The Russian nuclear industry to switch to the development of new civilian power reactors

The license of Rostekhnadzor for the creation of the BREST-OD-300 power unit was issued to the Siberian Chemical Combine of Rosatom (Siberian Chemical Combine, Seversk, Tomsk Region)

Aleksandr Uvarov, editor-in-chief of the information portal on nuclear energy AtomInfo.ru, told RIA Novosti that “Construction of a new reactor is starting in Russia and thus a new,“ land ”direction of reactors with heavy metal coolant is being opened, which is still nowhere in civil nuclear power. has not been mastered in the world ”   He recalled that Russia is the only country with successful experience in operating heavy-metal cooled reactors used on a number of Soviet nuclear submarines.

The power unit with an installed electric capacity of 300 MW with the BREST-OD-300 reactor should become the key object of the experimental demonstration energy complex (ODEC), which is being built at the SGChK site within the framework of the strategic industrial project “Breakthrough”   In addition to the power unit, the ODEC includes a complex for the production of mixed uranium-plutonium nitride nuclear fuel for the BREST-OD-300 reactor, as well as a complex for the reprocessing of spent fuel.

The complex will make it possible to create a closed on-site nuclear fuel cycle, which will make it possible not only to generate electricity, but also to prepare new fuel from the fuel discharged from the reactor core. Earlier it was reported that the launch of the BREST-OD-300 reactor is scheduled for 2026. The BREST-OD-300 reactor is intended for practical confirmation of the main technical solutions laid down in lead-cooled reactor plants in a closed nuclear fuel cycle, and the main provisions of the inherent safety concept on which these decisions are based.

The features of the reactor make it possible to abandon large volumes of containment, a melt trap, a large volume of support systems, and also to reduce the safety class of non-reactor equipment.   Lead coolant has a number of advantages. First, it slows down neutrons a little, which is fundamentally important for the operation of “fast” reactors. In addition, lead has a high boiling point (about 1.8 thousand degrees Celsius), it is chemically inert in contact with water and air, and does not require high pressure in the coolant circuit.  

The combination of the properties of a heavy lead coolant and dense heat-conducting nitride fuel creates conditions for achieving full reproduction of nuclear “fuel” and excludes the most severe accidents – with an uncontrolled increase in power (as in Chernobyl) and loss of heat removal from the reactor core (as in Fukushima). This is the essence of the natural safety of the BREST-OD-300 reactor.   The integral design of the reactor plant makes it possible to localize coolant leaks in the reactor vessel volume and to exclude the dehydration of the core.

This excludes accidents requiring the evacuation of the population, and this actually means that the radiation safety of the environment is guaranteed not by technical means and methods, but by the very absence of activity above the already existing natural levels.

Watch out! Biden wants to save the planet

Technology choices will decisively impact whether climate-pivoted economic policy brings benefit or disaster

By JONATHAN TENNENBAUM

President Joe Biden’s climate plan is a grandiose vision. Combining deliberate echoes of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal with the crash-program approach to development of technology. Exemplified by the Apollo program of the 1960s. If it works, planet Earth and the US economy will be saved at the same time.

Biden has vowed to establish US leadership in saving the planet from an impending climate apocalypse. His appointments of establishment climate activists to high positions in his administration, along with his opening salvos of executive orders, confirm his intention to make climate the central topic in all spheres of US government activity.

He calls it the “Whole of Government Approach to the Climate Crisis.”

Among other things Biden ordered a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of the threat that climate change poses for US national security. He made climate officially the priority focus of US foreign policy. 

One has the distinct impression that the Biden Administration intends to use the climate crisis as an occasion for reasserting the primacy of US power in international affairs. Far beyond rejoining the Paris Agreement on his first day in office, Biden has made clear that the United States will act as global enforcer of CO2 reduction measures. And, needless to say, he intends to focus especially on China. 

Biden has committed himself to making climate the center of US domestic economic policy. The recent executive orders already contain elements of his campaign promise to channel $2 trillion into building a “clean” national infrastructure. And thereby creating millions of new jobs and driving innovation and economic growth.

