nuclear-news

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

Nuclear power and net zero: Too little, too late, too expensive

Prof Steve Thomas, Greenwich University, assesses the considerable obstacles to the UK government’s target for new nuclear power.

Article from Responsible Science journal, no.6; advance online publication: 9 January 2024.

Introduction

In October 2023, the British government reaffirmed the 2022 Boris Johnson target of bringing online 24 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear capacity, eight stations the size of Hinkley Point C, by 2050. In its response to a parliamentary committee report on the nuclear programme, the government claims a “roadmap will set out these next steps [to achieve the 24GW target] and will be available later in 2023.”[1]  By early January 2024, the roadmap had not been published. While there is talk about Small Modular Reactors making a significant contribution, as I argued in my article on these in Responsible Science, no.5,[2] their rationale is based on some highly suspect assumptions about cost-savings from reducing reactor size. At most a few demonstration SMRs might be built, demonstrating only that they are far from being competitive with other options for low-carbon generation.

So, if the 24 GW target is to be met, most of the capacity will have to be in large (1.2 GW-plus) reactors. The government seems determined to drive through the Sizewell C project whatever the cost. This would comprise two reactors of the EPR-1 design used at Hinkley Point C, but that would leave a further seven to build.

To achieve the 24 GW target, at least four conditions must be met:

The equivalent of eight new nuclear projects must be completed by 2050.Mature, commercial, large reactor technologies must be available.Seven sites beyond Sizewell, suitable for 3 GW stations, must be approved.Owners and financiers for eight stations, expected to cost about £250bn, must be found.

1. When could new capacity come online?

Ambitious nuclear programmes are always accompanied by the same tired rhetoric offered for more than 50 years – of cutting red tape, streamlining planning and regulatory processes, learning from past mistakes, and taking advantage of new technologies. This has never worked in the past, not because we were not trying hard enough, but because nuclear power stations intrinsically take a long time from start of planning to first power, and new technologies have proved expensive and bring their own problems. The government acknowledged this in its Impact Assessment for the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) legislation which stated that it typically took 13-17 years from a Final Investment Decision (FID) to first power.[3] It could have added that most announced projects do not make it as far as FID. The Impact Assessment also stated that nuclear projects typically cost 20-100% more than the estimate at FID. Adding in a few years to get from project inception to FID and it is clear the whole process is likely to take 15-20 years. The Flamanville (France) and the Olkiluoto (Finland) projects will take longer than 20 years and with at least four years of construction left at Hinkley Point C, that project will take nearly 20 years if there are no more delays. Flamanville[4] and Olkiluoto[5] are about 300% over budget. Planning for any capacity that will be online by 2050 must be started by 2030.

2. Which technologies?

The EPR-1 design supplied by the French nationalised utility, EDF, is not credible for further orders. A former CEO of EDF described EPR-1 as “too complicated, almost unbuildable”.[6] Design work has been in progress for more than a decade on its replacement, EPR-2, which is claimed to be cheaper and easier to build. EDF plans to build six EPR-2s in France, the first coming online in 2035-37. EDF has said it would not try to sell the design until an EPR-2 was operating in France. Whether the EPR-2 will live up to the claims made is irrelevant. If we must wait till the after 2035 for it to be available, EPR-2s cannot be online in the UK by 2050.

Assuming designs from Russia and China are not acceptable, that leaves us with the other two designs meant to make up the Blair programme of 16 GW by 2030, the Hitachi-GE ABWR and the Westinghouse AP1000. While these have been approved by the UK safety regulator, they are not attractive. The three reactors of the ABWR design operating in Japan use a 1986 version of it. No orders for the updated designs are in prospect and the vendor appears not to be offering it for sale.

The record of the AP1000 is almost as bad as that of the EPR with all eight orders going badly wrong. The history of the ‘AP’ designs illustrates the nuclear industry’s duplicity on reactor size. Initially it was the AP600 (about 700 MW), but this was found to be uneconomic. It was scaled up to the AP1000 (1170 MW) and this was built in China and in the USA, but to improve the poor economics, China has scaled it up to 1550 MW (CAP1400). In March 2023, Westinghouse announced its new design would be a scaled down AP1000, the 300 MW AP300.

The other candidate is the South Korean APR1400. Like the ABWR, this has been built but using a design that did not take account of the lessons from the Chernobyl disaster (a means of preventing a molten core getting into the environment) or from the 9/11 attack (a need to toughen the shell enough to absorb a hit by an aircraft). It seems unlikely that an updated design could complete the required safety review in time for an FID to be taken on a project using this technology until after 2030. The record of APR1400 projects is problematic with long delays due partly to falsification of quality control documentation in South Korea and quality issues in the UAE.

3. Where would they be built?

Eight sites were identified as suitable in the government’s siting decision of 2010.[7] With Hinkley and Sizewell already under some sort of development, this leaves Moorside, Wylfa, Oldbury, Bradwell, Heysham and Hartlepool. There are concerns about the impact of sea-level rises for all the sites.[8]  A project for the Wylfa site underwent review by the Planning Inspectorate which recommended the project not be consented because of its environmental impact. Moorside, Oldbury and Bradwell have undergone some investigations for new nuclear capacity for projects now abandoned and this preparatory work could be utilised to speed things up.[9] Heysham and Hartlepool would need detailed assessment to determine their suitability before any project could be proposed, so they might not be available by 2030. If eight projects (including Sizewell C) need to be completed by 2050, then either the planning advice at Wylfa would need to be ignored or at least one new site would be needed – and this also assumes all planning issues at the other sites could be adequately dealt with by the end of this decade and none of these locations would be earmarked for SMRs.

4. How would they be financed and who would own them?

When electricity utilities could pass on whatever costs they incurred, they enthusiastically supported nuclear projects. Now, if nuclear projects go wrong, it will be their shareholders who bear some of the costs, so interest from utilities, particularly investor-owned ones, has evaporated. Direct government ownership is an option, although it would be an extraordinary decision to invest taxpayers’ money in nuclear projects on the basis that no other investors would be willing to take this risk. So, innovative methods of finance are required.

The finance model used for Hinkley Point C, the Contracts for Difference (CfD) model, was both a poor deal for consumers and the plant owner, EDF. The power purchase price was set in 2013, three years before the investment decision, at £92.5/MWh in 2012 money, indexed to inflation (about £124/MWh in 2023 money) with cost overruns falling on EDF. This price is more than double the price for new offshore wind.[10] In 2013, the expected construction cost was £16bn but the latest estimate is £26bn (both in 2016 money).[11] So EDF will have to absorb the cost overrun of at least 60% but with no increase in the price it will get for its output. This form of CfD is not an option any sane investor would back for nuclear even though, for offshore wind, it is producing impressive results and will continue to be used.

The UK government is now proposing the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) financial model. The main architecture of the scheme is known although crucial details have not been published. How far this lack of information is down to the government leaving these open for negotiation, to the government not having decided on them yet, or to the government not being willing to admit the details, is difficult to determine. There is brave talk of risk-sharing but the reality is that it will not be the government that sets the terms, it will be investors unless the government is prepared to walk away with no deal. But the government seems likely to agree to whatever it takes to lure investors in. Deepa Venkateswaran, an analyst at Bernstein, said would-be investors in Sizewell needed to be “assured a return” that was locked in at the point of investment rather than subject to change.[12]

Under RAB, it would be the investors’ income that would be fixed, not the price paid for power. The power price would be whatever it took to generate the guaranteed annual income to the owners. All electricity retailers and therefore all consumers would be required to buy their share of the output. With the Hinkley Point CfD, the owner took the risk; with Sizewell RAB, consumers take the risk.

The selling point for the RAB model has been the claim that it would reduce the cost of finance and therefore the cost of power. RAB reduces financing costs in two ways. First, because the risks will fall on consumers and taxpayers, the project would be seen by financiers as low risk to them and would attract a low interest rate. Second, the finance charges would effectively be paid by consumers as a surcharge on their bills payable from the date of FID to completion of the plant, expected to be about 15 years. Finance costs savings would be paid for by consumers as a surcharge on bills and by them, not the project owners, assuming the project risk.

Despite this, the government is struggling to find investors. It has said there are at least four companies that have pre-qualified as potential investors,[13] although pre-qualifying commits them to nothing. EDF has been forced to offer to take about 20% of the project ownership, while the government has said it would take an unspecified stake but it will be at least 20%, but probably more, enough to fill any funding gap.

The original target for RAB was UK institutional investors but given lack of interest from this source, government now seems to be relying on more controversial sources such as Middle East investment funds.[14] It will be difficult to explain to the public why, if the Bradwell project was politically unacceptable because of the presence of Chinese money, a RAB project with, say, Saudi money is acceptable.

The government may be able to offer enough sweeteners to allow the Sizewell C project to proceed but replicating it will be more difficult. For each project, a technology, a site, and investors will have to be found. Politically it will be difficult for the government to keep taking expensive stakes in nuclear projects just because nobody else will. The scale of investment is huge, and, for example, Sizewell C alone is expected to cost about 10 times the cost of the Thames Tideway ‘super-sewer’ water project, the first major project to use the RAB model.

Conclusions

The electricity sector ought to be one of the first sectors to be decarbonised because of the availability of a range of viable technologies available to replace fossil-fuel generation. Boris Johnson set a target of decarbonising electricity by 2035[15] while Keir Starmer has set a target of 2030.[16] Given that even Sizewell C is unlikely to be online by 2035, the nuclear programme is an irrelevance in achieving net-zero. The only justification is if nuclear was the cheapest way to meet electricity demand growth by the time the first capacity could come online and the current chasm in cost between nuclear and renewables or energy efficiency measures suggests this is implausible. Judged by the requirements of time, technology availability, sites and availability of finance, the programme will fail badly. In doing so, large amounts of government time and taxpayer money will, as with previous UK nuclear programmes, be diverted away from the options that have a much higher success probability, are more cost-effective and can be deployed much quicker.


Steve Thomas is Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University, UK. He has researched and written on nuclear power policy issues for 40 years.

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. re https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nuclear-power-and-net-zero-too-little-too-late-too-expensive 


 

January 11, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Bottled water discovered to contain thousands of invisible plastic pieces which can seep into your bloodstream

Most of these are nanoparticles which have the potential to penetrate human cells and gain entry into bloodstream and major organs

Stuti Mishra

Climate Correspondent12

A new study found people are consuming a quarter million of tiny invisible pieces of plastic with every litre of bottled water – 10-100 times more than previously estimated.

One litre of water in a plastic bottle was found to contain an average of 240,000 particles, research published on Monday showed. Most of these are nanoparticles which have the potential to penetrate human cells and gain entry into the bloodstream and major organs.

The groundbreaking findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal, show the extent of plastic in bottled water which was highly undervalued in previous studies.

While microplastics have been found everywhere from the deepest points in the ocean to inside our bodies from as early as birth, each bottle was earlier believed to contain only 325 pieces on an average.

But this new study by researchers from Columbia shows the presence of plastic particles is approximately a hundred times more than that, challenging the previously accepted norms surrounding bottled water safety.

Most of these particles were coming from the bottle itself, according to the authors. These are particles that are less than a micron in size.

Researchers used five samples from three brands of bottled water in the US and found that plastic particle levels ranged from 110,000 to 400,000 per litre, averaging at around 240,000 from seven types of plastics.

The authors declined to mention which brands were used as samples.

Approximately 90 per cent of these particles were identified as nanoplastics and the rest were microplastics. Nanoparticles are less than one-seventieth the width of a human hair, so tiny they cannot be seen under a microscope.

Researchers had to invent a technology to quantify these tiny particles to be able to count and analyze the chemical structure of nanoparticles in bottled water.

While scientists knew nanoplastics existed in bottled water, Naixin Qian, a PhD student in chemistry at Columbia and the first author of the new paper said “before our study, people didn’t have a precise number of how many”.

Previous studies showed nanoparticles of plastics can enter cells and tissues in major organs, move through the bloodstream and spread potentially harmful synthetic chemicals in the body, reaching the blood, liver, and brain.

While the potential impacts of these nanoparticles are known, researchers are not sure whether these findings make bottled water more dangerous. (Whaa -aat?)

“That’s currently under review. We don’t know if it’s dangerous or how dangerous,” said study co-author Phoebe Stapleton, a toxicologist at Rutgers.

“We do know that they are getting into the tissues (of mammals, including people) … and the current research is looking at what they’re doing in the cells,” study co-author Ms Stapleton said.

January 11, 2024 Posted by | environment | Leave a comment

Japan quake stressed nuclear plant beyond design limit: panel

KYODO NEWS KYODO NEWS, 11 Jan 24

Last week’s powerful earthquake in central Japan inflicted stress on parts of a local nuclear power plant that exceeded the limit anticipated in the facility’s design, according to a report shared in a safety panel meeting on Wednesday.

The report, discussed at a regular session of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, indicated the potentially alarming readings of ground acceleration did not appear to pose an immediate safety threat to the facility in Shika on the Noto Peninsula……………………………………………………………..

Shinsuke Yamanaka, chief of the authority, told reporters that such seismic research by experts may take years, and that the activity in undersea faults which triggered the latest quake “must be factored in as new knowledge” in updating safety standards.

Yamanaka, an expert on nuclear power engineering, also urged the operator to get to the bottom of a breakdown of electric transformers installed at its Nos. 1 and 2 reactors that has partially prevented the Shika plant from receiving power supplied from outside………………….

Nobuhiko Ban, another panel member and expert on protection from radiation exposure, called it “a huge problem” that real-time radiation levels have not been monitored at some locations near the Shika plant after the quake, and proposed using aircraft and drones for the purpose………… https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/01/79c47d437001-japan-quake-stressed-nuclear-plant-beyond-design-limit-panel.html

January 11, 2024 Posted by | Japan, safety | Leave a comment

Nuclear Arms Buildup Isn’t Just about War. It Also Harms People and Communities.

Congress’ comprehensive nuclear review is 160 pages long. It doesn’t mention “waste” once.

INKSTICK, WORDS: LAURA CONSIDINE, PICTURES: BRIAN STANSBERRY,  JANUARY 10, 2024

In October 2023, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States released its final report on “America’s Strategic Posture.” This congressionally mandated review of US nuclear strategy, policy and posture concluded that “America’s defense strategy and strategic posture must change in order to properly defend its vital interests and improve strategic stability with China and Russia.” 

The commission thus came to the conclusion that the US needed to go beyond its current modernization plan to develop a capability “to deter and defeat both” Russia and China “simultaneously.” This includes modifying the US strategic force posture to address larger numbers of targets and changing the posture on so-called “theater” nuclear weapons to allow for the US to engage in two simultaneous nuclear conflicts in Europe and Asia. While not every recent official report has advocated an arms buildup, the prevailing wisdom in policy and commentary circles is acceptance of a “coming arms race.”

The prevalence of this acceptance of arms racing and nuclear war fighting talk does not simply reflect the world we are in, it has political power to influence that world, to provoke action and reaction. This language has consequences. A new buildup of nuclear weapons and talk of nuclear war fighting is obviously dangerous because we know there is no winner of a nuclear war, never mind two. But even if those weapons are never used, they have impacts on the places and peoples in which they are produced.

Waste

I have recently spent a month conducting research in New Mexico, a state that has borne many of the consequences of the development of US nuclear weapons. In New Mexico, uranium miners and downwinders who lived near the very first nuclear test are not only dealing with generations of cancers caused by the nuclear weapons complex and the Trinity Test but have also had to fight for years to be included in government compensation schemes, a battle that is still ongoing.

Such harms are not mentioned in the recent Strategic Posture Commission Report. The report encourages an expansion of “the US nuclear weapons defense industrial base and the DOE/NNSA nuclear security enterprise, including weapons science, design, and production infrastructure” and “the full range of NNSA’s recapitalization efforts, such as pit production and all operations related to critical materials.” As such, it takes a “comprehensive” approach to what it deems necessary for its strategic recommendations including infrastructure, supply chain and labor issues. At no point in its 160 pages, however, does the report mention the word waste. 

This is not the first comprehensive report on nuclear weapons that ignores the fact that weapons production has consequences beyond the strategic. Nuclear waste has long been an afterthought in weapons production, subservient to the demands of geopolitics. The Cold War nuclear arms race in the United States created “some of the world’s most dangerous radioactive sites with large amounts of radioactive wastes, spent nuclear fuel (SNF), excess plutonium and uranium, thousands of contaminated facilities, and contaminated soil and groundwater,” according to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Environmental Management.

A new weapons buildup means more nuclear waste when the US government has not adequately funded the vast clean-up from the last arms buildup, not just in New Mexico but all over the country and beyond. The Department of Energy is responsible for the ongoing cleanup of 16 US sites and the management of 102 other legacy sites. DOE spending on these sites has remained relatively flat and will continue so according to proposed five-year appropriations for defense environmental cleanup, going from $7.07 billion for 2024 to $7.62 billion in 2028. This is despite the fact that cleanup consistently costs more and takes longer than planned and costs continue to rise sharply. The amounts of money spent are already staggering but still pale in comparison to what is needed. The GAO estimates for the site in Hanford, Washington alone are estimated to be up to $640 billion. This shows that waste is not a postscript to weapons production but an immense and expensive primary outcome.

A new nuclear weapons buildup also has serious consequences across multiple socioeconomic issues. To give just one example, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is already hiring 2,500 new workers to respond to the current call to produce 30 new plutonium pits per year. These workers come into an area in New Mexico where housing is already scarce and expensive, and infrastructure cannot support commuters. This then has devastating knock-on effects for those who live in nearby areas and do not benefit from the higher-than-local average LANL technical salaries. LANL expansion heightens the already stark economic inequalities of New Mexico where the median household income in Los Alamos County (one of the richest in the US) is more than twice that of neighboring Rio Arriba and Taos counties. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

High-profile reports, such as “America’s Strategic Posture,” do not simply reflect the likelihood of an arms race — they contribute to it. As such, fatalism about nuclear buildup and potential nuclear war, as Brodie noted many years ago, neglects the fact that “great powers” do not simply react to the world as it is but make choices that shape it. New Mexicans have long had to live with the everyday consequences of such choices. https://inkstickmedia.com/nuclear-arms-buildup-isnt-just-about-war-it-also-harms-people-and-communities/

January 11, 2024 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Sellafield nuclear safety and security director to leave.

Multiple safety and cybersecurity failings at nuclear waste site were revealed by Guardian last month

Guardian,   Anna Isaac and Alex LawsonTue 9 Jan 2024

The top director responsible for safety and security at Sellafield is to leave the vast nuclear waste dump in north-west England, it has emerged.

Mark Neate, the Sellafield environment, safety and security director, is to leave the organisation later this year.

Neate reports directly to Euan Hutton, the interim chief executive of Sellafield, the nuclear waste and decommissioning site in Cumbria, which is also the world’s largest store of plutonium.

Multiple safety and cybersecurity failings, as well as claims of a “toxic” working culture, were revealed in Nuclear Leaks, a year-long Guardian investigation into Sellafield, last month.

The energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, said the reports were “deeply concerning” and wrote to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the state-owned body which ultimately runs Sellafield, demanding a “full explanation”.

In his response last month, the NDA chief executive, David Peattie, said there had been “necessary changes to the leadership, governance, and risk management of cyber” and responsibility for its cyber function had been moved. A new head of cybersecurity was due to take up the role this month, which Peattie said would ensure “sustained focus and leadership on this matter”.

Sellafield said Neate had responsibility for cybersecurity operations until January 2023, when control was shifted to report to its chief information officer.

It declined to say whether Neate’s departure was related to cybersecurity and safety failings at the site and said that he made the decision to leave last autumn……………………………………………………………….

Sellafield has “more work to do” to reduce safety incidents, according to its annual accounts for the year to March 2023 which were published in late December. The accounts showed that annual operating costs at the taxpayer-funded site climbed by £170m to £2.5bn.

Last financial year the company pleaded guilty to a prosecution brought by the Office for Nuclear Regulation under health and safety regulations after an employee was injured falling from a scaffold ladder while carrying out repair work. The company was fined £400,000 and ordered to pay £29,210 in costs as well as a surcharge of £190.  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/08/sellafield-nuclear-safety-and-security-director-to-leave

January 11, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Net-Zero and Nonproliferation: Assessing Nuclear Power and Its Alternatives

January 8, 2024 ,  https://npolicy.org/net-zero-and-nonproliferation-assessing-nuclear-power-and-its-alternatives/

Six years ago, NPEC ran a mock execution of a law Congress passed in 1978 but that the Executive refused to implement —Title V of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. Title V called on the State and Energy Departments to conduct country-specific analyses of how developing states might best meet their energy needs without nuclear power. It also called for the creation of an energy Peace Corps and an assessment of what our government was spending on energy development aid-related projects.

When NPEC started its efforts, the staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked to see what NPEC produced to use it to pressure the Executive finally to implement the law. NPEC commissioned a number of studies on how Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and Taiwan might best meet their energy requirements without nuclear power. The center also contracted studies on the history and intent of Title V and on what government programs were already in play that aligned with Title V‘s stated objectives. As soon as NPEC’s project was completed, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff prepared a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the Secretary finally to implement Title V and file the reports required by law.

Then, something unexpected occurred. The committee’s legal counsel discovered that the Secretary was under no obligation to comply: Congress had eliminated Title V’s reporting requirements along with several hundred other Congressionally mandated reports back in 1995. Flummoxed, I quietly set the book manuscript aside.

Why, then, release it today? Because it is again timely. In October, the Biden Administration announced it is still considering extending civilian nuclear cooperation with Riyadh that would allow the Kingdom to enrich uranium — a process that can bring states within weeks of acquiring the bomb. Administration officials no longer question if Saudi Arabia really needs nuclear energy to meet its energy requirements. Shouldn’t they?

Meanwhile, Taiwan’s presidential election this coming Saturday will, among other things, decide if Taiwan will build more nuclear reactors or not. Again, is new nuclear Taiwan’s best energy bet? As for China, the Pentagon has become increasingly concerned that the two “peaceful” fast breeder reactors and plutonium reprocessing plants Beijing is building will be used to make hundreds of bombs worth of weapons plutonium. One of the two fast breeder reactors is already operating. The question these dangerous nuclear activities raise is just how necessary they are to meet China’s energy requirements.

Then, there’s Iran, which is intent on building reactors of Iranian design. It plans on expanding its nuclear power program from roughly one gigawatt electrical capacity to 11. Given Iran’s renewables potential and oil and gas reserves, how much sense does this make? Finally, in its efforts to achieve net zero, the Biden Administration has joined 20 other nations in pledging to triple global nuclear generation by 2050. Again, how practical is this?

This volume’s aim is to help provide answers. Of course, in light of how long our government has ignored Title V, demanding it be implemented now would be odd. Creating a clean energy Peace Corps, comparing the costs of different types of energy, and trying to determine what investments would reduce emissions quickest and cheapest, however, all should be discussed. It’s my hope that the release of Net-Zero and Nonproliferation: Assessing Nuclear Power and Its Alternatives today might prompt such discussion.

January 11, 2024 Posted by | politics, resources - print | Leave a comment

This Genocide Is Being Live-Streamed. We Can’t Say We Didn’t Know.

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, JAN 10, 2024

How is anyone still talking about October 7? What Israel has done since October 7 is many times worse than what happened on that day by any conceivable metric; the only way to feel otherwise is to believe Israeli lives are worth many times more than Palestinian lives. How is Israeli suffering still being centered over vastly less significant acts of violence three months ago while exponentially worse violence and suffering is being inflicted by Israelis right this very moment?

If your nation is attacked, and you respond to that attack by immediately murdering thousands of children with incredible savagery, then you forfeit any right to expect anyone to give a shit that your nation was attacked.

Israel responded to the Hamas attack by doing something much, much worse than anything Hamas has ever done, and in so doing completely delegitimizing itself as a state and completely validating everything the Palestinian resistance has been saying about the state of Israel since day one.

This genocide is being live-streamed. We can’t say we didn’t know. For as long as we live we’ll never be able to say we didn’t know.

❖

Biden is everything people feared Trump would be. A genocidal monster facilitating racially motivated murder and ethnic cleansing while rapidly accelerating toward a nuclear-age world war. Nothing Trump did was as evil as what Biden has been doing. Biden is the real Trump.

Israel is in a nonstop state of conflict largely because it is such an artificial creation. Most states emerge in a more organic way out of the geographical, political and cultural circumstances of the land and the people in their unique slice of spacetime. Israel emerged because some people who didn’t live anywhere near the land of Palestine got some narratives in their heads involving an ancient religion and its adherents, and dropped a newly created country on top of a civilization that already existed there which had emerged organically out of the circumstances of the region……………………………………

Nothing about Israel’s US-backed assault on Gaza is comparable to the Allied offensive against Nazi Germany. They’re raining military explosives onto a trapped and besieged population in a giant concentration camp with the stated goal of eliminating a small militant group who poses exactly zero existential threat to the state of Israel, in response to an attack which was 100 percent provoked by the abuses of the apartheid Israeli regime.

……………………………………………………. , you need to understand that millions of people are on the exact same boat as you right now. Millions. The actions of the state of Israel over the last three months have caused huge numbers of people not previously aware of its depravity to open their eyes to what’s going on, do some research, and change their position……………………………………………… more https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/this-genocide-is-being-live-streamed?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=140534382&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email

January 11, 2024 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Mr President, saying that nuclear power will save the climate is a lie.

While Emmanuel Macron continues to affirm his attachment to the atom,
Yannick Jadot, Marine Tondelier, Eric Piolle and Sandra Regol are calling
on France not to get stuck again in costly and dangerous dependence on this
energy.

At the end of 2023, first in a forum, then in his wishes to the
French, President Macron reaffirmed his attachment to the relaunch of
nuclear power. He who questioned in 2017 the relevance of depending
three-quarters on a single source of electricity production has today
transformed into a nuclear industry salesman.

In Dubai, busy tripling
global production by 2050, he actively campaigned for the mention of
nuclear power in the final COP 28 agreement.

 Liberation 9th Jan 2024

https://www.liberation.fr/idees-et-debats/tribunes/monsieur-le-president-affirmer-que-le-nucleaire-sauvera-le-climat-est-un-mensonge-20240109_L5XQ3GCEE5GPXD5BLDU2MHJCI4/

January 11, 2024 Posted by | France, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Behind the (somewhat dirty) scenes of nuclear waste processing

 Behind the (somewhat dirty) scenes of nuclear waste processing. Nuclear
energy, even if many call it “clean”, produces a lot of waste (and costs
“crazy money”). A researcher was able to carry out a survey lasting
approximately one year on two French waste landfill sites. How are these
things managed? Exclusive interview. “There is no such thing as
decontamination. This is an abuse of language. You don’t kill the
radioactivity, you move it.”

 Mediapart 9th Jan 2024

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/mouais-le-journal-dubitatif/blog/090124/dans-les-coulisses-un-peu-sales-du-traitement-des-dechets-nucleaires

January 11, 2024 Posted by | France, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear defence workers to strike over pay

Daisy Stephens & PA Media – BBC News, Thu, 11 January 2024

Workers at a nuclear warhead factory are set to strike in a dispute over pay, their union has announced.

Members of Prospect at Berkshire-based Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) will walk out for 24 hours on 24 January, after two months of other forms of industrial action.

The company is facing “a recruitment and retention crisis” and risks “being unable to fulfil its critical role in safeguarding our national security” if pay is not improved, Prospect general secretary Mike Clancy warned. ……………………………………more https://au.news.yahoo.com/nuclear-defence-workers-strike-over-150520892.html

January 11, 2024 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

UK Government unveils biggest nuclear expansion in 70 years

Jemma Dempsey – BBC News, Thu, 11 January 2024

The government hopes to boost the nuclear power industry with the biggest expansion of the sector in 70 years.

A new large scale nuclear plant would quadruple supplies by 2050, which the government claims would lower bills and improve energy security.

It also said its £300m ($382.6m) nuclear fuel programme would reduce reliance on overseas supply.

But the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology (REA) said all clean energy needed fast-tracking.

Nuclear power currently provides around 15% of the UK’s electricity but many of the country’s aging reactors are due to be decommissioned over the next decade.

The government’s Civil Nuclear Roadmap is intended to bolster the UK’s energy independence by exploring a new site for another nuclear power station of the size and scale of the £30bn plants under construction at Hinkley Point in Somerset and committed to Sizewell in Suffolk.

Industry sources have told the BBC the leading candidates would include Wylfa in Anglesea or Moorside in Cumbria.

“Dragging their feet”

But progress is could be slow – from planning to “power on” can take nearly 20 years. Consultations for Sizewell took 10 years alone and building work there is yet to start, because of ongoing protests…………………………………………………………………  https://au.news.yahoo.com/government-unveils-biggest-nuclear-expansion-013230324.html

January 11, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Israel Is Terrified the World Court Will Decide It’s Committing Genocide

Public hearings on South Africa’s request for provisional measures will take place on January 11 and 12 at the ICJ which is located in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The hearings will be livestreamed from 4:00-6:00 a.m. Eastern/1:00-3:00 a.m. Pacific on the Court’s website and on UN Web TV. The court could order provisional measures within a week after the hearings.

Other States Parties to the Genocide Convention Can Join South Africa’s Case

South Africa, a party to the Genocide Convention, charged Israel with genocide in the International Court of Justice.

By Marjorie Cohn / Truthout, January 8, 2024,  https://scheerpost.com/2024/01/08/israel-is-terrified-the-world-court-will-decide-its-committing-genocide/

For nearly three months, Israel has enjoyed virtual impunity for its atrocious crimes against the Palestinian people. That changed on December 29 when South Africa, a state party to the Genocide Convention, filed an 84-page application in the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court) alleging that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

South Africa’s well-documented application alleges that “acts and omissions by Israel … are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent … to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group” and that “the conduct of Israel — through its State organs, State agents, and other persons and entities acting on its instructions or under its direction, control or influence — in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, is in violation of its obligations under the Genocide Convention.”

Israel is mounting a full-court press to prevent an ICJ finding that it’s committing genocide in Gaza. On January 4, the Israeli Foreign Ministry instructed its embassies to pressure politicians and diplomats in their host countries to make statements opposing South Africa’s case at the ICJ.

In its application, South Africa cited eight allegations to support its contention that Israel is perpetrating genocide in Gaza. They include:

(1) Killing Palestinians in Gaza, including a large proportion of women and children (approximately 70 percent) of the more than 21,110 fatalities and some appear to have been subjected to summary execution;

(2) Causing serious mental and bodily harm to Palestinians in Gaza, including maiming, psychological trauma, and inhuman and degrading treatment;

(3) Causing the forced evacuation and displacement of about 85 percent of Palestinians in Gaza — including children, the elderly and infirm, and the sick and wounded. Israel is also causing the massive destruction of Palestinian homes, villages, towns, refugee camps and entire areas, which precludes the return of a significant proportion of the Palestinian people to their homes;

(4) Causing widespread hunger, starvation and dehydration to the besieged Palestinians in Gaza by impeding sufficient humanitarian assistance, cutting off sufficient food, water, fuel and electricity, and destroying bakeries, mills, agricultural lands and other means of production and sustenance;

(5) Failing to provide and restricting the provision of adequate clothing, shelter, hygiene and sanitation to Palestinians in Gaza, including 1.9 million internally displaced persons. This has compelled them to live in dangerous situations of squalor, in conjunction with routine targeting and destruction of places of shelter and killing and wounding of persons who are sheltering, including women, children, the elderly and the disabled;

(6) Failing to provide for or ensure the provision of medical care to Palestinians in Gaza, including those medical needs created by other genocidal acts that are causing serious bodily harm. This is occurring by direct attacks on Palestinian hospitals, ambulances and other healthcare facilities, the killing of Palestinian doctors, medics and nurses (including the most qualified medics in Gaza) and the destruction and disabling of Gaza’s medical system; 

(7) Destroying Palestinian life in Gaza, by destroying its infrastructure, schools, universities, courts, public buildings, public records, libraries, stores, churches, mosques, roads, utilities and other facilities necessary to sustain the lives of Palestinians as a group. Israel is killing whole families, erasing entire oral histories and killing prominent and distinguished members of society;

(8) Imposing measures intended to prevent Palestinian births in Gaza, including through reproductive violence inflicted on Palestinian women, newborns, infants and children.

South Africa cited myriad statements by Israeli officials that constitute direct evidence of an intent to commit genocide:

“Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything,” Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said. “If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week. It will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”

Avi Dichter, Israel’s Minister of Agriculture, declared, “We are now actually rolling out the Gaza Nakba,” a reference to the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to create the state of Israel.

“Now we all have one common goal — erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth,” Nissim Vaturi, the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and Member of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee proclaimed.

Israel’s Strategy to Defeat South Africa’s Case at the ICJ

Continue reading →

January 10, 2024 Posted by | Israel, Legal, politics international, Reference, Religion and ethics, South Africa | 1 Comment

Where your $trillions go, to risk all life

Peace and Planet News, by Anthony Donovan | Winter 2023 Edition

We’ve seen an amazing level of bipartisan support!” For what initiative do we hear this rare statement echoed about Congress today?

The 15th Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, held once again at the Hyatt Regency in Arlington, Va., Feb. 13–15. For three days the rooms are filled with a multitude of companies and government agencies from around the country connected to the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and National Nuclear Security Administration that make up our nuclear weapons industry, and its terribly secretive renewed Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) race.

What is termed the “Enterprise” is in full-out sales and confidence-building mode. It is here the relationships for securing contracts through the next 5 to 35 years are solidified.

One aged reporter who once covered the industry in the 1980s confides his shock after a dizzying day of presentations: “How did you know these gatherings were going on? I just found out last week!  Can’t believe this, I mean, this is a new unbridled arms race!  These people in there are totally convinced this is the only way to go.” Looking at only two of us with our sign, he asks, “Why aren’t more people in the streets? Where is the movement pushing back?”………………………………………………………………….

Attendees were a bit puzzled that I wasn’t with a company connected to the summit, but I continued to share my purpose, seeing that we desperately need their dedication and skillset to begin turning toward the critical needs before us today: sustainability, good jobs supporting our environment, food, water, air, housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure … you know the issue. Some were relieved that I was all for science and space exploration, but first, for the precious earth!

…………………………………………………… Most exhibitors were too young to remember that the vast majority of citizens had voted with their feet to end this madness, and that there was no transparency or democratic process in the decision to use our treasure to fund it all.

Inevitably the confounding old Cold War rhetoric arose, painting China and Russia as vile enemies that we can not trust to honor any agreements.  ……………………..

Naturally, I’d let them know we had a most worthy instrument, The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, now international law, to help guide this needed transformation, despite its being dismissed by our mainstream media.  Only a few had heard of it, and of those, few knew particulars.

Laser beamed on their one aspect of the industry, several with competitors present vying for the same contract, many met in the dozens of closed-door side rooms for private company presentations/briefings.  There were open “networking breakfasts” lunches and evening cocktail parties and several daily general gatherings in the large Hyatt Ballroom focused on the latest in pit production, delivery platforms, command-and-control infrastructure and communications, warhead modernization, STRATCOM reports, reports from the heads of all our labs, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Sandia, etc.   Presentations on increasing efficiency in product and organization, best practices, and cited pathways to “success.”   After all, we are leading and “winning.”   Exactly what we think we are winning made no sense to anyone on the nuclear abolition team.

There were exhibitors displaying highly specialized metal nose cones and delivery vehicle parts.  Designers of fabrics that claim to protect from radioactivity, cybersecurity “experts,” nuclear waste management specialists, triad infrastructure architects, specialists in improving uranium refining, nuclear physicists and engineers specializing in all materials and their “enhanced delivery” of precision warhead targeting and interception by “safety” umbrellas, inter-agency communication specialists, and those through it all maintaining secure communications.   My presence seemed harmless enough to this security.  I think of all our very brave colleagues who’ve risked life to enter the kill zones of these most highly sealed-off omnicidal compounds to render witness of the crime against humanity.

Amazon, a “Gold Sponsor” of the summit, had an exhibit:  “We have established good relations with the CIA, but we need to get better integrated with the NNSA.  This is new to us.  That’s why we’re here.”

In this very clearly white male-oriented world, there was also a presentation on the essential hiring of more “diversity” for the future.  One enticing statement read they “offer specialized worth to employees by valuing their entire career life cycle–creating stable careers…”  Ah, such security………..

The revolving door is astoundingly evident here, and the boundaries of government, military, with private companies is quite indistinguishable.  Those with Navy, Air Force, and other triad experience are now running these private companies or working as their specialized “experts in technical and professional innovation. support and security.”   One “private” company proudly advertising that 70% of “our expertise” hold all the necessary security clearances within the government!

…………………………….. Former General Lloyd Austin, who retired to become Raytheon’s CEO, was easily confirmed by our Congress to become our current Secretary of Defense under President Biden.  In his hearings, General/CEO Austin guaranteed to our representatives that the Triad would get his full support to obtain all that it needed.  What seems illegal goes unchallenged.

Along with the DOE, National Security Administration, and Budget Office, the regular old nuclear weapon corps were very present: General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls, Bechtel, Flour, Honeywell, Aerospace, SAIC, etc., and a number of universities……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Within 25 minutes we were surrounded by hotel security and managers asking us to leave the premises immediately.   They then claimed even the sidewalks outside the hotel were private and we could not remain there………………………………………………………..

Ask your representative to sign H. Res. 77, sponsored by Rep. James McGovern, supporting the goals of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons!   Ask your senator to call for the same in the Senate.  Thank all the nations ratifying the TPNW.   Ask your representative to observe the Ban Treaty’s Meeting of States this November in New York City at the United Nations.  They are welcome to learn, and think deeper.

Knowing the horror of war was pushing ahead and with it an increasing, completely unnecessary risk of nuclear annihilation, there was ever-present sense of unity with the citizens of the world who are pleading and advocating another way.  There were many thumbs up and waves from passing vehicles.  Thinking of those who have young children/grandchildren, including a good number I got to  speak with on this Summit floor, we felt there was nowhere else to be on this day celebrating the love in our hearts and in our lives, round the world, Valentine’s Day.  https://peaceandplanetnews.org/where-your-trillions-go/

January 10, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, opposition to nuclear, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher enthuses over “the rebirth of France’s nuclear industry”

EDF will construct the new plants with tens of billions in public financing

“EDF will construct the new plants with tens of billions in public financing ” – what could possibly go wrong?

France sees potential for 14 new nuclear reactors. 8 Jan 24,  https://www.power-technology.com/news/france-may-build-14-new-nuclear-reactors/

France may need to build more than 14 new nuclear power plants, more than the six currently planned, if the nation is to meet its energy transition goal of reducing fossil fuel dependence from 60% to 40% by 2035.

Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher stressed that nuclear will play an increasingly vital role in France’s energy mix. Speaking to La Tribune Dimanche just a few weeks before parliament reveals a bill relating to energy sovereignty, Pannier-Runacher said: “We need nuclear power beyond the first six EPRs [European Pressurised Reactors] since the existing (nuclear) park will not be eternal.”

This new energy strategy will be debated in parliament from late January and must be codified into law.

In 2022, French nuclear power output fell to a 30-year low after operational issues forced many reactors offline. This placed additional upward pressure on European energy prices, which were already being driven up reduced gas flows from Russia. However, French President Emmanuel Macron emphasised the importance of nuclear, stating: “What our country needs, and the conditions are there, is the rebirth of France’s nuclear industry.”

Over the course of 2023, availability improved, falling in line with state-controlled energy provider EDF’s target of 300–330 terawatt-hours. EDF will construct the new plants with tens of billions in public financing and chief executive Luc Rémont said his company aims to build roughly one 1.6GW reactor a year.

President Macron also reinforced his country’s commitment to nuclear at the recent COP28 climate summit in Dubai, where he led a group of 20 world leaders signing a pledge to “triple nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050”. Shortly after signing, Macron pronounced that “nuclear energy is back”.

France currently has 56 operable reactors that produce around 70% of the nation’s electricity. Comparatively, Germany, another European superpower, does not produce any of its electricity from nuclear power, while in the UK the figure is 15%.

January 10, 2024 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Outrage as Government admits it kept medical results on nuke test veterans a ‘state secret’ in a move Tory grandee Sir John Hayes said ‘beggars belief’

Daily Mail, By EIRIAN JANE PROSSER , 8 January 2024 |

The Government has admitted it has kept medical results of military veterans who survived British nuclear tests a state secret, prompting a furious outrage.

Blood and urine samples from servicemen, civilians and indigenous people during the Cold War are among the thousands of personal records being held in a move that Tory grandee Sir John Hayes slammed as ‘beggars belief’.

The confidential documents could reveal whether those made to witness the atomic bomb tests had radiation enter their body, which could lead to a huge payout for veterans if they can prove the health consequences. 

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is now facing calls for the files to be made public. Previously the Ministry of Defence denied it held the records, until the Mirror revealed a cache of 150 documents discussing blood tests last year.

Reacting to the revelation MP Sir Hayes said: ‘It beggars belief that a diagnostic medical test confirming whether or not radiation entered a person’s body, with possible long-term health consequences, is in any way a state secret.

‘Veterans and survivors of this weapons testing have a legal and moral right to know what if anything happened to their bodies as a result, and I am sure they can be disclosed to individuals without any impact on national security.’

The Mirror reported that in 2018 the Ministry of Defence denied that the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) holds any evidence that blood samples were taken at nuclear tests until it rowed back on the claim in 2023.

Freedom of Information requests by the paper revealed how both blood and urine samples were taken at test sites under a Lord Chancellor’s instruction, which is why the documents could be held from the National Achieves  

Culture minister John Whittindale admitted to Parliament the withholding of such documents is down to various factors including national security, security against possible terrorist activity and international relations. 

He also said ‘the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons or to allow a more detailed review’ are also reasons to retain the files.

The files are said to relate to three nuclear tests in Australia that took place in 1957 dubbed Operation Antler. 

One of the files, seen by the Mirror, is said to have been entitled ‘nuclear test veterans’ and were said to have first been hidden when Tony Blair came to power in 1997. 

The AWE has been asked to confirm how many other records were also hidden in similar fashion, with Labour leader Keir Starmer pledging to give veterans and their families affected their records and compensation if they take office. 

Those affected by the testing were previously asked to come forward by law firm McCue Jury & Partners, with managing partner Jason McCue stating that nuclear veterans had been ‘gaslighted by the British state’. ………………………………………………………………………………..

Nearly £21,000 has now been raised to help nuclear veterans sue the Government for ‘the toxic legacy of trauma and illness they have been left to endure’.

Servicemen were ordered to sail or crawl through the radioactive fallout to test the effects of radiation, as well as fly through mushroom clouds on sampling missions.

Many lived on testing sites for a year or more and when they returned began developing rare blood disorders and cancers, often proving fatal.

Their wives had three times the normal rate of miscarriages and their children suffered 10 times the normal rate of birth defects.

The British government carried out hundreds of explosions of atom bombs, fissile material, trigger devices and thermonuclear weapons in the US, Australia and South Pacific following the Second World War…………………….. more https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12936311/government-outrage-medical-results-nuke-text-secret.html?fbclid=IwAR284fF3V4h_LgFtbGW5W6CP_Ux9ZNHvgRtT87fif8uzKQgVrgjNIf2uIrw

January 10, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »