The Greenland ice cap is losing an average of 30m tonnes of ice an hour due to the climate crisis.
The Greenland ice cap is losing an average of 30m tonnes of ice an hour
due to the climate crisis, a study has revealed, which is 20% more than was
previously thought. Some scientists are concerned that this additional
source of freshwater pouring into the north Atlantic might mean a collapse
of the ocean currents called the Atlantic meridional overturning
circulation (Amoc) is closer to being triggered, with severe consequences
for humanity. Major ice loss from Greenland as a result of global heating
has been recorded for decades. The techniques employed to date, such as
measuring the height of the ice sheet or its weight via gravity data, are
good at determining the losses that end up in the ocean and drive up sea
level. However, they cannot account for the retreat of glaciers that
already lie mostly below sea level in the narrow fjords around the island.
In the study, satellite photos were analysed by scientists to determine the
end position of Greenland’s many glaciers every month from 1985 to 2022.
This showed large and widespread shortening and in total amounted to a
trillion tonnes of lost ice.
Guardian 17th Jan 2024
A new wave of climate denialism is on the rise
A new wave of denial about climate change is on the rise even as there is
greater acknowledgment of human-caused global warming, a study of more than
12,000 videos by a disinformation campaign group warns. The “new
denial” seeks to undermine confidence in green energy solutions, as well
as climate science and scientists, the research led by a group of academics
and the Center for Countering Digital Hate shows.
These forms of denial made up 70 per cent of falsehoods related to climate change in videos published on sites such as YouTube and X over a six-year period, said the
report, which was published on Tuesday. Videos that were identified as
containing climate denial claims received more than 325mn views in total,
based on research that used artificial intelligence tools to sort and
classify the assertions in content uploaded from 2018 to 2023.
The academics led by Travis Coan from the UK’s Exeter university found older
forms of denial about climate change had fallen to one-third of the
disinformation. Fewer instances highlighting cold weather or a coming ice
age were found, for example, as meteorological evidence of global warming
increased.
Instead, the majority of claims focused on three new main
categories: that the consequences of global warming were either harmless or
even beneficial; that climate science was unreliable; and that climate
solutions offered would not work — the most predominant theme. Examples
of this included that electric vehicles produce three times as much toxic
pollution as internal combustion engines when mining of the rare earth
materials involved in making the vehicle are taken into account. In fact,
the US Environmental Protection Authority and many scientists are clear
that over an EV’s lifetime the total greenhouse gas emissions are
typically lower even when accounting for manufacturing.
FT 16th Jan 2024
https://www.ft.com/content/aa369295-1805-414c-af99-3c7596df0847
Climate misinformation is mutating on YouTube – and the platform is
profiting. Researchers analysed thousands of hours of YouTube content from
the past six years and found that ‘old’ climate change denial is giving
way to a new type of misleading content intended to muddy the waters.
Independent 16th Jan 2024
State of the Climate: 2023 smashes records for surface temperature and ocean heat
Last year was the warmest since records began in the mid-1800s – and
likely for many thousands of years before. It was the first year in which
average global temperatures at the surface exceeded 1.5C above
pre-industrial levels in at least one global temperature dataset. Here,
Carbon Brief examines the latest data across the oceans, atmosphere,
cryosphere and surface temperature of the planet.
Carbon Brief 12th Jan 2024
Human ‘behavioural crisis’ at root of climate breakdown, say scientists
New paper claims unless demand for resources is reduced, many other innovations are just a sticking plaster
Record heat, record emissions, record fossil fuel consumption. One month
out from Cop28, the world is further than ever from reaching its collective
climate goals.
At the root of all these problems, according to recent
research, is the human “behavioural crisis”, a term coined by an
interdisciplinary team of scientists. “We’ve socially engineered
ourselves the way we geoengineered the planet,” says Joseph Merz, lead
author of a new paper which proposes that climate breakdown is a symptom of
ecological overshoot, which in turn is caused by the deliberate
exploitation of human behaviour.
“We need to become mindful of the way
we’re being manipulated,” says Merz, who is co-founder of the Merz
Institute, an organisation that researches the systemic causes of the
climate crisis and how to tackle them. Merz and colleagues believe that
most climate “solutions” proposed so far only tackle symptoms rather
than the root cause of the crisis. This, they say, leads to increasing
levels of the three “levers” of overshoot: consumption, waste and
population.
