75 industry, government, and military dignitaries applaud Trump’s nuclear bailout plan
Government, military officials in favor of Trump’s nuclear bailout plan http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2018/07/01/Government-military-officials-in-favor-of-Trump-s-nuclear-bailout-plan.html, By | BLADE STAFF WRITER
A broad coalition of 75 industry, government, and military dignitaries — a quarter of whom are retired admirals or vice admirals — has come out in support of President Trump’s plan to bail out the nation’s struggling nuclear plants, agreeing that more premature closures pose a national security threat.
“We urge you to continue to take concrete steps to ensure the national security attributes of U.S. nuclear power plants are properly recognized by policymakers and are valued in U.S. electricity markets,” according to the letter, which was addressed to U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry and dated last week.
The letter could help stave off the planned closures of FirstEnergy Solutions’ Davis-Besse nuclear plant east of Toledo, its Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland, and its twin-reactor nuclear complex west of Pittsburgh.
FES has announced it will close Davis-Besse by May 31, 2020, unless a buyer or bailout emerges. The other three nuclear plants are to be closed by the end of 2021.
FES and FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., both subsidiaries of Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., are in bankruptcy proceedings because those plants — as well as several coal-fired power plants — have become unprofitable during the era of record-low natural gas prices and growth in the renewable energy sector. FirstEnergy has said it wants out of electricity generation, and that what’s left of the corporation will be focused on transmission.
The high-profile letter in support of saving nuclear plants is being circulated by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s lobbying arm on Capitol Hill.
Besides admirals and vice admirals, the signatories include former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and former U.S. senators Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.), Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), Trent Lott (R., Miss.), Jim Talent (R. Mo.), and John Warner (R., Va.).
Also signing the letter was former New Jersey Gov. and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman as well as many former industry executives, such as Daniel Akerson, General Motors’ chairman and chief executive officer from 2010 to 2014; Thomas Christopher, former AREVA chief executive officer; Charles Pryor, retired Westinghouse Electric Co. and URENCO USA chairman, and Jeffrey Wadsworth, former Battelle Memorial Institute president and chief executive officer.
In addition, the letter is signed by three former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairmen, Nils Diaz, Dale Klein, and Richard Meserve; as well as some former NRC commissioners, and several former directors of national laboratories.
The Trump Administration plan to bail out struggling nuclear and coal-fired power plants came two months after FirstEnergy Solutions filed what many experts view as a historic and potentially landmark petition for relief under Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws.
The bankruptcy filing has drawn national attention because FirstEnergy is one of America’s largest utilities. It appealed to Mr. Perry for help in late March when it filed for bankruptcy.
Those nuclear plants — in addition to numerous coal-fired power plants under FirstEnergy — represent a huge chunk of electricity for the regional electric grid that Pennsylvania-based PJM Interconnection operates in 13 states, including Ohio. That grid, which serves 65 million people, is the nation’s largest.
Mr. Perry is being asked to exercise emergency authority under a pair of federal laws typically reserved for wars or natural disasters.
According to The Associated Press, such a move is “unprecedented intervention into U.S. energy markets.”
PJM has said the planned shuttering of those plants pose “no immediate threat to system reliability,” and warned of higher prices, as have many others.
The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, one of several parties that opposes such an emergency order, has called FirstEnergy’s request “extraordinary,” as well as “fundamentally unjust and unreasonable for Ohio consumers,” adding Ohioans will be subject to “paying subsidies and above-market prices for electricity” if a bailout is granted.
Also objecting have been attorneys general from nine states and the District of Columbia, calling the company’s justification “legally flawed” and “a grave abuse of the Federal Power Act,” a section of which provides for relief during national emergencies.
The Chicago-based Environmental Law & Policy Center — which called upon the NRC to investigate the utility’s decommissioning trust fund days before FES filed for bankruptcy protection — also has filed a 96-page petition in opposition, which it prepared with the New York-based Environmental Defense Fund, the Ohio Environmental Council, and Ohio Citizen Action.
The NRC found no shortfall during its last audit of the trust fund, completed in March, 2017.
The ELPC is one of several groups that have labeled Mr. Trump’s directive as an act of socialism, saying it goes against free market supply-and-demand principles. Those opposed include the American Petroleum Institute, which represents the industry benefiting most from expanded production of natural gas.
The United States is now the world’s largest producer of natural gas. Industry executives and government officials said at a conference in Washington last week that the country could expand its shale gas output another 60 percent in the coming decades.
The administration’s position is that America cannot become overly reliant on natural gas, renewable energy, and other sources of electricity that are now being sold at much cheaper prices. Natural gas in particular has made great inroads in the market because of how prices have fallen dramatically over the past decade once the modern era of fracking shale began.
Contact Tom Henry at thenry@theblade.com, 419-724-6079, or via Twitter @ecowriterohio.
Federal and tribal officials support proposed amendments to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act
Officials seek support for radiation exposure compensation amendments https://www.daily-times.com/story/news/local/navajo-nation/2018/06/30/officials-seek-support-radiation-exposure-compensation-amendments/740239002/,
Horizon Nuclear Power’s Wylfa Newydd plans formally approved.
Energy Live News 29th June 2018 ,Horizon Nuclear Power’s Wylfa Newydd plans formally approved. Four key
environmental permits will now enter the assessment stage. Horizon Nuclear
Power has had its plans to build the proposed Wylfa Newydd nuclear power
station in Wales formally approved by the Planning Inspectorate. The
Development Consent Order process now formally begins with the
pre-examination phase, which is where members of the public can become an
‘interested party’. An Examining Authority is also appointed at this
stage and interested parties will be invited to attend a preliminary
meeting. Four other key environmental permits will now also enter the
assessment stage, which will be delivered by Natural Resources Wales.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2018/06/29/horizon-nuclear-powers-wylfa-newydd-plans-formally-approved/
UK Public Accounting for Costs of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise – seriously underscrutinised
Parliament 19th June 2018 Neglected Large-Scale Value for Money Issues in Public Accounting for Costs
of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise :Written evidence a review of issues that
are of direct relevance to the core topic of the National Audit Office
(NAO) report of 2018 concerning ‘the Defence Nuclear Enterprise’
(henceforth ‘NAO Report’). The material summarized here supplements and
updates evidence published by the PAC Inquiry of October 2017. The authors
believe on grounds of many years of research at the Science Policy Research
Unit at the University of Sussex that the matters documented here raise
large-scale, long-run value for money issues of pressing national
importance, which remain seriously neglected in work to date either by the
NAO, the PAC or any other official bodies – and which are therefore
gravely under-scrutinized by Parliament or wider UK policy debates
In South Africa, there’s confusion about the new government’s policy on matters nuclear
Nuclear energy: Ramaphosa’s mixed messages https://www.news24.com/Analysis/nuclear-energy-ramaphosas-mixed-messages-20180629 Ellen Davies and Saliem Fakir
December 2017 marked the beginning of significant political changes in South Africa. Former President Jacob Zuma was replaced by Cyril Ramaphosa as president of the African National Congress (ANC). On 14 February 2018, Zuma stepped down as president of the Republic of South Africa (RSA), almost one year short of completing his second and final term. He was replaced by the newly elected president of the ANC, Cyril Ramaphosa.
This has brought about significant changes in South Africa. However, what this means for Government’s nuclear energy ambitions is not yet clear. While the Zuma administration remained unwaveringly committed to the Nuclear Energy New Build Programme in its full 9.6GW glory, mixed messages about the future of nuclear energy have emerged from President Ramaphosa and his newly appointed Minister of Energy, Jeff Radebe.
Given this uncertainty, as well as the country’s questionable track record with pursuing nuclear energy procurement under the Zuma administration, those opposed to the nuclear new build programme are left in limbo.
Will government continue to pursue nuclear energy despite its prohibitively high costs; the lack of energy demand to justify a build on this scale; the fact that we don’t have the money to finance it; and the continued resistance from many constituencies throughout South Africa? If it does, will the procurement process be more open and transparent than it was under the Zuma administration and will government engage with and listen to the concerns of its people?
These are critical questions because the energy choices we make now will have significant impacts not only on our energy security and economic performance today but also in the future.
It is in this spirit that the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) undertook two studies to explore the future of nuclear energy in South Africa. The purpose of these studies is two-fold. First, it seeks to understand what we can learn from the decisions made and strategies pursued to push nuclear energy under the Zuma administration. Second, it seeks to highlight the potential points of intervention available to those seeking to oppose nuclear energy deployment, or at the very least ensure accountability in the procurement thereof.
The first study, South Africa’s nuclear new-build programme: Who are the players and what are the potential strategies for pushing the nuclear new-build programme, maps the most vocal constituencies in the nuclear energy debate and their reasons for either opposing or supporting the new build programme. What it reveals is that across the board, irrespective of ideological positions or technology preferences, South Africans are opposed to the nuclear programme. The reasons given by these commentators include, the prohibitively high costs involved, the lack of energy demand to justify the programme, the lack of finance to fund such a programme, the secrecy associated with nuclear procurement and the potential for corruption, among others.
The study also unpacks some of the lessons we can learn from government’s strategy to push the nuclear programme under the previous administration. Importantly, it unpacks the Earthlife Africa and Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) legal challenge, which saw the Western Cape High Court declare Government’s Intergovernmental Agreement with Russia unlawful and what those opposed to nuclear energy can learn from this process. It attempts to understand what, given the High Court decision, are the strategies available to Government if it is to continue to pursue nuclear energy in South Africa.
The second study, South Africa’s nuclear new-build programme: The domestic requirements for nuclear energy procurement and public finance implications, provides insight into the various legislative requirements for large infrastructure builds in South Africa.
What it reveals is that SA has a robust legislative framework in place to ensure that due process is followed in large infrastructure procurement. In particular, Treasury’s various procurement rules impose a number of checks and balances to prevent cost overruns and delays and to ensure transparency and accountability. These are critical to understand, not only in the context of nuclear energy, but for any infrastructure build we might seek to undertake.
The second report also shows unequivocally that SA cannot afford to pursue the nuclear new build programme. Using very conservative cost estimates, it shows not only that the fiscus can neither finance the programme nor provide the guarantees necessary to seek financial support elsewhere.
Given this, and as we move into a new period in SA’s democracy, it is critical we entrench inclusive and accountable decision making from the get go. This requires that we ensure that government engages with and listens to all stakeholders when making important decisions about our energy future.
Going into this new period, we can draw on two fundamental lessons from our past. The first is that everyone has the power to make a difference. Against all odds, Earthlife Africa and SAFCEI, were able to change the course of our energy future. The second is that in order to exercise this power we need to be informed. The energy space is unnecessarily complicated. It is time for those working in this space, to move away from the technical language that excludes participation by most South Africans and start driving Energy Democracy in its truest form.
– Ellen Davies is the Project Manager of Extractives Industry at the World Wide Fund for NatureSaliem Fakir is the Head of the Policy & Futures Unit at the World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa.
This article first appeared on The Journalist.
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perrys claim: bailing out coal and nuclear industries so important that the cost doesn’t matter
Reuters 28th June 2018 , U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said on Thursday that bailing out
struggling coal and nuclear power plants is as important to national
security as keeping the military strong, and that the cost to Americans
should not be an issue.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-gas-conference-perry-grid/nuclear-coal-bailout-worth-any-cost-to-keep-america-free-u-s-energy-chief-idUKKBN1JO2J
Radiation from USA’s nuclear bomb tests went far and wide – now compensation is needed
Cold War Weapons Testing Made People Sick. Now, More Mountain West Residents Could Be Compensated http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/cold-war-weapons-testing-made-people-sick-now-more-mountain-west-residents-could-be-compensated#stream/0 By RAE ELLEN BICHELL • JUN 28, 2018
Nuclear testing during the Cold War sent radioactive fallout far away from the actual test sites. Politicians are moving to expand who can be compensated by the government for getting sick after exposure to that fallout.
The tests mostly happened in Nevada but winds sent radioactive materials far and wide. Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo said one detonation in 1952 was particularly memorable to his constituents.
“Idahoans that I’ve spoken to in Emmett and elsewhere have shared their memories of waking to find their pastures and orchards covered with a fine grey-white dust that seemingly appeared out of nowhere. It looked like frost, yet it was not cold to touch,” Crapo said in a Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing Wednesday.
In 1990 Congress created a program to compensate people who became seriously ill after radiation exposure.
According to the Department of Justice, since the programstarted more than $2 billion has been given in compensation. People like miners who worked directly with radioactive materials can get $100,000, people who were on site during nuclear tests get $75,000 and people who lived downwind of a major test site in Nevada get $50,000. So-called “downwinders” have to have lived in certain counties within Utah, Nevada and Arizona at the time of testing to be considered eligible.
“Unfortunately, the science at the time failed to recognize that radioactive fallout is not restricted by state lines,” said Crapo.
According to the National Cancer Institute, some of that fallout landed on fields across the country and especially in the Mountain West. It was consumed by animals like cows and eventually made it into milk cartons. Because of that, people who were milk-drinking children at the time are considered to have a higher risk of thyroid cancer.
Senators, including Crapo, have sponsored a bill that would expand the group of eligible “downwinders” to people who lived in parts of Idaho, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Guam at the time that tests were conducted.
The bill would also establish a grant program for further research into the health impacts of uranium mining and would extend the deadline for filing claims from 2022 to the late 2030s.
This story was produced by the Mountain West News Bureau, a collaboration between Wyoming Public Media, Boise State Public Radio in Idaho, Yellowstone Public Radio in Montana, KUER in Salt Lake City and KRCC and KUNC in Colorado.
Socialism is the Trump govt’s policy when it comes to coal and nuclear
Trump administration wants welfare for coal and nuclear power, https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/29/trump-administration-wants-welfare-for-coal-and-nuclear-power/ By TOM RIBE | Writers on the Range
The Trump administration just sent a tsunami through America’s electrical energy world when a leaked memo revealed that it had a new plan to shovel millions of dollars to the coal and nuclear power industries.
The memo, leaked to Bloomberg News and written by a member of Trump’s National Security Council, said that the nation faced a “grid emergency” because so many coal and nuclear power plants had shut down. The memo argued that the government could simply order private utility companies to buy high-cost electric power, because “national security” concerns mandated using “fuel-secure” sources to protect national security.
The memo claimed that “resources that have a secure, on-site fuel supply, including nuclear and coal fired power plants … are essential to support the nation’s defense facilities and critical energy infrastructure.” And it added that “due largely to regulatory and economic factors, too many of these fuel-secure facilities have retired prematurely.”
Prematurely? There is no shortage of electric power generation in the United States. The historic shift in this country toward cleaner, renewable energy is driven by national and international energy markets, not by tax breaks or government regulations. Countries around the world are investing in cheaper solar and wind power to address climate change and air pollution. One might think that free-market conservatives would be delighted to see competitive markets providing abundant, low-cost electricity from diverse sources to American consumers — all without interference from government. But apparently this case is different.
As for any threats to our national security, Vermont Law School professor Peter A. Bradford has pointed out: “We have no military crisis and no threats to our system reliability or resilience that require this drastic and expensive governmental intervention. The facts are being fixed around the desired end result.”
A political explanation seems like the real reason behind the administration’s determination to prop up coal. Trump’s staff has found a way to fulfill his campaign promise to rescue the dying coal industry, whose production has dropped 38 percent in the last decade. Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, who gave Trump $300,000 for his inauguration, presented Energy Secretary Rick Perry with an “action plan” last March that included ending pollution controls on coal plants and stopping the rapid shift toward wind and solar energy.
Perry tried to direct federal subsidies to coal, only to be blocked last September by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The leaked National Security Council memo noted that the Trump administration could use laws, such as the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act, to force utilities to buy high-cost power from coal and nuclear plants, though neither act has been used for these purposes before.
The memo also stated that natural gas is vulnerable to “cyber attacks” that make its supply unreliable, though record supplies of natural gas exist throughout the country. What the memo ignores is the reality that wind and solar, which make up about a quarter of power generation in this country, are abundant resources — nowhere near scarce.
Ever since horizontal drilling — fracking — transformed the oil and gas industry, this country has been producing large amounts of natural gas. Prices have dropped dramatically, and many coal-burning plants have converted to natural gas. Natural gas, however, is also a potent contributor to global climate change, and the continued flaring of methane during gas production is a significant, largely uncalculated source of pollution.
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit that supports nuclear-free renewable energy, estimates that the coal and nuclear plant subsidies proposed in the memo could cost consumers up to $35 billion per year. Tim Judson, the group’s executive director, said, “Betting on old, increasingly uneconomical nuclear and coal power plants as a national security strategy is like gold-plating a Studebaker and calling it a tank. It could destroy the booming renewable energy industry, which is already employing more Americans than coal and nuclear combined.”
At a Senate hearing on June 11, Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell characterized the proposal as nothing more than “political payback” for the coal industry, and members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who testified agreed that there is no “grid emergency.” Citing market interference, even the American Petroleum Institute testified against subsidizing coal and nuclear power.
Trump, who apparently developed his ideas on energy policy back in the 1970s, has shown little interest in any of the major changes to America’s energy picture since then. His effort to turn back the clock to fulfill his campaign promises to coal miners and repay political contributions could throw tens of thousands of people out of work, forfeit America’s leadership in energy technology, and worsen global warming.
America’s environmental and energy future depends upon a vigorous public pushback against this wrongheaded move.
Britain’s Planning Inspectorate has accepted Hitachi unit Horizon’s application for the Wylfa nuclear power station in Wales
Reuters 29th June 2018 , Britain’s Planning Inspectorate has accepted Hitachi unit Horizon’s
application for the Wylfa nuclear power station in Wales, it said, one of
several new plants aimed at replacing the UK’s ageing fleet of atomic
reactors and coal plants. “We have considered very carefully the
application submitted by Horizon Nuclear Power and decided that it meets
the required tests set out in the legislation to be accepted for
examination,” Sarah Richards, chief executive of the Planning
Inspectorate, said in a statement. “Of course, this does not mean that
consent will be given for the project to go ahead – acceptance of the
application simply means that the Examining Authority can begin to make
arrangements for the formal examination of the application,” she added.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-horizon/uk-inspectorate-accepts-hitachi-units-planning-bid-for-wylfa-nuclear-plant-idUKKBN1JP0VV?rpc=401&
UK’s nuclear power bigwigs want “community engagement”, but exclude critics of Sizewell nuclear project
Ipswich Star 28th June 2018 , Sizewell C boss under fire for meeting Suffolk business leaders – but not
campaign groups. EDF Energy chief executive Simone Rossi is addressing
Suffolk Chamber of Commerce members at their annual general meeting in
Ipswich on Friday, June 29.
But Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on
Sizewell (TEAGS), Minsmere Levels Stakeholder Group (MLSG) and the B1122
Action Group said he should show his commitment to community engagement and
meet with them too. “Despite being in post for eight months and speaking
about Sizewell regularly to the national media, Simone Rossi appears
surprisingly reluctant to visit us,” said Paul Collins of TEAGS and MLSG.
“If EDF really wants to show its commitment to engagement, Simone Rossi
will make it a priority to come and meet the community that is on the
frontline of Sizewell C and D and that will suffer a cumulative and
disproportionate impact during construction. He owes it to the people of
east Suffolk to come and hear our concerns face to face and ensure that EDF
meets its stated obligations before the next round of consultation.”
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-edf-suffolk-teags-leiston-suffolk-chamber-of-commerce-1-5583182
Jordan gives up on big nuclear power station, but might be sucked in by “Small Nukes” propaganda
Middle East Monitor 29th June 2018 The chairman of the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. Khaled Toukan,
announced today that his country has abandoned the idea of establishing a
nuclear power plant, which was planned to be built with Russian technology
with a capacity of 2,000 megawatt. Dr. Toukan told a news conference that
the commission has abandoned the construction of a large plant and will
consider building small reactors. The chairman added that small reactors
need less funding and are more likely to be sponsored internationally than
large stations.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180629-jordan-gives-up-idea-of-large-nuclear-power-plant/
World Nuclear Market is Shrinking – preview of 2018 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR),
L’Usine Nouvelle 26th June 2018 The world nuclear market is shrinking, confirms the 2018 edition of the
World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), unveiled in preview by
L’Usine Nouvelle.
The nuclear spring, which was to succeed the
post-Fukushima winter, still does not arrive. And may well never happen.
Only four new reactors – that is, connected to the electricity grid – were
commissioned in 2017. The first three are in China, the fourth – of Chinese
construction – in Pakistan. In 2018, there will be only three. One in China
and two in Russia, including Rostov 4 under construction since the 1980s.
Statistics from the count of May 31 Julie Hazemann, data manager, and Mycle
Schneider, lead author of the World nuclear industry status report 2018
(WNISR 2018) unveiled in preview by “L’Usine Nouvelle”.
https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/world-nuclear-exhibition-le-nucleaire-est-en-voie-de-disparition-pour-mycle-schneider-auteur-du-wnisr-2018.N711409
The nuclear weapons connection: Why Hinkley Point C nuclear station gets go-ahead, and Tidal Lagoon energy doesn’t
David Lowry’s Blog 27th June 2018 , The question asked in the Guardian leader: “Hinkley Point C got the
go-ahead despite its cost. So why not Swansea Bay?” has a number of
credible answers.
Firstly, you cannot warheads for nuclear weapons of mass
destruction form any by-products of a tidal lagoon as you can from Hinkley
C’s plutonium.
Indeed, when Hinkley A was being developed in the late the
Ministry of Defence issued clear statement on: “the production of
plutonium suitable for weapons in the new [nuclear ] power stations
programme as an insurance against future defence needs…” (17 June 1958)
http://drdavidlowry.blogspot.com/2018/06/you-cannot-fuel-nuclear-proliferation.html
Trumpocracy – analysed by Noam Chomsky
The Anatomy of Trumpocracy: An Interview With Noam Chomsky C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout June 28, 2018
With its spate of right-wing rulings this week, the Supreme Court has paved the way for Donald Trump and the Republican-dominated Congress to intensify their attacks on human rights, workers and the country’s democratic institutions, dragging the US deeper into the abyss.
US political culture has long been dominated by oligarchical corporate and financial interests, militarism and jingoism, but the current Trumpocracy represents a new level of neoliberal cruelty. Indeed, the United States is turning into a pariah nation, a unique position among Western states in the second decade of the 21st century.
What factors and the forces produced this radical and dangerous shift? How did Trump manage to bring the Republican Party under his total control? Is Trumpocracy a temporary phenomenon, or the future of American politics? Is the Bernie Sanders phenomenon over? In the exclusive Truthout interview below, world-renowned scholar and public intellectual Noam Chomsky, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at MIT and currently Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, tackles these questions and offers his unique insights.
Qn. “…… how do we explain the fact that he has essentially taken over the Republican Party without any serious opposition?”
Noam Chomsky: Part of the solution to the puzzle is Obama’s performance in office. Many were seduced by the rhetoric of “hope” and “change,” and deeply disillusioned by the very early discovery that the words had little substance………
Quite apart from Obama’s disappointing policies, he and the [Democratic] Party were victims of the intense racism that is deeply rooted in large parts of American society. The visceral hatred of Obama cannot be explained in other terms.
But there is far more than that. For some time, candidates for Republican primaries who emerged from the base have been far off the traditional spectrum. The establishment was able to suppress them and gain their own candidate, but that didn’t change the basis for their support. For years, both parties have drifted to the right — the Republicans off the spectrum of normal parliamentary politics. Their dedication to wealth and corporate power is so extreme that they cannot get votes on their actual policies
…….. Trump has had overwhelming support among whites and less educated sectors, but for the most part, his mass voting base is relatively affluent and privileged. A recent Pew poll of Trump approvers found two-thirds are either college graduates, women or nonwhite, the last group apparently not many.
……. For the actual Republican constituency of wealth and corporate power, these are glory days, so why object, even if his antics sometimes cause some grimaces? The core constituency of Evangelicals is solidly in Trump’s pocket, thanks to the crumbs thrown their way. Many working people maintain the illusion that Trump cares about them and will bring back lost days of steady jobs in mining and manufacturing.
……… Trump himself seems to be having the time of his life. He’s constantly in the limelight, his loyal base worships his every move, he’s free to defy convention, to insult anyone he chooses, to disrupt the international economic and political order at will — whatever comes to mind next, knowing that he’s the biggest thug on the block and can probably get away with it — again, for a while, at least.
“….Qn: How do we explain the fact that Trump continues to cause chaos on all fronts, both domestically and internationally, and yet his popularity remains at quite high levels?
As I mentioned, Trump’s popularity among Republicans is unusually fervent and high, though not uniquely so. The affluent are doing fine. The economy is continuing the slow growth under Obama, though wages are barely rising and job security is low.
………. https://truthout.org/articles/the-anatomy-of-trumpocracy-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky/
Theresa May’s UK govt rejects renewables, promotes nuclear – and cancels promising tidal energy project
Bloomberg 27th June 2018 The U.K. government earmarked 200 million pounds ($262 million) to smooth
the way for the next nuclear power plants just two days after rejected the
case for an experimental project that would generate power from the tides.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said its
Nuclear Sector Deal will fund technology and skills needed to maintain the
industry that the government is backing to be part of its future energy
mix. About 56 million pounds will go to help eight vendors of modular
reactors carry out technical studies.
The decision puts further distance
between Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration and the possibility
of government support for cutting-edge renewable technologies. May’s
government has scaled back subsidies for wind and solar, halted onshore
wind farms and declined to back Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd.’s proposal for a
1.3 billion pound project to demonstrate its technology.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-27/u-k-earmarks-262-million-to-bolster-its-nuclear-power-industry
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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
nuclear-news 