Cuts to public benefit programs,$billions to nuclear weapons – Trump’s 2021 budget
 Trump’s 2021 budget: More nuclear spending, less of almost everything else, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists By Lawrence J. Korb, February 12, 2020 The Trump administration’s budget request for 2021 has its priorities backward. Rather than expand the nuclear weapons budget at the expense of everything else, the United States could meet its goals with a much leaner nuclear force, leaving more money for the programs that will actually make the country safer.
Given that the US defense secretary has been arguing for the Pentagon to focus more resources on challenges from strategic competitors such as China and Russia, one would have expected that ships and combat aircraft programs would have received increased funding in the Trump administration’s latest request. But, in that request, not only did these programs not grow, they were actually cut back both from their projected increases and below fiscal 2020 levels. But what did grow in real terms was funding for nuclear weapons programs. In fiscal 2020, the Defense Department will spend about $25 billion on modernizing the weapons in its nuclear arsenal. For 2021, it seeks to grow that account by $4 billion, to a total of about $29 billion, a 16 percent increase. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the part of the Energy Department that develops nuclear technology, wants to spend another $20 billion, a $3 billion (or 19 percent) increase over 2020. Together this means that the Trump administration proposes to spend about $50 billion on its nuclear weapon programs. If one adds what it will spend on cleaning up nuclear sites and on missile defense, that number climbs to about $75 billion. …….. To spend its money more wisely, the Trump administration needs to extend the New START treaty with the Russians and get back to the bargaining table, so it can begin cutting its nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 deployed nuclear weapons and cancel both the long range standoff weapon and the land-based portion of its nuclear modernization program. That will allow the United States to devote more of its limited resources to programs that actually make the country and the world safer. https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/trumps-2021-budget-more-nuclear-spending-less-of-almost-everything-else/ |
|
Trump’s 2021 budget boosts nuclear energy
Trump’s budget continues to boost nuclear energy, He proposed $1.2 billion for nuclear energy programs and R&D, The Verge, By Justine Calma@justcalma Feb 10, 2020, Donald Trump’s budget proposal for 2021 earmarks $1.2 billion for nuclear energy research and development and related programs. That’s significantly more than the $824 million Trump proposed in his budget the previous year. Even with the sizable increase in requested funds, the amount is less than the $1.5 billion that Congress allocated for nuclear energy last year.
Trump sold the bump in funding as a way to promote “revitalization of the domestic industry and the ability of domestic technologies to compete abroad.” His administration also wants to ramp up uranium production in the US, calling it “an issue of national security.”
Keeping the nation’s nuclear reactors online has been a priority for Trump since taking office. Two bills he signed into law sped up the development of advanced nuclear reactors and streamlined the permitting processes. He’s also allocated funds, including $300 million in this year’s proposal, toward a Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) meant to test and develop advanced reactor fuels and materials. Nuclear power currently makes up 20 percent of the US energy mix and half of its carbon-free electricity. Nevertheless, nuclear energy has struggled to gain a larger foothold in the US.
…….. Last week, Trump seemingly backed away from a proposed waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which has been controversial ever since it was proposed in 1987. The proposed dump for radioactive waste is political kryptonite for someone who might want the state’s votes (Trump lost Nevada in 2016). “Nevada, I hear you on Yucca Mountain and my Administration will RESPECT you!” Trump tweeted on February 6th. “My Administration is committed to exploring innovative approaches – I’m confident we can get it done!” Trump had previously asked for funds to complete the nuclear waste repository in previous budget proposals…….
Trump’s $4.8 trillion budget proposal still needs to make its way through Congress, where it’s likely to face a fight. But there has been bipartisan support for nuclear energy in the past — last year, Congress upped the 2020 budget for nuclear energy by nearly $700 million.
“This sends a strong message that the Department of Energy (DOE) is all in on new nuclear,” Rita Baranwal, assistant secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy, said in a statement after Trump signed off on the 2020 spending bill in December…… https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/10/21131701/trump-budget-proposal-nuclear-energy-programs-spending
Malaysia – a definite NO to nuclear power
 Malaysia won’t use nuclear power, says PM https://www.nst.com.my/news/government-public-policy/2020/02/564295/malaysia-wont-use-nuclear-power-says-pm By Nor Ain Mohamed Radhi – February 10, 2020
CYBERJAYA: Malaysia will not use nuclear power as a renewable energy source as the country’s knowledge in the field is inadequate, said Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. He said to date, the world has yet to find the best and safest way to dispose of radioactive waste generated. “If you have a nuclear power plant, you will accumulate nuclear waste, which is radioactive, and until now they do not know how to reverse the process. “That is why we cannot use nuclear materials because it stays on for a million years. We do not want this country to be full of such waste thrown all over the place and affecting people. “That is why, until we discover a way of reversing the process, we should not use nuclear materials,” he told reporters after a dialogue session with the French business community in Malaysia here, today. The event was organised by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry France Malaysia. Dr Mahathir during the dialogue was asked on Malaysia’s vision on renewable energy sources, after a pledge by Energy, Science, Technology, Environment, and Climate Change Minister Yeo Bee Yin in September to have Malaysia increase its renewable energy use to 20 per cent by 2025. Dr Mahathir said the country was working on reducing the usage of traditional energy sources namely oil, gas, and coal to lessen the amount of pollution in the air. |
|
Trump’s budget – slashes foreign aid, but $billions more for nuclear weapons
 The 2 most controversial national security items in Trump’s new budget
Trump wants to gut foreign aid and beef up America’s nuclear force. Vox, By Alex Ward@AlexWardVoxalex.ward@vox.com Feb 10, 2020 President Donald Trump is about to propose a budget that leans much more heavily on military might — including new spending on modernized nuclear weapons — than diplomatic prowess, funding a muscular foreign policy some worry could lack the necessary finesse to deal effectively with global crises. The White House’s FY 2021 budget — standing at a whopping $4.8 trillion — is already making waves for deep cuts to social safety net programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Since Congress has to sign off on government spending, the full request is likely dead on arrival due to Democrats’ control of the House. And with no agreed-upon budget, there is no agreed-upon spending. It’s almost guaranteed, then, that the next few months will be filled with partisan fighting and wrangling over how to use taxpayer funds. Which means the White House’s budget document really serves more as a statement of principles and priorities — the budget, as some say, is policy. When it comes to defense and foreign policy, Trump has once again shown a preference for a stronger military partly at the expense of a weaker diplomatic and development tools. The two main national security takeaways from the budget’s expected toplines:
The problem, however, is that this foreign aid funding isn’t just charity: Taking nearly $12 billion out of the foreign aid budget would severely harm US diplomatic efforts. For one, giving nations money they need to keep volatile situations stable enhances global security, and could actually prove cost-effective to the US if the money helps prevent catastrophe at home or abroad down the line……….. In years past, Republicans and Democrats have pushed back against these draconian slashes to foreign aid, and they are likely to do so again. But the president’s insistence on tearing down America’s assistance programs to bare bones — even though they hover at only around 1 percent of the federal budget — shows how misguided he is about their outsize impact. Trump’s decision to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal is costlyThe United States has the second-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, behind Russia, but with many of these systems dating back to the Cold War, keeping warheads, bombs, and delivery systems up to date is extremely expensive. In 2017, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that modernizing the nuclear arsenal would cost $1.2 trillion over 30 years. That would require a herculean effort on behalf of multiple, subsequent administrations — not to mention the continued patience of taxpayers — to ensure it was completed. Trump’s proposed billions, championed by Republicans and criticized by Democrats, is one step in that direction……. Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association, says “The administration’s nuclear weapons spending plans are unnecessary and unsustainable,” he told me. “The costs and opportunity costs of the plans are real and growing, and the biggest nuclear modernization bills are just beginning to hit.” Reif offered an alternative: “Scaling back the plans for new delivery systems, warheads, and infrastructure would make the modernization effort easier to execute and reduce the threat to other defense programs while still leaving a devastating deterrent.” It’s worth noting that Trump has pulled the US out of a massive arms control treaty with Russia, and it may not extend another vital one next year. Some experts worry that could lead to an arms race, causing the US to spend even more on nuclear systems down the line. …………https://www.vox.com/2020/2/10/21131273/trump-budget-fy2021-foreign-aid-nuclear |
|
Presidential nuclear decision by Twitter: Trump confuses about policy on Yucca for waste dump
|
Trump tweets reversal of push for Nevada nuclear waste dump, MyNorthWest, FEBRUARY 6, 2020 LAS VEGAS (AP) — PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ON THURSDAY APPEARED TO REVERSE HIS POSITION ON A PROPOSAL TO CREATE A NATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN IN NEVADA AFTER HIS ADMINISTRATION TRIED FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO REVIVE THE MOTHBALLED PROJECT. “Nevada, I hear you on Yucca Mountain and my Administration will RESPECT you!” Trump said in a tweet. “Congress and previous Administrations have long failed to find lasting solutions – my Administration is committed to exploring innovative approaches – I’m confident we can get it done! Adam Laxalt, Trump’s Republican re-election campaign chief in Nevada, said he believed the president was expressing support for opponents of the project, which was first proposed in the 1980s to entomb 77,000 tons (70,000 metric tons) of the nation’s most highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel in tunnels under an ancient volcanic ridge northwest of Las Vegas. Laxalt, a former state attorney general, fought federal efforts to resume work at the site using a wide range of objections revolving around safety, security and science. Yucca Mountain was among topics he said he discussed with the president last weekend at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida. Laxalt on Thursday tweeted thanks to Trump, saying, “We are so fortunate that you listened to us.” “I know others have been speaking with him about Yucca Mountain,” Laxalt told The Associated Press. “We don’t support it. It’s not good for the state.” Trump administration officials and Nevada’s congressional delegation did not immediately have details to share about the president’s new position. The U.S. Department of Energy referred questions about the president’s tweet to the White House. The White House referred questions to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not immediately respond. State officials have argued that seismic activity and nearby Air Force testing would make the site about 100 miles (161 kilometers) from Las Vegas unsuitable to safely store radioactive material from elsewhere in the U.S. Nevada is a political swing state that Trump lost in 2016. His re-election campaign is targeting Nevada in 2020 as a battleground state it hopes to capture. As a presidential candidate, Trump was ambiguous about the Yucca Mountain project. Once he took office, his administration included requests for money to revive federal licensing for the project in his budget proposals, though Nevada’s congressional delegation successfully fought to keep the funding out of the budget…….. https://mynorthwest.com/1705762/trump-backs-away-from-push-for-nevada-nuclear-waste-dump/? |
|
Norways Nuclear Naughtiness – Censored Secrets and Haldens Hurtful History
5 February 2020
Out of respect to the Author of the article under unfair use I had to change the copy to fair use as requested. More changes may happen as the days, weeks and years go on depending on how fair use I am allowed. Takk!
“One of the documents TU has received “partial access” in. In addition to the email’s metadata, we can glimpse what might be the letter “d” in the upper left corner on page 4 of the document. (Illustration: Ole Petter Pedersen)”
The Norwegian nuclear reactor that recently shut down is estimated to cost some 20 billion Kroner. A lack of transparency overshadows the whole project against the recommendations of the IAEA`s report on the Failings of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
On the January 29, Martiniussen and Peterson sent a complaint to the Civil Ombudsman requesting transparency and good practice be followed by giving details of the plans for a nuclear waste dump.
They were refused access to crucial documentation that should have been released to the public (Tax Paying funders) documenting a meeting between the Norwegian Minister of Industry and the Director-General of the OECD-NEA,
How to blank out history, the present and the future
The only major information to their request for data was the letter “d” on page 4.
The scary issue here is that Many countries including Russia funded aspects of the IFA nuclear experiments at Halden. The site was closed down in a furor of condemnation and suspicion. Was the nuclear industry allied to the Norwegian Salmon industry? Many questions remained to be answered!
Totally unrelated Salmon picture that didnt end up in Russia
Norway, having no experience in nuclear waste turned to the French nuclear company Orano and the Swedish company Studsvik,. Not the best idea in the world as these companies eyed an opportunity for profit and maybe, just maybe a few kilos of moldy farm salmon as well. But we will never know because of the Letter D (The only letter to be transparently offered to the FOI request by these 2 brave and intrepid sleuths).
Norway is now left with 17 tonnes of highly active, spent nuclear fuel thanks to those dastardly Russians and their American hug bunnies.
“All technical options are more or less known already, and NND’s general assessments of different directions cannot be kept secret”
But they are actually a secret of great National importance. So are the farmed Salmon deals that are also not to transparent (Possibly against OECD guidelines, but we will never know the truth!)
The Ministry of Trade and Industry claims that information must be kept secret for competition reasons. Luckily for the dodgy companies that will, may (we really dont know) be involved or how they will be involved. Shades of Fukushima radioactive Salmon perhaps?
Both the Minister of Industry and Employees in the Ministry of Trade and Industry Have decided to take a more top down anti democratic approach to transparency.
“That is why it is also crucial for TU’s social mission, to pursue cases where the authorities deny the citizens access. The Public Law is in practice the guarantee of the citizens that it is possible to control those we have given power and authority to carry out important social tasks.”
Must have a public conversation
The waste is dangerous and has a whole series of unknowns attached to it.
“Furthermore, the Norwegian nuclear fuel to be treated is of a metallic type that hardly any other country has. Therefore, there is no market for the treatment methods Studsvik investigates on behalf of NND. The treatment methods are specially designed for the Norwegian nuclear waste. The general methods Studsvik can offer were also publicly known through a report that was published in 2014.”
The request for data (More than the letter D) is nearly two years old.
“The Civil Ombudsman is the only body where it is possible to examine the ministry’s crush in unnecessary secrecy.”
So pre planning before the reactor was quickly ignored amongst the barrage of Russian troll bots and dubious bloggers highlighting the polluting and dangerous ways of the Halden reactor that proved that this should not be a private conversation only between two people.
“There are representatives at the highest level. In that case, the inhabitants must subsequently have the opportunity to gain insight into what is being discussed.”
Original article in full on the source url below
Fukushima and the 2020 Olympics
|
Fukushima and the 2020 Olympics https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/28509/fukushima-and-the-2020-olympics/
by Shaun Burnie 5 February 2020 As 2020 is the year the Olympics and Paralympics come to Japan, this is an exciting time for sports and for the people of Japan. Amidst all the excitement however, there is the ongoing nuclear crisis in Fukushima prefecture. Labeled as the ‘Reconstruction Olympics’, Prime Minister Abe in 2013 declared that the situation at Fukushima Daiichi was under control. Seven years later there still remains a nuclear emergency at the nuclear plant and surrounding areas. In addition to the enormous challenges of how to safely manage over 1 million tonnes of contaminated water at the site and as much as 880 tonnes of molten nuclear fuel for which there is no credible solution, there remain wider issues regarding radioactive contamination of the environment, its effect on workers and Fukushima citizens, including evacuees and their human rights.
These issues were the subject of a 28 January 2020 documentary broadcast by the U.S. network HBO as an investigative report by the program ‘Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel ’, the U.S.’s most-honored sports journalism series (with 33 Sports Emmy Awards, including 19 for Outstanding Sports Journalism) during the opening episode of its 26th season.
What does it mean to host the Olympics and Paralympics in the context of an ongoing nuclear disaster, the effects of which are still being felt by tens of thousands of Japanese citizens? What does it tell about the Japanese government and its commitment to respecting the values of transparency and the human rights of its citizens? These are some of the important questions raised by HBO and they warrant careful consideration in the months leading up to this year’s summer games.
Greenpeace Japan applauds Olympic values and spirit, while recognizing that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has the responsibility to ensure the Olympic Games have a minimum impact on the environment and leave a positive legacy for those hosting the Games. The IOC has an opportunity to do this in a way that fulfills the ideals of the environment as the third pillar of Olympism – sustainability – by making the Games a showcase for environmental solutions. Simultaneously, we recognize that hosting the Olympics and Paralympics requires the Japanese Government to ensure absolute safety for athletes, international visitors, and the Japanese public alike.
 The decision to host two sporting events in Fukushima city raises genuine and important questions over radiation risks. The route of the Olympic Torch relay in all the municipalities of Fukushima prefecture includes the districts of Iitate, Namie, and Okuma where Greenpeace Japan’s Nuclear Monitoring & Radiation Protection Team has discovered radioactive hotspots, both in the open areas as well as in the remaining radiation exclusion zones, that remain too high even by revised governmental standards. What does all this mean for the hosting of Olympic events, including for athletes and visitors?
By conducting extensive radiation investigations, Greenpeace Japan attempts to explain the complex radiological environment, where nothing is straightforward, and where judging precise risks to health at the individual level is near impossible. In an effort to better understand and explain the radiological situation in parts of Fukushima, as well as the ongoing issues of human rights for both Fukushima citizens and decontamination workers, Greenpeace Japan will be publishing its latest radiation survey results in early March 2020. Shaun Burnie is Senior Nuclear Specialist at Greenpeace Germany.
|
|
Ignoring Aboriginal opposition, Australian government chooses nuclear waste dump site
|
Federal Government chooses Kimba farm Napandee on the Eyre Peninsula for nuclear dump, ABC, 1 Feb 2020 The Federal Government has selected a farm on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula as the site of a controversial nuclear waste dump. Key points:
Jeff Baldock’s Napandee property 20 kilometres west of Kimba will be used to permanently store low-level waste and temporarily store intermediate-level waste. The decision to use the 160-hectare area for what the Government calls a “disposal and storage facility” was made after four years of consultation. Nearly 62 per cent of people voted in favour of the site being used in November, while a site near Hawker in the Flinders Ranges was opposed by Aboriginal traditional owners and residents……. Dump to consolidate nuclear wasteLocal federal Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey said waste would come in from more than 100 sites around Australia, such as hospitals and universities, and the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney. Processed medium-level nuclear fuel rods from Lucas Heights will be temporarily stored at Kimba while a permanent site is found for them, he said. Mr Ramsey, who tried to nominate his own property near Kimba for the dump but was barred as a federal MP, said there would be no fly-in, fly-out workers at the facility……. Aboriginal group opposed the voteThe Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation launched legal action in 2018 against the District Council of Kimba, arguing it contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by excluding native title holders from a ballot due to be held that year. The Federal Court dismissed the claim last year because it said no contraventions of the Racial Discrimination Act had been established…….. The Howard government proposed a similar dump in South Australia in 1998 but withdrew its plans after losing a fight with the South Australian Labor government in the Federal Court. In 2007, a property called Mukaty Station in the Northern Territory was put forward to host the nuclear waste facility. The plan was abandoned in 2014, again because of legal action, this time by the area’s traditional owners. A group called No Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba District held a rally against the decision in the town on Sunday.Friends of the Earth national nuclear campaigner Jim Green said the Federal Government promised the facility would not be approved unless it received at least 65 per cent of community support. “They’ve ignored the traditional owners, ignored South Australians. South Australia’s got legislation banning the imposition of nuclear waste dumps and that’s been ignored and it’s just disrespectful from start to finish,” he said. “South Australians have got greater ambitions for our state than to be someone else’s nuclear waste dump.”https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-01/kimba-farm-eyre-peninsula-chosen-for-nuclear-dump/11920514 |
|
Political instability adds to the danger of nuclear power for Bolivia
|
Bolivian unrest: what now for the country’s nuclear ambitions? Power Technology, By Heidi Vella 31 Jan 2020, Backed by Russia, Bolivia had set its sights on building new nuclear energy capacity to supply the country’s growing demand for electricity – but could recent political instability put these plans into doubt? We investigate the progress and potential of Bolivia’s atomic energy ambitions.
Russia had agreed to support a $300m nuclear research reactor near the Bolivian capital of La PaztHome to part of the Andean mountain range, as well as some of the highest above-sea-level cities in the world, the developing South American state of Bolivia is not an obvious candidate for new nuclear energy capacity. Yet, since 2013, the now ousted former-Bolivian President, Evo Morales, has been pursing plans to reduce the country’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels by investing in nuclear power…… Five years on however, Bolivia finds itself in political turmoil. Morales, who ran the country for 14 years and was the first ever indigenous president, has exiled himself to Mexico following weeks of violent protests and unrest amid accusations of electoral fraud at the end of 2019. As such, the country’s nuclear ambitions now appear firmly on hold.
Prior to Morales’ fall from power, his administration had kick-started the often-lengthy process of initiating nuclear power capabilities. It founded The Bolivarian Agency for Nuclear Energy and had started working with the IAEA to establish a development framework for nuclear. In 2018, it signed a Country Programme Framework with the IAEA leading up to 2023. Plans for uranium mining in the country had also been floated, but the government halted these and instead decided it could import nuclear fuel from France and Canada. Further agreements were penned with Rosatom for the building of the research centre, which, if it is ever finished, will be the highest in the world at 4000 metres above sea level. The centre is expected to encompass a pool-type reactor of between 100 and 200 kilowatts, a multi-purpose gamma irradiation unit, a cyclotron for nuclear pharmacy purposes, an engineering department, and several research laboratories. Challenges ahead Bolivia is one of only a handful of countries in South America that is either exploring capital intensive nuclear power or already has capacity. Argentina and Brazil both have nuclear reactors in action. However, the rising cost of current technology – several projects in Europe have run years over schedule and millions over budget – can make it difficult, but not impossible, for developing nations such as Bolivia to adopt atomic energy…….. Political instability Since the resignation of Morales in November, a conservative interim government has assumed power and elections are expected in May……….with accusations of vote rigging in the last election, there’s little assurance the upcoming polls will not result in more violence and political stability, both of which will likely keep away potential investors. Therefore, it remains very early days for nuclear energy development in Bolivia. In fact, the World Nuclear Association doesn’t expect much growth in the nuclear power sector to come from any developing nations, including Bolivia. Instead, the country is more likely to remain part of a long list of developing nations that has penned agreements with Russia, such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Sudan, but are yet to see them come fully into fruition, at least until it wrestles back democracy. https://www.power-technology.com/features/bolivian-unrest-what-now-for-the-countrys-nuclear-ambitions/ |
|
Historic vote on nuclear waste underway in Bruce County, Ontario
 Historic vote on nuclear waste underway in Bruce County, Ont.London CTV News, Scott MillerVideographer @ScottMillerCTV Contact, January 31, 2020 SOUTHAMPTON, ONT. — Plans to build Canada’s first permanent home to nuclear waste are being decided by a local First Nations band Friday.Over 4,500 members of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) were eligible to vote on whether to approve the plan to bury Ontario’s low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste along the shores of Lake Huron. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) plans to bury 200,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste in a facility, 680 metres under the Bruce Power site, north of Kincardine, Ont. The Deep Geological Repository or DGR falls within the traditional territory of the SON, so OPG has committed to not moving forward without the band’s support. Whatever SON members decide, it will have far-reaching impacts. There are over 230 resolutions by various levels of government around the Great Lakes, including London, Sarnia and Toronto, opposing the plan. In Michigan, Congressman Dan Kildee has been leading the charge against the DGR. “Permanently storing nuclear waste less than a mile from Lake Huron just doesn’t make sense. Surely in the vast land mass that comprises Canada, there is a better place to permanently store nuclear waste than on the shores of the world’s largest supply of fresh water,” he says…….. https://london.ctvnews.ca/historic-vote-on-nuclear-waste-underway-in-bruce-county-ont-1.4792113 |
|
Surplus nuclear power has become an embarrassment. Inflexible baseload power no longer needed.
Out of earshot of the politicians, the question of what to do with all the surplus power when demand is low is being tackled by increasing storage capacity but also by making green hydrogen. Some nuclear buffs are even suggesting hydrogen production might be the only viable hope for using up their spare power.
Long Island Power Authority ratepayers will have to Subsidize Upstate Nuclear Power Plants
LIPA Customers To Subsidize Upstate Nuclear Power Plants.wshu, By JAY SHAH 29 Jan 2020 Long Island Power Authority ratepayers could spend more than $800 million over the next decade to help fund upstate nuclear power plants.
LIPA will have to buy zero-emission credits through a state agency, which subsidizes energy generators that don’t emit greenhouse gases, like [?] nuclear power plants. …….https://www.wshu.org/post/lipa-customers-subsidize-upstate-nuclear-power-plants#stream/0
Republicans try to get nuclear power accepted as “renewable” in California
- California Republicans on Tuesday introduced legislation to temporarily halt the requirements of the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program and redirect funds to ensure utilities improve their infrastructure and vegetation management programs.
- The proposed bill would also, if and when the program is reinstated, include nuclear generation and all hydroelectric facilities operating as of January 1, 2021 in the program’s definition of an “eligible renewable energy resource.”
- The bill, along with a second piece of legislation introduced by state Assemblyman James Gallagher, R, and Sen. Jim Nielsen, R, “will help prevent future wildfires and utility power shutoff events,” according to a press release. But environmental advocates say that the move to extend RPS eligibility to hydro and nuclear facilities might not go far in California’s current political landscape.
Dive Insight:
California established its RPS program in 2002, requiring at the time that renewable resources make up 20% of electricity retail sales by 2017. However, the program’s targets have changed over the years; the state passed Senate Bill 100 in 2018, accelerating RPS requirements to 60% by 2030, as well as requiring that carbon-free resources supply all of the state’s electricity by 2045.
Large hydropower and nuclear generation don’t currently count toward the RPS standard requirements, but the state is still defining the zero-carbon requirement passed in SB 100, Alex Jackson, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Utility Dive.
In the last three years, California utilities have also been wrestling with the increased threat of wildfires posed by their infrastructure. Devastating fires in 2017, 2018 and 2019 have caused billions of dollars in damage across the state, pushing Pacific Gas & Electric to declare bankruptcy in early 2019.
To reduce this risk, the utility adopted a public safety power shut-off (PSPS) program, proactively de-energizing areas that are particularly prone to fires during windy or dry weather conditions. The shut-offs have drawn widespread criticism from regulators, lawmakers and customers in Northern California……..
Environmental advocates pushed back against the proposal to include both large hydropower and nuclear generation as eligible resources under the RPS program.
The RPS is part of a deliberate state move away from fossil fuels, and utilities already get a lot of their power from hydro, so counting it in the RPS requirements would discourage investments in wind, solar, and other renewables, Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California, told Utility Dive…..
On the nuclear energy front, “there’s no way you can call nuclear renewable,” she said. “It doesn’t emit carbon, but it has lots of other very intense environmental impacts.”
“Nuclear is being phased out not because of its ineligibility for RPS requirements, but because these large inflexible baseload plants are increasingly incompatible with a system that’s predominantly run on intermittent clean energy resources,” according to Jackson.
Flexibility is key going forward and the high operating costs of nuclear plants is what led PG&E to propose the retirement of the Diablo Canyon plant in the first place, he added. …….https://www.utilitydive.com/news/proposed-bill-include-large-hydro-nuclear-power-californias-rps/570919/
USA Politicians on both sides sucked in by propaganda for fantasy new nuclear reactors
|
Reporter’s notebook: Nuclear reactors prove tough tech, despite
bipartisan push, https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Reporter-s-notebook-Nuclear-reactors-prove-15000083.php
James Osborne Jan. 24, 2020 WASHINGTON – If there’s any clear area of agreement between Republicans and Democrats on climate change, it’s on the need to develop a new generation of nuclear power plants as quickly as possible. More precisely, it’s the need to bring down the multi-billion dollars costs of existing plants and create a meltdown-proof reactor that can run on recycled uranium and plutonium rods, which power companies and environmentalist alike can get behind. But getting bipartisan agreement on the need for those reactors has proven far easier than developing them, as companies look to overhaul a nuclear reactor design that has changed little since they first began operation in the United States in the 1950s. One year after the Senate passed a law requiring the government’s leading nuclear authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to overhaul its processes for approving nuclear power plants to account for the new reactors, senators are already beginning to exhibit impatience. At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, quizzed NRC officials about why they thought the Senate passed the law. When one of them said, “You really want me to guess,” he responded: “I would hope you would know, that it would be so clear why we gave you this power.” Two-fer The point, Whitehouse said, is to create a new carbon-free energy source that could also be fueled by the growing stockpiles of spent nuclear rods at reactors around the country, ending a decades-long debate about where to dispose of them. “I don’t know if that’s going to pan out, but people who are very smart and have invested millions of dollars tell me that is their intention,” Whitehouse said. “We want to see that focus on turning that waste into something positive.” With backers like billionaire Bill Gates, a wave of startups is trying to develop a reactor that uses materials such as molten salt or liquid metal to cool itself — instead of water — allowing a reactor that loses power to cool down on its own. But so far only one company, California-based Oklo, is ready to submit plans for its reactor to the NRC for review, said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the agency. |
|
|
In UK “big” nuclear power versus “small” (both unaffordable) at Wylfa
The global nuclear lobby might look like a unified force – it’s anything but!. The nuclear nations fight each other in desperately trying to flog off their unaffordable white elephant nuclear reactors to ‘developing’ countries, or to any sucker, really. .
The nuclear industry itself is divided – the ‘conventional’ big nuclear reactors versus the (not yet existing) Small and Medium Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)
‘No plans’ for Wylfa mini nuclear power station according to developer, https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/no-plans-wylfa-mini-nuclear-17599188, Owen Hughes, Business correspondent, 20 JAN 2020
Horizon Nuclear Power said its full focus is on delivering a full scale nuke plant.
Wylfa Newydd developer Horizon Nuclear Power says there are “no plans” to build mini reactors at its Anglesey site.
Rolls Royce is currently leading a consortium developing the technology for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) – supported by the UK Government. Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd has been tipped at a prime spot for one of the reactors and over the weekend Wylfa was also reported as a target location.
But Horizon has released a statement making clear the Wylfa site is not being put forward for this technology as they press on with the current plan for a full scale nuclear site.
A spokesman said: “There are no plans to deploy a Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor at the Wylfa Newydd site.”
He added: “Activity on the Horizon project is currently suspended, but we’re working hard to establish the conditions for a restart using our tried and tested reactor design, which has already cleared the UK regulators’ assessment process.
Energy Secretary Andrea Leadsom wants additional information before deciding whether to give planning permission for Wylfa Newydd.
She deferred the decision on the site in October.
If permission is granted then the next step will be securing funding to make the project happen.
When it comes to SMRs, Alan Woods, strategy and business development director for Rolls-Royce, said they were focusing on sites in Wales and the north of England. Modular reactors are smaller and, once the first is approved and built, manufacturers hope mass-production will lead to shorter construction times and lower costs for each unit.
The consortium will need to establish factories to produce the small modular reactors with the pre-fabricated modules transported to sites for construction.
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
