Busting the propaganda that the nuclear industry wants to reduce carbon emissions
Big money, nuclear subsidies, and systemic corruption, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Cassandra Jeffery, M. V. Ramana | February 12, 2021 ”………..Material interests and policy interests.
The most common argument used by these companies and those who support nuclear subsidies is the need to fight climate change. There are two problems with this argument.
First, it is based on the false idea that nuclear power, if shut down, will necessarily be replaced by fossil fuel plants. A June 2016 decision by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) demonstrates the invalidity of this assumption. PG&E will close the last two nuclear power plants in California (the Diablo Canyon units) by 2024 and 2025, replacing the lost electrical capacity “with a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage.” This move to renewables is more cost-effective today than it was in 2016 because of declining costs of renewables and energy storage. As Matthew McKinzie of the Natural Resources Defense Council argued at that time, the decision “shows that given sufficient time to prepare, retiring nuclear capacity can transition smoothly to a mix of energy efficiency measures; clean, renewable resources; and energy storage without any role for fossil fuels – an outcome that can be optimal for the environment, the market, and the reliability of the electric grid.” At a larger scale, Germany has shown that it is possible to retire nuclear plants and reduce emissions at the same time.
The second problem is the assumption that corporations owning nuclear plants are primarily interested in rapidly reducing emissions. Many utilities have large fossil fuel investments— investments that suggest a shutdown won’t be happening anytime soon. This suggestion seems especially true with natural gas plants. Although utilities often describe natural gas as clean (for example, Exelon describes its fleet as powered by “clean burning natural gas”), the climate implications of continued natural gas use are substantial. Exelon, the company with the most nuclear plants in the country, also owns and operates, along with its subsidiaries, 11 oil-fired power plants, five dual-fuel (natural gas and oil-powered) power stations, and 10 natural gas-based power plants throughout North America. In addition to its four nuclear power plants, Dominion owns 17 power plants fueled by natural gas and 14 power plants fueled by coal or oil. The company’s estimate of carbon dioxide emissions from its power plants is around 40 million metric tons in 2018, roughly the same level as in 2012. Likewise, PSEG owns just two nuclear power plants, but the company owns or has a stake in 10 fossil fuel generating plants with one more natural gas powered plant under construction.
With such large stakes in fossil fuel-based power plants, it is clear that these utilities are not about to switch immediately to renewables—or even to nuclear power—and give up on years and years of future profits that they and their shareholders are hoping for. In all of the states that offered nuclear subsidies, and elsewhere, the utilities have tried to hold back the deployment of renewables in more or less obvious ways. US utilities are not alone. Studies show that electric utilities around the world have “hindered the transition of the global electricity sector towards renewables, which has to date mostly relied on non-utility actors (such as independent power producers) for expanding the use of renewables.”
Rather than adapting to the necessity of building up renewables, these utilities resort to tactics that have been used in the past to justify nuclear power plant construction. As former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Peter Bradford listed at the beginning of the so-called nuclear renaissance, these include “subsidy, tax breaks, licensing shortcuts, guaranteed purchases with risks borne by customers, political muscle, ballyhoo, and pointing to other countries (once the Soviet Union, now China) to indicate that the US is ‘falling behind.’”…. https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/big-money-nuclear-subsidies-and-systemic-corruption/
As outdated nuclear power closes down, pro nuclear shills viciously attack critics
Uzbek & Rica 4th Feb 2021, No, nuclear power is not the medium-term solution to fight against global warming. France must stop its pharaonic investments in nuclear installations such as EPR reactors, which accumulate late delivery and explosion in costs, Julien Tchernia , co-founder andpresident of the renewable energy supplier ekWateur tells us in this forum.
When an article or a post is published about renewable energies, you will always find, following
it, a series of derogatory comments from nuclear advocates. Even if the content in question does not mention or refer to nuclear power, its aficionados take up pens to denigrate renewable production methods (but why so much hatred?)
And, incidentally, to write about their favorite mode of production. Why do they feel so threatened? Is the risk of this mode of production disappearing very real? And if so, would it not be less linked to the course of the political battle between pro and anti-nuclear than to
the complexity, to the costs of building and producing new nuclear power plants?
So, aren’t nuclear power stations shutting down on their own? In a manner analogous to the transition that took place for photography in the 2000s between film and digital, isn’t it time to let nuclear power stopquietly and fully accept the shift towards renewable energy?
Protesters call on Hopkins University to drop nuclear weapons research
 Protesters call on Hopkins to drop nuclear weapons research The Johns Hopkins Newsletter, By CHRIS H. PARK and MIN-SEO KIM | January 27, 2021 Members of Prevent Nuclear War Maryland, a Baltimore-based anti-war, anti-nuclear weapons organization, protested the University’s involvement in nuclear weapons research with the U.S. government on Friday, Jan. 22.The group also celebrated the ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) — a legally binding international treaty prohibiting the development, ownership and deployment of nuclear weapons by nation……….. On Friday, around a dozen protesters held bright yellow banners reading “nuclear weapons are illegal” on the Charles Street median and in front of the marble Hopkins sign on the Merrick Gateway, conversing with passers-by. Protesters criticized the University’s engagement with nuclear weapons research at the Applied Physics Lab (APL). Hopkins is the top recipient of federal research and development funds, receiving $2.351 billion in a contract from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in 2019. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons identified Hopkins to be one of the universities involved in developing and maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal in its 2019 report. Max Obuszewski, one of the co-founders of Prevent Nuclear War Maryland, said he has been protesting nuclear weapons for over 30 years. He believes that continued development and possession of nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to the world. “Our government is going to spend trillions of dollars to refurbish the nuclear arsenal. We have to make the legislators give us security, like health care and education. We don’t have any of that,” he said. “What we’re doing now is to shame the United States and the nuclear weapons contractors into joining the treaty.” Prevent Nuclear War, the parent organization of the group Obuszewski founded, has worked to mobilize support for the “back from the brink” resolution in local and state governments. The resolution calls on the federal government to renounce its nuclear first-use policy, limit presidential authority to launch a nuclear attack, reduce spending on nuclear weapons research and work with other states to eliminate nuclear weapons. Baltimore was the first major city to endorse its version of the resolution, introduced by then-City Councilman Bill Henry. Because APL research is classified — unlike work in other University divisions — it is unclear how many of its contracts with the DOD are related to nuclear weapons. In an email to The News-Letter, Karen Lancaster, the assistant vice president of external relations for the Office of Communications, noted that the APL was a research division of the University, not an academic one, thus is exempt from the University-wide rule on not allowing classified work……. Lancaster did not comment specifically on APL’s nuclear weapons research program. Dr. Gwen DuBois, a co-founder of Prevent Nuclear War Maryland, stated that the University should turn its efforts to research that would have immediate positive effects on people’s lives. She is an alum of the Bloomberg School of Public Health and teaches part-time at the School of Medicine. “Johns Hopkins University of Medicine has played a great role in the COVID-19 pandemic. That is what we expect of this great institution, but not profiting off immoral and illegal weapons,“ she said. “What we want to see from Hopkins is to pull out from contracts with nuclear weapons. Hopkins is knee-deep in this stuff and isn’t transparent.” Obuszewski also stated that nuclear weapons research is a reckless avenue to allocate University resources. “We think it’s abominable,“ he said. “Especially in this pandemic, let’s not waste all this money on nuclear weapons.” DuBois expressed hope that Hopkins students and faculty would pressure the University leaders to stop engaging in this research, citing the impact made by students who protested the now-suspended plans to create a private police force. “[TPNW] is an opportunity for universities and corporations to reassess what they do. For corporations, it’s going to come from the shareholders. For universities, the pressure’s going to come from the students or professors,“ she said. “There’s nothing that gives us more hope than seeing students help us. If nothing else, if this opens up a dialogue with the University, that would be tremendous: Bring it out into the open and let the University debate this.” https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2021/01/protesters-call-on-hopkins-to-drop-nuclear-weapons-research |
|
Universities in collusion with nuclear industry
U.S. universities have continued to build connections to the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Although students and faculty have opposed university participation in nuclear weapons research and development at various points in the last 70 years, such participation continues.
November 15, 2020 by beyondnuclearinternational https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/2663585/posts/3150281214 An ICAN report
Universities across the United States are identified in this report for activities ranging from directly managing laboratories that design nuclear weapons to recruiting and training the next generation of nuclear weapons scientists. Much of universities’ nuclear weapons work is kept secret from students and faculty by classified research policies and undisclosed contracts with the Defense Department and the Energy Department. The following is the executive summary from ICAN’s report: Schools of Mass Destruction, with some changes made for timeliness.
