To 20 October – coronavirus, climate and yes, NUCLEAR, news
Covid-19 cases across the globe hit 40 million Monday with the United States leading the world with the highest numbers of infections and deaths. World round-up of coronavirus. cases and restrictions.
Climate change just keeps on – cycloone, floods and landslides.– Vietnam, India. It becomes important to devlop strategies to adapt to global heating.
Nuclear news items stress the need for international agreements on arms control.
But , on the ”peaceful nukes” scene, it is quite extraordinary that propaganda has ramped up enormously, even while the pandemic has actually slowed down nuclear building and other activities, as well as the demand for electricty.
What we’re seeing is a frenzy of small nuclear reactor (SMR) propaganda handouts masquerading as real journalism. In English language news, it’s all about America selling these uneconomic and pretty useless gimmicks to their own population and to overseas countries. The most often praised model, NuScam’s reactor, is even now being touted as ”foreign development aid”. No doubt the global industry is doing the same confidence trick in Russian and Chinese. They need a global burst of tax-payer funded SMR building, to stave off the collapse of the industry.
Some bits of good news –We’ve had so many wins’: why the green movement can overcome climate crisis. International Monetary Fund recommends a carbon price, for the economy as well as for the climate. Solar energy is here with a vengeance – look at South Australia.
The attack on journalism – launched with the persecution of Julian Assange.
On climate: instead of denial or despair, there’s determined resolve. Carbon emissions are deeply embedded in our lifestyle – the challenge post-pandemic. Climate disasters – Earth is becoming uninhabitable for millions of humans.
Elimination of nuclear weapons is vital to the “survival of life on this planet”.
Nuclear waste – a danger for countless generations to come.
Resisting nuclear colonialism on Indigenous Peoples’ Day
Offshore Wind Energy, Not Nuclear, Is the Future. Study shows that renewable energy is clearly better that nuclear at cutting greenhouse emissions.
Book review: GAMBLING WITH ARMAGEDDON.
Thorium not likely to revive the nuclear energy industry.
NEW ZEALAND. Climate and clean energy leaders win big in New Zealand, ACT elections.
ARCTIC. Global heating is unravelling the Arctic, much faster than expected. Climate change: Arctic Circle teens call for help to save their homes. Reopening of a Cold-War era submarine base, as USA struggles to beat Russia to control the Arctic.
JAPAN. Japan’s government is appealing the landmark ruling about its responsibility for Fukushima nuclear accident. Japan’s government planning to dump into the sea, the radioactive water from Fukushima No. 1 nuclear reactor. Fukushima ‘blank spaces’ in limbo, left out of decontamination plan.
Struggling Japanese towns look to nuclear waste storing and the money associated. Mansion without a toilet: Towns in Japan seek to house, store nuclear waste out of necessity. 800-meter-long seawall being constructed, as Japan plans to reopen damaged Onagawa nuclear complex.
Japan’s government ignores U.N. nuclear ban treaty, puts out feeble anti-nuclear weapons resolution.
SOUTH ASIA. Neighbouring countries oppose Japan’s plan to release nuclear waste water into the Pacific.
RUSSIA. Putin suggests extending the START nuclear weapons control treaty for another year.
USA.
- Anti-science in America – climate denial to coronavirus denial. USA spends taxpayers’ money on weapons, endless wars, not health – coronavirus chaos is the result.
- Donald Trump’s erratic behaviour revives the debate on the President’s unchecked nuclear authority. What to do about the USA President’s sole authority to launch a nuclear pre-emptive strike? Donald Trump’s pre-election plan for nuclear deal with Russia has fizzled out badly. US rejects Putin’s proposal on nuclear disarmament treaty as ‘nonstarter’.
- ‘Fracking’ with its environmental harms, now acceptable to U.S. Democrats, to help win the election?
- Ohio lawmakers likely to repeal the tainted nuclear bailout law, after November 3. Bribery probe into a nuclear plant bailout examines facilities’ owner. Ask pro-HB 6 lawmakers seeking reelection what they plan to do about the nuclear bailout bill .
- Exelon to offload its nuclear power stations?
- Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear waste is potentially explosive.
- Groups urge New Mexico governor to take stand against nuclear waste plan. Bankrupt Mallinckrodt company faces large liabilities in radioactive trash cleanup.
- USA starts off $3.2 billion subsidy program with $80 million each for “next generation” nuclear reactors. Washington State touted for ”new generation” nuclear power – (some time in the distant future) Inadequate Emergency Planning Zones for small modular nuclear reactors. USA marketing NuScam small nuclear reactors to Africa. Hypocrisy prize to U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), for pretending that NuScam’s Small Nuclear Reactors are ”foreign aid”. Small Nuclear Reactors on the moon– desperate hope for the failing nuclear industry.
- The biggest radioactive spill in US history.
UK.
- 35 crew on secretive HMS Vigilant £3billion nuclear submarine tested positive for Covid.
- UK: consultation with 2300 people about low level radioactive waste dump – only 13 people supported it.
- In Scotland, UK’s old nuclear submarines are left to rot.
- Dangerous radiation levels from fracking.
- Sizewell nuclear project: EDF messes Suffolk communities about, with yet another public consultation, after 1200 responses already. French nuclear company EDF disdains the Suffolk community with its cavalier change of plans.
CANADA. Nuclear industry stagnates, renewables thrive- small nuclear reactors will be a terrible mistake for Canada. Small modular nuclear reactors create intensely radioactive wastes. Divisive nuclear waste programme mapped out in South Bruce, Ontario. Canada’s government caught up in the Small Nuclear Reactor Ponzi Scheme.
NORTH KOREA. North Korea, with its new intercontinental-range ballistic missile makes it clear that it is a nuclear weapons nation. New North Korean missile will prove a big diplomatic headache for US, expert warns.
SOUTH KOREA. After 23 yearrs and huge expense, South Korea is to close down its efoort to develop nuclear spent fuel reprocessing .
MIDDLE EAST. Policy of no uranium enrichment, no reprocessing, essential for Middle East to prevent nuclear arms proliferation.
FRANCE. France has more nuclear waste than shown in official inventory, reports the nuclear regulator. France’s nuclear company EDF promises a new design pressurised water nuclear reactor (EPR).
INDIA. India’s young anti-nuclear protestors still in trouble, police cases pending, 10 years after teir demonstration. Cybersecurity concerns about India’s nuclear reactors.
BULGARIA. USA to market nuclear reactor to Bulgaria.
TUVALU. Tuvalu – the 47th nation to ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
SOUTH AFRICA. South Africa the first sucker to get American experimental nuclear reactor + $billions
AUSTRALIA. USA election result, and Australia’s response– the world’s climate in the balance. Australia a leader in the worst sense – biodiversity loss and risk of ecosystem collapse. Morrison government’s devastating cuts to Environmental research and teaching.
The frenzy to promote small nuclear reactors – shown in Google news headline articles today when you search ”nuclear”
Google nuclear headlines today pointed to 96 articles on nuclear issues
By far the topic most covered most was the ”need” for new generation nuclear reactors for energy. – 24 articles in all, mostly enthusing about small nuclear reactors. Several of these involved the marketing of USA reactors to other countries.
The next most popular pro nuclear topic was nuclear fusion . (7 articles.) Other prominent pro nuclear themes were claims on safety, and action on climate. There were 50 pro nuclear articles in all.
There were 21 anti-nuclear articles. A few denied the claims on nuclear safety, and action on climate. Others dealt with the Fukushima nuclear waste water to be released into the Pacific ocean, with questions on nuclear economics.
There were 13 articles that didn’t ‘take sides’ – basically factual articles about nuclear wastes, safety, and international politics.
On the subject of nuclear weapons all of the articles opposed them, although one could be interpreted as suggesting that there’s a need to counteract China’s developments.
Nuclear industry stagnates, renewables thrive- small nuclear reactors will be a terrible mistake for Canada
![]() The world nuclear industry “continues to be in stasis,” with power plants shutting down at a faster rate in western Europe and the United States, the number of operating reactor units at a 30-year low, and the few new construction projects running into “catastrophic cost overruns and schedule slippages,” according to the latest edition of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), released last week. “Some 408 nuclear reactors were in operation in 31 countries as of July 2020, a decline of nine units from mid-2019 and 30 fewer than the 2002 peak of 438,” Reuters writes, citing the report. “The slow pace of new projects coming onstream also increased the overall age of the global fleet to around 31 years.” “Overall, in terms of the cost of power, new nuclear is clearly losing to wind and photovoltaics,” with the two renewable technologies now receiving about 10 times the investment, write Jungmin Kang, former chair of South Korea’s Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, South Korea, and Princeton University Professor Emeritus Frank von Hippel, in their foreword to the 361-page report. That meant new nuclear projects “were struggling to secure finance amid competition from renewables, with reported investment decisions for the construction of new nuclear plants at around US$31 billion in 2019,” Reuters says. One of the problems facing nuclear plants is that their high capital cost “requires that they operate almost continually to bring down the capital charge per kilowatt-hour,” Kang and von Hippel explain. “They must therefore compete directly with renewables most of the time or store their output to be used during cloudy, windless periods.” But “storage does not relieve the competition with wind and solar” since, “as renewables expand and storage costs come down, they too will have increasing incentives to store their excess output.” The report focuses in on COVID-19 as the first pandemic to have a significant, direct impact on the global nuclear industry, with large numbers of infections reported by the few operators that released precise figures. The WNISR says the pandemic has led to degraded safety and security and critical staffing issues at operating nuclear plants that also faced a tough economic hit when crashing electricity demand drove down power prices. In 2019, Russia had a hand in 15 of the 52 new nuclear construction projects around the world, and electricity generation from nuclear facilities grew 3.7%, with half of that total attributable to a 19% increase in China. But 33 of the 52 projects were behind schedule, and eight had been delayed by 10 years or more, “including two units that had construction starts 35 years ago and one unit that goes back 44 years,” WNISR notes. Of the 13 reactors scheduled for start-up last year, “only six made it,” including three in Russia, two in China, and one in South Korea—and no new nuclear facilities went online in the first half of 2020. Meanwhile, non-hydro renewables installed 184 gigawatts of new capacity in 2019, and “comparisons between nuclear and solar options show a large and widening gap,” the report states. “For example, a contract for 1.2 GW of solar power at US$24.20 per megawatt-hour, signed in 2017 and connected to the grid in 2019, is five to eight times cheaper than the international cost estimate for nuclear of US$118 to $192 per MWh.” [And that’s before the cost overruns that seems to be inevitable with most nuclear projects—Ed.] While “the biggest social argument for nuclear power plants is that their carbon emissions are low,” Kang and von Hippel write, that line of thought leads more toward refurbishing existing reactors—an area where the industry is also struggling. “In some major countries such as the United States, even 30-year-old plants whose capital costs have been paid off cannot compete economically with new renewable power plants, whose capital costs have been declining. The operating costs of nuclear plants are high in part because one to two hundred workers and guards are required onsite per reactor at all times in case of accident or terrorist attack.” And earlier this month, an incident in South Korea raised concerns about the reliability of nuclear generation in an era when climate change will make severe weather events more common and severe. The Kori nuclear plant was supplying 7% of the country’s electricity until it went into an automatic shutdown “because of typhoon impacts on their power transmission lines,” the two reviewers state. “Experts are concerned that, under different circumstances, the sudden shutdowns could destabilize South Korea’s grid and cause large-scale blackouts.” Paris-based consultant and lead WNISR author Mycle Schneider said the long-term headwinds facing nuclear development are even more daunting than the annual snapshot. Don’t just look at the photograph. Look at the movie,” he told The Energy Mix in an interview last week. “It takes an average of roughly 10 years to build a nuclear power plant from official construction start to grid connection,” even when a project isn’t delayed—which raises a particularly tough series of questions in the midst of a global climate emergency. “If I’m spending a dollar or a Euro or a yuan, I have to spend it in a way that allows me to reducogical renaissance through small modular reactors (SMRs). But “the industry is actually selling PowerPoint reactors, not detailed engineering, and it’s not the first time. They’ve been doing this for decades,” Schneider said. “Nobody, not even industry, pretends they can produce anything before 2030. That’s the earliest,” when 2050 is the latest possible deadline to decarbonize the entire global economy. Which means that, when it comes to SMRs, “it’s already very simple—it’s much too late, and we don’t know if it’ll work or what it’ll cost.”……….. “If I’m spending a dollar or a Euro or a yuan, I have to spend it in a way that allows me to reduce GHG emissions the most per dollar invested, the fastest.” Schneider said. But “if you look at nuclear power, it’s not only the most expensive, but it’s by far the slowest.” With even French nuclear giant EDF bidding against its own legacy technology to supply lower-cost solar projects, “do we really have to discuss what the future is or where this goes?” Schneider asked. “It’s obvious.” More recently, the nuclear industry has been promising a technological renaissance through small modular reactors (SMRs). But “the industry is actually selling PowerPoint reactors, not detailed engineering, and it’s not the first time. They’ve been doing this for decades,” Schneider said. “Nobody, not even industry, pretends they can produce anything before 2030. That’s the earliest,” when 2050 is the latest possible deadline to decarbonize the entire global economy. Which means that, when it comes to SMRs, “it’s already very simple—it’s much too late, and we don’t know if it’ll work or what it’ll cost.”……….. “Betting on nuclear as a climate solution is just sticking our heads in the sand because SMR technology is decades away, extremely expensive, and comes with a nasty pile of security and waste headaches,” Gibbons writes. “That our government would be this gullible is distressing, especially given the havoc already being wreaked by a changing climate.” Against concerns about intermittency of solar and wind, “it is fortunate that in Ontario we live beside a giant battery,” he adds. OCAA has long been an advocate for cross-border hydropower imports from Quebec to Ontario, and in the Sun, Gibbons notes that “Quebec has an enormous water power reservoir system that Hydro-Québec is keen to integrate with renewable sources for its out-of-province customers. When we have surplus solar and wind, Quebec stores water. When not, it produces hydropower for export.” The two provinces already “have the connections necessary to make this system work and can expand them, at a cost that looks like spare change next to what it costs to rebuild a nuclear reactor or get an SMR prototype built,” he adds. https://theenergymix.com/2020/09/27/world-nuclear-industry-loses-ground-to-cheap-renewables-as-canada-considers-small-modular-reactors/ |
|
Anti-science in America – climate denial to coronavirus denial
America re-discovers anti-science in its midst, Environmental Health News,16 Oct 20
Fauci, Birx, Redfield & Co. are in the middle of a political food fight. They could learn a lot from environmental scientists.
Let’s start with the story of a scientist who beat back a powerful global denial movement without any help from social media or modern, sophisticated organizing campaigns.
It took Galileo 359 years to wrangle an apology out of the Vatican for his heretical belief that the Earth revolved around the sun.
I’m glad he didn’t take it personally. Science denial is neither new nor purely American—but we sure are finding ways to make it lethal and lasting.
Climate scientists have been dealing with anti-science, largely unnoticed by the general public, for 20 years. Doctors face a growing wave of anti-vaccination zealots. Now a pandemic with a seven-figure global death toll and a stranglehold on the world’s economy has opened the doors wide for some multi-front anti-science blowback.
Americans, many refusing to wear masks and ignoring social distancing guidelines, appear to be gathering at frat parties, raves, political rallies, nightclubs and more in defiance of what credentialed experts say are the most vital ways to restrict the spread of COVID-19.
Major sporting events, notably college football, are backing down from previously self-imposed restrictions.
And, lo and behold, positive test rates are going back up in a big way.
Past is deadly prologue
Here are a couple recent, high profile examples of anti-science fervor in the U.S.:………
But nothing in science can quite match the decades-long assault on climate science and climate scientists. On the high end, there are PR campaigns backed by fossil fuel money, well-heeled litigation, and unhinged attacks from national pols and pundits. Then, there are the confounding, face-palming antics of the Coal Rollers—pickup truck owners who modify their rides with “Prius Repellent”—thick sooty black smoke intended to make a bizarre anti-science, pro-climate denial statement. Yes, people do this.
Penn State’s Michael Mann is arguably the highest-profile climate scientist in the U.S. Let’s make a minor leap of faith and say Mann’s climate stature is the closest equivalent to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s standing on coronavirus.
Right now, Dr. Fauci’s main public tormentor is President Trump. Their conflicts are tame compared to the deniers’ gang-up on Mann, which has lasted more than a decade and may offer Fauci a few tips on being a scientist in the middle of a political peeing match…….
Make no mistake, Fauci’s a heroic public servant in an awful bind who, as far as I know, may not even be interested in the killer tell-all book that now resides in his head.
But after COVID-19 is finally conquered, Mike Mann and a thousand others will still be getting bashed, and the worst impacts of climate change will still be ahead of us.
Peter Dykstra is our weekend editor and columnist and can be reached at pdykstra@ehn.org or @pdykstra.
Small Nuclear Reactors on the moon- desperate hope for the failing nuclear industry
While our species’ insatiable scientific curiosity has undoubtedly led to some beneficial inventions, it has also drawn us inexorably towards our own downfall. Our zeal to create the atomic bomb ignored logic, ethics, consequences and the fundamentals of human rights.
The bomb brought us so-called civil nuclear power reactors, the ugly and irresponsible spawn of a weapon that leaves us perched perpetually on the precipice of extinction. But there is nothing “civil” about nuclear power.
At the dawn of the nuclear energy age, not a thought was given to the legacy of deadly radioactive waste it would produce. That can was kicked summarily down the road. Now we are far down that road and no solution has been arrived at, while we ignore the one obvious one: stop making more of it!
So now comes the news that the US wants to put nuclear power reactors on the Moon.
In the news stories that followed the announcement, replete with the usual excitement about space exploration (never mind the cost and bellicose implications) there was not one single mention of the radioactive waste these reactors would produce.
The problem, like the waste itself, will simply be kicked into some invisible crater on the dark side of the Moon.
NASA, the US Department of Energy and assorted nuclear labs are pushing the small modular reactor for nuclear projects on the Moon and Mars. Desperate to stay relevant and to continue gobbling up taxpayer dollars, this is music to the failing nuclear industry’s ears. Financially disastrous and technically unresolved on Earth, the SMR, say these “experts”, is ideally suited to the needs of humans living for extensive periods in space.
Since each of these mini-reactors will likely have an uninterrupted output of only 10 kilowatts, it will take multiple reactors on the Moon or Mars to fulfill the necessary functions for their human inhabitants.
Needless to say, so far there is no certified design, no test reactor, no actual reactor, and no fool-proof way to send such a reactor to the Moon. (Rockets have an unfortunate habit of sometimes blowing up on — or shortly after — launch.) Nevertheless, the year 2026 is the ambitious target date for all systems go. In keeping with the theme, “pie in the sky” springs to mind.
While no reactor design has been identified, it will most likely need to use highly enriched uranium (HEU) which puts the reactor firmly in violation of non-proliferation standards. As Dr. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists told PBS Newshour, “This may drive or start an international space race to build and deploy new types of reactors requiring highly enriched uranium.”
Given the utility of HEU for nuclear weapons use, and the probes currently being sent to the Moon and Mars by “unfriendly” countries such as China and the United Arab Emirates, it does not take much of an imagination to envisage the temptation for theft by force. Will the US deploy guards around its lunar reactors.? Will we see terrorism on the Moon, even war?
What is this really all about? Profit? Prestige? Proliferation? The Idaho National Laboratory, which is eager to develop the lunar SMR prototype, sees this as an opportunity to emphasize “the United States’ global leadership in nuclear innovation,” the lab’s John Wagner told Newshour.
This echoes the mantra parroted by almost every federal institution and corporation seeking to justify some new and exorbitant nuclear expense: we cannot let China and Russia take over; the US must retain — or regain — pre-eminence in the nuclear sector and in space. And so on.
It’s not being cute to call this lunacy. With the ever-expanding crises on Earth, caused by the ravaging effects of climate change as well as the current pandemic, spending exorbitant sums to stick reactors on the Moon or Mars is more than madness; it is morally irresponsible. It abandons most of us on Earth to our fate, while, just maybe, possibly, someday, a handful of people will head off to the Red Planet. Never to return.
Yet undeterred by immorality and expense, and apparently without the slightest concern for the radioactive dirt pile these reactors will produce, NASA and the Department of Energy are eagerly soliciting proposals.
And what will these lunar reactors do? They will enable “capability for a sustained lunar presence, particularly for surviving a lunar night,” NASA’s Anthony Calomino told Space News. “The surface of the moon provides us an opportunity to fabricate, test and flight qualify a space fission system,” he said.
The Moon is seen as our launchpad to Mars. Now, it seems, it will also become our latest nuclear dustbin. If there is a meltdown, or a cascade of accidents among the cluster of small identical reactors there, all of which could suffer the same failure at the same time, it will become our next nuclear wasteland.
I am happy to say “goodnight moon.” But I don’t wan’t to say “goodbye.”
USA spends taxpayers’ money on weapons, endless wars, not health – coronavirus chaos is the result
![]() ![]() United States has the longest record of war-fighting in modern history. Why that is the case is not a question that has an easy answer; suffice to say, however, that militarism and violence run like a red thread throughout U.S. political history, with enormous costs both for the domestic economy and the world at large, as a recently published book by David Vine makes plainly clear. In fact, the militarist mentality is strongly reinforced by the Trump administration in spite of the fact that the current president claims to have an aversion to “endless wars.” In this exclusive Truthout interview, Vine, a professor of anthropology at American University in Washington, D.C., addresses critical questions about U.S. war culture and Trump’s own contribution to the violence that has always been foundational to U.S. culture. C.J. Polychroniou: Your latest book, The United States of War: A Global History of America’s Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State, is a detailed survey of the U.S.’s obsession with militarism and war. Have you come to a definite conclusion or explanation as to why the United States has been at war for about 225 of the 243 years since its independence?
David Vine: There is, of course, no simple answer to this incredibly important question. According to my research, the U.S. military has been at war or engaged in other combat in all but 11 years of U.S. history — 95 percent of the years the United States has existed. My book shows how the huge collection of U.S. military bases abroad provides a key — or a kind of lens — to help understand why the United States has been fighting almost without pause since 1776. . Bases abroad, bases beyond U.S. borders show how U.S. political, economic and military leaders — shaped by the forces of history, capitalism, racism, patriarchy, nationalism and religion — have used taxpayer money to build a self-perpetuating system of permanent, imperialist war revolving around an often-expanding collection of extraterritorial military bases. These bases have expanded the boundaries of the United States, while keeping the country locked in a state of nearly continuous war that has largely served the economic and political interests of elites and left tens of millions dead, wounded and displaced. To be clear, my argument is not that U.S. bases abroad are the singular cause of this near-endless fighting. Indeed, my book shows how the answer to why the U.S. government has fought so constantly lies in the capitalist profit-making desires of businesses and elites, in the electoral interests of politicians, and in the forces of racism, militarized masculinity, nationalism and missionary Christianity, among other dynamics. U.S. bases abroad, however, have played a key and long overlooked role in the pattern of near-constant U.S. fighting: that is, since independence, bases that U.S. leaders have built beyond the borders of the United States not only have enabled wars but also have made offensive imperialist wars more likely. While U.S. leaders often portray bases abroad as defensive in nature, the opposite is generally the case: bases built on the territory of other peoples have tended to be offensive in nature, providing a launchpad for yet more wars. This has tended to create a pattern in which bases abroad have led to wars that have led to the construction of new bases abroad that have led to new wars that have led to new bases and so on. Can you offer us a quick assessment of the overall costs of the “global war on terror?” It’s impossible to capture the immensity of the catastrophe that the so-called “global war on terror” has inflicted……….. Alongside the human damage, the financial costs of the so-called war on terror are so large, they’re nearly incomprehensible. As of October 2020, the U.S. government has spent or obligated a minimum of $6.4 trillion on the post-2001 wars, including the costs of future veterans’ benefits and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars. The actual costs are likely to run hundreds of billions or trillions more, depending on when we force our politicians to bring these seemingly endless wars to an end. While it’s incredibly hard to fathom $6.4 trillion in taxpayer funds vanished, the catastrophe is compounded when we consider how else the U.S. government could have spent such incredible sums of money. What could these trillions have done to provide universal health care, to rebuild public schools, to build affordable housing, to end homelessness and hunger, to rebuild crumbling civilian infrastructure, to prepare for pandemics? In addition to the 3-4 million who have likely died in the wars the U.S. government has fought since 2001, how many more have died because of the investments the U.S. government did not make? These are questions that, I have to say, should make us weep……….. Clearly there is a deep connection between the war machine and the U.S. government’s failure to protect the country against COVID. ………….. President Eisenhower was exactly right when he called this kind of diversion of funds a “theft.” He said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Today, every gun that is made signifies a theft from those with COVID, from those who might contract COVID, from all of us……… https://truthout.org/articles/the-us-chose-endless-war-over-pandemic-preparedness-now-we-see-the-effects/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=89a28ac1-0d1a-4b33-ab5b-4666e96877f5 |
|
Neighbouring countries oppose Japan’s plan to release nuclear waste water into the Pacific
World worries about release of Fukushima nuclear water https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1203852.shtml, By Xu Keyue Source: Global Times 2020/10/18
Analysts said that Japan should think twice before making the decision as the move would have disastrous consequences for the marine environment and human health, which could lead to criticism by related international organizations, countermeasures by affected countries including cessation of imports of Japanese seafood, and harm to the country’s image.
Japanese media said that the country’s government will hold a related cabinet meeting as early as this month to make the final decision on the plan to release more than 1 million tons of radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean after reducing the level of radioactivity.
The plan has not gotten much rolling coverage in Japan, but there are still many Japanese netizens expressing their disagreement. According to a poll on Yahoo Japan, 41.5 percent of the 31,035 respondents disagreed with the plan
Local fishermen in Fukushima publicly announced their opposition, saying the plan will undo years of work rebuilding their industry’s reputation since the plant was wrecked by a huge tsunami in March 2011.
The public of South Korea has repeatedly voiced concern, claiming that discharging the water represents a “grave threat” to the marine environment.
A South Korean Foreign Ministry official told reporters that a meeting of related ministries regarding this issue was elevated to vice-ministerial status last month to step up the response to Japan’s move, reported South Korea’s KBS News on Friday. The official said the government will continue to closely monitor Tokyo’s activities and take measures based on cooperation with the international community.
Japan’s plan also sparked outrage among Chinese netizens, many of whom criticized Japan’s practice, saying it is throwing its responsibility onto the world to share.
Sun Yuliang, a nuclear expert at Tsinghua University in Beijing, told the Global Times on Sunday that whether to dump the waste water should depend on an authoritative scientific assessment to determine whether the processed radioactive water meets international standards for release.
Liu Junhong, a research fellow at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, urged Japan to further communicate with the international community and share information transparently.
Liu said that the Japanese government should give priority to safeguarding public health and safety and the environment, rather than the cost of the rehabilitation work after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Liu noted that the seas in Asia are mostly connected and many of them are semi-closed, so that the contaminants from the Fukushima water could subside and then rise, which would severely affect the local marine and coastal environment and the health of people nearby.
Therefore, Japan’s neighboring countries including China and South Korea would be the first to react to the plan, Liu said.
He noted that if the Japanese government releases the water, these countries are likely to stop imports of seafood from Japan, and foreigners could be reluctant to visit the country and enjoy its food, which would harm Japan’s economy.
Other analysts noted that the plan goes against Japan’s long-established image of being friendly to the marine environment.
Another expert on nuclear safety, who requested anonymity, said that the issues is not only one of Japan’s own business but also relates to the interests of the global community, so countries and related organizations in the international community should cooperate and assist Japan to deal with the contamination.
The Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima went into meltdown and released radioactive material in the aftermath of a tsunami in March 2011.
The disaster cast doubts over the safety of nuclear power worldwide, leading China to launch a campaign to review and upgrade the safety systems of all its nuclear power stations.
Hypocrisy prize to U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), for pretending that NuScam’s Small Nuclear Reactors are ”foreign aid”
DFC Convenes U.S., African Leaders for Investment Conference, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), October 16, 2020 Announces new efforts aimed at bolstering agency’s reach across continent. WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and the Atlantic Council hosted the virtual Investing in Africa’s Future conference to bring together African heads of state, senior U.S. government officials, African development finance institutions and others to announce new efforts to promote and strengthen U.S. trade and investment in Africa, in support of the Administration’s Prosper Africa Initiative…….. DFC made the following announcements during the summit: …………
LOI for Nuclear in South Africa: In July 2020, DFC updated and modernized its nuclear energy policy—ending its prohibition on supporting nuclear power in order to help meet the energy needs in the developing world. DFC signed a Letter of Intent to support NuScale, a U.S. nuclear energy technology firm, to develop 2,500 MW of nuclear energy in South Africa. If successful, NuScale would be the first U.S. nuclear energy IPP on the continent and would help support energy resilience and security in one of Africa’s leading economies and a key partner on the continent for the United States Government……….. https://www.dfc.gov/media/press-releases/dfc-convenes-us-african-leaders-investment-conference
|
|
Canada’s government caught up in the Small Nuclear Reactor Ponzi Scheme

Today, the government made its first SMR funding announcement: $20 million from ISED’s Strategic Innovation Fund for the company Terrestrial Energy to develop its prototype SMR in Ontario.
Anyone interested in evidence-based policy is wondering: Why are they doing this? There is no evidence that nuclear power will achieve carbon reduction targets, while there is considerable research indicating the contrary.
In fact, in today’s funding announcement, federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan confirmed that the new reactor will take more than a decade to develop and will contribute nothing to Canada’s 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The same week as the throne speech, the release of the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) confirmed, as did its previous reports, that developing new nuclear energy is too slow and uneconomical to address the climate crisis compared to deploying renewable energy technologies.
Last week, research based on data from 123 countries over a 25-year period made a similar finding. December 2019 research from Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson refutes claims that nuclear energy is zero-carbon. A November 2019 article in the American business magazine Forbes argues that building new nuclear reactors instead of investing in more climate-effective energy resources actually makes climate change worse.
SMRs, the nuclear reactors promoted by the federal government, are in particular over-hyped as a climate crisis solution. SMRs have been proposed as a solution for remote communities and mining sites currently relying on diesel fuel but new research has found the potential market is too small to be viable.
SMRs exist only as computer models and nobody knows for sure if they will work. Last month, the Canadian energy watchdog The Energy Mix interviewed WNISR lead author Mycle Schneider, who called SMRs “PowerPoint reactors, not detailed engineering.”
Given all the research evidence pointing away from funding nuclear energy in a climate action plan, why is the federal government proposing to do it?
In a webinar presentation earlier this year, the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility Gordon Edwards put it bluntly: “The nuclear industry is desperate.”
Edwards believes the federal government’s push for new reactor development is coming from the nuclear industry. “If they can, the nuclear industry will convince governments to pour public money into this for whatever reason, by misrepresenting its advantages and minimizing or even ignoring its disadvantages.”……….
Nuclear reactor promoters are “barely keeping themselves alive,” said Edwards, and have realized for quite a while that “they are in trouble.”
The federal government created the nuclear industry in Canada and has funded it since the late 1940s. For more than 70 years Canada has been spending vast sums of public money to keep it going. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), a Crown corporation with a mandate to promote and support nuclear science and technology and manage nuclear waste in Canada, received $826 million from the federal government in 2017-2018. Most of the public funds are turned over to a private-sector entity, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, whose majority partner is SNC Lavalin.
One description of the nuclear industry in Canada is that it can be understood as a kind of Ponzi scheme. In its current corporate plan, AECL listed a cost liability of almost $6.4 billion for decommissioning and waste management provision and $988 million for contaminated sites in 2017-18.
The industry needs new nuclear reactors as a replacement revenue stream. New reactors require capital investment but no banks or private investors are willing to invest due to the poor return on investment. Public funding is the only option to keep the industry alive and pay off its liabilities, and more public money is always required or the entire scheme will collapse. ……..
a revolving door shuttles senior government personnel involved in nuclear energy files to the CNA lobby. In one recent example, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of natural resources who was responsible for nuclear policy is now a consultant for the CNA.
Former senior AECL executives and government nuclear energy staff are now establishing and managing various start-up nuclear companies actively seeking public funding from the federal government. And according to the throne speech, the money is available…….
The Canadian government’s plans to invest in nuclear energy contrast with the European Union’s proposed Green New Deal released in June this year that specifically excludes investment in nuclear energy because of its harmful environmental impacts. The decision followed sustainable finance guidelines also adopted this year and developed in a process that included environmental and other civil society groups as well as energy industry representatives……….https://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2020/10/why-federal-government-funding-new-nuclear-power-reactors#.X4t38dAXWFc.twitter
The biggest radioactive spill in US history
The biggest radioactive spill in US history https://www.vox.com/21514587/navajo-nation-new-mexico-radioactive-uranium-spill How the US poisoned Navajo Nation. By Ranjani Chakraborty and Melissa Hirsch Oct 13, 2020, (Excellent photography) For decades, Navajo Nation was a primary source for the United States’ uranium stockpile during the nuclear arms race. It was home to more than 700 uranium mines, which provided jobs to Navajo residents. But the mining industry came with impending peril. Cases of lung cancer and other diseases began cropping up in a community that had previously had few of them. Land, air, and water was poisoned. And on July 16, 1979, the mining led to the biggest radioactive spill in US history.
Watch the video above to hear from residents in Church Rock, New Mexico, who’ve lived with the effects of the spill. More than 40 years later, the site still hasn’t been properly cleaned up, and residents continue to face illnesses, tainted water, and the loss of livestock. Today, with the Environmental Protection Agency’s new plan for cleanup, they’re worried it could wipe out their entire community.
If you want to learn more about mining in Navajo Nation, check out Doug Brugge, Esther Yazzie-Lewis, and Timothy Benally’s book on the subject. Or the feature documentary The Return of Navajo Boy by Groundswell Educational Films.
Climate change: Arctic Circle teens call for help to save their homes
Climate change: Arctic Circle teens call for help to save their homes
Teenagers living in remote Arctic communities say they’re worried about the effects of climate change. Scientists warn that melting ice and warming temperatures show rapid climate change is taking place.
Rarely heard young people from multiple countries within the Arctic Circle say their way of life is at risk and governments must act. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-54572400
Putin’s proposal for 12 month renewal of NewSTART arms control treaty is rejected by USA
US rejects Putin’s proposal on nuclear disarmament treaty as ‘nonstarter’ American Military News, 18 Oct 20, The United States says Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to extend the New START nuclear disarmament treaty without freezing nuclear warheads is a “nonstarter.”
Putin proposed extending the bilateral treaty for one year without preconditions to keep it from expiring and to allow talks to revive it to continue.
Putin also instructed Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a meeting with permanent members of Russia’s Security Council on October 16 to work out Russia’s position on New START and inform the United States of developments.
The issue of the New START treaty comes less than three weeks before the U.S. presidential election.
Democratic challenger Joe Biden supports extending New START “to use that as a foundation for new arms-control arrangements.” If Biden wins, the treaty will expire just weeks after he is inaugurated.
Biden calls the treaty — which was negotiated when he was vice president under President Barack Obama — an “anchor of strategic stability between the United States and Russia.”……..
On October 13, more than 75 lawmakers across Europe called on the United States to extend New START before its expiration.
U.S. Deputy Sheriff Australia bought a lemon with an obsolete $90 billion submarine
In for a penny, in for a pound: $90 billion for an obsolete submarine fleet, Michael West Media, by Brian Toohey | Oct 18, 2020 So much for sovereignty. Australia is locked out of repairing key US components of our submarines’ computer systems, and the government has committed our fleet to the extraordinarily dangerous role of helping the US conduct surveillance in the South China Sea. Brian Toohey reports. It is hard to believe that a government genuinely committed to defending the nation would sign a contract to buy 12 ludicrously expensive submarines that would not be operational for at least 20 years, with the final submarine not ready for nearly 40 years. The fleet will be obsolete before its delivered. But this is what the Turnbull government did when it announced in September 2016 that the majority French government-owned Naval Group would build 12 large submarines in Adelaide. The first sub is unlikely to be operational until the late 2030s and the last one until well after 2050. It is even harder to understand why the government endorsed the extraordinarily dangerous role for Australian submarines of helping the US conduct surveillance and possible combat operations within the increasingly crowded waters of the South China Sea. And while the Morrison government repeatedly claims that Australia’s defence force has a “sovereign” capability, in reality we are locked in “all the way” with the USA.
Ominously, an earlier Coalition government gave Lockheed Martin the contract to integrate these systems into the Attack subs. This is the same company that wasted billions on a dud computerised system for the US made F-35 fighter planes.. Called the Attack class, the conventionally powered submarines to be built in Adelaide by Naval will rely on an unfinished design based partly on France’s Barracuda nuclear submarines. Their official cost has already blown out from an initial $50 billion to $90 billion. It was revealed earlier this week that Defence officials knew in 2015 that the cost of the fleet had already blown out by $30 billion to $80 billion, yet continued to state publicly that the price tag was $50 billion. Life-cycle costs are expected to be around $300 billion…….. Under US commandAustralian subs in the South China Sea will be integrated into US forces and will be relying on them for operational and intelligence data. In an escalating clash, accidental or otherwise, they will be expected to follow orders from US commanders. Again, so much for Australia’s sovereignty. There is no compelling strategic reason why Australian submarines should travel that onerous distance to support the US in the South China Sea. ………… Perhaps the best argument, however, for not wasting $90 billion on the Attack class is that cheap underwater drones will soon have an important military role particularly suited to use from bases in northern Australia. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound-90-billion-for-an-obsolete-submarine-fleet/ |
|
Ask pro-HB 6 lawmakers seeking reelection what they plan to do about the nuclear bailout bill
Ask pro-HB 6 lawmakers seeking reelection what they plan to do about the nuclear
bailout bill https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2020/10/ask-pro-hb-6-lawmakers-seeking-reelection-what-they-plan-to-do-about-the-nuclear-bailout-bill.html Oct 18, 2020, By Thomas Suddes, cleveland.com
House Bill 6, which Ohio’s House and Senate passed last year, requires Ohio’s electricity consumers to bail out two nuclear power plants formerly owned by FirstEnergy Corp. – Perry, in Lake County, and Davis-Besse, in Ottawa County.
HB 6 also requires electricity customers to subsidize two coal-burning power plants, one of them in Indiana. Evidently, our General Assembly has solved all Ohio’s problems and now has the time, not to mention the wisdom, to address an Indiana problem.
True, Ohio’s House and Senate usually favor utilities over consumers. That’s not news. But this was: In July, a federal grand jury indicted then-House Speaker Larry Householder, a Republican from Perry County’s Glenford, and four other Statehouse figures because of an alleged racketeering conspiracy, “involving approximately $60 million,” to pass HB 6 – “a billion-dollar nuclear plant bailout.” (Householder and the others are presumed innocent unless convicted.)
Oh yes, the Senate will consider repealing HB 6 – but only after the House repeals it. There’s no reason why the Senate (led by President Larry Obhof, a Medina Republican who voted “yes” on HB 6) can’t repeal HB 6 before the House does. Maybe the real reason is that GOP senators think the House will never repeal it.
About all that Ohio electricity consumers can do is ask those members of the General Assembly who voted “yes” on House Bill 6 whether they will now vote to repeal it.
These Greater Cleveland House members also voted “yes” on HB 6 and are asking voters to reelect them: Republican Reps. Thomas F. Patton, of Strongsville; Jamie Callender, of Concord Township (HB 6′s co-sponsor); Diane V. Grendell, of Chesterland (whose district includes parts of Geauga and Portage counties); Darrell Kick, of Loudonville (whose district includes Ashland County and part of Medina County); Scott Oelslager, of North Canton; Bill Roemer, of Richfield; Dick Stein of Norwalk (whose district includes part of Lorain County); and Scott Wiggam, of Wooster.
Even if legislators run unopposed, they’re still answerable to residents of their districts.
If HB 6 is such great legislation, why did it only attract 51 “yes” votes in the 99-member House – just one more “yes” vote than the 50-vote constitutional minimum?
And why did 15 of the House’s 61 Republicans – one in four – vote “no” on HB 6 even though then-GOP leader Householder wanted it passed?
Finally: Why would anybody allegedly spend $60 million in dark money to pass a bill that’s supposed to be such a great deal for Ohio electricity consumers – unless it isn’t?
Thorium not likely to revive the nuclear energy industry
Could Thorium Revive The Nuclear Energy Industry? Oil Price, – Sep 27, 2020,………..It still remains to be seen whether the new thorium fuel will actually see the light of day.
The main sticking point to the promotion of thorium as a cleaner nuclear fuel is that it remains unproven on a commercial scale. Thorium MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors) have been in development since the 1960s by the United States, China, Russia, and France, yet nothing much ever came of them.
Nuclear radiologist Peter Karamoskos, of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has advised the world not to hold its breath:
“Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.”
Nuclear power enthusiasts can only hope that ANEEL will not also fall victim to the thorium curse.
-
Archives
- March 2021 (27)
- 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