Nuclear industry brazenly exploiting Pandemic to get tax-payer funding
The Nuclear Industry at the Feeding Trough https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/05/15/the-nuclear-industry-at-the-feeding-trough/ VICTOR GILINSKY & HENRY SOKOLSKI, 15 May, 20
The nuclear lobby is playing the national security card in trying to justify Federal handouts. It’s a con.
We are getting used to brazen coronavirus claims for federal largess, but it’s hard to beat the claims coming from the nuclear industry. Even before the pandemic hit, it had for the most part given up competing for new power plant sales in the domestic and international energy marketplace and instead was wrapping itself in the flag and declaring itself essential to U.S. national security, and therefore deserving of generous federal support.
This approach has the full backing of the Trump Energy Department, and has been dutifully rolled out as part of the broader scramble for federal relief funds unleashed by the coronavirus crisis. As Energy Secretary Danny Ray Brouillette made clear to radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt in an April 28 interview:
We’ve lost our leadership both on the technology side and on the market side… to the Russians and the Chinese. And why does that matter? Well, obviously it matters, because we are, we were the world leader not only in the development of nuclear technology, but in the export of this technology around the world. And we lost that, and it leads to a national defense issue.
And, indeed, DOE’s web site announces: “Nuclear power is intrinsically tied to National Security.” Among the ways DOE plans to restore American nuclear energy leadership are “minimizing commercial fleet fiscal vulnerabilities [DOE-speak for subsidizing],” and “leveling the playing field against state-owned enterprises.”
The implication is that other countries are not competing fairly, as if they snuck around us to jump the line. Now, to cope with this, we have to sweeten the deals we offer to get the sales. And as a thriving nuclear sector is supposedly a necessary condition for gaining foreign sales, we have to prop up domestic nuclear plants, too.
If nothing else, there is a stunning lack of self-awareness in this view. Yes, the United States pioneered the light water reactor technology used around the world. But, as a result of U.S. business decisions, in part reflecting the unfavorable economics of nuclear power in the United States but also poor management, we effectively no longer have any reactor manufacturers.
Combustion Engineering, a company with 28,000 employees, a pressurized water reactor manufacturer, sold itself in 1989 to the European firm ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. The great Westinghouse firm, once the world leader on pressurized water reactors, blundered financially into becoming a subsidiary of the CBS Corporation. In 1995, CBS sold it to British Nuclear Fuels Limited. BNFL in turn sold Westinghouse nuclear activities to Toshiba in 2006.
Westinghouse, by then a shell of its former self, performed so miserably in constructing the last large reactors to be built in the United States in South Carolina and Georgia that it went bankrupt and almost took Toshiba down, too. The South Carolina owners canceled their two plants, and the remaining two in Georgia will cost nearly $30 billion, double the original contract price. After this experience, it is hard to see any future sales of large reactors in the United States.
General Electric used to build boiling water reactors, but it only offers sales abroad as a junior partner to Japan’s Hitachi Corporation. Its reputation is anyway tarnished because it designed the plants that failed during the 2011 Fukushima accident. In short, U.S. nuclear plant manufacturing capabilities are much diminished, and the domestic market just isn’t there. And it isn’t there because nuclear economics are extremely unfavorable.
Currently, the US still has 95 power reactors online, supplying a bit less than 20 percent of America’s electrical demand. They are on average 39 years old. Only two plants, the ones in Georgia, are now under construction and they are expected to be the last large ones to be built for some time.
That hasn’t fazed the nuclear faithful both in and out of government. They still think, as their predecessors thought sixty years ago, that nuclear power is the technology of the future. They paint a picture of our putative arch-enemies, Russia and China, selling nuclear power plants and locking up nuclear relationships with numerous states, including important friendly states such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, relationships that will last for the rest of the century. We will be frozen out and will thereby lose influence throughout the world. But it’s still not too late if we follow the advice of the Energy Department, the nuclear industry, and a gaggle of consultants looking to cash in.
What is it we have to do? The battles in Washington turn on so-called agreements for cooperation with potential customers that are prerequisites for sales of major reactors and components. The main issue concerns whether we will accept customers that also want to acquire acquires auxiliary facilities that can be used to produce plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the fuels that are also the explosives used in nuclear weapons. The only position consistent with non-proliferation, halting the spread of nuclear weapons, is “no.”
But the nuclear enthusiasts say that’s too strict, that others have more accommodating terms, and that if we sell with looser terms, we’ll have more influence. They have their eye especially on Saudi Arabia, a country that at one point said, implausibly, it was going to build 16 nuclear power plants. They don’t seem to pay attention to the other thing the Saudis said—the crown prince’s statement that if Iran was going to get a bomb, he was going to get one, too, and fast.
It’s not just the Trump crowd that opposes tightening security rules over nuclear exports (in the name, they say, of security). President Obama’s Energy Secretary, Ernest Moniz, has been arguing that subsidizing domestic nuclear power and encouraging nuclear sales without especially tight security restrictions—restrictions that go by the rubric of “gold standard”—are in the interests of U.S. nuclear security, and even support the deterrence value of our nuclear weapons.
All this is a bit much. Do we really think that Russia, with a GNP below that of Italy, is capable of freezing us out of the world? Does it have the financial capacity to offer generous terms on many projects? Will they ever be completed?
Nuclear power is just one U.S. export technology, and not exactly the most promising. For example, the U.S. exported $136 billion in aircraft last year; U.S. nuclear exports for the same period could only be measured in millions of dollars. China is building a comparatively large number of nuclear plants but nuclear power supplies less than five percent of its electrical demand and is only projected to account for seven percent by 2040. Any large accident will turn this program off.
There are many more exciting technologies to share with others. We don’t have to sell out our nonproliferation policies. If anything, we should be strengthening them, and convincing Russia and China to conform to them, as well.
As for the DOE and industry sales pitch, we should see it for what it is: a con to get at the federal trough. May 15, 2020
Extreme heat, humidity, air pollution – combined threat to South Asia
|
South Asia’s twin threat: extreme heat and foul air https://climatenewsnetwork.net/south-asias-twin-threat-extreme-heat-and-foul-air/
|
|
|
Sizewell C nuclear project now becoming prohibitively expensive?
NS Energy 27th May 2020, EDF has predicted the 
cost of Sizewell C will be 20% lower than Hinkley Point C – which is set to cost about £20bn ($26bn) – because of the similarities between the stations and established infrastructure. But in an interview with The Times in April 2018, the company’s UK chief executive Simone Rossi questioned whether the project would remain “feasible” without faster progress being made at the Hinkley Point C site – which has suffered from rising costs and delays – and a government guarantee.
The firm is still talking with the government about workable funding models that can convince it to stay at the table. Speaking about the possibility of no functional funding model appearing, Mr Rossi said: “This is the year where we need to understand whether this whole thing is really
feasible or not. “If we were to conclude that maybe it’s not feasible, then at that point maybe we say we are not in a position to continue the project.” In January 2020, it was reported that EDF was running out of time to secure a funding deal before the project became prohibitively expensive.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station/
Ontario’s nuclear re-build postponed due to pandemic
Pandemic leads to moratorium on Ontario’s nuclear re-build programs, https://www.cleanairalliance.org/pan/ 29 May 20, In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, on March 25th Bruce Power suspended work on the re-building of its Unit 6 nuclear reactor. One day later, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) announced that it will not proceed with the re-building of its Unit 3 nuclear reactor at this time.
Bruce Power’s and OPG’s actions provide Premier Ford with the opportunity to reconsider whether it makes sense to continue with the previous Government’s high-cost plan to re-build 10 aging nuclear reactors and to continue to subsidize our electricity rates to the tune of $5.6 billion per year.
By investing in energy efficiency instead we can keep our lights on at less than one-quarter of the price of nuclear power and create good jobs in every community in Ontario.
In New York State, giant utility Consolidated Edison announced on May 18th that it is tripling its energy efficiency budget. Ontario should too. According to Consolidated Edison’s Chairman and CEO, John McAvoy: “I believe one of the keys to rebuilding our communities and boosting the economy is maintaining our focus on clean energy. We’re building tomorrow’s grid so that it stands up to climate change and so it can integrate renewable energy sources like solar and wind.”
Please email Premier Ford here and tell him you support getting Ontario back to work by launching an energy retrofit program for our homes and businesses that will also lower our electricity bills.
Research is needed into health effects of 4G and 5G radiation
Professor Kromhout: ‘Research into future exposure to 4G and 5G radiation is warranted’ https://innovationorigins.com/professor-kromhout-research-into-future-exposure-to-4g-and-5g-radiation-is-warranted/ This week and next week, Innovation Origins is looking at the growing influence of wireless communication within today’s society and in particular at data transmission via electromagnetic with ever-higher frequencies, such as 5G.
Research is needed to map out exactly what the exposure to electromagnetic fields is as soon as the new frequencies come into effect for communicating data wirelessly with 5G. In the interim, 4G will coexist with 5G. This means that levels of electromagnetic fields might experience an overall increase. So says Professor Hans Kromhout, who is chair of the Exposure Assessment and Occupational Hygiene group at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Kromhout is also chair of the Committee Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Health Council of the Netherlands. This committee is investigating the possible health risks associated with 5G at the request of the Dutch House of Representatives. The advisory report is due by the end of July, as stipulated by the Health Council of the Netherlands.
“The level of expected exposure to radiofrequency fields can be easily mapped out. The people who devised the technology for 5G are very smart physicists. They should be able to do this.”
Resistance to 5G
Several individuals and groups in The Netherlands are actively opposing the introduction of 5G because they are convinced that radiofrequency waves are harmful. Some claim that there is a conspiracy to harm the population. Over the past few months, it has frequently been reported in the news that activists had set fire to telecom companies’ masts. Some of these new 5G antennas will have to be placed on the same masts that are currently used for 4G.
Another group has filed a preliminary injunction against the government which is to auction off the new frequencies starting this summer.
Several documents circulate among activists, such as a pamphlet written by Martin Pallan, an American emeritus professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington. The pamphlet claims that electromagnetic fields used for 5G can lead to, among other things, damage to DNA, increased risk of infertility, cancer, ADHD, and Alzheimer’s disease.
No scientific evidence linked to cancer
According to Kromhout, there isn’t any substantiated evidence-based scientific research that proves that such diseases are caused by the use of mobile phones and exposure to radiofrequency fields from transmission masts. Kromhout himself participated in research into the effect that mobile phone usage might have on the onset of headaches, tinnitus (a hearing disorder whereby you constantly hear peeping sounds in your ear when in reality there’s no sound), hearing impairment and insomnia. This study did not show a connection between the radiofrequency fields and the health complaints that were studied. Although it did show a connection with the (excessive) use of a mobile phone.
Kromhout also took part in a study into the effect of electromagnetic fields on people who consider themselves to be ‘electrohypersensitive.’ This experimental double-blind study showed that the test subjects were unable to perceive whether or not they were exposed to electromagnetic fields. This made the claim that their complaints were related to these fields far more improbable.
Research into the effect of static magnetic fields from MRI scanners on nurses and workers in the production of MRI scanners showed that after prolonged exposure, they are more likely to suffer from dizziness, abnormal bleeding in the uterus, and an increased risk of developing high blood pressure. “The levels of radiation to which these people are exposed are significantly higher than those of people using a mobile phone,” Kromhout adds. “You cannot use those tests to determine any potential effects of 4G or 5G on health.”
Absence of test procedures for determining health effects stemming from 5G
In spite of this, Kromhout thinks it is appropriate to carry out research into any eventual effects. “When a company introduces a new medicine, it has to go through all kinds of test procedures to be certain that they are safe to public health. This hasn’t taken place at all here.”
It is difficult to establish with 100% certainty that there is no damage to health without scientific research because you just don’t know exactly what the influence of 4G and 5G is. “But I don’t think it’s likely that the damage could be more severe as a result of the use of these higher frequencies. Electromagnetic fields with lower frequencies are able to penetrate deeper into your head. These seem to me to be more dangerous than high frequencies like 5G. Research should, therefore, focus more on the skin. Skin is what is most likely to come into contact with electromagnetic fields at higher frequencies.”
The fact that there will be more transmission masts as a result of 5G does not necessarily lead to more exposure, Kromhout believes that as the increasingly higher frequencies that will come into use have a shorter range than existing lower frequencies. “Exposure to radiation in the times of 1G and 2G was many times higher than it is now.”
Yet as 5G will become active alongside 4G, and in light of the fact that there will be a greater number of applications, the total amount of exposure to radiation is still likely to increase for today’s user.
Read other IO articles about 5G via this link.
Iran envoy says that Trump has pulled the final plug in violating nuclear deal
“Two yrs ago @realDonaldTrump ceased participation in #JCPOA. Now, in further violation of JCPOA & UNSCR 2231 @SecPompeo pulls final plug, imposing penalties for compliance EVEN w/nuclear provisions of 2231,” Takht-Ravanchi tweeted on Thursday.
He added, “Claiming US is STILL ‘Participant’ is not just preposterous; it’s FALSE.”
U.S. President Donald Trump quit the agreement, negotiated under his predecessor Barack Obama, in May 2018.
But the Trump administration until now had issued waivers to allow companies, primarily from Russia, to keep carrying out the work of the agreement without risking legal ramifications.
However, Washington announced on Wednesday that it was ending the waivers.
Russian Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday the U.S. is acting in a dangerous and unpredictable way.
“Washington’s actions are becoming more and more dangerous and unpredictable,” Zakharova told reporters.
“The nature of this behavior is clearly disruptive,” Zakharova said, accusing Washington of undermining international security.
“grave challenge to global peace and security” – Nuclear watchdog on potential U.S. nuclear test
Nuclear watchdog says any US test would be ‘grave challenge to peace’
Lassina Zerbo, head of body monitoring test ban treaty, responds to White House discussions about potential first US test for 28 years, Guardian, Julian Borger in Washington, Fri 29 May 2020 The head of the international watchdog monitoring nuclear tests has warned that a US return to testing being contemplated by the Trump administration would present a “grave challenge to global peace and security”.
The idea was shelved for the time being, but appears not to have been rejected outright. Drew Walter, acting deputy assistant secretary of defence for nuclear matters, said this week that an underground nuclear test could be carried out within months “if the president directed”.
Arms control advocates said that the fact such a step was contemplated was disturbing, as it would be likely to lead to a return to nuclear testing by the world’s other nuclear weapons powers, and the demise of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban treaty (CTBT)……
The US signed the CTBT in 1996 but the Senate voted against ratifying it. The treaty has been signed and ratified by 168 states but it will not come into force until the US, China, Israel and Egypt have ratified it, and it is signed and ratified by India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Meanwhile, the US has observed a voluntary moratorium on tests, as have the UK, France, Russia and China, and the CTBTO preparatory commission was established to set up a network of 300 seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasound and radionuclide sensors around the world, that helped identify nuclear tests by India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Zerbo noted that the US is the biggest financial contributor to the CTBTO and its verification regime.
Over the past year, the US has accused Russia and China of secretly conducting very low-yield tests, an accusation that both countries have denied, and for which the US has yet to provide evidence.
“The CTBTO’s international monitoring system [IMS] has been operating as normal and has not detected any unusual event,” Zerbo said. The IMS, complemented by the national technical means of the states signatories themselves, provides full confidence that the system can detect nuclear test explosions according to the provisions of the treaty.”
He added that the only way to remove all doubts was to bring the CTBT into force.
“At that point, the provisions for on-site inspections would come into effect, allowing for on-site visits at short notice if requested by any state party.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/nuclear-watchdog-us-underground-test-challenge-to-peace
Wildlife charities unite to oppose Sizewell C nuclear power station
it must not go ahead. The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT) say they
have not seen evidence that the £14billion project can be built without
detrimentally impacting internationally and nationally important
landscapes, habitats, animals and plants on the Suffolk coast.
direct loss of nationally important and protected land on Sizewell Belts, a
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). An area between 10-12 hectares
– or roughly ten football pitches – will be covered in concrete. The
loss of this nationally rare fen habitat would be devastating and
irreplaceable.”
build will bring the Sizewell Estate adjacent to the internationally famous
wildlife haven. It is feared the building work may increase erosion,
upsetting the delicate balance of the reserve. It could affect the water
levels in Minsmere’s ditches, impacting its rare wetland wildlife, which
includes bitterns, water voles, otters and ducks.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/swt-rspb-unite-to-oppose-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-1-6674364
‘The Triumph of Doubt’ – corporations’ war on science
Inside corporations’ war on science . A new book explains how corporations create a climate of doubt around science and expertise. Vox, By Sean Illing@seanillingsean.illing@vox.com May 26, 2020Johnson & Johnson announced this week that it will stop putting talc, a mineral linked to asbestos, in its baby powder products. The move comes after years of lawsuits alleging that the powder causes various cancers.
It’s also a surprising turnaround. Johnson & Johnson has spent decades funding biased science and lobbying the government to avoid regulating its products or labeling them as cancer-causing. It’s a tactic deployed by many other industries that have a stake in stifling regulation and the science behind it.
The history of this practice is documented in a new book by David Michaels, the former assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the Obama administration. It’s a close look at how powerful corporations fund junk science and misinformation campaigns in order to obscure evidence and undercut regulatory efforts.
Big Tobacco and the fossil fuels industry are obvious examples, but the problem goes well beyond that. From cancer-causing hair products and apparel to diabetes-linked food and sugary drinks, corporations have realized that you don’t have to convince the public or government officials of anything — all you have to do is create the illusion of doubt.
And they do that by piloting bogus studies, organizing partisan think tanks, supplying dubious congressional witnesses, and anything else they can think of to give regulators enough cover to plausibly look the other way. If you’ve ever heard a politician say “The science is still unclear” or “We need to keep researching the issue,” there’s a good chance that was made possible by industry-funded pseudo-science.
I spoke to Michaels about what this process looks like, why journalists and civic actors have been unable to stop it, and how the practice has become more pervasive in recent years. We also discussed the coronavirus pandemic and how the tactics he describes in this book helped lay the groundwork for the extreme skepticism of scientific expertise we’re seeing from conservatives.
“The Republican base,” Michaels told me, “has been acclimatized to be skeptical of mainstream science, and easily believe accusations that they are being manipulated by the deep state, the liberal media, and pointy-headed scientists.”
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
When you say that big corporations like DuPont or Exxon manufacture doubt around their products, what do you mean?
David Michaels
I mean that they hire scientists who appear to be reputable to produce or obscure evidence about the products they make. If there are studies or even suggestions that their product is dangerous, you can hire a scientist who will say, “The evidence is in question,” or, “The study is wrong.”
Corporations make sure those scientists get their opinions into what look like credible peer-reviewed journals, then they get picked up by newspapers, then they have the sound bites that commentators repeat, and that’s enough to convince people that there’s uncertainty. Not necessarily that the product is safe, but that the scientific evidence isn’t there.
That’s basically how it works.
Sean Illing
You used the phrase “appear to be reputable.” What does that mean?
David Michaels
They are credentialed people, but they typically work for consulting firms whose business model is to provide any result their client needs……..
One of the things the Trump administration has done is essentially take the same mercenary scientists who have been working for corporations trying to influence the agencies to do the wrong thing and then given them high-level positions in these same agencies – [EPA , the FDA and other public institutions]…….
The example that I find most striking is a fellow named Tony Cox, who was appointed chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who is himself a longtime lobbyist for the oil and coal industries……..
Sean Illing
So we’ve just made the process more efficient. Industry doesn’t even need middlemen to muddy the waters on their behalf now because they just have their own people appointed to run the agencies charged with regulating them…….
David Michaels
As the abject and enormously tragic failure of the Trump administration’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic becomes increasingly clear, the president and his supporters are taking the tobacco road, applying the same strategy used by cigarette manufacturers, fossil fuel corporations, and a host of other industries whose products and activities damage public health.
Not only is it the same strategy, it features the same cast of characters, and it is promoted in the same social media and cable TV venues, especially Fox News. Right-wing pundits, Trump administration officials, and scientists with long histories of discredited studies first declared the epidemic a hoax and then asserted the numbers of cases and deaths are wildly inflated. They have been eventually shown to be wildly wrong, but it has no impact on their credibility or their willingness to offer outrageous claims.
When the Trump administration is finally evicted from power, we will need to rebuild our system of public health protections, not simply by pouring more funding into federal agencies that were weak and flawed even before Trump, but by reimagining how they can be far more effective and inclusive, and are able to apply the best available science. And we must do this in a way that overcomes the anti-science culture fed by the current administration and the Republican party.
If we are unable to accomplish these goals, I fear that the nation’s disastrous response to Covid-19 is likely to be a preview of a very troubling future. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21137717/johnson-and-johnson-triumph-of-doubt-david-michaels
Chinese involvement in Sizewell nuclear plant the ‘next Huawei
Telegraph 27th May 2020, Chinese involvement in Sizewell nuclear plant the ‘next Huawei’, MPs warn.
Call for energy policy and how the UK interacts with China to be reviewed.
Chinese involvement in the Sizewell C nuclear power station will be the
“next Huawei,” MPs have warned, as they called for an entire overhaul
of the energy policy.
It comes after EDF, the French energy company on
Wednesday submitted an application to build the next nuclear power plant in
Suffolk, which it intends to develop with the state-owned energy company,
China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN).
However Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the
former Conservative leader, warned the power plant was “the next
Huawei”. “It is another major manifestation of the problem we face
having set out on the wrong path with China years ago,” Sir Iain told The
Daily Telegraph.
Is it in the national interest? Chinese nuclear reactors for Bradwell, UK
BANNG 26th May 2020, The ‘golden era’ in relations between Britain and China which gave
birth to the prospect of a Chinese nuclear power station on the Blackwater
appears to be foundering less than five years after its triumphant
proclamation at the State Visit of the Chinese President Xi Jinping, in
October 2015.
The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has long
voiced its concerns about the potential security risks from Chinese control
of strategic UK infrastructure, such as the proposed Bradwell B nuclear
power station. These fears have been echoed by Dr. Robert Ford, the US
State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation and
International Security, who has warned that the Chinese developer, China
General Nuclear Power Corporation, (CGN), ‘is closely linked to the
Communist regime’s military’ and urged Britain not to hand China
control of its electricity (Daily Mail, 16 May, 2020).
It is worth noting that the United states, with whom the UK is seeking a free trade deal, is
opposed to issuing a nuclear license to ‘an alien or any other
entity……it knows or has reason to believe is owned, controlled or
dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government’
(Statement from US Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
Meanwhile, in the UK,
the ‘golden relationship’ is being questioned by Tory MPs, the Labour
Party and the Foreign Affairs and Defence Select Committees of MPs. Moves
are being made to toughen up company takeover laws, to strengthen security
and to assert the UK’s strategic independence. The Government has
recently set up ‘Project Defend’ to ‘identify, the country’s main
economic vulnerabilities to potentially hostile foreign governments as part
of a broader approach to national security’ (Reuters, 22 May, 2020).
BANNG’s Chair, Andy Blowers, has written to Nadhim Zahawi, the Energy
Minister, pointing to concerns about the Chinese threat to British
industry, trade and security and urging him to consider whether having
Chinese-designed and built reactors on a vulnerable site in Eastern England
is in the national interest.
Opposition to unnecessary, environmentally destructive Sizewell nuclear project
after the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions are lifted. Community leaders
believe people need to be able to attend public meetings and other events
as part of the process for the Sizewell C planning application submitted
yesterday.
earliest – and a final decision on the project late next year. The
leaders of East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council have been
supportive of EDF Energy making the Development Consent Order submission
for permission for the project but are continuing to call on the company to
ensure they talk to the two local authorities before triggering the formal
Section 56 process and timescale which includes a period of formal public
engagement.
Energy asking them to delay the Section 56 process given the current
Government guidance on social distancing, social isolation and public
gatherings. We believe all parties must be satisfied that appropriate
public engagement can take place. “We would like EDF Energy to continue
its discussions with both councils so we can work together to find a
suitable solution that works for all our communities.”
Suffolk county councillors calling on them to let their hearts rule their
heads and reject the project, which he claims will “irreparably alter
that unique Suffolk character and nature of this tranquil and welcoming
county, transforming it into just another over-developed, car-dominated,
road-centred, urbanised area of the UK like so many others – bland,
conformist and uniform”.
the national planning inspectorate for permission to build two huge nuclear
reactors on a site which is barely big enough to contain them. It requires
the destruction of the 100 year old Coronation Wood for its overspill
facilities. The construction is designed to house two European Pressurised
Reactors generating 3.2 gigawatts of electricity at full power. The
Sizewell B plant has recently reduced its output by 50% at a reported cost
of £50million due to over-supply. This over-supply is not just a
consequence of the covid-19 pandemic. In 2005, the government made plans to
meet a predicted 15% increase in electricity demand by 2020. In fact,
demand has dropped over those 15 years by 16%, an overestimation of demand
by more than 30%. It is axiomatic that Sizewell C is not needed to ‘keep
the lights on’ nor is it an essential infrastructure project.”
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/edf-delay-on-sizewell-c-consultation-1-6672349
Fiji ratifies the TREATY ON THE PROHIBITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Prohibition of Nuclear weapons treaty ratified https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/parliament/prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons-treaty-ratified/
|
|
Opposition in Canada to nuclear waste dump on agricultural land
Opposition gathering to nuclear fuel disposal vault in South Bruce, The Sun Times, 29 May 20
|
NWMO’s other preferred site is also in Ontario, in the Ignace area, northwest of Lake Superior, and feasibility studies are underway for both sites.It would take 10 years to undertake the environmental regulatory approval process. Plans call for construction to begin in 2033 and take about 10 years, with operation starting in 2043, according to the NWMO. South Bruce Mayor Bob Buckle said in January it seemed to him there was little opposition to the project, but that has changed. At an online South Bruce council meeting Tuesday, Teeswater-area beef and sheep farmer Michelle Stein spoke on behalf of a citizen’s group, Nuclear Tanks, No Thanks, which loosely formed in February. Her farm is next to one purchased by NWMO for the project northwest of Teeswater, part of the parcel of land where metal-encased spent fuel rods could be buried for thousands of years. She told council “there’s way too many risks involved with this project and they need to have a referendum to let the community decide. Like we have over 1,500 signatures that were collected before COVID,” before the virus stopped door-knocking, she said by phone Thursday. “Council just it seemed turned to ignore us and do their own thing.” She noted Buckle was elected with 1,380 votes. The group has an information website www.protectsouthbruce-nodgr.org, which includes an online petition with some 1,800 signatures, which prior to the pandemic was intended for people who aren’t local to sign……. Becky Smith, a NWMO spokeswoman said “We’re a farming community. I don’t understand why they’d want to turn us into a mining community, and then bury the world’s most radioactive waste underneath our water table,” A four-week comment period opened Wednesday and ends June 30 about whether a draft report accurately summarizes public concerns and wishes expressed during workshops held between December and February…….. n January, SON held a community vote which turned down a separate nuclear waste vault proposal, for lower- and mid-level nuclear waste, championed by Ontario Power Generation. It was to be built in Bruce County too, near the Bruce Power nuclear plant close to Kincardine. Saugeen First Nation Chief Lester Anoquot said Wednesday he has a letter from NWMO confirming the high-level nuclear waste vault requires First Nation consent. “We’re continuing dialogue. It’s kind of difficult right now, working remotely,” given the COVID-19 pandemic, he said. “It will probably go to a community vote again for acceptance or not. I think the process will mirror the one that was just conducted with the last DGR (deep geological repository) proposal.” The site falls within Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s traditional territory and its support is required for the project to proceed, Belfadhel has said.https://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/news/local-news/opposition-gathering-to-nuclear-fuel-disposal-vault-in-south-bruce |
|
Bankrupt French company AREVA, now resuscitated as Framatome to engineer UK’s nuclear fleet
Framatome to provide engineering services to UK nuclear fleet, 29 May 2020 French company Framatome has signed a framework agreement with EDF in the UK to provide engineering services to support ongoing nuclear power plant operations…… EDF in the UK operates a fleet of eight nuclear power stations: Sizewell B, Hinkley Point B, Dungeness B, Hartlepool, Heysham 1 and 2, Hunterston, and Torness. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsframatome-to-provide-engineering-services-to-uk-nuclear-fleet-7944809
1.This Month
EVENTS.
Movie Premiere -“The Road to War”- Australia is being set up to be the US proxy in its coming war with China.
Premiere in Melbourne March 22 at the Carlton Nova cinema
Hobart screening State Cinema March 23 with special guest Bob Brown
Adelaide screening Capri cinema March 29
Further information or interviews with David Bradbury:
Mobile 0409925469
-
Archives
- March 2023 (223)
- February 2023 (379)
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (335)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
- August 2022 (367)
- July 2022 (368)
- June 2022 (277)
- May 2022 (375)
- April 2022 (377)
-
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
- 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 