Why consumers are very likely to pay a lot more for power from Sizewell C than from Hinkley C
under the RAB mechanism, it seems that EDF will be paid for what they actually spend. This time it will be British, not French taxpayers and consumers, that will be paying for the cost overruns.
The Government are deceiving us about the cost effectivemess of their new funding mechanism for nuclear power
Dave Toke’s Green Energy Blog, DAVID TOKE, OCT 25, 2023
Consumers face a double whammy of bills to pay for the planned nuclear power plant, Sizewell C, due to be given a go-ahead soon. According to a ‘worst case scenario,’ consumers are likely to (collectively) pay around £34 billion in today’s prices before any electricity is generated from Sizewell C at all. But, in addition, according to my calculations, under this (quite likely) worst-case scenario consumers will then also pay around £160 per MWh in today’s prices for electricity produced by Sizewell C. This works out as £117 per MWh in 2012 prices (ie the base year for setting the cost of Hinkley C). The Government appears to be doing little or nothing to prevent this scenario from occurring.
Hence consumers could not only be paying much more per MWh than the controversially high Hinkley C deal (£92.5 per MWh in 2012 prices) but will also be paying large sums upfront before a kWh is even generated. In fact, despite being labeled as a ‘worst case scenario’, the estimate for Sizewell C costs that have been calculated is essentially based on the type of cost overrun experienced by attempts to build nuclear power plants in the West since 1990. That is nuclear construction costs end up being around double the amount initially budgeted.
I have taken the size of the upfront costs payable by consumers from an analysis done by Professor Stephen Thomas of Greenwich University. See also here. I have then taken his worst-case scenario figure for these upfront costs and converted them into a figure for costs per MWh by applying conventional economic tools. This involves using discounted cash flow analysis using a (real) 6 percent discount rate and assuming Sizewell C will be generating at an average of 90 percent of full capacity. This assumes using a contract type paying premium prices for energy generated similar to that used for Hinkley C (ie lasting for 35 years). I have based cost estimates of operating nuclear power plants on US experience, although operating costs form only a small element of the costs. The large bulk of the costs are concerned with repaying money loaned and invested in the power station.
My analysis runs contrary to the narrative spread by the Government. They claim that the so-called Regulated Asset Base (RAB) mechanism for funding new nuclear power plants will make nuclear power cheaper for the consumer. On the contrary, it is likely to allow more to be paid to EDF for Sizewell C compared to Hinkley C. This is because consumers will be responsible for paying cost overruns for Sizewell C whilst in the case of Hinkley C it is EDF that takes responsibility for cost overruns. The total amounts that consumers will have to pay will remain unknown until it is far too late to do anything to stop consumers from having their electricity bills dramatically increased………………..
The RAB mechanism has been lauded as a cost-saver because it allows EDF to pay lower interest rates on money borrowed to finance construction compared to the borrowing costs applicable to building Hinkley C. Money needed to finance interest payments and investors during the construction period is charged to consumers whilst the plant is being built.
There’s one giant flaw in this argument. The Government seems to be heading towards giving the go-ahead to EDF to start construction without agreeing a price to be paid for electricity. This means that consumers will pay for whatever it costs to build the plant. The costs of nuclear power stations seem always to be a lot more than what was estimated at the time of the ‘final investment decision’ (FID).
This is different from what happened with Hinkley C. In the case of Hinkley C EDF was committed to paying for any cost overruns themselves without being paid any extra money. ………… EDF bears responsibility for these cost overruns – in effect the French taxpayers will pay since EDF is owned by the French Government.
Yet under the RAB mechanism, it seems that EDF will be paid for what they actually spend. This time it will be British, not French taxpayers and consumers, that will be paying for the cost overruns. OFGEM is being given responsibility for organising payments to EDF.
Ultimately, it seems, OFGEM will be the ‘fall guy’ when, many years down the line, there is public controversy over the costs of the power from Sizewell C. In an obscure piece of wording in an obscure document entitled ‘Revenue Stream for the nuclear RAB model’, the government says (page 12) ‘The amount a relevant licensee nuclear company is allowed to receive (‘allowed revenue’) in respect of its activities relating to the design, construction, commissioning, and operation of the relevant nuclear project would be determined by Ofgem’.
In other words, EDF will have virtually a blank cheque to pay all their costs. The only control OFGEM will have is to check that the costs have actually been spent or will be spent on the power plant.
People were surprised at the cost of the Hinkley C contract, but the surprise was based on the public being kept in ignorance of nuclear construction costs in the past. Now the Government has learned its lesson, and we shall see a return to the past practice of the public being kept in the dark about the costs of building nuclear power plants…………………………………………… https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/why-consumers-are-very-likely-to
The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) steps up drive to keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia
By Bevan Ramsden | 26 October 2023 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/ipan-steps-up-drive-to-keep-us-military-expansion-out-of-australia,18020
The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) has produced a petition opposing the Force Posture Agreement (FPA) which is enabling U.S. militarisation of Australia in preparation for the U.S. to support/launch war from the Australian continent against China.
The e-petition to Parliament is an instrument for peace calling for the termination of the FPA.
It can be signed HERE.
The devastation of war, currently in Ukraine and in Palestine, confronts us on TV on a daily basis. All peace-loving people cry out for a ceasefire on both war fronts to enable, hopefully under United Nations auspices, conferences of all affected parties to find solutions that meet the security needs of all parties and free non-combatants from the horrors of war.
But concern about these wars should not blind us to the preparations for war occurring on our own continent under the auspices of the United States and with the enthusiastic complicity of successive Australian governments.
When defence matters are discussed, much is made of the U.S.-Australia alliance. But when the U.S. militarisation of Australia is considered, the alliance pales into insignificance compared to the U.S.-Australia FPA. It emerged as a concept from former President Barack Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” of the U.S. armed forces, in which he announced the stationing of U.S. marines in Darwin each year to train for war with our Defence Force.
The “Pivot” was a strategy designed to “contain” China and maintain U.S. hegemony in the Asia/Pacific area. President Obama’s concept was enthusiastically received by all politicians of both major parties.
Subsequently, the Gillard and Abbott Governments, in conjunction with their U.S. defence counterparts, produced a greatly expanded concept, the FPA, providing “an operational posture” for U.S. forces in Australia, a gateway for U.S. militarisation of Australia. It was signed by the Abbott Government and the United States Government in 2014.
The FPA:
- facilitates the stationing in Darwin, for six months each year, of up to 2,500 U.S. Marines; they are trained and equipped for immediate deployment and while in Australia, train for war in exercises with the Australian Defence Force. They are not under the control of the Australian Government. They are under the control of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command;
- facilitates unimpeded access to Australia’s airfields and airport facilities for U.S. fighter planes and bombers including the stationing of up to six B-52 bombers at RAAF Base Tindall. B-52 bombers were used to devastate Vietnam in that war and some are capable of carrying nuclear weapons;
- facilitates unimpeded access to Australia’s seaports for U.S. naval vessels including their nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling in WA;
- facilitates the establishment of storage facilities for aircraft fuel, spare parts and munitions under U.S. military control. This includes huge fuel storage facilities at East Arm, Darwin and logistics facilities for storage of equipment, munitions and spare parts at Bandiana in Victoria;
- opened the door for the embedding of U.S. military intelligence operatives within the Australian defence intelligence organisation now called the Combined Intelligence Centre — Australia; and
- under the FPA, a U.S. command centre has been established in Darwin to control U.S. aircraft operations and another command centre in Darwin to control U.S. marine operations.
In short, the U.S. could launch and control military operations from Australia.
I have stressed the words “unimpeded access” because they are the words used in the Agreement.
Article IV of the FPA states:
…United States Forces and United States Contractors shall have unimpeded access to and use of Agreed Facilities and Areas for activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement.
Australia hereby grants to the United States operational control of Agreed Facilities and Areas…
Part 4 of Article VII states:
‘As mutually determined by the Parties, aircraft, vehicles, and vessels operated by or for United States Forces shall have access to aerial ports and seaports of Australia and other locations, for the delivery to, storage and maintenance in, and removal from the territory of Australia of United States Forces’ prepositioned materiel.’
Activities under Article IV include:
‘…training, transit, support, and related activities; refuelling of aircraft; bunkering of vessels; temporary maintenance of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; temporary accommodation of personnel; communications; prepositioning of equipment, supplies, and materiel; deploying forces and material; and such other activities as the Parties may agree.’
Summing up, the FPA, with the enthusiastic support of the Australian Government, is facilitating increased U.S. militarisation of Australia to support U.S. military operations in the Indo-Pacific from which it could launch or support a war against China. This has been done with the agreement of both major political parties.
The FPA lasts 25 years from the date of signing but has a clause facilitating termination if either party gives one year’s notice.
IPAN is campaigning to have this FPA terminated. This would be a strong step in the direction of keeping Australia out of another U.S. war. And this time, one which would have a catastrophic impact on the Australian people.
If you wish to join this campaign, IPAN has a parliamentary e-petition which is open until 15 November 2023 for signature and it can be accessed by using your mobile phone and this QR code. [on original] #nuclear #antinuclear #NoNukes
Faulty coolant pump delays commissioning of Vogtle 4 nuclear reactor: project cost now over $30Billion
US Georgia Power has reported the discovery of a malfunctioning coolant
pump at unit 4 of its Vogtle NPP, resulting in a delay in commissioning of
the unit. The problem in one of the reactor’s four pumps was found during
pre-operational testing and startup of the unit, which had been expected
begin operation later this year. Instead, the reactor now is forecast to
begin operations in the first quarter of 2024.
Fuel loading at Vogtle 4 began in August. Unit 3 began commercial operation at the end of
July. Vogtle 3&4 are both 1,117 MWe Westinghouse AP1000 pressurised water
reactors (PWRs). The two units were originally expected to cost about $14bn
and to enter service in 2016 and 2017 but suffered a series of delays,
including Westinghouse’s bankruptcy in 2017.
The total cost of the project
to build Vogtle 3&4 is now put at more than $30bn. Georgia Power owns 45.7%
of the project; Oglethorpe Power Corp owns 30%; the Municipal Electric
Authority of Georgia (MEAG) owns 22.7%; and the city of Dalton owns 1.6%.
The units will be operated by Southern Nuclear.
Nuclear Engineering International 11th Oct 2023
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfaulty-coolant-pump-delays-commissioning-of-vogtle-4-11210696 #nuclear #antinuclear #NoNukes #NuclearCosts
Why the US fixation on increased nuclear capability won’t deter China but could lead to instability and nuclear war
Bulletin By Andrew Facini | October 27, 2023
“……………………………………..In the span of two weeks, several major policy documents—including a bipartisan Congressional report on strategic posture and a Defense Department update on China’s estimated nuclear stockpile—have put the US nuclear posture vis-à-vis China front and center. The reports, which focus heavily on hardware and capability, contribute to a years-long deliberation with policymakers and analysts attempting to counter a perceived risk of tipping military balance in the Indo-Pacific. China’s nuclear weapons buildup is driving concerns among US allies and partners in the region over the aggression Beijing could possibly engage in, once its nuclear arsenal can “shield” the country from retaliation. The perceived threat is so intense that it has become a top national security concern in Washington.
Concerningly, however, the domestic debate about countering China’s growing arsenal has thus far dwelled almost exclusively on US capability—narrowly defining the problem and asking what combination of new nuclear missiles, increased forward-deployments, or friendly technology-sharing can maintain US dominance in a crisis and therefore deter China from taking aggressive steps. Unsurprisingly, the recommendations that followed ranged from adding more warheads to US missiles and building more nuclear submarines to—considered as important—adopting a posture of force-meets-force superiority at all levels against Chinese nuclear weapons in the Pacific.
