The Equatorial Pacific is Going Through its Variable Cool Phase, But 2017 is 94 Percent Likely to be the Second Hottest Year Ever Recorded
During late 2016, the Pacific Ocean started to cool off along its Equatorial region after experiencing one of the strongest warming events for that zone ever recorded. But despite this late cooling phase, the year ended up being the hottest ever recorded in the 137 year climate record — topping out at around 1.22 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures. A longer term warming trend that has been directly driven by human burning of fossil fuels and related greenhouse gas emissions.
This year, the periodic Equatorial cooling known as La Nina is again taking place in the Pacific during fall following a very mild warming during winter and spring. But despite the appearance of a second such periodic cooling event, according…
View original post 343 more words
World Bank to fund nuclear power in South Africa?
The South African government has been driving its nuclear power plans forward over the last few months. There have long been concerns, as recently expressed by President Zuma’s Minister of Finance, Malusi Gigaba, that South Africa cannot afford nuclear power. There has been speculation that the World Bank might be a source of funds to allow the project to go ahead. However, there are several reasons that make this is extremely unlikely, to say the least.
View original post 966 more words
Rise of cheap renewables disrupts EU energy plans for 2030
By Frédéric Simon | EURACTIV.com
The rapid fall in costs of wind and solar power, combined with flexible demand technology, could replace “more than half” of coal and gas-powered electricity in Europe by 2030, according to new research published on Tuesday (21 November).
A report from consultants Artelys, to be unveiled in Brussels today, updates the cost projections that form the basis of the European Commission’s modelling for the EU’s energy and climate change goals up to 2030.
According to the analysis, the EU could confidently opt for a 61% share of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2030, instead of the 49% currently foreseen in EU projections.
This would translate into an additional 265 million tonnes of avoided CO2 emissions, and savings of €600 million per year in energy system costs, the research found.
In fact, the falling costs of wind and solar power, combined with demand flexibility, means that it’s actually cheaper to go for 61% renewables and to decrease today’s level of gas generation by around 50%, the report found.
“The drop in the cost of clean technology has gone far beyond all expectations,” said Laurence Tubiana, the CEO of the European Climate Foundation (ECF), which commissioned the research. “The economics are now decisively tipping in favour of clean energy, making an even stronger case for higher EU ambition for 2030,” she added.
Tubiana’s words were echoed by Francesco Starace, the CEO of Italian power utility Enel, who recently took over the presidency of Eurelectric, the European power industry association.
In a recent interview with EURACTIV, Starace said progress in renewable energy technology had been “faster and deeper than expected” when Eurelectric last made projections for 2050.
“Today, [renewables] are clearly the winner of the cost per kilowatt hour battle,” said Starace, adding that carbon neutrality in the power sector was now achievable “certainly earlier than 2050”.
Clean energy package outdated before it is adopted
The report comes as EU lawmakers discuss proposals for a 2030 package of clean energy laws, which contain a 27% target for renewables in overall energy consumption and a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions.
But according to the research, these goals look outdated before they are formally adopted, and could even slow down the transition to a cleaner energy system. Current EU assumptions indeed foresee a carbon price of €27 per tonne of CO2 for 2030, a level considered insufficient to trigger a decisive shift away from coal generation.
“The European Commission seems to chronically underestimate just how great a positive impact sustainable renewable energy can have,” said Imke Luebbeke at the WWF European Policy Office.
“As this report shows, we can and must pull the plug on coal and crank up renewables way beyond the proposed 2030 target levels for the sake of Europeans’ health, taxpayers’ wallets and our shared climate,” she said.
Contacted by EURACTIV, the European Commission acknowledged the relevance of the report’s findings but declined to comment on the implications on the EU’s 2030 goals. Maroš Šefčovič, the EU Commission Vice-President in charge of the Energy Union, is expected to deliver a speech today at an event in Brussels where the report will be officially presented.
Displacing “more than half” of coal and gas
One of the report’s most striking findings is that cheap renewables and flexible demand could replace more than half of European coal and gas generation by 2030. As a consequence, power sector emissions could be be reduced almost twice as fast – from -30% to -55% in 2030 compared to 2015 levels.
And even with large shares of coal retiring, gas generation could still be cut in half by 2030, from 514 TWh today to 259 TWh, according to the research. This is because upgraded electricity grids and flexible demand solutions are expected to provide for more system balancing capacity at lower cost, decreasing the “bridging role” of natural gas in the transition to a carbon neutral power sector.
“Cheap renewables push out gas as well as coal,” said Jonathan Gaventa, director at E3G, a climate change think tank. “European countries should feel confident that they can phase out coal power without increasing energy security risks or new dependence on imported gas,” he said.
“Cost-effective renewable power, demand-side flexibility and electricity grids can pick up the slack. Infrastructure planners need to get to grips with this new reality, or they risk wasting money on utterly unnecessary gas pipelines and LNG terminals,” Gaventa said.
The massive potential of power grids to reduce CO2 emissions was confirmed by ENTSO-E, the European association of transmission network operators. According to ENTSO-E’s 10-year network development plan, published in 2016, grids can deliver a reduction of CO2 emissions in the range of 50 to 80%, depending on the vision, notably due to increased sharing of resources across borders.
This means a corresponding decrease in the “need for extra, often polluting generation plants” that are needed for back up electricity generation when the wind is not blowing or the sun not shining, said Claire Camus, head of communication at ENTSO-E.
Structural overcapacity
On the whole, the rise of cheap renewables, combined with greater end-use efficiency and better grids, is confronting Europe with a structural overcapacity in power generation, the report warned, calling on policymakers to adopt policies for an orderly phase out of coal.
“Phasing out depreciated, high-carbon generation assets is critical to making space for investments in renewable electricity and moving to a cleaner, smarter and cheaper energy system,” the report said. It did however warn of “a high likelihood” that decision-makers will continue to rely on “out-of-date understanding of power market economics when deciding on EU and national energy policies”.
This was confirmed by Francesco Starace of Eurelectric in his earlier interview. “I think the industry has lost some time in trying to resist what happened in technology, in denying what happened in the environment, so we had to catch up.
“We now see it clearly,” he said.
Whitehouse Remarks in EPW Subcommittee on Clean Air & Nuclear Safety (Cost/benefit issue)
Senator Whitehouse questions Davis Henry of Henry Brick Company, Christopher J. Kersting of Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), Paul Williams of the United States Stove Company, Emily Hammond of the George Washington University Law School, and John Walke of Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Nuclear Prisoners” by Hisao
Lyrics: (in Japanese and English)
ウランから
プルトニウムへ
核実験
広島
人体実験
長崎へ
福一の プルサーマル 三号機
最初の
寿命二十年
いつの間に
四十年
人工地震
三一一
風評で 被曝体験 尚も且つ
Nuclear test
from uranium
to plutonium
Hiroshima
human experiments
to Nagasaki
Hukuichi’s pluthermal unit 3
First life
20 years
ago
40 years?
Artificial quake
311
Exposure experience still in reputational
東京と
京都除外の
原爆は
起爆なら
空襲警報
鳴らぬ筈
金儲け 壊す目的 再稼働
The Atomic-bombs
excluding Tokyo n’
Kyoto
Air raid alarms
shouldn’t ring if
detonated!
Money making purpose reactivated to break
ウランから
プルトニウムへ
核実験
First Nations and Allies Unite for a Non-Nuclear Ontario
On Nov. 8 – 9, 2017, First Nations and allies united to call for a phase-out of Ontario’s nuclear stations and a move to a 100% renewable future. They called on Premier Wynne to make a deal with Quebec to purchase its suplus renewable water power at a fraction of the cost of extending the Pickering or rebuilding the Darlington Nuclear Stations. Please sign the petitions: http://www.BuyQuebecPower.ca and http://www.ClosePickering.ca
Climate Without Borders: Meet a Meteorologist Who Dares to Say “Climate Change” in Weather Reports
As Democracy Now! broadcasts from the UN climate summit in Bonn, we look at how climate-related Hurricanes have devastated parts of the United States, but weather presenters still rarely utter the words: “climate change.” We speak with Jill Peeters, a weather presenter in Belgium who is also the founder of Climate Without Borders.
The consensus is clear: there is no upside to a nuclear Brexit Clare Moody
Source: https://www.environmentguru.com/pages/elements/element.aspx?id=5769869
© EnvironmentGuru.com [PAYWALL]
McClaughry: A global renewable energy power play
by John McClaughry Here’s an interesting insight into the arcane world of global renewable energy politics, based on the October 30 column in Forbes by widely-read energy blogger Rod Adams. Last week the annual “Conference of Parties” (COP23), the consultative body for the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change, convened in Bonn, Germany. For the past eight years a business-oriented Sustainable Innovation Forum (SIF) has been held alongside the COP, cosponsored by the U.S.-led advocacy group Climate Action and the UN Environment Program (UNEP).
This year the Forum accepted the World Nuclear Association as a Gold Sponsor. But then UNEP demanded that the Forum reject any participation by the nuclear trade association. Its spokesman said “we prioritise the renewables revolution, such as wind and solar energy…Our work on the nuclear sector is limited.”
It’s limited all right – to zero.
Adams reports that among the gold-level sponsors that SIF accepted were BMW and Toyota, whose profits come from fossil fuel burning engines, and Orstead, a utility that operates coal-fired power stations. Why did UNEP not veto those?
The answer seems to be that the auto manufacturers and utility acknowledge that their use of petroleum and coal is destroying the planet – UNEP’s mantra – and they’re seeking absolution for their guilt. And nuclear? The nuclear industry is proud that it emits virtually no carbon dioxide – no guilt, and no absolution needed.
Beneath this theological level, UNEP (along with the American climate change organizations) is passionately anti-nuclear. Why? Because the prospect of clean, safe, cheap 21st century nuclear electricity not only threatens to displace coal and petroleum, which is fine with the activists, but it also threatens to put an end to the subsidy-driven wind and solar carnival, which is not.
Adams quotes Kirsty Gogan, global director of Energy for Humanity, as saying “by blocking nuclear from the conversation, and insisting on a conditional, renewables-only, response to climate change, UNEP have displayed a dangerous ideological agenda that undermines its own credibility.”
But there are some climate change warriors who urge greater reliance on nuclear power. The most prominent is renowned climatologist Dr. James Hansen, the now-retired head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is the man who made “global warming”, later rechristened “climate change”, a global issue, in his 1988 testimony before a Senate Committee including his soon-to-be most ardent disciple, Al Gore.
Hansen is so passionate a believer in fossil-fuel-caused climate change that he has been arrested in protests against mountaintop coal mining and the Keystone pipeline. But he understands that attempting to maintain an acceptable level of civilization by relying on activist-approved renewables is, to use his term, “crazy”.
In 2013 Hansen co-authored an open letter to policy makers, which stated that “continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.” In a Scientific American report (12/4/15) Hansen said “Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change .The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won’t use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazy.”
Seven years prior to that, on a website titled “Tell the Truth to Obama”, Hansen said “The [$25 billion Federal nuclear waste disposal] fund should be used to develop fast reactors that eat nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste… Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.”
Here are three takeaways:
First, intermittent, diffuse, and non-dispatchable wind and solar electricity can be valuable in certain remote locations, and even for homesteads, but it simply can’t be relied upon to power a modern electric grid – and in fact, it’s already causing serious grid stability problems. Nuclear stations deliver steady, safe, reliable dispatchable baseload power to the grid, accompanied by almost no greenhouse gas emissions (mainly from trucks and equipment used in mining uranium ore.)
Second, we are long overdue to knock down the daunting regulatory barriers to licensing and building the Generation 4 nuclear plants that James Hansen urgently recommends.
Third, climate change activists who irrationally oppose even the discussion of anything nuclear deserve to be disregarded.
In addition, the Trump administration should reduce the U.S. contribution to the UN Environment Program, and let the renewable-industrial complex pick up the slack.
John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen institute (www.ethanallen.org (link is external)).
http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2017/november/21/mcclaughry-global-renewable-energy-power-play
The UK’s Hair-Raising Admissions About the Prospect of Nuclear War and Accident
The British Ministry of Defence (MoD) has published several reports over the last few years. They discuss geopolitics and related themes, one of which is the likelihood of nuclear war or accident, including what it means for long-term survival.
Experts say that even a so-called limited exchange or accident would be catastrophic. For example, a recent paper in Earth’s Futurec alculates that the most optimistic scenario of a “small,” regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan would wipe out millions of people through famine and result in a nuclear winter. An exchange between the USA and Russia, for instance, could be even bigger and more devastating.
America’s ongoing “Asia Pivot” encourages China to build up its arsenals. Proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine with Russia and continuing tensions with North Korea also increase the risk of brinkmanship and miscalculation between those nuclear powers.
Britain’s Role
By training rebels in Syria and armed forces in Ukraine, the UK is particularly responsible for contributing to escalating tensions. Britain remains one of the USA’s closest allies and enjoys a “special relationship” with the US. It serves as a proxy for US Trident nuclear weapons systems. The UK’s Vanguard submarines host US-supplied Trident II D5 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. In 2016, a dummy ICBM was launched by the UK at a test target off the coast of Africa. It self-destructed and headed for Florida, according to news reports. The event took place a time when the British government voted to upgrade Trident in violation of Britain’s Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations and at a time when the newly-appointed Prime Minister, Theresa May (not yet elected), answered “Yes,” when asked by a member of Parliament if she would launch a nuclear missile and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Let’s look at some examples of the UK MoD’s admissions that: 1) the world is getting more dangerous, 2) it is likely that some states will use nuclear weapons at some point, 3) brinksmanship increases the risk of miscalculation, and 4) that such events threaten human existence. These admissions are startling for a number of reasons: the MoD possesses nuclear weapons, yet acknowledges their danger; the media fail to report on these matters, despite their coming from establishment sources; and governments are not inherently compelled by this information to de-escalate.
“Doomsday Scenarios.”
Every few years, the MoD updates its studies concerning the nature of global developments. The third edition of the Strategic Trends Programme predicts trends between the years 2007-2036. It states (MoD’s emphases):
Accelerating nuclear proliferation will create a more complex and dangerous strategic environment, with the likely clustering of nuclear-armed states in regions that have significant potential for instability or have fears about foreign intervention. For example, North Korean, Pakistani and potentially, Iranian nuclear weapon capability will increase significantly the risks of conflict in Asia if a system of mutual deterrence does not emerge. In addition, nuclear possession may lead to greater adventurism and irresponsible conventional and irregular behaviour, to the point of brinkmanship and misunderstanding. Finally, there is a possibility that neutron technologies may reemerge as potential deterrent and warfighting options.
Neutron weapons supposedly kill living things but do not harm property. The report also notes a potential “revival of interest” among “developed states” in “neutron and smarter nuclear technologies.” Neutron bombs could become “a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world.” The document concludes rather casually, stating: “Many of the concerns over the development of new technologies lie in their safety, including the potential for disastrous outcomes, planned and unplanned.” Note the word planned. It goes on to say: “Various doomsday scenarios arising in relation to these and other areas of development present the possibility of catastrophic impacts, ultimately including the end of the world, or at least of humanity.”
Will the US or Israel get impatience and attack Iran or North Korea? The now-archived Future of Character of Conflict (2010) predicts trends out to 2035 and states:
The risk of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) use will endure; indeed increase, over the long term. The strategic anxiety and potential instability caused by CBRN proliferation is typified by international frustration over Iran and North Korea, with the risks of pre-emptive action and regional arms races, and where soft power alone has not been notably successful.
Soft power refers to economic and diplomatic coercion. As the US expands its global reach, other countries might seek possession of nuclear weapons to deter the USA: “[t]he possession of nuclear weapons, perceived as essential for survival and status, will remain a goal of many aspiring powers.”
Unless enforcement mechanisms are imposed, will arms controls and treaties be effective? Out to the year 2040, says the MoD’s fourth edition of its now-withdrawn Strategic Trends Programme, “[t]he likelihood of nuclear weapons usage will increase.” It goes on (MoD’s emphases):
Broader participation in arms control may be achieved, although this is unlikely to reduce the probability of conflict. Effective ballistic missile defence systems will have the long-term potential to undermine the viability of some states’ nuclear deterrence.
Could that last statement refer to ICBMs being integrated into a so-called defense shield and used by the few countries that possess them against ones that do not? What is the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used for warfighting? Finally, Future Operating Environment 2035 states:
Some commentators believe it is increasingly likely that a range of state actors may use tactical nuclear weapons as part of their strategy against non-nuclear and conventional threats coming from any environment, severe cyber attacks. Limited tactical nuclear exchanges in conventional conflicts by 2035 also cannot be ruled out, and some non-Western states may even use such strikes as a way of limiting or de-escalating conflict.
Conclusion
These analyses and admissions on behalf of the UK MoD and its reliance on US-produced weapons systems should serve as enough of a warning to scholars and anti-nuclear weapons campaigners to suggest that, as long as weapons of mass destruction exist and as long as international treaties have no enforcement mechanisms with regards the powerful countries, the clock to midnight will continue ticking.
UPDATE 1-EDF reports quality control failings regarding some rods at nuclear reactors
* EDF says no operational impact
* Was notified by Areva of the flaws
* Quality control shortcomings found related to 14 rods
* EDF cut 2018 earnings forecast last week (Adds detail, background)
PARIS, Nov 21 (Reuters) – EDF said on Tuesday it had been informed about shortcomings found in quality controls on a small number of rods installed at its French nuclear sites.
EDF said the discovery was made by nuclear equipment manufacturer Areva on 14 of 2,600,000 rods installed at its reactors across France.
“Areva notified the EDF Group of quality control deviations on certain rods used to manufacture fuel assemblies. The supplier is not able to demonstrate that quality control substantiating leak tightness of these rods has been properly performed,” EDF said in a statement.
The rods involved are in use at the Golfech 2, Flamanville 1 and Cattenom 3 reactors, while 11 others were not installed. EDF said the findings would have no operational impact.
France depends on nuclear power for more than 75 percent of its electricity, and EDF union members have warned of a risk of blackouts this winter due to nuclear reactor outages.
Last week, EDF said future nuclear reactor maintenance outages could be longer than expected and that these could weigh on its 2018 core earnings.
EDF lowered its 2018 core earnings forecast to a range of 14.6-15.3 billion euros ($17.2-$18 billion) from at least 15.2 billion.
Contradictory Radiation Reports Flag Russian Nuclear Plant
Nov 21, 2017
Just weeks after Russia’s nuclear energy corporation said radiation levels were normal, the country’s meteorological service said it had registered extreme levels of radiation in the Urals two months ago.
European radiation monitors detected a cloud of radioactive material originating in Russia’s southern Urals over two dozen European countries in late September and early October. The material could have come from “a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing or the production of radioactive sources.
Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom said the release of the radioactive material, Ruthenium 106 or Ru-106, was in line with natural background radiation, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency reported at the time.
On Monday, Russia’s Federal Meteorological Service said it had registered extreme levels of Ru-106 across several locations in late September. The highest levels of the radioisotope — 986 times the norm — were located in Chelyabinsk region, the site of the Mayak nuclear facility.
Mayak makes components for nuclear weapons and processes spent nuclear fuel. One of its storage facilities exploded in 1957 — a fact that went unreported until three decades later.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Mayak said it was not the source of the excess Ru-106 concentration.
Greenpeace in Russia said it planned to ask prosecutors to launch an inquiry into whether officials concealed a nuclear incident.
“Even taking into account that the observed concentration over Europe is small, tens of millions of people were impacted, and some of them will no doubt have health problems,” it said in a statement Monday.
Meanwhile, Chelyabinsk officials played down the dangers of excess radiation, saying they would have been ordered to evacuate if the levels were dangerous.
“The sources of this damaging information are in France, where there’s a nuclear waste processing facility that competes with our Mayak,” Yevgeny Savchenko, the region’s public security minister, told the regional news website Ura.news on Tuesday.
“This raises certain flags.”
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/contradictory-radiation-reports-flag-russian-nuclear-plant-59633
Russia confirms spike in radioactivity in the Urals
Originally published November 21, 2017 MOSCOW (AP) — Russian authorities have confirmed reports of a spike in radioactivity in the air over the Ural Mountains.
France’s nuclear safety agency earlier this month recorded radioactivity in the area between the Volga River and the Ural Mountains from a suspected accident involving nuclear fuel or the production of radioactive material. It said the release of the isotope Ruthenium-106 posed no health or environmental risks to European countries.
The Russian Meteorological Service said in a statement Tuesday that it recorded the release of Ruthenium-106 in the southern Urals in late September and classified it as “extremely high contamination.”
After the first reports, Russia’s state-controlled Rosatom corporation said in a statement last month that it hadn’t come from its facilities.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/russia-confirms-spike-in-radioactivity-in-the-urals/
Hypocritical promotion of nuclear waste dumping for Cumbria
Radiation Free Lakeland 19th Nov 2017, West Cumbria was ruled out as a site to bury nuclear waste 20 years ago because the geology was unsafe. The plan this time round is ten times as big and to include high level nuclear wastes, so not surprisingly Cumbria County Council said NO in January 2013.
However, in order to build new nuclear plants the industry and government need to be seen to have a
“final solution” to the problem, no matter if that “final solution” is dangerous to life in Cumbria and on planet earth. The ducks are being lined up.
To soften the public up in West Cumbria deep mining is once again being promoted as a “good thing” no matter that it is for coal, the mining expertise and infrastructure is being aggressively put into place
creating a “demand”. Companies like Eden Nuclear and Environment are sprouting up like toxic mushrooms and promoting their services: “Our team has undertaken work for a range of disposal facilities including the Geological Disposal Facility” (the one that is planned for Cumbria?)
https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2017/11/19/geological-dumping-of-nuclear-waste-where-why/
1.This Month
1:20 / 13:23
Julian Assange could be released on 20th May
21 May Webinar. Protect Our Waterways. No Nuclear Waste.
7 pm Tuesday May 21 https://www.protectourwaterways.org/webinars
24 May. The Vow from Hiroshima film is coming on PBS, this month https://www.thevowfromhiroshima.com/
3 June – FILM. SOS – The San Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power’s Legacy
6-7 July A summit and a rally in Washington D.C. https://nonatoyespeace.org/
-
Archives
- May 2024 (234)
- April 2024 (366)
- March 2024 (335)
- February 2024 (345)
- January 2024 (375)
- December 2023 (333)
- November 2023 (342)
- October 2023 (366)
- September 2023 (353)
- August 2023 (356)
- July 2023 (362)
- June 2023 (324)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 