probes have provided some information, but the status of the molten debris is still unknown. The amount is about 10 times greater than the damaged fuel that was removed during the cleanup of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the United States after the partial meltdown in 1979.
Fukushima Governor Masao Uchibori asked TEPCO to “quickly assess earthquake resistance levels and provide information in a way that the people of the prefecture can understand and ease the concerns of residents and people nationwide.”
Video taken by the robot also showed sliding equipment as well as other types of debris, possibly nuclear fuel that fell from the core and solidified, piling up to 40-50 centimeters (1.3-1.6 feet) from the bottom of the the main control room, Matsuo said. The pile is lower than mounds seen in images taken on earlier internal probes at two other reactors, suggesting the meltdown in each reactor may have progressed differently, company officials said.
Matsuo said the data gathered from the latest investigation will help experts find methods to remove debris and analyze the 2011 meltdown. TEPCO also plans to use the data to create a three-dimensional map of the details of the melted fuel and waste, which will last about a year.
Based on data collected from previous probes and simulations, experts have said that most of the molten fuel inside Unit 1 fell to the bottom of the main containment chamber, but some may have also fallen to the concrete foundation – a situation that makes it already scary The task of dismantling is extremely difficult.
Trial removal of molten debris is expected to begin at Unit 2 later this year after a nearly two-year delay. Removal of spent fuel from the Unit 1 reactor cooling pool will begin in 2027 after a 10-year delay. After all the spent fuel is removed from the pools, the focus is to return in 2031 to extracting molten waste from the reactors.


The production of power is essential to the world’s survival. Unfortunately, that same production often comes with a lot of environmental risks. The good news is that today’s technology and innovation have made it much easier for power plants to control their impact on the surrounding environment.
As preserving the Earth has become a central focus for much of the world, power generation has been forced to follow suit. Take a moment to check out a few ways in which power plants are working to reduce waste production.
Understanding the waste that is generated
The saving grace of nuclear fuel is that it contains a whole lot of energy. Plants don’t have to use a lot of the fuel to create mass amounts of energy, so only a small amount of waste is actually produced from the process.
If you need a visual representation of how much waste is produced, consider this. The amount of waste produced from the nuclear fuel needed to power a home for a full year would only be the size of a standard brick. It would only weigh as much as a sheet of paper.
Assessing the perceived health risks
Nuclear waste takes billions of years to completely become free of any harmful components, but it takes hundreds of years to degrade to the point that it is no longer super dangerous for humans. For that time, the nuclear industry has had to figure out how to contain the waste.
It’s important to know that the storage of nuclear waste also does not pose a significant health risk to the environment or humans surrounding the site. Even if there was a spill, it wouldn’t hurt the people who live nearby.
Storage options for the waste
After the use of nuclear fuel, the waste needs to be initially cooled before it can be safely stored. Plants use wet and dry storage facilities to contain the waste produced by the process. The waste is placed in large pools at first to initiate cooling.
After a sufficient time has passed for cooling the waste, it can be transferred to dry storage. Storage is not the last stop for the waste. After it has had time to degrade a bit, the waste is either recycled or put through a disposal process.
Nuclear waste can be recycled
Almost all of the waste produced for nuclear energy is reusable in another type of reactor. When plutonium and uranium are extracted from the waste, they can then be used to create new fuel rods.
Direct disposal of the waste
Direct disposal of nuclear waste means that the waste is placed in a special underground repository built to hold and contain the radiation for an indefinite amount of time.
The post How Power Plants Work To Manage Waste Production appeared first on WhatsNew2Day.


3.6 million pounds of highly radioactive nuclear waste are currently being buried on the beach at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego. Nuclear waste anywhere is dangerous, but storing it just 100 feet from the ocean and a few feet above groundwater creates unnecessary risk. With mounting evidence of rapidly-rising sea levels, the risk of saltwater intrusion is only increasing with time.
Currently, there are spent fuel pools that can be used if a fuel canister fails and needs to be repackaged. The California State Lands Commission’s Environmental Impact Report plans to remove the cooling lines for these, leaving no safeguard in place. In short, the current storage location and premature removal of the spent fuel pools and their cooling inlets and outfalls lack foresight and put the health and safety of the community and environment at risk.
Demand a better solution. Send in a comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report on Decommissioning San Onofre asking the commissioners to take these two actions:
- Decline to approve the dismantling of the cooling systems for the spent fuel pools until there is an alternate facility that can handle a potential failing canister.
- Send a letter to the Coastal Commission suggesting it consider moving the radioactive waste from its current beachfront location to a storage building on the Mesa, a location further east in Camp Pendleton, on higher ground and away from the ocean, which can be better protected, as soon as possible.
We must call for nuclear waste to be moved off the beach to a new temporary storage facility located further east on Camp Pendleton so it can be better protected from sea level rise and other risks. Nuclear waste experts have publicly supported this alternative, including former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko and retired Navy Admiral Len Hering. Moving spent fuel storage to the Mesa or another site further east on Camp Pendleton is the only appropriate and ethical choice we have until a national repository is available. You can send a pre-drafted message via email here, but feel free to edit the text. Please submit your comment by the deadline on Monday, March 18th at 11:59pm.


IFrance will release aid of 300 million euros for Ukraine, which has been facing an attack from Russia since February 24. Thursday, March 17, the head of French diplomacy Jean-Yves Le Drian confirmed, during an interview with his counterpart Dmytro Kouleba, the release of this envelope in the coming days, in accordance with “the commitment made” by the president. Emmanuel Macron with his counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky.
France is also delivering defense equipment and fuel support to Ukrainian forces. Ukraine enjoys massive support from the United States and other NATO member countries. Washington thus announced a military envelope of one billion dollars in one week. Jean-Yves Le Drian also pledged to “continue the efforts (of France) at European level to increase the cost for Russia of the continuation of its military operations”.
Fears around Chernobyl
Jean-Yves Le Drian also mentioned the “importance” of the discussions initiated under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concerning the security and safety of civil nuclear installations in Ukraine. Ukraine has accused the Russian army of having twice cut the power supply to the Chernobyl nuclear site and of having exploded munitions near a reactor in Zaporozhya, two power plants being under Moscow control. The old power station, scene of the most serious civil nuclear disaster in 1986, still needs energy to ensure the safety of the fuel assemblies stored on site. Russian tanks fired on March 4 at the Zaporozhya power plant, causing a fire and raising fears of a disaster.


As the leader of the ENVISION consortium of companies, NUVIA is proud to announce it has won a place on a four-year contract to deliver R&D support to the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).
The ENVISION consortium is a diverse team of innovative SME’s, internationally recognised nuclear consultancies, and world-renowned R&D development companies. Led by NUVIA, the consortium comprises Lucideon, TUV Nord UK, Createc, NucAdvisor, Cognition Land and Water, Empresarios Agrupados and CIEMAT.
This contract will allow the newly formed ENVISION team to provide substantial support to NDA in the field of Integrated Waste Management, Site Remediation and Decommissioning to help shape and underpin NDA’s overall decommissioning strategy for the UK, deliver innovation across the NDA estate and develop vital technical expertise for the future of the UK Nuclear Industry.
Photo: Example of innovative integrated remote decommissioning using laser cutting techniques