nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

NO SUPPORT for NUCLEAR in the new report from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).

10 Aug 21, The report is comprehensive on the present and future impacts of global heating, and on what needs to be done. But nuclear power as a method for action is not included.

Indeed, nuclear power is barely mentioned, and when it is, its negative effects on climate and environment are mentioned.

Page 236 line 39 – “Radioactive fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing (1940s–1950s) and urban smog (1950s– 1960s) first provoked widespread attention to anthropogenic aerosols and ozone in the troposphere”

Page 261 – reference to nuclear war and volcanic eruptions

Page 309 – another reference to impacts of nuclear weapons

Page 971 – line 23 – reference to a nuclear holocaust – in reference to future uncertainties

Page 1380 – line 33 discussion on 14C released from nuclear weapons uptake into the ocean

Page 3161 – line 15 – 17 “Thermal and nuclear electricity plants may be challenged when using warmer river waters for cooling or when mixing waste waters back into waterways without causing ecosystem impacts (Kopytko and Perkins, 2011; van Vliet et al., 2016; Tobin et al., 2018)

  …IPCC Full Report: 

August 10, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

Why the nuclear lobby spruiks about climate change (when they really couldn’t care less) – theme for August 2021

It’s a breathtaking hypocrisy, in this month when we remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki – but the real purpose for new ”advanced”nuclear technology is simply support for nuclear weapons. ”Small nuclear reactors” have no hope of affecting global heating – quite the reverse – as they take funding and human energy away from genuine solutions.

Why does the nuclear lobby bang on about climate change?

Simply in order to get tax breaks and other financial incentives that go with being accepted as ”green” and ”sustainable”

This is why the nuclear industry, IAEA, and all the associated bodies and governments are bent on convincing everybody that the goal of nuclear power is to fight climate change.

The journalists buy their arguments, because those arguments are cleverly dressed up in technicaljargon – avoiding discussion of matters that journalists might understand better, (such as the costs, waste disposal problems, environmental and health impacts)

The essential connection with nuclear weapons is obscured, making everybody involved feel better.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Christina's themes, climate change | 6 Comments

UN pledges full support to Nagasaki voices fuelling ‘powerful global movement’ against nuclear arms

UN pledges full support to Nagasaki voices fuelling ‘powerful global movement’ against nuclear armshttps://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097372  9 Aug 21, António Guterres has reaffirmed the full support of the United Nations to amplifying the powerful testimony of the survivors of the atomic bomb that was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki, 76 years ago, which has helped build a “powerful global movement against nuclear arms”.

In his message to the Nagasaki Peace Memorial on the 9 August anniversary, the UN Secretary-General said he continued to be humbled by the “selfless acts of the hibakusha, the name given to those who survived and continue to bear witness.

“Your courage in the face of immense human tragedy, is a beacon of hope for humanity”, he said in his address, delivered on his behalf at the ceremony by the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Izumi Nakamitsu.

“I reaffirm the full support of the United Nations to ensuring that your voices are heard by the world’s people, and especially by younger generations.”

Out of the ashes

The UN chief told the people of the city that was devastated in 1945, just days after the first bomb was dropped by the United States on Hiroshima during the final days of World War Two, that they had built a “cultural metropolis” out of the ashes.

“Your dynamic city exemplifies modernity and progress, while you work diligently to prevent devastation from ever befalling another city”, he said, warning however that the prospect of another nuclear weapon being used, were as dangerous now, as any time since the height of the Cold War between the US and former USSR.

“States are racing to create more powerful weapons, and broadening the potential scenarios for their use. Warlike rhetoric is turned up to maximum volume, while dialogue is on mute”, said the Secretary-General.

Grounds for hope

But two developments this year provide grounds for hope, in the form of the reaffirmation from the US and Russia, “that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”, together with a commitment to engage in arms control talks.

Secondly, said Mr. Guterres in his message, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has now come into force, representing “the legitimate fears of many States, about the existential danger posed by nuclear weapons.”