But in aggressively pursuing capability surges alone, the United States may end up on the wrong side of the stability-instability paradox, risking escalation to nuclear war—intentional or not—through an overreliance on introducing untested or provocative technologies.
Instead, a stronger US strategy for responding to the challenge posed by China’s growing arsenal should be for the United States to supplement military capability by building multiple levels of mutual understanding and routes toward risk reduction across the Pacific. These measures must be implemented urgently and certainly before a crisis forces China and the United States to seriously test their nuclear deterrence relationship.
Capability fixation drives instability. One counter-productive distraction from a multi-level, risk-reduction approach to China is found in the sustained call for the fielding of new systems like the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile (SLCM-N) and other tactical nuclear weapons ostensibly meant for battlefield use. Promoting these systems as a purported solution to future crises places incentives in all the wrong places and dangerously complicates the possible outcomes in a conflict.
For its part, the SLCM-N (which the White House has already rejected via its most recent Nuclear Posture Review but a hawks-dominated Congress funded anyway) is a seemingly straightforward proposal to replace some of the cruise missiles on submarines with nuclear-armed ones. But just by its presence, the SLCM-N would pave the way for all US cruise missiles deployed to the Pacific to be potentially armed with nuclear warheads. If this happens, Chinese political and military leaders would have to conservatively assume that any incoming US cruise missile is nuclear-armed, prompting a presumption of escalation and adding extreme pressures for a rapid nuclear counter-attack, even as the US missile is still en route. If a regional crisis erupts for which a conventionally armed Tomahawk sea-launched strike would be an appropriate response, US leaders would suddenly have very good reason to hesitate.
By all accounts, the expanded destructive capability of the SLCM-N would create a self-imposed constraint that risks cutting out a major swath of conventional escalation options by muddling intermediate systems like cruise missiles with a nuclear option. Making an entire rapid-response weapons platform (one already with broad new investments in the region) less usable in favor of implied nuclear escalation is precisely the scenario SLCM-N advocates are trying to head off.
Tactical nuclear weapons also complicate the deterrence equation in a broader sense. In a contested and alarming information environment, even cautious beliefs about escalation control would be rendered academic while mushroom clouds rise over a battlefield. Far better would be to drive up the threshold for nuclear use at any level and communicate that intention clearly through both policy and force posture decisions.
Even during the early years of the Cold War when emerging technologies were filling out more of the “middle rungs” of the escalation ladder with tactical nuclear capabilities, it was seen as critical to maintain and keep clear the distinction between the first battle in West Germany and the ultimate destruction of Washington and Moscow. In blurring the picture of how the first hours of a nuclear conflict with China would be managed by both sides, setting clear decision-making timeframes and thresholds ahead of time would prove to be a safer and stronger strategic posture, helping to reduce uncertainty and panic in a crisis……………………………………………………………………………………………
Now is the time to forge a better mutual understanding with Beijing, not to escalate tensions. Holding multi-level dialogues about intentions; building reliable, resilient communication channels; and fostering those hard-to-quantify personal connections that can quell dangerous arms-racing instincts—or at least add critical resistance to escalation in a crisis—should be emphasized alongside any examination of force posture. Some military policy changes—including weapons modernization—may be required to meet the moment, but the approach in Washington thus far has been badly constrained to the force-meets-force thinking which, if taken alone, will only multiply risks and add untested variables for the United States and its allies.
The need to understand Beijing and find pre-crisis paths to reduce tensions is ultimately much more important and urgent than any given weapons system or revised strategic posture. Doing that work will be difficult and require sustained investment in both civil society and government processes at the highest levels, but it is a necessary component of maintaining deterrence to avoid nuclear war. https://thebulletin.org/2023/10/why-the-us-fixation-on-increased-nuclear-capability-wont-deter-china-but-could-lead-to-instability-and-nuclear-war/ #nuclear #antinuclear #NoNukes
The World’s Only Muslim Nuclear Power Warns Israel’s War in Gaza Must Stop
NewsWeek, Oct 27, 2023
Pakistan’s permanent representative to the United Nations has outlined to Newsweek his country’s position on the ongoing war between Israel and Palestinian factions led by Hamas, expressing the need for a ceasefire and warning of regional instability if an already devastating conflict deepens further.
“This is an obligation that devolves on all member states to prevent an escalation of the conflict,” Ambassador Munir Akram told Newsweek. “We would have hoped that the conflict had not taken place, but it has, and now we have to stop it, to halt the fighting and to avoid the suffering that is happening and is likely to happen if this conflict goes on.”
While the Islamic Republic he represents, one of the world’s most populous countries and the only Muslim-majority nation to possess nuclear weapons, may be thousands of miles away from the frontlines of the Gaza Strip, Akram identified a direct connection between Pakistan and the Palestinian cause. This link was made all the more tangible by parallels he drew between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Indian-Pakistani dispute over the divided territory of Kashmir, to which Pakistanis commemorate a “Black Day” on Friday.
With local health officials in Hamas-run Gaza now counting deaths in excess of 7,000 as a result of Israeli airstrikes since an unprecedented Hamas-led October 7 assault on Israel in which authorities said 1,400 people were killed, Akram argued that “this is not something that should be acceptable to any civilized nation or people and we oppose it, therefore we hope it would stop.”
He added: “There is an additional layer of obligation on us as an Islamic country.”
“We feel that we have an obligation, an emotional commitment to Palestine and to the freedom of the Palestinian people,” Akram said. “It is a principle to which we are committed politically because of Kashmir. We are heavily invested in that principle, and we would like to see the triumph of that principle of self-determination.”
Common History
The Israeli-Palestinian and Kashmir conflicts are linked by history as well, both having been born out of the collapse of British colonial rule three-quarters of a century ago in the years immediately following World War II.
When the British Raj was dissolved in 1947, the previously united Indian subcontinent was divided into the new nations of India and Pakistan, with Pakistan also controlling modern-day Bangladesh until 1971. The partition resulted in massive bloodshed, especially between Hindus and Muslims on both sides of the new border. The two new states quickly went to war over the middle ground of Kashmir, which today is divided along what’s known as the Line of Control………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.newsweek.com/pakistan-warns-israel-war-gaza-must-stop-munir-akram-1838448 #nuclear #antinuclear #NoNukes #Israel #Palestine
Lawmakers urged to keep moratorium on new nuclear power plants in Illinois – avoid the fantasy of small modular reactors
The claim of benefits of small modular reactors are fantasies. Turning to nuclear energy will mean more radioactive waste along with other problems, and will not help our state fight climate change.
By David Kraft, Oct 27, 2023 https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/10/27/23933226/illinois-moratorium-nuclear-power-plants-pritker-veto-small-reactors-renewable-david-kraft
During the fall session, the Legislature is expected to make a decision with enormous implications for renewable energy in Illinois.
Last spring, Gov. J.B. Pritzker wisely vetoed SB76, ostensibly to repeal Illinois’ 1987 nuclear power construction moratorium. In reality, pro-nuclear advocates introduced it promoting “small modular nuclear reactors” (SMNRs) — theoretical, untested “next generation” nuclear power plant designs.
The governor feared the bill would “open the door to the proliferation of large-scale nuclear reactors that are so costly to build that they will cause exorbitant ratepayer-funded bailouts” and provided “no regulatory protections or updates to address the health and safety of Illinois residents …”
They should not make the same mistake twice. Lawmakers should uphold the veto.
Pro-nuclear advocates describe the moratorium as an “arbitrary” and “outdated” “ban” on nuclear power. These claims are totally false. First, it’s a moratorium — a temporary, conditional halt — not a ban, conditioned on the federal government building an environmentally sound permanent disposal facility for the nation’s now-90,000+ tons of dangerous high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) before Illinois will allow construction of new reactors to make more of it.
The feds have yet to meet the legally mandated 1997 date to open a permanent disposal facility, and Illinois consequently has 11,000+ tons of HLRW sitting onsite lacking permanent disposal.
Absent this federal repository, the moratorium is not “outdated.” And since no new reactors have added to Illinois’ HLRW burden, it’s not “arbitrary” — it’s a success.
SB76 was really a Trojan horse. It ignored the reality about nuclear waste. It promoted the construction of small modular reactors, which was explicit in SB76’s introductory language, then inexplicably amended to remove that language; then amended again at the 11th hour, substituting language promoting a totally different kind of reactor. All of this resulted in the governor’s veto.
Now the pro-nuclear faction wants to override the veto. As a precaution they have also introduced SB2591 using the original SB76 language promoting SMNRs.
‘Fantasies’ about fighting climate change
Hoopla about the alleged “benefits” of small modular reactors are currently fantasies, mere nuclear industry marketing promises and wishful thinking because small reactors do not exist yet, and will not be available in commercially meaningful numbers until the mid-2030s, and then only if their proposed designs actually work.
SMNRs have been touted to strengthen local economies, provide job stability, support business and augment the tax base, thus leading to more funding for schools. Yet Illinois is already reaping all of these benefits at existing (and proposed) renewable energy facilities.
Illinois currently provides far more jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency — a combined 105,591, as of 2021 — than at current nuclear plants — 3,726 as of 2022. The non-existent small modular reactors actually call for fewer operating staff.
Pro-nuclear advocates claim we need more nuclear to fight climate change, a claim challenged by two former Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairs, Gregory Jaczko and Allison Macfarlane, who have stated unequivocally that nuclear energy can’t be a silver bullet for climate change because it cannot replace other forms of power generation quickly enough to sufficiently reduce emissions
Other worrisome “devils in the details” not receiving Legislature debate include: proposals to build small modular reactors without protective containment buildings; elimination of emergency planning zones around reactors; and exemption from financial liability in case of accidents.
SMNRs are proposed by an industry that can’t build reactors on time, is rife with cost overruns, has recently endured three major nuclear-related corruption scandals and already cannot compete in Illinois’ energy market without needing $3.05 billion in ratepayer guaranteed bailouts.
Small modular reactors will mean more radioactive waste, continued radioactive emissions and accident threats, potentially higher electric rates and more nuclear bailouts. SMNRs are competitors, not complements, to renewable energy, for both market share and transmission grid access. They threaten Illinois’ renewable energy goals.
If the Legislature truly supports safe, renewable energy, it will not override the governor’s veto of SB76; and it will not support more nuclear plants in Illinois’ energy future.
Short film explores nuclear legacy through the lens of the Marshallese community
Hawaii Public Radio | By Cassie Ordonio. October 27, 2023, https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/local-news/2023-10-27/short-film-explores-nuclear-legacy-through-the-lens-of-the-marshallese-community
Several decades after the United States detonated 67 nuclear bombs on the Marshall Islands, many Marshallese in the diaspora are longing to return home.
“In Exile,” which explores the nuclear legacy in the Pacific told through the experience of the Marshallese community in Arkansas, premiered at the Hawai’i International Film Festival this month.
Brooklyn-based director Nathan Fitch said the nuclear migration of the Marshallese is a blind spot in American history.
“The film is partly intended for an American audience who just doesn’t know anything about the Marshall Islands, let alone that piece of American history,” Fitch said. “Also, the fact that the (Marshallese) people have been in exile for nearly 70 years and still dream of going home.”
The Marshall Islands is located roughly 2,000 miles southwest of Hawaiʻi. It’s a sovereign nation comprising over 1,200 islands and chains of coral atolls, including its most populous Majuro and Kwajalein. The U.S. conducted a series of nuclear tests in Bikini and Enewetak Atolls during the Cold War between 1946 and 1958.
The radioactive fallout from the tests impacted people’s health, and many experienced birth defects and cancer. Descendants of the Bikini islands have lived in exile since 1946, and much of the island today is still unlivable.
Thousands of Marshallese have lived in the U.S. under the Compacts of Free Association. This agreement allows the Marshallese to migrate visa-free to the U.S. and its territories in exchange for the U.S. military having strategic denial rights of vast swaths of water in the surrounding islands.
The film follows the story of the Marshallese in Springdale, Arkansas, who gather annually to commemorate the Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day. Arkansas has one of the largest populations of Marshallese in the U.S., with a population of roughly 15,000.
Also, the film revealed that many Marshallese only knew the nuclear history once they were older. This was eye-opening for Angela Edward, a film producer and a Pohnpeian podcaster.
“They were never told about the nuclear testing their whole lives, almost until they were adults,” Edward said. “For them, it was almost a survival thing because they felt like it was their way of coping with this humongous tragedy that happened historically. “
The debut of “In Exile” is in juxtaposition with the negotiations of the Compacts of Free Association, according to Fitch. Recently, the U.S. and the Marshall Islands have renewed their agreement to extend economic assistance for another 20 years.
Fitch said he hopes the film will give an audience an understanding of why Marshallese, as well as other COFA citizens, migrated to the U.S.
“In Exile” sold out tickets at the Hawaiʻi International Film Festival. It recently won the Reel South Award at the Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival.
The short film is part of a larger film project called “Essential Islanders,” which Fitch said is still in the works.
“In Exile” will be available online next year. #nuclear #antinuclear #NoNukes #radiation
Bitcoin mining consumes more electricity than most countries, study suggests
To offset the carbon footprint of mining the leading cryptocurrency, a UN report has said more than 3.9 billion trees would need to be planted.
Sky News, Tuesday 24 October 2023
Bitcoin mining consumes more electricity than most countries, according to a new report on its damaging environmental impact.
Mining is the process by which transactions are added to and validated on the blockchain, the public ledger for cryptocurrencies.
Competing miners race to use computers to solve complex mathematical puzzles using extremely powerful hardware – receiving new Bitcoin as a reward for their efforts.
In 2020 to 2021, Bitcoin consumed 173.42 terawatt hours of electricity – enough to rank it 27th among nations, trumping the likes of Pakistan with a population of over 230 million people.
The resulting carbon footprint was the equivalent of burning 84 billion pounds of coal……………………………………………………………………………..
At the time of the UN study in 2021, China was by far the biggest Bitcoin mining nation – but it has since been overtaken by the US after Beijing launched an aggressive clampdown on the practice.
Combined, the 10 countries that mined the most Bitcoin were responsible for 92% of the climate footprint……………………………………………….. https://news.sky.com/story/bitcoin-mining-consumes-more-electricity-than-most-countries-study-suggests-12991456?fbclid=IwAR0y79GtFUU0bYTTo_bP2LbMSt5ybmCw19OTTF2jPZAUUWktAcYQJvDOSaQ#:~:text=In%202020%20to%202021%2C%20Bitcoin,84%20billion%20pounds%20of%20coal
British Nuclear Fuels resurrected as Great British Nuclear
In February 2023, plans to wind up BNFL within two years were still
active. By this point the company had not traded in 13 years. However, on
18 July 2023, BNFL was resurrected as Great British Nuclear, with the aim
of delivering the government’s long-term nuclear programme and supporting
its ambition to deliver up to 24 GW of nuclear power in the UK by 2050.
Wikipedia (accessed) 27th Oct 2023 #nuclear #antinuclear #NoNukes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Nuclear#Resurrection_as_Great_British_Nuclear
Australians Call to End Long Persecution of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange
ROBIN ANDERSEN, 25 Oct 23 https://fair.org/home/australians-call-to-end-long-persecution-of-wikileaks-julian-assange/
As WikiLeaks founder and Australian citizen Julian Assange has nearly exhausted his appeals to British courts against a US extradition order, Australia has ramped up its advocacy on his behalf. Six Australian MPs held a press conference outside the US Department of Justice on September 20 to urge the Biden administration to halt its pursuit of Assange (Consortium News, 9/20/23).
They came representing an impressive national consensus: Almost 80% of Australian citizens, and a cross-party coalition in Australia’s Parliament, support the campaign to free Assange (Sydney Morning Herald, 5/12/23). Opposition leader Peter Dutton joined Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in urging Assange’s release.
The day before, an open letter to the Biden administration signed by 64 Australian parliamentarians appeared as a full-page ad in the Washington Post. It called the prosecution of Assange “a political decision” and warned that, if Assange is extradited, “there will be a sharp and sustained outcry” from Australians.
Given what is at stake for freedom of the press in the Assange case, and the intensified pressure from Australia—a country being wooed to actively enlist in the US campaign against China by spending $368 billion on nuclear submarines and supersonic missiles (Sydney Morning Herald, 8/10/23)—we ought to expect coverage from the Washington Post, New York Times and major broadcast networks. But coverage of the press conference was virtually absent from US corporate media.
Prosecuting publishing
The US has been seeking to extradite Assange from Britain on charges relating to the leaking of hundreds of thousands of documents to international media in 2010 and 2011, many of which detailed US atrocities carried out in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and other human rights violations, such as the torture of detainees at Guantánamo Bay (Abby Martin, 3/10/23).
In 2019, President Donald Trump’s administration brought Espionage Act charges against Assange for obtaining and publishing leaked documents, a dramatic new attack on press freedom (FAIR.org, 8/13/22). Assange could face 175 years in a supermax prison if convicted under the Espionage Act, “a relic of the First World War” meant for spies (American Constitution Society, 9/10/21), and not intended to criminalize leaks to or publications by the press. The Biden administration has rolled back much of the legal mechanism used by Trump to attack journalists, but President Joe Biden has reaffirmed the call to extradite Assange.
Assange also coordinated with international news outlets to publish other material known as Cablegate about the “inner-workings of bargaining, diplomacy and threat-making around the world” (Intercept, 8/14/23). Indeed, the New York Times (e.g., 11/28/10) published many articles based on the WikiLeaks documents, which had been sent to Assange by US army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
US officials have repeatedly justified their case by charging that Assange put lives at risk; to date, no evidence has surfaced that any individuals were harmed by the leaks (BBC, 12/1/10; Chelsea Manning, Readme.txt, 2022). As the Columbia Journalism Review (12/23/20) admonished, don’t let the Justice Department’s
misdirection around “blown informants” fool you—this case is nothing less than the first time in American history that the US government has sought to prosecute the act of publishing state secrets, something that national security reporters do with some regularity.
US officials have repeatedly justified their case by charging that Assange put lives at risk; to date, no evidence has surfaced that any individuals were harmed by the leaks (BBC, 12/1/10; Chelsea Manning, Readme.txt, 2022). As the Columbia Journalism Review (12/23/20) admonished, don’t let the Justice Department’s
misdirection around “blown informants” fool you—this case is nothing less than the first time in American history that the US government has sought to prosecute the act of publishing state secrets, something that national security reporters do with some regularity.
In failing health after suffering a stroke, Assange has been held in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison since he was removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy in April 2019. He had sought asylum at the embassy in London in 2012 to avoid being sent to Sweden for questioning over sexual assault allegations, because Sweden would not provide assurances it would protect him from extradition to the US. Sweden dropped charges against Assange in November 2019 (BBC, 11/19/19), after he was in British custody.
International condemnation
The Australian diplomatic mission coincided with the convening of the UN General Assembly in New York City, where President Lula da Silva of Brazil condemned the prosecution of Assange, offering yet another opportunity for US corporate media to cover the strong international opposition to Assange’s treatment.
A video (9/19/23) of Lula speaking at the opening of the UN General Assembly was widely circulated on social media. “Preserving press freedom is essential,” Lula declared. “A journalist like Julian Assange cannot be punished for informing society in a transparent and legitimate way.”
Former British ambassador Craig Murray commented about Lula’s reception at the UN (Twitter, 9/17/23):
It is really not normal for the hall at the UN General Assembly to break into this kind of spontaneous applause. The US has been losing the room internationally for a decade. The appalling treatment of Julian is a focus for that.
US media absence
Yet, with a few exceptions (Fox News, 9/20/23; The Hill, 9/21/23; Yahoo News, 9/21/23), none of this made the major US news outlets.
Over a week later, Business Insider (10/1/23) ran a long piece that featured an interview with Gabriel Shipton, Assange’s half-brother. It pointed out that Assange had become an obstacle to US plans to involve Australia in its aggression toward China, quoting the PM. But the piece also hashed through a number of long-debunked claims, including one that reminded readers that Mike Pompeo once called Assange “a fugitive Russian asset” (FAIR.org, 12/03/18; Sheerpost 2/25/23), and another that repeated US assertions that WikiLeaks releases would put the US at risk.
The New York Times has been conspicuously absent from the coverage of Assange. Though the Times signed a joint open letter (11/28/22) with four other international newspapers that had worked with Assange and WikiLeaks, appealing to the DoJ to drop its charges, the paper has remained almost entirely silent on both Assange and the issues raised by his continued prosecution since then.
As FAIR pointed out, during the Assange extradition hearing in London, the Times
published only two bland news articles (9/7/20, 9/16/20)—one of them purely about the technical difficulties in the courtroom—along with a short rehosted AP video (9/7/20).
There were no editorials on what the case meant for journalism. FAIR contributor Alan MacLeod noted that the Times seemed to distance itself from Assange and WikiLeaks, and its own reporting on the Cablegate scandal, coverage that boosted the papers’ international reputation.
Other opportunities for coverage have been missed by the Times. For instance, Rep. Rashida Tlaib wrote a letter (4/11/23), signed by six other members of the Progressive Caucus, calling for the DoJ to drop the charges against Assange. Tlaib cited support from the ACLU, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Defending Rights & Dissent and Human Rights Watch, and many others, stating that his prosecution “could effectively criminalize” many “common journalistic practices.” The letter was covered by The Nation (4/14/23), the Intercept (3/30/23), Fox News (4/1/23), The Hill (4/11/23) and Politico (4/11/23), but the Times and other major newspapers were conspicuously silent.
When Assange lost his most recent appeal against extradition in June, a few outlets reported the news online (e.g., AP, 6/9/23; CNN, 6/9/23), but not a single US newspaper report could be found in the Nexis news database. (Newsweek‘s headline framed the news as a “headache for Biden”—6/8/23—rather than a blow for press freedom.) The Times only vaguely referred to the news (Assange “keeps losing appeals”) two weeks later in a feature (6/18/23) on the late whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who had criticized Biden’s decision not to drop the case against Assange.
The world is watching
A huge collective breath is being held as the world watches to see what will happen to Assange, the most famous publisher on the globe. Will he be returned to his country and his family by Christmas, as the Australian MPs have requested? Or will Britain and the US continue to slowly execute him?
Assange’s case is expected to be discussed during Prime Minister Albanese’s current visit to the US, which includes a state dinner hosted by Biden on October 25. MP Monique Ryan, part of the pro-Assange delegation, told news outlets: “Our prime minister needs to see this as a test case for standing up to the US government. There are concerns among Australians about the AUKUS agreement, and whether we have any agency” (Business Insider, 10/1/23).
As Common Dreams (9/19/23) quoted from the delegation’s letter:
We believe the right and best course of action would be for the United States’ Department of Justice to cease its pursuit and prosecution of Julian Assange…. It is well and truly time for this matter to end, and for Julian Assange to return home.