If all goes according to plan, by 2035 the US should have 100% CO2-free electricity generation. By 2050 total net emissions should reach zero.

“Social Cost System”

Among the first concrete steps is to initiate planning for replacing the entire fleet of over 600,000 vehicles used by federal government and the US Postal Service to zero-emission vehicles.

A key move, which has so far attracted little attention in the news media, is to implement the so-called “social cost system” as a guiding criterion for daily government decision-making. The social cost system is based on attaching a numerical value to the “global damage” attributed to emission of a given amount of carbon dioxide – in the production of a given commodity, for example.

This will have a big economic impact through the choice of products and vendors for government purchases, on which Washington spends about $600 billion a year.

The $2 trillion climate plan – whose funding must, of course, be approved by Congress – would follow on the heels of a $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan to help the US economy and population recover from the effects of Covid-19.  

All in all, the degree of concentration of a US government on a single theme is practically unprecedented in peacetime. Were it not for the Covid-19 pandemic there would doubtless be much more discussion about this radical course.  People who believe that global warming is the greatest crisis of our time might easily overlook problematic, even ominous implications of declared policies.   

I wish to emphasize that I am not motivated by political opposition to the Biden Administration. Nor, of course, do I oppose rational measures to reduce and eventually eliminate the world’s one-sided dependence on fossil fuels.

One should also keep an open mind in respect to any new administration, which carries contradictory interests and impulses with it into office. It may adjust its course as it confronts reality.

Taking Biden’s declarations very seriously

But there are reasons to take Biden’s declarations very seriously.

Firstly, to all appearances Biden and his close advisors truly believe that the world is headed toward an unprecedented catastrophe through global warming. And that the clock is ticking and that urgent action is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions world wide. Not only the US but other nations as well must do so. Especially the largest COemitters, with China in first place.

Countries that refuse to reduce their emissions by the necessary amounts voluntarily must be forced to do so. The logic is inescapable. 

Secondly, as Biden has emphasized for the United States, replacing the world’s entire fossil fuel infrastructure with “clean technology” over the next 30-40 years creates a new market of colossal dimensions. Assuming that the nations and populations are able to pay for it. 

Thirdly, immense amounts of financial capital have already been committed to the expectation of radical climate policies. CO2 emissions are being monetized and a vast financial machinery created, tying asset valuations to parameters such as “carbon intensity” and “sustainability indices.”

Climate projections are being built into long-term risk strategies and the premium structures of insurance companies. The volume of carbon trade is growing exponentially. With it, the market for climate-linked financial instruments such as green bonds (already at $500 billion) and other so-called green assets.

Shaping global investment patterns and financial flows

Thereby, climate policy becomes a powerful instrument for shaping global investment patterns and financial flows. In his 2020 “Open Letter to CEOs” Larry Fink, the Chairman of the world’s largest asset management company, BlackRock, declared: “I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.”

In the meantime BlackRock, several of whose executives have been named to high positions in the Biden Administration. And announced that it is making climate change central to its investment strategy for 2021.

Thus, in all probability the Biden Administration will indeed pursue the radical course announced during his campaign and signaled by initial executive orders.

What will that mean?

From the positive side, I have reason to expect that areas of science and technology that are critically important for the future – nuclear fission and fusion, new materials, hydrogen technologies, high-density energy storage, applications of high temperature superconductivity and much more – will receive greater support under the new administration, than has been the case under preceding ones.

This is a crucial point. Leaving many other factors aside, the choice of technologies employed in the promised rebuilding of US infrastructure. Assuming it actually occurs. It will have a decisive impact on whether Biden’s climate-pivoted economic policy will benefit the nation or lead to disaster.

Following this introductory article no. 1, further installments in the series will take up the following concerns:

  • Green imperialism: Is the Biden Administration turning the climate issue into a vehicle for great-power geopolitics? 
  • Will Biden’s climate policy serve, defacto, as a vehicle for financial interests that are positioning themselves to profit from the tectonic shifts in global financial flows, arising from a forced move away from fossil fuels? Is this a “BlackRock Administration”?
  • Will overheated climate measures set the stage for a financial crisis? Major bets are being placed on the future of the world energy system, and market stability faces the dual menaces of a “green bubble” of climate-linked financial assets and a “carbon bubble” of potentially worthless fossil fuel assets.
  • Consider the risk of a California-like horror scenario: economically ruinous over-expansion of so-called renewable energy sources and ideologically-driven environmentalist measures, leading to exploding energy prices, blackouts, economic austerity, productivity losses and growing poverty. Will ill-conceived climate measures generate a political backlash and a resurgence of the Republicans, at latest by the 2024 Presidential elections?
  • Will the United States descend into economic and social crisis when the temporary, government money injections-induced “high” begins to wear off?
  • What’s the danger that ill-conceived measures by the Biden Administration, in the name of saving the planet, will undermine the capability of the United States and other nations to cope with climate changes in the future?
  • At the end I shall make some remarks concerning what a rational approach to the climate issue would look like.

Jonathan Tennenbaum received his PhD in mathematics from the University of California in 1973 at age 22. Also a physicist, linguist and pianist, he is a former editor of FUSION magazine. He lives in Berlin and travels frequently to Asia and elsewhere, consulting on economics, science and technology.

What is The Crop Trust?

By editor of The International Reporter

 

The most important bank in the world received a huge deposit of 50,000 last week. Not 50,000 dollars; 50,000 seed samples. The most important bank in the world is, of course, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a repository of the planet’s genetic legacy dug into the permafrost in the side of a sandstone mountain on Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago halfway between mainland Norway and the North Pole

The seed vault’s administrator, The Crop Trust, describes the vault as “a fail-safe seed storage facility, built to stand the test of time—and the challenge of natural or man-made disasters,” and boasts that it “represents the world’s largest collection of crop diversity.”

Informally known as the “Doomsday Seed Vault” the idea is that the permafrost of a remote North Atlantic archipelago is a safe place to store copies of the most important seed varieties on the planet, including some of the world’s most important staple crops like potato, rice, wheat, lentil and chickpea.

The latest deposit of 50,000 seed samples come from Benin, India, Pakistan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Netherlands, the U.S, Mexico, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus and the U.K. and include 15,000 samples that were withdrawn from the bank in 2015 and returned by researchers who had lost access to their own gene bank in Syria during the ongoing terrorist insurgency.

But here’s the real question that you don’t see addressed in any of the fake news coverage of this recent deposit in the establishment press: What “natural or man-made disasters” does The Crop Trust envision wiping out the genetic heritage of the earth, exactly, and who is “The Crop Trust” anyway?

Well, the second part of that question is easy enough to answer.

As researcher William Engdahl noted in his article on the vault a decade ago:

The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world’s largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the “gene revolution” with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970’s; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity through agriculture change.

And as I wrote in these pages in 2015:

So who is the “Global Crop Diversity Trust” which oversees the project? Describing itself as an “established independent organization under international law,” the Trust “was founded in 2004 in Rome, Italy, by the Food and Agriculture Organization and Bioversity International on behalf of the CGIAR international agricultural research consortium. The Crop Trust concluded a Headquarters Agreement with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in December 2012 and transferred its headquarters to its permanent location in Bonn in 2013.” The GCDT was chaired until 2012 by Margaret Catley-Carlson, a former President of (you guessed it) the J.D. Rockefeller III-founded Population Council (aka American Eugenics Society). No matter where you turn in this field, you always end up back at the doorstep of the same elite eugenics-obsessed families and the corporate oligopoly they helped to bring into existence.

Surprise, surprise. And given that it is the very same eugenics-obsessed families and foundations behind the GMO revolution that are behind this seed vault, do we really have to puzzle over why they are so concerned about the possibility of an ecological disaster that could wipe out all of the heirloom, non-GMO seed strains on the planet? The question, framed properly, answers itself.

So the good news is that another 50,000 seed samples will be left for whoever survives the coming biological disaster. The bad news is that the real founders and funders of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault probably aren’t going to be saving any life rafts for you.

Source:

https://theinternationalreporter.org/2017/03/02/the-most-important-bank-in-the-world-gets-another-deposit/