nuclear-news

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

Study reveals an increase in the frequency of nuclear power outages caused by climate change 

Study reveals an increase in the frequency of nuclear power outages caused by climate change   https://techxplore.com/news/2021-08-reveals-frequency-nuclear-power-outages.html

by Ingrid Fadelli , Tech Xplore  AUGUST 6, 2021 

Past research suggests that climate change and energy systems have a bidirectional relationship. In other words, just like emissions from energy systems can fuel climate change, climate change could also expose the vulnerabilities or shortcomings of energy systems.

For instance, climate change could adversely impact the operation of critical energy systems and infrastructure, potentially disrupting the provision of electricity. While nuclear power plants (NPPs) could be a viable solution for generating low-carbon electricity, the operation of these plants is susceptible to climate change and to the extreme weather conditions resulting from it.

Ali Ahmad, a researcher at Harvard University, recently carried out a study investigating the possible effects of climate change on NPPs. His paper, published in Nature Energy, specifically assessed whether climatic changes over the past three decades impacted the frequency of nuclear power outages.

“With more than three decades of data on changing climate, we are now in a position to empirically assess the impact of climate change on power plant operations,” Ahmad wrote in his paper. “Such empirical assessments can provide an additional measure of the resilience of power plants going forward. Here I analyze climate-linked outages in nuclear power plants over the past three decades.”

Compared to other power plants, such as those based on fossil fuels and biomass, NPPs require stricter safety regulations. Moreover, after an unplanned outage, nuclear reactors need to undergo a series of tests and analyses aimed at identifying the issue, thus it can take a while before they are started again.

Understanding the extent to which climate change can impact the functioning of NPPs is thus of vital importance, as it could inspire the development of strategies to mitigate these climate-related effects. In his paper, Ahmad examined the frequency of climate-linked nuclear power outages over the past three decades or so.

Overall, he found that NPP outages caused by climatic events have become increasingly more frequent in the past few decades. Many of these outages were induced by changes in climate, while others were a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis. Ahmad screened available data to only focus on outages associated with climate change.

“My assessment shows that the average frequency of climate-induced disruptions has dramatically increased from 0.2 outage per reactor-year in the 1990s to 1.5 in the past decades,” Ahmad wrote in his paper. “Based on the projections for adopted climate scenarios, the average annual energy loss of the global nuclear fleet is estimated to range between 0.8% and 1.4% in the mid-term (2046-2065) and 1.4% and 2.4% in the long term (2081-2100).”

As many researchers have been highlighting the value of nuclear power as a means to slow down and mitigate climate change, understanding the effects of climatic changes and global warming on NPPs before humans start heavily relying on them is of great importance. Ahmad’s recent analyses demonstrate that the operation of NPPs was significantly disrupted by changes in climate over the past decades. In the future, the results of his study could help to create more realistic economic and nuclear energy models that take climate-associated risks into consideration.

August 7, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

The impact of climate change on nuclear reactors should be a key part of COP26 Climate Summit

the UK’s coastal nuclear power stations are vulnerable to sea-level rise, storm surges and flooding of reactor and spent fuel stores – and soon

In other words, action to address the impact of climate change on nuclear energy should be a key part of the United Nation’s Cop26 climate summit.

Climate change: Why nuclear power isn’t part of the solution to this global crisis – Dr Paul Dorfman  https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/climate-change-why-nuclear-power-isnt-part-of-the-solution-to-this-global-crisis-dr-paul-dorfman-3328894

Over the past few weeks, the intensity and scale of the floods from slow-moving storms have broken records, and climate models are running hot.By Paul Dorfman

Monday, 2nd August 2021 This has prompted some to champion nuclear power as a source of lower-carbon electricity. But this newfound USP needs to be considered within the bigger picture because UK coastal nuclear power stations will be one of the first, and most significant, casualties to ramping climate impact. Put simply, nuclear is quite literally on the front-line of climate change – and not in a good way.

This has prompted some to champion nuclear power as a source of lower-carbon electricity. But this newfound USP needs to be considered within the bigger picture because UK coastal nuclear power stations will be one of the first, and most significant, casualties to ramping climate impact. Put simply, nuclear is quite literally on the front-line of climate change – and not in a good way.

All recent scientific data points to ramping sea-levels, faster, harder, more destructive storms and storm surges – inevitably bringing into question the operational safety, security and viability of UK coastal nuclear infrastructure.

Not normally given to exaggeration, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers says we may have to ‘up sticks’, relocate or abandon nuclear sites. This will cost. Trying to defend coastal nuclear means significantly increased expense for nuclear operation, waste management, and the 100-year-plus programme to decontaminate the UK’s 17 old nuclear reactors.

For nuclear to be practical, reactors have to be built economically, efficiently and on time. But practical experience says otherwise. EDF’s flagship EPR reactor is vastly over-cost and over-time at the two sites where it’s being built, at Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France.

Problems include poor concrete, bad welding and a faulty reactor pressure vessel – the main safety component. Things were supposed to have gone better in China, until last month’s nuclear fuel debacle demonstrated their inadequate safety oversight.

As for nuclear fusion, for the last 60 years proponents have said the technology will be ready in 20 years’ time – so perhaps this is an experiment to prove that time doesn’t exist in modern nuclear physics.

The reality is nuclear is a high-risk option. And this plays out in real time. Worldwide, nuclear is in stark decline and renewables are rising. The obvious explanation is the ramping costs of the former and the plummeting costs of the latter. So, not all lower carbon options are equal, benign or effective – and there are choices to be made.

Happily, big finance is at a tipping point as key global debt and equity investors pour record capital into renewables. With wind and solar power capacity growing at a record rate, the International Energy Agency predicts that renewables will supply 90 per cent of global electric power by 2050.

In Europe, renewables overtook fossil fuels to become the EU’s main source of electricity for the first time in 2020. Perhaps because it’s 50 per cent cheaper to generate electricity from renewables compared with fossil fuel-powered plants, the EU will increase renewables share in the total energy mix to 40 per cent by 2030.

OK, running an integrated renewable energy system will mean not just more wind and solar, but also a power network that ensures a balance of supply and demand at all times.

So it’s reassuring that power supply in nuclear-free Germany, the strongest economy in Europe, is one of the most reliable in the world, with government and grid operators confident that it will stay this way. In its last session before the summer recess, the German parliament brought forward the deadline for achieving climate neutrality by five years to 2045.

Here in Scotland, BP plans to invest £10 billion to make Aberdeen a global hub for offshore wind. Meanwhile Shell and Scottish Power are developing the world’s first large-scale floating offshore windfarms in the north-east of Scotland. And a very recent report by Imperial University says a massive expansion of offshore wind to 108 gigawatt will drive new power in the UK.

There are no resounding new revelations about the vulnerability of nuclear power to natural disasters, human or engineering faults, accidental or deliberate harm. Accidents are, by nature, accidental, and we’ve learned the cost of ignoring this common-sense axiom.

The fact is, the UK’s coastal nuclear power stations are vulnerable to sea-level rise, storm surges and flooding of reactor and spent fuel stores – and soon. This means that nuclear flood risk based on ‘all case scenarios’ must be published and regularly updated as climate science evolves, including costings and a range of contingency plans for the swift onset of climate-driven severe weather.

In other words, action to address the impact of climate change on nuclear energy should be a key part of the United Nation’s Cop26 climate summit.

It’s time to think constructively. We need to secure clean, safe, affordable, sustainable, low-carbon energy to power industry, transport, homes and businesses.

Our energy transition will involve the expansion of renewable energy in all sectors, rapid growth and modernisation of the electricity grid, energy conservation and efficiency, rapidly evolving storage technology, market innovations from supply to service provision, and transport restructure.

Nuclear sucks funds and vital political attention from this imperative zero-carbon investment. It displaces renewables on the grid and diverts essential research. The ramping costs of new nuclear compromises better, flexible, safe, productive, cost-effective and affordable technologies – and comes at a time when the development of renewable, sustainable and affordable low-carbon energy is a growing economic sector with a huge potential for jobs.

In bidding a long goodbye to fossil fuels, we’re also saying farewell to nuclear, that quintessentially mid-20th century technology – and not before time. Nuclear just can’t compete with the technological, economic, safety and security advantages of the renewable evolution.

Nuclear is an out-dated technology – a tired non-starter in the 21st century. We can do better.

Dr Paul Dorfman, of the UCL Energy Institute, University College London, is founder and chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group 

August 3, 2021 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Degrowth: the necessary climate solution no-one is talking about

The Necessary Climate Solution No-one is Talking About   https://www.tasmaniantimes.com/2021/08/degrowth-necessary-climate-solution-no-one-is-talking-about/ Erin Remblance 1 Aug 21,

For all the talk of renewable energy, electric vehicles and plant-based diets, there’s a gaping hole in the way we’re trying to solve accelerating climate change.

We will not stay below 2°C of warming while pursuing economic growth – yet barely anyone talks about it.

 Since the end of World War II Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth has been the metric of human prosperity in Western nations – the idea being that if the productivity of the economy increases so will the wellbeing of the people within that economy. And for a while that was the case – but since the 1970’s increases in GDP have, on average, failed to translate into increases in wellbeing and happiness.

It is not surprising. Research has shown that once a certain GDP threshold, or level of wellbeing, has been met people gain little from consuming more ‘stuff’ – a necessary requirement for continuous GDP growth.

 Robert F Kennedy eloquently summed up the inadequacy of GDP as a metric of wellbeing at a speech he gave in 1968:t]

The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

What’s more, GDP has never been, and can’t be, decoupled from material footprint, including energy[i]. This means we cannot roll out renewable energy fast enough to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement – to keep warming below 2°C – if we continue growing our economy.

Three percent growth every year for the rest of this decade is 30% growth by 2030. Achieving a 75% reduction on 2005 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 is a Herculean effort already, let alone if the economy is 30% bigger by that time. And surely, given the urgency with which we must decarbonise, reducing energy demand must be a part of the mix, even if it means reducing GDP?

There are nearly 8 billion people in the world today – but they haven’t all contributed equally to the climate crisis. Between 1990 and 2015 the world’s wealthiest 1% were responsible for double the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the poorest 50%. Over that same period, the wealthiest 10% of the world’s population were responsible for 52% of the world’s GHG emissions, while the poorest 50% were responsible for only 7% of the world’s GHG emissions.

Degrowing our economy to fit back within the planetary boundaries will also allow people living below satisfactory standards of human wellbeing to improve their living conditions. Data from 2016 showed that 940 million people still didn’t have access to electricity, and 3 billion people didn’t have access to clean fuels for cooking. These people don’t even own a washing machine, let alone a car and they certainly aren’t flying anywhere. Degrowth is not only necessary to solve the climate crisis, it’s the only way to address widening inequality across the globe.

For all the talk of renewable energy, electric vehicles and plant-based diets, there’s a gaping hole in the way we’re trying to solve accelerating climate change.

We will not stay below 2°C of warming while pursuing economic growth – yet barely anyone talks about it.

 Since the end of World War II Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth has been the metric of human prosperity in Western nations – the idea being that if the productivity of the economy increases so will the wellbeing of the people within that economy. And for a while that was the case – but since the 1970’s increases in GDP have, on average, failed to translate into increases in wellbeing and happiness.

 It is not surprising. Research has shown that once a certain GDP threshold, or level of wellbeing, has been met people gain little from consuming more ‘stuff’ – a necessary requirement for continuous GDP growth.

 Robert F Kennedy eloquently summed up the inadequacy of GDP as a metric of wellbeing at a speech he gave in 1968:t]he gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

What’s more, GDP has never been, and can’t be, decoupled from material footprint, including energy[i]. This means we cannot roll out renewable energy fast enough to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement – to keep warming below 2°C – if we continue growing our economy.

Three percent growth every year for the rest of this decade is 30% growth by 2030. Achieving a 75% reduction on 2005 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 is a Herculean effort already, let alone if the economy is 30% bigger by that time. And surely, given the urgency with which we must decarbonise, reducing energy demand must be a part of the mix, even if it means reducing GDP?

There are nearly 8 billion people in the world today – but they haven’t all contributed equally to the climate crisis. Between 1990 and 2015 the world’s wealthiest 1% were responsible for double the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the poorest 50%. Over that same period, the wealthiest 10% of the world’s population were responsible for 52% of the world’s GHG emissions, while the poorest 50% were responsible for only 7% of the world’s GHG emissions.

Degrowing our economy to fit back within the planetary boundaries will also allow people living below satisfactory standards of human wellbeing to improve their living conditions. Data from 2016 showed that 940 million people still didn’t have access to electricity, and 3 billion people didn’t have access to clean fuels for cooking. These people don’t even own a washing machine, let alone a car and they certainly aren’t flying anywhere. Degrowth is not only necessary to solve the climate crisis, it’s the only way to address widening inequality across the globe.

What could life in a degrowth economy look like? It would involve shorter working weeks and less commuting, giving us more time to do things we enjoy. Less individual ownership and more sharing. Less debt and more services provided by the government. A focus on community and connection rather than individualism and perpetually trying to find happiness through our next purchase, holiday or experience.In a degrowth economy environmentally destructive and resource intensive industries would be scaled back, and more people would be working in jobs that benefited one another and the planet, putting more meaning and purpose into our lives.



We would value different things in a degrowth economy and define success differently. A degrowth economy does not need to mean a degrowth lifestyle, indeed we could be richer for it.

It’s probably tempting to define a ‘degrowth’ economy as socialism, but it’s a false binary that an economic system is either capitalism or socialism. All economies are a mix of both, often with other bits of ‘isms’ thrown in for good measure. Let’s use our imaginations and contemplate what life could look like if we focused on the things that really matter, and not simply the amount of growth in our economy.

In the end, the economy is a man-made construct. It can be changed. The laws of nature, however, cannot. It would be tragic to look back and think we gave it all up because we weren’t brave enough to challenge the insane notion of endless growth on a finite planet with the urgency it deserves.

 [i] Chart page 102, Less is More, Jason Hickel Global GDP & Material Footprint.

Erin Remblance is a mother-of-three who works in carbon reduction, is a climate activist and is studying wellbeing economies.

August 2, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, climate change | 1 Comment

Small nuclear reactors, a dangerous experiment, and distraction from real climate action – David Suzuki

Renewables cost less than nuclear, come with fewer health, environmental and weapons-proliferation risks and have been successfully deployed worldwide.

Given rapid advances in energy, grid and storage technologies, along with the absolute urgency of the climate crisis, pursuing nuclear at the expense of renewables is costly, dangerous and unnecessary. 

Is smaller better when it comes to nuclear? Pique,  By: David Suzuki  1 Aug 21,  Nuclear power hasn’t been in the news much since the 2011 Fukushima meltdown in Japan. Thanks to a push by industry and governments, you might soon hear more about how nuclear reactors are now safer and better. 

Specifically, the conversation has shifted to “small modular nuclear reactors” or SMNRs, which generate less than 300 megawatts of electricity, compared to up to 1,600 MWe for large reactors.  

Some of the 100 or so designs being considered include integral pressurized water reactors, molten salt reactors, high-temperature gas reactors, liquid metal cooled reactors and solid state or heat pipe reactors. To date, the industry is stuck at the prototype stage for all models and none is truly modular in the sense of being manufactured several at a time—an impediment considering the speed at which global heating is worsening. 

The benefits touted by industry have convinced many countries, including Canada, to gamble huge sums on nuclear, despite the poor odds. The Small Modular Reactor Action Plan hypes it as the possible “future of Canada’s nuclear industry, with the potential to provide non-emitting energy for a wide range of applications, from grid-scale electricity generation to use in heavy industry and remote communities.” ………

given the seriousness of the climate emergency and the various options for transforming our energy systems to combat it, is nuclear—regardless of size or shape—the way to go? We must rapidly reduce emissions now, and we have readily available technologies to do so. 

New nuclear doesn’t make practical or economic sense for now. Building reactors will remain expensive and time-consuming. Studies estimate electricity from small nuclear can cost from four to 10 times that of wind and solar, whose costs continue to drop. SMNRs will require substantial government subsidies. 

Even when nuclear has to compete against renewables prepackaged with storage, the latter wins out.  

One recent study of 123 countries over 25 years published in Nature Energy found that renewables are much better at reducing greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear—whose benefits in this area are negligible—and that combining nuclear and renewables creates a systemic tension that makes it harder to develop renewables to their potential.  

Like all nuclear reactors, SMNRs produce radioactive waste and contribute to increased nuclear weapons proliferation risk—and Canada still has no effective strategy for waste. Nuclear power also requires enormous amounts of water. 

Corporate interests often favour large, easily monopolized utilities, arguing that only major fossil fuel, nuclear or hydro power facilities can provide large-scale “baseload” power. But many experts argue the “baseload myth” is baseless—that a flexible system using renewables combined with investments in energy efficiency and a smart grid that helps smooth out demand peaks is far more efficient and cost-effective, especially as energy storage technologies improve. 

Even for remote populations, energy systems that empower communities, households, businesses and organizations to generate and store their own energy with solar panels or wind installations and batteries, for example, and technologies like heat-exchange systems for buildings, would be better than nuclear. 

Renewables cost less than nuclear, come with fewer health, environmental and weapons-proliferation risks and have been successfully deployed worldwide. Given rapid advances in energy, grid and storage technologies, along with the absolute urgency of the climate crisis, pursuing nuclear at the expense of renewables is costly, dangerous and unnecessary. 

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.            https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/opinion/opinion-is-smaller-better-when-it-comes-to-nuclear-4175458

August 2, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Australia’s carbon emissions down 20% due to wide take-up of renewable energy

 Telegraph UK, 29th July 2021, For Australia’s part, our experience with technology-orientated pathways
gives us confidence that with the right investments and partnerships, a prosperous net-zero world is well within our reach.

On the ground, our real-world rollout of renewables has made clear to Australian firms and families the immense benefits of investing in clean technology. Because of their embrace of our new energy future, Australia’s emissions are down over 20 per cent on 2005 levels and green technology continues to be taken
up at record levels right across our nation.

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/29/technology-key-free-prosperous-net-zero-world/

July 31, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, climate change, renewable | Leave a comment

Floods threaten nuclear power stations: call for endangered reactors to be shut down.

Nuclear power plants threatened by floods, final shutdown required. In the wake of the devastating floods of recent days, the Munich Environmental Institute has called for endangered nuclear reactors in Europe to be shut down.

Due to the advancing climate crisis, the risk of operating nuclear power plants continues to increase. The flood situation in western Germany and the neighboring countries as a result of heavy rainfall is devastating.
The water levels in the rivers had risen quickly. People lost their livelihoods or their lives, their belongings have been destroyed.

 Sonnenseite 23rd July 2021

Atomkraftwerke von Hochwasser bedroht, endgültige Abschaltung gefordert

July 27, 2021 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) preparing assessments for COP26

Against a backdrop of fires and floods, researchers are meeting virtually to finalise a key climate science study. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is preparing the most comprehensive assessment on the state of global heating since 2013.

Over the next two weeks, the scientists will go through their findings line by line with representatives of 195
governments. Experts say the report will be a “wake-up call” to governments. It is expected that the short, 40-page Summary for Policymakers will play an important role in guiding global leaders who will come to Glasgow in November to deal with critical climate questions.

 BBC 26th July 2021

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57944015

July 27, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

The nuclear industry determined to influence climate talks before COP26

Nuclear industry under fire for trying to influence climate talks ahead of COP26. The National By Rob Edwards  25 July 21, HE nuclear industry has come under fire for trying to influence international talks in the run-up to the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in November.

Six people from the European Nuclear Society registered to attend UN negotiations in May and June. Two were from the UK Government’s Magnox Ltd, which is decommissioning nuclear plants, and one was from the US nuclear firm, Westinghouse.

There were also 12 representatives from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN body charged with both promoting and regulating nuclear power, plus one from the Canadian Nuclear Association.

The nuclear industry was accused by environmentalists of “jumping on the bandwagon” of climate change. “The latest wheeze is to tell us that nuclear is the answer,” said Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland.

“With renewables and energy efficiency cheaper, quicker and safer than nuclear, they have already lost this argument and should have no place at COP26. The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time over-runs show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late.”

Pete Roche, policy adviser to the Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities, said: “When you look at nuclear power you find it is hopelessly expensive, far too slow to be of any use and hugely problematic – producing dangerous waste and with a potential risk of a serious accident.”……….. https://www.thenational.scot/news/19466992.nuclear-industry-fire-trying-influence-climate-talks-ahead-cop26/

July 26, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, politics international | Leave a comment

Climate change, extreme weather, is taking its toll on the nuclear industry

Nuclear power’s reliability is dropping as extreme weather increases

A comprehensive analysis shows that warmer temperatures aren’t the only threat. Ars Technica, K. E. D. COAN – 7/24/2021,With extreme weather causing power failures in California and Texas, it’s increasingly clear that the existing power infrastructure isn’t designed for these new conditions. Past research has shown that nuclear power plants are no exception, with rising temperatures creating cooling problems for them. Now, a comprehensive analysis looking at a broader range of climate events shows that it’s not just hot weather that puts these plants at risk—it’s the full range of climate disturbances.

Heat has been one of the most direct threats, as higher temperatures mean that the natural cooling sources (rivers, oceans, lakes) are becoming less efficient heat sinks. However, this new analysis shows that hurricanes and typhoons have become the leading causes of nuclear outages, at least in North America and South and East Asia. Precautionary shutdowns for storms are routine, and so this finding is perhaps not so surprising. But other factors—like the clogging of cooling intake pipes by unusually abundant jellyfish populations—are a bit less obvious.

Overall, this latest analysis calculates that the frequency of climate-related nuclear plant outages is almost eight times higher than it was in the 1990s. The analysis also estimates that the global nuclear fleet will lose up to 1.4 percent—about 36 TWh—of its energy production in the next 40 years and up to 2.4 percent, or 61 TWh, by 2081-2100.

Heat, storms, drought

The author analyzed publicly available databases from the International Atomic Energy Agency to identify all climate-linked shutdowns (partial and complete) of the world’s 408 operational reactors. Unplanned outages are generally very well documented, and available data made it possible to calculate trends in the frequency of outages that were linked to environmental causes over the past 30 years. The author also used more detailed data from the last decade (2010–2019) to provide one of the first analyses of which types of climate events have had the most impact on nuclear power.While the paper doesn’t directly link the reported events to climate change, the findings do show an overall increase in the number of outages due to a range of climate events.

The two main categories of climate disruptions broke down into thermal disruptions (heat, drought, and wildfire) and storms (including hurricanes,

typhoons, lightning, and flooding). In the case of heat and drought, the main problem is the lack of cool-enough water—or in the case of drought, enough water at all—to cool the reactor. However, there were also a number of outages due to ecological responses to warmer weather; for example, larger than usual jellyfish populations have blocked the intake pipes on some reactors.


Storms and wildfires, on the other hand, caused a range of problems, including structural damage, precautionary preemptive shutdowns, reduced operations, and employee evacuations. In the timeframe of 2010 to 2019, the leading causes of outages were hurricanes and typhoons in most parts of the world, although heat was still the leading factor in Western Europe (France in particular). While these represented the most frequent causes, the analysis also showed that droughts were the source of the longest disruptions and thus the largest power losses.

The author calculated that the average frequency of climate-linked outages went from 0.2 outages per year in the 1990s to 1.5 outages in the timeframe of 2010 to 2019. A retrospective analysis further showed that, for every 1° C rise in temperature (above the average temperature between 1951 and 1980), the energy output of the global fleet fell about 0.5 percent.

Retrofitting for extreme weather

This analysis also shows that climate-associated outages have become the leading cause of disruptions to nuclear power production—other causes of outages have only increased 50 percent in the same timeframe. Projecting into the future, the author calculates that, if no mitigation measures are put into place, the disruptions will continue to increase through the rest of this century.

“All energy technologies, including renewables, will be significantly affected by climate change,” writes Professor Jacapo Buongiorno, who was not involved in the study, in an email to Ars. Buongiorno is the Tepco Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT), and he co-chaired the MIT study on The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World. “The results are not surprising—nuclear plants can experience unplanned outages due to severe events (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes) or heat waves, the frequency of which is increasing.”………….. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/climate-events-are-the-leading-cause-of-nuclear-power-outages/

July 26, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

The world’s climate catastrophe – there is little time left to act

 Reminders that our planet is wilting under the impact of human-driven climate change have been hard to avoid this month. Catastrophic floods have killed 160 in Germany while more than 50 died after massive inundations swept through the central Chinese province of Henan when a year’s worth of rain fell in three days last week.

At the same time, forest fires have ripped through one of the world’s coldest places, Siberia, after unusually hot, dry weather gripped the region. Canada and the US have also been afflicted by conflagrations that have destroyed communities and vast areas of woodland. One blaze in the US state of Oregon has spread over an
area 25 times the size of Manhattan and has raged out of control for weeks.

Global warming, triggered by rising levels of greenhouse gases, has beenimplicated in every case. The problem, say scientists, is that to halt worsening weather patterns by 2050, rises in global temperatures will have to be limited to around 1.5C from pre-industrial days.

However, the world has already heated up by 1.2C since then, thanks to the greenhouse gases we
have put into the atmosphere, and the prospects of limiting further rises to a fraction of a degree over the next 30 years look remote. In fact, estimates based on current pledges by nations to cut emissions suggest
temperatures are likely to rise by more than 2C above preindustrial levels by the middle of the century.

In such a future, more than a quarter of the world’s population would be likely to experience extreme drought for at least one month a year; rainforests would face eradication; melting ice sheets would result in dangerous sea level rises and trigger major changes in the behaviour of ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream.

In addition, loss of reflective ice from the poles would cause oceans to absorb more solar radiation, while melting permafrost in Siberia and other regions would release plumes of methane, another greenhouse gas. Inevitably, temperatures would soar even further.

This terrifying prospect has come about because politicians and business leaders have failed, for several
decades, to appreciate the risks involved in massively interfering with the make-up of our atmosphere and to instigate measures to limit the damage. As a result, the world faces a climate catastrophe with little time left to act to counter the threat.

 Observer 25th July 2021

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/25/observer-view-on-climate-change

July 26, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, Reference | Leave a comment

Climate change report: Jeff Bezos & the new wild west show

Bezos does not care that each and every one of his joy-ride space launches punches a larger hole in the Earth’s ozone layer exacerbating our climate crisis. This is all about him, his money, his fame, and his super-sized ego.

Climate change report: Jeff Bezos & the new wild west show,  https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/climate-change-report-jeff-bezos-the-new-wild-west-show/ July 23, 2021  BY BRUCE GAGNON

Jeff Bezos (the richest man in the world) successfully took his new wild west rodeo show to the edge of space and once returning to Mother Earth had the audacity to lecture us earthlings on a few things. Yahoo News reported Bezos saying:

“We need to take all heavy industry, all polluting industry, and move it into space. And keep Earth as this beautiful gem of a planet that it is.”

In this same interview, Bezos discussed his plans to expand Blue Origin’s space tourism business over the coming decades, a venture that has the potential to pump massive amounts of carbon and other chemicals into the atmosphere. Unlike ground-based emitters like cars or coal-powered plants, rocket emissions are expelled directly into the upper atmosphere, where they linger for years.

Dr. Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, writes:….the fuel combination used by [Bezos is] a higher carbon fuel. Research by the University of Colorado indicates that this can damage the stratospheric ozone layer – not only leading to higher levels of damaging ultra-violet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, but also causing a global heating effect likely to be considerably greater than that from the carbon emissions alone. And the aim of these journeys? A few minutes of ‘zero-gravity’ experience and a nice view. It is hard to see this as anything more than environmental vandalism for the super-rich. As the CEO of Amazon, for years Bezos fought against company efforts to unionize, even amid credible reports of inhumane, exploitative conditions for Amazon delivery drivers and warehouse workers. He said, “I also want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all of this.”

The truth is that virtually all space technology ‘research and development’ since the dawn of the space age was done by NASA and the military industrial complex. That means the taxpayers paid for it. And now when it is possible to make gobs of money from space tourism, colonization and mining, the capitalist dominated US government is eager to privatize space operations. They don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. America, after all, is the ‘exceptional’ nation.

It was during the Obama administration that a new law called Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, sometimes referred to as the Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship (SPACE) Act of 2015, was signed by the president.

The UK Independent reported in 2015:Much of the ownership of space is regulated by the “Outer Space Treaty”, a document that was signed by the US and Russia among other countries in the 1960s. As well as saying that the moon and other celestial objects are part of the “common heritage of mankind”, it says that exploration must be peaceful and bans countries from putting weapons on the moon and other celestial bodies. The US government has now thrown out that understanding so that it can get rid of “unnecessary regulations” and make it easier for private American companies to explore space resources commercially. While people won’t actually be able to claim the rock or “celestial body” itself, they will be able to keep everything that they mine out of it.

Planetary Resources, an American company that intends to make money by mining asteroids, said that the new law was the “single greatest recognition of property rights in history”, and that it “establishes the same supportive framework that created the great economies of history, and will encourage the sustained development of space”. So Bezos was wearing the cowboy hat as a message to the world that a new ‘gold rush’ has begun in space and that it will be controlled by rich fat-cat psychopaths like him. They intend to circumvent United Nations space law like the Outer Space and Moon Treaties that state the ‘heavens are the province of all humankind’

Bezos does not care that each and every one of his joy-ride space launches punches a larger hole in the Earth’s ozone layer exacerbating our climate crisis. This is all about him, his money, his fame, and his super-sized ego. If we hope to survive on planet Earth, and give life to the future generations, then the global public must demand that space stooges like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and the rest of their ilk, are restrained and prevented from playing god.~ Bruce Gagnon Coordinates the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. Check out our short space issues videos on our web site.

July 24, 2021 Posted by | climate change, technology | Leave a comment

Despite the rain, France’s nuclear reactors are still threatened by global heating.

Rhône production still threatened despite the rains. A heatwave and drought could still cause shutdowns of nuclear reactors along the Rhone by the fall, despite unprecedented rainfall in Western Europe in recent weeks which has replenished the flow of the river, said analysts Wednesday.

 Montel 21st July 2021

https://www.montelnews.com/fr/news/1240314/-la-production-du-rhne-toujours-menace-malgr-les-pluies



July 24, 2021 Posted by | climate change, France | Leave a comment

Penis envy taken to extremes? Space billionaires and carbon emissions

Space tourism: environmental vandalism for the super

-rich  https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/space-tourism-environmental-vandalism-super-rich
As billionaires Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson launch the first flights of their space tourism corporations, Dr Stuart Parkinson, SGR, takes a look at the climate impacts.

Responsible Science blog, 20 July 2021  The past few weeks have seen some frightening impacts of climate change – from record-breaking temperatures and major wildfires in western Canada and the USA to unprecedented floods in Germany and Belgium. The hottest temperature reliably recorded on the Earth’s surface – 54.4C – was logged in Death Valley in California on 9 July. [1] Scientists said the heatwave in Canada and the USA at the end of June was “virtually impossible” without human-induced climate change. [2] One thing that is especially striking is that these events are now happening in some of the wealthiest and weather-resilient nations of the world – but even that didn’t stop major death tolls.

The huge threat of global climate disruption is leading to ever more urgent calls for society to rapidly reduce its carbon emissions. It is also clear that technological change alone will not be enough to tackle the problem. A recent report by the Climate Change Committee – the UK government’s main advisory body on the issue – found that 62% of the necessary measures involve societal and behaviour change. [3] Avoiding air travel is one of the most effective changes individuals can make to cut this pollution. For example, the carbon footprint of a return flight from London to Hong Kong – seated in economy-class – is about 3.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) [4] – similar to a UK citizen’s average car use for over 10 months. [5] Research by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies indicates that a globally-sustainable lifestyle carbon footprint in 2020 was 3.9 tCO2e [6] – which gives a clear indication of just how much our society needs to reduce its impacts now (and this figure falls rapidly to 2.5t CO2e by 2030 and then much lower still for 2040 and 2050).

Against this backdrop, we have billionaires travelling in the inaugural flights of their space tourism corporations. On 11 July, Richard Branson flew in Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo craft, while on 20 July, Jeff Bezos travelled in Blue Origin’s New Shepard. These activities take the climate impacts of flying to considerably more damaging level.

Let’s look at the New Shepard space-craft. Prof Mike Berners-Lee of Lancaster University – a leading expert in carbon footprint analysis – has estimated that a single flight results in emissions of at least 330 tCO2e. [7] With four passengers, this means each one is responsible for over 82 tCO2e – over 20 times the sustainable level for a whole year! And note, this is a conservative estimate. It does not include the additional heating effects of emissions at high altitude, the carbon footprint of developing and manufacturing the space-craft, or the emissions of running the Blue Origin corporation. Furthermore, the fuel combination used by the latest generation of New Shepard craft now includes liquid hydrogen [8] – a higher carbon fuel than those used in Prof Berners-Lee’s calculations.

What about SpaceShipTwo? Although this craft emits markedly less direct carbon emissions per flight than New Shepard, as SGR discussed back in 2016, [9] it uses a fuel combination which emits significant levels of black carbon into the upper atmosphere. Research by the University of Colorado indicates that this can damage the stratospheric ozone layer – not only leading to higher levels of damaging ultra-violet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, but also causing a global heating effect likely to be considerably greater than that from the carbon emissions alone.

And the aim of these journeys? A few minutes of ‘zero-gravity’ experience and a nice view. It is hard to see this as anything more than environmental vandalism for the super-rich.

Virgin Galactic claims to want to launch a “new age of clean and sustainable access to space” [10]– but they and the others in the space tourism industry clearly fail to understand the level of their own climate impacts, the rapidly increasing severity of the climate emergency, or the scale of action needed to cut carbon emissions to a sustainable level. If governments are serious about trying to prevent ‘dangerous’ climate change, then there is an important step to take immediately: ban space tourism.
 Dr Stuart Parkinson is Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility. He has written on climate science and policy for 30 years, and holds a PhD in climate science.
 

References………

July 22, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, space travel | 1 Comment

Huge carbon emissions of space tourism

Space tourism: rockets emit 100 times more CO₂ per passenger than flights – imagine a whole industry   https://theconversation.com/space-tourism-rockets-emit-100-times-more-co-per-passenger-than-flights-imagine-a-whole-industry-164601
Eloise Marais Associate Professor in Physical Geography, UCLJuly 19, 2021  

The commercial race to get tourists to space is heating up between Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson and former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. On Sunday 11 July, Branson ascended 80 km to reach the edge of space in his piloted Virgin Galactic VSS Unity spaceplane. Bezos’ autonomous Blue Origin rocket is due to launch on July 20, coinciding with the anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing.

Though Bezos loses to Branson in time, he is set to reach higher altitudes (about 120 km). The launch will demonstrate his offering to very wealthy tourists: the opportunity to truly reach outer space. Both tour packages will provide passengers with a brief ten-minute frolic in zero gravity and glimpses of Earth from space. Not to be outdone, Elon Musk’s SpaceX will provide four to five days of orbital travel with its Crew Dragon capsule later in 2021.

What are the environmental consequences of a space tourism industry likely to be? Bezos boasts his Blue Origin rockets are greener than Branson’s VSS Unity. The Blue Engine 3 (BE-3) will launch Bezos, his brother and two guests into space using liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. VSS Unity used a hybrid propellant comprised of a solid carbon-based fuel, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), and a liquid oxidant, nitrous oxide (laughing gas). The SpaceX Falcon series of reusable rockets will propel the Crew Dragon into orbit using liquid kerosene and liquid oxygen.

Burning these propellants provides the energy needed to launch rockets into space while also generating greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Large quantities of water vapour are produced by burning the BE-3 propellant, while combustion of both the VSS Unity and Falcon fuels produces CO₂, soot and some water vapour. The nitrogen-based oxidant used by VSS Unity also generates nitrogen oxides, compounds that contribute to air pollution closer to Earth.

Roughly two-thirds of the propellant exhaust is released into the stratosphere (12 km-50 km) and mesosphere (50 km-85 km), where it can persist for at least two to three years. The very high temperatures during launch and re-entry (when the protective heat shields of the returning crafts burn up) also convert stable nitrogen in the air into reactive nitrogen oxides.

These gases and particles have many negative effects on the atmosphere. In the stratosphere, nitrogen oxides and chemicals formed from the breakdown of water vapour convert ozone into oxygen, depleting the ozone layer which guards life on Earth against harmful UV radiation. Water vapour also produces stratospheric clouds that provide a surface for this reaction to occur at a faster pace than it otherwise would.

Space tourism and climate change

Exhaust emissions of CO₂ and soot trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Cooling of the atmosphere can also occur, as clouds formed from the emitted water vapour reflect incoming sunlight back to space. A depleted ozone layer would also absorb less incoming sunlight, and so heat the stratosphere less.

Figuring out the overall effect of rocket launches on the atmosphere will require detailed modelling, in order to account for these complex processes and the persistence of these pollutants in the upper atmosphere. Equally important is a clear understanding of how the space tourism industry will develop.

Virgin Galactic anticipates it will offer 400 spaceflights each year to the privileged few who can afford them. Blue Origin and SpaceX have yet to announce their plans. But globally, rocket launches wouldn’t need to increase by much from the current 100 or so performed each year to induce harmful effects that are competitive with other sources, like ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and CO₂ from aircraft.

During launch, rockets can emit between four and ten times more nitrogen oxides than Drax, the largest thermal power plant in the UK, over the same period. CO₂ emissions for the four or so tourists on a space flight will be between 50 and 100 times more than the one to three tonnes per passenger on a long-haul flight.

In order for international regulators to keep up with this nascent industry and control its pollution properly, scientists need a better understanding of the effect these billionaire astronauts will have on our planet’s atmosphere.

July 22, 2021 Posted by | climate change, space travel | Leave a comment

US and Allies’ military machine – out of Afghanistan (where it’s needed) and into the Pacific – against its new enemy – The Great Barrier Reef

War games on despite pandemic, threat to Great Barrier Reef  https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/war-games-despite-pandemic-threat-great-barrier-reef, Kerry SmithJuly 16, 2021  Lurking off the coast of China’s eastern seaboard now are three United States aircraft carrier battle groups (each with about 30 support vessels).

They will be joined by a British aircraft carrier group and Australian and Canadian warships as part of biennial military exercises, which start on July 18 and last until the end of the month.

Talisman Sabre 2021 (TS21) will involve a US expeditionary strike group from the USS America, the amphibious assault ship based at Sasebo Naval Base in Japan, and 17,000 Australian, US and foreign troops in combined land, sea and air war exercises.  

According to Stars and Stripes, for the first time, there will be live-fire training: the US Army will fire a Patriot missile defense system from Shoalwater Bay in Queensland at a pair of drone targets on July 16.

This is within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and other environmentally and culturally significant areas.

The war games will also take place in Darwin in the Northern Territory and Evans Head, New South Wales. 

All are thousands of kilometres away from their home base, and provocatively close to the new declared enemy — China.

Forces from Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea will take part and Australia-based personnel from India, Indonesia, France and Germany will observe.

Meanwhile, the ABC’s “defence correspondent” hyperventilated on July 14 that a solitary Chinese military ship, outside Australian territorial waters, poses a threat to national security.

The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) is concerned about both the war games and its impact on environmentally and culturally significant sites.

“TS21 will involve amphibious assaults, movement of heavy vehicles, use of live ammunition as well as the use of U.S. nuclear-powered and nuclear-weapon capable vessels,” IPAN spokesperson Annette Brownlie said.

“These activities are incompatible with the protection of the environment and, in particular, the Great Barrier Reef.

“During Talisman Sabre 2013, the US jettisoned four unarmed bombs on the Great Barrier Reef when they had difficulty dropping them on their intended target, Townshend Island,” Brownlie said.

The objective of Talisman Sabre is to further integrate the Australian military with the US — now ranked among the world’s worst polluters.

IPAN said the ADF did not engage in a Public Environment Report process for TS21 and has yet to release an environmental assessment for the areas in which TS21 will take place.

However, the Department of Defence did produce an environmental awareness video for visiting troops that promotes the military use of the Great Barrier Reef. The video reminds troops to consider the reef and not to litter.

“Talisman Sabre is a threat to the reef and to the environment. Putting out a video is a completely inadequate response,” Brownlie said.

This comes as federal environment minister Sussan Ley is lobbying to keep the Great Barrier Reef off the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Committee’s “in danger” list.

Despite a global pandemic, about 1800 foreign military personnel have arrived in Darwin to participate.

July 17, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, climate change, OCEANIA, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »