Standards don’t protect them and studies dismiss them
By Linda Pentz Gunter
In a peer reviewed article published in the British Medical Journal Pediatrics Open in October, my Beyond Nuclear colleague, Cindy Folkers and I, reviewed the studies currently available that look at the impact on children from radiation exposures caused by the nuclear power sector.
In particular, we looked at the disproportionately negative impact on children living in disadvantaged communities, primarily those of color. As we wrote in the article:
“From uranium mining and milling, to fuel manufacture, electricity generation and radioactive waste management, children in frontline and Indigenous communities can be disproportionately harmed due to often increased sensitivity of developing systems to toxic exposures, the lack of resources and racial and class discrimination.”
At about the same time, and as if to confirm our hypothesis, the story of the Jana elementary school in Missouri began to break.
The school is in a predominantly Black community in northern St. Louis and the US army corps of engineers had been called in to assess radioactivity found in classrooms, playgrounds and on sports fields at the school after findings of unacceptable levels of radioactivity on the premises were revealed in an independent report conducted by Dr. Marco Kaltofen, President of Boston Chemical Data Corporation.
The radioactive contamination found at the school was, as the report described it, “consistent with the radioactive legacy uranium processing wastes notoriously found in the heavily contaminated Coldwater Creek in North St. Louis County, MO, and in low-lying areas subject to flooding from the creek.”
The report concluded that “radiological contamination exists at unacceptable levels (greater than 5.0 net pCi/g as alpha radiation) at the Jana School property.”
Those wastes, dating back from the 1940s to 1960s, were produced by a company called Mallinckrodt, which processed uranium from the Belgian Congo as part of the Manhattan Project. The radioactive waste they produced was illegally dumped in what was then surrounding countryside and at the West Lake Landfill. It seeped into creeks and spread into parks and even homes.
A story we ran on Beyond Nuclear International in March 2018 relates the struggle of residents to get their community cleaned up. Atomic Homefront, a compelling documentary about this fight, brings home exactly the toll this environmental crime has taken on people living there, especially women.
Radioactive lead-210, thorium and radium-226 were among the isotopes found at Jana Elementary school, at levels far higher than those considered permissible (but not safe) at Superfund sites. The lead-210 was at levels 22 times what would be considered “expected” in such an environment.
Why had it taken so long to discover this immense and unacceptable risk to children?
Jana’s PTA president, Ashley Bernaugh, believes she knows the answer.
“Jana elementary’s radioactive past looks like a lot of other communities where hazardous waste has been allowed to exist in predominantly minority communities and in lower middle income communities, where it never would have been allowed in upper income level communities because of the public outrage,” she told The Guardian.
By November 9 the corps had declared that radiation levels at the school “showed no levels of radiation higher than ‘the level of radioactivity Mother Nature already provides.’”
“Mother Nature” is a euphemistic reference to “background radiation,” already problematic given the decades of atomic testing and major nuclear accidents that have added to what “background” radiation levels once were but are no longer. Of far greater concern is that these levels, while likely not even safe for adults, are certainly not safe for children.
This determination of what is “safe” is based on a standard that is not only outdated but was wrong from the start. Here is what we wrote about this in our BMJ article.
“Pregnancy, children and women are underprotected by current regulatory standards that are based on ‘allowable’ or ‘permissible’ doses for a ‘Reference Man’. Early in the nuclear weapons era, a ‘permissible dose’ was more aptly recognized as an ‘acceptable injury limit,’ but that language has since been sanitized.”
Reference Man is defined as a nuclear industry worker 20–30 years of age, who weighs around 154 pounds, is 67 inches tall and is a Caucasian Western European or North American in habitat and custom.
“Very early research conducted in the USA in 1945 and 1946 indicated higher susceptibility of pregnancy to radiation exposure. Pregnant dogs injected with radiostrontium had defects in their offspring and yet, complete results of these studies were not made public until 1969,” we wrote.
“By 1960 however, U.S. experts were clearly aware that research indicated higher susceptibility of children, when the Federal Radiation Council (established in 1959 by President Eisenhower) briefly considered a definition for ‘Standard Child’—which they subsequently abandoned in favor of maintaining a Standard Man definition, later renamed Reference Man.”
Reference Man still stands, although our organization, in partnership with the Gender + Radiation Impact Project, are working to get it changed to Reference Girl. (If you are interested in learning more about this, you can join our online classes.)
Why are children, and especially female children, as well as women and especially pregnant women, more susceptible to harm from radiation exposure? This is not fully understood and regulatory practices, particularly in the establishment of protective exposure standards, have failed to take this difference into account.
An examination of Navajo babies born between 1964 and 1981 showed that congenital anomalies, developmental disorders and other adverse birth outcomes were associated with the mother living near uranium mines and wastes.
Other studies — among Aboriginal communities in Australia and members of Indigenous tribes in India —showed similar outcomes. But so-called anecdotal evidence is invariably dismissed in favor of “statistical insignificance”.
Even perhaps the most famous study, in Germany, of children living near nuclear plants showing elevated rates of leukemia directly correlated to the proximity of their homes to the nuclear sites, was dismissed with claims that the doses were simply too low to have such an impact.
As we concluded in our BMJ article, which is fully accessible and can be read in its entirety here, “more independent studies are needed focused on children, especially those in vulnerable frontline and Indigenous communities. In conducting such studies, greater consideration must be applied to culturally significant traditions and habits in these communities.”
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International.
the NATO summit faces us with the bitter reality that Joe Biden has become, above all, dangerous.
I was struck last week by the sparsity of the coverage American media dedicated to the summit.
NATO has just committed the West’s post-democracies to an era of institutionalized war, global violence, and disorder—this with, by design, no plan to end it.
By Patrick Lawrence / ScheerPost, 17 July 24
It is now five years since Emmanuel Macron, in one of those blunt outbursts for which he is known, told The Economist, in a reference to the collective West, “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO.” The French president thereupon shocked officials across the Continent. “That is not my point of view,” Angela Merkel responded augustly. “I don’t think that such sweeping judgments are necessary.” Heiko Maas, the German chancellor’s foreign minister, added imaginatively, “I do not believe NATO is brain dead.”
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization celebrated its 75th anniversary last week, 32 presidents and prime ministers assembling in the same Washington auditorium where earlier leaders, 12 of them then, signed its founding treaty on April 4, 1949. Joe Biden presided over the anniversary proceedings, of course. And with this in mind, let us credit the French leader for his prescience in diagnosing the condition of NATO’s cerebral matter. As Joe Lauria put it in a Consortium News commentary at the summit’s conclusion last Thursday, this is an organization whose members are collectively losing their minds.
It is important to understand what Macron did and did not mean with this remark. He was not, as might be easily misinterpreted, declaring the North Atlantic Treaty Organization purposeless or obsolete: That was Donald Trump’s line, and Trump was then three years into his presidency. Macron, indeed, was reacting to Trump’s complaints about the alliance as a budgetary sinkhole and his, Trump’s, consequent failure to point the other members in the imperium’s desired direction, as all American presidents had since NATO’s launch as the Atlantic world’s premier Cold War military institution. ……………………………….
Macron’s “brain dead” remark was not the thought of any kind of peacenik, then. The man who now advocates sending French troops into Ukraine is a committed militarist. ………………………
This is the kind of thing—the self-doubt, the smoldering resentments, the fraying unity—that prompted President Biden to make revitalizing NATO a priority when he took office three and some years ago. “Who’s going to be able to hold NATO together like me?” was prominent among his boasts in his July 5 interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos. “You’re going to have now the NATO conference here in the United States next week. Come listen. See what they say.”
The anniversary summit has come and gone. And two realities are now upon us. The other alliance leaders in attendance didn’t say anything of consequence—not a single statement of note. It was boilerplate and pabulum, start to finish. Two, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is nicely reunited—“Together Again,” as the old Buck Owens song goes—but there can be no doubting now that it is brain dead. ………………………………….
We need to think about what it means when NATO members meet and what is on their minds are not the various crises into which they have led the world over the past many years but whether the man whose authority lies effectively beyond question will manage to deliver an address coherently. We can laugh at President Biden’s public displays of ineptitude, and there were some of these, per usual, as he addressed the summit and then gave a press conference afterward. But I didn’t say funny: I said frightening. And this is what NATO has become during Biden’s three and a half years as the alliance’s de facto commander-in-chief.
…………………………… the NATO summit faces us with the bitter reality that Joe Biden has become, above all, dangerous. Is there another way to think about a man listing into senility while directing an inordinately powerful military alliance whose members know how to defer and follow but do not know how to think?
I was struck last week by the sparsity of the coverage American media dedicated to the summit. Some stories on Biden making it to the end of his presentations—the summit address, the presser that followed—without blowing it too badly. Markedly fewer given to the substance of the gathering. It seemed to me a tacit suggestion that nothing new was said or determined during the July 9–11 sessions. It was simply more of the same, and more of the same does not make good copy in the news biz.
Let us consider what the same comes to, and then what it means that more of the same is on the way. To preview my conclusions, NATO has just committed the West’s post-democracies to an era of institutionalized war, global violence, and disorder—this with, by design, no plan to end it. The same threat of annihilation familiar to those who recall the Cold War will prevail once again. Spending on armaments will take automatic priority over the well-being of the societies paying for this profligacy. Russia and China will be normalized as permanent enemies. The West’s estrangement from the non–West will be an established fact of life. The Deep State, an entrenched trans–Atlantic phenomenon now, will ally with liberal authoritarian elites to enforce this regime and suppress all those who question or challenge it. ……………………………………..
After praising the “remarkable progress” of European members that are spending ever more on weaponry—what a terrific thing—Biden went straight into the proxy war the alliance wages in Ukraine against the Russian Federation. . Among his various assertions: “Ukraine can and will stop Putin,” “Make no mistake, Russia is failing in this war,” “We’ve built a global coalition to stand with Ukraine.” “An overwhelming bipartisan majority of Americans understand that NATO makes us all safer.” And then one of my favorites, a recurring theme and a real Bidenism: “And Putin wants nothing less—nothing less than Ukraine’s total subjugation. And we know Putin will not stop at Ukraine.”
The high officials listening greeted all of these statements with enthusiasm. None of them bears even a remote relationship with the truth. ………………………………
This is the trans–Atlantic alliance as it has become. It operates on the basis of fantastic conjurings, and no member questions them. You have read absolutely no mainstream media challenging these silly fabrications and none analyzing NATO’s purpose or policies with any seriousness. This is what I mean by frightening. This is what makes NATO as it is now dangerous. Its stated purpose makes no sense and its unstated purpose is as noted above.
And here is the diabolic truth it is important not to miss: Biden and everyone in his summit audience knows Ukraine is losing its war, knows Moscow has no designs on Europe, knows there is no “global coalition” standing with the alliance. These are simple facts beyond dispute, matters of record. But Biden’s speech was not meant for the other leaders present and the other leaders present did not applaud for Biden: Biden’s true audience was the public in the trans–Atlantic post-democracies, and the applause he received amounted to their instructions in the necessity to approve.
NATO summits as performance, as exercises in mass propaganda conducted entirely in the open: I confess I cannot fully register the implications of an organization as powerful as the Atlantic alliance operating this emptily and cynically. NATO has a purpose all right, but its political figureheads, generals, and bureaucrats must make one up for public consumption, its actual purpose—global dominance at whatever cost—being too objectionable to profess.
As to more of the same, the anniversary summit appears to mark a turn in the eastern alliance toward complete abandonment of the pretense of NATO as a defensive organization in favor of increasingly aggressive, provocative postures. Antony Blinken, speaking in the course of the proceedings, termed the thought of Ukraine’s membership in the alliance “inevitable and irreversible,” awaiting the Kiev regime across “a well-lit bridge.” I read this two ways. One, Biden and his policy cliques are doing what they can, which is limited, to reassure Ukraine in anticipation of a possible Trump victory in November.
Two and closer to the ground, as Kiev continues to lose on the battlefield, NATO now intends to signal that settlement talks are out of the question and the alliance will plunge deeper into the morass however deep the morass eventually proves. To wit: John Helmer, a long-serving and highly reliable Moscow correspondent who now publishes Dances with Bears, reported last week,
“American, British, and Canadian troops in NATO’s forward bases in Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania are being told to prepare for deployment to the Ukraine next year. They are also being warned to expect to fight under heavy Russian artillery, missile, guided bomb, and drone strikes.“
Note the nations from which these troops will be dispatched to the Ukrainian front. They are all former Soviet satellites nursing quite understandable but lethally unbalanced cases of anti–Russian paranoia. This is how aggression is sometimes engendered in the long-term war against Russia. Ukraine relies on the same visceral anti–Russian animus by way of the neo–Nazi units that lead its military.
…………………….NATO intends to expand its purview to East Asia, so following the U.S. in its gradually escalating confrontation with China.
As if on cue, Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s outgoing sec-gen, subsequently launched into an utterly inappropriate attack on China for “oppressing its own people,” for “crushing democratic voices,” for “more assertive behavior in the South China Sea,” for “threatening neighbors, threatening Taiwan,” and so on down the list of complaints Blinken and the Biden regime’s policy cliques favor when addressing the Chinese.
NATO in Asia is now to be taken with the utmost seriousness. It is NATO now and the NATO to come—brain dead NATO, NATO everywhere with no legitimate business anywhere. Shortly after Stoltenberg delivered himself of his preposterous tirade, Biden hung the Presidential Medal of Freedom around his neck. https://scheerpost.com/2024/07/17/patrick-lawrence-brain-dead-and-dangerous-nato-proceeds/
Tokyo Electric Power Co. announced that it has completed the third round of treated radioactive water discharge from the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in this fiscal year. About 7,800 tons of filtered water were released from storage tanks into the Pacific Ocean after being diluted by a large volume of seawater, the company said on July 16. This was the seventh batch of treated water dumped into the sea since TEPCO began the discharge program in August last year. The utility plans four more rounds of discharge before the current fiscal year ends in March.
