Britain plays down media report of Hitachi nuclear deal, Susanna Twidale -10 May LONDON/TOKYO (Reuters) – Britain’s government on Wednesday played down a media report that it will guarantee Hitachi Ltd’s Horizon Nuclear Power loans for the construction of two reactors in Wales.
British Prime Minister Theresa May met Hitachi Chairman Hiroaki Nakanishi last week in London and asked him to go ahead with the project, conveying the government’s intention to fully guarantee the loans, Japan’s Mainichi newspaper paper said, without citing a source.
“We don’t recognise these reports,” a spokesman for Britain’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said in an emailed statement.
“Nuclear power remains a crucial part of the UK’s energy future but we have always been clear that this must be delivered at the right price for consumers and taxpayers,” he said.
Britain is seeking new ways to fund nuclear projects after criticism over a deal awarded to France’s EDF to build the first nuclear plant in Britain for 20 years, which could cost consumers 30 billion pounds.
“These discussions are commercially sensitive and we have no further details at this time,” the BEIS spokesman said.
Hitachi’s Horizon plans to construct at least 5.4 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity at two sites in Britain – the first at Wylfa Newydd in Wales, and a second at Oldbury-on-Severn in England.
…….. The Mainichi report said Hitachi is still pushing for the British government to take a stake in the project and guarantee electricity prices to ensure it is profitable.
The cost of the Hitachi project in Wales has ballooned to 3 trillion yen (20.2 billion pounds) due to tougher safety measures, the newspaper said. Hitachi declined to comment, when contacted by Reuters.
Reporting by Susanna Twidale, Yoshiyasu Shida and Osamu Tsukimori; Writing by Aaron Sheldrick; Editing by Christian Schmollinger and Alexandra Hudson
Mainichi 9th May 2018 [Machine Translation] The UK government presented to Hitachi about a debt
guarantee for the full amount of borrowing necessary for the project, surrounding Hitachi’s nuclear power plant project to be planned in central UK.
Until now, the Japanese government had a policy of guaranteeing debt from borrowing from Japanese banks. The British government, which had been asked to strengthen support from Hitachi, said it showed stronger involvement in finance.
Based on this, Hitachi is expected to judge continuation of investment within the month. As a loan, 3 megabanks such as
Mitsubishi UFJ Bank and other government-affiliated international cooperation banks are planning to participate from Japan, and it was planned that the Japan Trade Insurance, wholly owned by the government, will guarantee the loans of three lines.
However, in late April, the British government showed Hitachi’s intention to guarantee full debt of both Japanese and English bank loans. Prior to this, Hitachi reported that there is a possibility of withdrawing from business unless UK government’s adequate support is obtained, the UK side seems to have presented as part of the support measures.
If the loan is burned down due to an accident or the like due to the guarantee of debt, there is a possibility that the
British people will eventually bear a burden. Although the burden of Hitachi is not immediately reduced compared with the case where the Japanese government guarantees the debt, the British government owes the risk of the failure of the project, so that the meaning that the British government can continue to support in the future can be expected is there. https://mainichi.jp/articles/20180509/k00/00m/020/171000c?fm=mnm
Reuters 9th May 2018, Hitachi Ltd’s Horizon Nuclear Power unit has received an assurance from
the British government that it will guarantee loans for the construction of
two reactors in Wales, the Mainichi newspaper reported on Wednesday.
British Prime Minister Theresa May met Hitachi Chairman Hiroaki Nakanishi
last week in London and asked him to go ahead the project, conveying the
government’s intention to fully guarantee the loans, the paper said,
without citing a source.
Or, he’s making the rest of the world think he is by arranging a performance for the satellites that pass overhead.
Satellite images taken since last month’s inter-Korean summit show a steady reduction in the number of buildings around North Korea’s known nuclear test site, built under Mount Mantap in the Punggye-ri area in the north of the country.
“At the very least, this a welcome PR move,” said Jeffrey Lewis, head of the East Asia program at the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California.
“Over the past two weeks, five or six buildings have inexplicably come down,” Lewis said, citing commercial satellite images from the San Francisco-based firm Planet Labs that have a resolution comparable to Google maps. “Something is clearly happening there.”
As part of the extraordinary rapprochement now going on, North Korea has vowed to dismantle the test site, where all six of its nuclear detonations have taken place, this month. But as with so many things about North Korea, it’s difficult to tell how much of this is wheat and how much is chaff.
Kim made the pledge during a historic summit with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, which laid the groundwork for a meeting between Kim and President Donald Trump that will likely take place in the next month or so.
Kim said he would invite security experts and journalists to the North to observe the closure of the site, the South’s presidential Blue House said.
All six of North Korea’s nuclear tests have taken place deep under the mountain at Punggye-ri, with five of them occurring in the tunnel complex accessed through an entrance known as the north portal. There are two other entrances to the site, the west and south portals.
The last test, in September last year, was so huge that some experts wondered if Mount Mantap was suffering from “tired mountain syndrome” and had become unusable. But numerous nuclear experts have cast doubt on that theory, noting that even if the tunnels leading to the north portal were unusable, the other two entrances could still be operational.
Tunnelling and activity at the west portal had been visible as recently as April 20, a week before the inter-Korean summit, according to an analysis for 38 North, a website devoted to North Korea.
There are clusters of buildings at the portals, including administration buildings and a command center, as well as smaller buildings.
The big, main buildings are still there but the smaller, more peripheral ones at the north and south portals, the entrances to the main tunnels, have come down, Lewis said.
This could be part of the preparations for inviting journalists and experts to watch the closure of the site, which, Lewis said, could be as simple – and as reversible – as blocking the portals.
“Shutting down the test site is something they can easily do. It’s just tunnels so they can seal the entrances – but they can also unseal them,” he said.
“And the tunnels are always going to be there,” he added, unless North Korea blows up the whole site.
Still, analysts wanting to be optimistic about the diplomatic process say that declaring the site finished and taking some steps towards closing it would support their theory that Kim is making an effort, just like this week’s release of three Americans who had been held in North Korea.
But sceptics say that closing a test site that might well be spent is just cosmetic.
A group of Chinese scientists last month said they believe the test site had collapsed after September’s huge test, which caused an earthquake so big that satellites caught images of the mountain above the site actually moving.
North Korea claimed to have detonated a hydrogen bomb, which would be exponentially more powerful than the atomic devices previously tested, and experts said the size of the earthquake suggested that it had indeed been a hydrogen, or thermonuclear, explosion.
Adding to theory that the site has outlived its utility is new research from scientists from the Earth Observatory of Singapore at Nanyang Technical University, who claim to have found evidence that the damage at Mount Mantap was more substantial than other research shows.
In their study, which will be published in the journal Science on Thursday, they argued that by using satellite radar imagery to supplement ground-based seismological readings they were able to gain a more accurate picture of the September 3 test.
Sylvain Barbot, a researcher with the Earth Observatory of Singapore, wrote in an e-mail that the nuclear test last year was so large that “we could ‘feel’ it from space.”
The amount of shaking that accompanied the explosion was so severe that traditional radar measurements were inaccurate, Barbot said, and his team had to use unusual techniques to compensate for significant changes in the landscape.
By using these techniques, the researchers were able to estimate a depth for the nuclear detonation: Around 450 metres, beneath the summit of Mount Mantap. Researchers then combined this information with seismological readings to come up with an estimated yield for the weapon of between 120 kilotons to 304 kilotons.
Much of this range would be far higher than officials from the United States and South Korea estimate.
The researchers also found evidence that a significant part of Mount Mantap had collapsed after the explosion, supporting the Chinese study. A “very large” part of the facility had collapsed, Barbot said, “not merely a tunnel or two.”
How America Jump-Started Iran’s Nuclear Program, History, BY BECKY LITTLE//MAY 9, 2018
For several decades now, the U.S. has sought to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But ironically, the reason Iran has the technology to build these weapons in the first place is because the U.S. gave it to Iran between 1957 and 1979. This nuclear assistance was part of a Cold War strategy known as “Atoms for Peace.”
The strategy’s name comes from Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech, given before the United Nations General Assembly in 1953. In it, he suggested that promoting the non-military use of nuclear technology could discourage countries from using it to create nuclear weapons, or “Atoms for War.”
The speech came only eight years after the invention of the atomic bomb, at a time when the U.S. was anxious to keep these new and frightening weapons from proliferating around the world. Strange as it sounds, President Eisenhower viewed his “Atoms for Peace” strategy partly as a form of arms control.
the U.S. provided nuclear assistance to countries it wanted to influence, such as Israel, India, Pakistan, and Iran.
At the time, the U.S. was closely allied with Iran’s Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. So closely, in fact, that when Iran toppled the Shah’s monarchy and democratically elected a prime minister, the CIA staged a 1953 coup d’état that put the Shah back in power. Part of the reason the U.S. valued Iran as an ally was because of its strategic location bordering the Soviet Union. During the early part of the Cold War, the U.S. set up a base in Iran to monitor Soviet activity.
In this context, the United States’ nuclear cooperation with Iran “was, in part, a means to shore up the relationship between those countries,” Fuhrmann says. The cooperation lasted until 1979, when the the Iranian Revolution ousted the Shah and the U.S. lost the country as an ally.
All of the nuclear technology the U.S. provided Iran during those years was supposed to be for peaceful nuclear development. But the “Atoms for Peace” strategy ended up having some unintended consequences.
“A lot of that infrastructure could also be used to produce plutonium or weapons-grade, highly-enriched uranium, which are the two critical materials you need to make nuclear bombs,” Fuhrmann says. In effect, the U.S. laid the foundations for the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Iran first became seriously interested in creating nuclear weapons during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War. It tried unsuccessfully to develop them in the late ‘90s and early 2000s. Still, Iranian nuclear development remains an international concern, especially now that Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
In the weeks leading up to Trump’s decision, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to convince him to exit the deal by arguing that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons. Other policy experts and world leaders have rejected this claim, and Fuhrmann says he’s seen no evidence that “Iran has violated the deal, or that Iran has done anything since 2003 … to build nuclear bombs.”
House approves bill to revive Nevada nuclear waste dump WP, By Matthew Daly | APMay 10 WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday approved an election-year bill to revive the mothballed nuclear waste dump at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain despite opposition from home-state lawmakers.
Supporters say the bill would help solve a nuclear-waste storage problem that has festered for more than three decades. More than 80,000 metric tons of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants sit idle in 121 communities across 39 states.
The bill would direct the Energy Department to continue a licensing process for Yucca Mountain while also moving forward with a separate plan for a temporary storage site in New Mexico or Texas.
The House approved the bill, 340-72, sending the measure to the Senate, where Nevada’s two senators have vowed to block it.
“The House can vote all they want to revive #YuccaMountain, but let’s be clear – any bill that would turn Nevadans’ backyards into a nuclear waste dump is dead on arrival,” Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto tweeted. “Yucca will never be anything more than a hole in the ground.”
……. “The House can vote all they want to revive #YuccaMountain, but let’s be clear – any bill that would turn Nevadans’ backyards into a nuclear waste dump is dead on arrival,” Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto tweeted. “Yucca will never be anything more than a hole in the ground.”
……..While the fight over Yucca resumes, lawmakers say they hope to make progress on a plan to temporarily house tons of spent fuel that have been piling up at nuclear reactors around the country. Private companies have proposed state-of-the-art, underground facilities in remote areas of west Texas and southeastern New Mexico to store nuclear waste for up to 40 years.
An underground North Korean nuclear test in September last year exploded with 10 times the energy of the atomic bomb that exploded over Nagasaki in 1945.
It also caused the overlying mountain peak to sink by half a metre and shift about 3.5 metres south.
Key points:
North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb under Mt Mantap on September 3, 2017
Using satellite measurements and seismic data, geophysicists calculated the strength of the test and its location — the first time satellite radar has been used this way
The blast was big enough to cause an earthquake and deform the mountain above
These are conclusions drawn by geophysicists, who used satellite radar and instruments that pick up waves travelling through the earth, to calculate the explosion’s depth and strength.
In the journal Science today, they also report signs that a subterranean tunnel system at the test site collapsed 8.5 minutes after the bomb detonated.
In the past, satellite technology — called synthetic radar aperture imagery — has mapped how the ground stretches and warps after earthquakes.
But this is the first time it has been used to examine a nuclear bomb test site, according to Teng Wang, study co-author and a geophysicist at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University.
Since the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996, nine nuclear tests have taken place.
Six of these were by North Korea, five of which were at its Mt Mantap facility in the country’s north.
The bombs were detonated in chambers tunnelled into the mountain itself — a granite peak that extends upwards just over 2,200 metres.
But this means the details of the tests, such as the energy produced by the bombs, have been largely unknown outside North Korea — until now.
Eye in the sky, ear to the ground
Dr Wang and his colleagues suspected they could deduce the strength and precise location of the bomb test on September 3 last year, which triggered a magnitude-6.3 earthquake.
Clandestine nuclear activities are tracked by a global monitoring system of sensors that pick up the faint shivers and shudders generated by distant underground blasts and earthquakes.
But while these instruments are capable of picking up the wave signature of a bomb blast thousands of kilometres away, more information is needed to pinpoint exactly where an explosion has taken place.
So in the weeks after the September North Korean bomb test, Dr Wang and his colleagues received images of the Mt Mantap terrain before and after the test, snapped by the German TerraSAR-X satellite.
To map the bumps and dips on the Earth’s entire surface, TerraSAR-X pings radar towards the ground and measures how long it before the signal is bounced back up again.
“As long as the ground is deformed, we can measure it from space using synthetic radar aperture,” Dr Wang said.
Combined with a bit of nifty mathematical modelling — the first time anyone’s modelled an underground nuclear test with radar data — he and his colleagues got a fix on the exact location of the detonation site.
This is a highlight of the work, said Hrvoje Tkalcic, a geophysicist at the Australian National University, who was not involved in the study.
“What’s always difficult is pinpointing an exact location [of a bomb test],” Professor Tkalcic said.
Dr Wang and his team calculated that the top of the mountain subsided about half a metre after the September test, and parts of it shuffled south.
To manage this deformation, the bomb released the energy equivalent to between 109,000 and 276,000 tonnes of TNT in a chamber 450 metres below Mt Mantap’s peak.
The “Fat Man” bomb that exploded over Nagasaki yielded an energy level equivalent to 20,000 tonnes.
Among the data, they found the seismic shivers of a second, smaller event — an aftershock that appeared 700 metres south of, and 8.5 minutes after, the explosion.
The waves produced by the aftershock weren’t consistent with an explosion; rather, it looked like the ground had imploded.
This, the geophysicists suggest, “likely indicates the collapse of the tunnel system of the test site”.
While Dr Wang and his team used data from seismic monitoring systems in China and the surrounding area, Australia has one of the best in the world, Professor Tkalcic said: the Warramunga monitoring station in the Northern Territory, near Tennant Creek.
It’s almost smack bang in the centre of the continent, in an incredibly quiet part of the world, seismically speaking; far from tectonic plate edges, cities and the shoreline, where waves crashing on the coast create seismic noise.
It uses an array of buried instruments to pick up waves that travel through the ground, acting as a giant antenna to amplify weak signals.
“They’re used in the same way as astronomers use arrays of antennas to look at deep space. It’s just that our antennas are pointed to the centre of the earth,” Professor Tkalcic said.
There is also an infrasound detection system at Warramunga station, which detects waves that travel through the atmosphere produced by bomb blasts.
The data is transmitted by satellite to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation in Vienna, where it is monitored round the clock.
So how do geophysicists know if seismic waves are caused by bomb blasts and not, say, an earthquake or landslide?
In a subterranean explosion, the ground is pushed outwards and compressed, sending a particular type of wave through the ground, Professor Tkalcic said.
An earthquake’s seismic signature is different. If two plates collide, rub against each other or slip, they send out another type of wave.
“We can tell if the first motion was predominantly a compression or if it was a shear type of motion,” Professor Tkalcic said.
THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL’S UNRAVELING RAISES FEARS OF CYBERATTACKS Wired Andy Greenberg, 18 May 18
WHEN THE US last tightened its sanctions against Iran in 2012, then-president Barack Obama boasted that they were “virtually grinding the Iranian economy to a halt.” Iran fired back with one of the broadest series of cyberattacks ever to target the US, bombarding practically every major American bank with months of intermittent distributed denial of service attacks that pummeled their websites with junk traffic, knocking them offline. Three years later, the Obama administration lifted many of those sanctions in exchange for Iran’s promise to halt its nuclear development; Tehran has since mostly restrained its state-sponsored online attacks against Western targets.
Now, with little more than a word from President Trump, that détente appears to have ended. And with it, the lull in Iranian cyberattacks on the West may be coming to an end, too.
Cutting Swords
President Trump announced Tuesday that he would unilaterally withdraw the US from the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration in 2015, and impose new sanctions against the country within 90 days. Since then, foreign policy watchers have warned that the move would isolate the US, risk further destabilizing the Middle East, and invite another nuclear rogue nation into the world. But for those who have followed the last decade of digital conflicts around the globe, the unraveling of the Iran deal reignites not only the country’s nuclear threat, but also the threat of its highly aggressive hackers—now with years more development and training that have only honed their offensive tactics.
“They’ve developed this ability over the last years and there’s no reason for them not to use it now,” says Levi Gundert, an Iran-focused analyst at private intelligence firm Recorded Future. “They want to try to induce other countries to think about repercussions before levying sanctions, and they have a real capability in the cyber domain.”
……… since the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran has largely restricted its hacking to its own neighborhood, repeatedly hitting its longtime rival Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations with cyberattacks but limiting its attacks on Western targets to mere cyberespionage, not actual disruptive operations.
……… Iran’s abrupt entrance into the digital arms race came in 2012, when state-sponsored Iranian hackers calling themselves the Cutting Sword of Justice used a piece of malware called Shamoon to overwrite the files of 30,000 machines on the network of energy company Saudi Aramco with a file that displayed the image of a burning American flag. A similar malware infection struck Qatari gas firm RasGas soon after. The attacks, which temporarily paralyzed the IT operations of one of the world’s largest oil companies, is widely seen as retaliation for Stuxnet, the NSA- and Israeli-created malware that was unleashed against the Natanz Iranian nuclear facility in 2010 to destroy its enrichment centrifuges. ………
Iran may have quietly grown into a serious threat to any enemy nation that it can reach via the internet. And now that the last three years of tense peace appears to be ending, its list of fair-game targets may once again include the United States, too.
PGE picks Baltic wind over nuclear as Poland embraces green power, Agnieszka Barteczko, Pawel Goraj WARSAW/GDYNIA (Reuters) – State-controlled PGE (PGE.WA) has abandoned its leading role in plans to build Poland’s first nuclear power station as it focuses on new wind farms in the Baltic Sea, two sources said.
PGE, the largest Polish power group, announced a nearly $10 billion offshore wind project in March but has also been responsible for the nuclear project…….
One source said PGE could not fund both projects and cheap technology had swung the decision in favor of wind. PGE could still play a smaller role in the nuclear project which has been delayed and still needs government approval.
“PGE cannot afford both – offshore wind and nuclear. The decision was taken to go for offshore,” the source said.
A government source also said that PGE would focus on offshore.
…….. Poland’s ruling conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party promised before elections in 2015 to defend the coal industry and put in place laws to prevent new investment in both onshore and offshore windfarms.
But in March it changed tack and proposed a law to make it easier to build wind turbines. That is currently being debated in parliament.
If the law is passed, as expected, several other wind farm projects could also proceed.
Polenergia (PEPP.WA), owned by the Kulczyk family, has said it would like to build a wind farm in the Baltic by 2022. PKN Orlen is also considering building one.
PGE said in March that it wants to build offshore windfarms with a capacity of 2.5 gigawatts (GW) by 2030.
………. Analysts and investors say that offshore wind farms are the easiest and fastest way for Poland to fill the expected capacity gap from coal and reduce CO2 emissions in line with EU’s 2030 targets as Poland seeks improved ties with Brussels.
They provide more electricity than onshore windfarms, which Poland already has, and can be built more quickly than a nuclear power plant.
The decision to open up the offshore power industry could also draw in investors. Statoil said in April it would join Polenergia’s offshore project which has drawn interest from other international wind companies.
“We received phone calls from all over Europe after Statoil’s decision was announced. If such a player has entered, we need to be in too, many investors say,” said Maciej Stryjecki, the president of the board at SMDI Advisory Group.
………. The Polish Wind Energy Association (PWEA) estimates that offshore windfarms with a total capacity of 6 GW would help create around 77,000 new jobs and add around 60 billion zlotys to economic growth.
Local authorities in the windy Baltic resort and port of Leba, which is close to the future offshore sites, are hoping the industry could provide year-round employment as a balance to seasonal jobs.
“If investors choose Leba, a base and functional and technical facilities for wind farms could be created here,” the mayor of Leba, Andrzej Strzechminski, said.
PWEA has identified around 70 potential Polish suppliers to the offshore industry including shipyards Crist SA and GSG Towers. Their workers’ boat-building skills can be transferred to make windmill components.
GSG Towers, a unit of Gdansk Shipyard Group, is looking forward to Poland’s first offshore windmills and contracts with new clients.
The Polish Wind Energy Association (PWEA) estimates that offshore windfarms with a total capacity of 6 GW would help create around 77,000 new jobs and add around 60 billion zlotys to economic growth.
Local authorities in the windy Baltic resort and port of Leba, which is close to the future offshore sites, are hoping the industry could provide year-round employment as a balance to seasonal jobs.
“If investors choose Leba, a base and functional and technical facilities for wind farms could be created here,” the mayor of Leba, Andrzej Strzechminski, said.
PWEA has identified around 70 potential Polish suppliers to the offshore industry including shipyards Crist SA and GSG Towers. Their workers’ boat-building skills can be transferred to make windmill components.
GSG Towers, a unit of Gdansk Shipyard Group, is looking forward to Poland’s first offshore windmills and contracts with new clients.
“We are not talking anymore about whether Poland needs to develop offshore wind projects…there are no more question marks and we only talk about when and how to do it right,” said Liudmyla Buimister who was the CEO of GSG Towers, a unit of Gdansk Shipyard Group, until April 16.
It has approached PGE and Polenergia about building a device to send electricity generated at sea to the onshore grid.
For nine days, representatives from governments across the globe have been meeting in Bonn, Germany, to hammer out details of the Paris climate agreement.
But participating at the talks alongside diplomatic representatives and environmental groups are some perhaps unexpected parties — like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has long opposed climate regulations and is a vocal proponent of fossil fuels.
A coalition of developing nations in Africa and Latin America had hoped to draw attention to the influence that the fossil fuel industry maintains over the climate negotiation process with a formal acknowledgement of conflicts of interest at the conclusion of the talks in Bonn this week.
But developed nations — led largely by the United States — succeeded in preventing such a formal acknowledgement from being included in the meeting’s final notes.
Conflicts of interest within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) — the international treaty that dictates the UN’s annual climate conferences — aren’t a new phenomenon.
In 2015, companies like Engie — a utility company that gets more than 70 percent of its energy output from fossil fuels — were financial sponsors of the Paris climate talks.
But this year, developing nations — alongside environmental groups — have been working to make eliminating conflicts of interest a central part of the climate negotiations moving forward, much to the chagrin of countries like the United States and Australia.
“Every institution, especially of this scale, has some kind of policy to identify and mitigate internal conflict of interests,” Jesse Brag, media director for Corporate Accountability, which has been campaigning to make conflicts of interest within the United Nations climate negotiations a central issue since 2015, told ThinkProgress.
“Right now, there is no acknowledgement [within the UNFCCC] that there could be problems that arise from the financial interests of businesses and NGOs operating here.”
There are a few ways in which fossil fuel companies — or industry groups that represent fossil fuel companies — have already influenced UN climate negotiations.
At the Paris climate negotiations in 2015, for instance, fossil fuel companies that sponsored the talks were given access to “communications and networking” areas in rooms where negotiations were taking place.
The text of the Paris climate agreement, which calls for limiting global warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius” (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) doesn’t mention the term “fossil fuels” once, despite the fact that burning fossil fuels is the primary action driving climate change.
And the UNFCCC’s Climate Technology Network, which promotes the adoption of low carbon technology in developing countries, includes a member of the World Coal Association.
Developing nations, alongside NGOs like Corporate Accountability, had hoped to get parties on the record this year acknowledging that conflicts of interest exist within the climate negotiations.
They had also hoped that such acknowledgement would be followed by policy suggestions aimed at helping root out conflicts of interest within the process.
That effort was largely waylaid due to intense opposition from the United States, which refused to allow any mention of conflicts of interest or fossil fuel companies into the meeting’s official notes.
But a coalition of governments representing 70 percent of the world’s population — largely from developing countries in Latin America and Africa — did succeed in getting parties to agree to keep talking about the issue at climate negotiations next year.
That might seem like a small victory, but Bragg argues it’s an important signal that the culture of the talks — as well as general recognition of the issue of conflicts of interest within the negotiations — is starting to change.
“Three years ago, no one wanted to talk about the fossil fuel industry’s role in climate denial in these talks,” Bragg said. “Now, it’s a discussion that is happening in every area of these halls. As the process advances, so does the culture around what needs to be done.”
It is unsurprising that the United States — which is still a party to the UNFCCC even as President Trump has promised to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement — would oppose efforts to draw attention to conflicts of interest between environmental treaties and fossil fuel companies.
Under the Trump administration, several high-profile environmental regulator posts have been filled by people who previously represented the industries that they now oversee.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler, for instance, came to the EPA after working as a lobbyist for Murray Energy, the largest privately-owned coal firm in the United States.
Nancy Beck, who is currently the highest-ranking political appointee at overseeing regulation of the chemical industry at the EPA, used to work for the American Chemical Council , the chemical industry’s main lobbying organization.
And over at the Department of the Interior, Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt came to the agency after working for years as a lobbyist in the natural resources department of the firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
Nasr al-Hariri, chair of the Syrian Negotiations Committee, says move could help remove ‘malignant influence’ of Iran from country, Guardian, Patrick WintourDiplomatic editor Thu 10 May 2018Donald Trump’s decision to break the Iran nuclear deal has won praise from the official Syrian opposition, which said the move represented a real opportunity to remove Iranian influence from the war-torn country……….. He stopped short of directly praising Israel for attacking Iranian positions in Syria, saying the effort to drive as many as 100,000 Iran-backed militias from Syria needed to be coordinated…… He stopped short of directly praising Israel for attacking Iranian positions in Syria, saying the effort to drive as many as 100,000 Iran-backed militias from Syria needed to be coordinated. more https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/10/syrian-opposition-praises-donald-trumps-iran-nuclear-deal-exit
The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions against six individuals and three companies it said had funneled millions of dollars to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s elite Qods Force.
The sanctions were imposed just days after President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal.
bipartisan negotiations produced “a separate path to interim storage, decoupling it from a permanent repository.”
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) SMUD estimates that it spends roughly $5 million each year to essentially “babysit” the waste, which requires tight security and a small crew to oversee its proper storage.
More than two hundred tons of nuclear waste have been sitting a half-hour drive from downtown Sacramento for decades, as policymakers in Washington haggle over where to send the material.
A breakthrough in Congress Thursday improves the chances that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) will finally be able remove the spent uranium fuel stored at the decommissioned Rancho Seco nuclear power plant since 1989.
It would ultimately mean lower costs for local ratepayers.
The House of Representatives on Thursday overwhelmingly passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act, which represents a bipartisan compromise on nuclear waste disposal. The legislation restarts work on the controversial nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as Republicans favor. But it also authorized the temporary storage of nuclear waste at other sites. Democrats have supported interim storage provisions, but until now, House Republicans refused to consider that option, independent of resolving Yucca Mountain’s status.
“When this bill was first presented in committee, the licensing of an interim storage facility was linked to a final decision on Yucca Mountain,” noted Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui of Sacramento, who was one of the key players in the negotiations that led to the bill’s passage. That “meant that our nation’s nuclear waste could continue to be stranded at decommissioned plants in California and across the country.”
Speaking on the House floor before the vote, Matsui hailed the bipartisan negotiations that produced “a separate path to interim storage, decoupling it from a permanent repository.”
It’s unclear where the waste would go. Two private companies have already applied to take the uranium spent fuel from SMUD and other nuclear facilities, creating a much more immediate storage option than Yucca Mountain, which has yet to be constructed and faces intense local opposition.
SMUD is eager to rid itself of the 228.8 metric tons of uranium spent fuel and 13.6 metric tons of metal from the reactors, dubbed Greater Than Class C waste, stored in casks on the site in Herald, Calif., just east of Galt.
The waste has resided there for nearly 30 years now, ever since Sacramento voters elected to shut down the plant in June 1989. That vote came after a 1986 cooling accident at the plant that came close to triggering a reactor meltdown. And it made Sacramento the first community to shutter a nuclear plant by public vote anywhere in the world.
SMUD estimates that it spends roughly $5 million each year to essentially “babysit” the waste, which requires tight security and a small crew to oversee its proper storage. On Thursday, SMUD CEO and General Manager Arlen Orchard called the uranium’s removal one of SMUD’s “top legislative priorities.”
“Not only will this legislation save our customers money,” Orchard said, “it will also allow us to restore the site to a beneficial use, such as expanding our nearby solar array or pursuing other renewable energy projects.”
First, however, the bill has to pass the Senate, which will be difficult. Nevada’s senators oppose any move to advance Yucca Mountain and Republican leaders aren’t inclined to hold a vote on legislation that could hurt their Nevada colleague, Dean Heller, who faces a tough Democratic challenge in 2018.
But the strong bipartisan vote in the House sends an important signal to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is attempting to push forward on interim storage removal on its own. The House’s ability to reach an elusive policy agreement on nuclear waste could prompt the Senate to move forward after the election.
Warming oceans melting Antarctic ice shelves could accelerate sea level rise, Guardian, John Abraham, 9 May 18, “……With global warming, both of the poles are warming quite quickly, and this warming is causing ice to melt in both regions. When we think of ice melting, we may think of it melting from above, as the ice is heated from the air, from sunlight, or from infrared energy from the atmosphere. But in truth, a lot of the melting comes from below. For instance, in the Antarctic, the ice shelves extend from the land out over the water. The bottom of the ice shelf is exposed to the ocean. If the ocean warms up, it can melt the underside of the shelf and cause it to thin or break off into the ocean.
A new study, recently published in Science Advances, looked at these issues. One of the goals of this study was to better understand whether and how the waters underneath the shelf are changing. They had to deal with the buoyancy of the waters. We know that the saltier and colder water is, the denser it is.
Around Antarctica, water at the ocean surface cools down and becomes saltier. These combined effects make the surface waters sink down to the sea floor. But as ice melt increases, fresh water flows into the ocean and interrupts this buoyancy effect. This “freshening” of the water can slow down or shut down the vertical mixing of the ocean. When this happens, the cold waters at the surface cannot sink. The deeper waters retain their heat and melt the ice from below.
The study incorporated measurements of both temperature and salinity (saltiness) at three locations near the Dalton Iceberg Tongue on the Sabrina Coast in East Antarctica. The measurements covered approximately an entire year and gave direct evidence of seasonal variations to the buoyancy of the waters. The researchers showed that a really important component to water-flow patterns were ‘polynyas.’ These are regions of open water that are surrounded by ice, typically by land ice on one side and sea ice on the other side.
When waters from the polynya are cold and salty, the waters sink downwards and form a cold curtain around the ice shelf. However, when the waters are not salty (because fresh water is flowing into the polynya), this protective curtain is disrupted and warm waters can intrude from outside, leading to more ice melt.
Based on this study, we may see increased ice loss in the future – sort of a feedback loop. That concerns us because it will mean more sea level rise (which is already accelerating), and more damage to coastal communities. I asked the lead author, Alesandro Silvano about this work:
Lead author Alesandro Silvano.
We found that freshwater from melting ice shelves is already enough to stop formation of cold and salty waters in some locations around Antarctica. This process causes warming and freshening of Antarctic waters. Ocean warming increases melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, causing sea level to rise. Freshening of Antarctic waters weakens the currents that trap heat and carbon dioxide in the ocean, affecting the global climate. In this way local changes in Antarctica can have global implications. Multiple sources of evidence exist now to show that these changes are happening. However, what will happen in Antarctica in the next decades and centuries remains unclear and needs to be understood.
South Carolina’s state utility paid bonuses to private execs WP, By Christina L. Myers and Jeffrey Collins | APMay 9 2018 COLUMBIA, S.C.— South Carolina’s state owned utility paid $9 million in performance bonuses to executives of a private utility for two nuclear reactors that were never finished, according to the public utility and emails turned over to state and federal investigators.
SCANA Corp. even billed taxpayer-supported Santee Cooper $3.2 million for bonuses in August, a month after the utilities abandoned 10 years of construction and planning for the reactors, according to the emails released by Gov. Henry McMaster’s office on Wednesday.
Santee Cooper refused to pay, utility spokeswoman Mollie Gore said.
“I will not approve this invoice,” Senior Vice President for Nuclear Energy Michael Crosby wrote in one email. “I may get over-ridden … but if SCANA cares to push this … CFOs & CEOs will need to get involved.”
Crosby also suggested letting SCANA CEO Jimmy Addison know his company was still seeking performance bonuses after the reactors were abandoned, and suggested that other executives “man-up and ask if he wants to push this,” according to the emails……..
The invoices indicated at least $5 million of bonuses paid to SCANA executives, but Gore said Santee Cooper’s records showed the public utility paid $8.9 million to the executives at the private firm.
The governor also sent the emails to legislative leaders, asking senators to confirm his nominee to run the Santee Cooper board as soon as possible.
“Santee Cooper’s customers, including individuals and the electric cooperatives of our state, deserve to know how their hard earned money is being spent by the utility, and now, we know that much of it was going to pay SCANA executives’ bonuses related to the failed reactors,” Symmes said in a statement.
……. Also on Wednesday, South Carolina lawmakers made a last-minute push to pass several bills to give ratepayers temporary relief and pass regulations to prevent anything like this from happening again.A committee of House members and senators could not reach a compromise on how much to cut a charge that customers of South Carolina Electric & Gas — a SCANA subsidiary — pay for the abandoned reactors.
nuclear-news 