nuclear-news

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

Republican politicians trying to remove Wisconsin’s ban on new nuclear power stations

Lawmakers introduce bills to lift state’s nuke ban LaCrosse Tribune 9 Oct 15 By Chris Hubbuch Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation that would end Wisconsin’s 32-year-old effective ban on the construction of new nuclear plants.

Companion bills sponsored by Sen. Frank Lasee of De Pere and Rep. Kevin Petersen of Waupaca would eliminate a 1983 requirement that the Public Service Commission not approve construction of a new nuclear plant unless there is a facility with sufficient capacity to receive the spent fuel from all nuclear plants in the state.

The bills also would change the state’s energy priority policy, requiring regulators to consider atomic energy options before nonrenewable combustible resources.

Neither lawmaker responded to requests for comment Thursday……..

With the 2013 closure of the Kewaunee power station, Wisconsin has only one operational nuclear plant, the Point Beach generating station in Two Rivers.

The La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor in Genoa — the state’s first nuclear plant — was shut down in 1987 and is in the midst of a decommissioning process expected to take at least another five years.

In 2012, Dairyland Power Cooperative transferred the spent fuel rods into dry casks in the culmination of a $40 million, five-year project. Dairyland spends about $2 million a year to store the nearly 120,000 pounds of nuclear waste until the federal government makes good on a contract to transfer it to a permanent storage site.

With a capacity of just 50 megawatts, LACBWR was less than a tenth the size of Wisconsin’s other nuclear plants and was considered too small to be cost-effective.

Dairyland spokeswoman Deb Mirasola said regardless of any changes to state law, the company has no plans for a new nuclear generator.

 “Nuclear is not in our long-term resource plan,” she said. “Dairyland has made a conscientious effort to focus on renewable resources as we diversify.” Wisconsin’s PSC has not received any applications to build a nuclear plant since Kewaunee went into operation in 1974, said PSC spokeswoman Elise Nelson………. http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-lift-state-s-nuke-ban/article_feb583fa-ef60-5693-9860-e89784193c45.html

October 10, 2015 Posted by | politics, USA elections 2016 | Leave a comment

Contradictions in Japanese govt’s nuclear planning

questionflag-japanGovernment Fails to Address Contradictions Over Japan’s Nuclear Future, nippon.com  Kikkawa Takeo [2015.10.08]  The August 2015 restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant in Kyūshū ended a two-year shutdown of all nuclear reactors in Japan. As commentators debate whether this will prompt other plants around the country to come back online, the current administration appears unwilling to take responsibility for dealing with contradictions between the need to shut down aging facilities and the nation’s continued reliance on nuclear power……
Many Japanese news organizations predicted at the beginning of 2015 that nuclear energy would make a full-fledged comeback during the year, with operations resuming at Sendai and other nuclear plants one after another. The projections appear to have been slightly too hasty, however, as restarting reactors has proved to be more difficult than anticipated…….

The 2012 revisions to the Act on the Regulation of Nuclear Source Material, Nuclear Fuel Material, and Reactors require all nuclear power plants to be taken out of service after 40 years, with a one-time-only, 20-year extension being granted in exceptional cases when certain conditions are met. The maximum number of years that a plant can remain in operation is thus 60 years. Of the 48 reactors in Japan as of January 2015, only 18 will be under 40 years old at the end of December 2030. If the revisions are strictly enforced, 30 reactors will need to be decommissioned by then. Two reactors are currently under construction—Unit 3 of Chūgoku Electric Power’s Shimane Nuclear Power Plant and Electric Power Development’s Ōma Nuclear Power Plant—but even if they come online, that would still mean just 20 reactors as of the end of 2030. Assuming that these 20 units operate at 70% capacity (which was roughly the average prior to the Fukushima accident), they would only be able to generate 15% of the nearly 1 trillion kWh projected to be required in 2030.

If the 40-year rule is applied strictly, nuclear power will meet just 15% of the nation’s energy needs in 2030. The additional 5%–7% needed to meet METI’s 20%–22% outlook is thus premised on either building new reactors or extending the life of existing ones beyond 40 years. Since the administration has announced that it has no plans now to build additional reactors, one can then conclude that it intends to cover the 5%–7% shortfall by extending the life of existing plants…….

The resumption of operations at Kyūshū Electric’s Sendai plant thus will not trigger a spate of restarts at other plants, and 2015 is hardly likely to mark the full-fledged return of nuclear power in Japan.

(Originally written in Japanese and published on September 22, 2015   http://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00196/

 

October 10, 2015 Posted by | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

Scotland’s Labour MPs join Jeremy Corbyn in supporting nuclear disarmament

flag-ScotlandCorbyn, JeremyNeil Findlay convinced unilateral nuclear disarmament campaign will win Trident debate, Courier UK, 
By PRESS ASSOCIATION, 8 October 2015 
Jeremy Corbyn’s closest ally in Scotland has said he is “absolutely convinced” those in favour of unilateral UK nuclear disarmament will win the argument.

Labour MSP Neil Findlay clashed with party colleague Jackie Baillie at Holyrood today over the best tactics to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Two other Labour MSPs, Malcolm Chisholm and Elaine Smith, signed an SNP motion opposing the renewal of Trident – in a foretaste of the wider debate expected at the Scottish Labour Party conference later this month.

Mr Findlay, Mr Corbyn and Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray favour unilateral UK disarmament in the hope it will convince other countries to follow suit, but they are at odds with Labour’s multilateralist support for Trident renewal.

UK Labour reaffirmed its support for Trident at its conference last month but Mr Corbyn caused confusion by admitting he would never launch a nuclear attack.

Scottish Infrastructure Secretary Keith Brown, a former marine, said it is “deeply immoral” for Labour to advocate spending £100 billion on weapons it would not use……. http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/neil-findlay-convinced-unilateral-nuclear-disarmament-campaign-will-win-trident-debate-1.904087

October 9, 2015 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK PM David Cameron willing to make a nuclear attack if ‘justified’

atomic-bomb-lDavid Cameron says that he would use nuclear weapons The PM described nuclear bombs as ‘the ultimate insurance policy’ and said the attack could be ‘justified’, The Independent, Jon stone  Sunday 4 October 2015 David Cameron has said there are circumstances in which he would launch a nuclear attack on another country.

The PM described nuclear bombs as “the ultimate insurance policy” and said the attack could be “justified”.

Mr Cameron’s statement comes after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he would not use nuclear bombs on another country’s population.

“If you … believe like me that Britain should keep the ultimate insurance policy of an independent nuclear deterrent, you have to accept there are circumstances in which its use would be justified,” Mr Cameron told BBC One’s Andrew Marr show on 4 October…….Warheads carried on Britain’s nuclear submarines are eight times more powerful than the atomic bombs used in 1945.

Parliament is set to vote during this parliamentar on whether to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system.

Mr Corbyn opposes renewal, but some Labour MPs have said they disagree with him.

The Opposition’s official policy remains in support of Trident after the party’s leadership failed to secure a policy vote to change it at annual conference last week.

The SNP and Green Party oppose Trident. The Liberal Democrats want a small nuclear weapons system which they say would be less costly. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-that-he-would-use-nuclear-weapons-a6679256.html

October 5, 2015 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton must face to USA’s dangerous nuclear industry

nukes-sad-Flag-USAWhy Bernie and Hillary Must Address America’s Dying Nuke Reactors http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/03/sanders-clinton-nuclear-power/  | October 3, 2015 As the first Democrat presidential debate finally approaches (on Oct. 13), America’s nuke power industry is in accelerated collapse.

The few remaining construction projects in the U.S. and Europe are engineering and economic disasters.

Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders may address this in broad terms. But as a nation we must now focus on the 99 dying U.S. reactors that threaten us all every day. In terms of our national survival, this is what Sanders and Clinton really must discuss.

In the biggest picture, Fukushima and Germany‘s transition to renewables have escalated the energy debate to a whole new level.

Fukushima still dumps huge quantities of radioactive water into the Pacific every day. The site is out of control. The myth that U.S.-made reactors can’t explode has been buried forever. Three melted cores are still missing. Especially among young children, health impacts in the region are devastating. Two dozen General Electric clones of Fukushima Unit 1 now operate in the U.S. They all need to shut.

Meanwhile the extreme success of Germany’s Solartopian Energiewende makes it clear the world can indeed run entirely on renewables. The central electric grid is no longer sustainable. All German nukes will be done by 2022. Germany’s great green community-based assault on King CONG (coal, oil, nukes and gas) is ahead of schedule and under budget. Clean energy prices are plummeting along with climate impacts.

Worldwide reactor construction has sunk into economic chaos. Russia, China, India and several smaller countries are still talking about building new reactors.  This is an issue of grave concern for all of us.

But the radioactive road signs bode badly for them all.

France’s Areva, once the industry flagship, is in shambles. Reactor projects in Finland and at Flamanville, France, are billions over budget and years behind schedule. So are the two each in South Carolina and Georgia, where the local economies stand to be devastated by gargantuan cost overruns. Detroit Edison wants to stick the people of Michigan with the enormous up-front costs of a proposed new construction fiasco at Fermi 3, which could bankrupt an already shaky state economy.

It will take years more of dedicated activism to make sure the lessons of these failed projects are understood everywhere.

But in the meantime, above all, we fear the 99 U.S. reactors that crumble as we speak:

1. The infamously lax Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) warns that Pilgrim, south of Boston, can’t meet even the NRC’s absurdly loose safety standards. Entergy may shut it down rather than pay to fix it up. The two candidates should demand they do it now.

2. Indian Point Unit 2, near New York City, has been operating without a license. The Unit 3 permit expires in December. Both must shut immediately.

3. The shield building at Ohio’s Davis-Besse is literally crumbling. FirstEnergy wants Ohio’s Public Utilities Commission to hand it a $3 billion bailout. This may be the world’s most decrepit nuke. It should have shut a very long time ago.

4. Exelon is begging the Illinois legislature for massive bailouts at five money-losing, increasingly dangerous reactors. That should be denied.

5. Entergy’s FitzPatrick in New York is losing millions, as is nearby Ginna. Both must go.

6. California’s Diablo Canyon reactors sit atop an interconnected web of 12 known fault-lines. They are 45 miles from the San Andreas, less than half the distance of Fukushima from the seismic trench that destroyed it. They are in violation of state and federal water quality laws. They’re being propped up by a corrupt Public Utilities Commission. They need to close.

… and that’s just for starters.

Through the rest of this presidential campaign, we can expect the Democrats to broadly endorse a green-powered future, and question the sanity of nuke power.

Thanks to decades of hard campaigning by the global grassroots No Nukes movement, that’s no longer hard to do. Even Donald Trump has made rumblings about shutting Indian Point. Even Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich is posturing as a friend of renewables, an industry he’s done his best to decimate.

What we really need now are focused, persistent campaigns to bring these rogue nukes down before they blow up. Every one of them has the power to kill millions, irradiate entire sections of the globe and bankrupt us all.

In the big picture, Clinton and Sanders could start with a demand to remove the federal insurance that protects these radioactive relics from liability when the inevitable melt-downs arrive.

But they can help us most by addressing these dying nukes by name, and by joining us in court and on the barricades to get them buried before they kill again.

October 5, 2015 Posted by | USA elections 2016 | Leave a comment

Dr Ian Fairlea sets out the grim facts on costs at the end of the nuclear power party

pity UK taxpayers in decades, centuries and millennia to come.

highly-recommendedflag-UKWhen the party’s over … the financial spectre at the end of nuclear power http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2985577/when_the_partys_over_the_financial_spectre_at_the_end_of_nuclear_power.html Dr Ian Fairlie 1st October 2015 

There are two rules about the end costs of nuclear power, writes Ian Fairlie. It’s far more than you ever knew. And whatever sum of money was ever set aside, it’s nowhere near enough. Germany understands this. That’s why it refused to let E.ON spin off its nuclear liabilities into a hands-off company. But the UK, it seems, has lost the ability to learn from its nuclear mistakes.

Nuclear power has a wide spectrum of disadvantages.

One is that when reactors are shut down for good, a host of financial liabilities continue with no income flow from the sale of nuclear electricity to pay for them.

And enormous new liabilities for decommissioning and final disposal commence at the same time.

wastes garbage

This became crystal-clear in April when the German energy giant E.ON proposed to spin off its remaining nuclear activities1 into a separate company, Uniper, in an attempt to protect the parent company from the multiple nuclear liabilities from the impending shutdowns of its nuclear reactors: Germany is phasing out all nuclear power by 2022. Continue reading

October 3, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Reference, UK | Leave a comment

Jeremy Corbyn opposes renewal of Trident nuclear weapons programme

submarine-missileflag-UKJeremy Corbyn row after ‘I’d not fire nuclear weapons’ comment, BBC News 30 September 2015  Jeremy Corbyn has faced criticism from senior Labour colleagues for saying he would not fire Britain’s nuclear weapons if he were prime minister.

Shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle said the words were “not helpful”, while shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn said Mr Corbyn should abide by the party’s decision on renewing Trident.

Mr Corbyn said nuclear weapons “didn’t do the USA much good on 9/11”.

He added that he was elected leader on a platform opposing Trident renewal.

Prime Minister David Cameron said Mr Corbyn’s comments showed Labour could not be trusted with Britain’s national security.

Following the shadow cabinet criticism of his comments, Mr Corbyn was asked by the BBC’s John Pienaar what the point of the Labour defence policy debate and review was.

He said: “The point of a policy debate is to try and bring people with me.”

n his conference address on Tuesday, Mr Corbyn said his landslide leadership win gave a “mandate” for his views on disarmament of Britain’s nuclear weapons.

On Wednesday’s BBC Radio 4 Today programme he said: “I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.

“I do not think we should be renewing Trident… I think we should be promoting an international nuclear weapons convention which would lead to a nuclear-free world.”…….http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34399565?SThisFB

October 2, 2015 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK’s Labour and Scottish National Party to join forces opposing Trident nuclear weapons system

submarine-missileCorbyn says Labour and SNP will join forces to oppose nuclear deterrent. Irish Times, 25 Sept 15 Labour leader’s opposition to Trident puts him at odds with many in his own party The British Labour Party will work with the Scottish nationalists to try to block the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent in a parliamentary vote due next year, Labour’s new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said on Friday.

The Conservative government backs the multibillion-pound renewal of Britain’s ageing fleet of nuclear-armed submarines. It has a slim majority in parliament, so some of prime minister David Cameron’s own MPs, as well as other opposition parties, would have to join with Labour and the SNP to defeat the plans.

The Scottish National Party, which won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland in the general election in May, has long opposed renewing the weapons and had called on veteran antiwar campaigner Mr Corbyn to support them.

“My position on Trident has been very clear all of my life. I am opposed to nuclear weapons,” Mr Corbyn, who was elected as Labour’s leader earlier this month, told BBC Scotland.

“Trident should go. I do not believe that it is a form of defence. I do not believe it is something that anyone in their proper mind would ever want to use.”

Labour’s existing position is to back the renewal of Trident, although it has previously suggested reducing the number of submarines to three from four……..http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/corbyn-says-labour-and-snp-will-join-forces-to-oppose-nuclear-deterrent-1.2366935

September 26, 2015 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Japan’s draconian new secrecy laws linked to Fukushima and nuclear radiation

Abe NUCLEAR FASCISMFukushima Disaster Aftermath: Japanese Government Has Something to Hide. Sputnik News 24 Sept 15 Commenting on the aftermath of Fukushima disaster, US climate journalist Robert Hunziker suggests that the Japanese government has something to hide; “it must be really big,” the journalist notes, referring to the hard-hitting new secrecy law Tokyo has adopted.

 There is something sinister about the Japanese government’s optimistic claims that the notorious Fukushima Prefecture is largely safe for habitation, Los-Angeles based climate journalist Robert Hunziker notes, warning that scientific data published by third-party NGOs shows otherwise.

Continue reading

September 25, 2015 Posted by | Japan, politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

UK’s £24bn Hinkley Point nuclear project shunned by investors

piggy-bank--nuke-sadflag-UKInvestors shun UK’s £24bn Hinkley Point nuclear project, FT.com , Christopher Adams  , 24 Sept 15 

Delays and cost overruns that have dogged two nuclear reactors being built in France and Finland have deterred investors from joining a £24bn project to build a plant at Hinkley Point.

French utility EDF is in advanced talks with two Chinese partners — China General Nuclear Corporation and China National Nuclear Corporation — over their final shares of construction spending and roles in the building of up to three nuclear plants in the UK. An agreement could be reached this year.
But Jean-Bernard Levy, EDF chief executive, told Les Echos, the French financial daily newspaper, that it had been unable to secure the support of other investors after persistent problems with the proposed European pressurised reactor design………http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67001140-6208-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3mgxe3MV2

September 25, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nobody except China wants to risk investing in Britain’s new £2bn Hinkley Point nuclear plant

scrutiny-on-costsflag-UKOnly China wants to invest in Britain’s new £2bn Hinkley Point nuclear plant because no one else thinks it will work, EDF admits Investors put off by problems facing nuclear reactors under construction in France and Finland Geert De Clercq  Wednesday 23 September 2015 Delays and cost overruns at two nuclear reactors under construction in France and Finland have made potential investors wary of joining a consortium led by France’s EDF for a similar project in Britain, EDF’s chief executive has admitted…….http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/only-china-wants-to-invest-in-britains-new-2bn-hinkley-point-nuclear-plant-because-no-one-else-10513752.html

September 25, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

German public strongly support renewables, not coal or nuclear

flag_germanyGerman support for renewables still high, low for nuclear and logo-Energiewendecoal http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/german-support-for-renewables-still-high-low-for-nuclear-and-coal-26906  By  on 24 September 2015 Energy Transition

A recent survey conducted among the German public finds continuing support for the Energiewende. Furthermore, only a third said the cost was too high. Craig Morris says a closer look also reveals that people who already have systems close by are less likely to oppose them. The average German household currently pays 18 euros per month for the renewable energy surcharge. A survey conducted in August by TNS Emnid for renewable energy organization AEE finds that only 31 percent of the participants believe that is too much, compared to 57 percent who believe that amount is acceptable and six percent who think more needs to be paid. Overall, a whopping 93 percent of those surveyed said that further growth of renewables was “important” or “very important.”

The survey also included a question about the acceptability of specific electricity generation systems. While 68 percent support renewable energy systems in general, only seven percent like coal plants – and only four percent nuclear. Note that in all cases, acceptance increased when people already had experience living close to such plants.

Acceptance of solar power plants was the greatest at 77 percent, compared to only 59 percent for wind turbines. But notice the huge discrepancy: a far higher number (72 percent) of people who have experienced wind farms nearby support the technology.

In contrast, support for biogas units was the lowest at a mere 39 percent, rising only to 53 percent among those who already have experience or live close by to those units. This low level of support is one reason for why the government has clamped down on bioenergy in general; the other reason is cost.

Finally, the survey asked what people expect of the Energiewende. The top answer was “making the future safer for our children and grandchildren” at 77 percent, followed by “”protecting the climate” at 73 percent. In contrast, only 33 percent believe the energy transition will “lower costs for consumers in the long term.”

Questions about energy democracy – “citizens can take part in energy supply” and “more competition with power corporations” – revealed middling expectations at 57 and 50 percent, respectively. Note, however, that the question was not why people supported the Energiewende, but what outcome they expected it to produce.

Similar questions were asked in a survey from September 2013, which also found exactly 93 percent in support for the growth of renewables. Likewise, support for the various technologies has only shifted slightly, as have the expectations, which had the exact same order (with slightly different numbers) two years ago. In other words, over the past two years, support for the Energiewende has hardly changed.

 

September 25, 2015 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Britain tries to wrap up Hinkley nuclear deal with China, with $3.1 billion bribe

text-my-money-2flag-UKIn Courting Chinese Companies, Britain to Help Fund Planned Nuclear Plant NYT, By STANLEY REED SEPT. 20, 2015 LONDON — The British government said on Monday that it would provide 2 billion pounds, or about $3.1 billion, in state aid for a nuclear power station planned for Hinkley Point in southwest England.

The announcement of financial support — which was made by George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, on a visit to China — appeared to be a confidence-building measure aimed at wrapping up a deal, years in gestation, to build Britain’s first nuclear plant since the mid-1990s.

“They are edging toward trying to sign a deal, but it is taking a long time,” said Antony Froggatt, a nuclear analyst at Chatham House, a London research organization.
The British government said that it expected EDF, the French state-controlled utility leading the project, to make a final decision later this year to go ahead with the plant. If EDF moves forward, it will be supported by two Chinese companies, China General Nuclear Corporation and China National Nuclear Corporation, the government said. Mr. Osborne has been courting Chinese companies to help finance the new Hinkley Point station, which will cost at least £16 billion…….

In trying to build nuclear plants, Britain is bucking the trend in the West. ……

The British government is not only offering financing to help with the construction but has guaranteed EDF a much higher price for the electricity it generates than current market rates. The government also says that it may increase financial support for the plant as the project progresses. Last year, the European Union approved Britain’s use of state aid to finance the plant……Still, Britain’s effort to build nuclear plants has proceeded at what seems a glacial pace. The Hinkley Point project is already several years behind its original schedule.

Centrica, a British utility, walked away from an option to take a 20 percent stake in Hinkley Point and another nuclear plant, citing frustration over delay and costs. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/energy-environment/britain-says-it-will-aid-planned-nuclear-plant.html?_r=1

September 25, 2015 Posted by | politics, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Entergy Nuclear withdraws license amendment request

 WT,  By – Associated Press – Thursday, September 24, 2015 BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) – The company that owns the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has dropped its fight against the state’s 30-day written notice requirement.

Entergy Nuclear said Wednesday it is withdrawing its license amendment request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to eliminate a requirement that it notify the state when it plans to make withdrawals from the Vermont Yankee decommissioning trust fund…..

The Shumlin administration says the advance notice is necessary for a meaningful review of trust fund spending.

Officials say the state may ask for hearings each time Entergy asks for money from the fund. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/entergy-nuclear-withdraws-license-amendment-reques/

September 25, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

America’s nuclear lobbyists

money-lobbyingMeet the Private Corporations Building Our Nuclear Arsenal,  Privatizing our nuclear arsenal development is not only dangerous, but incredibly inefficient, The Nation By Richard Krushnic andJonathan Alan King, 22 Sept 15 “……..THE NUCLEAR LOBBYISTS Federal tax dollars expended on nuclear weapons maintenance and development are a significant component of the federal budget. Although difficult to pin down precisely, the sums run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office reported that even the Pentagon had no firm numbers when it came to how much the nuclear mission costs, nor is there a standalone nuclear weapons budget of any sort, so overall costs must be estimated. Analyzing the budgets of the Pentagon and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as information gleaned from Congressional testimony, the Center for Nonproliferation Studies suggests that, from 2010-2018, the United States will spend at least $179 billion to maintain the current nuclear triad of missiles, bombers, and submarines, with their associated nuclear weaponry, while beginning the process of developing their next-generation replacements. The Congressional Budget Office projects the cost of nuclear forces for 2015-2024 at $348 billion, or $35 billion annually, of which the Pentagon will spend $227 billion and the Department of Energy $121 billion.

In fact, the price for maintaining and developing the nuclear arsenal is actually far greater than either of those estimates. While those numbers include most of the direct costs of nuclear weapons and strategic launching systems like missiles and submarines, as well as the majority of the costs for the military personnel responsible for maintaining, operating, and executing the missions, they don’t include many other expenses, including the decommissioning process and nuclear-waste disposal issues involved in “retiring” weapons. Nor do they include the pensions and healthcare costs that will go with retiring their human operators.

In 2012, a report from a high-level committee chaired by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright concluded that “no sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to solve any of the major 21st century problems we face [including] threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare, organized crime, drug trafficking, conflict-driven mass migration of refugees, epidemics, or climate change. In fact, nuclear weapons have on balance arguably become more a part of the problem than any solution.”

Not surprisingly, for the roster of corporations involved in the US nuclear programs, this matters little. They, in fact, maintain elaborate lobbying operations in support of their continuing nuclear weapons contracts. In a 2012 study for the Center for International Policy, “Bombs vs. Budgets: Inside the Nuclear Weapons Lobby,” William Hartung and Christine Anderson reported that, for the elections of that year, the top 14 contractors gave nearly $3 million directly to Congressional legislators. Not surprisingly, half that sum went to members of the four key committees or subcommittees that oversee spending for nuclear arms.

In 2015, the defense industry mobilized a small army of at least 718 lobbyists and doled out more than $67 million dollars pressuring Congress for increased weapons spending generally. Among the largest contributors were corporationswith significant nuclear weapons contracts, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics. Such pro-nuclear lobbying is augmented by contributions and pressure from missile and aircraft companies that are primarily non-nuclear. Some of the systems they produce, however, are potentially dual-use (conventional and nuclear), which means that a robust nuclear weapons program increases their potential market.

The continuing pressure of Congressional Republicans for cuts in domestic social programs are a crucial mechanism that ensures federal tax dollars will be available for lucrative military contracts. In terms of quality of life (and death), this means that underestimating the influence of the nuclear weapons industry is singularly dangerous. For the $35 billion or more the US taxpayer will put into such weaponry annually to support the narrow interests of a modest number of companies, the payback is fear of an apocalyptic future. After all, unlike almost all other corporate lobbies, the nuclear weapons lobby (and so your tax dollars) put life on Earth at risk of rapid extinction, either following the direct destruction of a nuclear holocaust or a radical reduction in sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface that would come from the sort of nuclear winter that would follow almost any nuclear exchange. At the moment, the corporate-nuclear complex is hidden in our midst, its budgets and funds shielded from public scrutiny, its project hardly noticed. It’s a formula for disaster. http://www.thenation.com/article/meet-the-private-corporations-building-our-nuclear-arsenal/

September 23, 2015 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment