International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Sep 2008 02:41

A sad and bizarre end to Britain's nuclear adventure

It has been a bold and determined seduction by France, and yesterday it was consummated when Britain handed over its nuclear industry, lock stock and barrel, to Électricité de France.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Sep 2008 02:50

Bah, Labour Party idiots.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Sep 2008 22:51

Draft resolution on Iran nuclear program

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Sep 2008 22:53

New nuclear commission set to meet in Sydney

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Sep 2008 23:00

Burundi ratifies global ban on nuclear test blasts

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Sep 2008 00:46

The non proliferation ayatollahs will have better luck selling the Brooklyn bridge

A second nuclear age

The commission should transcend the stale debate of whether disarmament takes precedence over non-proliferation

Nuclear-armed states are not likely to agree to reductions to zero unless the non-nuclear weapons states agree to put additional controls on their ability to have a latent breakout capacity.

Some argue that the shortest and best route to zero is a nuclear weapons convention that would outlaw all nuclear weapons. That's an exciting idea, but it's not likely to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament, as chances of getting agreement from the key players to start negotiating such a treaty are virtually nil.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Sep 2008 02:02

Australian uranium mining dilemma

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Sep 2008 01:34

US unfazed by Russian nuclear plans

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Sep 2008 01:35

Ceremony in N. Kingstown for new nuclear sub

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Sep 2008 01:36

Syrian general killed for role in nuclear investigation, says UN

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Sep 2008 01:38

NKorea may already have nuclear warheads: ex-CIA official

"We (the United States) went from nothing to missile capable in seven years. The Russians went from their first test to missile capable in six... Why do we think the North Koreans can't have that kind of technology?"

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Sep 2008 01:39

Egypt rejects to join Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Sep 2008 20:52

France to seek new nuclear sanctions on Iran

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Sep 2008 06:44

Fatwa from Maulana Milhollin

An Arms Race We’re Sure to Lose

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Sep 2008 07:18

'White swans' spread nuclear wings

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Sep 2008 07:34

From the archive: The secrets of Israel’s nuclear arsenal revealed

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Oct 2008 04:55

International Cooperation Needed To Lower Proliferation Risks As Nuclear Energy Grows

As more nations pursue nuclear power, the United States and Russia, along with other countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), should redouble efforts to ensure a reliable supply of nuclear fuel so that countries seeking nuclear energy have less incentive to build their own facilities to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, says a new report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Oct 2008 07:18

National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/d ... 092308.pdf
By Samuel Bodman, Secretary of Energy and Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
September 2008

While the service lives of existing warhead types are being extended through
refurbishment, at present the United States does not have the ability to produce new
nuclear weapons.

However, the current path for sustaining the warhead stockpile—successive refurbishments of existing Cold War warheads designed with small margins of error—may be unsustainable in the future. Specifically, the directors of the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories have expressed concern about the ability to ensure confidence in the reliability of the legacy stockpile over the long term, without nuclear testing.
Successive efforts at extending the service life of the current inventory of warheads will
drive the warhead configurations further away from the original design baseline that was
validated using underground nuclear test data. Repeated refurbishments will accrue
technical changes that, over time, might inadvertently undermine reliability and performance. The skills, materials, processes, and technologies needed to refurbish and maintain these older warhead designs are also increasingly difficult to sustain or acquire. Some of the materials employed in these older warheads are extremely hazardous. Moreover, it is difficult to incorporate modern safety and security features into Cold War- era weapon designs. As a consequence, the stockpile stewardship program is expanding its range of component and material testing and analysis, and is likely to identify more areas of concern. However, without nuclear testing, at some time in the future the United States may be unable to confirm the effect of the accumulation of changes to tested warhead configurations.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Oct 2008 00:10

EPA issues radiation exposure rules for Yucca dump

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2008 01:49

Wash Post :: Financial crisis could dent nuclear plant growth

By GREG KELLER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 1, 2008; 4:04 PM

PARIS -- Growth in the construction of new nuclear plants worldwide is at risk because of the global financial crisis, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Wednesday, adding that short-term projects like oil drilling are more likely to go ahead.

During a visit to Paris, Bodman said the crisis could have an impact on the "nuclear renaissance" that is sweeping the industry as countries around the globe search for alternatives to fossil fuels.

Long-term projects like nuclear plant building "are the ones that are going to be the most difficult to finance," he told reporters. While Bodman said he is hopeful the financial crisis will be resolved, "long term projects are at risk, I would think."

The U.S. has 104 commercial reactors that supply about 20 percent of the country's power. The U.S. Energy Department projects 45 percent growth in national electricity demand by 2030, meaning 35 to 50 new nuclear plants would be needed by then just to maintain nuclear's share of the energy market.

A failure of the U.S. to resolve the ongoing financial crisis would have "a significant impact" on energy demand there, Bodman said on the sidelines of an international nuclear energy conference.

"That's what the president has been saying, that's what we've all been saying," Bodman said. "That's what leads to the need to come up with a solution."

While long-term nuclear projects are at risk, short-term projects such as oil drilling shouldn't be affected, Bodman said, because the industry is less reliant on bank borrowing.

"I would guess in large measure they would proceed. But again, I don't want to forecast exactly what they do," Bodman said.

Bodman also said he expects U.S. oil refining capacity in the Gulf of Mexico to come back to pre-hurricane Ike and Gustav levels in four or five weeks.

"It's been less rapid than I hoped it might be," Bodman said. "I thought it would be two or three weeks, it's probably going to be four or five, that kind of time frame. It's not going to be 10."

Hurricanes Gustav and Ike shut down nearly 100 percent of oil and natural gas production in the Gulf for several weeks.

Asked if he was worried about Russia's expanding cooperation with the OPEC oil producing cartel, Bodman said "We don't encourage that."

"Am I worried? I don't lose a lot of sleep over it. But it's not an encouraging position," Bodman said. Russia agreed earlier this month to sign a cooperation agreement with OPEC.

Bodman said he hoped Russia would focus more on encouraging companies from around the world to invest in its oil and gas industry but that it "seems to be more interested in OPEC and making deals with OPEC. That gives me some pause."

Russia is the second-largest oil and gas producer, just behind Saudi Arabia, making closer ties to OPEC _ which dominates world oil production _ potentially bad news for major fossil fuel consumers, including the U.S. and Europe.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Oct 2008 02:12

Russia to build eight nuclear submarines

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Oct 2008 02:14

Russia to deploy new nuclear missile

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Oct 2008 16:15

...and now Syria,even after the Israeli bombing of its suspected nuclear plant under construction with Kimchi help.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... apons.html

Syria resumes pursuit of nuclear weapons
Israeli officials believe Syria has resumed attempts to acquire a nuclear programme, one year after Tel Aviv's defence forces bombed a suspected reactor, according to reports.

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:50PM BST 02 Oct 2008

Israel bombed a remote desert plant at al-Kibar last year Photo: AP
Arab newspapers reported that Israeli Defence officials believed that Syria was determined to emulate Iran's covert efforts to produce fissile material and continued to rely on North Korean technology transfers.

Iranian experts are also said to be working on projects in Syria. Damascus has been emboldened by Iran's defiance of international sanctions in pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

The reports said that Israeli officials had briefed Arab journalists that Syria had spread its work around a number of sites in the country to ensure that the programme could not be destroyed in a single bombing raid.

Israel bombed a remote desert plant at al-Kibar last year and subsequently produced photographs showing advanced work on reactor facilities.

The officials warned that Israel would not tolerate any attempt to revive the programme.

The Israelis also linked the murder in early August of a senior Syrian intelligence official, Brigadier Muhammad Suleiman with a dispute over the future of the programme.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Oct 2008 07:52

Syria rebuffs nuclear inspectors

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 04 Oct 2008 19:21

Myanmar seeking noools from NK?

Nuclear bond for North Korea and Myanmar
By Norman Robespierre

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_ ... 4Ae01.html

YANGON - A recent flurry of high-level contacts between North Korea and Myanmar raises new nuclear proliferation concerns between the two pariah states, one of which already possesses nuclear-weapon capabilities and the other possibly aspiring.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Oct 2008 03:26

Afghanistan elected member of IAEA board

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Oct 2008 00:29

FM: Iran not to halt uranium enrichment for foreign nuclear fuel supply

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Oct 2008 22:41

Thursday, October 02, 2008
Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
The following legislation has been introduced in the US Senate today by Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Harry Reid:

110TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide for thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

introduced the following bill; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on

A BILL
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide for thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008".

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that—
(1) the United States and foreign countries will require massive and increasing quantities of energy during the 20-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act to support economic growth;

(2) nuclear power provides energy without generating unacceptable quantities of greenhouse gasses;

(3) the generation of nuclear power in the United States and many foreign countries has been discouraged by concerns regarding—(A) the proliferation of weapons-useable material; and (B) the proper disposal of spent nuclear fuel;

(4) nuclear power plants operating on an advanced thorium fuel cycle to generate nuclear energy—(A) could potentially produce fewer weapons-useable materials than uranium-fueled plants; and (B) would produce less long-term waste as compared to other nuclear power plants;

(5)(A) thorium is more abundant than uranium; and (B) the United States possesses significant domestic quantities of thorium to ensure energy independence;

(6)(A) thorium fuel cycle technology was originally developed in the United States; and (B) cutting-edge research relating to thorium fuel cycle technology continues to be carried out by entities in the United States; and

(7) it is in the national security and foreign policy interest of the United States that foreign countries seeking to establish or expand generation and use of nuclear power should be provided—(A) access to advanced thorium fuel cycle technology; and (B) incentives to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.

SEC. 3. THORIUM FUEL CYCLE NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION.

Chapter 19 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2015 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 244 the following:

"SEC. 251. THORIUM FUEL CYCLE NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION.
"(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
"(1) CHAIRMAN.—The term "Chairman" means the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"(2) OFFICE.—The term "Office" means an office established under subsection (b)(1).
"(3) SECRETARY.—The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.

"(b) OFFICES FOR REGULATION OF THORIUM FUEL CYCLE NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION.—
"(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Chairman, shall establish, and provide funds to, an office for the regulation of thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation in each of—
"(A) the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology of the Department of Energy; and
"(B) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"(2) REGULATIONS.—Not later than December 31, 2012, the Chairman, in cooperation with the
18 heads of the Offices, shall promulgate regulations for facilities and materials used in thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation.
"(3) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.—The heads of the Offices, in cooperation with the head of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, shall carry out demonstration projects for thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
"(4) INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS AND INCENTIVES.—The heads of the Offices shall provide recommendations to the Secretary with respect to methods of—
"(A) strengthening international partnerships to advance nuclear nonproliferation through the design and deployment of thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation; and
"(B) providing incentives to nuclear reactor operators in the United States and foreign
countries to use proliferation-resistant, low waste thorium fuels in lieu of other fuels.

"(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing, with respect to the preceding calendar year—
"(1) progress made in implementing this section; and
"(2) activities carried out by the Offices pursuant to this section.

"(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $250,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.’’.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Oct 2008 22:42

The above was passed along with the approval of teh 123 it looks like.

For immediate release
Contact: Mark Eddington, (202) 224-5251
Heather Barney, (801)524-4380

Oct. 1, 2008

Sens. Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid Push for Thorium Nuclear Fuel Cycle

WASHINGTON – Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today introduced legislation that would pave the way for thorium nuclear-fuel reactors in the United States.

The Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008 would establish offices at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy to regulate domestic thorium nuclear power generation and oversee possible demonstrations of thorium nuclear fuel assemblies.

Using thorium for nuclear power has a number of potential benefits over conventional uranium. As a resource, thorium is abundant in the U.S. and throughout the world. A thorium fuel rod would remain in the reactor about three times as long as conventional nuclear fuel, cutting the volume of spent nuclear fuel by as much as two-thirds. Also, thorium nuclear fuel would significantly reduce the possibility that weapons-grade material would result from the process. Finally, a thorium fuel cycle could be used to dispose of existing plutonium stockpiles, which is the national security goal.

“Our nation has focused mostly on mixed oxide nuclear fuel cycles, and our regulatory structure reflects that,” Hatch said. “With the growing interest in thorium nuclear power in the world and in the U.S., it’s time we made sure our government has a regulatory infrastructure in place to accommodate this new generation of nuclear power.”

Speaking about the bill, Bruce Blair, president of the World Security Institute said, “This legislation reflects an enlightened grasp of the importance of supporting nuclear power while suppressing nuclear proliferation.”’

Seth Grae, president and CEO of Thorium Power said that the bill “represents a major milestone toward the recognition that the nuclear renaissance can best be achieved by encouraging new and innovative fuels designs. Senators Hatch and Reid have acted today to strengthen American technology and American business to compete in the global marketplace.”

“This bill is a giant step for the United States toward the development of a safe, secure and independent energy future,” said Jack Lifton, business development and corporate communications director of Thorium Energy.

Thorium Energy owns property in Lemhi Pass, Idaho, where it is generally believed that the largest veins of thorium-rich minerals in the world are located. Analysis of the deposits shows them to be either the highest grade or in the top tier of the highest grade known anywhere on Earth.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Oct 2008 23:36

Making a Pitch for Nuclear Warhead Program

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 18:16

Japan's technology may close NPT loophole by Hiroyuki Koshoji: UPI Asia

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Oct 2008 00:07

Dangerous spent fuel returned to US

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Oct 2008 00:22

NRC postpones decision on Italian nuclear waste coming to Utah

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 09 Oct 2008 03:30

North Korea 'developing nuclear warhead'

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2008 22:48

ElBaradei to Leave IAEA in 2009

Potential Successors to ElBaradei

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2008 00:24

A lot of attetnion has been paid to PRC's tests and some to French tests before 1996. What about the otehr power with low number of tests-UK? It would be useful to take a look at that.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 10 Oct 2008 01:14

They did all their tests in Australia, IIRC.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Oct 2008 01:16

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKTesting.html

Operation Totem: 1953

This series was intended to develop greater knowledge of fission weapons. The initial test (Hurricane) had been hurriedly carried out and was poorly instrumented. Although the bulk of the effort of the Hurrican task force had been to set up instrumentation, this had been for weapon effects measuremnt rather than weapon physics. Plutonium with a much higher Pu-240 content (and thus lower cost) was now being produced by the Calder Hall power reactors and needed to be evaluated in a nuclear test.

Test: Test 1 (T1)
Time: 2130 14 October 1953 (GMT)
07:00 14 October 1953 (CST)
Location: Emu Field, South Australia, 28:68 S 132.34 E
Test Height and Type: Steel tower, 31 m
Yield: 10 kt

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Oct 2008 01:40

Can you post all their tests and where?

N^3 it was ozzies and massa land.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Oct 2008 03:35

Russian Scientist May Have Aided Iranian Nuclear Program