nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Nuclear workers’ pensions slashed – not a good omen for UK’s Tories, in Copeland byelection

questionpound-sterlingTories threatened by their own nuclear meltdown in Copeland By  Politics.co.uk, 26 January 2017  Since the Copeland byelection was called, speculation has been rife about the damage Jeremy Corbyn’s nuclear stance could do to Labour’s chances. But while the Tories have been quick to exploit this, they have been much slower to wake up to their own nuclear problem. And it’s one which has the potential to swing the outcome of next month’s vote……..

Throughout the campaign there have been concerns within the  local Labour party and among some union members that Corbyn’s views on nuclear could have an impact. But a far more pressing concern for many of the workers on site is the ongoing dispute with the government over their pensions.

Unions say that changes to the workers’ final salary pension scheme, which have been proposed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), could see pensions slashed by thousands of pounds. After a meeting with government ministers yesterday, unions announced that a planned strike ballot would be put on hold while talks continue. But the issue has by no means gone away. http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/01/26/tories-threatened-by-their-own-nuclear-meltdown-in-copeland

January 27, 2017 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear lobby dumping its climate change argument, in order to suit Donald Trump

Under Trump, INL pivots its nuclear message Post Register  January 24, 2017 By LUKE RAMSETH lramseth@postregister.com   Idaho National Laboratory officials are considering how to shift their message under a Trump administration that has sent mixed signals on energy research and the existence of climate change.

When discussing the lab’s nuclear research capabilities, officials plan to focus more on themes such as energy security, nonproliferation and job creation — and less on climate change.

trump-and-nuclear-lobby

“We’re actively talking right now, and working to pivot our strategy to reflect the new administration’s priorities,” INL Director Mark Peters said in an interview earlier this month.

Lab officials and other experts say they expect funding levels for INL’s nuclear and national security missions to remain largely the same under Trump, while renewable energy research — a relatively small part of the INL budget — could take a big hit. But concrete details won’t be known until more U.S. Department of Energy leadership positions are announced, and a Trump budget proposal is released.

“I maintain that there’s opportunity,” Peters said. “I’m particularly excited about broadening the nuclear conversation.”

New leadership

One thing is clear: The DOE — like nearly all federal agencies under Trump — is set to undergo sweeping changes. Those changes most likely will be overseen by former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who underwent a Thursday confirmation hearing with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A vote by the committee, and later the full Senate, is expected in the coming days.

Perry’s background is dramatically different from the previous energy secretary Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist who worked at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Moniz is a “unique guy,” Peters said.

“You don’t typically get a Ph.D, a nuclear physicist, who can walk around Washington the way he could, and be effective,” Peters said. But that “certainly doesn’t say you can’t have a person with a very different set of qualifications who can’t be effective as well.”……..

At the hearing, Perry outlined an “all-of-the-above” energy approach he would take as leader of the DOE. It was an approach he said included renewable energy in an effort to address climate change. He pledged to protect DOE budgets on “all of the science,” which would include research at the national laboratories.

But a report by The Hill, published last week, said Trump staffers were in fact considering eliminating DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and pulling back DOE research funding in several other areas. It said the proposed cuts were similar to those pitched last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation……..

NL officials will be watching closely who is appointed for leadership positions under Perry, especially in the Office of Nuclear Energy. The previous leader of the department, John Kotek — who had strong ties to Idaho and INL — recently departed for a position with the Nuclear Energy Institute.

“I’m focused like a laser on who replaces John,” Peters said. “That’s important to us, because we’re that lab (under Office of Nuclear Energy). So they steward this laboratory. That person is a partner for us.”

Peters — who said he has “continued optimism” about the coming years….http://www.postregister.com/articles/news-daily-email-todays-headlines-nation-world/2017/01/24/under-trump-inl-pivots-its#

January 25, 2017 Posted by | politics, spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Radiation Free Lakeland (RFL) urges UK Labor leader to oppose nuclear power station planned for Moorside

Jeremy Corbyn urged to oppose nuclear power station planned for Moorside A campaign group is calling on moorside-nugen-cumbria-planLabour leader Jeremy Corbyn to publicly oppose nuclear new-build plans in west Cumbria. News and Star, 24 Jan  17 

Radiation Free Lakeland (RFL) has written to Mr Corbyn to urge him to lodge his “firm and outspoken” opposition to plans for a three-reactor station at Moorside, on land next to Sellafield.

By doing so, adds RFL, Mr Corbyn would “galvanise and inspire nuclear opponents, and give them a compelling reason to vote Labour”.

RFL’s letter comes in the week that Mr Corbyn – who has been described as “anti-nuclear” by opponents – has twice visited Copeland ahead of a hotly-anticipated Parliamentary by-election to replace Jamie Reed.  In her letter to Mr brkby-marianneCorbyn, RFL’s Marianne Birkby points to safety concerns about the design of the AP1000 reactors proposed for Moorside, and the “intolerable nuclear burden” already faced locally…..

She also draws his attention to a petition – Stop Moorside: the biggest nuclear development in Europe – that has attracted over 11,000 signatures.

She said: “We oppose Moorside and feel that you may be underestimating the strength of feeling against the plans. “When you appeared on The Andrew Marr Show last weekend, you missed the chance to condemn the project.

“Please set aside the siren voices that are working hard to convince you that outright opposition to Moorside would be a vote-loser.

“Instead, listen to the voices of resistance, which include many Labour voters previously encouraged by your rational, well-informed spepticism of the nuclear industry and its taxpayer-funded spin doctors.”

NuGen, the firm behind plans for Moorside, is currently analysing feedback from last summer’s public consultation into the plant.

The firm hopes to get the final go ahead in 2018. http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Jeremy-Corbyn-urged-to-oppose-nuclear-power-station-planned-for-Moorside-30bf74c4-e216-4b83-92d3-439aacffc817-ds

January 25, 2017 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

USA Congress supports small nuclear reactors

fleecing-taxpayer

Congress Passes Unconventional Nuclear Power Bill ANDREW FOLLETT,  Daily Caller, 24 Jan 17   House lawmakers passed legislation Monday to support unconventional nuclear power.

If signed by President Trump, the proposal could change how the government regulates nuclear power and create a boom in the utilization of advanced unconventional reactor technology. The bill was sponsored by two Republicans and three Democrats.

“We believe that trailblazing the advance of nuclear energy technology including Gen 3+, Small Modular Reactors, Non-Light Water Reactor (LWR) Advanced Reactors and Fusion Reactors is one of the key imperatives for U.S. market competitiveness,” David Blee, executive director of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council (NIC), told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“It is vital to maintaining the U.S. lead in technology innovation, safety enhancements, energy security and clean energy,” Blee said…….

text-SMRsEnergy companies in Idaho and Utah announced plans in June to build twelve small modular reactors to provide electricity to nine western states.

Getting regulators to consider approving an unconventional nuclear design is incredibly expensive. The company NuScale was required to produce a 12,000-page document and spend $500 million dollars just to get the government to consider its designs. The company thinks it won’t be able to commercialize small modular reactors by 2026 at the earliest due to regulatory delays…….

Getting regulatory approval from the NRC to build a new conventional reactor can take up to 25 years…….. http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/24/congress-passes-unconventional-nuclear-power-bill/

January 25, 2017 Posted by | politics, technology, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s nuclear weapons boast – back to the ‘Star Wars’ Budget Buster?

space_weaponsTrump’s Nuclear Defense Plan: Another ‘Star Wars’ Budget Buster? The Fiscal Times, By  January 24, 2017 President Ronald Reagan cowed the Soviet Union and eventually brought its leaders to the bargaining table with the threat of a costly space-based nuclear missile system dubbed “Star Wars.” In March 1983, Reagan formally launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to develop and deploy an “impenetrable shield” to protect the U.S. from a Soviet missile attack.

Although the U.S. ultimately spent more than $200 billion on a system that was never successfully developed and deployed, Reagan’s high-stakes defense gambit was credited by many for helping to hasten the end of the Cold War…….

Now a new addition to Trump’s evolving defense posture, the website declared that the United States would develop a “state of the art missile defense system” to guard against attacks from North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states.

The announcement was bereft of details about the technical capabilities or the potential cost to taxpayers for a more sophisticated missile defense system than the land-based and seaborne systems currently deployed in California and Alaska and aboard Navy destroyers in the Pacific.

In addition to the missile shield, the Trump White House said a new military budget would be submitted to Congress outlining a plan to rebuild the military and increase cyber-warfare capabilities. “We will make it a priority to develop defensive and offensive cyber capabilities at our U.S. Cyber Command, and recruit the best and brightest Americans to serve in this crucial area,” the statement declared.

Since then, Trump and his aides have had little more to say about their proposed missile defense initiative, leaving defense policy experts to scratch their heads and speculate on what the new president has in mind. ……..http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/01/24/Trump-s-Nuclear-Defense-Plan-Another-Star-Wars-Budget-Buster

January 25, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump’s first White House website post – will scrap Climate Action Plan

trump-worldDonald Trump will eliminate landmark climate protection plan, says first post on White House website http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-white-house-president-global-warming-climate-change-environment-a7538206.html

The Climate Action Plan was introduced four years ago as a national strategy for tackling climate change Andrew Griffin  @_andrew_griffin  21 January 2017 Donald Trump’s first post on the White House website suggests destroying the US’s strategy to tackle climate change.

After President Trump took over the site, he posted six “Issues” to its home page. The first of those is an “America First Energy Plan”.

 The first proposal in that document suggests getting rid of “burdensome regulations on our energy industry”. Those include getting rid of “harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the US rule”.

President Trump doesn’t suggest a replacement for any of those regulations, and goes on to suggest that getting rid of them will save money and keep America secure.The Climate Action Plan was landmark legislation introduced by Barack Obama in June 2013. It served as a “national plan for tackling climate change”, according to the government.
The key parts of the plan were divided into three sections. Those outlined plans to cut carbon pollution in the US, actions to get the country ready for the effects of climate change, and plans for how to lead international efforts to address global warming.No part of the Mr Trump’s environmental document makes any mention of climate change or global warming – something that President Trump has in the past said was just a Chinese hoax. The only mention of the environment calls for “responsible stewardship of the environment”, but that refers only to keeping water and air clean. “Lastly, our need for energy must go hand-in-hand with responsible stewardship of the environment,” the document reads. “Protecting clean air and clean water, conserving our natural habitats, and preserving our natural reserves and resources will remain a high priority.”It also says that Donald Trump will focus the Environmental Protection Agency onto “protecting our air and water”, and presumably away from climate policies.

President Trump says that his environmental policies will join up with his economic ones, by encouraging more spending in the US economy. The document says that he will encourage the burning of coal, and the use of shale oil and gas in the US.By doing so, he will be able to use the revenues to pay for the rebuilding of “roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure” that he promised to his voters. It will also help stimulate the agriculture industry, he claimed. President Trump says that his environmental policies will join up with his economic ones, by encouraging more spending in the US economy. The document says that he will encourage the burning of coal, and the use of shale oil and gas in the US.That will also allow the US to achieve energy independence from the OPEC alliance of oil producing countries. But President Trump says he will continue to work with countries in the Gulf – many of which are in OPEC – “to develop a positive energy relationship as part of our anti-terrorism strategy”.The document also calls for a new focus on coal and a revival of the country’s coal industry. President Trump has claimed that he will do that by backing “clean coal” – but it’s not clear that such a thing would actually be possible and whether such thing as clean coal could actually exist.

January 23, 2017 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s White House website distorts the figures on American wages

trump-liesTrump White House Distorts Wages Figure on First Day, Climate Central By  22 Jan 17 Shortly after Donald Trump was sworn in as president on Friday, the White House said that eliminating power plant climate rules, a clean water rule and other environmental regulations would “greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.”

January 23, 2017 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Toshiba desperately seeking funding for UK nuclear project, seeks tax-payer subsidy

Tax - payersToshiba faces pressure to secure funding for UK nuclear project, Ft.com by: Andrew Ward and Jim Pickard in London, 22 Jan 17  Toshiba is facing pressure to secure investment from a South Korean energy group and the UK government to keep afloat a multibillion-pound British nuclear power project as the Japanese conglomerate struggles with mounting financial difficulties.

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Kepco) has been in talks for months to join the NuGen consortium planning a nuclear plant at Moorside in Cumbria alongside Toshiba and Engie of France. The need for new partners has been increased by huge writedowns on Toshiba’s nuclear business in the US, which has left the group scrambling to shore up its balance sheet. As well as Korean capital, Toshiba is angling for UK government investment in the Cumbrian project after Theresa May’s administration recently signalled its willingness to put public money into new nuclear plants. This would represent a reversal of longstanding UK policy not to expose taxpayers’ money to the heavy expense and high risks involved in building nuclear reactors.
A Whitehall official said it was “premature” to talk about government involvement in financing Moorside but several other people involved in the process or briefed on the matter said the option of public investment was on the table. But these people said a more immediate step to keep the scheme on track was the proposal for Toshiba to sell part of its 60 per cent stake in NuGen to Kepco, the utility majority-owned by the South Korean government. “Talks have been moving slowly but the financial difficulties facing Toshiba will hopefully focus minds on getting a deal done,” said one person close to the talks.
It emerged last month that the UK and Japanese governments were in talks about potential joint support for a new nuclear plant planned by Hitachi, another Japanese conglomerate, at Wylfa in Anglesey. One senior nuclear industry figure said these discussions also extended to potential government financing for Moorside. Shares in Toshiba have fallen by 44 per cent since the group warned last month that it would have to make writedowns of “several billion dollars” related to the $229m acquisition last year of Stone & Webster, the US nuclear construction company, by Toshiba’s US nuclear technology unit, Westinghouse……..
Public investment in new nuclear plants would be a striking illustration of Mrs May’s determination to intervene more heavily in industrial strategy, a policy she was expected to set out in a discussion paper on Monday. The UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “We are working closely with a number of developers on proposed new nuclear projects in the UK, as they develop their plans.” https://www.ft.com/content/c0b01308-e0aa-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb

January 23, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, Japan, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Most USA Republicans favour action on climate change

climate-changeFlag-USATrump supporters don’t like his climate policies, Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, 20 JANUARY 2017 Dana Nuccitelli   Recent surveys jointly conducted by Yale University and George Mason University found that a majority of Republicans (including a plurality of conservative Republicans) support US participation in international climate agreements like the Paris accords. They support regulating or taxing carbon pollution. And they want the United States to get much more of its energy from renewables, and less from fossil fuels.

Yet they also voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, who pledged to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement (though he has since waffled), and to kill the Clean Power Plan and its carbon pollution regulations. And he seems to strongly prefer coal to wind and solar energy, which he has inaccurately described as “not working on large-scale” and “very, very expensive.”………

Republican support for climate-change mitigation policies is broad but shallow. They would prefer that the government take action to curb carbon pollution, but for most, the issue won’t impact their votes.

However, the fossil fuel industry is a major Republican Party donor. Which means that for many Republican politicians, the incentives are thus quite clear—if they obstruct climate policies, they’re rewarded with campaign donations, and they’re not penalized at the ballot box by conservative voters who only mildly disapprove of their actions.

Donald Trump didn’t receive particularly substantial fossil fuel funding during his presidential campaign, which may help explain his wobbly stance on climate change. He simply doesn’t seem to have put much thought into the subject or consider it a high priority, quite like most of his supporters. But many of his nominees to powerful government positions like Scott Pruitt have benefited from oil industry donations, and Trump even nominated the chief executive officer of the world’s largest oil company to be his Secretary of State.

It’s in those key government roles where the rubber meets the road. If Trump’s nominees are approved, the fossil fuel industry will have powerful allies in his administration, and if they do enough damage to America’s efforts to curb carbon pollution, Trump and the GOP may eventually pay the electoral price…….http://thebulletin.org/trump-supporters-don%E2%80%99t-his-climate-policies10411#.WINK_ptkX2s.twitter

January 23, 2017 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Climate Central explodes the lies and omissions in Trump’s White House Energy Plan

trump-liesDecoding Trump’s White House Energy Plan , Climate Central, By  , 20 Jan 17 Just as President Donald Trump took the oath of office and the White House scrubbed its website of Obama climate change information, it posted Trump’s “America First Energy Plan,” which is replete with misinformation and specious claims about climate and energy policy.

The White House’s new energy plan repackages Trump’s campaign promises to reignite America’s declining coal industry, kill the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan and exploit all of America’s fossil fuel reserves to achieve energy independence — an idea that ignores that America’s oil and gas is part of a truly global fossil fuels market.

Throughout his campaign, Trump expressed contempt for the Obama administration’s climate policies, which were critical to the success of the Paris Climate Agreement — the international pact aiming to stop global warming from reaching what the world’s scientists agree are dangerous levels.

Obama’s climate and energy policies encouraged the development of low-carbon renewable sources and discouraged the use of coal for electricity as a way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions driving global warming.

Trump and his transition team called those policies job killers. He falsely claimed that Obama’s policies alone have forced the coal industry into decline. Coal has been on a long, steady decline since 2008 when natural gas was made cheap and abundant because of fracking. Natural gas overtook coal as America’s largest source of electricity for the first time in history in 2016.

The White House’s “America First Energy Plan” reflects those claims and Trump’s disdain for climate science and renewable energy. Here is a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the plan:

Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil.

Few people question that energy is essential, but Trump’s statement that his administration is committed to low-cost energy and maximizing the use of American resources is seen by many as code for unfettered exploitation of oil, coal and natural gas in the U.S. Trump has called renewables “an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves,” and says a cheaper way to energy independence is through oil, gas and coal.

Fossil fuels are abundant in the U.S. thanks to fracking, which brought about the shale oil and gas boom of the past decade. But oil drilled in the U.S. isn’t necessarily staying in the U.S. and contributing to energy independence. Congress lifted a 40-year ban on oil experts a year ago, and now U.S. oil is being shipped all over the world, even as the U.S. is importing oil from Canada and the Middle East.

At the same time, the costs of renewables has been falling dramatically in recent years, and America’s largest oil refiner and carbon emitter — Texas — has become the nation’s leader in wind power production.

Trump’s skepticism of renewables contrasts starkly with Obama, who said that wind and solar power are a critical a component of energy independence. For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.

“Burdensome regulations” has long been Republican messaging for what they consider odious Obama-era climate policies and regulations that encourage the use of renewables and natural gas instead of fossil fuels to address climate change, or restrict the development of oil and gas on federally owned public lands and waters.

For example, one of Obama’s last-minute actions was to close off most of the Arctic Ocean off of Alaska’s North Coast for oil and gas development as a way to protect the seashore from oil spills and prevent more and more of the carbon pollution driving climate change. That followed a moratorium on coal leasing on federal lands and the closure of large swaths of the Atlantic coast to future oil drilling.

Each of those moves angered fossil fuel boosters in the Republican Party and were motivated in part by Obama’s Climate Action Plan, which involved a variety of measures to help slash America’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Trump’s claim that lifting those and other restrictions would increase workers’ wages by more $30 billion wildly mischaracterizes the potential for workers to benefit from killing U.S. climate policy. The figure seems to come from a 2015 report by Louisiana State University banking professor Joseph R. Mason, which was released by the Institute for Energy Research, an oil-industry funded organization run by Trump’s energy transition team chief,Tom Pyle.

The report claims that $32 billion in annual worker wages over seven years would be earned if all of America’s public lands were opened to oil, gas and coal development — even the lands protected by law from energy development, including wilderness areas and national parks.

That means Trump is saying that if Yellowstone, the White House lawn, Yosemite Valley, the Great Smoky Mountains and Mt. Rushmore were opened to fracking, workers would reap billions in benefits.

Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well.

“Sound” energy policy is a play on “sound science” in an effort to lend it legitimacy.

It is true that the U.S. has vast untapped domestic energy sources — and that includes renewables. While fracking and the shale oil and gas boom led to discoveries of millions of barrels of oil that were once thought too expensive to reach, renewables are some of America’s largest untapped sources of energy.

For example, America’s offshore wind power potential is so huge that if fully developed, offshore wind farms could produce four times the electricity currently generated in the U.S. today, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. America’s first offshore wind farm was completed in December, with more expected to be built over the next five years.

Trump’s estimated $50 trillion in untapped oil and gas reserves is a huge mischaracterization of the fossil fuels that can be developed in the U.S., said Mark Squillace, a professor of natural resources law at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

“The problem with numbers like this is that they do not tell the whole story,” Squillace said. “The United States certainly has vast oil and gas and coal reserves and if you just add them up and multiply by their market value you get a big number. But most of those reserves cannot be economically developed any time in the foreseeable future.”

He said the figure originates from Kathy Hartnett White, a Trump advisor affiliated with the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, who told Fox Business in June that the U.S. is sitting on $50 trillion of oil and gas, “but the government is stopping us from getting it.”…….

President Trump will refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water………….Trump’s energy policy says nothing about climate change, which will be made drasticly worse if the U.S. develops as much oil, gas and coal as Trump suggests.

America’s air and water have been kept clean over the past 40 years because of environmental laws enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency, which Trump previously said he wants to abolish. Trump has appointed one of the EPA’s most ardent foes to head the agency — Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who has sued the EPA 14 times and is involved in a lawsuit aiming to kill one of Obama’s most sweeping climate policies.

During his confirmation hearing, Pruitt said he wants states to have more control over how they are regulated by the EPA, suggesting that the federal laws protecting America’s air and water would be applied unevenly from state to state. Some states are much more vigilant in enforcing environmental regulations and have more resources than others,

Trump has said nothing about how a weakened EPA would accomplish his goal of keeping America’s air and water clean.http://www.climatecentral.org/news/decoding-trumps-white-house-energy-plan-21097

January 23, 2017 Posted by | climate change, ENERGY, politics, USA | Leave a comment

As Trump takes over, White House website loses all reference to climate change, promotes coal industry

It also appeared to remove any reference to combating climate change, a topic that had been featured prominently on the White House site under President Barack Obama. The page that once detailed the potential consequences of climate change and the Obama administration’s efforts to address it vanished on Friday just as President Trump was sworn in. It now redirected to a broken link: “The requested page ‘/energy/climate-change’ could not be found.”

trump-world

In its place, listed among the top issues of the Trump administration, was a page entitled, “An America First Energy Plan.”

The incoming administration vows to eliminate “harmful and unnecessary policies” such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States rule. The first represents a variety of efforts Obama pursued to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, while the second is a rule issued by the EPA to protect not only the largest waterways but smaller tributaries that others believe should fall under the jurisdiction of states rather than the federal government.

The new White House site says that Trump would “refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water.”

It also says the incoming president will pursue “clean coal technology,” a reference to efforts to remove carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning plants and bury those emissions in the ground to use them to enhance oil recovery. The Obama Energy Department has already been funding a variety of projects in this area. Though, without nearby enhanced oil recovery projects, the technology is not economic. Trump’s White House site says the new administration would aim at “reviving America’s coal industry.”

January 21, 2017 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Perry poised to lead renewable energy push in Trump’s USA

Rick Perry asked about nuclear energy policy as energy secretary
 
Going nuclear: Perry poised to lead renewable energy push

BY MARK PERRY, “……..This is where the new administration can make a difference. With Perry guiding the DOE, the agency can stimulate development of a new generation of small modular reactors and advanced nuclear plants.

Just last week, NuScale, an Oregon-based nuclear company, applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for safety certification of a small modular reactor (SMR) that it intends to develop for use in the United States and abroad.

This is the first request for certification of a new reactor design in many years and it could mark the start of the next step for advanced nuclear power…….

Perry is a strong supporter of nuclear power. He can play an invaluable role in pushing for action at the state and regional levels to keep existing nuclear plants online…… it takes new leadership and a renewed appreciation for the importance of nuclear power. Hopefully, Perry will soon provide that leadership as the head of the DOE”.

January 21, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Climate injustice. Under Trump, people of color will suffer most

trump-worldPeople of color are bracing for climate injustice under Trump, Guardian, Elizabeth C Yeampierre, 20 Jan 17  When things are bad for everyone, they are particularly bad for people of color – which doesn’t bode well as the Trump administration sets up shop. hen things are bad for everyone, they are particularly bad for people of color. The Trump administration is about to legitimize injustice in all of our communities. People of color have endured the extraction of our land and labor – and its legacy – since the creation of these United States. Now, we are bracing ourselves for worse things to come.

The environmental and climate justice movement has had substantial successes on both the local and national fronts. We have cleaned up brownfields, stopped the siting of power plants, facilitated community-based planning for climate adaption and resilience, all while developing a framework known as Just Transitions, which rejects the “dig, burn, dump” economy and wants to push it away from an extractive economy to a regenerative one.

Always frontline-led and solutions–oriented, we have been working diligently to operationalize this transition through such initiatives as community-owned solar, offshore wind and local cooperatives that model another way to live without a carbon footprint. Energized by the momentum created by the People’s Climate March and the breadth of knowledge shared by the Climate Justice Alliance’s Our Power Campaign, the last few years have been all about the possibilities.

And then Trump was elected.

The solutions to unresolved environmental justice crises in low-income communities of color that the environmental and climate justice movement and allies have been diligently working to resolve now suddenly appear unattainable……..

Our communities across the nation have struggled but survived with administrations that moved slowly. We have never faced an administration that on all underlying tenets of climate justice – including the very existence of climate change – is at best indifferent and at worst actively antagonistic.

The appointments of climate denier Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, fossil fuel-backed Ryan Zinke as head of Department of Interior, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, neo-Confederate Jeff Sessions as attorney general and fast food executive Andrew Puzder as secretary of labor all constitute direct attacks on these tenets and communities of color.

As we face a full-scale assault on our very existence, we are planning, organizing, building, educating and resisting with an understanding of what this means for our communities.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/19/trump-administration-climate-change-people-of-color-injustice

January 21, 2017 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | Leave a comment

France’s EDF resisting the closure of Fessenheim nuclear power plant

Poster EDF menteurEDF board prepares to defy Hollande on nuclear closure Power company’s bid to keep plant open shows president’s waning authority, Ft.com 19 Jan 17 by: Michael Stothard in Paris François Hollande risks falling short on another pledge as the board of state-controlled energy company EDF next week prepares to vote down his plans to close France’s oldest nuclear plant.

The French president promised in 2012 to shut down the Fessenheim power plant near the German and Swiss borders — long a target for anti-nuclear activists — in a bid to win over the Green party. But with just months left of his mandate ahead of the presidential election on April 23, some within EDF are attempting to drag their feet long enough for a change of government, according to three people with knowledge of the situation……..
Mr Hollande’s difficulties are partly down to a legal quirk with the vote. Six government-appointed representatives on the boardare not allowed to vote on the motion because of a conflict of interest, according to people close to the company. Six union representatives are set to vote against closure. The CGT and moderate CFDT unions have both said publicly that they will do so to protect the 850 workers at the site. This means it will take only one of the six remaining independent board members to vote against closure for the motion to be rejected. According to several people with knowledge of the situation, at least one is willing to vote no.
 The Hollande government has put immense pressure on EDF to formalise the closure……..
The government does hold some cards. The state, as well as owning 85 per cent of the company’s equity, is participating in a €3bn capital raising. It must also sign off on an extension of the licence for a stopped second reactor at Paluel in northern France. A person close to the situation said the government could conceivably find a way around the board opposition or convince some board members to change their mind. …….
If EDF hangs on long enough, it might be able to resist the closure of Fessenheim completely. François Fillon, the centre-right presidential candidate who is the frontrunner to win the presidential election, has said he is against the closure of the plant.https://www.ft.com/content/62551c48-de77-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce

January 21, 2017 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Confusion in Donald Trump’s thinking about nuclear weapons

trump-worldDonald Trump’s very confusing thoughts on nuclear weapons, explained

January 20, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment