nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Vets are left to pay high price for U.S. nuclear tests

RICHLAND — When Tim Snider arrived on Enewetak Atoll in the middle of the Pacific Ocean to clean up the fallout from dozens of nuclear tests on the ring of coral islands, Army officers immediately ordered him to put on a respirator and a bright-yellow suit designed to guard against plutonium poisoning.

A military film crew snapped photos and shot movies of Snider, 20, an Air Force radiation technician, in the crisp new safety gear. Then he was ordered to give all the gear back. He spent the rest of his four-month stint on the islands wearing only cutoff shorts and a floppy sun hat.

“I never saw one of those suits again,” Snider, now 58, said in an interview in his Richland kitchen as he thumbed a yellowing photo he still has from the 1979 shoot. “It was just propaganda.”

Today, Snider has tumors on his ribs, spine and skull that he thinks resulted from his work on the crew in the largest nuclear cleanup undertaken by the U.S. military.

Roughly 4,000 troops helped clean up the atoll between 1977 and 1980. Like Snider, most did not even wear shirts, let alone respirators. Hundreds say they are now plagued by health problems, including brittle bones, cancer and birth defects in their children. Many are dead. Others are too sick to work.

The military says there is no connection between these illnesses and the cleanup. Radiation exposure during the work fell well below recommended thresholds, it says, and safety precautions were top-notch. So the government refuses to pay for the veterans’ medical care.

Congress long ago recognized that troops were harmed by radiation on Enewetak during the original atomic tests, which occurred in the 1950s, and should be cared for and compensated. It has failed to do the same for the men who cleaned up the toxic debris 20 years later. The disconnect continues a longstanding pattern in which the government has shrugged off responsibility for its nuclear mistakes.

On one cleanup after another, veterans have been denied care because shoddy or intentionally false radiation monitoring was later used as proof there was no radiation exposure.

A report by The New York Times last spring found that veterans were exposed to plutonium during the cleanup of a 1966 accident involving U.S. hydrogen bombs in Palomares, Spain. Declassified documents and a recent study by the Air Force said the men might have been poisoned and needed new testing.

But in the months since the report, nothing has been done to help them.

For two years, the Enewetak veterans have been trying, without success, to win medical benefits from Congress through a proposed Atomic Veterans Healthcare Parity Act. Some lawmakers hope to introduce a bill this year, but its fate is uncertain. Now, as new cases of cancer emerge nearly every month, many of the men wonder how much longer they can wait.

And though leaders of the cleanup told troops the islands emitted no more radiation than a dental X-ray, documents show they privately worried about “plutonium problems” and areas that were “highly radiologically contaminated.”

Tying any disease to radiation exposure years earlier is nearly impossible; there has never been a formal study of the health of the Enewetak cleanup crews. The military collected nasal swabs and urine samples during the cleanup to measure how much plutonium troops were absorbing, but in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, it said it could not find the records.

Hundreds of the troops, though, almost all now in their late 50s, have found one another on Facebook and discovered remarkably similar problems involving deteriorating bones and an incidence of cancer that appears to be far above the norm.

A tally of 431 of the veterans by a member of the group shows that of those who stayed on the southernmost island, where radiation was low, only 2 percent report having cancer. Of those who worked on the most contaminated islands in the north, 20 percent report cancer. An additional 34 percent from the contaminated islands report other health problems that could be related to radiation, such as failing bones, infertility and thyroid problems.

Between 1948 and 1958, 43 atomic blasts rocked the tiny atoll — part of the Marshall Islands, which sit between Hawaii and the Philippines — obliterating the native groves of breadfruit trees and coconut palms and leaving an apocalyptic wreckage of twisted test towers, radioactive bunkers and rusting military equipment.

Four islands were vaporized; only deep-blue radioactive craters in the ocean remained. The residents had been evacuated. No one thought they would return.

In the early 1970s, the Enewetak islanders threatened legal action if they didn’t get their home back. In 1972, the U.S. government agreed to return the atoll and vowed to clean it up first, a project shared by the Atomic Energy Commission, now called the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense.

The biggest problem, according to Energy Department reports, was Runit Island, a 75-acre spit of sand blitzed by 11 nuclear tests in 1958. The north end was gouged by a 300-foot-wide crater that documents from the time describe as “a special problem” because of “high subsurface contamination.”

The island was littered with a fine dust of pulverized plutonium, which if inhaled or otherwise absorbed can cause cancer years, even decades, later. A millionth of a gram is potentially harmful, and because the isotopes have a half-life of 24,000 years, the danger effectively never goes away.

The military initially quarantined Runit. Government scientists agreed other islands might be made habitable, but Runit would most likely forever be too toxic, memos show.

So federal officials decided to collect radioactive debris from the other islands and dump it into the Runit crater, and then cap it with a thick concrete dome.

The government intended to use private contractors and estimated the cleanup would cost $40 million, documents show. Congress balked at the price and approved only half the money. It ordered that “all reasonable economies should be realized” by using troops to do the work.

Safety planners intended to use protective suits, respirators and sprinklers to keep down dust. But without adequate funding, simple precautions were scrapped.

As the cleanup continued, federal officials tried to institute safety measures. A shipment of yellow radiation suits arrived on the islands in 1978, but in interviews, veterans said it was too uncomfortable to wear them in the tropical sun and the military told them it was safe to go without them.

The military tried to monitor plutonium inhalation using air samplers. But the samplers soon broke. According to an Energy Department memo, in 1978, only a third of the samplers were working.

All troops were issued a small film badge to measure radiation exposure, but government memos note that humid conditions destroyed the film. Failure rates often reached 100 percent.

Every evening, Air Force technicians scanned workers for plutonium particles before they left Runit. Men said dozens of workers each day had screened positive for dangerous levels of radiation.

“Sometimes we’d get readings that were all the way to the red,” said one technician, David Roach, 57, who lives in Rockland, Maine.

None of the high readings were recorded, said Roach, who has since had several strokes.

In 1988, Congress passed a law providing automatic medical care to any troops involved in the original atomic testing. But the act covers veterans only up to 1958, when atomic testing stopped, excluding the Enewetak cleanup crews.

If civilian contractors had done the cleanup and later discovered declassified documents that show the government failed to follow its own safety plan, they could sue for negligence. Veterans don’t have that right. A 1950 Supreme Court ruling bars troops and their families from suing for injuries arising from military service.

The veterans’ only avenue for help is to apply individually to the Department of Veterans Affairs for free medical care and disability payments. But the department bases decisions on old military records — including defective air-sampling and radiation-badge data — that show no one was harmed. It nearly always denies coverage.

“A lot of guys can’t survive anymore, financially,” said Jeff Dean, 60, who piloted boats loaded with contaminated soil.

Dean developed cancer at 43, and again two years later. He had to give up his job as a carpenter as the bones in his spine deteriorated. Unpaid medical bills left him $100,000 in debt.

“No one seems to want to admit anything,” Dean said. “I don’t know how much longer we can wait, we have guys dying all the time.”

January 29, 2017 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UK nuclear groups whinging like F&^K!! UK Government tries to defend itself against nuclear compensation claims regardless!

I am reposting this as Facebook is seriously filtering some of the stories I am sharing. please share this important article that digs a little deeper into the EURATOM and BREXIT story that the main stream media do not understand or unwilling to explain to the public The UK government has acted even though ALL the pro nuclear groups have made representations to not leave EURATOM. And WHY? you should be asking! Some information that will guide your opinion on this issue on this article (in case readers here missed it ) Arclight2011 aka Shaun McGee

arclight2011part2's avatarActivist news source

33482277

The pro nuclear organisations are panicking and showing symptoms of Brexitphobia (such as whining) as the UK prepares to withdraw from Euratom Treaty and are pulling out all the stops to reverse the situation. In the article below from the Weinberg Next Nuclear Foundation they even claim that leaving Euratom is not necessary even if the UK commits to Brexit. Research foundations and even anti nuclear assessments are included in their press release below.

The question is why is the UK are leaving the treaty? One reason could be that according to the new EU radiation protection legislation just being enacted by the German Government which rolls all the present legislation into one law and next year it will include making parts of the Euratom treaty Legal and binding.

A second point to note is that a new “Medical Physics Expert” (MPE) position has been accepted and that this will…

View original post 1,147 more words

January 29, 2017 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

US CarlsBAD underground nuke repository costs rise but still not opened

germannuclearwaste2

CARLSBAD, N.M. (AP) – CARLSBAD, N.M. (AP) – The U.S. Energy Department expects the remaining corrective actions needed at the nation’s only underground nuclear waste repository to be completed early this year.

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant resumed some operations at the end of December following a final inspection by a team of agency inspectors. They identified a total of 36 findings, most of which were addressed before the plant reopened.

A 2014 radiation release in one of the underground storage vaults had forced the facility to close.

Of the remaining findings to be addressed as operations ramp up, the Carlsbad Current-Argus reports (http://bit.ly/2jmMOD1) 10 have yet to be corrected.

The Energy Department’s Carlsbad Field Office is working to obtain more spare parts for the interim ventilation system, provide training to certain employees and hire additional personnel.
http://www.kvia.com/news/new-mexico/nuclear-repository-working-to-address-post-start-findings/297760726

January 29, 2017 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Toshiba cancels all nuclear plant construction, chairman to quit, causing happy anti nuclear activists in Japan!

screen-shot-2011-09-19-at-6-01-00-am
Kyodo — Jan 29
Toshiba Corp. will take no new orders related to the construction of nuclear power stations, with the company’s chairman expected to resign over the massive write-down that has doomed the company’s U.S. nuclear business, sources said Saturday.
The company’s decision to cease taking orders effectively marks its withdrawal from the plant construction business.

Toshiba said Friday it will review nuclear operations and spin off its chip business to raise funds by selling a stake in the new chip company, covering the expected write-down in the nuclear business which could reach 700 billion yen ($6.08 billion).

http://www.newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/118856.php

January 28, 2017 Posted by | Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Britain’s offshore wind power turns out to be much cheaper than expected

text-relevantUK offshore wind power falls below £100/MWh 4 Years ahead of schedule, REneweconomy By  on 27 January 2017 Cleantechnica

Offshore wind farm (Deepwater image)

A new report has shown the cost of UK offshore wind power has fallen below the joint UK Government and industry target of £100 per megawatt-hour four years ahead of schedule, putting offshore wind on target to become one of the cheapest large-scale clean energy sources

The third annual Cost Reduction Monitoring Framework report was delivered this week by ORE (Offshore Renewable Energy) Catapult to the Offshore Wind Programme Board, showing that the levelized cost of offshore wind has fallen by 32% since 2012, and now sits under £100 per megawatt-hour (MWh), four years ahead of the scheduled target set by the UK Government with the UK’s offshore wind industry.

Specifically, offshore wind projects reaching a Final Investment Decision in 2015 and 2016 were done at an average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of £97/MWh, compared to £142/MWh in 2010/11.

The report also highlights that high industry confidence exists for offshore wind’s ability to continue delivering cost savings as a result of technological innovation and continued collaboration across the sector.

Additional key findings from the report include:

January 28, 2017 Posted by | Unc

January 28, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

It ‘looks as if the world is preparing for war’ – Mikhail Gorbachev

gorbachev-mikhailMikhail Gorbachev: It ‘looks as if the world is preparing for war’ as nuclear threat re-emerges, Telegraph   Mikhail Gorbachev has warned that a new arms race means “the nuclear threat once again seems real” as he stated it “looks as if the world is preparing for war”.

The former Soviet leader called on Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to work together to take steps to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenal.

“Politicians and military leaders sound increasingly belligerent and defence doctrines more dangerous. Commentators and TV personalities are joining the bellicose chorus. It all looks as if the world is preparing for war,” he wrote in an article for Timemagazine.

Mr Gorbachev said the US and Russian presidents should champion a resolution at the UN Security Council to guard against a nuclear conflict.

“I think the initiative to adopt such a resolution should come from Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin – the presidents of two nations that hold over 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenals and therefore bear a special responsibility,” he wrote……

Mr Gorbachev, who detailed his own efforts at denuclearisation during the dying days of the Cold War in the 1980s, issued a stark warning of a world where weapons of mass destruction were becoming cheaper and more readily available.

“Money is easily found for sophisticated weapons whose destructive power is comparable to that of the weapons of mass destruction; for submarines whose single salvo is capable of devastating half a continent; for missile defence systems that undermine strategic stability,” he wrote.

