1 NUCLEAR ISSUES « nuclear-news

Trusting the ‘Five Eyes’ Only

For Their Eyes Only

The “Five Eyes” (FVEY) is an elite club of five English-speaking countries — Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States — that have agreed to cooperate in intelligence matters and share top-secret information. They all became parties to what was at first the bilateral UKUSA Agreement, a 1946 treaty for secret cooperation between the two countries in what’s called “signals intelligence” — data collected by electronic means, including by tapping phone lines or listening in on satellite communications. (The agreement was later amended to include the other three nations.) Almost all of the Five Eyes’ activities are conducted in secret, and its existence was not even disclosed until 2010. You might say that it constitutes the most secretive, powerful club of nations on the planet.

Anglo-Saxon solidarity supersedes all other relationships.

JULY 5, 2024 By Michael Klare / TomDispatch, https://scheerpost.com/2024/07/05/trusting-the-five-eyes-only/
Wherever he travels globally, President Biden has sought to project the United States as the rejuvenated leader of a broad coalition of democratic nations seeking to defend the “rules-based international order” against encroachments by hostile autocratic powers, especially China, Russia, and North Korea. “We established NATO, the greatest military alliance in the history of the world,” he told veterans of D-Day while at Normandy, France on June 6th. “Today… NATO is more united than ever and even more prepared to keep the peace, deter aggression, defend freedom all around the world.”

In other venues, Biden has repeatedly highlighted Washington’s efforts to incorporate the “Global South” — the developing nations of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East — into just such a broad-based U.S.-led coalition. At the recent G7 summit of leading Western powers in southern Italy, for example, he backed measures supposedly designed to engage those countries “in a spirit of equitable and strategic partnership.”

But all of his soaring rhetoric on the subject scarcely conceals an inescapable reality: the United States is more isolated internationally than at any time since the Cold War ended in 1991. It has also increasingly come to rely on a tight-knit group of allies, all of whom are primarily English-speaking and are part of the Anglo-Saxon colonial diaspora. Rarely mentioned in the Western media, the Anglo-Saxonization of American foreign and military policy has become a distinctive — and provocative — feature of the Biden presidency.

America’s Growing Isolation

To get some appreciation for Washington’s isolation in international affairs, just consider the wider world’s reaction to the administration’s stance on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Joe Biden sought to portray the conflict there as a heroic struggle between the forces of democracy and the brutal fist of autocracy. But while he was generally successful in rallying the NATO powers behind Kyiv — persuading them to provide arms and training to the beleaguered Ukrainian forces, while reducing their economic links with Russia — he largely failed to win over the Global South or enlist its support in boycotting Russian oil and natural gas.

Despite what should have been a foreboding lesson, Biden returned to the same universalist rhetoric in 2023 (and this year as well) to rally global support for Israel in its drive to extinguish Hamas after that group’s devastating October 7th rampage. But for most non-European leaders, his attempt to portray support for Israel as a noble response proved wholly untenable once that country launched its full-scale invasion of Gaza and the slaughter of Palestinian civilians commenced. For many of them, Biden’s words seemed like sheer hypocrisy given Israel’s history of violating U.N. resolutions concerning the legal rights of Palestinians in the West Bank and its indiscriminate destruction of homes, hospitals, mosques, schools, and aid centers in Gaza. In response to Washington’s continued support for Israel, many leaders of the Global South have voted against the United States on Gaza-related measures at the U.N. or, in the case of South Africa, have brought suit against Israel at the World Court for perceived violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In the face of such adversity, the White House has worked tirelessly to bolster its existing alliances, while trying to establish new ones wherever possible. Pity poor Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who has made seemingly endless trips to Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East trying to drum up support for Washington’s positions — with consistently meager results.

Here, then, is the reality of this anything but all-American moment: as a global power, the United States possesses a diminishing number of close, reliable allies – most of which are members of NATO, or countries that rely on the United States for nuclear protection (Japan and South Korea), or are primarily English-speaking (Australia and New Zealand). And when you come right down to it, the only countries the U.S. really trusts are the “Five Eyes.”

For Their Eyes Only

The origins of the Five Eyes can be traced back to World War II, when American and British codebreakers, including famed computer theorist Alan Turing, secretly convened at Bletchley Park, the British codebreaking establishment, to share intelligence gleaned from solving the German “Enigma” code and the Japanese “Purple” code. At first an informal arrangement, the secretive relationship was formalized in the British-US Communication Intelligence Agreement of 1943 and, after the war ended, in the UKUSA Agreement of 1946. That arrangement allowed for the exchange of signals intelligence between the National Security Agency (NSA) and its British equivalent, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) — an arrangement that persists to this day and undergirds what has come to be known as the “special relationship” between the two countries.

Then, in 1955, at the height of the Cold War, that intelligence-sharing agreement was expanded to include those other three English-speaking countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. For secret information exchange, the classification “AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US EYES ONLY” was then affixed to all the documents they shared, and from that came the “Five Eyes” label. France, Germany, Japan, and a few other countries have since sought entrance to that exclusive club, but without success.

Although largely a Cold War artifact, the Five Eyes intelligence network continued operating right into the era after the Soviet Union collapsed, spying on militant Islamic groups and government leaders in the Middle East, while eavesdropping on Chinese business, diplomatic, and military activities in Asia and elsewhere. According to former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, such efforts were conducted under specialized top-secret programs like Echelon, a system for collecting business and government data from satellite communications, and PRISM, an NSA program to collect data transmitted via the Internet.

As part of that Five Eyes endeavor, the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Australia jointly maintain a controversial, highly secret intelligence-gathering facility at Pine Gap, Australia, near the small city of Alice Springs. Known as the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap (JDFPG), it’s largely run by the NSA, CIA, GCHQ, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. Its main purpose, according to Edward Snowden and other whistle-blowers, is to eavesdrop on radio, telephone, and internet communications in Asia and the Middle East and share that information with the intelligence and military arms of the Five Eyes. Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza was launched, it is also said to be gathering intelligence on Palestinian forces in Gaza and sharing that information with the Israeli Defense Forces. This, in turn, prompted a rare set of protests at the remote base when, in late 2023, dozens of pro-Palestinian activists sought to block the facility’s entry road.

Anglo-Saxon Solidarity in Asia

The Biden administration’s preference for relying on Anglophone countries in promoting its strategic objectives has been especially striking in the Asia-Pacific region. The White House has been clear that its primary goal in Asia is to construct a network of U.S.-friendly states committed to the containment of China’s rise. This was spelled out, for example, in the administration’s Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States of 2022. Citing China’s muscle-flexing in Asia, it called for a common effort to resist that country’s “bullying of neighbors in the East and South China” and so protect the freedom of commerce. “A free and open Indo-Pacific can only be achieved if we build collective capacity for a new age,” the document stated. “We will pursue this through a latticework of strong and mutually reinforcing coalitions.”

That “latticework,” it indicated, would extend to all American allies and partners in the region, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, and South Korea, as well as friendly European parties (especially Great Britain and France). Anyone willing to help contain China, the mantra seems to go, is welcome to join that U.S.-led coalition. But if you look closely, the renewed prominence of Anglo-Saxon solidarity becomes ever more evident.

Of all the military agreements signed by the Biden administration with America’s Pacific allies, none is considered more important in Washington than AUKUS, a strategic partnership agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Announced by the three member states on Sept. 15, 2021, it contains two “pillars,” or areas of cooperation — the first focused on submarine technology and the second on AI, autonomous weapons, as well as other advanced technologies. As in the FVEY arrangement, both pillars involve high-level exchanges of classified data, but also include a striking degree of military and technological cooperation. And note the obvious: there is no equivalent U.S. agreement with any non-English-speaking country in Asia.

Consider, for instance, the Pillar I submarine arrangement. As the deal now stands, Australia will gradually retire its fleet of six diesel-powered submarines and purchase three to five top-of-the-line U.S.-made Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), while it works with the United Kingdom to develop a whole new class of subs, the SSN-AUKUS, to be powered by an American-designed nuclear propulsion system. But — get this — to join, the Australians first had to scrap a $90 billion submarine deal with a French defense firm, causing a severe breach in the Franco-Australian relationship and demonstrating, once again, that Anglo-Saxon solidarity supersedes all other relationships.

Now, with the French out of the picture, the U.S. and Australia are proceeding with plans to build those Los Angeles-class SSNs — a multibillion-dollar venture that will require Australian naval officers to study nuclear propulsion in the United States. When the subs are finally launched (possibly in the early 2030s), American submariners will sail with the Australians to help them gain experience with such systems. Meanwhile, American military contractors will be working with Australia and the UK designing and constructing a next-generation sub, the SSN-AUKUS, that’s supposed to be ready in the 2040s. The three AUKUS partners will also establish a joint submarine base near Perth in Western Australia.

Pillar II of AUKUS has received far less media attention but is no less important. It calls for American, British, Australian scientific and technical cooperation in advanced technologies, including AI, robotics, and hypersonics, aimed at enhancing the future military capabilities of all three, including through the development of robot submarines that could be used to spy on or attack Chinese ships and subs.

Aside from the extraordinary degree of cooperation on sensitive military technologies — far greater than the U.S. has with any other countries — the three-way partnership also represents a significant threat to China. The substitution of nuclear-powered subs for diesel-powered ones in Australia’s fleet and the establishment of a joint submarine base at Perth will enable the three AUKUS partners to conduct significantly longer undersea patrols in the Pacific and, were a war to break out, attack Chinese ships, ports, and submarines across the region. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that the Chinese have repeatedly denounced the arrangement, which represents a potentially mortal threat to them.

Unintended Consequences

It’s hardly a surprise that the Biden administration, facing growing hostility and isolation in the global arena, has chosen to bolster its ties further with other Anglophone countries rather than make the policy changes needed to improve relations with the rest of the world. The administration knows exactly what it would have to do to begin to achieve that objective: discontinue arms deliveries to Israel until the fighting stops in Gaza; help reduce the burdensome debt load of so many developing nations; and promote food, water security, and other life-enhancing measures in the Global South. Yet, despite promises to take just such steps, President Biden and his top foreign policy officials have focused on other priorities — the encirclement of China above all else — while the inclination to lean on Anglo-Saxon solidarity has only grown.

However, by reserving Washington’s warmest embraces for its anglophone allies, the administration has actually been creating fresh threats to U.S. security. Many countries in contested zones on the emerging geopolitical chessboard, especially in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, were once under British colonial rule and so anything resembling a potential Washington-London neocolonial restoration is bound to prove infuriating to them. Add to that the inevitable propaganda from China, Iran, and Russia about a developing Anglo-Saxon imperial nexus and you have an obvious recipe for widespread global discontent.

It’s undoubtedly convenient to use the same language when sharing secrets with your closest allies, but that should hardly be the deciding factor in shaping this nation’s foreign policy. If the United States is to prosper in an increasingly diverse, multicultural world, it will have learn to think and act in a far more multicultural fashion — and that should include eliminating any vestiges of an exclusive Anglo-Saxon global power alliance.

July 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, USA | 1 Comment

Trump Advisers Call for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Testing if He Is Elected

A former national security adviser says Washington “must test new nuclear weapons for reliability and safety in the real world,” while critics say the move could incite a global arms race that heightens the risk of war.

New York Times, By William J. Broad, 5 July 24

Allies of Donald J. Trump are proposing that the United States restart the testing of nuclear weapons in underground detonations should the former president be re-elected in November. A number of nuclear experts reject such a resumption as unnecessary and say it would threaten to end a testing moratorium that the world’s major atomic powers have honored for decades.

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Robert C. O’Brien, a former national security adviser to Mr. Trump, urges him to conduct nuclear tests if he wins a new term. Washington, he wrote, “must test new nuclear weapons for reliability and safety in the real world for the first time since 1992.” Doing so, he added, would help the United States “maintain technical and numerical superiority to the combined Chinese and Russian nuclear stockpiles.”

At the Cold War’s end, in 1992, the United States gave up the explosive testing of nuclear arms and eventually talked other atomic powers into doing likewise. The United States instead turned to experts and machines at the nation’s weapons labs to verify the lethality of the country’s arsenal. Today the machines include room-size supercomputers, the world’s most powerful X-ray machine and a system of lasers the size of a sports stadium.

In his article, Mr. O’Brien described such work as just “using computer models.” Republican members of Congress and some nuclear experts have faulted the nonexplosive testing as insufficient to assure the U.S. military establishment that its arsenal works, and have called for live tests.

But the Biden administration and other Democrats warn that a U.S. test could lead to a chain reaction of testing by other countries. Over time, they add, resumption could result in a nuclear arms race that destabilizes the global balance of terror and heightens the risk of war.

“It’s a terrible idea,” said Ernest J. Moniz, who oversaw the U.S. nuclear arsenal as the secretary of energy in the Obama administration. “New testing would make us less secure. You can’t divorce it from the global repercussions.”

Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons lab in New Mexico where J. Robert Oppenheimer led the creation of the atomic bomb, called new testing a risky trade-off between domestic gains and global losses. “We stand to lose more” than America’s nuclear rivals would, he said.

It’s unclear if Mr. Trump would act on the testing proposals. In a statement, Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, Mr. Trump’s co-campaign managers, did not directly address the candidate’s position on nuclear testing. They said that Mr. O’Brien as well as other outside groups and individuals were “misguided, speaking prematurely, and may well be entirely wrong” about a second Trump administration’s plans.

Even so, Mr. Trump’s history of atomic bluster, threats and hard-line policies suggests that he may be open to such guidance from his security advisers. In 2018, he boasted that his “Nuclear Button” was “much bigger & more powerful” than the force controller of Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader.

A U.S. detonation would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, long considered one of the most successful arms control measures. Signed by the world’s atomic powers in 1996, it sought to curb a costly arms race that had spun out of control……………………………………………………………… more https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/05/science/nuclear-testing-trump.html

July 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Tensions with Iran spotlight Israel’s hidden nuclear arsenal

Business Insider, Paul Iddon , Jul 4, 2024

Israel is one of the world’s few countries armed with nukes and multiple means to deliver them.
An Israeli aerospace official recently broached these “doomsday weapons.”
“Israel’s triad remains remarkably powerful for a country its size,” an aviation expert said.

The prospect of a full-scale war between Israel and the powerful Hezbollah militia in Lebanon has sent tensions spiking and briefly highlighted the power of Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons.

Israel is one of the world’s few countries armed with nukes and multiple means to deliver them, a capability recently referenced by an Israeli official with a leading government-run aerospace manufacturer.

“If we understand that there is an existential danger here, and that Iran, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and all the countries of the Middle East decide that it is time to settle against us, I understand that we have the capabilities to use doomsday weapons,” Yair Katz, chairman of the Israel Aerospace Industries Workers’ Council, reportedly said on Saturday.

He was speaking a day after Iran’s United Nations mission warned that “an obliterating war will ensue” if Israel commits “full-scale military aggression” against the Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also declared that in this scenario, “all options” are on the table, including “the full involvement of all resistance fronts,” a clear reference to Iran’s militia proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, the other countries Katz specifically mentioned.

By invoking doomsday weapons, it was clear Katz was alluding to Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal — an arsenal over which neither he nor IAI have any command-and-control. But his use of the word “capabilities” is a reminder that Israel has ground, air, and sea-based delivery systems for its nuclear weapons. In other words, a complete nuclear triad……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

“The true second strike threat for Israel is the United States itself, which in a theoretical nuclear war scenario would almost certainly retaliate on Israel’s behalf should it ever suffer a first strike from a nuclear rival,” Bohl said. “This makes it so that a second strike capability is important in terms of deterrence for full-scale escalation from a power like Iran.”

“But from a strictly tactical perspective, it would be the United States that truly serves as Israel’s most effective second strike system.” https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-hezbollah-israel-hidden-nuclear-weapons-arsenal-2024-7

July 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

What does Iran’s Nuclear Policy look like with the new president?

Hamid Bahrami, 3 July 24, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240702-what-does-irans-nuclear-policy-look-like-with-the-new-president/amp/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2XrNykPNmfG-WWsOqeFJUB6arRJgBjgW9Uaku7HfvbZS2ahd4tOCJ4l8A_aem_8yp3bsuhxMsMZvU90Z6w_w

As Iran stands on the brink of electing a new president, the future of its nuclear policy hangs in the balance. The collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) following the United States’ abrupt withdrawal in 2018 has left a profound impact on Iran’s political landscape. The agreement, designed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions, has been mired in controversy and distrust. Both leading candidates in the presidential run-off, reformist-backed Pezeshkian and ultra-hardliner, Saeed Jalili, offer starkly different visions for Iran’s nuclear policy and its engagement with the world. Understanding their perspectives and potential impacts on Iran’s nuclear trajectory is crucial as the nation navigates this critical juncture.

The JCPOA: From hope to collapse

The JCPOA, signed in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (the US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany), was hailed as a diplomatic triumph. It aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions. Iran complied by reducing its uranium enrichment levels, dismantling a significant portion of its centrifuges, and allowing extensive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

However, the deal’s fragility was exposed when President Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the agreement in 2018, re-imposing severe sanctions on Iran. The promised economic benefits did not materialise, leading to widespread disillusionment within Iran. This breach of trust has significantly shaped Iran’s political narrative and public opinion as they show the strategic shift in their opinion on nuclear weapons. Today, Iran justifies the breach of the JCPOA terms by arguing that the other signatories, particularly the US, failed to honour their commitments. This sentiment is not confined to the political elite; it resonates deeply with the Iranian public, which has endured economic hardship without seeing the anticipated relief.

Pezeshkian: A diplomatic approach with a Western outlook while under strain

Mohammad Reza Pezeshkian, backed by reformists, presents a vision of re-engaging with the West and reviving the JCPOA. Pezeshkian’s campaign is heavily influenced by Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister and the primary negotiator of the original nuclear deal. Zarif, known for his constructivist approach to international relations, emphasises the importance of Iran’s revolutionary discourse and soft power over military might. However, Zarif’s tenure was not without controversy. He was involved in a severe dispute with Qassem Soleimani and the “axis of resistance”, highlighting internal divisions over Iran’s foreign policy direction.

Pezeshkian’s strategy hinges on the belief that lifting sanctions and re-entering the JCPOA will stabilise Iran’s economy and enhance its international standing. If Pezeshkian wins the election, he will pursue reviving the JCPOA based on the approach of normalising ties with the West, which can be a window of opportunity for the West to slightly distance Iran from China and Russia by offering Iran a good deal. However, it is naive for the western powers if they think Iran will go back to 3/67 per cent uranium enrichment, which was agreed in the JCPOA.

Pezeshkian’s approach faces substantial internal and external challenges. Domestically, the Iranian parliament is dominated by hardliners who view the JCPOA with suspicion and hostility. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds ultimate authority over foreign policy, remains sceptical about Western intentions and is wary of repeating “past mistakes”.

Externally, the geopolitical landscape has shifted since the JCPOA’s inception. The US-Iran relationship is fraught with distrust, and the Biden administration, while expressing willingness to re-enter the deal, faces its own set of domestic and international pressures. Moreover, the recent advancements in Iran’s nuclear capabilities have changed the dynamics, making a simple return to the original terms of the JCPOA unlikely. Pezeshkian’s potential presidency would thus involve navigating a complex web of political resistance and strategic recalculations.

Jalili: A hard-line stance with an Eastern pivot

In stark contrast, Saeed Jalili, an ultra-hardliner and former chief nuclear negotiator (2007-2013), advocates for a more confrontational approach. Jalili perceives the JCPOA as a disarmament treaty that compromised Iran’s sovereignty and security. He and his allies argue that the sanctions, rather than being purely detrimental, can be leveraged to foster internal resilience on condition of minimising corruption within the system. One of Jalili’s closest allies, Abolfazl Zohrevand, an Iranian diplomat and current MP from Tehran, often states that “it was God who pushed Trump to withdraw from the JCPOA”, reflecting a narrative of divine intervention and resistance.

Jalili’s foreign policy is characterised by a pivot towards Eastern alliances, particularly with China and Russia. He believes that these relationships offer strategic counter-balances to Western pressure and hostility. Jalili’s stance is influenced by his close ties with Qassem Soleimani and the “axis of resistance”, underscoring a commitment to regionalism and a strong defensive posture.

Should Jalili win the presidency, Iran’s nuclear policy is likely to take a more defiant turn. He supports maintaining Iran’s nuclear threshold capability, arguing that this is essential for national security in the face of perceived Western aggression. Jalili views the ideological conflict with the US as a fundamental and intractable issue, necessitating a robust military and nuclear deterrent. His administration would likely continue to enrich uranium at higher levels, pushing the boundaries of the JCPOA and increasing the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran. If the EU3 activates the snapback mechanism, re-imposing Security Council sanctions, it could lead Iran to consider changing its military doctrine. As Kamal Kharrazi, an adviser to the Supreme Leader, told Al-Jazeera, “We have no decision to build a nuclear bomb, but should Iran’s existence be threatened, there will be no choice but to change our military doctrine.”

As Iran elects its new president, the nation’s nuclear policy stands at a critical crossroads. The collapse of the JCPOA has left a legacy of mistrust and strategic recalibration. Pezeshkian offers a diplomatic route fraught with internal and external obstacles, while Jalili’s hardline stance promises a more confrontational and potentially perilous path. The outcome of this election will not only shape Iran’s future but also test the resilience of global non-proliferation efforts and the stability of the Middle East. The international community must navigate these developments with caution, balancing pressure with diplomacy to avoid escalating tensions and ensuring a path towards sustainable peace and security.

July 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

NATO Members Agree To Give Ukraine $43 Billion in Military Aid for 2025

The pledge will be made at next week’s NATO summit, where Ukraine is also expected to be told it’s too corrupt to join the alliance

by Dave DeCamp July 4, 2024 , https://news.antiwar.com/2024/07/04/nato-members-agree-to-give-ukraine-43-billion-in-military-aid-for-2025/
NATO allies have agreed to pledge $43 billion in military aid for Ukraine, which will be provided next year, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg was looking for the alliance to make a multi-year commitment to ensure long-term support for the proxy war, but the allies did not agree. Instead, they will re-evaluate military aid for Ukraine each year.

The agreement says that NATO allies will “aim to meet this pledge through proportionate contributions.” If the $43 billion is funded based on how much each member contributes to NATO, most of the burden would be on the US since it pays for about two-thirds of the alliance’s budget.

The $43 billion is part of a slew of measures NATO will announce at its summit next week in Washington. NATO is also expected to station a civilian official in Kyiv and establish a new command in Germany that will oversee military aid and training for Ukraine, taking over duties currently overseen by the US.

While planning to provide tens of billions in new military aid, NATO will also tell Ukraine that it’s too corrupt to join the alliance. The Telegraph reported this week that the alliance will release a communique calling on Ukraine to take more anti-corruption steps before talks on its NATO membership could progress.

President Biden has frequently cited Ukraine’s corruption as a reason why the country couldn’t join NATO. But that hasn’t stopped him from providing over $100 billion in aid to Ukraine, which includes tens of billions in the form of direct budgetary aid that funds the government.

July 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ukraine to be warned it’s ‘too corrupt’ for NATO – Telegraph

3 July 24, https://www.sott.net/article/492800-Ukraine-to-be-warned-its-too-corrupt-for-NATO-Telegraph

Many of the bloc’s members want “additional steps” from Kiev as they consider the issue a “priority,” a source has told the paper

NATO wants Ukraine to make more effort to crack down on endemic corruption as a condition for any progress towards joining the bloc, the Daily Telegraph reported on Tuesday, citing sources.

According to the British paper, concerns that Ukraine is “too corrupt” to become a full-fledged NATO member will be highlighted in the communique at the bloc’s Washington summit on July 9-11.

A senior US State Department official told The Telegraph that the West must “applaud everything that Ukraine has done in the name of reforms over the last two-plus years.” However, he added that “we want to talk about additional steps that need to be taken, particularly in the area of anti-corruption. It is a priority for many of us around the table.”

NATO members first agreed in 2008 that Ukraine would eventually join the bloc, without setting an exact timetable. After the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, Ukraine made its NATO aspirations a strategic goal and formally applied to join the bloc in 2022. The move came after four of its former regions voted overwhelmingly to join Russia.

However, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said Ukraine’s accession is out of the question while it is in conflict with Russia, insisting that membership can only be approved “when allies agree and conditions are met.” Moscow has said Ukraine’s plans to join NATO are among the key reasons for the conflict.

Ukraine has been plagued by corruption for years. The hostilities with Russia have made the problem even more apparent, and the Ukrainian military has been rocked by several high-profile procurement scandals in recent months.

Graft is high on the list of concerns for Ukraine’s Western backers in the EU and US. Last month, the EU set up a special watchdog to combat the possible embezzlement of billions of dollars allocated to Kiev.

In May, Robert Storch, the Pentagon’s inspector general, released a report stating that “endemic corruption persists” in Ukraine while calling its government “one of the least accountable” in Europe. An NBC report in June claimed that Kiev has been irritated by constant US demands to ramp up anti-corruption efforts. American and Ukrainian officials have acknowledged that it is one of the issues poisoning bilateral relations.

According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, Ukraine is in the ‘red’ zone, ranking 104th out of 180 countries.

1) It is inscribed in the Ukrainian Constitution, that NATO and EU membership is a priority for the government and its president. In spite of intentions and promises, the outlook is not bright in the short term.

The constitution of Ukraine would have to be changed to make room for peace without NATO and EU membership. See this blog post discussion Would Ukraine Breach its own Constitution if it Dropped its NATO Bid?

2) From the article:

According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, Ukraine is in the ‘red’ zone, ranking 104th out of 180 countries.

This rating system is not worth much, but here are more details about it.
The Wiki for Corruptions Perceptions Index has that between 2021 and 2022 Ukraine improved six places in the ranking, and 12 places between 2022 and 2023. The NGO, Transparency International, aims to rate countries “by their perceived levels of public sector^[1]corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.” Place 104 must be close to sufficient for NATO, if Albania, NATO member since 2009, at place number 98 is anything to go by.

The Transparency International website has a page, that shows many sponsors to be from Western countries, with many also being sponsors of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine.

The Wiki include the controversies behind the CPU ratings:

According to the newspaper Le Monde: “In its main surveys, Transparency International does not measure the weight of corruption in economic terms for each country. It develops a Corruption Perception Index (CPI) based on surveys conducted by private structures or other NGOs: the Economist Intelligence Unit, backed by the British liberal weekly newspaper The Economist, the American neoconservative organization Freedom House, the World Economic Forum, or large corporations. (…) The IPC ignores corruption cases that concern the business world. So, the collapse of Lehman Brothers (2008) or the manipulation of the money market reference rate (Libor) by major British banks revealed in 2011 did not affect the ratings of the United States or United Kingdom.”

The index may serve as a help for companies who wish to invest in a country as to what they might have to allocate to get what they want. On the state level it can be used as reference point for policies against some countries, and more generally as a front for information gathering and soft power influencing.

July 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

How record-breaking Hurricane Beryl is a sign of a warming world

Hurricane Beryl is wreaking havoc in parts of the Caribbean – and
putting the role of climate change under the spotlight. With maximum
sustained wind speeds of more than 160mph (257km/h), it became the earliest
category five Atlantic hurricane in records going back around 100 years. In
fact, there has only been one previous recorded case of a category five
Atlantic hurricane in July – Hurricane Emily, on 16 July 2005.

BBC 4th July 2024

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9r3g572lrno

July 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change | Leave a comment

Former New Brunswick energy minister joins nuclear industry after resigning in June

Mike Holland will be joining AtkinsRéalis, formerly SNC-Lavalin

CBC News · Jul 05, 2024

A former New Brunswick cabinet minister who resigned in June is joining AtkinsRéalis, a Montreal-based company previously known as SNC-Lavalin Group.

Mike Holland, who was natural resources and energy development minister and MLA for the riding of Albert, announced at the end of June that he was quitting to pursue a job in the private sector.

Holland will be joining the AtkinsRéalis team as the director of business development for North America.

The company told Radio-Canada the reason it recruited the former minister was to help increase sales of its nuclear reactor models and invest in the development of small modular reactors.

In a statement, the company said it’s “working to accelerate” sales of its Candu reactors in Canada and internationally.

…………………….When Holland announced his resignation from the New Brunswick government, he said the company he accepted an offer from is not a company he dealt with in his role as a minister, nor as an MLA.

However, AtkinsRéalis, then known as SNC-Lavalin, announced a partnership with Moltex Energy Canada in 2022 and Holland was quoted in the news release at the time.

“This agreement contributes not only to the growth of long-term, high-quality jobs in New Brunswick’s energy sector, it also recognizes the leadership role of both Moltex and the province in advancing the next generation of nuclear technology,” he said in the 2022 release.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/energy-minister-nuclear-resignation-1.7255601

July 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

How do you convince someone to live next to a nuclear waste site?

The nation’s 85 interim storage sites hold more than 86,000 tons of waste, a situation that’s akin to leaving your trash behind the garage indefinitely. The situation could grow more dire as the nation invests in advanced small modular reactors.

Everybody talks about the shiny new reactors, but nobody ever talks about back-end management of the fuel that comes out of them.”

The world’s first permanent depository for nuclear fuel waste opens later this year on Olkiluoto, a sparsely populated and lushly forested island in the Baltic Sea three hours north of Helsinki.

Austyn Gaffney Jun 27, 2024, https://grist.org/energy/how-do-you-convince-someone-to-live-next-to-a-nuclear-waste-site/

Onkalo — the name means “cavity” or “cave” in Finnish — is among the most advanced facilities of its kind, designed for an unprecedented and urgent task: safely storing some of the most toxic material on Earth nearly 1,500 feet underground in what’s called a deep mined geologic repository.

The process requires remarkable feats of engineering. It begins in an encapsulation plant, where robots remove spent nuclear fuel rods from storage canisters and place them in copper and cast iron casks up to two stories tall. Once full, these hefty vessels, weighing around 24 metric tons, will descend more than a quarter-mile in an elevator to a cavern hollowed out of crystalline bedrock 2 billion years old. (The trip takes 50 minutes.) Each tomb will hold 30 to 40 of these enormous containers ensconced in bentonite clay and sealed behind concrete. As many as 3,250 canisters containing 6,500 metric tons of humanity’s most dangerous refuse will, the theory goes, lie undisturbed for hundreds of thousands of years.

Nothing assembled by human hands has stood for more than a fraction of that. The world’s oldest known structure, Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, is a bit more than 11,000 years old. Designing Onkalo to endure for so unfathomably long is necessary because the material left behind by nuclear fission remains radioactive for millennia. Safely disposing of it requires stashing it for, essentially, eternity. That way nothing — be it natural disasters, future ice ages, or even the end of humanity itself — would expose anyone, or anything, to its dangers.

The plan is that there will be no sign [of the facility],” said Pasi Tuohimaa, communications manager for Posiva, the agency that manages Finland’s nuclear waste. “Nobody would even know it’s there, whether we’re talking about future generations or future aliens or whatever.”

Building such a place, as technologically complex as it is, might be easier than convincing a community to host it. Gaining that approval can take decades and rests upon a simple premise.

“One of the principles of geologic disposal is the idea that the generations that enjoy the benefits of nuclear power should also pay for and participate in the solution,” said Rodney Ewing, a mineralogist and materials scientist at Stanford University and co-director of the university’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.

The long process of gaining such support is called consent-based siting, an undertaking many in the nuclear energy sector consider vital as the world abandons fossil fuels. Nuclear power accounts for almost a fifth of the United States’ electricity generation, and its expansion is among the few elements of the Biden administration’s energy agenda that enjoys strong bipartisan support. Over the last year, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has touted the nation’s newest reactor, celebrated plans for an experimental small modular reactor, and unveiled a $1.5 billion loan to restart a defunct plant in Michigan.

These are hardly one-offs. The U.S. intends to triple its nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Yet experts say there isn’t enough public discussion of how to deal with the corresponding increase in radioactive trash, which will compound a problem the country has deferred since the start of the nuclear age. After botching plans for a deep mined geological repository a generation ago, the United States is scrambling to catch up to Finland and several other nations, including Canada, which could choose a site by year’s end.

As the U.S. races toward a post-carbon future in which nuclear energy could play a key role, policymakers, energy experts, and community leaders say dealing with the inevitable waste isn’t a technical problem, but a social one. Engineers know how to build a repository capable of safeguarding the public for millennia. The bigger challenge is convincing people that it’s safe to live next to it.

The United States knew, even before the world’s first commercial nuclear power plant began operating in Pennsylvania in 1957, how best to dispose of the effluvium generated by splitting atoms to generate electricity. Earlier that year, geologists and geophysicists wrote a National Academy of Sciences report that proposed burying it. Opinions haven’t changed much in the 67 years since.

“The only viable way to possibly deal with the issue of isolating radioactive waste that can remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years from the environment is a deep geologic repository,” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “There’s really no alternative.”

Yet this refuse, most of it from the nation’s 54 commercial reactors, remains in what amounts to cold storage. Depleted fuel rods are kept on-site in water tanks for about half a decade, then moved to steel and concrete canisters called dry casks and held for another 40 years in what’s known as interim storage. Only then is the material cool enough to stash underground. That last step has never happened, however. The nation’s 85 interim storage sites hold more than 86,000 tons of waste, a situation that’s akin to leaving your trash behind the garage indefinitely. The situation could grow more dire as the nation invests in advanced small modular reactors.

“It’s a pet peeve of mine, to be honest,” said Paul Murray, who became the Department of Energy’s deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition in October. “Everybody talks about the shiny new reactors, but nobody ever talks about back-end management of the fuel that comes out of them.”

Congress attempted to rectify that in 1982 when it passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. President Ronald Reagan called the law “an important step in the pursuit of the peaceful uses of atomic energy.” It required that the federal government begin taking responsibility for the nation’s nuclear waste by 1998, and that the utilities generating it pay a fee of one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity to be rid of it. The plan stalled because the government never took possession of most of the waste. That failure has allowed the utilities to collect $500 million in fines from Washington each year since 1998. A report that the Government Accountability Office released in 2021 noted that federal liabilities could reach $60 billion by 2030.

The federal government’s missteps continued when plans for a deep geologic repository derailed about 15 years ago. The 1982 law directed the Department of Energy to provide the president, Congress, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency with suggestions for several sites. Congress amended the law in 1987 to designate one: Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas on land the Western Shoshone Nation considers sacred.

This top-down process was the antithesis of consent-based siting, and it collapsed amid community opposition and the efforts of then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Nevada Democrat convinced President Obama to scuttle the proposal, which by that point had cost $13 billion. The Obama administration convened a panel of scientists to devise a new plan; in 2012, it suggested creating an independent agency, giving it responsibility for the nuclear fund and directing it to revamp the effort through consent-based siting.

That recommendation mimicked what Finland had done, and Canada was doing, to build community consensus. Posiva spent four decades working toward the facility on Olkiluoto; the Canadian search started 24 years ago with the creation of the independent Nuclear Waste Management Organization. Yet more than 10 years after the Department of Energy made consent-based siting its official policy, there’s been little progress toward a deep mined geologic repository in the U.S. for commercial nuclear waste. (Radioactive refuse generated by the defense industry has, since 1999, been secured 2,150 feet underground at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico.)

Instead of identifying possible sites for a deep geologic repository, the Energy Department directed Murray, who has a background in nuclear technology and environmental stewardship, to address a backlog of waste that could, by his estimate, take 55 years to clear out of interim storage. Much of this trash is languishing in dry casks that dot power plants in 37 states. Last year, he formed a 12-member Consent-Based Siting Consortia to start the search for a federally-managed site that would temporarily consolidate the nation’s waste until a permanent site is built.

Continue reading →

July 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Reference, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear power would put our energy security into Russian hands.

George Baxter: Developing nuclear power would put our energy security into
Russian hands. Whenever there’s debate on energy and climate change, as
we are seeing fleetingly in the 2024 election campaign, you can rely on
nuclear power fans to flood the zone with claims that it is the answer.

It all seems so simple. But it isn’t. Far from it.

Take uranium. It’s not talked about much, but nuclear’s raw material is a global commodity – and we don’t have any. The global market is dominated by Russia which
controls around 50% of the supply of raw ore. Mining uranium isn’t the only
issue. Despite sanctions over the war in Ukraine, Russia continues to
supply western nuclear power plants with enriched uranium fuel. According
to the Royal United Services Institute, Europe and the US have scrambled to
build alternative supply chains for enriched fuel to reduce dependencies on
Russia. It is an intensifying international resource power play.

Replacing our vulnerability to international energy shocks and the market volatility
of fossil gas, with long term dependencies on uranium ore and nuclear fuel
hardly seems the wisest path to take, especially when your land and seas
are awash with untapped renewable energy.

A baseload of constant power
output from nuclear is not needed to make the electricity system work. Over
ten years ago the CEO of National Grid said the concept of baseload was
“already outdated.” while casting doubt on the role of large nuclear on
a modern green electricity network.

Nuclear creates more problems than it
solves because it isn’t very flexible. So when it is really windy or
sunny, it’s renewables that get turned off.

And worse, if there is a problem (and there have been issues in Scotland including cracks in the reactor cores of both Hunterston and Torness) the shut down can last for
weeks or months, and other reactors of the same design risk shut down as a
precaution.

If a wind turbine is attacked or damaged, there’s little drama,
we just put another one up. The reactors at Fukishima are not back in
operation – 13 years on – lest we forget. Renewables are variable in
nature, and predictably so, well in advance. To manage variability of some
renewable sources like the wind and sun, more flexible non-nuclear
technologies are a much better fit by far.

Herald 2nd July 2024

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/24422691.nuclear-power-put-energy-security-russian-hands/

July 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Landmark Swedish Court Judgment against Nuclear Waste Repository.

Landmark Swedish Court Judgment against Nuclear Waste Repository: Read the English Translation http://www.dianuke.org/landmark-swedish-court-judgment-nuclear-waste-repository-read-english-translation/

MKG, the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review has made an unofficial translation into English of the Swedish Environmental Court opinion on the power industry’s Nuclear Waste Company SKB’s license application for a final repository for spent nuclear fuel in Forsmark, Sweden.

The court said no to the application because it considered that there were problems with the copper canister that had to be resolved now and not later. The translation shows the courts judicial argumentation and why it decided not to accept the regulator SSM’s opinion that the problems with the integrity of the copper canister were not serious and could likely be solved at a later stage in the decision-making process.

The main difference between the court’s and the regulator’s decision-making was that the court decided to rely on a multitude of scientific sources and information and not only on the material provided by SKB. It had also been uncovered that the main corrosion expert at SSM did not want to say yes to the application at this time that may have influenced the court’s decision-making. In fact there appear to have been many dissenting voices in the regulator despite the regulator’s claim in the court that a united SSM stood behind its opinion.

The court underlines in its opinion that the Environmental Code requires that the repository should be shown to be safe at this stage in the decision-making process, i.e. before the government has its say. The court says that some uncertainties will always remain but it sees the possible copper canister problems as so serious that it is not clear that the regulator’s limits for release of radioactivity can be met. This is a reason to say no to the project unless it can be shown that the copper canister will work as intended. The copper canister has to provide isolation from the radioactivity in the spent nuclear fuel to humans and the environment for very long time-scales.

It is still unclear how the process will proceed. The community of Östhammar has cancelled the referendum on the repository, as there will be no question from the government in the near future. The government has set up a working group of civil servants to manage the government’s handling of the opinions delivered by the court and SSM. SSM has told the government that it is ok to say yes to the license application.

The court has stated that there are copper canister issues that need to be considered further. The nuclear waste company SKB has said that it is preparing documentation for the government to show that there are no problems with the canister. Whether the government thinks that this will be enough remains to be seen. This is likely not what the court had in mind. The government would be wise to make a much broader review of the issue. There is a need for a thorough judicial review on the governmental level in order to override the court’s opinion. Otherwise the government’ decision may not survive an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

There are eminent corrosion experts that are of the opinion that copper is a bad choice as a canister material. There is also increasing experimental evidence that this is the case. One problem for the court was likely that SKB has hesitant to do the required corrosion studies that show that copper does not corrode in an anoxic repository environment. The 18-year FEBEX field test shows that copper corrodes relatively rapidly with pitting corrosion. SKB says that all corrosion is due to in-leaking oxygen but it is now clear that experimental systems containing copper and clay become anoxic within weeks or months so this explanation is not valid.

MKG has for long wanted SKB to retrieve the next experimental package in the LOT field test in the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory. SKB had refused. The remaining packages have now been heated for 18 years. When a 5-year package was retrieved in 2006 it was discovered that there was “unexpectedly high corrosion”. There is clearly a need for more lab and field test results to decide whether copper is a good and safe choice for a canister material.

The court’s decision-making shows the importance of a democratic and open governance in environmental decision-making. It is important that the continued decision-making regarding the Swedish repository for spent nuclear is transparent and multi-faceted.

July 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, Reference, Sweden, wastes | Leave a comment

Climate hazards impact more than four-fifths of cities worldwide, study finds

New research has revealed that 83% of cities worldwide are dealing with
significant climate hazards, up from 80% in 2022, with flooding and extreme
heat being the most widespread challenges facing urban areas globally. As
global temperature records continue to be broken for the 12th consecutive
month, new data from CDP – the non-profit organisation managing voluntary
environmental disclosures from cities and businesses – indicates that
flooding and extreme heat are the most pervasive impacts of climate change
affecting cities worldwide. In 2023, 1,131 cities reported their
environmental data through CDP-ICLEI Track. More than 83% of these cities
reported significant climate hazards, an increase from 80% in 2022. More
than half (56%) are already experiencing substantial impacts from these
hazards. Looking ahead, around two-thirds of the cities expect these
hazards to become more intense (67%) and more frequent (64%). Flooding was
the most reported hazard, with 58% of cities identifying it as a concern,
followed by extreme heat (54%), drought (38%), heavy rain (35%) and the
risk of wildfires (22%).

Edie 3rd July 2024

https://www.edie.net/climate-hazards-impact-more-than-four-fifths-of-cities-worldwide-study-finds/

July 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change | Leave a comment

Ukrainian drones injure Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant workers, say Russian-backed officials

By Reuters, July 4, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-drones-injure-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-workers-say-russian-2024-07-03/—

MOSCOW, July 3 (Reuters) – A Ukrainian drone attack injured eight workers from the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and left a nearby town largely without power and water, Russian-backed officials said on Wednesday.

In a statement on Telegram, the plant’s management said that eight staff had been injured during an attack by three Ukrainian kamikaze drones on an electricity substation near the plant in south-eastern Ukraine.

It said all of the injured workers were receiving medical treatment.

Reuters was not able to independently confirm what had happened and there was no immediate comment from Ukraine.

Eduard Senovoz, the Russian-installed mayor of the nearby city of Enerhodar where the plant’s workers live, said in a statement that the attack had left most of the city without power and water.

The attack was the third of its kind within two weeks, he said, adding that work was underway to repair the damage to the substation.

Alexei Likhachev, director general of Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, said the attack was the first time that the power plant’s workers had been deliberately put in danger.

In comments to Russian state TV channels, Likhachev called on the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to assess what had happened.

“IAEA head Rafael Grossi has repeatedly said that the activities of nuclear cities, the lives of people, and especially the lives of nuclear power plant workers are ‘sacred’ elements of nuclear safety. Today they have been defiantly violated,” Likhachev said.

The IAEA last month called for a halt to attacks on Enerhodar after earlier attacks on electricity substations in the area.

July 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The nuclear and renewable myths that mainstream media can’t be bothered challenging

Mark Diesendorf, Jul 4, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-nuclear-and-renewable-myths-that-mainstream-media-cant-be-bothered-challenging/
Nuclear energy proponents are attempting to discredit renewable energy and promote nuclear energy and fossil gas in its place. This article refutes several myths they are disseminating that are receiving little or no challenge in the mainstream media.

Myth: Renewables cannot supply 100% electricity

Denmark, South Australia and Scotland already obtain 88, 74 and 62 per cent of their respective annual electricity generations from renewables, mostly wind. Scotland actually supplies 113 per cent of its electricity consumption from renewables; the difference between its generation and consumption is exported by transmission line.

All three jurisdictions have achieved this with relatively small amounts of hydroelectricity, zero in South Australia. Given the political will, all three could reach 100% net renewables generation by 2030, as indeed two northern states of Germany have already done. The ‘net’ means that they trade some electricity with neighbours but on average will be at 100% renewables.

Computer simulations by several research groups – using real hourly wind, solar and demand data spanning several years – show that the Australian electricity system could be run entirely on renewable energy, with the main contributions coming from solar and wind. System reliability for 100% renewables will be maintained by a combination of storage, building excess generating capacity for wind and solar (which is cheap), key transmission links, and demand management encouraged by transparent pricing.

Storage to fill infrequent troughs in generation from the variable renewable sources will comprise existing hydro, pumped hydro (mostly small-scale and off-river), and batteries. Geographic dispersion of renewables will also assist managing the variability of wind and solar. For the possibility of rare, extended periods of Dunkelflaute (literally ‘dark doldrums’), gas turbines with stores of biofuels or green hydrogen could be kept in reserve as insurance.

Myth: Gas can fill the gap until nuclear is constructed

As a fuel for electricity generation, fossil gas in eastern Australia is many times more expensive per kilowatt-hour than coal. It is only used for fuelling gas turbines for meeting the peaks in demand and helping to fill troughs. For this purpose, it contributes about 5% of Australia’s annual electricity generation. But, as storage expands, fossil gas will become redundant in the electricity system.

The fact that baseload gas-fired electricity continues temporarily in Western Australia and South Australia is the result of peculiar histories that will not be repeated. Unlike the eastern states, WA has a Domestic Gas Reservation Policy that insulates customers from the high export prices of gas.

However, most new gas supplies would have to come from high-cost unconventional sources. South Australia’s ancient, struggling, baseload, gas-fired power station, Torrens Island, produces expensive electricity. It will be closed in 2026 and replaced with renewables and batteries.

Myth: Nuclear energy can co-exist with large contributions from renewables

This myth has two refutations:

Nuclear is too inflexible in operation to be a good partner for variable wind and solar. Its very high capital cost necessitates running it constantly, not just during periods of low sun or wind. Its output can only be ramped up and down slowly, and it’s expensive to do that.
On current growth trends of renewables, there will be no room for nuclear energy in South Australia, Victoria or NSW. The 2022 shares of renewables in total electricity generation in each of these states were 74%, 37% and 33% respectively.

Rapid growth from these levels is likely. It’s already too late for nuclear in SA. Provided the growth of renewables is not deliberately suppressed in NSW and Victoria, these states too could reach 100% renewables before the first nuclear power station comes online.

As transportation and combustion heating will be electrified, demand for electricity could double by 2050. This might offer generating space for nuclear in the 2040s in Queensland (23% renewables in 2022) and Western Australia (20% renewables in 2022). However, the cost barrier would remain.

Myth: There is insufficient land for wind and solar

The claim by nuclear proponents that wind and solar have “vast land footprints” is misleading. Although a wind farm can span a large area, its turbines, access road and substation occupy a tiny fraction of that area, typically about 2%.

Most wind farms are built on land that was previously cleared for agriculture and are compatible with all forms of agriculture. Off-shore wind occupies no land.

Solar farms are increasingly being built sufficiently high off the ground to allow sheep to graze beneath them, providing welcome shade. This practice, known as agrivoltaics, provides additional farm revenue, which is especially valuable during droughts. Rooftop solar occupies no land.

Myth: The longer lifetime of nuclear reactors hasn’t been taken into account

The levelised cost of energy method – used by CSIRO, AEMO, Lazard and others – is the standard way of comparing electricity generation technologies that perform similar functions.

It permits the comparison of coal, nuclear and firmed renewables. It takes account automatically of the different lifetimes of different technologies.

Myth: We need baseload power stations

The recent claim that nuclear energy is not very expensive “when we consider value” is just a variant of the old, discredited claim that we need baseload power stations, i.e. those that operate 24/7 at maximum power output for most of the time.

The renewable system, including storage, delivers the same reliability, and hence the same value, as the traditional system based on a mix of baseload and peak-load power stations.

When a nuclear power reactor breaks down, it can be useless for weeks or months. For a conventional large reactor rated at 1000 to 1600 megawatts, the impact of breakdown on electricity supply can be disastrous.

Big nuclear needs big back-up, which is expensive. Small modular reactors do not exist––not one is commercially available or likely to be in the foreseeable future.

Concluding remarks

We do not need expensive, dangerous nuclear power, or expensive, polluting fossil gas. A nuclear scenario would inevitably involve the irrational suppression of renewables.

The ban on nuclear power should be maintained because nuclear never competes in a so-called ‘free market’. Renewables – solar, wind and existing hydro – together with energy efficiency, can supply all Australia’s electricity.

Mark Diesendorf is Honorary Associate Professor at the Environment & Society Group in the School of Humanities & Languages and Faculty of Arts, Design & Architecture at UNSW. First published in Pearls and Irritations. Republished with permission of the author.

July 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | renewable, spinbuster | Leave a comment

US announces more than $2 billion package for Ukraine

BY BRAD DRESS – 07/02/24, https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4752120-biden-administration-lloyd-austin-2-million-ukraine-aid-package/

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced a $2.3 billion security assistance package for Ukraine ahead of a meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Tuesday.

The package will include critical air defense interceptors and other weapons. A spokesperson for the Pentagon said more details on the package would be made available soon.

Austin met with Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov at the Pentagon on Tuesday and underscored the U.S. commitment to defending the country against a Russian invasion.

“Ukraine is in a tough fight,” Austin said in remarks ahead of the meeting, adding “make no mistake, Ukraine is not alone.”

The Pentagon chief also noted that the U.S. has signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement with Ukraine, providing Kyiv with defense cooperation guarantees over a decade. He added that he would discuss with Umerov additional ways to strengthen the partnership.

The U.S. has announced billions of dollars of assistance to Ukraine since the last congressional package of some $60 billion was approved in April. That legislation came after months of delays, giving Russia the advantage on the battlefield before more U.S. aid began arriving on the battlefield.

Ukrainian troops are fighting across the 600-mile front against Russian forces, including in the northeastern Kharkiv region, where Moscow opened a new front in May.

July 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »