Mr. Hennigan writes about national
security for Opinion.
U.S. military personnel at Space Command, in
Colorado Springs, have kept a close eye on Cosmos 2553 ever
since it reached orbit. Bathed in the bluish glow of their
computer screens, they sit and watch what¡¯s going across all of
space day after day, tracking the latest information on
satellite constellations, coming rocket launches and the daily
operation of the space-based systems that shape modern life.
But Cosmos 2553 is different. It circles Earth
every two hours in a region called a graveyard orbit. Only 10
other satellites are out there, and all of them have been dead
for years. The area is rarely used in part because it¡¯s inside
the Van Allen belts, zones of high radiation that encircle the
planet.
That¡¯s why Moscow claims Cosmos 2553 is there ¡ª
to test out ¡°newly developed onboard instruments and systems¡±
against radiation. But what it¡¯s really doing, U.S. officials
say, is testing components for a Russian weapon under
development that could obliterate hundreds, if not thousands, of
critical satellites. Cosmos 2553 isn¡¯t armed, but it does carry
a dummy warhead, one of several details being reported here for
the first time. So while the orbiting satellite poses no
imminent danger, the officials caution it does serve as a
forerunner to an unprecedented weapon.
This article is part of the
Opinion series?,
about the threat of nuclear weapons in an unstable
world. Read the opening story?.
Although they are almost invisible in our
day-to-day lives, satellites increasingly control how we live.
Everything from pumping gas to trading stocks to checking
tomorrow¡¯s weather forecast depends on satellite signals, and
the world¡¯s collective appetite for these systems is growing.
More satellites have been launched into orbit in the past five
years than in the previous six decades as commercial companies
and governments spend billions to build new constellations for
communications, Earth imagery and other services. Most of them
travel around Earth in a part of space called low-Earth orbit,
an area within 1,200 miles of the planet.
Satellites in low-Earth orbit?todayReplay
Source:
T.S. Kelso, CelesTrak?Note:
Satellites for past years shown as of Jan. 1.
U.S. intelligence analysts haven¡¯t determined if
it¡¯s this region or some other area that Russia may one day
threaten if it ever deployed such a device. In any scenario, a
nuclear weapon detonated in outer space wouldn¡¯t have a
localized impact like a direct hit with a missile strike. It
would be indiscriminate, affecting all nations. If the Kremlin
decided to use a Sput-nuke, as the device is sometimes
derisively called, it holds the unambiguous potential to disrupt
the future of America¡¯s military space operations and the lives
of hundreds of millions of civilians around the globe.
Once considered a largely peaceful domain, space
is now viewed by many American lawmakers and military commanders
as a place where the next major global conflict might unfold. If
Moscow is working on a space nuke, it would be merely??under development
or already in use by Russia, China and the United States. All
three nations have tested high-flying missiles capable of
targeting space systems from the surface and have lasers, signal
jammers and other devices that can disrupt space operations.
Russia has deployed nesting doll satellites (in which one
satellite births a smaller satellite that is maneuverable and
armed with a projectile) and China and the United States have
demonstrated grappling satellites, which can sidle up to another
satellite and tug it out of its orbit with robotic arms.
It may sound as if these technologies were torn
from the pages of a science fiction novel, but none of them come
close to doing what a nuclear weapon could in space: wipe out
clusters of satellites at once.
As the risk of conflict in space climbs, there
are??to safeguard
against military action there ¡ª and no established norms. There
are just two major pacts governing nuclear weapons in the
cosmos, both of which predate Neil Armstrong¡¯s first steps on
the moon. The Limited Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits nuclear
tests in the atmosphere, underwater or space, was signed by the
United States, Britain and the Soviet Union in 1963. The Outer
Space Treaty, which was first signed less than four years later,
bans deploying ¡°nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of
mass destruction¡± in orbit. Today, both decades-old agreements
are proving shaky. With a new generation of weapons under
development, space experts see a rising potential for
miscalculation, misinterpretation and aggression.
While the American government says it has
tracked Russia¡¯s nuclear anti-satellite program for nearly a
decade, it¡¯s impossible to independently verify its claims about
Cosmos 2553. But even the prospect of such a device should alarm
the??with at least one satellite
in orbit. The potential threat to the world¡¯s satellites may
emanate from Russia today, but it doesn¡¯t end there. Any nation
with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, like North Korea,
holds the potential to reverse the progress of the space age
with a single detonation.
It is a development that the world must not look
on with indifference. In his first administration, Donald Trump
created the Space Force, a clear indication that he recognizes
the threat of the mounting militarization and weaponization in
outer space. In his second term, it¡¯s imperative for Mr. Trump
to lead an international effort that aims to improve space
traffic management, open new communication channels with
adversaries and slow the rapid development of space weapons that
is already underway.
We rely on space more than ever
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the extent
of our reliance on space is gazing upon the night sky. It
doesn¡¯t take long before Starlink satellites come into view,
streaking among the celestial bodies. With around 6,500 active
satellites, Starlink, operated by Elon Musk¡¯s SpaceX,?. Starlink
provides high-speed internet to customers who purchase terminals
and is accessible almost anywhere on the planet, including
Ukraine, where it has proved crucial to Ukrainian troops on the
battlefield. (Moscow has since??any
company that provides satellite service to Kyiv¡¯s forces could
become a target.)
SpaceX has plans to greatly increase the size of
its constellation in the coming years. That¡¯s a lot on its own,
but Amazon also has plans to build a system to compete with
Starlink in the next few years. China??to
launch 40,000 of its own such satellites in the next decade, and
the Pentagon is set to spend??to build
its new system of missile-targeting satellites in low-Earth
orbit. All told, the global space economy is expected to grow to
$1.8 trillion by 2035, roughly three times where it stood in
2023,?.
The U.S. space defense budget
has spiked
The space economy has tripled in
size since 2005
The United States plans to
deploy hundreds of new missile-tracking and
communications satellites in low-Earth orbit.
The miniaturization of satellite
technology and lower launch costs have resulted
in soaring demand.
$500
billion
Space force created
$60
billion
400
Commercial products
and services
Satellite radio, TV, geolocation
projected
300
40
U.S. national security space
spending
200
Commercial space infrastructure
Satellites, launch pads,
vehicles
20
100
NASA
U.S. government space budget
Foreign government spending
2005
2010
2015
2020
2023
2005
2010
2015
2020
2023
2025
Source:?
It¡¯s hard to overstate modern armed forces¡¯
reliance on space. They use it to drop bombs on targets,
communicate, navigate and track potential incoming attacks. When
Iran launched around 200 ballistic missiles toward Israel in
early October,?, U.S. forces knew well in advance where many of
the missiles were positioned, the split second they launched and
the approximate locations they were on course to hit. That so
few of those missiles got near their targets is proof of the
extraordinary technological advantage of America and its allies
in space. This dominance is also an Achilles¡¯ heel. U.S.
military analysts believe the dependence on such systems is seen
as a wartime vulnerability by our adversaries, including China
and Russia.
Taking out these satellites, particularly in a
conflict, could even the playing field. The conventional
anti-satellite weapons that Beijing and Moscow have developed
could render orbiting satellites useless. The United States
responded to this growing threat by launching a satellite
constellation last year code-named??to monitor its spacecraft, and the
Space Force continues to enhance its ability to fend off
potential attacks.
United
States
2,000
objects
launched
in space
per year
1,000
The U.S. is launching satellites
at unprecedented rates
During the Cold War, the Soviet
Union dominated satellite launches. The United
States has leapt ahead with the advent of
SpaceX.
Other
Britain
China
Russia
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Source: Our World in Data; United
Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
?
Note: Objects launched include
satellites, probes, landers, crewed spacecraft and space
station components.
The discovery of Cosmos 2553 has generated
serious contemplation at the highest levels in Washington about
the worst-case scenario, including examining military policies
and considering whether to entrust military commanders with more
options and tools for conducting conventional counterattacks.
What if a nuclear weapon detonated in space?
If a war in space is difficult to fathom, a
nuclear detonation is unthinkable. The devastation would be
counted not in casualties but in mass disruption to our everyday
lives, from vital services like weather forecasting and
navigation to supply chains. Many of the larger national
security satellites ¡ª comparable in size to school buses ¡ª are
much farther from Earth, in what¡¯s called geostationary orbit,
and contain electronics designed to withstand radiation from a
nuclear detonation. But thousands of satellites in low-Earth
orbit have little to no protection and are profoundly vulnerable
to such an attack.
Satellite armed
with
nuclear warhead
Low-Earth
orbit
Magnetic field
N
Charged particles
spiral around
Earth¡¯s
magnetic field
S
N
Radiation
shell
S
Much of what we know about the effects
of nuclear weapons in space stems from two series of
U.S. tests conducted during the Cold War, code-named
Operation Argus and Operation Fishbowl.
One test in 1962, called Starfish Prime, knocked out a
third of the two dozen satellites in orbit at that
time.
Here¡¯s what would happen if a weapon detonated near
low-Earth orbit today.
There would be no sound, no fire and
no shockwave. There would be no mushroom cloud.
From the surface, people would see a brilliant light,
followed by dazzling auroras generated by a burst of
electrons colliding with gases in the atmosphere.
The detonation would disable and
destroy everything in its immediate vicinity, turning
satellites into unguided projectiles that could crash
into one another.
Objects in low orbits travel at around 17,000 miles
per hour. Any debris ¡ª even as small and light as a
paint chip ¡ª would pose real danger to other objects
or people in space.
Meanwhile, the burst of intense
radiation produced by the detonation would be captured
by Earth¡¯s magnetic field.
Swirling away from the blast point,
the charged particles would form a shell of radiation
that would linger for weeks, if not years ¡ª long
enough to gradually fry the onboard electronics of
surviving satellites orbiting close to Earth.
U.S. intelligence analysts have determined low-Earth
orbit would be unusable for an unknown period,
depending on the size of the blast.
Predictions about how an event like a??would affect human life
are difficult to pin down. Any astronauts aboard the
International Space Station would likely face grave danger and
future human spaceflight would be imperiled for some time. A
U.S. National Intelligence Council analysis of the possible
economic damage caused by a nuclear blast in low-Earth orbit
warned that there would be a widespread impact on travel and
shipping, banking and financial markets, the oil and gas
industries and farming and supply chains.
Even a detonation closer to Earth could have
catastrophic effects. Such a blast high above a major city may
not harm the population, but the bomb¡¯s electromagnetic pulse
could cause crippling blackouts and permanently damage
electrical grids. The Soviets demonstrated these effects during
a series of nuclear tests, code-named the?, in the early 1960s.
U.S. intelligence had been tracking Russia¡¯s
interest in developing a nuclear anti-satellite weapon years
before Cosmos launched in 2022, officials say. Once they
detected it, just weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine, military
officials at Space Command¡¯s Joint Operations Center in Colorado
Springs started to pull together information from various
intelligence agencies. They keyed satellite sensors onto the
Cosmos 2553 and told leaders at the Pentagon what they believed
they had found: a working model for Russia¡¯s nuclear
anti-satellite program that relays data on how an operational
weapon would perform, should it be placed in orbit.
All this was kept in tight secrecy until last
Feb. 14, when Michael R. Turner, an Ohio Republican who is the
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, put out a cryptic??calling
for the release of classified material about a ¡°serious national
security threat.¡± As more information trickled out of Washington
about the potential weapon, President Vladimir Putin of Russia
publicly dismissed the allegation. ¡°Our position is clear and
transparent: We have always been categorically against and are
now against the placement of nuclear weapons in space,¡± he said.
The Russian Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request
for comment.
Although the Soviet Union, now Russia, signed
the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which forbids nuclear weapons and
other weapons of mass destruction in space, that¡¯s not exactly
easing anyone¡¯s mind. At the United Nations in April, Russia
vetoed a resolution that reaffirmed provisions in that treaty.
And in recent years, both Russia and the United States have
walked away from several Cold War arms agreements as relations
between the countries have worsened.
There are also several United Nations agreements
?that regulate various aspects of outer space, but space-faring
countries have yet to solidify norms and conventions for
responsible actions in orbit. How close can one nation¡¯s
satellite approach another nation¡¯s satellite? When they
inadvertently draw close, which way should they turn to avoid
crashing? How should satellite operators communicate with one
another? It took centuries in maritime and decades in aviation
law to establish such rules and identify safe and professional
behavior. It¡¯s now time for outer space.
The foundations of space law were set
almost 60 years ago
There are only two major treaties that
govern nuclear weapons in space. The first, the Limited
Test Ban Treaty, was signed just a year after the
largest nuclear weapons test in space.
Limited Test Ban Treaty
October 1963
The U.S., the Soviet Union and
Britain agreed to stop testing nuclear weapons
in the atmosphere, underwater and in space.
Rescue
Agreement
Liability
convention
Today
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Outer Space Treaty
October 1967
Foundation of international
space law that governs outer space, the moon and
other celestial bodies.
Moon
Agreement
Registration
convention
Source: United Nations Office for Outer
Space Affairs
Although U.S. administrations including
President Biden¡¯s have tried to move the world closer to a
consensus on the rules of the road, progress has been slow. One
hundred and fifty-five states, including the United States,
voted in favor of a United Nations resolution calling to halt
debris-generating anti-satellite missile tests from Earth, but
Russia and China voted against the measure. After Russia vetoed
the reaffirmation of the Outer Space Treaty, Moscow, along with
Beijing, introduced a competing resolution calling for a ban on
the placement of all weapons in outer space. That also failed
after the United States and other nations dismissed it as a ploy
to distract attention from its true intentions.
Therein lies the challenge. The United States,
Russia and China are growing further apart rather than coming
together to forge such agreements. Verifying that a satellite
isn¡¯t carrying a nuclear weapon or some other harmful payload
becomes even more difficult once it¡¯s put into orbit. And
writing legal definitions of what qualifies as a space weapon is
a formidable task because of dual-use capabilities. A grappling
satellite, for instance, that does the necessary work of
grabbing and pulling dead satellites from orbit could also in
theory be used to remove another nation¡¯s functioning national
security satellite from its position, though no nation is known
to have done so to date.
President Lyndon B. Johnson and
Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin of the Soviet Union in the
White House East Room on Oct. 10, 1967, formally putting
the Outer Space Treaty in effect.
?
Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library,
via YouTube
There are clear points where collaboration can
still happen that would benefit all countries ¡ª and provide the
foundation for future agreement. A United Nations report in May
noted the growing congestion in low-Earth orbit and urged states
to consider an international framework for nations to share
information on satellites and space debris. It echoes a topic
already under discussion in Washington about developing an
effective channel with Moscow and Beijing to coordinate space
traffic. Such a safety mechanism could prove useful,
particularly during a diplomatic or military crisis, to avoid an
honest mistake like an unintended collision being interpreted as
an act of war.
The U.S. military is on board for this kind of
open channel, beyond the limited ones in operation now. ¡°We want
to have a way to deconflict and have space safety discussions,
which would enable those tenets of responsible behavior,¡± said
Gen. Stephen N. Whiting, who oversees Space Command.
American leadership is needed to bring other
nations into the hotline and to maintain peace ¡ª however uneasy
¡ª in space. When news of Russia¡¯s nuclear anti-satellite program
became public, Secretary of State Antony Blinken??to his counterparts in India and China to
help apply pressure on Moscow about the program. Mr. Trump
should try to expand on that effort when he re-enters the White
House. Rather than fuel an accelerated space arms buildup, he
should instruct his National Security Council to mobilize a
diplomacy-led, multilateral effort to draw up rules of behavior
in outer space that reflect the technological reality of today.
A good start would be for Mr. Trump to call out
Cosmos 2553 by name ¡ª something the Biden administration hasn¡¯t
publicly done ¡ª and further express the need to build on the
half-century-old Outer Space Treaty with China and Russia. The
president-elect might opt to consult Mr. Musk, who as founder of
SpaceX has much to lose with a military confrontation in space.
As he no doubt knows, the world has spent decades delicately
constructing the space architecture that enables our daily life.
Any act of war in space, much less a nuclear detonation, would
needlessly put all that at risk.
History has shown that wherever there¡¯s a
potential for financial or strategic advantage ¡ª on land, in the
air or at sea ¡ª it¡¯s accompanied by the prospect of war. The
peril now looms above us, and it can no longer be overlooked.
Ek het my nogal verwonder oor die skrywer se na?witeit om miljoene dollars te spandeer en dan die navorsing se sukses meet aan die feit dat dit op 'n artikel in 'n vaktydskrif uitgeloop het.
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024, 22:34 bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Mens moenie
Google onderskat nie.? Maar ek dink nie die skrywer van die
artikel verstaan veel van die essensiele probleme met fusie vir
kragopwekking nie. Hy verstaan ook nie veel van kernfisika of
kernsplitsing nie.? {Dink bv dat Americium 'n lastige
afvalproduk is van kernsplitsings reaktore.? Dis veel eerder 'n
skaars en waardevolle byproduk wat bv in
brand-detektore gebruik word}
Die
Copernicus apparaat waarvan hy skryf hoop om "energy breakeven"
te bereik.? As hulle dit reeds so vroeg as 2025 sou regkry, sou
dit 2 dekades wees nadat dit reeds by JET bereik is. ?
Die artikel
noem nerens een van die mees wesentlike probleme --
stralingskade -- nie.
"Those who do
not learn the lessons of history, are bound to repeat them".?
Die skrywer ken gladnie naastenby die geskiedenis van
kernsplitsing of -fusie nie.
On 2024/12/03 14:34, Pieter Van der
Walt via wrote:
Mens moenie
Google onderskat nie.? Maar ek dink nie die skrywer van die
artikel verstaan veel van die essensiele probleme met fusie vir
kragopwekking nie. Hy verstaan ook nie veel van kernfisika of
kernsplitsing nie.? {Dink bv dat Americium 'n lastige
afvalproduk is van kernsplitsings reaktore.? Dis veel eerder 'n
skaars en waardevolle byproduk wat bv in
brand-detektore gebruik word}
Die
Copernicus apparaat waarvan hy skryf hoop om "energy breakeven"
te bereik.? As hulle dit reeds so vroeg as 2025 sou regkry, sou
dit 2 dekades wees nadat dit reeds by JET bereik is. ?
Die artikel
noem nerens een van die mees wesentlike probleme --
stralingskade -- nie.
"Those who do
not learn the lessons of history, are bound to repeat them".?
Die skrywer ken gladnie naastenby die geskiedenis van
kernsplitsing of -fusie nie.
On 2024/12/03 14:34, Pieter Van der
Walt via groups.io wrote:
On 21 Nov 2024, at 22:05, Pieter Van der Walt via <pwvanderwalt@...> wrote:
Goeie artikel. Strook met realiteit soos ons dit hier in ZA-energie leer ken het.
PW
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 6:31?PM bernhard via <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
NEIL OVERY: SA government¡¯s
nuclear model is flawed and not economically viable
Ownership options are fantasies
as neither Eskom nor the state have the ability to raise
sufficient capital to build a power plant
21 November 2024 - 05:00
by?Neil Overy
Koeberg
nuclear power station is shown in Cape Town. Picture:
MISHA JORDAAN/GALLO IMAGES
How would you like to
start paying for a nuclear power station years before
it¡¯s even been built? How about also paying for cost
overruns incurred by the vendor building the plant?
Under the current
ownership and funding options being proposed by
government in its reckless pursuit of new nuclear
power, both are a real possibility.?
ADVERTISEMENT
Inspired
by
According to a
presentation made by the department of mineral
resources & energy to the portfolio committee on
energy & electricity in late August, three
ownership options are being considered for the new
nuclear power station.
The first two options ¡ª
that the plant would be completely, or majority, owned
by Eskom ¡ª are fantasies because neither Eskom nor
government has the ability to affordably raise
sufficient capital for either option. Not that any
private institutions would finance the power station
anyway. This means the third option ¡ª a public-private
partnership (PPP), with the government having a
minority shareholding (likely to be tiny) ¡ª is the
only realistic option.
The department¡¯s proposed
PPP (subject to vendor approval) is a
build-own-transfer model, whereby the vendor will
build and own the nuclear power station, which will be
transferred to the state when the vendor has made what
it considers to be a suitable return on investment.
Under this arrangement Eskom would be the operator,
despite not owning the asset. What this means in terms
of insurance and liability is anyone¡¯s guess.
This arrangement would
mean the costs (financial risk) of the new plant
appear on the vendor¡¯s, as opposed to Eskom¡¯s or
government¡¯s, balance sheet. According to the
department, this financial risk for the vendor can in
theory be mitigated. It provides three ways of doing
so ¡ª a power purchase agreement (PPA), a contract for
difference agreement, or via something called the
regulated asset base (RAB) model.?
It has become common for
nuclear vendors to fund nuclear power stations via a
PPA signed between the vendor and an electricity
offtaker (such as Eskom). A PPA fixes the price of
electricity (inflation linked) at such a level (strike
price) that assures the vendor can recover costs and
make a return on investment even if the wholesale
price of electricity falls in the respective
electricity market.
Eskom¡¯s unbundling is set
to create such a market. For example, in Turkey in
2010 a 15-year PPA was signed between Rosatom and the
Turkish Electricity Trade & Contract
Corporation?for the construction of the Akkuyu nuclear
power station.
A 35-year ¡°contract for
difference¡± was signed between the world¡¯s largest
nuclear operator, EDF, and the British government for
the construction of Hinkley Point C in 2016. In terms
of this contract if the wholesale price of electricity
goes above the strike price the offtaker is refunded
the difference. If the wholesale price is below the
strike price it acts in the same way as a normal PPA.?
When it comes to nuclear
power stations PPAs have proven to be bad news for
consumers because strike prices are inflated by
vendors in the expectation that it will guarantee
their revenues and shift some of the construction risk
to consumers. For example, it has been calculated that
electricity consumers in Turkey will pay 275% more for
their electricity over the 15-years of the PPA
compared with the price of renewables. The British
government¡¯s public accounts committee has estimated
that the deal signed between EDF and the government
will cost customers an additional $40bn over 35 years,
compared with the cost of renewable energy sources.
Shockingly, these
sweetheart deals are proving unworkable for nuclear
vendors because of the delays and cost overruns that
have always plagued the construction of nuclear power
stations. Even for hugely state subsidised companies,
such as EDF, delays and cost overruns are making the
cost of building nuclear power stations financially
unsustainable. For example, initiated in 2016, EDF¡¯s
Hinkley Point C, which was supposed to cost $23bn and
be completed in 2027, is now expected to cost at least
$34bn (in 2016 prices) and be completed in 2030 at the
earliest. Because of this colossal cost increase EDF
has told the British government that it will only
begin the construction of another nuclear power
station, Sizewell C, if the RAB model is used.
The RAB model shifts even
more of the enormous financial risk of building a
nuclear power station onto the end consumer by
allowing vendors such as EDF to charge consumers for
electricity as soon as it starts building. In this way
consumers pay construction costs, potentially for
years, before they receive any electricity in return.
In addition, RAB allows vendors to charge end
consumers for cost overruns. In Britain, EDF has
stated that it expects consumers to directly cough up
30% of any cost overruns it incurs. After that any
cost overruns above 30% would be covered by the vendor
up to a yet to be agreed ¡°funding cap¡± (which could be
any figure over 30%), after which the British
government (taxpayers) become liable for cost
overruns, or the government terminates the project. As
critics in Britain have noted, this model essentially
provides a blank cheque for vendors to do as they
please.?
It¡¯s not just EDF that is
interested in RAB. Under the heading ¡°Nuclear Needs
Finance¡± Rosatom¡¯s website lists the ¡°advantages¡± of
the model, while it appears as an example of how to
fund nuclear power stations on the World Nuclear
Association website.
That vendors are now
having to resort to desperate measures such as the RAB
model tells you all you need to know about nuclear
power. It is not, and never has been, an economically
viable way to generate electricity. It is even less so
now because of the rapid expansion of renewables.
That the RAB model is
being considered for nuclear power anywhere is a
scandal given that research has demonstrated that 97%
of nuclear power station projects (175 out of 180
projects) ran over budget by an average of 117%.
That such a model is even
being considered in SA, where energy poverty is
increasing year on year due to pre-existing enormous
tariff increases, in unconscionable.
? Dr Overy, a freelance
researcher, writer and photographer, is a research
associate at Environmental Humanities South,
University of Cape Town.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 6:31?PM bernhard via <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
NEIL OVERY: SA government¡¯s
nuclear model is flawed and not economically viable
Ownership options are fantasies
as neither Eskom nor the state have the ability to raise
sufficient capital to build a power plant
21 November 2024 - 05:00
by?Neil Overy
Koeberg
nuclear power station is shown in Cape Town. Picture:
MISHA JORDAAN/GALLO IMAGES
How would you like to
start paying for a nuclear power station years before
it¡¯s even been built? How about also paying for cost
overruns incurred by the vendor building the plant?
Under the current
ownership and funding options being proposed by
government in its reckless pursuit of new nuclear
power, both are a real possibility.?
ADVERTISEMENT
Inspired
by
According to a
presentation made by the department of mineral
resources & energy to the portfolio committee on
energy & electricity in late August, three
ownership options are being considered for the new
nuclear power station.
The first two options ¡ª
that the plant would be completely, or majority, owned
by Eskom ¡ª are fantasies because neither Eskom nor
government has the ability to affordably raise
sufficient capital for either option. Not that any
private institutions would finance the power station
anyway. This means the third option ¡ª a public-private
partnership (PPP), with the government having a
minority shareholding (likely to be tiny) ¡ª is the
only realistic option.
The department¡¯s proposed
PPP (subject to vendor approval) is a
build-own-transfer model, whereby the vendor will
build and own the nuclear power station, which will be
transferred to the state when the vendor has made what
it considers to be a suitable return on investment.
Under this arrangement Eskom would be the operator,
despite not owning the asset. What this means in terms
of insurance and liability is anyone¡¯s guess.
This arrangement would
mean the costs (financial risk) of the new plant
appear on the vendor¡¯s, as opposed to Eskom¡¯s or
government¡¯s, balance sheet. According to the
department, this financial risk for the vendor can in
theory be mitigated. It provides three ways of doing
so ¡ª a power purchase agreement (PPA), a contract for
difference agreement, or via something called the
regulated asset base (RAB) model.?
It has become common for
nuclear vendors to fund nuclear power stations via a
PPA signed between the vendor and an electricity
offtaker (such as Eskom). A PPA fixes the price of
electricity (inflation linked) at such a level (strike
price) that assures the vendor can recover costs and
make a return on investment even if the wholesale
price of electricity falls in the respective
electricity market.
Eskom¡¯s unbundling is set
to create such a market. For example, in Turkey in
2010 a 15-year PPA was signed between Rosatom and the
Turkish Electricity Trade & Contract
Corporation?for the construction of the Akkuyu nuclear
power station.
A 35-year ¡°contract for
difference¡± was signed between the world¡¯s largest
nuclear operator, EDF, and the British government for
the construction of Hinkley Point C in 2016. In terms
of this contract if the wholesale price of electricity
goes above the strike price the offtaker is refunded
the difference. If the wholesale price is below the
strike price it acts in the same way as a normal PPA.?
When it comes to nuclear
power stations PPAs have proven to be bad news for
consumers because strike prices are inflated by
vendors in the expectation that it will guarantee
their revenues and shift some of the construction risk
to consumers. For example, it has been calculated that
electricity consumers in Turkey will pay 275% more for
their electricity over the 15-years of the PPA
compared with the price of renewables. The British
government¡¯s public accounts committee has estimated
that the deal signed between EDF and the government
will cost customers an additional $40bn over 35 years,
compared with the cost of renewable energy sources.
Shockingly, these
sweetheart deals are proving unworkable for nuclear
vendors because of the delays and cost overruns that
have always plagued the construction of nuclear power
stations. Even for hugely state subsidised companies,
such as EDF, delays and cost overruns are making the
cost of building nuclear power stations financially
unsustainable. For example, initiated in 2016, EDF¡¯s
Hinkley Point C, which was supposed to cost $23bn and
be completed in 2027, is now expected to cost at least
$34bn (in 2016 prices) and be completed in 2030 at the
earliest. Because of this colossal cost increase EDF
has told the British government that it will only
begin the construction of another nuclear power
station, Sizewell C, if the RAB model is used.
The RAB model shifts even
more of the enormous financial risk of building a
nuclear power station onto the end consumer by
allowing vendors such as EDF to charge consumers for
electricity as soon as it starts building. In this way
consumers pay construction costs, potentially for
years, before they receive any electricity in return.
In addition, RAB allows vendors to charge end
consumers for cost overruns. In Britain, EDF has
stated that it expects consumers to directly cough up
30% of any cost overruns it incurs. After that any
cost overruns above 30% would be covered by the vendor
up to a yet to be agreed ¡°funding cap¡± (which could be
any figure over 30%), after which the British
government (taxpayers) become liable for cost
overruns, or the government terminates the project. As
critics in Britain have noted, this model essentially
provides a blank cheque for vendors to do as they
please.?
It¡¯s not just EDF that is
interested in RAB. Under the heading ¡°Nuclear Needs
Finance¡± Rosatom¡¯s website lists the ¡°advantages¡± of
the model, while it appears as an example of how to
fund nuclear power stations on the World Nuclear
Association website.
That vendors are now
having to resort to desperate measures such as the RAB
model tells you all you need to know about nuclear
power. It is not, and never has been, an economically
viable way to generate electricity. It is even less so
now because of the rapid expansion of renewables.
That the RAB model is
being considered for nuclear power anywhere is a
scandal given that research has demonstrated that 97%
of nuclear power station projects (175 out of 180
projects) ran over budget by an average of 117%.
That such a model is even
being considered in SA, where energy poverty is
increasing year on year due to pre-existing enormous
tariff increases, in unconscionable.
? Dr Overy, a freelance
researcher, writer and photographer, is a research
associate at Environmental Humanities South,
University of Cape Town.
NEIL OVERY: SA government¡¯s
nuclear model is flawed and not economically viable
Ownership options are fantasies
as neither Eskom nor the state have the ability to raise
sufficient capital to build a power plant
21 November 2024 - 05:00
by?Neil Overy
Koeberg
nuclear power station is shown in Cape Town. Picture:
MISHA JORDAAN/GALLO IMAGES
How would you like to
start paying for a nuclear power station years before
it¡¯s even been built? How about also paying for cost
overruns incurred by the vendor building the plant?
Under the current
ownership and funding options being proposed by
government in its reckless pursuit of new nuclear
power, both are a real possibility.?
ADVERTISEMENT
Inspired
by
According to a
presentation made by the department of mineral
resources & energy to the portfolio committee on
energy & electricity in late August, three
ownership options are being considered for the new
nuclear power station.
The first two options ¡ª
that the plant would be completely, or majority, owned
by Eskom ¡ª are fantasies because neither Eskom nor
government has the ability to affordably raise
sufficient capital for either option. Not that any
private institutions would finance the power station
anyway. This means the third option ¡ª a public-private
partnership (PPP), with the government having a
minority shareholding (likely to be tiny) ¡ª is the
only realistic option.
The department¡¯s proposed
PPP (subject to vendor approval) is a
build-own-transfer model, whereby the vendor will
build and own the nuclear power station, which will be
transferred to the state when the vendor has made what
it considers to be a suitable return on investment.
Under this arrangement Eskom would be the operator,
despite not owning the asset. What this means in terms
of insurance and liability is anyone¡¯s guess.
This arrangement would
mean the costs (financial risk) of the new plant
appear on the vendor¡¯s, as opposed to Eskom¡¯s or
government¡¯s, balance sheet. According to the
department, this financial risk for the vendor can in
theory be mitigated. It provides three ways of doing
so ¡ª a power purchase agreement (PPA), a contract for
difference agreement, or via something called the
regulated asset base (RAB) model.?
It has become common for
nuclear vendors to fund nuclear power stations via a
PPA signed between the vendor and an electricity
offtaker (such as Eskom). A PPA fixes the price of
electricity (inflation linked) at such a level (strike
price) that assures the vendor can recover costs and
make a return on investment even if the wholesale
price of electricity falls in the respective
electricity market.
Eskom¡¯s unbundling is set
to create such a market. For example, in Turkey in
2010 a 15-year PPA was signed between Rosatom and the
Turkish Electricity Trade & Contract
Corporation?for the construction of the Akkuyu nuclear
power station.
A 35-year ¡°contract for
difference¡± was signed between the world¡¯s largest
nuclear operator, EDF, and the British government for
the construction of Hinkley Point C in 2016. In terms
of this contract if the wholesale price of electricity
goes above the strike price the offtaker is refunded
the difference. If the wholesale price is below the
strike price it acts in the same way as a normal PPA.?
When it comes to nuclear
power stations PPAs have proven to be bad news for
consumers because strike prices are inflated by
vendors in the expectation that it will guarantee
their revenues and shift some of the construction risk
to consumers. For example, it has been calculated that
electricity consumers in Turkey will pay 275% more for
their electricity over the 15-years of the PPA
compared with the price of renewables. The British
government¡¯s public accounts committee has estimated
that the deal signed between EDF and the government
will cost customers an additional $40bn over 35 years,
compared with the cost of renewable energy sources.
Shockingly, these
sweetheart deals are proving unworkable for nuclear
vendors because of the delays and cost overruns that
have always plagued the construction of nuclear power
stations. Even for hugely state subsidised companies,
such as EDF, delays and cost overruns are making the
cost of building nuclear power stations financially
unsustainable. For example, initiated in 2016, EDF¡¯s
Hinkley Point C, which was supposed to cost $23bn and
be completed in 2027, is now expected to cost at least
$34bn (in 2016 prices) and be completed in 2030 at the
earliest. Because of this colossal cost increase EDF
has told the British government that it will only
begin the construction of another nuclear power
station, Sizewell C, if the RAB model is used.
The RAB model shifts even
more of the enormous financial risk of building a
nuclear power station onto the end consumer by
allowing vendors such as EDF to charge consumers for
electricity as soon as it starts building. In this way
consumers pay construction costs, potentially for
years, before they receive any electricity in return.
In addition, RAB allows vendors to charge end
consumers for cost overruns. In Britain, EDF has
stated that it expects consumers to directly cough up
30% of any cost overruns it incurs. After that any
cost overruns above 30% would be covered by the vendor
up to a yet to be agreed ¡°funding cap¡± (which could be
any figure over 30%), after which the British
government (taxpayers) become liable for cost
overruns, or the government terminates the project. As
critics in Britain have noted, this model essentially
provides a blank cheque for vendors to do as they
please.?
It¡¯s not just EDF that is
interested in RAB. Under the heading ¡°Nuclear Needs
Finance¡± Rosatom¡¯s website lists the ¡°advantages¡± of
the model, while it appears as an example of how to
fund nuclear power stations on the World Nuclear
Association website.
That vendors are now
having to resort to desperate measures such as the RAB
model tells you all you need to know about nuclear
power. It is not, and never has been, an economically
viable way to generate electricity. It is even less so
now because of the rapid expansion of renewables.
That the RAB model is
being considered for nuclear power anywhere is a
scandal given that research has demonstrated that 97%
of nuclear power station projects (175 out of 180
projects) ran over budget by an average of 117%.
That such a model is even
being considered in SA, where energy poverty is
increasing year on year due to pre-existing enormous
tariff increases, in unconscionable.
? Dr Overy, a freelance
researcher, writer and photographer, is a research
associate at Environmental Humanities South,
University of Cape Town.
INVITATION | CDE Conversations | Mteto Nyati on Eskom, SOEs, leadership and SA's future | Tue 19 Nov 2024 | 5 to 6 pm SAST
Ann se onderhoud met Mteto was verfrissend adders! Uiteindelik 'n voorsitter wat rasioneel dink en teenproduktiewe beleid bevraagteken! En Gwede is heel uit die prentjie uit.
PW
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ann Bernstein<bernstein.ann@...> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024, 10:14 Subject: INVITATION | CDE Conversations | Mteto Nyati on Eskom, SOEs, leadership and SA's future | Tue 19 Nov 2024 | 5 to 6 pm SAST To: Pieter Van der Walt <pwvanderwalt@...>
Dear PieterMteto Nyati is the chairman of Eskom and executive chairman of BSG, a consulting and technology company. He is the former group chief executive of Altron, former CEO of MTN SA, an author and the recipient of several leadership awards. See his bio here.Ann Bernstein, CDE¡¯s ??????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????
Dear Pieter
Mteto Nyati is the chairman of Eskom and executive chairman of BSG, a consulting and technology company. He is the former group chief executive of Altron, former CEO of MTN SA, an author and the recipient of several leadership awards. See his bio.
Ann Bernstein, CDE¡¯s executive director will be in conversation with Mteto Nyati. She will talk to him about Eskom, state owned enterprises, business and leadership.
Date: Tuesday 19 November 2024? Time: 5 to 6 pm SAST Registration:?
You need a Zoom account to register, and you can sign up (at no cost) on . After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. For further information, please contact events@....
For nearly 30 years, CDE has influenced policy in South Africa¡¯s democracy. We have established ourselves as a unique policy think tank and prominent public ¡®voice¡¯ promoting enterprise and development in South Africa and emerging markets. We have built a wide network throughout the country and with leading global experts and think tanks, especially in democratic developing countries.
CDE¡¯s flagship project, AGENDA 2024: Priorities for South Africa's new government, based on extensive policy work and collaboration with experts, business leaders, former public servants and academics, sets out to answer what is by far the most important question facing South Africa: What can a new government do to get the country back on track after 15 years of stagnation and decline? See related media statements here, the op-eds here and the first reports in the ACTION series,
CDE would like to open up this lecture series widely. Please share this invitation with your networks.
*By registering you are automatically added to our database. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Enter your text here
Copyright? the Centre for Development and Enterprise all rights reserved.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 07:32 bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Nogtans
100 keer meer geloofwaardig as netto-elektrisiteit uit
aardgebonde fusie (fotovoltaies lewer natuurlik
netto-elektrisiteit uit songebonde fusie).??
Ek gaan
solank lesse neem oor hoe om te vlieg met hierdie EV!
Nogtans
100 keer meer geloofwaardig as netto-elektrisiteit uit
aardgebonde fusie (fotovoltaies lewer natuurlik
netto-elektrisiteit uit songebonde fusie).??
Ek gaan
solank lesse neem oor hoe om te vlieg met hierdie EV!
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 18:20 bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Snert om te
se^ "steady state" en "naturally stable" van daardie kriogene
dipool binne 'n plasma van 175 miljoen C (of K).? Netso is die
beskrywing "still
generating net power" so absurd as wat kan kom.??
Geen
fusie toestel op aarde kan netto-elektriese krag genereer
nie.? Nie eens naastenby
nie.??
Nie binne die
volgende 1000 jaar nie!? Ook nie vanaf MIT of Princeton (wat
soos talle mense elders al vir baie dekades lank hard en
vernuftig probeer) nie!
On 2024/11/18 14:11, Pieter Van der
Walt via wrote:
?
Lees ook die kommentaar: neutrone sal nie 'n
probleem wees nie, omdat fusie nie bewerkstellig kan word nie
en daar gevolglik geen neutrone gaan wees nie....
Snert om te
se^ "steady state" en "naturally stable" van daardie kriogene
dipool binne 'n plasma van 175 miljoen C (of K).? Netso is die
beskrywing "still
generating net power" so absurd as wat kan kom.??
Geen
fusie toestel op aarde kan netto-elektriese krag genereer
nie.? Nie eens naastenby
nie.??
Nie binne die
volgende 1000 jaar nie!? Ook nie vanaf MIT of Princeton (wat
soos talle mense elders al vir baie dekades lank hard en
vernuftig probeer) nie!
On 2024/11/18 14:11, Pieter Van der
Walt via groups.io wrote:
Lees ook die kommentaar: neutrone sal nie 'n
probleem wees nie, omdat fusie nie bewerkstellig kan word nie
en daar gevolglik geen neutrone gaan wees nie....
Lees ook die kommentaar: neutrone sal nie 'n probleem wees nie, omdat fusie nie bewerkstellig kan word nie en daar gevolglik geen neutrone gaan wees nie....
Re: Einde van die wereldwye plutonium ekonomie vir kragopwekking
Ja.? Om nie
eens te praat van radioaktiwiteit wat daardie neutrone gaan
induseer nie.? En daardie wand wat die neutrone moet keer, moet
ook nogal naby 'n plasma van sowat 150 miljoen C (of K) wees.
Tungsten verdamp (sublimeer) onderkant 3 000 C, en moet dus
aktief verkoel word.? En neutrone wat deur die wand en
verkoeling kom, tref en beskadig dan die ultraduur kriogene
supergeleidende magneetspoele.? Sal laasgenoemde meer as 'n
minuut van kontinue plasma fusie kan oorleef?? Meer as 'n dag??
On 2024/11/14 21:28, Pieter Van der
Walt via groups.io wrote:
Die idee van metale wat self stralingskade herstel
klink maar vergesog.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024, 19:59
bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]>
wrote:
Hierdie
is uitstekende artikels.? Lees ook die kommentaar aan
die einde van die Eerste artikel (Fusion, forever the
energy of tomorrow?).? Die koste van die teiken was $100
000, en dit het maar 3.15 MJ gelewer -- minder as 1 kWu
se neutron supersnel neutrone, en dalk 0.1 kWu se hitte
wat dalk eendag in nog minder elektrisiteit omgesit kan
word.? En sowat 90 kWu was nodig om die lasers te pomp
om heelwat minder as 0.1 kWu se elektrisiteit te lewer.
In
die tweede artikel (Feretting out the truth about
Fusion) se^ Rosner:? "Embrittlement
won¡¯t be a showstopper for fusion energy."? Daarvan
verskil ek nogal.? Soos ook dr Klaus Isebeck--
destydse hoof van Stralingsbeskadiging by SA se AEK
(of dalk destyds reeds Kernkor).? Hy het in 'n kursus
oor daardie onderwerp by UP se Dept Fisika onomwonde
gese^:? "People who believe in Nuclear Fusion, do not
understand Radiation Damage".
On
2024/11/14 18:13, Pieter Van der Walt via wrote:
Hierdie ouens vertel dieselfde storie as
Bernhard. Nie in ons leeftyd nie, nie in ons
kleinkinders se leeftyd nie.
PW
----------
Forwarded message ---------
From: Pieter
Van der Walt via <pwvanderwalt=[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 5:20?PM
Subject: [ZA-energie] Fusion, forever the energy
of tomorrow?
To: ZA_energie <[email protected]>
From: Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists<newsletter@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 4:23?PM
Subject: Fusion, forever the energy of
tomorrow?
To: <pwvanderwalt@...>
UK
Nuclear Notebook | Bob Rosner Interview
| More? ? ?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Read a shareable version
of this
newsletter.
Was this email
forwarded to
you?
to stay
current.
Presented in partnership
with
November
14, 2024
?
?
A
researcher in
the interior
of the
magnetic
fusion
experiment
known as
Alcator C-Mod
at MIT. The
interior of
the
donut-shaped
device
confines
plasma hotter
than the
interior of
the sun, using
high magnetic
fields. (Image
courtesy of
Bob Mumgaard /
Plasma Science
and Fusion
Center, MIT.)
DAN DROLLETTE JR
The Bulletin's November 2024 magazine
investigates
nuclear
fusion's
potential.
Will it become
a commercial
energy source
within the
next decade,
or will we
still be
waiting a
century from
now??
DAN DROLLETTE JR
Can
nuclear fusion
be developed
quickly enough
to make a
difference for
climate
change?
Theoretical
physicist,
former head of
Argonne
National
Laboratory,
and
self-described
"plasma guy"
Bob Rosner
discusses?fusion,
climate
change, and
other reasons
to pursue it.
Part of our
November
magazine, this
article is
available to
all for a
limited time.?
Advertisement
HANS M. KRISTENSEN,
MATT KORDA,
ELIANA JOHNS,
MACKENZIE
KNIGHT
For decades, the United Kingdom has maintained a
stockpile of
approximately
225 nuclear
warheads¡ªup to
120 of which
are available
for delivery
by four?Vanguard-class
nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.?The stockpile is now
increasing,
according to
the latest
Nuclear
Notebook by
experts at the
Federation of
American
Scientists.?
?
Royal Navy Vanguard-class
nuclear-powered
ballistic
missile
submarine HMS
Victorious
departs HM
Naval Base
Clyde?in?Scotland.
The other
three Vanguard-class
SSBNs are also
based at
Clyde.
(Credit: Will
Haigh / UK
Ministry of
Defence.)
ROBERT ALVAREZ
Yesterday marked 50 years since the death of?Karen
Silkwood, a
union activist
and
whistleblower?at
a plutonium
fuel
plant.?Robert
Alvarez
recounts the
efforts he,
his wife, and
others made in
successfully
seeking
justice for
her.?
QUOTE
OF THE DAY
"Because we haven't
seen severe
illness and
deaths yet, I
think there's
been some
complacency
around trying
to control
this virus
[H5N1], but
I've always
said we
shouldn't wait
for farm
workers to die
before we take
action to
protect them.
I just don't
think you
should gamble
with people's
lives like
that."
¡ª Jennifer
Nuzzo,
director of
the Pandemic
Center
and?professor
of
epidemiology
at Brown
University
School of
Public
Health,?The
Guardian
?
PRESENTED IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH
Join a free course exploring AI policy
challenges,
developed with
MIT and Oxford
experts.
Learn about
frameworks for
governing
advanced AI
and proposals
to mitigate
extreme risks.
Our alumni
shape policy
at
governments,
international
organizations,
and leading
think tanks.
Your gift fuels our
mission to
educate and
empower.
Together we
will work to
ensure science
serves
humanity.
?
?
???
? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ??
?
Copyright ? 2024?Bulletin
of the Atomic
Scientists
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024, 19:59 bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Hierdie is
uitstekende artikels.? Lees ook die kommentaar aan die einde van
die Eerste artikel (Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow?).?
Die koste van die teiken was $100 000, en dit het maar 3.15 MJ
gelewer -- minder as 1 kWu se neutron supersnel neutrone, en
dalk 0.1 kWu se hitte wat dalk eendag in nog minder
elektrisiteit omgesit kan word.? En sowat 90 kWu was nodig om
die lasers te pomp om heelwat minder as 0.1 kWu se elektrisiteit
te lewer.
In die tweede
artikel (Feretting out the truth about Fusion) se^ Rosner:? "Embrittlement
won¡¯t be a showstopper for fusion energy."? Daarvan verskil ek
nogal.? Soos ook dr Klaus Isebeck-- destydse hoof van
Stralingsbeskadiging by SA se AEK (of dalk destyds reeds
Kernkor).? Hy het in 'n kursus oor daardie onderwerp by UP se
Dept Fisika onomwonde gese^:? "People who believe in Nuclear
Fusion, do not understand Radiation Damage".
On
2024/11/14 18:13, Pieter Van der Walt via wrote:
Hierdie ouens vertel dieselfde storie as Bernhard.
Nie in ons leeftyd nie, nie in ons kleinkinders se leeftyd nie.
PW
---------- Forwarded
message ---------
From: Pieter
Van der Walt via <pwvanderwalt=[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 5:20?PM
Subject: [ZA-energie] Fusion, forever the energy of
tomorrow?
To: ZA_energie <[email protected]>
From: Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists<newsletter@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 4:23?PM
Subject: Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow?
To: <pwvanderwalt@...>
UK
Nuclear Notebook | Bob Rosner Interview | More?
? ?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Read a shareable version
of this
newsletter.
Was this email
forwarded to
you? to stay
current.
Presented in partnership
with
November
14, 2024
?
?
A
researcher in
the interior
of the
magnetic
fusion
experiment
known as
Alcator C-Mod
at MIT. The
interior of
the
donut-shaped
device
confines
plasma hotter
than the
interior of
the sun, using
high magnetic
fields. (Image
courtesy of
Bob Mumgaard /
Plasma Science
and Fusion
Center, MIT.)
DAN DROLLETTE JR
The Bulletin's November 2024 magazine
investigates
nuclear
fusion's
potential.
Will it become
a commercial
energy source
within the
next decade,
or will we
still be
waiting a
century from
now??
DAN DROLLETTE JR
Can
nuclear fusion
be developed
quickly enough
to make a
difference for
climate
change?
Theoretical
physicist,
former head of
Argonne
National
Laboratory,
and
self-described
"plasma guy"
Bob Rosner
discusses?fusion,
climate
change, and
other reasons
to pursue it.
Part of our
November
magazine, this
article is
available to
all for a
limited time.?
Advertisement
HANS M. KRISTENSEN,
MATT KORDA,
ELIANA JOHNS,
MACKENZIE
KNIGHT
For decades, the United Kingdom has maintained a
stockpile of
approximately
225 nuclear
warheads¡ªup to
120 of which
are available
for delivery
by four?Vanguard-class
nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.?The stockpile is now
increasing,
according to
the latest
Nuclear
Notebook by
experts at the
Federation of
American
Scientists.?
?
Royal Navy Vanguard-class
nuclear-powered
ballistic
missile
submarine HMS
Victorious
departs HM
Naval Base
Clyde?in?Scotland.
The other
three Vanguard-class
SSBNs are also
based at
Clyde.
(Credit: Will
Haigh / UK
Ministry of
Defence.)
ROBERT ALVAREZ
Yesterday marked 50 years since the death of?Karen
Silkwood, a
union activist
and
whistleblower?at
a plutonium
fuel
plant.?Robert
Alvarez
recounts the
efforts he,
his wife, and
others made in
successfully
seeking
justice for
her.?
QUOTE
OF THE DAY
"Because we haven't
seen severe
illness and
deaths yet, I
think there's
been some
complacency
around trying
to control
this virus
[H5N1], but
I've always
said we
shouldn't wait
for farm
workers to die
before we take
action to
protect them.
I just don't
think you
should gamble
with people's
lives like
that."
¡ª Jennifer
Nuzzo,
director of
the Pandemic
Center
and?professor
of
epidemiology
at Brown
University
School of
Public
Health,?The
Guardian
?
PRESENTED IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH
Join a free course exploring AI policy
challenges,
developed with
MIT and Oxford
experts.
Learn about
frameworks for
governing
advanced AI
and proposals
to mitigate
extreme risks.
Our alumni
shape policy
at
governments,
international
organizations,
and leading
think tanks.
Your gift fuels our
mission to
educate and
empower.
Together we
will work to
ensure science
serves
humanity.
?
?
???
? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ??
?
Copyright ? 2024?Bulletin
of the Atomic
Scientists
Hierdie is
uitstekende artikels.? Lees ook die kommentaar aan die einde van
die Eerste artikel (Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow?).?
Die koste van die teiken was $100 000, en dit het maar 3.15 MJ
gelewer -- minder as 1 kWu se neutron supersnel neutrone, en
dalk 0.1 kWu se hitte wat dalk eendag in nog minder
elektrisiteit omgesit kan word.? En sowat 90 kWu was nodig om
die lasers te pomp om heelwat minder as 0.1 kWu se elektrisiteit
te lewer.
In die tweede
artikel (Feretting out the truth about Fusion) se^ Rosner:? "Embrittlement
won¡¯t be a showstopper for fusion energy."? Daarvan verskil ek
nogal.? Soos ook dr Klaus Isebeck-- destydse hoof van
Stralingsbeskadiging by SA se AEK (of dalk destyds reeds
Kernkor).? Hy het in 'n kursus oor daardie onderwerp by UP se
Dept Fisika onomwonde gese^:? "People who believe in Nuclear
Fusion, do not understand Radiation Damage".
On
2024/11/14 18:13, Pieter Van der Walt via groups.io wrote:
Hierdie ouens vertel dieselfde storie as Bernhard.
Nie in ons leeftyd nie, nie in ons kleinkinders se leeftyd nie.
PW
---------- Forwarded
message ---------
From: Pieter
Van der Walt via <pwvanderwalt=[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 5:20?PM
Subject: [ZA-energie] Fusion, forever the energy of
tomorrow?
To: ZA_energie <[email protected]>
From: Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists<newsletter@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 4:23?PM
Subject: Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow?
To: <pwvanderwalt@...>
UK
Nuclear Notebook | Bob Rosner Interview | More?
? ?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Read a shareable version
of this
newsletter.
Was this email
forwarded to
you? to stay
current.
Presented in partnership
with
November
14, 2024
?
?
A
researcher in
the interior
of the
magnetic
fusion
experiment
known as
Alcator C-Mod
at MIT. The
interior of
the
donut-shaped
device
confines
plasma hotter
than the
interior of
the sun, using
high magnetic
fields. (Image
courtesy of
Bob Mumgaard /
Plasma Science
and Fusion
Center, MIT.)
DAN DROLLETTE JR
The Bulletin's November 2024 magazine
investigates
nuclear
fusion's
potential.
Will it become
a commercial
energy source
within the
next decade,
or will we
still be
waiting a
century from
now??
DAN DROLLETTE JR
Can
nuclear fusion
be developed
quickly enough
to make a
difference for
climate
change?
Theoretical
physicist,
former head of
Argonne
National
Laboratory,
and
self-described
"plasma guy"
Bob Rosner
discusses?fusion,
climate
change, and
other reasons
to pursue it.
Part of our
November
magazine, this
article is
available to
all for a
limited time.?
Advertisement
HANS M. KRISTENSEN,
MATT KORDA,
ELIANA JOHNS,
MACKENZIE
KNIGHT
For decades, the United Kingdom has maintained a
stockpile of
approximately
225 nuclear
warheads¡ªup to
120 of which
are available
for delivery
by four?Vanguard-class
nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.?The stockpile is now
increasing,
according to
the latest
Nuclear
Notebook by
experts at the
Federation of
American
Scientists.?
?
Royal Navy Vanguard-class
nuclear-powered
ballistic
missile
submarine HMS
Victorious
departs HM
Naval Base
Clyde?in?Scotland.
The other
three Vanguard-class
SSBNs are also
based at
Clyde.
(Credit: Will
Haigh / UK
Ministry of
Defence.)
ROBERT ALVAREZ
Yesterday marked 50 years since the death of?Karen
Silkwood, a
union activist
and
whistleblower?at
a plutonium
fuel
plant.?Robert
Alvarez
recounts the
efforts he,
his wife, and
others made in
successfully
seeking
justice for
her.?
QUOTE
OF THE DAY
"Because we haven't
seen severe
illness and
deaths yet, I
think there's
been some
complacency
around trying
to control
this virus
[H5N1], but
I've always
said we
shouldn't wait
for farm
workers to die
before we take
action to
protect them.
I just don't
think you
should gamble
with people's
lives like
that."
¡ª Jennifer
Nuzzo,
director of
the Pandemic
Center
and?professor
of
epidemiology
at Brown
University
School of
Public
Health,?The
Guardian
?
PRESENTED IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH
Join a free course exploring AI policy
challenges,
developed with
MIT and Oxford
experts.
Learn about
frameworks for
governing
advanced AI
and proposals
to mitigate
extreme risks.
Our alumni
shape policy
at
governments,
international
organizations,
and leading
think tanks.
Your gift fuels our
mission to
educate and
empower.
Together we
will work to
ensure science
serves
humanity.
?
?
???
? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ??
?
Copyright ? 2024?Bulletin
of the Atomic
Scientists
