Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

The Atomic Show #114 – Dan Yurman Russia-India Reactors, GNEP meeting, Kentucky nuclear, RWE, Vermont Yankee

By

Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat and Rod Adams chat about nuclear news from India, Idaho, Kentucky, Germany, Scotland, and Vermont

Dan Yurman and I had a great time on November 21 talking about a number of different nuclear news items including a large new power plant deal in India for Russian reactors, Dan’s first hand report of a GNEP meeting held in Idaho Falls, Kentucky’s energy plan that includes nuclear power and coal to liquids, RWE’s interest in new nuclear plants for the Baltic states and Eastern Europe, and Vermont Yankee controversies.

Here are some links that you might find useful if you want to do more research on the topics covered:

Please consider carefully the TPN pledge drive and give generously to help support continued availability of independent media.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:03:02 — 21.6MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | RSS

Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. Finrod: I sit at my keyboard corrected and humbled by the expertise and careful attention that you pay to Atomic Show Podcasts. Thank you. Here is a link to the World Nuclear Association page that lists thorium reserves by country in order.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

    Just in case you simply hate leaving this blog, here is the table in descending order by percent of proven reserves:

    Australia 18%

    USA 16%

    Turkey 13%

    India 12%

    Venezuela 12%

    Brazil 12%

    Norway 5%

    Egypt 4%

    Russia 3%

    Greenland 2%

    Canada 2%

    South Africa 1%

    Other countries 1%

    Please remember that this table is for a mineral that is not in widespread commercial use so there has been very little incentive for exploration and development of these reserves – so far.

  3. “Finrod: I sit at my keyboard corrected and humbled by the expertise and careful attention that you pay to Atomic Show Podcasts. Thank you.”

    Looking at it now, it strikes me that I perhaps come across as a bit abrupt. I do apologise. Chalk it up to extreme tiredness and a little bit of podcast fatigue (I have spent a good deal of the past weekend listening to the first several episodes of the Napoleon show).

    Of course, your expertise far exceeds mine, even in the matter upon which I commented. The table you’re working from is clearly more up-to-date than the one I worked on from memory, which had a ranking of (if I recall correctly) Australia, India, Norway, and so forth. Of course, given the ubiquity of thorium in Earth’s crust, we can’t really state authoritatively at this point just which country or region actually has the most, and it’s just my dumb luck that the latest assessment still has Australia at the top.

    In other news, I’ve recently purchased a book titled “Big Red: Three months on board a Trident nuclear submarine.” by Douglas C. Waller. When I finish it, I’ll come back and explain to you all about the subject. 🙂

  4. Finrod – maybe I should have put a smiley on my comment. I was sincerely grateful for someone taking the time to visit the blog and provide a correction to a statement that I made during the show. I LIKE it when people listen to what I say and call me out if I speak in error. (Heck, my wife has been doing it for years and I really like being around her. Beats being ignored!)

  5. I will comment, although I can see that you did not approved any after 2008!

    Advancement in nuclear power generation is no doubt a part of evolution, but how much care our institutions pay to save the planet?

    • Jane – I have not approved any comments on this post since 2008 because no one has submitted a comment on this post since that time.

      I am not sure that I understand your question. Where do our institutions get their money, if not from their contributors and customers?

  6. Hello, I retired from Grand Gulf sevreal years ago and was formerly a Senior Operations Instructor having taught in simulator and classroom all phases of operator training for many years. I have been keeping up on Fukushima Daiichi starting on Friday morning March 11, 2011 and monitoring all the official press statements by IAEA, NISA, and JAIF, etc. very closely. Here it is one month later and the daily status still shows core uncovery for Fukushima Daiichi Units 1, 2, and 3. This continues to baffle me as I cannot explain how this can be so. The official reports have shown injection flow rates on the order of 6 to 8 cubic meters per hour for weeks now and no significant change in reactor level. That’s only 30 or so gallons per minute and no where close to what I would ever considered adequate for a fire pump or fire hose. I was expecting reactor level to recover within a short time after injection with alternate injection sources was started and then continuing until the containment was flooded high enough to submerge the cores of each unit. Nowhere do I see any commentary or explanation about this from anyone. Surely I am not the only BWR SRO who is having a difficult time understanding this accident. One would think that more backup diesel generators or fire water diesels or hydrolaser pumps etc.. or a wide array of alternates could have been brought to the aid of these units weeks ago.

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy