Japan won’t back U.N. exhibition unless Fukushima references removed, hibakusha say
|
Japan won’t back U.N. exhibition unless Fukushima references removed, hibakusha say https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/04/national/japan-pushes-remove-fukushima-references-u-n-exhibition/#.XmAll6gzbIUKYODO The Foreign Ministry has said it may withdraw its backing for an upcoming exhibition at the United Nations unless references to the Fukushima nuclear disaster are removed, a group representing hibakusha has said.
The Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations is set to mount the exhibition during the review conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, from April 27 to May 22. The ministry, which has supported the confederation’s three previous exhibitions, suggested it could halt such support unless the requested changes are made, said Sueichi Kido, the group’s secretary general. The exhibition in the lobby of the U.N. headquarters in New York will consist of around 50 panels mainly describing the horrors of nuclear weapons, including the aftermath of the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two of the panels will touch on the nuclear disasters at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant in 2011 and Ukraine’s Chernobyl power plant in 1986. According to Kido, the ministry claims the panels contradict the spirit of the nonproliferation treaty, which allows for the peaceful use of nuclear technology. A ministry official said its support for the exhibition was under review and declined to confirm whether any pressure had been applied to change its content. Kido said there had been a “breach of trust” and that the confederation, which represents survivors of the atomic bombings, plans to hold the exhibition as planned with or without the ministry’s support. “Atomic bombs and nuclear accidents are the same in the sense that they cause harm through radiation. As a victim of atomic bombing, Japan has a responsibility to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons,” Kido added. |
|
France starts a series of nuclear power shutdowns
|
France begins winding down its reliance on nuclear powerFrance began shutting down its oldest nuclear plant last month after 43 years of operation, the first in a series of closures the government has proposed though the the country won’t altogether abandon its reliance on nuclear power. Bellona March 4, 2020 by Charles Digges
France began shutting down its oldest nuclear plant last month after 43 years of operation, the first in a series of closures the government has proposed though the the country won’t altogether abandon its reliance on nuclear power. Yet the closure of the two reactors at the Fessenheim plant along the Rhine River on France’s border with Switzerland and Germany, is part of a broad energy strategy to rely more on renewable energy sources. That strategy would see French dependence on nuclear energy from supplying three-quarters of its electricity to about half by 2035. The shutdown has also been a key goal of anti-nuclear campaigners since the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Experts have noted that the reactors at Fessenheim, brought online in 1977, fall far short of even those reactors at Fukushima, with some warning that seismic and flooding risks in the Alsace region have been underestimated. Prime Minister Edouard Philippe says the plant’s second reactor will be shut down in June 30 – though it will be several months before both reactors go cold and their used fuel can start to be removed. Another dozen reactors that will soon exceed their 40-year age limit must close by 2035 to meet the phase-down target. The plan also sees France closing its remaining coal plants, and moving to renewables like solar and wind to close the energy gap and help fight climate change. But at the same time, state-owned energy giant EDF is racing to get its first next-generation reactor running at the Flamanville plant in 2022– already 10 years behind schedule – and more may be in the pipeline. France’s history with nuclear power runs deep. The country runs 58 nuclear power plants, which sprang up largely as a response to the oil crisis in the 1970s. Those were built on the foundation of the CEA atomic energy commission, which was established in the wake of World War II in an effort to reestablish the nation’s sovereignty. Activists like Charlotte Mijeon, who is the spokesperson for the anti-nuclear group Sortir du nucléaire, told Voice of America news the Fessenheim closure is welcome news, but contended it doesn’t go far enough. “The government is closing one nuclear power plant, but it should not make us forget that the rest of the nuclear fleet is aging,” she told the agency. She also pointed to the huge subsidies nuclear power receives from the government, which they say makes it difficult for renewable power to compete……… France’s long insistence on using nuclear power has irritated Germany and Switzerland, which, as minority shareholders in Fessenheim, have long urged its shutdown. Germany also has plans of its own to phase out its nuclear power plants completely, a task it says it will finish by 2022. Polls among the French show growing resistance to nuclear power, with one survey taken in 2018 showing 53 percent of the population against the technology. https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2020-03-france-begins-winding-down-its-reliance-on-nuclear-power |
|
Strange turnaround for South Africa’s EFF leader Julius Malema – nuclear best for blacks, renewables for white elites??
Malema goes nuclear on Eskom’s future, Daily Maverick, By Ferial Haffajee• 1 March 2020 Twice in the past month, EFF leader Julius Malema has used high-profile platforms to bat for nuclear energy as a key plank of South Africa’s energy planning. It’s a clear U-turn for the populist leader who was for years vehemently opposed to Zuma’s proposed nuclear deal with Russia.
On Friday, capping a march of thousands of supporters to the Eskom HQ, EFF leader Julius Malema handed over a memorandum to CEO Andre de Ruyter.
In it, he stated a demand he had first made in February in his debate on the state of the nation:
“Eskom should build nuclear power stations using a build, operate and transfer model with a clear illustration of how the private sector will use their money, operate them for an agreed period, transfer operation and maintenance skills to state-employed engineers, artisans, electricians and other skills needed to operate a nuclear power station.”
In his speech in the pouring rain outside Eskom, Malema did not mention nuclear energy, but it is a prominent part of the three-page memorandum, now in Eskom’s hands.
The red sea of EFF marchers who marched for nine kilometres from the Innes Free Park to Megawatt Park signals that Malema and the EFF have entered the energy battle as key protagonists. He appears to now be the political leader of a loose coalition of interests pushing for nuclear energy procurement, the maintenance of coal as a key feedstock for the national grid as well as a slowdown in the pace of renewable energy production.
This places Malema in clear opposition to the “green revolution” pledged by President Cyril Ramaphosa in his 2019 State of the Nation Address and the much larger role for the private sector in energy production outlined by Finance Minister Tito Mboweni in #Budget2020 last week. ….
Nuclear — the black option?
Malema and his deputy president Floyd Shivambu have been long-term opponents of independent power producers selling renewable energy in bid windows opened by Eskom.
There is a growing view across the EFF and sections of the ANC that nuclear is a “black option” for energy professionals who want in on a new market while “renewable energy” is dominated by white capital, in South Africa’s race short-hand.
The reason for this is that the first bid windows featured many European and US multinational companies making a gambit for some of what were then the biggest renewable energy deals in the developing South and also among the most expensive.
Malema’s audacious Eskom march on Friday also revealed a new political front opening up in the energy wars. The EFF aligned with Transform RSA, the movement led by nuclear energy proponent Adil Nchabeleng who is the most prolific and powerful mover behind the lobby opposing renewable energy procurement by Eskom. Nchabeleng was on the EFF stage on Friday; he is also well regarded in the ANC…….
Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency, uses a build, operate and transfer model across the continent where it has enjoyed great success in getting deals from African leaders.
In addition, it also provides the start-up capital for nuclear power stations in vendor financing deals. Rosatom was close to signing an estimated R1-trillion deal which was strongly punted by former president Jacob Zuma who fired two finance ministers for slow-footing his nuclear ambitions. The company is still hoping South Africa will see the light on energy.
Zuma almost achieved the deal with Russia, but it was stopped in court when Judge Lee Bozalek in April 2017 ruled in favour of the case brought by Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei) against government’s plans to build a fleet of nuclear power stations.
In 2016, Malema set his stall against the nuclear deal. …..
SA’s IRP downgrades nuclear
The pro-nuclear lobby has lost governing party political influence in South Africa – the integrated resource plan launched by Mineral Resources and Energy minister Gwede Mantashe in late 2019 suggested a limited role for nuclear in the future.
It now appears to have powerful new friends in the EFF which has switched its opposition to nuclear power to active support.
While the pro-nuclear, anti-renewables energy lobby says the costs of nuclear are more competitive, the cost of water, solar and other power is steadily coming down. Coal-fired power stations are also quickly losing investor interest as financiers turn away from fossil fuels.
Daily Maverick approached two EFF spokespersons for comment, but did not get a response. DM https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-03-01-malena-goes-nuclear-on-eskoms-future/
Nuclear power a very bad option for the Philippines
Greenpeace: Proposal to add nuclear to country’s energy mix ‘plain irresponsible, irrational’ Gaea Katreena Cabico (Philstar.com) – March 4, 2020 MANILA, Philippines — The inclusion of nuclear power in the Philippines’ energy mix will only bring more problems and debt to Filipinos, an environmental organization said as it urged the government to reject the proposal of the Energy department.
Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi sought President Rodrigo Duterte’s nod for a proposed executive order to add nuclear power to the country’s energy sources, Malacañang said Tuesday.Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo said Cusi claimed that tapping nuclear power can help solve the country’s energy gap.’
According to environmental group Greenpeace Philippines, there is no rational reason for the Energy department to push a nuclear power agenda.
“Nuclear power is the most dangerous source of electricity and throughout their life cycle, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change. In other parts of the world, nuclear facilities are being decommissioned and phased out from energy plan,” Greenpeace campaigner Khevin Yu said.
From the 1960s until the mid 1980s, Ferdinand Marcos adopted a nuclear energy program and built the Bataan Nuclear Plant, called by critics the “monster” of Morong town. It was mothballed after President Corazon Aquino assumed office in 1986 due to safety concerns.
Nuclear power a costly option
Yu also said that nuclear is the most costly option for power generation.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimated the cost of a plant without financing would be US$2,000 per kilowatt. In their updated study released in 2009, the estimated cost was at US$4,000.
“Nuclear power will bring more problems and debt to the Filipino people,” Yu said, adding that pushing it as an energy source is “plain irresponsible and irrational.”
Safety concerns
Another big issue is the absence of safe and permanent storage of radioactive spent fuel, Yu said.
In 2018, Philippine Nuclear Research Institute Director Carlo Arcilla stressed the need to put forward radioactive waste management for discussion.
“It’s (nuclear power development) like putting up a mansion without toilets if you’re not talking of radioactive wastes,” Arcilla said then.
Duterte in 2018 said safety should be the priority when deciding whether to tap nuclear energy for the power needs of Filipinos.
Focus on renewable energy instead……https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/03/04/1998107/greenpeace-proposal-add-nuclear-countrys-energy-mix-plain-irresponsible-irrational
Trump picks nuclear envoy – Marshall Billingslea, formerly involved in torture program
Trump picks official involved in Bush-era torture program as his nuclear envoy
- Marshall Billingslea oversaw Guantánamo detainees’ treatment
- Trump wants to negotiate new deal with Russia and China, Julian Borger in Washington, 5 Mar 2020 The Trump administration has chosen a special envoy for nuclear talks, with the principal task of negotiating a new arms control agreement with Russia and China, according to congressional sources and former officials. The proposed special negotiator, Marshall Billingslea, is currently the under-secretary for terrorist financing at the US Treasury. His nomination last year for a top human rights job at the state department was stalled by controversy over the extent of his involvement in the torture programme established by the George W Bush administration, in which he oversaw the conditions of detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
Neither the state department nor the Treasury responded to a request for comment, but congressional staffers and former officials said Billingslea had accepted the post.
The Trump administration has been trying to recruit a high-level arms control negotiator for several months, but several former Republican officials with significant experience in the field turned down the offer.
Billingslea, who has a long record as a hawk on nuclear weapons issues, faces a daunting task. Donald Trump wants to negotiate a new agreement to reduce the vast nuclear weapons arsenals of the major powers, to replace the New Start deal with Russia agreed by Barack Obama.
Trump wants China to be included in a new agreement but Beijing has so far refused on the grounds that the Chinese arsenal is a small fraction (estimated at about a 20th) of its US and Russian counterparts.Trump has accepted an invitation from Vladimir Putin to take part in talks on nuclear arms control and other strategic issues at a summit meeting of the five permanent members of the UN security council, most likely at the time of the UN general assembly in September.
One of Billingslea’s tasks would be to prepare for the summit, but in the absence of a major shift by China, he would have to advise Trump on whether or not to extend the New Start deal – the last nuclear arms control agreement to have survived the Trump era – as an interim measure. That is something the president is highly reluctant to do, because the 2010 agreement is part of the Obama legacy Trump has been eager to expunge.
Billingslea is a former aide to the late Republican senator Jesse Helms, who was a fervent opponent of arms control efforts during the cold war, for example blocking US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and campaigning for the US withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty. AT TOP https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/04/trump-nuclear-talks-envoy-marshall-billingslea
Bill in California to call nuclear power “renewable”!
|
Should California classify nuclear power as renewable? San Diego Union Tribune By ROB NIKOLEWSKI, MARCH 3, 2020
Although he admits it’s a long shot, a member of the California Legislature from the district that includes the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant has introduced a bill that would add nuclear power to the state’s list of renewable energy sources……..
Established in 2002, California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard spells out the power sources eligible to count toward the state’s goals to wean itself of fossil fuels. The list includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, small hydroelectric facilities and even tidal currents. The standard has been updated, currently calling for 60 percent of California’s electricity to come from renewables by 2030 and 100 percent from carbon-free sources by 2045. Nuclear power is not part of the portfolio standard and Diablo Canyon — the only remaining nuclear plant in California — is scheduled to stop producing electricity by 2025. Pacific Gas & Electric, the operators of Diablo Canyon, announced in 2016 an agreement with a collection of environmental and labor groups to shut down the plant. PG&E said Diablo will become uneconomical to run due to changes in California’s power grid — such as growth of renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency measures and the migration of customers from traditional utilities to community choice energy programs. But Cunningham thinks the passage of Assembly Bill 2898, which he introduced last week, could give the plant literally a new lease on life…….. When told of Cunningham’s bill, David Weisman, outreach coordinator for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said flatly, “Diablo Canyon has become a burdensome, costly nuclear white elephant.” Critics say nuclear power by definition cannot be considered renewable because it leaves behind waste in the form of spent nuclear fuel that then has to be stored. The federal government has not found a site to deposit the waste that has built up over decades from commercial nuclear power plants……. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/story/2020-03-03/should-california-count-nuclear-power-count-as-renewable |
|
Nuclear power project Bradwell B public consultation to go live this week
Nuclear power project Bradwell B public consultation to go live this week, Maldon Standard , 4 Mar 20, By Pape Gueye @PMGueye “……… Proposals for Bradwell B were unveiled today as the first stage of consultation gets under way.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks until May 27, with exhibitions taking place at 15 venues across Essex…..
The proposals for Bradwell B will be developed over several years before the project submits an application to the UK Planning Inspectorate.
The final decision whether to grant permission will be taken by the Secretary of State.
A group campaigning against Bradwell B is urging residents to attend the EDF energy and Chinese General Nuclear stage one consultation events and make their views known.
Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has been campaigning against the power station plan.
A spokesman said: “Any support will be gratefully welcome, ranging from just turning up to spending the whole time at a venue demonstrating your concern.”
The first consultation takes place tomorrow at Steeple Village Hall from 2pm until 8pm.
To see the other consultation dates, visit banng.info. https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/18280459.nuclear-power-project-bradwell-b-public-consultation-go-live-week/
Visit bradwellb.co.uk.
Poland’s nuclear power development with USA to cost $15.56 billion
|
Poland faces $15 bln nuclear power bill over 20 years – minister , https://www.reuters.com/article/poland-energy-nuclear/poland-faces-15-bln-nuclear-power-bill-over-20-years-minister-idUSL8N2AX3G7 RUDA SLASKA, Poland, March 4 (Reuters) – Poland will have to spend 60 billion zlotys ($15.56 billion) on its planned nuclear power plants over the next 20 years, the Polish minister responsible for energy infrastructure Piotr Naimski said on Wednesday.Poland generates most of its electricity from carbon-intensive coal and is the only EU state that has not pledged to achieve climate neutrality in 2050.
But facing pressure from the European Union to reduce emissions, it has planned to build 6-9 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear generation by 2040. “This will require spending 60 billion zlotys. These are huge amounts but our state can afford it,” Naimski told a conference in Silesia, a coal region in south of Poland. Poland hopes to cooperate with the United States on its nuclear energy project. Also French President Emmanuel Macron said last month that France supports Poland’s transition away from coal by using nuclear technology to produce electricity. ($1 = 3.8564 zlotys) (Reporting by Wojciech Zurawski; writing by Agnieszka Barteczko; editing by Barbara Lewis) |
|
Busting the lies of the Australian Government about “new” nuclear reactors
The core propositions of non-traditional reactor proponents – improved economics, proliferation resistance, safety margins, and waste management – should be reevaluated.
Before construction of non-traditional reactors begins, the economic implications of the back end of these nontraditional fuel cycles must be analyzed in detail; disposal costs may be unpalatable………. reprocessing remains a security liability of dubious economic benefit
Non-traditional” is used to encompass both small modular light water reactors (Generation III+) and Generation IV reactors (including fast reactors, thermal-spectrum molten salt reactors, and high temperature gas reactors)
|
Burning waste or playing with fire? Waste management considerations for non-traditional reactors Full Text
The Industry Push to Force Nuclear Power in Australia https://nonuclearpowerinaustralia.wordpress.com/2020/03/02/burning-waste-or-playing-with-fire-waste-management-considerations-for-non-traditional-reactors-full-text/ by nuclearhistory March 2, 2020 The following paper is copied here in order to counter the false, incorrect and erroneous propaganda published by the Australian Government and its Parliamentary Committee for lying to the Australian people about so-called new nuclear reactor designs, all of which were rejected by competent authorities in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The residues produced by these test reactors continue to cost the American taxpayer money and continue to present the American people with stored, hazardous radioactive waste which is also high chemically reactive. |
Big climate change policy unlikely no matter who wins the White House
Big climate change policy unlikely no matter who wins the White House
Amy Harder Don’t hold your breath for big climate policy changes — even if a Democrat wins the White House.Why it matters: Congress is likely to remain gridlocked on the matter, leading to either more of the same with President Trump’s re-election or a regulatory swing back to the left no matter which Democrat wins — but far short of a legislative overhaul.
The big picture: Climate change is reaching a new high-water mark as a political concern for American voters, and Democratic presidential nominees are promising aggressive policies.
- That in and of itself is a sea change from prior elections. Even still, these worries and pledges are unlikely to translate into any major new laws in the next few years (at least).
Here’s why, with potential scenarios mapped out.
Trump wins re-election
While Trump is uniquely unpredictable in presidential history, he’s made it clear since moving into the White House that he’s not interested in pursuing any sort of actual climate legislation on Capitol Hill.
More of the same is most likely, in two important ways:
- More curtailing of environmental regulations — and defending them in court.
- More pressure on other actors — like companies, states and other countries — to take bigger action on their own as the void of U.S. presidential leadership grows.
Any Democrat wins
All Democrats have aggressive climate plans, but it’s an open question whether any would first push climate legislation over other priorities — especially health care………
Regardless of congressional priority, any Democratic president would swing Washington’s executive-action pendulum far back in the other direction. …..
A progressive Democrat wins
… like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. ……This type of all-encompassing and hyper-aggressive legislation is unlikely to get universal support among Democrats (to say nothing of universal Republican opposition) — which makes them extremely unlikely to get through the Senate.
- This is because Democrats with more moderate ideologies or those representing energy-intensive states are unlikely to support the broader socioeconomic measures and such aggressive moves away from fossil fuels, partly because many of those jobs are represented by unions……..
A more moderate Democrat wins
… like Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar or Michael Bloomberg.
I anticipate these politicians would be (relatively) more open to trying to work with Republicans on climate change than their progressive counterparts……
As Congress talks climate policy, carbon price gets no love
New lobbying urging Congress to support a price on carbon emissions is not convincing lawmakers to warm up to the policy.
Why it matters: A carbon price is widely considered one of the most economically efficient ways to tackle climate change. But, economics be damned, its politics remain deeply unpopular. https://www.axios.com/climate-policy-changes-unlikely-7ecf6cc3-c42c-4d7c-b492-41d73433a015.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
Nuclear power not economic, nor safe, but it bolsters a secretive autocratic regime, United Arab Emirates
|
In February, the UAE government in Abu Dhabi licensed the first of four 1.4 gigawatt nuclear reactors after 12 years of construction on the Persian Gulf coast at Barakah, just east of the UAE border with Saudi Arabia. When the remaining three reactors at the $25 billion plant are completed, Barakah will reach its total nameplate capacity of 5.6 gigawatts. As the South Korea-led consortium loads fuel rods and tests the reactor’s output, the UAE will finally have a major source of zero-carbon [?] electricity on a power grid that relies upon fossil fuels—mainly natural gas—for 97 percent of its electric power generation, a much higher percentage than that of other countries where consumption is high. …… The UAE is now the third nuclear-competent state in the Middle East. Israel, with its stockpiles of nuclear weapons, was the first. Iran, with its single one-gigawatt nuclear power plant at Bushehr (just across the Gulf from the UAE’s) was second. Iran’s uranium enrichment program has extended to levels beyond that needed for electricity production, suggesting that it might follow the secretive Israeli path toward weaponization. The UAE is leveraging nuclear power in a different way. It has committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Convention on Nuclear Safety to secure international cooperation. The UAE’s 2009 agreement with the United States explicitly bans the Gulf country from developing technologies needed to enrich uranium and reprocess spent reactor fuel. Advocates tout the “Abu Dhabi model” as a path to climate-friendly electricity while safeguarding against proliferation and the potential for development of a breakout nuclear weapons capability. The drawbacks. Abu Dhabi’s experience with nuclear power has been difficult, and the country’s National Energy Strategy 2050 suggests that no further nuclear development is in the cards. Cost thresholds and completion deadlines fell by the wayside years prior to completion of the first reactor. The complexity, toxicity, and strategic sensitivity of nuclear power make it an uncompetitive choice based solely on competitive cost calculations. Abu Dhabi’s difficulties with Barakah began at launch in 2008 with the over-ambitious nine-year start-up deadline, then set for 2017. Unrealistic expectations were undermined during construction by revelations that the main South Korean contractor KEPCO justified its low bid for the plant by dropping post-Chernobyl safety features, including an extra wall in the reactor containment building. KEPCO was also said to have built Barakah’s prototype reactor in South Korea using counterfeit cables and other parts procured using forged safety documents. Retrofitting of the Korean plant delayed the training of the team of UAE operators. Some counterfeit Korean parts were apparently installed in the Barakah plant as well, but few details have emerged about whether they have been replaced. Separately, inspectors were said to have found that all four reactor containment buildings suffered cracks in concrete walls that required repair. These issues contributed to the three-year delay in bringing the all four Barakah rectors online. The project has been subject to criticism by analysts who argue that the plant’s reduced safety features and other deficiencies render it more susceptible to a radiation release, including in the event of a military strike. The latter is not a remote possibility; in 2017, Houthi rebels battling UAE forces inside Yemen claimed to have targeted the Barakah plant in an apparently unsuccessful cruise missile strike…….. From the perspective of an autocratic regime like that in Abu Dhabi, there are further political benefits from civil nuclear power. Nuclearization tends to involve measures that bolster the strength and control of the state through increased internal security and enhanced coercive apparatus, justified by the technology’s inherent hazards. Vulnerabilities in nuclear systems also create new requirements for secrecy and surveillance, and less tolerance for dissent. In these ways, protecting the fuel cycle does double duty in bolstering regime security and vigilance..….. https://thebulletin.org/2020/03/for-uae-the-political-perks-of-nuclear-power-eclipse-economics/# |
|
Nuclear lobby attack’s Anti Nuclear laws of Australian State of Victoria
Nuclear lobby takes aim at Victoria to tackle prohibitions, Michael West Media, by Noel Wauchope | Feb 26, 2020 Having dithered on real action to tackle global warming, some in the Coalition are now taking a keen interest in solving it — by going nuclear. Noel Wauchope investigates what’s behind the sudden push to overturn legislation prohibiting the exploration and mining of thorium and uranium and puts a definitive case against a nuclear industry in Australia.
A batch of Coalition MP’s are pushing nuclear power as Australia’s answer to climate change. The group includes Katie Allen inner-city Melbourne Liberal, Ted O’Brien, Queensland LNP, Trent Zimmerman, North Sydney Liberal, Bridget Archer Tasmanian Liberal, David Gillespie Nationals NSW, Rick Wilson West Australian Liberal, and Keith Pitt, LNP from North Queensland, who was this week promoted to cabinet as Resources Minister. Former deputy prime minister and Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce, is also a staunch proponent of nuclear power.
Arguing that nuclear power is the answer to bushfires and a heating climate when these are conversely nuclear’s greatest threat is akin to an argument by the Mad Hatter and the March Hare. The US National Academies Press compiled a lengthy and comprehensive report on risks of transporting nuclear wastes. They concluded that among various risks, the most serious and significant is fire. And indeed, climate change, in general, carries serious threats to nuclear reactors and the entire nuclear fuel chain.
But any port in a storm when you’re trying to sell a product that is expensive, unpopular, illegal in Australia and has the problem of long-lasting toxic wastes.
The Australian public’s renewed enthusiasm for action on climate change was timely. The nuclear lobby had, coincidentally already geared itself up for a campaign to overturn Australia’s State and Federal nuclear prohibition laws. The current Victorian inquiry is the latest in a spate of Parliamentary Inquiries aimed at removing these laws. Submissions are due by this Friday, 28 February.
The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference (TOR) are narrow:……..
It is clear the goal is to remove Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983. The very first TOR makes the mining of uranium and thorium as the prime concern. Given Victoria could run a nuclear power station with uranium/thorium sourced from elsewhere, it is clear that, after years of pressure by thorium lobbyists, the underlying goal of this inquiry is to overturn the legislation prohibiting the exploration and mining of thorium and uranium in Victoria.
The Victorian legislation was brought in to protect this State’s precious agricultural land and iconic ocean coast from polluting mining industries. South Gippsland is particularly rich in thorium.
Nuclear lobby tries to water down Victorian prohibition
The Terms of Reference are overtly biased: with no qualification, they promote the nuclear industry as undoubtedly beneficial to Victoria. This is ludicrous, as the global nuclear industry is in a state of decline.
Meanwhile, the renewable energy technologies of wind, solar and storage are now recognised by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator as, by far, the cheapest form of low carbon options for Australia, and are likely to dominate the global energy mix in coming decades
This first Term of Reference assumes that the “exploration and production” will result in nuclear power plants for Victoria, otherwise why do it? It also assumes that nuclear power will be effective in lowering C02 emissions.
However, there is no point in this “exploration and production” as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power is no solution to climate change as in Dr. Paul Dorfman et al’s response to James Hansen on 20 December 2019 in the Financial Times.…….
The Terms of Reference are overtly biased: with no qualification, they promote the nuclear industry as undoubtedly beneficial to Victoria. This is ludicrous, as the global nuclear industry is in a state of decline.
Meanwhile, the renewable energy technologies of wind, solar and storage are now recognised by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator as, by far, the cheapest form of low carbon options for Australia, and are likely to dominate the global energy mix in coming decades
This first Term of Reference assumes that the “exploration and production” will result in nuclear power plants for Victoria, otherwise why do it? It also assumes that nuclear power will be effective in lowering C02 emissions.
However, there is no point in this “exploration and production” as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power is no solution to climate change as in Dr. Paul Dorfman et al’s response to James Hansen on 20 December 2019 in the Financial Times.……… .https://www.michaelwest.com.au/nuclear-lobby-takes-aim-at-victoria-to-tackle-prohibitions/
New Mexico’s elected leaders waver on Holtec’s nuclear waste plan
|
Congresswoman: Science Should Guide Nuclear Storage Decision, By The Associated Press, Feb. 25, 2020, ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A member of New Mexico’s congressional delegation wants to ensure a “sound and robust” scientific review is done before federal regulators decide whether to sign off on plans for a multibillion-dollar temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. U.S. Rep. Xochitl Torres Small in an interview with The Associated Press acknowledged that the growing stockpile of used fuel at commercial reactors around the U.S. is a national problem and that elected leaders need to ensure New Mexico does not pay an unfair price as part of the solution. “My concern is making sure that we’re looking at the science and that we are doing our best to evaluate based on that, not based on economic considerations or based on fear or bias, but based on how do we solve a challenge that is a national challenge,” the Democrat said. While elected leaders in Eddy and Lea counties support the project, it has garnered fierce opposition from nuclear watchdog groups, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and other members of the state’s congressional delegation. They are concerned about the state becoming a permanent dump since the federal government is far from having any long-term plan for dealing with the tons of spent fuel building up at nuclear power plants around the nation……. New Jersey-based Holtec International is seeking a 40-year license from federal regulators to build what it has described as a state-of-the-art complex near Carlsbad. The site in southeastern New Mexico is remote and geologically stable, the company has said. Holtec executives also have said the four-layer casks that would hold the spent fuel would be made of thick steel and lead and transported on a designated train with guards and guns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in the process of considering Holtec’s application. It could be next year before a decision is made. Torres Small said the clock is ticking for elected leaders to find a permanent solution as spent fuel is now stored at a variety of dangerous locations scattered across the U.S., including near important waterways. New Mexico already is home to the U.S. government’s only underground repository for Cold War-era waste generated over decades by nuclear research and bomb-making. Some watchdogs are concerned the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant could become the final destination for other types of waste as the government prepares to ramp up production of the plutonium cores that serve as triggers for weapons in the nation’s nuclear arsenal. Torres Small couched her support for production of the plutonium coresby saying New Mexico has a long history of bearing a burden when it comes to nuclear development and waste. She said the focus should be on making sure the state and its residents are kept “whole and strong” as national security obligations are met. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/25/business/ap-us-nuclear-waste-new-mexico.html  |
|
Is Cumbria about to become the world’s plutonium dump?
February 24, 2020During the last search process for a burial site for the UK’s nuclear waste, which ended in January 2013, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) offered repeated assurances that only the UK’s nuclear waste would be buried in a UK Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). Many questioned at the time whether the NDA could be trusted to keep its word, and it became apparent in mid-2012 that it could not be trusted. The NDA had accepted 4 tonnes of plutonium from Germany in a ‘commercially advantageous arrangement’ according to Charles Hendry, the UK’s Energy Minister at the time. In other words the NDA had been paid to take ownership of the German plutonium.President Trump, eyeing the election campaign contradicts his administration on Nevada nuclear waste dump
One Side of a Nuclear Waste Fight: Trump. The Other: His Administration.
The president, eyeing the battleground state of Nevada, has made clear he opposes a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, reversing a policy that was made in his name.
-
Mr. Trump, who in recent weeks seemed to end his administration’s support for moving nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, a proposal that had been embraced by his appointees for three years despite his own lack of interest
- “Why should you have nuclear waste in your backyard?” Mr. Trump asked the crowd at a rally in Las Vegas on Friday, to applause, noting that his recently released budget proposal did not include funding to license the site, as previous ones had. applause, noting that his recently released budget proposal did not include funding to license the site, as previous ones had.
|
The story of the muddled and shifting position on Yucca Mountain is partly one of an administration focused on Mr. Trump’s re-election chances in a battleground state that he lost to Hillary Clinton by two percentage points in 2016. But it is also emblematic of a White House where the president has strong impulses on only a narrow set of issues, and policy is sometimes made in his name regardless of whether he approves of it. ………..
The president made his latest move after a monthslong policy debate inside the White House over finally breaking with support for Yucca, officials said…….
Nationally, Republicans have long favored the proposal, which was developed in the late 1980s and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. But Nevada politicians of both parties have remained steadfastly opposed to the policy, which is deeply unpopular in the state…….
most Republican leaders outside of the state remained supportive. While the plans for Yucca remain law as set under Mr. Bush, Congress has never moved to fund it since…..
previous energy secretary, Rick Perry, supported the measure, and as the Office of Management and Budget listed $120 million in the president’s budget to restart the licensing process of the site. It was listed as one of the administration’s priorities. ……..
At a House energy subcommittee hearing two weeks ago, Mark W. Menezes, the president’s nominee for deputy energy secretary, prompted alarm at the White House when he said, “What we’re trying to do is to put together a process that will give us a path to permanent storage at Yucca.” After White House officials expressed concern, Mr. Menezes put out a statement saying that he fully supported Mr. Trump’s decision.
Whether that will be enough to reassure Nevadans about Mr. Trump’s intentions remains to be seen. “Nevadans aren’t going to just forget that Trump spent the first three years of his administration trying to treat the state as a dumping site,” said Rebecca Kirszner Katz, a former adviser to Mr. Reid. “Donald Trump had an opportunity to be on the right side of a major issue in a huge battleground state, and he bungled it.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/us/politics/trump-yucca-mountain-nevada.html
AT THE BEGINNING Before the 2018 midterm elections, Senator Dean Heller stood with President Trump in the glittering Trump International Hotel near the Las Vegas Strip, looking out from the top floor, and pointed.
“I said, ‘See those railroad tracks?’” Mr. Heller, a Nevada Republican who lost his seat later that year, recalled in an interview. Nuclear waste to be carted to Yucca Mountain for permanent storage would have to travel along the tracks, within a half-mile of the hotel, Mr. Heller said.
I think he calculated pretty quickly what that meant,” Mr. Heller said. “I think it all made sense. There was a moment of reflection, of, ‘Oh, OK.’” Whether the waste would have traveled along those particular tracks is a subject of debate. But the conversation appears to have helped focus Mr. Trump, who in recent weeks seemed to end his administration’s support for moving nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, a proposal that had been embraced by his appointees for three years despite his own lack of interest. bungled it.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/us/politics/trump-yucca-mountain-nevada.html
|
|
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (279)
- 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
