International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Nov 2009 02:44

US Says IAEA Vote Shows 'Deficit of Confidence' in Iran's Nuclear Intentions

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Nov 2009 04:24

Pakistan's president hands over nuclear powers

The presidency announced that control of the National Command Authority, which analysts and lawyers confirmed is responsible for nuclear weapons, had shifted to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Dec 2009 03:04

Time for a test-ban bargain

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 03 Dec 2009 03:57

Lovely read. Khan's hypocrisy as usual:

Europe's Secret Nuclear Weapons: What Should NATO Do?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091202/w ... 9194379900

Lahori logic alert below

As recently as December 2008, the Secretary of Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management, chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, said the weapons were an important guarantee of NATO security and also supported nonproliferation efforts by preventing allied states from developing their own weapons programs.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 04 Dec 2009 02:09

Increasing Uranium production in the U.S:

In uranium we trust

CH2M Hill has designed the computerized mill to process up to 1,000 tons of uranium daily, five pounds of uranium to the ton. The mill's design is so environmentally friendly and technologically advanced, there's nothing like it in the world, Glasier says.

He's already talking to overseas customers: "The Chinese are acquiring uranium assets everywhere they can," he says. And here at home, he estimates that, in the country's clean energy future, electric utilities will generate enough need to boost uranium from its present $46 to a more robust $70 per pound. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission already has 22 applications for new nuclear plants nationwide; globally there are 53 new plants under construction and 436 operational.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Dec 2009 02:51

Iran can now produce nuclear bomb

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Dec 2009 08:24

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... ot_in_2010

Previously, a senior administration official told The Cable that the NPR spun out an early analysis on nuclear-weapons levels specifically to inform the START follow-on negotiations, meaning that the two processes are closely coordinated and the numbers should match. The official also said that the limit for deployed warheads under the follow on would be between 1,500 and 1,675 and the limit on delivery vehicles would be somewhere between 500 (the Russian position) and 1,100 (the U.S. proposal).

Also, according to the official, the START follow-on will not limit weapons that aren't deployed and will not force either side to rearrange its strategic architecture, which on the U.S. side is based on what's known as the nuclear triad, the combination of intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, and submarine-based missiles.

The Pentagon and NNSA are reportedly still pushing to move forward with the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, a Bush administration effort to build a new class of nuclear warheads that has been sold as a means of updating the arsenal and maintaining the nuclear expertise and experience found in the U.S. government.

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher has made it clear that she opposes RRW and prefers a stockpile modernization plan, which could include some new weapons but would be branded as more of refurbishing the existing ones.

Advocates of new nukes lost ground inside the debate following a report by what's known as the "JASON" group, an independent scientific panel that was tasked to determine whether or not the existing nuclear stockpile needed new testing or could be relied upon using "Life Extension Programs."

"JASON finds no evidence that accumulation of changes incurred from aging and LEPs have increased risk to certification of today's deployed nuclear warheads," the report states, adding, "Lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss in confidence, by using approaches similar to those employed in LEPs to date."

The new JASON report has forced NNSA to abandon efforts to call for increased reliability as a way to justify a decision to design a new warhead, the source explained. The NNSA put out a press release that many view as trying to undermine the report.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Dec 2009 19:58

Iran puts conditions on nuclear fuel swap

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Dec 2009 23:00

China's nuclear missiles hidden "underground maze"

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 14 Dec 2009 14:28

Iran deplores for an Indian "yes"

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Dec 2009 16:45

Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Dec 2009 03:32

Nuclear weapons: The modernization myth

Moscow maintains a robust nuclear warhead production capability, regularly remanufacturing each warhead every 10 to 15 years--a necessity because Russian warheads aren't nearly as well maintained as U.S. warheads. As such, they begin to suffer from age-related defects much sooner. As Victor Reis, assistant secretary of energy for defense programs, remarked in a 1998 hearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, "[The Russians] have a somewhat different system where they do tend to go back and remanufacture the whole system. Their system, as best we understand it, is perhaps not quite as finely tuned as ours. . . . They are very concerned about that issue."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Dec 2009 02:00

332 Pages:

ELIMINATING NUCLEAR THREATS[/quote]

International commission on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament

Gareth Evans
(Australia) (Co-chair)
Yoriko Kawaguchi
(Japan) (Co-chair)
Turki Al Faisal
(Saudi Arabia)
Alexei Arbatov
(Russia)
Gro Harlem Brundtland
(Norway)
Frene Noshir Ginwala
(South Africa)
François Heisbourg
(France)
Jehangir Karamat
(Pakistan)
Brajesh Mishra
(India)
Klaus Naumann
(Germany)
William Perry
(United States)
Wang Yingfan
(China)
Shirley Williams
(United Kingdom)
Wiryono Sastrohandoyo
(Indonesia)
Ernesto Zedillo
(Mexico)

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 17 Dec 2009 22:02

Canada Looks For Investment In Its Nuclear Reactor Company

Canada puts its nuclear pride on the block

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Dec 2009 17:36

N. Korea capable of miniaturizing nuclear warheads: source

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 23 Dec 2009 08:00

Gerard wrote:China's nuclear missiles hidden "underground maze"

The Jamestown article below is much more clearly written;
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/china ... c8d240f2cd

Chinese tunneling for the 2nd Artillery Corps (strategic nuclear rocket forces) has been known since the early 1970s.

Mao in particular was obsessed with the idea of tunnels as a source of protection for strategic assets - leadership, factories, nuclear weapons, etc. The experience of sheltering in the caves of Yenan from KMT and later Japanese bombers was a major formative experience in the 1930s and 1940s.

The real revelation here is the scale on which the 2nd Arty has continued to invest heavily in tunnels in all the years since Mao died.

This is probably closely related to the PRC's persistant failure to build reliable, survivable SSBNs.

China has no nuclear triad, or even dyad - they have naturally been willing to spend enormously on ensuring that their one-legged nuclear force is capable of deterring a first strike.

The US had considered a similar system in the 1970s and 1980s for US Air Force's new MX ICBMs, a 'shell game' using an underground railroad in Utah, but the costs could not be justified given the US Navy's robust and survivable deterrent.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Dec 2009 09:08

Google Tech Talk on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Dec 2009 22:54

Toronto-area nuclear plant spills water

Nuclear officials were monitoring water supplies east of Toronto Wednesday after a nuclear plant leaked 52,000 gallons of tritium-laced water into Lake Ontario.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 25 Dec 2009 16:21

Estimated Nuclear Weapons Locations 2009

The world’s approximately 23,300 nuclear weapons are stored at an estimated 111 locations in 14 countries, according to an overview produced by FAS and NRDC.

here is a blog

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Dec 2009 05:00

Reactor derivatives for China

Demonstration of a Chinese AP1000 derivative moved a step closer with a joint venture project company. Construction of the first CAP1400 is scheduled for April 2013.

And this for a detailed coverage on Chinese nuclear power

Nuclear Power in China

I see most of the Chinese next generation powerplants to be local derivatives of AP1000/EPR type.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Dec 2009 18:41

North Korea may detonate 3rd nuclear device: think tank

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 28 Dec 2009 19:28

Iran nuclear plant 'immune to conventional strike'

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on Monday that Iran's recently disclosed second uranium enrichment plant is "immune" to conventional bombing.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Dec 2009 20:31

South Korea to Build Nuclear Plants in U.A.E. Under a $20.4 billion Contract

The Wall Street Journal reports Dec 27 that a consortium led by South Korean companies has won a $20.4 billion contract to build four new nuclear reactors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

...

The UAE expects the first reactor to enter revenue service in 2017.

...

The winning team include Korea Electric Power Corp., Samsung and Hyundai business groups, Doosan Heaving industries, and Westinghouse.

Reuters reports that the South Korean team will supply four 1,400 MW light water reactors. The design was completed in 2002 and is being used to build new power stations in South Korea. Reuters also reports that the four units to be built in the UAE are expected to have a life cycle of 60 years. The deal reportedly includes operations of the reactors, turbines, and other balance of plant facilities.

Nuclear fuel for the reactors could come from other vendors including Areva. The UAE said it is in discussions with Areva for supply chain support outside the scope of the initial contract.

...

The UAE is expected to become a net exporter of electricity to other countries in the region including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The New York Times reports the UAE regional transmission and distribution grid will require "substantial upgrades."

...

Why did Areva lose?

The bid by French state-owned nuclear giant Areva, which was expected by many to win the reactor portion of the deal, may have been impacted by the UAE’s review of the firm’s track record at a project in Finland. It is is significantly over budget and behind schedule.

Recent public disputes with Finnish nuclear regulatory authorities, Siemens, and subcontractors, have not helped the project’s international image. While Areva has claimed to be making progress in resolving these problems, it apparently wasn’t fast enough for the UAE.

...

The Korean bid was reportedly considerably lower than the bid submitted by the French group, according to several wire services. Operating costs over 60 years, including fuel, and which could be as much as another $20 billion, are not accounted for in the inital award. KEPCO, the South Korean utility, is expected to take an equity position in the project.

GE-Hitachi also submitted a bid, but there are no details on it in news reports today. The Wall Street Journal's assessment of the bid process on Nov 17 turns out to have been on target.

Korea and Westinghouse nuclear history of collaboration

According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), Westinghouse has a significant presence in South Korea in terms of the number of operating reactors. Nuclear energy provides 40% of the country’s electricity and there are plans to increase that figure to 56% by 2020..

Why isn't India in the scene yet? which country has two dozen N plants in operations?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Dec 2009 21:25

IF all goes well, India will be on the scene when we ALL run out of Uranium.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Dec 2009 00:34

At least India should be building its 220MW, 540 MW or 700MW PHWRs in Sri lanka / Bangladesh / Vietnam / Malaysia etc.
Why can't India be more proactive?
I guess the thing holding back the Nuclear sector all these was the NSG sanctions. But what about other sectors? Shipbuilding for example? There was no NSG holding India back there, yet India's yards don't aggressively target videshi orders. But soon India needs to reach out.
Much as I hate to say this, China is doing the things today that I want India to be doing - projecting national hard, soft and economic power in the region and beyond.

The middle east is eagerly looking at nuclear power, they have the money, India has goodwill there. They will prefer India to china mostly.
We shouldn't let the Koreans and the Chinese break into that market.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 29 Dec 2009 08:24

Gagan wrote:At least India should be building its 220MW, 540 MW or 700MW PHWRs in Sri lanka / Bangladesh / Vietnam / Malaysia etc.
Why can't India be more proactive?
I guess the thing holding back the Nuclear sector all these was the NSG sanctions. But what about other sectors? Shipbuilding for example? There was no NSG holding India back there, yet India's yards don't aggressively target videshi orders. But soon India needs to reach out.
Much as I hate to say this, China is doing the things today that I want India to be doing - projecting national hard, soft and economic power in the region and beyond.

The middle east is eagerly looking at nuclear power, they have the money, India has goodwill there. They will prefer India to china mostly.
We shouldn't let the Koreans and the Chinese break into that market.

Kidding: It may have some thing to do with ability to receive vs. give kickbacks

More seriously: Some time back, India did export some heavy water (to S. Korea?). I think, npp sales are tied with generous supplier credit as a part of the contract. Perhaps India is not able to match the richer nations in this aspect. For me, India should, for the present, focus more on developing its own npp infrastructure with as much indigenisation as possible (minimally importing only those specific items that just cannot be made in India now, and are available for import under equitable and non-humiliating conditions).

I am not very sure whether comparison with China on such issues would be realistic in view of the vastly different nature of the systems of governance between the two countries. I guess, Democracy, at least the way India practices it, has its own cost.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Dec 2009 18:12

There was more than one sale of heavy water.

The PHWRs don't seem to be attractive to current buyers. South Korea and China were the last big customers (six CANDU reactors from Canada's AECL) but they have now chosen the LWR route (Areva/Westinghouse). From an article above:

There are reasons why CANDU is such a hard sell internationally. Compared to our Russian, European and American rivals, Canada has less to offer in terms of export credits, industrial offsets and diplomatic arm-twisting.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 29 Dec 2009 22:46

burn-ups and breeding ratios are sought after.

Korea electric power's APR-1400 can apparently do 60 Gwd/t and the latest generation LWRs claim breeding ratios in the 0.8-0.9 range.

with enrichment tech becoming more widespread , PWRs are set to be the dominant type on order till thorium tech kicks in.

In fact research into using thorium in PWRs is continuing apace as well, at the kurchatov institute for instance.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Dec 2009 07:43

Another article in Wired about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... ukes/all/1

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Dec 2009 21:08

Israeli police arrest nuclear whistleblower Vanunu

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Dec 2009 21:09

Kazakhstan claims it has become world's biggest uranium miner

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Jan 2010 07:05

Seoul Wants 'Sovereignty' in Peaceful Nuclear Development

The country could assert its sovereignty by reclaiming the right to reprocess spent fuel rods, which is restricted by the bilateral agreement. The other two areas are mining and enrichment of uranium, and making and use of nuclear fuel.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 01 Jan 2010 17:33

India, Pakistan exchange nuclear sites list: Ministry

"The governments of Pakistan and India today exchanged lists of their respective nuclear installations and facilities," a ministry statement said.

It added that the lists were handed over to officers of the Pakistani and Indian high commissions in New Delhi and Islamabad.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Jan 2010 02:27

Y-12 to add technology for microwave casting of uranium

Obama's nuclear-free vision mired in debate

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Jan 2010 06:01

4600 MW capacity for $20.6B - Works out to be $4.4B per 1000MW.

It looks very expensive. Does it include life-long fuel supplies and end-of-life decommissioning?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 05 Jan 2010 09:58

It of course includes the cost of the fuel load.

Moreover the first of these reactors will have no domestically sourced components.

And by the way you are talking about 5600 ( 1400x4) MWe gross and 5400 (1350 x4) MWe net and not 4600 MWe.

so you are looking at $3800 per KWe.

which is okay for a country where nuclear power is presently non-existent.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Jan 2010 23:39

WSJ: A False Nuclear Start

The Obama Administration continues to negotiate with the Russians over a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), but one big question is whether it can get the result through the U.S. Senate. A group of Senators is telling the White House that it will have little or no chance of success unless it also moves ahead with nuclear-warhead modernization.

The warning comes in a recent letter from 40 Republican Senators and Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman reminding the President of his legal responsibility under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 to present budget estimates for modernizing U.S. nuclear forces along with any new Start pact.

US and Russia allowed Inspectors in each other's missile factories!

With Start's expiration December 5, Russia has pulled inspectors from a factory that's building the next generation of Russian ICBMs and scaled back electronic monitoring—called telemetry—of missile production and movements.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Jan 2010 02:06

Scott Ritter on the factory inspections...

I remember those days well. As an officer in the Marine Corps, I was a member of the original team assigned to the newly created On-Site Inspection Agency, tasked with implementing the INF treaty. In June of 1988, a scant six months after the ink had dried on the INF Treaty document, I had the honor of participating in the first-ever inspection carried out under the INF Treaty as a member of the advance party dispatched to a Soviet missile production facility outside the city of Votkinsk. For the next two years I helped forge a new chapter in arms control history, overseeing the installation of a monitoring facility outside the gates of a factory that had produced SS-12 and SS-20 intermediate-range missiles, and was still producing the modern road-mobile SS-25 intercontinental missile.

In addition to making sure that the Soviets lived up to their end of the bargain (the Soviets had a similar monitoring operation at work in Magna, Utah, where U.S. Pershing II missiles had been produced)

INF CONTINUOUS PORTAL MONITORING INSPECTIONS

These inspectors had the right to monitor continuously--24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for up to 13 years--the missile plant's portals and to patrol the perimeter. The plant itself could not be entered.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jan 2010 23:59

Talk about TN warhead design of SU/Russia , here is something I came across in hard figures.

Check this out http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/05/h ... eads.shtml

###########

this is true for a single-warhead Topol, whose warhead is under 500 kg, and for RT-23UTTH (SS-24) - its ten warheads weighed about 2000 kg (declared throw-weight of these missiles is 1000 and 4050 kg respectively). Another half of the payload is probably taken by the bus (for MIRVed missiles), missile defense penetration aids and things like that.

The most lightweight warheads deployed in the Soviet Union and Russia so far were those of R-29R and R-39 missiles, with weights in the 110-130 kg range (this includes reentry vehicle body and electronics) and yields of 50 and 75 kt respectively.

The type deployed on R-23UTTH/SS-24 - at about 200 kg each they would take about half of the throw-weight of the missile. With the yield of 400 kt

############

So it seems the best Warhead ( yeald/weight ratio ) developed by SU/Russia for a Rail Mobile ICBM ( SS-24 ) deployed in 1987 was 200 kg weight includes RV/Electronics and 400 kt yeald not bad for mid 80's TN design

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Jan 2010 05:23

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9248030643#

Nuclear fallout