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
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.
We’re all right Jack: No need for nuclear in Scotland
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.
Scotland’s First Minister Swinney condemns Jack’s menacing idea for nuclear plant in Scotland
The First Minister was clear that the Scottish Government will not back the construction of such a facility north of the border.
John Swinney has insisted the Scottish Government will have “nothing to do” with a suggested new nuclear power station – as he hit out at the “menacing” behaviour of the Scottish Secretary.
The First Minister reacted angrily after Alister Jack revealed he has instructed UK ministers to start planning work for a nuclear plant in Scotland.
It comes despite the longstanding opposition from the SNP to the construction of such facilities north of the border.
Jack told a Lords committee on Wednesday he believes there will be a “unionist regime again in Holyrood” in 2026, and with the SNP out of power it will be possible to “move forward” with the construction plan.
Speaking about the prospect of a small nuclear reactor, Jack said he has asked the UK energy minister to “plan for one in Scotland”.
But Swinney told MSPs on Thursday that Jack has “made no mention of this proposal to the Scottish Government” – which has powers over planning north of the border.
The First Minister added: “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.”
He was asked about Jack’s comments by SNP backbencher Rona Mackay, who noted the UK minister’s suggestion came despite “opposition from the democratically-elected Scottish Government” to new nuclear power.
Speaking at First Minister’s Questions, Swinney was clear: “The Scottish Government will not support new nuclear power stations in Scotland.”
He said his Government instead supports investment in “the renewable energy potential in Scotland”, adding “massive investments” in this sector could “bring jobs and opportunities to the Highlands and islands and deliver green, clean energy for the people of Scotland”.
Swinney said: “That’s the policy agenda of this Government and we will have nothing to do with nuclear power.”
Top Labour donor joins campaign to stop Hinkley nuclear plant
Government wasting billions of taxpayers’ money on power station, warns Dale Vince
Jonathan Leake 16 May 2024
Millionaire Labour donor Dale Vince has joined a campaign to block
Britain’s biggest nuclear power station project. The entrepreneur, who
founded green energy company Ecotricity, has emerged as a patron to Stop
Hinkley after accusing the Government of wasting billions of pounds.
He said the decision to use taxpayer money to fund Hinkley Point C, which is
under construction in Somerset, was flawed because nuclear technology is
“hugely expensive and slow to develop”. His comments will be sure to
raise questions for Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow energy secretary, who
has vowed to invest in nuclear energy.
The Opposition has accepted around
£1.5m in donations over the past decade from Mr Vince, who severed ties
with Just Stop Oil last year as part of his commitment to Labour. A
spokesman for Stop Hinkley said: “At a time when nuclear power is rapidly
losing ground to the astonishing growth in renewables, it’s great to have
someone onboard who founded a company which allows ordinary members of the
public to actually vote on the nuclear question with their electricity
bill.”
Telegraph 16th May 2024
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/16/top-labour-donor-joins-campaign-stop-hinkley/
Nuclear Free Local Authorities welcome commitment to recruit new Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership Chair at less cost who is local
After a prolonged period of paid tenure, the Interim Chair of the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership is finally making way for a successor – and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities have welcomed the commitments made to appoint a local person to the post at a significantly lower cost to the taxpayer.
Jon Collins has acted as Chair since being appointed by Nuclear Waste Services at the inception of the Theddlethorpe GDF Working Party. Mr Collins is the former leader of Nottingham City Council without strong roots within the Theddlethorpe Search Area. The NFLAs have been especially critical of the renumeration package attached to the post, which initially comprised a payment of £1,000 a day for two days per week, since reduced to £750. This day rate is many times higher than the average salary received in the local community.
Now the Community Partnership is recruiting a candidate for the ‘challenging but rewarding role’ to manage the meetings and business of the partnership. Although the NFLAs reject the hyperbole that the GDF represents the ‘biggest environmental protection project of our lifetime’, creditably the advertisement states that members of the partnership ‘have expressed a preference to recruit a Chair who lives or works in the Search Area’ and that renumeration has now been reduced to a more modest annual honorarium of £10,000.
By contrast, in West Cumbria, both Community Partnership Chairs have always been local Councillors and worked solely for expenses rather than salary.
With the Theddlethorpe Community Partnership now moving to public meetings, the appointment of a new independent and impartial Chair at this time will be a welcome move, but it remains to be seen whether a local person is in fact appointed to the role or if the appointee will ‘act independently and not represent either themselves or any organisation of which they are a member’.
The advert also states that the Independent Chair must ensure ‘the work of the Partnership is fair, unbiased and reflects the needs of the community’. This must pose the appointee with a dilemma for clearly the local community does not share the belief of Nuclear Waste Services that the GDF represents the ‘biggest environmental protection project of our lifetime’.
By contrast, in West Cumbria, both Community Partnership Chairs have always been local Councillors and worked solely for expenses rather than salary.
With the Theddlethorpe Community Partnership now moving to public meetings, the appointment of a new independent and impartial Chair at this time will be a welcome move, but it remains to be seen whether a local person is in fact appointed to the role or if the appointee will ‘act independently and not represent either themselves or any organisation of which they are a member’.
The advert also states that the Independent Chair must ensure ‘the work of the Partnership is fair, unbiased and reflects the needs of the community’. This must pose the appointee with a dilemma for clearly the local community does not share the belief of Nuclear Waste Services that the GDF represents the ‘biggest environmental protection project of our lifetime’.
The last thing that Scotland needs is new nuclear power, small or otherwise
Pete Roche, Edinburgh,
The last thing that Scotland needs is new nuclear power, small or otherwise. (Scotsman Editorial 16th May 2024). It is perfectly feasible to supply 100 per cent of Scotland’s energy (not just electricity) from renewable sources. In fact, a recent study [1] by renowned energy modelling academics at the LUT University in Finland, showed that not only is a 100 per cent renewable energy mix feasible for the whole UK but it would save well over £100 billion in achieving net zero by 2050, compared to the UK Government’s current strategy.
It’s true that renewable energy output is variable, and there are times when wind and solar are producing almost nothing. But there are also times when they produce too much power, and we have to pay wind to turn off. The UK could waste more than £3.5bn per year by 2030 this way.[2] The answer is flexibility, not “always on” nuclear power stations which will just end up wasting more power when renewables are plentiful.
Firstly, we need to: reduce overall demand (helping tackle fuel poverty in the process); introduce more flexibility with new smart technologies (for instance making use of demand-response aggregators like Edinburgh-based company Flexitricity), and vehicle to grid technology; build more energy storage – not just batteries, but pumped hydro storage (with several schemes in Scotland awaiting approval), gravity storage (developed in Edinburgh), compressed air storage; and thermal storage (developed in East Lothian).
These are just some of the ways we can make better use of the renewable resources we already have. Nuclear power is too slow and too inflexible and too expensive to play a role in cutting carbon emissions.
UK government planning nuclear site in Scotland – Jack
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9eze1dzy5no 15 May 24
The UK government is planning to build a new nuclear reactor in Scotland despite opposition from Holyrood, according to Scottish Secretary Alister Jack.
He told a House of Lords committee he had asked the UK energy minister to plan for such a site as part of a UK-wide strategy.
The Conservative minister also called for the Lords to be allowed to scrutinise Scottish laws.
The Scottish government has rejected calls to end an effective ban on new nuclear power stations.
The UK government has committed to developing larger-scale nuclear plants south of the border, as well as developing a new generation of smaller reactors.
Its ambitions for up to a quarter of all electricity to come from nuclear power by 2050 are being led by government-backed body Great British Nuclear body.
Mr Jack told the Lords committee: “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.”
The Scottish secretary added that he did not “see any point in having a great fight over it” given the “timescales in front of us” – a likely reference to the upcoming general election.
Scotland’s last nuclear power plant – at Torness in East Lothian – is scheduled to be shut down by 2028.
Although energy policy is largely set at Westminster, the Scottish government is able to block projects it opposes as planning powers are devolved.
‘Patronising’
The Scottish Secretary went on to suggest a “grand committee” of the House of Lords should be allowed to scrutinise Holyrood legislation.
“Devolution is not a bad thing,” he told the committee. “Where it has failed is bad governance.”
Mr Jack said the Scottish Parliament’s committee structure was “not right” and that the “knowledge and wisdom” of the House of Lords could be used to help review Scottish laws.
SNP MP Tommy Sheppard said the Tory minister was “undermining and patronising our democratically-elected government”.
He added: “His comments and the decision to ignore the Scottish government on building new nuclear reactors in Scotland show exactly how this Westminster government sees Scotland and its people – a nation that should get in line and know its place.
“Scotland doesn’t need expensive nuclear power – we already have abundant natural energy resources, we just need full powers over energy so Scotland can take full advantage of the green energy gold rush.”
China urges US, UK and Australia to stop AUKUS nuclear submarine deal: FM spokesperson
By Global Times May 15, 2024 https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202405/1312342.shtml
China will continue to utilize platforms such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), review process to thoroughly discuss the political, legal, and technical issues related to the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal, a spokesperson from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Wednesday. Until the international community reaches a clear conclusion, the US, UK, and Australia should halt the advancement of the initiative, the spokesperson noted.
The remarks were made by Wang Wenbin, spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, when asked to comment on a workshop titled “AUKUS: A Case Study about the Development of IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards” organized by the Permanent Mission of China in Vienna recently.
On May 10th, the Permanent Mission of China in Vienna hosted a seminar on AUKUS. Representatives from nearly 50 countries’ permanent missions in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretariat, and experts think tanks from both China and other countries attended the meeting, with over 100 participants in total, said Wang, noting that the participants engaged in lively discussions on the supervision and security of AUKUS, highlighting the widespread attention and concern of the international community on this issue.
The AUKUS nuclear submarine deal undermines efforts to maintain regional peace and security. US, UK and Australia are forming a trilateral security partnership, advancing cooperation on nuclear submarines and other cutting-edge military technologies, stimulating an arms race, undermining the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, stirring up blocs, and opposing and disrupting regional peace and stability, Wang said.
The spokesperson said China and other relevant countries in the region have repeatedly expressed serious concerns and strong opposition.
Wang stated that AUKUS also triggered widespread concern about nuclear proliferation internationally. It involves the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology and a large volume of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, which the existing safeguards and supervision system of the IAEA cannot effectively implement.
There is a significant controversy in the international community over the interpretation and application of relevant safeguards and monitoring clauses. If the three countries insist on advancing cooperation on nuclear submarines, it will create a huge risk of nuclear proliferation and have far-reaching negative impacts on the resolution of nuclear hotspots in other regions, said Wang.
Wang said China has called on the international community to take seriously the impact of AUKUS on the authority and effectiveness of NPT, as well as the deal’s negative effects on the institutional safeguards and oversight mechanisms. China will continue to utilize platforms such as the IAEA and the NPT review process to thoroughly discuss the political, legal, and technical issues related to the trilateral nuclear submarine cooperation. Until the international community reaches a clear conclusion, the US, UK, and Australia should halt the advancement of their nuclear submarine cooperation.
Nuclear power station risks hitting taxpayers with £20bn bill
Plans for a power station at Wylfa could be derailed by government rules
Telegraph, Matt Oliver, INDUSTRY EDITOR, 13 May 2024
Plans for a large nuclear power station on the Welsh island of Anglesey risk being derailed by government rules that will add an estimated £20bn to the national debt, insiders have warned.
Efforts to develop a gigawatt-scale scheme at Wylfa are on the agenda this week as Andrew Bowie, the minister for energy security, meets representatives from the South Korean state nuclear company Kepco.
The company is among several thought to be in the running to build a plant at Wylfa, with a consortium that includes US nuclear giant Westinghouse also putting forward proposals.
But one senior industry source warned there were concerns about the willingness of ministers to sign off on such a large project ahead of the general election, with the next government expected to be saddled with challenging budgetary constraints.
They blamed accounting rules which will force the British state to add the project’s full cost to the national debt, even if it only holds a minority stake in the scheme.
This is owing to the Government’s position as the ultimate guarantor if the project goes wrong.
There are fears it could put ministers off from backing a scheme at the Wylfa site, which has just been reacquired by the Government.
No decisions about the potential project have been taken yet but the scheme’s budget is widely expected to be in the region of £20bn. Britain’s debt pile is currently 98.3pc of GDP, or almost £2.7 trillion, as high interest rates push up the cost of Government borrowing.
The industry source said: “The main barrier right now is that if you build gigawatt-scale units, you have to put them on the Government balance sheet.
“Whoever is in power after the next election is going to have to grapple with that balance sheet – and are they really going to do this?
“It is something that is being looked at now.”………………….. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/13/anglesey-nuclear-plant-risks-saddling-taxpayers-with-bill/
Dominic Cummings: Zelensky’s no Churchill and Ukraine’s corrupt
Former Brexit campaign chief says the West is ‘getting f**ked’ by supporting Ukraine.
BY NOAH KEATE, MAY 9, 2024 https://www.politico.eu/article/dominic-cummings-volodymyr-zelenskyy-ukraine-war-corruption/
LONDON — Boris Johnson’s former top adviser Dominic Cummings launched a sweary attack on Western support for Ukraine Thursday.
In an interview with the i newspaper, Cummings — who led Britain’s Vote Leave Brexit campaign and spectacularly fell out with Johnson in 2020 — declared that the West “should have never got into the whole stupid situation” and claimed sanctions against Russia have had a greater impact on European politics than in Moscow.
The former adviser was scathing of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and comparisons with World War II.
“This is not a replay of 1940 with Zelenskyy as the Churchillian underdog,” he said.
“This whole Ukrainian corrupt mafia state has basically conned us all and we’re all going to get f**ked as a consequence. We are getting f**ked now right?”
In a follow-up tweet, Cummings later branded Zelenskyy a “potemkin” leader — but denied he’d called him a “pumpkin” as originally quoted in the interview.
He argued that war would only strengthen the relationship between Russia and China, saying Western nations “pushed [Russia] into an alliance with the world’s biggest manufacturing power.”
Cummings has long been critical of support for Ukraine, a stance that puts him sharply at odds with his old boss Johnson, a vocal supporter of Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s war effort.
He told the paper the West had failed to send Russian President Vladimir Putin a worthwhile signal which would deter him from invading another country.
“What lesson have we taught him? The lesson we’ve taught Putin is that we’re a bunch of total f**king jokers,” Cummings asserted, saying the war had “broadcast it to the entire world what a bunch of clowns we are.”
It comes as the former Vote Leave Brexit campaign chief tests the water for a new political party to replace the Tories.
POLITICO reported on Thursday that Cummings has organized a series of focus groups to get the public’s views about a new anti-establishment outfit.
Cummings told the i his “Start Up Party” would be “ruthlessly focused on the voters not on Westminster and the old media.”
Amidst genocide and war, anti-Zionism protesters are demonised as ‘extremists’
Independent Australia, By Martin Hirst | 13 May 2024
As human rights experts warn of an ongoing genocide in Gaza, any opposition to Zionism is being egregiously labelled as extremism, Dr Martin Hirst writes.
STUDENT PROTESTERS around the world are being demonised by politicians, bureaucrats and the news media for taking a stand against genocide.
This is just an updated version of the moral panic playbook that conservatives use to demonise young people who don’t toe the establishment line.
In the last six weeks, student protests have exploded around the world on a scale not seen since the Vietnam Moratorium almost 60 years ago. These students are protesting against what human rights experts are not hesitating to call a genocide in Gaza.
This reporter knows some of the Australian leaders of these protests quite well, organising politically with them as a long-term member of Left-wing group Socialist Alternative and a writer for its newspaper, Red Flag.
We know that none of these outstanding young activists are antisemitic. We know they are better educated about Palestine from a contemporary and historical perspective than our Prime Minister and most politicians…………………………………………………
We know that these young people are on the right side of history.
We also know that attempts by political leaders, intelligence agencies, Zionist hacks, the police and some university administrators to brand these brave students as violent, dangerous and antisemitic is a bald lie.
It is the lie itself that is dangerous because it actually emboldens Zionist thugs to launch ever-more violent attacks on student encampments, causing injury and mayhem.
It is also dangerous because it is a serious attempt – carried out with planning and intent – to criminalise anti-genocide activists and to criminalise their right to political speech.
What is happening in Australia, across Europe and in the United States is the creation of a state of emergency based on these dangerous lies. Right in front of our eyes, pro-Israel elements of the ruling class are establishing the conditions for a new wave of moral panic.
Students are being demonised as the 21st-Century version of the “folk devil“. The protests are being compared to 1930s Germany – which most people who make this comparison know absolutely fuck-all about – and they are being used to launch a McCarthyite witch hunt against students and academics who stand up for Palestine.
There’s nothing new about moral panics — the phrase was coined by British sociologist Stanley Cohen in the 1970s to describe the clamour for the state to take action against “Mods” and “Rockers” — two rival youth subcultures that enjoyed different types of music.
Interestingly, the Pogroms against Jews that swept Europe in the 1920s were a form of moral panic…………………………………………………………………………………………………
A moral panic only works when those in power – who feel threatened by resistance from below – can enlist loyal handmaidens in the media to prosecute their case and amplify their fear-mongering. Now, these tactics of intimidation are aimed at silencing dissent and any vocal opposition to the Israeli slaughter in Gaza.
