TODAY. Wonderful nuclear submarines!! Let’s not spoil the joy by thinking about their WASTES
Well, nobody knows what to do with them, you see. So the supposedly brilliant men who run the world have us convinced that we need nuclear submarines – to defend ourselves. But how are we going to defend ourselves from the thousands’ year toxicity of their ionising radiation?
The picture above gives a hint of the problem of nuclear submarine wastes on Russia’s Kola Peninsula. For 35 years, highly radioactive fuel assemblies have been stored in these rusty, partly destroyed steel pipes. Some 22,000 spent fuel assemblies are stored in the tanks, coming from 90-100 reactor cores powering the Soviet Navy’s Cold War submarines – about two times the amount of fissile material inside the exploded Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine.
Well – that’s the naughty Russians, isn’t it? So international countries, led by Norway, had to pay $billions to try to clean up their mess, which endangers Europe.
But surely the West is fine in their submarine waste management?
Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States built more than 400 nuclear submarines. Nuclear wastes from US submarines are also currently held in temporary storage, after 30 years and $7 billion, without arriving at a permanent storage solution. Britain has a number of dead nuclear submarines – but nowhere to put their wastes.
And that’s not counting the sunken nuclear submarines that continue to pollute the oceans with radiation
But let’s not worry , because the brilliant men are enthusing us about NEW nuclear submarines. And, after all, these heroes will probably be dead and gone when the radioactive shit hits the fan, whether by accident, or by the slow poisoning of future generations.
And anyway, Rafael Grossi has us convinced that releasing radioactive water into the seas is just fine.
Modelling shows estimated cost of Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan
Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW. When broken down, the modelling suggests each individual taxpayer would be burdened with a “whopping $25,000 cost impost” for such a transition
.Australian taxpayers would be slugged with a $387bn bill if Peter Dutton’s current plan to transition to nuclear was actioned.
Ellen Ransley, news.com.au, 18 Sept 23
Replacing Australia’s retiring coal-fired power stations with the Coalition’s suggested nuclear energy model would cost taxpayers up to $387bn, new modelling suggests.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, backed particularly by junior Coalition partners the Nationals, has previously suggested that Australia could “convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites”.
Mr Dutton has also said nuclear is the “lowest cost form” of low carbon electricity, but has not explicitly outlined how much such a transition would cost.
New analysis done by the energy department shows the projected cost, which assumes replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors, would be costly.
Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said Mr Dutton and the opposition “need to explain why” Australians would be slugged with a $387bn burden for their nuclear energy plan that “flies in the face of economics and reason”.
But the Greens have called on the government to stop the distraction and explain to Australians why they are forging ahead with new coal and gas projects when the country is in the grips of a “climate crisis”.
“Australia is forecast to have its worst summer since the Black Summer, and yet Labor is approving more coal and gas. Peter Dutton’s nuclear push is a distraction from Labor’s continual approval of new coal and gas projects,” party leader Adam Bandt said.
“We should not allow ourselves to be distracted by Peter Dutton’s push for nuclear when Labor keeps opening new coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis.”
A minimum of 71 small modular reactors – providing 300MW each – would be needed if the policy were to fully replace the 21.3GW output of the country’s retiring coal fleet.
Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW. When broken down, the modelling suggests each individual taxpayer would be burdened with a “whopping $25,000 cost impost” for such a transition.
The opposition want to trump the benefits of non-commercial SMR technology, without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it,” Mr Bowen said.
“After nine years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi-billion dollar nuclear flavoured energy policy.”
In total, the $387bn plan costs about 20 times what the Albanese government’s Rewiring the Nation fund is projected to cost.
The government says that fund will help achieve 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, by unlocking over 26GW of new renewable generation capacity, and over 30GW of transmission capacity.
When Mr Dutton made his pitch for a nuclear transition in July, he suggested the Liddell Power Station could be a possible site for a small nuclear reactor…………………………………..more https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/mining/modelling-shows-estimated-cost-of-peter-duttons-nuclear-energy-plan/news-story/39f543faf65d77c53f33ec8d10175d02
Bowen demolishes case expensive for nuclear power
AuManufacturing 19 September 2023
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen has rubbished opposition calls for Australia to embrace nuclear poower in the form of small modular reactors.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has injected his idea of a nuclear renaissance into the energy debate, suggesting he might change the Coalition’s official opposition to nuclear power, saying Labor was putting ‘party interests ahead of the national interest’.
According to the former head of the Australian Nuclear Scientific and Technology Organisation Dr Ziggy Switkowski who chaired a federal review of nuclear powe that ‘on paper, they (SMRs) look terrific’, but that we won’t know their costs ‘until the SMRs are deployed in quantity’.
Bowen told a Canberra press conference: “Since the last election, the party which spent ten years telling us we didn’t need to worry about climate change says they’ve found a solution for climate change and it’s nuclear.
“They didn’t bother for their ten years in office to promote a nuclear agenda, but as they desperately search around for an alibi for their hatred of renewable energy, they settled on this since the last election.”
Dutton made a nuclear plan the centrepiece of his Budget reply, but Bowen said there was actually no policy and nothing costed.
“Peter Dutton said at a speech earlier this year that it’s easy, you just plug and play nuclear in to replace coal. Well if it’s so easy, Mr Dutton, where is your plan?”
Bowen released cost estimates of $387 billion to replace Australia’s 21.3 gigawatts of coal-fired power with nuclear.
This would involve the construction of 71 nuclear reactors spread across Australia.
Given the public pushback on even low level waste disposal sites, any plan to build 71 nuclear power plants would likely be political suicide for any government……………………………………………more https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/bowen-demolishes-case-expensive-for-nuclear-power
Andreyeva Bay cleanup slows to a snail’s pace since invasion of Ukraine
https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2023-09-andreyeva-bay-cleanup-slows-to-a-snails-pace-since-invasion-of-ukraine 18 Sept 23 Charles Digges
In 2017, Russia began a landmark project ridding one of its most dangerous Cold War relics of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. The effort to clean up Andreyeva Bay — a submarine base near Murmansk uniquely positioned to contaminate the Barents Sea — was the culmination of a years-long and often strained cooperative effort between Moscow and numerous European nations, chief among them Norway and the United Kingdom.
The outbreak of war in Ukraine in February 2022 disrupted that progress and drained the project of millions in international funding as European nations suspended their contributions in protest of Moscow’s invasion.
In the early days of the war, officials with Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, insisted they would continue Andreyeva Bay’s cleanup without international assistance, though it was unclear on what funding that would be done.
It wasn’t until Rosatom’s annual conference convened in Murmansk this past July that any news of how these projects were progressing saw the light of day. But even then, the audience a was select one. Bellona — which had attended the annual Rosatom meeting in prewar times — has only viewed the conference presentations in written form.
In fact, none of Rosatom’s former international partners whose funding has driven the Andreyeva Bay project — nations like Norway, France, the United Kingdom and others from Europe— were invited. Instead, the international delegation consisted primarily of countries like Belarus, Kirgizstan, Uzbekistan and others from the Moscow-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States.
“Most of these countries don’t know anything about the Arctic,” said Bellona’s Alexander Nikitin, who is a former member of Rosatom’s Public Council, which was disbanded when the invasion began. “They were invited so the organizers could call the event ‘international.’”
As it turns out, Rosatom hasn’t made any significant progress on the cleanup since the war estranged it from its primary international partners. The problems that remained at the Andreyeva Bay site before war broke out are the same problems Rosatom is addressing now. And where the cleanup was forecast to be completed by 2028 before the Ukraine invasion, current projections by Rosatom officials put the completion date much later.
The disruption to Andreyeva Bay and other cleanup projects threatens to turn back the clock on more than two decades of environmental progress in Northwest Russia.
History
Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States built more than 400 nuclear submarines, assuring each superpower the ability to fire nuclear missiles from sea even after their land-based silos had been decimated by a first strike. The fjords and coastlines around Murmansk adjacent to Norway became the hub of the Soviet Northern Fleet, and a dumping ground for radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
After the Iron Curtain was drawn back, the disturbing scale of this legacy came to light. It was revealed that a storage building at Andreyeva Bay — the now notorious Building No 5 — had leaked some 600,000 metric tons of irradiated water into the Barents Sea from a nuclear fuel storage pool in 1982. The site contained 22,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies pulled from more than 100 subs, many kept in rusted containers stored in the open air.
This slow-motion nuclear disaster continued to unfold in near secrecy until Bellona brought it to international attention in 1996, when it published a groundbreaking report on Northwest Russia’s nuclear woes.
Fearing contamination, Norway spearheaded a sweeping cleanup effort with other Western nations. Combined they spent more than $1 billion to dismantle 197 decommissioned Soviet nuclear subs that rusted dockside, still loaded with spent nuclear fuel. One thousand Arctic navigation beacons powered by strontium batteries were replaced, many with solar powered units provided by the Norwegians.
Then, six years ago, the first batches of spent nuclear fuel began their journey away from Andreyeva Bay to safer storage — a process meant to continue for another decade thereafter. By 2021, more than half of the spent fuel assemblies had been removed. Later that year, damaged spent fuel fragments lying at the bottom of Building No 5’s storage pools had also been extracted. Real progress was being made.
Progress since the beginning of the war
Since the beginning of the war, however, the tempo of removing spent fuel assemblies has nearly ground to a halt. If 2017, the first year of the removal, saw 18 batches of spent fuel transported away from the site, then in 2022, according to various reports, only two batches left Andreyeva Bay.
The disposition of solid radioactive waste at the site, which includes solid waste inside the storage buildings, also remains unclear and appears to have slowed considerably as a result of the war. As of 2022, some 9,500 cubic meters of it — or roughly 51 percent of the entire legacy waste at the site — remained in place. This waste was scheduled to depart for other storage bases, such as the Gremikha site, by 2026. Now, that’s schedule may be unrealistic.
About half of Andreyeva Bay’s infrastructure— structures like Building No 5 and Building No 3-A, to which spent fuel in Building No 5 was rushed after the 1982 leak — remains irradiated and in need of safe rehabilitation or dismantlement. But since the schedule for removing solid waste from these structures has been pushed back from 2026 to sometime in the 2030s, dates for the completion of the dismantlement are likewise unclear.
Should that ever get done, what’s left of Building No 5 will present other problems. On the whole, the building itself represents some 15,300 tons of low- to medium level radioactive waste. The two options for dealing with this are to demolish the building and bury the debris in a radioactive waste storage facility, or encasing it in a sarcophagus, not unlike the one used at Chernobyl. As with the other issues at Andreyeva Bay, no real prospective conclusion date for disposing of Building No 5 has been discussed since the outbreak of war.
This is the first in a series of articles examining the state of nuclear cleanup in Russia since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine. charles@bellona.no
The risk that nuclear weapons could be used is tremendous – Finnish President on war in Ukraine
He also spoke in favour of cautious policy of such states as the US and Germany concerning supplying Ukraine with some kinds of armament, mainly for the attacks on Russia-occupied Crimea.
Yahoo News Ukrainska Pravda, Mon, September 18, 2023
Finnish President Sauli Niinistö warns Europe to be cautious concerning the risk of escalation of the full-scale Russian war against Ukraine.
Source: Niinistö expressed this opinion in an interview for The New York Times, as reported by European Pravda
Niinistö thinks that the war against Ukraine will last a long time and even though Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a “wake-up call” for Europe and NATO, now this fact is being gradually forgotten.
“We’re in a very sensitive situation. Even small things can change matters a great deal and unfortunately for the worse. That is the risk of such large-scale warfare. The risk that nuclear weapons could be used is tremendous,” Niinistö said.
He also spoke in favour of cautious policy of such states as the US and Germany concerning supplying Ukraine with some kinds of armament, mainly for the attacks on Russia-occupied Crimea………………………….. more https://news.yahoo.com/risk-nuclear-weapons-could-used-144000584.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAExkFb73zWCbee9AK_vuFm2BTmp0kiQDmDUXiBzV6qklzWqYIFsX_LXu9LAxNrBCYBq1jiKFYYNtTql41UYxMkGOceFZGslm7ZB2DP56ACiY6zTGQry2jsKbYix7589Hu54kZpAcm6jfdeJQDJs1JEs77sAiMK0vhn8GH6AyXa6s
Nuclear too costly, too slow, too risky for Australia
The federal government’s preliminary cost estimates for small modular reactors highlight one of the many reasons why this nuclear technology – which isn’t being commercially deployed anywhere in the world – is not a viable option for Australia.
Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear policy analyst Dave Sweeney said the nuclear option would dramatically increase household electricity bills, slow the transition to clean energy, introduce the possibility of catastrophic accidents and create multi-generational risks associated with the management of high-level nuclear waste.
“The government’s initial cost estimates show the unacceptably high financial costs of technology that does not even exist on a commercial scale,” Dave Sweeney said.
“Aside from financial costs, Australians don’t need or want to take on the massive risks that accompany nuclear energy – catastrophic meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima, plus the intergenerational danger of storing high-level radioactive waste for centuries.
“We cannot afford to squander more time in moving our economy away from its reliance on climate-damaging coal and gas. Nuclear is a dangerous distraction to effective climate action.
“Australia is blessed with amazing clean energy resources. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.” For interviews contact: Dave Sweeney 0408 317 812, or Josh Meadows 0439 342 992
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 