Sunday 24th of November 2024

not in my back nor front yard.....

Having done everything possible to oppose action to mitigate climate change and replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, the federal opposition has suddenly decided to embrace the most illconceived and inappropriate solution for us (‘‘Why nuclear power doesn’t add up’’, March 19). Nuclear energy produces the most expensive energy compared with renewables; ...

 

we have no local expertise in building and operating anything nuclear, or to refine, purify and enrich our own uranium. The time frame to build even one nuclear reactor would mean that Dutton and Littleproud would have long departed parliament and our coalfired plants would have long ceased being operational. The conclusion must be drawn that, having lost the argument that climate change is real, the opposition is promoting nuclear to pretend it has an actual policy, provide an alternative that keeps it at odds with the government, knowing full well it will never eventuate, and to keep the fossil fuel industry in business for as long as possible.

Alan Marel, North Curl Curl

 

The opposition leader continues to deny the analysis of experts such as Steven Hamilton and Luke Heeney, adopting tactics designed to discredit the ‘‘elites’’ and sowing seeds of doubt against professionals with whom he disagrees. This reveals a potentially dangerous trend, fostered by Peter Dutton, to make uninformed statements questioning the integrity of those who have worked diligently to develop particular expertise. We have been well served over a long time by academics, researchers and other professionals Politicians are doing a great disservice to the community by attempting to undermine their credibility.

Ross Butler, Rodd Point

 

This sensible piece muses on how we went from the Liberal Party opposing climate action in favour of the cheapest energy source to one opposing climate action in favour of the most expensive – nuclear. It’s simple. Despite protestations, the Liberals want to delay for as long as possible the demise of fossil fuels. They also know if they tell the truth that fossil fuel retention is a nonnegotiable requirement of their vested interests, the public will scorn them. What to do? Develop a bizarre ‘‘energy policy’’ that will take an extraordinary time to deliver. Fossil problem solved.

 

Alison Stewart, Riverview

Nuclear-generated electricity may not be the leader economically, but Peter Dutton envisages it to be a winner in election outcomes. The possibility of decades of fossil fuelsupplying power plants until nuclear comes online will be welcome news to many in mining electorates. Logically, power generation must be assessed in terms of carbon emissions reduction, the time frame involved and the economics: the nuclear option is an inadequate loser to renewables in this calculus.

Roger Epps, Armidale

 

Sadly, your correspondent Ann Parker has forgotten that the decommissioning of an old nuclear plant often exceeds the original costs (Letters, March 19). The decommissioning of UK’s Sellafield site is over budget £121 billion ($235 billion) and employs 1500 skilled workers. When these enormous costs are added to the total project costs, nuclear power blows out even more. But we do not need to worry, because the government will pay.

Peter Wotton, Pyrmont

 

SMH, 20/03/2024 — LETTERS....

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

gates' nukes....

 

by Ekaterina Blinova

 

Bill Gates-founded TerraPower is seeking permission to build a new-generation nuclear power plant in Wyoming in a bid to promote the technology in Europe, Africa and Asia to sideline Russian and Chinese competitors. Will Gate's bold new project succeed?

US firm TerraPower has thrown its hat into the ring of the global nuclear energy market in competition with Russia and China.

The company claims its Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactors are safer, cheaper and more energy efficient than water-cooled power plants.

Belonging to the class of small modular reactors (SMRs), Natrium is reportedly capable of producing 345 megawatts (MW) and could be boosted to 500 MW for over five-and-a-half hours if needed.

 

Obstacles in Way of TerraPower

The technology tapped by TerraPower is nothing new, explained Alexey Anpilogov, a political scientist and expert in the field of nuclear energy. The concept of using sodium-cooled fast reactors and depleted uranium-238 as fuel was explored in detail back in 1958 by physicists at the USSR's Kurchatov Institute.

 

"The [TerraPower] system uses liquid sodium as coolant [which does not moderate neutron speeds], because it is very important for uranium-238 to have fast neutrons to cause fission," Anpilogov told Sputnik. "But this reactor has a nuclear safety problem. In the process of fission of uranium-238, which occurs in this reactor, more plutonium-239 is produced, and plutonium-239 is the best raw material for the production of nuclear weapons."

 

It remains unclear what will happen with the plutonium produced in the result of nuclear reaction, especially if Gates supplies the technology to third countries.