And for the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the UN chief said they all parties now need to reinforce “the norm against nuclear weapons” at the upcoming Tenth Review Conference, and take real steps towards elimination.

It is incumbent on all Member States of the UN, “to seek the abolition of the most deadly weapons ever made”, said Mr. Guterres, and together, we must prevent the tragedy of Nagasaki’s nuclear destruction, “from ever occurring again.”

August 10, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

“Clear and loud alarm bell”: IPCC puts pressure on leaders to act on climate — RenewEconomy

“If this report makes you feel angry, sad and afraid, that is because it is angering, saddening and frightening.” The post “Clear and loud alarm bell”: IPCC puts pressure on leaders to act on climate appeared first on RenewEconomy.

“Clear and loud alarm bell”: IPCC puts pressure on leaders to act on climate — RenewEconomy

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Elon Musk to take part in a project to place advertising in space?

Elon Musk slammed as SpaceX to launch satellite displaying billboard ads in space

ELON MUSK has come under fire from the scientific community after it has emerged a company wants SpaceX to launch a satellite broadcasting billboard ads from space. Express UK By SEBASTIAN KETTLEY, Aug 9, 2021 

Background color

The South African billionaire, who does not shy away from controversy, has a lot going on his plate right now. SpaceX is busy assembling and testing the Mars rocket Starship, Starlink is slowly expanding its mega-constellation Internet-beaming satellites and Tesla has recently rolled out the Model S Plaid. A new report has now revealed SpaceX is partnering with a Canadian startup to launch the world’s first space-based ad satellite.

According to Samuel Reid, CEO and co-founder of Geometric Energy Corporation (GEC), the company will pay SpaceX to launch an advertisement satellite into low-Earth orbit (LEO).

This satellite, called CubeSat, will boast a large screen full of purchasable pixels on one side where advertisers will bid to have their logos and products displayed.

Mr Reid told Insider: “There might be companies which want to depict their logo… or might end up being a bit more personal artistic.

“Maybe Coca-Cola and Pepsi will fight over their logo and reclaim over each other.

SpaceX will not play a direct role in the mission but rather act as the launch provider at some point in early 2022, using one of the company’s iconic Falcon 9 rockets.

Once in orbit, the CubeSat will use a selfie stick to broadcast its stream back to Earth via Twitch or YouTube.

Luckily, this means giant billboards are not about to fill up the night skies with advertising.

But the news has sparked an outcry on social media, with scientists and spaceflight enthusiasts alike criticising the move.

Comedy writer James Felton took to Twitter to vent his disapproval

He said: “Going to be difficult to pretend we’re not living in a sci-fi dystopian apocalypse when we take a moment to look up from the raging wildfires engulfing the planet to see the words Drink Pepsi.”

Game programmer and reporter Matthew Chapman said: “No. I draw the line here.

“Congress needs to ban Space Billboards before they become a thing.

“Already SpaceX satellites are creating a minefield of pollution in low-Earth orbit.”

And science writer Amy Shira Teitel said: “Coke vs Pepsi in space? What’s a little more horrendous light pollution between mega-advertising behemoths?

“Hoping this never, ever happens…”

To advertise on the pixel billboard, customers will have to pay using cryptocurrency tokens.

These will include digital tokens like ethereum, though GEC plans to accept dogecoin in the future.

Advertisers will get to select each individual pixel they want and fill them out with a colour of their choice.

Once they fill out enough pixels, a discernable image will emerge on the screen.

Mr Reid said: “I’m trying to achieve something that can democratize access to space and allow for decentralized participation…………  https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1474414/elon-musk-slammed-spacex-launch-satellite-billboard-ads-in-space-scn

August 10, 2021 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

Canada’s political leaders oblivious to the dangers in making plutonium accessible?

