France’s Citizens’ Convention for the Climate
for the Climate is being organised in an attempt to meet yellow-vest protesters’ demands for MPs to be bypassed in a move towards direct democracy.
Yet the initiative is fraught with dangers for Mr Macron, who risks losing control of the political agenda. Some of his supporters fear that far from appeasing the campaigners, the process could inflame their anger by reintroducing the fuel duty rises that ignited the protest movement in November.
Ohio’s Nuclear Plant Subsidy Proposal, Should Be Rejected – 5 Reasons Why

Rejected, Uniion of Concerned Scientists, STEVE CLEMMER, DIRECTOR OF ENERGY RESEARCH, CLEAN ENERGY | MAY 16, 2019 Last November, UCS released Nuclear Power Dilemma, which found that more than one-third of existing nuclear plants, representing 22 percent of total US nuclear capacity, are uneconomic or slated to close over the next decade. This included the Davis-Besse and Perry plants in Ohio that are owned by Akron-based FirstEnergy Solutions. Replacing these plants with natural gas would cause emissions to rise at a time when we need to achieve deep cuts in emissions to limit the worst impacts of climate change.When we released our report, my colleague Jeff Deyette described how a proposal backed by FirstEnergy to subsidize its unprofitable nuclear plants in Ohio was deeply flawed and did not meet the conditions recommended in our report. By providing a blatant handout to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries at the expense of renewable energy and energy efficiency, ironically, the latest proposal to create a “Clean Air Program” in Ohio (House Bill 6) is bad for consumers, the economy and the environment.
Here are five reasons why this proposal is flawed and should be rejected:
1. HB 6 doesn’t protect consumers
…………..HB 6 doesn’t require FirstEnergy Solutions to demonstrate need or limit the amount and duration of the subsidies to protect consumers and avoid windfall profits as recommended in our report. It simply sets the starting price at $9.25/MWh and increases that value annually for inflation. ……… FirstEnergy Solutions nuclear plants would receive approximately $170 million per year in subsidies, or 55% of the total…..
2. HB 6 is a bait and switch tactic to gut Ohio’s clean energy laws
But here’s the rub. HB 6 would effectively gut the state’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards to pay for the subsidies for Ohio’s existing nuclear, coal and natural gas plants. It would make the standards voluntary by exempting customers from the charges collected from these affordable and successful programs unless they chose to opt-in to the standards. This could result in a net increase in emissions and a net loss of jobs in Ohio over time.
This political hit job is outrageous, but not at all surprising. It is just another attempt in a long series of efforts by clean energy opponents to rollback Ohio’s renewable and efficiency standards over the past five years …….
the cost of wind and solar has fallen by more than 70 percent over the past decade, making them more affordable for consumers and competitive with natural gas power plants in many parts of the country. ……
Energy efficiency programs are especially important for low-income households. By lowering their energy bills, they have more money to spend on food, health care and other necessities.
3. HB6 creates a false sense of competition
While renewable energy technologies are technically eligible to compete for funding under HB 6, several criteria would effectively exclude them:
- It excludes any projects that have received tax incentives like the federal production tax credit or investment tax credit, which applies to nearly every renewable energy project.
- Eligible facilities must be larger than 50 MW, which excludes most solar projects, and wind projects have to be between 5 MW and 50 MW, which is smaller than most existing utility scale wind projects in the state.
- Eligible projects must receive compensation through organized wholesale energy markets, which excludes smaller customer-owned projects like rooftop solar photovoltaic systems.
When combined with the rollback to the renewable standard, this absurdly stringent criteria would create too much uncertainty for renewable developers to obtain financing to build new projects in Ohio.
4. HB 6 will increase Ohio’s reliance on natural gas
While HB 6 could temporarily prevent the replacement of Ohio’s nuclear plants with natural gas, gutting the renewables and efficiency standards would undermine the state’s pathway to achieving a truly low-carbon future by locking in more gas generation as coal plants retire. …….
5. HB 6 includes no safety criteria or transition plans
HB 6 does not require FirstEnergy’s nuclear plants to meet strong safety standards as a condition for receiving subsidies, as recommended in our report. While Davis-Besse and Perry are currently meeting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) safety standards–as measured by their reactor oversight process (ROP) action matrix quarterly rating system–both plants have had problems with critical back-up systems during the past two years that put them out of compliance.
The nuclear industry has been trying to weaken the ROP for years………
A better approach
On May 2, House Democrats announced an alternative “Clean Energy Jobs Plan” that would address many of the problems with HB 6. The plan would modify the state’s Alternative Energy Standard (AES) by increasing the contribution from renewable energy from 12.5% by 2027 to 50% by 2050and fix the onerous set-back requirements that have been a major impediment to large scale wind development. It would expand the AES to maintain a 15% baseline for nuclear power. In addition, it would improve the state’s energy efficiency standards, expand weatherization programs for low-income households, and create new clean energy job training programs…….
With more than 112,000 clean energy jobs in 2018, Ohio ranks third in the Midwest and eighth in the country. Ohio added nearly 5,000 new clean energy jobs in 2018. While most of the clean energy jobs are in the energy efficiency industry, Ohio is also a leading manufacturer of components for the wind and solar industries.
To capitalize on these rapidly growing global industries, lawmakers in Ohio should reject HB 6 and move forward with a real clean air program that ramps-up investments in renewables and efficiency and achieves the deep cuts in emissions that are needed to limit the worst impacts of climate change. https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/5-reasons-why-hb6-should-be-rejected
Australia’s election result disastrous for climate action – a negative example for the world
|
‘We have lost Australia for now,’ warns climate scientist in wake of election upset The unexpected victory of conservatives in Australia’s election is bad news for the future of global climate action. https://thinkprogress.org/we-have-lost-australia-warns-climate-scientist-scott-morrison-upset-92008fabb597/?fbclid=IwAR2pfAFrP0d2JOTKR5QaIqt8cBVZGfTE_cwjY82DyE8603QnDRp_clnc-q |
|
|
Delay in vote on bailing out Ohio’s nuclear reactors
|
Vote Delayed On Bill To Prop Up Ohio Nuclear Plants WOSU Public Media, By JO INGLES 18 May 19, Lawmakers in the Ohio House continue to debate a bill that would bail out the state’s two financially struggling nuclear power plants. Earlier this week, some Democrats walked out of a committee hearing, saying their concerns were not being heard……
Democrats on the committee say they need more assurances that the changes being made will not hurt air quality or do away with clean energy….. FirstEnergy gave more than $150,000 to House Republicans in 2018 leading up to the November election, but Householder denies a connection between the bill and FirstEnergy’s political support https://radio.wosu.org/post/vote-delayed-bill-prop-ohio-nuclear-plants#stream/0 |
|
|
With belligerent John Bolton as National Security, Trump could take USA to the brink of war with Iran
With Bolton whispering in Trump’s ear, war with Iran is no longer unthinkable, Guardian, Owen Jones 16 May 19, Antiwar activists must do everything they can to prevent it, and that includes pressuring US allies
It was a deception that would lead to millions of civilian deaths, and the deaths of nearly 60,000 US soldiers. In August 1964 President Lyndon B Johnson solemnly declared that, after two apparent North Vietnamese attacks on US navy destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, military action would take place.
Four years later, Senator Albert Gore – father of Bill Clinton’s future vice-president – warned in a closed Foreign Relations Committee session that, “If this country has been misled … the consequences are very great.” His suspicions were correct. The second Gulf of Tonkin attack might never have happened – and perhaps neither did. Communications to make it look like the attack occurred had been falsified. But US policy was already set on a dramatic escalation of the Vietnam war: and here was the perfect pretext.
This week it emerged that the US government is discussing sending up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East for possible military action against Iran. “We’ll see what happens with Iran,” declared President Trump. “If they do anything, it will be a bad mistake.” The principal driving force behind this is Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, a man who thinks there is no problem to which the answer isn’t war: in the Bush era, his militarism was too much for the commander-in-chief who laid waste to Iraq. You can see them scrabbling for excuses already: the Trump administration says Iran-backed proxy groups are preparing attacks on US forces in Iraq and Syria, a claim forcefully denied this week by British major-general Christopher Ghika, the deputy commander of counter-terror operations in both countries. The US has blamed Iran, without evidence, for damage to Saudi oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. Could an Iranian Gulf of Tonkin be looming?
It is easy to dismiss these fears as alarmist. Is Trump not the man who confounded his critics by seeking peace on the Korean peninsula? Trump boasts that he “actually tempers” Bolton; Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, states: “There won’t be any war.” As Sanam Vakil, a research fellow at Chatham House, tells me: “Both sides are posturing, sending [threats] back and forth, and I don’t think heading for any direct military interventions.” Bolton, she reassures me, is just one of many voices in the room, and US secretary of state Mike Pompeo himself says that the US is not seeking war……..
A senior Senate aide tells me that the triumph of Bolton’s plans is all too conceivable: Bolton could exploit Trump’s ignorance of policy, an area in which he excels. While any war would not be popular with Trump’s base he could be convinced by Bolton that it is possible to escalate up to a point, then pull back at the brink: but by then it may be impossible to do so. Rightwing thinktanks and broadcasters are already hyping up links between Iran and al-Qaida.
The consequences of an Iranian conflagration should horrify us. Dan Plesch – a specialist at Soas University of London’s Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy – details the US air and naval power potentially ranged against Iran: it’s what one of his colleagues describes as “a tsunami of precision-guided molten metal”. The “lethality of US force”, says Plesch, “to very rapidly destroy military, civil, political and economic infrastructure is hugely underestimated” – and is far greater than in 2003. The US would seek to impose a government-in-exile with no roots in the country; a bloody balkanisation could follow. Iran would mobilise its regional influence – dramatically increased by the Iraq catastrophe – raising the prospect of wider regional conflict.
The risk is already too real for us to wait and see before acting. Pressure must be exerted by the public on US allies to declare their total opposition to any war with Iran, including not permitting their military bases to be used. The mass protests that will greet Trump’s visit in three weeks’ time must include demands that no British support for such a bloody adventure be offered. Feeling blasé about the danger? Well, consider this: all that stands between Bolton’s violent fantasy being executed is Donald Trump himself. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/15/war-with-iran-john-bolton-donald-trump-usa?CMP=share_btn_tw
Chinese public’s trust in government means that nuclear power better able to go ahead in China
|
China and the Nuclear Debate, China’s nuclear energy sector is expanding amid the glow of positive public opinion. The Diplomat, By Layne Vandenberg, May 15, 2019 “……… The Diplomat sat down with Tobi Du, a Yenching Scholar at the Yenching Academy at Peking University to discuss nuclear issues in East Asia, how Chinese view nuclear threats, and the development of nuclear energy…….. Although China is one of the five official nuclear weapons states as designated by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, China has historically supported North Korea. While China does facilitate denuclearization talks, it definitely does not feel threatened in the same way that the U.S. and Japan do considering North Korea has explicitly stated that its nuclear weapons program is intended to deter the U.S. and its allies. Because of this, people in China are not currently as sensitive to nuclear threats as they are in other countries. …… Despite the lack of public support for development of the nuclear energy industry in most other countries, research shows that the Chinese public is not strongly against nuclear power. …… [following the Fukushima nuclear accident] despite a negative outlook for nuclear energy globally, China is unique in that the public did not become as opposed to the development of nuclear energy. Trust in the government has a lot to do with this. Since Chinese citizens generally possess a low level of knowledge about nuclear energy and related issues, the public places a significant amount of trust in the government to conduct its own assessments and accepts the results. Generally, the Fukushima nuclear accident did not affect the direction of Chinese policy for nuclear energy but prompted a more careful and measured attitude towards implementation. Considering China’s unique ability to interact with and shape public discourse around sensitive topics, public input in decision-making is minimal because of this control. The central government is able to implement the nuclear energy industry in China as it sees fit. In contrast to China’s more receptive public opinion, most countries are keenly cognizant of issues related to nuclear weapons, and mostly focus on these issues and their accompanying negative connotations. ….. So while it is true that Chinese people generally have a more positive opinion of nuclear energy in China than in other countries after Fukushima, it is China’s political governance that allows the country to push forward with nuclear power.…….. https://thediplomat.com/2019/05/china-and-the-nuclear-debate/ |
|
|
Unnecessary to bail out Ohio’s nuclear and coal plants, but a bonanza for FirstEnergy Solutions
|
IEEFA update: Bailing out Ohio’s nuclear and coal plants unnecessary for supply or rate stability
But $300 million annual charge would be bonanza for FirstEnergy Solutions (IEEFA U.S.) – A bill before the Ohio General Assembly (HB 6), aimed at rescuing FirstEnergy Solutions’ economically uncompetitive aging nuclear and coal-fired power plants is misguided, according to a briefing note released by the Cleveland-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).The briefing note: Bailout Bill a Bonanza for FirstEnergy Solutions, may end up costing Ohio consumers and businesses more than $300 million per year “in perpetuity,” according to IEEFA. “Proponents of this ill-advised bill are using misleading arguments to warn about nonexistent dangers to the electricity supply and rising energy costs,” said IEEFA director of resource planning analysis and author of the briefing note David Schlissel. “The data shows, to the contrary, that Ohio has ample energy supply and that retiring the plants in question would in no way undermine the reliability of the system or raise costs.” The bill would keep open FirstEnergy Solutions’ Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants and could also provide revenue for the Sammis coal-fired plant in Ohio. There is no evidence to suggest that extending their operational lifespans would benefit consumers. EEFA found that:
PJM, the operator of the regional electricity market, has concluded that the deactivation of FirstEnergy Solutions’ nuclear power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania will have no effect on the reliability of the electric power grid…….. Those studies by the Brattle Group were based on misleading assumptions about the cost of renewables and inflated notions about how much energy the nuclear plants were actually providing to the system,” said Schlissel. “This bill is clearly designed to benefit FirstEnergy Solutions and not Ohio ratepayers.” IEEFA recommends that Ohio follow the lead of New York state and allocate resources to support the tax bases of school districts and communities undergoing economic transition caused by the closure of coal and nuclear plants. The briefing note suggests that the state design a program to support workers who lose their jobs when coal and nuclear plants close. Such a program should also include thorough and timely clean-up and decommissioning of these facilities, with hiring preferences given to former plant employees, according to IEEFA. http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-bailing-out-ohios-nuclear-and-coal-plants-unnecessary-for-supply-or-rate-stability/?fbclid=IwAR1t8o2qjaqzn995F360PTVYtV5fimZUaPX1ls7R-gDd1q15XyUnO3AjuQA |
|
A key annual defense bill is poised to serve as a battleground over President Trump’s nuclear weapons policy.
|
Congress readies for battle over nuclear policy, The Hill,
BY REBECCA KHEEL – 05/12/19 A key annual defense bill is poised to serve as a battleground over President Trump’s nuclear weapons policy.
On issues ranging from the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to whether to leave open the possibility of launching a nuclear first strike, leading Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate have been meticulously laying out their cases. Those debates will come to a head soon, as the Senate Armed Services Committee begins to consider its version of the defense policy bill in two weeks……… The Congressional Budget Office has estimated modernizing the nuclear arsenal will cost more than $1 trillion over the next 30 years. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who has long lambasted the price tag for nuclear modernization, pledged to make the issue a priority when he took control of the gavel after Democrats won back the House. ……. In late January, Smith also re-introduced his “No First Use Act” — with backing from presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — that would make it U.S. policy not to strike first with nuclear weapons. …….. One thing Smith did say is likely to be in the bill is language supporting the New START Treaty, which caps the number of deployed nuclear warheads allowed to the United States and Russia. The treaty is up for extension in 2021, and Trump has indicated he wants China to join the pact as a condition for renewal — something supporters of the treaty describe as a “poison pill.”……. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/443197-congress-readies-for-battle-over-nuclear-policy |
|
Nuclear power completely unnecessary in sunblest Middle East
No one in the sun- and gas-soaked Middle East needs nuclear power https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/05/09/no-one-in-the-sun-and-gas-soaked-middle-east-needs-nuclear-power/?utm_content=bufferd1c88&utm_medium=Twitter+(via+Buffer)&utm_source=twitter.com/fdd&utm_campaign=@FDD+via+Buffer+feed
Mark Dubowitz. Chief Executive, Henry Sokolski, 12 May 19
As Reactors Shut in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, Nuke War Rages in Ohio and New York
Reader Supported News, 11 May 19
As the nuke power industry slumps toward oblivion, two huge reactors are shutting in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
The shutdowns are a body blow to atomic energy. The soaring costs of the decayed US reactor fleet have forced them to beg gerrymandered state legislatures for huge bailouts.
Just two US reactors are still being built. Stuffed with $12 billion in interest-free federal loans, Georgia’s Vogtle is nearing a staggering $30 billion in cost. Years behind schedule, the lowest possible costs of whatever electricity the two reactors there might produce already far exceed wind and solar.
Virtually none of the 98 US reactors now operating can compete with wind, solar, or methane. All but one are more than twenty years old, with serious issues of obsolescence and decay; some are more than forty, operating far behind their original design life.
Four decrepit, money-losing, upstate New York State reactors still run because Governor Andrew Cuomo is handing them $7.6 billion in bailouts. This year’s price tag jumped more than $50 million, despite Cuomo’s promise it would drop. Safe energy/consumer groups are fighting him in court.
Cuomo has otherwise agreed to shut two old reactors at Indian Point, which sit on an earthquake fault north of New York City.
But Illinois has voted billions to sustain three old reactors that can’t compete with wind/solar and gas. New Jersey has also jumped in with hundreds of millions for money-losing nukes.
In Massachusetts, the Pilgrim reactor will shut this month. The New York Times says Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island Unit One will die in September, dropping the US fleet to 96. The industry wants to scam billions in bailouts for the Keystone State’s other nukes, which are being vastly outstripped by renewables.
But the Ohio war over two geezer nukes rages full bore. Their owner, Akron’s FirstEnergy, is bankrupt, trying to shed its cleanup responsibilities. Despite slipping millions in “lobbying” to key state officials, FirstEnergy has still been unable to shaft the state with its $300m/year nuke-bailout scam.
Designed in the 1960s, FirstEnergy’s Davis-Besse opened near Toledo in 1977. A serious accident presaged the 1979 meltdown at its doomed clone, Three Mile Island Unit Two.
In 2002, boric acid ate Davis-Besse’s infamous “hole in the head” to within an inch of irradiating the entire Great Lakes and north coast.
The leaks are still an issue. But Davis-Besse’s owners sawed off the top of an abandoned Michigan nuke, cut through the containment building, and pasted it into the damaged reactor. The radioactive shield building is crumbling along with the rest of the nuke, from top to bottom.
East of Cleveland, Perry opened in 1986, just after the first earthquake that damaged a US nuke. To this day, no operators have been forced to run a reactor caught amidst a seismic shaking.
The utility and its backers are betting on Ohio’s gerrymandered legislature to gouge some $300 million from the tax/rate-paying public. A bevy of “free market” Republicans wants at least $150 million per year for the nukes, and another $150 million or more for various unclear activities, including about $8.5 million yearly for company president Chuck Jones.
FirstEnergy burns huge quantities of gas, oil, and coal but hypes its “emissions free” nukes that spew Carbon 14, heat, and radiation. The industry does not want to mention or pay for its thousands of tons of radioactive waste.
Such details are loudly overlooked by a mutant choir trumpeting nukes as “zero emission.” All reactors spew deadly isotopes along with climate-killing heat and some Carbon 14. They stand in the way of the wind, solar, batteries, and LED efficiency that comprise our only route to saving the climate.
Ohio’s north coast region is great for wind. More than $4 billion in private capital is waiting to create more than 10,000 jobs while slashing electric rates. The surrounding states of Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania have far more wind turbines than Ohio, operating at big profits with substantial workforces.
But an absurd anti-green setback requirement from a bought legislature has frozen Ohio’s turbine industry. Without that single Ohio Code sentence, cheap wind energy would be flooding the state. The “need” for nukes would evaporate. The reactor jobs “lost” would be dwarfed by those in renewables.
Against all odds, a very broad coalition of environmentalists, wind promoters, consumers, and industrialists has kept FirstEnergy at bay. Bailout opponents vastly outnumber nuke pushers at ongoing hearings.
But worldwide, the clock ticks on the next old money-sucking reactor to collapse from incompetence and greed, or to crumble in an earthquake, tsunami, or terror attack.
The shutdowns of Pilgrim and Three Mile Island mark huge victories for jobs, the economy, and the climate. If green advocates can now win in Ohio and Pennsylvania and roll back the insanity in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, the march of the shutdowns just might outrun the next meltdown. Stay tuned!
Harvey Wasserman’s Green Power & Wellness Show is podcast at prn.fm; California Solartopia is broadcast at KPFK-Pacifica, 90.7 fm, Los Angeles. His Life & Death Spiral of US History: From Deganawidah to Solartopia will soon be at www.solartopia.org.
UK’s Conservative govt increases tax on domestic solar, despite its goal to fight climate change
The UK can’t fight the climate emergency when the Tories are entirely opposed torenewables like solar. The party’s decision to increase tax on domestic
solar power shows that its head is still firmly in the sand.
power? The real reason for this tax hike is that domestic solar has proved
too popular. The cost of solar panels have plummeted and people
increasingly see them as desirable improvements to their homes.
largely centralised energy grid. It also butts up against seemingly
ideological opposition to renewable energy in the current Conservative
Party. The decision to increase tax on domestic solar power needs to be
considered alongside its support of fracking for gas, billions of pounds of
subsidies to continue to pump fossil fuels out of the North Sea, and
resistance to onshore wind turbines.
AS Wylfa nuclear project suspended, MPs have called on the UK and Welsh governments to consider a range of low-carbon energy projects
|
Planner 10th May 2019 MPs have called on the UK and Welsh governments to consider a
range of low-carbon energy projects in north-west Wales following the suspension ofwork on the Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station. That call comes in a report from the UK Parliament’s Welsh Affairs Committee, which has been looking at the economic impact of the decision by Japanese industrial giant Hitachi to halt work on its proposed new nuclear plant, earmarked for an existing nuclear site on the island of Anglesey.https://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/mps-urge-action-after-nuclear-hiatus-blights-north-wales-growth-deal-prospects |
|
Nuclear power isn’t needed for Green New Deal
https://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/20190510/guest-column-nuclear-power-isnt-needed-for- green-new-deal By David Kyler, 10 May 19, Recently Tim Echols, vice chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, made comments that were critical of the proposed Green New Deal.Echols’ comments could hardly have been more misleading, misinformed and cynically ironic.
In dismissing the progressive proposal, Echols defended Georgia’s energy policy and portrayed the Plant Vogtle nuclear plant as a praiseworthy centerpiece of the state’s achievements. But even casual observers recognize Plant Vogtle as a wasteful fiasco and a tribute to extravagant corporate welfare. Plant Vogtle is now double the starting cost at $30 billion. It is years behind schedule. And it remains a horrendous yet profitable hoax foisted on U.S. taxpayers and Georgia Power customers. Even if Vogtle were running on schedule and within budget, there are very good reasons why so few nuclear plants are now being built — and why nuclear power has been omitted from the Green New Deal. Here are just some of those reasons: • Accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island demonstrate the dangerous public safety risks of nuclear power. • Mining and processing nuclear fuels produce huge amounts of carbon emissions. • There is still no acceptable method for long-term storage of deadly radioactive waste. • The cost of building a nuclear plant requires corporate financing that is lavishly supplemented by government-guaranteed loans. • Unlike nuclear power, solar equipment can be scaled down to ownership by individual households. One of the Green New Deal’s major goals is correcting unfair income disparities that have been facilitated by public policies that reward corporations at the public’s expense. By supporting decentralized energy technology like rooftop solar and omitting corporate-dependent power sources — like nukes — the Green New Deal will help working people build economic security. Contrary to Echols’ claims, the Green New Deal’s aims are legitimate if ambitious. Providing clean energy is a commendable and timely enterprise that is vital to America’s future. David Kyler is the executive director of the Center for a Sustainable Coast in St. Simons Island, Ga. |
|
U.S. Democrats trying to stop funding for US nuclear transfers to Saudi Arabia
Congress tries to defund US nuclear transfers to Saudi Arabia. Al-Monitor
May 9, 2019 House Democrats are trying to use the power of the purse to block the transfer of US nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia amid concerns that the Donald Trump administration is too keen to strike a deal with the kingdom.
The House foreign aid panel’s spending bill for fiscal year 2020, released today, would bar the use of federal funds to “support the sale of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.” The provision comes as Democrats accuse the Trump administration of using a legal loophole to provide undisclosed nuclear technology and assistance to Riyadh.
“Given the administration’s failure to share important information about these activities with Congress, we included this provision, which prevents the administration from allowing the sale of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia,” a House Democratic aide who did not want to be identified told Al-Monitor. “We hope this will force much-needed transparency on this issue.”
Lawmakers are concerned that Riyadh has not agreed to terms that would preclude it from enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium on its territory, precursors to a nuclear weapons program. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman notably raised eyebrows last year by vowing that Saudi Arabia would pursue a nuclear weapon if Iran obtained one.
But some nonproliferation experts are skeptical that the legislation unveiled today would effectively deter the administration, which is determined to strike a civil nuclear deal with Riyadh, from continuing nuclear transfers……… https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/05/congress-tries-defund-us-nuclear-transfers-saudi-arabia.html
Three Mile Island nuclear station has licence for 15 more years, but now to close
Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant To Close, Latest Symbol Of Struggling Industry, NPR, May 8, 2019, 40 years after the nation’s worst commercial nuclear accident, the remaining reactor still operating at Three Mile Island in South-central Pennsylvania is closing.
Exelon announced Wednesday that Three Mile Island Generating Station Unit 1 will shut down by September 30th.
The company says the plant has been losing money for years. The nuclear industry generally has struggled to compete with less expensive electricity generated from natural gas and renewable energy.
Exelon first announced it would close two years ago unless lawmakers stepped in to keep it open. It then campaigned to save the plant by seeking a subsidy from Pennsylvania’s legislature. The company argued that, in light of climate change and efforts to address it, the plant deserves compensation for the [supposedly] carbon-free electricity it produces.
When it became clear the subsidy legislation wouldn’t pass within the next month Exelon decided to retire the plant, which was licensed to operate for 15 more years. …….. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/08/721514875/three-mile-island-nuclear-plant-to-close-latest-symbol-of-struggling-industry
-
Archives
- October 2026 (302)
- 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











