Without Extensive Narrative Manipulation, None Of This Would Be Consented To
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, MAR 20, 2024,
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that bombing Gaza into rubble is a reasonable response to a single Hamas attack.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that killing tens of thousands of Palestinians and starving hundreds of thousands more is a reasonable response to a thousand Israelis being killed.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that criticizing the actions of the state of Israel is antisemitic.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that saying “from the river to the sea” is a call for genocide.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone to think about this onslaught and the discourse around it in terms of “Jews vs Jew haters”.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that it was fine and normal to keep an unwanted ethnic group in a walled-in area whose resources are tightly controlled by those in power.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that TikTok is a massive problem that needs to be eliminated.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that Israel should be able to inflict violence and abuse upon the Palestinian population for generations without ever receiving any violence in return.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that Israel using the Israeli army to murder civilians in an Israeli military campaign is something that can be blamed on Hamas.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that it is fine and acceptable for the IDF to be targeting healthcare workers, journalists and scholars and destroying hospitals, universities and mosques.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that dozens of Israeli hostages are more important than the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are being starved and murdered.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that the US war machine should be bombing people in Yemen, Iraq and Syria to stop their retaliations for the destruction of Gaza.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that the governments who are backing a genocide are not personally responsible for it.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that the unfathomable suffering that is taking place in Gaza right now should not be at the forefront of our attention.
Without extensive narrative manipulation, it would never occur to anyone that the genocide in Gaza should be allowed to continue instead of being brought to an immediate end.
And that’s why we’ve been seeing such extensive narrative manipulation — from our news media, from our government officials, and from Israel apologists on social media.
It’s because without extensive narrative manipulation, none of this would be consented to.
Exposing myths about building French nuclear power
How French nuclear construction times and costs have been getting longer and longer – for a long time
DAVID TOKE, MAR 16, 2024, https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/exposing-myths-about-building-french
It has been standard in the UK to talk about the wonders of the French nuclear programme and how if only we copied them nuclear power would get cheaper and cheaper. The story has gone ‘If only we built a series of nuclear power plant like they did’. But it turns out that the idea that the French nuclear programme was ever getting any cheaper was a myth.
In the UK Government policy documents would use their own language to describe nuclear prospects. Special terms are used that are not usually used to discuss other energy developments. These include the acronym ‘FOAK’ which stands for ‘First of a Kind’. In other words the first plant will be relatively more expensive than the plants of the same model that followed them. Another term used of course is ‘overnight’ costs – that is a wonderful piece of euphemism given that nuclear power plants are anything but built overnight. Its use obscures the fact that very large interest costs mount up during the time that the plant is being constructed, costs which are not included in the total cost estimates. That is because the plant in the spreadsheet is being built overnight (?!).
But when we examine the actual ‘overnight’ costs of French nuclear power, as reported, they have always been increasing. Look at the analysis by Arnulf Grubler published in the journal Energy Policy in 2010: [graph on original]
Grubler’s analysis did not include the length of time taken to construct the latest French nuclear power plant at Flamanville. This is an EPR (the same design as is being built at Hinkley C and planned for Sizewell C. Construction of the Flamanville EPR began in 2007 but it has still not been completed. Hence the Figure below includes the time taken to build Flamanville up until now, with the proviso that the plant still has not been completed.
It should be understood that, broadly speaking, the cost of building reactors is proportionate to the amount of construction time. So the cost has gone up, and in recent years cost has been going up at a rapid rate,.
In my forthcoming book ‘Energy Revolutions – Profiteering versus Democracy’ I outliner four reasons for the increasing difficulties of building nuclear power plants:
‘First is the fact that nuclear power plant designers have incorporated safety features designed to minimise the consequences of nuclear accidents, but in doing so the plants have become much more complicated and difficult to build without great expense.
A second reason is that large construction projects of whatever type, at least in the West, tend to greatly overrun their budgets. In the West, improvements in health and safety regulations to protect construction workers have no doubt played a part in this.
A third factor is that, in the West at least, the cheap industrialised labour force that dominated the industrial economies of the past and which could be used to develop nuclear programmes (in the way that France did in the 1980s) has ceased to exist.
A fourth factor is simply that renewable energy technologies, especially wind and solar power, can be largely manufactured offsite in a modular fashion and their costs have rapidly fallen, leaving nuclear power increasingly uncompetitive.’ (page 30)
This book shows how we can move forward to an energy system powered by renewable energy rather than nuclear power or ‘carbon capture’ fossil fuels. It reveals how selective public ownership and targeted interventions, as part of an energy democracy programme will protect consumer interests better than the chaotic energy supply system that failed consumers so expensively in the recent energy crisis. We want no more of that!
Essentially, the idea of using nuclear power as a significant measure to engineer the global energy transition is at best a tremendous waste of resources. It is not just France that is seeing its nuclear power programme stall. It is a global phenomenon. Renewable energy is, by contrast, expanding at ever-incredible rates. As can be seen from the following graphs which is taken from my book ‘Energy Revolutions’. [on original]
IAEA director’s visit to Japan widely questioned, seeks to downplay nuclear water dumping
Global Times, By Xu Yelu and Xing Xiaojing Mar 15, 2024
Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said during his visit to Japan that he confirmed that the “treated water” in Fukushima fully meets international standards, and experts believe such remarks supporting the discharge have become a kind of “political security” reached between the Japanese government and the IAEA.
Grossi was in Japan visiting the site of the nuclear power plant for the first time since the water dumping began. He also attended a meeting in Fukushima where representatives of the government and fishing communities discussed the current situation, according to Kyodo News.
He supported Japan’s decision once again, saying, “Our corroboration and information and also independent sampling have confirmed the very low presence of tritium … In some cases even impossible to trace, which means that the process is working as we thought it will be. So in this regard, it is correct. We are satisfied.”
According to the Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa separately met with Grossi, confirming continued cooperation on the issue of the discharge. The Japanese side announced that they will provide approximately 18.5 million euros ($20 million) in assistance to the IAEA.
The Chinese Embassy in Japan responded on Thursday that the Japanese side’s forced implementation of discharging nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea has no precedent since the peaceful use of nuclear energy by humans, nor are there any recognized disposal standards. How can it be said to comply with so-called “international standards?”
The nuclear-contaminated wastewater generated by the Fukushima nuclear accident contains various radioactive nuclides present in the melted core, many of which do not have effective treatment technologies. Focusing solely on tritium clearly ignores this basic fact………………………….
The IAEA should uphold the principles of objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality, and should not endorse Japan’s erroneous actions of discharging nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea, nor should it disseminate one-sided information that misleads international public opinion, the embassy stressed.
………………”With the internal management chaos of Tokyo Electric Power Company and inadequate government supervision in Japan, in a situation where standards are unclear, boundaries are unclear, and data is not transparent, no one or organization can guarantee that the nuclear-contaminated wastewater being discharged into the ocean by Japan is safe,” Zhang said.
…………………………….the plan to discharge Fukushima’s contaminated water into the sea will last for 30 years. However, since the first round of discharge, it has been less than seven months, and the IAEA has expressed “satisfaction” with the discharge situation. Or, it can be said that this is a kind of “political security” reached between the Japanese government and the IAEA.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202403/1308918.shtml
There is no such thing as a “nuclear waste-eating” reactor
Contrary to popular belief, the French nuclear industry is by no means “triumphant”, “the best in the world” or “at the cutting edge of technology”: in fact, EDF (bankrupt), Areva (renamed Orano after filing for bankruptcy) and CEA (subsidized by public money) are constantly making fools of themselves and leaving the French with astronomical bills.
A magic reactor killed by environmentalists?
By Stéphane Lhomme by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/17/a-magic-reactor-killed-by-environmentalists/
On the contrary, a “nuclear waste-eating reactor” does not exist
Appearing as a guest on several TV channels (BFM, Cnews, etc.), a certain Fabien Bouglé managed to fool both viewers and journalists (most of whom are totally ignorant about nuclear power) with a series of fibs, each more enormous than the last. Here are a few clarifications.
There is no such thing as a “nuclear waste-eating” reactor
The smooth-talking Bouglé left his ignorant interlocutors stunned and bewildered as he talked about “waste-eating” reactors that would have already solved the radioactive waste issue if an infamous green lobby, “betraying France to Germany” (sic!), hadn’t “prevented” the advent of such reactors.
So, like throwing a log on the fire, all you have to do is put the radioactive waste produced by today’s power plants into a “magic” reactor, and the waste will disappear.
Mr. Bouglé finally divulged his “secret”: the so-called “waste-eating” reactors are simply… breeder reactors: a type of reactor that the global nuclear industry has failed to operate for 70 years, like Superphénix in France! And, even if it did work, it would in no way eliminate radioactive waste. What’s more, less than 1% of nuclear fuel (the most radioactive waste) could theoretically have its lifespan reduced, but without disappearing and while becoming even more radioactive! In the nuclear industry, as elsewhere, miracles do not exist.
The Astrid project was not “on the way to success” and was not “taken over by Bill Gates”
Despite its pretty name, the Astrid reactor project was nothing more than a little Superphénix: a sodium-cooled breeder reactor. Look at the “progress”: 40 years after the launch of Superphénix (1240 MW), the CEA wanted to make another attempt with a reactor half as powerful (600 MW), before giving up altogether.
Japan’s Monju fast-breeder reactor was definitively shut down after countless failures, a terrible fire and sodium leaks; Germany’s Kalkar fast-breeder reactor was never commissioned; and the USA has abandoned the sector. Only Russia manages to keep its BN800 hobbling along… but it doesn’t perform any of the miracles expected of it (producing “more fissile material than it consumes”, “eating” radioactive waste and other nonsense).
As for Bill Gates, he’s one of the dummies who, in recent years, have announced various types of miraculous reactors, always claiming to be able to produce electricity “cheaply, safely and with little waste” (blah blah blah). Beginning in 2006, Bill Gates and his company Terrapower first tried to make a “travelling wave” reactor work, then a “molten salt” one, both abandoned after wasting billions. Now Gates is dreaming of developing… a sodium-cooled fast-neutron reactor: back to Superphénix and 70 years of failure for the global nuclear industry.
France’s nuclear woes are caused by… France’s nuclear woes!
The “evil anti-nuclear environmentalists” and the so-called “traitors in the pay of Germany” denounced by Inspector Bouglé have nothing to do with the disasters of French nuclear power: EDF, Areva (now Orano) and the CEA are doing just fine on their own! For example:
- Industrial and financial disasters at the EPR sites in Finland, Flamanville and England: 15 to 20 years (instead of four and a half) to build a reactor costing 20 billion Euros instead of 3 billion, and with serious defects.
- The unprecedented scandal of the thousands of defective parts (including the famous Flamanville EPR vessel) produced by Areva in its Le Creusot plants.
- Catastrophic and ruinous flops at the Iter (fusion) and RJH reactor sites.
- Stress corrosion (up to 32 reactors out of 56 shut down at the same time in 2022)
And so on.
Contrary to popular belief, the French nuclear industry is by no means “triumphant”, “the best in the world” or “at the cutting edge of technology”: in fact, EDF (bankrupt), Areva (renamed Orano after filing for bankruptcy) and CEA (subsidized by public money) are constantly making fools of themselves and leaving the French with astronomical bills.
The Fessenheim closure is not the cause of electricity shortages in France and imports from Germany
Mr. Bouglé claims that France was an exporter to Germany before the closure of Fessenheim and that it has suddenly become an importer because of the plant’s closure in 2020. He’s talking nonsense.
In reality, there are exchanges (in both directions) between the two countries throughout the year. When the balance sheet is drawn up on December 31, France is still an importer from Germany (*), and has been for over 25 years (**), long before Fessenheim was shut down.
This phenomenon is mainly due to the absurd choice of electric heating, developed on a massive scale in France to “justify” nuclear power: as soon as it gets cold, electricity consumption is such that it far exceeds the capacity of the French nuclear fleet, even when it’s working properly!
It’s also worth noting the ridiculous claim that life was wonderful in France with 58 reactors, and that it has suddenly gone into crisis with “only” 56 reactors, which in reality is an insane number. For the record, during the stress corrosion crisis, France was saved by importing massive amounts of electricity from neighboring countries, which have only a few reactors, if any at all.
(*) Of course, we can criticize the fact that a significant proportion of Germany’s electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants (even if the share of renewables is increasing exponentially), but the fact is that it’s this “dirty” electricity that heats France every winter, and French nuclear enthusiasts don’t go so far as to refuse this electricity and stay in the cold and dark!
(**) Except, very narrowly, in 2011: following the Fukushima disaster, Germany immediately shut down 8 reactors. But by 2012, France was once again a net importer from Germany.
The joke about waste-eating reactors
Let’s start by noting that nuclear reactors continually produce insane quantities of radioactive waste of various kinds, from nuclear fuel to the tools and clothing used in power plants, which are contaminated… and can’t be “eaten”!
But let’s concentrate on the most radioactive, the spent fuel that comes out of the reactor core after use.
Spent fuel comprises four types of element: plutonium, uranium, fission products and minor actinides. Note that the vast majority of radioactivity is contained in these last two categories.
To attempt reuse this waste fuel, separation work must already be carried out in a gigantic plant such as La Hague. These operations require huge amounts of electricity and using large quantities of terribly corrosive and dangerous chemicals: a far cry from the “clean” energy that could “save the planet”.
– Plutonium
Listening to Mr. Bouglé, the uninformed viewer (and the ignorant journalist) think that all they have to do is recover this fuel and put it in the so-called “waste-eating reactor”, which will make this waste disappear… while producing electricity! Jackpot, bravo and thanks for everything. But Santa Claus doesn’t exist, and it’s all poppycock. And here’s why.
It is used by the military for their atomic weapons. Some of this plutonium can be recovered to make fuel (known as “mox”) for use in today’s power plants, which exacerbates the consequences of an accident when it occurs. Various studies show that this option reduces only slightly the amount of uranium needed from mining. But in no case is this plutonium “eaten” or “incinerated”; it is almost entirely recovered after use.
– Uranium
The uranium resulting from these separation operations, known as “reprocessed uranium”, can theoretically be reused in place of mined uranium, but in reality, this option poses a number of technical problems. EDF has been trying to use it for years in its Cruas power plant (Ardèche), after re-enrichment… in Russia (thanks Putin!). But this remains very marginal, and in no case is this uranium “eaten” or “incinerated”; it is almost entirely recovered after use.
– Fission products
There’s nothing we can do with them, except vitrify them and store them for millennia!
– Minor actinides
These are the only elements of radioactive waste that could theoretically have their lifespan reduced in breeder reactors… while becoming even more radioactive! But even if such a “feat” were to happen (provided we finally manage to operate breeder reactors properly), minor actinides would not be “eaten”, “incinerated” or “disintegrated”. In fact, they are vitrified like fission products and have to be stored for millennia.
Conclusion
Of course, there is no technology that can “eat” nuclear waste. At most, it is theoretically possible (but not in practice) to degrade a tiny fraction of it, and even then, at the cost of new radioactive and chemical contamination and very high energy consumption.
Once and for all, let’s remember that there will never be a nuclear miracle, be it with magic reactors, or by replacing uranium with thorium (the thorium sector is also that of fast-breeder reactors!), or with fusion, or by calling old projects that have never worked “4th generation” or “SMR”.
Stéphane Lhomme is Director of the Nuclear Observatory.
Hollywood stars put their name to a good message, but it’s the messengers who are problematic.
Nuclear Threat Initiative’s CEO is, yes, Ernest Moniz, the former US Energy Secretary, who is at the forefront of promoting nuclear power to anyone and everyone who wants it
Moniz is one of the chief architects behind the pro-nuclear infiltration of the COP28 climate summit
Make (some) nukes history, Hollywood stars put their name to a good message, but it’s the messengers who are problematic
By Linda Pentz Gunter, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/11/make-some-nukes-history/
A handful of Hollywood celebs, some highly recognizable including Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand, Lily Tomlin, Emma Thompson and Michael Douglas, as well as musicians such as Jackson Brown and Graham Nash, just signed their names to a letter published in the LA Times urging that we “Make Nukes History”.
Hooray, right? Well, only half hooray.
The Hollywood letter was part of a quickly launched campaign to coincide with the Oscar buzz around the successful feature film, Oppenheimer, in order to leverage attention for the need to abolish nuclear weapons. The Make Nukes History campaign aims to raise public awareness about the civilization-ending risks posed by today’s nuclear arsenals. It reminds us that while Oppenheimer is a history lesson, nuclear weapons are very much still with us, but that we can put an end to what J. Robert Oppenheimer started.
So far, all so good. Far too few of us are thinking about nuclear weapons and the threat they pose, let alone doing something about getting rid of them. It’s an important message that needs reiterating.
Meanwhile, Oppenheimer duly swept seven Academy Awards on Sunday. We waited hopefully for one of the winners to say something about the effect of Oppenheimer’s bomb down the ages. It came only from Cillian Murphy at the end of his Best Actor acceptance speech. “We made a film about the man who created the atomic bomb and for better or for worse we are all living in Oppenheimer’s world so I would really like to dedicate this to the peacemakers, everywhere,” Murphy said.
The Make Nukes History message did not make it to the Oscar stage and the LA Times letter was surprisingly skimpy, failing to get at the heart of the two key takeaways missed in the Oppenheimer film: the unwilling, unrecognized and still uncompensated victims of Oppenheimer’s original Trinity bomb; and the on-going harm down generations to all peoples whose lands were seized and used for atomic tests.
The letter includes a quote from President John F. Kennedy, then states:
“At a time of great uncertainty, even one nuclear weapon—on land, in the sea, in the air, or in space—is too many. To protect our families, our communities, and our world, we must demand that global leaders work to make nuclear weapons history—and build a brighter future.”
Demand indeed. Some of us have been doing this for decades. And we have a treaty for that. But thank you for waking up.
But what does “build a brighter future” actually mean? That, it turns out, is the slogan of the organization behind the orchestration of the Hollywood letter and Oscar campaign — the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
Let’s first take a look at who actually signed the letter. With two exceptions, all the signatories are white. There are no Native Americans on there. No US Marshall Islanders. Almost none of the Oppenheimer film cast and crew signed it. The last four signatures belong to the board of NTI.
NTI was the brainchild of Fonda’s ex, Ted Turner. NTI’s CEO is, yes, Ernest Moniz, the former US Energy Secretary, who is at the forefront of promoting nuclear power to anyone and everyone who wants it. Turner is also a firm supporter of nuclear power (I know because I tried to challenge him on it in person and was quickly deflected by a very large gentleman in possession of an impressive set of muscles.)
Moniz is one of the chief architects behind the pro-nuclear infiltration of the COP28 climate summit and its ridiculous “let’s triple global nuclear power capacity by 2050” proclamation. He will be in Brussels later this month, headlining the International Atomic Energy Agency’s propaganda-fest, billed as the First Ever Nuclear Energy Summit. So will Charles Oppenheimer, Robert Oppenheimer’s grandson and another signatory to the LA Times letter.
So here we have a slightly star-studded short-lived campaign to proclaim an end to one kind of nuke, while behind the scenes the same organization is working hard to promote the other kind of nuke, thus ensuring that the door to nuclear weapons development stays firmly open.
So sorry, no two thumbs up for this bit of Hollywood theatre.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. All opinions are her own.
MOLTEX nuclear reactors: The whole thing is a scam, wasting tax payer money again.
14 Mar 24
Why this pyro-reprocessing? Vitrification is the proven and researched method for reprocessed nuclear fuel waste. The U.S. NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD states, ” HLW is vitrified by mixing it with a combination of silica sand and other glass-forming chemicals, heating the mixture to very high temperatures [approximately 1,150°C (2,100°F)] until it melts, and pouring the molten material into stainless steel canisters where it cools to form a glass. Vitrification is used in several countries to immobilize HLW because it has advantages over other modes of treatment. It is a well-demonstrated technology resulting from more than 40 years of industrial experience, it can be used for a wide range of HLW compositions, it is a continuous process that can be applied to large volumes of HLW, and the resulting glass product is chemically durable in many geologic disposal environments.” https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/facts-sheets/vitrified_hlw.pdf?sfvrsn=18
A soluble corrosive salt from pyro-reprocessing is not an acceptable wasteform.
It is important to realize even with glass vitrification there will still be an off gas waste stream containing the volatiles such as Tc99, I131 and C14, the major contributors to dose in the Seaborn EIS. There needs to be extensive research done on immobilization on the volatile off gas reprocessed waste stream.
Why is it that for reprocessed waste disposal the volatile, mobile, major contributors to dose consequence are ignored?
In fact the cost and feasibility of waste disposal and decommissioning in general is never properly accounted for in the development of nuclear reactors. New reactors are not designed to make decommissioning feasible without huge cost and extensive worker radiation exposure. This is short sighted madness that the nuclear industry is allowed to get away with.
Guess what? There is no nuclear waste, no nuclear proliferation and no possible nuclear meltdown from the much cheaper solar wind and deep geothermal power options. Is this not obvious? Yet government money (our money) is poured into nuclear energy. Did the public have a say in this? No expenditure without representation? Can we dump the reactors into Boston harbour?
[Episode #219] – Nuclear Illusions
Energy Transition Show 6th March 2024 https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-219-nuclear-illusions/—
In Episode #209, we peeled back the layers on civilian nuclear power, revealing its history as a facade for the nuclear weapons industry with a corresponding legacy of deception.
Yet, the allure of small modular reactors (SMRs) has recently been touted as the nuclear industry’s saving grace and a beacon of hope with the potential to sidestep a muddled past. Despite all the fanfare and substantial investments, the crumbling of prominent SMR initiatives exposes the continuation of the industry’s tradition of overpromising and underdelivering, a pattern all too familiar to those who’ve been watching closely.
Joining us in this episode is Jim Green from Friends of the Earth Australia, a seasoned nuclear journalist with three decades of experience in critiquing nuclear energy. Jim offers an unparalleled depth of insight into the industry’s persistent shortcomings and the realities behind the SMR hype. Together, we delve into the track record of conventional nuclear power, the latest trends in nuclear plant construction and retirements worldwide, and examine the companies at the forefront of the SMR push, offering a candid exploration of the nuclear power industry’s claims versus its actual performance.
Guest:
Jim Green is the National Nuclear-Free Campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group (nuclearconsult.com), and former editor of the World Information Service on Energy’s ‘Nuclear Monitor’ newsletter. He has a First Class Honours degree in Public Health and a Doctorate in Science and Technology Studies for his thesis on the debates over the replacement of Australia’s nuclear research reactor.
More fusion hot air, literally!
Megajoules and megaheadlines are all meganonsense
By Linda Pentz Gunter, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/04/more-fusion-hot-air-literally/ 4 Mar 24
Another week, more fusion news, cue another overblown headline, as the mainstream media once again paid homage to industry hype, digesting nuclear propaganda soundbites without even a hiccup.
On February 8, we learned that the Joint European Torus fusion project, also known as JET, had broken its own record in energy output during a last gasp attempt to make fusion work. The 40-year old project is now closed down for good.
The moment — and just a fleeting moment it truly was, lasting a mere 5.2 seconds — was duIy celebrated as another breakthrough for fusion.
“Nuclear fusion: new record brings dream of clean energy closer,” trumpeted the BBC who were especially smug since Torus is based in the UK.
“Nuclear Fusion World Record Smashed in Major Achievement”, said Science Alert.
“Scientists have made a record-setting fusion energy breakthrough,” blared the headline on Vice.
Below – A jolly video about JET in which the narrator’s voice perhaps generates more energy than the reactor itself.
What actually happened? JET generated 69 megajoules of energy in those 5.2 seconds, breaking its previous record of 59 megajoules over 5 seconds in 2021.
For those of us who don’t go about measuring things in megajoules, I deferred to our colleague, physicist, M.V. Ramana, for an explanation.
What are they really talking about here and is it actually a breakthrough?
“One can start with the annual average consumption of one US household,” Ramana said. “That’s about 10,500 kilowatt hours which is equivalent to 37,800 megajoules. Essentially using one hour = 3,600 seconds, and one joule = one watt-second.”
Head already spinning, I hoped he would do the rest of the math. He did.
“The 69 megajoules generated by JET”, Ramana explained, “is equivalent to roughly 0.06 percent of the electricity consumed by an average US household.”
So a minuscule contribution. But here’s the catch. “The JET machine produced 69 megajoules, but this is all heat,” explained Ramana. “Only about a third of that can be converted into electricity under ideal circumstances.”
Mostly heat, and hardly any electricity. So what the JET fusion so-called breakthrough actually delivered was all hot air. Literally!
Then came some more hot air. “First ‘private’ nuclear reactor to power 2 million British homes” ran another headline. The private sector nuclear company in question is Westinghouse. Yes, that Westinghouse! The one whose executives are in jail over a failed new nuclear power plant project in South Carolina. The Westinghouse that went bankrupt, forcing its mega-giant parent company, Toshiba, to shed not only Westinghouse but all Toshiba’s nuclear assets to avoid going down with the Westinghouse ship.
The same Westinghouse that is now $20 billion over budget at its other new nuclear project at Vogtle in Georgia.
But the British press were all “oh joy, oh rapture unforeseen” over this announcement, a project that has about as much credibility as the whimsical plot of HMS Pinafore.
And finally, we learned that Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, is seeking another $150 million to restart the old and decrepit Palisades nuclear plant.
Palisades has been closed for almost two years and the company that would re-open and run it, Holtec, which specializes in decommissioning and radioactive waste management, has zero experience running a nuclear power plant.
This latest ask comes on top of $150 million already approved last year for a Palisades restart and could be augmented by a $1.5 billion loan from the federal government as well.
All of this nuclear nonsense comes on the heels of other hyperbole surrounding previous so-called advances in fusion (see our earlier coverage here and here), misrepresented almost universally as an imminent answer to our worsening climate crisis.
But, as the song goes in Pinafore, “Things are seldom what they seem.”
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International
The nuclear narrative.
What is a narrative? ……… In other words, it is about occupying public space to disseminate enchanting stories that give pride of place to industry, multinationals, investors, billionaires, each greener than the last.
Jean-François Nadeau, March 4, 2024, https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/chroniques/808350/chronique-narratif
The future of the world, at least according to the head of the AtkinsRéalis firm, lies in nuclear power. This company, formerly known as SNC-Lavalin, has changed its name. The scandals that have affected her, she asserts, belong to the past.
For its campaign to promote atomic energy, AtkinsRéalis secured the services of two former prime ministers: Jean Chrétien and Mike Harris. In 2019, as revealed by Radio-Canada, Jean Chrétien had already gone so far as to propose, with astonishing lightness, storing foreign nuclear waste in Labrador. In a letter, the former prime minister wrote to a Japanese firm: “Canada has been the largest supplier of nuclear fuel for years, and I have always thought it would be appropriate for Canada to become, at the end of account, the steward and guarantor of the safe storage of nuclear waste after their first service cycle. »
No carbon neutrality without nuclear power , repeats the boss of AtkinsRéalis like an advertising slogan. We must replace fossil fuels, while doubling or tripling, thanks to nuclear power, the production of electricity, he pleads. There is no question, in this presentation, of rethinking a model of society based on an infinite expansion of consumption. Always more cars, as long as they are electric. Always more heating, regardless of the fact that our buildings are thermal sieves. In other words, what continues to matter is growth. And the increase in AtkinsRéalis’ turnover is largely due to nuclear power, as noted by Le Devoir .
Last week, Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon reiterated again that he was not closing the door to the return of nuclear power. Since the arrival of Michael Sabia at the head of Hydro-Québec , the signals pointing in the direction of this revival have multiplied. “I think that as a government, in the ministry, at home, we must stay on the lookout for what is happening in nuclear power,” the minister further affirmed in front of an audience of business people. To have such projects accepted, the minister specified that “you simply have to have a good narrative”. In Quebec, he laments, “we have not had any narrative on nuclear power” since the closure of Gentilly-2 .
What is a narrative? In 1928, Edward Bernays, the founding father of the public relations and advertising industry, called these language elements capable of manipulating public opinion propaganda . This word ended up, as we know, having unfavorable connotations. Others were therefore substituted. Here is the latest addition, used in all sauces: the narrative . In other words, it is about occupying public space to disseminate enchanting stories that give pride of place to industry, multinationals, investors, billionaires, each greener than the last.
Pierre Fitzgibbon shows interest in mini nuclear reactors. The boss AtkinsRéalis also praises this technology, which is far from wonderful. Nobody says too loudly that these types of plants produce more nuclear waste per megawatt. These mini power plants would produce up to thirty times more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear power plants.
In his “narrative”, the boss of AtkinsRéalis barely concedes that the management of radioactive materials constitutes a serious danger for humanity.
In Ontario, a large dump for radioactive waste was approved on January 9. Tons of heavy metals, dangerous radioactive elements, plutonium, uranium, etc. will pile up there for a century, not far from the Ottawa River. The whole thing promises to occupy, for eternity, an area equivalent to 70 National Hockey League ice rinks.
In France, 280 km of underground galleries are being built to store nuclear waste. To give an idea, the galleries of the Montreal metro total 71 km. This giant sarcophagus will be the largest construction site in Europe. In these galleries, the most dangerous waste will be able to spew radioactivity for 100,000 years.
So that the hydrogen and the fumes released from this collection of waste do not explode, it is necessary to continually ventilate. Which requires electricity. A power outage, if it lasts more than a week, could be catastrophic. Obviously, electrical problems, cataclysms, wars, terrorists, this will never happen in a hundred years. Not again in a thousand years, probably. Moreover, at the entrance to these sites, in what language should we warn future generations not to dig?
The speech of the boss of AtkinsRéalis is very similar to that which is also being given these days by the cereal manufacturer Kellogg’s. Gary Pilnick, its CEO, is sad to see the cost of food soaring. However, he does not recommend reviewing the profit margins on which the food giants are fattening, nor the exploitation system which governs this surge in prices. He simply suggests eating cereal at dinner, so that consumers can lower their bills and cereal manufacturers can make more money. At the bottom of the scale, this makes no difference to the misfortunes of the majority. Agricultural producers in Quebec, for example, find themselves this year with the lowest net incomes since 1938, they say.
Nuclear industries operate according to the same elastic logic which consists of making money at all costs. Our dependence on automobiles and energy-intensive lifestyles suits them. And it is enough, to hear them, to continue to rush forward, head down, to escape from a reality that is ruining the future. Their technologies promise to fix everything. As long as you are willing to swallow their narrative first, like soft cereal .
What’s fueling the commercial fusion hype?
Despite its lack of promise for civilian use, the Energy Department and the White House have used the Livermore controlled fusion experiment results to boost the effort to harness fusion power for civilian purposes. In December 2022, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced with great fanfare that a laser pulse ignited a fusion reaction that produced more energy than was supplied by the light beams
In her energy balance, however, the energy secretary forgot to account for the energy it took to create the laser beams. This energy input, when added, drastically reverses her conclusion
By Victor Gilinsky | February 20, 2024,
https://thebulletin.org/2024/02/whats-fueling-the-commercial-fusion-hype/
Recent White House and Energy Department pronouncements on speeding up the “commercialization” of fusion energy are so over the top as to make you wonder about the scientific competence in the upper reaches of the government.
In April 2022, the White House launched what it called a “bold decadal vision” for a 10-year program to “accelerate the realization of commercial fusion energy.” The “bold” part is the proposal, in questionable analogy with high-speed computing, to do in parallel all the development steps that are typically done sequentially to bring a new technology to the market. According to the White House, this parallel processing would include: technology development, preparing a regulatory system (including rules for fusion reactor exports), securing the supply chain, identifying high-value markets, training a diverse workforce, and gaining public support, all “to support the rapid scale-up of fusion energy facilities.”
The special attraction of fusion is of course that it offers a potential source of abundant carbon-free energy that does not generate radioactive nuclear waste. But just because it would be nice if controlled fusion could work doesn’t mean it’s on the verge of doing so. The hard truth is that scientists and engineers don’t even know yet whether controlled fusion can be achieved to make useful work, at least anywhere outside the sun (and other stars, of course).
A historical perspective is useful to understand where the hype about commercial fusion is coming from.
We have known about fusion powering the sun since Hans Bethe explained it in 1939. This was also almost exactly when Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered uranium fission (and Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch explained it). Then in 1942, Enrico Fermi and a small number of co-workers demonstrated a controlled fission chain reaction in a squash court at the University of Chicago. Fermi spent about $50 million in today’s dollars on building his 20-foot-tall atomic pile.
More than 80 years later, the corresponding control-of-fusion principle has yet to be demonstrated experimentally and the US government already made $35 billion in cumulative fusion expenditure—with probably a comparable investment abroad—without yet knowing what works.
The White House’s approach to attain success appears based on the idea that enthusiasm and coordination of all diverse stakeholders backed up with enough money can solve a so-far-unsolved scientific problem. Administration spokespersons mention projects that were successfully accelerated in this way, like the 1969 trip to the moon. Sure, this was indeed a hugely successful monumental project at the time, but no one involved doubted it was possible to do. All the necessary component technologies, like rockets and communications, were in hand on a smaller scale. In the case of fusion power reactors, no one is yet sure what they would look like, let alone if they will turn out to be possible and practicable.
The main research track today in fusion energy is “magnetic confinement”—configuring magnetic fields to keep in place a plasma of thermonuclear fuel 10 times hotter than the sun’s core within a donut-shaped magnetic “bottle.” Dozens of such machines—known as “tokamaks,” a Russian-language transliteration for toroidal chamber with axial magnetic field—have been built around the world since the 1950s, but none got close to demonstrating a net energy gain. Controlled fusion, it turns out, is an extremely difficult problem. To solve it, fusion experts have concluded the key is to have a large enough facility.
The world’s largest experimental fusion machine—ITER (initially the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, also meaning “the way” in Latin)—is nearing completion in France. It is a highly complex scientific and engineering project. ITER publicity describes the building housing the reactor as “slightly taller than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris,” and that the building foundation will support some 400,000 metric tons—“more than the weight of New York’s Empire State Building.” Started in 2006, ITER is a 35-country megaproject that was supposed to be completed in 2016 at a cost of $6 billion. The reactor is currently projected to start up in 2025, but even that appears to be an optimistic date, as is the total budget estimate of about $22 billion.
The initial design objective is to produce a fusion plasma with thermal power 10 times greater than the injected thermal power. Even if successful, this net power output would not yet be the fusion equivalent of Fermi’s 1942 experimental nuclear pile, which proved the controlled fission concept. Nor would ITER’s more ambitious subsequent goal of maintaining this plasma for eight minutes. To get to proof of principle would likely take another step or an upgrading of ITER.
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s weapons laboratory pursued another approach of “internal confinement,” to create a fusion reaction at its National Ignition Facility (NIF) and claimed it could have power application. NIF uses light pulses from a concentric battery of powerful lasers to heat a small target containing a tiny bead of frozen thermonuclear fuel. This is, in effect, a miniature (secondary) thermonuclear bomb, with the lasers playing the role of the triggering fission reactions (primary). The light heats the container material sufficiently to ablate and swiftly compress the fuel to the point of detonation, which lasts some billionths of a second. The experiment was directed primarily at developing a useful diagnostic tool for weapons research. In power application, you would have to repeat the explosions at an extraordinarily fast rate, which is a tall order.
Despite its lack of promise for civilian use, the Energy Department and the White House have used the Livermore controlled fusion experiment results to boost the effort to harness fusion power for civilian purposes. In December 2022, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced with great fanfare that a laser pulse ignited a fusion reaction that produced more energy than was supplied by the light beams: “This milestone moves us one significant step closer to the possibility of zero carbon abundant energy powering our society … a huge step forward to the president’s goal of achieving commercial fusion within a decade.” (Update: In less than nine years from now.)
In her energy balance, however, the energy secretary forgot to account for the energy it took to create the laser beams. This energy input, when added, drastically reverses her conclusion, with the fusion output then amounting to only about one percent of the input. This is not disqualifying from a scientific point of view, but it obviously is in a power generating application. Still, this hasn’t stopped the Energy Department from including Livermore’s fusion ignition experiment in a promotional video on the “7 moments that changed nuclear energy history.” The clip claims “[t]he Lab was the first to produce more energy from a fusion reaction than was used to start the process,” again forgetting the energy it took to power the lasers.
Exploding Alberta’s Myths about Small Nuclear Reactors
Small nuclear reactors are unproven and years away from being in use. But the Alberta government is presenting them as a way to keep fossil fuels flowing.
The untested technology is more about greenwashing than about cutting emissions.
Tim Rauf 15 Feb 2024, The Tyee
Alberta’s government is really excited about nuclear power.
More specifically, about novel and unproven small modular nuclear reactors. It hopes to use these to help lower the province’s carbon emissions while letting the energy industry continue operating as usual — an enticing prospect to the government given its intention to increase oil and gas production, while still having the energy sector get to net zero by 2050.
Small modular nuclear reactors produce less than one-third of the electricity of a traditional reactor.
The premise is that small reactors are easier to place and build, and cheaper.
Alberta hitched its horse to this wagon with Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan in 2022, taking part in a strategic plan for small modular reactor development and deployment. Alberta Innovates, the province’s research body, had a feasibility study conducted for it by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The study focused on using the reactors for greenhouse-gas-free steam emissions for oilsands projects, electricity generation in our deregulated market and providing an alternative to diesel when supplying power to remote communities.
More recently, Ontario Power Generation and Capital Power out of Edmonton entered into an agreement to assess SMRs for providing nuclear energy to Alberta’s grid. Nathan Neudorf, Alberta’s minister of affordability and utilities, was gleeful. “This partnership represents an exciting and important step forward in our efforts to decarbonize the grid while maintaining on-demand baseload power,” he said of the announcement.
All of this buzz makes it seem like SMRs are just over the horizon, an inevitability that will allow the province to evolve to have a cleaner, modern energy landscape.
But small modular reactors are nowhere near ready for deployment, and won’t be in Alberta for about a decade. That means for 10 years, they’ll provide no GHG-free steam to mitigate emissions.
“It’s still in the design phase,” Kennedy Halvorson said, speaking about the reactors. Halvorson is a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association. The reactors are “so far off from being able to be used for us,” Halvorson added. “The earliest projections would be 2030. And we need to be reducing our emissions before 2030. So, we need to have solutions now, basically.”
With SMRs unable to stem the emissions tide for years, it’s confusing as to how they could make enough of a difference to get Alberta to net zero by 2050 (in line with United Nations emissions reduction targets to keep global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees).
Capital Power made similar projections………………………………………………………………………..
Construction itself is only one piece. Adding to that is the need to build a regulatory framework, which Alberta doesn’t have for nuclear…………………………………………………….
Ontario’s nuclear troubles
Listening to these public voices is prudent. We can look east to see what happens when the government and power utilities sidestep the process of getting explicit consent from communities that stand to be affected.
With its status as the nuclear activity hub in Canada, we can use Ontario as a litmus test of sorts and gauge Canada’s track record of care with nuclear. The report card isn’t great. There have been multiple cases of improper consultation with Indigenous Peoples on whose lands the waste, production or extraction sites are placed………………………………………………………………………..
Small reactors face a critical economic challenge
Adding to the timeline troubles are questions as to whether small reactors truly offer that much of an economic advantage, if any, compared with their larger counterparts.
In a previous article Ramana wrote, he pointed to the first reactors as an indication of the answer.
The first reactors started off small. Their size, though, coupled with the exorbitant price tag of nuclear development, meant they couldn’t compete with fossil fuels.
The only thing they could do to reduce the disadvantage was to build larger and larger reactors, Ramana said.
A large reactor that could produce five times as much electricity didn’t cost five times as much to build, he said, improving the return from the investment.
Economically the SMR can’t seem to compete with its larger sibling. Adding this to the delays abundant with nuclear, controversies around construction and communities, and the misalignment of timelines for meeting climate commitments, we need to ask why we’re seeing such a fervent enthusiasm for small modular reactors.
Greenwashing by any other name
The answer is likely a simple one: The Alberta government wants to keep the taps on. Their friends in the energy industry do too. Like carbon capture and sequestration before it, SMRs are the next way to stave off pesky talk of divestment and transition…………………………………………………………….
Deflecting and delaying isn’t the only greenwashing happening either, Halvorson argued. She noted there’s a special kind of tactic that comes with nuclear and other “clean” technology, where only carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas offsets are counted.
“When we reduce it all to just how much CO2 something emits, we’re not getting the full picture of environmental impacts,” Halvorson said. She pointed to water use in nuclear as an example.
“Most nuclear technologies require a massive input of water to work. And as we know, right now we’re in a drought in Alberta. Our water resources are so precious. We already have industries that are using way too much water as is, in a way that’s not allowing our environments and ecosystems to replenish their reserves, like their water resources,” she said.
Despite the cheerleading for nuclear Alberta, where small nuclear reactors will let us enjoy the fruits of fossil fuels (and even produce more) in a cleaner way, the bones don’t read that way. The argument that we can keep on drilling so long as we have that newest silver bullet hasn’t stood up to scrutiny before, and it doesn’t now. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/02/15/Exploding-Alberta-Myths-Small-Nuclear-Reactors/
Russian ‘nukes in space’ scare by Biden admin is nonsense
Russian ‘nukes in space’ scare by Biden admin is BS, Bruce K. Gagnon,
https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2024/02/russian-nukes-in-space-scare-by-biden.html
Remember in 2003 how the New York Times reported that Iraq had WMD which then justified the Bush administration’s ‘shock and awe’ attack? At the time so-called ‘intelligence agencies’ in the US claimed that it was all true.
It wasn’t.
Fast forward to 2024 and we hear reports from the same corporate media rag that intel reveals Russia has a new super-duper nuclear weapon that can destroy US satellites in space.
Suddenly its all over the news just days after the Vladimir Putin interview with Tucker Carlson is seen by hundreds of millions (maybe billions by now) around the world.
Desperation hits the White House. ‘We’ve got to come up with something big to trash Russia in order to get Congress to vote for the billions for the Ukraine war’.
And so they did.
It’s all BS.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty banned weapons of ‘mass destruction’ in space. At the time the US and USSR were worried about one side blowing things up with nukes in space. Thus the incentive for the treaty.
Both sides today have anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) capabilities using kinetic weapons that just crash into a satellite – no explosives involved. So Russia would not need nukes to do the job if they wanted to. Likely lasers are also available to both sides to carry out the task as well.
The US last tested an ASAT in 2008 in Operation Burnt Frost when they launched an ‘interceptor missile’ from a Navy Aegis destroyer that went into space and knocked out an old US satellite.
US, India, China and Russia have developed anti-satellite weapons of some kind – mostly the kinetic variety.
The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to White House claims about the ‘new secret Russian nuclear weapon’ by saying:
“It’s clear that the White House is trying, by hook or by crook, to push Congress to vote on a bill to approve funding [for Ukraine]. We’ll see what tricks the White House will use,” he said.
PAROS
And remember that Russia and China every year for at least the last 25-30 years go to the UN and introduce a new treaty called Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) to ban all weapons that fall outside of the 1967 treaty. In other words, all the new high-tech space weapons that are not covered in the Outer Space Treaty.
The US and Israel routinely block the treaty negotiations (during both Republican and Democrat administrations) saying, ‘There is no problem in space thus no need for a new treaty’. Very self serving.
I believe the Russians have a long history of generally honoring treaties while the US does not.It was the US that pulled about of the ABM Treaty (Anti-ballistic missile) that outlawed the building, testing and deployment of ‘missile defense’ systems which are key elements in Pentagon first-strike attack planning.
The US refuses to renounced first-strike while China and Russia have done so for many years.
So who is really the aggressor in space?
When the US claims it will be the ‘Master of Space’ (to ‘control and dominate space and deny other nations access to space’) one must examine closely just who is leading the race to militarize and weaponize space.
See the 1997 US Space Command document ‘Vision for 2020’ that lays that all out here.
Incidentally, the US Space Force was created in 2020 – right on schedule you might say.
Beware of those who promote corporate media reporting of White House lies and deception to keep war$ going.
The War on Gaza: Public Relations vs. Reality
Wednesday, February 14th, 2024, By Robert C. Koehler, m http://commonwonders.com/the-war-on-gaza-public-relations-vs-reality/
For its victims, war is . . . yes, hell. For the rest of us — the onlooking and supportive patriots — war is an abstraction embedded in ignorance, a.k.a., public relations, served up for public consumption.
At least that’s the way it’s supposed to be. The reality of war should never directly confront the official PR of those waging it. If it does, God help the war industry!
But that’s what’s happening now, as public support for U.S. complicity in Israel’s devastation of Gaza diminishes, indeed, starts turning to outrage. Official spokesmen for the Biden administration, such as John Kirby, strategic communications coordinator for the National Security Council, are forced to start mixing apologetic language in with their unwavering support for the bombing and murder of civilians . . . excuse me, Israel’s right to defend itself.
“Civilian deaths are happening, and happening at a rate that obviously we’re not comfortable with,” Kirby said in a New Yorker interview. “But,” he quickly added, “it doesn’t mean that they are intentionally trying to wipe the people of Gaza off the map the same way that Hamas wants to wipe the Israeli people off the map.”
Wow, Israel’s actions and official declarations of intent to obliterate Palestine are making the U.S. government uncomfortable. (But Hamas is still the bad guy.) Oh, if only fragments of actual truth about the war could penetrate such an interview. For instance:
And it was mostly — I mean, the majority of the patients that I treated were children, anywhere from the age of 2 to 17. I mean, I saw horrific eye and facial injuries that I’ve never seen before, eyes shattered in two 6-year-old children with shrapnel that I had to take out, eyes with shrapnel stuck inside, facial injuries. I saw orthopedic injuries where — you know, limbs just cut off and dangling. I saw abdominal injuries that were just horrific. And it was just mass chaos. There were children on the floor, unattended to, with head trauma, people suturing patients without anesthesia on the ground. It was just mass chaos and really horrific, horrific scenes.”
The speaker is Dr. Yasser Khan, a Canadian ophthalmologist recently back from a humanitarian mission at the European Hospital in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza, near Rafah. He was interviewed by Democracy Now! I wish John Kirby could have been there.
The hospital, he said, was “about 300, 400 percent over capacity. There was patients and bodies lying all over the hospital floor, inside and outside. They had orthopedic devices coming from their legs or their arms. They were getting infected, they were in pain, because they were on the floor, so the conditions weren’t very sterile. And if they survived amputation the first time, the infection would get them . . .”
His words go on and on. OK, you (I mean Kirby) might say, this is war. People get hurt. But Israel has to “defend itself.”
This is self-defense?
“They have killed over 300 or 400 healthcare workers, doctors, nurses, paramedics. Ambulances have been bombed. This has all been a systematic sort of — you know, by destroying the healthcare system, you’re contributing to the genocide.”
Khan also notes: “They’ve attacked the sewage system, the water system, so the sewage mixes with the drinking water. And you get diarrheal diseases, bacterial diseases. You know, cholera, typhoid is not far away. Hepatitis A is epidemic there now. They’re living in cramped spaces.”
And it gets even more insane: “What’s going on is now there’s 10,000 to 15,000 bodies that are decomposing. So, it’s raining season right now in Gaza. So all the rainwater mixes with the decomposing bodies, and that bacteria mixes with the drinking water supply, and you get further disease.”
Israel has the right to defend itself. But come on, guys, be a little bit more careful. Kill fewer children. Try not to poison the water. You might say this is public relations with a limp. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to “refrain” from taking action that could be considered genocidal and, good God, “take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave,” as Reuters reports.
But it’s war itself — regardless of “intent” — that is causing this hell. The act of war, the weapons of war, the political-economic structure of the globe that is based on endless war and domination, seems never to face serious condemnation, at least not in any official sense. But if we feed war, we feed hell.
Perhaps there’s one bit of recent news about a challenge to the global war industry, and its public relations perpetrators, that isn’t simply a scream from the political margins or cries from the victims. It’s the Transatlantic Civil Servants’ Statement on Gaza, a statement, released on Feb. 2, signed by more than 800 civil servants from the United States, the European Union and about a dozen European countries, declaring: “It Is Our Duty To Speak Out When Our Governments’ Policies Are Wrong.”
The statement declares the Gaza pummeling “one of the worst human catastrophes of this century.” And it calls on its countries to halt all military support to Israel and use their leverage “to secure a lasting ceasefire and full humanitarian access in Gaza and a safe release of all hostages” and “develop a strategy for lasting peace.”
A strategy for lasting peace? That’s another way of calling for an end to war. It’s about time.
Nuclear Illusions Hinder Climate Efforts as Costs Keep Rising
a long line of nuclear illusionists advocating grandiose goals for nuclear energy without any evidence to suggest they could be achieved, and much to suggest why they never will be.
“In recent years the nuclear industry seems to have quietly changed its business model from making and selling products to harvesting subsidies for fantasies”
the timelines will shrink, and the mirage will fade. Money will be wasted and global warming will continue.
The federal government also continues to fund efforts to develop “new” designs for smaller reactors that are proving far less economic than larger ones and will struggle to succeed. Two government showcase projects have already collapsed for lack of customer interest.
Stephanie Cooke, 12 Feb 2024 Energy Intelligence Group, Stephanie Cooke, Washington, https://www.energyintel.com/0000018d-7a5e-d1ef-a5cd-fe7e077c0000
The price tag for new nuclear plants just got a lot higher — at up to £46 billion ($58 billion) for two French reactors under construction in the UK — but don’t expect that to deter enthusiasm for nuclear energy. According to former US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, the world “will soon need to build the equivalent of about 50 large nuclear power reactors per year until 2050” to mitigate climate change. Moniz admits that’s a challenge, but nevertheless possible if nations “rethink how to build, regulate and finance nuclear technology.” Moniz comes from a long line of nuclear illusionists advocating grandiose goals for nuclear energy without any evidence to suggest they could be achieved, and much to suggest why they never will be.
In 1998, when the future of nuclear energy looked grim, a group of nuclear worthies convened in Paris for an International Conference on Preparing the Ground for Renewal of Nuclear Power. It was the fourth such attempt since the initial conference on the topic in 1979. In opening remarks later published, a former General Electric executive, Bertram Wolfe, proclaimed that “if one assumes nuclear energy will be needed to provide one-third of the world’s energy by the middle of the next century,” 100-200 new reactors per year would have to be added over the next 50 years.
Global warming was seen as a potential, though still-distant threat, but enough of one to argue for more nuclear energy as a “precautionary” measure against it, according to another speaker, Chauncey Starr, who had founded and presided over the US Electric Power Research Institute. Starr dismissed renewables as the “visionary goal” of an “anti-nuclear environmental community” embraced by politicians that “either suffer from the childlike innocence of the ignorant” or “knowingly engaged in political duplicity.” By 2060, hydro and renewables would “very optimistically” account for only 23% of worldwide electricity consumption, Starr predicted, and they would be heavily dependent on subsidies. He was off by several decades. That benchmark was surpassed in 2016, according to the 2023 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
It was the nuclear crowd that suffered from ignorance, and illusionary ideas. One prominent industry executive at the time, Shelby Brewer, proclaimed in Paris that recent deregulation of US wholesale electricity markets would have “a positive impact on nuclear power” because utilities no longer subject to state regulated rates of return would be more likely to build new reactors. “Power generators will focus explicitly on price competitiveness, cost effectiveness and equity return — a new set of dynamics for the industry.” He wound up by declaring that “the salvation of US nuclear power lies with Adam Smith, not Uncle Sam.”
Real World Experience
In the real world, annual reactor construction starts worldwide since then were far from 200, 100 or even 50 — the highest number was 15 (in 2010). In the 14 years since, construction began on a total of 84 reactors of which 41 were in China, meaning that outside China, just three were started per year on average.
Deregulation was hardly the panacea Brewer predicted either. When reactors in US deregulated markets couldn’t compete against natural gas or renewables, operators were forced to turn to Uncle Sam for subsidies or shut down. Despite subsidies on offer for new nuclear power plants, only one was ever built — in the regulated state of Georgia — with ratepayers forced to foot the bill for financing and construction. The only other US reactor start-up, Watts Bar-2, was commissioned in 2016, but construction on that started in the 1980s, stopped, and then restarted.
The federal government also continues to fund efforts to develop “new” designs for smaller reactors that are proving far less economic than larger ones and will struggle to succeed. Two government showcase projects have already collapsed for lack of customer interest.
“In recent years the nuclear industry seems to have quietly changed its business model from making and selling products to harvesting subsidies for fantasies,” says Amory Lovins, adjunct professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, and cofounder and chairman emeritus of RMI (formerly Rocky Mountain Institute). “A dollar astutely invested in influence campaigns, and sometimes corruption, seems to be able to yield on the order of $10-$100+ in subsidies — for as long as they last. So long as the band plays on, it looks like good work if you can get it.”
Compared with the industry’s past cheerleaders, Moniz appears relatively modest in what he proposes, and he admits that 50 reactors per year is a tall order, “two-thirds more than were built at nuclear power’s peak in the early 1980s.”
His ideas for overcoming the challenges are worn: A “new system” to “deliver standardized products rather than costly and risky one-off multidecade projects.” Including small modular reactors and advanced reactors, there are probably 100 or more designs around the globe in various stages of development. How do you standardize out of that? The only “new nuclear” in the West are the four multidecade projects in Finland, France, the US and UK — all exorbitantly over-budget and by definition economically highly risky. Of the six reactors in question, only two are generating power — one each in Finland and the US.
Airline Industry Model
Moniz looks to the airline industry for a model in the way nuclear plants could be built and regulated. Smaller reactors especially could be produced by “assembly-line methods” and new reactor designs certified by an “international body charged with issuing a single globally accepted generic certification for reactor designs.”
This overlooks the fact that the nuclear power industry is driven by geopolitics and its historic and symbiotic relationship with nuclear weapons. Competition is intense in reactor export markets, with supplier countries jealously guarding their areas of influence and seeking the means for continued influence over decades, as reactors are sited, built and then decommissioned.
The aviation industry is driven by real demand. People who want to fly don’t have alternatives to boarding an airplane; customers who need electricity have many other low-carbon options besides reactors. No airline wants a fatal crash, so it makes sense that pilots, especially if they’re flying to other countries, follow a universal set of norms, and that aviation authorities from several countries are often involved in certifying new aircraft designs.
“To ignore or pretend to ignore that there is so much difference is an insult to readers’ intelligence,” writes Yves Marignac of Institut negaWatt in an email. “To even consider the possibility that things could change so that the conditions for this international free, standardized, ‘orderbook’ approach can be met, furthermore in a timeframe that is consistent with objectives such as delivering on 50 large reactors per year soon, is wishful thinking pushed to a record high!”
Along with the announcement of Hinkley Point C’s massive cost increase came news that the first of two reactors wouldn’t be commissioned until at least 2029, and possibly as far out as 2031. This is not stopping plans for more nuclear power in both the UK and France, with London promising eight new reactors by 2050, and Paris calling for six reactors by 2035, with as many as eight more after that. These goals, billed as part of the “global solution” to climate change, are no more than a distant mirage.
As the two countries haggle over who pays the exorbitant costs at Hinkley Point C, the timelines will shrink, and the mirage will fade. Money will be wasted and global warming will continue. “The costlier and slower new reactors are, the less fossil fuel they can displace per dollar and per year, compared to a like investment in renewables and efficient use — thereby making climate change worse, not better,” argues Lovins. “Climate effectiveness requires that we count carbon, cost and speed — not just carbon.”
It’s time to close the curtain on illusionist theater in energy policy-making. It’s a show that’s long since run its course.
Stephanie Cooke is the former editor of Nuclear Intelligence Weekly and author of In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
Rich men with the wrong answers – nuclear power has no future and yet they persist
None of these realities deter the pro-nuclear lobby, now led most shamefully by the International Atomic Energy Agency itself. Even as its chief, Rafael Grossi, wrings his hands over the immense dangers posed by Ukraine’s 15 reactors embroiled in a war, he and his agency are planning what it boasts is the “first-ever” Nuclear Energy Summit, to be held in late March in Brussels in partnership with the Belgian government.
By Linda Pentz Gunter https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/02/11/rich-men-with-the-wrong-answers/
Pro-nukers warned coal use would rise as reactors closed in Germany. The opposite happened.
Remember all those doomsayers from the pro-nuclear mythology unit who cast Germany’s Energiewende — or green energy revolution — as a catastrophic failure? They claimed, totally erroneously or deliberately misleadingly, that the country’s choice to close all its nuclear power plants guaranteed an increase in fossil fuel use and especially coal.
Germany vehemently denied those false predictions since they clearly knew that the country’s renewables were more than able to replace nuclear and fossil fuels. And so it has come to pass.
Germany’s use of lignite, or brown coal, dropped to its lowest level in 60 years in 2023. Even more dramatically, its hard coal use is at the lowest level since 1955. All of this happened at the same time as Germany was closing its last three reactors.
Meanwhile, according to reporting by Clean Energy Wire (CLEW), and citing an analysis (in German) from the research institute, Fraunhofer ISE, renewables “contributed a record share of more than half of the country’s power consumption” in 2023.
“The country sourced nearly 60 percent (59.7%) of its net power production from renewables, which generated a total of 260 terawatt hours (TWh), an increase of 7.2 percent compared to 2022,” the report said.
The 2022 uptick of coal production in Germany was entirely driven by high gas prices and a shortfall of French nuclear power production. The French nuclear sector was so unreliable that 50% of its reactors were out of action in April 2022, and again in November 2022, just as winter electricity usage began to rise.
Consequently, France had to import electricity to keep the lights on and the heat running.
Far from eating crow, the pro-nuclear boosters like Ted Nordhaus, who co-founded the Breakthrough Institute (BTI), are still crowing about the benefits of nuclear power. Nordhaus couldn’t wait to take ownership of his latest scheme, apparently long in the plotting, to dismantle the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to eliminate the industry’s most burdensome (i.e. costly) hassle of having to worry about inconvenient things like reactor safety. Efforts to do just that are now underway in Congress.
“Through years of rigorous research and engagement with the NRC, BTI has pinpointed crucial opportunities to modernize the regulatory framework that will lay the foundation for streamlined and efficient nuclear reactor licensing,” boasts the company’s website.
Meanwhile, we learn that the struggling Vogtle 3 and 4 new reactor project in Georgia, already 20 billion dollars over budget and years late, is set once again to further gouge ratepayers for the mistakes and failures of Georgia Power. And across the pond that the UK twin EPR project will likely top $59 billion with a completion date originally set for 2017 now pushed back to “after 2029”.
None of these realities deter the pro-nuclear lobby, now led most shamefully by the International Atomic Energy Agency itself. Even as its chief, Rafael Grossi, wrings his hands over the immense dangers posed by Ukraine’s 15 reactors embroiled in a war, he and his agency are planning what it boasts is the “first-ever” Nuclear Energy Summit, to be held in late March in Brussels in partnership with the Belgian government.
The IAEA has now become possibly the world’s most aggressive marketer of nuclear power and is still crowing about what it sees as a triumph at COP28, a veritable nuclear coup d’etat. In reality, this encompassed a miserable 24 countries signing onto an absurd fantasy propaganda statement that the world can and must triple global nuclear capacity by 2025.
Is there any point to the COP anymore? (Was there ever?) It has become one big carbon footprint junket, taken over by the oil companies, and hijacked by the nuclear industry and the IAEA, while making pledges rarely kept. The next one, in Azerbaijan, is chaired by yet another oil executive and has precisely zero women on its 28-member organizing committee.
The COP28 triple nuclear declaration was followed by an outrageously presumptuous assertion, by former U.S. energy secretary, Ernest Moniz (with Armond Cohen) in a Boston Globe oped, that, quote, “The world wants to triple nuclear energy.” (The Globe published our reply on January 17.)
Are we tired yet of absurdly rich, mostly White men pronouncing what they have decided the world wants from the comfort of their ivory towers? We are one such elitist down now with the retirement of 80-year old multi-millionaire John Kerry as US climate envoy. As of January 2024, Kerry’s net worth was $250 million, but that’s after divesting himself from his shares in fossil fuel, nuclear power and nuclear weapons companies.
Kerry has been replaced by, yes, drumroll, another old, rich, White man in the person of perennial White House advisor, John Podesta, founder of the Center for American Progress. Podesta, a stripling at 75, is a mere pauper compared to Kerry with a net worth of just $10 million-$13 million depending on sources, none of which are fully reliable.
Where Podesta might stand on nuclear power is a little murky, although one assumes he will tow the Biden/Kerry line and evangelize accordingly. He is on the record as considering nuclear power as a producer of hydrogen, telling Cipher in a September 2023 interview: “I think the questions around how to utilize existing nuclear and the production of hydrogen are definitely on the table.”
And then there’s Rishi Sunak, prime minister of the UK, who, together with his even richer wife, has a net worth of $670 million. Despite all the evidence of extreme costs, rising sea-levels and agonizingly slow timelines, on January 11, Sunak’s government announced its plan for the country’s “biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years to create jobs, reduce bills and strengthen Britain’s energy security.”
Nuclear power of course can achieve none of these. The electricity even of the current new nuclear reactors nearing completion at Hinkley Point will be almost triple the price Britons are currently paying. Promised new jobs will evaporate along with the new reactor plans, as we have already seen elsewhere — the V.C Summer and NuScale projects being prime examples.
To achieve so-called energy security and get off its reliance on imported Russian reactor fuel, Sunak’s government also announced it would invest $381 million to produce the fuel domestically.
This is all a colossal betrayal of working people and their needs, with money squandered on illusory, expensive and irrelevant nuclear projects whose only purpose is to sustain the UK’s nuclear arsenal, one that could destroy the world many times over.
What Moniz, Kerry, Grossi, Sunak and other nuclear-promoting leaders need to understand is what the world actually wants, alongside peace, is fast, affordable and safer renewable energy, not another Chornobyl.
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (268)
- September 2026 (339)
- 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)
-
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