Make no mistake, it is happening. Take it seriously because the Zionists and the political establishment are taking it seriously……………………………………………………
Failed Liberal Minister Josh Frydenberg helped to produce a “documentary” helpfully explaining to Sky News audiences how Australia is sliding into Nazi-era pogroms because of the threat to civil order posed by the student encampments and the wider anti-genocide movement.
In the last week alone, there has been a slew of opinion columns and news pieces in The Australian slandering student encampments while ignoring the attacks mounted on them by Zionist thugs.
Andrew Bolt and the usual list of suspects are apoplectic with rage that university administrators haven’t (yet) moved to shut down the protests.
However, the universities are beginning to move. The administration at Monash University in Melbourne is demanding students remove ‘Zionists not welcome’ signs from around their encampment because of some spurious “legal advice” that it is vilification.
Police have been allowed to install surveillance cameras overlooking the Monash encampment. Vice Chancellors from the Group of Eight — Australia’s richest universities — have asked Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to advise them if the slogans used in the encampments are “hate speech”.
This is particularly egregious because Dreyfus himself is a Zionist. Dreyfus declined to provide legal advice but urged people who feel offended to lodge complaints under Section 18a of the Racial Discrimination Act. …………………………………………………..
It is too early to tell where all of this will end, but we can confidently predict that the Labor Party will support Sarah Henderson’s call for a Senate inquiry.
Anthony Albanese is fuelling the moral panic with apparent joy. He is reported to have told a room full of senior Zionist elders and student leaders that he believes the campus protests are led by outside agitators.
Helpfully, he was able to name them too. It’s all “the Trots‘ fault”.
This is deeply ironic for two reasons:
Russian revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky was a Jew and when he fell foul of the Stalinist regime, his Jewish heritage was used against him to launch a moral panic that even spread to Australia and poisoned the minds of many good Communist Party members, including the artist Noel Counihan who famously called Trotsky a “fascist gangster”.
Albanese has also been demonised as a Trotskyist by Murdoch hacks and (former Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop) “Kerosene Bronny“…………….. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/amidst-genocide-and-war-anti-zionism-protesters-are-demonised-as-extremists,18594
US bans China crypto-miner from nuclear base area
Yahoo! News, João da Silva – Business reporter, Tue, 14 May 2024
US President Joe Biden has ordered a Chinese-owned cryptocurrency miner and its partners to sell land they own near a US nuclear missile base, citing spying concerns.
MineOne Partners, which the White House says is majority-owned by Chinese citizens, has been given 120 days to sell the property, where it runs a crypto-mining operation.
The land is less than a mile (1.6km) away from an air force base in Wyoming, where intercontinental ballistic missiles are stored.
BBC News has contacted MineOne Partners and China’s embassy in the US for comment.
“The proximity of the foreign-owned Real Estate to a strategic missile base… and the presence of specialised and foreign-sourced equipment potentially capable of facilitating surveillance and espionage activities, presents a national security risk”, the White House said in a statement.
Francis E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming is home to Minuteman III nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles.
MineOne bought the land close to the military base in 2022 and later installed cryptocurrency mining equipment.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS), a powerful body that scrutinises deals for national security security threats, was not notified about the purchase by the company, the White House said………………………………….. https://au.news.yahoo.com/us-bans-china-crypto-miner-011028473.html
Ontario’s nuclear option is the wrong path to meet green energy targets
The province should focus on cost-efficient wind, solar and hydro expansion, as well as increased interprovincial transmission.
by Quinn Goranson May 13, 2024, https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2024/ontario-nuclear-option/
Ontario is failing in its strategy to reduce emissions to meet the province’s climate commitment of reducing emissions by 2030 to 30 per cent below 2005 levels (which is already 10 to 15 per cent below the current federal target).
The province’s auditor general released a report in 2021 stating the Ford government’s policies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were already falling short by 14.2 megatons.
Fast-forward three years and the situation is likely to get worse.
Plans to meet the province’s possible 1.7-per-cent annual increase in electricity demand include the addition of natural gas-powered turbines, refurbishing old nuclear reactors and developing small modular reactors (SMRs).
This presents a dual problem. First, burning natural gas produces CO2, so expanding capacity using new gas turbines will increase emissions. Second, nuclear power generation cannot successfully help meet 2030 targets
Ontario’s nuclear hopes out of step with reality
SMRs are a class of nuclear reactor, built in a factory and shipped to a site, designed to generate up to 300 megawatts (MW) of electrical power per unit. By comparison, larger conventional reactors in Ontario have a capacity of roughly 900 MW.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) states it is “leading the way in the advancement of SMR technology in Canada” and that SMRs are “the future of nuclear power generation.”
This position collides head-on with technological realities.
SMRs are a futuristic technology at best. The only operational SMRs anywhere in the world are in Northeast Russia and in Shidao Bay, China.
Both reactors faced construction delays, primarily due to cost overruns and poor economics., The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has yet to fully approve a single SMR licence.
SMRs cannot be built in time to help meet Ontario’s 2030 emission targets. Worse, by betting on them, OPG has committed to making Ontario’s electricity grid dirtier.
Nuclear power a costly option
In addition to being largely unproven, SMRs will not be cheap. While their absolute cost may be lower than conventional nuclear reactors, their lower electricity output means they become significantly more expensive per megawatt to operate.
Beyond the fact that every single new nuclear project in Ontario’s history has gone over budget, gas and nuclear energy now contribute the most to increasing energy bills for Ontario residents.
A 2018 report from the Canadian SMR roadmap steering committee, a group of provincial and territorial governments and power utilities, estimated the baseline cost of electricity from SMRs would be 16.3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). Comparatively, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency renewable alternatives are less expensive:
- Onshore wind electricity costs consumers an average of 4.5 cents per kWh;
- Offshore wind costs an average of 10 cents/kWh;
- Solar PV farms cost an average of 6.6 cents/kWh;
- Hydropower costs an average of 5 cents/kWh.
In North America, the only SMR design certified by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission was cancelled due to “lack of interest” once rising costs deterred potential customers. Originally announced in 2015 at the equivalent of $4.1 billion Cdn, estimates rose to $5.6 billion (2018), then $8.4 billion (2020) and finally $12.7 billion (2023).
Time keeps on ticking
New nuclear projects are taking on average of 10 to 15 years to become operational. Ontario’s first SMR designated for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station is planned for 2028.
Meanwhile, the Ontario government says additional SMRs could come online between 2034 and 2036. In reality, nuclear projects typically exceed time estimates by 64 per cent and given a strong trend of delays for such projects globally, new SMRs are unlikely to come online before 2042, if ever.
So, in addition to the speculative viability of SMRs, likely delays even under the best of circumstances mean this technology is unable to help meet Ontario’s emissions reduction targets.
Radioactive waste another key factor
The “green” label often applied to nuclear energy should be viewed with scepticism. While no fossil fuel is burned to generate nuclear power, the industry produces radioactive waste and is not “renewable.”
In fact, there is evidence to suggest SMRs will produce a greater volume of radioactive waste per unit of electricity generated than existing large reactors.
Radioactive waste remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years and there are no demonstrated solutions to managing this risk. According to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which is owned by Canada’s nuclear power companies, radioactive nuclear waste must be fully isolated from people and the environment for one million years or more.
Committing to new nuclear projects in Ontario as a climate solution is essentially trading one intergenerational threat for another.
The green path toward Ontario’s emissions targets
A report from the David Suzuki Foundation in 2022 found that “reliable, affordable, 100 per cent emissions-free electricity in Canada by 2035 is entirely possible.”
In 2020, the International Energy Agency declared wind and solar the “cheapest sources of new electricity in history.”
In 2018, Ontario cancelled 758 signed contracts for smaller renewable energy projects, many of them in Indigenous communities Only recently, the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has announced it seeks to procure 5,000 MW of new non-emitting (wind, solar, hydropower or bioenergy) energy.
Utility-scale solar costs plummeted by 90 per cent between 2009-21. Wind energy costs declined 72 per cent. This presents an important opportunity given Ontario’s more than 1,500 kilometres of Great Lakes shoreline and abundant sunshine.
The already low cost of hydropower in Ontario through existing infrastructure, combined with the potential for integration with Hydro-Québec, can help Ontario convert its “intermittent wind and solar energy into a firm 24/7 source of baseload electricity,” according to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.
Likewise, offshore wind-generating potential in Atlantic Canada far exceeds energy needs in the region and could be exported to Ontario via existing mainstream high-voltage direct-current transmission lines.
By cancelling SMR development and focusing on cost-efficient wind, solar and hydro expansion, as well as increased interprovincial transmission, Ontario can reclaim leadership when it comes to green energy development now and for future generations.
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (313)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