Ghoulish White House response to genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza
Walt Zlotow , West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 25 Oct 23
White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby advised Gazans Tuesday that their destruction and ethnic cleansing will continue relentlessly. “This is war. It is combat. It is bloody, ugly and it’s going to be messy and innocent civilians are going to be hurt going forward.”
No spokesman Kirby, not just hurt. Innocent civilians in Gaza are dying every day, every hour, every minute under thousands of bombs but no food, no water, no medicine; not even electricity to run their overwhelmed hospitals.
It’s no longer a war. It’s the mass destruction of 2.3 million Palestinians being systematically killed and driven from their open air prison by Israel and wholly enabled by the United States.
It is the worst, most grotesque and inhumane policy of the United State I’ve witnessed in my 70 plus years of following American foreign affairs.
Perpetual war in Ukraine that could go nuclear is not enough for Biden. He’s all in now for perpetual war in the Middle East that could explode into a massive regional war at any moment, if it doesn’t kill or remove all the Palestinians from Gaza first. #Israel #USA #Palestine
White House Says Continued Civilian Slaughter “Is Going To Happen” In Gaza
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, OCT 26, 2023 https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/white-house-says-continued-civilian?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=138276694&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email
The information interests of Israel and its western allies have been greatly served by framing this onslaught as a “war”, when that label doesn’t actually apply here. A war is when two nations or groups are in a state of armed combat with each other; one side may be more powerful than the other, but the combat is decidedly going two ways.
That’s not what’s happening here. Israel is raining high-tech military explosives upon civilian infrastructure inside a giant concentration camp densely populated with children, and every now and then a militant in Gaza fires back a type of rocket that is essentially a glorified firework which historically hardly ever kills anyone. Israel is killing civilians by the thousands and turning entire city blocks to rubble, while Hamas and other resistance groups in Gaza are doing some light property damage in what amounts to a performative display of defiance.
That’s not a war. That’s a massacre.
By calling this something that it isn’t instead of what it is, Israel apologists are able to respond to all criticisms of its actions with a shrug and a “This is war, man. War is ugly, what can I tell ya?” They wouldn’t be able to do that if they were addressing this atrocity truthfully.
The only thing truthful about Kirby’s framing was his statement that the slaughter of civilians is going to keep happening. The death toll from airstrikes in Gaza has reportedly surpassed 6,500, with the 24-hour periods from Monday to Tuesday and Tuesday to Wednesday both exceeding 700 deaths each. As Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp notes, this large escalation in deaths coincides with claims from Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel has escalated its bombing campaign.
This is all being funded and supported by the United States, who has been ramping up its military presence in the middle east in some pretty disconcerting ways. Not one but two US aircraft carrier strike groups have been deployed to the eastern Mediterranean since the killing began, and the Pentagon has told the press that it expects a “significant escalation” in attacks on US troops in the middle east in response to Israel’s relentless assault on Palestinian lives. US military advisers have been sent to Israel to help the IDF prepare for its ground invasion of Gaza, and as usual Australia is joining in the US warmongering by sending more troops to the middle east as well.
So we can expect a lot more killing in the near future, one way or the other. No meaningful pressure is being placed on Israel to stop butchering civilians, and an escalation into a broader war in the middle east is not at all outside the realm of possibility. Things could be headed in a direction that makes a genocidal massacre look like sunny days in retrospect. #Israel #USA #Palestine
Propaganda War: Pro-Israel Trolls are Mobbing Twitter’s Community Notes
An army of pro-Israel trolls has invaded the Community Notes function on X/Twitter, attempting to influence the online debate around the ongoing crisis.
SCHEERPOST, By Alan MacLeod / MintPress News, October 25, 2023
Almost as important as its military campaign for Israel is its battle to control its public image. Even as it kills thousands of people in Gaza, the small Middle Eastern nation is spending millions of dollars on a propaganda war, purchasing ads on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and other online apps. At the same time, an army of pro-Israel trolls has invaded the Community Notes function on X/Twitter, attempting to influence the online debate around the ongoing crisis.
Spending Millions to Whitewash Massacres
Since October 7, Israel has inundated YouTube with advertisements, with its Ministry of Foreign Affairs spending nearly $7.1 million on ads in the two weeks following Hamas’ incursion. According to journalist Sophia Smith Galer, this equates to almost one billion impressions.
With its campaign, the Israeli government overwhelmingly focused on rich Western nations, its top targets being France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium and the United States. In France alone, the ministry spent $3.8 million. Other branches of the Israeli government undoubtedly also spent money on ads. The overwhelming message of the campaign was that Hamas are terrorists linked with ISIS and that Israel – a modern, secular democracy – is defending itself from foreign aggression.
Much of the content blatantly violated YouTube’s terms of service, including a number of ads featuring gory shots of dead bodies. Another ad that piqued public attention was played before videos aimed at babies. Amid a scene of pink rainbows and soothing music, text appears reading:
We know that your child cannot read this. We have an important message to tell you as parents. 40 infants were murdered in Israel by the terrorists Hamas (ISIS). Just as you would do everything for your child, we will do everything to protect ours. Now hug your baby and stand with us.”
Nearly all the Ministry of Foreign Affairs views are inorganic. Most of their YouTube uploads garner only a few hundred views. But the ones selected as advertisements have hundreds of thousands or even millions of views.
Israel’s YouTube campaign has been matched by expansive attempts to control the public debate on other social media platforms. In barely a week, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ran 30 ads seen over 4 million times on Twitter. Like with YouTube, analytics data shows they were inordinately targeting adults in Western Europe.
One ad contained the words “ISIS” and “Hamas,” showing disturbing imagery that gradually sped up until the names of the two groups blended into one. In case the message was not clear enough, it ended with the message, “The world defeated ISIS. The world will defeat Hamas.”
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also bought large numbers of advertisements on Facebook, Instagram, mobile games and apps such as language trainer Duolingo.
Taking Notes
The Community Notes function on Twitter is an attempt to fight false information. Contributors who sign up for the feature can leave notes on any post, adding context to potentially misleading statements. The community then votes on these notes, and if enough people consider the note useful, it is presented below the original tweet.
While it has its advantages, the system is ripe for abuse and infiltration. Since October 7, an army of pro-Israel trolls has brigaded the function and is attempting to undermine and attack as many posts as possible showing Israel in a negative light or Palestine in a positive one. This has often been done in an attempt to hide Israeli war crimes.
“If you’re not a Community Notes contributor, then you may be unaware that any tweet about Gaza that poses an inconvenience to Israeli information interests is being mobbed by Israel apologists working to manipulate the narrative, including on tweets just voicing an opinion,” wrote journalist Caitlin Johnstone.
A case in point is the attack on the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza. Under a tweet from journalist Dan Cohen noting that Hananya Naftali (an aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) had boasted that Israel carried out the attack before deleting his message, Community Notes wrote that “Naftali has openly retracted his statement, as conclusive evidence has since shown the explosion was fired from a misfired rocket from Gaza.” The “conclusive evidence” offered was a statement from the Pentagon and a tweet from a former Israeli Air Force squad commander.
Meanwhile, a tweet from Lebanese political commentator Sara Abdallah breaking the news that Israel had just bombed the St. Porphyrius Church in Gaza was flagged by Community Notes. This meant that all users saw a note added reading, “False. Saint Porphyrius Orthodox Church in Gaza has posted they are untouched and operating as of October 9, 2023.” The problem was this was breaking news related to October 19, so any statement before that time was meaningless in assessing the news. Further undermining the community note was that Israel almost immediately accepted responsibility for the destruction.
Pro-Israel trolls have also not been above blatant smears. On a popular post from myself where I shared a picture of Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu embracing with the words, “In the future, this image will be looked upon as one of the most shameful moments in history,” Community Notes added the message: “Alan MacLeod is a Senior Staff Writer at MintPress News. MintPress is renowned for publishing far-left disinformation and antisemitic conspiracy theories.” Other MintPress staff, such as Lowkey and Mnar Adley, have also been consistently targeted with smears and arguments dressed up as clarifications.
Seeing What Sticks
In the fog of war, the Middle Eastern network Al-Jazeera has been a consistent source of live reporting. The well-funded network has a large team of reporters in Palestine and the wider region and has a long history of covering the conflict.
Therefore, when Al-Jazeera released an investigation that found no evidence to support Israel’s claim that a failed Palestinian rocket launch was to blame for the damage at the Al-Ahli Hospital, the story went viral.
This was a major blow to Israel and its apologists, who did not want the blood of hundreds of innocent doctors and patients on their hands. And so, pro-Israel users attempted to get community notes plastered all over the Al-Jazeera story……………………………………………………….
Wiki Wars
This is not the first time that Israel and its supporters have attempted to hijack and manipulate public highways of information. For over a decade, well-organized and well-funded Israeli groups have infiltrated Wikipedia and attempted to rewrite the encyclopedia to defend Israeli actions and demonize voices who speak out against them.
One of the most well-known of these is the Yesha Council, which, as far back as 2010, claimed to have 12,000 active members. Yesha members painstakingly police Wikipedia, removing troublesome facts and framing articles in a manner more favorable to Israel…………………………………………………
Spies Among Us
One of the reasons that social media companies have not cracked down on disingenuous pro-Israeli activities could be that former Israeli government and military officials hold top positions at a great number of the world’s most important platforms.
Emi Palmor, for example, is one of 22 individuals who sit on Facebook’s Oversight Board. Palmor was formerly the General Director of the Israeli Ministry of Justice. In this role, she directly oversaw the stripping away of Palestinian rights. She created a so-called “Internet Referral Unit,” which would push Facebook to delete Palestinian content that the Israeli government objected to. In her new role at the Oversight Board, she effectively writes Facebook’s rules, deciding what content to promote to the platform’s 3 billion users and what to censor, delete or suppress.
Palmor is also a veteran of Unit 8200, perhaps the most controversial unit in the Israeli military. Described as “Israel’s NSA,” Unit 8200 is the centerpiece of the country’s high-tech surveillance industry. Unit 8200 spies on the Palestinian population, compiling vast dossiers on millions of people, including their medical history, sex lives, and search histories, to be used for extortion later. ………………………………………………….
A MintPress News investigation unearthed a network of hundreds of Unit 8200 veterans working in influential positions at some of the planet’s most important tech and social media companies, including Google, Amazon and Meta (Facebook).
For example, Google’s Head of Strategy and Operations for Research, Gavriel Goidel, was previously a senior officer in Unit 8200, rising to become Head of Learning. Facebook Messenger’s Head of Data Science, Eyal Klein, served for six years in Unit 8200, rising to the rank of captain. And after serving in the controversial unit, Ayelet Steinitz became Microsoft’s Head of Global Strategic Alliances…………………………………………………………. more https://scheerpost.com/2023/10/25/propaganda-war-pro-israel-trolls-are-mobbing-twitters-community-notes/ #Israel #Palestine
Welsh campaigners call for nuclear sponsorship ban at National Eisteddfod.
The National Eisteddfod has peace at its heart and Welsh anti-nuclear
campaigners have registered a formal complaint with its governing body
protesting the acceptance of sponsorship money from the companies
Westinghouse and Cwmni Egino at this year’s event despite the clear links
between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
A letter endorsed by eight campaign groups and the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities has been sent today (24 October), on the first day of the United Nations’ Disarmament
Week, to the Eisteddfod Council calling on it not to accept ‘any future
sponsorship from any company engaged in developing nuclear power and the
manufacture of weapons, especially armaments of mass destruction.’
NFLA 24th Oct 2023 #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (54)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