A new Oxfam report reveals how Israel has been systematically weaponizing water against Palestinians in Gaza, showing disregard for human life and international law.
A new Oxfam report reveals how Israel has been systematically weaponizing water against Palestinians in Gaza, showing disregard for human life and international law.
The report, Water War Crimes, finds that Israel’s cutting of external water supply, systematic destruction of water facilities and deliberate aid obstruction have reduced the amount of water available in Gaza by 94% to 4.74 litres a day per person – just under a third of the recommended minimum in emergencies and less than a single toilet flush.
Oxfam analysis also found:
Israeli military attacks have damaged or destroyed five water and sanitation infrastructure sites every three days since the start of the war.
The destruction of water and electricity infrastructure and restrictions on entry of spare parts and fuel (on average a fifth of the required amount is allowed in) saw water production drop by 84% in Gaza. External supply from Israel’s national water company Mekorot fell by 78%.
Israel has destroyed 70% of all sewage pumps and 100% of all wastewater treatment plants, as well as the main water quality testing laboratories in Gaza, and restricted the entry of Oxfam water testing equipment.
Gaza City has lost nearly all its water production capacity, with 88% of its water wells and 100% of its desalination plants damaged or destroyed.
The report also highlighted the dire impact of this extreme lack of clean water and sanitation on Palestinians’ health, with more than a quarter (26%) of Gaza’s population falling severely ill from easily preventable diseases.
In January, the International Court of Justice demanded that Israel immediately improve humanitarian access in light of a plausible genocide in Gaza. Since then, Oxfam has witnessed firsthand Israel’s obstruction of a meaningful humanitarian response, which is killing Palestinian civilians.
Oxfam Water and Sanitation Specialist Lama Abdul Samad said it was clear that Israel had created a devastating humanitarian emergency resulting in Palestinian civilian deaths.
“We’ve already seen Israel’s use of collective punishment and its use of starvation as a weapon of war. Now we are witnessing its weaponizing of water, which is already having deadly consequences.
“But the deliberate restriction of access to water is not a new tactic. The Israeli Government has been depriving Palestinians across the West Bank and Gaza of safe and sufficient water for many years,” she said.
“The widespread destruction and significant restrictions on aid delivery in Gaza impacting access to water and other essentials for survival, underscores the urgent need for the international community to take decisive action to prevent further suffering by upholding justice and human rights, including those enshrined in the Geneva and Genocide Conventions.”
Monther Shoblak, General Manager of the Gaza Strip’s water utility CMWU, said:
“My colleagues and I have been living through a nightmare these past nine months, but we still feel it’s our responsibility and duty to ensure everybody in Gaza is getting their minimum right of clean drinking water. It’s been very difficult, but we are determined to keep trying – even when we witness our colleagues being targeted and killed by Israel while undertaking their work.”
Oxfam is calling for urgent action including an immediate and permanent ceasefire; for Israel to allow a full and unfettered humanitarian response; and for Israel to foot the reconstruction bill for water and sanitation infrastructure.
Activists hope to shut down an existing mine within a new national monument and to prevent the transportation of uranium on state and federal roads across Navajo Nation lands.
PHOENIX—Members of environmental groups stood together in the lobby of the Arizona State Capitol Executive Tower late last month to deliver a petition to Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, requesting that she stop uranium mining activities near the Grand Canyon National Park.
The Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association, Wild Arizona, Chispa Arizona and Haul No!, a group formed to fight the mining and transport of uranium, delivered a petition with more than 17,500 signatures to the governor.
They are seeking closure of the Pinyon Plain Mine, located less than 10 miles from the Grand Canyon. It is inside the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni—Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, which President Joe Biden established in August 2023. The removal of uranium ore from the mine started in late December.
Although the designation prohibits new mining claims and development, it allows prior claims with valid existing rights like Pinyon Plain to continue their operations. Energy Fuels Resources owns the mine, which is approximately 17 acres, and operates it on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
“This mine threatens to pollute the groundwater that feeds the seeps and springs in Grand Canyon, supporting plants, animals and people,” the petition states.
People can develop respiratory disease and toxicity in the kidneys due to uranium exposure, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. There are more than 500 abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Nation, and the tribe continues to confront the ramifications of mining activities on tribal members and the environment. This includes advocating for federal money to clean up abandoned mines and compensation for former mine workers.
No one from Hobbs’ office met the group or accepted the written requests in person. Instead, the activists left the petition, the groups’ latest action attempting to get the Democratic governor’s attention, with the executive receptionist on the first floor. In January, the groups sent a letter to Hobbs urging her to revisit permits issued for Pinyon Plain Mine and seeking her help closing it. They said she has not responded to the letter.
A spokesperson with the governor’s office confirmed on July 11 that the petition was received…………………………………………………………………………..
Vania Guevara is the advocacy and political director with Chispa Arizona, a program under the League of Conservation Voters that is dedicated to increasing Latinx voices in policies that address climate change and the environment. Guevara said it is urgent for Hobbs to address uranium mining because it threatens the health and safety of Indigenous communities.
A dozen tribes have ancestral, ceremonial and traditional connections to the region, including the Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiutes, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Pueblo of Zuni and the Colorado River Indian Tribes…………………………………. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17072024/arizona-activists-press-officials-to-stop-uranium-mining-near-grand-canyon/
“The Scientists Who Alerted us to Radiation’s Dangers”, now published, contains the biographies of 23 radiation scientists who blew the whistle on radiation risks but were victimised by their governments and their nuclear establishments for doing so. Most of these scientists are no longer with us.
Recent epidemiology evidence clearly shows that the denials and obfuscations on radiation risks by successive governments and their nuclear establishment in the past on both sides of the Atlantic were and are wrong and the maligned scientists were right. Radiation is considerably more dangerous than official reports indicate, both in terms of the numerical magnitudes of cancer risks, but also in terms of the new types of diseases, apart from cancer, now shown to be radiogenic.
Written by a former UK government scientist Dr Ian Fairlie and a US anti-nuclear campaigner, Cindy Folkers, the book preserves the memories of the radiation scientists over the previous half-century or so, mostly from the US and UK.
They portray another 15 more recent radiation scientists who have followed in their footsteps but have managed to avoid being victimised. The book also lists over 150 activists in North America, Japan and Europe who have raised their voices against radiation risks and exposures over the past 30 to 40 years.
Radiation and radioactivity and their current risks are explained in easy-to-understand terms. All scientific statements are backed by evidence via hundreds of references, 14 Appendices, 6 Annexes, a glossary and an extensive bibliography.
This is an up-to-date reference book for all academics on the dangers and risks of radiation and radioactivity. The book also serves to help journalists and students counter the misrepresentations, incorrect assertions, wrong assumptions, and untruths about radiation risks often disseminated by the nuclear (power and weapons) establishments on both sides of the Atlantic.
“We must not lose sight of what is happening in Gaza, where an unprecedented humanitarian crisis continues to get even worse,” said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Israeli forces have massacred nearly 60 people in the Gaza Strip over just the past 24 hours, and the past week has been one of the deadliest since the war began more than nine months ago.
But you’d hardly know it by looking at the front pages of major newspapers in the United States, despite U.S. President Joe Biden fueling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assault with diplomatic support and billions of dollars worth of weaponry.
While outlets such as Al Jazeera and Reuters have kept Israel’s onslaught at or near the top of their pages, coverage of the relentless war on the Palestinian enclave has largely been supplanted in the U.S. by presidential politics, particularly in the wake of the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump on Saturday—the same day Israeli forces killed around 100 people in an attack on a southern Gaza town that was previously designated a “safe zone,” as Common Dreamsreported.
Fresh Israeli airstrikes across Gaza on Tuesday killed dozens of people—including children—but the massacres didn’t receive mention on the front pages of the web versions of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, or USA Today, each of which heavily featured coverage of the high-stakes U.S. presidential contest between two candidates who have backed Israel’s war on Gaza.
As of Tuesday morning, Gaza was entirely absent from the website landing pages of the Journal and USA Today. The Post‘s home page buried a story about the potential for an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah, while the Times‘ home page contained a piece about surging settler violence in the West Bank amid Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza.
In recent weeks, U.S. corporate media coverage of developments in Gaza has not reflected the extent to which Israel has intensified its aerial and ground attacks, even as recent cease-fire talks have sparked some hope of a pause.
After a 20-year-old gunman attempted to assassinate Trump at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday, pictures of the former president’s bloodied ear and raised fist were plastered across the front pages of major newspapers in the U.S. and around the world while the far more numerous images of child victims of Israeli bombs—many of them supplied by the United States—faded from view.
Israel does not allow journalists with major U.S.-based media outlets to enter the Gaza Strip unless they are embedded with Israeli forces and agree to let the military vet their coverage.
Al Jazeera, a Qatari-funded outlet that Israel’s far-right government has repeatedly targeted, reported Monday that “Israeli forces have attacked five separate schools in Gaza in just eight days, killing dozens of people sheltering in them.”
One attack on Sunday, the outlet noted, “struck the United Nations-run Abu Oreiban school in the Nuseirat refugee camp, killing at least 17 people and injuring about 80. Most of the victims were women and children, said Palestinian Civil Defense.”
Reporting from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, Al Jazeera‘s Hani Mahmoud said he witnessed children “crying out in pain and agony” at the facility, which—like all of Gaza’s remaining hospitals—is under-resourced and only partially functioning.
“This is the result of incinerating bombs,” Mahmoud added.
The death toll from Israel’s war on Gaza is nearing 40,000—likely a dramatic undercount, given how many bodies are missing under the rubble that now dominates the landscape of the enclave and could take 15 years to clear.
Those who have survived Israel’s onslaught are now living amid sewage, decomposing bodies, and the ruins of their homes, shops, schools, and hospitals, with nowhere safe to flee. Famine and disease are spreading rapidly across the territory as the Israeli government continues to restrict the flow of humanitarian aid.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has urged the Biden administration to cut off all offensive weapons assistance to Israel, said in a statement late last week that “while much of the media is focused on the drama of the U.S. presidential election, we must not lose sight of what is happening in Gaza, where an unprecedented humanitarian crisis continues to get even worse.”
“We must end our support for Netanyahu’s war,” said Sanders. “Not another nickel to make this horrific situation even worse. I intend to do everything I can to block further arms transfers to Israel, including through joint resolutions of disapproval of any arms sales. The United States must not help a right-wing extremist and war criminal continue this atrocity.”
As Burnham-On-Sea.com reported here, EDF is planning to create a saltmarsh at Pawlett Hams to create a new habitat for fish and animals instead of creating an acoustic fish deterrent system at Hinkley Point C which would stop millions of fish from swimming into the plant’s cooling system and being killed.
Local environmental campaign group Protect Pawlett Hams Action Group claims the EDF plans are an “ecological disaster in the making.”
And Fish Guidance Systems (FGS) is calling for urgent support from the Environment Agency (EA) on how a Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) system will be included in EDF Energy’s plans at Hinkley Point C.
FGS says: “One of these conditions includes the application of an AFD which uses low-frequency signals to deter fish from the cooling intakes for the nuclear power plant, located two miles offshore.”
“This would save the lives of local and protected fish species in the Severn Estuary, which would otherwise be pulled through the cooling water systems and released back into the Estuary. Fish under threat include shad, while migratory species such as Atlantic salmon and shad will have a 50% and 100% respective death rate if pulled into the processing as reported in a Welsh Government Commission.”
…………………………………….EDF has suggested the creation of wetland habitat for birds and other species, combined with enhancements to fish passage on a small number of existing weirs however, several environmental groups state that this will not compensate for the millions of fish pulled in by the intakes every year, which some estimate to be 128 million. FGS urges that an AFD system is the only warranted option.
Dr David Lambert, Managing Director of Fish Guidance Systems, adds: “Acoustic Fish Deterrent systems have been successfully used at coastal power plants for nearly thirty years and EDF’s repeated appeal to the government to revoke the use of one does not take into account the important fish species and wider ecosystem. We want to use our expertise to help EDF make informed, scientifically-backed decisions………………………… https://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/edfs-plans-to-create-huge-new-saltmarsh-to-be-aired-at-meet-the-regulator-event-today/
Nuclear-weapon states (NWS) are disregarding political commitments accepted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to “further diminish the role and significance of nuclear weapons in all military and security concepts, doctrines and policies” and increasing nuclear risks by boosting the salience of nuclear weapons.
The NPT is inclusive, nearly universal, and connects the disarmament and non-proliferation dimensions of the global nuclear order. These factors make it a good place to address nuclear weapons salience. In a polarised international environment, the NPT can also link up other contexts where nuclear weapons are discussed. The ambition of efforts to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons will depend on the overall trajectory of international politics. But the growing role and significance of nuclear weapons is both the result and a driver of rivalry between the NWS.
“I saw before my eyes one missile after another descending next to the tents. Missiles I have never seen in my life in all of Gaza’s wars. Isn’t this internationally forbidden? Shouldn’t the civilian population be protected and not face genocide and mass killing? Isn’t this forbidden?”
The Israeli army committed another massacre against displaced Palestinians in tent encampments, this time in the coastal Mawasi area, which Israel had designated as a “safe zone.”
In a crater in the ground almost larger than a schoolyard, a group of young men dig through the sand and pull out the bodies.
“His head is there! His head is there!” someone yells. A man emerges from the hole, carrying a child.
“Who knows who this child is? Who knows his family? Where are his parents?” he calls out.
Behind him are dead bodies and severed limbs scattered across the ground. Some poke out from beneath the sand, half-buried.
When the Israeli army struck the coastal displacement camp in al-Mawasi, west of Khan Younis, there was no rubble. The Israeli-designated “safe zone” was little more than a sea of tents on the beach, so people were buried in the sand instead.
At 10 a.m. on Saturday, while people were starting their day, the Israeli military targeted the area with successive airstrikes, leading to a massacre that, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, has, as of the time of writing, killed 90 people and injured over 300 others. Half of them are women and children, the health ministry says.
Shaima Farwaneh, 16, was near the site of the massacre when it happened. She was preparing to make breakfast for her family when the bombs fell.
People and sand scattered everywhere, limbs that were once attached to bodies flying over their heads.
“A leg hit me, and I saw dismembered bodies a few meters away,” Shaima told Mondoweiss. “I saw a young child screaming. He lost his lower limbs and was crawling on his hands and screaming. The bombs didn’t stop, and suddenly the boy disappeared. I saw how he vanished before me while we ran and lowered our eyes to the ground, unable to do anything but run.”
Shaima describes hearing seven explosions in short succession before it was over. “What a life we live in these tents that we have to see the dismembered bodies of our siblings and families fly over our heads.”
When the ambulance and Civil Defense crews arrived near a well-known crowded market for residents of the area, their vehicles were targeted as well, according to the director of the Civil Defense in Khan Younis, Yamen Abu Suleiman. Two Civil Defense workers were killed in the strike.
Abu Suleiman said that the occupation targeted Al-Mawasi with a large barrage of missiles, which led to many casualties. “The occupation targeted the area more than once to prevent us from any rescue operation,” he tells Mondoweiss, denouncing the silence of the International Committee of the Red Cross over Israel’s prevention of rescue teams from doing their work.
Israel claims that the airstrikes were an attempt to assassinate Muhammad al-Deif, the head of the armed wing of Hamas, the al-Qassam Brigades, as well as the commander of al-Qassam’s Khan Younis District Brigade, Rafi Salama. The Gaza government media office denies the Israeli claims, emphasizing that they are nothing but a way of diverting the world’s attention from the reality of the massacre the Israeli army committed as part of the genocide of Gaza’s people.
According to local sources, over 80,000 displaced people currently reside in tents in that area.
‘No state does this’
Fawzia Sheikh Youssef, 82, was buried in the sand from the bombing but survived. She describes what she experienced during the massacre as something she had never seen in her entire life. She tells Mondoweiss that she was already displaced during the Nakba of 1948 when she was only 6 years old, coming to the Khan Younis area and staying with her family for two years in a tent. 76 years later, she found herself back where she started, but this time witnessing massacres the likes of which she had never seen even during the Nakba.
“There is no country in all the world that does this to children, women, and civilians,” she says. “This isn’t how wars are.”
Fawzia was eating her breakfast when the bomb ripped through her encampment, demolishing her tent and trapping her underneath it. She found herself covered in sand and trapped inside but was not critically injured. She began crawling on the ground and extricated herself from beneath the tent, eventually escaping to a place far away from the shrapnel and missiles, closer to the main road.
“I saw before my eyes one missile after another descending next to the tents. Missiles I have never seen in my life in all of Gaza’s wars. Isn’t this internationally forbidden? Shouldn’t the civilian population be protected and not face genocide and mass killing? Isn’t this forbidden?”
“They killed young people and old women. They do not respect humans. Aren’t we human?” she continues. “There is nothing to protect us from these missiles. The tents fell on our heads, and I was hit with two pieces of shrapnel in my leg. I may get poisoned, and I did not harm anyone.”
“These are not humanitarian actions,” Fawzia says. “A normal state would know that children have value, and women have value. Their lives are respected. Killing them is forbidden. There are wars. Some countries fight in the world, but not like this. Not like what happens with us.”
‘I left my son and fled from the horror of the bombing’
Samah al-Farra, a survivor of the massacre, says she fled from the horror of the missiles, leaving her son behind without knowing what she was doing. She describes what she saw after the incident as witnessing the horrors of the Day of Resurrection. The sound of the explosions, the panic of the people around her, the stampede in the attempt to escape, women leaving their tents without even wearing their clothes — Samah has to live with witnessing all these brutal scenes.
“People were running. There was sand in our eyes and fire over our heads. I left my son behind me and started running. I found the world turned upside down. The bodies of the martyrs were next to us, cut into pieces. It was a massacre. The fragments, sand, and bodies flew over our heads as we ran,” Samah describes.
She says that if this density of missiles had fallen on fortified buildings, it would have destroyed them. “But what about when they fall on tents whose owners are protected only by a piece of cloth?”
She describes the scene as a shower of missiles falling four times in a row, with more than one explosion occurring during each shower. “We saved ourselves. If we had stayed where we were, we would have been cut up and buried under the sand.”
Media reports have said that the bombs used in the al-Mawasi attack were JDAMs made in the U.S., which turn highly destructive unguided bombs into more precise missiles.
‘The entire area was overturned‘
Aziza Abu Tahir sits in front of the devastation after the bombing. Scattered bags of flour, gallons of water, vegetables, pillowcases, and utensils litter the area. She owns an oven and sits beside it every day. The women of the camp send their dough to her to bake for a small fee.
“When they dropped the bombs above our heads, all the people were running and screaming and saying that these were incendiary bombs, and this is the first time we have heard a sound like this,” Aziza tells Mondoweiss. “We ran away, and no one knew where to run. Some people went from one direction and were bombed, and some of them went from another direction and survived. But no one knew where they were going.”
As she speaks, a small child is hugging her, the son of her neighbor. Aziza says his mother takes care of orphans, and explains that when the attack started, his mother was bringing some dough for Aziza to bake in order to then resell to get an income for her family. “She was just here, and I baked what she wanted, and she went to sell it. As soon as she walked away, the bombing started. I don’t know where she is now, and I don’t know if she will return. The entire area she was walking in was overturned, and everything was buried.”
Hassan Suleih conducted interviews and provided photography for this report.
Night-time lights visible at the Yongbyon radiochemical laboratory suggest that North Korea is covertly importing spent fuel rods for plutonium extraction reprocessing
Evidence suggests that North Korea is ramping up production of plutonium and uranium nuclear materials at the radiochemical laboratory and uranium enrichment facility in the Yongbyon nuclear complex, as it has begun full-scale operation of the experimental light water reactor this summer. Recently, major foreign media outlets covering North Korea have debated and verified the reliability of the thermal infrared analysis of the Yongbyon facility presented in a Daily NK column I published in May. This article summarizes thoughts and opinions on this matter, and also examines what is behind the intermittent night lights observed in Yongbyon through night-time luminosity images.
Recent conditions at the Yongbyon reactor and light water reactor area were examined using Maxar’s GeoEye-1 satellite imagery (40 centimeter resolution). In the June 19 satellite photo, heated cooling water from the reactor and light water reactor operation is clearly identified being discharged into the Kuryong River through two pump stations, accompanied by white foam. This marks the 16th cooling water discharge detected this year. As it continues to appear in satellite images since late April, the experimental light water reactor appears to have entered full-scale operation. The South Korean Ministry of National Defense had previously predicted that the Yongbyon light water reactor would enter normal operation in or around the summer months.
Below the second pump station, a yellow substance spread out in a rectangular shape can be seen on the ground. This could be wheat or barley being dried after harvest. In North Korea, mid-June is the peak harvest time for wheat and barley in the fields, followed typically by planting corn as the year’s second crop. Soldiers and workers guarding the Yongbyon nuclear facility appear to be engaging in farming activities in empty spaces within the complex as food rations are insufficient.
Analysis of Yongbyon thermal infrared satellite imagery………………………………………………………………………………………..
Repairs of the boiler room in the Yongbyon thermal power plant ………………………………………………………
Mysterious late night lights at the radiochemical laboratory………………………………………………………….
influential foreign media outlets recently released an assessment about thermal infrared analysis, which is used to determine the operational status of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities. The prominent U.S. North Korea-focused website Beyond Parallel has provided an in-depth analysis of the reliability of thermal infrared data. I read the three articles with great interest. The conclusion of the series of articles evaluated the results of the thermal infrared analysis of North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear facilities as generally reliable. The outlet explained that after obtaining and comparing Yongbyon facility operation records for over two years held by the U.N., the results largely matched those of the thermal infrared analysis. When high heat was detected in the thermal infrared data, it corresponded with the operation of the Yongbyon facilities. However, the caveat was that facilities operating at low intensity might not be detected due to weak heat emissions. They also recommended drawing comprehensive conclusions by combining thermal infrared analysis with various other data, as there are still imperfections in the analysis. This is valuable advice worth noting.
“I got a call from the Saudis — they want to fully recognize Israel,” Biden says in an interview on “360 with Speedy.”
Riyadh has not publicly gone this far, and its officials have reiterated that their country will not normalize relations with Israel unless Jerusalem agrees to establish a pathway to a future Palestinian state — a condition Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has flatly rejected.
Biden doesn’t mention the Palestinian condition, and instead asserts that what Saudi Arabia wants in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel is a guarantee that the US will provide them weapons “if they’re attacked by other Arab nations — one just around the corner.” He appears to be referring to Riyadh’s Mideast rival Iran, which is not an Arab country.
The US president says Washington would also establish a civilian nuclear facility in Saudi Arabia, which the US army would operate “so they can move away from fossil fuels.”
This appears to be the most detail any US official has publicly given regarding the terms of the defense guarantees sought by Saudi Arabia, particularly the nuclear component.
“That’s a big game changer in the whole region,” Biden says.
A Democratic lawmaker and a senior Republican Senate aide told The Times of Israel last week, though, that the window has closed for the Biden administration to broker a normalization deal before the November presidential election, because there is not enough time left for the Senate to hold the hearings necessary to approve the defense guarantees for Saudi Arabia.
South Korea said Kim Jong Un‘s regime in the North faces a certain end if it uses nuclear weapons, a strongly worded statement that came after Pyongyang blasted Seoul and Washington for opening the door to further nuclear force deployments to the peninsula.
“If North Korea attempts to use nuclear weapons, the overwhelming response of the South Korea-U.S. alliance will bring about the end of the North Korean regime,” the Defense Ministry in Seoul said on Sunday.
“There is no scenario in which the North Korean regime will survive after using nuclear weapons,” the ministry added.
Kim’s government has stepped up its ballistic missile tests despite existing prohibitions backed by the U.N. Security Council. Amid spiraling tensions on the Korean Peninsula, Pyongyang has threatened to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to defend its territory from what it claims is an impending invasion.
In Washington, D.C., last week, President Joe Biden met South Korean counterpart Yoon Suk Yeol and recommitted “the full range of U.S. capabilities, including nuclear,” to the defense of the longtime U.S. treaty ally.
In a joint statement issued later the same day, the U.S. Defense Department and South Korean Defense Ministry announced the signing of “Guidelines for Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Operations on the Korean Peninsula.” This is a move to further integrate U.S. nuclear assets with South Korea’s conventional forces in defense of the alliance.
On Saturday, the North Korean Defense Ministry warned the United States and the South—”hostile states“—that they would “pay an unimaginably harsh price” for increased nuclear cooperation.
The allies were “betraying their sinister intention to step up their preparations for a nuclear war against the DPRK,” read the statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. DPRK stands for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea’s official name.
“We come to the conclusion that there is only one option for us to take against such confrontational fanatics,” the ministry said, noting the urgent requirement “to further improve its nuclear deterrent readiness and add important elements to the composition of the deterrent.”
South Korea’s Defense Ministry described the new guidelines as “a legitimate measure,” justified by North Korea’s continued development of nuclear-capable missiles.
The forceful language against Kim was first used by Biden last year during a state visit by Yoon.
“A nuclear attack by North Korea against the United States or its allies or partners is unacceptable and will result in the end of whatever regime, were it to take such an action,” Biden said.
North Korea’s embassy in Beijing did not immediately respond to a written request for comment.
The new guidelines governing when and how American nuclear forces might be deployed and used on the Korean Peninsula were crafted by the U.S.-ROK Nuclear Consultative Group, established after Yoon’s visit to the White House. ROK stands for the Republic of Korea, South Korea’s official name.
South Korea, which has no nuclear weapons, says the contents of the guidelines are confidential.
Analysts say Washington aims to boost the credibility of what it calls “extended deterrence,” the ability of the U.S. military to deter adversaries and reassure allies, particularly with its nuclear arms.
In SIPRI’s annual yearbook released last month, the think tank’s experts described North Korea’s nuclear weapons program as “active but highly opaque.”
“Based on statements by the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, and North Korea’s expanding force posture, it seems likely that North Korea intends to increase its nuclear warhead inventory significantly,” the experts said.
North Korea continues to modernize and grow its nuclear weapons arsenal. In this Nuclear Notebook, the authors cautiously estimate that North Korea may have produced enough fissile material to hypothetically build up to 90 nuclear warheads, but has likely assembled fewer than that—potentially around 50. To deliver the warheads, North Korea is enhancing and diversifying its missile force, most recently with new solid-fuel long-range strategic missiles, short-range tactical missiles, and sea-based missiles. The Nuclear Notebook is researched and written by the staff of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: director Hans M. Kristensen, associate director Matt Korda, research associate Eliana Johns, and program associate Mackenzie Knight.
This article is freely available in PDF format in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ digital magazine (published by Taylor & Francis) at this link.
North Korea—also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK—has made significant advances over the past two decades in developing its nuclear weapons arsenal. Since 2006, North Korea has detonated six nuclear devices, updated its nuclear doctrine to reflect the irreversible role of nuclear weapons for its national security, and continued to introduce a variety of new missiles test-flown from new launch platforms.
It is widely assumed that North Korea has operational nuclear warheads for its short- and medium-range missiles as well as possibly for its longer-range missiles, although the latter capability has not yet been publicly demonstrated. There is considerable uncertainty about which of North Korea’s missiles have been fielded with an active operational nuclear capability. However, it seems clearer from North Korea’s public statements and systems-testing that the country intends to field an operational nuclear arsenal capable of holding targets at risk in East Asia, the United States, and Europe.
In 2021, Kim Jong-un announced several key strategic goals for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, proposed as a five-year plan. According to Kim’s statement, these goals included: 1) producing “super-sized nuclear warheads,” 2) producing smaller and lighter nuclear weapons for tactical uses, 3) improving precision strike and range capabilities, 4) introducing “hypersonic gliding flight warheads,” 5) developing “solid-fuel engine propelled intercontinental, underwater, and ground ballistic rockets,” and 6) introducing a “nuclear-powered submarine and underwater-launch nuclear strategic weapon” (KCNA 2021). North Korea appears to have made significant progress on these goals, and has since introduced more demands including the dramatic increase of missile production and “cutting edge strategic weapon engines” (Kim 2023).
Due to the lack of clarity surrounding North Korea’s nuclear program, agencies and officials of the US intelligence community, as well as military commanders and independent experts, struggle to assess the program’s characteristics and capabilities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
North Korea’s nuclear policy
For decades, North Korea has made numerous statements and signals about its nuclear weapons policy, laying out its nuclear doctrine if deterrence fails. Such statements have more recently been codified in official declaratory policy. In 2013, for example, North Korea’s “Law on Consolidating the Position of Nuclear Weapons State” suggested a no-first-use policy, noting that North Korea’s nuclear arsenal would only be used “to repel invasion or attack from a hostile nuclear weapons state and make retaliatory strikes” (KCNA 2013). Kim Jong-un officially declared a no-first-use policy in 2016 following North Korea’s fourth nuclear test.
Since 2016, however, North Korean statements and force posture changes have indicated a shift away from this no-first-use policy. Just two months after the policy was declared, the North Korean government issued a statement that North Korea would not be the first to use nuclear weapons “as long as the hostile forces for aggression do not encroach upon its sovereignty” (KCNA 2016b). In 2020, Kim Jong-un stated that North Korea’s nuclear deterrent “will never be used preemptively. But if […] any forces infringe upon the security of our state and attempt to have recourse to military force against us, I will enlist all our most powerful offensive strength in advance to punish them” (38 North 2020). Such caveats culminated in September 2022 when North Korea’s parliament codified in law North Korea’s right to launch nuclear weapons preemptively (Kim 2022). One year later, the North Korean government codified under the country’s constitution its right to “deter war and protect regional and global peace by rapidly developing nuclear weapons to a higher level” (Soo-Yeon 2023).
The abandonment of North Korea’s no-first-use policy coincides with the country’s recent efforts to develop tactical nuclear weapons. Following development and demonstration of new long-range strategic nuclear-capable missiles, the pursuit of tactical nuclear weapons appears intended to provide options for nuclear use below the strategic level and strengthen its regional deterrence posture (KCNA 2022; National Committee on North Korea 2021). According to two analysts, Pyongyang now sees its nuclear weapons as useful not only for retaliation against an attack but also for potentially winning a limited conflict………………
………………….. Occasionally, North Korea has explicitly mentioned or signaled which targets it would hit with its nuclear weapons. These include US military bases in South Korea, the Asia-Pacific region, Guam, Hawaii, and the continental United States.
………………………………………………………………….. despite occasional inflammatory statements, it appears highly likely that North Korea—as with other nuclear-armed states—would use its nuclear weapons only under extreme circumstances, particularly if the continued existence of the North Korean state and its political leadership were threatened.
North Korea’s nuclear weapons program
Plutonium production operations
The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center, located in North Pyongan province, has been called the “beating heart” of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. At Yongbyon, North Korea produces plutonium at its five megawatt-electric (MWe) graphite-moderated nuclear reactor, which has been operating intermittently since 1986………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Uranium enrichment operations
Assessing the state of North Korea’s uranium enrichment operations is more difficult because the operational history and locations of several associated uranium enrichment facilities are unknown………………………………………………………………
Fissile material and warhead inventory estimates
Because of the prior access to the facilities at Yongbyon, analysts have a reasonable understanding of North Korea’s plutonium production capabilities. However, given the uncertainties about the operations at Yongbyon’s uranium enrichment facility and the possible existence of a second centrifuge facility, it is unclear how much highly-enriched uranium (HEU) North Korea has produced and how much uranium it might divert to military purposes, including for plutonium production. Still, this amount is known to be growing and it is clear North Korea is investing in the improvement of its fissile material production capabilities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The size of North Korea’s nuclear stockpile also depends on the weapon design and the number and types of launchers that can deliver them. Many experts also estimate that North Korea may have built a smaller number of nuclear weapons than what its stockpile of fissile material may suggest………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Nuclear testing and weaponization
After six nuclear tests—including two with moderate yields and one with a high yield—there is no longer any doubt that North Korea can build powerful nuclear explosive devices designed for different yields. North Korea’s latest nuclear test, conducted on September 3, 2017, had a yield of well over 100 kilotons and demonstrated that North Korea had managed to design a thermonuclear device or at least one that used a mixed-fuel (composite) design………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Potential land-based nuclear-capable missiles
Over the past decade, North Korea has developed a highly diverse ballistic missile force, including missiles in all major range categories…………………………………………………………………………………………
Medium- and intermediate-range missiles North Korea is developing a new generation of medium- and intermediate-range missiles with improved accuracy, readiness, and maneuverability…………………………………………………………………
Intercontinental ballistic missiles
The most dramatic of North Korea’s recent developments has been the display and test launch of large intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs),…………………………………………………
Sea-based nuclear-capable missiles
Over the past decade, North Korea has worked to develop an increasingly sophisticated sea-based nuclear deterrent. ……………………………………………………………………..
Submarine-launched cruise missiles North Korea is developing a new submarine-launched cruise missile, known as Pulhwasal-3-31. The system has been labeled a “strategic cruise missile”—implying a nuclear-capable status……………………………………………………
Other sea-based weapons North Korea appears to be developing an underwater weapon system………………………………………..
China is installing record amounts of solar and wind, while scaling back once-ambitious plans for nuclear.
While Australia is falling behind its renewables installation targets, China may meet its end-of-2030 target by the end of this month, according to a report.
What’s next?
Energy experts are looking to China, the world’s largest emitter and once a climate villain, for lessons on how to rapidly decarbonise.
While Australia debates the merits of going nuclear and frustration grows over the slower-than-needed rollout of solar and wind power, China is going all in on renewables.
New figures show the pace of its clean energy transition is roughly the equivalent of installing five large-scale nuclear power plants worth of renewables every week.
A report by Sydney-based think tank Climate Energy Finance (CEF) said China was installing renewables so rapidly it would meet its end-of-2030 target by the end of this month — or 6.5 years early.
It’s installing at least 10 gigawatts of wind and solar generation capacity every fortnight.
Energy experts are looking to China, the world’s largest emitter, once seen as a climate villain, for lessons on how to go green, fast.
“We’ve seen America under President Biden throw a trillion dollars on the table [for clean energy],” CEF director Tim Buckley said.
“China’s response to that has been to double down and go twice as fast.”
Smart Energy Council CEO John Grimes, who recently returned from a Shanghai energy conference, said China has decarbonised its grid almost as quickly as Australia, despite having a much harder task due to the scale of its energy demand.
“They have clear targets and every part of their government is harnessed to deliver the plan,” he said.
China accounts for about a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. A recent drop in emissions (the first since relaxing COVID-19 restrictions), combined with the decarbonisation of the power grid, may mean the country’s emissions have peaked.
“With the power sector going green, emissions are set to plateau and then progressively fall towards 2030 and beyond,” CEF China energy policy analyst Xuyang Dong said.
So how is China building and connecting panels so fast, and what’s the role of nuclear in its transition?
Like building solar farms near Perth to power Sydney
Because its large cities of the eastern seaboard are dominated by apartment buildings, China hasn’t seen an uptake of rooftop solar like in Australia.
To find space for all the solar panels and wind turbines required for the nation’s energy needs, the planners of China’s energy transition have looked west, to areas like the Gobi Desert.
The world’s largest solar and wind farms are being built on the western edge of the country and connected to the east via the world’s longest high-voltage transmission lines.
These lines are so long they could span the length of our continent.
In Australian terms, it’s the equivalent of using solar panels near Perth to power homes in Sydney.
Mr Buckley said China’s approach was similar to the Australian one of developing regional “renewable energy zones” for large-scale electricity generation.
“They’re doing what Australia is doing with renewable energy zones but they’re doing it on steroids,” he said.
What about ‘firming’ the grid?
One of the issues with switching a grid to intermittent renewables is ensuring a steady supply of power.
In technical terms, this is the difference between generation capacity (measured in gigawatts) and actual energy output (measured in gigawatt-hours, or generation over time).
Renewables have a “capacity factor” (the ratio of actual output to maximum potential generation) of about 25 per cent, whereas nuclear’s is as high as 90 per cent.
So although China is installing solar and wind generation equivalent to five large nuclear power plants per week, their output is closer to one nuclear plant per week.
Renewables account for more than half of installed capacity in China, but only amount to about one-fifth of actual energy output over a year, the CEF’s Tim Buckley said.
To “firm” or stabilise the supply of power from its renewable energy zones, China is using a mix of pumped hydro and battery storage, similar to Australia.
“They’re installing 1GW per month of pumped hydro storage,” Mr Buckley said.
“We’re struggling to build the 2GW Snowy 2.0 in 10 years.”
There are some major differences between Australia and China’s approaches, though. Somewhat counterintuitively, China has built dozens of coal-fired power stations alongside its renewable energy zones, to maintain the pace of its clean energy transition.
China was responsible for 95 per cent of the world’s new coal power construction activity last year.
The new plants are partly needed to meet demand for electricity, which has gone up as more energy-hungry sectors of the economy, like transport, are electrified.
The coal-fired plants are also being used, like the batteries and pumped hydro, to provide a stable supply of power down the transmission lines from renewable energy zones, balancing out the intermittent solar and wind.
Despite these new coal plants, coal’s share of total electricity generation in the country is falling.
The China Energy Council estimated renewables generation would overtake coal by the end of this year.
The CEF’s Xuyang Dong said despite the country’s reliance on coal, “having China go green at this speed and scale provides the world with a textbook to do the same”.
“China is installing every week the equivalent of what we’re doing every year.”
Despite this speed, China wasn’t installing renewables fast enough to meet its 2060 carbon neutrality target, she added.
“According to our analysis, [the current rate of installation] is not ambitious enough for China.”
What about nuclear?
China is building new nuclear plants, although nowhere near as fast as it once intended.
In 2011, Chinese authorities announced fission reactors would become the foundation of the country’s electricity generation system in the next “10 to 20 years”.
But Japan’s 2011 Fukushima disaster prompted a moratorium on inland nuclear plants, which have to use river water for cooling and are more vulnerable to frequent flooding.
Meanwhile, over the following decade, solar became the cheapest electricity in the world.
From 2010 to 2020, the installed cost of utility-scale solar PV declined by 81 per cent on a global average basis.
As well as cheap, it was safe, which made solar farms quicker to build than nuclear reactors.
Instead of nuclear, solar is now intended to be the foundation of China’s new electricity generation system. Authorities have steadily downgraded plans for nuclear to dominate China’s energy generation. At present, the goal is 18 per cent of generation by 2060.
China installed 1GW of nuclear last year, compared to 300GW of solar and wind, Mr Buckley said.
“That says they’re all in on renewables.
“They had grand plans for nuclear to be massive but they’re behind on nuclear by a decade and five years ahead of schedule on solar and wind.”
How is China transitioning so fast?
In June of this year, on the eve of the Coalition’s nuclear policy announcement, former Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who’s now a Smart Energy Council “international ambassador”, led a delegation of Australians to the world’s largest clean energy conference in Shanghai.
The annual Smart Energy Conference hosts more than 600,000 delegates across three days.
Its scale underlines China’s increasing dominance of the global clean energy economy and, for some attendees, prompted unenviable comparisons with Australia’s progress.
Mr Buckley, who was part of the delegation, said he was “blown away”.
“China is winning this race.”
John Grimes, the Smart Energy Council CEO who also attended, said Australia could learn from the Chinese government’s ability to execute a long-term, difficult and costly transition plan, rather than relying on market forces to find a solution.
“Australia’s transition is going too slow, there was a lost decade of action,” he said.
“The world today spends about $7 trillion a year on coal, gas and oil and that money is going to find a new home.
Who is going to be the economic winner in that global economic transition? It’s going to be China.”
He and other energy experts are frustrated with the progress of Australia’s transition, including the discussion of nuclear power and the “weaponisation of dissent” from community groups over new wind farms and transmission lines.
Stephanie Bashir, CEO of the Nexa energy advisory, said Australia’s transition was tangled in red tape.
“The key hold-up for a lot of projects is the slow planning approvals,” Ms Bashir, who also attended the conference, said.
“In China they decide they’re going to do something and then they go and do it.”
The Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) plan to decarbonise the grid and ensure the lights stay on when the coal-fired power stations close requires thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines and large-scale solar and wind farms.
Australia is installing about half the amount of renewables per year required under the plan.
Due to this shortfall, many experts say its unlikely to meet its 2030 target of 82 per cent renewables in the grid and 43 per cent emissions reduction.
“We need to build 6GW each year from now until each power station closes, and so far we’re only bringing online 3GW,” Ms Bashir said.
“If we identify some projects are nation-building … and we need them for transition, we just have to get on with it.”
Mr Buckley predicted China would accelerate its deployment of renewables.
“My forecast is it will lift 20 per cent per annum on current levels.”
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5 From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
nuclear-news 