How a nuclear apocalypse could be launched: how a president’s power to do this could be restrained
|
PRESSING THE BUTTON: HOW NUCLEAR-ARMED COUNTRIES PLAN TO LAUNCH ARMAGEDDON (AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE U.S.) War on the Rocks, By ANDY CHOW 24 Apr 19, “What would happen if the president of the U.S.A. went stark-raving mad?”That question appeared on the cover of Fletcher Knebel’s bestselling 1965 novel, Night of Camp David. Knebel, who also wrote Seven Days in May, described a president succumbing to paranoia as those around him struggled to keep him from starting a nuclear war. For obvious reasons, the book was re-released in 2018 in a new edition.
The presidency of Donald Trump has renewed a lingering debate about how much of the terrible responsibility to inflict large-scale nuclear destruction nuclear-armed countries should invest in a single person. The question is not only about Trump, of course. He is a member of a club that also includes Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un — “Rocketman” himself. It is a club that is far more exclusive than the Mar-a-Lago. The terms of this debate are well-known and relate to the specific requirements of nuclear deterrence. On the one hand, there is a broad desire to retain political control over the use of nuclear weapons and to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used by accident or by an unauthorized person. On the other hand, it is typically thought that the credibility of deterrence relies on the certainty of retaliation under all circumstances, even in difficult ones, such as in response to a surprise attack. These twin goals are in tension, a situation that Peter Feaver famously termed the “always/never” dilemma — the weapons should “always” launch when ordered by a legitimate authority, but “never” if no legal order has been given. Each nuclear-armed state has struck a slightly different balance at different points in time, with states shifting “back and forth between delegative and assertive postures” depending on the importance placed on the urgency of response and the general state of civil-military relations and domestic politics. A preference for “always” — certainty that any lawful launch order will be executed — may lead a state to accept a greater risk that nuclear weapons could be used without proper authorization. The preference for “always” could, in extreme cases, lead to so-called “dead hand” systems that would ensure the launch of nuclear-armed missiles even if political leaders were dead. A common procedure to manage the always/never dilemma is to require two or more persons at various links in the chain of command to agree on a step involving nuclear weapons (the so-called “two-man” rule.) The two-person rule may differ greatly in practice across states……. Neither of us is terribly convinced by recent proposals from Congress to insert itself into the process and usurp, in part, the president’s authority to order a nuclear strike. The president is the commander in chief. Once Congress appropriates the funds for military forces, it has little to say about how these forces might be used beyond the power to declare war. Congress has consistently avoided even this responsibility, as the failure to revise the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force demonstrates. Nevertheless, Congress could attempt to compel the president, time and circumstances permitting, to confer with at least the vice president, secretary of defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding any decision to use nuclear weapons and especially a decision to initiate the use of nuclear weapons. These individuals need not be given a veto in the process, but each must be offered a chance to give advice. There would be little downside to such an approach. In our work, we find no evidence that states requiring a collective decision are seen by potential adversaries as less credible than single-person models that favor speed and legitimacy. In NATO, the collective use of nuclear weapons requires consensus of all members of the North Atlantic Council, although the United States, the United Kingdom, and France retain the ability to use nuclear weapons on their own. Whatever doubts we might have about the certainty of retaliation in the most extreme scenarios, those doubts pale in comparison to the ones we have about the wisdom of allowing a single individual unfettered authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. Jeffrey Lewis is a scholar at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. Bruno Tertrais is Deputy Director at the Fondation pour la recherche stratégique in Paris. https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/pressing-the-button-how-nuclear-armed-countries-plan-to-launch-armageddon-and-what-to-do-about-the-u-s/ |
In USA most men support nuclear power, but most women do not.
Americans love clean energy. Do they care if it includes nuclear?
A new poll gets deep into voter preferences on climate policy. VOX, By Nuclear power: The numbers on nuclear power are fascinatingly all over the place. More Republicans than Democrats support it, and more Democrats than Republicans oppose, but not by a ton in either case. The biggest split was not by party but by gender, with 62 percent of men somewhat or strongly supporting it and just 32 percent of women. ……. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/18507297/nuclear-energy-renewables-voters-poll
PM Narendra Mo di , at election rallies, repeatedly boasts of India’s nuclear weapons
|
At Indian General Election Rallies, Modi Beats the Nuclear Drums
The Indian prime minister touts New Delhi’s nuclear capabilities. The Diplomat |
|
Problems and many outages at India’s Kudankulam nuclear power plant
Frequent outages at Kudankulam plant unusual, trying to fix it: Dept of Atomic Energy
This is the first acknowledgement from a government authority and comes months after the issue of frequent power outages was flagged by Poovulagin Nanbargal. The NEWS Minute, TNM Staff
ANOTHER FEDERAL JUDGE RULES THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ILLEGALLY ROLLED BACK CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS
ON EVE OF EARTH DAY, ANOTHER FEDERAL JUDGE RULES THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ILLEGALLY ROLLED BACK CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/eve-earth-day-another-federal-judge-rules-trump-administration-illegally-rolled Apr 21 2019
AG Ferguson’s 20th legal victory against Trump Administration
OLYMPIA — Attorney General Bob Ferguson released the following statement today after a federal judge in Montana ruled that the Trump Administration illegally revoked an Obama-era moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands, and must comply with a federal law requiring environmental analysis before leasing coal-mining rights on public lands:
“It’s fitting that on the eve of Earth Day, another federal judge slaps down the Trump Administration’s illegal effort to roll back basic environmental protections,” said Ferguson. “The Trump Administration illegally revoked the Obama-era moratorium on leasing public lands for coal-mining even though its Interior Department admitted it did not fully understand the societal and environmental impacts of extraction. This ruling sends a clear message that the federal government cannot take an action that impacts our environment without careful review and deliberation – which, to be polite, is not a strong suit of The Trump Administration.”
Case background
In May 2017, Ferguson filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management over a program to lease coal mining rights on public land, which contributes to significant coal-train traffic through the state of Washington. The lawsuit challenged then-Secretary Ryan Zinke’s decision to restart the federal coal-leasing program without supplementing or replacing its nearly 40-year-old environmental study.
The lawsuit was jointly filed by California, New Mexico, New York and Washington in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division.
Coal from federal leases following Zinke’s order would be transported by rail across Washington. In particular, coal from the Powder River Basin is shipped to or through the state. According to the Washington Department of Transportation, the baseline number of trains in 2015 numbered 70 per day on some track segments in the state, including multiple coal trains. Diesel exhaust and coal dust from uncovered coal train cars can negatively affect air quality.
Washington has a further interest in the effects of increased coal production and consumption on climate change. Washington experiences many negative effects of climate change, including rising ambient temperatures, a diminished and unpredictable snowpack necessary for water consumption and hydropower generation, and ocean warming and acidification, which is harmful to Washington’s shellfishery.
The AGO’s Counsel for Environmental Protection is handling the case for Washington.
Attorney General Ferguson created the Counsel for Environmental Protection in 2016 to protect our environment and the safety and health of all Washingtonians.
Ferguson has filed 35 lawsuits against the Trump Administration and has not lost a case. Ferguson now has 20 legal victories against the Trump Administration. Eleven of those cases are finished and cannot be appealed. The Trump Administration has or may appeal the other nine, which include lawsuits involving Dreamers and 3D-printed guns. After more than two years of litigation, no court to rule on the merits of the Attorney General’s arguments in a lawsuit against the Trump Administration has ruled against the office.
-30-
The Office of the Attorney General is the chief legal office for the state of Washington with attorneys and staff in 27 divisions across the state providing legal services to roughly 200 state agencies, boards and commissions. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.
Contacts:
Brionna Aho, Communications Director, (360) 753-2727; Brionna.aho@atg.wa.gov
Pennsylvania considers subsidising so-called “clean” nuclear energy
|
Pennsylvania decides whether to subsidize nuclear energy as “clean” https://thebulletin.org/2019/04/pennsylvania-decides-whether-to-subsidize-nuclear-energy-as-clean/
By Heather Wuest, April 22, 2019 To drive growth in its clean energy market and combat climate change, Pennsylvania adopted the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act in 2004.This requires energy companies to buy specific percentages of their total electricity from clean energy sources. The requirements started small but are designed to increase over time. There are now 16 different clean energy choices for electric utilities to choose from in Pennsylvania. But new legislation would include a 17th clean generation option—nuclear power. Bills introduced in the state’s House and Senate are intended to prevent the retirement of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant outside Harrisburg and the Beaver Valley plant near Pittsburgh. Both plants are set for closure because they cannot compete on price with electricity from natural gas-fired power plants and renewable energy sources. Adding nuclear to the clean energy list would not be a simple or inexpensive process. Pennsylvania energy consumers would have to pay hundreds of millions in subsidies to make the nuclear plants economically viable. It’s a process that other energy generators and the manufacturing sector worry will distort Pennsylvania’s energy market. But the nuclear industry supports roughly 16,000 industry jobs and generates 93 percent of the electricity produced in the state by sources that don’t emit carbon dioxide in the process. Pennsylvania is hardly alone in its quest to buy clean energy; many other states are implementing plans that require energy companies to purchase set amounts so-called “carbon-free” electricity. In some states, nuclear is subsidized as a “green” energy source; in others, it is not. In Pennsylvania, it may be. The battle over that issue will play out in the state Legislature between now and early June, when the owner of the Three Mile Island plant is expected to decide whether to refuel or close it. |
|
|
Nearly 1000 climate protestors arrested in London – and Extinction Rebellion is changing tack
|
Extinction Rebellion: The People Risking Their Freedom For Climate Change | HuffPost Reports: UK Extinction Rebellion arrests close to 1,000 as protesters ‘pause rebellion’ ITV 21 Apr 19 Climate change protesters who have stopped traffic in a series of peaceful demonstrations across London will “pause” their rebellion in a bid to achieve their political aims, as the arrest total nears 1,000.Extinction Rebellion (XR) have announced they are switching disruptive tactics for political negotiations as they enter a second week of campaigning to have the Government declare a climate emergency. The number of people arrested in connection with the protests has hit 963 and 40 people have been charged. Continue reading |
Britain’s slow path to zero carbon emissions
Extinction Rebellion: what pushes people to drastic action on climate change?
Slow burn? The long road to a zero-emissions UK, Guardian, Robin McKie, Observer science editor, Sun 21 Apr 2019
Extinction Rebellion protesters want a carbon-free UK by 2025. But can the financial and political hurdles be overcome?
Many experts disagree, however. They argue that such an imminent target is completely impractical. “Yes, you could decarbonise Britain by 2025 but the cost of implementing such vast changes at that speed would be massive and hugely unpopular,” says Lord Turner, former chairman of the climate change committee.
Most expect the climate change committee will plump for 2050 as Britain’s ideal decarbonisation date. “2050 is do-able and desirable and would have an insignificant overall cost to the economy,” states Turner, who is now chairman of the Energy Transitions Commission. According to this scenario, developed nations, including Britain, would aim to achieve zero-emissions status by 2050 and then use the decarbonising technologies they have developed to achieve this goal – hydrogen plants, carbon dioxide storage vaults and advanced renewable generators – to help developing nations halt their greenhouse gas emissions by 2060.
Many experts disagree, however. They argue that such an imminent target is completely impractical. “Yes, you could decarbonise Britain by 2025 but the cost of implementing such vast changes at that speed would be massive and hugely unpopular,” says Lord Turner, former chairman of the climate change committee.
Most expect the climate change committee will plump for 2050 as Britain’s ideal decarbonisation date. “2050 is do-able and desirable and would have an insignificant overall cost to the economy,” states Turner, who is now chairman of the Energy Transitions Commission. According to this scenario, developed nations, including Britain, would aim to achieve zero-emissions status by 2050 and then use the decarbonising technologies they have developed to achieve this goal – hydrogen plants, carbon dioxide storage vaults and advanced renewable generators – to help developing nations halt their greenhouse gas emissions by 2060.
And the change has already been reflected in Britain’s power statistics. In 2013, 62.5% of UK electricity was generated by oil, coal and gas stations, while renewable provided only 14.5%. In 2018, the figure for oil, coal and gas had been reduced to 44% while renewables were generating 31.7%. It is a distinct improvement – though we have yet to be given a date when engineers expect the last UK fossil-fuelled power plant to produce its final watts of electricity and to emit its last puffs of carbon dioxide
“Decarbonising UK power production is going well,” says George Day, head of policy for the technology and innovation centre Energy Systems Catapult. “There is a clear path forward.” But as he points out, there are many other sources of carbon dioxide in the UK. “The next big challenge will be heating. Gas boilers are major carbon emitters and dealing with them is going to be very difficult.”
According to Day, about 90% of British people have gas boilers in their homes, most having been fitted relatively recently …
………In the end, it will simply not be possible to reduce Britain’s fossil-fuel emissions to zero, say scientists. To compensate, we will have to take carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere. “That is the logical, inevitable consequence of trying to achieve zero net emissions in this country,” argues Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia. “If you are looking for any net zero target then you have to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
This can be done in three ways: naturally, by planting trees and shrubs that absorb carbon dioxide. Or artificially – on a larger scale – the gas can be removed as it is produced at a factory or power station that burns trees for energy.
Or it can be removed by huge numbers of man-made air filters, known as direct air capture. The carbon dioxide can be liquefied and stored underground in underground caverns, or old, depleted gas fields under the North Sea. This is known as carbon capture utilisation and underground storage (CCUS).
“In the end, your choice of replanting or of building underground storage facilities depends on how much carbon you will need to remove,” says Le Quéré. “Most calculations suggest Britain will need to take quite a lot of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to keep its net emissions at zero.”……….
UK carbon emissions have fallen for the sixth year running
This need for speed is shared by many other parts of the zero-emissions programme, as we have seen. It may seem odd given it is unlikely it will reach its conclusion for another three decades. Nevertheless, scientists are adamant that even if choose 2050 for our decarbonisation date, we need to act now.
This urgency of the task is emphasized by Joeri Rogelj at Imperial College London. “If the world limits emissions of carbon dioxide to no more than 420 billion tonnes this century, we will have a two in three chance of keeping global warming down to around 1.5C.
“However, if we go above to 580 billion tonnes then our chances will be reduced to 50-50. The problem is that in 2017 alone, a total of 42 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide was emitted in a single year. By that calculation, we clearly do not have a lot of time to waste.”https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/21/long-road-to-zero-emissions-uk
A conservative backlash against Trump, as he appoints fossil fuel insiders to federal agencies?
|
Trump Appointed Fossil Fuel Insiders to Federal Agencies. It’s Backfiring. BY Mike Ludwig, Truthout, April 20, 2019 President Trump enjoys broad support from conservative Christians because of his promises to attack reproductive rights and stack the courts in their favor, but thousands of anti-choice “evangelical environmentalists” lashed out at his administration this week. Their gripe? An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to gut the regulatory analysis behind pollution standards that have drastically reduced mercury and other toxic emissions from coal-burning power plants. Mercury, after all, can harm fetuses and developing brains.
In a letter published in The Hill this week, the Evangelical Environmental Network became the latest group to speak out against an EPA that would heavily revise the cost-benefit analysis behind its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, which have required coal plants to invest in pollution controls that reduced the amount of mercury they spew into the air by up to 90 percent over the past decade. Progressive environmental groups, lawmakers in both parties and even electric utilities also came out against the proposed rule-making during a public comment period that ended this week. The unusual dissent from conservative evangelicals was the latest evidence that Trump’s plan to unleash fossil fuels production by stacking federal agencies with industry insiders and slashing regulatory oversight is backfiring. The president’s first picks to run the EPA and the Interior Department resigned in scandal, and their replacements are already mired in investigations and ethical concerns. ……… https://truthout.org/articles/trump-appointed-fossil-fuel-insiders-to-federal-agencies-its-backfiring/ |
|
An emerging hopeful trend for US nuclear policy
A new, hopeful moment for US nuclear policy, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Joe Cirincione, April 17, 2019 Underneath the daily, depressing headlines, five converging trends offer hope, for the first time in more than a decade, for dramatic positive change in US nuclear policy.
The first trend is the growing recognition that current US nuclear security strategies have failed to make America safer. The policies pursued by President Donald Trump have made every nuclear danger he inherited worse, not better. Military budgets are spiraling out of control, new weapons and new doctrines are increasing the risk of nuclear use, effective treaties and agreements are frivolously discarded, and diligent diplomacy is replaced with narcissistic summitry. Our policies have alienated our allies and, most ominously, the instability of the president has exposed the underlying insanity of a system that gives one person the unchecked power to start a nuclear war that could end human civilization.
It is hard to find a bright spot in the Trump approach to nuclear affairs. The world is fully entrenched in a new arms race, with every nuclear-armed nation producing new weapons. Yet Trump is trying to destroy the accord that rolled back and contained Iran’s nuclear program, and he has seesawed his way to an incoherent North Korea policy. In fact, he and National Security Adviser John Bolton are methodically shredding the entire nuclear safety net of agreements, treaties, alliances, and security assurances constructed by their predecessors over decades.
This torrent of bad news has had one positive impact: It has made crystal clear that the United States needs a fundamentally new, saner nuclear strategy.
The second trend offers hope for developing such a strategy. The November elections brought fresh leadership and energy to the Congress. The House of Representatives can provide a check on a dangerous president and become a proving ground for new ideas and new policies. Leaders old and new are rising to the challenge.
Rep. Adam Smith, a 20-year veteran and now chair of the House Armed Services Committee, wants to “totally re-do the nuclear posture review.” Dozens of senators and members have introduced visionary legislation that could form the planks of a new strategic platform. There will be debates and votes on new weapons, a no first use policy, and efforts to prevent a nuclear arms race by preserving existing treaties.
The presidential campaigns, meanwhile, have started in earnest. Some candidates are already advancing dramatic, alternative security policies to end unjust wars and rethink our nuclear posture. Sen. Elizabeth Warren—who says, “our current nuclear strategy is not just outdated, it is dangerous”—mirrors Smith’s policy priorities with a three-part proposal: No new weapons, more arms control not less, and no first use. Sen. Bernie Sanders told a Fox News town hall April 15, “We have to bring the United States and the rest of the world together to do everything we can to rid this world of nuclear weapons.”
Meanwhile, six candidates have already said that one of their top priorities would be to re-commit the United States to the Iran anti-nuclear deal, including Warren, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, and Wayne Messam. Many also support negotiations with North Korea—but done with a competent team, a fully staffed State Department, and plans that rely less on summitry and more on diplomacy.
The most important trend, however, is the rise of vibrant mass movements that have translated angry street protests into sustained political action, powered 100 new members into Congress, and now are linking up with the “activist leadership” style of these members and some presidential candidates. Though primarily focused on domestic matters, these organizations are ready to embrace national security in their campaigns for a more just and equitable society. This is precisely the type of grassroots pressure needed to encourage political leaders to break with the nuclear-industrial complex and its outmoded programs and strategies—and then press for the implementation of new policies in Congress and in the White House.
Relatedly, the success of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons campaign indicates that the global appetite for the elimination of these weapons is growing. Allied governments—often in the grip of conservative defense officials who resist changes to nuclear doctrine—may be more receptive to discussion about disarmament, faced with this popular sentiment and the scares Trump’s personality and policies have given them.
Finally, trillion-dollar tax cuts and profligate military spending have brought budget realities home to America. ….. https://thebulletin.org/2019/04/a-new-hopeful-moment-for-us-nuclear-policy/
Dangerous electioneering: India’s Modi ramps up the nuclear weapons rhetoric
Express Tribune 19th April 2019 During an election rally on April 14, Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed
that he had called Pakistan’s nuclear “bluff” by carrying out air
strikes within Pakistan. In his exact words, Modi boasted, “Pakistan has
threatened us with nuclear, nuclear, nuclear” and then he asked
rhetorically, “Did we deflate their nuclear threat or not?”
Of course, Modi’s supporters raised chants in an expression of their approval.
Perhaps this was merely a case of aggressive electioneering in which Modi
has focused on national security as the main theme. But such claims have
also been made by several Indian policymakers and defence analysts after
the recent Pulwama crisis which demonstrates that there is a wider
acceptance for such views. In reality this is a dangerous delusion.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1953964/6-indias-dangerous-delusions/
On climate change impacts, nuclear lobby has captured the regulators
 Watchdog Sounds Alarm Over Regulatory Capture as New Reporting Shows Nuclear Plants Unprepared for Climate Crisis https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/19/watchdog-sounds-alarm-over-regulatory-capture-new-reporting-shows-nuclear-plants “We do not have an independent regulator that is heeding its mandate to protect public health and safety first.” Despite that threat, says a watchdog, the industry’s regulatory capture means its interests are set to continue to take precedence over public health and safety. As Bloomberg‘s Christopher Flavelle and Jeremy C.F. Lin laid out Thursday, in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tasked the roughly 60 operating plants in the U.S. with assessing what their flood risks were compared to what flood risks the plants were actually built to withstand. That was a logical step, given many of the American plants’ proximity to waterways, and the heightened risk of flooding in the face of the climate crisis. Shortfalls in the assessments were evident.
What’s more, those shortfalls may represent a better case scenario, as the NRC allowed the plant operators—not an outside authority—to perform the flood estimates and were not required to assess projected flood risks. “It’s difficult to come across as an independent regulator and rely on self-assessment” from plants, as Tony Vegel, a Texas-based reactor safety official for the NRC, said previously. The nuclear industry, as Bloomberg reported, wasn’t interested in facility redesigns to better withstand flood risks. Rather, it wanted
The three Trump-appointed commissioners did the industry’s bidding and said the existing regulations afforded enough protection. The NRC’s two Democratic commissioners disagreed. Bloomberg quoted Edwin Lyman, head of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, as saying, “The NRC basically did everything the industry wanted.” Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project at Beyond Nuclear, concurred with that assessment. Another issue, he told Common Dreams, is that “the commission’s January 2019 voteappears to have violated the federal Administrative Procedures Act by erasing what had been established as mandatory requirements through the agency’s rulemaking process for post-Fukushima flooding preparations at U.S. reactors.” “The Commission vote,” he said, “inexplicably switched out ‘mandatory’ requirements with ‘voluntary’ initiatives after the public comment period on the final rule was closed. The NRC did not receive a single comment from either the public or the industry to make such a change.” Gunter also noted that the NRC’s failings didn’t just begin once Trump entered the White House. For example, he said, “following the Fukushima catastrophe, in 2012 the NRC technical staff unanimously agreed that the agency issue an order to 31 U.S. Fukushima-style GE Mark I and II boiling water reactors requiring operators to install severe accident-capable radiation filters on hardened containment vents.” These vents, he explained, “would allow operators to vent the containment of a severe accident’s extreme heat, pressure, and explosive gases to save the structure while filtering out the release of harmful radiation.” But in a June 2013 vote, “the commission voted to order the installation of hardened containment vents but without the engineered external radiation filters which industry opposed on cost.” While the NRC “suggested that the filters could be taken up later in a rulemaking process for public comment,” it “abandoned the measure,” said Gunter. In another sign of the NRC’s capture by the nuclear industry The Associated Pressreported last month:
The battle lines, said Gunter, are clear. “The essential step forward must address the regulatory agency’s deepening capture by an aging and financially failing nuclear industry,” he said. “We do not have an independent regulator that is heeding its mandate to protect public health and safety first.” |
|
State subsidies for nuclear power in USA are simply not necessary
State Nuclear Subsidies Not Needed, Forbes, Adam Millsap-19 Apr 19
Natural gas has become the dominant source of electricity generation in the United States and this is creating some financial issues for the nuclear industry. Since 2010, several nuclear plants around the country have closed and economic conditions, particularly low natural gas prices, are often citedas a factor. Officials from companies that own and operate struggling plants are seeking government assistance to stay afloat, but state lawmakers should be skeptical.
The decline in the price of natural gas since 2008, shown in the figure below, [on original] has made it difficult for some nuclear plants to compete. Prior to 2008, some thought a nuclear renaissance was on the horizon. Now this seems unlikely.
Nuclear power is characterized by the initial high costs of plant construction followed by relatively low operating costs. When alternative energy sources—such as coal, oil, solar, etc.—are expensive, it can make economic sense to bear the high costs of nuclear plant construction. But when other prices are low, as with today’s abundant natural gas and increasingly competitive wind and solar power, it’s harder to justify new plant construction.
Not only are economic conditions working against new nuclear plants, but they are also unfavorable to many existing plants. Unsurprisingly, officials from the companies that own and operate the struggling plants want some government help. A recent report in Pennsylvania’s York Dispatch shows that Exelon Corp.—the owner of some of the struggling plants—significantly increased its lobbying spending in Pennsylvania in 2018 compared to the previous five election cycles. Spending increased from an average of just over $646,000 from 2008 to 2016 to nearly $1.8 million in 2018.
There is some evidence that the lobbying is working. …..
Subsidies work by taxing one group and giving the revenue to another. In the Pennsylvania and Ohio bills, the funding for the subsidy is raised via higher electricity rates on consumers.
Supporters of both bills argue that nuclear is a vital source of clean energy and that without legislation nuclear plants will continue to shut down. But despite competition from natural gas and renewables, it’s not clear that the nuclear industry as a whole is in deep financial trouble. According to a recent analysis, all but one of Pennsylvania’s five nuclear plants are covering their costs. Since there is no financial stress requirement in the Pennsylvania bill, profitable plants in the state will benefit just as much as the current unprofitable one—Three Mile Island Unit 1.
More broadly, a recent State of the Market Report for PJM, which is the regional transmission organization that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other nearby states, also casts doubt on the general unprofitability of nuclear power. The report projects that only three of 18 nuclear plants in the region—Three Mile Island along with Davis-Besse and Perry in Ohio—won’t be able to cover their costs for at least one year between 2019 to 2021. ……
it’s not clear that subsidizing inefficient nuclear plants is the most economical way to address climate change , since subsides have problems of their own……
subsidies to nuclear plants are also likely to crowd out new, more efficient electricity plants. Total electricity generation in the United States has declined slightly since 2010 despite economic growth in the form of real GDP per capita, as shown below. [on original]
In a world of declining or even stable electricity use, the profit motive for investing in new capacity is weakened if new plants are not allowed to out-compete less efficient plants for market share. So as long as less efficient nuclear plants are meeting consumer demand, newer plants powered by natural gas, wind, solar, or some other source will have a difficult time finding a market.
Stu Bressler, senior vice president of operations and markets for PJM Interconnection, recently said essentially this when he told Ohio lawmakersthat subsidizing less competitive plants “…could prevent the building of more efficient and cost effective plants, including cleaner technologies like solar and wind.”
Finally, just because a subsidy has the potential to improve economic efficiency doesn’t mean it will. A subsidy that is too small will not generate enough of the good or service. A subsidy that is too large can generate too much, leading to more inefficiency than no subsidy at all. The bureaucratic costs of estimating the correct subsidy, implementing it, and administering it must also be considered. If these costs outweigh the potential gains in efficiency from the subsidy, then the economy would be better off without it.
It doesn’t appear that Ohio or Pennsylvania lawmakers have rigorously estimated the appropriate subsidy or accounted for the costs of implementing and administering one in their proposals. Without such analysis, it’s unlikely that the proposed nuclear subsidies will lead to an improvement in consumer welfare. Instead, these subsidies will likely do more harm than good, as they seem to be primarily designed to help a few unprofitable nuclear plants rather than carefully thought out pieces of a broader, market-based energy plan.
Adam A. Millsap is the Assistant Director of the L. Charles Hilton Jr. Center at Florida State University and an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2019/04/19/state-nuclear-subsidies-not-needed/#e532f23111dc
Harvey Wasserman: America’s “Hole-in-the-Head” Nuke Suicide Pact Gets Court Approval
|
Every downwind American is now threatened with deadly radiation while state after state bankrupts itself with soaring electric bills and ecological disaster, crippling the Solartopian green energy revolution. It is, in short, the “hole in the head” wave of massive state-based nuke bailouts All across the US, brain-dead Trumpist legislatures are scamming public billions into dying nuke reactors that pose the #1 threat to human survival on this planet. All the world’s 440 reactors (98 in the US) are decrepit, crumbling, ready to blow. They’re uninspected, under-maintained, filthy, falling apart. They emit massive quantities of heat and radiation that cause climate chaos. Most are huge money-losers that can’t compete with green Solartopian technologies. They are epitomized by Ohio’s infamous “hole in the head” Davis-Besse nuke, currently crumbling outside Toledo. In keeping with the Luddite wave now sweeping Trumpnation, the Ohio legislature may soon fork over billions to keep it running toward the ultimate failure. The state-based nuke bailout craze actually started with New York governor Andrew Cuomo. In 2016-2017, he began gouging the Empire State for some $7.6 billion to underwrite four dying upstate nukes. All lose mega-cash while killing countless jobs by raising electric rates and blocking renewables. Wind, solar, batteries and LED/efficiency were set to make the Empire state both energy independent and fully employed. But Cuomo is blocking that by scamming ratepayers as far away as Long Island who get zero juice from the nukes they’re being forced to subsidize. Cuomo originally promised the payouts would soon decline. Instead, they rose $50 million this year, even beyond the original bailout scam. The Illinois legislature is doing the same for three downstate reactors. New Jersey and Pennsylvania are contemplating a similar suicide. But Ohio may top them all. Center stage is FirstEnergy’s infamous money-losing Davis-Besse “hole-in-the-head” nuke near Toledo. Its bankrupt owner’s precursor blacked out the entire Northeast in 2003. FE says without a gargantuan bailout, DB will shut by 2021. So the gerrymandered GOP legislature may soon gouge tax/ratepayers some $300 million/year to keep DB and the nearby Perry reactor open, dooming the state’s remnant rust belt economy. DB dumps its waste heat into Lake Erie, between Toledo and Cleveland. A 1977 accident portended what destroyed its clone, Three Mile Island Unit Two, on March 28, 1979. TMI2’s owners later sued because lessons learned at DB that might’ve helped them avoid their own disaster were not passed on. In 2002, news of a hole in DB’s head astonished the industry. Dripping boric acid had eaten nearly through the reactor vessel head. Cleveland and the Great Lakes were 3/5ths of an inch from permanent irradiation. Rather than shut permanently, FE spent millions on a “fix” that failed. Then they cut through the containment and glued on a badly-fitted head from an unfinished Michigan reactor canceled by citizen action. Shoddy construction and faulty maintenance have perforated the building meant to shield the public from DB’s radiation. Its operating/maintenance costs soar while it can’t compete with methane. But it’s wind that Ohio’s nuke-loving lawmakers most hate. “North coast” breezes blow steadily over flat agricultural land filled with transmission lines. Farmers are desperate for the steady income turbines can bring, especially when sited so close to urban consumers. More than $4 billion in private funding is pending for Ohio wind farms, guaranteeing billions in longterm revenue and thousands of secure jobs. But in 2015, FE’s bought lawmakers concocted a setback provision meant to kill those projects. Other midwestern/Great Plains states are now filling with cheap nature-based electricity. But anti-wind Ohio may now bury its fiscal future with unsustainable electric rates. All reactors spew carbon 14 along with huge quantities of hot water and steam that warm the planet and kill trillions of marine creatures. Their cooling towers kill countless birds. All American reactors (except Watts Bar) are more than twenty years old; some are more than forty. Now the Trump-run Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it may simply stop inspecting these older reactors just as they most need it. They want owners to stop informing the public of mishaps just as they become more frequent and dangerous. The terrifying escalation of reactor disasters has risen from the near-miss at Michigan’s Fermi One (1966) to the melt-down at TMI (1979) to the mega-explosion at Chernobyl (1986) to the three melt-downs/four explosions at Fukushima. After that 2011 disaster, NRC staff compiled upgrades to guard against another one. But the Trump Commission killed them all, leaving the fleet even more dangerous than before Fukushima. When the next big reactor blows, industry hacks like Ann Coulter will be all over Fox explaining that radiation is good and that plutonium is pixie dust that really won’t harm our kids. But the ghastly death tolls at TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima say otherwise. Based on the insane claim that nukes deserve “zero emission credits,” the Supreme Court has cleared the way for still more of these insane bailouts. Grassroots Solartopians are fighting back. Ohio’s bailout has been held off for years, and may yet fail. They’ve petitioned California Governor Gavin Newsom to independently inspect Diablo Canyon. They’ve also poured into the bankruptcy court, where FirstEnergy’s inabilities are on global display alongside those of California’s Pacific Gas & Electric, the money-losing behemoth that in 2010 killed eight people with badly maintained pipelines, then killed eighty more with badly maintained power lines that incinerated an entire ecosystem, including 12,000 structures. The uncaring incompetence of this dying industry and its technology of death guarantee that unless these bailouts stop, far worse is yet to come. 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. |
|
he Supreme Court has just now certified the deadliest and most economically Finland to start constructing nuclear plant with Russian reactor in 2021
|
New Europe By Kostis GeropoulosEnergy & Russian Affairs Editor,19 Apr 19 SOCHI, Russia – Fennovoima is proceeding with plans to build the Hanhikivi 1 nuclear power plant in the northern Finnish city of Pyhäjoki and expects to receive the construction license in 2021, Fennovoima CEO Toni Hemminki told New Europe in an interview on the sidelines of the 2019 Atomexpo XI in Sochi on 15 April. Fennovoima had originally expected to start construction of the plant in 2019.
“At the end of the year, the supplier, RAOS Project, communicated to us that, according to the estimation, we can start the construction in 2021 and then that means commercial operational date would be the 2028,” he said, referring to RAOS Project Oy, a subsidiary of Rosatom Energy International. “Those are the milestones that we are working on accordingly at the moment and we are also fine tuning the detailed schedule for it with the supplier,” he said, adding that the structure with the supplier is the same but there have been some organizational changes within Fennovoima. …… Hemminki argued that building the plant in Finland would be a showcase for the Rosatom State Atomiс Energy Corporation. “We might be the only customer of Rosatom that is commercial. ……
He noted that Russia would provide nuclear fuel to the Finnish plant for at least 10 years. Turning to sanctions against Russia, he said they did not affect the nuclear industry. “Globally, there are a few supplies going to different countries from Russia. I think this is functioning and for our project as well, we have not seen any direct effect at the moment,” Hemminki said……
He acknowledged that nuclear waste is a long-term fundamental issue, saying: “We are going to select the locations for final disposal in 2040 so that’s a very long-term project so it’s not acute at the moment.” https://www.neweurope.eu/article/finland-to-start-constructing-nuclear-plant-with-russian-reactor-in-2021/
|
|
|
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 (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
