UK Greens the party on the rise – a ‘tectonic shift’ among voters.

Local elections 2022: Greens winning hearts in northeast as party eyes ‘tectonic shift’ among voters. Campaigners welcomed on doorstep in Labour stronghold South Shields as internal polls predict party will make large gains across the country.
The Greens are, by any measure, a party on the rise – both in the northeast and across the country. In a series of remarkable election results last year, they won 155 English and Welsh council seats, helping take their total to a record high of 467. They now lead two authorities, in Brighton and Hove, and Lancaster, are in a ruling coalition in another 13, including Oxfordshire, York and Sheffield, and make up the official opposition in eight more including Bristol, Norwich and Solihull.
Now, it is all but certain this growth will continue on 5 May: a realistic good night would see them smash the 500-seat barrier, party bosses suggest. In particular, they are hoping to move beyond their traditional metropolitan powerbases and establish a greater presence in the north’s old industrial heartlands. The increasing acceptance that the planet is, er, dying on its arse – that’s the climate crisis – has attracted plenty of voters in an area that will pretty quickly find itself under water if global temperatures continue rising.
But, perhaps of greater significance, is a tangible anger here at a sense of being taken for
granted by the dominant Labour Party for too long. “They’re sitting tenants,” one resident fumed. “They reckon they’ve a job for life and that’s how they treat it.”
Independent UK, 1st May 2022
South Africa: Five years after the illegal nuclear deal was nuked, we are still struggling with a broken energy system
Daily Maverick By Francesca de Gasparis and Makoma Lekalakala, 02 May 2022,
The South African government’s current approach to energy production is our biggest barrier to a just transition and it seems as though we are deliberately choosing fossil fuels and nuclear, while implementing renewables at a snail’s pace.
The month of April was not only significant to South Africa as Freedom Month, but was also the month in which Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei) commemorated the court victory that exposed the severity of the corruption within the state and halted government’s “illegal and unconstitutional” R1-trillion nuclear energy deal with Russia……….
Apart from revealing the depths of the rot within government and how far members of the state were willing to go to dupe the public, this was also the start of an intense battle which continues to rage between public interests versus those of government and corporate to protect citizens’ right to be consulted on huge capital spends, especially in energy procurement that may affect them……………..
A publication released at COP26 in December 2021, Neither Climate Nor Jobs: Nuclear Myths About the Just Transition, argues that nuclear will be detrimental to our “collective capacity to transform our energy systems in a way that leaves no one behind”.
While nuclear power operations do not have as large a carbon footprint as coal, gas and oil, there are numerous other issues with this outdated and largely failed technology that must be considered, that make nuclear power utterly unsuitable for South Africa’s energy needs in our current reality. Comparatively, the carbon footprint of nuclear power is estimated to be at least two to four times more than that of renewables.
There are a number of reasons that nuclear energy is NOT a solution to the climate emergency and why it should not be part of the just transition. First, South Africa needs development that is pro-poor, and basic services need to be provided that are affordable to all. This means that the country’s energy plans should work to reduce the gaps in inequality, with the people – not industry nor the economy nor profits – at the centre of its plans.
Sadly, the government’s current approach to energy production is our country’s biggest barrier to a just transition and it seems as though we are deliberately choosing fossil fuels and nuclear, while implementing renewables at a snail’s pace.
Investing in nuclear energy requires huge capital investment – which could have an impact on public spending on social services – while the centralised and costly nature of its production will do little to reduce the widespread energy poverty in the country. When considering the urgent need for poverty-alleviating approaches to development and energy production, the fact that renewables create more jobs (with a wider variety and in more flexible locations) and can be installed in a matter of months, provides more compelling arguments against nuclear.
Furthermore, as climate change takes root and weather conditions become more extreme, a just transition will require a flexible and decentralised electricity supply for greater stability. Without even considering nuclear power stations’ poor installation and cost performance globally, we need only look at South Africa’s only existing nuclear power station at Koeberg to know that nuclear has not proven to be particularly reliable over the past 18 months.
Ongoing issues at the nuclear power station are a significant part of the reason that citizens have been plunged into darkness once again. We must recognise Koeberg’s deteriorating performance while noting the ongoing governance issues at Eskom and the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy.
Another reason that nuclear energy is not fit for purpose for our current and future energy needs is the outdated argument of the necessity of baseload energy, which completely ignores the strides made in modern technology. This type of centralised power often takes very long to come online and will do little to alleviate the energy poverty in the country. Even in the best-case scenario, it would be at least another decade before we are likely to get any electricity from a new power plant.
Just the fact that we need to keep temperatures below 1.5°C by 2030 means that even if we did go the nuclear route, we would be far too late to mitigate carbon emissions in any meaningful way. Yet, our government insists on wasting time pursuing nuclear, while utility-scale renewable energy projects could be ready in less than half the time.
South Africa is at a crossroads. Are we really willing to continue making the mistakes of the past?……….

It is important, at this point, to remind South Africans that it was as a result of a national effort by many civil society organisations, academics and concerned citizens that we were able to stop then-President Jacob Zuma’s illegal nuclear deal five years ago, sparing us from the effects of the bankruptcy that would have ensued.
At a time when the divisions in our society were becoming decidedly evident, it was wonderful to be part of such a unifying campaign with people from all walks of life. From eco-justice NGOs to community-based organisations, right down to the ordinary person on the street, most South Africans knew we had to stand together or risk losing our country…….. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-05-02-five-years-after-the-illegal-nuclear-deal-was-nuked-we-are-still-struggling-with-a-broken-energy-system/
Finnish consortium abandons Fennovoima nuclear power project
Finnish group abandons plans for Russia-backed nuclear power plant
Contract with Rosatom terminated as war in Ukraine deals final blow to controversial energy project, Ft.com, Richard Milne, Nordic and Baltic Correspondent, 2 May 22,
A Finnish consortium has abandoned controversial plans to build a Russian nuclear power plant in the Nordic country as Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine dealt a terminal blow to the project. The Fennovoima project has been mired in controversy from the outset with Finland’s then environment minister telling the Financial Times in 2014 that it was an example of “Finlandisation”, a loaded term that refers to a smaller country adapting its policies to suit a larger, more powerful neighbour.
The Hanhikivi 1 project was particularly controversial because Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear company, was not just the supplier of the reactor but also the main shareholder and financial backer of the Fennovoima consortium. Rosatom owns 34 per cent while Finnish companies such as energy group Fortum, steelmakers SSAB and Outokumpu as well as local municipalities own the rest. Fennovoima said on Monday that it had terminated the contract with Rosatom due to “significant and growing delays during the last years”, which have been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine. ………………………………….. https://www.ft.com/content/5e7730b5-be55-48a5-8f55-f67d6fb80d77
Senate Approves Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Extension
https://nativenewsonline.net/health/senate-approves-radiation-exposure-compensation-act-extension, BY KELSEY TURNER MAY 02, 2022, The U.S. Senate on Thursday unanimously approved a two-year extension of an act giving compensation to people who were exposed to radiation from atomic weapons testing and uranium mining. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which is set to expire in July, provides one-time benefit payments to those who have been diagnosed with cancer or other diseases relating to radiation exposure. The extension now awaits approval by the House.
Since its creation in 1990, RECA has given over $2.4 billion in benefits to more than 38,000 people in Nevada, Utah and other impacted areas. Compensation is available to several groups, including “onsite participants” involved in atmospheric test of an atomic weapon, “downwinders” who were present in certain areas near test sites, and uranium miners, millers and ore transporters who worked with uranium. If passed, the extension would give people more time to apply for compensation.
Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez applauded the Senate’s approval of the extension, saying it “demonstrates strong bi-partisan support for former uranium miners, downwinders, and many others who have to live with the devastating health effects to this day.”
In March, Nez met with members of both political parties in Washington, D.C., where he voiced the concerns of Navajo people experiencing health impacts due to radioactive contamination and exposure from abandoned uranium mines.
“This is a united effort on behalf of former uranium miners and their families, to secure just compensation and benefits for the health issues and detrimental impacts of uranium mining conducted by the federal government,” Nez said in a Navajo Nation press release. “The RECA bill is an opportunity for Congress to be a part of something historic for the Navajo people, the Navajo Uranium Radiation Victims Committee, and other impacted groups.”
Nez encouraged legislators to work toward a long-term solution that would extend RECA until 2040. A bill sponsored by Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo proposes to expand and extend RECA for another 19 years following the bill’s enactment.
Navajo Nation is pushing for this expansion to include all downwinders, create additional categories of uranium workers and radiation-related illnesses, and increase the minimum compensation received by affected individuals.
Poor outlook for Joe Biden’s $6 billion effort to keep old nuclear reactors going

Biden’s $6B nuclear plan hits ’24th hour’ roadblock
By Peter Behr, Hannah Northey | 04/28/2022 The Biden administration’s $6 billion effort to keep struggling nuclear plants operating is facing a barrier in Michigan and California.
A top energy executive yesterday confirmed that one of the first plants poised to qualify for financial support under the Energy Department’s newly unveiled lifeline — Michigan’s Palisades plant — remains on schedule to close May 31, throwing the Midwestern state’s climate goals into question.
Leo Denault, CEO of Entergy Corp., owner of the Palisades plant, told security analysts yesterday that a buyer who succeeded in acquiring the generator would also bear refueling costs and other expenses.
“We will work with any qualified party,” he said. But he added, “I do want to be very clear. Entergy is exiting the merchant nuclear business. The plant will have to stop operating in May. We’ll be out of fuel.”………………….
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the Diablo Canyon owner, has also said the DOE offer does not change its intention to close the California facility. Diablo Canyon’s reactors 1 and 2 have planned closing dates of November 2024 and August 2025, respectively……….
A spokesperson for DOE said yesterday they were unable to speak about the unique challenges and closure decisions facing various nuclear plants, nor could they provide a precise number of struggling plants potentially eligible for financial assistance…………………………… https://www.eenews.net/articles/bidens-6b-nuclear-plan-hits-24th-hour-roadblock/
Despite deteriorating situation, Ukrainian parliament still insisting on NATO accession
RT, https://www.sott.net/article/467169-Despite-deteriorating-situation-Ukrainian-parliament-still-insisting-on-NATO-accession Tue, 26 Apr 2022 The Rada’s chair says accession to the military alliance is Ukraine’s “prospective vision of its future”
The Ukrainian parliament will not vote to remove the passage about the country’s ambition to join NATO from the constitution, the Rada’s chairman, Ruslan Stefanchuk, has revealed.
n an interview with Ukrainian media outlet Ukrainska Pravda published on Monday, Stefanchuk was asked whether Ukrainian lawmakers were going to amend the country’s constitution with respect to Kiev’s ambition to become a NATO member state. The official replied in the negative, adding that “changing the constitution is not an end in itself.” He went on to say that just because some changes are made does not necessarily mean that they have an effect in real life. Stefanchuk warned against “declaratory norms.
The official emphasized that at this point the Ukrainian authorities’ main focus is on ensuring the security of each and every Ukrainian citizen. “Real guarantees are important to us,” Stefanchuk noted.
“For me as a representative of the political leadership of the state precisely this is a priority, so that people no longer die and pay with their lives for the European dream, for the dream of security and the rest,” the Rada’s chairman said.
However, Kiev would not settle for just any kind of guarantees, according to Stefanchuk, who cited the 1994 Budapest Memorandum as an example of empty promises that have failed to materialize. He called for a well-defined agreement which would be able to put Ukraine at ease.
Going back to “what is written in our constitution regarding NATO and the EU,” Stefanchuk described accession to the two organizations as Ukraine’s “prospective vision of its future.”
On March 29, during the last in-person meeting between the Ukrainian and Russian negotiators in Istanbul, Kiev proposed penning an international agreement on security guarantees for Ukraine.
Ten days prior, Stefanchuk indicated that he did not rule out removing the passage on NATO membership from Ukraine’s constitution, depending on “what path the negotiators will take.” The official added that the Rada could start looking for a “model that will either not contradict the constitution or we will change the constitution in this respect.”
The amendment in question, which was added to the Ukrainian constitution back in February 2019, obliges the country’s government to stick to the goal of NATO membership, with the president being the senior guarantor.
Russia attacked the neighboring state in late February, following Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German and French brokered protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state. The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force. AT TOP https://www.sott.net/article/467169-Despite-deteriorating-situation-Ukrainian-parliament-still-insisting-on-NATO-accession
Emmanuel Macron won French election on a wide margin, running on a pro nuclear policy
| Incumbent French president Emmanuel Macron, who ran on a ticket to boost nuclear and renewable energy, was re-elected on Sunday by a wider margin than expected. Macron, from centre-right party La Republique en Marche, won the election with 58.55% of the vote against 41.45% for Marine Le Pen, representing Rassemblement National, though she nevertheless secured the far-right’s highest ever share of the vote. The president planned to build six European pressurised reactors (EPRs) by 2050, with an option foreight more pending further assessment, he stated in his election manifesto. The construction of the first reactor would start in 2028 and come into service in 2035, though the plan was deemed “unrealistic” by some experts. Macron also scrapped a plan to close 12 reactors by 2035 in a U-turn to his 2017 campaign pledge to cut reliance on nuclear energy to 50%, down from 70% currently. Montel 25th April 2022 https://www.montelnews.com/news/1315204/macron-wins-election-vows-to-boost-nuclear-renewables |
French election: Macron and Le Pen’s nuclear plans torn apart: ‘Waste of time AND money’
FRENCH presidential hopefuls Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen have unveiled ambitious plans to boost France’s nuclear power capacity – already at 70 percent of its domestic electricity generation – but experts have questioned the feasibility.
By IAN RANDALL, , Apr 24, 2022
The recent emphasis on large-scale nuclear reactors is, at least superficially, seemingly at odds with President Macron’s announcement late last year that France would be investing in so-called small modular reactor designs as part of his “France 2020” roadmap.
……………… Of the strategy’s allocated €30billion (£25.2billion) budget, €8billion (£6.7 billion) is to be apportioned towards the development of hydrogen power, compared with just €1billion (£0.8billion) towards small-scale reactor concepts.
Despite this funding disparity, however, Mr Macron asserted that the realisation of the small modular reactors was in fact “goal number one”……………………………. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1600032/french-election-energy-macron-le-pen-grand-nuclear-plans
Greenpeace chief urges Yoon to reevaluate nuclear-focused decarbonization plan
Greenpeace chief urges Yoon to reevaluate nuclear-focused decarbonization plan https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220422004700315
All News 11:20 April 22, 2022 SEOUL, April 22 (Yonhap) — The leader of Greenpeace urged President-elect Yoon Suk-yeol on Friday to “reevaluate” his nuclear-focused decarbonization plan in a letter sent to him on the occasion of Earth Day.
Yoon’s transition team is pushing to modify the country’s carbon neutrality plans that the outgoing Moon Jae-in administration declared with a goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from the 2018 levels by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
The overhaul will likely include reversal of Moon’s nuclear phase-out policy and changes in energy mix.
“We urge you to reevaluate whether nuclear energy could be safe, fast, and affordable enough to achieve the 1.5 degree C temperature goal,” Greenpeace International Executive Director Norma Torres said in the letter.
She said, “Korea already has the highest nuclear power plant density in the world … we wonder whether further nuclear expansion will be acceptable by the public.”
Torres also said, “The unsolved nuclear waste problem is also a major issue you need to consider in your nuclear focused decarbonization plan.”
South Korea, instead, needs a new, ambitious energy transition strategy to employ more renewable energy coupled with an ambitious fossil fuel and nuclear phase-out plan, according to her.
“Needless to say, your term from 2022 to 2027 is a critical time to decide whether Korea will pull its weight and therefore contribute to the global mission to prevent disastrous climate change in time or not,” she said.
The life and slow death of nuclear power plants

The UK government and EDF have pledged 20% of the cost each, but the additional 60% is yet to be found. Some of that is a levy on our electricity bills for a decade before Sizewell generates a single Kwh.
once planning permission is given, construction of a small-scale wind farm, 10MW or less, could take less than two months.

A further elephant in the room is that the costs of new nuclear are highly “back loaded”, i.e., that by building them you commit to high levels of expenditure at the end of their working life, to remove the fuel rods, decommission, remove and store nuclear waste.
The Life and Death of nuclear power plants By NEWSROOM, Apr 18, 2022, By Peter Rowberry with additional reporting by Newsroom
It seems that the policy [in the UK] to build new nuclear power stations has caused some friction at the heart of the cabinet, with the Prime Minister trying to get the agreement of the Chancellor to spend at least £100 billion on eight new nuclear power stations. This didn’t stop the government issuing its energy security strategy last week.
Such a huge commitment merits careful scrutiny. Hinkley Point C was one of eight announced by the British government in 2010 with a nuclear site licence granted in November 2012. EDF’s board approved the project in July 2016 and on 15 September 2016 the UK government approved the project in principle. Construction work on-site began by late September 2016. Completion of the reactor bases was completed in June 2019 for reactor 1 and June 2020 for reactor 2. The two bases required a total of 633,700 cubic feet of concrete.
Hinkley C is the only one of the 2010 eight designated sites to have commenced construction. The UK government strategy paper calls for 8 further new nuclear plants but does not name locations. This is similar to the Brown government’s announcement in 2008 which the coalition government pinned down in 2010. With only 1 of 8 since 2010 actually under construction the conclusion is the new 8 suggested could be decades from coming online.
Earlier costs for Hinkley C were estimated at around £18 billion. The current cost estimate is around £22 to £23 billion, and the first reactor will not be complete until June 2026 at the earliest, and the second at least six months later.
This timetable is currently being reviewed, with a fault found in similar nuclear reactors in China meaning the design may need to be changed. EDF have not commented on whether this will affect the timescale for completing the project. These delays, and the consequent impact on other nuclear projects, such as Sizewell C and Wylfa, have resulted in serious failures to meet the government obligations to move to low carbon generation and taken up time, time which we are now desperately short of if we are to meet our target of reducing carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050.
The building of the two reactors that form the Sizewell C project is still not fully financed. Nor has the planning process been completed. All the work in progress so far is on vast quantities of paper and construction cannot commence until Sizewell C plant receives planning permission.
There remains considerable opposition to Sizewell C over the high cost of nuclear energy and environmental issues. The cost of a plant that is over 10 years away from generating power will start hitting electricity bills sometime soon. The BBC reported “Legislation allowing construction and financing costs to be added to customer bills, as Sizewell C is built over the next decade, is due for a second reading in the House of Commons next month.”
The UK government and EDF have pledged 20% of the cost each, but the additional 60% is yet to be found. Some of that is a levy on our electricity bills for a decade before Sizewell generates a single Kwh. The government’s plans to have eight nuclear reactors up and running by 2030 seem naively optimistic. New nuclear is not a quick fix, as our near neighbours will attest. The Finnish reactor, Olkiluoto 3, was started in 2005, but only went onto the grid seventeen years later, on 15 March this year.
Of the eight nuclear power plants announced back in 2010, Hinkley Point C might be generating by 2026 (16 years) and Sizewell C by 2032, subject to planning permission (22 years) None of the other 6 proposed nuclear plants are anywhere near getting off the ground.
France, a country which historically generates a large percentage of its electricity from nuclear, is in the process of building only one new reactor, a third at the Flamanville site. EDF, the state-owned energy giant, began work in December 2007 and the cost was estimated to be €3.3 billion. It is now expected to cost more than €12.7 billion and it is yet to generate a single kilowatt of power.
In contrast, according to the European Wind Energy Association, once planning permission is given, construction of a small-scale wind farm, 10MW or less, could take less than two months. A larger 50MW facility may take six months, although considerably smaller in scale, this is substantially quicker than any new nuclear. This has not stopped president Macron from announcing that his government will support the building of between six and fourteen new reactors.
A further elephant in the room is that the costs of new nuclear are highly “back loaded”, i.e., that by building them you commit to high levels of expenditure at the end of their working life, to remove the fuel rods, decommission, remove and store nuclear waste. The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority currently spend around £3 billion a year for Site Licence Companies to make the current decommissioned reactors safe.
The Nuclear Provision is the best estimate of how much it will cost to clean up 17 of the UK’s earliest nuclear sites over a programme lasting over 120 years……………………………………………………
All of this will be less significant if nuclear could deliver low carbon electricity at an affordable price. The biggest issue on the cost of nuclear energy is the so called “strike price”, the price which the government has agreed to pay the owners, EDF, for electricity from their nuclear stations. Originally EDF said that electricity from nuclear could be produced at around £24 per megawatt hour. The strike price is now set at £92. It has also been agreed that the strike price should rise in line with inflation, which as we know has reached a thirty-year high and is likely to continue to be high for the foreseeable future.
Although the cost of the raw materials for building wind turbines has increased, copper and steel in particular, the cost of generation by renewables has steadily decreased over time. The latest strike price for offshore wind is around £40 per megawatt hour and less for onshore wind. There have been several missed opportunities and poor decisions by both the Labour and Conservative parties and both party’s obsession with new nuclear have put us in a position where we need urgent action. In February 2004 the Labour party undertook a £40 billion project to update schools, but, despite intense lobbying, energy efficiency did not form part an integral part of that plan.
The Conservative party made changes to the planning system to make it virtually impossible to get permission to build onshore wind farms, although that policy has now been reversed. They also brought an end to the “feed in tariff (FITs)” for local solar power and increased VAT from 5% to 20% on solar installations – now VAT is zero as part of Sunak’s Spring statement.
Although FITs were replaced by the Smart Export Guarantee, this was significantly less financially attractive and has reduced the incentive to install Solar photovoltaic cells…………………………… more https://newsnet.scot/news-analysis/the-life-and-death-of-nuclear-power-plants/
Kenya. Treasury allocates Sh2bn for nuclear and coal units, but nuclear is unlikely to happen for decades.
By LYNET IGADWAH, WEDNESDAY APRIL 20 2022,
SUMMARY
- A task force appointed by President Uhuru Kenyatta to look into the country’s power purchase agreement (PPAs) recommended the dropping of the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (Nupea).
- The John Ngumi-led team argued that it was unlikely that Kenya would go into nuclear power production soon……………………………………… https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/bd/economy/treasury-allocates-sh2bn-for-nuclear-and-coal-units-3787880
Energy Department’s own survey shows 8 in 10 Britons support onshore wind – and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities says the Government should back it
Whilst government ministers continue to deride onshore wind as
‘unpopular’, the energy department’s recent public survey shows
otherwise – with 8 in 10 Britons surveyed expressing their support for
the technology, over twice the number endorsing new nuclear – leading the
Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) to urge the UK government to back it.
The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has
collected data every quarter since 2012, recording responses from the
public to a range of energy related questions. The latest public attitude
survey was carried out over the Winter of 2021/22 and published at the end
of last month.
The results reveal continued strong support for renewables,
with onshore wind receiving a favourable response. Contrary to the myth
that onshore wind is unpopular, only 4% of those surveyed registered their
opposition, with 8 in 10 saying they supported it. By way of contrast only
37% of participants supported the development of nuclear energy and only
17% supported the resumption of fracking for shale gas. The government’s
own UK Energy Security Strategy concedes that ‘Onshore wind is one of the
cheapest forms of renewable power’, yet there has been no public funding
made available, nor any target for new generation set, with only a vague
promise to ‘consult this year on developing local partnerships for a
limited number of supportive communities who wish to host new onshore wind
infrastructure in return for benefits, including lower energy bills’.
NFLA 20th April 2022
Grannies For The Future glue themselves to table in protest during nuclear power debate

Grannies glue themselves to table in protest during nuclear power debate.
The pair, ‘Grannies for the future’, took action as a speech was given in
praise of nuclear energy. Campaigning grandmothers glued themselves to a
table in a protest over climate change. The two women carried out the
demonstration during a Dorset Council meeting.
Councillors booed and
heckled the pair as they read out a statement criticising the authority for
its lack of action over the environmental issue. One later claimed she had
her statement ripped from her hand and the other alleged she had been
“rough handled”. Filming of the the meeting was stopped as the two, who
call themselves “Grannies for the Future”, entered the council chamber.
It meant the protest was not broadcast with the public not told what was
happening during the meeting on Thursday. The two, who had the word glue
written on their hands, acted as Weymouth councillor Louie O’Leary was
speaking in praise of nuclear power. It came as a motion by Conservative
leader Cllr Spencer Flower was about to be debated – a move which
protestors feared could have led to a more lenient approach to fossil fuel
and nuclear planning applications in the county.
Stoke on Trent Live 19th April 2022
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/grannies-glue-themselves-table-protest-6970737
U.S. Is Set to Launch a $6 Billion Effort to Save Nuclear Plants

Ari Natter, Bloomberg News 18 Apr 22, — The Energy Department is expected to provide details as soon as Monday on a $6 billion program aimed at keeping uneconomical nuclear plants in service, providing a lifeline to an industry that’s seen a raft of early reactor retirements driven by competition from cheaper power sources.
The program, funded through the $550 billion infrastructure bill signed into law last year, will let owners and operators of commercial nuclear reactors apply for credits for plants that are likely to shut down for economic reasons if the closures would lead to higher emissions. The agency is set to issue a guidance document this week detailing the application process.
……………….The program, known officially as the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, could provide a boost to operators including Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., Constellation Energy Corp. and Energy Harbor Corp. U.S. reactors have struggled to survive in the face of competition from cheap natural gas and renewable power. A dozen have already retired early for economic reasons,………
The Energy Department, which will administer the program, plans this week to issue guidance about how to apply for the program and will open a process for certification. The agency expects to issue preliminary credit award decisions following an application period of about 30 days, and “the first award cycle will prioritize and be limited to reactors that are approaching near term closure.” https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/u-s-is-set-to-launch-a-6-billion-effort-to-save-nuclear-plants-1.1753474
The average American tax-payer gave $900 to military contractors last year.

Most serious of all, there’s the problem of U.S. weapons feeding conflicts in ways the Pentagon didn’t foresee, but probably should have.
Compared to the $900 for Pentagon contractors, the average taxpayer contributed only about $27 to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $171 to K-12 education, and barely $5 to renewable energy.
Average US Taxpayer Gave $900 to Military Contractors Last Year, https://truthout.org/articles/average-us-taxpayer-gave-900-to-military-contractors-last-year/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1f951de0-ce82-4df9-b85e-0a76f6faf974
Lindsay Koshgarian, OtherWordsPUBLISHEDApril 17, 2022
ost of us want our tax dollars to be wisely used — especially around tax time.
You’ve probably heard a lot about corporations not paying taxes. Last year, individuals like you contributed six times more in income tax than corporations did.
But have you heard about how many of your tax dollars then end up in corporate pockets? It’s a lot — especially for corporations that contract with the Pentagon. They collect nearly half of all military spending.
The average taxpayer contributed about $2,000 to the military last year, according to a breakdown my colleagues and I prepared for the Institute for Policy Studies. More than $900 of that went to corporate military contractors.
In 2020, the largest Pentagon contractor, Lockheed Martin, took in $75 billion from taxpayers — and paid its CEO more than $23 million.
Unfortunately, this spending isn’t buying us a more secure world.
Last year, Congress added $25 billion the Pentagon didn’t ask for to its already gargantuan budget. Lawmakers even refused to let military leaders retire weapons systems they couldn’t use anymore. The extra money favored top military contractors that gave campaign money to a group of lawmakers, who refused to comment on it.
Then there’s simple price-gouging.
There’s the infamous case of TransDigm, a Pentagon contractor that charged the government $4,361 for a metal pin that should’ve cost $46 — and then refused to share cost data. Congress recently asked TransDigm to repay some of its misbegotten profits, but the Pentagon hasn’t cut off its business.
Somewhere between price-gouging and incompetence lies the F-35 jet fighter, an embarrassment the late Senator John McCain, a Pentagon booster, called “a scandal and a tragedy.”
Among the most expensive weapons systems ever, the F-35 has numerous failings. It’s spontaneously caught fire at least three times — hardly the outcome you’d expect for the top Pentagon contractor’s flagship program. The Pentagon has reduced its request for new F-35s this year by about a third, but Congress may reject that too.
Most serious of all, there’s the problem of U.S. weapons feeding conflicts in ways the Pentagon didn’t foresee, but probably should have.
When U.S. ground troops left Afghanistan, they left behind a huge array of military equipment, from armored vehicles to aircraft, that could now be in Taliban hands. The U.S. also left weapons in Iraq that fell into the hands of ISIS, including guns and an anti-tank missile.
Even weapons we sold to so-called allies like Saudi Arabia have ended up going to people affiliated with groups like al Qaeda.
Military weapons also end up on city streets at home. Over the years, civilian law agencies have received guns, armored vehicles, and even grenade launchers from the military, turning local police into near-military organizations.
Records also show that the Pentagon has lost hundreds of weapons which may have been stolen, including grenade launchers and rocket launchers. Some of these weapons have been used in crimes.
Taxpayers shouldn’t be spending $900 apiece for these outcomes. My team at the Institute for Policy Studies and others have demonstrated ways to cut up to $350 billion per year from the Pentagon budget, including what we spend on weapons contractors, without compromising our safety.
Even better, we could then put some of that money elsewhere.
Compared to the $900 for Pentagon contractors, the average taxpayer contributed only about $27 to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $171 to K-12 education, and barely $5 to renewable energy.
How much more could we get if we invested even a fraction of what we spend on military contractors for these dire needs?
Compared to the $900 for Pentagon contractors, the average taxpayer contributed only about $27 to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $171 to K-12 education, and barely $5 to renewable energy.
How much more could we get if we invested even a fraction of what we spend on military contractors for these dire needs?
Most Americans support shifting Pentagon funds to pay for domestic needs. Instead of making Americans fork over another $900 to corporate military contractors this year, Congress should put our dollars to better use.
-
Archives
- October 2026 (10)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS




