Mining Awareness +
“Her Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde (HMNB Clyde; also HMS Neptune) primarily sited at Faslane is one of three operating bases in the United Kingdom for the Royal Navy (the others being HMNB Devonport and HMNB Portsmouth). It is the service’s headquarters in Scotland and is best known as the home of Britain’s nuclear weapons, in the form of nuclear submarines armed with Trident missiles… HMNB Clyde lies on the eastern shore of Gare Loch in Argyll and Bute, to the north of the Firth of Clyde and 25 mi (40 km) west of Glasgow. The submarine base encompasses a number of separate sites, the primary two being:
* Faslane, 25 miles from Glasgow;
* RNAD Coulport, beside Loch Long, 2 mi (3.2 km) west of Faslane“.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNB_Clyde
See: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/mhairi-black-mp-for-paisley-and-renfrewshire-south-on-the-uks-nuclear-deterrent/
Glasgow is the largest City in Scotland and the third largest in the UK. The population of Glasgow proper is 596,550 (2013)…
View original post 1,194 more words
October 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
Radiation Free Lakeland
Sellafield Whodunnit? Answer: “Mystery Virus”
The Department of Health has a delicious sense of irony. While people “Stand Up to Cancer” and cakes are being baked across the UK to raise money for a well-known cancer charity, the Department of Health has released its Review of Childhood Cancer Incidence near Sellafield and Dounreay.
For decades the government has acknowledged a well-documented increase of childhood leukaemia in the area surrounding Sellafield. This includes a 10-fold increase in the village of Seascale. In the 1980s many local families living up to 20 miles away who had been impacted by this terrible disease took the operators of the Sellafield site (then British Nuclear Fuels Ltd) to court. The families lost their case with the judge ruling that radiation dose to the public from the plant was too low to have caused leukaemia. Variations of this judgement have been rammed down the throats of…
View original post 8 more words
October 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
geoharvey
Opinion:
¶ “The lights go out in SA and Turnbull flicks the switch to peak stupid” • Malcolm Turnbull has encouraged using the South Australian blackout to slow the shift to clean energy. But the evidence says the state targets are exactly what Australia needs to meet the promises he made at COP21 last year to reduce carbon emissions. [The Guardian]
Australian wind farm (Photo: Angela Harper / AAP)
¶ “Nuclear power in the US: Not what it once was” • Nuclear plants are large and expensive assets facing closures for reasons expected to remain indefinitely: nuclear energy’s high fixed production costs, competitive gas prices, and heightened aims of renewables usage. The future of nuclear energy will remain uncertain. [Energy Voice]
Science and Technology:
¶ Siemens unveiled a new raft of wind turbine designs this week at the WindEnergy Hamburg trade show, including a low-noise wind…
View original post 764 more words
October 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
jpratt27
2015 was the warmest year since record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The record-breaking year continues a long-term warming trend — 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have now occurred since 2001.
Scientific Visualization Studio/Goddard Space Flight Centre
The new research published Monday in Nature was done by Carolyn Snyder, now a climate policy official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as a part of her doctoral dissertation at Stanford University, according to the Associated Press (AP).
Snyder “created a continuous 2 million year temperature record, much longer than a previous 22,000 year record. [Snyder’s reconstruction] doesn’t estimate temperature for a single year, but averages 5,000-year time periods going back a couple million years,”
AP reported.
“We do find this close relationship between temperature and greenhouse gases that is remarkably stable, and what the study is developing is…
View original post 253 more words
October 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
Again – climate change is the big one. As UN climate chief calls for clear report on ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal, it’s looking as though this goal is not achievable, and climate change could already be irreversible. In 2016 atmospheric carbon dioxide will pass 400 parts per million – permanently. Speed of Arctic change shocks scientists.
But nuclear disaster could be imminent, too, as we consider the consequences of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan upping the ante, with belligerent threats to India.
On the so-called peaceful nuclear scene, the focus is on South Africa. South Africa’s corrupt nuclear politics is like a nasty boil that developed slowly over years, and could now be ready to burst.
Shadow Courts – The Secret Tribunals That Corporations Use to Sue Countries.
EUROPE. The 100 billion pound bill for decommissioning Europe’s old nuclear power stations.
AFRICA. Risk of war in Africa escalates with rising temperatures.
SOUTH AFRICA. South Africa’s nuclear power programme stalled. Handing nuclear project to Eskom will limit South Africa’s Parliament control, and increase corruption. South Africa’s renewable energy success.
RUSSIA. For Russia, Climate Change is Already Producing Fires that are Too Big to Fight
USA.
UK. Hinkley Pt. Nuclear Power Contract Signed Days AFTER New Warnings About Areva-Creusot Defects. At the end of the Hinkley nuclear power story – massive radioactive clean-up costs.
CANADA Forest fire risk in Canada much greater due to climate change.
JAPAN. Japan busting to market nuclear reactors to India, and busting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Japan to formally decide to decommission Monju nuclear reprocessing reactor by end of year. Fukushima. Japan mulls legislation requiring local government approval for restarting Fukushima No. 2 nuclear plant. Fukushima ice wall failing to deliver on promise.TEPCO Delays Replacing Tainted Water Tanks. High levels of radioactive cesium pooling at dams near Fukushima nuke plant.
UKRAINE. Ukraine joining the renewable energy revolution
GREENLAND. Climate change will expose top-secret US nuclear project in Greenland.
IRAN. Iran complains that international financial sanctions are not being lifted quickly enough.
October 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Christina's notes |
Leave a comment
Critics Question Plans For Nuclear Waste Storage At San Onofre Nuclear expert says it’s a “witches brew of radioactivity” 7 San Deiego By JW August , 30 Sept 16 The threat of a nuclear meltdown is no longer a concern at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station because it’s shut down.
A shuttered nuclear plant does present another potential threat to public safety, according to an editorial in the April 2016 edition of Scientific American Magazine. The article warns of a greater danger, and says “more threatening than a meltdown, it’s the steady accumulation of radioactive waste.”
The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was permanently retired by its owners, Southern California Edison, SCE, and SDG&E in 2013. The plant’s operations left 3.6 million pounds of radioactive waste behind.
If all goes as planned that radioactive waste is headed to bluffs just north of the dead reactors above San Onofre State Beach. It will sit near Interstate 5 in Southern California between two major metropolitan areas, San Diego and Los Angeles, where 17 million people call home.
Fifty canisters of radioactive leftovers, from fuel burned before the plant closed, are already in storage on the plant’s property. It accounts for about 30 percent of the radioactive waste on site. In the spring of 2017, the remaining radioactive waste will begin to be moved out of the pools of cooling water where it is currently stored and into 100 stainless steel dry casks which will also be encased in a cement pad.
Daniel Hirsch, the Director of the Program on Environmental and Nuclear Policy at UC Santa Cruz, said it is imperative the fuel rods be moved out of the pools and into dry casks as soon as possible.
“It is the most dangerous stuff on earth; a witches brew of radioactive material,” he said.
A fuel rod is a long zirconium metal tube containing pellets of fissionable material, which provide fuel for nuclear reactors.
“Those pools are so densely packed, that if you lose the coolant you could have a fire in them,” Hirsch said.
According to a report from Robert Alvarez, a former policy advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy, a pool fire would release more radioactivity than a reactor meltdown. Hirsch, a long-time critic of the industry told NBC 7 Investigates the clock is ticking, something the plant’s owners agree with.
The location of the waste storage is something the plant’s owners and nuclear waste critics do not agree with.
“They’re going to be stored on the beach in the worst possible location you can imagine,” Charles Langley, who opposes the storage plans at San Onofre, said. Langley tracks all things related to San Onofre and the nuclear waste storage plans for Public Watchdogs, a San Diego based non-profit website.
The proposed storage site is northwest of the plant’s units one and two; the two reactor domes that can be seen from the freeway.
Currently, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is the largest privately-owned coastal nuclear storage site in the country. When compared to government owned sites, it’s the second largest in the country, behind the Hanford Site in Washington where the first plutonium reactor was built and the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan was created.
Langley said the location selected is all about money. “It’s the cheapest alternative,” he said. “It’s what’s best for the stockholders. It’s not what’s best for the people of Orange and San Diego County.”
SCE does not agree. Neither does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, and the California Coastal Commission, which both approved the Pacific coastline location.
It’s not a case of no risk, the utilities argue, but low risk.
In January, due to El Nino weather conditions, there was considerable erosion of the beaches and bluffs around the San Onofre plant, the same area where the canisters will be stored.
Nina Babiarz, a transportation consultant and former journalist, said the location for the nuclear waste storage is a poor one. “It’s on an earthquake fault in a tsunami zone,” she said. NBC 7 Investigates reviewed weather reports and found rising sea levels at and around the nuclear waste storage location could continue.
A Pacific Institute report on sea level rise, with contributions by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, found “flooding and erosion” risks will increase. According to the report, “in areas where the coast erodes easily, sea level rise will likely accelerate shoreline recession” and “may expose previously protected areas to flooding.” The United States Geological Service found the same dynamics: extreme bluff, cliff and beach erosion, accelerating over time.
The City of Del Mar, located 33 miles from San Onofre and with a similar coastline, did its own risk assessment of projected impact from sea level rise, storm surges and coastal flooding. In its assessment it describes the potential for extensive flooding and cliff collapses. …………http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Critics-Question-Plans-For-Nuclear-Waste-Storage-At-San-Onofre-395305981.html
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, USA, wastes |
Leave a comment
Hinkley Point C developers face £7.2bn cleanup bill at end of nuclear plant’s life
French and Chinese developers will be the first nuclear operators in the UK that will have to pay to decommission the site, Guardian, Adam Vaughan, 30 Sept 16 , The French and Chinese companies that are to build the £18bn Hinkley Point C nuclear power station will have to pay up to £7.2bn to dismantle and clean it up.
Documents published yesterday reveal for the first time how much the developers, EDF and China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), will have to pay to decommission the plant, beginning in 2083.
The new reactors in Somerset will be unique in British nuclear history, as they are the first for which the operator will have to pay to make good the site afterwards.
“Waste transfer contracts signed today mean that, for the first time in the UK, the full costs of decommissioning and waste management associated with the new power station are set aside during generation and are included in the price of the electricity,” EDF said in a statement.
Decommissioning costs ate up around half the budget for the now-disbanded department of energy and climate change, after the liabilities for cleaning up old nuclear plants were effectively nationalised in 2004 and 2005 when two companies faced financial problems.
The Hinkley Point C decommissioning costs are estimated at £5.9bn to £7.2bn, with the dismantling of the plant expected to begin in 2083. The government, EDF and CGN anticipate the winding up of the new reactors will continue well into the 22nd century. The plant is expected to be fully decommissioned “from 2138” when the final spent fuel is disposed of.
Experts said the cost estimate was likely to be on the low side. “The reality in terms of decommissioning is that it always costs more than people say,” said Dr Paul Dorfman, of the Energy Institute at University College London.
He claimed that the precedent of the government taking ownership of the liabilities of British Nuclear Fuels Limited and British Energy more than a decade ago showed that the government would be forced to shoulder the costs if Hinkley’s developers had a shortfall.
The body charged with dismantling 17 of Britain’s old nuclear power plants puts the cost of cleanup at £117bn over 100 years in its latest annual report, more than twice the cost estimated a decade ago. A large proportion of the cost is due to the complexity of Sellafield……..https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/hinkley-point-c-developers-face-72bn-cleanup-bill-at-end-of-nuclear-plants-life?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco&utm_content=buffer99004&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, UK, wastes |
Leave a comment
Most people alive today set to witness dangerous global warming in their lifetime, scientists warn
Average temperature could rise to two degrees Celsius above the norm by 2050 or ‘even sooner’, Independent, UK, Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent 30 September 2016 The world could hit two degrees Celsius of warming – the point at which many scientists believe climate change will become dangerous – as early as 2050, a group of leading experts has warned.
In a report called The Truth About Climate Change, they said many people seemed to think of global warming as “abstract, distant and even controversial”.
But the planet is now heating up “much faster” than anticipated, said Professor Sir Robert Watson, a former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the authors of the report.
If their analysis is correct, it means the majority of people alive today will experience what it is like to live on a dangerously overheated planet. At the Paris Climate Summit last year, world leaders agreed to try to limit global warming to as close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels as possible – amid concerns the 2C target may not be safe enough.
But in the same year the level of warming reached 1C after an astonishing 0.15C rise in just three years.
Droughts, floods, wildfires and storms are all set to increase as the world warms, threatening crops and causing the extinction of species. The new report warned the 1.5C target had “almost certainly already been missed”.
Even if all the pledges to cut emissions made by countries at Paris are fulfilled, the average temperature is set to reach that level in the early 2030s and then 2C by 2050, they said. Professor Watson, a chemist who has worked for Nasa, the World Bank, the US president and now at the renowned Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, said: “Climate change is happening now and much faster than anticipated.
“While the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is an important step in the right direction, what is needed is a doubling or tripling of efforts. “Without additional efforts by all major emitters, the 2C target could be reached even sooner.”
The report said an extra 0.4 to 0.5C of warming was expected to take place because of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted due to the slow response of the ocean and atmosphere.
The report said that full implementation of the pledges made at Paris would require wealthy countries to give a total of $100bn a year – as promised at the summit – to poor countries to help them transition to a zero-carbon economy.
“About 80 per cent of the pledges are subject to the condition that financial and technological support is available from developed countries,” Professor Watson said.
“These conditions may not be met, which means that these pledges may not be realized.”……….http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-truth-about-climate-change-dangerous-2c-a7337871.html?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=be1cc22710-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-be1cc22710-303473869
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, climate change |
Leave a comment
South Africa: Nuke RFP Delayed in Order to Give Eskom Greater Say and Avoid Parliamentary Scrutiny http://allafrica.com/stories/201609300697.html By Gordon Mackay, 30 Sep 16 At a cabinet briefing today, Minister in the Presidency, Jeff Radebe, confirmed that it was highly unlikely that the nuclear RFP would be issued tomorrow as announced by the Minister of Energy, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, three weeks ago in Parliament.
Minister Radebe also suggested that the delay in issuing the RFP is largely due to a decision by cabinet to strip the Department of Energy of its role as government’s designated procurement agent in favour of Eskom.
This must be seen for what it is – a blatant attempt by the Zuma administration to:
- side-line parliamentary oversight of the nuclear new build programme;
- block public debate on the need for additional nuclear capacity;
- create a veil of secrecy around the procurement process which would now be subject to internal Eskom processes and procedures;
- give President Jacob Zuma greater control of the nuclear procurement process.
Designating Eskom as the procuring agent of the state will fundamentally limit the role and capacity of Parliament to oversee the nuclear deal and, in doing so, increase the potential of corruption surrounding the trillion rand deal.
The DA rejects any attempt to designate Eskom, headed by CEO and Zupta buddy, Brian Molefe, as the procuring agent for nuclear. Eskom has proven with Medupi and Kusile that it is unfit to manage mega-projects. It has also proven that its governance procedures are lax and the Supreme Court of Appeal has found its Board Tender Committee to be corrupt.
The DA is further concerned that the nuclear new build programme will further be subject to undue influence by the President, who is the Chair of the SOE Co-ordinating Committee.
We will use every mechanism available to us to ensure that this deal – which we do not need and cannot afford – is not pushed through without proper parliamentary oversight and scrutiny.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
What happens if India and Pakistan both fire nuclear warheads at each other? http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/what-happens-if-india-and-pakistan-both-fire-nuclear-warheads-each-other-50604
If India and Pakistan detonated 100 nuclear warheads, over 21 million people will die immediately, and half the world’s ozone layer would be destroyed, September 29, 2016 – By Abheet Singh Sethi, 30 Sept 16
If India and Pakistan fought a war detonating 100 nuclear warheads (around half of their combined arsenal), each equivalent to a 15-kiloton Hiroshima bomb, more than 21 million people will be directly killed, about half the world’s protective ozone layer would be destroyed, and a “nuclear winter” would cripple monsoons and agriculture worldwide.
As the Indian Army considers armed options, and a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP urges a nuclear attack, even as the Pakistan Defence Minister threatens to “annihilate” India in return, the following projections, made by researchers from three US universities in 2007, are a reminder of the costs of nuclear war.
According to the study by researchers from Rutgers University, University of Colorado-Boulder and University of California, Los Angeles, about 21 million people – half the death toll of World War II – would perish within the first week from blast effects, burns and acute radiation in India and Pakistan.
This death toll would be 2,221 times the number of civilians and security forces killed by terrorists in India over nine years to 2015, according to an IndiaSpend analysis of South Asia Terrorism Portal data.
Another two billion people worldwide would face risks of severe starvation due to the climatic effects of the nuclear-weapon use in the subcontinent, according to a 2013 assessment by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, a global federation of physicians. Continue reading →
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, India, Pakistan, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Signs of a great rift over Zuma’s nuclear programme, Rand Daily Mail, RAY HARTLEY 30 SEPTEMBER 2016 In another indication of President Jacob Zuma’s dimishing influence, his headlong rush to build a ‘fleet’ of nuclear reactors has been halted. And there are signs that it is going to be cut down to size, if it goes ahead at all.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Pakistan threatens to DESTROY India with nuclear bomb as atomic enemies edge to the brink of war https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1883306/pakistan-threatens-to-destroy-india-with-nuclear-bomb-as-atomic-enemies-edge-to-the-brink-of-war/ Tensions have risen dramatically between the nuclear-armed neighbours BY SARA KAMOUNI 30th September 2016,
PAKISTAN’S Defence Minister has threatened to “destroy” India – after India said on Thursday it had carried out “surgical strikes” on suspected militants preparing to infiltrate from Pakistan-ruled Kashmir.
The strikes, which were a response to shots fired across the de facto border through the disputed Himalayan territory, could lead to a military escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours – risking a ceasefire agreed in 2003.
Tensions have been heightened since an attack on an Indian military base in Kashmir earlier this month, which left 18 soldiers dead.
Both countries claim Kashmir in full, but rule separate parts – and have fought three wars over Kashmir since gaining independence from Britain in 1947
Responding to India’s latest strikes, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said: “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us.
“Pakistan army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure of India.
“We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase.
“If a such a situation arises we will use it and eliminate India.”
Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said: “Pakistan nuclear weapons are entangled in a history of tension, and while they are not a threat to the United States directly, we work with Pakistan to ensure stability.”
China, a traditional Pakistani ally, has also called for dialogue between the two nations.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Pakistan, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Hillary Clinton Is More ‘Dovish’ Than Obama on Nukes, Hacked Audio Suggests, NY Mag, By Eric Levitz ” ……………his (Obama’s) administration is pursuing a $1 trillion nuclear “modernization” program, which many experts think will only heighten the risk of atomic war.
The president’s plan involves breaking up America’s existing nuclear stockpile into smaller, more reliable weapons, including cruise missiles with nuclear tips. This allows Obama to maintain his pledge to create no “new nuclear weapons,” while developing a sleek, modern arsenal that will, somehow, further deter enemy nations from attacking the United States.
There are a few problems with this plan. For one thing, building more precise nuclear cruise missiles only makes their use “more thinkable,” in the words of former vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James E. Cartwright. What’s more, the move threatens to kick off a new round of nuclear proliferation, as Stephen Kinzer, a scholar of international relations at Brown University,
recently observed:…….
Finally, there’s the program’s exorbitant cost. At a time when deficit politics are constraining our government’s ability to invest in basic social services and infrastructure improvements, do we really need to spend $1 trillion on renovating weapons we don’t ever want to use?
Hillary Clinton, for one, thinks not.
Earlier this week, the Washington Free Beacon published an audio recording of a fundraiser Clinton held back in February, which was gleaned from the hack of a campaign staffer — reportedly, as part of the same hack that exposed DNC emails.
In that audio, Andrew C. Weber, a former Defense Department official, asks Clinton if she would cancel the nuclear-cruise-missile project, were she elected president.
“I certainly would be inclined to do that,” she replied. “The last thing we need are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear-armed.”
Clinton went on to suggest that such weapons would likely encourage a nuclear arms race, and praised former Defense secretary William J. Perry for his public opposition to the modernization program.
“This is going to be a big issue,” Clinton added. “It’s not just the nuclear-tipped cruise missile. There’s a lot of other money we’re taking about to go into refurbishing and modernization … Do we have to do any of it? If we have to do some of it, how much do we have to do? That’s going to be a tough question, so I will look to people like you and Bill Perry to help me answer that question.”
Elsewhere in the recording, Clinton took a more “hawkish” stance on cybersecurity, suggesting the United States must deter attacks from China and Russia through retaliatory measures. ……http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/clinton-to-the-left-of-obama-on-nukes-hacked-audio-suggests.html
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
Hillary Clinton ‘Inclined To’ Cancel Nuclear Cruise Missile, Aviation Week Sep 30, 2016 by Lara Seligman in Ares As the Pentagon moves ahead with a trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton seems to be breaking with the Obama administration’s posture, signaling she might cancel a planned replacement of the legacy nuclear-tipped cruise missile.
Reports emerged this week that Clinton broke her silence on the administration’s planned modernization of strategic submarines, bombers and siloed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM ), expressing doubts during a February fundraiser about whether the U.S. should go forward with the overhaul.
“The last thing we need are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear armed,” Clinton said, according to reports of an audio recording of the fundraiser that appeared on the website of The Washington Free Beacon.
During the event, Clinton was asked about the modernization effort and whether she, as president, would cancel the replacement for the legacy Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), dubbed the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon.
“I certainly would be inclined to do that,” she answered. “The last thing we need are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear-armed.”
LRSO may be the most vulnerable piece of the Pentagon’s nuclear arsenal. In her opposition to the new cruise missile, which will arm Northrop Grumman’s B-2s and next-generation B-21 bombers, Clinton joins a chorus of dissenters from Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont to former defense secretary William Perry. Warren and Sanders, along with several other senators, called on Obama in July to cancel LRSO, saying it “would provide an unnecessary capability that could increase the risk of nuclear war.”………http://aviationweek.com/blog/hillary-clinton-inclined-cancel-nuclear-cruise-missile
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
This has drawn attention to South Africa’s status as a global model for renewable energy, and raises new question about why the country is pursuing nuclear when renewables look so promising.
South Africa has the fastest growing green economy in the world, according to credit rating agency Moody’s.
“South Africa was the continent’s largest renewables market in 2015 in terms of asset finance for utility-scale projects and it saw the highest year-on-year growth globally,” said Christopher Bredholt, a Moody’s vice president, in a Sept. 16 report. Asset finance is usually used by businesses to lease equipment without having to buy it outright, according to Finance & Leasing Association.
South Africa had the highest growth globally for asset finance in 2015 at 300 percent, representing $4.5 billion, according to Moody’s.
Continue reading →
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, renewable, South Africa |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 