Our political leaders seem oblivious to the dangers to the entire planet that could result from widespread access to plutonium. If Canada can access plutonium, so can any other country. If many countries have access to plutonium, the possession of nuclear weapons must be regarded as a real possibility. In a nuclear-armed world, any conflict anywhere can turn into a nuclear war. The stakes could not be greater

Plutonium: from Nagasaki to New Brunswick,    https://nbmediacoop.org/2021/08/09/plutonium-from-nagasaki-to-new-brunswick/ by Gordon Edwards, August 9, 2021   Today, August 9, is the 76th anniversary of the US military’s atomic bombing of the City of Nagasaki in Japan. The nuclear explosive used was plutonium.

The destructive power of plutonium was first revealed on July 16, 1945, when a multicoloured mushroom cloud bloomed over the American desert – the first atomic explosion, top-secret, and much more powerful than expected. Robert Oppenheimer, the man in charge, was awestruck and thought of the words from the Bhagavad-Gita: “I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.”

Three weeks and three days later, on August 9, 1945, the City of Nagasaki was destroyed with a single plutonium bomb.

Plutonium is named for Pluto, god of the dead. It is the primary nuclear explosive in the world’s nuclear arsenals. Even the largest nuclear warheads, based on nuclear fusion, require a plutonium “trigger” mechanism. Access to plutonium is key to the construction of such thermonuclear weapons. Removing the plutonium from nuclear warheads renders them impotent.

Plutonium is not found in nature but is created inside every nuclear power reactor,

including the one at Point Lepreau on the Bay of Fundy. Plutonium is a human-made derivative of uranium. A metallic element heavier than uranium, it is created inside the nuclear fuel along with hundreds of lighter, fiercely radioactive by-products – the fragments of uranium atoms that have been split.

The countries that have nuclear weapons – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia and China) as well as India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea – have all learned how to separate plutonium from used nuclear fuel for use in weapons. This is done by dissolving the solid fuel assemblies in a hot, highly radioactive chemical bath from which the plutonium is extracted using basic scientific procedures. Any technology for extracting plutonium from used fuel is called reprocessing.

Nuclear advocates have long dreamed of using plutonium as a reactor fuel, thereby increasing the options for new reactor designs and magnifying the longevity of the nuclear age. The problem is, once plutonium has been extracted, it can be used either for weapons or for fuel at the discretion of the country possessing it. Policing methods can be circumvented. As Edward Teller has observed: “There is no such thing as a foolproof system because the fool is always greater than the proof.”

That’s how India exploded its first atomic bomb in 1974, by using plutonium created in a Canadian research reactor given as a gift to India and a reprocessing plant provided by the US. Both the reactor and the reprocessing plant had been designated as “peaceful” facilities intended for non-military use. India declared that the bomb it had detonated was a “Peaceful Nuclear Explosive.”

After the Indian blast, it was quickly determined that several other clients of Canadian technology – South Korea, Argentina, Taiwan, and Pakistan – were also in a position to develop a plutonium-based bomb program. Swift and decisive international action forestalled those threats. In particular, South Korea and Taiwan were discouraged by their US ally from pursuing reprocessing.

Shaken by these shocking developments, in 1977 US President Jimmy Carter – the only head of state ever trained as a nuclear engineer – banned the civilian extraction of plutonium in America and tried to have reprocessing banned worldwide, because of the danger that this nuclear bomb material could fall into the hands of criminals, terrorists, or militaristic regimes bent on building their own nuclear explosive devices. As one White House adviser remarked, “We might wake up and find Washington DC gone, and not even know who did it.”

Japan is the only country without nuclear weapons that extracts plutonium from used nuclear fuel, much to the dismay of its neighbours. South Korea is not allowed to do so, despite repeated efforts by South Korea to obtain permission from the US to use a type of reprocessing technology called “pyroprocessing.” Pyroprocessing is currently undergoing experimental tests at a US nuclear laboratory in Idaho.

Now, New Brunswick has been enticed to take the plutonium plunge. The company Moltex Energy, recently established in Saint John from the UK, wants to use plutonium as a nuclear fuel in a type of reactor that is not yet fully conceptualized. The plutonium would be extracted from the thousands of solid irradiated nuclear fuel bundles currently stored at NB Power’s Point Lepreau reactor using a version of the pyroprocessing technology that South Korea has so far been denied.

On a site right beside the Bay of Fundy, the highly radioactive metallic fuel bundles would be dissolved in molten salt at a temperature of several hundred degrees. A strong electrical current would be used to strip the plutonium metal and a few other elements (less than one percent of the mass) out of the dissolved fuel.

After the government of Canada gave $50.5 million to support the Moltex project in March this year, nine retired US government advisors – all of them experts in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons – wrote to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in May, urging him to authorize an independent review of the international implications of the proposed New Brunswick plutonium scheme.

These nine experts, who have worked under six different US presidents, both Republican and Democrat, are deeply concerned that Canada’s support for reprocessing and the civilian use of plutonium could seriously undermine delicate and precarious global non-proliferation efforts that have been underway for many decades.

No reply from the Canadian government has so far been received, although Trudeau’s office acknowledged receipt of the letter and said that the matter has been entrusted to Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau and Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan.

Without any word from these two ministers, Moltex posted a response to the US experts’ letter on their corporate web site, disputing some of the claims made in the letter to Trudeau. In particular, Moltex claims that their proposed technology is not usable for nuclear weapons purposes because the plutonium is not pure, but mixed with other contaminants that cannot easily be removed.

The Moltex response has prompted another letter to Trudeau from the US non-proliferation experts, correcting this and several other misleading comments from Moltex and reiterating their call for a fully independent expert review of the non-proliferation aspects of the Moltex proposal.

Our political leaders seem oblivious to the dangers to the entire planet that could result from widespread access to plutonium. If Canada can access plutonium, so can any other country. If many countries have access to plutonium, the possession of nuclear weapons must be regarded as a real possibility. In a nuclear-armed world, any conflict anywhere can turn into a nuclear war. The stakes could not be greater.

Citizens of New Brunswick and all Canadians who realize the importance of this issue can write to our Prime Minister in support of a non-proliferation review of the Moltex proposal, and raise this matter with candidates and at the door during the next federal election campaign. We can all raise awareness of the legacy of Nagasaki and do our best to ensure that New Brunswick is not implicated by going ahead with the Moltex plutonium extraction scheme.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, is based in Montreal.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | - plutonium, Canada, politics | 1 Comment

Nagasaki remembers the atomic bomb, Olympic officials refuse to allow a minute’s silence.

Nagasaki nuclear attack remembered   https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2021/08/10/2003762363

ATOMIC BOMB ANNIVERSARY: Small turnout due to COVID-19 did not lessen the observance, also marking the first year of a mostly symbolic nuclear ban treaty

The Japanese city of Nagasaki yesterday commemorated the 76th anniversary of the detonation of a US atomic bomb over the city, with the mayor calling for the global community to build on a new nuclear ban treaty.

Nagasaki was hit by an atomic inferno that killed 74,000 people, three days after the nuclear bomb that hit Hiroshima.

The twin attacks brought forth the nuclear age and gave Japan the bleak distinction of being the only country to be struck by foreign atomic weapons.

Survivors and a handful of foreign dignitaries offered a silent prayer at 11:02am local time, the exact time the second — and last — nuclear weapon used in wartime was dropped. For a second year, the number of people attending was much smaller due to COVID-19 restrictions. The ceremony is the first since an international treaty banning nuclear weapons came into force last year.

“World leaders must commit to nuclear arms reductions and build trust through dialogue, and civil society must push them in this direction,” Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue said.

The treaty has not been signed by countries with nuclear arsenals, but activists believe it will have a gradual deterrent effect.

Japan has not signed it either, saying the accord carries no weight without being accepted by nuclear-armed states.

The country is also in a delicate position, as it is under the US nuclear umbrella, with US forces responsible for its defence.

As the only country that has suffered atomic bombings during the war, it is our unchanging mission to steadily advance the efforts of the international community, step by step, towards realization of a world free of nuclear weapons,” Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said at the ceremony.

On Friday, Japan marked 76 years since the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing around 140,000 people.

Barack Obama in 2016 became the first sitting US president to visit Hiroshima, but Washington has never acceded to demands for an apology for the bombings.

International Olympic Committee president Thomas Bach traveled to Hiroshima in July, before the start of the Tokyo Games, to mark the start of an Olympic truce — a tradition that calls for a halt to global conflict to allow the safe passage of athletes.

However, city officials were disappointed after the IOC refused a request to stage a minute of silence at the Games to mark Friday’s anniversary.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Japan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Rising seas and melting glaciers: these changes are now irreversible, but we have to act to slow them down — RenewEconomy

The underlying message remains the same. The longer we wait, the more devastating the consequences. The post Rising seas and melting glaciers: these changes are now irreversible, but we have to act to slow them down appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Rising seas and melting glaciers: these changes are now irreversible, but we have to act to slow them down — RenewEconomy

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

This is the most sobering report card yet on climate change and Earth’s future. What you need to know — RenewEconomy

Climate change is now affecting every continent, region and ocean on Earth, and every facet of the weather. Here are the key takeaway’s from the latest IPCC climate report. The post This is the most sobering report card yet on climate change and Earth’s future. What you need to know appeared first on RenewEconomy.

This is the most sobering report card yet on climate change and Earth’s future. What you need to know — RenewEconomy

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

French nuclear company EDF is postponing its decision on whether or not to go ahead with the Sizewell nuclear project in Britain

 

EDF delays final decision on Sizewell C. French energy giant now expects to leave it as late as 2023 before deciding whether to proceed with Suffolk nuclear power project. The timeline for EDF to decide whether to go ahead with the £20bn Sizewell C power station has slipped amid a lengthy planning approval process that is playing out as funding negotiations with ministers continue.

The French power giant now expects to make a final investment decision on the Suffolk plant at the end of 2022 or in 2023, compared to its previous expectations of mid-2022. EDF is in negotiations with the Government about a funding deal for Sizewell C and will also need external investors. Legislation is likely to be brought forward to allow developers to recoup costs during construction from household energy bills.


However, talks have been overshadowed in recent weeks by reports that ministers are seeking ways to block CGN from Sizewell and future UK nuclear projects. CGN has a 20pc development stake in Sizewell with an option to participate in the construction phase.

 Telegraph 8th Aug 2021

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/08/edf-delays-final-decision-sizewell-c/

August 10, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Comparing the costs of nuclear and solar power

Solar challenging nuclear as potential climate change solution https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/09/solar-challenging-nuclear-as-potential-climate-change-solution/

Research suggests that we can power 80% of the United States with wind, solar, and 12 hours of energy storage, but the replacement of nuclear power plants hasn’t been financially viable. Is that about to change?AUGUST 9, 2021 JOHN FITZGERALD WEAVER  Nuclear power delivers almost 20% of all electricity in the United States, and about 50% [ if you don’t count the uranium-nuclear fuel chain] of all low-emission electricity. Moreover, the United States has almost 100 nuclear power units operating more than 90% of the time, providing a steady base of power generation.

But moving forward, it seems nuclear has lost its swagger. Price increases, project delays, and cancellations have caused what may prove to be generational damage to nuclear power’s reputation. pv magazine USA has previously reported on industry pricing models, showing nuclear’s lagging pricing.

Now, Georgia Power’s Vogtle Unit 3 and Unit 4 – the nation’s only nuclear generating units currently under construction – have announced further delays and price increases. Conservative cost estimates suggest the two 1.117 GW facilities will require at least $30 billion to complete, including $3 billion in finance costs and $27 billion in construction costs.

Solar+storage costs

As solar and energy storage professionals, we must be conscious of the limitations of the sun, and the cost of energy storage. As we all know, the sun also sets. And while research suggests we can power 80% of the U.S. with wind, solar, and 12 hours of energy storage, being able to replace a nuclear power plant that runs 24/7/365 in wind, rain, snow, and sleet simply hasn’t been financially viable.

But is it today?

The chart above [ on original] shows the price of solar panels from 1976 through the end of 2019. Here, we see prices fall by more than 99.8% from over $100 per watt down to nearly $0.20 per watt. Below, we see the price of battery packs starting in 2010 and ending in 2020, based on data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Here, we see costs fall from $1,191/kWh to $137/kWh – a price decrease of greater than 88%.

In both cases, we can expect prices to continue trending downward in both the middle and long term. And so, what can we expect to pay when we replace a nuclear power plant with solar power plus batteries?

Cash to spend

The chart above [ on original] shows the price of solar panels from 1976 through the end of 2019. Here, we see prices fall by more than 99.8% from over $100 per watt down to nearly $0.20 per watt. Below, we see the price of battery packs starting in 2010 and ending in 2020, based on data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Here, we see costs fall from $1,191/kWh to $137/kWh – a price decrease of greater than 88%.

In both cases, we can expect prices to continue trending downward in both the middle and long term. And so, what can we expect to pay when we replace a nuclear power plant with solar power plus batteries?

Cash to spend

In order to replace the two nuclear plants while the sun is down, the batteries would need to replicate two 1.117 GW power sources for 16 hours. The total energy storage capacity would be 39.3 GWh, after we add an extra 10% for safe measure.

Roughly speaking, the total cost of these solar+storage facilities would be:

  • $8.4 billion for 10.55 GWdc of solar power, fully installed at $0.80/watt
  • $527 million for hypothetical power grid upgrades at $0.05/watt
  • $7.8 billion for 39.3 GWh of energy storage fully installed at $200/kWh
  • Around $16.8 billion grand total, no incentives

So, Georgia, pv magazine USA just saved you more than $13 billion (as of today, anyway).

Some caveats

It’s almost certain that a solar facility of this magnitude – roughly 27,000 acres, or around 0.07% of Georgia’s land – would be split among many landowners in the state. If land lease rates in Georgia are comparable to what  might be earned in Pennsylvania, the project could provide as much as $27 million per year in income to Georgia landowners for decades to come.

Furthermore, the solar power plants would start generating electricity and revenue within about three years of the first signature, and two years after groundbreaking. The new Vogtle reactors began construction in 2013 (planning began much earlier), and are projected to complete in 2022-23.

With these considerations in mind, the repowering costs to get a solar+storage facility to a 40 to 80-year lifetime would likely be offset by the fact that the solar facility will enter service at least eight years earlier than the equivalent nuclear site. Additionally, during the solar plant’s operating lifetime, it saves massive amounts of regular operations and maintenance costs, 

 as well as specialist engineer labor costs. The nuclear facility will easily last 40 years, and potentially as long as 80. However, the ongoing operations and maintenance costs are significant, as well as upgrades and equipment replacements that start to become necessary after 40 years. And sometimes, those $1 billion dollar upgrades go wrong, and a nuclear power plant gets trashed.

When we do repower the batteries and solar panels, they almost certainly will be cheaper, and operate at a higher efficiency, likely stretching the life of the solar facility to 50+ years. Again, this solar+storage facility would generate 20% more juice in the summer (when the power is needed most in Georgia) because we oversized it for the winter.

In the end, it would be best if we had a healthy ecosystem of clean energy generation systems that include nuclear [but nuclear is not clean]. However, if we’re going to debate the costs of nukes vs. solar, then it is no longer a discussion.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, renewable, USA | 5 Comments

Why China is increasing its nuclear deterrence capacity

China needs to increase nuclear capacity to maintain minimum deterrence against rising US coercion, By Hu Xijin Global Times, Aug 07, 2021 On Friday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed his “deep concern” about the “rapid growth” of China’s nuclear arsenal with Southeast Asian foreign ministers. He accused Beijing of “sharply deviating from its decades-old nuclear strategy based on minimum deterrence.” This is the US’ official response from the highest level after various US think tanks over the past few months have claimed that China is building a great number of “new missile silos” in Yumen of Northwest China’s Gansu Province and in the Hami region in Northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.


Chinese officials have not directly responded to these allegations made by US think tanks. They have neither confirmed nor denied them.It is important to note that China has never abandoned its minimum deterrence nuclear strategy. However, due to the comprehensive strategic threat that the US keeps posing to China, the nuclear capabilities Beijing needs to achieve “minimum deterrence” are now different from the past. As the potential risk stemming from US nuclear coercion against China is clearly increasing, China needs to have sufficient nuclear forces to contain such a risk
Even many ordinary Chinese people feel the urgency of strengthening China’s nuclear deterrent is common sense. We don’t know if those structures shown in the satellite photos in Yumen and Hami are silos or the foundations of wind power plants as some scholars have speculated. But if it does turn out that they really are silos, Chinese public opinion will definitely support the construction of them unconditionally.

Washington is in no moral position to accuse China of this. China has only a fraction of the number of nuclear warheads that the US has. China is also the only nuclear power that has pledged not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. The US has never indicated that it would consider making the same commitment.

There is no information from Beijing on whether it is strengthening its nuclear buildup in the face of a realistic threat from Washington. But even if we were doing that, it would have nothing to do with Southeast Asian countries, or even with Japan and Australia, because China’s nuclear policy also includes another firm commitment of not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state.

Once China substantially strengthens its nuclear forces, its only purpose will be to deter the US. Since there is already no mutual trust between China and the US, Chinese society is fully convinced that the US’ ultimate strategic goal is to bring China down. While not giving up on maintaining peace between the two countries, we must be prepared for the possibility that a war could eventually occur in the Taiwan Straits or the South China Sea. One of China’s major strategic missions today is to make the most complete layout for that day…………….https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1230817.shtml

August 10, 2021 Posted by | China, politics, weapons and war | 2 Comments

World careering towards irreversible climate impacts, top scientists warn

Landmark IPCC report provides wave of stark warning, but stresses that
rapidly putting the global economy on course to net zero emissions by 2050
could hugely reduce the escalating impacts that will result from a warmer
world.

Climate change is accelerating and intensifying across every region
of the planet, bringing with it increases in rainfall, flooding, drought,
heatwaves, and sea levels that are already having significant implications
for economies around the world.

That is the stark consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists in a landmark UN report today, which offers the
clearest picture yet of both the scale of global warming already being
experienced and the likely impacts of further temperature rises that are
set to play out over the coming decades.

The report concludes that the
world’s average surface land temperature currently stands at around 1.1C
above pre-industrial levels, and is likely to be reach 1.5C – the optimal
target set out in the Paris Agreement – within the next 20 years regardless
of potential actions taken to slash greenhouse gas emissions in the
meantime.

 Business Green 9th Aug 2021

https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4035547/fraction-warming-matters-world-careering-irreversible-climate-impacts-scientists-warn

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Unequivocal:” The nine most important climate messages from IPCC report — RenewEconomy

The IPCC’s new assessment report is a detailed and comprehensive statement of climate science. Here are nine key takeaways. The post “Unequivocal:” The nine most important climate messages from IPCC report appeared first on RenewEconomy.

“Unequivocal:” The nine most important climate messages from IPCC report — RenewEconomy

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Scientists issue desperate climate warning: Australia already at 1.4°C — RenewEconomy

IPCC says average temperatures in Australia have already risen 1.4°C, warns that each fraction of a degree of warming will take its toll. The post Scientists issue desperate climate warning: Australia already at 1.4°C appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Scientists issue desperate climate warning: Australia already at 1.4°C — RenewEconomy

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment