David Bennett

The Revenge Of Galileo

Galileo is a global navigation satellite system. Hold that piece of information because it ties into something that happened recently, which is that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia announced a deal about atomic submarine procurement that enraged President Macron of France. How are the deal about submarine procurement and Galileo related? This letter, reported in The Week, issue 25 September 2021, page 31, suggests an answer. Under the title ‘France can’t complain’, the writer of the letter makes this point:

To The Times
One suspects the origins of this rift over submarine contracts lie in the EU decision to exclude the UK from the Galileo GPS system as part of the Brexit deal. Not only was an investment of more than £1bn lost, but the UK will need to find another GPS system for military use. France should not be surprised if the UK becomes a competitor to the EU in military matters.
Roger Downing, Whitchurch, Devon

Is there substance to what Mr Downing says? It seems there is from what I read about the Galileo project in Wikipedia. This is a extract of the relevant parts from the Wikipedia entry for Galileo

Galileo in Wikipedia

“Galileo is a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) that went live in 2016, created by the European Union through the European Space Agency (ESA), operated by the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA), headquartered in Prague, Czech Republic, with two ground operations centres in Fucino, Italy, and Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany.

In March 2018, the European Commission announced that the United Kingdom may be excluded from parts of the project (especially relating to the secured service PRS) following its exit from the European Union. As a result, Airbus will relocate work on the Ground Control Segment (GCS) from its Portsmouth premises to an EU state. British officials sought legal advice on whether they could reclaim the €1.4 billion invested by the United Kingdom, of the €10 billion spent on the project.

In a speech at the EU Institute for Security Studies conference, the EU Chief Negotiator in charge of the Brexit negotiations, Michel Barnier, stressed the EU position that the UK had decided to leave the EU and thus all EU programmes, including Galileo. In August 2018, it was reported the UK would look to create a competing satellite navigation system to Galileo post-Brexit. In December 2018, the then British Prime Minister Theresa May announced that the UK would no longer seek to reclaim the investment, and Science Minister Sam Gyimah resigned over the matter.”

Victoria To The Rescue

I wrote this in 2017, after the Brexit referendum but before COVID.

I was imagining a scene. It’s the grandees of the Conservative party, mostly men and older. They are watching television in the privacy of their club or a private room at the House Of Commons.

They are beaming. I can hear exclamations of pleasure at what is happening on the screen. It is an episode of Victoria, a dramatised series about Queen Victoria.

She is telling her beastly German in-laws not to try to treat her like a cow to produce children. She tells them off and they step back, abashed. Oh, she is magnificent even In her youth. And now she is on board the deck of HMS Trafalgar and she is telling the crowds how the defeat in Afghanistan is bad, but the Britain has the strongest army and navy in the world and will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Ah, so like Brexit. Germany is that horrid EU, and Trafalgar is to be our victory in the new trade alliances that our new (as yet unfound) partners are hungry for. The production of the TV programme is first rate with a big budget.

A thought crossed my mind that when the producers proposed the series, Victoria, that someone in a corridor of power thought it would be just the ticket to prop up the failing morale of the populace.

Coda

And now in September 2021, again defeat in Afghanistan is centre stage for a little while. Or a kind of defeat, but who knows. Certainly British MPs have made no friends in the Biden Administration with cries of outrage at the US withdrawal.

Taishan Nuclear Power Plant

Taishan nuclear power plant is near the coast in Guangdong Province in China. That’s about 60km west of Macau, and about 120km west of Hong Kong. It is 50km south of Taishan itself, a city with a population of 500,000.

On about the 15th June, various news sources reported on an incident at the plant. Fuel rods were damaged and gas released. The suggestion was that the gas was released as a way to deal with the problem. Or perhaps the release or escape of the gas was as part of the problem.

A New York Times article of 16th June states that “Nuclear scientists in the United States and Europe said in interviews this week that a buildup of radioactive gas in the water surrounding the fuel rods, while not uncommon at reactors elsewhere, was often a sign of poor design, manufacturing or management.”

Given the context, that comment at least raises the possibility that poor design, manufacturing or management is widespread worldwide.

That aside, which way do the prevailing winds blow in that part of Guangdong? An article as recent as the 13 May in the journal Nature states that “The region is influenced by the East Asian monsoon system, which is characterized by prevailing northeasterly and southwesterly winds in winter and summer, respectively.”

So if there was a major problem at this time of year, the wind would carry towards Macau and Hong Kong.

Update 20 June 2021

On 17 June, The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that “The China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA) informed the IAEA yesterday that a minor fuel cladding failure  had occurred at the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant.”

The article goes on to explain that cladding failures are not uncommon. But it doesn’t explain what the cladding is beyond the obvious that it clads the fuel rods.

The glossary in the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission website (US.NRC) states that cladding is “The thin-walled metal tube that forms the outer jacket of a nuclear fuel rod. It prevents corrosion of the fuel by the coolant and the release of fission products into the coolant. Aluminum, stainless steel, and zirconium alloys are common cladding materials.”

I guess that if the cladding is damaged then coolant can reach the fuel rods. If that happens, then the fuel rods can release fission products into the coolants.

I understand that Taishan has about 60,000 fuel rods in its construction. The reports state that ‘about’ five rods were damaged. Why don’t they know the exact number that were damaged?

What causes a cladding tube to fail? Is it a mechanical failure when it hits against something? Is it a chemical failure because the heat generated in the rod punctures it? And how much radioactive gas was released to deal with the problem?

Update 21 June 2021

A report on the incident on June 16 by Reuters mentioned that another incident was reported by the Chinese National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) in April. A burst of radioactive gas unexpectedly entered a pipe at Unit 1’s waste gas treatment system just as workers were trying to seal it, triggering an alarm.

Several outlets report that a Zhang Zhijian, a professor at the College of Nuclear Science and Technology at Harbin Engineering University died in what is described as mysterious circumstances. He is reported to have fallen off a building at 9.34 am on June 17, 2021. It is inevitable that some news reports will see his death as linked to Taishan incident, whether that is the case or not. What strikes me is Harbin University reporting the time of death so precisely.

Update 30 July 2021

The Financial Times reported on 30 July that the French nuclear operator EDF had recommended that the reactor be shut down because of a build-up of inert gases in the primary water circuit.

Also on 30 July, China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN) issued a statement on its website at cgnpc.com that after consultation they had shut down the reactor to find the cause of fuel damage, and replace the damaged fuel and that the reactor is safe and controllable.

The Sunday Times on 30 July reported that following an increase in radiation levels that had prompted warnings from its French designers of an “imminent radiological threat”, the authorities had shut down the reactor.

Climate Change Action and Corporate Lobbying

Now that climate change is a big issue, how easy is it for a company to swing around and improve its compliance with climate action targets? It probably depends on how energy intensive the company is.

Airlines are big fuel burners, obviously.

Commercial airliners burn Jet-A, which is a mix of refined kerosene and burns at temperatures at or above 49 °C (120 °F). The benefit of using a kerosene-based fuel is that it has a much higher flash point than gasoline-based fuel, meaning that it requires significantly higher temperature to ignite and is therefore safer.

Kerosene, also known as paraffin, is a combustible hydrocarbon liquid derived from petroleum. And therein lies the problem and the reason why airlines are in trouble. There is no easy answer to a substitute for jet fuel from fossil fuels. Biofuels are a possibility, but then the real cost of biofuels has to be costed in. What benefit to mankind if untold acres is given over to producing feed for airliners?

A section in the daily email from QZ mentioned that shareholders at Delta Airlines are being asked to vote on a proposal that Delta reports on its lobbying regarding climate change. The board at Delta recommends voting against the proposal, and the proposal itself mentions that it was put to the meeting last year and achieved 46% of the vote total.

I cannot imagine why the Delta board would be against the proposal if their policy is as they set out in the reasons why the oppose the proposal.

So why, you may ask, did QZ even mention the vote? It’s because according to Influence Map, Delta gets an E in the climate performance rankings.

Influence Map describes itself as:

the world’s leading database of corporate and trade association lobbying of climate policy around the globe. Analysis and metrics on how the world’s largest corporations’ climate policy engagements align with the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Abut Delta, Influence Map says:

Delta Air Lines appears to have limited, negative engagement with US climate policy. Delta Air Lines has opposed attempts to repeal a tax on jet fuel in the US state of Georgia and appears to support a long-term role for fossil fuels in global aviation. Delta also remains a member of multiple industry associations that actively and negatively lobby against ambitious climate policy including Airlines for America, which has lobbied against national climate regulation for aviation in the US.

To put Delta’s ‘E’ in context, Influence Map covers 100 top companies and gives, for example, Unilever a ‘B+’ and the energy supplier EDF a ‘B’.