 

The nuclear proliferation issue has haunted TerraPower for quite a while, Anpilogov noted.

 

 

"Even though TerraPower was created back in 2008, that is, almost 16 years ago, it has yet to receive a number of licenses that are necessary for the construction of a pilot experimental installation," the scientist said. "I think that the nuclear security issue, namely the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, will be a proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over Bill Gates' project."

While the USSR — and later the Russian Federation — mastered producing and exploiting sodium-cooled fast reactors, similar projects in Japan and France were eventually shut down, the scientist noted.

 

 

"Despite having a seemingly good engineering school, and a generally high level of technological production, the French and Japanese projects turned out to be unreliable," Anpilogov said. "Russia has developed a proven operating technology. And Bill Gates has a beautiful idea. But this idea still needs to be turned into reality to achieve the stability of all parameters."

 

US Energy Companies Trying to Catch Up With Russia, China

TerraPower and other US energy companies are striving to catch up with their peers in Russia and China, who exploit small, cost-effective SMR reactors of various types in Pevek and at Shidao Bay, according to the Financial Times.

Russia's floating nuclear power plant (FNPP) in Pevek is equipped with two KLT‑40S nuclear pressurized water reactors, whereas the Chinese use high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR) to power the Shidao Bay Nuclear Plant.

When it comes to fast sodium-cooled reactors, the technology has already been used in Russia's high-power nuclear devices of the BN series, Anpilogov said.

He pointed to the BN-800 reactor operating at Beloyarsk Unit 4 near the town of Zarechny, Sverdlovsk Region, Russia. The reactor boasts a generating capacity of 880 MW of electricity.

 

 

"Russia has implemented clear procedures for the BN-800 with regard to how fuel and its by-products are used because the BN-800 also produces weapons-grade plutonium-239, but it is constantly disposed of in the same fuel that is produced," Anpilogov explained. "We have no problems either with the United States, as some kind of external controlling force, or with the IAEA, which is the official authorized body of the UN that monitors the non-proliferation regime."

 

The smaller-capacity fast reactor niche could be filled by Russia's lead-cooled BREST-OD-300 (300MW) which is run on mixed uranium-plutonium nitride fuel (MNUP-fuel) specifically developed for the new generation of fast reactors by the Bochvar Institute, a research facility of Rosatom's TVEL Fuel Company. The project creates a base for development of commercial reactors, its designers say.

 

US Set to Conquer EU's Nuclear Energy Market

According to the Financial Times, TerraPower has already secured pledges from the US government of $2 billion to build an atomic power plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming.

TerraPower chief executive Chris Levesque told the newspaper that the company would begin construction work in June regardless of whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues permits by that time. The new nuclear power plant is expected to start operating in 2030.

Last December the company inked an agreement with the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation to supply its Natrium reactors to the United Arab Emirates.

"Nuclear energy has great commercial attributes but it also has huge geopolitical attributes. So you have to look at the competition in China and Russia, who are looking at Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere as future markets," Levesque told the FT.

Anpilogov noted that the US is already trying to squeeze Russia as well as its European rivals out of the nuclear fuel market. Washington has been twisting Europe's arm into abandoning Russian fuel as part of its latest sanctions spree.

In addition, US energy companies are seeking to increase their share in the nuclear reactor construction market at the expense of both Russian and European manufacturers.

 

 

"One needs to bear in mind that the departure of Germany [from the nuclear energy market], the problems of France with new-generation reactors, all this will be used by American companies in order to promote their technologies in every possible way, including the one TerraPower is still working on," Anpilogov said.

 

Europe does not have the political will and agility to fight for its technological sovereignty, according to the scientist.

 

 

"I think that the Americans will outplay the Europeans in the long run," Anpilogov said. "Europeans are divided; Europeans have long been incapable of doing any joint projects similar to that of Airbus. Bureaucrats have defeated businessmen due to the formal centralization of [the bloc's] economic life by the European Commission."

 

"The nuclear energy industry still involves high risks; these risks are not of a nuclear accident, but the risks of incorrect investments," the nuclear scientist added "And I don’t see political will in the EU for any new technological breakthroughs."

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240320/why-bill-gates-nuclear-reactors-are-no-match-for-russian-competitors-1117456186.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....