Over the next ten years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates U.S. taxpayers will pay nearly $500 billion to maintain and modernize their country’s nuclear weapons arsenal, or almost $100,000 per minute. A separate estimate brings the total over the next 30 years to an estimated $1.7 trillion. In a July 2019 report, National Nuclear Security Administrator Lisa Gordon-Haggerty wrote, “The nuclear security enterprise is at its busiest since the demands of the Cold War era.”
In addition to large amounts of funding, enacting these upgrades requires significant amounts of scientific, technical and human capital. To a large extent, the U.S. government and its contractors have turned to the nation’s universities to provide this capital.
Over the next ten years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates U.S. taxpayers will pay nearly $500 billion to maintain and modernize their country’s nuclear weapons arsenal, or almost $100,000 per minute. A separate estimate brings the total over the next 30 years to an estimated $1.7 trillion. In a July 2019 report, National Nuclear Security Administrator Lisa Gordon-Haggerty wrote, “The nuclear security enterprise is at its busiest since the demands of the Cold War era.”
Despite these debates, U.S. universities have continued to build connections to the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Although students and faculty have opposed university participation in nuclear weapons research and development at various points in the last 70 years, such participation continues.
Universities involve themselves in the nuclear weapons complex through the four channels listed below. In return for this engagement, universities receive funding, access to research facilities, and specific career opportunities for students.
1) Direct Management
A handful of universities directly manage nuclear weapons related activities on behalf of the federal government, retaining contracts worth billions of dollars per year collectively. These include the University of California, Texas A&M University, Johns Hopkins University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Rochester.
2) Institutional Partnerships
Many of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) sites advertise collaborative agreements with local and national universities. These formal agreements allow the institutions to cooperate on research and share personnel and expertise. They can also provide university researchers access to funding and advanced facilities in the NNSA laboratories. The report highlights more than 30 such agreements with schools in 18 states.
3) Research Programs and Partnerships
In addition to formal institutional partnerships, numerous connections exist between universities and the nuclear weapons complex at the research project level. In a report delivered to Congress in July 2019, the NNSA highlights that more than $65 million in grants were delivered to academic institutions in the last year to support stockpile stewardship. When including grants and subcontracts from the NNSA labs as well, the total amount of funding to universities for research may be higher than $150 million per year.
4) Workforce Development Programs
Former Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry has written that finding “the next generation workforce of world-class scientists, engineers and technicians is a major priority.” Through university partnerships, vocational training programs and research fellowships, the NNSA creates employment pipelines for the development of its future workforce.
A primary goal of this report is to facilitate a shared understanding of university connections to nuclear weapons research and development. A common factual basis will help communities of university faculty, students and administrations engage in robust internal debates and take action. Universities would not willingly participate today in the production of chemical and biological weapons; for the same humanitarian reasons, no university should seek an association with the other category of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear weapons.
While American universities have played a key role in the development and continuation of nuclear weapons, they can now join U.S. cities and states that have rejected U.S. nuclear weapons and called on the federal government to support nuclear reductions and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In light of the research presented, this report offers the following recommendations to universities:
Recommendations
• Provide greater transparency into connections with the nuclear weapons complex;
• Stop directly managing nuclear weapons production sites and dissolve research contracts solely related to nuclear weapons production;
• For contracts with dual-purpose research applications, demand greater transparency and create specific processes for ethical review of this research;
• Advocate for reinvestment of weapons activities funding to non-proliferation and environmental remediation efforts; and
• Join cities and state legislatures in urging the federal government to support the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and reverse course on nuclear arms control backsliding.
See the full list of universities.
The above is the Executive Summary of ICAN’s report on US Universities. Read the full report. Beyond Nuclear is a member of ICAN.
In addition to large amounts of funding, enacting these upgrades requires significant amounts of scientific, technical and human capital. To a large extent, the U.S. government and its contractors have turned to the nation’s universities to provide this capital.
At the same time, the United States is shirking its previous commitments to nuclear arms control and reducing nuclear risks despite its obligation under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue good-faith measures towards nuclear disarmament.
In August 2019, the United States officially withdrew from the landmark 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, testing a treaty-prohibited missile shortly thereafter. The Trump Administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review expanded the circumstances under which the United States would consider the first use of nuclear weapons and called for the development of two new sea-based low-yield nuclear weapon systems.
Internationally, many member states of the United Nations have recognized the devastating humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons: debating, adopting, signing and now ratifying the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Rupert Murdoch gets phoney Australia Day Award, thanks to fossil fuel and finance industries
Murdoch’s Australia Day award — brought to you by miners and bankers
Those who promote and profit from fossil fuels have appropriated the phoney awards handed out by the obscure Australia Day Foundation. https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/01/27/rupert-murdoch-australia-day-foundation/– DAVID HARDAKER, JAN 27, 2021
On the face of it it looks to be an extraordinary decision: a prestigious honour bestowed on the media mogul whose recent hits in the United States include helping fan an insurrection against democracy via Fox News and in Australia leading the way on climate change denialism in cahoots with the Morrison government it supports.
The foundation and its awards are backed by a group of international conglomerates including mining giants BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside and Anglo-American. Australia’s big banks, the National Australia Bank and Westpac, are also in on the act. Another leading name is CQS, the wealthy London hedge fund founded by Australian business figure Sir Michael Hintze.
Hintze is not well known in Australia, but he is at the centre of a powerful network of business and conservative UK and Australian politicians. As we reported last year he has been a force behind the climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation which has given voice to the views of Tony Abbott and Cardinal George Pell.
Nominally a business outfit, the foundation also blurs the lines with government. It is sponsored by Austrade and uses Australia House, home to the Australian High Commission, in London to hand out its “Australia Day” awards to UK and Australian figures of its choosing.
This year it gave its honorary Australian of the Year in the UK award to Conservative British MP Liz Truss who promoted the cause of Abbott as a trade adviser to the UK government. Past recipients have included Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Hintze is not well known in Australia, but he is at the centre of a powerful network of business and conservative UK and Australian politicians. As we reported last year he has been a force behind the climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation which has given voice to the views of Tony Abbott and Cardinal George Pell.
Nominally a business outfit, the foundation also blurs the lines with government. It is sponsored by Austrade and uses Australia House, home to the Australian High Commission, in London to hand out its “Australia Day” awards to UK and Australian figures of its choosing.
This year it gave its honorary Australian of the Year in the UK award to Conservative British MP Liz Truss who promoted the cause of Abbott as a trade adviser to the UK government. Past recipients have included Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Hintze is not well known in Australia, but he is at the centre of a powerful network of business and conservative UK and Australian politicians. As we reported last year he has been a force behind the climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation which has given voice to the views of Tony Abbott and Cardinal George Pell.
Nominally a business outfit, the foundation also blurs the lines with government. It is sponsored by Austrade and uses Australia House, home to the Australian High Commission, in London to hand out its “Australia Day” awards to UK and Australian figures of its choosing.
This year it gave its honorary Australian of the Year in the UK award to Conservative British MP Liz Truss who promoted the cause of Abbott as a trade adviser to the UK government. Past recipients have included Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Quietly, under the brouhaha of the pandemic, the global nuclear lobby prepares a propaganda onslaught
”If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth ” – Joseph Goebbels
This month, I’ve concentrated my efforts on the ground-breaking and historic 
UN Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons coming into force. Of course, the nuclear weapons states will try to destroy that Treaty. Failing destruction, they will aim for pooh poohing and rubbishing that Treaty. Finally they’ll go for a favourite strategy – ignoring it, and hoping that the world will just forget about it.
I don’t think that the world will forget about it. The challenge will be to help those workers and communities that depend on nuclear-weapons-making to be helped out of that toxic situation, and into life-sustaining work and activities.
MEANWHILE, as media and science correctly focus on the global coronavirus pandemic, the issue of nuclear power has pretty much disappeared from view. Nothing is happening?
Not so. Things are happening, and the nuclear lobby is busy planning a big propaganda push – a Goebbels-worthy spinfest, for 2021.
Today, the nuclear weapons industry is pretty much the only reason for”peaceful” nuclear power. ”Peaceful nukes” provide the trained experts, the technology development necessary for the weapons industry. If governments and universities can be persuaded to back commercial nuclear energy, this solves a lot of probems. Especially, it helps to blur the picture on the astronomic costs of nuclear weapons, as quite a lot of costs are covered by ”peaceful” nuclear development.
There’s another pressing reason to keep nuclear power going. It’s the horrible and never-ending cost of shutting down reactors and dealing with their toxic wastes. How much cheaper to just relicense them for 100 years? That way, the present responsible officials will all be gone, and they don’t have to worry about that problem. Heck – they’ve handed it over to our great-grandchildre, What a fine idea! NOT!!
Against this background, the nuclear lobby is girding its loins for the public perception battle.
Armed with lies – that nuclear fixes climate – that it’s cheap, is clean, works great with renewables, essential for society – blah blah, the nuclear lobby is preparing its onslaught. They generally try pretty hard to ignore matters like comparative costs, and wastes problems. But they can just lie again, if put on the spot about such problems.
Just a few quotatios from World Nuclear News :-
The barrier to nuclear is perception“
”addressing perceptions of its alleged drawbacks”
Bilbao y León – “the nuclear industry has responsibly managed all its used nuclear fuel and waste “from day one”.
“We know where every ounce of used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste is because we have been managing it throughout the history of the nuclear industry. …….
“The real challenges to nuclear are external” – ”small modular reactors ..cheaper, safer, better, and going to provide more discreet financial solutions” [the discreet bit is true?]
The government nuclear regulatory authorities are, unfortunately, usually well onside with the industry – in what is known as “regulatory capture”. Again, from World Nuclear News –
”The hurdles advanced nuclear developers face‘ – ””We, as the regulator, are working on building public trust, confidence and social acceptance in these new technologies.’‘
Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the skills of Sama Bilbao y Leon, Director General of the World Nuclear Association. She’s great with language (as the global nuclear lobby has realised, in appointing her, and several other women, to top promotional positions.)
Protest rally against University of Arkansas’ involvement with nuclear weapons corporation
Group protests UA involvement with nuclear
corporation, https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/group-protests-ua-involvement-with-nuclear-corporation/ by: Megan Wilson, Jan 22, 2021, FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) – Northwest Arkansans join peace groups around the world celebrating an international treaty on prohibiting nuclear weapons.
A group gathered at the University of Arkansas to protest its contract with the nuclear weapons corporation Honeywell International.
Abel Tomlinson is the founder of Arkansas Non-Violence Alliance.
He said the University contradicts its mission statement by building non-nuclear components for the bombs.
“Its mission statement says that they’re ‘determined to build a better world.’ and we belive that building nuclear bombs is the complete opposite of that. Nobody should be having them. They’re endangering everyone, it’s unacceptable,” Tomlinson said.
The University of Arkansas was aware of today’s protest, but did not wish to comment.
UK’s Centre for Policy Studies about to change its name to Centre for the Promotion of Nuclear Sizewell C?
|
Times 21st Jan 2021. Apparently the Centre for Policy Studies is “Britain’s leading centre-right think tank”. But who knew it was changing its name to the Centre for the Promotion of Sizewell C? Its latest missive comes with a press release headed: “Net zero target at risk without investment in new nuclear”.
And given the report’s general drift, you’d think all 58 pages had been penned by France’s EDF: the cost-overrun and late-delivery specialists behind the consumer-fleecing £22.5 billion Hinkley Point C.
Actually, you’d be wrong. EDF merely “supported” the report. Ask the CPS what that means and it admits it paid for it — or at least “contributed funding”.
True, Britain needs an energy mix…. But Sizewell C? That also brings flood risk and money from the Hong Kong crackdown experts of Beijing.
And the National Infrastructure Commission reckons a “highly renewable power system” plus “flexible technologies”, including hydrogen, “could besubstantially cheaper” than relying on a “fleet of nuclear power plants”. A fake independent report from the CPS hardly improves their
case. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/an-airline-takeover-that-might-fly-8t8qbjl07 |
|
Pro nuclear publicist James Conca made a very big gaffe about Fukushima disaster
 Gaffe of the Week: “Nuclear is No Problem At All.” Seattle Met By Erica C. Barnett 3/17/2011 Talk about bad timing: At a little-noticed public hearing in the state house energy, technology, and communications committee last week, representatives from the US nuclear energy industry touted nuclear power as the most important “industry in the history of humanity.” And when pressed about the news coming out of Japan, reassured committee members that there was absolutely no risk of nuclear meltdown from reactors hit by last week’s earthquake…..As Japanese authorities continued today to use ever-more-desperate measures (including water cannons and fire-truck hoses) to cool the melting fuel rods at several of the reactors, the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Administration said at least one reactor was bleeding radiation directly into the atmosphere and said “extremely high” radiation levels near the plant could make it impossible to continue trying to cool the reactors.
All of which makes the rosy picture painted by the nuclear industry Friday look even more dubious. After representatives of the nuke industry touted the industry’s safety record—working at a nuclear plant is “safer than working at Toys ‘R’ Us,” Hanford lab director Jim Conca told the committee—committee members asked the industry reps whether they were confident that all the safety systems they’d just praised would hold up in Japan. Asked specifically about the nuclear situation in Japan, Nuclear Energy Institute public affairs director Jim Colgary reassured Rep. Deb Eddy (D-48) that the safety systems in place at the nuclear reactors “absolutely” would come through. “It’s a conservative safety system,” Colgary said…. Conca added: “I’m very happy that Japan has 26 percent nuclear because those will not be the problems. When you see the pictures things burning [in Japan], it won’t be nuclear, it’ll be the gas-fired power plants and things like that. Nuclear is no problem at all.” |
|
|
”Small Modular Reactors”’- governments are being sucked in by the ”billionaires’ nuclear club”
SNC-Lavalin Scandal-ridden SNC-Lavalin is playing a major role in the push for SMRs.
Terrestrial Energy….. Terrestrial Energy’s advisory board includes Dr. Ernest Moniz, the former US Secretary of the Dept. of Energy (2013-2017) who provided more than $12 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. Moniz has been a key advisor to the Biden-Harris transition team, which has come out in favour of SMRs.
The “billionaires’ nuclear club” …“As long as Bill Gates is wasting his own money or that of other billionaires, it is not so much of an issue. The problem is that he is lobbying hard for government investment.”
Going after the public purse
Bill Gates was apparently very busy during the 2015 Paris climate talks. He also went on stage during the talks to announce a collaboration among 24 countries and the EU on something called Mission Innovation – an attempt to “accelerate global clean energy innovation” and “increase government support” for the technologies.
Gates’ PR tactic is effective: provide a bit of capital to create an SMR “bandwagon,” with governments fearing their economies would be left behind unless they massively fund such innovations.
governments “are being suckers. Because if Wall Street and the banks will not finance this, why should it be the role of the government to engage in venture capitalism of this kind?”
It will take a Herculean effort from the public to defeat this NICE Future, but along with the Assembly of First Nations, three political parties – the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Green Party – have now come out against SMRs.
|
Mini-Nukes, Big Bucks: The Interests Behind the SMR Push https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/mini-nukes-big-bucks-the-money-behind-small-modular-reactors/
It’s remarkable that only five years ago, the National Energy Board predicted: “No new nuclear units are anticipated to be built in any province” by 2040.So what happened? The answer involves looking at some of the key influencers at work behind the scenes, lobbying for government funding for SMRs. |
Deceitful nuclear propaganda exposed in ”The Wretched Atom”
The Wretched Atom https://jacobdarwinhamblin.com/books/the-wretched-atom/
Coming in June 2021 from Oxford University Press
A groundbreaking narrative of how the United States offered the promise of nuclear technology to the developing world and its gamble that other nations would use it for peaceful purposes.
After the Second World War, the United States offered a new kind of atom that differed from the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This atom would cure diseases, produce new foods, make deserts bloom, and provide abundant energy for all. It was an atom destined for the formerly colonized, recently occupied, and mostly non-white parts of the world that were dubbed the “wretched of the earth” by Frantz Fanon.
The “peaceful atom” had so much propaganda potential that President Dwight Eisenhower used it to distract the world from his plan to test even bigger thermonuclear weapons. His scientists said the peaceful atom would quicken the pulse of nature, speeding nations along the path of economic development and helping them to escape the clutches of disease, famine, and energy shortfalls. That promise became one of the most misunderstood political weapons of the twentieth century. It was adopted by every subsequent US president to exert leverage over other nations’ weapons programs, to corner world markets of uranium and thorium, and to secure petroleum supplies. Other countries embraced it, building reactors and training experts. Atomic promises were embedded in Japan’s postwar recovery, Ghana’s pan-Africanism, Israel’s quest for survival, Pakistan’s brinksmanship with India, and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear independence.
As The Wretched Atom shows, promoting civilian atomic energy was an immense gamble, and it was never truly peaceful. American promises ended up exporting violence and peace in equal measure. While the United States promised peace and plenty, it planted the seeds of dependency and set in motion the creation of today’s expanded nuclear club.
In 2021 be aware of the deceitful ”environmental” nuclear front groups
In 2021, The desperate nuclear lobby will be revving up their propaganda.
Their favourite medium for pro nuclear spin is to set up, or take over, an environmental group. These fake environmental groups abound, especially in the USA.
However, Europe has its fair share. They have recently banded to gether to pressure the European Union to include nuclear power in “new green deals”. They’ll peddle the same old lies:
- that dirty nuclear power is “clean”
- that nuclear power (useless against climate change, and very vulnerable to climate change) will “fix climate change”.
- that nuclear power (prohibitively expensive) is ”economical”
- that radioactive trash (a massive unsolved problem)” is ”not a problem”
- that new nuclear power (essential for the nuclear weapons industry) has ”nothing to do with nuclear weapons”
They’ve just sent a letter, a load of absolute codswallop to the European Commission, aserting that nuclear power is essential, and demanding government funding to develop the (non-existent) Next Generation new nuclear gimmicks.
Get ready for a 2021 barrage of pro nuclear spin, from a desperate industry
”Utilities Middle East” and Russia’s Rosatom held a webinar extolling the “benefits” of nuclear power. The panellists went on at length 
on how nuclear power is “clean” ”safe” ”economic” – and of course the ”waste problem is solved”, and nuclear is the ”cure for climate change.”
At the end of this hymn of praise, however, there’s a cautionary note.
There’s a question mark over “public acceptance”which means that it is “make or break” time for the industry’s future.
Clearly the world, especially “developing countries”, is in for a barrage of glossy, expensively produced, pro nuclear spin.
|
The barrier to nuclear is perception, says panel, World Nuclear News, 31 December 2020 ” the benefits of nuclear power are clearer than ever, but the industry still has some way to go in addressing perceptions of its alleged drawbacks with cost, safety and radioactive waste. This was the overriding message of the three panellists in a webinar held last week by Utilities Middle East in partnership with Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom. …….
Public acceptance
Alexander Voronkov, regional vice-president and director of Rosatom’s Middle East and North Africa divisionsaid public acceptance of nuclear energy is vital to the successful implementation of any nuclear power plant project. “It’s make or break. That’s why it’s important to put in place an effective communication programme at the very early stage of an NPP project with the public and the other key stakeholders, to address their concerns. We have learned that if you work with the public constantly and comprehensively it is possible to reach a high level of public acceptance of nuclear power.” In Russia as a whole, that level is as high as 75%, he said………… A low level of public acceptance of nuclear power is usually due to a lack of knowledge, he said, so it is important to create diversified communication programmes to explain, in simple terms, what nuclear energy is and its benefits. “We have developed different tools in line with international best practice, with the Press and NGOs, through the establishment of nuclear energy information centres near construction sites,” he said…… the climate emergency and the post-COVID recovery are spurring policymakers and the financial community, Sama Bilbao y León, director general of World Nuclear Association. said, to increasingly recognise the role that nuclear power can play at a global level. |
|
Untrue: claims that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War 2
Did the Atomic Bomb End the Pacific War?
The use of the atomic weapon must be seen as a continuation and a start: the 
nuclear continuation of the conventional terror bombing of Japanese civilians, and the start of a new “cold war.” Portside, August 2, 2020 Paul Ham
Many historians and most lay people still
believe the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the Pacific War.
They claim with varying intensity that the Japanese regime surrendered unconditionally in response to the nuclear attack; that the bomb saved a million or more Amercian servicemen; that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen chiefly for their value as military targets; and that the use of the weapon was, according to a post-war propaganda campaign aimed at soothing American consciences, ‘our least abhorrent choice’.
The trouble is, not one of these claims is true.
That such denial of the facts has been allowed to persist for 75 years, that so many people believe this ‘revisionist’ line – revisionist because it was concocted after the war as a post-facto justification for the bomb – demonstrates the power of a government-sponsored rewrite of history over the minds of academics, journalists, citizens and presidents.
The uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima, code-named ‘Little Boy’, landed on the city center, exploding above the main hospital and wiping out dozens of schools, killing 75,000 people, including tens of thousands of school children.
‘Fat Man’, the plutonium bomb used on Nagasaki, incinerated the largest Catholic community in Japan, obliterating the country’s biggest cathedral along with a residential district packed with schools and hospitals. Its missed its original target, the city center.
Zealous apologists for the bomb will have started picking holes: Hiroshima held troops? Yes, a few enfeebled battalions. Hiroshima had military factories? Most were on the outskirts of town, well clear of the bomb. Continue reading
1 This Month
19 February – VIRTUAL EVENT-Decision Time: AI and Our Nuclear Arsenal
12:45 p.m. Central / 1:45 p.m. Eastern
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- February 2026 (141)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
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
nuclear-news 