ZERO EMISSIONS - BY TREATY

 

  KEEPING THE OCEANS CLEAN OF NUCLEAR RADIATION POLLUTION

 

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site or return HOME

 

 

HMS Queen Elizabeth, built mainly to keep MOD subcontractors in the lap of luxury at the expense of the taxpayer and rising National Debt. The objective was to keep a skilled workforce going, in times of peace, just in case of World War Three. But there are much cheaper and less dangerous methods of demonstrating military might, without all those white uniforms to pay for and without the nuclear weapons, that are now banned by the United Nations.

 

 

The environmental impact of shipping includes greenhouse gas emissions, acoustic, and oil pollution. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) estimates that Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping were equal to 2.2% of the global human-made emissions in 2012 and expects them to rise between 50 to 250 percent by 2050 if no action is taken. Ocean pollution takes many forms.

 

 

Politicians who think they can ignore the people do so at their own expense

 

PEOPLE POWER - Most unreasonably, in our view, the UK government refused to participate in the Weapons treaty talks and says it will 'never' sign to ban nuclear missiles, but then Margaret Thatcher thought she could rule the will of the people with her Poll Tax, ending with her resignation in disgrace, awash with tears as she was driven from Number 10. Such fall from grace proving that politicians who ignore the wishes of the people do so at their peril!

 

The anti nuclear weapons treaty is a victory for grassroots campaigning for common sense to prevail. The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to ICAN for its tireless work in campaigning for this momentous achievement. According to other online publications, 59% of the UK public want the government to sign. 52 countries have ratified the agreement, with a further 86 signing it.

 

 

UN NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN JANUARY 22 2021

 

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the first international ban on nuclear weapons, came into force on January 22nd 2021.

It joins the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention as a treaty prohibiting weapons of mass destruction. The treaty has widespread support in the international community in that 122 countries voted for its adoption in 2017, and these countries have continued to express their support for the treaty .

The Treaty is not merely symbolic. It prohibits Members from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using (or threatening to use) nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits States from assisting, encouraging, or inducing states to engage in any of these prohibited activities. Presumably then, those still using nuclear weapons will be poisoning their land for future generations to clean up, since dumping waste at sea is illegal.

Any NATO State may join the Treaty and remain in the alliance as long as that state renounces participation in the nuclear dimension of the alliance and indicates that it does not support activities prohibited by the treaty.

 

 

 

 

International treaties reinforce norms and provide a forum to discuss and condemn violations of international standards for peace and security.

The treaty will continue to grow and integrate into the international system well beyond its entry into force in January 2021. The norm established by previous weapons prohibitions impacted banks, companies, and government policies in countries that had not joined the treaty, and the same can be expected for the nuclear prohibition.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is sure to impact non compliant nations in other ways. In the meantime we imagine that the treaty will provide concrete assistance for victims of nuclear weapons use and testing and contribute to remediating radiologically contaminated areas.

 

Where North Korea is playing catch-up, signs of cease-fire internationally may play a part in persuading new faces as to the futility of wasting climate dollars entering the cold arms race that nobody wants other than the military, hoping to build their part. 

 

 

 

 

 

UNSUSTAINABLE POLICIES

 

In our view it is madness to allow anything on or under the sea that could alter the ecology of the ocean. It's bad enough that there are diesel engines plying the waves in great numbers, using tons of dirty bunker fuel, but at least that is now recognized as a problem, with the IMO introducing phase out targets - to achieve clean shipping by 2050.

 

How then to get the world's super powers to stop building vessels (weapons) that pose a huge threat to marine life. The only solution we can think of is vote for a green party candidate. This may mean tightening your belt, but it also means surviving the anthropocene age that is boiling our oceans and turning arable land to deserts.

 

Assuming that we can stage a climate recovery, we don't want military lunatics dumping waste all over the place, just to keep on playing power games, when the world belongs to no man. The world belongs to everyone, and the majority do not want nuclear waste creating another problem that may be insurmountable.