He said his proposed UN Security Council resolution should state “nuclear war is unacceptable and must never be fought”…….http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/mikhail-gorbachev-looks-world-preparing-war-nuclear-threat-re/

January 28, 2017 Posted by | politics international, Russia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Fake charity (nuclear lobby) The Weinberg Foundation is whining about Britain leaving Euratom

text-weinberg-whinyLeaving Euratom: the government should reconsider, Weinberg Next Nuclear 27 Jan 17   “…….A complex set of negotiations will now have to take place as most nuclear co-operation with the UK relies on safeguards provided through Euratom. It may not be possible to agree and ratify new agreements before Britain leaves the EU in 2019. According to Vince Zabielski, a senior lawyer at law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, “current new build projects will be placed on hold while those standalone treaties are negotiated” meaning possible delays at Hinkley as well as Bradwell, Moorside and Wylfa.

The decision however is not just bad for the UK, but for nuclear as a whole. With the UK one of the last big supporters of the technology, weakening its strength in the field will give power to anti-nuclear camps across the continent.

Weinberg Next Nuclear is very concerned that the departure from Euratom could severely damage the UK’s nuclear industry, with impacts on energy security, industrial competitiveness and decarbonisation objectives. We find no reason why such drastic action needs to be taken. Article 50 deals with the two Treaties of Lisbon: the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However the Euratom treaty is separate, not mentioned in either of the above treaties thus there is no reason for including Euratom in any part of Article 50 debate. As Jonathan Leech, a senior lawyer and nuclear expert at Prospect Law said, “there doesn’t seem to have been any real explanation as to why, because we are going towards the unknown at great speed. Legally we don’t have to [leave Euratom because the UK is leaving the EU],”.

Weinberg Next Nuclear thus urges the government to reconsider and avoid the highly damaging consequences this unnecessary withdrawal could have on the UK’s nuclear future. http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2017/01/27/leaving-euratom-the-government-should-reconsider/

January 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Decision to leave Euratom leaves Britain’s nuclear industry floundering

exclamation-flag-UKDecision to leave Euratom ‘bonkers’, say experts  Future of UK nuclear research ‘uncertain’ after Brexit bill revelation https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/decision-leave-euratom-bonkers-say-experts January 27, 2017  By Holly Else    The UK is to leave the European Atomic Energy Community as part of Brexit in a move that has been condemned by energy researchers.

The decision to leave the organisation, which funds and coordinates nuclear research, was outlined as part of the government’s Brexit bill published on 26 January.

One nuclear energy researcher called the decision “bonkers”, while another added that it had created a huge amount of “uncertainty” for the field.

The decision has also raised questions about whether the country’s memberships of other European research organisations are at risk.

The community, known as Euratom, is an organisation that provides the basis for research and trade in nuclear power. The government’s desire to leave the organisation is outlined in the explanatory notes published alongside the bill giving it the authority to trigger Article 50 and leave the European Union.

It is not yet clear whether it would seek to rejoin the organisation after Brexit.

Euratom, in conjunction with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, funds the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire, which is the UK’s national laboratory for fusion research. Culham also hosts JET, Europe’s largest nuclear fusion device.

According to its website, the centre collaborates with more than 20 UK universities, and it specifically mentions links with groups at the universities of Warwick and Oxford as well as the Doctoral Training Network in fusion.

Steven Cowley, previously director of the Culham centre and now president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, said: “It would be bonkers to leave Euratom both for research and for nuclear safeguards.”

James Marrow, professor of energy materials at the University of Oxford, said that the funding available from Euratom was the “glue” that holds together the UK’s national nuclear research.

Euratom is the way that we interacted with the European [nuclear research] programmes. [This move] creates huge uncertainty,” he said.

“Nuclear [research] is a bit different from many other areas in that it only makes progress through big projects, so for a single nation it is extremely difficult for them to develop anything new…[Projects] are very much collaborative, so we would be left out,” he added.

Meanwhile Juan Matthews, visiting professor at the Dalton Nuclear Institute at the University of Manchester, said that he hoped that the inclusion of Euratom in the Brexit bill was a mistake as it “just didn’t make sense”.

“Euratom also controls the nuclear research and development aspects of the [EU’s] Horizon 2020 programme…UK research benefits more than our national contributions to Horizon 2020. A significant part of this is the work at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy on JET and our contribution to the ITER project,” he said.

ITER is another experimental nuclear fusion project in France. Professor Matthews added that “sorting all this out will produce delays and will hit hard both our economy and our science”.

Reacting to the news, Mark McCaughrean, a senior adviser at the European Space Agency, tweeted: “While #Euratom is specifically linked to EU, how long before the ‘principle’ is extended to other European research organisations?”

A spokeswoman for the UK government said: “Leaving Euratom is a result of the decision to leave the EU as they are uniquely legally joined. The UK supports Euratom and will want to see continuity of cooperation and standards.” holly.else@tesglobal.com

 

January 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Conflict between Big Nuclear Reactor makers and Small Nuclear Reactor makers now coming out into the open?

Nuclear Options The Economist, print version, 28 Jan 17 “………Not one of the two technologies that were supposed to revolutionise the supply of nuclear energy—the European Pressurised Reactor, or EPR, and the AP1000 from America’s Westinghouse—has yet been installed, despite being conceived early this century. In Finland, France and China, all the EPRs under construction are years behind schedule. The main hope for salvaging their reputation—and the nuclear business of EDF, the French utility that owns the technology—is the Hinkley Point C project in Britain, which by now looks a lot like a Hail Mary pass.

Meanwhile, delays with the Westinghouse AP1000 have caused mayhem at Toshiba, its owner. The Japanese firm may announce write-downs in February of up to $6bn on its American nuclear business. As nuclear assets are probably unsellable, it is flogging parts of its core, microchip business instead……..

 the business case for a new breed of small reactors below 300MW is improving. This month, Oregon-based NuScale Power became the first American firm to apply for certification of a small modular reactor (SMR) design with America’s nuclear regulators.
nuclear-lobby-dispute-1

“Clearly the momentum seems to be shifting away from traditional suppliers,” says William Magwood, director-general of the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency……

The WNA also notes in a report this month a “revival” of interest in SMRs, partly because of rock-bottom sentiment toward large plants. Utilities are finding it tough to pay for big projects (Barakah, for instance costs a whopping $20bn), especially in deregulated power markets where prices have slumped because of an abundance of natural gas and renewable energy. Big investments can sink a firm’s credit rating and jack up its cost of capital.

It is less onerous to pay for an SMR, which means that even though they produce less energy, they can be cost-competitive with larger plants once they are being mass produced, says the WNA….

January 28, 2017 Posted by | 2 WORLD, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Britain’s nuclear safety at risk as they pull out of Euratom

safety-symbol-Smflag-UKBrexit Could Also Hurt Britain’s Nuclear Research and Safety Inspections http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/01/brexit-could-also-hurt-britains-nuclear-research-and-safety-inspections/   By James O Malley on 28 Jan 2017

Another wrinkle has been added to an already complex Brexit process. Just a small one… Umm.. Nuclear safety.

Politico reports that when we trigger Article 50, not only will we be withdrawing from the European Union, but we’ll also be pulling out of Euratom, the EU agency which oversees nuclear safety and security across the continent.

That’s right. Somehow Europe has configured itself so that Brexit won’t affect our Eurovision membership, but will affect nuclear safety.

 The inclusion of Euratom in our middle finger to our continental colleagues was revealed in a note on the Article 50 bill that has just been put before Parliament.

The upshot of this is that it means Britain will have to hire tonnes of new people itself to help do stuff like carry out nuclear non-proliferation inspections in countries like Iran, authorise the sale of nuclear material, and inspect our own nuclear power plants to make sure that everything is fine. As Politico notes, what makes this particularly complicated is that at the moment Euroatom is the legal owner of all of the actual nuclear materials – and this will have to be transferred to Britain… but then Britain also does a lot of the work reprocessing materials on behalf other members. Basically, it’ll be a bit of a nightmare.

The other really disappointing outcome from Brexit could also be Britain pulling out of Euratom’s Research & Development wing, which is currently working on making fusion power a reality. At the moment, we’re helping construct a brand new massive fusion reactor in France, but Brexit could put that in jeopardy. [Politico]

January 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, safety, UK | Leave a comment

The facts about thorium nuclear reactors

text thoriumThorium reactors also produce uranium 232, which decays into an extremely potent high-energy gamma emitter that can penetrate one meter of concrete, making the handling of this spent nuclear fuel extraordinarily dangerous.

Although thorium advocates say that thorium reactors produce little radioactive waste, they simply produce a spectrum of waste that’s different from those from uranium 235, which includes many dangerous alpha and beta emitters and isotopes with extremely long half-lives, including technetium 99, with a half-life of 300,000 years, and iodine 129, with a half-life of 15.7 million years.

No wonder the U.S. nuclear industry gave up on thorium reactors nuclear-priesthood

in the 1980s. This was an unmitigated disaster, as are many other nuclear enterprises undertaken by the nuclear priesthood

Thorium,    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-caldicott/thorium_b_5546137.html-Helen Caldicott Founding President of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Founder of Womens Action for Nuclear Disarmament, Aug 31, 2014 

There is an extraordinary push by certain individuals to extol the wonders of thorium-fueled nuclear reactors. In fact, so concerted is this push that some blame me for preventing the ongoing expansion of such technology. So here are the facts about thorium for those who are interested.

The U.S. tried for 50 years to create thorium reactors, without success. Four commercial thorium reactors were constructed, all of which failed. And because of the complexity of the problems enumerated below, thorium reactors are, by an order of magnitude, more expensive than uranium-fueled reactors.

The longstanding effort to produce these reactors cost the U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, while billions more dollars are still required to dispose of the highly toxic waste emanating from these failed trials.

The truth is that thorium is not a naturally fissionable material. Continue reading

January 28, 2017 Posted by | thorium | Leave a comment

Record low in solar price and lithium batteries prices

text-relevantEnergy rEVolution: Cheap Lithium Batteries And Solar Price Hitting Record Low Of 2.42c/kWh, And May Fall Further http://kirillklip.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/energy-revolution-cheap-lithium.html We are witnessing the tipping point in the disruption of Energy Industry: Solar Power becomes the cheapest source of generated energy!  ReNewEconomy  provides the mindboggling data on the speed of race to the bottom of the cost for Solar Power. What is very important here that this new record  of US $2.42c/kWh was set not in the lab, but by the biggest manufacturer in the world JinkoSolar.

  Money talks. We are entering the exponential stage for Solar Power development in the world now and cheap lithium batteries change everything: now we can not only generate electricity using Solar Panels, but we can store it and use it when we want it. Tesla’s new  project in California will build the largest Energy Storage facility in the world in the record time using Powerpacks by the end of this year.
  Cheap clean electricity is coming into our grid systems now at rapidly increasing levels substituting coal and nuclear. Now we will have a clean energy to power millions of EVs coming fast. Electric cars are already clean and will be getting only cleaner now with every record of the amount of Solar Power generation systems installed all over the world. Lithium is the magic metal at the very heart of this Energy rEVolution and China is flexing its muscles to build the 21st-century economy to dominate New Energy space.
 EVs Are Clean And Getting Cleaner: U.S. Electricity Generation From Renewables Has Broken Records Every Month In 2016.
  “I do hope that I do not really have to address this issue anymore. Numerous studies have already confirmed that even with the existing energy mix in the US grid a few years ago Electric Cars were much cleaner than ICE ones on the full life cycle. From lithium battery making including the production of lithium to the electricity to charge this battery.   Now they are getting even cleaner with the energy mix of the US grid taken over by the renewables.
  What is very important to note today is that renewable energy is breaking records every single month this year even in the US. Energy Storage with lithium batteries will be next to grow exponentially and will consume even more lithium batteries capacity and lithium than EVs. Fossil Fuels are consumable resources and renewables are technology. The functions for the progress of development for Solar Power and Lithium Batteries are not the same as the famous Moore’s, but still very impressive with prices going down dramatically over the period of time with mass volume production. Particularly in the case with Solar Power, we are getting into the stage when the dramatic decrease in cost have made Solar the cheapest source of energy ever already.  Cheap lithium batteries change everything and now we can store electricity, the most efficient form of energy known to us, and use it when we want it. Read more.

January 28, 2017 Posted by | energy storage | Leave a comment

USA nuclear industry desperately lobbying US States

NUCLEAR-INDUSTRY-FIGHTS-ONUS report sets out policy options for nuclear preservation, World Nuclear News,  27 January 2017

A bipartisan organization supporting US state legislatures has published a new report providing an overview of state action and policy options for legislators who are interested in preserving nuclear assets in their state.

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) report, State options to keep nuclear in the mix, provides background on the current situation of US nuclear power plants and discusses the policies, trends and market conditions that have led to the current environment……..
The report suggests a number of policy options that states who set themselves the goal of retaining the current nuclear fleet could consider to relieve some of the pressures placed on operating nuclear facilities. It aims to provide legislators with a suite of possible options such as zero-emissions credits, tax incentives, the creation of state-wide nuclear mandates, and clean energy subsidy payments.

While making case studies of recent legislation enacted to preserve nuclear capacity in Illinois and New York, the authors note that individual state needs may differ. Legislatures may therefore want to consider a variety of policies to retain their most at-risk nuclear plants.

Report authors Daniel Shea and Kristy Hartman said the report aims to raise awareness and foster dialogue. “The nation’s nuclear facilities are facing an unprecedented array of challenges as nuclear power looks to compete in a rapidly changing energy market,” they said. “State legislatures play a critical role in determining the future of US nuclear power. At least 21 states are considering measures to support the continued use of nuclear generation in recent legislative sessions. In the final months of 2016, Illinois and New York took action to prevent the premature closure of several nuclear plants, but across the country, challenges remain.”

Christine Csizmadia, director of state governmental affairs and advocacy at the US Nuclear Energy Institute, said state legislatures played a vital role in developing policies affecting the viability of existing nuclear power plants. She said the report presented state policymakers with “an array of solutions” to choose from. “Every state is unique and so will be their approach to energy planning. That is why NCSL’s report is such a comprehensive tool for state legislators”, Csizmadia said. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-US-report-sets-out-policy-options-for-nuclear-preservation-2701177.html

January 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s appointees won’t be signing the required pledge about ethics

Trump’s appointees don’t seem to be signing required ethics pledges and don’t plan
ethics-nuclearto http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/26/1625454/-Trump-s-appointees-don-t-seem-to-be-signing-required-ethics-pledges-and-don-t-plan-to  
By Walter Einenkel 

January 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

World Bank loan scheme ‘failing clean energy’

World-Bankhttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38762930 27 January 2017

A multi-billion dollar global fund is encouraging the construction of fossil fuel projects, at the expense of cleaner options, a study reports.

An NGO said that some World Bank policy loans had the effect of supporting coal, gas and oil developments while undermining renewable schemes.

It added the loans were intended to boost growth in the low carbon sector.

The World Bank disputed the report’s findings, saying it did not reflect the wider work it did with countries.

The report by NGO Bank Information Center (BIC) looks at the Bank’s Development Policy Finance (DPF) operations in four nations – Indonesia, Peru, Egypt and Mozambique.

DPF is one of the main activities of the bank, accounting for about one-third of its funding (more than US $15 billion in 2016), according to the report’s authors.

The scheme provides funding for countries in exchange for the implementation of policy agreed by both the national government and World Bank officials.

The authors say the World Bank’s Climate Action Plan considers DPF as a key instrument in help developing nations become low-carbon economies.

They added that the scheme was also essential in helping these nations meet their national commitments outlined in reducing emissions, which form the backbone of the Paris Climate Agreement.

However, BIC research found that DPF had introduced subsidies for coal in three of the four nations examined in the report (Indonesia, Egypt and Mozambique).

The authors said this had helped Indonesia become one of the world’s top coal exporting nations, while turning Mozambique – considered to be among the most at-risk nations from climate change – into a major player in the global coal sector.

“The findings were really shocking for us because in all of the countries, across the board, the Bank actually created new fossil fuel subsidies, which directly goes against what the Bank wants to achieve,” Nezir Sinani, BIC’s Europe and Central Asia manager, told BBC News.

“The World Bank has pledged to help countries adopt a low-carbon development path specifically by phasing out fossil fuels subsidies and promoting a carbon tax,” he added.

“However, the Bank’s policy lending does the opposite by introducing tax breaks for coal power plants and coal exports infrastructure.”

‘Grossly misrepresent’

A spokesperson for the World Bank told BBC News that the group disputed the picture painted by the report.

“We are deeply disappointed that after close cooperation with BIC on this report, their findings grossly misrepresent the World Bank’s engagement in these countries,” they observed.

“The report does not capture the World Bank’s broader energy work, which involves not only development policy loans, but a mix of interventions – policy reforms, investments, technical assistance – that work together to promote climate smart growth and increased energy access.

“In each of the countries mentioned in the report, the World Bank’s development policy loans do not promote the use of coal, but help support a shift towards a cleaner energy mix and low carbon growth.”

The report was published by BIC, which works with other groups in civil society to hold the World Bank and other financial institutions accountable, in collaboration with other green groups, including Greenpeace Indonesia and Friends of the Earth Mozambique.

 

January 28, 2017 Posted by | politics international, renewable | Leave a comment