nuclear-news

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

The fantasy of reviving nuclear energy.

Tripling the World’s Nuclear Energy Capacity Is a Fantasy: Stephanie Cooke.
World leaders are not unaware of the nuclear industry’s long history of
failing to deliver on its promises, or of its weakening vital signs. Yet
many continue to act as if a “nuclear renaissance” could be around the
corner even though nuclear energy’s share of global electricity generation
has fallen by almost half from its high of roughly 17 percent in 1996.

In search of that revival, representatives from more than 30 countries
gathered in Brussels in March at a nuclear summit hosted by the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the Belgian government.

Thirty-four nations, including the United States and China, agreed “to work to fully
unlock the potential of nuclear energy,” including extending the lifetime
of existing reactors, building new nuclear power plants and deploying
advanced reactors.

Yet even as they did so, there was an acknowledgment of
the difficulty of their undertaking. “Nuclear technology can play an
important role in the clean energy transition,” Ursula von der Leyen, the
president of the European Commission, told summit attendees.

But she added that “the reality today, in most markets, is a reality of a slow but
steady decline in market share” for nuclear power. The numbers underscore
that downturn. Solar and wind power together began outperforming nuclear
power globally in 2021, and that trend continues as nuclear staggers along.
Solar alone added more than 400 gigawatts of capacity worldwide last year,
two-thirds more than the previous year. That’s more than the roughly 375
gigawatts of combined capacity of the world’s 415 nuclear reactors, which
remained relatively unchanged last year.

At the same time, investment in
energy storage technology is rapidly accelerating. In 2023, BloombergNEF
reported that investors for the first time put more money into stationary
energy storage than they did into nuclear.

New York Times 18th April 2024

April 21, 2024 Posted by | spinbuster | 6 Comments

Small reactors don’t add up as a viable energy source

Nuclear energy has been declining in importance as a source of power and SMRs will not reverse that.

M. V. Ramana, The University of British Columbia, Sophie Groll, The University of British Columbia, EditorsS. Vicknesan
Senior Commissioning Editor, 360info Southeast Asia 15 Apr 24  https://360info.org/small-reactors-dont-add-up-as-a-viable-energy-source/

The nuclear industry has been offering so-called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as an alternative to large reactors as a possible solution to climate change.

SMRs are defined as nuclear reactors with a power output of less than 300 megawatts of electricity, compared to the typically 1000 to 1,500 megawatts power capacity of larger reactors.

Proponents assert that SMRs would cost less to build and thus be more affordable. 

However, when evaluated on the basis of cost per unit of power capacity, SMRs will actually be more expensive than large reactors. 

This ‘diseconomy of scale’ was demonstrated by the now-terminated proposal to build six NuScale Power SMRs (77 megawatts each) in Idaho in the United States. 

The final cost estimate of the project per megawatt was around 250 percent more than the initial per megawatt cost for the 2,200 megawatts Vogtle nuclear power plant being built in Georgia, US. 

Previous small reactors built in various parts of America also shut down because they were uneconomical.

The high cost of constructing SMRs on a per megawatt basis translates into high electricity production costs. 

According to the 2023 GenCost report from the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Energy Market Operator, the estimated cost of generating each megawatt-hour of electricity from an SMR is around AUD$400 to AUD$600. 

In comparison, the cost of each megawatt-hour of electricity from wind and solar photovoltaic plants is around AUD$100, even after accounting for the cost involved in balancing the variability of output from solar and wind plants.

Building SMRs has also been subject to delays. Russia’s KLT-40 took 13 years from when construction started to when it started generating electricity, instead of the expected three years.

Small reactors also raise all of the usual concerns associated with nuclear power, including the risk of severe accidents, the linkage to nuclear weapons proliferation, and the production of radioactive waste that has no demonstrated solution because of technical and social challenges. 

One 2022 study calculated that various radioactive waste streams from SMRs would be larger than the corresponding waste streams from existing light water reactors.

The bottom line is that new reactor designs, such as SMRs, will not rescue nuclear power from its multiple problems. Any energy technology that is beset with such environmental problems and risks cannot be termed sustainable.

Nuclear energy itself has been declining in importance as a source of power: the fraction of the world’s electricity supplied by nuclear reactors has declined from a maximum of 17.5 percent in 1996 down to 9.2 percent in 2022. All indications suggest that the trend will continue if not accelerate.

The decline in the global share of nuclear power is driven by poor economics: generating power with nuclear reactors is costly compared to other low-carbon, renewable sources of energy and the difference between these costs is widening.

Nuclear reactors built during the last decade have all demonstrated a pattern of cost and time overruns in their construction.

The Vogtle nuclear power plant being built in Georgia, involving two reactors designed to generate around 1,100 megawatts of electricity each, is currently estimated to cost nearly USD$35 billion. 

In 2011, when the utility company building the reactor sought permission from the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it projected a total cost of USD$14 billion, and ‘in-service dates of 2016 and 2017’ for the two units. 

In France, the 1,630-megawatt European Pressurised Reactor being built in Flamanville was originally estimated to cost 3 billion euros and projected to start in 2012, but the cost has soared to an estimated 13.2 billion euros and is yet to start operating as of March 2024.

These cost increases and delays confirm the historical pattern identified in a study published in 2014: of the 180 nuclear power projects around the world it studied, 175 had exceeded their initial budgets, by an average of 117 percent, and took 64 percent longer than initially projected. 

However, the recent projects are even more extreme in the magnitude of the disconnect between expectations and reality.

These reactor projects, and the Hinkley Point C project under construction in the United Kingdom, also confirm another historical pattern: costs of nuclear power plants go up with time, not down. This is unlike other energy technologies, such as solar and wind energy, where costs have declined rapidly with experience.

The climate crisis is urgent. The world has neither the financial resources nor the luxury of time to expand nuclear power. As physicist and energy analyst Amory Lovins argued: “… to protect the climate, we must save the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time.”  

Expanding nuclear energy only makes the climate problem worse. 

The money invested in nuclear energy would save far more carbon dioxide if it were instead invested in renewables. 

And the reduction in emissions from investing in renewables would be far quicker.

 

April 21, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Reference | 1 Comment

Is the possibility of a World War real?

Ultimately, all the nuclear powers have no intention of firing first, as this would undoubtedly lead to their destruction. The exception is Israel, which seems to have adopted the “Samson doctrine” (“Let me die with the Philistines”). It would thus be the only power to imagine the ultimate sacrifice, the “Twilight of the Gods”, dear to the Nazis.

The military atom was never envisaged as a classic form of deterrence, but as an assurance that Israel would not hesitate to commit suicide to kill its enemies rather than be defeated. This is the Masada complex [3]. This way of thinking is in line with the “Hannibal Directive”, according to which the IDF must kill its own soldiers rather than let them become prisoners of the enemy [4].

Atomic war is possible. World peace hangs on the finger of the United States, blackmailed by Ukrainian “integral nationalists” and Israeli “revisionist Zionists”. If Washington doesn’t deliver weapons to massacre the Russians and Gazans, they won’t hesitate to launch Armageddon.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | PARIS (FRANCE) | 9 APRIL 2024 by Serge Marchand , Thierry Meyssan,  https://www.voltairenet.org/article220708.html

The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have led several leading politicians to compare the current period with the 1930s, and to raise the possibility of a World War. Are these fears justified, or are they just fear-mongering?

To answer this question, we’re going to summarize events that are unknown to everyone, though well known to specialists. We shall do so dispassionately, at the risk of appearing indifferent to these horrors.

First, let’s distinguish between the conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. They have only two things in common:

 They represent no significant stakes in themselves, but a defeat for the West, which, after its defeat in Syria, would mark the end of its hegemony over the world.

 They are fueled by a fascist ideology, that of Dmytro Dontsov’s Ukrainian “integral nationalists” [1] and that of Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Israeli “revisionist Zionists” [2]; two groups that have been allies since 1917, but went underground during the Cold War and are unknown to the general public today.

There is, however, one notable difference between them:

The same fury is visible on both battlefields, but the “integral nationalists” sacrifice their own fellow citizens (there are hardly any able-bodied men under thirty left in the Ukraine), while the “revisionist Zionists” sacrifice people who are foreign to them, Arab civilians.

Is there a risk that these wars will become more widespread?

This is the will of both groups. The “integral nationalists” are constantly attacking Russia inside its territory and in Sudan, while the “revisionist Zionists” are bombing Lebanon, Syria and Iran (more precisely, Iranian territory in Syria, since the Damascus consulate is extra-territorialized). But no one responds: not Russia, Egypt or the Emirates in the first case, nor Hezbollah, the Syrian Arab Army or the Revolutionary Guards in the second.