 

The United Nations has recently outlawed nuclear weapons. A major achievement that the majority of member states will be rightly proud of. Those nuclear powers reluctant to obey the majority decision can only be cajoled to acquiescence. For we do not want any more confrontations that could further threaten our already overheated climate.

 

Unfortunately, reducing a carbon footprint also means reducing a nuclear footprint in our view.

 

You can read below the difficulties in the extracts from US military advice as to the containment technicalities and cost of decommissioning a nuclear powered vessel - and decide for yourself if:

 

a) the cancer risk is acceptable

b) the carbon cost is acceptable

 

We think not! But in order to get the super-powers to see the light, we need a more stable global economy based on sustainable practices. This is called the Circular Economy.

 

In order for the super-powers to see the light, other nations with aspirations to becoming a nuclear power, might also want to adjust their viewpoint - to help defuse the perceived need for weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

ZERO RADIATION & CARBON: The Elizabeth Swann shown above, is a zero emissions vessel, using only solar and wind power for propulsion. She could have a boosted performance with hydrogen batteries as a hybrid, to provide high speed transits as a ferry, though 10 knots constant is achievable in theory using only renewables. Something we hope to be able to prove in not too long.

 

 

The propulsion plants of nuclear-powered ships remain a source of radiation even after the vessels are shut down and the nuclear fuel is removed. Defueling removes all fission products since the fuel is designed, built and tested to ensure that fuel will contain the fission products.

 

Over 99.9% of the radioactive material that remains is an integral part of the structural alloys forming the plant components. The radioactivity was created by neutron irradiation of the iron and alloying elements in the metal components during operation of the plant. The remaining 0.1% is radioactive corrosion and wear products that have been circtiated by reactor coolant, having become radioactive from exposure to neutrons in the reactor core, and then deposited on piping system internals.

 

 

 

 

GREAT TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENT: But do we still need the ability to blast the world to bits. Are we really that stupid? Most of the concerned public are not, but some politicians appear to believe that the ability to annihilate life as we know it, is a good thing. Policy makers use public money for such domination ambitions, keeping the electorate in the dark as to where their taxes are going. Arming for war is just one step from pushing the button. Politicians should use their positions of trust to negotiate and debate in Parliament, aiming for a common sense unilateral downsizing and eventual elimination of hazardous practices.

 

 

 

DECOMMISSIONING AND DE-FUELING

US Navy nuclear ships and submarines are decommissioned and de-fueled at the end of their useful lifetime, when the cost of continued operation is not justified by their military capability, or when the ship is no longer needed. The Navy faces the necessity of downsizing the fleet to an extent that was not envisioned in the 1980s before the end of the Cold War.

 

Most of the nuclear-powered cruisers will be removed from service, and some LOS ANGELES Class submarines are scheduled for removal from service as well. Eventually, the Navy will also need to decommission 0HIO Class submarines.

 

US Navy nuclear-powered ships are defueled during inactivation and prior to transfer of the crew. The defueling process removes the nuclear fuel from the reactor pressure vessel and consequently removes most of the radioactivity from the reactor plant. Defueling is an operation routinely accomplished using established processes at shipyards used to perform reactor servicing work.

 

A disposal method for the defueled reactor compartments is needed when the cost of continued operation is not justified by the ships military capability or when the ships are no longer needed. After a nuclear-powered ship no longer has sufficient military value to justify continuing to maintain the ship or the ship is no longer needed, the ship can be: 

 

(1) placed in protective storage for an extended period followed by permanent disposd or recychg; or 

 

(2) prepared for permanent disposal or recycling. The preferred alternative is land burial of the entire defueled reactor compartment at the Department of Energy Low Level Waste Burial Grounds at Hanford, Washington.

A ship can be placed in floating protective storage for an indefinite period. Nuclear-powered ships can be placed into storage for a long time without risk to the environment. The ship would be maintained in floating storage. About every 15 years each ship would have to be taken out of the water for an inspection and repainting of the hull to assure continued safe waterborne storage. However, this protective storage does not provide a permanent solution for disposal of the reactor compartments from these nuclear-powered ships. Thus, this alternative does not provide permanent disposal


Before a ship is taken out of service, the spent fuel is removed from the reactor pressure vessel of the ship in a process called defueling. This defueling removes all of the fuel and most of the radioactivity from the reactor plant of the ships. The fuel removed from the decommissioned ships would be handed in the same manner as that removed from ships which are being refueled and returned to service. Unlike the low-level radioactive material in defueled reactor plants, the Nuclear Waste Poficy Act of 1982, as amended, requires disposed of spent fuel in a deep geological repository.
Prior to disposal, the reactor pressure vessel, radioactive piping systems, and the reactor compartment disposed package would be sealed. Thus, they act as a containment structure for the radioactive atoms and delay the time when any of the radioactive atoms inside would be available for release to the environment as the metal corrodes.

 

This is important because radioactivity decays away with time; that is, as time goes on radioactive atoms change into non-radioactive atoms. Since radioactivity decays away with time, the effect of a delay is that fewer radioactive atoms would be released to the environment. Over 99.9% of these atoms are an integral part of the metal and they are chemically just like ordinary iron, nickel, or other metal atoms. These radioactive atoms are only released from the metal as a result of the slow process of corrosion. The remaining O.1% - which is corrosion and wear products - decay away prior to penetration of the containment structures by corrosion.

The Hanford Site is used for disposal of radioactive waste from DOE operations. The pre-LOS ANGELES Class submarine reactor compartments are placed at the Hanford Site Low Level Burial Grounds for disposal, at the 218-E-12B burial ground in the 200 East area. The disposd of the reactor compartments from the cruisers, LOS ANGELES, and OHIO Class submarines would be consistent with the pre-LOS ANGELES Class submarine reactor compartment disposal program. The land required for the btid of approximately 100 reactor compartments from the cruisers, LOS ANGELES, and OHIO Class submarines wuold be approximately 4 hectares (10 acres) which is similar to the land area needs for the pre-LOS ANGELES Class submarine reactor compartments.

An estimated cost for land burial of the reactor compartments is $10.2 million for each LOS ANGELES Class submarine reactor compartment, $12.8 million for each 0HIO Class submarine reactor compartment, and $40 million for each cruiser reactor compartment. 

 

The estimated total Shipyard occupational exposure to prepare the reactor compartment disposed packages is 13 rem (approximately 0.005 additional latent cancer fatalities) for each LOS ANGELES Class submarine package, 14 rem (approximately 0.006 additional latent cancer fatalities) for each 0~0 Class submarine package and 25 rem (approximately 0.01 additional latent cancer fatalities) for each cruiser package.

 

 

Russian nuclear powered ship, Sevmorput

 

You have got to be joking, right! It's bad enough that they are over-fishing the northern seas, but then to deliver such cargoes of frozen fish by nuclear powered ships is madness. Why not just inject us with cancer cells and get it over with, or start selling tickets to their new holiday camp at Chernobyl. Russia needs to consider employing better PR staff!

 

 

RUSSIAN PLANS FOR NUCLEAR CONTAINER SHIP - September 9 2019

The world’s only remaining civilian nuclear-powered cargo ship, the "Sevmorput" is on Monday sailing south into the Norwegian Sea en route to St. Petersburg loaded with 204 refrigerated containers with frozen fish from the Pacific aimed for the market in European Russia.

The ship will arrive in St. Petersburg by the end of this week after sailing south along the coast of Norway, through the Great Belt in Denmark and into the Baltic Sea.

"It’s crucial for Rosatomflot to expend the geography of our work," says Mustafa Kaskha, Director of the Murmansk-based state-own fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers.

This is first time ever Russia sails commercial cargo with a nuclear-powered vessel via the Arctic to St. Petersburg.

'Sevmorput' left port in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatka on August 29th as reported by the Barents Observer and sailed the Northern Sea Route before entering the Barents Sea this Sunday.

Head of the High North Section of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Inger Margrethe Eikelmann, says Russia did inform Norwegian authorities about the coming cargo transport along the coast Norway. But there are concerns as to preparations in case of an emergency, such as a nuclear reactor meltdown.

 

 

 

 

NUCLEAR SHIP SAVANNAH

 

NS Savannah was the first nuclear-powered merchant ship. She was built in the late 1950s at a cost of $46.9 million (including a $28.3 million nuclear reactor and fuel core) and launched on July 21, 1959. She was funded by United States government agencies. Savannah was a demonstration project for the potential use of nuclear energy. The ship was named after SS Savannah, the first steamship to cross the Atlantic ocean. She was in service between 1962 and 1972 as one of only four nuclear-powered cargo ships ever built. (Soviet ice-breaker Lenin launched on December 5, 1957, was the first nuclear-powered civil ship.)

Savannah was deactivated in 1971 and after several moves has been moored at Pier 13 of the Canton Marine Terminal in Baltimore, Maryland, since 2008.

As a result of her design handicaps, training requirements, and additional crew members, Savannah cost approximately US$2 million a year more in operating subsidies than a similarly sized Mariner-class ship with a conventional oil-fired steam plant. The Maritime Administration placed her out of service in 1971 to save costs, a decision that made sense when fuel oil cost US$20 per ton. In 1974, however, when fuel oil cost $80 per ton, Savannah's operating costs would have been no greater than a conventional cargo ship

During her initial year of operation, Savannah released over 115,000 gallons of very low-level radioactive waste at sea, having substantially exceeded her storage capacity of 10,000 US gallons (38,000). The Nuclear Servicing Vessel Atomic Servant was built to receive waste from Savannah. The unpowered barge featured a fuel storage pit for a replacement fuel and control rod assembly, lined by 12 inches (30 cm) of lead. Atomic Servant was made available to service Savannah anywhere in the world.

The radioactive primary coolant loop water was removed at the time of shut-down, as were some of the more radioactive components within the reactor system. The secondary loop water was removed at the same time. Residual radioactivity in 1976 was variously estimated as between 168,000 and 60,000 curies, mostly iron 55 (2.4 year half life) and cobalt 60 (5.2 year half life). By 2005, the residual radioactivity had declined to 4,800 curies. Residual radiation in 2011 was stated to be very low. The reactor and the ship will be regulated until 2031.

CONCEPT

In 1955, President Dwight Eisenhower proposed building a nuclear-powered merchant ship as a showcase for his "Atoms for Peace" initiative. The next year, Congress authorized Savannah as a joint project of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Maritime Administration (MARAD), and the Department of Commerce.

She was designed by George G. Sharp, Incorporated, of New York City. Her keel was laid down by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation at Camden, New Jersey. Her nuclear reactor was manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox. She was christened by US First Lady Mamie Eisenhower at the ship's launching on July 21, 1959.

In 1969, Savannah became the first nuclear-powered ship to dock in New York City. She was a centerpiece for a citywide information festival called "Nuclear Week In New York." Thousands of people toured Savannah and attended related special events. These included demonstrations of advancements in peaceful uses of atomic energy, such as food products preserved by radiation, new applications for technology and many information and education programs.

 

The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson featured "Nuclear Week In New York" on two programs. Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, was the featured speaker and President Eisenhower was honored for his introduction of the global Atoms for Peace program. The appearance of Savannah and the Nuclear Week festival program was designed and implemented by Charles Yulish Associates and supported by contributions from leading energy companies.

 

 

   

 

LINKS & REFERENCE

 

https://cnduk.org/

https://antinuclear.net/

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-energy/2019/09/here-comes-nuclear-powered-cargo-loaded-seafood
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

 

 

 

 

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site

 

 

This website is Copyright © 2021 Jameson Hunter Ltd.