nuclear-news

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

“The coming US-Saudi nuclear deal: Keep it honest,” The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

 Sharon Squassoni Henry Sokolski January 5, 2024,  https://thebulletin.org/2024/01/the-coming-us-saudi-nuclear-deal-keep-it-honest/

With the daily parade of Gaza calamities, American, Saudi, and Israeli officials have quietly shelved normalizing Israeli-Saudi relations. But a Saudi-bankrolled “peace” deal and a generous US civilian nuclear agreement to get Riyadh to recognize Israel is really just a matter of time. For those within the Beltway, the deal is too audacious to let die.

The real problem is the nuclear bit, which raises the curtain on a Saudi bomb and a future nuclear food fight in the Middle East. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman wants Washington to green-light Saudi efforts to enrich uranium, which could bring the Kingdom within weeks of acquiring a bomb—just as enrichment capabilities already did for Iran. The Saudi crown prince, known as MBS, has been brutally frank: He will not hesitate to dump the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) if he thinks Iran is building bombs. Of course, whatever Washington allows MBS to do with his nuclear program will prompt other Middle Eastern states Washington has nuclear cooperation agreements with—the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Egypt—to demand the same, creating not one, but potentially many nuclear weapons-ready states.

Ever eager to close a deal with Riyadh, nuclear enthusiasts will be quick to note that any cooperation would be safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nuclear enthusiasts further suggest that Saudi uranium enrichment could be conducted under the watchful eyes not just of the IAEA but of Americans, and that key portions of the plant might be “black boxed” to keep the Saudis from diverting any sensitive technology. Others have suggested introducing remote shutdown mechanisms for the plant.

Cast in the context of a “breakthrough” Middle East peace package, Congress and the press will celebrate. Pro-Trump, pro-nuclear Republicans and pro-Israeli, net-zero carbon emissions Democrats will join in a bipartisan moment. The deal will be sealed.

What could go wrong? If Iran is MBS’s nuclear role model, plenty. The Islamic Republic exploited its “peaceful,” IAEA-safeguarded power reactor at Bushehr as a procurement front for illicitly acquiring bomb-making goods. By the time US and other Western intelligence agencies tracked this trade, it was too late to block. The Saudis understand this. The bottom line is clear: Even if Washington restricts its civilian nuclear cooperation with Riyadh to building IAEA-safeguarded light-water power reactors, the deal could literally bomb.

Wouldn’t our intelligence on ally Saudi Arabia be better than it has been on Iran? Perhaps, but so far, it’s been pretty awful. In 1988, the Central Intelligence Agency did discover that Riyadh bought SS-2 medium-range missiles from China but only after the deal was sealed. In 2003, when China exported DF-21 ballistic missiles to the Kingdom, the CIA again found out and was even allowed to verify the missiles were not nuclear-capable, but only after the missiles were delivered.

Several years later, when intelligence finally leaked out that China secretly built missile factories for the Saudis, the Trump administration was mum on whether there was an intelligence failure and allowed speculation that it had blessed the transaction. Then, in 2020, when US intelligence confirmed China was helping the Kingdom mill uranium domestically, it did so, again only after the mining and milling were well underway.

This track record of studied inadvertence, then, brings us to the next worry: MBS wants Washington to green-light the Kingdom enriching uranium, even though this IAEA-“safeguarded” activity is precisely what has brought Tehran to the brink of having several nuclear bombs. Will monitoring this process be enough? By the time anything suspicious gets detected, it’s too late to block the last few steps needed to make bombs. The tough part of the process—acquiring enough fissile material for a bomb—will be over. Weaponization is both faster and easier to conceal. Black-boxing key portions of this activity and employing American enrichment operators and observers would not change this calculation. On Saudi soil, foreign operators can be forced to leave. This is precisely what the Kingdom did in the 1970s when it expelled foreign oil companies.

What can be done? First, a normalization deal may be greased with US security inducements, but any nuclear carrots should be hived off from the package and treated like any other trade agreement: with a required Congressional majority approval. Currently, the Atomic Energy Act only requires the White House to announce nuclear agreements and wait 90 legislative days for them to come into force. This is a formula for congressional inattention. Instead, Congress should amend the Atomic Energy Act to require both houses to approve nuclear deals with countries that want to enrich uranium or separate out plutonium from spent fuel or that publicly announce their willingness to violate the NPT. This would cover Saudi Arabia but also other worrisome future cases.

Second, Congress should require the intelligence community to certify that it can reliably detect a potential nuclear military diversion early enough for authorities outside the Kingdom to intervene and prevent the construction of a bomb. In the nuclear field, this is called “timely warning.” The intelligence community should explain publicly how such warning can be achieved and what actions would prevent Saudi Arabia from acquiring a bomb.

These efforts may seem to be a lot, but doing anything less risks dropping the ball on blocking the bomb’s further spread.

January 8, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Funding the imperium: Australia subsidises U.S. nuclear submarines

The gem in this whole venture, at least from the perspective of the U.S. military-industrial complex, is the roping in of the Australian taxpayer as the funder of its own nuclear weapons program.

By Binoy Kampmark | 6 January 2024.  https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/funding-the-imperium-australia-subsidises-us-nuclear-submarines,18217

AUKUS, the trilateral pact between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, was a steal for all except one of the partners.

Australia, given the illusion of protection even as its aggressive stance (acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, becoming a forward base for the U.S. military) aggravated other countries; the feeling of superiority, even as it was surrendering itself to a foreign power as never before, was the loser in the bargain.

Last month, Australians woke up to the sad reminder that their government’s capitulation to Washington has been so total as to render any further talk about independence an embarrassment. Defence Minister Richard Marles, along with his deputy, Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy, preferred a different story.

Canberra had gotten what it wanted: approval by the U.S. Congress through its 2024 National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA) authorising the transfer of three Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines to the Royal Australian Navy, with one off the production line, and two in-service boats. Australia may also seek congressional approval for two further Virginia class boats.

The measures also authorised Australian contractors to train in U.S. shipyards to aid the development of Australia’s own non-existent nuclear-submarine base, and exemptions from U.S. export control licensing requirements permitting the ‘transfer of controlled goods and technology between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States without the need for an export license’.

For the simpleminded Marles, Congress had “provided unprecedented support to Australia in passing the National Defense Authorisation Act which will see the transfer of submarines and streamlined export control provisions, symbolising the strength of our Alliance, and our shared commitment to the AUKUS partnership”.

Either through ignorance or wilful blindness, the Australian Defence Minister chose to avoid elaborating on the less impressive aspects of the authorising statute. The exemption under the U.S. export licensing requirements, for instance, vests Washington with control and authority over Australian goods and technology while controlling the sharing of any U.S. equivalent with Australia. The exemption is nothing less than appropriation, even as it preserves the role of Washington as the drip feeder of nuclear technology.

An individual with more than a passing acquaintance with this is Bill Greenwalt, one of the drafters of the U.S. export control regime.

As he told the ABC last November:

“After years of U.S. State Department prodding, it appears that Australia signed up to the principles and specifics of the failed U.S. export control system.” 

In cooperating with the U.S. on this point, Australia would “surrender any sovereign capability it develops to the United States control and bureaucracy”.

The gem in this whole venture, at least from the perspective of the U.S. military-industrial complex, is the roping in of the Australian taxpayer as the funder of its own nuclear weapons program. Whatever its non-proliferation credentials, Canberra finds itself a funder of the U.S. naval arm in an exercise of modernised nuclear proliferation.

Even the Marles-Conroy media release admits that the NDAA helped ‘establish a mechanism for the U.S. to accept funds from Australia to lift the capacity of the submarine industrial base’. Airily, the release goes on to mention that this “investment” (would “gift” not be a better word?) to the U.S. Navy would also ‘complement Australia’s significant investment in our domestic submarine industrial base’.

A few days after the farcical spectacle of surrender by Australian officials, the Congressional Research Service provided another one of its invaluable reports that shed further light on Australia’s contribution to the U.S. nuclear submarine program. Australian media outlets, as is their form on covering AUKUS, remained silent about it. One forum, Michael West Media, showed that its contributors – Rex Patrick and Philip Dorling – were wide awake.  

The report is specific to the Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program, one that involves designing and building 12 new SSBNs to replace the current, aging fleet of 14 Ohio class SSBNs. The cost of the program, in terms of 2024 budget submission estimates for the 2024 financial year, is US$112.7 billion (AU$168.2 billion).

As is customary in these reports, the risks are neatly summarised. They include the usual delays in designing and building the lead boat, thereby threatening readiness for timely deployment; burgeoning costs; the risks posed by funding the Columbia class program to other Navy programs; and ‘potential industrial-base challenges of building both Columbia-class boats and Virginia-class attack submarines (SSNs) at the same time’.

Australian funding becomes important in the last concern. Because of AUKUS, the U.S. Navy “has testified” that it would require, not only an increase in the production rate of the Virginia class to 2.33 boats per year, but ‘a combined Columbia-plus-Virginia procurement rate’ of 1+2.33. Australian mandarins and lawmakers, accomplished in their ignorance, have mentioned little about this addition.

But U.S. lawmakers and military planners are more than aware that this increased procurement rate:

‘…will require investing several billion dollars for capital plant expansion and improvements and workforce development at both the two submarine-construction shipyards (GD/EB [General Dynamics’ Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut] and HII/NSS [Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding]) and submarine supplier firms.’

The report acknowledges that funding towards the 1+2.33 goal is being drawn from several allocations over a few financial years, but expressly mentions Australian funding ‘under the AUKUS proposed Pillar 1 pathway’, which entails the transfer component of nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra.

The report helpfully reproduces the 25 October 2023 testimony from the Navy before the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House of Armed Services Committee. Officials are positively salivating at the prospect of nourishing the domestic industrial base through, for instance, ‘joining with an Australian company to mature and scale metallic additive manufacturing across the SIB [Submarine Industrial Base]’.

The testimony goes on to note that:

‘Australia’s investment into the U.S. SIB builds upon ongoing efforts to improve industrial base capability and capacity, create jobs, and utilise new technologies. This contribution is necessary to augment VACL [Virginia class] production from 2.0 to 2.33 submarines per year to support both U.S. Navy and AUKUS requirements.’

The implications from the perspective of the Australian taxpayer are significant.

‘Australian AUKUS funding will support construction of a key delivery component of the U.S. nuclear strike force, keeping that program on track while overall submarine production accelerates.’

The funding also aids the advancement of another country’s nuclear weapons capabilities, a breach, one would have thought, of Australia’s obligations under the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Defence spokesman for the Australian Greens, Senator David Shoebridge, makes that very point to Patrick and Dorling:

“Australia has clear international legal obligations to not support the nuclear weapons industry, yet this is precisely what these billions of dollars of AUKUS funding will do.”

The Senator also asks:

“When will the Albanese Government start telling the whole truth about AUKUS and how Australians will be paying to help build the next class of U.S. ballistic missile submarines?” 

For an appropriate answer, Shoebridge would do well to consult the masterful, deathless British series Yes Minister, authored by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn.

In one episode, the relevant minister, Jim Hacker, offers this response to a query by the ever-suspicious civil service overlord Sir Humphrey Appleby on when he might receive a draft proposal:

“At the appropriate juncture. In the fullness of time. When the moment is ripe. When the necessary procedures have been completed. Nothing precipitate, of course.” 

In one word: never.

January 8, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, weapons and war | 1 Comment

US Foreign Policy Is a Scam Built on Corruption

Despite these remarkable and costly debacles, one following the other, the same cast of characters has remained at the helm of US foreign policy for decades, including Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken, (both seen at left ), Jake Sullivan, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and Hillary Clinton. 

The more wars, of course, the more business.

by Jeffrey D. Sachs / Common Dreams, January 7, 2024  https://scheerpost.com/2024/01/07/us-foreign-policy-is-a-scam-built-on-corruption/

The $1.5 trillion in military outlays each year is the scam that keeps on giving—to the military-industrial complex and the Washington insiders—even as it impoverishes and endangers America and the world.

On the surface, US foreign policy seems to be utterly irrational. The US gets into one disastrous war after another — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Gaza. In recent days, the US stands globally isolated in its support of Israel’s genocidal actions against the Palestinians, voting against a UN General Assembly resolution for a Gaza ceasefire backed by 153 countries with 89% of the world population, and opposed by just the US and 9 small countries with less than 1% of the world population. 

In the past 20 years, every major US foreign policy objective has failed. The Taliban returned to power after 20 years of US occupation of Afghanistan. Post-Saddam Iraq became dependent on Iran. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad stayed in power despite a CIA effort to overthrow him. Libya fell into a protracted civil war after a US-led NATO mission overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. Ukraine was bludgeoned on the battlefield by Russia in 2023 after the US secretly scuttled a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine in 2022. 

To understand the foreign-policy scam, think of today’s federal government as a multi-division racket controlled by the highest bidders.

Despite these remarkable and costly debacles, one following the other, the same cast of characters has remained at the helm of US foreign policy for decades, including Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and Hillary Clinton. 

What gives?

The puzzle is solved by recognizing that American foreign policy is not at all about the interests of the American people. It is about the interests of the Washington insiders, as they chase campaign contributions and lucrative jobs for themselves, staff, and family members. In short, US foreign policy has been hacked by big money. 

As a result, the American people are losing big. The failed wars since 2000 have cost them around $5 trillion in direct outlays, or around $40,000 per household. Another $2 trillion or so will be spent in the coming decades on veterans’ care. Beyond the costs directly incurred by Americans, we should also recognize the horrendously high costs suffered abroad, in millions of lives lost and trillions of dollars of destruction to property and nature in the war zones. 

The costs continue to mount. US Military-linked outlays in 2024 will come to around $1.5 trillion, or roughly $12,000 per household, if we add the direct Pentagon spending, the budgets of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, the budget of the Veteran’s Administration, the Department of Energy nuclear weapons program, the State Department’s military-linked “foreign aid” (such as to Israel), and other security-related budget lines. Hundreds of billions of dollars are money down the drain, squandered in useless wars, overseas military bases, and a wholly unnecessary arms build-up that brings the world closer to WWIII. 

Yet to describe these gargantuan costs is also to explain the twisted “rationality” of US foreign policy. The $1.5 trillion in military outlays is the scam that keeps on giving—to the military-industrial complex and the Washington insiders—even as it impoverishes and endangers America and the world. 

To understand the foreign-policy scam, think of today’s federal government as a multi-division racket controlled by the highest bidders. The Wall Street division is run out of the Treasury. The Health Industry division is run out of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Big Oil and Coal division is run out of the Departments of Energy and Interior. And the Foreign Policy division is run out of the White House, Pentagon and CIA. 

Each division uses public power for private gain through insider dealing, greased by corporate campaign contributions and lobbying outlays. Interestingly, the Health Industry division rivals the Foreign Policy division as a remarkable financial scam. America’s health outlays totaled an astounding $4.5 trillion in 2022, or roughly $36,000 per household, by far the highest health costs in the world, while America ranked roughly 40th in the world among nations in life expectancy. A failed health policy translates into very big bucks for the health industry, just as a failed foreign policy translates into mega-revenues of the military-industrial complex. 

The more wars, of course, the more business.

The Foreign Policy division is run by a small, secretive and tight-knit coterie, including the top brass of the White House, the CIA, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate, and the major military firms including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. There are perhaps a thousand key individuals involved in setting policy. The public interest plays little role. 

The key foreign policy makers run the operations of 800 US overseas military bases, hundreds of billions of dollars of military contracts, and the war operations where the equipment is deployed. The more wars, of course, the more business. The privatization of foreign policy has been greatly amplified by the privatization of the war business itself, as more and more “core” military functions are handed out to the arms manufacturers and to contractors such as Haliburton, Booz Allen Hamilton, and CACI. 

In addition to the hundreds of billions of dollars of military contracts, there are important business spillovers from the military and CIA operations. With military bases in 80 countries around the world, and CIA operations in many more, the US plays a large, though mostly covert role, in determining who rules in those countries, and thereby on policies that shape lucrative deals involving minerals, hydrocarbons, pipelines, and farm and forest land. The US has aimed to overthrow at least 80 governments since 1947, typically led by the CIA through the instigation of coups, assassinations, insurrections, civil unrest, election tampering, economic sanctions, and overt wars. (For a superb study of US regime-change operations from 1947 to 1989, see Lindsey O’Rourke’s Covert Regime Change, 2018). 

In addition to business interests, there are of course ideologues who truly believe in America’s right to rule the world. The ever-warmongering Kagan family is the most famous case, though their financial interests are also deeply intertwined with the war industry. The point about ideology is this. The ideologists have been wrong on nearly every occasion and long ago would have lost their bully pulpits in Washington but for their usefulness as warmongers. Wittingly or not, they serve as paid performers for the military-industrial complex. 

There is one persistent inconvenience for this ongoing business scam. In theory, foreign policy is carried out in the interest of the American people, though the opposite is the truth. (A similar contradiction of course applies to overpriced healthcare, government bailouts of Wall Street, oil-industry perks, and other scams). The American people rarely support the machinations of US foreign policy when they occasionally hear the truth. America’s wars are not waged by popular demand but by decisions from on high. Special measures are needed to keep the people away from decision making. 

In theory, foreign policy is carried out in the interest of the American people, though the opposite is the truth.

The first such measure is unrelenting propaganda. George Orwell nailed it in 1984 when “the Party” suddenly switched the foreign enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia without a word of explanation. The US essentially does the same. Who is the US gravest enemy? Take your pick, according to the season. Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Hugo Chavez, Bashar al-Assad, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Gaddafi, Vladimir Putin, Hamas, have all played the role of “Hitler” in US propaganda. White House spokesman John Kirby delivers the propaganda with a smirk on his face, signaling that he too knows that what he is saying is ludicrous, albeit mildly entertaining. 

The propaganda is amplified by the Washington think tanks that live off of donations by military contractors and occasionally foreign governments that are part of the US scam operations. Think of the Atlantic Council, CSIS, and of course the ever-popular Institute for the Study of War, brought to you by the major military contractors. 

The second is to hide the costs of the foreign policy operations. In the 1960s, the US Government made the mistake of forcing the American people to bear the costs of the military-industrial complex by drafting young people to fight in Vietnam and by raising taxes to pay for the war. The public erupted in opposition. 

From the 1970s onward the government has been far more clever. The government ended the draft, and made military service a job for hire rather than a public service, backed by Pentagon outlays to recruit soldiers from lower economic strata. It also abandoned the quaint idea that government outlays should be funded by taxes, and instead shifted the military budget to deficit spending which protects it from popular opposition that would be triggered if it were tax-funded

It has also suckered client states such as Ukraine to fight America’s wars on the ground, so that no American body bags would spoil the US propaganda machine. Needless to say, US masters of war such as Sullivan, Blinken, Nuland, Schumer, and McConnell remain thousands of miles away from the frontlines. The dying is reserved for Ukrainians. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) defended American military aid to Ukraine as money well spent because it is “without a single American service woman or man injured or lost,” somehow not dawning on the good Senator to spare the lives of Ukrainians, who have died by the hundreds of thousands in a US-provoked war over NATO enlargement. 

This system is underpinned by the complete subordination of the U.S. Congress to the war business, to avoid any questioning of the over-the-top Pentagon budgets and the wars instigated by the Executive Branch. The subordination of Congress works as follows. First, the Congressional oversight of war and peace is largely assigned to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, which largely frame the overall Congressional policy (and the Pentagon budget). Second, the military industry (Boeing, Raytheon, and the rest) funds the campaigns of the Armed Services Committee members of both parties. The military industries also spend vast sums on lobbying in order to provide lucrative salaries to retiring members of Congress, their staffs, and families, either directly in military businesses or in Washington lobbying firms. 

It is the urgent task of the American people to overhaul a foreign policy that is so broken, corrupted, and deceitful that it is burying the government in debt while pushing the world closer to nuclear Armageddon.

The hacking of Congressional foreign policy is not only by the US military-industrial complex. The Israel lobby long ago mastered the art of buying the Congress. America’s complicity in Israel’s apartheid state and war crimes in Gaza makes no sense for US national security and diplomacy, not to speak of human decency. They are the fruits of Israel lobby investments that reached $30 million in campaign contributions in 2022, and that will vastly top that in 2024. 

When Congress reassembles in January, Biden, Kirby, Sullivan, Blinken, Nuland, Schumer, McConnell, Blumenthal and their ilk will tell us that we absolutely must fund the losing, cruel, and deceitful war in Ukraine and the ongoing massacre and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, lest we and Europe and the free world, and perhaps the solar system itself, succumb to the Russian bear, the Iranian mullahs, and the Chinese Communist Party. The purveyors of foreign policy disasters are not being irrational in this fear-mongering. They are being deceitful and extraordinarily greedy, pursuing narrow interests over those of the American people.

It is the urgent task of the American people to overhaul a foreign policy that is so broken, corrupted, and deceitful that it is burying the government in debt while pushing the world closer to nuclear Armageddon. This overhaul should start in 2024 by rejecting any more funding for the disastrous Ukraine War and Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. Peacemaking, and diplomacy, not military spending, is the path to a US foreign policy in the public interest.

