Floating nuclear power plant set for first refuelling : Uranium & Fuel

Nuclear fuel has been delivered to Russia's floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov with the landmark refuelling set to begin before the end of the year.

The fuel was delivered by TVEL, Rosatom's fuel division, via the Northern Sea Route to the site, in Pevek, in the Chukotka region, in northeast Russia. The fuel was manufactured by TVEL's Elektrostal Machine-Building Plant, which is in the Moscow region.

The Akademik Lomonosov, which supplies heat and power to the town, is based on two KLT-40S reactors generating 35 MWe each, which are similar to those used in a previous generation of nuclear powered icebreakers. The fuel for the second reactor is due to be supplied and loaded during 2024.

TVEL said that unlike land-based large reactors which generally require replacement of a proportion of their fuel rods every 12-18 months "in the case of these reactors, the refuelling takes place once every few years and includes unloading of the entire reactor core and loading of fresh fuel into the reactor". It says this means there can be up to 3.5 years between refuellings.

Akademik Lomonosov, which was put into commercial operation in May 2020, was described at the time as a pilot project and a 'working prototype' for a future fleet of floating nuclear power plants and on-shore installations based on Russian-made small modular reactors intended for deployment in hard-to-reach areas of Russia's North and Far-East, as well as for export. Named after the 18th century Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov, it is 144 metres long and 30 metres wide, and has a displacement of 21,000 tonnes.

The town of Pevek has a population of about 4000, while the floating plant could potentially supply electricity to a city of 100,000. Since commissioning it is replacing the Bilibino nuclear power plant as it is retired, having operated since 1974, and the Chaunskaya thermal power plant which had been operating for more than 70 years. It also supplies power more widely in the region, including to mining companies involved in the development of the Baimsk ore zone.

Rosatom is already in the process of constructing four floating power units and is targeting the export market for floating nuclear power plants with capacity of at least 100 MWe and an assigned service life of up to 60 years featuring RITM-200M reactors, derived from those used on Russia's latest nuclear-powered icebreakers.Researched and written by World Nuclear News Floating nuclear power plant set for first refuelling : Uranium & Fuel - World Nuclear News
Read More........

At G-20, Biden announces ambitious corridor connecting India, Europe

President Biden with PM Modi at Raj Ghat Sept. 10, 2023. PHOTO: X @narendramodi

NEW DELHI – President Biden and several other world leaders announced plans here Saturday afternoon for a new rail and shipping corridor that would connect India and Europe through the Middle East, an ambitious proposal aimed at further connecting a volatile region and countering China’s years-long backing of massive infrastructure projects around the world.

The announcement solidified a preliminary agreement among a range of participants – including the United States, India, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the European Union – and came as leaders of the world’s largest economies tried to work through divisions on a range of thorny issues.

By midafternoon, the leaders here had reached consensus on a 37-page joint declaration on 83 points, several of which referred to Russia’s war in Ukraine. The debate over the war led some to predict that such a statement would prove elusive, particularly given that Russia is a member of the G-20. But they arrived at language that stated that “all states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition,” and also stated that “the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.” The language was not as pointed as it was during last year’s conference and did not explicitly name Russia as the aggressor in the war.

The leaders did highlight the “suffering and negative added impacts of the war in Ukraine” on a range of issues, including global food supply and energy security. But in the dry language of diplomacy, the statement added, “There were different views and assessments of the situation.”

In a Facebook post, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleg Nikolenko said the G-20 has “nothing to be proud of” on the language over Russian aggression in Ukraine, and he offered his own edits of how the portions regarding Ukraine should have been written.

The declaration in another section also formalized that the United States would host the G-20 in 2026, overcoming some late opposition from China.

“This is a significant milestone for India’s chairmanship and vote of confidence that the G-20 can come together to address a pressing range of issues and also to deal with hard issues that actually very much [divided] some members from others – including, obviously, Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine,” Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, said shortly after the deal was reached.

“I have got good news. From our team’s hard work, we have reached an agreement on the G-20 declaration,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the summit’s host, said in Hindi, prompting a long round of applause from the G-20 leaders.

Biden came to the conference determined to try to showcase that the G-20 can maintain its relevance even after Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin sent deputies instead of attending themselves, amid tensions over the war in Ukraine.

Asked whether Xi’s absence affected the summit, Biden said, “It would be nice to have him here but, no, the summit is going well.”

Shortly after the declaration was announced, Biden joined other leaders to announce the rail corridor.

“This is a big deal,” he said. “This is a real big deal.”

The cost of the project was unclear, but senior Biden administration officials view it as a way to link key areas of the world, India to Europe, opening up new trading partnerships and a flow of energy and digital information. Also significant is having Israel working with a historical adversary such as Saudi Arabia; Biden is separately hoping to broker a deal to normalize relations between the two countries.

Deputy national security adviser Jon Finer noted the significance of reaching an agreement in an area that “has, obviously often been a net exporter of turbulence and insecurity.”

“Linking these two regions, we think, is a huge opportunity, building on our broader efforts over the last couple of years to turn the temperature down across the region,” Finer said.

Officials in the countries involved are expected within 60 days to come up with a timeline for the projects – linking energy grids, laying undersea and overland cables, and providing more digital connections. Some of the tasks involve installing hydrogen pipelines from Israel to Europe, which administration officials hope will advance clean energy goals.

The summit took place against the backdrop of a city that largely has been shut down amid tight security, with police officers standing at nearly every intersection and shops and restaurants closed.

Most of the conference meetings were closed to the news media, but Biden entered the opening session planning to outline his opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

American officials unsuccessfully lobbied to have Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky address the conference, something he did in person during a Group of Seven gathering in Hiroshima, Japan, and which he did virtually during last year’s G-20 in Bali.

“Our view is that it is fundamentally a good thing when President Zelensky is able to make his case and Ukraine’s case for, you know, how damaging this conflict has been to his people and to his country,” Finer said. “He is the most effective messenger for that. And it’s certainly in a format in which, you know, Russian representatives will be able to give their views about the conflict that is appropriate for Ukraine to be able to offer its perspective.”

Biden arrived at the summit on Saturday morning, walking down a long corridor to greet Modi. “How are you?” he asked as he approached, appearing to jog up a slight incline before the two leaders shook and held hands while examining a G-20 logo that had the motto, “One Earth. One Family. One Future.”

They later met in a large room with three rows of desks in an oval, a chandelier hanging above them and small flags denoting where each country’s leader was to sit.

During the first session, Biden was between British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Indonesian President Joko Widodo. Before Biden sat down, several others greeted him, among them leaders from Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Nigeria.

“This period in the 21st century is a time to give the entire world a new direction. It is a time when age-old problems are demanding new solutions from us,” Modi said in an address to the global leaders as he sat behind a nameplate reading not India but Bharat – the Hindi name for the country – signaling a branding shift that has been the source of controversy for many in the nation.

The negotiations over a joint communiqué had been difficult, especially around language regarding the Ukraine war.

While it did note the harm of the war and the importance of territorial sovereignty, it did not name Russia as the perpetrator and was less direct in some of the language than was agreed to last year during the G-20 in Bali. At that meeting, while noting there were some disagreements, it referred to a U.N. resolution that “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and demands its complete and unconditional withdrawal from the territory of Ukraine.”

When asked about the change in text over the course of a year, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar said that some conditions have changed in the war.

“Bali was Bali and New Delhi was New Delhi,” he said. “Bali was a year ago and the situation was different. Many things have happened since then.”

He went on to add, “One should not have a theological view of this. New Delhi declaration is responding to the situation of today just as the Bali declaration did to the situation a year ago.”

The language also was the result of a lengthy negotiation. India’s chief G-20 coordinator, Amitabh Kant, said that Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia were helpful in reaching consensus.

“It was a tough, ruthless negotiation that went on for several days nonstop,” he said.

Indian officials expressed frustration that the war has overshadowed other issues, such as successfully negotiating the African Union’s acceptance into the G-20. For the first time, a representative of the African Union joined the gathering, with the chairman of the 55-member bloc, Comoros President Azali Assoumani, being introduced by Modi.“For all our moral idealism in foreign policy, we accept things as they are and find a way around it,” said India expert Aparna Pande of the Hudson Institute. “At the end of the day, you work with what you got.”At G-20, Biden announces ambitious corridor connecting India, Europe
Read More........

Brics+ and the Tricky Business of Balancing Global Geopolitics

By Priyal Singh: Will an expanded BRICS precipitate a new international order, or collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions? The words of 13th century Persian poet Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī, 'As you start to walk the way, the way appears,' certainly found new resonance in Johannesburg last week at the 15th BRICS Summit. Apart from expanding the diplomatic club to include Iran, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the summit revealed the global south's growing disillusionment with the current structure of the international system. These frustrations have bolstered BRICS' appeal as a counterweight to leading Western countries, such as those composing the G7. More significantly, an expanded BRICS represents a resounding call for international reform by global south states, exclusive from, and in opposition to, traditional Western powers. This unprecedented moment reflects the shifting locus of global power, and has propelled an expanded BRICS to chart a way into unknown territory. Decisions over the nature and trajectory of global order were once the sole preserve of the European 'great' powers, along with the United States (US). The contemporary international system will undoubtedly be shaped by the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. If global institutions fail to evolve, international cooperation on pressing issues will inevitably fail If global institutions fail to evolve and accommodate this reality, international cooperation on the most pressing issues of our time will inevitably fail. On paper, this is the fundamental challenge BRICS intends to address in order to bring about a more 'representative, fairer international order, [and] a reformed multilateral system.' How it does so, however, remains poorly defined.  One likely approach is to use the group's combined economic clout to pursue global governance, financial and justice system reform, and alternative paths on specific issues like climate change. Already, the current BRICS states' collective economic output (based on GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity) is roughly US$3 trillion larger than the G7, which includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and United Kingdom. (As a non-enumerated member, the European Union is excluded.) With six new BRICS members in 2024, this difference rises to just under US$11 trillion. However, economic output measured by GDP based on current exchange rates places the G7 as the larger combined economy (even with the six new BRICS members). Coordinated action on points of contention may not be as easy for BRICS as for the G7 Regardless, countries in the global south are increasingly poised to challenge the economic dominance of traditional powers. And based on the former's current growth trajectories, will decisively outperform the G7 economies over the coming decades. This combined economic influence could help to secure greater representation and fairer rules and procedures in the United Nations Security Council, International Criminal Court, World Bank and International Monetary Fund - among others alluded to in the BRICS Johannesburg II Declaration. However, coordinating common action on specific points of contention may not be as easy for the expanded BRICS grouping as for the G7. G7 countries have structured their cooperation on global matters around shared liberal political values and norms, particularly on democracy and civil liberties. While these have been threatened in recent years by the rise of populist right-wing administrations, G7 members' considerable normative and political alignment underpins their global economic clout. The expanded BRICS grouping, on the other hand, is a more arbitrary constellation of states with very different (and sometimes diametrically opposed) political systems and values. They range from progressive constitutional democracies to closed and repressive theocracies, to countries experimenting with hybrid authoritarianism. Ironically, BRICS may be in its ascendency due to its ambiguity and loosely articulated vision: An analysis of various governance variables across member countries, including perceptions of political stability, rule of law, government effectiveness and basic freedoms, reveals a high level of variance. Scores for each of these variables show a standard deviation from the mean that is often more than double that of G7 countries. That raises serious questions about BRICS' ability to pursue coherent, coordinated action on global institutional reform, despite members agreeing that the international system is unfairly structured. Without a robust normative basis for cooperation, disagreements over issues such as gender equality, individual rights and liberties, and the character of a new international order, could derail momentum needed for meaningful change.  Ironically, BRICS may well be in its ascendency due to its ambiguity and loosely articulated vision of multipolarity and a reformed international system. However, as the group expands and evolves into something more concrete, difficult issues may not be as easy to kick down the road as before. For example, how do all members justify provisions in the Johannesburg II Declaration on respecting international humanitarian law in conflict situations, increased participation of women in peace processes, and the promotion and protection of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all? Squaring these provisions with the brazen violations by certain current and incoming BRICS members will test the mettle of the diplomatic club. These contradictions must be overcome for BRICS to muster not only its economic clout, but the moral and political capital to pursue reforms and serve as a counterweight to the G7. Rumi's wisdom still rings true, but as the expanded BRICS group marches towards a new world order, the way ahead may be murkier than initially expected.Priyal Singh, Senior Researcher, Africa in the World, ISS Pretoria. Source: https://allafrica.com/
Read More........