|
Japan plans carbon emission cuts, more nuclear energy http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201906100044.html
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 10, 2019 Japan is calling for further efforts to cut its carbon emissions by promoting renewable energy while also pushing nuclear power despite its 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant disaster.
An energy policy paper, adopted by the Cabinet on Friday, said Japan faces the urgent task of reducing carbon emissions by utilities that rely heavily on fossil fuel plants to make up for shortages of cleaner nuclear energy. The call comes as nuclear reactors around Japan are slowly being restarted–despite lingering anti-nuclear sentiment since the Fukushima crisis–after being shut down to meet tougher safety standards.
Japan wants renewable energy’s share in 2030 to grow to 22-24 percent of the country’s power supply from 16 percent, while pushing nuclear energy to 20-22 percent from just 3 percent in 2017. The report said the cost of renewables also needs to be reduced.
Japanese utilities rely more heavily on fossil fuel plants than those in the United States and Europe, the paper said. Coal and natural gas accounted for 74 percent of Japan’s energy supply.
Nuclear energy made up about one-third of Japan’s energy supply before 2011, when a massive earthquake and tsunami destroyed the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant’s cooling systems, sending three of its reactors into meltdowns.
Despite the government’s renewed ambitions for nuclear power, reactor restarts are proceeding slowly as nuclear regulators spend more time on inspections under the stricter post-Fukushima standards, while utility companies have opted to scrap aged reactors instead of investing in additional safety measures.
Nearly half of the 54 reactors in Japan have been designated for decommissioning, and only nine have resumed operation since the accident.
The slow reactor restarts have added to Japan’s large plutonium stockpile from spent fuel. Japan has resorted to reducing the 47-ton stockpile by burning plutonium in conventional reactors after the country’s fuel recycling program stalled. The plutonium is currently enough to produce about 6,000 atomic bombs.
But the amount is not decreasing, and experts are now calling for more drastic steps to reduce the stockpile amid criticism that it makes Tokyo’s calls for nuclear non-proliferation less credible.
About 37 tons of spent Japanese fuel is being stored in France and Britain where it has been reprocessed since Japan lacks the capability to do it at home.
Japan’s main reprocessing plant at Rokkasho, where plutonium and spent fuel are stored but reprocessing has not started, says the 10 tons stored in Japan is under close monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and there is no risk of proliferation.
In a recommendation to the government this week, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, a Japanese policy research group, said Japan should drastically reduce the stockpile to the amount just enough for 2-3 years and keep it under IAEA oversight to ensure the international community of Tokyo’s commitment to peaceful atomic use.
The recommendation by a foundation panel goes far beyond government guidelines last year that put the cap at 47 tons, with a pledge to eventually reduce it at an unspecified rate.
|
|
June 11, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, politics |
Leave a comment
In a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said the interim storage of high-level radioactive waste poses significant and unacceptable risks to residents, the environment and the region’s economy.
She cited the ongoing oil boom in the Permian Basin, which spans parts of southeastern New Mexico and West Texas, as well as million-dollar agricultural interests that help drive the state’s economy.
Any disruption of agricultural or oil and gas activities as a result of a perceived or actual incident would be catastrophic, she said, adding that such a project could discourage future investment in the area.
“Establishing an interim storage facility in this region would be economic malpractice,” she wrote…………
Lujan Grisham’s stance marks a shift from the previous administration, which had indicated its support for such a project.
During her last year in Congress, Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, opposed changes to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the possible development of a temporary storage facility in New Mexico. She was concerned that loopholes could be created and result in the waste being permanently stranded in New Mexico.
The Permian Basin Petroleum Association, the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau and the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association all have sent letters of concern to the governor.
Several environmental groups also have protested the idea of an interim storage site for spent nuclear fuel. The groups raised their concerns during a hearing before federal regulators earlier this year.
Opponents question the project’s legality, the safety of transporting high-level waste from sites scattered across the country and the potential for contamination if something were to go wrong.
The governor’s letter came as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers whether to issue a 40-year license for the facility proposed by Holtec. ……..
Municipalities elsewhere in New Mexico and Texas have passed resolutions expressing concerns about an interim storage proposal in the region.
Reams of documents have already been submitted to the regulatory commission, and the overall permitting process is expected to be lengthy.
A Texas-based company also has applied for a license to expand its existing hazardous waste facility in Andrews County, Texas, to include an area where spent fuel could be temporarily stored. https://www.apnews.com/25e295f2157343b7b644c82936aee01d
June 10, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, wastes |
Leave a comment
Pompeo downplays climate change, suggests ‘people move to different places’
FOX 8 , JUNE 9, 2019, BY CNN WIRE Secretary of State Mike Pompeo downplayed climate change as a longstanding trend, suggesting modern societies could adapt to a changing environment, possibly with people moving to different places.
“The climate’s been changing a long time. There’s always changes that take place,” Pompeo said during an interview with the Washington Times published Friday, when asked whether he thought climate change was man-made and how best to address it. He did not mention anything about man-made pollution in his remarks…..
The comments aren’t Pomepo’s first foray into controversial climate assessments.
In May, Pompeo praised the Arctic’s rapidly shrinking sea levels for their subsequent economic opportunities, despite continued warnings about the catastrophic effects of climate change….. https://myfox8.com/2019/06/09/pompeo-downplays-climate-change-suggests-people-move-to-different-places/
June 10, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, politics, USA |
1 Comment
Business Green 7th June 2019 Theresa May will ignore cost warnings and bring in net zero emissions goal before her successor takes over in Downing Street, reports suggest. The Prime Minister will set in law a target for the UK to reach net zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 before she leaves office, although she is
unlikely to bring forward any new policy or detailed action plan for
achieving the goal, according to reports.
As recommended by the Committee
on Climate Change (CCC) in its landmark report last month, Theresa May is
set to announce a net zero goal for 2050 and could do so as soon as next
week, in a move the government expects to garner broad parliamentary
support, reports The Independent.
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3077027/reports-pm-to-legally-commit-uk-to-net-zero-by-2050-before-leaving-office
June 10, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Halting Holtec – A Challenge for Nuclear Safety Advocates, CounterPunch, by JAMES HEDDLE 7 June 19″ ………Ruling Gives Go Ahead to Holtec New Mexico Project
On May 7, the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave the go-ahead to the NRC’s consideration of a pending license application from Holtec International/Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance to store 173,600 metric tons of highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel in southeastern New Mexico.
The 142-page ASLB decision denied all 50 contentions contained in petitions from nearly a dozen organizations opposing the project and requesting a full public evidentiary hearing on its potential impacts.
Petitioners included Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, Don’t Waste Michigan, Alliance for Environmental Strategies; Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (MI), Citizens’ Environmental Coalition (NY), San Luis Obispo Mother’s for Peace (CA), Nuclear Energy Information Service (IL), Public Citizen (TX), Nuclear Issues Study Group (NM).
In an unusual alliance with environmental groups, extractive industry groups the Texas-based Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd. and Georgia-based NAC International Inc. also filed petitions for a hearing, contending that the nuclear waste storage project threatens lucrative fracking operations in the booming Permian Basin. The project is also widely opposed by Native American Tribes – already victimized by atom bomb testing and uranium mining – as well as ranchers and growers who fear water contamination and the boycotting of their products by suspicious consumers.
The region in which the proposed dump will be located is already known as Nuclear Alley, being home to the failed Waste Isolation Pilot Project(WIPP), the Urenco Nuclear Reprocessing Plant and the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) low-level waste site just across the border in Texas, which is also applying for a high-level waste storage license.
Opponents cite the likelihood that the Holtec/Eddy-Lea project – a below-grade ISFSI similar to the one at San Onofre – could and would be eventually expanded to accommodate spent fuel from aged reactors across the country as they are decommissioned in coming years, thus making the establishment of a permanent federal deep geological repository less urgent, and making New Mexico the de facto national dump.
They point out that over 200 million U.S. Citizens living along transportation routes would be placed in peril by the thousands of resulting shipments of highly radioactive waste being shipped cross country on the nation’s rickety rails, roads and bridges through major population areas.
According to Michael J. Keegan, an Intervenor with Don’t Waste Michigan, “The license application to construct and operate a ‘consolidated interim storage facility’ for spent nuclear fuel in New Mexico is a blatant violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA 1982, Amended 1987). The entire application is contingent on the Department of Energy taking title to the spent nuclear fuel, this is forbidden by current law, unless it is a Permanent Repository. Concealed from the Public is the true intent of Holtec International to store high level nuclear waste for 300 years. This proposal is [for a] permanent high level nuclear waste dump and is again, a blatant violation of NWPA,” Keegan points out.
Holtec counsel Jay Silberg reportedly said during a January hearing that the plan would still be viable if utilities retain title to the waste in the case that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is not altered – as is now being attempted in Congress = or that a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain or elsewhere is not constructed.
“No less than Rick Perry, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, admitted a few weeks ago to a congressional committee that there is a distinct possibility that ‘interim storage’ sites like Holtec could become permanent, de facto spent nuclear fuel repositories for hundreds of years or even forever,” says Don’t Waste Michigan attorney Terry J. Lodge. “Holtec would have none of the safeguards and protections that were considered during the Yucca Mountain proceeding. If Holtec is allowed to build, there is a grave possibility that New Mexico will become the loser for all ages,” Lodge adds.
Mindy Goldstein, a lawyer for Beyond Nuclear comments, “Holtec, Beyond Nuclear, and the NRC all agree that a fundamental provision in the Holtec application violates the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Today, the Licensing Board decided that the violation did not matter. But, the Board cannot ignore the mandates of federal law.”
Goldstein adds that this is the second time the NRC has issued a decision overruling Beyond Nuclear’s objection to NRC consideration of the unlawful application, and that the group will continue to pursue a federal court appeal it filed on December 27, 2018.
Donna Gilmore comments, “This is another example of the NRC not protecting our safety. The proposed Holtec New Mexico system is the same Holtec system used at San Onofre. The NRC knows every canister downloaded into the Holtec storage holes is damaged the entire length of the canister due to the poorly engineered downloading system that lacks precision downloading. In spite of this gouging of thin canister walls (only 5/8″ thick), the NRC refuses to cite Holtec with a Notice of Violation.”
Gilmore concludes, “The NRC told the ASLB they have no problem with Holtec returning leaking canisters back to sender, yet neither the proposed New Mexico Holtec site nor the San Onofre site have a plan to deal with leaking canisters, let alone prevent radioactive leaks or hydrogen gas explosions. We cannot trust the NRC to protect our safety. It will be up to each state to stop this madness.”
The opposition groups have vowed to appeal. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace said in a statement, “These Mobile Chernobyls are fast tracked to take to the rail, roads, and waterways. Disregard for the current NWPA law by proceeding as if it does not exist is not acceptable. This railroad of a ruling by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will be appealed to the NRC Commission as prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Once these remedies have been exhausted appeal to federal courts is then in order.”
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Spokesperson Molly Johnson stateed, “The NRC again demonstrates that it has been fully captured by the industry it is charged to regulate. The NRC process is shamelessly designed to prevent the public from participating in decision-making.”
Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist for Beyond Nuclear, speaks for many when he says, “On behalf of our members and supporters in New Mexico, and across the country along the road, rail, and waterway routes in most states, that would be used to haul the high risk, high-level radioactive waste out West, we will appeal today’s bad ruling.” https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/07/halting-holtec-a-challenge-for-nuclear-safety-advocates/
June 8, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, wastes |
Leave a comment
US to label nuclear waste as less dangerous to quicken cleanup, Guardian, 6 June 19,
Energy department says labeling some waste as low-level at sites in Washington state, Idaho and South Carolina will save $40bn, The US government plans to reclassify some of the nation’s most dangerous radioactive waste to lower its threat level, outraging critics who say the move would make it cheaper and easier to walk away from cleaning up nuclear weapons production sites in Washington state, Idaho and South Carolina.The Department of Energy said on Wednesday that labeling some high-level waste as low level will save $40bn in cleanup costs across the nation’s entire nuclear weapons complex. The material that has languished for decades in the three states would be taken to low-level disposal facilities in Utah or Texas, the agency said………
Critics said it was a way for federal officials to walk away from their obligation to properly clean up a massive quantity of radioactive waste left from nuclear weapons production dating to the second world war and the cold war.
The waste is housed at the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina, the Idaho National Laboratory and Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state – the most contaminated nuclear site in the country.
Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee, a Democratic presidential candidate, and the state attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said the Trump administration was showing disdain and disregard for state authority.
“Washington will not be sidelined in our efforts to clean up Hanford and protect the Columbia River and the health and safety of our state and our people,” they said in a joint statement.
The new rules would allow the energy department to eventually abandon storage tanks containing more than 100m gallons (378m liters) of radioactive waste in the three states, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The change means that some of the “most toxic and radioactive waste in the world” would not have to be buried deep underground, the environmental group said.
“Pretending this waste is not dangerous is irresponsible and outrageous,” the group’s attorney Geoff Fettus said.
Tom Clements of Savannah River Site Watch, a watchdog group for the South Carolina nuclear production site, called the reclassification of waste “a cost-cutting measure designed to get thousands of high-level waste containers dumped off site”. He said moving the waste to Utah or Texas is a bad idea involving “shallow burial”.
The old definition of high-level waste was based on how the materials were produced, while the new definition will be based on their radioactive characteristics – the standard used in most countries, the energy department said……..
The nuclear site 200 miles (322km) south-east of Seattle contains about 60% of the nation’s most dangerous radioactive waste that’s stored in 177 ageing underground tanks, some of which have leaked.
Cleanup at Hanford has been under way since the 1980s, at a cost of more than $2bn a year.
The energy department said it would immediately begin studying one waste stream at the Savannah River Plant to see if it should be reclassified as low-level waste. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/05/us-to-label-nuclear-waste-as-less-dangerous-to-quicken-cleanup?fbclid=IwAR1NuNSVrKbw8rn_rLUwOZlx
June 8, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, wastes |
Leave a comment
Greg Abbott Signals Limits To Nuclear Waste Disposal In Texas With Bill Veto https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/greg-abbott-signals-limits-to-nuclear-waste-disposal-in-texas-with-bill-veto/ – Written by Caroline Covington
He vetoed a bill in which a radioactive waste provision was tacked on, at the last minute, to a domestic violence bill that had broad support in the Texas House and Senate. By Michael Marks.June 7, 2019
A bill to help survivors of domestic violence ended up passing in the Texas Legislature with an odd amendment: a provision that would temporarily waive fees for storing radioactive waste in West Texas. But Gov. Greg Abbott was displeased with the waiver, and vetoed the bill altogether.
Asher Price, energy and environment reporter for the Austin American-Statesman, says the two very different issues ended up being in the same bill because Rep. Poncho Nevárez, a Democrat from Eagle Pass, added an amendment at the last minute.
“The person at the dais, who was leading the House at the time said, ‘Is there any objection?’ Hearing none [they] gaveled in, and suddenly this amendment was attached to this bill,” Price says.
Listen to the rest of the story in the player above. [on original]
June 8, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
June 6th, 2019 Despite being exclusively funded by a Department of Energy (DOE) grant, the New Mexico Environment Department is exploring whether to move the Oversight Bureau at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) from Los Alamos to Santa Fe. A community meeting will held the week of June 24th to discuss the issues at a location to be determined. Your voice to support the Oversight Bureau remaining in Los Alamos is needed now.
For over 30 years, the Oversight Bureau has served as the eyes and ears of the Environment Department in Los Alamos. Their purview of day-to-day operations and emergencies, such as the 1996 Dome fire, the 2000 Cerro Grande
http://www.nuclearactive.org/docs/CerroGrandeindex.html, and the 2011 Las Conchas fires, has been essential for communities downwind and downstream of LANL. During the fires, the Oversight Bureau staffers remained on-site and monitored air emissions. CCNS, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, and the public rely on the Oversight Bureau’s expertise, institutional knowledge of LANL operations, and their environmental sampling data and analyses.
The Environment Department says it is conducting a proper assessment to determine where the Oversight Bureau should be located. Nevertheless, DOE provides about $1.8 million annually to the LANL Oversight Bureau under what was called an agreement in principle between the two agencies. It covered oversight of both the environmental releases from nuclear weapons work and cleanup at LANL. It is now called a memorandum of understanding and is restricted to cleanup.
Scott Kovac, of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, said, “If the Environment Department is concerned about funding the Oversight Bureau, it is time for them to initiate negotiations with DOE to revise, update, and possibly expand the memorandum of understanding and funding for it.”
https://nukewatch.org/facilities, personnel, and information. http://nuclearactive.org/ana-opposes-new-doe-order/, http://nuclearactive.org/doe-must-hold-hearings-in-new-mexico-about-order-140-1/, and http://nuclearactive.org/santa-fe-county-commissioners-call-for-suspension-of-doe-order-140-1/. At the same time, recent reports about the use of carbon steel valves in pipelines carrying corrosive radioactive liquid waste again demonstrates that LANL needs more oversight, not less. https://www.dnfsb.gov/sites/default/files/document/18101/Los%20Alamos%20Week%20Ending%20May%203%202019.pdf, and https://nukewatch.org/2019/05/31/faulty-radioactive-liquid-waste-valves-raise-crucial-plutonium-pit-production-and-safety-board-issues/
Joni Arends, of CCNS, urged people to get involved to keep the Oversight Bureau in Los Alamos. She said, “The new Environment Department Secretary, James Kenney, needs to understand the importance of the Oversight Bureau staying in Los Alamos for those living downwind and downstream of LANL. Please contact Secretary Kenney and tell him your story about what the Oversight Bureau means to you. Explain why it needs to remain in Los Alamos. His phone number is 505 827-2855 and his email is James.Kenney@state.nm.us. Please copy your correspondence to your congressperson and your local media. Thank you.”
Here’s a sample public comment letter that you can use to submit your concerns to NM Environment Department Secretary James Kenney. Feel free to use the paragraphs that resonant with your concerns – edit them and add your own concerns.
f OB sample public comment letter 6-6-19
June 8, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Guardian 5th June 2019 The Labour party has accused the government of “actively dismantling”
the UK’s solar power industry after new installations by households
collapsed by 94% last month. Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business
secretary, used prime minister’s questions to challenge the
government’s record on climate action after scrapping subsidies for
domestic solar panels from April. Standing in for Jeremy Corbyn,
Long-Bailey said solar power had the potential to cut household bills and
carbon emissions while creating thousands of jobs. “But the government,
for some reason, appears to be determined to kill it off, while continuing
to cheerlead for fracking,” she said. (NB – story by Jillian Ambrose
who has moved from the Telegraph to replace Adam Vaughan at the Guardian).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/home-solar-panel-installations-fall-by-94-as-subsidies-cut
June 8, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decentralised, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Costs of FirstEnergy nuclear bailout bill could exceed out-of-pocket subsidies, An analysis by grid operator PJM considers losses if Ohio nuclear subsidies deter new generation. Energy News Network, Kathiann M. Kowalski 6 June 19,
A bill to subsidize FirstEnergy Solutions’ two Ohio nuclear plants could cost customers even more than the hundreds of millions of dollars in direct charges proposed to prop up those plus two older coal plants.
A new analysis from grid operator PJM concludes that keeping FirstEnergy’s nuclear plants open could also cost ratepayers as much as $16 million a year in lost savings by discouraging cheaper gas generation from coming online.
Asim Haque, PJM’s executive director for strategic policy and external affairs,testified about the new analysis before the Ohio Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee on Wednesday.
“PJM’s findings for consumer savings from power plant competition confirm that a competitive generation market is better for millions of Ohio consumers than charging them for bailouts and subsidies under House Bill 6,” said J.P. Blackwood, a spokesperson for the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel………https://energynews.us/2019/06/06/us/costs-of-firstenergy-nuclear-bailout-bill-could-exceed-out-of-pocket-subsidies/
June 8, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
|
 Nuclear: Energy bills ‘used to subsidise submarines’ BBC, By Roger Harrabin, 6 June, 19, BBC environment analyst 6 June 19, Energy bills in the UK are inflated partly because households are subsidising nuclear submarines, MPs have been told.
Experts think one government motive for backing civilian nuclear power is to cross-subsidise the defence industry.
They say nuclear power is so expensive that it should be scrapped in favour of much cheaper renewable energy.
Others argue that nuclear still plays a key role in keeping on the lights, so the military aspect is not significant.
But in evidence to MPs on the Business Select Committee, researchers from the University of Sussex said the government should be frank about the inter-dependence of the civilian nuclear programme and the nuclear defence industry.
Supply chain
Prof Andy Stirling from Sussex argues that one reason the government is willing to burden householders with the expense of nuclear energy is because it underpins the supply chain and skills base for firms such as Rolls Royce and Babcock that work on nuclear submarines.
He said: “It is clear that the costs of maintaining nuclear submarine capabilities are insupportable without parallel consumer-funded civil nuclear infrastructures.
“The accelerating competitiveness of renewable energy and declining viability of nuclear power are making this continuing dependency increasingly difficult to conceal.”
Rolls Royce, which makes reactors for nuclear submarines, has been pressing the government to agree a fleet of small modular reactors for power generation in the UK. This civilian technology would be transferable to submarines…….
A committee source told BBC News the researchers’ evidence appeared persuasive and well-researched.
The committee is expected to release the evidence in coming days as it prepares to discuss whether the UK really needs nuclear power for energy security.
The debate has taken on greater significance as the true costs of nuclear power have been revealed.
It was once forecast that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter. But it’s clear now that bill-payers will give price support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear station at a cost of £92.50 per megawatt hour, compared with £55 for offshore wind.
Ministers expect that, before long, wind energy will operate without support.
Prof Stirling says the issue of nuclear inter-dependence is addressed openly in the US.
In 2017, the former US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz (a nuclear scientist) said: “A strong domestic (nuclear) supply chain is needed to provide for Navy requirements. This has a very strong overlap with commercial nuclear energy.”
Prof Stirling told BBC News: “We need this sort of transparency in the UK.”
Catch-22
But the government faces a Catch-22 situation on this issue.
If it continues to decline to admit the inter-dependence of civil and military nuclear, it will stand accused of hiding a self-evident truth.
But if it accepts that decisions on nuclear power are influenced with half an eye on manufacturing jobs and nuclear deterrent, it will face resistance from consumer groups unwilling to cross-subsidise submarines.
The MPs’ hearing is timely, as the government will shortly publish an energy white paper outlining how the UK will supply electricity in a zero carbon economy.
Follow Roger on Twitter. Catch-22 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48509942
|
|
June 6, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
 US shared nuclear info with S Arabia after Khashoggi http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/us-shared-nuclear-info-with-s-arabia-after-khashoggi-143952– 5 June 19, WASHINGTON– Reuters The Trump administration granted two authorizations to U.S. companies to share sensitive nuclear power information with Saudi Arabia shortly after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October, a U.S. senator who saw details of the approvals said on June 4.The timing of the approvals is likely to heap pressure on the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump from lawmakers who have become increasingly critical of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia since Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October.
Khashoggi, a native of Saudi Arabia, left in 2017 to became a resident of the United States where he published columns in the Washington Post critical of the kingdom’s leadership.
Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, where Khashoggi lived, called the timing of the approvals “shocking” and adds to a “disturbing pattern of behavior” of the administration’s policy on Saudi Arabia. The Department of Energy granted the first part 810 authorization on Oct. 18, 16 days after Khashoggi was killed. The second occurred on Feb. 18.
U.S. authorities have concluded that responsibility for Khashoggi‘s death went to the highest levels of the Saudi government. Riyadh has denied that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was involved.
The authorizations were among seven granted to U.S. companies by Trump’s administration since 2017, as Washington and Riyadh negotiate a potential wider agreement to help SaudiArabia develop its first two nuclear power reactors.
The Energy Department has kept the companies involved in the sharing of nucleartechnology information with the kingdom confidential, citing the need to protect business interests. In the past, 810 approvals have been made available for the public to view at department headquarters. The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Kaine’s statement.
Lawmakers have been anxious to be kept updated about talks on nuclear power development between the administration and Riyadh to make sure any deal contains strict nuclear nonproliferation standards.
Saudi Arabia and Washington had begun talks about nuclear power development before Trump’s presidency. But progress has been slow as the kingdom opposes measures that would prevent it from enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium, two potential pathways to making fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Last year the crown prince said the kingdom did not want to acquire a nuclear bomb, but if its archrival Iran did, “we will follow suit as soon as possible.”
Kaine, who had urged the administration to release the authorizations, said the approvals were “one of the many steps the administration is taking that is fueling a dangerous escalation of tension in the region.”
Late last month, Trump declared a national emergency because of tensions with Iran and swept aside objections from Congress to complete the sale of more than $8 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan.
Riyadh plans to issue a multibillion-dollar tender in 2020 to build its first two nuclearpower reactors, sources said in April. Originally expected last year, the tender has been delayed several times.
The United States, South Korea, Russia, China and France are competing for the business. Reactor builder Westinghouse, which has been hit by a downfall in the U.S. nuclear power industry, would likely sell components to Saudi Arabia in any deal involving U.S. technology. Westinghouse is now owned by Brookfield Asset Management Inc.
|
|
|
June 6, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, Saudi Arabia, USA |
1 Comment
|
Germany’s env min and plant operators dismiss call for nuclear lifetime extensions,Clean Energy Wire
Germany’s env min and plant operators dismiss call for nuclear lifetime extensions, Germany certainly does not need to return to nuclear energy and should push through with its energy transition instead, according to environment minister Svenja Schulze. Following isolated calls to extend the lifetime of the country’s nuclear plants, Schulze said the technology is very expensive, on closer inspection not CO₂-neutral, and always carries the risk of an accident. Germany’s remaining nuclear power plant operators RWE, E.ON and EnBW also rejected the idea to upend the country’s societal consensus to phase out nuclear power by the end of 2022.
Germany’s environment minister Svenja Schulze has dismissed recent isolated calls for a postponement of the country’s nuclear exit to protect the climate. “We certainly don’t need a return to nuclear power. That would cause nothing but problems,” Schulze told energy managers at utility association BDEW’s annual conference.
The technology is very expensive, on closer inspection not CO2-neutral, and always carries the risk of an accident, according to Schulze, whose ministry is also in charge of nuclear security……
Opposition to nuclear power has been particularly strong in Germany, and there is a broad societal consensus to phase it out as part of Germany’s landmark Energiewende (energy transition). While the country struggles with aspects of the phase out – such as what to do with the waste – one issue that isn’t a problem is public consent. The vast majority of Germans want to see nuclear power gone sooner rather than later. ……
With reference to Germany’s unsolved challenges of dealing with nuclear waste, Schulze said the country had used nuclear power for only three generations, and now left radioactive waste for thousands of following generations to deal with. Schulze also said nuclear power stations would not fit into Germany’s future electricity system. “Nuclear power would only block the grid. We don’t need more inflexible large power stations in a decentralised flexible system.”……
Plant operators have repeatedly said nuclear power will come to an end by the end of 2022 as planned and utility association BDEW said that reaching climate targets in the energy sector does not require a longer operating life for nuclear power plants. “It doesn’t make sense at all to start a discussion about lifetime extensions shortly before reaching the finishing line,” BDEW head Stepan Kapferer said at the conference, adding the operators had already clearly rejected the idea anyway. Nuclear power in Germany “is finished”, plant operators E.ON, RWE and EnBW told Jakob Schlandt for an article in Tagesspiegel Background. “This chapter is over,” said a RWEspokesperson……
The BDEW expressed confidence that its companies can benefit hugely from the energy transition. The Energiewende offered “huge opportunities for growth”, said BDEW head Stefan Kapferer in his opening remarks with reference to renewables and the charging infrastructure for electric mobility. He repeated his association’s call for a CO2 price for heating and transport. “It’s a joke that electricity, as the greenest available form of energy, is also the most expensive,” Kapferer said. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-env-min-and-plant-operators-dismiss-call-nuclear-lifetime-extensions
|
|
June 6, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Germany, politics |
Leave a comment
East Anglian Daily Times 3rd June 2019 , Growing concern is being voiced over plans for seven major energy projects
in part of east Suffolk – and the lack of coordinated policy to deal with
the concentration of development. Campaigners fear the massive schemes,
which could be built in 25 square miles of rural landscape, could cause
serious harm to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – and devastate the
area’s tourism industry.
Now a new body comprising local action groups has
been set up to fight the Government over the issue and secure a national
plan for where vital infrastructure will be located. Graeme Murray,
chairman of the Anglian Energy Planning Alliance, said the group was not
against the generation and provision of electricity to secure the country’s
future power needs, but wanted “proper planning” to ensure local
communities were treated fairly and precious landscape and habitat was
protected.
June 6, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Nuclear Experts Beg Congress to Push Back on Trump Administration’s ‘Dangerous Impulses’ A letter asks House and Senate Armed Services leaders to defund small nukes and support an extension for New START. https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2019/06/nuclear-experts-former-officials-ask-congress-renew-new-start-defund-small-nukes/157423/ BY BRADLEY PENISTON
DEPUTY EDITOR
More than two dozen national security pros — including former White House policy directors, former senators, and one former defense secretary — are sending a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees asking them to act to blunt what they call “the administration’s dangerous impulses” in nuclear policy.
The June 3 letter asks for action in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, starting with support for extending the New START Treaty. Set to expire in 2021, the treaty is the last remaining strategic arms-control agreement between the United States and Russia. The Trump administration has proposed to let it expire and seek instead a three-way Russia-China-U.S.agreement that few outside the White House believe has any chance of becoming real.
The letter’s 25 signatories also ask Congress to “defund and prohibit deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons in this year’s NDAA to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation.” In the letter, they argue that ”deploying low-yield nukes not only lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, but it signals to adversaries that the United States would respond reciprocally (rather than overwhelmingly) to a nuclear attack. It incentivizes thinking in Moscow and Beijing that developing and deploying low-yield nuclear weapons is necessary to keep pace with the United States and could be a viable option in theater.”
Finally, the letter warns against overreacting to superfast maneuvering missiles being developed by U.S. rivals. “The development of hypersonic missiles by China and Russia is a serious military challenge, but it does not fundamentally change the logic of nuclear deterrence and therefore should not be cause for dangerous overreaction,” it says.
Among the signatories are former Defense Secretary William J. Perry; Bonnie Jenkins, once the State Department’s coordinator for threat reduction programs; Kelly Magsamen, former principal deputy assistant defense secretary; Ned Price, former senior director of the National Security Council; and Jon Wolfsthal, former NSC senior director for arms control and nonproliferation. The letter to lawmakers also bears the signatures of Sens. Gary Hart and Mark Udall.
Read the letter, here.
June 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