January 8, 2024 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

What a farce! Another veteran of the oil and gas industry to lead the next round of COP 29 climate talks

 Cartoon courtesy of Simon Kneebone

Cop29, the next round of UN talks to tackle the climate crisis, will be
led by another veteran of the oil and gas industry.

Mukhtar Babayev, Azerbaijan’s ecology and natural resources minister, has been appointed
the president-in-waiting for the Cop29 climate talks when they take place
in the country in November. Before his entry into politics in the
autocratic country in western Asia, once a Soviet republic, Babayev spent
26 years working for the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic
(Socar).

Close observers of the Cop process will see parallels with the
appointment of Sultan Al Jaber, who moonlighted from his role as the chief
executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company to preside over the summit
when it took place in Dubai last year.

 Guardian 5th Jan 2024

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/05/cop29-will-be-led-by-mukhtar-babayev-azerbaijan-ecology-minister-who-is-oil-industry-veteran

 BBC 5th Jan 2024

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67895068

January 8, 2024 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

CNN And Washington Post Busted For Pro-Israel Propaganda Shenanigans

it turns out there’s only so much propaganda spin you can put on the murder of thousands of children. 

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, JAN 6, 2024,  https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/cnn-and-washington-post-busted-for?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=140416461&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email

Both CNN and The Washington Post have been caught engaging in some pretty shady journalistic malpractice with their Israel reporting in recent days. 

In a new article titled “CNN Runs Gaza Coverage Past Jerusalem Team Operating Under Shadow of IDF Censor,” The Intercept reports that all of CNN’s reporting on Israel and Palestine is funneled through a bureau in Jerusalem which slants reporting to benefit Israeli information interests and is subject to regulation by Israeli military censors. The Intercept also reports that last year CNN “hired a former soldier from the IDF’s Military Spokesperson Unit to serve as a reporter” at the onset of the war on Gaza.

Unnamed CNN staff told The Intercept that CNN’s iron-fisted protocols for regulating information related to the Israel-Palestine issue have had a “demonstrable impact on coverage of the Gaza war”.

“‘War-crime’ and ‘genocide’ are taboo words,” the anonymous CNN staff member said. “Israeli bombings in Gaza will be reported as ‘blasts’ attributed to nobody, until the Israeli military weighs in to either accept or deny responsibility. Quotes and information provided by Israeli army and government officials tend to be approved quickly, while those from Palestinians tend to be heavily scrutinized and slowly processed.”

The Intercept reports that the former IDF spinmeister has been bylined in dozens of CNN stories since the attack on Gaza began, with one report being “little more than a direct statement released from the IDF.”

Kind of makes you wonder why CNN doesn’t just cut out the middleman and run all its reporting directly through IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv. Seems like it would be a bit more efficient, and certainly a lot more honest.

Meanwhile The Washington Post has been caught assigning a reporter with a history of anti-Palestinian bias to write a smear piece on independent media outlets Electronic Intifada and The Grayzone for their critical reporting on Israel’s ongoing massacre in Gaza.

Both Electronic Intifada and The Grayzone received emails from a Washington Post reporter named Elizabeth Dwoskin, who said she’s writing a piece on “efforts to minimize or misdirect information about the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel” and interrogating them about their articles casting doubt on the official narrative about what exactly happened that day.

As Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah highlighted on Twitter, when Dwoskin was at Columbia University twenty years ago she was authoring Nakba denialist claims that Palestine never existed and that prior to Israel’s formation the land was inhabited only by “desert Bedouins without a sense of national identity as we know it today.”

It’s bad enough for The Washington Post to be attacking independent media for asking the critical questions and doing the real journalism the Post itself should also be doing, but to assign someone with a public history of egregiously anti-Palestinian rhetoric to the task is especially lacking in journalistic integrity.

“If I’m following, a reporter that has denied the fact that Palestinians existed before the state of Israel is allowed to cover Israel/Palestine and write about ‘misinformation’ for Washington Post?” tweeted award-winning journalist Laila Al-Arian of Abunimah’s revelation.

Neither of these instances will come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying critical attention to the amazingly awful reporting the western mass media have been churning out about the Gaza assault these last three months, but they do offer some rare insight behind the curtain into how the sausage gets made.

The biggest misconception about propaganda is that it is something that happens to other people, and is done by other countries. Westerners like to think of themselves as free-thinking people whose worldviews are formed by facts and truth, contrasting themselves with nations like North Korea and China where populations are viewed as being subjected to conformity-enforcing propaganda. They believe that if propaganda does occur in the west, it comes here from nations like Russia trying to corrupt our minds and weaken our trust in our institutions, or if the propaganda is domestic in origin it only affects people in other political parties.

In reality the typical western mind has been marinating in domestic propaganda throughout its entire life, and its worldview has been manufactured for it by powerful manipulators who benefit from its intellectual compliance with their interests. The indoctrination into the mainstream western worldview began in school, and it continues throughout adulthood with the help of mainstream media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post.

If we’re ever to have a healthy civilization, we’re going to have to wake up from the propaganda-induced coma we’ve been placed in so we can begin pushing against the cage walls we’ve been indoctrinated our whole lives into ignoring and start using the power of our numbers to force real change in the systems which govern our world. Luckily the atrocities that have been taking place in Gaza have been rapidly waking people up, because it turns out there’s only so much propaganda spin you can put on the murder of thousands of children. 

The more people become aware that our civilization is built on deception and everything we’ve been told about the world is a lie, the closer we get to living in a truth-based society where nothing like the Gaza massacre would ever be permitted to occur.

January 8, 2024 Posted by | media, spinbuster | Leave a comment

More nuclear corruption?

Georgia joins list of states acting against best interest of ratepayers

From: Georgia Wand, Nuclear Watch South, 7 Jan 24,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/01/07/more-nuclear-corruption/

The Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) and Georgia Power are facing renewed accusations of collusion and possible corruption following the recent rate increase approved by the PSC for the Vogtle units 3 and 4 nuclear expansion project. Similar to recent high-profile nuclear corruption scandals in Ohio, Illinois and South Carolina, Georgia’s utility commissioners acted against the best interests of Georgia ratepayers, rubber-stamping cost recovery for mistakes made by Georgia Power. 

Georgia Power, despite numerous warnings and opportunities to avert rate increases, secured rate base increases of $7.56 billion in cost overruns for Vogtle 3 and 4 during the December 19, 2023 hearing before the Georgia PSC. This rate increase, added to previous rate increases for Vogtle, will raise residential and small business electric rates by 26%. The full rate increase adopted by the PSC will go into effect when Vogtle 4 attains commercial operation. The December 19 PSC vote for $7.56 billion only included construction costs. Once Unit 4 enters commercial operation, Georgia Power will expand their rate base an astounding $11.1 billion to include financing costs of $3.5 billion, on which Georgia Power also profits.

Nuclear Watch South and Georgia WAND believe the SEC should investigate Georgia Public Service Commission and Georgia Power as it did for the failed Summer nuclear expansion in South Carolina and the recent bribery scandals in Ohio and Illinois. In October a Southern Company whistleblower brought the SEC to bear on the failed Kemper carbon capture coal plant being built by Southern Company’s Mississippi Power. Southern Company is also the parent of Georgia Power.

Glenn Carroll, Nuclear Watch South’s coordinator, said: “The Commission’s decision to saddle Georgia Power ratepayers with an additional $7.56 billion in costs for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 demonstrates the complete lack of meaningful regulatory oversight to protect consumer interests. From the very beginning, the PSC and Georgia Power have turned a blind eye to the construction problems and delays that have plagued this unneeded project. This level of contempt for hard working Georgians, who pay their electric bills under the assumption that they aren’t getting ripped off, is shameful and deserving of a federal investigation — similar to the investigation in Ohio that found its top utilities regulator accepting bribes from the utilities he was supposed to regulate.”

Earlier in December, former Ohio Public Utilities’ Commission (PUCO) chairman Samuel Randazzo was charged by federal prosecutors for bribery and embezzlement crimes related to the 2020 bailout (HB 6) of nuclear power plants in Ohio. Similar to the Vogtle expansion, the Ohio PUCO rubberstamped cost increases for ratepayers for (in this case existing) FirstEnergy-owned nuclear reactors, against the interests of Ohio ratepayers. Randazzo’s arrest followed the conviction of Ohio’s former statehouse speaker, Larry Householder, who was found guilty in the same corruption scheme laid forth by FirstEnergy. 

Kimberly Scott, executive director of Georgia WAND, said: “This is another unconscionable financial hit to Georgia Power customers who have been consistently burdened with rate increases from a utility that realized $17 billion in profits during the span of Vogtle construction when construction costs were underestimated and behind schedule. Georgia Power executives admitted to mistakes in the planning and execution of the new reactors, but have refused to shoulder the financial burden of these mistakes, and instead have passed the increased costs off on to customers, with the approval of PSC Commissioners. This enormous rate hike is based on a stipulated agreement between PSC staff and Georgia Power which was struck before any public hearings or presentation of any evidence. 

“There is an extensive history of corruption in the nuclear industry, most recently in Ohio where former house speaker Larry Householder was sentenced this year to 20 years in prison for racketeering related to a nuclear plant bailout. Illinois and South Carolina’s nuclear scandals resulted in numerous federal convictions. Nuclear power plants deliver enormous profits to utilities since state authorities almost always force customers to pay huge rate increases for the inevitable cost overruns. That is what happened to us in Georgia – and now it’s time for a full accounting of what happened behind closed doors.” 

Patty Durand, former president of the Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative and a recent candidate for the Georgia PSC, spoke as an expert witness on behalf of the Concerned Ratepayers of Georgia in the recent Plant Vogtle prudency proceeding before the Georgia PSC. She wrote in a letter to the Atlanta Journal Constitution following the Georgia PSC’s approval of the rate increase: “The Georgia Public Service Commission allows Georgia Power to receive rich profits – far higher than industry norms, which violates their mandate of regulating in the public interest. And elected commissioners voted on Tuesday to make it worse by approving the largest rate increase in state history for Plant Vogtle, the most expensive power plant ever built on earth.

“Commissioners have known for years that the costs of construction for nuclear energy was far higher than other forms of generation, yet authorized this project with no cost cap or customer protections. As predicted, Vogtle construction costs went far over budget, yet commissioners do nothing to help vulnerable populations afford utility bills. Even before these huge cost increases take effect, over 240,000 Georgia Power customers were disconnected from power last year, with most of those disconnected belonging to minority households.

“The people of Georgia deserve a state agency that protects them from monopoly overreach instead of celebrating how business friendly they are, but that’s not what we have. Meanwhile, Public Service Commission elections have been on hold for over a year due to litigation related to violations of the Voting Rights Act, and two commissioners in expired seats continue to vote.”

January 8, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs) call upon nuke cops chief to issue statement on ‘toxic’ Sellafield allegations

 Following the disturbing revelations in The Guardian that a ‘toxic’
workplace culture exists within the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Nuclear
Free Local Authorities Chair has written to the force’s Chief Constable
‘offering him the opportunity’ to issue a statement.

The Guardian
published its allegations on 6 December, and this article included a
comment from Chief Constable Chesterman who said that he has ‘made it
clear that anyone holding misogynistic, racist, homophobic, or other
unacceptable views, or who carries out behaviour that breaches our
standards of professional conduct, has no place in the CNC.’

 NFLA 3rd Jan 2024

NFLAs call upon nuke cops chief to issue statement on ‘toxic’ Sellafield allegations

January 8, 2024 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Diablo Canyon nuclear plant must be shut down

Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 7, 2024 Ron Pomerantz and Jane Weed-Pomerantz, Santa Cruz,  https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2024/01/07/letter-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-must-be-shut-down

Recently the Sentinel reported that the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) approved extending operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Diablo) from a 2025 shutdown until 2030.

This is frightening and intolerable news allowing the continued Russian roulette operation of Diablo and confirming the CPUC a “captured agency.”

Many are outraged of the rate increases that PG&E is now allowed, costing ratepayers $8+billion dollars. Conservatively if spent on wind turbines and solar systems, 2-4 times electrical energy of Diablo could be produced! All with 100 percent renewable fuels and without public and environmental risk.

Diablo is old, embrittled, centered onshore near San Luis Obispo with numerous active earthquake faults. No solution exists for the storage of radioactive waste now on site.

Operation also furthers dependence on finite foreign sources of uranium with unstable and dangerous governments.

The reality is the nuclear fuel-cycle demands fossil fuels to process and distribute – hardly a green technology. Please contact the governor and state elected officials to set them straight by shutting-down Diablo and stop endangering lives and property..

January 8, 2024 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

Japan’s Hokuriku Elec reports oil leak from Shika nuclear plant

January 07, 2024 https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/HOKURIKU-ELECTRIC-POWER-C-6492056/news/Japan-s-Hokuriku-Elec-reports-minor-oil-leak-from-Shika-nuclear-plant-45688110/ 

The magnitude 7.6 quake, which has killed more than 120 people in the Hokuriku region, shook the idled Shika power station, which is located around 65 kilometres (40 miles) from the quake’s epicentre.

The utility had already reported temporary power outages, oil leaks at the transformers, and water spill-over from spent nuclear fuel pools following Monday’s jolt, but no radiation leakage.

On Sunday, a small amount of oil film was detected in the gutter and on the road surrounding the main transformer of the No. 2 reactor, it said.

Additionally, an oil slick measuring about 5 meters by 10 meters was observed floating on the sea surface in front of the power station, Hokuriku Electric said, adding it promptly treated the oil film using a neutralizing agent.

The utility believes the oil slick resulted from a transformer insulating oil leak during the Jan. 1 quake, which triggered the fire extinguishing system, dispersing oil and spraying water around the transformer.

Subsequently, the oil appears to have entered the gutter due to rainfall, the company said, adding it was still analysing further details.

The oil slick is not within the radiation-controlled area and there are no external radiation effects, the company said.

Key external power supplies, monitoring facilities, and cooling systems at the plant are functioning normally, it added. (Reporting by Yuka Obayashi Editing by Mark Potter)

January 8, 2024 Posted by | Japan, safety | Leave a comment

Japan earthquake casts cloud over push to restart nuclear plants

January 5, 2024

TOKYO, Jan 4 (Reuters) – The powerful earthquake that hit Japan’s western coast on New Year’s Day has underscored the country’s exposure to natural disasters, casting fresh doubt over a push to bring its nuclear capacity back online.

Nuclear power plants dot the coast of mountainous Japan, which is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis due to its location on the seismically active “Ring of Fire” around the Pacific Ocean.

Monday’s magnitude 7.6 earthquake, which has killed more than 80 people in the Hokuriku region, destroyed infrastructure and left homes without power, struck days after regulators lifted an operational ban on Tokyo Electric’s (9501.T) Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant.

Tepco hopes to gain local permission to restart the plant, which is around 120 kilometres from the quake’s epicentre and has been offline since 2012. The utility was banned in 2021 from operating the plant due to safety breaches including a failure to protect nuclear materials.

“The Japanese public is still generally less positive toward nuclear power now than they were before the Fukushima disaster,” analysts at Rystad Energy wrote in a client note.

“As a result, public sentiment – and potentially government policy – is likely to be sensitive to any new power-plant disruptions caused by the most recent quake or any future ones.”

Japan had planned to phase out nuclear power after the March 2011 tsunami and Fukushima meltdown, but rising energy prices and repeated power crunches have prompted a shift towards restarting idled capacity and developing next-generation reactors.

After the Jan. 1 quake Tepco reported water had spilled from nuclear fuel pools at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant – the world’s largest – but said radiation levels were normal.

“Citizens had felt that Tepco could probably be able to restart reactors by the end of 2024, but this earthquake seems to have reignited a sense of fear,” said Yukihiko Hoshino, a Kashiwazaki city assembly member opposing the plant restart.

Monday’s tsunami warning reminded him of the Fukushima disaster, he said.

Tepco shares fell as much as 8% on Thursday, the first trading day since the earthquake, before closing up 2.2%.

Hokuriku Electric (9505.T), whose idled Shika plant is located around 65 kilometres from the earthquake’s epicentre, slid as much as 8% before paring losses to end down 2.2%.

The company, which reported water spill-over from spent nuclear fuel pools and oil leaks at the plant after the quake, hopes to restart the No.2 reactor there sometime after April 2026, it said in October………………………………… Reporting by Kantaro Komiya, Sudarshan Varadhan, Mariko Katsumura and Sam Nussey; Editing by Hugh Lawson

January 7, 2024 Posted by | Japan, safety | Leave a comment

Rokkasho redux: Japan’s never-ending nuclear reprocessing saga

By Tatsujiro Suzuki | December 26, 2023,  https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/rokkasho-redux-japans-never-ending-reprocessing-saga/

The policy seeks to at least begin to deal with the huge stocks of plutonium Japan has amassed

According to a recent Reuters report, Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd (JNFL) still hopes to finish construction of Japan’s long-delayed Rokkasho reprocessing plant in the first half of the 2024 fiscal year (i.e. during April-September 2024). The plant—which would reprocess spent nuclear fuel from existing power plants, separating plutonium for use as reactor fuel—is already more than 25 years behind schedule, and there are reasons to believe that this new announcement is just another wishful plan that will end with another postponement.

One indication of further possible delays: On September 28, 2023, Naohiro Masuda, president of JNFL, stated that the safety review of the reprocessing plant by Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority will be difficult to complete by the end of 2023. He nevertheless insisted that the company could still meet completion target date in 2024.

Here is a partial history of past key developments that make completion in 2024 seem unlikely:

1993: Construction starts.

1997: Initial target for completion.

2006-2008: Hot tests conducted, revealing technical problems with the vitrification process for dealing with waste produced during reprocessing.

2011: Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant accident.

2012: New safety regulation standards introduced.

2022: Completion target date postponed to June 2024)

The 2022 postponement was the 26th of the Rokkasho project.

Why so many postponements? There seem to be at least five underlying reasons for the postponements for the Rokkasho plant. First, JNFL lacks relevant expertise to manage such a technologically complex and hazardous project, which is owned by nine nuclear utilities plus all other major companies associated with nuclear power in Japan. Most of the firm’s senior executives are from shareholding companies (especially utility companies) and are not necessarily experts in the field of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

Second, the technologies in the plant came from different companies and institutions. The management of the project is therefore technically complex.

Third, the post-Fukushima-accident nuclear facility safety licensing review process is much more stringent than what existed before the accident. For example, the Nuclear Regulation Authority told JNFL at their November 25, 2023 meeting: “JNFL should immediately make improvements because it is clear that JNFL does not understand the contents of the permit well enough to confirm the adequacy of the design of the facilities on site and has not visited the site.”

Fourth, the financial costs to JNFL of postponement are covered by the utilities’ customers, because the utilities must pay a “reprocessing fee” every year, based on the spent fuel generated during that year, whether or not the reprocessing plant operates. The system by which the Nuclear Reprocessing Organization of Japan decides the reprocessing fee is not transparent.

Fifth, the project lacks independent oversight. Even though JNFL’s estimate of the cost of building and operating the Rokkasho plant has increased several-fold, no independent analysis has been done by a third party. One reason is that some of the shareholders are themselves contractors working on the plant and have no incentive to scrutinize the reasons for the cost increases or the indefinite extension of the construction project.

After so many postponements, there is reason to wonder whether the plant will ever operate, but the government and utilities continue to insist that the plant will open soon. Even if Rokkasho were to operate, it may suffer from the same kinds of problems that marked Britain’s light-water reactor spent fuel reprocessing experience, as described in Endless Trouble: Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP).

Why does Japan’s commitment to reprocessing continue? 

Despite the serious and longstanding problems the Rokkasho plant has faced (and continues to face), Japanese regulators and nuclear operators have doggedly pursued the project. There are four reasons:

Spent fuel management. Currently, most of Japan’s spent nuclear fuel is stored in nuclear power plant cooling pools. But the pool capacities are limited, and the 3,000-ton-capacity Rokkasho spent fuel pool is also almost full. The nuclear utilities must therefore start operating the Rokkasho plant unless they can create additional spent fuel storage capacity, either on- or off-site. The Mutsu spent fuel storage facility is a candidate for additional capacity, but due to the concern that spent fuel could stay there forever, Mutsu city refuses to accept spent fuel unless the Rokkasho reprocessing plant begins to operate. The Rokkasho plant design capacity is 800 tons of spent fuel per year.

Legal and institutional commitments. Under Japan’s nuclear regulations, utilities must specify a “final disposal method” for spent fuel. The law on regulation of nuclear materials and nuclear reactors states that “when applying for reactor licensing, operators must specify the final disposal method of spent fuel” (Article 23.2.8). In addition, there was a clause that “disposal method” should be consistent with implementation of the government policy, which specified reprocessing as the disposal method. Although that clause was deleted in the 2012 revision of the law after the Fukushima accident, the Law on Final Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste still bans direct disposal of spent fuel. In addition, the 2016 Law on Reprocessing Fees legally requires utilities to submit reprocessing fees for all spent fuel generated every year since they stated in their applications that “final disposal method” for their spent fuel would be reprocessing.

Commitments to hosting communities. The nuclear utilities committed—albeit tacitly—to the communities hosting nuclear power plants that they would remove the spent fuel to reprocessing plants, since that was the national policy. Separately, JNFL signed an agreement with Rokkasho village and Aomori prefecture that says that if the Rokkasho reprocessing plant faces “severe difficulties,” other measures will be considered—including the return of spent fuel stored at Rokkasho to the nuclear power plants.

Local governments hosting nuclear power plants were not involved in this deal, however. They could therefore just refuse to receive spent fuel from Aomori. 

 In fact, after the Fukushima accident, when the government was considering amending the nuclear fuel cycle policy to include a “direct disposal option” for spent fuel in a deep underground repository, the Rokkasho village parliament (at the behind the scenes suggestion by the then JNFL president, Yoshihiko Kawai), issued a strong statement asking for “maintenance of the current nuclear fuel cycle policy.”

The statement continued that, if Japan’s fuel cycle policy changed, Rokkasho would: refuse to accept further waste from the reprocessing of Japan’s spent fuel in the UK and France; require the removal of reprocessing waste and spent fuel stored in Rokkasho; no longer accept spent fuel; and seek compensation for the damages caused by the change of the policy.

Institutional and bureaucratic inertia. In Japan, bureaucrats rotate to new positions every two or three years and are reluctant to take the risk of changing existing policies. They therefore tend to stick with past commitments. Institutional inertia becomes stronger as a project becomes bigger. The Rokkasho reprocessing project is one of the largest projects ever in Japan. Changing the project is therefore very difficult.

Will Japan’s new plutonium capping policy have any real impact? In 2018, Japan’s Atomic Energy Commission announced a new policy on “Basic Principles on Utilization of Plutonium” (see also this post). Under the new policy, the commission proposed that Japan would reduce its stockpile of separated plutonium, starting with a commitment not to increase it, and that reprocessing would take place only when a credible plan to use the separated plutonium existed.

The policy seeks to at least begin to deal with the huge stocks of plutonium Japan has amassed, both in European separation facilities (some 36.7 tons) and in Japan (10.5 tons), in anticipation of using the plutonium widely to fuel nuclear reactors—which so far has not materialized. In conjunction with the new Reprocessing Fee Law, the new plutonium policy gives the government legal authority to control the pace of reprocessing.

But it is not clear how the “capping policy” will be implemented. It is not a legally binding document, and no regulation has been introduced to control reprocessing. Utilities must submit specific plans for plutonium use to the Atomic Energy Commission for its review before reprocessing of their fuel begins. But the commission can only give advice to the government about the credibility of these plans, giving rise to questions about whether the policy will lead to sustained changes in reprocessing activity. A similar “paper rule” on plutonium has existed since 2003.

A way out. Japan could extricate itself from its reprocessing and plutonium problems in several ways. All involve significant changes in policy that would:

Find additional spent fuel storage capacity, on- or off-site. Local communities may be more willing to accept on-site dry cask storage of spent fuel if they are told that it is safer than spent fuel pool storage. For example, Saga Prefecture and Genkai-town, which host Kyushu Electric’s Genkai Nuclear Power Plant, have agreed to host dry cask storage starting in 2027. Host communities may want guarantees that spent fuel will be removed after a specified storage period. Such a guarantee could be given by the central government.

Amend the law on final disposal of high-level radioactive waste. An amendment could allow direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep underground repository. This would provide more flexibility in spent fuel management and make it easier for communities to host interim spent fuel storage.

Amend the Reprocessing Fee Law and shut down Rokkasho. An amendment to the law on reprocessing fees could allow the government to use reprocessing funds to implement a shutdown of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. Such a plan could include payment of the debt JNFL has incurred while pursuing the Rokkasho project and funds for dry cask interim storage. This would enable the government to finally end the problem-plagued Rokkasho reprocessing plant project.

January 7, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, Japan, Reference, reprocessing | Leave a comment

Mass layoffs at small nuclear reactor companies

Pioneering Nuclear Startup Lays Off Nearly Half Its Workforce. NuScale is the second major U.S. reactor company to cut jobs in recent months.

Huff Post, By Alexander C. Kaufman, Jan 5, 2024,

Almost exactly one year ago, NuScale Power made history as the first of a new generation of nuclear energy startups to win regulatory approval of its reactor design ― just in time for the Biden administration to begin pumping billions of federal dollars into turning around the nation’s atomic energy industry.

But as mounting costs and the cancellation of its landmark first power plant have burned through shrinking cash reserves, the Oregon-based company is laying off as much 40% of its workforce, HuffPost has learned.

At a virtual all-hands meeting Friday afternoon, the company announced the job cuts to remaining employees. HuffPost reviewed the audio of the meeting. Two sources with direct knowledge of NuScale’s plans confirmed the details of the layoffs.

NuScale did not respond to a call, an email or a text message seeking comment.

Surging construction costs are imperiling clean energy across the country. In just the past two months, developers have pulled the plug on major offshore wind farms in New Jersey and New York after state officials refused to let companies rebid for contracts at a higher rate.

But the financial headwinds are taking an especially acute toll on nuclear power. It takes more than a decade to build a reactor, and the only new ones under construction in the U.S. and Europe went billions of dollars over budget in the past two decades. Many in the atomic energy industry are betting that small modular reactors ― shrunken down, lower-power units with a uniform design ― can make it cheaper and easier to build new nuclear plants through assembly-line repetition.

The U.S. government is banking on that strategy to meet its climate goals. The Biden administration spearheaded a pledge to triple atomic energy production worldwide in the next three decades at the United Nations’ climate summit in Dubai last month, enlisting dozens of partner nations in Europe, Asia and Africa.

The two infrastructure-spending laws that President Joe Biden signed in recent years earmark billions in spending to develop new reactors and keep existing plants open. And new bills in Congress to speed up U.S. nuclear deployments and sell more American reactors abroad are virtually all bipartisan, with progressives and right-wing Republicans alike expressing support for atomic energy…………

Until November, NuScale appeared on track to debut the nation’s first atomic energy station powered with small modular reactors. But the project to build a dozen reactors in the Idaho desert, and sell the electricity to ratepayers across the Western U.S. through a Utah state-owned utility, was abandoned as rising interest rates made it harder for NuScale to woo investors willing to bet on something as risky a first-of-its-kind nuclear plant.

In 2022, NuScale went public via a SPAC deal, a type of merger that became a popular way for debt-laden startups to pay back venture capitalists with a swifter-than-usual initial public offering on the stock market.

In its latest quarterly earnings, NuScale reported just under $200 million in cash reserves, nearly 40% of which was tied up in restricted accounts……………………………………..

NuScale, which has four other projects proposed in the U.S. and tentative deals in at least eight other countries, isn’t the only nuclear startup navigating choppy waters.

In October, Maryland-based X-energy, which is working with the federal government to develop a next-generation reactor using gas instead of water for cooling, cut part of its workforce and scrapped plans to go public.

In September, California-based Oklo appeared to lose a $100 million contract to build its its salt-cooled “micro-reactors” at an Air Force base in Alaska, as the independent Northern Journal newsletter first reported. ………. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuscale-layoffs-nuclear-power_n_65985ac5e4b075f4cfd24dba

January 7, 2024 Posted by | employment, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | 1 Comment

Nuclear disasters–in–waiting

RICHARD STONE, Science 4 Jan 24

Having taken a heavy toll on Ukraine’s ecosystems and water resources, the war with Russia threatens to create a another environmental disaster: damage to the region’s extensive nuclear infrastructure—including 15 power reactors and three research reactors.

“There continues to be a highly precarious nuclear safety and security situation across Ukraine,” International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said in a statement after explosions were heard near the Khmelnitsky Nuclear Power Plant and its two Soviet-era reactors on 28 November 2023—the second near-miss in a single month at the site. “All of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities remain vulnerable, either directly if hit by a missile or indirectly if their off-site power supplies are disrupted.”

Russia’s assault on Ukrainian nuclear sites began on the very first day of the full-scale invasion. On 24 February 2022, troops overran the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, infamous for the explosion and fire there in 1986 that sent a plume of radioactive smoke into Western Europe. During 5 weeks of occupation, Russian soldiers ransacked labs and kicked up radioactive soil and dust as they dug trenches and slogged through contaminated forests in the exclusion zone around the defunct plant. To the east that spring, Russian troops frequently shelled the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology, damaging a hall containing a subcritical nuclear reactor.

Shelling has also flared up repeatedly around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station, a complex of six reactors that constitutes Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. Russia captured the plant in March 2022 and the reactors were shut down 6 months later, eliminating the risk of a core meltdown. Still, a prodigious amount of nuclear material remains there: The reactor halls hold 1380 tons of fresh and spent uranium oxide fuel, and two repositories store an additional 2100 tons of spent fuel laced with nasty long-lived radionuclides—the ingredients, many Ukrainians fear, of a “dirty bomb” that would use conventional explosives to spread radioactive isotopes……………………………………….

The presence of IAEA observers at the Zaporizhzhia station since September 2022 has deterred the theft of dirty-bomb ingredients. But a major missile strike on one of its spent fuel repositories could turn the plant itself into a dirty bomb, spreading radioactive contamination in a radius of up to 30 kilometers, says Volodymyr Borysenko, a nuclear engineer with the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine’s Institute for Safety Problems of Nuclear Power Plants (ISPNPP).

Even a smaller strike could contaminate the reactor complex. And the spent fuel is also at risk from repeated electricity blackouts that have struck the plant, the latest in early December 2023. Diesel-fueled generators can supply power for up to 10 days, but a prolonged outage could be dangerous, as power is needed to pump cooling water into the plant’s uranium reactor cores and pools holding spent fuel.

A lesser known radioactive risk is situated about 150 kilometers upstream from the Zaporizhzhia plant on the Dnipro River. During the Cold War, the Prydniprovsky Chemical Plant was one of Europe’s largest uranium ore processing facilities. The complex accumulated some 40 million tons of tailings—leftovers of milling uranium—and other foul residues before it closed in 1992. By early 2022, Ukraine, with help from the European Union, had fenced off highly contaminated areas. But a missile or artillery strike on a tainted building or dump could disperse radioactive dust over the nearby city of Kamianske.

One relative bright spot is Chornobyl, where Ukrainian scientists are restoring labs damaged early in the war. But large parts of the exclusion zone remain off limits because of the threat of mines and unexploded ordinance, says ISPNPP Director Anatolii Nosovskiy. Complicating matters for radiation monitoring, he says, the Ukrainian army has built defensive fortifications in the zone, near the border with Belarus…………………. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adn7987 

January 7, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

 Germany’s coal power production drops to lowest level in 60 years in2023 after nuclear exit

Germany’s coal power production drops to lowest level in 60 years in
2023 after nuclear exit. Germany’s lignite power production fell to the
lowest level since 1963 last year, while hard coal power production even
dropped to the lowest level since 1955, an analysis by research institute
Fraunhofer ISE has found.

The country’s entire coal-fired power
production fell by almost one third (48 TWh), cutting coal’s share of
total net power generation to 26 per cent. Meanwhile, the country sourced
nearly 60 percent (59.7%) of its net power production from renewables,
which generated a total of 260 terawatt hours (TWh), an increase of 7.2
percent compared to 2022. With an increase of more than 17 TWh, output from
wind turbines grew particularly strong, according to the institute’s
annual energy review.

 Renew Economy 4th Jan 2024

Germany’s coal power production drops to lowest level in 60 years in 2023 after nuclear exit

January 7, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, Germany | Leave a comment

TODAY. The subtle ways that the nuclear lobby manipulates corporate media. Example KISHA CLUBS OF JAPAN

Media in other countries are controlled in a similar way, but Japan has the longest and most successful story of corporate media’s obedience to the pro nuclear dogma that prevails across the world.

Paul Richards 5 Jan 24

Starting with, the source: KISHA CLUBS OF JAPAN

Japan’s Press Club System, known as “kisha clubs,” is a unique arrangement that fosters close relationships between journalists and the institutions they cover. This system is prevalent in government offices, ministries, major corporations, and other influential entities.

1] STRUCTURE OF PRESS CLUBS

Exclusive Access:

Journalists from major media outlets join these clubs, gaining exclusive access to news briefings, announcements, and events hosted by specific institutions. Each institution typically has its own press club.

Regular Briefings:

Officials provide information to journalists within these clubs, fostering a symbiotic relationship. In return for access, journalists are expected to adhere to certain unwritten rules, which can include not reporting certain sensitive topics or leaks without permission.

2] HIERCAHICAL EFFECT

Access to Information:

Press club members receive information directly from sources, creating an information hierarchy where those outside the clubs might lack timely or direct access to crucial news.

Influence and Reporting Bias:

The system can create a situation where reporters develop close ties with the sources they cover. This might lead to a reluctance to publish critical or controversial information that could jeopardise their access or relationships. As a result, it can challenge the ability of the press to hold political power accountable.

3] CHALLENGING POLITICAL POWER

Limited Critical Reporting:

While the press club system provides access, it can also limit critical reporting. Journalists might self-censor to maintain access or avoid upsetting their sources, which can indirectly challenge the media’s ability to scrutinise political power thoroughly.

Alternative Media and Challenges:

Independent or smaller media outlets not part of these press clubs might face difficulties accessing information. However, these outlets sometimes challenge the established narrative and provide alternative perspectives, albeit with limited resources and access to official sources.

While the Press Club System provides journalists with unique access to information and sources, it also poses challenges to independent and critical reporting.

The hierarchical nature of information distribution in Japan within these clubs can lead to a cosy relationship between the press and political power, impacting the media’s ability to fully challenge or scrutinise those in authority.

There have been many concerns raised about the Japanese government’s ruling parties, and pressure on media outlets indirectly, such as withholding access to information or using informal means to influence coverage.

This might affect the independence and objectivity of reporting, though direct censorship is not a prevalent practice.

Overall, Japan maintains, it has a reputation for press freedom compared to many other countries.

However, concerns persist about self-censorship, indirect influences, and the limitations of the press club system that can impact the diversity and depth of news coverage.

The nature of political control over the press in Japan tends to be more subtle and indirect rather than overt and explicit.

January 6, 2024 Posted by | Christina's notes, Japan, media | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »