Obama to Stick With “First Strike” Nuclear War Doctrine, Claiming Deterrence Value https://www.districtsentinel.com/obama-stick-first-strike-nuclear-war-doctrine-claiming-deterrence-value/ September 6, 2016 by Sam Knight President Obama will not rule out the possibility of the United States conducting a first nuclear strike, keeping intact a policy that has been in place since the Cold War.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that Obama won’t attempt to revise the so-called “First Strike” doctrine before leaving office in January 2017.
The paper noted he had faced criticism, including some from “former senior aides,” over unfulfilled campaign and first-term promises, to work towards “a world without nuclear weapons.”
“For months, arms control advocates have argued for a series of steps to advance the pledge he made,” the Times said. “An unequivocal no-first-use pledge would have been the boldest of those measures.”
The source of complaints about the President’s about-face are from roughly six years ago. In 2010, when Obama renewed the START treaty with Russia, he also agreed to modernize the US nuclear arsenal, per Congressional Republicans’ demands.
The Times said that a shift away from First Strike would be mostly cosmetic, with US presidents dating back to Harry Truman, having pledged to only use nuclear weapons as a “last resort.”
History, however, casts a pall over these pledges.
Truman ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs on an already-battered Imperial Japan in 1945, despite the fact that some American military officials–at the time and, in the years after–expressed doubt that the nuclear bombings were needed to force a Japanese surrender. Those critics included Dwight Eisenhower, Pacific fleet commander Adm. Chester Nimitz, and Truman’s Chief of Staff, Adm. William Leahy. The United States is still the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons against an adversary.
According to The New York Times’ Tuesday report, President Obama had considered a move away from First Strike this summer, not long after he became the first US President to visit Hiroshima—the first of the two Japanese cities targeted by nuclear weapons, under orders from Truman.
Obama was, however, persuaded to move away from altering the policy by his cabinet. The Secretaries of Defense, State and Energy—Ash Carter, John Kerry, and Ernest Moniz—were all opposed to the move.
Kerry and Carter were particularly concerned about upsetting allies in East Asia, South Korea and Japan, in the context of perceived US “weakness,” in the face of possible North Korean military strikes.
The Times also noted Kerry objecting to “weaken[ing] the nuclear deterrent while Russia is running practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea.”
President Obama also ran the risk of adopting a policy that would be quickly reversed by the next administration, the paper noted.
“[Donald] Trump bristled at the idea [of abandoning first strike], saying he would never want to weaken America’s leverage,” The Times said. “[Hillary] Clinton has not spoken on the issue during her campaign.”
September 7, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, weapons and war |
2 Comments
Pro-Clinton group warns of nuclear war if Trump elected http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/294592-pro-clinton-group-warns-of-nuclear-war-if-trump-elected By Jonathan Easley , September 06, 2016, The largest pro-Hillary Clinton super-PAC on Tuesday released a new ad warning that Donald Trump could lead the nation into a nuclear war if he’s elected president.
The ad from Priorities USA, called “
I Love War,” juxtaposes Trump’s past remarks about his affinity for war and the power of nuclear energy against a backdrop of images of mushroom clouds, land stripped bare by massive explosions and old-time war reels. “I’m really good at war, I love war in a certain way,” Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, says in one clip.
“Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes,” he says.
Priorities USA is putting $5 million behind the ad, which will run begin running on Friday in six battleground states: North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire.
“Nuclear is just, the power, the devastation is very important to me,” Trump says in the ad.
“I want to be unpredictable,” he says as the spot concludes.
Allies of Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, are hammering Trump in a coordinated effort to portray him as unfit to be commander in chief.
The Trump campaign is pushing back, rolling out endorsements on Tuesday from 88 retired military figures who are backing Trump for president, calling him the leader to deal with “burgeoning threats” facing the country.
September 7, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
Only 10% of population returns to Fukushima town, September 04, 2016 The Yomiuri Shimbun Monday marks one year since the lifting of an evacuation order for Naraha, Fukushima Prefecture, that was imposed following the accident at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Inc.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
However, less than 10 percent of the town’s registered population has returned.
The number of new housing built in the town this year reached 296 in June, 4½ times more than last year’s total. However, among Naraha’s registered population of 7,300, only 681 people had returned to live there as of Friday, according to the municipality.
Residents who have resumed farming, the town’s key industry, are also limited in number……http://www.the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003193419
September 5, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Fukushima 2016, Japan, politics |
Leave a comment
As coal companies sink into bankruptcy, who will pay to clean up their old mines? Peabody is the latest to make big promises to a bankruptcy judge. VOX David Roberts on September 2, 2016, In the context of US capitalism, corporate bankruptcy has become less an admission of failure or a final chapter than a kind of R&R, a chance to shed some flab and come back stronger. As anyone who has followed Donald Trump’s career knows, a big company declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy is like Lindsay Lohan checking into rehab. They’ll be back.
So it is with Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, which entered bankruptcy back in April. It is currently undergoing its bankruptcy spa treatment — shedding workers and retirees, their health and pension benefits — and preparing to get back to work (or so it hopes).
In the case of Peabody and other coal companies, however, there’s another sort of flab, er, liability at issue, for which there is less precedent in bankruptcy court: namely, environmental remediation obligations.
Put more simply: Who’s going to pay to clean up all those old mines?
Coal companies promise to pay for mine cleanup, really and for true
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 says that coal companies have to clean up old mines and reverse their environmental damage, costs which can run to the hundreds of millions. Before they receive a permit for a new mine, coal companies have to prove that they can afford to clean it up. They do so by posting a bond.
These days, however, coal companies rarely have to meet this requirement. Instead, they are allowed to “self-bond,” which amounts to promising the states they operate in that they can pay for mine cleanups.
This cozy arrangement between coal companies and state regulators is longstanding, but it has come under increased scrutiny lately, as coal companies have tried to use bankruptcy to squirm out of those obligations. Wyoming just struck a deal with (bankrupt) Arch Coal to “accept up to $75 million in place of the company’s $486 million in bonding obligations.” That means if Arch Coal liquidates, Wyoming is first in line to collect at least $75 million in assets.
Who will cover the $411 million in remaining cleanup costs? Taxpayers.
And it’s not an isolated case; there’s a lot of dough at stake. In addition to the $9 billion in mine cleanup costs already outstanding under the Abandoned Mine Land Program(covering mines abandoned before 1977), “officials estimate that roughly $3.6 billion in self-bond liabilities could fall to taxpayers.”
That would amount to a $3.6 billion subsidy to big coal, the latest (maybe the last?) in a century-long tradition of subsidies.
Worries about self-bonding led WildEarth Guardians and other environmental groups tofile a petition to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) in March, asking the agency to ensure that “companies with a history of financial insolvency are not allowed to self-bond coal mining operations.”……..http://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12757074/coal-bankruptcy-mine-cleanup
September 5, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, ENERGY, politics |
Leave a comment
Groups fear no nuclear debate in Niigata governor’s race http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201609040026.html By YUKO MATSUURA/ Staff Writer September 4, 2016 NIIGATA–Anti-nuclear groups are pleading with Niigata Governor Hirohiko Izumida to rescind his decision not to run for re-election, seeing him as the “last bastion” to block the restart of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant.
The groups fear that the absence of Izumida in the Oct. 16 Niigata gubernatorial election, whose official campaigning starts on Sept. 29, will cause a dearth in debate among candidates on the safety of the multiple-reactor nuclear plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. in the prefecture.
“Governor (Izumida) is not aware of his value,” said Kunio Ueno, 66, secretary-general of the organizing committee for a gathering of anti-nuclear groups held in Kashiwazaki on Sept. 3.
Eighteen groups, based in and outside Niigata Prefecture, set up the organizing committee for the gathering and demanded the decommissioning of reactors at the plant.
“We will not allow candidates in the gubernatorial election to conceal a point of contention,” their declaration read. “We will make the issue of the nuclear power plant the biggest point of contention.”
Outside the site of the gathering, several citizens groups collected signatures to ask Izumida to run in the election.
On Aug. 30, Izumida, 53, who is in his third term as Niigata governor, announced he will not seek re-election, citing a report in a local newspaper that was not related to the nuclear issue.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority is currently conducting screenings toward the restart of reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant.
But Izumida has insisted that the causes of the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, also operated by TEPCO, must be verified before reactor operations can resume in his prefecture. As of now, only Tamio Mori, 67, mayor of Nagaoka in Niigata Prefecture, has announced he will run in the governor’s race.
On the issue of whether to restart the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant, Mori has only said, “I will strictly examine it based on protecting the security and safety of people in the prefecture.”
About 1,300 people took part in the Sept. 3 gathering.
Sayaka Sakazume, 32, of Niigata city, said: “It will be a problem for me if there are no candidates I can vote for based on my thoughts against the reactor restarts. I want a political situation in which we can choose a candidate.”
September 5, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, opposition to nuclear, politics |
Leave a comment
Nuclear’s Last Stand? New York’s Cuomo Rushes in to Save Dying Plants Progressive.org, September 2, 2016 Harvey Wasserman Andrew Cuomo is trying to ram through a complex backdoor bailout package worth up to $11 billion to keep at least four dangerously decrepit nuclear reactors operating.
To many proponents of safe energy, the move comes as a shock. Its outcome will have monumental consequences for nuclear power and the future of our energy supply.
For years, Governor Cuomo has made a public show of working to shut down two Entergy-owned reactors at Indian Point, thirty-five miles north of Manhattan. He and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have fought Entergy in court, trying to stop operations. They warn that the reactors are too dangerous to run so close to New York City, which cannot be evacuated in case of a major accident. More than ten million people live within a fifty-mile radius of Indian Point, whose two operating reactors opened in the 1970s.
Entergy is now trying to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend the expired operating licenses for the two plants, Indian Point Two and Three. (Indian Point Unit One was shut in October 1974 due to its lack of an Emergency Core Cooling System).
Cuomo claims he still wants to close Indian Point Two and Three. Like most aging reactors, they have been continually plagued with leaks, mechanical failures, structural collapse, and unplanned shutdowns. Recent revelations of major problems with critical bolts within Indian Point’s core structure, and tritium leaks into the broader environment, have deepened public opposition.
The national and local groups fighting to shut Indian Point, some for decades, include Riverkeepers, Clearwater, the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Beyond Nuclear, Friends of the Earth, and many more.
But now Cuomo wants to earmark more than $7 billion in public money, for starters, to keep four upstate nuclear reactors on line. One is the Ginna reactor, near Rochester; the other three—FitzPatrick, Nine Mile Point One, and Nine Mile Point Two—occupy a single site on Lake Ontario. Fitzpatrick is owned by Entergy. The rest are owned by Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power owner/operator.
All four reactors are in various stages of advanced deterioration and were slated for permanent closure. Without massive public subsidies, none can compete with natural gas or with wind and solar, which are rapidly dropping in price.
Entergy announced last fall that economic factors would force it to shut Fitzpatrick in January 2017. Exelon told the New York Public Service Commission that it would probably shut Nine Mile 1 and Ginna next year as well.
Environmentalists hailed the announcements. The aging U.S. fleet now involves about 100 reactors, down from a maximum of about 130, and 900 fewer than the 1,000 Richard Nixon predicted in 1974. Many of them, like Ginna, are well over forty years old. Many are known to be leaking various radioactive substances, most commonly tritium, as at Indian Point. Major leaks have also recently been revealed at FitzPatrick. Structural problems like Indian Point’s missing bolts and a crumbling shield building at Ohio’s Davis-Besse are rampant.
Nonetheless, in a complex twelve-year package ostensibly meant to promote clean energy, Cuomo’s PSC has passed a huge subsidy plan meant keep the four upstate reactors going.
The deal’s arcane terms involve a transfer of Fitzpatrick from Entergy to Exelon. The handouts from the public to the nuclear industry would be spread over more than a decade. Ironically, they could, under certain circumstances, also be used to keep open the two reactors at Indian Point.
Cuomo has made much of “saving” some 2,000 reactor jobs jobs in a depressed region where unemployment is rampant. But Stanford economist Mark Jacobson has shown that the billions spent to keep the reactors open could create tens of thousands of jobs throughout the state if spent on pursuing wind and solar energy and increased efficiency. Those sources could provide New York with far more energy at a much cheaper rate, without the long-term safety, ecological, and public health problems caused by the aging reactors………
Nuke operators throughout the United States are watching to see if New York’s proposed subsidies will keep set a precedent for states to jump in and keep money-losing reactors operating as they crumble. Exelon has lost a fight for billions in Illinois. Environmental, consumer, and even competing utilities are fighting huge bailout demands from FirstEnergy for its Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo.
At the turn of the twenty-first century, the industry fought for deregulation, arguing that its reactors would do well in a “free market economy.” But in the process it demanded (and got) about $100 billion in public handouts for “stranded costs” that it argued were unfairly imposed on its massively inefficient technology.
Now that the reactors are failing even after that huge cash infusion, the industry wants another round of huge subsidies…….
The reaction among New York anti-nuke groups to Cuomo’s handout has been fierce. The battle heads back to the PSC in the form of public comment, and then into the courts. Opponents are buoyed by the growing success of the state’s solar industry. As the interests tied to Solartopian technologies expand, their opposition to bailouts like this escalates.
It’s unclear how the battle over nuclear power in New York will be resolved. “The fight,” promises Tim Judson of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “is far from over.”
Harvey Wasserman, a co-founder of the global “No Nukes” movement, has been writing forThe Progressive since 1967. He is author of Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth, and editswww.nukefree.org. http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/09/188931/nuclear%E2%80%99s-last-stand-new-york%E2%80%99s-cuomo-rushes-save-dying-plants
September 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
global warming has joined God, guns, gays, and abortion as core elements of Republican identity, and this will be hard to change.
Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate ChangeThan Ever Before, Analysis 
Finds http://www.skepticalscience.com/americans-more-polarized-on-climate-change.html
American voters and politicians are now more polarized than ever before across all aspects of climate change — from the cause, to the science and the impacts — a major new analysis has found.
Campaigns funded by vested fossil fuel interests and pushed by a network of ideological think tanks, many linked to the oil billionaire Koch brothers, have helped to widen the gap, pushing Republican politicians, elites and voters away from action ongreenhouse gas emissions.
Tracking Gallup opinion poll surveys going back to 2001 and congress voting patterns from 1970 onwards, the analysis authors warn that as the November election approaches, Americans are faced with a stark political choice.
The analysis is published in the respected journal Environment and comes from sociologists Associate Professor Aaron McCright of Michigan State University, Professor Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University, and PhD researcher Jerrod Yarosh also at Oklahoma.
The researchers found the widest gaps between Democrats and Republicans come when they are asked about the causes of climate change and if the media exaggerates the seriousness of the issue.
While virtually all climate scientists and the world’s leading scientific academies have long agreed that the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change, only about half Republicans accept the science.
A Republican controlled Congress, the article says, would be a “huge step backward in our nation’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” and could also undermine international cooperation, especially if Republican nominee Donald Trump won the Presidency.
“Whether, and how, individual Americans vote this November may well be the most consequential climate-related decision most of them will have ever taken,” the authors conclude.
Stark Choices
Dunlap told DeSmog the choice facing US voters was glaring.
“Looking back, Gore versus Bush was stark, although Bush hid his denial for a bit. But now the partisan differences on climate change are out in the open, and the choices from the top down are stark.”
The Koch brothers had led a network of “conservative mega-donors” that had created a “shadow GOP” that had managed to reduce the influence of the Republican National Committee, the analysis argues.
These efforts, the article explains, have blocked legislation, limited international negotiations and made rejection of climate science “normative” among Republican elites and activists.
Widening Gaps
Dunlap, McCright and Yarosh looked at how elected Democrats and Republicans had voted on environment and climate bills in both houses of Congress since 1970, using data from the League of Conservation Voters. The researchers found:
What was once a modest tendency for Congressional Republicans to be less pro-environmental than their Democratic counterparts has become a chasm—with Republicans taking near-unanimous anti-environmental stances on relevant legislation in recent years, especially 2015.
Since 2001 polling company Gallup has been asking US voters for their views on aspects of climate change, such as if they think it’s happening, if it’s caused by humans and if they are concerned about it.
In 2001, 53 percent of Republican voters agreed that global warming was caused by humans, compared with 70 percent of Democrats — a gap of 17 percentage points. But by 2016, this gap had blown out to 41 percentage points, with only 43 percent of Republican voters accepting climate change is human-caused.
These “partisan gaps” had widened across all areas since 2008, except when voters were asked if they thought global warming had already started, where the gap remained at 34 percentage points.
Bridging the Gap?
Alongside the analysis, the authors look at various attempts to bring Republicans closer to accepting the realities of climate change, such as changing communication strategies. The writers claim:
Does any persuasive framing strategy hold special promise for penetrating Republicans’ partisan/ideological identities? The evidence so far gives little basis for optimism.
The sociologists say one major reason why attempts to better communicate the realities of climate change to conservatives have failed is down to “motivated cognition” — described as the tendency for people to only accept information that reinforces their existing political beliefs and their views on the world.
Even when Republicans experience extreme weather events, there was little evidence that this was enough for those voters to change their views. Dunlap told DeSmog:
“I fear polarization will be difficult to overcome because Republican reluctance to accept the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change is in a self-reinforcing loop.
There are top-down cues from Republican political elites and their supporters from conservative think tanks to conservative media — especially the Murdoch media— that influence voters, as well as bottom-up pressure from party activists such as Tea Party supporters who act as ‘enforcers’ of party principles, especially in primary elections to select Republican candidates.
The result is that global warming has joined God, guns, gays, and abortion as core elements of Republican identity, and this will be hard to change.”
Since 2001 polling company Gallup has been asking US voters for their views on aspects of climate change, such as if they think it’s happening, if it’s caused by humans and if they are concerned about it.
In 2001, 53 percent of Republican voters agreed that global warming was caused by humans, compared with 70 percent of Democrats — a gap of 17 percentage points. But by 2016, this gap had blown out to 41 percentage points, with only 43 percent of Republican voters accepting climate change is human-caused.
These “partisan gaps” had widened across all areas since 2008, except when voters were asked if they thought global warming had already started, where the gap remained at 34 percentage points.
Bridging the Gap?
Alongside the analysis, the authors look at various attempts to bring Republicans closer to accepting the realities of climate change, such as changing communication strategies. The writers claim:
Does any persuasive framing strategy hold special promise for penetrating Republicans’ partisan/ideological identities? The evidence so far gives little basis for optimism.
The sociologists say one major reason why attempts to better communicate the realities of climate change to conservatives have failed is down to “motivated cognition” — described as the tendency for people to only accept information that reinforces their existing political beliefs and their views on the world.
Even when Republicans experience extreme weather events, there was little evidence that this was enough for those voters to change their views. Dunlap told DeSmog:
“I fear polarization will be difficult to overcome because Republican reluctance to accept the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change is in a self-reinforcing loop.
There are top-down cues from Republican political elites and their supporters from conservative think tanks to conservative media — especially the Murdoch media— that influence voters, as well as bottom-up pressure from party activists such as Tea Party supporters who act as ‘enforcers’ of party principles, especially in primary elections to select Republican candidates.
The result is that global warming has joined God, guns, gays, and abortion as core elements of Republican identity, and this will be hard to change.”
September 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Caroline Lucas: No compromise on fracking or nuclear http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37257618, 3 Sept 16, The Green Party has elected two leaders in a job-sharing arrangement they describe as a “first in Westminster politics”.
Caroline Lucas, the former leader and the party’s sole MP, will be co-leader with Jonathan Bartley, its work and pensions spokesman.
Ms Lucas got big cheers from members at the party’s conference in Birmingham when she discussed climate change and promised to oppose nuclear power and fracking.
September 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
‘We’re still backing nuclear’ – New Energy Minister’s pledge 2 September 2016 THE new Energy Minister has underlined the Government’s commitment to nuclear energy, boosting hopes of a new power plant in west Cumbria.
Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe was making her first visit to Sellafield following her appointment as Energy Minister in July.
One of the first actions of Theresa May’s new administration was to delay a decision on a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
The surprise announcement cast doubt on NuGen’s plans to build three nuclear reactors at Moorside, Sellafield.
But Baroness Neville-Rolfe made it clear that the Government remains committed to nuclear in principle, whatever reservations there may be about the Hinkley Point project……. ““Nuclear energy is clean and it doesn’t have the problems around discontinuity of supply that you see with wind power for example.” “Nuclear power plants are costly to build but they last for 60 years”……http://www.nwemail.co.uk/Were-still-backing-nuclear-New-Energy-Ministers-pledge-c794da03-6d39-49d3-b834-9547935d57c8-ds
September 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
The special treatment the UK is granting to nuclear projects fails to take account of the fact that 
energy markets are undergoing a period of rapid change, “a revolution, not an evolution,” Schneider said. Electricity generation is going in the direction of ever smaller, more decentralized equipment like rooftop solar, integrated horizontally in networks. Nuclear, in Schneider’s view, represents an out-dated, over-priced paradigm of centralized power generation and distribution
Puzzling path to new UK nuclear power stations, DW, 2 Sep 16 The UK plans to build several new nuclear reactors – of three different types, oddly, including a Franco-German design that has gone radically over-budget elsewhere. That’s a recipe for high costs, critics say. Over the past several years, a number of companies have put forth applications to build new nuclear reactors in the UK. But none have started construction, and now, there’s some doubt whether any of them will go forward. Continue reading →
September 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Senators divided on revival of Bataan Nuclear Power Plant August 31, 2016 By KATHRINA CHARMAINE ALVAREZ, GMA News Senators have opposing positions on the possibility of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) being revived to ensure the long-term supply of energy in the country.
At the hearing of the Senate committee on energy Wednesday, Energy Sec. Alfonso Cusi said he was in favor of reviving the 620-megawatt nuclear plant, declaring that it was “safe for use.”
“I have a bias. If I will make a decision, I will open it but it’s not for me to decide, it’s for the country to decide,” Cusi told the committee.
While Cusi assured that we have sufficient supply, reviving the Bataan plant would beef up power reserves, lowering the risk of parts of the country being placed under yellow and red alerts as what happened in recent months………
But Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, chairman of the energy committee, opposed the plan, saying the needed $1-billion investment to refurbish the power plant would be better spent on “more feasible generation projects.”
Gatchalian added that the BNPP’s location atop a geological fault makes it a safety hazard for the entire Luzon island group.
He said the plant, built four decades ago, was simply outdated……..http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/579582/money/economy/senators-divided-on-revival-of-bataan-nuclear-power-plant
September 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Philippines, politics |
Leave a comment
New Hope For The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, Oil Price, By Zainab Calcuttawala – Aug 31, 2016 Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc.’s (TEPCO) plan to restart the defunct Fukushima nuclear power plant has an increased chance of being implemented after the prefecture governor, who has campaigned against its reopening, decided against running for re-election, according to a new report by Bloomberg.
TEPCO shares rose as much as 12 percent Wednesday morning – the largest price jump since May 2015, presumably in reaction to the announcement.
Niigata prefecture governor Hirohiko Izumida said he would not pursue a bid for a fourth term for the October 16th elections, according to a personal statement posted on his fan page.
The governor has long opposed plans to return the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant – the largest of its kind in the world – to production. Japanese laws do not require that utility companies obtain the approval of local leaders before commencing operations, but it is the expected practice.
Izumida has previously demanded that TEPCO conduct further investigations into the causes of the triple meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant in 2011 before proposing plans to restart any of the firm’s reactors.
“The next Niigata governor will likely not make as many relentless demands as Izumida,” Japanese analyst Hidetoshi Shioda said…….
The New York Times reported on Monday that Japanese government has funded the construction of a $320 million block of man-made permafrost that would continue 100 feet underneath the Dai-Ichi plant to solve “an unrelenting flood of groundwater” that had been headed into the damaged reactors.
The project will stop the leak of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean, which may be continuing at low levels to this day, The Times said.
TEPCO has applied to return reactors No. 6 and 7 to production at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa. The company expects to boost profits by $97 million a month for each reactor it restarts, TEPCO spokesperson Tatsuhiro Yamagishi said earlier this week. http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/New-Hope-For-The-Fukushima-Nuclear-Power-Plant.html
September 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, politics |
Leave a comment
Report: Fennovoima’s nuclear power project could undermine sovereignty of Finland, Helsinki Times, 01 SEPTEMBER 2016 Fennovoima’s nuclear power plant project in Pyhäjoki, Northern Ostrobothnia, is a high priority for Russia and threatens to undermine the national sovereignty of Finland, warns the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
“Russia’s way of geo-economically utilising energy political dependencies is already undermining the national sovereignty of especially smaller target countries,” its researchers say in a newly-published analysis of changes in the foreign policy of Russia and their implications for Finland.
Ville Niinistö, the chairperson of the Green League, estimates that the report substantiates concerns about the participation of Rosatom, a Russian state-owned nuclear energy company, in the nuclear power plant project and the exercise of foreign policy powers in energy-related issues by the Russian Government.The National Coalition Party – one of the most vocal advocates of the project in Finland – should according to him accept responsibility for eroding the security environment of Finland.
What say you, the National Coalition,” asks Niinistö.
Emma Kari (Greens) has similarly expressed her concerns that faith in nuclear energy has jeopardised the security of Finland.
“The Finnish Institute of Foreign Affairs’ report states explicitly that the nuclear power plant project of Rosatom in Pyhäjoki is under the manual control of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. Rosatom’s nuclear power plant is a tool to exercise power politics, increase our dependence of Russia and erode the position and security of Finland,” she writes on Facebook.
The National Coalition, she adds, pushed the project through the Finnish Parliament irrespective of such concerns.
“The project is of such importance that even after Finnish companies abandoned it, Fortum, a state-owned energy utility, was strong-armed into participating in order to grant Putin’s power plant the Nordic Ecolabel,” she slams.
“It is now clear that the project is not in the best interests of this country.”…….http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/14199-report-fennovoima-s-nuclear-power-project-could-undermine-sovereignty-of-finland.html
September 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Finland, politics |
Leave a comment
MANILA – The Philippines is looking into operating the country’s only nuclear power plant, built four decades ago at more than $2 billion but never used, to ensure the long-term supply of clean and cheap electricity, its energy minister said.
The Southeast Asian country is joining more than two dozen other countries looking to add nuclear power to their energy mix, including neighbors Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand.
Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi said on Tuesday reviving the mothballed 620-megawatt nuclear plant in Bataan province, northwest of Manila, will require a $1 billion investment.
Nuclear generation is one of the options for the Philippines to meet its growing power needs, with annual electricity demand expected to rise by an average 5 percent until 2030, he said. “We have to weigh all our options, with emphasis not just on meeting capacity requirements, but sustainability and environmental obligations as well,” Cusi said, speaking at the opening of a three-day international conference on nuclear power in Manila.
Cusi will revive a government task force created in 2007 to study nuclear power as an alternative to imported fuel oil and coal, which currently provide more than half of the country’s energy mix.
He said technical experts, including those from the International Atomic Energy Agency, have been invited to help the country identify the next steps and come up with a “well-informed” decision.
Cusi is not committing any timetable for the study, but he expects the move to reignite protests against the project, especially by environmentalists and the Catholic Church arguing restarting the plant is unsafe and expensive.
“We need to move away from fossil fuels like coal but nuclear energy is not safe and will also harm the people and environment,” said Zaira Patricia Baniaga of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice in a statement issued before the conference.
The late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos order the plant built in 1976 in response to rising energy prices and it was finished in 1984.
The facility never started generating electricity after it was declared unsafe because it sits on a major earthquake fault line and lies near the Pinatubo volcano, which was dormant at that time.
Pinatubo’s 1991 eruption had no effect on the Bataan plant, 70 km (45 miles) away, but the project was mothballed in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
A decade ago Manila looked into reopening the plant but the 2011 Fukushima nuclear incident renewed concerns about safety.
August 31, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Philippines, politics |
Leave a comment
When and Why Will Ukrainian Power Grid Collapse – UA Nuclear Reform Group Fort Russ, August 29th, 2016 Translated by Tatzhit Mihail Umanets, co-director of the reform committee for the atomic-industrial complex of Ukraine, and the former director of Chernobyl nuclear power plant:
“The state of nuclear energy today is that we are facing disaster. I declare that we are facing economic catastrophe. Judge for yourself: out of 15 nuclear reactors, which today generate 55.7% of the total electricity in Ukraine, 7 reach the end of their service life within four years. Thus, it is necessary to recondition them.
Extending the service life of a single reactor, according to our group’s preliminary calculations, would cost 300,000,000. US dollars. Multiply that by seven, we get 2.1 billion dollars that we need in the next four years. I think everybody here understands what 2.1 billion means for our esteemed government. If they manage to beg someone for extra 200 million, it is already a huge, televised victory for them. So there’s nowhere to get the required funds.
And if you do not extend the service life, then by 2020 we will lose 50% of our nuclear energy, and by 2030 we will no longer have any nuclear power plants.
Where can we get money? By the way, even if we extend the service life, but do not work on replacing the older reactors, we are again on the clock for the collapse of our energy production. I stress: this is about all energy generation. … The reason I say this is that we have no nuclear and electric power reserves, because there are none left. 80% of our energy infrastructure is worn, worn to the bone. ……..
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/when-and-why-will-ukrainian-power-grid.html
August 31, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 