France’s sodium-cooled fast Nuclear reactor turns out to be a dud. Cancelled
News1 29th Aug 2019 The Astrid Fast Reactor Project is shut down by the Atomic EnergyCommission. A blow to the future of the sector. This was to be the nextstep in the development of the French nuclear industry, one that wouldallow it to project into the future, but which is likely never to see the
light of day. According to our information, the Astrid Fast Neutron Reactor
(RNR) project is being abandoned by the Atomic Energy and Alternative
Energies Commission (CEA), which is nevertheless at the origin.
https://www.news1.news/2019/08/france-abandons-the-fourth-generation-of-reactors.html
Le Monde 29th Aug 2019 Astrid, the acronym for Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration, is a sodium-cooled fast reactor prototype project to be built at the Marcoule nuclear site in the Gard.
The objective of this new generation is to use depleted uranium and plutonium as fuel, in other words to reuse the radioactive materials from the electricity generation of the current nuclear fleet and largely stored at the La Hague site. (Channel), operated by Orano (formerly Areva).
Canada didn’t sign the nuclear ban treaty, but can still take up its humanitarian provisions
Canada played a critical role in nuclear development. We should play a critical role in reparations,
Canada didn’t sign the nuclear ban treaty. But we can still take up its humanitarian provisions · for CBC News Aug 30, 2019 Canada holds contradictory positions in the world of nuclear weapons. We played an essential role in their development, but we never built any bombs of our own. Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
We are also already a party to every other major nuclear non-proliferation treaty, including the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which bans all nuclear weapons testing. This was easy for us to join in 1998; we had no nuclear weapons to test. However, engaging with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would give Canada an opportunity to go beyond our existing, relatively painless, obligations. And we would also be the first nuclear umbrella state to do so, thus setting a meaningful and lasting precedent. Perhaps most importantly, Canada has a moral obligation to provide aid to victims and environments affected by nuclear testing. We don’t like to talk about it much, but Canada played a critical role in the development of these horrific weapons: scientists at the Montréal Laboratory were an essential part of the Manhattan Project, and the first atomic bombs were made with uranium shipped from the Northwest Territories. These are unfortunate truths that Canadians have yet to truly reckon with, but committing to a platform of nuclear reparations would be a good start. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canada-nuclear- |
|
|
Russia Spreads Influence in Africa Using Nuclear Power
Russia Spreads Influence in Africa Using Nuclear Power – Reports, Moscow Times, 30 Aug 19, Russia is working to win influence in at least 10 African states with high-cost nuclear technology that for the most part does not suit their needs, researchers and NGOs have told The Guardian newspaper.
With booming exports, nuclear energy is one example of Russia’s increasing presence in Africa in recent years. Elsewhere, a businessman known as “Putin’s chef,” Yevgeny Prigozhin, is widely reported to be spearheading Russia’s push to exchange security and electioneering services for mining rights in Africa.
Russia’s state nuclear agency Rosatom has approached the leaders of “dozens” of African countries with various nuclear energy projects in the past two years, The Guardian reported Wednesday. Rosatom has existing deals with Egypt and Nigeria and other various agreements with other countries on the continent.
Few African countries have the capacity to distribute the amount of nuclear energy generated by the type of reactors that Rosatom is exporting, experts told the outlet. Observers also noted that the costly projects favored by Rosatom likely wouldn’t benefit Africa’s poorest populations…….. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/29/russia-spreads-influence-in-africa-using-nuclear-power-reports-a67077
Residents skeptical of plans to dismantle Oyster Creek nuclear plant
Residents skeptical of plans to dismantle Oyster Creek nuclear plant, WHYY, Nicholas Pugliese,
Watchdogs ask court to stop Edison from dumping San Onofre plant’s nuclear waste at beach
Watchdogs ask court to stop Edison from dumping San Onofre plant’s nuclear waste at beach https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/energy-water-summit/2019/08/30/watchdogs-ask-judge-stop-edison-burying-nuclear-waste-san-onofre-beach/2163119001/
The complaint, filed by Public Watchdogs with U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California, also named Sempra Energy and its subsidiary San Diego Gas & Electric; Holtec International, the contractor storing the nuclear waste underground; and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which allowed the waste transfers. The nuclear power plant first became operational in 1972. Decommissioning of the last operational reactors began in 2013. Unable to find off-site storage, Edison began to transfer cooled, spent nuclear fuel rods to underground storage on site at the beachfront facility, wedged between San Onofre State Beach and Interstate 5. Edison eventually hopes to transfer the waste to a federal facility. Nearly 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste is stored at the plant, which has a spotty safety track record. Earlier this year, the NRC fined Edison $116,000 for violating safety requirements relating to fuel transfers. My immediate concern is for the health and safety of the millions of people who could be impacted by a toxic cloud being released,” Chuck La Bella, lawyer of Public Watchdog, said in a press release. “It isn’t really a question of ‘if’ but rather ‘when’ we’re going to be dealing with a nuclear accident here.” An estimated 8 million people live within a 50 mile radius of the facility, what the NRC calls a “plume zone,” where people could be exposed to toxic nuclear waste in the event of a storage equipment failure. Edison resumed burying rods last month after operations were suspended for nearly a year following an incident during which a canister containing nearly 50 tons of spent fuel rods was negligently handled while being transferred to the underground storage unit. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found in its investigation that Edison had fallen short on a number of safety procedures, including a failure to publicly report a “near-miss” regarding nuclear waste within 24 hours. In particular, the canisters in which cooled, spent nuclear fuel rods are being packed are defective and too thin-walled at just five-eighths of an inch thick, according to Public Watchdogs. Furthermore, the canisters are being stored underground, 108 feet from the water in a known tsunami inundation zone near the San Andreas fault. The court papers identify broken bolts in the storage canisters that get scratched and gouged during transfer, among other engineering failures, as well as alleging cavalier safety attitudes at Edison. Edison spokesperson John Dobken told The Desert Sun that stopping the fuel transfers from wet to dry storage could potentially strand spent fuel on site, even when options for transport or disposal become available. “Placing spent nuclear fuel into approved canisters that meet all technical, safety and regulatory requirements for on-site storage is the first step to relocating the fuel to an off-site federally licensed facility.” Dobken said, adding that by 2021, more than 80 percent of the spent fuel stored at San Onofre will be eligible for transport. In the last month, three more canisters were transferred, leaving another 41 remaining canisters above ground. A spokesperson for the NRC said the agency does not comment on ongoing litigation, but that they stand by their earlier statement that it is safe for Edison to transfer fuels at the San Onofre facility. Impact on the beachThe California Department of Parks and Recreation says visits to San Onofre’s surfing spots have steadily declined since 2006. In August of that year, the station’s third reactor, which had been shut down for 14 years, was discovered to have been leaking radioactive cancer-causing tritium, contaminating the groundwater. During the peak month of July 2006, there were over 526,000 visitors to the beach area. This year, there were fewer than 200,000 visitors during the same month. The court filing is part of Public Watchdogs’ larger legal action against Edison. Last week, the California Public Utilities Commissions awarded the group $57,924 for making substantial contributions to their decision that Edison was unfairly making ratepayers foot the bill for the decommissioning of the facility at San Onofre State Beach. |
|
The Once and Future Threat of Nuclear Weapon Testing
The Once and Future Threat of Nuclear Weapon Testing, Just Security by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. 30 Aug 19 The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the central security instrument of the United States and the world community. It is based on a strategic bargain between the five nuclear weapon states in the NPT (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) and the 185 non-nuclear-weapon parties to the treaty. The current worldwide moratorium on nuclear weapon testing and the intended ultimate conversion of that ban to legally binding treaty status by bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force are essential to the long-term viability of this strategic bargain. But some Trump administration officials have signaled hostility to the CTBT and an interest in the United States resuming nuclear weapon testing, which could cause a catastrophic unraveling of that bargain…….. https://www.justsecurity.org/66020/the-once-and-future-threat-of-nuclear-weapon-testing/
Holtec Ignores New Mexico State Land Office Authority,
Holtec Ignores New Mexico State Land Office Authority, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
August 30th, 2019 In filings this week with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Holtec International stated it “disagrees” that the New Mexico State Land Office must approve any agreements to limit or restrict continued or future mineral extraction, including oil, gas, and potash. In this and previous filings Holtec
claimed that it has “control” of the proposed site in southeast New Mexico for storing all of the irradiated, or spent, nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants, more than 90 percent of which is located in the eastern half of the country. In this week’s filing, Holtec also states that it does not need to control the mineral resources to obtain an NRC license. On June 19th, Stephanie Garcia Richard, New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands, wrote to Holtec expressing her concerns that the company misrepresented the authority of the Land Office over the mineral rights. While the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance owns the surface, the State of New Mexico owns the mineral rights below ground in the highly productive Permian Basin. Garcia Richard wrote that Holtec “entirely disregarded the State Land Office’s authority over the Site’s mineral estate” and that the state has not approved the agreement between Holtec . and Intrepid Potash to limit potash mining below the site. In a May 7, 2019 decision, the NRC judges accepted Holtec’s statement that it “controls the mineral rights at the site down to 5,000 feet.” Fasken Oil and Ranch and the Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners filed a motion with the NRC to submit a new contention, or objection, in the license proceeding. A basis for the new contention was the Land Commissioner’s letter to Holtec…….. http://nuclearactive.org/ |
|
Hurricane Dorian Skips Puerto Rico & Instead Sets Sights on Trump PB Club & Nuclear Power Station in Florida — Mining Awareness + — nuclear-news
“DORIAN FORECAST TO STRENGTHEN INTO A MAJOR HURRICANE DURING THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS…” says National Hurricane Center. Updates here: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov While the official NHC forecast shows it centered a bit north of Trump’s PB Mar-a-Lago club and the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station, they don’t really know what it will do, apart from almost […] […]
Hurricane Dorian Skips Puerto Rico & Instead Sets Sights on Trump PB Club & Nuclear Power Station in Florida — Mining Awareness +
“DORIAN FORECAST TO STRENGTHEN INTO A MAJOR HURRICANE DURING THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS…” says National Hurricane Center. Updates here: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov While the official NHC forecast shows it centered a bit north of Trump’s PB Mar-a-Lago club and the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station, they don’t really know what it will do, apart from almost […]
Julian Assange: the latest blackout by Mnar Muhawesh and Robert Sheer on effects on journalism — Rise Up Times
If you are waiting for corporate media pundits to defend freedom of the press, you’re going to be disappointed.
Refuting Australian Financial Review’s disinformation on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)
|
|
Nuclear winter – the global threat to life
Nuclear winter would threaten nearly everyone on Earth https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190828080543.htm
Second study of its kind confirms extreme impacts from US vs. Russia nuclear war
- Date:
- August 28, 2019
- Source:
- Rutgers University
- Summary:
- If the United States and Russia waged an all-out nuclear war, much of the land in the Northern Hemisphere would be below freezing in the summertime, with the growing season slashed by nearly 90 percent in some areas, according to a new study. Indeed, death by famine would threaten nearly all of the Earth’s 7.7 billion people, according to the research.
-
If the United States and Russia waged an all-out nuclear war, much of the land in the Northern Hemisphere would be below freezing in the summertime, with the growing season slashed by nearly 90 percent in some areas, according to a Rutgers-led study.
Indeed, death by famine would threaten nearly all of the Earth’s 7.7 billion people, said co-author Alan Robock, a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University-New Brunswick.
The study in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheresprovides more evidence to support The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons passed by the United Nations two years ago, Robock said. Twenty-five nations have ratified the treaty so far, not including the United States, and it would take effect when the number hits 50.
- Lead author Joshua Coupe, a Rutgers doctoral student, and other scientists used a modern climate model to simulate the climatic effects of an all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Such a war could send 150 million tons of black smoke from fires in cities and industrial areas into the lower and upper atmosphere, where it could linger for months to years and block sunlight. The scientists used a new climate model from the National Center for Atmospheric Research with higher resolution and improved simulations compared with a NASA model used by a Robock-led team 12 years ago.
The new model represents the Earth at many more locations and includes simulations of the growth of the smoke particles and ozone destruction from the heating of the atmosphere. Still, the climate response to a nuclear war from the new model was nearly identical to that from the NASA model.
“This means that we have much more confidence in the climate response to a large-scale nuclear war,” Coupe said. “There really would be a nuclear winter with catastrophic consequences.”
- In both the new and old models, a nuclear winter occurs as soot (black carbon) in the upper atmosphere blocks sunlight and causes global average surface temperatures to plummet by more than 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
Because a major nuclear war could erupt by accident or as a result of hacking, computer failure or an unstable world leader, the only safe action that the world can take is to eliminate nuclear weapons, said Robock, who works in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences.
’12 Years to Act on Climate Change’ – what does this really mean?
What Does ’12 Years to Act on Climate Change’ (Now 11 Years) Really Mean? https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27082019/12-years-climate-change-explained-ipcc-science-solutionsIt doesn’t mean the world can wait until 2030 to cut greenhouse gas emissions, or that chaos will erupt in 2030. Here’s what the science shows., BY BOB BERWYN, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS, AUG 27,2019We’ve been hearing variations of the phrase “the world only has 12 years to deal with climate change” a lot lately.Sen. Bernie Sanders put a version of it front and center of his presidential campaign last week, saying we now have “less than 11 years left to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, if we are going to leave this planet healthy and habitable.”
But where does the idea of having 11 or 12 years come from, and what does it actually mean?
The number began drawing attention in 2018, when the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report describing what it would take to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, a goal of the Paris climate agreement. The report explained that countries would have to cut their anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, such as from power plants and vehicles, to net zero by around 2050. To reach that goal, it said, CO2 emissions would have to start dropping “well before 2030” and be on a path to fall by about 45 percent by around 2030 (12 years away at that time).
Mid-century is actually the more significant target date in the report, but acting now is crucial to being able to meet that goal, said Duke University climate researcher Drew Shindell, a lead author on the mitigation chapter of the IPCC report.
We need to get the world on a path to net zero CO2 emissions by mid-century,” Shindell said. “That’s a huge transformation, so that if we don’t make a good start on it during the 2020s, we won’t be able to get there at a reasonable cost.”
How Do Scientists Know?
Basics physics and climate science allow scientists to calculate how much CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature—and how much CO2 can still be emitted before global warming exceeds 1.5°C (2.7°F) compared to pre-industrial times.
Scientists worked backward from that basic knowledge to come up with timelines for what would have to happen to stay under 1.5°C warming, said Scott Denning, who studies the warming atmosphere at Colorado State University.
“They figured out how much extra heat we can stand. They calculated how much CO2 would produce that much heat, then how much total fuel would produce that much CO2. Then they considered ‘glide paths’ for getting emissions to zero before we burn too much carbon to avoid catastrophe,” he said.
“All this work gets summarized as ‘in order to avoid really bad outcomes, we have to be on a realistic glide path toward a carbon-free global economy by 2030.’ And that gets translated to something like ’emissions have to fall by half in a decade,’ and that gets oversimplified to ’12 years left.’
“There’s certainly a grain of truth in the phrase, but it’s so oversimplified that it leads to comically bad misconceptions about how to get there, conjuring up ridiculous cartoon imagery suggesting we just go on with life normally for the next 11 years and then the world ends,” Denning said.
That’s not what the IPCC writers envisioned, he said.
The science on the 2030 date is clear, said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. The controversy stems from people mischaracterizing the carbon reduction timeline as a threshold for climate disaster. He noted that people promoting climate science denial and delay have also latched on to the phrase “to intentionally try to caricature the concern about climate change.”
What Would Success Look Like?
It would be helpful if people looked at the 2030 target in terms of what success looks like rather than what failure means, Denning said.
“Solving the problem by 2030, 2040 or 2050 requires a new global energy infrastructure, which is arguably easier and less expensive than past infrastructure shifts like indoor plumbing, rural electrification, the automobile and paved roads, telecommunications, computers, mobile phones or the internet.
“All of these past changes cost tens of trillions of dollars, adjusted for inflation. All of them were hugely disruptive. All of them took a decade or more, completely changed the industrial and economic and social landscape, and created bursts of growth and productivity and jobs. And arguably, all of them made life better for huge numbers of people.”
This time, the shift is from heavy reliance on carbon-emitting fossil fuels to carbon-free energy sources, like wind power. And even with a speedy energy transition, the IPCC says keeping temperatures from warming more than 1.5°C will also likely require removing CO2 from the atmosphere on a large scale.
Missing the target doesn’t imply the onset of cataclysmic climate change in 2030, Denning said.
“Things just keep getting worse and worse until we stop making them worse, and then they never get better,” he said. “But no matter what, the world has to move on from fossil fuels just as we moved on from tallow candles and outhouses and land lines.”
What Would Exceeding 1.5°C Warming Mean?
The IPCC report described how increasing greenhouse gas emissions will result in more dangerous and costly disruptions to global societies and ecosystems, including longer, hotter heat waves and more frequent crop-killing droughts.
Mountain glaciers will melt faster as the planet warms, creating new risks for settlements in the valleys below. The meltdown of polar ice sheets is also projected to accelerate, intensifying flooding and speeding up sea level rise to a rate that will be hard to adapt to. More Arctic permafrost will thaw, releasing more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Despite the rising risks, it’s important to understand that, “in the physical climate system, there are no scientists claiming that there is a magical threshold that we breach or don’t breach that determines whether we have a habitable climate system,” said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Center for Climate and Weather Extremes.
The 2030 target is useful because it shows how the “next decade is incredibly consequential for what we do.” Swain said. “But I think the emphasis that’s being placed on this specific 12-year window as a differentiator between existential crisis or not is problematic.
“First of all, it negates some of the risks that already exist and that will continue to build no matter what. And it also potentially suggests that anything short of complete victory in the next 12 years is pointless, which is exactly the opposite of the truth. At any point along the spectrum, more progress is always going to be better than less progress, less warming is always going to be better than more warming.”
Have We Passed Tipping Points Already?
In some ways, the “12 years” narrative may set up a deadline that’s too lenient, because some key part of the climate system may already be at or past tipping points, Swain said.
It creates the false illusion that there is some sort of guardrail moving forward, that if we just get in under the deadline we’ll be OK, he said. But “twelve years from now, it could be too late for some of these things, like the ice sheets.”
Research in the past few years reinforces the idea that some climate tipping points have already been breached. Studies show some parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet are unlikely to recover, and parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may also be at or very near a tipping point to rapid disintegration.
A study published in June suggested that the rate of permafrost thawing is progressing much faster than climate models projected. And scientists studying the link between global warming and European heat waves said those recent extremes are also outside the scope of what they expected at current levels of warming.
The world will still exist if we breach 1.5°C and 2°C, but “the climate impacts and risks will be higher and the temperature will be higher,” said Glen Peters, research director at the CICERO climate research center in Oslo. That all seems to be sinking in to public awareness, he said.
“But in terms of deadlines, we have already missed the deadline,” he said. “We should have started mitigating decades ago, then we would have the problem solved.”
Narrow escapes from nuclear war
A few small goofs nearly threw the world into nuclear war Popular Science , Excerpt: End Times, By Bryan Walsh
If there’s an important post in America’s national defense establishment, chances are that William Perry has held it. He worked as a civilian expert in electronic intelligence in the 1960s, served as undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, and ended his career in government service as President Bill Clinton’s defense secretary from 1994 to 1997. He served on the University of California’s board of governors for the laboratory at Los Alamos—where the first nuclear bomb was developed—and is currently the head of the board at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Even at 91 years old his voice still exudes authority, and his words demand attention in capitals around the world. What makes Perry special, however, is that he is one of the last living American statesmen who saw with his own eyes just how close we came to nuclear annihilation. And what he came to understand was that the real threat of nuclear war wasn’t from military competition, but from the way that simple misunderstandings and technical errors could spiral out into planetary catastrophe. It wasn’t the war in nuclear war that was so dangerous—it was the nuclear, the fact that thousands of megatons of explosive power kept on a hair trigger made any mistake irrevocable…… Perry got involved in what would become known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. ….. The stage was set for the single moment in the modern age when the human race may have come closer to extinction than it ever has before or since. On October 27, 1962, as part of the U.S. naval quarantine of Cuba, American destroyers and the aircraft carrier USS Randolph managed to corner the Soviet submarine B-59. The U.S. ships began dropping small depth charges—underwater explosive devices—around the sub. The American commanders weren’t trying to sink the sub but rather to force it to the surface, an intention they had made clear to Soviet military leaders in Moscow. What the Americans didn’t know was that the sub had been out of touch with Moscow for days. When depth charges began exploding around the sub, the crew had every reason to believe that World War III had begun. An exhausted Captain Valentin Savitsky gave the orders to prepare the sub’s nuclear torpedo for firing. A successful hit on the Randolph would have vaporized the aircraft carrier, which in turn would have put the U.S. nuclear war plan for total retaliation into play. Thousands of American warheads would have been on their way to targets in the Soviet Union, China, and other nations. The Soviets would have responded, and the worst would have come true. The decision to launch a nuclear weapon on board the Soviet sub had to be authorized by three officers. Ivan Maslennikov, the deputy political officer, said yes. But Vasili Arkhipov, Savitsky’s second in command, refused. He convinced Savitsky to instead bring the sub to the surface, where a U.S. destroyer ultimately allowed the ship to return to Russia. …….. The Cuban Missile Crisis is only the best known of many, many times when World War III was almost triggered by accident. William Perry himself lived through one when he was serving in the Department of Defense in 1979 and was awakened in the middle of the night by a watch officer at NORAD who said his monitors were showing two hundred Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) en route to the United States. It turned out to be a computer error. Less than a year later, on June 3, 1980, military computers showed thousands of Soviet missiles headed toward the States. Then–national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was about to recommend a counterattack until he was told at the last minute that the alarm had been generated by a faulty computer chip—one that cost all of 46 cents. Perhaps the closest the world came to nuclear war after the Cuban Missile Crisis was on September 26, 1983, with the reported launch of several ICBMs from the United States. Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov was on duty that night, and his job was straightforward: register the missile launch and report it to Soviet military and political command. An ICBM takes half an hour to reach its target, which meant Petrov had only minutes to authenticate the apparent attack in time for the Soviets to launch a counterattack. Yet Petrov judged that the United States would not launch a first strike with only a handful of missiles, so he instead reported a system malfunction. And then he waited. “Twenty-three minutes later I realized that nothing had happened,” Petrov told the BBC in 2013. “If there had been a real strike, then I would already know about it. It was such a relief.” ………… But the side effect of nuclear-enforced peace was the creation of existential risk for the entire species. Every year, every day, every moment, global catastrophe could strike at the push of a button. “Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable,” President Kennedy told the United Nations in 1961. “Every man, woman, and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness.” And we live under that sword still. Excerpted from End Times by Bryan Walsh. https://www.popsci.com/end-times-nuclear-war-accidents/ |
|
|
Parliamentary Inquiry told that renewable energy, not nuclear power, is Australia’s best option
Nuclear inquiry told “firmed renewables” cheapest and best option for future https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-inquiry-told-firmed-renewables-cheapest-and-best-option-for-future-58109/ , 29 August 2019 A mix of distributed renewable energy generation and firming technologies including battery storage and pumped hydro remains the best path forward for Australia’s future grid, experts have told the federal government’s inquiry into nuclear power.A panel including representatives from Australia’s energy market regulator (AER), rule maker (AEMC) and operator (AEMO) faced questions on Thursday from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. Established by the federal Coalition and chaired by Queensland LNP MP Ted O’Brien, the Committee aims – according to O’Brien – to answer the three main questions of whether nuclear is “feasible, suitable and palatable” in the Australian context.
-
Archives
- March 2021 (63)
- February 2021 (271)
- January 2021 (278)
- December 2020 (230)
- November 2020 (297)
- October 2020 (392)
- September 2020 (349)
- August 2020 (351)
- July 2020 (280)
- June 2020 (293)
- May 2020 (251)
- April 2020 (273)
-
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
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- 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