Why ‘no’ to NATO?
David Swanson, beyondnuclearinternational
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty forbids transferring nuclear weapons to other nations. It contains no NATO exception. Yet NATO proliferates nuclear weapons
Five NATO members have U.S. nuclear weapons stored and controlled by the U.S. military within their borders: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.
The people of each of these countries routinely protest the presence of nuclear weapons and have never been asked to vote on the matter.
Alliance spreads nuclear weapons, nuclear energy and risk, writes David Swanson
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty declares that NATO members will assist another member if attacked by “taking action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” But the UN Charter does not say anywhere that warmaking is authorized for whoever jumps in on the appropriate side.
The North Atlantic Treaty’s authors may have been aware that they were on dubious legal ground because they went on twice to claim otherwise, first adding the words “Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” But shouldn’t the United Nations be the one to decide when it has taken necessary measures and when it has not?
The North Atlantic Treaty adds a second bit of sham obsequiousness with the words “This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.” So the treaty that created NATO seeks to obscure the fact that it is, indeed, authorizing warmaking outside of the United Nations — as has now played out in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya.
While the UN Charter itself replaced the blanket ban on all warmaking that had existed in the Kellogg-Briand Pact with a porous ban plagued by loopholes imagined to apply far more than they actually do — in particular that of “defensive” war — it is NATO that creates, in violation of the UN Charter, the idea of numerous nations going to war together of their own initiative and by prior agreement to all join in any other member’s war. Because NATO has numerous members, as does also your typical street gang, there is a tendency to imagine NATO not as an illegal enterprise but rather as just the reverse, as a legitimizer and sanctioner of warmaking.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty forbids transferring nuclear weapons to other nations. It contains no NATO exception. Yet NATO proliferates nuclear weapons, and this is widely imagined as law enforcement or crime prevention. The prime minister of Sweden said in May that NATO ought to be able to put nuclear weapons in Sweden as long as somebody has determined it to be “war time.” The Nonproliferation Treaty says otherwise, and the people who plan the insanity of nuclear war say “What the heck for? We’ve got them on long-range missiles and stealth airplanes and submarines?”
The people of Sweden seem, at least in large part, to also want to say No Nukes — but when were people ever asked to play a role in “defending democracy”? The purpose of bringing nukes into Sweden, for those in the Swedish government who favor it, may in fact be purely a show of subservience to U.S. empire, driven by fear of its obliging partner in the arms race, the militarists in Russia.
Poland’s president says his country would be happy to have “NATO” nuclear weapons there, “war time” or not, and this proposal is reported in U.S. corporate media with no mention of any legal concerns and with the claim that it comes as a response to the Russian placement of nuclear weapons in Belarus. Last year I asked the Russian ambassador to the United States why putting nuclear weapons into Belarus wasn’t a blatant violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, and he said, oh no, it was perfectly fine, because the United States does it all the time.
In fact, NATO itself owns and controls no nuclear weapons. Three NATO members own and control nuclear weapons. We cannot be certain how many weapons they have, since nuclear weapons are both justified with the dubious alchemy of “deterrence” and, contradictorily, cloaked in secrecy. The United States has an estimated 5,344 nuclear weapons, France an estimated 290, and Great Britain an estimated 240.
NATO calls itself a “nuclear alliance” and maintains a “Nuclear Planning Group” for all of its members — those with and those without nuclear weapons — to discuss the launching of the sort of war that puts all life on Earth at risk, and to coordinate rehearsals or “war games” practicing for the use of nuclear weapons in Europe. NATO partners Israel and Pakistan are estimated to possess 170 nuclear weapons each.
Five NATO members have U.S. nuclear weapons stored and controlled by the U.S. military within their borders: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. These are estimated at 35 nuclear weapons at Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, 20 at Incirlik in Turkey, and 15 each at Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Büchel Air Base in Germany. The United States is reportedly also moving its own nuclear weapons into RAF Lakenheath in the UK, where it has stored them in the past.
The people of each of these countries routinely protest the presence of nuclear weapons and have never been asked to vote on the matter. The notion that the nuclear weapons in a European country are still U.S. nuclear weapons and thus haven’t been proliferated is an odd fit with the general understanding of international treaties, which are conceived and written as if there were no such thing as empire……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/06/23/why-no-to-nato/
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org.
What nuclear annihilation could look like
“The survivors would envy the dead.”
by Sean Illing, Jun 23, 2024
How often do you think about all the ways the world could end?
As the host of The Gray Area, I find myself engaged in this macabre exercise more than most. We’ve done episodes on runaway AI and climate change and extinction panics. One of the few topics we haven’t covered, however, is nuclear war. Which is surprising because this scenario is near the top of basically every list of existential threats — and now feels newly salient with recent news involving North Korea, Iran, and China.
Annie Jacobsen is a reporter and the author of a new book called Nuclear War: A Scenario. I read a lot of books for the show and this one stuck with me longer than any I can recall. It’s a book that clearly wants to startle the reader, and it succeeds.
Jacobsen walks you through all the ways a nuclear catastrophe might unfold, and she gives a play-by-play breakdown of the terrifying choreography that would ensue in the minutes immediately after a nuclear missile launch.
So I invited Jacobsen on The Gray Area to talk about what a nuclear exchange would really look like and how perilously close we are to that reality. As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Sean Illing
I suspect the image most of us still have of nuclear bombs is the image of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that was a long time ago. How much more powerful are the thermonuclear weapons we’re talking about today?
Annie Jacobsen
To give you an idea of a thermonuclear weapon, I went to one of the ultimate sources, a 93-year-old nuclear weapons engineer named Richard Garwin, probably the most famous nuclear weapons engineer, physicist, presidential adviser, still alive. Garwin drew the plans for the very first thermonuclear weapon. Its code name was Ivy Mike; it’s on the cover of my book. It was 10.4 megatons.
So consider that the Hiroshima bomb that you referenced was 15 kilotons and then think about 10.4 megatons. It’s about 1,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs detonating at the same time from the same center point. Garwin explained it to me in the simplest of terms when he asked me to visualize this fact: A thermonuclear weapon uses an atomic bomb as its fuse inside of the weapon. That’s how powerful it is.
Sean Illing
Paint the picture for me, as you do in the opening pages of the book, where you imagine a nuke is dropped on Washington, DC. What happens next?
Annie Jacobsen
So with a 1-megaton bomb on Washington, DC, what happens in the very first millisecond is that this thermonuclear flash expands into a ball of fire that is one mile of pure fire. It’s 19 football fields of fire.
Then the fireball’s edges compress into what is called a steeply fronted blast wave — as dense wall of air pushing out, mowing down everything in its path three miles out, in every direction, because it is accompanied by several-hundred-mile-an-hour winds.
It’s like Washington, DC, just got hit by an asteroid and the accompanying wave. When you think about this initial 9-mile diameter ring, imagine every single engineered structure — buildings, bridges, etc. — collapsing.
There’s also a thermonuclear flash that sets everything on fire and melts lead, steel, and titanium. Streets nine miles out transform into molten asphalt lava. The details are so horrific; it’s important to keep in mind these are not from my imagination. These are sourced from Defense Department documents because the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Department have been keeping track of what nuclear bombs do to people and to things ever since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of 1945.
Sean Illing
When all that happens, we’re in what you call “Day Zero,” and then the nuclear winter begins. What does that look like?……………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/356044/nuclear-annihilation-annie-jacobsen
Senate Nuclear Fetishists Take Lid Off of Pandora’s Box
“It’s extremely disappointing that, without any meaningful debate, Congress is about to erase 50 years of independent nuclear safety oversight by changing the NRC’s mission to not only protect public health and safety but also to protect the financial health of the industry and its investors
19 June 2024, David Kraft, Director, NEIS
CHICAGO—In a lopsided 88-2 vote (with 10 not voting, including Sen. Richard Durbin), the Senate passed S.870 – the so-called ADVANCED Act, a bill which quite literally takes the lid off of the nuclear safety box, both domestically and internationally.
So proud and confident were the Senators in nuclear power’s promises, rather than being introduced as stand-alone legislation, the 93-page bill had to be snuck into the 3-page Fire Grants and Safety Act – a bill reasonably assured to pass at a time when huge parts of the nation are again in the process of burning to the ground.
Using the logic similar to that of an adolescent purchasing a first car (“If it’s red, fast, and a convertible – that’s it! What could go wrong?”), bill advocates trotted out the usual litany of at best contestable at worst discredited arguments for its passage: nuclear is clean and green, is needed to fight the climate crisis, creates jobs, and is over-regulated.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the bill’s lead sponsor, (quite erroneously) stated, “Today, nuclear power provides about 20% (18.2% in 2022; 18.6% in 2023) of our nation’s electricity. Importantly, it’s emissions-free electricity (allowed to release radionuclides into the air and water, below regulatory limits) that is 24/7, 365 days a year. (except for outages and maintenance)”
While critics of the legislation warned of significant weakening of regulatory oversight built into the bill, John Starkey, director of public policy at the pro-nuclear American Nuclear Society, stated the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), “is a 21st century regulator now.”
That statement alone should send shivers up the spine, since that list would include: the FAA allowing Boeing to self-regulate in designing the 737-MAX, resulting in two crashes and hundreds of deaths, and the revelation that sub-standard parts have been manufactured into new planes; Norfolk Southern preventing desperately needed rail safety measures from passing in Congress, resulting in the East Palestine train disaster; and the federal pipeline regulatory agency PIMSA being asleep at the wheel, resulting in the Sartortia, Mississippi CO2 pipeline explosion.
Residents of Illinois – the most nuclear state in the U.S., which recently repealed its nuclear construction moratorium, opening the door to new reactors – might begin to feel some elevated distress, but – relax. There’s nothing you can do about it, since homeowners are unable to obtain private insurance coverage against nuclear disasters.
Nuclear safety expert Dr. Ed Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists had this to say about the ADVANCED Act:
“It’s extremely disappointing that, without any meaningful debate, Congress is about to erase 50 years of independent nuclear safety oversight by changing the NRC’s mission to not only protect public health and safety but also to protect the financial health of the industry and its investors. Just as lax regulation by the FAA—an agency already burdened by conflicts of interests—can lead to a catastrophic failure of an aircraft, a compromised NRC could lead to a catastrophic reactor meltdown impacting an entire region for a (many) generations.
“Make no mistake: This is not about making the reactor licensing process more efficient, but about weakening safety and security oversight across the board, a longstanding industry goal. The change to the NRC’s mission effectively directs the agency to enforce only the bare minimum level of regulation at every facility it oversees across the United States.
“Passage of this legislation will only increase the danger to people already living downwind of nuclear facilities from a severe accident or terrorist attack, and it will make it even more difficult for communities to prevent risky, experimental reactors from being sited in their midst.”
The Biden Administration legislation of the past few years has lavished more than $7 billion on the development of experimental, still non-existent “small modular nuclear reactors” (SMNRs) as a way to fight climate change. Yet, only one design has passed NRC licensing muster to date, and these reactors will not be commercially available in sufficient numbers to have an appreciable effect on climate disruption until well into the 2030s – assuming the proposed designs actually work.
As alarming as the domestic implications of the ADVANCED Act are, the international implications can be devastating. The Act fast-tracks the development of SMNRs, which nuclear industry companies intend to sell oversees. Some of these reactor designs require fuel that is more highly “enriched” – just barely below weapons-grade concerns – than that used in contemporary reactors. Currently, the only available source for this fuel – called “HALEU”, for “high assay low-enriched uranium” – is RUSSIA. Another design, using a different fuel concept, requires specially refined carbon, the main source of which is CHINA.
It is not unreasonable to ask: just where would SMNRs have been placed in, say – Mariupol, Ukraine? Or in Gaza? Or any of the other world hot spots? Again, not an unreasonable line of questioning since a recent priority of the Biden Administration is to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia – where apparently the sun no longer shines, and journalists are hacked to pieces for covering such controversial topics.
Viable alternatives to nuclear expansion do exist: renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy storage, and transmission improvements are ALL cheaper, quicker to implement, reduce carbon emissions, produce no radioactive wastes, create no nuclear proliferation issues, and, most importantly – ALREADY EXIST. Nothing more needs to be invented; just implemented.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stated in December, 2023 that roughly 2,600 giga-watts (GW) of electric power projects – over twice the entire electrical use of the US, and roughly 27 times the entire output of all current US reactors combined. The large majority of this backlog are renewable energy projects awaiting connection access to the aging transmission grid. New EXISTING transmission technologies like reconductoring could double the capacity of the grid, creating greater ease of access for renewables and storage.
To summarize, The ADVANCE ACT:
• kick-starts more radioactive releases and exposures using tax dollars;
• spreads contamination to more places in the US and abroad;
• ignores the potential increased harm from nuclear reactors large and small;
• creates more intensely radioactive fuel;
• less regulatory oversight;
• export to other countries, and
• foreign control of nuclear sites within our homeland.
Yet, the nuclear zealots continue to pour tax dollars into the nuclear power black hole by means of the ADVANCED Act. This legislation was indeed a Trojan Horse – filled with killer bees. And they don’t make honey.
Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) was formed in 1981 to watchdog the nuclear power industry, and to promote a renewable, non-nuclear energy future.
Australia’s Nuclear debate is getting heated, but whose energy plan stacks up?
by Mike Foley, June 24, 2024, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nuclear-debate-is-getting-heated-but-whose-energy-plan-stacks-up-20240624-p5jo45.html
The Coalition’s nuclear power policy is less than a week old, but the political debate about Australia’s energy future has been raging since. The opposition’s claims about both its policy and the renewables-focused government plan have prompted plenty of questions about their veracity.
We take a look through the biggest of those talking points to see whether they stack up.
*** Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ plan will cost more than $1 trillion: False
The opposition says it will cost more than $1 trillion for the Albanese government to reach its target of boosting renewables to 82 per cent of the electricity grid by 2030. Currently, about 40 per cent of the grid is renewable electricity.
Nationals Leader David Littleproud on Sunday attributed the numbers to Net Zero Australia: a think tank of academics from University of Melbourne, University of Queensland and Princeton University.
The think tank calculated the estimated cost of reaching net zero across the entire economy, not just the electricity grid.
They found that it would cost more than $1 trillion by 2030 and up to $9 trillion by 2050, largely driven by private investment. The figure includes a range of actions, from integrating electric vehicles into the transport fleet to heavy industry, such as smelting switching from gas to electric power.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) forecasts that the cost of reaching 82 per cent renewables, again largely driven by private investment in wind and solar farms and transmission lines, will cost $121 billion in today’s money.
The Albanese government has also committed $20 billion to underwrite transmission-line construction and has set up a fund called the Capacity Investment Scheme, estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars. It will underwrite new renewable projects, and if private investors fail to achieve forecast returns, taxpayers could be on the hook to subsidise operations but will get a cut of the profits when they exceed a set threshold.
*** Nuclear energy will deliver cheaper power bills: False
Dutton said on Wednesday last week his plan would “see Australia achieve our three goals of cheaper, cleaner and consistent power”.
The opposition has committed to release the costings of their plan before the next election.
Many experts disagree, arguing nuclear power delivers the most expensive form of electricity.
The same report cited by the opposition for a $1 trillion cost of the renewables rollout said there is “no role” for nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix.
“We only see a potential role for nuclear electricity generation if its cost falls sharply and the growth of renewables is constrained,” Net Zero Australia’s report in July last year said.
Internationally recognised financial services firm Lazard also found renewable energy sources continued to be much cheaper than nuclear. It said onshore wind was the cheapest, with a cost between $US25 and $US73 per megawatt hour. The second cheapest was large-scale solar at between $US29 and $US92. Nuclear was the most expensive, at between $US145 and $US222.
The CSIRO found the cheapest electricity would come from a grid that draws 90 per cent of its power from renewables, which would supply electricity for a cost of between $89 and $128 per megawatt hour by 2030 – factoring in $40 billion in transmission lines and batteries to back up renewables.
CSIRO calculated that a large-scale nuclear reactor would supply power for $136 to $226 per megawatt hour by 2040.
** The renewables rollout needs 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines: False
“Labor has promised 28,000 kilometres of new poles and wires, there’s no transparency on where that will go, and we’ve been very clear about the fact that we don’t believe in that model,” Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said last week.
The AEMO releases a document each year called the Integrated System Plan, after consulting private industry, that details a road map of what the most efficient energy system will look like in coming years, including new infrastructure, up to 2050.
The Integrated System Plan includes directives set by policymakers, like the Albanese government’s commitment to reach 82 per cent of energy generation coming from renewables by 2030, and to hit net zero emissions by 2030.
The most recent plan, from January, says around 5000 kilometres of transmission lines are needed in the next 10 years to deliver the Albanese government’s goals, including 4000 kilometres of new lines and upgrading 1000 kilometres of existing lines. AEMO said 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines will be needed for Australia to reach net zero by 2050.
The 28,000-kilometre figure cited by the opposition resembles the 26,000 kilometres of transmission AEMO said would be needed by 2050 if Australia was to transform its economy to a clean energy export powerhouse, including large-scale production of green hydrogen and decarbonisation of other industrial processes.
*** The first reactor would be built before 2037: Questionable
The opposition says if elected, they would build a nuclear reactor and have it hooked up to the grid within 12 years of forming a government.
Its nuclear energy policy document, released last week, states that depending on what technology it chooses to prioritise, a large-scale reactor would start generating electricity by 2037 and a small modular reactor (SMR) by 2035. SMRs are a developing design not yet in commercial production.
This rollout would be as quick as anywhere in the world. The United Arab Emirates has set the global pace. It announced in 2008 that it would build four reactors under contract from Korean company KEPCO. Construction began in 2012, and the first reactor connected to the grid in 2020.
There are significant differences between the UAE and Australia. The former is a dictatorship without comparable labour laws or planning regulations that relies on cheap imported labour, whereas the latter has rigorous workforce protections, environmental laws and planning processes.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said a Coalition government would establish a Nuclear Energy Coordinating Authority that would assess each of the seven nuclear sites it has identified and determine what specific type of reactor would be built where, while also committing to two and half years of community consultation. A new safety and management regime would need to be developed, and parliament would have to repeal the current federal ban on nuclear energy within this timeframe.
If the Coalition forms government in May next year, following the consultation phase, it assumes construction could begin in late 2027 and would take 10 years for a large-scale reactor. That is far quicker than other Western nations have achieved recently.
The UK’s Hinkley Point nuclear plant began construction in 2018 and is not expected to be completed until at least 2030. The only reactor now under construction in France is the Flamanville EPR. Construction began in 2007 and is currently incomplete. A reactor at Olkiluoto Island, Finland, began in 2005 and was completed in 2022.
*** The annual waste from a reactor fits into a Coke can: False
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s claim that the annual waste generated by an SMR amounts to the size of a Coke can is incorrect, experts say, with such facilities likely to generate multiple tonnes of high-level radioactive waste each year.
“If you look at a 450-megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year,” Dutton said on Tuesday.
Multiple experts told this masthead a 450-megawatt reactor referenced by Dutton would generate many tonnes of waste a year.
Large-scale reactors, which have been deployed in 32 countries around the world, have a typical capacity of 1000 megawatts and generate about 30 tonnes of used fuel a year. This includes high-level radioactive waste toxic to humans for tens of thousands of years and weapons-grade plutonium.
SMRs are still under commercial development, and expert opinion is divided over whether they would produce more or less waste per unit of energy compared to a large reactor.
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe of Griffith University’s School of Environment and Science said it was safe to assume an SMR would generate many tonnes of waste per year, and it was likely that waste would be more radioactive than the waste from a large-scale reactor.
“For a 400-megawatt SMR, you’d expect that to produce about six tonnes of waste a year. It could be more or less, depending on the actual technology, but certainly multiple tonnes a year,” he said.
Mike Foley is the climate and energy correspondent for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Connect via email.
Ten Holocaust survivors condemn Israel’s Gaza genocide
Holocaust survivors say using the Holocaust to justify genocide in Gaza and repress student protest on college campuses is a complete insult to the Holocaust’s memory.
BY OPEN LETTER https://mondoweiss.net/2024/06/ten-holocaust-survivors-condemn-israels-gaza-genocide/
Below is a letter signed by ten Holocaust survivors condemning the genocide in Gaza and the misuse of antisemitism accusations by politicians.
The co-founder of Human Rights Watch, Aryeh Neier, has recently said that Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza. He’s also said that using accusations of antisemitism to attack Israel’s critics “debases the whole concept of antisemitism.” As Holocaust survivors, we are writing to agree wholeheartedly with Professor Neier — who himself only survived the Holocaust by escaping Nazi Germany as a child in 1939.
At a recent Holocaust memorial, Netanyahu declared: “We’ll defeat our genocidal enemies. Never again is now!”
Meanwhile, at another memorial, Biden warned of a “ferocious surge of antisemitism” on college campuses.
In our opinion, to use the memory of the Holocaust like this to justify either genocide in Gaza or repression on college campuses is a complete insult to the memory of the Holocaust.
The dehumanization of Palestinians, describing them as “human animals,” the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, indiscriminate bombing, the destruction of universities and hospitals, and the use of mass starvation — these are clearly stages of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They cannot be defended any more than sending weapons to commit this genocide or refusing funding to UNRWA. With no better arguments, our politicians have resorted to misusing the memory of the Holocaust while claiming that protesting against Israeli genocide is somehow antisemitic.
As Holocaust survivors, we have no special authority on the Middle East but we do know about antisemitism. It’s simply wrong to claim that it’s antisemitic to oppose Israeli genocide. It’s also wrong to claim that calling for equal rights for Jews and Arabs “from the river to the sea” is antisemitic.
As Holocaust survivors, we are just a few individuals but we want to add our voices to the growing global movement to demand a permanent ceasefire, an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and for the West to stop arming and supporting genocide.
Signatories
Jacques Bude (Brussels Belgium), survived in hiding in Belgium, parents killed in Auschwitz.
Marione Ingram (Washington DC), survived in hiding in Nazi Germany.
Stephen Kapos (London UK), survived the Budapest ghetto.
H. Richard Leuchtag (Houston TX), escaped Germany in 1938.
Rene Lichtman (Southfield MI), survived in hiding in France.
Adam Policzer (Vancouver BC), survived in hiding in Hungary.
Lillian Rosengarten (Cold Spring NY), escaped Germany in 1936.
Suzanne Ross (New York), escaped Nazi-occupied Belgium
Suzanne Berliner Weiss (Toronto Ont.), survived in hiding in France, mother killed in Auschwitz.
Ervin Somogyi (Oakland, CA), survivor from Hungary.
Nuclear won’t fix our energy crisis
*New Nuclear**
Letter: Syed is generally very precise in his use of language, but his
description of nuclear as “clean energy” is Orwellian. The waste
produced by nuclear power stations will have to be securely stored for
thousands of years; and by a recent estimate the UK’s decommissioning
costs could be £260 billion. I would not call that “clean”.
Times 23rd June 2024
The Sunday Times, Sunday June 23 2024
Writing of the urgent need for a coherent energy strategy, Matthew Syed says renewables are part of the solution “if we can solve the problem of intermittency” (Comment, last week). Unless we can, they are no solution at all — and so far we haven’t. We have been looking for efficient energy storage at scale for many years now and not finding it, and the solution may be a long time coming.
More nuclear reactors are not an adequate answer. This is partly because of the expense and the time lag between conception and operation — but also because they cannot simply be turned on and off, so we would be likely still to need fossil fuels to cover large spikes in energy usage.
No one has grasped the nettle of net
zero, which implies a massive upgrade both in generation and in the grid to
support it. It isn’t just productivity that is at stake; it’s keeping
the lights on. I don’t think any policymaker has a grip on this at all.
Because, if they had, they’d be panicking.
Can Israel defeat Hamas? Its own military doesn’t seem to think so, clashing with Netanyahu
The Israel Defense Forces’ top spokesman said “Hamas is an idea” that can’t be eliminated and that saying it could be was “throwing sand in the eye of the public.”
NBC News, June 20, 2024, By Chantal Da Silva
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may still be leading the country into its 258th day of war in Gaza, but on Thursday he stood increasingly alone — and at odds with his own military.
Long criticized at home as well as abroad, Netanyahu’s approach is now the subject of a deepening disagreement with his top brass, as well as his country’s top ally, the U.S.
Netanyahu dissolved his war Cabinet this week after former Defense Minister Benny Gantz, a political rival, stepped down, accusing Netanyahu of standing in the way of “real victory.”
Comment: Four politicians resigned recently, and, over recent months, various IDF officials have resigned.
And on Wednesday, the Israel Defense Forces’ top spokesman seemed to lay bare the rift at the top of the country’s leadership. The central stated goal of the war in Gaza — to destroy Hamas — was not possible, and to maintain it was meant “throwing sand in the eyes of the public,” Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said.
“Hamas is an idea. Anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong,” Hagari said in an interview with Israeli broadcaster Channel 13. “The political echelon needs to find an alternative — or it will remain,” he said, referring to Hamas.
Netanyahu’s office quickly rebuffed the comments, saying in a statement that “the political and security cabinet headed by Prime Minister Netanyahu defined as one of the goals of the war the destruction of Hamas’ military and governmental capabilities.”…………………………………………………………..
Hagari’s comments reflected a growing push for Netanyahu to present an actionable plan for the day after the war in Gaza…………..
The absence of a postwar plan for Gaza was at the heart of Gantz’s reasoning for quitting Netanyahu’s war Cabinet, and it has also driven criticism from Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Comment: This idea of a post-war plan seems to be operating on the premise that there will be any Palestinians left in Gaza, whereas various officials have been clear that they intend to genocide all Palestinians that dare to remain.
Israeli forces pushed deeper into the southern Gaza city of Rafah, continuing a monthslong assault that local officials say has killed more than 37,000 people.
Comment: That estimate was valid months ago and it hasn’t increased much since then, which has led various analysts to put the number of, mostly women and children, slaughtered by Israel, at over 100,000.
……………………………………………… The U.S. sent an envoy to the region in a bid to prevent all-out war in Lebanon, but Netanyahu also sparked dismay in Washington when he accused it of “withholding weapons and ammunition.”
Comment: It seems that Israel intends to escalate the fighting between Hezbollah because it considers that as one way to drag the US into the conflict, which might be why the US sent an envoy to try to deter them (for the time being, anyway).
……………………………………………….. more https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-military-spokesman-hamas-defeated-netanyahu-war-gaza-rcna157991
Australia’s Opposition leader Dutton’s plan to nuke Australia’s renewable energy transition explained in full
Giles Parkinson, Jun 21, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/duttons-plan-to-nuke-australias-renewable-energy-transition-explained-in-full/
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has outlined his plan to bring the renewable energy transition in Australia to a halt, keep coal fired power stations open, build more gas and use taxpayer funds to build nuclear power plants in the 2030s and 2040s – if the Coalition wins the next election.
Here is an explanation of the plan as far as we know it.
What are the details?
There are not many, because the nuclear “policy” has been released in a one page press release. The Coalition says it wants to build seven nuclear power plants – all at the site of current or former coal fired power stations – in five states. It favours a mix of small modular reactors and large-scale nuclear. It wants the first reactor built by 2035.
Where exactly will they be built?
Two sites in NSW (Liddell in the Hunter and Mt Piper near Lithgow), two in Queensland (at the Tarong and Callide power plants), one in Victoria (Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley), one in South Australia (Port Augusta), and one in Western Australia (Collie).
Are the site owners OK with that?
No, they say they haven’t been consulted and they say they have their own multi-billion dollar plans to build clean energy and industrial hubs. AGL CEO Damien Nicks says: “There is no viable schedule for the regulation or development of nuclear energy in Australia, and the cost, build time and public opinion are all prohibitive. ” However, the Coalition says if the site owners do not co-operate they will compulsory acquire the land needed.
Which technology will the Coalition use?
It’s not clear. Dutton wants to build small nuclear reactors at two sites, in South Australia and W.A. But SMRs do not exist yet, none have planning approval, and none even have licences to be built anywhere in the western world. Of the two large scale nuclear technologies cited, one (APR1400) has not been ordered anywhere in the world outside South Korea for 15 years. The other, the AP1000, sent its maker Westinghouse bankrupt in 2017 and was the technology used in the Vogtle reactor in the US whose massive delays and cost overruns might make it the last ever built in that country.
When is the timeline for the Coalition nuclear build?
The Coalition wants the first SMR up and running by 2035, and the first large-scale nuclear plant by 2037, with the rest in the 2040s.
Is that realistic?
No. SMRs – for all intents and purposes – haven’t been invented yet. There is no design in any western country that has even been licensed, let alone been given approvals or started construction. Globally, the industry is hopeful of getting the first up by the end of the decade. Even Canada, with a well established nuclear industry and an available site, says it is unlikely to have the second SMR up and running by 2035.
The timelines for large-scale nuclear are even longer. All four projects built or under construction in the last three decades in the US, France, Finland and the UK have suffered massive delays and cost over-runs. Australia has no regulatory platform, and no existing industry, apart from the small reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. Even pro-nuclear advocates like former chief scientist Alan Finkel say nuclear cannot realistically be delivered in Australia until the 2040s.
What are the costs?
The Coalition hasn’t said anything about costs, which is not surprising. SMRs have not been built and the only one that got close was cancelled by its would-be customers because it would have been hideously expensive. The Coalition’s timeline of 2035 means it wants to be an early adopter. The CSIRO puts the costs at more than $600/MWh, which might be palatable for a technology used only rarely for evening peaks, but such a price for “always on” power would be insane.
Would it lead to lower bills?
All Australian and international studies show that the Coalition’s choice of technologies – nuclear, gas and carbon capture – are by far the most expensive. See CSIRO, AEMO, Lazard, and BloombergNEF. Energy analysts say the growing reliance on gas power while renewables are stopped and coal kept on line would lead to soaring prices and an extra $1,000 on annual bills for the average household. The nuclear rollout will be entirely funded and subsidised by the taxpayer, which means that – as in France, Ontario and elsewhere – the costs of nuclear would be borne by the government and hidden from consumer bills.
What would happen to emissions?
Emissions will rise significantly if the Coalition puts its plan into action. One study suggests it would result in some 2.3 billion tonnes of additional carbon emissions over the Australian Energy Market Operator’s step change scenario.
What about Australia’s obligations to the Paris climate treaty?
The Coalition has made clear it will not seek to meet the current interim target of a 43 per cent cut in emissions. That means it is effectively ignoring the climate treaty, which requires no back-tracking on committed targets.
What about the net zero by 2050 target?
The Coalition says it still intends to meet that – but, by stopping wind and solar and building more gas, that target looks impossible under their plan.
The Coalition says the sites were chosen because they will not need new transmission. Is that true?
No. The site owners have their own plans. In Port Augusta, for instance, the grid capacity has already been mostly taken up by new wind, solar and batteries. “The myth that a nuclear reactor could just plug into the old Pt Augusta coal power station transmission lines is not true,” says South Australia energy minister Tom Koutsanstonis. “The transmission lines are already nearly full from new renewables. In truth, a nuclear reactor at Pt Augusta would need new transmission lines, the exact thing the LNP are complaining about.” And the large-scale nuclear reactors cited by Dutton will be twice the size of any existing unit in Australia, so it will need more grid infrastructure, and also more “back-up” in case those units fail.
The Coalition says the market operator has warned that the reliance on wind and solar will mean the lights will go out. Is that true?
No. The Australian Energy Market Operator says the biggest threat to energy reliability and security is the failure of ageing and increasingly unreliable coal fired generators.
The Coalition says wind and solar cannot power modern economies and businesses. Is that true?
No. The owners of Australia’s biggest smelters and refineries, including Rio Tinto and Ark Energy, are contracting multiple gigawatts of wind and solar to power their assets. South Australia says it has been flooded with inquiries from business with more than 2 GW of energy demand seeking to move to the state to access cheap wind and solar.
The Coalition says wind and solar cannot provide more than 10 per cent of the energy mix without causing problems. Is that true?
No. South Australia already enjoys a 75 per cent share of wind and solar, and the isolated W.A. grid has had 36 per cent wind and solar over the past year. The market operator says instantaneous levels of 100 per cent should be achieved in coming years.
The Coalition says the Labor government wants to build 28,000 km of new transmission lines by 2030. Is that true?
No. The market operator’s system plan envisages just over 5,000 km by 2030, one third of which have already been built, and some of the rest needed by growth in population and industry. The 28,000 km number comes from the “green export superpower” scenario and is for 2050. That assumes a switch from fossil fuel exports to green industries (steel, power, ammonia), and would likely be required whatever the technology.
Isn’t nuclear banned in Australia?
Yes, at federal and state levels. If the Coalition wants to repeal the laws it will need to get it through both houses of parliament, and who knows where the numbers will be after the next election, with the two-party preferred polls even stevens and any number of independents and minor parties also likely to emerge.
Do the states want nuclear?
No. The Labor governments in Queensland, NSW and Victoria have state laws against nuclear and intend to keep them. LNP Opposition leader David Crusafulli, favoured to take power in Queensland’s election in October, is also against nuclear. State governments in Western Australia, South Australia and even the Liberals in Tasmania are also opposed to nuclear, but legal experts say if the Commonwealth pulls rank, it is heading for the courts.
What if local communities object?
Nationals leader David Littleproud has spent the last few years defending the right of communities to oppose wind, solar, battery and transmission projects, and has demanded a pause and a “re-set.” But he says the Coalition will brook no opposition to its nuclear plans. If local communities don’t like it, tough luck. “We need strong leadership in this country, to have the courage of its convictions, to follow through and to make the tough calls in the national interest,” he told the ABC.
What will be the future of large-scale renewables under a Coalition government?
If the Coalition wins power, it won’t be good. Littleproud wants them stopped, and has vowed to rip up contracts written by the Commonwealth under the Capacity Investment Scheme, which could have 12 GW of capacity lined up over the next 12 months. States may plough on, but will face roadblocks and vetoes on projects. Investors say they need certainty.
So what is the real strategy here?
It’s pretty clear that the strategy is less about building nuclear and more about stopping renewables and protecting the fossil fuel industry, something that the Coalition has not been shy about for the last two decades. It will lead to higher costs, more emissions, squandered industry opportunities, and make the grid less reliable.
Will the strategy work?
Quite possibly. To people in the industry, pushing nuclear and walking away from Australia’s low cost wind and solar resources is nuts – from an engineering, economic and environmental point of view. But 95 per cent of people do not know, and are not interested in, the fine details of the complex energy system. They just want cheap power and the lights to stay on.
And to many of them the Coalition’s fear mongering may sound entirely plausible, particularly when the obvious misinformation is not contradicted by mainstream media – with a few notable exceptions such as The Guardian. See Trump, see Aboriginal voice referendum.
The fossil fuel industry is funding a massive campaign on social media to share simple and effective stories that make nuclear sound sensible and wind and solar as madness. They didn’t just think of this yesterday. If the renewable energy industry and Labor are not careful, they will lose this battle for hearts and minds.
Wow, that was exhausting. Do you need a lie down?
Yes.
France’s Orano loses operating licence at major uranium mine in Niger.
Niger has removed the mining permit of French nuclear fuel producer Orano
at one of the world’s biggest uranium mines, the company said Thursday,
highlighting tensions between France and the African country’s ruling
junta.
RFI 21st June 2024
Congress passes bill to jumpstart new nuclear power tech
ADVANCE Act heads for Biden’s signature, but it may be too little, too late.
JOHN TIMMER – Ars Technica 21st June 2024
Earlier this week, the US Senate passed what’s being called the ADVANCE
Act, for Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean
Energy. Among a number of other changes, the bill would attempt to
streamline permitting for newer reactor technology and offer cash
incentives for the first companies that build new plants that rely on one
of a handful of different technologies. It enjoyed broad bipartisan support
both in the House and Senate and now heads to President Biden for his
signature. Given Biden’s penchant for promoting his bipartisan credentials,
it’s likely to be signed into law. But the biggest hurdles nuclear power
faces are all economic, rather than regulatory, and the bill provides very
little in the way of direct funding that could help overcome those
barriers.
Ars Technica 21st June 2024
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/06/congress-passes-bill-to-jumpstart-new-nuclear-power-tech/
Israeli ‘extremist’ tells Australian audience Gaza should have been reduced to ashes
The Age, By Chip Le Grand, June 21, 2024
A former Israeli parliamentarian who once held a position in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government told an online gathering of Australian Jews this week that Israel should have abandoned adherence to international law and reduced Gaza to ashes.
In a series of incendiary claims, Moshe Feiglin, the leader of Israel’s far-right Zehut party, said there was no such thing as Palestinians, Palestinian statehood was the biggest lie of the 20th century and that Gaza should be resettled by Jewish Israelis and Arab families encouraged to leave.
“What Israel should have done to Gaza, on the 8th of October, was exactly what the British people did in Hamburg and Dresden, and exactly what the American people did in every Japanese city they could reach,” he told a Zoom meeting hosted by the Australian Jewish Association (AJA).
“They burnt them to ashes. No ridiculous humanitarian aid. They burnt those cities.
“If we had done that, we would have won the war in a few days and many of the hostages would be free today.”
The association’s invitation for Feiglin to speak, at a time when the war has bitterly divided Australian communities and unleashed antisemitic attacks on Jewish people, businesses and politicians, was condemned by Palestinian and Jewish community organisations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..more https://www.theage.com.au/national/israeli-extremist-says-gaza-should-have-been-reduced-to-ashes-20240620-p5jnac.html
U.S. and China hold first informal nuclear talks in five years
By Greg Torode, Gerry Doyle and Laurie Chen, June 22, 2024
HONG KONG, (Reuters) – The United States and China resumed semi-official nuclear arms talks in March for the first time in five years, with Beijing’s representatives telling U.S. counterparts that they would not resort to atomic threats over Taiwan, according to two American delegates who attended.
The Chinese representatives offered reassurances after their U.S. interlocutors raised concerns that China might use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons if it faced defeat in a conflict over Taiwan. Beijing views the democratically governed island as its territory, a claim rejected by the government in Taipei.
“They told the U.S. side that they were absolutely convinced that they are able to prevail in a conventional fight over Taiwan without using nuclear weapons,” said scholar David Santoro, the U.S. organiser of the Track Two talks, the details of which are being reported by Reuters for the first time.
Participants in Track Two talks are generally former officials and academics who can speak with authority on their government’s position, even if they are not directly involved with setting it. Government-to-government negotiations are known as Track One.
Washington was represented by about half a dozen delegates, including former officials and scholars at the two-day discussions, which took place in a Shanghai hotel conference room.
Beijing sent a delegation of scholars and analysts, which included several former People’s Liberation Army officers.
A State Department spokesperson said in response to Reuters’ questions that Track Two talks could be “beneficial”. The department did not participate in the March meeting though it was aware of it, the spokesperson said.
Such discussions cannot replace formal negotiations “that require participants to speak authoritatively on issues that are often highly compartmentalized within (Chinese) government circles,” the spokesperson said.
Members of the Chinese delegation and Beijing’s defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment.
The informal discussions between the nuclear-armed powers took place with the U.S. and China at odds over major economic and geopolitical issues, with leaders in Washington and Beijing accusing each other of dealing in bad faith…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.reuters.com/world/us-china-hold-first-informal-nuclear-talks-5-years-eyeing-taiwan-2024-06-21/
Australia’s Opposition leader Peter Dutton launches highly personal attack on Prime Minister Albanese, calling him ‘a child in a man’s body’ while spruiking his new nuclear direction.
- Peter Dutton addressed party faithful in Sydney
- Painted PM Albanese as weak leader
By MICHAEL PICKERING FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA and WILLIAM TON and ANDREW BROWN FOR AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS, 22 June 2024
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton told Liberal Party faithful Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was ‘a child in a man’s body’ in a highly personal attack on Saturday.
Mr Dutton spoke to a federal council meeting of Liberal Party politicians, administrators and members in Sydney in which he painted Mr Albanese as ‘weak’ and a leader who told people ‘what they want to hear, not what needs to be said’.
‘He’s a man with a mind still captured in his university years; he’s a child in a man’s body,’ Mr Dutton said………. The opposition leader has cast the next federal election as defining Australia’s ‘future and fate’ with voters to decide the nation’s path forward on energy.
Australians will decide their energy future at the next election, says the opposition leader while slamming the government’s ‘reckless’ renewables policy and spruiking his nuclear pledge.
‘The next election will not only define the next political term, it will define the future and fate of this nation,’ he said.
Voters will have to choose the path they want to take including the nation’s energy future amid soaring power costs, Mr Dutton said.
‘A choice between Labor’s reckless renewables-only policy that will see the energy bills of Australians soar even more,’ he said.
‘Or the coalition’s plan for cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy, which includes our visionary plan to become a nuclear-powered nation and to do the right thing by the environment.’
It follows the coalition on Wednesday unveiling plans for seven nuclear reactors across five states on the sites of coal-fired power stations, should it win government.
The plan prompted safety concerns in regional areas where the reactors are due to be built, as well as criticism over the coalition not releasing any costings.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was panned for adhering to ‘unachievable’ renewable emissions targets, which the opposition said are blowing the budgets of Australians.
‘He’s more interested in appeasing the international climate lobby than sticking up for the interests of everyday Australians,’ Mr Dutton said.
‘I will be someone who doesn’t shirk the hard and necessary decisions which must be made in our national interest in these tough and precarious times.’
Opposition frontbencher Paul Fletcher dismissed fears the nuclear policy could make metropolitan electorates harder to win at the next election, saying it demonstrated the party’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050.
The coalition faced significant challenges at the 2022 federal election in blue-ribbon, inner-city seats from teal independents, who pledged greater action on climate change.
While the reactors would be built in regional locations, Mr Fletcher said those in inner city areas would also embrace the idea of nuclear.
Under the plan, it would take until 2035 to 2037 at the earliest for the first facility to be built.
Assistant Climate Change and Energy Minister Jenny McAllister hit out at the nuclear policy which she said was expensive and risky.
‘Today Peter Dutton could’ve answered the many questions Australians have about his risky nuclear plan but all they got was more of the same nasty negativity and politics,’ she said.
‘Peter Dutton demands a mature debate but instead launches personal attacks. Peter Dutton demands lower power prices but opposes energy price relief and is unable or unwilling to say how much his nuclear plans will cost Australian taxpayers.
‘Australians deserve better.’
Scotland’s First Minister Swinney hits back at ‘hopelessly ideological’ attack from nuclear industry
By Martin Williams, @Martin1Williams, Senior News Reporter, Herald 20th June 2024
The First Minister has rejected an attack from the nuclear industry that his ban on new power plants is “hopelessly ideological”.
John Swinney doubled down on his rejection of new nuclear after he was challenged in the Scottish Parliament over his stance after the nuclear industry criticisms, revealed in the Herald on Sunday targeted his view that he was “not a fan of the nuclear industry” and that he “never have and never will” support investments in new power plants.
He has been responding to calls to lift the ban on nuclear as fears grow over hundreds of jobs being lost and skilled workers leaving Scotland for overseas.
The nuclear industry attacked the First Minister for being “hopelessly ideological and anti-science” after he said he was “not a fan” of the business and that he “never have and never will” support investment in the power plants……………………
When asked for his response to the nuclear industry in the Scottish Parliament, Mr Swinney said: “The Scottish Government does not support the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. We have abundant natural resources and a highly skilled workforce to take advantage of the many renewable energy opportunities. Evidence shows that new nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives.
“Nuclear energy also creates radioactive waste, which must be safely managed over many decades to protect the environment, requiring complex and expensive handling. The Scottish government is supporting continued growth in renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture technologies to drive economic growth, support green jobs and provide secure, affordable and clean energy for Scotland.”
But in response, Scottish Conservative Central Scotland MSP Graham Simpson said: “So it is hopelessly ideological and anti science…………………..
The First Minister responded: “I gave a considered answer to Graham Simpson. I don’t think it could in any way be described as ideological, because I made the point that evidence shows that new nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives.
“We are facing a cost of living and public finance crisis, so any responsible First Minister will look to make sure that we make the most fiscally efficient approach to energy generation.
“This government, as a result of its clear policy leadership, has successfully decarbonised electricity generation within Scotland. We have developed renewable energy with policy certainty, and I want to give the same policy certainty to storage, to hydrogen to carbon capture technologies to drive economic growth and support green jobs……………………
And he added: “So I am afraid to say Graham Simpson has not got a leg to stand on this question. We have got a clear strategy on renewables. We will pursue that and will pursue it sustainably to deliver for the people of Scotland……………………….. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24400300.swinney-hits-back-hopelessly-ideological-attack-nuclear/
Saudi Arabia shuts pilgrims out of air-conditioned areas as more than 1,000 die in extreme heat
Unregistered worshippers who had not bought costly permits
for hajj pilgrimage make up more than half the deaths, as temperatures hit
51C.
Telegraph 20th June 2024
-
Archives
- February 2026 (220)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 