France to spell out nuclear closure options in 2018, (Montel) Aia Helena Brnic, aia@montel.no, 26 July 2017 The French government will next year spell out different scenarios on how to cut the share of nuclear in its power mix, as the nation looks to step up its renewable generation.
Energy minister Nicolas Hulot told parliament late on Tuesday that the different scenarios will be “put on the table” and debated at the government’s next multiannual energy programme (PPE) in 2018.
“I prefer that we put all the scenarios on the table in the PPE [next year] and look at what is realistic and what is not,” Hulot said at a hearing in the lower house of parliament, insisting that France will not be able to avoid nuclear reactors closures.
The minister had earlier said that France would need to close up to 25 out of its 58 operational reactors to achieve its nuclear objectives…..https://www.montel.no/StartPage/SubPage.aspx?id=815053
July 26, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
France, politics |
Leave a comment
Trump’s new nuclear defense pick once wrote, “America must be ready to nuke first.” New Republic, Emily Atkin, 21 July 17 The White House announced a slew of nominations earlier this week to fill some of the many open positions in the administration. The last on the list was Guy B. Roberts, whom Trump tapped to be the assistant secretary for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs at the Department of Defense. In this role, Roberts will “prevent, protect against, and respond to weapons of mass destruction threats,” according to the DOD website. He’ll also advise the secretary of defense in “matters concerning nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs.” ……..
July 26, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Plans to replace Trident slammed as “unachievable” by Westminster watchdog, http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15427620.Plans_to_replace_Trident_slammed_as____unachievable____by_Westminster_watchdog/ 23rd July, THE UK Government’s £43 billion plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system and build a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines for the Clyde are “in doubt” or “unachievable”, according to a high-powered Westminster spending watchdog.
A new report from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) to the Cabinet Office and the Treasury in London has condemned three major nuclear projects run by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for being poorly managed, over-budget and beset by technical problems.
The financial rating for a submarine reactor manufacturing plant has been sharply downgraded for 2017, while two other nuclear submarine projects have had “major risks” every year for the last three years. All of the IPA’s assessment of a fourth £20bn plan to upgrade Trident warheads has been kept secret for national security reasons.
To try and combat the problems the MoD has launched a major reorganisation and set up a new Submarine Delivery Agency. It has also renamed the Trident replacement programme Dreadnought, and engaged in “rebaselining” to delay project delivery.
The IPA report, which covers 143 projects run by 17 UK Government departments, was posted online last week. Buried in a table and spreadsheet released at the same time were damning indictments of the MoD’s flagship nuclear projects.
A £1.7bn project to build new submarine reactor manufacturing plants at Rolls Royce in Derby called Core Production Capability is given the IPA’s worst rating of ‘red’ for 2017. “Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable,” said IPA.
“There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”
The reactor plants were £250 million over budget and needed “rebaselining” to meet target dates, IPA said. It had previously rated the plants as “amber” in 2015 and 2016, meaning they they had “significant issues” requiring management attention.
The £31.6bn project to build four new nuclear-armed Dreadnought submarines to replace Trident and a £9.9bn programme to build seven new conventionally-armed nuclear-powered Astute-class submarines were both rated as “amber/red” for the third year running. All the submarines are due to be based at Faslane on the Gareloch near Helensburgh.
According to the IPA an amber/red rating suggests the schemes may not be viable. “Successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas,” it said.
“Urgent action is needed to address these problems and/or assess whether resolution is feasible.”
Three of the Astute submarines have been delivered to the MoD, and four are still to be completed. “Overall affordability remains the programme’s key challenge,” said the IPA.
The date when the nuclear-armed Dreadnought submarines are currently scheduled to be ready to replace ageing Trident boats has been kept secret. The Vanguard-class submarines that carry Trident nuclear missiles have already had their lives extended from 25 to 38 years.
The IPA has also assessed the financial viability of the MoD’s £20bn Nuclear Warhead Capability Sustainment Programme to upgrade the weapons. But its verdict has been deleted from its report on the grounds that it is exempt from freedom of information law under national security and defence provisions.
The Scottish National Party argued that Trident costs were escalating out of control. “A billion here – a billion there – to add to the bill for these weapons of mass destruction,” said SNP defence spokesperson, Stewart McDonald MP.
“The Westminster obsession with Trident is already squeezing conventional defence expenditure as everything else is sacrificed for these redundant, eye-wateringly expensive weapons. The Tories need to get a grip on costs if they insist on Trident renewal.”
Arthur West, chair of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, pointed out that MoD projects kept going substantially over budget. “The Trident programme in particular continues to be a shambles from a cost point of view,” he said.
The Nuclear Information Service, which monitors nuclear activities, warned that the UK was going to encounter more problems building a new generation of nuclear weapons. “The delays and cost increases that we are already seeing cast further doubt on the MoD’s ability to deliver these projects on time and within budget,” said the group’s research manager, David Cullen.
The MoD has set aside a “contingency” of £10bn in case replacing the four Trident submarines costs more that the estimated £31bn. There were matters relating to nuclear weapons that it could not discuss openly, it said.
“These ratings reflect the complexity and scale of delivering the most advanced submarines ever commissioned by the Royal Navy, the ultimate guarantee of our national security,” stated an MoD spokesperson.
“We are determined to get our submarine programmes right. That’s why we have established a new Director General Nuclear sponsor organisation and a new Submarine Delivery Agency.”
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Trump May Have Unintentionally Killed U.S. Nuclear Oil Price, By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles – Jul 22, 2017 “………Nuclear subsidies based on environmental criteria will probably remain in place in New York and Illinois. However, other states like Ohio and Pennsylvania are facing a similar dilemma of aging, uneconomic merchant nuclear base load generation in often economically depressed regions. The pressure to keep these plants open will be considerable. But they won’t be able to claim any benefit from the non-carbon emitting nature of nuclear power. That policy is being rewritten literally as we write.
We don’t blame the nuclear power industry for attempting to rebrand itself as providing energy and environmental improvement. However, the federal government has taken the latter rationale away from the industry. If carbon’s no longer a problem, who cares if relatively high cost nuclear power plants provide a solution? http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Trump-May-Have-Unintentionally-Killed-US-Nuclear.html
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Trump asserts all agree he has ‘complete power’ to pardon, AP, By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, 22 July 17 WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Saturday that he has “complete power” to issue pardons, an assertion that comes amid investigations into Russian interference in last year’s presidential election. It was one of many topics that appeared to occupy the president’s mind as the day broke.
On a day when most people are ready to forget about the issues that nagged them during the week, Trump revved up. In an early morning flurry of 10 tweets, he commented about pardons, former presidential rival Hillary Clinton, son Don Jr., health care, the USS Gerald Ford, the attorney general and other issues.
Trump said in one of his 10 messages: “While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us. FAKE NEWS.”
The Washington Post recently reported that Trump has inquired about the authority he has as president to pardon aides, relatives or even himself in connection with the widening investigation into Russian interference in the election and whether any Trump associates were involved…..
One of Trump’s attorneys, Jay Sekulow, said the president has not discussed the issue of pardons with his outside legal team…….https://apnews.com/0cfcfc0956a6445ba59cc2edef5a81a0/Trump-asserts-all-agree-he-has-%27complete-power%27-to-pardon
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Urgent Messages from Murata-San http://www.opensourcetruth.com/urgent-messages-from-murata-san/ JULY 22, 2017 RALPH FUCETOLA, As has been our practice, we are providing here to the public the recent urgent messages from “The Conscience of Fukushima” — M. Murata, former Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland, and one of the most prominent of the Japanese to be calling for “honorable retreat” from the 2020 Olympics, currently scheduled to be held in Japan near the Fukushima disaster zone.
Murata-san has these messages for us:
[1] Message to International Olympic Committee [20 July 2017]
[2] Fukushima Radiation Water Dumping into the Pacific Ocean [16 July 2017]
[3] Retreating from the Tokyo Olympic Games [17 June 2017]
———-
Subject: Message to International Olympic Committee President Bach
Date: 08:56 AM EDT, 07/20/17
From: “mitsu”
Dear Friends,
I am sending you my message addressed to President Thomas Bach of the IOC.
With warmest and highest regards,
From: mitsu
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 9:44 PM
Dear President Thomas Bach,
Please allow me to transmit this extremely alarming mail that may interest you.
It has been sent to me from an American friend.
The widening gap between the promoters and the opponents of the of the Tokyo Olympic Games could not be left unattended.
“Former nuclear industry senior vice president Arnie Gunderson, who managed and coordinated projects at 70 U.S. atomic power plants, is appalled at how the Japanese government is handling the Fukushima nuclear crisis.
“The inhumanity of the Japanese government toward the Fukushima disaster refugees is appalling,” Gunderson, a licensed reactor operator with 45 years of nuclear power engineering experience and the author of a bestselling book in Japan about the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, told Truthout.”
He explains that both the Japanese government and the atomic power industry are trying to force almost all of the people who evacuated their homes in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster to return “home” before the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
https://www.ecowatch.com/tokyo-olympics-fukushima-2460798164.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=e61916ad29-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-e61916ad29-85979265
With highest regards,
Received: 09:20 PM EDT, 07/16/2017
From: “mitsu”
Subject: Fukushima Radiation Water and the Pacific Ocean
Dear Friends,
At the Fukushima Daiichi, the volume of contaminated water amounts to one million tons contained in 1000 tanks.
On July13, the new Chairman of TEPCO announced in an interview that the massive radioactive contaminated water containing unremovable tritium would be released into the sea, as recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Authority. It is well known that tritium is a deadly poison. 2 milligram of it is lethal.
The future of the Pacific Ocean is threatened. The reaction of the international community can easily be foreseen.
Recent publications containing anti-Tokyo Olympic Games assertions are noteworthy. Mr.Takao Saito, renowned journalist, published last month a book entitled “How to educate the people” in which he reviews all the violations of the initial official commitments of the Tokyo Olympic Games. Mr.Makoto Sadaka, famous critic, has recently published an article in which he criticizes Dentsu as playing a central role in suspected corruption cases regarding nuclear reactors and the Tokyo Olympic Games.
Fukushima and the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games are closely related.
The former helps to play down the consequences of the latter, preventing Japan from consecrating maximum efforts to bring Fukushima under control. It is simply scandelous to organize Olympic baseball and football games in Fukushima without reassuring its safety as required by civil society. The IOC is increasingly criticized for this.
The Olympic Games seems to stand at crossroads. Rome, Boston Hamburg and Bulgaria have withdrawn candidature for the 2024 Olympic Games. Paris and Los Angeles are retained for 2024 and 2028.In addition to enormous financial burden, immigrants and terrorism remain serious discouraging problems for the two cities.
The large scale cyber attack that took place in Europe on June 27 damaged the automatic radiation surveillance system of Chernobyl nuclear reactors in Ukraine. The world is thus seriously warned against the vulnerability of nuclear reactors.
The world is yet to learn the destructive power of nuclear energy in all directions (states,companies,organizations, individuals).
The pitiful downfall of TOSHIBA undeniably symbolizes the beginning of the end of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The mainstream of the world still permits and promotes the existence of more than 440 nuclear reactors, now considered as the most serious threat to security.
This mainstream undeniably needs a change.
It is the law of history.
—————————————
Subject: Retreating from the Tokyo Olympic Games
Date: 05:23 AM EDT, 06/17/17
From: “mitsu”
Dear Friends,
The results of the nation-wide referendum among the listeners
conducted on 17 June by the Hiroshi Kume’s wide-show program entitled
“Should we retreat from the the Tokyo Olympic Games 2010 ?”
are extremely impressive.
All age categories except “under 19 years old” have overwhelmingly
supported the retreat from the 2020 Olympic Games.
The results could not but have a far reaching impact on this vital issue.
The future of Fukushima depends on it.
This development coincides with another significant one.
In a surprise move, the International Olympic Committee announced on 16 June
that it was ending its Olympic sponsorship deal with McDonald.
The fast-food giant pulled out of its current, estimated £40-million-a-year, deal with
the International Olympic Committee more than three years early,
citing a “focus on different priorities”,severing a relationship that dated to 1976.
A new page is being opened as regards the Olympic Games 2020.
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, politics |
Leave a comment
Yes, Trump Could Pardon Himself. Then All Hell Would Break Loose, It’s never been tried. Here’s how it could blow up his presidency, or blow up the system. Politico, By RICHARD PRIMUS July 21, 2017 This week’s eye-popping constitutional question: Can President Trump pardon himself for criminal wrongdoing? With the Russia scandal swirling more intensely around the White House every week, the Washington Post reported Friday morning that the president might be considering pardoning himself and members of his family as a way of fending off legal consequences for whatever special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation turns up.
A self-pardon would be something new in American history — and just the kind of departure from prior norms that typifies Trump. The Constitution doesn’t specify whether the president can pardon himself, and no court has ever ruled on the issue, because no president has ever been brazen enough to try it. Among constitutional lawyers, the dominant (though not unanimous) answer is “no,” in part because letting any person exempt himself from criminal liability would be a fundamental affront to America’s basic rule-of-law values.
But as a practical matter, it’s not a panel of legal experts that will decide this issue. It probably won’t be a court, either. Instead, the answer will be fought out at the highest levels of American politics. And in real life, if the president signed a document with the words “I pardon myself”—which he certainly could—it’s impossible to know what would happen next.
Given the political firestorm that a self-pardon might provoke and the broader norm-smashing context of the Trump administration, an attempted self-pardon could do anything from keeping Trump out of jail to bringing down his presidency and landing him in the dock. Or it could do nothing at all—which would be troubling, too. All we can know for sure is that it would take our system, once again, into uncharted territory.
Here’s one possible scenario. Suppose the president announces a self-pardon, and Republicans in Congress follow the script they’ve used until this point: They express concern at the behavior but make no serious move to punish the president for it. The legal effect of the pardon would then go untested for years. A pardon is a shield against a prosecution, and in the absence of a potential prosecution it has no work to do. As long as Trump is president, there won’t be any prosecution to put it to the test, because a sitting president probably can’t be prosecuted for a crime. Again, this isn’t a certainty—the Supreme Court has made clear that a sitting president can be sued in a civil suit, as Bill Clinton was by Paula Jones—but the dominant view on the criminal side is that a President must be impeached and removed from office before he can be a criminal defendant. So while Trump remains president, an attempted self-pardon would be like an umbrella that hasn’t been taken out in the rain: We don’t know yet whether it works, or how well………
another possible future, if Trump announces a self pardon: It could be the moment that Republicans in Congress decide he has finally stepped over the line. To be sure, Congress has shown no inclination to remove the president to this point, and maybe it never will. But as the Supreme Court noted long ago, a pardon suggests the existence of illegal behavior—and a self-pardon itself would represent such flagrant disrespect for rule-of-law values that if anything could push Congress toward impeaching and removing the president, this might.
In that case, Congress wouldn’t just be stripping Trump of his presidency: In all likelihood, it would be converting his ostensible pardon from a shield against prosecution into one more reason to move against him. After all, the decision to impeach would, in itself, all but establish that self-pardons are inconsistent with American constitutional norms. …..http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/21/yes-trump-could-pardon-himself-then-all-hell-would-break-loose-215405
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
1 Comment
Trump to tap longtime coal lobbyist for EPA’s No. 2 spot, WP By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis July 21 17, President Trump will nominate a prominent coal lobbyist and former Senate aide, Andrew Wheeler, to serve as the Environmental Protection Agency’s deputy administrator, according to two senior administration officials.
Wheeler, a principal at Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting, is a lobbyist for coal giant Murray Energy and served as a top aide for Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) when Inhofe chaired the Senate Environment Committee. He has represented Murray Energy — whose chief executive, Bob Murray, is a prominent supporter of the president — since 2009.
In addition to tapping Wheeler, according to the officials, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is preparing to pick three conservatives to head three key divisions within the agency. Trump will nominate Bill Wehrum as associate administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, Matt Leopold to serve as EPA general counsel and David Ross as assistant administrator for Office of Water……..
Tiernan Sittenfeld, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president for government affairs, said in email, “With these nominations, President Trump is once again catering to his polluter allies and prioritizing their profits over our kids’ health.”……https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/21/trump-to-tap-longtime-coal-lobbyist-for-epas-number-two-spot/?utm_term=.ada170b0c8ef
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Independent 20th July 2017, The Government is planning to give some of the UK’s most polluting
industries a £130m exemption from helping to fund new renewable
technologies, which will “heap costs” onto small companies and households,
environmentalists have warned.
Subsidies for the two cheapest forms of green electricity, onshore wind and solar, have been respectively scrapped
and slashed to the bone, but financial support is still available for
offshore wind and other emerging technologies – to a large degree because
of the potential benefits to the economy.
This is funded by electricity bill payers and the Government has expressed concern about the effect on
“energy intensive industries”. According to the new plan, these companies
would be given an exemption because having to pay extra “can undermine
competitiveness”.
However Gareth Redmond-King, head of climate and energy
policy at WWF-UK, pointed out that this “disappointing decision” would mean
other bill payers would end up paying more and reward firms that are
contributing more than most to global warming.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-energy-intensive-pollution-companies-climate-change-fund-exemption-targets-regulation-global-a7851331.html
July 22, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, renewable, UK |
Leave a comment
Nuclear energy development under the spotlight http://bereamail.co.za/114003/nuclear-energy-development-under-the-spotlight/, 1 July 17
“The money planned to build the power stations can be used to improve our ailing education system.” THE jury is still out on why a country like South Africa, rated number five on the world as best suitable for renewable energy, would want to build eight new nuclear power stations at cost of R1 trillion.
Should the 9,600MW of nuclear capacity project go ahead, it could be one of the world’s biggest nuclear contracts in decades. The South African Faith Communities Environmental Institute (SAFCEI) and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SADCEA) held a Nuclear Court Case Feedback workshop, at Diakonia on Friday, following their landmark victory at the Western Cape High Court, which saw government’s notorious nuclear deal agreements with Russia, the United States and South Korea set aside and declared unlawful and unconstitutional.
According to Lydia Mogano, who is Safcei’s regional coordinator, a nuclear energy development in South Africa will have negative socio-economic and environmental implications on ordinary citizens.
“Electricity tariffs are already high, with residents paying close to R1.50 per unit, but with nuclear energy they will pay R1.80 and above, making it even more difficult for them survive. Even the government’s own research done by the CSIR, shows that we do not need nuclear at all and renewable energy will be much cheaper. Nuclear energy demand is on the decline across the world, it takes 10 to 15 years to build a nuclear power station. Research done by CSIR shows that solar provides 70 percent of energy globally,” Mogano said.
Despite critics saying the country does not have the money, necessary skills to procure, build, operate, maintain and regulate six new nuclear power stations, Presient Jacob Zuma, addressing Parliament last month, said government still intended to pursue the acquisition of nuclear power stations at a “pace and scale” that the country could afford. He further added that building nuclear power stations would “bring dividends and profits for many thousands of years to come.”
However, Mogano said funds planned to build the power stations could be used to improve our ailing education system, the backlog of houses millions of people still needed houses and improvements could be made to the country’s water and sanitation systems.
Legal representative for Safcei and Earthlife, Adrian Pole, who was also in attendance said: “Transparency in the nuclear procurement process, including access to cost estimates and feasibility studies, has been at the heart of this case. Public participation without that kind of information being made available would render it, in itself, unfair.”
Environmental activist Desmond D’sa said should the nuclear energy development not go ahead, the R240 million that has already been spent on two years of research needs to be accounted for. According to industry executives, regulators and scientists with proper management, vigilance and safety enhancements, a nuclear power plants lifespan is 40-70 years and the decommission costs the same amount as when you build it.
July 21, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Legal, politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Times 19th July 2017, The storm surrounding the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant was set to break out anew today after it emerged last night that the cost to consumers could mushroom to £50 billion.
The new official estimate is more than eight times higher than the £6 billion that the National Audit
Office estimated the plant would cost consumers when ministers first struck a subsidy deal to support it in 2013. The spark that ignited the explosion in the estimate is a decline in electricity prices, which in turn have hugely inflated the subsidies that the project is expected to require.
Under the terms of the deal, which was confirmed, after some delay, last autumn by Theresa May, the nuclear developers EDF, of France, and CGN, of China, will foot the up-front construction cost in return for a guaranteed price of £92.50 for every megawatt- hour of power that the plant generates for 35 years.
If wholesale prices are below that level, the difference will be subsidised by consumers through levies on their energy bills. Wholesale prices and projections of future prices have both fallen significantly
since 2013 as the cost of fossil fuels used in conventional power generation has plunged. This has increased the estimates of the subsidy payments that will be required for Hinkley Point, making the project appear increasingly poor value. Government figures show that, as of September last year, the lifetime costs of Hinkley Point C were estimated at £49.9 billion. That compares with an estimate of £36.9 billion in 2015 and £14.5 billion in 2014. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/hinkley-point-cost-could-soar-to-50bn-6brnph9q7
July 19, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
2 Comments
Scottish Energy News 19th July 2017, Former arch-rival Scottish Tory and Labour MPs have attack delays to the UK
government’s plan to commission the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant. Michael (now Lord) Forsyth criticised the plans for the £18 billion project in an Economic Affairs debate in the House of Lords on the UK energy market, warning the delayed project was a “severe risk” to security of supply.
Former Tory MP Forsyth said the report amounted to a
“big red warning light” for ministers, and former Labour MP Alistair
(now Lord) Darling said he agreed with almost everything the former
minister had said.
Darling said there was a big question mark over the
future of nuclear power and challenged ministers to set out a “plan B”
should Hinkley C not go ahead. Energy security was the “number one
priority” but the public had been “short-changed” by the Hinkley C
project, which was 10 years late and facing rapidly rising costs.
http://www.scottishenergynews.com/
July 19, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Utility Week 1`7th July 2017, The newly elected chair of parliament’s business select committee has
pledged to make an inquiry into the government’s plans to leave Euratom
one of her top priorities. Rachel Reeves, who was voted chair of the
business, energy and industrial strategy select committee last week, said
in a BBC radio interview that she wanted to hold a probe into Britain’s
departure from the pan-European nuclear energy community.
Reeves, who is a former shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, described the nuclear sector
as “hugely important” to the UK economy. She said: “We need to do an
inquiry into Euratom because 65,000 jobs are in the civil nuclear sector.
“When we are up and running, I want to do an inquiry into this because so
many jobs and research depends on it.”
She made her comments as the European Commission published its position paper on negotiations into the
UK’s withdrawal from Euratom, which kicked off today (Monday). In its
position paper, the commission states that the Euratom treaty will cease to
apply to Britain from the date when the UK withdraws from the EU.
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/BEIS-committee-to-scrutinise-Euratom-exit/1307532
July 18, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
French Minister Sticking to Planned Nuclear Power Cuts https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/68481/french-minister-sticking-to-planned-nuclear-power-cuts., 17 July 17
France should define a clear roadmap to fulfill its pledge to cut the share of nuclear power in its electricity generation to 50% by 2025, French ecology minister said in an interview in the Sunday edition of regional daily Ouest-France.
A 2015 law requires France to reduce within eight years the share of atomic power generation to 50% from over 75% currently and include more renewable wind and solar generation, Reuters reported.
Nicolas Hulot also said in a radio interview that for France to meet that target, it might have to shut down up to 17 of its 58 nuclear reactors operated by state-controlled utility EDF.
His comments drew questions from observers on how nuclear-dependent France, a net power exporter in Europe, could possibly shut down 17 reactors and continue to guarantee adequate power supply.
Hulot clarified that he did not say 17 reactors must close, but that if the 2015 law were respected, the reactors would have to close.
Newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron has maintained the target of cutting French nuclear production by 2025.
“We have to define realistic and possible scenarios, otherwise it will be brutal,” Hulot said. Hulot, an environmental campaigner who was appointed ecology minister by Macron, said that since the 2015 law was passed, little has been done and there was no clear strategy on how France would meet the 50% target.
“I want to engage in planned course of action, especially on a social and economic level,” Hulot said. “Nuclear power plants cannot be closed without taking into account the reality of jobs. We must model scenarios and build a roadmap.”
The closure of nuclear plants is a hot-button issue in France with trade unions and some political parties saying the plan would cripple the French nuclear sector.
Hulot also said state-controlled utility EDF would have to accelerate its development of renewable energies.
“The French authorities could stimulate the development of these energies by implementing tax incentives, easing regulatory processes and cutting the length of potential litigations,” he said.
July 17, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
France, Legal, politics |
Leave a comment
In Landmark Move, GOP Congress Calls Climate Change ‘Direct Threat’ to Security
Extreme weather and rising seas threaten bases from Virginia to Guam. For the first time, a Republican House has voted to recognize that. Foreign Policy, BY BETHANY ALLEN-EBRAHIMIAN, JULY 14, 2017 BETHANY.ALLEN @BETHANYALLENEBR
Kwajalein, a tiny atoll in the Marshall Islands, is home to a state-of-the-art radar installation called Space Fence. The U.S. government awarded Lockheed Martin a nearly $1 billion contract in 2014 to build the new system, meant to help protect U.S. satellites and spacecraft from space debris when it becomes operational next year.
There’s just one problem. Kwajalein is a mere 10 feet above sea level, putting Space Fence at high risk for frequent flooding as sea levels rise over the coming decades.It’s one of many U.S. military installations threatened by climate change around the world. One study last year found that rising oceans threaten 128 military installations on the coasts, including naval facilities worth around $100 billion.
The Pentagon has been aware for years of the looming danger represented by climate change. But partisan infighting in Congress, budget sequestration, and the toxic nature of the climate debate have hamstrung the Defense Dept. from taking steps to protect key assets — or even identifying which facilities face the most serious threats.
This week, though, the Pentagon may have gotten a boost — from the unlikeliest of places. The Republican-controlled House retained an amendment to the 2018 defense funding bill affirming that “climate change is a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” It orders defense officials to draw up a report laying out which facilities would be most affected.
“This is a reflection that some Republicans at least are waking up to this reality and voting to affirm the work that DoD is doing,” said Andrew Holland, director of studies and senior fellow for energy and climate at the nonpartisan policy organization American Security Project.
Defense authorizations have included similar language before: In 2008, then-Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) included a similar amendment. But that was a Democratic-controlled Congress; this time, some 45 Republicans voted for the climate-change language, and lawmakers from both sides shot down an attempt to strike the focus on climate change.
“I think it’s maybe the beginning of a turning point in Congress,” Holland said.
For more than a decade, the Pentagon has been clear-eyed about the risks posed by climate change. Rising sea levels threaten coastal installations, while floods, famines, and droughts promise waves of instability and conflict across big chunks of the planet. Even in the climate-change denying Trump administration, Defense Secretary James Mattis has reiterated what is by now the Pentagon’s standard line.
‘‘I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation,’’ Mattis expressed in testimony prior to his confirmation.
But climate change is deeply polarizing in Congress, where many Republicans still believe it is a “hoax,” or not caused by human activities. ……….
Rising seas, extreme weather, and water stress won’t just affect domestic military infrastructure. America’s ability to project power around the world — and particularly in the Middle East — is likely to be weakened if no action is taken. In a 2012 report, the American Security Project ranked the top five U.S. military facilities most at risk from climate change — Norfolk, Guam, Eglin in Florida, Bahrain, and Diego Garcia, a shown on the map below: [on original]
The latter is the most threatened high-value base. Located on a British atoll, the U.S. base on Diego Garcia is a major hub for operations in the Middle East, allowing large bombers to deploy without being based in Saudi Arabia or Qatar and giving expeditionary access to the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, and Red Sea. But due to its location on a low-lying atoll, it’s the most threatened of all.
“It legitimately could disappear in a certain amount of years,” said Holland.
Closer to home, the world’s biggest naval base is an even starker illustration of what lies in store. The Hampton Roads region of Virginia, headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, is already buffeted by increasingly extreme weather and frequent flooding. The sea there has already risen by more than a foot in the past 100 years, and the base currently floods about 10 times a year. It’s going to get much worse — the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that Norfolk may flood 280 times a year by 2100.
Hampton Roads is a climate change “crucible,” retired Rear Admiral Ann Phillips, who previously headed a Navy task force on climate change, said at a July 12 House roundtable on climate change and the military. “We have nearly every climate-related challenge in our future.”
She noted that that crucial ship-repair facilities are located at sea level on the Elizabeth River……..http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/14/in-landmark-move-gop-congress-calls-climate-change-direct-threat-to-security/?utm_content=buffer23cbb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#350509998-tw#1500084375428
July 17, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 