Politics – what hope for civil society? theme for November 20
AS I write the tortuous American election process is going on. The USA used to be a world leader . This is a gripping example of 2 different ways to run the political process. With Trump – dictatorial ruthlessness – heading to fascism, with Biden, restraint, respect for the rule of law, and a co-operative effort.
2020 has seen the continuing dictators, like Xi Jinping, Putin, Putin, Kim Jong Un, Bolsonaro, Bashar Al-Assad – , and also the drift to dictatorship in democratic countries, e.g India. As the world is faced with huge problems, many people seem to turn to uninformed, anti-science populist leaders – especially in English- language countries – USA, Britain, Australia.
So – the American election circus goes on: it is something of a test case for the world. To deal with global heating, nuclear dangers, and the pandemic, we need people of intelligence, respect for science, and the ability to co-operate.
Fortunately there are many thousands of people with all kinds of valuable skills , working on the global problems. Far too many great organisations to name here, and a lot of them under the wing of the United Nations.
The achievements can be seen, and continue to evolve, First and foremost , there’s the U.N. 
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, It matters, whatever the bosses of the ‘nuclear nations’ say. There’s the global work towards the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference. But, however good the work of these agencies, it can succeed only with the participation and support of millions of people
The media has a huge role to play in explaining and promoting this. But will they?
The beginning of the end for nuclear weapons?
|
The beginning of the end for nuclear weapons? https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-nuclear-weapons/, 6 Nov 2020|Tara Gutman The ratification on 25 October of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) by Honduras, the 50th nation to sign, marked the beginning of the final chapter of the legitimacy of nuclear weapons.Even without the nuclear-armed states and their allies, the TPNW will now automatically enter into force on 22 January 2021, and immediately set a new benchmark against which all other nuclear disarmament measures will be judged.
The treaty’s activation will begin to shift the international legal norm and generate a stigma around these cruellest of indiscriminate weapons. This will have ramifications for defence policy, military doctrine, weapons manufacturing, banks and super funds, as was the case when cluster munitions, chemical and biological weapons, and landmines were outlawed. The TPNW couldn’t be more timely. Numerous organisations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the 2017 Nobel-prize winner ICAN, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have judged that the risk of nuclear conflict is higher now than it has been for decades. This is because nuclear-armed states are expanding their arsenals by, for example, including smaller, tactical atomic weapons; modernising their nuclear-weapon delivery systems to include underwater drones and nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles; and abandoning longstanding arms-control agreements. Some, too, are vulnerable to cyberattacks. Last month, 56 former world leaders were in furious agreement with humanitarians, civil society and the science. Their unequivocal statement in support of the TPNW asserted that without a doubt ‘a new nuclear arms race is underway’. Here was no pollyannaish crowd of flower-holding peaceniks. The gathering included two former secretary-generals of NATO and one of the United Nations, prime ministers, foreign ministers and defence ministers from 20 NATO member countries plus South Korea and Japan, all urging their governments to join the treaty. Having such diverse backing is one of the TPNW’s greatest strengths and why it will eventually upend the status quo. Since the treaty’s adoption in 2017, nuclear-armed states and allied nations have denounced it as weak and a distraction that will undermine the existing legal architecture, the cornerstone of which is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) drafted in 1968. While the NPT was a monumental accomplishment, its implementation stagnated as nuclear-armed states came to believe that they were entitled to maintain their own nuclear weapons in perpetuity. Its integrity eroded as it repeatedly failed to fulfil its aspiration to ‘facilitate the cessation of manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery’. Disappointingly and fatally, it made no substantial progress on the key obligation to ‘pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control’. While the NPT will remain a key pillar of the legal architecture with a leading role to play, the TPNW is designed to complement it and remedy its critical shortcomings while reinforcing the same norms and institutions championed by the NPT. Some nuclear-armed states and their allies continue to argue that these weapons are a necessary component of their defence posture and that they keep us safe. Former NATO leaders disagree and argue strongly that these weapons unleash obscene humanitarian consequences. As long as there are nuclear weapons there is a risk that they will be used, intentionally, by accident or by miscalculation, and no adequate humanitarian response can be mounted. The argument ignores the shocking and painful deaths and injuries inflicted on hundreds of thousands of Japanese by two relatively small bombs in 1945. Today in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Red Cross hospitals continue to treat the survivors and research is being conducted to determine whether the illnesses being experienced by their descendants two generations later can be explained by mutations in their DNA caused by radiation. Nuclear-aligned countries, such as Australia, were reticent to engage with the TPNW treaty-making process, reasoning that it may be inconsistent with their legal obligations under their defence arrangements. But a recently published legal analysis of whether joining the TPNW would undermine the ANZUS security treaty found that it creates no legal impediment. The ANZUS treaty makes no reference to nuclear matters, and even if subsequent practice and statements have effectively redrawn its terms, there is still no legal barrier to entering negotiations to vary it. Similarly, the former world leaders said their governments ‘could remain in alliances with nuclear armed states, as nothing in the [NATO] treaty or our defence pacts precludes that’. In the commercial sector, the onset of the TPNW was being felt even before Honduras’s ratification. The flow of investment funds away from nuclear weapons manufacturers has been steadily increasing. Sixteen Japanese banks, two of the top five major global pension funds, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, KBC Bank Ireland, Deutsche Bank and others have now divested or in the process of divesting. Significant numbers of banks, super funds and pension funds have included in their environmental social governance frameworks commitments not to fund controversial weapons. Nuclear weapons should now, belatedly, be assigned to this category and excluded from their portfolios. Manufacturers of nuclear weapons and their banks and shareholders must re-examine their policies, practices and investment screening criteria to preserve their reputations, avoid regulatory risks and stranded assets, and demonstrate to shareholders that they are behaving in accordance with international standards and best practice. As the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement welcomes the January 2021 commencement of the nuclear weapons ban regime in the midst of a global pandemic, we remind all governments that Covid-19 has taught us that even low-probability events can and do occur, to devastating effect. Just like the Covid-19 response, we will eliminate this threat only with sensible, ethical, global action. There will never be a vaccine for the bodily effects of nuclear weapons or their impact on our fragile environment. Prevention is the only course. We have worked towards this new era for 75 years, motivated by the interests of humanity and the principles of international humanitarian law. We hope that all states will join the 50 early adopters and support this sensible, ethical treaty sooner rather than later. Tara Gutman is an international humanitarian law adviser with Australian Red Cross. |
|
The accumulating radioactive water is another Fukushima disaster crisis
|
Japan faces another Fukushima disaster crisis https://www.eco-business.com/news/japan-faces-another-fukushima-disaster-crisis/ – 6 Nov 20, A plan to dump a million tonnes of radioactive water from the Fukushima disaster off Japan is alarming local people. Paul Brown, Climate News Network. The Japanese government has an unsolvable problem: what to do with more than a million tonnes of water contaminated with radioactive tritium, in store since the Fukushima disaster and growing at more than 150 tonnes a day.
The water, contained in a thousand giant tanks, has been steadily accumulating since the nuclear accident in 2011. It has been used to cool the three reactors that suffered a meltdown as a result of the tsunami that hit the coast. Tritium is a radioactive element produced as a by-product by nuclear reactors under normal operation, and is present everywhere in the fabric of the reactor buildings, so water used for cooling them is bound to be contaminated by it. To avoid another potentially catastrophic meltdown in the remaining fuel the cooling has to continue indefinitely, so the problem continues to worsen. The government has been told that Japan will run out of storage tanks by 2022. Announcement delayedAs often happens when governments are faced with difficult problems, the unpalatable decision to release the contaminated water into the sea has not been formally announced, but the intention of the government to take this course has been leaked and so widely reported. Immediately both local and worldwide adverse reaction has resulted. There are the direct effects on the local fishermen who fear that no one will want to buy their catch, but over a wider area the health effects are the main concern. As ever with the nuclear industry, there are two widely different views on tritium. The Health Physics Society says it is a mildly radioactive element that is present everywhere, and doubts that people will be affected by it. But the Nuclear Information and Resource Service believes tritium is far more dangerous and increases the likelihood of cancers, birth defects and genetic disorders. The issue is further complicated because the Fukushima wastewater contains a number of other radionuclides, not in such high quantities, but sufficient to cause damage. Ian Fairlie, an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment, is extremely concerned about Japan’s plans and the health of the local people. In a detailed assessment of the situation he says other highly dangerous radioactive substances, including caesium-137 and strontium-90, are also in the water stored at Fukushima. They are in lower quantities than the tritium, he says, but still unacceptably high – up to 100 times above the legally permitted limit. All these radionuclides decay over time − some take thousands of years − but tritium decays faster, the danger from it halving every 12.3 years. In a briefing for the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), a UK based organisation, another independent analyst, Tim Deere-Jones, discusses research that shows that tritium binds with organic material in plants and animals. This is potentially highly damaging to human health because it travels up the food chain in the marine environment, specifically accumulating in fish. This means fish-eating communities on the Japanese coast could ingest much larger quantities of tritium than some physicists think likely. Relying on dilutionTim Deere-Jones is also concerned that the tritium will be blown inshore on the prevailing wind in sea spray and will bio-accumulate in food plants, making it risky to eat crops as far as ten miles inland. Because of the potential dangers of releasing the water the NFLA has asked the Japanese government to reconsider its decision. The government has not yet responded though, because officially it is still considering what to do. However, it is likely to argue that pumping the contaminated water into the sea is acceptable because it will be diluted millions of times, and anyway seawater does already contain minute quantities of tritium. Dr Fairlie is among many who think this is too dangerous, but he admits there are no easy solutions. He says: “Barring a miraculous technical discovery which is unlikely, I think TEPCO/Japanese Gov’t [TEPCO is the Tokyo Electric Power Company, owner of the Fukushima Daiichi plant] will have to buy more land and keep on building more holding tanks to allow for tritium decay to take place. Ten half-lives for tritium is 123 years: that’s how long these tanks will have to last – at least. “This will allow time not only for tritium to decay, but also for politicians to reflect on the wisdom of their support for nuclear power.” |
|
U.S. Senate election results – a disappointment for climate action, but with a couple of bright spots
Also this week, the United States exits the Paris climate agreement, NYT, By Henry Fountain and Lisa 
Friedman, Nov. 4, 2020, The United States presidential race is still up in the air, and the battle for control of the Senate appears far from over. But one thing is clear the day after Election Day 2020: The “green wave” that environmentalists had hoped for failed to materialize.
There were bright spots for the environment. In the Senate, two Democrats, John Hickenlooper in Colorado and Mark Kelly in Arizona, have defeated incumbent Republicans who have received poor marks from environmental and conservation groups for their voting records.
Mr. Kelly was endorsed by Climate Hawks Vote, a progressive group that promotes candidates who promise to take action on climate change. Mr. Hickenlooper was not. While he declared during the campaign that action on climate change was urgently needed, his past ties to the oil and gas industry in Colorado made some groups wary. ……..
Mr. Hickenlooper could turn out to be the greenest of green lawmakers, but if Democrats don’t win control of the Senate it might make little difference. While the House looks certain to remain in Democratic hands, in the Senate the party needs more victories: Two, if Joseph R. Biden Jr. wins the presidency, which would allow Kamala Harris to break tie votes; or three, if President Trump is re-elected. Even two more Democratic victories seemed less likely on Wednesday than they did before the vote count began.
Climate and the environment were front and center in several state and local elections, and the outcomes appear certain in a few of those……… https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/climate/climate-us-election.html
America’s Kings Bay peace activists to be sentenced Nov. 12 and 13
Kings Bay Plowshares 7 Judge Denies Further Delays, Virtual Sentencing Nov. 12 & 13. Festival of Hope Sunday Nov 8 at 4 pm
Judge Lisa Godbey Wood, presiding over the trial and sentencing of the Kings Bay Plowshares in Brunswick, GA, has denied any further continuances for sentencing as requested by the last four defendants due to COVID-19 restrictions. The remaining KBP7 defendants have been ordered to be sentenced on November 12th and 13th. Despite their desire to be sentenced in person in open court as is their legal right, three of the defendants have reluctantly chosen to do it remotely via video because of the health risks of travel to the court in Georgia for themselves and supporters. Mark Colville has filed a motion to challenge this order.
Although the judge has delayed the sentencing five times because of health and safety concerns, she said that was enough even though the nation is now experiencing record breaking numbers of more than 120,000 daily cases. “With nearly a quarter of a million US COVID deaths, and prison cases exploding again, more court delays are certainly advisable, ” said Veterans For Peace activist and KBP7 supporter Ellen Barfield of Baltimore.
In a rare opportunity, as a consequence of COVID-19 court and travel restrictions, hundreds of people were able to listen on a conference call line to the October sentencing of Fr. Steve Kelly and Patrick O’Neill who gave their final statements as to why they were compelled to act against the nuclear doomsday machine at the Trident nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay. They also heard the testimony from character witnesses for the defendants attesting to the good things they do in their lives and their devotion to peace. Many of these statements are posted on the website in recent news.
Some of the supporters were moved to tears but also filled with joy by their courage. We invite you to call in to hear the four defendants’ profound and powerful statements and to hear the testimony from their character witnesses.
Australian govt will feel the heat when a Biden administration rejoins the Paris climate agreement
Biden says the US will rejoin the Paris climate agreement in 77 days. Then Australia will really feel the heat, The Conversation Christian Downie, Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow, Australian National University, November 6, 2020 When the US formally left
the Paris climate agreement, Joe Biden tweeted that “in exactly 77 days, a Biden Administration will rejoin it”.
The US announced its intention to withdraw from the agreement back in 2017. But the agreement’s complex rules meant formal notification could only be sent to the United Nations last year, followed by a 12-month notice period — hence the long wait.
While diplomacy via Twitter looks here to stay, global climate politics is about to be upended — and the impacts will be felt at home in Australia if Biden delivers on his plans.
Biden’s position on climate change
Can he do it under a divided Congress?
While the votes are still being counted — as they should (can any Australian believe we actually need to say this?) — it seems likely the Democrats will control the presidency and the House, but not the Senate.
This means Biden will be able to re-join the Paris agreement, which does not require Senate ratification. But any attempt to legislate a carbon price will be blocked in the Senate, as it was when then-President Barack Obama introduced the Waxman-Markey bill in 2010.
What’s needed are ambitious targets and mandates for the power sector, transport sector and manufacturing sector, backed up with billions in government investment.
Fortunately, this is precisely what Biden is promising to do. And he can do it without the Senate by using the executive powers of the US government to implement a raft of new regulatory measures.
Take the transport sector as an example. His plan aims to set “ambitious fuel economy standards” for cars, set a goal that all American-built buses be zero emissions by 2030, and use public money to build half a million electric vehicle charging stations. Most of these actions can be put in place through regulations that don’t require congressional approval.
And with Trump out of the White House, California will be free to achieve its target that all new cars be zero emissions by 2035, which the Trump administration had impeded.
If that sounds far-fetched, given Australia is the only OECD country that still doesn’t have fuel efficiency standards for cars, keep in mind China promised to do the same thing as California last week.
What does this mean for Australia?
For the last four years, the Trump administration has been a boon for successive Australian governments as they have torn up climate policies and failed to implement new ones.
Rather than witnessing our principal ally rebuke us on home soil, as Obama did at the University of Queensland in 2014, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has instead benefited from a cosy relationship with a US president who regularly dismisses decades of climate science, as he does medical science. And people are dying as a result.
For Australia, the ambitious climate policies of a Biden administration means in every international negotiation our diplomats turn up to, climate change will not only be top of the agenda, but we will likely face constant criticism.
Indeed, fireside chats in the White House will come with new expectations that Australia significantly increases its ambitions under the Paris agreement. Committing to a net zero emissions target will be just the first.
The real kicker, however, will be Biden’s trade agenda, which supports carbon tariffs on imports that produce considerable carbon pollution. The US is still Australia’s third-largest trading partner after China and Japan — who, by the way, have just announced net zero emissions targets themselves……
With Biden now in the White House, it’s not just global climate politics that will be turned on its head. Australia’s failure to implement a serious domestic climate and energy policy could have profound costs.
Costs, mind you, that are easily avoidable if Australia acts on climate change, and does so now. https://theconversation.com/biden-says-the-us-will-rejoin-the-paris-climate-agreement-in-77-days-then-australia-will-really-feel-the-heat-149533
Sudden resignation of head of USA’s National Nuclear Security Administration
Gordon-Hagerty, who became the first woman to lead the NNSA in February 2018, sent her letter of resignation to the White House Friday, according to a pair of senior NNSA officials, speaking to Defense News on background.
The NNSA is a semi-autonomous office located within the Department of Energy. While the Defense Department manages the delivery systems of the nuclear force — ships, planes and missiles — NNSA has oversight over the development, maintenance and disposal of nuclear warheads. While the agency falls under the purview of DoE, much of its budget is set by the Nuclear Weapons Council, which is largely controlled by Defense Department officials.
Per the sources, the resignation was driven by almost a year of clashes between Gordon-Hagerty’s office and Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette. That fight first seeped into public earlier this year, when Brouillette sought to cut NNSA’s budget request. Defense officials, backed by supporters from Congress, went to the White House and forced the issue in NNSA’s favor.
Tensions never truly receded and continued to play out in Congress during the fiscal 2021 budget season. Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., led pro-defense lawmakers in an effort to give the Pentagon more official control over NNSA; House lawmakers created several pieces of legislation that would give the Energy department more control.
The issue seemed to come to a head when the Department of Energy Organization and Management Improvement Act, passed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Sept. 9, changed language that made the NNSA a quasi-independent entity, in essence folding the agency more fully under DOE’s control. The move was seen by NNSA officials as an attempt by Brouillette to outright destroy the agency………. https://news.yahoo.com/head-nuclear-weapons-agency-unexpectedly-184158751.html
Japan: the next generation of LDP leaders embrace both carbon neutrality and the elimination of nuclear energy.
Nuclear Power and Japan’s 2050 Climate Pledge
Japan’s latest carbon-neutrality pledge puts the spotlight on the challenges facing the country’s nuclear power industry. The Diplomat , By Tom Corben,, November 05, 2020 In his inaugural address to the Diet last month, Japan’s Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide officially announced that his government would revise the country’s carbon-neutrality commitments, aiming for zero emissions by 2050. Suga expressed his intent to “put maximum effort into achieving a green society…..
Of course, the nuclear lobby’s entrenched interests at the highest levels of the government and within the LDP itself will likely continue to frustrate efforts to comprehensively revise Japan’s nuclear energy policies. Indeed, there is every chance that the revised Basic Energy Plan due next year will maintain, if not expand, the share of Japan’s energy mix allocated to nuclear power. Still, without significant changes to the regulatory environment, a more favorable business environment, or a major shift in public opinion or political support, at present it is difficult to see Japan’s nuclear power industry making a major contribution to Japan’s carbon-neutrality goals in the coming decades.
Putin orders Russian government to try to meet Paris climate goals
Putin orders Russian government to try to meet Paris climate goals
President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree ordering the Russian government to try to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement to fight climate change, but stressed that any action must be balanced with the need to ensure strong economic development.
Exploring the reasons why Britain is to ‘re-nationalise’ it’s nuclear weapons
UK Government move to ‘re-nationalise’ Britain’s nuclear weapons, The National
|
By Martin HannanMultimedia Journalist 6th NovemberEARLIER this week the UK Government slipped out a story about Britain’s nuclear deterrent in the form of a ministerial statement that hardly anyone noticed.
It indicated that the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) headquartered on the former site of RAF Aldermaston is effectively going to be re-nationalised. Stripped of civil-servant speak, the statement says that the UK Government is exercising its right to end early a 25-year contract with a consortium of companies that run AWE plc. From next year AWE will become an arms-length operation wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. That will include AWE’s presence at the Royal Naval Armaments depot at Coulport on Loch Long which services the Clyde Submarine Base at Faslane, home to Britain’s Trident submarines. The statement indicates the change is on grounds of efficiency. It read: “The change in Model will remove the current commercial arrangements, enhancing the MoD’s agility in the future management of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, whilst also delivering on core MoD objectives and value for money to the taxpayer. Forgive the cynical view but that all says “in other words, we’re back in complete charge and will spend what we like on the replacement for Trident with no need for reports to shareholders and that public sort of stuff”. WHEN WAS AWE ORIGINALLY PRIVATISED? THE Act to effectively privatise Aldermaston was passed under John Major’s Tory Government in 1991. The transfer of a previously MoD-run facility to the private sector caused some controversy at the time, but went ahead anyway……….. WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? GOOD question. Obviously somebody somewhere is not happy. Ending a 25-year contract four years early is not a usual tactic of HM Government – quite the opposite with contracts often renewed “on the nod”. It could also be an advance move in a long-rumoured possible project for the MoD to take back more sites and facilities and run them as arms-length operations. Babcock and other private contractors at Faslane and elsewhere will have taken note of the move. ARE ALDERMASTON AND SCOTLAND LINKED? THE convoys that take nuclear weapons between Coulport/Faslane and Aldermaston have been a worry for anti-nuclear campaigners for decades. In an independent Scotland, the Westminster Government would be asked to remove Trident and its ilk, which has always begged the question – what is the MoD’s plan B for Trident or its replacement after independence? Answer: there isn’t one. Go on, ask them yourselves. https://www.thenational.scot/news/18850871.uk-government-move-re-nationalise-britains-nuclear-weapons/ |
|
Canada’s Bruce County Council postpones voting on nuclear waste bunker plan
 Bruce County defers vote to support the science behind a nuclear waste bunker, By Janice MacKay, Blackburn News, November 5, 2020 Bruce County Council has agreed to defer the vote on a motion made at today’s meeting to accept the Nuclear Waste Management’s proposed Deep Geologic Repository to store used nuclear fuel as a matter of settled science.Michelle Stein of the group “no DGR South Bruce” told council via skype Thursday during their meeting that the motion was premature when the science isn’t settled on the proposed nuclear fuel Repository……..
She says moving the waste could add increased risk as it is transported through local municipalities. She worries that since there is no nuclear fuel DGR operating in the world, developing one in South Bruce would be an experiment which could put local rivers and waterways at risk. She added that the nuclear fuel waste would also still need to be stored at the surface, as “the nuclear waste needs to go into cooling pools, and then it needs to be stored above ground for approximately 30 years before it’s even cool enough to be moved.” https://blackburnnews.com/uncategorized/2020/11/05/bruce-county-defers-vote-support-science-behind-nuclear-waste-bunker/ |
|
Covid-19 divides and weakens the nuclear sector in South Africa
 Covid-19 divides and weakens the nuclear sector in South Africa, Daily Maverick, By Chris Yelland• 5 November 2020
The coronavirus crisis is undermining the business plan and turnaround strategy at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa. The resulting losses are creating debilitating divisions between labour, middle and senior management, executives and boards of Necsa and its subsidiaries – as well as wage increases Following a tumultuous operational and management period for several years, with massive financial losses, new Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) chairperson David Nicholls and acting CEO Ayanda Myoli presented a restructuring and turnaround plan to Parliament on 20 May 2020……… While many considered the turnaround plan to be hopelessly optimistic even before the Covid-19 crisis in South Africa from March 2020, the impact of the national and international lockdowns are estimated to have resulted in the Necsa group taking a massive hit, which would increase the expected loss for 2020/21 to more than R300-million. …… While many considered the turnaround plan to be hopelessly optimistic even before the Covid-19 crisis in South Africa from March 2020, the impact of the national and international lockdowns are estimated to have resulted in the Necsa group taking a massive hit, which would increase the expected loss for 2020/21 to more than R300-million. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-11-05-covid-19-divides-and-weakens-the-nuclear-sector-in-south-africa/ |
|
Nuclear Technology Germany Association says Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) will always be more expensive than large ones.
 German nuclear industry cautious about usefulness of small reactors for energy transition, Nuclear phase-out Technology, Clean Energy Wire, Süddeutsche Zeitung , 6 Nov 20 Small Modular Reactors (SMR) are increasingly hailed as an effective way for using nuclear power to curb the climate crisis without the major risks associated with conventional nuclear plants, but Germany’s nuclear industry is sceptical whether the small reactors really can help boost international climate action, Christian J. Meier writes for the Süddeutsche Zeitung
……… Nicolas Wendler of industry association Nuclear Technology Germany (KernD) says SMRs are always going to be more expensive than bigger reactors due to lower power output at constant fixed costs, as safety measures and staffing requirements do not vary greatly compared to conventional reactors. In terms of levelised energy costs, SMRs will always be more expensive than big plants.” In order for SMRs to be profitable, these should run at maximum utilisation most of the time, Wendler argues, concluding that the potential on the German market would not be much greater than what is needed to adjust oscillating renewable power production…. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-nuclear-industry-cautious-about-usefulness-small-reactors-energy-transition
|
U.S. Navy to spend $billions on two Columbia-class nuclear missile submarines
|
US Navy inks $9.4B contract for two Columbia-class nuclear missile submarines, Defense News
By: David B. Larter 6 Nov 20, WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy announced Thursday it had inked a $9.47 billion contract with builder General Dynamics Electric Boat for the full construction cost of the lead boat of the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, as well as advanced procurement money for the second boat, the future USS Wisconsin.
The announcement marks the end of the beginning for the Columbia class, which the Navy has for years said is its top priority. The 12-ship class will replace the retiring Ohio-class submarines. The Columbia is slated to make its first patrol in 2031, and the Navy says it must meet the timeline to maintain continuous sea-based deterrent patrols……. The Columbia program is a massively expensive undertaking, with the Navy estimating it will run about $7.5 billion per hull over the class. By 2026, when the Navy will be buying one Columbia per year, considering the FY21′s roughly $20 billion shipbuilding request as a guide, Columbia would eat up to 38 percent of the Navy’s shipbuilding money……. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/11/05/navy-inks-contract-for-two-columbia-class-nuclear-missile-submarines/ |
|
Texas governor wants Trump to oppose nuclear waste dump plan
Gov. Abbott Asks Trump for Help with Nuclear Waste in West Texas, Sanangelo Live, MATT TRAMMELL, NOV 6, 2020, ANDREWS, TX – Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to President Trump last week urging him to put a stop to storing high levels of nuclear waste in rural West Texas.
In the letter sent to President Trump, on Sep. 29, Abbott gave a number of reasons for his opposition.
The main concerns the Governor has is the risk the nuclear material will bring to the Permian Basin.
Here is the full letter: [ but extract only posted here]
Dear Mr. President: Thank you for all you do to ensure a prosperous economy and strong energy industry in the United States. I write to express my opposition to the license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the consolidated interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste at proposed sites within the state of Texas and within the state of New Mexico, close to the Texas border. A stable oil and gas industry is essential to the economy, and crucial to the security of our great nation. Allowing the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and high- level nuclear waste at sites near the largest producing oilfield in the world will compromise the safety of the region.
The proposed facilities would be sited in the Permian Basin Region, which is the largest producing oilfield in the world ……..the Permian Basin is a significant economic and natural resource for the entire country, and the proposed storage facilities would place America’s recovering economy and energy security at great risk.
The NRC is currently evaluating issuance of a 40-year license to Interim Storage Partners (ISP) for a consolidated interim storage facility in west Texas as well as issuance of a 40-year license to Holtec International for such a facility in southeastern New Mexico. As proposed, the ISP facility would store commercial spent nuclear fuel and reactor-related materials, presenting a radiological risk greater than currently authorized for storage and disposal in Texas. ISP has also indicated it may seek to renew the license for an additional 20 years, which would result in an operating life of 60 years, or until a permanent facility is established. ……..https://sanangelolive.com/news/politics/2020-11-06/gov-abbott-asks-trump-help-nuclear-waste-west-texas
1.This Month
Bill Gates, while motivated to help fight climate change, has also long been trying to make a success of his nuclear technology company Terra Power. The climate emergency presents him with the perfect opportunity to promote this, and especially, to get tax–payer funding to do it, as he suggests in his new book.
Elon Musk and Bill Gates: beware of gurus toting solutions to climate change
Elon Musk has grand plans to save the world. Bill Gates has just published his book ”How To Avoid a Climate Disaster”. They both envisage tax-payer funding for their solutions. But beware of gurus toting the solution to the planet’s crisis.
If you don’t think that our home planet is in an ecocidal crisis, then you’ve been blissfully unaware of global heating, over-population, biodiversity loss, waste crises, plastic pollution, overconsumption of energy , water shortages, deforestation, nuclear danger, space junk danger, perpetual nuclear war risk…….
Visionaries like Bill Gates and Elon Musk have brought extraordinary, and beneficial advances to our human society. On the way, they have become billionaires. And good luck to them. But their wealth and fame has made them all too ready to be seen as world leaders, and to see themselves as having the solutions to world problems. This can be problematic, as in effect, some of their solutions exacerbate the problems.
The future envisioned by both Bill Gates and Elon Musk has one huge blind spot. They both foresee ever-expanding energy use, and they plan for that – problems can be fixed with technology.
On a finite planet, endless energy use just cannot work. But the concept of enough is just not in their plans. If the human species does not take up the concept of enough, we could just become an extinct species. Technology could be used to reduce energy use, but that idea fades away as Gates, Musk, and other technocratic leaders see progress as being to have ever more exciting and energy-guzzling gimmicks and activities.The digital revolution. It should be a benefit, enhancing our lives, and in many ways, it IS. But an energy price is paid in our unbridled use of digital technology. Every email, emoji, Facebook post, tweet, blogpost, Youtube, uses electricity. It’s not as if these actions just disappear ”into the cloud”. What a dishonest term that is! There is no such cloud. What there actually IS – is a host of vast areas of dirty great data” farms”. There’s another dishonest term. They’re not farms. They are soulless collections of great metal servers, using ever growing amounts of electricity, and of water, to keep them cool.
Then there’s the price at the end. It’s very hard to find out the details and the extent of toxic materials from digital technology, that are dumped in poor countries.
And, to be fair, companies like Apple, have made some efforts to reduce their ewaste. https://www.ewaste-expo.com/is-apple-delivering-on-its-environmental-claims/
However, planned obsolescence is rampant in the high tech world, resulting in the utter tragedy of ewaste pollution, – from discarded smartphones, laptops, computers, printers, TVs, fidbits, smart fridges, robots etc, the tragedy of the thousands of children working as waste-pickers in India and Africa, in slum conditions. E-waste includes many toxic materials such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, that release dioxins. . ”With no health or environmental protections in the slum, the toxins contaminate the air, water, and the food consumed in the slum…….. The area is constantly covered in thick, toxic smoke from the burning of electrical cables that goes on all day and night,” – High-tech hell: new documentary brings Africa’s e-waste slum to life https://news.mongabay.com/2012/04/high-tech-hell-new-documentary-brings-africas-e-waste-slum-to-life/
Both Gates and Musk are enthusiasts for renewable energy, and in the climate crisis, they are to be applauded for their work in this direction. Yet, as with all kinds of digital technology, renewables should not be unlimited, and do have their downsides, both in the production (pollution from rare earths mining/processing), and in the final disposal, with toxic wastes, and components that are difficult to recycle. . The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that solar panels produced 250,000 metric tonnes of waste in 2018 alone.
Bill Gates and Elon Musk do show their awareness of the planet’s grave environmental problems, but we don’t hear from them about energy conservation, or about moving away from the consumer society. Both talk quite enthusiastically about the great increase in energy use that we can expect. They complacently predict endless energy use, just as the nuclear lobby did in its glossy advertising film ”Pandora’s Promise”
Elon Musk now plans to put 24,000 satellites into space, and is well known for his dream of colonising Mars, and This idea has, of course, been taken up by many others, and there’s a sort of general public delight in space travel and interstellar rocketry. People seem oblivious to the fact that this will require huge amounts of energy, and that the space scientists already are turning away from clean solar power, to the far more dangerous source of nuclear fission. They’re also oblivious of the state of affairs in near space, where the trillions of bits of space debris pose dangers, floating about just like the plastic pollution in the oceans. Meanwhile the military planners in USA, Russia, China are already planning for nuclear weapons and war in space.
No surprise then that Elon Musk sees nuclear power as necessary – not just for his predicted need for much more electricity on Earth, but for this obsession with satellites and rockets.
Less well understood than his push for electric cars and Tesla technologies, is Elon Musk’s investment in the cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. Running Bitcoin demands enormous amounts of electricity, as Timothy Rooks explained recently https://www.dw.com/en/why-does-bitcoin-need-more-energy-than-whole-countries/a-56573390
Bill Gates, while motivated to help fight climate change, has also long been trying to make a success of his nuclear technology company Terra Power. The climate emergency presents him with the perfect opportunity to promote this, and especially, to get tax–payer funding to do it, as he suggests in his new book.
Wake up people! These two gurus have done some good stuff. But don’t let them manipulate us into dangerous territory – with nuclear technology, so connected with weaponry, and with its dangers, and the unsolved problem of radioactive trash. Sure, technology has got to be part of solving the planet’s crises. But we need much more imaginative leadership to steer our species away from infinite consumption and infinite energy use.
-
Archives
- April 2021 (82)
- March 2021 (282)
- 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)
-
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
