277,700 Vietnamese support “Appeal of the Hibakusha ” – call to eliminate nuclear weapons
 Over 277,700 signatures collected in Hanoi supporting elimination of nuclear weapons https://en.vietnamplus.vn/over-277700-signatures-collected-in-hanoi-supporting-elimination-of-nuclear-weapons/171278.vnp
Hanoi (VNA) – Over 277,700 signatures have been collected in Hanoi in the first phase of a campaign called “Appeal of the Hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors)”, which calls for the elimination of nuclear weapons. VNA Monday, April 06, 2020
Collected by the Hanoi Union of Friendship Organisations (HUFO), the signatures have been handed over to the Vietnam Peace Committee (VPC), HUFO said on April 6. According to HUFO Vice President Tran Thi Phuong and Hanoi Peace Committee President Tran Thi Ngoc Thanh, the signatures were collected from people at government offices and residential zones as well as at bus stations and public spaces around Hanoi. They expect to gain more signatures from students in the capital during subsequent phases, when local schools and universities re-open after the COVID-19 pandemic ends. VPC Secretary General Dong Huy Vuong spoke highly of HUFO and the Hanoi Peace Committee’s contributions to the campaign./.
|
|
Protesters call for Capenhurst Urenco nuclear plant to be closed down
|
Protesters call for Capenhurst nuclear plant to be closed down https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/protesters-call-capenhurst-nuclear-plant-17873816 Demonstration held as Urenco celebrated its 50th birthday By
David HolmesChief reporter 6 MAR 2020
Urenco’s nuclear plant at Capenhurst this week celebrated 50 years since the government-owned international company was founded . But outside protesters lamented the damage to human health and the environment caused by disasters like Chernobyl in Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan. Close Capenhurst campaigners argued the sector was unsafe from uranium mining to nuclear power production and the transportation and storage of highly radioactive waste.
Concerns have been raised about the Urenco plant itself which enriches uranium for use as fuel in nuclear reactors with the depleted uranium – a low level radioactive and toxic byproduct of the process – stored on site. Marianne Birkby, an anti-nuclear campaigner from Cumbria, speaking at the small demonstration outside the plant, said: “The start of the nuclear fuel cycle is here and where it ends up is Sellafield in Cumbria and every day, virtually, there’s nuclear waste transported on the roads, rail, sea and nobody wants the waste. “It’s all very well for Urenco to say ‘enriching the future’ and how fantastic it all is but nobody wants nuclear waste at the end of the day. And nuclear waste is the product of nuclear power.” Japanese campaigner Kaori Mikata-Pralat read out a statement on behalf of a group pursuing legal action against the Tokyo Electric Power Company over the 2011 Fukushima disaster when a tsunami swamped the plant leading to the release of radioactive contamination. Explaining that Fukushima had alerted her to the dangers, she told CheshireLive: “I wasn’t quite aware of the scale of the problem of this nuclear industry.” She has met victims of nuclear accidents, adding: “What they want is this tragedy should not be repeated any where in the world. Fukushima people suffered a lot.” Kaori said the ocean had also been poisoned. Even nuclear power stations functioning normally affected the eco-system as sea and river water was used to cool the reactors with the hot water put back, harming fish and plant life. Pointing at the sun, fellow protester Philip Gilligan said: “That nuclear power station up there is supplying the energy. It’s the only nuclear power station we want. So the energy coming to earth could easily be used with zero carbon output and zero nuclear. The problem is we need a bomb. And it’s hidden in statements like ‘energy as cheap as water’ which was current when Sellafield went critical in the ‘70s.” Urenco highlights the alleged green credentials of nuclear because there are no CO2 emissions during energy generation but the protesters claim the carbon footprint is ‘enormous’ after taking into account uranium mining, transport and the manufacture of thousands of tons of concrete for the installations. But what of the job losses if plants like Capenhurst, which employs 550 people, were closed? The campaigners argue the Government should reskill the workforce to produce renewable technology like solar panels. |
Anti nuclear activists break into France’s Tricastin nuclear station
Reuters 21st Feb 2020. Activists from Greenpeace broke into the Tricastin nuclear power plant in southern France in order to demand its closure, the environmental pressure group said on Friday. “Some 50 Greenpeace activists gained access to several points at the Tricastin nuclear power plant this morning,” said Greenpeace spokeswoman Cecile Genot. “We are protesting and drawing attention to an aging nuclear power plant that is dangerous and should be shut down.” Officials for French state-controlled power group EDF, which runs Tricastin, had no immediate comment on the situation.
 |
ReplyForward
|
Bruce County, Ontario, protest against nuclear waste dump plan
MillerVideographer@ScottMillerCTV Contacthttps://london.ctvnews.ca/nuclear-tanks-no-thanks-say-bruce-county-protesters-1.4820155 Thursday, February 20, 2020 LONDON, ONT. — About 40 Bruce County residents protested outside Bruce County council chambers in Walkerton this morning.They’re protesting plans to bury Canada’s used nuclear fuel under 1300 acres of farmland north of Teeswater. South Bruce is one of two communities in Canada left in the running to host the country’s high level nuclear waste.
A 1300 acre site just north of Teeswater has been identified as a potential underground site for the multi-billion dollar project, that would house approximately 5.2 million used fuel bundles, that remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization says they’ll pick one site between South Bruce and Ignace, in Northern Ontario, by 2023.
Michelle Stein lives near the proposed site in South Bruce. She organized today’s protest. “Burying your problems to get them out of site is never the answer. I don’t want this underground mess to be the heritage that I leave for my children and grandchildren.”
Saugeen Shores Mayor Luke Charbonneau is the one bringing forward today’s motion to support DGR’s to store nuclear waste. “There’s an international scientific consensus that the best way to store waste materials from nuclear power production is through passive isolation in a Deep Geological Repository.”
The protest comes as Bruce County council debates a motion to reinforce its support for a permanent solution to the country’s nuclear waste, specifically the Deep Geological Repository model that encases the waste in copper containers, encased in clay “buffer boxes”.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania oppose energy imports from a Belarusian nuclear power plant
|
Emerging Europe 13th Feb 2020. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are joining forces to oppose energy imports from a Belarusian nuclear power plant (NPP) Lithuania has declared a national security threat. The governments of the three Baltic nations have announced that they will sign a declaration of intent to oppose electricity purchases from Russian-built NPP at Astravets near the Lithuanian border.
We are pleased to be moving closer to a common position,”
Lithuania’s prime minister Saulius Skvernelis told reporters, adding that the three Baltic nations and the European Commission will work on finding “an appropriate mechanism controlling the origin of electricity entering our networks from third countries”.https://emerging-europe.com/news/baltic-states-will-not-buy-energy-from-belarus-npp/ |
|
Indigenous community votes down proposed nuclear waste bunker near Lake Huron,
‘We were not consulted when the nuclear industry was established in our territory’,https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/indigenous-community-votes-down-proposed-nuclear-waste-bunker-near-lake-huron The Canadian Press, Colin Perkel. February 1, 2020
TORONTO — An Indigenous community has overwhelmingly rejected a proposed underground storage facility for nuclear waste near Lake Huron, likely spelling the end for a multibillion-dollar, politically fraught project years in the making.
After a year of consultations and days of voting, the 4,500-member Saugeen Ojibway Nation announced late Friday that 85 per cent of those casting ballots had said no to accepting a deep geologic repository at the Bruce nuclear power plant near Kincardine, Ont.
“We were not consulted when the nuclear industry was established in our territory,” SON said in a statement. “Over the past 40 years, nuclear power generation in Anishnaabekiing has had many impacts on our communities, and our land and waters.”
The province’s giant utility, Ontario Power Generation, had wanted to build the repository 680 metres underground about 1.2 kilometres from Lake Huron as permanent storage for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. The project was tentatively approved in May 2015.
In August 2017, then-environment minister Catherine McKenna paused the process to ensure buy-in from Indigenous people in the area
While Kincardine was a “willing host,” the relative proximity of the proposed bunker to the lake sparked a backlash elsewhere in Canada and the United States. Politicians, environmentalists and scores of communities expressed opposition.
Successive federal governments have withheld final approval. In August 2017, then-environment minister Catherine McKenna paused the process — the last in a string of delays for the project — to ensure buy-in from Indigenous people in the area.
The generating company, which insisted the stable bedrock would safely contain the waste, items such as contaminated reactor components and mops, said it respected SON’s decision.
“OPG will explore other options and will engage with key stakeholders to develop an alternate site-selection process,” Ken Hartwick, head of OPG, said in a statement shortly after the vote was announced. “Any new process would include engagement with Indigenous peoples as well as interested municipalities.”
The apparent end of the road for the project comes shortly after the federally-mandated Nuclear Waste Management Organization said it was making progress toward choosing a site for storing millions of far more toxic spent nuclear fuel bundles.
The organization, comprising several nuclear plant operators, said it had struck deals with landowners in South Bruce — about 30 minutes east of Kincardine — that will allow it to begin site tests. The only other site under consideration for high-level waste storage is in Ignace in northern Ontario.
Despite the rejection of OPG’s proposal, the utility said it planned to continue a relationship “based on mutual respect, collaboration and trust” with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, which comprises the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation.
Chippewas of Saugeen Chief Lester Anoquot called the vote — 170 for and 1,058 against — a “historic milestone and momentous victory” for the community.
“We worked for many years for our right to exercise jurisdiction in our territory and the free, prior and informed consent of our people to be recognized,” Anoquot said. “We didn’t ask for this waste to be created and stored in our territory.”
At the same time, Anoquot said, the vote showed the need for a new solution for the hazardous waste, a process he said could take many years.
Ontario depends heavily on nuclear power for its electricity but a permanent storage solution for the increasing amounts of waste now stored above ground has proven elusive. The radioactive material, particular from used fuel, remains highly toxic for centuries.
The utility insists exhaustive science shows a repository in stable and impermeable rock offers the best solution.
“Permanent and safe disposal is the right thing to do for future generations,” Hartwick said.
The Japanese want to phase out nuclear power
|
No to nuclear: Japan wants reactors phased out, post-Fukushima
Japan is less reliant on atomic energy, but concerns are growing about its return to climate-damaging fossil fuels. Aljazeera, by Kelly Olsen -20 Dec 19, Tokyo, Japan – At the end of a decade in which northeastern Japan was devastated by a tsunami that triggered a nuclear disaster at Fukushima, atomic energy looks unlikely to make a comeback. In the nearly nine years following the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, the country’s reliance on atomic power for electricity generation has plummeted to between 3 and 5 percent from about 30 percent before the disaster, according to the Tokyo-based Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center. And despite a period of uncertainty in the immediate aftermath of the meltdowns triggered when Fukushima’s cooling systems were overwhelmed by the tsunami created by the magnitude 9.0 undersea earthquake, the world’s third-largest economy has shown it can function with radically less nuclear power. The public mood turned dramatically after Fukushima and the national trauma that ensued and combined with the increasing costs from aligning ageing plants with stringent post-disaster safety requirements, it is unlikely the nuclear industry will return to previous levels, according to experts, even as the government envisions nuclear power accounting for about 20-22 percent of electricity generation in 2030. “It is obvious that it is very difficult to meet this target,” said Hajime Matsukubo, secretary-general of the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center. And while experts say while the anti-nuclear movement may seem to have quietened down, anti-nuclear feeling is firmly entrenched. ‘They say no’“Japanese people’s sentiment (has) changed after Fukushima Daiichi and it is continuing until now,” said Matsukubo, whose non-profit organisation was established in 1975 by concerned atomic scientists to gather and publicise nuclear information and raise public awareness on the industry. He said that even if people appear not as focused, if they are asked pointedly if they agree with nuclear power: “They say no.” Before Fukushima, Japan had 54 operational reactors and for a brief time in the accident’s aftermath, not a single one was in operation. So far, nine have been restarted and authorities are considering the cases of a dozen more, according to Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry figures. A further 24 are either under decommissioning or lined up for it….. Safety costsJapan’s mass-circulation newspaper Mainichi Shimbun in an editorial after the Onagawa decision cited the newspaper’s own research that found 11 top power suppliers had spent in excess of 5 trillion yen ($45.7bn) on nuclear safety since Fukushima. “As costs balloon, it is becoming increasingly difficult, even absurd, for the government and power companies to maintain the argument that nuclear power is ‘cheap’,” the editorial said…….. “There’s a sort of built-in time limit to how long the industry as a whole can continue,” said Alexander Brown, currently a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science international research fellow at Japan Women’s University. He also emphasised, however, that Japan’s turn against nuclear energy had also coincided with a key change in its domestic economy; less industrially robust and therefore not as hungry for energy as before. “Why have the lights stayed on,” Brown asked rhetorically. “One is, yes, increased fossil fuel use, but another is there’s just less demand than there was in the peak time of manufacturing onshore in Japan.” Brown calls that an “uncomfortable truth” for much of Japan’s ruling establishment – including the prime minister and his eponymous “Abenomics” economic revitalisation programme – which clings to a belief in a model of vigorous growth. “And I think one of the amazing things when I look at the anti-nuclear movement, to me, was it was full of people looking at what are other ways that we can live,” he said. “How can we embrace other values other than high consumption, high pollution, extreme overwork and look at things like de-growth economics.” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/japanese-turn-nuclear-decade-wrought-fukushima-191220000003532.html |
|
Maryland’s Back From the Brink” resolution to support the U.N. Nuclear Ban Treaty
The Montgomery County Council has joined Baltimore and Washington, D.C. with its own “Back From the Brink” resolution to support the U.N. Nuclear Ban Treaty, alongside the U.S. Conference of Mayors and 40 municipalities and state legislatures from California to Maine calling on the Trump Administration and Congress to exercise global leadership in preventing nuclear war by:
- Renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first;
- Ending the President’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack;
- Taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert;
- Canceling the the $1.7 trillion dollar plan to replace the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons;
- Supporting the U.S. entry into the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; and
- Requiring the U.S. to pursue a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
The U.N. treaty is two-thirds of the way toward the 50 ratifying nations needed to make it operational, whereupon nuclear weapons will be prohibited, stigmatized and eventually eliminated.
Maryland jurisidictions join “back from the brink” nuclear war movement Baltimore Sun, By DAVID GROSSO, BILL HENRY and TOM HUCKER, BALTIMORE SUN |, DEC 16, 2019 “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
— President Ronald Reagan in his 1984 State of the Union address
U.S. presidents have always understood the calamitous power of nuclear weapons. They held the fate of our planet and human civilization in their hands with sole authority to launch a nuclear warhead that could not be recalled.
Under President Donald Trump, the danger of putting planetary fate of the world in the hands of one person has never been clearer. He refuses to listen to, or abide by, the advice of our career military and diplomatic experts. His ill-advised and impetuous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria is only the most recent example. Since taking office, President Trump has abandoned the multilateral agreement that constrained Iran’s nuclear program. He also announced plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which for more than 30 years banned intermediate range missiles and has contributed to stability in Europe.
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: “The INF treaty’s potential death foreshadows a new competition to deploy weapons long banned. Continue reading
U.S. Congress members call on Trudeau to stop nuclear waste dumping near Great Lakes
|
Upton, Dingell, Kildee and Mitchell Appeal to Trudeau: No Nuclear Waste In the Great Lakes Basin, https://whtc.com/news/articles/2019/dec/10/upton-dingell-kildee-and-mitchell-appel-to-trudeau-no-nuclear-waste-in-the-great-lakes-basin/965368/ When U.S. Representatives Fred Upton and Debbie Dingell joined with a handful of other House members last Friday, Dec. 6, 2019, to decry plans by Canadian officials to put a nuclear waste storage site in the Great Lakes basin, they were hoping to shame Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau into some kind of protective action.
Tuesday, December 10, 2019 But something else happened, Upton explained.
“We’ve got other members now, on a bipartisan basis, coming to us saying, ‘Hey, we want to sign that same letter,'” he said. “So we’re going to be doing another letter, a little bit later this week, that’ll have broader appeal. Because we were sort of under the gun when we learned the news late Friday afternoon.” Upton and Dingell joined two other Michigan representatives, Paul Mitchell and Dan Kildee in signing a letter appealing to Trudeau to oppose any nuclear waste storage plans near the Great Lakes. The complete text of last week’s letter: Dear Prime Minister Trudeau: We write to you out of deep concern regarding reports that Canada is moving closer to selecting a permanent national repository for harmful nuclear waste along the shores of the Great Lakes. Allowing a permanent nuclear waste storage facility anywhere near the Great Lakes basin, for any amount of time, is a risk we cannot afford to take. The recent reporting also has us greatly concerned that the highest levels of radioactive waste would ultimately be stored at the proposed site. We know that there are other Members of Congress representing districts in the Great Lakes basin who are most concerned by this development and will certainly be joining with us in the days ahead. This is a grave concern. These waters have long united us—they should not divide us. In November, the Energy and Commerce Committee favorably advanced H.R. 2699, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019, to the House for final consideration and it included an important bipartisan amendment that expresses the Sense of Congress that the governments of the United States and Canada should not allow permanent or long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel or other radioactive waste near the Great Lakes. This amendment was unanimously supported and adopted. We stand in strong opposition to any decision by the Canadian government to select or consider a permanent national repository for nuclear waste storage anywhere near the Great Lakes. This is a treasured natural resource each of our countries share and we urge you to stand with us to protect these waters for future generations. Thank you for your consideration of this important request and we look forward to a timely response. |
Indigenous opposition grows against proposal for grand nuclear waste dump in New Mexico
Some fear the “interim” storage facility could become a de facto permanent storage facility
transport of high-level radioactive waste across the state 
could also lead to potentially dangerous nuclear releases, leaving impacted communities responsible for emergency responses.
the proposal fits into a wider pattern of negligence and environmental racism on behalf of the federal government towards one of the United States’ poorest majority-minority states.
|
Nuclear Colonialism: Indigenous opposition grows against proposal for nation’s largest nuclear storage facility in NM Political Report By Kendra Chamberlain 14 Nov 19, A proposal for New Mexico to house one of the world’s largest nuclear waste storage facilities has drawn opposition from nearly every indigenous nation in the state. Nuclear Issues Study Group co-founder and Diné organizer Leona Morgan told state legislators last week the project, if approved, would perpetuate a legacy of nuclear colonialism against New Mexico’s indigenous communities and people of color.Holtec International, a private company specializing in spent nuclear fuel storage and management, applied for a license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct and operate the facility in southeastern New Mexico. The proposal, which has been in the works since 2011, would see high-level waste generated at nuclear power plants across the country transported to New Mexico for storage at the proposed facility along the Lea-Eddy county line between Hobbs and Carlsbad. Continue reading |
One small nation shows how to be nuclear- free and climate friendly – theme for November 19
Citizen Advocacy: The Achievements of New Zealand`s Peace Activism, Asia Pacific Journal Pinar Temocin and Noriyuki Kawano, October 1, 2019 Volume 17 | Issue 19 | Number 2Abstract
Aotearoa New Zealand provides an important example of successful citizen activism in the form of anti-nuclear peace advocacy. The collective efforts by peace actors over several decades resulted in the successful demand for a nuclear-free nation. This paper highlights the widespread participation and political support that facilitated the process and assesses its achievements.
Introduction New Zealand, a small and isolated country, is a rare example of a nation achieving nuclear-free status. The peace-seeking nation unified around an anti-war narrative, and moved from activism based on public awareness and engagement to the passage of laws that eliminated nuclear weapons through a number of stages: from the first generation of movements against the atomic bomb after 1945 to the response to French nuclear testing in the late 60`s to US and UK nuclear warship visits in the 70`s and the early 80`s. As part of this shift, the US-led military alliance with Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS) was redefined by New Zealanders from a guarantee of security to a threat that posed a security dilemma. As this essay shows, social consciousness and activism was ultimately successful in bringing fundamental change. The Labor Party, in particular, played a critical role in translating strong public participation on the part of a broad section of the population into a significant policy outcome: `the creation of a peaceful and nuclear-free nation`.
This mobilization involved persistent and substantial public pressure over decades. Public pressure to change the nation’s foreign policy also included opposition to involvement in the United States-led coalition in the Korean and Vietnam wars. As these wars came to an end, the matter of nuclear testing became a hot-button election issue forcing each political party to adopt a policy on nuclear weapons. The anti-nuclear argument was placed within a broader moral vision. New Zealand peace advocates problematized the threatening conditions and demanded a solution under the narratives of a `democratic, egalitarian, decolonized, independent, non-violent, non-militarist nation which is intrinsically based on `a peaceful nation`. A peaceful nation for them required a nuclear-free approach in its domestic and foreign policies. To achieve this, they organized actively, coordinated professionally, sustained effective campaigns, and engaged in the policy-formation and shaping process.
Since the end of the 60s, successful protest movements have established new modes of political participation in advanced democracies.1 In some democratic societies including New Zealand, social movements have benefitted from tolerant political structures. Their success depends further on specific configurations of resources, trustworthy institutional arrangements, and historical precedents for social mobilization that facilitate the development of protest movements.2
Strong democracies are conducive to positive engagements and interactions between citizen and the state. The strengthening of practices of participation, responsiveness to a majority, and the development of inclusive and cohesive societies are powerful components of the democratic decision-making process. Therefore, citizen participation in governance with a responsive, open, and tolerant state can produce positive effects based on popular consensus……https://apjjf.org/2019/19/Temocin.html
New Zealand passes historic zero carbon bill with near unanimous bipartisan support – The New Zealand parliament has passed landmark legislation that enshrines the country’s commitment to the Paris Agreement into law, and will see the country achieve zero net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 ….. https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-zealand-passes-historic-zero-carbon-bill-with-near-unanimous-bipartisan-support-33500/
Over 60 organisations across the nation oppose USA’s bailout of the nuclear industry
Groups oppose “massive new subsidy” for nuclear industry in tax extenders, https://foe.org/news/groups-oppose-massive-new-subsidy-nuclear-industry-tax-extenders/. October 30, 2019 WASHINGTON, D.C. – A coalition of over 60 local, state and national environmental groups today voiced their disapproval of a proposed bailout of the nation’s nuclear power industry.In a letter sent to the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, the groups called on Congressional tax writers to oppose an industry-backed proposal to subsidize existing reactors with a new 30 percent tax credit. Specifically, the letter urges that this tax credit be excluded from a potential extenders package expected this Fall.
A recent analysis indicates that the nuclear industry proposal would cost the treasury $23 billion in lost revenue. Separately, the indirect cost to ratepayers would be $33 billion over 20 years, as regular consumers shoulder the burden of aging, uneconomic reactors.
“Sticking taxpayers with an astronomical bill to bailout the failing nuclear industry is simply unconscionable,” said Lukas Ross, senior policy analyst at Friends of the Earth. “Nuclear power doesn’t deserve another subsidy. This dirty tax credit has no place in a clean energy package.”
“We have a chance right now to expand and extend tax incentives for clean renewable energy like wind and solar and even more nascent industries like energy storage, offshore wind, and electric vehicles,” said Matthew Davis, the League of Conservation Voters’ legislative director. “The nuclear industry already gets billions in subsidies, and has for decades, and we cannot take our eyes off the ball of advancing renewable energy for a 100% clean energy future.”
“Taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power make as much sense as trying to revive the whale-oil industry,” said Grant Smith, senior energy policy advisor at the Environmental Working group. “After six decades of throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at a fundamentally flawed and dangerous technology, we should have learned our lesson. Instead, the government should be investing in clean, safe, money-saving renewable energy.”
“Creating a new subsidy for old nuclear reactors is wasteful and counterproductive,” said Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “Wind and solar are now the most cost-effective electricity sources, yet nuclear power has only gotten more and more expensive over the decades. It’s time to stop shoveling taxpayer dollars into a nuclear pit, and put our money to work building the clean, safe, healthy energy economy this country needs.”
The national signers include: Friends of the Earth, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action, Food and Water Watch Action, Environmental Working Group, Greenpeace, Center for Biological Diversity, Environment America and Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
Contacts: Patrick Davis, Friends of the Earth, (202) 222-0744, pdavis@foe.org
Nuclear waste storage? There’s no real money in it for Wyoming.
Kessler: Nuclear waste storage provides no benefit for Wyoming, https://trib.com/opinion/columns/kessler-nuclear-waste-storage-provides-no-benefit-for-wyoming/article_4267cc9f-a2f8-54e5-a2d6-7ebe2fe9f9eb.html, Nov 2, 2019
There’s no doubt that Wyoming needs to find new revenue sources to fund our schools and state budget, but storing nuclear waste is not the answer. It’s a far-fetched proposal riddled with legal roadblocks. And even if we ignore those roadblocks — along with the many safety and political risks of storing high-level radioactive waste — there’s no real money in it for Wyoming.
For starters, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which regulates the storage of spent fuel rods from commercial nuclear reactors, makes available just $5 million per year to states willing to host a “monitored retrievable storage” facility during the construction phase. Once such a facility starts accepting the waste, that amount increases to just $10 million per year. This is a far cry from the $1 billion per year proponents claim Wyoming would see.
That’s assuming such a facility can even legally be constructed. The act also prohibits building a temporary facility until a permanent disposal repository, such as the one proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, starts construction. But licensing work on Yucca Mountain has stalled; Congress hasn’t authorized any funding for it in recent years.
To build a storage facility in Wyoming, we’d have to get Congress to change the law in our favor and give us 100 times the amount of cash authorized in the act. That’s not likely. In the last three years, more than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and address this topic. They’ve all failed. Nuclear utilities are likely the biggest opponents: Fees collected for the act’s Nuclear Waste Fund are predominantly meant to fund a permanent disposal solution — not something temporary.
But assume we could actually convince Congress to change the law to allow a monitored retrievable storage site here. Then what? Chances are we’d be stuck with those spent fuel rods for good. That’s because there are no legal, political or financial mechanisms to ensure that, once accepted, high-level radioactive waste would ever be removed. Wyoming would likely become the new Yucca Mountain – not a place to hold nuclear waste temporarily, but a de facto permanent disposal site.
The proposal also ignores serious transportation safety concerns. At no time in our nation’s history would so much high-level radioactive waste be on our roads and rails — and traveling such great distances. So far, the federal government has failed to adopt the enhanced transportation safeguards suggested by the Western Governors’ Association, the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on American’s Nuclear Future, the National Academy of Sciences and the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. There is much work to be done ahead of any attempt to safely ship spent fuel rods across the country. As a recent government report concluded: “The transportation of large amounts of spent fuel to an interim storage or permanent disposal location is inherently complex and the planning and implementation may take decades to accomplish.”
“Can we trust the federal government or the assurance of negotiation to protect our citizens’ interests? To do so would disregard the geographical voting power in Congress and 100 years of history and experience… Are we willing to ignore the experience history would provide us for the siren song of promised economic benefits and a policy that is clearly a moving target? As Governor, I am not.”
In Wyoming, we need a vision for our future that embraces the assets that truly make us a place where people want to live, move to and do business: our strong public schools, workforce, wildlife, open spaces, livable communities, agricultural legacy and outdoor way of life. This is what makes Wyoming the envy of many other places. Instead of jeopardizing our heritage and tarnishing our state’s image, we need to protect and build upon these assets. Storing nuclear waste invites regulatory, political, safety and economic diversification risks — while providing Wyoming no real benefits. We urge the Legislature to reject spending any more time or resources on such a misguided idea.
French activists broke into nuclear plant, demonstrating the risk of terrorism
Greenpeace 28th Oct 2019, In the early hours of 12 October 2017, eight people sneaked inside the grounds of the Cattenom nuclear plant in northern France. Without much difficulty, they reached the foot of a spent fuel pool – where the still highly radioactive fuel rods are stored after use.
It was a scenario Greenpeace France had been warning about since 2001 through numerous reports, letters and speeches. France’s aging fleet of reactors is poorly protected, and not designed to withstand big impacts, such as an explosion set off by terrorists.
A loss of water from the spent fuel pools – protected by walls only 30cm thick – could lead to a massive release of radioactivity. Fortunately, the eight intruders turned out to be peaceful activists from Greenpeace France; they set off some fireworks to demonstrate their presence and then allowed themselves to be led away.
The ease with which they had penetrated alarmed the government of Luxembourg, which lies just north of Cattenom. It also finally spurred the French authorities into action; a parliamentary investigation into nuclear safety
was announced the following month. It’s a textbook example of the role of
non-violent direct action (NVDA) in a democracy, much like the recent
climate strikes.
When the authorities are sleeping at the wheel, and not
responding to polite arguments, citizen action is needed to wake them up.
In this case, it did. A happy end? Unfortunately not.
In a classic case of shooting the messenger, prosecutors have pressed for stiff penalties. In February 2018, a court in Thionville sentenced the ‘Cattenom nine’ – the eight activists and a Greenpeace France employee. It imposed a 2-month jail sentence on two of the individuals, and suspended sentences on the
rest. It also ordered Greenpeace France to pay €50,000 to the power
company, EDF as ‘moral damages’.
1 This Month
10 March A LIVE WEBINAR THE REAL EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR POWER
What the Industry Isn’t Telling Us
1:00 PM Mountain, 2 pm Central, 3 pm Eastern. Live on the Keepers of the Water Facebook page
18 March Webinar @ 1 PM EST: An Assessment of SMR Projects: The Case of Canada
register for the zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_o8BIIOUvQ2ONJR1nta65DQ#/registration
of the week – STOP SMALL MODULAR REACTORS IN CANADA
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- March 2026 (76)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
-
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 