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

Promoting nuclear risks to reduce greenhouse emissions is the classic jump from the frying pan into the fire!

Nuclear Reaction , City Weekly By Katharine Biele @kathybiele 30 Mar 22,

”…….state Auditor John Dougall wondered on KCPW 88.3 FM about the “really green” option of nuclear power. Why they call it green is curious because nothing grows from nuclear energy, Public Citizen makes that really clear. There’s the mining of uranium and, of course, the waste issue. “Promoting nuclear risks to reduce greenhouse emissions is the classic jump from the frying pan into the fire!” Public Citizen says.

March 31, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Spending £4bn on a new nuclear station at Sizewell will not solve the government’s energy problems

Spending £4bn on a new nuclear station at Sizewell will not solve the government’s energy problems

Instead of sensible short-term measures to help those facing energy poverty, the government is focusing on a technology with a track record of failure Prospect Magazine 

ByNick Butler March 30, 2022In the face of surging energy prices and the prospect of more problems as Europe turns off Russian gas supplies, the UK government is struggling to find a coherent energy policy. The latest move, a £4bn investment in the proposed new nuclear station at Sizewell, is both a mistake and an irrelevance. Private investors who are being asked to stump up the majority of the £20bn total cost should politely decline the offer

……………………………………………………………..There are no instant solutions but on and offshore wind and solar power could be increased relatively quickly at a reasonable cost. The government could also accelerate its investment in developing the crucial technology for energy storage. This would capture more of the power produced by every wind turbine and limit the need for back-up plants (usually requiring more gas) to deal with the times when the wind is not blowing. On top of this, direct support for simple measures to enable people to use energy more efficiently would limit demand and cut bills.

Instead of such sensible short-term measures, ministers have chosen to focus on a technology which has a track record of failure and which, even if it could be made to work, will take at least a decade to provide any new electricity supplies………….
Of all the available options, however, the choice of EDF’s European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) technology is the worst from any perspective.

In 2009, EDF promised investors and the government at the time that the EPR to be built at Hinkley would produce power at a cost of less than £50 per MWhr. By Christmas 2017, we were told Hinkley would be onstream and providing the power to cook our Christmas turkeys. We were the turkeys for believing such claims.

Hinkley is still being built and 2027 now looks like the earliest date for production to begin. In France, the comparable EPR development at Flamanville—which was due onstream in 2013—is still unfinished, having experienced a series of crucial technical problems. In both cases the costs have overrun the original budgets by many billions. 

Hinkley, if it ever comes onstream, will charge consumers £92.50 per MWhr index linked from 2013 when the deal was agreed. While the costs of renewables such as offshore wind have fallen dramatically over the last decade, the costs of nuclear power from Hinkley have continued to rise. After almost a decade of inflation, that price has already risen to around £110. Who knows what it will be in 2027?…………..

March 31, 2022 Posted by | ENERGY, politics, UK | Leave a comment

How would a nuclear winter impact food production?

How would a nuclear winter impact food production?  Phys Org by Jeff Mulhollem, Pennsylvania State Univers  30 Mar 22, ” ………………………………………………………………. The research acknowledges what has been widely agreed upon for decades: In higher latitude countries—such as nuclear powers the U.S. and Russia—there would be no agricultural production and little food gathering possible in a nuclear winter after an all-out conflagration. If warring countries unleashed large portions of their nuclear arsenals, the resulting global, sun-blocking cloud would turn the ground to permafrost.

 ” ………………………………………………………………. The research acknowledges what has been widely agreed upon for decades: In higher latitude countries—such as nuclear powers the U.S. and Russia—there would be no agricultural production and little food gathering possible in a nuclear winter after an all-out conflagration. If warring countries unleashed large portions of their nuclear arsenals, the resulting global, sun-blocking cloud would turn the ground to permafrost.

A nuclear war would cause global blockage of the sun for several years due to injections of black carbon soot into the upper atmosphere, covering most of the planet with black clouds, the researchers said. Computer models predict that a large nuclear war, primarily between Russia and the U.S., could inject upwards of 165 million tons of soot into the upper atmosphere from more than 4,000 nuclear bomb explosions and ensuing wildfires.

Such a nuclear war could result in less than 40% of normal light levels near the equator and less than 5% normal light levels near the poles, with freezing temperatures in most temperate regions and severe precipitation reductions—just half of the worldwide average—according to the study. Post-catastrophe conditions, which could last 15 years in some wet tropical forests such as those in the Congo and Amazon basins, could cause a 90% reduction in precipitation for several years after such an event.

But tropical forests would offer an opportunity for limited food production and gathering by local inhabitants because, despite the dense soot clouds, the region would be warmer. In the study, researchers classified wild, edible plants into seven main categories, augmented by forest insects: fruits, leafy vegetables, seeds/nuts, roots, spices, sweets and protein.

In a nuclear winter, the study shows, the following foods would be available in varying degrees in tropical forests: konjac, cassava, wild oyster mushroom, safou, wild spinaches, vegetable amaranths, palms, mopane worm, dilo, tamarind, baobab, enset, acacias, yam and palm weevil.

The researchers chose 33 wild, edible plants from a list of 247 and considered their potential for cultivation in tropical forests in post-nuclear war conditions. Their selections were complicated by the fact that in the tropics there are relatively few food-bearing plants that are both drought tolerant and shade or low-light tolerant.

Post-catastrophe conditions would be unlivable for humans in many areas around the world, and agriculture may not be possible, the researchers concluded. This study shows how just a few of the many tropical wild, edible plants and insects could be used for short-term emergency food cultivation and foraging after an atmospheric soot injection from a catastrophic event such as a nuclear war………………

March 31, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, environment, weapons and war | Leave a comment

EDF announces another delay and cost overruns to Hinkley Point C nuclear project

 French energy giant EDF has revealed it will have to announce new delays
and cost overruns for its Hinkley Point C nuclear plant project in the UK.
The latest setback follows conflict in Ukraine, supply chain disruption and
inflationary pressures.

EDF last updated its construction schedule in
January 2021, when it said the UK’s first new nuclear plant to be built
in decades would be delayed by six months to June 2026. It revealed costs
would rise by an additional £500m to £23bn.

Originally, the plant was
expected to open in 2025 and had a construction budget of £18bn. However,
like similar nuclear new-build projects in Flamanville, France and
Olkiluoto, Finland, it has been subject to repeated delays and spiralling
costs. In a note to its 2021 annual report, EDF arued risks to schedule and
cost at completion targets had increased. The energy firm cited the ongoing
impact of the pandemic, Brexit, lower-than-expected civil performance and
tensions in global building materials markets. 

22 Mar 22,

 City AM 28th March 2022

March 31, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Boris Johnson beholden to the nuclear industry. That’s going to cost UK bigtime – Chancellor Sunak not happy.

Boris Johnson’s flagship energy strategy has been held up over a row
with Rishi Sunak about funding a new generation of up to eight nuclear
power stations costing the public more than £13bn.

The strategy, which has
been delayed for a month, was due to be published this week but has now
been pencilled for 5 April after disagreement about the multibillion-pound
cost of new nuclear plants and amid ongoing tensions between the prime
minister and his chancellor, as well as the wider cabinet.

Johnson has told the nuclear industry that he wants 25% of electricity generation to come
from nuclear power by 2050, up from 16% now. Whitehall sources told the
Guardian this shift could require the building of about eight new nuclear
power stations. Draft targets suggest ministers are looking at 30GW of
nuclear power capacity, meaning a huge building programme would be needed,
as capacity is due to fall to 3.6GW as plants are decommissioned.

Of the eight UK plants currently in operation, all but one are due to be switched
off by 2030. Each new plant would require the government to take a minority
stake in the project to reduce the risk to developers, and substantial cash
outlay to encourage investment.

Despite Johnson’s keenness for new
nuclear power, Sunak is concerned about the cost to the taxpayer, or extra
costs added to soaring energy bills. The Treasury has already promised
£1.7bn of direct cash for a single large-scale nuclear project – the
£20bn Sizewell C – as well as £120m for a new Future Nuclear Enabling
Fund, which aims to address barriers to entering the sector.

Building eight plants could cost more than £13bn in initial investment costs from the
government if the same amount of investment were to be put in, according to
a Whitehall source. However, the government is also pushing for the nuclear
industry to reduce its build costs.

 Guardian 28th March 2022

March 31, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Climate crisis worsened by population and economic growth

Climate crisis worsened by population and economic growth

David Shearman

Existing climate change issues are being exacerbated by increasing population and dwindling resources.

March 31, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Frenzy for selling bunkers, but they might not be much use, really.

‘Our top search term is nuclear’: US bunker sales soar as anxiety over Russia rises, 
Guardian, Bradley Garrett, 31 Mar 2022

Gary Lynch is the CEO of Rising S Company in Texas. When I first visited his warehouse in 2018, I watched his crew assemble, deliver, and bury a handful of bunkers in people’s backyards every month. The bunkers are thick plate steel boxes that are welded together like a giant Lego set – the size of the bunker limited only by a client’s resources.

Sales, he says, have spiked 1,000% since that time as anxieties around the pandemic, civil unrest, climate change and war have driven more buyers to his company………………………………………..

Business has never been so good. My inbox has been flooded in recent weeks by emails from preppers sensing an opportunity. One from the California-based Vivos Group, cautioned “…with all hell now breaking loose in Ukraine, and the beginning of what may be WW3, you are probably wishing you had secured a Vivos bunker”…………………………………………………………

 bunkers fail to keep out many other threats.

Larry Hall, the developer who built Survival Condo, the most expensive and lavish private bunker in the world, almost died last year after contracting the Delta variant. A bunker doesn’t act as an effective bulwark against disease, and he never ended up pulling residents in and shutting the blast doors in any case, given the incremental and unpredictable spread of the virus.

It’s also the case that many of those who sell bunkers meant to assuage our anxiety are shysters. A few of the bunkers I have tried to visit never existed. The Oppidum in the Czech Republic and Vivos Europa One in Germany, for instance, turned out to be little more than a CGI pipe dreams. (The latter, offering $2m apartments in “shell condition” is described on the company’s website as “operational” but “ready for improvements”.) Some of these places had collected deposits from clients and never finished building. In one case, at Trident Lakes in Texas, the founder, John Eckerd, was arrested by federal agents after accepting a $200,000 wire transfer for the build-out that he thought was coming from a Colombian drug cartel. Eckherd was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison.

That’s why many of the preppers I’ve met are moving away from purchasing bunkers and towards a simpler model for resilience that mitigates almost all threats: they’ve sought rural properties where long-term stability could be achieved in off-grid communities, ranches and rural redoubts, where they learned to grow food away from (mostly urban) areas that are both geopolitical targets and sites for social friction……………………………..

March 31, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, safety | Leave a comment

March 30 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion:  ¶ “Great Video Explains Solar-Powered EVs” • A recent video at YouTube not only explains the math behind solar-powered EVs, but also gave plenty of nuance on the subject. More importantly, it’s made to be accessible for people who don’t follow EVs the way that many of our readers do. The video assesses how […]

March 30 Energy News — geoharvey

March 31, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment