Round-up pf latest news on UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project
No2 Nuclear Power No 95 May 17 Hinkley Notes · The government has been slammed by the Information Commissioner’s Office over a number of “unjustifiable” delays in publishing details of contracts for Hinkley Point C. Whitehall officials were guilty of “egregious” and unjustifiable delays before revealing details of government contracts for Hinkley Point C awarded to a company facing a potential conflict of interest. Leigh Fisher, a management consultancy, was awarded a £1.2 million contract by the Department of Energy and Climate Change for its advice on Hinkley Point, despite the British division of Jacobs Engineering, an American group that also owns Leigh Fisher, working for EDF on the project. The advice from Leigh Fisher helped the government to agree the 35-year subsidy deal with EDF. Details of the arrangement with Leigh Fisher, which has concerned MPs including Iain Wright, chairman of the Commons’ business, energy and industrial strategy select committee, emerged in November after The Times obtained redacted details of the tender documents under the Freedom of Information Act. However, it took the business department almost six months to release information after it was requested. Public bodies typically are required to respond to FOI requests within 20 working days. The department also heavily redacted details of separate Hinkley Point contracts awarded to KPMG and Lazard, including passages regarding potential conflicts of interests. KPMG was paid about £4.4 million for its work by the department and Lazard £2.6 million. (1)
EDF Energy has confirmed that discussions are ongoing in a dispute over pay involving ground workers at Hinkley Point C. (2) EDF said on 24th April it was still in dialogue with trade unions after payment offers were labelled “derisory” and “unacceptable” in a Unite press release. The row over bonus pay is threatening to lead to an industrial dispute among construction workers on the site. A consultative ballot is to be held among 700 members of Unite and GMB, which could lead to a vote on industrial action. (3) ·
The news of a possible strike comes days after crew members had to be rescued from a Hinkley Point ship as it began to sink in the Bristol Channel. The three crew members of a former military landing craft had to be rescued following a mayday call in the Bristol Channel. The vessel, which takes building materials to the Hinkley Point C power station under construction, had started to take on water. A crew member was airlifted to hospital in Cardiff suffering from hypothermia after three lifeboats and a helicopter were scrambled to the scene. The craft finally beached in the mouth of the River Parrett. (4)
Work is gathering pace on Hinkley Point C says the FT. (5) The once grassy valley, carrying the Holford stream towards the Bristol Channel, is being filled with earth and rubble excavated from the adjacent construction site. Last month concrete pouring started on the first permanent structures: an 8km network of tunnels that will carry piping and cables around the site. The Guardian says the site looks more like Mordor, from Lord of the Rings, a scarred landscape and hive of activity driven with a single purpose: ensuring these reactors do not repeat the delays and overspends at Flamanville and Olkiluoto. (6) Vincent de Rivaz, head of EDF in the UK, says work is on schedule. Yet as one set of hurdles is cleared, another is looming. French nuclear regulators are investigating potential safety problems with steel components destined for Hinkley from a foundry suspected of falsifying quality-assurance documents. The probe involves Areva, the French nuclear reactor manufacturer and close partner of EDF, and has already caused temporary shutdowns of several existing reactors in France to check for faults. Only the hopelessly naive would believe EDF’s claims that Hinkley will start generating electricity by 2025, says Geoff Ho, writing in The Express. The likelihood of it being delivered on time and on budget is remote. Unions are already threatening to go on strike over bonus payments, and there are the unresolved safety concerns about the EPR design Given Britain’s less than glorious history of infrastructure projects being delivered late and massively over budget, he cannot see Hinkley Point C bucking the trend. (7)
A group of activists has filed a legal challenge with the French prime minister’s office against the extension of EDF’s licence for construction of the Flamanville nuclear reactor in northern France. The move by Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear groups is in response to safety concerns over the Flamanville reactor and is a precursor to elevation of their challenge to the State Council, the country’s highest administrative court. The lobby groups said in a statement that the licence, issued in 2007 and renewed this year, should not have been granted because EDF and reactor supplier Areva were aware of technical shortcomings at Areva’s Creusot Forge nuclear foundry since 2005. In 2014 Areva discovered that the lid of the Flamanville reactor vessel manufactured by Creusot Forge showed abnormally high carbon concentrations, which weaken its steel. (8)….
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo95.pdf
Greens Party condemns as immoral UK government’s willingness for pre-emptive strike
Tories are ‘fanatics’ for saying they would start a nuclear war, Green Party says http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-first-strike-war-green-party-fanatics-jeremy-corbyn-jonathan-bartley-a7700071.html Green co-leader Jonathan Barley attacked the Tories and Labour’s positions on Trident, Jon Stone Political Correspondent @joncstone, 25 Apr 17, The Green Party has accused the Conservatives of “fanaticism” after the Defence Secretary admitted that Theresa May could start a nuclear war.
Michael Fallon had said the Prime Minister could launch a nuclear attack against another country, even if the UK was not under nuclear attack, in “the most extreme circumstances”.
Speaking at St George’s Hospital in Tooting on Monday the Green co-leader pledged spend the cost of the weapon on the NHS.
“Voters are being offered a choice between Tory first strike fanaticisms and Labour’s HMS Pointless. What could be more immoral than considering a first use of nuclear weapons, knowing full well that it would lead to the death of countless civilians?” he said.
“And what could be more illogical that pledging to renew a multi-billion pound nuclear weapons system that will never be used? With people struggling to get by in Britain it’s inexcusable to be ploughing people’s money into this cold war relic.
“Instead of replacing this nuclear monstrosity the Green Party would give the NHS an emergency kiss of life. People are being treated in corridors while we flush money away on nuclear weapons. Cancelling Trident would give our NHS more than £3bn per year – which must be added to additional funding from raising taxes.
“Real security means having a world class health service, not locking ourselves into replacing these weapons we’ll never use. Imagine the impact on our NHS of employing 85,000 more nurses, midwives and health professionals – that’s what is at stake here.”
Speaking on Sunday Labour leader Mr Corbyn said he would try to de-escalate a nuclear war and said that “any use of nuclear weapons is a disaster for the whole world”. His party however says it is committed to maintaining a “nuclear deterrent” and would renew Trident.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4 this morning Mr Fallon, Ms May’s defence secretary, said: “In the most extreme circumstances, we have made it very clear that you can’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike.
Asked in what circumstances, he replied: “They are better not specified or described, which would only give comfort to our enemies and make the deterrent less credible.”
The highest estimate of the cost of replacing Trident is £205 billion over its lifetime, according to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. One estimate collated from ministerial statement by Crispin Blunt, the Tory MP who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, pegged the cost at £167 billion.
The independent Trident Commission, which reported in 2014, pegged the cost at closer to £100 billion.
South Korea: All major candidates vow to stop building new reactors
Future of nuclear energy bleak in Korea All major candidates vow to stop building new reactors, Korea Times, By Jung Min-ho, 21 Apr 17, The future of nuclear energy looks bleak in Korea for whoever becomes the next president.
All major candidates have vowed to stop building new nuclear reactors and close down older ones in an effort to reduce the country’s dependence on nuclear energy.
Left-leaning Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) candidate Moon Jae-in, the frontrunner in the race, promised to cancel construction plans for two additional nuclear reactors ― Shin Kori 5 and 6. He believes Korea will have to phase out all of its remaining nuclear power plants over the next 40 years.
Ahn Cheol-soo of the People’s Party, the runner-up, also made the same promises, though he did not mention specifically by when he plans to remove all nuclear reactors. Korea has 23 nuclear reactors in operation, from which it gets about 30 percent of its power. Five more reactors are under construction.
Sim Sang-jeung of the minor Justice Party is taking the strongest stance against nuclear energy. She said she will immediately close down all the reactors under construction and rid the country of nuclear reactors by 2040.
The two right-wing candidates ― Yoo Seong-min of the Bareun Party and Hong Joon-pyo of the Liberty Korea Party ― are more cautious about the idea of removing all the nuclear reactors, but still, they are not far apart on the issue compared to other candidates.
“Compared with the previous presidential election, candidates have taken more progressive approaches over the issue,” said Kim Mi-kyung, a climate change activist at the environmental group Greenpeace. “We expect Korea to follow the global trends of nuclear-free, coal-free and more renewable energy.”
Doubts on whether UK Labour will back Trident nuclear weapons programme Trident
Jeremy Corbyn does not guarantee the Labour manifesto will back Trident nuclear weapons
Jeremy Corbyn was grilled on pushing the “nuclear button” and killing the leader of ISIS in his first big TV interview of the general election campaign, Mirror, DAN BLOOM 23 APR 2017
Jeremy Corbyn has thrown Labour’s controversial support for Britain’s nuclear weapons programme Trident into question by failing to guarantee it will be in the party’s manifesto.
The Labour leader swerved the question in a TV interview today by saying the document was still being drawn up.
That has caused ructions in the 18 months since he became Labour leader and the party split three ways on whether to back renewal last year. In a testy interview Mr Corbyn also did not guarantee he would push the so-called “nuclear button” to launch a pre-emptive strike.
And he did not guarantee he would authorise a strike to kill ISIS’ leader, instead saying any killing must support a “political solution”.
Pressed on whether killing ISIS’s leader would help that solution, Mr Corbyn said: “I think the leader of ISIS not being around would be helpful and I’m no supporter or defender in any way whatsoever of ISIS.”
But he added the bombing campaign had killed innocent civilians.
Labour later attempted to clarify Mr Corbyn’s remarks in a statement saying: “The decision to renew Trident has been taken and Labour supports that.”
Mr Corbyn clashed with the BBC’s Andrew Marr in his first major broadcast interview of the 2017 general election campaign……..http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-not-guarantee-labour-10278663
Row over bailouts to nuclear industry is heating up in Pennsylvania
Nuclear ‘bailout’ debate heats up, http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/nuclear-bailout-debate-heats-up-1.2184204 BY ROBERT SWIFT, HARRISBURG BUREAU CHIEF, 23 APR 17, HARRISBURG —Nuclear energy is emerging as a live issue at the statehouse in a way not seen since the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in March 1979 — nearly 40 years ago.
The formation of a very diverse coalition to oppose any nuclear “bailouts” following the creation by lawmakers last month of a pro-Nuclear Energy caucus sets the stage for a potential clash over the future of nuclear plants. The nuclear industry has faced plant shutdowns across the nation and problems selling its electricity at competitive rates, with competition from cheaper natural gas in recent years.
New York State has approved a surcharge on customers’ electric bills to provide a subsidy to keep plants open. Other bailout proposals would inflate electricity prices to help the industry.
No actual proposals have surfaced in Harrisburg to have electricity customers pay surcharges to help keep Pennsylvania’s five nuclear plants open. The legislative caucus said its top priority is preserving the jobs of nuclear plant workers, including 1,000 employees at the Susquehanna power plant in Salem Twp. owned by Talen Energy.
But Citizens Against Nuclear Bailouts isn’t waiting for a bill to appear. This coalition of consumer groups, business groups and other power generators wants to stop a bailout in its tracks. Surcharges would hit senior citizens and working families, coalition members said. A bailout would fly in the face of Pennsylvania’s decision to deregulate its electric market nearly 20 years ago, they added.
The statement by the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association is interesting:
“Like every other industry, nuclear power providers should be free to compete for customers in the electricity market, but they shouldn’t benefit from a taxpayer or ratepayer bailout,” said PMA President David Taylor
Donald Trump “paranoid and delusional”, says a group of mental health experts
Donald Trump has ‘dangerous mental illness’, say psychiatry experts at Yale conference Mental health experts say President is ‘paranoid and delusional’, Independent UK, 21 Apr 17 May Bulman @maybulman Donald Trump has a “dangerous mental illness” and is not fit to lead the US, a group of psychiatrists has warned during a conference at Yale University.
Mental health experts claimed the President was “paranoid and delusional”, and said it was their “ethical responsibility” to warn the American public about the “dangers” Mr Trump’s psychological state poses to the country.
Speaking at the conference at Yale’s School of Medicine on Thursday, one of the mental health professionals, Dr John Gartner, a practising psychotherapist who advised psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, said: “We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump’s dangerous mental illness.”
Dr Gartner, who is also a founding member of Duty to Warn, an organisation of several dozen mental health professionals who think Mr Trump is mentally unfit to be president, said the President’s statement about having the largest crowd at an inauguration was just one of many that served as warnings of a larger problem.
“Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President. If Donald Trump really believes he had the largest crowd size in history, that’s delusional,” he added.
Chairing the event, Dr Bandy Lee, assistant clinical professor in the Yale Department of Psychiatry, said: “As some prominent psychiatrists have noted, [Trump’s mental health] is the elephant in the room. I think the public is really starting to catch on and widely talk about this now.”……..
James Gilligan, a psychiatrist and professor at New York University, told the conference he had worked some of the “most dangerous people in society”, including murderers and rapists — but that he was convinced by the “dangerousness” of Mr Trump…….
Dr Gartner started an online petition earlier this year on calling for Mr Trump to be removed from office, which claims that he is “psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President”. The petition has so far garnered more than 41,000 signatures.
It states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals (please state your degree), believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States.
“And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office’.” ……..
The doctors have said that even if it is in breach of tradition ethical standards of psychiatry, it was necessary to break their silence on the matter because they feared “too much is at stake”.It is not the first time Mr Trump’s mental health has been called into question. In February, Duty to Warn, which consists of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, signed an open letter warning that his mental state “makes him incapable of serving safely as president”.
The letter warned that the President’s tendency to “distort reality” to fit his “personal myth of greatness” and attack those who challenge him with facts was likely to increase in a position of power. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html
France’s next president is in for a big nuclear headache.
The next French president’s nuclear problem, Candidates face tough decisions on the country’s nuclear energy future. Politico By 4/20/17,France’s next president is in for a big nuclear headache.
He or she will have to figure out how to either extend the life of or shut down 58 reactors fast approaching retirement age and keep the country’s energy supply flowing at the same time. All the options risk being complicated and costly — financially and politically — and require savvy planning to encourage France’s dominant electricity company EDF to shift away from an energy source that has long been the core of its business.
The top candidates going into the April 23-May 7 election have widely varying nuclear energy policies, from a far-left push to get rid of it entirely to a far-right call to hang on to the country’s biggest energy source and a decades-old source of pride in the country’s industrial prowess. Center-left front-runner Emmanuel Macron falls somewhere in the middle: He wants to carry on with the existing policy, which aims to shrink the share of nuclear energy in France’s mix from 75 percent to 50 percent.
“These things are being discussed as if they were a matter of opinion, and they are not,” said Mycle Schneider, a Paris-based energy policy adviser. “The financial stress has become so harsh that it is virtually impossible to imagine maintaining a nuclear fleet of 58 reactors. They cannot afford to maintain the status quo, so consecutive shutdowns will be forced upon decisionmakers.”
Despite the industry’s financial problems, navigating the politics of nuclear power can be dangerous in a very close election campaign. A 2016 poll by the French public opinion institute Ifop found that 53 percent of people are against a nuclear phase-out. Right-leaning voters are generally pro-nuclear, while left-leaning ones support a phase-out — which keeps candidates from shifting positions.
EDF and France’s nuclear technology company Areva have experienced huge financial strain in recent years as European power prices dropped and new nuclear plants under construction in France and Finland ran into significant cost overruns and delays. As a result, the French government pushed EDF to take over Areva and approved €3 billion in support before EDF committed to building a new nuclear plant in the U.K. last year. The costs and problems around these projects, however, have raised doubts about the future of Areva’s European Pressurized Reactor technology after the British plant.
Nuclear battle lines
French divisions over nuclear were on display this month in a battle over the closure of France’s oldest nuclear power plant, the 39-year-old Fessenheim………
Whatever the campaign rhetoric, France’s next president will have to take into account an unpleasant truth: Any option is going to cost a lot of money.
Decommissioning nuclear power plants is complicated, long and expensive work, but so is building new reactors or upgrading old ones. A quick nuclear phase-out would cost €217 billion, according to the French liberal think tank Institut Montaigne. The Mélenchon and Hamon campaigns responded by pointing to a Court of Auditors estimate that it would cost €100 billion to keep existing reactors running. http://www.politico.eu/article/the-next-french-presidents-nuclear-problem-election-france-power-energy/
South Africa’s Democratic Alliance will fight Eskom’s rushed nuclear procurement process
Eskom admits trying to dodge procurement procedures for nuclear deal, Business Tech April 21, 2017 State power utility, Eskom, says that earlier reports made by the Democratic Alliance about trying to dodge correct procedures for nuclear procurement are partially true, but stressed that it is only looking for exemption from certain areas of the process.
Earlier this week, the DA alleged that Eskom had made a direct application to the National Treasury chief procurement officer, Schalk Human, asking to be exempted from the prescribed procurement procedures for the new nuclear power acquisition.
The party stated that this was done in an apparent bid to accelerate the nuclear new build programme, “in a move that would mean that the country’s biggest ever procurement deal would not be subject to due diligence and correct procedures”……….
As indicated in the original report by the DA, it appears that the political party will fight the rushed process.
DA shadow minister of energy, Gordon Mackay, said that the exemption is ‘significant’ and would mean Eskom is embarking on the country’s single biggest public procurement – without fully assessing associated risks and consequences for South Africa’s economy.
“All state entities are bound by specific procurement standards and requirements. These processes are vital to ensure the effective, efficient and transparent acquisition of goods and services by the State and its entities. If procurement standards cannot be met – procurement should not commence,” Mackay said.
“The DA is strongly opposed to the nuclear deal and will continue to pursue all avenues to scrutinise every process involved and to ultimately put a stop to a deal that will enslave future generations of South Africans.”https://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/171505/eskom-admits-trying-to-dodge-procurement-procedures-for-nuclear-deal/
Does Donald Trump have a frontal lobe brain deficit?
Brain specialist doctor believes Donald Trump’s frontal lobe is failing http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/brain-specialist-doctor-believes-donald-trumps-frontal-lobe-is-failing/2354/ By Bill Palmer Apr 19, 2017 Over the past week Donald Trump has begun making so many basic confused errors that it’s become a matter of serious concern to a number of Americans. He’s forgetting names. He’s forgetting people. He’s forgetting what to do during the National Anthem. He’s forgetting that a kid just handed him a hat. He’s forgetting which country he just bombed. And now a brain specialist doctor says she believes it’s evidence that Trump’s frontal lobe is failing.Bill in USA Congress aims to facilitate removal of a President
House Democrat introduces bill to amend presidential removal procedures http://thehill.com/homenews/house/329206-house-democrat-introduces-bill-to-amend-presidential-removal-procedures BY CRISTINA MARCOS – 04/17/17 A House Democrat has introduced legislation to enhance the Constitution’s presidential removal procedures in response to concerns about President Trump’s behavior.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) filed the bill during the House’s two-week April recess to empower former presidents and vice presidents of both parties, in coordination with the sitting vice president, to determine if a president is fit for office.
“It is hard to imagine a better group to work with the vice president to examine whether the president is able to discharge the duties of the office. When there are questions about the president’s ability to fulfill his or her constitutional responsibilities, it is in the country’s best interest to have a mechanism in place that works effectively,” Blumenauer said in a statement.
Blumenau’s proposal stems from concern that the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, which was adopted five decades ago, would fall short in cases of emotional or mental incapacity.
The amendment states that the vice president assumes the Oval Office in the event that a president is removed from office, dies or resigns. Alternatively, the vice president and a majority of Cabinet officers can also jointly declare that a president is unfit to serve. The vice president would then take over as president in such a case.In the event that a president refused to step down, two-thirds of both the House and Senate would have to vote to force the resignation.
But Blumenauer posited that the mechanism wouldn’t be effective if a mentally unstable president simply fired all the Cabinet members. He argued it’s also possible that Cabinet members might feel pressured to stand by the president in the polarized political environment despite their own personal misgivings.
“Because the cabinet can be fired by the president, there is a natural bias that would make them reluctant to acknowledge the president’s inability to serve. It’s time to revisit and strengthen the Amendment and make sure there is a reliable mechanism in place if the president becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of office,” Blumenauer said.
Blumenauer first raised concerns about the 25th Amendment in a House floor speech in February during which he expressed worry about what he viewed as “erratic” behavior from Trump. At the time, he pointed to Trump’s baseless claims about voter fraud in the election and stating that it was sunny during his inaugural address when it was, in fact, raining.
A handful of Democratic lawmakers have openly raised questions about Trump’s psychological state since he took office in January, including Blumenauer, Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) and Reps. Ted Lieu (Calif.) and John Yarmuth (Ky.).
Trump administration plans to eliminate climate data collection
Scientists Fear Climate Data Gap as Trump Aims at Satellites, NYT APRIL 10, 2017 Among the sweeping cuts in the Trump administration’s 53-page budget blueprint released last month, one paragraph stood out to climate researchers. It proposed eliminating four of NASA’s climate science missions, including instruments to study clouds, small airborne particles, the flow of carbon dioxide and other elements of the atmosphere and oceans.
Trump’s unpopularity: is it spurring him on to make missile strikes?
Is Trump Turning to Missile Strikes to Salvage His Failing Presidency? Truth Out, , April 14, 2017 By Michael Meurer, Truthout | News Analysis Donald Trump’s April 6 missile strike against a Syrian airfield, purportedly in response to photos of injured children from President Bashar al-Assad’s April 3 sarin nerve gas attack against his own people in Idlib province, was not only a dizzying reversal of policy in only three days, but also a possible harbinger of things to come, most likely in Iran.
The missile strike came just two days after the release of a Quinnipiac University poll showing Trump’s approval rating at a historically unprecedented 35 percent for a presidency less than 90 days old. His 3 to 1 negative rating was mirrored in a March 29 Gallup poll. In response, his aides cooked up something they billed as “leadership week” to introduce Trump as Commander-in-Chief as he was also meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Iran is Assad’s strongest backer next to Russia. Any military engagement in Syria increases the chance of direct conflict with Iran. And under Trump, the US is already engaged in a series of aggressive actions against Iran that may be designed to trigger a war.
The Danger of Trump’s Failing Presidency As Trump’s knee-jerk decision to strike “the pose he needs in the narrative du jour” by attacking Syria clearly demonstrates, there is palpable danger that the precedent of provoking war for purely political reasons that was established under the presidency of George W. Bush could be reproduced under Trump in a much more condensed timeframe.
Fearing a descent into unelectability as Bush’s approval ratings plummeted in 2002-2003, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the White House Iraq Group manufactured the political strategy of making Iraq a nuclear weapons threat and declaring war in early 2003 to improve Bush’s chance of election in 2004. It took Bush two years of declining polls before he resorted to war as a political remedy.
Trump’s approval ratings have collapsed to historically unprecedented levels after less than three months in office. His disapproval ratings are already approaching 60 percent.
Having surrounded himself with hawkish generals, there is a risk that Trump will use war as a political remedy much more quickly than Bush did if current public opinion trends continue. The Syria attack may be the first in what could quickly become an escalating series of foreign policy aggressions………..
If this sounds alarmist, it is because it needs to be. The Iraq War that was started in order to salvage the failing presidency of George W. Bush has now destabilized half the planet half the planet. It was created with the same kind of bombast and threat inflation that is already coming out of the Trump administration. This is not a lesson that the US and the rest of the world can afford to learn anew.
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) has correctly observed that the Trump presidency has created “a civilization-warping crisis of public trust.” This crisis will continue to deepen even among his core supporters as Trump leaves a trail of abandoned campaign promises and investigations widen into his financial conflicts of interest and Russian connections. Trump’s false allegations of treasonous wiretapping by a former president may also spur an investigation, with legal scholars saying they constitute an impeachable offense.
Some polls show nearly 50 percent public approval for Trump’s impeachment.
Impeachment would only be a start in the long and difficult process of rebuilding a republican civic society driven by citizens, not ideologically deranged billionaires. But without it, there may be nothing left to rebuild. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/40201-is-trump-turning-to-missile-strikes-to-salvage-his-failing-presidency
South Korea’s nuclear power programme under threat, as Presidential candidates against nuclear or coal expansion
South Korea coal, nuclear power targeted for cuts by presidential candidates http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/south-korea-coal-nuclear-power-targeted-for-cuts-by-presidentia/3672862.html12 Apr 2017 SEOUL: No matter who is elected as South Korea’s new leader next month it is clear that coal and nuclear power generation will likely be scaled back, with most of the candidates laying out plans on Wednesday to address public concerns over pollution and safety.
Less than a month from a May 9 election to replace impeached president Park Geun-hye, policy experts outlined in a forum the energy proposals of four of the five contenders.
The two leading candidates, liberal front-runner Moon Jae-In and centrist Ahn Cheol-soo, both plan to lower South Korea’s reliance on coal and nuclear power, pointing to a need to shift to renewable energy, according to their policy advisors. In the latest poll by Gallup Korea, Moon got the support of 38 percent of respondents, and Ahn got 35 percent.
South Korea, Asia’s fourth-largest economy, gets 40 percent of its electricity from coal, 30 percent from nuclear, 20 percent from natural gas, and the rest from oil and renewables.
But policy changes are expected amid growing concerns over pollution and the safety of nuclear energy, and Moon and Ahn appear determined to help drive them.
“We should move away from coal and nuclear power, and shift to clean or renewable energy-based platforms,” said Kim Jwa-kwan, head of Moon’s energy policy team. Kim said his team planned for nuclear and coal power to account for 18 percent and 15 percent respectively of power supply by 2030, while the contribution of liquefied natural gas (LNG) would increase to 37 percent to support the rise of renewables.
If elected, Moon also “would scrap a plan to build Shin Kori No.5 and Shin Kori No.6 nuclear reactors on which construction began last year and revamp the country’s nuclear power expansion scheme,” Kim said.
That means South Korea’s plan to build 11 nuclear reactors by 2029 could be under threat.
Ahn would similarly shelve a plan to construct four coal-fired power plants and not extend the lifespan of ageing coal and nuclear power stations, said Oh Jeong-Rye, deputy director of Ahn’s People Party.
Both candidates target a 20 percent renewable energy share by 2030 as part of efforts to cut carbon emissions.
Under the current power supply plan, in addition to building 11 nuclear reactors by 2029 – three of which are already under construction – South Korea plans to add 20 more coal-fired power plants by 2022.
Policy experts for two other candidates – the conservative Bareun Party’s Yoo Seong-min and the left-wing Justice Party’s Sim Sang-jung – also said they would overhaul South Korea’s coal and nuclear energy policy.
Sim would cut nuclear power to zero by 2040 and phase out coal by 2060, according to her energy advisor.
(Reporting By Jane Chung; Additional reporting by Heekyong Yang; Editing by Tom Hogue)
Scott Pruitt, Anti Environment Chief, states that USA should exit Paris climate deal
EPA chief Scott Pruitt tells ‘Fox & Friends’ U.S. should exit Paris climate deal, Think Progress, 14 Apr 17
He then left the interview to give the coal industry a boost. Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday during an appearance on Fox and Friends that the United States should exit the Paris climate agreement because the accord only serves the interests of Europe, China and India.
“Paris is something that we need to really look at closely because it is something we need to exit, in my opinion,” Pruitt told the Fox News show hosts. “It’s a bad deal for America”
Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general with close ties to the state’s oil and gas industry, has labeled the agreement a “bad deal” in the past but had not previously called for the United States to withdraw from the accord……
President Donald Trump reportedly is expected to meet with his senior advisers to decide whether the Unites States should stay in the Paris climate agreement. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, will attend the meeting. Ivanka Trump reportedly favors the country meeting its Paris climate agreement obligations. https://thinkprogress.org/scott-pruitt-calls-for-exit-of-paris-agreement-cd3d04a5f780
South Africa’s new Finance Minister all set to rubber stamp nuclear build programme
Rigorous review process needed for SA nuclear deal http://www.iol.co.za/news/opinion/rigorous-review-process-needed-for-sa-nuclear-deal-8625269 | 11 April 2017 New Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba has the rubber stamp of approval out that Pravin Gordhan kept locked away, writes Lauren Hermanus.
-
Archives
- October 2026 (120)
- 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