Guardian 13th Jan 2024
“The defense of nuclear power as a low-carbon energy weakens the European Union’s action against climate change”
“The defense of nuclear power as a low-carbon energy weakens the
European Union’s action against climate change”.
The Renewable Energies for All association denounces, in a column in “Le Monde”, the
deleterious effects of the inclusion of nuclear power in the French and
European objectives for the deployment of renewable solutions.
Seeking to relaunch nuclear power whatever the cost, France is not only missing a
historic opportunity for a rapid and less costly transition to renewable
energies and decarbonization.
It weakens the climate ambition of theEuropean Union (EU). The reintegration of current nuclear production in Europe – 6% of its final energy – into the objective of 42.5% renewable
energies set by the RED III directive [Renewable Energy Directive III]
would create an accounting artifice and lead to vagueness strategic in a
field which nevertheless needs a long-term vision.
Le Monde 13th Jan 2024
2023 confirmed as world’s hottest year on record
The year 2023 has been confirmed as the warmest on record, driven by
human-caused climate change and boosted by the natural El Niño weather
event. Last year was about 1.48C warmer than the long-term average before
humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels, the EU’s climate
service says. Almost every day since July has seen a new global air
temperature high for the time of year, BBC analysis shows.
Sea surface temperatures have also smashed previous highs. The Met Office reported last
week that the UK experienced its second warmest year on record in 2023.
These global records are bringing the world closer to breaching key
international climate targets. “What struck me was not just that [2023] was
record-breaking, but the amount by which it broke previous records,” notes
Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University.
The margin of some of these records – which you can see on the chart below
– is “really astonishing”, Prof Dessler says, considering they are averages
across the whole world.
BBC 9th Jan 2024
Analysis: Record opposition to climate action by UK’s right-leaning newspapers in 2023
Last year saw a record number of UK newspaper editorials opposing climate
action – almost exclusively from right-leaning titles – new Carbon
Brief analysis shows.
The analysis is based on hundreds of UK national
newspaper editorials, which are the formal “voice” of the publications.
The 354 editorials published in 2023 relating to energy and climate change
add to thousands more collected in a long-running project started by Carbon
Brief. Newspapers such as the Sun and the Daily Mail published 42
editorials in 2023 arguing against climate action – nearly three times
more than they have printed before in a single year.
They called for delays
to UK bans on the sale of fossil fuel-powered cars and boilers, as well as
for more oil-and-gas production in the North Sea. In response to such
demands, prime minister Rishi Sunak performed a “U-turn” in September
on some of his government’s major net-zero policies. Last year also saw a
surge in hostility towards climate protesters, with editorial attacks
doubling compared to recent years.
Carbon Brief 9th Jan 2024
What a farce! Another veteran of the oil and gas industry to lead the next round of COP 29 climate talks
Cartoon courtesy of Simon Kneebone
Cop29, the next round of UN talks to tackle the climate crisis, will be
led by another veteran of the oil and gas industry.
Mukhtar Babayev, Azerbaijan’s ecology and natural resources minister, has been appointed
the president-in-waiting for the Cop29 climate talks when they take place
in the country in November. Before his entry into politics in the
autocratic country in western Asia, once a Soviet republic, Babayev spent
26 years working for the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic
(Socar).
Close observers of the Cop process will see parallels with the
appointment of Sultan Al Jaber, who moonlighted from his role as the chief
executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company to preside over the summit
when it took place in Dubai last year.
Guardian 5th Jan 2024
BBC 5th Jan 2024
Sea level rise: ‘We can’t afford to wait’: a Cornish town faces climate threat head on
Earlier this year the north Cornwall town received a profound shock when
it was presented with a visualisation created by the Environment Agency of
the impact of rising sea levels on Bude. It left little doubt about the
seriousness of the threat and made it clear that global heating-induced sea
level rises will push the community into full-scale retreat. If nothing is
done, by 2050 rising sea levels will consume landmarks, such as the surf
life-saving club, and the Bude seawater swimming pool, as well as cafes,
businesses and car parks.
Guardian 14th Dec 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/14/cornish-town-faces-climate-threat-head-on-bude
The failed Nuscale project lets Utah down — again
Every time we gamble on a nuclear project like Nuscale to deliver carbon-free power, we are hampering our ability to meet critical climate goals by 2030.
By Lexi Tuddenham | For The Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 29, 2023 https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2023/12/29/opinion-failed-nuscale-project/
Early last month, Nuscale made headlines by canceling its 462 MW proposal for a small modular nuclear reactor (SMNR) at the Idaho National Laboratory. Here in Utah, the news was met with little surprise.
For the past six years, we’ve been raising crucial questions about the viability of the so-called “Carbon Free Power Project” (CFPP). Was it a project that could deliver power on time and at a reasonable cost to ratepayers? How much would taxpayers and ratepayers ultimately pay, and who would bear the environmental, public health and financial risks? Could it meet our energy needs at a time when electrification is more critical than ever?
In 2015, the Nuscale project was eight years out. In 2022, it was still eight years out. As we watched other nuclear power projects be abandoned or blunder online years late and billions of dollars over cost, there was a sense of inevitability about who would suffer when this project failed: the communities who had placed their faith in its fantastical promises of affordable, reliable and “clean” power.
We were told that these SMNRs would be revolutionary — smaller, more cost-effective and with cutting-edge technology, but as we watched the costs swell from $55/MWh to $89/MWh and well beyond, even with huge federal subsidies, it was clear the financial risks were only mounting. With the collapse of the hypothetical project, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) member communities in rapidly growing areas like Hurricane and Washington City are now left with the reality of scrambling for alternatives to meet their future energy needs.
As we see nuclear projects around the country experience delay after delay, the Nuscale experience is one reason why we continue to watch the developments of the Terrapower Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, with a mix of skepticism and concern. The other reason is that the Terrapower project has promised not just electricity to Pacificorp customers, but also jobs in a community that desperately needs them. This is irresponsible at best.
The projected timeline for the Terrapower reactor to come online has already been pushed to 2030, which Terrapower external affairs director Jeff Navin admits is “cutting it close.” In addition, the community faces an economic abyss between the projected closure of the coal plant and the startup of the nuclear facility, and federal officials recently noted that with no permanent waste repository existent in the U.S., spent nuclear fuel will be stored “temporarily” on-site. Similar concerns can and should be raised about the proposed nuclear plants at Hunter and Huntington in Utah. At the end of the day, it is workers who are being let down, and it is communities who have to deal with the long term consequences.
We know that the next few years are of critical importance in our ability to combat the worst effects of climate change before we kick off even more warming feedback loops. Every time we gamble on a nuclear project like Nuscale to deliver carbon-free power, we are hampering our ability to meet critical climate goals by 2030. As timelines for such projects are inevitably dragged out, in the interim we continue to burn fossil fuels that choke the air that people breathe and force the climate ever closer to its tipping point.
The hard truth is that there is no silver bullet for climate change. Relying on nuclear power maintains dependence on a flawed energy system that primarily benefits industries that have historically profited from past harms. Now they promise to seamlessly plug in nuclear power and conduct business as usual.
According to the latest estimates, about a billion dollars was sunk into the now-abandoned Nuscale CFPP. This is a drop in the bucket compared to some other nuclear projects this country has seen over the last 30 years. But imagine that $1 billion spent elsewhere on legacy cleanups of the nuclear and uranium mining industry, aiding Downwinders or boosting renewable energy capacity that we know can work. There is an opportunity cost for investing in nuclear when we have faster, lower-risk options that we can prioritize now. Instead, we can take on climate change with what has been called “rational hope,” by investing in wind, solar, geothermal power, storage, grid improvements and efficiency technologies that offer cost-effective climate solutions. And Utah’s potential in these areas is immense.
But this energy future requires a reimagining. It requires permitting and energy-sourcing processes that put the health and vitality of communities front and center. It means changing course to avoid mistakes of the past.
Here at HEAL Utah, we collaborate with communities to shape an energy future crafted by the people it serves. This future prioritizes clean air, a healthy environment and family-sustaining jobs, all powered by accessible, sustainable and affordable renewable energy sources. In short, this is rational hope in practice. Together, we can make it a reality.
Lexi Tuddenham is the executive director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL Utah).
Why Artificial Intelligence is a disaster for the climate.
What this excellent article does not go on to explain is that the “tech gods” (that’s Musk, Gates, Bezos etc) are happy to have nuclear power expand – to fill the endless hunger for electricity of artificial intelligence and the rest of the digital marvels to come.
AI requires staggering amounts of computing power. And since computers require electricity, and the necessary GPUs (graphics processing units) run very hot (and therefore need cooling), the technology consumes electricity at a colossal rate. Which, in turn, means CO2 emissions on a large scale – about which the industry is extraordinarily coy, while simultaneously boasting about using offsets and other wheezes to mime carbon neutrality.
Guardian, John Naughton, 24 December 23
Amid all the hysteria about ChatGPT and co, one thing is being missed: how energy-intensive the technology is.
What to do when surrounded by people who are losing their minds about the Newest New Thing? Answer: reach for the Gartner Hype Cycle, an ingenious diagram that maps the progress of an emerging technology through five phases: the “technology trigger”, which is followed by a rapid rise to the “peak of inflated expectations”; this is succeeded by a rapid decline into the “trough of disillusionment”, after which begins a gentle climb up the “slope of enlightenment” – before eventually (often years or decades later) reaching the “plateau of productivity”.
Given the current hysteria about AI, I thought I’d check to see where it is on the chart. It shows that generative AI (the polite term for ChatGPT and co) has just reached the peak of inflated expectations. That squares with the fevered predictions of the tech industry (not to mention governments) that AI will be transformative and will soon be ubiquitous. This hype has given rise to much anguished fretting about its impact on employment, misinformation, politics etc, and also to a deal of anxious extrapolations about an existential risk to humanity.
All of this serves the useful function – for the tech industry, at least – of diverting attention from the downsides of the technology that we are already experiencing: bias, inscrutability, unaccountability and its tendency to “hallucinate”, to name just four. And, in particular, the current moral panic also means that a really important question is missing from public discourse: what would a world suffused with this technology do to the planet? Which is worrying because its environmental impact will, at best, be significant and, at worst, could be really problematic.
How come? Basically, because AI requires staggering amounts of computing power. And since computers require electricity, and the necessary GPUs (graphics processing units) run very hot (and therefore need cooling), the technology consumes electricity at a colossal rate. Which, in turn, means CO2 emissions on a large scale – about which the industry is extraordinarily coy, while simultaneously boasting about using offsets and other wheezes to mime carbon neutrality.
The implication is stark: the realisation of the industry’s dream of “AI everywhere” (as Google’s boss once put it) would bring about a world dependent on a technology that is not only flaky but also has a formidable – and growing – environmental footprint. Shouldn’t we be paying more attention to this?
Fortunately, some people are, and have been for a while. A study in 2019, for example, estimated the carbon footprint of training a single early large language model (LLM) such as GPT-2 at about 300,000kg of CO2 emissions – the equivalent of 125 round-trip flights between New York and Beijing. Since then, models have become exponentially bigger and their training footprints will therefore be proportionately larger.
But training is only one phase in the life cycle of generative AI. In a sense, you could regard those emissions as a one-time environmental cost. What happens, though, when the AI goes into service, enabling millions or perhaps billions of users to interact with it? In industry parlance, this is the “inference” phase – the moment when you ask Stable Diffusion to “create an image of Rishi Sunak fawning on Elon Musk while Musk is tweeting poop emojis on his phone”. That request immediately triggers a burst of computing in some distant server farm. What’s the carbon footprint of that? And of millions of such interactions every minute – which is what a world of ubiquitous AI will generate?……………………………………………………more https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/23/ai-chat-gpt-environmental-impact-energy-carbon-intensive-technology
The faith leaders fighting for the climate: ‘we have a moral obligation’
It has been another catastrophic climate year: record-breaking wildfires
across Canada scorched an area the size North Dakota, unprecedented
rainfall in Libya left thousands dead and displaced, while heat deaths
surged in Arizona and severe drought in the Amazon is threatening
Indigenous communities and ecosystems.
The science is clear: we must phase
out fossil fuels – fast. But time is running out, and as the climate
crisis, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation worsen, there is
mounting recognition that our political and industry leaders are failing
us. If the science isn’t enough, what role could – or should – faith
leaders play in tackling the climate crisis? After all, it is also a
spiritual and moral crisis that threatens God’s creation, according to
many religious teachings.
Guardian 23rd Dec 2023
COP28’s Unrealistic Tripling of Nuclear Power
according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the declaration by 22 countries calling for a tripling of nuclear energy by 2050 is more fantasy than reality: “Even at best, a shift to invest more heavily in nuclear energy over the next two decades could actually worsen the climate crisis, as cheaper, quicker alternatives are ignored for more expensive, slow-to-deploy nuclear reactors.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dec. 13th, 2023)
BY ROBERT HUNZIKER, 22 Dec 23, https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/12/22/cop28s-unrealistic-tripling-of-nuclear-power/
UN climate conferences since 1992 have failed to follow thru with results, as CO2 emissions continue higher and higher with every passing year. In fact, post climate conference impact of adopted proposals has become something 0f an inside joke. The most recent conference, COP28, embraced nuclear power as a godsend challenging climate change.
“Triple Nuclear Power” still echoes throughout the halls of COP28. If one stands at the podium in the convention center now empty and listens intently, echoes reverberate “triple nuclear power” spewing out of red-faced maniacs from over 20 countries that committed to tripling nuclear power to bail our global asses out of a crazed climate system of epic proportions.
The US, UK, UAE, and others signed a declaration. Since they couldn’t budge oil and gas, it was decided to favor nuclear power as a surrogate for fixing the rip snorting global heating imbroglio found from pole to pole, from ocean to ocean. It’s real, it’s palpable; it’s now, much earlier than forecasts, as 1.5C prematurely comes to surface during irregular episodes.
Yet, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the declaration by 22 countries calling for a tripling of nuclear energy by 2050 is more fantasy than reality: “Even at best, a shift to invest more heavily in nuclear energy over the next two decades could actually worsen the climate crisis, as cheaper, quicker alternatives are ignored for more expensive, slow-to-deploy nuclear reactors.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dec. 13th, 2023)
Building nuclear power facilities has a long history that unfortunately casts a doubtful shadow over the idea of tripling by 2050. A now-famous plan by Princeton University in 2004 called for a “stabilization wedge” to avoid one billion tons of carbon emissions per year by 2055 by building 700 large nuclear reactors over 50 years.
In 2022, there were 416 operating reactors in the world. Starting in 2005 when the Princeton plan was announced, it would have meant building 14 reactors per year, assuming all existing reactors continued to function. However, over the 50-year cycle aging reactors and those going into retirement would ultimately require 40 new reactors per year. But throughout the entire history of nuclear power, on average 10 nuclear power plants connected to the electricity grid per year, and the number of new units was only 5 per year from 2011-2021.
Once again, like the sticky issue of direct carbon capture, achieving the scale of proposed solutions to climate change’s biggest weapon, or global warming, is beyond reality. Talk is cheap.
Meanwhile less expensive safer wind and solar easily trounce nuclear power’s newly installed output, by a country mile, to wit:
New nuclear energy capacity 2000-2020 42 GWe
New wind capacity from 2000-2020 605 GWe
New solar capacity from 2000-2020 578 GWe
Nuclear costs are prohibitively high: It’ll cost $15 trillion to triple nuclear capacity, assuming existing reactors continue to function, which will not be the case, raising this big bet well over $15T. Who’s putting up $15T?
And is there enough time to triple by 2050? From design to projected operation of the NuScale VOYGR plant takes 13 years. According to the International Energy Agency, the design and build phase for a country’s first nuclear reactor is 15 years. Several countries that signed on to the declaration to triple nuclear power are newbies.
According to a Foreign Policy article, Dec. 13th 2023 entitled: COP28’s Dramatic But Empty Nuclear Pledge: several reasons for skepticism about the nuclear energy triple buildout were enumerated, concluding: “The combination of macroeconomic pressures and regulatory restrictions means that neither pledges such as those made at COP28 nor memorandums of understanding with various industries, utilities, and governments should give anyone much confidence that a major expansion of nuclear energy is forthcoming.”
Nuclear expert Mycle Schneider, the lead author of the prestigious World Nuclear Industry Status Report (500 pgs.) now in in its 18th edition known for its fact-based approach on details of operation, construction, and decommissioning of the world’s reactors was recently interviewed by the Bulletin: Schneider’s publication is considered the landmark study of the industry.
Regarding NuScale, the US-based company that develops America’s flagship SMR (Small Nuclear Reactors), the company initially promised in 2008 to start generating power by 2015. As of 2023, they haven’t started construction of a single reactor. They do not have a certification license for the model they promoted for a Utah municipality. NuScale’s six module facility would cost $20,000 per kilowatt installed, twice as expensive as the most expensive large-scale reactors in Europe. And SMRs will generate disproportionate amounts of nuclear waste. No bargain here, assuming it even works efficiently enough, which is doubtful.
Schneider: “The entire logic that has been built up for small modular reactors is with the background of climate change emergency. That’s the big problem we have.” A sense of urgency cannot be met: “Considering the status of development, we’re not going to see any SMR generating power before the 2030s. It’s very clear: none. And if we are talking about SMRs picking up any kind of substantial amounts of generating capacity in the current market, if ever, we’re talking about the 2040s at the very earliest.”
Schneider on COP’s pledge to triple nuclear power: “From an industrial point of view, to put this pledge into reality. To me, this pledge is very close to absurd, compared to what the industry has shown.”
Looked at another way: “It took 70 years to bring global nuclear capacity to the current level of 370 gigawatts (GW), and the industry must now select technologies, raise finance and develop the rules to build another 740 GW in half that time… Why would anyone spend a single dollar on a technology that, if planned today, won’t even be available to help until 2035-2045?’ said Mark Jacobson, an energy specialist at Stanford University.” (Source: Nuclear Sector Must Overcome Decades of Stagnation to Meet COP28 Tripling, Reuters, Dec. 7, 2023) How about $15 trillion?
COP28 did not deliver on phase down of fossil fuels, and it’ll likely miss on tripling nuclear power. But once the results are finally known, it’s too late. The heat’s already on.
Nuclear folks are exaggerating their “win” at COP 28
There was no COP28 pledge to triple nuclear.
After a fight, nuclear got listed as one of a number of possible technologies to use in accelerating transition from fossil fuels.
22 countries, including Canada tried to drive the triple nukes “pledge” but over 200 countries signed on to triple renewables and double energy efficiency ” the renewables pledge is IN the final GST decisions.
The danger of rising tides to the Dungeness nuclear site, and to planned small nuclear reactors for Sussex
suggestions that Dungeness might become the site of a new nuclear power station featuring Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The UK’s energy infrastructure, as noted by Peter Frankopan, is highly exposed to danger by even modest rises in sea levels, with all 19 of the country’s nuclear reactors located in coastal regions
As climate change increases the frequency and severity of storms, the inhabitants of low-lying Sussex coastal towns face potential danger
Rising Tides and Nuclear Solutions: the urgent call for coastal protection, byChris Wilmott, 16-12-2023
Born in the coastal town of Hastings, I was lucky to grow up in Sussex by the Sea. I recognise that being able to enjoy the proximity of the sound of the waves, with the many wild and warm variations of weather, was a fantastic benefit during my childhood. However, in recent years, my gaze has shifted somewhat towards a looming threat – the peril that coastal towns now face from climate change and the relentless rise of the tides and adverse weather.
I’ve been doing some research on this and according to NASA there is the potential for lunar cycles to start creating higher tides as soon as 2030, leaving low-lying areas vulnerable to the unforgiving turmoil and rage of the sea. This makes me very concerned for Dungeness, just across from Hastings in Kent, an iconic region situated in a famously low-lying area. In a recent article published by Sussex Bylines, Susan Kerrison posed the question The rising costs of sea defences – how prepared are we? In my opinion, we’re not prepared at all.
…………………………………………….Dungeness B is a nuclear power plant that even as far back as 2014 caused serious concerns over its safety and is now closed and in the process of de-fuelling. EDF privately acknowledged to the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) that the shingle bank protecting the reactors from the sea was “not as robust as previously thought.” This revelation sparked worries among environmentalists, with Greenpeace’s Doug Parr highlighting the lack of transparency about serious safety concerns over flooding.
My interest in this site is heightened by suggestions that Dungeness might become the site of a new nuclear power station featuring Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The UK’s energy infrastructure, as noted by Peter Frankopan, is highly exposed to danger by even modest rises in sea levels, with all 19 of the country’s nuclear reactors located in coastal regions – the UK Office for Science has acknowledged this threat.
Apart from the potential fall out of power stations failing, one must consider the localised impact of families having to relocate and businesses losing their premises, potentially at short notice. Hastings has suffered two floods so far this year, with sandbags a common sight and businesses forced to close.
Onwards and Upwards for the sea
Ocean scientist Eelco Rohling warns that the combination of global sea-level rise and increased storm intensities could spell doom for exposed coastal regions. The threat of flooding extremes looms large, even with a sea-level rise of 20 centimetres. Twenty centimetres may seem like a modest rise, the corresponding storm surge of two metres would cause considerable damage. Picture then a sea-level rise of say, 80 centimetres, and one can only imagine the destruction that would be caused by a corresponding storm surge of eight metres. ……………………………………………more https://sussexbylines.co.uk/news/environment/rising-tides-and-nuclear-solutions/—
1 This Month
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (142)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
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 