All of them, including Russia, anxious to avoid a brutal retaliation from the “collective West” that would lead to a World War, prefer to take the blows and accept their deaths.

If war were to become widespread, it would no longer be simply conventional, but above all nuclear.

While we all know each other’s conventional capabilities, we are largely unaware of each other’s nuclear capabilities. The most we know is that only the USA used strategic nuclear bombs during the Second World War, and that Russia claims to have hypersonic nuclear launchers with which no other power can compete. However, some Western experts question the reality of these prodigious technical advances. Behind the scenes, what is the strategy of the nuclear powers?

In addition to the five permanent members of the Security Council, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have strategic atomic bombs. All except Israel see them as a means of deterrence.

The Western media also present Iran as a nuclear power, which Russia and China officially deny.

During the Yemen war, Saudi Arabia bought tactical nuclear bombs from Israel and used them, but it does not seem to have them permanently at its disposal, nor to have mastered the technique.

Only Russia regularly conducts Nuclear War exercises. During last October’s exercises, Russia admitted to losing a third of its population in the space of a few hours, then simulated combat and emerged victorious.

Ultimately, all the nuclear powers have no intention of firing first, as this would undoubtedly lead to their destruction. The exception is Israel, which seems to have adopted the “Samson doctrine” (“Let me die with the Philistines”). It would thus be the only power to imagine the ultimate sacrifice, the “Twilight of the Gods”, dear to the Nazis.

Two critical works have been devoted to the Israeli military atom: The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy by Seymour M. Hersh (Random House, 1991) and Israel and the Bomb by Avner Cohen (Columbia University Press, 1998).

The military atom was never envisaged as a classic form of deterrence, but as an assurance that Israel would not hesitate to commit suicide to kill its enemies rather than be defeated. This is the Masada complex [3]. This way of thinking is in line with the “Hannibal Directive”, according to which the IDF must kill its own soldiers rather than let them become prisoners of the enemy [4].

During the Six-Day War, the Israeli Prime Minister, the Ukrainian Levi Eshkol, ordered one of the two bombs Israel had at its disposal at the time to be prepared and detonated near an Egyptian military base on Mount Sinai. This plan was not carried out, as the IDF quickly won the conventional war. Had it gone ahead, the fallout would have killed not only Egyptians, but Israelis too [5].

During the October 1973 war (known in the West as the “Yom Kippur War”), the Defense Minister, the Ukrainian-born Israeli Moshe Dayan, and the Prime Minister, the Ukrainian Golda Meir, again considered the use of 13 atomic bombs [6].

In 1986, a nuclear technician from the Dimona power plant, the Moroccan Mordechai Vanunu, revealed Israel’s secret military nuclear program to the Sunday Times [7]. He was kidnapped by Mossad in Rome, on the orders of the Israeli Prime Minister and father of the atomic bomb, Shimon Peres of Belarus. He was tried in camera and sentenced to 18 years in prison, 11 of which were spent in total isolation. He was again sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for daring to speak to the Voltaire Network.

In 2009, Martin van Creveld, Israel’s chief strategist, declared: “We have several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can reach our targets in all directions, even Rome. Most European capitals are potential targets for our air force (…) The Palestinians must all be expelled. The people fighting for this goal are simply waiting for “the right person at the right time” to come along. Only two years ago, 7 or 8% of Israelis thought this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33%, and now, according to a Gallup Poll, the figure is 44% in favor

So it’s reasonable to assume that no nuclear power, except Israel, will dare commit the irreparable.

This is precisely what Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu (Otzma Yehudit/Jewish Force) envisaged on Radio Kol Berama on November 5. Referring to atomic weapons against Gaza, he declared: “It’s a solution… it’s an option”. He then compared the residents of the Gaza Strip to “Nazis”, assuring that “there are no non-combatants in Gaza” and that this territory does not deserve humanitarian aid. “There are no uninvolved people in Gaza”.

These remarks provoked indignation in the West. Only Moscow was surprised that the International Atomic Energy Agency did not take up the matter [8].

It is very likely that this is the reason why Washington continues to arm Israel, even though it is calling for an immediate ceasefire: if the United States no longer supplies Tel Aviv with weapons to massacre the Gazans, the latter could use nuclear weapons against all the peoples of the region, including the Israelis.

In Ukraine, the “integral nationalists” planned to blackmail the United States with the same argument: the threat of nuclear or, failing that, biological weapons [9]. In 1994, Ukraine, which had a vast stockpile of Soviet atomic bombs, signed the Budapest Memorandum. The United States, the United Kingdom and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for the transfer of all its nuclear weapons to Russia and signature of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, after the overthrow of elected president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 (EuroMaidan), the “integral nationalists” worked to re-nuclearize the country, which they saw as essential to eradicating Russia from the face of the earth.

On February 19, 2022, Ukrainian President Voloymyr Zelensky announced at the annual Munich Security Conference that he would challenge the Budapest Memorandum in order to rearm his country with nuclear weapons. Five days later, on February 24, 2022, Russia launched its special operation against the Kiev government to implement Resolution 2202. Its top priority was to seize Ukraine’s secret and illegal reserves of enriched uranium. After eight days of fighting, the civilian nuclear power plant at Zaporijjia was occupied by the Russian army.

According to Argentina’s Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who spoke three months later on May 25 at the Davos Forum, Ukraine had secretly stored 30 tons of plutonium and 40 tons of uranium at Zaporijjia. At market prices, this stockpile was worth at least $150 billion. Russian President Vladimir Putin declared: “The only thing [Ukraine] lacks is a uranium enrichment system. But that’s a technical question, and for Ukraine it’s not an insoluble problem”. However, his army had already removed a large part of this stock from the plant. Fighting continued for months. If the integral nationalists had still had them, they would have done what the “revisionist Zionists” are doing today: they would have demanded more and more weapons and, if refused, threatened to use them, i.e. to launch Armageddon.

Back to today’s battlefields. What are we seeing? In Ukraine and Palestine, the West continues to provide the “integral nationalists” and, to a lesser extent, the “revisionist Zionists” with an impressive arsenal. However, they have no reasonable hope of getting the Russians to back down, or of massacring all the Gazans. At worst, they can lead their allies to empty their arsenals, sacrifice all Ukrainians of fighting age and diplomatically isolate the puppet-state of Israel. As Moshe Dayan once said, “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to control”.

Let’s imagine that these apparently catastrophic consequences are in fact their goal.

The world would then be divided in two, as it was during the Cold War, except that Israel would have become uninviting. In the West, the Anglo-Saxons would still be the masters, especially as they would be the only ones with weapons, their allies having exhausted theirs in Ukraine. Israel, isolated as it was in the late 70s and early 80s when it was only really recognized by the apartheid regime of South Africa, would still be fulfilling the mission it was originally entrusted with: to mobilize the Jewish diaspora in the service of the Empire, fearing a new wave of anti-Semitism.

References…………………………. https://www.voltairenet.org/article220708.html

April 21, 2024 Posted by | Israel, Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

The West now wants ‘restraint’- after months of fuelling a genocide in Gaza

A wider war, centred on Iran, would both distract from Gaza’s desperate plight and force Biden to back Israel unconditionally – to make good on his “iron-clad” commitment to Israel’s protection.  

The Middle East is on the brink of war precisely because western politicians indulged for decades every military excess by Israel

JONATHAN COOK, APR 16, 2024

Suddenly, western politicians from US President Joe Biden to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have become ardent champions of “restraint” – in a very last-minute scramble to avoid regional conflagration. 

Iran launched a salvo of drones and missiles at Israel at the weekend in what amounted a largely symbolic show of strength. Many appear to have been shot down, either by Israel’s layers of US-funded interception systems or by US, British and Jordanian fighter jets. No one was killed.

It was the first direct attack by a state on Israel since Iraq fired Scud missiles during the Gulf war of 1991. 

The United Nations Security Council was hurriedly pressed into session on Sunday, with Washington and its allies calling for a de-escalation of tensions that could all too easily lead to the outbreak of war across the Middle East and beyond. 

“Neither the region nor the world can afford more war,” the UN’s secretary general, Antonio Guterres, told the meeting. “Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate.”

Israel, meanwhile, vowed to “exact the price” against Iran at a time of its choosing. 

But the West’s abrupt conversion to “restraint” needs some explaining. 

After all, western leaders showed no restraint when Israel bombed Iran’s consulate in Damascus two weeks ago, killing a senior general and more than a dozen other Iranians – the proximate cause of Tehran’s retaliation on Saturday night.

Under the Vienna Convention, the consulate is not only a protected diplomatic mission but is viewed as sovereign Iranian territory. Israel’s attack on it was an unbridled act of aggression – the “supreme international crime”, as the Nuremberg tribunal ruled at the end of the Second World War. 

For that reason, Tehran invoked article 51 of the United Nations charter, which allows it to act in self-defence.

Shielding Israel

And yet, rather than condemning Israel’s dangerous belligerence – a flagrant attack on the so-called “rules-based order” so revered by the US – western leaders lined up behind Washington’s favourite client state. 

At a Security Council meeting on 4 April, the US, Britain and France intentionally spurned restraint by blocking a resolution that would have condemned Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate – a vote that, had it not been stymied, might have sufficed to placate Tehran. 

At the weekend, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron still gave the thumbs-up to Israel’s flattening of Iran’s diplomatic premises, saying he could “completely understand the frustration Israel feels” – though he added, without any hint of awareness of his own hypocrisy, that the UK “would take very strong action” if a country bombed a British consulate.

By shielding Israel from any diplomatic consequences for its act of war against Iran, the western powers ensured Tehran would have to pursue a military response instead.

But it did not end there. Having stoked Iran’s sense of grievance at the UN, Biden vowed “iron-clad” support for Israel – and grave consequences for Tehran – should it dare to respond to the attack on its consulate.

Iran ignored those threats. On Saturday night, it launched some 300 drones and missiles, at the same time protesting vociferously about the Security Council’s “inaction and silence, coupled with its failure to condemn the Israeli regime’s aggressions”. 

Western leaders failed to take note. They again sided with Israel and denounced Tehran. At Sunday’s Security Council meeting, the same three states – the US, UK and France – that had earlier blocked a statement condemning Israel’s attack on Iran’s diplomatic mission, sought a formal condemnation of Tehran for its response.

Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, ridiculed what he called “a parade of Western hypocrisy and double standards”. He added: “You know very well that an attack on a diplomatic mission is a casus belli under international law. And if Western missions were attacked, you would not hesitate to retaliate and prove your case in this room.”

There was no restraint visible either as the West publicly celebrated its collusion with Israel in foiling Iran’s attack. 

Western leaders failed to take note. They again sided with Israel and denounced Tehran. At Sunday’s Security Council meeting, the same three states – the US, UK and France – that had earlier blocked a statement condemning Israel’s attack on Iran’s diplomatic mission, sought a formal condemnation of Tehran for its response.

Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, ridiculed what he called “a parade of Western hypocrisy and double standards”. He added: “You know very well that an attack on a diplomatic mission is a casus belli under international law. And if Western missions were attacked, you would not hesitate to retaliate and prove your case in this room.”

There was no restraint visible either as the West publicly celebrated its collusion with Israel in foiling Iran’s attack. 

Given the West’s new-found recognition of the need for caution, and the obvious dangers of military excess, now may be the time for its leaders to consider demanding restraint more generally – and not just to avoid a further escalation between Iran and Israel. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Top-dog client state

There is a reason why Israel has been so ostentatious in its savaging of Gaza and its people. And it is the very same reason Israel felt emboldened to violate the diplomatic sanctity of Iran’s consulate in Damascus.

Because for decades Israel has been guaranteed protection and assistance from the West, whatever crimes it commits.

Israel’s founders ethnically cleansed much of Palestine in 1948, far beyond the terms of partition set out by the UN a year earlier. It imposed a military occupation on the remnants of historic Palestine in 1967, driving out yet more of the native population. It then imposed a regime of apartheid on the few areas where Palestinians remained.

In their West Bank reservations, Palestinians have been systematically brutalised, their homes demolished, and illegal Jewish settlements built on their land. The Palestinians’ holy places have been gradually surrounded and taken from them.

Separately, Gaza has been sealed off for 17 years, and its population denied freedom of movement, employment and the basics of life. 

Israel’s reign of terror to maintain its absolute control has meant imprisonment and torture are a rite of passage for most Palestinian men. Any protest is ruthlessly crushed. 

Now Israel has added mass slaughter in Gaza – genocide – to its long list of crimes.

Israel’s displacements of Palestinians to neighbouring states caused by its ethnic cleansing operations and slaughter have destabilised the wider region. And to secure its militarised settler-colonial project in the Middle East – and its place as Washington’s top-dog client state in the region – Israel has intimidated, bombed and invaded its neighbours on a regular basis.

Its attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was just the latest of serial humiliations faced by Arab states. 

And through all of this, Washington and its vassal states have directed no more than occasional, lip-service calls for restraint towards Israel. There were never any consequences, but instead rewards from the West in the form of endless billions in aid and special trading status.

‘Something rash’

So why, after decades of debauched violence from Israel, has the West suddenly become so interested in “restraint”? Because on this rare occasion it serves western interests to calm the fires Israel is so determined to stoke.

The Israeli strike on Iran’s consulate came just as the Biden administration was finally running out of excuses for providing the weapons and diplomatic cover that has allowed Israel to slaughter, maim and orphan tens of thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza over six months.

Demands for a ceasefire and arms embargo on Israel have been reaching fever pitch, with Biden haemorrhaging support among parts of his Democratic base as he faces a re-run presidential election later this year against a resurgent rival, Donald Trump. 

Small numbers of votes could be the difference between victory and defeat. 

Israel had every reason to fear that its patron might soon pull the rug from under its campaign of mass slaughter in Gaza. 

But having destroyed the entire infrastructure needed to support life in the enclave, Israel needs time for the consequences to play out: either mass starvation there, or a relocation of the population elsewhere on supposedly “humanitarian” grounds. 

A wider war, centred on Iran, would both distract from Gaza’s desperate plight and force Biden to back Israel unconditionally – to make good on his “iron-clad” commitment to Israel’s protection.  

And to top it all, with the US drawn directly into a war against Iran, Washington would have little choice but to assist Israel in its long campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear energy programme. 

Israel wants to remove any potential for Iran to develop a bomb, one that would level the military playing field between the two in ways that would make Israel far less certain that it can continue to act as it pleases across the region with impunity. 

That is why Biden officials are airing concerns to the US media that Israel is ready to “do something rash” in an attempt to drag the administration into a wider war. 

The truth is, however, that Washington long ago cultivated Israel as its military Frankenstein’s monster. Israel’s role was precisely to project US power ruthlessly into the oil-rich Middle East. The price Washington was more than willing to accept was Israel’s eradication of the Palestinian people, replaced by a fortress “Jewish state”.

Calling for Israel to exercise “restraint” now, as its entrenched lobbies flex their muscles meddling in western politics, and self-confessed fascists rule Israel’s government, is beyond parody. 

If the West really prized restraint, they should have insisted on it from Israel decades ago.  https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/the-west-now-wants-restraint-after?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=476450&post_id=143635791&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

April 21, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Japan starts 5th ocean discharge of Fukushima nuclear-tainted wastewater despite opposition

(Xinhua) Web editor: Zhang Kaiwei, Liang Jun, April 19, 2024

TOKYO, April 19 (Xinhua) — Japan on Friday started the fifth-round of release of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean.

Despite opposition among local fishermen, residents as well as backlash from the international community, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the plant’s operator, started discharging the radioactive wastewater in the morning, the first round in fiscal 2024.

Similar to the previous four rounds, about 7,800 tons of the wastewater, which still contains tritium, a radioactive substance, will be discharged until May 7.

TEPCO analyzed the water stored in the tank scheduled for release, and found that the concentrations of all radioactive substances other than tritium were below the national release standards, while the concentration of tritium that cannot be removed will be diluted with seawater, Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun reported.

TEPCO will measure the concentration of radioactive substances such as tritium in the surrounding waters every day during the period to investigate the effects of the release, it added.

The Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water release began in August 2023, and a total of about 31,200 tons of the water was released in four rounds in fiscal 2023, which ended in March.

In fiscal 2024, TEPCO plans to discharge a total of 54,600 tons of contaminated water in seven rounds, which contains approximately 14 trillion becquerels of tritium.

April 21, 2024 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, oceans, wastes | Leave a comment

Should we use nuclear energy?

Is nuclear energy the answer to the climate crisis or just a false solution? Here we separate fact from fiction and explore this controversial topic.

   18 Apr 2024 ,  https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate/should-we-use-nuclear-energy

What’s nuclear energy and is it renewable?

First off, a bit of science. Nuclear power uses nuclear reactions to generate electricity.  Currently, this is mostly done through nuclear fission, where uranium and plutonium atoms are split in reactors to release large amounts of energy. The resulting heat is used to create steam, which turns turbines to generate electricity.

Nuclear energy doesn’t release greenhouse gases, making it a source of low-carbon energy. It’s often considered to be clean and sustainable, but is it renewable? Well, it’s not classified as such by the UK, and we’d argue that an energy source that creates a difficult and currently unsolved waste problem can’t be described as renewable.

What’s the problem with nuclear waste?

Nuclear power produces radioactive waste that’s dangerous for people and wildlife and lasts for thousands of years. If it isn’t disposed of or managed properly, the risks include contaminated groundwater and radiation exposure, which can have long-term implications for our health.

And nuclear waste management is a big problem.  Decades after the first nuclear power station opened in the UK, safe storage for waste is still decades away at best, if ever. For example, Sellafield in Cumbria, the largest nuclear waste facility in Europe, currently has a worsening radioactive leak that could risk public safety.  Plus, any new nuclear energy increases the amount of radioactive waste we have to deal with.

Is nuclear energy cheap?

In short, no. Nuclear is costly, especially in the UK, where new nuclear power would be more expensive than anywhere else in the world,  according to a 2015 report. This is due to a number of factors, including the UK’s nuclear financing arrangements.

According to a 2017 review by Manchester University’s Tyndall Centre, the world’s leading climate energy and research institute, “claims that nuclear power is cheaper than other low-carbon options (including carbon capture and storage and wind) are unlikely to be borne out in reality”. And since the Centre’s review, the price of renewables has continued to fall quickly, making them much cheaper than nuclear energy.

Should nuclear energy replace fossil fuels?

To tackle the climate crisis, we need to urgently ditch fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas and replace them with clean, green alternatives. Nuclear energy is certainly less damaging for the environment than fossil fuels. But renewable energy, combined with energy efficiency and energy storage, is a faster and more cost-effective solution.

Alongside the higher costs outlined above, nuclear energy is also slower to build. For example, the Hinkley C plant being built in Somerset  was announced in 2010 but may not start operating until 2027 at the earliest. By contrast, onshore wind and solar farms can take as little as 1 year to set up.

[Nuclear is] unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation needed by the 2030s due to nuclear’s impracticably lengthy development and construction timelines, and the overwhelming construction costs of the very great volume of reactors that would be needed to make a difference.

Dr. Gregory Jaczko et al., Nuclear Consulting Group

It may be that better, more efficient forms of nuclear energy are developed in the future, but even so it’s unlikely we’d need this power. We believe it’s possible to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy without resorting to nuclear. Renewable energy, as well as energy efficiency and storage, should be the focus of our efforts going forwards.

How can we solve the climate crisis without nuclear energy?

One word: renewables. The UK is blessed with huge resources of renewable energy such as wind, tidal and solar. These could provide all the energy we need, and then some.

Now, the UK will need more electricity than it currently consumes as we switch our transport and heating across from fossil fuels. But our research shows that if properly developed, onshore wind and solar farms alone could produce more than 2.5 times the electricity currently consumed by homes. And that’s not including the significant potential for offshore renewables. The UK not only has the resources to easily meet its own energy needs, but it could also become a green energy superpower exporting clean electricity to other countries.

Some argue that nuclear is better because it’s reliable, whereas wind and solar are dependent on the weather. Firstly, renewables are more consistent than they’re often given credit for. For example, solar panels work whenever it’s daylight, not just when the sun shines. But in instances where there are gaps, good energy storage and a mix of different types of renewables can ensure a continuous supply.

As we transition to a greener, fairer society, it’s important that no-one’s left behind. This includes those with jobs in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Green technologies, skills and services are creating ample opportunities for green jobs, allowing people to retrain in new sectors such as renewable installation.

Our verdict

In short, nuclear energy is a slow and costly solution to the climate crisis, and one that creates harmful waste we have no answer for. Rather than pursuing nuclear power, we need to invest in renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage for people and planet

April 21, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Swiss ruling could pave way for more climate activist cases.

The decision that Switzerland had failed in its duty to mitigate climate change raises
questions about the Strasbourg court overstepping the mark. Victory for a
group of Swiss women who challenged their government’s inaction over
climate change will encourage activists “to try their luck”, one City
law firm partner warns.

The European Court of Human Rights last week ruled
for the first time that signatory states to the convention are obliged to
protect their citizens from the effects of the evolving “climate
crisis”. The judges said that the Swiss government had failed to comply
with its duties to mitigate climate change, and that violated the right to
respect for private and family life.

Times 18th April 2024

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/swiss-ruling-could-pave-way-for-more-climate-activist-cases-7tdhrsb9b

April 21, 2024 Posted by | climate change, Switzerland | Leave a comment

EDF wants public views on plans for Hinkley Point B decommissioning

By John Thorne Wednesday 17th April 2024 

ENERGY firm EDF is carrying out a public consultation on its plans for the
decommissioning of Hinkley Point B nuclear power station, a process which
will continue into the 22nd century. The two Hinkley B reactors were shut
down in August, 2022, after 46 years of electricity generation, but will
not be able to be removed until about 2107. EDF has since been removing the
used fuel from the reactors in preparation for the station’s
decommissioning phase, which will involve dismantling and demolishing plant
and buildings on the site. More than half of the spent fuel stringers have
been removed from the first reactor and sent on in flasks for storage in
Sellafield, Cumbria.

West Somerset Free Press 17th April 2024

https://www.wsfp.co.uk/news/edf-wants-public-views-on-plans-for-hinkley-point-b-decommissioning-680621

April 21, 2024 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Leaked Cables Show Biden Pressuring Nations to Oppose Palestine’s UN Membership

“This is the evidence that President Biden’s talk about a two-state solution is nothing but idle talk,” said one former Lebanese diplomat.


BRETT WILKINS, Apr 17, 2024, Common Dreams,

As the United Nations Security Council prepares to vote Thursday on Palestine’s bid to become a full U.N. member, the Biden administration—which claims to support Palestinian statehood—is lobbying UNSC nations in an effort to wrangle enough “no” votes so that the United States can avoid resorting to a veto.

Leaked cables obtained by The Intercept show U.S. pressure on Security Council members including Malta—which currently presides over the body—and Ecuador.

While claiming that President Joe Biden backs “Palestinian aspirations for statehood,” one of the cables asserts that “it remains the U.S. view that the most expeditious path toward a political horizon for the Palestinian people is in the context of a normalization agreement between Israel and its neighbors.”

“We therefore urge you not to support any potential Security Council resolution recommending the admission of ‘Palestine‘ as a U.N. member state, should such a resolution be presented to the Security Council for a decision in the coming days and weeks,” the document advises.

The U.S. argument essentially is that the U.N. should not create an independent Palestinian state by fiat—even though that’s precisely how the world body voted in 1947 to establish the modern state of Israel.

The renewed push for Palestine’s U.N. membership comes as Israel wages a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority, which hasn’t controlled Gaza for nearly two decades, rejected the Biden administration’s requests to hold off on seeking full membership.

“We wanted the U.S. to provide a substantive alternative to U.N. recognition. They didn’t,” one unnamed Palestinian official toldAxios on Wednesday. “We believe full membership in the U.N. for Palestine is way overdue. We have waited more than 12 years since our initial request.”

As The Intercept‘s Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw noted:

Since 2011, the U.N. Security Council has rejected the Palestinian Authority’s request for full member status. On April 2, the Palestinian Observer Mission to the U.N. requested that the council once again take up consideration of its membership application. According to the first State Department cable, U.N. meetings since the beginning of April suggest that Algeria, China, Guyana, Mozambique, Russia, Slovenia, Sierra Leone, and Malta……………………………………. https://www.commondreams.org/news/palestinian-statehood

April 21, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Frequently Asked Questions about nuclear weapons in the Middle East

April 2024

The escalation in the conflict between Israel, which has a nuclear arsenal, and Iran, which is not considered by international inspectors to be  developing nuclear weapons, has increased fears the conflict in the Middle East could see the use of nuclear weapons.

Here are some frequently asked questions [and answers] about Israel and Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the role the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons could play in the region:………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.icanw.org/faq_nuclear_weapons_middle_east

April 21, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment