nuclear-news

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

Boukadoum: Algeria to ratify Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons “as soon as possible”

Boukadoum: Algeria to ratify Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons “as soon as possible”  http://www.aps.dz/en/algeria/36012-boukadoum-algeria-to-ratify-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons-as-soon-as-possible

 05 October 2020  ALGIERS/NEW YORK (United Nations) – Foreign Minister Sabri Boukadoum reaffirmed Sunday during his participation in the works of the UN GA high-level meeting marking the celebration of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, Algeria’s determination to ratify “as soon as possible” the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

October 6, 2020 Posted by | AFRICA, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Pacific Island Nations determined to say NO to nuclear weapons, and support UN Treaty Ban

October 6, 2020 Posted by | OCEANIA, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

China-Saudi nuclear pact can trigger an arms race in West Asia

October 6, 2020 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The American election- what will the nuclear order look like after this?

image from MENAFN.COM

THE U.S. ELECTION AND NUCLEAR ORDER IN THE POST-PANDEMIC WORLD  Limitless Life,    LEON V. SIGAL, SEPTEMBER 29 2020Abstract

U.S. power and prestige may have diminished in recent years, but the United States still plays a pivotal role in international institutions, alliances, and mass media, so who becomes its president and which party controls Congress matter a lot for the global nuclear order. However unlikely it is that Donald Trump’s expressed desire to contest the election’s outcome could succeed,  whether the nation can avert a violent backlash among disappointed partisans is less clear.

Nuclear weapons are often thought to be the esoteric domain of experts. Yet one need only recall that although mass activism does not guarantee policy change, three of the most significant developments in recent decades – the ban on above-ground nuclear tests, the INF
Treaty, and the collapse of the Berlin Wall – would not have happened without mass protests in many countries. And citizen involvement, organized by NGOs, can even facilitate monitoring of arms agreements and nuclear developments in some countries.

The public’s understandable preoccupation with COVID-19, economic distress, racial animus, and climate change leave scant scope for paying heed to nuclear risks, which makes mobilization of a mass anti-nuclear movement unlikely. Absent popular action, however,
positive change to the global nuclear order will continue to be marginal and fitful. This makes the international milieu critical for the nuclear future – a milieu that a president can influence but not determine.
President Trump’s reelection is likely to have a pernicious effect on that milieu, hindering international cooperation to limit nuclear weapons and accelerating a qualitative arms race that could endanger crisis stability. Yet two of Trump’s more positive impulses are likely to continue. He is unlikely to increase the risk of an intense crisis leading to nuclear war because he wants to avoid U.S. involvement in any wars, not start new ones. He will also try to sustain negotiations
with North Korea to curb nuclear developments there, though whether he is prepared to satisfy Pyongyang’s stiffer demands remains in doubt.His opponent, Joseph Biden, will face those same demands. Personnel is policy, and the Biden administration will likely be staffed with officials who served under President Obama. That means a return to shoring up alliances and international cooperation. It also means continuity with Obama’s nuclear policies. Whether he will curtail Obama’s modernization plans is not clear, but in contrast to Trump, he will try his best to restore the JCPOA, which could head off nuclear weapons development not only in Iran but also in Saudi Arabia. He will also strive to save START, seek technical talks with China, and not abandon the Open Skies accord……….. https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/2663585/posts/2938659215

October 1, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Armenian Ambassador on Azerbaijani threats of missile strike against Metsamor Nuclear Power Plan

Armenian Ambassador on Azerbaijani threats of missile strike against Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant Public Radio of Armenia,  Siranush Ghazanchyan   August 3, 2020,   Armenia has undertaken a number of measures to raise awareness about Azerbaijan’s threat to strike the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant, Armen Papikyan, Armenia’s ambassador to the IAEA, said in an interview with Energy Intelligence.

“Given that the Azerbaijani leadership has no qualms about targeting civilian installations, we took the threat extremely seriously,” he said.

On Jul. 16, amid renewed fighting on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, the spokesperson for the Azerbaijan defense ministry threatened a missile strike against Armenia’s Metsamor nuclear power plant (NIW Jul.17’20). This threat reverberated in Vienna, where Armenia’s mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a “Note Verbale” to the agency’s director general (DG) on Jul. 17, noting taht such threats “are an explicit demonstration of state terrorism and genocidal intent of Azerbaijan.” Baku soon responded……….. https://en.armradio.am/2020/08/03/armenian-ambassador-on-azerbaijani-threats-of-missile-strike-against-metsamor-nuclear-power-plant/

October 1, 2020 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

The Trump administration’s stances on nuclear negotiations don’t even make sense as a starting point.

October 1, 2020 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA threatens putting more weapons on bombers and submarines if Russia doesn’t agree to USA conditions for arms talks

October 1, 2020 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Near to flaspoint – disputes between India, Pakistan,China

October 1, 2020 Posted by | China, India, Pakistan, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UN nuclear watchdog inspects second Iran site

October 1, 2020 Posted by | Iran, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA provocation of China, Iran, Russia.

September 29, 2020 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Reverse course’ towards full nuclear disarmament – UN chief

September 29, 2020 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump might abandon NEW START arms treaty, U.S. allies fear

U.S. Allies Worry Trump Administration Might Let Key Nuclear Treaty With Russia Die  

Internal documents acknowledge concern among allies about the expiration of the Obama-era New START accord, but U.S. negotiators are still playing hardball. Foreign Policy,  BY JACK DETSCHROBBIE GRAMER    SEPTEMBER 24, 2020, S. ALLIES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THE LOOMING EXPIRATION OF THE OBAMA-ERA NEW START ARMS CONTROL TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA, ACCORDING TO AN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION REPORT OBTAINED BY FOREIGN POLICY. MEANWHILE, FORMER OFFICIALS AND ARMS CONTROL EXPERTS WORRY THE ADMINISTRATION MAY BE SEEKING TO SLOW-WALK THE ACCORD TO DEATH BY MAKING IMPOSSIBLE DEMANDS OF RUSSIA JUST MONTHS BEFORE THE TREATY IS SLATED TO END.

The Trump administration faces a tight deadline to renew the 2010 New START Treaty, which slaps limits on the number of strategic launchers, such as intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers that both nations can deploy. Unless both sides reach an agreement on an extension, it will end in February 2021, leaving no meaningful treaty to stave off the threat of an arms race. Top U.S. arms negotiator Marshall Billingslea appears to have temporarily set aside one condition already broadly dismissed as a nonstarter—adding China to the bilateral accord.

Still, he has insisted Beijing will have to be part of any agreement that would replace New START. “The next treaty will have to be multilateral, it will have to include China, and the framework that we are articulating together as two great powers, us and the Russians, will be the framework going forward that China will be expected to join,” Billingslea told reporters in a briefing last month.

In the meantime, U.S. officials have added other conditions: predicating a short-term extension of New START on expanded restrictions on Russia’s growing arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons.

So far, Russia hasn’t shown any inclination to go along with such preconditions for negotiating an extension of the treaty. As the clock winds down, U.S. allies in Europe and arms control experts fear New START might not be renewed.

In an internal State Department report for Congress, the Trump administration acknowledged that the United States’ closest allies are hoping to constrain Russia’s and China’s weapons programs. But the report also notes that allies are growing unnerved by the prospect of talks falling apart as Washington is distracted by a contested presidential election. ……..

Though Billingslea has tried to push the Russians to accept more weapons inspections, there is concern among experts that the United States would also lose vital intelligence into Russian nuclear modernization if the deal lapses. …….  https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/24/trump-putin-russia-new-start-nuclear-arms-control-u-s-allies-worry-trump-administration-might-let-key-nuclear-treaty-with-russia-die/

 

September 28, 2020 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Media avoids covering the Assange extradition – despite it being the media “trial of the century”

Julian Assange: Press Shows Little Interest in Media ‘Trial of Century’  https://fair.org/home/julian-assange-press-shows-little-interest-in-media-trial-of-century/, ALAN MACLEOD   25 Sept 20,

Labeled the media “trial of the century,” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition hearing is currently taking place in London—although you might not have heard if you’re relying solely on corporate media for news. If extradited, Assange faces 175 years in a Colorado supermax prison, often described as a “black site” on US soil.

The United States government is asking Britain to send the Australian publisher to the US to face charges under the 1917 Espionage Act.  He is accused of aiding and encouraging Chelsea Manning to hack a US government computer in order to publish hundreds of thousands of documents detailing American war crimes, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The extradition, widely viewed as politically motivated, has profound consequences for journalists worldwide, as the ruling could effectively criminalize the possession of leaked documents, which are an indispensable part of investigative reporting.

WikiLeaks has entered into partnership with five high-profile outlets around the world: the New York TimesGuardian (UK), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain). Yet those publications have provided relatively little coverage of the hearing.

Since the hearing began on September 7, the Times, for instance, has published only two bland news articles (9/7/209/16/20)—one of them purely about the technical difficulties in the courtroom—along with a short rehosted AP video (9/7/20). There have been no editorials and no commentary on what the case means for journalism. The Times also appears to be distancing itself from Assange, with neither article noting that it was one of WikiLeaks’ five major partners in leaking information that became known as the CableGate scandal.

The Guardian, whose headquarters are less than two miles from the Old Bailey courthouse where Assange’s hearing is being held, fared slightly better in terms of quantity, publishing eight articles since September 7.However, perhaps the most notable content came from columnist Hadley Freedman (9/9/20).

When asked in an advice article: “We live in a time of so much insecurity. But is there anything we can expect from this increasingly ominous-looking winter with any certainty?” she went on a bizarre tangential rant ridiculing the idea that Assange’s trial could possibly be “politicized,” also crassly brushing off the idea that his young children would never see their father again, and never answering anything like the question she was asked. Holding people to account “for a mess they could have avoided,” she notes, “is not ‘weaponizing’ anything — it is just asking them to do their jobs properly.” She also claimed that believing Assange’s trial was politicized was as ridiculous as thinking antisemitism claims were cynically weaponized against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, which, she meant to suggest, was a preposterous idea. This was not an off-the-cuff remark transcribed and published, but a written piece that somehow made it past at least one editor.

Like the Times, the Guardian appeared to be hoping to let people forget the fact it built its worldwide brand off its partnership with WikiLeaks; it was only mentioned in a forthright op-ed by former Brazilian president Lula da Silva (9/21/20), an outlier piece.

The Guardian should be taking a particularly keen role in the affair, seeing that two of its journalists are alleged by WikiLeaks to have recklessly and knowingly disclosed the password to an encrypted file containing a quarter-million unredacted WikiLeaks documents, allowing anyone—including every security agency in the world—to see an unredacted iteration of the leak. In 2018, the Guardian also falsely reported that Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort had conducted a meeting with Assange and unnamed “Russians” at the Ecuadorian embassy (FAIR.org12/3/18). And, as former employee Jonathan Cook noted, the newspaper is continually being cited by the prosecution inside the courtroom.

There were only two articles in the English or French versions of Le Monde (9/7/209/18/20) and only one in either of Der Spiegel’s English or German websites (9/7/20), although the German paper did at least acknowledge its own partnership with Assange. There was no coverage of the hearings in El País, in English or Spanish, though there was a piece (9/10/20) about the US government thwarting a Spanish investigation into the CIA spying on Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London—accompanied by a photo of a protester against his extradition.

The rest of corporate media showed as little interest in covering a defining moment in press freedom. There was nothing at all from CNNCBS’s two articles (9/7/209/22/20) were copied and pasted from news agencies AP and AFP, respectively. Meanwhile, the entire sum of MSNBC’s coverage amounted to one unclear sentence in a mini news roundup article (9/18/20).

Virtually every relevant human rights and press freedom organization is sounding the alarm about the incendiary precedent this case sets for the media. The Columbia Journalism Review (4/18/19), Human Rights Watch and the Electronic Frontier Foundation note that the government includes in its indictment regular journalistic procedures, such as protecting sources’ names and using encrypted files—meaning that this “hacking” charge could easily be extended to other journalists. Trevor Timm, founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told the court this week that if the US prosecutes Assange, every journalist who has possessed a secret file can be criminalized. Thus, it essentially gives a carte blanche to those in power to prosecute whomever they want, whenever they want, even foreigners living halfway around the world.

The United Nations has condemned his persecution, with Amnesty International describing the case as a “full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression.” Virtually every story of national significance includes secret or leaked material; they could all be in jeopardy under this new prosecutorial theory.

President Donald Trump has continually fanned the flames, demonizing the media as the “enemy of the people.” Already 26% of the country (including 43% of Republicans) believe the president should have the power to shut down outlets engaging in “bad behavior.” A successful Assange prosecution could be the legal spark for future anti-journalistic actions.

Yet the case has been met with indifference from the corporate press. Even as their house is burning down, media are insisting it is just the Northern Lights.

September 26, 2020 Posted by | media, politics international, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | 1 Comment

Essential points from the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report

Three takeaways from the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, https://thebulletin.org/2020/09/three-takeaways-from-the-2020-world-nuclear-industry-status-report/

John Krzyzaniak   The size of the global nuclear fleet has been stagnant for 30 years, and last year was no different. According to the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, released Thursday, there were 408 nuclear reactors online across the world as of July 1, 2020—a decline of nine units since the middle of last year and roughly on par with the number of reactors in operation in 1988.

The bulky 361-page industry report was compiled by an international team of independent experts led by Mycle Schneider, a consultant based in Paris. Over the last 15 years, it has become well-known for offering accurate but often sobering assessments of the state of nuclear energy across the globe. Last year, Schneider pointedly asserted that “the world is experiencing an undeclared ‘organic’ nuclear phaseout.”

Although the 2020 report is overflowing with data, several key trends stand out.

First, although the raw number of worldwide reactors is well below its all-time high of 438, their actual combined electricity generation came close to setting a record. As a whole, they generated 2,657 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2019, only three terawatt-hours below the historic peak in 2006. The United States, Russia, and China all hit individual country records for total electricity production from nuclear energy. Nevertheless, nuclear energy’s share of the energy market is in long-term decline, as other forms of energy witness rapid expansion.

Second, China continues to be the main driver of new nuclear energy, but over the long term its intentions are uncertain. The number of new projects there appears to be slowing. Whereas two years ago there were 20 units under construction, today there are only 15. Moreover, China missed its nuclear energy goals for 2020 by a sizeable margin: It planned to have 58 gigawatts of installed nuclear capacity and 30 more gigawatts under construction, but it currently has about 45 gigawatts capacity online and only 14 more under construction.

Third, reactor construction delays and cost overruns continue to plague the nuclear industry and, notably, early indications suggest that small modular reactors may be no exception.

For 63 reactors that came online worldwide between 2010 and 2019, the mean construction time was 10 years. Tennessee’s Watts Bar Unit 2, which took more than 43 years from construction start to grid connection, was the only reactor completed in the United States during that time period. But even in China, where average construction times were among the lowest, delays were widespread, and in many cases the real construction times were double the initial expectations.

While small modular reactors exist mostly on paper, there are many companies hoping to change that, promising units that are safer, cheaper, and faster to build. Last month, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a small modular reactor design submitted by a company called NuScale Power. Though several hurdles remain, NuScale plans to build its first reactor at the site of the Idaho National Laboratory and supply power to Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems as early as 2029.

But other countries’ recent experiences, detailed in the report, point to the difficulties ahead. Russia brought two small reactors online in 2019, but these took over 12 years to build, and at a cost about six times as much as the original estimates. These are the famed floating reactors of the Akademik-Lomonosov—they’re literally installed on a large ship, and that complication almost certainly contributed to the delays and high costs.

But there are more comparable examples for NuScale. The CAREM-25, a 25-megawatt prototype small modular reactor in Argentina, was supposed to receive its first fuel load in 2017 but is at least three years behind schedule. Similarly, China’s High Temperature Reactor project is running four years behind schedule and, while China originally planned to build 18 more of these smaller reactors, the report suggests its appetite may be sated after just one.

That means if countries want to wean themselves off of fossil fuels and stave off the worst effects of climate change, they may need to look elsewhere. And, the report suggests, they already are. The world added 184 gigawatts of non-hydro renewable capacity in 2019, a stark contrast to the 8-gigawatt decline in nuclear capacity.

September 26, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international | Leave a comment

Power hungry Russia foisting nuclear power on Egypt – Africa – where it is not needed

September 24, 2020 Posted by | Egypt, politics international, Russia | Leave a comment