Joe Biden’s Deceptive Declarations on Gaza are contradicted by his actions

Ralph Nader 24 May 24,

As the keynote speaker at Morehouse College in Atlanta last week, Joe Biden listened to the class Valedictorian’s call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The President nodded and applauded with others in the assembly. In contrast, he had just approved another billion dollars in killer weapons for the genocidal Netanyahu regime to blow up what’s left of the Death Camps in Gaza. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” declared his wife, Dr. Jill Biden months ago.

Countless times Joe Biden has publicly urged Netanyahu to allow the waiting trucks carrying – food, water, and medicine – blocked at the Egyptian and Israeli borders to deliver this humanitarian aid. But Biden declined to demand sanctions and an end to the Israeli military blocking hundreds of trucks, paid for by the U.S., into Gaza to help the dying population. He could have draped American flags over these trucks and dared the Israeli state terrorists to stop them. Biden showed lethal weakness from an unused position of great presidential power. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” implored his wife Dr. Jill Biden as thousands of children are being killed who could have been saved.

Biden asked early on that Netanyahu comply with international law. His government commits daily overt numerous war crimes targeting civilians, homes, schools, markets, hospitals and health clinics, ambulances, fleeing refugees, and even Mosques and Churches. The Israeli regime also violates the international law that requires the conquerors to protect the civilian population. Biden, Blinken and Austin have refused to condemn such “crimes against humanity,” halt arms shipments and thereby obey five federal laws prohibiting the U.S. from sending weapons to countries that are violating human rights or being used for offensive purposes.

When Biden took his oath of office, he swore to uphold the laws of the land. That oath requires action. His State Department, in a required compliance report this month to Congress, disgracefully punted. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” beseeched Dr. Jill Biden.

From the beginning, Biden has backed a two-state solution publicly and in private conversations with Netanyahu. These words support a peaceful settlement. Yet whether under Obama as vice president for eight years or since 2021, as president, Biden has not connected to any action advancing the two-state proposal. Worse, he has never called out Netanyahu, with consequences, for bragging year after year to his Likud Party that he has been supporting the Hamas regime and helping to fund it because Hamas, like Netanyahu, opposes a two-state solution.

Biden is still rejecting the recognition of a Palestinian state by 143 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. This week Spain, Norway and Ireland said they would recognize a Palestinian state. Biden bizarrely insists statehood be negotiated with Israel. He knows, of course, how many Israeli colonies (so-called settlements) exist in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel rejects outright any such Free Palestine. Weak Joe Biden is okay with that brutal occupation. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” says Dr. Jill Biden.

Joe Biden is always condemning anti-semitism against Jews, while he spends billions of dollars weaponizing Netanyahu’s violent anti-semitism against Arab semites in Palestine. This “other” anti-semitism has been violently inflicted, with very racist epithets, on defenseless, subjugated Palestinian families for over fifty-five years. The violence includes U.S. fighter planes bombing, ground troops smashing homes, and refugee camps, blowing up homes, imprisoning and torturing thousands of men, women and children, without charges, and hundreds of dictates, checkpoints, and other maddening harassments. (See the New York Times Magazine Sunday, May 19, 2024 piece “The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel”). Biden and Netanyahu are arm-in-arm anti-semites against Arabs. (See the “Anti-Semitism Against Arab and Jewish Americans” speech by Jim Zogby and DebatingTaboos.org).

Throughout his fifty-year political career, Biden has never said that “Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.” Only the overwhelmingly more powerful, occupying Israelis have this right, as he has repeated hundreds of times. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” advises Dr. Jill Biden.

Biden has expressed doubt about the Hamas Health Ministry’s fatality count in Gaza – itself a huge undercount. (See my column March 5, 2024 column: Stop the Worsening UNDERCOUNT of Palestinian Casualties in Gaza). His actions enabling the Israeli annihilations (“over the top” he once blurted) are moving the real fatality toll, especially with the Rafah invasion and starvation, to the fastest rate ever recorded in 21^st century conflicts, according to experts. This includes the bloody, accelerating deaths of babies and children.

It’s the ongoing massacre of these little innocents – in their mother’s or father’s arms or in crumbling hospitals that led Dr. Jill Biden to admonish: “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”

Still, Joe Biden conveys weakness to Netanyahu, to Netanyahu’s Congress and its omnipresent “Israel-can-do-no-wrong” lobby. Being weak on such a high visibility and protested genocide in Gaza is bad for your re-election, Joe. Even though Der Führer Donald is worse. Look at the latest polls in the swing states! A true leader doesn’t zig and zag when innocent people are being killed. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”

May 26, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

UK Election! And no Final Investment Decision made on Sizewell nuclear project

https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/election?e=c3c4307b44 24 May 24

Last night’s announcement of a snap election has convinced us that the government’s commitment to reach a Final Investment Decision (FID) on Sizewell C within the current parliament is essentially impossible to fulfil. We explain why below, and why Sizewell C’s future is dependent on the election outcome.

We are already making plans to set up actions that will enable you to contact parliamentary candidates about Sizewell C – certainly in Suffolk but hopefully countrywide – and planning an energy hustings in East Suffolk with our allies. Meanwhile we have sent the following comment and briefing to the media.

“The impossibility of a Final Investment Decision on Sizewell C being made before the election lets the Conservatives off the hook for signing away another HS2. It also presents a likely Labour government, looking to drive down bills and reach net zero by 2030, an opportunity to focus on more cost effective renewable projects. We are going to do everything in our power to ensure that this election signals the death knell for slow, expensive, risky Sizewell C.”

Stop Sizewell C understands that the capital raise is still ongoing, and final bids have yet to be submitted, reportedly due by the end of June. A likely change in government may increase the risks perceived by investors and influence or even deter bids. The capital raise will be subject to a Value for Money (VfM) assessment. If, as reported, investors are seeking high returns, the VfM – and therefore the capital raise – is likely to fail.
In this event, Ministers would have to decide whether to take a FID with the taxpayer as Sizewell C’s majority stakeholder. An additional VfM assessment will be required as well as multiple internal procedural steps and approvals.
While Labour’s stated position is in favour of Sizewell C, the implications of having to make a FID requiring billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and which would additionally push much of the risk onto household bills via use of the RAB funding model, in addition to the impossibility of Sizewell C contributing to the goal of net zero by 2030, may give pause. Rising costs and inflation make the current government’s estimate of a Sizewell C RAB costing consumers on average £1 month improbable.
A new government would be expected to conduct a Spending Review ahead of an autumn budget, which seems likely to also lead to a pause before any decision about a Sizewell C FID was made.
Sizewell C Chair Rob Holden acknowledged the risk associated with a change in government telling the The Times recently “Clearly there has to be a risk there. There is with any big decision on this.” In the same interview Rob Holden also highlighted that further widening of the gap between Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C would reduce any replication “benefits”.
Even in the very unlikely event a FID could be fast-tracked, pre-election guidance states that Ministers should “observe discretion” in making big announcements. This must be especially pertinent if a large commitment of taxpayers’ money was necessary for a Sizewell C FID. Having sucked up £2.5bn in taxpayers’ money already, which we understand is all committed, it’s possible yet more funds will be allocated to keep the project going over this period of uncertainty.

May 26, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C nuclear: Uncertainty surrounds final investment decision as parliamentary session shortened

New Civil Engineer 24 MAY, 2024 BY TOM PASHBY

The final investment decision (FID) for Sizewell C has been thrown into limbo by the early dissolution of parliament, with prime minister Rishi Sunak having called an election for 4 July.

Conservative politicians were caught off guard by the announcement, made at around 5pm on 22 May. This means Parliament will dissolve on Thursday 30 May.

Earlier in the day of the General Election announcement, the energy secretary Claire Coutinho issued a written statement about the proposed nuclear power station at Wylfa in north Wales where she also commented on the in-development Suffolk nuclear station, saying: “We intend to take a final investment decision on Sizewell C before the end of this Parliament.”

It can be assumed that Coutinho was unaware that the end date of the current parliament was due to be brought forward by the calling of the general election.

Nuclear minister Andrew Bowie also said earlier this month that an FID would be announced by end of this Parliament.

With Parliament now to dissolve next Thursday, the period known as ‘wash-up’ is underway where the government tries to pass a selection of remaining pieces of legislation.

The government has to date invested £2.5bn in the project in numerous tranches but intends to find private investors to cover the majority.

The government commenced the search for investment partners in the circa £20bn project last September. It said it is seeking companies with “substantial experience in the delivery of major infrastructure projects” and added “ministers will be looking for private investors who can add value to the project and will only accept private investment if it provides value for money, while bolstering energy security”.

Potential investors were required to register their interest by early October 2023 but there has been little news in the more than half a year since.

The shortening of the current parliamentary period means there is now uncertainty about whether the government will have time to make an FID.

A government source confirmed to NCE that progress continues towards FID.

The source said the government would continue to fund the project in the pre-election period using investment funds which had already been made available and said operations at the site would be business as usual in the lead-up to polling day.

If the current government does not make an FID for Sizewell C, it will fall to the next government due to be elected on 4 July to do so. If there is a hung Parliament, there may be a further delay to the formation of a new government.

A Sizewell C spokesperson said: “We are continuing to engage with investors and prepare for FID and we are moving ahead as planned on our construction site.”

However, campaign group Stop Sizewell C believes it is now impossible for a FID to be made before the General Election.

A spokesperson for the group said that this “lets the Conservatives off the hook for signing away another HS2”.

They continued: “It also presents a likely Labour government, looking to drive down bills and reach net zero by 2030, an opportunity to focus on more cost effective renewable projects.

“We are going to do everything in our power to ensure that this election signals the death knell for slow, expensive, risky Sizewell C.”

The money invested in the Sizewell C project will look to be recouped through a regulated asset base (RAB) model for funding, which would see the investors money returned through a surcharge on consumer energy bills……………………. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/sizewell-c-uncertainty-surrounds-final-investment-decision-as-parliamentary-session-shortened-24-05-2024/

May 25, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Australia can learn from the American experience with nuclear power

Amory B Lovins, May 21, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-can-learn-from-the-american-experience-with-nuclear-power/#google_vignette

During my current visit to Australia I’ve been surprised to see nuclear power promoted by the federal Coalition and by certain media.

Rather than fact-check the questionable claims of nuclear proponents, let me here outline the recent experience with nuclear power in my home country, the United States, and then discuss how that experience could inform the energy debate in Australia.

Nuclear power in the US is in decline. A dozen reactors have been shut down over the past decade — 41 in all. The decline will continue because US reactors average 42 years old, beyond their original design life. Of 259 US power reactors ordered since 1955, 94 are still in service; by 2017, only 28 remained competitive and hadn’t suffered at least one outage of at least a year. That’s an 11 percent success rate.

Only two nuclear power construction projects have commenced this century, and Australians should take careful note of those projects’ failure despite massive government support.

The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, began construction for an estimated US$11.5bn total in 2013. It was abandoned in 2017 after costs rose to US$25bn, wasting US$9bn. Westinghouse soon filed for bankruptcy protection.

In addition to a $US9 billion hole in the ground, the V.C. Summer fiasco gave rise to the ‘nukegate’ scandal, a web of corruption that has already seen some culprits jailed with others likely to follow.

The other US reactor construction project was the Vogtle project in Georgia, also comprising two AP1000 reactors. It was recently completed but many years behind schedule and at extravagant cost, echoing similar experience in Finland, France, and the UK.

Westinghouse said in 2006 that it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion. The Vogtle project’s final cost was over 10 times greater at US$17.5 billion per reactor. That money that would have been far better spent on renewables and energy efficiency programs. Buying nuclear power instead displaced less fossil fuel per year and per dollar, worsening climate change.

Small modular reactors

The failure of large reactor construction projects has led the industry to pivot to so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). But SMRs don’t exist, unless you count two demonstration plants in Russia and China. SMRs are unlikely to improve the safety, security or waste problems of large reactors, and SMRs’ economics are even more unattractive than large reactors’.

NuScale Power, leading America’s most advanced SMR project, recently abandoned its flagship project in Idaho due to soaring costs despite about US$4bn in US government subsidies. With no other credible customers, the firm seems more likely to go bankrupt than to build any SMRs.

NuScale’s most recent cost estimate was an astronomical US$9.3 billion for a 462 megawatt (MW) plant with six 77-MW reactors. That’s US$20,100 per kilowatt (kW). Compare the actual 2023 market prices per kW found by leading US investment firm Lazard: US$700-1400 for utility scale solar PV and US$1025-1700 for onshore wind.

Nuclear’s higher capital cost per kW far outweighs its greater output per kW, leaving it several-fold out of the money before counting its substantial operating costs. And including grid integration costs would actually widen nuclear’s disadvantage because its outages tend to be bigger, longer, sharper, and less predictable than solar and wind power’s variations, requiring more and costlier backup.

Other companies hoping to develop SMRs or so-called ‘advanced’ reactors are faring no better. Indeed a pro-nuclear lobby group noted late last year that efforts to commercialize a new generation of ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors “are simply not on track” and it warned nuclear enthusiasts not to “whistle past this graveyard”.

Coal-to-nuclear

The Coalition’s energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien claims that “evidence keeps mounting that a coal-to-nuclear strategy is good for host communities, and especially workers as zero-emissions nuclear plants offer more jobs and higher paying ones.”

No evidence from the US supports Mr. O’Brien’s views. Several hundred coal power plants have closed in the US since 2010 but zero have been replaced with nuclear reactors.

Mr. O’Brien has promoted Terrapower’s plan to replace coal with nuclear in Wyoming but the company is at the early stages of a licensing process and it is unclear whether finance can be secured or whether the adventurous new technology can ever get built and compete on the grid despite about US$2bn of government subsidy.

In 2009, applications for 31 new reactors were pending in the US. Nothing eventuated other than the abandoned South Carolina project and the recently completed Georgia project. No reactors — large or small — are currently under construction in the US. For the time being at least, we’re being spared the economic and climate costs of further disastrous nuclear projects.

Lessons for Australia

What lessons can Australia learn from the US experience?

Industry claims should be treated with skepticism. Early cost estimates for the Vogtle project were out by a factor of 10. Westinghouse’s claim that it could build an AP1000 reactor in “approximately 36 months” also proved to be wildly inaccurate: the Vogtle reactors took 10 and 11 years to build; closer to 20 years if you include the planning and licensing process.

Proponents claiming that Australia could have reactors operating by the mid-2030s are sadly mistaken. Most or all of Australia’s remaining coal power plants will have closed long before nuclear reactors could take their place in the energy market.

It’s vital that Australians consider the fact that you would be starting a nuclear power industry with none of the United States’ 70-plus years’ experience – despite which 42 reactor projects were abandoned, 41 built but closed, and scores now operate only thanks to government rescues. It would be folly to imagine that Australia can do better.

The point was made sharply by NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte in a 2020 report prepared for the NSW Cabinet. A former Chief Scientific Adviser at the UK Ministry of Defence, Dr Durrant-Whyte said: “The hard reality is Australia has no skills or experience in nuclear power plant building, operation or maintenance – let alone in managing the fuel cycle. Realistically, Australia will be starting from scratch in developing skills in the whole nuclear power supply chain.”

Likewise, former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel states: “Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years.”

I’m pleased to learn that the Australian government aims to double renewable supply to the National Energy Market to reach 82 percent by 2030. It’s especially impressive to witness the world-class renewable energy revolution in South Australia, where renewables provide 74 percent of electricity on average and the state government aims to reach 100 percent net renewables as soon as 2027.

Nuclear power is a minor distraction, adding each year at best only as much electricity supply as renewables add every few days. It has no business case or operational need anywhere. Especially it has no place in Australia’s energy future. No one who understands energy markets would claim otherwise.

Amory Lovins has been an energy advisor to major firms and governments in 70+ countries for 50+ years; has authored 31 books and about 900 papers; is an integrative designer of superefficient buildings, factories, and vehicles; and has won many of the world’s top energy and environmental awards. He is Adjunct Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.

May 24, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Project Veritas: White House aide admits Biden fears ‘huge Jewish influence’

The US president won’t risk angering the lobby in Washington, a security adviser told Project Veritas

Wed, 22 May 2024 https://www.rt.com/news/598009-biden-condemn-israel-veritas/

US President Joe Biden is under pressure from the Democratic Party’s progressive wing to more forcefully condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza, but will not do so unless he wins a second term in office, a National Security Council official has told Project Veritas.

Biden’s position on Israel is the result of careful “political calculations,” National Security Council policy adviser Sterlin Waters told an undercover reporter for Project Veritas, a conservative outlet known for its hidden-camera sting operations.

On one hand, Biden and his top aides need to tell Israel that “you’re not going to continue to lie, and bomb, and kill all these kids without facing serious consequences” to placate progressive voters, Waters explained in a video published by the outlet on Tuesday. However, If Biden did this, Waters continued, he would anger the “huge, powerful Jewish influence in Republican and Democrat politics” and face a smear campaign that would cost him this November’s presidential election.

“If Biden won again he could be much more forthright about saying ‘No’,” Waters stated. “[But] that is a second-term decision.”

At present, Biden’s stance on Israel seemingly changes day to day, with the US president telling a crowd of college students on Sunday that he supports “an immediate ceasefire to stop the fighting” in Gaza, and telling reporters on Monday that “we stand with Israel to take out [Hamas leader Yahya] Sinwar and the rest of the butchers of Hamas.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintains that Israel can only destroy Hamas by invading Rafah, a city in southern Gaza where more than a million displaced Palestinians are currently sheltering.

Earlier this month, Biden threatened to halt the supply of weapons to Israel if Netanyahu were to order a ground invasion of Rafah, a decision that Waters said was “a political risk.”

However, while the White House froze a shipment of bombs to Israel in late April, Biden approved a different, billion-dollar arms sale – including tank ammunition and mortar rounds – to the Jewish state days after pledging to withhold future deliveries.

Israel has pounded Rafah with airstrikes for the last two weeks, in addition to launching limited ground operations in the eastern neighborhoods of the city. Netanyahu has dismissed Biden’s threat to cut off military aid, proclaiming that Israel “will fight with our fingernails” if necessary.

Despite Netanyahu’s bluster, the prime minister’s war cabinet has shelved plans for a major offensive in Rafah and opted for a more limited approach that will minimize civilian casualties, the Washington Post reported on Monday. Israeli sources who spoke to the Post said that this approach was chosen in order to avoid angering the US.

One day before Waters’ interview was published, a US State Department official told Politico that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had ordered staffers to stop leaking details to media of confidential discussions related to the Israel-Hamas conflict.

May 24, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Soaring costs are likely for planned Wylfa nuclear station, but EDF, Westinghouse, Kepco clamour to build it

An EDF spokesman described Wylfa as a “fantastic site” and said it
wanted to bid to build the new plant. However, it is expected to face
competition from Westinghouse, an American company, and Kepco, South
Korea’s largest electrical utility firm.

The costs of the new plant are uncertain. Hinkley Point C was originally costed at £18bn but overruns have already pushed that up to at least £46bn. With several more years of
construction needed, final costs are expected to exceed £50bn –
equivalent to about £1,800 per UK home. Hinkley developer EDF is liable
for the extra costs.

The Wylfa B plant is also likely to be financed under
the RAB system which means consumers will see bill increases for Wylfa B
and Sizewell C before either generates any power. Alison Downes, of Stop
Sizewell C, said: “The Government seems determined to double down on
gigawatt nuclear, the slowest most expensive energy source to build, which
the British public – in the form of taxpayers and consumers – will be
forced to pay for.

“We send our empathy to the people of Anglesey who
will be forced to fight yet another inappropriate development. Our advice
is to take very little of what is promised in the form of ‘community
benefits’ at face value.”

Andrew Bowie, the minister for nuclear
energy, was on Wednesday scheduled to meet with the Nuclear
Non-Governmental Organisation Forum to hear various groups’ concerns over
the expansion of nuclear energy. However, he cancelled the meeting at short
notice as news of the Wylfa plan emerged.

Telegraph 21st May 2024
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/anglesey-host-britain-third-new-nuclear-power-station/

May 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear-free councils hit out at ‘mad delusion’ of new reactor

“Instead of wasting cash and time on nuclear, the Scottish NFLAs believe the money and effort would first be far better spent insulating all domestic properties and public buildings to the highest standard to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy consumption and minimise or eliminate fuel poverty, as well as investing in more renewable energy generating capacity and battery storage.”

“

By Alan Hendry alan.hendry@hnmedia.co.uk, 21 May 2024, https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/nuclear-free-councils-hit-out-at-mad-delusion-of-new-react-351234/

Calls for a nuclear revival in Scotland – including the possibility of a new Dounreay reactor – have been dismissed as “folly” and a “mad delusion”.

Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs), a grouping of councils opposed to civil nuclear power, insisted that renewables “represent the only way forward to achieve a sustainable, net-zero future”.

The secretary of state for Scotland, Alister Jack, confirmed last week that he had asked the UK energy minister to plan for a new nuclear site north of the border as part of a nationwide strategy.

Dounreay had been put forward among the possible locations for a small modular reactor (SMR), a series of 10 power stations that engineering giant Rolls-Royce was planning to build by 2035.

Jamie Stone, the Liberal Democrat MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, was quick to press the case for Dounreay to be considered. After a conversation with the Scottish secretary, Mr Stone claimed there was “all to play for”.

Dounreay is being decommissioned, with the end date for the nuclear clean-up now extended to the 2070s.

A proposal that Highland Council should sign up to NFLAs came to nothing in 2019 after some Caithness councillors condemned the idea. Scottish councils that are part of NFLAs are Dundee, East Ayrshire, Edinburgh, Fife, Glasgow, Midlothian, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Shetland Islands, West Dunbartonshire and Western Isles.

In a statement, Scottish NFLAs said a new focus on nuclear generation would put the UK government at odds with the Scottish Government as the SNP remains “implacably opposed” to the construction of any new nuclear fission plants in Scotland.

“To the NFLAs, an investment in any nuclear would not only be folly, but a lamentable diversion of effort from achieving the credible goal of supplying 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity from renewables,” the group said.

“Nuclear power plants are enormously expensive to build and notorious for their cost and delivery overruns.”

Scottish NFLAs maintained that “none of the competing SMR designs has yet received the required approvals from the nuclear regulator to even be deployed in the UK” and “the necessary finance has yet to be put in place”.

It went on: “SMRs are estimated to cost £3 billion each, but cost overruns are notorious in the nuclear industry, and the earliest any approved and financed SMR would come onstream would be in the early 2030s.

“Nuclear plants are also incredibly expensive to decommission, and the resultant radioactive waste must be managed at vast expense for millennia.

Scottish NFLAs said Scotland could become “a powerhouse” with surplus renewable energy being exported to England and continental Europe via interconnectors.

It added: “To realise this, the Scottish NFLAs would like to see the Scottish Government recommit to establishing a state-owned renewable energy company to invest in this potential and to generate an income for the nation.

“The Scottish NFLAs believe that if the secretary of state for Scotland genuinely wants to see a sustainable, net-zero future for Scotland he should call for the British government to get behind the Scottish Government in backing this strategy, instead of maintaining his mad delusion for nuclear.”

May 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, politics, UK | Leave a comment

UKRAINE DARKNESS: Zelensky’s Mandate Expires Today – Streets Are Empty as Men Hide From New Conscription Law

Paul Serran, The Gateway Pundit, 2024-05-22

And so we’ve come to the point of the war in Ukraine in which the west’s ‘Knight in Shining armor’, the ‘defender of democracy’ Volodymyr Zelensky has outrun his Constitutional Presidential mandate, and is now in power only by virtue of the martial law he enacted.

That is just the most dramatic of the absolutely disheartening (for Kiev) series of developments.

To begin with, a series of videos have surfaced showing how the streets of Ukraine now are deserted, with men hiding from conscription into the army – and somehow, everyone else seemed to have stayed at home, too.

Deserted streets as the new mobilization law came into force on May 18th.

In the context of the rapidly progressing Russian Federation forces, even deep-state aligned papers like WaPo feel compelled to report on the shitshow.

They are catching up to TGP’s report on the abnormal powers held by Zelensky’s top aide Andrey Yermak. So now, they’ve come as far as writing:

“If actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky’s top credential when he was elected in 2019 was that he’d played a president on TV, the top qualification of his all-powerful chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, was being Zelensky’s friend.”

Ouch. WaPo discusses how martial law, has concentrated extraordinary authority in the presidential administration, ‘making Yermak perhaps the most powerful chief of staff in the country’s history — virtually indistinguishable from his boss’.

Washington Post reported:

“Yermak’s closeness to the president — and evident influence over him — has drawn a barrage of accusations: that he has undemocratically consolidated power in the president’s office; overseen an unneeded purge of top officials, including commander in chief Gen. Valery Zaluzhny; restricted access to Zelensky; and sought personal control over nearly every big wartime decision.

Now, however, the legitimacy of the president and his top adviser are about to face even bigger challenges as Zelensky’s five-year term officially expires on May 20. Ukraine’s constitution prohibits elections under martial law. But as Zelensky stays in office, he will be vulnerable to charges that he has used the war to erode democracy — seizing control over media, sidelining critics and rivals, and elevating Yermak, his unelected friend, above career civil servants and diplomats.”

Eminence grise Yermak controls which officials can travel abroad and when; has sidelined the Foreign Ministry; interfered in military decisions – and brokered key deals with the United States.

His brother Denys was caught on video using his family ties to sell positions in Zelensky’s administration.

WaPo woke up to the fact that the Defender of Democracy put all six major Ukrainian television stations to broadcast the same news content 24 hours a day, called ‘the United News Telemarathon’.

And, of course, as we spoke at the beginning, there’s the ‘small detail’: Zelensky’s mandate expires today.

“’The Russians will use this’, one longtime Ukrainian official said of Zelensky’s expiring term. To maintain legitimacy, Zelensky ‘must have trust’, this official said, speaking, as many others did for this article, on the condition of anonymity to preserve political relations and to avoid retribution.”

Zelensky’s legitimacy is a question to Moscow as well, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared.

Putin explained that Zelensky’s status has a bearing on any potential agreement between the countries.

RT reported:

“Speaking at a press conference while on a state visit in China on Friday, President Putin said the issue of Zelensky’s legitimacy is something that ‘Ukraine’s own political and legal system’ must address, ‘first of all the Constitutional Court’. He noted that the country’s constitution foresees ‘different variants’.…………………………………..https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/ukraine-darkness-zelenskys-mandate-expires-today-streets-are/

May 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Iran appoints nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri as interim foreign minister

First Post FP Staff • May 20, 2024

Following the horrific helicopter crash that killed Iran’s Foreign Minister and President, Ali Bagheri, the country’s seasoned nuclear negotiator, was named acting Foreign Minister on Monday.

Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, the late foreign minister, had Bagheri, 56, as his deputy. He is well-known for his strong connections to Iran’s ultraconservatives and his membership in the inner circle of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Bagheri was known for his composed manner throughout his tenure, even though he took strong positions, especially when it came to denouncing intervention from the West.

Bagheri is well-versed in Iran’s nuclear dossier, a divisive topic that has soured relations between Tehran and major international players, notably Israel. He became a prominent opponent of the 2015 nuclear agreement, charging that Iran’s interests were compromised by the previous government…………………………………………….

With nuclear talks at a stalemate due to major differences, especially with the United States, Baghari’s nomination as interim foreign minister comes at a difficult moment. https://www.firstpost.com/world/iran-appoints-nuclear-negotiator-ali-bagheri-as-interim-foreign-minister-13772964.html

May 22, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics | Leave a comment

In Nuclear Crosshairs, Guam Still Doesn’t Control Its Own Affairs

… because its inhabitants are not fully considered Americans when it matters.

WORDS: APRIL ARNOLD, PICTURES: JAZMIN SMITH, MAY 20, 2024, https://inkstickmedia.com/in-nuclear-crosshairs-guam-still-doesnt-control-its-own-affairs/

At the core of Guam’s indigenous CHamoru culture are the concepts of inafa’maolek – inafa meaning “to make together” and maolek meaning “good.” It is the idea that something was once bad or broken and is in need of repair, and that repair comes from doing good together and restoring harmony. If there is one thing the CHamoru have known for nearly 500 years, it is how to make the best of broken circumstances.

In recent years, Guam has found itself at the center of tensions between the United States and countries in the Pacific. As the tiny island sits on the frontlines of the competition for influence in the region, Guam has increasingly come under threat of being a prime target for nuclear attack by China or North Korea.

In 2022, North Korea confirmed a test launch of an intermediate-range ballistic missile that could reach Guam. In 2023, the country confirmed launching spy satellites that targeted military installations in Japan, on the US mainland and on Guam. Equally concerning was North Korea’s response that attempts to interfere with their satellites would be considered a declaration of war. In April 2024, North Korea conducted a test launch of another intermediate-range ballistic missile that could also reach Guam.

“Guam Killer”

As for China, during a military parade in September 2015, the Chinese government unveiled a new missile that quickly became known as the “Guam Killer.” Following the introduction of this new missile, the US-China Economic Security Commission published a 2016 report detailing China’s military expansion and its implications for Guam.

Yet, despite the threat to the island, it still does not have a full say over many aspects of its strategic role in international affairs. Its citizens are not allowed to vote in US presidential elections, with straw polls showing that voting trends of the territory do not guarantee one political party leverage over the other.

Nor does Guam have full representation in US Congress, limiting its ability to lobby for the island’s interests, despite being in harm’s way militarily and environmentally. As the US promotes democracy worldwide, it should start at home by affording Guam statehood. This, in turn, could help temper the aggression and rhetoric China and North Korea have directed at the island, giving the US an even stronger foothold in the region.

History of Foreign Rule

Guam has been under foreign rule since 1565 and foreign aggression since 1521 when Ferdinand Magellan landed on the island. As a strategic trade outpost for Spain for over 300 years, the CHamoru were forced to convert to Catholicism by the Jesuits and subservient to Spanish governance that ravaged the island’s natural resources and culture. In the book “Destiny’s Landfall,” author Robert F. Rogers detailed stories of the abuse the CHamoru people experienced at the hands of governors who had a recurring penchant for excessive greed and virile priests seeking to exact their purportedly divine authority.

Then, as a concession of the Spanish-American War, Spain transferred Guam to the US under the Treaty of Paris of 1898. This was a controversial transaction at the time as Congress was amid the throes of the debate over Manifest Destiny and expansion into the Pacific.

Much to the surprise of the citizens of Guam, the transfer did not result in its incorporation into the country as a state, despite establishing a local democratic government to aid this effort.

Military Oversight

Instead, the island was placed under the oversight of the Department of the Navy for 52 years, where military governance had absolute authority. As a result of the treaty, the US government faced a new hurdle of incorporating these newly-acquired territories.

Through a series of Supreme Court rulings known as the Insular Cases, the US decided that Guam among other islands such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines, would be considered territories without full citizenship rights.

Language from one of the Insular Cases, Downes vs. Bidwell, states, in part, the following about foreign territories: “If those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible.”

Taking Advantage

In short, even though Guam had been under Catholic influence and rule for more than 300 years and had adopted many Catholic practices, it was not enough to be accepted into the US as more than an “alien race.”

Meanwhile, the US had begun taking full advantage of Guam’s position in the Pacific, constructing military bases starting in WWII. It wasn’t until 1950 that the Department of the Navy would transfer its oversight of Guam to the Department of the Interior, designating the island as an unincorporated territory through the Guam Organic Act.

With the steady military buildup of US forces on Guam over the decades, the US would gain more influence in the Pacific while pushing CHamoru off their lands and creating waste management nightmares that now include two Superfund sites used to dispose of hazardous chemicals.

Military Buildup

Even as tensions have grown, military officials have called for increased investment in a missile defense capability on the island to counter China’s capabilities development and aggression in the region. This includes relocating 5,000 US Marines to Camp Blaz on Guam later in 2024, with some concerned over impacts to the local ecosystem and historical sites.

Meanwhile, Guam continues to wrestle with the US government on waste management funding to clean up the Superfund site, Ordot Landfill. The landfill was formerly owned and used by the Department of the Navy during WWII, with some of its contents allegedly being toxic chemicals such as Agent Orange. Even upon returning the landfill to the island after Congress passed the Guam Organic Act in 1950, the Navy continued to use the dump until the 1970s.

After its closure in 2011, Guam’s local government began clean-up efforts and filed a lawsuit under the Superfund Act to seek financial help from the US government on the $160 million estimated cost. A lower court ruled that Guam’s lawsuit surpassed the statute of limitations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. As one article states, “Shouldering the cost alone would be unduly difficult for the small island, as the bill exceeds the combined annual budget of its health, social services, police, fire, public works, solid waste and environmental departments.”

In May 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling, and in September 2023 the US government agreed to pay $48.9 million in cleanup costs that were incurred prior to Aug. 10, 2022. The remaining $110 million in costs will still have to be covered by Guam’s local government.

Self-Determination

The conversation of Guam’s self-determination starts at the local level. Guam’s Commission on Decolonization was formed in 1997 to promote domestic education and outreach on the island’s options for self-determination. These options include statehood, free association, or independence. The first step in this process is the self-determination vote, where voters decide which of the decolonization options to pursue. Yet, efforts for a referendum have already run into issues at the federal level.

Before conducting the vote, Guam’s government needs to decide who is included in the definition of self-determination, which it has already done. According to the commission’s website, the right of self-determination belongs to those who were colonized, with the definition of “native inhabitants of Guam,” referring to people who became US citizens through the 1950 Guam Organic Act, as well as their descendents.

In 2020, the Supreme Court declined to review Guam’s appeal of a previous lower court ruling on conducting a nonbinding plebiscite to determine whether native inhabitants preferred statehood, free association, or independence because the vote was discriminatory on the grounds of race.

In February 2024, Guam’s government began looking into better defining the term so that it meets expectations in local law and was not “considered again a ‘proxy for race’ and therefore unconstitutional.”

On May 13, 2024, Guam’s Attorney General published an opinion that there was “no room” for Guam’s definition of the phrase that would be deemed constitutional. Instead, the AG recommended Guam’s Governor take other legal routes, such as lobbying Congress to recognize Guam’s unique history and work with the island to develop a path towards self-determination as well as petition support from the United Nations.

Reluctance

Separately, politicians on Guam are also reluctant to pursue tribal classification for the CHamoru people, especially after the US federal government sued Guam over land trust issues.

In 2017, Madeleine Bordallo, then the Guam delegate to the US House of Representatives, expressed concerns over the implications of enrolling the CHamoru as a tribe when the island would have to transfer ownership of the tribal lands to the federal government.

Each of these issues has made it difficult for Guam to gain traction in pursuing any form of self-determination, let alone statehood.

While it is unlikely that the majority of US elected officials would support anything other than statehood for Guam, leaving the island in a position that forces them to either lobby Congress for any self-determination support or solicit help from the United Nations could strain the relationship at a delicate time internationally.

Path Forward

After a referendum favoring statehood, all that is required for Guam to become a state is a simple majority vote on a joint resolution in both houses of Congress and approval by the President. The biggest hurdle is often lobbying Congress for the votes. The CHamoru have had their land taken from them to support US military demands with little-to-no reconciliation efforts from the US government.

Yet, the tiny island finds itself in the crosshairs of growing tensions between multiple nuclear weapons states, with barely a voice to hold the US government accountable for its actions. Many arms control and nonproliferation experts lament the lack of US public interest in the threat of nuclear war. Perhaps, it is because those most at risk are not fully considered Americans when it matters. If the US truly cares about ensuring democracy around the world, it should start at home.

May 22, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | OCEANIA, politics | Leave a comment

UK plans new nuclear plant in Scotland despite Scottish government opposition

the Scottish Parliament has the ability to block projects it opposes as planning powers are devolved.

17 MAY, 2024 BY THOMAS JOHNSON, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/uk-plans-new-nuclear-plant-in-scotland-despite-scottish-government-opposition-17-05-2024/

Recent parliamentary discussions have revealed the UK is exploring the possibility of constructing a new nuclear power plant in Scotland despite fierce opposition from the Scottish government.

The UK government secretary of state for Scotland Alister Jack revealed in a House of Lords committee meeting that discussions were taking place on siting a small modular reactor (SMR) north of the border and that it is part of UK-wide plan.

He said: “On the small nuclear reactors, I have asked the energy minister to plan for one in Scotland.

“I believe that in 2026 we’ll see a unionist regime again in Holyrood and they will move forward with that.”

He also made reference to the shortness of the “timescales in front of us”, which could either be regarding the breadth and speed required for the energy transition or to the looming General Election.

The subject was then brought up in Scottish Parliament’s first minister’s questions (FMQs) on Thursday 16 May.

During FMQs, Member of Scottish Parliament Rona Mackay asked: “Despite opposition from the democratically elected Scottish government, where Scotland does not need expensive nuclear power; we already have abundant natural energy resources, can the first minister advise whether the United Kingdom government has approached Scottish ministers about those apparent plans?

“Can he confirm that the Scottish government will oppose those plans and, instead, focus on Scotland’s substantial renewable energy potential?”

First minister John Swinney responded to say how he was appalled no mention of the discussions had been made to the Scottish government by the secretary of state for Scotland.

Swinney said: “I am often lectured in parliament about the importance of good intergovernmental relations. The secretary of state for Scotland has made no mention of the proposal to the Scottish government.

“That is utterly and completely incompatible with good intergovernmental working and is illustrative of the damaging and menacing behaviour of the secretary of state for Scotland.”

He continued: “The Scottish government will not support new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

“I was in Ardersier on Monday and the cabinet secretary for net zero and energy was in Nigg on Tuesday to support the announcements of formidable investments in Scotland’s renewable energy potential.

Those are massive investments that will bring jobs and opportunities to the Highlands and Islands and deliver green, clean energy for the people of Scotland. That is the government’s policy agenda, and we will have nothing to do with nuclear power.”

Nuclear in Scotland

Scotland already has a nuclear power plant, Torness in East Lothian, which is scheduled to be shut down by 2028, two years earlier than was planned when it was constructed.

Another nuclear power station located within the country, the Hunterston B plant in North Ayrshire, ceased operation in January 2022.

The UK has an ambition of generating a quarter of its electricity from nuclear power by 2050, which is to be delivered by new public body Great British Nuclear.

Currently, energy policy is run by the UK government but the Scottish Parliament has the ability to block projects it opposes as planning powers are devolved.

Department for energy security and net zero under secretary Andrew Bowie, said: “We can’t go beyond preliminary discussions because of the current Scottish government hampering us but if the planning block was lifted then we could make a site north of the border; one of the eight across the UK.”

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “The Scottish government is absolutely clear in defence of the devolution settlement, and in our opposition to the building of new traditional nuclear fission energy plants in Scotland under current technologies.

“Small modular reactors, while innovative in construction and size, still generate electricity using nuclear fission and therefore the process presents the same environmental concerns as traditional nuclear power plants.

“We believe that significant growth in renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture provides the best pathway to net zero by 2045 and will deliver secure, affordable and clean energy supplies for Scotland’s households, business and communities.”

May 21, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

LABOUR MUST RULE OUT NEW NUCLEAR REACTOR FOR SCOTLAND

Nuclear power has no place in a greener Scotland.

A future UK Labour government must drop plans by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, to open a new nuclear reactor in Scotland, say the Scottish Greens.

Speaking to the House of Lords Constitution Committee this week, Mr Jack said that the UK government is planning to work with anti-independence parties to deliver a new nuclear reactor in Scotland.

Mr Jack told the committee “On the small nuclear reactors, I have asked the energy minister to plan for one in Scotland, because I believe in 2026 we’ll see a Unionist regime again in Holyrood, and they will move forward on that matter.”

In a letter to Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Greens energy spokesperson, Mark Ruskell, condemned the “environmental vandalism and constitutional overreach” of the Tories, and called on Mr Sarwar to ensure any future UK Labour government would drop these plans.

He has also urged Mr Sarwar to make clear if his party would support a replacement for the Torness nuclear station which is set to be decommissioned in 2028.

Mr Ruskell said: “Scotland does not need or want nuclear power. It is unsafe, expensive and leaves a toxic legacy for future generations. It is also a big distraction. Scotland has a huge abundance of renewable resources that we must be investing in and supporting.

“I have written to Mr Sarwar in the hope that he will provide clarity and assurance that a future UK Labour government would drop plans to expand nuclear power in Scotland against the wishes of our parliament.

“This is a time for progressive parties to stand together for our climate, and I hope that Mr Sarwar will oppose any plans for a new reactor or for a return to nuclear power once Torness has been decommissioned.”

Text of the letter Mark Ruskell sent Anas Sarwar………………………………………………. more https://greens.scot/news/labour-must-rule-out-new-nuclear-reactor-for-scotland

May 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

US Senators Threaten Criminal Court & Advise Israel to Nuke Gaza

By Thalif Deen, https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/05/us-senators-threaten-criminal-court-advice-israel-nuke-gaza/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=us-senators-threaten-criminal-court-advice-israel-nuke-gaza

UNITED NATIONS, May 16 2024 (IPS) – As the ancient Greek saying goes: those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first drive them mad. Perhaps destruction is too far-fetched here, but madness is closer home—in Washington DC

With the 7-month-old Israeli-Gaza conflict showing no positive signs of a permanent solution, there is a lingering sense of growing political craziness in Capitol Hill, the seat of the US government, once described as Israeli-occupied territory.

Last week Lindsey Graham, a senior Republican senator from South Carolina, who once chaired the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, implicitly advised Israel it should drop nuclear bombs over Gaza—perhaps ignorant of the fact that a nuclear fallout will also destroy parts of Israel.

In a TV interview, Graham advised Israel: “Do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state”—as he compared Israel’s war on Gaza to the US war with Japan during World War II.

“When we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons,” Graham said in an interview with NBC News’ Meet the Press.

Meanwhile, Tim Walberg, a Republican House member said wiping out Gaza “should be like Hiroshima and Nagasaki” “Get it over quick”, he advised Israel.

Ramzy Baroud, a journalist and Editor of The Palestine Chronicle told IPS: “Sure, Israel is yet to drop a nuclear bomb, but it has dropped enough US bombs over the besieged Strip to create the impact of nuclear weapons.”

He pointed out that 75 percent of Gaza has been destroyed, and about 5 percent of the population have been killed or wounded. This was done by Biden and his supposedly softer approach, if compared to Graham, to the war.

“This is indeed madness, but, in a sense, it also reflects a degree of desperation,” said Baroud.

Meanwhile, 12 US Republican senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have openly threatened the International Criminal Court (ICC) with sanctions if they target Israeli officials.

The threat is directed at both ICC officials and their family members — if and when, the Court moves forward with international arrest warrants against Israeli leaders over the war in Gaza.

“Target Israel and we will target you. If you move forward with the measures indicated in the report, we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States,” read the April 24 letter.

“You have been warned,” the letter added.

Norman Solomon, executive director, Institute for Public Accuracy, told IPS the goal posts on the USA’s political field have been dragged rightward since last autumn by the combined forces of standard militarism, craven political jockeying, biased mass-media coverage and ferocious pro-Israel messaging.

The countervailing force in the United States is coming from grassroots opposition to Israel’s mass murder and rejection of its support provided by the U.S. political establishment.

Often led by activists in such organizations as Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now, the highly visible protests last fall and winter seeded the ground for the upsurge in student-led protests in recent weeks on U.S. college campuses, he said.

This nonviolent grassroots resistance to Israeli genocide and oppression of Palestinian people has shocked the traditional American Zionist establishment and its allies in the leadership of the Democratic Party.

“The growing resistance has also provoked an extreme reactionary response from right-wing media outlets such as Fox News and many dozens of Republicans in Congress who have vocally and mendaciously denounced efforts to end the slaughter, which is subsidized by U.S. taxpayers to the benefit of both the fascistic Israeli government and military contractors based in the United States”, he argued.

“The flagrantly racist and ethnocentric reactions of Republican leaders, combined with the rhetorical Democratic vacillation that continues to support the Israeli-inflicted carnage in Gaza, comprise the two wings of U.S. governance. Most young Americans, in particular, are now emphatically opposed to both wings enabling the genocide,” he noted.

This is an ongoing political struggle over whether the U.S. government will continue to support Israel as it pursues its systematic slaughter of civilians in Gaza, declared Solomon, national director, RootsAction.org and author of, “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.”

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/campus-protests-gaza

In their letter to Karim A. Khan, ICC Prosecutor, the 12 Senators say: “We write regarding reports that the International Criminal Court (ICC) may be considering issuing international arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials. Such actions are illegitimate and lack legal basis, and if carried out will result in severe sanctions against you and your institution.

By issuing warrants, you would be calling into question the legitimacy of Israel’s laws, legal system, and democratic form of government. Issuing arrest warrants for the leaders of Israel would not only be unjustified, it would expose your organization’s hypocrisy and double standards.

“Neither Israel nor the United States are members of the ICC and are therefore outside of your organization’s supposed jurisdiction. If you issue a warrant for the arrest of the Israeli leadership, we will interpret this not only as a threat to Israel’s sovereignty but to the sovereignty of the United States.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

May 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Gaza, politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK government about to overrule Scotland and impose nuclear stations?

Don’t get above your nuclear power station, Scotland

17th May, By Wee Ginger Dug, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24325966.dont-get-nuclear-power-station-scotland/—

Scotland, know your place. Our exalted Viceroy General Alister Jack – He Who Must Be Obeyed – has said that the UK Government is considering plans to build a nuclear reactor in Scotland, despite fierce opposition from the Scottish Government and even though planning is a devolved matter.

Jack told a committee in the Lords that he expected a “Unionist regime” to gain power in Holyrood after 2026 and said that he has asked ministers at the Department for Energy and Net Zero to plan for a nuclear reactor to be built in Scotland as part of a UK-wide programme.

Although planning is devolved to Holyrood, energy policy is reserved to Westminster. This means that even though Westminster is committed to an expansion of nuclear energy generation, the Scottish Government has a de facto means of blocking the development of nuclear energy in Scotland as it can refuse planning permission for new nuclear power plants.

Jack’s remarks suggest that the UK Government is preparing to overrule Holyrood and impose new nuclear power plants on Scotland against the will of Scotland’s elected representatives.

The Scottish Government is strongly opposed to new nuclear power plants in Scotland, favouring instead a greater development of Scotland’s vast renewable energy potential which is already capable of supplying more energy than Scotland requires for domestic consumption.

Any new nuclear power stations which the UK Government builds in Scotland will not be built because Scotland needs them, they will be built in order to meet the energy needs of the rest of the UK, but these needs could also be met by greater investment in and development of Scotland’s renewable energy potential.

Moreover, given the years long timescale that is required from the commissioning of a new nuclear power plant, any new nuclear reactor that the UK commissions in Scotland would not be on stream until 2033 at the very earliest. New renewable projects can be brought in stream and contributing power to the grid much quicker.

Hinkley Point C, the UK’s first nuclear plant in more than two decades, was estimated to cost between £25bn and £26bn in 2015. The first reactor will not be in use until at least 2029, two years later than the most recent 2027 goal, and could take until 2031 if electromechanical work runs into problems.

The projected cost is now between £31bn and £35bn in 2015 figures and up to £46bn in today’s money.

This dwarfs the cost of a new wind farm. The British Government has allocated just £800m for investment in offshore wind farms. The massive onshore Whitelee wind farm south of Glasgow cost £1.5bn to construct. It has a total capacity of 539 megawatts and can power over 350,000 homes annually.

Jack’s behaviour is ‘menacing’

Jack has been condemned by John Swinney for keeping his plans for new nuclear plants in Scotland a secret from the Scottish Government.

The First Minister was asked about Jack’s comments by SNP MSP Rona Mackay at FMQs. She said: “This week, the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that planning is underway to develop new nuclear reactors in Scotland despite opposition …”

She was interrupted by the boors on the Tory benches cheering at the prospect of the democratically elected government of Scotland being overruled.

After the Presiding Officer hushed the adolescents, she went on: “Despite opposition from the democratically elected Scottish Government. Scotland doesn’t need expensive nuclear power. We already have abundant natural energy resources. Can the First Minister advise if the UK Government has approached Scottish ministers about these apparent plans?”

The First Minister replied: said: “I’m often lectured in this parliament about the importance of good intergovernmental relations. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made no mention of this proposal to the Scottish Government.

“This is utterly and completely incompatible with good intergovernmental working and is illustrative of the damaging behaviour, the menacing behaviour, of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish Government will not support new nuclear power stations in Scotland.”

He added that “supporting the announcements of formidable investments in the renewable energy potential of Scotland” was “the policy agenda of this government, and we have nothing to do with nuclear power”.

But Jack says – don’t get above your nuclear power station, Scotland.

May 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

We’re all right Jack: No need for nuclear in Scotland

NFLA 17 May 2024

Contrary to the call of an out-of-touch, and increasingly out-of-time, Conservative Secretary of State that nuclear must be included in Scotland’s energy mix, the Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities remain convinced that renewables represent the only way forward to achieve a sustainable, Net Zero future for the nation.

Scottish Secretary Alister Jack, appearing before the House of Lords Constitution Committee on Wednesday, confirmed that he has approached fellow Scot and Nuclear Minister Andrew Bowie MP to plan for a new so-called Small Modular Reactor north of the border.

The sole operational nuclear plant in Scotland is at Torness, but this will cease generating before the end of the decade. Other reactors at Chapelcross, Dounreay, and Hunterston are in the process of being decommissioned.

Such a plan would put the UK Government at odds with that of Scotland, as the SNP-led Administration has affirmed to the NFLAs that it remains implacably opposed to the construction of any new nuclear fission plants in Scotland. Whilst energy policy is determined by Whitehall, the SNP Government can veto any development as planning authority has been devolved. The Minister is then clearly banking on regime change in 2026 at Edinburgh as both the Conservative and Labour Parties have both expressed support for new nuclear in Scotland.

To the NFLAs, an investment in any nuclear would not only be folly, but a lamentable diversion of effort from achieving the credible goal of supplying 100% of Scotland’s electricity from renewables.

Nuclear power plants are enormously expensive to build and notorious for their cost and delivery overruns. The sole UK gigawatt plant under construction at Hinkley Point C in Somerset is now expected to cost up to £47 billion at current prices, approaching triple its original estimate, whilst wildly optimistic claims by operator EDF Energy that the plant would be generating power ‘to cook British turkeys by Christmas 2017’ have been dampened by a series of damaging delays, with the first reactor expected now to become operational in 2031.

Secretary of State Alister Jack appears to be focused on bringing one of the so-called Small Modular Reactors (or SMRs) to Scotland. There has been previous talk of an SMR being co-located with the Grangemouth chemical plant, a prospect nipped in the bud by an NFLA intercession to the Scottish Minister. However, none of the competing SMR designs has yet received the required approvals from the nuclear regulator to even be deployed in the UK; none have been built; no sites have yet been permissioned for their deployment; the facilities to fabricate the parts have yet to be constructed; the necessary finance has yet to be put in place; and the procedures for their onsite assembly have yet to be perfected. SMRs are estimated to cost £3 billion each, but cost overruns are notorious in the nuclear industry, and the earliest any approved and financed SMR would come onstream would be in the early 2030’s.

Nuclear plants are also incredibly expensive to decommission, and the resultant radioactive waste must be managed at vast expense for millennia. There has been research published that suggests that SMRs will produce more radioactive waste per unit of electricity produced that gigawatt reactors.

Instead of wasting cash and time on nuclear, the Scottish NFLAs believe the money and effort would first be far better spent insulating all domestic properties and public buildings to the highest standard to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy consumption, and minimise or eliminate fuel poverty, as well as investing in more renewable energy generating capacity and battery storage capacity.

Not only does Scotland possess more than sufficient natural resources, in the forms of wind, wave, hydro and geothermal energy to meet its own needs, but it can become a powerhouse where the surplus renewable energy can be exported to its neighbour England and to states in Europe, via interconnectors, generating income for the nation.

To realise this, the Scottish NFLAs would like to see the Scottish Government recommit to establishing a state-owned renewable energy company to invest in this potential and to generate an income for the nation, mirroring the commendable action of the Welsh Government. Maximum pressure needs to be applied to the UK Government to boost the capacity of the National Grid to take Scottish renewable energy from wind turbines to England. At present, constraints mean that the network is often incapable of accepting and transmitting the vast amounts of electricity generated by Scottish wind turbines, leading to them being shut off and generators being awarded huge compensation at taxpayers’ expense for lost revenue.

The NFLAs have also called on the UK Government to back the development of stored pumped hydro projects in Scotland. A report from BiGGAR Economics, commissioned by Scottish Renewables, identified six ‘shovel-ready’ pumped-hydro projects in Scotland which could deliver £5.8 billion Gross Value Added (GVA) and almost 15,000 jobs by 2035.

Scotland has some world leading renewable energy companies, such as the O2 Orbital wave power project based in the Orkney Islands and the Gravitricity gravity storage project born in Edinburgh.

The Scottish NFLAs believe that if the Secretary of State for Scotland genuinely wants to see a sustainable, Net Zero future for Scotland that he should call for the British Government to get behind the Scottish Government in backing this strategy, instead of maintaining his mad delusion for nuclear.

May 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »